# Please don't take the red pill....



## Faithful Wife

Ok Dogbert, I'm going to post a few specific things from MMSL...but please realize that is just one tiny bit of the red pill crap, which is what I'm really against. Athol Kay is just one of many people who write books and blogs about it.

You asked for specific examples from MMSL though, so that's what I will start out with here.

From the book....A section in which Athol explains to us that all women are cheating wh*res, it's biology after all:

Because ovulation is concealed and somewhat random, it forces a male partner to hang around to ensure paternity. Her sexual interest might stop and start a little during her cycle and the male has to be constantly available to have sex. Any one sex act might be the one that gets her pregnant, so it creates the need for a primary partner to pay her attention and create a serious committed relationship. This is quite excellent for holding a regular male partner around to help raise children. 

The other reason ovulation is concealed is so she can cheat. There’s no possible way a male can watch his primary female partner 24/7. Everyone falls asleep or needs to use the bathroom eventually, so despite a very high level of attention a husband gives a wife, she will always have some wiggle room to disappear briefly for something quick and dirty. Because ovulation is concealed, there’s no sure way for the husband to know whether or not she was perfectly faithful even when he was watching her like a hawk.

The evolutionary purpose of this cheating is that while her primary male partner may be a good provider and pleasant companion, another male could offer her significantly better genes to impregnate her with. It’s a try and have your cake and eat it too proposition. A woman may have sex with her partner thousands of times and with a lover maybe only a handful of times, but if any of that handful of times results in a pregnancy to the lover, it’s an extremely significant outcome. 

The link between ovulation and cheating is highly significant in that when she ovulates, a woman experiences a large spike in her sexual interest. Ovulation lasts only a few days, usually no more than two, but it is the highest point of sexual interest for a woman. Even quite low sex drive women can perk up and play for sexual attention during ovulation. It’s when a woman is most likely to cheat on a partner, she is most likely to orgasm and in plain simple terms when she likes sex the roughest. If you pay consistent attention to a woman, it’s usually easy enough to discover when she is ovulating. There won’t be a blatant change to her dress code from “demure angel” twenty-six days a month to “sl*tzilla” for two days a month. 

She’ll generally stick to her basic appearance, but she just ups the ante slightly. Some more exposed skin, a little more attention to her makeup, a little more jewelry. Her interactions with men will be a little more attentive and flirty, with something like extra touching on the arm, eye contract and smiling.

(end quote)

This is just mean spirited and encourages men to see women as cheating wh*res. All of them. He's not talking about any particular woman he's talking about ALL of us. What kind of relationship book is built on this type of premise?

The woman's motive, in MMSL, is always to keep a beta male around to raise kids, and to have alphas on the side to cheat with. There's literally nothing in the book about love of any kind. It is all about women screwing men over in one way or another.

Suggesting that a woman likes sex the roughest during ovulation is just totally irresponsible...since some women never like rough sex and others like it rough all the time.

But keep in mind...MMSL has us all in neatly squared off boxes. All women are the same kind of cheating wh*re, with no variation.


----------



## EleGirl

Here is another quotes that says about the same thing......

"It is extremely politically incorrect to say so, but all women have a component of slvt in their makeup. The trick is not to fear it, seek to sanction it, or flee it, but to adapt to the presence of the slvt in your woman and harness it for your mutual enjoyment. But if you don't' pay her active attention to account for her slvt influence, you might find that it gets up to all sorts of mischief."


----------



## Faithful Wife

Also from the book....in a section in which MMSL explains what sperm warfare is...I picked up in the middle of it though:

On a biological level, the Male Body Agenda assumes that the female he is having sex with will be unfaithful. By constantly seeking to top off a female’s reproductive tract with sperm, he assures himself a standing army inside her ready to repel another male’s sperm if she cheats on him. A wife can avoid having a standing army of her husband’s sperm inside her by simply denying him sex. A couple can have fairly frequent sex, but if she avoids sex with him, or just gives him handjobs or blowjobs in the three or four days before she ovulates, the husband is rendered defenseless from a sperm warfare perspective if she meets a lover for sex. There’s no standing army of the husband’s sperm to fight off the lover’s sperm.


Importantly because the lover is not likely to have many attempts at sex with the wife, his ejaculation will be extremely large and flood her vagina. The husband is at a decided disadvantage. 

It’s important to wave the flag again that this sort of planned deceit on the wife’s part can happen completely unconsciously; the Rationalization Hamster can likely supply several excellent reasons as to why she avoided her husband’s semen in her vagina for a few days before she ovulated. Plus obviously the hook-up with the lover was just an appalling lapse of character. She’s not that kind of girl. In fact she’s just realized from that hook-up how very empty sex without love can be and she now knows that deep down she really loves her husband and wants to make it work with him. So perhaps some good came of the whole thing. The Rationalization Hamster is holding off on telling her she’s pregnant for a bit…missed periods sometimes just happen you know. (See how the Rationalization Hamster works?) 

Sperm warfare also explains why if a husband is denied regular sex with his wife, he typically becomes fixated on the lack of sex with her to the exclusion of every other issue in the relationship. After five days of no vaginal sex, all his sperm inside her are either dead or have dripped out of her. In a “get her pregnant” sense it’s like he’s never had sex with her. He wants her topped off; instead she’s completely empty of his sperm. She is therefore providing him with a very strong expression of disinterest in him. She may say that she loves him, but he will typically experience her actions as a deeply concerning rejection. 

As a variant on this, if a wife has sex with a lover, she will often return to her husband and immediately seek sex from him as well. The husband may be quite surprised by her initiation of sex and her highly sexual intensity. What is happening is her Body Agenda is seeking to actively play the sperm armies against each other in a survival of the fittest game to find the winning sperm. If the husband is unaware of the lover, he likely just experiences this as a wonderfully intense sex experience that likely extends over several sessions. For those involved in the Hotwife or Cuckolding lifestyles, this return of the wife after being with a lover for immediate sex with the husband is a point of purposeful enjoyment.

(end quote)

I don't have any problem with the concept of sperm warfare, but again, why is everything through a hateful lens here? On the one hand he says it is subconscious processes at work, and on the other hand he is constantly point out what wh*res women are and how every single one of us is cheating.

This is a book meant to develop a good relationship with your wife? I have heard many times that this book is good for guys who have been cheated on because it stirs up their sense of fighting for their marriage. But dang....c'mon if we're all just going to be hateful toward each other, let's just give up.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Here is a part in the book where the basis of negging is explained:

One of the key signals that a male has social dominance is his confidence, thus women are highly attracted to displays of confidence in men. A basic confidence display is the willingness to approach women, especially highly attractive women, and display calmness in their presence.

That calmness can be successfully extended to expressions of mild disinterest in the woman, implying that he has become used to being with even more beautiful women than she – which would imply that he had a very high value as a man, which then triggers her interest in him. A typical fan meeting a celebrity in person usually becomes highly excited and can become quite giddy and silly, while the celebrity is usually much less excited and “cool.” 

That coolness is a statement of higher social value as it says “I’m not excited to be meeting you.” Cool men have always created attraction in women. The underlying message is that “I am not going to react to you.” The other side to social confidence and dominance is when the confident male creates situations where the female is forced to react to him. In other words, “I am not going to react to you, but you will react to me.” The simplest way of achieving that is by leading a conversation that delights the female and draws her attention to him. The cornerstone of leading these conversations is a combination of being “****y and funny” where the male playfully abuses his position of social dominance and gets away with being a “naughty boy”. 

(end quote)

Notice that the "highly attractive" woman needs to be cut down and put into her place, by the man. He needs to prove he won't even react to her....why?

Why the hostility about it? The confident and fun guys I've known weren't also hostile toward women, you know? I don't get the hostility.

And why does confidence necessarily have to do with social dominance? I've known plenty of guys who are confident but who don't have any social dominance at all. We can have confidence without having to dominate anyone.


----------



## EleGirl

Here is one that just creeps me out...

(8.8) Isolation – Leverage Her Isolation Anxiety with Surprise 

Moving to a second location works to make alone time more exciting to her, but that can be made even more exciting by adding the element of surprise and triggering momentary Isolation Anxiety. You might have gone somewhere together to do something, but the surprise little side trip on the way back, where you just turn the wheel of the car and take her somewhere, is exciting. It works because it’s like a playful and safe version of her getting carjacked and taken somewhere against her will. * 

Even though your wife is with you and trusts you, she will experience a few seconds of Isolation Anxiety as you start taking her somewhere unexpected without asking. This triggers her Body Agenda to make an instant decision about either risking a physical fight with you that is likely hopeless or submitting to your intentions without resistance. Usually her Body Agenda takes the safe option and votes for submission, which frames you as dominant. Having created a dominant moment, that sparks a dopamine reaction in her and she will feel greater attraction to you and a little flush of excitement. * 

If you went to the mall to do Christmas shopping together, it’s the unannounced detour on the way back to the secret pastry and coffee shop that engages her with you. Of course she’ll just think it’s romantic, exciting and non-boring, but that’s just the dopamine doing its job. * 

Another way of doing this is starting at home and simply telling her to get in the car with you in ten minutes. Then just drive her to dinner out somewhere random. Don’t tell her where you are driving to; just arrive. She might complain loudly the first couple of times, but that just means she’s emotionally engaged with you.

Kay, Athol (2011-04-09). The Married Man Sex Life Primer 2011 (p. 107).


----------



## Faithful Wife

A blog post:

Unleashing Your Inner ***** | Athol Kay's Married Man Sex Life

A particularly nasty quote from it:

An old saying that I just made up is “Scratch a lady, find a *****.”

Most married women try pretty hard to be good girls and squish down the simmering primal desires inside of them. In reality, about 60% of the time the Rationalization Hamster is doing things like convincing them to not put a toddler down for a nap by way of a choke hold. 30% of the time it’s trying to figure out what’s for dinner. Only 10% of the time is it trying to figure out how to get some other dude’s semen without being caught by their husband. So relax, it’s really not as bad as you think.

(end quote)

I don't know why this kind of thing is funny at all. Not when combined with the whole big picture message. And of course again, we're all cheating wh*res.


----------



## EleGirl

When I was in college, I had a date who did this. I thought that we were going to the movies. He just turned in the wrong direction. I asked him where he was taking me and he would not tell me. It turned out that he was taking me to his house, where he lived with his mother to show me something that he had bought that was very cool... according to him. 

He scared the living daylights out of me. I was sure that I was in for something horrific. 

Last time I went out with him. The advice in the above quote is bad advice. It's creepy. Basically it's saying to just scare her for a bit and make her think that the guy is going to do something really bad to her. Wow.. just wow.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Another blog post:

Dreadcake Game or Baked Goods Seduction | Athol Kay's Married Man Sex Life

More nastiness:

Something from the dark side to induce a little dread…

Anytime: Buy an odd plate at the dollar store or consignment shop.

Sunday: Find and visit a church bake sale, or fair, that has homemade baked goods.

Monday: Place “partially consumed” baked goods on the odd plate, cover with cling-wrap.

Come home from work with plate of baked goods.

Say that the new girl at work gave them to you. Well she offered it to everyone, but she gave the plate to you. She’s a temp or something. Cute.

Act like you have no idea that a woman giving you baked goods is an Indicator of Interest.

Watch your wife’s Rationalization Hamster become fully nourished on the baked goods…

Your Defense: It’s just freaking BANANA BREAD! What’s wrong with you?

(end quote)

This is how he recommends treating your wife. This isn't about dating, it is about marriage. Wtf?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Another blog post:

Fat Wives Demanding Unconditional Love | Athol Kay's Married Man Sex Life

Quote from within:

Let’s not beat around the bush, female obesity is a major boner killer to the majority of men. Men being married to someone they have no sexual interest in, amounts to living in a very private hell. I’ve had a few emails recently about husbands trying to get their wives to lose weight. Mostly they are doing the right thing and making sure their Sex Rank is as high as they can get it.

One husband told me he felt he was in great shape, a good job, helps with the house and kids. Pegged himself as an 8. His wife he thought was a 5 due mainly to her ballooning figure. When he asked her to lose the weight she was enraged and cut him off from sex for a year. He was very frustrated and angry about it, but he stuck around and tolerated it.

So if you think you’re an 8, and your 5 wife cuts you off from sex for a year, and you tolerate it, you are in fact acting like a 4.

It’s tempting to frame the wife as delusional and thinking she really is an 8 or 9 herself, but deep down she knows she really isn’t hot. She knows she’s a 5, but is bluffing that she is an 8.

(end quote)

And the offensiveness goes on from there.

All this stuff about what number people are, it is just so sad and weird. It dehumanizes us all and MMSL seeks to be able to label everyone in that way, based on some strange freaking math that is different for men than it is for women.

How can this immature view of life be behind a relationship system?

And I'm not even addressing the obesity issue here, I'm just talking about how he dehumanizes ALL of us in these rants.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Blog post:

What Have You Learned From The Opposite Sex? | Athol Kay's Married Man Sex Life

Here's some of the lovely things from this post:

Women are OK with being checked out, as long as it’s on the up and up.

Women’s sex drive is highly response-driven, unlike men’s who is always on. At least in my case.

Having to be in control is a burden many women chase, but don’t want.

99% of stuff women say they want is wrong, and this is why guys think they’re so hard to figure out.

Women lie to themselves, and each other, as a matter of course. This, in fact, is how modern society was formed.

Many women are so afraid of how they are perceived by other women, that they’d rather be unhappy all their lives than be thought negatively of.

Some women try so hard to be men, that they succeed. And hate themselves for it.

(end quote)

That was written by one of the forum members at MMSL, and Athol quoted it in this blog post. Nice, huh? Women are of course liars as well as wh*res, and we also do not know what we even want....we're just adrift trying to figure out how to make people like us, with lies apparently.

And women's sex drive being response driven....sigh....yes for a lot of women it is, but not for all women, and spreading that stereo type is just silly and untrue.

Of course, we must TRY to become MEN. We can't possibly be happy just being women.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I can go on if you want me to Dogbert....that's just a very small sample.


----------



## FizzBomb

Yep, totally hateful misogynistic writings by Athol. None of what has been quoted above surprises me in the least. A couple of years ago I read practically every blog post of his and it was the same horrible spew. The way he puts women down is shameful.

His 'advice' is shrouded in hatred and that is one of the problems I have with him. It's about putting women down in order to feel better about yourself. What he is advocating is being abusive and a bully in order to get laid. It's for the weak minded man who suffers from low self esteem. It's a site for folks who don't know the first thing about common decency.

I don't like being 'gamed' and 'played' by the man I love all while he is snickering to himself about his abusive tactics. It seems like a very low way to go about improving one's relationship and getting more sex.


----------



## Holland

Seriously revolting attitudes towards women, relationships and power there. 

Water finds it's own level, meaning that generally if you are going to use such revolting tactics to get a woman then you are going to attract a woman that is equally as unhinged as you are. Who would want to live a life like that? Not emotionally healthy and balanced folk that is for sure.


----------



## FizzBomb

Totally agree, Holland.

I was also going to say that those types of tactics will work on an equally broken, weak woman with self esteem so low she is willing to put up with being treated in such a disrespectful and unkind manner. Good luck with having a healthy satisfying relationship.


----------



## Holland

I would like to know if the men that believe in all of this would be proud for their sons to treat their wives with such disrespect and hatred?
Would they be happy for their daughters to marry a man that treated her with such contempt?


----------



## Personal

Wow!

Hi Faithful Wife,

Until visiting this website I had never heard of Athol Kay or his publications. That said, I appreciate you and EleGirl posting some of what he peddles. After reading it I feel like I need a wash.

If one thinks men ought to base their marital relationship on manipulating and lying to their spouses in order to enjoy a successful marriage, they are barking up the wrong tree.

Seriously he reads like women are the enemy.

I think I'll keep doing what I am doing, lest I follow Kay's advice and end the terrific sex life I enjoy.


----------



## heartsbeating

I was curious and sampled the book on kindle a little while ago. 

I didn't get far before deleting the sample and moving on.


----------



## Brigit

Faithful Wife said:


> The evolutionary purpose of this cheating is that while her primary male partner may be a good provider and pleasant companion, another male could offer her significantly better genes to impregnate her with. It’s a try and have your cake and eat it too proposition. A woman may have sex with her partner thousands of times and with a lover maybe only a handful of times, but if any of that handful of times results in a pregnancy to the lover, it’s an extremely significant outcome.
> 
> The link between ovulation and cheating is highly significant in that when she ovulates, a woman experiences a large spike in her sexual interest. Ovulation lasts only a few days, usually no more than two, but it is the highest point of sexual interest for a woman. Even quite low sex drive women can perk up and play for sexual attention during ovulation. It’s when a woman is most likely to cheat on a partner, she is most likely to orgasm and in plain simple terms when she likes sex the roughest. If you pay consistent attention to a woman, it’s usually easy enough to discover when she is ovulating. There won’t be a blatant change to her dress code from “demure angel” twenty-six days a month to “sl*tzilla” for two days a month.


OK. I hate to admit this but in this section he does have a point. I'm 46 but still get my period like clockwork and I have an intuitive sense when I'm ovulating. It's during that time when my interest in contacting the OM (who is ten years younger than me and a very hot bad boy type) spikes. My sexual appetite increases and my body is giving me cues my mind needs to control. 

However, this doesn't dismiss the other hateful crap that he perpetuates.


----------



## Brigit

Faithful Wife said:


> Another blog post:
> 
> Dreadcake Game or Baked Goods Seduction | Athol Kay's Married Man Sex Life
> 
> More nastiness:
> 
> Something from the dark side to induce a little dread…
> 
> Anytime: Buy an odd plate at the dollar store or consignment shop.
> 
> Sunday: Find and visit a church bake sale, or fair, that has homemade baked goods.
> 
> Monday: Place “partially consumed” baked goods on the odd plate, cover with cling-wrap.
> 
> Come home from work with plate of baked goods.
> 
> Say that the new girl at work gave them to you. Well she offered it to everyone, but she gave the plate to you. She’s a temp or something. Cute.


Only a totally nerdy, sexually frustrated, angry, creepy, dude would come up with something this bizarre. I think he hates beautiful women.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

And on my thread.. *>>* http://talkaboutmarriage.com/genera...-compare-whats-your-take-your-experience.html

you were all trying to convince ME just HOW *non-monogamous* WOMEN REALLY ARE.. just seems to me Athol is agreeing with you all.. it's something to be aware of.. Taken from the link you provided FW >> " Women want sex just as much as men do, and this drive is "not, for the most part, sparked or sustained by emotional intimacy and safety." When it comes to the craving for sexual variety, the research Bergner assembles suggests that women may be "even less well-suited for monogamy than men."

Look Men & women both cheat at alarming rates.. anyone want to disagree ??...

If he is saying "*ALL*" ... (well none of us should go there.. we're asking to be corrected)..... I know I sure don't fit into "all" when men speak of women, none of us do...

I have not taken the time to read as much as others have here of his stuff.. (just some of his book pretty much)...and I appreciated his breakdown on the ALPHA / BETA years ago on a thread here, I much prefer it over how the Pick up Artist sites damn everything Beta.


----------



## Satya

My thoughts on Athol's works aren't as heated as some here, mainly because I do believe there are kernels of truth here and there.

Just to add to the discussion, there is also the RedpillWomens and the MarriedRedPill "movements," each with a different take and application of red pill theory. Read the sidebars for more info. 

http://www.reddit.com/r/RedPillWomen
http://www.reddit.com/r/marriedredpill

/opens can of worms and runs


----------



## NextTimeAround

Satya said:


> My thoughts on Athol's works aren't as heated as some here, mainly because I do believe there are kernels of truth here and there.
> 
> Just to add to the discussion, there is also the RedpillWomens and the MarriedRedPill "movements," each with a different take and application of red pill theory. Read the sidebars for more info.
> 
> Red Pill Women
> Married Red Pill: Sexual strategy for men in marriage or long term relationships
> 
> /opens can of worms and runs



yeah, I agree. I'm not going to forget my husband's "special friendship" with a woman who was an absolute b!tch. 
I had to get involved to get him to get rid of her.

there is something here to learn.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Liking sex, wanting sex as much as men to, etc to me is a lot different than needing to be watched 24/7 because I might sneak out while my man is on the toilet to go cheat, or needing to be filled up with sperm daily just so I don't get some on my way home. 
Filled with sperm or not, I think these women are vulnerable for a KISA to come swoop them off their feet if they are shown even a little compassion and caring. So from a basic stop cheating POV, it fails. 

ETA- A strong, confident man doesn't need to use these games. All this would do is make a man look weaker to me so from a basic "be a man" POV is fails there too. 

I much prefer books that focus on meeting each other's emotional needs and building a happy and loving relationship. Still nothing will work 100% of the time and you have to pick and change to suit your situation best but any time you have the choice to build a loving relationship or using manipulation and fear to keep her stuck with you... I think it's obvious which is better. 

It scares me that so many men have fallen for this kind of BS but I agree that it would only work on a woman who had low self-esteem and/or weren't able to immediatly leave the relationship because of money or kids. 


There's a review on Amazon from one of his other books that I think is really good 


The only good part of the book is the free "Look Inside" from Amazon. (Yeah, that part IS good!)

The book isn't even really a book- it's a self-published collection of blogs written by a self-described sex-addict with ADHD (unmedicated).

It's like reading the story of a drug addict telling you how to get high. The guy has two daughters so you feel bad for them to have to live in that household. And you feel bad for his wife. Example: He threatened to cheat on his wife if she didn't do more for him (she was already having sex with him daily and trying to please him in general). He admits she was being more than fair in the relationship but that he used the cheating threat as "leverage" for what he wanted from her. Instead of divorcing him however, she agreed to let go of her few remaining boundaries (undisclosed), even allowing him to rape her- he calls her his personal f (a word amazon won't let me use) toy.

Here's a quote from the book: "About a year ago I tried another experiment. I decided to not just have rough sex with her, but to do it as hard as I could...without regard for her enjoyment or caring about her at all. I mean really, really rag doll f her like she was rented." (pg. 226, the left-out word is intentional for Amazon purposes)

The book was truly nauseating, so much so that it still bugs me days later.

Anyhow, is that the kind of tip you really want to PAY for? Is that the kind of thing you really think will improve your marriage? (According to the FEMALE reviewers of Mr. Kay's books, his tips almost led their marriages to divorce.)

Mr. Kay claims your wife wants you to be an a hole. He says that raping his wife keeps her from cheating on him. HUH? How does THAT work? Any HEALTHY, self-respecting woman would simply leave Kay. Unfortunately, "like attracts like" and Kay's wife isn't healthy (more on that below).

Yeah, women like strong, confident men! Women like when men have their act together and have goals and focus in life, when they don't let themselves get steamrolled by life or the relationship, and when they can be dominatingly playful (a single smack on the rear, a confident kiss...) Heck, who DOESN'T like a self-respecting mate? (Ever date a girl who lets you treat her like a doormat? Did you lose respect for her? She was probably a nice girl so it's kinda sad, right? But it's just a universal truth- if you don't respect yourself no one else is going to respect you, either.)

Plus, women are drawn to testosterone. Women want to feel that they are with a man who is strong enough to protect them in the wilderness. It's true that a little power play now and again can attract a woman to her man. But there's a big difference between attracting your wife with some playful dominance and abusing her because of your selfish (or mentally ill) obsessiveness.

Kay hasn't figured out the difference. He has the whole issue confused in his book because he is both psychiatrically and psychologically unwell and, like most addicts, would rather maintain his addiction than face it . He's the user, his wife is the co-dependent. If she wasn't a conservative Christian with two children in the house, NO sexual experience aside from her "husband", (and most likely a background of childhood abuse/neglect/family addiction/etc.), she probably would have left him long ago. She still might leave him one day once she realizes that she has the right to be treated like a human being- and no one will be surprised, not even him. As Mr. Kay says of his relationship with his wife in the book's conclusion, "They have a carefully balanced relationship where Athol dreams up all kinds of weird stuff, and Jennifer doesn't leave him." (pg. 272) Not yet anyhow.


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> Suggesting that a woman likes sex the roughest during ovulation is just totally irresponsible...since some women never like rough sex and others like it rough all the time.


Also irresponsible is the idea that it is during ovulation that women will orgasm.

No, it's during *good* sex that women will orgasm.


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> Importantly because the lover is not likely to have many attempts at sex with the wife, his ejaculation will be extremely large and flood her vagina. The husband is at a decided disadvantage.


There is an interesting contradiction here as well. Elsewhere, it is said that women will only sleep with 20% of men, and that "alphas" get all the action. Yet this alpha that the wife is supposedly cheating with doesn't have enough access to sex to deplete his sperm? He's somehow saving it for this wife?

The logic is so skewed. On one hand women will only sleep with 20% and will deprive their beta husbands. But somehow the alpha also has so much sperm because of less opportunity, while the husband has all the access. :scratchhead:

Makes no sense at all.


----------



## chillymorn

Not all women fit the mmslp

but a fair bit do!

to paint with a broad brush either way is wrong. got to look at the individual situation and determine if your with a woman who falls into the category of being a cheater or not. there are tell tail signs for both genders.

eyes wide open!


----------



## Lila

SimplyAmorous said:


> And on my thread.. *>>* http://talkaboutmarriage.com/genera...-compare-whats-your-take-your-experience.html
> 
> you were all trying to convince ME just HOW non-monogamous WOMEN REALLY ARE..* just seems to me Athol is agreeing with you* all.. it's something to be aware of.. Taken from the link you provided FW >> " Women want sex just as much as men do, and this drive is "not, for the most part, sparked or sustained by emotional intimacy and safety." When it comes to the craving for sexual variety, the research Bergner assembles suggests that women may be "even less well-suited for monogamy than men."


Comparing non-monogamy to infidelity is like comparing apples to oranges. Non-monogamy is a relationship designation: forming relationship/love bonds with more than one person. Infidelity involves lies, deceit, and treachery, all of which are wrong and hurtful to others. There _can_ be infidelity in a non-monogamous relationship but choosing to enter into a non-monogamous relationship does not make it cheating.

What Athol is implying in his book is that ALL women are natural born cheaters.... _not_ non-monogamous. He states clearly in his book that we're born with a biologically programmed need to cheat in order to obtain the best Alpha genes for our babies. Meanwhile, he also claims that we are born with an instinctual-like need to find a Beta male we can cuckold into raising our alpha babies. It's the equivalent of me saying that ALL men are natural born cheaters because they have a biological need to "spread his seed'. This is INSANE logic. We are much more evolved than our caveman predecessors.


----------



## samyeagar

Faithful Wife said:


> Also from the book....in a section in which MMSL explains what sperm warfare is...I picked up in the middle of it though:
> 
> On a biological level, the Male Body Agenda assumes that the female he is having sex with will be unfaithful. By constantly seeking to top off a female’s reproductive tract with sperm, he assures himself a standing army inside her ready to repel another male’s sperm if she cheats on him. A wife can avoid having a standing army of her husband’s sperm inside her by simply denying him sex. A couple can have fairly frequent sex, but if she avoids sex with him, or just gives him handjobs or blowjobs in the three or four days before she ovulates, the husband is rendered defenseless from a sperm warfare perspective if she meets a lover for sex. There’s no standing army of the husband’s sperm to fight off the lover’s sperm.
> 
> 
> Importantly because the lover is not likely to have many attempts at sex with the wife, his ejaculation will be extremely large and flood her vagina. The husband is at a decided disadvantage.
> 
> It’s important to wave the flag again that this sort of planned deceit on the wife’s part can happen completely unconsciously; the Rationalization Hamster can likely supply several excellent reasons as to why she avoided her husband’s semen in her vagina for a few days before she ovulated. Plus obviously the hook-up with the lover was just an appalling lapse of character. She’s not that kind of girl. In fact she’s just realized from that hook-up how very empty sex without love can be and she now knows that deep down she really loves her husband and wants to make it work with him. So perhaps some good came of the whole thing. The Rationalization Hamster is holding off on telling her she’s pregnant for a bit…missed periods sometimes just happen you know. (See how the Rationalization Hamster works?)
> 
> Sperm warfare also explains why if a husband is denied regular sex with his wife, he typically becomes fixated on the lack of sex with her to the exclusion of every other issue in the relationship. After five days of no vaginal sex, all his sperm inside her are either dead or have dripped out of her. In a “get her pregnant” sense it’s like he’s never had sex with her. He wants her topped off; instead she’s completely empty of his sperm. She is therefore providing him with a very strong expression of disinterest in him. She may say that she loves him, but he will typically experience her actions as a deeply concerning rejection.
> 
> As a variant on this, if a wife has sex with a lover, she will often return to her husband and immediately seek sex from him as well. The husband may be quite surprised by her initiation of sex and her highly sexual intensity. What is happening is her Body Agenda is seeking to actively play the sperm armies against each other in a survival of the fittest game to find the winning sperm. If the husband is unaware of the lover, he likely just experiences this as a wonderfully intense sex experience that likely extends over several sessions. For those involved in the Hotwife or Cuckolding lifestyles, this return of the wife after being with a lover for immediate sex with the husband is a point of purposeful enjoyment.
> 
> (end quote)
> 
> I don't have any problem with the concept of sperm warfare, but again, why is everything through a hateful lens here? On the one hand he says it is subconscious processes at work, and on the other hand he is constantly point out what wh*res women are and how every single one of us is cheating.
> 
> This is a book meant to develop a good relationship with your wife? I have heard many times that this book is good for guys who have been cheated on because it stirs up their sense of fighting for their marriage. But dang....c'mon if we're all just going to be hateful toward each other, let's just give up.


Isn't that very similar to the tripe fed to women...stomach full, balls empty...else every husband will cheat?


----------



## Anon Pink

Faithful Wife said:


> Also from the book....in a section in which MMSL explains what sperm warfare is...I picked up in the middle of it though:
> 
> On a biological level, the Male Body Agenda assumes that the female he is having sex with will be unfaithful. By constantly seeking to top off a female’s reproductive tract with sperm, he assures himself a standing army inside her ready to repel another male’s sperm if she cheats on him. A wife can avoid having a standing army of her husband’s sperm inside her by simply denying him sex. A couple can have fairly frequent sex, but if she avoids sex with him, or just gives him handjobs or blowjobs in the three or four days before she ovulates, the husband is rendered defenseless from a sperm warfare perspective if she meets a lover for sex. There’s no standing army of the husband’s sperm to fight off the lover’s sperm.


Such a nice bed time story.:lol: That awful nefarious slvt/*****!




> Importantly because the lover is not likely to have many attempts at sex with the wife, his ejaculation will be extremely large and flood her vagina. The husband is at a decided disadvantage.


Is there ANY kind of research to back this up? Is he really asserting the volume and motility of the OM's sperm is greater because biologically his balls know they've only go this one chance of knocking her up?

...beuler...beuler....anyone?



> It’s important to wave the flag again that this sort of planned deceit on the wife’s part can happen completely unconsciously; the Rationalization Hamster can likely supply several excellent reasons as to why she avoided her husband’s semen in her vagina for a few days before she ovulated. Plus obviously the hook-up with the lover was just an appalling lapse of character. She’s not that kind of girl. In fact she’s just realized from that hook-up how very empty sex without love can be and she now knows that deep down she really loves her husband and wants to make it work with him. So perhaps some good came of the whole thing. The Rationalization Hamster is holding off on telling her she’s pregnant for a bit…missed periods sometimes just happen you know. (See how the Rationalization Hamster works?)


Who believes this sh!t?



> Sperm warfare also explains why *if a husband is denied regular sex with his wife, he typically becomes fixated on the lack of sex with her to the exclusion of every other issue in the relationship.* After five days of no vaginal sex, all his sperm inside her are either dead or have dripped out of her. In a “get her pregnant” sense it’s like he’s never had sex with her. He wants her topped off; instead she’s completely empty of his sperm. She is therefore providing him with a very strong expression of disinterest in him. She may say that she loves him, but he will typically experience her actions as a deeply concerning rejection.


 Bolded: I thought that was just your typical clueless man response to being denied sex.

Actually, semen remains in the vagina and cervix for up to two weeks, not 5 days.

This guy is totally pulling sh!t out of his ass and calling it social research.



> As a variant on this, if a wife has sex with a lover, she will often return to her husband and immediately seek sex from him as well. The husband may be quite surprised by her initiation of sex and her highly sexual intensity. What is happening is her Body Agenda is seeking to actively play the sperm armies against each other in a survival of the fittest game to find the winning sperm. If the husband is unaware of the lover, he likely just experiences this as a wonderfully intense sex experience that likely extends over several sessions. For those involved in the Hotwife or Cuckolding lifestyles, this return of the wife after being with a lover for immediate sex with the husband is a point of purposeful enjoyment.
> 
> (end quote)
> 
> I don't have any problem with the concept of sperm warfare, but again, why is everything through a hateful lens here? On the one hand he says it is subconscious processes at work, and on the other hand he is constantly point out what wh*res women are and how every single one of us is cheating.
> 
> This is a book meant to develop a good relationship with your wife? I have heard many times that this book is good for guys who have been cheated on because it stirs up their sense of fighting for their marriage. But dang....c'mon if we're all just going to be hateful toward each other, let's just give up.



I had never heard the term "Rationalization Hamster" before coming to TAM. It reminds me of time when religion ascribed all sort of events to satan because they didn't have the ability to understand scientific truths. I think men who believe or buy into this rationalization hamster are just as ignorant as the ignorant clergy who call out satan for things they don't, or don't wish to understand.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

samyeagar said:


> Isn't that very similar to the tripe fed to women...stomach full, balls empty...else every husband will cheat?


I've only ever heard men say that to women.


----------



## Lila

Satya said:


> My thoughts on Athol's works aren't as heated as some here, mainly because I do believe there are kernels of truth here and there.
> 
> Just to add to the discussion, there is also the RedpillWomens and the MarriedRedPill "movements," each with a different take and application of red pill theory. Read the sidebars for more info.
> 
> Red Pill Women
> Married Red Pill: Sexual strategy for men in marriage or long term relationships
> 
> /opens can of worms and runs


Clarification......:iagree: that there are other more dangerous sites and Red Pill pushers out there doing way more damage than Kay.

There is some seriously F**ked up crap out there messing with men's head. The Red Pill Manosphere is made up of a bunch of blog sites and philosophy 'manifestos' spewing hate language against women. 

The link below is an Business Insider article I found that does a great job of neutrally discussing the Red Pill. 

What Is The Red Pill? - Business Insider

One of the individuals interviewed was the author for _"Man 2.0: Becoming The Alpha_" and this is what he said about it.



> "My definition of an alpha is someone who wants to become the best version of themselves so that they can best serve the world. Obviously, there's nothing wrong with motivating guys to become better men, but The Red Pill seems to be doing so in an aggressive and adversarial sort of way. From an outside perspective, it seems like they're a bit too vocal about categorizing themselves as alphas and others as betas ... there doesn't seem to be an attitude of wanting to bring other people into the fold. It seems divisive rather than inclusive."
> 
> Romaniello referenced a post he saw where a Red Piller wrote something to the effect of "if you focus on self-improvement, you'll attract a higher-quality woman."
> 
> "There's nothing controversial to this statement," he said. "And, speaking personally, I agree with it. I think there are many Red Pill members who see it that way. But there are a lot of voices decrying this sentiment in favor of an attitude of ... degradation, I guess. It seems like The Red Pill is generally taking the idea of alpha from the pickup artist perspective and running in an extreme direction with it. Like any group or belief system, there's a lot of value to be found with the reasonable stuff. But also like any other group, *The Red Pill has some extremists who are fervent in their beliefs and incredibly vocal. Oh, and bat**** crazy. I think that's likely the reason The Red Pill has gotten the reputation of being misogynistic.* "​


This is an astounding opinion from a man who endorses the 'man-up' lifestyle. 

Sites like Red Pill Reddit and the Rational Male attract largely emotionally hurt and very, VERY angry men to there fanatical way of thinking. It's this philosophy that is dangerous, end of story.


----------



## pidge70

Wouldn't a menopausal woman be immune to cheating?


----------



## Brigit

Lila said:


> :iagree:
> 
> There is some seriously F**ked up crap out there messing with men's head. The Red Pill Manosphere is made up of a bunch of blog sites and philosophy 'manifestos' spewing hate language against women.
> 
> The link below is an Business Insider article I found that does a great job of neutrally discussing the Red Pill.
> 
> What Is The Red Pill? - Business Insider
> 
> One of the individuals interviewed was the author for _"Man 2.0: Becoming The Alpha_" and this is what he said about it.
> 
> 
> 
> This is an astounding opinion from a man who endorses the 'man-up' lifestyle.
> 
> Sites like Red Pill Reddit and the Rational Male attract largely emotionally hurt and very, VERY angry men to there fanatical way of thinking. It's this philosophy that is dangerous, end of story.


The only good thing I can say about Mr. Fill-her-holes-before-someone-else-does is that he made a product that causes interest and makes emotions run high. Everyone gets curious and reads his stuff. He makes money off of the crowd either way. His word is spread; his book is bought. 

Capitalism at its finest. 

(Note to self: Write a crazy book. Make money. Move to Bora-Bora: never watch TV again.)


----------



## always_alone

Blonde said:


> and I know you disagree with the leadership talk, FW, but I believe that men have a HUGE amount of untapped power to influence their M for better which is sort of the message here:
> The Eternal Captain Rule | Athol Kay's Married Man Sex Life


I dunno, Blonde. I read something like this:



> I’m not saying that all women are jaded, gold-digging *****s waiting for the first moment of weakness to jump ship to a larger ****… it’s not THAT bad (he said softly massaging his right temple for effect, thinking that the tiger metaphor was perhaps poorly chosen)… but every woman expects you can hold your **** together and be a productive spouse on a routine basis.
> 
> The old line is that “women don’t want to win, they want a winner.”


And it basically sounds like women don't bring anything to a relationship, that it's all about riding on the guys coat-tails and then ditching him if they find a better deal.

I mean, sure, most women do want a guy who is mature, responsible, basically has his sh1t together. But most women also bring a great deal to a relationship, and are perfectly willing and able to step up when the going gets tough. Often moreso. 

This "women are hypergamous" line basically encourages men to ignore the influence of their wives, and basically devalue her contributions and responsibilities. Which I think is a huge mistake.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Blonde said:


> Personally, I like that he speaks out against porn use:
> High Fructose Porn Syrup | Athol Kay's Married Man Sex Life
> 
> and I know you disagree with the leadership talk, FW, but I believe that men have a HUGE amount of untapped power to influence their M for better which is sort of the message here:
> The Eternal Captain Rule | Athol Kay's Married Man Sex Life
> 
> *That said, I would never in a million years have suggested my STBXH look at MMSL because he already has the alpha a$$ tendencies in spades. The last thing he needs is to read a self proclaimed "authority" promoting and endorsing a$$hat behavior (like your quotes)*. OTH my now 28yos hung out there for awhile and I notice improvement in him being appropriately assertive instead of PA with his W.
> 
> The quotes you posted are massively disrespectful and the baked goods trick is manipulative and cruel. Aimed to make a W feel insecure. Wonder how H's would feel if their W's brought home flowers, chocolate, and perfume from work and pretended to be all innocent and offended that she would think anything?
> 
> My STBXH has a history of flirting in front of me and I really assume he is clueless. Not manipulative. Really *genuinely* clueless of how disrespectful that is and how it undermines trust.


And you see MY HUSBAND would be the complete opposite of YOURS Blonde, he'd NEVER FLIRT with another woman.. He didn't even flirt much with me !....... though this is partly MY FAULT for telling him when we met that most men seemed A-holes to me because -they threw all these flirting lines out and it as all







....(I couldn't stand men that acted like they wanted you, then moved on to another so carefree flirting with another).....so in the name of *respect.*. he limited his flirting to me.. Goodness. I shot myself in the foot saying those things!

He has devoted himself to me so completely that I KNEW since we met I had him wrapped around my finger.. he would admit to this also.. so a man LIKE MINE would not at all been hurt by reading this book.. doing some of those things would have surely CAUGHT MY ATTENTION and put my radar up.....

The truth is.... I never felt a pang of jealousy.. always felt secure in his love...till we went to a Strip club (yes I know this makes me look bad).. but it was about time! .. I even liked that feeling.. it made me want to claim him more for my own...feeling those feelings wash over me... he has felt that about ME.. but I never felt that about him.. so yeah.. 

This book would NOT have hurt my husband in the least.. that's how I feel.. so it depends on the man.. My husband has also told me he always felt he loved me MORE.. this is not true, but the sex rank thing... I don't think he has ever felt equal.. It's true, I very much "dig" humble men.. well I married one of the humblest around.


----------



## Anon Pink

EleGirl said:


> Here is one that just creeps me out...
> 
> (8.8) Isolation – Leverage Her Isolation Anxiety with Surprise
> 
> Moving to a second location works to make alone time more exciting to her, but that can be made even more exciting by adding the element of surprise and triggering momentary Isolation Anxiety. You might have gone somewhere together to do something, but the surprise little side trip on the way back, where you just turn the wheel of the car and take her somewhere, is exciting. It works because it’s like a playful and safe version of her getting carjacked and taken somewhere against her will. *
> 
> Even though your wife is with you and trusts you, she will experience a few seconds of Isolation Anxiety as you start taking her somewhere unexpected without asking. This triggers her Body Agenda to make an instant decision about either risking a physical fight with you that is likely hopeless or submitting to your intentions without resistance. Usually her Body Agenda takes the safe option and votes for submission, which frames you as dominant. Having created a dominant moment, that sparks a dopamine reaction in her and she will feel greater attraction to you and a little flush of excitement. *
> 
> If you went to the mall to do Christmas shopping together, it’s the unannounced detour on the way back to the secret pastry and coffee shop that engages her with you. Of course she’ll just think it’s romantic, exciting and non-boring, but that’s just the dopamine doing its job. *
> 
> Another way of doing this is starting at home and simply telling her to get in the car with you in ten minutes. Then just drive her to dinner out somewhere random. Don’t tell her where you are driving to; just arrive. She might complain loudly the first couple of times, but that just means she’s emotionally engaged with you.
> 
> Kay, Athol (2011-04-09). The Married Man Sex Life Primer 2011 (p. 107).


This one totally turns me on but I think the term "Isolation Anxiety" is waaaaay off base and completely misses the connection between low levels of anxiety and high levels of excitement.

For instance in gymnastics and related sports, the athlete feels quite a bit of anxiety doing a trick but the anxiety is felt as excitement first, fear second. I remember many times of focused intent to try something new, feeling anxiety and squashing it down, then doing the trick. But afterwards the physical manifestation OS anxiety become quite apparent. Shaking, both internal shakiness and external shaking are common. However it is not felt as a negative but an adrenalin pumping excitement.

This isolation anxiety is a wrong term because it's not ISOLATION but the newness, unexpected, surprise, unique, out of the ordinary, the unpredictable of the situation that would cause the spike in adrenalin and dopamine.

Using the term ISOLATION brings a distinct flavor of predatorish and rapey point of view.


----------



## GTdad

It seems like part of the issue is one of definitions. It reminds me of the debate which used to dominate this board and to some extent still does: regarding "nice guys". There was/is a group, largely men, using the definition found in NMMNG which was largely negative, arguing with another group, largely women, who LIKED nice guys, as per their definition, and were puzzled at what the fuss was all about. I'm not sure to what extent common ground was ever found because there was no agreement on what defined a "nice guy".

I think the same problem exists with this "red pill" business. Just now I came across an interesting post by a woman on another thread:

"No, the Red Pill stuff is not necessarily about manipulating women. That is Game/PUA stuff. Red pill stuff teaches men to be the alpha in the relationship, to not put any woman on a pedestal to the point of accepting her bad treatment, to work on yourself, and to have a backbone. I think his wife is very comfortable. She might not realize what she has until she's lost it."

We can talk about how bad Red Pill stuff is, just as we can argue about the upside and downside of being a Nice Guy, but are we even talking about the same thing? How are we defining Red Pill, and is it even possible to agree on those definitions?

I'm betting not.


----------



## Anon Pink

SimplyAmorous said:


> This book would NOT have hurt my husband in the least.. that's how I feel.. so it depends on the man.. My husband has also told me he always felt he loved me MORE.. this is not true, but the sex rank thing... I don't think he has ever felt equal.. It's true, I very much "dig" humble men.. well I married one of the humblest around.


Thats the thing. The MMSLP message could be a very good empowering message for The Right Man. But for other men, it is like matches to tinder.

A man like my H would be able to read it, take the good and leave the stupid. But a man like Blinde's H... Waaaaay too dangerous. This kind of message would take a selfish stupid man and make him a rapey Neanderthal all the while thinking he was doing it right.


----------



## EleGirl

chillymorn said:


> Not all women fit the mmslp
> 
> but a fair bit do!
> 
> to paint with a broad brush either way is wrong. got to look at the individual situation and determine if your with a woman who falls into the category of being a cheater or not. there are tell tail signs for both genders.
> 
> eyes wide open!


Let's see... about 10% of men are violent and even criminals. So it' fair to say that a fair bit are. So we can write a book that characterizes all men as violence criminals. Is that how it works?

MMSLP is based on the premise that all women are basically closet slvts and there will cheat if her husband does not keep her full of his sperm and keep a short leash on her. 

More men cheat than women do. So I guess all mean are sneaky, lying cheaters. Makes sense, no?

If making broad sweeps are ok in MMSLP then I guess they are ok everywhere.


----------



## always_alone

Anon Pink said:


> Thats the thing. The MMSLP message could be a very good empowering message for The Right Man. But for other men, it is like matches to tinder.
> 
> A man like my H would be able to read it, take the good and leave the stupid. But a man like Blinde's H... Waaaaay too dangerous. This kind of message would take a selfish stupid man and make him a rapey Neanderthal all the while thinking he was doing it right.


I really do not see how putting down women, calling them cheaters, *****s, liars, incapable of knowing what they want, usurious, etc. and so on is ever a "very good empowering message".

I mean, I can see that some men do indeed let women walk all over them, and they should probably stop doing that, if only for their own good. But why they need to put a hate-on for women to get there is beyond me.

Then what? Sure they are "empowered", but they have a hate-on for women that they carry around and spew out at every opportunity. Most unattractive, IMHO.


----------



## EleGirl

Blonde said:


> FW I wonder how old the quotes are? People can and do grow, mature, and change views.
> 
> I have and perhaps Kay has? You are a blogger (I have been too). Do you ever look back at an old post and think, "wow I have changed. I don't see that the way I saw it then!"?
> 
> (I was a fundamentalist uber submissive, homeschooling, SAHM, Quiver Full Wife- you know, like the Duggars? Now I am a feminist, single mom who works outside the home)


The quotes that I posted and some of FW's are right out of his book.. the one that is constantly suggested to men on TAM as the bible for improving themselves and learning about women. 

Plus those blogs that FW quoted are on his website, also suggested many times a day to men here on TAM.

So it really does not matter if the man's thoughts changes. They are out there being pushed as the end all for men.


----------



## pidge70

EleGirl said:


> Let's see... about 10% of men are violent and even criminals. So it' fair to say that a fair bit are. So we can write a book that characterizes all men as violence criminals. Is that how it works?
> 
> MMSLP is based on the premise that all women are basically closet slvts and there will cheat if her husband does not keep her full of his sperm and keep a short leash on her.
> 
> More men cheat than women do. So I guess all mean are sneaky, lying cheaters. Makes sense, no?
> 
> If making broad sweeps are ok in MMSLP then I guess they are ok everywhere.


----------



## EleGirl

samyeagar said:


> Isn't that very similar to the tripe fed to women...stomach full, balls empty...else every husband will cheat?


Well, a smart woman knows that this is just nonsense. If a guy is going to cheat none of that matters. Men with a good sex life at home cheat all the time.


----------



## samyeagar

EleGirl said:


> Let's see... about 10% of men are violent and even criminals. So it' fair to say that a fair bit are. So we can write a book that characterizes all men as violence criminals. Is that how it works?
> 
> MMSLP is based on the premise that all women are basically closet slvts and there will cheat if her husband does not keep her full of his sperm and keep a short leash on her.
> 
> More men cheat than women do. So I guess all mean are sneaky, lying cheaters. Makes sense, no?
> 
> If making broad sweeps are ok in MMSLP then I guess they are ok everywhere.


Statistically, men and women cheat at pretty close to the same rate, albeit men reportedly slightly higher. That difference could be attributed to the fact that stereotypes say men cheat more, so it is more socially acceptable for a man to admit to it.


----------



## samyeagar

EleGirl said:


> Well, a smart woman knows that this is just nonsense. If a guy is going to cheat none of that matters. Men with a good sex life at home cheat all the time.


Well of course they do. The thing is, all this PUA crap that is fed to both men and women is likely not going to work on healthy, smart people. It's targeted at taking advantage of the low hanging fruit, the easy marks. The whole premise is throwing as wide of a net as one can, and the odds are, you'll catch something, because there are a lot of unhealthy people out there.

ETA: Then you get the marginal men and women who get shaken by this, and they become unhinged, and more low hanging fruit. What makes all of this so insideous is that a lot of the outward behaviours discussed are things people see every day, and then BS, horrible, damaging reasons are given to explain the behaviors.


----------



## always_alone

GTdad said:


> We can talk about how bad Red Pill stuff is, just as we can argue about the upside and downside of being a Nice Guy, but are we even talking about the same thing? How are we defining Red Pill, and is it even possible to agree on those definitions?
> 
> I'm betting not.


I'll admit that I'm pretty confused by the whole "nice guy" attribution, as it most certainly is applied to very different kinds of people.

Red pill, on the other hand, is pretty consistent. It's all about being an "alpha", achieving and displaying dominance, and keeping women in their place. 

Now it's true that many people find that message unproblematic, and will argue that this is also what *women* want, making it all okay. 

But even if this arrangement will make a few people happy doesn't make it right to apply across-the-board stereotypes that encourage men to up their a$$hole quotient as much as possible because women are just lying, cheating, wh0res.

Fine, I suppose, if both parties are seeking out that dynamic. But pushing it on everyone under the guise that it's "biology" is nothing but damaging. To both men and women.


----------



## Anon Pink

always_alone said:


> I really do not see how *putting down women, calling them cheaters, *****s, liars, incapable of knowing what they want, usurious*, etc. and so on is ever a "very good empowering message".
> 
> I mean, I can see that some men do indeed let women walk all over them, and they should probably stop doing that, if only for their own good. But why they need to put a hate-on for women to get there is beyond me.
> 
> Then what? Sure they are "empowered", but they have a hate-on for women that they carry around and spew out at every opportunity. Most unattractive, IMHO.



That would be "leaving the stupid" that I talked about.

I don't understand why Ak needed to couch his message with such negative and dis empowering terms and I think if he could alter it the messages could be highly empowering for both men and women.

Take the good and leave the stupid, take a smart man who isn't afraid of women. How many men are capable?


----------



## TiggyBlue

samyeagar said:


> Well of course they do. The thing is, all this PUA crap that is fed to both men and women is likely not going to work on healthy, smart people. It's targeted at taking advantage of the low hanging fruit, the easy marks. The whole premise is throwing as wide of a net as one can, and the odds are, you'll catch something, because there are a lot of unhealthy people out there.


:iagree:
A small percentage of the population will still bring in a massive amount of money.


----------



## always_alone

Anon Pink said:


> That would be "leaving the stupid" that I talked about.


Okay. Fair enough. But the book is over 300 pages and the only smart thing in it is "get fit, don't be an utter pushover."


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Anon Pink said:


> *Thats the thing. The MMSLP message could be a very good empowering message for The Right Man.* But for other men, it is like matches to tinder.
> 
> *A man like my H would be able to read it, take the good and leave the stupid*. But a man like Blinde's H... Waaaaay too dangerous. This kind of message would take a selfish stupid man and make him a rapey Neanderthal all the while thinking he was doing it right.


Well ... can the rest of the women JUST AGREE ON THIS.. those men , the conceited narcissistic Alpha "gone too far" types need a book focusing on the EMOTIONAL things.. the romantic tender attributes, how to treat a woman with respect , admiration, love & caring.... 

My husband literally needs to be more of a "Son of a Bi*ch"...(a little bad boy, more assertive edge)....yeah.. this sounds a little crazy.. I've had arguments with him that he is TOO SELFLESS... not the normal story here.. he's also always had me on a pedestal..







.. then argued I still deserved one....funny conversations we've had due to threads here....

Hey, it wasn't all bad...he *argued* with me & held his stance !


----------



## Brigit

samyeagar said:


> Well of course they do. The thing is, all this PUA crap that is fed to both men and women is likely not going to work on healthy, smart people. It's targeted at taking advantage of the low hanging fruit, the easy marks. The whole premise is throwing as wide of a net as one can, and the odds are, you'll catch something, because there are a lot of unhealthy people out there.
> 
> ETA: Then you get the marginal men and women who get shaken by this, and they become unhinged, and more low hanging fruit. What makes all of this so insideous is that a lot of the outward behaviours discussed are things people see every day, and then BS, horrible, damaging reasons are given to explain the behaviors.


:iagree:


----------



## GTdad

always_alone said:


> Red pill, on the other hand, is pretty consistent. It's all about being an "alpha", achieving and displaying dominance, and keeping women in their place.
> 
> Now it's true that many people find that message unproblematic, and will argue that this is also what *women* want, making it all okay.
> 
> But even if this arrangement will make a few people happy doesn't make it right to apply across-the-board stereotypes that encourage men to up their a$$hole quotient as much as possible because women are just lying, cheating, wh0res.


But that's exactly the problem. The female poster I quoted doesn't define Red Pill that way at all.

I think most people are reasonable and and at least passingly respectful of others. I think that's even more true on a board like this, which specifically attracts people who are interested in relationships and improving those relationships. We call each other out for expressions of disrespect for those of another gender, and you've been on the receiving end of those call-outs, whether or not you understand why.

If Red Pill is defined as encouraging "men to up their a$$hole quotient as much as possible because women are just lying, cheating, wh0res", then I'll be the first in line to condemn that view. I have four daughters, and I'll fight the man who thinks of them that way. I've said here before that I consider myself a feminist, and I don't have the patience to pay attention to men who badmouth feminism as some kind of outlandish extremism. That's a patently ridiculous view.

I just wonder whether we're doing the same thing to what's being called Red-Pillism: painting the concept as extremism based on picking-and-choosing what the worst have to say on the subject.


----------



## GTdad

Anon Pink said:


> I don't understand why Ak needed to couch his message with such negative and dis empowering terms and I think if he could alter it the messages could be highly empowering for both men and women.
> 
> Take the good and leave the stupid, take a smart man who isn't afraid of women. How many men are capable?


Me, apparently. But I'm led to believe now that I must have read the book with some serious BS filters in place.


----------



## always_alone

GTdad said:


> I just wonder whether we're doing the same thing to what's being called Red-Pillism: painting the concept as extremism based on picking-and-choosing what the worst have to say on the subject.


But that's my point: there is no "good" version of red-pillism. The poster you quoted was *the* softest expression of it I've seen, and it still calls for men to be "alpha", dominant, and in the lead.

MMSL is also actually quite soft. It only gets more and more hateful. Never less.


----------



## GTdad

always_alone said:


> But that's my point: there is no "good" version of red-pillism. The poster you quoted was *the* softest expression of it I've seen, and it still calls for men to be "alpha", dominant, and in the lead.
> 
> MMSL is also actually quite soft. It only gets more and more hateful. Never less.


Another definition problem. Your definition of "alpha" is "bad", but is that necessarily the case?

I think we'd be much better off arguing about attitudes rather than labels. At least then we'd understand what the other is talking about.


----------



## always_alone

GTdad said:


> Another definition problem. Your definition of "alpha" is "bad", but is that necessarily the case?
> 
> I think we'd be much better off arguing about attitudes rather than labels. At least then we'd understand what the other is talking about.


"Alpha" is drawn from analysis of herd animal behaviour, and it is about social dominance, being the "leader of the pack". The theory is that because herd animals have a "leader" who gets to father more offspring than the loser betas, that therefore all females (of all species) find "alpha" behaviour sexually attractive, and beta behaviour unattractive.

And then it just turns into a mish-mash of contradictory and ill-thought out ideas about what that might mean in a dating or relationship situation, where clearly, not all guys can be that "alpha" because we are not actually herd animals and do not conduct our mating rituals in the same way.


----------



## GTdad

always_alone said:


> "Alpha" is drawn from analysis of herd animal behaviour, and it is about social dominance, being the "leader of the pack".
> 
> And then it just turns into a mish-mash of contradictory and ill-thought out ideas about what that might mean in a dating or relationship situation, where clearly, not all guys can be that "alpha".


And how about I define Alpha as a man in control of himself and his behavior and emotions, who draws firm, healthy boundaries as to the behavior and actions of the people around him? Is my definition wrong?


----------



## jld

GTdad said:


> And how about I define Alpha as a man in control of himself and his behavior and emotions, who draws firm, healthy boundaries as to the behavior and actions of the people around him? Is my definition wrong?


I like the first part. 

Instead of imposing boundaries on other people, how about focusing on inspiring them by your own example?


----------



## GTdad

jld said:


> I like the first part.
> 
> Instead of imposing boundaries on other people, how about focusing on inspiring them by your own example?


You can't impose boundaries on other people, and I should have been clearer. You can only impose boundaries on yourself, as far as what you will and will not tolerate or accept.


----------



## always_alone

GTdad said:


> You can't impose boundaries on other people, and I should have been clearer. You can only impose boundaries on yourself, as far as what you will and will not tolerate or accept.


With this clarification, I think what you are suggesting here is quite a reasonable goal for any person, man or woman.

I fail to see any reason at all then to use labels like "alpha" and "beta", or assume a whole pseudo-scientific theoretical framework that imposes Victorian-style stereotypes on both men and women.

Note that "red pill" always comes with this pseudo-scientific theoretical baggage.


----------



## jld

GTdad said:


> You can't impose boundaries on other people, and I should have been clearer. You can only impose boundaries on yourself, as far as what you will and will not tolerate or accept.


Could you give an example?


----------



## Faithful Wife

So GTDad...at least as far as the parts I quoted....did you at least think Athol's writing was mean spirited at all?

I have said many times now that there are good points in MMSL and I see those points. I simply don't agree that those points should ever be wrapped in such mean, hateful language, and I don't understand defending that mean spirited stuff. I don't know why guys are over looking it. I also do not know of one book that is pushed at women that has anything close to this type of mean language about men.


----------



## Faithful Wife

SimplyAmorous said:


> And on my thread.. *>>* http://talkaboutmarriage.com/genera...-compare-whats-your-take-your-experience.html
> 
> you were all trying to convince ME just HOW *non-monogamous* WOMEN REALLY ARE.. just seems to me Athol is agreeing with you all.. it's something to be aware of.. Taken from the link you provided FW >> " Women want sex just as much as men do, and this drive is "not, for the most part, sparked or sustained by emotional intimacy and safety." When it comes to the craving for sexual variety, the research Bergner assembles suggests that women may be "even less well-suited for monogamy than men."
> 
> Look Men & women both cheat at alarming rates.. anyone want to disagree ??...
> 
> If he is saying "*ALL*" ... (well none of us should go there.. we're asking to be corrected)..... I know I sure don't fit into "all" when men speak of women, none of us do...
> 
> I have not taken the time to read as much as others have here of his stuff.. (just some of his book pretty much)...and I appreciated his breakdown on the ALPHA / BETA years ago on a thread here, I much prefer it over how the Pick up Artist sites damn everything Beta.



What is your point here SA? Nothing I've posted here (which was mostly quotes from MMSL) changes anything I said that I posted of my own words on your other thread. :scratchhead:


----------



## GTdad

jld said:


> Could you give an example?


This board is littered with them: the disrespectful treatment suffered at the hands of their spouses, up to and including infidelity.

So much of the correct advice of this forum boils down to stating to that spouse: "this behavior is intolerable, and I have no intention of trying to tolerate it. It stops now, or our relationship is going to change, up to and including divorce."


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> So GTDad...at least as far as the parts I quoted....did you at least think Athol's writing was mean spirited at all?
> 
> I have said many times now that there are good points in MMSL and I see those points. I simply don't agree that those points should ever be wrapped in such mean, hateful language, and I don't understand defending that mean spirited stuff. I don't know why guys are over looking it. I also do not know of one book that is pushed at women that has anything close to this type of mean language about men.


Well, and let's face it. A woman can get called out as a man-hater here on TAM simply for suggesting that gender stereotypes are false. 

But just try and get red-pill called out for its misogynistic ways. Almost like pulling teeth. No, it's just "blunt" because "men need 2x4s to the head" because they are always "too nice."


----------



## GTdad

Faithful Wife said:


> So GTDad...at least as far as the parts I quoted....did you at least think Athol's writing was mean spirited at all?
> 
> I have said many times now that there are good points in MMSL and I see those points. I simply don't agree that those points should ever be wrapped in such mean, hateful language, and I don't understand defending that mean spirited stuff. I don't know why guys are over looking it. I also do not know of one book that is pushed at women that has anything close to this type of mean language about men.


Sure it was, but I'm not defending Athol so much as I'm defending myself: like Marduk as pointed out, something in his book or blog or whatever got through to me and led to some positive changes. I'll certainly accept the criticism that I had a blind spot to his more hateful moments. It's entirely fair, and I've already said that I can't explain why I missed those moments.


----------



## samyeagar

always_alone said:


> "Alpha" is drawn from analysis of herd animal behaviour, and it is about social dominance, being the "leader of the pack". The theory is that because herd animals have a "leader" who gets to father more offspring than the loser betas, that therefore all females (of all species) find "alpha" behaviour sexually attractive, and beta behaviour unattractive.
> 
> And then it just turns into a mish-mash of contradictory and ill-thought out ideas about what that might mean in a dating or relationship situation, where clearly, not all guys can be that "alpha" because *we are not actually herd animals* and do not conduct our mating rituals in the same way.


We're not? Isn't that the underlying reason marketing, advertising, mass media, works so effectively? Why do you think celebrities have the followings they do...key word there...following? Herds by definition follow...


----------



## GTdad

always_alone said:


> Well, and let's face it. A woman can get called out as a man-hater here on TAM simply for suggesting that gender stereotypes are false.


I think you've been called out for attempting to impose a stereotype on men, that all or most men are such-and-such (disloyal, abusive, or what have you). I understand that you disagree with those criticisms.


----------



## always_alone

GTdad said:


> I think you've been called out for attempting to impose a stereotype on men, that all or most men are such-and-such (disloyal, abusive, or what have you). I understand that you disagree with those criticisms.


Yes, I do. Because I haven't actually made those claims. Just reacted (admittedly poorly) to people who have told me that "men are [insert stereotype here]". 

I understand that you will probably disagree with this characterization, but the "man-hating" label is thrown around here pretty freely to just about anyone who holds to any feminist principles, and then some. 

But this is off-topic. Sorry OP for the thread-jack.


----------



## jld

GTdad said:


> This board is littered with them: the disrespectful treatment suffered at the hands of their spouses, up to and including infidelity.
> 
> So much of the correct advice of this forum boils down to stating to that spouse: "this behavior is intolerable, and I have no intention of trying to tolerate it. It stops now, or our relationship is going to change, up to and including divorce."


And if she just leaves then?

There is a better way. Seek to understand her and meet her deepest emotional needs. Win her trust. 

Just leaving her is okay, though, too. It allows a more suitable man into her life.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Blonde said:


> FW I wonder how old the quotes are? People can and do grow, mature, and change views.
> 
> I have and perhaps Kay has? You are a blogger (I have been too). Do you ever look back at an old post and think, "wow I have changed. I don't see that the way I saw it then!"?
> 
> (I was a fundamentalist uber submissive, homeschooling, SAHM, Quiver Full Wife- you know, like the Duggars? Now I am a feminist, single mom who works outside the home)


I think you should read the whole book and then see if you still think there's anything redeeming in there. As someone else pointed out, he could easily go and pull down the old blog posts that I quoted from if he felt they were not his message any more, yet he hasn't. BTW his one post about porn is in opposition to his book where he doesn't suggest anyone hold back. It was like one moment of maturity hit him later because HE notice that HE himself started treating his wife like crap after watching porn. He wrote that one blog about it, but that's it.


----------



## GTdad

jld said:


> And if she just leaves then?
> 
> There is a better way. Seek to understand her and meet her deepest emotional needs. Win her trust.
> 
> Just leaving her is okay, though, too. It allows a more suitable man into her life.


That's pretty gender-specific. What's your position if it's the woman suffering the "intolerable" behavior?

As an aside, this is kind of fun. I'm usually the guy who makes one or two posts in a thread, then gets distracted and wanders off.


----------



## Faithful Wife

This is a quote from Dogbert's thread in mens:

"the problem that women have with the book is they don't understand the audience. It is written to be blunt, to men who don't really understand what men need to be. I am sure it comes off as offensive to them, but really, even if you don't buy any of the evolutionary stuff, the key message is how to change yourself to be a better man."

I'm really tired of this excuse. Please stop telling me (a woman) what my problem is with this book. The key message is whatever someone takes from the book. I can read it as well as anyone else and the key message I get is that Athol feels you must put women down in order to lift yourself up.

That's called bullying.


----------



## norajane

I think any book that pits spouse against spouse, and promotes an adversarial approach to relationships is garbage. One that spews false information about biology and behavior is garbage. One that takes advantage of men who are hurting and foments hurt into anger and hatred is garbage just intended to make money, not help people.

There's no reason that "get fit and don't be a doormat" needs to be wrapped in false information and hate speech except that it makes money for the author by appealing to certain vulnerable men.

There are better books that don't make men feel like women are wired to f*ck them over no matter what, and doesn't require men to work against their women. TAM should be recommending those instead.


----------



## always_alone

samyeagar said:


> We're not? Isn't that the underlying reason marketing, advertising, mass media, works so effectively? Why do you think celebrities have the followings they do...key word there...following? Herds by definition follow...


Well, we are social animals, to be sure. And in some ways our behaviour can be almost as predictable as herds. 

But we're also much more unpredictable. 

Plus evo-psych draws from very different animal behaviours (chimps, chickens, dogs, whatever) in a completely ad hoc way to support its gender stereotypes and biases, completely overlooking the fact that even in the animal world those stereotypes don't hold. In some species, for example, it is a female who will be the alpha of the herd ...


----------



## Brigit

Faithful Wife said:


> I can read it as well as anyone else and the key message I get is that Athol feels you must put women down in order to lift yourself up.
> 
> That's called bullying.


Yep. And it might work for a little while but how long will a woman put up with the abuse? It depends on the woman I suppose.

In any case, I like the guy from "Marriage Builders" his work in rooted in science and compassion and will work in the long run.


----------



## WandaJ

GDdat, you really have no problem with those quoted paragraphs? have your read them or you just having an abstract discussion on apha/betea?


----------



## GTdad

Brigit said:


> In any case, I like the guy from "Marriage Builders" his work in rooted in science and compassion and will work in the long run.


It's a good example of how no relationship book should be taken as Gospel Truth to the exclusion of all other thought, however. While I agree that his work is very good, the Marriage Builders site is full of doctrinaire zealots. And I think both they and the people they attempt to "help" have suffered for it.

Same can be said for the MMSL board, I imagine.

That's why this place is pretty cool.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Brigit said:


> OK. I hate to admit this but in this section he does have a point. I'm 46 but still get my period like clockwork and I have an intuitive sense when I'm ovulating. It's during that time when my interest in contacting the OM (who is ten years younger than me and a very hot bad boy type) spikes. My sexual appetite increases and my body is giving me cues my mind needs to control.
> 
> However, this doesn't dismiss the other hateful crap that he perpetuates.


Brigit...I think it is better if we women talk about our feelings around ovulation than letting a man try to describe us as cheating wh*res.

I know exactly when I'm ovulating, because I'm horny as hell, too.

However, in general terms, there's no time some men are not horny as hell. 

Sex drive is what it is. There's no reason to try to paint us as wicked cheating wh*res when men are subject to the same strong sex drive most of the month...and I don't agree men should be painted as cheating wh*res either.

The only way we are going to see equality in these issues is if we can all simply speak openly and truthfully about our glorious sex drives and stop making it about cheating and meanness.


----------



## Brigit

GTdad said:


> It's a good example of how no relationship book should be taken as Gospel Truth to the exclusion of all other thought, however. While I agree that his work is very good, the Marriage Builders site is full of doctrinaire zealots. And I think both they and the people they attempt to "help" have suffered for it.
> 
> Same can be said for the MMSL board, I imagine.
> 
> That's why this place is pretty cool.


Can you give me an example of what you don't like about "Marriage Buidlers?"


----------



## GTdad

WandaJ said:


> GDdat, you really have no problem with those quoted paragraphs? have your read them or you just having an abstract discussion on apha/betea?


I've already told FW that those passages are terrible, a page or two ago on this thread.

But one of my points is that I'm not clear that this Red Pill business can be defined by what Athol says about it.


----------



## GTdad

Brigit said:


> Can you give me an example of what you don't like about "Marriage Buidlers?"


The book or the board? I don't have a problem with the book.


----------



## Lila

Red pillers like to claim that their philosophy is all based on defining masculinity, and what it means to be a man worthy of respect. If that were true, I'd have no issues with it. The problem is that they define masculinity in relation to femininity. Here's quote from a poster on another forum who nails it. 



> These guys are hung up on women as a figure that is getting in the way of what they want--but they're not clear about what it is that they want. When they can understand what manliness actually is, then they can begin to understand how feminism benefits men. [snip]
> 
> At the end of the day it just seems like these guys are mad at themselves and trying to rationalize their lack of success by blaming the "other". I think empathy can come after first realizing what is wrong with the individual.


----------



## Brigit

Faithful Wife said:


> Brigit...I think it is better if we women talk about our feelings around ovulation than letting a man try to describe us as cheating wh*res.
> 
> I know exactly when I'm ovulating, because I'm horny as hell, too.
> 
> However, in general terms, there's no time some men are not horny as hell.
> 
> Sex drive is what it is. There's no reason to try to paint us as wicked cheating wh*res when men are subject to the same strong sex drive most of the month...and I don't agree men should be painted as cheating wh*res either.
> 
> The only way we are going to see equality in these issues is if we can all simply speak openly and truthfully about our glorious sex drives and stop making it about cheating and meanness.


Those ARE my feelings:

_"It's during that time when my interest in contacting the OM (who is ten years younger than me and a very hot bad boy type) spikes. My sexual appetite increases and my body is giving me cues my mind needs to control." 
_

I don't agree with his sex ranking stuff. It's ridiculous. But some of the stuff he says makes sense to me and I'll admit to it even though the guy creeps me out.


----------



## Brigit

GTdad said:


> The book or the board? I don't have a problem with the book.


Actually, the videos that are posted on his site. "His Needs Her Needs." The ones I saw were very nice.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Honey you don't have to "admit" to it...I've been saying that there are good points in his book and on the blog. 

A lot of people say the same.

A lot of women WANT their man to man up and be more agressive...and MMSL sounds like the right book for that on the surface.

But just because someone can make some good points (that he got from OTHER authors) doesn't mean he isn't also using that information in a dangerous way, meanwhile packaging it all nicely so that people barely notice the sh*t sandwich they are eating.

The point of this post was simply to show Dogbert some of the more offensive crap in the book and blog.

Nothing we say or do here is going to stop MMSL from selling thousands more copies every month and gaining more and more readership.

I'm just speaking out about the mean spirited stuff. I honestly wish it wasn't in there, and there was more of the good stuff. But the book Models by Mark Manson is basically that.


----------



## Pluto2

Brigit said:


> Can you give me an example of what you don't like about "Marriage Buidlers?"


Brigit, personally I couldn't stomach the whole Plan A, Plan B action for dealing with infidelity. I was told to negotiate with a serial cheater to stop contact and nice him back into the marriage. 
Please!
Doesn't work.
Some of the relationship advice may be helpful but that aspect of MB I found intolerable.


----------



## Fozzy

GTdad said:


> It's a good example of how no relationship book should be taken as Gospel Truth to the exclusion of all other thought, however. While I agree that his work is very good, the Marriage Builders site is full of doctrinaire zealots. And I think both they and the people they attempt to "help" have suffered for it.
> 
> Same can be said for the MMSL board, I imagine.
> 
> That's why this place is pretty cool.


Same can be said for the NMMNG board. Loved the book and it helped me a lot, but the board is chock full of a-holes.

Any board that won't tolerate conflicting viewpoints isn't worth the time.


----------



## GTdad

Blonde said:


> JLD, the thread got me to surfing over there a bit. Here is a post that *YOU* could have written (and I happen to agree with you about husbands having a great deal of power) Captain and First Officer When The Marriage is Slamming Into Icebergs | Athol Kay's Married Man Sex Life
> 
> If you or I say it, we get ridiculed. But if demi-god Kay says it, they lap it up unquestioningly :rofl:
> 
> And here is one where he flat out says that as long as the H is getting sex he thinks the M is just fine and all his W's talk is white noise that he tunes out. Among his suggestions: CUT OFF THE SEX! SEPARATE BEDROOMS. Can you just imagine the flak if a woman ever suggested that on TAM? TBH I get a kick out of Kay saying it
> 
> Here's his suggestions How To Fair Warning a Husband That Doesn’t Listen (Before Things Are Too Late To Fix) | Athol Kay's Married Man Sex Life :
> 
> .


Sounds like good advice to me. Where I probably differ from JLD is that the applicability is more broad across gender lines.


----------



## Lila

Blonde said:


> And here is one where he flat out says that as long as the H is getting sex he thinks the M is just fine and all his W's talk is white noise that he tunes out. Among his suggestions: CUT OFF THE SEX! SEPARATE BEDROOMS. Can you just imagine the flak if a woman ever suggested that on TAM? TBH I get a kick out of Kay saying it
> 
> Here's his suggestions Some suggestions….
> 
> (1) Separate the bedrooms.
> 
> (2) Remove your wedding rings.
> 
> (3) Ask him to move out.
> 
> (4) Tell him that you are not in love with him anymore.
> 
> (5) Lock him 100% out of your online presence and communication devices.
> 
> (6) Have either his father or your father tell him you’re on the verge of leaving him. (Authority figure + not a “white noise” female talking)
> 
> (7) *Tell him you are starting to consider sex with other men.*
> 
> (8) ...
> 
> (9) Start running your own MAP and immediately hitting the gym and looking better.
> 
> (10) Investigate your state’s divorce / alimony / child support laws, and figure out the math on what he’d be likely to have to pay, based on a 50/50 custody agreement and non-combative parting of the ways. Give him the number​
> .


Great find Blonde. All I can see is WOW! 

I can imagine the bashing we'd get for suggestion any of those tidbits but especially #7.


----------



## GTdad

Lila said:


> Great find Blonde. All I can see is WOW!
> 
> I can imagine the bashing we'd get for suggestion any of those tidbits but especially #7.


Well, yeah. I think I've railed against that one in the past...

But the point I made to JLD holds true, at least in general: don't tolerate the intolerable.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Lila said:


> Comparing non-monogamy to infidelity is like comparing apples to oranges. Non-monogamy is a relationship designation: forming relationship/love bonds with more than one person. Infidelity involves lies, deceit, and treachery, all of which are wrong and hurtful to others. There _can_ be infidelity in a non-monogamous relationship but choosing to enter into a non-monogamous relationship does not make it cheating.
> 
> *What Athol is implying in his book is that ALL women are natural born cheaters.... not non-monogamous. He states clearly in his book that we're born with a biologically programmed need to cheat in order to obtain the best Alpha genes for our babies.* Meanwhile, he also claims that we are born with an instinctual-like need to find a Beta male we can cuckold into raising our alpha babies. It's the equivalent of me saying that ALL men are natural born cheaters because they have a biological need to "spread his seed'. This is INSANE logic. We are much more evolved than our caveman predecessors.


 I guess I didn't get *THIS* from the book.. I will agree we all have fantasies.. and if the man isn't cutting it at home.. we may look over the fence..what is so wrong with admitting this.. it happens all the damn time... 

And Elegirl is very quick to point out that men cheat even in GOOD marriages... post #47



EleGirl said:


> *Well, a smart woman knows that this is just nonsense. If a guy is going to cheat none of that matters. Men with a good sex life at home cheat all the time.*


Now.. are men & women EQUAL in their non-monogamous ways or are WOMEN BETTER ??? So women NEVER cheat on their loving giving Protector Provider husbands then ...again...many here went to great lengths to prove to me that men & women ARE JUST THE SAME... (Frankly I think MEN cheat more ...because of their higher sex drive but I was told I am wrong)... so I don't see anything wrong with what I posted to prove my point.. 



Faithful Wife said:


> *What is your point here SA? Nothing I've posted here (which was mostly quotes from MMSL) changes anything I said that I posted of my own words on your other thread.* :scratchhead:


 see above.




Faithful Wife said:


> *I have said many times now that there are good points in MMSL and I see those points*. I simply don't agree that those points should ever be wrapped in such mean, hateful language, and I don't understand defending that mean spirited stuff.


 this is a 1st for me.. I have not read a post by you yet that would give the slightest pass to something Athol has said.. I must have missed them ALL.. 



EleGirl said:


> Here is another quotes that says about the same thing......
> 
> "*It is extremely politically incorrect to say so, but all women have a component of slvt in their makeup. The trick is not to fear it, seek to sanction it, or flee it, but to adapt to the presence of the slvt in your woman and harness it for your mutual enjoyment. But if you don't' pay her active attention to account for her slvt influence, you might find that it gets up to all sorts of mischief.*"


 is it possible this could be taken in the light of (which is a good thing)... "*Every man wants a lady in the streets but a SLvt in the bedroom*" (speaking of their wives)...that the husband needs to seek the slvt out in her...because it IS there (but again that is not a bad thing within marriage but a glorious thing!).... maybe we should ask Athol what his *intent* really was..


----------



## Icey181

Athol Kay always struck me as someone who never escaped the gravitational pull of PUA and redirected self-loathing and insecurity.

I think there are some useful kernels of information in his writings and in the Red Pill ideology, but you have to sift through a lot of post-teenager rejection angst and misogyny to get to it. Which is quite frankly exhausting.

The whole "relationships as an adversarial competition in a zero sum game" premise is pretty much where it starts to jump the shark for me.



Faithful Wife; said:


> A lot of women WANT their man to man up and be more agressive...and MMSL sounds like the right book for that on the surface.


And this is where the Red Pill stuff actually helped me.

I am a child of the 80s-90s who grew up surrounded by progressive liberals and feminists who literally taught me throughout grade school and high school that aggressive, masculine men were boorish and that the emotionally available, metro-sexual, "nice guys" were what women wanted.

And like many men I found that despite what I was told, the women in my spheres of experience targeted the masculine and boorish guys for "fun" while they came to me for help with their course work.

Most of the advice I ever received amounted to 1) be yourself, 2) give her what she wants, 3) do not push or be aggressive.

Amazingly enough that stuff does not work all that well for guys like me.

It was actually my mother who hinted and at times directly told me to grow a pair and act more masculine if I wanted attention and success…the Red Pill stuff created a forum for me to get reinforcement for that message.

The issue is that so many of these guys are just so angry that they never leave that place of failure and self-loathing.

Athol Kay is a great example of that.


----------



## GTdad

Anon Pink said:


> Thats the thing. The MMSLP message could be a very good empowering message for The Right Man. But for other men, it is like matches to tinder.
> 
> A man like my H would be able to read it, take the good and leave the stupid. But a man like Blinde's H... Waaaaay too dangerous. This kind of message would take a selfish stupid man and make him a rapey Neanderthal all the while thinking he was doing it right.


Something that occurs to me is that maybe the ire is not directed so much at Athol as much as the dumbasses who might not filter what he has to say. Something like "we need to protect the dumbasses from this sort of thing!"

But despite all of the warnings we put on lawnmowers and ladders, you can't save dumbasses from themselves. I understand the concerns FW has expressed about protecting women from the dumbasses, though.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Blonde, the daughters are already teenagers and no he didn't change the book.

SA, It is pretty clear that you just don't get me and therefore, I don't know why you continue to try. You can ignore my posts rather than misrepresenting me all the time and I would greatly appreciate that, thanks.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

I skimmed this article >> How To Fair Warning a Husband That Doesn’t Listen (Before Things Are Too Late To Fix) | Athol Kay's Married Man Sex Life

Now I am not at bit crazy about what he spoke here.. it's not the reality of how MY HUSBAND IS ....he doesn't fit any of those things.. but are there men who just want Puzzy...and find their wives a consistent chatterbox.. yeah..I've seen posts here speaking just that...."in one ear & out the other"....(gotta feel bad for those wives)



Blonde said:


> JLD, the thread got me to surfing over there a bit. Here is a post that *YOU* could have written (and I happen to agree with you about husbands having a great deal of power) Captain and First Officer When The Marriage is Slamming Into Icebergs | Athol Kay's Married Man Sex Life
> 
> If you or I say it, we get ridiculed. But if demi-god Kay says it, they lap it up unquestioningly :rofl:
> 
> And here is one where he flat out says that as long as the H is getting sex he thinks the M is just fine and all his W's talk is white noise that he tunes out. * Among his suggestions: CUT OFF THE SEX! SEPARATE BEDROOMS. Can you just imagine the flak if a woman ever suggested that on TAM? TBH I get a kick out of Kay saying it *


 So it's something you agree with .. his suggestions to the woman.. I don't have a problem with them at all personally.. And it is very important for our men to listen to us.. that's very darn frustrating if they don't ! It makes us feel less loved and just "USED".


----------



## Blonde

GTdad said:


> Sounds like good advice to me. Where I probably differ from JLD is that the applicability is more broad across gender lines.


Men and woman are different IME

JLD had a thread about Gottman recently (researcher- studies marriages in the laboratory). He finds gender differences (similar to Kay's iceberg post Captain and First Officer When The Marriage is Slamming Into Icebergs | Athol Kay's Married Man Sex Life). 
Women are naturally submissive to their H's and willing to receive their H's influence- even in troubled marriages.

^^Totally lines up with my personal experience

Gottman talks about how important it is for H to receive influence from W. If H is tuning her out like she is white noise, the M is at high risk for D:

This observation led me to formulate the hypothesis that *marriages work to the extent that men accept influence from, share power with women*. Next I applied this to a longitudinal study of 130 nonviolent newlywed couples and found that, amazingly, those in which *the men who did not accept influence from their wives wound up divorced. The prediction rate was very good, 80% accuracy*. *and it did not work the other way around: Most wives accepted influence from their husbands, and the acceptance predicted nothing.*
(Gottman, John “The Marriage Clinic” page 52 )​


----------



## Lila

GTdad said:


> Well, yeah. I think I've railed against that one in the past...
> 
> But the point I made to JLD holds true, at least in general: don't tolerate the intolerable.


I agree with you GTdad and appreciate that you're a strong voice against that sort of advice with both women AND men (no double standard). 

Kay does advise #7 in MMSLP and I've also seen it advised here....a lot. Put a wife on notice that she can and will be replaced whenever the sex starts to decline. It's part of the almighty dread game he promotes. 

The biggest issue with dread game is that the only reason the wife is having sex with her spouse is out of fear of loss. Talk about making a wife feeling like a bunch of holes to be used for his gratification.


----------



## GTdad

Blonde said:


> Men and woman are different IME
> 
> JLD had a thread about Gottman recently (researcher- studies marriages in the laboratory). He finds gender differences (similar to Kay's iceberg post Captain and First Officer When The Marriage is Slamming Into Icebergs | Athol Kay's Married Man Sex Life).
> Women are naturally submissive to their H's and willing to receive their H's influence- even in troubled marriages.
> 
> ^^Totally lines up with my personal experience
> 
> Gottman talks about how important it is for H to receive influence from W. If H is tuning her out like she is white noise, the M is at high risk for D:
> 
> This observation led me to formulate the hypothesis that *marriages work to the extent that men accept influence from, share power with women*. Next I applied this to a longitudinal study of 130 nonviolent newlywed couples and found that, amazingly, those in which *the men who did not accept influence from their wives wound up divorced. The prediction rate was very good, 80% accuracy*. *and it did not work the other way around: Most wives accepted influence from their husbands, and the acceptance predicted nothing.*
> (Gottman, John “The Marriage Clinic” page 52 )​


Don't disagree. I think it's entirely possible that I accepted too much influence from my wife, or perhaps more accurately misinterpreted that influence and missed the mark in trying to help her find happiness.

The problem we have now is that my wife says she wants me to set the pace in our relationship, to exercise a leadership role, but has trouble accepting that leadership. We're still navigating our comfort levels and pushing those levels to the extent we can. Married for 31 years and we're still working to figure all of this stuff out.


----------



## Brigit

Lila said:


> The biggest issue with dread game is that the only reason the wife is having sex with her spouse is out of fear of loss. Talk about making a wife feeling like a bunch of holes to be used for his gratification.


Yep. And that's why his stuff is ridiculous. He throws some interesting and logical information into his blog which gives it a sense of legitimacy. 

But-

Putting a woman "on notice that she can be replaced at anytime" isn't love. It's abuse. Also, it's a dangerous game to play. You get a fragile woman at the wrong time and instill fear, she might snap. Maybe she'll hurt herself...maybe she'll hurt you. Not a good game.


----------



## GTdad

Brigit said:


> Yep. And that's why his stuff is ridiculous. He throws some interesting and logical information into his blog which gives it a sense of legitimacy.
> 
> But-
> 
> Putting a woman "on notice that she can be replaced at anytime" isn't love. It's abuse. Also, it's a dangerous game to play. You get a fragile woman at the wrong time and instill fear, she might snap. Maybe she'll hurt herself...maybe she'll hurt you. Not a good game.


Same with his advice to women to tell their husbands that they're thinking about other men. You're right, it's a very dangerous game. I would react pretty badly to that, as I imagine most men would.

But try this one on for size: I think it's a valuable dynamic for the "lazy" spouse in the relationship (as I was, and whether we're talking emotionally, sexually, or whatever) to come to that realization on their own. "If I don't get my act together, I can be replaced by someone better."

Fear may not be the greatest place from which to find motivation, but it can be a pretty good motivator nonetheless.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Brigit said:


> Y
> 
> Putting a woman "on notice that she can be replaced at anytime" isn't love. It's abuse. Also, it's a dangerous game to play. You get a fragile woman at the wrong time and instill fear, she might snap. Maybe she'll hurt herself...maybe she'll hurt you. Not a good game.


:iagree:
Or she may down the road gain some self confidence and lose any respect they had for their husband.


----------



## Icey181

Brigit said:


> Yep. And that's why his stuff is ridiculous. He throws some interesting and logical information into his blog which gives it a sense of legitimacy.
> 
> But-
> 
> Putting a woman "on notice that she can be replaced at anytime" isn't love. It's abuse. Also, it's a dangerous game to play. You get a fragile woman at the wrong time and instill fear, she might snap. Maybe she'll hurt herself...maybe she'll hurt you. Not a good game.


Have to disagree, in part, on this.

The whole "Dread Game" stuff tends to be caricatured badly by both sides of the discussion.

Most of it is _not_ the overt threat that a SO will be replaced if they do not provide X amount of sex at Y frequency.

From reading a considerable amount of Red Pill blogs Dread actually amounts to a man (directed at men, but it applies equally as well to women I think) demonstrating independent value and confidence.

It tends to begin with basic items: leave the house for 1-2 hours when your SO is home, establish independent hobbies, and work out.

The theory being that you need to establish that your happiness is not actually dependent upon your SO but instead is augmented by it. 

And the notion that your SO is somehow not replaceable is strange to me.

Dread basically boils down to establishing a sense of self-worth and deciding what it is you want from a relationship.

It shows up on TAM in a variety of different ways just about every day.

It is the Nuclear Dread stuff that people are usually referring to that is borderline to overt emotional manipulation.


----------



## NobodySpecial

GTdad said:


> Same with his advice to women to tell their husbands that they're thinking about other men. You're right, it's a very dangerous game. I would react pretty badly to that, as I imagine most men would.


I don't really understand this. Do people expect that their spouse DOESN'T think about banging other people? And if we already know it, what is wrong with saying so?


----------



## Lila

Icey181 said:


> Have to disagree, in part, on this.
> 
> The whole "Dread Game" stuff tends to be caricatured badly by both sides of the discussion.
> 
> Most of it is _not_ the overt threat that a SO will be replaced if they do not provide X amount of sex at Y frequency.
> 
> From reading a considerable amount of Red Pill blogs Dread actually amounts to a man (directed at men, but it applies equally as well to women I think) demonstrating independent value and confidence.
> 
> It tends to begin with basic items: leave the house for 1-2 hours when your SO is home, establish independent hobbies, and work out.
> 
> The theory being that you need to establish that your happiness is not actually dependent upon your SO but instead is augmented by it.
> 
> And the notion that your SO is somehow not replaceable is strange to me.
> 
> Dread basically boils down to establishing a sense of self-worth and deciding what it is you want from a relationship.
> 
> It shows up on TAM in a variety of different ways just about every day.
> 
> It is the Nuclear Dread stuff that people are usually referring to that is borderline to overt emotional manipulation.


The definition of dread game that I've seen on RP blog sites looks very much like that described by Kay himself on link posted by FW below:



Faithful Wife said:


> Another blog post:
> 
> Dreadcake Game or Baked Goods Seduction | Athol Kay's Married Man Sex Life
> 
> More nastiness:
> 
> Something from the dark side to induce a little dread…
> 
> Anytime: Buy an odd plate at the dollar store or consignment shop.
> 
> Sunday: Find and visit a church bake sale, or fair, that has homemade baked goods.
> 
> Monday: Place “partially consumed” baked goods on the odd plate, cover with cling-wrap.
> 
> Come home from work with plate of baked goods.
> 
> Say that the new girl at work gave them to you. Well she offered it to everyone, but she gave the plate to you. She’s a temp or something. Cute.
> 
> Act like you have no idea that a woman giving you baked goods is an Indicator of Interest.
> 
> Watch your wife’s Rationalization Hamster become fully nourished on the baked goods…
> 
> Your Defense: It’s just freaking BANANA BREAD! What’s wrong with you?


Every dread game tactic I've ever read involves either faking interest (i.e. baked goods example above), or instigating it by purposely making your spouse think through dress, unaccounted time away, new hobbies, or open flirtations that a man/woman has something going on on the side.

The only thing I can say about dread game is 'know thy audience'. Some women may fall for it and others, like myself, may see it as invitation to play our own dread games as well. I can tell you from experience, it isn't fun being on the receiving end of dread games.


----------



## GTdad

NobodySpecial said:


> I don't really understand this. Do people expect that their spouse DOESN'T think about banging other people? And if we already know it, what is wrong with saying so?


We know the Chinese have nukes, at least in good part aimed at us. That's a given and everyone understands that. If Beijing were to say to us this afternoon that they're seriously thinking about launching them at us, it's a whole new ball game.

To me it's also akin to my wife telling me she's seriously considering knifing me in my sleep. It's a nuclear threat: "start doing something different or I'm going to f*ck Bob."

People respond poorly to expressed threats. Justifiably so.


----------



## Brigit

GTdad said:


> Same with his advice to women to tell their husbands that they're thinking about other men. You're right, it's a very dangerous game. I would react pretty badly to that, as I imagine most men would.
> 
> But try this one on for size: I think it's a valuable dynamic for the "lazy" spouse in the relationship (as I was, and whether we're talking emotionally, sexually, or whatever) to come to that realization on their own. "If I don't get my act together, I can be replaced by someone better."
> 
> Fear may not be the greatest place from which to find motivation, but it can be a pretty good motivator nonetheless.


I agree. Fear is a great motivator. But his tactics are stupid. Instead do something like this: Sit down with your spouse and speak from the heart and say:

"Look, I really can't deal with this sexless marriage. It's making me depressed. I haven't cheated on you but to be honest I do think about it." 

Then you give your spouse a chance to make things better. If he/she doesn't then you take things a step further.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Here's my response to red pill plans, women, take note and use your skills wisely:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UX2afsTqFI

(this is meant to be a joke...but it is also true)


----------



## Pluto2

Lila said:


> The definition of dread game that I've seen on RP blog sites looks very much like that described by Kay himself on link posted by FW below:
> 
> 
> 
> Every dread game tactic I've ever read involves either faking interest (i.e. baked goods example above), or instigating it by purposely making your spouse think through dress, unaccounted time away, new hobbies, or open flirtations that a man/woman has something going on on the side.
> 
> The only thing I can say about dread game is 'know thy audience'. Some women may fall for it and others, like myself, may see it as invitation to play our own dread games as well. I can tell you from experience, it isn't fun being on the receiving end of dread games.​




I suppose it depends on your point of view, but to me this dread game stuff is a bunch of lies and manipulation. I don't respond well to those tactics and would toss any man out of my life who attempted such immature games with my heart.​


----------



## jld

GTdad said:


> That's pretty gender-specific. What's your position if it's the woman suffering the "intolerable" behavior?
> 
> As an aside, this is kind of fun. I'm usually the guy who makes one or two posts in a thread, then gets distracted and wanders off.


Leave him. Men tend to resist the influence of women, according to Gottman's research. Makes them hard to deal with.


----------



## GTdad

jld said:


> Leave him.


And not try to understand him?


----------



## samyeagar

The whole reason why things like marriage counselling works in large part is because there are certain patterns, behaviors and traits that are common enough to be recognized, and strategies have been developed to deal with them. It's because, as a population, men and women can on certain levels be painted with broad brush strokes. What makes the therapist valuable is that they have been trained to pick out the nuances of the individual within the context of the general. To know what to apply, and when and how to apply it. Most of us do not have a problem with the therapy concept, because in large part, it works for the positive.

The whole PUA, and red pill crap uses the same process, often with the same data sets. It identifies patterns, behaviors, and traits that are common, uses a broad brush, and identifies strategies to exploit those commonalities for their own gain.

At it's core, the only real difference is one of intent, one for good, one for gain.


----------



## GTdad

Brigit said:


> I agree. Fear is a great motivator. But his tactics are stupid. Instead do something like this: Sit down with your spouse and speak from the heart and say:
> 
> "Look, I really can't deal with this sexless marriage. It's making me depressed. I haven't cheated on you but to be honest I do think about it."
> 
> Then you give your spouse a chance to make things better. If he/she doesn't then you take things a step further.


So on this point you're arguing that Athol has a point and I'm arguing that he's full of crap? 

Nothing too straight-foward about some of this stuff.


----------



## Lila

Pluto2 said:


> I suppose it depends on your point of view, but to me this dread game stuff is a bunch of lies and manipulation. I don't respond well to those tactics and would toss any man out of my life who attempted such immature games with my heart.


My post may not have explained it well, but I completely agree with you. Dread games are manipulation tactics plain and simple. The only difference is that I'm a huge b!tch when I'm p!ssed and so when the games were played on me, I decided to give it back in an epic way. Nothing like giving someone a taste of their own bitter medicine.....laced with arsenic 

I really just wanted to make the point that this 



> "From reading a considerable amount of Red Pill blogs Dread actually amounts to a man (directed at men, but it applies equally as well to women I think) demonstrating independent value and confidence."


is not what I, and most other women, know to be dread games. It's not something as innocuous as "demonstrative independent value and confidence".....it's lying and manipulative.


----------



## Icey181

Lila said:


> The definition of dread game that I've seen on RP blog sites looks very much like that described by Kay himself on link posted by FW below:
> 
> Every dread game tactic I've ever read involves either faking interest (i.e. baked goods example above), or instigating it by purposely making your spouse think through dress, unaccounted time away, new hobbies, or open flirtations that a man/woman has something going on on the side.
> 
> The only thing I can say about dread game is 'know thy audience'. Some women may fall for it and others, like myself, may see it as invitation to play our own dread games as well. I can tell you from experience, it isn't fun being on the receiving end of dread games.


You are conflating a stage of dread, and a rather late and radical stage at that, for the entire theory.

Here is what I consider a more complete definition of "Dread Game" from the r/RedPill people:
The 12 Levels of Dread: "The Rules" for any Long Term Relationship : TheRedPill

Summarized:
1) Pass *** tests [Do not be a doormat]
2) Develop an Action Plan [Personal Growth, primarily fitness]
3) Independent Life [Develop Independent Interests and Gain Satisfaction from them]
4) Condition Availability [Set Ground Rules for Interaction]
5) "Suit Up!" [Look Masculine and Seduce your Wife]
6) Relationship PUA [Directed _at your wife_]
7) Extra-Marital PUA [Start "experimenting" with other women to see if you can do it]
8) Create Jealously [Flirt with other women in front of your wife]
9) Conversation ["The Talk" in r/DeadBedroom lingo]
10) Ultimatum [Basically, make clear your deal breaker here]
11) Mistress [Cheat on your wife in secret]
12) Openly Cheat

Stages 1-6 are directed at self-improvement and creating personal worth and attraction with your wife.

Stages 7-10 are where we get to extreme dread in which you have individuals beginning to mix good stuff (conversations and "The Talk") with the PUA-crap.

Stages 11-12 are Nuclear Dread. And quite frankly…wth is the point if you get here? I see this as a violation of stages 9-10.

The weird stuff Kay is talking about with the fake-cookie plate falls under the extremes of Stage 7/8.

Honestly, if you get to that point the relationship is basically over anyways, and that is what the Red Pill boys do not realize.


----------



## Brigit

In the end I think the biggest predictor of how one functions in a marriage is how they were raised. If your parents had a dysfunctional marriage this is what you saw as a child and you unknowingly or sometimes knowingly model that behavior. Intellectualization on relationships is what we seem to be doing here. But when push comes to shove your instincts kick in.


----------



## Pluto2

Lila said:


> My post may not have explained it well, but I completely agree with you. Dread games are manipulation tactics plain and simple. The only difference is that I'm a huge b!tch when I'm p!ssed and so when the games were played on me, I decided to give it back in an epic way. Nothing like giving someone a taste of their own bitter medicine.....laced with arsenic
> 
> I really just wanted to make the point that this
> 
> 
> 
> is not what I, and most other women, know to be dread games. It's not something as innocuous as "demonstrative independent value and confidence".....it's lying and manipulative.


Oh I agree with you on most of this.
Except its never been my style to get "even" with a wrongdoer. It just seems to be so much tit-for-tat, score-keeping blah, blah. Life is too short for that.


----------



## jld

GTdad said:


> And not try to understand him?


I think women tend to bend over backwards to understand men. If she is at a point where she knows he will not accept influence, and she knows her influence is correct, I think she needs to think about leaving. He has lost her trust.

I do think it is different with men. I think they have a much better chance of putting a marriage back together, for the reason Blonde mentioned: women tend to accept the influence of men (Gottman's research finding).


----------



## Brigit

GTdad said:


> So on this point you're arguing that Athol has a point and I'm arguing that he's full of crap?
> 
> Nothing too straight-foward about some of this stuff.


He's still full of crap but just spices it up with non-crap to make things confusing.


----------



## naiveonedave

Faithful Wife said:


> This is a quote from Dogbert's thread in mens:
> 
> "the problem that women have with the book is they don't understand the audience. It is written to be blunt, to men who don't really understand what men need to be. I am sure it comes off as offensive to them, but really, even if you don't buy any of the evolutionary stuff, the key message is how to change yourself to be a better man."
> 
> I'm really tired of this excuse. Please stop telling me (a woman) what my problem is with this book. The key message is whatever someone takes from the book. I can read it as well as anyone else and the key message I get is that Athol feels you must put women down in order to lift yourself up.
> 
> That's called bullying.


since you quoted me, I will call you out on this. He writes in a style that is a 2x4 for men. He flat out states he is offensive to many women readers because he is using a 2x4. It is not bullying, you are missing the point, entirely. Crude - yes. You ever listened to a group of men, most of us are crude. Are his evo views extreme - yes. He is using them to make a 2x4 point on his readers. AND the stuff works for the right set of men, which right now is a lot of them.


----------



## GTdad

jld said:


> I think women tend to bend over backwards to understand men. If she is at a point where she knows he will not accept influence, and she knows her influence is correct, I think she needs to think about leaving. He has lost her trust.
> 
> I do think it is different with men. I think they have a much better chance of putting a marriage back together, for the reason Blonde mentioned: women tend to accept the influence of men (Gottman's research finding).


I think you and I hit an impasse on gender roles a long time ago. In your view, as I understand it, when a woman's behavior is intolerable, the man should seek to understand her, reestablish trust, or let her go to be with a man who does understand her. When a man's behavior is intolerable, she should leave because he "won't accept her influence".

I don't know about Gottman, but that strikes me as being nearly as crazy-making as anything Athol has to say.


----------



## Icey181

Yup...Double Post...Gone


----------



## naiveonedave

Brigit said:


> Yep. And it might work for a little while but how long will a woman put up with the abuse? It depends on the woman I suppose.


AK actually specifically talks about not using his stuff to bully or manipulate. It is there to show what women want and how a man needs to change to be a better man. If there is abuse, the man didn't read the book.


----------



## chillymorn

I just want to say both sexes use theses game to manipulate each other. Its been going on forever.

there are masters at it on both sides of the gender pool. and there are clueless people on both sides and everything in-between.

But it only works or works really well if a master is doing it to some one who is clueless.

the in betweens use it in moderation as kind $hit tests. 

If you want to manipulate anybody ever then in my book you are an unethical/moral person and I for one try to distance my self from such people. 


refer to the golden rule.

it always keeps me in check.


----------



## jld

GTdad said:


> I think you and I hit an impasse on gender roles a long time ago. In your view, as I understand it, when a woman's behavior is intolerable, the man should seek to understand her, reestablish trust, or let her go to be with a man who does understand her. When a man's behavior is intolerable, she should leave because he "won't accept her influence".
> 
> I don't know about Gottman, but that strikes me as being nearly as crazy-making as anything Athol has to say.


It's backed up by research, the influencing part anyway.

I am not a patient woman, GTdad. I would not want to waste my time with someone who could not accept my influence, too. I have good ideas in marriage, too, not just him.


----------



## Faithful Wife

naiveonedave said:


> since you quoted me, I will call you out on this. He writes in a style that is a 2x4 for men. He flat out states he is offensive to many women readers because he is using a 2x4. It is not bullying, you are missing the point, entirely. Crude - yes. You ever listened to a group of men, most of us are crude. Are his evo views extreme - yes. He is using them to make a 2x4 point on his readers. AND the stuff works for the right set of men, which right now is a lot of them.


I'm not missing the point. I get his point quite well.

Can you say you'd be happy if women were sending a book around to each other that tells them how to manipulate men since they are just penises with wallets who can be controlled by their boners?


----------



## Faithful Wife

chillymorn said:


> If you want to manipulate anybody ever then in my book you are an unethical/moral person and I for one try to distance my self from such people.


Oh good then you are against MMSL and distance yourself from those who promote it.


----------



## Brigit

chillymorn said:


> I just want to say both sexes use theses game to manipulate each other. Its been going on forever.
> 
> there are masters at it on both sides of the gender pool. and there are clueless people on both sides and everything in-between.
> 
> But it only works or works really well if a master is doing it to some one who is clueless.
> 
> the in betweens use it in moderation as kind $hit tests.
> 
> If you want to manipulate anybody ever then in my book you are an unethical/moral person and I for one try to distance my self from such people.
> 
> 
> refer to the golden rule.
> 
> it always keeps me in check.


Actually, it's pretty sad that anyone has to resort to this type of stuff. People go to great lengths to pair up and once they do they don't know how to handle the relationship. I for one have no good answers. I watched my mom go through a messy divorce with my dad and felt like a pull toy. It sucked.

Maybe marriage shouldn't be this hard or confusing? I don't want to go through my whole life analyzing everything I do or my husband does. Seems like a huge waste of time. 

Think less. Feel more.


----------



## naiveonedave

Faithful Wife said:


> I'm not missing the point. I get his point quite well.
> 
> Can you say you'd be happy if women were sending a book around to each other that tells them how to manipulate men since they are just penises with wallets who can be controlled by their boners?


however, that isn't at all what he is saying. He is saying that if you want a woman, you better be a man. The bio/evo stuff is used to prove his points and is over the top. What did his book tell me to do:
* work out more
* lead more
* discipline kids more
* listen to the W actively

Pretty much check/check/check/check - I assume you are okay with what I did? Nothing I should undo? If my marriage kept going on the same trajectory as when I started fixing my issues, I would be D for sure by now. BUT.... It worked.

The AK for women would be: 
* don't nag
* get in shape
* make sure you are heard
probably more but too tired to argue about it now.


----------



## chillymorn

Faithful Wife said:


> Oh good then you are against MMSL and distance yourself from those who promote it.


and against cosmopolitan etc etc etc, and anyone who suggests manipulation of any kind. 


But I think your protest of this particular material is interesting it boarders on obsessed about it. Like you feel your saving innocent little girls from being taken advantaged of.


as with my post before BOTH genders do this $hit equally.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

naiveonedave said:


> however, that isn't at all what he is saying. He is saying that if you want a woman, you better be a man. .


I don't see how it's manly to bring home a plate of cookies you bought and say they were from a co-worker. That screams weak, sad little boy to me. 

Or even when your wife is giving her all and being more than fair in sex, saying you will cheat if she doesn't break her boundries for you. Weak. (and I think there is a time and place to mention vulnerability to cheating in a marriage. That is not it)

Trying to isolation scare a woman so she feels more submissive? Weak. 

Feeling like if your wife isn't topped up with semen she will go cheat and having to watch her like a hawk all day? Weak.

Strong, confident men wouldn't do these kinds of things.

I'm glad that some men like you managed to pull some actual advice out of this crap but you could have gotten that advice (to pay more attention to your wife, self, home and kids) from a hundred different ways that aren't so disturbing.


----------



## Faithful Wife

naiveonedave said:


> The AK for women would be:
> * don't nag
> * get in shape
> * make sure you are heard
> probably more but too tired to argue about it now.


The equivalent to advice for women, based on what Athol thinks of women would be:

*bag the richest man you can

*cheat with the hottest man you can

*lie to both men (or however many there are) and sleep with other randos when you are ovulating

*get babies from the best of the clan of dudes you are screwing via sperm warfare

*if caught, who cares? move on to the next chump.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Brigit said:


> Only a totally nerdy, sexually frustrated, angry, creepy, dude would come up with something this bizarre. I think he hates beautiful women.


While I disagree with this particular tactic because it is a falsehood, I agree with it's intent. If a woman is being distant from you, it can be beneficial as a last resort for her to be aware that other women may be interested. Again, as a last resort, upset her security. That is to say, if he's unhappy, she stands to lose her security. She isn't his only option.

This isn't to condone or imply cheating, but rather signal that he's not desperately clinging to her. If this relationship isn't working for him maybe it should end - because there are other interested women.


----------



## Faithful Wife

chillymorn said:


> and against cosmopolitan etc etc etc, and anyone who suggests manipulation of any kind.
> 
> 
> But I think your protest of this particular material is interesting it boarders on obsessed about it. Like you feel your saving innocent little girls from being taken advantaged of.
> 
> 
> as with my post before BOTH genders do this $hit equally.


Did you know there are entire blogs devoted to making fun of the red pill crap, and warning women against it, because of the date rape that is promoted?

You may see me as "obsessed" about it, that's fine. In reality I'm on the very low end of people who hate the red pill message. The reason I spout off about it here is because MMSL is suggested to every man here, and I don't see any equivalent hateful book suggested to every woman here. Therefore here at TAM, yes I am a vigilante against the crap.

Sue me.


----------



## bandit.45

You women need to shut the fvck up.... and one of you go fix me a sandwich.


----------



## chillymorn

serious questions to the women who are so adamant about this.

Are you saying there aren't women who act just like the mmsl indicates? Because if you are just take a stroll over to cwi and read some stories there.

just because you particular women are not like that doesn't mean there aren't a bunch that are.


----------



## jld

bandit.45 said:


> You women need to shut the fvck up.... and one of you go fix me a sandwich.


I don't think that's funny.


----------



## Icey181

Ok, so I just realized TAM thinks my posts were BOT-posts, so hopefully this shows up and is not double-posted :scratchhead:



Lila said:


> The definition of dread game that I've seen on RP blog sites looks very much like that described by Kay himself on link posted by FW below:
> 
> Every dread game tactic I've ever read involves either faking interest (i.e. baked goods example above), or instigating it by purposely making your spouse think through dress, unaccounted time away, new hobbies, or open flirtations that a man/woman has something going on on the side.
> 
> The only thing I can say about dread game is 'know thy audience'. Some women may fall for it and others, like myself, may see it as invitation to play our own dread games as well. I can tell you from experience, it isn't fun being on the receiving end of dread games.


You are conflating a stage of dread, and a rather late and radical stage at that, for the entire theory.

Here is what I consider a more complete definition of "Dread Game" from the r/RedPill people:
The 12 Levels of Dread: "The Rules" for any Long Term Relationship : TheRedPill

Summarized:
1) Pass *** tests [Do not be a doormat]
2) Develop an Action Plan [Personal Growth, primarily fitness]
3) Independent Life [Develop Independent Interests and Gain Satisfaction from them]
4) Condition Availability [Set Ground Rules for Interaction]
5) "Suit Up!" [Look Masculine and Seduce your Wife]
6) Relationship PUA [Directed _at your wife_]
7) Extra-Marital PUA [Start "experimenting" with other women to see if you can do it]
8) Create Jealously [Flirt with other women in front of your wife]
9) Conversation ["The Talk" in r/DeadBedroom lingo]
10) Ultimatum [Basically, make clear your deal breaker here]
11) Mistress [Cheat on your wife in secret]
12) Openly Cheat

Stages 1-6 are directed at self-improvement and creating personal worth and attraction with your wife.

Stages 7-10 are where we get to extreme dread in which you have individuals beginning to mix good stuff (conversations and "The Talk") with the PUA-crap.

Stages 11-12 are Nuclear Dread. And quite frankly…wth is the point if you get here? I see this as a violation of stages 9-10.

The weird stuff Kay is talking about with the fake-cookie plate falls under the extremes of Stage 7/8.

Honestly, if you get to that point the relationship is basically over anyways, and that is what the Red Pill boys do not realize.


----------



## Brigit

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> While I disagree with this particular tactic because it is a falsehood, I agree with it's intent. If a woman is being distant from you, it can be beneficial as a last resort for her to be aware that other women may be interested. Again, as a last resort, upset her security. That is to say, if he's unhappy, she stands to lose her security. She isn't his only option.
> 
> This isn't to condone or imply cheating, but rather signal that he's not desperately clinging to her. If this relationship isn't working for him maybe it should end - because there are other interested women.


I understand your point. It's the longevity of this knowledge that I question. Sure, the woman might think "Wow, I can lose everything and another woman will step right in and take my place." This might make her stay a little longer. Or, maybe it will just make her a little sneaky and she might think about getting plan B into place. 

Tricks are for kids.


----------



## naiveonedave

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I don't see how it's manly to bring home a plate of cookies you bought and say they were from a co-worker. That screams weak, sad little boy to me.
> 
> Or even when your wife is giving her all and being more than fair in sex, saying you will cheat if she doesn't break her boundries for you. Weak. (and I think there is a time and place to mention vulnerability to cheating in a marriage. That is not it)
> 
> Trying to isolation scare a woman so she feels more submissive? Weak.
> 
> Feeling like if your wife isn't topped up with semen she will go cheat and having to watch her like a hawk all day? Weak.
> 
> Strong, confident men wouldn't do these kinds of things.
> 
> I'm glad that some men like you managed to pull some actual advice out of this crap but you could have gotten that advice (to pay more attention to your wife, self, home and kids) from a hundred different ways that aren't so disturbing.


nah, you are missing the message by not dodging the 2x4. I got none of what you wrote out of the book.


----------



## Brigit

jld said:


> I don't think that's funny.


I thought it was a riot.


----------



## jld

Brigit said:


> I thought it was a riot.


Why?


----------



## chillymorn

Faithful Wife said:


> Did you know there are entire blogs devoted to making fun of the red pill crap, and warning women against it, because of the date rape that is promoted?
> 
> You may see me as "obsessed" about it, that's fine. In reality I'm on the very low end of people who hate the red pill message. The reason I spout off about it here is because MMSL is suggested to every man here, and I don't see any equivalent hateful book suggested to every woman here. Therefore here at TAM, yes I am a vigilante against the crap.
> 
> Sue me.


Just did a quick google search on how to manipulate your husband.............. I think there are just as many places that show women how to be manipulative as there are for men.


----------



## bandit.45

jld said:


> I don't think that's funny.


You never think anything is funny. Lighten up.


----------



## naiveonedave

Faithful Wife said:


> The equivalent to advice for women, based on what Athol thinks of women would be:
> 
> *bag the richest man you can
> 
> *cheat with the hottest man you can
> 
> *lie to both men (or however many there are) and sleep with other randos when you are ovulating
> 
> *get babies from the best of the clan of dudes you are screwing via sperm warfare
> 
> *if caught, who cares? move on to the next chump.


wow - you really didn't read the book. He clearly advocates to NOT CHEAT. He clearly blames most marriages failing on the man. He does not advocate lying. Where on gawds earth do you get that?

He does say and I somewhat agree, that if you are a good husband and you fix your side of the street, but are not getting anything out of your M, you picked bad and should D.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

I don't really get the accusation that Athol thinks women are cheating wh*res. There is a distinct separation between what Athol believes are biological imperatives and conscious behavior. It is offered by Athol and even a variety of behavioral scientists as a possible explanation for certain contradictory behavior in human mating. ie there is not one operating system at work here, there are at least two, and they sometimes disagree, with a third layer existing to "imagine" consistency.

It is not some declaration of women as inherently evil cheating wh*res, as evil implies conscious decision. Hence what he calls the rationalization hamster - which like any rationalization, only serves to reconcile contradictions of thought. Such as inventing reasons to not like your husband/wife or disconnect, because you're subconsciously interested in someone else (real or imagined), perhaps because of a biological imperative.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

chillymorn said:


> serious questions to the women who are so adamant about this.
> 
> Are you saying there aren't women who act just like the mmsl indicates? Because if you are just take a stroll over to cwi and read some stories there.
> 
> just because you particular women are not like that doesn't mean there aren't a bunch that are.


Are there women who will cheat? Of course. 

Is it because her husband didn't force/scare her into breaking her sexual boundries, f* her like she's "rented" without giving a crap about how she feels about it, go off course in a car to panic her into submission, or fill her up with daily sperm? No. 

You don't beat down women to prevent cheating.

IMO that would make a woman much more likely to cheat as soon as any man who could even fake actually giving a crap about her paid some attention.


----------



## jld

bandit.45 said:


> You never think anything is funny. Lighten up.


So that's your justification for a disrespectful, sexist "joke?"


----------



## Brigit

jld said:


> Why?


Because we are going round and round in circles talking about the same stuff it's getting silly. So Bandit made a joke. 

All this talk about pills and I'm getting a headache. I'm going to take a couple of Advils...I think they're brown.


----------



## happy as a clam

Brigit said:


> I thought it was a riot.





jld said:


> Why?


Because sometimes stereotypes ARE funny! That's why The Flintstones are funny... Wilma always saying, "Oh, FRED!" It's why "I Love Lucy" is hilarious. It's why "Everybody Loves Raymond" and "King of Queens" are so d*mn funny. And "All in the Family", "Good Times", and "The Jeffersons."

Once in awhile, you just have to laugh at life, and at YOURSELF.


----------



## naiveonedave

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Are there women who will cheat? Of course.
> 
> Is it because her husband didn't force/scare her into breaking her sexual boundries, f* her like she's "rented" without giving a crap about how she feels about it, go off course in a car to panic her into submission, or fill her up with daily sperm? No.
> 
> You don't beat down women to prevent cheating.
> 
> IMO that would make a woman much more likely to cheat as soon as any man who could even fake actually giving a crap about her paid some attention.


No where does AK tell men to beat down a woman. Where do you get that cr*p?

A spouse can do stuff to minimize the chance of having a cheating spouse. Regular sex is one of those things. As is being a good man or a good woman in the relationship.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

naiveonedave said:


> nah, you are missing the message by not dodging the 2x4. I got none of what you wrote out of the book.


Then you had to overlook a lot to get what you ended up getting from it. 

If a book says "men are stupid and like children and if you give them a little treat now and then you can make them do anything" and a woman came on and said "Wow, what I got from that was to fulfill my husbands sexual needs in order for him to be more open to meeting mine" it's a pretty crappy way of getting information, no?


----------



## jld

happy as a clam said:


> Because sometimes stereotypes ARE funny! That's why The Flintstones are funny... Wilma always saying, "Oh, FRED!" It's why "I Love Lucy" is hilarious. It's why "Everybody Loves Raymond" and "King of Queens" are so d*mn funny. And "All in the Family", "Good Times", and "The Jeffersons."
> 
> Once in awhile, you just have to laugh at life, and at YOURSELF.


Okay, but in the context of this conversation, where some people are sensitive about the issue, I think it was out of place.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

bandit.45 said:


> You never think anything is funny. Lighten up.


^ That's getting a little close to gaslighting IMO.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Brigit said:


> I understand your point. It's the longevity of this knowledge that I question. Sure, the woman might think "Wow, I can lose everything and another woman will step right in and take my place." This might make her stay a little longer. Or, maybe it will just make her a little sneaky and she might think about getting plan B into place.
> 
> Tricks are for kids.


Like most things PUA related, there is a time and a place and a shelf life. It can be a big assist in picking someone up and creating a lot of up front interest, but if there's nothing more to you it won't last. PUA is marketing. Nobody can make the product, an actual person, better but that person. But the other side of the coin is that even the best product is likely to go unnoticed with poor marketing.

Absolutely a woman may respond that way. MMSL doesn't believe every relationship should work. If she's not sweating losing him in spite of her negligence and evidence that he has options -real danger she is in fact encouraging, or even goes so far as to get plan B, then that's a sure fire sign it's past time to move on.

MMSL isn't about fixing relationships that shouldn't be. It's about fixing behaviors of his that often play into her disinterest. He may have gotten stale, he may not be physically taking care of himself, maybe he defers to her too often... whatever it is, he's lost the edge he had while single. Everything in MMSL is about getting a guy past the sense that his wife (or women in general) is just not sexual (hence the "guy speak" of saying women all have inner sl*ts), and to rebuild his sense of self and edge.

If she remains disinterested, then it has set him up nicely with self-care, interests and attitude for being single again and finding a better woman. It isn't a fix all. It's a fix or end, and much of it is last resort. This will either provoke her to actually try (fear of loss can often induce change - as we often relate here to people being strung along by cheating partners - it usually doesn't end until the threat of divorce is made real), or be a final notice to him that she's not worth keeping.


----------



## GTdad

jld said:


> Okay, but in the context of this conversation, where some people are sensitive about the issue, I think it was out of place.


My comment about "keeping the *****es in their place" on a similar thread fell pretty flat yesterday.

Sometimes we just like to live dangerously.


----------



## jld

GTdad said:


> My comment about "keeping the *****es in their place" on a similar thread fell pretty flat yesterday.
> 
> Sometimes we just like to live dangerously.


I don't know, GTdad. Is that really the example you want to set for your children?

Sorry, guys. Just not seeing the humor today, I guess.


----------



## happy as a clam

jld said:


> Okay, but in the context of this conversation, where some people are sensitive about the issue, I think it was out of place.


Maybe.

But it seems all these feminist/red pill/MMSLP/mysoginist positions seem to be spilling over and permeating *many* threads.

I thought bandit's comment was funny. It's one he has made before, so in the context of "knowing" him (as well as we can "know" anyone on the internet) I thought it was funny.


----------



## GTdad

jld said:


> I don't know, GTdad. Is that really the example you want to set for your children?


That there's rarely a situation so dire that you can't crack a joke about it? 

Apparently so.


----------



## Faithful Wife

chillymorn said:


> Just did a quick google search on how to manipulate your husband.............. I think there are just as many places that show women how to be manipulative as there are for men.


And are those sites recommended to every woman at TAM?


----------



## jld

happy as a clam said:


> Maybe.
> 
> But it seems all these feminist/red pill/MMSLP/mysoginist positions seem to be spilling over and permeating *many* threads.
> 
> I though bandit's comment was funny. It's one he has made before, so in the context of "knowing" him (as well as we can "know" anyone on the internet) I thought it was funny.


Okay. Maybe I just don't know him well enough.


----------



## jld

GTdad said:


> That there's rarely a situation so dire that you can't crack a joke about it?
> 
> Apparently so.


I guess, to me, it would be like cracking a joke about minorities on a thread about minorities. I just wouldn't do it.

Okay, going to stop beating this horse. Back to the subject of the thread . . .


----------



## Dogbert

Faithful Wife said:


> I can go on if you want me to Dogbert....that's just a very small sample.


Thanks FW, I think you've more than gone above and beyond the call of duty. And as promised, I've read it all.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Are there women who will cheat? Of course.
> 
> Is it because her husband didn't force/scare her into breaking her sexual boundries, f* her like she's "rented" without giving a crap about how she feels about it, go off course in a car to panic her into submission, or fill her up with daily sperm? No.
> 
> You don't beat down women to prevent cheating.
> 
> IMO that would make a woman much more likely to cheat as soon as any man who could even fake actually giving a crap about her paid some attention.


You can't see it because you're stuck with the wrong context. The correct context is a woman who has already become disinterested in a catering, worshipping man who has lost himself trying to do what she says she wants. He already obsessively PAID her attention. He took more of the load off her. He's tried giving her what she says she wants. Hence he's at his last wit as to why she remains disinterested. In fact, I bet she doesn't know why herself. She just isn't feeling it.

There is no beating down of women. It's beating down the man's overly high misperception of women. The message is a club to the head of such men to stop worshipping. That she's actually a sexual being, and it is his behaviors that have cost him that sexuality. It's basically saying most women aren't attracted to "whipped" men. So stand up to her, stop catering to her, find and do what makes you happy and be your own man regardless of bickering complaints. A little contentiousness that any two people are GOING to have is better than always smoothing the water, and a man who acts like a man rather than a servant, tends to be much more attractive. And if that all fails, knock her out of her sense of security even at risk of the relationship. Because a relationship with a disinterested woman isn't a relationship worth keeping.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

As for women manipulating men, its stupidly simple. The average woman already knows it and uses it: Dangle sex as a carrot.

He does something you don't like so you jest, "guess who's not getting laid tonight?" Or you flirt and tease to prop your self-esteem upon his drooling interest, but never give it up.

A large share, if not a majority, of women do these things by all accounts I've heard and what I've experienced. It says a lot of about the priorities of men and women I think that women manipulate men through offer of or threat of withholding sex, and men manipulate women through offer of / threat of withholding commitment.

TBH, of the marriages I'm privy to information from, they all have related the wife using sex to influence behavior at some point or another. So forgive me for lacking sympathy that there exist lesser known male mechanisms to do the same. Neither belong in a healthy marriage... but we're not talking about healthy marriages are we? IMO, most of marriages where MMSL might be useful to induce behavior changes, should end. But sometimes people don't want to give up the ghost.


----------



## Brigit

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Like most things PUA related, there is a time and a place and a shelf life. It can be a big assist in picking someone up and creating a lot of up front interest, but if there's nothing more to you it won't last. PUA is marketing. Nobody can make the product, an actual person, better but that person. But the other side of the coin is that even the best product is likely to go unnoticed with poor marketing.
> 
> Absolutely a woman may respond that way. MMSL doesn't believe every relationship should work. If she's not sweating losing him in spite of her negligence and evidence that he has options -real danger she is in fact encouraging, or even goes so far as to get plan B, then that's a sure fire sign it's past time to move on.
> 
> MMSL isn't about fixing relationships that shouldn't be. It's about fixing behaviors of his that often play into her disinterest. He may have gotten stale, he may not be physically taking care of himself, maybe he defers to her too often... whatever it is, he's lost the edge he had while single. Everything in MMSL is about getting a guy past the sense that his wife (or women in general) is just not sexual (hence the "guy speak" of saying women all have inner sl*ts), and to rebuild his sense of self and edge.
> 
> If she remains disinterested, then it has set him up nicely with self-care, interests and attitude for being single again and finding a better woman. It isn't a fix all. It's a fix or end, and much of it is last resort. This will either provoke her to actually try (fear of loss can often induce change - as we often relate here to people being strung along by cheating partners - it usually doesn't end until the threat of divorce is made real), or be a final notice to him that she's not worth keeping.


IDK. You're very good with words and would make a wonderful PR consultant for the author. 

However, my problem with Mr. Revenge-Of-The-Nerds is the quotes FW gave before regarding sex rank. If a man is going to shame me because I'm in my 40's then he is walking on thin ice.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Dogbert said:


> Thanks FW, I think you've more than gone above and beyond the call of duty. And as promised, I've read it all.


Thank you too, Dogbert.


----------



## Brigit

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> As for women manipulating men, its stupidly simple the average woman knows it. Dangle sex as a carrot.
> 
> He does something you don't like so you jest, "guess who's not getting laid tonight?" Or you flirt and tease to prop your self-esteem upon his drooling interest, but never give it up.
> 
> The large share, if not a majority, of women do these things. It says a lot of about the priorities of men and women I think that women manipulate men through offer of or threat of withholding sex, and men manipulate women through offer of / threat of withholding commitment.


...yeah, for the most part this is true. Thank God the computers will be wiping out humanity soon. We suck.

:bunny::bunny:


----------



## chillymorn

Faithful Wife said:


> And are those sites recommended to every woman at TAM?


just sayin......there are just as many fvcked up sites showing women how to be poor people as there are for men.

I think reasonable men can use the mmsl and not abuse it to be mean or hurtful they actually use it to better their relationships.


----------



## NobodySpecial

chillymorn said:


> just sayin......there are just as many fvcked up sites showing women how to be poor people as there are for men.
> 
> I think reasonable men can use the mmsl and not abuse it to be mean or hurtful they actually use it to better their relationships.


I will never understand this sort if argument. Didn't your Mom tell you that just because Johny is doing it, doesn't mean you should? Whether or not someone else over there is an ******* too has no bearing on this topic which is is THIS guy an *******?


----------



## Faithful Wife

chillymorn said:


> just sayin......there are just as many fvcked up sites showing women how to be poor people as there are for men.
> 
> I think reasonable men can use the mmsl and not abuse it to be mean or hurtful they actually use it to better their relationships.



And yet...we don't see women suggesting those f*cked up sites to each other here.

And if we did, I would speak out against them, too.

TAM is better than that. At least I think so. And I think a lot of people don't realize just how f*cked up and manipulative and mean spirited MMSL is. I have seen women recommend the book to other people, women who have not even read it. I'd like people to read it before recommending it, at the very least.

Ultimately, I would like to just see it stop being recommended to every single man.

If something similar was suggested to every single woman here, do you really think the men here wouldn't be alarmed and offended? I mean, c'mon now. You know you guys would throw a fit.


----------



## BronzeTorpedo

This thread peaked my interest on AK's position on dread game. So I did the unthinkable and actually went to his blog. My first search for dread game returned a post that seems unimaginably even-handed.

"It’s unquestionably an attention getter. It creates a huge impulse for your partner to behave the way you want them to. However, it’s a very risky move. What it does is sacrifice a lot of Relationship Comfort (Beta), in order to create an impression of you having a much Higher Value (Alpha) than they do. Which is fine if you were running a standard Nice Guy / Nice Girl, low Alpha and high Beta frame. Dread Game can create a quick correction of that. However, if your partner ever figures out your Dread Game moves are simply designed to purposely panic them / are in any way deceptively created / you don’t have the guts to follow through on them anyway, then you lose all the Alpha credit the Dread Game created and you’ve also lost a great deal of Relationship Comfort for nothing."

The rest of his post recommends a similar strategy to Dread Game that he calls Reality Game. Instead of faking interest from the opposite sex, become sexier so that the opposite sex actually does find you interesting. Basically, raise your sex rank in order to destabilize your relationship and force your spouse to raise his/her sex rank to decrease your temptation to leave.

That doesn't really seem like the advice of a man who wants women abused. In fact, the blog post was written to be sex-neutral advice to a woman asking about dread game toward her husband.


----------



## naiveonedave

Faithful Wife said:


> And yet...we don't see women suggesting those f*cked up sites to each other here.
> 
> And if we did, I would speak out against them, too.
> 
> TAM is better than that. At least I think so. And I think a lot of people don't realize just how f*cked up and manipulative and mean spirited MMSL is. I have seen women recommend the book to other people, women who have not even read it. I'd like people to read it before recommending it, at the very least.
> 
> Ultimately, I would like to just see it stop being recommended to every single man.
> 
> If something similar was suggested to every single woman here, do you really think the men here wouldn't be alarmed and offended? I mean, c'mon now. You know you guys would throw a fit.


It is context, what does AK tell men to do? He says to not cheat, to clean up your side of the street and shows (using crude terms and very simplistic models like sex rank) how the real world works from a mans perspective. What is manipulative, I guess, is wanting to figure out how to have more sex with your wife. And if the methods he suggests are manipulative, well I guess you win. I don't see them as manipulative, I see them as making me a better man.

It is probably not useful for the biker dude or the star HS QB, but for a lot of men it is useful.


----------



## Faithful Wife

naiveonedave said:


> It is context, what does AK tell men to do? He says to not cheat, to clean up your side of the street and shows (using crude terms and very simplistic models like sex rank) how the real world works from a mans perspective. What is manipulative, I guess, is wanting to figure out how to have more sex with your wife. And if the methods he suggests are manipulative, well I guess you win. I don't see them as manipulative, I see them as making me a better man.
> 
> It is probably not useful for the biker dude or the star HS QB, but for a lot of men it is useful.


I stand by my opinion and you clearly do, too.

No point in wrangling about it, right?

Agree to disagree.

But I will continue to reserve my right to speak out against mean spirited crap such as MMSL. You can reserve your right to speak for it. Which will help us because we will know who is for what.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

chillymorn said:


> I think reasonable men can use the mmsl and not abuse it to be mean or hurtful they actually use it to better their relationships.


There are books that are _not _filled with sexist "2X4s" and the potential to be mean, hurtful and abusive. So why is there a need for one like this?

At the very least, suggest in only to the specific type of problem and man the book might be a help after explaining the parts that you aren't supposed to actually listen to and making sure the man is "reasonable" enough (guessing this means no resentful and bitter ones) to only use the good parts and not the bad.


----------



## naiveonedave

Faithful Wife said:


> I stand by my opinion and you clearly do, too.
> 
> No point in wrangling about it, right?
> 
> Agree to disagree.
> 
> But I will continue to reserve my right to speak out against mean spirited crap such as MMSL. You can reserve your right to speak for it. Which will help us because we will know who is for what.


Nice veiled attempt to be nice. I agree we disagree.


----------



## naiveonedave

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> There are books that are _not _filled with sexist "2X4s" and the potential to be mean, hurtful and abusive. So why is there a need for one like this?
> 
> At the very least, suggest in only to the specific type of problem and man the book might be a help after explaining the parts that you aren't supposed to actually listen to and making sure the man is "reasonable" enough (guessing this means no resentful and bitter ones) to only use the good parts and not the bad.


Because most men need the 2x4 to actually get it. I certainly did. I also saw nothing in the book that we would lead me to be abusive or mean or hurtful. If a woman read it, I can see where she would think it is mean, but that is how it becomes a 2x4. AK certainly is not pro-cheating or manipulation. He is pro- making men better.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Not sure why you think I would even try to be "nice". It is not my goal to be "nice" here on this thread, it is my goal to expose the mean spirited bull crap in red pill and MMSL specifically.


----------



## Pluto2

BronzeTorpedo said:


> This thread peaked my interest on AK's position on dread game. So I did the unthinkable and actually went to his blog. My first search for dread game returned a post that seems unimaginably even-handed.
> 
> "It’s unquestionably an attention getter. It creates a huge impulse for your partner to behave the way you want them to. However, it’s a very risky move. What it does is sacrifice a lot of Relationship Comfort (Beta), in order to create an impression of you having a much Higher Value (Alpha) than they do. Which is fine if you were running a standard Nice Guy / Nice Girl, low Alpha and high Beta frame. Dread Game can create a quick correction of that. However, if your partner ever figures out your Dread Game moves are simply designed to purposely panic them / are in any way deceptively created / you don’t have the guts to follow through on them anyway, then you lose all the Alpha credit the Dread Game created and you’ve also lost a great deal of Relationship Comfort for nothing."
> 
> The rest of his post recommends a similar strategy to Dread Game that he calls Reality Game. Instead of faking interest from the opposite sex, become sexier so that the opposite sex actually does find you interesting. Basically, raise your sex rank in order to destabilize your relationship and force your spouse to raise his/her sex rank to decrease your temptation to leave.
> 
> That doesn't really seem like the advice of a man who wants women abused. In fact, the blog post was written to be sex-neutral advice to a woman asking about dread game toward her husband.


So do I understand you to mean that you have no problem being shamelessly manipulative to achieve your relationship goal?


----------



## BronzeTorpedo

I also think that some of the objections to AK's material is based on a basic flaw in interpretation of what he's saying.

FW's original post quoted AK describing hidden ovulation and theorizing on the evolutionary reasons behind it. I didn't see too much inflammatory there. Yet she (and others) interpret the statements that women have hidden ovulation (inarguable) and that fact makes it possible for them to hide paternity of their children (also inarguable) as mean-spirited woman hating.

I don't think the fact that someone acknowledges that women have concealed ovulation means that they hate women. I don't even think that acknowledging concealed ovulation is a mean-spirited thing to acknowledge. It's just a fact.

That's kind of how I see the red pill. It's the way the world works. It's not necessarily the way we would like it to work. And it's not a moral statement. It's just a collection of facts.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

naiveonedave said:


> Because most men need the 2x4 to actually get it. I certainly did. I also saw nothing in the book that we would lead me to be abusive or mean or hurtful. If a woman read it, I can see where she would think it is mean, but that is how it becomes a 2x4. AK certainly is not pro-cheating or manipulation. He is pro- making men better.


I don't think most men need the 2x4. Just the willingness to learn and make changes, really listen to his wife and put effort into himself and his marriage/home. 
You don't think you would have been able to get the same results if the book wasn't filled with the kinds of quotes that have been posted on this thread? Those specific words were needed for you to be a better husband?


----------



## BronzeTorpedo

Pluto2 said:


> So do I understand you to mean that you have no problem being shamelessly manipulative to achieve your relationship goal?


I was simply reporting AK's attitude toward it. He didn't make a moral judgment one way or the other. He said it was very risky, which I agree with.

He also said that it was a shortcut, and that actually becoming more attractive in reality was a superior method. And I also agree with that.

As for manipulation, I am generally against manipulation. But, in a relationship that has become adversarial, there may be a use for it. Now, if you want to argue that being mistreated by one's spouse is no excuse for ever acting immorally, even if the outcome is positive, then I can appreciate that view. I may see a few more shades of gray than you do.


----------



## BronzeTorpedo

I also think that some of the objections to AK's material is based on a basic flaw in interpretation of what he's saying.

FW's original post quoted AK describing hidden ovulation and theorizing on the evolutionary reasons behind it. I didn't see too much inflammatory there. Yet she (and others) interpret the statements that women have hidden ovulation (inarguable) and that fact makes it possible for them to hide paternity of their children (also inarguable) as mean-spirited woman hating.

I don't think the fact that someone acknowledges that women have concealed ovulation means that they hate women. I don't even think that acknowledging concealed ovulation is a mean-spirited thing to acknowledge. It's just a fact.

That's kind of how I see the red pill. It's the way the world works. It's not necessarily the way we would like it to work. And it's not a moral statement. It's just a collection of facts.


----------



## NobodySpecial

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I don't think most men need the 2x4. Just the willingness to learn and make changes, really listen to his wife and put effort into himself and his marriage/home.


BUT. There are things that wives are telling their husbands that are not entirely true. When THEY are straight forward about their issues, they are told I am too tired. I need help with the housework. That may be true. But it has NOTHING to do with sex life whether she knows it or not.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Brigit said:


> IDK. You're very good with words and would make a wonderful PR consultant for the author.
> 
> However, my problem with Mr. Revenge-Of-The-Nerds is the quotes FW gave before regarding sex rank. If a man is going to shame me because I'm in my 40's then he is walking on thin ice.


I like to think I'm an insightful reader. I don't get too caught up in presentation, I'm more interested in understanding reasoning. Comes with the territory of being a programmer.

Would you agree that you were more sexually desirable at 20 than you are at 40? I mean, it's not coincidental that the age ranges men are most attracted to are the child bearing years right? If nothing else, wouldn't that just make sense?

It doesn't mean you aren't attractive at 40 in relation to women your age, but given physical attraction is about signals that speak to the viability of offspring... the close association of age and inability to bear children plays a role.

What typically pisses women off is that the same doesn't apply as strictly for men, because more of the qualities women find attractive in men are not based in physical things. In fact, some of those things improve dramatically with age, such as confidence, presence, persona, leadership, status, wealth, and knowledge. So while men decline just as women do physically, men's appeal to women doesn't fall as much because he is supported by women's higher prioritization of non-physical things. Ergo, I can date most women in their low 20s, even though her equivalent dating pool of men in their low/mid 20s are unarguably more physically attractive than I (they certainly have more hair ). But those guys don't have the resources I do to seduce. They don't have the nice things and stability. They're often still guessing about what to do with their lives, or unsure of what they want. They're still finding themselves -I'm not. They can't afford the number or quality of dates. They can't tote her around in a Porsche making her feel like the envy of other women (this is bizarre to me too, but apparently it's a thing).

In addition to being easily witnessed, we see this in data as well. Statistically speaking, men who remarry are shown to have new wives younger than their previous wife on average. Women are shown to have new husbands older than their previous husband on average. This phenomenon is even more pronounced for those who marry young, in which the age differential tends to be small to begin with, and subsequently divorce.

Some of it is due to differences in attraction between the sexes, and some is due to cultural norm that the male be older than the female.

And we see it again in historical context. Once a woman exceeded a certain age without accepting a man's proposal, she was at great risk of being a spinster. That's the culture and environment that women came from - so it's no surprise that security/commitment is one of your top priorities. You could also notice the "cougar" thing, which unarguably has a predominant sexual context. These women are increasing their sex rank by increasing their sexual accessibility above their younger competition; the men they're with aren't offering commitment.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

NobodySpecial said:


> BUT. There are things that wives are telling their husbands that are not entirely true. When THEY are straight forward about their issues, they are told I am too tired. I need help with the housework. That may be true. But it has NOTHING to do with sex life whether she knows it or not.


This is exactly my point... only I can't seem to do it in less than 5 paragraphs.


----------



## Icey181

BronzeTorpedo said:


> This thread peaked my interest on AK's position on dread game. So I did the unthinkable and actually went to his blog. My first search for dread game returned a post that seems unimaginably even-handed.
> 
> "It’s unquestionably an attention getter. It creates a huge impulse for your partner to behave the way you want them to. However, it’s a very risky move. What it does is sacrifice a lot of Relationship Comfort (Beta), in order to create an impression of you having a much Higher Value (Alpha) than they do. Which is fine if you were running a standard Nice Guy / Nice Girl, low Alpha and high Beta frame. Dread Game can create a quick correction of that. However, if your partner ever figures out your Dread Game moves are simply designed to purposely panic them / are in any way deceptively created / you don’t have the guts to follow through on them anyway, then you lose all the Alpha credit the Dread Game created and you’ve also lost a great deal of Relationship Comfort for nothing."
> 
> The rest of his post recommends a similar strategy to Dread Game that he calls Reality Game. Instead of faking interest from the opposite sex, become sexier so that the opposite sex actually does find you interesting. Basically, raise your sex rank in order to destabilize your relationship and force your spouse to raise his/her sex rank to decrease your temptation to leave.
> 
> That doesn't really seem like the advice of a man who wants women abused. In fact, the blog post was written to be sex-neutral advice to a woman asking about dread game toward her husband.


That is because most of the "Dread Game" stuff is actually quite sensible information. The things FW and others are complaining about are the later stage stuff (level 5 and after) which are really not meant for healthy relationships and drip with PUA garbage.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

NobodySpecial said:


> BUT. There are things that wives are telling their husbands that are not entirely true. When THEY are straight forward about their issues, they are told I am too tired. I need help with the housework. That may be true. But it has NOTHING to do with sex life whether she knows it or not.


Eh, some wives. 
Certainly not as many as books like that would have you believe. Women are actually capable of 
1. knowing what we want
2. saying what we want
3. meaning what we say

The idea that we can't or don't is just insulting and untrue.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> There are books that are _not _filled with sexist "2X4s" and the potential to be mean, hurtful and abusive. So why is there a need for one like this?


Different strokes for different folks. Ever notice men often don't bother reading the mainstream relationship books?

That's because they're boring as f*ck and don't speak our language. They speak in emo fluff we often don't respect because we're mostly raised to believe that kind of talk is for women and feminine men. 

MMSL is at least somewhat entertaining.


----------



## kristin2349

BronzeTorpedo said:


> I also think that some of the objections to AK's material is based on a basic flaw in interpretation of what he's saying.
> 
> FW's original post quoted AK describing hidden ovulation and theorizing on the evolutionary reasons behind it. I didn't see too much inflammatory there. Yet she (and others) interpret the statements that women have hidden ovulation (inarguable) and that fact makes it possible for them to hide paternity of their children (also inarguable) as mean-spirited woman hating.
> 
> I don't think the fact that someone acknowledges that women have concealed ovulation means that they hate women. I don't even think that acknowledging concealed ovulation is a mean-spirited thing to acknowledge. It's just a fact.
> 
> That's kind of how I see the red pill. It's the way the world works. It's not necessarily the way we would like it to work. And it's not a moral statement. It's just a collection of facts.



No interpretation needed here is a quote directly from AK. I ovulate therefore I cheat? Yeah, great message:

*The other reason ovulation is concealed is so she can cheat. There’s no possible way a male can watch his primary female partner 24/7. Everyone falls asleep or needs to use the bathroom eventually, so despite a very high level of attention a husband gives a wife, she will always have some wiggle room to disappear briefly for something quick and dirty. Because ovulation is concealed, there’s no sure way for the husband to know whether or not she was perfectly faithful even when he was watching her like a hawk.

The evolutionary purpose of this cheating is that while her primary male partner may be a good provider and pleasant companion, another male could offer her significantly better genes to impregnate her with. It’s a try and have your cake and eat it too proposition. A woman may have sex with her partner thousands of times and with a lover maybe only a handful of times, but if any of that handful of times results in a pregnancy to the lover, it’s an extremely significant outcome. 

The link between ovulation and cheating is highly significant in that when she ovulates, a woman experiences a large spike in her sexual interest. Ovulation lasts only a few days, usually no more than two, but it is the highest point of sexual interest for a woman. Even quite low sex drive women can perk up and play for sexual attention during ovulation. It’s when a woman is most likely to cheat on a partner, she is most likely to orgasm and in plain simple terms when she likes sex the roughest. If you pay consistent attention to a woman, it’s usually easy enough to discover when she is ovulating. There won’t be a blatant change to her dress code from “demure angel” twenty-six days a month to “sl*tzilla” for two days a month. *


----------



## Pluto2

BronzeTorpedo said:


> I may see a few more shades of gray than you do.


There are times, my friend, that is not a positive attribute.
The ends do not justify the means.
And the ends will often be temporary when the means are revealed.


----------



## naiveonedave

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I don't think most men need the 2x4. Just the willingness to learn and make changes, really listen to his wife and put effort into himself and his marriage/home.
> You don't think you would have been able to get the same results if the book wasn't filled with the kinds of quotes that have been posted on this thread? Those specific words were needed for you to be a better husband?


actually I think many men do need the 2x4. His audience probably could be 1/4 of the men in the West. Of the 20 or more teen age boys that are friends with my sons, over 1/2 are already hugely beta-ized (note AK is preaching a balance, not 100% alpha)

Maybe/Maybe not on the words he uses. I think they are what provide the 2x4. Also, he is very bluntly saying to not lie, not cheat and don't use this as manipulation in the normal sense. It could be construed as manipulation, I guess, by being a sexier man your wife will have more sex with you. The context of what FW pulled out is missing, as is the reason for the harsh words. You want to make a man do something, you don't beat around the bush.


----------



## Icey181

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Eh, some wives.
> Certainly not as many as books like that would have you believe. Women are actually capable of
> 1. knowing what we want
> 2. saying what we want
> 3. meaning what we say
> 
> The idea that we can't or don't is just insulting and untrue.


Let me put it this way.

A rather large subset of this generation's men are finding that the things women told them about what women find attractive to be entirely untrue and that many women act in completely antithetical ways.

And the result is the genuinely nice guys who find themselves single well into their late 20s and early 30s and then are being turned to as "settle down" options with women who have, shall we say, colorful pasts.

That is where all of this MGTOW, Red Pill, etc etc stuff is coming from.

Enough men have actually experienced this that it is a societal issue.

There is a female equivalent ironically enough, but no one has a problem (at least in the general public), it seems, with women calling intelligent men who live at home to save money though college "man-children" and neckbeards.


----------



## naiveonedave

Pluto2 said:


> There are times, my friend, that is not a positive attribute.
> The ends do not justify the means.
> And the ends will often be temporary when the means are revealed.


Read the book - the means are improve yourself as a man. The ends are a better sex life.


----------



## NobodySpecial

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Eh, some wives.
> Certainly not as many as books like that would have you believe. Women are actually capable of
> 1. knowing what we want
> 2. saying what we want
> 3. meaning what we say
> 
> The idea that we can't or don't is just insulting and untrue.


Shrug. So what if you are the guy who is married to "some wives"? How does it help you to know that someone else has a different wife? What I know from posters here, as well as a textbook example in my own life. There are "some" wives.


----------



## naiveonedave

kristin2349 said:


> No interpretation needed here is a quote directly from AK. I ovulate therefore I cheat? Yeah, great message:
> 
> *The other reason ovulation is concealed is so she can cheat. There’s no possible way a male can watch his primary female partner 24/7. Everyone falls asleep or needs to use the bathroom eventually, so despite a very high level of attention a husband gives a wife, she will always have some wiggle room to disappear briefly for something quick and dirty. Because ovulation is concealed, there’s no sure way for the husband to know whether or not she was perfectly faithful even when he was watching her like a hawk.
> 
> The evolutionary purpose of this cheating is that while her primary male partner may be a good provider and pleasant companion, another male could offer her significantly better genes to impregnate her with. It’s a try and have your cake and eat it too proposition. A woman may have sex with her partner thousands of times and with a lover maybe only a handful of times, but if any of that handful of times results in a pregnancy to the lover, it’s an extremely significant outcome.
> 
> The link between ovulation and cheating is highly significant in that when she ovulates, a woman experiences a large spike in her sexual interest. Ovulation lasts only a few days, usually no more than two, but it is the highest point of sexual interest for a woman. Even quite low sex drive women can perk up and play for sexual attention during ovulation. It’s when a woman is most likely to cheat on a partner, she is most likely to orgasm and in plain simple terms when she likes sex the roughest. If you pay consistent attention to a woman, it’s usually easy enough to discover when she is ovulating. There won’t be a blatant change to her dress code from “demure angel” twenty-six days a month to “sl*tzilla” for two days a month. *


30+% of women cheat, so it is not a 100% correlation, but..... To deny any of this is remotely possible is denying biology. I get that you are a creature of free will, but go over to CWI and there it makes sense.


----------



## BronzeTorpedo

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Eh, some wives.
> Certainly not as many as books like that would have you believe. Women are actually capable of
> 1. knowing what we want
> 2. saying what we want
> 3. meaning what we say
> 
> The idea that we can't or don't is just insulting and untrue.


That's true. But I don't think the husbands of those women are necessarily AK's audience. The men he's writing for are motivated, because they are seeking out information for improving their marriages. They're probably not lazy, since AK's basic strategy is a long period of self-improvement.

So, AK's typical reader is most likely a husband who has talked to his wife, gotten some promises or compromises that were short-lived, tried all the standard choreplay, gone to counseling, and is now looking for nonstandard advice in a last-ditch effort to improve his marriage.

In the scenario where a husband wants more sex, talks to his wife, his wife tells him what her hangups are, he resolves the issue(s), and they start having more sex, that guy never goes looking for MMSL in the first place.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Icey181 said:


> Let me put it this way.
> 
> A rather large subset of this generation's men are finding that the things *women *told them about what women find attractive to be entirely untrue and that many women act in completely antithetical ways.


I disagree that *women* told them any of this. That is just hate club ****. I think that comes later when she is in an unhappy marriage and JUST as confused as you are.


----------



## Icey181

Citation requested: last I knew infidelity rates in marriage, for instance, hovered around 5% sometimes spiking to nearly 20% at the most extreme.

And infidelity rates seem pretty equal between men and women.


----------



## BronzeTorpedo

kristin2349 said:


> No interpretation needed here is a quote directly from AK. I ovulate therefore I cheat? Yeah, great message:
> 
> The other reason ovulation is concealed is so she *can* cheat.


Perhaps the confusion is between the word *can* and the words *will* or *must*.

Acknowledging that something is possible is not the same as arguing that it is inevitable.


----------



## Icey181

NobodySpecial said:


> I disagree that *women* told them any of this. That is just hate club ****. I think that comes later when she is in an unhappy marriage and JUST as confused as you are.


Sorry, but you are wrong on this one.

Female grade-school teachers, female high school teachers (specifically my English teachers for some reason), and a bevy of female faculty members in both my undergraduate and graduate coursework have engaged in exactly this kind of gendered "instruction" throughout my life.

Back that up with the rather ubiquitous societal pressures of specific media (the Dram-Com, TV shows from Raymond to How I Met Your Mother) and you have exactly what I am talking about.

That you did not experience it is great.

That I personally and most of my friends did however, tells a different and I think rather important story.

If you missed the whole 90s generation of boys being taught in various ways that masculinity was not a good thing, then you were not paying attention.

Or maybe you grew up in a more rural area.


----------



## naiveonedave

Icey181 said:


> Citation requested: last I knew infidelity rates in marriage, for instance, hovered around 5% sometimes spiking to nearly 20% at the most extreme.
> 
> And infidelity rates seem pretty equal between men and women.


I assume you are reffering to my 30% post, it is an off the cuff number. I know 5% is way too low. 20% or 30%, really doesn't make an effect on my post.


----------



## BronzeTorpedo

Pluto2 said:


> There are times, my friend, that is not a positive attribute.
> The ends do not justify the means.
> And the ends will often be temporary when the means are revealed.


I can understand that. And I agree that faking interest from an admirer is a very risky ploy. And for most marriages the risk wouldn't justify the reward. And the reality game is superior in every way.

But, if one spouse is ready to call the lawyers and start a bitter custody battle that screws everybody over, I can forgive this kind of clutching at straws. Sometimes, the possibility of increased interest in one's spouse in a year's time just isn't enough light at the end of the tunnel.


----------



## Icey181

naiveonedave said:


> I assume you are reffering to my 30% post, it is an off the cuff number. I know 5% is way too low. 20% or 30%, really doesn't make an effect on my post.


Well, since you know, please provide some citations.

One of my biggest issues with the Red Pill et al., people is that they level rather large scale accusations without a shred of evidence and then refuse to back that information up.

I am a first principles kind of guy; if you cannot substantiate a first principle, then you are quite simply wrong.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

BronzeTorpedo said:


> In the scenario where a husband wants more sex, talks to his wife, his wife tells him what her hangups are, he resolves the issue(s), and they start having more sex, that guy never goes looking for MMSL in the first place.


Sure and if the book wasn't suggested BEFORE these things take place I might agree with it more. But it's not. It's the #1 thing they are told to do. Before really listening to her, understanding, communicating, meeting her needs. 
If the boys wanted to throw it out as a very last ditch effort after everything else had failed, I doubt there would be so many complaints.


----------



## kristin2349

naiveonedave said:


> 30+% of women cheat, so it is not a 100% correlation, but..... To deny any of this is remotely possible is denying biology. I get that you are a creature of free will, but go over to CWI and there it makes sense.



I've been to CWI thanks, it is how I found this forum.

How many men would accept, "I was ovulating and you were on the can, there is no denying biology" as an excuse?


----------



## naiveonedave

NobodySpecial said:


> I disagree that *women* told them any of this. That is just hate club ****. I think that comes later when she is in an unhappy marriage and JUST as confused as you are.


A large fraction of boys in the West spend minimal time from child birth until college in the presence of men. They learn from TV (look at how men are portrayed in movies, tv shows, and commercials). It is not hate, it is reality. Not women's fault, though I think partially due to an unintended consequence of feminism.

All things masculine have pretty much been removed from school, short of sports. Recess, gym, insta-expulsion for anything 100 miles or closer to violence, etc.


----------



## naiveonedave

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Sure and if the book wasn't suggested BEFORE these things take place I might agree with it more. But it's not. It's the #1 thing they are told to do. Before really listening to her, understanding, communicating, meeting her needs.
> If the boys wanted to throw it out as a very last ditch effort after everything else had failed, I doubt there would be so many complaints.


I did all that. IT DOES NOT WORK. Most men have been trained to trip over backwards to meet her needs.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

NobodySpecial said:


> I disagree that *women* told them any of this.


I received my false messages from my mom and from teenage girls. I followed them and might as well have lived on a deserted island for all the female interest I got. Then I read a book I initially though was telling me to be an @sshole (along with a variety of others with the aim of being less shy/introverted), and lo and behold, I got more and more interest the better I became in applying this advice. Same person underneath, but more appealing marketing.



NobodySpecial said:


> I think that comes later when she is in an unhappy marriage and JUST as confused as you are.


I totally agree with this. I honestly believe both my mom and those girls I grew up with were telling me what they believed was true. It just wasn't entirely true, it lacked a lot of context, and was overly romanticized/idealized... while the less sweet and glittering elements of attraction were entirely dismissed.

"I want to marry my best friend" my azz. Correct language: I want the guy with all the qualities I'm attracted to, to also be my best friend (though I'm still not sure this is a good definition of "best friend"). I do know that being the best friend oddly tends to get in the way of "qualities I'm attracted to". There is such a thing as a guy who is too safe.


----------



## Icey181

BronzeTorpedo; said:


> In the scenario where a husband wants more sex, talks to his wife, his wife tells him what her hangups are, he resolves the issue(s), and they start having more sex, that guy never goes looking for MMSL in the first place.


After looking at the Sex In Marriage portion of TAM as well as reading a number of other dead-bedrooms blog sites, I have to wonder why you think this is what happens.

In this scenario both partners are fully confident in their own desires, in touch with them, and able to communicate clearly and healthily with one another.

That sounds like literally none of the examples I have ever seen online of people actually talking about this stuff.


----------



## BronzeTorpedo

Icey181 said:


> Well, since you know, please provide some citations.
> 
> One of my biggest issues with the Red Pill et al., people is that they level rather large scale accusations without a shred of evidence and then refuse to back that information up.
> 
> I am a first principles kind of guy; if you cannot substantiate a first principle, then you are quite simply wrong.


My first Google hit is from psychcentral.

The article lists several studies and acknowledges the difficulties in self reporting data (anonymous versus face to face interview) and states that, over the length of a marriage, risk of cheating may reach 25%.


----------



## naiveonedave

Icey181 said:


> Well, since you know, please provide some citations.
> 
> One of my biggest issues with the Red Pill et al., people is that they level rather large scale accusations without a shred of evidence and then refuse to back that information up.
> 
> I am a first principles kind of guy; if you cannot substantiate a first principle, then you are quite simply wrong.


How Common is Cheating & Infidelity Really? | World of Psychology

25% over the course of a life long relationship. There are NO good studies for this, imo, and the results are all over the map.


----------



## chillymorn

I personally think women cheat far more frequently than men.


----------



## Brigit

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I like to think I'm an insightful reader. I don't get too caught up in presentation, I'm more interested in understanding reasoning. Comes with the territory of being a programmer.
> 
> Would you agree that you were more sexually desirable at 20 than you are at 40? I mean, it's not coincidental that the age ranges men are most attracted to are the child bearing years right? If nothing else, wouldn't that just make sense?


This is dangerous territory for me on many levels. What do I do with all that you just said? 

I'm in recovery from an online affair and to verbalize anything about recent experience with favorable sexual attention is inappropriate.

So I will leave what you said alone.


----------



## Icey181

I found what you are citing, and you are missing something rather important: the actual statistics place a yearly-likelihood of infidelity at *6%* and states that the "chance" and not the incidence, of infidelity increases over the course of a relationship.

That is a far cry from a blanket claim that ~30% of women cheat, which is both unsupported and based entirely on personal opinion.


----------



## BronzeTorpedo

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Sure and if the book wasn't suggested BEFORE these things take place I might agree with it more. But it's not. It's the #1 thing they are told to do. Before really listening to her, understanding, communicating, meeting her needs.
> If the boys wanted to throw it out as a very last ditch effort after everything else had failed, I doubt there would be so many complaints.


I suppose I view this board similarly to MMSL. It seems axiomatic to me that men would talk to their wives first about problems in the marriage. If a man's first step is to ask on a web site, then I would agree with you.

However, even MMSL has a list of triage steps. And self improvement is the first step. The controversial steps don't come until later on, when the standard stuff hasn't worked.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Sure and if the book wasn't suggested BEFORE these things take place I might agree with it more. But it's not. It's the #1 thing they are told to do. Before really listening to her, understanding, communicating, meeting her needs.
> If the boys wanted to throw it out as a very last ditch effort after everything else had failed, I doubt there would be so many complaints.


That's not true. MMSL is thrown out when a guy is at his wits end as to why his wife is so disinterested despite the whole pleasing song and dance. If it's caught earlier or in the excessive "meeting her needs" process, NMMNG is recommended.

The whole point of MMSL is giving advice to someone who is already obsessively doting on a negligent wife. The last thing you want to tell him is "work harder to meet her needs".


----------



## naiveonedave

Icey181 said:


> I found what you are citing, and you are missing something rather important: the actual statistics place a yearly-likelihood of infidelity at *6%* and states that the "chance" and not the incidence, of infidelity increases over the course of a relationship.
> 
> That is a far cry from a blanket claim that ~30% of women cheat, which is both unsupported and based entirely on personal opinion.


bulloneee. The article basically said you have a 25% chance of being cheated on in a long term marriage. 6% chance in any given year. That is significant.


----------



## BronzeTorpedo

Icey181 said:


> After looking at the Sex In Marriage portion of TAM as well as reading a number of other dead-bedrooms blog sites, I have to wonder why you think this is what happens.
> 
> In this scenario both partners are fully confident in their own desires, in touch with them, and able to communicate clearly and healthily with one another.
> 
> That sounds like literally none of the examples I have ever seen online of people actually talking about this stuff.


And that's my point. Those people never go online looking for help. They don't need it.

Just like Tiger Woods isn't trolling MMSL or PUA sites looking for tips on being attractive to women. He just is. He gets all the interest he can handle.

So, when someone comes to an online forum asking for help on reviving his/her sex life, I assume that they aren't in a healthy relationship and have already tried all the standard crap that is given in 99% of the places he/she would be looking. Therefore, "just be yourself," isn't likely to help. Also, "talk to your spouse," has likely already been tried. So, it's time to get creative. And that's what MMSL is.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Men haters, women haters... there are plenty of both

You know what... who cares

It is up to each individual to educate themselves on the different forms of abuse, how to avoid being abused and how to avoid being an abuser. 

Abuse is everywhere and EVERYONE has the capacity to abuse.

And FWIW I think AK is a bit on the batty side. I'm glad reasonable men can find some nuggets that helped, but good golly he goes in circles to just say... "You have spoiled your princess so much that her ingratitude sucks, fix it before there isn't a relationship to fix."

I am very much a proponent of drying off a relationship when ingratitude is at a highly destructive level and putting the ingrate in their place, male or female. Big whoop, some people need a swift correction. He calls the correction tactics different names in order to differentiate himself in the market. Its marketing 101. To spend time getting offended is a waste of resources. 

Some of his logic is just flat out bizzare to me. To each his own. For me, it is no secret God created order and when things get out of order, its just not as good. But, we rarely get this right and to create elaborate systems to figure it out is silly when One resource keeps the answers.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

naiveonedave said:


> I did all that. IT DOES NOT WORK. Most men have been trained to trip over backwards to meet her needs.


Most men? I disagree. There's just as many frustrated women out there as there are men. Some men, some women. It's in no way a one size all situation. Each relationship is different and has different problems and needs.

I've seen just as many threads where the man needed to listen, understand and meet her needs as I've seen threads where he's done it all and nothing is working. 

Oh and men shouldn't be seen as needing vulgar language and sexism just to get them interested in reading a book. That would be insulting to many men.


----------



## Icey181

naiveonedave said:


> bulloneee. The article basically said you have a 25% chance of being cheated on in a long term marriage. 6% chance in any given year. That is significant.


Not really, no.

The studies talk about _potential_ not incidence and even then the numbers are still below your original claim.

For 30% of women to be cheaters you would need considerably larger general population incidence, significantly larger yearly incidence, and furthermore that should show up in other places (like, say, divorce statistics) where, to my knowledge, it does not.

And the link you posted also rather specifically pointed out that those numbers are the highest ones and most studies indicate lower numbers for infidelity.


----------



## Icey181

You know what. Just read the link:

Compared with Laumann et al. (1994), other authors report significantly lower prevalence statistics. General Social Surveys conducted in 1988 and 1989 showed that a mere 1.5% of married people reported having had a sexual partner other than their spouse in the year before the survey (Smith, 1991), and less than 3% of Choi, Catania, and Dolcini’s (1994) sample had engaged in EM sex in the previous 12 months. 

In a 1993 probability sample that included 1194 married adults, 1.2% had EM sex in the last 30 days, 3.6% had EM sex in the last year, and 6.4% had EM sex in the last 5 years (Leigh, Temple, & Trocki, 1993). These results possibly indicate that the number of EM sexual involvements in any given year is quite low, but that over the lifetime of a relationship this number is notably higher.
In general, based on the above data, we can conclude that over the course of married, heterosexual relationships in the United States, *EM sex occurs in less than 25% of committed relationships, and more men than women appear to be engaging in infidelity* (Laumann et al., 1994; Wiederman, 1997). Further, these rates are significantly lower in any given year. […] (Blow & Hartnett, 2005)


----------



## tech-novelist

For some reason, reading this thread reminded me of this joke:

Q: How many feminists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: That's not funny!


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Those stats are 20 years old and pre-internet rage where access is WAY easier.


----------



## tech-novelist

Blossom Leigh said:


> Those stats are 20 years old and pre-internet rage where access is WAY easier.


I think you meant "age", not "rage", although I'm sure that's a thing too.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Hey... no feminist here.. I love God's traditional roles... they just work for me when my alpha is compassionate, considerate and Christ centered.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

technovelist said:


> I think you meant "age", not "rage", although I'm sure that's a thing too.


nope... rage is what I meant


----------



## BronzeTorpedo

I did find the General Social Survey from 2005. 22% of men and 13% of women admitted, in a face-to-face interview, to cheating on their spouse. And this can probably be seen as the low estimate, given the known effect of face-to-face interviews on self-reporting immoral behavior.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Most men? I disagree. There's just as many frustrated women out there as there are men. Some men, some women. It's in no way a one size all situation. Each relationship is different and has different problems and needs.


Let's be honest. Nobody knows the prevalence of the behavior. Myself, I only know that virtually every guy I've presented with information from NMMNG has had his conception of what it means to be "nice" completely changed. It's a quite insightful nugget of that book. I'd bet a ton of women on this forum who wish their guy would be more sexually assertive really have "nice guy" husbands who are too "nice" to be the guy trying to get sex. I don't think women realize just how much this message is beat into men by women everywhere trying to duck men's sexual interest or revile it. There is a distinct sense that "whatever you do, don't come out seeking sex". Some men internalize the message and their wives end up here complaining about lack of desire from husbands... or complaining about the porn habit he now has, so he doesn't have to worry about offending with pursuit of his sexuality.



SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Oh and men shouldn't be seen as needing vulgar language and sexism just to get them interested in reading a book. That would be insulting to many men.


I'm of two minds here - on one hand, the book isn't for those men. But then I pause... and on the other hand, the book is exactly for those men. The soft men who reel at it's bluntness, crude language and offensiveness. The soft men who, honestly, reel from doing anything they think might displease a woman. The smooth seas sailors who just can't understand why they never get laid in spite of being really nice, deferential, uber respectful guys doing everything she wants. Yeah, that guy probably needs someone to loudly declare that women are not porcelain dolls.

I know they're soft, because the base healthy assertive man who would find it legitimately distasteful likely has no need for the book in the first place, because his base behaviors prevented things from ever going there. He didn't sell out for a woman, and doesn't have a problem calling her on her bullsh*t, or sticking with who he is and expressing what's important to him in spite of what she may complain. He doesn't defer or avoid. Most importantly he has no problem recognizing and leaving a bad relationship, because he's not so obsessively focused on "pleasing" her.


----------



## norajane

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Let's be honest. Nobody knows the prevalence of the behavior. Myself, I only know that virtually every guy I've presented with information from NMMNG has had his conception of what it means to be "nice" completely changed. It's a quite insightful nugget of that book.


The thing is, that's not the book that is the subject of this thread. MMSL is. And that is not a book that should be promoted on a healthy marriage website to every guy who posts about his troubled marriage because it sets him up to disrespect women, is filled with incorrect conclusions about biology and behavior, and sets up an adversarial relationship to his spouse.


----------



## Lila

Icey181 said:


> You are conflating a stage of dread, and a rather late and radical stage at that, for the entire theory.
> 
> Here is what I consider a more complete definition of "Dread Game" from the r/RedPill people:
> The 12 Levels of Dread: "The Rules" for any Long Term Relationship : TheRedPill
> 
> Summarized:
> 1) Pass *** tests [Do not be a doormat]
> 2) Develop an Action Plan [Personal Growth, primarily fitness]
> 3) Independent Life [Develop Independent Interests and Gain Satisfaction from them]
> 4) Condition Availability [Set Ground Rules for Interaction]
> 5) "Suit Up!" [Look Masculine and Seduce your Wife]
> 6) Relationship PUA [Directed _at your wife_]
> 7) Extra-Marital PUA [Start "experimenting" with other women to see if you can do it]
> 8) Create Jealously [Flirt with other women in front of your wife]
> 9) Conversation ["The Talk" in r/DeadBedroom lingo]
> 10) Ultimatum [Basically, make clear your deal breaker here]
> 11) Mistress [Cheat on your wife in secret]
> 12) Openly Cheat
> 
> Stages 1-6 are directed at self-improvement and creating personal worth and attraction with your wife.
> 
> Stages 7-10 are where we get to extreme dread in which you have individuals beginning to mix good stuff (conversations and "The Talk") with the PUA-crap.
> 
> Stages 11-12 are Nuclear Dread. And quite frankly…wth is the point if you get here? I see this as a violation of stages 9-10.
> 
> The weird stuff Kay is talking about with the fake-cookie plate falls under the extremes of Stage 7/8.
> 
> Honestly, if you get to that point the relationship is basically over anyways, and that is what the Red Pill boys do not realize.



Actually, I'm not conflating anything. Here is the definition of Dread Game, as defined by Kay:

"*Dread Game*: To purposely set out to create an appearance that you would or could cheat on and/or dump your partner, unless they comply with your demands. You underline the replaceability of your partner. *Some examples of this are creating dating profiles, going out without your partner to bars and clubs, sending flowers to yourself “from an admirer”, purposely seeking to pull Indicators of Interest from the opposite sex in front of your partner and so on.* Basically anything you purposely do to make your partner feel a sinking sensation in the pit of their stomach that the relationship is heading to a very bad place, very soon, unless they comply with your demands."​
Roissy's description of Dread Game:

"*Managing your relationship in such a way that she is left with a constant, gnawing feeling of impending doom*..... "​
What you describe as steps 1-7 is just self improvement. Dread games, by definition, are 7-10. I don't understand why you are trying to soften the definition of Dread Games? They are what they are, incredibly hurtful and useless unless the goal is strictly to get fear based sex from a partner.


----------



## Brigit

Lila said:


> sending flowers to yourself “from an admirer”


LOL!!!!!!

Omg I wonder if the author ever did that? 

I bet he did.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

norajane said:


> The thing is, that's not the book that is the subject of this thread. MMSL is. And that is not a book that should be promoted on a healthy marriage website to every guy who posts about his troubled marriage because it sets him up to disrespect women, is filled with incorrect conclusions about biology and behavior, and sets up an adversarial relationship to his spouse.


Reread the post. It's not suggested to every man with a troubled marriage. NMMG is suggested first. MMSL is suggested to men who continue the pleasing song and dance, or otherwise still fail to address neglect, but still want a chance keep their marriages.

MMSL will do exactly as AK says. It will induce her to change and engage him, or it will by her inaction serve notice to him that the relationship is over. Both are good for him and I won't stop recommending it.

Your insinuation that it will set him up to disrespect women is hilarious. So guys here who have read the book... do you run around calling women sl*ts?  Get real. It's clearly hyperbolic language for blunt effect.

As for incorrect conclusions, well, given most of this field is far from conclusive, you have little to no ground to stand on to declare AK's views incorrect. That is, unless you completely misunderstand what constitutes scientifically conclusive evidence.

The adversarial relationship with the spouse is preexisting. But to date, he's taken all the blows with no idea how to punch back. One key benefit is that if she doesn't adjust, he's set up to avoid selling out again in the future, and avoid repeating the same mistake of being a pleasing doormat to a neglecting woman.


----------



## Brigit

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Your insinuation that will set him up to disrespect women is hilarious. So guys here who have read the book... do you run around calling women sl*ts?  Get real. It's clearly hyperbolic language for blunt effect.


Are you getting a kickback from the author?

Here is the definition of Dread Game, as defined by Kay:

"Dread Game: To purposely set out to create an appearance that you would or could cheat on and/or dump your partner, unless they comply with your demands. *Basically anything you purposely do to make your partner feel a sinking sensation in the pit of their stomach that the relationship is heading to a very bad place, very soon, unless they comply with your demands."*

That is Narcissistic Manipulation 101.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Brigit said:


> Are you getting a kickback from the author?


I recommend a couple of parenting books so often that I SHOULD be getting kick backs.


----------



## happy as a clam

I am a self-sufficient woman. I earn my own way. I own my own business. I have a WONDERFUL, sex-beyond-imagination relationship with my SO.

I travel for fun AND for learning! Last year we went to Peru, Chile, Argentina... In Europe, the year before, we went to Portugal, Spain, England, Germany, France.

You DON'T have to be a feminist (or anything REMOTELY resembling one) to have a free, independent life!

I love, Love, LOVE a man who is take-charge!! In all ways. Checks us into the hotel. Orders us room-service (including flowers and champagne, his dime)... all the way, BABY!!!

I LOVE juxtaposing my femininity against HIS masculinity. ROOOWWWWRRR....


----------



## BronzeTorpedo

Brigit said:


> Are you getting a kickback from the author?
> 
> Here is the definition of Dread Game, as defined by Kay:
> 
> "Dread Game: To purposely set out to create an appearance that you would or could cheat on and/or dump your partner, unless they comply with your demands. *Basically anything you purposely do to make your partner feel a sinking sensation in the pit of their stomach that the relationship is heading to a very bad place, very soon, unless they comply with your demands."*
> 
> That is Narcissistic Manipulation 101.


Right. And Kay acknowledges that it's extremely risky and inferior to a strategy of self-improvement. Is he wrong? Or is he a heretic for acknowledging what must never be acknowledged (like concealed ovulation)?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Brigit said:


> Are you getting a kickback from the author?
> 
> Here is the definition of Dread Game, as defined by Kay:
> 
> "Dread Game: To purposely set out to create an appearance that you would or could cheat on and/or dump your partner, unless they comply with your demands. *Basically anything you purposely do to make your partner feel a sinking sensation in the pit of their stomach that the relationship is heading to a very bad place, very soon, unless they comply with your demands."*


I'm just sympathetic to the plight.

It's not narcissistic, that is TRUTH. The relationship isn't working for him. If she doesn't adjust, he's out... AS IT SHOULD BE. Unfortunately, speaking that explicit language: "if you don't X then I'm leaving you" - often does more damage than good. So you might as well just leave. If you want change rather than an immediate end of the relationship, then reminding her that you are not so desperate with so few options as to put up with her BS forever is more subtle and gives her a chance to adjust her behavior of her own volition without it being under the coercion of a direct threat. Instead, she has an opportunity to wake up and recognizes that if she doesn't act, someone else is going to come along and she will lose what she has - all without resenting him for a threat.

It's a proper kick in the head for someone who has grown too complacent of their "sure thing" so as to neglect it. Of course, I totally get why women would be upset when a man begins to pull away the security. That's about how men feel when women withdraw sex. 

The bottom line is the marriage is in the toilet, and he's about to leave... period. Inducing fear of loss is literally the last chance you have, and is the exact same thing we suggest to women being strung along by cheating men but for whatever reason still want to save the marriage. It's not real until you show the divorce papers.


----------



## nuclearnightmare

this thread already exploding....can't keep up..BUT

how did such beliefs turn into the metaphor......."taking the red pill"?
am just too curious about that


----------



## Pluto2

Lila said:


> Actually, I'm not conflating anything. Here is the definition of Dread Game, as defined by Kay:
> 
> "*Dread Game*: To purposely set out to create an appearance that you would or could cheat on and/or dump your partner, unless they comply with your demands. You underline the replaceability of your partner. *Some examples of this are creating dating profiles, going out without your partner to bars and clubs, sending flowers to yourself “from an admirer”, purposely seeking to pull Indicators of Interest from the opposite sex in front of your partner and so on.* Basically anything you purposely do to make your partner feel a sinking sensation in the pit of their stomach that the relationship is heading to a very bad place, very soon, unless they comply with your demands."​
> Roissy's description of Dread Game:
> 
> "*Managing your relationship in such a way that she is left with a constant, gnawing feeling of impending doom*..... "​
> What you describe as steps 1-7 is just self improvement. Dread games, by definition, are 7-10. I don't understand why you are trying to soften the definition of Dread Games? They are what they are, incredibly hurtful and useless unless the goal is strictly to get fear based sex from a partner.


OMG,
the sending flowers to yourself...
I watched "Clueless" with my teen the other day and the main character, a high school teen, did this very thing.
Didn't work in the movie either.
:rofl:


----------



## Icey181

Lila said:


> Actually, I'm not conflating anything. Here is the definition of Dread Game, as defined by Kay:
> 
> "*Dread Game*: To purposely set out to create an appearance that you would or could cheat on and/or dump your partner, unless they comply with your demands. You underline the replaceability of your partner. *Some examples of this are creating dating profiles, going out without your partner to bars and clubs, sending flowers to yourself “from an admirer”, purposely seeking to pull Indicators of Interest from the opposite sex in front of your partner and so on.* Basically anything you purposely do to make your partner feel a sinking sensation in the pit of their stomach that the relationship is heading to a very bad place, very soon, unless they comply with your demands."​
> Roissy's description of Dread Game:
> 
> "*Managing your relationship in such a way that she is left with a constant, gnawing feeling of impending doom*..... "​
> What you describe as steps 1-7 is just self improvement. Dread games, by definition, are 7-10. I don't understand why you are trying to soften the definition of Dread Games? They are what they are, incredibly hurtful and useless unless the goal is strictly to get fear based sex from a partner.


Actually, no. Dread is the entire systematic progression through steps 1-12 which need to be adhered to in a rather specific manner, with very specific qualifications.

As the author over at r/RedPill, a "BluepillProfessor" stated:


r/RedPill said:


> I conceptualize Dread as a continuum with level 5 being the baseline "Dread" for a good or excellent relationship. In other words, for most guys, Level 1-5 are personal and social self improvement so that your "Dread" is at the level that it should be. After level 5, however, Dread takes on a different tenor, that rapidly escalates to a better relationship- with either your wife or with somebody else.
> --Edit---
> To clarify, these are sequential. You don't go past level 5 if you are happy in the relationship. You don't "cheat" until you have tried everything else and the marriage is already over.


Kay and Roissy are focusing upon the back end, what is known on the Reddit and other places, as Nuclear Dread.

As even the r/RedPill people point out, the moment you go past what I will refer to as "healthy dread," which is Levels 1-5, you have basically shifted from attempting to fix a happy relationship and have gone full speed into reckless jealousy games seeking fear based sex.

People have issues with Levels 6-12 because _that_ is the whole emotional manipulation for sex aspect.

One of the most useful things about the Red Pill stuff is explaining to men that levels 1-5 are actually _baseline requirements in a stable relationship_.
That is perhaps the single most important part of the whole "dread" concept, actually.

And unsurprisingly so, the back end escalation is a recipe for disaster.

Most people seem to actually scoff at the escalation portion and conclude that one may as well divorce and move on.


----------



## BronzeTorpedo

nuclearnightmare said:


> this thread already exploding....can't keep up..BUT
> 
> how did such beliefs turn into the metaphor......."taking the red pill"?
> am just too curious about that


It's from The Matrix. The red pill exposed the awful truth about how the world worked. In this context, it's that real women don't behave like the women in rom coms where they ultimately decide that the alpha male isn't good for them and their beta best friend is really their true love.


----------



## Icey181

Brigit said:


> Are you getting a kickback from the author?
> 
> Here is the definition of Dread Game, as defined by Kay:
> 
> "Dread Game: To purposely set out to create an appearance that you would or could cheat on and/or dump your partner, unless they comply with your demands. *Basically anything you purposely do to make your partner feel a sinking sensation in the pit of their stomach that the relationship is heading to a very bad place, very soon, unless they comply with your demands."*
> 
> That is Narcissistic Manipulation 101.


There are two clauses here.

The first is a discussion of nuclear dread, implying or outright demonstrating both a capability and willingness to cheat.

The second is a general statement about upsetting the balance of the relationship.

The former is puerile drivel that most men would never even think to try, and quite frankly would find impossible to accomplish if they are reaching out for Red Pill advice, while the latter is actually the baseline for most of TAM's discussions.

If you have a SO that is failing to meet basic expectations in a relationship and is not acceding to compromise or discussions, what do you do?

You upset the apple cart.

Usually that inexorably leads to the two stages of Dead-Bedroom recovery, "The Talk," and finally "The Ultimatum."

Parsing out the PUA garbage and sifting through the "Anger phase" take some doing, but I think most people who look to this stuff (and are not themselves unbalanced) basically look at Dread levels 1-5 and stop there.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

When a man is treated like crap in spite of bending over backwards, he SHOULD rebalance himself. And visa versa...

Out of balance relationships eventually erode the partner with the heaviest burden and then the relationship dies.

Mature, well centered adults say "Hey... this burden is not only too heavy, but doesn't belong on me like this. Let's work together to fix it." If the other person isnt receptive, then survival mode kicks in "If things aren't rebalanced, I will have to remove myself from this situation as it is not sustainable." Preferably with a timeline..


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Brigit said:


> LOL!!!!!!
> 
> Omg I wonder if the author ever did that?
> 
> I bet he did.


I seriously doubt it. I suspect it's just an example people are more likely to be familiar with from tv/movies, to relate the concept to.


----------



## norajane

Icey181 said:


> There are two clauses here.
> 
> The first is a discussion of nuclear dread, implying or outright demonstrating both a capability and willingness to cheat.
> 
> The second is a general statement about upsetting the balance of the relationship.
> 
> *The former is puerile drivel that most men would never even think to try*, and quite frankly would find impossible to accomplish if they are reaching out for Red Pill advice, while the latter is actually the baseline for most of TAM's discussions..


Then why put it in there and promote it to high heaven as the gospel?

And why do others defend it to high heaven?

Why is it there, and why is it promoted on a healthy marriage site?


----------



## always_alone

The euphemisms to defend red pill and deflect criticism of it are truly mind-blowing: it's just "blunt"; a "2x4"; "self-improvement"; about "masculinity in a world where men have been feminized".

All I can say is that if you can't see that the stuff quoted below is all about hate and putting women down, then you really can't have a whole lot of respect or compassion for women to begin with. 



> - Because ovulation is concealed and somewhat random, it *forces a male partner to hang around *to ensure paternity.
> 
> - The other reason ovulation is concealed is *so she can cheat*.
> 
> On a biological level, the Male Body Agenda assumes that *the female he is having sex with will be unfaithful.*
> 
> -this sort of *planned deceit* on the wife’s part can happen completely unconsciously;
> 
> - “Scratch a lady, find a *****.”
> 
> -In reality, about 60% of the time the Rationalization Hamster is doing things like convincing them to not put a toddler down for a nap by way of a choke hold.
> 
> -99% of stuff women say they want is wrong,
> 
> -Women lie to themselves, and each other, as a matter of course.
> 
> -I decided to not just have rough sex with her, but to do it as hard as I could...without regard for her enjoyment or caring about her at all. I mean really, really rag doll f her like she was rented.


----------



## Lila

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I'm just sympathetic to the plight.
> 
> It's not narcissistic, that is TRUTH. The relationship isn't working for him. If she doesn't adjust, he's out... AS IT SHOULD BE. Unfortunately, speaking that explicit language: "if you don't X then I'm leaving you" - often does more damage than good. So you might as well just leave. *If you want change rather than an immediate end of the relationship, then reminding her that you are not so desperate with so few options as to put up with her BS forever is more subtle *and gives her a chance to adjust her behavior of her own volition without it being under the coercion of a direct threat. Instead, she has an opportunity to wake up and recognizes that if she doesn't act, someone else is going to come along and she will lose what she has - all without resenting him for a threat.
> 
> *It's a proper kick in the head for someone who has grown too complacent of their "sure thing" so as to neglect it. *Of course, I totally get why women would be upset when a man begins to pull away the security. That's about how men feel when women withdraw sex.
> 
> The bottom line is the marriage is in the toilet, and he's about to leave... period. *Inducing fear of loss is literally the last chance you have,* and is the exact same thing we suggest to women being strung along by cheating men but for whatever reason still want to save the marriage. It's not real until you show the divorce papers.


Applying dread games is not a last ditch effort to save a relationship....it's a desperate act to scare a wife into having sex with her husband in whatever way, form, or fashion, he can manage. 

Dread games should never be played with spouse, even as a last ditch effort. They only serve to reinforce the belief that a wife's only purpose is as a warm and pliable receptacle for husband's ejaculate.


----------



## Jellybeans

MMLS quotes:



Faithful Wife said:


> Any one sex act might be the one that gets her pregnant, so it creates the need for a primary partner to pay her attention and create a serious committed relationship. This is quite excellent for holding a regular male partner around to help raise children.
> 
> The other reason ovulation is concealed is so she can cheat. There’s no possible way a male can watch his primary female partner 24/7. *Everyone falls asleep or needs to use the bathroom eventually*, so despite a very high level of attention a husband gives a wife, she will always have some wiggle room to disappear briefly for something quick and dirty. Because ovulation is concealed, there’s no sure way for the husband to know whether or not she was perfectly faithful even when he was watching her like a hawk.





EleGirl said:


> Here is another quotes that says about the same thing......
> 
> *"It is extremely politically incorrect to say so, but all women have a component of slvt in their makeup. **The trick is not to fear it, seek to sanction it, or flee it, but to adapt to the presence of the slvt in your woman and harness it* for your mutual enjoyment. But if you don't' pay her active attention to account for her slvt influence, you might find that it gets up to all sorts of mischief."


WTF?????!!!!! 

Omg, it reads like a bad science fiction novel! I hadn't read any of MMLS before. This is the book that dorky potato-looking Athol guy wrote that is constantly referenced on TAM? 

He has some serious issues. It's clear he doesn't see women as people. Disturbing.


----------



## always_alone

norajane said:


> Then why put it in there and promote it to high heaven as the gospel?
> 
> And why do others defend it to high heaven?
> 
> Why is it there, and why is it promoted on a healthy marriage site?


Good questions! This stuff is promoted as the be-all and end-all of successful relationships for men. 

Seriously?

If even 1/4 of the amount of hate in this were directed at men, there's no doubt in my mind that there would be a huge outcry.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

norajane said:


> Then why put it in there and promote it to high heaven as the gospel?
> 
> And why do others defend it to high heaven?
> 
> Why is it there, and why is it promoted on a healthy marriage site?


I don't defend everything in the book.

I'm not sure I've ever read a book where I agreed on every single point made.


----------



## Brigit

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I seriously doubt it. I suspect it's just an example people are more likely to be familiar with from tv/movies, to relate the concept to.


Did you ever send flowers to yourself? 

(I'm just messing around.)


----------



## Icey181

norajane said:


> Then why put it in there and promote it to high heaven as the gospel?
> 
> And why do others defend it to high heaven?
> 
> Why is it there, and why is it promoted on a healthy marriage site?


Basic reason?

Because Kay is selling this stuff to mostly immature men who are sitting in a puddle of self-loathing and insecurities and they find it easier to lash out than to accept personal responsibility.

Idiots in the Anger Phase are the ones paying him money. 

Older and more mature men take the "deprogramming" so to speak, look at the premises of:
1) Taking responsibility for your relationship
2) No longer being doormats for women and/or falling into the "Happy Wife, Happy Life," line.
3) Giving up the "Nice Guy" fairytale
4) Taking responsibility for your attractiveness and getting fit
5) Cultivating a sense of masculinity

And leave the rest of the refuse in the pile for the angry keyboard warriors to rant and vent over.

And because, a good deal of what the Red Pill stuff tells men, does not actually exist anywhere else out there.

And it most certainly flies in the face of most of our "It's your fault, do more chores, be more attentive, and otherwise figure out how to service her needs _more_," advice sources.



Lila said:


> Applying dread games is not a last ditch effort to save a relationship....it's a desperate act to scare a wife into having sex with her husband in whatever way, form, or fashion, he can manage.
> 
> Dread games should never be played with spouse, even as a last ditch effort. They only serve to reinforce the belief that a wife's only purpose is as a warm and pliable receptacle for husband's ejaculate.


When you are talking about the "Nuclear Dread" crap, I agree.

But you are purposefully focusing in on the radical portions of it and ignoring the rather useful information that most people seem to take away from it.

The married men who look at Red Pill are not cultivating "plates" and running PUA & misogynistic nuclear dread games.

In fact, those are the ones who point out how most of the manipulative stuff is actually quite pathetic.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> If even 1/4 of the amount of hate in this were directed at men, there's no doubt in my mind that there would be a huge outcry.


lol no worries, we get that hate on half of women's dating profiles.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Icey181 said:


> And it most certainly flies in the face of most of our "It's your fault, do more chores, be more attentive, and otherwise figure out how to service her needs _more_," advice sources.


You're just not listening to her. Did you try *really listening* to her?


----------



## Icey181

always_alone said:


> Good questions! This stuff is promoted as the be-all and end-all of successful relationships for men.
> 
> Seriously?
> 
> If even 1/4 of the amount of hate in this were directed at men, there's no doubt in my mind that there would be a huge outcry.


When is the last time you walked to work and had to pass by AWALT signs on the wall?

Because I have had to walk past "Men: Learn Not to Rape," signs and their ilk dozens of times on the way to my office in the last 2-semesters.

To be completely frank, overt and implicit misandrist garbage is the background noise of every college campus I have ever been to or worked on.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Brigit said:


> Did you ever send flowers to yourself?
> 
> (I'm just messing around.)


Actually I kinda have, but they were wildflower seeds I ordered to plant in a large portion of my yard at previous house I didn't want to mow any longer. 

Wifey was cray jelly.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Icey181 said:


> When is the last time you walked to work and had to pass by AWALT signs on the wall?
> 
> Because I have had to walk past "Men: Learn Not to Rape," signs and their ilk dozens of times on the way to my office in the last 2-semesters.
> 
> To be completely frank, overt and implicit misandrist garbage is the background noise of every college campus I have ever been to or worked on.


A-F*CKING-MEN to this.


----------



## Brigit

Lila said:


> Applying dread games is not a last ditch effort to save a relationship....it's a desperate act to scare a wife into having sex with her husband in whatever way, form, or fashion, he can manage.
> 
> Dread games should never be played with spouse, even as a last ditch effort. They only serve to reinforce the belief that a wife's only purpose is as a warm and pliable receptacle for husband's ejaculate.


Lila, well written dead honest truth at it's finest!

Congrats.


----------



## gouge_away

I learned the hard way playing games doesn't work. That was 3rd grade.


----------



## Anon Pink

GTdad said:


> Something that occurs to me is that maybe the ire is not directed so much at Athol as much as the dumbasses who might not filter what he has to say. Something like "we need to protect the dumbasses from this sort of thing!"
> 
> But despite all of the warnings we put on lawnmowers and ladders, you can't save dumbasses from themselves. I understand the concerns FW has expressed about protecting women from the dumbasses, though.


True, dumbasses will always be a problem.

We had several dumbasses here on TAM for a while. Like religious zeolotrous fundamentalists, they read AK and took it all literally, unfiltered, uncontemplated, unreasoned. It was actually kind of funny until you realized these idiots actually thought they now had the lock on how to man up and be "alpha" which is hilarious because being alpha is just to get and keep women and yet no two women have the same definition for what an alpha man really is!

One woman's alpha is another woman's assh0le!


----------



## TiggyBlue

Anon Pink said:


> One woman's alpha is another woman's assh0le!


That's bumper sticker worthy :smthumbup:


----------



## lucy999

happy as a clam said:


> I am a self-sufficient woman. I earn my own way. I own my own business. I have a WONDERFUL, sex-beyond-imagination relationship with my SO.
> 
> I travel for fun AND for learning! Last year we went to Peru, Chile, Argentina... In Europe, the year before, we went to Portugal, Spain, England, Germany, France.
> 
> You DON'T have to be a feminist (or anything REMOTELY resembling one) to have a free, independent life!
> 
> I love, Love, LOVE a man who is take-charge!! In all ways. Checks us into the hotel. Orders us room-service (including flowers and champagne, his dime)... all the way, BABY!!!
> 
> I LOVE juxtaposing my femininity against HIS masculinity. ROOOWWWWRRR....


AMEN my midwestern sistah!:iagree:


----------



## lucy999

TiggyBlue said:


> That's bumper sticker worthy :smthumbup:


YES! I was going to say, hey, that would make a great TAM 
t shirt!


----------



## Anon Pink

bandit.45 said:


> You women need to shut the fvck up.... and one of you go fix me a sandwich.


This made me laugh!

This is something my late brother would have said. And then I would have punched him, and he would have blocked it, and I would have called him an assh0le, and he would have told me to lighten up, and I would have stormed away, and he would have laughed.

Is there an asshat school for men somewhere?

This is not the first time you've reminded me of my brother Bandit. He was a funny man with definite asshattish tendencies. Miss him, but not his asshattery...okay maybe some of the asshattery.


----------



## Faithful Wife

My brother is one of the original bad boys. I actually picked up tricks from him, back in the day.

His pet name for me is Tramp.

When I call him, he picks up and says "hey Tramp".

One day he called my office and expected me to pick up the phone but it was my co-worker....he said "hey Tramp". All I could hear was her saying "Ex-CUSE me??!" and I knew exactly what had happened. "Oh sorry honey, that must be my bad boy brother".


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> And a husband's only purpose is to provide said frigid wife with unrelenting security.
> 
> GTFO with that noise.


And when the reason behind her not wanting sex has nothing to do with how much of your sperm she has in her or how many plates of cookies you get from your co-workers or how well you've unleashed her inner slvt?

Do you not see how dangerous it can be to give advice "_to not just have rough sex with her, but to do it as hard as I could...without regard for her enjoyment or caring about her at all. I mean really, really rag doll f her like she was rented._" to men you know nothing about?
To tell a man to put a woman in some isolation fear to get her to submit more? 
To tell him to act like he's going to have an affair even if she's being fair and giving?

By all means, if a man wants to leave then he should leave. Talk to a lawyer, know your rights. Don't put up with BS and a wife not making an effort but there are many ways to go about it that don't involve being a pig. Do you want her to stay because she's scared or because she wants you?

Some men could attract their wives more by being more tough and less soft, I agree with that. This is not the way. This is just how to be a d^uchbag.


----------



## soccermom2three

One red pill "tenet" that I totally disagree with is that there's this "wall" that women of a certain age can't get past. NOT TRUE!

Just two examples of many:

Just found out my 51 year old widowed friend has a new boyfriend. He's in is late 20's. And no she's not a sugar momma. Unfortunately her husband didn't leave her anything and she has to work her ass off. This new guy doesn't have money either. They're just two people getting to know each other and having fun.

Second friend is the same, 51 year old widow. She also has a boyfriend and before this new guy she had no problem getting dates.


----------



## Lila

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> And a husband's only purpose is to provide said frigid wife with unrelenting security.
> 
> GTFO with that noise.


Hmmm, since I never said "a husband's only purpose was to provide his frigid wife with unrelenting security", I'll kindly ask you to retract your insulting comment to me.


----------



## Lila

Icey181 said:


> When you are talking about the "Nuclear Dread" crap, I agree.
> 
> But you are purposefully focusing in on the radical portions of it and ignoring the rather useful information that most people seem to take away from it.
> 
> The married men who look at Red Pill are not cultivating "plates" and running PUA & misogynistic nuclear dread games.
> 
> In fact, those are the ones who point out how most of the manipulative stuff is actually quite pathetic.


Icey, 

Where you and I are having a disconnect is that you see items #1 - #6 as Dread Game and I do not. Those are self-improvement and I'm all for men becoming the best they can be.

Dread Game (_def _Dread: great fear or apprehension; _def_ Game: manipulate (a situation), typically in a way that is unfair or unscrupulous), as I see it, are items #7-#10. That's when things can go very, very wrong. A man might as well admit the relationship is over before wasting time with that stuff. It does nothing positive to improve the relationship.

Nuclear Dread is by all accounts, #11 -#12, and are really only there to give a wife a reason to file for divorce. That's it.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

soccermom2three said:


> One red pill "tenet" that I totally disagree with is that there's this "wall" that women of a certain age can't get past. NOT TRUE!
> 
> Just two examples of many:
> 
> Just found out my 51 year old widowed friend has a new boyfriend. He's in is late 20's. And no she's not a sugar momma. Unfortunately her husband didn't leave her anything and she has to work her ass off. This new guy doesn't have money either. They're just two people getting to know each other and having fun.
> 
> Second friend is the same, 51 year old widow. She also has a boyfriend and before this new guy she had no problem getting dates.


Yea, I married someone 15 years younger than my ex.

My ex married someone older than me.

Broad strokes on either side don't resonate for me.


----------



## Faithful Wife

soccermom2three said:


> One red pill "tenet" that I totally disagree with is that there's this "wall" that women of a certain age can't get past. NOT TRUE!


Not only do women hit a wall, even better, men's sex rank INCREASES MAGICALLY with age! As mansplained to us in this post:

Relative vs Absolute Sex Rank and the Forty-Year-Old Wife | Athol Kay's Married Man Sex Life

Let Uncle Athol explain to you what it is like to be a 40 year old woman, because, he knows that somehow:

If there’s a single moment women have where they get the Red Pill for themselves, it’s the moment when they realize relative Sex Rank doesn’t count, only absolute Sex Rank does.

Women all start off their sex lives pretty close to the peak of their attractiveness and are very attuned to their peer group. So they think of themselves as being hot relative to their peer group cohort…. and then keep thinking of themselves as being hot relative to their peer group as they age. So if a twenty-year-old looks at her peer group and decides she’s a 9… she’s a 9. But then twenty years later when she’s forty, when she looks at her peer group of other forty-year-old women and decides she’s a 9… newsflash, she’s not a 9.

Obviously the same woman at age 20 isn’t going to be as hot at age 40. Relative to her girlfriends, she may still be the hot one, but in absolute terms compared to all the women in the Sexual Marketplace… maybe she’s a 6 or a 7. Hell if she got properly fat, maybe she’s a 4. Meanwhile her husband has potentially continued to gain Sex Rank as he gains money, power and social influence.

*This is utterly horrifying for women to realize.*

It’s a bitter pill to men to realize they screwed up a bunch of stuff in the past, but at least there’s a hope for the future. Sure it’s hard work turning things around, but every single guy that’s run the MAP, eventually gets to a sexy outcome if they put the effort in and make the hard choices. It may take a couple years to get there, but there’s always hope.

Women are just screwed though. You’re forty. The best bit is over, you’ll never be as hot as you were. This is as good as it gets. Please keep your arms and legs inside the train, it’s all downhill from here. Abandon all hope ye who enter here.

(end quote)

Then he goes on to explain that the only man you'll ever be hot to when you're an old hag of 40, is your dear sweet husband, so don't you dare leave him, he's ALL you've got.

This one doesn't actually make me mad because it is just so hilarious that I just chuckle about it. I know so many hot 40-50 year olds who are out and about, dating, finally having GREAT sex after a divorce from a sexless marriage...they all have a full dance card.


----------



## norajane

That passage is designed to build men up by putting women down. The men get to believe that their best years are ahead of them, plus they'll get to feel superior and laugh at all the women who didn't want them when they were young. 

I think guys who buy into it do so because they want very badly to believe it's true. That's not atypical of people who are hurt - they want desperately to feel better about themselves, and they might want to hurt someone so they feel the same pain. I think most manage to move past that phase, but those that get stuck in this phase are just hurting themselves.


----------



## Anon Pink

That whole relative sex rank is kind of funny. I always assumed that men who went for much younger women must really suck in bed. Only a very young woman would have no idea he sucked because of her inexperience. While an older woman...he's not gonna get away with sucking in bed with her.

So older guy with young woman, he sucks in bed and she's clueless. 
Older woman with older man, they're tearing up the sheets! Because they both know what they're doing!
Older woman with younger guy.. Euw! Why would anyone want to train a pup when she could have the sire?


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

I spend a lot of time with women 65+. Many who have found amazing husbands at that age who adore and want them, many who feel hotter than ever AND don't give a crap about the silly insecurity BS they had when they were younger so they can really just let it all out and have fun. There is plenty of life left after 40 (or 50 or 60!)


----------



## MountainRunner

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> There is plenty of life left after 40 (or 50 or 60!)


Damn straight there is. At 55, I run half marathons with great frequency. I'd like to say I'm doing it for my health, but there are other "benefits" in the cardio and endurance department as a result from long distance running...LOL! *grin*


----------



## FizzBomb

Lila said:


> Applying dread games is not a last ditch effort to save a relationship....it's a desperate act to scare a wife into having sex with her husband in whatever way, form, or fashion, he can manage.
> 
> Dread games should never be played with spouse, even as a last ditch effort. They only serve to reinforce the belief that a wife's only purpose is as a warm and pliable receptacle for husband's ejaculate.


:iagree:
Cruelty and a$$h0lery at it's finest.

Doesn't surprise me that there are a few men on this thread vehemently and rabidly supporting this stuff. Mmmmm I wonder why? Insecure much? Why can't they accept that a great deal of other people find it misogynistic and hateful? Why are they trying so very hard to defend it? Why get all riled up about it?

This type of stuff is tailor made for weak, broken and desperate fools who like to swallow this stuff whole.

*It is good to hear other men standing up in this thread and speaking out against this rubbish. Kudo's to them.* :smthumbup:


----------



## FizzBomb

I the only thing I 'dread' is meeting up with one of these rabid MMSL fanatics. :crazy:


----------



## Holland

FizzBomb said:


> I the only thing I 'dread' is meeting up with one of these rabid MMSL fanatics. :crazy:


Thank The Universe that I have sane, emotionally healthy men in my life. Then again I am not the prime target of a RPer, I'm way too high in intelligence and self esteem to be of interest.

Oh and I'm over 40 lol But anyway I am having the best sex of my life at a quantity and quality level that these twits would not believe is possible. Having an intelligent, mature, high EQ man by my side is a major turn on. Wimpy, sooky pants, manipulators need not apply.


----------



## Faithful Wife

norajane said:


> That passage is designed to build men up by putting women down. The men get to believe that their best years are ahead of them, plus they'll get to feel superior and laugh at all the women who didn't want them when they were young.
> 
> I think guys who buy into it do so because they want very badly to believe it's true. That's not atypical of people who are hurt - they want desperately to feel better about themselves, and they might want to hurt someone so they feel the same pain. I think most manage to move past that phase, but those that get stuck in this phase are just hurting themselves.


I agree that it is even worse because guys who are hurting find it.

I will hunt around for another book that would be better for hurting guys...something that tells them from an ACTUAL woman's point of view, "Hey! All is definitely not lost, hurt dude! Chicks dig guys like you...just get your self improvement on and excel at your own game and give it some time...." plus then encouragement in ways that will really help a guy but not make him hate us even more than he probably already does.

When people are hurt of course they will feel anger at those they feel hurt by, or their kind. For a time this will always happen...but if there was something better to offer that still appealed to his "c'mon man shake it off, we have to keep on marching" (in a supportive way) and assure him that YES, women will like you!

I'll hunt around...


----------



## antechomai

I've been to every Manosphere website that exists, reflecting on the failure of my first marriage some 18 years ago.

I think I did something worse than dread game.

It started with the "self improvement plan" because there was a Dead bedroom creeping in slowly over the years.

I think it was a comment she made "I get bored if intercourse lasts more than 3 minutes. I was gone with those words, and moved fully into a world of running and cycling. 

No more full body massages to get her in the mood for my three minute timer. 

Worse than dread game, it was no game She had her authority, I just walked and took control of my own destiny. 

This is not a well written reply, but I'm tired.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening all
I wish the Matrix meaning of "red pill" had not been stolen. As presented in the Matrix it was an excellent and important concept. This use is like Nazis stealing the swastika. (OK, sorry for the Godwin law violation). 

If you are happy with someone, then stay together. If not, why would you want to play these sorts of games? Go find someone you will be happy with.

The whole sex rank thing drives me nuts as well. I married the girl *I* wanted. I don't care where she was on anyone else's list. If there was someone I had wanted more, I would have married them. (OK, I'm a bit overconfident, but seriously, I wouldn't have wanted someone who didn't want me).


----------



## Faithful Wife

This book was recommended to me by Amazon, (because bought I MMSL and have read NMMNG and Models by Mark Manson). This one wins best goofy cover by far:


----------



## Faithful Wife

Yeah I don't see any good books geared toward men about relationships....that's just sad.


----------



## EleGirl

antechomai said:


> I've been to every Manosphere website that exists, reflecting on the failure of my first marriage some 18 years ago.
> 
> I think I did something worse than dread game.
> 
> It started with the "self improvement plan" because there was a Dead bedroom creeping in slowly over the years.
> 
> I think it was a comment she made "I get bored if intercourse lasts more than 3 minutes. I was gone with those words, and moved fully into a world of running and cycling.
> 
> No more full body massages to get her in the mood for my three minute timer.
> 
> Worse than dread game, it was no game She had her authority, I just walked and took control of my own destiny.
> 
> This is not a well written reply, but I'm tired.


I don't think what you did is worse than the dread game. What you did was an honest reaction to her abusive attitude.

Why wouldn't you take control of your own life and leave. Makes perfect sense to me.


----------



## EleGirl

Faithful Wife said:


> Yeah I don't see any good books geared toward men about relationships....that's just sad.


I did find quite a few but do not have time right now to evaluate them... need to go to bed. Maybe over the next couple of days I'll do that.


----------



## Dogbert

Well it seems that* my thread* has been closed.


----------



## gouge_away

Dogbert said:


> Well it seems that* my thread* has been closed.


Betas rule, biatch!


----------



## In Absentia

many members on TAM advocate the use of these "books"... they are always suggested and I really wonder if they really have read them? The word misogyny springs to mind...


----------



## Brigit

soccermom2three said:


> One red pill "tenet" that I totally disagree with is that there's this "wall" that women of a certain age can't get past. NOT TRUE!
> 
> Just two examples of many:
> 
> Just found out my 51 year old widowed friend has a new boyfriend. He's in is late 20's. And no she's not a sugar momma. Unfortunately her husband didn't leave her anything and she has to work her ass off. This new guy doesn't have money either. They're just two people getting to know each other and having fun.
> 
> Second friend is the same, 51 year old widow. She also has a boyfriend and before this new guy she had no problem getting dates.


There seems to be a new trend: hot men going for older women. It has nothing to do with money and everything to do with sex. My BFF who is 43 married a guy 12 years younger than her. He works, she doesn't, never did.


----------



## Brigit

Faithful Wife said:


> Then he goes on to explain that the only man you'll ever be hot to when you're an old hag of 40, is your dear sweet husband, so don't you dare leave him, he's ALL you've got.


It's stuff like that which makes me really sad. These mean comments coupled with all the anti-aging commercials just makes me want to hide under the covers.

However, my personal experience with hot younger male population contradicts that thinking. (Not that I should be talking about this crap anyway.)


----------



## In Absentia

Brigit said:


> It's stuff like that which makes me really sad. These mean comments coupled with all the anti-aging commercials just makes me want to hide under the covers.
> 
> However, my personal experience with hot younger male population contradicts that thinking. (Not that I should be talking about this crap anyway.)


I know quite a few "older" women with younger guys...


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Faithful Wife said:


> Yeah I don't see any good books geared toward men about relationships....that's just sad.


There is one main one that comes to mind. Blows my mind you blow right past it.

And Anon Pink, FWIW, my younger man has vastly more emotional intelligence than my ex. Again, broad strokes of age, gender and may work for some, but at the end of the day its has to be about the individual. So while everyone is up in arms about AK's broad creepy strokes, lets be mindful not to ere the same.


----------



## Brigit

I did something really bad last night.

I took the Red Pill. I know, I know, I know. What can I say? I took it...and now, I see the light.

Athol Kay IS the ultimate Alpha Male and now I'm just lost. All I can think of is Mr. Kay ripping my clothes off and treating me like a wh*re..

50 Shades of Kay...


----------



## kristin2349

Brigit said:


> I did something really bad last night.
> 
> I took the Red Pill. I know, I know, I know. What can I say? I took it...and now, I see the light.
> 
> Athol Kay IS the ultimate Alpha Male and now I'm just lost. All I can think of is Mr. Kay ripping my clothes off and treating me like a wh*re..
> 
> 50 Shades of Kay...


Oh Brigit, did he play the isolation game with you? Smack yourself in the face and let the dopamine rush pass. Keep your panties on girl. Come back from the dark side.

So weak


----------



## Brigit

kristin2349 said:


> Oh Brigit, did he play the isolation game with you? Smack yourself in the face and let the dopamine rush pass. Keep your panties on girl. Come back from the dark side.
> 
> So weak


He was out for blood. Isolation Games, Dread Games and some other games he must have just invented.

I felt like a empty, worthless, shell of a woman.

God I hope he texts me...Do you think he will?????


----------



## kristin2349

Brigit said:


> He was out for blood. Isolation Games, Dread Games and some other games he must have just invented.
> 
> I felt like a empty, worthless, shell of a woman.
> 
> God I hope he texts me...Do you think he will?????



Probably not, you have shown your SMV is much lower than his


----------



## Jellybeans

norajane said:


> That passage is designed to build men up by putting women down.
> 
> That's not atypical of people who are hurt - they want desperately to feel better about themselves, and they might want to hurt someone so they feel the same pain.


I agree. It reads like someone who doesn't like women very much. He sounds like a d0uchebag.


----------



## naiveonedave

Jellybeans said:


> I agree. It reads like someone who doesn't like women very much. He sounds like a d0uchebag.


all about context.... I could find passages in damn near any book that could be construed as misogeny or misandry without the context.


----------



## naiveonedave

Icy - no one has real infidelity statistics. The researchers admit they are giving best guesses. Pick a number 10, 20, or more%. I don't care, it doesn't change my argument. Which is, as a man, if want to minimize your risk to a cheating wife, you need to cleanup your side of the street. Will it always work, no, some people are too broken.


----------



## Faithful Wife

So Deejo....I'm confused why the other thread got locked. I suppose this one will, too.

Several people, including men, have agreed that the passages I quoted on this thread were at a minimum, mean spirited.

So are you going to be mad at me for saying you or anyone who read the book is mean spirited? Because that's not what I'm saying. Again, I'm truly confused by you closing the other thread. You seemed to have taken it as a direct personal insult to you and MEM. But that's just silly, no one is targeting any reader of the book...by you shutting down the thread, you made it seem exactly like what I was afraid of: that WE will be shut down if we speak out against that book! Like the book itself is endorsed by TAM itself.

Why can't people speak out against a book that helped you? Just because it helped you doesn't mean it doesn't hurt others.

These are honest questions because it doesn't really make sense that you got so offended by people speaking out against that book. Why do you defend it so deeply that you would take that personally? It really just looks like we will be shut down if we dare speak out against MMSL, which doesn't make any sense.

There is no book suggested to women of TAM that has any type of similar message in it and if there were such a book, I can guarantee you that men would speak out against it.

Why is MMSL so protected? And if it is just because a couple of the mods got a big benefit out of it, then that isn't really fair....so many women right here are telling you how offensive the MMSL concepts are....why do we not have a right to be heard?


----------



## In Absentia

Faithful Wife said:


> So Deejo....I'm confused why the other thread got locked. I suppose this one will, too.
> 
> Several people, including men, have agreed that the passages I quoted on this thread were at a minimum, mean spirited.
> 
> So are you going to be mad at me for saying you or anyone who read the book is mean spirited? Because that's not what I'm saying. Again, I'm truly confused by you closing the other thread. You seemed to have taken it as a direct personal insult to you and MEM. But that's just silly, no one is targeting any reader of the book...by you shutting down the thread, you made it seem exactly like what I was afraid of: that WE will be shut down if we speak out against that book! Like the book itself is endorsed by TAM itself.
> 
> Why can't people speak out against a book that helped you? Just because it helped you doesn't mean it doesn't hurt others.
> 
> These are honest questions because it doesn't really make sense that you got so offended by people speaking out against that book. Why do you defend it so deeply that you would take that personally? It really just looks like we will be shut down if we dare speak out against MMSL, which doesn't make any sense.
> 
> There is no book suggested to women of TAM that has any type of similar message in it and if there were such a book, I can guarantee you that men would speak out against it.
> 
> Why is MMSL so protected? And if it is just because a couple of the mods got a big benefit out of it, then that isn't really fair....so many women right here are telling you how offensive the MMSL concepts are....why do we not have a right to be heard?



Maybe, underneath, Deejo, or even MEM, are a bit ashamed that some of the stuff they've used from the book has actually worked... nobody likes to be compared to cavemen, I guess...  and that's what you are doing..............


----------



## Brigit

Faithful Wife said:


> it doesn't really make sense that you got so offended by people speaking out against that book. Why do you defend it so deeply that you would take that personally? It really just looks like we will be shut down if we dare speak out against MMSL, which doesn't make any sense.
> 
> There is no book suggested to women of TAM that has any type of similar message in it and if there were such a book, I can guarantee you that men would speak out against it.
> 
> Why is MMSL so protected? And if it is just because a couple of the mods got a big benefit out of it, then that isn't really fair....so many women right here are telling you how offensive the MMSL concepts are....why do we not have a right to be heard?


Those are some wonderful questions. 

I do hope the moderator doesn't shut down the thread but instead verbalizes why the women here cannot site passages from a book that is promoted on this website and express their feelings regarding those passages.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Well my husband's the king of cavemen and Deejo knows that so...calling him a caveman would be a compliment. Rawr, throw me over your shoulder and let's go.

So no, I don't think that's it.


----------



## In Absentia

Faithful Wife said:


> Well my husband's the king of cavemen and Deejo knows that so...calling him a caveman would be a compliment. Rawr, throw me over your shoulder and let's go.
> 
> So no, I don't think that's it.


I said "maybe"...  but I can't help thinking MMSL = caveman, TAM member likes MMSL => TAM member = caveman...


----------



## Faithful Wife

Ok but still....caveman = sexy!!


----------



## In Absentia

Faithful Wife said:


> Ok but still....caveman = sexy!!


:smthumbup::smthumbup::smthumbup:


----------



## Deejo

Faithful Wife said:


> So Deejo....I'm confused why the other thread got locked. I suppose this one will, too.
> 
> Several people, including men, have agreed that the passages I quoted on this thread were at a minimum, mean spirited.
> 
> So are you going to be mad at me for saying you or anyone who read the book is mean spirited? Because that's not what I'm saying. Again, I'm truly confused by you closing the other thread. You seemed to have taken it as a direct personal insult to you and MEM. But that's just silly, no one is targeting any reader of the book...by you shutting down the thread, you made it seem exactly like what I was afraid of: that WE will be shut down if we speak out against that book! Like the book itself is endorsed by TAM itself.
> 
> Why can't people speak out against a book that helped you? Just because it helped you doesn't mean it doesn't hurt others.
> 
> These are honest questions because it doesn't really make sense that you got so offended by people speaking out against that book. Why do you defend it so deeply that you would take that personally? It really just looks like we will be shut down if we dare speak out against MMSL, which doesn't make any sense.
> 
> There is no book suggested to women of TAM that has any type of similar message in it and if there were such a book, I can guarantee you that men would speak out against it.
> 
> Why is MMSL so protected? And if it is just because a couple of the mods got a big benefit out of it, then that isn't really fair....so many women right here are telling you how offensive the MMSL concepts are....why do we not have a right to be heard?


Respectfully ...

You have every right to. You're exercising that right at this very moment. 

I wasn't offended. Wasn't even mildly annoyed.

I have made it clear on numerous occasions I don't feel compelled to defend that book. 

You have made it clear on a number of occasions that you agree on the core concepts that it outlines. We share the same view

I explained why the other thread was closed, it was personally inflammatory, aka inciting. Amp explained why the thread it referenced was closed.

Carry on, observe the forum rules. And all will be well. What could possibly go wrong?


----------



## always_alone

norajane said:


> That passage is designed to build men up by putting women down. The men get to believe that their best years are ahead of them, plus they'll get to feel superior and laugh at all the women who didn't want them when they were young.
> 
> I think guys who buy into it do so because they want very badly to believe it's true. That's not atypical of people who are hurt - they want desperately to feel better about themselves, and they might want to hurt someone so they feel the same pain. I think most manage to move past that phase, but those that get stuck in this phase are just hurting themselves.


:iagree: The more I think about it, the more I'm inclined to think that the reason MMSL is considered "blunt" and a "2x4" instead of downright misogyny is because it taps into a deep insecurity, and then builds men up by putting women down. 

I do wish, though, that we could unpack this idea of "works" a little bit more. Because I'm also inclined to think that MMSL "works" precisely *because* of the way that it taps into and exploits people's insecurities. 

To my mind, this cannot possibly be the foundation of a healthy relationship, as it is, at base, a crude attempt at behavioral modification by triggering and exploiting feelings of "dread". Surely all this can accomplish is to foster unhealthy competitiveness and resentment? I know that's how I would react if my SO ever treated me in any of the ways advocated in MMSL.

So, maybe short term, you can get "laid" by exploiting people's vulnerabilities. But personally, I would rather focus on building healthy relationships founded on integrity.


----------



## Icey181

soccermom2three said:


> One red pill "tenet" that I totally disagree with is that there's this "wall" that women of a certain age can't get past. NOT TRUE!
> 
> Just two examples of many:
> 
> Just found out my 51 year old widowed friend has a new boyfriend. He's in is late 20's. And no she's not a sugar momma. Unfortunately her husband didn't leave her anything and she has to work her ass off. This new guy doesn't have money either. They're just two people getting to know each other and having fun.
> 
> Second friend is the same, 51 year old widow. She also has a boyfriend and before this new guy she had no problem getting dates.


Which is great for both of these ladies.

But to be honest, the "Wall" does indeed exist.

The spate of "Where have all the Good Men Gone" articles floating through Women's Magazines and Online Blogs in the last 5-years is a basic testament to that.

If we are honest with ourselves the sudden cultural backlash in the last decade in which women have shamed men for "failing to man up," to "stop playing video games," and get a real job and "find a wife," stems from an entire generation of women who are finding it difficult to track down a suitable partner.

That these blogs tend to be written by and directed at 30 and 40 year old professional women is not a coincidence.

The thing that all these Red Pill guys fail to realize is that men also have a Wall and it happens roughly at the same time.

In my experience 40 and 50 year old career men are not "killing it" in bars and going home with 22-year old College Cheerleaders. 



Lila said:


> Icey,
> 
> Where you and I are having a disconnect is that you see items #1 - #6 as Dread Game and I do not. Those are self-improvement and I'm all for men becoming the best they can be.


And the larger community at r/RedPill considers this the basic level of Dread necessary to sustain a healthy relationship. One of the commentators to the original post referred to it as "maintenance level" dread. Most comments to new adherents in no uncertain terms demand posters push themselves through levels 1-5 before anything else.

The use of the phrase Dread is throwing people off and it does so by design. It is meant to be bombastic and offensive. Mainly because some of these guys feels like it creates a "man-space" which will ward off the "womins."

The reality however is that the fundamental principle of Dread is actually quite simple:

Reasserting your independent value within a relationship.

The "Dread" in this case is designed for Men and Women in LTRs and Marriages in which the Wife has begun to take the Husband for granted. Therefore, the husband instills "Dread' by reinforcing the realization that he has independent value and is not dependent on his wife for fulfillment.

That is the basis of Dread Game in married life and is, quite frankly, not offered as advice just about anywhere else I have ever looked.



Lila said:


> Dread Game (_def _Dread: great fear or apprehension; _def_ Game: manipulate (a situation), typically in a way that is unfair or unscrupulous), as I see it, are items #7-#10. That's when things can go very, very wrong. A man might as well admit the relationship is over before wasting time with that stuff. It does nothing positive to improve the relationship.
> 
> Nuclear Dread is by all accounts, #11 -#12, and are really only there to give a wife a reason to file for divorce. That's it.


Yeah, just about everything after stage 5 is disaster inducing idiocy and even the r/RedPill people recognize that. A good number of commentators find that attempting to farm jealously (the cookie plate stuff) easily backfires and has the opposite result as intended and that the Nuclear Dread phases are little more than revenge fantasies.

Honestly, I personally think that the latter stages of dread are little more than revenge fantasy material and are peddled to the kids in the so-called "Anger Phase" and those who we used to call "players."

None of them are LTR material and if they do try the latter stage stuff they will ensure every women they are involved with know it.

Which is the funny thing about all this stuff.

Many people complain about how dangerous this stuff supposedly is and yet every time people see these latter stages acted out the result tends to be break-ups.


----------



## LonelyinLove

I said it before, and I'll say it again...

Kay has a heck of a nerve to spot off about sex rankings when he himself, on appearances alone, would rank low.

And to say women over 40 lose rank...oh please...I am older then Kay, and at my advanced age, am still hotter than he is.

And PS....I've read the book, it's still on my Kindle.


----------



## Anon1111

Haven't read the whole thread, so this point may have already been made.

All of the manipulative "synthetic alpha" stuff is aimed at guys who are so beat down and hopeless that the feel like they can't do anything.

It offers them a program to "fight back" and regain a sense of control regarding their status with women.

It is clearly superficial and if this is as far as you go with it, at best you will have temporary, meaningless sex, likely with dim or damaged women.

However, for some men, this is actually a step up from their past life in which they may have been completely invisible to women.

This is one thing that I think troubles a lot of people: this stuff is clearly manipulative BUT it does actually work better than the "be yourself" mantra if "yourself" is actually a loser.

Now, ultimately, if the best you can do is run some silly program and try to hide behind a "synthetic alpha" facade, you will have an unfulfilling life and horrible relationships.

Ideally, running the "synthetic alpha" game would give you enough confidence to see that you can change your situation and aspire to something better.

Mastering "inner game", or developing a genuine alpha mindset and disposition is really the only end goal that is worthwhile in this whole scheme. 

That is not defined in relation to another person, it does not require that you define an outward "enemy" that you must manipulate or conquer.

It is about gaining acceptance and mastery of yourself which then RADIATES outward as a natural consequence of your inner state.


----------



## Brigit

LonelyinLove said:


> I said it before, and I'll say it again...
> 
> Kay has a heck of a nerve to spot off about sex rankings when he himself, on appearances alone, would rank low.
> 
> And to say women over 40 lose rank...oh please...I am older then Kay, and at my advanced age, am still hotter than he is.
> 
> And PS....I've read the book, it's still on my Kindle.


How old is Kay?


----------



## In Absentia

it's a horrible, misogynist book that only works with brain-dead people... there, I said it...


----------



## Lila

Genuine question for the MMSLP pro crowd......

The Mindful Attraction Plan, also written by Kay, provides in greater detail the same self-help tenets he offers in MMSLP.....minus all of the misogynistic/crude language. 

Why is THAT book not recommended by the 'man-uppers' the same way MMSLP is pushed?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Icey181 said:


> If we are honest with ourselves the sudden cultural backlash in the last decade in which women have shamed men for "failing to man up," to "stop playing video games," and get a real job and "find a wife," stems from an entire generation of women who are finding it difficult to track down a suitable partner.


:scratchhead:

Women shame men for this?

Plenty of men shame other men for this, too.

Please provide proof that an entire generation of women are finding it difficult to track down a suitable partner.


----------



## UMP

It's all very simple.
Athol is a business man. He saw an opportunity and jumped on it. He learned whatever he learned, perhaps even some of it here. He put it all in a washing machine and came up with his brand of red pill. Great for him. 

As with so many before him and there will be many after him, this too shall pass. As many have posted, his theories have many faults. However, there is one MAJOR fault. He bases everything on biology this and biology that. That's fine except for one thing. Man is more than a sperm donor and women are more than sperm receptacles. Man is made in the image of God and has knowledge of good and evil. If we were all deer foraging through the woods, maybe Athol would be our god. Such is not the case.

Men and women cheat for one simple reason. Forbidden fruit. If we were all deer, nothing would be forbidden. Last time I checked I am not a deer. This I know. Although I'm certain MMSL will try to convince me otherwise.

Does my wife of 23 years want to sleep with other good looking Alpha men? Hell yes she does. Who wouldn't? Do I want to screw practically every woman I see? Hell yes I do. Then please, why have we not acted upon our animal impulses? Because it's wrong. By the grace of God I will cherish and provide for my wife forsaking all others till the day I die. By the grace of God, my wife will cherish and care for me forsaking all others till the day she dies. Will there be bumps in the road? Hell yes there will be bumps. It's called life.

I thank God for my wonderful 48 year old LD wife who deep down inside would probably prefer some 6 pack pool boy to rock her world. It does not matter because God is OUR refuge and OUR provider. If we stay happily together till death it won't be because of Athol or TAM or any other book or idea. It will be because the God who created heaven and earth, The God that upholds all things by the Word of His power will give us both the grace needed to survive and flourish.

Amen.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

I was thinking about the who this book is geared towards and the problem is that it's made for (sorry) weaker men who are easily influenced by others. I mean, if they weren't that way the book wouldn't apply to them anyway.

So now they are being led by a d*uchebag promising wild sex and a submissive wife. 

If the offensive parts of the book were taken out and it was simply a manual on focusing on yourself, building your self-esteem and being a pro-active partner it would be fine BUT the fact that he needs to put down women (and therefore needing you to) in order to be a better person is where it all goes wrong. It instantly turns him into a weaker man who is threatened by women. Like those "pick up artists" who tell you the best way to get hot women is to insult them. They aren't respected, they are laughed at. 

It's not a 2x4 or just some vulgar content to attract men. It's part of his process of building himself (and you) up. Tearing women down. If he was really so confident and had self-respect, he wouldn't need to.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Deejo said:


> I explained why the other thread was closed, it was personally inflammatory, aka inciting. Amp explained why the thread it referenced was closed.
> 
> Carry on, observe the forum rules. And all will be well. What could possibly go wrong?


Ok, I will carry on then. 

It was just confusing.

But I get it.

Thank you for changing the man up sticky to be a better man, be a better partner. :smthumbup:

I do hope Ele, FF, CoffeeAmore or other mods will create a woman up/better woman/better partner sticky. That was a great suggestion that came from that other thread.


----------



## GTdad

In Absentia said:


> it's a horrible, misogynist book that only works with brain-dead people... now, I said it...


That, somewhat more succinctly, was what I perceived to be FW's point on the thread she deleted, the one in which I waded into this controversy for the first time precisely because I took that view a little personally.

I've said several times that I managed somehow to brush by the portions that most of the women and many of the men find offensive. Maybe because I work in a field which requires the ability to ignore a massive amount of BS (law), or maybe because I have a truckload of kids which requires the same ability.

I was at a point in my marriage where my wife and I were both drifting and disconnected. I was floundering for some way to improve the situation, but talks with my wife led nowhere because I couldn't even frame, much less articulate, the issues. I came here and saw a reference to Athol's blog, as well as NMMNG. From those I learned my role in the mess we were in, and learned how to address it that did not include berating or belittling my wife. In short, I learned that I needed to get off my ass and be an active participant in my marriage.

As much as he might be a potato-headed woman-hating rapey creep, I owe him for that.


----------



## Pluto2

Anon1111 said:


> Haven't read the whole thread, so this point may have already been made.
> 
> All of the manipulative "synthetic alpha" stuff is aimed at guys who are so beat down and hopeless that the feel like they can't do anything.
> 
> It offers them a program to "fight back" and regain a sense of control regarding their status with women.
> 
> It is clearly superficial and if this is as far as you go with it, at best you will have temporary, meaningless sex, likely with dim or damaged women.
> 
> However, for some men, this is actually a step up from their past life in which they may have been completely invisible to women.
> 
> This is one thing that I think troubles a lot of people: this stuff is clearly manipulative BUT it does actually work better than the "be yourself" mantra if "yourself" is actually a loser.
> 
> Now, ultimately, if the best you can do is run some silly program and try to hide behind a "synthetic alpha" facade, you will have an unfulfilling life and horrible relationships.
> 
> Ideally, running the "synthetic alpha" game would give you enough confidence to see that you can change your situation and aspire to something better.
> 
> Mastering "inner game", or developing a genuine alpha mindset and disposition is really the only end goal that is worthwhile in this whole scheme.
> 
> That is not defined in relation to another person, it does not require that you define an outward "enemy" that you must manipulate or conquer.
> 
> It is about gaining acceptance and mastery of yourself which then RADIATES outward as a natural consequence of your inner state.


Huh?
Its manipulative, synthetic alpha......
AND 
it works....

Of course manipulation works in the short term. That's the insidious nature of any manipulation.

So are you saying that if you're manipulative your partner long enough, or well enough you can then become the master of yourself and gain a feeling of self-worth......by manipulation? 
That's just horrid.


----------



## In Absentia

GTdad said:


> That, somewhat more succinctly, was what I perceived to be FW's point on the thread she deleted, the one in which I waded into this controversy for the first time precisely because I took that view a little personally.
> 
> I've said several times that I managed somehow to brush by the portions that most of the women and many of the men find offensive. Maybe because I work in a field which requires the ability to ignore a massive amount of BS (law), or maybe because I have a truckload of kids which requires the same ability.
> 
> I was at a point in my marriage where my wife and I were both drifting and disconnected. I was floundering for some way to improve the situation, but talks with my wife led nowhere because I couldn't even frame, much less articulate, the issues. I came here and saw a reference to Athol's blog, as well as NMMNG. From those I learned my role in the mess we were in, and learned how to address it that did not include berating or belittling my wife. In short, I learned that I needed to get off my ass and be an active participant in my marriage.
> 
> As much as he might be a potato-headed woman-hating rapey creep, I owe him for that.



Don't get me wrong... I'm glad it worked for you... in fact, I can see that my comment can be seen as referring to people on TAM, but it's a general observation...

Anyway, we all different...


----------



## tech-novelist

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening all
> I wish the Matrix meaning of "red pill" had not been stolen. As presented in the Matrix it was an excellent and important concept. This use is like Nazis stealing the swastika. (OK, sorry for the Godwin law violation).
> 
> If you are happy with someone, then stay together. If not, why would you want to play these sorts of games? Go find someone you will be happy with.
> 
> The whole sex rank thing drives me nuts as well. I married the girl *I* wanted. I don't care where she was on anyone else's list. If there was someone I had wanted more, I would have married them. (OK, I'm a bit overconfident, but seriously, I wouldn't have wanted someone who didn't want me).


How has that approach worked out for you?


----------



## Icey181

Bugged said:


> I don't mean to be argumentative but... who do you think made all that possible? Do you think you could have that less that 100 years ago without the feminists?


Yes, actually.

It is a basic question I always ask my students:

If women lacked the Right to Vote how did Feminists pass the 19th Amendment?

Simple answer, they did not.

It is a small exercise designed to force students to realize that, while the political movements of the 20th century did a lot of the ground work for articulating cultural change, it was actually the American populace at-large which made those changes happened.

The same is true for the Civil Rights Movement, Second Wave Feminism, and Gay & Lesbian Rights Movements.



Faithful Wife said:


> Yeah I don't see any good books geared toward men about relationships....that's just sad.


There are some, I thought that NMMNG was helpful in many ways, though not entirely applicable to my own situation.

The issue, and this is a point upon which I fully agree with the Red Pill folks on, is that Relationship Advice Books for Men written by Women or from Women's points of view are next to useless.

Having some female input is helpful and important, but it has to be men speaking with other men about what they find successful.


----------



## Anon1111

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I was thinking about the who this book is geared towards and the problem is that it's made for (sorry) weaker men who are easily influenced by others. I mean, if they weren't that way the book wouldn't apply to them anyway.
> 
> So now they are being led by a d*uchebag promising wild sex and a submissive wife.
> 
> If the offensive parts of the book were taken out and it was simply a manual on focusing on yourself, building your self-esteem and being a pro-active partner it would be fine BUT the fact that he needs to put down women (and therefore needing you to) in order to be a better person is where it all goes wrong. It instantly turns him into a weaker man who is threatened by women. Like those "pick up artists" who tell you the best way to get hot women is to insult them. They aren't respected, they are laughed at.
> 
> It's not a 2x4 or just some vulgar content to attract men. It's part of his process of building himself (and you) up. Tearing women down. If he was really so confident and had self-respect, he wouldn't need to.


Put yourself in the mindset of one of these weak men for a moment.

Would you rather be a weak man who (1) never has sex or (2) a weak man who has sex?

All of the manipulation stuff is aimed at taking you from point (1) to point (2).

It does not and cannot alone transform you into a strong man.


----------



## Pluto2

Icey181 said:


> Having some female input is helpful and important, but it has to be men speaking with other men about what they find successful.


Why?


----------



## Anon1111

Pluto2 said:


> Huh?
> Its manipulative, synthetic alpha......
> AND
> it works....
> 
> Of course manipulation works in the short term. That's the insidious nature of any manipulation.
> 
> So are you saying that if you're manipulative your partner long enough, or well enough you can then become the master of yourself and gain a feeling of self-worth......by manipulation?
> That's just horrid.


That's not what I said at all.

You should re-read my post.


----------



## TiggyBlue

UMP said:


> It's all very simple.
> Athol is a business man. He saw an opportunity and jumped on it. He learned whatever he learned, perhaps even some of it here. He put it all in a washing machine and came up with his brand of red pill. Great for him.
> .


Pretty much sums up my thoughts on Athol Kay.


----------



## Icey181

Faithful Wife said:


> :scratchhead:
> 
> Women shame men for this?
> 
> Plenty of men shame other men for this, too.
> 
> Please provide proof that an entire generation of women are finding it difficult to track down a suitable partner.


Honestly, I rarely see men shaming other men for the whole "refusing to grow up" thing.

In fact, I do not think I have ever seen an article written by a man that even characterizes it that way. 

Case in point: Where Have the Good Men Gone? - WSJ

WSJ, 2011: The Problem? "Where have the good men gone?"

The answer? "Pre-Adulthood," which is basically, "adolescence" and it is mostly a problem with _men_.

Acting like this is not happening is not useful.

The average age of a first marriage is climbing steadily; Men are waiting until they are 29-30. 

The number of single women is increasing at a quick pace, it was nearing 40% in 2011.

The number of single mothers between the ages of 20-24 was roughly 60% that same year.

According to Census data in the last decade the ratio for Single Women to Single Men was sitting around 100:88.

That actually reflects (unsurprisingly) the rates for the widening Bachelor and Graduate Degree gap between the sexes. (In 2013 I think it was 100:77).

Just about every social scientist of the last decade has noticed this trend. Hell, the Republican Party has made an argument for traditional marriage based in part on this reality in the last 3 major elections.

Twenty years ago we were not looking at articles about women demanding men to grow up, women increasingly seeking single-mother adoptions, or women "marrying themselves."

There is a socio-sexual shift occurring and it is stemming from the gender imbalance on college campuses and is proliferating through the younger portions of American society.


----------



## Faithful Wife

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> It's not a 2x4 or just some vulgar content to attract men. It's part of his process of building himself (and you) up. Tearing women down. If he was really so confident and had self-respect, he wouldn't need to.


He actually is really mean spirited about men, too and says a lot of generalizations about men that just aren't true.

For instance, the book claims that biology rules everything and there's literally no wiggle room for it. Which means there's no gay men, no gay women, no trans persons, no submissive men, and no beta men who women are into.

If we add up gay, trans, submissive and truly beta men (the ones who are perfectly comfortable with who they are and are not trying to become alpha or anything else) that's going to be a very significant amount of the population.

But MMSL just says these men don't exist, period. :scratchhead:

Also, he describes the Natural Alpha (the guys who naturally have an easy time meeting women, like my husband) completely wrong. He claims they are always all about themselves and never kind or decent toward women. 

Here's a quote from MMSL:

"An Alpha male is sexually impulsive and pleased to bang any available female. The Alpha Trait really cares nothing for a woman’s sexual response other than her compliance and willingness to submit to him. It’s all about him getting his penis into her vagina and ejaculating into it. This somewhat coarse sexual approach relies on the element of social dominance creating the dopamine response in her rather than sexual skill creating it."

(sigh...)

There's so much wrong with this tiny paragraph that entire books could be written about it.

Look Athol...please stop telling guys that the big dumb hunk gets all the ladies by being a jerk about it. It simply isn't true. The real, actual men who are naturals with the ladies are good men who treat women with respect AND they are good lover, that's WHY we want to have sex with them. 

Here's another quote:

"It’s also Alpha to not care about getting sex from any one particular woman. Alphas are generally attractive to women, so any one woman that gives any difficulty granting sexual favors can simply be replaced with another who is willing. This can create a sense of stress in a wife, as a husband with high Alpha qualities, clearly has a much better chance of finding affair opportunities than a husband without them."

Unbelievable. So now the only reason she wants to have sex with the alpha male is so he won't screw someone else.

Another quote:

"Alphas understand that not every interaction will lead to actual sex, but remain obviously capable to close the deal if she is interested in doing so. A woman may not always be interested in sex, but if she is interested in having sex, she wants a man that will clearly be able to follow through and give her the sex she wants. A man that declines sex when a woman asks for it creates a very negative response in her towards him; typically she will find him much less attractive as a result. That marked reduction in attraction can lead to her treating him quite differently in the future. If it was to be their first sexual experience together, she will usually write him off as a total loser permanently."



My husband doesn't have sex with me or just any willing female just because we'll see him as a loser if he doesn't. On the contrary, he has sex when the time is right for both people. Because he's good at sex and a good lover. Where does Athol get this nonsense?

Another quote:

"The final Alpha Male Trait is pretty primal. Alpha Males want and expect to have sex frequently and with women who are happy to comply with their sexual demands. It’s possible to misunderstand that being Alpha is about forcing women to do something they don’t want to do, but the entire point of being Alpha is that women find Alpha men attractive and actively want to be seduced by them. A physically fit, well dressed, confident, powerful man knows that women find him attractive, so he naturally expects their pleased compliance with his advances. Physically touching women in both sexual and non sexual ways is a display of confidence and dominance. Typically social touch is initiated by the socially dominant person rather than the less dominant one. Your boss at work is far more likely to pat you on the back, than you are to do the same to them for example. With large gap in social standing it becomes even more extreme. If the President wants to give you a bear hug it’s fine, but if you try it on him there would be half a dozen very twitchy Secret Service agents intervening. Simply touching a woman before she touches you is making a statement of social dominance.

Touch will usually be non sexual – a tap on the arm, a handshake and a pat on the back being some of the most common ones. But an Alpha is interested in escalating the physical interactions towards sexual touch fairly quickly. With each step towards sexual intimacy, it’s Alpha to be willing to push for more as far as she lets you."

Again, just wow.

My husband knows that there is no scarcity of sex for him. So why would he "expect their please compliance of his advances". This is just so goofy I can't believe it was ever written. It just doesn't go like that. Clearly this is what Athol imagines sex is like with a Natural, but he's so far off base that it actually insults MEN more than women (in these passages).

Also, saying Naturals push for more as far as she lets you? What the heck, man. This isn't high school, and what he is proposing sounds like a man who is relying on what some fool told him in the 10th grade.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Icey181 said:


> Honestly, I rarely see men shaming other men for the whole "refusing to grow up" thing.
> 
> In fact, I do not think I have ever seen an article written by a man that even characterizes it that way.
> 
> Case in point: Where Have the Good Men Gone? - WSJ
> 
> WSJ, 2011: The Problem? "Where have the good men gone?"
> 
> The answer? "Pre-Adulthood," which is basically, "adolescence" and it is mostly a problem with _men_.
> 
> Acting like this is not happening is not useful.
> 
> The average age of a first marriage is climbing steadily; Men are waiting until they are 29-30.
> 
> The number of single women is increasing at a quick pace, it was nearing 40% in 2011.
> 
> The number of single mothers between the ages of 20-24 was roughly 60% that same year.
> 
> According to Census data in the last decade the ratio for Single Women to Single Men was sitting around 100:88.
> 
> That actually reflects (unsurprisingly) the rates for the widening Bachelor and Graduate Degree gap between the sexes. (In 2013 I think it was 100:77).
> 
> Just about every social scientist of the last decade has noticed this trend. Hell, the Republican Party has made an argument for traditional marriage based in part on this reality in the last 3 major elections.
> 
> *Twenty years ago we were not looking at articles about women demanding men to grow up, women increasingly seeking single-mother adoptions, or women "marrying themselves."*
> 
> There is a socio-sexual shift occurring and it is stemming from the gender imbalance on college campuses and is proliferating through the younger portions of American society.


Lots of men here at TAM lament the young Peter Pan types, read around a bit, you'll see it.

As for 20 years ago...women had other issues with men and they were talking about those issues. And 20 years before that, they had other issues. And 20 years before that, and so on. You've offered only an opinion piece. Pull up a 20 year old magazine and find out what we used to have issues with.

So what you are really describing, I think, is the choice of younger people not to get married as young. 

IMO, who cares? Maybe there will be less divorce in the future if people don't get married and have babies right after high school. Also as state by state legalizes gay marriage, we will see marriages increase again.


----------



## gouge_away

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I was thinking about the who this book is geared towards and the problem is that it's made for (sorry) weaker men who are easily influenced by others. I mean, if they weren't that way the book wouldn't apply to them anyway.
> 
> So now they are being led by a d*uchebag promising wild sex and a submissive wife.
> 
> If the offensive parts of the book were taken out and it was simply a manual on focusing on yourself, building your self-esteem and being a pro-active partner it would be fine BUT the fact that he needs to put down women (and therefore needing you to) in order to be a better person is where it all goes wrong. It instantly turns him into a weaker man who is threatened by women. Like those "pick up artists" who tell you the best way to get hot women is to insult them. They aren't respected, they are laughed at.
> 
> It's not a 2x4 or just some vulgar content to attract men. It's part of his process of building himself (and you) up. Tearing women down. If he was really so confident and had self-respect, he wouldn't need to.


Its written for insecure men who want to compete against secure men.

What AK and his readers don't grasp is their esteem depravity. Secure men aren't competing period.

They are just children chasing the wind.


----------



## Pluto2

Anon1111 said:


> Haven't read the whole thread, so this point may have already been made.
> 
> All of the manipulative "synthetic alpha" stuff is aimed at guys who are so beat down and hopeless that the feel like they can't do anything.
> 
> It offers them a program to "fight back" and regain a sense of control regarding their status with women.
> 
> It is clearly superficial and if this is as far as you go with it, at best you will have temporary, meaningless sex, likely with dim or damaged women.
> 
> However, for some men, this is actually a step up from their past life in which they may have been completely invisible to women.
> 
> This is one thing that I think troubles a lot of people: this stuff is clearly manipulative BUT it does actually work better than the "be yourself" mantra if "yourself" is actually a loser.
> 
> Now, ultimately, if the best you can do is run some silly program and try to hide behind a "synthetic alpha" facade, you will have an unfulfilling life and horrible relationships.
> 
> Ideally, running the "synthetic alpha" game would give you enough confidence to see that you can change your situation and aspire to something better.
> 
> Mastering "inner game", or developing a genuine alpha mindset and disposition is really the only end goal that is worthwhile in this whole scheme.
> 
> That is not defined in relation to another person, it does not require that you define an outward "enemy" that you must manipulate or conquer.
> 
> It is about gaining acceptance and mastery of yourself which then RADIATES outward as a natural consequence of your inner state.


First, I'm not attacking you in anyway, but that was the way I read the post.



Anon1111 said:


> All of the manipulative "synthetic alpha" stuff is aimed at guys who are so beat down and hopeless that the feel like they can't do anything.


This was the part I read as agreeing that its all pretty manipulative.



Anon1111 said:


> this stuff is clearly manipulative BUT it does actually work better than the "be yourself" mantra if "yourself" is actually a loser.


This is where you again say it is manipulative, and then say it works.



Anon1111 said:


> Ideally, running the "synthetic alpha" game would give you enough confidence to see that you can change your situation and aspire to something better.


Is this not being manipulative until you gain confidence and become better...... which is all through the manipulation.

I understand what you are saying about men who are beaten down, but ...


----------



## Icey181

Pluto2 said:


> Why?


Simple, women are not the ones who have to attract, date, and retain relationships with heterosexual women.

When I first hit the problem of an increasing dead-bedroom in my marriage I did two things: 1) I talked to my wife about what was going on and 2) I looked to numerous advice blogs online.

And I found something amazing.

My wife basically had no helpful answers beyond, "I am just not in the mood these days," and "I am stressed out," and the advice blogs, entirely written by women, all operated on the assumption that sex was no longer happening because the husbands are likely out of shape, lazy, emotionally unavailable, man-children.

The #1 and #2 pieces of advice that I found were all the same.

Choreplay and more Romance.

Well, I tried that for an entire year and what basically happened was a dying bedroom turned into a dead bedroom for 6-months straight.

The tendency for women to empathize with other women in these situations and jump to the conclusion that issues are the fault of failings in the husband makes it difficult to get decent advice.

Interestingly, when I stopped playing the "focus on her needs game," and jumped into the Red Pill advice of self-improvement, then, and only then, did things begin to turn around.

Finding a good female source of relationship advice that is _not_ focused on peddling some gender-warfare rhetoric about how hard life is for the modern women is rather difficult.

And my inability to find one is actually what lead me to finding the Red Pill stuff in the first place.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Icey181 said:


> There are some, I thought that NMMNG was helpful in many ways, though not entirely applicable to my own situation.
> 
> The issue, and this is a point upon which I fully agree with the Red Pill folks on, is that Relationship Advice Books for Men written by Women or from Women's points of view are next to useless.
> 
> Having some female input is helpful and important, but it has to be men speaking with other men about what they find successful.


I liked NMMNG, too.

I agree men need to write good relationship books for men.

I currently love Mark Manson, but he (as far as I know) is not married yet so there is a large population of men that need that type of book but he's not there yet.

Do you have any other suggestions?

It is sad that there are so few of them, or that the ones that are out there simply don't appeal to men enough for them to buy it.


----------



## tech-novelist

Icey181 said:


> Simple, women are not the ones who have to attract, date, and retain relationships with heterosexual women.


Precisely. Why is this hard to understand?


----------



## chillymorn

too much negitive publicity actually turns into publicity and people will go just to check it out. they might agree with you or they might say wow this stuff really hits home .

you might be helping makeing him rich by mentioning at all.

Just food for thought.

personally I like some of it and some of it is over the top. But thats how i digest most things take what I like or is useful and throw away the rest.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

FW... Romans 1:21 tells you where he gets the nonsense from.


----------



## Icey181

Faithful Wife said:


> Lots of men here at TAM lament the young Peter Pan types, read around a bit, you'll see it.
> 
> As for 20 years ago...women had other issues with men and they were talking about those issues. And 20 years before that, they had other issues. And 20 years before that, and so on. You've offered only an opinion piece. Pull up a 20 year old magazine and find out what we used to have issues with.
> 
> So what you are really describing, I think, is the choice of younger people not to get married as young.


Actually, it is more complicated than that, and I think you know this.

Red Pill was created because a large swath of men feel like attractive women ignored them through High School and College, literally played the Hook Up Game to exhaustion, finally turned to them _after_ they were financially successful, and amazingly enough….the intimacy and sex dried up after the vows were done.

Enough men have experienced this that, while the Red Pill stuff is pretty niche, the ideas of the AF/BB is pretty well know throughout colleges.

I have overhead some pretty interesting conversations amongst my students in the last few years…surprising stuff that really only started to make sense recently.



Faithful Wife said:


> IMO, who cares?


Let me put it this way.

The "Where Have the Good Men Gone?" articles are not showing up in ESPN, GQ, or Guns & Ammo. 

And they are not being authored by men.



Faithful Wife said:


> Maybe there will be less divorce in the future if people don't get married and have babies right after high school.


Um, it's not the 1980s anymore.

What you just described was maybe true of the 1990s but the age of child-bearing has been increasing and we are no longer looking at High School-shot-gun-weddings.



Faithful Wife said:


> Also as state by state legalizes gay marriage, we will see marriages increase again.


Not really.

Every major census study shows a Gay & Lesbian population that sits somewhere in the 5% range. Maybe 10% at most. Gay & Lesbian marriages will likely see a small bump in the overall numbers, but not significantly so.

Marriage is declining in general.

Considering the baggage that comes with marriage, I can actually see why many men are forgoing it entirely.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Icey181 said:


> Interestingly, when I stopped playing the "focus on her needs game," and jumped into the Red Pill advice of self-improvement, then, and only then, did things begin to turn around.


Ok I get this, I really do.

But do you and other red pill readers actually think that, for instance, Athol Kay can possibly know what it is really like to be an Alpha, the Natural that he describes?

Isn't it possible that he's missing the mark on a lot of that?

As you suggested, a woman can't effectively write a good book on how to be a man.

I would offer that a Non Natural cannot effectively write a good book on how to be a Natural.

I came across this weird website where a Non Natural tries to explain just that...that Non Naturals don't get it and can't write about it...but if you just buy his program, he will explain to you how to be a Natural, even though he isn't one, but he has hung around with a lot of them.

In this particular instance, I actually do think you guys could gain a lot from hearing WHY women like these Naturals. Because you tend to ignore some of the things we see, and you focus on things that aren't the real reasons we are into them.

If you could take out your envy from the equation and just really hear us describe it, you may learn something more than what you can learn from a Pretend Natural.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Icey181 said:


> Considering the baggage that comes with marriage, I can actually see why many men are forgoing it entirely.


Just because you see articles by some women talking about all the perpetual Peter Pans around doesn't mean that all women want marriage and men don't.

WOMEN are forgoing marriage by choice, as well.

At the same time, all that is happening is that the age of first marriage is getting older. I think that is a good thing. It doesn't mean all young men refuse to grow up and marry women.

People will always get married and will always get divorced.

If you want to be all alarmed about it, there are a lot more scary things going on in the world to worry about.

Not everyone wants to be married. Who cares?


----------



## Satya

Lila said:


> Genuine question for the MMSLP pro crowd......
> 
> The Mindful Attraction Plan, also written by Kay, provides in greater detail the same self-help tenets he offers in MMSLP.....minus all of the misogynistic/crude language.
> 
> Why is THAT book not recommended by the 'man-uppers' the same way MMSLP is pushed?


Lila, my thoughts are... The MAP was a book written for the intention of both partners. MMSLP was an edgy, blunt book designed for men that needed self improvement and change that was self-fulfilling, not something they were going to go home and announce to the wife they were reading. Recall that in MMSLP, "MAP" refers to "male action plan" and in his MAP book, it refers to "mindful attraction plan." 

The MAP is just that, a plan, and the intention of it (from my understanding) is that for it to be successful, both need to be on board. MMSLP was written first, intended to build attraction based on more reactive/instinctual drives in (most) women, without prompting. 

MMSLP advice for execution falls in line with a lot of similar advice men currently get in the men's clubhouse... "don't tell her what you're going to do, just do it." I personally find actions over words to be sexy, however women tend to want from time to time, to have more knowledge of plans: where things are going, the progress, status, etc. That's why I think a "re-write/rehash" of MMSLP was done in the more diplomatic form of the MAP. Lots more women would have come out of the woodwork to write on his blog by then. 

MMSLP is a book for men. Women can and do read it (I read it several times). Athol has a section if I remember correctly, where he tells any women reading the book that they probably won't like it and it's not really for them.

Men are capable of decididing whether what he says is true of all, some, or none of the women in their lives. As a woman and a human being, it is beyond my power to influence any man or other human being to change their way of thinking. I can only live in a way that demonstrates my desires: I treat men with the same amount of respect I would want for myself; I treat myself and my gifts with enough respect so that a man who values a woman who behaves in such a value system will find me and join with me. I was lucky to have achieved this. 

Believing that a book, ideology, or tenant of living is going to have that much power over people is certainly a possibility, or possibly a certainty depending on your outlook. For instance, I look at various religions, feminism, Aikido, and the Paleo Diet, (all just random examples) in a similar light. They are all ways of betterment, with the intention of incorporating a value system, (which may challenge or supercede an existing one). Individually, they might not be appropriate for everyone, but they will be appropriate for some, they will be revered by others, they will be despised by others still.

This kind of topic is good to discuss openly, but I believe it will fade out after it reaches a circle.

As always, my 2 pence.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Faithful Wife said:


> Blossom, I could give a sh*t what the bible says, ok?


Okie dokie... It has already addressed all the issues yall are batting around beautifully. Saves time and heartache. Carry on. Its your energy to spend how you want to.

It is by far for me the BEST on relationships bar none when correctly interpreted. I don't waste my time on the rest.


----------



## always_alone

Icey181 said:


> Yes, actually.
> 
> It is a basic question I always ask my students:
> 
> If women lacked the Right to Vote how did Feminists pass the 19th Amendment?
> 
> Simple answer, they did not.
> 
> It is a small exercise designed to force students to realize that, while the political movements of the 20th century did a lot of the ground work for articulating cultural change, it was actually the American populace at-large which made those changes happened.
> 
> The same is true for the Civil Rights Movement, Second Wave Feminism, and Gay & Lesbian Rights Movements.


If those people hadn't been there doing all of that groundwork, the status quo would've prevailed -- or the changes made wouldn've been of a quite different nature.

Throughout history, people who have fought oppression and fought for change have made a a huge impact, and to give all of the credit to the people who were eventually persuaded to see the light is unfair to those who did the really hard work.


----------



## Icey181

Also, a point I agree with when it comes to the Red Pill, Women very rarely tell you what they like about the so-called "Alphas."

Usually those conversations come down to platitudes like "confidence."


----------



## Anon1111

Pluto2 said:


> Is this not being manipulative until you gain confidence and become better...... which is all through the manipulation.


The manipulation may be useful in that it can break the stasis and demonstrate that you have the power to change the situation.

Manipulation itself will not make you better except insofar as it can teach you to ACT to effect a change in your life.

Ideally, one would skip this step.

However, many men who gravitate toward this type of advice are so beaten down that they cannot grasp a higher concept.

The higher concept is too abstract and does not seem to have real world effects initially.


----------



## EleGirl

Blossom Leigh said:


> FW... Romans 1:21 tells you where he gets the nonsense from.


_(Romans 1:21) Because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God, or given thanks; but became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened. _

I don't see what that verse has to do with this thread.

If you want to discuss it, why not open a thread on the Religion forum?


----------



## tech-novelist

Icey181 said:


> Actually, it is more complicated than that, and I think you know this.
> 
> Red Pill was created because a large swath of men feel like attractive women ignored them through High School and College, literally played the Hook Up Game to exhaustion, finally turned to them _after_ they were financially successful, and amazingly enough….the intimacy and sex dried up after the vows were done.
> 
> Enough men have experienced this that, while the Red Pill stuff is pretty niche, the ideas of the AF/BB is pretty well know throughout colleges.
> 
> I have overhead some pretty interesting conversations amongst my students in the last few years…surprising stuff that really only started to make sense recently.
> 
> 
> Let me put it this way.
> 
> The "Where Have the Good Men Gone?" articles are not showing up in ESPN, GQ, or Guns & Ammo.
> 
> And they are not being authored by men.
> 
> 
> Um, it's not the 1980s anymore.
> 
> What you just described was maybe true of the 1990s but the age of child-bearing has been increasing and we are no longer looking at High School-shot-gun-weddings.
> 
> 
> Not really.
> 
> Every major census study shows a Gay & Lesbian population that sits somewhere in the 5% range. Maybe 10% at most. Gay & Lesbian marriages will likely see a small bump in the overall numbers, but not significantly so.
> 
> Marriage is declining in general.
> 
> *Considering the baggage that comes with marriage, I can actually see why many men are forgoing it entirely.*


And *that *is where the fecal material will hit the impeller, when enough men decide that it is too risky to get married. I think we are a few years away from that point, but when it happens, there will be a sea change in society.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Icey181 said:


> Also, a point I agree with when it comes to the Red Pill, Women very rarely tell you what they like about the so-called "Alphas."
> 
> Usually those conversations come down to platitudes like "confidence."


I'd be happy to tell you more than just some platitudes.

But you'd have to actually be open to it.

In my experience, men are extremely uncomfortable hearing about why we liked getting our brains f*cked out by another man and how he was so good at it.

Can you really blame women for just explaining it as confidence, when we know you really don't want to hear the truth?


----------



## Icey181

Faithful Wife said:


> Just because you see articles by some women talking about all the perpetual Peter Pans around doesn't mean that all women want marriage and men don't.
> 
> WOMEN are forgoing marriage by choice, as well.
> 
> At the same time, all that is happening is that the age of first marriage is getting older. I think that is a good thing. It doesn't mean all young men refuse to grow up and marry women.
> 
> People will always get married and will always get divorced.
> 
> If you want to be all alarmed about it, there are a lot more scary things going on in the world to worry about.
> 
> Not everyone wants to be married. Who cares?


Apparently, quite a few women care.

Women are the ones using the mainstream media to complain about the lack of good men. Women are the ones writing in the WSJ, NYT, CNN Online, and creating entire blogs to talk about how man just "refuse to grow up." Women are the ones grandstanding in public about single-life adoptions and marrying themselves. Women are the ones doing news stories about how gender imbalances on college campuses are giving men "too much" power to mandate sexual relationships without commitment.

You might not personally be part of this generational issue, in fact I doubt very much you would be. 

However, a lot of the women who I have as colleagues are and these are routine conversations that come up during the bar evenings or the post-Lecture mixers.

The interesting thing for me is how quickly these discussions move into rather virulent misandry.

If I had a nickel for every time a group of highly intelligent and independent women in my sphere made derisive jokes about the "losers" who play MMOs (that would be me, for the record), I could afford to develop my own IP.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

EleGirl said:


> _(Romans 1:21) Because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God, or given thanks; but became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened. _
> 
> I don't see what that verse has to do with this thread.
> 
> If you want to discuss it, why not open a thread on the Religion forum?


It completely applies. Athol isn't recognizing God's work, thus he touches on a few "truths" but missing a WHOLE lot of other layers and his thinking on it is warped.

Those of us who are Christian can see it plain as day.

So from the Christian perspective that verse applies as to the puzzlement on "where does he get the nonsense from" answer ... his own futile thinking.


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> WOMEN are forgoing marriage by choice, as well.


Indeed, a recent PEW study showed that proportionately more men *wanted* to be married and lamented that they weren't than women.

The stereotype is always that men prefer to be single so that they can spread their seed and don't want to put up with the baggage of a relationship, but the evidence points in another direction entirely.


----------



## Jellybeans

It is that that mean tend to remarry more after a divorce than women do. I think there is some truth to that.


----------



## Icey181

Faithful Wife said:


> I'd be happy to tell you more than just some platitudes.
> 
> But you'd have to actually be open to it.


That is basically what stuff like the Red Pill is, unvarnished and rather not-nice truths.

Quite a few men are open to this kind of stuff.

The problem is that it flies in the face of literally decades' worth of societal pressure, most of it from women, to the contrary.



Faithful Wife said:


> In my experience, men are extremely uncomfortable hearing about why we liked getting our brains f*cked out by another man and how he was so good at it.
> 
> Can you really blame women for just explaining it as confidence, when we know you really don't want to hear the truth?


Actually, yes, I can.

For generations men were taught that women liked the demure and submissive guy who would respect her and not be overly aggressive.

I know I was.

You have to expect that men are not going to be happy with women when they find out they were basically lied to their entire lives about this stuff.

Amazingly enough however, quite a few guys are considerably more mature than you give them credit for, and they do not jump into misogynistic hatred at the revelation.

Telling a BF or Husband that you like aggressive, masculine, and confident men and that those kinds of things "work for you" is fine.

Actually, it is immensely helpful.

Directly comparing your SO to a former lover in what appears to be little more than a passive-aggressive assault on his masculinity is not so helpful.


----------



## Icey181

always_alone said:


> If those people hadn't been there doing all of that groundwork, the status quo would've prevailed -- or the changes made wouldn've been of a quite different nature.
> 
> Throughout history, people who have fought oppression and fought for change have made a a huge impact, and to give all of the credit to the people who were eventually persuaded to see the light is unfair to those who did the really hard work.


The myth that society in the early 20th century was mired in this fog of misogynistic patriachical terror and that it took a small group of independent and brave women to wake the country up is literally nothing more than 3rd Wave Feminist PR.

The reality is that American culture was moving away from more strict patriarchic social rules throughout the latter half of the 19th century. Concepts such as _femme covert_ and "Women's Place in the Home," were basically dead before Teddy Roosevelt took the oath of office.

Major reform movements rarely spearhead anything in American society.

They are responses to extant cultural shifts and they are only successful when they find a majority of the country is already moving in their general direction.

What groups like the 1st Wave Feminists did was sharpen and direct that general cultural shift and prioritize specific legal alterations, like Suffrage.

Their importance is not in creating these movements, but in helping to lead and direct them towards constructive change. 

Actually, it is when these movements try to force cultural shifts which are not broadly accepted in society (such as 2nd Wave Feminism's focus on Abortion Politics or the Black Power response to MLK's protestant Civil Rights doctrine) that we see immense partisan splintering and a failure to build a successful coalition.

These movements are important, but to pretend that they are anything more than the most vocal components of an already occurring socio-cultural shift is little more than rhetoric designed to argue for a specific contemporary political point of view.


----------



## BradWesley

Athol Kay is a business man not unlike any other. He writes books that stir the pot, create controversy. He has a small cult-like following, and many that find his work, disgusting at best, witness the threads here on TAM.

If you have a problem with him, and his books, you can call Athol and speak to him. 

It only costs $150.00 per hour.

As an aside, he and his wife live in Bristol, CT. I wonder if his wife was born and raised in Stepford, CT.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Icey181 said:


> Directly comparing your SO to a former lover in what appears to be little more than a passive-aggressive assault on his masculinity is not so helpful.


Yet you want the unvarnished truth from another man, one who likely is not a Natural and who only speculates about how and why it works?

I didn't suggest that anyone make a passive aggressive assault on their man's masculinity. I suggested that men don't want to hear about how well some other man f*cked our brains out.

Obviously if we are to explain why we like the Natural to a man, we are explaining it about some man other than him.

Even telling a man on the internet about it causes their hackles to rise.

However, hearing a Pretend Natural telling them doesn't give them accurate information...but they are willing to hear it from them.

Do you see the inherent problem here?


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening
well, I've been married to the person I most wanted for >25 years now.

Yes, our sex life has been bad a lot of the time, though it is back to being good right now.

Sex is extremely important, but it isn't the only important thing. I could get divorced, marry someone else and get lots more sex. Overall though that wouldn't be better than what I have now.




technovelist said:


> How has that approach worked out for you?


----------



## In Absentia

technovelist said:


> And *that *is where the fecal material will hit the impeller, when enough men decide that it is too risky to get married. I think we are a few years away from that point, but when it happens, there will be a sea change in society.


I'm giving up women, full stop...


----------



## Faithful Wife

Icey181 said:


> For generations men were taught that women liked the demure and submissive guy who would respect her and not be overly aggressive.


Also, I am enjoying having a respectful debate with you.

But please stop mansplaining to me how the red pill came into existence. I know what happened and have read all the books and have my own opinions about it. I will not go on and on and tell you about what WOMEN were told during that same time frame which harmed them as well. Fair?


----------



## EleGirl

Icey181 said:


> That is basically what stuff like the Red Pill is, unvarnished and rather not-nice truths.
> 
> Quite a few men are open to this kind of stuff.
> 
> The problem is that it flies in the face of literally decades' worth of societal pressure, most of it from women, to the contrary.
> 
> 
> Actually, yes, I can.
> 
> For generations men were taught that women liked the demure and submissive guy who would respect her and not be overly aggressive.
> 
> I know I was.
> 
> You have to expect that men are not going to be happy with women when they find out they were basically lied to their entire lives about this stuff.


Do you realize that women are also lied to their entire life about men and what men want? This is not a one way street. There are just some people and segments of society who think that they have the answer and push it... very often it's a lot of nonsense.

I could write a book on the mistruths that women are told about men.... by men. 

I guess we should all get mad at men for this? 

That makes a lot of sense, let's all be mad at each other. Let's respond by writing books full of hate and anger.

That will solve relationship problems for sure. :scratchhead:




Icey181 said:


> Amazingly enough however, quite a few guys are considerably more mature than you give them credit for, and they do not jump into misogynistic hatred at the revelation.


I think that you misunderstand FW. Nowhere has she said or implied that all men are immature and/or misogynistic. In this thread she's talking about the PUA and Athol stuff, not all men.


----------



## always_alone

Icey181 said:


> T
> These movements are important, but to pretend that they are anything more than the most vocal components of an already occurring socio-cultural shift is little more than rhetoric designed to argue for a specific contemporary political point of view.


most vocal components = vanguard

Like it or not, change agents and leaders are critical to social movements. 

There was a whole lot of resistance to women's suffrage, for example. A whole lot, especially in the 19th century, and women had been fighting for it for decades before the time-frame you are talking about.


----------



## GTdad

Faithful Wife said:


> Also, I am enjoying having a respectful debate with you.
> 
> But please stop mansplaining to me


Mansplaining. That strikes me as an excellent way to shut down any respectful debate. At least the "respectful" part.


----------



## Icey181

Faithful Wife said:


> Yet you want the unvarnished truth from another man, one who likely is not a Natural and who only speculates about how and why it works?
> 
> I didn't suggest that anyone make a passive aggressive assault on their man's masculinity. I suggested that men don't want to hear about how well some other man f*cked our brains out.


Of course they do not.

Amazingly enough men, like women, have egos and going about "helping" them in the manner that you are describing is basically playing on some of the basic insecurities every man has and grandstanding on them.

Basically, this is where the whole "Alpha Widow" crap comes from.

Women who think they are helping men by continuously comparing them to a superior lover in the past.

Yeah, flip the genders on this one and you would be calling this emotional abuse.



Faithful Wife said:


> Obviously if we are to explain why we like the Natural to a man, we are explaining it about some man other than him.
> 
> Even telling a man on the internet about it causes their hackles to rise.
> 
> However, hearing a Pretend Natural telling them doesn't give them accurate information...but they are willing to hear it from them.
> 
> Do you see the inherent problem here?


Yes.

And it is yours.

The problem is that most men are looking to be instructed in what qualities they can personally emphasize and exhibit that will help make them more attractive and maintain an intimate attraction with someone.

That is a discussion of qualities.

Ideals.

What you are talking about is basically taking a man who is already insecure about his masculinity/attractiveness/confidence and basically pointing out that his insecurities are all well founded and that you already have experiences with other, superior men, he cannot live up to.

Why you think that is helpful and not emotional manipulation on the same level as Athol's extreme Dread game is beyond me.


----------



## Brigit

EleGirl said:


> Do you realize that women are also lied to their entire life about men and what men want? This is not a one way street. There are just some people and segments of society who think that they have the answer and push it... very often it's a lot of nonsense.


I think different men want different things. Perhaps most want the following:

A woman they are attracted to
A woman who knows that talking all the time is irritating
A woman that shows them respect 
A woman that gives them time and space to do their own thing


I'm sure there is more but those seem valid.


----------



## Icey181

Faithful Wife said:


> Also, I am enjoying having a respectful debate with you.
> 
> But please stop mansplaining to me how the red pill came into existence. I know what happened and have read all the books and have my own opinions about it. I will not go on and on and tell you about what WOMEN were told during that same time frame which harmed them as well. Fair?


Mansplaining?

If you want to have respectful discussion, please refrain from these kinds of sexist rhetorical barbs.

The topic is on the Red Pill specifically, its genesis, its content, and its effect on people.

As an individual with personal experience with these exact topics I am sharing my experiences of how I interpret them and how I have engaged with them.

Just because those experiences happen to disagree with your views does not mean I am "mansplaining" down to you. 

I would actually be interested in the counter-discussion, because I know relatively little about the kinds of things women experienced during the same time period, but not if your response to being disagreed with is to attempt to shame me as sexist.


----------



## Icey181

always_alone said:


> most vocal components = vanguard
> 
> Like it or not, change agents and leaders are critical to social movements.
> 
> There was a whole lot of resistance to women's suffrage, for example. A whole lot, especially in the 19th century, and women had been fighting for it for decades before the time-frame you are talking about.


Vanguard is a good way to put it. And I never said they were not critical to these movements.

I said exactly the opposite in fact.

And you are correct, there was a considerable amount of resistance to female suffrage.

A great deal of it came from women.

It has to do with long-standing socio-cultural understandings of women as the moral center of American republicanism and it was an idea that was slowly going away. 

Actually, I think it was pretty much dead by the 1920s.


----------



## EleGirl

Brigit said:


> I think different men want different things. Perhaps most want the following:
> 
> A woman they are attracted to
> A woman who knows that talking all the time is irritating
> A woman that shows them respect
> A woman that gives them time and space to do their own thing
> 
> 
> I'm sure there is more but those seem valid.


I was talking about things that women are told about men that are lies and the end up causing huge problems in their relationships with men.

That list you posted is not what I was talking about.


----------



## always_alone

Icey181 said:


> A great deal of it came from women.
> 
> It has to do with long-standing socio-cultural understandings of women as the moral center of American republicanism and it was an idea that was slowly going away.
> 
> Actually, I think it was pretty much dead by the 1920s.


Indeed, hence the importance of the change agents.

And it had to do with a whole lot more than just what was happening in the US around the turn of that century. Women's suffrage is an international issue, and different cultures and countries all have different stories to tell.


----------



## always_alone

Icey181 said:


> What you are talking about is basically taking a man who is already insecure about his masculinity/attractiveness/confidence and basically pointing out that his insecurities are all well founded and that you already have experiences with other, superior men, he cannot live up to.
> 
> Why you think that is helpful and not emotional manipulation on the same level as Athol's extreme Dread game is beyond me.


But that's not what she was talking about at all. That's just how it was taken up in the conversation, because for some reason, it seems to be very obvious to some that Atholk and his ilk know more about what attracts women than any woman does.

An attitude that I see very frequently on TAM and find to be utterly bizarre.

At any rate, I think all FW was saying was that what red-pillers think women want actually has very little to do with what women actually want. But no one wants to ask women.


----------



## Brigit

EleGirl said:


> I was talking about things that women are told about men that are lies and the end up causing huge problems in their relationships with men.
> 
> That list you posted is not what I was talking about.


What are the things you're talking about that you found to be untrue?


----------



## Anon1111

This whole discussion strikes me as basically political.

If you're a rabid partisan, it's easy to sit here all day and find the most extreme expressions of the other team's values and say, "see! they're evil."

If you're more thoughtful, you can accept that there is an idealogical spectrum and even if some people have different ideas or impressions of the world than you do, it does not mean they are bad or lacking in observation skills.

For example, feminism doesn't threaten me.

If it wasn't a total waste of time, I could find hundreds of articles where feminists talk about the uselessness of men or how all men are really rapists. I recall a prominent professor at a major university whose claim to fame was the idea that "marriage is rape."

Does that mean that "feminism" in general is wrong or that feminists are evil or dumb? Of course not. It's just a few overenthusiastic people taking a good idea to an absurd extreme.

Behind all of this PUA junk is a sadness from not being loved and respected, just as it is from the most extreme versions of feminism.

Oh, and arguing with people who can't argue in good faith is not "demonstrating higher value."


----------



## Faithful Wife

GTdad said:


> Mansplaining. That strikes me as an excellent way to shut down any respectful debate. At least the "respectful" part.


When someone tells me their opinion as if it is factual history without giving me the same option (to state my opinion as if it is fact) and that person is a man, I'll call that mansplaining.


----------



## GTdad

Faithful Wife said:


> When someone tells me their opinion as if it is factual history without giving me the same option (to state my opinion as if it is fact) and that person is a man, I'll call that mansplaining.


You're kidding, right? We men can take away your option to do so, just like that?

You've used the term on me before, and it's a crappy thing to do. It kind of reminds me of your objection to use of the word "crazy" on another thread. Essentially, it's the same rhetorical device, except that it's apparently okay when you do it.

It's unworthy of you.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Icey181 said:


> Of course they do not.
> 
> Amazingly enough men, like women, have egos and going about "helping" them in the manner that you are describing is basically playing on some of the basic insecurities every man has and grandstanding on them.
> 
> Basically, this is where the whole "Alpha Widow" crap comes from.
> 
> Women who think they are helping men by continuously comparing them to a superior lover in the past.
> 
> Yeah, flip the genders on this one and you would be calling this emotional abuse.
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> And it is yours.
> 
> The problem is that most men are looking to be instructed in what qualities they can personally emphasize and exhibit that will help make them more attractive and maintain an intimate attraction with someone.
> 
> That is a discussion of qualities.
> 
> Ideals.
> 
> What you are talking about is basically taking a man who is already insecure about his masculinity/attractiveness/confidence and basically pointing out that his insecurities are all well founded and that you already have experiences with other, superior men, he cannot live up to.
> 
> Why you think that is helpful and not emotional manipulation on the same level as Athol's extreme Dread game is beyond me.


You have injected a whole lot of meaning to my words that I don't mean.

What I do mean is trying to give instructions to a man shuts him down immediately because his ego is harmed.

Therefore, we can't actually tell him anything.

You lamented that women won't tell you anything except platitudes like "confidence". I told you I'd be happy to tell you more than just platitudes. Yet here you are already shunning any message that hurts the guy's ego.

Athol can hurt your ego but women can't.

Meanwhile, I'm not sure if you realize this but men have no issue hurting our egos.

I stand by my original statement. You guys don't really want to hear the truth.


----------



## Faithful Wife

GTdad said:


> You're kidding, right? We men can take away your option to do so, just like that?
> 
> You've used the term on me before, and it's a crappy thing to do. It kind of reminds me of your objection to use of the word "crazy" on another thread. Essentially, it's the same rhetorical device, except that it's apparently okay when you do it.
> 
> It's unworthy of you.


Alright just for you, I will refrain from using that word at TAM.


----------



## GTdad

Faithful Wife said:


> Alright just for you, I will refrain from using that word at TAM.


Just for me? JLD may have a point with this business of how women take the influence of men after all.


----------



## Pluto2

Anon1111 said:


> Behind all of this PUA junk is a sadness from not being loved and respected, just as it is from the most extreme versions of feminism.


I completely agree with this, Anon. There is a tremendous sadness the envelopes anyone who is not feeling loved, or appreciated or respected.

I guess I see feminism differently than some might, and that's ok, too. Its not about hoisting women above men, or anyone else. Its striving for both parties to be treated equally. In lots of relationships that doesn't mean people should be behaving exactly in the same manner, mostly because every human brings something different to a relationship.

I have an extremely hard time when anyone believes and acts from a core value that condones making one party feel better about themselves by making the other party feel worse about themselves.


----------



## samyeagar

Faithful Wife said:


> Alright just for you, I will refrain from using that word at TAM.


Thank you! Every time you used it, though not directed at me, it made me wince because I respect you and your opinions a lot, and it really detracts from an otherwise intelligent post and is an absolute conversation killer, much like rolling ones eyes.


----------



## Faithful Wife

No problem.

Can I still say "Lucy, you have some 'splaining to do!!" ?


----------



## Ikaika

Why are men and women called opposite sex? Because when one wants to do or say something the other wants to do or say the opposite.


----------



## samyeagar

Faithful Wife said:


> No problem.
> 
> *Can I still say "Lucy, you have some 'splaining to do!!" *?


Sure thing doll...We menz'll let ya say that


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening
agreed. Certain terms or phrases tend to derail conversations because they carry with them an a broad implication of blame. Targets of that blame tend to feel that they need to defend themselves because they personally feel that they are not guilty.

This is often not the writers intent, but it still has that effect. 

internetsplaining IS a big thing. Lots of people make statements of "fact" without any sources to back that up. This is one of the things I dislike about the "red pill" stuff - it describes people driven by a very specific idea of biology / evolution. This both ignores free will, and the large amount of data that indicates that many people are NOT acting in a way to maximize their reproductive success. (A billionaire could father a thousand children if he wanted to - but I don't know of any who have done that). 




samyeagar said:


> Thank you! Every time you used it, though not directed at me, it made me wince because I respect you and your opinions a lot, and it really detracts from an otherwise intelligent post and is an absolute conversation killer, much like rolling ones eyes.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> And when the reason behind her not wanting sex has nothing to do with how much of your sperm she has in her or how many plates of cookies you get from your co-workers or how well you've unleashed her inner slvt?


You seem to have missed the part where this guy has already pursued better options to address why she doesn't want sex. The reality of it by this point, is that the woman is using sexual deprival in exactly the manipulative way that you ladies abhor of the man doing with the relationship security. He should rightly drop her on her @ss and move on, but people have many reasons to prefer inducing change, such as how f*cked men often get in divorce.



SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Do you not see how dangerous it can be to give advice "_to not just have rough sex with her, but to do it as hard as I could...without regard for her enjoyment or caring about her at all. I mean really, really rag doll f her like she was rented._" to men you know nothing about?
> To tell a man to put a woman in some isolation fear to get her to submit more?
> To tell him to act like he's going to have an affair even if she's being fair and giving?


When the problem is that she's lost attraction to him as a catering weenie, no.



SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> By all means, if a man wants to leave then he should leave. Talk to a lawyer, know your rights. Don't put up with BS and a wife not making an effort but there are many ways to go about it that don't involve being a pig. Do you want her to stay because she's scared or because she wants you?


Well that depends. Show of independence generally make for a more attractive man - which is the theme of the book. The last show is correctly, "I'm gonna find a woman that isn't frigid." Whether that makes her scared or not is really irrelevant, that's what's going to happen if she doesn't make an effort.



SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Some men could attract their wives more by being more tough and less soft, I agree with that. This is not the way. This is just how to be a d^uchbag.


Agree to disagree. It's little different than marketing. To drive demand for a thing by nature of its popularity with other people. If she truly doesn't care, what does she have to be afraid of? If she does care, why is she making him chase his tail trying to figure out her sexual issues or manipulating him by withholding sex? Sorry, I have no sympathy for such a woman. He should rightly ditch her, and I can only imagine that there are extraneous reasons that he doesn't - such as financial impact or children.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Lila said:


> Hmmm, since I never said "a husband's only purpose was to provide his frigid wife with unrelenting security", I'll kindly ask you to retract your insulting comment to me.


It's the inverse of what you did say - that a woman's only purpose is to be a receptacle for his sperm.

I refuse to withdraw the comment since it's exactly in line with the spirit of yours. No sex, no security.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Icey181 said:


> I would actually be interested in the counter-discussion, because I know relatively little about the kinds of things women experienced during the same time period, but not if your response to being disagreed with is to attempt to shame me as sexist.


Do you really not see any of your words as too sharp as well?

Because you could take it down a notch, and I will as well.

As for things women experienced during the same time period....

For one thing, we were told by all sides that men "just want in your pants". :scratchhead: This is so stupid to hear when you know you just want sex naturally and so do guys.

This is confusing because it mixes up regular men who want consensual sex with rapists. We had very little information to arm ourselves with when it came to the differences between these men. 

Meanwhile, if you were a young woman who did want sex, you were told that you would lose your value to people in general. What if I wanted him in my pants? Well that makes me even worse than the man who wants in my pants. 

Those of use who bucked against that notion and didn't care if we were called sl*ts actually ended up with a bit of an advantage in some cases, because we broke through the fears of our mothers (who wanted sex but couldn't dare to get that label). I was lucky that I got to see a much more sexual world than others would have me believe is out there.

We were specifically told never to hurt a man's ego WRT anything to do with sex....but that quickly revealed itself to include not being able to even simply ask for what we want or give good direction. There are so many women who behind the scenes are telling each other "I just don't know how to tell him that I need it this way or that way because he just shuts down when I try to say anything". I have experienced this too, and I'm not talking about telling a man that others were better than him, I'm talking about simply telling him I'd prefer this or that.

So however we got to the point that so many men can't take simple guidance from women on our specific sexual preferences, this has caused a HUGE problem in the bedroom for a lot of people.

We were constantly TOLD that men are visual, but women are not. There is no basis for this untruth, it was simply a folk myth. We were also TOLD that we don't value looks as highly as men do....we were told this by MEN. When women would say it, they were just keeping with the old time rule to never hurt a man's ego.

What I wish we were told:

*Both men and women want sex, it is natural.

*Some people are more sexual than others. Those who aren't as sexual should pair up with similar, and those who are highly sexual should pair up with similar. Sexual mismatches are what cause most sexless marriages.

*Both men and women want to feel mutual sexual attraction for each other, and this includes women having high physical standards.

*People don't become good lovers without feedback. Always give and ask for feedback from your lovers!


*Bottom line: men and women love each other, want to have sex with each other, and typically eventually want to marry each other. *


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

norajane said:


> That passage is designed to build men up by putting women down. The men get to believe that their best years are ahead of them, plus they'll get to feel superior and laugh at all the women who didn't want them when they were young.
> 
> I think guys who buy into it do so because they want very badly to believe it's true. That's not atypical of people who are hurt - they want desperately to feel better about themselves, and they might want to hurt someone so they feel the same pain. I think most manage to move past that phase, but those that get stuck in this phase are just hurting themselves.


lol no. As basis for an argument, one could just reply that this is the same sort of attack to protect your own ego.

But there are facts that support the case which you blatantly ignore.

Last I checked, and terribly un-PC to say but still pertinent, is that no man has had to struggle with a post-baby post-breastfeeding body. We don't tend to struggle with stretch marks. It doesn't generally matter much that we lose our hair (unless he refuses to give up the ghost, which is more a styling issue) or it grays. You don't see men investing in a wide variety of schemes and product to eliminate wrinkles. These things significantly affect women. They have less affect on men.

And as long as women seek confidence and money, age won't have as negative affects for men as women. It's simply a logical proposition. It's proven that men don't care what you make. It's proven that women care quite a bit.

It's proven that partner age in post-divorce relationships decreases on average for men, and increases on average for women. If we accept that our perceptions of physical attractiveness are tightly bound with fertility, then it stands to reason that the prime child bearing years are our peak physical attractiveness. If men post-divorce on average get closer to that peak than same-age women with subsequent partners, does that not speak to their relative attractiveness?

There's no emotional investment in these points. It's not being rude, or trying to bring down women to bring men up. It's just honest assessment of the facts without sugar coating. How about taking on the facts rather than throwing around weak armchair psychology about people you've never met.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Botox isn't just for women: Why so many men are 'Bro-tox' obsessed - Nov. 4, 2014

Male Plastic Surgery Procedures - Business Insider

"The Biggest Loser" and Tabloids Make Men Hate Their Bodies Too

https://www.nationaleatingdisorders.org/statistics-males-and-eating-disorders

http://www.today.com/health/six-pack-stress-men-worry-more-about-their-appearance-their-2D12117283

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/a...ge-pressure-increasingly-affects-boys/283897/

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2012/jan/06/body-image-concerns-men-more-than-women


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Anon Pink said:


> That whole relative sex rank is kind of funny. I always assumed that men who went for much younger women must really suck in bed. Only a very young woman would have no idea he sucked because of her inexperience. While an older woman...he's not gonna get away with sucking in bed with her.
> 
> So older guy with young woman, he sucks in bed and she's clueless.
> Older woman with older man, they're tearing up the sheets! Because they both know what they're doing!
> Older woman with younger guy.. Euw! Why would anyone want to train a pup when she could have the sire?


And what evidence would you have for such an assumption?

Here I thought the men who seek younger women do so because those women are in their physical prime with tight little bodies. Further, I thought women universally knew this, and that's why beauty products are all about making you look young again. Get rid of those grays, hide those wrinkles, etc etc.

There's a logical inconsistency in your final paragraph vs your first. The older guy with a younger woman must suck in bed, but the older woman is supposedly able to "train" a pup? Where'd she get that knowledge? Oh yeah, age/experience. It stands to reason the same applies to the man. Just sayin.


----------



## turnera

While the author is crass, the basic psychological tenets are correct. Women ARE that way, just as men think with their other head. Women, being the sex that has never had 'the power,' have created - and instilled in our DNA - ways to if not claim power, circumvent it. Always being on the lookout, even if we're not aware, for strong or stronger men...it's just part of our DNA.

Going around pretending women are moral creatures who are just pushed into cheating and whatnot while men are similarly amoral and harmful does everyone a disservice. And in today's society, many men have never even been introduced to the idea of being strong; and they need it. 

Hate the author all you want, and criticize specific instances in the book, but psychologically, the system works.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> Botox isn't just for women: Why so many men are 'Bro-tox' obsessed - Nov. 4, 2014
> 
> Male Plastic Surgery Procedures - Business Insider
> 
> "The Biggest Loser" and Tabloids Make Men Hate Their Bodies Too
> 
> https://www.nationaleatingdisorders.org/statistics-males-and-eating-disorders


Uh huh. Let's compare the beauty supplies isles... well... anywhere. 

No matter how you slice it, women still exceed men in their attempts to be youthful. I'm not saying it's right or should be... and perhaps it will one day change, but that's the way things are right now. Youthfulness in women is highly regarded, and confidence/status in men is highly regarded. The former being highly regarded is obviously problematic with increasing age, while the latter tends to improve with age. These aren't attempts at insult. It's just the way things are right now.

When it changes, AK can write a new edition of his book.


----------



## Deejo

Faithful Wife said:


> Ok, I will carry on then.
> 
> It was just confusing.
> 
> But I get it.
> 
> Thank you for changing the man up sticky to be a better man, be a better partner. :smthumbup:
> 
> I do hope Ele, FF, CoffeeAmore or other mods will create a woman up/better woman/better partner sticky. That was a great suggestion that came from that other thread.


Sincerely? I hope that happens.

Took me a few days to come up with that initial list. One of the tenets of creating a sticky is that it cannot represent, or appear to be the promotion of a single poster's point of view, perspective, or input.

That is why I simply linked to existing discussions.

They all revolve around the same topic, but they aren't mine, and the point of view was never intended to be just mine.

Mind you, that didn't stop people from thinking that. 

But the only reason there isn't a female equivalent, is because no one has created it.

Do you guys want me to start?

I could start the list with the boob size and vagina size threads that were posted by women ... 

(that is sarcasm to be absolutely clear)


----------



## Lila

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> It's the inverse of what you did say - that a woman's only purpose is to be a receptacle for his sperm.


Let's review shall we.....

This is exactly what I said



> Applying dread games is not a last ditch effort to save a relationship....it's a desperate act to scare a wife into having sex with her husband in whatever way, form, or fashion, he can manage.
> 
> Dread games should never be played with spouse, even as a last ditch effort. They only serve to reinforce the belief that a wife's only purpose is as a warm and pliable receptacle for husband's ejaculate.


Where in that comment could you possibly interpret that I was somehow justifying a woman withholding sex for security?




DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I refuse to withdraw the comment since it's exactly in line with the spirit of yours. No sex, no security.


Your post telling me to GTFO (a.k.a GET THE FVUCK OUT) is incredibly disrespectful. You can disagree with my opinions all you want, but stop with the insults, and don't kid yourself...this was an insult.


----------



## tech-novelist

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> lol no. As basis for an argument, one could just reply that this is the same sort of attack to protect your own ego.
> 
> But there are facts that support the case which you blatantly ignore.
> 
> Last I checked, and terribly un-PC to say but still pertinent, is that no man has had to struggle with a post-baby post-breastfeeding body. We don't tend to struggle with stretch marks. It doesn't generally matter much that we lose our hair (unless he refuses to give up the ghost) or it grays. You don't see men investing in a wide variety of schemes and product to eliminate wrinkles. These things significantly affect women. They have less affect on men.
> 
> And as long as women seek confidence and money, age won't have as negative affects for men as women. It's simply a logical proposition. It's proven that men don't care what you make. It's proven that women care quite a bit.
> 
> It's proven that partner age in post-divorce relationships decreases on average for men, and increases on average for women. If we accept that our perceptions of physical attractiveness are tightly bound with fertility, then it stands to reason that the prime child bearing years are our peak physical attractiveness. If men post-divorce on average get closer to that peak than same-age women with subsequent partners, does that not speak to their relative attractiveness?
> 
> There's no emotional investment in these points. It's not being rude, or trying to bring down women to bring men up. It's just honest assessment of the facts without sugar coating. How about taking on the facts rather than throwing around weak armchair psychology about people you've never met.


Don't you know that facts are misogynistic? :scratchhead:


----------



## tech-novelist

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> And what evidence would you have for such an assumption?
> 
> Here I thought the men who seek younger women do so because those women are in their physical prime with tight little bodies. Further, I thought women universally knew this, and that's why beauty products are all about making you look young again. Get rid of those grays, hide those wrinkles, etc etc.
> 
> There's a logical inconsistency in your final paragraph vs your first. The older guy with a younger woman must suck in bed, but the older woman is supposedly able to "train" a pup? Where'd she get that knowledge? Oh yeah, age/experience. It stands to reason the same applies to the man. Just sayin.


No, women get more attractive with age! That's why young women are always trying to find ways to look older! :rofl:


----------



## UMP

IN PRAISE OF OLDER WOMEN

Andy Rooney says, "As I grow in age, I value older women most of all. Here are just a few reasons why:

An older woman will never wake you in the middle of the night to ask, "What are you thinking?" She doesn't care what you think.

An older woman knows herself well enough to be assured in who she is, what she is, what she wants and from whom. Few women past the age of 50 give a damn what you might think about her.

An older single woman usually has had her fill of "meaningful relationships" and "commitment." The last thing she needs in her life is another dopey, clingy, whiny, dependent lover!

Older women are dignified. They seldom have a screaming match with you at the opera or in the middle of an expensive restaurant. Of course, if you deserve it, they won't hesitate to shoot you if they think they can get away with it.

Most older women cook well. They care about cleanliness and are generous with praise, often undeserved.

An older woman has the self-assurance to introduce you to her women friends. A younger woman with a man will often ignore even her best friend because she doesn't trust the guy with other women. Older women couldn't care less.

Women get psychic as they age. You never have to confess your sins to an older woman. They always know.

An older woman looks good wearing bright red lipstick. This is not true of younger women or drag queens.

Once you get past a wrinkle or two, an older woman is far sexier than her younger counterpart. Her libido's stronger, her fear of pregnancy gone. Her experience of lovemaking is honed and reciprocal and she's lived long enough to know how to please a man in ways her daughter could never dream of. (Young men, you have something to look forward to.)

Older women are forthright and honest. They'll tell you right off you are a jerk if you are acting like one.

Yes, we praise older women for a multitude of reasons. Unfortunately, it's not reciprocal. For every stunning, smart, well-coifed babe of 70 there is a bald, paunchy relic in yellow pants making a fool of himself with some 22 year old waitress.

Ladies, I apologize for all of us. That men are genetically inferior is no secret. Count your blessings that we die off at a far younger age, leaving you the best part of your lives to appreciate the exquisite woman you've become, without the distraction of some demanding old man clinging and whining his way into your serenity."


signed: Andy Rooney


----------



## GTdad

technovelist said:


> No, women get more attractive with age! That's why young women are always trying to find ways to look older! :rofl:


There are plenty of us who find women close to our own age to be the most attractive.

And for the record, the only woman I wanted to seduce or date or build attraction with as I sought out information, including MMSL, was my wife.


----------



## Brigit

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> And what evidence would you have for such an assumption?
> 
> Here I thought the men who seek younger women do so because those women are in their physical prime with tight little bodies. Further, I thought women universally knew this, and that's why beauty products are all about making you look young again. Get rid of those grays, hide those wrinkles, etc etc.


I guess the Devils in the details and it PAINS me to say it but he has a good point.

Yes...the tight clear skin, thick flowing hair, white teeth, big eyes and sculpted muscles all scream sexual prime and those are the cues you need to keep to continue to look young and beautiful even if you are chronologically past that point. As long as you to have the appearance of sexual fitness then yes, you will still get the sexual attention.

There is one thing that puzzles me about your behavior. I looked at your profile and you have LOTS of pictures posted, some half dressed. You've make your job known and spoke of your car...quite _casually_ thrown into many posts. You've made it known you like to date only MUCH younger women. 

Now here's the strange part...

Why would you post all those pictures and spend so much time writing post after post after post to middle-aged women? You're good with words so I'm sure you're going to have a really good answer. So no need to answer. I just find it strange.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Lila said:


> Genuine question for the MMSLP pro crowd......
> 
> The Mindful Attraction Plan, also written by Kay, provides in greater detail the same self-help tenets he offers in MMSLP.....minus all of the misogynistic/crude language.
> 
> Why is THAT book not recommended by the 'man-uppers' the same way MMSLP is pushed?


I can only speak to things I've read.


----------



## Faithful Wife

turnera said:


> While the author is crass, the basic psychological tenets are correct. Women ARE that way, just as men think with their other head. Women, being the sex that has never had 'the power,' have created - and instilled in our DNA - ways to if not claim power, circumvent it. Always being on the lookout, even if we're not aware, for strong or stronger men...it's just part of our DNA.
> 
> Going around pretending women are moral creatures who are just pushed into cheating and whatnot while men are similarly amoral and harmful does everyone a disservice. And in today's society, many men have never even been introduced to the idea of being strong; and they need it.
> 
> Hate the author all you want, and criticize specific instances in the book, but psychologically, the system works.


I think you can speak for a lot of women who would agree with you here but not all, and not even most.

A huge number of women do not want a man to "take" her.

While I do want my man to "take" me, I can still honor other women who would never want that and realize that I'm not right and they're not wrong.

We are different, and being different is part of nature.

If it was as easy as a one size fits all biological issue, then we'd all have this figured out by now and no books would even be needed.

Some people aren't as sexual as other people, and IMO, this is a huge part of the problem in these issues. This fact isn't considered in these discussions usually.

What most guys (in red pill and PUA land) are calling a Natural is actually just a guy who is extremely sexual. Most of the guys who aren't as sexual don't understand how this guy does it. Because they can't understand it, because they aren't as sexual as he is. And typically you can't "learn" to be a more sexual person. This is what many of them will never understand.


----------



## Faithful Wife

GTdad said:


> There are plenty of us who find women close to our own age to be the most attractive.
> 
> And for the record, the only woman I wanted to seduce or date or build attraction with as I sought out information, including MMSL, was my wife.


Thank you for saying this....and I want to say I realize this is true for most men here.

I'm always happy when I read how much you guys love and are attracted to your wives.

When I read other women lamenting that men can't really love a woman, I send them to TAM and tell them there are hundreds of stories here that show how much men love their wives. I have had more than one woman thank me for sending them here to read stories. Because even though most people are here due to problems, they want help with those problems BECAUSE they love their spouse so much.


----------



## chillymorn

is dying your hair,wearing make up,painting your nails, fake boobs, girdles, push up bras, any plastic surgery, colored contact lens,

all fake and used to manipulate men into finding you attractive.

scores of mags and books etc selling products to manipulate men into thinking your hotter than you really are.

I just find it ironic and really hypocritical.

time for my RED pill. got to level the playing field.


----------



## Faithful Wife

chillymorn said:


> is dying your hair,wearing make up,painting your nails, fake boobs, girdles, push up bras, any plastic surgery, colored contact lens,
> 
> all fake and used to manipulate men into finding you attractive.
> 
> scores of mags and books etc selling products to manipulate men into thinking your hotter than you really are.
> 
> I just find it ironic and really hypocritical.
> 
> time for my RED pill. got to level the playing field.


Yes please do go get some beauty products, get muscled up, get some new clothes, get some nice smelling after shave, pluck all your wayward hairs, brush your teeth, get a haircut and trim your toenails. Women everywhere will appreciate it.


----------



## turnera

Faithful Wife said:


> I think you can speak for a lot of women who would agree with you here but not all, and not even most.
> 
> A huge number of women do not want a man to "take" her.
> 
> While I do want my man to "take" me, I can still honor other women who would never want that and realize that I'm not right and they're not wrong.
> 
> We are different, and being different is part of nature.
> 
> If it was as easy as a one size fits all biological issue, then we'd all have this figured out by now and no books would even be needed.
> 
> Some people aren't as sexual as other people, and IMO, this is a huge part of the problem in these issues. This fact isn't considered in these discussions usually.
> 
> What most guys (in red pill and PUA land) are calling a Natural is actually just a guy who is extremely sexual. Most of the guys who aren't as sexual don't understand how this guy does it. Because they can't understand it, because they aren't as sexual as he is. And typically you can't "learn" to be a more sexual person. This is what many of them will never understand.


Show me where I said women want men to 'take' them. I didn't even discuss sex. I discussed basic psychology and attraction.


----------



## Anon1111

I think a "woman up" list would be really great to read.

I wonder if the average woman even contemplates what is sexy to the average man, or if everything they do is just accidentally sexy. 

I am a fan of "tight bodies" and all that, but one thing I will admit is that an older woman has an advantage over a younger woman in that she can better own her sexuality and is in a better position to use it to its maximum effect.

I think this is why many of the "hottest" actresses peak career-wise in their late 20s/ early 30s. It seems quite certain that these women would be even hotter on a pure physical level in their early 20s, but at that point they have not learned how to utilize their charms to maximum effect.

Anyway, I would be curious to see what women THINK is sexy to men-- if they actually understand.


----------



## Faithful Wife

turnera said:


> Show me where I said women want men to 'take' them. I didn't even discuss sex. I discussed basic psychology and attraction.


Ok I assumed that was what you meant when you said "women ARE that way"....I thought you were referring to another post, I guess.

What did you mean by women ARE that way?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Anon1111 said:


> I think a "woman up" list would be really great to read.
> 
> I wonder if the average woman even contemplates what is sexy to the average man, or if everything they do is just accidentally sexy.
> 
> I am a fan of "tight bodies" and all that, but one thing I will admit is that an older woman has an advantage over a younger woman in that she can better own her sexuality and is in a better position to use it to its maximum effect.
> 
> I think this is why many of the "hottest" actresses peak career-wise in their late 20s/ early 30s. It seems quite certain that these women would be even hotter on a pure physical level in their early 20s, but at that point they have not learned how to utilize their charms to maximum effect.
> 
> Anyway, I would be curious to see what women THINK is sexy to men-- *if they actually understand*.


----------



## chillymorn

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes please do go get some beauty products, get muscled up, get some new clothes, get some nice smelling after shave, pluck all your wayward hairs, brush your teeth, get a haircut and trim your toenails. Women everywhere will appreciate it.


na I think I'd rather use the red pill technique. seem pretty effective. as a matter of fact I have only read little bit of it here and there on his blog but after all the huppla I think I'm really going to reed the book


----------



## Faithful Wife

chillymorn said:


> na I think I'd rather use the red pill technique. seem pretty effective. as a matter of fact I have only read little bit of it here and there on his blog but after all the huppla I think I'm really going to reed the book


Ok cool, come back and let us know what you thought of it.


----------



## Icey181

UMP said:


> IN PRAISE OF OLDER WOMEN
> 
> Andy Rooney says, "As I grow in age, I value older women most of all. Here are just a few reasons why:
> 
> An older woman will never wake you in the middle of the night to ask, "What are you thinking?" She doesn't care what you think.
> 
> An older woman knows herself well enough to be assured in who she is, what she is, what she wants and from whom. Few women past the age of 50 give a damn what you might think about her.
> 
> An older single woman usually has had her fill of "meaningful relationships" and "commitment." The last thing she needs in her life is another dopey, clingy, whiny, dependent lover!
> 
> Older women are dignified. They seldom have a screaming match with you at the opera or in the middle of an expensive restaurant. Of course, if you deserve it, they won't hesitate to shoot you if they think they can get away with it.
> 
> Most older women cook well. They care about cleanliness and are generous with praise, often undeserved.
> 
> An older woman has the self-assurance to introduce you to her women friends. A younger woman with a man will often ignore even her best friend because she doesn't trust the guy with other women. Older women couldn't care less.
> 
> Women get psychic as they age. You never have to confess your sins to an older woman. They always know.
> 
> An older woman looks good wearing bright red lipstick. This is not true of younger women or drag queens.
> 
> Once you get past a wrinkle or two, an older woman is far sexier than her younger counterpart. Her libido's stronger, her fear of pregnancy gone. Her experience of lovemaking is honed and reciprocal and she's lived long enough to know how to please a man in ways her daughter could never dream of. (Young men, you have something to look forward to.)
> 
> Older women are forthright and honest. They'll tell you right off you are a jerk if you are acting like one.
> 
> Yes, we praise older women for a multitude of reasons. Unfortunately, it's not reciprocal. For every stunning, smart, well-coifed babe of 70 there is a bald, paunchy relic in yellow pants making a fool of himself with some 22 year old waitress.
> 
> Ladies, I apologize for all of us. That men are genetically inferior is no secret. Count your blessings that we die off at a far younger age, leaving you the best part of your lives to appreciate the exquisite woman you've become, without the distraction of some demanding old man clinging and whining his way into your serenity."
> 
> 
> signed: Andy Rooney


Ok…but….what?

I rarely ever use this phrase…in fact this may be the first time ever, but this is White Knighting at its worst.

So apparently older women are wise, amazingly sexy, voracious, confident, and just oh so better than anything, ever, including those genetically deficient, demanding, boorish, oafs that are men.

Oh, and they are totally better than that young 20-something the guys are into...and besides those guys are just losers anyways.

:bsflag:


----------



## Icey181

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes please do go get some beauty products, get muscled up, get some new clothes, get some nice smelling after shave, pluck all your wayward hairs, brush your teeth, get a haircut and trim your toenails. Women everywhere will appreciate it.


Add in requirements to actually be aggressive in going after the things that you want, make sure you identify your own hobbies and activities that make you happy, take the lead in life and your relationships, be willing to disagree and stand your ground when you think you are correct, and make sure you recognize that having well defined standards are not only healthy but required, and you have a solid basis for a filtered Red Pill doctrine.

This is what I mean however.

That is not what I was told. I was told that women do not like muscular men, they really do not like aggressive guys, and that what they really prefer are pliable and emotionally attentive guys who will prioritize them and their comfort above all else.

Happy wife, happy life and all that.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Icey181 said:


> Ok…but….what?
> 
> I rarely ever use this phrase…in fact this may be the first time ever, but this is White Knighting at its worst.
> 
> So apparently older women are wise, amazingly sexy, voracious, confident, and just oh so better than anything, ever, *including those genetically deficient, demanding, boorish, oafs that are men*.
> 
> Oh, and they are totally better than that young 20-something the guys are into...and besides those guys are just *losers* anyways.
> 
> :bsflag:


This was an opinion piece written by a famous journalist.

The man posting it most likely agreed with it.

But you are just going to drop kick their opinions, call the guys names, insinuate that the article (written by a man) is saying that women are better than men? No where did anyone call anyone else losers or boorish oafs, YOU did.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Anon1111 said:


> I think a "woman up" list would be really great to read.
> 
> I wonder if the average woman even contemplates what is sexy to the average man, or if everything they do is just accidentally sexy.


My "woman up" list would have very little to do with being sexy but of being safe, fair, smart, accepting. Physical attraction is all over the map for all kinds of people.


----------



## norajane

NobodySpecial said:


> My "woman up" list would have very little to do with being sexy but of being safe, fair, smart, accepting. Physical attraction is all over the map for all kinds of people.


I would add be independent and self-supporting so you are free to avoid or walk away from a relationship where you are treated badly. Always, always be able to stand on your own two feet.


----------



## samyeagar

Anon1111 said:


> I think a "woman up" list would be really great to read.
> 
> I wonder if the average woman even contemplates what is sexy to the average man, or if everything they do is just accidentally sexy.
> 
> I am a fan of "tight bodies" and all that, but one thing I will admit is that an older woman has an advantage over a younger woman in that she can better own her sexuality and is in a better position to use it to its maximum effect.
> 
> *I think this is why many of the "hottest" actresses peak career-wise in their late 20s/ early 30s*. It seems quite certain that these women would be even hotter on a pure physical level in their early 20s, but at that point they have not learned how to utilize their charms to maximum effect.
> 
> Anyway, I would be curious to see what women THINK is sexy to men-- if they actually understand.


Not sure pointing at actresses and age and all that and using "hottest" in any real sense is a good comparison, because, unless you know and interact with them on a personal level, is all just imagination and self created fantasy.


----------



## Anon1111

NobodySpecial said:


> My "woman up" list would have very little to do with being sexy but of being safe, fair, smart, accepting. Physical attraction is all over the map for all kinds of people.


eh, even though there are definitely different "types" of sexy, I think you can look at Hollywood and see that there are clearly some common denominators about what sells as sexy for both men and women.


----------



## Icey181

Faithful Wife said:


> This was an opinion piece written by a famous journalist.
> 
> The man posting it most likely agreed with it.
> 
> But you are just going to drop kick their opinions, call the guys names, insinuate that the article (written by a man) is saying that women are better than men? No where did anyone call anyone else losers or boorish oafs, YOU did.


Perhaps you failed to actually read the letter?




Andy Rooney said:


> For every stunning, smart, well-coifed babe of 70 there is a bald, paunchy relic in yellow pants making a fool of himself with some 22 year old waitress.
> 
> Ladies, I apologize for all of us. That men are genetically inferior is no secret. Count your blessings that we die off at a far younger age, leaving you the best part of your lives to appreciate the exquisite woman you've become, without the distraction of some demanding old man clinging and whining his way into your serenity."


After explaining all of the reasons why older women are just the best, he describes men as:

1) Bald
2) Paunchy
3) A Relic in yellow pants
4) Making a fool of himself with younger women
5) Genetically Inferior
6) Demanding
7) Clingy
8) Whiny

Yeah, I am not putting words into his mouth here.


----------



## Anon1111

samyeagar said:


> Not sure pointing at actresses and age and all that and using "hottest" in any real sense is a good comparison, because, unless you know and interact with them on a personal level, is all just imagination and self created fantasy.


yes, but I want to live my fantasies.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Icey181 said:


> That is not what I was told. I was told that women do not like muscular men, they really do not like aggressive guys, and that what they really prefer are pliable and emotionally attentive guys who will prioritize them and their comfort above all else.


I hear you and I get it. But some women really do not like muscular men or aggressive guys, so you were told this but then didn't find one of those women, I'm assuming.

I was told that no man would want me if I was a sl*t but they were wrong, I've never had any lack of men who want me. 

Now a man who values being with a virgin wouldn't want me, that's true. But since I don't want that guy either, not a problem. There is someone for everyone.

Instead of telling us what you were told women want, I would like to hear what you really wanted in a woman, just out of curiosity.


----------



## tech-novelist

Icey181 said:


> Perhaps you failed to actually read the letter?
> 
> 
> After explaining all of the reasons why older women are just the best, he describes men as:
> 
> 1) Bald
> 2) Paunchy
> 3) A Relic in yellow pants
> 4) Making a fool of himself with younger women
> 5) Genetically Inferior
> 6) Demanding
> 7) Clingy
> 8) Whiny
> 
> Yeah, I am not putting words into his mouth here.


Andy Rooney certainly matched most if not all of those inferior characteristics. In fact, the main thing I remember from his rants is his whiny tone.

So that list says a lot more about him than it does about anyone else.


----------



## BronzeTorpedo

Faithful Wife said:


> This was an opinion piece written by a famous journalist.
> 
> The man posting it most likely agreed with it.
> 
> But you are just going to drop kick their opinions, call the guys names, insinuate that the article (written by a man) is saying that women are better than men? No where did anyone call anyone else losers or boorish oafs, YOU did.


Did you actually read the entire piece? It explicitly stated that men were genetically inferior to women. Rooney's example of an older woman was a sexual, lovely, confident, self-assured, perfect being. His example of an older man was a ridiculous looking relic making a fool of himself.

Yes, it was an opinion piece. I doubt anyone has ever confused Mickey Rooney's work for serious academic examination of the sexes. However, it's ironic that your position is that Rooney's opinion must be respected. And UMP's opinion must be respected. But Icey's opinion should be dismissed.

Also, if you would bother to switch the sexes in Rooney's work (older men are sexy and mature, while older women are pathetic, post-wall spinsters), it would sound an awful lot like Athol Kay's hate-speech that you've devoted many screeds to denouncing. Ironic, no?

Just sayin.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Icey181 said:


> Perhaps you failed to actually read the letter?
> 
> 
> After explaining all of the reasons why older women are just the best, he describes men as:
> 
> 1) Bald
> 2) Paunchy
> 3) A Relic in yellow pants
> 4) Making a fool of himself with younger women
> 5) Genetically Inferior
> 6) Demanding
> 7) Clingy
> 8) Whiny
> 
> Yeah, I am not putting words into his mouth here.


Notice that he is only referring to the old man who is chasing a 20 year old waitress, not "all men".


----------



## samyeagar

Anon1111 said:


> eh, even though there are definitely different "types" of sexy, I think you can look at Hollywood and see that there are clearly some common denominators about what sells as sexy for both men and women.


Hollywood is an awful place to look for real life sexy women or men. It is not any more real than photoshopped images. The combination of makeup, hair, costuming, and the trump of them all...screenwriters...


----------



## Faithful Wife

BronzeTorpedo said:


> Yes, it was an opinion piece. I doubt anyone has ever confused Mickey Rooney's work for serious academic examination of the sexes. However, it's ironic that your position is that Rooney's opinion must be respected. And UMP's opinion must be respected. But Icey's opinion should be dismissed.


Andy Rooney, not Mickey Rooney.

I'm not demanding anyone respect his opinion, just that they see it as that: an *opinion*.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

turnera said:


> While the author is crass, the basic psychological tenets are correct. Women ARE that way, just as men think with their other head. Women, being the sex that has never had 'the power,' have created - and instilled in our DNA - ways to if not claim power, circumvent it. Always being on the lookout, even if we're not aware, for strong or stronger men...it's just part of our DNA.
> 
> Going around pretending women are moral creatures who are just pushed into cheating and whatnot while men are similarly amoral and harmful does everyone a disservice. And in today's society, many men have never even been introduced to the idea of being strong; and they need it.
> 
> Hate the author all you want, and criticize specific instances in the book, but psychologically, the system works.


Yep, because it was designed to work that way.

Love it, T


----------



## BronzeTorpedo

Faithful Wife said:


> I hear you and I get it. But some women really do not like muscular men or aggressive guys, ...


That's true. Of course, some women actually are attracted to men who peep into women's bedrooms and masturbate on the subway. Does that mean we should advise boys to adopt that kind of dating strategy in the hopes that they'll stumble across that certain kind of woman?

Of course not. That would be stupid and would sabotage the vast majority of those boys. It would be much more helpful to boys (and girls) to acknowledge what most women find attractive and tell boys the truth. Most women find confidence more attractive than shyness. Most women find muscular men more attractive than obese men. And so on.


----------



## jld

Blonde said:


> If anyone takes a risk in marriage IMO it is the women- they are the ones with potential career and livelihood interruptions to bear children.


:iagree:


----------



## Anon1111

samyeagar said:


> Hollywood is an awful place to look for real life sexy women or men. It is not any more real than photoshopped images. The combination of makeup, hair, costuming, and the trump of them all...screenwriters...


OK, so I guess you believe the average guy off the street could be a leading man. Yes, there are smoke and mirrors, but there are real people up there on the screen too.


----------



## EllisRedding

Icey181 said:


> Ok…but….what?
> 
> I rarely ever use this phrase…in fact this may be the first time ever, but this is White Knighting at its worst.
> 
> So apparently older women are wise, amazingly sexy, voracious, confident, and just oh so better than anything, ever, including those genetically deficient, demanding, boorish, oafs that are men.
> 
> Oh, and they are totally better than that young 20-something the guys are into...and besides those guys are just losers anyways.
> 
> :bsflag:


I gather many of the women who actively participate here are older women, so of course they would eat this up .... Funny, I know plenty of older women who don't meet any of those "exquisite" criteria, but Rooney seems to make a blanket statement about all older women ... An older women looks good wearing bright lipstick, lol, what a croc of $h...

What a horribly written op ed ...


----------



## Faithful Wife

BronzeTorpedo said:


> *Most women find muscular men more attractive than obese men.*


Yes please do go ahead and tell boys this.

Girls already know.


----------



## BronzeTorpedo

Faithful Wife said:


> Andy Rooney, not Mickey Rooney.


Touche.



> I'm not demanding anyone respect his opinion, just that they see it as that: an *opinion*.


And you believe that Icey confused Rooney's opinion for inarguable facts? Do you believe there is such a thing as an incorrect opinion? If Icey simply argued his opinion as a counterpoint for Rooney's opinion, should Icey's opinion be respected then?


----------



## Faithful Wife

BronzeTorpedo said:


> Touche.
> 
> 
> And you believe that Icey confused Rooney's opinion for inarguable facts? Do you believe there is such a thing as an incorrect opinion? If Icey simply argued his opinion as a counterpoint for Rooney's opinion, should Icey's opinion be respected then?


Yes his opinion about what he finds attractive is respected.

If he doesn't find women over 40 attractive, I respect that.

But for him to tear down someone else's opinion is silly. The man who posted the article (UMP) has just as much right to his opinion without being called a White Knight.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

The elevation of womanhood and the victimization of it in this thread are a bit "out there."

To say that the marital risk is to the woman??? excuse me?

I call B.S.


----------



## samyeagar

Anon1111 said:


> *OK, so I guess you believe the average guy off the street could be a leading man.* Yes, there are smoke and mirrors, but there are real people up there on the screen too.


Not any more than the average guy off the street could do my job, no.

Yes, they are real people, however, what the adoring public sees in NOT the real person. Unless one has a personal level relationship, all a person knows IS the smoke and mirrors, and it's just not real.


----------



## BronzeTorpedo

Faithful Wife said:


> Notice that he is only referring to the old man who is chasing a 20 year old waitress, not "all men".


Oh, you can't fool us. He used the same implicit "all" that Athol Kay used when he acknowledged that concealed ovulation makes hidden paternity possible.

Why are you so invested in defending Rooney's misandry?


----------



## tech-novelist

Blonde said:


> I'm giving up sexual R with men, full stop...
> 
> Can't say I'm giving up men since I have three sons 12, 14, and 28 and two grandsons 2 and 1 (and 3 SIL)
> 
> An aside to Icey, I have 4 married children, three of them daughters age 31, 26, and 22. They had no trouble finding excellent partners. If anyone takes a risk in marriage IMO it is the women- they are the ones with potential career and livelihood interruptions to bear children. My daughters were* extremely* careful picking. PUAs need not apply.


Women are the ones who take a risk in marriage? Maybe, but they aren't the ones who take a risk in *divorce*, which is usually at the decision of the woman. Or am I wrong, and they are the ones who are thrown in jail for not making child support payments that they cannot make? And are they the ones for whom divorce increases suicide risk? (Divorced Men Are More Likely To Commit Suicide - CBS News)

Hope that helps.


----------



## BronzeTorpedo

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes please do go ahead and tell boys this.
> 
> Girls already know.


The red pill community is working on it.


----------



## Faithful Wife

BronzeTorpedo said:


> Oh, you can't fool us. He used the same implicit "all" that Athol Kay used when he acknowledged that concealed ovulation makes hidden paternity possible.
> 
> Why are you so invested in defending Rooney's misandry?


See it however you want. I see it as one man's opinion that other men are quick to rush in and reject, even though no one is ever "wrong" about their own opinion.


----------



## Faithful Wife

BronzeTorpedo said:


> The red pill community is working on it.


And so are women everywhere.


----------



## BronzeTorpedo

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes his opinion about what he finds attractive is respected.
> 
> If he doesn't find women over 40 attractive, I respect that.
> 
> But for him to tear down someone else's opinion is silly. The man who posted the article (UMP) has just as much right to his opinion without being called a White Knight.


So, Icey's opinion that Rooney is a White Knight is illegitimate. But I assume that your opinion that Kay, and other red pillers, is a misogynist is legitimate?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> He actually is really mean spirited about men, too and says a lot of generalizations about men that just aren't true.
> 
> For instance, the book claims that biology rules everything and there's literally no wiggle room for it. Which means there's no gay men, no gay women, no trans persons, no submissive men, and no beta men who women are into.
> 
> If we add up gay, trans, submissive and truly beta men (the ones who are perfectly comfortable with who they are and are not trying to become alpha or anything else) that's going to be a very significant amount of the population.
> 
> But MMSL just says these men don't exist, period. :scratchhead:


Even among homosexuals there are tops and bottoms that generally conform to male/female patterns.

The book doesn't address them because they are outside of the scope of the book, which is how beta heterosexual men can improve their sex lives.

As counter to biological arguments, homosexuals are in fact near useless evidence. In biological terms, only their heterosexual engagements matter, as homosexual traits are not reproduced otherwise. Regardless, gays and trans are unarguably biological circuitry gone awry, rather than the base evolved nature of humankind, as neither is a self-perpetuating model. Only hetero engagements are.

So the size of those populations is entirely irrelevant in evolutionary discussion. That those traits pass at all, is sign of fault in biological mechanisms (ie trans), or bi-sexuality, and Kay's observations still tend to apply to hetero coupling.

There is no rejection of the notion that some women prefer a beta man. In fact, the book explicitly states that every man is a combination of beta traits and alpha traits. The beta traits are preferred for their caretaking, and the alpha traits are preferred for mating. The book is about improving sex life, so no kidding the reasons a woman may opt for a relationship with a beta male are given less air time. The beta will still tend to have less sex than the alpha - mostly because he lacks the selfishness to pursue it - as we've seen many a woman complain about here on TAM.



Faithful Wife said:


> Also, he describes the Natural Alpha (the guys who naturally have an easy time meeting women, like my husband) completely wrong. He claims they are always all about themselves and never kind or decent toward women.
> 
> Here's a quote from MMSL:
> 
> "An Alpha male is sexually impulsive and pleased to bang any available female. The Alpha Trait really cares nothing for a woman’s sexual response other than her compliance and willingness to submit to him. It’s all about him getting his penis into her vagina and ejaculating into it. This somewhat coarse sexual approach relies on the element of social dominance creating the dopamine response in her rather than sexual skill creating it."


Your mistake is in assuming that AK is describing a real individual here. Hence the use of "the Alpha trait". The fact of the matter is, your husband is not THIS Alpha. To AK's mind, it is beta trait that your husband is caring toward you.

Combine the traits and you get a real person, falling on a scale... more alpha or more beta. In this model, your husband is not pure alpha, no one is. The assertion is that women prefer to mate with those individuals displaying more alpha traits (ensuring dominant offspring), and prefer the care of those individuals displaying more beta traits. Your husbands alpha traits rev up you inner yadda yadda that wants powerful offspring, but its his caretaking beta traits that make you want to live with him.

The caricature of a 100% alpha (ie this is not a real person) just gets what he wants from you. It doesn't serve his interests to care for you, just to impregnate you.... and everyone else.

You've simply misunderstood what he wrote.




Faithful Wife said:


> The real, actual men who are naturals with the ladies are good men who treat women with respect AND they are good lover, that's WHY we want to have sex with them.


Not so. The alpha traits are why you want to have sex with him. The beta traits are why you want the relationship aspects (care for children etc). Thus, a high beta male who ups his alpha traits generally gets more sex. "Good lover" can be either alpha or beta depending on the specific thing it entails. If you want assertive pursuit and physicality (which most women express as "I want him to take me!")... you're leaning alpha. If you want great head, tantric sex, and high intimacy... these are beta traits.

It's still true that most women find the man with more alpha traits more sexually alluring.



Faithful Wife said:


> Unbelievable. So now the only reason she wants to have sex with the alpha male is so he won't screw someone else.


It's exactly inline with mating/genetic competition. Subconscious (primitive) mind runs the show, conscious mind only thinks it does, and goes about trying to explain the conflicts that subconscious mind virtually always wins.

She instinctively knows his traits are dominant and valuable. His mating with another female are strong competition for her own genetic line. There are a variety of human adaptations that reflect this genetic warfare, such as the shape of the penis being adapted to actually perform a plunger/suction action (proven fact) - serving to extract the sperm of other males from her. it should be no revelation that sexual behavior is likely another such adaptation. The strategies are necessarily different, given a female's reproductive opportunity is limited, and the male's is not.



Faithful Wife said:


> My husband doesn't have sex with me or just any willing female just because we'll see him as a loser if he doesn't. On the contrary, he has sex when the time is right for both people. Because he's good at sex and a good lover. Where does Athol get this nonsense?


1) AK didn't say "just because". 

2) Your applying a larger scope of conscious thought. In evolutionary terms, the "right time" is right now, if she's available. The guy who did ensures passing on his traits. The guy who didn't, less so. So prime mating age males tend toward a state of near-constant sexual availability.

3) Refusing sex from a woman does in fact have a high cost in attraction (proven). AK gets this "non-sense" from behavioral science, which also proposes that because the female's mating opportunity is limited, she is evolutionary predisposed to desire a male who can be relied upon to have sex when she wants it (which is most often when she's most fertile - and thus reason players keep an eye on cycles and know when is "best" to engage her).



Faithful Wife said:


> My husband knows that there is no scarcity of sex for him. So why would he "expect their please compliance of his advances".


Uh... duh? You answered your own question in the sentence before you asked it, exactly fitting what AK said. The alpha knows the women want him (there is no scarcity of sex), so he expects their compliance to his advances. This expectation is effectively confidence.



Faithful Wife said:


> This is just so goofy I can't believe it was ever written. It just doesn't go like that. Clearly this is what Athol imagines sex is like with a Natural, but he's so far off base that it actually insults MEN more than women (in these passages).


It certainly helps to comprehend what is being said, and as I've shown, you haven't.


----------



## Pluto2

Blossom Leigh said:


> The elevation of womanhood and the victimization of it in this thread are a bit "out there."
> 
> To say that the marital risk is to the woman??? excuse me?
> 
> I call B.S.


Blossom, do you think men take a risk of economic isolation, loss of career opportunities, physical risk of child birth, physical abuse? Some do, I'm sure, but the vast majority of risk in any marital relationship is placed on women.

I will be happy to agree to disagree with you, but from my experience on TAM, and in my life, the women in a marriage are the ones at greater risk.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Though I am not a fan of broad brush statements, what I took from Andy's piece is don't over look the value of older women.


----------



## NobodySpecial

norajane said:


> I would add be independent and self-supporting so you are free to avoid or walk away from a relationship where you are treated badly. Always, always be able to stand on your own two feet.


Amen.


----------



## Faithful Wife

BronzeTorpedo said:


> So, Icey's opinion that Rooney is a White Knight is illegitimate. But I assume that your opinion that Kay, and other red pillers, is a misogynist is legitimate?


Back and forth, back and forth....I will just leave it alone with you as there is clearly no point I can make which you will see any merit in. Think of me and my opinions what you want.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Pluto2 said:


> Blossom, do you think men take a risk of economic isolation, loss of career opportunities, physical risk of child birth, physical abuse? Some do, I'm sure, but the vast majority of risk in any marital relationship is placed on women.
> 
> I will be happy to agree to disagree with you, but from my experience on TAM, and in my life, the women in a marriage are the ones at greater risk.


There are so many risks men take that I cannot respond to you justly on their behalf, but to elevate women over the risk of the men is wrong.

This thread makes me sad.


----------



## Icey181

To clarify, it is “White Knighting” because what we have is a man who is employing what is essentially sexist and over-blown generalization that outright declare that _all men are genetically inferior_ while also hitting just about every insecurity I have ever heard from an older women and letting them know, they are just perfect the way they are.

A quick gender pronoun flip here and some alterations to talk about women in this manner would be (rightly) panned as misogynistic.

Basically, Rooney is playing on the insecurities of older women and trash talking men in order to get goodie points from said older women.

That is pretty much a textbook case of White Knighting.

Point of fact; while men still find older women attractive, the overwhelming majority of men find women in their early twenties _more attractive_. To my knowledge post-menopausal women are not vibrant and voracious sex-goddesses.

Quite to the contrary a good portion of the deadbedroom stuff I read has men dealing with post-menopausal women who outright declare that sex is now a thing of the past.

Etc etc.

That entire letter is garbage and designed specifically to appeal to the egos of insecure older women.

Ergo, White Knighting.


----------



## NobodySpecial

technovelist said:


> Women are the ones who take a risk in marriage? Maybe, but they aren't the ones who take a risk in *divorce*, which is usually at the decision of the woman. Or am I wrong, and they are the ones who are thrown in jail for not making child support payments that they cannot make? And are they the ones for whom divorce increases suicide risk? (Divorced Men Are More Likely To Commit Suicide - CBS News)
> 
> Hope that helps.


What does what gender takes more risk MATTER? I swear, the people who claim to be fighting gender wars start and fuel the most decisive threads. How does blaming an entire gender help anyone understand the complexities of marriage, how to improve YOURS if it needs it?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Anon1111 said:


> I think a "woman up" list would be really great to read.


It can start with paying your own way if you're going to simultaneously date multiple men.


----------



## Icey181

Blossom Leigh said:


> Though I am not a fan of broad brush statements, what I took from Andy's piece is don't over look the value of older women.


What was the point of the last two paragraphs then?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

icey181 said:


> ergo, white knighting.


exactly!


----------



## Blossom Leigh

i think everyone needs to just stop.... this thread is non productive and incredibly disrespectful of both genders and relatioships.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Icey181 said:


> That entire letter is garbage and designed specifically to appeal to the egos of insecure older women.
> 
> Ergo, White Knighting.


Okee doke. I see where you're coming from.

Nothing further from me.


----------



## Icey181

Honestly, the vulnerabilities in divorce pretty much hit everyone involved.

I would argue there is a gender imbalance in divorce that favors women that needs to be addressed under the auspices of the 14th Amendment, but both sides take pretty big chances and the failure of a marriage is an amazingly life-changing hit.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Anon1111 said:


> Put yourself in the mindset of one of these weak men for a moment.
> 
> Would you rather be a weak man who (1) never has sex or (2) a weak man who has sex?
> 
> All of the manipulation stuff is aimed at taking you from point (1) to point (2).
> 
> It does not and cannot alone transform you into a strong man.


So basically the goal is just to find a place to put your penis no matter what the cost instead of building a loving and emotionally satisfying relationship with someone that includes meeting each other's sexual needs. 
Well, that's attractive. 

IIRC- AK's wife was a virgin and is religious. Has her income and lifestyle tied to him,2 children. If his wife wasn't as dependent I do not think it would have "worked" on her. 
Bribing a woman with security for sex doesn't work for women who don't need your security and for those who do (for now) will likely just end up WAWs. 

Leave out all the garbage about sperm warfare, inner slvts and the crap about how women don't mean what they say 99% of the time  and forget about the silly games (like sending yourself cookies and flowers) and it would get most men a lot further IMO. If you have to look past that much to get to something you can use then it's not a good book. 

Also- people keep saying that the book is only ever brought up when needed but people are giving it to their kids, suggesting it after 1 post from an OP. If it only helps 1 specific type of man then at least make sure the person you are suggesting it to IS that type of man. Not everyone who posts _has _tried everything first so there is still plenty of advice that could be given before resorting to mmslp.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Icey181 said:


> What was the point of the last two paragraphs then?


Encouragement to older women that there are older men out there who DO appreciate them. He did it by putting other men down, which I don't like, but I see it for what it is... encouragement to older women.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Icey181 said:


> Honestly, the vulnerabilities in divorce pretty much hit everyone involved.
> 
> I would argue there is a gender imbalance in divorce that favors women that needs to be addressed under the auspices of the 14th Amendment, but both sides take pretty big chances and the failure of a marriage is an amazingly life-changing hit.


Especially for the kids... so if anyone needs elevating...


----------



## Fozzy

Pluto2 said:


> Blossom, do you think men take a risk of economic isolation, loss of career opportunities, physical risk of child birth, physical abuse? Some do, I'm sure, but the vast majority of risk in any marital relationship is placed on women.
> 
> I will be happy to agree to disagree with you, but from my experience on TAM, and in my life, the women in a marriage are the ones at greater risk.


If applied correctly, marriage should reduce risk for both men and women.


----------



## Icey181

Blossom Leigh said:


> Encouragement to older women that there are older men out there who DO appreciate them. He did it by putting other men down, which I don't like, but I see it for what it is... encouragement to older women.


And did we not just conclude that elevating one gender by putting the other down in highly sexist language is not helpful?

I am pretty sure most of us would say that about the radical stuff in the Red Pill.

It applies to Rooney’s statement as well.


----------



## Lila

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> So basically the goal is just to find a place to put your penis no matter what the cost instead of building a loving and emotionally satisfying relationship with someone that includes meeting each other's sexual needs.
> Well, that's attractive.
> 
> IIRC- AK's wife was a virgin and is religious. Has her income and lifestyle tied to him,2 children. If his wife wasn't as dependent I do not think it would have "worked" on her.
> Bribing a woman with security for sex doesn't work for women who don't need your security and for those who do (for now) will likely just end up WAWs.
> 
> Leave out all the garbage about sperm warfare, inner slvts and the crap about how women don't mean what they say 99% of the time  and forget about the silly games (like sending yourself cookies and flowers) and it would get most men a lot further IMO. If you have to look past that much to get to something you can use then it's not a good book.
> 
> Also- people keep saying that the book is only ever brought up when needed but people are giving it to their kids, suggesting it after 1 post from an OP. If it only helps 1 specific type of man then at least make sure the person you are suggesting it to IS that type of man. Not everyone who posts _has _tried everything first so there is still plenty of advice that could be given before resorting to mmslp.


:allhail:

This is perfectly stated!


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Icey181 said:


> And did we not just conclude that elevating one gender by putting the other down in highly sexist language is not helpful?
> 
> I am pretty sure most of us would say that about the radical stuff in the Red Pill.
> 
> It applies to Rooney’s statement as well.


I don't get all hot and bothered by sexist statements. That's just not my thing. I just move past it.


----------



## Faithful Wife

True, Blonde. Some guys do want to hear the truth and can handle it.


----------



## Fozzy

Cue Jack Nicholson


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Faithful Wife said:


> True, Blonde. Some guys do want to hear the truth and can handle it.


And some grow INTO handling it like my H did


----------



## BronzeTorpedo

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> So basically the goal is just to find a place to put your penis no matter what the cost instead of building a loving and emotionally satisfying relationship with someone that includes meeting each other's sexual needs.
> Well, that's attractive.


Not exactly. The other poster was describing a failing marriage. If I were in a failing marriage, I would prefer it be a sexual failing marriage rather than a sexless failing marriage.



> Leave out all the garbage about sperm warfare, inner slvts and the crap about how women don't mean what they say 99% of the time  and forget about the silly games (like sending yourself cookies and flowers) and it would get most men a lot further IMO. If you have to look past that much to get to something you can use then it's not a good book.


Ironically, you just described most of the book. Sperm warfare is entirely incidental to AK's advice. You don't need to believe it, or even understand it.

Also, I already posted how AK himself described dread game as a super-risky strategy of last resort that is inferior to self-improvement. Even if one couldn't recognize that on one's own, one could simply rely on AK's assessment in order to avoid that.

Aside from that, you get a book that suggests self-improvement, not placing women on pedestals, and adopting a confident, assertive demeanor in order to be sexier. Ah, the outrage!


----------



## Anon1111

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> So basically the goal is just to find a place to put your penis no matter what the cost instead of building a loving and emotionally satisfying relationship with someone that includes meeting each other's sexual needs.
> Well, that's attractive.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> Not what I said.
> 
> Not sure what the point is regarding debating with people if you want to put words in their mouth. You're really arguing with yourself.


----------



## Mr. Nail

I took a red pill this morning. I'm not a big believer in the evolutionary model. The interpretations vary too much. I've watched the bickering on this thread for some time now and I just want to say what I wanted to say the first day. It sells because it works. As with all bad boy problems, men do them because women reward them. As a victim I don't find one gender innocent.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Blonde said:


> FW, I am curious. Does your "natural Alpha" husband deign to receive your influence?


There are things which he does without my influence, and things I refuse his influence on as well.

However, generally speaking, yes, he loves me, is always thinking of me, wants my input, and always puts me first in his life.

He respects me and has never said any of the things I've heard red pill guys say.

He is not my "leader", and I'm not his "follower". We strive to be differentiated and interdependent.


----------



## Icey181

Blonde said:


> ^^ sweeping generalization
> 
> Correction: SOME guys, don't want to listen nor receive influence from (FW or) their W -Gottman
> 
> Apparently there exist men that do and they are the ones whose marriage don't fail at an 80% rate. - Gottman again The Marriage Clinic: A Scientifically-based Marital Therapy - John Mordechai Gottman - Google Books


That is an awesome link.

It kind of brings me back to the old Captain/First-Mate dynamic some of the Red Pill Women talk about all the time.

Although, while I have not read the book, I would wonder what the dynamic looks like in relationships that have DV perpetrated by the Wife/GF.

I would think that a similar pattern existed.


----------



## Ikaika

Natural alpha 

http://youtu.be/ZLsg0EvZozI


----------



## Blossom Leigh

The pattern is there because God put it there.

All these different resources are bumping up against the same pattern, because the pattern is there... period. They are GOING to bump up against it. No matter the "flavor" good or bad of explaining it.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Lila said:


> Where in that comment could you possibly interpret that I was somehow justifying a woman withholding sex for security?


I didn't say you justify what the woman does. I'm rather tossing an equivalent statement I know you'll object to, to highlight the absurdity in your accusing this of promoting women as only a receptacle for semen. If we accept that as the male interest, then I offer you the female interest - security, and a similar demand for it.



Lila said:


> Your post telling me to GTFO (a.k.a GET THE FVUCK OUT) is incredibly disrespectful. You can disagree with my opinions all you want, but stop with the insults, and don't kid yourself...this was an insult.


It's not an insult. It's vernacular. What part of the statement describes you? None of it. Alternate example: "peddle that trash somewhere else".

You say that the withdrawal of security in the absence of sex is abhorrent and promotes women as only "receptables", and I say that's garbage - noise - trash - ridiculous. So I present the inverse... her withdrawal of sex, yet entitlement to his security.

No. She denies him what he wants, he has every right to deny her what she wants.


----------



## Icey181

I read along some more in the Gottman book and found this lovely little kernel:



Page 62 said:


> …it is only men who use violence to systematically terrorize, control, and subdue their wives.


Apparently, there is no such thing as a battered husband…

It is doctrinal points of view like that which lacked any of the scientific backing of the previous conclusions that leave me scratching my head.

I have never understood the societal revulsion to recognizing that DV also comes in the battered husband/abusive wife model.

The boogey man of the uniquely violent male….it will be nice when we finally put that one to bed.

But I digress.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Icey181 said:


> I read along some more in the Gottman book and found this lovely little kernel:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, there is no such thing as a battered husband…
> 
> It is doctrinal points of view like that which lacked any of the scientific backing of the previous conclusions that leave me scratching my head.
> 
> I have never understood the societal revulsion to recognizing that DV also comes in the battered husband/abusive wife model.
> 
> The boogey man of the uniquely violent male….it will be nice when we finally put that one to bed.
> 
> But I digress.


Totally agree... There are MANY violent women, not just physically, but verbal and emotional violence as well. This is why thinking is isn't so is terribly wrong.


----------



## tech-novelist

Icey181 said:


> I read along some more in the Gottman book and found this lovely little kernel:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, there is no such thing as a battered husband…
> 
> It is doctrinal points of view like that which lacked any of the scientific backing of the previous conclusions that leave me scratching my head.
> 
> I have never understood the societal revulsion to recognizing that DV also comes in the battered husband/abusive wife model.
> 
> The boogey man of the uniquely violent male….it will be nice when we finally put that one to bed.
> 
> But I digress.


That absurd statement (that only men use violence to control their wives) casts serious doubt (to put it mildly) on the scientific objectivity of the author(s).

But maybe it is a tautology, since if you ignore same-sex marriages, by definition the only one who can use violence to control a *wife* is a husband! :scratchhead:


----------



## Icey181

technovelist said:


> That absurd statement (that only men use violence to control their wives) casts serious doubt (to put it mildly) on the scientific objectivity of the author(s).
> 
> But maybe it is a tautology, since if you ignore same-sex marriages, by definition the only one who can use violence to control a *wife* is a husband! :scratchhead:


As someone who has had to deal with the influence of scientific studies and the political bias of their authors in the realm of the social sciences, I will say this: if a study is weak on an experimental point that is provable, someone will come along and knock it down.

It kind of reminds me of all the “Race is a social construct” stuff that became all the rage in History discussions around 10-years ago.

It was based on a pretty weak article with a clearly biased author…which was utterly wiped out by a better article and a more objective author.

Facts always trump bias in these cases. :smthumbup:


----------



## Pluto2

Blossom Leigh said:


> The pattern is there because God put it there.
> 
> All these different resources are bumping up against the same pattern, because the pattern is there... period. They are GOING to bump up against it. No matter the "flavor" good or bad of explaining it.


With all due respect to your spiritual beliefs, not everyone shares them.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> So basically the goal is just to find a place to put your penis no matter what the cost instead of building a loving and emotionally satisfying relationship with someone that includes meeting each other's sexual needs.


That is the biological objective yes. Biology doesn't give a f about good relationships. It cares about getting and passing on genetic code.

All the relationship stuff is secondary to the parts of your mind that are driven to this biological objective to reproduce. Even if no relationship could be had, the vast majority of people would still have a drive to reproduce with mates of highest genetic quality attainable. It is the foundation on which everything else lives.



SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Also- people keep saying that the book is only ever brought up when needed but people are giving it to their kids, suggesting it after 1 post from an OP.


Someone gave it to their kids? :scratchhead:


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Pluto2 said:


> With all due respect to your spiritual beliefs, not everyone shares them.


I am fully aware of that Pluto


----------



## Icey181

Blonde said:


> =>good advice for women too :yay:
> 
> especially those of us who tend to be codependent doormats
> 
> You said earlier you didn't find women giving this advice.
> Melody Beattie (books on codependence)
> Michelle Weiner-Davis (the 180 was her idea IIRC)


The link to codependence and the Red Pill stuff is pretty strong actually; a good deal of the NMMNG idea is basically a break from a codependent relationship.

The 180 is perhaps the best advice I have ever seen for a struggling relationship and especially for a dead/dying bedroom one. Never knew where it originated.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> I would offer that a Non Natural cannot effectively write a good book on how to be a Natural.


Nobody can write *that* book, because the "natural" can't understand the problem. So we have the books we have, which are books written by non-naturals who observe, experiment and relate what has worked... and then surround it with plausible explanation loosely based on behavioral science and evolution. The explanation honestly doesn't even matter. All that matters is whether the advice works to drive sexual interest.

My experience is that it works extremely well.



Faithful Wife said:


> If you could take out your envy from the equation and just really hear us describe it, you may learn something more than what you can learn from a Pretend Natural.


Most of the men who have problems attracting their physical equivalent in a women, have the problem because they listened to women describe what they liked.

A book could be written explaining why that is, but it is true.


----------



## samyeagar

Question for ya...

In the context of the Dread game, along with the ongoing issue between my wife and I regarding her difficulties verbally expressing her attraction to me...

It's a beautiful day outside, mid 80's, sunny, and I was sitting on a bench out front of my work building when a late 20's, early 30's woman sat down beside me, took off her sandal, told me it was broken and asked if I could try and fix it for her. I said sure, and after about 30 seconds or so, she started making small talk, and after a bit of that, she told me that she thought that the jeans and t-shirt weather really agreed with me.

Am I correct in thinking that if I were to say anything about that to my wife, it could likely be considered playing the dread game?


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Mothers are deeply blessed with children. Guess its all in the perspective you pick.

I wouldn't trade it for the world. And that is coming from a woman who didn't really want kids originally.


----------



## Faithful Wife

samyeagar said:


> Question for ya...
> 
> In the context of the Dread game, along with the ongoing issue between my wife and I regarding her difficulties verbally expressing her attraction to me...
> 
> It's a beautiful day outside, mid 80's, sunny, and I was sitting on a bench out front of my work building when a late 20's, early 30's woman sat down beside me, took off her sandal, told me it was broken and asked if I could try and fix it for her. I said sure, and after about 30 seconds or so, she started making small talk, and after a bit of that, she told me that she thought that the jeans and t-shirt weather really agreed with me.
> 
> Am I correct in thinking that if I were to say anything about that to my wife, it could likely be considered playing the dread game?


Sure, but I'd actually call it Middle School Games.

ETA, sam if you want your wife to tell you more directly how hot she is for you, TELL HER TO DO THAT and keep telling her until she does it. If she gives you any crap about it like excuses, tell her you don't want to hear excuses you want to hear how sexy you are. Give her lists of things she can say if she needs that.

This is similar to what Anon Pink has to do with her husband, too.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Most of the men who have problems attracting their physical equivalent in a women, have the problem because they listened to women describe what they liked.
> 
> A book could be written explaining why that is, but it is true.


There's a ton of reasons why a man is having problems attracting their physical equivalent. 

If 10 guys who were my level of attractiveness tried to attract me there would be plenty of various reasons why I wouldn't be. Maybe he's a [email protected] or too [email protected] (seen this one plenty of times). Maybe he has baggage (had a guy try to pick me up by talking about how he lost his job, his girlfriend left him, he's going to get kicked out of his home) or his likes to wear his pants really low with a belt around his pelvis to hold them up (had one of those guys try too, WTF) Maybe he wears too much cologne or I don't like his hair. 

Being _too _ nice, in touch with my needs and listening to what I want and like, never happened. 

First time I even heard of it was on TAM and I've been around a lot of life forums and of course RL friends and family.

I can see that it's an issue for some men and some women but let's just not get carried away with the "Most of the men...." stuff and like the book, thinking that there are large amount of women who don't/can't express their needs so it's up to men like AK to tell you what they are.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

samyeagar said:


> Question for ya...
> 
> In the context of the Dread game, along with the ongoing issue between my wife and I regarding her difficulties verbally expressing her attraction to me...
> 
> It's a beautiful day outside, mid 80's, sunny, and I was sitting on a bench out front of my work building when a late 20's, early 30's woman sat down beside me, took off her sandal, told me it was broken and asked if I could try and fix it for her. I said sure, and after about 30 seconds or so, she started making small talk, and after a bit of that, she told me that she thought that the jeans and t-shirt weather really agreed with me.
> 
> Am I correct in thinking that if I were to say anything about that to my wife, it could likely be considered playing the dread game?


Depends on your heart and intent when you tell her.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes please do go get some beauty products, get muscled up, get some new clothes, get some nice smelling after shave, pluck all your wayward hairs, brush your teeth, get a haircut and trim your toenails. Women everywhere will appreciate it.


There is a big difference between grooming/hygiene and dying your hair and concealing wrinkles to be thought youthfully attractive.

Men generally don't do these things, because we don't have to. The man with the graying beard does about as well with women as the man with a dyed beard. This isn't so for women. Thus in the average store, there's a few dying products available for men, and an entire isle of them for women.


----------



## Ikaika

All in fun, just trying to lighten things up in this thread... Even if you are not a bball fan stick with it till the end

http://youtu.be/mF337mkxIGs


----------



## Faithful Wife

I can't watch it right now but will later, Ikaika. You lighten things up just by being here.


----------



## Pluto2

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> There is a big difference between grooming/hygiene and dying your hair and concealing wrinkles to be thought youthfully attractive.
> 
> Men generally don't do these things, because we don't have to. The man with the graying beard does about as well with women as the man with a dyed beard. This isn't so for women. Thus in the average store, there's a few dying products available for men, and an entire isle of them for women.


Actually I know a couple of guys in their 50's who do a lot of the same grooming and "concealing" of aging that women do. My immediate boss, dyes his mustache to hide the silver.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Blonde said:


> +1


+1 what ... score?

:rofl:


----------



## Faithful Wife

Pluto2 said:


> Actually I know a couple of guys in their 50's who do a lot of the same grooming and "concealing" of aging that women do. My immediate boss, dyes his mustache to hide the silver.


The entire PUA industry is based on men's insecurities....men of all ages. The idea that men don't care about this stuff is pure nonsense....of course they care, why else would they be constantly trying to gain advantage over other men by whatever means possible.


----------



## GTdad

Pluto2 said:


> Actually I know a couple of guys in their 50's who do a lot of the same grooming and "concealing" of aging that women do. My immediate boss, dyes his mustache to hide the silver.


I'm 52, and the gray is starting to take over, especially my beard.

Hell with it, though. I've earned every single one of those gray hairs.


----------



## samyeagar

Faithful Wife said:


> *Sure, but I'd actually call it Middle School Games.*
> 
> ETA, sam if you want your wife to tell you more directly how hot she is for you, TELL HER TO DO THAT and keep telling her until she does it. If she gives you any crap about it like excuses, tell her you don't want to hear excuses you want to hear how sexy you are. Give her lists of things she can say if she needs that.
> 
> This is similar to what Anon Pink has to do with her husband, too.


It goes without saying, I've no intention of saying a word to her about this afternoon.

It has been a work in progress with kind of a two steps forward, two steps back...more thoughts later.


----------



## Dogbert

Bye folks. It's been fun.


----------



## Faithful Wife

GTdad said:


> I'm 52, and the gray is starting to take over, especially my beard.
> 
> Hell with it, though. I've earned every single one of those gray hairs.


I love salt 'n pepa.


----------



## RoseAglow

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> There is a big difference between grooming/hygiene and dying your hair and concealing wrinkles to be thought youthfully attractive.
> 
> Men generally don't do these things, because we don't have to. The man with the graying beard does about as well with women as the man with a dyed beard. This isn't so for women. Thus in the average store, there's a few dying products available for men, and an entire isle of them for women.


I don't get why this fact has any relevance. There are also aisles of make-up at any drug store, and it's almost entirely for females from 11 or 12 years old and up. Young women dye their hair, too. 

Even very young girls like to wear make-up and get mani-pedis with their Moms. I know people who get jewelry for very young girls, even babies with their ears pierced. 

Beauty enhancement is a life-long thing for most women.

So is it really some kind of statement on the value of women's appearance vs. men's appearance in middle age and up that there are more beauty products for women? 

In a way, the very fact that there is "cover the gray" product for men kinda suggests that men start to get nervous about aging, too. I think they sure do worry about it. Unlike the beauty products for women, you don't see that kind of stuff for the young men, yeah? It is only when they get older that they start to stress about it. 

Yes, women age. So do men. I think "older women are wrinkled and lonely and have no value" is just a myth. I don't see it at all in real life, for either men or women.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Dogbert.... :toast:

Drop by sometime.


----------



## Dogbert

Faithful Wife said:


> Dogbert.... :toast:
> 
> Drop by sometime.


I'll pm you. Speaking of PM, it seems you've reach your max quota of messages in your inbox. You won't be getting any pm's until you clean your inbox.


----------



## Ikaika

Faithful Wife said:


> I can't watch it right now but will later, Ikaika. You lighten things up just by being here.



I'm just mostly reading. I will admit I don't get the red pill phenomenon. But hey, if it works for some guys and the ladies they are courting don't have an issue, who am I to judge. 

But, I live aloha (deep meaning there beyond what most think of that word and philosophy). My wife says I can give aloha as long as I don't spread aloha.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I think Aloha actually means something like what grok means. Am I close? A word that describes so many emotions and such knowledge all at once that it is impossible to describe but the closest meaning would be something like "total compassion" (with the "total" part being the misunderstood and unexplainable part).


----------



## Fozzy

samyeagar said:


> Question for ya...
> 
> In the context of the Dread game, along with the ongoing issue between my wife and I regarding her difficulties verbally expressing her attraction to me...
> 
> It's a beautiful day outside, mid 80's, sunny, and I was sitting on a bench out front of my work building when a late 20's, early 30's woman sat down beside me, took off her sandal, told me it was broken and asked if I could try and fix it for her. I said sure, and after about 30 seconds or so, she started making small talk, and after a bit of that, she told me that she thought that the jeans and t-shirt weather really agreed with me.
> 
> Am I correct in thinking that if I were to say anything about that to my wife, it could likely be considered playing the dread game?



True story--I got mooned by a hooker on the way home from work yesterday. Called my wife immediately and told her. She about died laughing.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> There's a ton of reasons why a man is having problems attracting their physical equivalent.
> 
> If 10 guys who were my level of attractiveness tried to attract me there would be plenty of various reasons why I wouldn't be. Maybe he's a [email protected] or too [email protected] (seen this one plenty of times). Maybe he has baggage (had a guy try to pick me up by talking about how he lost his job, his girlfriend left him, he's going to get kicked out of his home) or his likes to wear his pants really low with a belt around his pelvis to hold them up (had one of those guys try too, WTF) Maybe he wears too much cologne or I don't like his hair.



Yes, there are various reasons you won't be attracted to him... but those unknowns drive his pursuit of information. The process is like so:

Step 1 - he incessantly fails. 
Step 2 - he asks, she answers. 
Step 3 - he adjusts behavior in accordance with what she said. Step 4 - he still incessantly fails.

*Divergence in the force*

Defeated male:
Step 5a - he lowers his standards and self-esteem, and is finally successful with a less attractive female; he believes his lack of success must be tied to having an overly high opinion of himself. He is bitter and feels life is unfair.

END A.

Undefeated male:
Step 5b - he stops asking women, and instead observes the characteristics of men who are good with women.

Step 6 - he adopts those characteristics to the best of his ability.

Step 7 - with practice and ever increasing social awareness, he now easily gets the women he originally thought were his level, yet were beyond his reach. Life feels good and fair.

Step 8 - he moves up, and loses the concept of any woman being beyond his reach. His confidence is sky high.

END B.



SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I can see that it's an issue for some men and some women but let's just not get carried away with the "Most of the men...." stuff


I don't think anyone is speaking to prevalence. I don't know how common it is. I imagine the extreme lack of interest that drives one to look as far as PUA material is not "most men". It applied to me, and a lot of the advice worked exactly as advertised.

I'm inclined to think the root of my problems primarily tied to growing up with a single mom and resulting female advice and self-minimization (avoid being a burden to struggling mom). If that's true, I suspect it's a growing population. More single moms raising softer young men who then go out to meet a population of ever more independent, harder, young women.



SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> thinking that there are large amount of women who don't/can't express their needs so it's up to men like AK to tell you what they are.


It's not about who knows what. It's about what actually works. When listening to women works, men will do that. Many men, including myself, have found women to generally be a horribly unreliable source.


----------



## Ikaika

Literal term of aloha - presence of the breath of life. Hawaiian culture is filled with oral legends and proverbs. 

Aloha" is more than a word of greeting or farewell or a salutation.

"Aloha" means mutual regard and affection and extends warmth in caring with no obligation in return.

"Aloha" is the essence of relationships in which each person is important to every other person for collective existence.

"Aloha" means to hear what is not said, to see what cannot be seen and to know the unknowable.

_I ka ‘ōlelo no ke ola, i ka ‘ōlelo nō ka make. _In the language is life. In the language is death. So with our words we can breath life or death. So I'm always reminded by my kupuna (Hawaiian grandmother, a woman who I have so much respect for. Does not have my education but far wiser than me) to be careful with my words. 

Sorry end my thread Jack... Back to normal discussion of the subject.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Blonde said:


> +1 that women take the greater risk in M
> 
> mainly because we are the ones who get pregnant, bear children, and are traditionally the primary nurturers of children. That takes a huge amount of sacrifice. Huge!
> 
> a child takes 18 years to raise (at least, and if they go to college like mine, make that 22 for financial obligations)
> 
> otherwise, in an era of equal rights and equal career opportunities if a couple remains childless, I suppose M is equally risky for both


My H and I both nurture our son and when we were going through seriously tough times it was killing my H to have to be away until he could consistently be safe. My H is a big nurturer as am I, so I just don't see it as that far apart in experience. 

Its why I hung onto him... if he learned to control his anger there was enough nurture behind that that has made it worth while to risk what I risked to keep our family together. 

I know there are men out there who disengage, but there are also women who disengage, more than women like to admit.

I am highly aware of the physical risk of birthing a child. I almost lost my life, but my H almost lost his wife.


----------



## always_alone

BronzeTorpedo said:


> N
> *Aside from that,* you get a book that suggests self-improvement, not placing women on pedestals, and adopting a confident, assertive demeanor in order to be sexier. Ah, the outrage!


The outrage is because the "aside from that" part that's basically just insulting women comprises 90% of the book.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

RoseAglow said:


> I don't get why this fact has any relevance. There are also aisles of make-up at any drug store, and it's almost entirely for females from 11 or 12 years old and up. Young women dye their hair, too.
> 
> Even very young girls like to wear make-up and get mani-pedis with their Moms. I know people who get jewelry for very young girls, even babies with their ears pierced.
> 
> Beauty enhancement is a life-long thing for most women.
> 
> So is it really some kind of statement on the value of women's appearance vs. men's appearance in middle age and up that there are more beauty products for women?
> 
> In a way, the very fact that there is "cover the gray" product for men kinda suggests that men start to get nervous about aging, too. I think they sure do worry about it. Unlike the beauty products for women, you don't see that kind of stuff for the young men, yeah? It is only when they get older that they start to stress about it.
> 
> Yes, women age. So do men. I think "older women are wrinkled and lonely and have no value" is just a myth. I don't see it at all in real life, for either men or women.


Stated as you have, it would be a myth. No value is not what AK is pushing. He's pushing the notion of decline with age at a greater rate than men, because of the differences in what men and women prioritize. 

I'm certain some men do worry about aging. And I very much enjoyed your retort that women of all ages dye their hair. Very good point that completely unravels what I'd hoped the relative demand for dye products might show. So I ask you, which demographic do you think conceals their gray hair more? Old men or old women? The only way to know for sure would be to examine sales research by demographic, which I don't have available to present, but I think you'll agree that the notion of old men dying conceal gray hair to the degree that women do is wildly far fetched, which would mean you accept the premise if not the evidence exactly.


----------



## EllisRedding

Oh geez .. purely to break up the gender wars, a little humor (might have to duck to avoid the grenades ...)


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Blonde said:


> That is true for me too, BL but it does not remove the fact that raising them has involved a great deal of sacrifice (careerwise, financial, emotional, freedom to come and go as I please...)
> 
> sacrifices my H did not make
> 
> he really sacrificed nothing careerwise, nor in coming and going as he pleased, nor in moving us whenever and wherever he wanted


I hate he didn't do that for you. My H has learned to receive my influence and be grateful for me and hear my heart while at the same time not laying down his primary role. I hoped your H would see the light when I was on your thread and mine at the time had not quite gotten there himself, but I knew it should be so. It is a sacrifice, but I am seeing my H now sacrifice along side me. Your H missed out on so much and its sad. He could have done things differently.


----------



## always_alone

Mr. Nail said:


> It sells because it works.


Again, I wish we could talk about this idea of "works". Because yes, you can make people do things by playing on their insecurities and vulnerabilities. However, I wouldn't call this the basis of a good relationship. 

More just resentment fostering.


----------



## Blonde

Ikaika said:


> Literal term of aloha - presence of the breath of life. Hawaiian culture is filled with oral legends and proverbs.
> 
> Aloha" is more than a word of greeting or farewell or a salutation.
> 
> "Aloha" means mutual regard and affection and extends warmth in caring with no obligation in return.
> 
> "Aloha" is the essence of relationships in which each person is important to every other person for collective existence.
> 
> "Aloha" means to hear what is not said, to see what cannot be seen and to know the unknowable.
> 
> _I ka ‘ōlelo no ke ola, i ka ‘ōlelo nō ka make. _In the language is life. In the language is death. So with our words we can breath life or death. So I'm always reminded by my kupuna (Hawaiian grandmother, a woman who I have so much respect for. Does not have my education but far wiser than me) to be careful with my words.
> 
> Sorry end my thread Jack... Back to normal discussion of the subject.


Lovely!

that words bring life or death is also in the Bible

the bit about knowing the unknowable sounds very like what I call "intuition"


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Blonde said:


> Lovely!
> 
> *that words bring life or death is also in the Bible*
> 
> the bit about knowing the unknowable sounds very like what I call "intuition"


Which is exactly why I bring it up... it is SO misunderstood but is a wealth of relational truth that Athol could learn a thing or two from....


----------



## always_alone

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> There's a ton of reasons why a man is having problems attracting their physical equivalent.
> 
> If 10 guys who were my level of attractiveness tried to attract me there would be plenty of various reasons why I wouldn't be. Maybe he's a [email protected] or too [email protected] (seen this one plenty of times). Maybe he has baggage (had a guy try to pick me up by talking about how he lost his job, his girlfriend left him, he's going to get kicked out of his home) or his likes to wear his pants really low with a belt around his pelvis to hold them up (had one of those guys try too, WTF) Maybe he wears too much cologne or I don't like his hair.
> 
> Being _too _ nice, in touch with my needs and listening to what I want and like, never happened.
> 
> First time I even heard of it was on TAM and I've been around a lot of life forums and of course RL friends and family.


Seriously. This idea that the only reason that men ever fail with women is because they aren't "alpha" enough is bs to the extreme.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Pluto2 said:


> Actually I know a couple of guys in their 50's who do a lot of the same grooming and "concealing" of aging that women do. My immediate boss, dyes his mustache to hide the silver.


Oh, I totally believe it. I know a guy who dyes his beard. Yet I know FAR more gray haired men. I also happen to know that almost all women with gray hair do - courtesy dating a hairstylist.

It's not even a contest. If that's not evidence that looking youthful is more important to one gender than the other, I don't know what is.

I mean, we can do this all day, from youthful skin moisturizer to anti-wrinkle cream. Still haven't met a guy who buys anti-wrinkle cream, but as rare as he is, surely he's out there.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Oh, I totally believe it. I know a guy who dyes his beard. Yet I know FAR more gray haired men. I also happen to know that almost all women with gray hair do - courtesy dating a hairstylist.
> 
> It's not even a contest. If that's not evidence that looking youthful is more important to one gender than the other, I don't know what is.
> 
> I mean, we can do this all day, from youthful skin moisturizer to anti-wrinkle cream. Still haven't met a guy who buys anti-wrinkle cream, but as rare as he is, surely he's out there.


Your determination to insist that older men are more attractive and less concerned about appearance than older women is remarkable. Why so invested?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> The entire PUA industry is based on men's insecurities....men of all ages. The idea that men don't care about this stuff is pure nonsense....of course they care, why else would they be constantly trying to gain advantage over other men by whatever means possible.


Wrong angle. We care about women's level of interest in us. We don't care about looking youthful, because women don't give it much priority. If you cared more about it, we would too. But since you don't, it's not an area for us to compete with each other over... or we would be competing that way. 

In fact, you'll more commonly experience a woman who finds a man who uses a lot of beauty product distasteful than women who will spurn a man for gray.


----------



## Ikaika

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> In fact, you'll more commonly experience a woman who finds a man who uses a lot of beauty product distasteful than women who will spurn a man for gray.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Your determination to insist that older men are more attractive and less concerned about appearance than older women is remarkable. Why so invested?


Well thank you, I'm just a determined guy. I have no investment. I'm still relatively young.

I'm just calling it like I see it. Your restatement of it is a bit of a straw man though. It's not that the "older men are more attractive" in the physical sense I think you mean to imply. They deteriorate just like women do (with possible exception of childbearing-related issues). The total attractiveness difference isn't so much in how they each look... it's in how the other sex prioritizes what they're actually looking for, with men placing more weight on physical characteristics, and women placing more weight in non-physical characteristics.

The easiest example of this is men not caring how much money a woman makes, while women are proven to care a great deal (even though they refuse to admit it). If that's a factor in female attraction, then physical appearance is necessarily a lesser share whole picture for women than it is for men. It's one more thing to be traded on if you have to. According to the studies, women will sacrifice looks for money, and not even think they're sacrificing. Money just magically makes him look better. So it's not "looks don't matter", its that you have more things on which to trade off looks. It's one of many reasons I've found to take what women say about attraction with a grain of salt - y'all have a lot of conflicting pressures - so often what comes out of your mouth isn't yours, and is instead what you're "supposed to say".


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Again, I wish we could talk about this idea of "works". Because yes, you can make people do things by playing on their insecurities and vulnerabilities. However, I wouldn't call this the basis of a good relationship.
> 
> More just resentment fostering.


My definition of "works" in the PUA context is fairly simple - anything having a positive influence on the ability to engage a woman of like attractiveness so as to ultimately have sex. I qualify it with "ultimately", because that sex can be within the bounds of a committed relationship... or not.

Some of them are fine in the context of a good relationship, some are not. Some are moral, some are not.

But they "work" for their intended purpose. The rest is up to the guy applying them.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Well thank you, I'm just a determined guy. I have no investment. I'm still relatively young.
> 
> I'm just calling it like I see it. Your restatement of it is a bit of a straw man though. It's not that the "older men are more attractive" in the physical sense I think you mean to imply. They deteriorate just like women do (with possible exception of childbearing-related issues). The total attractiveness difference isn't so much in how they each look... it's in how the other sex prioritizes what they're actually looking for, with men placing more weight on physical characteristics, and women placing more weight in non-physical characteristics.
> 
> The easiest example of this is men not caring how much money a woman makes, while women are proven to care a great deal (even though they refuse to admit it). If that's a factor in female attraction, then physical appearance is necessarily a lesser share whole picture for women than it is for men. It's one more thing to be traded on if you have to. According to the studies, women will sacrifice looks for money, and not even think they're sacrificing. Money just magically makes him look better. So it's not "looks don't matter", its that you have more things on which to trade off looks. It's one of many reasons I've found to take what women say about attraction with a grain of salt - y'all have a lot of conflicting pressures - so often what comes out of your mouth isn't yours, and is instead what you're "supposed to say".


I don't fit many of your notions D... my ex makes more than my H. My ex's money didn't keep me around. I am now the oldest spouse, the breadwinner and love my H's emotional depth and strength. My H doesn't fit some of these notions either. I just think people are very individual. By design..


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Those are unarguably not the prevailing case. How much younger? Most women won't go more than 3-4 years younger. Ask that of men and you get a wildly larger number from most when they're not being PC.

Money didn't keep you around because something else pushed you away to eventually override it. Doesn't argue against money as a factor in attraction. It's been thoroughly proven.

Good night folks.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Those are unarguably not the prevailing case. How much younger? Most women won't go more than 3-4 years younger. Ask that of men and you get a wildly larger number from most when they're not being PC.
> 
> Money didn't keep you around because something else pushed you away to eventually override it. Doesn't argue against money as a factor in attraction. It's been thoroughly proven.
> 
> Good night folks.


Emotional depth and connection has always been paramount to me. My H is five years younger than me.


----------



## TiggyBlue

My husband made a lot less money when we got together, think it really depends on the type of woman.


----------



## Ikaika

My wife can barely make out the E on Snellen chart without her contacts or glasses. 



My good fortune that she was between eye doctors at the time.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

samyeagar said:


> Question for ya...
> 
> In the context of the Dread game, along with the ongoing issue between my wife and I regarding her difficulties verbally expressing her attraction to me...
> 
> It's a beautiful day outside, mid 80's, sunny, and I was sitting on a bench out front of my work building when a late 20's, early 30's woman sat down beside me, took off her sandal, told me it was broken and asked if I could try and fix it for her. I said sure, and after about 30 seconds or so, she started making small talk, and after a bit of that, she told me that she thought that the jeans and t-shirt weather really agreed with me.
> 
> *Am I correct in thinking that if I were to say anything about that to my wife, it could likely be considered playing the dread game?*


I don't know what the dread game is.. I missed that post.. is it really out of the ordinary for others to share things like this... 

We don't get out much.. but when things like THAT happen.. even the smallest story to tell regarding the opposite sex/ a conversation we had...when we're not by each other's side.. we share it ! ....we get a charge out of those encounters.... There is no trying to stir anything, or playing any games... it's just how we are... he tells me about the guys at work too.. so if it involves a lady.. it's so much more FUN !



> *Blossom Leigh said*: *I don't fit many of your notions D... my ex makes more than my H. My ex's money didn't keep me around. I am now the oldest spouse, the breadwinner and love my H's emotional depth and strength. My H doesn't fit some of these notions either. I just think people are very individual. By design.*.


 I don't fit many of those stereotypes of women either. .I always feel like correcting







but he's heard it all before from me... probably 50 some times.. I wouldn't care how much $$ he made if ...for example.. he loved the city or was a workaholic who had little time for a woman.... I HATE the city.. we'd be a horrendous mismatch... 

Gotta find a country boy.... I care more about how loving & affectionate a man is over his status, Alpha whatever.. I care deeply on whether he would ENJOY being a father, family man....faithful & true, my best friend.. which is so often touted on here this = " the death of a good sex life"...Naaaah... not for us!!.. If he wasn't these things, we'd have more troubles!! 

None of us can be boxed....there are things I would never fudge on that others would NOT want in a man at all.. as things other women have HIGH on their priority list -that would be much lower on mine...


----------



## lucy999

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Still haven't met a guy who buys anti-wrinkle cream, but as rare as he is, surely he's out there.


I dated one. Didn't last long. He was vain to the nth degree! (Full disclosure: I'm vain, too). I told him it wasn't going to work because we'd be fighting for the bathroom mirror.


----------



## FizzBomb

Icey181 said:


> *And the larger community at r/RedPill considers this the basic level of Dread necessary to sustain a healthy relationship*.


:rofl::lol: Poor, poor suckers.

God almighty! What a croc. :lol:

What a great pity and a shame that Dogberts thread was locked over in the Mens section.


----------



## Ikaika

lucy999 said:


> I dated one. Didn't last long. He was vain to the nth degree! (Full disclosure: I'm vain, too). I told him it wasn't going to work because we'd be fighting for the bathroom mirror.


So my youngest son would take 3 second showers until one day when they turned into 10 minute showers. Young girls started paying attention to him but more importantly he took notice of it. Ugh...


----------



## Brigit

TiggyBlue said:


> My husband made a lot less money when we got together, think it really depends on the type of woman.


It also depends upon how you were raised. My mom made it clear that a man who can't financially support a woman isn't a man.

I have no idea if that's true or not but it's ingrained in my psyche. TBH I do look down upon men who aren't the breadwinners. Something about them repulses me and no amount of intellectualization of that matter will change my feelings.


----------



## always_alone

A lot of gaslighting on this thread. The overt message "MMSL is a-ok because it is *only* about self-improvement and last-ditch attempts to salvage a dying relatiinship" is somehow made more believable by the following "evidence"

-Older women are less valuable than older men.
-Women don't know what they want and their testimony is completely unreliable
-Women are feminizing men, turning them into pvssies
-The only value women have is how they look and sex
-It doesn't really matter if you are fostering resentment or hurt; what matters is if you get laid
-feminists are just as hateful as MMSL, and no one ever criticizes them.

No, no misogyny around here :rofl: :rofl:


----------



## Brigit

always_alone said:


> A lot of gaslighting on this thread. The overt message "MMSL is a-ok because it is *only* about self-improvement and last-ditch attempts to salvage a dying relatiinship" is somehow made more believable by the following "evidence"
> 
> -Older women are less valuable than older men.
> -Women don't know what they want and their testimony is completely unreliable
> -Women are feminizing men, turning them into pvssies
> -The only value women have is how they look and sex
> -It doesn't really matter if you are fostering resentment or hurt; what matters is if you get laid
> -feminists are just as hateful as MMSL, and no one ever criticizes them.
> 
> No, no misogyny around here :rofl: :rofl:


I have to admit the thread is very entertaining...so there's that


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> My definition of "works" in the PUA context is fairly simple - anything having a positive influence on the ability to engage a woman of like attractiveness so as to ultimately have sex. I qualify it with "ultimately", because that sex can be within the bounds of a committed relationship... or not.


Right. So let's be absolutely clear here: The purpose of red pill to to exact sex, regardless of how this may or may not foster a healthy relationship, or what resentments it might foster, or how damaging it might be to someone's sense of well-being.


----------



## tech-novelist

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Wrong angle. We care about women's level of interest in us. We don't care about looking youthful, because women don't give it much priority. If you cared more about it, we would too. But since you don't, it's not an area for us to compete with each other over... or we would be competing that way.
> 
> In fact, you'll more commonly experience a woman who finds a man who uses a lot of beauty product distasteful than women who will spurn a man for gray.


Correct, and this is a special case of a more general rule.

Namely, whatever turns women on is what men will try to be.

For example, if women went for nice sensitive guys, there would be a lot of jerks saying "why do all the women go for the nice sensitive guys?" And some of them would suddenly try to figure out how to be nice and sensitive, which would create a market for books on how to do that.

In other words, if women didn't like jerks, men would stop being jerks, because men will do just about anything to attract women. And in many cases, they won't do much more than that.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening
Some gay couples do have a dom / sub relationship, but many are symmetric. 

Homosexuality IS important to evolution - if evolution completely dominated human behavior, homosexuality would be extremely rare, rather than 10-20% of the population. This is one of the best examples of how evolution doesn't dominate human behavior. The same applies to all the sex acts that people enjoy but which don't produce children.

The other is the widespread use of contraceptives. Evolution doesn't want you to have sex, it wants you to have children. 

If people really want to push their evolutionary goals, there are better ways to do it: Become a sperm donor. Marry a woman who wants LOTS of kids. 

If you want to have lots of sex with attractive women, then money works well. I can hire a lot of call girls on my income if that was my goal. The thing is, just pure sex is really quite dull. 








DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Even among homosexuals there are tops and bottoms that generally conform to male/female patterns.
> 
> The book doesn't address them because they are outside of the scope of the book, which is how beta heterosexual men can improve their sex lives.
> 
> As counter to biological arguments, homosexuals are in fact near useless evidence. In biological terms, only their heterosexual engagements matter, as homosexual traits are not reproduced otherwise. Regardless, gays and trans are unarguably biological circuitry gone awry, rather than the base evolved nature of humankind, as neither is a self-perpetuating model. Only hetero engagements are.
> 
> So the size of those populations is entirely irrelevant in evolutionary discussion. That those traits pass at all, is sign of fault in biological mechanisms (ie trans), or bi-sexuality, and Kay's observations still tend to apply to hetero coupling.
> 
> There is no rejection of the notion that some women prefer a beta man. In fact, the book explicitly states that every man is a combination of beta traits and alpha traits. The beta traits are preferred for their caretaking, and the alpha traits are preferred for mating. The book is about improving sex life, so no kidding the reasons a woman may opt for a relationship with a beta male are given less air time. The beta will still tend to have less sex than the alpha - mostly because he lacks the selfishness to pursue it - as we've seen many a woman complain about here on TAM.
> 
> 
> 
> Your mistake is in assuming that AK is describing a real individual here. Hence the use of "the Alpha trait". The fact of the matter is, your husband is not THIS Alpha. To AK's mind, it is beta trait that your husband is caring toward you.
> 
> Combine the traits and you get a real person, falling on a scale... more alpha or more beta. In this model, your husband is not pure alpha, no one is. The assertion is that women prefer to mate with those individuals displaying more alpha traits (ensuring dominant offspring), and prefer the care of those individuals displaying more beta traits. Your husbands alpha traits rev up you inner yadda yadda that wants powerful offspring, but its his caretaking beta traits that make you want to live with him.
> 
> The caricature of a 100% alpha (ie this is not a real person) just gets what he wants from you. It doesn't serve his interests to care for you, just to impregnate you.... and everyone else.
> 
> You've simply misunderstood what he wrote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not so. The alpha traits are why you want to have sex with him. The beta traits are why you want the relationship aspects (care for children etc). Thus, a high beta male who ups his alpha traits generally gets more sex. "Good lover" can be either alpha or beta depending on the specific thing it entails. If you want assertive pursuit and physicality (which most women express as "I want him to take me!")... you're leaning alpha. If you want great head, tantric sex, and high intimacy... these are beta traits.
> 
> It's still true that most women find the man with more alpha traits more sexually alluring.
> 
> 
> 
> It's exactly inline with mating/genetic competition. Subconscious (primitive) mind runs the show, conscious mind only thinks it does, and goes about trying to explain the conflicts that subconscious mind virtually always wins.
> 
> She instinctively knows his traits are dominant and valuable. His mating with another female are strong competition for her own genetic line. There are a variety of human adaptations that reflect this genetic warfare, such as the shape of the penis being adapted to actually perform a plunger/suction action (proven fact) - serving to extract the sperm of other males from her. it should be no revelation that sexual behavior is likely another such adaptation. The strategies are necessarily different, given a female's reproductive opportunity is limited, and the male's is not.
> 
> 
> 
> 1) AK didn't say "just because".
> 
> 2) Your applying a larger scope of conscious thought. In evolutionary terms, the "right time" is right now, if she's available. The guy who did ensures passing on his traits. The guy who didn't, less so. So prime mating age males tend toward a state of near-constant sexual availability.
> 
> 3) Refusing sex from a woman does in fact have a high cost in attraction (proven). AK gets this "non-sense" from behavioral science, which also proposes that because the female's mating opportunity is limited, she is evolutionary predisposed to desire a male who can be relied upon to have sex when she wants it (which is most often when she's most fertile - and thus reason players keep an eye on cycles and know when is "best" to engage her).
> 
> 
> 
> Uh... duh? You answered your own question in the sentence before you asked it, exactly fitting what AK said. The alpha knows the women want him (there is no scarcity of sex), so he expects their compliance to his advances. This expectation is effectively confidence.
> 
> 
> 
> It certainly helps to comprehend what is being said, and as I've shown, you haven't.


----------



## john117

Lila said:


> Genuine question for the MMSLP pro crowd......
> 
> 
> 
> The Mindful Attraction Plan, also written by Kay, provides in greater detail the same self-help tenets he offers in MMSLP.....minus all of the misogynistic/crude language.
> 
> 
> 
> Why is THAT book not recommended by the 'man-uppers' the same way MMSLP is pushed?



Because MAP is too self obvious. I implemented MAP as part of self preservation on my own and maybe missed one step that I did not think of...


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> It's been thoroughly proven.


So prove it. You keep saying these stereotypes of yours are proven, but never provide a shred of evidence to support them.

Why is that?

I'm thinking it's because the studies you can dredge up to support your views are about as far from "proof" as you can get in the scientific community.


----------



## Lila

What I've learned from reading this thread is this. 

It's imperative to teach our:


 young daughters to identify and avoid falling prey to PUA tactics - nothing good can ever come of that. 

 young sons to strive to be the best men they could be and work towards finding women who are compatible to them in all ways without having to rely on tricks and manipulations.


----------



## tech-novelist

Brigit said:


> It also depends upon how you were raised. My mom made it clear that a man who can't financially support a woman isn't a man.
> 
> I have no idea if that's true or not but it's ingrained in my psyche. TBH I do look down upon men who aren't the breadwinners. Something about them repulses me and no amount of intellectualization of that matter will change my feelings.


It repulses you because women are programmed by evolution to seek resources; women who didn't do that often did not have surviving children, so their genetic legacy was lost.

Unfortunately for many people, both men and women, the guy with the material resources isn't always the hot guy who turns them on, that is, the one with the genetic resources. This is a prime driver of female infidelity.


----------



## always_alone

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> Some gay couples do have a dom / sub relationship, but many are symmetric.
> 
> Homosexuality IS important to evolution - if evolution completely dominated human behavior, homosexuality would be extremely rare, rather than 10-20% of the population.


I like that you are framing it this way. Evolution doesn't *want* anything. We either survive as a species or we don't. Clearly having offspring is one piece of that puzzle, but there are many, many other pieces. 

Note that many other mammals also exhibit homosexual behaviour.

To dismiss it, and say it "doesn't belong" is not only offensive, it is factually incorrect.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Lila said:


> What I've learned from reading this thread is this.
> 
> It's imperative to teach our:
> 
> 
> young daughters to identify and avoid falling prey to PUA tactics - nothing good can ever come of that.
> 
> young sons to strive to be the best men they could be and work towards finding women who are compatible to them in all ways without having to rely on tricks and manipulations.


:smthumbup::iagree:

I have one of each and they are being raised to be sweet and giving and to treat people as you want to be treated with a good, healthy dose of self esteem. Because if my daughter has enough she won't put up with PUA BS from a man and if my son has enough he'll never be weak enough to think he needs it.

My son is the first one to ask if he can help if I'm not feeling well, just sees that I'm a little under and offers. He's amazing and always thinking of others and considering how I feel about things, treats people with respect but still doesn't let other people walk all over him. Men can be both NOT a doormat and still a nice guy. It doesn't have to be one or the other.


----------



## Faithful Wife

always_alone said:


> I like that you are framing it this way. Evolution doesn't *want* anything. We either survive as a species or we don't. Clearly having offspring is one piece of that puzzle, but there are many, many other pieces.
> 
> Note that many other mammals also exhibit homosexual behaviour.
> 
> To dismiss it, and say it "doesn't belong" is not only offensive, it is factually incorrect.


Homosexuality is part of nature, because it happened to us as a species naturally and continues to happen.

In fact, for all we know, it may happen BECAUSE our species has TOO MANY babies.

To believe that making a baby is the only real reason behind having sex is to ignore the evidence to the contrary....but then red pill isn't interested in any evidence that doesn't tell men how to get laid so...there ya go.

Always, you're a trooper for trying. But you already know the outcome.


----------



## Brigit

technovelist said:


> It repulses you because women are programmed by evolution to seek resources; women who didn't do that often did not have surviving children, so their genetic legacy was lost.
> 
> Unfortunately for many people, both men and women, the guy with the material resources isn't always the hot guy who turns them on, that is, the one with the genetic resources. This is a prime driver of female infidelity.


True enough. When picking a husband I did make sure to pick a man who had a solid career choice with the potential to make enough money to support me and that's what happened. I did work on and off for several years - mostly off. It turns me on that my husband takes care of me. However, it was his looks that got my attention first. I'd never be able to marry someone just for money. I'd rather starve.


----------



## always_alone

technovelist said:


> It repulses you because women are programmed by evolution to seek resources; women who didn't do that often did not have surviving children, so their genetic legacy was lost.


This is so far from the mark, I barely know where to begin. Just look at any anthropological evidence at all, and you will see that women did not just sit around nursing babies, waiting to be provided with resources.

Women too have spent considerable effort providing resources, and indeed were the first to practice what we now know as agriculture, as well as building shelters, and so on.

Really, this "women were programmed to" and "men were programmed to" is pure ad hoc application of current social stereotypes to all of our past history.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening
You are right, and I should even be more clear:
Evolution is mutation and survival, it doesn't "want". You can use "want" as a short hand for, "is likely to result in a trait being passed on". 

It IS I think a very interesting question as to why humans enjoy homosexuality and other forms of non-procreative sex. It may be similar to whatever mechanism makes some people want to climb mountains, ride dirt-bikes off cliffs, and do a bunch of other things that decrease their survival chances. (and yes, I do the most dangerous things when no one is around to watch, so I'm not showing off...).

Maybe these are all parts of kin-survival: Increasing the chances that genes similar to yours are propagated? Maybe there are just a lot of random factors in human behavior. 

I think all that is clear is that you cannot easily predict human behavior from evolutionary pressure. That implies that using evolutionary arguments to guide behavior is not likely be successful. 

As an aside, whether homosexuality is the result of evolution, random chance, or choice, I have not objection to it. 





always_alone said:


> I like that you are framing it this way. Evolution doesn't *want* anything. We either survive as a species or we don't. Clearly having offspring is one piece of that puzzle, but there are many, many other pieces.
> 
> Note that many other mammals also exhibit homosexual behaviour.
> 
> To dismiss it, and say it "doesn't belong" is not only offensive, it is factually incorrect.


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> Always, you're a trooper for trying. But you already know the outcome.


Of course I do. Sometimes, though, you just gotta say stuff.


----------



## RoseAglow

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Stated as you have, it would be a myth. No value is not what AK is pushing. He's pushing the notion of decline with age at a greater rate than men, because of the differences in what men and women prioritize.
> 
> I'm certain some men do worry about aging. And I very much enjoyed your retort that women of all ages dye their hair. Very good point that completely unravels what I'd hoped the relative demand for dye products might show. So I ask you, which demographic do you think conceals their gray hair more? Old men or old women? The only way to know for sure would be to examine sales research by demographic, which I don't have available to present, but I think you'll agree that the notion of old men dying conceal gray hair to the degree that women do is wildly far fetched, which would mean you accept the premise if not the evidence exactly.



My point is this: you can look at any age in the lifespan, and women will always have more invested in beauty. This is true from the newborn who has ribbons on her bare head for the Day One photos to the 100 year old woman in her coffin, wearing the diamond earrings her husband gave her for their 25th anniversary.

Many young women (and some young men) apply anti-acne creams and older women don't. 

Adult women (sometimes starting in their late 20s) apply anti-aging creams and make-up and young women don't. Very few males buy anti-aging cream or make-up.

Many more women than men dye their hair, and this is true at any age.

If your premise is that women go to much greater lengths than men do to look good, then I agree with your premise.

If your premise is that women lose their value faster then men and hope to show it using hair dye or other beauty items as a proxy, I think that the evidence does not support the theory.

If your premise is that women lose value faster than men because age affects looks, and looks affect women more than men, I disagree for the general population.

I do think there is a segment of women who feel like they lose their value as their youth fades. These are women who are heavily invested in their looks and they their self-esteem is heavily weighted by their physical attractiveness. 

There are many very beautiful women who have other things in their life from which they derive self-esteem- a career, or volunteer work, etc. I am not suggesting that all beautiful women have this issue.

But women who don't have something else from which they get satisfaction and derive self-esteem are extremely vulnerable as they age. I don't think they even really need to be exceptionally beautiful- the danger is in having much of their self-esteem wrapped up in their looks. 

There is also a segment of men who have a very high need for physical attractiveness in a mate. For these guys, it is very, very important for their mate to be highly attractive. 

For these two groups, women will feel horribly as they age until they find some self-value is something beyond looks, and men will put a very high value on obtaining a young and beautiful mate. 

But for the general population, I think men and women tend to gravitate to people who are at a similar level and who best meet their needs. The average man is going to be very happy with a reasonably attractive woman, if the woman meets his other needs like admiration, sex, affection, etc. A 60 year man will find different women to be "reasonably" attractive than a 20 year old man, and the same is true for a 60 vs 20 year old woman.

This is a major point of the Anti-Athol, from what I can tell. Women are more than beautiful (or not) Fck Me! dolls who simply need to be told what they like, or gamed, primarily used for sex. I haven't read the books or the blog, so I am going by the conversation of the thread.

In real life, as a woman in her early 40s, I just don't see any of this played out. I see women and men of all ages find relationships and companionship. My mom is 70 and has a beau. Her friends are either married or have a boyfriend. My husband's 65 year old aunt is a heart-breaker, no kidding! She has men lined up. Maybe I'll start my own thread as this is sort of a thread jack.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

technovelist said:


> In other words, if women didn't like jerks, men would stop being jerks, because men will do just about anything to attract women. And in many cases, they won't do much more than that.


The women that like jerks are often full of baggage, drama and low self-esteem which is why they are going after jerks in the first place. 

The goal shouldn't be to just get a woman, any women. If it is, it's no wonder so many men end up miserable and it's no wonder these men are failing so much. Desperation to get anyone is not sexy. Know who's attractive to a lot of women? The guy who isn't trying to be. We can tell the difference. 

The goal should be to get the best one for you. So it doesn't matter if jerk got 100 and you only got 1 if that 1 is most suited to your life and compatable with your needs. If the jerk doesn't get a single one out of the 100 that will make him happy in the long run, he still lost.


----------



## always_alone

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> 
> It IS I think a very interesting question as to why humans enjoy homosexuality and other forms of non-procreative sex. It may be similar to whatever mechanism makes some people want to climb mountains, ride dirt-bikes off cliffs, and do a bunch of other things that decrease their survival chances. .


These activities are not at all comparable, though. As I said before, many, many species exhibit homosexual tendencies. And none of them have any hang-up about it, and they have all managed to survive.


----------



## Brigit

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Know who's attractive to a lot of women? The guy who isn't trying to be. We can tell the difference.


I don't agree with that. There are plenty of hot guys are obviously trying to be hot and they're very good at it. They bag lots of women.


----------



## Faithful Wife

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> The goal shouldn't be to just get a woman, any women. If it is, it's no wonder so many men end up miserable and it's no wonder these men are failing so much. Desperation to get anyone is not sexy


Not just ANY woman, it has to be a woman of the same or higher sex rank than the man is himself, or else it "doesn't count".


----------



## Anon Pink

Blossom Leigh said:


> The pattern is there because God put it there.
> 
> All these different resources are bumping up against the same pattern, because the pattern is there... period. They are GOING to bump up against it. No matter the "flavor" good or bad of explaining it.


Holy crap give it a rest already!

You've been warned by a mod already to start your own thread in the spirituality section! 

This thread is about red pil, not gods plan, not the bible, and not blossom and her husband. Please start your own thread if that's what you want to post about.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Pssstt.....here....(over here).....(shhhhh).....

Dudes, I have THE SECRET for you. THE SECRET you all need to know in order to have the BEST sex of your life!!!

Here it is....ready?



(pause for effect)





(still with me?)




(here it is!)






Mutual sexual attraction.

Yep, *mutual*.

She needs to be sexually INTO you and I don't mean into your car or into your paycheck. Those things can be the cherry on top, but they will not be the thing that makes her want to have SEX with you.

So all your games in trying to get women to be attracted to you?

Are just that: games.

In reality, the mutual attraction is either there or it isn't.

She isn't going to get her juices flowing on a regular basis for just your paycheck. You have to have strong chemistry and MUTUAL, get it, MUTUAL sexual attraction.

So....if you're hot for her but she's not hot for you? Move on and find one who IS hot for you, instead of trying to game her into being hot for you.

Because even if you do succeed in creating false attraction for a short while, it will never actually satisfy you, because your animal nature will always know she's actually HOT for someone OTHER THAN YOU.

Boom.


----------



## TiggyBlue

always_alone said:


> Of course I do. Sometimes, though, you just gotta say stuff.


That's why we love ya Always


----------



## Anon Pink

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> And what evidence would you have for such an assumption?
> 
> Here I thought the men who seek younger women do so because those women are in their physical prime with tight little bodies. Further, I thought women universally knew this, and that's why beauty products are all about making you look young again. Get rid of those grays, hide those wrinkles, etc etc.
> 
> There's a logical inconsistency in your final paragraph vs your first. The older guy with a younger woman must suck in bed, but the older woman is supposedly able to "train" a pup? Where'd she get that knowledge? Oh yeah, age/experience. It stands to reason the same applies to the man. Just sayin.


It's mostly just the virgin attraction thing. Older man wants a virgin...why? What could a virgin do other than bleed and cry? Then I thought, well maybe he makes all his women cry so a virgin crying might at least make sense to him.

Older women with younger men, pups... would mean she knows what she wants and an eager young pup who wants to learn about women and get laid would be totally on board.

No, it doesn't stand to reason that the draw of experience would apply to young women as it would to men. It has been a while but I don't remember any of my friends exclaiming how they just couldn't wait to get laid, or discussing the latest new fellatio tips. However I do remember that attitude from many boys, though not all.

And yes, an assumption like I already said.


----------



## always_alone

Brigit said:


> It also depends upon how you were raised. My mom made it clear that a man who can't financially support a woman isn't a man.
> 
> I have no idea if that's true or not but it's ingrained in my psyche. TBH I do look down upon men who aren't the breadwinners. Something about them repulses me and no amount of intellectualization of that matter will change my feelings.


When I was young, my Mom drilled it into my head that I should never, never, never be completely financially dependent on a man; I should always have my own resources and be able to take care of myself.

And to this day, I have never, ever been even close to financially dependent on anyone else but myself.


----------



## Anon Pink

technovelist said:


> It repulses you because women are programmed by evolution to seek resources; women who didn't do that often did not have surviving children, so their genetic legacy was lost.



This is what happens when you only read the headlines.

If a woman has any desire to have children at some point in her life, she's going to need a partner, preferably a partner who can support the family while she is unable to work.

If you're talking about from an evolutionary standpoint, women wanted partners who could hunt well and beat off neighboring tribes. Evolution wise, women WERE the resource.





> Unfortunately for many people, both men and women, the guy with the material resources isn't always the hot guy who turns them on, that is, the one with the genetic resources. This is a prime driver of female infidelity.


My first thought was to ask where you get this stuff but the. I remembered the name of the thread and realized...oh that's where!

Another reason why you shouldn't take the red pill. It makes you vulnerable to quasi science and made up stuff.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Faithful Wife said:


> Not just ANY woman, it has to be a woman of the same or higher sex rank than the man is himself, or else it "doesn't count".



But isn't the theme of TAM that you must have a higher sex rank than your wife in order to keep her in line?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## lifeistooshort

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> The women that like jerks are often full of baggage, drama and low self-esteem which is why they are going after jerks in the first place.
> 
> The goal shouldn't be to just get a woman, any women. If it is, it's no wonder so many men end up miserable and it's no wonder these men are failing so much. Desperation to get anyone is not sexy. Know who's attractive to a lot of women? The guy who isn't trying to be. We can tell the difference.
> 
> The goal should be to get the best one for you. So it doesn't matter if jerk got 100 and you only got 1 if that 1 is most suited to your life and compatable with your needs. If the jerk doesn't get a single one out of the 100 that will make him happy in the long run, he still lost.


But the goal of a lot of men is to simply get a woman they want to fvck, with little consideration to what kind of character she has, what kind of partner she'll make, and how into him she actually is. Then when she cheats or cuts him off he's a victim. So he is allowed to use shallow criteria to choose a partner but shes still expected to be a good partner, so essentially they're demanding what they're not providing.

You have to consider what kind of partner you're getting or you set yourself up for failure.

Hurt men are told all the time here to get a younger, hotter woman to show meanie ex. No consideration given to her character, and a cute little assumption that he actually has something to offer said woman besides his wallet.

Men have always looked at younger women, but the only old dudes who could get one were the rich ones who could buy one. Then he'd have to watch her because she was attracted to men closer to her own age. Broke grandpa didn't get young women. I wonder why, if he's such a great catch?

A lot of men have delusions about what kind of catch they are.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Tubbalard

Faithful Wife said:


> Dudes, I have THE SECRET for you. THE SECRET you all need to know in order to have the BEST sex of your life!!!
> 
> Mutual sexual attraction.
> 
> Yep, *mutual*.
> 
> She needs to be sexually INTO you and I don't mean into your car or into your paycheck. Those things can be the cherry on top, but they will not be the thing that makes her want to have SEX with you.
> 
> So all your games in trying to get women to be attracted to you?
> 
> Are just that: games.
> 
> In reality, the mutual attraction is either there or it isn't.
> 
> She isn't going to get her juices flowing on a regular basis for just your paycheck. You have to have strong chemistry and MUTUAL, get it, MUTUAL sexual attraction.
> 
> So....if you're hot for her but she's not hot for you? Move on and find one who IS hot for you, instead of trying to game her into being hot for you.
> 
> Because even if you do succeed in creating false attraction for a short while, it will never actually satisfy you, because your animal nature will always know she's actually HOT for someone OTHER THAN YOU.
> 
> Boom.


Not bad advice...

But, I hate to say it, this is a woman's ideal for a man. It's the advice that a mom would give to her son, from an idealistic feminine point of view. It's not bad advice though, it's geared more for relationships.

First we have to break down what is satisfaction? Mutual sexual attraction means little as long as man can get to the mountain top. This is why men like to throw bait out or come up with formulas and schemes to get women. All because they just want to get the prize. Many guys just want to get laid, so if there's a false sexual attraction from a female's perspective and he has gotten the gold, mutual sexual attraction doesn't mean much. If we're talking about long term relationships, then yes the advice is good. It's only natural you want your partner to reciprocate the attraction.


----------



## Brigit

Faithful Wife said:


> She needs to be sexually INTO you and I don't mean into your car or into your paycheck. Those things can be the cherry on top, but they will not be the thing that makes her want to have SEX with you.
> 
> So all your games in trying to get women to be attracted to you?
> 
> Are just that: games.
> 
> In reality, the mutual attraction is either there or it isn't.
> 
> She isn't going to get her juices flowing on a regular basis for just your paycheck. You have to have strong chemistry and MUTUAL, get it, MUTUAL sexual attraction.
> 
> So....if you're hot for her but she's not hot for you? Move on and find one who IS hot for you, instead of trying to game her into being hot for you.
> 
> Because even if you do succeed in creating false attraction for a short while, it will never actually satisfy you, because your animal nature will always know she's actually HOT for someone OTHER THAN YOU.


I agree which is why the book won't work in the long term. I married because I wanted a partner to keep me company in this world. I hope it will last for the rest of my life but there aren't any guarantees. Together we are working on the marriage because we both want the marriage. If one of us wanted out they would get out. Playing mind games might delay the process but I think it would probably make both parties emotionally unstable. 

The author wrote an "interesting" book and made money. Good for him. It's got a lot of nasty stuff in it but I've read worse crap on the internet.


----------



## gouge_away

Athol Kay,


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Anon Pink said:


> Holy crap give it a rest already!
> 
> You've been warned by a mod already to start your own thread in the spirituality section!
> 
> This thread is about red pil, not gods plan, not the bible, and not blossom and her husband. Please start your own thread if that's what you want to post about.


I am not the sole poster who has mentioned God, the Bible or a spouse in this very thread. But, I find it iteresting the harshness lobbed at me twice in this thread.

I brought it up and bring it up connected to the topic of this thread because it applies. Alternatives to Athol are desired as mentioned in this thread and the Bible is one. It worked deeply for us. It is not a crime to share its impact on a thread complaining about a resource used for marriages. Suggesting alternatives is not a crime. It is not my problem if someone has an adverse reaction to what worked for us. And I should not be singled out just because I am convinced of its effectiveness. I am on topic.


----------



## Fozzy

I agree Blossom. The Bible has an enormous amount of wisdom in it if you know where to look.

Whether people want to bash it or not, there are a lot of people who DO get relationship advice from it, and many would say it's been a positive force in their relationship. Stating that fact is not proselytizing, nor should it be cause for abuse.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Fozzy said:


> I agree Blossom. The Bible has an enormous amount of wisdom in it if you know where to look.
> 
> Whether people want to bash it or not, there are a lot of people who DO get relationship advice from it, and many would say it's been a positive force in their relationship. Stating that fact is not proselytizing, nor should it be cause for abuse.


Thanks Fozzy


----------



## Holland

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> There is a big difference between grooming/hygiene and dying your hair and concealing wrinkles to be thought youthfully attractive.
> 
> Men generally don't do these things, because we don't have to. The man with the graying beard does about as well with women as the man with a dyed beard. This isn't so for women. Thus in the average store, there's a few dying products available for men, and an entire isle of them for women.


Men spend billions each year to try and get some hair. Why is that?


----------



## gouge_away

If the author states that all women were created wh0res, that should be an open invitation for any Bible believer to attack his creed.


----------



## Anon Pink

I'm not going to get into a back and forth with you blossom. I've read almost every post in this thread, YOU are the one who continually posts about the bible being an alternative for MMSLP and Red Pill garbage. You've been asked to stop, by several people including a mod. And yet you continue.

So go ahead a post your defense and explain how virtuous your attempts to christianize others. 

I find it offensive.


----------



## tech-novelist

Blossom Leigh said:


> I am not the sole poster who has mentioned God, the Bible or a spouse in this very thread. But, I find it iteresting the harshness lobbed at me twice in this thread.
> 
> I brought it up and bring it up connected to the topic of this thread because it applies. Alternatives to Athol are desired as mentioned in this thread and the Bible is one. It worked deeply for us. It is not a crime to share its impact on a thread complaining about a resource used for marriages. Suggesting alternatives is not a crime. It is not my problem if someone has an adverse reaction to what worked for us. And I should not be singled out just because I am convinced of its effectiveness. I am on topic.


I am not religious but I don't object to your mentioning the Bible. I think some people are too sensitive...


----------



## techmom

I've read this entire thread and came to a conclusion....Kay states that it will be more difficult for a woman to find a partner when she gets older. This plays into why his writings are encouraging to his readers who may be struggling in sexless marriages. Because these men have to risk their marriages in order to make the intimacy better. 

None of these men want to read, okay you need to do the map, become alpha and run the dread game while not worrying whether or not your wife will still want you afterwards...oh by the way....your wife may leave you and find a suitable sex partner she prefers and you may not....but don't worry about that, just run the map...

That narrative doesn't sell as many books... So let's just believe that wifey might as well stay with me because I'm the best she is ever going to have ....everything is downhill from here for her...

Meanwhile the chicks just dig the newly divorced, bitter, angry middle aged man so my options are unlimited...the world is my oyster!

(He thinks this as he goes to the gym to get rid of that beer gut, buys a new wardrobe and cares for his appearance more....but only women need to worry about that...right Kay?)

Gotta work on those pecs guys to compete with those 20-30 year old guys for those hotties....:rofl:

What a joke...


----------



## turnera

Fozzy said:


> I agree Blossom. The Bible has an enormous amount of wisdom in it if you know where to look.


If you're a Christian.


----------



## Holland

techmom said:


> I've read this entire thread and came to a conclusion....Kay states that it will be more difficult for a woman to find a partner when she gets older. This plays into why his writings are encouraging to his readers who may be struggling in sexless marriages. Because these men have to risk their marriages in order to make the intimacy better.
> 
> None of these men want to read, okay you need to do the map, become alpha and run the dread game while not worrying whether or not your wife will still want you afterwards...oh by the way....your wife may leave you and find a suitable sex partner she prefers and you may not....but don't worry about that, just run the map...
> 
> That narrative doesn't sell as many books... So let's just believe that wifey might as well stay with me because I'm the best she is ever going to have ....everything is downhill from here for her...
> 
> Meanwhile the chicks just dig the newly divorced, bitter, angry middle aged man so my options are unlimited...the world is my oyster!
> 
> (He thinks this as he goes to the gym to get rid of that beer gut, buys a new wardrobe and cares for his appearance more....but only women need to worry about that...right Kay?)
> 
> *Gotta work on those pecs guys to compete with those 20-30 year old guys for those hotties....:rofl:*
> 
> What a joke...


It is a joke. Seriously there is an abundance of very hot young guys out there. What makes some middle aged, unattractive man think that simply by getting in shape he will now be competition for the younger, much hotter men?

It is a joke but it is also very sad. I pity the middle aged man that has not grown up, the young ones might want his money but they don't want him.


----------



## always_alone

Holland said:


> Men spend billions each year to try and get some hair. Why is that?


And penis extenders!


----------



## john117

Holland said:


> It is a joke. Seriously there is an abundance of very hot young guys out there. What makes some middle aged, unattractive man think that simply by getting in shape he will now be competition for the younger, much hotter men?



I don't need to bench press a Buick to be "competitive"... At 55 I'm orders of magnitude smarter and wiser than any three 30 year olds who probably work for me or someone like me.

Why are the interns always gyrating towards the senior staff? And not the junior hipsters?

But rest assured, 30 year olds. We're not after your women :lol:.


----------



## Holland

always_alone said:


> And penis extenders!


And going to the gym, at the barbers, in the dept. store buying face care and grooming products, at the salon getting treatments and injectables.

Let's not kid ourselves, both genders spend up big on appearance. Many do it because they like to look good for THEMSELVES, it feels great to pamper yourself. Both genders do it because of the fear of aging, that is not the exclusive domain of women. Good, bad, indifferent, it does not matter but it is the reality.


----------



## Ikaika

techmom said:


> I've read this entire thread and came to a conclusion....Kay states that it will be more difficult for a woman to find a partner when she gets older. This plays into why his writings are encouraging to his readers who may be struggling in sexless marriages. Because these men have to risk their marriages in order to make the intimacy better.
> 
> 
> 
> None of these men want to read, okay you need to do the map, become alpha and run the dread game while not worrying whether or not your wife will still want you afterwards...oh by the way....your wife may leave you and find a suitable sex partner she prefers and you may not....but don't worry about that, just run the map...
> 
> 
> 
> That narrative doesn't sell as many books... So let's just believe that wifey might as well stay with me because I'm the best she is ever going to have ....everything is downhill from here for her...
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile the chicks just dig the newly divorced, bitter, angry middle aged man so my options are unlimited...the world is my oyster!
> 
> 
> 
> (He thinks this as he goes to the gym to get rid of that beer gut, buys a new wardrobe and cares for his appearance more....but only women need to worry about that...right Kay?)
> 
> 
> 
> Gotta work on those pecs guys to compete with those 20-30 year old guys for those hotties....:rofl:
> 
> 
> 
> What a joke...



At my age, 30 year olds could be daughter. Even though I live healthy I also live in a realistic world.


----------



## EleGirl

Tubbalard said:


> Not bad advice...
> 
> But, I hate to say it, this is a woman's ideal for a man. It's the advice that a mom would give to her son, from an idealistic feminine point of view. It's not bad advice though, it's geared more for relationships.
> 
> First we have to break down what is satisfaction? Mutual sexual attraction means little as long as man can get to the mountain top. This is why men like to throw bait out or come up with formulas and schemes to get women. All because they just want to get the prize. Many guys just want to get laid, so if there's a false sexual attraction from a female's perspective and he has gotten the gold, mutual sexual attraction doesn't mean much. If we're talking about long term relationships, then yes the advice is good. It's only natural you want your partner to reciprocate the attraction.


Let's see... were are on TAM... that's Talk About MARRIAGE.

It seems that advice on how to have a good marriage makes sense on TAM.

Advice on how to manipulate fandom women into just having sex is not the purpose of this site.

By the way, you point out why a lot of women are not interested in pickup sex: because the men “just want to get the prize.” From what you wrote the men who do this are not interested in meeting her sexual needs.

Why would a woman be interested in a guy just using her to jackoff in? She gets zero out of it.


----------



## techmom

Most of the "red pill" guys got married with the expectation of frequent sex. Some never had any woman sexually desire them like they did the alpha dudes, so they want their wife to fill this void. After kids, sometimes it dries up. Then the guy becomes desperate for some feel good technique to boost his confidence while promising to make his wife "lay him like tile". Enter MMSL.

This book promises everything which was denied to the guy while he was still young...and..what do you know, even the young girls will be swarming you because now you have money and a good career. You don't need that mean wifey denying you sex, you can just go on the dating market and get laid all day.

However....this involves becoming attractive again (working out, getting a new wardrobe, hobbies)...things which make the guy interesting again. Things he neglected while believing that wifey owed him sex because he put the ring on her finger, after the wedding he slacked off and took wifey for granted. But the new girls get the new and improved dude.

Only thing is that what is "new and improved" for him is regular business as usual for the young dudes he will be competing with for the hotties attention. Meanwhile, he secretly fears that the sex his wifey denied him will be given freely to the next lucky sob who wifey finds attractive.

This is why red pill guys want to believe that women's sex value goes down after marriage. It would be too painful to think anything else. But what they forget is that wifey may have had resentments and other issues she brought to his attention but he ignored thinking that it was not important, as long as the sex kept flowing everything was smooth and easy breezy.

The MMSL is nothing more than placing a tissue over a gaping wound then being surprised that it doesn't heal properly. Then the guys say, "well at least 10% of the map was helpful". Yeah, and I would love to hear it from the wifey's point of view


----------



## aine

Haven't read all your comments but those with extracts from the book and it appears to me that Athol Kay is a bit of a misogynist who lumps all people together. People, men and women alike are very different due to their individual personalities, their upbringing, their life experiences, etc. To lump us all together is not only insulting but lacks any depth or intelligence. I feel sorry for the people who read this and believe it and his poor wife!


----------



## Faithful Wife

techmom said:


> This is why red pill guys want to believe that women's sex value goes down after marriage. It would be too painful to think anything else.


I wish there were books that simply encouraged men with the real TRUTH...which is that if you simply look for that mutual attraction, you will find someone to date, hang out with, have sex with, or whatever you are looking for. Men and women both should be encouraged with things like, hey, divorce sucks, you know? But that means there are a lot of other people just like you (same age range, similar life circumstances) and there is a whole separate dating market you didn't know about...because you were married. And there are chicks out there who are going to dig you and who you will dig. It doesn't take elaborate game, it takes a sincere desire to meet someone you have some interest in.

It is just the "your wife is going to face plant and you are a rising star with a cheerleader on your arm" is untrue and mean and unnecessary. The actual TRUTH is so much better and of course, is *true!*

Like Deejo... I believe he has dated quite a bit after divorce, and has ranged the ages a bit in dates...but Deejo wouldn't you say there is a sea full of healthy daters of both genders between 40 and 50? (I actually have forgotten how old you are but I think you are over 40...I apologize if I have that wrong). And isn't it fun and interesting to meet people, they have rich life experiences...some are still shallow, some have really grown from life...some really do have mental health issues...some are secret rock stars that only YOU get to know closely enough to find out about.

I wish there were better books that paint a balanced and happy dating life for divorced people...because it is the truth! There are lots of people who will date you if you end up single! 

And either a man or a woman may _choose_ to date a younger or older person if one is agreeable to such a date. Who cares? These are either happenstance or choices made out of preference...either way it is not a guarantee and shouldn't be a reason to get excited all on its own...or even if it is, no one should promise thousands of readers (of any gender) that they are entitled to anything as specific as a much younger partner or date. That's just crazy, no one is guaranteed anything. But people don't want a guarantee they want the CHANCE for love.

The message to both genders should be: You do have that chance. A very high one even, if it is your goal.

You also have just about 100% chance guaranteed sex if THAT is your goal.


----------



## EleGirl

FW,

Let's not forget that the book is sold as a way to fix a man's marriage and get more sex with his wife. It's not about dating.

So all that advice is meant to knock the wife down, to see her as beneath him.. sort of view her with contempt. After all she's getting older and is married. So she's got a lower # than he. So she can kiss his a$$ and be thankful that he does not kick her to the curb... and go get an young thing to use to boost his ego.

What great marriage improvement advice ... NOT!


----------



## Faithful Wife

EleGirl said:


> FW,
> 
> Let's not forget that the book is sold as a way to fix a man's marriage and get more sex with his wife. It's not about dating.
> 
> So all that advice is meant to knock the wife down, to see her as beneath him.. sort of view her with contempt. After all she's getting older and is married. So she's got a lower # than he. So she can kiss his a$$ and be thankful that he does not kick her to the curb... and go get an young thing to use to boost his ego.
> 
> What great marriage improvement advice ... NOT!


That's true...

What kind of advice would be better for a man in a sexless marriage, on a general market scale? But in a way that men will actually buy it?

I love some of Marriage Builders stuff, but it is not for everyone, and I really don't think it appeals to men on a wide scale. Same with Gottman, though I love it, it just isn't interesting enough or even promising enough for them to grab for it. You know?

I don't know how to give hope to a man in a sexless marriage without knowing his particular circumstances.

Perhaps that's it, it would have to be a list of:

If it is this way, you do this.

If it is that way, try that.

And so on.

The book He's Just Not That Into You comes to mind...only because the way it was written was very witty, entertaining, and actually helped a lot of women choke down a difficult truth. If there could be a Your Wife Isn't That Into that wasn't mean and offensive somehow....that might work.


----------



## Holland

Apart from the fact that I think this stuff is seriously emotionally unhealthy I am quite curious about one thing:

What happens to these RP guys when they hit 55, 60 and beyond? I mean if a man is not mature at 40 then there is little hope at 50 plus. So do these the guys that still want the 20 year olds even when they themselves are 60? Are these the guys that buy a bride from OS? I struggle to believe that more than a handful of 60 year olds are getting much younger women.

So if a man cannot connect with a woman of a similar age bracket when he is 40 is he destined for a really crappy, unloving life forever? I just cannot see that he could be fulfilled. 

Surely it is better to be happy than to look like a foolish 60 year old man with a 20 year old bought bride? 

I have no real life egs (thankfully the men in my life are emotionally sound), does anyone have any idea what happens to these guys as they hit 50 plus?


----------



## Faithful Wife

My point is that I do wish men had something positive, witty, and that could actually help them...even including all the 180, get in shape, get smelling good, and the standard good advice.

By speaking out against MMSL, I don't mean men shouldn't get good advice somewhere, and the excellent point that was made on this there just aren't many well written books for men in this position was a reminder that without another option...no wonder MMSL is on top.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Holland said:


> What happens to these RP guys when they hit 55, 60 and beyond? I mean if a man is not mature at 40 then there is little hope at 50 plus. So do these the guys that still want the 20 year olds even when they themselves are 60? Are these the guys that buy a bride from OS? I struggle to believe that more than a handful of 60 year olds are getting much younger women.
> 
> So if a man cannot connect with a woman of a similar age bracket when he is 40 is he destined for a really crappy, unloving life forever? I just cannot see that he could be fulfilled.
> 
> Surely it is better to be happy than to look like a foolish 60 year old man with a 20 year old bought bride?



I don't think men in general are saying they expect this or want this.

That's bullcrap that red pill is promoting.

But in reality, the men of TAM tell us all the time that they don't expect or want 20 y/os...they want their own wives.

I know most of them who are 50 plus might like looking at a young woman (so do I!) but they don't expect or even want to get with one. The only men I hear saying otherwise are not necessarily stating it for themselves, they are just repeating red pill jargon.


----------



## Ikaika

If I found myself in the dating scene again, my metric for a date would be someone who could remember episodes of "Gilligan's Island". Now that would be a hot chic


----------



## turnera

techmom said:


> Most of the "red pill" guys got married with the expectation of frequent sex.


Correction.

MOST *MEN *got married with the expectation of frequent sex.

Let's not be unrealistic here.


----------



## turnera

Ikaika said:


> If I found myself in the dating scene again, my metric for a date would be someone who could remember episodes of "Gilligan's Island". Now that would be a hot chic


Holy cow, really? I remember every single one! That was my favorite show, after The Man From U.N.C.L.E.!


----------



## Ikaika

turnera said:


> Holy cow, really? I remember every single one! That was my favorite show, after The Man From U.N.C.L.E.!



http://youtu.be/Sz7gr4hSkNQ


----------



## turnera

EleGirl said:


> So all that advice is meant to knock the wife down, to see her as beneath him.. sort of view her with contempt. After all she's getting older and is married. So she's got a lower # than he. So she can kiss his a$$ and be thankful that he does not kick her to the curb... and go get an young thing to use to boost his ego.


I completely disagree.

IMO, the book is about men understanding that psychologically, a man's place is to lead the family, to be strong mentally, to not allow himself to be browbeaten and think he has to kiss his wife's ass just to get the monthly sex.

It has nothing to do with denigrating women.


----------



## Ikaika

The actual island in the opening and closing credits you can see from a hike behind my house.


----------



## turnera

Haha. That reminds me of a Chuck Norris movie I saw once that had the men training on Galveston Island, near where I live. With the 'mountains' in the background. (clue: there ARE no mountains in Texas)


----------



## Holland

turnera said:


> Correction.
> 
> MOST *MEN *got married with the expectation of frequent sex.
> 
> Let's not be unrealistic here.


I got married with the expectation of frequent sex, it isn't just men that want sex.


----------



## EleGirl

Faithful Wife said:


> That's true...
> 
> What kind of advice would be better for a man in a sexless marriage, on a general market scale? But in a way that men will actually buy it?
> 
> I love some of Marriage Builders stuff, but it is not for everyone, and I really don't think it appeals to men on a wide scale. Same with Gottman, though I love it, it just isn't interesting enough or even promising enough for them to grab for it. You know?
> 
> I don't know how to give hope to a man in a sexless marriage without knowing his particular circumstances.
> 
> Perhaps that's it, it would have to be a list of:
> 
> If it is this way, you do this.
> 
> If it is that way, try that.
> 
> And so on.
> 
> The book He's Just Not That Into You comes to mind...only because the way it was written was very witty, entertaining, and actually helped a lot of women choke down a difficult truth. If there could be a Your Wife Isn't That Into that wasn't mean and offensive somehow....that might work.


That's the point... there is no one answer because there are different situations. The same goes for marriages in which a man is withholding sex.

The root cause has to be discovered. 

If the reason is that their bond is broken because they have been neglecting to spend time together... then that's what needs to be addressed. 

Sure a guy can start taking better care of himself at the same time. But the rest of it.. telling him that his wife has lost value so she needs to kiss is a$$ and be thankful will only destroy the marriage.

Most of the time, with both men and women who stop having sex the reason is anger and resentment. That has to dealt with. Flirting with other people and bringing home brownies as a way to make your spouse think that someone in your office has the hots for you is not going to work.


----------



## Holland

Faithful Wife said:


> I don't think men in general are saying they expect this or want this.
> 
> That's bullcrap that red pill is promoting.
> 
> But in reality, the men of TAM tell us all the time that they don't expect or want 20 y/os...they want their own wives.
> 
> I know most of them who are 50 plus might like looking at a young woman (so do I!) but they don't expect or even want to get with one. The only men I hear saying otherwise are not necessarily stating it for themselves, they are just repeating red pill jargon.


I know it isn't men in general saying this, heck I have even said many times that I do not encounter this type of man IRL, I know most men are good and enjoy their lives in an emotionally healthy way.

Looking, yes we all do it, it is normal and just A OK

My question was about the men that do subscribe to this stuff. What happens to them? Does a 40 year old man that does not take responsibility for his own happiness become the seriously creepy 60 year old with an imported wife? Do these guys ever take responsibility for themselves, get emotionally balanced and live fulfilling lives? I would assume they don't.


----------



## EleGirl

turnera said:


> I completely disagree.
> 
> IMO, the book is about men understanding that psychologically, a man's place is to lead the family, to be strong mentally, to not allow himself to be browbeaten and think he has to kiss his wife's ass just to get the monthly sex.


If it had nothing to do with denigrating women, the material would not teach that women have no value over the age of 40 but men's value increases.

It would not be telling men to do things that scare their wives to put them, the man at an advantage.

Those are only a few the questionable things in the book and on the web site.




turnera said:


> It has nothing to do with denigrating women.


We will have to agree to disagree.


----------



## FizzBomb

Holland said:


> I got married with the expectation of frequent sex, it isn't just men that want sex.


QFT AMEN to that!


----------



## FizzBomb

turnera said:


> I completely disagree.
> 
> IMO, the book is about men understanding that psychologically, a man's place is to lead the family, to be strong mentally, to not allow himself to be browbeaten and think he has to kiss his wife's ass just to get the monthly sex.
> 
> It has *nothing* to do with denigrating women.


Totally disagree. 

It's got a lot of horrible, untruthful and unfactual things to say about women. A lot of which is hateful. It is quite obvious actually. I spent a fair whack of my time reading nearly every blog post of his.

*Any* book that tears down a person/group of people in order to make someone feel good about themselves is a failure. Feeling good about oneself - self esteem, comes from within and how you see yourself; not from fooling yourself into believing that certain people are lower than you; that you are somehow superior to them. That is false self esteem and is absolutely no help to anyone.

I would feel exactly the same way about a book that spoke and referred to men in such a denigrating fashion. I certainly wouldn't be defending it or recommending it like some do on this site, as if it is the holy grail of relationship books.

The book is an insult to women and men alike.


----------



## Brigit

Holland said:


> Men spend billions each year to try and get some hair. Why is that?



Holland you are my new BFF.


----------



## Holland

Brigit said:


> Holland you are my new BFF.


And you are mine 

Plus I have great hair so I feel all sorts of fabulous today


----------



## Brigit

techmom said:


> Meanwhile the chicks just dig the newly divorced, bitter, angry middle aged man so my options are unlimited...the world is my oyster!
> 
> (He thinks this as he goes to the gym to get rid of that beer gut, buys a new wardrobe and cares for his appearance more....but only women need to worry about that...right Kay?)
> 
> Gotta work on those pecs guys to compete with those 20-30 year old guys for those hotties....:rofl:
> 
> What a joke...


LOL! Truth be told those very hot 20-30 year olds are looking at your 40 something wife and trying hard to get her clothes off. 

(Not that this is important...I'm just saying..)


----------



## Personal

Holland said:


> Men spend billions each year to try and get some hair. Why is that?


If they want hair they can have some of mine, I'm due a hair cut soon so I've got plenty to spare.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Anon Pink said:


> I'm not going to get into a back and forth with you blossom. I've read almost every post in this thread, YOU are the one who continually posts about the bible being an alternative for MMSLP and Red Pill garbage. You've been asked to stop, by several people including a mod. And yet you continue.
> 
> So go ahead a post your defense and explain how virtuous your attempts to christianize others.
> 
> I find it offensive.


Elegirl questioned whether I was on topic. She was not asking me to not speak about the Bible. She asked how it applied, I clarified. The day TAM declares that someone is not allowed to suggest the Bible as a resourse for marital relationships is a day this site will no longer take the high road on marriage. I see a lot of heartache and energy spent around here and some of the most excellent wisdom is sitting right there between its pages to help them navigate that pain. The fact that you assume I have an agenda other than whats on my heart is not on me AP, nor are the offended reactions. They are on you. FW is offended when someone suggests Athol to someone else. Is that reaction on her or the suggester.... Its on her. Same here AP, own your reactions. You can stop making assumptions about me and all will be well with the world. The fact remains the Bible is an excellent resource for marital relations as God intended. If I am not allowed to say so, TAM would truly need the screen out all Christians at the door. What purpose would that serve.... Athol Kay has some serious issues with his logic. My Bible helps me see it from a spiritual perspective and I haven't even dug deep in here in what I see. THAT is where a new thread would be warranted. So chill.

ETA: Right now this sight is for all people who are married including Christians. My perspectives resonate with the Christians on this board, many of whom write me directly for help as do those who are searching for answers on faith in God and asking for prayer. My presence here and my courage to be me is helping people that you are not aware of, even when I don't mention God and the Bible.


----------



## samyeagar

Brigit said:


> LOL! Truth be told those very hot 20-30 year olds are looking at your 40 something wife and trying hard to get her clothes off.
> 
> (Not that this is important...I'm just saying..)


Not any more than those hot 20-30 year olds are looking at the 40 something husband trying to get his clothes off


----------



## Jellybeans

Can someone school me?

Is Athol the guy who created that entire Red Pill thing? Or is he did write the MMSL? Or are they related? 

Red Pill stuff is the MRA stuff, right? About the women-hating men? Who say you have to treat a woman poorly in order for her to be into you? I the concept from the same guy?


----------



## lifeistooshort

samyeagar said:


> Not any more than those hot 20-30 year olds are looking at the 40 something husband trying to get his clothes off



More like trying to get his wallet out of his pants. If they have to get his clothes off to do it so be it but don't kid yourself regarding the motivation.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Brigit

samyeagar said:


> Not any more than those hot 20-30 year olds are looking at the 40 something husband trying to get his clothes off



Well played Mr. Eagar....well played.


----------



## samyeagar

Brigit said:


> Well played Mr. Eagar....well played.


That would be Mr. Yeagar


----------



## Jellybeans

always_alone said:


> A lot of gaslighting on this thread. The overt message "MMSL is a-ok because it is *only* about self-improvement and last-ditch attempts to salvage a dying relatiinship" is somehow made more believable by the following "evidence"
> 
> -Older women are less valuable than older men.
> -Women don't know what they want and their testimony is completely unreliable
> -Women are feminizing men, turning them into pvssies
> -The only value women have is how they look and sex
> -It doesn't really matter if you are fostering resentment or hurt; what matters is if you get laid
> -feminists are just as hateful as MMSL, and no one ever criticizes them.
> 
> No, no misogyny around here :rofl: :rofl:


Yeah that's exactly how some of these posts read. And unfortunately, it is a theme around here in many threads.


----------



## Brigit

lifeistooshort said:


> More like trying to get his wallet out of his pants. If they have to get his clothes off to do it so be it but don't kid yourself regarding the motivation.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Actually, it depends on the guy. When I was on the fitness site a couple of months back the hottest, sexiest, please-rip my-clothes off-and-make-me-beg guy was 50. His face, body and personality made him the "alpha male" of the site. IMHO that is.


----------



## Brigit

samyeagar said:


> That would be Mr. Yeagar


I like Eagar better. I always like them eager.



****Disclaimer: That is a joke. That is only a joke. If it was an actually invitation you would know. Now back to our regular programing.


----------



## samyeagar

Jellybeans said:


> Can someone school me?
> 
> Is Athol the guy who created that entire Red Pill thing? Or is he did write the MMSL? Or are they related?
> 
> Red Pill stuff is the MRA stuff, right? About the women-hating men? *Who say you have to treat a woman poorly in order for her to be into you*? I the concept from the same guy?


There is a whole subset of women out there just like that. Granted, they are often very emotionally damaged, addicted to the up and down roller coaster chemical c0cktail that dynamic creates, or are just really naive in the female white knight equivalent...regardless, they are low hanging fruit and easy pickings, and the only type of women those types of guys can get, so the cycle keeps on perpetuating itself.


----------



## Brigit

samyeagar said:


> There is a whole subset of women out there just like that. Granted, they are often very emotionally damaged, addicted to the up and down roller coaster chemical c0cktail that dynamic creates, or are just really naive in the female white knight equivalent...regardless, they are low hanging fruit and *easy* pickings, and the only type of women those types of guys can get, so the cycle keeps on perpetuating itself.


There is nothing easy about an emotionally damaged woman.

NOTHING.


----------



## naiveonedave

Faithful Wife said:


> Pssstt.....here....(over here).....(shhhhh).....
> 
> Dudes, I have THE SECRET for you. THE SECRET you all need to know in order to have the BEST sex of your life!!!
> 
> Here it is....ready?
> 
> 
> 
> (pause for effect)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (still with me?)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (here it is!)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mutual sexual attraction.
> 
> Yep, *mutual*.
> 
> She needs to be sexually INTO you and I don't mean into your car or into your paycheck. Those things can be the cherry on top, but they will not be the thing that makes her want to have SEX with you.
> 
> So all your games in trying to get women to be attracted to you?
> 
> Are just that: games.
> 
> In reality, the mutual attraction is either there or it isn't.
> 
> She isn't going to get her juices flowing on a regular basis for just your paycheck. You have to have strong chemistry and MUTUAL, get it, MUTUAL sexual attraction.
> 
> So....if you're hot for her but she's not hot for you? Move on and find one who IS hot for you, instead of trying to game her into being hot for you.
> 
> Because even if you do succeed in creating false attraction for a short while, it will never actually satisfy you, because your animal nature will always know she's actually HOT for someone OTHER THAN YOU.
> 
> Boom.


Pause for effect: The audience for the book is for the dude who used to have sex with his W and now doesn't. She was attracted to him enough to marry him at one pont. SO WHAT HAPPENED?


----------



## naiveonedave

for AA - you need to read the whole book for context, prior to stating that mmsl is soooo anti women. The context of the excerpts is missing and that is key. It doesn't say all women cheat or will cheat, even though the excerpt implies that they do.

The reason the author rights that way is to be a 2x4 for men.

The end game of the book: men - if you want more sex w/your wife be a better man. No fakery, no manipulation, he is anti-cheating. WHAT IS SO WRONG WITH THIS?


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

naiveonedave said:


> The end game of the book: men - if you want more sex w/your wife be a better man. No fakery, no manipulation, he is anti-cheating. WHAT IS SO WRONG WITH THIS?


And to get there you should fake that your co-worker sent you cookies, manipulate a woman into isolation fear to get her to submit and say you'll cheat on her if she doesn't break her boundries.

The ends do not justify the means.


----------



## Satya

I'm of a similar mind to Turnera about my feelings on MMSLP. I find that a lot of strong, negative feelings around Kay have to do more with his execution than the actual lessons behind the messages and the success rate. His way has worked in terms of self improvement, building attraction, and energizing stale marriages for some men in this world. Whether his motivation is $$$ or actual betterment of men is anyone's guess since we aren't him, but if he is capitalizing on literature that is currently lacking, you can hardly blame him for Manning up and seeking a business opportunity. 

In the locked thread, I linked the red pill women movement.

http://www.reddit.com/r/RedPillWomen

For the ladies here, RPW are about seeking a very high caliber, strong "alpha" male, without falling prey to the usual RPM tactics and becoming just another plate. As a woman, you choose embrace femininity and hold yourself to a high standard when it comes to seeking a mate to pair-bond with. It's more old-fashioned if you like, fairly anti 2nd wave feminist. It's not about being a slave, a slvt, or wasting the pretty. It's about being a first mate to a captain,so there is some style of surrendered wife incorporated. 

May not float every ladies boat here (in fact I'm strongly guessing not) but it was borne of RP ideology, just modified for women looking to hold themselves to RPW standards. Ladies saw men improving from RP theology, liked what they saw, but didn't want to get played and dumped. They wanted to be desired for a committed, long term relationship. Isn't that fundamentally what most women would like?

Personally, I don't have a problem with Red pill, because my SO employs it without even realizing sometimes, but he's not an angry phase RP man, which is the stage most ladies here are up in arms about. RP has various stages, the ultimate end goal being that anger for women leaving them completely, and they have a more realistic, zen, and less pedistalized view of women, which allows women actually to take a huge sigh of relief when I think about it. Men that can't let go of their anger will never learn the best aspects of RP, they are simply angry, as I suspect Kay was reliving when he wrote mmslp. Men that can't let go of anger tend to be younger, with less life experience, so they may need some time to grow and learn what they want.... This is why I believe RP on the whole is benefitting many older (or younger w/more life experience) men in a more meaningful way. 

I offer these as my thoughts on my way out of this thread, as a learning experience (or whatever readers take from it), perhaps something to add to discussion, and nothing more or less. I have no strong opinions, I simply enjoy collecting information and feel that many points presented here are just the tip of a large iceberg. 

The tone here on this thread is mixed and as is becoming a trend on TAM, I'm seeing a lot of "I'm feeling disrespected and judged on behalf of me/my opinions/my gender/my ideologies." You come to a public forum, you are going to be judged and disagreed with. You start a topic with the purpose of making a point voicing one very strong opinion, you are going to find a number of people who feel strongly the opposite due to their experiences. Either side (for or against), behaving in an opinionated, victimized, closed minded, dismissive way is doing the thread, and others like it, a disservice. 

Lastly, not everyone will like red pill, hence the implied difficulty one faces when choosing to "swallow the red pill." It is considered quite unpalatable to the consumer at first.


----------



## always_alone

naiveonedave said:


> The reason the author rights that way is to be a 2x4 for men.
> 
> The end game of the book: men - if you want more sex w/your wife be a better man. No fakery, no manipulation, he is anti-cheating. WHAT IS SO WRONG WITH THIS?


Serious question: what is it about insulting women that makes a man want to be a better man?

And, if he's all about "no fakery" and "no manipulation" then why does he instruct men to fake OW interest with baked goods and whatnot, and manipulate their wives by making them feel vulnerable and valueless?


----------



## naiveonedave

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> And to get there you should fake that your co-worker sent you cookies, manipulate a woman into isolation fear to get her to submit and say you'll cheat on her if she doesn't break her boundries.
> 
> The ends do not justify the means.


you need to read the book, your post is so blatantly wrong it is not funny.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

naiveonedave said:


> Pause for effect: The audience for the book is for the dude who used to have sex with his W and now doesn't. She was attracted to him enough to marry him at one pont. SO WHAT HAPPENED?


and with this, there are many different reasons why attraction is no longer there. 

IMO the advice in this kind of marriage book 
A Summary of Dr. Harley's Basic Concepts

is more suited to the majority of couples. It doesn't hurt anyone to get ahead, it doesn't assume that women are all alpha hungry wh*res who only married you for safety so you gotta knock them down a peg to show them who's boss. 

One big thing that people seem to forget is to spend alone time together, date each other, do the things you did when you just met.

There is a right way and a wrong way to keep a marriage intact and I've done plenty of both myself. I know how bitter and resentful you can get and I think mmslp just feeds into those hateful feelings.


----------



## naiveonedave

always_alone said:


> Serious question: what is it about insulting women that makes a man want to be a better man?
> 
> And, if he's all about "no fakery" and "no manipulation" then why does he instruct men to fake OW interest with baked goods and whatnot, and manipulate their wives by making them feel vulnerable and valueless?


You are insulted over his views of evolution. Most of what he writes is near truth (exaggerations) aimed at the 2x4 effect. In his discussion of pre-selection, you aren't trying to hit on other women, just up your masculinity so other women notice. It works. IT IS NOT MANIPULATION to want to have sex with your wife. To be honest, then expecting conversation from your husband should not be expected in marriage, either. Ugh


----------



## EllisRedding

This thread is fast moving so I have been only able to scanned through a few pages quickly. Just some thoughts, maybe not entirely related:

The whole Alpha vs. Beta male, part of the issue is it seems like there is no universal definition/understanding of exactly what constitutes alpha vs beta. As an example, I was having a discussion with two women on a fitness forum a few days ago, and this very topic came up. They are both older women who are divorced and their gripe was "Where were all the alpha guys", they were tired of dealing with beta guys. What I found interesting though is they couldn't even agree on what an alpha guy was. One of the females was around 60, and she had no problem admitting that now she is in it for a good time, which meant younger men, jacked up libidos, tight bodies, confident, take control, etc... The other female (I think in her 40s, and from what I could gather based on her divorce had some resentment towards men) had different "alpha" requirements, or the way it came across to me, acted as if she should be able to pick and choose what alpha characteristics a guy should have, and some of the characteristics she listed as alpha I have seen others list as beta. So at the end of the day, who the heck knows. As I guy (understanding that based on my perspective I pick up/view things differently than females) it gets tiresome constantly hearing about the whole "where are all the alpha" guys as if that is the reason why women can't find a good man ... I also still believe that some of the alpha traits are closely tied to a man's hormone levels, which as I stated in a previous thread, there an indications that t levels are generally lower now in men as compared to decades ago.

As far as what to teach our sons/daughters, I will drill into my sons' head that it is not acceptable to be a doormat. Now granted, this would apply to both my sons and daughter, but from my personal experiences I always hear about how girls should find a guy who treats them right. You never hear about how guys should find a girl who treats them right. It is all about doing this or that to treat a girl right, but never about how she needs to treat you (i.e. if she wants to be treated right and respected, she needs to give you a reason to do so, and vice versa). Once again, this is just based on my personal experience as a guy, what I have always heard, and other guys I know as well. As the saying goes "Happy Wife, Happy Life", not "Happy Husband ..."

In terms of older vs. younger women, there was a comment that the men here want their wives, not younger women. Well, assuming you are in a good marriage or actually are still in to your wife, yes. This 100% applies to me, all I want is my wife (who i remind here frequently she is older than me, even if it is just be 2 months ), I don't want a younger woman BUT I also don't want an older woman (so why just single out younger women?). Now let's say things didn't work out with my wife and I was single, being completely honest, my attention would most definitely be drawn to younger women (granted, I am in my mid 30s and still like to consider myself a young buck lol). I just don't think it should be young women vs older women, men will gravitate to what they are attracted to and it will vary from guy to guy. And let's be honest, if there is a large age gap (whether male or female) there will always be some sort of stigma associated with it.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

naiveonedave said:


> you need to read the book, your post is so blatantly wrong it is not funny.


So the parts where he specifically suggests these things....? They are just there to 2X4 the guy? Is there a part in the book where he say "lol jk, don't _really _do that guys"?

Oh and I have tried to read it. It was so ridiculous and wrong I couldn't get through it after trying a few times. It's like a parody. Luckily I found a free copy online because I wouldn't want to give this guy a cent.


----------



## always_alone

naiveonedave said:


> You are insulted over his views of evolution. Most of what he writes is near truth (exaggerations) aimed at the 2x4 effect. In his discussion of pre-selection, you aren't trying to hit on other women, just up your masculinity so other women notice. It works. IT IS NOT MANIPULATION to want to have sex with your wife. To be honest, then expecting conversation from your husband should not be expected in marriage, either. Ugh


His views on evolution are pseudo-science: Victorian-era sexist biases wrapped in the mantle of objectivity.

It is not manipulation to want sex with your wife. It is manipulation to dig into her insecurities, make her feel less than, so that you can "train" her to behave.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

naiveonedave said:


> You are insulted over his views of evolution. Most of what he writes is near truth (exaggerations) aimed at the 2x4 effect. In his discussion of pre-selection, you aren't trying to hit on other women, just up your masculinity so other women notice. It works. IT IS NOT MANIPULATION to want to have sex with your wife. To be honest, then expecting conversation from your husband should not be expected in marriage, either. Ugh


Would you encourage a woman to get all dolled up, go out without telling her husband where she will be and have guys hit on her, act like a co-worker sent her flowers and she has no idea why he would do something like that (tee hee ) to prey on a man's insecurity in order to get him to do more for her?


----------



## always_alone

naiveonedave said:


> In his discussion of pre-selection, you aren't trying to hit on other women, just up your masculinity so other women notice. It works.


And again with the "works" thing. If my SO started flirting it up with OWs, I'd flat out tell him to have fun and have a nice life. I've never been attracted to a guy because someone else is, and I wouldn't want to stay with someone who is seeking validation from bevies of women. If he wants them, he knows where the door is.

Now, no doubt, seeing that their man is attractive to others may spark jealousy in a wife. Is that what you want? And if so, why keep pretending it's a 2x4 to the man? What you're really saying is that it is a 2x4 to the woman: put out or he'll get it somewhere else.

Is that what you want your relationship based on? I mean, I could just as easily head out there and attract a bunch of guys to make SO jealous of me, then use that jealousy every time I wanted something from him. Are you going to now tell me that this is perfectly okay, and not manipulative because it "works"?


----------



## always_alone

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Would you encourage a woman to get all dolled up, go out without telling her husband where she will be and have guys hit on her, act like a co-worker sent her flowers and she has no idea why he would do something like that (tee hee ) to prey on a man's insecurity in order to get him to do more for her?


It's like we're having the same thoughts at the same time!!


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Blonde- you are a great example of making it through a marriage designed to beat you down to keep you in your "place" So many women couldn't have done it and you took it all to make you a stronger person. IMO - that has a lot to do with why your daughter had the power to find the real deal.

And Blonde makes a point. These guys who's wives lost attraction who had it when they were dating. Were you Mr. alpha guy in the gym getting hit on by the ladies? Well then maybe it is good advice to be that guy again. But most likely you were the good guy. Took her on dates, complimented her, had hours of alone time together, really talked and listened to her, spent the time to just be together. 
I've actually seen men "lol" at the thought that you have to keep dating and wooing your wife throughout marriage. It becomes a whole "well, WTF was the point of getting married then" thing. 15 hours of alone time a week is an impossibility to them. 

Men bait and switch as much as women do.


----------



## Icey181

Blonde said:


> ^^fixed that for you...


No, you did not.

Why is it so hard for women to realize that, with the exception of the naturally smooth and confident guy, _most men pattern themselves after what women want_ in a way that works for them?

This is one of the concepts that Red Pill talks about and I think is simply a truism.

Most women have no idea the amount of effort and modification it requires a man to make in order to build attraction and find LTRs.

Most men cannot "just be themselves" and attract women.

In fact, that is exactly the false and failed advice a generation of men have found to be utterly useless that has spurned the growth of MGTOW and Red Pill stuff in the first place. 

There is a considerable amount of work for a lot of men to step well outside of their comfort zones and become the kind of men that will be attractive to the women they are interested in.

Once you are in a relationship the whole "just be yourself" advice is helpful…until it is not and you have husbands hitting the internet to find an explanation for why they have not had sex in 6-months or a year.


----------



## UMP

Icey181 said:


> Ok…but….what?
> 
> I rarely ever use this phrase…in fact this may be the first time ever, but this is White Knighting at its worst.
> 
> So apparently older women are wise, amazingly sexy, voracious, confident, and just oh so better than anything, ever, including those genetically deficient, demanding, boorish, oafs that are men.
> 
> Oh, and they are totally better than that young 20-something the guys are into...and besides those guys are just losers anyways.
> 
> :bsflag:


But what?
Yes, my older wife of 24 years is wise, amazingly sexy, voracious, and oh so better than anything.

Hope you have one like mine. If not, I hope you can get one. Though the hard part is not "getting" one, it's keeping one.
AND, keeping her happy.

I paraphrase: "any only dog can bed a bunch of women but it takes a real man to keep one woman happy for a lifetime."
Paul Newman

BTW: The "red pill" is just fine in VERY small quantities. Just like anything else in life....in moderation.


----------



## Icey181

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> And Blonde makes a point. These guys who's wives lost attraction who had it when they were dating. Were you Mr. alpha guy in the gym getting hit on by the ladies? Well then maybe it is good advice to be that guy again. But most likely you were the good guy. Took her on dates, complimented her, had hours of alone time together, really talked and listened to her, spent the time to just be together.
> I've actually seen men "lol" at the thought that you have to keep dating and wooing your wife throughout marriage. It becomes a whole "well, WTF was the point of getting married then" thing. 15 hours of alone time a week is an impossibility to them.
> 
> Men bait and switch as much as women do.


Burning the candle from both ends.

I think a lot of men would continue to "date" their wives throughout marriage if more wives responded like they did back when they were girlfriends.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Icey181 said:


> Once you are in a relationship the whole "just be yourself" advice is helpful…until it is not and you have husbands hitting the internet to find an explanation for why they have not had sex in 6-months or a year.


Well ya, if you're going to pretend to be someone else to catch a woman then she doesn't want you. It's no wonder the marriage will fail. 

Be yourself to find someone and you can always be yourself because she wants YOU. 

Like if a woman gets all done up, watches her weight and goes to the gym, acts like a girl who loves adventure and fun and then gets married, wears sweats and eats junk and sits around watching netflix all day. 

If you have to go through that much trouble to be someone you're not to get a girl, she's not the right one for you. 

I'm sure it's frustrating when "yourself" doesn't have as many options as "6 pack alpha guy" but all you need is 1 and that 1 will be better for you than 99 of the other ones who didn't want "yourself"


----------



## Icey181

UMP said:


> But what?
> Yes, my older wife of 24 years is wise, amazingly sexy, voracious, and oh so better than anything.


Did you date super wise, amazingly sexy, and sexually voracious 50-year olds when you were in College?


----------



## jld

Icey181 said:


> Burning the candle from both ends.
> 
> I think a lot of men would continue to "date" their wives throughout marriage if more wives responded like they did back when they were girlfriends.


A man could take the initiative to find out why she is not responding, and inspire her to respond.

Sorry, not letting the guys off the hook.


----------



## UMP

Icey181 said:


> Did you date super wise, amazingly sexy, and sexually voracious 50-year olds when you were in College?


I tried. I had offers from a boat load a 40 year old babes. I was too much of a pusssy to partake...although there was this one time.....wait that other one too....and.

You go ahead and keep arguing though. I will bow out. I dislike endless disputations.

Chow.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> A man could take the initiative to find out why she is not responding, and inspire her to respond.
> 
> Sorry, not letting the guys off the hook.


I think the point is simply it goes both ways. Should a guy not expect his wife to continue to woo him as well, or does it all fall on his shoulders?


----------



## Brigit

Icey181 said:


> I think a lot of men would continue to "date" their wives throughout marriage if more wives responded like they did back when they were girlfriends.


That's true. I did stop dressing sexy and acting like a girlfriend which contributed to my husbands decline in attention. It's hard to keep up with your "dating self" especially when you spend the day doing housework. 

Marriage isn't dating. It's life.


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> I think the point is simply it goes both ways. Should a guy not expect his wife to continue to woo him as well, or does it all fall on his shoulders?


Depends on the power dynamic in the marriage, I think.


----------



## Icey181

SlowlyGoingCrazy; said:


> Well ya, if you're going to pretend to be someone else to catch a woman then she doesn't want you. It's no wonder the marriage will fail.


How many wives continue the same degree of flirting, fitness, and dressing up throughout their marriage as they did when they were dating?

And how many do exactly this:



SlowlyGoingCrazy; said:


> Like if a woman gets all done up, watches her weight and goes to the gym, acts like a girl who loves adventure and fun and then gets married, wears sweats and eats junk and sits around watching netflix all day.


And follow up with an explanation that they are "older now" and all that crazy stuff you do when you are younger is just too much of a hassle, and they would rather "cuddle" on the couch watching Netflix for hours on end?



SlowlyGoingCrazy; said:


> I'm sure it's frustrating when "yourself" doesn't have as many options as "6 pack alpha guy" but all you need is 1 and that 1 will be better for you than 99 of the other ones who didn't want "yourself"


And if women approached men at anything approaching the frequency as men approach women, the whole "Be yourself" advice would be gangbusters for those intelligent, shy, but great guys.

But they do not.

Which means those great, intelligent, shy guys have to either be themselves and be alone for years on end, or they have to change their behavior and get out there, be more aggressive, more confident, and put effort into it.

Be yourself advice only works for those who get approached.


----------



## Icey181

jld said:


> A man could take the initiative to find out why she is not responding, and inspire her to respond.
> 
> Sorry, not letting the guys off the hook.


No, you are placing the full responsibility for attraction and effort on the man's shoulders.


----------



## Jellybeans

Blonde said:


> SIL OTH would look at those quotes about deliberately making a W jealous and be disgusted.


Seriously, what woman would be turned on by her husband/boyfriend partner trying intentionaly to make her jealous with other women? That is SUCh a turn off.

Reminds me of this guy who I had a thing with. We went out dancing one night in a group of friends. He claimed to like me. He kept dancing with this one chick and all whispering at her and looking at me. I knew exactly what he was playing at. All it did was turn me off and I told him I wasn't into it/him/that behavior. Never again. WTF.



Icey181 said:


> Did you date super wise, amazingly sexy, and sexually voracious 50-year olds when you were in College?


To be fair, most college women don't date 50 year old men. I know I sure as hell didn't. I was too busy crushing on all the guys my age at uni.


----------



## Icey181

It amazes me the number of women who argue that it is the man's responsibility to continuously date them, create romance, create attraction, etc etc and somehow have no problem stating that it is the women's privilege to be the object of these efforts and all they have to do is sit back and pass judgment on the ones they like.

That is also why the Red Pill exists.

Recognizing that many, many, women do exactly this means men need to find a way to get that attraction.

Dread 1-5 appears to be the answer.


----------



## Jellybeans

Icey181 said:


> No, you are placing the full responsibility for attraction and effort on the man's shoulders.


But isn't that what you did here? Placing the responsibility of attraction on the woman? 



Icey181 said:


> I think a lot of men would continue to "date" their wives throughout marriage if more wives responded like they did back when they were girlfriends.


It goes both ways.


----------



## jld

Icey181 said:


> No, you are placing the full responsibility for attraction and effort on the man's shoulders.



That is pretty much my default thinking, yes.


----------



## lifeistooshort

naiveonedave said:


> Pause for effect: The audience for the book is for the dude who used to have sex with his W and now doesn't. She was attracted to him enough to marry him at one pont. SO WHAT HAPPENED?


See here you have a misconception. She was clearly willing to have sex with him, but for women that doesn't necessarily equal attraction. I can understand how this could be confusing for a guy, but keep in mind that traditionally men and women have been raised very differently. 

Men are raised to do for themselves and support their family; this freed them up to consider attraction as they could provide for their own basic needs. Women, otoh, were relegated to dependent status and HAD to find a man to support them. Whether they were actually attracted to the guy wasn't a consideration. It's nice to have it but in and of itself doesn't keep you and your kids from starving. 

In addition, since women had so few opportunities sex and her body was one of the few things she could leverage. So you can imagine that it's impracticable to use the one source of power you have solely for your physical pleasure. 

I feel for guys in this way, you never know if your woman is into you or just willing to give it up, and they are different. If its the latter it's only a matter of time before she either cuts you off or offers up unsatisfying duty sex. 

In my opinion the answer to this is the very feminism that so many men rail against. As women have equal power and can take care of themselves they become free to explore their sexuality and to look for a man who gets their motor running. How can this not be a good thing for guys?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Icey181

Jellybeans said:


> To be fair, most college women don't date 50 year old men. I know I sure as hell didn't. I was too busy crushing on all the guys my age at uni.


Exactly.

Men find their 50-year old _wives_ sexy, confident, and attractive.

But 50-year old _women_?

Sorry, no. Men find young, athletic, and energetic women more attractive than older women.

It is not a mistake that the default attractive woman for pretty much all forms of visual media targeted at men is a _young woman_.


----------



## jld

Just speaking for myself, I have to feel attraction to have sex. I can't imagine staying in a marriage without feeling attracted anymore. I would find a way to leave.

And my attraction is mostly derived from how much respect I feel for the man.


----------



## Icey181

Jellybeans; said:


> But isn't that what you did here? Placing the responsibility of attraction on the woman?


How do you figure?

To this point the only items I have recommended was the early stages of dread, which focus on personal self-improvement to create attraction between two people.

Me cultivating hobbies, hitting the gym, and trying to build confidence does not really sounds like "placing responsibility on the woman" to me.



Jellybeans; said:


> It goes both ways.


So where are all the advice columns calling out women for hitting cruise control in marriage, failing to date their husbands, etc etc?

Because each time my wife has looked online the bulk of the advice has amounted to, "You're older, you're busy, he needs to understand that."


----------



## always_alone

Icey181 said:


> Exactly.
> 
> Men find their 50-year old _wives_ sexy, confident, and attractive.
> 
> But 50-year old _women_?
> 
> Sorry, no. Men find young, athletic, and energetic women more attractive than older women.
> 
> It is not a mistake that the default attractive woman for pretty much all forms of visual media targeted at men is a _young woman_.



Right. So here you are railing against women because they won't take responsibility for wooing their men, and just sitting around being the "object" of all of their hard effort ... then turning around and saying that men are only really attracted to young woman anyway and all the hard effort in the world won't change that.


----------



## Icey181

lifeistooshort; said:


> In my opinion the answer to this is the very feminism that so many men rail against. As women have equal power and can take care of themselves they become free to explore their sexuality and to look for a man who gets their motor running. How can this not be a good thing for guys?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Because that is not what happens.

Women have not been financially dependent on men as providers in an economic since somewhere around 1965. Post-WWII, female participation in the workforce never declined and has continued to stay quite high for the last half century or more.

So most of what you just described has not been true for some time.

What seems to actually happen is that now, men and women engage in the college hook up culture where women, not men, tend to control the rules of engagement.

And that is where you get the whole "20%/80%" complaints, the "Why does she date losers," and "Why am I too good of a friend to date?" stuff.

The whole AF/BB complex is quite real and many men, myself included, would look to the accomplishments and failings of 3rd Wave Feminism as the source.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

There are women who do the same bait and switch of pretending to be someone while dating and then being themselves while married. Both are just as wrong. You can't say it's ok for men to do it because they don't get approached as much. It's the SAME game. She's doing it for the same reasons you are. 
That's why you have to get out of the mindset of just meeting anyone. Be patient and meet the right one. Would you rather be single and alone for years before you meet a great match and have a happy marriage or be dating a bunch of women but being miserable and feeling alone for years in a marriage?


----------



## UMP

Icey181 said:


> It amazes me the number of women who argue that it is the man's responsibility to continuously date them, create romance, create attraction, etc etc and somehow have no problem stating that it is the women's privilege to be the object of these efforts and all they have to do is sit back and pass judgment on the ones they like.
> 
> That is also why the Red Pill exists.
> 
> Recognizing that many, many, women do exactly this means men need to find a way to get that attraction.
> 
> Dread 1-5 appears to be the answer.


Slow down there.
I am a man and I argue exactly the same thing. It turns out that my wife was not happy living with an fat, sedentary, angry assshole. Imagine that!
I dated my wife, attracted her and married her in my 20's and I'm supposed to just stop all of that and expect her to maintain her level of attraction to me?

Are you from another planet or are you just fond of giving away half of all your assets every 5 years?


----------



## chillymorn

and the bus goes round and round, round and round ,round and round!!!!!!!!!


----------



## always_alone

Icey181 said:


> It amazes me the number of women who argue that it is the man's responsibility to continuously date them, create romance, create attraction, etc etc and somehow have no problem stating that it is the women's privilege to be the object of these efforts and all they have to do is sit back and pass judgment on the ones they like.


Oh, please. Women fare no better than men with the "just be yourself" advice.

But let me develop that thought, because I actually think that "just be yourself" is very good advice.

Being "yourself" won't necessarily make you the most popular person on the block, or the most attractive. But what it will do is allow you to build a relationship with integrity and with someone who actually digs you.

I never changed myself to fit what guys have decided women should be like because, quite frankly, I'm not at all interested in being that person. This cost me greatly, and I never had the luxury of being an "object" of attention. But at the same time, it was much better and healthier for me because I learned to weed out those guys who I had zero compatibility with and who were only interested in squeezing a new pair of tits. And found someone who actually digs me for me, and who I don't have to pretend at all with.


----------



## Icey181

always_alone said:


> Right. So here you are railing against women because they won't take responsibility for wooing their men, and just sitting around being the "object" of all of their hard effort ... then turning around and saying that men are only really attracted to young woman anyway and all the hard effort in the world won't change that.


You jumped through quite a few hoops to build that strawman. Seriously, what is the point of talking with people if you are going to consciously misinterpret what they say?

1) Yes, women need to take as much responsibility for maintaining attraction to their SOs as men are always told to. 

2) I never said men are "only really attracted to young women." That is an absolute statement.

I offered the reality of the comparison, men are more attracted to younger woman, and older women who pretend that men are not, are literally lying to themselves.

Amazingly enough a man can recognize that the 22-year old cheerleader at the height of her physical fitness and youthful energy is more physically attractive than his 35-year old wife and yet still find his wife attractive and want to be with no one else.

My wife does not need to lie to me that younger and better fit men are not more physically attractive to me and my ego does not depend on pretending that at 29-year old and hitting the gym for the first time in my life is not as physically attractive as the 20-year old runner with a six-pack.


----------



## UMP

chillymorn said:


> and the bus goes round and round, round and round ,round and round!!!!!!!!!


Not really.
In reality the bus with the skirt on just leaves when the bus in pants leaks oil, stinks and farts all the fuucking time.

Thankfully, I got a tune up.


----------



## Icey181

UMP said:


> Slow down there.
> I am a man and I argue exactly the same thing. It turns out that my wife was not happy living with an fat, sedentary, angry assshole. Imagine that!
> I dated my wife, attracted her and married her in my 20's and I'm supposed to just stop all of that and expect her to maintain her level of attraction to me?
> 
> Are you from another planet or are you just fond of giving away half of all your assets every 5 years?


If you want to talk to yourself, I will stop responding and just let you keep going.

Mainly because I have not said any of what you just claimed.


----------



## always_alone

Icey181 said:


> And that is where you get the whole "20%/80%" complaints, the "Why does she date losers," and "Why am I too good of a friend to date?" stuff.


You get exactly the same complaints from the other side. 80% of men go for 20% of the women, and then wonder why they're "hard to get". 

And then the "what does he see in *her*" comments, because very often men will overlook some pretty scary personality traits, just because the girl in question gives off a sexual vibe.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Icey181 said:


> Because that is not what happens.
> 
> Women have not been financially dependent on men as providers in an economic since somewhere around 1965. Post-WWII, female participation in the workforce never declined and has continued to stay quite high for the last half century or more.
> 
> So most of what you just described has not been true for some time.
> 
> What seems to actually happen is that now, men and women engage in the college hook up culture where women, not men, tend to control the rules of engagement.
> 
> And that is where you get the whole "20%/80%" complaints, the "Why does she date losers," and "Why am I too good of a friend to date?" stuff.
> 
> The whole AF/BB complex is quite real and many men, myself included, would look to the accomplishments and failings of 3rd Wave Feminism as the source.


True to some extent, but mentalities take a lot longer to change.... often a few generations. Women have had the ability to some degree but there's still a general mentality of man should provide and women take care of kids. Women are valued for looks and men are valued for resources. That will change and is changing, but it will take time. More women are working and more men are doing their part with home and kids. It just needs more time.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## tech-novelist

Jellybeans said:


> Can someone school me?
> 
> Is Athol the guy who created that entire Red Pill thing? Or is he did write the MMSL? Or are they related?
> 
> Red Pill stuff is the MRA stuff, right? About the women-hating men? Who say you have to treat a woman poorly in order for her to be into you? I the concept from the same guy?


Athol did not invent the idea of the Red Pill. I'm not sure who did, but he definitely didn't do it.

He is the author of "Married Man Sex Life Primer", or MMSLP. He also has a web site called "Married Man Sex Life", which (amazingly enough) tries to help married men improve their sex life.

The Red Pill is not the same as MRA (Men's Rights Activism). MRA's are people who think that men are getting the dirty end of the stick in divorce (among other places). Some MRA's hate women, but most don't, as far as I can tell.

So what is the Red Pill? It is the notion that women and men are different in fundamental ways, specifically in their sexual behavior, not just physically, and that men should see women the way they really are, not the way they would like to see them (or the way they would like to be seen).

Of course I'm not the official arbiter of any of this, assuming there is such a position. It's just my understanding of the issues involved.


----------



## Icey181

always_alone said:


> Oh, please. Women fare no better than men with the "just be yourself" advice.
> 
> But let me develop that thought, because I actually think that "just be yourself" is very good advice.
> 
> Being "yourself" won't necessarily make you the most popular person on the block, or the most attractive. But what it will do is allow you to build a relationship with integrity and with someone who actually digs you.
> 
> I never changed myself to fit what guys have decided women should be like because, quite frankly, I'm not at all interested in being that person. This cost me greatly, and I never had the luxury of being an "object" of attention. But at the same time, it was much better and healthier for me because I learned to weed out those guys who I had zero compatibility with and who were only interested in squeezing a new pair of tits. And found someone who actually digs me for me, and who I don't have to pretend at all with.


Interesting, so time for an honest question.

Did you approach your SO and initiate the relationship?


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> Depends on the power dynamic in the marriage, I think.





jld said:


> That is pretty much my default thinking, yes.


At least you are being honest, so I will give you that .

My line of thought, it seems like as soon as it is said that a wife is not into her husband, etc... the automatic assumption seems to be what is HE doing wrong. Now, maybe he is at fault, maybe he stopped doing xyz which he used to do in the past. However, maybe he stopped doing xyz because she stopped doing abc. Of course the important thing is for them to actually communicate with each other to figure out the problem and work on a solution. That being said, it should not be solely one person's responsibility (which in your default thinking would mean the husband), all that will eventually lead to is resentment.


----------



## Jellybeans

Icey181 said:


> Exactly.
> 
> Men find their 50-year old _wives_ sexy, confident, and attractive.
> 
> But 50-year old _women_?
> 
> Sorry, no. Men find young, athletic, and energetic women more attractive than older women.
> 
> It is not a mistake that the default attractive woman for pretty much all forms of visual media targeted at men is a _young woman_.


You were the one who brought up college men and how they aren't wanting to get with 50 year old women... so I brought up college women. And the fact is, most college-aged women do not mostly date 50 year old men. 



Icey181 said:


> To this point the only items I have recommended was *the early stages of dread*


I don't know what this is. It sounds like science fiction.



Icey181 said:


> So where are all the advice columns calling out women for hitting cruise control in marriage, failing to date their husbands, etc etc?
> 
> Because each time my wife has looked online the bulk of the advice has amounted to, "You're older, you're busy, he needs to understand that."


Huh? What are you and your wife reading? Most marital advice speaks to both parties cleaning up their side of their street and working to find an amicable and mutual resolution to their problems. I don't think I"ve ever read a marital advice book saying "wives/women - do whatever the hell you want - he should be ok with it." What kind of advice would that be? 



UMP said:


> Slow down there.
> I am a man and I argue exactly the same thing. *It turns out that my wife was not happy living with an fat, sedentary, angry assshole. Imagine that!*
> I dated my wife, attracted her and married her in my 20's and *I'm supposed to just stop all of that and expect her to maintain her level of attraction to me?*
> 
> *Are you from another planet *or are you just fond of giving away half of all your assets every 5 years?


Ok, this made me laugh. :rofl:



chillymorn said:


> and the bus goes round and round, round and round ,round and round!!!!!!!!!


Truth.







Same thing over and over again.


----------



## Brigit

Icey181 said:


> It amazes me the number of women who argue that it is the man's responsibility to continuously date them, create romance, create attraction, etc etc and somehow have no problem stating that it is the women's privilege to be the object of these efforts and all they have to do is sit back and pass judgment on the ones they like.
> 
> That is also why the Red Pill exists.
> 
> Recognizing that many, many, women do exactly this means men need to find a way to get that attraction.
> 
> Dread 1-5 appears to be the answer.


No. Dread...WTF (even the word is horrible) isn't the answer.

If you want the marriage to work you tell your wife the truth. You say "I need you to start dressing sexy again. It turns me on and I miss seeing you that way."

If you start playing "Dread" you'll wind up with a "Dreadful Divorce."


----------



## Jellybeans

UMP said:


> Not really.
> In reality the bus with the skirt on just leaves when the bus in pants leaks oil, stinks and farts all the fuucking time.
> 
> Thankfully, I got a tune up.


:smthumbup: I am impressed that someone figured out how to drop the F bomb on TAM without getting it censored. 

Kudos, UMP!


----------



## Lila

Icey181 said:


> No, you did not.
> 
> Why is it so hard for women to realize that, with the exception of the naturally smooth and confident guy, _most men pattern themselves after what women want_ in a way that works for them?
> 
> This is one of the concepts that Red Pill talks about and I think is simply a truism.
> 
> *Most women have no idea the amount of effort and modification it requires a man to make in order to build attraction and find LTRs.
> 
> Most men cannot "just be themselves" and attract women.*
> 
> In fact, that is exactly the false and failed advice a generation of men have found to be utterly useless that has spurned the growth of MGTOW and Red Pill stuff in the first place.
> 
> There is a considerable amount of work for a lot of men to step well outside of their comfort zones and become the kind of men that will be attractive to the women they are interested in.
> 
> Once you are in a relationship the whole "just be yourself" advice is helpful…until it is not and you have husbands hitting the internet to find an explanation for why they have not had sex in 6-months or a year.



I completely disagree with this. 

Men who are themselves _are_ able to attract women. The problem is that the women they _do_ attract, which are probably the ones most compatible to them in all ways, are not the 'Hotties' that the Red Pill audience is targeting.


----------



## Icey181

lifeistooshort said:


> True to some extent, but mentalities take a lot longer to change.... often a few generations. Women have had the ability to some degree but there's still a general mentality of man should provide and women take care of kids. Women are valued for looks and men are valued for resources. That will change and is changing, but it will take time. More women are working and more men are doing their part with home and kids. It just needs more time.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


The point where I fundamentally disagree with 3rd Wave Feminism is the notion that the "man as provider" is simply an artificial social construct derived from a patriarchical order.

In the time that I have lurked on a variety of dead-bedroom forums what I have found is that there is a direct correlation to a man giving up his traditional, masculine, provider role and losing the physical attraction of his wife.

And it does not seem to matter if the couple is a traditional conservative family or a progressively liberal feminist one, when the gender roles of the two people involved begin to shift and the man trends towards feminization, it often leads to a dead bedroom.

Something my mom used to point out a few years ago; Women find masculinity attractive, unless they are lesbians, but you shouldn't date a lesbian.

One of the things I dislike about post-modernist thinking is its assumption that gender roles are not real and that there is no consequences to upending them.

They are real, and there are real consequences to upending them.


----------



## tech-novelist

Brigit said:


> No. Dread...WTF (even the word is horrible) isn't the answer.
> 
> If you want the marriage to work you tell your wife the truth. You say "I need you to start dressing sexy again. It turns me on and I miss seeing you that way."
> 
> If you start playing "Dread" you'll wind up with a "Dreadful Divorce."


And if your wife says "forget it", then what?


----------



## chillymorn

UMP said:


> Not really.
> In reality the bus with the skirt on just leaves when the bus in pants leaks oil, stinks and farts all the fuucking time.
> 
> Thankfully, I got a tune up.


what about when both busses need a tune up? 

I think that's the point its not always one sided like your situation. usually both busses need some tweaking.


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> At least you are being honest, so I will give you that .
> 
> My line of thought, it seems like as soon as it is said that a wife is not into her husband, etc... the automatic assumption seems to be what is HE doing wrong. Now, maybe he is at fault, maybe he stopped doing xyz which he used to do in the past. However, maybe he stopped doing xyz because she stopped doing abc. Of course the important thing is for them to actually communicate with each other to figure out the problem and work on a solution. That being said, it should not be solely one person's responsibility (which in your default thinking would mean the husband), all that will eventually lead to is resentment.


Not every man would feel resentment. I think a confident man would be grateful to have figured out how to solve the problem and get things back on track.


----------



## Brigit

Icey181 said:


> Amazingly enough a man can recognize that the 22-year old cheerleader at the height of her physical fitness and youthful energy is more physically attractive than his 35-year old wife and yet still find his wife attractive and want to be with no one else.


I don't think the women here are arguing that point. The girl who is hot at 22 probably won't be as hot at 42.

HOWEVER

There are plenty of non-hot, non-attractive women in their 20's. Men are visual. If a very hot 40 something stands next to a not so hot 20 something and a man had to choose who he'd like to sleep with he'd pick the one who is more attractive.

"So let it be written so let it be be done."


----------



## Pluto2

Icey181 said:


> Because that is not what happens.
> 
> Women have not been financially dependent on men as providers in an economic since somewhere around 1965. Post-WWII, female participation in the workforce never declined and has continued to stay quite high for the last half century or more.
> 
> So most of what you just described has not been true for some time.
> 
> What seems to actually happen is that now, men and women engage in the college hook up culture where women, not men, tend to control the rules of engagement.
> 
> And that is where you get the whole "20%/80%" complaints, the "Why does she date losers," and "Why am I too good of a friend to date?" stuff.
> 
> The whole AF/BB complex is quite real and many men, myself included, would look to the accomplishments and failings of 3rd Wave Feminism as the source.


I don't know where you get this information, but its not reality in this country.

Women still don't get equal pay, or equal promotions. Women had to work from Jan. 2014 until May of 2015 to earn, on average, as much as men earned for 2014. Sure women in the workforce did not decline to the 1930's level after WWII, but look at where most of those jobs are. They are primarily minimum wage and care-giving roles. There are some improvements, but it is far, far from economic equality. And when women have to take time off of a career to birth and raise children (and I say "have to" because they are the ones who give birth), they then have to withdraw from the workforce, losing time and seniority and earnings.


----------



## always_alone

Icey181 said:


> 2) I never said men are "only really attracted to young women." That is an absolute statement.
> 
> I offered the reality of the comparison, men are more attracted to younger woman, and older women who pretend that men are not, are literally lying to themselves.


Why, though? What's the point? If it isn't to make women feel bad about their aging selves, why is it so important for you to state as some kind of objective absolute that younger women are more attractive than older women?

Personally, I don't see age as the only defining factor in attractiveness. A 20-year old fit runner could be hotter than his 30 year old less fit counterpart. But not necessarily. Depends on facial structure, proportions, stance, hair, body shape, and all sorts of other physical features. 

And I have no need at all to shame men for getting older.


----------



## tech-novelist

jld said:


> Not every man would feel resentment. I think a confident man would be grateful to have figured out how to solve the problem and get things back on track.


Sure, assuming that the recommended actions actually worked. Unfortunately, suggestions to do more chores, give flowers, etc., do NOT work, unless the problem is insufficient supportiveness ("beta", using Athol's terminology). Statistically, that is very unlikely to be the cause of a dead bedroom, so the proposed fixes will just make things worse.


----------



## Icey181

Lila said:


> I completely disagree with this.
> 
> Men who are themselves _are_ able to attract women. The problem is that the women they _do_ attract, which are probably the ones most compatible to them in all ways, are not the 'Hotties' that the Red Pill audience is targeting.


I find it interesting that it is almost always women who disagree with this.

I guess the idea of zero-approach is beyond them.

Men, including myself and my friends, found that those of us who were intelligent, overly thin or a little overweight, introverted and shy got _no attention, at all_.

I had _two_ women approach me between Freshman Year in High School and when I was married after Graduate School.

The whole "be yourself" advice _does not work if you are the guy and are shy, because women almost never approach you._


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> Not every man would feel resentment. I think a confident man would be grateful to have figured out how to solve the problem and get things back on track.


Not really, you are missing my point. You are making the assumption that it is HIS fault, and by him doing XYZ things will get back on track. If it is HER fault as much as his (which I know this could be a surprise to you, but could very likely be), if he does XYZ, she does not respond with ABC, HE WILL BECOME RESENTFUL. If he doesn't then he is nothing more than a doormat. That is where I respectfully disagree with you, you are making it his fault and his responsibility to get things back on track. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, let's take it on a case by case basis instead of making such a broad assumption.


----------



## tech-novelist

Pluto2 said:


> I don't know where you get this information, but its not reality in this country.
> 
> Women still don't get equal pay, or equal promotions. Women had to work from Dec. 2014 until May of 2015 to earn, on average, as much as men earned for 2014. Sure women in the workforce did not decline to the 1930's level after WWII, but look at where most of those jobs are. They are primarily minimum wage and care-giving roles. There are some improvements, but it is far, far from economic equality. And when women have to take time off of a career to birth and raise children (and I say "have to" because they are the ones who give birth), they then have to withdraw from the workforce, losing time and seniority and earnings.


The reason that women don't make as much money is precisely *because *they need greater career flexibility, which makes them less profitable employees. If you control for job duties, time in job, hours worked, and the like, women make MORE than men, not less, at least partly due to the onerous regulations on all large companies that subject them to enormous fines for violating "fair pay" standards.


----------



## Icey181

Pluto2 said:


> I don't know where you get this information, but its not reality in this country.
> 
> Women still don't get equal pay, or equal promotions. Women had to work from Dec. 2014 until May of 2015 to earn, on average, as much as men earned for 2014. Sure women in the workforce did not decline to the 1930's level after WWII, but look at where most of those jobs are. They are primarily minimum wage and care-giving roles. There are some improvements, but it is far, far from economic equality. And when women have to take time off of a career to birth and raise children (and I say "have to" because they are the ones who give birth), they then have to withdraw from the workforce, losing time and seniority and earnings.


1) Women do get equal pay. The Wage Gap is a myth that even moderate feminists in the NYT are getting annoyed at because it obscure other, more important issues.
2) Women do not dominate minimum wage jobs, _poor people_ dominate minimum wage jobs.
3) Women are a majority in care-giver roles because more women pursue those roles.
4) Pregnancy is loss of labor for a company. It is also a life-decision for the woman. It bears consequences and for a company all it cares about is the $$$ consequences. 

So, yeah, just going to go with a big ole' nope on that whole thing.


----------



## Brigit

I'd like to take a moment to congratulate FW on a wonderful thread. It is keeping me entertained between gardening and housework. Much better than TV.


----------



## always_alone

Icey181 said:


> Interesting, so time for an honest question.
> 
> Did you approach your SO and initiate the relationship?


No. He initiated, and I spent some time and effort trying to drive him away. And when that didn't work, I went on a date with him.

I wouldn't bother approaching guys anymore. IME, they just get their panties in a twist about "aggressive" women.


----------



## Brigit

always_alone said:


> Why, though? What's the point? If it isn't to make women feel bad about their aging selves, why is it so important for you to state as some kind of objective absolute that younger women are more attractive than older women?
> 
> Personally, I don't see age as the only defining factor in attractiveness. A 20-year old fit runner could be hotter than his 30 year old less fit counterpart. But not necessarily. Depends on facial structure, proportions, stance, hair, body shape, and all sorts of other physical features.
> 
> And I have no need at all to shame men for getting older.


:iagree:


----------



## john117

jld said:


> Not every man would feel resentment. I think a confident man would be grateful to have figured out how to solve the problem and get things back on track.



Not necessarily - the big problem with older women is that they're far more resistant to MMSL type Jedi mind games


----------



## GTdad

Brigit said:


> I'd like to take a moment to congratulate FW on a wonderful thread. It is keeping me entertained between gardening and housework. Much better than TV.


I keep thinking I'd be better off stepping away from this thread, but keep on being drawn back like a moth to a bug-zapper.

But I agree, good discussion. Well, for the most part.


----------



## Icey181

always_alone; said:


> Why, though? What's the point? If it isn't to make women feel bad about their aging selves, why is it so important for you to state as some kind of objective absolute that younger women are more attractive than older women?


Goal post shifting.

The question, spurred by the Andy Rooney quote, is why do older women feel the need (and some men pander to this need) to denigrate men and younger women in order to feel more confident about aging?

And why do women balk at it when someone, in this case me, points out that the process is quite simply self-deception based in sexist over-generalizations of how oafish and lazy men are?



always_alone; said:


> Personally, I don't see age as the only defining factor in attractiveness. A 20-year old fit runner could be hotter than his 30 year old less fit counterpart. But not necessarily. Depends on facial structure, proportions, stance, hair, body shape, and all sorts of other physical features.


I tend to agree. Attractiveness is a pretty complicated thing…I think I am more of a "proportional" guy than anything else.



always_alone; said:


> And I have no need at all to shame men for getting older.


Me neither. I also have no need to pretend that things are not the way they are.

I cannot compete on a physical attractiveness level with most younger men, but then again, I do not have to, so I do not much care.


----------



## Holdingontoit

BronzeTorpedo said:


> So, AK's typical reader is most likely a husband who has talked to his wife, gotten some promises or compromises that were short-lived, tried all the standard choreplay, gone to counseling, and is now looking for nonstandard advice in a last-ditch effort to improve his marriage.


I agree with SGC that there are women who are honest and tell their husband what is holding back their sex life.

But I agree with BT that there are women who are either incapable of or unwilling to be honest. Suppose she fears that if she is honest that she does not find him attractive, he'll leave rather than make himself more attractive (and she does not want him to leave)? Suppose she fears that if she is honest that she wants more Alpha, then he will become a complete jerk?

As BT says, this is for the beta guy whose wife will NOT tell him what she wants. Not every wife is in that category. Far from it. But there are plenty who are.


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> Not necessarily - the big problem with older women is that they're far more resistant to MMSL type Jedi mind games


By get things back on track, I am not talking about Jedi mind games. I am talking about his really listening to her, seeing past her words into her heart and what she is lacking from him.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Icey181 said:


> The point where I fundamentally disagree with 3rd Wave Feminism is the notion that the "man as provider" is simply an artificial social construct derived from a patriarchical order.
> 
> In the time that I have lurked on a variety of dead-bedroom forums what I have found is that there is a direct correlation to a man giving up his traditional, masculine, provider role and losing the physical attraction of his wife.
> 
> And it does not seem to matter if the couple is a traditional conservative family or a progressively liberal feminist one, when the gender roles of the two people involved begin to shift and the man trends towards feminization, it often leads to a dead bedroom.
> 
> Something my mom used to point out a few years ago; Women find masculinity attractive, unless they are lesbians, but you shouldn't date a lesbian.
> 
> One of the things I dislike about post-modernist thinking is its assumption that gender roles are not real and that there is no consequences to upending them.
> 
> They are real, and there are real consequences to upending them.


There will always be some kind of gender roles thanks to biology, and I agree that masculinity is attractive. But that doesn't mean we can't be partners who encourage men and women to be valued based on the same basic criteria. 

I make more money then my hb, and he's been out of work for 6 months or so (I make more then he was making). He's been cooking and cleaning house like crazy and yet I still want sex with him. Why? Partly because he takes great care of himself, treats me well, is a partner, and handles things. But I was also really attracted to him when I met him, and no doubt this is a big part. 

I don't think equality has to mean no gender roles.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Icey181

always_alone said:


> No. He initiated, and I spent some time and effort trying to drive him away. And when that didn't work, I went on a date with him.
> 
> I wouldn't bother approaching guys anymore. IME, they just get their panties in a twist about "aggressive" women.


In other words, you were being "just yourself," and your guy not only initiated with you but also continued to pursue you throughout.

How are you not getting this point? It sounds like you should understand.

How would your relationship have developed if your guy was a bit more shy and took your first "push away" to heart?

At the end of the day you were still being pursued.

_He_ needed the confidence to approach, pursue, and to work through the rejections.

*That is not natural for most men I know.*

That requires actual training and practice.

To accomplish that _we have to change who we are in order to get the women we are interested in._

We do not get to "just be ourselves."


----------



## Lila

Icey181 said:


> I find it interesting that it is almost always women who disagree with this.
> 
> I guess the idea of zero-approach is beyond them.
> 
> Men, including myself and my friends, found that those of us who were intelligent, overly thin or a little overweight, introverted and shy got _no attention, at all_.
> 
> I had _two_ women approach me between Freshman Year in High School and when I was married after Graduate School.
> 
> The whole "be yourself" advice _does not work if you are the guy and are shy, because women almost never approach you._


Here's my thoughts on zero-approach....'If the mountain will not come to you, then you must go to the mountain'. 

You mentioned having only two women approach you during college.....how many women would you say you approached? And of those, were they the shy, introverted, too skinny/little overweight?


----------



## tech-novelist

jld said:


> By get things back on track, I am not talking about Jedi mind games. I am talking about his really listening to her, seeing past her words into her heart and what she is lacking from him.


So you are saying that the man has to see into her heart regardless of what she says? Luckily nothing can go wrong with that plan! :rofl:


----------



## Icey181

jld said:


> By get things back on track, I am not talking about Jedi mind games. I am talking about his really listening to her, *seeing past her words into her heart and what she is lacking from him.*


So...all he needs to be is a mind reader.

Well, that makes things easier.


----------



## jld

always_alone said:


> And I have no need at all to shame men for getting older.


:iagree: Older men are very attractive.


----------



## EllisRedding

GTdad said:


> I keep thinking I'd be better off stepping away from this thread, but keep on being drawn back like a moth to a bug-zapper.
> 
> But I agree, good discussion. Well, for the most part.


lol, I actually tried to stay away from this thread entirely, especially after the previous one that got locked out, in part b/c I feel to some extent threads like these are traps. It is much easier when I am at home and not at work since I am rarely on my PC at home. Maybe I should just go home now


----------



## jld

Icey181 said:


> So...all he needs to be is a mind reader.
> 
> Well, that makes things easier.


Not a mind reader. But he does need to pay attention to her, and stop taking her for granted. He can learn a lot by observing her, studying her.

Remember, gentlemen: "Neglect kills love."


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> Not a mind reader. But he does need to pay attention to her, and stop taking her for granted. He can learn a lot by observing her, studying her.
> 
> Remember, gentlemen: "Neglect kills love."


And she could do the same for him ... for those who believe it takes both parties to make things work ...


----------



## EleGirl

EllisRedding said:


> I think the point is simply it goes both ways. Should a guy not expect his wife to continue to woo him as well, or does it all fall on his shoulders?


Yes it goes both ways. Both men and women often get complacent in a marriage.

Usually on here we can only talk to one of them because the other is not on TAM looking for answers. So we can only suggest things to the person who is actually here talking to us.

This is why I suggest things like "His Needs, Her Needs" and "Love Busters". Its a way to get the two spouses talking to each other and looking for ways to improve their marriage together.

But, if the other spouse is not willing to join in on something like that, then the spouse who is here can make unilateral changes that can bring the marriage around.

The book "Divorce Busting" is all about making unilateral changes. The does into a lot about how one spouse can influence the marriage and their spouse by doing this. Unfortunately it's written more for women then for men. It's kind of a 'woman up' book. But somehow the author found a way to tell women how to do this without having to bring things like sex rank, and insulting men in the book. Amazing how that works.

The only person we can talk to is the one who is here. So the one who is here is going to get the suggestions of what to try.


----------



## Brigit

GTdad said:


> I keep thinking I'd be better off stepping away from this thread, but keep on being drawn back like a moth to a bug-zapper.
> 
> But I agree, good discussion. Well, for the most part.


This thread is much more addictive than the Red Pill for sure


----------



## Icey181

Lila said:


> Here's my thoughts on zero-approach....'If the mountain will not come to you, then you must go to the mountain'.


Exactly.

The fundamental difference is that, when you are the guy, the mountain basically never comes to you. 

The reverse is not true.



Lila said:


> You mentioned having only two women approach you during college.....how many women would you say you approached? And of those, were they the shy, introverted, too skinny/little overweight?


For my part, I was a shy and introverted guy who had no idea how to flirt. I approached only a handful of women (maybe 6) and they were usually of the smart little too skinny/little to chubby on the classic "1-10 attractive scale," variety.

And the funny thing, is that I still needed to "not just be myself" and actually change my approach significantly.

It happened with my wife. We would talk in class and I had to be more aggressive and more confident than I am normally in order to actually get a date and work through a variety of relationship barriers (man hating friend/dorm-mate, the mother).

If I wanted a relationship, and I did, I had to give up on the shy introverted me and turn into something else.

Women say they like the shy introverted guy, and they do. 

But he needs to be the confident and aggressive guy _first_. He can be more shy and introverted later.


----------



## john117

jld said:


> By get things back on track, I am not talking about Jedi mind games. I am talking about his really listening to her, seeing past her words into her heart and what she is lacking from him.



If that had worked as expected there would be far less need for mind tricks, no?


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> And she could do the same for him ... for those who believe it takes both parties to make things work ...


She could, but if she is like most women, I bet she is already doing a lot in the relationship.

I don't want to see men become irrelevant in their relationships, Ellis. And I am afraid too much passivity, or even insistence on her "doing her share," risks that happening.


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> If that had worked as expected there would be far less need for mind tricks, no?


I cannot get behind mind tricks, John.


----------



## always_alone

Icey181 said:


> Goal post shifting.
> 
> The question, spurred by the Andy Rooney quote, is why do older women feel the need (and some men pander to this need) to denigrate men and younger women in order to feel more confident about aging?
> 
> And why do women balk at it when someone, in this case me, points out that the process is quite simply self-deception based in sexist over-generalizations of how oafish and lazy men are?


Huh? I don't feel any need whatsoever to denigrate men or younger women. I'll give you that the Andy Rooney quote did put men down, but (a) he's a guy, not an older woman and (b) I never said that I agreed with that quote in the first place. 

And quite frankly, because attractiveness is a complicated thing, I really don't think it is self deception for a woman to point out that she might be just as, if not moreso, attractive than a younger woman. 

First off, it depends on who and how you're comparing. Now, if your only vision of "younger woman" is some carefully made up Dallas cheerleader, well, no wonder you want to be absolutist about this. But fact is, that is simply *not* most younger women. 

No doubt in my mind that there are women of all ages who would be judged as significantly "hotter" than I am, but that in no way changes the fact that I am also significantly improved over my younger self, and also have many of the "objective" traits that many, many younger women do not. 

So where is the self-deception?


----------



## Brigit

jld said:


> Not a mind reader. But he does need to pay attention to her, and stop taking her for granted. He can learn a lot by observing her, studying her.
> 
> Remember, gentlemen: "Neglect kills love."


Yes it does. This post could probably replace the whole book.


----------



## Icey181

jld said:


> She could, but if she is like most women, I bet she is already doing a lot in the relationship.
> 
> I don't want to see men become irrelevant in their relationships, Ellis. And I am afraid too much passivity, or even insistence on her "doing her share" risks that happening.


This is a form of bias the Red Pill stuff has helped me escape.

The "Women are Wonderful Effect" presumes that, by virtue of a woman being a woman, she must be doing all the necessaries in a relationship and that it is most likely the man's fault when issues arise.

The focus on most advice these days presumes the same, so there is no threat that suddenly the burden of improving things is going to be hoisted on the woman's shoulders alone.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> *She could, but if she is like most women, I bet she is already doing a lot in the relationship.*
> 
> I don't want to see men become irrelevant in their relationships, Ellis. And I am afraid too much passivity, or even insistence on *her "doing her share*," risks that happening.


Oh geez at the bolded ... now that is the king of all assumptions. So basically you are saying most men do not do enough in a relationship ...

Also, you are afraid of too much passivity by a guy, but he shouldn't insist she do her share. Talk about a contradiction


----------



## jld

Icey181 said:


> Exactly.
> 
> The fundamental difference is that, when you are the guy, the mountain basically never comes to you.
> 
> The reverse is not true.
> 
> For my part, I was a shy and introverted guy who had no idea how to flirt. I approached only a handful of women (maybe 6) and they were usually of the smart little too skinny/little to chubby on the classic "1-10 attractive scale," variety.
> 
> And the funny thing, is that I still needed to "not just be myself" and actually change my approach significantly.
> 
> It happened with my wife. We would talk in class and I had to be more aggressive and more confident than I am normally in order to actually get a date and work through a variety of relationship barriers (man hating friend/dorm-mate, the mother).
> 
> If I wanted a relationship, and I did, I had to give up on the shy introverted me and turn into something else.
> 
> Women say they like the shy introverted guy, and they do.
> 
> But he needs to be the confident and aggressive guy _first_. He can be more shy and introverted later.


I don't think you need to be aggressive. You do need to ask her out, though. You have to have the confidence to risk rejection.

But if she has been talking to you, smiling at you, giving signs of building trust, I doubt it is much of a risk.


----------



## always_alone

Icey181 said:


> At the end of the day you were still being pursued.
> 
> _He_ needed the confidence to approach, pursue, and to work through the rejections.
> 
> *That is not natural for most men I know.*


I was pursued that time. But maybe you missed my point that in most cases, I wasn't pursued. And when I tried to pursue, I was pushed away as "too aggressive".

So, those guys that I did pursue could have "just been themselves". But the person pursuing them wasn't good enough for them, and they rejected it. 

Which is their prerogative, of course, but it also works the same way for women. If you aren't getting what you think you deserve, you either have to step up the efforts or lower your expectations.

I hardly see this as "not being able to be oneself".


----------



## Icey181

always_alone; said:


> Huh? I don't feel any need whatsoever to denigrate men or younger women. I'll give you that the Andy Rooney quote did put men down, but (a) he's a guy, not an older woman and (b) I never said that I agreed with that quote in the first place.


Ergo, he was White Knighting and the quote was little more than some of the qualities people complained about with the Red Pill that were suddenly fine because it was helping up the egos of older women.

That was the original point of disagreement. 



always_alone; said:


> And quite frankly, because attractiveness is a complicated thing, I really don't think it is self deception for a woman to point out that she might be just as, if not moreso, attractive than a younger woman.
> 
> First off, it depends on who and how you're comparing. Now, if your only vision of "younger woman" is some carefully made up Dallas cheerleader, well, no wonder you want to be absolutist about this. But fact is, that is simply *not* most younger women.
> 
> No doubt in my mind that there are women of all ages who would be judged as significantly "hotter" than I am, but that in no way changes the fact that I am also significantly improved over my younger self, and also have many of the "objective" traits that many, many younger women do not.


Agreed on all counts.



always_alone; said:


> So where is the self-deception?


In the kind of overtly sexist and ego-pandering garbage that the Andy Rooney quote exemplifies.

If you do not engage with it, then it is not an issue.

I simply find it hypocritical when people complain that the Red Pill is manipulative and bad because it denigrates women to elevate men…but have no problem doing the same when they can guffaw over how men are deficient and if they date younger women are also losers who are bad in bed.


----------



## UMP

Icey181 said:


> If you want to talk to yourself, I will stop responding and just let you keep going.
> 
> Mainly because I have not said any of what you just claimed.


I'll just talk to myself.
You're too busy binging on the red koolaide to notice anyway.
Drink up!


----------



## Jellybeans




----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> Oh geez at the bolded ... now that is the king of all assumptions. So basically you are saying most men do not do enough in a relationship ...
> 
> Also, you are afraid of too much passivity by a guy, but he shouldn't insist she do her share. Talk about a contradiction


Passivity on his doing _his_ "share" in the relationship.

A confident man does not think in terms of "shares," anyway. He asks himself what _he_ needs to do to get things back on track, and then does them.


----------



## jld

Jellybeans said:


>


:rofl::lol::rofl:


----------



## UMP

chillymorn said:


> what about when both busses need a tune up?
> 
> I think that's the point its not always one sided like your situation. usually both busses need some tweaking.


Agreed.
Don't get me wrong, my wife needed to do some tweaking too. However, I believe men are leader by default in the relationship and need to ACTUALLY lead. Not until I stopped whining and did what I said I would do did UMP2 follow suit.


----------



## Icey181

jld said:


> I don't think you need to be aggressive. *You do need to ask her out, though. You have to have the confidence to risk rejection.*
> 
> But if she has been talking to you, smiling at you, giving signs of building trust, I doubt it is much of a risk.


I would counter-pose this point with always_alone's concession that she had the option to stop pursuing when she found rejection and her SO came to her. 

As a man I never found I had that particular option.

All of the guys I know who had the same feeling as she did and tried to fall back on not being "aggressive" found themselves single.

For their entire college lives.



always_alone said:


> I was pursued that time. But maybe you missed my point that in most cases, I wasn't pursued. And when I tried to pursue, I was pushed away as "too aggressive".
> 
> So, those guys that I did pursue could have "just been themselves". But the person pursuing them wasn't good enough for them, and they rejected it.
> 
> Which is their prerogative, of course, but it also works the same way for women. If you aren't getting what you think you deserve, you either have to step up the efforts or lower your expectations.
> 
> I hardly see this as "not being able to be oneself".


Because you have the options. As a women you will still get approached, indeed were still approached, so you have the ability to fall back on "being yourself" and waiting.

That is not an option for the men in my sphere of experience.

Men cannot simply be shy, introverted, smart, and cute and have women come over to them and offer up relationships.

They have to build up confidence, practice some "game" skills like flirting and asking women out, deal with a considerable amount of rejection, and push through.

They do not have the option, though many of us would have preferred it, to simply be ourselves and magically make contact with someone compatible.

That is not reality. That is 90s Romance-Comedy garbage.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Icey181 said:


> To accomplish that _we have to change who we are in order to get the women we are interested in._
> 
> We do not get to "just be ourselves."


That's the key. You could get women by being yourselves but they wouldn't be the ones you are interested in. They aren't good enough for you, just like you aren't good enough for the ones you want. So instead of trying to find an equal, you want better and then you have to spend your whole marriage playing catch up.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> Passivity on his doing _his_ "share" in the relationship.
> 
> A confident man does not think in terms of "shares," anyway. He asks himself what _he_ needs to do to get things back on track, and then does them.


I guess we can agree to disagree. Based on your posts you view relationships as such:

- Most women do more than their fair share to make a relationship work (which would imply that most men don't)
- If the relationship is broken, it is the guys responsibility to get things back on track b/c it is likely his fault.

Yeah, that sounds like a really productive and healthy relationship  If a guy came on here stating as much but stating the woman needed to do the work b/c she was at fault, it would be a $hitstorm for stating such a thing ... I can only say I feel bad for you for having such a jaded view of men, or even having way too high of an opinion of women.

To clarify as well, I am not taking one side or the other, all I am stating that it is up to BOTH parties to make a relationship work. BOTh parties does not mean a guy bending over backwards to figure out what his wife wants and then hoping it is enough to fix things.


----------



## jld

Icey181 said:


> I would counter-pose this point with always_alone's concession that she had the option to stop pursuing when she found rejection and her SO came to her.
> 
> As a man I never found I had that particular option.
> 
> All of the guys I know who had the same feeling as she did and tried to fall back on not being "aggressive" found themselves single.
> 
> For their entire college lives.
> 
> 
> Because you have the options. As a women you will still get approached, indeed were still approached, so you have the ability to fall back on "being yourself" and waiting.
> 
> That is not an option for the men in my sphere of experience.
> 
> Men cannot simply be shy, introverted, smart, and cute and have women come over to them and offer up relationships.
> 
> They have to build up confidence, practice some "game" skills like flirting and asking women out, deal with a considerable amount of rejection, and push through.
> 
> They do not have the option, though many of us would have preferred it, to simply be ourselves and magically make contact with someone compatible.
> 
> That is not reality. That is 90s Romance-Comedy garbage.


Do you think every man that approaches is desirable? Do you know how uncomfortable it is to try to get away from him as quickly as possible, and dread having to see him at every subsequent class?

It is not easy for women, either.

And I think we define aggressive differently.


----------



## Icey181

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> That's the key. You could get women by being yourselves but they wouldn't be the ones you are interested in. They aren't good enough for you, just like you aren't good enough for the ones you want. So instead of trying to find an equal, you want better and then you have to spend your whole marriage playing catch up.


That was a pretty bad assumption that basically missed the mark by a mile.


----------



## Icey181

jld said:


> Do you think every man that approaches is desirable? Do you know how uncomfortable it is to try to get away from him as quickly as possible, and dread having to see him at every subsequent class?
> 
> It is not easy for women, either.
> 
> And I think we define aggressive differently.


Ok, you have two options.

1) Be approached by a wide group and have to deal with the bad ones, but you get to make your selection.

or

2) Never be approached.


----------



## always_alone

Icey181 said:


> Men cannot simply be shy, introverted, smart, and cute and have women come over to them and offer up relationships.


Actually, they can. A very good friend of mine (a guy I once pursued and was rejected by many years ago) is exactly as you describe: smart, kind, introverted, unassuming. A wonderful person. He was average in terms of looks, build, fitness, etc., and also had a streak of pessimism and negativity that most certainly stood in his way. 

And women did approach him. And not just me. And eventually he found someone that he calls his "soulmate". So, happy ending, and he didn't have to be anyone but his own special slightly neurotic and wonderful self. 

And as for women who get to just sit around and wait? Let me tell you, it can be a long, long, lonely wait if you just sit around and "be yourself".


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> I guess we can agree to disagree. Based on your posts you view relationships as such:
> 
> - Most women do more than their fair share to make a relationship work (which would imply that most men don't)
> - If the relationship is broken, it is the guys responsibility to get things back on track b/c it is likely his fault.
> 
> Yeah, that sounds like a really productive and healthy relationship * If a guy came on here stating as much but stating the woman needed to do the work b/c she was at fault, it would be a $hitstorm for stating such a thing *... I can only say I feel bad for you for having such a jaded view of men, or even having way too high of an opinion of women.
> 
> To clarify as well, I am not taking one side or the other, all I am stating that it is up to BOTH parties to make a relationship work. BOTh parties does not mean a guy bending over backwards to figure out what his wife wants and then hoping it is enough to fix things.


The bolded happens every day in CWI.


----------



## tech-novelist

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> That's the key. You could get women by being yourselves but they wouldn't be the ones you are interested in. They aren't good enough for you, just like you aren't good enough for the ones you want. So instead of trying to find an equal, you want better and then you have to spend your whole marriage playing catch up.


While you are right in some cases, the main problem to which the Red Pill is addressed, for single men anyway, is that the number of women that many men can get by "being themselves" is zero. Thus, men have to improve their methods of approach, make more approaches, and generally be proactive, if they want any results at all.

Of course, for married men, the problem is how to keep their wives interested in having sex with them. Again, if "being themselves" worked, they wouldn't be looking for a solution, as they wouldn't have a problem.


----------



## Icey181

always_alone said:


> Actually, they can. A very good friend of mine (a guy I once pursued and was rejected by many years ago) is exactly as you describe: smart, kind, introverted, unassuming. A wonderful person. He was average in terms of looks, build, fitness, etc., and also had a streak of pessimism and negativity that most certainly stood in his way.
> 
> And women did approach them. And eventually he found someone that he calls his "soulmate". So, happy ending, and he didn't have to be anyone but his own special slightly neurotic and wonderful self.
> 
> And as for women who get to just sit around and wait? Let me tell you, it can be a long, long, lonely wait if you just sit around and "be yourself".


Great for him.

Has not happened to a single man I have ever known in my entire life.

With the exception of my father. My mother is a very aggressive women.

My point is not that a man should not have to change in order to get what he wants, quite to the contrary.

My point is that he has to change.

Those of you going along with the "just be yourself" advice miss that point entirely.


----------



## UMP

Icey181 said:


> Men cannot simply be shy, introverted, smart, and cute and have women come over to them and offer up relationships.


Sorry to interrupt.
That is not my case AT ALL. I have / had women come up to me wanting to start "relationships" all the time. I am/was VERY shy and rarely approached women. More often than not, they would approach me as I was sitting alone, being introverted and shy.

You underestimate the power and desire of women. Women who want something go and get it, or at least try.


----------



## jld

technovelist said:


> While you are right in some cases, the main problem to which the Red Pill is addressed, for single men anyway, is that the number of women that many men can get by "being themselves" is zero. Thus, men have to improve their methods of approach, make more approaches, and generally be proactive, if they want any results at all.
> 
> Of course, for married men, the problem is how to keep their wives interested in having sex with them. Again, if "being themselves" worked, they wouldn't be looking for a solution, as they wouldn't have a problem.


Okay, you have to be "your best self," as SA once said.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Icey181 said:


> That is not an option for the men in my sphere of experience.
> 
> Men cannot simply be shy, introverted, smart, and cute and have women come over to them and offer up relationships.
> 
> They have to build up confidence, practice some "game" skills like flirting and asking women out, deal with a considerable amount of rejection, and push through.
> 
> They do not have the option, though many of us would have preferred it, to simply be ourselves and magically make contact with someone compatible.
> 
> That is not reality. That is 90s Romance-Comedy garbage.


My H has never had to game or approach women. They just came to him, an introverted guy who has no idea how to flirt or pick up women. 

Me, I have to put myself out there more. The hot guys are going after the hot outgoing girls, the average guys are going after the hot outgoing girls.

But I do agree that both genders need confidence and self-esteem. That is a must but it needs to be confidence in yourself, not fake confidence of this alter-ego you're trying to create, and leave the silly games to high school.


----------



## Icey181

This is something the Red Pill stuff is dead right on.

Women say "just be yourself."

What they mean is, "just be yourself," but also be confident, willing to put yourself out there, deal with rejection, and fight your way through to finding me and managing my barriers to establish and keep a relationship going.

That is _not_ just being yourself.


----------



## jld

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> But I do agree that both genders need confidence and self-esteem. That is a must but it needs to be confidence in yourself, not fake confidence of this alter-ego you're trying to create, and leave the silly games to high school.


:iagree:


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> The bolded happens every day in CWI.


Honestly never in the CWI section so I can't state what goes on there. I would hope that if it does you don't somehow use that that justify your stance as honestly that makes you no better.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Icey181 said:


> That was a pretty bad assumption that basically missed the mark by a mile.


So if being yourself got you women who were not very attractive or high on the sex ranking, would that be good enough for you?


----------



## jld

Icey181 said:


> This is something the Red Pill stuff is dead right on.
> 
> Women say "just be yourself."
> 
> What they mean is, "just be yourself," but also be confident, willing to put yourself out there, deal with rejection, and fight your way through to finding me and managing my barriers to establish and keep a relationship going.
> 
> That is _not_ just being yourself.


It is improving yourself, while still being authentic.


----------



## Jellybeans

Icey181 said:


> This is something the Red Pill stuff is dead right on.
> 
> Women say *"just be yourself."*
> 
> What they mean is, "just be yourself," but also *be confident, willing to put yourself out there, deal with rejection,* and fight your way through to finding me and managing my barriers to* establish and keep a relationship going.*
> 
> That is _not_ just being yourself.


All of that could be said of women.

Your posts seem really ranty at women. Like you've got a big 'ol chip on your shoulder.


----------



## always_alone

Icey181 said:


> My point is not that a man should not have to change in order to get what he wants, quite to the contrary.
> 
> My point is that he has to change.
> 
> Those of you going along with the "just be yourself" advice miss that point entirely.


And my point was that he doesn't necessarily have to change. 

He just needs to either be aware and receptive of who is approaching him, or he needs to recognize that finding a meaningful relationship can take time.

And the point that you keep missing is that all of this is equally true for women.


----------



## Icey181

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> So if being yourself got you women who were not very attractive or high on the sex ranking, would that be good enough for you?


Yeah, you seem to be under the misconception that you are talking to a "Red Pill bro."

You're not.

I have been with the same woman for 7-years, married for 3. 

When we met I was about 15lbs under weight for my height and she was about 20lbs overweight for hers.

You tell me.



Jellybeans; said:


> All of that could be said of women.


Some of it, not all of it. In my experience the rejection side of things tends to be the foray of men, not women.



Jellybeans; said:


> Your posts seem really ranty at women. Like you've got a big 'ol chip on your shoulder.


You're reading into things that are not there.



always_alone; said:


> And my point was that he doesn't necessarily have to change.
> 
> He just needs to either be aware and receptive of who is approaching him,


He is not being approached.

He is not getting to sit back and deal with parsing through the "dudettes" to find the diamond in the rough.

Not in my experience and not in the experience of my friends.



always_alone; said:


> or he needs to recognize that finding a meaningful relationship can take time.


I am not sure anyone disagrees with that.



always_alone; said:


> And the point that you keep missing is that all of this is equally true for women.


No, it is not.

Men are not approached in the way women are.

Period.

A handful of exceptions exist, but on balance, men are the pursuers and women the pursued.

A decently attractive guy at a bar is not going to be dealing with a dozen random girls coming on to him and offering him drinks.

It really does not work that way for most.


----------



## Icey181

This is true even in marriage.

The advice is still for the man to be the aggressor. He has to woo his wife. He has to date his wife. He has to ensure he is building attraction.

That is where most of this advice lies. 

The useful part of the Red Pill stuff is in just accepting that, telling guys this is the way it is, that it is not equal, deal with it, and hit the gym and be more confident.


----------



## GTdad

Icey181 said:


> This is true even in marriage.
> 
> The advice is still for the man to be the aggressor. He has to woo his wife. He has to date his wife. He has to ensure he is building attraction.
> 
> That is where most of this advice lies.
> 
> The useful part of the Red Pill stuff is in just accepting that, telling guys this is the way it is, that it is not equal, deal with it, and hit the gym and be more confident.


This, in a nutshell, is what I extracted from the Athol-type stuff. And it's significantly improved my marriage.

Still a work in progress, though.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Icey181 said:


> Yeah, you seem to be under the misconception that you are talking to a "Red Pill bro."
> 
> You're not.
> 
> I have been with the same woman for 7-years, married for 3.
> 
> When we met I was about 15lbs under weight for my height and she was about 20lbs overweight for hers.
> 
> You tell me.


Eh, 20 pounds overweight doesn't really tell me anything. 
What if the girl who approached you was 100 pounds overweight? Or someone who most of society would say was ugly or undesirable? 

I'm just trying to figure out if ANY woman approaching you would have been good enough or if it had to be one that you felt you deserved


----------



## Icey181

SlowlyGoingCrazy; said:


> Eh, 20 pounds overweight doesn't really tell me anything.
> What if the girl who approached you was 100 pounds overweight? Or someone who most of society would say was ugly or undesirable?
> 
> I'm just trying to figure out if ANY woman approaching you would have been good enough or if it had to be one that you felt you deserved


Are you really trying for the "You cannot have standards, or else you are a hypocrite" angle here? 

No one said women cannot have standards and need to accept all the men that approach them. The point is that men tend to lack the ability to sit back and be approached. 

Physical attraction and the ability to engage in mildly physically-strenuous activities are important to me, so no, I have never been attracted to a girl who was morbidly obese and did indeed turn down the one girl (High School) who approached me when she did.

I am also not attracted to drug-users, so that played a part in it to.


----------



## tech-novelist

UMP said:


> Sorry to interrupt.
> That is not my case AT ALL. I have / had women come up to me wanting to start "relationships" all the time. I am/was VERY shy and rarely approached women. More often than not, they would approach me as I was sitting alone, being introverted and shy.
> 
> You underestimate the power and desire of women. Women who want something go and get it, or at least try.


I haven't heard anyone saying that women won't go after what they want.

The question is how to make yourself someone they want.

Of course if you are already in that category, congratulations!

The other 80% of men have work to do.


----------



## naiveonedave

always_alone said:


> And again with the "works" thing. If my SO started flirting it up with OWs, I'd flat out tell him to have fun and have a nice life. I've never been attracted to a guy because someone else is, and I wouldn't want to stay with someone who is seeking validation from bevies of women. If he wants them, he knows where the door is.
> 
> Now, no doubt, seeing that their man is attractive to others may spark jealousy in a wife. Is that what you want? And if so, why keep pretending it's a 2x4 to the man? What you're really saying is that it is a 2x4 to the woman: put out or he'll get it somewhere else.
> 
> Is that what you want your relationship based on? I mean, I could just as easily head out there and attract a bunch of guys to make SO jealous of me, then use that jealousy every time I wanted something from him. Are you going to now tell me that this is perfectly okay, and not manipulative because it "works"?


that is not how preselection works. The theory, which has science behind it, is that if a woman notices a man is attractive, it is more likely other women in the area will notice as well. It has nothing at all to do with jealousy.

It is not what my relationship is based on. Not at all. It does, however, get my W's panties moist. Like or not, that is reality. I get my #1 "his need" met and my wife is not having any jealousy. 

You are projecting your own personal bias into this whole thing.


----------



## always_alone

Icey181 said:


> Men are not approached in the way women are.
> 
> Period.
> 
> A handful of exceptions exist, but on balance, men are the pursuers and women the pursued.
> 
> A decently attractive guy at a bar is not going to be dealing with a dozen random girls coming on to him and offering him drinks.
> 
> It really does not work that way for most.



And you really think that all women always have a dozen men hitting on them all the time? 

Okay, I realize that everything I say about this is simply going to be dismissed as an "exception" because I am like the most hideous creature in the universe. But, buddy, fantasize all you want: it ain't like that for women. Maybe some, especially the flirty and gregarious hotties. But not for most of us.

I'll grant you that the tradition is that men pursue and women are pursued, but the fact remains that women do pursue in spades and are often turned down because we aren't gregarious and flirty Dallas cheerleaders. Or because men get all uptight and feel emasculated by "aggressive" women.

And on the flip side: I've gone years -- *years* -- without anyone so much as offering to buy me a drink. 

So, you know, having a tough time feeling sorry for you.


----------



## naiveonedave

jld said:


> A man could take the initiative to find out why she is not responding, and inspire her to respond.
> 
> Sorry, not letting the guys off the hook.


this has been proven over and over to NOT work. I have been there, done that and have the t-shirt. It does not work. Human sexuality is not like that at all.


----------



## jld

naiveonedave said:


> this has been proven over and over to NOT work. I have been there, done that and have the t-shirt. It does not work. Human sexuality is not like that at all.


Works on me.


----------



## Brigit

always_alone said:


> And you really think that all women always have a dozen men hitting on them all the time?
> 
> Okay, I realize that everything I say about this is simply going to be dismissed as an "exception" because I am like the most hideous creature in the universe. But, buddy, fantasize all you want: it ain't like that for women. Maybe some, especially the flirty and gregarious hotties. But not for most of us.
> 
> I'll grant you that the tradition is that men pursue and women are pursued, but the fact remains that women do pursue in spades and are often turned down because we aren't gregarious and flirty Dallas cheerleaders. Or because men get all uptight and feel emasculated by "aggressive" women.
> 
> And on the flip side: I've gone years -- *years* -- without anyone so much as offering to buy me a drink.
> 
> So, you know, having a tough time feeling sorry for you.


Girlfriend! This is such a sad post. You're obviously very intelligent and I highly doubt that you are the most hideous creature in the universe. Hugs.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Icey181 said:


> Are you really trying for the "You cannot have standards, or else you are a hypocrite" angle here?
> 
> No one said women cannot have standards and need to accept all the men that approach them. The point is that men tend to lack the ability to sit back and be approached.
> 
> Physical attraction and the ability to engage in mildly physically-strenuous activities are important to me, so no, I have never been attracted to a girl who was morbidly obese and did indeed turn down the one girl (High School) who approached me when she did.
> 
> I am also not attracted to drug-users, so that played a part in it to.


No, have standards but just like you _could _get women who you wouldn't want, that's most of what the women are getting approached with too. Guys who they don't want and that might be someone like you. Don't change to pretend to be another one just keep moving along until you get to the right one just like we are trying to do (and yes, some women will also play the game of being the girl she thinks you want to get you) It never ends well for either of you.


----------



## naiveonedave

lifeistooshort said:


> See here you have a misconception. She was clearly willing to have sex with him, but for women that doesn't necessarily equal attraction. I can understand how this could be confusing for a guy, but keep in mind that traditionally men and women have been raised very differently. _Hence the need to re-train a man if he falls victim to this, don't you think?_
> 
> Men are raised to do for themselves and support their family; this freed them up to consider attraction as they could provide for their own basic needs. Women, otoh, were relegated to dependent status and HAD to find a man to support them. Whether they were actually attracted to the guy wasn't a consideration. It's nice to have it but in and of itself doesn't keep you and your kids from starving. _that paragraph is so wrong it is not funny in todays world_
> 
> In addition, since women had so few opportunities sex and her body was one of the few things she could leverage. So you can imagine that it's impracticable to use the one source of power you have solely for your physical pleasure.
> 
> I feel for guys in this way, you never know if your woman is into you or just willing to give it up, and they are different. If its the latter it's only a matter of time before she either cuts you off or offers up unsatisfying duty sex. _MMSL is a way to change this and it works_
> In my opinion the answer to this is the very feminism that so many men rail against. As women have equal power and can take care of themselves they become free to explore their sexuality and to look for a man who gets their motor running. How can this not be a good thing for guys? _Then why marry, if my W is just going to the next guy for sex?_[
> 
> I don't have a misconception. I want to have sex in marriage, that is not negotiable.


----------



## always_alone

naiveonedave said:


> that is not how preselection works. The theory, which has science behind it, is that if a woman notices a man is attractive, it is more likely other women in the area will notice as well. It has nothing at all to do with jealousy.


Look, I'm really glad (??!!??) for you that your wife is turned on by other women noticing your attractiveness, but there is no science to preselection whatsoever. 

Simply saying the word "science" doesn't make it so. 

And personally, I have never noticed a man is attractive because some other woman got there first. I make up my own mind.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

always_alone said:


> And you really think that all women always have a dozen men hitting on them all the time?
> 
> Okay, I realize that everything I say about this is simply going to be dismissed as an "exception" because I am like the most hideous creature in the universe.  But, buddy, fantasize all you want: it ain't like that for women. Maybe some, especially the flirty and gregarious hotties. But not for most of us.
> 
> I'll grant you that the tradition is that men pursue and women are pursued, but the fact remains that women do pursue in spades and are often turned down because we aren't gregarious and flirty Dallas cheerleaders. Or because men get all uptight and feel emasculated by "aggressive" women.
> 
> And on the flip side: I've gone years -- *years* -- without anyone so much as offering to buy me a drink.
> 
> So, you know, having a tough time feeling sorry for you.


1- you are beautiful and amazing 
and yep, I spent 3 years without so much as a look my way. I'm not terrible, just your average girl who doesn't grab anyone's attention while the guys are almost running me over in the cross walk because a hot girl walked by and they got all distracted. 
I get hit on sometimes now but it's really just homeless guys and/or c*cky d*uchebags.


----------



## UMP

technovelist said:


> I haven't heard anyone saying that women won't go after what they want.
> 
> The question is how to make yourself someone they want.
> 
> Of course if you are already in that category, congratulations!
> 
> The other 80% of men have work to do.



If we can assume that a woman wants a "man" then we need to define what a "man" is.

Here is my definition.
A man is confident in who he is. He needs not be so attractive, but regardless of his looks, he is happy and content in who and what he is and does not care in the least what others think of him. He must be self sufficient and able to provide for his dependants. He is a fortress for his woman. A refuge and a protector. He must be in control of his emotions and lead himself and his family toward a safe and content state of being.
He must value his wife and family above himself in the sense that he will listen and accept criticism from his wife and family and be willing to improve himself accordingly. He must make love to his woman as if she is the most beautiful, sexiest woman on earth and make her cum like a volcano. A man with a plan.

I guarantee you, regardless of your looks, if you embody the above traits, you will have women falling all over you.

If that's the red pill, then I'm all in.


----------



## naiveonedave

jld said:


> I cannot get behind mind tricks, John.


well, John is not having sex, and will eventually D over this, per his other posts. What is he supposed to do? Go without and suck it up or try everything in his power?


----------



## tech-novelist

always_alone said:


> And you really think that all women always have a dozen men hitting on them all the time?
> 
> Okay, I realize that everything I say about this is simply going to be dismissed as an "exception" because I am like the most hideous creature in the universe. But, buddy, fantasize all you want: it ain't like that for women. Maybe some, especially the flirty and gregarious hotties. But not for most of us.
> 
> I'll grant you that the tradition is that men pursue and women are pursued, but the fact remains that women do pursue in spades and are often turned down because we aren't gregarious and flirty Dallas cheerleaders. Or because men get all uptight and feel emasculated by "aggressive" women.
> 
> And on the flip side: I've gone years -- *years* -- without anyone so much as offering to buy me a drink.
> 
> So, you know, having a tough time feeling sorry for you.


No one has *ever *offered to buy me a drink.
That is true for most men.
And as far as I can remember, no woman has *ever *come onto me. It's entirely possible that I missed indicators of interest (IOIs) in my youth, but the Red Pill hadn't been formulated then. In any event, IOIs are invitations to be approached, not approaches in themselves.


----------



## naiveonedave

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> That's the key. You could get women by being yourselves but they wouldn't be the ones you are interested in. They aren't good enough for you, just like you aren't good enough for the ones you want. So instead of trying to find an equal, you want better and then you have to spend your whole marriage playing catch up.


talk about an assumption? The book is written for the already married guy. He 'got' the girl he wanted and wanted him. Then what happened? 

This is not a guide for picking up chicks or getting in a new relationship. Remember the gawd darn context - more sex w/your wife.


----------



## Faithful Wife

naiveonedave said:


> that is not how preselection works. The theory, which has science behind it, is that if a woman notices a man is attractive, it is more likely other women in the area will notice as well. It has nothing at all to do with jealousy.


Please show us the science behind this. Something other than anything written by a red pill author. I'll be waiting.


----------



## naiveonedave

jld said:


> Works on me.


but you are already having a lot of sex w/your husband. You need to remember the audience and the context. The audience is the man with little sex and the context is he tried the 'nice' straight forward, chocolates, flowers and cards track and it didn't work.


----------



## tech-novelist

always_alone said:


> Look, I'm really glad (??!!??) for you that your wife is turned on by other women noticing your attractiveness, but there is no science to preselection whatsoever.
> 
> Simply saying the word "science" doesn't make it so.
> 
> And personally, I have never noticed a man is attractive because some other woman got there first. I make up my own mind.


As you might imagine, investigating anything related to the Red Pill is highly politically incorrect, so I doubt we will see any academic research on preselection anytime soon. But here is a report of one experiment on it (warning, crass website):

https://heartiste.wordpress.com/201...onfirmed-game-concept-influencing-perception/


----------



## naiveonedave

always_alone said:


> Look, I'm really glad (??!!??) for you that your wife is turned on by other women noticing your attractiveness, but there is no science to preselection whatsoever.
> 
> Simply saying the word "science" doesn't make it so.
> 
> And personally, I have never noticed a man is attractive because some other woman got there first. I make up my own mind.


actually, there is science. Sorry you are not willing to admit it. It is not at a conscious level, so last paragraph is irrelevant.

This is very typical: at a fundraiser banquet. Wife wanders off to chat with others. Married friend of hers is talking to me, she returns, we have a good romp at night. I didn't flirt, was totally in mixed company the whole time, including the H of the friend. I see this all the time. Go to a bar some time and just watch, it is actually kinda comical.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

naiveonedave said:


> talk about an assumption? The book is written for the already married guy. He 'got' the girl he wanted and wanted him. Then what happened?
> 
> This is not a guide for picking up chicks or getting in a new relationship. Remember the gawd darn context - more sex w/your wife.


Ya, that was OT from the men don't get approached by women conversation.


----------



## naiveonedave

I was not being approached. It was just obvious she liked me.


----------



## Brigit

technovelist said:


> No one has *ever *offered to buy me a drink.
> That is true for most men.
> And as far as I can remember, no woman has *ever *come onto me. It's entirely possible that I missed indicators of interest (IOIs) in my youth, but the Red Pill hadn't been formulated then. In any event, IOIs are invitations to be approached, not approaches in themselves.


Yes. That is true for most men. We as women EXPECT you to pursue us because we know that men like the chase. That was where the term "Play hard to get" came from. 

Men and women will always play courtship/romance games with each other. A little bit of game playing is normal. But this whole Red Pill Crap is over-the-top and will probably lead to more destruction than better marriages if it's taken too seriously.


----------



## Icey181

always_alone; said:


> And you really think that all women always have a dozen men hitting on them all the time?
> 
> Okay, I realize that everything I say about this is simply going to be dismissed as an "exception" because I am like the most hideous creature in the universe. But, buddy, fantasize all you want: it ain't like that for women. Maybe some, especially the flirty and gregarious hotties. But not for most of us.


Not sure there is much a point in responding to a response to something I did not say.

Never claimed all women always have dozens of men hanging off of them.

Never made any claim to you being a "hideous creature."

Quite simply, I stated that normally, women are approached and men are not.

There is a pretty clear gender difference in the dating realm which was true for my father and uncles, it was true when I was single, and it is still true for my students.

I have yet to see a "Guys Drink Free" night at a local bar where women approach shy and introverted guys and ask them out.

But maybe my college town is the only one not doing this?



always_alone; said:


> I'll grant you that the tradition is that men pursue and women are pursued, but the fact remains that women do pursue in spades and are often turned down because we aren't gregarious and flirty Dallas cheerleaders. Or because men get all uptight and feel emasculated by "aggressive" women.


Of course some women pursue some men. And some men have issues with aggressive women.

But if you honestly think that men, especially shy and introverted men, being approached by women is anything other than the exception, I would be really interested to hear where you are seeing this happen.

Because that was not true for the entirety of my college years and it continues to not be true for the single guys I still know today.



always_alone; said:


> And on the flip side: I've gone years -- *years* -- without anyone so much as offering to buy me a drink.
> 
> So, you know, having a tough time feeling sorry for you.


I do not recall asking you to feel sorry.

I was just pointing out that as a women, you get to have a legitimate feeling of "rejection" when someone does not offer to buy you a drink for years.

Whereas the men assume, a priori, that no one is going to buy them a drink.

There is a fundamental difference here and I see it literally every night I do trivia at a bar, talked with my friends about their weekend, or hear my students talking about their weekends.


----------



## naiveonedave

Brigit said:


> Yes. That is true for most men. We as women EXPECT you to pursue us because we know that men like the chase. That was where the term "Play hard to get" came from.
> 
> Men and women will always play courtship/romance games with each other. A little bit of game playing is normal. But this whole Red Pill Crap is over-the-top and will probably lead to more destruction than better marriages if it's taken too seriously.


so all women all over the world decided, consciously, to never pursue a man? 

Red pill can be over the top. I agree, but to dismiss it out of hand is crazy. It also is not woman hate, as FW and AA want to lead us to believe.


----------



## Icey181

SlowlyGoingCrazy; said:


> No, have standards but just like you _could _get women who you wouldn't want, that's most of what the women are getting approached with too.


Correction.

I could get with the _one_ women who approached me.

How are you not getting this difference?

The choice was not me having to sift through a bunch of bad choices to hopefully find a decent potential GF.

The choice was this _one girl_ or _none_.



SlowlyGoingCrazy; said:


> Guys who they don't want and that might be someone like you. Don't change to pretend to be another one just keep moving along until you get to the right one just like we are trying to do (and yes, some women will also play the game of being the girl she thinks you want to get you) It never ends well for either of you.


With the singular exception, that I am expected to be more confident, more aggressive, and get outside of my comfort zone to approach her.

I find it weird that women seem to think that asking a man to make all of those changes does not somehow constitute change.


----------



## Faithful Wife

naiveonedave said:


> actually, there is science. Sorry you are not willing to admit it. It is not at a conscious level, so last paragraph is irrelevant.


Again please provide anything that could prove that there is science behind this and the source.


----------



## tech-novelist

Brigit said:


> Yes. That is true for most men. We as women EXPECT you to pursue us because we know that men like the chase. That was where the term "Play hard to get" came from.
> 
> Men and women will always play courtship/romance games with each other. A little bit of game playing is normal. But this whole Red Pill Crap is over-the-top and will probably lead to more destruction than better marriages if it's taken too seriously.


Many, perhaps most, men do NOT like the chase. It is a burden on them, not a benefit.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Let's keep this in perspective....

Amazon rankings:

The top 4 best selling books in relationships are written by Chapman or Gottman.

7 Principals book, overall Amazon ranking (of ALL books for sale on Amazon) = 4108

His Needs Her needs, overall Amazon ranking = 1636

No More Mr. Nice Guy, overall Amazon ranking = 2260






MMSL, overall amazon ranking = 234,767 and is not on the relationship list at all.


----------



## Brigit

naiveonedave said:


> so all women all over the world decided, consciously, to never pursue a man?
> 
> Red pill can be over the top. I agree, but to dismiss it out of hand is crazy. It also is not woman hate, as FW and AA want to lead us to believe.


FW quoted really mean and nasty passages. So while some of the book might be fine there is a lot that is cruel and inappropriate which is why I don't like the author. I heard he comes here from time to time. Would love for him to have an open discussion with the females of The Ladies Lounge.

I cannot speak for all women of the world, I can only speak from my experience and the girls I hung out with when I was in the dating scene. Here is a list of things that we lived by:

1. No approaching men
2. No paying for dates
3. Guy must come to your house and pick you up for date. No meeting him anywhere. 
4. First date must be a restaurant or the guy doesn't really like you.

There were more but I can't remember them all. There was a book called "The Rules" I liked that book.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

naiveonedave said:


> actually, there is science. Sorry you are not willing to admit it. It is not at a conscious level, so last paragraph is irrelevant.
> 
> This is very typical: at a fundraiser banquet. Wife wanders off to chat with others. Married friend of hers is talking to me, she returns, we have a good romp at night. I didn't flirt, was totally in mixed company the whole time, including the H of the friend. I see this all the time. Go to a bar some time and just watch, it is actually kinda comical.


So I'll ask again-

Would you suggest a woman make herself more attractive to other men, including buying herself flowers, going out without telling him where, putting on sexy clothes to meet with friends, in order to get a guy to do something?

And as a woman who's seen women hit on and look at her H- it doesn't do anything for me. It's a little annoying and insulting but it doesn't turn me on. I know he can find other women, that's fine, makes no difference to our issues and attractiveness.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

technovelist said:


> Many, perhaps most, men do NOT like the chase. It is a burden on them, not a benefit.


Sure but when they get the sexually aggressive girl who approaches who she wants, when she wants all of a sudden 5 years later they are dwelling on her past and how much of a slvt she was.

The reason so many guys like the chase is because they want to think you aren't giving it up too easy and can be their perfect, virgin sweet girl.


----------



## tech-novelist

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> So I'll ask again-
> 
> Would you suggest a woman make herself more attractive to other men, including buying herself flowers, going out without telling him where, putting on sexy clothes to meet with friends, in order to get a guy to do something?
> 
> And as a woman who's seen women hit on and look at her H- it doesn't do anything for me. It's a little annoying and insulting but it doesn't turn me on. I know he can find other women, that's fine, makes no difference to our issues and attractiveness.


Pre-selection only works when men do it. That's because men don't need other men to point out attractive women, as female attractiveness is primarily visual. Men's attractiveness is more complicated, so having other women pay attention to a man is a shortcut that women use (subconsciously). In other words, if other women are paying attention to a man, he is probably attractive in some way that may not be immediately visible, e.g., being a celebrity of some sort.


----------



## Faithful Wife

naiveonedave said:


> It also is not woman hate, as FW and AA want to lead us to believe.


I don't actually think it is woman hate, I think it is resentment against women because some of you men think we have all the power.

Of course if you think that, then we do.


----------



## EllisRedding

Faithful Wife said:


> Let's keep this in perspective....
> 
> Amazon rankings:
> 
> The top 4 best selling books in relationships are written by Chapman or Gottman.
> 
> 7 Principals book, overall Amazon ranking (of ALL books for sale on Amazon) = 4108
> 
> His Needs Her needs, overall Amazon ranking = 1636
> 
> No More Mr. Nice Guy, overall Amazon ranking = 2260
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MMSL, overall amazon ranking = 234,767 and is not on the relationship list at all.


So if that is the case than maybe MMSL doesn't deserve all these threads to discuss


----------



## tech-novelist

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Sure but when they get the sexually aggressive girl who approaches who she wants, when she wants all of a sudden 5 years later they are dwelling on her past and how much of a slvt she was.
> 
> The reason so many guys like the chase is because they want to think you aren't giving it up too easy and can be their perfect, virgin sweet girl.


This is all hypothetical to me, since as I've said, I've never been approached by a woman.


----------



## Married but Happy

Taken men are sometimes more attractive to women, and when hit upon by those other women, they are triggered to compete to retain their mate. Very simple psychology - if indeed taken men are more attractive to some women (which does seem to be the case).

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/apologies-freud/201210/why-women-want-married-men



> When single women see a moderately attractive male, they are more interested in him if they believe he is already in a relationship! In fact, one sizable study found 90 percent of single women were interested in a man who they believed was taken, while a mere 59 percent wanted him when told he was single.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

EllisRedding said:


> So if that is the case than maybe MMSL doesn't deserve all these threads to discuss


Only on this forum. I've never heard of it anywhere else but it's like the bible here. I think if it's going to be one of the most promoted books on this site it's good for people to have discussions about it on this site.


----------



## Icey181

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Sure but when they get the sexually aggressive girl who approaches who she wants, when she wants all of a sudden 5 years later they are dwelling on her past and how much of a slvt she was.
> 
> The reason so many guys like the chase is because they want to think you aren't giving it up too easy and can be their perfect, virgin sweet girl.


There is a difference between a confident and aggressive woman who approaches a man she is interested in as a potential LTR and a party girl who approaches the men she is interested in sleeping with.

Guys tend to have issues with the latter, not the former.

As far as the chase? Waste of time and not fun.

The only guys I ever knew who liked "the chase" were the ones who were "getting laid" on the weekends.

It had nothing to do with a real relationship.


----------



## Pluto2

So I did a google search for "science of preselection" Some of what I got was completely off topic. Those that were pertinent were:

Attract More Women - Pre-Selection | Evan Hawk on dating

Pre-selection - Alpha Men

What Is Preselection and How It Can Get You Laid -...

All said there was "actual science" behind their dating theories, but never bothered to say what that was. 

Obviously I didn't conduct a "scientific" survey, just a brief observation.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

technovelist said:


> Pre-selection only works when men do it. That's because men don't need other men to point out attractive women, as female attractiveness is primarily visual. Men's attractiveness is more complicated, so having other women pay attention to a man is a shortcut that women use (subconsciously). In other words, if other women are paying attention to a man, he is probably attractive in some way that may not be immediately visible, e.g., being a celebrity of some sort.


Men compete for women too and plenty of women are attracted to visual attractiveness just like many men. It's not complicated.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Pluto2 said:


> All said there was "actual science" behind their dating theories, but never bothered to say what that was.


Red pill authors: Now with 20% more science!

Me: Wait, what science, can you please point to your source?

Red pill authors: You won't get it, you're a woman.

Me: But I thought you said there was actual science, seems it would be easy to show that if there was some.

Red pill authors: Look, a monkey! (runs)


----------



## lifeistooshort

naiveonedave said:


> lifeistooshort said:
> 
> 
> 
> See here you have a misconception. She was clearly willing to have sex with him, but for women that doesn't necessarily equal attraction. I can understand how this could be confusing for a guy, but keep in mind that traditionally men and women have been raised very differently. _Hence the need to re-train a man if he falls victim to this, don't you think?_
> 
> Men are raised to do for themselves and support their family; this freed them up to consider attraction as they could provide for their own basic needs. Women, otoh, were relegated to dependent status and HAD to find a man to support them. Whether they were actually attracted to the guy wasn't a consideration. It's nice to have it but in and of itself doesn't keep you and your kids from starving. _that paragraph is so wrong it is not funny in todays world_
> 
> In addition, since women had so few opportunities sex and her body was one of the few things she could leverage. So you can imagine that it's impracticable to use the one source of power you have solely for your physical pleasure.
> 
> I feel for guys in this way, you never know if your woman is into you or just willing to give it up, and they are different. If its the latter it's only a matter of time before she either cuts you off or offers up unsatisfying duty sex. _MMSL is a way to change this and it works_
> In my opinion the answer to this is the very feminism that so many men rail against. As women have equal power and can take care of themselves they become free to explore their sexuality and to look for a man who gets their motor running. How can this not be a good thing for guys? _Then why marry, if my W is just going to the next guy for sex?_[
> 
> I don't have a misconception. I want to have sex in marriage, that is not negotiable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it wrong? Because you don't like it? Men are fond of pointing to biology as it suits them but apparently in this instance it doesn't suit you.
> 
> And you do have a misconception. You assume that because a woman marries you she's turned on by you. That isn't necessarily true. I get that you want sex in your marriage and that's fine, my point was how do you know your wife was really turned on by you in the first place? Maybe she was and something else is going on, but many times men don't actually know that.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
Click to expand...


----------



## Anon Pink

Icey181 said:


> Most women have no idea the amount of effort and modification it requires a man to make in order to build attraction and find LTRs.
> 
> *Most men cannot "just be themselves" and attract women*.
> 
> In fact, that is exactly the false and failed advice a generation of men have found to be utterly useless that has spurned the growth of MGTOW and Red Pill stuff in the first place.
> 
> There is a considerable amount of work for a lot of men to step well outside of their comfort zones and become the kind of men that will be attractive to the women they are interested in.
> 
> Once you are in a relationship the whole "just be yourself" advice is helpful…until it is not and you have husbands hitting the internet to find an explanation for why they have not had sex in 6-months or a year.


Some men really should NOT be themselves, at least not when anyone at all can see them, especially a LTR partner.


----------



## Fozzy

naiveonedave said:


> so all women all over the world decided, consciously, to never pursue a man?
> 
> Red pill can be over the top. I agree, but to dismiss it out of hand is crazy. *It also is not woman hate, as FW and AA want to lead us to believe*.


Whether it causes the hate, or simply attracts men that already have the hate in their heart is debatable. But the hate is there, nonetheless.

Go over to r/TheRedPill on Reddit and browse through some comments. That place should have been named r/TheCrazyPill


----------



## tech-novelist

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Men compete for women too and plenty of women are attracted to visual attractiveness just like many men. It's not complicated.


Women are also attracted to men who are powerful and/or famous, whereas the reverse is not true, and there are a lot of other attractive characteristics that apply one way and not the other. So it is indeed complicated.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Fozzy said:


> Whether it causes the hate, or simply attracts men that already have the hate in their heart is debatable. But the hate is there, nonetheless.
> 
> Go over to r/TheRedPill on Reddit and browse through some comments. That place should have been named r/TheCrazyPill


:allhail:


----------



## always_alone

Brigit said:


> Girlfriend! This is such a sad post. You're obviously very intelligent and I highly doubt that you are the most hideous creature in the universe. Hugs.


Well, apparently I must be. Because as everyone knows, all women have to do is sit back and wait for men to slavishly serve them, then turn up their noses until he decides to alpha up.

Since that is not my reality, what else can I conclude?


----------



## always_alone

technovelist said:


> As you might imagine, investigating anything related to the Red Pill is highly politically incorrect, so I doubt we will see any academic research on preselection anytime soon. But here is a report of one experiment on it (warning, crass website):
> 
> https://heartiste.wordpress.com/201...onfirmed-game-concept-influencing-perception/


OMG. If you are going to cite heartiste as "science" because there isn't enough actual academic research ....

well, let's just say I see absolutely zero support for preselection here.


----------



## Faithful Wife

always_alone said:


> Well, apparently I must be. Because as everyone knows, all women have to do is sit back and wait for men to slavishly serve them, then turn up their noses until he decides to alpha up.
> 
> Since that is not my reality, what else can I conclude?


I didn't "like" your post because you are hideous (not true), I liked it because of the point you are making.

Men tend to think that ALL women just sit back and a man train lines up to get numbers from them.

This just isn't the case.

Women get rejected all the time, we hurt just as badly when it happens, especially when we put ourselves out there....and if we say anything about it, men either assume we're not attractive enough to bag a dude or that we only went after some Channing Tatum dude.

But the reality is, women go after normal dudes and get turned down all the time.

Why?

Because like I said in an earlier post, there must be MUTUAL attraction and if it isn't there, nothing can proceed (unless one of them is faking the attraction).

So anyone who has been rejected has experienced this.

It doesn't actually mean anything.

But men tend to think it means the end of their lives or something, to be rejected by a woman they were into. Meanwhile, they scoff at the idea women are ever rejected at all.


----------



## Faithful Wife

technovelist said: *As you might imagine, investigating anything related to the Red Pill is highly politically incorrect, so I doubt we will see any academic research on preselection anytime soon.*

But wait....I thought you said there WAS SCIENCE behind this?

Now there can't be any science because it would be politically incorrect to study it?

Which one is it now?

Look, a monkey!


----------



## Faithful Wife

Blonde said:


> Somewhere on his website I read that he was formerly Christian. I wonder if his daddy was a "christian" like my H?
> 
> His male leadership schtick is all the rage with lots of evangelical sects and I noticed lots of self professed christian men posting their agreement on his blog posts about men lead and women submit.


It is interesting that he now claims to be an atheist.


----------



## always_alone

technovelist said:


> Pre-selection only works when men do it. That's because men don't need other men to point out attractive women ....


Don't you know? It's all unconscious. You don't even realize you're doing it.


----------



## Fozzy

The only time I was ever approached by a woman, I turned her down. She was actually fairly attractive too, but I was already dating my wife at the time. If she'd gotten to me a few months before that, I probably would have gone out with her.


----------



## Icey181

always_alone said:


> Well, apparently I must be. Because as everyone knows, all women have to do is sit back and wait for men to slavishly serve them, then turn up their noses until he decides to alpha up.
> 
> Since that is not my reality, what else can I conclude?


Beyond the caricature, the same stuff the Red Pill advice tells men.

Do things to improve your physical appearance (hit the gym, try some new clothes) build some confidence and interesting things to talk about (get some independent hobbies and try to make them social hobbies), just accept things are not equal or fair, find a way to deal with it, and be more aggressive.

Essentially, change.

That is one of the better things that Red Pill stuff does. It basically looks men in the face and tells them to ignore the feel good "just be yourself" advice and start a dedicated path of self-improvement.


----------



## always_alone

Icey181 said:


> Beyond the caricature, the same stuff the Red Pill advice tells men.
> 
> Do things to improve your physical appearance (hit the gym, try some new clothes) build some confidence and interesting things to talk about (get some independent hobbies and try to make them social hobbies), just accept things are not equal or fair, find a way to deal with it, and be more aggressive.
> 
> Essentially, change.
> 
> That is one of the better things that Red Pill stuff does. It basically looks men in the face and tells them to ignore the feel good "just be yourself" advice and start a dedicated path of self-improvement.



And do I get to also throw in an extra 300 pages of vitriol against men to give me that 2X4 that I need?

Or could I just, you know, try to be the best me that I can be and let the chips fall where they may.


----------



## Icey181

Faithful Wife; said:


> I didn't "like" your post because you are hideous (not true), I liked it because of the point you are making.
> 
> Men tend to think that ALL women just sit back and a man train lines up to get numbers from them.


Hardly.

We can recognize that women receive the lion's share of un-solicited romantic/lustful attention without making clearly incorrect absolute statements about how all women always get all attention.

Just about none of the Absolute Generalizations guys like Athol advance actually pass the smell test.

I find it interesting when women actually attempt to argue that men are approached as much as women are.

The bar for non-approach for women is not a nice one; it basically carries with it the claim that you are not attractive, at all.

For men it is different.

We assume we will not be approached unless we are the most handsome man in the room.

Which is why, in my experience, when a woman comes up to a man, he takes it as a nice change of pace.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Fozzy said:


> The only time I was ever approached by a woman, I turned her down. She was actually fairly attractive too, but I was already dating my wife at the time. If she'd gotten to me a few months before that, I probably would have gone out with her.


You lady killer.


----------



## RoseAglow

naiveonedave said:


> that is not how preselection works. The theory, which has science behind it, is that if a woman notices a man is attractive, it is more likely other women in the area will notice as well. It has nothing at all to do with jealousy.


So wait- if a hot guy walks into the room, is he noticed because he's hot? Or is he ONLY hot if another woman thinks so? Is he not hot if only one woman thinks so, but others don't?

:scratchhead:

I don't know- if a hot guy walks into the room, probably most women are going to think he's hot. Not everyone thinks George Cloony is all that, but many women do. (Not everyone thinks Jennifer Aniston is all that, either, but I can't understand it!)


----------



## Icey181

always_alone said:


> And do I get to also throw in an extra 300 pages of vitriol against men to give me that 2X4 that I need?


I would not find it useful. The anger-based stuff is understandable, but completely runs against the point.

It gets in the way and is, I think, just a trap for people like Athol to maintain a group of guys who never escape the anger-phase and therefore always need his advice…at low low prices of only two installments…



always_alone said:


> Or could I just, you know, try to be the best me that I can be and let the chips fall where they may.


Indeed.

But you could not simply tell people to be themselves to accomplish this.


----------



## naiveonedave

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> So I'll ask again-
> 
> Would you suggest a woman make herself more attractive to other men, including buying herself flowers, going out without telling him where, putting on sexy clothes to meet with friends, in order to get a guy to do something?
> 
> And as a woman who's seen women hit on and look at her H- it doesn't do anything for me. It's a little annoying and insulting but it doesn't turn me on. I know he can find other women, that's fine, makes no difference to our issues and attractiveness.


You are totally missing the point. The context: man not having any or very little sex with wife. In the western hemisphere, that typically means he is being too 'beta'. He is doting over his wife, doing too many chores, not leading at all, following her whim.

If a woman wanted more sex from her husband, I don't know what she should do, because of evolution, the rules are different in each direction.

The pre-selection thing is subconscious. You can't tell me about your subconscious, well, because by definition it is not something you control. My example was not manipulation, either. I didn't initiate the convo, her husband did. My W just happened to see an attractive (though less attractive than my W, imo) talking to me. That night she initiated for the 1st time in over a year, WHY?


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> Men tend to think that ALL women just sit back and a man train lines up to get numbers from them.
> 
> This just isn't the case.
> 
> Women get rejected all the time, we hurt just as badly when it happens, especially when we put ourselves out there....and if we say anything about it, men either assume we're not attractive enough to bag a dude or that we only went after some Channing Tatum dude.
> 
> But the reality is, women go after normal dudes and get turned down all the time.


Well, and this is exactly my point! This idea that women don't ever have to lift a finger, and will by default have all the choice in the world is just absurd. 

Women are under just as much pressure as men to "not be who we are". If I want to be hit on, go on dates, well, I have to change to suit someone else's ideas of attractiveness ... 

or, if I insist on being me, then wait until I can find someone that actually finds me attractive.


----------



## naiveonedave

RoseAglow said:


> So wait- if a hot guy walks into the room, is he noticed because he's hot? Or is he ONLY hot if another woman thinks so? Is he not hot if only one woman thinks so, but others don't?
> 
> :scratchhead:
> 
> I don't know- if a hot guy walks into the room, probably most women are going to think he's hot. Not everyone thinks George Cloony is all that, but many women do. (Not everyone thinks Jennifer Aniston is all that, either, but I can't understand it!)


You miss the point, a 7 walks into the room. Some nominal 7 woman and he start chatting. Soon many woman notice this and join in. All subconscious.


----------



## Faithful Wife

RoseAglow said:


> So wait- if a hot guy walks into the room, is he noticed because he's hot? Or is he ONLY hot if another woman thinks so? Is he not hot if only one woman thinks so, but others don't?


Also, what if the women hanging around him are his sisters?

Do we subconsciously know this and realize these women are NOT actually sexually attracted to him?

What if the women hanging around him are not attractive women, then will we still think he is hot?

What if he actually isn't hot to us at all, but he is surrounded by hot women....then we will automatically think he is hot? But then when all the women leave and I'm stuck with Danny Devito, I will still think he's hot?

What if I'm gay? Then I will somehow become straight because hot women are surrounding a guy? I'm pretty sure I'd just go for the women and wonder why they are hanging around with their brother all the time instead of me.

What if the guy is gay? 

Inquiring minds wish there was actually science behind this so we would know.


----------



## Faithful Wife

naiveonedave said:


> you miss the point, a 7 walks into the room. Some nominal 7 woman and he start chatting. Soon many woman notice this and join in. All subconscious.


We are waiting for you to show proof of this.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Icey181 said:


> Beyond the caricature, the same stuff the Red Pill advice tells men.
> 
> Do things to improve your physical appearance (hit the gym, try some new clothes) build some confidence and interesting things to talk about (get some independent hobbies and try to make them social hobbies), just accept things are not equal or fair, find a way to deal with it, and be more aggressive.
> 
> Essentially, change.
> 
> That is one of the better things that Red Pill stuff does. It basically looks men in the face and tells them to ignore the feel good "just be yourself" advice and start a dedicated path of self-improvement.


A ways back in this thread there was a bit of discussion about make-up and beauty products women use.

This movement is complaining that because some men feel they have to get in shape and make some tweaks to get female attention that it's not fair.

But many of the women who are buying the make-up and the sexy clothes and the beauty products and the shaving everything and the diet and gym stuff, are doing it for the same reason- they feel they need to to get male attention (note- not all)

So it's not fair that you need to do something that many women have already been doing for years?

Thinking of the average woman you see getting hit on out in public- do you think she's done _nothing _to improve parts of herself (physical or otherwise- make-up, hair, weight, clothes, hobbies, confidence, etc) to have more success?


----------



## Anon Pink

naiveonedave said:


> that is not how preselection works. The theory, which has science behind it, is that if a woman notices a man is attractive, it is more likely other women in the area will notice as well. It has nothing at all to do with jealousy.
> 
> It is not what my relationship is based on. Not at all. It does, however, get my W's panties moist. Like or not, that is reality. I get my #1 "his need" met and my wife is not having any jealousy.
> 
> You are projecting your own personal bias into this whole thing.


In all fairness, there is some very scant science to preselection and the influence of peer selection. But it is very scant and 95% of psychological researches as well as social scientists turn their noses up on the relevance of what little research there is. But still, to say the thing is true and to say that there is science behind it, is highly misleading and inaccurate.

From an evolutionary standpoint, female mammals who do all the work to raise offspring are the ones who choose their partners while males compete with other makes to be chosen. What I extrolate from that is a lesson to men: If you want to be picked, show her how skilled you are at providing AND parenting. 

Of course, this doesn't have any relevant ties to adult humans and most particularly to adult humans who are not invested in bringing more children into the home.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

naiveonedave said:


> You are totally missing the point. The context: man not having any or very little sex with wife. In the western hemisphere, that typically means he is being too 'beta'. He is doting over his wife, doing too many chores, not leading at all, following her whim.


Seriously, the only place I have ever heard of this is TAM. It happens but it's not typical or majority. I've talked to and read many women over the years and the reasons for lacking sex are many (most common one I've heard in my life- he doesn't do enough around the house and leaves it all to me and/or he's not romantic anymore). 
You'd need to know the man, woman and situation before making a judgment on WHY the sex is not there. You being beta may have been your problem but you are not all or most men.


----------



## RoseAglow

naiveonedave said:


> You miss the point, a 7 walks into the room. Some nominal 7 woman and he start chatting. Soon many woman notice this and join in. All subconscious.


Are you suggesting that this 7 has now become an 8? Or that the other women didn't realize he was a 7 until the "nominal" 7 did? 

I am quite sure I've seen men flock around an attractive woman. That's nothing new. 

I am not clear on what phenomenon "pre-selection" is describing.

If it's the idea that one's attraction to their mate gets bumped up other people find said mate attractive, I'll go with that. It goes both ways, though.

I know for certain that some men also have a lot of pride about being seen with an attractive woman. They might not like it if their woman is being hit on, but they certainly enjoy it when other people think that their spouse is attractive.

I get a kick out of it when people tell me that my husband is a good-looking guy.


----------



## Pluto2

naiveonedave said:


> You miss the point, a 7 walks into the room. Some nominal 7 woman and he start chatting. Soon many woman notice this and join in. All subconscious.


Dude, we're not a bunch of mindless sheep.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I just wanted to share this...a woman who doesn't want to join the thread PM'd me with this very sad story (I have pulled out anything that could identify her):

(quote)

The man who raped me was deep in Red Pill culture. He was super unpopular and made fun of in middle/high school. I knew him since middle school. He was 2 years ahead of me. We went to the same college. I asked him to show me around. We hung out in the same friend groups. Not a close friend at all, I felt he was a bit off and seemed bitter at times, but I always was nice and tried to include him...I should have listened to my instincts about how bitter he was. Because when he got the chance he raped me to punish me. Why? Because I was an attractive woman and he never had sex. I was a stand-in for all women. 

This mindset has serious consequences. 

Thank you for standing up against that mindset.

(end quote)

She went on to say she knows not all men are rapists and she is working on forgiveness and moving past it. Her point was simply the red pill mindset was behind this guy's motivations.

I'm not saying red pillers are rapists. But it is also fair to share an actual story like this one (she gave me permission to copy part of it).


----------



## EllisRedding

The easiest way to sum up men and women when it comes to sex/attraction


----------



## Brigit

always_alone said:


> Well, apparently I must be. Because as everyone knows, all women have to do is sit back and wait for men to slavishly serve them, then turn up their noses until he decides to alpha up.
> 
> Since that is not my reality, what else can I conclude?


There is a lot more to it than that. Are you single?


----------



## always_alone

Married but Happy said:


> Taken men are sometimes more attractive to women, and when hit upon by those other women, they are triggered to compete to retain their mate. Very simple psychology - if indeed taken men are more attractive to some women (which does seem to be the case).
> 
> https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/apologies-freud/201210/why-women-want-married-men


Ah, yes, that study. Let's post it, shall we, instead of relying on the poorly conceived write-up?

http://www.synergy-pr.com/files/JESP72009(1).pdf

If you read through it, you will see that it also finds that 
(1) more men than women said they were attracted to the attached target, and at higher levels of attraction
(2) single women did say the married target was more attractive, but married women did not. 
(3) But the difference in attractiveness rating of the target male (single vs married) was actually quite marginal (.58 on a scale from -3 to +3)

And before you go, "aha, but it does show that the single women did prefer the guy when described as married", let me also point out that this conclusion is drawn from the opinion of 35 single female undergraduates from Oklahoma University

And, of course, that other literature on mate-poaching shows differing results, including that men are much more likely to do it.


----------



## Icey181

Faithful Wife said:


> I just wanted to share this...a woman who doesn't want to join the thread PM'd me with this very sad story (I have pulled out anything that could identify her):
> 
> (quote)
> 
> The man who raped me was deep in Red Pill culture. He was super unpopular and made fun of in middle/high school. I knew him since middle school. He was 2 years ahead of me. We went to the same college. I asked him to show me around. We hung out in the same friend groups. Not a close friend at all, I felt he was a bit off and seemed bitter at times, but I always was nice and tried to include him...I should have listened to my instincts about how bitter he was. Because when he got the chance he raped me to punish me. Why? Because I was an attractive woman and he never had sex. I was a stand-in for all women.
> 
> This mindset has serious consequences.
> 
> Thank you for standing up against that mindset.
> 
> (end quote)
> 
> She went on to say she knows not all men are rapists and she is working on forgiveness and moving past it. Her point was simply the red pill mindset was behind this guy's motivations.


I missed the part where he was a "Red Pill" guy.



Faithful Wife said:


> I'm not saying red pillers are rapists. But it is also fair to share an actual story like this one (she gave me permission to copy part of it).


Of course not.

You are just insinuating that Red Pill stuff is going to take angry men and help them along to being rapists.

This is ridiculous.

We know enough about rape at this point in history to recognize that the vast majority of rapists are little more than psychopaths who seek to exact some kind of power over another individual for their own selfish reasons.


----------



## Faithful Wife

*How to please MY husband:*

Love him.

Protect him in any way I can.

Nurture him.

Provide loving companionship.

Be interested in him.

Be faithful to him.

Go out of my way to be attractive for him.

Have my own interests and life, so I am an interesting person to him.

Be supportive, especially when he is down.

Be a good mom to my kids.

Make special treats and gifts for him.

Keep the hot tub chemicals in check so it is ready when he gets home from work.

Praise him for all that he does.

Take care of the parts of our life he isn't as good at.

Openly admire him to my friends and his friends.

Express my attraction for him verbally and physically.

Give him regular massages, because he works very hard for us and his body hurts all the time. Plus it gets me laid! 

.............


He deserves all of this and more, and he gets it. To say that men are simple and just want food and sex doesn't describe my husband at all. He can get food and sex from any random woman. What he wants is my true interest in him, my love and devotion. And he wants to be interested in me, too. If I were simply a body to him, he would have left me long ago.


----------



## lucy999

*poof* annnnd there goes my lunch hour. Again.

Seriously, I appreciate this thread so much. I'm getting quite an education. Thank you.


----------



## Icey181

Pretty sure if I bought a hot-tub for my wife I would never see her again…

…and I would need to find a way to set Netflix up in the backyard.


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> We are waiting for you to show proof of this.


Don't you remember. It's not actually PC to study this stuff, so no legit researchers actually do it. But, thanks to heartiste, that appalling gap in the knowledge of the world has been filled.

Because, you know, "science"!

(Or maybe it's more convincing in all-caps: SCIENCE!!


----------



## Faithful Wife

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jm-upHSP9KU


----------



## EllisRedding

Faithful Wife said:


> He deserves all of this and more, and he gets it. To say that men are simple and just want food and sex doesn't describe my husband at all. He can get food and sex from any random woman. What he wants is my true interest in him, my love and devotion. And he wants to be interested in me, too. If I were simply a body to him, he would have left me long ago.


Although that is a lovely list you have, you do realize that post was meant to be tongue-in-cheek


----------



## Brigit

Faithful Wife said:


> I just wanted to share this...a woman who doesn't want to join the thread PM'd me with this very sad story (I have pulled out anything that could identify her):
> 
> (quote)
> 
> The man who raped me was deep in Red Pill culture. He was super unpopular and made fun of in middle/high school. I knew him since middle school. He was 2 years ahead of me. We went to the same college. I asked him to show me around. We hung out in the same friend groups. Not a close friend at all, I felt he was a bit off and seemed bitter at times, but I always was nice and tried to include him...I should have listened to my instincts about how bitter he was. Because when he got the chance he raped me to punish me. Why? Because I was an attractive woman and he never had sex. I was a stand-in for all women.
> 
> This mindset has serious consequences.
> 
> Thank you for standing up against that mindset.
> 
> (end quote)
> 
> She went on to say she knows not all men are rapists and she is working on forgiveness and moving past it. Her point was simply the red pill mindset was behind this guy's motivations.
> 
> I'm not saying red pillers are rapists. But it is also fair to share an actual story like this one (she gave me permission to copy part of it).


That is TERRIFYING. 

To the woman who this happened to:

I'm so sorry that you had to experience this horrible act. I want to thank you for sharing your story as it was brave and important. It shows how harmful this Red Pill crap is and what can happen when some delusional angry creepy nerd wants some payback. 

In light of this story I do think the book we are speaking about shouldn't be recommended anymore on a healthy pro-marriage site.


----------



## EllisRedding

Brigit said:


> That is TERRIFYING.
> 
> To the woman who this happened to:
> 
> I'm so sorry that you had to experience this horrible act. I want to thank you for sharing your story as it was brave and important. It shows how harmful this Red Pill crap is and what can happen when some delusional angry creepy nerd wants some payback.
> 
> *In light of this story I do think the book we are speaking about shouldn't be recommended anymore on a healthy pro-marriage site*.


So that is all it takes, one story, from what could have been a psycho who would have acted that way regardless of the book


----------



## Faithful Wife

Anon Pink said:


> In all fairness, there is some very scant science to preselection and the influence of peer selection. But it is very scant and 95% of psychological researches as well as social scientists turn their noses up on the relevance of what little research there is. But still, to say the thing is true and to say that there is science behind it, is highly misleading and inaccurate.


However scant it is, I would like to see it. Do you know of any?


----------



## Anon1111

There is nothing that sends women into a rage more than a fake alpha.

It's understandable when you think about it. It's not worth fighting about with them.


----------



## Faithful Wife

It is not only one story. It is the one story provided here on this thread.


----------



## chillymorn

EllisRedding said:


> The easiest way to sum up men and women when it comes to sex/attraction


while I like a good stereo typical joke. any joke are cool in my book and at first I laughed at this It got me thinking.

as a young man who is all pumped up on adolescence hormones this is true for a large majority of teens/young men. Not sayin its good or ok or right to be this way but the fact is its true.

Now women who hit there hormone prime/peak just before menopause are also kind of like this I have seen many of my friends wives act this way even leave their husbands and family behind because of there promiscuous yearning.


Its an epidemic in my opinion.


----------



## tech-novelist

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Seriously, the only place I have ever heard of this is TAM. It happens but it's not typical or majority. *I've talked to and read many women over the years and the reasons for lacking sex are many (most common one I've heard in my life- he doesn't do enough around the house and leaves it all to me and/or he's not romantic anymore). *
> You'd need to know the man, woman and situation before making a judgment on WHY the sex is not there. You being beta may have been your problem but you are not all or most men.


Yes, *that *is what women SAY is the problem.
But assume that the man does more around the house and/or is more romantic, and that doesn't fix the problem. Then what is the man supposed to do, "just be himself"?


----------



## Brigit

EllisRedding said:


> So that is all it takes, one story, from what could have been a psycho who would have acted that way regardless of the book


No. The story which is probably true coupled with all the sick passages that FW quoted should be enough.

I really like the Marriage Builder videos. They are very thoughtful and intelligent. Promote that instead.

Marriage Builders® Videos


----------



## Faithful Wife

Anon1111 said:


> There is nothing that sends women into a rage more than a fake alpha.
> 
> It's understandable when you think about it. It's not worth fighting about with them.


What actually sends us into a rage is men conspiring to dupe us into doing things to suit their own purposes, and men telling each other we are mindless sheep who all follow the same script (a script that in fact a man made up in his head and then said was science).

But intelligent men here can't understand this very simple idea? That women are going to rail against being duped? C'mon now.


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> However scant it is, I would like to see it. Do you know of any?


I linked to one study on mate poaching (post 838) that is certainly one of the sources used as evidence of pre-selection.


----------



## Icey181

EllisRedding said:


> So that is all it takes, one story, from what could have been a psycho who would have acted that way regardless of the book


Sure, why not.

Let me go fishing for a story about some dude who used the Bible to legitimize a sexual crime and we can begin ticking off things one by one until we reject anything someone does not like and fill out form letters instead of offer advice. 

Full Stop:

Red Pill theory, NMMNG, MMSL, et al are not about sexual violence.

In fact, they are predicated on the point of building attraction so as to have women want to sleep with you.

Rape is quite literally antithetical to the idea.

A lot of the rhetoric and a sizable portion of the more radical claims are clearly misogynistic.

But then again a great deal of the advice I see thrown around is also quite misandrist.

I am relatively certain that adults can understand the difference between advice and the acts of a psychopath.


----------



## EllisRedding

Faithful Wife said:


> It is not only one story. It is the one story provided here on this thread.


Please provide proof, and not just grasping onto the story b/c it supports your view point.

I am not condoning what happened, but to make a case like that you should at least have to show that this fits a pattern within individuals who read the book. Maybe it does, IDK, but that is why proof would be welcomed


----------



## tech-novelist

Brigit said:


> No. The story which is probably true coupled with all the sick passages that FW quoted should be enough.
> 
> I really like the Marriage Builder videos. They are very thoughtful and intelligent. Promote that instead.
> 
> Marriage Builders® Videos


I'm sure at least one rapist has viewed a Marriage Builder video.
Thus, those videos should not be recommended.
Q. E. D.


----------



## Fozzy

Faithful Wife said:


> *How to please MY husband:*
> 
> Love him.
> 
> Protect him in any way I can.
> 
> Nurture him.
> 
> Provide loving companionship.
> 
> Be interested in him.
> 
> Be faithful to him.
> 
> Go out of my way to be attractive for him.
> 
> Have my own interests and life, so I am an interesting person to him.
> 
> Be supportive, especially when he is down.
> 
> Be a good mom to my kids.
> 
> Make special treats and gifts for him.
> 
> Keep the hot tub chemicals in check so it is ready when he gets home from work.
> 
> Praise him for all that he does.
> 
> Take care of the parts of our life he isn't as good at.
> 
> Openly admire him to my friends and his friends.
> 
> Express my attraction for him verbally and physically.
> 
> Give him regular massages, because he works very hard for us and his body hurts all the time. Plus it gets me laid!
> 
> .............
> 
> 
> He deserves all of this and more, and he gets it. To say that men are simple and just want food and sex doesn't describe my husband at all. He can get food and sex from any random woman. What he wants is my true interest in him, my love and devotion. And he wants to be interested in me, too. If I were simply a body to him, he would have left me long ago.


This is why I love Lila's thread to compile a Woman-up sticky. Great opportunity to blow the myth of "show up naked with beer" out of the water.

However showing up naked with beer should be ON the list


----------



## Faithful Wife

Ok so that's it then, right always? There's no other "science" than this one study?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Right. So let's be absolutely clear here: The purpose of red pill to to exact sex, regardless of how this may or may not foster a healthy relationship, or what resentments it might foster, or how damaging it might be to someone's sense of well-being.


Yep. The purpose is driving attraction that promotes sex. Relationship health, resentment, damage etc, may or may not occur - that depends on the individual applying them, and how they do so. These are not outcomes intrinsic to the majority of what is suggested. The few elements that I would say are legitimately harmful, are more the result following a concept to its extreme to round out a book - an intellectual pursuit - than usefulness in practical application.

It is no less coercive or abusive to bring down someone's sense of security than to tell them you intend to divorce if things don't change.

Also, it should be acknowledge that a game is already being played when a woman withholds sex while making a man jump through hoops legitimately trying to address her problems. The only ways to deal with such a person are to leave, or to apply your own pressure. MMSL is the latter. I have no sympathy for her. If you don't want to play games, don't start games.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

EllisRedding said:


> The easiest way to sum up men and women when it comes to sex/attraction


I don't think some realize how hurtful these jokes can be for women who try everything to keep their marriage together and sexual and have no luck. This site is filled with many women who have simple needs and unresponsive husbands, women in sexless marriages. I get that it's a joke, my H always tries to make jokes when discussing something serious too and it annoys me just as much then. But at the risk of being a humourless b*tch, keep in mind that this site has just as many women in pain as it does men.


----------



## Faithful Wife

EllisRedding said:


> Please provide proof, and not just grasping onto the story b/c it supports your view point.
> 
> I am not condoning what happened, but to make a case like that you should at least have to show that this fits a pattern within individuals who read the book. Maybe it does, IDK, but that is why proof would be welcomed


As if I would do this and then you or any guy here will say "oh then yeah, we should stop reading and promoting MMSL"?

Feel free to google PUA rape. You'll find lots of stories if you just sort through a few links.

And yes, PUA is based on red pill garbage. 

If I actually thought it would make any difference I would find and post all the stories.

The woman who PM'd me deserved to be heard here, and she was....but she would not post here herself so that she cannot be further traumatized by people doubting her or trying to minimize her. Like you just did. "Grasping onto the story because it supports your viewpoint" is just plain rude and cruel. This woman is a poster at TAM and will read this. Sheesh.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Blossom Leigh said:


> Emotional depth and connection has always been paramount to me. My H is five years younger than me.


Even that comes with a context that you don't lose attraction to your husband for being a catering submissive weenie. I've read your other posts about your husband. A woman isn't likely to want emotional depth, connection, or sex, from a man she has difficulty respecting as a man.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Fozzy said:


> This is why I love Lila's thread to compile a Woman-up sticky. Great opportunity to blow the myth of "show up naked with beer" out of the water.
> 
> However showing up naked with beer should be ON the list


I figured that since I have a blog devoted to the fact that my husband is a sex god...well, it might be overkill to talk about what keeps him happy sexually. I already get told I go on about that too much.


----------



## Icey181

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Seriously, the only place I have ever heard of this is TAM. It happens but it's not typical or majority. I've talked to and read many women over the years and the reasons for lacking sex are many (most common one I've heard in my life- he doesn't do enough around the house and leaves it all to me and/or he's not romantic anymore).
> You'd need to know the man, woman and situation before making a judgment on WHY the sex is not there. You being beta may have been your problem but you are not all or most men.


Spend some time on the Dead Bedroom forums across the internet. Quite a few of the men are easily categorized as emasculated and co-dependent doormats whom do all the chores and service her needs…and still do not have sex.

And they find it so insane that the way back to a healthy relationship is to start prioritizing _himself_ over his wife for once.

There is a lot of co-dependence issues when we hit some of these problems and they cut both ways. 



technovelist said:


> Yes, *that *is what women SAY is the problem.
> But assume that the man does more around the house and/or is more romantic, and that doesn't fix the problem. Then what is the man supposed to do, "just be himself"?


This was pretty much me.

For the Winter of 2013 and the entire Spring and Summer of 2014 I dived headlong into the whole "do more chores" and "date your wife" advice.

The result was that once a week sex turned into no sex for 6-months.

She was less stressed, more relaxed, felt more appreciated….and apparently took it for granted.

Shifting the ground underneath the relationship, demanding more help around the house, hitting the gym, being more confident, and laying some basic expectations down is what reversed course for me.

I am now in maintenance mode and that is where those "Dread" steps I was talking about before come in to play.


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> Ok so that's it then, right always? There's no other "science" than this one study?


It's the only one I know of. But I'd certainly be curious to know if there are any others.


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> As if I would do this and then you or any guy here will say "oh then yeah, we should stop reading and promoting MMSL"?
> 
> Feel free to google PUA rape. You'll find lots of stories if you just sort through a few links.
> 
> And yes, PUA is based on red pill garbage.
> 
> If I actually thought it would make any difference I would find and post all the stories.
> 
> The women who PM'd me deserved to be heard here, and she was....but she would not post here herself so that she cannot be further traumatized by people doubting her or trying to minimize her. Like you just did.


I'm sorry, but "PUA rape" makes exactly as much sense as "****ty virgin". The point of PUA is precisely to get women to have sex with you willingly. You don't need that if you are going to rape them.


----------



## Faithful Wife

always_alone said:


> It's the only one I know of. But I'd certainly be curious to know if there are any others.


I would think if there was actually SCIENCE!!!! behind it, it would be easy to find that science and link it here.

Still waiting....


----------



## EllisRedding

Faithful Wife said:


> As if I would do this and then you or any guy here will say "oh then yeah, we should stop reading and promoting MMSL"?
> 
> Feel free to google PUA rape. You'll find lots of stories if you just sort through a few links.
> 
> And yes, PUA is based on red pill garbage.
> 
> *If I actually thought it would make any difference I would find and post all the stories.*
> 
> The woman who PM'd me deserved to be heard here, and she was....but she would not post here herself so that she cannot be further traumatized by people doubting her or trying to minimize her. Like you just did. "Grasping onto the story because it supports your viewpoint" is just plain rude and cruel. This woman is a poster at TAM and will read this. Sheesh.


Huh? You are obviously passionate against MMSL and have no issues being vocal about to try and make a difference (no objections to on my part), yet what would be possibly the most damning evidence against Red Pill you don't think would make a difference 

My point was simply, any time someone makes a claim you are one who wants to see it backed up (rightly so). So now a claim comes out that backs up your personal opinion, and you get defensive when someone asks for support/proof to a pattern? All I am asking is to be fair and objective (which well... nvm), just as what you would ask from other posters.


----------



## Icey181

Faithful Wife said:


> And yes, PUA is based on red pill garbage.


Pretty sure you have this backwards.

PUA crap predates the Red Pill and was actually one of the influences of Red Pill. Not the other way around.



Faithful Wife said:


> If I actually thought it would make any difference I would find and post all the stories.
> 
> The woman who PM'd me deserved to be heard here, and she was....but she would not post here herself so that she cannot be further traumatized by people doubting her or trying to minimize her. Like you just did. "Grasping onto the story because it supports your viewpoint" is just plain rude and cruel. This woman is a poster at TAM and will read this. Sheesh.


Rape is horrible and there is pretty much nothing one can do to help a victim other than get out of their way and provide whatever support you can.

But to use a rape-story as a shield to assault something you disagree with is not legitimate.

You do not just get to declare, "See, it causes rape. And if you disagree, you are an evil, heartless person if you question anything about how I am using said story."

Sorry. 

But No.

If you have some positive evidence that Red Pill stuff takes normal individuals and turns them into psychopathic sexual predators or takes "healthy" psychopaths and pushes them over the edge, I would love to hear it.

But something tells me you do not.


----------



## Faithful Wife

EllisRedding said:


> Huh? You are obviously passionate against MMSL and have no issues being vocal about to try and make a difference (no objections to on my part), yet what would be possibly the most damning evidence against Red Pill you don't think would make a difference
> 
> My point was simply, any time someone makes a claim you are one who wants to see it backed up (rightly so). So now a claim comes out that backs up your personal opinion, and you get defensive when someone asks for support/proof to a pattern? All I am asking is to be fair and objective (which well... nvm), just as what you would ask from other posters.


Lol, you haven't been at TAM long.

Posting stories about rape doesn't make men do anything except say NAMALT and go on and on about false rape charges.

Like I said, there's plenty of stories out there...if you want to see them, one quick search will find them.

I know that none of that will change the mind of even one man who is promoting MMSL.

ETA: Also please note that I'm not saying "science says red pill causes rape". If I were, then of course there would need to be data to back that up. I shared one story, there are many other stories.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

technovelist said:


> Yes, *that *is what women SAY is the problem.
> But assume that the man does more around the house and/or is more romantic, and that doesn't fix the problem. Then what is the man supposed to do, "just be himself"?


In this situation, remember that there is a lot of built up resentment there depending on how long she's been trying to communicate this to you. 

So if you finally hear her when she finally cuts off sex and you are only doing your responsibilities because you want action and not because you understand it's your job as a husband, it's not going to work. 

It's going to take a while to build back up that love bank.
15+ hours of alone time a week. More at the start. 
Plus meeting her emotional needs consistantly and building back up the trust. 

It doesn't feel fair, I know, and you wanna give up because it's not working right away and sometimes nothing will work because it's too far gone and there's no coming back. BTDT.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

TiggyBlue said:


> My husband made a lot less money when we got together, think it really depends on the type of woman.


According to research, it doesn't.

The mistake you're making is thinking that it means you must seek out the guy with the money, and no guy with no money will be as attractive as a guy with money. It's not like that. It is simply one more element that is traded off of. More of this, you'll accept less of that.

It is absolutely 100% locked down proven that women damn near universally find men with money more attractive than men without, even after saying money isn't important to them. That's how strong the pressure is to "say the right thing" and not be a gold digger. It doesn't actually change anything but the words coming out of your mouth, and this is proven.

And really, why shouldn't a guy with money be more attractive than the same guy without money? Money is nice to have. We shouldn't have problems admitting what is true simply because it's not PC. It's right up there with the reason men pursue women at all - the primary reason is pursuit of sex - nature doing its thing.


----------



## tech-novelist

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> In this situation, remember that there is a lot of built up resentment there depending on how long she's been trying to communicate this to you.
> 
> So if you finally hear her when she finally cuts off sex and you are only doing your responsibilities because you want action and not because you understand it's your job as a husband, it's not going to work.
> 
> It's going to take a while to build back up that love bank.
> 15+ hours of alone time a week. More at the start.
> Plus meeting her emotional needs consistantly and building back up the trust.
> 
> It doesn't feel fair, I know, and you wanna give up because it's not working right away and sometimes nothing will work because it's too far gone and there's no coming back. BTDT.


I have a question. Has that approach ever worked? Because I haven't seen any success stories from following it.


----------



## Icey181

Faithful Wife said:


> Lol, you haven't been at TAM long.
> 
> Posting stories about rape doesn't make men do anything except say NAMALT and go on and on about false rape charges.
> 
> Like I said, there's plenty of stories out there...if you want to see them, one quick search will find them.
> 
> I know that none of that will change the mind of even one man who is promoting MMSL.


And what are men supposed to do?

Apologize for our gender?

Rapists are psychopaths…and they are not just men.

Personally, I am kind of big on holding _criminals_ accountable for their crimes and not attempting to share blame unless there is concrete evidence that blame is deserved elsewhere.


----------



## naiveonedave

Faithful Wife said:


> We are waiting for you to show proof of this.


I am waiting for you so show that is not true.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> It is absolutely 100% locked down proven that women damn near universally find men with money more attractive than men without, even after saying money isn't important to them.


Another assertion of SCIENCE that keeps getting repeated, but without any evidence whatsoever, no matter how many times I ask ...


----------



## Faithful Wife

naiveonedave said:


> I am waiting for you so show that is not true.


:rofl:

You say it is true.

I say prove it.

You return with "prove it isn't true".

THIS is SCIENCE!!!!!


----------



## tech-novelist

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> According to research, it doesn't.
> 
> The mistake you're making is thinking that it means you must seek out the guy with the money, and no guy with no money will be as attractive as a guy with money. It's not like that. It is simply one more element that is traded off of. More of this, you'll accept less of that.
> 
> It is absolutely 100% locked down proven that women damn near universally find men with money more attractive than men without, even after saying money isn't important to them. That's how strong the pressure is to "say the right thing" and not be a gold digger. It doesn't actually change anything but the words coming out of your mouth, and this is proven.
> 
> And really, why shouldn't a guy with money be more attractive than the same guy without money? Money is nice to have. We shouldn't have problems admitting what is true simply because it's not PC. It's right up there with the reason men pursue women at all - the primary reason is pursuit of sex - nature doing its thing.


Although money is indeed nice to have, the reverse is not true, that is, women with money are not more attractive than women without money. Yes, some men go after women with money, but that money doesn't make them more attractive, it just makes them more profitable to pursue for men who operate that way.


----------



## EllisRedding

Faithful Wife said:


> Lol, you haven't been at TAM long.
> 
> Posting stories about rape doesn't make men do anything except say NAMALT and go on and on about false rape charges.
> 
> Like I said, there's plenty of stories out there...if you want to see them, one quick search will find them.
> 
> *I know that none of that will change the mind of even one man who is promoting MMSL.*
> 
> ETA: Also please note that I'm not saying "science says red pill causes rape". If I were, then of course there would need to be data to back that up. I shared one story, there are many other stories.


I would think more the point would be to change the mind of those on the fence or who are just being exposed to it  *Given how passionate you are about the topic I would have assumed that would be a main driving force, otherwise why would you have even started this thread *

I have never read this book, only heard about it a few days ago, in the situation I am in with my wife I see no need for me to read. I won't say I support or don't support it as such. I am just here trying to participate with an open mind, but have no issues challenging some of the assumptions being made (which in all honestly have not been directly about the book).


----------



## always_alone

naiveonedave said:


> I am waiting for you so show that is not true.


Well, I'm waiting for you to show that it's not true that unicorns can dance on the head of a pin.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

technovelist said:


> I have a question. Has that approach ever worked? Because I haven't seen any success stories from following it.


Yes, it works for many couples. 

BTW- A Summary of Dr. Harley's Basic Concepts

there's a forum, read through some stories. But it takes more than _just _wanting to have sex no matter how you get it.


----------



## Faithful Wife

EllisRedding said:


> I would think more the point would be to change the mind of those on the fence or who are just being exposed to it  *Given how passionate you are about the topic I would have assumed that would be a main driving force, otherwise why would you have even started this thread *
> 
> I have never read this book, only heard about it a few days ago, in the situation I am in with my wife I see no need for me to read. I won't say I support or don't support it as such. I am just here trying to participate with an open mind, but have no issues challenging some of the assumptions being made (which in all honestly have not been directly about the book).


Um....I posted at least 10 posts full of quotes FROM THE BOOK and his blog.


----------



## Icey181

naiveonedave said:


> I am waiting for you so show that is not true.


Burden of Proof says hi.


----------



## EllisRedding

Faithful Wife said:


> Um....I posted at least 10 posts full of quotes FROM THE BOOK and his blog.


So you are saying quotes from the book >= actual rape stories. After all, you said there was no reason to post those as a pattern since it wouldn't change anyone's mind.


----------



## always_alone

technovelist said:


> Although money is indeed nice to have, the reverse is not true, that is, women with money are not more attractive than women without money. Yes, some men go after women with money, but that money doesn't make them more attractive, it just makes them more profitable to pursue for men who operate that way.


:rofl::rofl:

But of course, men with money *are* actually more attractive. It has nothing to do with calculations about how profitable it might be to pursue him.

Because it all happens subconsciously?

I feel like I've entered the theatre of the absurd.


----------



## naiveonedave

Faithful Wife said:


> What actually sends us into a rage is men conspiring to dupe us into doing things to suit their own purposes, and men telling each other we are mindless sheep who all follow the same script (a script that in fact a man made up in his head and then said was science).
> 
> But intelligent men here can't understand this very simple idea? That women are going to rail against being duped? C'mon now.


Okay, I now get your point. Men should not want sex with their wives. That is an wrong expectation for men to have. I don't follow the other red pill stuff (whatever that is). I read MMSL, I implemented changes to ME (work out, be less needy, don't whine as much, lead more in child discipline) based on the advice of said book and voila, improved sex life. Must by some form is misogyny.


----------



## Faithful Wife

EllisRedding said:


> So you are saying quotes from the book >= actual rape stories. After all, you said there was no reason to post those as a pattern since it wouldn't change anyone's mind.


Ellis...this is silly and you should know that. I have said several times now that I posted the woman's story because she deserved to be heard but was not going to come here and get trampled for it. Why do you need to haggle me about this? I shared her story and I feel good about doing so because she needs a voice here, and this post was something she really appreciated and told me so.

Please just stop addressing me if you aren't going to stop just trying to haggle me. I am not trying to haggle you, nor do I care if you believe anything I write. Your opinions of why I am posting this stuff or to what good it will do matter ZERO to me. Ok?

Done.


----------



## Faithful Wife

naiveonedave said:


> Okay, I now get your point. Men should not want sex with their wives. That is an wrong expectation for men to have.


:rofl:

You may not have noticed but I write a blog called I Married a Sex God.

I'm pretty much all about sex, all the time, and worship my husband sexually daily.

So yeah, I kind of get sex and how important it is. 

It is so important, I'd dump his azz in a heartbeat if he cut me off from it. And he'd do the same.


----------



## Pluto2

I found a summary of Red Pill-speak on Harris O'Malley's site:

So when someone is feeling like he’s been cheated by life, that it’s unfair that other people have an easier time getting dates or getting laid, the Red Pill ethos is there to validate those feelings. “You’re right,” says the Red Pill community, “It is unfair. You’re being denied something that is rightfully yours. You should take it back!”

It’s a classic recruitment technique, one used by hate groups for centuries: prey on someone’s insecurities and fears. Tell them that they’ve been wronged and then tell them “this is how you get to be strong.” Give them an enemy and tell them “this is why things are so bad for you. They’ve hurt you. They’ve wronged you. Don’t you want power over them?” They offer secret knowledge, helping you “wake up to see the real world”, unlike all those blue pill manginas. By being a Red Pill man, you’re proving yourself superior to others. You know things that other people don’t. You’re special. Not like those other people. The world of the Red Pill is one of “us vs. them”. An alpha [email protected], a beta bucks, bro. Other guys are manginas, average frustrated chumps (because you’re not average or a chump, bro) or “white knights” – poor, deluded men who think that being nice to women will get them laid. Not like you, Red Pill devotee; you know the truth. 

- See more at: What's Wrong With "Taking the Red Pill" -


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

naiveonedave said:


> Okay, I now get your point. Men should not want sex with their wives. That is an wrong expectation for men to have. I don't follow the other red pill stuff (whatever that is). I read MMSL, I implemented changes to ME (work out, be less needy, don't whine as much, lead more in child discipline) based on the advice of said book and voila, improved sex life. Must by some form is misogyny.


You could have done all that with other marriage books.

Identify her EN- Physical attractiveness, domestic support, honesty and openness/communication

Meet said needs

Repair relationship which leads to more sex. 

You didn't need to read a book aimed to insult an entire gender to get there.


----------



## naiveonedave

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> You could have done all that with other marriage books.
> 
> Identify her EN- Physical attractiveness, domestic support, honesty and openness/communication
> 
> Meet said needs
> 
> Repair relationship which leads to more sex.
> 
> You didn't need to read a book aimed to insult an entire gender to get there.


THIS DOES NOT WORK, and has been shown not to work. That is clear. Read SIM at all, and you will realize that you can't talk your way, do more chores or a lot of other 'relationship' things to get into her pants. All that stuff may help the relationship, but it won't increase frequency of sex.


----------



## Icey181

Not going to lie, I just spit my drink out on my keyboard, because this…



Pluto2 said:


> I found a summary of Red Pill-speak on Harris O'Malley's site:
> 
> So when someone is feeling like he’s been cheated by life, that it’s unfair that other people have an easier time getting dates or getting laid, the Red Pill ethos is there to validate those feelings. *“You’re right,” says the Red Pill community, “It is unfair. You’re being denied something that is rightfully yours. You should take it back!”*


Is quite literally the arguments every single social activist group of the 20th Century starts with.


----------



## EllisRedding

Faithful Wife said:


> Ellis...this is silly and you should know that. I have said several times now that I posted the woman's story because she deserved to be heard but was not going to come here and get trampled for it. Why do you need to haggle me about this? I shared her story and I feel good about doing so because she needs a voice here, and this post was something she really appreciated and told me so.
> 
> *Please just stop addressing me if you aren't going to stop just trying to haggle me. I am not trying to haggle you, nor do I care if you believe anything I write. Your opinions of why I am posting this stuff or to what good it will do matter ZERO to me. Ok?*
> 
> Done.


I posted my response b/c it was followed up by remarks that it was sufficient to ban the book. Not once did I criticize you for your post.

Sigh ... I am not haggling you, I am addressing something you clearly stated. I understand though that being challenged by someone, the easiest response is to say they are haggling and state their opinion matters zero (push em down, right  ). I guess the pattern I see with your postings this response doesn't surprise me.

I am not here to pick a fight, and won't detract from this thread further.


----------



## naiveonedave

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/quilted-science/201006/copying-others-when-choosing-mate

one of a few million google hits, for the ladies who are too lazy to look it up. I also think that this 'phenomena' is not a strong factor, but a factor, that can make a good man appear awesome and a bad man appear much worse. Where good and bad mean only what the women in the immediate think at that time (looks, style, money, etc).


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

naiveonedave said:


> THIS DOES NOT WORK, and has been shown not to work. That is clear. Read SIM at all, and you will realize that you can't talk your way, do more chores or a lot of other 'relationship' things to get into her pants. All that stuff may help the relationship, but it won't increase frequency of sex.


It does work. How many of them have actually spent 15 hours a week of alone time and met their needs consistantly and for long enough that it builds back up her love bank?

Read places other than just TAM, there are plenty of ways to fix a relationship and sex life and plenty of sucess stories. Mmslp is 1 way, not THE way and other ways are much less likely to hurt your spouse or cause more resentment.


----------



## naiveonedave

Icey181 said:


> Not going to lie, I just spit my drink out on my keyboard, because this…
> 
> 
> Is quite literally the arguments every single social activist group of the 20th Century starts with.


So to dismiss red pill, you should dismiss women's suffrage and race relations


----------



## Icey181

Basic Red Pill Tenet: You cannot negotiate attraction.

Pretty sure that is dead on. Also pretty sure that quite a few women have told me something quite similar at various times in my life.

Communication helps to identify barriers to intimacy.

But it cannot create attraction.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> I don't actually think it is woman hate, I think it is resentment against women because some of you men think we have all the power.


For 80% of men. You do have power over when sex will happen. I'm not going to blame women for that. But, you do have the power.

Now maybe 80% of women could say (I know you won't, because men and women are exactly the same), that as far a commitment goes, men have all the power. I'm not blaming anybody for that either.

I just think it's important to recognize how the world REALLY works, not how we WISH it would work.


----------



## naiveonedave

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> It does work. How many of them have actually spent 15 hours a week of alone time and met their needs consistantly and for long enough that it builds back up her love bank?
> 
> Read places other than just TAM, there are plenty of ways to fix a relationship and sex life and plenty of sucess stories. Mmslp is 1 way, not THE way and other ways are much less likely to hurt your spouse or cause more resentment.


here is the problem, you are not a man in a sexless relationship who beat his head against the wall for years. SO to deny my reality and the reality of 1/2 the posters on SIM is lunacy.

There is no way my spouse has been hurt by mmsl. I ask you to give me one way my spouse has been hurt by it. I would bet you $1M, I would win, because I know you can't. You and AA and FW are making way too many assumptions about how mmsl is used and what guys take away from it, because you miss the context of the book entirely.


----------



## Icey181

I find the parallels interesting.
A good deal of modern men are feeling that societal rules have shifted in such a way that makes their lives literally vacant of something, which they are told, is normal and expected. And I am not speaking of the whole caricatured "Men are owed sex" BS. I mean all of the stuff men were told in the 1990s and 2000s about how being themselves, being nice, and emotionally accessible would produce for them an intimate and long-term relationship.

Reality does not match what they were told, they feel slighted, and are now responding.

Pretty much social reform 101.


----------



## Brigit

technovelist said:


> I'm sure at least one rapist has viewed a Marriage Builder video.
> Thus, those videos should not be recommended.
> Q. E. D.


I give you points for making a decent joke. But if you can't see the difference between Mr. BuyYourselfFlowers and real marriage advice and counseling from a qualified professional then I feel bad for you.


----------



## Pluto2

Icey181 said:


> Not going to lie, I just spit my drink out on my keyboard, because this…
> 
> 
> Is quite literally the arguments every single social activist group of the 20th Century starts with.


Its the next sentence .....

a classic recruitment technique, one used by hate groups for centuries....

This, from a male relationship coach of all things.


----------



## Lila

technovelist said:


> I have a question. Has that approach ever worked? Because I haven't seen any success stories from following it.


It worked for me and my H. 16 months ago we were discussing divorce. As background H is 6 ft tall, about 180 lbs, works out religiously 4-5 x a week, runs obstacle races (Spartan, Tuff mudder, etc.) as a hobby, is an engineer, makes great money, and is a wonderful father. I was still ready to divorce him. Reason: Not enough attention towards me. I wanted him to stop taking me for granted and make me a priority in his life. 

For MONTHS I talked about needing Quality Time to no avail. Only when I started detaching emotionally did he FINALLY figure it out. He says my apathy was the kick in the a$$ he needed to see how badly he was failing me. 

I was literally less than a week from filing when he pulled me aside and asked for time and my help to fix his sh!t. Had he instead swallowed the Red Pill we would be divorced right now.

For the record, I would have been the definition of WAW. Even though I was ready to walk, I was still having sex with him but by then, it was strictly for sexual release. I was using him like a human dildo. 

After our little tete a tete, he agreed to do all of the heavy lifting to fix the marriage. Of all of the things he did, the one that had the most effect was becoming intentional about spending Quality Time together. Every free minute was dedicated to me. Instead of trying to manipulate me, he started listening to me and actually showing interest in my life.

Took months, and he still slips up, but I'm back to being vested in the success of the relationship and it was all done based on genuine actions.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> Some gay couples do have a dom / sub relationship, but many are symmetric.
> 
> Homosexuality IS important to evolution - if evolution completely dominated human behavior, homosexuality would be extremely rare, rather than 10-20% of the population. This is one of the best examples of how evolution doesn't dominate human behavior. The same applies to all the sex acts that people enjoy but which don't produce children.


This is incorrect. Homosexuality only perpetuates by the heterosexual encounters of homosexuals. If the trait is not passed on to subsequent generations, it becomes less and less prevalent. Evolution does dominate human behavior. Homosexuality simply hasn't been a significant barrier to reproduction... because those attracted to the same sex, still had a desire to reproduce. So they did.

The pursuit of sex acts that don't produce children are also an evolutionary adaptation. It is a hijacking of the machinery that ensures reproduction - the dopamine reward supplied for sexual behavior - an evolved mechanism. You get the dopamine reward for the behavior, so you enjoy and continue the behavior. If it were a barrier to reproduction - and conceiveably for some ancestor it may have been - then that non-reproductive sexual behavior isn't going to be prevalent in the next generation. So we know that non-reproductive sex acts were not a major barrier to reproduction.



richardsharpe said:


> The other is the widespread use of contraceptives. Evolution doesn't want you to have sex, it wants you to have children.


This lacks understanding of the timescales and mechanisms of evolution. Contraception hasn't been around long enough to have any effect whatsoever.

Evolution doesn't "want" anything. A species dies or it doesn't. A species without mechanisms to encourage reproduction doesn't reproduce and it dies. So we all have inherited a reward system and instinctual desire to reproduce. It is in fact one of the most powerful instincts we have, exactly because of its critical importance. There is no differentiation between having sex and having children. There is only the machinery that evolved to encourage reproduction. We're still here because it worked pretty well. What we do with it doesn't so much matter, in proportion to the amount we're reproducing or not.



richardsharpe said:


> If people really want to push their evolutionary goals, there are better ways to do it: Become a sperm donor. Marry a woman who wants LOTS of kids.


Nobody consciously "pushes their evolutionary goals". Evolution has wired you to pursue them with or without your conscious awareness, in the ways that evolved as most productive - an inexplicable sense of lust and dopamine reward for sex. Wanting lots of kids, or wanting to care for someone, is secondary. If you or people like you don't mate you disappear. Mating is prerequisite and of utmost importance, evolutionarily wired into us, so it cannot just be consciously replaced with being a sperm donor.



richardsharpe said:


> If you want to have lots of sex with attractive women, then money works well. I can hire a lot of call girls on my income if that was my goal. The thing is, just pure sex is really quite dull.


If you only want one highly desirable woman money also works well.

Notice just how well all the things that men tend to be competitive about align very nicely with the things women actually seek in a sexual partner. It's not even really about the money, its about the status. It's about social standing and success because of her instinctive desire to have the most capable offspring possible and these are the cues she's evolved to find. We just have a hard time acknowledging it because 1) Awareness and the illusion of free will gets in the way. 2) There's a lot of other crap on top of this foundation.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> For 80% of men. You do have power over when sex will happen. I'm not going to blame women for that. But, you do have the power.


Thanks, we'll take it.


----------



## Icey181

Lila said:


> It worked for me and my H. 16 months ago we were discussing divorce. As background H is 6 ft tall, about 180 lbs, works out religiously 4-5 x a week, runs obstacle races (Spartan, Tuff mudder, etc.) as a hobby, is an engineer, makes great money, and is a wonderful father. I was still ready to divorce him. Reason: Not enough attention towards me. I wanted him to stop taking me for granted and make me a priority in his life.


Interesting, but the Red Pill does not advocate ignoring your SO.



Lila said:


> For MONTHS I talked about needing Quality Time to no avail. Only when I started detaching emotionally did he FINALLY figure it out. He says my apathy was the kick in the a$$ he needed to see how badly he was failing me.
> 
> I was literally less than a week from filing when he pulled me aside and asked for time and my help to fix his sh!t. Had he instead swallowed the Red Pill we would be divorced right now.


Why would he take the Red Pill?

The issue was not that he had a detached wife who was no longer having sex with him.

Your situation is entirely different.



Lila said:


> For the record, I would have been the definition of WAW. Even though I was ready to walk, I was still having sex with him but by then, it was strictly for sexual release. I was using him like a human dildo.


Well…not good. But it kind of speaks to how the Red Pill stuff would not be overly useful to him here.



Lila said:


> After our little tete a tete, he agreed to do all of the heavy lifting to fix the marriage. Of all of the things he did, the one that had the most effect was becoming intentional about spending Quality Time together. Every free minute was dedicated to me. Instead of trying to manipulate me, he started listening to me and actually showing interest in my life.
> 
> Took months, and he still slips up, but I'm back to being vested in the success of the relationship and it was all done based on genuine actions.


Good. 

But you described a situation in which you demanded your husband to basically man up, take responsibility, and take leadership in fixing his relationship.

That is the fundamental first principle of the Red Pill.

It sounds like he hit all the physical improvement stuff to a T…but missed all the other stuff it says about needing to be a bit "Beta" (as in emotionally accessible, though not effusively emotional).


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Blonde said:


> Somewhere on his website I read that he was formerly Christian. I wonder if his daddy was a "christian" like my H?
> 
> His male leadership schtick is all the rage with lots of evangelical sects and I noticed lots of self professed christian men posting their agreement on his blog posts about men lead and women submit.


Yes, and they need to be super careful because many are getting it wrong. Evangelical men who follow him lock stock and barrel are barking up the wrong tree. They need to go back to the Source and learn to get it right.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

naiveonedave said:


> here is the problem, you are not a man in a sexless relationship who beat his head against the wall for years. SO to deny my reality and the reality of 1/2 the posters on SIM is lunacy.
> 
> There is no way my spouse has been hurt by mmsl. I ask you to give me one way my spouse has been hurt by it. I would bet you $1M, I would win, because I know you can't. You and AA and FW are making way too many assumptions about how mmsl is used and what guys take away from it, because you miss the context of the book entirely.


Review of one of his books on Amazon

If you have any respect for yourself or your wife then DO NOT BUY KAY'S BOOKS - THEY WILL NOT IMPROVE YOUR MARRIAGE! They preaches domination, mind games & lies as a way of maintaining a healthy marriage. My husband bought them & we nearly ended up getting divorced. If you don't care about your wife & only want sex, then divorce her without all of the games & find a prostitute. If you do care for your wife & value your marriage then talk to her, there are far better ways to be a better husband, and for your wife to be a better wife. THESE BOOKS WILL NOT MAKE YOU HAPPY!
(only gave it one star because you had to rate at least that to review. This book is pure poison and doesn't deserve to be in print)

Sure seemed to hurt her. You have no idea what people do and don't take from it or if all men can look past the disgusting parts of the book to get to any helpful information in there. 

You don't know that telling someone to f* a woman without caring for her at all "like she's rented" isn't going to hurt anyone when you put those ideas into bitter and resentful people's heads. 

Or that saying you'll cheat if she doesn't take down her last remaining boundaries for you, when her and her children have become dependent on you, isn't going to hurt her. 

That's a big risk to take when you suggest this book.

What risk is there to the one I suggested or any other marriage book out there? That it won't work? That's a risk with everything, yes even mmslp.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Even that comes with a context that you don't lose attraction to your husband for being a catering submissive weenie. I've read your other posts about your husband. A woman isn't likely to want emotional depth, connection, or sex, from a man she has difficulty respecting as a man.



Its not clear what you are inferring here.. about my H and I and I don't like assuming. Can you clarify... It almost sounds like you are saying my husband is a catering submissive weenie. Or are you saying he's not and that is why I dont lose attraction for him.


----------



## RoseAglow

naiveonedave said:


> https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/quilted-science/201006/copying-others-when-choosing-mate
> 
> one of a few million google hits, for the ladies who are too lazy to look it up. I also think that this 'phenomena' is not a strong factor, but a factor, that can make a good man appear awesome and a bad man appear much worse. Where good and bad mean only what the women in the immediate think at that time (looks, style, money, etc).


Thanks for posting this. It is an interesting article and it clarified what the term was describing.

Interestingly, both men and women rated a person higher when the opposite sex mate in the picture was attractive, and rated the person lower when the opposite sex mate in the picture was less attractive.

"The graph below demonstrates one of Platt and Yorzinski's main findings: When participants of either sex rated the attractiveness of a potential mate in a "couples-photo", how attractive they perceived the potential mate to be increased with the attractiveness of his or her fellow-model in the photograph. The same person, when shown together with a very attractive person looked more desirable than when shown alone. However, when shown with a less attractive person the potential mate appeared to loose desirablility."

As trends, women looked more at the opposite-sex partner than men when choosing, and overall it appears that men's ratings were more influenced by the opposite-sex partner. The paper doesn't provide p values so outside of the chart, it's difficult to know which, if any, of the findings were statistically significant.


----------



## Jellybeans

Have you guys ever seen that movie _Magnolia_? With Tom Cruise shelling out his "This will Get you Laid" mantra but really it was about putting women down and how men dominate everything, how women don't matter really? 

Yeah.


----------



## Pluto2

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> This is incorrect. Homosexuality only perpetuates by the heterosexual encounters of homosexuals. If the trait is not passed on to subsequent generations, it becomes less and less prevalent. Evolution does dominate human behavior. Homosexuality simply hasn't been a significant barrier to reproduction... because those attracted to the same sex, still had a desire to reproduce. So they did.
> 
> The pursuit of sex acts that don't produce children are also an evolutionary adaptation. It is a hijacking of the machinery that ensures reproduction - the dopamine reward supplied for sexual behavior - an evolved mechanism. You get the dopamine reward for the behavior, so you enjoy and continue the behavior. If it were a barrier to reproduction - and conceiveably for some ancestor it may have been - then that non-reproductive sexual behavior isn't going to be prevalent in the next generation. So we know that non-reproductive sex acts were not a major barrier to reproduction.
> 
> 
> 
> This lacks understanding of the timescales and mechanisms of evolution. Contraception hasn't been around long enough to have any effect whatsoever.
> 
> Evolution doesn't "want" anything. A species dies or it doesn't. A species without mechanisms to encourage reproduction doesn't reproduce and it dies. So we all have inherited a reward system and instinctual desire to reproduce. It is in fact one of the most powerful instincts we have, exactly because of its critical importance. There is no differentiation between having sex and having children. There is only the machinery that evolved to encourage reproduction. We're still here because it worked pretty well. What we do with it doesn't so much matter, in proportion to the amount we're reproducing or not.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody consciously "pushes their evolutionary goals". Evolution has wired you to pursue them with or without your conscious awareness, in the ways that evolved as most productive - an inexplicable sense of lust and dopamine reward for sex. Wanting lots of kids, or wanting to care for someone, is secondary. If you or people like you don't mate you disappear. Mating is prerequisite and of utmost importance, evolutionarily wired into us, so it cannot just be consciously replaced with being a sperm donor.
> 
> 
> 
> If you only want one highly desirable woman money also works well.
> 
> Notice just how well all the things that men tend to be competitive about align very nicely with the things women actually seek in a sexual partner. It's not even really about the money, its about the status. It's about social standing and success because of her instinctive desire to have the most capable offspring possible and these are the cues she's evolved to find. We just have a hard time acknowledging it because 1) Awareness and the illusion of free will gets in the way. 2) There's a lot of other crap on top of this foundation.


you're funny


----------



## Lila

Icey181 said:


> Interesting, but the Red Pill does not advocate ignoring your SO.
> 
> 
> Why would he take the Red Pill?
> 
> The issue was not that he had a detached wife who was no longer having sex with him.
> 
> Your situation is entirely different.
> 
> 
> Well…not good. But it kind of speaks to how the Red Pill stuff would not be overly useful to him here.
> 
> 
> Good.
> 
> But you described a situation in which you demanded your husband to basically man up, take responsibility, and take leadership in fixing his relationship.
> 
> That is the fundamental first principle of the Red Pill.
> 
> It sounds like he hit all the physical improvement stuff to a T…but missed all the other stuff it says about needing to be a bit "Beta" (as in emotionally accessible, though not effusively emotional).


You're right that the Red Pill doesn't necessary work in my case, and that's my point. MMSL and the other Red Pill rhetoric is the go to advice given to EVERY man who comes on here with marital problems, and it shouldn't be. It can make a bad situation much worse. Actually, it shouldn't even be suggested at all except as a last ditch effort for the very desperate who in lieu of divorce are willing to try this.

Face it, Red Pill is used to get more sex. More sex in marriage, more sex from gfs, more sex in general. The basic principle is if a guy is getting sex, then EVERYTHING is hunky dory. It doesn't advocate for meeting a partner's emotional needs in any way. It's about finding the hottest woman a man can find and either through manipulation tricks or resources to attain SEX. That's it! I does not speak of meeting emotional needs whatsoever.


----------



## Icey181

Blonde said:


> The way my 31yod "approached" her now H is to volunteer to cut his hair for him. She used one of the electric buzzers you can get at Walmart (which I used on my boys throughout their childhood)
> 
> So on an on they go, her giving him a haircut every couple months and unrequited crushing on him...
> 
> An older gentleman from the church who knew them both became aware of this and had a sit down with Brett telling him he would be a fool to let this girl slip out of his hands.
> 
> Then came the "haircut appreciation dinner" and a couple years later, the wedding.
> 
> He's a quiet, shy, nerdy guy and that is who she loves. If he was to act all MMSL Alpha, I think it would trigger very bad memories of growing up with the unstable M of her parents and the marriage would cease to thrive.


So…she did not approach him.

Like many women, she placed herself in a position to be approached, and waited for him?

And it took an older man to tell Brett to actually be aggressive and make a move?

You…basically just backed up what I have been saying about men and women and dating.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Jellybeans said:


> Have you guys ever seen that movie _Magnolia_? With Tom Cruise shelling out his "This will Get you Laid" mantra but really it was about putting women down and how men dominate everything, how women don't matter really?
> 
> Yeah.


That character was based on a PUA d*uchebag, it is not just a coincident.


----------



## Fozzy

Blonde said:


> The way my 31yod "approached" her now H is to volunteer to cut his hair for him. She used one of the electric buzzers you can get at Walmart (which I used on my boys throughout their childhood)
> 
> So on an on they go, her giving him a haircut every couple months and unrequited crushing on him...
> 
> An older gentleman from the church who knew them both became aware of this and had a sit down with Brett telling him he would be a fool to let this girl slip out of his hands.
> 
> Then came the "haircut appreciation dinner" and a couple years later, the wedding.
> 
> *He's a quiet, shy, nerdy guy and that is who she loves.* If he was to act all MMSL Alpha, I think it would trigger very bad memories of growing up with the unstable M of her parents and the marriage would cease to thrive.


Back before my hair all migrated south, my wife would sometimes cut my hair. LOVED it. Even when she gouged trenches in the side by accident.


----------



## Icey181

Lila said:


> You're right that the Red Pill doesn't necessary work in my case, and that's my point. MMSL and the other Red Pill rhetoric is the go to advice given to EVERY man who comes on here with marital problems, and it shouldn't be. It can make a bad situation much worse. Actually, it shouldn't even be suggested at all except as a last ditch effort for the very desperate who in lieu of divorce are willing to try this.
> 
> Face it, Red Pill is used to get more sex. More sex in marriage, more sex from gfs, more sex in general. The basic principle is if a guy is getting sex, then EVERYTHING is hunky dory. It doesn't advocate for meeting a partner's emotional needs in any way. It's about finding the hottest woman a man can find and either through manipulation tricks or resources to attain SEX. That's it! I does not speak of meeting emotional needs whatsoever.


Yeah, specific problems, specific solutions.

Of course the Red Pill stuff is primarily about sex.

Red Pill advice is about building attraction to improve your sex life.

That is it.

All the additional social-theory pandering about solipsism, AF/BB, AWALT etc etc are interesting to read and may have a kernel of truth here or there, but is mostly just additional venting by the anger-phase boys.

And the Red Pill stuff does actually advocate for meeting needs.

Something that gets bandied about on the reddit for instance, when one of the returning posters comes back, is that LTRs require "both the Alpha and the Beta."

And it is well known that a failure to be the "Beta," as in an emotionally attentive and accessible partner, no amount of Alpha is going to hold it together.


----------



## naiveonedave

Icey181 said:


> Yeah, specific problems, specific solutions.
> 
> Of course the Red Pill stuff is primarily about sex.
> 
> Red Pill advice is about building attraction to improve your sex life.
> 
> That is it.
> 
> All the additional social-theory pandering about solipsism, AF/BB, AWALT etc etc are interesting to read and may have a kernel of truth here or there, but is mostly just additional venting by the anger-phase boys.
> 
> And the Red Pill stuff does actually advocate for meeting needs.
> 
> Something that gets bandied about on the reddit for instance, when one of the returning posters comes back, is that LTRs require "both the Alpha and the Beta."
> 
> And it is well known that a failure to be the "Beta," as in an emotionally attentive and accessible partner, no amount of Alpha is going to hold it together.


excellent post - need to repost as I can only like it once.


----------



## lucy999

Let's all


----------



## Icey181

lucy999 said:


> Let's all


:nono:

Do you know how many years it took for my family to stop saying that....gawd...


----------



## naiveonedave

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Review of one of his books on Amazon
> 
> If you have any respect for yourself or your wife then DO NOT BUY KAY'S BOOKS - THEY WILL NOT IMPROVE YOUR MARRIAGE! They preaches domination, mind games & lies as a way of maintaining a healthy marriage. My husband bought them & we nearly ended up getting divorced. If you don't care about your wife & only want sex, then divorce her without all of the games & find a prostitute. If you do care for your wife & value your marriage then talk to her, there are far better ways to be a better husband, and for your wife to be a better wife. THESE BOOKS WILL NOT MAKE YOU HAPPY!
> (only gave it one star because you had to rate at least that to review. This book is pure poison and doesn't deserve to be in print)
> 
> Sure seemed to hurt her. You have no idea what people do and don't take from it or if all men can look past the disgusting parts of the book to get to any helpful information in there.
> 
> You don't know that telling someone to f* a woman without caring for her at all "like she's rented" isn't going to hurt anyone when you put those ideas into bitter and resentful people's heads.
> 
> Or that saying you'll cheat if she doesn't take down her last remaining boundaries for you, when her and her children have become dependent on you, isn't going to hurt her.
> 
> That's a big risk to take when you suggest this book.
> 
> What risk is there to the one I suggested or any other marriage book out there? That it won't work? That's a risk with everything, yes even mmslp.


sorry, but when I read his book, I got none of that. Again, show me where my wife lost out, because she hasn't. She has gained a ton.


----------



## Lila

Icey181 said:


> *Yeah, specific problems, specific solutions.*
> 
> Of course the Red Pill stuff is primarily about sex.
> 
> Red Pill advice is about building attraction to improve your sex life.
> 
> That is it


This!!!! Specific problems, Specific solutions is what many of the women on this thread are trying to say. Every marital problem is not solved by sex. That is why suggesting MMSL or Red Pill philosophy to every man that comes on here with a marital problem is dangerous.


----------



## Ikaika

So para-menopausal and menopausal women should get a raise? Damn, I wish this were true, I am looking for any edge to take an early retirement.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Lila said:


> This!!!! Specific problems, Specific solutions is what many of the women on this thread are trying to say. Every marital problem is not solved by sex. That is why suggesting MMSL or Red Pill philosophy to every man that comes on here with a marital problem is dangerous.


Amen, Lila.

Women are not cookie cutter dolls for men to learn the key punch code of.

Men are not this, either.


----------



## naiveonedave

Lila said:


> This!!!! Specific problems, Specific solutions is what many of the women on this thread are trying to say. Every marital problem is not solved by sex. That is why suggesting MMSL or Red Pill philosophy to every man that comes on here with a marital problem is dangerous.


this is very true. however, the only times I would say to go to MMSL is for lack of SIM or a potentially cheating W. I think the PUA stuff is disgusting, because I want SIM in a strong marriage, not 'notches on my belt'.


----------



## Buddy400

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I've talked to and read many women over the years and the reasons for lacking sex are many (most common one I've heard in my life- he doesn't do enough around the house and leaves it all to me and/or he's not romantic anymore).


You see, that's EXACTLY the point. Men that believe that doing more chores and being more romantic will get them more sex (which is what all the mainstream outlets will tell a man to do) and DO that don't actually get more sex from their wives. Men that ignore what women say they want and do what the Red Pill(ish) men suggest, do get more sex from their wives.

Is that science? Not until somebody conducts a double blind experiment testing the thesis. But all my worldly experience and that of other men I know supports this. 

Obviously, the husband can't be a d!ck. Why do many women think that they need chores and romance to have sex? Got me. I think it has something to do with what they think they SHOULD want versus what they ACTUALLY want.


----------



## Icey181

Lila said:


> This!!!! Specific problems, Specific solutions is what many of the women on this thread are trying to say. Every marital problem is not solved by sex. That is why suggesting MMSL or Red Pill philosophy to every man that comes on here with a marital problem is dangerous.


Of course.

But if the issue is a detached wife who is no longer being intimate, then these are some of the things that need to be looked at.

Same pretty much goes for the women.


----------



## Jellybeans

Faithful Wife said:


> That character was based on a PUA d*uchebag, it is not just a coincident.


Oh, girl. I know. 

The character is a man who every woman should run away from.


----------



## lucy999

Icey181 said:


> :nono:
> 
> Do you know how many years it took for my family to stop saying that....gawd...


Give me their number. I'll remind them of it so they can torture you for another year or two. Or ten.


----------



## EllisRedding

Lila said:


> You're right that the Red Pill doesn't necessary work in my case, and that's my point. * MMSL and the other Red Pill rhetoric is the go to advice given to EVERY man who comes on here with marital problems, and it shouldn't be.* It can make a bad situation much worse. Actually, it shouldn't even be suggested at all except as a last ditch effort for the very desperate who in lieu of divorce are willing to try this.


In all fairness MMSL was never mentioned once in a thread I had started that revolved around marital issues. Other threads I have been in I have not seen it recommended, so I wouldn't say it is thrown at EVERY man who enters TAM


----------



## Icey181

EllisRedding said:


> In all fairness MMSL was never mentioned once in a thread I had started that revolved around marital issues. Other threads I have been in I have not seen it recommended, so I wouldn't say it is thrown at EVERY man who enters TAM


Going to back this up.

When I started looking around a year or so ago for online advice on how to deal with my whole DB situation, TAM was one of the places I looked to that counterbalanced the Red Pill advice.

In my admittedly short-term experience with this place, it rarely shows up, and never in its more radical forms.


----------



## Ikaika

http://youtu.be/eCss0kZXeyE


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Buddy400 said:


> Why do many women think that they need chores and romance to have sex? Got me. I think it has something to do with what they think they SHOULD want versus what they ACTUALLY want.


Because being someone's Mommy having to clean up after them or feeling like they only touch you when they want to get laid isn't sexy.

Some women do have lower needs for acts of service/domestic and romantic type stuff and need attractiveness instead. Chores and romance wouldn't work for those women. Getting a 6 pack isn't going to make the woman who is sick of cleaning up after you want you either.

Know YOUR wife's needs, meet them.


----------



## Buddy400

always_alone said:


> Women are under just as much pressure as men to "not be who we are". If I want to be hit on, go on dates, well, I have to change to suit someone else's ideas of attractiveness .


True. I don't think the Red Pill is so much about whining that men shouldn't have to change. It's telling them that they DO, just like women know that they have to wear makeup, lose the 10 lbs, dress attractively, etc. 

If there are men whining that they shouldn't have to change to attract women, then I'll put them in the same class as women that insist on wearing "comfortable" shoes and can't get dates.


----------



## always_alone

RoseAglow said:


> Thanks for posting this. It is an interesting article and it clarified what the term was describing.
> 
> Interestingly, both men and women rated a person higher when the opposite sex mate in the picture was attractive, and rated the person lower when the opposite sex mate in the picture was less attractive.


Oh, found another one. 
Mate Choice Copying in Humans - Springer

Despite the title, this one doesn't compare women and men, but focuses only on women. It finds overall that



> Attractiveness ratings given to men when pictured in a couple showed a modest increase over the initial ratings of the men. The increase was not statistically significant in a paired t-test (t=0.63, p=0.54).


But after some regression analysis, they did find that 

Younger and more inexperienced women will more likely demonstrate mate-copying behaviours if the female consort is very attractive. 

Older and more experienced women, and women seeking shorter term physical relationships will not. 

So, in the end of all, a bit, but not too much in the way of support for preselection,.


----------



## Blonde

Icey181 said:


> This is a form of bias the Red Pill stuff has helped me escape.
> 
> The "Women are Wonderful Effect" presumes that, by virtue of a woman being a woman, she must be doing all the necessaries in a relationship and that it is most likely the man's fault when issues arise.
> 
> The focus on most advice these days presumes the same, so there is no threat that suddenly the burden of improving things is going to be hoisted on the woman's shoulders alone.


_"So… let’s assign the blame…

For the husband, whether he knew it or not, he was always the Captain. *He was always the one more responsible for the relationship outcome than the wife was*. " -A Kay

"

"almost always, the critical error that starts the real relationship momentum downwards, *is the husband’s."* -A Kay

"I’ve also had a fair number of emails and comments to the effect of, “Okay I admit to having screwed it all up, having missed how unhappy she was. But then she did [totally inappropriate behavior]. *Am I really to blame for all that?*”

Too long didn’t read…. *hit an iceberg and it’s the Captain’s fault.*" -A. Kay

Captain and First Officer When The Marriage is Slamming Into Icebergs | Athol Kay's Married Man Sex Life​_
I'm telling ya JLD, the same fellas who think you are out to lunch eat it up coming from Kay :scratchhead:


----------



## Brigit

Y'know I decide to take both the Red Pill and the Blue Pill to let them fight it out and see what would happen.

Funny thing...I ended up in a lucid dream with Nietzsche. 

We drank tea. 

It was nice.


----------



## naiveonedave

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Because being someone's Mommy having to clean up after them or feeling like they only touch you when they want to get laid isn't sexy.
> 
> Some women do have lower needs for acts of service/domestic and romantic type stuff and need attractiveness instead. Chores and romance wouldn't work for those women. Getting a 6 pack isn't going to make the woman who is sick of cleaning up after you want you either.
> 
> Know YOUR wife's needs, meet them.


will please answer my direct post - THIS DOES NOT WORK. READ SIM. SORRY, IT DOESN"T.

Attraction has little or nothing to do with meeting needs.


----------



## EllisRedding

Blonde said:


> I'm telling ya JLD, the same fellas who think you are out to lunch eat it up coming from Kay :scratchhead:


I call bs on JLDs assertions the same way I would with Kay if those were his


----------



## chillymorn

too many Disney movies. romance novels and reality tv.

I should be able to act like a b!tch cut off the sex dress all frumpy and he should still worship the ground I walk on!............... 


well eventually us slow whitted men start think hmmmmm I think I'm getting the short end of things here and then he come across the red pill... and all of the sudden the B!tchy frumpy woman is offerded because her usual tactics don't work any more. sometimes she comes around and falls in love with the new less concerned about all her drama type of in control man sometime she stays resentful and the relationship ends either way it best for both in the long run he can do what he wants with his new red pill though process and she can find her next victim to control and beat down until he wises up. 

its a win win for everybody.


----------



## Faithful Wife

chillymorn said:


> too many Disney movies. romance novels and reality tv.
> 
> I should be able to act like a b!tch cut off the sex dress all frumpy and he should still worship the ground I walk on!...............
> 
> 
> well eventually us slow whitted men start think hmmmmm I think I'm getting the short end of things here and then he come across the red pill... and all of the sudden the B!tchy frumpy woman is offerded because her usual tactics don't work any more. sometimes she comes around and falls in love with the new less concerned about all her drama type of in control man sometime she stays resentful and the relationship ends either way it best for both in the long run he can do what he wants with his new red pill though process and she can find her next victim to control and beat down until he wises up.
> 
> its a win win for everybody.



And somehow, just because we don't agree with the hateful speech in this one book, we are clearly frumpy, b*tchy women who have cut off sex with our husbands, until our man leaves us and we find our next victim. :scratchhead:


----------



## naiveonedave

so let's do a turn about....

Women complain that men don't do X to meet their needs. In a book not yet written, the author, using 'woman speak' (as opposed to AK's locker room language), tells us how rude and uncaring and uncivilized men can be. The author then goes on to say, well honey, if you develop your WAP (woman's action plan) and you make a few minor improvements to your 'womanhood', your mate may be willing to meet your need for X. This would misandry, would it not? Just because AK is crude, doesn't make him a misogynist or does it?


----------



## Faithful Wife

naiveonedave said:


> *This would misandry, would it not?* Just because AK is crude, doesn't make him a misogynist *or does it?*


Yes it would, and yes it does.


----------



## always_alone

naiveonedave said:


> so let's do a turn about....
> 
> Women complain that men don't do X to meet their needs. In a book not yet written, the author, using 'woman speak' (as opposed to AK's locker room language), tells us how rude and uncaring and uncivilized men can be. The author then goes on to say, well honey, if you develop your WAP (woman's action plan) and you make a few minor improvements to your 'womanhood', your mate may be willing to meet your need for X. This would misandry, would it not?


Absolutely yes if it contains 300 pages of vitriol about how men have hamsters instead of brains, can't be trusted, biologically programmed to cheat, need to be told what they want, and on, and on, and on.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

naiveonedave said:


> will please answer my direct post - THIS DOES NOT WORK. READ SIM. SORRY, IT DOESN"T.
> 
> Attraction has little or nothing to do with meeting needs.


1. It has worked for many couples

2. My attraction comes and goes based on how the marriage is overall and how much he is/isn't meeting my needs. 

He's in shape, girls look at him, try to flirt, he's not a wimp and yet I couldn't care less about it if my needs aren't met. 

The times he made an effort to meet them I saw it again, the guy I met and thought was hot years ago and wanted to bring home and sleep with. I felt that attraction. 

Too bad he couldn't have done it more often.


----------



## Lila

naiveonedave said:


> this is very true. however, the only times I would say to go to MMSL is for lack of SIM or a potentially cheating W. I think the PUA stuff is disgusting, because I want SIM in a strong marriage, not 'notches on my belt'.


But see Dave, even then I'd warn against it. Let's look at my story again. What if I had stopped having sex with my husband? My resentment towards him sure warranted it. The only reason I didn't is because I have sexual needs too and I wasn't about to cut off my nose to spite my face. Had my husband come on here, describing himself the way I did, then saying "my wife has cut off all sex", he probably would have gotten the ol' "Read MMSL and NNMNG" advice or worse.....'"tell her if she's not going to do it with you then you're going to go find someone else who will". That would have been the nail on our coffin.


----------



## EllisRedding

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> 1. It has worked for many couples
> 
> 2. My attraction comes and goes based on how the marriage is overall and how much he is/isn't meeting my needs.
> 
> He's in shape, girls look at him, try to flirt, he's not a wimp and yet I couldn't care less about it if my needs aren't met.
> 
> The times he made an effort to meet them I saw it again, the guy I met and thought was hot years ago and wanted to bring home and sleep with. I felt that attraction.
> 
> Too bad he couldn't have done it more often.


Curious, were his needs met, or did he need to meet your needs in order to have his needs met? Not making any assumptions here, just going off of your post.


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> And somehow, just because we don't agree with the hateful speech in this one book, we are clearly frumpy, b*tchy women who have cut off sex with our husbands, until our man leaves us and we find our next victim. :scratchhead:


Clear as day to me. Just as any woman who ever has any trouble with her man, it's because she is fat and hideous and doesn't deserve any male attention ever.


----------



## naiveonedave

always_alone said:


> Absolutely yes if it contains 300 pages of vitriol about how men have hamsters instead of brains, can't be trusted, biologically programmed to cheat, need to be told what they want, and on, and on, and on.


so then all women should stop watching Oprah or any of a million other media outlets that scream how men suck?


----------



## chillymorn

Faithful Wife said:


> And somehow, just because we don't agree with the hateful speech in this one book, we are clearly frumpy, b*tchy women who have cut off sex with our husbands, until our man leaves us and we find our next victim. :scratchhead:


FW women who don't cut off sex and act b!tchy gives a man no cause to start looking for such a book.:scratchhead:

there are plenty of women who are here that don't fit the need for their men to know about the red pill. you very well could be one of them.

But my opinion is this material is really useful for men who after trying to be what they thought were good husbands and providers only to come to the realization that even thought they were good husbands/fathers/providers their wife somehow came to the conclusion that they could be a *****y,selfish ,frumpy person and their husband would always put up with it. Until he figures it isn't worth it.


----------



## naiveonedave

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> 1. It has worked for many couples
> 
> 2. My attraction comes and goes based on how the marriage is overall and how much he is/isn't meeting my needs.
> 
> He's in shape, girls look at him, try to flirt, he's not a wimp and yet I couldn't care less about it if my needs aren't met.
> 
> The times he made an effort to meet them I saw it again, the guy I met and thought was hot years ago and wanted to bring home and sleep with. I felt that attraction.
> 
> Too bad he couldn't have done it more often.


well, based on SIM and my friends, you think you are right, but what you think is not our reality. Study after study shows that chores and such does not get you sex.


----------



## Faithful Wife

naiveonedave said:


> so then all women should stop watching Oprah or any of a million other media outlets that scream how men suck?


Do you see the advice given to women at TAM being "Hey, you have trouble with your hubby? YOU SHOULD WATCH OPRAH! That chick can solve anything!"

No, right?

Because if that "watch Oprah" was given to women here as legit relationship advice, women would scoff at the idea.


----------



## Faithful Wife

chillymorn said:


> But my opinion is this material is really useful for men who after trying to be what they thought were good husbands and providers only to come to the realization that even thought they were good husbands/fathers/providers their wife somehow came to the conclusion that they could be a *****y,selfish ,frumpy person and their husband would always put up with it. Until he figures it isn't worth it.


And if MMSL were only suggested to the few men who this is true for HERE, I wouldn't even notice it. But it isn't, it is spouted to many men who do not fit this profile who have wives who do not fit this profile.

I've seen it suggested to men who have only had ONE post, in which he is only talking about his wife and him having one simple issue, and no information about sex given at all.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Personally, relationships are more nuanced than black or white for me. You have to know how to read the person, self assess well and approach correctly. Know yourself, your truth and make a stand. There are situations where Alpha works and there are situations where Beta works. For me and what I've seen, the true art is balancing the two and thus its why I dub it a compassionate alpha. But you've got to know when to do what... cookie cutter is only going to have limited results. Which is why his stuff works for some but not others.


----------



## EllisRedding

Blonde said:


> so, how do you feel about Athol Kay and MMSL?
> 
> _"So… let’s assign the blame…
> 
> For the husband, whether he knew it or not, he was always the Captain. *He was always the one more responsible for the relationship outcome than the wife was.* " -A Kay
> 
> "
> 
> "almost always, the critical error that starts the real relationship momentum downwards, *is the husband’s.*" -A Kay
> 
> "I’ve also had a fair number of emails and comments to the effect of, “Okay I admit to having screwed it all up, having missed how unhappy she was. But then she did [totally inappropriate behavior]. *Am I really to blame for all that?”*
> 
> Too long didn’t read…. hit an iceberg and *it’s the Captain’s fault.*" -A. Kay
> 
> Captain and First Officer When The Marriage is Slamming Into Icebergs | Athol Kay's Married Man Sex Life_​


As I posted in my previous response to you, if that is his assertion (which I will take your word for with your quote since I have not read MMSL) I call bs.


----------



## Faithful Wife

naiveonedave said:


> Study after study shows that chores and such does not get you sex.


Couples who share housework have the most sex and best sex lives - The Washington Post


----------



## chillymorn

Faithful Wife said:


> And if MMSL were only suggested to the few men who this is true for HERE, I wouldn't even notice it. But it isn't, it is spouted to many men who do not fit this profile who have wives who do not fit this profile.
> 
> I've seen it suggested to men who have only had ONE post, in which he is only talking about his wife and him having one simple issue, and no information about sex given at all.


and you know this how? I think any man coming her most likely needs it.


----------



## chillymorn

Faithful Wife said:


> Couples who share housework have the most sex and best sex lives - The Washington Post


the Washington liberal fuucking post!!!!! lol


----------



## Faithful Wife

chillymorn said:


> and you know this how? *I think any man coming her most likely needs it.*


First you say it is only for men whose wives are b*tches who dress frumpy and cut off sex.

Then you say ANY man coming here most likely needs it. :scratchhead:

So every single man at TAM has a b*tchy wife who has cut off sex.

Wow.


----------



## Faithful Wife

chillymorn said:


> the Washington *liberal fuucking* post!!!!! lol


Because THAT matters.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

EllisRedding said:


> Curious, were his needs met, or did he need to meet your needs in order to have his needs met? Not making any assumptions here, just going off of your post.


I met all his needs at first, still met most of them even after the resentment kicked in but I slowly meet less and less as time went by. Including sex. 

If anyone told him to NOT meet the needs I've actually been asking for and instead do mmslp it would be so far off the mark.


----------



## always_alone

naiveonedave said:


> well, based on SIM and my friends, you think you are right, but what you think is not our reality. Study after study shows that chores and such does not get you sex.


Study after study? 

You're thinking this is better supported than the preselection "truth" that turned out not to be truth at all?


----------



## EllisRedding

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I met all his needs at first, still met most of them even after the resentment kicked in but I slowly meet less and less as time went by. Including sex.
> 
> If anyone told him to NOT meet the needs I've actually been asking for and instead do mmslp it would be so far off the mark.


Thx for the response. Like I said, wasn't making any assumptions, was just genuinely curious based on your post


----------



## chillymorn

Faithful Wife said:


> First you say it is only for men whose wives are b*tches who dress frumpy and cut off sex.
> 
> Then you say ANY man coming here most likely needs it. :scratchhead:
> 
> So every single man at TAM has a b*tchy wife who has cut off sex.
> 
> Wow.


yep the vast majority of men who come her are because their wife is either b!tchy, quit having sex or frumpy or any combination of the 3.


----------



## Faithful Wife

chillymorn said:


> yep the vast majority of men who come her are because their wife is either b!tchy, quit having sex or frumpy or any combination of the 3.


I'm going to make this my signature.


----------



## chillymorn

Faithful Wife said:


> Because THAT matters.


yep references matter


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Poor behavior is genderless imo


----------



## chillymorn

Faithful Wife said:


> I'm going to make this my signature.


cool! :smthumbup:


----------



## Faithful Wife

chillymorn said:


> yep references matter


Um, the Washington Post didn't conduct the study, they just reported it.


----------



## always_alone

chillymorn said:


> the Washington liberal fuucking post!!!!! lol


Oh please. That study was widely reported in a variety of newsmedia, including the New York Times. Here is the actual study.

Who Has the Time? The Relationship Between Household Labor Time and Sexual Frequency


----------



## chillymorn

Just like the vast majority of women come her because their husband are indifferent, quit desiring sex with them, got a big fat belly.


----------



## always_alone

chillymorn said:


> yep the vast majority of men who come her are because their wife is either b!tchy, quit having sex or frumpy or any combination of the 3.


Just out of curiosity, why do you suppose the women are here?


----------



## ConanHub

I don't think it is chores but doing them together. Teamwork improves many aspects of a relationship especially sex.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## naiveonedave

always_alone said:


> Study after study?
> 
> You're thinking this is better supported than the preselection "truth" that turned out not to be truth at all?


Why husbands who share household chores miss out on sex - CNN.com
amongst many others. The one study the other way was the only one I could find in a few minutes of google.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

ConanHub said:


> I don't think it is chores but doing them together. Teamwork improves many aspects of a relationship especially sex.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I agree... I love the camaraderie. I'm less lonely.


----------



## Faithful Wife

ConanHub said:


> I don't think it is chores but doing them together. Teamwork improves many aspects of a relationship especially sex.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


It is actually the equality of labor division that allows for more and better sex. They may or may not do the chores together or at the same time.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

naiveonedave said:


> Study after study shows that chores and such does not get you sex.


It's not that chores (or whatever said need is) gets you sex, it's not a trade system. It's the NOT doing these things that changes the situation. So if you're NOT doing your part at home and NOT meeting her needs, your attraction level/respect/love goes down. 

When you are it will go back up, sometimes after a while because she wonders if you are only doing it to get what you want, sometimes it's just gone forever, sometimes she wasn't attracted to you in the first place so going up to baseline isn't enough anyway. 

Sometimes that need IS a hot, stronger man. In that case- work on that but that doesn't mean it's the same for all men and women.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

naiveonedave said:


> Why husbands who share household chores miss out on sex - CNN.com
> amongst many others. The one study the other way was the only one I could find in a few minutes of google.


^ The google results are all just articles on that same study, which has been re-done and changed since then.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

I agree, leaving the load on one person is not wise.


----------



## naiveonedave

Lila said:


> But see Dave, even then I'd warn against it. Let's look at my story again. What if I had stopped having sex with my husband? My resentment towards him sure warranted it. The only reason I didn't is because I have sexual needs too and I wasn't about to cut off my nose to spite my face. Had my husband come on here, describing himself the way I did, then saying "my wife has cut off all sex", he probably would have gotten the ol' "Read MMSL and NNMNG" advice or worse.....'"tell her if she's not going to do it with you then you're going to go find someone else who will". That would have been the nail on our coffin.


this is too hypothetical. If he changed, what did he do? 

What I learned from MMSL was pretty low key, relative to what AA and FW want to believe. the whole find another W is really wayyyy down the line. Years down the line, and if it is years down the line that means 5+ years of minimal sex, the M is doomed anyway.


----------



## ConanHub

Faithful Wife said:


> It is actually the equality of labor division that allows for more and better sex. They may or may not do the chores together or at the same time.


Actually haven't found that to do a thing for us but whatever we do together really lights some fireworks!

I haven't ever observed that doing tasks separately improved sexual activity but that is all anecdotal.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

ConanHub said:


> Actually haven't found that to do a thing for us but whatever we do together really lights some fireworks!
> 
> I haven't ever observed that doing tasks separately improved sexual activity but that is als anecdotal.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I was just saying that the article pointed out the division of labor, not necessarily always doing the chores together.

Personally, my husband is a clean freak and I wish he would do less chores and f*ck my brains out MORE.


----------



## Blonde

Icey181 said:


> This is true even in marriage.
> 
> The advice is still for the man to be the aggressor. He has to woo his wife. He has to date his wife. He has to ensure he is building attraction.
> 
> That is where most of this advice lies.
> 
> The useful part of the Red Pill stuff is in just accepting that, telling guys this is the way it is, that it is not equal, deal with it, and hit the gym and be more confident.


So you and all the people who "liked" this post should also approve of jld's default position. Just sayin'




> Icey181 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you are placing the full responsibility for attraction and effort on the man's shoulders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jld said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is pretty much my default thinking, yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## naiveonedave

Faithful Wife said:


> Do you see the advice given to women at TAM being "Hey, you have trouble with your hubby? YOU SHOULD WATCH OPRAH! That chick can solve anything!"
> 
> No, right?
> 
> Because if that "watch Oprah" was given to women here as legit relationship advice, women would scoff at the idea.


Or Elle or any of the mags I scan for laughs while waiting for the dentist. They are all pretty much a mirror image of mansplaining to womansplaining. They all pretty much make men out to be idiots (even worse ones than we really are). They just don't use male locker room language and are probably even less based on science.


----------



## Faithful Wife

naiveonedave said:


> Or Elle or any of the mags I scan for laughs while waiting for the dentist. They are all pretty much a mirror image of mansplaining to womansplaining. They all pretty much make men out to be idiots (even worse ones than we really are). They just don't use male locker room language and are probably even less based on science.


And are these magazines offered to women on TAM as legit relationship advice?


----------



## Blossom Leigh

naiveonedave said:


> Or Elle or any of the mags I scan for laughs while waiting for the dentist. They are all pretty much a mirror image of mansplaining to womansplaining. They all pretty much make men out to be idiots (even worse ones than we really are). They just don't use male locker room language and are probably even less based on science.


There is so much crap in womens magazines I dont buy them.


----------



## EllisRedding

Blonde said:


> So you and all the people who "liked" this post should also approve of jld's default position. Just sayin'


No, jlds position was that women are the ones who primarily make the most effort in a relationship, and if things go south it must be the man's fault.


----------



## naiveonedave

dunno, I don't follow threads that give advice to women. But these things are much more mainstream than AK and don't have many vocal detractors.


----------



## Lila

naiveonedave said:


> this is too hypothetical. *If he changed, what did he do? *
> 
> What I learned from MMSL was pretty low key, relative to what AA and FW want to believe. the whole find another W is really wayyyy down the line. Years down the line, and if it is years down the line that means 5+ years of minimal sex, the M is doomed anyway.


What do you mean by "if he changed, what did he do"? Change when?


----------



## Faithful Wife

naiveonedave said:


> dunno, I don't follow threads that give advice to women. But these things are much more mainstream than AK and don't have many vocal detractors.


My issue with MMSL is that it is heralded here at TAM.

If stupid magazines were also heralded here at TAM as legit relationship advice, I would take issue with that as well.


----------



## always_alone

naiveonedave said:


> Why husbands who share household chores miss out on sex - CNN.com
> amongst many others. The one study the other way was the only one I could find in a few minutes of google.


This study doesn't say that husbands who share in household chores miss out on sex, it says: 



> ...shifting from a household in which
> women perform all of the core household
> tasks to one where women perform none of
> the core household tasks is associated with a
> decline in sexual frequency of nearly 1.6
> times per month. Given a mean sexual frequency
> in this sample of slightly over five,
> this is a large difference.


And interestingly, sexual frequency increases as men take over what the authors call "non-core" housework. 

http://www.asanet.org/journals/ASR/Feb13ASRFeature.pdf


----------



## naiveonedave

Lila said:


> What do you mean by "if he changed, what did he do"? Change when?


you claimed that you and hubby starting having sex. What did he do to change that? Or was it purely theoretical?


----------



## Blossom Leigh

What do they list as "non-core" housework?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> So prove it. You keep saying these stereotypes of yours are proven, but never provide a shred of evidence to support them.
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> I'm thinking it's because the studies you can dredge up to support your views are about as far from "proof" as you can get in the scientific community.


Always, I've been here for what 3 or 4 years now? I've posted on this subject again and again and linked again and again.

That women are most attracted to money IS 100% proven, and this is the last time I will give you links to ignore:

Here's a summary of the findings of Cognitive Scientist Peter Todd and colleagues. 
Men attracted to beauty, women to money: study

You may find all of his published work on mate choice here.

The finding is the same AGAIN AND AGAIN. There is a consistent attraction bias toward men of status/wealth.

"Effect of manipulated prestige-car ownership on both sex attractiveness ratings", from Br J Psychol. 2010 Feb;101(Pt 1):69-80. Epub 2009 Mar 19


> The male target model was rated as significantly more attractive on a rating scale of 1-10 when presented to female participants in the high compared to the neutral status context. Males were not influenced by status manipulation, as there was no significant difference between attractiveness ratings for the female seated in the high compared to the neutral condition.



Hamon, Raeann R., and Bron B. Ingoldsby. Mate Selection Across Cultures.
Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, 2003


> Women were found to look for money and power in a counter-part. There is also a tendency for women to marry up and for men to marry down. That is, women seek mates who are a little older, better educated, and of equal or higher social status, where as men prefer companions who are younger, shorter, and of equal or lower social status. Women look for men that are generally better educated, richer, older, and more experienced in life in general.





> preferences for males who had good financial prospects, were older than themselves, had higher social status, and who displayed hard working and industrious characteristics as these are clear signs of resources acquisition.


Khallad Y. (2005) Mate Selection Jordan; Effects of sex, socio-economic status and culture, Journal of Social and personal Relationship, 22(2), 155-168.


> female college students show greater interest in marriage partners who exhibit economic ability [...] women’s differentional preferences [...] mainly determined by socio- economic status.


Feingold, A. (1992). Gender differences in mate selection preferences: A test of the parental investment model psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 125-139


> women accord more weight than men to socio-economic status


Socio-Economic Status and Physical Attractiveness in Mate Selection Choice


> There is substantial evidence in mate preferences predicted that men value physical attractiveness and youth to a greater degree than women whereas women are more concerned with economic status.





> Hatifield and Rapson (1996) in their study cross-cultural prospective of love and sex find that women value more than men, marriage partners who posses status, who had good financial prospects and who are ambitious and industrious.


Women find status most attractive


> High-status costumes literally transformed homely men and made them more attractive to women than handsome men in low-status costumes.


How much do you want? You already know your intent is none other than to waste my time. There is nothing I could possibly present that you will accept. We both know it.

Studies by Townsend, 1989; Wiederman & Allgcier, 1992; Odosijevic , Ljubinkovic, & Arancic. 2003, all show female preference for socio-economic status. They all have similar conclusions that women place great weight on a man's socio-economic status, where as men place greater weight on outward appearance.

There are more! I could do this all day. Alas, this is all the time I have to waste on unreasonableness. 
It can be proven with the simplest of experiments. Hell, it's simple enough they can pull it off on Mythbusters! CONFIRMED. And the vast majority of women claimed they didn't care about money... just like we see on this forum.  It can even be shown across cultures. This IS the overwhelming preponderance of evidence, and I am provided further evidence of it any day I switch vehicles.

I'm sure you'll continue to deny, duck, weave, and throw shade. You'll look for some obscure hyper-feminist blowhard who wouldn't accept this proposition no matter the evidence, because somewhere, someone chose a poor guy over a rich guy and you personally can't identify this preference for status within yourself.... just like all the other women in such experiments. 

Hence, it behooves a man to have plenty of salt.


----------



## naiveonedave

Blossom: the manly stuff: fix the cars, mow the lawn, chop down trees, etc.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

naiveonedave said:


> the manly stuff: fix the cars, mow the lawn, chop down trees, etc.


Gotcha


----------



## BronzeTorpedo

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> The women that like jerks are often full of baggage, drama and low self-esteem which is why they are going after jerks in the first place.


Why the misogyny toward women? Can't women have brains that are capable of making decisions for themselves? Why should women be required to choose mates that you find acceptable?



> The goal should be to get the best one for you. So it doesn't matter if jerk got 100 and you only got 1 if that 1 is most suited to your life and compatable with your needs. If the jerk doesn't get a single one out of the 100 that will make him happy in the long run, he still lost.


Unsurprisingly, that logic is almost 100% backwards. Think of this analogy. Two men want to buy an apple. Adam goes to a supermarket with a table full of apples. Brian goes to a gas station that has only one apple on the shelf. Which man do you think will get a better apple? Most reasonable people would say Adam, since he has more to choose from.


----------



## Lila

naiveonedave said:


> you claimed that you and hubby starting having sex. What did he do to change that? Or was it purely theoretical?


Oh no, no...I never _stopped_ having sex with him, even when the relationship was headed to divorce. Like I said, I have sexual needs too and he's always been really good at meeting those, however there was no emotional connection during that period of time. 

As I said earlier, for all intents and purposes, I was using him like a human dildo. That's why I said IF I had cut off the sex and he'd come on here describing himself (tall, fit, success, great father, etc..), the most likely advise would have been "read MMSLP" and/or "tell her is she's not willing to have sex with you, then you'll find someone else who will".


----------



## BronzeTorpedo

Icey181 said:


> A handful of exceptions exist, but on balance, men are the pursuers and women the pursued.


I think I see your problem Icey. You're unfamiliar with TAM logic.

For example, you might say that lightning rarely strikes people. However, I have a friend of a friend who was struck by lightning. Since I know that lightning has struck someone in the past, by TAM logic, I can conclude that most people have been struck by lightning.

Now, before any of you "dudebros" try to mansplain that being struck by lightning is a rare event, I will simply misrepresent your statement as saying that nobody has ever been struck by lightning, which I have already disproved.

QED


----------



## tech-novelist

Blonde said:


> :scratchhead:
> 
> Aren't you the same one who was claiming earlier in the thread that marriage was a bigger risk for men? And now here you are admitting the big hit women take career-wise for pregnancy and childbirth/childrearing.
> 
> Can you see the inconsistency?


Let's add in the transfers of money after divorce (mostly female initiated), and see who is taking the bigger risk.

Here's a resource about divorce and child support laws in all 50 states: Real World Divorce: Custody, Child Support, and Alimony in the 50 States

In addition, men have much higher risk of suicide after divorce, while women do not. That's a pretty big risk, even though not financial.

Of course, the only sure way not to get divorced is not to get married. That's what I would advise any young man today.


----------



## Buddy400

Lila said:


> But see Dave, even then I'd warn against it. Let's look at my story again. What if I had stopped having sex with my husband? My resentment towards him sure warranted it. The only reason I didn't is because I have sexual needs too and I wasn't about to cut off my nose to spite my face. Had my husband come on here, describing himself the way I did, then saying "my wife has cut off all sex", he probably would have gotten the ol' "Read MMSL and NNMNG" advice or worse.....'"tell her if she's not going to do it with you then you're going to go find someone else who will". That would have been the nail on our coffin.


I think if your husband had come on TAM and related the relationship as it actually was, he wouldn't have been directed to MMSL, he would have been told to stop being an a$$hole.


----------



## BronzeTorpedo

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Don't change to pretend to be another one just keep moving along until you get to the right one just like we are trying to do (and yes, some women will also play the game of being the girl she thinks you want to get you) It never ends well for either of you.


That's pretty insensitive advice. It might surprise you, but many men find rejection to be a negative experience. So, when men ask for advice on minimizing rejection, simply dismissing their emotions and advising them to embrace rejection and welcome being rejected dozens, perhaps even hundreds or thousands of times, to find their one and only isn't very attractive advice.

I think the much kinder approach is to advise men to change their behavior so that they won't be rejected as often.


----------



## BronzeTorpedo

technovelist said:


> No one has *ever *offered to buy me a drink.
> That is true for most men.


Not me. Someone did once buy me a drink. But, it was a dude.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> Couples who share housework have the most sex and best sex lives - The Washington Post


Or, you could link to the NYT coverage of a study where couples that evenly shared the housework had less sex than those where it was 60/40.

We could play this "my study / your study" game all day.


----------



## naiveonedave

Lila said:


> Oh no, no...I never _stopped_ having sex with him, even when the relationship was headed to divorce. Like I said, I have sexual needs too and he's always been really good at meeting those, however there was no emotional connection during that period of time.
> 
> As I said earlier, for all intents and purposes, I was using him like a human dildo. That's why I said IF I had cut off the sex and he'd come on here describing himself (tall, fit, success, great father, etc..), the most likely advise would have been "read MMSLP" and/or "tell her is she's not willing to have sex with you, then you'll find someone else who will".


so what did he do to change? Because MMSL is about the man changing wayyyy prior to getting out of the M.

Most of the time MMSL is recommended, the dude is clearly trying to over nice the W, in hopes that this works.


----------



## Lila

Buddy400 said:


> I think if your husband had come on TAM and related the relationship as it actually was, he wouldn't have been directed to MMSL, he would have been told to stop being an a$$hole.


I'd like to believe that Buddy, I truly would, but having been here for a year, I can tell you that's the exception and not the rule. It's one of the reasons why one of the first questions I ask whenever a man comes on here complaining of no sex or harpy wife is "how much Quality Time do you spend with your wife?". Usually the response is 'minimal' and from my personal experience, 'minimal' doesn't cut it.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> Or, you could link to the NYT coverage of a study where couples that evenly shared the housework had less sex than those where it was 60/40.
> 
> We could play this "my study / your study" game all day.


You must have missed the other posts where that study was posted, and then the fine print showed it not to be as clear cut as what you are suggesting?

I posted my link in response to a man who said study after study ALWAYS showed that men do not get more sex when they do more chores. My link in fact proved that his statement wasn't true. Then he linked the study you are talking about, and the fine print showed it was not as it appears.

So no, I'm not play my study/your study. But I'm not the one who made an untrue sweeping generalization. I'm just the one who posted one study to a guy who did make that generalization and my study proved him wrong.

So let me guess...you will now want to go round and round some more about studies and blah blah blah....

And for what purpose?

I have one very clear stated purpose here on this thread.

You don't want to hear it? Don't read it.

But you want to haggle me for no real purpose? Then I'm done.

I really don't need your permission or approval to post anything I like. Likewise, neither do you need mine....however, I do have the right to ignore you completely, and you have that right as well.

Done.


----------



## turnera

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> That women are most attracted to money IS 100% proven
> 
> The finding is the same AGAIN AND AGAIN. There is a consistent attraction bias toward men of status/wealth.
> 
> Studies by Townsend, 1989; Wiederman & Allgcier, 1992; Odosijevic , Ljubinkovic, & Arancic. 2003, all show female preference for socio-economic status. They all have similar conclusions that women place great weight on a man's socio-economic status, where as men place greater weight on outward appearance.
> 
> 
> Hence, it behooves a man to have plenty of salt.


Agreed. And...it is just one more throwback to the stuff in our DNA that says women seek out the protectors, just like our cavewoman forebearers did. More money, more drive, more aggressiveness all equal better protection, in a multitude of ways, so that we want those types of men.

Doesn't mean we're shallow or gold-diggers. Means we want a protected life and men who can provide that are more attractive.


----------



## naiveonedave

Lila said:


> I'd like to believe that Buddy, I truly would, but having been here for a year, I can tell you that's the exception and not the rule. It's one of the reasons why one of the first questions I ask whenever a man comes on here complaining of no sex or harpy wife is "how much Quality Time do you spend with your wife?". Usually the response is 'minimal' and from my personal experience, 'minimal' doesn't cut it.


Usually you don't need to ask that question (quality time), because the guys 1st post literally describes how he is doing everything he can in hopes of getting lucky.


----------



## BronzeTorpedo

Blonde said:


> _"So… let’s assign the blame…
> 
> For the husband, whether he knew it or not, he was always the Captain. *He was always the one more responsible for the relationship outcome than the wife was*. " -A Kay
> 
> "
> 
> "almost always, the critical error that starts the real relationship momentum downwards, *is the husband’s."* -A Kay
> 
> "I’ve also had a fair number of emails and comments to the effect of, “Okay I admit to having screwed it all up, having missed how unhappy she was. But then she did [totally inappropriate behavior]. *Am I really to blame for all that?*”
> 
> Too long didn’t read…. *hit an iceberg and it’s the Captain’s fault.*" -A. Kay
> 
> Captain and First Officer When The Marriage is Slamming Into Icebergs | Athol Kay's Married Man Sex Life​_
> I'm telling ya JLD, the same fellas who think you are out to lunch eat it up coming from Kay :scratchhead:


There's a difference you're not seeing. JLD believes that men are responsible for improving marriage because women are morally superior to men and unlikely to be the cause of discord. AK believes that men are responsible for improving marriage because they are the natural leaders and women are more responsive.

The end result is the same. Men need to take the initiative in improving their marriages. It's the reasoning given that some find objectionable.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> You must have missed the other posts where that study was posted, and then the fine print showed it not to be as clear cut as what you are suggesting?
> 
> I posted my link in response to a man who said study after study ALWAYS showed that men do not get more sex when they do more chores. My link in fact proved that his statement wasn't true. Then he linked the study you are talking about, and the fine print showed it was not as it appears.
> 
> So no, I'm not play my study/your study. But I'm not the one who made an untrue sweeping generalization. I'm just the one who posted one study to a guy who did make that generalization and my study proved him wrong.
> 
> So let me guess...you will now want to go round and round some more about studies and blah blah blah....
> 
> And for what purpose?
> 
> I have one very clear stated purpose here on this thread.
> 
> You don't want to hear it? Don't read it.
> 
> But you want to haggle me for no real purpose? Then I'm done.
> 
> I really don't need your permission or approval to post anything I like. Likewise, neither do you need mine....however, I do have the right to ignore you completely, and you have that right as well.
> 
> Done.


Well, if you're on the side of "one study doesn't mean sh!t" or even "many studies don't mean sh!t", then I'm on your side.

I've never found the "my study / your study" game to solve anything. Studies on both sides of every issue exist and very few people have the time or expertise to comparatively evaluate them all.


----------



## Faithful Wife

turnera said:


> Means we want a protected life and men who can provide that are more attractive.


Guess I didn't get the memo. Have always supported myself and have plenty of my own money (never received child support or alimony after divorce) and have picked men based on chemistry, attraction and compatibility.


----------



## naiveonedave

BronzeTorpedo said:


> There's a difference you're not seeing. JLD believes that men are responsible for improving marriage because women are morally superior to men and unlikely to be the cause of discord. AK believes that men are responsible for improving marriage because they are the natural leaders and women are more responsive.
> 
> The end result is the same. Men need to take the initiative in improving their marriages. It's the reasoning given that some find objectionable.


I agree, and AK thinks men born after the 1950s have been trained wrong, they aren't acting as men, so they need to change to be more masculine.


----------



## Lila

naiveonedave said:


> so what did he do to change? Because MMSL is about the man changing wayyyy prior to getting out of the M.


He changed when he realized how far along the emotional detachment path I had gotten. Apathy is a b!tch! I was the poster child for WAW where H is left wondering WTF just happened, everything was perfect :scratchhead:. 

My gripe with him was always feeling like I was a lack of priority in his life. His response was always something on par with "you're the least needy of my priorities so I'll pay attention to you when I can". 

The typical Red Pill/MMSL advice of work out more so you can get a better physique, buy nicer clothing, get a better paying job, hang out with your friends more, get a hobby, or even do more chores around the house would not have helped him meet my need for undivided quality time. But the Love Languages book definitely helped and so did His Needs, Her Needs. And although these books do get advised to the men who come here complaining of a lack of quality or quantity sex, it's typically a woman offering that advice.


----------



## Idyit

Lila said:


> Oh no, no...I never _stopped_ having sex with him, even when the relationship was headed to divorce. Like I said, I have sexual needs too and he's always been really good at meeting those, however there was no emotional connection during that period of time.
> 
> *As I said earlier, for all intents and purposes, I was using him like a human dildo.* That's why I said IF I had cut off the sex and he'd come on here describing himself (tall, fit, success, great father, etc..), the most likely advise would have been "read MMSLP" and/or "tell her is she's not willing to have sex with you, then you'll find someone else who will".


:scratchhead:

Really?!? This is not distasteful?? Sounds a lot like what you are claiming AK and MMSLP to be.

~ Passio


----------



## Blossom Leigh

turnera said:


> Agreed. And...it is just one more throwback to the stuff in our DNA that says women seek out the protectors, just like our cavewoman forebearers did. More money, more drive, more aggressiveness all equal better protection, in a multitude of ways, so that we want those types of men.
> 
> Doesn't mean we're shallow or gold-diggers. Means we want a protected life and men who can provide that are more attractive.


Now I can't fully disagree with this because though I am not a gold digger or else my current H would be making more than my last, and he doesn't but what he DOES do is by golly goes to work everyday extremely consistently. It appealed to me. My ex was more haphazard about it thought he made more money AND spent a LOT.

But still his emotional depth trumped it all... knocked my world for a loop.


----------



## naiveonedave

Lila said:


> He changed when he realized how far along the emotional detachment path I had gotten. Apathy is a b!tch! I was the poster child for WAW where H is left wondering WTF just happened, everything was perfect :scratchhead:.
> 
> My gripe with him was always feeling like I was a lack of priority in his life. His response was always something on par with "you're the least needy of my priorities so I'll pay attention to you when I can".
> 
> The typical Red Pill/MMSL advice of work out more so you can get a better physique, buy nicer clothing, get a better paying job, hang out with your friends more, get a hobby, or even do more chores around the house would not have helped him meet my need for undivided quality time. But the Love Languages book definitely helped and so did His Needs, Her Needs. And although these books do get advised to the men who come here complaining of a lack of quality or quantity sex, it's typically a woman offering that advice.


thanks for responding. It would be interesting to see what his 1st TAM post would have been, given your situation. Most of the SIM posts begin with, I have been the best hubby, I cook, clean, wife is a SAHM, I buy her flowers, etc. and I still don't get any.

HN/HN is another valuable tool, I agree.


----------



## Lila

naiveonedave said:


> Usually you don't need to ask that question (quality time), because the guys 1st post literally describes how he is doing everything he can in hopes of getting lucky.


My husband would have said the same thing too 16 months ago. The question 'Define everything' should always be asked.


----------



## Lila

Idyit said:


> :scratchhead:
> 
> Really?!? This is not distasteful?? Sounds a lot like what you are claiming AK and MMSLP to be.
> 
> ~ Passio


Maybe, but I'm sure I would have gotten railed by everyone here if I said I had cut him off from sex because he wasn't meeting my needs. 

A woman can never win in this type of situation. If she's unhappy and she shuts off access to the vagina, then she's breaking her vows. If she decides to go ahead and continue having sex, for the sheer physical release, then she's distasteful. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.


----------



## Anon Pink

Faithful Wife said:


> However scant it is, I would like to see it. Do you know of any?


This was the only one I could find that was actually done involving humans. All the rest involved fish. Yes fish!

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/quilted-science/201006/copying-others-when-choosing-mate


----------



## chillymorn

Faithful Wife said:


> Guess I didn't get the memo. Have always supported myself and have plenty of my own money (never received child support or alimony after divorce) and have picked men based on chemistry, attraction and compatibility.


so because thats what you experienced it must mean all women think like you.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Anon Pink said:


> This was the only one I could find that was actually done involving humans. All the rest involved fish. Yes fish!
> 
> https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/quilted-science/201006/copying-others-when-choosing-mate


Yeah that's the only one anyone else found either.

Interesting that one study is touted as if it is totally and completely accepted as FACT by SCIENCE!!!!


----------



## Faithful Wife

chillymorn said:


> so because thats what you experienced it must mean all women think like you.


Um....no.....tunera is the one who implied that all women think like HER. I said I must be an exception.


----------



## Idyit

Lila said:


> Maybe, but I'm sure I would have gotten railed by everyone here if I said I had cut him off from sex because he wasn't meeting my needs.
> 
> A woman can never win in this type of situation. If she's unhappy and she shuts off access to the vagina, then she's breaking her vows. If she decides to go ahead and continue having sex, for the sheer physical release, then *she's distasteful*. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.


I did not intend to say that you are distasteful. The notion that your husband was a human dildo to you is distasteful. Certainly you'd agree that if a man here described his wife as his sperm receptacle you'd cringe a bit.

~ Passio


----------



## TiggyBlue

Faithful Wife said:


> Guess I didn't get the memo. Have always supported myself and have plenty of my own money (never received child support or alimony after divorce) and have picked men based on chemistry, attraction and compatibility.


:iagree:
I'm not saying women don't want protection and money, but the way it is obtained varies.
Some look for a man to provide it and some work hard to provide it for themselves.


----------



## Fozzy

BronzeTorpedo said:


> The red pill=rape story did remind me of another such story.
> 
> Hannah McWhirter had a consensual threesome with a married couple. When her boyfriend found out, she falsely accused the married couple of raping her.
> 
> Now, I'm not saying that ALL promiscuous women falsely accuse people of rape. But it's fair to share this story.
> 
> Any objections?


Yeah, I object. This is a real woman reading your comments as you type them. Don't equate her story to a false rape accusation.

Just not cool.


----------



## john117

always_alone said:


> OMG. If you are going to cite heartiste as "science" because there isn't enough actual academic research ....
> 
> 
> 
> well, let's just say I see absolutely zero support for preselection here.



The perception part is correct, marketeers have been doing it for ever. The preselection part, not so sure. It could "work" if the group of women collectively fawning over some dude all have the same preferences, turn ons, and the like bit that's unlikely. Or it could be herd mentality at work. Or good old bias in reporting, if the women know the expected answer is "XYZ" bit are afraid to go against the current. 

With enough twisting I'm sure they could pull some science out of it otherwise not likely. But my guess is it's herd mentality at work.


----------



## Icey181

Fozzy said:


> Yeah, I object. This is a real woman reading your comments as you type them. Don't equate her story to a false rape accusation.
> 
> Just not cool.


Rape and False Rape accusations exist in a related spectrum and they tend to get brought up together. Making too many connections between the two is problematic, at best.

I think the point was more that isolated incidents happen and that we need to look at the people involved and not make some giant sweeping generalizations based on how we interpret said information.

There was no charge that she was making a false accusation.

Much like FW, there was an implication that a certain kind of person (Red Pill/Promiscuous) tend towards particular acts (Rape/False Rape Claim).

I find neither useful.


----------



## Faithful Wife

BronzeTorpedo said:


> Exploiting another woman's personal tragedy to try to score a point against a point of view you disagree with. A new TAM low.


The woman PM'd me to thank me for speaking out against red pill on this thread.

I asked her if it was ok to share her story and she said yes and is reading this thread.

For being "new" here you sure seem like you know so much that goes on around here, know a lot of our stories and what we're all about....almost as if you have been here before under a different name. So funny how a person's posting style is easy to identify, even after they are banned and come back under a new name.

I reported your other very offensive post.

The woman who PM'd me didn't post here herself because of things like what you are saying....she doesn't deserve to be mocked, even if you do it using me as the scape goat.


----------



## chillymorn

Faithful Wife said:


> Um....no.....tunera is the one who implied that all women think like HER. I said I must be an exception.


I understand what your saying. I really do and I'd bet were closer to each others opinions than you think. 

I just want to state for the record that I do not think any red pill material should be used to manipulate any woman or to demoralize women in any way. But should be used for men to educate themselves on how to weed out the crazy phycho b!tches that seem very common in todays society. or to recognize when you have dropped the balls and need to pick them back up screw them back on and starting acting like a man weather or not your woman wants to follow or not.and I don't mean follow in a bad way. as a team like when you need a sandwich and a cold beer she can get one for you.

LOL that last line was a joke as I was typing the red pill took over and my fingers couldn't stop.

But really if getting your man a sandwich and a cold beer makes him feel good then she should want to get one for him just like he should want to do things for her just to make her feel good.


----------



## Icey181

Blonde said:


> so, how do you feel about Athol Kay and MMSL?
> 
> _"So… let’s assign the blame…
> 
> For the husband, whether he knew it or not, he was always the Captain. *He was always the one more responsible for the relationship outcome than the wife was.* " -A Kay
> 
> "
> 
> "almost always, the critical error that starts the real relationship momentum downwards, *is the husband’s.*" -A Kay
> 
> "I’ve also had a fair number of emails and comments to the effect of, “Okay I admit to having screwed it all up, having missed how unhappy she was. But then she did [totally inappropriate behavior]. *Am I really to blame for all that?”*
> 
> Too long didn’t read…. hit an iceberg and *it’s the Captain’s fault.*" -A. Kay
> 
> Captain and First Officer When The Marriage is Slamming Into Icebergs | Athol Kay's Married Man Sex Life_​


Now this is the stuff that Kay talks about that I have difficulty with.

On the one hand I always looked at my relationship more as a "Roman Consuls" two-some and not a Captain/First Mate dynamic.

Basically, we are both executive heads of state, share all responsibilities, cede authority to the one with expertise in particular areas (finance/friends) but we also retain full Veto-power over the other's decisions.

But, when I hit the trouble with the deadbedroom a while ago I realized I was the only one identifying the problem and working on it.

My relationship very quickly defaulted to a failed negotiation phase. Choreplay to help with stress? Done. Extra romance, including date nights and movies? Done. More solo-time with no baseball and no MMO gaming? Done.

The result was a complete failure.

When I jettisoned it and embraced the "Husband is the leader, set an example and set some expectations," it was _then_ and not before that things changed around.

Intellectually, I dislike the Captain dynamic and prefer the Dual-Executives one.

But in reality, the Captain dynamic works _better_.

On some level it annoys me and on another I understand it.


----------



## Faithful Wife

chillymorn said:


> I really do and I'd bet were closer to each others opinions than you think.


I'd bet we are not.


----------



## chillymorn

Faithful Wife said:


> I'd bet we are not.


ok then were not :smthumbup:


----------



## Faithful Wife

NOW we agree.


----------



## Anon Pink

BronzeTorpedo said:


> The red pill=rape story did remind me of another such story.
> 
> Hannah McWhirter had a consensual threesome with a married couple. When her boyfriend found out, she falsely accused the married couple of raping her.
> 
> Now, I'm not saying that ALL promiscuous women falsely accuse people of rape. But it's fair to share this story.
> 
> Any objections?


It would have been fair to share this story if the topic of the thread was about false rape. 

The other story shared was directly tied in to the topic of this thread.


----------



## john117

naiveonedave said:


> You miss the point, a 7 walks into the room. Some nominal 7 woman and he start chatting. Soon many woman notice this and join in. All subconscious.



There are too many variations of the scenario above that it makes it near impossible to delve real information from it. That's where the real science part is. 

In a focused interest group where the women know each other (work or club or PTO) it would be different than in a bar with women who know each other In a GNO vs total strangers.

Once you control for such groups you may get some info out of the data otherwise it's noise.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Khallad Y. (2005) Mate Selection Jordan; Effects of sex, socio-economic status and culture, Journal of Social and personal Relationship, 22(2), 155-168.


This one was a particularly interesting choice, I thought. While it does show that men prioritize looks more than women by a slim margin, it also shows that men prioritize ambition, college education, and dependable character over looks. Who woulda thunk it?

I have to say, I'm a little skeptical of the speed dating studies because they don't do a particularly good job of controlling for all of the variables and noise of "first impressions" in a completely artificial situation. The "picture of status symbol costume" methodologies are also fraught, IMHO because they are so artificial, reducing attraction to but two dimensions.

That said, I just want to clarify that I'm not disputing that statistically women will probably show marginal prioritizing of status and wealth while men will show marginal prioritizing of looks. Of course we will display these preferences as a statistical mean; it's what we have been taught to do. How many girls have I know whose mothers wanted them to marry doctors? Lots!

What I am disputing is that this behaviour is somehow "proven" to be an essential part of our respective genders, and that somehow these preferences are more important than all other attraction considerations. I haven't had a chance to look at all of the studies you've posted, but so far what I'm seeing is that both men and women have a wide variety of preferences and things they look for in mate selection.


----------



## Icey181

Blonde said:


> Ditto
> 
> I told H what I needed from him and it was just "white noise". After all, the sex was "on"
> 
> _After a few years of marriage, most men start experiencing the words coming out of their wife’s mouth as of form of white noise. It’s all just talk....
> 
> So ladies. Bless your hearts. I get that you were unhappy about things, but you were simply talking to a man you knew wasn’t listening to you. Then periodically you’d give him sex, and tell him by your actions that things were still okay.How To Fair Warning a Husband That Doesn’t Listen (Before Things Are Too Late To Fix) | Athol Kay's Married Man Sex Life_​
> I don't recall him ever once being advised to "listen to your wife"
> 
> If I ever decide to have another intimate relationship with a man, it will be with someone who is capable of listening, learning, growing, and being respectful.
> 
> I've followed one or two long term threads and in most cases I see the husbands becoming less and less respectful and more and more self righteous, self centered, resentful, and contemptuous toward their W under the "discipleship" offered on the board. (Bagdon is the exception. He never once spoke disrespectfully of his wife)


In the whole Captain/First Mate dynamic the husband is by definition listening to his wife.

I really do not see a problem with this whole "Fair Warning" system thing. If something is getting bad, there needs to be a wake up call.

Nothing like an earth-quake to convince someone they are not standing on solid ground.

Also, I do notice that Athol is quite consistent with his advice. 

It was basically, this, "Women, Red Pill for you to. Stop the sex, hit the gym."


----------



## Buddy400

Icey181 said:


> Intellectually, I dislike the Captain dynamic and prefer the Dual-Executives one.
> 
> But in reality, the Captain dynamic works _better_.
> 
> On some level it annoys me and on another I understand it.


My thoughts exactly.

I don't want to be a leader. I want to be an equal.

I don't want to have to play games to attract my wife.

I want my wife to be a rational actor whose chooses me because she has free will.

Luckily, it turns out that I'm somewhat dominant without being aware of it (I was explaining to her how some women seem to want dominant men and she said "yeah, like you". I was taken aback.) and I met an exceptional woman with a brain. It's been a great 25 years.

If I had to play the Captain America game with my wife, I think I'd lose too much respect for her to want to have sex with her.


----------



## Icey181

Anon Pink said:


> It would have been fair to share this story if the topic of the thread was about false rape.
> 
> The other story shared was directly tied in to the topic of this thread.


No, it was not.

It was nothing more than a not-so-thinly veiled attempt to claim Red Pill advice creates rapists.


----------



## Idyit

FW What's your end game with this thread? Do you want MMSLP to be abolished from TAM? Would you like it to be recommended more judiciously? Carry on as usual with your objections clearly stated?

For the record it was recommended to me. I read the first parts, then skimmed a bit. Never did finish it because it really did come off as over zealous/extreme. To be fair, it did help me in some ways as well. 

~ Passio


----------



## chillymorn

I'm offended that some here bashed Christianity/the bible when a poster equated it to this discussion.


----------



## Lila

Idyit said:


> I did not intend to say that you are distasteful. The notion that your husband was a human dildo to you is distasteful. Certainly you'd agree that if a man here described his wife as his sperm receptacle you'd cringe a bit.
> 
> ~ Passio


You're right, I probably should have used more subtle language.


----------



## Blonde

BronzeTorpedo said:


> There's a difference you're not seeing. JLD believes that men are responsible for improving marriage because women are morally superior to men and unlikely to be the cause of discord. AK believes that men are responsible for improving marriage because they are the natural leaders and women are more responsive.
> 
> The end result is the same. Men need to take the initiative in improving their marriages. It's the reasoning given that some find objectionable.



I think you are misrepresenting JLD. Her views strike me as very similar to some of what AK writes. And I have never seen her claim female superiority. That is projection IMO of the worst aspects of Red-Pill-ism.

As for me, I agree with JLD's view that men have a great deal of responsibility and power to impact the course of a marriage. That message should be empowering for men.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Idyit - I was asked to quote some specific bits from MMSL that were mean spirited by another poster, which I did at the beginning of this thread. The poster who asked me to do this is a guy, and after he read what I posted he agreed what I posted was pretty bad, and then he also started asking, why is this book promoted so heavily here when a similar book by a woman about men being promoted here would cause a firestorm from the men.

From there, this thread has been people debating back and forth.

My end game will never end for as long as MMSL is regularly promoted to most men here. As long as that keeps happening, I will speak out against it in this thread and others.

The reason for this is exactly what I said: If a similar book talking about how to dupe men and their little hamster brains was suggested constantly on TAM I would devote threads against that book as well.


----------



## always_alone

What I have learned on his thread: women don't buy enough drinks for men, and this makes them very resentful.

Maybe I'll go post that on the Big Girl Panties thread.


----------



## Personal

Wow!

I have dinner, and go to bed etc and in the morning I see 42 pages have become 71 pages.

Oh well I'm not working today so I can catch up.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Faithful Wife said:


> Idyit - I was asked to quote some specific bits from MMSL that were mean spirited by another poster, which I did at the beginning of this thread. The poster who asked me to do this is a guy, and after he read what I posted he agreed what I posted was pretty bad, and then he also started asking, why is this book promoted so heavily here when a similar book by a woman about men being promoted here would cause a firestorm from the men.
> 
> From there, this thread has been people debating back and forth.
> 
> My end game will never end for as long as MMSL is regularly promoted to most men here. As long as that keeps happening, I will speak out against it in this thread and others.
> 
> The reason for this is exactly what I said: If a similar book talking about how to dupe men and their little hamster brains was suggested constantly on TAM I would devote threads against that book as well.


The idea of refining what is suggested here is a good one. Seeking best material is a great goal. I have the same standard, though sexism talk isnt a hot button for me. I know who I am and its not a personal bother. If someone is directly attacked personally, then we have a different story.


----------



## Icey181

Blonde said:


> And yes, I am going to get alimony and child support amounting to 1/3 his income plus half of the assets accumulated during the marriage. And I deserve it. I sacrificed career advancement to bear, nurse, and raise eight children.


See, I do not think you do. And my wife tends to agree.

You did not sacrifice, you made a choice.
And presumably, that choice came with concomitant responsibilities for both you and your husband. It dedicated you both to supporting and parenting your children until the age of 18, morally chained you together as parents for your entire lives,

If those wages were more important you would have forgone the children and went to work.

I have never understood the concept of alimony or child support.

It presume the woman's efforts in marriage require compensation and that the man has basically had a non-wage earning house-worker for the last x-years.

Personally, I am all for 100% no fault divorce, no alimony, and complete spitting of all post-marriage assets down the middle.

Child custody defaults 50/50 unless some kind of criminal activity is involved.

I dislike the notion that divorce is both the dissolution of a marriage, but also a _further financial commitment_ for the husband.

If you want his continued financial support, stay married.


----------



## ConanHub

Faithful Wife said:


> I just wanted to share this...a woman who doesn't want to join the thread PM'd me with this very sad story (I have pulled out anything that could identify her):
> 
> (quote)
> 
> The man who raped me was deep in Red Pill culture. He was super unpopular and made fun of in middle/high school. I knew him since middle school. He was 2 years ahead of me. We went to the same college. I asked him to show me around. We hung out in the same friend groups. Not a close friend at all, I felt he was a bit off and seemed bitter at times, but I always was nice and tried to include him...I should have listened to my instincts about how bitter he was. Because when he got the chance he raped me to punish me. Why? Because I was an attractive woman and he never had sex. I was a stand-in for all women.
> 
> This mindset has serious consequences.
> 
> Thank you for standing up against that mindset.
> 
> (end quote)
> 
> She went on to say she knows not all men are rapists and she is working on forgiveness and moving past it. Her point was simply the red pill mindset was behind this guy's motivations.
> 
> I'm not saying red pillers are rapists. But it is also fair to share an actual story like this one (she gave me permission to copy part of it).


I am going to read MMSLP. I would appreciate being directed to the sections being held responsible for this rape.

While I believe this waste of skin would have raped anyway , if MMSLP promotes this behavior, I will start railing against it.

I have a very loud voice and what is referred to as "reach".

I can reach and convince many.

To the author of the story. Thank you for sharing. I sincerely hope you heal and take as many precautions to stop any harm that might befall you at the hands of worthless people.

I sincerely hope your attacker reaps what he has sown.


----------



## Idyit

Faithful Wife said:


> Idyit - I was asked to quote some specific bits from MMSL that were mean spirited by another poster, which I did at the beginning of this thread. The poster who asked me to do this is a guy, and after he read what I posted he agreed what I posted was pretty bad, and then he also started asking, why is this book promoted so heavily here when a similar book by a woman about men being promoted here would cause a firestorm from the men.
> 
> From there, this thread has been people debating back and forth.
> 
> My end game will never end for as long as MMSL is *regularly* promoted to *most* men here. As long as that keeps happening, I will speak out against it in this thread and others.
> 
> The reason for this is exactly what I said: If a similar book talking about how to dupe men and their little hamster brains was suggested constantly on TAM I would devote threads against that book as well.


Perhaps I'm dense. The bolded language seems to say that you prefer it be promoted less frequently to fewer men yet the rest of your comments indicate you'd like to see it go away altogether. Do you think it's a tool that can be useful in some cases or just too much ugly to justify recommending it. Thanks

~ Passio


----------



## Faithful Wife

ConanHub said:


> I am going to read MMSLP. I would appreciate being directed to the sections being held responsible for this rape.
> 
> While I believe this waste of skin would have raped anyway , if MMSLP promotes this behavior, I will start railing against it.
> 
> I have a very loud voice and what is referred to as "reach".
> 
> I can reach and convince many.
> 
> To the author of the story. Thank you for sharing. I sincerely hope you heal and take as many precautions to stop any harm that might befall you at the hands of worthless people.
> 
> I sincerely hope your attacker reaps what he has sown.


Not MMSL specifically, in her case. But red pill philosophy, which is what MMSL is based on. Athol Kay did not invent the red pill nor any of this philosophy, he's just spouting stuff other people had already been saying. 

I would be happy to post some of the red pill philosophy that is scary and rapey here for you, Conan. I will have to do it later when I get home.

Here's a quick one for you for now....

THC's Top 10 Tips On Last Minute Resistance (LMR) - Swoop The World


----------



## Faithful Wife

Idyit said:


> Do you think it's a tool that can be useful in some cases or just too much ugly to justify recommending it.


Any relationship book that deliberately intends to divide the sexes and calls all women wh*res is not ok, IMO.


----------



## Icey181

Faithful Wife said:


> Not MMSL specifically, in her case. But red pill philosophy, which is what MMSL is based on. Athol Kay did not invent the red pill nor any of this philosophy, he's just spouting stuff other people had already been saying.
> 
> I would be happy to post some of the red pill philosophy that is scary and rapey here for you, Conan. I will have to do it later when I get home.
> 
> Here's a quick one for you for now....
> 
> THC's Top 10 Tips On Last Minute Resistance (LMR) - Swoop The World


Looks like your issues is with PUA…


----------



## john117

Faithful Wife said:


> My issue with MMSL is that it is heralded here at TAM.



Leeching was once considered a legitimate medical procedure...


----------



## ConanHub

Faithful Wife said:


> Not MMSL specifically, in her case. But red pill philosophy, which is what MMSL is based on. Athol Kay did not invent the red pill nor any of this philosophy, he's just spouting stuff other people had already been saying.
> 
> I would be happy to post some of the red pill philosophy that is scary and rapey here for you, Conan. I will have to do it later when I get home.
> 
> Here's a quick one for you for now....
> 
> THC's Top 10 Tips On Last Minute Resistance (LMR) - Swoop The World


Thank you. I am in research mode now!


----------



## Icey181

Blonde said:


> Not my H


Yeah. It sounds like your issues were ones of basic "Not meeting needs," stuff. In other words, using the dynamic, the Captain was not taking his First Officer's advice and not ensuring she was in good shape.



Blonde said:


> At least you are consistent
> 
> So why don't you go over to SIM and tell the fellas that the "no sex" is her earthquake wake-up call?


That is pretty much what it is.



Blonde said:


> instead what I see over there is that she's a vicious mean withholding biatch and he is such a victim who should go out and get it elsewhere.
> 
> Knock Knock. Maybe she told him a million times what she needs and he is not listening to that (contemptuous spit) female white noise


Yeah, I do not see that.

What I have seen at this point is basically this: "Sex has stopped because something is seriously wrong, you need to figure out what it is, so, COMMUNICATE WITH HER."


----------



## john117

Idyit said:


> FW What's your end game with this thread? Do you want MMSLP to be abolished from TAM? Would you like it to be recommended more judiciously? Carry on as usual with your objections clearly stated?



I can't answer for FW but I have voiced the same concerns about MMSL after I showed up on TAM two years ago with a Titanic of a marriage. But I voiced them from the standpoint of someone offered the advise so I was seen as pigheaded, resistant to change, etcetera.

I have even opined that in a narrow application area MMSL does seek to work - but that most of us with Titanic marriages are well past the DIY book stage and many even past pro help.

Interestingly enough the 180 MAP does have merit tho if one hasn't figured it out on their own they should return their species card...


----------



## ConanHub

Faithful Wife said:


> Not MMSL specifically, in her case. But red pill philosophy, which is what MMSL is based on. Athol Kay did not invent the red pill nor any of this philosophy, he's just spouting stuff other people had already been saying.
> 
> I would be happy to post some of the red pill philosophy that is scary and rapey here for you, Conan. I will have to do it later when I get home.
> 
> Here's a quick one for you for now....
> 
> THC's Top 10 Tips On Last Minute Resistance (LMR) - Swoop The World


Extremely pathetic. I had more natural game at 15 than this guy could possibly hope to achieve.

At number 4 it becomes rapey. I don't give a shyt how aroused she may have become during a make out. Once she indicates a negative, it is over!

If I find out Athol promotes anything like this, he is finished in my sphere of influence.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Athol specifically adapted PUA/game techniques (which come from the red pill philosophy, plus more crap added) to develop MMSL. So MMSL is "game for married men" where they are encouraged to game their wives.

As for if they are encouraged to rape their wives, no.

However he does spend a bit of time in the book explaining about how women have rape fantasies because that is in fact, how they enjoy sex.


----------



## ConanHub

Faithful Wife said:


> Athol specifically adapted PUA/game techniques (which come from the red pill philosophy, plus more crap added) to develop MMSL. So MMSL is "game for married men" where they are encouraged to game their wives.
> 
> As for if they are encouraged to rape their wives, no.
> 
> However he does spend a bit of time in the book explaining about how women have rape fantasies because that is in fact, how they enjoy sex.


Will still research it. Gaming is stupid. Becoming better is the answer.

Rape fantasies are more common than I am comfortable with but they should be very safely explored after SHE has communicated a desire for it.

Some psychology and instinctive reactions do come into sexual attraction but no one should "game" it.
They should become what is attractive .


----------



## Holland

UMP said:


> If we can assume that a woman wants a "man" then we need to define what a "man" is.
> 
> Here is my definition.
> A man is confident in who he is. He needs not be so attractive, but regardless of his looks, he is happy and content in who and what he is and does not care in the least what others think of him. He must be self sufficient and able to provide for his dependants. He is a fortress for his woman. A refuge and a protector. He must be in control of his emotions and lead himself and his family toward a safe and content state of being.
> He must value his wife and family above himself in the sense that he will listen and accept criticism from his wife and family and be willing to improve himself accordingly. He must make love to his woman as if she is the most beautiful, sexiest woman on earth and make her cum like a volcano. A man with a plan.
> 
> I guarantee you, regardless of your looks, if you embody the above traits, you will have women falling all over you.
> 
> If that's the red pill, then I'm all in.


:iagree:


----------



## Lila

So I pulled up my copy of the book and here's one that just makes me LOL.

Section 7.10 Are you poisoning your Wife Against You with Bad Semen

yadda, yadda yadda. Out of shape guys, smokers, pot users, and drinkers of caffeinated beverages...you all are poisoning your women through your semen. Here's why...

"The entire purpose of sex for women is to get semen into their vaginas......Vaginas are a highly sensitive instrument and they very likely make assessments of male semen that we as yet can hardly fathom"​
There's no research to support any of this and he acknowledges it with this statement that he hides in the middle of the paragraph

"I don't believe any research study is possible on female reaction to unhealthy or healthy semen deposited in the vagina,"​
Here's another tidbit, specifically written for single men

Chapter 15.7 - Have More Than One Woman

"Always have more than one woman that you are dating. If you get hooked into just one woman, your entire sex life will be dominated by her availability and mood. If she only offers sex when she is ovulating and a few more times a month, you're only going to have sex four to five times a month.
...
The solution then is to have more than one woman you are dating and always feel like you have a couple of back up women to fall back on. If you have three girlfriends, if you leaves you, it's not near as dramatic when your only girlfriend breaks up with you. If number three falls off the radar, you just call up number four from you cell phone address book.
....
Always track the first time a woman had sex with you. Make sure you call her and try and date her every 28 days after that."​
Will post more nuggets of wisdom in another post.


----------



## Faithful Wife

ConanHub said:


> Will still research it. Gaming is stupid. Becoming better is the answer.
> 
> Rape fantasies are more common than I am comfortable with but they should be very safely explored after SHE has communicated a desire for it.
> 
> Some psychology and instinctive reactions do come into sexual attraction but no one should "game" it.
> They should become what is attractive .


Yep.

But these poor men want us to understand just how painful rejection is, that's why they need to do things like ignore last minute resistance. Because these poor men are OWED sex, and when they can't get it freely and consensual we're supposed to understand that pain of theirs....that PAIN of rejection, you see. It is just soooooo horrible that we need to understand THEIR pain and women just need to shut up and spread their legs for these poor sweet men.

And when women don't just shut up and spread their legs, there are hundreds and hundreds of blogs and books to figure out how to GET her to spread her legs via game techniques.

You see Conan, all women are _exactly_ the same and if you learn the magic punch code to her limbic system, her panties will fly off, even though she isn't actually attracted to you. But since you'll get sex out of it that's all that's important....don't forget how much that sexual rejection hurts these poor fellas. Lucky for these men, someone else has figured out the code and is happy to explain it to them.

Part of that code is breaking through last minute resistance BECAUSE all women naturally want to resist you because we actually want to have sex but we're afraid you'll think we are a wh*re so....that's how they can justify busting through that resistance.

That's just a teeny bit of it, too.

For the men who want to pretend that PUA and red pill aren't the same, I have the ignore button just for them.


----------



## FizzBomb

Icey181 said:


> It amazes me the number of women who argue that it is the man's responsibility to continuously date them, create romance, create attraction, etc etc and somehow have no problem stating that it is the women's privilege to be the object of these efforts and all they have to do is sit back and pass judgment on the ones they like.
> 
> _That is also why the Red Pill exists._
> 
> Recognizing that many, many, women do exactly this means men need to find a way to get that attraction.
> 
> Dread 1-5 appears to be the answer.


It is not wise or sound to make sweeping assumptions and generalisations. It has a tendency to make one look foolish.

And, "_That is also why the Red Pill exists_." Really? Truely? C'mon on now. That just sounds ridiculous.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Lila said:


> "The entire purpose of sex for women is to get semen into their vaginas......Vaginas are a highly sensitive instrument and they very likely make assessments of male semen that we as yet can hardly fathom"​
> .


Question for the mmslp boys- do you believe this kind of stuff or is it one of the things you have to look past in order to get to the parts that helped you?


----------



## Holland

Lila said:


> So I pulled up my copy of the book and here's one that just makes me LOL.
> 
> Section 7.10 Are you poisoning your Wife Against You with Bad Semen
> 
> yadda, yadda yadda. Out of shape guys, smokers, pot users, and drinkers of caffeinated beverages...you all are poisoning your women through your semen. Here's why...
> 
> "The entire purpose of sex for women is to get semen into their vaginas......Vaginas are a highly sensitive instrument and they very likely make assessments of male semen that we as yet can hardly fathom"​
> There's no research to support any of this and he acknowledges it with this statement that he hides in the middle of the paragraph
> 
> "I don't believe any research study is possible on female reaction to unhealthy or healthy semen deposited in the vagina,"​
> Here's another tidbit, specifically written for single men
> 
> Chapter 15.7 - Have More Than One Woman
> 
> "Always have more than one woman that you are dating. If you get hooked into just one woman, your entire sex life will be dominated by her availability and mood. If she only offers sex when she is ovulating and a few more times a month, you're only going to have sex four to five times a month.
> ...
> The solution then is to have more than one woman you are dating and always feel like you have a couple of back up women to fall back on. If you have three girlfriends, if you leaves you, it's not near as dramatic when your only girlfriend breaks up with you. If number three falls off the radar, you just call up number four from you cell phone address book.
> ....
> Always track the first time a woman had sex with you. Make sure you call her and try and date her every 28 days after that."​
> Will post more nuggets of wisdom in another post.


I would question the sanity of anyone that buys into this stuff. It would be funny if it weren't so insane.


----------



## Faithful Wife

He also says no man should get a vasectomy because without live sperm, your spunk won't keep your woman around.


----------



## samyeagar

Faithful Wife said:


> He also says no man should get a vasectomy because without live sperm, your spunk won't keep your woman around.


So that explains why my wife only has sex with me a dozen times a week since we met...


----------



## Lila

Here's another goodie because ya know....the only thing we're good for is sex.

Chapter 25.6 Hooker Math

"Figure out how much money you spent on your wife in the last year and divide that by the number of times you've had sex in the same period. That's your cost per lay. Is that more of less the price of a nice hooker?
....
And let's be serious, if the Hooker Math for sex with your wife comes to over $1,000 per lay, it sounds like you're partying with Charlie Sheen a big much"​


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

LOL he really does. I guess BJs and anal are out too. The vagina has to soak in all that sperm for it to work. He actually says she should lay there and let it soak in before she gets up to wash.
Some vasectomy stuff below. 

"So the old joke about a cranky old broad without a sexual partner “just needing to be ****ed” is pretty much true. I also wonder aloud again if a common consequence of a husband getting a vasectomy is the wife getting depressed. Then the wife as a consequence of her depression ends the marriage or otherwise acts out badly."


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Lila said:


> Here's another goodie because ya know....the only thing we're good for is sex.
> 
> Chapter 25.6 Hooker Math
> 
> "Figure out how much money you spent on your wife in the last year and divide that by the number of times you've had sex in the same period. That's your cost per lay. Is that more of less the price of a nice hooker?
> ....
> And let's be serious, if the Hooker Math for sex with your wife comes to over $1,000 per lay, it sounds like you're partying with Charlie Sheen a big much"​


Well he better start spending more money on her if she ups the amount of sex then. No one wants to be the cheap $20 hooker. 

I wonder if he included stuff like the bills and food in his calculations.


----------



## Lila

This one is really crazy:

Chapter 6.3 Why Men Get So Agitated About Not Having Sex
"....Going back to the Body Agenda Chapter, we remember that the husband's goal is to load up his wife's reproductive tract with sperm, thus maintaining a standing army to repel any other sperm that isn't his. After five days of no intercourse, his entire army of sperm is dead or flushed out of her..."​
In response to your question SGC about bjs and anal:

"If your wife offers frequent blowjobs or handjobs, enjoy them but be careful that she's not just distracting you. An interested wife will desire frequent vaginal intercourse and be glad to get your sperm into her vagina"​


----------



## Brigit

Blonde said:


> I made a choice to get MARRIED and to be a fundamentalist submissive wife whose husband did not believe in birth control.
> 
> Nor did he believe in touching (contemptuous spit!) "women's work" with a 10 foot pole for the first 25 years of our marriage. Once when my oldest DD31 was age 14, he picked up a cloth and wiped a counter in the church kitchen and she dropped everything and stared at him and exclaimed with shock in front of a roomful of people "Dad, what are you doing? You never did anything like that before!"
> 
> So this idea of a man doing too many chores in service to his W is completely foreign to me. Or a W disrespecting or witholding sex because her husband demonstrates an attitude of servanthood around the household.
> Completely. Foreign.
> 
> As for concomitant responsibility. He chose to sire 8 children which required a SAHW. And he chose to cheat in 1990, 2008, and 2015 which was ultimately his choice to end his marriage and burn his bridges (once I dumped my theology and got liberated that is...).
> 
> That does not remove his responsibility to provide for the children he sired and the wife who built his kingdom on his meager income of <50K (for the first 25 years). His net worth is healthy because I pinch every penny till it screams and because me and the children worked our butts off building sweat equity.
> 
> Thankfully, he is not fighting his legal financial obligations. He is delighted to be "responsibility free" except for a check and to be "back in the game" as he put it (that lingo and attitude sound so TAM it makes me wonder how much he lurked? :scratchhead


I'm so sorry Blonde. It sounds like a difficult marriage. I hope your children are good to you.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

He sure is obsessed with sperm. 

Every time I read about the sperm army I think of this kind of stuff going on in my vagina.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClffzUrRDXk


----------



## Lila

And the one that makes me wonder why go through all the trouble to fix the marriage in the first place....

Chapter 25.4 Women Are Replaceable

"....any one woman can be replaced with another woman. All a woman needs to do to make you happy is a mix of working a job and keeping house, be reasonably enjoyable company and have a functional vagina that she happily lets you use."

"The solution for this is that you start shopping around and stop buying 'wife' from her and buy 'wife' from someone else"

"Objectively, there is nothing special about your current wife.....She's not all that wonderful.....You just can't see that because you're so drugged on dopamine and vasopressin"

"If you're a 7 and leave you 7 wife and remarry another 7, the sex is going to be the same. But you might have 10x as much sex with the new wife"​


----------



## TiggyBlue

Holland said:


> I would question the sanity of anyone that buys into this stuff. It would be funny if it weren't so insane.


Some of it is just blatant BS, quite amazing really.


----------



## Faithful Wife

For you Conan....some of these are by creepy PUA's, come are articles by others about the creepy PUA's....and remember, PUA is based on red pill...those who want to say "it isn't the same thing" are just trying to blow smoke up your skirt:

American pick-up artist dumped in Australia after using 'rape' tactics

(this one is just a whole lot of crazy crap, hard to even know what they are talking about here, but you'll see....)

“Last Minute Resistance” and date rape

https://beyoungandshutup.wordpress.com/2013/09/12/pickup-artists-are-essentially-vermin/

http://www.slate.com/blogs/quora/20...ative_about_the_pickup_artist_community_.html

(this one is funny because it tries to explain to you the difference between a PUA and a naturally attractive man...and then tells you they can teach you how to be a natural)

http://attractioninstitute.com/the-difference-between-a-pua-and-a-naturally-attractive-man/

http://www.puatraining.com/blog/smash-through-last-minute-resistance-with-any-girl

https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2010/02/04/plausible-deniability/

Here's a video by a creepy PUA dude:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjEzwjTtpM4


----------



## john117

Faithful Wife said:


> He also says no man should get a vasectomy because without live sperm, your spunk won't keep your woman around.



One of my buddies got fixed and seems to enjoy an awesome sex life - his wife non withstanding as his marriage is open wide


----------



## gouge_away

Brigit said:


> No. Dread...WTF (even the word is horrible) isn't the answer.
> 
> If you want the marriage to work you tell your wife the truth. You say *"I need you to start dressing sexy again. It turns me on and I miss seeing you that way."*
> 
> If you start playing "Dread" you'll wind up with a "Dreadful Divorce."


If you do the bold, all you get are a list of chores, and lame a$$ excuses.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> Leeching was once considered a legitimate medical procedure...



And has regained favour. Apparently nothing works better for cleaning out infected and dead flesh.


----------



## john117

always_alone said:


> And has regained favour. Apparently nothing works better for cleaning out infected and dead flesh.



Maybe there will be a future to MMSL as well


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> Maybe there will be a future to MMSL as well


*shudder* MMSL is more like snake oil than leeches.


----------



## Holland

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Well he better start spending more money on her if she ups the amount of sex then. No one wants to be the cheap $20 hooker.
> 
> I wonder if he included stuff like the bills and food in his calculations.


Ok this is too funny, I did the math and I am worth about $19.50 per lay. Can't wait for him to get home and ask him for my money, maybe I am worth the extra .50c and will get a cool $20 in my pocket.


----------



## john117

Blonde, I hate work in general like all card carrying Europeans (darn it Dug you're spoiling it for the rest of is ) 

I'm hard pressed to do 40 hours a week yet it hasn't helped my marriage...


----------



## Holland

Lila said:


> This one is really crazy:
> 
> Chapter 6.3 Why Men Get So Agitated About Not Having Sex
> "....Going back to the Body Agenda Chapter, we remember that the husband's goal is to load up his wife's reproductive tract with sperm, thus maintaining a standing army to repel any other sperm that isn't his. After five days of no intercourse, his entire army of sperm is dead or flushed out of her..."​
> In response to your question SGC about bjs and anal:
> 
> "If your wife offers frequent blowjobs or handjobs, enjoy them but be careful that she's not just distracting you. An interested wife will desire frequent vaginal intercourse and be glad to get your sperm into her vagina"​


Insanity at it's finest :rofl:


----------



## Personal

lifeistooshort said:


> See here you have a misconception. She was clearly willing to have sex with him, but for women that doesn't necessarily equal attraction. I can understand how this could be confusing for a guy, but keep in mind that traditionally men and women have been raised very differently.
> 
> Men are raised to do for themselves and support their family; this freed them up to consider attraction as they could provide for their own basic needs. Women, otoh, were relegated to dependent status and HAD to find a man to support them. Whether they were actually attracted to the guy wasn't a consideration. It's nice to have it but in and of itself doesn't keep you and your kids from starving.
> 
> In addition, since women had so few opportunities sex and her body was one of the few things she could leverage. So you can imagine that it's impracticable to use the one source of power you have solely for your physical pleasure.
> 
> I feel for guys in this way, you never know if your woman is into you or just willing to give it up, and they are different. If its the latter it's only a matter of time before she either cuts you off or offers up unsatisfying duty sex.
> 
> In my opinion the answer to this is the very feminism that so many men rail against. As women have equal power and can take care of themselves they become free to explore their sexuality and to look for a man who gets their motor running. How can this not be a good thing for guys?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I am a sexual and marital beneficiary of feminism, in fact if it weren't for feminism and reliable birth control I doubt I would have enjoyed as much great and frequent sex, with plenty of wonderful women including my wife of 16 years today (who is a former activist feminist/and still a non activist feminist), exclusively with for almost 19 years.



Icey181 said:


> No, you did not.
> 
> Why is it so hard for women to realize that, with the exception of the naturally smooth and confident guy, _most men pattern themselves after what women want_ in a way that works for them?
> 
> This is one of the concepts that Red Pill talks about and I think is simply a truism.
> 
> Most women have no idea the amount of effort and modification it requires a man to make in order to build attraction and find LTRs.
> 
> Most men cannot "just be themselves" and attract women.
> 
> In fact, that is exactly the false and failed advice a generation of men have found to be utterly useless that has spurned the growth of MGTOW and Red Pill stuff in the first place.
> 
> There is a considerable amount of work for a lot of men to step well outside of their comfort zones and become the kind of men that will be attractive to the women they are interested in.
> 
> Once you are in a relationship the whole "just be yourself" advice is helpful…until it is not and you have husbands hitting the internet to find an explanation for why they have not had sex in 6-months or a year.


If you are anything but yourself, you are misrepresenting yourself and pretending to be that which you are not.

Within the intimate confines of a marriage time will often will reveal the disparity between the real you and a fake persona. If one isn't attractive to their partner as they are, they are the wrong person for that partner.



Icey181 said:


> The point where I fundamentally disagree with 3rd Wave Feminism is the notion that the "man as provider" is simply an artificial social construct derived from a patriarchical order.
> 
> In the time that I have lurked on a variety of dead-bedroom forums what I have found is that there is a direct correlation to a man giving up his traditional, masculine, provider role and losing the physical attraction of his wife.
> 
> And it does not seem to matter if the couple is a traditional conservative family or a progressively liberal feminist one, when the gender roles of the two people involved begin to shift and the man trends towards feminization, it often leads to a dead bedroom.
> 
> Something my mom used to point out a few years ago; Women find masculinity attractive, unless they are lesbians, but you shouldn't date a lesbian.
> 
> One of the things I dislike about post-modernist thinking is its assumption that gender roles are not real and that there is no consequences to upending them.
> 
> They are real, and there are real consequences to upending them.


My wife earns more than me and has been the provider more than I have, yet I have never experienced a dead bedroom.



Icey181 said:


> I find it interesting that it is almost always women who disagree with this.
> 
> I guess the idea of zero-approach is beyond them.
> 
> Men, including myself and my friends, found that those of us who were intelligent, overly thin or a little overweight, introverted and shy got _no attention, at all_.
> 
> I had _two_ women approach me between Freshman Year in High School and when I was married after Graduate School.
> 
> The whole "be yourself" advice _does not work if you are the guy and are shy, because women almost never approach you._


I have a genius level IQ, intelligence is hardly an impediment when it comes to attracting women.



technovelist said:


> While you are right in some cases, the main problem to which the Red Pill is addressed, for single men anyway, is that the number of women that many men can get by "being themselves" is zero. Thus, men have to improve their methods of approach, make more approaches, and generally be proactive, if they want any results at all.
> 
> Of course, for married men, the problem is how to keep their wives interested in having sex with them. Again, if "being themselves" worked, they wouldn't be looking for a solution, as they wouldn't have a problem.


Zero!!! Please, I have always been myself and have never lacked suitors. Likewise having been married for 16 years to my sex partner of almost 19 years I remain myself and get a smorgasbord of frequent and luscious sexual delight.



Icey181 said:


> Yeah, you seem to be under the misconception that you are talking to a "Red Pill bro."
> 
> You're not.
> 
> I have been with the same woman for 7-years, married for 3.
> 
> When we met I was about 15lbs under weight for my height and she was about 20lbs overweight for hers.
> 
> You tell me.
> 
> 
> Some of it, not all of it. In my experience the rejection side of things tends to be the foray of men, not women.
> 
> 
> You're reading into things that are not there.
> 
> 
> He is not being approached.
> 
> He is not getting to sit back and deal with parsing through the "dudettes" to find the diamond in the rough.
> 
> Not in my experience and not in the experience of my friends.
> 
> 
> I am not sure anyone disagrees with that.
> 
> No, it is not.
> 
> Men are not approached in the way women are.
> 
> Period.
> 
> A handful of exceptions exist, but on balance, men are the pursuers and women the pursued.
> 
> A decently attractive guy at a bar is not going to be dealing with a dozen random girls coming on to him and offering him drinks.
> 
> It really does not work that way for most.


I disagree, lots of my male friends have been approached and sought after as have I. In fact I have seldom chased any women since they were asking or paying for drinks or dates etc.


----------



## Personal

Anyhow I'm off to lunch with my wife and I won't be bringing a red pill!


----------



## Faithful Wife

Here's a lovely blog post on hypergamy:

Sex Rank and Hypergamy | Athol Kay's Married Man Sex Life

Quote:

All Female Hypergamy means is that any woman is going to be attracted to men (as least in a general sense) who have a Sex Rank equal or higher than her own. I.e. a Female 5 is going to find a Male 5 attractive, but also Male 6 though 10 are viewed as attractive too. All women find a Male 10 attractive, they just don’t tend to think they have much of a chance at landing one of them as a long term mate. I mean back in the day they might have thrown their underwear at rock stars, but after the third front man just looks at her and doesn’t even sniff them, the reality starts to sink in that even with really pretty underwear it’s an awful long shot. It’s like the bass player or nothing. So in the sexual marketplace they end up “settling” for a Male 5. I say settling, but it really is a fair exchange of a Female 5 for a Male 5.

But if she could say land a Male 6 or 7 as a permanent mate, she’s going to be very tempted to jump ship. That’s when we use the word Hypergamy to call her a wh*re. Though in fact this is just the natural functioning of the sexual marketplace and by all accounts human sexuality working as intended.

(end quote)

Here's another snippet from his website (this might actually be a quote from the book):

Female Hypergamy is rational.

If a female 7 can get pregnant to a male 9 or 10, it’s rational for her to do so. Marrying a 7 will never accomplish a result as potentially good as what five minutes with a 9 or 10 can do. A single sexy son can trump three plain looking kids for passing on her genes. If she can pass it off as the 7’s kid, or convince him to be a stepfather, then that’s even better. She can have a sexy son and two plain looking kids.

If a female 7 is married to a male who has slumped to a 6, and a male 8 shows her serious interest…it’s rational for her to leave…

(end quote)

So....all you hypergamous wh*res, what are you doing with that lowly sex rank 5 you married, you can get a 6, for f*cks sake!!! Hurry now!! There's a sale on sex rank 6 dudes at Walmart! But for sexy babies, we gotta get down and dirty and find some 9 or 10 and beg him to do us, since we're only 5's ourselves. Nice!


----------



## Holland

Faithful Wife said:


> Here's a lovely blog post on hypergamy:
> 
> Sex Rank and Hypergamy | Athol Kay's Married Man Sex Life
> 
> Quote:
> 
> All Female Hypergamy means is that any woman is going to be attracted to men (as least in a general sense) who have a Sex Rank equal or higher than her own. I.e. a Female 5 is going to find a Male 5 attractive, but also Male 6 though 10 are viewed as attractive too. All women find a Male 10 attractive, they just don’t tend to think they have much of a chance at landing one of them as a long term mate. I mean back in the day they might have thrown their underwear at rock stars, but after the third front man just looks at her and doesn’t even sniff them, the reality starts to sink in that even with really pretty underwear it’s an awful long shot. It’s like the bass player or nothing. So in the sexual marketplace they end up “settling” for a Male 5. I say settling, but it really is a fair exchange of a Female 5 for a Male 5.
> 
> But if she could say land a Male 6 or 7 as a permanent mate, she’s going to be very tempted to jump ship. That’s when we use the word Hypergamy to call her a wh*re. Though in fact this is just the natural functioning of the sexual marketplace and by all accounts human sexuality working as intended.
> 
> (end quote)
> 
> Here's another snippet from his website (this might actually be a quote from the book):
> 
> Female Hypergamy is rational.
> 
> If a female 7 can get pregnant to a male 9 or 10, it’s rational for her to do so. Marrying a 7 will never accomplish a result as potentially good as what five minutes with a 9 or 10 can do. A single sexy son can trump three plain looking kids for passing on her genes. If she can pass it off as the 7’s kid, or convince him to be a stepfather, then that’s even better. She can have a sexy son and two plain looking kids.
> 
> If a female 7 is married to a male who has slumped to a 6, and a male 8 shows her serious interest…it’s rational for her to leave…
> 
> (end quote)
> 
> So....all you hypergamous wh*res, what are you doing with that lowly sex rank 5 you married, you can get a 6, for f*cks sake!!! Hurry now!! There's a sale on sex rank 6 dudes at Walmart! But for sexy babies, we gotta get down and dirty and find some 9 or 10 and beg him to do us, since we're only 5's ourselves. Nice!


Beautifully written by a man that has zero clue about women (or life for that matter) 

C'mon guys, do you really buy this drivel?


----------



## TheGoodGuy

Damn, I missed the start of this thread and sorry I just can't dig though 111 pages (on the phone view anyway). I'm really curious. Of the posters in this thread who feel strongly one way or another.. What are your ages and how many times have you been in a LTR/marriage?

I'll start. 34yo, two marriages that ended in divorce due to a cheating wife.


----------



## MountainRunner

Holland said:


> Beautifully written by a man that has zero clue about women (or life for that matter)
> 
> *C'mon guys, do you really buy this drivel?*


Not here...Not in the least. The fundamental presupposition that I'm getting from this AK dude is that women cannot be trusted as they will dump the mate at the first opportunity for an "upscale" mate and it is the DUTY of the man to execute a series of tactics/subterfuge to "bring her in line".

IMHO...that is no way to foster a healthy relationship between a man and a woman.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening all
Why on earth do people believe in "sex rank". Its clear from many discussions that the things I appreciate in a woman are different from what some other men appreciate.

Most movie actresses do not appeal to me. Its not that I "can't get them", its that I have no interest in trying. The look pretty all fixed up, but I don't want to live with someone who spends an hour ever morning making herself look perfect - I want to be out doing things. 

Surely there is no reason to imagine that how enjoyable sex is is linked to how attractive your partner is. Enthusiasm and skill are not related to appearance. 

I want someone who enjoys doing the things I enjoy. Someone who wants to talk about the things I talk about, someone who is funny and who laughs at my jokes. Someone with the same sexual interests. 

When I think of happy times with my wife I think of paddling a kayak down a jungle river that was covered with floating flowers. I think of climbing over a high pass in the mountains to a sudden vista of granite spires and glaciers above a green lake. I think of making love in a hotel room with wall to ceiling windows open to a spectacular nighttime skyline viewed across the river. I think of the dumb tv show we watch every week because we always make out during the commercials. 

Other people want other things, and they are welcome to them. Maybe they like nightclubs, or sporting events, or mountain biking, or sex clubs, or jazz concerts. They should find someone who enjoys what they enjoy.


----------



## EleGirl

naiveonedave said:


> thanks for responding. It would be interesting to see what his 1st TAM post would have been, given your situation. Most of the SIM posts begin with, I have been the best hubby, I cook, clean, wife is a SAHM, I buy her flowers, etc. and I still don't get any.
> 
> HN/HN is another valuable tool, I agree.


Yes, most men will say that they are wonderful husbands. But when I have asked about the amount of time that they spend together weekly, just the two of them, almost every one has said that they are too busy to spend more than a hour together every week or two.

To me this means that BOTH of them have lost track of what is important. Now it's the guy who is here so it's the guy who I will suggest that he start working on getting the two of them to spend quality time together. Suggesting that he take the lead on this is not putting the blame on him. 

I also suggest that he and his wife read and work through HN/HN and Love Busters. Why? Because they are they have to work tighter to improve their marriage.

I make the same suggest on to women who come here with similar complaints.


----------



## MountainRunner

richardsharpe said:


> Most movie actresses do not appeal to me.


Same here, but you can't tell me that Sofia Vergara or Salma Hayak doesn't float your boat...just sayin'  *grin*


----------



## MountainRunner

EleGirl said:


> Yes, most men will say that they are wonderful husbands.


I think I am with just one exception...I haven't learned how to draw lines with other women when approached (and I am actively immersed in therapy to rectify that flaw). I come home every evening and I cook dinner for my wife. Afterward, I sit with her and we'll watch a TV program or have a game together.

I have proven the MMSLP crowd to be wrong....At least in my case. When I first came here and laid out my original story, I was met with "You need to read the MMSLP and man up" along with the usual "It's not that she doesn't want sex...It's more like she doesn't want sex with YOU. You need to be more "alpha"".

If I had taken their advice as opposed to taking my wife to an HRT clinic, I'd still be frustrated with the fact that I am lean, strong, fit, drawing the attention from female admirers other than my wife as opposed to now gaining the affections of the woman I love now that her hormones are getting back on track.

One size does not fit all...In more ways than one judging by what I've read on this site.


----------



## ConanHub

Faithful Wife said:


> Yep.
> 
> But these poor men want us to understand just how painful rejection is, that's why they need to do things like ignore last minute resistance. Because these poor men are OWED sex, and when they can't get it freely and consensual we're supposed to understand that pain of theirs....that PAIN of rejection, you see. It is just soooooo horrible that we need to understand THEIR pain and women just need to shut up and spread their legs for these poor sweet men.
> 
> And when women don't just shut up and spread their legs, there are hundreds and hundreds of blogs and books to figure out how to GET her to spread her legs via game techniques.
> 
> You see Conan, all women are _exactly_ the same and if you learn the magic punch code to her limbic system, her panties will fly off, even though she isn't actually attracted to you. But since you'll get sex out of it that's all that's important....don't forget how much that sexual rejection hurts these poor fellas. Lucky for these men, someone else has figured out the code and is happy to explain it to them.
> 
> Part of that code is breaking through last minute resistance BECAUSE all women naturally want to resist you because we actually want to have sex but we're afraid you'll think we are a wh*re so....that's how they can justify busting through that resistance.
> 
> That's just a teeny bit of it, too.
> 
> For the men who want to pretend that PUA and red pill aren't the same, I have the ignore button just for them.


The magic code is being someone women love and their panties do fly off because they are busy tearing them off to get at you. No LMR ever!

I am thinking about writing an alternative after much research. Shouldn't men listen to a man, who by their views, was extremely successful with women in and out of the bedroom. With input from successful women as well.

I'm serious.
_Posted via Mobile Device_
Or, contribute as one of many successful men to a book written by a successful woman. There needs to be a healthy alternative made popular.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening
Actually they don't (which is I guess sort of my point). Now Rosa Leslie made up as Ygrette in Game of Thrones is more my type. I like women who look like they can take care of themselves. I want to be desired, not needed.

Other people are welcome to have their own preferences.




MountainRunner said:


> Same here, but you can't tell me that Sofia Vergara or Salma Hayak doesn't float your boat...just sayin'  *grin*


----------



## MountainRunner

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> Actually they don't (which is I guess sort of my point). Now Rosa Leslie made up as Ygrette in Game of Thrones is more my type.


As a Scotsman myself (have the tartan and coat of arms) with gingers running in the family, it's all good. Came into puberty in a Mexican farmworking community so I have a bit of a "thang" for the Chicas if'n ya get my drift.


----------



## Holland

ConanHub said:


> The magic code is being someone women love and their panties do fly off because they are busy tearing them off to get at you. No LMR ever!
> 
> I am thinking about writing an alternative after much research. Shouldn't men listen to a man, who by their views, was extremely successful with women in and out of the bedroom. With input from successful women as well.
> 
> I'm serious.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
> Or, contribute as one of many successful men to a book written by a successful woman. There needs to be a healthy alternative made popular.


I would be all for contributing to a healthy alternative, for the greater good of men, women, the next generation and society in general. A good society is made up of emotionally balanced people.
For sure there are always going to be those that instead of taking responsibility for their own actions will take the bitter path of blaming the opposite gender (men and women).

The sex rank stuff is seriously screwing with peoples minds but for the sake of discussion I have had men in my life that range from 5 to 10 IMHO other women may view them very differently. All I am saying is that some men seem to hide behind this sex rank concept as a means of abdicating their responsibility to be better men. A good man, good woman relationship is golden, sex rank does not come into it.


----------



## RClawson

Yawn! 

I can only apply my own experience. Like many I was directed to MMSL after I told my story. I am not sure if it will save my marriage ultimately but it changed my perspective entirely. I would wager to say if I had not employed a great deal of the direction given in MMSL I likely would not be married today. 

Do I look at it as the Oracle for men in relationships? No just a tool with "some" helpful advice and insights.


----------



## EleGirl

MountainRunner said:


> I think I am with just one exception...I haven't learned how to draw lines with other women when approached (and I am actively immersed in therapy to rectify that flaw). I come home every evening and I cook dinner for my wife. Afterward, I sit with her and we'll watch a TV program or have a game together.
> 
> I have proven the MMSLP crowd to be wrong....At least in my case. When I first came here and laid out my original story, I was met with "You need to read the MMSLP and man up" along with the usual "It's not that she doesn't want sex...It's more like she doesn't want sex with YOU. You need to be more "alpha"".
> 
> If I had taken their advice as opposed to taking my wife to an HRT clinic, I'd still be frustrated with the fact that I am lean, strong, fit, drawing the attention from female admirers other than my wife as opposed to now gaining the affections of the woman I love now that her hormones are getting back on track.
> 
> *One size does not fit all...In more ways than one judging by what I've read on this site*.


That's the truth. It's the reason why taking one hard approach of suggesting something as potentially harmful and MMSLP is bad news.

Most men will say that they are good husbands.
Most women will say that they are good wives.

It's most likely that they are for the most part. But when a marriage is failing, there is something that's not working. That something needs to be found. Just jumping off to the MMSLP wonderland without even really looking any deeper is marital suicide.


----------



## ConanHub

Migraine just cleared up. There are probably some healthy alternatives out there already but not sure if any are from the perspective of men who women were very eager to have sex with in a very healthy and positive manner.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EleGirl

Lila said:


> Here's another goodie because ya know....the only thing we're good for is sex.
> 
> Chapter 25.6 Hooker Math
> 
> "Figure out how much money you spent on your wife in the last year and divide that by the number of times you've had sex in the same period. That's your cost per lay. Is that more of less the price of a nice hooker?
> ....
> And let's be serious, if the Hooker Math for sex with your wife comes to over $1,000 per lay, it sounds like you're partying with Charlie Sheen a big much"​


I've heard this before.

I guess nothing else she does has any value to these men. Talk about denigrating their wife.


----------



## EleGirl

ConanHub said:


> Migraine just cleared up. There *are probably some healthy alternatives out* there already but not sure if any are from the perspective of men who women were very eager to have sex with in a very healthy and positive manner.


Do you mean alternative self help books for men?


----------



## ConanHub

EleGirl said:


> Do you mean alternative self help books for men?


Yes and being a healthy alternative, for women as well. The best books are beneficial for both genders.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EleGirl

ConanHub said:


> Yes and being a healthy alternative, for women as well. The best books are beneficial for both genders.


I agree that the best books are beneficial to both.

Just did a google search on "marriage books for men". There are actually quite a few.


----------



## EleGirl

BronzeTorpedo said:


> Exploiting another woman's personal tragedy to try to score a point against a point of view you disagree with. A new TAM low.


The rape story is one from a TAM member who did not want to identify herself because she knew that she'd get attacked. So she apparently asked FW to post her story to keep her identity hidden. That is fair.

The reason that guy raped her is directly related to the reason that FW and many others object to the Red Pill. The rapist had the attitude that he was owned sex and that he had the right to rape someone to get his 'justice'. This is far from the only time that this kind of thing has happened. Most rapists rape with this attitude... they hate women use their victims as proxy for all women.

That story relates to the topic of this thread.


----------



## ConanHub

EleGirl said:


> I agree that the best books are beneficial to both.
> 
> Just did a google search on "marriage books for men". There are actually quite a few.


I am definitely aware of them but I wonder if any are from the perspective, of what many term, very sexually successful men and women.

I'm not talking about relatively happy marriages necessarily, but real sexually successful men talking about what they have learned about healthy attraction of women with successful women adding to and confirming their experiences.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EleGirl

TheGoodGuy said:


> Damn, I missed the start of this thread and sorry I just can't dig though 111 pages (on the phone view anyway). I'm really curious. Of the posters in this thread who feel strongly one way or another.. What are your ages and how many times have you been in a LTR/marriage?
> 
> I'll start. 34yo, two marriages that ended in divorce due to a cheating wife.


You did not tell which point of view that you feel strongly about.


----------



## Jellybeans

Blonde said:


> None of this *interchangeable vaginas*


:rofl::smthumbup:


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

EleGirl said:


> I've heard this before.
> 
> I guess nothing else she does has any value to these men. Talk about denigrating their wife.


Yep and I think this is where there's a huge disconnect when men say they need sex as an emotional need to feel loved and then treating their partner like she's a hole to put his penis in. 

It's not a turn on for women to feel like a blow up doll and that is already a big complaint for many wives.



Oh and for the men complaining that the women don't do the approaching, according to AK we aren't supposed to. So, don't blame us. Apparently it's your fault. You don't want us if you think you don't have to work to get us, because then we are just "low value". 

High value women are approached by men, and with high frequently. When she approaches him, she’s basically tipped her hand that she is interested in him, and the implication is that he’s a higher Sex Rank than she is. Once that happens, the male is no longer in pursuit mode, and the dopamine shuts down because he no longer needs to make any risk taking moves to get her attention and gain her interest. Which essentially makes him react to her with “cool.” (Which drives her crazier for him because of the hypergamy factor)

If all you’re looking for is a hook-up, then it’s no problem to make the first move. But in terms of getting to an actual relationship, it’s not the greatest of ideas to make the first move if you’re a female. You’re better off displaying higher value and waiting it out.


----------



## Jellybeans

Lila said:


> Here's another tidbit, specifically written for single men
> 
> Chapter 15.7 - Have More Than One Woman
> 
> "Always have more than one woman that you are dating. If you get hooked into just one woman, your entire sex life will be dominated by her availability and mood. If she only offers sex when she is ovulating and a few more times a month, you're only going to have sex four to five times a month.
> ...
> The solution then is to have more than one woman you are dating and always feel like you have a couple of back up women to fall back on. If you have three girlfriends, if you leaves you, it's not near as dramatic when your only girlfriend breaks up with you.
> 
> *Always track the first time a woman had sex with you. Make sure you call her and try and date her every 28 days after that*."​
> Will post more nuggets of wisdom in another post.





Lila said:


> Here's another goodie because ya know....the only thing we're good for is sex.
> 
> Chapter 25.6 *Hooker Math*
> 
> "Figure out how much money you spent on your wife in the last year and divide that by the number of times you've had sex in the same period. That's your cost per lay. * Is that more of less the price of a nice hooker?*
> ....
> And let's be serious, if the Hooker Math for sex with your wife comes to over $1,000 per lay, it sounds like you're partying with Charlie Sheen a big much"​


This is the Athol guy?! 



Lila said:


> In response to your question SGC about bjs and anal:
> 
> "*If your wife offers frequent blowjobs or handjobs, enjoy them but* *be careful that she's not just distracting you.* An interested wife will desire frequent vaginal intercourse and be glad to get your sperm into her vagina"​


Oh FFS. This is some next level crazy sh*t. God FORBID a woman want to give her man a BJ or handjob. GEEZ. It's like a story told to see how ridiculous it can get. :slap::loser::crazy:


----------



## UMP

Jellybeans said:


> This is the Athol guy?!
> 
> 
> 
> Oh FFS. This is some next level crazy sh*t. God FORBID a woman want to give her man a BJ or handjob. GEEZ. It's like a story told to see how ridiculous it can get. :slap::loser::crazy:


Well, 
I think all the valuable red pill stuff could be written on one page.
To be fair, you can't write a one page book. No one will buy it.
He must have written the other 300 pages in Colorado.


----------



## Jellybeans

UMP said:


> Well,
> I think all the valuable rid pill stuff could be written on one page.
> *To be fair, you can't write a one page book. *No one will buy it.


DAmmit! There goes my multi-million dollar idea!


----------



## jld

Blonde said:


> so, how do you feel about Athol Kay and MMSL?
> 
> _"So… let’s assign the blame…
> 
> For the husband, whether he knew it or not, he was always the Captain. *He was always the one more responsible for the relationship outcome than the wife was.* " -A Kay
> 
> "
> 
> "almost always, the critical error that starts the real relationship momentum downwards, *is the husband’s.*" -A Kay
> 
> "I’ve also had a fair number of emails and comments to the effect of, “Okay I admit to having screwed it all up, having missed how unhappy she was. But then she did [totally inappropriate behavior]. *Am I really to blame for all that?”*
> 
> Too long didn’t read…. hit an iceberg and *it’s the Captain’s fault.*" -A. Kay
> 
> Captain and First Officer When The Marriage is Slamming Into Icebergs | Athol Kay's Married Man Sex Life_​


Well, Athol and I have this in common, then: When there are problems in the marriage, we look at the man first.

I remember reading that he said if the wife is unfaithful, the man has to share at least some of the blame. He said it might be 5%, it might be 95%, but it is not all on her. Controversial, but interesting, to me, at least.


----------



## NobodySpecial

jld said:


> Well, Athol and I have this in common, then: When there are problems in the marriage, we look at the man first.


Huh. When there is a problem in our marriage I look to MYSELF first since I am the one I have the best likelihood to change.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Jellybeans said:


> This is the Athol guy?!
> 
> Oh FFS. This is some next level crazy sh*t. God FORBID a woman want to give her man a BJ or handjob. GEEZ. It's like a story told to see how ridiculous it can get. :slap::loser::crazy:


Yep, these quotes were the Athol guy....the man who is heralded as a genius by many men here and many more at his own website and forum.

This is why I just don't get it. I know the men here are intelligent and kind and not full of crap. So when I hear some man suggesting MMSL to another man I'm just :scratchhead: .


----------



## jld

NobodySpecial said:


> Huh. When there is a problem in our marriage I look to MYSELF first since I am the one I have the best likelihood to change.


I was not specifically talking about my marriage, but marriages in general. 

Yes, I look at myself, too. I certainly agree that the only person we can change is ourselves. But my frustrations are usually reactions to my husband, and he has acknowledged that.

From what you have written, the power balance in your marriage seems different than the power balance in mine. I am sure that influences how we each see this issue.


----------



## jld

Okay, thought of one more belief Mr. Kay and I have in common, as told to me by a fellow poster on a thread I started last year: neither of us believe men can be emasculated by anyone other than themselves.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

turnera said:


> Doesn't mean we're shallow or gold-diggers. Means we want a protected life and men who can provide that are more attractive.


Exactly! It is also a trait you instinctively desire to pass on to your young. You want the genes that thrive, not the ones that struggle to get by.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> Guess I didn't get the memo. Have always supported myself and have plenty of my own money (never received child support or alimony after divorce) and have picked men based on chemistry, attraction and compatibility.


Which is also what the studies say most women say. But in the studies that make an attempt to quantify the degree of influence held by status versus other factors, status is one of women's most highly valued traits. It's shown to positively influence your perception of a man's physical attractiveness and positively influence your perception of his personality.

It's pretty wild really. It implies there's more going on behind what you find attractive, or why you find it attractive, than you're consciously aware.


----------



## Pluto2

ConanHub said:


> I am definitely aware of them but I wonder if any are from the perspective, of what many term, very sexually successful men and women.
> 
> I'm not talking about relatively happy marriages necessarily, but real sexually successful men talking about what they have learned about healthy attraction of women with successful women adding to and confirming their experiences.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


When you say "sexually successful" are you just talking number of sexual partners (quantity), or are you talking about the degree to which the intimate needs and desires of partners (quality) are met?

What's successful for the goose is not always success for the gander.


----------



## always_alone

Beauty and Status



> But many analyses of exchange, particularly those that examine beauty and socioeconomic status, fail to control for partners’ tendency to match each other on these traits. Because desirable traits in mates are positively correlated between partners and within individuals, ignoring matching may exaggerate evidence of cross-trait beauty-status exchange.


IOW, no, we do not exchange beauty for wealth.


----------



## Faithful Wife

And it is also funny always alone, that these guys on the one hand say that 5's go with 5's and 8's go with 8's....but see, they mean the 8 male has "other things" that make him attractive, they don't mean that the 8 guy is an 8 by standing alone on his looks. They just can't get it into their heads that a woman doesn't want a guy who is less attractive in her eyes physically. They just HAVE to believe that there is some kind of equalizer that allows a 5 guy to BECOME a 7 or 8 so that 5 guy can get with a 7 or 8 woman.

I call this Loser Math.

From your link:

"Moreover, many prior analyses assume a gendered exchange in which women trade beauty for men’s status, without testing whether men might use handsomeness to attract higher-status women."

It really all boils down to the unattractive guy being pissed off that the more attractive guys "get all the girls" so the unattractive guys came up with a belief system just to get around this problem, and then they called it SCIENCE!!!!

All their "science" flies out the window when an actual hunk walks in the room.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Faithful Wife said:


> All their "science" flies out the window when an actual hunk walks in the room.


And yet what each woman calls a hunk varies greatly.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Anon Pink said:


> In all fairness, there is some very scant science to preselection and the influence of peer selection. But it is very scant and 95% of psychological researches as well as social scientists turn their noses up on the relevance of what little research there is. But still, to say the thing is true and to say that there is science behind it, is highly misleading and inaccurate.
> 
> From an evolutionary standpoint, female mammals who do all the work to raise offspring are the ones who choose their partners while males compete with other makes to be chosen. What I extrolate from that is a lesson to men: If you want to be picked, show her how skilled you are at providing AND parenting.
> 
> Of course, this doesn't have any relevant ties to adult humans and most particularly to adult humans who are not invested in bringing more children into the home.


I didn't quote it because it wasn't relevant to my post, but a couple of the studies I posted and some other surveys of published material do provide some support to preselection.

The takeaway was that women perhaps don't always trust their own judgments, and leverage the social environment to help pick up cues to mate quality they may have missed. Two examples are mentioned in what I've read: the establishment of a male hierarchy by males themselves, and the actions of other females. 

In the former, males themselves establish a sort of pecking order or rank among themselves, and female preference is shown to strongly correlate with the men's ordering. ie - the women pick the men the men unknowingly predict they will, based on men's ranking all the men in terms of leadership/dominance of the group. This gives rise to a number of strategies to either lead the group, narrow the group to improve his standing, or find an important niche.

The latter is well known human behavior outside the sexual sphere. Peer influence is often leveraged to make decisions when our own choice appears to stand far apart from the group, causing us doubt. If my choice is right, why aren't others choosing it too? A classic experiment demonstrating this is an elevator full of people facing the back wall of the elevator rather than the door. A new rider almost always defers to the group and faces the wall too. You can induce a number of unusual behaviors this way. Preselection is the same psychological mechanism. All these other women like him, so you tend to defer to the wisdom of the group. The concept has tremendous support outside of mate selection. There's really no reason to believe it wouldn't apply in mate selection as well.

It is endorsement of the group or respected peer - and really, women do something similar in tending to prefer dates with men tangent to their social circle. The people in your social circle, people you've developed trust in, are effectively vouching for him as being a quality guy.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

TiggyBlue said:


> :iagree:
> I'm not saying women don't want protection and money, but the way it is obtained varies.
> Some look for a man to provide it and some work hard to provide it for themselves.


Not according to science. The men that have it are more attractive, regardless of the female's standing. Successful women still found successful men more attractive.


----------



## TheGoodGuy

EleGirl said:


> Damn, I missed the start of this thread and sorry I just can't dig though 111 pages (on the phone view anyway). I'm really curious. Of the posters in this thread who feel strongly one way or another.. What are your ages and how many times have you been in a LTR/marriage?
> 
> I'll start. 34yo, two marriages that ended in divorce due to a cheating wife.
> 
> 
> 
> You did not tell which point of view that you feel strongly about.
Click to expand...

Sorry about that. I'm definitely against the PUA-Red Pill thinking. I asked for peoples ages and status because I wonder if the younger crowd are "typically" the ones pushing for Red Pill, or perhaps the less successful in relationships that are constantly on the prowl for sex every second of every day. 

It may not have any correlation at all, just a thought I had.


----------



## ConanHub

Blonde said:


> To me, the use of the plural there is a problem and automatically rules out "healthy and positive"
> 
> Haven't read it but have heard good things about "Sheet Music" but the male author is a Christian and is focused on *exclusive monogamous* relationships.
> 
> None of this interchangeable vaginas, keeping extra women in your back pocket, or flirting at bars assuming that "competing" with other women are going to make your W horny for you.


I can be quoted many times saying "what many consider successful ".

All the women I have been intimate with have very confidently pursued me. The red pill teachings never applied to my experiences. I am talking about healthy empowerment.

What individuals choose to do with good and healthy knowledge is up to them.

I am a committed Christian and value hetero monogamy. By all accounts, I have been wildly successful at my marriage as well.

Met Mrs. Conan when I was 20, married once, still married, fantastic romance, sex and love are in abundance with no cheating on either side.

Maybe I figured something out young? My results have been pretty good, no?

I would personally advocate against promiscuity but helping men become better and more attractive to women is a win no matter what path is chosen.

All the women in my life were very empowered in a relationship with me. I was promiscuous in my youth but very caring and honest.
I was the farthest thing from a predator, more like prey and women enjoy hunting. When a woman feels secure and is empowered, she is very often transformed into some wonderful combination of Xena and Venus.

I love the interchangeable vagina remark!:smthumbup:

I never have or ever would promote that women are interchangeable. Ridiculous!


----------



## TheGoodGuy

jld said:


> Okay, thought of one more belief Mr. Kay and I have in common, as told to me by a fellow poster on a thread I started last year: neither of us believe men can be emasculated by anyone other than themselves.


Eh? As a BS, I'd be interested to read the details about this belief.


----------



## NobodySpecial

jld said:


> I was not specifically talking about my marriage, *but marriages in general*.


I know. And I disagree that that is the best way to do things. When each person looks at themselves, each person can do what THEY can. And then we don't have to have 50 pages of who sucks more men or women.



> Yes, I look at myself, too. I certainly agree that the only person we can change is ourselves. But my frustrations are usually reactions to my husband, and he has acknowledged that.
> 
> From what you have written, the power balance in your marriage seems different than the power balance in mine. I am sure that influences how we each see this issue.


There is NO concept of power in our relationship. We don't need it.


----------



## jld

NobodySpecial said:


> There is NO concept of power in our relationship. We don't need it.


I think every relationship has a power dynamic.


----------



## jld

TheGoodGuy said:


> Eh? As a BS, I'd be interested to read the details about this belief.


I did a thread on it last year. My iPad will not let me link for some reason, but you could search for it.


----------



## NobodySpecial

jld said:


> I think every relationship has a power dynamic.


And I think that is really too bad. Sad even.


----------



## TheGoodGuy

jld said:


> I did a thread on it last year. My iPad will not let me link for some reason, but you could search for it.


Found it http://talkaboutmarriage.com/ladies-lounge/203098-emasculating-man-even-possible.html
Reading now..


----------



## Blossom Leigh

NobodySpecial said:


> And I think that is really too bad. Sad even.


For me the power dynamic is this... each person comes into a relationship with personal power and each person must choose wisely how to manage their personal power to the success of the relationship... or not.


There is no way to get around the fact that every person possesses power.

The persons in the best relationships 
Accept that
Embrace it
and are ethical with their personal power.


----------



## UMP

NobodySpecial said:


> And I think that is really too bad. Sad even.


With great power comes great responsibility.
The trick is to use the power you have to enhance the relationship, not destroy it.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Blossom Leigh said:


> For me the power dynamic is this... each person comes into a relationship with personal power and each person must choose wisely how to manage their personal power to the success of the relationship... or not.
> 
> 
> There is no way to get around the fact that every person possesses power.
> 
> The persons in the best relationships
> Accept that
> Embrace it
> and are ethical with their personal power.


Not every relationship has a power dynamic.


----------



## jld

NobodySpecial said:


> Not every relationship has a power dynamic.


Would you mind sharing your understanding of power dynamic with us?


----------



## john117

always_alone said:


> Beauty and Status
> 
> 
> 
> IOW, no, we do not exchange beauty for wealth.



The women in my exclusive community beg to differ


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> The women in my exclusive community beg to differ


Hey, no one ever denied that gold diggers exist. 

Just whether or not it is part and biological parcel of being a woman. 

And that relationships by their very nature are exchanges of beauty and status.


----------



## samyeagar

NobodySpecial said:


> And I think that is really too bad. Sad even.


jld and her husband have a very different marital dynamic than many, if not most of the rest of us. More along the lines of a parent-child relationship. That is the dynamic that works for them, and by all accounts, they are very happy and successful. I suspect very few of the rest of us would be either happy or successful in the same dynamic.

One needs to keep the context when considering her or dug's insight. It works for them, but may not apply to some of the rest of us.


----------



## Deejo

Faithful Wife said:


> Like Deejo... I believe he has dated quite a bit after divorce, and has ranged the ages a bit in dates...but Deejo wouldn't you say there is a sea full of healthy daters of both genders between 40 and 50? (I actually have forgotten how old you are but I think you are over 40...I apologize if I have that wrong). And isn't it fun and interesting to meet people, they have rich life experiences...some are still shallow, some have really grown from life...some really do have mental health issues...some are secret rock stars that only YOU get to know closely enough to find out about.
> 
> I wish there were better books that paint a balanced and happy dating life for divorced people...because it is the truth! There are lots of people who will date you if you end up single!
> 
> And either a man or a woman may _choose_ to date a younger or older person if one is agreeable to such a date. Who cares? These are either happenstance or choices made out of preference...either way it is not a guarantee and shouldn't be a reason to get excited all on its own...or even if it is, no one should promise thousands of readers (of any gender) that they are entitled to anything as specific as a much younger partner or date. That's just crazy, no one is guaranteed anything. But people don't want a guarantee they want the CHANCE for love.
> 
> The message to both genders should be: You do have that chance. A very high one even, if it is your goal.
> 
> You also have just about 100% chance guaranteed sex if THAT is your goal.


Congrats, you are now one of the five people I have ever given a 'Like' to. 

It has been said in this thread, and I've said it many times. It's quite a sweet thing to say, "Don't try to be someone you aren't. Just wait for someone to love you for who you are."

To which I say, "Bullsh!t."

If you are a man or woman who is NOT socially gifted, doesn't hold their head up high, demonstrate confidence, competence, and other social value that others inherently find attractive, you're going to be doing a lot of passive waiting for that magical someone who may or may not come along. And when someone does, it's likely that you are going to try to make them that magical someone, whether they are or not, for fear of another long, lonely, social drought.

However, if you decide that you proactively WANT to find that person, then you have little choice other than to expand who you are. You don't have to not be you. But you do need to learn how to be an improved version of you.

I didn't date a lot prior to marriage. Most of my relationships were 'sure things'. I asked out women that had already broadcasted in big, blinking, neon lights that they were interested.

Rejection? I found it terrifying, and personally demoralizing (back then).

So to answer your question Faithful, yes. I've done lots of dating. I'll be 50 in August. Youngest I've dated was 35, oldest was 49 and hotter than the 35 year old.
Let me tell you something about post divorce, 40 something women ... they like the sex. And they too are often looking for all kinds of strange that they didn't have in their marriages. It's like all of a sudden sex is a playground rather than a chore. On more than one occasion, I was sought out and pursued for no other reason. 

Wish we could all hold onto the playground mentality rather than it morphing into the chore.
The preponderance of women that I dated were 40+

So in summary, if I were the same man I was, 15 or 20 years ago, I would not have the life experience, met, interacted with, laughed with, and slept with the women I have.


But I did.

Because I read (and importantly, acted upon) books exactly like the one this thread is trashing.

I don't, and never have abided by the divisive PUA foolishness. 
But the concepts behind it, are successful. Not with emotionally damaged, low self esteem, or trashy women.
It works with pediatricians, lawyers, insurance executives, managers, psychologists (2),business owners, nurses, teachers, and IT specialists.

So for me personally, or for any man that consumes this type of product, I would use the same caveat that we so often use around here when it comes to determining how invested, sincere, or honest our partners are being;

Don't pay attention to the words I've read.

Pay attention to what I do, and how I conduct myself.

I have no issue with this ongoing discourse. I do wish it were not so divisive.

I would rather be building bridges, than walls.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> I have to say, I'm a little skeptical of the speed dating studies because they don't do a particularly good job of controlling for all of the variables and noise of "first impressions" in a completely artificial situation. The "picture of status symbol costume" methodologies are also fraught, IMHO because they are so artificial, reducing attraction to but two dimensions.


Fair enough, another methodology used is the selection of dating profiles where income or profession is used to manipulate status. This too reveals a strong bias toward high status.



always_alone said:


> That said, I just want to clarify that I'm not disputing that statistically women will probably show marginal prioritizing of status and wealth while men will show marginal prioritizing of looks.


I appreciate the minor concession, but I would like to point out the that every attempt I've read to assign numerical value and determine just how heavily these things weigh argues they are not marginal. They are in fact very large influences. If I recall correctly, one of the papers I posted (or perhaps another I've read) calculated status as accounting for about 50% of a female's interest. It is one of the strongest predictors of attraction, not marginal.



always_alone said:


> Of course we will display these preferences as a statistical mean; it's what we have been taught to do. How many girls have I know whose mothers wanted them to marry doctors? Lots!
> 
> What I am disputing is that this behaviour is somehow "proven" to be an essential part of our respective genders, and that somehow these preferences are more important than all other attraction considerations. I haven't had a chance to look at all of the studies you've posted, but so far what I'm seeing is that both men and women have a wide variety of preferences and things they look for in mate selection.


I don't particularly care as to it's origin or whether it is an "essential" or "intrinsic" quality of gender. I also don't care if it's considered PC or not. I only care what exists, because that's the environment I must deal with.

Of course men and women have a wide variety of preferences, but if you accept the evidence, status tends to top the list for women and looks tends to top the list for men. These are the conclusions drawn by the researchers themselves following a variety of different methodologies.

It always surprises me to see so much resistance to what appears to be a fairly clear cut case as far behavioral studies are concerned. What is the opposing interest? Do the result not reflect what we everyday? Women beautifying themselves with makeup, flushing themselves with red, showing off their skin and bodies... while men show off their stuff. You'll even notice that more men in recent decades have become gym obsessed - trying to get those big pecs, shoulders and cut abs. This is no doubt in response to increasing female interest in these things with further liberalization. I have no problem with it, and I wouldn't care if beneath all the cultural yadda yadda, women were exactly like men (I doubt it, but it wouldn't matter). I only care about results remember? And you get results by accounting for conditions that exist, not the maybes, ideallys, would haves, or could haves.


----------



## UMP

always_alone said:


> Hey, no one ever denied that gold diggers exist.
> 
> Just whether or not it is part and biological parcel of being a woman.
> 
> And that relationships by their very nature are exchanges of beauty and status.


I would ask the question, what woman, in her right mind, would NOT want to be taken care of?
What's wrong with choosing a guy that has a great job, you genuinely love, is good looking, healthy, smart, honest, loyal and will be able to give your children an education and a bright future.
Hell, I'll even sign up for that and I have testicles.

Even then, if you want a self sufficient career for back up, go for it.
More power to ya.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

UMP said:


> I would ask the question, what woman, in her right mind, would NOT want to be taken care of?
> What's wrong with choosing a guy that has a great job, you genuinely love, is good looking, healthy, smart, honest, loyal and will be able to give your children an education and a bright future.
> Hell, I'll even sign up for that and I have testicles.


Without question there are gold diggers in both genders.


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> It works with pediatricians, lawyers, insurance executives, managers, psychologists (2),business owners, nurses, teachers, and IT specialists.



When you say "it" works, what is the "it" you are referring to?

If "it" is being physically fit, healthy, confident, well no one has ever argue that point. They just want to know why you would endorse 300 pages of misogyny to get there. 

If "it" is fulfilling some sort of gender stereotype, then I would hazard it only works with those who hold that same stereotype, who are seeking that dynamic (which is fine, as long as you actually believe in and hold to that stereotype and dynamic, as then you have some real compatibility).

If "it" is thinking women are interchangeable vaginas with hamsters instead of brains, or inclined to cheat, or easily mainpulated by the amount of sperm in their vaginas, well, I'd say that in itself was pretty divisive.

Can I ask you a sincere question: I know you have read and endorse MMSL as a grand solution for men who feel hard done by in the sex department. But I'm really curious: what goes through your head when you read passages like, say, all of the ones cited in this thread?


----------



## always_alone

UMP said:


> I would ask the question, what woman, in her right mind, would NOT want to be taken care of?
> What's wrong with choosing a guy that has a great job, you genuinely love, is good looking, healthy, smart, honest, loyal and will be able to give your children an education and a bright future.
> Hell, I'll even sign up for that and I have testicles.


Huh. I guess along with being hideously ugly, I must also not be in my right mind.

No wonder I have such a hard time here!


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Question for the mmslp boys- do you believe this kind of stuff or is it one of the things you have to look past in order to get to the parts that helped you?


It's as irrelevant to me as rambling against GMOs.

The effects of "poison" like smoking on things like cardiovascular health, erection and stamina are far more important than whatever bad could be in a couple tablespoons of semen.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I don't particularly care as to it's origin or whether it is an "essential" or "intrinsic" quality of gender. I also don't care if it's considered PC or not. I only care what exists, because that's the environment I must deal with.


But of course you ignored the link I posted that showed the sloppiness of the conclusions you are so wedded to.

As well as the actual data in *the links that you posted* that shows that many things will top looks for men, and many things will top status for women.


----------



## UMP

always_alone said:


> Huh. I guess along with being hideously ugly, I must also not be in my right mind.
> 
> No wonder I have such a hard time here!


You don't want to find someone you love that also has the ability to take care of you?
No problem.
I think a gold digger is someone that wants all the $ without love. Love is number #1. All the other stuff is gravy.
You don't like gravy?
No problem.


----------



## UMP

Blossom Leigh said:


> Without question there are gold diggers in both genders.


If you just happed to fall in love with a billionaire and he loves you back and you get married, are you a gold digger?


----------



## Blossom Leigh

UMP said:


> You don't want to find someone you love that also has the ability to take care of you?
> No problem.
> I think a gold digger is someone that wants all the $ without love. Love is number #1. All the other stuff is gravy.
> You don't like gravy?
> No problem.


Which really centers on quality of intent towards the relationship.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Lila said:


> This one is really crazy:


I agree with the body agenda so I'm crazy.

At least I can point to posts such as this as an example of hypocrisy the next time some woman flips her sh*t about men calling women crazy, and dismiss it just as easily.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

UMP said:


> If you just happed to fall in love with a billionaire and he loves you back and you get married, are you a gold digger?


No


for me gold digger implies manipulative intent for personal gain from the person as if they are an object and not a human. It is centered on a very selfish intent.


----------



## GusPolinski

TheGoodGuy said:


> Found it http://talkaboutmarriage.com/ladies-lounge/203098-emasculating-man-even-possible.html
> Reading now..


You might need this later...


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Lila said:


> And the one that makes me wonder why go through all the trouble to fix the marriage in the first place....
> 
> Chapter 25.4 Women Are Replaceable
> 
> "....any one woman can be replaced with another woman. All a woman needs to do to make you happy is a mix of working a job and keeping house, be reasonably enjoyable company and have a functional vagina that she happily lets you use."
> 
> "The solution for this is that you start shopping around and stop buying 'wife' from her and buy 'wife' from someone else"
> 
> "Objectively, there is nothing special about your current wife.....She's not all that wonderful.....You just can't see that because you're so drugged on dopamine and vasopressin"
> 
> "If you're a 7 and leave you 7 wife and remarry another 7, the sex is going to be the same. But you might have 10x as much sex with the new wife"​


The arching theme of the book is that the root problem is a selfless, subservient, wife worshipping husband. This is exactly what such a man needs to hear. She is not as critical as he irrationally imagines, and as such he does not need to tippy toe around her or submit to her every whim while getting nothing in return.

Fix that, and you may fix the marriage. Fix that, and you're better off, regardless of whether you the marriage pans out or not.


----------



## jld

UMP said:


> I would ask the question, what woman, in her right mind, would NOT want to be taken care of?
> What's wrong with choosing a guy that has a great job, you genuinely love, is good looking, healthy, smart, honest, loyal and will be able to give your children an education and a bright future.


For me personally, this works. I definitely saw being taken care of in big letters when Dug told me he wanted to marry me.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

GusPolinski said:


> You might need this later...


It is possible to crush someones spirit when they view you as extremely important to you and when they grow up in that, being crushed further in marital relationships is a viable possibility UNTIL that person learns that it doesn't have to be so. I believe "emasculating" a man is just another terminology for an abusive wife. And yes, long term it is damaging unless it stops.


----------



## UMP

always_alone, 
I will concede that in my first marriage, my wife and her family were very wealthy. I was very young and accepted a job with her fathers company, before we got married. This basically put the squeeze play on me and forced me into marrying someone I should have never married. Essentially, I was castrated as a man, or at least that's how I felt. 

However, if my daughter came to me and said I love two men equally, one is poor and the other is wealthy, which one should I marry? I would say marry the wealthy one.

If my son came to me and said I love two women equally, one is poor and the other is wealthy, which one should I marry?
I would tell him to marry the poor one and take care of her.

Is this sexist? Maybe so. However, it's the truth.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I agree with the body agenda so I'm crazy.
> 
> At least I can point to posts such as this as an example of hypocrisy the next time some woman flips her sh*t about men calling women crazy, and dismiss it just as easily.


The body agenda quote she said was crazy (note that she didn't say men were crazy but that this idea was crazy):

"....Going back to the Body Agenda Chapter, we remember that the husband's goal is to load up his wife's reproductive tract with sperm, thus maintaining a standing army to repel any other sperm that isn't his. After five days of no intercourse, his entire army of sperm is dead or flushed out of her..."

What makes you agree with this? Do you think that this type of thinking is productive in keeping a healthy sexual relationship? Shouldn't the goal be, like many say, is to meet their emotional needs, feel loved and have a mutually pleasurable experience?


----------



## jld

Blossom Leigh said:


> It is possible to crush someones spirit when they view you as extremely important to you and when they grow up in that, being crushed further in marital relationships is a viable possibility UNTIL that person learns that it doesn't have to be so. I believe "emasculating" a man is just another terminology for an abusive wife. And yes, long term it is damaging unless it stops.


Have you read the thread, Blossom?


----------



## Lila

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I agree with the body agenda so I'm crazy.


You called yourself crazy, I did not.




DvlsAdvc8 said:


> At least I can point to posts such as this as an example of hypocrisy the next time some woman flips her sh*t about men calling women crazy, and dismiss it just as easily.


So much anger. {SMH}


----------



## Deejo

always_alone said:


> Can I ask you a sincere question: I know you have read and endorse MMSL as a grand solution for men who feel hard done by in the sex department. But I'm really curious: what goes through your head when you read passages like, say, all of the ones cited in this thread?


The 'it' is interpersonal dynamics, or the word you don't like; game.
Everything from standing up straight with my shoulders back, rather than slouching, looking someone in the eye with a smile, and repeating back something they have said to qualify that I am listening, speaking clearly, with purpose, to dressing better, to not tying personal emotions to impersonal outcomes.

To answer your question with the God honest truth?

Absolutely nothing. Didn't register. That is the truth, I'm not trying to be dismissive. I didn't read it wonder how a woman would 'feel' about reading those words.

I understand the kind of man he wrote the book for. Several others have mentioned it. It is framed for men who have women on a pedestal, to change that perspective. I can also understand that it's intended audience has no bearing on how you feel about it. So as a result I've gone back and read it again. With different eyes this time. I'm different than when I read it the first time. And just as the first time, I don't agree with all of it, and some of the language bothers me.

For someone who doesn't like sweeping generalizations, you make an awful lot of them.

I have not personally recommended the book to anyone for well over two years. I have certainly contributed to threads discussing the book, and early on, I simply could not grok what women's problem was with a book that encourages men to be 'better'. I've changed my thinking. There are other sources out there that are less divisive, not that I think you would agree so 

I do no at all believe that it is a grand solution for men, in the sex department or otherwise. But it IS a resource.

I just recommend different ones now. If you want to know what they are, you can find them in the Clubhouse sticky.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Blossom Leigh said:


> And yet what each woman calls a hunk varies greatly.


Which I 100% agree with.

ETA: the thing is....this is true with women, too. But some of the men who promote MMSL and other red pill crap will try to tell us that all women must fit neatly into Prescribed Box A in order to be attractive to men. They "must" have youth, they "must" have a specific waist-hip ratio, they "must" have clear skin, etc.

These men don't speak for all men, but they claim to.

These are the same men who will claim there are no 40 y/o 9 females, but there are lots of 40 y/o 9 males.


----------



## jld

Deejo recommended _Hold Me Tight,_ by Sue Johnson, several months ago. I really enjoyed it.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> The arching theme of the book is that the root problem is a selfless, subservient, wife worshipping husband. This is exactly what such a man needs to hear. She is not as critical as he irrationally imagines, and as such he does not need to tippy toe around her or submit to her every whim while getting nothing in return.
> 
> Fix that, and you may fix the marriage. Fix that, and you're better off, regardless of whether you the marriage pans out or not.


Which would be fine if he wasn't trying to make them turn around and do the same thing to his wife that he felt she was doing to him. 

If AK, or any man, wouldn't want to be treated the way the book talks about women they shouldn't be doing it to their wives.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> Have you read the thread, Blossom?


No, I've lived it


----------



## Pluto2

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I agree with the body agenda so I'm crazy.
> 
> At least I can point to posts such as this as an example of hypocrisy the next time some woman flips her sh*t about men calling women crazy, and dismiss it just as easily.


Lila wasn't and didn't call you crazy, she was referring to a passage in the book.

Why are you getting so upset and defensive over this. Calm down, go out and have fun, life's too short.


----------



## EllisRedding

TheGoodGuy said:


> Damn, I missed the start of this thread and sorry I just can't dig though 111 pages (on the phone view anyway). I'm really curious. Of the posters in this thread who feel strongly one way or another.. What are your ages and how many times have you been in a LTR/marriage?
> 
> I'll start. 34yo, two marriages that ended in divorce due to a cheating wife.


I will bite on this. Mid 30s, married almost 13 years, and aside from a few bumps in the road have been happily married, not a single regret. I do not feel strongly one way or the other regarding this material. There are definitely some passages that have been posted here that I do not agree with and some that make sense. Since I have not read the book though I am not going to make a full judgment on the book just based on passages individuals here have decided to post since they could very well be taken out of context without seeing the whole picture (and to be honest, it would be very easy for a poster to take out passages that only support their bias/viewpoint/agenda, whether that be in favor of or against the book). 

I also recognize that I am not the target audience for the book, so that in itself makes it hard for me to draw a conclusion. Some here recognize this as well while others are unwilling to accept.

The one thing I will say, there seems to be of the view here that any man who reads this book is some mindless drone who will take every word from the book as given, unable to only take out the pieces that they need to better themselves. This clearly contradicts what several males here have stated who have used the book successfully as a tool. However, it would appear that for those who have a hatred for the book it is hard to accept this.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Deejo said:


> I have no issue with this ongoing discourse. I do wish it were not so divisive.
> 
> I would rather be building bridges, than walls.


I wish it were not divisive, too.

But the words were written (Athol's) and they are divisive, and that was part of his intent.

I wish there were lots of better books for men (and women, too).

I don't see how to build a bridge with people who will never see things the same?

But don't get me wrong...I totally believe that MOST people on this forum are not the people who buy into the worst parts of this book.

However, just take a peek over at the MMSL forum and you'll see hundreds of people who have clearly swallowed a whole bottle of yucky crap.

I'm interested purely in what happens at TAM though (with this particular issue) and quite honestly...this thread is showing that TAM has come a long way since I got here. When I first got here and spoke out against red pill crap, I would get pummeled by people. Even women wouldn't speak out with me against it because they didn't want to get pummeled. We were shushed into silence about it, over and over. There used to be a bunch of guys here who would run rough shod over anyone who dared to speak out against red pill crapola, and most of those guys are permabanned now. (Of course, we can't stop the sock puppets but...)

Just being able to speak out on this thread, not have it shut down, and not get pummeled by red pill guys is a huge improvement. :smthumbup:

Ps...thanks for the like!


----------



## Blossom Leigh

I believe he dug into my H because I don't fit his "findings." I hope your heart softens towards other views D8.

My stance is though I see certain patterns that Athol touches on that God put there, there is MUCH room for refinement in his thoughts and wording to communicate those patterns. I think that is what many of us are saying. It needs much improvement and as you were stating studies I was just contemplating... hmmm, that doesn't fit me. For some reason you chose to snip at me for that. 

must of touched a vein


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Blossom Leigh said:


> I believe he dug into my H because I don't fit his "findings." I hope your heart softens towards other views D8.


Huh? I didn't dig into him. There is what is common and then there is what is uncommon.

I'll never soften to people who hurl insults like FW. They deserve a response in kind.


----------



## jld

Blossom Leigh said:


> No, I've lived it


Some pretty good posts on that thread . . .


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> Some pretty good posts on that thread . . .


I'll check it out


----------



## Blossom Leigh

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Huh? I didn't dig into him. There is what is common and then there is what is uncommon.
> 
> I'll never soften to people who hurl insults like FW. They deserve a response in kind.


I asked you to clarify your statement about him. Maybe you didn't see it as fast as this thread has run. 

A soft word can turn away wrath D

and sometimes it takes a 2 x 4... I use both  strategically

If you are saying I am uncommon, I would agree.

My H is gorgeous to me and even when he made horrible choices it took me a long time to dry up on emotions, but I did dry up. When he made better choices, it returned.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Pluto2 said:


> Lila wasn't and didn't call you crazy, she was referring to a passage in the book.
> 
> Why are you getting so upset and defensive over this. Calm down, go out and have fun, life's too short.


? :scratchhead:

I'm not upset. I think its funny. If the passage is craziness, and I agree, then I must be crazy. Calling something crazy isn't a legitimate argument or discussion, as women who get called crazy are I'm sure fully aware. It's a way of dismissing.


----------



## Marduk

Lila said:


> And the one that makes me wonder why go through all the trouble to fix the marriage in the first place....
> 
> Chapter 25.4 Women Are Replaceable
> 
> "....any one woman can be replaced with another woman. All a woman needs to do to make you happy is a mix of working a job and keeping house, be reasonably enjoyable company and have a functional vagina that she happily lets you use."
> 
> "The solution for this is that you start shopping around and stop buying 'wife' from her and buy 'wife' from someone else"
> 
> "Objectively, there is nothing special about your current wife.....She's not all that wonderful.....You just can't see that because you're so drugged on dopamine and vasopressin"
> 
> "If you're a 7 and leave you 7 wife and remarry another 7, the sex is going to be the same. But you might have 10x as much sex with the new wife"​


OK, OK, OK... I swore to my self I would just watch this play out from the sidelines, but here I am.

Lila, when I read this part it was like a kick in the balls. I agree it's a nasty thing to say, especially the sex rank stuff that I just rejected (because there's no objective thing). 

It was because I realized it was true. My wife was replacable. *And so was I.*

And that cold hard fact of life made working on things a whole lot simpler, because it reduced the emotional noise about it for me. 

I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying that part was valuable for me at that time, because it was a big motivator for self-improvement, and not playing emotional games about things, and not being ashamed for wanting certain things from my wife. It was a central thing for me.

And, because it's true -- we are all replacable, it also led me down some very dark places, including a lack of emotional intimacy, that helped make me puke the whole thing back up.

But it is true. We all could find someone else if we wanted.

I had forgotten that, somehow.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

marduk said:


> OK, OK, OK... I swore to my self I would just watch this play out from the sidelines, but here I am.
> 
> Lila, when I read this part it was like a kick in the balls. I agree it's a nasty thing to say, especially the sex rank stuff that I just rejected (because there's no objective thing).
> 
> It was because I realized it was true. My wife was replacable. *And so was I.*
> 
> And that cold hard fact of life made working on things a whole lot simpler, because it reduced the emotional noise about it for me.
> 
> I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying that part was valuable for me at that time, because it was a big motivator for self-improvement, and not playing emotional games about things, and not being ashamed for wanting certain things from my wife. It was a central thing for me.
> 
> And, because it's true -- we are all replacable, it also led me down some very dark places, including a lack of emotional intimacy, that helped make me puke the whole thing back up.
> 
> But it is true. We all could find someone else if we wanted.
> 
> I had forgotten that, somehow.


Personal dignity and hanging onto it is wise. This is the refinement some of us are speaking of. It's not that you have a throw away wife, or that you are a throw away husband. But we do not need to be lazy in our relationships and be grateful for what we have in ourselves and our spouses.


----------



## Brigit

Lila said:


> And the one that makes me wonder why go through all the trouble to fix the marriage in the first place....
> 
> Chapter 25.4 Women Are Replaceable
> 
> "....any one woman can be replaced with another woman. All a woman needs to do to make you happy is a mix of working a job and keeping house, be reasonably enjoyable company and have a functional vagina that she happily lets you use."
> ​


This is stupid. In a job everyone is replaceable but not in a relationship. 

The "functional vagina" image makes me want to vomit.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> But it is true. We all could find someone else if we wanted.
> 
> I had forgotten that, somehow.


I agree this is not only true but important to always keep in mind.

However, it doesn't mean we should use this fact to make each other feel dread...that's just stupid (I know that's not what you were saying, I'm just pointing out the way red pill frames it is stupid).

Instead, it is a simple fact of life and nature. There are millions of people, there are many of those millions who any one of us could have a relationship (or just sex) with. And all of us have inherent value on the market. ALL of us. 

When we forget this, it makes our thinking problematic.

It doesn't have to threaten our unions either, because the flip side is that even though we can all find other partners or dates, we can all feel oneitis as well.

The red pill rage against oneitis is stupid. We can be both attracted to and attracted by other people AND feel oneitis.


----------



## ScrambledEggs

I am late to this thread. I will say that red pill is a curious alchemy of brilliant observations and total misogynist lunacy. 

I read the younger set that is totally taken in with this and I can't help but think. "this would have helped me in my youth understand things better, but it would never have made me a monster." I had a total and complete lack of understanding of what women generally find attractive even when I would accidentally stumble on it and do it for a moment. It felt right. It felt great, and it was getting me attention, but I did not have enough examples of it in my life of it to really lock onto what it was that I was doing right. A lot of my youthful energy went into pleasing women which I was somehow delivered into adulthood thinking that was what women wanted. It did not help that I convinced myself I was an introvert, but in reality I am more extroverted but had a huge self image problem. That will mess with your head.

Also, there are some parts of the "manosphere" that are much less crazy than others. There is value in the study and consideration of all ideas, if for nothing else define the borders of brilliance and madness.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I have a question for the guys...

Do you think you experience more rejection than women, or that the rejection you experience is somehow MORE painful than the rejection women experience?


----------



## UMP

Brigit said:


> This is stupid. In a job everyone is replaceable but not in a relationship.
> 
> The "functional vagina" image makes me want to vomit.


You have to understand who this is coming from. Athol is a confessed atheist. When God, love, commitment, loyalty, honesty and longsuffering are taken out of the equation, what you have left is a mechanical vagina.
I think, in this particular case, he would have been more accurate and true to his beliefs if he just suggested that we buy a really well made blow up doll. After all, if it is a "functional vagina" you want, why not just design one and put it in your closet when you're finished.


----------



## Lila

marduk said:


> OK, OK, OK... I swore to my self I would just watch this play out from the sidelines, but here I am.
> 
> Lila, when I read this part it was like a kick in the balls. I agree it's a nasty thing to say, especially the sex rank stuff that I just rejected (because there's no objective thing).
> 
> It was because I realized it was true. My wife was replacable. *And so was I.*
> 
> And that cold hard fact of life made working on things a whole lot simpler, because it reduced the emotional noise about it for me.
> 
> I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying that part was valuable for me at that time, because it was a big motivator for self-improvement, and not playing emotional games about things, and not being ashamed for wanting certain things from my wife. It was a central thing for me.
> 
> And, because it's true -- we are all replacable, it also led me down some very dark places, including a lack of emotional intimacy, that helped make me puke the whole thing back up.
> 
> But it is true. We all could find someone else if we wanted.
> 
> I had forgotten that, somehow.



I have said it here before but I agree with you Marduk. Actually my H and I both believe we are replaceable should the sh!t hit the proverbial fan with our relationship. I'm sure that he would find another person to share his life with and I......well, I might or might not, but I'm also not afraid of being alone. That's not the part that drove me to post the excerpt. It was the way A.K. describes what constitutes a wife.

"....any one woman can be replaced with another woman. *All a woman needs to do to make you happy is a mix of working a job and keeping house, be reasonably enjoyable company and have a functional vagina that she happily lets you use.*"

C'mon really??? 

If any housekeeper with an available vagina on tap will do, then why write a book that requires so much effort on a man's part to get one particular woman's attention? Does that make sense?


----------



## UMP

Faithful Wife said:


> I have a question for the guys...
> 
> Do you think you experience more rejection than women, or that the rejection you experience is somehow MORE painful than the rejection women experience?


Rejection is rejection. That's like asking does the female severed leg hurt more or less than a male severed leg.
In life, we all get rejected in one way or another. It's part of what makes us adults, both male and female.

As these lyrics from Buddy Guy suggest, we're all in the same boat.

Blues don't care if you're young or old, a real big deal or some poor soul. Makes no different if you're wrong or right, blues will track you down, it's gonna pick a fight. Blues don't care, blues don't care. I know, cause I've had my share.

It'll creep up on you when you least expect, make the hair stand up on the back of your neck, try to run but there ain't no escape, it's a middle finger on the hand of fate, oh don't care. Blues ain't fair. I know, cause I've had my share.

You can buy insurance, try to ease your mind, lock up your woman and hide your wine, bury your money in the cold hard ground, but the blues are gonna get you some way, somehow. Blues don't care, no blues don't care. I know, yes y'all, cause I really had my share


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

UMP said:


> You have to understand who this is coming from. Athol is a confessed atheist. When God, love, commitment, loyalty, honesty and longsuffering are taken out of the equation, what you have left is a mechanical vagina.
> .


I am an atheist, many of the people I know are atheist. None of them are left with just a mechanical vagina because you _do _have the love, commitment, loyalty, and honesty. You just don't need the god part. 

Religion is not required for the rest.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Lila said:


> If any housekeeper with an available vagina on tap will do...


It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia's Frank calls this a Bang Maid.


----------



## chillymorn

Faithful Wife said:


> I have a question for the guys...
> 
> Do you think you experience more rejection than women, or that the rejection you experience is somehow MORE painful than the rejection women experience?


Its person specific.

I'm sure some women experience more rejecting than the avg man and that some men experience more rejection than the avg women.

your confidence in yourself is what helps you when you get rejected.


----------



## NobodySpecial

UMP said:


> You have to understand who this is coming from. Athol is a confessed atheist. When God, love, commitment, loyalty, honesty and longsuffering are taken out of the equation, what you have left is a mechanical vagina.


WHAT?!?! Those of us without god are not absent love, commitment, loyalty, honesty. Not sure what the point of long suffering, so maybe I will give you that.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> I have a question for the guys...
> 
> Do you think you experience more rejection than women, or that the rejection you experience is somehow MORE painful than the rejection women experience?


More? Impossible to say.

More painful? Probably not. Past junior high, it never seemed to bother me. But, biases are what they are -- AK would have called me an "Alpha" starting in grade 10. So I likely percieved rejection very differently.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Well, atheist or whatever Athol is....the book literally does not discuss LOVE at all. Not once in the entire book does he talk about love either abstractly or specifically. Another reason I am against it: What relationship book doesn't even touch on the topic of love? :scratchhead:

I think he feels that love is simply chemicals. 

And I understand a lot of other people think this too....but sheesh, most people at least are not so cold blooded about it that they won't even say love has an important role in our lives, chemicals or not.


----------



## chillymorn

The reverse of the bang maid is when the wife stays married for security of the earnings even though she has no desire to be intimate with her husband.

Is that not just as bad? maybe even worse in my opinion.

this is the perfect example of a codependent marriage. when the husband just wants sex and the wife just wants the security and both are frozen in fear. or refuse to do anything about it.


----------



## Icey181

Wow, seriously fast moving thread.

I will answer this one.


Faithful Wife said:


> I have a question for the guys...
> 
> Do you think you experience more rejection than women, or that the rejection you experience is somehow MORE painful than the rejection women experience?


It depends.

The majority of my experience shows men to be the aggressors in initiating relationships and by pure virtue of that, get rejected more often.

Clarification: A women who thinks she is expressing interest by placing herself in a position to be propositioned, but does not actually take an active role in making the initial approach, is not rejected if she is not approached.

To be rejected you have to take make an active approach and stick yourself out there.

While some women do this, most that I know do not.

Now, I have read that, thanks to the 90s focus on female education, there are colleges with huge gender imbalances which are reversing this entire situation. 

The NYT had an article not to long ago about how "unfair" it was for women in these situations, because men would not have a relationship with them without sex, and there were plenty of women approaching the guys who were more than willing.

I laughed…then I pondered….and then I laughed some more, but more ironically the second time.


----------



## Marduk

Lila said:


> I have said it here before but I agree with you Marduk. Actually my H and I both believe we are replaceable should the sh!t hit the proverbial fan with our relationship. I'm sure that he would find another person to share his life with and I......well, I might or might not, but I'm also not afraid of being alone. That's not the part that drove me to post the excerpt. It was the way A.K. describes what constitutes a wife.
> 
> "....any one woman can be replaced with another woman. *All a woman needs to do to make you happy is a mix of working a job and keeping house, be reasonably enjoyable company and have a functional vagina that she happily lets you use.*"
> 
> C'mon really???
> 
> If any housekeeper with an available vagina on tap will do, then why write a book that requires so much effort on a man's part to get one particular woman's attention? Does that make sense?


I agree it's distasteful.

I will say -- full on a-hole mode here -- that in my first mostly sexless marriage, I would have taken that functional vagina any day.

Because we have our perspectives, and a parched man needs water and will fixate on that like a drowning man fixates on air. When there's little to no sex, the lack of sex is the problem. And a lot of guys would gladly trade in the wife that bore their children but won't sleep with them for a new unknown commodity that will have sex with them.

Until they get it, I suspect, of course.

And how many men complain of being ATMs that get little in return? And how many women complain that their husbands don't pay attention to them.

And on and on. We fixate on what we're not getting.


----------



## UMP

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I am an atheist, many of the people I know are atheist. None of them are left with just a mechanical vagina because you _do _have the love, commitment, loyalty, and honesty. You just don't need the god part.
> 
> Religion is not required for the rest.


Yeah, but you did not write a book that claims that wives are basically just mechanical vaginas that can be replaced on a whim. Athol did and IS an atheist. I can see how an atheist COULD come to that conclusion.


----------



## MarriedDude

Faithful Wife said:


> The equivalent to advice for women, based on what Athol thinks of women would be:
> 
> *bag the richest man you can
> 
> *cheat with the hottest man you can
> 
> *lie to both men (or however many there are) and sleep with other randos when you are ovulating
> 
> *get babies from the best of the clan of dudes you are screwing via sperm warfare
> 
> *if caught, who cares? move on to the next chump.


That. Word of the day is now "Randos"
Awesomeness
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EllisRedding

Faithful Wife said:


> I have a question for the guys...
> 
> Do you think you experience more rejection than women, or that the rejection you experience is somehow MORE painful than the rejection women experience?


Yes, mens rejection is way more painful than women. Everything me experience is way more painful than woman ... 

just kidding, but I am sure you were hoping to see a response like that 

Rejection and how it is handled would probably be individualistic and not gender based. Some people have the personality to brush things off and move (that is my personality and sounds like marduk as well), others will dwell on things until it drives them crazy, unable to let go. Also depends on the situation. I would think you would handle rejection differently if let's say the love of your life rejected you vs. trying to pick up some random chick at McDonalds and she says no ...


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening
the key is that different men are saying these different things. There is a lot of variation in how men think - if you view them as a single entity it will make no sense. Same applies to women.




SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Yep and I think this is where there's a huge disconnect when men say they need sex as an emotional need to feel loved and then treating their partner like she's a hole to put his penis in.
> 
> It's not a turn on for women to feel like a blow up doll and that is already a big complaint for many wives.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh and for the men complaining that the women don't do the approaching, according to AK we aren't supposed to. So, don't blame us. Apparently it's your fault. You don't want us if you think you don't have to work to get us, because then we are just "low value".
> 
> High value women are approached by men, and with high frequently. When she approaches him, she’s basically tipped her hand that she is interested in him, and the implication is that he’s a higher Sex Rank than she is. Once that happens, the male is no longer in pursuit mode, and the dopamine shuts down because he no longer needs to make any risk taking moves to get her attention and gain her interest. Which essentially makes him react to her with “cool.” (Which drives her crazier for him because of the hypergamy factor)
> 
> If all you’re looking for is a hook-up, then it’s no problem to make the first move. But in terms of getting to an actual relationship, it’s not the greatest of ideas to make the first move if you’re a female. You’re better off displaying higher value and waiting it out.


----------



## Icey181

FizzBomb said:


> It is not wise or sound to make sweeping assumptions and generalisations. It has a tendency to make one look foolish.
> 
> And, "_That is also why the Red Pill exists_." Really? Truely? C'mon on now. That just sounds ridiculous.


Perhaps you should learn what a sweeping generalization is then, because by qualifying my statement with " It amazes me the number of women who," I have quite purposefully narrowed my statement to solely those women who fit this particular characteristic.

Also, by qualifying "That is also why the Red Pill exists," I created another purposeful avoidance of an absolute statement, as this concludes there other reasons it exists.

You should perhaps learn not to read things which are not there. Purposefully mischaracterizing someone's statements is called a strawman and that makes you look quite foolish to be caught in the employment of one. :redcard:


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> For someone who doesn't like sweeping generalizations, you make an awful lot of them.
> 
> I have not personally recommended the book to anyone for well over two years. I have certainly contributed to threads discussing the book, and early on, I simply could not grok what women's problem was with a book that encourages men to be 'better'. I've changed my thinking. There are other sources out there that are less divisive, not that I think you would agree so
> 
> I do no at all believe that it is a grand solution for men, in the sex department or otherwise. But it IS a resource.


My apologies if my generalizations are too sweeping, but I'm afraid I haven't read all of your posts. 

Let's just say that every time I see you discussing this book, you defend it, and give me some sort of back-handed slap (just like you did there) for having a problem with it and failing to recognize how important it is.

I am glad to hear that you have re-evaluated your opinion of it.


----------



## UMP

NobodySpecial said:


> WHAT?!?! Those of us without god are not absent love, commitment, loyalty, honesty. Not sure what the point of long suffering, so maybe I will give you that.


That's great.
What keeps you committed to your relationship?
What keeps you loyal to your SO?
What keeps you honest?
What enables you to endure your SO's pain, which is also your pain? (longsuffering)

I know for myself ALL of those things are in my marriage because of God. If left to myself, it would ALL come crashing down in a heap of sh$t.

But that's just me.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Blossom Leigh said:


> I asked you to clarify your statement about him. Maybe you didn't see it as fast as this thread has run.
> 
> A soft word can turn away wrath D
> 
> and sometimes it takes a 2 x 4... I use both  strategically
> 
> If you are saying I am uncommon, I would agree.
> 
> My H is gorgeous to me and even when he made horrible choices it took me a long time to dry up on emotions, but I did dry up. When he made better choices, it returned.


I must have missed the question. If yours was the post I'm thinking of, younger husband with lesser income etc, then yes, I would say you're uncommon.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening
I think a reasonable definition of "gold digger" requires that money be the primary motivation for the marriage, not just something that happens to be true.





UMP said:


> If you just happed to fall in love with a billionaire and he loves you back and you get married, are you a gold digger?


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

UMP said:


> Yeah, but you did not write a book that claims that wives are basically just mechanical vaginas that can be replaced on a whim. Athol did and IS an atheist. I can see how an atheist COULD come to that conclusion.


I don't think religion or lack of religion has anything to do with it. 

Some guys just believe this stuff. For whatever reason, maybe past hurts caused them to be so resentful that it made them cold. Maybe a bad home life with no examples of a healthy relationship. Maybe they're just a misogynistic narcissist.

I understand feeling angry about a bad marriage and I think the majority of people who agree with his books are just the first one. Resentful, bitter, maybe even wanting some revenge for all the terrible years they put you through. They don't feel the love and loyalty and commitment anymore anyway so it's not about that to them.


----------



## Faithful Wife

UMP said:


> I know for myself ALL of those things are in my marriage because of God. If left to myself, it would ALL come crashing down in a heap of sh$t.
> 
> But that's just me.


This is interesting. What does it mean?


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening 
I can't think of any way to know of men and women on average feel different amounts of pain from rejection (or anything else). 

There IS probably a huge difference between people. Some just brush it off, others are crushed .




Faithful Wife said:


> I have a question for the guys...
> 
> Do you think you experience more rejection than women, or that the rejection you experience is somehow MORE painful than the rejection women experience?


----------



## Brigit

UMP said:


> You have to understand who this is coming from. Athol is a confessed atheist. When God, love, commitment, loyalty, honesty and longsuffering are taken out of the equation, what you have left is a mechanical vagina.
> I think, in this particular case, *he would have been more accurate and true to his beliefs if he just suggested that we buy a really well made blow up doll.* After all, if it is a "functional vagina" you want, why not just design one and put it in your closet when you're finished.


LOL! 

He wants a Stepford Wife. In the original version the real wife was killed and replaced with an android that looks like her.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZp1lGqLqIM&spfreload=10

I remember when I was a little and watched that movie I always wondered why the husband didn't just ask his wife to stay home, keep the house nice and go food shopping in long flowing dresses? Probably a lot easier than murder.

Athol must have saw this movie got all hot and bothered and decided to write his book. 

He's a creepy guy. I get a real Norman Batesish vibe from him. Serious mommy issues. I could just imagine what Mother's Day is going to be like at his home...no...that's too scary.


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> Lila, when I read this part it was like a kick in the balls. I agree it's a nasty thing to say, especially the sex rank stuff that I just rejected (because there's no objective thing).
> 
> It was because I realized it was true. My wife was replacable. *And so was I.*
> 
> And that cold hard fact of life made working on things a whole lot simpler, because it reduced the emotional noise about it for me.
> 
> I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying that part was valuable for me at that time, because it was a big motivator for self-improvement, and not playing emotional games about things, and not being ashamed for wanting certain things from my wife. It was a central thing for me.
> 
> And, because it's true -- we are all replacable, it also led me down some very dark places, including a lack of emotional intimacy, that helped make me puke the whole thing back up.
> 
> But it is true. We all could find someone else if we wanted.
> 
> I had forgotten that, somehow.



When I read that stuff, I feel completely empty and cold. And I realize that all I am, all I have ever been to any guy, is a functioning vagina. Completely replaceable functional vagina.

And this replaceability combined with insistence that my value as a functioning vagina is doing nothing but decreasing, I realize that I will never actually be anything more than a functioning vagina.

Makes me sad.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening
I think they are the same thing. One is boring mechanical sex with a person, the other is boring mechanical sex with your own hand. 

Its possible the bang made can fool you into thinking she cares, so I guess if you aren't very perceptive, that could be better than your hand. OTOH your hand has a lot more practice. 



chillymorn said:


> The reverse of the bang maid is when the wife stays married for security of the earnings even though she has no desire to be intimate with her husband.
> 
> Is that not just as bad? maybe even worse in my opinion.
> 
> this is the perfect example of a codependent marriage. when the husband just wants sex and the wife just wants the security and both are frozen in fear. or refuse to do anything about it.


----------



## Icey181

always_alone said:


> When I read that stuff, I feel completely empty and cold. And I realize that all I am, all I have ever been to any guy, is a functioning vagina. Completely replaceable functional vagina.
> 
> And this replaceability combined with insistence that my value as a functioning vagina is doing nothing but decreasing, I realize that I will never actually be anything more than a functioning vagina.
> 
> Makes me sad.


Well, relationships are conditional and so is intimacy and love, if TAM has taught me anything.

Individuals are not really irreplaceable, special snowflakes. 

It is nice to think we are, but people who are in love break up, lose someone, and remarry all of the time.

Breaking things down without the emotional component is crude, but technically correct.

Much the same stuff can be said of men and has been.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> But if she could say land a Male 6 or 7 as a permanent mate, she’s going to be very tempted to jump ship. That’s when we use the word Hypergamy to call her a wh*re. Though in fact this is just the natural functioning of the sexual marketplace and by all accounts human sexuality working as intended.


The same applies to men. This is actually the root cause of some marital deteriorations. One of them has increased relative to the other. If other elements that maintain connection are not stronger, the higher partner often recognizes they could do better. A part of them becomes discontent and begins the detachment process.



Faithful Wife said:


> So....all you hypergamous wh*res, what are you doing with that lowly sex rank 5 you married, you can get a 6, for f*cks sake!!! Hurry now!! There's a sale on sex rank 6 dudes at Walmart! But for sexy babies, we gotta get down and dirty and find some 9 or 10 and beg him to do us, since we're only 5's ourselves. Nice!


Your body's agenda is exactly that. If you can do better, and keep it, you will. You will rationalize why the man you married is a terrible husband and how badly he treats you or how he annoys you. We've seen plenty of it on TAM... a certain thread about an overly affectionate husband comes to mind as a glaring example.


----------



## ScrambledEggs

UMP said:


> You have to understand who this is coming from. Athol is a confessed atheist. When God, love, commitment, loyalty, honesty and longsuffering are taken out of the equation, what you have left is a mechanical vagina.
> I think, in this particular case, he would have been more accurate and true to his beliefs if he just suggested that we buy a really well made blow up doll. After all, if it is a "functional vagina" you want, why not just design one and put it in your closet when you're finished.


Let's not derail this thread but you can hardly hoist the blame for Athol's shortcomings on Atheism. Especially with how patriarchal religions so easily back into misogyny. 

Moreover, I realize it is popular to imagine that Atheism depraves people of morality but this is thoroughly debunked. The only thing that Atheism takes out is God. I'd say Atheists are as loving, honest, and committed to their partners as are Theists and if they are not and they believe in a "mechanical vagina" it has nothing to do with their Atheism.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening UMP
People of any or no religion can come to all sorts of conclusions. My impression is that a substantial number of "religious" people do not appear to be guided by the teachings of their religion. I've seen no obvious differences in how atheists or religious people behave on average.




UMP said:


> Yeah, but you did not write a book that claims that wives are basically just mechanical vaginas that can be replaced on a whim. Athol did and IS an atheist. I can see how an atheist COULD come to that conclusion.


----------



## Lila

marduk said:


> I agree it's distasteful.
> 
> I will say -- full on a-hole mode here -- that in my first mostly sexless marriage, I would have taken that functional vagina any day.
> 
> Because we have our perspectives, and a parched man needs water and will fixate on that like a drowning man fixates on air. When there's little to no sex, the lack of sex is the problem. And a lot of guys would gladly trade in the wife that bore their children but won't sleep with them for a new unknown commodity that will have sex with them.
> 
> Until they get it, I suspect, of course.
> 
> And how many men complain of being ATMs that get little in return? And how many women complain that their husbands don't pay attention to them.
> 
> And on and on. We fixate on what we're not getting.


Okay, I probably didn't explain my question correctly. Let me try again...

Assuming a man 
1) adopts the idea that wives are replaceable, and 
2) accepts A.K.'s stance that "the only thing a wife needs to do to make you happy is a mix of working a job and keeping house, be reasonably enjoyable company and have a functional vagina that she happily lets you use."

Why would this man choose to go through the hassle of MAPing, and dread, and game playing advised by A.K.? 

I mean, he supposedly wrote this book to help married men their sex life back on track with their wives, but then at the almost end of the book he says "hey guys, 'good wives' (as defined by Kay - see above) are a dime a dozen. Just go out and get yourself a new one." Had he said that in the intro, he'd have nothing to sell. YKWIM?

He's got all of this advise that requires an immense amount of effort only to pull the rug out from everyone at the end and say, "nah, just dump her".

ETA: In a nutshell, why all of the effort if the wife is easily replaceable? According A.K. wives don't really have much worth and are a dime a dozen


----------



## GTdad

always_alone said:


> When I read that stuff, I feel completely empty and cold. And I realize that all I am, all I have ever been to any guy, is a functioning vagina. Completely replaceable functional vagina.
> 
> And this replaceability combined with insistence that my value as a functioning vagina is doing nothing but decreasing, I realize that I will never actually be anything more than a functioning vagina.
> 
> Makes me sad.


You read far more into Marduk's post than what he said.

The critical takeaway is that he realized that we're all replaceable, and that specifically HE realized that he was replaceable. So did I. It was quite a motivator.


----------



## john117

Faithful Wife said:


> I have a question for the guys...
> 
> Do you think you experience more rejection than women, or that the rejection you experience is somehow MORE painful than the rejection women experience?



(A) Depends on demographic. If you're set on dating specific subsets of the pool vs everyone it could get ugly. 

(B) it depends on the individual. The more sensitive guys vs the aspiring PUA types.


----------



## NobodySpecial

UMP said:


> That's great.
> What keeps you committed to your relationship?


Not a father figure in the sky who is going to punish me with eternal damnation if I don't, that's for sure!

Love. That is first and foremost. We are better, more caring, more charitable as a unit than apart. Each of us better individuals because we support and complement each other.



> What keeps you loyal to your SO?


Because to do otherwise would hurt him. I love him to much to hurt him.



> What keeps you honest?


Really? Because integrity requires honesty. Because dishonesty buys nothing. Dishonesty causes ulcers and all kinds of nasty problems that are unnecessary. Why would anyone WANT to be dishonest? Because dishonesty is the bane of intimacy. You cannot be intimate with that which you don't know or does not know you.

To be accepted EXACTLY as I am is really a beautiful thing. 



> What enables you to endure your SO's pain, which is also your pain? (longsuffering)


We don't tend to do a lot of enduring. We lick each others' wounds and find the root cause of the pain. And get rid of it. We don't tend to live in pain-land. But when pain of any sort needs to be endured, human spirit can endure.



> I know for myself ALL of those things are in my marriage because of God. If left to myself, it would ALL come crashing down in a heap of sh$t.


That is really too bad! I am sorry to hear that. That means that your relationship cannot stand on its own of its own intrinsic value to you, your spouse and your family. I am sorry for you. Condolences.


----------



## Faithful Wife

chillymorn said:


> The reverse of the bang maid is when the wife stays married for security of the earnings even though she has no desire to be intimate with her husband.
> 
> Is that not just as bad? maybe even worse in my opinion.
> 
> this is the perfect example of a codependent marriage. when the husband just wants sex and the wife just wants the security and both are frozen in fear. or refuse to do anything about it.


I just don't know any women OR men personally who feel this way, so it is very foreign to me.


----------



## UMP

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I don't think religion or lack of religion has anything to do with it.
> 
> Some guys just believe this stuff. For whatever reason, maybe past hurts caused them to be so resentful that it made them cold. Maybe a bad home life with no examples of a healthy relationship. Maybe they're just a misogynistic narcissist.
> 
> I understand feeling angry about a bad marriage and I think the majority of people who agree with his books are just the first one. Resentful, bitter, maybe even wanting some revenge for all the terrible years they put you through. They don't feel the love and loyalty and commitment anymore anyway so it's not about that to them.


Forget about "religion", I'm talking belief in God, the creator of man, heaven and earth who upholds ALL things by the Word of His Power.

To be honest, without God, I would probably view women as mechanical vaginas as well. I mean who decides that I have to be loyal, committed and loving toward my wife? Tradition?
My parents? A sense of right and wrong? Where did that right and wrong come from anyway?
According to Athol we're just a biological heap of dopamine and such. Why commit to anything? I'll be dead in just a few years anyway and as Athol says, there's a new better vagina just waiting around the corner. Better yet, I should have several vaginas just waiting for me in case one gets broken. What's stopping me?


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening always_alone
The good news is that a lot of people do not think this way - just find the right ones.






always_alone said:


> When I read that stuff, I feel completely empty and cold. And I realize that all I am, all I have ever been to any guy, is a functioning vagina. Completely replaceable functional vagina.
> 
> And this replaceability combined with insistence that my value as a functioning vagina is doing nothing but decreasing, I realize that I will never actually be anything more than a functioning vagina.
> 
> Makes me sad.


----------



## Brigit

always_alone said:


> When I read that stuff, I feel completely empty and cold. And I realize that all I am, all I have ever been to any guy, is a functioning vagina. Completely replaceable functional vagina.
> 
> And this replaceability combined with insistence that my value as a functioning vagina is doing nothing but decreasing, I realize that I will never actually be anything more than a functioning vagina.
> 
> Makes me sad.


OMG! Stop it. You know men don't feel that way. Maybe the d!ck who wrote the book and the pathetic idiots who think his book is the answer to their happiness think this way. But normal men don't.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Blonde said:


> and to the guys who think "having God" makes any difference (my STBX "has God") the quote above reminded me of this gem from the Bible commentary:


Seems to me that the God of love would seek to achieve love. Was that not Jesus' prime directive? So much weirdness, including simply remaining in marriage without love, connection, genuine intimacy, is done in the name of God. Strangely the God I grew up with would have wanted not just marriage but a good relationship that can sprout healthy kids, charity in community... When you build that, with or without God, marriage becomes a joy rather than a chore.


----------



## Deejo

always_alone said:


> My apologies if my generalizations are too sweeping, but I'm afraid I haven't read all of your posts.
> 
> Let's just say that every time I see you discussing this book, you defend it, and give me some sort of back-handed slap (just like you did there) for having a problem with it and failing to recognize how important it is.
> 
> I am glad to hear that you have re-evaluated your opinion of it.


I've been defending the results, absolutely yes. I don't feel compelled to defend the book any more.

I honestly don't think we can, or ever will bridge this divide.

Just as it is laughable for you to comprehend that anyone could find this to be beneficial, helpful, or it 'works' for them.

I find it laughable, as someone amongst many others here that has seen unquestionable improvements in their personal life and intimate relationships as a result, to read others claims that it can't possibly be helpful or beneficial.

I apologize. I often post with sarcasm. It has become glaringly obvious to me as of late in other posts that it is seldom interpreted as intended.


----------



## Jellybeans

always_alone said:


> When I read that stuff, I feel completely empty and cold. And I realize that all I am, all I have ever been to any guy, is a functioning vagina. Completely replaceable functional vagina.
> 
> And this replaceability combined with insistence that my value as a functioning vagina is doing nothing but decreasing, I realize that I will never actually be anything more than a functioning vagina.
> 
> Makes me sad.


This post made me laugh. This entire thread is riddled with hilarious little tidbits. "Interchangeabe vaginas" and "All I feel like is a functional vagina."

Love it. 
:smthumbup:


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening UMP
In my case, for me *I* decide it. 

I do it both because it is *right* by my own set of ethics (wherever they came from) and because it gives my life an added purpose that makes me happier. 






UMP said:


> snip.
> I mean who decides that I have to be loyal, committed and loving toward my wife?
> snip?


----------



## NobodySpecial

UMP said:


> Forget about "religion", I'm talking belief in God, the creator of man, heaven and earth who upholds ALL things by the Word of His Power.
> 
> To be honest, without God, I would probably view women as mechanical vaginas as well. I mean who decides that I have to be loyal, committed and loving toward my wife? Tradition?


You don't care about your own integrity OR love except in the face of awesome power that is going to smack you down if you don't?


----------



## chillymorn

what is love?

love is an action you must act to stay in love. like putting effort to see the qualities that attracted you in the first place.And letting the things that usually are minor slid and not get in the way of your love for that person.

love is a commitment a commitment to keep acting on your feeling of love for your partner.

what love is not.........Lust. lust is a chemical that your mind releases when your aroused and after the initial spike is subsides pretty fast.


----------



## NobodySpecial

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening UMP
> In my case, for me *I* decide it.
> 
> I do it both because it is *right* by my own set of ethics (wherever they came from) and because it gives my life an added purpose that makes me happier.


Frick YAH


----------



## UMP

NobodySpecial said:


> That is really too bad! I am sorry to hear that. That means that your relationship cannot stand on its own of its own intrinsic value to you, your spouse and your family. I am sorry for you. Condolences.


Condolences accepted.


----------



## NobodySpecial

chillymorn said:


> what is love?
> 
> love is an action you must act to stay in love. like putting effort to see the qualities that attracted you in the first place.And letting the things that usually are minor slid and not get in the way of your love for that person.
> 
> love is a commitment a commitment to keep acting on your feeling of love for your partner.
> 
> what love is not.........Lust. lust is a chemical that your mind releases when your aroused and after the initial spike is subsides pretty fast.


Love is like a garden and the little buildings within it. It is something you craft with your thoughts, your caring, your hands, your heart. As you build the garden together, the garden makes you bigger and better together than you would ever be by yourselves.


----------



## Deejo

always_alone said:


> When I read that stuff, I feel completely empty and cold. And I realize that all I am, all I have ever been to any guy, is a functioning vagina. Completely replaceable functional vagina.
> 
> And this replaceability combined with insistence that my value as a functioning vagina is doing nothing but decreasing, I realize that I will never actually be anything more than a functioning vagina.
> 
> Makes me sad.


Your sarcasm however, is still working as intended and clearly firing on all cylinders.


----------



## UMP

NobodySpecial said:


> You don't care about your own integrity OR love except in the face of awesome power that is going to smack you down if you don't?


Alas, this bridge I cannot span.
Think what you will.


----------



## Deejo

Keep it on topic people.

This thread ain't about God, or Love. WTF?

This here is about red pill and vaginas.


----------



## chillymorn

Faithful Wife said:


> I just don't know any women OR men personally who feel this way, so it is very foreign to me.


your a lucky woman go and thank your luck husband. I hope this is always true for you.

I thought I was lucky once!


----------



## always_alone

GTdad said:


> You read far more into Marduk's post than what he said.
> 
> The critical takeaway is that he realized that we're all replaceable, and that specifically HE realized that he was replaceable. So did I. It was quite a motivator.


Let me clarify. I wasn't saying that reading marduk's post made me feel that way. Not at all. I understand where he is coming from.

What I was saying that my response to the exact same passage in MMSL made me feel that way.

His response to the MMSL passage was to wake up to the replaceability of both partners, and begin to work on himself.

My response to that MMSL passage is to realize just how little I offer, can offer, to any man. When I see these attitudes set forth as a "truth", I can make sense of how I've been treated as nothing but a functioning vagina.

I never needed to be a "special" snowflake, and I get that people hook up and break up all of the time. There needn't be a "one".

But being just a functioning vagina? Well, it still makes me sad.


----------



## ScrambledEggs

chillymorn said:


> The reverse of the bang maid is when the wife stays married for security of the earnings even though she has no desire to be intimate with her husband.
> 
> Is that not just as bad? maybe even worse in my opinion.
> 
> this is the perfect example of a codependent marriage. when the husband just wants sex and the wife just wants the security and both are frozen in fear. or refuse to do anything about it.


This probably describes my marriage all to well. From the very start. Have you heard of anyone else not having sex on their wedding night because she was tired? Yes, I was an idiot, but I am not going to pretend that was normal or anywhere close to healthy anymore.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Deejo said:


> Your sarcasm however, is still working as intended and clearly firing on all cylinders.


But Deejo....she wasn't being sarcastic in that one. She really feels that way about herself. She struggles to NOT feel that way, and books like MMSL just reinforce to her that she should feel that way.


----------



## Brigit

Deejo said:


> Your sarcasm however, is still working as intended and clearly firing on all cylinders.


The thing about sarcasm is under the joke and the anger lies hurt.


----------



## Brigit

Deejo said:


> Keep it on topic people.
> 
> This thread ain't about God, or Love. WTF?
> 
> This here is about red pill and vaginas.


NO.

Functioning Vaginas ONLY!!!!

Non-functioning vaginas can be returned at Customer Service.

Thank you for your business.


----------



## Faithful Wife

chillymorn said:


> your a lucky woman go and thank your luck husband. I hope this is always true for you.
> 
> I thought I was lucky once!


I don't think it is luck, I think it is that like attracts like.

So I'm never going to attract female friends who are just with a man for money and not sex and love.

And I'm never going to attract males to date (if ever single again) or as friends who just want a functioning vagina and not the whole woman.


----------



## Deejo

Faithful Wife said:


> But Deejo....she wasn't being sarcastic in that one. She really feels that way about herself. She struggles to NOT feel that way, and books like MMSL just reinforce to her that she should feel that way.


Just read her last post. And made that unfortunate discovery.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Brigit said:


> NO.
> 
> Functioning Vaginas ONLY!!!!
> 
> Non-functioning vaginas can be returned at Customer Service.
> 
> Thank you for your business.


Yes Deejo, please change your post to specify _functioning_ vaginas....what the hell use is there with just a vagina if it doesn't function?


----------



## ScrambledEggs

This thread needs a jabber chat room.. too fast moving...


----------



## UMP

Deejo said:


> Keep it on topic people.
> 
> This thread ain't about God, or Love. WTF?
> 
> This here is about red pill and vaginas.


My fault
I made a reference to Athol's Atheism as it relates to his book and it's (IM0) logical conclusion. The rest is history.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Deejo said:


> I've been defending the results, absolutely yes. I don't feel compelled to defend the book any more.
> 
> I honestly don't think we can, or ever will bridge this divide.
> 
> Just as it is laughable for you to comprehend that anyone could find this to be beneficial, helpful, or it 'works' for them.
> 
> I find it laughable, as someone amongst many others here that has seen unquestionable improvements in their personal life and intimate relationships as a result, to read others claims that it can't possibly be helpful or beneficial.
> 
> I apologize. I often post with sarcasm. It has become glaringly obvious to me as of late in other posts that it is seldom interpreted as intended.


Woa. I understood THIS post. I usually don't understand your posts. Maybe I don't get the sarcasm.

I read a parenting book one time. Saved my family from years of chaos at the hands of an unruly child. The author was OBNOXIOUS. Never has their been a more holier than thou tone. And she had a way of insinuating that you were a big fat moron for not already knowing this stuff. I could have thrown the good stuff away with the snotty tone. I didn't. I am glad I didn't. I see a corollary to what you are saying.

I do make a distinction to how you, and others like MEM and Marduk have chosen to use this information and what another nameless poster writes. The former use the tool to be who you are. Great men building great marriages. Or in your case recognizing the marriage was never going to be great so moving along to find great elsewhere. I have never seen you guys post well yah if it weren't for having sex with a woman, what other reason would there be to ever even talk to one. The latter nameless poster actually does no service to the book's sales pitch if you ask me since he uses the tool to get laid by anything he can, caring only about hotness. Shudder.

Somewhere on one of these threads was this tirade about what the book "teaches". A book teaches what the reader learns. Anyone who sucks down a book in its entirely without applying critical thinking is going to have a rough road of life no matter what. Can hardly blame the book. And anyone who cannot tell the difference between a Deejo, Marduk or MEM and the unnamed poster is going to have a hard time too.


----------



## UMP

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes Deejo, please change your post to specify _functioning_ vaginas....what the hell use is there with just a vagina if it doesn't function?


They look pretty too :smthumbup:

Really, they do.


----------



## Lila

ScrambledEggs said:


> This probably describes my marriage all to well. From the very start. *Have you heard of anyone else not having sex on their wedding night because she was tired? * Yes, I was an idiot, but I am not going to pretend that was normal or anywhere close to healthy anymore.


(sheepishly raises hand). LOL, I didn't have sex on our wedding night either because I was EXHAUSTED! Ours was an evening wedding and the party finished at 1:00 am. We did make up for it during our honeymoon


----------



## NobodySpecial

Deejo said:


> Keep it on topic people.
> 
> This thread ain't about God, or Love. WTF?
> 
> This here is about red pill and vaginas.


Tail between my legs and head down. Sorry.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Lila said:


> I have said it here before but I agree with you Marduk. Actually my H and I both believe we are replaceable should the sh!t hit the proverbial fan with our relationship. I'm sure that he would find another person to share his life with and I......well, I might or might not, but I'm also not afraid of being alone. That's not the part that drove me to post the excerpt. It was the way A.K. describes what constitutes a wife.
> 
> "....any one woman can be replaced with another woman. *All a woman needs to do to make you happy is a mix of working a job and keeping house, be reasonably enjoyable company and have a functional vagina that she happily lets you use.*"
> 
> C'mon really???
> 
> If any housekeeper with an available vagina on tap will do, then why write a book that requires so much effort on a man's part to get one particular woman's attention? Does that make sense?


Great insight. I agree. There isn't another soul out there who can be me or fully replace my uniqueness. This fact and embracing it is what helped me weather infidelity AND challenge my H to be better and DO better.


----------



## Faithful Wife

UMP said:


> They look pretty too :smthumbup:
> 
> Really, they do.


I agree. Male parts are pretty, too.

Nature is beautiful.

Sometimes if I strut through the house naked my hubby will point and say "I saw nature!"


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> Your sarcasm however, is still working as intended and clearly firing on all cylinders.


I was not being either sarcastic or funny with that post.

At least that was not my intent.

That is quite literally how I feel when reading things like MMSL, and when I hear people defending it as "working".

I see so much dismissal of women as basically the equivalent of functioning vaginas, to be used of and disposed of, so much careful insistence that we are nothing more than our looks and sexual services. Well, let me tell you right now, that some of us actually hear these messages as quite literal explanations of how we are viewed.

And it's not like I've ever had anyone putting me on a pedestal or lining up to be with me, or doing anything at all to show me any different.

This is why I react to it.


----------



## Tubbalard

So essentially this book has women riled up on this site and hate the language but can't dispute a lot of what he's saying.

People are just too sensitive and easily offended these days. I wouldn't mind female books equivalent to MMSl. It would be an interesting read on from's woman perspective to breakdown a man.

Someone did cite something that he said was false. He said No woman above the age of 40 can be a 9 or 10. From that I have to question where he's writing from or how he came to that conclusion.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EllisRedding

I finally realize why I was destined to this thread, the below advert showing in the thread as I read through ... I apologize in advance to any cowboys this ad may offend ...


----------



## UMP

EllisRedding said:


> I finally realize why I was destined to this thread, the below advert showing in the thread as I read through ... I apologize in advance to any cowboys this ad may offend ...


I have to confess.
The first thing that came to mind when I saw "12 inches" was....well you know, a penis.
Oh, I almost forgot to jelq. Off to the bathroom, be back in a few


----------



## Deejo

UMP said:


> My fault
> I made a reference to Athol's Atheism as it relates to his book and it's (IM0) logical conclusion. The rest is history.


Sarcasm, UMP. Obviously still not working for me.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Deejo said:


> Sarcasm, UMP. Obviously still not working for me.


God made vaginas. Is that ok?


----------



## GTdad

NobodySpecial said:


> God made vaginas. Is that ok?


Even the less religious among us might find THAT hard to argue with.


----------



## BradWesley

Deejo said:


> Keep it on topic people.
> 
> This thread ain't about God, or Love. WTF?
> 
> This here is about red pill and vaginas.


I'm just interested in getting a status update from whoever is in charge of designing that functioning vagina, with the working tongue


----------



## chillymorn

what about the big bang theory?

thats what this whole thread is about!


----------



## Deejo

always_alone said:


> I was not being either sarcastic or funny with that post.
> 
> At least that was not my intent.
> 
> That is quite literally how I feel when reading things like MMSL, and when I hear people defending it as "working".
> 
> I see so much dismissal of women as basically the equivalent of functioning vaginas, to be used of and disposed of, so much careful insistence that we are nothing more than our looks and sexual services. Well, let me tell you right now, that some of us actually hear these messages as quite literal explanations of how we are viewed.
> 
> And it's not like I've ever had anyone putting me on a pedestal or lining up to be with me, or doing anything at all to show me any different.
> 
> This is why I react to it.


I realized that after reading your follow up.
I don't like what has happened to you. I don't like the influence it has had on how you see yourself, and how you think men see you.

I do wish you had the ability to see through the eyes of a number of the male posters here, how you are perceived.

I don't think you would be sad or disappointed.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

On the "it works" topic: 
A lot of different forums I have read through that were mainly made for women would have threads complaining about their husbands, lack of chores, no dates or romance, too much time at work, etc, and a lot of the advice was to cut off sex until he behaves better. Many of them had personal sucess stories of it working. 

Because it works for some people, should it be accepted as mainstream advice for a forum like this? 
Or does _how _you get results matter and the risks involved (like hurting your spouse, more resentment) matter just as much

FTR-I think both mmslp type advice and "cut off sex" advice does have a specific time and place and situations where it might benefit but I'm talking about promoting it *as much* as mmslp is promoted here.


----------



## UMP

Deejo said:


> Sarcasm, UMP. Obviously still not working for me.


No, post #1277 was sarcasm.

Still, I needed to explain myself because I could see the thread going south in a hurry. As with all sarcasm, there is some truth to it.


----------



## NobodySpecial

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> On the "it works" topic:
> A lot of different forums I have read through that were mainly made for women would have threads complaining about their husbands, lack of chores, no dates or romance, too much time at work, etc, and a lot of the advice was to cut off sex until he behaves better. Many of them had personal sucess stories of it working.
> 
> Because it works for some people, should it be accepted as mainstream advice for a forum like this?
> Or does _how _you get results matter and the risks involved (like hurting your spouse, more resentment) matter just as much


The gentlemen on this board report HAPPIER wives. :scratchhead:


----------



## UMP

BTW: Athol must be laughing his ass off at this thread.
86 pages of free advertising.

Athol and the rest of you heathens....have a great weekend! 

Chow.


----------



## Deejo

UMP said:


> BTW: Athol must be laughing his ass off at this thread.
> 86 pages of free advertising.
> 
> Athol and the rest of you heathens....have a great weekend!
> 
> Chow.


But wait, there's more!


----------



## NobodySpecial

Deejo said:


> But wait, there's more!


How much would you pay?


----------



## UMP

NobodySpecial said:


> How much would you pay?


It depends, is it a functional vagina we're talking about?


----------



## always_alone

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> On the "it works" topic:
> A lot of different forums I have read through that were mainly made for women would have threads complaining about their husbands, lack of chores, no dates or romance, too much time at work, etc, and a lot of the advice was to cut off sex until he behaves better. Many of them had personal sucess stories of it working.
> 
> Because it works for some people, should it be accepted as mainstream advice for a forum like this?
> Or does _how _you get results matter and the risks involved (like hurting your spouse, more resentment) matter just as much
> 
> FTR-I think both mmslp type advice and "cut off sex" advice does have a specific time and place and situations where it might benefit but I'm talking about promoting it *as much* as mmslp is promoted here.


And this is why I keep bringing up the "works" question.

The ends do not justify the means. And if it means trashing someone, I wouldn't call it "working" no matter how much sex (or housework) you get out of the deal.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

NobodySpecial said:


> The gentlemen on this board report HAPPIER wives. :scratchhead:


Happier or just giving in after manipulation and being dependent?

Some parts are fine and could help some men and if they stick to that, get another book that says the same things without the BS. 

But no woman is happier being treated like a wh*re and a working vagina that can be replaced.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Deejo said:


> I realized that after reading your follow up.
> I don't like what has happened to you. I don't like the influence it has had on how you see yourself, and how you think men see you.
> 
> I do wish you had the ability to see through the eyes of a number of the male posters here, how you are perceived.
> 
> I don't think you would be sad or disappointed.


I think the men here (some of them at least) see Always Alone as a man hater....which she is not.

She is usually railing against the posts where men are talking in terms the way MMSL/red pill/PUA does. And by speaking out against these posts, she ends up painted as as man hater. Again by some men, not all. I think some women might misinterpret her as a man hater, too.

It is unfortunate that this occurs, because then she is never really heard and people focus only on her posts where she is slamming something mean and cruel that a man is saying....but sadly, the people she is slamming against can't hear her and then it just makes her look like she hates men.

I can assure you and everyone else, she does not hate men. But she does hate the way some men SEEM to consider women as disposable vaginas. And even men agree some men do this. So she isn't exactly wrong, either. MMSL is actually encouraging men to see women this way and then the book is touted all over at TAM so....how is she NOT supposed to hear these messages?


----------



## BradWesley

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85cL1HisrNc


NobodySpecial said:


> How much would you pay?


----------



## EllisRedding

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Happier or just giving in after manipulation and being dependent?
> 
> Some parts are fine and could help some men and if they stick to that, get another book that says the same things without the BS.
> 
> But no woman is happier being treated like a wh*re and a working vagina that can be replaced.


But once again you are assuming that the guys are taking everything literally out of the book and applying it. The ones here have stated that they have taken parts that they found beneficial to them. Unless you know exactly what parts they took and exactly how they applied it with their relationship, I do not believe you are in a position to question if their marriage is happier.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Faithful Wife said:


> I think the men here (some of them at least) see Always Alone as a man hater....which she is not.
> 
> She is usually railing against the posts where men are talking in terms the way MMSL/red pill/PUA does. And by speaking out against these posts, she ends up painted as as man hater. Again by some men, not all. I think some women might misinterpret her as a man hater, too.
> 
> It is unfortunate that this occurs, because then she is never really heard and people focus only on her posts where she is slamming something mean and cruel that a man is saying....but sadly, the people she is slamming against can't hear her and then it just makes her look like she hates men.
> 
> I can assure you and everyone else, she does not hate men. But she does hate the way some men SEEM to consider women as disposable vaginas. And even men agree some men do this. So she isn't exactly wrong, either. MMSL is actually encouraging men to see women this way and then the book is touted all over at TAM so....how is she NOT supposed to hear these messages?


I'm all for preserving the dignity and honor of both sexes.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Blossom Leigh said:


> For me the power dynamic is this... *each person comes into a relationship with personal power and each person must choose wisely how to manage their personal power to the success of the relationship... or not.
> *
> There is no way to get around the fact that every person possesses power.
> 
> The persons in the best relationships
> Accept that
> Embrace it
> *and are ethical with their personal power*.


I am putting this on here just for you Blossom.. because you are a Christian.. those who are not..







..just click to the next post please... you will just be off put by the scriptures , call the article "misogynistic" or something...







The Power of a Woman - God has given us women the privilege and the ability to bring life to our husbands with our love

I found this years ago.. I personally found it beautiful...my husband also felt it was a good write up.... it speaks of a man's "*aloneness need"*..how a good woman *blesses his sexuality.*...how our loving of him can protect him from temptation...& we can keep him for life.. (Of course I want to interject here.. he needs to be a GOOD MAN, or that all goes to he**)...

Now if we ABUSE these things.. it will hurt our men, and then hurt ourselves/ our marriages .... this article touches the intimacy we crave within ...that "Need" we have for each other..hitting on the wife's powerful influence.. like it's God's design ... . Though one of the replies below the article -from a fellow believer found it sexist & dangerous !








... so not all will see WHAT I AM SEEING.. 

So yeah.. some of us will see Beauty, the Yin & Yang at their finest..







even with a little POWER VIEW in there..where someone else sees something Damning.. isn't Life & love so fascinating... 

 I also feel the greatest love songs ever penned were by men in love.. and that is a deep deep source for allowing a woman to "get under his skin"... which opens that door to allowing her some Reign over him in ways another woman could not get through.. 

IF SHE ABUSES her feminine power ...it can weaken him...hurt him, he will suffer... if she uses it* in love*..this greatly enhances their marriage & union... Another reason we all have a part to play to NOT abuse the gifts / influences we have over another ....


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> IAnd even men agree some men do this. So she isn't exactly wrong, either. MMSL is actually encouraging men to see women this way and then the book is touted all over at TAM so....how is she NOT supposed to hear these messages?


Yes, exactly! 

Tell me, how am I NOT supposed to hear those messages when they are repeated over and over and over again?


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

EllisRedding said:


> But once again you are assuming that the guys are taking everything literally out of the book and applying it. The ones here have stated that they have taken parts that they found beneficial to them. Unless you know exactly what parts they took and exactly how they applied it with their relationship, I do not believe you are in a position to question if their marriage is happier.



If I suggested a book that was mostly offensive to men, used "science" to say that men are practically dogs that need to be trained with treats (sex) to get them to be a good husband but the book also had little bits of good stuff here or there, would it be thought of as a good book to recommend?


----------



## Faithful Wife

always_alone said:


> Yes, exactly!
> 
> Tell me, how am I NOT supposed to hear those messages when they are repeated over and over and over again?


That's why I'm appealing to the men here to please just slow it down with the "fat chick" comments/jokes....the red pill jargon....the "I just want sex so shut up and make me a sandwich and blow me"....the "we men will do ANY woman so if we don't want to do you, it must mean you are troll-hideous"....

These comments are hurtful and I don't think men realize how bad it makes them look. I know when a man makes these comments they are just saddling up to the bro-crowd and the man saying them may not even mean them. 

But if we're here to talk about good and healthy marriages, why are these kinds of comments made on such a regular basis?


----------



## Faithful Wife

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> If I suggested a book that was mostly offensive to men, used "science" to say that men are practically dogs that need to be trained with treats (sex) to get them to be a good husband but the book also had little bits of good stuff here or there, would it be thought of as a good book to recommend?


This point is lost on some people, apparently.

But I'm so happy for the guys who the point is not lost on. :smthumbup:


----------



## EllisRedding

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> If I suggested a book that was mostly offensive to men, used "science" to say that men are practically dogs that need to be trained with treats (sex) to get them to be a good husband but the book also had little bits of good stuff here or there, would it be thought of as a good book to recommend?


I would give women enough credit and think they are intelligent enough to navigate through and pick out the pieces that are important/applicable to them. Obviously you are unable to do this for men, as are some other notables here ...


----------



## Blossom Leigh

SimplyAmorous said:


> I am putting this on here just for you Blossom.. because you are a Christian.. those who are not..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ..just click to the next post please... you will just be off put by the scriptures , call the article "misogynistic" or something...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Power of a Woman - God has given us women the privilege and the ability to bring life to our husbands with our love
> 
> I found this years ago.. I personally found it beautiful...my husband also felt it was a good write up.... it speaks of a man's "*aloneness need"*..how a good woman *blesses his sexuality.*...how our loving of him can protect him from temptation...& we can keep him for life.. (Of course I want to interject here.. he needs to be a GOOD MAN, or that all goes to he**)...
> 
> Now if we ABUSE these things.. it will hurt our men, and then hurt ourselves/ our marriages .... this article touches the intimacy we crave within ...that "Need" we have for each other..hitting on the wife's powerful influence.. like it's God's design ... . Though one of the replies below the article -from a fellow believer found it sexist & dangerous !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... so not all will see WHAT I AM SEEING..
> 
> So yeah.. some of us will see Beauty, the Yin & Yang at their finest..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> even with a little POWER VIEW in there..where someone else sees something Damning.. isn't Life & love so fascinating...
> 
> I also feel the greatest love songs ever penned were by men in love.. and that is a deep deep source for allowing a woman to "get under his skin"... which opens that door to allowing her some Reign over him in ways another woman could not get through..
> 
> IF SHE ABUSES her feminine power ...it can weaken him...hurt him, he will suffer... if she uses it* in love*..this greatly enhances their marriage & union... Another reason we all have a part to play to NOT abuse the gifts / influences we have over another ....


Yes, intent and perspective are critical, of God, ourselves and our spouses. Its a level of adoration and cultivating the fruits of the Spirit by centering on them. Understanding our gifts, blessings and influence and honoring God with those as we approach our spouses, live with them, build a life with them. It's why Blonde's story breaks my heart. Here was a man who SHOULD have gotten this right. And the Bible points out that when nonbelievers do get it right it makes the believers look really bad because we are not only suppose to love our friends and family but go further and love our enemies.

So it doesn't matter if Kay is an athiest. He could choose to get the love part right whether he is a believer or not. I just don't see the love in his writings and its why its twisted.

You are right SA... do it these things FOR our H's can be truly beautiful and fulfilling and visa versa. Some of the deepest fulfillment I've had to date is when my H and I get this right at the same time. Some times it's just him getting it right and sometimes it is just me getting it right, but when its both of us... omg.... there is NOTHING that can touch it.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> When I read that stuff, I feel completely empty and cold. And I realize that all I am, all I have ever been to any guy, is a functioning vagina. Completely replaceable functional vagina.
> 
> And this replaceability combined with insistence that my value as a functioning vagina is doing nothing but decreasing, I realize that I will never actually be anything more than a functioning vagina.
> 
> Makes me sad.


I wanted to 'like' that because of it's honesty, but didn't want that to be interpreted as I'm happy with that situation, because I'm not.

So I'm writing this post instead to say that I think that sucks, and I'm sorry about that, and I think you're worth more, for whatever that's worth.


----------



## Brigit

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> If I suggested a book that was mostly offensive to men, used "science" to say that men are practically dogs that need to be trained with treats (sex) to get them to be a good husband but the book also had little bits of good stuff here or there, would it be thought of as a good book to recommend?


You would be slaughtered if you suggested it. It would be easy to write a book that's just as disgusting. I can think of some titles:

How To Get Any Man You Want
Sex Goddess Guide to Devotion
Man Manipulation 101


Then you put in some real science into it and slap on a shinny cover and market it to angry women.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

always_alone said:


> Yes, exactly!
> 
> Tell me, how am I NOT supposed to hear those messages when they are repeated over and over and over again?


Sweet Girl, I struggle in this area and what I learned to focus on is my own personal truth of who I am. Over time those words roll off a ducks back because I know better. I really have had to spend time focusing on it and there are times it still hits me. I can be very hard on myself. Your internal dialog can get to the point where those things barely hit your radar.


----------



## Deejo

We're all adults here, so lets keep it on the level.

There isn't much difference between some man saying it worked wonders for he and his marriage, and being labeled as a misogynist and a manipulator.

As opposed to,

Some women expressing their outrage and hurt at the message taken from the book, and being called a man-hater for it.

Quid pro quo.

Conversation can't possibly move forward if that is where it remains stuck.


----------



## Deejo

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> If I suggested a book that was mostly offensive to men, used "science" to say that men are practically dogs that need to be trained with treats (sex) to get them to be a good husband but the book also had little bits of good stuff here or there, would it be thought of as a good book to recommend?


MOST men, wouldn't give a fig. C'mon, we don't really read books anyway.


----------



## Marduk

Lila said:


> Okay, I probably didn't explain my question correctly. Let me try again...
> 
> Assuming a man
> 1) adopts the idea that wives are replaceable, and
> 2) accepts A.K.'s stance that "the only thing a wife needs to do to make you happy is a mix of working a job and keeping house, be reasonably enjoyable company and have a functional vagina that she happily lets you use."
> 
> Why would this man choose to go through the hassle of MAPing, and dread, and game playing advised by A.K.?


Fair warning, I've actually talked to the guy about exactly that.

Essentially it's a sunk cost thing, mixed with some very christian ideas. In his mind. Because if you can get your wife to be a good enough wife, then why replace her, you know?

It's like if your lawnmower works good enough, don't get a new one.

Now, I think that's pretty ****ty. 

But there's something clear-headed in this ambivalence that as I've said in the past can clear away the post-modern neo-christian protestant work ethic baggage that comes with a lot of guys.

Which essentially lands at "it's bad to demand what you want from life."

Which, for me spoke volumes, but that ended quickly as a personal philosophy.


> I mean, he supposedly wrote this book to help married men their sex life back on track with their wives, but then at the almost end of the book he says "hey guys, 'good wives' (as defined by Kay - see above) are a dime a dozen. Just go out and get yourself a new one." Had he said that in the intro, he'd have nothing to sell. YKWIM?


It is true that good wives, like good husbands, are a dime a dozen. Most people, who are reasonable, and loving, and caring... will conform roughly to being a "good spouse." It's that a bunch of baggage gets in the way of that, you know?

And a lot of that comes from being passive aggressive, and buying into some perceived societal construct of "what should be."


> He's got all of this advise that requires an immense amount of effort only to pull the rug out from everyone at the end and say, "nah, just dump her".
> 
> ETA: In a nutshell, why all of the effort if the wife is easily replaceable? According A.K. wives don't really have much worth and are a dime a dozen


I will say that AK thinks that husbands are as replacable as wives, and I've seen him tell women that.

However, I personally think that we're also unique, and we give up on a lot when we give up on our spouse.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Brigit said:


> You would be slaughtered if you suggested it. It would be easy to write a book that's just as disgusting. I can think of some titles:
> 
> How To Get Any Man You Want
> Sex Goddess Guide to Devotion
> Man Manipulation 101
> 
> 
> Then you put in some real science into it and slap on a shinny cover and market it to angry women.



How to Get a Man to Pay for Everything, Without Putting Out!


P*ssy Power, Learn How to Abuse Him with Your Natural Power and Talent


How to Chump Even the Most Discerning Man: Love is Just Chemicals Anyway, He'll Get Over It


Get Over Him and Get ON His Stupid Friends or His Brother


Picking A Man To Make Sexy Babies With: A Girl's Guide To Hypergamy


Stop Giving Away Sex, It Is Your POWER POINT!


Transactional Sex Made Easy


When The Guy Don't Pay, Run Away


How To Have a Boyfriend and a Husband and How to Get Them To Compete for You Without Even Knowing About Each Other


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> MOST men, wouldn't give a fig. C'mon, we don't really read books anyway.


Yeah, sure. That's why there's never any backlash or stream of vitriol if it is ever suggested that a woman

- deny a man sex, or leverage sex to get what she wants
- use her powers of seduction to "bait" a man and then "switch" to something else
- dutifully service a man just to placate him
- enjoy the comforts of what he provides even though she isn't deeply in love with him
- describe her sex life with him as on par with using a dildo

I could go on ...


----------



## Blossom Leigh

marduk said:


> However, I personally think that we're also unique, and we give up on a lot when we give up on our spouse.


I agree. I like the way you worded that.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Deejo said:


> MOST men, wouldn't give a fig. C'mon, we don't really read books anyway.


Is this sarcasm? Because here at TAM, yes they would give a fig if we were suggesting mean spirited "men are idiots" type of advice all over the place and handing a book like that around like candy. :scratchhead:


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> How to Get a Man to Pay for Everything, Without Putting Out!
> 
> 
> P*ssy Power, Learn How to Abuse Him with Your Natural Power and Talent



I saw this documentary called "Sex, Lies, and Rinsing Guys" that was all about these women who would manipulate men into giving them expensive presents, like condos and vacations and diamonds, etc., all without ever having sex with them. 

There was always the promise of sex, hints, suggestions, flattery, but never delivery.

There's a small and evil part of me that wants to test this widespread assertion that men will "give women credit for having intelligence" and "won't care about this kind of vitriol" by starting to recommend these approaches at every chance I get.

Let's hope that I'm actually better than all of that ...


----------



## Deejo

Not far off, unfortunately someone has beaten ya'll to it.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Power-*****-Respect-Commitment/dp/1477544585/ref=zg_bs_282916_5

Ignore the Guy, Get the Guy - The Art of No Contact: A Woman's Survival Guide to Mastering a Breakup and Taking Back Her Power: Leslie Braswell: 9780615790855: Amazon.com: Books

http://www.amazon.com/Marry-Million...431113304&sr=1-6&keywords=marry+a+millionaire

http://www.amazon.com/The-Wild-Oats-Project-Midlife-ebook/dp/B00N051UMO/ref=zg_bs_282916_16

The End of Men: And the Rise of Women - Kindle edition by Hanna Rosin. Politics & Social Sciences Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com.

Why Men Love *****es: From Doormat to Dreamgirl - A Woman's Guide to Holding Her Own in a Relationship: Sherry Argov: 8601419046775: Amazon.com: Books

http://www.amazon.com/Make-Any-Man-...31113499&sr=1-5&keywords=get+the+man+you+want

http://www.amazon.com/Make-Every-Ma...31113499&sr=1-9&keywords=get+the+man+you+want

There you go ladies ... warm up your credit cards.


----------



## Faithful Wife

always_alone said:


> I saw this documentary called "Sex, Lies, and Rinsing Guys" that was all about these women who would manipulate men into giving them expensive presents, like condos and vacations and diamonds, etc., all without ever having sex with them.
> 
> There was always the promise of sex, hints, suggestions, flattery, but never delivery.
> 
> There's a small and evil part of me that wants to test this widespread assertion that men will "give women credit for having intelligence" and "won't care about this kind of vitriol" by starting to recommend these approaches at every chance I get.
> 
> Let's hope that I'm actually better than all of that ...




There are actually books that have titles just like the ones I suggested. And yes they DO work. Manipulation works on a lot of people.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Deejo said:


> Not far off, unfortunately someone has beaten ya'll to it.
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/The-Power-*****-Respect-Commitment/dp/1477544585/ref=zg_bs_282916_5
> 
> Ignore the Guy, Get the Guy - The Art of No Contact: A Woman's Survival Guide to Mastering a Breakup and Taking Back Her Power: Leslie Braswell: 9780615790855: Amazon.com: Books
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Marry-Million...431113304&sr=1-6&keywords=marry+a+millionaire
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/The-Wild-Oats-Project-Midlife-ebook/dp/B00N051UMO/ref=zg_bs_282916_16
> 
> The End of Men: And the Rise of Women - Kindle edition by Hanna Rosin. Politics & Social Sciences Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com.
> 
> Why Men Love *****es: From Doormat to Dreamgirl - A Woman's Guide to Holding Her Own in a Relationship: Sherry Argov: 8601419046775: Amazon.com: Books
> 
> Amazon.com: Make Any Man Fall In Love: The Cold, Hard Truth (How to Get A Guy to Like You Book 1) eBook: Cat Volz: Books
> 
> Make Every Man Want You: How to Be So Irresistible You'll Barely Keep from Dating Yourself!: Marie Forleo: 9780071597814: Amazon.com: Books
> 
> There you go ladies ... warm up your credit cards.


Yes Deejo, this is what I keep saying.

These books do exist and they do work.

They are NEVER suggested here.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> But of course you ignored the link I posted that showed the sloppiness of the conclusions you are so wedded to.
> 
> As well as the actual data in *the links that you posted* that shows that many things will top looks for men, and many things will top status for women.


I did not ignore it, I have not had time to read more than the abstract. When I do, I will respond to it. Having read only the abstract, I do not see how this would mean the conclusions of the other work are "sloppy". The experiments I reference are not hinging on exchange - which requires mutual agreement. The experiments I reference pertain only to assessment of value - that higher status makes a man more attractive. An exchange depends on a number of additional factors, including the perception of whether one can hold on to the mate, and the availability of mates - the tendency to be exposed only to options within your socio-economic class. The abstract would seem that her findings are far from conclusive or compelling. A seed of doubt.

Your author just appears to be running down the well trod path of, "the dating pool tends to be your own class". I look forward to reading to see if she has dealt with this obvious factor. I agree with the tendency, but it is more the result of access than willingness of exchange.

The only way you could come away that there are many things atop beauty/status from my links is if you didn't read them, or cherry picked what... one? One that differs on what men value most highly, by insignificant margin? And in that one, I'd argue that the society being sampled is less "free" -more rigidly stuck in traditional and religious notions of what is acceptable to say. Even while that one ranks the effect lower, it still concludes that status makes a man more attractive.


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> It is true that good wives, like good husbands, are a dime a dozen. Most people, who are reasonable, and loving, and caring... will conform roughly to being a "good spouse." It's that a bunch of baggage gets in the way of that, you know?


I disagree. It took me like forever to find a guy that I could truly connect to, that I get, that gets me. This is very precious to me.

Lots of people are reasonably nice, reasonably sane, and reasonably attractive, but there most certainly aren't a lot that you (or at least I) am compatible with for any sort of longer haul.

One reason why I find it so tragic to think that maybe I'm just a "functional vagina" to him. I mean, sure, he could find another partner if I weren't in the picture -- but I'd like to think that I'm as significant to him as he is to me.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

I googled it, couldn't find a book but there is an article. 

How to train your boyfriend like a dog - Telegraph
Is your man forgetful, untidy, disobedient, slobbering? Fear not, because Mic Wright reveals the seven secrets to keeping men in check - no collar required.


----------



## Lila

Marduk, 

I appreciate you sharing AK's response to the question I posed, and I'm also glad that I'm not the only one wondering about it.




marduk said:


> However, I personally think that we're also unique, and we give up on a lot when we give up on our spouse.


:iagree: 

The grass may or may not be greener on the other side, no guarantees, however, the grass is always greener where you water it.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Blossom Leigh said:


> Yes, intent and perspective are critical, of God, ourselves and our spouses. *Its a level of adoration and cultivating the fruits of the Spirit by centering on them. Understanding our gifts, blessings and influence and honoring God with those as we approach our spouses, live with them, build a life with them.* It's why Blonde's story breaks my heart. Here was a man who
> SHOULD have gotten this right. And the Bible points out that when nonbelievers do get it right it makes the believers look really bad because we are not only suppose to love our friends and family but go further and love our enemies.
> 
> So it doesn't matter if Kay is an athiest. He could choose to get the love part right whether he is a believer or not. I just don't see the love in his writings and its why its twisted.
> 
> You are right SA... * do it these things FOR our H's can be truly beautiful and fulfilling and visa versa. Some of the deepest fulfillment I've had to date is when my H and I get this right at the same time. Some times it's just him getting it right and sometimes it is just me getting it right, but when its both of us... omg.... there is NOTHING that can touch it.*


 With us.... I was the so called christian back in the day.. he could care less about God, the church...reading his bible.. his thoughts on religion.. well.. I'll save those... he's never exactly been a christian.. 

YET...he had more of the fruits of the spirit over me... so go figure!









I guess I've never been one to put too much stock in what someone claims they are .... it's all in how they live (consistently)... and how they treat others... I would say H took more of a risk with me & my attitude back then...than I did with him....even though the church would have warned "don't be unequally yoked sister". 



> Yes Deejo, this is what I keep saying.
> 
> These books do exist and they do work.
> 
> They are NEVER suggested here.


 This *one* has been suggested many times..I have suggested it more than a handful of times over the years... I think it's a GREAT BOOK! 

Why Men Love *****es: From Doormat to Dreamgirl - A Woman's Guide to Holding Her Own in a Relationship: Sherry Argov:Books


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> There are actually books that have titles just like the ones I suggested. And yes they DO work. Manipulation works on a lot of people.


Oh, I know! Your titles were so convincing, I thought you were actually listing the real ones ...

But no doubt it's out there. And no doubt I would be banned in 8 seconds flat if I ever attempted my little experiment. And my reputation as a "man-hater" solidified.


----------



## Faithful Wife

always_alone said:


> Oh, I know! Your titles were so convincing, I thought you were actually listing the real ones ...


No, I'm just that good. :yawn2:



Don't forget to tip your wait staff, and I'll be here all week!


----------



## jld

always_alone said:


> I disagree. It took me like forever to find a guy that I could truly connect to, that I get, that gets me. This is very precious to me.
> 
> Lots of people are reasonably nice, reasonably sane, and reasonably attractive, but there most certainly aren't a lot that you (or at least I) am compatible with for any sort of longer haul.
> 
> One reason why I find it so tragic to think that maybe I'm just a "functional vagina" to him. I mean, sure, he could find another partner if I weren't in the picture -- but I'd like to think that I'm as significant to him as he is to me.


I agree. I think the idea that a spouse is replaceable is crazy. 

Dug is the father to our children. I have shared 22 years with him. He knew my dad. He understands the problems of my foo. He knew my mom before she was lost to dementia.

How is he replaceable? That is just crazy.


----------



## Deejo

Faithful Wife said:


> Is this sarcasm? Because here at TAM, yes they would give a fig if we were suggesting mean spirited "men are idiots" type of advice all over the place and handing a book like that around like candy. :scratchhead:


Here's the thing, I have no interest, none ... in whether the core message of "Power of the Pu$$y" is that men are stupid and can be led around by the nose if you promise them sex and make them jump through hoops.

I have seen LOTS of women express their distaste for the content of books like MMSL. I've only ever seen one post about it being detrimental to her marriage. At which point she enacted her own 'game' and they realigned.

I do see people projecting all over the place. Women claiming if their already horrible husband were to read the book, he'd be even more horrible. But that CLEARLY is not what is happening.
At that point, we have become more of a debate club than a support forum.

For my piece, I would much rather refer people to content that will accomplish the same ends without courting further anger and argument.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I did not ignore it, I have not had time to read more than the abstract. When I do, I will respond to it. Having read only the abstract, I do not see how this would mean the conclusions of the other work are "sloppy".


It's the part where the author points out that the studies you are relying on to draw your conclusions never actually account for or control for the variables in mate selection.

Which is sloppy by any methodological standard.


----------



## OnTheFly

If the options were to take the 'red pill' or the feminist 'blue pill'….it's a no-brainer. The most wacked out, crazy ideas in the red pill sphere pale in comparison to the civilization destroying blue pill. The blue pill has had near 99% influence for the last 60-100 years and the state of degeneracy that exists is proof of it's destructive ways. 

JMO.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Deejo said:


> Here's the thing, I have no interest, none ... in whether the core message of "Power of the Pu$$y" is that men are stupid and can be led around by the nose if you promise them sex and make them jump through hoops.
> 
> I have seen LOTS of women express their distaste for the content of books like MMSL. I've only ever seen one post about it being detrimental to her marriage. At which point she enacted her own 'game' and they realigned.
> 
> I do see people projecting all over the place. Women claiming if their already horrible husband were to read the book, he'd be even more horrible. But that CLEARLY is not what is happening.
> At that point, we have become more of a debate club than a support forum.
> 
> For my piece, I would much rather refer people to content that will accomplish the same ends without courting further anger and argument.


Ok Deejo....I really don't get this. I don't.

But that's ok....part of why I like you is that I don't always get you.

I know you are not a misogynist and I know you are all for people getting together and being happy about it, or splitting if that's what is needed....so I know we are on the same page.

But I still have very high doubts that you or other mods would allow it if the women of TAM spoke about things in those books and suggested them to each other outright. I am not saying you are lying, I'm just saying you think you would not care but I think you actually WOULD if it started happening.

You are quite protective of mens' feelings here.


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> I have seen LOTS of women express their distaste for the content of books like MMSL. I've only ever seen one post about it being detrimental to her marriage. At which point she enacted her own 'game' and they realigned.


You are not reading carefully enough then. There has definitely been more than one. 

And there have also been a fair number of men reporting that it did nothing but foment more conflict in their relationships.

So, you know, there's some evidence that it actually can do harm.

I mean, MMSL helped you. But would your ex-wife be reporting about how great it was for her marriage? Probably not, I'm guessing.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

To a degree, we should all care about the feelings around here. Male and female.


----------



## Brigit

Faithful Wife said:


> How to Get a Man to Pay for Everything, Without Putting Out!
> 
> 
> P*ssy Power, Learn How to Abuse Him with Your Natural Power and Talent
> 
> 
> How to Chump Even the Most Discerning Man: Love is Just Chemicals Anyway, He'll Get Over It
> 
> 
> Get Over Him and Get ON His Stupid Friends or His Brother
> 
> 
> Picking A Man To Make Sexy Babies With: A Girl's Guide To Hypergamy
> 
> 
> Stop Giving Away Sex, It Is Your POWER POINT!
> 
> 
> Transactional Sex Made Easy
> 
> 
> When The Guy Don't Pay, Run Away
> 
> 
> How To Have a Boyfriend and a Husband and How to Get Them To Compete for You Without Even Knowing About Each Other


Those are great titles. Let's start writing the book and we can post passages each time someone makes a reference to "that other book."

"Ladies, you have all the P*ssy which means you have all the control. Once you've gotten him to marry you do not let him take your functioning gl*ry hole for granted."


----------



## Faithful Wife

I'd like to just publicly say that even though I'm against red pill garbage, that doesn't mean I think anyone should follow blue pill advice (which is not anywhere in one book, it is actually stuff the red pill crowd listed out and called "blue pill advice".)

But regardless, I would never tell a man to always be nice, never challenge his wife, do whatever she says, be a doormat, or to lose himself within his marriage. Nor would I tell any woman that, either.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Not to mention the countless men who posted, was told to read the book and then stopped posting. If they did actually do it, you have no idea what happened after. 

Not everyone updates, good or bad.


----------



## jld

Faithful Wife said:


> You are quite protective of men's feelings here.


Some truth to that, Deejo?


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Faithful Wife said:


> I'd like to just publicly say that even though I'm against red pill garbage, that doesn't mean I think anyone should follow blue pill advice (which is not anywhere in one book, it is actually stuff the red pill crowd listed out and called "blue pill advice".)
> 
> But regardless, I would never tell a man to always be nice, never challenge his wife, do whatever she says, be a doormat, or to lose himself within his marriage. Nor would I tell any woman that, either.



Its why I see it as a genderless issue, which is one way of breaking down walls here.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Brigit said:


> Those are great titles. Let's start writing the book and we can post passages each time someone makes a reference to "that other book."
> 
> "Ladies, you have all the P*ssy which means you have all the control. Once you've gotten him to marry you do not let him take your functioning gl*ry hole for granted."


We'd be banned immediately.

Plus most WOMEN would push against it, because it would be horrible, mean advice.

It is just that we don't do it (nor do any of us use such dark tactics, I'm sure), so there's no way to test it here.


----------



## always_alone

Blossom Leigh said:


> Its why I see it as a genderless issue, which is one way of breaking down walls here.


Trying very hard to break down those walls. But for some reason, it doesn't help anyone see what the issue actually is.


----------



## samyeagar

Brigit said:


> Those are great titles. Let's start writing the book and we can post passages each time someone makes a reference to "that other book."
> 
> "*Ladies, you have all the P*ssy which means you have all the control. Once you've gotten him to marry you do not let him take your functioning gl*ry hole for granted*."


Personally, rather than get pis$ed at that kind of crap that really is out there, I just kind of have to shake my head in disgust at the men stupid enough to fall for it.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

always_alone said:


> Trying very hard to break down those walls. But for some reason, it doesn't help anyone see what the issue actually is.


We have to separate it from gender.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

None of those books for women bother me. I take the view that the only thing that differentiates "dating/marriage" love relationships from other close love relationships is sex and full integration of lifestyle and ownership.

I can have business partners and business accounts. I can be emotionally close to my sister or my best male friend. I love them both, I might live with them even, or help out in a financial hardship, but I'm not providing their lifestyles or having sex with them.

So by all means, game me ladies. If you want money... well, if I ain't gettin' laid, you ain't gettin' paid... so good luck with that one. If you're gaming to make me crazy about you. Awesome... being crazy about someone feels pretty good. If you're false, then you're out on the street like anyone else. So yes, game me... seduce me.... enchant me. Try. Sounds good to me.

A couple that is continually trying to seduce each other and "manipulate" rolleyes their partner into being hot for them sounds pretty damn good indeed.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> None of those books for women bother me. I take the view that the only thing that differentiates "dating/marriage" love relationships from other close love relationships is sex and full integration of lifestyle and ownership.
> 
> I can have business partners and business accounts. I can be emotionally close to my sister or my best male friend. I love them both, I might live with them even, or help out in a financial hardship, but I'm not providing their lifestyles or having sex with them.
> 
> So by all means, game me ladies.* If you want money... well, if I ain't gettin' laid, you ain't gettin' paid... so good luck with that one*. If you're gaming to make me crazy about you. Awesome... being crazy about someone feels pretty good. If you're false, then you're out on the street like anyone else. So yes, game me... seduce me.... enchant me. Try. Sounds good to me.
> 
> A couple that is continually trying to seduce each other and "manipulate" rolleyes their partner into being hot for them sounds pretty damn good indeed.


Very interesting post.... and since I'm the breadwinner in my home, if I told my H that... how do you think he should respond?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Brigit said:


> Those are great titles. Let's start writing the book and we can post passages each time someone makes a reference to "that other book."
> 
> "Ladies, you have all the P*ssy which means you have all the control. Once you've gotten him to marry you do not let him take your functioning gl*ry hole for granted."



Also...I have to say....something I never see at TAM is the idea of the Power of C*ck.

In other circles I run in, this power is quite evident, is talked about, and is understood as the very powerful thing it actually is.

At TAM, I don't see any men or women saying it nor does anyone even imply it.

Myself, I'm quite influenced by the Power of C*ck (and sometimes by P*ssy Power as well)....do any of you other ladies even know what I'm talking about?


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Faithful Wife said:


> Also...I have to say....something I never see at TAM is the idea of the Power of C*ck.
> 
> In other circles I run in, this power is quite evident, is talked about, and is understood as the very powerful thing it actually is.
> 
> At TAM, I don't see any men or women saying it nor does anyone even imply it.
> 
> Myself, I'm quite influenced by the Power of C*ck (and sometimes by P*ssy Power as well)....do any of you other ladies even know what I'm talking about?


yep... I do


----------



## Idyit

Deejo said:


> Here's the thing, I have no interest, none ... in whether the core message of "Power of the Pu$$y" is that men are stupid and can be led around by the nose if you promise them sex and make them jump through hoops.
> 
> I have seen LOTS of women express their distaste for the content of books like MMSL. I've only ever seen one post about it being detrimental to her marriage. At which point she enacted her own 'game' and they realigned.
> 
> I do see people projecting all over the place. Women claiming if their already horrible husband were to read the book, he'd be even more horrible. But that CLEARLY is not what is happening.
> At that point, we have become more of a debate club than a support forum.
> 
> For my piece, *I would much rather re[B]fer people to content that will accomplish the same ends without courting further anger and argument.*[/B]


FW I got derailed by life and behind by about 50 pages so did not follow up on my question to you. Earlier in the thread I asked if you'd prefer that MMSLP be 1) Banned 2) More judiciously recommended or 3) Carry on with objections noted. Maybe another option 4) Convince TAM men and women that the book in it's entirety is not helpful so they'll cease recommending it.

Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems 1) or 4) would be where you're going. If so, could we dedicate some space to books or authors that can be helpful in similar situations?

~ Passio


----------



## Lila

Faithful Wife said:


> Also...I have to say....something I never see at TAM is the idea of the Power of C*ck.
> 
> In other circles I run in, this power is quite evident, is talked about, and is understood as the very powerful thing it actually is.
> 
> At TAM, I don't see any men or women saying it nor does anyone even imply it.
> 
> *Myself, I'm quite influenced by the Power of C*ck (and sometimes by P*ssy Power as well)....do any of you other ladies even know what I'm talking about?*


He!! to the YES!


:allhail:


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Brigit said:


> Those are great titles. Let's start writing the book and we can post passages each time someone makes a reference to "that other book."
> 
> "Ladies, you have all the P*ssy which means you have all the control. Once you've gotten him to marry you do not let him take your functioning gl*ry hole for granted."


Well, it doesn't actually give you any control over an aware man, but sure... absolutely never let him take it for granted. Just like AK advocates not letting her take relationship security for granted. 

Take things from me, I take things from you. Then you learn not to take things.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Idyit said:


> FW I got derailed by life and behind by about 50 pages so did not follow up on my question to you. Earlier in the thread I asked if you'd prefer that MMSLP be 1) Banned 2) More judiciously recommended or 3) Carry on with objections noted. Maybe another option 4) Convince TAM men and women that the book in it's entirety is not helpful so they'll cease recommending it.
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems 1) or 4) would be where you're going. If so, could we dedicate some space to books or authors that can be helpful in similar situations?
> 
> ~ Passio


I'd actually just be happy if people would stop saying mean things about either gender. But to me, calling all women wh*res (and I don't mean in jest) such as is done in MMSL means the entire book (IMO) should not be suggested here at all. But I'm hard core like that and I realize this will never happen. So what I really want is not a reasonable goal.

I'm VERY happy to even just be able to speak out against it. When I first came here, I got pummeled for doing that.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Blossom Leigh said:


> Very interesting post.... and since I'm the breadwinner in my home, if I told my H that... how do you think he should respond?


I don't know your husband. If it were me I'd probably have a big grin and start undressing you.

You might not like the vernacular, which I'm just using to be colorful. It might serve you better you say the same thing in the more common vernacular: I didn't get married to be a sexless provider. If you're not interested in sex, I'm not interested in the marriage.

Been there done that, filed the papers.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Lila said:


> He!! to the YES!
> 
> 
> :allhail:


Oh good...I was starting to wonder where all my sistahs who get it were?


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Here's an article on this Red Pill stuff.. I had this saved somewhere, I realize it's already been explained in various ways.. just thought I would post this anyway...

What's Wrong With "Taking The Red Pill" - Paging Dr. NerdLove



> The Red Pill is, for all intents and purposes, what happens when the pick-up community decides that it hates women. The name derives from the scene in the Matrix where Morpheus offers Neo the choice: he can take the red pill and wake up from The Matrix and live in the real world, or he can take the blue pill and forget ever knowing that the Matrix is an illusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “Take the red pill and spend a LOT of time yelling on the Internet.”
> 
> Where the Wachowskis intended the scene to be a metaphor for the Buddha receiving enlightenment and no longer being bound by worldly concerns, to the Red Pill philosophy, it means “the recognition and awareness of the way that feminism, feminists and their white-knight enablers affect society.” It’s a neat rhetorical trick – trying to claim both the identity of a persecuted minority (cisgendered, hetero men) while also proclaiming themselves inherently superior to the “blue-pillers”, white knights and “betas” because they see the truth: that they’re supposed to treat women like ****.
> 
> The Red Pill philosophy is heavily influenced by the Neil Strauss’s The Game and the Mystery Method school of pick-up; scroll through the field reports on the Red Pill subreddit and you’ll find it festooned with PUA jargon like “DHV” (demonstration of higher value”), AMOG (“alpha male of group”) and **** tests. Much of the Red Pill concept of “game” is focused on emotional manipulation and coercion. One of the key tenets of the Red Pill philosophy is that women are instinctively hypergamous – that they only date men of “superior” status and are quite literally incapable of loving men unconditionally – and thus men must be as “alpha” as possible at all times. Of course, because women are also incapable of logic and reason and only respond to emotions, it’s only fair for men to play upon their psyches in order to get their way. One of the most popular ways of doing this is known as “dread” game – deliberately making your girlfriend fear your dumping her or breaking up with her. Various ways of inducing “dread” include:
> 
> * Not answering her calls for a week
> * Hitting on her friends (in a plausibly deniable way)
> * Flirt with other women in front of her
> * Running extremely hot and cold – being incredibly romantic one day and incredibly distant for three days after
> 
> If this sounds suspiciously like “emotional abuse”… well, that’s because it is. Much of the Red Pill philosophy is about regaining the upper hand because women somehow unfairly control the sexual marketplace. Interestingly though, only some women can control it as, in the Red Pill philosophy, women are only of worth from the ages of 16 to 25; afterwards they hit “The Wall”. From the Red Pill subreddit:
> 
> The point in a woman’s life where her ego and self-assessed view of her sexual market value exceed her actual sexual market value; the beginning of the decline. Usually occurs as a wake-up shock to women when they realize that their power over men was temporary and that their looks are fading. This usually results with first denial and then a sudden change in priority towards looking for a husband. Even after hitting the wall, many women will squander a few more precious years testing her SMV with alphas to double-check, hoping her perceived decline was a fluke, this will make her even more bitter when she finally has to settle for a worse-beta than she could’ve gotten before because of squandering her youth.
> 
> If this makes you scratch your head and wonder how a woman can control men through access to sex when she has such a limited window to work, then you’re not alone. The Red Pill philosophy isn’t big on internal consistency. After all, Red Pill-ers want to **** the hottest women, yet these women are also the ones who are, in their words, “on the **** carousel”; so they want to **** hot women and then turn around and shame the same women for ****ing them. Women manipulate men, but men should apply dread game to get laid. They decry women for spinning multiple plates – RP jargon for “keeping men on the hook” – while also insisting that only betas settle down and alphas have harems. Women are manipulative and Machiavellian, forever plotting to **** alphas and use betas but are also incapable of logic or rational thinking and instead rely on the “rationalization hamster” in order to settle cognitive dissonance.
> 
> Far be it from me to suggest that perhaps said Red Pillers have their own issues with cognitive dissonance, but hey, if the exercise wheel fits…


I mean , me personally.. I really do despise "games".. I think it's all half asinine, if you can't hold an interesting conversation bouncing things off of each other, something is terribly SAD about that.. 

I have spoken against Pick up artist anything.. I hate the manipulation and would call any man out on it (which is why it's good to learn of these things)... I am all for very ethical books such as *>>* How To Win Friends and Influence People  ... if one needs to brush up on their people skills.. ..- not exactly romantic in nature ....I get that.. but things naturally take rise when you get around the opposite sex !...it's not a bad place to start....

But honesty...I think too many people today (likely due to so much baggage & DISTRUST of the opposite sex)....seem to BREATHE gaming BS.. and would find something like that too boring / old fashioned once they had to incorporate casual sex into the mix.. of course....which I think is a shame.. but OK.


----------



## Idyit

Faithful Wife said:


> I'd actually just be happy if people would stop saying mean things about either gender. But to me, calling all women wh*res (and I don't mean in jest) such as is done in MMSL means the entire book (IMO) should not be suggested here at all. But I'm hard core like that and I realize this will never happen. So what I really want is not a reasonable goal.
> 
> I'm VERY happy to even just be able to speak out against it. When I first came here, I got pummeled for doing that.


No pummeling from me. But the tit for tat stuff is sophomoric. What would you or others suggest as alternative reading in a similar situation? 

~ Passio


----------



## Lila

Faithful Wife said:


> Oh good...I was starting to wonder where all my sistahs who get it were?


Question about the Power of C**k/Pv**y

Do you think that this power is unique to the individual and would be equally as powerful on anyone?

-or-

Do you think it affects one or both partners in a couple as a result of a mutually compatible pairing?


----------



## TiggyBlue

Faithful Wife said:


> Myself, I'm quite influenced by the Power of C*ck (and sometimes by P*ssy Power as well)....do any of you other ladies even know what I'm talking about?


Definitely


----------



## Faithful Wife

Idyit said:


> No pummeling from me. But the tit for tat stuff is sophomoric. What would you or others suggest as alternative reading in a similar situation?
> 
> ~ Passio


Yes, a few of us have been discussing doing that, and it has been pointed out here that there is a huge lack of well written, interesting and/or witty books directed toward men about this type of issue. Do you know of any to recommend?

The best I have come up with so far (which was a recommendation by Deejo) is Models by Mark Manson....but it isn't about marriage.


----------



## Deejo

Faithful Wife said:


> Ok Deejo....I really don't get this. I don't.
> 
> But that's ok....part of why I like you is that I don't always get you.
> 
> I know you are not a misogynist and I know you are all for people getting together and being happy about it, or splitting if that's what is needed....so I know we are on the same page.
> 
> But I still have very high doubts that you or other mods would allow it if the women of TAM spoke about things in those books and suggested them to each other outright. I am not saying you are lying, I'm just saying you think you would not care but I think you actually WOULD if it started happening.
> 
> You are quite protective of mens' feelings here.


I cannot recall a single post made by a man here, not one, stating that "You should keep your wife topped off with sperm."

I understand yours and the points of the others expressing their distaste for that message.

My point is, there aren't men here vociferously broadcasting the message you don't like.
Maybe we read very different threads. I can tell you verbatim what I often see one man refer to another here ....

"You need to work on yourself, start working out, read NMMNG and MMSL."

I see exactly what I posted above ALL of the time.

Are you trying to tell me that is the equivalent of

_
"On a biological level, the Male Body Agenda assumes that the female he is having sex with will be unfaithful. By constantly seeking to top off a female’s reproductive tract with sperm, he assures himself a standing army inside her ready to repel another male’s sperm if she cheats on him. A wife can avoid having a standing army of her husband’s sperm inside her by simply denying him sex. A couple can have fairly frequent sex, but if she avoids sex with him, or just gives him handjobs or blowjobs in the three or four days before she ovulates, the husband is rendered defenseless from a sperm warfare perspective if she meets a lover for sex. There’s no standing army of the husband’s sperm to fight off the lover’s sperm."_

??
Because I don't see guys saying or advocating ANY of the content above or what was cited at the beginning of the thread.

The moderators focus on who is breaking the rules. There are equally as many men here that take issue with our conduct as there are women.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> It's the part where the author points out that the studies you are relying on to draw your conclusions never actually account for or control for the variables in mate selection.
> 
> Which is sloppy by any methodological standard.


No, that's increasing the scope of the question. There are undoubtedly a billion other variables in mate selection. I don't date Asians because I don't meet any, for example.

Again I tell you, these studies are not mate selections. They are assessments of attractiveness. None of those situations are real pairings. You may prefer a doctor all you want, but if you never meet a doctor, tough t*tty. That she couldn't actually pair up with a doctor doesn't mean she didn't have a preference for one. Follow?

The studies are appropriate to questions they are asking about what is attractive. What people actually got is a different question of much wider scope.

If we show representative samples of women pictures of men and their careers, swapping the careers among the men for different audiences, we can show whether career choice is a statistically significant influence on perceived attractiveness. It is not only significant, it is strong.

There are no other variables in this narrow question. So I'm not going to chase down your reframing of the question.

Could further study be done on the exchange of traits? Sure. Regardless, what she's provided is no evidence against what I've said is 100% proven: Women's perception of a man's attractiveness is very strongly influenced by his socio-economic status.

As for sloppy methodology, you'd think she'd be aware that there are more variables in actual pairing than even the trade of any qualities, given she's attacking others for not accounting. You can't pair with a type you have no access to for example. Mating data would likely reflect who you had access to, which right there creates a class boundary she ignores. Her data source doesn't say as much about desired exchange as she thinks it does - a clear sign her own prejudice is bridging the gap.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Lila said:


> Question about the Power of C**k/Pv**y
> 
> Do you think that this power is unique to the individual and would be equally as powerful on anyone?
> 
> -or-
> 
> Do you think it affects one or both partners in a couple as a result of a mutually compatible pairing?


Well in some couples, it is obvious only one or the other has the power in this sense.

I think there are some people who are not influenced by this power at all, both men and women. 

So no, I don't think there is anyone who has that power that would work on anyone/everyone....some people are simply not influenced by sex or attraction at all.

I think in couples like my H and I where there is strong mutual sexual attraction and chemistry, the power is totally balanced.

Some people are quite susceptible to being manipulated by this power and some aren't susceptible to it at all.

For instance my H is not susceptible to manipulation this way, EVER. He is susceptible to the power of it and that power does influence him, but not if the power is used as manipulation. If I even tried to manipulate him that way, he'd laugh in my face.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Deejo said:


> I cannot recall a single post made by a man here, not one, stating that "You should keep your wife topped off with sperm."
> 
> I understand yours and the points of the others expressing their distaste for that message.
> 
> My point is, there aren't men here vociferously broadcasting the message you don't like.


Maybe not the sperm thing but there are LOTS of other distasteful and mean spirited things in the book that LOTS of men vociferously broadcast allllllllllll the time.....shall I find you about 100 of them and quote them for you? It would take no time at all.

But to do that would also include naming those men, and I'm not down for having a barrage of MMSL'rs pummel me and mock me.


----------



## Brigit

Faithful Wife said:


> We'd be banned immediately.
> 
> Plus most WOMEN would push against it, because it would be horrible, mean advice.
> 
> It is just that we don't do it (nor do any of us use such dark tactics, I'm sure), so there's no way to test it here.


True enough. Men would hate it and women would hate it. Yet, you stated in the past women supported "the red pill advice." 

I think some women hate themselves and sometimes are more hateful to each other than any man could be.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

I don't know if I'm understanding the intent of the phrase, but the power of c*ck sounds just as dumb to me as the power of p*ssy. The use of sex to induce action (power) is more about a weak, desperate person on the other end than quality of the person doing the inducing to my thinking.

The p*ssy has no power when you can get another.

Or is the expression meant in the affirmative sense? ie - you want to do things for the person giving you sex? Well, I guess if that was true a lot of people wouldn't be on TAM.


----------



## Brigit

samyeagar said:


> Personally, rather than get pis$ed at that kind of crap that really is out there, I just kind of have to shake my head in disgust at the men stupid enough to fall for it.



(I'm not really gonna write the book. No worries  )


----------



## samyeagar

Faithful Wife said:


> Well in some couples, it is obvious only one or the other has the power in this sense.
> 
> I think there are some people who are not influenced by this power at all, both men and women.
> 
> So no, I don't think there is anyone who has that power that would work on anyone/everyone....some people are simply not influenced by sex or attraction at all.
> 
> I think in couples like my H and I where there is strong mutual sexual attraction and chemistry, the power is totally balanced.
> 
> Some people are quite susceptible to being manipulated by this power and some aren't susceptible to it at all.
> 
> For instance my H is not susceptible to manipulation this way, EVER. He is susceptible to the power of it and that power does influence him, but not if the power is used as manipulation. *If I even tried to manipulate him that way, he'd laugh in my face*.


My wife tried that exactly once, because me laughing at her only took once.


----------



## Brigit

Deejo said:


> I cannot recall a single post made by a man here, not one, stating that "You should keep your wife topped off with sperm."


Right now I have all kinds of ice-cream jokes flying threw my head. 

"Would you like sprinkles, nuts..."


----------



## Faithful Wife

Brigit said:


> True enough. Men would hate it and women would hate it. Yet, you stated in the past women supported "the red pill advice."
> 
> I think some women hate themselves and sometimes are more hateful to each other than any man could be.


Very few women ever supported it in those threads of mine in the past. What I was saying was those who were against it wouldn't speak out against it because they could see me getting pummeled. A lot of them would PM me and agree with me but would say they were too afraid of the onslaught of MMSL supporting men to speak out.

There are a lot of men who are permabanned now who used to attack me every time this topic came up. I'm glad they are gone. They do try to sneak back in with sock puppets all the time though.


----------



## samyeagar

Brigit said:


> (I'm not really gonna write the book. No worries  )


No need to write it, as was listed earlier, there are already tons out there, as well as in most issues of Cosmo. I still think that guys who fall for that crap, are manipulated that way are just idiots and give men a bad name. Seriously...a women wink at them in the bar, and he clamours to buy her a drink? Really? The chicks are the ones who buy ME drinks... (and they really do)


----------



## Idyit

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes, a few of us have been discussing doing that, and it has been pointed out here that there is a huge lack of well written, interesting and/or witty books directed toward men about this type of issue. Do you know of any to recommend?
> 
> The best I have come up with so far (which was a recommendation by Deejo) is Models by Mark Manson....but it isn't about marriage.


I don't have anything that fits the bill as you've mentioned but will look up Manson. Thanks

~ Passio


----------



## Brigit

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> So by all means, game me ladies. If you want money... well, if I ain't gettin' laid, you ain't gettin' paid... so good luck with that one.


Yo dude calm down. I already said I wasn't going to write the book. 

Damn doesn't anyone read?


----------



## Brigit

samyeagar said:


> The chicks are the ones who buy ME drinks... (and they really do)


Not really sure why you needed to tell us that but...OK.


----------



## Brigit

Faithful Wife said:


> Also...I have to say....something I never see at TAM is the idea of the Power of C*ck.
> 
> In other circles I run in, this power is quite evident, is talked about, and is understood as the very powerful thing it actually is.
> 
> At TAM, I don't see any men or women saying it nor does anyone even imply it.
> 
> Myself, I'm quite influenced by the Power of C*ck (and sometimes by P*ssy Power as well)....do any of you other ladies even know what I'm talking about?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Brigit said:


>


No? Don't get it?

Not a problem.

Just means you aren't influenced by it.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Brigit said:


> Not really sure why you needed to tell us that but...OK.


It is because people at TAM (mostly guys) doubt guys all the time when they say something like this.


----------



## Lila

Faithful Wife said:


> Well in some couples, it is obvious only one or the other has the power in this sense.
> 
> I think there are some people who are not influenced by this power at all, both men and women.
> 
> So no, I don't think there is anyone who has that power that would work on anyone/everyone....some people are simply not influenced by sex or attraction at all.
> 
> I think in couples like my H and I where there is strong mutual sexual attraction and chemistry, the power is totally balanced.
> 
> Some people are quite susceptible to being manipulated by this power and some aren't susceptible to it at all.
> 
> For instance my H is not susceptible to manipulation this way, EVER. He is susceptible to the power of it and that power does influence him, but not if the power is used as manipulation. If I even tried to manipulate him that way, he'd laugh in my face.


I agree. 

Back to the original question where you mentioned who believed in the Power of C**k....I think it only works in my case because H and I have great chemistry together. Of all of the guys I dated, H was not the best looking, not the wealthiest, and definitely not the most social (understatement of the year) but there has always been crazy good chemistry between us. And yes, he wields the Power.

This is one of the reasons why I oppose Red Pill philosophy suggesting men should pretend to be someone who they are not simply to win the pretty girl. A man can miss out on meeting the one with the best chemistry match.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Lila said:


> I agree.
> 
> Back to the original question where you mentioned who believed in the Power of C**k....I think it only works in my case because H and I have great chemistry together. Of all of the guys I dated, H was not the best looking, not the wealthiest, and definitely not the most social (understatement of the year) but there has always been crazy good chemistry between us. And yes, he wields the Power.
> 
> This is one of the reasons why I oppose Red Pill philosophy suggesting men should pretend to be someone who they are not simply to win the pretty girl. A man can miss out on meeting the one with the best chemistry match.



Sigh yeah....well men who are obsessed with ranking women by numbers are clearly not emotionally intelligent enough to get this. Especially the ones who believe "all men" do this. 

No, not all men do this. Some men care more about mutual attraction and chemistry and a woman's substance than her "number" or even her external beauty.

Other than your H, have you not felt anyone else have this power over you before or since?

I have to admit, P*ssy Power had me for a long time (I'm kinda gay) and C*ck had very, very little influence over me. So no man made me feel sexually the way a woman easily could (but not all women). This started to change when I got a little older and found some men who I felt strong chemistry with. When I was younger, all men I encountered were so abysmally immature that not a single one of them could give me a girl boner. I wondered if I was totally gay or what? I knew I wasn't but I couldn't figure out what the deal was?

Now I get it. It requires that chemistry and mutual attraction and I don't feel that with most guys...but the ones I do feel it with, POW, it can knock me off my feet.

I now feel very little influence by P*ssy Power.

(Boobs though...I will always be a complete and utter fool for boobs).


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

What is the "power" if it doesn't make you do anything? If it makes you do something, then how is it not manipulation?

:rofl:

Meaninglessness knows no bounds.

Oh wait... influence was the word. Hell, that's the word I use to describe what I do that you ladies call manipulation. Words are awesome.  Thank you lucky stars I'm not subject to someone's p*ssy powers. lol

As for missing out on chemistry matches for the pretty girl. Nah, you find a pretty girl you have chemistry with instead of a less pretty one.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I don't know if I'm understanding the intent of the phrase, but the power of c*ck sounds just as dumb to me as the power of p*ssy. The use of sex to induce action (power) is more about a weak, desperate person on the other end than quality of the person doing the inducing to my thinking.
> 
> The p*ssy has no power when you can get another.
> 
> Or is the expression meant in the affirmative sense? ie - you want to do things for the person giving you sex? Well, I guess if that was true a lot of people wouldn't be on TAM.


Neither does money when I have my own. Leverage must always be used ethically whether its sex, power, money, etc.

It is why I seek to live my life deleveraged.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I don't know your husband. If it were me I'd probably have a big grin and start undressing you.
> 
> You might not like the vernacular, which I'm just using to be colorful. It might serve you better you say the same thing in the more common vernacular: I didn't get married to be a sexless provider. If you're not interested in sex, I'm not interested in the marriage.
> 
> Been there done that, filed the papers.


I'm the same in the fact I came into my marriages fully expecting to be engaged sexually. I've turned down sex only twice in the 25 combined years I've been married, but here is the important part. It is not ethical of me to leverage your sexuality with money. That in a sense makes you an object and not a human with a soul and a heart, so therefore I would not do that to you. If you were a spouse who went a long time without sex and never sought to change it, then I would seek divorce eventually AFTER ample time to address the issue, but not leverage you with money. To me that is unethical.


----------



## Lila

Faithful Wife said:


> Sigh yeah....well men who are obsessed with ranking women by numbers are clearly not emotionally intelligent enough to get this. Especially the ones who believe "all men" do this.
> 
> No, not all men do this. Some men care more about mutual attraction and chemistry and a woman's substance than her "number" or even her external beauty.
> 
> Other than your H, have you not felt anyone else have this power over you before or since?


Before H, only 1, and I think it was due to the issue you brought up about immaturity. H and I go back a long ways, we met in college, and although I dated quite a few guys before him (lots of casual dates, a handful of short term relationships, and one LTR), most of those guys were either too immature or I was too naive/confused to figure it out.

After H, really only one that I can recall in recent memory. Again, nothing really stood out about him but there was something about his presence that made me think 'Wow'.



Faithful Wife said:


> I have to admit, P*ssy Power had me for a long time (I'm kinda gay) and C*ck had very, very little influence over me. So no man made me feel sexually the way a woman easily could (but not all women). This started to change when I got a little older and found some men who I felt strong chemistry with. When I was younger, all men I encountered were so abysmally immature that not a single one of them could give me a girl boner. I wondered if I was totally gay or what? I knew I wasn't but I couldn't figure out what the deal was?
> 
> Now I get it. It requires that chemistry and mutual attraction and I don't feel that with most guys...but the ones I do feel it with, POW, it can knock me off my feet.
> 
> I now feel very little influence by P*ssy Power.
> 
> (Boobs though...I will always be a complete and utter fool for boobs).


:lol: Can't say that I'm influence by the P Power (been there, done that, and didn't quite feel the same influence) but I have to agree with you on the boobs. Any body part that can cause a man to stop talking midsentence is AWESOME!


----------



## Faithful Wife

Lila said:


> :lol: Can't say that I'm influence by the P Power (been there, done that, and didn't quite feel the same influence) but I have to agree with you on the boobs. Any body part* that can cause a man* to stop talking midsentence is AWESOME!


No, I meant boob power works on ME like that. :smthumbup:

Cover up ladies, you aren't safe around me.


----------



## Holland

Faithful Wife said:


> Also...I have to say....something I never see at TAM is the idea of the Power of C*ck.
> 
> In other circles I run in, this power is quite evident, is talked about, and is understood as the very powerful thing it actually is.
> 
> At TAM, I don't see any men or women saying it nor does anyone even imply it.
> 
> Myself, I'm quite influenced by the Power of C*ck (and sometimes by P*ssy Power as well)....*do any of you other ladies even know what I'm talking about?*


Well no surprise but yes I know what you are talking about and yes I am under the spell. BUT it has to be attached to a decent man. I am completely under it's power especially when he drops his pants to show me what my power over him has done to his body.
Power balance is very even here, we are both equally as mesmerised by each others power, love it, live it, never want to be without it.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Blossom Leigh said:


> Neither does money when I have my own.


You know, that's probably what surprises me the most about women's preference status. While it's true some studies show little or no income attraction bias for women of higher income, most still show those women having an attraction bias for it. Other surveys show that most high income women still don't want to be the top earner. Kinda strange.


----------



## EleGirl

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes Deejo, this is what I keep saying.
> 
> These books do exist and they do work.
> 
> *They are NEVER suggested here*.


The point that is somehow being missed.


----------



## Brigit

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> You know, that's probably what surprises me the most about women's preference status. While it's true some studies show little or no income attraction bias for women of higher income, most still show those women having an attraction bias for it. Other surveys show that most high income women still don't want to be the top earner. Kinda strange.


If it makes you feel better I'll support your argument. I wouldn't look twice at a guy who didn't have a decent job. It's not that I was so attracted to guys who had money but I was so turned off by guys who I didn't think could support me.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Blossom Leigh said:


> It is not ethical of me to leverage your sexuality with money. That in a sense makes you an object and not a human with a soul and a heart, so therefore I would not do that to you. If you were a spouse who went a long time without sex and never sought to change it, then I would seek divorce eventually AFTER ample time to address the issue, but not leverage you with money. To me that is unethical.


I understand your perspective. I take the perspective that both parties entered the marriage willingly supplying the things the other wants. One party withdrew a critical thing and refuses to work toward resolution. The other party is therefore justified in withdrawing whatever they will. Change, or lose - the terms of the marriage - meeting each others needs, were broken with the first withdrawal if unjustified.

From my perspective, it is unethical to withhold sex and feel entitled to continued security.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Holland said:


> Well no surprise but yes I know what you are talking about and yes I am under the spell. BUT it has to be attached to a decent man. I am completely under it's power especially when he drops his pants to show me what my power over him has done to his body.
> Power balance is very even here, we are both equally as mesmerised by each others power, love it, live it, never want to be without it.


True for me, too...mostly. I have felt chemistry with some very non-decent men and there was some power there, but my power over them was still 10X greater so nothing really ever came from it (except a few romps).

For ongoing sustained power over me, whether P or C, it has to include much more than the physical component. For a one off, eh, I could be over powered depending on circumstances. But for the long term and for it to always be at that high level, the rest has to be there.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Brigit said:


> If it makes you feel better I'll support your argument. I wouldn't look twice at a guy who didn't have a decent job. It's not that I was so attracted to guys who had money but I was so turned off by guys who I didn't think could support me.


I don't feel bad, but thanks!  I'm used to having unpopular views - ergo, the screen name.

TBH, I don't think it's actually money that is what women really go for. It's industriousness. Capability. A man that overcomes obstacles, makes things work and gets sh*t done. Money/status is just a readily apparent signal that communicates it. I suspect women, more so than men perhaps, struggle with anxiety, worry and doubt. The industrious guy relieves it. He's capable. When you have doubt, he doesn't. When you worry, he isn't. When you have doubt, he's sure. My intuition tells me that women find a great deal of comfort in that, and that's the root psychology of it, but I'm just guessing.

Most unattractive guy in the world? The lazy one. He can be physically hot as all get out, but if he's lazy nobody is going to want him, even for just sex (what woman wants a lazy lover?)


----------



## RoseAglow

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> You know, that's probably what surprises me the most about women's preference status. While it's true some studies show little or no income attraction bias for women of higher income, most still show those women having an attraction bias for it. Other surveys show that most high income women still don't want to be the top earner. Kinda strange.


Would you clarify the blue? Some studies show that women who have (their own) higher income have little to no income attraction bias? But they do show having some sort of attraction bias? 

I think the 2012 Pew showed that currently, women with more education than their husbands still tended to make less money overall per year than their husbands. 

This is one of the trends that I am really interested in watching over time. For me and several of my women friends, we have higher degrees and higher incomes than our husbands. This has been true for all but one of us since the beginning of our courtship (the other couple met in college when both were on teaching stipends.) However, this little group of mine is a clear "self-selection bias."


----------



## Brigit

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I don't feel bad, but thanks!  I'm used to having unpopular views - ergo, the screen name.
> 
> TBH, I don't think it's actually money that is what women really go for. It's industriousness. Capability. A man that overcomes obstacles, makes things work and gets sh*t done. Money/status is just a readily apparent signal that communicates it.
> 
> Most unattractive guy in the world? The lazy one. He can be physically hot as all get out, but if he's lazy nobody is going to want him, even for just sex (what woman wants a lazy lover?)


I agree. A lazy man no matter how attractive would be considered a "dead-beat." 

TBH I don't understand why it's so controversial to say women look to men to be the providers and the slayers of dragons. Women like to feel protected and looked after. My best friend is a lawyer and she still feels this way even though she makes good money.


----------



## EleGirl

Brigit said:


> True enough. Men would hate it and women would hate it. Yet, you stated in the past women supported "the red pill advice."
> 
> I think some women hate themselves and sometimes are more hateful to each other than any man could be.


There will always be some women who for one reason or another are just find with things that hurt other women. 

Look at things like women's voting rights and the campaigns for ending laws that allowed for a man to chastise (beat) his wife. There were women who wanted the status quo. There also women involved as in things that exploit other women.. like sex slavery.

The thing about women is that we are not all of one mind. We each have our own perspective.


----------



## RoseAglow

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I don't feel bad, but thanks!  I'm used to having unpopular views - ergo, the screen name.
> 
> TBH, I don't think it's actually money that is what women really go for. It's industriousness. Capability. A man that overcomes obstacles, makes things work and gets sh*t done. Money/status is just a readily apparent signal that communicates it. I suspect women, more so than men perhaps, struggle with anxiety, worry and doubt. The industrious guy relieves it. He's capable. When you have doubt, he doesn't. When you worry, he isn't. When you have doubt, he's sure. My intuition tells me that women find a great deal of comfort in that, and that's the root psychology of it.
> 
> Most unattractive guy in the world? The lazy one. He can be physically hot as all get out, but if he's lazy nobody is going to want him, even for just sex (what woman wants a lazy lover?)


The blue is true for me. Money isn't a big deal for me, I make my own. In fact, a guy who clearly had a ton of money and show-cased it would not be my guy, I am not big on status stuff.

But I would not marry a lazy guy, or a guy who didn't have a decent work ethic.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

RoseAglow said:


> Would you clarify the blue? Some studies show that women who have (their own) higher income have little to no income attraction bias? But they do show having some sort of attraction bias?


Sorry, I can see how I wasn't clear. Put as accurately as I can, a minority of studies I've read show little to no income attraction bias in high income females. The majority do show it. I'm just trying be fair and qualify that the picture may be less certain for high income females. It's not a perfect record.



RoseAglow said:


> I think the 2012 Pew showed that currently, women with more education than their husbands still tended to make less money overall per year than their husbands.


The pay gap is definitely real and I'm a major critic of it.



RoseAglow said:


> This is one of the trends that I am really interested in watching over time. For me and several of my women friends, we have higher degrees and higher incomes than our husbands. This has been true for all but one of us since the beginning of our courtship (the other couple met in college when both were on teaching stipends.) However, this little group of mine is a clear "self-selection bias."


I really think it will. I'm not certain it's what women would ideally want, but I am pretty certain it's what will happen. Women are outnumbering men in higher education if I'm not mistaken. Bastions of high income males are seeing more and more females - even tech and engineering (law and medicine tipped female awhile back I think). Society is gradually acknowledging "equal pay for equal work" and legislation like Lilly Ledbetter, and decrying glass ceilings.

My intuition tells me it isn't really going to make anyone truly unhappy, but that the increasingly rare higher income males will just become more a premium - even more desirable relative to other men. I'm just totally guessing though.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Brigit said:


> TBH I don't understand why it's so controversial to say women look to men to be the providers and the slayers of dragons. Women like to feel protected and looked after. My best friend is a lawyer and she still feels this way even though she makes good money.


It isn't controversial, lots of women feel this way.

But Brigit, if your husband wasn't also a hottie, would you still want him to slay dragons for you?

Or more specifically....would you still want to f*ck him if he wasn't physically attractive to you but he did provide for you and slay dragons?


----------



## EleGirl

The Myth of Wealthy Men and Beautiful Women

Similarity and companionship are the currency of attraction, for better or worse.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Brigit said:


> TBH I don't understand why it's so controversial to say women look to men to be the providers and the slayers of dragons. Women like to feel protected and looked after. My best friend is a lawyer and she still feels this way even though she makes good money.


I was also going to note....

Notice that in women's fantasy books, or heck even Disney movies, the hero who slays dragons is ALSO a hottie.

If he wasn't, would women watch that movie and still root for the princess to f*ck him? Um, no.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

RoseAglow said:


> In fact, a guy who clearly had a ton of money and show-cased it would not be my guy, I am not big on status stuff.


That's the trick isn't it? How to show it without looking like you're showing it. 

I gather women have a lot of those - want to see a sexy guy naked, but don't want to see all the details - more the suggestion of nudity and preferably unintended.

Love seeing guys with no shirt. Repulsed by guys who intentionally take their shirt off to show off their abs under another excuse.

Women. Sheesh. Y'all are complicated.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> I was also going to note....
> 
> Notice that in women's fantasy books, or heck even Disney movies, the hero who slays dragons is ALSO a hottie.
> 
> If he wasn't, would women watch that movie and still root for the princess to f*ck him? Um, no.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNlpuD42_BM


----------



## Brigit

Faithful Wife said:


> It isn't controversial, lots of women feel this way.
> 
> But Brigit, if your husband wasn't also a hottie, would you still want him to slay dragons for you?
> 
> Or more specifically....would you still want to f*ck him if he wasn't physically attractive to you but he did provide for you and slay dragons?


Nope. I wouldn't f*ck an unattractive dragon slayer but I also wouldn't f*ck the good looking guy who ran away from the dragons.

I only f*ck good-looking dragon slayer's with nice Castles


----------



## Faithful Wife

Brigit said:


> Nope. I wouldn't f*ck an unattractive dragon slayer but I also wouldn't f*ck the good looking guy who ran away from the dragons.
> 
> I only f*ck good-looking dragon slayer's with nice Castles


Right.

So that's the thing. There are men who think that they don't need to be good looking at all to the princess, they just need to slay the dragon and provide for her. "Women don't care about attractiveness" is the mantra.

Whereas actually, a lot of women require BOTH.


----------



## Holland

Faithful Wife said:


> True for me, too...mostly. I have felt chemistry with some very non-decent men and there was some power there, but my power over them was still 10X greater so nothing really ever came from it (except a few romps).
> 
> For ongoing sustained power over me, whether P or C, it has to include much more than the physical component. For a one off, eh, I could be over powered depending on circumstances. But for the long term and for it to always be at that high level, the rest has to be there.


I am very capable of indiscriminate sex but it was always on my terms, it was when I wanted to get some action so the power of c.ock did not come into play it was all about me.
Where it does come into play is when I adore a man and want to please him, then I am under the spell and the result is spectacular for both of us.

One of my fave things in life is to give my Superman a NSA BJ far out I can have a smile on my face all that day just thinking about getting my hands on him that night and worshiping his d.ick. He has to be a very high value man for me to be under this spell.


----------



## Brigit

Faithful Wife said:


> Right.
> 
> So that's the thing. There are men who think that they don't need to be good looking at all to the princess, they just need to slay the dragon and provide for her. "Women don't care about attractiveness" is the mantra.
> 
> Whereas actually, a lot of women require BOTH.


Of course they do. Looks count. They always did and they always will. I had a few boyfriends before I met my husband and they were very hot. TBH I was very picky when it came to men's looks...actually I was a bit of a bit*h. But I liked what I liked. What can I do??


----------



## Brigit

Holland said:


> I am very capable of indiscriminate sex but it was always on my terms, it was when I wanted to get some action so the power of c.ock did not come into play it was all about me.
> Where it does come into play is when I adore a man and want to please him, then I am under the spell and the result is spectacular for both of us.
> 
> One of my fave things in life is to give my Superman a NSA BJ far out I can have a smile on my face all that day just thinking about getting my hands on him that night and worshiping his d.ick. He has to be a very high value man for me to be under this spell.


For the record I don't get this whole power of the co*k/pus*y thing but I find it very entertaining.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Brigit said:


> For the record I don't get this whole power of the co*k/pus*y thing but I find it very entertaining.


You understand that YOU have P*ssy Power though, right? You understand the meaning and what having that power feels like?


----------



## ConanHub

Faithful Wife said:


> You understand that YOU have P*ssy Power though, right? You understand the meaning and what having that power feels like?


I am perpetually stuck in the gravitational field of Mrs. Conan's shapely ass.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

ConanHub said:


> I am perpetually stuck in the gravitational field of Mrs. Conan's shapely ass.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Ha, so funny....my H has said nearly those exact same words to me. He says it is so big you can see it from space...and he means this as a compliment.


----------



## Holland

Brigit said:


> For the record I don't get this whole power of the co*k/pus*y thing but I find it very entertaining.


Well for me it is a good mix of the visual, love, adoration, fun and feeling free enough to completely allow myself to be under the spell of a man that I feel safe with.

I am a very visual woman but when looking at porn or naked men that I don't care about I am more attracted to other areas, chest, strong arms and shoulders, legs of steel, the d.ick part is not what I concentrate on. But the man that has my heart and I feel safe with, well let's just say the visual of seeing his d.ick makes my head spin.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> You know, that's probably what surprises me the most about women's preference status. While it's true some studies show little or no income attraction bias for women of higher income, most still show those women having an attraction bias for it. Other surveys show that most high income women still don't want to be the top earner. Kinda strange.


I really don't want to be the breadwinner. It just is. My H has a good job and a great work ethic, I just earn more because of a real estate move I made before meeting him. 

I do know this. I am lazy man averse.

I am also averse to the man who won't protect me. Its one of the main reason my ex and I split.

My H does protect me. He went tjrough a season of poor decision, but he from day one has been a dragon slayer for me and has stood in the gap many times. Even protects me from myself...


----------



## Faithful Wife

Blossom....is your husband physically attractive to you?


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Holland said:


> Well for me it is a good mix of the visual, love, adoration, fun and feeling free enough to completely allow myself to be under the spell of a man that I feel safe with.
> 
> I am a very visual woman but when looking at porn or naked men that I don't care about I am more attracted to other areas, chest, strong arms and shoulders, legs of steel, the d.ick part is not what I concentrate on. But the man that has my heart and I feel safe with, well let's just say the visual of seeing his d.ick makes my head spin.


That and a man's hands... Omg... Drives me nuts. My husbands hands are gorgeous and their feel is out of this world.


----------



## Brigit

Holland said:


> Well for me it is a good mix of the visual, love, adoration, fun and feeling free enough to completely allow myself to be under the spell of a man that I feel safe with.
> 
> I am a very visual woman but when looking at porn or naked men that I don't care about I am more attracted to other areas, chest, strong arms and shoulders, legs of steel, the d.ick part is not what I concentrate on. But the man that has my heart and I feel safe with, well let's just say the visual of seeing his d.ick makes my head spin.


So basically it's being influenced by the attractive qualities of another? For a while there it seemed like some movement of being attracted to genitalia.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Faithful Wife said:


> Blossom....is your husband physically attractive to you?


Very!


----------



## Faithful Wife

Blossom Leigh said:


> Very!


And would you still be into him if he was not lazy, but also he wasn't VERY attractive to you?


----------



## Brigit

Blossom Leigh said:


> My H does protect me. He went tjrough a season of poor decision, but he from day one has been a dragon slayer for me and has stood in the gap many times. Even protects me from myself...


He sounds like a good man Blossom. 

Congrats!


----------



## Holland

Brigit said:


> So basically it's being influenced by the attractive qualities of another? For a while there it seemed like some movement of being attracted to genitalia.


Sorry Brigit I don't quite get what you are asking, saying.


----------



## Brigit

Blossom Leigh said:


> That and a man's hands... Omg... Drives me nuts. My husbands hands are gorgeous and their feel is out of this world.


I actually have a thing about large hands. My husband has nice big hands with long fingers.


----------



## Brigit

Holland said:


> Sorry Brigit I don't quite get what you are asking, saying.


The "power" concept is just a way of saying that if you find someone attractive it has great influence on your behavior towards them. A good looking male has power over you...not his penis. 

Right?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Brigit said:


> The "power" concept is just a way of saying that if you find someone attractive it has great influence on your behavior towards them and a good looking male has power over you...not his penis.
> 
> Right?


Brigit....do you feel you have P*ssy Power?

Do you know what having that power feels like, when a man is under that spell?


----------



## Jellybeans

Faithful Wife said:


> Or more specifically....would you still want to f*ck him if he wasn't physically attractive to you but he did provide for you and slay dragons?


Oh hellll no. Women need to feel attracted to their men. I seriously wouldn't be able to stomach screwing a guy I'm not attracted to. I am not built that way. 



Faithful Wife said:


> Ha, so funny....my H has said nearly those exact same words to me. He says it is so big you can see it from space...and he means this as a compliment.


:smthumbup:"


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> The studies are appropriate to questions they are asking about what is attractive. What people actually got is a different question of much wider scope.
> 
> If we show representative samples of women pictures of men and their careers, swapping the careers among the men for different audiences, we can show whether career choice is a statistically significant influence on perceived attractiveness. It is not only significant, it is strong.
> 
> There are no other variables in this narrow question. So I'm not going to chase down your reframing of the question.


Attractiveness is *not* that simple. I don't know why this is so difficult for you to understand. :scratchhead:

I mean, I quite understand why you want to reduce it to just a couple of variables, but then to pretend that now that you've eliminated all the rest, they are no longer relevant?

That's both shortsighted and dishonest, particularly from a knowledge-development point of view.


----------



## Holland

Brigit said:


> The "power" concept is just a way of saying that if you find someone attractive it has great influence on your behavior towards them. *A good looking male has power over you...not his penis. *
> 
> Right?


No not really. I like the look of attractive men but that alone holds no power. 

The power he has is because he (my partner) is of high value. Yes he is a very attractive, sexy, handsome man but he has much more, he has high EQ, is respectful, loving, adoring, treats me well, I know I am safe emotionally and physically with him. He is confident, not misogynistic and does not buy into this RP crap, he can get a women simply by virtue of who he is, a very good, decent man.

That is why I think a lot of this RP stuff is very counter productive in an already established relationship. I am a high value woman, being treated like crap would have the opposite effect that the RPers would like, I would kick his sorry arse to the curb and not look back.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening all
the problem is that some of the red pill ideas are so outrageous that its hard to tell if people are taking them seriously or just being sarcastic.

If always_alone feels that she is just an interchangeable 'thing' then she needs to find someone who will value her. Heck, I've never met her and I value her far more than that.

Some people (not me) thought she was being sarcastic because the original statement was so far off the curve. 





Faithful Wife said:


> But Deejo....she wasn't being sarcastic in that one. She really feels that way about herself. She struggles to NOT feel that way, and books like MMSL just reinforce to her that she should feel that way.


----------



## Faithful Wife

always_alone said:


> Attractiveness is *not* that simple. I don't know why this is so difficult for you to understand. :scratchhead:
> 
> I mean, I quite understand why you want to reduce it to just a couple of variables, but then to pretend that now that you've eliminated all the rest, they are no longer relevant?
> 
> That's both shortsighted and dishonest, particularly from a knowledge-development point of view.


Honey....you know this isn't going anywhere but round and round. 

I think it is pretty obvious why he clings so tight to his belief system.


----------



## Brigit

Faithful Wife said:


> Brigit....do you feel you have P*ssy Power?
> 
> Do you know what having that power feels like, when a man is under that spell?


I feel like I'm able to control men with my looks. 

(I know that sounds bad.)


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Faithful Wife said:


> And would you still be into him if he was not lazy, but also he wasn't VERY attractive to you?




I think it would be a struggle and would kill my affection eventually. His work drive is part of what not only attracted me to him but caused me to fight for us when he couldnt


----------



## Faithful Wife

Brigit said:


> I feel like I'm able to control men with my looks.
> 
> (I know that sounds bad.)


Ok well that's pretty much it....but it isn't your "looks" when it comes right down to the wire, is it? It is that a guy wants inside of you and if he thinks this is a possibility he will give up all his personal power just to do so. At some point, some men when they're getting really close to the goal will start to salivate (besides the obvious indication of your P*ssy Power, having an erection).

Now....do you ever feel this yourself for a guy?

It is ok if the answer is no, I think some women really never feel the same way.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Brigit said:


> I actually have a thing about large hands. My husband has nice big hands with long fingers.


Girl... You and me both. That sounds like my H. Slurp...


----------



## Faithful Wife

Blossom Leigh said:


> I think it would be a struggle and would kill my affection eventually. His work drive is part of what not only attracted me to him but caused me to fight for us when he couldnt


I think you got my question wrong.

I was responding to your statement you couldn't be attracted to a man who is lazy.

Check.

But let's say he is not lazy and in fact very industrious, but he was not physically attractive to you?

Is industrious and not lazy and slaying dragons, alone without also being attractive, enough for you?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Blossom Leigh said:


> Girl... You and me both. That sounds like my H. Slurp...


Me three!


----------



## Holland

Four

The txts of your H crushing things with his strong hands is about one of the hottest things I have read on TAM FW


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Brigit said:


> He sounds like a good man Blossom.
> 
> Congrats!


Thank you ...not everyone around here would agree with you, but his determination to get past his downfall has amazed me.


----------



## Brigit

Holland said:


> No not really. I like the look of attractive men but that alone holds no power.
> 
> The power he has is because he (my partner) is of high value. Yes he is a very attractive, sexy, handsome man but he has much more, he has high EQ, is respectful, loving, adoring, treats me well, I know I am safe emotionally and physically with him. He is confident, not misogynistic and does not buy into this RP crap, he can get a women simply by virtue of who he is, a very good, decent man.
> 
> That is why I think a lot of this RP stuff is very counter productive in an already established relationship. I am a high value woman, being treated like crap would have the opposite effect that the RPers would like, I would kick his sorry arse to the curb and not look back.


Your partner sounds amazing. Nice!

I can tell you right now if I asked my husband if he knew who Athol Kay was or anything about a red pill he'd have no clue. He has no time or interest in that crap. He just came back from work. He's in the shower. When he gets out we are going to eat dinner, watch TV then go to bed. After working a full day and sitting in traffic all he wants to do is eat and relax. That's it.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Brigit said:


> I feel like I'm able to control men with my looks.
> 
> (I know that sounds bad.)


I've been able to do the same, among other ways.


----------



## Brigit

Faithful Wife said:


> Ok well that's pretty much it....but it isn't your "looks" when it comes right down to the wire, is it? It is that a guy wants inside of you and if he thinks this is a possibility he will give up all his personal power just to do so. At some point, some men when they're getting really close to the goal will start to salivate (besides the obvious indication of your P*ssy Power, having an erection).
> 
> Now....do you ever feel this yourself for a guy?
> 
> It is ok if the answer is no, I think some women really never feel the same way.


I don't think so but I do get flustered around men I'm attracted to.


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> I cannot recall a single post made by a man here, not one, stating that "You should keep your wife topped off with sperm."
> 
> I understand yours and the points of the others expressing their distaste for that message.
> 
> My point is, there aren't men here vociferously broadcasting the message you don't like.
> .


Maybe not so much the sperm top-off line, but I see plenty of posts here that absolutely spread the messages I don't like, including that

-women are hypergamous, and looking always to upgrade
-women don't know what they want and cannot be trusted
-women are irrational, and incapable of understanding logic and reason
-women are interchangeable, and the only relevant question is how much you have to pay for what quality of sex.

Granted, a lot of those posters get themselves banned (thankfully). But there's still a lot around. And I've been banned trying to call it out.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Faithful Wife said:


> I think you got my question wrong.
> 
> I was responding to your statement you couldn't be attracted to a man who is lazy.
> 
> Check.
> 
> But let's say he is not lazy and in fact very industrious, but he was not physically attractive to you?
> 
> Is industrious and not lazy and slaying dragons, alone without also being attractive, enough for you?


I don't think so. I'm pretty visual, but it would to a degree. Just not sure it could take me all the way.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

I don't know if all women experiance p*ssy power but I think in the right relationship, both people are under the spell of the other.


----------



## Jellybeans

Brigit said:


> A lazy man no matter how attractive would be considered a "dead-beat."


:iagree: A lazy man is a big fat turn off for me.



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> TBH, I don't think it's actually money that is what women really go for. It's industriousness. Capability. A man that overcomes obstacles, makes things work and gets sh*t done.
> 
> Most unattractive guy in the world? The lazy one. He can be physically hot as all get out, but if he's lazy nobody is going to want him, even for just sex (what woman wants a lazy lover?)


Well, I agree with this. A GREAT way to turn me off is by being a lazy, unproductive, unambitious, has-no-goals man. But that's also probably largely because it's not the kind of person I am either.


----------



## Jellybeans

Faithful Wife said:


> But let's say he is not lazy and in fact very industrious, but he was not physically attractive to you?
> 
> Is industrious and not lazy and slaying dragons, alone without also being attractive, enough for you?


Nope nope nope.

SlowlyGoingCrazy got it right. Mutual attraction is essential.

I sincerely cannot imagine a relationship where one partner isn't attracted to the other, especially if they knew it beforehand and just stay the course that way. What is the fun in that?


----------



## Brigit

always_alone said:


> Maybe not so much the sperm top-off line, but I see plenty of posts here that absolutely spread the messages I don't like, including that
> 
> -women are hypergamous, and looking always to upgrade
> -women don't know what they want and cannot be trusted
> -women are irrational, and incapable of understanding logic and reason
> -women are interchangeable, and the only relevant question is how much you have to pay for what quality of sex.
> 
> Granted, a lot of those posters get themselves banned (thankfully). But there's still a lot around. And I've been banned trying to call it out.


Those guys sound like nut jobs. I wouldn't worry about it.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

always_alone said:


> Maybe not so much the sperm top-off line, but I see plenty of posts here that absolutely spread the messages I don't like, including that
> 
> -women are hypergamous, and looking always to upgrade
> -women don't know what they want and cannot be trusted
> -women are irrational, and incapable of understanding logic and reason
> -women are interchangeable, and the only relevant question is how much you have to pay for what quality of sex.
> 
> Granted, a lot of those posters get themselves banned (thankfully). But there's still a lot around. And I've been banned trying to call it out.


:iagree:
I've seen all these too and I think it chases away both women and men


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Brigit said:


> Those guys sound like nut jobs. I wouldn't worry about it.


The problem is when there's so much of it. If it was just 1 or 2 posters that you see and shake your head at and move on, it would be fine. But don't even bother going to CWI, you can't read one thread without hearing what wh*res women really are. SIM can get rocky but luckily there is also a great group of posters there to balance things out. 

There comes a point where there's no room for any other opinion when there are so many jumping on the idea that most men are just pushovers with crappy wives who married them for money and are probably already cheating on them. 
Seriously, even a few times I saw the man who post admit they've been crappy husbands and are trying to fix things, and people still jumped on his wife's a b*tch and he needs mmslp. 

Not all threads, a lot do have really good discussion but there's enough of the other that it becomes an issue.


----------



## RoseAglow

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Sorry, I can see how I wasn't clear. Put as accurately as I can, a minority of studies I've read show little to no income attraction bias in high income females. The majority do show it. I'm just trying be fair and qualify that the picture may be less certain for high income females. It's not a perfect record.


Thanks for the clarification. 



> I really think it will. I'm not certain it's what women would ideally want, but I am pretty certain it's what will happen. Women are outnumbering men in higher education if I'm not mistaken. Bastions of high income males are seeing more and more females - even tech and engineering (law and medicine tipped female awhile back I think). Society is gradually acknowledging "equal pay for equal work" and legislation like Lilly Ledbetter, and decrying glass ceilings.


Yes, more women than men are going to college. I thought women had the edge in medicine, too, but it's very close to 50-50 with slightly more men, I think the latest numbers were 2012? Doesn't really change the overall point though. More women are going to be "high income". 



> My intuition tells me it isn't really going to make anyone truly unhappy, but that the increasingly rare higher income males will just become more a premium - even more desirable relative to other men. I'm just totally guessing though.


It's hard to predict what will happen. Women are getting more college degrees, and at the same time, manufacturing and construction is coming back to the US. The jobs are much more complicated now and make a good salary. Trades still make a good salary and that work can't be out-sourced. 

Another trend of interest is that marriage rates are increased for people with college degrees and declining for those without. So that's another intersection of education, finances, etc.

These are interesting times, for sure.


----------



## Personal

ScrambledEggs said:


> This probably describes my marriage all to well. From the very start. Have you heard of anyone else not having sex on their wedding night because she was tired? Yes, I was an idiot, but I am not going to pretend that was normal or anywhere close to healthy anymore.


Although my wife and I had sex on our wedding night 16 years and 1 day ago.

It was pretty crap, we were both tired, my wife had at least 4652 bobby pins in her hair that needed removal first, plus my wife had developed welts on her legs as well (courtesy of the pull up stockings that didn't require suspenders she was wearing).

We'd already been having sex for almost three years, plus we made up for it on a tropical island honeymoon so it all worked out in the end.


----------



## Personal

Faithful Wife said:


> Manipulation works on a lot of people.


Yes it does!

For many years (working in Army PSYOPS and the media) I made a living manipulating people.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Personal said:


> Although my wife and I had sex on our wedding night 16 years and 1 day ago.
> 
> It was pretty crap, we were both tired, my wife had at least 4652 bobby pins in her hair that needed removal first, plus my wife had developed welts on her legs as well (courtesy of the pull up stockings that didn't require suspenders she was wearing).
> 
> We'd already been having sex for almost three years, plus we made up for it on a tropical island honeymoon so it all worked out in the end.


Right? We didn't have sex on our wedding night either. We'd been together for 6 years and had been living together for 1. We'd had lots of sex, but on our wedding night we were tired.

We got to it a couple of days later.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Personal

Faithful Wife said:


> Lila said:
> 
> 
> 
> Question about the Power of C**k/Pv**y
> 
> Do you think that this power is unique to the individual and would be equally as powerful on anyone?
> 
> -or-
> 
> Do you think it affects one or both partners in a couple as a result of a mutually compatible pairing?
> 
> 
> 
> Well in some couples, it is obvious only one or the other has the power in this sense.
> 
> I think there are some people who are not influenced by this power at all, both men and women.
> 
> So no, I don't think there is anyone who has that power that would work on anyone/everyone....some people are simply not influenced by sex or attraction at all.
> 
> I think in couples like my H and I where there is strong mutual sexual attraction and chemistry, the power is totally balanced.
> 
> Some people are quite susceptible to being manipulated by this power and some aren't susceptible to it at all.
> 
> For instance my H is not susceptible to manipulation this way, EVER. He is susceptible to the power of it and that power does influence him, but not if the power is used as manipulation. If I even tried to manipulate him that way, he'd laugh in my face.
Click to expand...

I think some people have that power far more than others do and I agree that power doesn't work on everyone either.

I have not had sex with anyone who has ever had that power over me at all, yet I have had that power over almost all others I have bedded.

The scary thing is, if it wasn't for the fact I got hurt the way I did emotionally when I was a young man, I probably would have been inclined to abuse that power manipulatively. It's not nice to consciously choose to hurt someone and it's not nice to play with them because you can. I carry a burden of ending every sexual relationship I have ever had, despite the fact everyone of them at the time never wanted it to end

I've always known the exact moment when having sex I had hooked a woman into vociferously wanting more of what I could do. 

This hasn't happened with everyone, yet it has happened with most and it's more than just bringing them to orgasm (orgasm is easy), I can't even describe it very well. It's a moment where their responses change while playing and it's like they fall into a place of absolute comfort and a wanting hunger that is so powerful.

Although I am an atheist this may seem counter to that yet I can't describe it any better, it is as if we mesh and I feel like I become them inside of them and they become me and we are so deeply connected yet what I am feeling is I am reading their being and how they feel and how they respond, yet I always remain in absolute control of myself and how I feel, I love it though, I enjoy the power I have and how it makes them feel when this happens.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Personal said:


> I have not had sex with anyone who has ever had that power over me at all, yet I have had that power over almost all others I have bedded.


Not even your wife?


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Personal said:


> I think some people have that power far more than others do and I agree that power doesn't work on everyone either.
> 
> I have not had sex with anyone who has ever had that power over me at all, yet I have had that power over almost all others I have bedded.
> 
> The scary thing is, if it wasn't for the fact I got hurt the way I did emotionally when I was a young man, I probably would have been inclined to abuse that power manipulatively. It's not nice to consciously choose to hurt someone and it's not nice to play with them because you can. I carry a burden of ending every sexual relationship I have ever had, despite the fact everyone of them at the time never wanted it to end
> 
> I've always known the exact moment when having sex I had hooked a woman into vociferously wanting more of what I could do.
> 
> This hasn't happened with everyone, yet it has happened with most and it's more than just bringing them to orgasm (orgasm is easy), I can't even describe it very well. It's a moment where their responses change while playing and it's like they fall into a place of absolute comfort and a wanting hunger that is so powerful.
> 
> Although I am an atheist this may seem counter to that yet I can't describe it any better, it is as if we mesh and I feel like I become them inside of them and they become me and we are so deeply connected yet what I am feeling is I am reading their being and how they feel and how they respond, yet I always remain in absolute control of myself and how I feel, I love it though, I enjoy the power I have and how it makes them feel when this happens.


I had that with someone and chose to walk away because he became my drug and I knew I would take it too far and injury myself to get his hit. Not good.


----------



## Personal

Faithful Wife said:


> Not even your wife?


Not even!

That said, (despite that?) I love her so very deeply and lustfully. She really does move me, yet when it comes to sex I have never been led or felt a desire to follow.

The issue for me I suppose is I have never been a person who gives up all control, perhaps because I am naturally dominant (although I don't buy all of this alpha crap because my dominance isn't black & white).


----------



## Faithful Wife

Personal said:


> Not even!
> 
> That said, (despite that?) I love her so very deeply and lustfully. She really does move me, yet when it comes to sex I have never been led or felt a desire to follow.
> 
> The issue for me I suppose is I have never been a person who gives up all control, perhaps because I am naturally dominant (although I don't buy all of this alpha crap because my dominance isn't black & white).


That makes me kinda sad for you....simply because it feels so good to let go and to feel that power overcome you.

Also a little sad for your wife, because having the power over someone (especially someone you love) feels amazing, too.


----------



## chillymorn

Yawn !
I got the power!
Crazy.

Still isn't go to stop anyone from suggesting mmslp!


----------



## Faithful Wife

chillymorn said:


> Yawn !
> I got the power!
> Crazy.
> 
> Still isn't go to stop anyone from suggesting mmslp!


If you have the Power of C*ck you definitely don't need MMSL. Duh.


----------



## Personal

Faithful Wife said:


> That makes me kinda sad for you....simply because it feels so good to let go and to feel that power overcome you.
> 
> Also a little sad for your wife, because having the power over someone (especially someone you love) feels amazing, too.


Thanks and I get that, and I might add I'm learning to be more open so maybe (hopefully) I'll get there with my wife.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Personal said:


> Thanks and I get that, and I might add I'm learning to be more open so maybe (hopefully) I'll get there with my wife.


Don't you ever just look at her and feel overwhelmed with lust and that feeling of just needing to be with her sexually?

Don't you ever have her strip for you and tease you until you have to throw her on the floor?


----------



## MountainRunner

Faithful Wife said:


> Don't you ever have her strip for you and tease you until you have to throw her on the floor?


Hell...I do that for her myself! Got my G-String and everythang! 

She used to, but since her injuries have gotten worse, her mobility has been greatly diminished. The sex is still great, I just assume the dominant role all the time now. I miss the old days sometimes, but I don't mind being the dominant as it comes naturally for me I guess.


----------



## FizzBomb

MountainRunner said:


> Hell...I do that for her myself! Got my G-String and everythang!


:smthumbup: I imagine you'd cut a fine figure too


----------



## Faithful Wife

If you know what I'm talkin' bout....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BRv9wGf5pk


----------



## MountainRunner

Faithful Wife said:


> If you know what I'm talkin' bout....
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BRv9wGf5pk


Good tune, but this is the last tune I used for my last routine for my wife...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hhu-OyHqZM


----------



## EleGirl

MountainRunner said:


> Good tune, but this is the last tune I used for my last routine for my wife...
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hhu-OyHqZM


Looks like a nightmare.


----------



## Faithful Wife

So I have a theory about The Powers (the power of C and the power of P)....

Not everyone has experienced this. Some because they don't choose to or wish to. Some because they just aren't very sexual or don't enjoy being sexual. Some because they are very introverted and would never "put themselves out there" like that, even in a committed relationship. Some have never felt this power because they been with only one partner (or very few) and that partner(s) never indicated they had this type of power over them.

In the easiest terms possible, The Powers would be the very thing that draws people to pay to see other people naked...both men and women pay and get paid for this. That feeling of lust will definitely pull dollar bills out of your pocket if you _let it_. I do think though that men having involuntary boners is a stronger feeling for them than sexual arousal is for women....though I also believe this is simply due to conditioning. This is becoming more and more evident. (Ie: women condition themselves not to feel that strong arousal, they douse it out in adolescence).

But we all have will power to condition ourselves further. Some people feel involuntary arousal but choose to dampen it, ignore it, and just move on with their day, instead of becoming fixated on the arousal. Or we may have to do this in one part of our lives but not in other parts (like if you dampen your involuntary sexual arousal when in a monogamous relationship and you feel it for someone other than your partner, but then whenever you are with your partner you let your arousal blossom and expand). 

Or some people are single and voluntarily celibate, and they may get very good at conditioning their sexual responses, until they only have them when they feel it is appropriate.

People do this all the time.

We have control over who gets power over us.

Here is where it gets complicated...

It is more than involuntary arousal. It is a pull, a draw, an nameless urge...when I feel my husband's power over me, I immediately want to throw my arms around his neck. I want to be on him. It is like a completely natural and primal thing to do, and my lady bits start swelling and all that occurs too....but it is *more* than that...that's secondary to this inner feeling.

Some people could have this power over you, but you never go there. Like if someone you are around but cannot ever be with (maybe you're both married or other circumstance) has this kind of power over you (both the bodily and the inner stuff) you can still choose to dampen it, not focus on it, and just not go there. 

So we always have control of our own power. But we sense these other people who spike us in a way that we feel a jolt of their power or potential power over us.

Holland wrote a great post about The Power of Sex where I think she was talking about essentially the same thing I'm talking about here.

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/ladies-lounge/251081-power-sex.html

Ok I guess that wasn't really a theory, it was more of a diatribe. 

If you haven't experience this kind of power, I hope you get to. Having the power is amazing, but feeling his power over me is even more so. When I'm really feeling it, it feels like a spiritual experience.


----------



## MountainRunner

EleGirl said:


> Looks like a nightmare.


It's a good tune to dance to though. The whole...

"I know you want whats on my mind" can be really nice and "dirty" if'n ya get what I'm sayin. *grin*

Tell me a woman doesn't appreciate a "hunky" man "performing" for her and presenting to her what she is "thinking" and I'm gonna have to call you on your own paradigm(s) FW.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Some women love it, some wouldn't love it so much. I'm pretty sure all the married women on this thread would love it. 

There's going to be a very wide range of tastes in music and what we want our man to wear for us, however. We're definitely not all on the same page that way.


----------



## MountainRunner

Faithful Wife said:


> If you haven't experience this kind of power, I hope you get to. Having the power is amazing, but feeling his power over me is even more so. When I'm really feeling it, it feels like a spiritual experience.


I love it when she succumbs to me...in return, I will fulfill her every wish and desire.


----------



## FizzBomb

Faithful Wife said:


> If you know what I'm talkin' bout....
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BRv9wGf5pk


Love this song. 

Reminds me of the movie with that hunky dark haired actor in it. They play that song in one scene. Can't remember his name - used to be in Moonlighting with Cybil Shepherd.

Ok, it's Bruce Willis in Hudson Hawke.


----------



## Brigit

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> The problem is when there's so much of it. If it was just 1 or 2 posters that you see and shake your head at and move on, it would be fine. But don't even bother going to CWI, you can't read one thread without hearing what wh*res women really are. SIM can get rocky but luckily there is also a great group of posters there to balance things out.
> 
> There comes a point where there's no room for any other opinion when there are so many jumping on the idea that most men are just pushovers with crappy wives who married them for money and are probably already cheating on them.
> Seriously, even a few times I saw the man who post admit they've been crappy husbands and are trying to fix things, and people still jumped on his wife's a b*tch and he needs mmslp.
> 
> Not all threads, a lot do have really good discussion but there's enough of the other that it becomes an issue.


I understand what you're saying. I spend a lot of time in the CWI section since that's why I joined. Right now I'm getting some nice support there but if I start getting hit with too much "wh0re" banter I'll leave. 

It's funny, the media with it's push on beauty, all of "Devil's" talk on this thread about female attractiveness being number one and Red Pill info. of getting an attractive woman and then brainwashing her so she doesn't think she's attractive makes me think. If women are being told they must be beautiful and that beauty is time limited then isn't cheating on your mate a natural consequence. If when your beauty goes you'll have nothing then wouldn't it be in one's best interest to gather as many men now before it all goes to sh*t.

I just looked at the authors forum. From the discussions I read it sounded like typical psychological BDSM. Also, those men are spending all their time trying to figure out how to _handle_ their woman. The reason why some of his stuff might be helpful to men is because of the natural change in their behavior. Those men are watching and thinking about every single thing their wife does. They analyze their behavior to see if their wife is responding. Her reactions to her husband are primary importance for these men so obviously they are giving their wives TONS of attention. The wives might respond favorably because now they're being showered with all this attention. My husband doesn't have time to worry about being Alpha enough. He works hard, that's plenty Alpha.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Faithful Wife said:


> So I have a theory about The Powers (the power of C and the power of P)....
> 
> Not everyone has experienced this. Some because they don't choose to or wish to. Some because they just aren't very sexual or don't enjoy being sexual. Some because they are very introverted and would never "put themselves out there" like that, even in a committed relationship.* Some have never felt this power because they been with only one partner (or very few) and that partner(s) never indicated they had this type of power over them.*


 I posted on Hollands thread, I understand this..having only been with one man... would I allow a man who was going to just USE me for a romp to have this over Me.. absolutely not! .... I was in control of myself and knew what I wanted in a relationship... My husband has always felt when a man is so into a woman, she has the capability to have "power' over them. Some may say that makes a man "weak" but I don't necessarily think so.. I never abused it...I was "true" to him and had right intentions.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

I can't like your post because it's heartbreaking Blonde but I think you make a really good point about it feeling powerless instead of powerful. 
I can really relate to not having that deep connection feeling too.


----------



## always_alone

Blonde said:


> DD20 was talking about how often she is hit on and stalked and how she hates it. She's good looking. When I was a teenager/20's I got way too much of that kind of attention too. Not only that but I was molested several times beginning in 7th grade. So I started wearing baggy clothing and when I walked around the high school, I would hold my books in front of my chest like a shield.
> 
> That sure did not *feel* like "power". It felt like powerlessness and vulnerability.


Absolutely agree that it is a double-edged sword! Having that "power", especially as a woman, can turn you into a target. 

On the flip side, letting another have that power over you can lead to some pretty self-destructive consequences.

It's like fire. Handle with care or you will get burned.


----------



## always_alone

Brigit said:


> Also, those men are spending all their time trying to figure out how to _handle_ their woman. The reason why some of his stuff might be helpful to men is because of the natural change in their behavior. Those men are watching and thinking about every single thing their wife does. They analyze their behavior to see if their wife is responding. Her reactions to her husband are primary importance for these men so obviously they are giving their wives TONS of attention. The wives might respond favorably because now they're being showered with all this attention.


Interesting take! I bet there's some truth to it.


----------



## Deejo

Faithful Wife said:


> So I have a theory about The Powers (the power of C and the power of P)....
> 
> If you haven't experience this kind of power, I hope you get to. Having the power is amazing, but feeling his power over me is even more so. When I'm really feeling it, it feels like a spiritual experience.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> I disagree. It took me like forever to find a guy that I could truly connect to, that I get, that gets me. This is very precious to me.
> 
> Lots of people are reasonably nice, reasonably sane, and reasonably attractive, but there most certainly aren't a lot that you (or at least I) am compatible with for any sort of longer haul.
> 
> One reason why I find it so tragic to think that maybe I'm just a "functional vagina" to him. I mean, sure, he could find another partner if I weren't in the picture -- but I'd like to think that I'm as significant to him as he is to me.


A_A what I meant was that lots of people conform roughly to being a good spouse... I see your point though that this is a pretty wide range and who you can personally connect with is a very small subset of that.

What makes you feel insignificant to him?


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> I agree. I think the idea that a spouse is replaceable is crazy.
> 
> Dug is the father to our children. I have shared 22 years with him. He knew my dad. He understands the problems of my foo. He knew my mom before she was lost to dementia.
> 
> How is he replaceable? That is just crazy.


The point is a harsh one, but it is kinda true.

I mean, Dug will always be Dug and irreplaceable as Dug. But if something terrible happened and you two were no longer together and wanted to find other people, you could.

It's a very meatmarket approach to life, and it's aimed squarely at married men not getting sex, to get them to realize that other women would give them sex.

You can take from that good things or bad things or neutral things, but if you look at it as purely what other people will give to you, it's true.

It's a vanishingly small fraction of the big puzzle of course. As I say, a drowning man fixates on air.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Always and Blonde....yes, I hear you, and I'm so sorry that this is the way you've experienced what I'm talking about.

I don't actually think it is the same thing, though.

There is healthy sexual power, and then there is what you are talking about.

I really don't think they are the same.

The type of power you two are talking about isn't natural, it has been perverted by the mind of the men who viewed or molested you the way you describe. 

I'm sorry that you did not get to experience it in a completely healthy way (though perhaps you have experienced it healthy as well as unhealthy). I have experienced the feel of a dangerous man's intentions and eyes on me and having that knowledge that if one more thing fell in place for this guy, I'd be raped. Instinctually knowing this but never having had it happen, I just know what that threat feels like is all....I'm grateful not to have to know what unwanted sex or touching feels like. 

But the healthy type of power I'm talking about is more like two beautiful animals in nature who simply must be together because they are pulled together like magnets, only add to this the particular emotional richness that (we assume) only humans have, and then those spiritual heights I was talking about.

It is not the same at all as when one person is over come with lust and knows they have physical or emotional power over the other, and then they force themselves upon the other.

The times in my life when I've felt that instinctual fear about a man or group of men, there's nothing lovely in that feeling at all, it is the opposite of lovely.

But the times in my life when I've felt that power passing back and forth between myself and a loving, adoring consensual partner is like one of the best parts of life.

They are two totally separate things. I don't even think they are pulled from the same inner drive.


----------



## Marduk

I wonder if it wouldn't further the conversation to focus it a little.

Here's the table of contents for MMSLP.

Which parts - men and women - do you think
a) work, but need to change
b) work, pretty good as is
c) totally don't work and never will
d) totally don't work but could if fixed
e) so distasteful that I don't care if it works or not?

Part One – What She Really Wants
1. The Body Agenda
2. Alpha and Beta Balance
3. The Alpha Male Traits
4. The Beta Male Traits5. Sex Rank 

Part Two – The Male Action Plan(MAP)

6. The Basics of The MAP
7. Get Control of Your Health
8. “Instigate, Isolate, Escalate”
9. Captain and First Officer 
10. Be a Nice Guy with a Hard Edge
11. Behavior Modification
12. Don’t be a Chump
13. Sexual Judo
14. Variety is the Spice of Wife
15. Ovulation Game
16. Timeline for Using The MAP 

Part Three – The Sexy Moves
17. Kissing
18. Just Bust a Move
19. Man About the House
20. Playful Sex
21. Words of Seduction
22. Sexting
23. Date Night
24. Rough Stuff 

Part Four – When Push Comes ToShove
25. Oneitis
26. Common Mistakes
27. Dealing With Her If She Cheats
28. How to Choose a Wife
29. Marriage 2.0


----------



## Faithful Wife

There's distasteful sh*t on every single page.

So to me, the topics don't actually matter. Every one of the topics could be addressed without saying mean spirited things about women.

But also....anywhere he claims SCIENCE!!!! is the reason for this and that and everything is PROVED BY SCIENCE!!!! is bullsh*t and should be taken out. If instead he said "this is all my theory and my opinion" then I wouldn't care about the evo psyche nonsense at all.


----------



## Marduk

What I'm trying to focus on FW is the distinction between "I don't like it but it could work and how" and "I don't like it and it won't work and why" and "I don't like it and I don't care if it works or not."

Because that last one kinda doesn't help focus the guys that have tried it and had some success, you know?

Trying to inject some feminine wisdom into what some guys like me know gets them laid more. Instead of bumbling around in the masculine dark.


----------



## Ikaika

marduk said:


> I wonder if it wouldn't further the conversation to focus it a little.
> 
> Here's the table of contents for MMSLP.
> 
> Which parts - men and women - do you think
> a) work, but need to change
> b) work, pretty good as is
> c) totally don't work and never will
> d) totally don't work but could if fixed
> e) so distasteful that I don't care if it works or not?
> 
> Part One – What She Really Wants
> 1. The Body Agenda
> 2. Alpha and Beta Balance
> 3. The Alpha Male Traits
> 4. The Beta Male Traits5. Sex Rank
> 
> Part Two – The Male Action Plan(MAP)
> 
> 6. The Basics of The MAP
> 7. Get Control of Your Health
> 8. “Instigate, Isolate, Escalate”
> 9. Captain and First Officer
> 10. Be a Nice Guy with a Hard Edge
> 11. Behavior Modification
> 12. Don’t be a Chump
> 13. Sexual Judo
> 14. Variety is the Spice of Wife
> 15. Ovulation Game
> 16. Timeline for Using The MAP
> 
> Part Three – The Sexy Moves
> 17. Kissing
> 18. Just Bust a Move
> 19. Man About the House
> 20. Playful Sex
> 21. Words of Seduction
> 22. Sexting
> 23. Date Night
> 24. Rough Stuff
> 
> Part Four – When Push Comes ToShove
> 25. Oneitis
> 26. Common Mistakes
> 27. Dealing With Her If She Cheats
> 28. How to Choose a Wife
> 29. Marriage 2.0



Chapter 18

http://youtu.be/N2U9GWhacMY


----------



## Brigit

marduk said:


> I wonder if it wouldn't further the conversation to focus it a little.



I'm very focused on the fact that I think his writing perpetrates abuse towards women. I find him a very sick individual who makes a good living selling sickness.


----------



## Marduk

Brigit said:


> I'm very focused on the fact that I think his writing perpetrates abuse towards women. I find him a very sick individual who makes a good living selling sickness.


OK, I hear you. And I think you're right, with some of it.

Is there anything there at all that works, though?

If you could re-write it, what would you do?


----------



## Brigit

marduk said:


> OK, I hear you. And I think you're right, with some of it.
> 
> Is there anything there at all that works, though?


Perhaps. But so what? It's like having a nice car with a faulty engine.


----------



## Marduk

Brigit said:


> Perhaps. But so what? It's like having a nice car with a faulty engine.


That nice car and faulty engine worked pretty well for me.

I just think it was on the wrong track for my marriage. It helped me get on the right track, though.

I want your wisdom Brigit.


----------



## Brigit

marduk said:


> That nice car and faulty engine worked pretty well for me.
> 
> I just think it was on the wrong track for my marriage. It helped me get on the right track, though.
> 
> I want your wisdom Brigit.


You can have it.  

(Lots of times intellectually wise and emotionally stupid.)


----------



## Faithful Wife

There's no way to separate the sh*t from the non sh*t in that particular book, though, is what I'm saying.

But the guys who have tried and have some success....they have their experiences and nothing I'm saying will take that away either....like Deejo. He was helped by this book (plus others) at a time in his life when he needed it, and my objections to the sh*tty parts don't change this at all. And I'm of course happy for Deejo as a friend, and I'm actually happy for any guy at TAM who gets to a better place with women or just with himself.

I can raise awareness though of the darker aspects of red pill and by extension MMSL without taking any of that away from you all.

For other people reading, they will have more understanding of what is really behind it all. 

I am not the only person speaking out about red pill. Unlike Athol and some of the other authors believe, I do NOT speak out against it because...

*I want men to be blue pill

*I want men to be doormats

*I think women are superior

*Women don't have to have sex

*I don't want men to get ahead in life or seek improvement

These are a few of the reasons I've been accused of being against red pill for in the past, and these reasons are spouted across the internet.

But in actuality, it is just the mean spirited bull sh*t plus the false SCIENCE!!!! charges I am against, and then add in the lengths to which some take red pill....all the way out to rapey PUA crap...these are what I object to.

Instead, I actually DO want men to:

*be manly and lovely

*become awesome lovers

*be sexy

*know what women want

*be their best selves for their own autonomy

*be self-validated and differentiated, but know how to do this and still stay madly in love

I want the same in reverse for women, too. 

I'd love to inject some feminine wisdom into men's minds....I actually do that all the time (TAM is not my only presence on the web)....but in red pill crapola, men are told women don't even know what they want, and don't ask her, she will just make something up. I'm so tired of hearing that one that I just refuse to even participate with anyone who truly believes it and pushes it.

Perhaps some women don't actually know what they want, just as some men don't....to spread this tiny percentage across the whole gender is ridiculous.

I'm a sl*t, straight up. That doesn't mean I have a really high partner count, it means I f*cking love sex. I can tell you guys a lot about what makes a man sexy, what makes sex good for a sl*t like me, and what I DO actually want.

This doesn't mean all women are sl*ts, which is why MMSL doesn't get a pass to say they are. I can say it about myself though and my sisters who are also sl*ts can speak up about what we're after sexually.

There is quite a bit of an audience for this...because many men have never even heard of MMSL or red pill and instead, come straight to sex authors like me for information and advice.


----------



## T&T

always_alone said:


> Maybe not so much the sperm top-off line, but I see plenty of posts here that absolutely spread the messages I don't like, including that


I don't like it either! Not one bit! It's degrading to all women. This is a major turn off for myself when it comes to TAM and yet another reason I stay away from CWI. 



> women are hypergamous, and looking always to upgrade


BS!



> women don't know what they want and cannot be trusted


More BS!



> women are irrational, and incapable of understanding logic and reason


Oh, and more BS!



> women are interchangeable, and the only relevant question is how much you have to pay for what quality of sex.


Nobody would ever be able to replace my wife! BS!!


----------



## Faithful Wife

Ikaika said:


> Chapter 18
> 
> http://youtu.be/N2U9GWhacMY


OMG that was the cutest thing EVER!!!!


----------



## Faithful Wife

We can't accomplish missionary because we have too much of a size difference....but because of this, I love being on top a lot. I can lay right down on him, as you said heart to heart, and let my body and mind spread down all over him and envelope him like love molasses. I wish he could be on top of me but we just can't fit together that way. We do sometimes just lay that way with him on top and just look into each other's eyes or kiss deeply. 

For me.....this feeling of power doesn't always lead up to an O....it is much more mental. The whole experience usually begins with a look, a meeting of eyes. Though sometimes I'm propelled into a deeply powerful sexual moment by simply seeing his naked body unexpectedly.


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> That nice car and faulty engine worked pretty well for me.
> 
> I just think it was on the wrong track for my marriage. It helped me get on the right track, though.
> 
> I want your wisdom Brigit.


It only got you sex, Marduk. And you found out that even for you, that was not enough.

Guys, you need to seek emotional connection with your wives. And a big part of that is earning her trust.

Your wife should not be scared to tell you anything. You should be the first person she thinks to turn to when her heart is hurting. 

Even better, you should see it on her face, just feel it from her, because you have taken the time to really get to know her, really learn who she is at her core.


----------



## Deejo

jld said:


> It only got you sex, Marduk. And you found out that even for you, that was not enough.
> 
> Guys, you need to seek emotional connection with your wives. And a big part of that is earning her trust.
> 
> Your wife should not be scared to tell you anything. You should be the first person she thinks to turn to when her heart is hurting.
> 
> Even better, you should see it on her face, just feel it from her, because you have taken the time to really get to know her, really learn who she is at her core.


I agree with this.

And as a corollary, it is also why I think MOST guys should date a hell of a lot more women than they do before settling on one ... who has earned his trust as well.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Deejo said:


> I agree with this.
> 
> And as a corollary, it is also why I think MOST guys should date a hell of a lot more women than they do before settling on one ... who has earned his trust as well.


I honestly think most marriage problems are due to lack of shopping. We're young, we think we know everything, we think this one person will always stay the same and so will we. We don't bother to look further, or even to allow ourselves to grow a bit more before we just go ahead and jump into marriage.

Some get lucky this way, like SA and a few others here.

But most people aren't that lucky and IMO that's why there's so much divorce.

I don't really think people need to get married so much at all, unless they are going to have kids. But I'm not religious so I don't have that part of it in my heart and mind, I understand for many people, they can't be with someone unless married, so rather than be alone they will definitely marry. It doesn't seem to stop divorces from happening though.

There is a lot more to compatibility in the long term than how you feel in the first 1 year of a relationship.


----------



## Deejo

jld said:


> Some truth to that, Deejo?


I don't know, you'll have to ask all of the guys that I've banned.

I certainly know how some people see it. 

Am I protective of men trying to save or recover their marriages?

Absolutely. To a point.

'Men' in general? Thats a bit of a stretch.

What I find funny, is that there are men here who I think I cater to the ladies.

Here's what I can tell you.

I'm not happy, until your not happy.


----------



## techmom

Deejo said:


> I agree with this.
> 
> And as a corollary, it is also why I think MOST guys should date a hell of a lot more women than they do before settling on one ... who has earned his trust as well.


I feel that women should date a lot before marrying as well. However, women will be judged by what they did with past boyfriends (evident by many posts here by men). The person who they marry may have retroactive jealousy or require that his wife give him everything she did with past lovers, whether she liked it or not. 

So, men still have to own the following:

* they feel validation of their masculinity through sex.
* because of this, they are not able to fully trust their wife because of past lovers
* this causes them to seek out young inexperienced women who they think will naturally validate them because they are their only sexual experience

MMSL caters to men who think this way. The insecure men never had the sexual attention of women, so they felt that the first girl who gave them a smegion of that attention deserved marriage. Then his security in himself is dependent on if she continues to dole out the sexual attention. If she has issues about other things in the marriage does not matter to him as long as the sex continues. Feminine white noise is ignored as mindless drivel.

Once the sex lessens or stops, he goes into red alert...what is wrong? How to fix this? His insecurities resurface, he starts to become that insecure man who was ignored sexually. This is the man who comes to TAM with the story of the withholding LD wife who he does everything for.

Men and women want sex, this is known only to certain people it seems. But to the rest, it seems as if they have to unlock a secret code or become a different person. Because they were never fully loved as who they are.


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> Is there anything there at all that works, though?


This is my take:

There's no real point to re-writing MMSL. As Brigit said it is written by a sick man selling sickness, and once you strip out all that's wrong, there isn't much left. Better to start from scratch.

I've said it before, but I'll say it again: it's important to unpack what you mean by "works." If getting laid is your goal, there are many means to achieve that. Instilling dread will "work", of course it will, because is it exploiting fear and vulnerability. But by playing this game, you (one!) are also fostering resentment. How many women end up saying things like "he only wants me for sex; I'm just a collection of holes to him?" I've seen many male posters here lamenting the fact that their wife views them this way. But if he's instilling dread to exact sex, why wouldn't she feel this way? And what will that mean for the longer term?

My instincts say nothing good. 

So, starting from scratch, the focus should be on the means, on acting authentically and from integrity. Please understand that this doesn't mean never change or improve; it only means that *how* you treat people, how you view them, particularly a long term partner, matters a great deal.

The truth is that no woman I know wants someone who is slavishly catering to her whims, someone that she can walk all over. She wants a relationship with a whole person, one who has his own ideas, thoughts, contributions. There is a need to be a good partner, one who is sensitive to her needs, but there is no need, indeed, it's always a bad thing to be a doormat. 

One common risk in LTR is, I think, complacency. It's easy to fall into a rut where you take each other for granted, and this too is always a bad idea. No one wants to be taken for granted. But when we are sure of someone, we can sometimes fall into that mindset, just as one might fall asleep. In those cases, I do think there is call to "wake" the person up. But instead of dread, I would advocate surprise.

It is my view that as partners we should be doing what we can *for* each other, not digging into hurts and vulnerabilities for behavioral modification purposes. Again, this doesn't mean ignoring one's own needs in the process, it means acting with love, with good intentions, and with healthy means.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Another thing that is very misunderstood is the huge difference in how sexual people are. MMSL, PUA and red pill advice tells men that EVERY women has a secret sl*t inside of her, just waiting to be unlocked by you.

But that's just not true.

Some women DO have this secret inner sl*t.

Some women like me don't keep it a secret, we are proud sl*ts.

Some women do not have much of a sex drive at all.

Some have one during parts of her cycle, but not during other parts.

Some women are sex addicts and are sneaking around doing dirty stuff that would shock most men.

Some women are asexual.

These differences are why no book can claim to teach you to get the panties off all women and it is just stupidity to think we're all exactly the same.

Likewise for men, some MEN simply aren't that sexual. 

Some are very sexual, but are extremely sexually inhibited.

Some are asexual. Some are hyper sexual or sex addicts.

Having a closely matched libido and finding a great partner that fits with you is far more important than trying to figure out how to bang every woman on earth. Or conversely, even if it is your goal to bang as many women as you can, you could still learn from the idea that not every woman has the same goal as you do but some DO and you need to find one who feels the same, instead of trying to dupe a woman who is NOT in it for that game.


----------



## techmom

Faithful Wife said:


> Another thing that is very misunderstood is the huge difference in how sexual people are. MMSL, PUA and red pill advice tells men that EVERY women has a secret sl*t inside of her, just waiting to be unlocked by you.
> 
> But that's just not true.
> 
> Some women DO have this secret inner sl*t.
> 
> Some women like me don't keep it a secret, we are proud sl*ts.
> 
> Some women do not have much of a sex drive at all.
> 
> Some have one during parts of her cycle, but not during other parts.
> 
> Some women are sex addicts and are sneaking around doing dirty stuff that would shock most men.
> 
> Some women are asexual.
> 
> These differences are why no book can claim to teach you to get the panties off all women and it is just stupidity to think we're all exactly the same.
> 
> Likewise for men, some MEN simply aren't that sexual.
> 
> Some are very sexual, but are extremely sexually inhibited.
> 
> Some are asexual. Some are hyper sexual or sex addicts.
> 
> Having a closely matched libido and finding a great partner that fits with you is far more important than trying to figure out how to bang every woman on earth. Or conversely, even if it is your goal to bang as many women as you can, you could still learn from the idea that not every woman has the same goal as you do but some DO and you need to find one who feels the same, instead of trying to dupe a woman who is NOT in it for that game.


Very true. Not every man seeks validation through sex, some see it as a fun activity. 

Imagine that...


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> But the healthy type of power I'm talking about is more like two beautiful animals in nature who simply must be together because they are pulled together like magnets, only add to this the particular emotional richness that (we assume) only humans have, and then those spiritual heights I was talking about.


But is that ***** power and **** power? 

Or is it just the power of sex?

Maybe it's just semantics, but the former terms seem kind of one-sided to me.

That melting into each other where you can hardly tell where one leaves off and the other begins is...well, that's as mutual as it gets.


----------



## john117

Faithful Wife said:


> But also....anywhere he claims SCIENCE!!!! is the reason for this and that and everything is PROVED BY SCIENCE!!!! is bullsh*t and should be taken out. If instead he said "this is all my theory and my opinion" then I wouldn't care about the evo psyche nonsense at all.



Those of us who have gone thru the peer review process in refereed journals, publications, or conferences know the "science" part well. I would be curious to see any and all part of MMSL go thru the rigorous peer review process others have...


----------



## Brigit

john117 said:


> Those of us who have gone thru the peer review process in refereed journals, publications, or conferences know the "science" part well. I would be curious to see any and all part of MMSL go thru the rigorous peer review process others have...


It's a bunch of reckless dangerous crap. I saw the amount of books the guy wrote and the amount of followers on the forum and it's just like any other Cult. Every Cult ends eventually. 

In the meantime, women would do themselves a good service by staying far away from men who like the author and his advice.


----------



## always_alone

Blonde said:


> with Pastor Kay at the pulpit
> 
> _I am a former evangelical Christian so very much understand the perspective there. My move to atheism is kind of off the topic of this blog but *I have done full time Christian work and was generally heading towards pastoral ministry before changing course.* The fact that *what I am doing on this blog is ironically pastoral in feel* (albeit secular in tone) is not lost on me_. -A. Kay ​


Eeep and yikes!!!

Nothing scarier than a self-styled guru.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

I bet he couldn't square his thoughts with the realities of the scriptures. The story behind his shift would be interesting to hear.


----------



## EleGirl

Blossom Leigh said:


> I bet he couldn't square his thoughts with the realities of the scriptures. The story behind his shift would be interesting to hear.


He is an atheist now. I doubt that he cares about squaring anything with the scriptures.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Where FW Is going with this is obvious, but missing the point. No one doubts that any man must meet some minimum bar of attractiveness. But an acceptably physically attractive guy with status will blow away a hotter guy without it. Women simply do not pick the absolute hottest guy they can get. Status has a major attractive influence.


----------



## EleGirl

always_alone said:


> Eeep and yikes!!!
> 
> Nothing scarier than a self-styled guru.


:iagree: No kidding... and there are too many of those out there.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Attractiveness is *not* that simple. I don't know why this is so difficult for you to understand. :scratchhead:
> 
> I mean, I quite understand why you want to reduce it to just a couple of variables, but then to pretend that now that you've eliminated all the rest, they are no longer relevant?
> 
> That's both shortsighted and dishonest, particularly from a knowledge-development point of view.


Any experiments aim is to manipulate a single variable AA. Attraction is indeed more complicated, but whatever other complications exist are not being tested in these experiments. The aim is to determine the influence of status. If he smells bad and women still don't like him is irrelevant. All things being equal, status matters. So whatever other factors exist he is still more attractive for having status than otherwise.


----------



## Brigit

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Where FW Is going with this is obvious, but missing the point. No one doubts that any man must meet some minimum bar of attractiveness. But an acceptably physically attractive guy with status will blow away a hotter guy without it. Women simply do not pick the absolute hottest guy they can get. Status has a major attractive influence.


While I do agree with your POV for the most part there is a key element I think you miss. Women will lower the bar for very attractive charismatic men. 

I had a huge set of rules that I followed for most men but I did meet this one guy who made me throw away the book. If a woman finds a man soooooo sexy and she wants him badly enough she will make excuses for his behavior and or lack of "status." Only very attractive, charismatic men get away with this sh*t.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Where FW Is going with this is obvious, but missing the point. No one doubts that any man must meet some minimum bar of attractiveness. But an acceptably physically attractive guy with status will blow away a hotter guy without it. Women simply do not pick the absolute hottest guy they can get. Status has a major attractive influence.


You're forgetting about a lot of other important factors- like compatability. A lower ranking guy who is compatable with you will win every time in the long run. 

This is where this kind of thinking shoots itself in the foot. 
Get a woman on a superficial level. Just trying to get the highest sex rank you can get based on your own sex rank (and trying to up yours for the best results) and are people really shocked when after the relationship butterflies wear off the sex does too?
There was no substance there. It was all based on trivial things that might matter to initial attraction but don't make a LTR.

My H has all the things that made my initial attraction metre go way up. So much that I approached him and asked him to come home with me (something I had never done before and if you knew me you probably wouldn't believe I even did) 
Did it make for a lasting, loving relationship? Nope. Do we have regular sex? Nope. 
H has been with much higher ranking female than myself, women I would consider 10s. But since the rest of the stuff he wanted wasn't there it didn't last long. 

So if you're just trying to get someone home for the night, this kind of stuff means a lot more, but when you're talking about marriage and LTR it's setting you up for failure IMO.


----------



## Brigit

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> So if you're just trying to get someone home for the night, this kind of stuff means a lot more, but when you're talking about marriage and LTR it's setting you up for failure IMO.


I agree. And when "Devil" speaks of his conquests it sounds a lot like bragging about how many girls he's nailed and how he uses certain tricks to make up for his physical attributes. From his pictures he seems attractive but maybe in person he comes across less or at least feels not so attractive. I understand that feeling. It doesn't matter how many people tell me I'm beautiful I don't see it. 

In any case, marriage is serious business and when you decide you've met "the one" it's hard not to be a skeptical and a bit afraid of what's ahead.


----------



## Lila

Brigit said:


> SlowlyGoingCrazy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if you're just trying to get someone home for the night, this kind of stuff means a lot more, but when you're talking about marriage and LTR it's setting you up for failure IMO.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. And when "Devil" speaks of his conquests it sounds a lot like bragging about how many girls he's nailed and how he uses certain tricks to make up for his physical attributes. From his pictures he seems attractive but maybe in person he comes across less or at least feels not so attractive. I understand that feeling. It doesn't matter how many people tell me I'm beautiful I don't see it.
> 
> In any case, marriage is serious business and when you decide you've met "the one" it's hard not to be a skeptical and a bit afraid of what's ahead.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree with you and SGC more. My personal experiences were counter to much of the PUA goals. I'm not a beautiful woman, probably less than average in looks but higher than average on body, but have never had a problem attracting what most would consider really attractive, successful men for relationships. Note I said relationships because I've never had a ONS. Plenty of partners but no ONS or Two night stands....they were all relationships. I TRIED to have a ONS but it turned into more. 

So how does Red Pill/PUA philosophy explain that? How does my experience reconcile with SMV theory? It doesn't. 

My personality and charisma have always been my most attractive qualities and this is coming straight from the guys I dated. Maybe this is a good thing. It helped me miss out on the PUA b.s.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening
But what is "status"? Different observers will have very different ideas of how to rank the relative status of people. Supreme court judge? Nobel prize winner? Rock star? Olympic athlete? Religious leader? Astronaut? Billionaire? 




DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Where FW Is going with this is obvious, but missing the point. No one doubts that any man must meet some minimum bar of attractiveness. But an acceptably physically attractive guy with status will blow away a hotter guy without it. Women simply do not pick the absolute hottest guy they can get. Status has a major attractive influence.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

I think I caught up in the same trap as so many of the "nice guy" men do. I do get it and the anger and frustration they feel. Because of my low self-esteem and my feeling that because I was not attractive, or high ranking, I had to work harder at everything else (sex however, whenever they wanted, cook and clean with a smile on my face, don't complain, do everything, be the perfect little wife) and it's not sustainable. Eventually I feel used and hurt and didn't find someone who wanted me for me or was compatable and able to meet MY needs. 

Next time, f-it. I'd rather be single. I'm not going to "up my ranking" to find someone. If they don't want me as is, that's fine. I can wait.


----------



## always_alone

Blonde said:


> The Need for Validation
> The traditional concept of manhood is an elusive state to achieve. Most men have only a vague sense of their masculinity and, therefore, continually worry about whether they measure up, and they are quick to become alarmed at the first sign of failure, weakness, or vulnerability. They are programmed to crave validation of their masculinity, and they frequently view women’s bodies as a medium for that validation. This need for validation disempowers them and creates an odd yet
> vitally important inversion of the traditional power relationship between women and men. Despite the fact that they generally have had considerable advantages over women in physical strength and economic and political opportunities, men have frequently felt one-down about sexuality. Although there are multiple ways that women could conceivably validate a man’s masculinity, the avenue critical to most men is the sexual one. When women are envisioned as sexual objects and made the centerpiece of men’s visual world, they become imbued with enormous psychosocial power. They are seen as having invaluable manhood tokens that they may, or may not, choose to dispense. The more physically attractive a woman is, the more validating power she is seen to have Centerfold Syndrome​
> She's _*seen*_ to have validating power.


I was thinking about this more, as it strikes me as a very unhealthy view of masculinity. To completely define yourself in terms of how some random beautiful woman responds to you is practically a recipe for in insecurity, anxiety, and I would imagine, foster a deep resentment of those who are basically holding your identity hostage. 

I mean, I've certainly formed some of my opinions of my desirability by the way that men have treated me, but my identity as a woman was never one "awarded" to me by men. It is up to me to define, and up to me to determine how much "femininity" I choose to pursue. Indeed, it never occurred to me to compete with other women to prove myself more feminine, nor has my sense of self ever been challenged by hints that I'm not feminine enough. That sort of stuff would just make me laugh.

But this whole MMSL attitude of out-alphaing each other, of pumping up some predetermined set of "masculine" traits, of judging men on how many hot chicks they've banged (and just how hot were they?) is making masculine identity and self esteem purely a matter of external validation.

FW said something similar earlier, but I didn't really put the pieces together: MMSL and red pill is even more damaging to men than women because the stereotypes it imposes sets men up to have their worth defined solely by whether the "10" they fancy gives them the time of day.

Sad! No wonder this stuff has so much deep-seated resentment of women!


----------



## tech-novelist

Brigit said:


> While I do agree with your POV for the most part there is a key element I think you miss. Women will lower the bar for very attractive charismatic men.
> 
> I had a huge set of rules that I followed for most men but I did meet this one guy who made me throw away the book. If a woman finds a man soooooo sexy and she wants him badly enough she will make excuses for his behavior and or lack of "status." Only very attractive, charismatic men get away with this sh*t.


On a somewhat related note, I think it is also interesting that murderers, especially famous ones, get "love letters" from hundreds or thousands of women (see Hybristophilia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). Obviously this is not due to status, in the conventional sense anyway!


----------



## always_alone

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> But what is "status"? Different observers will have very different ideas of how to rank the relative status of people. Supreme court judge? Nobel prize winner? Rock star? Olympic athlete? Religious leader? Astronaut? Billionaire?


And not just how you might define status, but what other considerations might be higher on the list. CEO is unarguably a high status position, but what if he is unethical, lacking in integrity, ugly, a narcissistic a$$. So many qualities would so easily over-ride status for pretty much any woman.

People come in whole packages, not as isolated variables.


----------



## jld

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I think I caught up in the same trap as so many of the "nice guy" men do. I do get it and the anger and frustration they feel. Because of my low self-esteem and my feeling that because I was not attractive, or high ranking, I had to work harder at everything else (sex however, whenever they wanted, cook and clean with a smile on my face, don't complain, do everything, be the perfect little wife) and it's not sustainable. Eventually I feel used and hurt and didn't find someone who wanted me for me or was compatable and able to meet MY needs.
> 
> Next time, f-it. I'd rather be single. I'm not going to "up my ranking" to find someone. If they don't want me as is, that's fine. I can wait.


I think you are a beautiful woman, inside and out, SGC. 

I love your honesty. You do not lie to yourself, and you do not protect your husband. That is so healthy.

The only solution I can see for your marriage would either be for you to take firm charge of it, setting a vision, making rules and enforcing them, or to give it up altogether.

I think you are a wonderful woman. I hope you will make the choice to release yourself from this union. Your husband can choose to reform and win you back. Otherwise, I have no doubt a quality man will be thrilled to discover the diamond you truly are.


----------



## john117

always_alone said:


> CEO is unarguably a high status position, but what if he is unethical, lacking in integrity, ugly, a narcissistic a$$. So many qualities would so easily over-ride status for pretty much any woman.



Yet the hamster personality CEO who lived across from us - about $2m/year poor baby - had no problem attracting and maintaining an awesome looking woman. She was so proud that he lived five minutes away from work to be with his family at 5 pm. Most days he was home at 5 and out the door at 510 to the golf course 

He ran his company to the ground and it was taken over - after he secured a golden parachute of course...


----------



## always_alone

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I think I caught up in the same trap as so many of the "nice guy" men do. I do get it and the anger and frustration they feel. Because of my low self-esteem and my feeling that because I was not attractive, or high ranking, I had to work harder at everything else (sex however, whenever they wanted, cook and clean with a smile on my face, don't complain, do everything, be the perfect little wife) and it's not sustainable. Eventually I feel used and hurt and didn't find someone who wanted me for me or was compatable and able to meet MY needs.
> 
> Next time, f-it. I'd rather be single. I'm not going to "up my ranking" to find someone. If they don't want me as is, that's fine. I can wait.



I hear ya! It's quite devastating to feel undesirable or unworthy of love. Even worse to sell out one's soul for some predigested picture or what one *should* be to measure up.

But at the same time, a lot of the *shoulds* are just lies, or hyperbole, or just things that might look desirable on the surface, but come with their own sets of disadvantages. Even those who seem to have it all are no strangers to hurt, pain, rejection. It's part of the human condition.

Best to not worry about it, live as good a life as possible and know that you can look at yourself in the mirror and like what you see.


----------



## snerg

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Sure but when they get the sexually aggressive girl who approaches who she wants, when she wants all of a sudden 5 years later they are dwelling on her past and how much of a slvt she was.
> 
> .


That's a weak man that complains about that "issue"

That's a soft man that would even begin to think this situation is an "issue"

That's a spoiled, bratty man who complains about this lot in life


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> Yet the hamster personality CEO who lived across from us - about $2m/year poor baby - had no problem attracting and maintaining an awesome looking woman. She was so proud that he lived five minutes away from work to be with his family at 5 pm. Most days he was home at 5 and out the door at 510 to the golf course
> 
> He ran his company to the ground and it was taken over - after he secured a golden parachute of course...


So? We can assume he must be awesomely attractive to all women because *a* beautiful woman married him?

Are we to assume that as long as a man obtains his trophy then he's got everything he wants and needs? His relationship is a success? 

Or it doesn't matter at all because he's "proved" to the world what a man he is?

ETA: Indeed even *she* may not find him attractive. I mean, maybe she does really love him, and want him, but maybe she doesn't. If she's just in it for the status/money, it could be that she doesn't care for him at all. These sorts of transactional relationships do exist.


----------



## john117

I'm not generalizing from a single case but the example of ahole wealthy men married to eye candy is the rule where I live - not the exception.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> I'm not generalizing from a single case but the example of ahole wealthy men married to eye candy is the rule where I live - not the exception.


Groovy. So red pill it is, because this is clearly the best possible model for relationships? We should all jump on board? :scratchhead:

I'll stick with "always alone" over that any day, thanks. But you go with whatever makes you happy.


----------



## john117

It doesn't make me anything - I'm just reporting what I see in the land of McMansions, SAHM's with live in nannies, affairs galore, the works.

I know it's not representative of suburbia in general but it does create for some interesting moments....


----------



## Faithful Wife

This was a good opinion piece I felt...it was written after the Roger Elliot murders last summer, but is still true now...

It's time for Reddit to flush the Red Pill


The thing is, all these psychos make any man who takes the red pill seriously look bad. I think decent men need to separate themselves from the whole thing and create a new way of relating to each other and about women, etc.

The crazies have taken over the entire red pill thing at this point.

(brief quote from the article)

To understand how far assumptions about women and men’s entitlement to them can take a deranged mind, I ventured into r/TheRedPill. A stalwart of the storied men’s rights movement, this section of Reddit (or subreddit) is one of its darkest corners, populated by rape apologists, revenge-porn enthusiasts, and those who would justify domestic abuse.

“The only thing that offends a feminist more than the idea of being raped is the idea that no one wants to rape her,” says u/crazy89 in one post. u/horaxical confirms, stating “the best kind of sex to have with a onenight stand is the completely dominant type. She'll thank you for treating her like a wh*re.”

Such discussions are often punctuated by the odd tale of sexual conquest. “I choke most of my one night stands,” says a ‘TRP-Endorsed” post, “hold them down and pound them, make them beg me for permission to cum etc. They go so ****ing wild.”

The forum is a trove of horror stories disguised as men trying to “better” themselves. While there are plenty of posts about “becoming the sort of guy women want to be around,” most members of the subreddit must have a delusional image of what that means: “You’re better than everyone else” is a mantra, and “people who believe they are more important than others are the ones who get ahead in this world” is a sacred truth.

(end quote)

This is what typical red pill men say on reddit. And red pill is behind MMSL, make no mistake about this. I don't care if it is tempered down for the average reader, it is all the same collection of theories and rapey ideas.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> It doesn't make me anything - I'm just reporting what I see in the land of McMansions, SAHM's with live in nannies, affairs galore, the works.


Right, so let's apply a little red pill philosophy:

Woman finds status and wealth immensely attractive, and simply can't resist an a$$hole, so her marrying rich guy CEO is a major coup. 

But wait, she's not happy, she's not turned on by him, she cheats. Strike one.

Well we know for sure she must be cheating with someone even wealthier, with more status, right? Because, you know, hypergamy and all.

Except who she's cheating with is that super sexy, buff young gardener. Or her fitness instructor, or masseuse.
Strike 2.

Then he finds out she's cheating, and kicks her to the curb, and keeps buffing the cute nanny until he can find something younger and hotter. He manages to keep a steady supply of sex going by purchasing it, but knows that no one really cares for him, just his cash.
Strike 3. 

Red pill is out.


----------



## john117

No disagreement - that's pretty much what happens here in McMansion land. If that's the sample that AK used I can see the commonalities 

I have seen men cheat on wife's that were easy 9's with the nanny who's a charity 5. And vice versa, the 9 wife cheating on the 9+ husband (CEO, race car driver) with a charity 5 husband's employee (mechanic). Both instances in the same household actually :lol:


----------



## Brigit

Faithful Wife said:


> Such discussions are often punctuated by the odd tale of sexual conquest. “I choke most of my one night stands,” says a ‘TRP-Endorsed” post, “hold them down and pound them, make them beg me for permission to cum etc. They go so ****ing wild.”


When I hear crap like this it makes me want to shut down my functional vagina for good.


----------



## Holland

Faithful Wife said:


> This was a good opinion piece I felt...it was written after the Roger Elliot murders last summer, but is still true now...
> 
> It's time for Reddit to flush the Red Pill
> 
> 
> The thing is, all these psychos make any man who takes the red pill seriously look bad. I think decent men need to separate themselves from the whole thing and create a new way of relating to each other and about women, etc.
> 
> The crazies have taken over the entire red pill thing at this point.
> 
> (brief quote from the article)
> 
> To understand how far assumptions about women and men’s entitlement to them can take a deranged mind, I ventured into r/TheRedPill. A stalwart of the storied men’s rights movement, this section of Reddit (or subreddit) is one of its darkest corners, populated by rape apologists, revenge-porn enthusiasts, and those who would justify domestic abuse.
> 
> “The only thing that offends a feminist more than the idea of being raped is the idea that no one wants to rape her,” says u/crazy89 in one post. u/horaxical confirms, stating “the best kind of sex to have with a onenight stand is the completely dominant type. She'll thank you for treating her like a wh*re.”
> 
> Such discussions are often punctuated by the odd tale of sexual conquest. “I choke most of my one night stands,” says a ‘TRP-Endorsed” post, “hold them down and pound them, make them beg me for permission to cum etc. They go so ****ing wild.”
> 
> The forum is a trove of horror stories disguised as men trying to “better” themselves. While there are plenty of posts about “becoming the sort of guy women want to be around,” most members of the subreddit must have a delusional image of what that means: “You’re better than everyone else” is a mantra, and “people who believe they are more important than others are the ones who get ahead in this world” is a sacred truth.
> 
> (end quote)
> 
> This is what typical red pill men say on reddit. And red pill is behind MMSL, make no mistake about this. I don't care if it is tempered down for the average reader, it is all the same collection of theories and rapey ideas.


The whole thing is just so disgusting, what sort of a world are we bringing our kids up in? How any person man or woman could support any of this or sugar coat the seriously disgusting parts just because there might be some vaguely good notions in there somewhere is mind blowing.

How any one could say "but yeah there are some good messages in there for men to man up, be better blah blah blah" is reprehensible. Decent men should be standing up and saying "let's demolish this subset, let's be real men, good men and treat women with respect, hell let's treat ourselves with respect".


----------



## Brigit

john117 said:


> No disagreement - that's pretty much what happens here in McMansion land. If that's the sample that AK used I can see the commonalities
> 
> I have seen men cheat on wife's that were easy 9's with the nanny who's a charity 5. And vice versa, the 9 wife cheating on the 9+ husband (CEO, race car driver) with a charity 5 husband's employee (mechanic). Both instances in the same household actually :lol:


..and it's stuff like this that makes me so happy we're not wealthy. Too little money is bad too much money is bad. 

Did you every watch those "Housewives of ...... " shows? They have all this money and their lives suck.


----------



## EllisRedding

Brigit said:


> ..and it's stuff like this that makes me so happy we're not wealthy. Too little money is bad too much money is bad.
> 
> Did you every watch those "Housewives of ...... " shows? They have all this money and their lives suck.


Nah, too much money is never a bad thing, opens up a lot of opportunities/possibilities. If you an a$$hole without money, you will just be a bigger a$$hole with money.


----------



## john117

Their lives shouldn't svck but they often do. They end up competing with their daughters for looks by the time they're in their 40's and then it's a free for all. I was the long guy in the PTO for 15 years and saw what you say. 

Ironically dual income people don't have it much easier. The wives tend to be more "aggressive" (note the quotes ) and much of the advise doe not apply.

The lawns do look nice tho.


----------



## RandomDude

Thinking I should write a book, like Athol's book, but female friendly and unisex. But the royalties probably not worth my time.


----------



## FizzBomb

john117 said:


> No disagreement - that's pretty much what happens here in McMansion land. If that's the sample that AK used I can see the commonalities
> 
> I have seen men cheat on wife's that were easy 9's with the nanny who's a charity 5. And vice versa, the 9 wife cheating on the 9+ husband (CEO, race car driver) with a charity 5 husband's employee (mechanic). Both instances in the same household actually :lol:


I think it is very degrading to rate another human being out of 10. It dehumanises them. 



john117 said:


> It doesn't make me anything - I'm just reporting what I see in the land of McMansions, SAHM's with live in nannies, affairs galore, the works.
> 
> I know it's not representative of suburbia in general but it does create for some interesting moments....


Not picking on you John, but aren't you making some big assumptions here? I've got a picture of you in my head peeping through your front room tyrelene's like an old nosy biddy  

A man posted on this thread a while back (God, this thread is so long I can't keep up with it) saying that if he was just 'himself' ie didn't pretend to be somebody he wasn't - then he wouldn't get anywhere with the opposite sex. I wonder if this man has tried being 'himself' and if not why would he think that just being himself is not good enough? Putting on a false front before marriage is a guaranteed disaster that will end in misery.

If you are misrepresenting yourself to a prospective partner then you get whatever is coming to you. MMSL and red pill folks preach that you need to 'act' a certain way if you are to have any success in landing yourself a woman. What's wrong with being yourself? Don't be an a$$h0le.

FW, those quotes that you took from your investigation's from the red pill reddit site are absolutely horrendous. That some men are buying into this misogynistic trash is unsettling.


----------



## RandomDude

FizzBomb said:


> I think it is very degrading to rate another human being out of 10. It dehumanises them.


Tis just a way for someone to subjectively gauge attractiveness of another. It's easier than saying "ugly, attractive, below average, average, above average, pretty" etc etc...

People will ALWAYS rate another human being, I'm sure you do too, just not out of ten. As for me, I'm gauged out of ten all the time, doesn't bother me one bit.


----------



## Personal

FizzBomb said:


> FW, those quotes that you took from your investigation's from the red pill reddit site are absolutely horrendous. That some men are buying into this misogynistic trash is unsettling.


:iagree:


----------



## FizzBomb

Holland said:


> The whole thing is just so disgusting, what sort of a world are we bringing our kids up in? *How any person man or woman could support any of this or sugar coat the seriously disgusting parts just because there might be some vaguely good notions in there somewhere is mind blowing.*
> 
> *How any one could say "but yeah there are some good messages in there for men to man up, be better blah blah blah" is reprehensible.*


Couldn't agree more. The sad thing about this is that there are some individual's on this very thread doing just that. That they would even think like this about another person/group of people is quite sad and something to be pitied really.


----------



## FizzBomb

RandomDude said:


> Tis just a way for someone to subjectively gauge attractiveness of another. It's easier than saying "ugly, attractive, below average, average, above average, pretty" etc etc...
> 
> People will ALWAYS rate another human being, I'm sure you do too, just not out of ten. As for me, I'm gauged out of ten all the time, doesn't bother me one bit.


Doesn't make it any less degrading though does it. That was a statement by the way, not a question.


----------



## RandomDude

I'm responding to your statement, and as for degrading, I don't look at it that way; as I mentioned, attractiveness is subjective, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. As human beings, we will rate others, no way around it.

If a woman is rated a 5 by someone, and she takes it to heart, then yeah, it can be degrading. 

Also, if she takes it and goes, "I'm not just a number, I'm a person", then she's missed the whole point. People are people sure but numbers help communicate as well as words, and the numbers out of ten does not relate to the person's worth as a human being. 

Also, if a woman has confidence in herself, she'll shrug off the 5 cause she knows just around the corner there's someone who reckons she's a 10, or even more.


----------



## FizzBomb

RandomDude said:


> *People will ALWAYS rate another human being*, I'm sure you do too, just not out of ten. As for me, I'm gauged out of ten all the time, doesn't bother me one bit.


I think you're projecting here RandomDude. Not everyone does this.


----------



## RandomDude

As "always" and "people" are perhaps too strong words in this instance, I'll correct it by saying instead, that "the majority will tend to rate another human being"

Now is that statement something you can deny?


----------



## john117

Fizz, ratings are a fact of life. I don't expect people to run analytics models on the ratings but people do use them. Which is hilarious because humans are not very good with numeric assessments of fundamentally qualitative information from my experience. 

How do I know about my neighbors... Easy. Block parties. Gossip prone neighbors. Moving vans. Google . Pool parties. HOA meetings. Etc etc. The couple in question used to throw epic parties at their house. The lady used to mow the lawn in a bikini. Nothing left to the imagination


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

It's the "charity" 5 part that upset me the most TBH.


----------



## EleGirl

technovelist said:


> On a somewhat related note, I think it is also interesting that murderers, especially famous ones, get "love letters" from hundreds or thousands of women (see Hybristophilia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). Obviously this is not due to status, in the conventional sense anyway!


There are about 3.5 BILLION women in this world. A relatively small number write men in prison.

These women are very often women who have serious mental health and self esteem issues. They tend to be the type who are looking for a project because the only time they feel like they have self worth is when they are "saving" someone. They are also women who cannot seem to find male partner. And the guys in prison are happy to have these women to write to. Unfortunately the men also tend to make big promises and use the women for things like putting money on their prison books.

All women cannot be judged by a relatively few women are do stupid things.

Not any more that all men can be judge because some relatively small percentage of men fall for the red pill stuff.


----------



## john117

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> It's the "charity" 5 part that upset me the most TBH.



Let me see...

On the left corner the nanny from Latvia - Europe  - an undergraduate in psychology at my alma mater of all things - plain face, ho hum body, ho hummest clothes... 

On the right corner, the MILF to end all MILF's... Late 30's, think Farah Fawcet Major, impeccable body after 3 kids, impeccable hair, face, hair, Nordstrom everything. She made J2 and most other women charity single hand finger counts. 

At the men's department...

On the left corner, a 50's semi pudgy mechanic from some expansion country in Central America. Knows his way around exotic vehicles, tattoos galore... 

On the right corner, the husband who made millions in the cellular infrastructure industry, sold the company and invested the proceeds in a local exotic car dealership and car racing. CEO looks and poise, bad boy attitude... 

All rankings are relative incidentally.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Random Dude...Of course lots of men here agree with you, that we're all just a number to you. We get it. We hear it all the time. We understand that is how many men think.

But we are also trying to tell you that some MEN don't think like that. Even really hot men who can pull women without any effort. 

Why?

Because of that thing I mentioned before....

Mutual sexual attraction.

The MUTUAL part is what you are missing in what you are talking about. It doesn't matter what any girl's number is if she isn't attracted to you. 

I get it that some men want a girl whose sex rank number is higher than what he can pull on his own looks alone, that's why men tell themselves they can add points to their own sex rank to up his own rank and hopefully get the girl interested in him enough to over look her own lack of attraction for him.

So that whole subset of emotionally immature men have their corner of the internet to hide out in and trade secrets about how to dupe women into dates or into bed.

But some men will not WANT a woman who isn't as into him, just him and his body and his looks as they are, as he is into her.

We hear all the time that men watch porn to see women enthusiastically wanting sex with a man.

Well, in real life, women do have enthusiastic sex with men (and aren't faking it) when they feel MUTUAL sexual attraction for the man. That's the key that some of these men don't seem to want to turn. Almost like they are saying "well if I am to rely on my looks alone, I may end up with a dog". How sweet, right?

When mutual sexual attraction is there, there's no wondering if she's into you, it is obvious.

Some men don't look at a woman and first off, rank her with a number. They just think "nice, attractive, interesting, I like what I see" and then move in to find out if the feeling is mutual. If it is, there's a feeling there. There's no need for negging and begging. It is a clear mutual feeling. Without that feeling, some men will simply move on...without trying to turn it into something it isn't. Some men do not want sex with a woman who doesn't feel mutual sexual attraction for him. Hard as that is for some to believe.


----------



## ConanHub

Good post FW. Patiently explaining a pretty simple concept.


----------



## RandomDude

:scratchhead:

Erm, FW what's your point? You just wasted a post...

Of course mutual sexual attraction is important, but what does that have to do with numerical ratings; ie "she's a 5", "he's an 8", "she's a 10", etc etc.

These numbers don't have anything to do with "sex rank", I struggle to understand how you came up with it when I mentioned that those numbers are just used to gauge one's subjective opinion of another's attractiveness.

Nor does this have anything to do with "negging and begging" - where did that come from? As for this whole "mutual sexual attraction" lecture, you're preaching common sense to the choir =/


----------



## Faithful Wife

Those numbers you are talking about ARE "sex rank", Random. How can you say they have nothing to do with sex rank? Here, let this do*chebag explain it better than I did:

Boost your sex-rank, for better relationship with women - The Alpha Next Door

If you think spouting off about what number a woman is is just harmless banter that "all men do", you are wrong, that's what my post was about. Some men actually value women for more than their outsides and do not assign her a number....doing so is called SEX RANK.

You don't understand how far the sex rank nonsense goes, apparently.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening all
Hate to go all "math" here, but rating someone on a scale is applying a metric to beauty and I think that is just incorrect. Even for myself there are many cases of women who look very different from each other, but whom I cannot compare in beauty. Then consider that other men will have different preferences. 

Think of food: Does steak taste better than chocolate ice cream, or fresh cherries, or spicy Thai salad, or a glass of fine wine? You cannot compare these things, there is no metric

There are some women I find attractive and some I do not, just as there are foods I like and dislike, but I cannot rate them on some sort of scale. 



RandomDude said:


> Tis just a way for someone to subjectively gauge attractiveness of another. It's easier than saying "ugly, attractive, below average, average, above average, pretty" etc etc...
> 
> People will ALWAYS rate another human being, I'm sure you do too, just not out of ten. As for me, I'm gauged out of ten all the time, doesn't bother me one bit.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good Evening Faithful Wife
Yes- this is absolutely the way I and I suspect many men feel. A huge part of attractiveness is how the other person reacts to you. My opinion of the attractiveness of a women changes a lot as I get to know her. To me beauty is an interactive, not static thing. I can't judge beauty in a static picture - I need to see someone react TO ME to feel attracted.




Faithful Wife said:


> But some men will not WANT a woman who isn't as into him, just him and his body and his looks as they are, as he is into her.
> 
> .


----------



## RandomDude

"The Alpha next door" haha

Now alright, I see where you are coming from, but do you see where I'm coming from:

Note my previous posts; I mentioned how beauty is subjective, and that these numbers are nothing more than a numerical gauge for one to gauge another's beauty. He may rate her a 5 in his head, but another guy around the corner may rate her a 9. 

In a non-numerical sense, he may consider her unattractive, while another guy will. That's all these numbers are, and they are a fact of life. However, it doesn't mean that whoever chooses to simplify their gauges of attraction needs to "up his sex rank" or whatever.

That would be assuming beauty has a universal standard, when we both know that it is not. Types exist, another fact of life.

Anyway, you're reading too much garbage IMO, it's like me diving into hardcore fem-nazi materials and then complaining about women.


----------



## Faithful Wife

RandomDude said:


> Anyway, you're reading too much garbage IMO, it's like me diving into hardcore fem-nazi materials and then complaining about women.


For the 100th time or so, hardcore fem-nazi materials are not bandied about on TAM as relationship advice.


----------



## Faithful Wife

RandomDude said:


> Now alright, I see where you are coming from, but do you see where I'm coming from:
> 
> Note my previous posts; I mentioned how beauty is subjective, and that these numbers are nothing more than a numerical gauge for one to gauge another's beauty. He may rate her a 5 in his head, but another guy around the corner may rate her a 9.
> 
> In a non-numerical sense, he may consider her unattractive, while another guy will. That's all these numbers are, and they are a fact of life. However, it doesn't mean that whoever chooses to simplify their gauges of attraction needs to "up his sex rank" or whatever.
> 
> That would be assuming beauty has a universal standard, when we both know that it is not. Types exist, another fact of life.


Going on and on and on about the numbers again, Random.....yes I get you. And no matter how you want to frame this, it is still dehumanizing and stupid.


----------



## RandomDude

Well, I've offered my two cents for the purpose of shedding light to why being rated out of ten is a part of life, and why people shouldn't get hurt or feel dehumanised by it.

In the end, it's your choice to feel that way about it.


----------



## Faithful Wife

RandomDude said:


> Well, I've offered my two cents for the purpose of shedding light to why being rated out of ten is a part of life, and why people shouldn't get hurt or feel dehumanised by it.
> 
> In the end, it's your choice to feel that way about it.



Ok thank you Random Dude, and I would rate you a 3.5.

It is your choice to decide how you want to feel about that.


----------



## RandomDude

As for the book itself, it's garbage to me and alot of folks. But who are we to judge if it's garbage for others - especially when it has already proven to work for many men in less then fortunate sexual circumstances.

Yes, it seems to have rather, "interesting" statements about women - but would you be so kind as to offer an alternative for Deejo to swap over as the 'TAM poster book' then? Otherwise I would assume the suggestion exists to help regulate the men's clubhouse which might erupt into the typical flooding of 'Help! Sexless marriage!'


----------



## RandomDude

Faithful Wife said:


> Ok thank you Random Dude, and I would rate you a 3.5.
> 
> It is your choice to decide how you want to feel about that.


It is, and my choice is; I don't give a sh-t


----------



## Faithful Wife

RandomDude said:


> As for the book itself, it's garbage to me and alot of folks. But who are we to judge if it's garbage for others - especially when it has already proven to work for many men in less then fortunate sexual circumstances.
> 
> Yes, it seems to have rather, "interesting" statements about women - but would you be so kind as to offer an alternative for Deejo to swap over as the 'TAM poster book' then? Otherwise I would assume the suggestion exists to help regulate the men's clubhouse which might erupt into the typical flooding of 'Help! Sexless marriage!'


If there was only one book that people could think of to offer to women for relationship advice and that book was all about how to dupe men, how men are stupid and have hamsters for brains, about how we can get money from men, and about how we are going to toss these men aside once we bleed them for everything they have (which MMSL says is our nature, via hypergamy), then would it be ok to offer it to nearly every woman who comes to TAM?

Nope, no one would think that was ok.

So even though there are apparently not many well written books for married men in sexless marriages doesn't mean we should suggest MMSL. We should never suggest anything that is hateful bullsh*t to men or women here.

Besides....Deejo has actually changed the title of the man up thread, and has taken MMSL out of it, in case you haven't noticed. :smthumbup:


----------



## RandomDude

Didn't Athol used to post here? I would be amused to see his reaction to see his book no longer being referenced. Heh

I don't think it was a good move if Deejo already removed it, however, based on the stuff posted within the book, and your point above - I don't blame your stance either.

Anyway, sorry for going off topic, I only dropped in to reply to the "numbers debate", especially in regards to feeling dehumanised, and I think I already left a decent enough example for others of how to react when someone rates you out of ten


----------



## Brigit

john117 said:


> Let me see...
> 
> On the left corner the nanny from Latvia - Europe  - an undergraduate in psychology at my alma mater of all things - plain face, ho hum body, ho hummest clothes...
> 
> On the right corner, the MILF to end all MILF's... Late 30's, think Farah Fawcet Major, impeccable body after 3 kids, impeccable hair, face, hair, Nordstrom everything. She made J2 and most other women charity single hand finger counts.
> 
> At the men's department...
> 
> On the left corner, a 50's semi pudgy mechanic from some expansion country in Central America. Knows his way around exotic vehicles, tattoos galore...
> 
> On the right corner, the husband who made millions in the cellular infrastructure industry, sold the company and invested the proceeds in a local exotic car dealership and car racing. CEO looks and poise, bad boy attitude...
> 
> All rankings are relative incidentally.


Is the CEO single?

(JK)


----------



## Brigit

Faithful Wife said:


> Random Dude...Of course lots of men here agree with you, that we're all just a number to you. We get it. We hear it all the time. We understand that is how many men think.
> 
> But we are also trying to tell you that some MEN don't think like that. Even really hot men who can pull women without any effort.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because of that thing I mentioned before....
> 
> Mutual sexual attraction.


Here's the thing: Men do care what other men think. When men pick a mate they take into consideration how "hot" she is to other men. This is ingrained in their psyche. About a month ago I confessed to my husband about my long-term cyber affair with a sexy man 10 years younger than myself. I thought he'd ask for a divorce. He wanted to know if the affair was over. It is. That same weekend he fu*ked me better than he ever did our whole marriage. Finding out I've been another man's "porn" for the past 4 and a half years made him angry but also turned him on. I no longer have any contact with the OM but now my husband is much more sexual towards me.

What's politically correct is not always the way it is.


----------



## Personal

Brigit said:


> Here's the thing: Men do care what other men think. When men pick a mate they take into consideration how "hot" she is to other men. This is ingrained in their psyche. About a month I confessed to my husband about my long-term cyber affair with a sexy man 10 years younger than myself. I thought he'd ask for a divorce. He wanted to know if the affair was over. It is. That same weekend he fu*ked me better than he ever did our whole marriage. Finding out I've been another man's "porn" for the past 4 and a half years made him angry but also turned him on. I no longer have any contact with the OM but now my husband is much more sexual towards me.
> 
> What's politically correct is not always the way it is.


Actually I don't give the slightest toss what other men think.

When my first wife (she was 19 & I was 20) physically cheated on me when I was away on an Army training course and confessed just after my return, I immediately ended our marital relationship! Twelve months later after the obligatory separation period we were divorced.

Your husband isn't all men.

If I were your husband I can assure you I would have immediately ended my relationship with you and divorced you at the earliest legal opportunity!

What your husband accepts is not always what others accept.


----------



## RandomDude

If I was to choose a mate based on other people's beauty standards then I would never be satisfied. As for your husband, he got turned on thinking of another guy with you, that's normal for some. It's a sexual trigger for some reason, hence all the "cuckold fantasies" and stuff.

None of which proves that "Men do care what other men think", a number of men sure, but definitely not all and based on my experience; not the majority past the age of 21. Amongst men we do compare our tastes, see each other's type, there are some with specific tastes - like myself, others who prefer this, others who prefer that. 

This is just how it is. We don't have all the same eyes. In the past there have also been several times I've rejected supposedly attractive women in front of my mates on a night out, but be all over someone else who they don't find attractive. Women aren't status symbols to us.


----------



## Brigit

Personal said:


> Actually I don't give the slightest toss what other men think.
> 
> When my first wife (she was 19 & I was 20) physically cheated on me when I was away on an Army training course and confessed just after my return, I immediately ended our marital relationship! Twelve months later after the obligatory separation period we were divorced.
> 
> Your husband isn't all men.
> 
> If I were your husband I can assure you I would have immediately ended my relationship with you and divorced you at the earliest legal opportunity!
> 
> What your husband accepts is not always what others accept.


True enough. And I don't condone what I did. 

But to say men don't care what other men think of the level of attractiveness of one's mate is silly. They care. A man likes to be with a woman that other men want.


----------



## Brigit

RandomDude said:


> Women aren't status symbols to us.


I disagree entirely with that statement. Men *do* view women as status symbols. If they didn't we wouldn't be having this talk.


----------



## RandomDude

For that to be true -> I, and countless other men, would have to cease to exist.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Faithful Wife said:


> *Some men don't look at a woman and first off, rank her with a number. They just think "nice, attractive, interesting, I like what I see" and then move in to find out if the feeling is mutual. If it is, there's a feeling there. There's no need for negging and begging. It is a clear mutual feeling. Without that feeling, some men will simply move on...without trying to turn it into something it isn't. * Some men do not want sex with a woman who doesn't feel mutual sexual attraction for him. Hard as that is for some to believe.


My Husband fits this... He swears when we met... he didn't have







on his mind ... like at all.. he just REALLY WANTED TO GET TO KNOW ME.... When we had this conversation yrs back.. I told him he is not normal..

That all men THINK like that..or certainly the vast majority .... I was even a little taken a back, asking if I wasn't SEXY enough for [email protected] Not sure I liked that so much...

So then I asked him when he started to THINK of me LIKE THAT..... and he said .."when you started to put your hands down my pants"...







I thought that was pretty funny. 

He's always said it was "Love at 1st sight" though.

If I didn't show interest in him and blew him off....he would have walked away.. he's one of those guys who do not get into "the Chase".. if he asks... she denies.. his feelings are .."The lady has spoken"... why bark up that tree. He is not into games at all.. just honesty... I really dug that..


----------



## samyeagar

Brigit said:


> Here's the thing: Men do care what other men think. When men pick a mate they take into consideration how "hot" she is to other men. This is ingrained in their psyche. About a month ago I confessed to my husband about my long-term cyber affair with a sexy man 10 years younger than myself. I thought he'd ask for a divorce. *He wanted to know if the affair was over. It is. That same weekend he fu*ked me better than he ever did our whole marriage. Finding out I've been another man's "porn" for the past 4 and a half years made him angry but also turned him on. I no longer have any contact with the OM but now my husband is much more sexual towards me*.
> 
> What's politically correct is not always the way it is.


Is he truly more sexual towards you, or did your affair and subsequent marital "near death experience" cause you to be more aware of what you actually had all along? Perhaps it was you who changed?


----------



## Brigit

IMHO Grace Kelly is probably one of the most beautiful women I've ever seen but that's besides the point.

If you want to say women aren't a status symbol, fine. But that's not what our culture tells us. Notice that men's magazine didn't publish a list of "The 100 Women with the Best Personalities of All Time."

http://www.wpxi.com/videos/news/is-a-beautiful-woman-the-ultimate-status-symbol/v7Fj2/#__federated=1


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Brigit said:


> Here's the thing: Men do care what other men think. When men pick a mate they take into consideration how "hot" she is to other men. This is ingrained in their psyche. About a month ago I confessed to my husband about my long-term cyber affair with a sexy man 10 years younger than myself. *I thought he'd ask for a divorce. He wanted to know if the affair was over. It is. That same weekend he fu*ked me better than he ever did our whole marriage. Finding out I've been another man's "porn" for the past 4 and a half years made him angry but also turned him on.* I no longer have any contact with the OM but now my husband is much more sexual towards me.
> 
> What's politically correct is not always the way it is.


MY husband would be absolutely crushed AND WOULD NEVER LOOK UPON ME the same way again.. if I did this.. he is not one to get excited with another man HAVING me at all... We've talked about some of the C0ck held fantasies here.. he would go as far as say the men who are into that can't love their wives.. 

It's one thing to admit to fantasies.. being open about what is physically attracting to us & all.. (human nature)... that's nothing to him nor would it hurt him ...he likes some eye candy too!.. but anything where my or his Emotional energy or displaying the physical to another where these are solely for each other.. that's a line we just can not go .... without damaging something we've always shared.

I have to agree with Personal... not too many men would be OK with this... I think it's GOOD you confessed though.. he has been *very gracious* to you.. I am surprised he was not more HURT by this... his TRUST has surely been greatly shaken.. this is nothing small. 

Brigit....what was lacking in your marriage?? Is your husband a Workaholic ? 4 + years ..WOW!


----------



## Brigit

samyeagar said:


> Is he truly more sexual towards you, or did your affair and subsequent marital "near death experience" cause you to be more aware of what you actually had all along? Perhaps it was you who changed?


I believe it's a bit of both. I'm also more focused on the marriage and trying to be a better wife but I do think the cyber affair woke up some passion in him that was missing for many years.


----------



## samyeagar

Brigit said:


> I disagree entirely with that statement. Men *do* view women as status symbols. If they didn't we wouldn't be having this talk.


Some men do view women as status symbols, and care what other men think. Can't deny that. Another way that some men and women are similar, because some women do the same thing.

Me personally, I don't give two craps about what other men think of my wife...or my car, or my house.


----------



## Brigit

SimplyAmorous said:


> MY husband would be absolutely crushed AND NEVER LOOK UPON ME the same way again.. if I did this.. he is not one to get excited with another man HAVING me at all... We've talked about some of the C0ck held fantasies here.. he would go as far as say the men who are into that can't love their wives..
> 
> It's one thing to admit to fantasies.. being open about what is physically attracting to us & all.. (human nature)... that's nothing to him nor would it hurt him ...he likes some eye candy too!.. but anything where my or his Emotional energy or displaying the physical to another where these are solely for each other.. that's a line we just can not go .... without damaging something we've always shared.
> 
> I have to agree with Personal... not too many men would be OK with this... I think it's GOOD you confessed though.. he has been *very gracious* to you.. I am surprised he was not more HURT by this... his TRUST has surely been greatly shaken.. this is nothing small.
> 
> Brigit....what was lacking in your marriage?? Is your husband a Workaholic ? 4 + years ..WOW!


There were a lot of issues in the marriage that I touched on in my threads. I don't want to hijack this one.


----------



## samyeagar

Brigit said:


> I believe it's a bit of both. I'm also more focused on the marriage and trying to be a better wife but I do think the cyber affair woke up some passion in him that was missing for many years.


Me, like many of the other men here, I wouldn't have stayed married. I tolerated a lot of crap with my ex-wife, but her affair was the final straw, which is not surprising to me in the least.

I am a man who does not play the chase game. It is actually a turn off to me...playing coy and hard to get with me is one sure way to have me not be interested at all. If I feel as if I am having to compete for a woman affection, the other guy can have her because she's not worth my time and effort.


----------



## Brigit

samyeagar said:


> Me, like many of the other men here, I wouldn't have stayed married. I tolerated a lot of crap with my ex-wife, but her affair was the final straw, which is not surprising to me in the least.
> 
> I am a man who does not play the chase game. It is actually a turn off to me...playing coy and hard to get with me is one sure way to have me not be interested at all. If I feel as if I am having to compete for a woman affection, the other guy can have her because she's not worth my time and effort.


I understand how you feel but in my experience men do like the chase game. They may not think "Oh I really like having to chase after this girl" but they feel if it's too easy then there must be something wrong with the girl.


----------



## Personal

Brigit said:


> IMHO Grace Kelly is probably one of the most beautiful women I've ever seen but that's besides the point.
> 
> If you want to say women aren't a status symbol, fine. But that's not what our culture tells us. Notice that men's magazine didn't publish a list of "The 100 Women with the Best Personalities of All Time."
> 
> Is A Beautiful Woman The Ultimate Status Symbol? | www.wpxi.com


Apologies, I deleted my post because I thought I was getting too far off topic.


----------



## Personal

Brigit said:


> I understand how you feel but in my experience men do like the chase game. They may not think "Oh I really like having to chase after this girl" but they feel if it's too easy then there must be something wrong with the girl.


I've always preferred to let women chase me.


----------



## Brigit

Personal said:


> I've always preferred to let women chase me.


Why is that?


----------



## Personal

Brigit said:


> Why is that?


Because they were always asking me out, buying me drinks and offering sex etc. Since I could pick and choose whomever I wanted amongst many suitors, I simply didn't need to chase anyone.


----------



## samyeagar

Brigit said:


> I understand how you feel but in my experience men do like the chase game. They may not think "Oh I really like having to chase after this girl" but *they feel if it's too easy then there must be something wrong with the girl*.


Huh...I always felt like if she was chasing me, she was into me.

I've never felt as if I've needed to chase either because there has never been a shortage of women approaching me.

In my experience, life isn't like the typical rom-com where the guy who has all the women chasing him instead chases the hard to get one. I get it that there are some women out there who would like to identify with the hard to get woman, chased by the overly desired bad boy, but again, in my experience, life isn't really like that.


----------



## RandomDude

You judge us men as if we're all clones of each other.



> In my experience, life isn't like the typical rom-com where the guy who has all the women chasing him instead chases the hard to get one.


... that would be me 

Oh wait, because I admit it, it means all men must be like me!!!


----------



## Personal

samyeagar said:


> Huh...I always felt like if she was chasing me, she was into me.
> 
> I've never felt as if I've needed to chase either because there has never been a shortage of women approaching me.


Yep! :iagree:


----------



## samyeagar

Personal said:


> Because they were always asking me out, buying me drinks and offering sex etc. Since I could pick and choose whomever I wanted amongst many suitors, I simply didn't need to chase anyone.


My exact experience as well. And I'm not rich, or famous, so there really aren't any extenuating circumstances to overly consider as far as their motivations...the simply are attracted to me, so why should I waste my time on someone who wasn't?


----------



## Brigit

For the men who say that they don't need to chase women because they've always had their fair share of women being the pursuers: I believe you. In real life, I've never met men like you or not in a romantic situation anyway because I'd never dare pursue a man. All my boyfriends (three including my husband) were very good looking with a bad boy element. 

Most of the time men pursue women. There's always exceptions but that's usually what is done.


----------



## EllisRedding

So all men view women as status symbols, like the chase game, and take into consideration how hot other men would view this wife/SO???? This is so far from the truth it is laughable, and honestly a bit hypocritical given the basis of this thread is to tear down the generalizations many here feel this dude's book promotes about women.

In your situation, if my wife confirmed to me she had a cyber affair, I can guarantee my thought would not be to fvck the crap out of my wife ...


----------



## RandomDude

EllisRedding said:


> So all men view women as status symbols, like the chase game, and take into consideration how hot other men would view this wife/SO???? This is so far from the truth it is laughable, and honestly a bit hypocritical given the basis of this thread is to tear down the generalizations many here feel this dude's book promotes about women.


:smthumbup:



> In your situation, if my wife confirmed to me she had a cyber affair, I can guarantee my thought would not be to fvck the crap out of my wife ...


:rofl:


----------



## Brigit

EllisRedding said:


> So all men view women as status symbols, like the chase game, and take into consideration how hot other men would view this wife/SO???? This is so far from the truth it is laughable, and honestly a bit hypocritical given the basis of this thread is to tear down the generalizations many here feel this dude's book promotes about women.
> 
> In your situation, if my wife confirmed to me she had a cyber affair, I can guarantee my thought would not be to fvck the crap out of my wife ...


That's fine. I don't know your wife or you for that matter. But everyone is entitled to their opinion and I voiced mine. I sure as he11 didn't write a book about how to abuse men but only made some observations of how I view the world.

You can view the world anyway you please.


----------



## tech-novelist

EllisRedding said:


> So all men view women as status symbols, like the chase game, and take into consideration how hot other men would view this wife/SO???? This is so far from the truth it is laughable, and honestly a bit hypocritical given the basis of this thread is to tear down the generalizations many here feel this dude's book promotes about women.
> 
> In your situation, if my wife confirmed to me she had a cyber affair, I can guarantee my thought would not be to fvck the crap out of my wife ...


No, you don't understand. Generalizations about men are perfectly acceptable, but generalizations about women are SEXIST!!!

Hope that helps. :rofl:


----------



## Julius Beastcavern

Let me start by saying the 'red pill' way of thinking has been very useful to me personally and I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it to men dependent on their situation. I don't agree with all of it but (as I presume most people do) I took what worked for me and discarded the rest 

Athols sperm stuff is actually taken from a book called 'sperm wars'  if you are offended by the stuff Athol writes I do not recommend you read this book. A lot of it made me feel like I needed a wash. There is a companion to it which contains all the science. (which I haven't read)


----------



## samyeagar

Brigit said:


> That's fine. I don't know your wife or you for that matter. But everyone is entitled to their opinion and I voiced mine. *I sure as he11 didn't write a book about how to abuse men but only made some observations of how I view the world.*
> 
> You can view the world anyway you please.


I have read some of the female PUA crap, instruction manuals on how to game men. They tend to count on the very stereotypes you have provided. I have encountered some of the hard core female gamers, and was sufficiently amused when they got pis$ed that it didn't work on me.


----------



## UMP

One thing we have not talking about on this thread is Athols' application of how women instigate "shiit tests."

I would be very interested in talking about the actual reality of female shiit tests.

Are they real?

To be fair I have not read all 1,500 posts. Maybe this has been discussed?


----------



## tech-novelist

UMP said:


> One thing we have not talking about on this thread is Athols' application of how women instigate "shiit tests."
> 
> I would be very interested in talking about the actual reality of female shiit tests.
> 
> Are they real?
> 
> To be fair I have not read all 1,500 posts. Maybe this has been discussed?


I'm sure you will get other answers, but as far as I'm concerned they are very real.

Of course I don't know that every woman does this, but I certainly have seen them in my own relationships, and they have to be dealt with correctly, that is, by batting them down rather than giving in to them.


----------



## Brigit

samyeagar said:


> I have read some of the female PUA crap, instruction manuals on how to game men. They tend to count on the very stereotypes you have provided. I have encountered some of the hard core female gamers, and was sufficiently amused when they got pis$ed that it didn't work on me.


The last time I was single I was 26. I'm 46 now. In the last 20 years I can count on my hand how many times I was in a bar or a club without my husband. So taking about this stuff is really funny. It's hard for me to get all uptight about it either way. My life is much more complicated now.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

UMP said:


> One thing we have not talking about on this thread is Athols' application of how women instigate "shiit tests."
> 
> I would be very interested in talking about the actual reality of female shiit tests.
> 
> Are they real?
> 
> To be fair I have not read all 1,500 posts. Maybe this has been discussed?


I think they are something that _some _women do. I've seen many posts of men talking about something their wives did or said as a "sh*t test" and I disagree with most of them. I think assuming something is a test or a game instead of taking it seriously is dangerous and can cause more problems.

FTR- My H has assumed that what I was saying or doing was a game or a guilt trip (sh*t test) and responded in the way I've heard other men here say to respond to sh*t tests. All it did was make me more resentful. It certainly didn't make him seem more manly or self confident.


----------



## jld

technovelist said:


> I'm sure you will get other answers, but as far as I'm concerned they are very real.
> 
> Of course I don't know that every woman does this, but I certainly have seen them in my own relationships, and they have to be dealt with correctly, that is, by batting them down rather than giving in to them.


If she is testing you, she is not secure in you in some way. Help her become secure in you.


----------



## UMP

technovelist said:


> I'm sure you will get other answers, but as far as I'm concerned they are very real.
> 
> Of course I don't know that every woman does this, but I certainly have seen them in my own relationships, and they have to be dealt with correctly, that is, by batting them down rather than giving in to them.


Just yesterday, I drove us to church during a VERY busy mothers day. I thought I was driving a taxi in New York city. Wife was a bit bothered but did not say much.
.......
Then, just when we're about to settle in at 10:00pm, watching a little tv, she SLAMS into me about my driving. Saying things like "I will never drive with you on that road again." etc. etc. To me this is a classic shiit test. In the past I would have barked back. Instead I just listened, changed the subject and then calmly talked to her about it this morning. All is well.


----------



## EllisRedding

UMP said:


> Just yesterday, I drove us to church during a VERY busy mothers day. *I thought I was driving a taxi in New York city. * Wife was a bit bothered but did not say much.
> .


So you hit someone and than drove away?


----------



## jld

UMP said:


> Just yesterday, I drove us to church during a VERY busy mothers day. I thought I was driving a taxi in New York city. Wife was a bit bothered but did not say much.
> .......
> Then, just when we're about to settle in at 10:00pm, watching a little tv, she SLAMS into me about my driving. Saying things like "I will never drive with you on that road again." etc. etc. To me this is a classic shiit test. In the past I would have barked back. Instead I just listened, changed the subject and then calmly talked to her about it this morning. All is well.


What does "calmly talked to her about it" mean? 

Why did you change the subject last night, instead of addressing her concerns then?


----------



## UMP

jld said:


> What does "calmly talked to her about it" mean?
> 
> Why did you change the subject last night, instead of addressing her concerns then?


That's a good question. Why did I wait, because I did not want to turn it into an argument and I needed time to think about what she said and how she said it. 

"Calmly talking about it with her" means in the morning I had arranged my thoughts and concluded she was partly right but should not have said it the way she did and I told her so. No raised voices, just calm interaction. She apologized and I agreed to go a different route in the future. Both smiled and kissed goodbye.


----------



## Faithful Wife

IMO, claiming sh*t tests is something women only do to men (as red pill wants to tell us) is just stupid. As if men don't test women.


----------



## UMP

Faithful Wife said:


> IMO, claiming sh*t tests is something women only do to men (as red pill wants to tell us) is just stupid. As if men don't test women.


I have to agree with this too. I think both men and women do this. Maybe for different reasons? Athol will say women do this to test a mans....manhood.

What would be the reason behind men doing it?


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Random Dude...Of course lots of men here agree with you, that we're all just a number to you. We get it. We hear it all the time. We understand that is how many men think.
> 
> But we are also trying to tell you that some MEN don't think like that. Even really hot men who can pull women without any effort.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because of that thing I mentioned before....
> 
> Mutual sexual attraction.
> 
> The MUTUAL part is what you are missing in what you are talking about. It doesn't matter what any girl's number is if she isn't attracted to you.
> 
> I get it that some men want a girl whose sex rank number is higher than what he can pull on his own looks alone, that's why men tell themselves they can add points to their own sex rank to up his own rank and hopefully get the girl interested in him enough to over look her own lack of attraction for him.
> 
> So that whole subset of emotionally immature men have their corner of the internet to hide out in and trade secrets about how to dupe women into dates or into bed.
> 
> But some men will not WANT a woman who isn't as into him, just him and his body and his looks as they are, as he is into her.
> 
> We hear all the time that men watch porn to see women enthusiastically wanting sex with a man.
> 
> Well, in real life, women do have enthusiastic sex with men (and aren't faking it) when they feel MUTUAL sexual attraction for the man. That's the key that some of these men don't seem to want to turn. Almost like they are saying "well if I am to rely on my looks alone, I may end up with a dog". How sweet, right?
> 
> When mutual sexual attraction is there, there's no wondering if she's into you, it is obvious.
> 
> Some men don't look at a woman and first off, rank her with a number. They just think "nice, attractive, interesting, I like what I see" and then move in to find out if the feeling is mutual. If it is, there's a feeling there. There's no need for negging and begging. It is a clear mutual feeling. Without that feeling, some men will simply move on...without trying to turn it into something it isn't. Some men do not want sex with a woman who doesn't feel mutual sexual attraction for him. Hard as that is for some to believe.


OK.

So let's put red pill and MMSL aside for a moment.

What would you replace it with?

Let's take your point FW. Let's say a guy like me marries a hot wife, and there's loads of mutual attraction.

Then, you have some kids and stuff... and she's just not interested any more. More interested in going out without you, hanging out with her friends, hanging out in all kinds of co-ed groups. Working out like crazy, dressing sexy (just not for you) and gone all the time.

You've gone down the nice guy path. Talked. Expressed. Sought compromise. All that. Nada.

That's where I was. Without the red pill we wouldn't have been together now.

Help me out. Instead of MMSLP, what would your advice have been?

And -- this isn't a trap. I'm seriously interested. And understand that red pill and MMSLP may be too big emotionally or whatever to try to mine nuggets out of. Where to mine instead?

If you were my friend at that time, and would have ripped MMSLP out of my hands, what would you have advised me?

Because I suspect loads of guys deal with that.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

I just don't get why it's assumed she had some kind of manipulative game in mind. Sounds like she was annoyed and didn't express herself the best. It happens.

I have seen some examples of things that would be tests, by both men and women, but every little thing is not a sh*t test. Sometimes things are just what they say they are.


----------



## Marduk

UMP said:


> I have to agree with this too. I think both men and women do this. Maybe for different reasons? Athol will say women do this to test a mans....manhood.
> 
> What would be the reason behind men doing it?


This is one thing I'm pretty in line with.

My wife has actually thanked me for not responding to a lot of her **** tests. She calls them something like 'making sure I can't walk all over you.'

Because she's hot, she has a history of men basically falling all over themselves for her. And she always wants to make sure that that's not me. Because it no longer is, it's not that big of a problem any more, as long as I basically ignore them respectfully -- acknowledge them but don't get butthurt over it, you know?

I know I **** test my wife too -- it's usually about respecting me, or being faithful to me.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

marduk said:


> OK.
> 
> So let's put red pill and MMSL aside for a moment.
> 
> What would you replace it with?
> 
> Let's take your point FW. Let's say a guy like me marries a hot wife, and there's loads of mutual attraction.
> 
> Then, you have some kids and stuff... and she's just not interested any more. More interested in going out without you, hanging out with her friends, hanging out in all kinds of co-ed groups. Working out like crazy, dressing sexy (just not for you) and gone all the time.
> 
> You've gone down the nice guy path. Talked. Expressed. Sought compromise. All that. Nada.
> 
> That's where I was. Without the red pill we wouldn't have been together now.
> 
> Help me out. Instead of MMSLP, what would your advice have been?
> 
> And -- this isn't a trap. I'm seriously interested. And understand that red pill and MMSLP may be too big emotionally or whatever to try to mine nuggets out of. Where to mine instead?
> 
> If you were my friend at that time, and would have ripped MMSLP out of my hands, what would you have advised me?
> 
> Because I suspect loads of guys deal with that.


It would depend on what your wife's ENs were, if she had resentments, what was the relationship was like when it started vs. right before the sex stopped/slowed, and what it was like after.... lots of things.
There is no magic answer that will work for every woman. Women are not all alike.


----------



## Marduk

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> It would depend on what your wife's ENs were, if she had resentments, what was the relationship was like when it started vs. right before the sex stopped/slowed, and what it was like after.... lots of things.
> There is no magic answer that will work for every woman. Women are not all alike.


Take it as read she was bored and not attracted to me.

Because I was boring and not attractive. And trying to please her too much.


----------



## john117

While driving back from DD23's graduation wifey became alarmed that I drive too fast in her precious X3. I ignored the first couple of complaints (I was going the speed limit on an empty interstate). The third time I used my middle finger to politely dismiss her concerns. She wasn't very happy after that (or before that). 

I drive 25000 miles a year minimum in good weather and bad... and my only accident was in 1986 and not my fault either. But some people seem to make a big deal out of anything...


----------



## Brigit

marduk said:


> Take it as read she was bored and not attracted to me.
> 
> Because I was boring and not attractive. And trying to please her too much.


How old were you and your wife when this happened?


----------



## jld

UMP said:


> That's a good question. Why did I wait, because I did not want to turn it into an argument and I needed time to think about what she said and how she said it.
> 
> "Calmly talking about it with her" means in the morning I had arranged my thoughts and concluded she was partly right but should not have said it the way she did and I told her so. No raised voices, just calm interaction. She apologized and I agreed to go a different route in the future. Both smiled and kissed goodbye.


Sounds like you were both happy with the outcome.

My husband tends to overlook delivery. He just focuses in on the message.


----------



## UMP

marduk said:


> Take it as read she was bored and not attracted to me.
> 
> Because I was boring and not attractive. And trying to please her too much.


I'll tell you one thing I would NOT have done, bang her like a rented vagina not caring if she had an orgasm or not.

I never quite figured that one out. MMSL is so bent on a guy going in for sex not interested in giving your woman an orgasm. If you aren't giving her one, who is?


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> Sounds like you were both happy with the outcome.
> 
> *My husband tends to overlook delivery. He just focuses in on the message*.


Sometimes the real message is IN the delivery...


----------



## Brigit

UMP said:


> I'll tell you one thing I would NOT have done, bang her like a rented vagina not caring if she had an orgasm or not.
> 
> I never quite figured that one out. MMSL is so bent on a guy going in for sex not interested in giving your woman an orgasm. If you aren't giving her one, who is?


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> Sometimes the real message is IN the delivery...


The frustration? You bet that is there.

The point was that you can resolve issues more quickly by focusing on them and not on the delivery of them.


----------



## Icey181

marduk said:


> OK.
> 
> So let's put red pill and MMSL aside for a moment.
> 
> What would you replace it with?
> 
> Let's take your point FW. Let's say a guy like me marries a hot wife, and there's loads of mutual attraction.
> 
> Then, you have some kids and stuff... and she's just not interested any more. More interested in going out without you, hanging out with her friends, hanging out in all kinds of co-ed groups. Working out like crazy, dressing sexy (just not for you) and gone all the time.
> 
> You've gone down the nice guy path. Talked. Expressed. Sought compromise. All that. Nada.
> 
> That's where I was. Without the red pill we wouldn't have been together now.
> 
> Help me out. Instead of MMSLP, what would your advice have been?
> 
> And -- this isn't a trap. I'm seriously interested. And understand that red pill and MMSLP may be too big emotionally or whatever to try to mine nuggets out of. Where to mine instead?
> 
> If you were my friend at that time, and would have ripped MMSLP out of my hands, what would you have advised me?
> 
> Because I suspect loads of guys deal with that.


I would also be interested in the advice that would be provided in this case.


----------



## Marduk

UMP said:


> I'll tell you one thing I would NOT have done, bang her like a rented vagina not caring if she had an orgasm or not.
> 
> I never quite figured that one out. MMSL is so bent on a guy going in for sex not interested in giving your woman an orgasm. If you aren't giving her one, who is?


Actually, being more OK with duty sex when offered and then really focusing on my enjoyment of that was a large gateway to
- having more sex
- her getting 'caught up in the moment and getting into it'
- me owning my sexuality.
- relieving her guilt and the passive aggressive cycle of "ok, we can do it but just for you" and then me saying "no, no, it's ok", and then having it not be.

All that was really positive.

How to reconcile?


----------



## UMP

jld said:


> Sounds like you were both happy with the outcome.
> 
> My husband tends to overlook delivery. He just focuses in on the message.


That was EXACTLY my problem. In the past I would have gotten very defensive and started an argument. Then we would have both been passive aggressive for days, had another argument and wait two weeks for the sex to get back to where it was because of all the built up resentment.

I've REALLY been working hard on this. It helps our relationship a BUNCH.,


----------



## UMP

marduk said:


> Actually, being more OK with duty sex when offered and then really focusing on my enjoyment of that was a large gateway to
> - having more sex
> - her getting 'caught up in the moment and getting into it'
> - me owning my sexuality.
> - relieving her guilt and the passive aggressive cycle of "ok, we can do it but just for you" and then me saying "no, no, it's ok", and then having it not be.
> 
> All that was really positive.
> 
> How to reconcile?


That's fine, but that's not using her like a rented vagina. Sure you enjoyed it, but you also wanted her to enjoy it and you did things to make sure she enjoyed it too, or at least tried.


----------



## ConanHub

marduk said:


> Actually, being more OK with duty sex when offered and then really focusing on my enjoyment of that was a large gateway to
> - having more sex
> - her getting 'caught up in the moment and getting into it'
> - me owning my sexuality.
> - relieving her guilt and the passive aggressive cycle of "ok, we can do it but just for you" and then me saying "no, no, it's ok", and then having it not be.
> 
> All that was really positive.
> 
> How to reconcile?


I can't wait to read the book so I can have an educated POV but this seems really positive. Mrs. Conan can go from zero to 100 in an instant when she gets caught up in my passion.

I believe it is a reactive drive experience?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

UMP said:


> That's fine, but that's not using her like a rented vagina. Sure you enjoyed it, but you also wanted her to enjoy it and you did things to make sure she enjoyed it too, or at least tried.


Nope, when it was just for me, I took it as read that it was just for me.

And went to town with that.

"Do whatever you want, I'm not in the mood" took a whole new meaning.


----------



## jld

UMP said:


> That was EXACTLY my problem. In the past I would have gotten very defensive and started and argument. Then we would have both been passive aggressive for days, had another argument and for the sex to get back to where it was because of all the built up resentment.
> 
> I've REALLY been working hard on this. It helps our relationship a BUNCH.,


Overlooking delivery, and just not taking my emotions personally, in general, is a big strength of my husband's. 

I keep telling men how helpful this could be to them with their wives, but I get a lot of resistance.


----------



## Marduk

ConanHub said:


> I can't wait to read the book so I can have an educated POV but this seems really positive. Mrs. Conan can go from zero to 100 in an instant when she gets caught up in my passion.
> 
> I believe it is a reactive drive experience?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


That's exactly what it is, in my opinion.

And, being with someone really present, unafraid, and unashamed of their sexuality is a big turn on.


----------



## UMP

marduk said:


> OK.
> 
> So let's put red pill and MMSL aside for a moment.
> 
> What would you replace it with?
> 
> Let's take your point FW. Let's say a guy like me marries a hot wife, and there's loads of mutual attraction.
> 
> Then, you have some kids and stuff... and she's just not interested any more. More interested in going out without you, hanging out with her friends, hanging out in all kinds of co-ed groups. Working out like crazy, dressing sexy (just not for you) and gone all the time.
> 
> You've gone down the nice guy path. Talked. Expressed. Sought compromise. All that. Nada.
> 
> That's where I was. Without the red pill we wouldn't have been together now.
> 
> Help me out. Instead of MMSLP, what would your advice have been?
> 
> And -- this isn't a trap. I'm seriously interested. And understand that red pill and MMSLP may be too big emotionally or whatever to try to mine nuggets out of. Where to mine instead?
> 
> If you were my friend at that time, and would have ripped MMSLP out of my hands, what would you have advised me?
> 
> Because I suspect loads of guys deal with that.


I would have probably told you to not be so needy. I would have said, look back at how you were when you first married your wife. Become that person again. That's all I would have told you.

My wife in particular HATES when I am needy. She absolutely HATES it. She constantly makes fun of guys that need their women to touch them all the time, are jealous and are not confident in themselves.


----------



## jld

Marduk, I think your marriage is still on because your wife loves you and wants to keep it going. 

I think your marriage will be truly strong when she can tell you anything, at any time, in any way, and you will be able to hear it and really think about it, without reacting.

All this stuff about sex was a way for you to get that need of yours met. And your wife knows how to use sex to accomplish her ends, too.


----------



## UMP

marduk said:


> And, being with someone really present, unafraid, and unashamed of their sexuality is a big turn on.


This is so very important. When I am a bit shy, distant, afraid and ashamed of my sexuality, the sex falls off a cliff.

It's a weird thing, but every once in a while if I want to test my success, I will try to COHF. If she turns away and all I get is cheek or neck, I have done a bad job. If I get lips or tongue I'm in the zone


----------



## Marduk

UMP said:


> I would have probably told you to not be so needy. I would have said, look back at how you were when you first married your wife. Become that person again. That's all I would have told you.
> 
> My wife in particular HATES when I am needy. She absolutely HATES it. She constantly makes fun of guys that need their women to touch them all the time, are jealous and are not confident in themselves.


I agree with that. That was probably 1/3 of what I got out of MMSLP.

That was certaily a boat anchor.

But pulling up that boat anchor didn't turn her on. It just stopped turning her off somewhat.

Just being not needy was interpreted by her as "Yippee! I'm planning more girl's party weekends because my husband is more independant!"

And, at the end of the day sex-wise, I wasn't getting my needs met. And being really frank about that, she didn't really care beyond simple maintenance stuff.


----------



## Marduk

UMP said:


> This is so very important. When I am a bit shy, distant, afraid and ashamed of my sexuality, the sex falls off a cliff.
> 
> It's a weird thing, but every once in a while if I want to test my success, I will try to COHF. If she turns away and all I get is cheek or neck, I have done a bad job. If I get lips or tongue I'm in the zone


And that's how I interpreted AK's "pound her into the mattress" stuff.

So, for a guy, how would you articulate what worked for me in a responsible way?


----------



## UMP

jld said:


> Overlooking delivery, and just not taking my emotions personally, in general, is a big strength of my husband's.
> 
> I keep telling men how helpful this could be to them with their wives, but I get a lot of resistance.


It's VERY difficult not to take a woman emotions personally. To the core, men, including myself are just 15 year old boys in a mans body. I'm working on it. Yes, if done properly, it works wonders!


----------



## john117

UMP said:


> It's VERY difficult not to take a woman emotions personally. To the core, men, including myself are just 15 year old boys in a mans body. I'm working on it. Yes, if done properly, it works wonders!



That depends on whether the man has a 15 year old's emotions or has evolved... Emotional age et al.


----------



## UMP

marduk said:


> And that's how I interpreted AK's "pound her into the mattress" stuff.
> 
> So, for a guy, how would you articulate what worked for me in a responsible way?


Just as you said, "be present, unafraid, and unashamed of your sexuality"
That's exactly how I would articulate it.
Is that pounding her into the mattress? Sure, sometimes. Is it going down on her for an hour? Why not. It's just being secure in who and what you are, in the bed and outside the bed.


----------



## UMP

john117 said:


> That depends on whether the man has a 15 year old's emotions or has evolved... Emotional age et al.


Yes, 
Speaking for myself, I have some work to do, emotionally speaking. It's a trap I can EASLILY fall in to.


----------



## EllisRedding

UMP said:


> It's VERY difficult not to take a woman emotions personally. To the core, men, including myself are just 15 year old boys in a mans body. I'm working on it. Yes, if done properly, it works wonders!


Funny enough, from dealing with my mom and other women in my family who were rather emotional, I learned to brush it off rather easily instead of taking things too personal. This does annoy my wife at times where she gets no reaction out of me, sometimes it is for the better and sometimes not, just depends on the situation


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> That depends on whether the man has a 15 year old's emotions or has evolved... Emotional age et al.


Your ignoring your wife and then giving her the finger does not reflect maturity.


----------



## jld

UMP said:


> It's VERY difficult not to take a woman emotions personally. To the core, men, including myself are just 15 year old boys in a mans body. I'm working on it. Yes, if done properly, it works wonders!


I think you have to be secure in yourself, and humble enough to admit when she is right, without letting your pride get the best of you.

You are a decent man, UMP. I have liked many of your posts. Learning to look past her words, into her heart, will only make her appreciate you more.


----------



## john117

UMP said:


> Yes,
> 
> Speaking for myself, I have some work to do, emotionally speaking. It's a trap I can EASLILY fall in to.



I used to be fairly emotional - a trait I inherited from my mom. Bit as I learned more about the impact of unchecked emotions to one's physical health (aka what did my mom in) I decided to take my father's attitude of Army commander. Now I'm not very emotional tho I'm a pretty good in convincing others I am. 

Emotions have their uses but too much of a good thing and all that...


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk....Are you still struggling to achieve emotional intimacy with your wife?

Did you find out in your journey that physical intimacy without emotional intimacy isn't cutting it for you?


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> I used to be fairly emotional - a trait I inherited from my mom. Bit as I learned more about the impact of unchecked emotions to one's physical health (aka what did my mom in) I decided to take my father's attitude of Army commander. Now I'm not very emotional tho I'm a pretty good in convincing others I am.
> 
> Emotions have their uses but too much of a good thing and all that...


Your reaction to your wife yesterday was emotional. You just took them underground, and now they seethe out in aggressive or passive-aggressive ways.


----------



## john117

jld said:


> Your ignoring your wife and then giving her the finger does not reflect maturity.



Exactly as intended. 

Trying to explain to her that it's safe to drive the speed limit with nobody around on an interstate - no go. She does not want to understand.

Trying to cater to her concerns - only by driving 10mph slower while she's encouraged by my giving in and going for more - no go.

Ignoring her - no go.

Methinks you need to expose yourself to truly toxic people to understand here. As the saying goes, "you have to be there".

Do I have anything to lose? Nope. Spent 3 hours enjoying the drive and silence... 

When I'm driving the Mini - I can understand as the thing is small and if you're not used to it you freak out. Bit we were in her X3 which is a "real" car. 

Her motive is simply to remind us that she is relevant in the family. Good luck with that.


----------



## john117

jld said:


> Your reaction to your wife yesterday was emotional. You just took them underground, and now they seethe out in aggressive or passive-aggressive ways.



Hardly. After twice telling her I'm driving the speed limit politely without the intended result, few rational options are left when she's he11 bent criticizing everything I do (lots of maturity there, right)

Think of it as an inverse sh!t test.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> marduk....Are you still struggling to achieve emotional intimacy with your wife?
> 
> Did you find out in your journey that physical intimacy without emotional intimacy isn't cutting it for you?


Yes, very much so. 

It seems we can achieve one but only at the cost of another. 

But that's outside the scope of this, I think.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## tech-novelist

john117 said:


> Hardly. After twice telling her I'm driving the speed limit politely without the intended result, few rational options are left when she's he11 bent criticizing everything I do (lots of maturity there, right)
> 
> Think of it as an inverse sh!t test.


She was hassling you about a non-existent "problem". You tried to deal with it politely a couple of times and got nowhere, so you dealt with it in an effective manner. Sounds like you passed.


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> Hardly. After twice telling her I'm driving the speed limit politely without the intended result, few rational options are left when she's he11 bent criticizing everything I do (lots of maturity there, right)
> 
> Think of it as an inverse sh!t test.


If she does not feel safe, she is likely going to let you know. And she did.

No excuse for giving your wife the finger.

You could have tried to understand her, and to make her feel safe.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> Yes, very much so.
> 
> It seems we can achieve one but only at the cost of another.
> 
> But that's outside the scope of this, I think.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


:scratchhead:

Weird, I see it as the actual problem that needs addressed.


----------



## Marduk

Ok, let's talk about **** tests. 

I think men and women do this both. And I think a high percentage, say 90% or so, the best response is a smirk and not to take it seriously. This of course is the stuff that is annoyance, or baiting, or whatever. ****iness, agree and amplify, all that stuff works wonders for me in this space.

The 10% is stuff that really matters and needs focus on. But separating the two and treating them differently rather than chasing every rabbit on the field makes sense to me.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> :scratchhead:
> 
> Weird, I see it as the actual problem that needs addressed.


Oh, I agree.

I just don't think that resolution has anything to do with the red pill.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## john117

I agree if I felt she was concerned for her safety. But this was one of the many "he is enjoying MY car so I should pi$$ him off enough so he does not get into the habit of borrowing MY car to go to Home Depot next time" type tests.

Why is it that I get 100x the comments from her driving her X3 vs my Mini?


----------



## jld

Smirking sounds disrespectful to me.


----------



## Marduk

john117 said:


> I agree if I felt she was concerned for her safety. But this was one of the many "he is enjoying MY car so I should pi$$ him off enough so he does not get into the habit of borrowing MY car to go to Home Depot next time" type tests.
> 
> Why is it that I get 100x the comments from her driving her X3 vs my Mini?


Because you tolerate it.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> I agree if I felt she was concerned for her safety. But this was one of the many "he is enjoying MY car so I should pi$$ him off enough so he does not get into the habit of borrowing MY car to go to Home Depot next time" type tests.
> 
> Why is it that I get 100x the comments from her driving her X3 vs my Mini?


Why not let her drive?


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> Smirking sounds disrespectful to me.


As does the comment that caused the smirk. 

Making it a big deal only amplifies the problem that wasn't really a problem to begin with.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> Oh, I agree.
> 
> I just don't think that resolution has anything to do with the red pill.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Right, it doesn't.

Earlier you had asked me what I would have suggested to you if you were a friend of mine, as I was pulling the MMSL book out of your hands.

I began addressing that question by asking about the emotional intimacy.

That's my point....what you learned from MMSL did not actually address what your underlying problems with your wife are....BECAUSE the red pill is not what you really needed, nor is it what you need now it seems.

If you were a good friend of mine and if I felt you could handle and implement the contents of it, I would have recommended this book for you instead of MMSL:

Intimacy & Desire: Awaken the Passion in Your Relationship: David Schnarch, Dr. David Schnarch P.h.D: 9780825305672: Amazon.com: Books

It is about so much more than sex.


----------



## Marduk

Can you go into why you'd recommend that? What the core big ideas are there?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## naiveonedave

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> It would depend on what your wife's ENs were, if she had resentments, what was the relationship was like when it started vs. right before the sex stopped/slowed, and what it was like after.... lots of things.
> There is no magic answer that will work for every woman. Women are not all alike.


here is the problem, Marduk already was meeting her needs, at least as well as he knew how. 


Even inside of MMSL, there are nuances that you need to individualize. Take 'pound her into the mattress', basically means, imo, give her the best sex of her life. AND that is very different woman by woman in my experience.


----------



## Faithful Wife

The key points are his idea of the flexible but solid self, and how to map your partner's mind. They are quite big concepts, hard to get into in just one post....but they are pretty brilliant if you can apply them to your life.

He holds neither gender as higher or lower in value, or higher or lower in causing the problems in relationships. He treats people as people.


----------



## Faithful Wife

naiveonedave said:


> Even inside of MMSL, there are nuances that you need to individualize. Take 'pound her into the mattress', basically means, imo, give her the best sex of her life. AND that is very different woman by woman in my experience.


If you understand that this is different for every woman, then why read or recommend a book by a man who tells us that all women are exactly the same?

He tells us ALL women:

*have responsive desire (not true)

*want to be dominated (not true)

*want to be pounded into the mattress (not true)

*have an inner sl*t (not true)

*are hypergamous (not true).....

....need I go on?


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Speaking only from my experience, the only time I get snarky or rude is when I've already tried other methods first and now I'm just annoyed and frustrated, and yes he then will refuse because I am being disrespectful. 
So just for an example
"hun, could you drive a little slower?" 
nothing
"H, slow down please"
nothing
"[email protected] it, would you slow the car down!"
no, because my tone was not respectful.

Well, f-ing listen to me when it is then. 
While there are some women who will just be rude to see what you do with it, not all rudeness and disrespect is a sh*t test. Not 90% either. 

With "he doesn't listen to me" as a top complaint of wives everywhere, I think it's way off the mark to think her words are games and tests and to smirk them away and stand up to them.


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> As does the comment that caused the smirk.
> 
> Making it a big deal only amplifies the problem that wasn't really a problem to begin with.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Aren't you advocating for leadership on another thread? 

Reacting, especially with a smirk, is not leadership. Not to me, anyway.


----------



## john117

marduk said:


> Because you tolerate it.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



I don't. I've let her comment on occasion as an experiment )) when driving the X3 and invariably she thinks I'm reenacting Grand Theft Auto V. So when she starts kvetching about how I drive I first go polite for a couple turns or I stop responding.

I do not tolerate it but it's not a behavior - or sh!t test - she can put aside. So I have a choice of listening to her complain or take a not so dignified action which usually works a lot better.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> The key points are his idea of the flexible but solid self, and how to map your partner's mind. They are quite big concepts, hard to get into in just one post....but they are pretty brilliant if you can apply them to your life.
> 
> He holds neither gender as higher or lower in value, or higher or lower in causing the problems in relationships. He treats people as people.


And I get that FW. 

And here's the thing. I read that book. I mapped what I thought her thought processes were. And it just made me sad. 

And because her needs were being met and mine weren't, she really wasn't invested in changing the status quo. She wasn't interested in reading books like this, or improving our sex life ('it's just the way things are when you get married'). So all I got was depressed and frustrated. 

Until I rocked the boat because of mmslp, she was a-ok.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## john117

jld said:


> Why not let her drive?



We usually share driving duty to DD's college-town with the X3. Yesterday it was an exception as it was late at night and H2 hates night driving.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> And I get that FW.
> 
> And here's the thing. I read that book. I mapped what I thought her thought processes were. And it just made me sad.
> 
> And because her needs were being met and mine weren't, she really wasn't invested in changing the status quo. She wasn't interested in reading books like this, or improving our sex life ('it's just the way things are when you get married'). So all I got was depressed and frustrated.
> 
> Until I rocked the boat because of mmslp, she was a-ok.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Ok then maybe what you have found is that your wife just isn't capable of the type of emotional intimacy you are seeking.

Since MMSL didn't help you achieve it either, it doesn't sound like you ever reached your goal....perhaps it isn't possible.

Have you considered that she just can't be what you are wanting?

Maybe there is no book that can help you bring it out of her?

That's what I would say if you were my friend.

I would also say that my husband would eventually leave me if that were the case between us. He requires the emotional intimacy to be real and at a very high level, and if it isn't there he would not be happy and would eventually give up.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> If you understand that this is different for every woman, then why read or recommend a book by a man who tells us that all women are exactly the same?


I can get behind that. People are different.

Some counterpoints, though.


> He tells us ALL women:
> 
> *have responsive desire (not true)


I think everybody has responsive desire, but I've found the women I've been with are subtly more this way somehow than me.
Thoughts?


> *want to be dominated (not true)


Agreed.


> *want to be pounded into the mattress (not true)


Not all women all the time, but I think lots of women want this sometimes.

And lots of men have angst about that, either wanting it themselves and not going for it, or being ok with their wife wanting it, you know?


> *have an inner sl*t (not true)


I think many women do have an inner 'secret garden' that their men can try to access... and it's a pretty fun place.

Especially when it's a surprise.

Why is that offensive?


> *are hypergamous (not true).....


I think what happens here is that women, like men, all value slightly different things. But there are general lines of what women find attractive in men, and vice versa.

It doesn't mean that they all apply, or apply 100%, etc, but I think they are there, as a launching pad.

And I think -- and this is where we may disagree -- that many women 'want to want' certain things in men, and end up getting turned off by that.

Like my wife 'wants to want' a nice guy who's compliant, and fights for that, and then is sexually disinterested when she gets it... and either doesn't know why, or won't admit it.

And then the dude that's been giving her what she says she wants doesn't get what he wants back, and he gets frustrated and shuts down.

Which is the blue pill, right?

YKWIM?


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Ok then maybe what you have found is that your wife just isn't capable of the type of emotional intimacy you are seeking.
> 
> Since MMSL didn't help you achieve it either, it doesn't sound like you ever reached your goal....perhaps it isn't possible.
> 
> Have you considered that she just can't be what you are wanting?
> 
> Maybe there is no book that can help you bring it out of her?
> 
> That's what I would say if you were my friend.
> 
> I would also say that my husband would eventually leave me if that were the case between us. He requires the emotional intimacy to be real and at a very high level, and if it isn't there he would not be happy and would eventually give up.


Wouldn't a logical response to that be to maximize what is possible, as long as you can live with that?


----------



## Marduk

My point is that the kind of 'how do men and women come together and be happy' kind of books, while great, fell completly on deaf ears.

Because when one is happy and one is not, the happy one isn't really invested in letting go of what makes them happy.

And that's even the case if one is just content but OK with that, and one is not. It's an unstable power structure where one is being supported, and one is doing the supporting.

What MMSLP did for me is kick the stool out of the whole thing and stop me from supporting her when I wasn't being supported back. And being a little ruthless and cold about that just stopped the emotional manipulation end of the game. The "Nice Guy" stuff.


----------



## samyeagar

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Speaking only from my experience, the only time I get snarky or rude is when I've already tried other methods first and now I'm just annoyed and frustrated, and yes he then will refuse because I am being disrespectful.
> So just for an example
> *"hun, could you drive a little slower?"
> nothing*
> "H, slow down please"
> nothing
> "[email protected] it, would you slow the car down!"
> no, because my tone was not respectful.
> 
> Well, f-ing listen to me when it is then.
> While there are some women who will just be rude to see what you do with it, not all rudeness and disrespect is a sh*t test. Not 90% either.
> 
> With "he doesn't listen to me" as a top complaint of wives everywhere, I think it's way off the mark to think her words are games and tests and to smirk them away and stand up to them.


Suppose instead of ignoring you, he, just as respectfully explained that he was the one driving, and was perfectly comfortable with the speed he was driving? Would you have been ok with that?


----------



## NobodySpecial

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Speaking only from my experience, the only time I get snarky or rude is when I've already tried other methods first and now I'm just annoyed and frustrated, and yes he then will refuse because I am being disrespectful.
> So just for an example
> "hun, could you drive a little slower?"
> nothing


Please pull over, I am getting out. If he doesn't, the next time he has to stop, get out. Say I don't want to ride with you when you drive that fast. Walk away.



Ask me how I know that works.


----------



## Julius Beastcavern

NobodySpecial said:


> Please pull over, I am getting out. If he doesn't, the next time he has to stop, get out. Say I don't want to ride with you when you drive that fast. Walk away.
> 
> 
> 
> Ask me how I know that works.


One of my relatives ended up walking 50 miles home doing that


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Brigit said:


> While I do agree with your POV for the most part there is a key element I think you miss. Women will lower the bar for very attractive charismatic men.
> 
> I had a huge set of rules that I followed for most men but I did meet this one guy who made me throw away the book. If a woman finds a man soooooo sexy and she wants him badly enough she will make excuses for his behavior and or lack of "status." Only very attractive, charismatic men get away with this sh*t.


Oh no... that's totally consistent with how I view it. We might disagree on the weights applied. Drop dead sexy charismatic guy isn't going to get much more than passing interest, or women only interested in a short term fling, if he's a bum. Above whatever her minimum bar is, the greater weight shifts to non-physical traits. Guys with better non-physical traits will get an attraction bias applied - she'll think they're hotter than she otherwise would. That's what the research says.

Someone's total attractiveness is the sum of all these traits. Attractive charismatic is two things - physical attractiveness and charisma. Status isn't the only trait that women will trade off others for.

It helps to explain the tradeoffs in numbers. Even if you don't like rating systems, I think we'll all agree we're capable of determining whether any given trait of one person is more appealing to us than the quality of the trait in another person - which means we can quantify it. Regardless, this demonstrates the tradeoffs we all make:

Guy A
Status Rating 8
Personality/Charisma Rating 7
Physical Attractiveness Rating 6

Guy B
Status Rating 6
Personality/Charisma Rating 7
Physical Attractiveness Rating 8

IMO, both guys will do about the same with women. Guy B may lure more women for quick lay, but Guy A probably attracts more women looking for security. Given that more women are seeking security than a quick lay, they probably actually get the about the same amount of sex given an equally popular personality. There's a lot more traits to consider, and even different weights for those traits, but increasing the perception of any of them increases his overall attractiveness.

Each trait likely has some minimum she'll accept, regardless of other traits (or at least requiring absurdly high trade off) based on her experience of what she can get. So dog ugly guy is going to have to be stupid rich if he's trading on status for a beautiful woman (who will likely have poor traits elsewhere, otherwise she could get a rich, good looking guy). These will still be pretty rare, as the beautiful women who will accept the trade probably come with other flaws he'll reject. But we still see it.

Where it is most applicable is differentiating between acceptable mates. Two guys above her minimum bar for physical attractiveness. The less physically attractive guy is still in the running if he has superior non-physical traits. And because men and women put different weight on different traits, men placing more weight on physical traits than women and less weight on status, it may be said that men are more able than women to manipulate their overall rank, and more able to sustain that rank with age. It's not the result of inferiority or degradation of one sex vs the other, but a product of differences in how the sexes weight various traits.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> I think everybody has responsive desire, but I've found the women I've been with are subtly more this way somehow than me.
> Thoughts?
> 
> *Red pill ideas about responsive desire are mostly way off base and are only viewing it from the very narrow lens of male fantasy (of course). Lots of women have raging ACTIVE desire. Men and women both get conditioned to not accept this in women's behavior. Then by the time we're all grown up, we believe that this conditioning is "natural".*
> 
> Not all women all the time, but I think lots of women want this sometimes.
> 
> And lots of men have angst about that, either wanting it themselves and not going for it, or being ok with their wife wanting it, you know?
> 
> *But lots of men want a woman to tie him up and slap him around, or force him to do things, or make him be the shy/indirect one while she is the dominant one. Lots of men want a woman to do the banging. MMSL ignores all of this and acts like it is "unnatural".  Everything humans do sexually (and consensually) is natural, but a homophobe like Athol is clueless to this fact. He thinks what he wants is what every man wants. It is just plain ignorance.*
> 
> I think many women do have an inner 'secret garden' that their men can try to access... and it's a pretty fun place.
> 
> Especially when it's a surprise.
> 
> Why is that offensive?
> 
> *It is offensive because some women don't want to get banged into the mattress even if they do have a secret garden. Not every woman's secret garden is the same. Some women have secrets so shocking that mattress banging looks TAME by comparison. In fact, have you read this book?*
> 
> My Secret Garden: Women's Sexual Fantasies: Nancy Friday: 9780704332942: Amazon.com: Books
> 
> *It isn't full of just responsive desire women wanting to get pounded into the mattress.*
> 
> And I think -- and this is where we may disagree -- that many women 'want to want' certain things in men, and end up getting turned off by that.
> 
> Like my wife 'wants to want' a nice guy who's compliant, and fights for that, and then is sexually disinterested when she gets it... and either doesn't know why, or won't admit it.
> 
> *I don't know what to say to this other than that she might just not be into you. I don't get why people struggle so hard to make someone be into them, and try to find some generalized advice that causes the magic to just appear. Why not just accept the evidence before your eyes instead of trying to MAKE her be into you?*


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> Wouldn't a logical response to that be to maximize what is possible, as long as you can live with that?


Why would he do this?

If it becomes evident that "it" isn't there, then it just isn't there.


----------



## Marduk

> Originally Posted by marduk View Post
> I think everybody has responsive desire, but I've found the women I've been with are subtly more this way somehow than me.
> Thoughts?
> 
> Red pill ideas about responsive desire are mostly way off base and are only viewing it from the very narrow lens of male fantasy (of course). Lots of women have raging ACTIVE desire. men and women both get conditioned to not accept this in women's behavior. Then by the time we're all grown up, we believe that conditioning is "natural".


Oh, I agree. My point is we all have both.

But my point is that my wife actually relies more and more on my active desire as a way to trigger her responsive desire.

And sometimes of course, it's reversed, right. But not as often.


> Not all women all the time, but I think lots of women want this sometimes.
> 
> And lots of men have angst about that, either wanting it themselves and not going for it, or being ok with their wife wanting it, you know?
> 
> But lots of men want a woman to tie him up and slap him around, or force him to do things, or make him be the shy/indirect one while she is the dominant one. Lots of men want a woman to do the banging. MMSL ignores all of this and acts like it is "unnatural". Everything humans do sexually (and consensually) is natural, but a homophobe like Athol is clueless to this fact. He thinks what he wants is what every man wants. It is just plain ignorance.


Agreed.

So how to communicate this more responsibly, and in a way that a man doesn't require his wife's interest in working on this openly to get at?




> I think many women do have an inner 'secret garden' that their men can try to access... and it's a pretty fun place.
> 
> Especially when it's a surprise.
> 
> Why is that offensive?
> 
> It is offensive because some women don't want to get banged into the mattress even if they do have a secret garden. Not every woman's secret garden is the same. Some women have secrets so shocking that mattress banging looks TAME by comparison. In fact, have you read this book?


Oh, I 100% agree with you. This was kinda my kink, back in the day.

Go after the hot 'innocent' girl that would never be highly sexual, and create a space for her to be sexual, and then BOOM!

You would all of a sudden get to enjoy the fruits of that garden, you know?



> My Secret Garden: Women's Sexual Fantasies: Nancy Friday: 9780704332942: Amazon.com: Books


I love that book. It's in my nightstand, and it's my wife's copy.


> It isn't full of just responsive desire women wanting to get pounded into the mattress.
> 
> And I think -- and this is where we may disagree -- that many women 'want to want' certain things in men, and end up getting turned off by that.
> 
> Like my wife 'wants to want' a nice guy who's compliant, and fights for that, and then is sexually disinterested when she gets it... and either doesn't know why, or won't admit it.
> 
> I don't know what to say to this other than that she might just not be into you. I don't get why people struggle so hard to make someone be into them, and try to find some generalized advice that causes the magic to just appear. Why not just accept the evidence before your eyes instead of trying to MAKE her be into you?


Except that she is REALLY into me when I act a certain way. Pretty much 80% of the MMSLP way, and she's crazy hot after me, and it's literally insane.

To the point that it's like we're in high school.

But I just don't want to live just that way, and the emotional end seems to get in the way of that somehow for her.

As does being too 'safe.'


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Why would he do this?
> 
> If it becomes evident that "it" isn't there, then it just isn't there.


I think you're missing the point, and I don't know how to say it any different.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> You're forgetting about a lot of other important factors- like compatability. A lower ranking guy who is compatable with you will win every time in the long run.
> 
> This is where this kind of thinking shoots itself in the foot.
> Get a woman on a superficial level. Just trying to get the highest sex rank you can get based on your own sex rank (and trying to up yours for the best results) and are people really shocked when after the relationship butterflies wear off the sex does too?
> There was no substance there. It was all based on trivial things that might matter to initial attraction but don't make a LTR.


I don't disagree. Compatibility is important. More important is having plenty of options in order to find the best compatibility. None of these attraction ideas are exclusive to picking a highly compatible mate. You have to attract the mate first to find out if you're compatible. That takes a bit longer. Regardless, one makes better decisions on compatibility from a place of plenty than a place of scarcity.



SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> So if you're just trying to get someone home for the night, this kind of stuff means a lot more, but when you're talking about marriage and LTR it's setting you up for failure IMO.


Attraction is just the beginning. It's not a set up for failure, it simply gives you more options. More options allows you to make better choices and find better quality. The tendency to settle sooner with a less satisfying mate is greater when mates who will accept you are scarce. When you are in greater demand and you have a lot of options, you can afford to be more picky.


----------



## Anon1111

my take (which I'm sure many will not like)...

authenticy and "owning your reality" is paramount for men

there is no way to fake this

it is something you either have or you don't

it CAN be developed, but when a woman sees by your actions and overall demeanor that you do not currently own your situation, she considers you a non-entity 

she has no interest in non-entities and it is inconceivable that a non-entity could become something attractive.

attempts by the non-entity to pass himself off as something else engender hostility for insulting her intelligence 

women have so little empathy and (importantly) SYMPATHY for men of this description that it is extremely unlikely that they could ever offer constructive advice.

I don't exactly blame them, because in some sense offering advice to men in this predicament most often results in encouraging imposters


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> To the point that it's like we're in high school.
> 
> But I just don't want to live just that way, and the emotional end seems to get in the way of that somehow for her.
> 
> As does being too 'safe.'


Then I would just say your wife is emotionally immature.

Do you accept that you may never get the emotional intimacy you seek, or not?

That's the bottom line.

If you accept it, then stop trying to change her.

If you don't accept it, then just live your life and either prepare to leave when you can, or do your own thing and stop being focused on her at all.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> I think you're missing the point, and I don't know how to say it any different.


To me it just sounds like you don't want to give up on the idea that you can change her.


----------



## Deejo

Faithful Wife said:


> Why would he do this?
> 
> If it becomes evident that "it" isn't there, then it just isn't there.


Because it IS there when he does the things people here are telling him not to do.

Marduk has stated this many, many times.

So do we chalk that up to a man who is trying his best to work within the framework of his marriage and keep his family together, or torpedo it, because he picked a dud for a wife and the methods he uses to success, to his satisfaction and hers, offends others?


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

samyeagar said:


> Suppose instead of ignoring you, he, just as respectfully explained that he was the one driving, and was perfectly comfortable with the speed he was driving? Would you have been ok with that?


Depends on what it is. If it's that exact situation then no because he drives too fast and scares me and he knows this. If he wants to drive fast, do it when I'm not in the car. The only thing he should do in that situation is to listen to me and slow down. 

But that was just an example I thought of because of the other posts. I can't think of a time where he refused to slow down _eventually _ sometimes he'd ask me to ask him nicely again banghead but he has ignored other similar requests due to "tone" after trying a few times without the tone first. Drives me crazy. <---- all these are/were slowly getting better but holy crap if he read about sh*t tests and he believed the right answer would be to not give in, I would be miserable. 

If he had a reason why he didn't want to do something I was asking then we could discuss it but my point is that my tone doesn't change anything about what I am wanting and why and that I want to be listened to and that no, I'm not testing his manhood.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Deejo said:


> Because it IS there when he does the things people here are telling him not to do.
> 
> Marduk has stated this many, many times.
> 
> So do we chalk that up to a man who is trying his best to work within the framework of his marriage and keep his family together, or torpedo it, because he picked a dud for a wife and the methods he uses to success, to his satisfaction and hers, offends others?


He is saying to us here and now that he is not getting the emotional intimacy he seeks from her, even though he is getting the other stuff.

He is also saying that HE doesn't want to have a marriage that he has to run like a high school game anymore.

He is the one saying that MMSL didn't actually bring him what he was hoping to get.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> He is saying to us here and now that he is not getting the emotional intimacy he seeks from her, even though he is getting the other stuff.
> 
> He is also saying that HE doesn't want to have a marriage that he has to run like a high school game anymore.
> 
> He is the one saying that MMSL didn't actually bring him what he was hoping to get.


OK, we're getting off track.

I went to MMSLP primer because our sex life was dwindling and my wife wasn't interested on working on that, and was only showing interest essentially in partying with her friends.

And it succeeded like gangbusters there.

Different scope of conversation is the emotional stuff, which like Esther Perel says, for many actually gets in the way of eroticism.

So can we park the second part for a different conversation?

Because my point is that MMSLP worked. Really, really well. For the scope of what I wanted at that time.

And if you want guys to not go there FW, please replace it with something. Something that takes into consideration stuff that actually works on wives that aren't particularly invested in wanting it to.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> To me it just sounds like you don't want to give up on the idea that you can change her.


Nope.

What did fascinate me though, is that when I was MAPping hard (MMSLP-lingo), she was damn happy.

Did I change her? Or just change myself to bring forth more of what I wanted from her?


----------



## Faithful Wife

I'm glad it worked to get you sex, marduk.

I'm hoping to find better books that do address what you just said.

However, some people actually get that benefit out of Schnarch's books, too.

Some get those changes out of doing a marriage retreat.

Some get changes out of just doing a 180.

Some get it from going to counseling.

So MMSL isn't the only way....in fact it is quite an obscure book most people have never even heard of.

But regardless of it working for you to get you sex and you say that's fine with you and the emotional intimacy doesn't really matter in this conversation, it is still full of hateful mean spirited messages and still doesn't deserve so much air time at TAM, IMO.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> I'm glad it worked to get you sex, marduk.


My point FW is... _why?_


> I'm hoping to find better books that do address what you just said.


Thanks, I seriously appreciate it.


> However, some people actually get that benefit out of Schnarch's books, too.


I think we would. It's just 'we' won't go there, it will only ever be me.


> Some get those changes out of doing a marriage retreat.


Not going to happen.
I'd love it, but it's not going to happen.


> Some get changes out of just doing a 180.


How is the 180 any different than red pill?
I seriously thought AK just re-wrote the 180 and called it MMSLP.


> Some get it from going to counseling.


sure.


> So MMSL isn't the only way....in fact it is quite an obscure book most people have never even heard of.
> 
> But regardless of it working for you to get you sex and you say that's fine with you and the emotional intimacy doesn't really matter in this conversation, it is still full of hateful mean spirited messages and still doesn't deserve so much air time at TAM, IMO.


I agree with you FW.

I'm trying to invite your wisdom to replace it with.

Because for guys like me who wanted to get laid and paid more attention by their wives... who defined that as 'working.'

It sure worked.

Now, I'd like to offer something that is as effective, but without the stuff that is distasteful. And more long-term.

Help me with that.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> Nope.
> 
> What did fascinate me though, is that when I was MAPping hard (MMSLP-lingo), she was damn happy.
> 
> Did I change her? Or just change myself to bring forth more of what I wanted from her?


I don't know how many times anyone has to say this...I'm not the only one saying it....but any self help book could have told you to do the steps on the MAP.

Is it really that mysterious why any of us would be more attracted to our spouse if they start taking better care of themselves? You really think Athol is some kind of magical genie to have explained to this you? :scratchhead:


----------



## naiveonedave

Faithful Wife said:


> If you understand that this is different for every woman, then why read or recommend a book by a man who tells us that all women are exactly the same?
> 
> He tells us ALL women:
> 
> *have responsive desire (not true)
> 
> *want to be dominated (not true)
> 
> *want to be pounded into the mattress (not true)
> 
> *have an inner sl*t (not true)
> 
> *are hypergamous (not true).....
> 
> ....need I go on?



Every woman I have had a sexual relationship with have had responsive desire, wanted to be dominated, wanted to be pounded (in their own unique way - you are missing was AK actually says about being pounded), all have had an inner **** (they all liked sex, a lot, once the door was opened). I can agree with your re: hypergamous. 

So I think AK is more or less on the mark. Not perfect, but in my experience very close to reality.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Brigit said:


> I agree. And when "Devil" speaks of his conquests it sounds a lot like bragging about how many girls he's nailed and how he uses certain tricks to make up for his physical attributes. From his pictures he seems attractive but maybe in person he comes across less or at least feels not so attractive. I understand that feeling. It doesn't matter how many people tell me I'm beautiful I don't see it.
> 
> In any case, marriage is serious business and when you decide you've met "the one" it's hard not to be a skeptical and a bit afraid of what's ahead.


:scratchhead: I don't consider women "conquests", nor have I spoken about women I've been with or picked up in any context other than example of how a particular thing plays out in real life.

I can't say I ever feel like "less". I'm an above average or otherwise decent looking guy by most accounts. I'm good with that. My interest in pickup-style material was the result of incessantly being "friend-zoned" in HS in the 90s. The girlfriends I did have were what I believed to be "below average". There was a significant disconnect between how I perceived myself on looks and how I perceived the girls who were interested in me. Either I was less physically attractive than I thought, or I was going about things wrong. It made more sense to me to work on improvement than to revise my self-image down. I read a lot of material and started working toward making myself more socially adept and outgoing. It turned out that my primary flaws were being too shy, too safe, too accommodating... too "nice". I was the guy whose shoulder you cried on about the ******* who dumped you after he f*cked you. These girls weren't more physically attractive than me. I was just boring and lacked certain social skills. I wasn't physically attractive enough to compensate for that dead weight, so other guys got the girls that were on my level of physical attractiveness (often guys less attractive than myself). The only thing I had going for me was supportiveness and a feminine style of conversation I learned from mom - don't try to fix it, just listen, show compassion and be supportive. In short, I had no game, so I went and learned some. Night and day difference in outcomes, both sexually and in relationships.

MMSL is very much in the vein of helping guys who were like me in high school. The guys who were too soft and motivated to please women, but never changed.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> I don't know how many times anyone has to say this...I'm not the only one saying it....but any self help book could have told you to do the steps on the MAP.


Sure, help me find one, or some. I get asked stuff like this all the time.


> Is it really that mysterious why any of us would be more attracted to our spouse if they start taking better care of themselves? You really think Athol is some kind of magical genie to have explained to this you? :scratchhead:


That was only a piece of the puzzle, but a big one.

And there was something powerful in the following train of thought:
1. a kick in the ass that you need to do better
2. a way to be better that doesn't require compliance, interest, or anything at all from your wife
3. sets you up for success no matter what she does with that

One of the good things I got from MMSLP is it kinda sets up a situation where your wife has to make a choice. Step up as a wife, or pull the pin. Which is the point of the 180, too, isn't it?

The rest of the self help stuff is really reliant on compromise, and coming together as a couple. 

When like I said, if one person is OK with the sitation and one is not (which can fall on LD/HD lines)...

Then only one person is really invested in making it better.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> Now, I'd like to offer something that is as effective, but without the stuff that is distasteful. And more long-term.
> 
> Help me with that.


I'm working toward this. But when I bring up things here, you bat what I'm saying down without actually listening sometimes.

In fact I'm giving you clue in a type of MMSL speak that I was hoping you might hear...but you just keep turning it back to MMSL and not really getting it.

The biggest clue I said was that my husband would leave me if I wasn't capable of the type of intimacy he wants. This applies whether I mean physical or emotional intimacy.

Instead of asking more about that, you (and Deejo) assume I just mean he'd walk out the door without a backward glance.

That's not it.

The point is that he loves himself more than he loves me, no matter how much he loves me, he puts himself and his needs first and then meets mine. This is the only way any of us can expect to get what we want. He has plenty of energy to meet his own needs first and still meet all of mine.

But if I can't meet his, he won't stick around forever. He also won't try to turn us both into a pretzel or make us change to make it happen.

It is either there or it isn't.


----------



## naiveonedave

Faithful Wife said:


> I don't know how many times anyone has to say this...I'm not the only one saying it....but any self help book could have told you to do the steps on the MAP.
> 
> Is it really that mysterious why any of us would be more attracted to our spouse if they start taking better care of themselves? You really think Athol is some kind of magical genie to have explained to this you? :scratchhead:


However, MMSL comes with its own 2x4 and lockerroom language which makes it easy for men to digest to get to the point of actually making changes on themselves. Hence, why Marduk and I find it effective. I needed the bluntness, directed 2x4s provided and the way it lead to making my MAP.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> One of the good things I got from MMSLP is it kinda sets up a situation where your wife has to make a choice. Step up as a wife, or pull the pin. Which is the point of the 180, too, isn't it?


Except he tries to do this with silly high school games like "dread", instead of just doing it through personal integrity and self-fulfillment.


----------



## NobodySpecial

naiveonedave said:


> Every woman I have had a sexual relationship with have had responsive desire, wanted to be dominated, wanted to be pounded (in their own unique way - you are missing was AK actually says about being pounded), all have had an inner **** (they all liked sex, a lot, once the door was opened). I can agree with your re: hypergamous.
> 
> So I think AK is more or less on the mark. Not perfect, but in my experience very close to reality.


Is there a subtle inference on this board that responsive desire is bad or somehow lesser? It kind of seems that way. I don't see why that would be?


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> I'm working toward this. But when I bring up things here, you bat my down without actually listening sometimes.


Ya, I get that a lot. Ask JLD.

It's my way of testing what you say so that I can accept it. I'm not rejecting, I'm challenging to see if it can stand up to it.

I can see how it could make it feel like I'm not listening.


> In fact I'm giving you clue in a type of MMSL speak that I was hoping you might hear...but you just keep turning it back to MMSL and not really getting it.


What I'm trying to get into is the stuff that worked articulated differently... because it does work.

And without the baggage of what doesn't work, or is just stupid.


> The biggest clue I said was that my husband would leave me if I wasn't capable of the type of intimacy he wants. This applies whether I mean physical or emotional intimacy.


That must have been difficult. How did he do that in a way that worked for you?


> Instead of asking more about that, you (and Deejo) assume I just mean he'd walk out the door without a backward glance.
> 
> That's not it.
> 
> The point is that he loves himself more than he loves me, no matter how much he loves me, he puts himself and his needs first and then meets mine. This is the only way any of us can expect to get what we want. He has plenty of energy to meet his own needs first and still meet all of mine.


Aha! 

This realy resonates with me.


> But if I can't meet his, he won't stick around forever. He also won't try to turn us both into a pretzel or make us change to make it happen.
> 
> It is either there or it isn't.


I think that's limiting.

Because what I find is that it's there sometimes, and isn't there at other times, and want to know why.

I don't think anything is static.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> Because what I find is that it's there sometimes, and isn't there at other times, and want to know why.
> 
> I don't think anything is static.


I can't say why for sure with your wife. The unique dynamic between two people is not something any person (or author) can know from afar. You have tried to apply what you've learned and found it works sometimes and not others. For me, I would not call that a success....I would want it all the time. If his love (to the level I want it) or the great sex wasn't there all the time, I would also leave eventually. I couldn't handle not knowing if it was true or not.

This doesn't mean we don't have moments where we don't like each other, we do have those moments.

But there's not one moment when we are not sexually attracted to each other or deeply, emotionally in love.


----------



## Icey181

marduk said:


> And I get that FW.
> 
> And here's the thing. I read that book. I mapped what I thought her thought processes were. And it just made me sad.
> 
> And because her needs were being met and mine weren't, she really wasn't invested in changing the status quo. She wasn't interested in reading books like this, or improving our sex life ('it's just the way things are when you get married'). So all I got was depressed and frustrated.
> 
> *Until I rocked the boat because of mmslp, she was a-ok.*
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


And _that_ is the essential point to the entire idea.


----------



## naiveonedave

NobodySpecial said:


> Is there a subtle inference on this board that responsive desire is bad or somehow lesser? It kind of seems that way. I don't see why that would be?


I agree. In my experience most women expect the man to initiate and then they respond to it. Most women, most of the time. That is innate to being human, I think. I don't think it is learned behavior, though it could be. And there is nothing wrong with it, except it doesn't align with feminism


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> That must have been difficult. How did he do that in a way that worked for you?


It wasn't difficult. It was established right up front.

Sex has always been the easy part of dating and relationships for him.

But love and deeply connected emotional intimacy isn't something you have with everyone.

So when he had had enough of fun sex with fun women who he didn't have a deeper connection with, he went hunting for the woman who he had both with.

When we met and it seemed we had that for each other, we talked a lot about what we need and expect...and he explained how important that love and connection were to him.

I agreed and said the same, I needed those things and also needed the great sex, in order to be happy and stay together in the long term. Neither of us would have proceeded into a LTR if these were missing.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Except he tries to do this with silly high school games like "dread", instead of just doing it through personal integrity and self-fulfillment.


OK. Let me articulate some real situations, that accidentally involved 'dread game.'

What I'd like from you is help understanding in non-MMSL terms why they worked, and what to do with that.

The first situation is when she was going out and away with her girlfriends all the time. Including a lot of coed situations. So, after a lot of other dead ends, I just started doing it myself.

Then, after a few weeks of that, she suddenly 'got' why I had a problem with her behaviour. And was more open to talking about that. Because the shoe was on the other foot, you know?

At the same time, there was a lot more sex.

Another time, later in my map, one of her friends propositioned my wife for her to 'share' me. Half-joking, but only half. This friend was younger, and a blonde bombshell type that my wife always thought was hotter than her (and not my type at all).

Now, immediately, my wife was pounding ME into the mattress. And it wasn't just the fact that 'other women think my husband is hot, so he must be hot' it was also 'claiming her territorry' and 'if I don't have crazy sex with him, other women might.'

So how to unpack all that in a non douchy way?


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> I can't say why for sure with your wife. The unique dynamic between two people is not something any person (or author) can know from afar. You have tried to apply what you've learned and found it works sometimes and not others. For me, I would not call that a success....I would want it all the time. If his love (to the level I want it) or the great sex wasn't there all the time, I would also leave eventually. I couldn't handle not knowing if it was true or not.
> 
> This doesn't mean we don't have moments where we don't like each other, we do have those moments.
> 
> But there's not one moment when we are not sexually attracted to each other or deeply, emotionally in love.


I've never experienced that, or seen it in others.

It ebbs and flows. Highs and lows. 

Even personally, with working out or at work. There are times that I'm 'on' and times that I'm 'off.'


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> It wasn't difficult. It was established right up front.
> 
> Sex has always been the easy part of dating and relationships for him.
> 
> But love and deeply connected emotional intimacy isn't something you have with everyone.
> 
> So when he had had enough of fun sex with fun women who he didn't have a deeper connection with, he went hunting for the woman who he had both with.
> 
> When we met and it seemed we had that for each other, we talked a lot about what we need and expect...and he explained how important that love and connection were to him.
> 
> I agreed and said the same, I needed those things and also needed the great sex, in order to be happy and stay together in the long term. Neither of us would have proceeded into a LTR if these were missing.


Oh, we did that too. That was us establishing whether we'd get married or not.

But all that went out the window after kids.


----------



## Brigit

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> It turned out that my primary flaws were being too shy, too safe, too accommodating... too "nice". I was the guy whose shoulder you cried on about the ******* who dumped you after he f*cked you.


You sounded like you were really cool too bad you took the Red Pill. 

If your happier with how you are now as opposed to your natural self then that's fine. But that book that you like could easily be called "How to Abuse Your Wife so she Won't Leave." I'm glad you have game now but there's some games not worth playing.


----------



## NobodySpecial

naiveonedave said:


> I agree. In my experience most women expect the man to initiate and then they respond to it. Most women, most of the time. That is inane to being human, I think. I don't think it is learned behavior, though it could be. And there is nothing wrong with it, except it doesn't align with feminism


Inane? Innate? I don't think you meant inane. 

Anyway. I don't think it is innate. I don't think that most anyone does anything most anytime. But the point is, why assume it is bad where it IS as seems to often be the case.


----------



## naiveonedave

marduk said:


> OK. Let me articulate some real situations, that accidentally involved 'dread game.'
> 
> What I'd like from you is help understanding in non-MMSL terms why they worked, and what to do with that.
> 
> The first situation is when she was going out and away with her girlfriends all the time. Including a lot of coed situations. So, after a lot of other dead ends, I just started doing it myself.
> 
> Then, after a few weeks of that, she suddenly 'got' why I had a problem with her behaviour. And was more open to talking about that. Because the shoe was on the other foot, you know?
> 
> At the same time, there was a lot more sex.
> 
> Another time, later in my map, one of her friends propositioned my wife for her to 'share' me. Half-joking, but only half. This friend was younger, and a blonde bombshell type that my wife always thought was hotter than her (and not my type at all).
> 
> Now, immediately, my wife was pounding ME into the mattress. And it wasn't just the fact that 'other women think my husband is hot, so he must be hot' it was also 'claiming her territorry' and 'if I don't have crazy sex with him, other women might.'
> 
> So how to unpack all that in a non douchy way?


it is because there is some truth in the red pill....


----------



## naiveonedave

NobodySpecial said:


> Inane? Innate? I don't think you meant inane.
> 
> Anyway. I don't think it is innate. I don't think that most anyone does anything most anytime. But the point is, why assume it is bad where it IS as seems to often be the case.


stupid spell checker. I meant innate. 

The last sentence I agree w/100%. There is no 'bad' in having responsive desire.


----------



## Marduk

Brigit said:


> You sounded like you were really cool too bad you took the Red Pill.
> 
> If your happier with how you are now as opposed to your natural self then that's fine. But that book that you like could easily be called "How to Abuse Your Wife so she Won't Leave." I'm glad you have game now but there's some games not worth playing.


I was that guy too, for a short time.

And no women ever wanted a relationship with me, because they just saw me as a nice safe (boy)girl friend.

And then were all 'eww' and weirded out when I would make a move.

My point is that without being more assertive and not passive aggressive (i.e. supporting a woman emotionally with nothing in return) did I ever become something that they wanted to have sex with, or be in a relationship with.


----------



## naiveonedave

Brigit said:


> You sounded like you were really cool too bad you took the Red Pill.
> 
> If your happier with how you are now as opposed to your natural self then that's fine. But that book that you like could easily be called "How to Abuse Your Wife so she Won't Leave." I'm glad you have game now but there's some games not worth playing.


He wasn't being his true self when he was a teenager, because teenage young men want it all the time. He had to re-educate himself on how to get what he wanted. And it is not some game. It is to become a better man.


----------



## Icey181

Another point I think Red Pill gets correct:

Women inherently embody dread game.

A girl's night out is subtle dread game, by definition.

A group of women, dressed up for the night, tend to head towards social settings in which they will receive attention, in one way or another, from other men.

That is a rather not-so-subtle and yet amazingly common form of dread that quite a few women play with.

A guy's night out where he and three buddies go get drunk at a ball game is not the same thing.

Men need to learn how to do it properly to even the playing field. It is about establishing independent value as a desirable partner.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> OK. Let me articulate some real situations, that accidentally involved 'dread game.'
> 
> What I'd like from you is help understanding in non-MMSL terms why they worked, and what to do with that.
> 
> The first situation is when she was going out and away with her girlfriends all the time. Including a lot of coed situations. So, after a lot of other dead ends, I just started doing it myself.
> 
> Then, after a few weeks of that, she suddenly 'got' why I had a problem with her behaviour. And was more open to talking about that. Because the shoe was on the other foot, you know?
> 
> At the same time, there was a lot more sex.
> 
> Another time, later in my map, one of her friends propositioned my wife for her to 'share' me. Half-joking, but only half. This friend was younger, and a blonde bombshell type that my wife always thought was hotter than her (and not my type at all).
> 
> Now, immediately, my wife was pounding ME into the mattress. And it wasn't just the fact that 'other women think my husband is hot, so he must be hot' it was also 'claiming her territorry' and 'if I don't have crazy sex with him, other women might.'
> 
> So how to unpack all that in a non douchy way?



Erotic jealousy doesn't have to be douchey. It can be what it is. To argue that this is left over from cave man psychology is my main problem with it.

I have written about how my H and I use erotic jealousy on my blog. It is fun. We both love knowing we are sexy sleek animals in the sexual jungle, and we both love knowing others are hot for us and each other.

What is it you want unpacked? Some people take this all the way out to swinging or hot-wifing. It is all just natural parts of sexuality playing out.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening
I'm afraid that this is the core of the disagreement. At least for me, there are many cases where I can look at two attractive, but different looking women and not be able to choose which is more attractive. I may have to people I like to talk to, but I can't choose whose company I enjoy better.

Its back to steak or fresh cherries. I can't say which I like more. It depends on what I am feeling like at that moment. They are both good, but they are not comparable. 

Some people may be able order everyone they see, but I cannot. 




DvlsAdvc8 said:


> It helps to explain the tradeoffs in numbers. Even if you don't like rating systems, I think we'll all agree we're capable of determining whether any given trait of one person is more appealing to us than the quality of the trait in another person - which means we can quantify it. .


----------



## Marduk

Icey181 said:


> Another point I think Red Pill gets correct:
> 
> Women inherently embody dread game.
> 
> A girl's night out is subtle dread game, by definition.
> 
> A group of women, dressed up for the night, tend to head towards social settings in which they will receive attention, in one way or another, from other men.
> 
> That is a rather not-so-subtle and yet amazingly common form of dread that quite a few women play with.


Yes... and no.

For me, understanding this whole female to female power dynamic that goes on was a massive eye-opener. There's this whole secret world that women inhabit that I just didn't get.

So I now understand the need for female-female bonding and support structure, and also undertand better the power dynamics of "look how beautiful and desired I am" between women. That really don't have anything to do with guys, except as a lever.

And I can accept that women can go out looking all sexy with zero intention of being hit on, or even if they are looking to get hit on, of saying yes to that.

The problem of course is that there might be situations where that "no" becomes a "maybe" that we guys have experienced the other way around.

And I found my wife didn't get how that felt for me as a husband until she experienced it for herself as a wife.

Now, for me, it was completly innocent and unintended, but is something that works. And is easily misused.


> A guy's night out where he and three buddies go get drunk at a ball game is not the same thing.
> 
> Men need to learn how to do it properly to even the playing field. It is about establishing independent value as a desirable partner.


I think the key is intention. Do you intend to manipulate, terrify, and control your partner?

If so, that kinda sucks.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Erotic jealousy doesn't have to be douchey. It can be what it is. To argue that this is left over from cave man psychology is my main problem with it.
> 
> I have written about how my H and I use erotic jealousy on my blog. It is fun. We both love knowing we are sexy sleek animals in the sexual jungle, and we both love knowing others are hot for us and each other.
> 
> What is it you want unpacked? Some people take this all the way out to swinging or hot-wifing. It is all just natural parts of sexuality playing out.


Help me unpack and get at how jealousy and sexuality are intertwined for women, and understand it in a responsible way.

Are there responsible ways for men to leverage that in a marriage? Or is it all a no-fly zone because ... ?


----------



## NobodySpecial

marduk said:


> Yes... and no.
> 
> For me, understanding this whole female to female power dynamic that goes on was a massive eye-opener. There's* this whole secret world that women inhabit* that I just didn't get.


There IS??!!!??? Then I don't get it either.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> *Help me unpack and get at how jealousy and sexuality are intertwined for women*, and understand it in a responsible way.
> 
> Are there responsible ways for men to leverage that in a marriage? Or is it all a no-fly zone because ... ?


So once again.....not all women are the same. So how can this be unpacked in just one way for ALL women?

You are just interested in your wife and why and how it works on her, right?

Have you ever asked her?


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> So once again.....not all women are the same. So how can this be unpacked in just one way for ALL women?
> 
> You are just interested in your wife and why and how it works on her, right?
> 
> Have you ever asked her?


I meant for you. 

We have had these conversations. As I've said, she is not invested in introspection in this area.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Brigit

marduk said:


> I was that guy too, for a short time.
> 
> And no women ever wanted a relationship with me, because they just saw me as a nice safe (boy)girl friend.
> 
> And then were all 'eww' and weirded out when I would make a move.
> 
> My point is that without being more assertive and not passive aggressive (i.e. supporting a woman emotionally with nothing in return) did I ever become something that they wanted to have sex with, or be in a relationship with.


And a book on assertiveness training would be an asset. Perhaps you were a bit "goofy" to these girls but then you became more confident and that was sexy.

I've stated more than once that there are some valid points in the book. But the book still sucks. Why? Because the bad outweighs the good. And the bad is bordering on psychotic. No. I take that back. It is psychotic. There are better books that just teach you how to be the best you without the pathology. 

Read those.


----------



## Icey181

marduk said:


> Yes... and no.
> 
> For me, understanding this whole female to female power dynamic that goes on was a massive eye-opener. There's this whole secret world that women inhabit that I just didn't get.
> 
> So I now understand the need for female-female bonding and support structure, and also undertand better the power dynamics of "look how beautiful and desired I am" between women. That really don't have anything to do with guys, except as a lever.
> 
> And I can accept that women can go out looking all sexy with zero intention of being hit on, or even if they are looking to get hit on, of saying yes to that.
> 
> The problem of course is that there might be situations where that "no" becomes a "maybe" that we guys have experienced the other way around.
> 
> And I found my wife didn't get how that felt for me as a husband until she experienced it for herself as a wife.
> 
> *Now, for me, it was completly innocent and unintended, but is something that works. And is easily misused.*
> 
> 
> *I think the key is intention. Do you intend to manipulate, terrify, and control your partner?*
> 
> If so, that kinda sucks.


I understand the whole notion of in-group competition between women. Personally, I think that the competition _between women_ drives most of the stuff that we recognize as socio-cultural norms on sex.

However, look at the bolded parts.

Red Pill argues that most (well all, but I forego said noise) women are capable of engaging in subtle dread without any directed attention at doing so consciously. 

It gets back to the notion that men and not women are the primary aggressors in forming relationships.

Natural dread that occurs without any malicious intent _is the single most potent form_ because it proves an individual has such a high personal worth that they can manage attention and attraction without putting effort into it.

Women enjoy the competitive advantage in that arena.

Red Pill basically forces men to accept that reasonably attractive women can manage this and therefore, men do not need to be reminded that they are replaceable.


----------



## Marduk

My point Icey is that I did exactly what you say women do better. 

I think both men and women do this all the time. Intentionally or not.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## samyeagar

marduk said:


> I was that guy too, for a short time.
> 
> And no women ever wanted a relationship with me, because they just saw me as a nice safe (boy)girl friend.
> 
> And then were all 'eww' and weirded out when I would make a move.
> 
> My point is that without being more assertive and not passive aggressive (i.e. supporting a woman emotionally with nothing in return) did I ever become something that they wanted to have sex with, or be in a relationship with.


I can understand what this somewhat though, mainly because it is my normal state of being. I was never that nice safe guy that girls cried on my shoulder about their as$hat boyfriends. I mean, I was sometimes...to ones I had friendzoned myself. A woman I was interested in...I didn't provide the shoulder because frankly, I didn't want to listen to it, and the fact that she was interested in someone else, I didn't want to deal with that either. I have absolutely zero desire to compete for the affections of a woman. If she doesn't want me for who I am and want me for what I offer, I see no point in trying to convince her because there are plenty of other women out there who will just see it and want it.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Here marduk....I'll try to explain how it works on me...if this helps....though keep in mind, there will be women right here who will say "oh that's horrible that would never feel good to me"....so again, we're not all the same.

But for me, I love when my husband stakes his claim on me.

I dress up to go out for the night, he f*cks my brains out before I go sometimes, to physically get his smell all over me and get into my body and mind...so that all night I'm dreamy about the great sex.

If I'm going out with my sl*tty friends, he tells me things like "be good and don't let Suzy drag you off to talk to a bunch of dudes" to which I laugh and tell him not to worry, I'm all about him. He says "better be".

When we are in a restaurant and he helps me put on or take off my coat, he makes me face toward him instead out toward the customers, because he says when I pull my arms back and arch slightly to get my coat on, all the men check out my boobs. Whether this is true or not doesn't matter, he's protecting me as if I'm made of gold. He doesn't want a man's eyes on me any more than they already are...he doesn't want to give them anything extra like me with my back arched.

If I'm wearing something too revealing, he looks at me with that mean-daddy look, and I go change out of it and into something he approves of.

However...I also know he trusts me. He makes the little comments but he's never actually accused me of cheating and he does know I only want him. He knows he can trust me because I tell him all the time the things that reassure him of this (and he tells me those things too if I need or want to hear them).

He knows I like to strut my sh*t but that I also don't care about male attention the way a single woman does. He knows I'm used to it, it doesn't flatter me, and he pays so much attention to me that I am never, ever lacking for it. (And not NG attention, sexy hunk attention).

He GETS me, he pays attention to me, he WANTS me...and he refuses to share me.

I like how possessive he is.

I would not like a man who didn't care what I was up to.

Some women would feel suffocated by this.


----------



## Icey181

marduk said:


> My point Icey is that I did exactly what you say women do better.
> 
> I think both men and women do this all the time. Intentionally or not.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Agreed.

Red Pill advice is targeted at men who fail to do this. Ergo my emphasis on what the r/RedPill community contributors talked about as Dread levels 1-5.

Reminding a spouse who is failing to meet intimacy needs that you are still a desirable partner and that you have the capability, if not necessarily the desire, to find those needs met elsewhere, is a fundamental key to many of these situations.

There is a reason Red Pill advice is not simply Fitness Training.

The inclusion of cultivating social skills including engaging in non-SO related hobbies and a general shift in fashion sense in a manner that broadcasts that value differentiate it from the basic "self-improvement" advice many women seem to think is so plentifully available.

I think a great deal of the deadbedroom issues I have seen (and that is the focus of Red Pill, increased sex life) derive from a "comfort-zone" problem.

The Red Pill does not tell men to fake desirability.

It instructs them on how to build actual desirability.


----------



## naiveonedave

Faithful Wife said:


> Here marduk....I'll try to explain how it works on me...if this helps....though keep in mind, there will be women right here who will say "oh that's horrible that would never feel good to me"....so again, we're not all the same.
> 
> But for me, I love when my husband stakes his claim on me.
> 
> I dress up to go out for the night, he f*cks my brains out before I go sometimes, to physically get his smell all over me and get into my body and mind...so that all night I'm dreamy about the great sex.
> 
> If I'm going out with my sl*tty friends, he tells me things like "be good and don't let Suzy drag you off to talk to a bunch of dudes" to which I laugh and tell him not to worry, I'm all about him. He says "better be".
> 
> When we are in a restaurant and he helps me put on or take off my coat, he makes me face toward him instead out toward the customers, because he says when I pull my arms back and arch slightly to get my coat on, all the men check out my boobs. Whether this is true or not doesn't matter, he's protecting me as if I'm made of gold. He doesn't want a man's eyes on me any more than they already are...he doesn't want to give them anything extra like me with my back arched.
> 
> If I'm wearing something too revealing, he looks at me with that mean-daddy look, and I go change out of it and into something he approves of.
> 
> However...I also know he trusts me. He makes the little comments but he's never actually accused me of cheating and he does know I only want him. He knows he can trust me because I tell him all the time the things that reassure him of this (and he tells me those things too if I need or want to hear them).
> 
> He knows I like to strut my sh*t but that I also don't care about male attention the way a single woman does. He knows I'm used to it, it doesn't flatter me, and he pays so much attention to me that I am never, ever lacking for it. (And not NG attention, sexy hunk attention).
> 
> He GETS me, he pays attention to me, he WANTS me...and he refuses to share me.
> 
> I like how possessive he is.
> 
> I would not like a man who didn't care what I was up to.
> 
> Some women would feel suffocated by this.


so in other words he already has taken the red pill or is way more alpha than your common variety American male.


----------



## Faithful Wife

naiveonedave said:


> so in other words he already has taken the red pill or is way more alpha than your common variety American male.


Nope.

He doesn't fear and hate women like the red pill sellers.


----------



## Icey181

Faithful Wife said:


> Here marduk....I'll try to explain how it works on me...if this helps....though keep in mind, there will be women right here who will say "oh that's horrible that would never feel good to me"....so again, we're not all the same.
> 
> But for me, I love when my husband stakes his claim on me.
> 
> I dress up to go out for the night, he f*cks my brains out before I go sometimes, to physically get his smell all over me and get into my body and mind...so that all night I'm dreamy about the great sex.
> 
> If I'm going out with my sl*tty friends, he tells me things like "be good and don't let Suzy drag you off to talk to a bunch of dudes" to which I laugh and tell him not to worry, I'm all about him. He says "better be".
> 
> When we are in a restaurant and he helps me put on or take off my coat, he makes me face toward him instead out toward the customers, because he says when I pull my arms back and arch slightly to get my coat on, all the men check out my boobs. Whether this is true or not doesn't matter, he's protecting me as if I'm made of gold. He doesn't want a man's eyes on me any more than they already are...he doesn't want to give them anything extra like me with my back arched.
> 
> If I'm wearing something too revealing, he looks at me with that mean-daddy look, and I go change out of it and into something he approves of.
> 
> However...I also know he trusts me. He makes the little comments but he's never actually accused me of cheating and he does know I only want him. He knows he can trust me because I tell him all the time the things that reassure him of this (and he tells me those things too if I need or want to hear them).
> 
> He knows I like to strut my sh*t but that I also don't care about male attention the way a single woman does. He knows I'm used to it, it doesn't flatter me, and he pays so much attention to me that I am never, ever lacking for it. (And not NG attention, sexy hunk attention).
> 
> He GETS me, he pays attention to me, he WANTS me...and he refuses to share me.
> 
> I like how possessive he is.
> 
> I would not like a man who didn't care what I was up to.
> 
> Some women would feel suffocated by this.


Yeah, you have what the Red Pill refers to as a natural Alpha.

There is a high level of desirability and an assumption of worth on both sides.

Basically, your entire relationship sounds like one version of a Red Pill endgame.


----------



## Marduk

Brigit said:


> And a book on assertiveness training would be an asset. Perhaps you were a bit "goofy" to these girls but then you became more confident and that was sexy.
> 
> I've stated more than once that there are some valid points in the book. But the book still sucks. Why? Because the bad outweighs the good. And the bad is bordering on psychotic. No. I take that back. It is psychotic. There are better books that just teach you how to be the best you without the pathology.
> 
> Read those.


gotcha.

I got past all that partly because my mom was a feminist, so I couldn't accept that me hitting on a woman or having willing sex with her was somehow diminishing her. And an older very experienced girl that I lost my virginity with.

And just being a horny teenager.

It's just that all that ends up kinda looking (in very broad outlines) like MMSLP so it was easy for me to say "that's why it worked!"


----------



## Icey181

Faithful Wife said:


> Nope.
> 
> He doesn't fear and hate women like the red pill sellers.


Amazingly enough, you do not need to be a misogynist who fears women to endorse the notion that women naturally have these kinds of potential outlets (dread-characteristics) and that if you want to maintain sexual desirability you need to work on it.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Here marduk....I'll try to explain how it works on me...if this helps....though keep in mind, there will be women right here who will say "oh that's horrible that would never feel good to me"....so again, we're not all the same.
> 
> But for me, I love when my husband stakes his claim on me.
> 
> I dress up to go out for the night, he f*cks my brains out before I go sometimes, to physically get his smell all over me and get into my body and mind...so that all night I'm dreamy about the great sex.
> 
> If I'm going out with my sl*tty friends, he tells me things like "be good and don't let Suzy drag you off to talk to a bunch of dudes" to which I laugh and tell him not to worry, I'm all about him. He says "better be".
> 
> When we are in a restaurant and he helps me put on or take off my coat, he makes me face toward him instead out toward the customers, because he says when I pull my arms back and arch slightly to get my coat on, all the men check out my boobs. Whether this is true or not doesn't matter, he's protecting me as if I'm made of gold. He doesn't want a man's eyes on me any more than they already are...he doesn't want to give them anything extra like me with my back arched.
> 
> If I'm wearing something too revealing, he looks at me with that mean-daddy look, and I go change out of it and into something he approves of.
> 
> However...I also know he trusts me. He makes the little comments but he's never actually accused me of cheating and he does know I only want him. He knows he can trust me because I tell him all the time the things that reassure him of this (and he tells me those things too if I need or want to hear them).
> 
> He knows I like to strut my sh*t but that I also don't care about male attention the way a single woman does. He knows I'm used to it, it doesn't flatter me, and he pays so much attention to me that I am never, ever lacking for it. (And not NG attention, sexy hunk attention).
> 
> He GETS me, he pays attention to me, he WANTS me...and he refuses to share me.
> 
> I like how possessive he is.
> 
> I would not like a man who didn't care what I was up to.
> 
> Some women would feel suffocated by this.


Thanks for that. 

Can you help me understand the reverse process? When you may just be a little worried that he'll go elsewhere?


----------



## Icey181

I mean, seriously, look at this:



Faithful Wife said:


> Here marduk....I'll try to explain how it works on me...if this helps....though keep in mind, there will be women right here who will say "oh that's horrible that would never feel good to me"....so again, we're not all the same.
> 
> But for me, *I love when my husband stakes his claim on me.*
> 
> I dress up to go out for the night, *he f*cks my brains out before I go sometimes, to physically get his smell all over me and get into my body and mind...so that all night I'm dreamy about the great sex.*
> 
> If I'm going out with my sl*tty friends, he tells me things like "be good and don't let Suzy drag you off to talk to a bunch of dudes" to which I laugh and tell him not to worry, I'm all about him. *He says "better be".*
> 
> When we are in a restaurant and he helps me put on or take off my coat, *he makes me face toward him instead out toward the customers, because he says when I pull my arms back and arch slightly to get my coat on, all the men check out my boobs. Whether this is true or not doesn't matter, he's protecting me as if I'm made of gold.* He doesn't want a man's eyes on me any more than they already are...he doesn't want to give them anything extra like me with my back arched.
> 
> *If I'm wearing something too revealing, he looks at me with that mean-daddy look, and I go change out of it and into something he approves of.*
> 
> However...I also know he trusts me. *He makes the little comments but he's never actually accused me of cheating and he does know I only want him.* He knows he can trust me because I tell him all the time the things that reassure him of this (and he tells me those things too if I need or want to hear them).
> 
> He knows I like to strut my sh*t but that I also don't care about male attention the way a single woman does. He knows I'm used to it, it doesn't flatter me, and he pays so much attention to me that I am never, ever lacking for it. (And not NG attention, sexy hunk attention).
> 
> He GETS me, he pays attention to me, he WANTS me...and he refuses to share me.
> 
> *I like how possessive he is.*
> 
> I would not like a man who didn't care what I was up to.
> 
> Some women would feel suffocated by this.


Add in some secret musing online about how AWALT and your husband is textbook Red Pill bordering on PUA that you are railing against so much.


----------



## Marduk

Icey181 said:


> I mean, seriously, look at this:
> 
> 
> Add in some secret musing online about how AWALT and your husband is textbook Red Pill bordering on PUA that you are railing against so much.


I get what you're saying, and I simultaneously think he's running 90% of what AK would consider a MAP and having it not be red pill.

I think the problem is one of philosphy, respect, and intent.

And I'm willing to let MMSLP and red pill go... and injecting some feminine wisdom there instead.

Because instead of polarizing I think we're increasingly saying the same thing, and I'm seeking a non-douchy non-judgemental non-I'm better than women way of saying that. Not that I think that's what you're doing.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> Thanks for that.
> 
> Can you help me understand the reverse process? When you may just be a little worried that he'll go elsewhere?


I am never worried that he'll go elsewhere.

I know that he's very attractive and women hit on him or flirt with him all the time, and sometimes I will say something similar to him like "don't be letting women cozy up to you on this trip when you and your buds are out in the bar!" and I pretend to look all crazy like I'm gonna beat someone down.

We have worked together to create boundaries we are both comfortable with.

Even though we both know we don't want anyone else, we still pretend there is that threat....but if we actually thought a threat was present, it wouldn't be all games anymore.

Neither of us have to point out to each other that others find us attractive, it is obvious everywhere we go.

But just being attractive (or attracted) by others really doesn't mean anything.

We would notice it immediately if one of us was developing an interest in another person.

Together over 10 years and this has not even come close to happening.


----------



## Icey181

It strikes me as borderline cognitive dissonance at this point.

FW, in a thread which targets the Red Pill as ineffective and horrible, just outlined nearly a half-dozen Red Pill characteristics which actively work on her and explained how she likes it.

Come on…

She literally just wrote this:


Faithful Wife said:


> I dress up to go out for the night, he f*cks my brains out before I go sometimes, to physically get his smell all over me and get into my body and mind...so that all night I'm dreamy about the great sex.


The only difference?

She feels as though her husband is not misogynistic or fearful of women, so he does not count as Red Pill.

Which brings it back to Red Pill Theory 101: A properly ran Dread-game comes off as natural and produces a relationship in which desirability is at an all time high and the male expresses and the women accepts and reciprocates an assumption of possession and sexual attraction.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> I am never worried that he'll go elsewhere.
> 
> I know that he's very attractive and women hit on him or flirt with him all the time, and sometimes I will say something similar to him like "don't be letting women cozy up to you on this trip when you and your buds are out in the bar!" and I pretend to look all crazy like I'm gonna beat someone down.
> 
> We have worked together to create boundaries we are both comfortable with.
> 
> Even though we both know we don't want anyone else, we still pretend there is that threat....but if we actually thought a threat was present, it wouldn't be all games anymore.
> 
> Neither of us have to point out to each other that others find us attractive, it is obvious everywhere we go.
> 
> But just being attractive (or attracted) by others really doesn't mean anything.
> 
> We would notice it immediately if one of us was developing an interest in another person.
> 
> Together over 10 years and this has not even come close to happening.


So you've never felt jealous or just a little bit insecure that he might want someone else more than you?

Never ever? Never a desire to compete or stake your claim?


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> I get what you're saying, and I simultaneously think he's running 90% of what AK would consider a MAP and having it not be red pill.
> 
> I think the problem is one of philosphy, respect, and intent.
> 
> And I'm willing to let MMSLP and red pill go... and injecting some feminine wisdom there instead.
> 
> Because instead of polarizing I think we're increasingly saying the same thing, and I'm seeking a non-douchy non-judgemental non-I'm better than women way of saying that. Not that I think that's what you're doing.


My husband doesn't hate or fear women.

How many times do I have to point that part out? (I'm talking to the others here who don't seem to understand this difference).

He also doesn't fear being alone.

If I am not going to be able to love him the way he wants, he would leave me.

He is not red pill, he's a Natural. I keep trying to say this.

The red pill crap says so many UNTRUE things about naturals.

Such as "a natural doesn't care about the woman's pleasure".

Um...how do you become a sex god without caring about the woman's pleasure? 

Or "a natural never turns down sex".

Sorry, but Naturals turn down sex all the time because women are always throwing themselves at him.

My husband goes out of his way to make sure I feel safe, confident in his loyalty, and loved.

Remember....there's nothing about love in red pill.

My husband is all about love.


----------



## Marduk

Icey181 said:


> It strikes me as borderline cognitive dissonance at this point.
> 
> FW, in a thread which targets the Red Pill as ineffective and horrible, just outlined nearly a half-dozen Red Pill characteristics which actively work on her and explained how she likes it.
> 
> Come on…
> 
> She literally just wrote this:
> 
> 
> The only difference?
> 
> She feels as though her husband is not misogynistic or fearful of women, so he does not count as Red Pill.
> 
> Which brings it back to Red Pill Theory 101: A properly ran Dread-game comes off as natural and produces a relationship in which desirability is at an all time high and the male expresses and the women accepts and reciprocates an assumption of possession and sexual attraction.


It's the intent behind it, I think.


----------



## tech-novelist

I think we can pretty much sum up this discussion with the following:

"Women hate, HATE, HATE!!! men who have to study how to act alpha, because that means they aren't really alphas, but are creepy betas that are fooling them into believing they are alpha!

"So you absolutely must NOT study that, creepy beta men! Because if you do, women will... react to you like they would alphas, by being happy to have sex with you. But that is almost the same as rape, so don't do it!"


----------



## Faithful Wife

There are a lot more differences. A lot. The crap in that book, my husband laughs his ass off about.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> My husband doesn't hate or fear women.
> 
> How many times do I have to point that part out? (I'm talking to the others here who don't seem to understand this difference).
> 
> He also doesn't fear being alone.
> 
> If I am not going to be able to love him the way he wants, he would leave me.
> 
> He is not red pill, he's a Natural. I keep trying to say this.
> 
> The red pill crap says so many UNTRUE things about naturals.
> 
> Such as "a natural doesn't care about the woman's pleasure".
> 
> Um...how do you become a sex god without caring about the woman's pleasure?
> 
> Or "a natural never turns down sex".
> 
> Sorry, but Naturals turn down sex all the time because women are always throwing themselves at him.
> 
> My husband goes out of his way to make sure I feel safe, confident in his loyalty, and loved.
> 
> Remember....there's nothing about love in red pill.
> 
> My husband is all about love.


How would you teach someone how to be 'a natural?'

Or someone like myself that is 'a natural,' but only when not married?


----------



## Icey181

One thing I always questioned about the Red Pill mantra is a result of the AWALT doctrine:

It holds that women's sexual strategy is predicated on identifying and securing a natural alpha and therefore resist any attempts of non-Naturals to gain these characteristics, in avoidance of accidentally mating with a natural-Beta who is simply play-acting natural traits. 

FW's most recent description of her husband basically makes me wonder how far off the mark that truly is.


----------



## Icey181

Faithful Wife said:


> There are a lot more differences. A lot. The crap in that book, my husband laughs his ass off about.


And yet you just described how he has sex with you before you go into a social setting so that he is on your mind throughout it…

..and how you like it.


----------



## tech-novelist

Icey181 said:


> One thing I always questioned about the Red Pill mantra is a result of the AWALT doctrine:
> 
> It holds that women's sexual strategy is predicated on identifying and securing a natural alpha and therefore resist any attempts of non-Naturals to gain these characteristics, in avoidance of accidentally mating with a natural-Beta who is simply play-acting natural traits.
> 
> FW's most recent description of her husband basically makes me wonder how far off the mark that truly is.


Yes, that's exactly what I pointed out a few minutes ago. :rofl:


----------



## naiveonedave

Faithful Wife said:


> There are a lot more differences. A lot. The crap in that book, my husband laughs his ass off about.


If I had to guess why he laughs at is, he would say what beta a$$hat needs to learn, I knew that 30 years ago. Along with the fact, that he can't comprehend a sexless marriage, so the 2x4s come across as stupid. 

I get the lather about some of the verbiage and some of the pseudo science.

All of what FW wrote about her hubby and what it does for her, is pretty much text book of what I learned in MMSL.


----------



## Icey181

marduk said:


> It's the intent behind it, I think.


And what do you think the intent of these actions are on his account?

The goal of Red Pill is the creation of sexual attraction to foster and maintain a satisfying sexual lifestyle.

If the action are Red Pill and the results are exactly what Red Pill predicts, what does intent matter at all?

Especially if the subject of the attention cannot tell the difference?

Sure, it comes down to trust.

But Faithful Wife just argued that if men act out the Red Pill advice and escape the anger phase that, while it might not work for every women, it will certainly work for her.


----------



## Marduk

Icey181 said:


> And yet you just described how he has sex with you before you go into a social setting so that he is on your mind throughout it…
> 
> ..and how you like it.


Guys, I get it.

What FW is triggering a lot of red pill works in you. And it is for me, too. And this is what is easy to get hung up on -- 'she's simultaneously confirming it and denying it.'

But I don't think that's it. I think there's something more there. Something powerful and real and insightful.

And I'd like to get at what that is without bringing it to a red pill vs what gets FW hot in her marriage... because at the end of the day I don't give a **** about the red pill.

I give a **** that it works. And if something better comes along that also works, I'm all for that.

I'm all ears, FW. It may not read that way, but I am.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> How would you teach someone how to be 'a natural?'
> 
> Or someone like myself that is 'a natural,' but only when not married?


No matter what I say here, someone is going to come in and say "oh that's totally red pill!" (sigh....)

The main difference I have noted in my husband is that he is not uptight about sex at all. It does not control him. He is in control of his body and his sex drive, and he goes there when the time is right for himself, at his direction and choice.

He also has no shame about sex. He was lucky and didn't get a f*cked up messages in childhood or adolescence. He was allowed to expand his sexuality naturally through his teens and into adulthood.

And then the other thing red pill misses every time....

My husband is an extremely sexual person.

Not every man is.

If you are one, you will prioritize your sex life in such a way that you make sure your needs are met, and you don't settle for less.

I do not know how easy it would be to learn this, but the concepts could be discussed.


----------



## NobodySpecial

marduk said:


> So you've never felt jealous or just a little bit insecure that he might want someone else more than you?
> 
> Never ever? Never a desire to compete or stake your claim?


I know I haven't. Wait I am not sure that is true now that I think of it. Not common but not never.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> But I don't think that's it. I think there's something more there. Something powerful and real and insightful.


For me it is that depth of emotional intimacy.

He's far more capable of intimacy than any person I've ever known. Including myself...he took me to new depths in myself.

That's why I started talking about that with you, and then you said that was irrelevant.

But it isn't, it is the key to this stuff.

Sex is easy. Love and intimacy are not.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

UMP said:


> I would have probably told you to not be so needy. I would have said, look back at how you were when you first married your wife. Become that person again. That's all I would have told you.
> 
> My wife in particular HATES when I am needy. She absolutely HATES it. She constantly makes fun of guys that need their women to touch them all the time, are jealous and are not confident in themselves.


I am the opposite of your wife, I would not be happy if my Husband didn't want me to touch him...and I completely understand men who long to be greatly desired.. 

I feel that way too! Your wife would annoy me making fun of men like this. I don't consider it jealousy either.... I see these men as being high in "Touch" , a love language and romantically sensitive.. to me, that's a win win! 

If they are unfortunate enough to marry a woman who hates those things.. I feel very bad for them, they sure miscalculated or was blind in dating..... Just another perspective is all.. 

Me & JLD never sees this the same...I also much dislike hearing how this is always pounded as insecurity.. over & over & over again...NO it is NOT always... I see it as PASSION for intimacy and romance... 

Woe to anyone who marries someone that is not compatible in these areas I say..


----------



## Marduk

Icey181 said:


> And what do you think the intent of these actions are on his account?


She's said what it is. It's love.


> The goal of Red Pill is the creation of sexual attraction to foster and maintain a satisfying sexual lifestyle.


Which is part of the equation, right? But maybe not the whole?


> If the action are Red Pill and the results are exactly what Red Pill predicts, what does intent matter at all?


I can tell you that in my opinion the red pill will get you laid, but it's a ****ty lifestyle.


> Especially if the subject of the attention cannot tell the difference?


For me, it's integrity.


> Sure, it comes down to trust.
> 
> But Faithful Wife just argued that if men act out the Red Pill advice and escape the anger phase that, while it might not work for every women, it will certainly work for her.


I don't think she's saying it doesn't work, actually. At least, not all of it.

I think what she may be saying (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that she finds it offensive. And misguided. And 'works' might not be 'working' in the long run, at all.

Now, I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but am I close?


----------



## Icey181

Faithful Wife said:


> No matter what I say here, someone is going to come in and say "oh that's totally red pill!" (sigh....)
> 
> The main difference I have noted in my husband is that he is not uptight about sex at all. It does not control him. He is in control of his body and his sex drive, and he goes there when the time is right for himself, at his direction and choice.
> 
> He also has no shame about sex. He was lucky and didn't get a f*cked up messages in childhood or adolescence. He was allowed to expand his sexuality naturally through his teens and into adulthood.
> 
> And then the other thing red pill misses every time....
> 
> My husband is an extremely sexual person.
> 
> Not every man is.
> 
> If you are one, you will prioritize your sex life in such a way that you make sure your needs are met, and you don't settle for less.
> 
> I do not know how easy it would be to learn this, but the concepts could be discussed.


I do not know if you realize if Faithful Wife, but you basically just torpedoed the intent of this thread.

All by yourself.

Everything you identified as what works for you with your husband is textbook Red Pill characteristics.

Even down to the radical sperm-warfare crap.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Icey181 said:


> Yeah, you have what the Red Pill refers to as a natural Alpha.
> 
> There is a high level of desirability and an assumption of worth on both sides.
> 
> Basically, your entire relationship sounds like one version of a Red Pill endgame.


Do you think any man who can naturally get lots of women is an alpha?


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> So you've never felt jealous or just a little bit insecure that he might want someone else more than you?
> 
> Never ever? Never a desire to compete or stake your claim?


I get jealous but not that he will want someone other than me or that anyone would be better than me.

I get jealous because it is a natural reaction. Not jealous some woman will get my man, but just that she even wants to touch on him. I'll run over and get right between them and tell her to keep her hands to herself. 

But this is not the same as thinking he might leave me or cheat on me.

No, I never think this.

I know he only wants me and loves me so deeply that he has no desire for anyone else.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> No matter what I say here, someone is going to come in and say "oh that's totally red pill!" (sigh....)
> 
> The main difference I have noted in my husband is that he is not uptight about sex at all. It does not control him. He is in control of his body and his sex drive, and he goes there when the time is right for himself, at his direction and choice.
> 
> He also has no shame about sex. He was lucky and didn't get a f*cked up messages in childhood or adolescence. He was allowed to expand his sexuality naturally through his teens and into adulthood.
> 
> And then the other thing red pill misses every time....
> 
> My husband is an extremely sexual person.
> 
> Not every man is.
> 
> If you are one, you will prioritize your sex life in such a way that you make sure your needs are met, and you don't settle for less.
> 
> I do not know how easy it would be to learn this, but the concepts could be discussed.


OK, I'm a guy that is a very sexual person. Every partner has told me this, so I assume it's true.

I found a very sexual person to marry.

And then, after kids, it started to go away.

What then? I loved my wife. I wanted that part back.


----------



## tech-novelist

Icey181 said:


> I do not know if you realize if Faithful Wife, but you basically just torpedoed the intent of this thread.
> 
> All by yourself.
> 
> Everything you identified as what works for you with your husband is textbook Red Pill characteristics.
> 
> Even down to the radical sperm-warfare crap.


Yes, but he didn't have to read a book to act that way, so it's fine. It's only those nasty book-reading fake alphas that are the problem!


----------



## Marduk

NobodySpecial said:


> I know I haven't. Wait I am not sure that is true now that I think of it. Not common but not never.


And what happened? Was part of that response sexual?


----------



## tech-novelist

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Do you think any man who can naturally get lots of women is an alpha?


Yes, that's the definition of an alpha, according to the Red Pill reading I have done.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> For me it is that depth of emotional intimacy.
> 
> He's far more capable of intimacy than any person I've ever known. Including myself...he took me to new depths in myself.
> 
> That's why I started talking about that with you, and then you said that was irrelevant.
> 
> But it isn't, it is the key to this stuff.
> 
> Sex is easy. Love and intimacy are not.


Can you say more about that?


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> I think what she may be saying (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that she finds it offensive. And misguided. And 'works' might not be 'working' in the long run, at all.
> 
> Now, I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but am I close?


The goal of men who read red pill is to "get sex".

My husband knows he can have sex at any time. He doesn't "get sex" from women, he has sex with women who mutually want to have sex with him. Sex is not some gift women give to him. It is something two people do consensually.

Therefore his goal is to have deep love and emotional intimacy, the kind that makes sex so much better that you can't believe you ever went without it.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> I get jealous but not that he will want someone other than me or that anyone would be better than me.
> 
> I get jealous because it is a natural reaction. Not jealous some woman will get my man, but just that she even wants to touch on him. I'll run over and get right between them and tell her to keep her hands to herself.
> 
> But this is not the same as thinking he might leave me or cheat on me.
> 
> No, I never think this.
> 
> I know he only wants me and loves me so deeply that he has no desire for anyone else.


OK, can you talk more about that, too?


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> I get jealous but not that he will want someone other than me or that anyone would be better than me.
> 
> I get jealous because it is a natural reaction. Not jealous some woman will get my man, but just that she even wants to touch on him. I'll run over and get right between them and tell her to keep her hands to herself.
> 
> But this is not the same as thinking he might leave me or cheat on me.
> 
> No, I never think this.
> 
> I know he only wants me and loves me so deeply that he has no desire for anyone else.


Right. The Red Pill answer is that every woman wants a man who COULD get lots of other women but won't do it because he loves her.

Keep up the good work!


----------



## Anon1111

Icey181 said:


> Natural dread that occurs without any malicious intent _is the single most potent form_ because it proves an individual has such a high personal worth that they can manage attention and attraction without putting effort into it.
> 
> Women enjoy the competitive advantage in that arena.
> 
> Red Pill basically forces men to accept that reasonably attractive women can manage this and therefore, men do not need to be reminded that they are replaceable.



there are short term solutions and long term solutions.

REAL dread is developing yourself until you are a self evident badass.

Your every waking moment is a reminder to her that she is lucky to have you. You don't need a male version of GNO.

The problem is that some people think you should just be able to leap from doormat to supreme stud mode.

Some us need a taste of what success looks like as a motivator. For this reason, manipulative techniques are tempting.

If you have more inner strength you might resist the stopgap manipulation, but not everyone has that kind of strength in an unbalanced relationship.

Girls are sad because the stopgap manipulation sometimes fools them.

Unfortunately, people in general are easily manipulated.

One could just as easily say that the men in these situations have been manipulated to give up their commitment.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> OK, I'm a guy that is a very sexual person. Every partner has told me this, so I assume it's true.
> 
> I found a very sexual person to marry.
> 
> And then, after kids, it started to go away.
> 
> What then? I loved my wife. I wanted that part back.


You know what is missing because you can feel it....the emotional intimacy.

Was that ever there?


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> The goal of men who read red pill is to "get sex".
> 
> My husband knows he can have sex at any time. He doesn't "get sex" from women, he has sex with women who mutually want to have sex with him. Sex is not some gift women give to him. It is something two people do consensually.
> 
> Therefore his goal is to have deep love and emotional intimacy, the kind that makes sex so much better that you can't believe you ever went without it.


The goal of MMSLP is to get your wife to *want* to have sex with you, so you are right with the program!


----------



## Icey181

marduk said:


> She's said what it is. It's love.
> 
> 
> Which is part of the equation, right? But maybe not the whole?
> 
> I can tell you that in my opinion the red pill will get you laid, but it's a ****ty lifestyle.
> 
> For me, it's integrity.
> 
> I don't think she's saying it doesn't work, actually. At least, not all of it.
> 
> I think what she may be saying (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that she finds it offensive. And misguided. And 'works' might not be 'working' in the long run, at all.
> 
> Now, I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but am I close?


Faithful Wife, as best as I can tell, thinks Red Pill is inherently misogynistic and that it is little more than emotional abuse which could eventually influence a person towards actual sexual abuse, if left unchecked.

Others, myself included, have argued that the misogyny is primarily a dualist ploy to both play on the anger-phase of young men _and_ as a means to create shock value and attention.

She basically described a relationship which mirrors, exactly, the characteristics and promised results of the Red Pill theory.

The Cognitive Dissonance comes in when she offers, almost _a priori_, that Red Pill is misogynistic and therefore only appeals to or creates misogynists and is only applicable to "plate spinners."

The reality is that, as the contributors on r/RedPill pointed out, Dread game is necessary to maintain sexual attraction.

Everything she described in her own relationship reads like a case study for why Red Pill post-anger phase works and works so well that she actively recognizes it and enjoys it.

In other words, if you strip Red Pill of the more radical rhetoric, it works, and it works well.


----------



## NobodySpecial

marduk said:


> And what happened? Was part of that response sexual?


I briefly thought about it. This never had anything to do with courting or bad-time recovery. DH is a natural alpha in all matters not practical. So we just never went there. But as you know, my lifestyle is a little different. He and I are ... um... complimentary. He and GF are same. There were times when I feared he wanted the latter. Not sexual at all.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> You know what is missing because you can feel it....the emotional intimacy.
> 
> Was that ever there?


I thought it was, but I may have been wrong.

And now we can get somewhat at either one, but not simultaneously. It seems to get in the way.


----------



## Marduk

Icey181 said:


> Faithful Wife, as best as I can tell, thinks Red Pill is inherently misogynistic and that it is little more than emotional abuse which could eventually influence a person towards actual sexual abuse, if left unchecked.
> 
> Others, myself included, have argued that the misogyny is primarily a dualist ploy to both play on the anger-phase of young men _and_ as a means to create shock value and attention.
> 
> She basically described a relationship which mirrors, exactly, the characteristics and promised results of the Red Pill theory.
> 
> The Cognitive Dissonance comes in when she offers, almost _a priori_, that Red Pill is misogynistic and therefore only appeals to or creates misogynists and is only applicable to "plate spinners."
> 
> The reality is that, as the contributors on r/RedPill pointed out, Dread game is necessary to maintain sexual attraction.
> 
> Everything she described in her own relationship reads like a case study for why Red Pill post-anger phase works and works so well that she actively recognizes it and enjoys it.
> 
> In other words, if you strip Red Pill of the more radical rhetoric, it works, and it works well.


For what it's worth, Athol Kay told me directly that dread game is not necessary to maintain attraction, and most of the red pill d-bags get that wrong.

It's a nuke you drop when the fallout is better than continuing on the path you're on... i.e. she's about to cheat, or is cheating.


----------



## Icey181

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Do you think any man who can naturally get lots of women is an alpha?


By definition.

If a man is naturally capable of attracting women then he is an "Alpha."

It is that mix of personal confidence and charisma, social skills, and physical attractiveness that most men lack.


----------



## naiveonedave

Faithful Wife said:


> The goal of men who read red pill is to "get sex".
> 
> My husband knows he can have sex at any time. He doesn't "get sex" from women, he has sex with women who mutually want to have sex with him. Sex is not some gift women give to him. It is something two people do consensually.
> 
> Therefore his goal is to have deep love and emotional intimacy, the kind that makes sex so much better that you can't believe you ever went without it.


Meh, this is very much semantics. Red pill, as written in MMSL, is not about a body count, but a sexually fulfilling relationship with your wife. It is not some game, it is not about hating women. It is about doing what you can do as a man to be desired by your W. Especially, when the current state is little or no sex and the W appears to just give enough to keep you around. FW is just at such a different place in life, that she can't even see what MMSL and the red pill are.


----------



## Marduk

naiveonedave said:


> Meh, this is very much semantics. Red pill, as written in MMSL, is not about a body count, but a sexually fulfilling relationship with your wife. It is not some game, it is not about hating women. It is about doing what you can do as a man to be desired by your W. Especially, when the current state is little or no sex and the W appears to just give enough to keep you around. FW is just at such a different place in life, that she can't even see what MMSL and the red pill are.


I'm a pragmatist, an empiricist.

I want what works, and to prove that it works.

I don't care what you call it. I'm not hung up on labels.

I don't care if she is simultaneously validating Athol Kay and denying him, because it works for her.

I want to understand why, so I can develop a new mental model of that.


----------



## Icey181

marduk said:


> For what it's worth, Athol Kay told me directly that dread game is not necessary to maintain attraction, and most of the red pill d-bags get that wrong.
> 
> It's a nuke you drop when the fallout is better than continuing on the path you're on... i.e. she's about to cheat, or is cheating.


Which is one of the reasons I look to the Red Pill community more so than Kay himself.

The discussions within the community, best done by post-anger phase contributors, expand on the details of the entire thought process and have created a body of knowledge superior to the limited point of view Kay uses.

The terminology varies slightly, however, the central point is maintained.

What the contributors referred to as "Levels of Dread" Kay seems to separate out into distinct groups and retains "dread" only for the more radical levels.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

technovelist said:


> Yes, that's the definition of an alpha, according to the Red Pill reading I have done.


I think there's a lot more to it than that and everyone seems to have their own definition of what an alpha even is based on what they want and who they want, what they read. Just getting girls doesn't mean you can be a productive leader.
I like what Anonpink said earlier - one woman's alpha is another woman's @sshole.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> But what is "status"? Different observers will have very different ideas of how to rank the relative status of people. Supreme court judge? Nobel prize winner? Rock star? Olympic athlete? Religious leader? Astronaut? Billionaire?


For the purposes of the experiments I posted, status was specifically wealth/income. It's rather supposition that other forms of status have a similar dynamic. ie - being a member of a band, regardless of whether they've hit it big or not, confers a degree of status; or being the dominant personality in a social circle.


----------



## chillymorn

Anon1111 said:


> my take (which I'm sure many will not like)...
> 
> authenticy and "owning your reality" is paramount for men
> 
> there is no way to fake this
> 
> it is something you either have or you don't
> 
> it CAN be developed, but when a woman sees by your actions and overall demeanor that you do not currently own your situation, she considers you a non-entity
> 
> she has no interest in non-entities and it is inconceivable that a non-entity could become something attractive.
> 
> attempts by the non-entity to pass himself off as something else engender hostility for insulting her intelligence
> 
> women have so little empathy and (importantly) SYMPATHY for men of this description that it is extremely unlikely that they could ever offer constructive advice.
> 
> I don't exactly blame them, because in some sense offering advice to men in this predicament most often results in encouraging imposters


this is exactly why the men who red red pill stuff should employ it.

my take on what taking the red pill means......

Don't ever let a woman dictate what to do! if you do the she loses a little respect for you each time. and over many years of letting your wife dictate what happens in your relationship then eventually she has lost soooooooo much respect for you she could never love you.


men are fed a line of bull$hit from the time they are old enough to understand about relationships about happy wife happy life,ani't nobody happy unless mom is happy. Being a mom is the hardest job in the world, we are so unappreciated, I could go no and on. I have experienced a lot of personal friends go through this and fall for it hook line and sinker give the wife what ever they could to make her happy under the false pretense that it would be reciprocal. Only to find out she was cheating or spending money behind their back racking up huge amount of debt and then after never ever communicating say I am not happy so I want a divorce or just keep on acting indifferent until the husband finally say this is bunk and he files for divorce.

where if you employ the red pill mentality then if she doesn't like it she can use the door. 

once burned twice learned!!!!!!!

by the way this is also true for women who are in a crappy relationship with a narcissist.


----------



## Marduk

Icey181 said:


> Which is one of the reasons I look to the Red Pill community more so than Kay himself.
> 
> The discussions within the community, best done by post-anger phase contributors, expand on the details of the entire thought process and have created a body of knowledge superior to the limited point of view Kay uses.
> 
> The terminology varies slightly, however, the central point is maintained.
> 
> What the contributors referred to as "Levels of Dread" Kay seems to separate out into distinct groups and retains "dread" only for the more radical levels.


I get what you're saying. I think there's a certain amount of 'background dread' that is always operating.

I.e. for my wife having me come into a position of power in my office and be surrounded by well-dressed ambitious women makes her sometimes a little uncertain.

Just like when she goes out to a bar with her girlfriends. 

None of it is intentional, and is only there if we're both attractive people I guess. Everybody's got options.


----------



## Icey181

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I think there's a lot more to it than that and everyone seems to have their own definition of what an alpha even is based on what they want and who they want, what they read. Just getting girls doesn't mean you can be a productive leader.
> I like what Anonpink said earlier - one woman's alpha is another woman's @sshole.


Here is the mistake you are making.

There is not a check-list of required characteristics which need to be present, in exacting measure, for a man to be an "Alpha."

There is a spectrum of characteristics which need to be present however, and those come down to the basic trinity:

1) Physical Attractiveness
2) Social Skills/Sociability
3) Confidence

Are there women who respond to physically unattractive, socially inept, insecure men?

Absolutely.

They are however the vast minority and there is no point in looking for them.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk....did you read Mark Manson's Models? Because I felt that was pretty close. Though it isn't about marriage necessarily, just about being attractive to women.

Here's another problem with red pill....it claims that women are always having to hide that secret inner sl*t we have. That's why you have to game it out of us. 

My husband knows better. There are plenty of women who are sexually aggressive and assertive and aren't ashamed of being highly sexual.

To act like these women don't exist is a big part of the red pill problem.

There is something I call Sex-dar that happens between highly sexual people. This is how they find each other, and have sex.

What some guys see as "women go for bad boys" is usually just a Nice Guy observing a highly sexual man who hit off with a highly sexual woman. The Nice Guy also tend to overlook the obvious physical attraction the two feel for each other, and instead projects that the guy must have been a jerk because "hot women always go for jerks".

Yet my husband is not a jerk, and women have always gone for him.


----------



## Marduk

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> For the purposes of the experiments I posted, status was specifically wealth/income. It's rather supposition that other forms of status have a similar dynamic. ie - being a member of a band, regardless of whether they've hit it big or not, confers a degree of status; or being the dominant personality in a social circle.


I will tell you that within one week of a recent promotion I suddenly got hit on a ton by women in the office.

It just made me want to puke, to be honest.


----------



## tech-novelist

Icey181 said:


> Faithful Wife, as best as I can tell, thinks Red Pill is inherently misogynistic and that it is little more than emotional abuse which could eventually influence a person towards actual sexual abuse, if left unchecked.
> 
> Others, myself included, have argued that the misogyny is primarily a dualist ploy to both play on the anger-phase of young men _and_ as a means to create shock value and attention.
> 
> She basically described a relationship which mirrors, exactly, the characteristics and promised results of the Red Pill theory.
> 
> The Cognitive Dissonance comes in when she offers, almost _a priori_, that Red Pill is misogynistic and therefore only appeals to or creates misogynists and is only applicable to "plate spinners."
> 
> The reality is that, as the contributors on r/RedPill pointed out, Dread game is necessary to maintain sexual attraction.
> 
> Everything she described in her own relationship reads like a case study for why Red Pill post-anger phase works and works so well that she actively recognizes it and enjoys it.
> 
> In other words, if you strip Red Pill of the more radical rhetoric, it works, and it works well.


Yes, but it is cheating women out of their ability to reject betas, which is HORRIBLE! :rofl:


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

chillymorn said:


> Don't ever let a woman dictate what to do!


Speaking from experience, this doesn't get any respect either. 
Don't always let a woman dictate what to do- I agree.
Ever? Screw that. Very few women would put up with that.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Icey181 said:


> Which is one of the reasons I look to the Red Pill community more so than Kay himself.
> 
> The discussions within the community, best done by post-anger phase contributors, expand on the details of the entire thought process and have created a body of knowledge superior to the limited point of view Kay uses.


I have a hard time with the anger phase. This is the closest to misogynistic that I can see. The idea of getting angry at women for your not getting any strongly implies that you have been owed. It seems the opposite of accepting the pill. That the thing that needed to change was you.

You see this in ML all the time. Why *should* I have to change. Yadda yadda. Showing up in the suit on a day in August is supposed to entitle me to a life time of sex. Hell I go to work. (She does too but so what.)


----------



## tech-novelist

marduk said:


> I'm a pragmatist, an empiricist.
> 
> I want what works, and to prove that it works.
> 
> I don't care what you call it. I'm not hung up on labels.
> 
> I don't care if she is simultaneously validating Athol Kay and denying him, because it works for her.
> 
> I want to understand why, so I can develop a new mental model of that.


Oh, that's easy. Women don't want men to know how to act like alphas, because that gets in the way of their ability to accept alphas and reject betas.


----------



## naiveonedave

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I think there's a lot more to it than that and everyone seems to have their own definition of what an alpha even is based on what they want and who they want, what they read. Just getting girls doesn't mean you can be a productive leader.
> I like what Anonpink said earlier - one woman's alpha is another woman's @sshole.


In red pill land alpha is the dude getting the chicks. In other areas alpha has other meanings. In MMSL, AK prescribes that you need both alpha and beta qualities. Alpha tends to bring in attraction from the W and Beta tends to keep it.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> marduk....did you read Mark Manson's Models? Because I felt that was pretty close. Though it isn't about marriage necessarily, just about being attractive to women.


I don't think I have, what's the best entry into that?


> Here's another problem with red pill....it claims that women are always having to hide that secret inner sl*t we have. That's why you have to game it out of us.


I've experienced it, though. 
I've experienced plenty of women who shut it down because of society or expectations or what other women would think of it.

And when I helped them let it loose... man, that was fun.

So it does exist. Not in all women. But in some, right?


> My husband knows better. There are plenty of women who are sexually aggressive and assertive and aren't ashamed of being highly sexual.
> 
> To act like these women don't exist is a big part of the red pill problem.


Help me put it together. Because you just described my wife.

And it all went away. And then came back with MMSLP.

And then went away again when I tried to foster more emotional intimacy.


> There is something I call Sex-dar that happens between highly sexual people. This is how they find each other, and have sex.


Ya, that was me dating. I picked her because we were sexually compatible, among other reasons.


> What some guys see as "women go for bad boys" is usually just a Nice Guy observing a highly sexual man who hit off with a highly sexual woman. They also tend to overlook the obvious physical attraction the two feel for each other, and instead project that the guy must have been a jerk because "hot women always go for jerks".
> 
> Yet my husband is not a jerk, and women have always gone for him.


Here's the thing.

I'm being honest.

I've hit on women while dating. Nicely, politely. And when I got shut down, I became an a-hole. Or hit on their friend.

And then they were in my bed.

Sometimes with their friend.

So how to put that together? Because it looks a lot like women like bad boys.


----------



## naiveonedave

NobodySpecial said:


> I have a hard time with the anger phase. This is the closest to misogynistic that I can see. The idea of getting angry at women for your not getting any strongly implies that you have been owed. It seems the opposite of accepting the pill. That the thing that needed to change was you.
> 
> You see this in ML all the time. Why *should* I have to change. Yadda yadda. Showing up in the suit on a day in August is supposed to entitle me to a life time of sex. Hell I go to work. (She does too but so what.)


My wedding vows specifically spell this out. I am sure yours do as well. If I am to forsake all others...... And, this goes both ways.


----------



## Brigit

Me thinks everyone is overthinking sex or just want's to hear FW talk dirty.

My husband stayed home from work today and is cooking dinner. I'm starving. Will be back later.


----------



## Icey181

NobodySpecial said:


> I have a hard time with the anger phase. This is the closest to misogynistic that I can see. The idea of getting angry at women for your not getting any strongly implies that you have been owed. It seems the opposite of accepting the pill. That the thing that needed to change was you.
> 
> You see this in ML all the time. Why *should* I have to change. Yadda yadda. Showing up in the suit on a day in August is supposed to entitle me to a life time of sex. Hell I go to work. (She does too but so what.)


Agreed.

There is an issue with the Red Pill community: Survivors Bias.

On one level I understand a component of the anger-phase.
It is, to me at least, meant to wake men up to the reality that the 3rd-Wave Feminist rhetoric they have been fed for the last 20-years concerning what "Women want," and understandably getting angry at being lied to for the sake of what amounts to little more than social-conditioning. 

There is a reason most of the anger-phase stuff trends heavily anti-feminism.

However, it is supposed to be a short phase.
Actual adherents to the doctrine should move past the anger phase, accept reality, deal with the fact that things are not fair, and modify what they can control (themselves) in order to attain from reality that which they want.

If they never make it out of the anger-phase you get the caricatured Red Pill community FW seems to think is the only possible result of the theories.

In reality these guys are in a nasty feedback loop in which guys like Athol Kay tells them to escape their dependency on blaming others, but retains them as customers by aiding and abetting the thought process that it is women's fault, after all.

I am more of the "sexual strategy is effectively amoral" camp that just accepts reality and moves on.


----------



## naiveonedave

Faithful Wife said:


> Here's another problem with red pill....it claims that women are always having to hide that secret inner sl*t we have. That's why you have to game it out of us.


I think that many women do hide their 'inner ****' because they have been shamed to do so. The inner **** in AK vernacular, means that most/all women have a sex drive. You can tap into said sex drive, but some hide it....


----------



## Marduk

"Sexual strategy is amoral" was a very powerful moment for me, too.

Attraction doesn't care about morality.


----------



## Icey181

marduk said:


> "Sexual strategy is amoral" was a very powerful moment for me, too.
> 
> Attraction doesn't care about morality.


This was basically the entirety of my anger phase.

Recognizing that sexual attraction was amoral and that I would need to place in considerably unequal effort to maintain it, despite a lifetime's worth of rhetoric about how it would fall naturally into place with "the one," did not and does not sit well with me.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> Here's the thing.
> 
> I'm being honest.
> 
> I've hit on women while dating. Nicely, politely. And when I got shut down, I became an a-hole. Or hit on their friend.
> 
> And then they were in my bed.
> 
> Sometimes with their friend.
> 
> So how to put that together? Because it looks a lot like women like bad boys.


Yes and my husband did this too, when he was immature. Except he didn't have to be an ahole, he just hit on someone who was directly interested instead of trying to coerce the one who turned him down.

He's had plenty of bad boy/good girl sex, though.

But don't forget that good guys like Bad Girls, too. BTDT.

Yet it almost always ends in a disaster if they try to make a relationship out of it.

I don't think it works the way you think it does, but that's ok. It is something that really no one can get until they step outside of their own shoes and see OTHER things that also work.

I could go on and on about things I've observed, what works, with who, when, how....yet it will still never describe every circumstance that can work.

Again if a man's goal is to "get sex" (rather than have sex with women who actually want to have sex with him), then he can learn all kinds of tricks to do that. Just as I can get men to give me money through all kinds of tricks. Why do you guys want to be so hard stuck on that bad boy point?

Do you really think we women don't understand that there is that seething envy behind it every time you say it? Because we do see that, and it is unattractive. The "bad boys" as you call it (or the Naturals as I'll call it) don't have that seething envy toward other men, nor do most of them hate women and just use them for sex. 

Here's Models:

http://www.amazon.com/Models-Attrac...1431373588&sr=1-1&keywords=models+mark+manson


----------



## Marduk

Icey181 said:


> This was basically the entirety of my anger phase.
> 
> Recognizing that sexual attraction was amoral and that I would need to place in considerably unequal effort to maintain it, despite a lifetime's worth of rhetoric about how it would fall naturally into place with "the one," did not and does not sit well with me.


For me, it was about a month and an intersection of:
- suddenly high testosterone from eating right and working out
- realizing that my buddies were being walked all over by their wives, and I was, too ("happy wife, happy life")
- everwhere I seemed to look, I saw the media portray husbands as bumbling, weak idiots
- suddenly having married women hit on me, and being disgusted by that
- realizing that all the work and effort I had put in wasn't working (houses, cars, shiny things, making her happy, buying into the deal and then getting shafted)
- realizing that while my wife wasn't attracted to me, she sure was attracted to other guys.

Etc.

I got over it.


----------



## Anon1111

naiveonedave said:


> so in other words he already has taken the red pill or is way more alpha than your common variety American male.


he is a natural, which is all that matters.

telling men to "act" this way fails (from a woman's perspective). 

they should just "do" not "act".


----------



## naiveonedave

marduk said:


> For me, it was about a month and an intersection of:
> - suddenly high testosterone from eating right and working out
> - realizing that my buddies were being walked all over by their wives, and I was, too ("happy wife, happy life")
> - everwhere I seemed to look, I saw the media portray husbands as bumbling, weak idiots
> - suddenly having married women hit on me, and being disgusted by that
> - realizing that all the work and effort I had put in wasn't working (houses, cars, shiny things, making her happy, buying into the deal and then getting shafted)
> - realizing that while my wife wasn't attracted to me, she sure was attracted to other guys.
> 
> Etc.
> 
> I got over it.


funny, sounds like something I could have written.


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes and my husband did this too, when he was immature. Except he didn't have to be an ahole, he just hit on someone who was directly interested instead of trying to coerce the one who turned him down.
> 
> He's had plenty of bad boy/good girl sex, though.
> 
> But don't forget that good guys like Bad Girls, too. BTDT.
> 
> Yet it almost always ends in a disaster if they try to make a relationship out of it.
> 
> I don't think it works the way you think it does, but that's ok. It is something that really no one can get until they step outside of their own shoes and see OTHER things that also work.
> 
> I could go on and on about things I've observed, what works, with who, when, how....yet it will still never describe every circumstance that can work.
> 
> Again if a man's goal is to "get sex" (rather than have sex with women who actually want to have sex with him), then he can learn all kinds of tricks to do that. Just as I can get men to give me money through all kinds of tricks. Why do you guys want to be so hard stuck on that bad boy point?
> 
> Do you really think we women don't understand that there is that seething envy behind it every time you say it? Because we do see that, and it is unattractive. The "bad boys" as you call it (or the Naturals as I'll call it) don't have that seething envy toward other men, nor do most of them hate women and just use them for sex.
> 
> Here's Models:
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Models-Attrac...1431373588&sr=1-1&keywords=models+mark+manson


Of course naturals don't have seething envy toward other men! Why would they? They aren't the ones getting rejected by women!

The men who have envy, seething or otherwise, are precisely the ones who are getting rejected by women. Some of them find out why that is and what they can do about it.

Namely, to take the red pill.

Thanks for making our points for us!


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes and my husband did this too, when he was immature. Except he didn't have to be an ahole, he just hit on someone who was directly interested instead of trying to coerce the one who turned him down.
> 
> He's had plenty of bad boy/good girl sex, though.
> 
> But don't forget that good guys like Bad Girls, too. BTDT.
> 
> Yet it almost always ends in a disaster if they try to make a relationship out of it.
> 
> I don't think it works the way you think it does, but that's ok. It is something that really no one can get until they step outside of their own shoes and see OTHER things that also work.
> 
> I could go on and on about things I've observed, what works, with who, when, how....yet it will still never describe every circumstance that can work.
> 
> Again if a man's goal is to "get sex" (rather than have sex with women who actually want to have sex with him), then he can learn all kinds of tricks to do that. Just as I can get men to give me money through all kinds of tricks. Why do you guys want to be so hard stuck on that bad boy point?
> 
> Do you really think we women don't understand that there is that seething envy behind it every time you say it? Because we do see that, and it is unattractive. The "bad boys" as you call it (or the Naturals as I'll call it) don't have that seething envy toward other men, nor do most of them hate women and just use them for sex.
> 
> Here's Models:
> 
> Models: Attract Women Through Honesty: Mark Manson: 9781463750350: Amazon.com: Books


Speaking for myself, I'm stuck on the bad guy thing because it works, it's obvious, and it's easy.

It's a simplistic model that is easily grok'ed and emulated.

And it's baked into our culture, at least back to Fonzie.


----------



## NobodySpecial

technovelist said:


> Oh, that's easy. Women don't want men to know how to act like alphas, because that gets in the way of their ability to accept alphas and reject betas.


Why would anyone want to be able to do that? Especially a husband with whom one probably made babies. Divorce is a PAIN for everyone.

And you know what, women can already "reject" whatever the hell she wants. She owes you nothing.


----------



## naiveonedave

Anon1111 said:


> he is a natural, which is all that matters.
> 
> telling men to "act" this way fails (from a woman's perspective).
> 
> they should just "do" not "act".


the MMSL point is that you may have to fake it till you make it, but if you really don't change to the 'do' model, it won't last.


----------



## Anon1111

marduk said:


> I get what you're saying, and I simultaneously think he's running 90% of what AK would consider a MAP and having it not be red pill.
> 
> I think the problem is one of philosphy, respect, and intent.
> 
> And I'm willing to let MMSLP and red pill go... and injecting some feminine wisdom there instead.
> 
> Because instead of polarizing I think we're increasingly saying the same thing, and I'm seeking a non-douchy non-judgemental non-I'm better than women way of saying that. Not that I think that's what you're doing.


that 10% is the only 10% that matters.

that's the authenticity.


----------



## Marduk

Book's on the list FW. Is it applicable to marriage and not just dating?


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> ("happy wife, happy life")


And yet my husband fully understands what "happy wife, happy life" means.

Just because some guys don't have good luck in that area doesn't mean that the saying isn't a good one.

It also doesn't mean that I don't care about his happiness....I do, and I go out of my way to keep him happy.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> FW said something similar earlier, but I didn't really put the pieces together: MMSL and red pill is even more damaging to men than women because the stereotypes it imposes sets men up to have their worth defined solely by whether the "10" they fancy gives them the time of day.
> 
> Sad! No wonder this stuff has so much deep-seated resentment of women!


While I don't mean to discount whether what you've said is true for many men, in my case it is not. My own personal sense of masculinity, for better or worse, is mostly derived from my ability to produce and compete. I wouldn't think much of myself as a man if I am unproductive and defeated.

In terms of women, what resentment I have doesn't originate from what women actually want or choose, but rather that I was provided poor guidance as a young man. The advice is overly focused on being whatever is good for her, without a lot of important context. "Happy wife, happy life." "If momma ain't happy ain't nobody happy" etc etc, all set a man up to place her needs above his own. These messages are false. The product of romanticism. A man cannot "cater" a woman into happiness, or into liking him as these messages imply. Her happiness is hers to own and may or may not gel with what she's attracted to or what makes me happy. My happiness is my business. If what makes me happy doesn't maker her happy, she should move on... and vice versa. In my marriage, I fell back on a pattern of giving her whatever she wanted regardless of what I wanted, because "happy wife, happy life" and relapsing into the notion that my role was to provide and enable her. Sure enough, my EW was happy as all get out, yet I was miserable.

I think resentment originates from the inability to correct a perceived injustice. Whether a 10 likes me or not doesn't really matter, because I'm not a 10. If I think of myself as a 7, yet no 7s like me, then I'm either not a 7 or something else is holding me back. I put more priority on refining my weaknesses than re-evaluating my self-perception. The latter is fine if a person is truly that humble. I'm not that person, and I suspect most people are not, and resentment comes with accepting less.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> Book's on the list FW. Is it applicable to marriage and not just dating?


Only for you, and only because of the questions you are asking which Mark has a different way of explaining.


----------



## naiveonedave

FrenchFry said:


> You know how men ***** about makeup and how it hides how women really look?
> 
> MMSL is makeup.


At risk of banishment, I probably shouldn't reply to a mod, but you are soooooo wrong here, it isn't funny. MMSL is all about changing yourself into a better man.


----------



## Faithful Wife

How do you fake authenticity?


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> And yet my husband fully understands what "happy wife, happy life" means.
> 
> Just because some guys don't have good luck in that area doesn't mean that the saying isn't a good one.
> 
> It also doesn't mean that I don't care about his happiness....I do, and I go out of my way to keep him happy.


I don't think it's luck.

I think there's a helluva lot more operating there than that.

If your husband suddenly stopped doing it for you, what would you tell him to do?


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> Speaking for myself, I'm stuck on the bad guy thing because it works, it's obvious, and it's easy.
> 
> It's a simplistic model that is easily grok'ed and emulated.
> 
> And it's baked into our culture, at least back to Fonzie.


As far as young people screwing each other, I agree...it is fun to sample all types of people.

Did you know some women want to seduce a Spock type of guy instead of Fonzie?

Did you know some women like intact trans men?

Did you know some women are gay?

Did you know some women want to put you in a fuzzy bunny suit and make you hop around?

Some want to have an orgy with all your friends?




The whole "women like bad boys" is like the cheapest, easiest, silliest, most reductive way of looking at women's sexuality available. There's so much more to it, if you want to get stuck there at the high school level, be my guest....but there's so much more.


----------



## Marduk

naiveonedave said:


> At risk of banishment, I probably shouldn't reply to a mod, but you are soooooo wrong here, it isn't funny. MMSL is all about changing yourself into a better man.


I think it's how you interpret it, man.

I did the way you did. But I can see how others would make it into more of a coin-op mentality.

I.e., I put these MMSLP coins in, and get sex back out. Without actually becoming better, just better at faking it.


----------



## chillymorn

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Speaking from experience, this doesn't get any respect either.
> Don't always let a woman dictate what to do- I agree.
> Ever? Screw that. Very few women would put up with that.


want a peach colored kitchen with matching drapes! I'm cool with that.


----------



## Icey181

Faithful Wife said:


> How do you fake authenticity?


Simple; carry yourself in the same way that the authentic people do.

It takes a considerable amount of effort, but "Fake it until you make it," works because people often feel something is "authentic" because they accept the actions are part of a natural package.

If he looks the part and plays the role, unless there is something to tip it off, no one will know what it takes to make it work.


----------



## EllisRedding

marduk said:


> For me, it was about a month and an intersection of:
> - suddenly high testosterone from eating right and working out
> - realizing that my buddies were being walked all over by their wives, and I was, too ("happy wife, happy life")
> - everwhere I seemed to look, I saw the media portray husbands as bumbling, weak idiots
> - suddenly having married women hit on me, and being disgusted by that
> - realizing that all the work and effort I had put in wasn't working (houses, cars, shiny things, making her happy, buying into the deal and then getting shafted)
> - realizing that while my wife wasn't attracted to me, she sure was attracted to other guys.
> 
> Etc.
> 
> I got over it.


Wow, I wonder how many guys can relate to this, whether first hand knowledge or from others.

The high testosterone point is definitely something I noticed as well as my training routine intensified and I got into better shape. Interestingly enough, it did also bump up my alpha which my wife seems to have been enjoying the past few weeks lol.

Completely agreed on the perception in the media as well. The other points TBH I never had issues with or ran in to, but seriously this sounds like a list quite a few guys I know have read off to me repeatedly about their marriage.


----------



## Icey181

Faithful Wife said:


> As far as young people screwing each other, I agree...it is fun to sample all types of people.
> 
> Did you know some women want to seduce a Spock type of guy instead of Fonzie?
> 
> Did you know some women like intact trans men?
> 
> Did you know some women are gay?
> 
> Did you know some women want to put you in a fuzzy bunny suit and make you hop around?
> 
> Some want to have an orgy with all your friends?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The whole "women like bad boys" is like the cheapest, easiest, silliest, most reductive way of looking at women's sexuality available. There's so much more to it, if you want to get stuck there at the high school level, be my guest....but there's so much more.


Is there any point in creating a general model that is targeted at the extreme minority of a population?

You may not have a majority of women attracted to "bad boys," but there is a heavy plurality of those women throughout life.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> As far as young people screwing each other, I agree...it is fun to sample all types of people.
> 
> Did you know some women want to seduce a Spock type of guy instead of Fonzie?


My background is compsci and pure math with a sprinkling of english lit, philosophy, etc. So I get that, and got that!


> Did you know some women like intact trans men?


I'm aware, but haven't experienced it.


> Did you know some are gay?


Heh.
Funny story. I got into a slug fest (well, one way) with a gay woman. I walked into this party, hit on this babe, got her number, set up a date, and then all of a sudden this butch was pushing me around...

Turns out they were together. How was I supposed to know?

One of my best friends for a time was a bi woman. We had the same taste in women. She taught me a lot.

Including how to freak out women by showing up looking like a couple and hitting on the same woman.



> Did you know some women want to put you in a fuzzy bunny suit and make you hop around?


I hear about that, but have never experienced it. Is there some kind of slot for access?



> Some want to have an orgy with all your friends?


Been there.





> The whole "women like bad boys" is like the cheapest, easiest, silliest, most reductive way of looking at women's sexuality available.


Agreed.

But it does work on a lot of women, doesn't it?

Why do you think that is? A sense of danger?


----------



## tech-novelist

NobodySpecial said:


> Why would anyone want to be able to do that? Especially a husband with whom one probably made babies. Divorce is a PAIN for everyone.
> 
> And you know what, women can already "reject" whatever the hell she wants. She owes you nothing.


It is not at the conscious level, but is a hangover from earlier times. 

Have you ever wondered why there are many women who WANT to WANT their husbands, but don't actually want them? That's why.


----------



## Icey181

Going to also back up the whole, "suddenly high testosterone from eating right and working out."

My wife noticed it as a spike in my metabolism and heightened drive. The issue with it was that coupling the physical manifestations of the Red Pill with the old "Beta" characteristics do not produce anything but more rejection…


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> How do you fake authenticity?


The same way you get to Carnegie Hall, of course!


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

chillymorn said:


> want a peach colored kitchen with matching drapes! I'm cool with that.


Not sure what that means but ok. 
As long as things are relatively balanced and equal in terms of decision making and directing then things will be fine. As soon as you shift too far either way, chances are you'll have issues. 

It's not a "don't let women dictate" thing. It's a "don't have an unbalanced relationship where 1 of you- either one- has more say than the other"


----------



## Marduk

technovelist said:


> It is not at the conscious level, but is a hangover from earlier times.
> 
> Have you ever wondered why there are many women who WANT to WANT their husbands, but don't actually want them? That's why.


That... that is exactly it. Thank you.

"I want to want to" is something I've heard many a time.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> Agreed.
> 
> But it does work on a lot of women, doesn't it?
> 
> Why do you think that is? A sense of danger?


I still don't think it is because he is a bad boy in the sense you think it is.

I think it is because highly sexual women know who a highly sexual man is by the way he vibes toward her, and she goes off with him.

Your assumption that every woman who goes off with one of these guys is a good girl is probably very far off from the truth.

So the point is, there are far more highly sexual women than men think there are. The men who aren't that sexual will rarely get with them.


----------



## Marduk

FrenchFry said:


> What happens when you drop the red pill for a minute and your wife sees you as you are...
> 
> and she doesn't like you?
> 
> Are you content to fake it?


I've played with this along several different vectors and tracked the result objectively using % of successful initiations, how much she initiated, among other things.

My data said:

- stopping working out: 2 weeks before a slow decline
- stopping the ****iness: immediate decline
- stopping going out with my buddies: 3-4 weeks before a slow decline
- stopping the sexting/flirting/etc: immediate stop
- stopping pretending I don't care when she upsets me: immediate stop

etc. All kinds of data.

I figured I had about 2-4 weeks of 'coast' time before we went back to 'meh' and...

I was right!


----------



## Icey181

FrenchFry said:


> What happens when you drop the red pill for a minute and your wife sees you as you are...
> 
> and she doesn't like you?
> 
> Are you content to fake it?


Simple, you leave.

The Red Pill is not a 12-month weight program that ends after you hit the pants size you want.

It is by definition a lifestyle change.

You maintain the fitness, the sociability, the confidence, the attractiveness, et al because they represent a different lifestyle more in-line with the things that you want.

You only stop them if you want a different lifestyle.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> I still don't think it is because he is a bad boy in the sense you think it is.
> 
> I think it is because highly sexual women know who a highly sexual man is by the way he vibes toward her, and she goes off with him.
> 
> Your assumption that every woman who goes off with one of these guys is a good girl is probably very far off from the truth.
> 
> So the point is, there are far more highly sexual women than men think there are. The men who aren't that sexual will rarely get with them.


Ah, so you think it's a selection bias.

I.e. the characteristics that make a 'bad boy' are analagous to characteristics of a highly sexual male and will attract a highly sexual female?

Can you account for women that don't act highly sexual until you act like a bad boy? Like my wife?


----------



## Faithful Wife

All I can say to you marduk is that my husband would never put up with that, he would be gone.

I'm into him and I show him this in everything I do.

If I didn't, he just wouldn't be here. He wouldn't be able to love me if it wasn't totally mutual.


----------



## naiveonedave

FrenchFry said:


> What happens when you drop the red pill for a minute and your wife sees you as you are...
> 
> and she doesn't like you?
> 
> Are you content to fake it?


so you either become what you were faking i.e. change or things go back to they way they were. The success of MMSL are changes I made to me. That I get more sex probably makes me a better husband, but my wife would be the judge of that.

The red pill only works long term if you are going to change...


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> All I can say to you marduk is that my husband would never put up with that, he would be gone.
> 
> I'm into him and I show him this in everything I do.
> 
> If I didn't, he just wouldn't be here. He wouldn't be able to love me if it wasn't totally mutual.


So if something were going on in your life that he didn't understand, or you couldnt articulate, or didn't understand yourself that got in the way of your desire for him, he'd just walk away?

And you're ok with that?


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> Can you account for women that don't act highly sexual until you act like a bad boy? Like my wife?


The fact that she isn't very good with emotional intimacy is your clue here. If she is only reacting to you, only has responsive desire, then she either:

a. Isn't that sexual.

b. Isn't capable of anything deeper than physical intimacy, which is why it never leads to sustained emotional intimacy.


----------



## Icey181

Faithful Wife said:


> All I can say to you marduk is that my husband would never put up with that, he would be gone.
> 
> I'm into him and I show him this in everything I do.
> 
> If I didn't, he just wouldn't be here. He wouldn't be able to love me if it wasn't totally mutual.


What I appreciate about you, despite what I see as the "showing it works, but denying it does," routine, is that you are at least consistent and honest concerning the outcome.

Red Pill is about getting a man to _this_ point and finding a women who accepts it and responds.


----------



## samyeagar

Faithful Wife said:


> I still don't think it is because he is a bad boy in the sense you think it is.
> 
> I think it is because highly sexual women know who a highly sexual man is by the way he vibes toward her, and she goes off with him.
> 
> Your assumption that every woman who goes off with one of these guys is a good girl is probably very far off from the truth.
> 
> So the point is, there are far more highly sexual women than men think there are. *The men who aren't that sexual will rarely get with them*.


And people should not confuse being highly sexual with simply desiring a lot of sex really badly. There is soooo much more to it than that.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> So if something were going on in your life that he didn't understand, or you couldnt articulate, or didn't understand yourself that got in the way of your desire for him, he'd just walk away?
> 
> And you're ok with that?


My desire has never waned for him at all because it is first and foremost coming from our mutual physical attraction. It is so strong that at other times when we are not getting along, it is still there, very strong.

It is either there, or it isn't.

If he turned into some kind of jerk and I lost respect for him, I could eventually lose attraction for him.

In that case, yes it wouldn't be long before he walked away. Would I be ok with it? What choice would I have? Would I expect him to stick around even though I'm not attracted to him, no.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> The fact that she isn't very good with emotional intimacy is your clue here. If she is only reacting to you, only has responsive desire, then she either:
> 
> a. Isn't that sexual.
> 
> b. Isn't capable of anything deeper than physical intimacy, which is why it never leads to sustained emotional intimacy.


Ya. I think it's something approaching b. For many reasons, including ones she's actively working on.

But I still love her, and want to make it work. And it does, we have tremendous chemistry when I trigger it the right way.

So perhaps my strategy should just be to go back to that, and at least have fun with it.


----------



## Julius Beastcavern

FrenchFry said:


> Makeup is about changing yourself into a better woman.
> 
> Fake it until you make it.


You'll never 'make it' with make-up though, you'll always have to wear it. The red pill changes you forever


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> My desire has never waned for him at all because it is first and foremost coming from our mutual physical attraction. It is so strong that at other times when we are not getting along, it is still there, very strong.
> 
> It is either there, or it isn't.
> 
> If he turned into some kind of jerk and I lost respect for him, I could eventually lose attraction for him.
> 
> In that case, yes it wouldn't be long before he walked away. Would I be ok with it? What choice would I have? Would I expect him to stick around even though I'm not attracted to him, no.


What happens when you both get old and the physical desire wanes?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> People come in whole packages, not as isolated variables.


The degree of influence of each of those variables can be tested. To do so, you eliminate influence or control for the others.


----------



## T&T

Faithful Wife said:


> How do you fake authenticity?


This is what I'd like to know and wondered about those who took this "red pill" 

How the hell do you fake a personality? :scratchhead: "Fake it until you make it" doesn't seem to apply. 

Your personality was formed mostly through childhood/teens, so are you guys putting on an act for the rest of your lives? Doesn't it feel unnatural? 

I'm trying to picture myself putting my wife on a pedestal and serving her every need to feel more Betta. I couldn't do it...It isn't in my personality. Crappy example maybe, but I think I made my point. 

Serious question BTW.


----------



## naiveonedave

FrenchFry said:


> Which is why it's not marriage-conducive.


so changing me is harmful to my M exactly how? Especially since you don't know what I did to change


----------



## samyeagar

marduk said:


> What happens when you both get old and the physical desire wanes?


That's just it...the conventional wisdom assumes that it is inevitable that the physical desire goes away. I reject that notion.


----------



## Marduk

FrenchFry said:


> What about for you?
> 
> When you aren't able to work out anymore?


That's my point.

It isn't sustainable.


----------



## naiveonedave

T&T said:


> This is what I'd like to know and wondered about those who took this "red pill"
> 
> How the hell do you fake a personality? :scratchhead: "Fake it until you make it" doesn't seem to apply.
> 
> Your personality was formed mostly through childhood/teens, so are you guys putting on an act for the rest of your lives? Doesn't it feel unnatural?
> 
> I'm trying to picture myself putting my wife on a pedestal and serving her every need to feel more Betta. I couldn't do it...It isn't in my personality. Crappy example maybe, but I think I made my point.
> 
> Serious question BTW.


there is where you are reading most of this wrong.... No one is acting. At least not me. What did I do to change:
* work out
* stop whining
* stopped sh*t tests in their infancy
* started doing a better job at child discipline
No of these are changing personality.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> What happens when you both get old and the physical desire wanes?


We are both old, and it isn't waning at all.


----------



## Marduk

samyeagar said:


> That's just it...the conventional wisdom assumes that it is inevitable that the physical desire goes away. I reject that notion.


For some, it may not.

But I struggle with the notion that I will be 85 and want to have sex 3 times a day. Or I may want to, and not be able to.


----------



## naiveonedave

FrenchFry said:


> Sorry, I wasn't replying to you. I didn't quote very well.
> 
> I don't care what you did in your marriage. I can explain why MMSL does not work in mine.


please do, because I am sure MMSL is not for everyone, but it was for me, for sure.


----------



## Idyit

Faithful Wife said:


> marduk....did you read Mark Manson's Models? Because I felt that was pretty close. Though it isn't about marriage necessarily, just about being attractive to women.
> 
> Here's another problem with red pill....it claims that women are always having to hide that secret inner sl*t we have. That's why you have to game it out of us.
> 
> My husband knows better. *There are plenty of women who are sexually aggressive and assertive and aren't ashamed of being highly sexual.*
> 
> To act like these women don't exist is a big part of the red pill problem.
> 
> There is something I call Sex-dar that happens between highly sexual people. This is how they find each other, and have sex.
> 
> What some guys see as "women go for bad boys" is usually just a Nice Guy observing a highly sexual man who hit off with a highly sexual woman. The Nice Guy also tend to overlook the obvious physical attraction the two feel for each other, and instead projects that the guy must have been a jerk because "hot women always go for jerks".
> 
> Yet my husband is not a jerk, and women have always gone for him.


I think the reason AK does not address this sort of woman is because she's not what the target audience is dealing with.

~ Passio


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> We are both old, and it isn't waning at all.


I'm projecting forward, seeking to understand.

Let's say you're both in your 80s, and desire wanes. Then what?

Or there's a medical issue, and it wanes in one of you. How to handle?

Etc.

For me, these are thorny issues.


----------



## samyeagar

marduk said:


> For some, it may not.
> 
> But I struggle with the notion that I will be 85 and want to have sex 3 times a day. Or I may want to, and not be able to.


That has nothing to do with the mutual attraction waning.


----------



## Anon1111

marduk said:


> I will tell you that within one week of a recent promotion I suddenly got hit on a ton by women in the office.
> 
> It just made me want to puke, to be honest.


this has happened at every stage of accomplishment in my life.

I think there is a deeper level to it though than just the accomplishment.

You are riding on a high afterward (usually). Women pick up on that and respond to it.

In other words, for most women it may not be the accomplishment or added status themselves but what it does to YOU.

I never saw this before and had the same reaction as you did.

I am only recently starting to believe you can ride on that high continuously and do not need to catch glimpses of it from achievment.

I know this sounds trippy.


----------



## Marduk

samyeagar said:


> That has nothing to do with the mutual attraction waning.


help me understand that.


----------



## Marduk

Anon1111 said:


> this has happened at every stage of accomplishment in my life.
> 
> I think there is a deeper level to it though than just the accomplishment.
> 
> You are riding on a high afterward (usually). Women pick up on that and respond to it.
> 
> In other words, for most women it may not be the accomplishment or added status themselves but what it does to YOU.
> 
> I never saw this before and had the same reaction as you did.
> 
> I am only recently starting to believe you can ride on that high continuously and do not need to catch glimpses of it from achievment.
> 
> I know this sounds trippy.


In at least one case, it was purely attraction to the power.

I mean, that's what she said.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> I'm projecting forward, seeking to understand.
> 
> Let's say you're both in your 80s, and desire wanes. Then what?
> 
> Or there's a medical issue, and it wanes in one of you. How to handle?
> 
> Etc.
> 
> For me, these are thorny issues.


And if one of us gets paralyzed, and if one of us gets disfigured in an accident, and and and and and.....

I'm not worried about those things, marduk.

If you are, then I'd say you are worrying about quite a lot of hypothetical things.

If we are 80 and still want to have sex at all, I'll be happily surprised.


----------



## jld

FrenchFry said:


> Yep. If I can't be real with my husband, he should walk away.


Why shouldn't he work with you, try to draw you out? Why he should just give up so easily?


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> And if one of us gets paralyzed, and if one of us gets disfigured in an accident, and and and and and.....
> 
> I'm not worried about those things, marduk.
> 
> If you are, then I'd say you are worrying about quite a lot of hypothetical things.
> 
> If we are 80 and still want to have sex at all, I'll be happily surprised.


I ask because that's a massive downside to MMSLP.

I mean, I experimented with that. Some of the results were above.

I seriously worry what would happen to our marriage if I was injured and couldn't work out, or something.


----------



## samyeagar

marduk said:


> help me understand that.


Let's suppose your favorite thing in the world, a true passion, is spending time at the art museums admiring the art, and suddenly you go blind. Do you suddenly lose the desire and passion for looking at artwork? I know, not a perfect analogy, but I hope you take my meaning.

In a relationship, ideally as we grow older, and physical limitation start presenting themselves, both partners are on fairly level terms. My wife and I are relatively young still, so the physical limitations have not really hit, but I have noticed that we are pretty much on the same cycle as far as desire. Granted, it is always there, but it seems that if one of us is tired, or just not feeling it right then, the other is in the same mindset. We are in sync, and so there really hasn't been any form of rejection.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Right, so let's apply a little red pill philosophy:
> 
> Woman finds status and wealth immensely attractive, and simply can't resist an a$$hole, so her marrying rich guy CEO is a major coup.
> 
> But wait, she's not happy, she's not turned on by him, she cheats.


You can't buy it in the beginning and throw it out at the end. If you accept what went into making him irresistible in the beginning, then it stands to reason he's still irresistible in the end (he doesn't become the domesticated shell of himself many men do if he's following this advice). He isn't neglecting her, nor is he constantly available (push/pull). Thus she's still engaged by him and never desires to cheat - because she desires him more.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> I ask because that's a massive downside to MMSLP.
> 
> I mean, I experimented with that. Some of the results were above.
> 
> I seriously worry what would happen to our marriage if I was injured and couldn't work out, or something.


Right. And apparently you should worry if she stops wanting sex with you as soon as you stop working out. But you can work out for the rest of your life.

For the record, my husband never works out, and I don't either. We were both athletes and have a lot of muscle still, and are both healthy and active. But we don't work out. We both have some cushion for pushin', and we both dig each other like that.

Whereas, I have a female cousin who is really buff, and expects her man to be too, and when he gets some belly fat she is immediately turned off by him.

And then I have another friend whose hubby is down right squishy everywhere...but she is crazy hot for him and always has been.

We are not all the same.

But you have to deal with your wife, not any other woman's attraction.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

naiveonedave said:


> there is where you are reading most of this wrong.... No one is acting. At least not me. What did I do to change:
> * work out
> * stop whining
> * stopped sh*t tests in their infancy
> * started doing a better job at child discipline
> No of these are changing personality.


But aren't these things all stuff you could have figured out in one way or another through other books and self-help stuff? 
Why does it NEED to be crap like mmslp and the red pill when those places are filled with irresponsible -and insulting- information about women?


----------



## Marduk

Exactly FW. 
My conundrum is that I know our marriage will be a lot more pleasant and stable if I go back on the red pill. 

I just don't want to.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Holland said:


> Decent men should be standing up and saying "let's demolish this subset, let's be real men, good men and treat women with respect, hell let's treat ourselves with respect".


When the traditional gentleman notion gets men better looking women and more female desire than pickup game, wouldn't you think men would be on board with it?

Results. Results. Results. This is all that matters. You're pulling women or you're not.

My experience was that the gentleman routine was sh*t. Awesome if I was into overweight women, not so much otherwise.


----------



## jld

FrenchFry said:


> He should but if I'm so unable to be emotionally open with him, it's not his fault.


Do you think there are things he could do to change that? Or do you ultimately feel that it is all on you to be emotionally open with him?

This is interesting to me because it is not how I tend to think. Please feel free to help me better understand your pov.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> Exactly FW.
> My conundrum is that I know our marriage will be a lot more pleasant and stable if I go back on the red pill.
> 
> I just don't want to.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Why can't you just continue to work out?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> So that whole subset of emotionally immature men have their corner of the internet to hide out in and trade secrets about how to dupe women into dates or into bed.


Oh? Wait... I thought you said if she's not attracted to his looks she's not attracted... game over? So how does he "dupe" women into bed?


----------



## naiveonedave

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> But aren't these things all stuff you could have figured out in one way or another through other books and self-help stuff?
> Why does it NEED to be crap like mmslp and the red pill when those places are filled with irresponsible -and insulting- information about women?


nope, most of the self help books for men are of the HNHN variety and my M didn't need that. My overall beta had that covered. Most men are overwhelmed with how to give a woman her emotional needs, but sometimes that doesn't work in bed (almost never works in bed, based on reading TAM, unless you are pretty alpha at the get go or somehow figured this out on your own).

I needed a 2x4 of how women really work. And as I posted pages back, some/most of what is in MMSL is true and works. I needed the bluntness and crudeness to get the points. that is how a lot of men are. 

I think the reason women gets so hissy about MMSL is the language and the fact they have been trained that some of the basic truths about women actually are true, even though feminism denies them.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Why can't you just continue to work out?


I will train until I die, or can't. 

I mean the rest of it. 

Especially the stuff you find distasteful, but seems to work so well.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## tech-novelist

marduk said:


> I ask because that's a massive downside to MMSLP.
> 
> I mean, I experimented with that. Some of the results were above.
> 
> I seriously worry what would happen to our marriage if I was injured and couldn't work out, or something.


That isn't a downside to MMSLP; it's a downside to reality. MMSLP is just a means of dealing with it.


----------



## Marduk

technovelist said:


> That isn't a downside to MMSLP; it's a downside to reality. MMSLP is just a means of dealing with it.


Which is why I was hoping there was another way.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> Some men don't look at a woman and first off, rank her with a number. They just think "nice, attractive, interesting, I like what I see" and then move in to find out if the feeling is mutual.


I don't think numbers when I look at a woman. I use numbers to describe traits to a third party. These days, the only time I find myself using numbers is on this forum - to explain the tradeoff of traits. 



Faithful Wife said:


> If it is, there's a feeling there. There's no need for negging and begging. It is a clear mutual feeling. Without that feeling, some men will simply move on...without trying to turn it into something it isn't. Some men do not want sex with a woman who doesn't feel mutual sexual attraction for him. Hard as that is for some to believe.


Hard as it is for you to believe, that "mutual feeling" can be created - that IS game. It is not all in looks, neither for men nor women. I myself move on if I can't generate that interest, but I'm not going to quit because a girl I JUST MET isn't drooling for me at the get go. It is far less common that that "clear mutual feeling" just materializes right off the bat. There is a game to be played. A playful process of flirting and courting. You don't like it... I get that. Tough t*tty.

No one has ever been in my bed who didn't want to be there. Why does it matter to you what they thought of me when I began talking to them?


----------



## Faithful Wife

naiveonedave said:


> *I think the reason women gets so hissy* about MMSL is the language and the fact they have been trained that some of the basic truths about women actually are true, even though feminism denies them.


So I get called out for using the word mansplaining, for which I apologize and then agree to stop using it here because it is disrespectful and seems to be a tool to shut others down.

Yet here I am, expressing my valid opinion, and because it is not the same as this man's opinion, I'm referred to as "getting so hissy".

Perhaps some men could call out this behavior since mine was also called out?

Talk about disrespectful and polarizing.


----------



## naiveonedave

FrenchFry said:


> .
> 
> naivedaveone, it doesn't work for me because it promotes this short-term, short gain thinking that for me, is shallow and unfulfilling. He tried it, I nearly divorced him over it.
> 
> I don't want to be married to a guy who likes me only for my makeup and I'd rather let him go and
> 
> a) either be totally alone if what I am looking for doesn't exist b)find someone who likes me with and without makeup.
> 
> I also don't want to be married to a guy who thinks he needs to keep up a long-term lifestyle just to be with me. If that's what he would need to continue being married, my biggest hope is that I have a least created enough space for him to tell me honestly.
> 
> ..


I was about to D over not getting my #1 HNHN met, while she was getting all of hers met. So I changed me. I guess I just don't get the angst over this, but without seeing your reality, I can't judge.


----------



## tech-novelist

marduk said:


> Which is why I was hoping there was another way.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Unfortunately we are stuck with Human 1.0. Upgrades are not available... yet, at least.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> I will train until I die, or can't.
> 
> I mean the rest of it.
> 
> Especially the stuff you find distasteful, but seems to work so well.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


If your wife is that emotionally immature that she is only attracted to you when you run dread game and similar tactics, then all I can do is wonder what exactly you see in her.


----------



## naiveonedave

Faithful Wife said:


> So I get called out for using the word mansplaining, for which I apologize and then agree to stop using it here because it is disrespectful and seems to be a tool to shut others down.
> 
> Yet here I am, expressing my valid opinion, and because it is not the same as this man's opinion, I'm referred to as "getting so hissy".
> 
> Perhaps some men could call out this behavior since mine was also called out?
> 
> Talk about disrespectful and polarizing.


you started a 100+ page post because you are in a hissy over the red pill. I am sorry if you take offense to calling it a hissy. I generalized at who was having the hissy, so I didn't mean to call you out...


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> Which is why I was hoping there was another way.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


If there's no other way for YOUR wife, then that's who you are married to.


----------



## Faithful Wife

naiveonedave said:


> you started a 100+ page post because *you are in a hissy* over the red pill. I am sorry if you take offense to calling it a hissy. I generalized at who was having the hissy, so I didn't mean to call you out...


Ok I will just put you on ignore, since you can't seem to be respectful.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening
What I am claiming is that it is those other forms of status that make it impossible to measure an overall status. That status is a vector in many directions that cannot be described by a single number.




DvlsAdvc8 said:


> For the purposes of the experiments I posted, status was specifically wealth/income. It's rather supposition that other forms of status have a similar dynamic. ie - being a member of a band, regardless of whether they've hit it big or not, confers a degree of status; or being the dominant personality in a social circle.


----------



## naiveonedave

FrenchFry said:


> Or it's because it's hateful, misogynistic language full of half-truths and BS.
> 
> What makes it even less appealing is when guys keep on insisting that it isn't hateful and misogynistic when it's clearly displayed, again, in the first pages of this post.
> 
> I mean, it's one thing to miss the tone while reading in a bad place. It's completely another to continue to insist that "this is just how guys are, and it's not so bad" when all the vile **** is laid all the way out like this.


or a lot of it is true, but written in a way that comes across as misogynistic. the truth is in the results. Who scores more? mr beta or mr alpha. The fact that women don't like the answer to that question says a lot.


----------



## Marduk

I think it's polarizing FW.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Anon1111

was hemingway (in his written voice) a misogynist do-chebag or a rugged manly man romantic?

Different people will come to different conclusions, but I think most people settle on the latter (otherwise he wouldn't have been considered the monumental artist he was).

For the 10,000 hemingway imitators, the judgment will tend to fall more harshly toward the misogynist do-chebag side.

Why?

They're all writing about drinking, killing and f-cking in declarative sentences.

But one of them had his own voice and the others are just pretending.


----------



## T&T

naiveonedave said:


> there is where you are reading most of this wrong.... No one is acting. At least not me. What did I do to change:
> * work out
> * stop whining
> * stopped sh*t tests in their infancy
> * started doing a better job at child discipline
> No of these are changing personality.


I haven't read the book but did read items pulled from the book on the first few pages of this thread. Being more Alpha, manning up, treating women like sh!t seems to be the premise of the book (Red pill speak)

What you've listed has nothing to do with being Alpha which IS a personality trait. What you've listed is what most husbands should be doing in the first place. Also, for yourself and children. No offense intended, but we're talking about "acts" that should have been preformed from day one of the marriage and probably were and slid at some point. 

I think Alpha and Betta are used to loosely on TAM. I don't think either term is used correctly and most people are a mix of both. I couldn't live with myself if I was in Alpha mode all the time nor could I live with myself if I was in Betta mode all the time. Neither could my wife, guaranteed.


----------



## jld

FrenchFry said:


> All my husband needs to do for me to be open to him is create a safe environment to do so. Which is easy: take me at my word, don't try to interpret my feelings and respect my opinions as mine, even if he disagrees.


Thanks, FF.  Just going to push a little bit more, okay?

To me, what you have indicated above seems very normal, and the minimum that should be required of a husband, or probably a wife, either. So why should he walk away if you cannot open up? Why would he not study how he could better create that safe environment for you? Why should there not be pressure on him to do so, say from more experienced husbands?

Or do you mean if he sincerely tries to create that environment, but simply cannot? And in that way, he would be freeing you so that a man who could do it could enter your life?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Brigit said:


> I understand how you feel but in my experience men do like the chase game. They may not think "Oh I really like having to chase after this girl" but they feel if it's too easy then there must be something wrong with the girl.


It's the desire to compete and applies to men and women. Some fold, some fight.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> If there's no other way for YOUR wife, then that's who you are married to.


Are you advocating for the red pill or attacking my wife?


----------



## jld

Faithful Wife said:


> If your wife is that emotionally immature that she is only attracted to you when you run dread game and similar tactics, then all I can do is wonder what exactly you see in her.


But we don't hear from her. She has her side, too.


----------



## naiveonedave

T&T said:


> I haven't read the book but did read items pulled from the book on the first few pages of this thread. Being more Alpha, manning up, treating women like sh!t seems to be the premise of the book (Red pill speak)
> 
> What you've listed has nothing to do with being Alpha which IS a personality trait. What you've listed is what most husbands should be doing in the first place. Also, for yourself and children. No offense intended, but we're talking about "acts" that should have been preformed from day one of the marriage and probably were and slid at some point.
> 
> I think Alpha and Betta are used to loosely on TAM. I don't think either term is used correctly and most people are a mix of both. I couldn't live with myself if I was in Alpha mode all the time nor could I live with myself if I was in Betta mode all the time. Neither could my wife, guaranteed.


that is your definition of alpha. I agree it is used to loosely. AK states emphatically you need a solid mix of both for a M to work.

no where did I read "treat women like sh*t". It is more like, don't worship the ground they walk on. Very different way of saying the same thing.

Most men were taught that the 'war' was over on wedding day, as long as you provide a nice beta home. Men have been conditioned this way for about 2 generations. Partly due to erosion of the family = less male role models and partly to schools killing boys being boys. Probably other reasons as well.


----------



## tech-novelist

naiveonedave said:


> or a lot of it is true, but written in a way that comes across as misogynistic. the truth is in the results. Who scores more? mr beta or mr alpha. The fact that women don't like the answer to that question says a lot.


You aren't supposed to notice that! You're supposed to listen to what women say, not watch what they do!

Sheesh, do I have to do everyone's homework around here? :scratchhead:


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> But we don't hear from her. She has her side, too.


Agreed. I'm sure she'd have a lot to say about me. She constantly, for example, claims to be "misunderstood."

She's been in MC and IC for a long time. Made a lot of progress. She's strong, as strong as I am. As stubborn as I am. As smart as I am. Profoundly sexual. Disciplined. Ambitious. A great mom. All kinds of things.

All kinds of things that have little to do with things getting a lot better while being on MMSLP and a lot worse when not.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> Are you advocating for the red pill or attacking my wife?


You are saying you've tried everything you can think of, and the only thing that holds her attraction high for you is when you run red pill games. So what more can anyone say? You already know she is lacking in emotional intimacy. And it would appear when she is attracted to you, it is only superficially created by these games.

I've said several times to you now that you know the lack of emotional intimacy is your biggest clue here. If she just isn't capable of it, how many more books or games will you run before you just conclude the truth?


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> You are saying you've tried everything you can think of, and the only thing that holds her attraction high for you is when you run red pill games. So what more can anyone say? You already know she is lacking in emotional intimacy. And it would appear when she is attracted to you, it is only superficially created by these games.
> 
> I've said several times to you now that you know the lack of emotional intimacy is your biggest clue here. If she just isn't capable of it, how many more books or games will you run before you just conclude the truth?


I think it is the truth. For now. I think that she's also working on that, and we're working on that together.

It just seems that when we do, the attraction goes away until I re-inject some red pill thinking into it. Which then erodes the emotional intimacy...

Which is why I was really hoping there was a different model.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> I think it is the truth. For now. I think that she's also working on that, and we're working on that together.
> 
> It just seems that when we do, the attraction goes away until I re-inject some red pill thinking into it. Which then erodes the emotional intimacy...
> 
> Which is why I was really hoping there was a different model.


But perhaps for HER, there isn't a different model.

Perhaps she is genuinely attracted to you more when you treat her more aloof, more aggressive, etc.

But in my experience, people like this do typically have intimacy issues and that's the root of why they are like this.


----------



## EllisRedding

Icey181 said:


> Going to also back up the whole, "suddenly high testosterone from eating right and working out."
> 
> My wife noticed it as a spike in my metabolism and heightened drive. The issue with it was that coupling the physical manifestations of the Red Pill with the old "Beta" characteristics do not produce anything but more rejection…


Agreed, it can be a positive and a negative. I know for me when things really started kicking into overdrive was when things were still off with my wife from a sex standpoint (we didn't have other issues with each other, we both made the mistake of letting us being parents take priority over everything else). This extra drive just ramped my frustration level up a notch, but funny enough in part b/c of that, it is what motivated me to address the issues head on with my wife and fix (I wasn't willing to keep walking around this frustrated, and when the usual flirty looks I get from women started catching my attention instead of me usually brushing off, I knew something had to change). It has been a few weeks now and needless to say any overdrive I have has been put to good use. :smthumbup:


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> But perhaps for HER, there isn't a different model.
> 
> Perhaps she is genuinely attracted to you more when you treat her more aloof, more aggressive, etc.
> 
> But in my experience, people like this do typically have intimacy issues and that's the root of why they are like this.


More, please.

I've often thought there may be a link.


----------



## T&T

naiveonedave said:


> that is your definition of alpha. I agree it is used to loosely. AK states emphatically you need a solid mix of both for a M to work.


I know what an Alpha male is because I AM one, Dave. Very Alpha and really had to work hard to tame it down and learn to be more Betta, soft, kind and loving. Especially at home and with the children. It is a personality trait I've been living with all my life and it's not all peaches and cream. 



naiveonedave said:


> no where did I read "treat women like sh*t". It is more like, don't worship the ground they walk on. Very different way of saying the same thing.


Go back and read the first few pages of this thread and tell me it's not about treating women like sh!t again...I found the excerpts highly offensive to the 10th degree!


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> More, please.
> 
> I've often thought there may be a link.


What was her childhood like?

What was yours like?

Did she have one or more parents who weren't real with her, who kept her at arms length, or who just won't allow anyone to be close to them?

Was she adopted?

Intimacy is confusing for a lot of people, it makes them feel like they are going to lose themselves. It is especially hard for people whose parents didn't model it well for them.

But typically, they don't want to be fixed, because the fear of losing themselves prevents them from it. They fear becoming more intimate so they aren't going to read books about it.

I don't know why my husband is so good at intimacy, but I do know that neither of us were ready for this high level of it until we were a little older and farther along in life.

Perhaps your wife will come along more in this area as you both mature, your kids grow up, etc.


----------



## naiveonedave

T&T said:


> I know what an Alpha male is because I AM one, Dave. Very Alpha and really had to work hard to tame it down and learn to be more Betta, soft, kind and loving. Especially at home and with the children. It is a personality trait I've been living with all my life and it's not all peaches and cream.
> 
> 
> 
> Go back and read the first few pages of this thread and tell me it's not about treating women like sh!t again...I found the excerpts highly offensive to the 10th degree!


Alpha doesn't have to mean what you say it does, I guess. It isn't necessarily a personality trait. It can be just actions....

I don't disagree about the excerpts being offensive. However, the context is not there and that is significant. Also, pretty much everyone who has read the book, didn't come away with the woman hating that FW and AA are blaming on it.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> What was her childhood like?


****ty.
Overbearing father, fundamentalist religion that she rejected. All kinds of oppression and rebellion against that. Fought for a couple degrees that her parents still couldn't name.

Mixed with an unhealthy dose of wealth.



> What was yours like?


Less ****ty.

Pretty independent, your prototypical jock in high school, frat boy who buckled down in university.


> Did she have one or more parents who weren't real with her, who kept her at arms length, or who just won't allow anyone to be close to them?


both.


> Was she adopted?


nope.


> Intimacy is confusing for a lot of people, it makes them feel like they are going to lose themselves. It is especially hard for people whose parents didn't model it well for them.


Yup.


> But typically, they don't want to be fixed, because the fear of losing themselves prevents them from it. They fear becoming more intimate so they aren't going to read books about it.


Yup.


> I don't know why my husband is so good at intimacy, but I do know that neither of us were ready for this high level of it until we were a little older and farther along in life.


Yup. At the end of the day, I just don't think she wants it.

So if I have to choose from low emotional intimacy and lots of great sex, or low +1 emotional intimacy and little 'meh' sex, I know what I'd choose...


> Perhaps your wife will come along more in this area as you both mature, your kids grow up, etc.


Maybe.

Is what you are saying is that this basically describes a lot of women that respond to the red pill?


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> Is what you are saying is that this basically describes a lot of women that respond to the red pill?


I think red pill appeals to both men AND women who aren't that capable of real intimacy.

But you *are* capable of it, that's why MMSL is ringing hollow for you, because you want more.

The men who just want to "get sex" might get that...but they aren't going to get any intimacy. You can see that for yourself through what has worked for you, but they will never see it because they don't even know the difference.


----------



## T&T

naiveonedave said:


> Alpha doesn't have to mean what you say it does, I guess. It isn't necessarily a personality trait. It can be just actions....


:scratchhead:

Everything about us is based on our personalities. 
One definition;

Alpha = Natural born leader

Betta = Not - going - to - happen

How is that not a personality trait? 



> I don't disagree about the excerpts being offensive. However, the context is not there and that is significant. Also, pretty much everyone who has read the book, didn't come away with the woman hating that FW and AA are blaming on it.


lol I did just from the excerpts.


----------



## Idyit

Faithful Wife said:


> I think red pill appeals to both men AND women who aren't that capable of real intimacy.
> 
> But you *are* capable of it, that's why MMSL is ringing hollow for you, because you want more.
> 
> The men who just want to "get sex" might get that...but they aren't going to get any intimacy. You can see that for yourself through what has worked for you, but they will never see it because they don't even know the difference.


Well done FW.

~ Passio


----------



## Marduk

While I agree, it kinda leaves me back where I started.


----------



## Deejo

Icey181 said:


> I do not know if you realize if Faithful Wife, but you basically just torpedoed the intent of this thread.
> 
> All by yourself.
> 
> Everything you identified as what works for you with your husband is textbook Red Pill characteristics.
> 
> Even down to the radical sperm-warfare crap.


I don't like anyone being attacked for being honest. FW took a huge leap to give people direct insight into the nature of her marriage.

I'd appreciate if people don't sh!t all over that. It has value.

We can disagree, but lets not, on either side of the debate, pillory someone for taking a risk and speaking their personal truth.

Not calling you out Icey, more of a public service announcement for anyone with their hat in the ring on this discussion.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> While I agree, it kinda leaves me back where I started.


So you and your wife maybe aren't matched up that way.

But then you have to ask yourself, why did you pick someone who can't go there with you? That's not just a one post answer, it is something to do some digging around about.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Deejo said:


> I don't like anyone be attacked for being honest. FW took a huge leap to give people direct insight into the nature of her marriage.
> 
> I'd appreciate if people don't sh!t all over that. It has value.
> 
> We can disagree, but lets not, on either side of the debate, pillory someone for taking a risk and speaking their personal truth.
> 
> Not calling you out Icey, more of a public service announcement for anyone with their hat in the ring on this discussion.


Not to mention that I do in fact have a blog called *I Married A Sex God*....I think I have a pretty good feel for how and why this stuff works. It doesn't require sperm wars, negging, or dread game. It requires his authentically paying attention to where I am and what I'm doing, and his genuine interest in me as a person.

Also, our Oneitis, which every red piller knows is totally a horrible thing to have, is actually WHY I'm so hot for him.

My husband is my fetish, due to our Oneitis.

I don't _want_ anyone else.

How does he accomplish this feeling in me?

Through emotional intimacy and the feeling of complete safety he gives me.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> So you and your wife maybe aren't matched up that way.
> 
> But then you have to ask yourself, why did you pick someone who can't go there with you? That's not just a one post answer, it is something to do some digging around about.


The thing is, we were.

We really really were. For all kinds of reasons, in all kinds of ways. Never experienced it before, with anyone.

And it all just went away after having kids.

And I'm wondering if I was doing MMSLP essentially while dating, and before kids. 

You know?


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Not to mention that I do in fact have a blog called *I Married A Sex God*....I think I have a pretty good feel for how and why this stuff works. It doesn't require sperm wars, negging, or dread game. It requires his authentically paying attention to where I am and what I'm doing, and his genuine interest in me as a person.
> 
> Also, our Oneitis, which every red piller knows is totally a horrible thing to have, is actually WHY I'm so hot for him.
> 
> My husband is my fetish, due to our Oneitis.
> 
> I don't _want_ anyone else.
> 
> How does he accomplish this feeling in me?
> 
> Through emotional intimacy and complete safety.


You've managed to thread the needle.

Because from what Esther Perel says, for a lot of couples, an abundance of emotional intimacy and safety kills eroticism.

She says a sense of other is required to have a desire to become one. If you always are one, there's no bridge to cross, no undiscovered country.

And that resonates with me.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> The thing is, we were.
> 
> We really really were. For all kinds of reasons, in all kinds of ways. Never experienced it before, with anyone.
> 
> *And it all just went away after having kids.*
> 
> And I'm wondering if I was doing MMSLP essentially while dating, and before kids.
> 
> You know?


Then I would say there is a chance it will come back when your kids are grown.

As I said earlier, I know part of the reason my H and I are at this level of emotional intimacy is because we are past that stage of life, and are free to only focus on ourselves, our love, our sex life, travel, etc.


----------



## Anon1111

Hey Marduk-

I am just brainstorming here, so don't take this the wrong way. 

You've got a lot of data on your wife. You've used that to gain more insight into how she behaves. 

Have you now maxed out that path?

Is there an opportunity to drive your decisions more based on feel?

Do you feel like you are trying to orchestrate an outcome rather than just let things settle into an equalibrium?

Could it be that there is a subtle fear of just going with it wherever it lies that your wife picks up on?

This may have already occurred to you- just trying to toss out ideas.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Then I would say there is a chance it will come back when your kids are grown.
> 
> As I said earlier, I know part of the reason my H and I are at this level of emotional intimacy is because we are past that stage of life, and are free to only focus on ourselves, our love, our sex life, travel, etc.


I don't have that kind of patience.

Instant gratification takes too long.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> You've managed to thread the needle.
> 
> Because from what Esther Perel says, for a lot of couples, an abundance of emotional intimacy and safety kills eroticism.
> 
> She says a sense of other is required to have a desire to become one. If you always are one, there's no bridge to cross, no undiscovered country.
> 
> And that resonates with me.


Don't forget though that we also do crazy erotic things that do give us the feeling of being different people all the time. We add danger and spice in every encounter. We also do things like get sex dr*gs and do a bunch of extacy and take huge risks and f*ck for a whole weekend straight....including pushing all of our own boundaries and each other's (sexually speaking).

So I quite understand Esther's points as well.


----------



## T&T

Faithful Wife said:


> How does he accomplish this feeling in me?
> 
> Through emotional intimacy and the feeling of complete safety he gives me.


Thank you, FW! :smthumbup:

This is ONE thing I've learned from TAM, applied it to my marriage and the reason it is FANTASTIC right now! 

It took a LOT of soul searching, correcting my own poor behaviours and a willing partner, but we did it!


----------



## Marduk

Anon1111 said:


> Hey Marduk-
> 
> I am just brainstorming here, so don't take this the wrong way.
> 
> You've got a lot of data on your wife. You've used that to gain more insight into how she behaves.
> 
> Have you now maxed out that path?
> 
> Is there an opportunity to drive your decisions more based on feel?
> 
> Do you feel like you are trying to orchestrate an outcome rather than just let things settle into an equalibrium?
> 
> Could it be that there is a subtle fear of just going with it wherever it lies that your wife picks up on?
> 
> This may have already occurred to you- just trying to toss out ideas.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Hmmm......

Is that a domain one can reliably gather data on? I mean, it's pretty hard to reduce variables for control and understand an outcome, you know?

I'm not saying it's not possible, I'm saying I thought that kind of thing would be outside the domain of the meausurable (or as us math geeks would call 'countable').


----------



## Anon1111

Tupac was about as alpha as it gets. His misogyny was irrelevant. 

If you're hot enough, nothing else matters. There are thousands of examples.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

So comeback with me FW to joe sixpack, who has gotten out of shape, is bending over backwards to help his wife out with everything he can, and is just getting more disrespect and zero sex in return.

What's your advice for that guy's plan of action.

Because I can tell you from what I've seen and experienced, even vicariously through buddies, the emotional intimacy angle just blows a gasket for many. The woman doesn't respond to it many times, and the man just feels like he's put himself out there not only sexually but emotionally, and been shot down. And he's working for nothing.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> So comeback with me FW to joe sixpack, who has gotten out of shape, is bending over backwards to help his wife out with everything he can, and is just getting more disrespect and zero sex in return.
> 
> What's your advice for that guy's plan of action.
> 
> Because I can tell you from what I've seen and experienced, even vicariously through buddies, the emotional intimacy angle just blows a gasket for many. The woman doesn't respond to it many times, and the man just feels like he's put himself out there not only sexually but emotionally, and been shot down. And he's working for nothing.


If he never had hot hot HOTTTT sex and mutual attraction AND deep love and intimacy with his wife to begin with...if they both just went for someone who was available....or if they just got married because she was pregnant...or if they were very young and are both different people now....then it might be hopeless.

I think it would be wise for this guy to be able to be honest with himself on those items first.

If he's clear that it was ALLLLLL there, and I mean truly all of it, then he should get into shape and focus on himself for awhile as he takes stock of what is still there and what he would like to see come back.

But in the end, as with everyone (and the reason it works in my marriage), if you aren't willing to walk out the door, you don't actually have any power.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> If he never had hot hot HOTTTT sex and mutual attraction AND deep love and intimacy with his wife to begin with...if they both just went for someone who was available....or if they just got married because she was pregnant...or if they were very young and are both different people now....then it might be hopeless.
> 
> I think it would be wise for this guy to be able to be honest with himself on those items first.
> 
> If he's clear that it was ALLLLLL there, and I mean truly all of it, then he should get into shape and focus on himself for awhile as he takes stock of what is still there and what he would like to see come back.
> 
> But in the end, as with everyone (and the reason it works in my marriage), if you aren't willing to walk out the door, you don't actually have any power.


I'm going to poke at that a little bit. 

Because that looks a lot like mmslp. 

How is it different? One of intention? Of respect?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> I'm going to poke at that a little bit.
> 
> Because that looks a lot like mmslp.
> 
> How is it different? One of intention? Of respect?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


"Get in shape and focus on yourself" was not invented by Athol Kay.


----------



## Brigit

marduk said:


> For some, it may not.
> 
> But I struggle with the notion that I will be 85 and want to have sex 3 times a day. Or I may want to, and not be able to.


LOL! If you do you'll be the stud of the nursing home.


----------



## Anon1111

marduk said:


> Hmmm......
> 
> Is that a domain one can reliably gather data on? I mean, it's pretty hard to reduce variables for control and understand an outcome, you know?
> 
> I'm not saying it's not possible, I'm saying I thought that kind of thing would be outside the domain of the meausurable (or as us math geeks would call 'countable').


I'll see your math geek and raise you to philosophy geek. 

Empiricism is a closed system. If you are bouncing around within its walls maybe it is the walls that are confining you. 

You've got a human woman to deal with here. Maybe hypothesis, observe, interpret, conclude can only get you to 80 pct of what you want. 

Maybe there is a leap you need to make that is not logical. Actually Kierkegaard might call it a leap but he was a depressing suicidal dude. 

A better way to put it might be to stop resisting and let the current take you to where it goes.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> "Get in shape and focus on yourself" was not invented by Athol Kay.


Ok the 'phases' going off of memory:
1. Go dark and get your **** together. 
2. Declare your intention of what kind of marriage you want. 
3. Start living that vision. 
4. Prep for **** tests and deal with them. 
5. If she doesn't respond to it, give her the my way or the high way conversation. 
6. Is go dark again to see what she does. Live single.
7. Prep for exit and execute. 

Going off memory, might be wrong.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Anon1111

All you ladies leave your man at home...
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

Anon1111 said:


> I'll see your math geek and raise you to philosophy geek.
> 
> Empiricism is a closed system. If you are bouncing around within its walls maybe it is the walls that are confining you.
> 
> You've got a human woman to deal with here. Maybe hypothesis, observe, interpret, conclude can only get you to 80 pct of what you want.
> 
> Maybe there is a leap you need to make that is not logical. Actually Kierkegaard might call it a leap but he was a depressing suicidal dude.
> 
> A better way to put it might be to stop resisting and let the current take you to where it goes.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


There be dragons down that path.

You're implying of course that women are non-deterministic, which of course they are. However, I'm far more simple. 

I can become sullen, or a workaholic, or a party animal, or go off to a monastery somewhere, or be super dad only, or blow things up out of sheer boredom. 

What I can't do is do nothing.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

Oh, if anyone is thinking the wife and I are on any kind of precipice, we aren't. Things are pretty good right now. 

Trying to reconcile the results of the red pill with what the ladies here are saying.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Brigit said:


> You sounded like you were really cool too bad you took the Red Pill.
> 
> If your happier with how you are now as opposed to your natural self then that's fine. But that book that you like could easily be called "How to Abuse Your Wife so she Won't Leave." I'm glad you have game now but there's some games not worth playing.


If you think I was really cool, you aren't listening. RESULTS speak louder than words, and I had poor results. What women typically tell men they want in a man, is usually a very incomplete picture full of overly romantic out of context gibberish. Myself, and many young men went that route and the RESULT is attracting squat. You're everyone's boy friend and no one's boyfriend. So we should go sulk and accept our sad situation? f no. If those behaviors were actually were "really cool", we wouldn't have sought out pickup advice. The fact of the matter is that young women most often sought out certain traits I didn't possess, so I adapted. Sure, I could have stayed the same and waited and waited and waited for the girls who were interested, but I saw what those girls looked like.... and I wasn't interested. So I did something about it. It is not my personality to just accept what's given. I'll go get what I want.

FYI, "the red pill" didn't exist back when I was really deep in this stuff. There were only a few books then and virtually no websites - the internet was in it's infancy. We had some internet relay chat seduction channels and some bulletin board systems. I also didn't limit myself to seduction material. I enacted a plan to become a more socially outgoing person in general.

Your "natural self" is yet another lie. We are all a product of genetics, environment, experience and WILL. We are capable of great change. No one is static. I got from my efforts exactly what I sought from them - an increased social life, easy navigation of the dating world and the ability to attract women I was attracted to. Not a revolutionary goal imo, and I'm quite happy with my outcomes.


----------



## Marduk

My experience in the dating world echos Devils experience. 

How or if that translates into marriage is the question.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

richardsharpe said:


> Its back to steak or fresh cherries. I can't say which I like more. It depends on what I am feeling like at that moment. They are both good, but they are not comparable.
> 
> Some people may be able order everyone they see, but I cannot.


We actually agree here. You like different things about steak vs fresh cherries. Numbers representative of traits quantify why, and demonstrate that you will trade off say, the salty, fatty goodness of steak, as long as you get the benefit of greater sweet juiciness in cherries. The total appeal may be equivalent. If the cherries rating in sweetness were a bit lower, then perhaps you're able to clearly say you prefer steak.

Moments are passing. Unless you have as many steak moments and cherry moments, I think most people are fairly sure of their preferences, even if something they want something different. Isn't that the motivation of some people for wanting some "strange" after all?


----------



## Brigit

marduk said:


> You've managed to thread the needle.
> 
> Because from what Esther Perel says, for a lot of couples, an abundance of emotional intimacy and safety kills eroticism.
> 
> She says a sense of other is required to have a desire to become one. If you always are one, there's no bridge to cross, no undiscovered country.
> 
> And that resonates with me.


Esther Perel is fantastic. I've read her book "Mating In Captivity" and have listened to her TED talks many times. If you really want help you need to go to someone with credentials. It's common sense.

https://www.ted.com/talks/esther_perel_the_secret_to_desire_in_a_long_term_relationship


----------



## SimplyAmorous

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> *When the traditional gentleman notion gets men better looking women and more female desire than pickup game, wouldn't you think men would be on board with it?*
> 
> Results. Results. Results. This is all that matters. You're pulling women or you're not.
> 
> My experience was that the gentleman routine was sh*t. Awesome if I was into overweight women, not so much otherwise.


I actually AGREE whole heartily WITH You .. even though I am the complete opposite ...and specifically wanted the Gentleman Traditional family man... 

I sat with my Mother days ago talking about men.... we had a good laugh watching a movie with this Introverted type guy playing the lead character...& I told her...laughing.. that guy would be MY TYPE....she wasn't surprised.. she Knows how I am.. I said ..."give him a little stubble & some boots".... SWOON.. lots to work with there. 

She's told me before she adores my husband but he'd NEVER BE HER TYPE.. (she likes the bad a$$ on the motorcycle) ... though my Mother has never experienced Genuine love going for these types of men....Passion her demise.. and all that... .I just don't understand women who find that worthwhile.. I suppose people can't help what they LUST after ....but a deeply satisfying relationship is so much more ...

I am of the belief that the VAST MAJORITY of MEN *will conform* to what WORKS to get the women *they want*..and unfortunate to say.. I agree with DEVIL... pick up artist BuLL sh** works with women.. ..and many women on this thread will attest.. lots of them just want Fvked anyway... less and less men have any incentive at all to be GOOD MEN.. because it gets them NO WHERE FAST... 

It's all about the almighty attraction.. in any way we can deliver it... anything to get RESULTS.. I really can't blame men for these things.. is my position.. more women NEED TO REJECT these sort of men.. but again.. NOT holding my breath.. 

Unfortunately all Traditionalists are left asking "Where did all the Good women go"... 

I was never FAT by the way.


----------



## Brigit

Faithful Wife said:


> Don't forget though that we also do crazy erotic things that do give us the feeling of being different people all the time. We add danger and spice in every encounter. We also do things like get sex dr*gs and do a bunch of extacy and take huge risks and f*ck for a whole weekend straight....including pushing all of our own boundaries and each other's (sexually speaking).
> 
> So I quite understand Esther's points as well.


Doing a bunch of ecstasy can kill you. A price to high to pay for good sex IMHO.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Brigit said:


> Doing a bunch of ecstasy can kill you. A price to high to pay for good sex IMHO.




I like to party.


----------



## Brigit

Faithful Wife said:


> I like to party.


That's some hard core sh*t yo...


----------



## Faithful Wife

I've explained a few times now, I ain't no good girl.


----------



## Brigit

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> If you think I was really cool, you aren't listening. RESULTS speak louder than words, and I had poor results. What women typically tell men they want in a man, is usually a very incomplete picture full of overly romantic out of context gibberish. Myself, and many young men went that route and the RESULT is attracting squat. You're everyone's boy friend and no one's boyfriend. So we should go sulk and accept our sad situation? f no. If those behaviors were actually were "really cool", we wouldn't have sought out pickup advice. The fact of the matter is that young women most often sought out certain traits I didn't possess, so I adapted. Sure, I could have stayed the same and waited and waited and waited for the girls who were interested, but I saw what those girls looked like.... and I wasn't interested. So I did something about it. It is not my personality to just accept what's given. I'll go get what I want.
> 
> FYI, "the red pill" didn't exist back when I was really deep in this stuff. There were only a few books then and virtually no websites - the internet was in it's infancy. We had some internet relay chat seduction channels and some bulletin board systems. I also didn't limit myself to seduction material. I enacted a plan to become a more socially outgoing person in general.
> 
> Your "natural self" is yet another lie. We are all a product of genetics, environment, experience and WILL. We are capable of great change. No one is static. I got from my efforts exactly what I sought from them - an increased social life, easy navigation of the dating world and the ability to attract women I was attracted to. Not a revolutionary goal imo, and I'm quite happy with my outcomes.


I understand but what are you trying to achieve now? Are you still interested in playing Pickup Artist and having sex with the hottest girls you see? Maybe that's what makes you happy. IDK. However, this is a marriage site that focuses on how to make long term relationships work and that's what I believe we are all trying to achieve.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

marduk said:


> How would you teach someone how to be 'a natural?'


You don't. You wallow in self-pity dating fatties, as God intended.  

Sooner or later you realize that FWs whole play here is to her own narcissism.


----------



## Brigit

Faithful Wife said:


> I've explained a few times now, I ain't no good girl.


You know what they say:

GOOD GIRLS GO TO HEAVEN BAD GIRLS GO EVERYWHERE


----------



## Lila

marduk said:


> My experience in the dating world echos Devils experience.
> 
> *How or if that translates into marriage is the question.*
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


This IS the big question everyone is asking. How does Red Pill philosophy create a good marriage? Which brings me to Dvls post below.



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> If you think I was really cool, you aren't listening. RESULTS speak louder than words, and I had poor results. What women typically tell men they want in a man, is usually a very incomplete picture full of overly romantic out of context gibberish. Myself, and many young men went that route and the RESULT is attracting squat. You're everyone's boy friend and no one's boyfriend. So we should go sulk and accept our sad situation? f no. If those behaviors were actually were "really cool", we wouldn't have sought out pickup advice. *The fact of the matter is that young women most often sought out certain traits I didn't possess, so I adapted. *Sure, I could have stayed the same and waited and waited and waited for the girls who were interested, but I saw what those girls looked like.... and I wasn't interested. So I did something about it. It is not my personality to just accept what's given. I'll go get what I want.
> 
> FYI, "the red pill" didn't exist back when I was really deep in this stuff. There were only a few books then and virtually no websites - the internet was in it's infancy. We had some internet relay chat seduction channels and some bulletin board systems. I also didn't limit myself to seduction material. I enacted a plan to become a more socially outgoing person in general.
> 
> *Your "natural self" is yet another lie. *We are all a product of genetics, environment, experience and WILL. We are capable of great change. No one is static. *I got from my efforts exactly what I sought from them - an increased social life, easy navigation of the dating world and the ability to attract women I was attracted to. *Not a revolutionary goal imo, and I'm quite happy with my outcomes.


You stated that you changed your "natural" person to become someone who could attract women; I'm assuming you mean women who were possibly outside of your "natural league", for lack of a better word. I don't want to put you on the spot but you were married once and are now divorced. I also believe (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that you cheated on your wife while in the marriage. How does your failed marital experience reconcile with your staunch support of the benefits Red Pill philosophy?


----------



## T&T

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Sooner or later you realize that FWs whole play here is to her own narcissism.


Says the one who has a "photo album" on a marriage forum?! :rofl:

I joined to learn about what women want. I've learned a LOT and FW was part of that.


----------



## Brigit

T&T said:


> Says the one who has a "photo album" on a marriage forum?! :rofl:
> 
> I joined to learn about what women want. I've learned a LOT and FW was part of that.


Don't pick on Devil. I'm a bit curious as to why he's here myself; however, his posts add spice to the thread. So play nice


----------



## T&T

Brigit said:


> Don't pick on Devil. I'm a bit curious as to why he's here myself; however, his posts add spice to the thread. So play nice


I just found it kind of ironic. Still chuckling


----------



## Faithful Wife

T&T said:


> I just found it kind of ironic. Still chuckling


Also ironic is the fact that several other women here are voicing their distaste for the red pill crap, yet only myself and always alone get mentioned.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Brigit said:


> Don't pick on Devil. I'm a bit curious as to why he's here myself; however, his posts add spice to the thread. So play nice


 I think he enjoys the mental stimulation.. he's very opinionated ...he's a good writer and deeply expressive.. nothing wrong with that.. he should use his skills..


----------



## Marduk

OK I'm going to stir the pot.

I think Devil's opinion and FW's opinion are two sides of the same coin, and closer than they may think.

Me, I don't care if it's heads or tails, I like them both.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Also ironic is the fact that several other women here are voicing their distaste for the red pill crap, yet only myself and always alone get mentioned.


It's because you're the alpha.

(ducks)


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> It's because you're the alpha.
> 
> (ducks)


I may be the alpha wh*re around here, but French Fry is my domme so....


----------



## Brigit

Faithful Wife said:


> Also ironic is the fact that several other women here are voicing their distaste for the red pill crap, yet only myself and always alone get mentioned.


They don't know me well enough yet. Give them time. And when/if they get really really nasty to me and wait with bated breath for a response. You know what I'll do? I'll log off. 

Sometimes people on the internet forget that they're typing to other *people* and not pixels.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> I may be the alpha wh*re around here, but French Fry is my domme so....


----------



## Faithful Wife

Brigit said:


> They don't know me well enough yet. Give them time. And when/if they get really really nasty to me and wait with bated breath for a response. You know what I'll do? I'll log off.
> 
> Sometimes people on the internet forget that they're typing to other *people* and not pixels.


I just put them on ignore. I love having that option, it's great!


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> I just put them on ignore. I love having that option, it's great!


While I respect your right to do so, and why, FW, it does make discourses rather one sided and seem like you're not willing to listen.

The fact you revel in it, for one.

I'm not saying you should listen, or must listen, just that the fact that you're not listening is in itself a statement.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> While I respect your right to do so, and why, FW, it does make discourses rather one sided and seem like you're not willing to listen.
> 
> The fact you revel in it, for one.
> 
> I'm not saying you should listen, or must listen, just that the fact that you're not listening is in itself a statement.


When people are disrespectful to me and I ask them to stop, but they don't stop, then they go on ignore. I have no need to listen to anything they have to say if they can't at least say it respectfully.

Because I am committed to not engaging with a person like that, so if they are being disrespectful, I'm not going to go back at them disrespectfully, I'm going to ask them to stop so we can keep engaging. If they won't stop, then I'm not going to engage at all. I really don't care if that ends up a one sided conversation, since I have nothing to say to someone who can't even speak respectfully to me.

I revel in it because the person can still go on and on and say whatever they want about me, it doesn't shut them down (in case you haven't noticed, they do still go on about me)....so problem solved. I keep my dignity and don't roll around in the mud with them, I don't even know they are talking about me because I don't read it. Whereas, they get to keep saying whatever mean stuff they want to say. Win-win.

People are free to ignore me too, right? So there's that.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> When people are disrespectful to me and I ask them to stop, but they don't stop, then they go on ignore. I have no need to listen to anything they have to say if they can't at least say it respectfully.
> 
> Because I am committed to not engaging with a person like that, so if they are being disrespectful, I'm not going to go back at them disrespectfully, I'm going to ask them to stop so we can keep engaging. If they won't stop, then I'm not going to engage at all. I really don't care if that ends up a one sided conversation, since I have nothing to say to someone who can't even speak respectfully to me.
> 
> I revel in it because the person can still go on and on and say whatever they want about me, it doesn't shut them down (in case you haven't noticed, they do still go on about me)....so problem solved. I keep my dignity and don't roll around in the mud with them, I don't even know they are talking about me because I don't read it. Whereas, they get to keep saying whatever mean stuff they want to say. Win-win.
> 
> People are free to ignore me too, right? So there's that.


I value the dialectic.

Especially with people I disagree with.

I'm sure I've skirted your 'ignore' button more than a few times.

And if that would have happened, we wouldn't have had this conversation which I enjoyed, and have learned from.


----------



## TiggyBlue

marduk said:


> It's because you're the alpha.
> 
> (ducks)





Faithful Wife said:


> Also ironic is the fact that several other women here are voicing their distaste for the red pill crap, yet only myself and always alone get mentioned.


Not that ironic IMO, you and AA are pretty vocal and specific about your distaste. You both put your heads above the parapet quite often


----------



## EllisRedding

marduk said:


>


IDK, this one always does it for me ...


----------



## Marduk

Can we go back to the phases?

How would you ladies have them be different?

1. Go dark and get your **** together. 
2. Declare your intention of what kind of marriage you want. 
3. Start living that vision. 
4. Prep for **** tests and deal with them. 
5. If she doesn't respond to it, give her the my way or the high way conversation. 
6. Is go dark again to see what she does. Live single.
7. Prep for exit and execute.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> I value the dialectic.
> 
> Especially with people I disagree with.
> 
> I'm sure I've skirted your 'ignore' button more than a few times.
> 
> And if that would have happened, we wouldn't have had this conversation which I enjoyed, and have learned from.


No, you haven't skirted my ignore button...though I did end that great thread we had going because of your "spare me the histrionics" comment. I didn't see any point in continuing after that.

The banter we are having right now is what I was hoping we could have on that thread, but you just didn't seem to trust me that good banter was all I was after from you.

Regardless, you have been nothing but respectful since then, so I just figured it (the histrionics comment) was a one off.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> No, you haven't skirted my ignore button...though I did end that great thread we had going because of your "spare me the histrionics" comment. I didn't see any point in continuing after that.
> 
> The banter we are having right now is what I was hoping we could have on that thread, but you just didn't seem to trust me that good banter was all I was after from you.
> 
> Regardless, you have been nothing but respectful since then, so I just figured it (the histrionics comment) was a one off.


I thought you were saying some pretty dramatic things.

How would you have liked to have heard that differently?


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> Can we go back to the phases?
> 
> How would you ladies have them be different?
> 
> 1. Go dark and get your **** together.
> 2. Declare your intention of what kind of marriage you want.
> 3. Start living that vision.
> 4. Prep for **** tests and deal with them.
> 5. If she doesn't respond to it, give her the my way or the high way conversation.
> 6. Is go dark again to see what she does. Live single.
> 7. Prep for exit and execute.


You didn't specifically say what the problem really is, though.

If you have a hypothetical Joe Six Pack, then give us also the hypothetical problem in their marriage...the REAL problem. It is your example, so you get to decide what the hypo problem is.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> I thought you were saying some pretty dramatic things.
> 
> How would you have liked to have heard that differently?


Do you really want to go back there, or should we just proceed from a good place, like where we are now?


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> You didn't specifically say what the problem really is, though.
> 
> If you have a hypothetical Joe Six Pack, then give us also the hypothetical problem in their marriage...the REAL problem. It is your example, so you get to decide what the hypo problem is.


I'm trying to tease out tactically what you'd advise in place of these phases.

Given what I said -- marriage was good, they were into each other, and the wife's attraction to the husband has waned.

I.e. the prototypical HD looking husband and LD looking wife, when neither is actually either.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Do you really want to go back there, or should we just proceed from a good place, like where we are now?


I value honesty. If you would have liked me to say it differently next time, if there is a next time, I'm open to hearing it.

Not starting another fight. I could mention a few things you called me .


----------



## john117

Marduk, I hate to ask but... You mentioned you have a high tech background and get hit on by married women at work, etc...

Well, between my wife and myself we have nearly sixty years of experience in high tech in several companies and let's just say that the field does not attract many women to begin with, and most of those are either the ones on the mommy track or the J2 track, neither conducive to hitting on or being hit on. 

If you work in a startup - and J2 has - everyone is 25 and under generally, not the married chic galore places. In a mid sized company or larger I may recall one or two inter office affairs and a couple marriages. 

I've spent time working with startups myself (suppliers, subcontractors...) and it's rare there too. You may find good looking women here and there but hitting on them or being hit on... Not a good idea, or as HR calls it, a career limiting move.

Granted we live in the Midwest in a relatively enlightened part thereof but I see very little of what's being described here. Likewise college, where people should be screwing like bunnies yet are not.

So, are we seeing observer bias galore in TAM or what?


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> I'm trying to tease out tactically what you'd advise in place of these phases.
> 
> Given what I said -- marriage was good, they were into each other, and the wife's attraction to the husband has waned.
> 
> I.e. the prototypical HD looking husband and LD looking wife, when neither is actually either.


But in a real life couple, there is a real life reason that is specific to that couple.

I don't know how you want to come up with a proposed solution when you haven't identified an actual problem.

Is she losing interest because there's someone else in her life?

Is he a horrible lover and she is only now realizing this?

Did he gain a bunch of weight?

Did he neglect her for a number of years to get ahead at work?

Did she become more interested in her own life than his because he just watches TV all day?

Was there HOTTTT passion there before, but not now? (If it was never there, it usually won't ever be there).

Depending on what is actually happening, I would suggest different routes or books.

But given no information at all or hypothetical problem, I'd just tell them to get into MC and begin talking about it.


----------



## FizzBomb

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> When the traditional gentleman notion gets men better looking women and more female desire than pickup game, wouldn't you think men would be on board with it?
> 
> *Results. Results. Results. This is all that matters. You're pulling women or you're not.*
> 
> My experience was that the gentleman routine was sh*t. Awesome if I was into overweight women, not so much otherwise.


Puke! To this entire post. Is there a Dislike button on here?

And regarding the bolded part - you realise this is a marriage forum don't you? Not some site for immature horny, single (cough) 'men' trying to get laid for all they're worth? Pulling women? You come across in a vulgar manner.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

I agree FW. There are too many variables for 1 set of rules to work. 
There are plenty of reasons why sex has slowed or died. There are plenty of reasons why a wife is no longer attracted to her husband. 
Even in cases where the husband noticed the lack of sex and starts doing everything right, there will be some time before you gain back the trust and love and kill the resentments. Many women will talk about what's wrong before the sex stopped but was not heard until then. That's why I would ask how much alone time and how long the relationship has been bad, how long you've been trying to meet her needs and what they are, etc.

One of those reasons is that some men become weak, whiny, approval seeking husbands and in that case would come the suggestion for something similar to those steps but I would not suggest mmslp as a whole.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Lila said:


> You stated that you changed your "natural" person to become someone who could attract women; I'm assuming you mean women who were possibly outside of your "natural league", for lack of a better word.


I don't really like those terms lol, but the short of it is that I felt as a teenager that I looked better than the very few girls I did attract. So much so it really disturbed me. I have a decent face and have always been athletic. Combined with being a sweet, witty, listening, supportive guy like girls always said they wanted, and the top of my class academically, I was frustrated that I was not attracting girls with equivalent qualities. The only ones I could get were those taller than me (I'm 5'10" and have been since I was 16 or 17 - so I'm not really short), heavier than me, etc, and those relationships were short lived. Even they became disinterested.

It bothered me. I felt my "natural" match should be better looking than I was attracting, so I sought out why. The problems as I understand them today were that I was shy, mildly socially awkward, a pleaser, and overly feminine (in spite of playing sports). I couldn't understand why girls went for what I viewed as "@ssholes" when I was soo much nicer and many of those guys were less physically attractive than myself. In truth, what they had that I didn't... was a sort of "masculine selfishness" for lack of a better word. A shameless assertiveness. Edge. Attitude. Balls. It can be described a billion different ways, but I didn't have it. I was always nice, always deferring to female preferences, always listening and supporting, gift giving and paying "too much" attention... because that's what girls said they wanted. They want a nice caring best friend who wouldn't pressure them for sex, and it was confirmed by women again and again (in fact, most of the complaints I heard were about not being listened too, and his wanting sex). Being the "friend", I got to be privy to an unbelievable amount of "Ugh, he's such an @sshole!!! All he wants is sex!! I wish he were more like you! You're a great guy!" In the back of my mind I'm thinking... "Yet you regularly f*ck that @sshole and I'm still a virgin. wtf!? Gee... thanks for the compliment/insult." 

I would have understood it if he were obviously better looking than I was - that would have made sense. Instead, nothing about what girls did actually matched with what I was being told. Nothing about girls and later women, made sense until I got into Seduction material. At first I thought it was saying "be an @sshole", but after awhile I started to catch on. I experimented a lot, got over rejection fear, stopped pleasing and catering, stopped agreeing, and stopped being nice. At first I felt like I was more antagonistic... like the things I was doing were going to piss off women. Sure enough, a lot of women were flustered and irritated with me. And lo and behold, they paid me a sh*tload more attention. The seemed to enjoy the teasing, the games, the play, the shameless comments and indifference. Without "game" ideas, I don't have an explanation for what occurred. I started to enjoy picking up women like it was a sport, and I wanted to perfect it like perfecting my fastball, my route running or academics. It was fun. Then I met my wife to be.



Lila said:


> I don't want to put you on the spot but you were married once and are now divorced. I also believe (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that you cheated on your wife while in the marriage. How does your failed marital experience reconcile with your staunch support of the benefits Red Pill philosophy?


While I maintained the vast majority of my interests and activities during marriage, and still had all the same edge to my personality that I had developed, I failed in one major way in respect to my needs: I started deferring to her happiness.

I don't believe it's related (lots-o-reasons), but I honestly believe that our early years of lots of sex were the anomaly, but we became sexless in our latter years. It'd been years since I'd read anything Seduction related.

I don't do any reconciling of Red Pill/PUA stuff with my failed marriage. TBH, I was already of a mind to divorce when I came across MMSL. Reading it reminded me of a number of errors in how I handled sexlessness, and how I'd picked up so many passive aggressive and sneaky, cowardly means to avoid dealing with problems (including affairs). Still, I can't say it helped me because I was on the way out of the marriage anyway. I was overloaded with resentment for my EW, and I didn't want to stay with her. I only wanted to stay with my kids and not have to say I failed to make something work (yeah yeah, dumb, but whatever). But MMSL does prescribe against a number of unhelpful things I did when I was actually trying to fix things.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> But in a real life couple, there is a real life reason that is specific to that couple.
> 
> I don't know how you want to come up with a proposed solution when you haven't identified an actual problem.
> 
> Is she losing interest because there's someone else in her life?
> 
> Is he a horrible lover and she is only now realizing this?
> 
> Did he gain a bunch of weight?
> 
> Did he neglect her for a number of years to get ahead at work?
> 
> Did she become more interested in her own life than his because he just watches TV all day?
> 
> Was there HOTTTT passion there before, but not now? (If it was never there, it usually won't ever be there).
> 
> Depending on what is actually happening, I would suggest different routes or books.
> 
> But given no information at all or hypothetical problem, I'd just tell them to get into MC and begin talking about it.


Are any of those really different? 

He could have gotten fat because she said she doesn't care about it, because he was a rotten lover. 

He could watch tv all day because she's not attracted to him. 

She could be more interested in another guy because he's not initiating properly. 

All have the same root I think, which is a lack of leadership, discipline, intent...
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

john117 said:


> Marduk, I hate to ask but... You mentioned you have a high tech background and get hit on by married women at work, etc...
> 
> Well, between my wife and myself we have nearly sixty years of experience in high tech in several companies and let's just say that the field does not attract many women to begin with, and most of those are either the ones on the mommy track or the J2 track, neither conducive to hitting on or being hit on.
> 
> If you work in a startup - and J2 has - everyone is 25 and under generally, not the married chic galore places. In a mid sized company or larger I may recall one or two inter office affairs and a couple marriages.
> 
> I've spent time working with startups myself (suppliers, subcontractors...) and it's rare there too. You may find good looking women here and there but hitting on them or being hit on... Not a good idea, or as HR calls it, a career limiting move.
> 
> Granted we live in the Midwest in a relatively enlightened part thereof but I see very little of what's being described here. Likewise college, where people should be screwing like bunnies yet are not.
> 
> So, are we seeing observer bias galore in TAM or what?


I work at the intersection of technology and business in a large company. 

So, I deal with all kinds of people.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I agree FW. There are too many variables for 1 set of rules to work.
> There are plenty of reasons why sex has slowed or died. There are plenty of reasons why a wife is no longer attracted to her husband.
> Even in cases where the husband noticed the lack of sex and starts doing everything right, there will be some time before you gain back the trust and love and kill the resentments. Many women will talk about what's wrong before the sex stopped but was not heard until then. That's why I would ask how much alone time and how long the relationship has been bad, how long you've been trying to meet her needs and what they are, etc.
> 
> One of those reasons is that some men become weak, whiny, approval seeking husbands and in that case would come the suggestion for something similar to those steps but I would not suggest mmslp as a whole.


Ok now we're cooking with gas!

What are more reasons?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

FizzBomb said:


> Puke! To this entire post. Is there a Dislike button on here?
> 
> And regarding the bolded part - you realise this is a marriage forum don't you? Not some site for immature horny, single (cough) 'men' trying to get laid for all they're worth? Pulling women? You come across in a vulgar manner.


*tears*

The entire point of MMSL is getting more sex or getting out of the marriage.


----------



## Brigit

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I agree FW. There are too many variables for 1 set of rules to work.
> There are plenty of reasons why sex has slowed or died. There are plenty of reasons why a wife is no longer attracted to her husband.
> Even in cases where the husband noticed the lack of sex and starts doing everything right, there will be some time before you gain back the trust and love and kill the resentments. Many women will talk about what's wrong before the sex stopped but was not heard until then. That's why I would ask how much alone time and how long the relationship has been bad, how long you've been trying to meet her needs and what they are, etc.
> 
> One of those reasons is that some men become weak, whiny, approval seeking husbands and in that case would come the suggestion for something similar to those steps but I would not suggest mmslp as a whole.


This is why I like Marriage Builders better. If a couple is having a problem it can only be solved if both parties WANT to solve it. You can't trick your spouse into staying with you. You may delay their departure but so what? This is why that stupid book with it's red pill moronic sh*t is useless. If you're a guy going to a bar and looking to fu*k the hottest girl maybe it's helpful but it's still pathological and very depressing.


----------



## Marduk

Oh, and I dispute the assertion that if it was never that hot, it never will be. 

AK used to say stuff like that all the time. I have a buddy that it's the opposite for.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

Brigit said:


> This is why I like Marriage Builders better. If a couple is having a problem it can only be solved if both parties WANT to solve it. You can't trick your spouse into staying with you. You may delay their departure but so what? This is why that stupid book with it's red pill moronic sh*t is useless. If you're a guy going to a bar and looking to fu*k the hottest girl maybe it's helpful but it's still pathological and very depressing.


MB doesn't help if the wife doesn't think there's a problem, and doesn't care, because her basic need are getting met and his aren't.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## FizzBomb

marduk said:


> *Oh, and I dispute the assertion that if it was never that hot, it never will be. *
> 
> AK used to say stuff like that all the time. I have a buddy that it's the opposite for.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Yeah, totally agree.

As long as the couple have a sex drive. I realise there are a small percentage of people who say they don't have much of one.


----------



## Marduk

Fizz the book helped my marriage and is written to help marriages. 

Not to help pick women up. And it has worked for some dudes. 

I'm looking for a reconciliation of why, and what to replace it with.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Anon1111

Serious question for the men here:

Why does it matter what women think about MMSL or red pill?

Does your wife give a sh-t what you think about Oprah?


----------



## Marduk

Actually, mine does. 

I can't stand Oprah. Especially when she gives relationship advice. Like hers work!

It's like reading Jane Austen for romance advice.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> MB doesn't help if the wife doesn't think there's a problem, and doesn't care, because her basic need are getting met and his aren't.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


That's correct, MB won't work unless both parties are on board.

I don't know how any system will work if one party simply isn't interested in making it work, though.

I think what you are saying is that you want a system that will MAKE your spouse change so that you (any you) will be more happy. But it just doesn't work like that.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Brigit said:


> Don't pick on Devil. I'm a bit curious as to why he's here myself; however, his posts add spice to the thread. So play nice


lol It's really no biggie. I'm good with everything I post here, including my photo albums. I'm here because I enjoy the relationship discussion and debates mostly, and some of the people I've enjoyed reading.


----------



## FizzBomb

marduk said:


> Ok now we're cooking with gas!
> 
> What are more reasons?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_





marduk said:


> Fizz the book helped my marriage and is written to help marriages.
> 
> Not to help pick women up. And it has worked for some dudes.
> 
> I'm looking for a reconciliation of why, and what to replace it with.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


More reasons?

Selfishness. That is one that I regard as a pretty big one. Obviously goes for both sides.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Anon1111 said:


> Serious question for the men here:
> 
> Why does it matter what women think about MMSL or red pill?
> 
> Does your wife give a sh-t what you think about Oprah?


So somehow, all women who are against red pill must also be FOR Oprah? Because we're all the same or...? Because we all get our daily dose of Oprah while we're on the couch doing nothing in the middle of the day? Because if we are against red pill, we must not have anything relevant to say at all?

:scratchhead:


----------



## FizzBomb

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Many people here have photo albums. No shame here. I've hosted pics for the workout threads and "share a recent pic of yourself & family" social threads.
> 
> I haven't learned anything from FW except that she's full of remarkably fluffy concepts that have even less support than "game". Her blog is utterly pointless and she fancies herself some kind of self-appointed sex guru and her husband a sex god.
> 
> She's the only person I've known on TAM to not actually have any problems.


Very unsporting of you :scratchhead: Sometimes it's better to step away from a thread.



FizzBomb said:


> Well apparently Devils thinks the book helps marriages :rofl:
> 
> He's probably in some grubby little corner of his bedroom polishing up his copy of MMSL. Someone better tell him that you can't put a shine on a turd.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> When people are disrespectful to me and I ask them to stop, but they don't stop, then they go on ignore.


It's a much better strategy than getting yourself banned like you did before. :smthumbup:

But don't pretend to be some faultless shining example of good behavior.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Faithful Wife said:


> So somehow, all women who are against red pill must also be FOR Oprah? Because we're all the same or...? Because we all get our daily dose of Oprah while we're on the couch doing nothing in the middle of the day? Because if we are against red pill, we must not have anything relevant to say at all?
> 
> :scratchhead:


That article in cosmopolitan has really helped you assert yourself faithfull :smthumbup:


----------



## Faithful Wife

TiggyBlue said:


> That article in cosmopolitan has really helped you assert yourself faithfull :smthumbup:


So true, it also explained to me how I can hide my actual bad girlness and pretend to be a good girl so I can dupe some nice man into giving me all his money. Ha, sucker!


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> That's correct, MB won't work unless both parties are on board.
> 
> I don't know how any system will work if one party simply isn't interested in making it work, though.
> 
> I think what you are saying is that you want a system that will MAKE your spouse change so that you (any you) will be more happy. But it just doesn't work like that.


That's kinda my dilemma though, right?

The point of MMSLP is that the guy wins either way. Either his wife steps up because he did, or they divorce and he gets a better wife.

He wins even if she doesn't play.


----------



## OnTheFly

Redpill=workout, lift weights, get ripped….attract many women.

Non redpill=embrace your 'Dad bod'……0.01% women think it's dropdead sexy.


----------



## Holland

Anon1111 said:


> Serious question for the men here:
> 
> Why does it matter what women think about MMSL or red pill?
> 
> Does your wife give a sh-t what you think about Oprah?


I guess that is is though, the type of man that believes in RP most likely doesn't give a **** about what women think anyway. 

As for Oprah, well quite simply "meh" 

But the reality is that it is important what women think of RP because women are the intended victims. I sure as hell don't want to raise the next generation to fall victim (both genders) to this type of emotionally unhealthy way of thinking. It is important for women to stand up and say stop, do not treat us as chattels. We also need to say stop to men, stop treating yourselves with such disrespect.

It is not possible for any good to come from such an unhealthy, unbalanced mindset that is RP. It would be like saying that a good beating will make a kid behave the way you want and grow up to be a fully functioning, well balanced adult, no it won't.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

FizzBomb said:


> Well apparently Devils thinks the book helps marriages :rofl:
> 
> He's probably in some grubby little corner of his bedroom polishing up his copy of MMSL. Someone better tell him that you can't put a shine on a turd.


I have a digital copy. 

I don't actually care if it helps the marriage. It's the Married Man's SEX LIFE primer, not the Eternally-suck-up-to-your-wife-and-remain-sexless-because-you-don't-have-the-balls-to-get-divorced primer.

It improves his sex life or they get divorced and it improves his sex life. Doesn't matter to me which, because I think such a marriage is in the cr*pper anyhow.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> That's kinda my dilemma though, right?
> 
> The point of MMSLP is that the guy wins either way. Either his wife steps up because he did, or they divorce and he gets a better wife.
> 
> He wins even if she doesn't play.


Ok, have at it, I guess.

What else can we say?

If the man's goal is either this wife or a better one who f*cks him more often (even if she's not actually attracted to him) and if that's as deep as he can go, then he should honestly cut the poor wife loose anyway.

If he just wants to "get sex" from this wife or some other woman yet he doesn't care if she is truly attracted to him or not....then by all means, he should forget marriage at all and study PUA and remain single so he can keep that roll of interchangeable vaginas coming.

But if like you, his actual goal is to become more emotionally intimate with her, then no...he can't do that if she's not willing to learn or grow or try.

So back to, change out the vagina, I guess.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Ok, have at it, I guess.
> 
> What else can we say?
> 
> If the man's goal is either this wife or a better one who f*cks him more often (even if she's not actually attracted to him) and if that's as deep as he can go, then he should honestly cut the poor wife loose anyway.
> 
> If he just wants to "get sex" from this wife or some other woman yet he doesn't care if she is truly attracted to him or not....then by all means, he should forget marriage at all and study PUA and remain single so he can keep that roll of interchangeable vaginas coming.
> 
> But if like you, his actual goal is to become more emotionally intimate with her, then no...he can't do that if she's not willing to learn or grow or try.
> 
> So back to, change out the vagina, I guess.


Which is why I puked it up. I don't want a new vagina.

I want more of the one I have. And, if possible, I'd like the rest of her along with it.

I just don't know how to get at that for myself or for advice to other guys if the wife isn't interested.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

marduk said:


> Ok now we're cooking with gas!
> 
> What are more reasons?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


More reasons for not wanting sex?

I'll start with my own
H isn't beta enough  He's the alpha guy that gets all the girls but apparently never learned how to keep one. 

Then there is- husband not listening, wife isn't enjoying sex, wife has too many things to do and not enough help, wife has developed an emotional attraction to someone else, wife has built up resentments due to lack of ENs being met, medical issues or hormone changes, not enough time together to build a strong bond, wife doesn't trust her husband, wife has history of abuse. 

Now I realize that there are just some women who lost attraction because of the more mmslp reasons and some women are just mean... I've read some stories here where she's just mean. I know my list seems very husband at fault but I'm just going based on my experiance as a woman, wife and my female friends and family.


----------



## Marduk

marduk said:


> Which is why I puked it up. I don't want a new vagina.
> 
> I want more of the one I have. And, if possible, I'd like the rest of her along with it.
> 
> I just don't know how to get at that for myself or for advice to other guys if the wife isn't interested.


Did that sound wrong to anybody else?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Holland said:


> It is important for women to stand up and say stop, do not treat us as chattels.


Something to remember is that every guy who gets into this stuff, tried courting the "nice" way first and flopped. They stumble on RP and get better results. Are males to blame for that? Stop responding to it and men will stop doing it. When being a sweet guy with no game pays off more than being an edgy guy with game, you'll see guys climbing over themselves to be sweet.

RP/PUA/Seduction is all a response to female actions.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

OnTheFly said:


> Redpill=workout, lift weights, get ripped….attract many women.
> 
> Non redpill=embrace your 'Dad bod'……0.01% women think it's dropdead sexy.


Physical attraction is an emotional need that is explored in other books and methods. You don't need red pill garbage to know that you should maintain your looks and fitness for your partner.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> Which is why I puked it up. I don't want a new vagina.
> 
> I want more of the one I have. And, if possible, I'd like the rest of her along with it.
> 
> I just don't know how to get at that for myself or for advice to other guys if the wife isn't interested.


But again...if she's really not willing to work on it with you, there isn't anything you can do.

Either love her as she is, or don't.

Is she doing anything "wrong", like cheating or flirting or whatever? If not, then WYSIWYG.

If talking and books and MC and IC hasn't helped and she can't get to that more intimate place with you...then it probably just isn't in her to be that person....for whatever reason.

As for other guys...I think most of them that end up at MMSL just want more sex and if that's their only goal, then let them have MMSL. It will either help or the poor woman will escape the marriage, so win win, like you said.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> But again...if she's really not willing to work on it with you, there isn't anything you can do.
> 
> Either love her as she is, or don't.
> 
> Is she doing anything "wrong", like cheating or flirting or whatever? If not, then WYSIWYG.
> 
> If talking and books and MC and IC hasn't helped and she can't get to that more intimate place with you...then it probably just isn't in her to be that person....for whatever reason.
> 
> As for other guys...I think most of them that end up at MMSL just want more sex and if that's their only goal, then let them have MMSL. It will either help or the poor woman will escape the marriage, so win win, like you said.


But there is something I could have done, and I did do.

And we're in a better place now.

If nothing else, it destabilized the status quo, and put us on more equal footing.


----------



## Marduk

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Physical attraction is an emotional need that is explored in other books and methods. You don't need red pill garbage to know that you should maintain your looks and fitness for your partner.


I did.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

marduk said:


> Did that sound wrong to anybody else?


I think it just puts the cart before the horse. 
You want sex first and emotional connection if you can. 
Many women want that emotional connection first and then sex just comes natural because of it. 

These are often the types who don't hear his wife while she's complaining until she suddenly stops sex and then that's all he cares about. He doesn't realize that there was a lot of things that led to it and it will take a lot to get it back. 

So you have a guy who's first goal is sex and thinks that if he fixes THAT part then things are back to normal, but he should be focusing on fixing things as a whole so sex is a natural result.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> But there is something I could have done, and I did do.
> 
> And we're in a better place now.
> 
> If nothing else, it destabilized the status quo, and put us on more equal footing.


But you keep saying this, and then changing it and saying you also want the emotional intimacy you aren't getting, and then also saying that you don't want to have to keep running game forever.

Either be happy with her and love her as she is, or don't. Either keep running game, or lose her attraction to you. But either way, you aren't going to get the intimacy unless SHE wants to work on that.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

FizzBomb said:


> Puke! To this entire post. Is there a Dislike button on here?
> 
> And regarding the bolded part - you realise this is a marriage forum don't you? Not some site for immature horny, single (cough) 'men' trying to get laid for all they're worth? Pulling women? You come across in a vulgar manner.


This topic comes up at nauseam here.. even in discussing MMSL .. it always delves into MEN being single... when really the book is for Married MEN -it's in the Title.... but this doesn't seem to matter....so is THAT fair.. the women constantly go there.. It's all relational to the discussion so I feel.. women here LOVE to discuss it too, it's not just Devil here.


----------



## Faithful Wife

FrenchFry said:


> I see the examples in the more successfull marriages around here. You and Dug. FW and her Husband. SA and her husband. All of these environments are different, all of them are not without struggle and ups and downs but in all of them, *not a single person is struggling to change how they behave so that their SO is more attracted/open/safe to them*.


We know if our spouse is or isn't attracted to us. It is quite obvious. There's no faking it for the long term, either. They can fake it short term, but eventually it will become clear that they just aren't that into you....OR they just aren't very sexual, in which case, they may be attracted to you but still not want to have sex with you.

Another thing red pill gets wrong about the Naturals is wrapped up in all of this.

If I just gave my body to my husband but did not feel totally attracted to him or if I didn't allow actual intimacy to occur, he would turn me down for sex. He would NEVER have sex with me, not even once, if I wasn't fully intimate and fully into it. 

I think a lot of men just want to "get sex" and if the wife isn't into it or is faking her attraction for him, he's fine and doesn't really notice. And if that's the case, then it is no wonder she's not going to have sustained attraction for him. Because ew.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> But you keep saying this, and then changing it and saying you also want the emotional intimacy you aren't getting, and then also saying that you don't want to have to keep running game forever.
> 
> Either be happy with her and love her as she is, or don't. Either keep running game, or lose her attraction to you. But either way, you aren't going to get the intimacy unless SHE wants to work on that.


OK, I see the confusion.

What I'm trying to do is:

a) reconcile what obviously does work with MMSLP with what you are saying works (honestly)

b) get both that and intimacy with my wife at the same time.

a) is aimed more at generalized "what to do with guys that are married but not getting laid.

b) is me, specifically.


----------



## Faithful Wife

For the guys who are married but not getting laid, if that's all they care about, then go ahead and give them MMSL.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> We know if our spouse is or isn't attracted to us. It is quite obvious. There's no faking it for the long term, either. They can fake it short term, but eventually it will become clear that they just aren't that into you....OR they just aren't very sexual, in which case, they may be attracted to you but still not want to have sex with you.
> 
> Another thing red pill gets wrong about the Naturals is wrapped up in all of this.
> 
> If I just gave my body to my husband but did not feel totally attracted to him or if I didn't allow actual intimacy to occur, he would turn me down for sex. He would NEVER have sex with me, not even once, if I wasn't fully intimate and fully into it.
> 
> I think a lot of men just want to "get sex" and if the wife isn't into it or is faking her attraction for him, he's fine and doesn't really notice. And if that's the case, then it is no wonder she's not going to have sustained attraction for him. Because ew.


What if it comes and goes?

I have an extremely hot wife. And it even comes and goes for me. There have been times I've been totally turned off by her.

I would expect a similar thing back, no?


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> For the guys who are married but not getting laid, if that's all they care about, then go ahead and give them MMSL.


I'd rather give them something else. And I feel like there's something else there, I just can't quite grok it.


----------



## Marduk

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I think it just puts the cart before the horse.
> You want sex first and emotional connection if you can.
> Many women want that emotional connection first and then sex just comes natural because of it.
> 
> These are often the types who don't hear his wife while she's complaining until she suddenly stops sex and then that's all he cares about. He doesn't realize that there was a lot of things that led to it and it will take a lot to get it back.
> 
> So you have a guy who's first goal is sex and thinks that if he fixes THAT part then things are back to normal, but he should be focusing on fixing things as a whole so sex is a natural result.


I meant because I was talking about having a vagina 

But I like what you said.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> What if it comes and goes?
> 
> I have an extremely hot wife. And it even comes and goes for me. There have been times I've been totally turned off by her.
> 
> I would expect a similar thing back, no?


(shrug)

Doesn't come or go for us, just comes. (he he)


----------



## Marduk

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> More reasons for not wanting sex?
> 
> I'll start with my own
> H isn't beta enough  He's the alpha guy that gets all the girls but apparently never learned how to keep one.
> 
> Then there is- husband not listening, wife isn't enjoying sex, wife has too many things to do and not enough help, wife has developed an emotional attraction to someone else, wife has built up resentments due to lack of ENs being met, medical issues or hormone changes, not enough time together to build a strong bond, wife doesn't trust her husband, wife has history of abuse.
> 
> Now I realize that there are just some women who lost attraction because of the more mmslp reasons and some women are just mean... I've read some stories here where she's just mean. I know my list seems very husband at fault but I'm just going based on my experiance as a woman, wife and my female friends and family.


So, that doesn't show up as only wanting sex but not emotional intimacy?

Because I've seen that, and lived that with too much of what AK would call 'alpha.'


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> (shrug)
> 
> Doesn't come or go for us, just comes. (he he)


Really?

Really really?

I've never heard that from anyone, ever.

It's not that I doubt you. I'm just flat out shocked.


----------



## Marduk

FrenchFry said:


> I think this book would be way harder to write because it's not based off of easy generalizations. Because it would require a thorough stripping of personality, expectations, family issues and core biological needs that are still molded and influenced by society.
> 
> It's why therapists were invented.


I think there's more wisdom in you than "it's hard."

Man, I keep making double entendres today. Quite by accident.


----------



## john117

FrenchFry said:


> I think this book would be way harder to write because it's not based off of easy generalizations. Because it would require a thorough stripping of personality, expectations, family issues and core biological needs that are still molded and influenced by society.
> 
> 
> 
> It's why therapists were invented.



Bingo.

The Book does not account for basic contributors to the issue - not does it concern itself AT ALL with root causes. It cheerfully ignores motives, background, and the like and assumes a near Pavlovian stimulus response system.

As you said, that's why therapists were invented... 

As long as you are within a narrow applicability area it works well. Otherwise...


----------



## EleGirl

OnTheFly said:


> Redpill=workout, lift weights, get ripped….attract many women.
> 
> Non redpill=embrace your 'Dad bod'……0.01% women think it's dropdead sexy.


Non-redpill usually includes working out, getting in good shape, etc. It includes not only fixing the marriage, but working on one's self.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> I'd rather give them something else. And I feel like there's something else there, I just can't quite grok it.


Well for men who really do want more than just to "get sex", I'd recommend anything by Schnarch first. If a man can wrap his mind around all of that, it will get him going in the right direction.

However, it isn't written well, IMO, and is so boring that most people can't even finish it.

I agree with you that there is not a lot available that will keep a man reading. This has been pointed out here and it is obvious when you go looking for it that there is a lack of GOOD, well written relationship books. I don't think most of the ones for women are written that well, either.

Honestly, the best ones to read for me were always the ones by Gottman. But they were difficult, too.

Relationships are hard.

There is no such thing as a "here read this book and it will all get better" because they are far to complex and difficult for that type of cookie cutter response.....that's the thing that is missing here. It just can't be done in a one size fits all book.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Well for men who really do want more than just to "get sex", I'd recommend anything by Schnarch first. If a man can wrap his mind around all of that, it will get him going in the right direction.
> 
> However, it isn't written well, IMO, and is so boring that most people can't even finish it.
> 
> I agree with you that there is not a lot available that will keep a man reading. This has been pointed out here and it is obvious when you go looking for it that there is a lack of GOOD, well written relationship books. I don't think most of the ones for women are written that well, either.
> 
> Honestly, the best ones to read for me were always the ones by Gottman. But they were difficult, too.
> 
> Relationships are hard.
> 
> There is no such thing as a "here read this book and it will all get better" because they are far to complex and difficult for that type of cookie cutter response.....that's the thing that is missing here. It just can't be done in a one size fits all book.


I think we'd all agree that for that kind of guy, being the best guy he can be in general would be good advice, right?

I mean besides attraction, getting in better shape helps you think more clearly, avoid depression, etc.

Dressing better makes you more confident.

Being more self-assured with people in general and your wife in particular if that's an issue is good advice.

Being clear about what you want.

That kind of stuff.


----------



## Faithful Wife

FrenchFry said:


> I think this book would be way harder to write because it's not based off of easy generalizations. Because it would require a thorough stripping of personality, expectations, family issues and core biological needs that are still molded and influenced by society.
> 
> It's why therapists were invented.


Sadly, therapists aren't very successful in saving marriages, either.

I personally just think that marriage is too inhibiting for most people, and that's why we end up divorced. We don't do it very well, most of us. We aren't on board with the whole "both parties have to work at this"....it isn't something we understand intuitively. I am not pro-marriage, at all....if people want it I think they should get married, but I do NOT think it should be the goal of everyone. For some people, "forever" just isn't going to make it.

I think the whole thing needs to be worked over.

But as far as real deep love and intimacy...this is something people can only achieve when both are moving toward that as a common goal. You can't game someone into giving you real love and intimacy. And they can't game themselves into it either, even if they wanted to. It comes from us by our own free will, that's the only way intimacy happens.


----------



## Marduk

john117 said:


> Bingo.
> 
> The Book does not account for basic contributors to the issue - not does it concern itself AT ALL with root causes. It cheerfully ignores motives, background, and the like and assumes a near Pavlovian stimulus response system.
> 
> As you said, that's why therapists were invented...
> 
> As long as you are within a narrow applicability area it works well. Otherwise...


I disagree.

For loads of people, therapists aren't an option, or the wife won't go, or the wife will only go if it's a therapist the wife picks that will only take her side (been in that place!), etc.

At the end of the day, therapists only help you help yourself. I agree they are useful, and necessary in a subset of cases, but like I said, sometimes it's either not an option or a good one.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Sadly, therapists aren't very successful in saving marriages, either.
> 
> I personally just think that marriage is too inhibiting for most people, and that's why we end up divorced. We don't do it very well, most of us. We aren't on board with the whole "both parties have to work at this"....it isn't something we understand intuitively. I am not pro-marriage, at all....if people want it I think they should get married, but I do NOT think it should be the goal of everyone. For some people, "forever" just isn't going to make it.
> 
> I think the whole thing needs to be worked over.
> 
> But as far as real deep love and intimacy...this is something people can only achieve when both are moving toward that as a common goal. You can't game someone into giving you real love and intimacy. And they can't game themselves into it either, even if they wanted to. It comes from us by our own free will, that's the only way intimacy happens.


It's a moving target though, right?

What we want changes throughout our natural lifecycle.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> Really?
> 
> Really really?
> 
> I've never heard that from anyone, ever.
> 
> It's not that I doubt you. I'm just flat out shocked.


Yeah, it kind of shocks me, too. But no, I've never had one moment when I wasn't fully attracted to him.

I mean, I've cleaned up his barf and had to take him to ER and have seen him in any number of unflattering ways...those moments are not even on my radar, of course, they don't detract from anything, they are just life.

But no, every day, day after day...my attraction for him is solid, and his is for me. We can't keep our eyes or hands off each other.

There is more here, and I do write about it. It is special for us, but I think a lot of people have this type of heat for each other (people reach out to me at my blog and tell me they have this type of attraction, too). 

OTOH, I have been told by some people that they wouldn't WANT to always feel such strong attraction, that they felt it would be annoying. It isn't annoying to me at all, but I get why some would feel that way.

I've always been a monkey girl. Now I have this huge man to climb on. This man who is hot as hell, strong as a horse, and gives me the best sex of my life...and he's mine, all mine. No, there is not one moment I don't feel strong attraction for him. I wanna be ON him. 

The way he makes me feel so HOTTT to him too, is part of my heat for him always being ignited. He makes me feel beautiful, secure, sexy, and wanted....every day.


----------



## Anon1111

Holland said:


> I guess that is is though, the type of man that believes in RP most likely doesn't give a **** about what women think anyway.
> 
> As for Oprah, well quite simply "meh"
> 
> But the reality is that it is important what women think of RP because women are the intended victims. I sure as hell don't want to raise the next generation to fall victim (both genders) to this type of emotionally unhealthy way of thinking. It is important for women to stand up and say stop, do not treat us as chattels. We also need to say stop to men, stop treating yourselves with such disrespect.
> 
> It is not possible for any good to come from such an unhealthy, unbalanced mindset that is RP. It would be like saying that a good beating will make a kid behave the way you want and grow up to be a fully functioning, well balanced adult, no it won't.


I actually disagree with this, but not for the reason you probably imagine.

I think the typical red pill reader cares way too much what women think. He is over-invested in seeking validation from women to fill a hole in his life.

I think if you're actually concerned about the whole red pill thing, you should think about why there are so many men who feel so empty and hopeless.

Red pill is not really the cause of the problem, it is the effect.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> I think we'd all agree that for that kind of guy, being the best guy he can be in general would be good advice, right?
> 
> I mean besides attraction, getting in better shape helps you think more clearly, avoid depression, etc.
> 
> Dressing better makes you more confident.
> 
> Being more self-assured with people in general and your wife in particular if that's an issue is good advice.
> 
> Being clear about what you want.
> 
> That kind of stuff.


The Sex Starved Marriage and Divorce Busting both had all of that advice and were good books.


----------



## Holland

Anon1111 said:


> I actually disagree with this, but not for the reason you probably imagine.
> 
> I think the typical red pill reader cares way too much what women think. He is over-invested in seeking validation from women to fill a hole in his life.
> 
> I think if you're actually concerned about the whole red pill thing, you should think about why there are so many men who feel so empty and hopeless.
> 
> Red pill is not really the cause of the problem, it is the effect.


I don't disagree.

Why are there men (yeah lots of women have lots of issues but this discussion is about men) that seek validation the wrong way? Why are there so many that feel empty and hopeless?

My guess would be bad parenting and upbringing. Not being shown a good, loving relationship by their parents, overbearing mother/father or both. Weak mother/father or both.

The media filling peoples heads with crap, which by the way is their job so again I will take it back to the parenting, it is the parents responsibility to raise their kids to be able to discriminate between good/bad media messages. It is the parents role to teach kids that advertising and media are selling them a box full of emptiness.

People talk about the entitled Princess, well there seems to also be an entitled Prince mentality with these guys. They want, want, want without realising they also have to give.

But that is only part of it, yes RP is the effect but far out by the time people reach adulthood they should be a bit more grown up. 

"Show me a child at age 7 and I'll show you the adult", it is not far wrong here.


----------



## Anon1111

I think the other factor is that men had a defined role in society for a long time, which is now eroded for the average guy.

Yes, at the top of the pile, it's still mostly men.

But down toward the middle and the lower rungs, men do not seem very valued.

I think you can see this playing out in all walks of life.

In the dating market, the anger surrounding this phenomenon is particularly acute.


----------



## john117

marduk said:


> I disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> For loads of people, therapists aren't an option, or the wife won't go, or the wife will only go if it's a therapist the wife picks that will only take her side (been in that place!), etc.
> 
> 
> 
> At the end of the day, therapists only help you help yourself. I agree they are useful, and necessary in a subset of cases, but like I said, sometimes it's either not an option or a good one.



Therapists provide clarity and scale to a crappy situation. And oftentimes if they are successful it's because they operate at an independent and impartial plane of reference without taking sides.

They help provide perspective - a word I know all too well after 3 years of Dr. Jamie with DD. They help you discover parts of yourself - not necessarily help yourself. Dr. Jamie helped DD understand what she was dealing with (J2 :lol: ). 

Likewise TAM provides perspective because of the diversity of opinions and variety of approaches and experiences. With a BPD spouse the common wisdom of that BPD family forum  said live with it. Flat perspective. A book is generally the same, flat. A therapist knows how to throw perspective in and stay focused.

I suppose my catchphrase should be that ""MMSL gives you the sex you deserve and the marriage you deserve if you value physical intimacy versus emotional intimacy".

But as a scientist )) I don't feel comfortable with it - no deep understanding, no root causes, no background... Just fill in the blank marriage direction.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Anon1111 said:


> I actually disagree with this, but not for the reason you probably imagine.
> 
> I think the typical red pill reader cares way too much what women think. He is over-invested in seeking validation from women to fill a hole in his life.
> 
> I think if you're actually concerned about the whole red pill thing, you should think about why there are so many men who feel so empty and hopeless.
> 
> Red pill is not really the cause of the problem, it is the effect.


I just want to say something to this.. My Husband is tipped Beta (I call it GOOD BETA)...he would NEVER NEVER do the sh** that women have a problem with in these books.... he has too much integrity, he would not see it as Authentic / as "good guy"...... but again.. women don't go for Men like my husband. .. I'm not stupid.. I KNOW this.. 

He would have just remained single over trying to BE something he *is not* to hog tie some chick into thinking he is this or that, or to get laid.. Sexual pleasure without emotional connection is hollow to him. 

It's either Like me, get to know me.. Love me *THE WAY I AM.*...* and what I can bring to your life*.. or he would walk away..... He is one who deeply cares to feel desired by his woman..... he would be a miserable shell of a man to have a wife who ignored him and didn't long for his attention/ affection.. but not desperate enough to lower who HE is...being that GOOD MAN .. (he's always liked himself -even if he wasn't popular with women) 

I've been on some of those Pick up Artist forums for pure curiosity, the way some of them speak sounds like a pack of panting DOGS.. I found it utterly disgusting how the majority went on about women & cheap sex ... what can you do.. its working da** it [email protected]#$ .. what is wrong with the women who fall for this ....this is where you need to take your message....warn your daughters, your nieces -instead of haggling with men.. 

Teach women to expect more from MEN.. to not be jumping into bed with them so quickly for starters..and see what they are MADE OF..... this would put a dagger into pick up artists formulas... though I am laughing while typing this.... I know it's all a waste of breath.. 

Nothing will change.. People don't care THAT much.. they just want their pleasure ...Pleasure is like Riches to many.. sought after at any cost ....


----------



## Marduk

john117 said:


> Therapists provide clarity and scale to a crappy situation. And oftentimes if they are successful it's because they operate at an independent and impartial plane of reference without taking sides.
> 
> They help provide perspective - a word I know all too well after 3 years of Dr. Jamie with DD. They help you discover parts of yourself - not necessarily help yourself. Dr. Jamie helped DD understand what she was dealing with (J2 :lol: ).
> 
> Likewise TAM provides perspective because of the diversity of opinions and variety of approaches and experiences. With a BPD spouse the common wisdom of that BPD family forum  said live with it. Flat perspective. A book is generally the same, flat. A therapist knows how to throw perspective in and stay focused.
> 
> I suppose my catchphrase should be that ""MMSL gives you the sex you deserve and the marriage you deserve if you value physical intimacy versus emotional intimacy".
> 
> But as a scientist )) I don't feel comfortable with it - no deep understanding, no root causes, no background... Just fill in the blank marriage direction.


I have been a working scientist, too, and I just did the 'shrug' and threw the sciency bits away from MMSLP just like I did Gottman.

I wish they both avoided trying to get that kind of plausibility. 

My point is that therapy isn't a swiss army knife, and applicable, or possible in all situations.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Anon1111 said:


> I think the other factor is that men had a defined role in society for a long time, which is now eroded for the average guy.
> 
> Yes, at the top of the pile, it's still mostly men.
> 
> *But down toward the middle and the lower rungs, men do not seem very valued.*
> 
> I think you can see this playing out in all walks of life.
> 
> In the dating market, the anger surrounding this phenomenon is particularly acute.


All the women I know love men, want men, are chasing men, wishing a man would have sex with them or call them....

Or they are mothers of sons and love their sons very much....

Or they have brothers and fathers and uncles who they care deeply about....

What do you mean men are not valued?

There are several women right here on this thread who madly love their husbands, sons, brothers, etc.

Where are you guys getting this? Whose opinion are you listening to that says men are not valued?

WE LOVE MEN!!!!!!!


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Yeah, it kind of shocks me, too. But no, I've never had one moment when I wasn't fully attracted to him.
> 
> I mean, I've cleaned up his barf and had to take him to ER and have seen him in any number of unflattering ways...those moments are not even on my radar, of course, they don't detract from anything, they are just life.
> 
> But no, every day, day after day...my attraction for him is solid, and his is for me. We can't keep our eyes or hands off each other.
> 
> There is more here, and I do write about it. It is special for us, but I think a lot of people have this type of heat for each other (people reach out to me at my blog and tell me they have this type of attraction, too).
> 
> OTOH, I have been told by some people that they wouldn't WANT to always feel such strong attraction, that they felt it would be annoying. It isn't annoying to me at all, but I get why some would feel that way.
> 
> I've always been a monkey girl. Now I have this huge man to climb on. This man who is hot as hell, strong as a horse, and gives me the best sex of my life...and he's mine, all mine. No, there is not one moment I don't feel strong attraction for him. I wanna be ON him.
> 
> The way he makes me feel so HOTTT to him too, is part of my heat for him always being ignited. He makes me feel beautiful, secure, sexy, and wanted....every day.


We have that.

It's just emotions and life that gets in the way.

For my attraction of her, anyway.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> All the women I know love men, want men, are chasing men, wishing a man would have sex with them or call them....
> 
> Or they are mothers of sons who love them....
> 
> Or they brothers and fathers and uncles who they care deeply about....
> 
> What do you mean men are not valued?
> 
> There are several women right here on this thread who madly love their husbands, sons, brothers, etc.
> 
> Where are you guys getting this? Whose opinion are you listening to that says men are not valued?
> 
> WE LOVE MEN!!!!!!!


Oh, I don't know. Wife #1 for example. "Men are stupid" was kinda a catchphrase of hers.

Don't make the claim that some women don't feel superior to men, and use the po-mo version of feminism as a lever to get at that.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> We have that.
> 
> It's just emotions and life that gets in the way.
> 
> For my attraction of her, anyway.


We have big ongoing relationship issues and emotions go flying, fights, cold shoulders, etc. Still hasn't ever detracted from attraction.

However, when we are at odds, he doesn't want to have sex, ever. He just shuts down. I would still do it (depending on the circumstances).

We also never have make up sex. I would, he won't.

He is extremely vulnerable at those times and won't let me in. Physical intimacy is never "just" physical for him.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> Oh, I don't know. Wife #1 for example. "Men are stupid" was kinda a catchphrase of hers.
> 
> Don't make the claim that some women don't feel superior to men, and use the po-mo version of feminism as a lever to get at that.


sigh....why the bitterness?

I love men, sorry you can't just accept what I said at face value. I have no clue where you got the rest of that.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Speaking of "men are stupid", a blog post I wrote:

Sexy+Positive Blog: Men Are Awesome, Give Them Kisses!


----------



## Thundarr

There are shades of the red pill and blue pill so it's not like a light switch that's either on or off. I've not read much of Athol's stuff but if I ever do then I'll pick and choose the nugets of truth and useful information and leave the rest.

The reason this thread is 133 pages after six days is because we don't separate issue very well and realize both sides can be partially right.


----------



## Anon1111

Men not being valued the way they once were is just pretty obvious when you look at our culture.

Some of this was just a correction of undue privilege. But some of it goes beyond that.

More women than men in university and grad school now.

Boys being held to learning methods in grade school that we know are more optimal for girls on the whole.

Male blue collar wages dropping continuously for the past 30-40 yrs.

Male incarceration rates.

None of these individually is the result of a conscious bias. Collectively, though, there is a cumulative negative effect on men's role in society.

The dating market (and marriage market) reflects the diminished value of men.

Many women struggle to find men they view as suitable LTR material. They're not necessarily wrong, but you can imagine how the average man might grow to feel inadequate when he sucks as school, can't find a decent job and no women want him for those reasons.


----------



## Faithful Wife

No, the real reason the thread is 133 pages after six days is because there is not currently another thread that is more fun to banter with all of our favorite posters on.

Soon there will be, and this one will die off. Like always!


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> We have big ongoing relationship issues and emotions go flying, fights, cold shoulders, etc. Still hasn't ever detracted from attraction.
> 
> However, when we are at odds, he doesn't want to have sex, ever. He just shuts down. I would still do it (depending on the circumstances).
> 
> We also never have make up sex. I would, he won't.
> 
> He is extremely vulnerable at those times and won't let me in. Physical intimacy is never "just" physical for him.


I'm similar.

Not quite, but similar.

At those times it would bother me to touch her at all.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Jeez Anon...I'm glad I don't live in your world. It is pretty sunny where I'm at.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> sigh....why the bitterness?
> 
> I love men, sorry you can't just accept what I said at face value. I have no clue where you got the rest of that.


Huh?

No, I accept that you think that way. I hope that most women think that way.

Just not that _all_ women think that way at all times.

Because I've seen that.

And there's this weird guilt thing that some of us guys get caught up when we see that if we don't call it out for what it is.


----------



## Marduk

Anon1111 said:


> Men not being valued the way they once were is just pretty obvious when you look at our culture.
> 
> Some of this was just a correction of undue privilege. But some of it goes beyond that.
> 
> More women than men in university and grad school now.
> 
> Boys being held to learning methods in grade school that we know are more optimal for girls on the whole.
> 
> Male blue collar wages dropping continuously for the past 30-40 yrs.
> 
> Male incarceration rates.
> 
> None of these individually is the result of a conscious bias. Collectively, though, there is a cumulative negative effect on men's role in society.
> 
> The dating market (and marriage market) reflects the diminished value of men.
> 
> Many women struggle to find men they view as suitable LTR material. They're not necessarily wrong, but you can imagine how the average man might grow to feel inadequate when he sucks as school, can't find a decent job and no women want him for those reasons.


I think it's a pendulum swinging thing.

It needs to swing away from what it is, overshoot it's mark, to hopefully come back into balance.

If it ever does, of course.


----------



## john117

marduk said:


> I have been a working scientist, too, and I just did the 'shrug' and threw the sciency bits away from MMSLP just like I did Gottman.
> 
> 
> 
> I wish they both avoided trying to get that kind of plausibility.
> 
> 
> 
> My point is that therapy isn't a swiss army knife, and applicable, or possible in all situations.



Gottman did get some things thru the peer review process. I am not sure Kay did. But in Kay's case what's missing science wise is more disconcerting vs what's there...

Therapy is not a science in the strict sense - more art than science - but there is plenty of precedent in the process.


----------



## Holland

Anon1111 said:


> I think the other factor is that men had a defined role in society for a long time, which is now eroded for the average guy.
> 
> Yes, at the top of the pile, it's still mostly men.
> 
> But down toward the middle and the lower rungs, men do not seem very valued.
> 
> I think you can see this playing out in all walks of life.
> 
> In the dating market, the anger surrounding this phenomenon is particularly acute.


So what to do? Honestly all this RP stuff is so irrational and counter intuitive IMHO and it is men leading men down this path of self destruction. 
At the same time women need to show each other by example that we are of value, not for how we look but because of who we are.
All the sex rank, women lose value at a certain age stuff is just BS, that is low self esteem men clambering at anything just to stay above the waterline to breath.

Putting others down is not a recipe for a good life.

Maybe men need to get better at valuing themselves, women have had a hard road to climb in this regard for a long time and while we are achieving it in spades men seem to have got scared. Don't be scared, don't subdue others just be a better person and attract a like minded better person.


----------



## Personal

Faithful Wife said:


> However, when we are at odds, he doesn't want to have sex, ever. He just shuts down. I would still do it (depending on the circumstances).


Whenever my wife and I are at odds, I don't want to have sex, I simply shut down. My wife would still do it though (depending on the circumstances).



Faithful Wife said:


> We also never have make up sex. I would, he won't.


Likewise we also never have make up sex. I won't, she would.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> And there's this weird guilt thing that some of us guys get caught up when we see that if we don't call it out for what it is.


And what if instead, you looked at and focused on all the love that is around us, all the women who love their husbands, brothers, fathers, sons, and all the men who likewise love their wives, mothers, sisters.....

What if you actually looked for this everywhere and stayed focused on it?

Develop a habit of trying to see the love and intimacy you are hoping to have, out there in the world in others...so you can find more and more examples of it and then believe it is out there all the time.

Because it is.


----------



## Anon1111

Well, historically, this type of thing sets off revolutions.

See, e.g., the red flag in the French Revolution.

I bet those guys were really hard up for p-ssy.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Bring it on, solider.

We got a place you can put your guns.


----------



## Anon1111

Holland said:


> So what to do? Honestly all this RP stuff is so irrational and counter intuitive IMHO and it is men leading men down this path of self destruction.
> At the same time women need to show each other by example that we are of value, not for how we look but because of who we are.
> All the sex rank, women lose value at a certain age stuff is just BS, that is low self esteem men clambering at anything just to stay above the waterline to breath.
> 
> Putting others down is not a recipe for a good life.
> 
> Maybe men need to get better at valuing themselves, women have had a hard road to climb in this regard for a long time and while we are achieving it in spades men seem to have got scared. Don't be scared, don't subdue others just be a better person and attract a like minded better person.


I have a weird idea about the solution.

I think the solution is for women to start viewing men as straight up sex objects.

There is this cultural relic that men are still supposed to be providers. It's unrealistic for most men at this point. It's disappointing to the men who can't achieve it and the women who can't find the guy with the right kind of status.

If women just view us as hunks of meat, I think a lot of people would be happier.


----------



## Holland

Anon1111 said:


> I have a weird idea about the solution.
> 
> I think the solution is for women to start viewing men as straight up sex objects.
> 
> There is this cultural relic that men are still supposed to be providers. It's unrealistic for most men at this point. It's disappointing to the men who can't achieve it and the women who can't find the guy with the right kind of status.
> 
> If women just view us as hunks of meat, I think a lot of people would be happier.


Firstly I do view my man as a sex object, no issues saying that. 

Sadly it is not the solution though and it is saying that women are the ones that need to change. For the purpose of this discussion though I would say it is some men's attitudes and self respect that needs to change. The discussion is about the appalling way some men view women and they way they are led down this no win path by other men.

Interestingly the men here that do object to the RP notions are the very men that seem to have good, happy, fulfilling sex lives. They are the men that we should be listening to, not the bitter and twisted ones.


----------



## Thundarr

Faithful Wife said:


> No, the real reason the thread is 133 pages after six days is because there is not currently another thread that is more fun to banter with all of our favorite posters on.
> 
> Soon there will be, and this one will die off. Like always!


I stand corrected. Here I was thinking too much again and missing the point .


----------



## Faithful Wife

Anon1111 said:


> I have a weird idea about the solution.
> 
> I think the solution is for women to start viewing men as straight up sex objects.
> 
> There is this cultural relic that men are still supposed to be providers. It's unrealistic for most men at this point. It's disappointing to the men who can't achieve it and the women who can't find the guy with the right kind of status.
> 
> If women just view us as hunks of meat, I think a lot of people would be happier.


Funny, because I keep saying that we already do that (view you as hunks of meat).

And men keep telling me "no men are more sexual, blah blah blah". But I keep saying it anyway.

And I also keep saying "gee, no man has ever supported me nor have I ever expected one to" and men keep saying "women are leeching us".

I'm right here, saying I love men, want to f*ck them, have chased them all my life, have a blog about how much I love my husband and sex with him, have wanted to understand more about sex and relationships all my life....and yet somehow I'm seen by some of you guys as "anti male".

How many more ways can a girl say this?

Red pill puts a divide between us based on disliking the other gender for perceived privileges (goes both ways). I'm saying screw that red pill, let's get it on instead. We want to get it on with each other, nothing is ever going to stop this truth.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> And what if instead, you looked at and focused on all the love that is around us, all the women who love their husbands, brothers, fathers, sons, and all the men who likewise love their wives, mothers, sisters.....
> 
> What if you actually looked for this everywhere and stayed focused on it?
> 
> Develop a habit of trying to see the love and intimacy you are hoping to have, out there in the world in others...so you can find more and more examples of it and then believe it is out there all the time.
> 
> Because it is.


Because, quite simply, it does not work.

I'm not Jesus. Or Buddha. Or Ghandi.

And neither are you or anybody else here.

We're just people trying to make our way in a world that is mostly good, but sometimes sucks.

The thing is, as you say, the problem is somewhere between the 'replace the woman' and not being willing to replace the woman.

Because if you want this one, that opinion matters a lot.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> Because, quite simply, it does not work.
> 
> I'm not Jesus. Or Buddha. Or Ghandi.
> 
> And neither are you or anybody else here.
> 
> We're just people trying to make our way in a world that is mostly good, but sometimes sucks.
> 
> The thing is, as you say, the problem is somewhere between the 'replace the woman' and not being willing to replace the woman.
> 
> Because if you want this one, that opinion matters a lot.


I didn't say it would solve all your problems...I'm saying that it is a place to start...by seeing love and intimacy around you, and seeing how women do adore men. By seeing abundance of the things you want. To start turning around your mindset.


----------



## MountainRunner

Faithful Wife said:


> I didn't say it would solve all your problems...I'm saying that it is a place to start...by seeing love and intimacy around you, and seeing how women do adore men. By seeing abundance of the things you want. To start turning around your mindset.


Absolutely FW...The "filter" that we view the world through is determined by what we see and how we interpret "what" we see, yes?

Through my DBT, I'm beginning to realize that just because I haven't been the best husband because of what and how I think means that everyone else thinks and behaves the same way I do, right? That being said...we have the ability to change the "filter"...should we choose to do so.

My original "filter" was that women could not be trustworthy. I seek them out, I love them...but I could never fully "trust" and I set about sabotaging ALL my relationships.

I am currently working on changing out the "filter" that has failed me for the past 40 years.


----------



## Icey181

Holland said:


> So what to do? Honestly all this RP stuff is so irrational and counter intuitive IMHO and it is men leading men down this path of self destruction.
> At the same time women need to show each other by example that we are of value, not for how we look but because of who we are.
> All the sex rank, women lose value at a certain age stuff is just BS, that is low self esteem men clambering at anything just to stay above the waterline to breath.
> 
> Putting others down is not a recipe for a good life.
> 
> Maybe men need to get better at valuing themselves, women have had a hard road to climb in this regard for a long time and *while we are achieving it in spades men seem to have got scared.* Don't be scared, don't subdue others just be a better person and attract a like minded better person.


I would caution against assuming men are "scared" as you put it.

After an entire generation of focused attention to girls, their education, their egos, their self-esteem, and training men to value them above all else while concomittantly being told to reject most if not all forms of traditional masculinity as toxic and unattractive, it makes sense to me that the boys are getting left behind.


----------



## Faithful Wife

MountainRunner said:


> Absolutely FW...The "filter" that we view the world through is determined by what we see and how we interpret "what" we see, yes?
> 
> Through my DBT, I'm beginning to realize that just because I haven't been the best husband because of what and how I think means that everyone else thinks and behaves the same way I do, right? That being said...we have the ability to change the "filter"...should we choose to do so.
> 
> My original "filter" was that women could not be trustworthy. I seek them out, I love them...but I could never fully "trust" and I set about sabotaging ALL my relationships.
> 
> I am currently working on changing out the "filter" that has failed me for the past 40 years.


My husband doesn't just hand out trust to everyone....I don't, either. We both know what trustworthy looks like though. We both sought to earn each other's trust.

But at the same time...my husband does not distrust or dislike women in general. In fact, one could easily observe that he loves women, they love him, he has many women friends. Part of why he has never had a lack of female attention is this very quality. You can love women without turning into a soppy orbiter or whatever the lingo is. His loving and respectful attitude toward women vibes out from him and is obvious to both men and women who meet him. I also never hear him talking about feminism has kept men and boys down. He has an abundance mentality, versus a scarcity mentality.

Dr. Nerdlove had a great article about this:

Leveling Up: Developing An Abundance Mentality

And he had this other one that sounded just like my hubby:

Nerd Role Models: The Pick-Up Artist


----------



## Faithful Wife

Also, I mentioned this movie on the thread that got closed...I wondered if anyone saw it...this movie is so cute and sexy! Excellent date movie, or just watch it for the subtle red pill/blue pill/pink pill cues....fun!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5megJgs48vI


----------



## Holland

Icey181 said:


> I would caution against assuming men are "scared" as you put it.
> 
> After an entire generation of focused attention to girls, their education, their egos, their self-esteem, and training men to value them above all else while concomittantly being told to reject most if not all forms of traditional masculinity as toxic and unattractive, it makes sense to me that the boys are getting left behind.


I don't assume all men are scared, the ones in my life are nothing like what is being portrayed and quoted here. But I do think some men are simply scared of themselves, women, rejection, taking responsibility for themselves and where they are at in life.

This is shown by their hiding under the RP rock instead of being good men.


----------



## Icey181

Holland said:


> I don't assume all men are scared, the ones in my life are nothing like what is being portrayed and quoted here. But I do think some men are simply scared of themselves, women, rejection, taking responsibility for themselves and where they are at in life.
> 
> This is shown by their hiding under the RP rock *instead of being good men.*


Out of complete curiosity, what does this even mean?

Because that "RP rock" as you put it requires you to accept responsibility from the get-go.

And how does one be a "good man" in this estimation?



Faithful Wife said:


> My husband doesn't just hand out trust to everyone....I don't, either. We both know what trustworthy looks like though. We both sought to earn each other's trust.
> 
> But at the same time...my husband does not distrust or dislike women in general. In fact, one could easily observe that he loves women, they love him, he has many women friends. Part of why he has never had a lack of female attention is this very quality. You can love women without turning into a soppy orbiter or whatever the lingo is. His loving and respectful attitude toward women vibes out from him and is obvious to both men and women who meet him. I also never hear him talking about feminism has kept men and boys down. He has an abundance mentality, versus a scarcity mentality.
> 
> Dr. Nerdlove had a great article about this:
> 
> Leveling Up: Developing An Abundance Mentality
> 
> And he had this other one that sounded just like my hubby:
> 
> Nerd Role Models: The Pick-Up Artist


So…abundance mentality as well?

You do realize that your entire relationship looks like crib notes from a Red Pill blog, yes?

Seriously.

I understand that you think Red Pill people are all drooling, knuckle-dragging idiots who spout off anti-Women hatred every other word…

The reality, is that they are not.

When successful, they look like your husband.

And I mean _exactly like your husband_.


----------



## Holland

Icey181 said:


> Out of complete curiosity, what does this even mean?
> 
> Because that "RP rock" as you put it requires you to accept responsibility from the get-go.
> 
> And how does one be a "good man" in this estimation?
> 
> 
> ........


Good man = not being a misogynist that thinks women are to be abused, put down for their looks or age or treated as expendable. A good man IMHO has a high EQ, RP is the opposite of high EQ.

Lots more but late for the gym.


----------



## Faithful Wife

So Icey, how do you keep missing the part that he doesn't fear women, or think women "give men sex", or that he doesn't think feminists are keeping him down, or that he doesn't think "all women are sl*ts"....?

When I first found MMSL, I also thought "wow, this sounds like my husband...." until I got to all the hateful mean things, and then the evo-psyche drivel....which took all of 5 minutes to get to it, and then I was shocked at how different they are.

How many other things do I need to point out about intimacy?

What does red pill say about intimacy? Nothing, right?

Do you know what I mean by intimacy? Because if you did, you would see there is a big missing piece here.

Why do you miss the many times I say myself that my husband is a Natural? But you can't let go of your red pill long enough to actually believe in the very Naturals that your system worships?

I am married to one, and I'm telling you it is different than you think it is. I have read your red pill stuff, lots of it, much more than MMSL....I get what it is about.

Did you read any of the actual articles I linked? Because they actually point out the many ways my husband is different than PUA/red pill.

You don't seem to actually be reading what I'm linking and posting, you are just skimming and not getting the difference.

So I'm finally responding to you now that you have brought it up several times. What else do you want me to say, since I keep pointing out the differences and you keep straight up ignoring them and then saying the same thing?

I'm opening up about what it is really like to be with the type of man you say you want to be like, and instead of actually listening to me, you are painting over what I'm saying with the message you want to cling to.


----------



## Icey181

Holland said:


> Good man = not being a misogynist that thinks women are to be abused, put down for their looks or age or treated as expendable. A good man IMHO has a high EQ, RP is the opposite of high EQ.
> 
> Lots more but late for the gym.


So basically, you are going to stick with your caricature and run with it?

First, while the Red Pill stuff absolutely employs misogynistic rhetoric and the anger-phase induces quite a bit of it, it is neither necessarily misogynistic nor does it advocate for abuse. The abuse aspects people tend to point to are actually PUA tactics which make their way in or the latter stages of dread, which are idiotic anyways and lead to the end of relationships.

Second, Red Pill rhetoric rather ineloquently points out that, to men, women reach a peak of physical attractiveness in their early 20s. They make some further claims from there (some with credibility, others without), but the reality is that at 50 you do not look as sexually attractive as you were at 20. Seriously.

No one is telling the balding 50-year old accountant with a half-decent comb-over, a 5-year old suit, worn shoes, and a hint of a belly that he is more attractive today than he was at 25.

Yet we are supposed to fall over ourselves to assuage the egos of women in the parallel situation, because, why exactly?

Third, women are expendable.
The notion that men are expendable is not something new. However, telling men to stop idolizing women as though they are all unique snow-flakes that can never be replaced is quite important. And true. Women are replaceable and expendable. Realizing this is one of the first steps in accepting some harsh realities about sex and sexual attraction for a great deal of men.

People who are successful with women or only interact with men who are successful with women all seem to come to the same conclusion.

This stuff is natural, so what is their problem?

Faithful Wife is perhaps the best example of this on the board.

Strip Red Pill of its anger-phase and dilute the stupid evo-psych garbage and you have a rather useful and experientially proven set of workable changes for men to build better attraction and maintain it.


----------



## Faithful Wife

It is really funny how I have some red pill dudes telling me I am full of crap myself, have nothing relevant to say, etc....and then other red pill dudes telling me that my husband is totally straight up red pill....

Yet I have other guys who are not red pill who are just great guys, who identify a lot with the things I say about my husband, who are nice and respectful to me (and I am to them)....

It seems that only the ones who align themselves as specifically red pill are the ones who want to tear me down for some reason....even though my husband is totally red pill?

In any case, I'd like to thank marduk and Deejo and a bunch of other guys who were helped by red pill but who aren't on that band wagon and who get what I'm saying...and all you other guys who have been fun and respectful on this thread. And of course all my ladies on this thread.


----------



## Icey181

Faithful Wife said:


> So Icey, how do you keep missing the part that he doesn't fear women, or think women "give men sex", or that he doesn't think feminists are keeping him down, or that he doesn't think "all women are sl*ts"....?


The same way you seem to be missing that the Anger-Phase is not actually the Red Pill.

You have an idea in your head that concludes Red Pill men look a certain way.

That idea is overly focused on "plate spinners" in the anger phase.



Faithful Wife said:


> When I first found MMSL, I also thought "wow, this sounds like my husband...." until I got to all the hateful mean things, and then the evo-psyche drivel....which took all of 5 minutes to get to it, and then I was shocked at how different they are.


In short, the anger-phase idiocy. 

No kidding. It is not meant for anything other than a quick pass-over.



Faithful Wife said:


> How many other things do I need to point out about intimacy?
> 
> What does red pill say about intimacy? Nothing, right?
> 
> Do you know what I mean by intimacy? Because if you did, you would see there is a big missing piece here.


You do realize that Red Pill is not instructions on how to create and manage emotional intimacy, yes?

With the caveat that one requires "the Alpha to create, and the Beta to sustain" a relationship, it focuses entirely on building a basis for sexual attraction.

You have missed the point if you think it speaks to that, at all.



Faithful Wife said:


> Why do you miss the many times I say myself that my husband is a Natural? But you can't let go of your red pill long enough to actually believe in the very Naturals that your system worships?


Considering I have directly identified him as a Natural, multiple times to this point, I have to conclude you do not actually read responses directed at you.




Faithful Wife said:


> I am married to one, and I'm telling you it is different than you think it is. I have read your red pill stuff, lots of it, much more than MMSL....I get what it is about.


I really do not think you do.

The Red Pill stuff is about teaching men to become the kind of man you apparently find so appealing.



Faithful Wife said:


> Did you read any of the actual articles I linked? Because they actually point out the many ways my husband is different than PUA/red pill.
> 
> You don't seem to actually be reading what I'm linking and posting, you are just skimming and not getting the difference.


Actually, I have read each.

They tick off every single Red Pill doctrine, down to abundance mentality.

The only difference is that it relates the message without misogyny and anger-phase commentary at the bottom of the page.

*Which has been my personal point from the beginning.

Red Pill material works and it works well independent from the anger-phase idiocy.*



Faithful Wife said:


> So I'm finally responding to you now that you have brought it up several times. What else do you want me to say, since I keep pointing out the differences and you keep straight up ignoring them and then saying the same thing?


There are no differences from the outside looking in.

You feel a difference because your husband fails to live up to the caricatured image of anger-phase children you have molded in your mind as the end-goal of Red Pill advice.



Faithful Wife said:


> I'm opening up about what it is really like to be with the type of man you say you want to be like, and instead of actually listening to me, you are painting over what I'm saying with the message you want to cling to.


Not really, no.

You are railing against a model and calling it effectively useless, and then turning around and describing, in excruciating detail, how your husband fits every stated goal of the Red Pill model to a T.

Right down to the crazy Athol Kay, "women are slvts" use sperm warfare to control their desires BS.

If Athol Kay tells men to fill their women with sperm before they go out to lay claim to them, it is misogynistic BS.

But if your husband has sex with you before you go out, well, that is just hot. Because you say so.

You see the issue I am having?

The only difference is that you feel there is a difference.

The actions are the same. The results are the same.

Only the feeling differs.


----------



## Icey181

I am not going to lie.

I am not a fan of the more radical aspects of the Red Pill community. When Athol Kay begins to lecture people on evolutionary psychology my eyes role into the back of my head. The misogynistic aspects of the anger phase are counter-productive and borderline dangerous, as it will lead some young fools down a rather empty path in life.

However, after reading Faithful Wife's discussions of her husband, I am coming closer and closer to thinking that, despite its failings, the Red Pill advice is prioritizing the correct changes men need to make in order to attain and maintain a strong sexual attraction with women.

It is difficult to convince people to abandon this stuff if the end game is something you describe as a man you passionately lay claim to and enjoy feeling possessed by.

The only difference is that your guy is a natural at this stuff and has no anger-phase musings.

For the rest of us, we actually have to put in a considerable amount of work to achieve the same options.

Some get caught in the anger-phase feedback loop; they are immature and not really of use to anyone. They are also likely going to be unsurprisingly single or restrained to dating emotionally immature women, so I do not care much about them.

The survivors however, take what they can from the advice and apply it to their own lives.

Red Pill advice is, in my opinion, a fundamental component to the attraction portion of a relationship. 

And it is most effective when employed within a relationship in which the user is experiencing a dead-bedroom or otherwise unsatisfying sexual lifestyle.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Icey181 said:


> You see the issue I am having?
> 
> The only difference is that you feel there is a difference.
> 
> The actions are the same. The results are the same.
> 
> Only the feeling differs.


Ok Icey...I will play.

As far as sexual attraction, if you do take out the evo-psyche bullcrap and the anger and misogyny, then heck yes my husband sounds like your Natural. Ok?

But I would not be in love with him without the intimacy.

I would have f*cked him probably, sure.

But would not have fallen in love.

So why do you guys stop at the sexual attraction part? If it is really about building good relationships and not about interchangable vaginas, then why are you not also talking about love and intimacy? Because that's the part you are missing.

I've been with men who are similar to my husband but who have no ability in intimacy or love.

I've also been with men who are somewhat capable at intimacy and love, but not so great at sex and holding sexual attraction.

I'm telling you which ones can hold a woman's interest in the long term...and it does include the love and intimacy AND the hot sex. You need it all!

So if red pill dudes could just start a new movement, include all the fun sex, leave out all the evo psyche nonsense, and add in the intimacy, you will find your way to some of the good stuff you are seeking.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Icey181 said:


> However, after reading Faithful Wife's discussions of her husband, I am coming closer and closer to thinking that, despite its failings, the Red Pill advice is prioritizing the correct changes men need to make in order to attain and maintain a strong sexual attraction with women.
> 
> It is difficult to convince people to abandon this stuff if the end game is something you describe as a man you passionately lay claim to and enjoy feeling possessed by.
> 
> The only difference is that your guy is a natural at this stuff and has no anger-phase musings.


I agree that his excellent sexual attraction and abilities are what keep me hooked all the time...but that isn't the ONLY thing....can you at least concede to my point about love and intimacy?

Yes, my husband could have f*cked his way through life and never settled down and just enjoyed a plethora of women coming in and out of his life...but he is deeper than this. He wants more than this. He wants to have Oneitis with someone. He went looking for me. He found me. He wanted more than a Bang Maid. Do you get that this desire of his makes him even MORE attractive?

If you could at least acknowledge this, then we are basically on the same page.


----------



## Icey181

Faithful Wife said:


> Ok Icey...I will play.
> 
> As far as sexual attraction, if you do take out the evo-psyche bullcrap and the anger and misogyny, then heck yes my husband sounds like your Natural. Ok?
> 
> But I would not be in love with him without the intimacy.
> 
> I would have f*cked him probably, sure.


Which is the basic point of the initial Red Pill stuff.

A person properly employing the advice is supposed to be post-anger phase. They should have taken responsibility and moved on to the self-improvement phase.



Faithful Wife said:


> But would not have fallen in love.


Different issue.



Faithful Wife said:


> So why do you guys stop at the sexual attraction part? If it is really about building good relationships and not about interchangable vaginas, then why are you not also talking about love and intimacy? Because that's the part you are missing.


Mainly because the Red Pill advice is _specifically targeted at addressing sexual-desire mismatch_.

Why do you think it is anything else?

Full Stop. 

The Red Pill is about having more sex.



Faithful Wife said:


> I've been with men who are similar to my husband but who have no ability in intimacy or love.
> 
> I've also been with men who are somewhat capable at intimacy and love, but not so great at sex and holding sexual attraction.
> 
> I'm telling you which ones can hold a woman's interest in the long term...and it does include the love and intimacy AND the hot sex. You need it all!


Of course.

There is a reason that the Red Pill advice, especially that provided by (and this is important) people who have escaped the anger phase, reminds everyone that sexual attraction is not the only necessary component to a LTR.

But it is an important one that requires specialized advice; ergo, the Red Pill.



Faithful Wife said:


> So if red pill dudes could just start a new movement, include all the fun sex, leave out all the evo psyche nonsense, and add in the intimacy, you will find your way to some of the good stuff you are seeking.


Pretty much what I was looking for last year.

At this point what I find is that women get so caught up in the anger-phase face of the Red Pill that they then argue none of it actually works.

Unless of course the women are immature and emotionally damaged.

The reality is that the adults which look to this kind of stuff already know that NAWALT, we do not need to be told that Athol Kay is not an evolutionary psychologist and that broad generalizations are just that.

However, we also know that the "alpha" or whatever term you want to employ exists.

And the Red Pill is one of the few niche locations which is willing to call women out (no more idolization and co-dependency), declare the world unfair (no Post-Modernist garbage), to deal with it because it is reality, take responsibility for it, and hit the damn gym for an hour each day.

Choreplay and "Date your wife" still dominate the discussion.

That is why the Red Pill stuff is offered.

You show me a source of coherent information that offers the same fundamental message about attraction and we can use that instead.


----------



## Icey181

Faithful Wife said:


> I agree that his excellent sexual attraction and abilities are what keep me hooked all the time...but that isn't the ONLY thing....can you at least concede to my point about love and intimacy?


I never challenged them.

I have been quite clear for some time that Red Pill advice is clear on the matter.

If you go full-steam Alpha all day every day, it will come apart at the seams.



Faithful Wife said:


> Yes, my husband could have f*cked his way through life and never settled down and just enjoyed a plethora of women coming in and out of his life...but he is deeper than this. He wants more than this. He wants to have Oneitis with someone. He went looking for me. He found me. He wanted more than a Bang Maid. Do you get that this desire of his makes him even MORE attractive?


Again, never challenged this notion.

But the emotional intimacy is not the focus of the Red Pill…mainly because the men looking to it tend not to need help in prioritizing the needs and emotions of their partner in an authentic manner.



Faithful Wife said:


> If you could at least acknowledge this, then we are basically on the same page.


I do not think we are on different pages, just working through different misconceptions at this point.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Icey181 said:


> Mainly because the Red Pill advice is _specifically targeted at addressing sexual-desire mismatch_.
> 
> Why do you think it is anything else?
> 
> Full Stop.
> 
> The Red Pill is about having more sex.


Ok. I get that. I do, and I also think there is nothing wrong with wanting more sex, being more attractive, and I know that women want their men to be sexier (thus the reason many wives are the ones at MMSL, trying to get their husbands on board).

I just don't know why we have to dismantle it away from all the negative parts of it. There is so much negative and evo psyche crap.

Have you read Mark Manson, and if so, what did you think?

I'm all for everyone getting great sex.

But not everyone is highly sexual, do you guys understand that?

Some of your wives are never, ever going to respond like I do.

I'm highly sexual and always have been. I've struggled to find men who are as sexual as I am, normally I'm more sexual than the people I've encountered. So when I'm talking about all this sex and stuff, not everyone can relate or even wants to.

I have friends who read my blog and think its totally hot, and other friends who think we are both just weirdos for being so sexual. Not every one is the same, so whatever woman you (any you) is trying to apply the red pill tactics to, she and her desires have to be taken into account. The one size fits all red pill advice doesn't seem to do this. How do you account for ACTUAL sexual mismatches of natural drive?

It isn't only because of blue pill crap that this happens, there are many reasons for it.

Sexy+Positive Blog: Why Do Some Relationships Become Sexless?


----------



## Icey181

Faithful Wife said:


> Ok. I get that. I do, and I also think there is nothing wrong with wanting more sex, being more attractive, and I know that women want their men to be sexier (thus the reason many wives are the ones at MMSL, trying to get their husbands on board).
> 
> I just don't know why we have to dismantle it away from all the negative parts of it. There is so much negative and evo psyche crap.


Well, to be honest, some of the evo-psych stuff really does apply. Hypergamy in humans is a thing. So is the whole AF/BB dynamic and the "CC" and Hamster. 

They all exist (in varying degrees)



Faithful Wife said:


> Have you read Mark Manson, and if so, what did you think?


Have not had the opportunity yet, that will make the book list once Finals are graded.



Faithful Wife said:


> I'm all for everyone getting great sex.
> 
> But not everyone is highly sexual, do you guys understand that?
> 
> Some of your wives are never, ever going to respond like I do.
> 
> I'm highly sexual and always have been. I've struggled to find men who are as sexual as I am, normally I'm more sexual than the people I've encountered. So when I'm talking about all this sex and stuff, not everyone can relate or even wants to.


From what it sounds like, you are on the higher end of the Active spectrum.

However, the frequency/intensity of the sexual encounter is not really discussed that much in the general advice side of things.

The point tends to be a general increase in frequency and intensity.

In my case, for instance, I am dealing with a mid-level libido (2-3 times a week) against a lower level one (1-2 times a month).

Personally, I doubt I could keep up with the level of your husband, that is just not me.

But that is now what it is about.

You set the attraction to force a shift in behavior, but you still need to strike the balance between mismatched libidos.



Faithful Wife said:


> I have friends who read my blog and think its totally hot, and other friends who think we are both just weirdos for being so sexual. Not every one is the same, so whatever woman you (any you) is trying to apply the red pill tactics to, she and her desires have to be taken into account. The one size fits all red pill advice doesn't seem to do this. How do you account for ACTUAL sexual mismatches of natural drive?


That is where the basic idea of communication in marriage kicks in.

Red Pill stuff helps to create a baseline for attraction. Make the changes to ensure you are actually a sexually appealing individual, comfortable with your own desires.

Then comes the hard part.

Gauging the reaction and finding a happy medium.



Faithful Wife said:


> It isn't only because of blue pill crap that this happens, there are many reasons for it.
> 
> Sexy+Positive Blog: Why Do Some Relationships Become Sexless?


Still not sure what it is in my case.

Part was a minor bait & switch and others was bad sex.
She was more sexual when we were dating (ironically, no sex until marriage, and yet more "action"), made some long-term promises she apparently never thought I would actually hold her to, was uncomfortable during sex but took a year to explain it, and then decided it was no longer important.

One of the things the Red Pill helps me work on is this: Accepting that, when dealing with an apparently responsive drive, I have to put in the majority of the work to see any results. And if I want results I need to just get over the effort imbalance.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Can you show me some proof of the hypergamy being "a thing"? Because I have honestly searched for it, and found nothing credible.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I'm happy to discuss these topics respectfully, but my eyes will glaze over for the evo psyche crap really quickly, so if you want to say those things are true, then I do want to see anything that supports it....otherwise, we can talk without any of that needed at all, because the basics of desire and attraction don't need evo psyche to be discussed.


----------



## Icey181

For some reason people get all up in arms over evolutionary psychology models.

Hypergamy is real and has been a staple of stable American families since they were referring to themselves as subjects of King George and worrying about whether the Iroquois would respect the most recent treaty signed in Albany.

In actuality hypergamy is slowly dying, but is still a solid force.

In the mid 20th century only about 5% of women made more money than their husbands and it was more likely for a man to have better education than his wife.

The shift and focus on female education in the 1990s has produced an interesting effect. Now that a majority of college graduates are women and a significantly disproportionate number of graduate degrees are being conferred onto women the potential for hypergamy is declining.

And yet in the 2000s we were still looking at something like 80% of men making more than their wives.

The big difference is in educational attainment; most couples are now looking at equal levels of education, though not financial success.

And the finances are the important piece.

Blue-collar working men are not marrying Mrs. PhD very often in this country, for a number of reasons.

Hypergamy is real. It has been in this country since literally day one and I have never understood the need to pretend it is not.

It is real enough that 3rd Wave Feminists have complained about it being a means for the patriarchy to further subjugate women…and a main reason behind focused "More Girls in STEM fields" $$$$.

Anecdotally, I have seen all of this in my own life.
The highly intelligent and vociferously feminist female graduate students I work with think of blue collar work as beneath them, actively make fun of the men who work those jobs, and only date other graduate students, usually from more successful STEM fields, ironically enough. Every married Liberal Arts graduate feminist student I know is married to a successful STEM guy who makes triple her income. That goes double for the actual Professors themselves.

Which is something I always found so interesting.

But that is a major tangent.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Ok you lost me....I tried.


----------



## *LittleDeer*

I've never met an MRA or talked to an MRA sympathiser who didn't have massive issues. 

I think it's obvious the red pill stuff is utter nonsense. Athol's book is IMO awful, it does nothing for promoting relationships and bringing couples closer. MMSL teaches manipulation and abuse and is usually latched onto by insecure men.


----------



## Icey181

Simply stated; hypergamy is the tendency to "marry up," usually in reference to financial or educational achievement.

Throughout the entire history of the United States women were the focus of this particular strategy. Early on there were distinct structural reasons for this (lack of educational potential, _femme covert_ laws which literally made female property the property of the husband, lack of significant out of the home work) which began to shift heavily during the 2nd Great Awakening (1820s) and seriously broke apart post-WWI.

2nd & 3rd Wave Feminism considered this a result of patriarchy and sought to further educate women (and, at some points, abolish marriage) and get them jobs to put an end to what they saw as necessary dependence within this system.

Despite the overall decline of structural limits on both women's educational and earnings potential, census data has demonstrated that throughout the last half of the 20th century and into the first decades of the 21st, marriages still follow one basic rule:

The frequency of marriages in which men are the primary breadwinner are higher than the opposite.

The only major difference we have seen in the last decade or so is an increased tendency for homogamy in the realm of education. A majority of households now report equal levels of educational attainment, and I think for the first time, it is more likely to find a marriage with a wife with a superior degree than one in which the man holds one.

Yet the financial difference between men and women in marriage still persists.

Which, as an American historian, I find fascinating. Some of these changes mirror earlier ones I have personally studied and others are distinctly unique (the education piece).


----------



## Icey181

*LittleDeer* said:


> I've never met an MRA or talked to an MRA sympathiser who didn't have massive issues.
> 
> I think it's obvious the red pill stuff is utter nonsense. Athol's book is IMO awful, it does nothing for promoting relationships and bringing couples closer. MMSL teaches manipulation and abuse and is usually latched onto by insecure men.


Well, you are certainly not offering judgmental broad generalizations about people and things without positive arguments to back them up.


----------



## Brigit

Holland said:


> So what to do? Honestly all this RP stuff is so irrational and counter intuitive IMHO and it is men leading men down this path of self destruction.
> At the same time women need to show each other by example that we are of value, not for how we look but because of who we are.
> All the sex rank, women lose value at a certain age stuff is just BS, that is low self esteem men clambering at anything just to stay above the waterline to breath.
> 
> Putting others down is not a recipe for a good life.
> 
> Maybe men need to get better at valuing themselves, women have had a hard road to climb in this regard for a long time and while we are achieving it in spades men seem to have got scared. Don't be scared, don't subdue others just be a better person and attract a like minded better person.


The truth is as people get past a certain point they do become less attractive. George Clooney used to be really handsome now not so much. It's what happens to both men and women. Guys who think that a 40 year old man is at his peek are delusional. 

Making women feel bad about aging is cruel and stupid. There is a big trend of younger men going after older women. I experienced this first hand a couple of months ago when I had my pictures on the fitness site. I couldn't believe how many 20 something guys were all over my pictures. I must admit it was very flattering. 

In any case, there are plenty of great relationship books written by qualified professionals. Why anyone would purchase a self-help book written by some nut job on the internet is beyond me.


----------



## samyeagar

marduk said:


> Really?
> 
> Really really?
> 
> I've never heard that from anyone, ever.
> 
> It's not that I doubt you. I'm just flat out shocked.


I would have to agree with FW as well. My wife and I have been through a lot of crap together, but the raw physical attraction hasn't wavered a bit from either side.


----------



## EllisRedding

samyeagar said:


> I would have to agree with FW as well. My wife and I have been through a lot of crap together, but the raw physical attraction hasn't wavered a bit from either side.


I would agree with this as well, physical attraction has never wavered in my marriage. Maybe if it did waver it would have made things a little easier on me when things had slowed down dramatically lol.


----------



## Brigit

marduk said:


> Because, quite simply, it does not work.
> 
> I'm not Jesus. Or Buddha. Or Ghandi.
> 
> And neither are you or anybody else here.
> 
> We're just people trying to make our way in a world that is mostly good, but sometimes sucks.
> 
> The thing is, as you say, the problem is somewhere between the 'replace the woman' and not being willing to replace the woman.
> 
> Because if you want this one, that opinion matters a lot.


Marduk,

Have you've ever watched Marriage Today on youtube? It's provided a lot great insight and the over all messages are kind.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITnkjlbC28I&spfreload=10

I offer you this link because it has worked for me. That being said I don't consider myself religious, only spiritual.


----------



## *LittleDeer*

Icey181 said:


> Well, you are certainly not offering judgmental broad generalizations about people and things without positive arguments to back them up.


Read this thread for quotes from the book. If they aren't mysogonistic and quite frankly disturbing I don't know what is!


----------



## NobodySpecial

marduk said:


> Because, quite simply, it does not work.
> 
> I'm not Jesus. Or Buddha. Or Ghandi.
> 
> And neither are you or anybody else here.
> 
> We're just people trying to make our way in a world that is mostly good, but sometimes sucks.
> 
> The thing is, as you say, *the problem is somewhere between the 'replace the woman' and not being willing to replace the woman.*
> 
> Because if you want this one, that opinion matters a lot.


Marduk, this thread has me confused. It is the "woman" you are unwilling to replace, or THIS PERSON? Or is this the financial arrangement, co-parenting arrangement you are unwilling to replace? If the latter is the case, that seems the height of objectification to me. How can you ever seek to obtain an emotional connection with a plug and play device? Do you and Mrs Marduk love each other? Did you ever? You can't create something out of nothing.


----------



## naiveonedave

Brigit said:


> This is why I like Marriage Builders better. If a couple is having a problem it can only be solved if both parties WANT to solve it. You can't trick your spouse into staying with you. You may delay their departure but so what? This is why that stupid book with it's red pill moronic sh*t is useless. If you're a guy going to a bar and looking to fu*k the hottest girl maybe it's helpful but it's still pathological and very depressing.


the only problem with this is that in the HD/LD scenario, typically the W has no vested interest in changing, you can't argue or rationalize your way to more sex.


----------



## Lila

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> While I maintained the vast majority of my interests and activities during marriage, and still had all the same edge to my personality that I had developed, I failed in one major way in respect to my needs: I started deferring to her happiness.
> 
> I don't believe it's related (lots-o-reasons), but I honestly believe that our early years of lots of sex were the anomaly, but we became sexless in our latter years. It'd been years since I'd read anything Seduction related.
> 
> I don't do any reconciling of Red Pill/PUA stuff with my failed marriage. TBH, I was already of a mind to divorce when I came across MMSL. Reading it reminded me of a number of errors in how I handled sexlessness, and how I'd picked up so many passive aggressive and sneaky, cowardly means to avoid dealing with problems (including affairs). Still, I can't say it helped me because I was on the way out of the marriage anyway. I was overloaded with resentment for my EW, and I didn't want to stay with her. I only wanted to stay with my kids and not have to say I failed to make something work (yeah yeah, dumb, but whatever). But MMSL does prescribe against a number of unhelpful things I did when I was actually trying to fix things.


Whether you meant to or not, I think your history proves why PUA/Red Pill Philosphy, the basis for MMSLP, is not a viable solution for finding/fixing long term relationships. 

1) PUA tactics do not successfully match men with compatible women for long term relationships. The early sexual compatibility is typically false resulting in dead bed once the PUA masks are pulled away and the "natural person" is revealed. PUA tactics are good for one thing and one thing only - 'gaming' women into having sex. That's it. 

-and-

2) Red Pill philosophy is not sustainable, period. It takes an enormous amount of energy to keep pretending to be someone other than your 'natural' self. Adopting RP philosophy is the equivalent of learning a foreign language as an adult so as to get around efficiently during an international trip. Once the trip is over and you're back home, if you stop practicing the language, you forget it. And even if you force yourself to practice, it'll always require a lot of energy. 

Using your history....both of my points were illustrated in your own marital history. Even though you'd studied and adopted PUA and RP philosophy in your youth, you experienced the 'anomalous high sex frequency' followed by dead bed and you failed to sustain the philosophy throughout the marriage. 

This is exactly why I, for one, do not agree with RP/MMSL being bandied about on a Marriage Forum as Gospel. It's superficial at it's best and fails to touch upon the core principles of what makes a successful long term relationship.


----------



## Brigit

naiveonedave said:


> the only problem with this is that in the HD/LD scenario, typically the W has no vested interest in changing, you can't argue or rationalize your way to more sex.


Marriage is always a compromise. Sometimes you get what you want and sometimes you don't. You might need to negotiate something that works for both of you like sex only once a week instead of twice which is what you want but not once a month like she wants. However, if your goal is to get your wife to have sex twice a week regardless of her feelings and you decide to get a book that uses tricks and abuse to get your way you are making a poor choice. Like I said before it might work in the short run but not in the long one.


----------



## Anon1111

The Red Pill site has like 1 insightful post out of like 50. 

If you're a woman and you glance at it, all you will see is misogyny. 

Women don't have a tolerance for locker room banter. They have no sympathy for non-naturals (this is not a judgment of them, just a fact). They have no reason to sift through the dregs for the odd fleck of gold. 

I also seriously doubt the typical red pill user gets a particularly useful message from the site. 

If you're a hard up teenage or early 20s boy, do you think you would focus on the self improvement and taking control aspects, or the majority angry ranting posts?

I understand why these types of posts predominate (it's desperation and lashing out), but to a person who has no insight into that desperation it just looks psychotic or pathetic. 

It's like telling some conservative israeli, you know hamas is really a good organization, you should just ignore all of the rockets they shoot at you.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Brigit

Lila said:


> 1) PUA tactics do not successfully match men with compatible women for long term relationships. The early sexual compatibility is typically false resulting in dead bed once the PUA masks are pulled away and the "natural person" is revealed. PUA tactics are good for one thing and one thing only - 'gaming' women into having sex. That's it.
> 
> -and-
> 
> 2) Red Pill philosophy is not sustainable, period. It takes an enormous amount of energy to keep pretending to be someone other than your 'natural' self. Adopting RP philosophy is the equivalent of learning a foreign language as an adult so as to get around efficiently during an international trip. Once the trip is over and you're back home, if you stop practicing the language, you forget it. And even if you force yourself to practice, it'll always require a lot of energy.
> 
> 
> This is exactly why I, for one, do not agree with RP/MMSL being bandied about on a Marriage Forum as Gospel. It's superficial at it's best and fails to touch upon the core principles of what makes a successful long term relationship.


Remember the author was a member of this forum. He probably shared a bunch of his con-job tricks to his buddies on the forum and those guys played those tricks on their wives and got some success. So they abused their wives and in a couple of weeks they got what they wanted and were so happy with the results they shared it here on TAM. The author probably made friends with some of the moderators and networked a good con. It's easy to see how it happened and very sad as well.


----------



## naiveonedave

Brigit said:


> Marriage is always a compromise. Sometimes you get what you want and sometimes you don't. You might need to negotiate something that works for both of you like sex only once a week instead of twice which is what you want but not once a month like she wants. However, if your goal is to get your wife to have sex twice a week regardless of her feelings and you decide to get a book that uses tricks and abuse to get your way you are making a poor choice. Like I said before it might work in the short run but not in the long one.


utter nonsense - sex is my #1 His Need. She had no reason to change as her needs were being met. I got frustrated, had the conversation. NO MATTER WHAT, in many examples of friends and on the net and TAM: this conversation *never* works. We tried a therapist, he actually agreed w/me. W called BS, we stopped going. 

I find it banishable that you are saying I abused my W. Utter nonsense.

So what did I do? For the 3rd time on this thread: got into shape, dealt with child discipline more, stopped whining, stopped holding her on a pedestal, basically be a more masculine man. She still gets all the emotional stuff she always got (and maybe then some, as my resentment lessened as sex frequency went up) and we have more frequent sex.

The part you are missing with RP is that it increases sexual attraction, but that is not the end point. You have to make the M work emotionally as well.

There is a reason it is called MMSL = married man's sex life...... You still have to be married at the end, so you can't be an a$$hat.


----------



## Anon1111

You can make lifestyle changes. 

You can get in better shape. 

You can learn to manage your anger. 

You can learn to lighten up and be more fun. 

You can learn to own your situation and stop focusing on your victim feelings. 

You can get some better shoes. 

Lots of men do this stuff. This stuff is not an act. It is self improvement. 

That is the positive message behind all of the noise. You can take control of your life and make it better and it will have a positive effect on your relationships too. 

The super key point that I think often gets lost in the details is that it has to be about you. You can't do it with the primary goal of getting a reaction. You need to feel good about yourself first, then good things come from that. 

People get lost in the program, but the program doesn't really matter I think as long as you can achieve this mental plane. 

That's why you see fat, short, bald dudes with no jobs occassionally banging dimes. They have achieved total integration mentally and just DGAF and people are drawn to that.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

Dave, it sounds like you found some things in that book that really helped you. That is going to speak louder to you than the concerns about it that are being brought up.

The guys that seem to have a positive feeling about it seem like you: wife basically happy with the marriage, but does not feel sexual anymore. What you learned got the sex part going again.

There is a young man on this forum with whom I have a running disagreement. He is always promoting rewards and punishments in marriage. He calls it "consequences."

I am totally against that. I think rewards and punishments are control techniques, and I am against control techniques in marriage. I am _aghast_ by the thought of using them in marriage.

He has argued pretty strongly that even if I am opposed to them, they exist in my marriage anyway. 

I am opposed to them because I already feel like my husband has a lot of power in this marriage, and the thought of his having even more power through a system of "consequences" feels really overwhelmingly unfair. And it seems dangerous to me to see these ideas promoted to other men.

But there are people who seem to respond to it. Those guys feel at a power disadvantage in their marriage, and using these "consequences" is a way to get some power, I guess. 

And there are women who support the idea, too! That always amazes me. 

But we all come from different places in our marriages. We have different needs. What appalls me seems to thrill and even deeply satisfy some other women. How to reconcile that?


----------



## Pluto2

"banging dimes" 

how nice

And you still wonder why women react so strongly to this drivel


----------



## naiveonedave

jld said:


> Dave, it sounds like you found some things in that book that really helped you. That is going to speak louder to you than the concerns about it that are being brought up.
> 
> The guys that seem to have a positive feeling about it seem like you: wife basically happy with the marriage, but does not feel sexual anymore. What you learned got the sex part going again.
> 
> There is a young man on this forum with whom I have a running disagreement. He is always promoting rewards and punishments in marriage. He calls it "consequences."
> 
> I am totally against that. I think rewards and punishments are control techniques, and I am against control techniques in marriage. I am _aghast_ by the thought of using them in marriage.
> 
> He has argued pretty strongly that even if I am opposed to them, they exist in my marriage anyway.
> 
> I am opposed to them because I already feel like my husband has a lot of power in this marriage, and the thought of his having even more power through a system of "consequences" feels really overwhelmingly unfair. And it seems dangerous to me to see these ideas promoted to other men.
> 
> But there are people who seem to respond to it. Those guys feel at a power disadvantage in their marriage, and using these "consequences" is a way to get some power, I guess.
> 
> And there are women who support the idea, too! That always amazes me.
> 
> But we all come from different places in our marriages. We have different needs. What appalls me seems to thrill and even deeply satisfy some other women. How to reconcile that?


To me, if you peel away the harsh language and the RP anger phase, I don't get the hate of RP. The harsh language is how men talk to men a lot of the time, so I can see why women may dislike it. The whole hate thing seems silly to me, I pretty much ignored it. I think it is there as motivation, but that is a guess. I see no value in hating women, seems counterintuitive to hate women and want sex in marriage. What I hated was that I was totally taught what women want wrong.

I don't get a tit for tat consequences, short of infidelity or other such BS. 

I am trying to not read more into your post, but are you suggesting that I am 'getting rewards' from my W or something? Because I totally agree, punishment/reward is for training dogs, not a marriage.


----------



## Brigit

naiveonedave said:


> utter nonsense - sex is my #1 His Need. She had no reason to change as her needs were being met. I got frustrated, had the conversation. NO MATTER WHAT, in many examples of friends and on the net and TAM: this conversation *never* works. We tried a therapist, he actually agreed w/me. W called BS, we stopped going.
> 
> I find it banishable that you are saying I abused my W. Utter nonsense.
> 
> So what did I do? For the 3rd time on this thread: got into shape, dealt with child discipline more, stopped whining, stopped holding her on a pedestal, basically be a more masculine man. She still gets all the emotional stuff she always got (and maybe then some, as my resentment lessened as sex frequency went up) and we have more frequent sex.
> 
> The part you are missing with RP is that it increases sexual attraction, but that is not the end point. You have to make the M work emotionally as well.
> 
> There is a reason it is called MMSL = married man's sex life...... You still have to be married at the end, so you can't be an a$$hat.



I have no idea if you abused your wife. I don't live with you. I know the book teaches abusive techniques. 

I'm all for health, fitness and confidence building. You could have gotten that advice from a better book.


----------



## john117

Update of the cheating couple (my old neighbors)...

Nanny - graduated and back to Latvia 

MILF - divorced, kept custody of kids, worked as a hostess in restaurant for a while, business lost

Alpha Dude - divorced, much of fortune lost in Great Recession, survived lung cancer scare...

Mechanic - unknown 

This would make a great miniseries...


----------



## naiveonedave

Brigit said:


> I have no idea if you abused your wife. I don't live with you. I know the book teaches abusive techniques.
> 
> I'm all for health, fitness and confidence building. You could have gotten that advice from a better book.


disagree 100% on teaches abusive techniques.

There is no other book, believe me, I looked around. Nothing ties sex of the married man, with how he was raised thinking about women and what he needs to do to get his needs met.


----------



## naiveonedave

Brigit said:


> I have no idea if you abused your wife. I don't live with you. I know the book teaches abusive techniques.
> 
> I'm all for health, fitness and confidence building. You could have gotten that advice from a better book.


I want to know why you think that negotiating would have gotten me more sex? this is a commonly held belief by women that, as near as I can see, never works. Instead, you continue your attack on what actually worked.


----------



## Anon1111

Pluto2 said:


> "banging dimes"
> 
> how nice
> 
> And you still wonder why women react so strongly to this drivel


locker room talk

it's ok if you don't like it.


----------



## jld

naiveonedave said:


> To me, if you peel away the harsh language and the RP anger phase, I don't get the hate of RP. The harsh language is how men talk to men a lot of the time, so I can see why women may dislike it. The whole hate thing seems silly to me, I pretty much ignored it. I think it is there as motivation, but that is a guess. I see no value in hating women, seems counterintuitive to hate women and want sex in marriage. What I hated was that I was totally taught what women want wrong.
> 
> You were taught that women want kindness and consideration? That is what I want, Dave. That is what I need from my husband. When he gives it, I feel safe. And when I feel safe, I am very giving to him, in every way.
> 
> Your marriage does not have the same dynamic as mine. I already respect and am attracted to my husband. I just do not want to be neglected and taken for granted. Those are my concerns in my marriage.
> 
> See how we all come from different places?
> 
> I don't get a tit for tat consequences, short of infidelity or other such BS.
> 
> Totally agree. I think rewards and punishments are an unhealthy way of thinking in marriage.
> 
> I am trying to not read more into your post, but are you suggesting that I am 'getting rewards' from my W or something? Because I totally agree, punishment/reward is for training dogs, not a marriage.
> 
> No, I was just giving an example of a disagreement of my own with a fellow board member. He needed to get power in his marriage, and felt rewards and punishments were the way to do that.
> 
> I had a visceral reaction to that. He does not understand that, and I have not been able to explain my position well enough, I guess. I just get very upset when he brings it up, because I think it is very threatening, at least to me, with my own background, and in my own situation.
> 
> I thought it seemed similar to the disagreement here, so I was trying to draw a parallel.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

naiveonedave said:


> disagree 100% on teaches abusive techniques.
> 
> There is no other book, believe me, I looked around. Nothing ties sex of the married man, with how he was raised thinking about women and what he needs to do to get his needs met.


Just because you look past the abusive parts doesn't mean they aren't there.

Physical attractiveness, domestic support with the kids, better communication (no whining) - all these things could have been taught to you in other ways. These are all her needs you weren't meeting for her. 

Men are not being raised to believe that an out of shape guy who whines and doesn't disapline his kids is hot. 
Don't blame that on feminist Mothers and don't say that in order to stop doing these things you need to look at women in a derogatory way.


----------



## Anon1111

jld-- the disagreement here is over the idea that kindness and consideration ALONE are enough.

They're obviously insufficient in a SEXUAL relationship.

Within the context of an already sexual relationship, of course women (and men too) want to be treated with kindness and consideration.

Women really do want nice guys. They really, REALLY want nice guys who are also hot.

If you're just a nice guy, but not hot, you get the friend treatment.

When you've been put in the friend box for a long time, sometimes you need to remind your wife of why she thought you were hot in the first place (if she ever did).

Sometimes, the result of that is that your nice guy persona takes a back seat to the hot guy side of you for a while.

When everything is firing on all cylinders, it's easy to be kind and considerate and hot all at the same time. That's the ideal.

But it's unrealistic to act like women just get turned on when guys are sweet and kind if there is not ALREADY an underlying sexual attraction there.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Anon1111 said:


> locker room talk
> 
> it's ok if you don't like it.


I get locker room talk. I have all brothers and their friends, step-dad and his friends. My H and his trucker mouthed family. 

Some of them talk badly about women, some of them don't have to. Guess which ones get the girl?


----------



## Pluto2

Anon1111 said:


> locker room talk
> 
> it's ok if you don't like it.


I don't know if there is a way to phrase this that won't be taken by any "red pill" followers as anything but angry feminism, and believe it or not-I'm not angry. So having said that...

I am well aware that this is what you refer to as "locker room talk"
I don't need you to say its ok for me not to like "locker room" talk
I wasn't asking permission not to like it.

I don't like it.
Its degrading and demeaning and believing that its "OK" for boys to be boys is part, although clearly not all, of the problem with the book in the first place.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> I didn't say it would solve all your problems...I'm saying that it is a place to start...by seeing love and intimacy around you, and seeing how women do adore men. By seeing abundance of the things you want. To start turning around your mindset.


I don't get it.

I see how women adore men all the time, and me in particular.

I'm struggling connecting that with 'magical thinking,' which won't help guys like Anon at all.

The dude has gone through hell and is just starting to come out the other side. The fact that he can see any rays of light at all is pretty much due to his discipline and strength.


----------



## Faithful Wife

The reason I always hesitate to compare my husband as a Natural to all these weird systems the PUAs and red pillers have, is because none of them just talk about people in normal terms. Men are always either wussies or alphas, and women are always conquests. Since I never hear my husband talk about people like this, I know the difference but of course from the outside, all another dude would see is that my husband is lucky with the ladies.

I found this rather sickening article about a guy who wanted to learn game...so he hung out with some Naturals...and now he is a Natural and can teach you to be a Natural. :scratchhead:

How he thinks this is possible, I have no clue. Meanwhile, as we women talk about our distaste for these guys, I'm sure there are guys reading who are thinking "yeah I bet those tricks would work on you, you're a woman, you don't know any better". (sigh...)

The 5 Big Differences Between Naturals and â€œPUAâ€�s | Girls Chase

From the article:

When I first discovered dating advice for men on the Internet in the mid-2000s, I was ecstatic; here were exactly the tools I was looking for to take what I was trying to do and put it on rocket fuel.

With these tools, I knew, I could shave years off my learning curve and advance at a far faster rate than I could having to figure every single thing out by myself, on my own.

It didn't take long though before I realized that many of the guys posting on seduction forums and meeting up in pickup lairs were "quirky"; there were things about them that were off, and the kinds of women they were going for were... not the kinds of women I was all that interested in.

I maintained friendships with the cooler and more "normal" guys I met through PUA - and indeed, many of these guys are still good friends of mine today, and are some of the sharpest and most improvement-oriented people I know (many are also quite successful in their businesses and careers nowadays) - but aside from them, I largely retreated to friendships with "naturals" - guys who were naturally good with women, and hadn't studied pickup and had only the most cursory knowledge of what it taught.

What I noticed was that there were some very distinct differences between the guys who were naturally good with women and the guys who were not - and while some of this went away as guys improved, some of it didn't; these differences remained.

*And those differences very often meant the difference between being cool and getting the more attractive, harder-to-get girls, and not being and getting those.*

(end quote)

Because you see, it is always about getting those more attractive, harder-to-get girls....ALWAYS. Women are not individuals, they are just a number, assigned by a man, and ranked as such, and then considered as live bait.

There are lots of other horrible articles on this site too, like "how to text a girl into your bed" and "how to get girls while backpacking" and "the key to nipping drama in the bud in an LTR"...."how to tell if a girl's horny"...."how to make her be in love"...."how to make a girl jealous"...."how to get laid every time"....and on and on.

All this crap is why my husband is different than these d*uchebags. He doesn't talk about "women", he talks about specific people in his life. He doesn't have a line of women he duped into bed, he has a fair number of happy and willing partners, some who were dates, some who were girlfriends, some who were casual. He doesn't always go for the "hottest girl he can find" he goes for the girl he has mutual sexual attraction and interest in.

This link is one of the "nicer" PUA sites...they don't actually call women wh*res as often on this one. 

But these guys wonder why women reject them and they are not naturally good with the ladies? Gee, small wonder.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> It is really funny how I have some red pill dudes telling me I am full of crap myself, have nothing relevant to say, etc....and then other red pill dudes telling me that my husband is totally straight up red pill....
> 
> Yet I have other guys who are not red pill who are just great guys, who identify a lot with the things I say about my husband, who are nice and respectful to me (and I am to them)....
> 
> It seems that only the ones who align themselves as specifically red pill are the ones who want to tear me down for some reason....even though my husband is totally red pill?
> 
> In any case, I'd like to thank marduk and Deejo and a bunch of other guys who were helped by red pill but who aren't on that band wagon and who get what I'm saying...and all you other guys who have been fun and respectful on this thread. And of course all my ladies on this thread.


Oh, I think there's enough cognitive dissonance on this thread to go around... I'm still trying to sort through mine.


----------



## jld

Anon1111 said:


> jld-- the disagreement here is over the idea that kindness and consideration ALONE are enough.
> 
> They're obviously insufficient in a SEXUAL relationship.
> 
> Within the context of an already sexual relationship, of course women (and men too) want to be treated with kindness and consideration.
> 
> Women really do want nice guys. They really, REALLY want nice guys who are also hot.
> 
> If you're just a nice guy, but not hot, you get the friend treatment.
> 
> When you've been put in the friend box for a long time, sometimes you need to remind your wife of why she thought you were hot in the first place (if she ever did).
> 
> Sometimes, the result of that is that your nice guy persona takes a back seat to the hot guy side of you for a while.
> 
> When everything is firing on all cylinders, it's easy to be kind and considerate and hot all at the same time. That's the ideal.
> 
> But it's unrealistic to act like women just get turned on when guys are sweet and kind if there is not ALREADY an underlying sexual attraction there.


Well, my marriage has never been sexless, so I am probably not the person to consult on this problem. But I can tell you that my husband never flirts with other women, and does not do anything to make me feel jealous or insecure. If anything, he tries to reassure me and build my self-confidence. 

And he certainly does not blame "feminism" for anything. Actually, I am sure he would give it a lot of credit for improving conditions in the world.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

marduk said:


> I don't get it.
> 
> I see how women adore men all the time, and me in particular.
> 
> I'm struggling connecting that with 'magical thinking,' which won't help guys like Anon at all.
> 
> The dude has gone through hell and is just starting to come out the other side. The fact that he can see any rays of light at all is pretty much due to his discipline and strength.


You're forgetting that there were also years of his neglect of her during a time that most women couldn't even begin to understand how difficult it would be. 

That is not a case of a guy was too nice and meeting too many of her needs for so long that he needs to be a jerk to get her attention. 

That is more like a guy who forgot his wife even had needs until the sex stopped and he woke up. 

So now when he tries to fix things, he doesn't get results. Is it because he's being too beta now or because she has so much resentment and has had to build a life that didn't include him that she doesn't look at him as a partner in life but a roommate?

Maybe she does need 6 packs abs and tougher guy but she could also just need time to believe and accept the changes, build back up the love bank that was sitting in the negatives and consistant efforts- not to get laid- but to be a better husband.


----------



## Anon1111

Pluto2 said:


> I don't know if there is a way to phrase this that won't be taken by any "red pill" followers as anything but angry feminism, and believe it or not-I'm not angry. So having said that...
> 
> I am well aware that this is what you refer to as "locker room talk"
> I don't need you to say its ok for me not to like "locker room" talk
> I wasn't asking permission not to like it.
> 
> I don't like it.
> Its degrading and demeaning and believing that its "OK" for boys to be boys is part, although clearly not all, of the problem with the book in the first place.


yes, you don't need my permission not to like it and I don't need your permission to say it. You can call me a pig if you want-- that's ok too. I'd call that equality.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> I don't get it.
> 
> I see how women adore men all the time, and me in particular.
> 
> I'm struggling connecting that with 'magical thinking,' which won't help guys like Anon at all.
> 
> The dude has gone through hell and is just starting to come out the other side. The fact that he can see any rays of light at all is pretty much due to his discipline and strength.


Ok. You don't get it then.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Can you show me some proof of the hypergamy being "a thing"? Because I have honestly searched for it, and found nothing credible.


Results on that appear to be mixed, especially in post-industrial cultures. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but it seems to indicate that it's influence on mate selection is declining.

Studies of heterosexual mate selection in dozens of countries around the world have found men and women report prioritizing different traits when it comes to choosing a mate, with men tending to prefer women who are young and attractive and women tending to prefer men who are rich, well-educated, ambitious, and attractive.[6] Evolutionary psychologists contend this is an inherent sex difference arising out of sexual selection, with men driven to seek women who will give birth to healthy babies and women driven to seek men who will be able to provide the necessary resources for the family's survival. Social learning theorists, however, say women value men with high earning capacity because women's own ability to earn is constrained by their disadvantaged status in a male-dominated society. They argue that as societies shift towards becoming more gender-equal, women's mate selection preferences will shift as well. Some research supports that theory,[7] including a 2012 analysis of a survey of 8,953 people in 37 countries, which found that the more gender-equal a country, the likelier male and female respondents were to report seeking the same qualities as each other rather than different ones.[8] However, Townsend (1989) surveyed medical students regarding their perception of how the availability of marriage partners changed as their educational careers advanced. Eighty-five percent of the women indicated that "As my status increases, my pool of acceptable partners decreases" (p. 246). In contrast, 90% of men felt that "As my status increases, my pool of acceptable partners increases" (p. 246).[9]

Saint-Paul (2008) argued that, based on mathematical models, human female hypergamy occurs because women have greater lost mating opportunity costs from monogamous mating (given their slower reproductive rate and limited window of fertility), and thus must be compensated for this cost of marriage. Although marriage reduces the overall genetic quality of her offspring (e.g., the possibility of impregnation by a higher quality genetic male, yet sans his parental investment), this reduction is compensated by greater levels of paternal parental investment by her husband.[10] An empirical study examined the mate preferences of subscribers to a computer dating service in Israel that had a highly skewed sex ratio (646 men for 1,000 women). Despite this skewed sex ratio, they found that "On education and socioeconomic status, women on average express greater hypergamic selectivity; they prefer mates who are superior to them in these traits... while men express a desire for an analogue of hypergamy based on physical attractiveness; they desire a mate who ranks higher on the physical attractiveness scale than they themselves do."[11]

In modern society, discussing the role money plays in determining how women select long-term male partners is often considered a taboo or antiquated subject.[12] One study did not find a statistical difference in the number of women or men "marrying-up" in a sample of 1109 first-time married couples in the United States.[13]

Hypergamy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Anon1111

jld said:


> Well, my marriage has never been sexless, so I am probably not the person to consult on this problem. But I can tell you that my husband never flirts with other women, and does not do anything to make me feel jealous or insecure. If anything, he tries to reassure me and build my self-confidence.
> 
> And he certainly does not blame "feminism" for anything. Actually, I am sure he would give it a lot of credit for improving conditions in the world.


That's great about your marriage. 

It's also great that you admit you have no experience in this area.

Men who have been in this situation giving advice to other men in this situation that they have found helpful is outside of your sphere of perception.

It's weird to me why people get offended by people operating in a world they don't understand and will never touch.


----------



## Faithful Wife

None of that is proof, and I'm done discussing evo-pysche. I will not go there again. I'm happy to talk about real people and real issues.


----------



## Marduk

NobodySpecial said:


> Marduk, this thread has me confused. It is the "woman" you are unwilling to replace, or THIS PERSON? Or is this the financial arrangement, co-parenting arrangement you are unwilling to replace? If the latter is the case, that seems the height of objectification to me. How can you ever seek to obtain an emotional connection with a plug and play device? Do you and Mrs Marduk love each other? Did you ever? You can't create something out of nothing.


This reply was in the context of the red pill viewing women as replacable.

Something in my own marriage I have selective cognitive dissonance about; I realize I could have another wife just as my wife could have another husband quite easily.

But I really don't want to have another wife.

So I have chosen a kind of selective blindness about the whole thing. It's there when I need to think objectively about things, and gone the vast majority of the time.

Is this odd?


----------



## tech-novelist

marduk said:


> While I respect your right to do so, and why, FW, it does make discourses rather one sided and seem like you're not willing to listen.
> 
> The fact you revel in it, for one.
> 
> I'm not saying you should listen, or must listen, just that the fact that you're not listening is in itself a statement.


I'm quite happy that she has me on ignore. That way I can point out her inconsistencies without getting into an argument with her!


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> None of that is proof, and I'm done discussing evo-pysche. I will not go there again. I'm happy to talk about real people and real issues.


I didn't say it was proof of anything, you had asked for information about it and I provided it.

Personally I think it's a pre-feminist artefact that is rapidly degrading in relevance; sure, 100 years ago it may have made economic sense to land a rich guy, but these days it's almost as easy for a woman to make money as a man, and you hear all kinds of deadbeat husbands that sue their wives for alimony.

At the end of the day I think it suits both men and women alike to find their best mate they think is possible, and what "best" means is really subjective (and yet falls on trend lines) and changes throughout a person's life.


----------



## jld

Anon1111 said:


> That's great about your marriage.
> 
> It's also great that you admit you have no experience in this area.
> 
> Men who have been in this situation giving advice to other men in this situation that they have found helpful is outside of your sphere of perception.
> 
> It's weird to me why people get offended by people operating in a world they don't understand and will never touch.


 Because young men are learning things from these sites and books that are harmful to them, and to young women, too.


----------



## NobodySpecial

marduk said:


> This reply was in the context of the red pill viewing women as replacable.
> 
> Something in my own marriage I have selective cognitive dissonance about; I realize I could have another wife just as my wife could have another husband quite easily.
> 
> But I really don't want to have another wife.
> 
> So I have chosen a kind of selective blindness about the whole thing. It's there when I need to think objectively about things, and gone the vast majority of the time.
> 
> Is this odd?



Is it odd that you pulled a John and did not answer the question? Probably not. 

WHY don't you want another wife? Do you love YOUR WIFE whose name is whatever her name is. Or is she a "woman" who happens to be titled "wife"? It makes a difference to the relative objectification and could tell you an awful lot about why dread games get you sex but emotional connection remains elusive to you.

Just sayin.


----------



## Pluto2

Anon1111 said:


> yes, you don't need my permission not to like it and I don't need your permission to say it. You can call me a pig if you want-- that's ok too. I'd call that equality.


Annon, I'm not calling you any names, and if that was what you took from my post, then apologies.

There is really a lot of talking past people on this thread.


----------



## jld

Pluto2 said:


> Annon, I'm not calling you any names, and if that was what you took from my post, then apologies.
> 
> There is really a lot of talking past people on this thread.


I think it is because we are all coming from different places, with different concerns.

I want women to be safe from people like Elliot Rodgers. Though, it was men he ended up killing, so men are not safe with these pua ideas, either.


----------



## Marduk

Brigit said:


> I have no idea if you abused your wife. I don't live with you. I know the book teaches abusive techniques.
> 
> I'm all for health, fitness and confidence building. You could have gotten that advice from a better book.


I don't know, though. I have to challenge that.

I struggled to find anything that could help me when, to be frank, my wife was pretty happy with the way things were if I would just shut up about it.

Everything else kinda relied on her being interested in improving things.

It's a relative power thing. If one party is happy and invested in keeping things the way they are, and one party is unhappy and needs things to change, and the flow of power is essentiall from the unhappy party to the happy one...

The happy party is going to keep that train going as long as possible, right?


----------



## Anon1111

jld said:


> Because young men are learning things from these sites and books that are harmful to them, and to young women, too.


I take a different view.

I think the media reflects the underlying issue that is already there.

You see an echo chamber because most of the people who are there have sought out this media to confirm a belief they already have.

I realize some people look at this differently-- it's really a judgment call and neither is necessarily right or wrong.

I just think that most people believe they've got everything figured out and just seek out opinions that confirm their biases.

So I am very skeptical about this idea of people being corrupted. I think people are already corrupt for the most part.


----------



## Marduk

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> You're forgetting that there were also years of his neglect of her during a time that most women couldn't even begin to understand how difficult it would be.
> 
> That is not a case of a guy was too nice and meeting too many of her needs for so long that he needs to be a jerk to get her attention.
> 
> That is more like a guy who forgot his wife even had needs until the sex stopped and he woke up.
> 
> So now when he tries to fix things, he doesn't get results. Is it because he's being too beta now or because she has so much resentment and has had to build a life that didn't include him that she doesn't look at him as a partner in life but a roommate?
> 
> Maybe she does need 6 packs abs and tougher guy but she could also just need time to believe and accept the changes, build back up the love bank that was sitting in the negatives and consistant efforts- not to get laid- but to be a better husband.


Oh, I see that. Perhaps you've not seen my comments to him about exactly that.

My point is don't take a run at the guy by saying everything is love. Because he hasn't been getting much of that.


----------



## Lila

marduk said:


> I don't get it.
> 
> I see how women adore men all the time, and me in particular.
> 
> I'm struggling connecting that with 'magical thinking,' which won't help guys like Anon at all.
> 
> The dude has gone through hell and is just starting to come out the other side. The fact that he can see any rays of light at all is pretty much due to his discipline and strength.


I don't know about you Marduk, but there are times when I read some of the stuff posted by Anon1111 and other men struggling in sexless marriages and I think "Aha, that's why she doesn't respect you". 

I think two big issues that go unaddressed in MMSLP/RP is Maturity (and the lack thereof) and Entitlement. For women who prioritize safety and security above all else, immaturity is a HUGE turnoff. Entitlement is plain scary. And frankly, I don't know how one goes about teaching a grown man how to be more mature.


----------



## Anon1111

jld said:


> I think it is because we are all coming from different places, with different concerns.
> 
> I want women to be safe from people like Elliot Rodgers. Though, it was men he ended up killing, so men are not safe with these pua ideas, either.


I only have a passing familiarity with that guy, but I have no doubt that if Red Pill did not exist, he would've found some other outlet that confirmed his disturbed viewpoint.


----------



## Marduk

NobodySpecial said:


> Is it odd that you pulled a John and did not answer the question? Probably not.
> 
> WHY don't you want another wife? Do you love YOUR WIFE whose name is whatever her name is. Or is she a "woman" who happens to be titled "wife"? It makes a difference to the relative objectification and could tell you an awful lot about why dread games get you sex but emotional connection remains elusive to you.
> 
> Just sayin.


Oh, OK, I get it. First cup of coffee, noggin is still warming up.

I don't want another wife because even through everything we've been through, I'm still head over heels in love with her, and in awe of her.

Even when I can't stand her.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> I didn't say it was proof of anything, you had asked for information about it and I provided it.
> 
> Personally I think it's a pre-feminist artefact that is rapidly degrading in relevance; sure, 100 years ago it may have made economic sense to land a rich guy, but these days it's almost as easy for a woman to make money as a man, and you hear all kinds of deadbeat husbands that sue their wives for alimony.
> 
> At the end of the day I think it suits both men and women alike to find their best mate they think is possible, and what "best" means is really subjective (and yet falls on trend lines) and changes throughout a person's life.


No I asked for proof, not information. I know that there is no proof because I've looked for it before, have read the scant information available, and concluded there's nothing there.

What is actually true is that people are non-monogamous naturally. And that monogamy is only attained by deliberate choice and action. Whereas the red pill community want to make sure to wrap up the woman's side of this is as offensive terms as possible so they can still call her a hypergamous wh*re, even though men do the same thing. 

What would really help would be more people just acting on their non-monogamous natures ethically and creating more of a movement toward this so that some people who don't want to be crammed into monogamy can act naturally without being called wh*res for it.

While at the same time, those of us who choose monogamy should do so self-awarely instead of all smug like and name calling.

This movement is happening and it will help in the long term.


----------



## Marduk

Lila said:


> I don't know about you Marduk, but there are times when I read some of the stuff posted by Anon1111 and other men struggling in sexless marriages and I think "Aha, that's why she doesn't respect you".
> 
> I think two big issues that go unaddressed in MMSLP/RP is Maturity (and the lack thereof) and Entitlement. For women who prioritize safety and security above all else, immaturity is a HUGE turnoff. Entitlement is plain scary. And frankly, I don't know how one goes about teaching a grown man how to be more mature.


Insightful.

Battling that, myself.


----------



## EllisRedding

marduk said:


> For me, it was about a month and an intersection of:
> - suddenly high testosterone from eating right and working out
> - realizing that my buddies were being walked all over by their wives, and I was, too ("happy wife, happy life")
> - everwhere I seemed to look, I saw the media portray husbands as bumbling, weak idiots
> - suddenly having married women hit on me, and being disgusted by that
> - realizing that all the work and effort I had put in wasn't working (houses, cars, shiny things, making her happy, buying into the deal and then getting shafted)
> - realizing that while my wife wasn't attracted to me, she sure was attracted to other guys.
> 
> Etc.
> 
> I got over it.


Going back to this post, I still wonder why the above is something that seems like quite a few men can relate to? Now maybe I lucked out that much of this doesn't apply to me, IDK, but I sure do know quite a few guys firsthand who have pretty much word for word the same experience as above. I know the easiest response from some here would just be to say it is the guy's fault, but it takes two to tango, and there is clearly something going on with the female as well. Have people just come to expect this is how it is, so they accept and even conform to this type of behavior?


----------



## jld

Anon1111 said:


> I take a different view.
> 
> I think the media reflects the underlying issue that is already there.
> 
> You see an echo chamber because most of the people who are there have sought out this media to confirm a belief they already have.
> 
> I realize some people look at this differently-- it's really a judgment call and neither is necessarily right or wrong.
> 
> I just think that most people believe they've got everything figured out and just seek out opinions that confirm their biases.
> 
> So I am very skeptical about this idea of people being corrupted. I think people are already corrupt for the most part.


I think those echo chambers can make it worse.

Think about KKK rallies, neo-Nazi groups, militias. Those ideas are not healthy. Those people are trying to reassure themselves in a world that they don't understand or just cannot accept.

We will not solve the problem by just shutting those groups down, though. We have to look at why these people are drawn to them, and offer healthy alternatives. There has been some good discussion of that here, but more is needed, I think.


----------



## Lila

marduk said:


> Insightful.
> 
> Battling that, myself.


And I'm being 100% honest with you.....my opinion, you're not the problem in your marriage. Take it for what it's worth.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> No I asked for proof, not information. I know that there is no proof because I've looked for it before, have read the scant information available, and concluded there's nothing there.
> 
> What is actually true is that people are non-monogamous naturally. And that monogamy is only attained by deliberate choice and action. Whereas the red pill community want to make sure to wrap up the woman's side of this is as offensive terms as possible so they can still call her a hypergamous wh*re, even though men do the same thing.
> 
> What would really help would be more people just acting on their non-monogamous natures ethically and creating more of a movement toward this so that some people who don't want to be crammed into monogamy can act naturally without being called wh*res for it.
> 
> While at the same time, those of us who choose monogamy should do so self-awarely instead of all smug like and name calling.


Ah, I'm getting your gist now.

I think hypergamy has been a thing. You can pull out a ton of cultures where it's a thing.

But is it a _natural_ thing, is your point?

I think it's a natural thing for men and women alike to secure the best mate they can. And I also think humanity genetically 'trends' towards monogamy, we seem to fall somewhere there between bonobos and chimps, if a study I remember reading is correct. Not that non-monogamous, and not quite that monogamous.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

marduk said:


> I don't know, though. I have to challenge that.
> 
> I struggled to find anything that could help me when, to be frank, my wife was pretty happy with the way things were if I would just shut up about it.
> 
> Everything else kinda relied on her being interested in improving things.
> 
> It's a relative power thing. If one party is happy and invested in keeping things the way they are, and one party is unhappy and needs things to change, and the flow of power is essentiall from the unhappy party to the happy one...
> 
> The happy party is going to keep that train going as long as possible, right?


That's where my marital relationship was in Summer of 2013. Except I was in your shoes and my H was your wife. All was quiet as long as I wasn't bringing up "issues." Its why I still say poor behaviors are genderless. And I knew this dynamic had to change and sought to change it later that year. The power had to be rebalanced. I put my foot down. I think this is the part of the book that is helpful. Refusing poor behavior going forward...


----------



## Marduk

EllisRedding said:


> Going back to this post, I still wonder why the above is something that seems like quite a few men can relate to? Now maybe I lucked out that much of this doesn't apply to me, IDK, but I sure do know quite a few guys firsthand who have pretty much word for word the same experience as above. I know the easiest response from some here would just be to say it is the guy's fault, but it takes two to tango, and there is clearly something going on with the female as well. Have people just come to expect this is how it is, so they accept and even conform to this type of behavior?


I think some of it will happen if a guy in is 30's or 40's just decides to hit the gym and watch his diet. His T will go up, and it will throw him out of balance, and he'll become a bit more aggressive and horny.

At least I did.

I don't think it makes anybody bad. And I suspect it happens to women who do the same, as well.


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> Oh, I see that. Perhaps you've not seen my comments to him about exactly that.
> 
> My point is don't take a run at the guy by saying everything is love. Because he hasn't been getting much of that.


Anon is not a victim. His marital difficulties are actually an opportunity for him to address some weaknesses in himself. 

To the extent that he is taking a hard, honest look at himself, and exercising the discipline and humility needed to develop inner strength and make needed changes, he can benefit greatly from these challenges.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> I think those echo chambers can make it worse.
> 
> Think about KKK rallies, neo-Nazi groups, militias. Those ideas are not healthy. Those people are trying to reassure themselves in a world that they don't understand or just cannot accept.
> 
> We will not solve the problem by just shutting those groups down, though. We have to look at why these people are drawn to them, and offer healthy alternatives. There has been some good discussion of that here, but more is needed, I think.


JLD, while I appreciate your point, can we avoid yet again comparing AK or red pill stuff to Nazis?

Maybe it's just me, but I find that divisive.


----------



## Marduk

Lila said:


> And I'm being 100% honest with you.....my opinion, you're not the problem in your marriage. Take it for what it's worth.


Oh, I'm _a_ problem.

Trust me. I'm hard to live with. I get that.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Marduk...I am not asking to be schooled. I know what the research says. We are not monogamous at all, never have been, and trying to cram us into that box is a huge reason why people are unfaithful and all these hurt feelings happen.

Having said that though, many of us choose to be monogamous, and throwing around pretend science words like hypergamy is a way for men to put women down, period. There is no proof of it being a "thing". What you are describing in other cultures has nothing to do with science it has to do with conditioning and culture.

It should not be discussed at all if men want to be taken seriously on these topics.

Just as women won't get far or taken seriously if we start going on about how "all men are pigs". I personally get irritated when women say things like that and stand up against it...I do the same when men talk about hypergamy. I can't take any man seriously who takes hypergamy seriously. I don't expect men to take women seriously who say things like "all men are pigs".


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> JLD, while I appreciate your point, can we avoid yet again comparing AK or red pill stuff to Nazis?
> 
> Maybe it's just me, but I find that divisive.


I was trying to find a larger example of echo chambers, to illustrate the harm they can bring.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> Anon is not a victim. His marital difficulties are actually an opportunity for him to address some weaknesses in himself.
> 
> To the extent that he is taking a hard, honest look at himself, and exercising the discipline and humility needed to develop inner strength and make needed changes, he can benefit greatly from these challenges.


I never said he was.

In fact, I've been one of the ones on him about that.

That's pretty unfair, JLD. I'm respecting his journey.


----------



## UMP

marduk said:


> Oh, I'm _a_ problem.
> 
> Trust me. I'm hard to live with. I get that.


What exactly IS your problem, specifically, in your opinion?


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Marduk...I am not asking to be schooled. I know what the research says. We are not monogamous at all, never have been, and trying to cram us into that box is a huge reason why people are unfaithful and all these hurt feelings happen.
> 
> Having said that though, many of us choose to be monogamous, and throwing around pretend science words like hypergamy is a way for men to put women down, period. There is no proof of it being a "thing". What you are describing in other cultures has nothing to do with science it has to do with conditioning and culture.
> 
> It should not be discussed at all if men want to be taken seriously on these topics.
> 
> Just as women won't get far or taken seriously if we start going on about how "all men are pigs". I personally get irritated when women say things like that and stand up against it...I do the same when men talk about hypergamy. I can't take any man seriously who takes hypergamy seriously. I don't expect men to take women seriously who say things like "all men are pigs".


That's what I was trying to say... that the red pill guys have perhaps latched onto a pre-industrial cultural artefact and labelled it as biology. And even if there is a biological component, it's going to be swamped over by cultural norms about that.

Not sure why we're disagreeing.


----------



## Marduk

UMP said:


> What exactly IS your problem, specifically, in your opinion?


Ask JLD.


----------



## naiveonedave

thanks for the clarification, that is kinda what I thought, but wanted to be sure. I agree, sometimes different strokes for different folks.


----------



## Anon1111

Both maturity and sexiness are important. They're not mutually exclusive ideas. In fact, they're different manifestations of the same idea. 

My marriage sucked and now it is improving a lot.

Why is that happening? Here is what has changed (in order)

1. I prioritized family over money

2. I took my physical fitness to the next level

3. I stopped focusing so much on my victim feelings

4. I started focusing more on what I could do that was positive

5. I started to be present more mentally, which had the effect of shutting off the resentment train of thought and forestalling the anxiety spiral regarding how things might not work as I hope

6. I started to be less afraid of being me, saying what I think and dealing with the consequences of that. The precursor to this one was that I believe my values, needs and capacity for giving are solid so I do not think I have anything to hide or be ashamed of.

7. I started not getting as upset when my wife does not respond in the way I hope because I am not as invested in what she thinks of me. I am much cooler with myself so I don't need her validation or interest as a crutch.

I feel great and other guys can do this too.


----------



## naiveonedave

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Just because you look past the abusive parts doesn't mean they aren't there.
> 
> Physical attractiveness, domestic support with the kids, better communication (no whining) - all these things could have been taught to you in other ways. These are all her needs you weren't meeting for her.
> 
> Men are not being raised to believe that an out of shape guy who whines and doesn't disapline his kids is hot.
> Don't blame that on feminist Mothers and don't say that in order to stop doing these things you need to look at women in a derogatory way.


No, but they are taught that being nice gets your needs met, which is blatantly NOT true.

If you have boys, you will understand why there is some backlash against feminism.


----------



## Icey181

marduk said:


> I didn't say it was proof of anything, you had asked for information about it and I provided it.
> 
> Personally I think it's a pre-feminist artefact that is rapidly degrading in relevance; sure, 100 years ago it may have made economic sense to land a rich guy, but these days it's almost as easy for a woman to make money as a man, and you hear all kinds of deadbeat husbands that sue their wives for alimony.
> 
> At the end of the day I think it suits both men and women alike to find their best mate they think is possible, and what "best" means is really subjective (and yet falls on trend lines) and changes throughout a person's life.


Pretty much this.

Hypergamy is declining rapidly in a number of areas in American society. Some of that has to do with 1st and 2nd Wave Feminist accomplishments and quite a bit more of it has to do with advancing economic realities in a post-industrial society.

Whether or not FW likes the idea of hypergamy, it has been a real and ever-present reality in American culture from about 1610-2007.

And on that point I am speaking as a professional historian who has engaged in Social, Cultural, and Quantitative historical research pertaining to the characteristics of American families. (In my case, primarily as a way to engage with the development of Political Patronage in the Late Colonial Period and engage with Women's political agency in the Early Republic.)

The big change is education.

This is the first time in American history that women are succeeding across the board at rates higher than men. I think in the long run this is going to occasion a few things: 
1) Significant Decline in Financial Hypergamy
2) Ratcheting Effect that starts to refocus on Male education
3) More Assortive/hypogamy based marriages showing up


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Bugged said:


> After spending time on this forum, reading 3ds and books I ve come to the conclusion that
> 
> *marriage is evil.*


lol... well almost

it "reveals" it in the persons married


----------



## NobodySpecial

marduk said:


> Oh, OK, I get it. First cup of coffee, noggin is still warming up.
> 
> I don't want another wife because even through everything we've been through, I'm still head over heels *in love with her*, and *in awe of her.*
> 
> Even when I can't stand her.


Those don't seem very compatible to me. Pills aside, in the final analysis it ALWAYS comes down to the two people in the relationship. Not "men" and "women".

Does your wife love you?


----------



## naiveonedave

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I get locker room talk. I have all brothers and their friends, step-dad and his friends. My H and his trucker mouthed family.
> 
> Some of them talk badly about women, some of them don't have to. Guess which ones get the girl?


My guess is the raunchy ones, because that is my experience....


----------



## jld

I think my marriage is probably the best thing that ever happened to me, Bugged. I don't know where I would be without my husband.


----------



## naiveonedave

jld said:


> I think it is because we are all coming from different places, with different concerns.
> 
> I want women to be safe from people like Elliot Rodgers. Though, it was men he ended up killing, so men are not safe with these pua ideas, either.


I don't see it, but that may not be my reality. I know my sons are struggling the same way I was at their age. Only getting friendzoned or having to settle for less in total package of a GF. they need to start getting some of the stuff from RP, obviously not the hate, but how the real world really works.


----------



## jld

naiveonedave said:


> I don't see it, but that may not be my reality. I know my sons are struggling the same way I was at their age. Only getting friendzoned or having to settle for less in total package of a GF. they need to start getting some of the stuff from RP, obviously not the hate, but how the real world really works.


How old are your boys?


----------



## Icey181

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Men are not being raised to believe that an out of shape guy who whines and doesn't disapline his kids is hot.


Actually, they kind of are.

Men, especially less attractive, socially awkward, and intelligent men, are told repeatedly to simply be themselves and that they will find "the right one" by doing this.

Men are also told that they need to be feminized within the realm of domestic duties; we need to be cleaning the dishes, cleaning the floors, and when it comes to child-discipline we need to approach it in a feminized way and have conversations and time outs and negotiations with our kids.

Find me a solid body of advice that tells men:
1) Traditional Masculinity is both valuable and attractive
2) Physical Fitness must be a priority
3) Sociability and Confidence become more important in a LTR, not less
4) Men need to be clear with their desires and needs and comfortable demanding them
5) Men need to focus on more traditionally masculine domestic duties
6) Men need to be disciplinarians with children and not "friends" more often
7) Sex is an important component in a relationship and it is ok to desire it more frequently

And I for one would totally use it and recommend it.



SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Don't blame that on feminist Mothers and don't say that in order to stop doing these things you need to look at women in a derogatory way.


Feminists in the 90s and today have a good deal of blame to share.

When you bombard children from age 5 and on that girls are special, that masculinity is dangerous, and then send them off to college to deal with the ever present narratives of All Men Are Rapists, Male Sexuality is Dangerous, Women are victimized by men and need to be protected from them especially on College Campuses, etc etc 

What do you expect you are going to produce?

Feminist social messaging has not been about "equality" in a long, long time.


----------



## john117

NobodySpecial said:


> Is it odd that you pulled a John and did not answer the question? Probably not.



John answers questions but people generally have to be willing to read the answers


----------



## naiveonedave

jld said:


> How old are your boys?


teenagers still in high school. they are both in the top 5% of their class in grades, probably the best male athletes in their grades and yet, the HS equivalent of biker dudes are getting the better looking GFs. Just the same as when I went to school, except I am relatively smarter and less athletic


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

marduk said:


> Oh, I see that. Perhaps you've not seen my comments to him about exactly that.
> 
> My point is don't take a run at the guy by saying everything is love. Because he hasn't been getting much of that.


The love, like the sex, is going to take just as much time and work to rebuild. Once those needs have been unmet for so long, you close the door and put up your guards. 
So just giving love isn't the cure. It's the _start _and with work you slowly build back trust and love, for the both of them, and you make some progress (progress being a healthy relationship that will naturally regain sex, not just getting laid).



And I'm sorry if I missed your posts. I couldn't read too much of that thread because it annoyed me when people started calling her BPD and NPD.


----------



## UMP

Icey181 said:


> When you bombard children from age 5 and on that girls are special, that masculinity is dangerous, and then send them off to college to deal with the ever present narratives of All Men Are Rapists, Male Sexuality is Dangerous, Women are victimized by men and need to be protected from them especially on College Campuses, etc etc


Then why is my nephew, a junior in college, getting laid on almost a daily basis by a load of different women? Why, as he tells it, college women are handing out BJ's as if they were tic tacs?


----------



## Faithful Wife

jld said:


> I think my marriage is probably the best thing that ever happened to me, Bugged. I don't know where I would be without my husband.


Me too...and TAM makes me value him even more. I am always startled at the lack of love and intimacy talked about by some of the guys, yet then they don't know why there isn't enough sex, which seems to be their only goal.

Granted, a LOT of TAM men are not like this and clearly love and value their wives.

But the ones who just want a pill to make their wife "give them sex" just make me shudder.


----------



## Lila

naiveonedave said:


> I don't see it, but that may not be my reality. I know my sons are struggling the same way I was at their age. Only getting friendzoned or *having to settle for less in total package of a GF.* they need to start getting some of the stuff from RP, obviously not the hate, but how the real world really works.


And this is where the rubber meets the road. This is why Red Pill doesn't work long term especially when it comes to finding a long term partner. It's not about finding a mutually compatible person who shares many of the same interests, values, and morals. Nope, it's about finding the hottie. Who cares if her interests, values, and morals line up....she's hot!. {sigh}

I have a son and I would NEVER tell him to change who he is simply to 'bag' the hottie. That road leads to failed relationships.


----------



## jld

naiveonedave said:


> teenagers still in high school


Why are you worried about friend zoning or "less of a total package"? 

Maybe I just don't understand your goals for your kids?


----------



## john117

UMP said:


> Then why is my nephew, a junior in college, getting laid on almost a daily basis by a load of different women? Why, as he tells it, college women are handing out BJ's as if they were tic tacs?



Observer bias.

I have two girls in college and while a lot of kids see it as such, most don't.

Percentage depends on school - my younger girl is at a premier party school


----------



## Faithful Wife

UMP said:


> Then why is my nephew, a junior in college, getting laid on almost a daily basis by a load of different women? Why, as he tells it, college women are handing out BJ's as if they were tic tacs?


This would be my adult son, too.

And even though there is plenty of casual sex available, he has a really great girlfriend he adores. Because casual sex is only fun for a little while, eventually people want to couple up. THAT is what is natural and normal. (Doesn't mean they will couple up forever, though.) 

Hearing all the stories about how sad young men can't get laid is supposed to make feminists feel bad for how they've p*ssified these young men? Gimme a break.


----------



## naiveonedave

UMP said:


> Then why is my nephew, a junior in college, getting laid on almost a daily basis by a load of different women? Why, as he tells it, college women are handing out BJ's as if they were tic tacs?


different problem: Hook up culture, not minimal sex monogamy


----------



## Pluto2

Icey181 said:


> Actually, they kind of are.
> 
> Men, especially less attractive, socially awkward, and intelligent men, are told repeatedly to simply be themselves and that they will find "the right one" by doing this.
> 
> Men are also told that they need to be feminized within the realm of domestic duties; we need to be cleaning the dishes, cleaning the floors, and when it comes to child-discipline we need to approach it in a feminized way and have conversations and time outs and negotiations with our kids.
> 
> Find me a solid body of advice that tells men:
> 1) Traditional Masculinity is both valuable and attractive
> 2) Physical Fitness must be a priority
> 3) Sociability and Confidence become more important in a LTR, not less
> 4) Men need to be clear with their desires and needs and comfortable demanding them
> 5) Men need to focus on more traditionally masculine domestic duties
> 6) Men need to be disciplinarians with children and not "friends" more often
> 7) Sex is an important component in a relationship and it is ok to desire it more frequently
> 
> And I for one would totally use it and recommend it.
> 
> 
> Feminists in the 90s and today have a good deal of blame to share.
> 
> When you bombard children from age 5 and on that girls are special, that masculinity is dangerous, and then send them off to college to deal with the ever present narratives of All Men Are Rapists, Male Sexuality is Dangerous, Women are victimized by men and need to be protected from them especially on College Campuses, etc etc
> 
> What do you expect you are going to produce?
> 
> Feminist social messaging has not been about "equality" in a long, long time.


If that is truly how you see feminism in this country, then I urge you to expand your current horizons some.
Feminism is only about equality. It doesn't teach that women are special or above men, only that women are not below men in ability or importance.

And you had to bring up college rape as one of the "problems of feminism". Sorry, but it happens. Men aren't being victimized because women have the courage to report sexual assault in greater numbers.


----------



## naiveonedave

jld said:


> Why are you worried about friend zoning or "less of a total package"?
> 
> Maybe I just don't understand your goals for your kids?


I see they are frustrated. I don't really have goals for them, I see them clearly as having the same issues I had at that age and Devils discussed pages back.

being Friendzoned is worse than prison. You think you are 'finally getting the girl', only to be shot down if you ask her out.

Like any parent, I want the best for my sons. I don't want them to have GF who treat them like crap or expect the impossible. Which is incredibly common now..... Just look at what a boy is supposed to do to ask a girl to prom, more drama than a marriage proposal.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

FrenchFry said:


> If this is how my husband truely needed his marriage to be, I would hope that he would have had the good graces to let me go peacefully and graciously.


One could very well say the same thing about the wife that renders the marriage sexless in the first place.


----------



## naiveonedave

Pluto2 said:


> If that is truly how you see feminism in this country, then I urge you to expand your current horizons some.
> Feminism is only about equality. It doesn't teach that women are special or above men, only that women are not below men in ability or importance.
> 
> And you had to bring up college rape as one of the "problems of feminism". Sorry, but it happens. Men aren't being victimized because women have the courage to report sexual assault in greater numbers.


BS. Feminism hasn't been about equality in 20 years. 

BS on the rape thing to. Not going to drag this thread into it, but just think Duke Lacross. Nuf said.


----------



## Icey181

UMP said:


> Then why is my nephew, a junior in college, getting laid on almost a daily basis by a load of different women? Why, as he tells it, college women are handing out BJ's as if they were tic tacs?


Because, apparently, he is successful with women. Either he is a natural at this or had a solid role model to follow.

And I would be interested to hear:
1) What he does in College
2) What the Gender imbalance is like on his campus

But this gets back to basics.

The men who have access to casual sex and/or the women who see these men cannot fathom, for some reason, that this is not, in fact, the norm for men in College.

Enough studies have been done demonstrating that IQ is a high-level predictor of virginity and enough anecdotal evidence has piled in from across the internet and in my own experience to demonstrate that it does not work like that for most.

So good for you nephew. (Kind of…not a fan of the hook up culture myself).

But so what?

Do you really think shy, intelligent college guys are getting tons of casual sex and "BJs being handed out like tic tacs?"

Really?


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

naiveonedave said:


> My guess is the raunchy ones, because that is my experience....


Nope. Those are the always single guys who everyone just rolls their eyes at behind their backs, they are in their 40s and 50s now and seem to think that the reason women don't want them is because of the women. It's not. It's because of them. The idea of sleeping with a guy who says some of the things I have heard makes me gag. 

I've heard my H say some bad things, luckily never as bad as some of those guys but he grew up around it and some rubbed off on him. 
Now that he has a daughter he is getting better about curbing it and is a much better man in the long run for watching himself - and the women around him who he respects- before he says something stupid.


----------



## UMP

Faithful Wife said:


> Me too...and TAM makes me value him even more. I am always startled at the lack of love and intimacy talked about by some of the guys, yet then they don't know why there isn't enough sex, which seems to be their only goal.
> 
> Granted, a LOT of TAM men are not like this and clearly love and value their wives.
> 
> But the ones who just want a pill to make their wife "give them sex" just make me shudder.


You have to understand the way a mans mind works. We are so goal oriented. We sometimes approach "getting more sex" the same way an engineer might approach getting more horsepower from an engine. We look at all the parts and examine them, thinking what part can I change to get more of what I want.

The intent is OK, but the method is wrong or at least skewed. I took the red pill big time and I really do think it helped to some degree. However, the bottom line for me was to simply be nice to my wife, hold my negative emotions in check and really LEARN how to make love to my wife. LEARN to really listen to my wifes off the wall (for me) emotional thought process and really TRY to understand and interact with that. It's almost as if I had to (in a way) become more feminine in order to get her to expose her own femininity toward me with sex. (that would be COMPLETELY anti red pill, but it worked for me)


----------



## NobodySpecial

naiveonedave said:


> I see they are frustrated. I don't really have goals for them, I see them clearly as having the same issues I had at that age and Devils discussed pages back.
> 
> *being Friendzoned* is worse than prison. You think you are 'finally getting the girl', only to be shot down if you ask her out.


This makes me so freaking mad I want to spit. "Being friendzoned" basically says that one is owed something else. The person in question has every right to the judgement of their own. This is not an act of hate perpetrated on your precious little snowflake.

To my daughter, I say, you have a whole lot more to fear from some Nice Guy who thinks you owe him something because he was nice to you, talked to you, sat with you than you do from any other male creature out there save the truly messed in the head. Who thinks you perpetrated an act of hate on him by not fvcking him because he was so nice to you. That is not MMSLP that you people SAY you are advocating. That is insecurity. That is the opposite of confidence. That is just stupid games.

To my daughter, I say, seek boys who don't have voids to fill and such small metaphoric penises that they need to dandle a "dime" on their arm, or in their bed, to feel good about themselves. You will learn over time when to know when they are listening to and talking WITH YOU vs just playing some stupid game to get the dime I am strongly suspecting you will grow up to be.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

jld said:


> Why are you worried about friend zoning or "less of a total package"?
> 
> Maybe I just don't understand your goals for your kids?


:iagree:
My goal for my son is to find someone who is compatible with him and to be a good and respectful husband and man. 

There will be women who aren't right in him, for whatever reason, and it's completely fine. Just keep going until you found one that is.


----------



## jld

naiveonedave said:


> I see they are frustrated. I don't really have goals for them, I see them clearly as having the same issues I had at that age and Devils discussed pages back.
> 
> being Friendzoned is worse than prison. You think you are 'finally getting the girl', only to be shot down if you ask her out.
> 
> Like any parent, I want the best for my sons. I don't want them to have GF who treat them like crap or expect the impossible. Which is incredibly common now..... Just look at what a boy is supposed to do to ask a girl to prom, more drama than a marriage proposal.


Prom is pretty ridiculous, I agree. A reflection of a society with too much money and the wrong values, I think.

I would reread Lila's post if I were you. 

I think the healthy thing right now is to encourage your boys to develop their interests. It is great they are good students. They could develop themselves in other ways, too. 

They should not be learning to get feelings of self worth from girls. It should come from themselves. And getting it from real accomplishments, like learning real skills, would be satisfying and affirming, and keeps them in control of how they feel about themselves.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> Dr. Nerdlove had a great article about this:
> 
> Leveling Up: Developing An Abundance Mentality


Just an FYI, the earliest expressions of abundance mentality originate with PUA.


----------



## Brigit

naiveonedave said:


> I want to know why you think that negotiating would have gotten me more sex? this is a commonly held belief by women that, as near as I can see, never works. Instead, you continue your attack on what actually worked.


FW has quoted enough revolting passages on this thread and I've stated my opinion regarding said passages several times. I'm not going to repeat myself.


----------



## NobodySpecial

jld said:


> They should not be learning to get feelings of self worth from girls. It should come *from themselves*. And getting it from real accomplishments, like learning real skills, would be satisfying and affirming, and keeps them in control of how they feel about themselves.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening Nobodyspecial
I almost completely agree. The only detail is that people should be careful not to imply a relationship is something that it is not, and to not take advantage so someone's romantic interests to extract favors.

Otherwise though I agree - there is nothing wrong with a friendship relationship with someone of the opposite sex. 




NobodySpecial said:


> This makes me so freaking mad I want to spit. "Being friendzoned" basically says that one is owed something else. The person in question has every right to the judgement of their own. This is not an act of hate perpetrated on your precious little snowflake.
> 
> To my daughter, I say, you have a whole lot more to fear from some Nice Guy who thinks you owe him something because he was nice to you, talked to you, sat with you than you do from any other male creature out there save the truly messed in the head. Who thinks you perpetrated an act of hate on him by not fvcking him because he was so nice to you. That is not MMSLP that you people SAY you are advocating. That is insecurity. That is the opposite of confidence. That is just stupid games.
> 
> To my daughter, I say, seek boys who don't have voids to fill and such small metaphoric penises that they need to dandle a "dime" on their arm, or in their bed, to feel good about themselves. You will learn over time when to know when they are listening to and talking WITH YOU vs just playing some stupid game to get the dime I am strongly suspecting you will grow up to be.


----------



## Icey181

Pluto2 said:


> If that is truly how you see feminism in this country, then I urge you to expand your current horizons some.
> Feminism is only about equality. It doesn't teach that women are special or above men, only that women are not below men in ability or importance.
> 
> And you had to bring up college rape as one of the "problems of feminism". Sorry, but it happens. Men aren't being victimized because women have the courage to report sexual assault in greater numbers.


1) I am going to go out on a limb here and argue that my knowledge of the successive Feminist movements of the 20th century is both more detailed and more coherent than your own. There are fundamental differences between each successive "wave" of reformers and the current post-modernist based 3rd Wave group has little if anything in common with their more moderate and honestly pro-equality predecessors.

2) 3rd Wave Feminism is predicated on the notion of an all encompassing patriarchy in which white, middle class, heterosexual men oppress women with their very eyes or by sitting too widely on the subway. 

3) No. Men are being victimized because 3rd Wave Feminists are outright lying about issues like College Rape (Which occurs at a rate _less than that of the general population_, for the record) in order to create an environment in which Men are held to a higher standard of personal conduct and responsibility and can have their entire lives torn to shreds because of a single accusation.

I cannot find the "equality" created by Feminists in their drives for "Enthusiastic Consent" wherein the man and not the woman is held accountable for all sexual contact.

I cannot find the "equality" in items such as the Deluth Model for dealing with domestic abuse.

I cannot find the "equality" in refusals to engage with men about sexual violence, _perpetrated by women_.

Etc etc.

3rd Wave Feminism is so off the damn rails that it has caricatured itself. Intersectionality issues which cropped up in the 2nd Wave are _worse_ today because the movement has morphed into little more than a White-Women's Power movement.

Fun Anecdote:

This semester, when my class hit 2nd Wave Feminism, I broke my class into smaller groups to discuss what was essentially the fragmentation of the women's movement and the first major intersectionality crisis in the 1970s.

I actually over-heard a fun conversation in which a group dominated by my A-Students went like this:
Girl: So, are you a feminist?
Guy: I thought so. But not really anymore.
Girl: Why not? Isn't that kind of dumb?
Guy: Well, after I looked online to learn more about this, I found that a lot of what they say seems to be attacking men. It does not even seem like they want men to be feminists. They just blame all men for their issues…

This came from one of my most progressively left-wing young men I have in class.

The reason why self-identification as a Feminist is restrained to Middle-class and College educated white women is because the 3rd Wave is not what Feminism once was.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Icey181 said:


> Actually, they kind of are.
> 
> Men, especially less attractive, socially awkward, and intelligent men, are told repeatedly to simply be themselves and that they will find "the right one" by doing this.
> 
> Men are also told that they need to be feminized within the realm of domestic duties; we need to be cleaning the dishes, cleaning the floors, and when it comes to child-discipline we need to approach it in a feminized way and have conversations and time outs and negotiations with our kids.
> 
> Find me a solid body of advice that tells men:
> 1) Traditional Masculinity is both valuable and attractive
> 2) Physical Fitness must be a priority
> 3) Sociability and Confidence become more important in a LTR, not less
> 4) Men need to be clear with their desires and needs and comfortable demanding them
> 5) Men need to focus on more traditionally masculine domestic duties
> 6) Men need to be disciplinarians with children and not "friends" more often
> 7) Sex is an important component in a relationship and it is ok to desire it more frequently
> 
> And I for one would totally use it and recommend it.
> 
> 
> Feminists in the 90s and today have a good deal of blame to share.
> 
> When you bombard children from age 5 and on that girls are special, that masculinity is dangerous, and then send them off to college to deal with the ever present narratives of All Men Are Rapists, Male Sexuality is Dangerous, Women are victimized by men and need to be protected from them especially on College Campuses, etc etc
> 
> What do you expect you are going to produce?
> 
> Feminist social messaging has not been about "equality" in a long, long time.


My mothers repeated message was never rely on a man. And though I appreciate the financial strength I have today it instilled a deep distrust of men in me that does not always bear out in reality. Many times I think my H has ulterior motives when he doesn't and it hurts him. So while her intentions were to protect me the WAY she did it really caused some damaging issues.


----------



## NobodySpecial

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening Nobodyspecial
> I almost completely agree. The only detail is that people should be careful not to imply a relationship is something that it is not, and to not take advantage so someone's romantic interests to extract favors.


Ugh here we go again. Let's have an argument precipitated on how nothing a man can ever do can ever be bad because women are so much worse. What you are saying is so obvious that mentioning it is a red herring in this thread.



> Otherwise though I agree - there is nothing wrong with a friendship relationship with someone of the opposite sex.


Which is not what "being friendzoned" is.


----------



## Brigit

marduk said:


> I don't know, though. I have to challenge that.
> 
> I struggled to find anything that could help me when, to be frank, my wife was pretty happy with the way things were if I would just shut up about it.
> 
> Everything else kinda relied on her being interested in improving things.
> 
> It's a relative power thing. If one party is happy and invested in keeping things the way they are, and one party is unhappy and needs things to change, and the flow of power is essentiall from the unhappy party to the happy one...
> 
> The happy party is going to keep that train going as long as possible, right?


Nah.

There are plenty of decent books out there that could have taught you how to "Man-Up." I'm beginning to think the men who like this book have a sadistic streak in them and really like the abusive sh*t.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Nut shell version: The #1 most appealing and attractive character of a person, male or female, aside from the initial light up chemistry nonsense, is the confidence not to have a bunch of baggage tied up in validation, reassurance self esteem buttressing when a person is not whole in themselves. When people are whole in themselves, they don't to pretend to. People who aren't need books to show them how to pretend. Until they cannot keep up the front anymore.


----------



## jld

Brigit said:


> Nah.
> 
> There are plenty of decent books out there that could have taught you how to "Man-Up." I'm beginning to think the men who like this book have a sadistic streak in them and really like the abusive sh*t.


I think it appeals to men who have given their power to women instead of keeping it in themselves.


----------



## Brigit

marduk said:


> Insightful.
> 
> Battling that, myself.



...with you there may be hope Marduk.


----------



## Pluto2

Icey181 said:


> 1) I am going to go out on a limb here and argue that my knowledge of the successive Feminist movements of the 20th century is both more detailed and more coherent than your own. There are fundamental differences between each successive "wave" of reformers and the current post-modernist based 3rd Wave group has little if anything in common with their more moderate and honestly pro-equality predecessors.
> 
> 2) 3rd Wave Feminism is predicated on the notion of an all encompassing patriarchy in which white, middle class, heterosexual men oppress women with their very eyes or by sitting too widely on the subway.
> 
> 3) No. Men are being victimized because 3rd Wave Feminists are outright lying about issues like College Rape (Which occurs at a rate _less than that of the general population_, for the record) in order to create an environment in which Men are held to a higher standard of personal conduct and responsibility and can have their entire lives torn to shreds because of a single accusation.
> 
> I cannot find the "equality" created by Feminists in their drives for "Enthusiastic Consent" wherein the man and not the woman is held accountable for all sexual contact.
> 
> I cannot find the "equality" in items such as the Deluth Model for dealing with domestic abuse.
> 
> I cannot find the "equality" in refusals to engage with men about sexual violence, _perpetrated by women_.
> 
> Etc etc.
> 
> 3rd Wave Feminism is so off the damn rails that it has caricatured itself. Intersectionality issues which cropped up in the 2nd Wave are _worse_ today because the movement has morphed into little more than a White-Women's Power movement.
> 
> Fun Anecdote:
> 
> This semester, when my class hit 2nd Wave Feminism, I broke my class into smaller groups to discuss what was essentially the fragmentation of the women's movement and the first major intersectionality crisis in the 1970s.
> 
> I actually over-heard a fun conversation in which a group dominated by my A-Students went like this:
> Girl: So, are you a feminist?
> Guy: I thought so. But not really anymore.
> Girl: Why not? Isn't that kind of dumb?
> Guy: Well, after I looked online to learn more about this, I found that a lot of what they say seems to be attacking men. It does not even seem like they want men to be feminists. They just blame all men for their issues…
> 
> This came from one of my most progressively left-wing young men I have in class.
> 
> The reason why self-identification as a Feminist is restrained to Middle-class and College educated white women is because the 3rd Wave is not what Feminism once was.



You have no idea of my training, or areas of expertise, you merely assume you know more.

I stand by my assessment.


----------



## naiveonedave

NobodySpecial said:


> This makes me so freaking mad I want to spit. "Being friendzoned" basically says that one is owed something else. The person in question has every right to the judgement of their own. This is not an act of hate perpetrated on your precious little snowflake.
> 
> To my daughter, I say, you have a whole lot more to fear from some Nice Guy who thinks you owe him something because he was nice to you, talked to you, sat with you than you do from any other male creature out there save the truly messed in the head. Who thinks you perpetrated an act of hate on him by not fvcking him because he was so nice to you. That is not MMSLP that you people SAY you are advocating. That is insecurity. That is the opposite of confidence. That is just stupid games.
> 
> To my daughter, I say, seek boys who don't have voids to fill and such small metaphoric penises that they need to dandle a "dime" on their arm, or in their bed, to feel good about themselves. You will learn over time when to know when they are listening to and talking WITH YOU vs just playing some stupid game to get the dime I am strongly suspecting you will grow up to be.


bs - friendzoned - I will only let you orbit me until I decide you are not worth it. It is essentially being in a permanent plan B mode. People who friend zone are princesses who feel their cr*p don't stink (or in reality, have been told that their whole lives).

They are not owed anything, never said they were.


----------



## naiveonedave

jld said:


> They should not be learning to get feelings of self worth from girls. It should come from themselves. And getting it from real accomplishments, like learning real skills, would be satisfying and affirming, and keeps them in control of how they feel about themselves.


I don't disagree, but this little thing called peer pressure.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> It is really funny how I have some red pill dudes telling me I am full of crap myself, have nothing relevant to say, etc....and then other red pill dudes telling me that my husband is totally straight up red pill....


Because you don't realize that most of the traits you claim of your husband are advocated by RP. The few that aren't, are actually beta qualities that serve more as relationship glue than sexually attractive qualities.

You rail against it, and then describe how much you love many of the same traits in your husband.

About the only difference is your sense that he respects you or is emotionally intimate. Which is great, but not a qualities that revs up the sex drive, which every guy who has gone the nice guy route before finding things like RP knows all too well.


----------



## Icey181

NobodySpecial said:


> Ugh here we go again. Let's have an argument precipitated on how nothing a man can ever do can ever be bad because women are so much worse. What you are saying is so obvious that mentioning it is a red herring in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is not what "being friendzoned" is.


Where did Sharpe state men are perfect? I missed that?

Friend-Zoning, as I understand it, is when a women understands that a man is romantically interested, has no desire to reciprocate that interest, but instead of making that clear and rejecting him, uses said interest to extract more and more from him.

This usually results in the guy being her emotional outlet and personal financial support, while he goes into the Covert Contract mode of assuming this is going to result in a relationship.

Of course men in these situations feel like they are "owed" (not really the right connotation, I think) a relationship. They have put in the effort that they were told creates one and the women tend to respond with everything but full on romantic engagement.

I think it would be better if men were taught that women are in fact not wonderful snowflakes, will take advantage of you if you let them, and that no women who would string you along is worth your time.

Same goes for women in the opposite direction.


----------



## NobodySpecial

naiveonedave said:


> bs - friendzoned - I will only let you orbit me until I decide you are not worth it. It is essentially being in a permanent plan B mode. People who friend zone are princesses who feel their cr*p don't stink (or in reality, have been told that their whole lives).
> 
> They are not owed anything, never said they were.


No I said YOU THINK your precious little boys were owed hate and anger at the girls, who incidentally are no older or more mature that your precious snowflakes, because they wanted to be friends rather than boink your sons.

Someone or something help you if you have daughters.


----------



## jld

Blossom Leigh said:


> My mothers repeated message was never rely on a man. And though I appreciate the financial strength I have today it instilled a deep distrust of men in me that does not always bear out in reality. Many times I think my H has ulterior motives when he doesn't and it hurts him. So while her intentions were to protect me the WAY she did it really caused some damaging issues.


My mother did not trust men in general, but she did rely on my dad for money.

When I accuse Dug of things that are not true, he does not take it personally. He just explains why it is not true. And sometimes he smiles at my insecurity.


----------



## samyeagar

NobodySpecial said:


> This makes me so freaking mad I want to spit. "Being friendzoned" basically says that one is owed something else. The person in question has every right to the judgement of their own. This is not an act of hate perpetrated on your precious little snowflake.
> 
> To my daughter, I say, you have a whole lot more to fear from some Nice Guy who thinks you owe him something because he was nice to you, talked to you, sat with you than you do from any other male creature out there save the truly messed in the head. Who thinks you perpetrated an act of hate on him by not fvcking him because he was so nice to you. That is not MMSLP that you people SAY you are advocating. That is insecurity. That is the opposite of confidence. That is just stupid games.
> 
> To my daughter, I say, seek boys who don't have voids to fill and such small metaphoric penises that they need to dandle a "dime" on their arm, or in their bed, to feel good about themselves. You will learn over time when to know when they are listening to and talking WITH YOU vs just playing some stupid game to get the dime I am strongly suspecting you will grow up to be.


The daughters also need to be taught that they should not use the nice guys, the one who listen, care, the ones who are "Friend Zoned" as their personal counselors for dealing with their boyfriends, the ones they ARE banging, who treat them like crap, and are gaming them. They need to be taught good relationship skills which include dealing directly with the guy who they are having issues with. They need to be taught the strength to walk away from those relationships, and not return to them. They need to be taught that being some guy's "dime" is not a good thing.


----------



## Icey181

Pluto2 said:


> You have no idea of my training, or areas of expertise, you merely assume you know more.
> 
> I stand by my assessment.


I hold graduate degrees in American history and have taught these specific course-materials for the last 10-years at both the High School and College level.

Unless you can demonstrate otherwise, I am going to assume superior professional training in this regard belongs to me.


----------



## tech-novelist

Icey181 said:


> Out of complete curiosity, what does this even mean?
> 
> Because that "RP rock" as you put it requires you to accept responsibility from the get-go.
> 
> And how does one be a "good man" in this estimation?
> 
> 
> So…abundance mentality as well?
> 
> You do realize that your entire relationship looks like crib notes from a Red Pill blog, yes?
> 
> Seriously.
> 
> I understand that you think Red Pill people are all drooling, knuckle-dragging idiots who spout off anti-Women hatred every other word…
> 
> The reality, is that they are not.
> 
> When successful, they look like your husband.
> 
> And I mean _exactly like your husband_.


And that is precisely why she is against the Red Pill. Imagine the horror if someone who wasn't exactly like her husband seemed to her exactly like her husband: He might really be an icky beta rather than the studly alpha she wants!


----------



## naiveonedave

NobodySpecial said:


> No I said YOU THINK your precious little boys were owed hate and anger at the girls, who incidentally are no older or more mature that your precious snowflakes, because they wanted to be friends rather than boink your sons.
> 
> Someone or something help you if you have daughters.


whatever. You need to read better. and stop with girls are perfect boys suck A$$ crap, it is not helpful at all. No one said my boys were perfect, but I do know what friendzoning is and it is an incredible selfish and cruel tactic women and girls use to use boys they have no interest in.


----------



## Lila

naiveonedave said:


> bs - friendzoned - I will only let you orbit me until I decide you are not worth it. It is essentially being in a permanent plan B mode. *People who friend zone are princesses who feel their cr*p don't stink* (or in reality, have been told that their whole lives).
> 
> They are not owed anything, never said they were.


Dave, I don't understand you. On one hand you say that your boys are not attracting the hottie gfs you think they deserve yet on the other hand, you criticize the hottie girls for feeling that their crap don't stink. Why would you want your sons to date these kinds of girls? They are entitled princesses. Wouldn't it be better to encourage them to drop the friendzone princesses and find someone who actually appreciate them for who they are?


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

naiveonedave said:


> bs - friendzoned - I will only let you orbit me until I decide you are not worth it. It is essentially being in a permanent plan B mode. People who friend zone are princesses who feel their cr*p don't stink (or in reality, have been told that their whole lives).
> 
> They are not owed anything, never said they were.


1. So why "orbit" around a woman who doesn't want you if you are only interested in having sex with her?
2. Why do you want to have sex with a princess who feels their crap doesn't stink anyway?

Just because someone "orbits" around you and is nice, doesn't mean you owe him sex. If he doesn't do it for her - for whatever reason- she shouldn't have sex with him. If he wants to stick around and keep trying, knowing he won't be satisfied without her sleeping with him, that's his problem, not hers.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Nut shell version: People need to learn not to be mean and use other people. Have real, genuine confidence in your esteem so you don't have to make **** up. And then you always know that if someone is with you that they really like you. Which doesn't suck much.

This **** isn't hard.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Lila said:


> Dave, I don't understand you. On one hand you say that your boys are not attracting the hottie gfs you think they deserve yet on the other hand, you criticize the hottie girls for feeling that their crap don't stink. Why would you want your sons to date these kinds of girls? They are entitled princesses. Wouldn't it be better to encourage them to drop the friendzone princesses and find someone who actually appreciate them for who they are?


He is still, and forever will be, in the anger phase himself.


----------



## Icey181

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> 1. So why "orbit" around a woman who doesn't want you if you are only interested in having sex with her?
> 2. Why do you want to have sex with a princess who feels their crap doesn't stink anyway?
> 
> Just because someone "orbits" around you and is nice, doesn't mean you owe him sex. If he doesn't do it for her - for whatever reason- she shouldn't have sex with him. If he wants to stick around and keep trying, knowing he won't be satisfied without her sleeping with him, that's his problem, not hers.


I find it interesting that you cannot see your own prejudice here.


----------



## jld

naiveonedave said:


> whatever. You need to read better. and stop with girls are perfect boys suck A$$ crap, it is not helpful at all. No one said my boys were perfect, but I do know what friendzoning is and *it is an incredible selfish and cruel tactic women and girls use to use boys they have no interest in.*


Dave, do you see how you are giving away your and your boys' power there? That is the thing that "naturals" don't do.

I know peer pressure is tough. We all face it every day. Resisting it, and making decisions based on solid values, will bring peace of mind.

Your boys are not forced to orbit those girls any more than I am forced to post on TAM every day. I could make a different choice, and so could your boys.


----------



## Icey181

The presumption on the part of you women that these boys want nothing more than sex basically assumes that these boys stuck in the friend-zone are nothing more that walking-penises without emotion.

Sexism, pure and simple.

What friend-zoned men want is _relationships_.


----------



## john117

jld said:


> When I accuse Dug of things that are not true, he does not take it personally. He just explains why it is not true. And sometimes he smiles at my insecurity.



Why would you accuse him of things that are not true ?

And how does he react to things that are true?


----------



## NobodySpecial

jld said:


> Dave, do you see how you are giving away your and your boys' power there? That is the thing that "naturals" don't do.
> 
> I know peer pressure is tough. We all face it every day. Resisting it, and making decisions based on solid values, will bring peace of mind.
> 
> Your boys are not forced to orbit those girls any more than I am forced to post on TAM every day. I could make a different choice, and so could your boys.


I don't understand how boys should be protected from the evil girls who would "friendzone" but the girls are somehow expected to be able to tell the difference between an orbiter and someone who wants to be a friend?


----------



## Icey181

jld said:


> Dave, do you see how you are giving away your and your boys' power there? That is the thing that "naturals" don't do.
> 
> I know peer pressure is tough. We all face it every day. Resisting it, and making decisions based on solid values, will bring peace of mind.
> 
> Your boys are not forced to orbit those girls any more than I am forced to post on TAM every day. I could make a different choice, and so could your boys.


And that decision starts with letting the boys know that these women are indeed replaceable and that they owe it to their own self-worth to stop idolizing them and move on.


----------



## Marduk

NobodySpecial said:


> Those don't seem very compatible to me. Pills aside, in the final analysis it ALWAYS comes down to the two people in the relationship. Not "men" and "women".
> 
> Does your wife love you?


90-99% of the time very much yes.

10-1% of the time very much no.


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> Why would you accuse him of things that are not true ?
> 
> And how does he react to things that are true?


Because of my own insecurities.

He admits the truth. He is secure enough to do that.

I wish I could think of some examples. I know that would be helpful.


----------



## Icey181

NobodySpecial said:


> I don't understand how boys should be protected from the evil girls who would "friendzone" but the girls are somehow expected to be able to tell the difference between an orbiter and someone who wants to be a friend?


Well, if the boys are supposed to be self-aware enough to know the women are not interested, why should we not hold the girls accountable to be self-aware enough to know that these boys are?


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Me too...and TAM makes me value him even more. I am always startled at the lack of love and intimacy talked about by some of the guys, yet then they don't know why there isn't enough sex, which seems to be their only goal.
> 
> Granted, a LOT of TAM men are not like this and clearly love and value their wives.
> 
> But the ones who just want a pill to make their wife "give them sex" just make me shudder.


Drowing people need air.

I've read that from HD wives, too. "Why won't my husband just have sex with me?"


----------



## naiveonedave

Lila said:


> Dave, I don't understand you. On one hand you say that your boys are not attracting the hottie gfs you think they deserve yet on the other hand, you criticize the hottie girls for feeling that their crap don't stink. Why would you want your sons to date these kinds of girls? They are entitled princesses. Wouldn't it be better to encourage them to drop the friendzone princesses and find someone who actually appreciate them for who they are?


Nope, you are missing on what I would like to happen.
1) they need to learn to not become 'friendzoned'
2) they need to bring out the positive masculine traits around girls
3) they need to not care (this is probably the hardest, due to peer pressure to date)

The context of this whole rant is that this generation, in my experience is probably worse off than my generation in how we taught boys about relationships. Has nothing to do with the results, but how they interact. You guys are focusing way too much on 'body count' and not enough on what is wrong with how we educate boys.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Icey181 said:


> The presumption on the part of you women that these boys want nothing more than sex basically assumes that these boys stuck in the friend-zone are nothing more that walking-penises without emotion.
> 
> Sexism, pure and simple.
> 
> What friend-zoned men want is *relationships*.


With whom. MY DAUGHTER (with her name, sense of humor, quirks)? Or a GIRL? A person, male or female, who wants a "relationship" with a device whose characteristic is opposite sex with other desirable features, be it hotness or social standing or money, or whatever, doesn't change the fact that they are seeking an OBJECT to supply their desire. 

The orbiter does not actually see the object of his orbiting. Or he would see that she is not interested. And move along until he found someone who was.


----------



## naiveonedave

NobodySpecial said:


> He is still, and forever will be, in the anger phase himself.


you could not be more wrong. I just am trying to get my sons from making the same mistakes that took me many years to overcome.


----------



## Marduk

UMP said:


> You have to understand the way a mans mind works. We are so goal oriented. We sometimes approach "getting more sex" the same way an engineer might approach getting more horsepower from an engine. We look at all the parts and examine them, thinking what part can I change to get more of what I want.
> 
> The intent is OK, but the method is wrong or at least skewed. I took the red pill big time and I really do think it helped to some degree. However, the bottom line for me was to simply be nice to my wife, hold my negative emotions in check and really LEARN how to make love to my wife. LEARN to really listen to my wifes off the wall (for me) emotional thought process and really TRY to understand and interact with that. It's almost as if I had to (in a way) become more feminine in order to get her to expose her own femininity toward me with sex. (that would be COMPLETELY anti red pill, but it worked for me)


Hee hee... that's exactly me.

I have to fight my self when I have a problem or my wife brings me one.

Assuming I agree it's a problem, they fit into natural buckets for me:

1. labour issue (i.e. how to get more work done - prioritize, add more, etc)
2. engineering problem (I know it's fixable given the structures I have)
3. science problem (I need to invent new models to make it an engineering problem)

I can see why that's frustrating, because most emotional problems to me fit in bucket 2 with some spillovers into the other ones.


----------



## NobodySpecial

naiveonedave said:


> Nope, you are missing on what I would like to happen.
> 1) they need to learn to not become 'friendzoned'
> 2) they need to bring out the positive masculine traits around girls
> 3) they need to not care (this is probably the hardest, due to peer pressure to date)


AFAIC protection against peer pressure is key against so many different things across the teenaged social spectrum. A genuine self esteem that is solid as a rock is important. Unfortunately by the time they are teenagers, it is hard to help them develop. The window of opportunity for parents to influence that is very small.


----------



## naiveonedave

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> 1. So why "orbit" around a woman who doesn't want you if you are only interested in having sex with her?
> 2. Why do you want to have sex with a princess who feels their crap doesn't stink anyway?
> 
> Just because someone "orbits" around you and is nice, doesn't mean you owe him sex. If he doesn't do it for her - for whatever reason- she shouldn't have sex with him. If he wants to stick around and keep trying, knowing he won't be satisfied without her sleeping with him, that's his problem, not hers.


because they have been taught to be that way, thanks, primarily to the unintended consequences of feminism.

No, you don't owe an orbiter sex, but you owe them common courtesy and honesty. That is the problem, the girls get emotional needs met, while at the same time destroying the emotions of said orbiters.


----------



## Lila

Icey181 said:


> The presumption on the part of you women that these boys want nothing more than sex basically assumes that these boys stuck in the friend-zone are nothing more that walking-penises without emotion.
> 
> Sexism, pure and simple.
> 
> *What friend-zoned men want is relationships*.


Then instead of trying to force it with women who have 'friend zoned' them, they should look for it with women who are mutually attracted to them....even if she isn't a swimsuit model, or h.s. cheerleader, or beauty queen pageant queen.

The funny thing with all of this friend zone talk is that women go through the same thing. We get passed up all of the time because of our looks or our shyness or for a million other reasons. It's life folks!


----------



## NobodySpecial

Icey181 said:


> And that decision starts with letting the boys know that these women are indeed replaceable and that they owe it to their own self-worth to stop idolizing them and move on.


There is a subtle difference here. Not "replaceable". After all an orbiter never had her to replace. Disinterested people are not important enough to pursue cuz I have bigger fish to fry.

It is no coincidence that they boys who have lots of social commitments with their wolf pack are the most sought after.


----------



## naiveonedave

jld said:


> Dave, do you see how you are giving away your and your boys' power there? That is the thing that "naturals" don't do.
> 
> I know peer pressure is tough. We all face it every day. Resisting it, and making decisions based on solid values, will bring peace of mind.
> 
> Your boys are not forced to orbit those girls any more than I am forced to post on TAM every day. I could make a different choice, and so could your boys.


Bingo, if you gals would actually listen to what I am trying to say or maybe I am not clear enough, we are 100% in agreement that being an orbiter is stupid. BUT WHY? Because boys were taught this is the way to get a date (which it isn't) and girls are taught to be princesses, so they don't see their behavior as wrong, either.


----------



## Icey181

NobodySpecial said:


> With whom. MY DAUGHTER (with her name, sense of humor, quirks)? Or a GIRL? A person, male or female, who wants a "relationship" with a device whose characteristic is opposite sex with other desirable features, be it hotness or social standing or money, or whatever, doesn't change the fact that they are seeking an OBJECT to supply their desire.
> 
> The orbiter does not actually see the object of his orbiting. Or he would see that she is not interested. And move along until he found someone who was.


Wow, you really have a low estimation of young men.

They really are all just sex-crazed misogynists who see women as objects in your world, aren't they?

Newsflash:
If a young man is willing to invest immense amounts of emotional effort into being a good friend, a support, a confidant, basically, a boy-friend, it is because something about this particular girl has created an intense emotional infatuation. 

Guys who chase after women just to have sex with them do not fall into the friend-zone, they tend to be the "plate spinners" who really do objectify women.

These "orbiters" are basically cases of unrequited love/infatuation.

They are interested in _the girl_ not a girl.


----------



## jld

NobodySpecial said:


> AFAIC protection against peer pressure is key against so many different things across the teenaged social spectrum. A genuine self esteem that is solid as a rock is important. Unfortunately by the time they are teenagers, it is hard to help them develop. The window of opportunity for parents to influence that is very small.


I think that there is always time to learn to become stronger in ourselves.


----------



## Marduk

Brigit said:


> Nah.
> 
> There are plenty of decent books out there that could have taught you how to "Man-Up." I'm beginning to think the men who like this book have a sadistic streak in them and really like the abusive sh*t.


No. 

Just no. 

And frankly I find your implication that I have a sadistic streak and like the abusive **** offensive.

I do, however, value honesty and bluntness.

Through a couple decades of martial arts I've learned that there are two kinds of compassion in this world: the kind that makes you feel better about yourself, and the kind that makes you stronger.

Everyone needs both. I was at a place where I needed the latter. For better or for worse, some of it's message gave me that.


----------



## naiveonedave

Lila said:


> Then instead of trying to force it with women who have 'friend zoned' them, they should look for it with women who are mutually attracted to them....even if she isn't a swimsuit model, or h.s. cheerleader, or beauty queen pageant queen.
> 
> The funny thing with all of this friend zone talk is that women go through the same thing. We get passed up all of the time because of our looks or our shyness or for a million other reasons. It's life folks!


thanks for the obvious, but you need to look at the cause of the issue, it is that boys are taught that doing the things that get you into orbit are the only ways to get dates, and the cycle continues. they just try harder at stuff that does not work. We are in so much agreement, it is not funny (except you may feel the causes are different).


----------



## Icey181

Lila said:


> Then instead of trying to force it with women who have 'friend zoned' them, they should look for it with women who are mutually attracted to them....even if she isn't a swimsuit model, or h.s. cheerleader, or beauty queen pageant queen.


I find it interesting that your assumptions default to "Men attempting to bat above their average."

I wonder how your views on things would shift if you dropped this whole dynamic and assumed we are talking about average looking people going after other average looking people they nonetheless find attractive?



Lila said:


> The funny thing with all of this friend zone talk is that women go through the same thing. We get passed up all of the time because of our looks or our shyness or for a million other reasons. It's life folks!


It is not quite the same thing.

I have seen it maybe once in my life, where a guy has enough "pull" or whatever to take advantage of his female orbiters like I have seen numerous women throughout my high school and college days.

But that comes back to basic differences, no?

Those guys tend to want sex, not emotional intimacy.

Similar on paper, but fundamental different results I think.


----------



## Marduk

Lila said:


> Then instead of trying to force it with women who have 'friend zoned' them, they should look for it with women who are mutually attracted to them....even if she isn't a swimsuit model, or h.s. cheerleader, or beauty queen pageant queen.
> 
> The funny thing with all of this friend zone talk is that women go through the same thing. We get passed up all of the time because of our looks or our shyness or for a million other reasons. It's life folks!


Guys friend zone too.

Hell, I've done it. Not on purpose. But I was always friends with a lot of girls when single.

More than once I got a smack upside the head from another one of the girls because I was unintentionally leading someone on, when I thought we were just friends and she was being really nice to me.


----------



## NobodySpecial

naiveonedave said:


> Bingo, if you gals would actually listen to what I am trying to or maybe I am not clear enough, we are 100% in agreement that being an orbiter is stupid. BUT WHY? Because boys were taught this is the way to get a date (which it isn't) and girls are taught to be princesses, so they don't see their behavior as wrong, either.


So who is supposedly teaching these kids this?


----------



## NobodySpecial

marduk said:


> No.
> 
> Just no.
> 
> And frankly I find your implication that I have a sadistic streak and like the abusive **** offensive.
> 
> I do, however, value honesty and bluntness.
> 
> Through a couple decades of martial arts I've learned that there are two kinds of compassion in this world: the kind that makes you feel better about yourself, and the kind that makes you stronger.


Compassion: 

"sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others."

What about the kind of compassion that is genuinely about someone ELSE?


----------



## Icey181

NobodySpecial said:


> So who is supposedly teaching these kids this?


In my experience?

Women.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Icey181 said:


> Wow, you really have a low estimation of young men.


Absolutely not. Just ones whose attitudes are formed in a certain way. I have a son. He is a terrific young man. 



> They really are all just sex-crazed misogynists who see women as objects in your world, aren't they?
> 
> Newsflash:
> If a young man is willing to invest immense amounts of emotional effort into being a good friend, a support, a confidant, basically, a boy-friend, it is because something about this particular girl has created an intense emotional infatuation.



It does not matter to me one whit if the goal of is "emotional infatuation" or something else. If a person is plugging away at a friendship with someone who is not interested in them for some ulterior motive, then they are blind to the person before them. Their ulterior motive is what is driving them. Not the person. Not any kind of real friendship, caring or mutual respect.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Icey181 said:


> In my experience?
> 
> Women.


Are you parent to any children? If so, what woman besides your wife has more influence on the attitudes of your children then you do?


----------



## Deejo

Serious question.

How do women learn about what constitutes attraction?
What makes a good relationship?
How to be your best self for both your's and your partners growth?
Sex?

For all of the rhetoric stating that men could learn this stuff from any number of sources, or being informed what they learned and what they are doing is wrong, harmful, selfish and counterproductive ...

Where are women learning it?

Do you just intuit it?

Social Osmosis?

Group think?

Reading?

Naturally better at conveying healthy, loving relationships?

What exactly is it that convinces you that your thoughts, means, methods, or perceptions are 'correct' as opposed to what men are expressing as being wrong?


----------



## Brigit

marduk said:


> No.
> 
> Just no.
> 
> And frankly I find your implication that I have a sadistic streak and like the abusive **** offensive.
> 
> I do, however, value honesty and bluntness.
> 
> Through a couple decades of martial arts I've learned that there are two kinds of compassion in this world: the kind that makes you feel better about yourself, and the kind that makes you stronger.
> 
> Everyone needs both. I was at a place where I needed the latter. For better or for worse, some of it's message gave me that.


Compassion is usually something that's given to other people. If you feel you need Self-Compassion I can recommend an amazing book:

http://www.amazon.com/Self-Compassion-Beating-Yourself-Insecurity-Behind-ebook/dp/B004JN1DBO

And here is a link to her website where she talks you through some free self-compassion meditations:

Self-Compassion Exercises by Dr. Kristin Neff

There are so many better books out there dude. Really.


----------



## Marduk

NobodySpecial said:


> Compassion:
> 
> "sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others."
> 
> What about the kind of compassion that is genuinely about someone ELSE?


Let me offer a different model. One in which I think fits the definition in your quotes as well but shows up quite differently.

"Laugh in the dojo, cry on the battlefield. Cry in the dojo, laugh on the battlefield."

Being too unkind in the dojo makes them feel good about themselves, but weak. Being too unkind in the dojo hurts people and they leave.

It's a fine line. 

Now, you'll likely say "but this isn't a battlefield, it's marriage," which is true.

But to the spouse that's doing most of the giving and not getting much in return, and with a spouse that's doing most of the getting and likes it that way, thank you very much...

It can feel like conflict. Because when you stop the giving and step into a new model, the spouse that was getting is going to often put up a helluva fight.

I know mine did.


----------



## Marduk

Brigit said:


> Compassion is usually something that's given to other people. If you feel you need Self-Compassion I can recommend an amazing book:
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Self-Compassion-Beating-Yourself-Insecurity-Behind-ebook/dp/B004JN1DBO
> 
> And here is a link to her website where she talks you through some free self-compassion meditations:
> 
> Self-Compassion Exercises by Dr. Kristin Neff
> 
> There are so many better books out there dude. Really.


You're completly missing my point.

I had buddies and friends and all kinds of people giving me exactly this kind of compassion.

And while it helped me to emote about it, it didn't help me do anything about it.


----------



## Icey181

NobodySpecial said:


> Absolutely not. Just ones whose attitudes are formed in a certain way. I have a son. He is a terrific young man.


I would suggest you over-generalize about those boys.



NobodySpecial said:


> It does not matter to me one whit if the goal of is "emotional infatuation" or something else. If a person is plugging away at a friendship with someone who is not interested in them for *some ulterior motive,* then they are blind to the person before them. Their ulterior motive is what is driving them. Not the person. Not any kind of real friendship, caring or mutual respect.


That ulterior motive is to build a mutually satisfying romantic relationship, more often than not.

What these guys are blind to, usually, is that the women are not ever going to "see the light" and appreciate them for their interest and reciprocate it.

They cannot see that they are being used, or they rationalize it away because of what they want.

And the women know this, but still use the guys for everything they fail to get from their relationships.

The orbiters need to wake up to reality, but that does not change the fact that the friend-zoning girls are users.


----------



## Lila

Icey181 said:


> I find it interesting that your assumptions default to "Men attempting to bat above their average."
> 
> I wonder how your views on things would shift if you dropped this whole dynamic and assumed we are talking about average looking people going after other average looking people they nonetheless find attractive?


My assumptions are based on the jargon expressed in the Red Pill philosophy and frankly, some of the comments by some of the more outspoken red pillers in the group suggesting that the girls they attracted, prior to swallowing the pill, were less than they felt they deserved.

My opinions would not change even if we're talking attraction among average people. 



Icey181 said:


> It is not quite the same thing.
> 
> I have seen it maybe once in my life, where a guy has enough "pull" or whatever to take advantage of his female orbiters like I have seen numerous women throughout my high school and college days.
> 
> But that comes back to basic differences, no?
> 
> Those guys tend to want sex, not emotional intimacy.
> 
> Similar on paper, but fundamental different results I think.


Oh Icey....you obviously do not have daughters. Taylor Swift has a smash hit called You Belong To Me that clearly outlines this 'friend zone' phenomenon that girls go through as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuNIsY6JdUw

Two sides to the same coin.


----------



## Faithful Wife

UMP said:


> You have to understand the way a mans mind works. We are so goal oriented. We sometimes approach "getting more sex" the same way an engineer might approach getting more horsepower from an engine. We look at all the parts and examine them, thinking what part can I change to get more of what I want.
> 
> The intent is OK, but the method is wrong or at least skewed. I took the red pill big time and I really do think it helped to some degree. However, the bottom line for me was to simply be nice to my wife, hold my negative emotions in check and really LEARN how to make love to my wife. LEARN to really listen to my wifes off the wall (for me) emotional thought process and really TRY to understand and interact with that. It's almost as if I had to (in a way) become more feminine in order to get her to expose her own femininity toward me with sex. (that would be COMPLETELY anti red pill, but it worked for me)


I get why people end up at red pill sites and even PUA sites.

But when you really examine it...it all boils down to other-validation.

That's the real problem both men and women have.

If we were self-validated, we wouldn't need other people thinking we are sexy to feel worthy.

However....

All the drama about how poor men can't get with women it just nonsense. People will always have sex and will always couple up. This will never stop. There's no threat to human sexuality or human relationships here, anywhere. When people are bitter, they will have a harder time at it.


----------



## tech-novelist

jld said:


> I think it is because we are all coming from different places, with different concerns.
> 
> I want women to be safe from people like Elliot Rodgers. Though, it was men he ended up killing, so men are not safe with these pua ideas, either.


He was about the farthest thing from a PUA that could be imagined. In fact, he participated in a "PUA Hate" forum where guys who can't get laid talk crap about PUAs.

So blaming PUA ideas for his rampage is counterproductive, to say the least.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Lila said:


> Whether you meant to or not, I think your history proves why PUA/Red Pill Philosphy, the basis for MMSLP, is not a viable solution for finding/fixing long term relationships.
> 
> 1) PUA tactics do not successfully match men with compatible women for long term relationships. The early sexual compatibility is typically false resulting in dead bed once the PUA masks are pulled away and the "natural person" is revealed. PUA tactics are good for one thing and one thing only - 'gaming' women into having sex. That's it.


FYI... I made no effort to "game" my EW beyond the elements that become part of your attitude/personality. She made the first move when we met. I hadn't seen her yet.

She was a virgin. All I did was wait. She made the first overtly sexual move.

And the "early sexual compatibility" lasted 7 years. It ended with having kids.



Lila said:


> 2) Red Pill philosophy is not sustainable, period. It takes an enormous amount of energy to keep pretending to be someone other than your 'natural' self. Adopting RP philosophy is the equivalent of learning a foreign language as an adult so as to get around efficiently during an international trip. Once the trip is over and you're back home, if you stop practicing the language, you forget it. And even if you force yourself to practice, it'll always require a lot of energy.


I can't agree with this. I'm not as familiar with RP as Icey, but I think all of this material is in the same vein. It doesn't take a lot of energy or exertion. It just takes awareness and discipline. Like any other habit, a lot of it becomes second nature.

Another thing that isn't given enough play on here is that some of the more self-improvement advice given fits very neatly into other social situations - even with other men.



Lila said:


> Using your history....both of my points were illustrated in your own marital history. Even though you'd studied and adopted PUA and RP philosophy in your youth, you experienced the 'anomalous high sex frequency' followed by dead bed and you failed to sustain the philosophy throughout the marriage.
> 
> This is exactly why I, for one, do not agree with RP/MMSL being bandied about on a Marriage Forum as Gospel. It's superficial at it's best and fails to touch upon the core principles of what makes a successful long term relationship.


I totally get your point and might agree if that relationship was something that I pulled some kind of strings to have. I wasn't actually interested in a relationship at the time. I didn't even want sex much at the time - I had way too much on my plate with school, work, reserve duty, working out and motorcycle racing. I had a fwb at the time. As anomalous as it was, my EW did all the pursuit. I'd come home from class and she'd been sitting in her truck in my driveway for the past hour waiting for me. I saw her as a naïve silly little girl, but she kept hanging around.

In all honestly I don't believe PUA/RP/MMSL or any similar philosophy had anything to do with that relationship for better or worse. The first half of the ~13 yr. marriage was full of sex, almost daily... and the second half was bone dry. She became a whole different person after having kids.

MMSL might have saved me several years of trouble doing the tail chasing figuring out why she's not into sex anymore, which is easy to fall into because you're inclined to believe the things your SO says - but really, I wasn't so far departed from most of the advice in the book. I was still a highly desirable guy to other women. My failing was giving her things she wanted with little regard for what I wanted. It actually wouldn't have been much of a problem had our sex life remained. The truth was she just didn't have the drive for me, or anyone. In MC, she said sex was sort of take it or leave it... nice, but not important. Her joy in life was motherhood. She obsessed with it. Sex was like a phase of life and she fully believed things were supposed to settle into a long haul of sex 1-2 times a month with me complaining about sex "like all husbands" (she actually said this in MC - I was "supposed" to always want more sex).

I don't think game/pua/mmsl/rp was very relevant to my case pro or con... sincerely. It probably would have seen me leaving sooner though.


----------



## tech-novelist

EllisRedding said:


> Going back to this post, I still wonder why the above is something that seems like quite a few men can relate to? Now maybe I lucked out that much of this doesn't apply to me, IDK, but I sure do know quite a few guys firsthand who have pretty much word for word the same experience as above. I know the easiest response from some here would just be to say it is the guy's fault, but it takes two to tango, and there is clearly something going on with the female as well. Have people just come to expect this is how it is, so they accept and even conform to this type of behavior?


Yes, exactly. Whenever there is a problem in marriage, it is always the man's fault and he is the one who has to do the changing.

Of course, Athol also says that the man is the one who has to do the changing; it's just that the exact type of changing is different. His book is called "Married Man Sex Life Primer", after all.


----------



## tech-novelist

Icey181 said:


> Pretty much this.
> 
> Hypergamy is declining rapidly in a number of areas in American society. Some of that has to do with 1st and 2nd Wave Feminist accomplishments and quite a bit more of it has to do with advancing economic realities in a post-industrial society.
> 
> Whether or not FW likes the idea of hypergamy, it has been a real and ever-present reality in American culture from about 1610-2007.
> 
> And on that point I am speaking as a professional historian who has engaged in Social, Cultural, and Quantitative historical research pertaining to the characteristics of American families. (In my case, primarily as a way to engage with the development of Political Patronage in the Late Colonial Period and engage with Women's political agency in the Early Republic.)
> 
> The big change is education.
> 
> This is the first time in American history that women are succeeding across the board at rates higher than men. I think in the long run this is going to occasion a few things:
> 1) Significant Decline in Financial Hypergamy
> 2) Ratcheting Effect that starts to refocus on Male education
> 3) More Assortive/hypogamy based marriages showing up


Ok, but I predict this as well:
4) Even more dissatisfaction among females due to their innate hypergamy being unsatisfied.


----------



## NobodySpecial

marduk said:


> Let me offer a different model. One in which I think fits the definition in your quotes as well but shows up quite differently.
> 
> "Laugh in the dojo, cry on the battlefield. Cry in the dojo, laugh on the battlefield."
> 
> Being too unkind in the dojo makes them feel good about themselves, but weak. Being too unkind in the dojo hurts people and they leave.
> 
> It's a fine line.
> 
> Now, you'll likely say "but this isn't a battlefield, it's marriage," which is true.
> 
> *But to the spouse that's doing most of the giving and not getting much in return, and with a spouse that's doing most of the getting and likes it that way, thank you very much...*
> 
> It can feel like conflict. Because when you stop the giving and step into a new model, the spouse that was getting is going to often put up a helluva fight.
> 
> I know mine did.


I am sorry. I just don't get it. And you have not helped because you talk in the abstract. About marriage. But not about YOUR marriage. Like you never answered if your wife loves you.

It seems like you bought a book to figure out how to stand something up that has no legs.

I am all for taking wheat where you get it, and leaving the chafe. But you are eating a lot of the chafe, and I wonder if that is because you don't actually have a relationship?


----------



## tech-novelist

Icey181 said:


> Well, if the boys are supposed to be self-aware enough to know the women are not interested, why should we not hold the girls accountable to be self-aware enough to know that these boys are?


What, you want to hold girls accountable to the same standard as boys? That's misogynistic!


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

naiveonedave said:


> thanks for the obvious, but you need to look at the cause of the issue, it is that boys are taught that doing the things that get you into orbit are the only ways to get dates, and the cycle continues. they just try harder at stuff that does not work. We are in so much agreement, it is not funny (except you may feel the causes are different).


You're missing the part of the problem where boys are taught, in one way or another, to get the hottest girl and not look more at compatibility than looks.

If you are with a girl who naturally is compatible and finds you attractive, the things you are doing will build a _relationship _and not just an orbiter. So instead of teaching them to stop doing the nice things and trying different things to get the girl, tell them to move on until they find someone who is interested.


----------



## jld

technovelist said:


> What, you want to hold girls accountable to the same standard as boys? That's misogynistic!


Any orbiter, male or female, is going to pay the price for their orbiting. Eventually they will figure out they are wasting their time.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Deejo said:


> Serious question.
> 
> How do women learn about what constitutes attraction?
> What makes a good relationship?
> How to be your best self for both your's and your partners growth?
> Sex?
> 
> For all of the rhetoric stating that men could learn this stuff from any number of sources, or being informed what they learned and what they are doing is wrong, harmful, selfish and counterproductive ...
> 
> Where are women learning it?
> 
> Do you just intuit it?
> 
> Social Osmosis?
> 
> Group think?
> 
> Reading?
> 
> Naturally better at conveying healthy, loving relationships?
> 
> What exactly is it that convinces you that your thoughts, means, methods, or perceptions are 'correct' as opposed to what men are expressing as being wrong?



For me there was a lot of loving relationship education in my family of origin. My parents had a lot of love. Conflict yes, but love also. And respect. No gender stuff there.

But mostly I learned it from getting my teeth kicked a bunch as a young woman.

I nub you. If you nub me, you will have with me. Oh it huuuuurts... Ok I won't be buying THAT one anymore. Etcetera and pick and chose the lessons from young adult hood that resonate. 

Whatever. I decided to take what *I* wanted from the social landscape and fit it to who *I* was, not the other way around. And if I never ever met anyone who met that criteria, **** all did I care. Immediately thereafter, the poor abused lonely girl had super guys breaking down her door, until she met and married the superest guy of them all.

It is my hope, which is pretty different I am sure, from other parents', that my kids get kicked in the teeth at least a few times before they settle down. It will help them recognize what begin emotionally wrecked, and what NOT being emotionally wrecked looks like.

When I see men or women who allow themselves to be crushed over and over again without learning how to gain some confidence and realize that you are what is standing between you and the next crushing, I think, that poor sod is done for good. No fair prince or princess is ever going to rescue someone who is not going to rescue themselves.

That is why MMSLP has some merit for me as seen through yours and MEMs eyes. (Sorry Marduk. You lost some cred with me on this thread. Though you probably will get it back.) You decided not to get crushed anymore. But there is a right goal and a wrong goal. And when the goal is the objectification of a class as this thread has deteriorated to, well then that is a wrong goal.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Let's not forget that women also experience trying harder and harder to get the boy they are interested in when he just doesn't care about her. They sometimes keep her around to meet his needs (sex) but doesn't actually want a relationship with her. 
He doesn't owe her anything either. She's choosing to meet the needs of a man who isn't all that into her. Ya it hurts but the solution is to move on, not try more things to get him. 

That's pretty much what "friendzoning" would be for a man doing it to a woman. Women are not the only ones who get needs met by the opposite sex when they aren't interested in them any further than that.


----------



## naiveonedave

NobodySpecial said:


> So who is supposedly teaching these kids this?


women, in general. Almost 100% of my sons teachers have been women, 100% except for gym in elementary and >75% in middle school. All of the 'sunday school' teachers are were women. All of the common everyday stuff you see on TV, pretty much shows men as using the behaviors that get them "orbitized".


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening Nobody special
I think you are reading things into my post that are not there. If you read my post, there is no gender specific language in it.

Maybe its obviously wrong, but it does happy. People (note the non-gendered term) do take advantage of other peoples romantic interests.

Friendzoned by itself is fine, its only a problem if it is not made clear what nature of the relationship really is. 






NobodySpecial said:


> Ugh here we go again. Let's have an argument precipitated on how nothing a man can ever do can ever be bad because women are so much worse. What you are saying is so obvious that mentioning it is a red herring in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is not what "being friendzoned" is.


----------



## naiveonedave

Lila said:


> Then instead of trying to force it with women who have 'friend zoned' them, they should look for it with women who are mutually attracted to them....even if she isn't a swimsuit model, or h.s. cheerleader, or beauty queen pageant queen.
> 
> The funny thing with all of this friend zone talk is that women go through the same thing. We get passed up all of the time because of our looks or our shyness or for a million other reasons. It's life folks!


I never stated they were after the cheerleader or beauty queen. it has more to do with their behavior anyways.

I agree, it can happen to women too.


----------



## jld

NobodySpecial said:


> But mostly I learned it from getting my teeth kicked a bunch as a young woman.


:iagree:


----------



## NobodySpecial

marduk said:


> Let me offer a different model. One in which I think fits the definition in your quotes as well but shows up quite differently.
> 
> "Laugh in the dojo, cry on the battlefield. Cry in the dojo, laugh on the battlefield."
> 
> Being too unkind in the dojo makes them feel good about themselves, but weak. Being too unkind in the dojo hurts people and they leave.


So what you are talking about has nothing to do with compassion. Why did you mention compassion? I mean here, you are not even talking about kindness. You are talking about self control. When you don't hurt someone in the dojo, you are practicing at best your art's version of respect and certainly self control. Not compassion. Or kindness.


----------



## jld

naiveonedave said:


> women, in general. Almost 100% of my sons teachers have been women, 100% except for gym in elementary and >75% in middle school. All of the 'sunday school' teachers are were women. All of the common everyday stuff you see on TV, pretty much shows men as using the behaviors that get them "orbitized".


They are watching you, Dave. You are teaching them more about life, and manhood, than anyone else in their lives.


----------



## naiveonedave

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> You're missing the part of the problem where boys are taught, in one way or another, to get the hottest girl and not look more at compatibility than looks.
> 
> If you are with a girl who naturally is compatible and finds you attractive, the things you are doing will build a _relationship _and not just an orbiter. So instead of teaching them to stop doing the nice things and trying different things to get the girl, tell them to move on until they find someone who is interested.


again, BS, I never said anything about looks, I said best. Best is the sum of everything. Not just looks.

No kidding on not teaching them to not be an orbiter, but they have been taught their whole lives to worship the ground women walk on and it doesn't work and you can't un-train them in a day.


----------



## Anon1111

why do people here hate dimes so much and the men who love them?


----------



## SimplyAmorous

naiveonedave said:


> teenagers still in high school. they are both in the top 5% of their class in grades, probably the best male athletes in their grades and yet, the HS equivalent of biker dudes are getting the better looking GFs. Just the same as when I went to school, except I am relatively smarter and less athletic


We have 5 sons.. we talk openly about many of the issues that I read about on this forum..I don't want them to be ignorant in any way..to what REALLY goes on out there.. as we live in a smaller town, and it's not as WILD as Big City life. 

Our sons are just not wired to be natural A-holes.. I warn them many women LIKE those types & whatever they do.. please don't bring one of those around... They laugh at me having these conversations with them.. as they are just like their Father.. know what they want.. and no... they won't settle either.

Happy to say...2nd & 3rd son's GF's are crazy about them...I even worry THEY may break the girls hearts, if anything.. neither had to UP the "A-hole" to keep them so far.....Authenticity, just being themselves, seems to be working pretty fine.. which I am HAPPY to see..


----------



## Anon1111

NobodySpecial said:


> Nut shell version: People need to learn not to be mean and use other people. Have real, genuine confidence in your esteem so you don't have to make **** up. And then you always know that if someone is with you that they really like you. Which doesn't suck much.
> 
> This **** isn't hard.


it's simple but that doesn't mean it's not hard.

it's often hardest to do the simplest things right.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

naiveonedave said:


> I agree, it can happen to women too.


So if you had daughters, what would you teach them? 
To act like the girls who are getting attention in order to get the guy who doesn't really like you as you are?

Or would you tell her that guy isn't the right one for her in the first place and to find a man who will love her as she is?


----------



## naiveonedave

jld said:


> They are watching you, Dave. You are teaching them more about life, and manhood, than anyone else in their lives.


I don't disagree, but they get a lot of education everywhere else that is contradictory. And I probably didn't help, before I found MMSL, I probably showed them bad behaviors.


----------



## jld

SimplyAmorous said:


> We have 5 sons.. we talk openly about many of the issues that I read about on this forum..I don't want them to be ignorant in any way..to what REALLY goes on out there.. as we live in a smaller town, and it's not as WILD as Big City life.
> 
> Our sons are just not wired to be natural A-holes.. I warn them many women LIKE those types & whatever they do.. please don't bring one of those around... They laugh at me having these conversations with them.. as they are just like their Father.. know what they want.. and no... they won't settle either.
> 
> Happy to say...2nd & 3rd son's GF's are crazy about them...I even worry THEY may break the girls hearts, if anything.. neither had to UP the "A-hole" to keep them so far.....Authenticity, just being themselves, seems to be working pretty fine.. which I am HAPPY to see..


If your wife or gf is crazy about you, you are alpha enough.


----------



## naiveonedave

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> So if you had daughters, what would you teach them?
> *To act like the girls who are getting attention in order to get the guy who doesn't really like you as you are?*
> Or would you tell her that guy isn't the right one for her in the first place and to find a man who will love her as she is?


Since don't have girls and am not one, I am not any kind of expert to tell you what to do.

You are making one very critical and wrong assumption: I highlighted in bold. The problem is that the attraction is not where it could be or should be due to the boy/girl not understanding how to maximize their attraction to the opposite sex. Hence the red pill.


----------



## jld

naiveonedave said:


> I don't disagree, but they get a lot of education everywhere else that is contradictory. And I probably didn't help, before I found MMSL, I probably showed them bad behaviors.


Being your own man and not giving your power away (FW called it seeking validation) will attract women. Hard to resist a self-confident man.


----------



## naiveonedave

jld said:


> Being your own man and not giving your power away (FW called it seeking validation) will attract women. Hard to resist a self-confident man.


I could not agree more, nor would AK.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

naiveonedave said:


> Since don't have girls and am not one, I am not any kind of expert to tell you what to do.
> 
> You are making one very critical and wrong assumption: I highlighted in bold. The problem is that the attraction is not where it could be or should be due to the boy/girl not understanding how to maximize their attraction to the opposite sex. Hence the red pill.


Attraction and compatibility in the beginning are natural and individual. Some women like the jerk guy, some like the sweet guy. Some care a lot about a hard body, others might just want a sense of humour and someone who can make them laugh.
Finding natural attraction is picking someone who is attracted to as you are. 

Your wrong assumption is that there is 1 set way to maximize attraction that will for most women. It's just not, no matter what AK says. Women are individuals with different wants and needs and types of men they are attracted to. 

If you have to "up your rank" to get the girl, she's not the right one and there will be a higher chance of marital problems down the road.


----------



## jld

naiveonedave said:


> I could not agree more, nor would AK.


So what are we disagreeing on again?

It is that part about making women feel insecure, I think.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Deejo said:


> How do women learn about what constitutes attraction?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UX2afsTqFI


----------



## NobodySpecial

Icey181 said:


> That ulterior motive is to build a mutually satisfying romantic relationship, more often than not.
> 
> 
> 
> If the motive was MUTUALLY satisfying relationship, then they would actually CARE about her disinterest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What these guys are blind to, usually, is that the women are not ever going to "see the light" and appreciate them for their interest and reciprocate it.
> 
> They cannot see that they are being used, or they rationalize it away because of what they want.
> 
> And the women know this, but still use the guys for everything they fail to get from their relationships.
> 
> The orbiters need to wake up to reality, but that does not change the fact that the friend-zoning girls are users.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> May they both get kicked in the teeth repeatedly and LEARN.
Click to expand...


----------



## Lila

Deejo said:


> Serious question.
> 
> How do women learn about what constitutes attraction?
> What makes a good relationship?
> How to be your best self for both your's and your partners growth?
> Sex?
> 
> For all of the rhetoric stating that men could learn this stuff from any number of sources, or being informed what they learned and what they are doing is wrong, harmful, selfish and counterproductive ...
> 
> Where are women learning it?
> 
> Do you just intuit it?
> 
> Social Osmosis?
> 
> Group think?
> 
> Reading?
> 
> Naturally better at conveying healthy, loving relationships?
> 
> What exactly is it that convinces you that your thoughts, means, methods, or perceptions are 'correct' as opposed to what men are expressing as being wrong?


Most of what I learned about relationships I learned from my parents, and what I didn't learn from them, I learned from living the hard knock life. 

My mother did a great job of teaching us positive views on female sexuality and my dad did a great job of teaching us what to watch out for in guys with less than good intentions. 

They also had a passionate relationship and never hid it. Sometimes a bit volatile but overall very loving. I wanted to have one of those too. 

With all of the positive also came some negative. As painful as this is to admit, I also learned what type of woman I didn't want to be and what type of man I wanted to avoid by watching my parents relationship evolve and then devolve over time. I did not want to be a doormat like my mother and I wanted to avoid men like my dad. For all of his many wonderful attributes, he had a serious fault. He was a serial cheater. 

My upbringing gave me a knowledge base on which to build upon. The rest I learned by living life and dating, trial and error you could say.


----------



## naiveonedave

jld said:


> So what are we disagreeing on again?
> 
> It is that part about making women feel insecure, I think.


probably. Though, just my opinion, the stuff in red pill that makes you insecure, is stuff that was only there to motivate me to change. I clearly can see how it impacts women the way it does.


----------



## naiveonedave

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Your wrong assumption is that there is 1 set way to maximize attraction that will for most women. It's just not, no matter what AK says. Women are individuals with different wants and needs and types of men they are attracted to.
> 
> .


data and observation support AK and red pill way more than your assumption.


----------



## naiveonedave

NobodySpecial said:


> Icey181 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the motive was MUTUALLY satisfying relationship, then they would actually CARE about her disinterest.
> 
> 
> 
> May they both get kicked in the teeth repeatedly and LEARN.
> 
> 
> 
> you keep making assumptions that seem reasonable, but are not in real life. What happens is they get kicked in the teeth, then re-up the efforts of being nice, listening, etc., which is what got them kicked in the teeth in the 1st place. This is where they need guidance, aka red pill or something like it. If there was something that was less offensive, but effective as MMSL, I would promote that.....
Click to expand...


----------



## jld

naiveonedave said:


> probably. Though, just my opinion, the stuff in red pill that makes you insecure, is stuff that was only there to motivate me to change. I clearly can see how it impacts women the way it does.


I appreciate your empathy, Dave. 

Honestly, I don't find anything appealing about the idea of my husband making me jealous by flirting with another woman. It would just make me feel sad and like a failure. I am sure I would have left him if he had done that. He would be welcome to her.

But women right on this site have said the thought of their husband with another woman actually increases their attraction to him. I don't get that at all. But I have to take their word for it.


----------



## jld

naiveonedave said:


> NobodySpecial said:
> 
> 
> 
> you keep making assumptions that seem reasonable, but are not in real life. What happens is they get kicked in the teeth, then re-up the efforts of being nice, listening, etc., which is what got them kicked in the teeth in the 1st place. This is where they need guidance, aka red pill or something like it. If there was something that was less offensive, but effective as MMSL, I would promote that.....
> 
> 
> 
> Gals, do we need to write our own book?
Click to expand...


----------



## Marduk

NobodySpecial said:


> I am sorry. I just don't get it. And you have not helped because you talk in the abstract. About marriage. But not about YOUR marriage. Like you never answered if your wife loves you.
> 
> It seems like you bought a book to figure out how to stand something up that has no legs.
> 
> I am all for taking wheat where you get it, and leaving the chafe. But you are eating a lot of the chafe, and I wonder if that is because you don't actually have a relationship?


Ok.

Here's me, say, 4 years ago.

We're done having kids. They're still young, but we're out of diapers and done with having more.

Wife starts to ramp up girls nights out. Which I'm good with. Then it's boot camps. Which I'm also good with. Then it's more GNOs, scrapbooking, and girl's weekends away.

It peaked at 4-5 nights out a week, and 1-2 weekends away a month.

And she's suddenly in fantastic shape.

And she's suddenly spending $Ks on sexy clothes.

And she's suddenly out all the time, including groups of people with other guys.

So, from her perspective it's a pretty sweet deal. 

She gets up, takes the kids to school, hits the gym, has lunch with a friend. Picks up our youngest from preschool, hangs out with some moms for the afternoon or shops, comes home, hands the kids off to me and heads out to go have fun. She doesn't have to worry about money, babysitters, time... and she has sex whenever she wants, without effort. And a lot of attention from other guys.

Now, from my perspective, that was a pretty raw deal. I work, come home, act like a single dad, watch our money fly out the window, and watch my wife go have fun and act single. She's not cheating, but she's sure living the single high life. If I want sex, it's there, but only if I work for it, and only so often, and there's sure not a lot of effort and emphasis on it.

So she was deeply invested in the status quo, and I was deeply invested in destabilizing the status quo.

I did my due diligance. "Wife, I'm uncomfortable with all this. Can we compromise where maybe you're only gone a few nights a week and say 2-3 girls weekends away a year?"

Response: "No, you're being controlling and insecure. All my friends do this, and their husbands are fine with it. Get fine with it. By the way, I'm going to Vegas with the girls for 5 days next month, take some time off work." 

So then I did the emotional attempt: "Wife, I'm really insecure with all this and don't know where it leaves me. I feel like I'm being left behind, I feel sad and alone and afraid."

Response: "Stop trying to manipulate me!"

Then I found MMSLP. I went dark for a month or two, and was laser focused on my diet and exercise. Got in shape, and FAST. Worked on my appearance, didn't ask for sex at all. Didn't beg, plead, try to work on anything. Just smiled and waved when she walked out the door. I think they call this phase 1.

Then I declared how I wanted my marriage to be. "Wife, any marriage I'm going to be part of includes spending time together, prioritizing our marriage, sex, etc." I can't remember exactly what I said but it was very specific and clear.

And then I started to do what she did. Got some fancy new threads to fit my new fit bod. Wife would come home and tell me she was going out, I'd say "You better have a sitter, because I'm off with the boys." I'd start to rock a confident, c0cky attitude. I started to initiate more assertively instead of asking, and I did it every day. When she would say no, I'd just go off and do my own thing -- yoga, mountain biking, pub with buddies, whatever.

She would flip out. The sh!t tests. Over and over, worse and worse. See, she wanted it to go back to the way it was. She wanted to have her cake and eat it too. She wanted the energy to go one way -- from me to her -- without necessarily being conscious of that. What she wanted to do was have me support her while I didn't get supported back.

I didn't go for it. I'd smirk at her, or smack her on the ass, or agree and amplify -- all the things MMSLP says to do. Disrespectful, I agree. But it worked. Damn, but it worked. This is what I mean about being ready for battle -- without this, I would have folded. "Yes, dear..." and go back off to my corner. But I didn't.

In about 3 weeks she approached me asking to work on the relationship because she was deeply afraid she was going to lose me. I agreed, and she stopped going out all the time. Down to reasonable levels, say once or twice a week, and maybe away once or twice a year. We'd have date nights. And I continued to mirror her behaviour.

And then she was the one chasing me around, not the other way around.


----------



## NobodySpecial

naiveonedave said:


> NobodySpecial said:
> 
> 
> 
> you keep making assumptions that seem reasonable, but are not in real life. What happens is they get kicked in the teeth, then re-up the efforts of being nice, listening, etc., which is what got them kicked in the teeth in the 1st place.
> 
> 
> 
> Then they are slow learners? They buy a book and then it is a total crap shoot whether their integrity can remain intact? Because honestly, if getting kicked in the teeth a bunch of times does not teach you to do the same thing over and over, but your math teacher can, then you are probably beyond hope.
> 
> I mean seriously. You would have us believe that boys of this generation are basically really stupid. And I don't buy that. That they get more influence from their school teachers then their parents. That get their dating advice from their religious ed teachers.
Click to expand...


----------



## UMP

naiveonedave said:


> NobodySpecial said:
> 
> 
> 
> you keep making assumptions that seem reasonable, but are not in real life. What happens is they get kicked in the teeth, then re-up the efforts of being nice, listening, etc., which is what got them kicked in the teeth in the 1st place. This is where they need guidance, aka red pill or something like it. If there was something that was less offensive, but effective as MMSL, I would promote that.....
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but can that relationship endure?
> They take the red pill, listen to the guidance and get the girl, then what?
Click to expand...


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

naiveonedave said:


> data and observation support AK and red pill way more than your assumption.


Just because AK says something is science doesn't mean it really is science. 

You have observed women enough to know that they are like the same thing, the "red pill" kind of guy? I AM a woman and can tell you that is 100% BS. All of my friends growing up had different traits we found attractive. We all liked different things. We all married different kinds of people. 

You (and AK) really don't have any kind of authority to decide what women do and don't want. 

Most of the women here wouldn't touch AK with a 10 foot pole if he was unmarried and trying to get with us so tell me how the majority of women would find his crap attractive?


----------



## Faithful Wife

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> You (and AK) really don't have any kind of authority to decide what women do and don't want.


That's part of the whole red pill schtick.

"Women don't know what they want, so don't ask them, if they tell you anything it will be a bunch of unaware bullsh*t".

And yet they expect us to believe they actually care about us as people? When they are telling each other we are not even aware enough to know what we want? And they mean this in general terms, not just "some women don't know what they want".


----------



## naiveonedave

jld said:


> I appreciate your empathy, Dave.
> 
> Honestly, I don't find anything appealing about the idea of my husband making me jealous by flirting with another woman. It would just make me feel sad and like a failure. I am sure I would have left him if he had done that. He would be welcome to her.
> 
> But women right on this site have said the thought of their husband with another woman actually increases their attraction to him. I don't get that at all. But I have to take their word for it.


I can see your point re: flirting. I don't do that, at least not intentionally. But now that I shed some pounds, women try to flirt with me. My W reaction is increased desire.


----------



## jld

NobodySpecial said:


> I mean seriously. You would have us believe that boys of this generation are basically really stupid. And I don't buy that. That they get more influence from their school teachers then their parents. That get their dating advice from their religious ed teachers.


Okay, that last line made me laugh.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> That's part of the whole red pill schtick.
> 
> "Women don't know what they want, so don't ask them, if they tell you anything it will be a bunch of unaware bullsh*t".
> 
> And yet they expect us to believe they actually care about us as people? When they are telling each other we are not even aware enough to know what we want? And they mean this in general terms, not just "some women don't know what they want".


I don't think a lot of people, men and women alike, actually know what they want.

I didn't. I did, and now I'm going back through that process again.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> I don't think a lot of people, men and women alike, actually know what they want.
> 
> I didn't. I did, and now I'm going back through that process again.


I would never read a book that told me "men don't know what they want" because I would know immediately it was polarizing crap. If one man doesn't know what he wants, that's called an identity crisis, and no one book can cover that phenomenon for every person in a crisis.


----------



## naiveonedave

UMP said:


> naiveonedave said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but can that relationship endure?
> They take the red pill, listen to the guidance and get the girl, then what?
> 
> 
> 
> that's the key. You have to be a real person, once you have the attraction, you need to maintain it. That is right there in MMSL. He blatantly says that if you just do the attraction part, it won't work long term.
> 
> Remember, the book is written for the guy who already is pretty much meeting all of her needs. He doesn't really need to do much more but the same things to meet her needs, while maintaining whatever it is that increased attraction.
Click to expand...


----------



## jld

naiveonedave said:


> I can see your point re: flirting. I don't do that, at least not intentionally. But now that I shed some pounds, women try to flirt with me. My W reaction is increased desire.


Increased desire because you lost weight? Or because other women are flirting with you?


----------



## naiveonedave

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Just because AK says something is science doesn't mean it really is science.
> 
> You have observed women enough to know that they are like the same thing, the "red pill" kind of guy? I AM a woman and can tell you that is 100% BS. All of my friends growing up had different traits we found attractive. We all liked different things. We all married different kinds of people.
> 
> You (and AK) really don't have any kind of authority to decide what women do and don't want.
> 
> Most of the women here wouldn't touch AK with a 10 foot pole if he was unmarried and trying to get with us so tell me how the majority of women would find his crap attractive?


I don't need someone to write a dissertation on this. I have read the book and totally agrees with my life experience on how to attract women. That you are unwilling to accept is okay by me, in my world, it is pretty damn spot on.


----------



## naiveonedave

jld said:


> Increased desire because you lost weight? Or because other women are flirting with you?


I lost weight ==> women try to flirt with me a lot more ==> reaction from my W


----------



## jld

Faithful Wife said:


> I would never read a book that told me "*men don't know what they want*" because I would know immediately it was polarizing crap. If one man doesn't know what he wants, that's called an identity crisis, and no one book can cover that phenomenon for every person in a crisis.


It is disrespectful to them, isn't it?


----------



## Faithful Wife

jld said:


> It is disrespectful to them, isn't it?


MMSL and other red pill crap says "women don't know what they want". I'm not aware of any books that say the same about men, but I made the point that if I came across that in a book, I would toss the book out.


----------



## jld

naiveonedave said:


> I lost weight ==> women try to flirt with me a lot more ==> reaction from my W


See, that would just frighten me, not make me try to fight for my husband.

But other gals here seem to have the same reaction as your wife. I don't get it, but it seems to be how attraction works for some gals.


----------



## UMP

naiveonedave said:


> that's the key. You have to be a real person, once you have the attraction, you need to maintain it. That is right there in MMSL. He blatantly says that if you just do the attraction part, it won't work long term.
> 
> Remember, the book is written for the guy who already is pretty much meeting all of her needs. He doesn't really need to do much more but the same things to meet her needs, while maintaining whatever it is that increased attraction.


We will both agree the MMSL is written for married men. 
As I mentioned before, I took the red pill. If I look back on when I started and compare myself to today, I am much more of a "nice guy" than I ever was.
That was part of my problem. Alpha men don't listen to their wives go on and on and on about their sister in law not inviting us over for dinner and then go on and on and on so as to discover why this is the case. Now, I listen to every part of it AND am actually interested. Believe it or not, THAT get's me laid.


----------



## NobodySpecial

marduk said:


> Ok.
> 
> Here's me, say, 4 years ago.


No go back to year 1 . Did you love each other? Or wedding day. Did you marry a super mega hottie who dazzled you with her hotness? Or did you marry the person for you. The one who made you laugh when you wanted to cry. What did she marry? The man of her dreams or her meal ticket?

When asking whether or not you can REcreate something, it is important to note what was there. 


> We're done having kids. They're still young, but we're out of diapers and done with having more.
> 
> Wife starts to ramp up girls nights out. Which I'm good with. Then it's boot camps. Which I'm also good with. Then it's more GNOs, scrapbooking, and girl's weekends away.
> 
> It peaked at 4-5 nights out a week, and 1-2 weekends away a month.
> 
> And she's suddenly in fantastic shape.
> 
> And she's suddenly spending $Ks on sexy clothes.
> 
> And she's suddenly out all the time, including groups of people with other guys.
> 
> So, from her perspective it's a pretty sweet deal.


WHY? For what kind of person would that be a sweet deal? Would that be a sweet deal for a kind person? For a loving person?



> She gets up, takes the kids to school, hits the gym, has lunch with a friend. Picks up our youngest from preschool, hangs out with some moms for the afternoon or shops, comes home, hands the kids off to me and heads out to go have fun. She doesn't have to worry about money, babysitters, time... and she has sex whenever she wants, without effort. And a lot of attention from other guys.
> 
> Now, from my perspective, that was a pretty raw deal. I work, come home, act like a single dad, watch our money fly out the window, and watch my wife go have fun and act single. She's not cheating, but she's sure living the single high life. If I want sex, it's there, but only if I work for it, and only so often, and there's sure not a lot of effort and emphasis on it.
> 
> So she was deeply invested in the status quo, and I was deeply invested in destabilizing the status quo.
> 
> I did my due diligance. "Wife, I'm uncomfortable with all this. Can we compromise where maybe you're only gone a few nights a week and say 2-3 girls weekends away a year?"
> 
> Response: "No, you're being controlling and insecure. All my friends do this, and their husbands are fine with it. Get fine with it. By the way, I'm going to Vegas with the girls for 5 days next month, take some time off work."
> 
> So then I did the emotional attempt: "Wife, I'm really insecure with all this and don't know where it leaves me. I feel like I'm being left behind, I feel sad and alone and afraid."
> 
> Response: "Stop trying to manipulate me!"
> 
> Then I found MMSLP. I went dark for a month or two, and was laser focused on my diet and exercise. Got in shape, and FAST. Worked on my appearance, didn't ask for sex at all. Didn't beg, plead, try to work on anything. Just smiled and waved when she walked out the door. I think they call this phase 1.
> 
> Then I declared how I wanted my marriage to be. "Wife, any marriage I'm going to be part of includes spending time together, prioritizing our marriage, sex, etc." I can't remember exactly what I said but it was very specific and clear.
> 
> And then I started to do what she did. Got some fancy new threads to fit my new fit bod. Wife would come home and tell me she was going out, I'd say "You better have a sitter, because I'm off with the boys." I'd start to rock a confident, c0cky attitude. I started to initiate more assertively instead of asking, and I did it every day. When she would say no, I'd just go off and do my own thing -- yoga, mountain biking, pub with buddies, whatever.


She would flip out. The sh!t tests. Over and over, worse and worse. See, she wanted it to go back to the way it was. She wanted to have her cake and eat it too. *She wanted the energy to go one way -- from me to her -- without necessarily being conscious of that. What she wanted to do was have me support her while I didn't get supported back.*
[/quote]
WHY? Does this make no difference to you at all? Does this sound like love to you? I mean really? She just WANTED to use you. And you are ... doing frankly nothing different but killing yourself to get her. 



> I didn't go for it. I'd smirk at her, or smack her on the ass, or agree and amplify -- all the things MMSLP says to do. Disrespectful, I agree.


I am not sure what is disrespectful. My husband does not put up with ****, though he never does something like slap my ass except in mutual fun. He would never use it as a put down. Not sure if that is what you meant.




> But it worked. Damn, but it worked. This is what I mean about being ready for battle -- without this, I would have folded. "Yes, dear..." and go back off to my corner. But I didn't.


Um. Instead you now... what? Play a different game? And since you seem to be "winning" that works?



> In about 3 weeks she approached me asking to work on the relationship because she was deeply afraid she was going to lose me. I agreed, and she stopped going out all the time. Down to reasonable levels, say once or twice a week, and maybe away once or twice a year. We'd have date nights. And I continued to mirror her behaviour.
> 
> And then she was the one chasing me around, not the other way around.


I am still curious to know why. I have never read a series of posts from a poster so completely devoid of emotion. You are supposedly madly in love and in (your word) awe of her. Why? Because she is hot?


----------



## naiveonedave

marduk said:


> Ok.
> 
> Here's me, say, 4 years ago.
> 
> We're done having kids. They're still young, but we're out of diapers and done with having more.
> 
> Wife starts to ramp up girls nights out. Which I'm good with. Then it's boot camps. Which I'm also good with. Then it's more GNOs, scrapbooking, and girl's weekends away.
> 
> It peaked at 4-5 nights out a week, and 1-2 weekends away a month.
> 
> And she's suddenly in fantastic shape.
> 
> And she's suddenly spending $Ks on sexy clothes.
> 
> And she's suddenly out all the time, including groups of people with other guys.
> 
> So, from her perspective it's a pretty sweet deal.
> 
> She gets up, takes the kids to school, hits the gym, has lunch with a friend. Picks up our youngest from preschool, hangs out with some moms for the afternoon or shops, comes home, hands the kids off to me and heads out to go have fun. She doesn't have to worry about money, babysitters, time... and she has sex whenever she wants, without effort. And a lot of attention from other guys.
> 
> Now, from my perspective, that was a pretty raw deal. I work, come home, act like a single dad, watch our money fly out the window, and watch my wife go have fun and act single. She's not cheating, but she's sure living the single high life. If I want sex, it's there, but only if I work for it, and only so often, and there's sure not a lot of effort and emphasis on it.
> 
> So she was deeply invested in the status quo, and I was deeply invested in destabilizing the status quo.
> 
> I did my due diligance. "Wife, I'm uncomfortable with all this. Can we compromise where maybe you're only gone a few nights a week and say 2-3 girls weekends away a year?"
> 
> Response: "No, you're being controlling and insecure. All my friends do this, and their husbands are fine with it. Get fine with it. By the way, I'm going to Vegas with the girls for 5 days next month, take some time off work."
> 
> So then I did the emotional attempt: "Wife, I'm really insecure with all this and don't know where it leaves me. I feel like I'm being left behind, I feel sad and alone and afraid."
> 
> Response: "Stop trying to manipulate me!"
> 
> Then I found MMSLP. I went dark for a month or two, and was laser focused on my diet and exercise. Got in shape, and FAST. Worked on my appearance, didn't ask for sex at all. Didn't beg, plead, try to work on anything. Just smiled and waved when she walked out the door. I think they call this phase 1.
> 
> Then I declared how I wanted my marriage to be. "Wife, any marriage I'm going to be part of includes spending time together, prioritizing our marriage, sex, etc." I can't remember exactly what I said but it was very specific and clear.
> 
> And then I started to do what she did. Got some fancy new threads to fit my new fit bod. Wife would come home and tell me she was going out, I'd say "You better have a sitter, because I'm off with the boys." I'd start to rock a confident, c0cky attitude. I started to initiate more assertively instead of asking, and I did it every day. When she would say no, I'd just go off and do my own thing -- yoga, mountain biking, pub with buddies, whatever.
> 
> She would flip out. The sh!t tests. Over and over, worse and worse. See, she wanted it to go back to the way it was. She wanted to have her cake and eat it too. She wanted the energy to go one way -- from me to her -- without necessarily being conscious of that. What she wanted to do was have me support her while I didn't get supported back.
> 
> I didn't go for it. I'd smirk at her, or smack her on the ass, or agree and amplify -- all the things MMSLP says to do. Disrespectful, I agree. But it worked. Damn, but it worked. This is what I mean about being ready for battle -- without this, I would have folded. "Yes, dear..." and go back off to my corner. But I didn't.
> 
> In about 3 weeks she approached me asking to work on the relationship because she was deeply afraid she was going to lose me. I agreed, and she stopped going out all the time. Down to reasonable levels, say once or twice a week, and maybe away once or twice a year. We'd have date nights. And I continued to mirror her behaviour.
> 
> And then she was the one chasing me around, not the other way around.


unfortunately, the women on this thread will tell you that MMSL had nothing to do with this or that your W should have left you. It is text book, very similar to my situation, though I started sooner in the process than you did.


----------



## naiveonedave

UMP said:


> We will both agree the MMSL is written for married men.
> As I mentioned before, I took the red pill. If I look back on when I started and compare myself to today, I am much more of a "nice guy" than I ever was.
> That was part of my problem. Alpha men don't listen to their wives go on and on and on about their sister in law not inviting us over for dinner and then go on and on and on so as to discover why this is the case. Now, I listen to every part of it AND am actually interested. Believe it or not, THAT get's me laid.


here is the thing, if you weren't getting it, listening more wouldn't work or at least in my case and all the stuff on SIM forum here @TAM


----------



## jld

UMP said:


> We will both agree the MMSL is written for married men.
> As I mentioned before, I took the red pill. If I look back on when I started and compare myself to today, I am much more of a "nice guy" than I ever was.
> That was part of my problem. Alpha men don't listen to their wives go on and on and on about their sister in law not inviting us over for dinner and then go on and on and on so as to discover why this is the case. Now, I listen to every part of it AND am actually interested. Believe it or not, THAT get's me laid.


I definitely believe listening and caring get you laid. Totally endorse that.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

jld said:


> *If your wife or gf is crazy about you, you are alpha enough*.


 when a man is with the RIGHT WOMAN (for him)... TRUE... 

For another...not so much... 

The whole Cheerleader thing...



> *Lila said:*
> Then instead of trying to force it with women who have 'friend zoned' them, they should look for it with women who are mutually attracted to them....even if she isn't a swimsuit model, or h.s. cheerleader, or beauty queen pageant queen.


 3rd son had a cheerleader pursue HIM.. his 1st love... I could tell months in by their interactions they were NOT compatible, wasn't going to last....... I warned him.. Mama's not stupid...

I could see her with him, burying herself in her phone.... he didn't get all playful aggressive with her...taking it off of her...teasing her...letting her know.. "look honey, you're with me NOW"... not putting up with her sucky behavior.. (I told him what he needed to do!)....

She'd complain about the smallest things ... it rubbed him the wrong way too.. she dumped him over a Text misunderstanding but it was for THE BEST.... . then she wanted him back not too long afterwards.... he was done....though I did like the girl.. have no ill will.. me & her had many heart to heart conversations even. 

Her Mother told me our son was the best BF she ever had (& the longest).. she was bummed they broke up...her mother fears the other boys just want her body & nothing more... she's been going through them left & right ever since..... 

All the parents love our sons.. just goes to show they are more the Good Guys (which again is supposed to put them at a disadvantage)..... 

Meanwhile this son got a new GF.. will be almost a year in a couple months.... not as HOT, a little younger... but treats him like the sun, moon and stars rise upon him....they are Compatible.... they share a devious bantering humor, love the same music, both touchy feely (gotta watch that!)...both tease each other. .. it just flows... it's been delightful for me to see .... This son does not even like it when girls wear make up.. which she doesn't ! Not the Princess that last one was ...

He's learned his lesson with one of the HOT ONES...they aren't all cracked up to be what they appear, not worth the frustration.


----------



## UMP

naiveonedave said:


> here is the thing, if you weren't getting it, listening more wouldn't work or at least in my case and all the stuff on SIM forum here @TAM


Here is the thing, I WAS NOT getting it. Sex was horrible, starfish duty sex. Now it's fulfilling and mutual.
I used to NEVER listen to my wife talk about all the things that go on in her head because I thought she was ridiculous. Guess what, she turned away from me, understandably so.
Now, I purposely go to where she is, maybe in the kitchen cooking and listen to her (intently) and discuss her feelings with the same words she uses so she knows I am really listening. She loves it.

As I am learning to ENJOY her emotions, she is learning to enjoy sex, with me AND delve into some kink which is not how it used to be. I give, she gives, we both win.


----------



## Brigit

marduk said:


> Ok.
> 
> Here's me, say, 4 years ago.
> 
> We're done having kids. They're still young, but we're out of diapers and done with having more.
> 
> Wife starts to ramp up girls nights out. Which I'm good with. Then it's boot camps. Which I'm also good with. Then it's more GNOs, scrapbooking, and girl's weekends away.
> 
> It peaked at 4-5 nights out a week, and 1-2 weekends away a month.
> 
> And she's suddenly in fantastic shape.
> 
> And she's suddenly spending $Ks on sexy clothes.
> 
> And she's suddenly out all the time, including groups of people with other guys.
> 
> So, from her perspective it's a pretty sweet deal.
> 
> She gets up, takes the kids to school, hits the gym, has lunch with a friend. Picks up our youngest from preschool, hangs out with some moms for the afternoon or shops, comes home, hands the kids off to me and heads out to go have fun. She doesn't have to worry about money, babysitters, time... and she has sex whenever she wants, without effort. And a lot of attention from other guys.
> 
> Now, from my perspective, that was a pretty raw deal. I work, come home, act like a single dad, watch our money fly out the window, and watch my wife go have fun and act single. She's not cheating, but she's sure living the single high life. If I want sex, it's there, but only if I work for it, and only so often, and there's sure not a lot of effort and emphasis on it.
> 
> So she was deeply invested in the status quo, and I was deeply invested in destabilizing the status quo.
> 
> I did my due diligance. "Wife, I'm uncomfortable with all this. Can we compromise where maybe you're only gone a few nights a week and say 2-3 girls weekends away a year?"
> 
> Response: "No, you're being controlling and insecure. All my friends do this, and their husbands are fine with it. Get fine with it. By the way, I'm going to Vegas with the girls for 5 days next month, take some time off work."
> 
> So then I did the emotional attempt: "Wife, I'm really insecure with all this and don't know where it leaves me. I feel like I'm being left behind, I feel sad and alone and afraid."
> 
> Response: "Stop trying to manipulate me!"
> 
> Then I found MMSLP. I went dark for a month or two, and was laser focused on my diet and exercise. Got in shape, and FAST. Worked on my appearance, didn't ask for sex at all. Didn't beg, plead, try to work on anything. Just smiled and waved when she walked out the door. I think they call this phase 1.
> 
> Then I declared how I wanted my marriage to be. "Wife, any marriage I'm going to be part of includes spending time together, prioritizing our marriage, sex, etc." I can't remember exactly what I said but it was very specific and clear.
> 
> And then I started to do what she did. Got some fancy new threads to fit my new fit bod. Wife would come home and tell me she was going out, I'd say "You better have a sitter, because I'm off with the boys." I'd start to rock a confident, c0cky attitude. I started to initiate more assertively instead of asking, and I did it every day. When she would say no, I'd just go off and do my own thing -- yoga, mountain biking, pub with buddies, whatever.
> 
> She would flip out. The sh!t tests. Over and over, worse and worse. See, she wanted it to go back to the way it was. She wanted to have her cake and eat it too. She wanted the energy to go one way -- from me to her -- without necessarily being conscious of that. What she wanted to do was have me support her while I didn't get supported back.
> 
> I didn't go for it. I'd smirk at her, or smack her on the ass, or agree and amplify -- all the things MMSLP says to do. Disrespectful, I agree. But it worked. Damn, but it worked. This is what I mean about being ready for battle -- without this, I would have folded. "Yes, dear..." and go back off to my corner. But I didn't.
> 
> In about 3 weeks she approached me asking to work on the relationship because she was deeply afraid she was going to lose me. I agreed, and she stopped going out all the time. Down to reasonable levels, say once or twice a week, and maybe away once or twice a year. We'd have date nights. And I continued to mirror her behaviour.
> 
> And then she was the one chasing me around, not the other way around.


...First off, you had a very VERY crappy marriage. 

Girls night out and weekends away....WTF????

I still wouldn't abuse her by using Red Pill tactics. I'd start by not letting her abuse YOU.


----------



## jld

UMP said:


> Here is the thing, I WAS NOT getting it. Sex was horrible, starfish duty sex. Now it's fulfilling and mutual.
> I used to NEVER listen to my wife talk about all the things that go on in her head because I thought she was ridiculous. Guess what, she turned away from me, understandably so.
> Now, I purposely go to where she is, maybe in the kitchen cooking and listen to her (intently) and discuss her feelings with the same words she uses so she knows I am really listening. She loves it.
> 
> As I am learning to ENJOY her emotions, she is learning to enjoy sex, with me AND delve into some kink which is not how it used to be. I give, she gives, we both win.


You sound like a great husband, UMP! :smthumbup:


----------



## NobodySpecial

UMP said:


> Here is the thing, I WAS NOT getting it. Sex was horrible, starfish duty sex. Now it's fulfilling and mutual.
> I used to NEVER listen to my wife talk about all the things that go on in her head because I thought she was ridiculous. Guess what, she turned away from me, understandably so.
> Now, I purposely go to where she is, maybe in the kitchen cooking and listen to her (intently) and discuss her feelings with the same words she uses so she knows I am really listening. She loves it.
> 
> As I am learning to ENJOY her emotions, she is learning to enjoy sex, with me AND delve into some kink which is not how it used to be. I give, she gives, we both win.


Big love.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Brigit said:


> ...First off, you had a very VERY crappy marriage.
> 
> Girls night out and weekends away....WTF????
> 
> I still wouldn't abuse her by using Red Pill tactics. I'd start by not letting her abuse YOU.


Oh please. When people use the word abuse at the drop of the hat, it dilutes the meaning of the word. Whatever you think of the book, I don't think Marduk can be accused of abuse in his application.


----------



## Brigit

NobodySpecial said:


> Oh please. When people use the word abuse at the drop of the hat, it dilutes the meaning of the word. Whatever you think of the book, I don't think Marduk can be accused of abuse in his application.


I don't know how Marduk used this book and neither do you. If someone reads a book that outlines psychological warfare they may not know what parts of that book they're using and what they aren't.

From what he states about his wife's behavior it sounds like she was out-of-control and using him. 

Either way: I don't like the book or it's message. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.


----------



## Icey181

Brigit said:


> I don't know how Marduk used this book and neither do you. If someone reads a book that outlines psychological warfare they may not know what parts of that book they're using and what they aren't.
> 
> From what he states about his wife's behavior it sounds like she was out-of-control and using him.
> 
> Either way: I don't like the book or it's message. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.


He just described to you how he took lessons from the book and applied them to his marriage, successfully.

You're just being obstinate now.


----------



## samyeagar

Faithful Wife said:


> MMSL and other red pill crap says "women don't know what they want". *I'm not aware of any books that say the same about men*, but I made the point that if I came across that in a book, I would toss the book out.


Nope. It's quite clear ALL over the place that men know exactly what they want, and women know it too...men only want sex...


----------



## Icey181

Marduk's description of his marriage sounds more "wife as user" than anything else, and it also sounds like it was a prime place to employ Red Pill tactics.

He did.
It worked.

The whole point of the Red Pill is to reestablish a clear and demonstrable sense of self-worth.

The attraction, the fitness, the sociability, the hobbies, are all designed to reemphasize your desires, your needs, and your ability to have them met.

It serves to remind a neglectful spouse that your happiness is not dependent upon them, but augmented by them, and that you can satisfy yourself elsewhere if they do not want to meet your needs.

Marduk seems to have pulled it off without any of the anger-phase idiocy most of you seem to be concerned with.

How is that not a positive piece of evidence to the effect?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> You're missing the part of the problem where boys are taught, in one way or another, to get the hottest girl and not look more at compatibility than looks.
> 
> If you are with a girl who naturally is compatible and finds you attractive, the things you are doing will build a _relationship _and not just an orbiter. So instead of teaching them to stop doing the nice things and trying different things to get the girl, tell them to move on until they find someone who is interested.


This is terrible advice if you're not drawing the interest of those you're interested in because you send out poor signals without even being aware of it. It advocates remaining ignorant about your problems, and settling for less than an equal match.

Most guys who find things like RP already know how this narrative goes. He gets little interest at all, and the interest he gets is unarguably less physically attractive than him. Why settle and be dissatisfied when you can just correct the unattractive signals? It's a nice deal for the woman who gets a more physically attractive guy than she usually draws. It's not a good deal for the guy haplessly sending poor signals. Change the signals. Learn the dance.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Brigit said:


> I don't know how Marduk used this book and neither do you.


Having read his posts in this thread, and others of his post, I have some pretty good idea.



> If someone reads a book that outlines psychological warfare they may not know what parts of that book they're using and what they aren't.


So before you continue to call someone abusive, have you read the book or just selected passages as posted by someone else?



> From what he states about his wife's behavior it sounds like she was out-of-control and using him.
> 
> Either way: I don't like the book or it's message. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.


Go for it. I just think calling Marduk abusive for having read a book and taken something out of it is out of line.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Icey181 said:


> Marduk's description of his marriage sounds more "wife as user" than anything else, and it also sounds like it was a prime place to employ Red Pill tactics.
> 
> He did.
> It worked.
> 
> The whole point of the Red Pill is to reestablish a clear and demonstrable sense of self-worth.
> 
> The attraction, the fitness, the sociability, the hobbies, are all designed to reemphasize your desires, your needs, and your ability to have them met.
> 
> It serves to remind a neglectful spouse that your happiness is not dependent upon them, but augmented by them, and that you can satisfy yourself elsewhere if they do not want to meet your needs.
> 
> Marduk seems to have pulled it off without any of the anger-phase idiocy most of you seem to be concerned with.


He says that he went through the anger phase. For myself, I can hardly fault someone for making a mistake or whatever and then correcting it.

My concern about Marduk has nothing to do with the book on this thread. My concern is Marduk. What has worked appears not to actually be what he wants. But he still does not see HER as replaceable.


----------



## Marduk

NobodySpecial said:


> No go back to year 1 . Did you love each other?


Yup, crazy amounts each. I won't go into details, but my wife essentially was ready to walk away from her family and everything she knew to be with me.


> Or wedding day.


It was fantastic. 


> Did you marry a super mega hottie who dazzled you with her hotness?


Yes. But she is also likely mensa smart. Multiple degrees. Ambitious. Elite athlete. Should I go on?


> Or did you marry the person for you. The one who made you laugh when you wanted to cry. What did she marry? The man of her dreams or her meal ticket?


I wasn't making big bucks when we married.


> When asking whether or not you can REcreate something, it is important to note what was there.


It was there.


> WHY? For what kind of person would that be a sweet deal? Would that be a sweet deal for a kind person? For a loving person?


There are layers to this.

This layer is just the outside layer, and my perspective. 

From her perspective, she just came out of 5 years of having kids, and being beholden to that. She wanted to get back in shape and reclaim her pre-baby identity... and maybe a little of her pre-marriage identity, too.

And, she had an out of shape, overworked, and lazy husband at home who's idea of a good time was watching Doctor Who reruns and drinking beer on a Friday night.

Who's right? We both were.


> She would flip out. The sh!t tests. Over and over, worse and worse. See, she wanted it to go back to the way it was. She wanted to have her cake and eat it too. *She wanted the energy to go one way -- from me to her -- without necessarily being conscious of that. What she wanted to do was have me support her while I didn't get supported back.*


WHY? Does this make no difference to you at all? Does this sound like love to you? I mean really? She just WANTED to use you. And you are ... doing frankly nothing different but killing yourself to get her. 
[/quote]
I don't think she was consciously using me.

I think she was having fun, and took it for granted that I would just let her keep the party going. Because I should be grateful she just gave me kids, right?


> I am not sure what is disrespectful. My husband does not put up with ****, though he never does something like slap my ass except in mutual fun. He would never use it as a put down. Not sure if that is what you meant.


It was never a put down, but I'm sure it was dismissive at times.



> Um. Instead you now... what? Play a different game? And since you seem to be "winning" that works?


You're missing my point. It got us out of that rut. And I'll never go back to that rut, and neither would she want us to.

It's just not sustainable as a lifestyle.



> I am still curious to know why. I have never read a series of posts from a poster so completely devoid of emotion. You are supposedly madly in love and in (your word) awe of her. Why? Because she is hot?


Meh. I'm not going to touch that one with a ten foot pole, except to say that I was willing to go through all that when I'm sure lots of guys wouldn't, and I still decided to work on me to try to make things better though.

It was a hail mary pass, though. I was willing to walk away from my marriage rather then let it continue down that path. And I had to realize that it was on that path because I allowed it to be there.


----------



## Idyit

NobodySpecial said:


> He says that he went through the anger phase. For myself, I can hardly fault someone for making a mistake or whatever and then correcting it.
> 
> My concern about Marduk has nothing to do with the book on this thread. My concern is Marduk. What has worked appears not to actually be what he wants. *But he still does not see HER as replaceable*.


What I read is that he is willing to continue working on a marriage that he committed to. He's choosing her.

~ Passio


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> My mother did not trust men in general, but she did rely on my dad for money.
> 
> When I accuse Dug of things that are not true, he does not take it personally. He just explains why it is not true. And sometimes he smiles at my insecurity.


I can see why it hurts my husband, so I work to not do that to him. When he distrusts me it hurts me so he seeks to not do that. That's just where we are. We both work to trust each other and be trustworthy.

The comment was more about the messages of feminism causing unintended consequences that affect relationship quality. Not about who has the better husband.


----------



## NobodySpecial

marduk said:


> Yup, crazy amounts each. I won't go into details, but my wife essentially was ready to walk away from her family and everything she knew to be with me.
> It was fantastic.
> 
> Yes. But she is also likely mensa smart. Multiple degrees. Ambitious. Elite athlete. Should I go on?
> 
> I wasn't making big bucks when we married.
> 
> It was there.
> 
> There are layers to this.
> 
> This layer is just the outside layer, and my perspective.
> 
> From her perspective, she just came out of 5 years of having kids, and being beholden to that. She wanted to get back in shape and reclaim her pre-baby identity... and maybe a little of her pre-marriage identity, too.
> 
> And, she had an out of shape, overworked, and lazy husband at home who's idea of a good time was watching Doctor Who reruns and drinking beer on a Friday night.
> 
> Who's right? We both were.
> 
> WHY? Does this make no difference to you at all? Does this sound like love to you? I mean really? She just WANTED to use you. And you are ... doing frankly nothing different but killing yourself to get her.
> 
> I don't think she was consciously using me.
> 
> I think she was having fun, and took it for granted that I would just let her keep the party going. Because I should be grateful she just gave me kids, right?
> 
> It was never a put down, but I'm sure it was dismissive at times.
> 
> 
> You're missing my point. It got us out of that rut. And I'll never go back to that rut, and neither would she want us to.
> 
> It's just not sustainable as a lifestyle.


The rut isn't? Or the "map" or whatever it is called? Sounds like the former. 



> Meh. I'm not going to touch that one with a ten foot pole, except to say that I was willing to go through all that when I'm sure lots of guys wouldn't, and I still decided to work on me to try to make things better though.
> 
> It was a hail mary pass, though. I was willing to walk away from my marriage rather then let it continue down that path. And I had to realize that it was on that path because I allowed it to be there.


[/quote]

Well I am glad for you. Your picture comes through a little clearer now. Thank you for sharing.


----------



## Icey181

NobodySpecial said:


> He says that he went through the anger phase. For myself, I can hardly fault someone for making a mistake or whatever and then correcting it.
> 
> My concern about Marduk has nothing to do with the book on this thread. My concern is Marduk. What has worked appears not to actually be what he wants. But he still does not see HER as replaceable.


What I mean is that he did not seem to dwell in the anger phase. I think we all go through it in our own way when we start to look at this stuff.

I know I did.

And I have the same view as Marduk; at this point I do not see my wife as replaceable.

The issue was that I realized, long-term, that if nothing changed she could become so. Which was rather depressing at the time, given her initial refusals to make any changes.


----------



## jld

Blossom Leigh said:


> I can see why it hurts my husband, so I work to not do that to him. When he distrusts me it hurts. That's just where we are.
> 
> The comment was more about the messages of feminism causing unintended consequences that affect relationship quality. Not about who has the better husband.


I am sorry if my comments sounded competitive. That was not my intention. I was trying to show another way a man can deal with a woman's insecurities. But Dug is not sensitive, and that surely makes not taking my emotions personally much easier.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> This is terrible advice if you're not drawing the interest of those you're interested in because you send out poor signals without even being aware of it. It advocates remaining ignorant about your problems, and settling for less than an equal match.
> 
> Most guys who find things like RP already know how this narrative goes. He gets little interest at all, and the interest he gets is unarguably less physically attractive than him. Why settle and be dissatisfied when you can just correct the unattractive signals? It's a nice deal for the woman who gets a more physically attractive guy than she usually draws. It's not a good deal for the guy haplessly sending poor signals. Change the signals. Learn the dance.


So again, it's all about finding the hottest girl you can even if she's not that into the real you so you don't settle for an uglier one who likes you as you are. 
Then you get to keep up the dance for your whole life to keep the attraction, that sounds very satisfing. 

FTR- I don't think it's "settling" if you're a 7 who ends up with a compatable 5 over a 7 who isn't as compatable.


----------



## Marduk

NobodySpecial said:


> The rut isn't? Or the "map" or whatever it is called? Sounds like the former.


Both weren't sustainable.


> Well I am glad for you. Your picture comes through a little clearer now. Thank you for sharing.


Anytime. I can go into detail if that's helpful.


----------



## NobodySpecial

marduk said:


> Both weren't sustainable.


So this is the thing that confuses me. And maybe I am asking the wrong person. The map is not supposed to be about faking but about MAKING or BECOMING a better person. So if that is the case, why does it not become your nature and thus sustainable?


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> I am sorry if my comments sounded competitive. That was not my intention. I was trying to show another way a man can deal with a woman's insecurities. But Dug is not sensitive, and that surely makes not taking my emotions personally much easier.


I prefer a sensitive man who manages himself well.

It offers a depth of emotion I didnt have with my ex.


----------



## Marduk

NobodySpecial said:


> So this is the thing that confuses me. And maybe I am asking the wrong person. The map is not supposed to be about faking but about MAKING or BECOMING a better person. So if that is the case, why does it not become your nature and thus sustainable?


It's my assertion that the MAP, while capable of rebalancing power and sexuality in a marriage, also contributes to a lack of emotional intimacy, and reliance on outward signals, i.e. being in shape, looking good, not going to your wife with your insecurities or worries, etc.


----------



## jld

Blossom Leigh said:


> I prefer a sensitive man who manages himself well.
> 
> It offers a depth of emotion I didnt have with my ex.


I can appreciate that. I wish you well.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Lila said:


> Nope, it's about finding the hottie. Who cares if her interests, values, and morals line up....she's hot!. {sigh}


This is incorrect. In the long game, it's about finding the hottie whose interest values and morals line up.

Just because you're able to attract hotter women than previously, doesn't mean you throw out other factors. Your situation changes from scarcity to plenty. Instead of one unattractive woman who lines up well with you, you have two attractive women... one of whom doesn't line up well, and one who does. Having a lot of attractive options to the degree that he can be discerning isn't something that most of the guys who find RP ever had. If they had, they wouldn't have sought it.

You ladies appear to be advocating that men settle for women they're not physically attracted to, over adjusting the way they court women so as to attract the women they want. It makes no sense to me. Especially after pages and pages of saying women don't want guys they're not physically attracted to. I explained earlier how we all have some minimum standard of physical attractiveness we will accept, above which we will make all sorts of trade offs. For guys who seek things like RP, none of their options meet that minimum standard. So the same thing you ladies were arguing early about not amount of anything making you attracted to an ugly guy applies. I agree with it. A guy has to pass the bar, and everything else just differentiates amongst guys who are good enough looking. The same thing applies to guys. It doesn't matter how compatible they are if she doesn't pass the bar. Differentiation and selection of a woman on interests, values and morals occurs AFTER that.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> This is terrible advice if you're not drawing the interest of those you're interested in because you send out poor signals without even being aware of it. It advocates remaining ignorant about your problems, and settling for less than an equal match.
> 
> Most guys who find things like RP already know how this narrative goes. He gets little interest at all, and the interest he gets is unarguably less physically attractive than him. Why settle and be dissatisfied when you can just correct the unattractive signals? It's a nice deal for the woman who gets a more physically attractive guy than she usually draws. It's not a good deal for the guy haplessly sending poor signals. Change the signals. Learn the dance.


I prefer being authentic first and foremost and from there make sure I'm a well rounded, dignified person.


----------



## Icey181

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> So again, it's all about finding the hottest girl you can even if she's not that into the real you so you don't settle for an uglier one who likes you as you are.
> Then you get to keep up the dance for your whole life to keep the attraction, that sounds very satisfing.
> 
> FTR- I don't think it's "settling" if you're a 7 who ends up with a compatable 5 over a 7 who isn't as compatable.


Too much emphasis on the whole SMV numbering system, ironically, I think.

I think both men and women have an acceptable range of physical attractiveness that they look to find a SO within; the main difference is that I think for the most part the women's range is taller and the man's is deeper.

Considering that I now recognize how important sexual compatibility is I am more inclined to recommend that people do not settle for someone they do not find physically attractive, even if they seem to hit all the other pieces.

People do not learn to become attracted to someone over time. I've read enough failed marriage accounts that came from these kinds of zombie/deadbedroom issues to get that one.

Attraction is non-negotiable.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> This is incorrect. In the long game, it's about finding the hottie whose interest values and morals line up.
> 
> Just because you're able to attract hotter women than previously, doesn't mean you throw out other factors. Your situation changes from scarcity to plenty. Instead of one unattractive woman who lines up well with you, you have two attractive women... one of whom doesn't line up well, and one who does. Having a lot of attractive options to the degree that he can be discerning isn't something that most of the guys who find RP ever had. If they had, they wouldn't have sought it.
> 
> You ladies appear to be advocating that men settle for women they're not physically attracted to, over adjusting the way they court women so as to attract the women they want. It makes no sense to me. Especially after pages and pages of saying women don't want guys they're not physically attracted to. I explained earlier how we all have some minimum standard of physical attractiveness we will accept, above which we will make all sorts of trade offs. For guys who seek things like RP, none of their options meet that minimum standard. So the same thing you ladies were arguing early about not amount of anything making you attracted to an ugly guy applies. I agree with it. A guy has to pass the bar, and everything else just differentiates amongst guys who are good enough looking. The same thing applies to guys. It doesn't matter how compatible they are if she doesn't pass the bar. Differentiation and selection of a woman on interests, values and morals occurs AFTER that.


wow.. then this video is for you...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPAat-T1uhE

FW asked me earlier in the this thread or another one, can't remember, if my H was physically attractive to me to which I responded VERY, but you must know, he was NOT attractive to me when we first met. It was his mind and heart that grabbed my heart 1st and THEN he became massively attractive to me.


----------



## NobodySpecial

marduk said:


> It's my assertion that the MAP, while capable of rebalancing power and sexuality in a marriage, also contributes to a lack of emotional intimacy, and reliance on outward signals, i.e. being in shape, looking good, not going to your wife with your insecurities or worries, etc.


So being in shape and looking good CAN be permanent lifestyle changes. Is there a way to share vulnerability without them being insecurities? I would like to know that too actually. If I could to that, that would be good.


----------



## Icey181

Blossom Leigh said:


> wow.. then this video is for you...
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPAat-T1uhE


That is all well and good until the two people realize they do not find each other attractive and we enter into major problems of dead bedrooms, resentment, etc etc…


----------



## NobodySpecial

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> So again, it's all about finding the hottest girl you can even if she's not that into the real you so you don't settle for an uglier one who likes you as you are.
> Then you get to keep up the dance for your whole life to keep the attraction, that sounds very satisfing.
> 
> FTR- I don't think it's "settling" if you're a 7 who ends up with a compatable 5 over a 7 who isn't as compatable.


Recognize that everyone reading a book is going to receive it through different filters and is going to conclude different wheat and different chafe.


----------



## jld

Icey181 said:


> Too much emphasis on the whole SMV numbering system, ironically, I think.
> 
> I think both men and women have an acceptable range of physical attractiveness that they look to find a SO within; the main difference is that I think for the most part *the women's range is taller and the man's is deeper.*
> 
> What does the bolded mean?
> 
> Considering that I now recognize how important sexual compatibility is I am more inclined to recommend that people do not settle for someone they do not find physically attractive, even if they seem to hit all the other pieces.
> 
> People do not learn to become attracted to someone over time. I've read enough failed marriage accounts that came from these kinds of zombie/deadbedroom issues to get that one.
> 
> Attraction is non-negotiable.
> 
> Are you sure? What about the stories we hear about women suddenly falling all over a man they knew previously when he loses weight, or just seems more dominant to her? Or are you talking about something deeper?


----------



## Icey181

This is what I mean about the Red Pill being a unique source of information.

It is not acceptable in the mainstream to tell a man, publically, that he should _feel fine_ in rejecting an otherwise intelligent, mature, and great individual, because he does not find her physically attractive.

In fact men are outright shamed for such things. I have seen it, in person, amongst my own group of friends.

Because, as women who do not need to be in the relationship are quick to tell men, Sex is not important.

I think we know better.

The issue I always had was that, as far as the mainstream advice goes, it is not legitimate for a man to reject a women if she is unattractive, because that makes him _shallow_.


----------



## Anon1111

I think the whole "women don't know what they want" thing just reflects a difference of perspective.

most women are used to being in the position of the pursued. they don't have a lot of insight into the pursuer's mindset.

they know what they like, but they see it from the opposite perspective.

it looks different when you're receiving it versus sending it.

men can get better advice from successful men on the sending it part.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Icey181 said:


> That is all well and good until the two people realize they do not find each other attractive and we enter into major problems of dead bedrooms, resentment, etc etc…


No they don't... My bedroom is not dead, nor am I resentful and MANY women in my shoes would still be resentful.


----------



## Icey181

JLD said:


> What does the bolded mean?


In my experience it is more common for women to be capable of "punching above their weight class," so to speak.

There is a clear cut-off. Below-average men and women tend to have very truncated realistic ranges.

However, in my experience the average girl can shoot "higher" than the average guy can without too much effort.

Why? Not sure. But I think it has something to do with prioritization of sex for men and commitment for women.



JLD said:


> Are you sure? What about the stories we hear about women suddenly falling all over a man they knew previously when he loses weight, or just seems more dominant to her? Or are you talking about something deeper?


Read what you just read.

The woman was not attracted to the man he was.

She was attracted to the new man he became.

You cannot negotiate attraction.

You can only find how to create it. That tends to mean fundamental change for the man involved.

He has to become more dominant, more attractive, more fit, more confident.

In a word, he has to become more "Alpha."


----------



## NobodySpecial

Icey181 said:


> This is what I mean about the Red Pill being a unique source of information.
> 
> It is not acceptable in the mainstream to tell a man, publically, that he should _feel fine_ in rejecting an otherwise intelligent, mature, and great individual, because he does not find her physically attractive.
> 
> In fact men are outright shamed for such things. I have seen it, in person, amongst my own group of friends.
> 
> Because, as women who do not need to be in the relationship are quick to tell men, Sex is not important.
> 
> I think we know better.
> 
> The issue I always had was that, as far as the mainstream advice goes, it is not legitimate for a man to reject a women if she is unattractive, because that makes him _shallow_.


Ugh. Do people really make choices based on the "mainstream"? I will never understand why.


----------



## Icey181

Blossom Leigh said:


> No they don't... My bedroom is not dead, nor am I resentful and MANY women in my shoes would still be resentful.


Well, I do not know much about your relationship.

Are you telling me that if you or your husband honestly answered the question, "Are you attracted to your spouse," either of you would say no?


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Icey181 said:


> In my experience it is more common for women to be capable of "punching above their weight class," so to speak.
> 
> There is a clear cut-off. Below-average men and women tend to have very truncated realistic ranges.
> 
> However, in my experience the average girl can shoot "higher" than the average guy can without too much effort.
> 
> Why? Not sure. But I think it has something to do with prioritization of sex for men and commitment for women.
> 
> 
> Read what you just read.
> 
> The woman was not attracted to the man he was.
> 
> She was attracted to the new man he became.
> 
> You cannot negotiate attraction.
> 
> You can only find how to create it. That tends to mean fundamental change for the man involved.
> 
> He has to become more dominant, more attractive, more fit, more confident.
> 
> In a word, he has to become more "Alpha."


I think he has to BE both alpha and beta and learn to balance the two.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Icey181 said:


> Too much emphasis on the whole SMV numbering system, ironically, I think.
> 
> I think both men and women have an acceptable range of physical attractiveness that they look to find a SO within; the main difference is that I think for the most part the women's range is taller and the man's is deeper.
> 
> Considering that I now recognize how important sexual compatibility is I am more inclined to recommend that people do not settle for someone they do not find physically attractive, even if they seem to hit all the other pieces.
> 
> People do not learn to become attracted to someone over time. I've read enough failed marriage accounts that came from these kinds of zombie/deadbedroom issues to get that one.
> 
> Attraction is non-negotiable.


I agree there's too much focus on the numbers.
And if he simply stated that he needed someone he was attracted to it would be fine. Needing someone who is at least as attractive as he thinks he is is where the problem comes in. 
It's a game where you win by picking the hottest one you can get. 

You can still have a natural attraction to someone based on their whole package even if they are less attractive than you are.


----------



## Julius Beastcavern

Blossom Leigh said:


> I think he has to BE both alpha and beta and learn to balance the two.



That's EXACTLY what MMSLP teaches you


----------



## Icey181

NobodySpecial said:


> Ugh. Do people really make choices based on the "mainstream"? I will never understand why.


It is called the mainstream for a reason.

In today's age, and especially amongst my students, there seems to be this issue with being identified with average. Self-identification tends to show people always assume they are "above average."

Well, that is not the case.

And the mainstream is the loudest, ergo usually the first and most accepted, source of advice for people.

IE; Choreplay & Date Your Wife.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Icey181 said:


> Well, I do not know much about your relationship.
> 
> Are you telling me that if you or your husband honestly answered the question, "Are you attracted to your spouse," either of you would say no?


He was physically attracted to me from day one.

I wasn't attracted to him at all, until.... his mind and his heart synced to help me solve a problem and his way was so unique I was toast and then he became deeply attractive to me in all ways.


----------



## Icey181

Blossom Leigh said:


> I think he has to BE both alpha and beta and learn to balance the two.


Principle Doctrine of the Red Pill.

Oft repeated by contributors who return to the community and are lecturing young men in the anger phase not to let it get out of control.


----------



## Icey181

Blossom Leigh said:


> He was physically attracted to me from day one.
> 
> I wasn't attracted to him at all, until.... his mind and his heart synced to help me solve a problem and his way was so unique I was toast and then he became deeply attractive to me in all ways.


So what you are saying is that you were not attracted to him until there was a fundamental change in his behavior, after which you became attracted to the new him.

I do not see you disagreeing with me here.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Icey181 said:


> Principle Doctrine of the Red Pill.
> 
> Oft repeated by contributors who return to the community and are lecturing young men in the anger phase not to let it get out of control.


Then I agree with it. I just wish he would cut out all the hokey "
biology."


----------



## jld

When you said attraction is non-negotiable, Icey, I thought you meant it had to be there from the get go. Being able to improve yourself to become attractive seems "negotiable" to me, I guess.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Icey181 said:


> So what you are saying is that you were not attracted to him until there was a fundamental change in his behavior, after which you became attracted to the new him.
> 
> I do not see you disagreeing with me here.



There wasn't a change in his behavior. I barely knew him. It was the first time he helped me with a problem. So I was discovering his heart and mind for the first time.


----------



## Anon1111

FWIW, I had a similar experience to Marduk regarding gaming tactics.

They worked with my wife scarily well.

I used them for a couple of months and got laid more consistently during that time than I had in years.

It was fake though and manipulative and I felt like sh-t for doing it.

I went down a different path that is much harder. There is no instant gratification.

I think what scares a lot of people is that this stuff actually is sexually attractive to women on a really base level. A lot of people don't want to reckon with that.

I believe you can and should choose to shoot higher, but when you pretend like there is no incentive to act this way, you are arguing against the life experiences of a lot of guys that says otherwise (at least on a superficial level).


----------



## NobodySpecial

Icey181 said:


> It is called the mainstream for a reason.
> 
> In today's age, and especially amongst my students, there seems to be this issue with being identified with average. Self-identification tends to show people always assume they are "above average."
> 
> Well, that is not the case.
> 
> And the mainstream is the loudest, ergo usually the *first *and most accepted, source of advice for people.
> 
> IE; Choreplay & Date Your Wife.


Thankfully DH and I made sure WE were the first source of advice for the medium sized people we care most about. And they already have a very healthy skepticism of mainstream thinking.


----------



## Faithful Wife

jld said:


> When you said attraction is non-negotiable, Icey, I thought you meant it had to be there from the get go. Being able to improve yourself to become attractive seems "negotiable" to me, I guess.


That's exactly right.

Attraction IS non-negotiable, but these guys want to believe they can take what they have and add cars and status, and then somehow the girl who wasn't attracted to them before, will be now...and yet, they want "real" attraction. And "real" attraction is non-negotiable. That's why it doesn't make any sense.

Are you hot for me? Am I hot for you? If neither of us owned anything, just us two seeing each other walking down the street, are we hot for each other? If no, then it is NON-negotiable.


----------



## Icey181

jld said:


> When you said attraction is non-negotiable, Icey, I thought you meant it had to be there from the get go. Being able to improve yourself to become attractive seems "negotiable" to me, I guess.


Not what I mean.

You cannot talk someone into being attracted to you, _as you are_, if they are already not attracted to you.

You can change yourself to create attraction, but that is not a negotiation. That is actively altering yourself in a manner that better matches with those things your SO finds attractive.

That gets back to the whole Wives who "want to want" their husbands, but just do not.

It is something I learned over on the SIM and deadbedroom boards. "The Talk" does not actually fix anything. It never does.


----------



## john117

naiveonedave said:


> I lost weight ==> women try to flirt with me a lot more ==> reaction from my W



And once again I can't help but wonder where all those flirtatious women live or work...


----------



## Icey181

NobodySpecial said:


> Thankfully DH and I made sure WE were the first source of advice for the medium sized people we care most about. And they already have a very healthy skepticism of mainstream thinking.


Well, when the answers you get from your spouse are, "I don't know," and "I guess I am just stressed out," or "Be more romantic," looking to each other for advice does not tend to help.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> That's exactly right.
> 
> Attraction IS non-negotiable, but these guys want to believe they can take what they have and add cars and status, and then somehow the girl who wasn't attracted to them before, will be now...and yet, they want "real" attraction. And "real" attraction is non-negotiable. That's why it doesn't make any sense.
> 
> Are you hot for me? Am I hot for you? If neither of us owned anything, just us two seeing each other walking down the street, are we hot for each other? If no, then it is NON-negotiable.


Why did I suddenly get hit on a lot more within 72 hours of a public announcement of a recent, highly visible, and high status promotion?

Coincidence?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## NobodySpecial

Icey181 said:


> Well, when the answers you get from your spouse are, "I don't know," and "I guess I am just stressed out," or "Be more romantic," looking to each other for advice does not tend to help.


I thought we were talking about young people like your students.... Sorry if I misses the vein. As such I was talking about my kids.


----------



## NobodySpecial

marduk said:


> Why did I suddenly get hit on a lot more within 72 hours of a public announcement of a recent, highly visible, and high status promotion?
> 
> Coincidence?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Ew. I can only imagine what kind of s bags were hitting on you based on a PROMOTION! Can we please predicate "women" with "some women" because I don't want to be associated with that.


----------



## Marduk

Icey181 said:


> Well, when the answers you get from your spouse are, "I don't know," and "I guess I am just stressed out," or "Be more romantic," looking to each other for advice does not tend to help.


Which often don't work, and frustrate everyone.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Icey, some of what you say that one person must improve I just don't agree 100%. There is another layer or dynamic that rests in the other person and that is one of attitude. 

My H went through a period of time where he was deeply ungrateful for me, our lifestyle and what I bring to the table. It was during that time he had an affair. I had not changed. His perspective had shifted. It took time to reestablish a correct perspective of who I am and what I bring to the relationship. So sometimes its not the guy or the girl who has to improve. Sometimes they were good all along and the perspective of the other person shifted to one of ingrate. 

Its why some of these blanket statements just don't resonate fully for me.


----------



## Marduk

NobodySpecial said:


> Ew. I can only imagine what kind of s bags were hitting on you based on a PROMOTION! Can we please predicate "women" with "some women" because I don't want to be associated with that.


There were 3 in particular and they all fit essentially the same mold. 

Late 20s/early 30s attractive ambitious women looking to climb both the social and corporate ladder. 

I was disgusted. 

However, I can see a single guy or a married guy with lose morals going "yippee" because they were young and superficially hot.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

I think FW is talking about genuine attraction, the kind that neither has to work for, but is always there.


----------



## NobodySpecial

marduk said:


> There were 3 in particular and they all fit essentially the same mold.
> 
> Late 20s/early 30s attractive ambitious women looking to climb both the social and corporate ladder.
> 
> I was disgusted.
> 
> However, I can see a single guy or a married guy with lose morals going "yippee" because they were young and superficially hot.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


These people, and I use the word lightly, make me sick. Most of us climb the corporate ladder with intelligence and hard work. These tools give us a bad name.


----------



## Marduk

Can you say more French fry?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

jld said:


> I think FW is talking about genuine attraction, the kind that neither has to work for, but is always there.


Yes, mutual sexual attraction. Nothing less than this will sustain a long term sexual relationship.

And since people are not all the same, we can't predict which two people may have mutual sexual attraction, they can only discover this for themselves. To the outside observer, they may not look like likely candidates for having mutual attraction, but if they do, they do.

If they don't, if one is faking it or is factoring in and overcompensating with other stuff...this cannot be sustained and you'll end up with a dead bedroom.

However, if a man views vaginas as interchangeable, then he won't care, when she dumps him for someone she has actual attraction to he will just find another one until that one dumps him, and so on.


----------



## Idyit

Faithful Wife said:


> That's exactly right.
> 
> Attraction IS non-negotiable, but these guys want to believe they can take what they have and add cars and status, and then somehow the girl who wasn't attracted to them before, will be now...and yet, they want "real" attraction. And "real" attraction is non-negotiable. That's why it doesn't make any sense.
> 
> Are you hot for me? Am I hot for you? * If neither of us owned anything, just us two seeing each other walking down the street, *are we hot for each other? If no, then it is NON-negotiable.


You're losing me here. How do you know that the guy walking down the street was not the introverted, out of shape nerd a couple of years ago? What if he didn't like where life was going and decided to make some changes?

What you say above strips away all other elements of a person and boils it down to very base attraction. Is that all it really takes is first impression? Heck, your example doesn't even have either one speaking. Help me understand what you're saying if I just swung and missed.

~ Passio


----------



## Icey181

NobodySpecial said:


> I thought we were talking about young people like your students.... Sorry if I misses the vein. As such I was talking about my kids.


I think it applies to both groups. There is a level of necessary self-respect that produces outcome independence that runs the gamut of both groups.



Blossom Leigh said:


> Icey, some of what you say that one person must improve I just don't agree 100%. There is another layer or dynamic that rests in the other person and that is one of attitude.
> 
> My H went through a period of time where he was deeply ungrateful for me, our lifestyle and what I bring to the table. It was during that time he had an affair. I had not changed. His perspective had shifted. It took time to reestablish a correct perspective of who I am and what I bring to the relationship. So sometimes its not the guy or the girl who has to improve. Sometimes they were good all along and the perspective of the other person shifted to one of ingrate.
> 
> Its why some of these blanket statements just don't resonate fully for me.


See, this is more difficult.

The phrases you use "reestablish a correct perspective," and "they were good all along," indicate to me that you are doing your best, and seem to have succeeded, in seeing the best in your husband.

From my outside perspective, it does not sound like that good man was always there.

Good men are not ungrateful for the contributions of their wives.

Good men do not cheat.

It sounds like he changed and fundamentally so. And it sounds like he really needed to.

It sounds like an issue of, frankly, an immature man who took things for granted and thought he could do whatever he wanted.

And it sounds like after a major breach in your marriage you two came together and set ground rules which produced some fundamental changes in his personality.

You could not be convinced to find the ungrateful cheater attractive, I would think.

Clearly, it is a more extreme case, but the point basically stands.

He had to change.

Sounds like he did.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> Why did I suddenly get hit on a lot more within 72 hours of a public announcement of a recent, highly visible, and high status promotion?
> 
> Coincidence?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


But you are talking about women who already know you, right?

And you are an attractive man by objective standards, right?

Do you think if you looked like Danny Devito the effect would have been the same on the same women?

Do you think maybe these women were just stroking you and making you feel good, because they like you, already liked you, and now had an excuse to talk to you about something that made you proud? Women are pretty good at this.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

NobodySpecial said:


> People who aren't need books to show them how to pretend. Until they cannot keep up the front anymore.


These kind of comments indicate to me that someone isn't following. What exactly do you imagine is pretended?

Does he pretend to stand up straight and have good body language? Is he pretending to be assertive? Is he pretending to be outcome independent?

You do it or you don't. This whole idea of pretending is off the mark. You are doing these things, or you aren't doing these things. You're not pretending to do these things.


----------



## Marduk

NobodySpecial said:


> These people, and I use the word lightly, make me sick. Most of us climb the corporate ladder with intelligence and hard work. These tools give us a bad name.


At the end of the day something made them more attracted to me. 

I think it was my promotion. What red pill guys call status.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes, *mutual sexual attraction. Nothing less than this will sustain a long term sexual relationship.*
> 
> And since people are not all the same, we can't predict which two people may have mutual sexual attraction, they can only discover this for themselves. To the outside observer, they may not look like likely candidates for having mutual attraction, but if they do, they do.
> 
> If they don't, if one is faking it or is factoring in and overcompensating with other stuff...this cannot be sustained and you'll end up with a dead bedroom.
> 
> However, if a man views vaginas as interchangeable, then he won't care, when she dumps him for someone she has actual attraction to he will just find another one until that one dumps him, and so on.


Sometimes that's not there right off the bat on the physical level like in my case. But once it started it is deep, intense, authentic and makes ALL the men in my past pale in comparison. It is not always physical that trips that sexual attraction switch.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Idyit said:


> You're losing me here. How do you know that the guy walking down the street was not the introverted, out of shape nerd a couple of years ago? What if he didn't like where life was going and decided to make some changes?
> 
> What you say above strips away all other elements of a person and boils it down to very base attraction. Is that all it really takes is first impression? Heck, your example doesn't even have either one speaking. Help me understand what you're saying if I just swung and missed.
> 
> ~ Passio


I'm saying that mutual physical and sexual attraction is a component of what makes a long term sexual relationship stay hot.

*You have to have much more than just the physical attraction*, but if you do NOT have that, if one party is not actually physically and sexually attracted to the other, then eventually the heat will fade.

So if a man thinks he's got it made with a babe but she actually would NEVER have dated him if he is poor because he isn't attractive to her, then why would he be shocked when eventually she doesn't want to have sex with him?


----------



## NobodySpecial

marduk said:


> At the end of the day something made them more attracted to me.
> 
> I think it was my promotion. What red pill guys call status.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Does it matter to "the red pill guys" WHAT they are attracted to? I mean if I was attractive to porcupine, I would be kinda bothered by that. But at least part of the red pill mantra seems to specifically about not caring, as long as you are getting.

I am curious. Does AK consider himself a red pill guy? Does he use that term?


----------



## Icey181

marduk said:


> There were 3 in particular and they all fit essentially the same mold.
> 
> Late 20s/early 30s attractive ambitious women looking to climb both the social and corporate ladder.
> 
> I was disgusted.
> 
> However, I can see a single guy or a married guy with lose morals going "yippee" because they were young and superficially hot.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


My father, who has been overweight for 30-years, used to jokingly warn me about these women.

Despite the fact that he was clearly married, every time he received a promotion there were always women who suddenly found him attractive and gave him considerable attention.

One of the pieces of advice he always told me, "nothing will get you more attention from women than being a successful married man."

Boy was he right. :scratchhead:


----------



## Faithful Wife

Blossom Leigh said:


> Sometimes that's not there right off the bat on the physical level like in my case. But once it started it is deep, intense, authentic and makes ALL the men in my past pale in comparison. It is not always physical that trips that sexual attraction switch.


That's right but it is between the two people to find that and feel that mutual attraction.

Instead, we have some men (not all) who think that having a nice car is all he needs to bag babes and that physical attraction doesn't matter to women at all.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> But you are talking about women who already know you, right?
> 
> And you are an attractive man by objective standards, right?
> 
> Do you think if you looked like Danny Devito the effect would have been the same on the same women?
> 
> Do you think maybe these women were just stroking you and making you feel good, because they like you, already liked you, and now had an excuse to talk to you about something that made you proud? Women are pretty good at this.


Maybe they were at the tipping point and that pushed them over the edge.

Maybe they were stroking my ego, but if that includes "a weekend of whatever I want" or "come back to my place no strings attached" or "what do I have to do to get to work *under* you?" 

Where under was clearly broadcast as her getting underneath me. 

Was that ego stroking? Being horny for me? Both? I dunno. 

My point is that by direct empirical evidence I had women offer me sex after a perceived increase in my social status.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

NobodySpecial said:


> No I said YOU THINK your precious little boys were owed hate and anger at the girls, who incidentally are no older or more mature that your precious snowflakes, because they wanted to be friends rather than boink your sons.


lol they don't want to just be friends. They want all the attention one gets from a boyfriend without having to offer anything in return. It's a means for her to get validation.

The way some girls play guys like this is no less despicable than a guy who lures a girl under a relationship pretense and dumps her minutes after getting laid.

She is toying with him to get what she wants, just as the latter is toying with her to get what he wants. Make no mistake that the "friend zone" is a flirty, teasing place meant to cultivate a ready supply of validation for her from a guy who doesn't know any better.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> Maybe they were at the tipping point and that pushed them over the edge.
> 
> Maybe they were stroking my ego, but if that includes "a weekend of whatever I want" or "come back to my place no strings attached" or "what do I have to do to get to work *under* you?"
> 
> Where under was clearly broadcast as her getting underneath me.
> 
> Was that ego stroking? Being horny for me? Both? I dunno.
> 
> My point is that by direct empirical evidence I had women offer me sex after a perceived increase in my social status.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Ok, then I guess that's what it is. You could have looked like Danny Devito and they still would have wanted to get under you. Check.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Icey181 said:


> I think it applies to both groups. There is a level of necessary self-respect that produces outcome independence that runs the gamut of both groups.
> 
> 
> See, this is more difficult.
> 
> The phrases you use "reestablish a correct perspective," and "they were good all along," indicate to me that you are doing your best, and seem to have succeeded, in seeing the best in your husband.
> 
> From my outside perspective, it does not sound like that good man was always there.
> 
> Good men are not ungrateful for the contributions of their wives.
> 
> Good men do not cheat.
> 
> It sounds like he changed and fundamentally so. And it sounds like he really needed to.
> 
> It sounds like an issue of, frankly, an immature man who took things for granted and thought he could do whatever he wanted.
> 
> And it sounds like after a major breach in your marriage you two came together and set ground rules which produced some fundamental changes in his personality.
> 
> You could not be convinced to find the ungrateful cheater attractive, I would think.
> 
> Clearly, it is a more extreme case, but the point basically stands.
> 
> He had to change.
> 
> Sounds like he did.


There were very beautiful parts of his personality, soul, thinking, etc that grabbed me early on after we met and I fell hard for him, but over time gaps in his character were unearthed by the pressures of our lifestyle and he in his immaturity handled it poorly in more ways than infidelity. It was at that point it was revealed I too had more growing to do and stop accepting poor behavior. A path I had been on since 2005 since before I met him. He stepped up and worked on himself hard with the help of Christ and other godly men and grew up. He applied himself so well in comparison to where he was and worked so hard that I was once again able to dive into enjoying what caused me to fall in love with him in the first place.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Ok, then I guess that's what it is. You could have looked like Danny Devito and they still would have wanted to get under you. Check.


I didn't say that at all FW. 

I said they may have been on the tipping point - I.e. Kinda attracted. Something pushed them over that tipping point.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Icey181

Faithful Wife said:


> Ok, then I guess that's what it is. You could have looked like Danny Devito and they still would have wanted to get under you. Check.


You cannot be surprised to learn that there are women who find men attractive for what they have and not who they are…


----------



## Idyit

Faithful Wife said:


> I'm saying that mutual physical and sexual attraction is a *component* of what makes a *long term* sexual relationship stay hot.
> 
> *No disagreement here*
> 
> *You have to have much more than just the physical attraction*, but if you do NOT have that, if one party is not actually physically and sexually attracted to the other, then eventually the heat will fade.
> 
> *Agreed. Sexual attraction is physical in nature. All the other components may sustain a relationship but the sexual side will likely fade. Isn't this what DevilsAdvocate has been saying? He made changes in himself because he wasn't attracted to the women who gave him attention. His move was away from women he wasn't attracted to. Maybe the perceived degree of upswing is the issue.*
> 
> So if a man thinks he's got it made with a babe but she actually would NEVER have dated him if he is poor because he isn't attractive to her, then why would he be shocked when eventually she doesn't want to have sex with him?


*I'd say both sides of this equation are equally undesirable. Wouldn't bother with a woman that dated for money/status alone nor be a guy that bought a trophy.*

Can you clarify if your earlier example of walking down the street is describing initial attraction or an abstract way of looking at a current LTR partner?

~ Passio


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> I didn't say that at all FW.
> 
> I said they may have been on the tipping point - I.e. Kinda attracted. Something pushed them over that tipping point.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


So you take an already hot guy who is also accomplished (and receives some kind of raise, award, whatever) and chicks dig him. No argument there. Women love to praise men they are attracted to.

I have to wonder what kind of boundaries your work place has though, with women actually asking you if they can get under you? :scratchhead:


----------



## EllisRedding

naiveonedave said:


> I lost weight ==> women try to flirt with me a lot more ==> reaction from my W


What I find interesting, I have always been very active/in good shape (played a lot of sports, exercising, etc...). Of late though my physique has bumped up a notch, in part b/c of the specific weight program I have been following. My wife would always periodically comment on my physique, attraction b/w both of us has never been an issue. However, in the past few weeks she has made more comments regarding, even commenting how I am the sexy husband all the other mothers/wives look at (i don't necessarily feel that way, but hey, I will take the compliment lol). Really though the first time she has ever made comments like that. Point being, these comments do coincide with our sex life turning around the past few weeks (heck, we have even run circles around when we were younger). A big portion of this I believe is we had such a long dry spell that I think it is the opposite reaction where we can't get enough, more of the mindset of "This is too freakin good not to do more often", and are enjoying reconnecting. But I do wonder based on her comments regarding how other women view me if that is driving her a little in terms of I guess competition? Keep in mind I have never indicated to her that I could get some elsewhere nor do I even have a desire to look elsewhere, just seems like there is something else there with her (trust me, no complaints).


----------



## Faithful Wife

Idyit said:


> Can you clarify if your earlier example of walking down the street is describing initial attraction or an abstract way of looking at a current LTR partner?
> 
> ~ Passio


That post was just meant as a litmus test.

If I saw a man walking down the street and knew nothing else about him other than if I was physically attracted or not, then that would be my baseline physical attraction to him, and this baseline matters. 

Everything else comes into play after that...but the physical attraction on its own merit has to be there.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Lila said:


> The funny thing with all of this friend zone talk is that women go through the same thing. We get passed up all of the time because of our looks or our shyness or for a million other reasons. It's life folks!


I might have missed it, but I wasn't aware of any guys purposefully keeping a female he's not attracted to around to tell him he's pretty, and listen to his problems... while being sexually suggestive and teasing and saying things like "if only I could find a girl like you".

They're given just enough tease and play to make them think they have a chance so she can continue to get the adoration. 

This friend-zoning behavior isn't something I've ever seen in a guy. If we're not interested in you, we're pretty damn clear about it in our indifference. We're not cozying up next to you to ego trip on you squirming in desire.


----------



## Marduk

Well, it happens FW. 

And I made sure none of them will work for me or anyone that works for me, ever. 

I'm not stupid. 

Now, help me connect the dots between what red pill calls high status men and what your issues are with that.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

And what's wrong with Danny Divito?

I guarantee that guy is getting laid like tile. On a bed of cash in a yacht somewhere.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> Well, it happens FW.
> 
> And I made sure none of them will work for me or anyone that works for me, ever.
> 
> I'm not stupid.
> 
> Now, help me connect the dots between what red pill calls high status men and what your issues are with that.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Ok, easy: These women are of low character, as evidenced by the fact that they would openly hit on a married man just because he got a promotion (I will assume these women know you are married and assume they believe you are happily married and monogamous).

So please don't confuse low character gold diggers with "women" and then you'll understand.

MMSL can help you bag gold diggers of low character.

If that's what a man wants, then he should go that route.

I could tell lots of stories of low character men, the things they have offered me, the salivating they have done over me, the chasing, whining, begging, and all the strange things they've tried to do to get my attention.

Yet I don't confuse these creepers with "men".


----------



## Tubbalard

Attractive guy with a Ford Fusion= Has to grind it out more with his personality to get women.

Attractive guy with Ferrari=No effort...Flocks of women swarming him on general principle.

Status, finances, assets...Can make an average man look handsome


----------



## Blossom Leigh

marduk said:


> And what's wrong with Danny Divito?
> 
> I guarantee that guy is getting laid like tile. On a bed of cash in a yacht somewhere.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


awwww... Danny DeVito and Rhea Perlman Are Back Together : People.com


----------



## Idyit

Faithful Wife said:


> That post was just meant as a litmus test.
> 
> If I saw a man walking down the street and knew nothing else about him other than if I was physically attracted or not, then that would be my baseline physical attraction to him, and this baseline matters.
> 
> Everything else comes into play after that...but the physical attraction on its own merit has to be there.


Ok. How is this different than what DevilsAdvocate is saying about being attractive to the women he is attracted to? His pathway may be much different than yours but functionally you two seem to be saying the same thing.

~ Passio


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Tubbalard said:


> Attractive guy with a Ford Fusion= Has to grind it out more with his personality to get women.
> 
> Attractive guy with Ferrari=No effort...Flocks of women swarming him on general principle.
> 
> Status, finances, assets...Can make an average man look handsome


I'll take the guy with the Ford


----------



## Faithful Wife

Idyit said:


> Ok. How is this different than what DevilsAdvocate is saying about being attractive to the women he is attracted to? His pathway may be much different than yours but functionally you two seem to be saying the same thing.
> 
> ~ Passio


Devils only wants to date women who are much younger and much hotter than what he could get on his looks alone. He does not want to date women who feel mutual physical attraction with him, because he says the only women who feel attraction for him are overweight.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Ok, easy: These women are of low character, as evidenced by the fact that they would openly hit on a married man just because he got a promotion (I will assume these women know you are married and assume they believe you are happily married and monogamous).
> 
> So please don't confuse low character gold diggers with "women" and then you'll understand.
> 
> MMSL can help you bag gold diggers of low character.
> 
> If that's what a man wants, then he should go that route.


Like it or lump it, they are still women. 

I think there's something there, where successful power can confer rewards of that success on potential mates, or something, that makes people more attractive to some people.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

Blossom Leigh said:


> awwww... Danny DeVito and Rhea Perlman Are Back Together : People.com


Yay, I love this!


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Faithful Wife said:


> Devils only wants to date women who are much younger and much hotter than what he could get on his looks alone. He does not want to date women who feel mutual physical attraction with him, because he says the only women who feel attraction for him are overweight.


Except me, therefore this means there has to be hot women who find him attractive and are not overweight.


----------



## EllisRedding

Tubbalard said:


> Attractive guy with a Ford Fusion= Has to grind it out more with his personality to get women.
> 
> Attractive guy with Ferrari=No effort...Flocks of women swarming him on general principle.
> 
> Status, finances, assets...Can make an average man look handsome


This guy I know who owns a company has stated pretty much the same thing. When he drives around his beat up truck, very little attention. When he drives around his "going out" car, the response is completely different. I know some don't want to believe this, but it still does happen ...


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> Like it or lump it, they are still women.
> 
> I think there's something there, where successful power can confer rewards of that success on potential mates, or something, that makes people more attractive to *some people*.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


And you know which people. So if character doesn't matter, then sure. There will always be some woman around who will happily separate you from your money.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

marduk said:


> Like it or lump it, they are still women.
> 
> I think there's something there, where successful power can confer rewards of that success on potential mates, or something, that makes people more attractive to some people.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


My H is attracted to my financial success as well as other ways. So I know it is part of the picture. Again... genderless.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> And you know which people. So if character doesn't matter, then sure. There will always be some woman around who will happily separate you from your money.


You're talking in circles now. 

My wife also found me more attractive for a short period of time. Friends have reported similar effects. 

There's something there.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

Blossom Leigh said:


> Except me, therefore this means there has to be hot women who find him attractive and are not overweight.


Not hot enough, apparently? I'm just going off what he has said. They have to be young 20's and petite and super hot.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

EllisRedding said:


> This guy I know who owns a company has stated pretty much the same thing. When he drives around his beat up truck, very little attention. When he drives around his "going out" car, the response is completely different. I know some don't want to believe this, but it still does happen ...


Drive my Expedition get some looks

Drive a big Ford Dually or lifted truck and heads turn constantly

Sometimes it is because its out of the norm


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Faithful Wife said:


> Not hot enough, apparently? I'm just going off what he has said. They have to be young 20's and petite and super hot.


That's just his personal preference no matter how much he wants to justify it.

Just be authentic and say so without all the BS D8


----------



## EllisRedding

Bugged said:


> people like beautiful things..if I saw a guy on a freaking *Brutale *i would stop him (if i could)and ask him to show me his bike. The attraction is to the machine NOT the man
> What's the point??:scratchhead::scratchhead:


The status symbol of the "machine" makes the guy more attractive/approachable. It is not if the women just say " Hey, nice car" and then walk away ...

I am not saying this is universal to all women, but it still does happen. Why are people here so dead set against the idea that this may still occur :scratchhead:


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> You're talking in circles now.
> 
> My wife also found me more attractive for a short period of time. Friends have reported similar effects.
> 
> There's something there.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Ok, there's something there.

What do you think that something is?

Is it something you want? Is it something you need? Is it something that makes you special? Is it something that makes a woman attractive to YOU just because she is hot for your coin?

You want evo pysche nonsense to explain it for you?

Or can you just accept that you are an attractive man and that these women found you even more attractive when you had accomplished something new? What is so unusual or hard to grasp about this? If you can only see it through the red pill lens, then ok, see it that way.

I would just say that a man at the top of his game is attractive.

So is a woman.

But the same man is either physically attractive or he isn't (to an individual woman). And the same man is either a good man, capable of intimacy, or he isn't.

Yes, people game each other. These women may want to game you to get your coin. And?


----------



## Brigit

NobodySpecial said:


> Having read his posts in this thread, and others of his post, I have some pretty good idea.
> 
> 
> So before you continue to call someone abusive, have you read the book or just selected passages as posted by someone else?
> 
> 
> 
> Go for it. I just think calling Marduk abusive for having read a book and taken something out of it is out of line.


1. I have not read the book nor do I intend to. The passages that have been quoted here are repulsive enough thank you very much. If false text was quoted it would have been called out.


2. I never called Marduk abusive. I said the book teaches abusive techniques. What Marduk used from the book is unknown to both of us. He might have used the more repulsive techniques. The only ones who know for sure are him and his wife.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

NobodySpecial said:


> It is no coincidence that they boys who have lots of social commitments with their wolf pack are the most sought after.


Found in Seduction related texts.

Deprioritize female friends. Get with the wolf pack and always have important things to do. 

That's almost verbatim.

To the orbiter, nothing is more important than the girl he's orbiting, and he thinks showing this reveals to her how he perfectly fits what she constantly claims to want: An attentive guy who puts her first and is respectful and her best pal.

The former signals high value. He's not doting because he lives in a world of plenty. He's always busy and industrious. There's also a more subtle play at work that says "you're not as important to me as all these other things" that works in a manner very similar to negging plus a bit of preselection or social vetting. The eager guy is signaling that she's of high value relative to what he attracts - that he himself is low value... which she reads as "I can do better". That he is so eager indicates that other women of her caliber aren't interested in this guy - preselection/social vetting at work. The busy, less eager guy is signaling that she's not of high value. It's an indicator she is trading upward. He must be used to getting interest from girls of her caliber. Other people want this guy's time... there must be something to him.

Signals are important.


----------



## Idyit

Faithful Wife said:


> Devils only wants to date women who are much younger and much hotter than what he could get on his looks alone. He does not want to date women who feel mutual physical attraction with him, because he says the only women who feel attraction for him are overweight.


Don't know about the first part.

As to the second. The way I read it is that only overweight women(those he was not attracted to) were attracted to him therefor he made changes to himself. Those changes created attraction with those he was drawn to. ie..mutual physical attraction.

Different pathway but seems like a very similar conclusion. Don't be with someone that you are not mutually attracted to.

~ Passio


----------



## Lila

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I might have missed it, but I wasn't aware of any guys purposefully keeping a female he's not attracted to around to tell him he's pretty, and listen to his problems... while being sexually suggestive and teasing and saying things like "if only I could find a girl like you".
> 
> They're given just enough tease and play to make them think they have a chance so she can continue to get the adoration.
> 
> This friend-zoning behavior isn't something I've ever seen in a guy. If we're not interested in you, we're pretty damn clear about it in our indifference. We're not cozying up next to you to ego trip on you squirming in desire.


The equivalency are guys who string girls around, who they don't necessarily find super attractive, with empty promises simply for sex. These girls are never introduced to family or friends as "the girlfriend" or "the girl I'm dating". These are the muses for the tasteless joke 'What do fat chicks and mopeds have in common? They're both fun to ride until your friends find out'. 

Yep, girls get used too.


----------



## Brigit

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I might have missed it, but I wasn't aware of any guys purposefully keeping a female he's not attracted to around to tell him he's pretty, and listen to his problems... while being sexually suggestive and teasing and saying things like "if only I could find a girl like you".
> 
> They're given just enough tease and play to make them think they have a chance so she can continue to get the adoration.
> 
> This friend-zoning behavior isn't something I've ever seen in a guy. If we're not interested in you, we're pretty damn clear about it in our indifference. We're not cozying up next to you to ego trip on you squirming in desire.


For the record I did have several male friends throughout my life to keep around and feed my ego. I never forced them to hang out with me and be my friend. They enjoyed my company. I knew they wanted more but so what? Hanging out with them wasn't crime or deception. They knew the deal.


----------



## Anon1111

I know what Marduk is talking about.

My wife is attracted to status. No question.

One of her friends is married to a guy that is in no way objectively physically attractive.

Yet my wife insists the guy is good looking.

Take my word for it, if you saw his picture you would not say he is good looking.

She HONESTLY believes it though. He IS rich.

There is no calculated ploy to gold dig. It is just a raw attraction thing for her.

When I really started to understand this about her I had a mini existential crisis because it occurred to me that she may view me the same way. If I lost the status... POOF! suddenly no longer attractive.

She of course could never see it that way because she does not see the connection. For her it is just "attractive" the same way I see a woman with a good body as just "attractive"

Now I don't really worry about it anymore though.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Idyit said:


> Different pathway but seems like a very similar conclusion. Don't be with someone that you are not mutually attracted to.
> 
> ~ Passio


Don't be with someone you are not mutually PHYSICALLY attracted to.

If I wasn't hot for my husband's body (and his looks in general), he would know it.

He wouldn't be with me, because, why would he when he can be with any number of women who ARE hot for his body? Without mutual physical attraction, sex will go flat. 

You can't count up all your other attributes and trade them for PHYSICAL attraction, it just doesn't work that way.

This is quite easy for a man to understand in reverse usually, right? If he doesn't feel physical attraction for a woman, he can't pretend he does and keep feeling it forever.

Well, neither can a woman.


----------



## Buddy400

Pluto2 said:


> "banging dimes"
> 
> how nice
> 
> And you still wonder why women react so strongly to this drivel


Well.....you've got to admit that "banging dimes" is a lot snappier than "having sexual relations with very attractive women". 

And we're supposed to be interesting, aren't we?


----------



## samyeagar

Faithful Wife said:


> Don't be with someone you are not mutually PHYSICALLY attracted to.
> 
> If I wasn't hot for my husband's body (and his looks in general), he would know it.
> 
> *He wouldn't be with me, because, why would he when he can be with any number of women who ARE hot for his body?* Without mutual physical attraction, sex will go flat.
> 
> You can't count up all your other attributes and trade them for PHYSICAL attraction, it just doesn't work that way.
> 
> This is quite easy for a man to understand in reverse usually, right? If he doesn't feel physical attraction for a woman, he can't pretend he does and keep feeling it forever.
> 
> Well, neither can a woman.


I get what you are saying here, but be careful, because it sounds awfully close to admitting you are interchangable...


----------



## jld

Faithful Wife said:


> This is quite easy for a man to understand in reverse usually, right? If he doesn't feel physical attraction for a woman, he can't pretend he does and keep feeling it forever.


I tend to think this is true, too. But I did read a post once about a guy who started dating a gal he was not overly physically attracted to, but he ended up falling in love and marrying her. He was really happy. I remember they had a lot of common interests.

I guess it can happen?


----------



## Idyit

Faithful Wife said:


> Don't be with someone you are not mutually PHYSICALLY attracted to.
> 
> If I wasn't hot for my husband's body (and his looks in general), he would know it.
> 
> He wouldn't be with me, because, why would he when he can be with any number of women who ARE hot for his body? Without mutual physical attraction, sex will go flat.
> 
> You can't count up all your other attributes and trade them for PHYSICAL attraction, it just doesn't work that way.
> 
> This is quite easy for a man to understand in reverse usually, right? If he doesn't feel physical attraction for a woman, he can't pretend he does and keep feeling it forever.
> 
> Well, neither can a woman.


Right. I fixed my post to read mutual physical attraction. I do agree with you on this point for both men and women. Kind of a no-brainer really.

My questions are aimed at understanding how two people from really different perspectives are saying essentially the same thing and one gets praise while the other is slammed. 

~ Passio


----------



## Faithful Wife

samyeagar said:


> I get what you are saying here, but be careful, because it sounds awfully close to admitting you are interchangable...


No, what it means is that he has high standards for who he will share is body with.

He won't be with a woman who isn't physically hot for him.

Just because he would reject a woman who isn't hot for him doesn't mean he would just "find a vagina" who is hot for him. There's much more to it than that, and you know it, so I don't know why you are calling me out. :scratchhead:

My answer stands.

He won't lower his standards is not the same thing as saying he sees women as interchangable vaginas. I would think you would uphold this notion.

You know we have far more going on than the physical, too. But even if he was just going for a ONS, he would require her to be physically hot for him.


----------



## Tubbalard

Faithful Wife said:


> Devils only wants to date women who are much younger and much hotter than what he could get on his looks alone. He does not want to date women who feel mutual physical attraction with him, because he says the only women who feel attraction for him are overweight.


Nah. I believe you're twisting what he conveyed and subliminally dissing him in this comment.

I don't believe he ever said the only women that feel attraction for him are overweight. I believe that was in his past, till he brushed himself, acquired some game (better social skills), got his wardrobe intact and raised his game sliders up from a 55 to an 85.

I'm pretty sure he can get attractive women now with not too much effort, because he changed his inner self which related to his outer self, therefore the quality of women raised to another level.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Idyit said:


> Right. I fixed my post to read mutual physical attraction. I do agree with you on this point for both men and women. Kind of a no-brainer really.
> 
> My questions are aimed at understanding how two people from really different perspectives are saying essentially the same thing and one gets praise while the other is slammed.
> 
> ~ Passio


Dvls and I are not saying the same thing. He is saying physical looks don't matter to women, and I am saying they do.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Faithful Wife said:


> Dvls and I are not saying the same thing. He is saying physical looks don't matter to women, and I am saying they do.


To a degree... if my H didn't have the mind and heart that he does I wouldn't care what he looked like.


----------



## EllisRedding

Blossom Leigh said:


> I'll take the guy with the Ford


By saying that you are essentially doing the same thing, you are making a decision solely on status, or lack thereof. Guy with the ford could be a real dbag and a guy with the nice car could be a real nice guy who has the the means to afford a nice vehicle. I believe what you are saying is that either way, you would judge a guy not on his vehicle but on who he is 



Bugged said:


> walk away depends on what the chances are of getting a free ride on a Ferrari as in a *FERRARI *.. doesn't mean I suddenly think the guy is attractive...this stuff is just skin deep..depends on how shallow a person is...really simple as that...so if one is interested in shallow women then be ready for a broken heart (IF they have one)...


But see, I agree, it is skin deep, it is shallow. No one is arguing that here, and no one is saying every woman operates this way (at least I am not). Still doesn't change the fact that stuff like this does still occur (whether to your liking or not), and given how materialistic society has become is it really a surprise?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Blossom Leigh said:


> To a degree... if my H didn't have the mind and heart that he does I wouldn't care what he looked like.


Mine, too.

I could be physically attracted to my husband, but if he was an idiot it wouldn't go any further than physical attraction.

To be in love, to have intimacy and trust....there's much more needed.

I'm just making the point that women DO care about physical attraction.

The red pill and PUA garbage try very hard to convince men we really don't care about physical attraction. This does a disservice to everyone, and isn't true.


----------



## Tubbalard

Bugged said:


> walk away depends on what the chances are of getting a free ride on a Ferrari as in a *FERRARI *.. doesn't mean I suddenly think the guy is attractive...this stuff is just skin deep..depends on how shallow a person is...really simple as that...so if one is interested in shallow women then be ready for a broken heart (IF they have one)...


Correct..But that's only if the guy wants a relationship with a shallow woman. A man should be able to see a shallow woman from a mile away. Unfortunately...a lot of men can't and get blinded by a beautiful woman to which the social status of her being arm candy outweighs the downfall from her being shallow.

If I'm not worried about a relationship and just want a fling...Everything is useful.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

EllisRedding said:


> By saying that you are essentially doing the same thing, you are making a decision solely on status, or lack thereof. Guy with the ford could be a real dbag and a guy with the nice car could be a real nice guy who has the the means to afford a nice vehicle. I believe what you are saying is that either way, you would judge a guy not on his vehicle but on who he is
> 
> 
> But see, I agree, it is skin deep, it is shallow. No one is arguing that here, and no one is saying every woman operates this way (at least I am not). Still doesn't change the fact that stuff like this does still occur (whether to your liking or not), and given how materialistic society has become is it really a surprise?


I might agree with you except you made an assumption. I didn't say why I would take the guy with the Ford. It was because... If he has to do more work with his personality that means he is pretty self aware and I like that. The car doesn't matter


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Faithful Wife said:


> Mine, too.
> 
> I could be physically attracted to my husband, but if he was an idiot it wouldn't go any further than physical attraction.
> 
> To be in love, to have intimacy and trust....there's much more needed.
> 
> I'm just making the point that women DO care about physical attraction.
> 
> The red pill and PUA garbage try very hard to convince men we really don't care about physical attraction. This does a disservice to everyone, and isn't true.


I agree that attraction has many layers to it and looks are included and not at the expense of the other layers. And in my case it was not the first "event" in the attraction.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Mine, too.
> 
> I could be physically attracted to my husband, but if he was an idiot it wouldn't go any further than physical attraction.
> 
> To be in love, to have intimacy and trust....there's much more needed.
> 
> I'm just making the point that women DO care about physical attraction.
> 
> The red pill and PUA garbage try very hard to convince men we really don't care about physical attraction. This does a disservice to everyone, and isn't true.


Ok I'm really confused now. 

Because everything I read and was told is this is where you start.

Because women indeed care about physical attraction, even when they claim they don't, as my wife did.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> But when you really examine it...it all boils down to other-validation.


While this can certainly be the case for some, this isn't the case for all. I personally am not attracted to someone in order to validate myself. 

I want what I want and the rest is figuring out how to get it. If all I wanted was an ugly girl who accepted my high school social ineptitude, I'd have been good to go. If I was other-validating, I would have gone for anyone who was crazy about me.

Alas, that wasn't what I wanted.


----------



## Tubbalard

Blossom Leigh said:


> I might agree with you except you made an assumption. I didn't say why I would take the guy with the Ford. It was becauise... If he has to do more work with his personality that means he is pretty self aware and I like that. The car doesn't matter


That doesn't mean the guy with a ferrari doesn't have a good personality, it just means his personality doesn't have as much value as the car in relation to attraction. 

The reason he has to do more work, because he doesn't have anything that sets a woman's hot pocket on fire. It's not that he's more aware, it's because he knows he has to get out there and make it happen, or else he'll just be stuck with his hands in his pockets.


----------



## samyeagar

Faithful Wife said:


> No, what it means is that he has high standards for who he will share is body with.
> 
> He won't be with a woman who isn't physically hot for him.
> 
> Just because he would reject a woman who isn't hot for him doesn't mean he would just "find a vagina" who is hot for him. There's much more to it than that, and you know it, so I don't know why you are calling me out. :scratchhead:
> 
> My answer stands.
> 
> He won't lower his standards is not the same thing as saying he sees women as interchangable vaginas. I would think you would uphold this notion.
> 
> You know we have far more going on than the physical, too. But even if he was just going for a ONS, he would require her to be physically hot for him.


As I said, I understood what you were saying, because I am somewhat familiar with the dynamic you have with your husband...and now you've explained and clarified it all...without being called out by any of the RP guys here


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> Ok I'm really confused now.
> 
> Because everything I read and was told is this is where you start.
> 
> Because women indeed care about physical attraction, even when they claim they don't, as my wife did.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


MMSL goes a very long way to explain to men how young hot women in their 20's always go for old rich men. So I'm not sure what you are saying. Yeah, it also says "get to the gym, smell good, buy new clothes". But that's apparently all you have to do, what you actually look like doesn't matter to those 20 y/o hotties as long as you have coin. And AK really seems to believe these hotties will have sustained sexual desire for these old men. :scratchhead:


----------



## Faithful Wife

samyeagar said:


> As I said, I understood what you were saying, because I am somewhat familiar with the dynamic you have with your husband...and now you've explained and clarified it all...without being called out by any of the RP guys here


OK you are right, you did me a favor.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> That's part of the whole red pill schtick.
> 
> "Women don't know what they want, so don't ask them, if they tell you anything it will be a bunch of unaware bullsh*t".
> 
> And yet they expect us to believe they actually care about us as people? When they are telling each other we are not even aware enough to know what we want? And they mean this in general terms, not just "some women don't know what they want".


Let me just say that watching what you pick is a hell of a lot more informative than listening to what you say, and I'll leave it at that.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Blossom Leigh said:


> I might agree with you except you made an assumption. I didn't say why I would take the guy with the Ford. It was because... If he has to do more work with his personality that means he is pretty self aware and I like that. The car doesn't matter


In fact, one of the greatest men I have ever known who had serious model good looks through the years and had stellar character drove a 1976 Luv pick up truck for 15 to 20 years and that was my Grandfather. And to say my Grandfather was a hottie is a serious understatement. He drove that so that my Grandmother could drive the new car when they got one anytime they got one. And yet, he ruled the roost and was VERY much a man's man. You didn't want to piss him off, but he adored women and lived with my grandmother, their three girls and his mother in law for decades. At the end of it all he said women fascinated him. Love him deeply.


----------



## Idyit

Faithful Wife said:


> Dvls and I are not saying the same thing. He is saying physical looks don't matter to women, and I am saying they do.


:scratchhead: Maybe I'm reading something wrong here. He's advocating quite a bit for status and other elements of attraction but I did not hear that physical looks or attraction do not matter.

Maybe you are placing physical attraction at the forefront and he's firing all guns to see what works? 

Dvls... care to clarify this for me?

~ Passio


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> MMSL goes a very long way to explain to men how young hot women in their 20's always go for old rich men. So I'm not sure what you are saying. Yeah, it also says "get to the gym, smell good, buy new clothes". But that's apparently all you have to do, what you actually look like doesn't matter to those 20 y/o hotties as long as you have coin. And AK really seems to believe these hotties will have sustained sexual desire for these old men. :scratchhead:


Actually I've never read that in MMSLP. The bit about getting 20 year olds and sustaining their attraction.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Tubbalard said:


> That doesn't mean the guy with a ferrari doesn't have a good personality, it just means his personality doesn't have as much value as the car in relation to attraction.
> 
> The reason he has to do more work, because he doesn't have anything that sets a woman's hot pocket on fire. It's not that he's more aware, it's because he knows he has to get out there and make it happen, or else he'll just be stuck with his hands in his pockets.


My point is, I want a self aware guy regardless of what he drives. and a comment was made about the one guys personality. If it had been made about the Ferrari, I would have picked that one. I have a "thing" for emotional intelligence.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> Actually I've never read that in MMSLP. The bit about getting 20 year olds and sustaining their attraction.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I can copy it for you again from home, if you like. It was also lined out neatly in a blog post which I already linked on this thread, about how sex rank for women is only about looks and sex rank for men is about more than just looks...and that a woman's rank tanks at age 30 but a man's rises at age 40. :rofl:


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

jld said:


> I definitely believe listening and caring get you laid. Totally endorse that.


This is the sort of thing that boys hear, that is entirely misleading. If this were true, orbiters would be getting laid.

Now perhaps you see that many guys were given the wrong playbook on women. You don't get laid by listening and caring.

You listen because you care, and neither gets you anything, nor should it. And boys certainly shouldn't be told that it does.


----------



## Brigit

Faithful Wife said:


> MMSL goes a very long way to explain to men how young hot women in their 20's always go for old rich men. And AK really seems to believe these hotties will have sustained sexual desire for these old men. :scratchhead:


LOL!!!!!

Yep. They are soooooo attracted to the balding and the wrinkles. They aren't gagging their way through dinner wondering if they can get this guy to pay their rent.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> This is the sort of thing that boys hear, that is entirely misleading. If this were true, orbiters would be getting laid.
> 
> Now perhaps you see that many guys were given the wrong playbook on women. You don't get laid by listening and caring.
> 
> You listen because you care, and neither gets you anything, nor should it. And boys certainly shouldn't be told that it does.


It was a Huge part of what got my H laid and still gets him laid more than anything else between the two of us.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Icey181 said:


> at this point I do not see my wife as replaceable.


When "replaceable" is used to describe women, it is not against the romantic notion of irreplaceable - which is to say, extremely important, uniquely her and loved.

Replaceable in the context of RP/PUA/MMSL etc, is in the most absolute sense. When push comes to shove, you will not eternally stay in a relationship where you cannot meet your needs. No one is truly irreplaceable.

Many men accept things they should not, because they adhere to the romantic notion of her being irreplaceable so strongly they fail to give any thought as to whether she SHOULD be replaced, and that there ARE in fact other women he would want who will both want him and treat him better.

Everyone is replaceable. The sea is full of fish.


----------



## Tubbalard

Listening and caring don't really get you laid. Successful guys are able to use these tactics to get laid but by virtually being a listening and caring type of guy won't get you laid a lot. Like anything Listening and caring is a tool a man uses that gets him laid but there were more pertinent factors involved.


----------



## jld

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> This is the sort of thing that boys hear, that is entirely misleading. If this were true, orbiters would be getting laid.
> 
> Now perhaps you see that many guys were given the wrong playbook on women. You don't get laid by listening and caring.
> 
> You listen because you care, and neither gets you anything, nor should it. And boys certainly shouldn't be told that it does.


I disagree. The more my husband listens, genuinely listens, with empathy, the closer I feel to him. And the closer I feel to him, the closer I want to be to him.

_However,_ I am already physically attracted to him. I already respect him. I already feel safe with him. The empathetic listening just draws me in closer.

What really gets me going, like I cannot keep my hands off his body, and I cannot keep myself from giving him unbridled, enthusiastic oral, and I must have him inside of me, is overt acts of dominance. And I think we all have our own definition of dominance.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> So again, it's all about finding the hottest girl you can even if she's not that into the real you so you don't settle for an uglier one who likes you as you are.
> Then you get to keep up the dance for your whole life to keep the attraction, that sounds very satisfing.
> 
> FTR- I don't think it's "settling" if you're a 7 who ends up with a compatable 5 over a 7 who isn't as compatable.


You assume for no reason whatsoever that all 7's will be incompatible. Why?

You assume a relationship with a 5 you're not attracted to, but you're highly compatible with will turn out better. Why?

Do you not realize that in order to determine compatibility, you have to attract someone first?

The "dance" isn't something you turn on and off. Have you not read the many tellings here by men of how they addressed their situations according to MMSL, and feel like more solid men because of it? Most will tell you there is not going back to their prior behaviors. Those behaviors aren't intrinsic to being "them"... they're just poor behaviors. They're no more YOU than a bad habit. The self-improvement aspects are largely permanent along with greater mindfulness. The less-appealing aspects are about destabilizing the status quo in order to establish a new balance where he is not a taken for granted doormat.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Tubbalard said:


> Listening and caring don't really get you laid. Successful guys are able to use these tactics to get laid but by virtually being a listening and caring type of guy won't get you laid a lot. Like anything Listening and caring is a tool a man uses that gets him laid but there were more pertinent factors involved.


My H blends it with dominance.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Ok, there's something there.
> 
> What do you think that something is?


I'm not sure. As an outspoken intelligent woman, I wanted to know your thoughts on that.



> Is it something you want? Is it something you need? Is it something that makes you special? Is it something that makes a woman attractive to YOU just because she is hot for your coin?


It's something I'm seeking to understand that confuses me. Because I think there's something there, and then people tell me there's nothing there, and now we're saying OK there's something there for some people.


> You want evo pysche nonsense to explain it for you?


No, I want your perspective on that.

Have you ever experienced any more attraction for a man because of wealth, or power, or high social status, or celebrity, or anything like that? What was that like if you did? How did it show up? Were you conscious of it?


> Or can you just accept that you are an attractive man and that these women found you even more attractive when you had accomplished something new? What is so unusual or hard to grasp about this? If you can only see it through the red pill lens, then ok, see it that way.


I can accept that, but I thought you were saying that wasn't the case, so I was confused.


> I would just say that a man at the top of his game is attractive.


Aha!

So perhaps it's not wealth or power per se, it's success itself maybe?

Like how a successful 'doctors without borders' guy who loves his job and saves a lot of lives but makes no money and has no power... but is probably pretty attractive?

Maybe it's his passion that's attractive?

Or maybe it's all of the above?


> So is a woman.


100% agree.


> But the same man is either physically attractive or he isn't (to an individual woman). And the same man is either a good man, capable of intimacy, or he isn't.
> 
> Yes, people game each other. These women may want to game you to get your coin. And?


And I'd like to understand it.


----------



## Brigit

jld said:


> I disagree. The more my husband listens, genuinely listens, with empathy, the closer I feel to him. And the closer I feel to him, the closer I want to be to him.
> 
> _However,_ I am already physically attracted to him. I already respect him. I already feel safe with him. The empathetic listening just draws me in closer.
> 
> What really gets me going, like I cannot keep my hands off his body, and I cannot keep myself from giving him unbridled, enthusiastic oral, and I must have him inside of me, is overt acts of dominance. And I think we all have our own definition of dominance.


The thing is Devil is really talking about how relationships work when you're in your teens and 20's. That kind of nonsense stops in your mid thirties for most people. When I met my husband we were in our 20's. His primary objective was to get my clothes off ASAP. I think that's normal. Now that we're married he sometimes listens to what I have to say and sometimes he blows me off. That is also normal.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

There is something to be said about a principled man firing on all cylinders of his passion, whether that be work, sex, fun, etc.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Blossom Leigh said:


> I prefer being authentic first and foremost and from there make sure I'm a well rounded, dignified person.


Hapless and unaware of the unattractive signals one sends is a form of authenticity? lol


----------



## jld

Brigit said:


> The thing is Devil is really talking about how relationships work when you're in your teens and 20's. That kind of nonsense stops in your mid thirties for most people. When I met my husband we were in our 20's. His primary objective was to get my clothes off ASAP. I think that's normal. Now that we're married he sometimes listens to what I have to say and sometimes he blows me off. That is also normal.


But how does just blowing you off make you feel? I can't imagine very good.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Hapless and unaware of the unattractive signals one sends is a form of authenticity? lol


We all give off both. Attractive and unattractive.

And we are aware of some and unaware of some. It's what makes us human.

Being authentic for me means deciding who I am and staying true to me.


----------



## john117

Faithful Wife said:


> I have to wonder what kind of boundaries your work place has though, with women actually asking you if they can get under you? :scratchhead:



Better yet, are they hiring?


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Mine, too.
> 
> I could be physically attracted to my husband, but if he was an idiot it wouldn't go any further than physical attraction.
> 
> To be in love, to have intimacy and trust....there's much more needed.
> 
> I'm just making the point that women DO care about physical attraction.
> 
> The red pill and PUA garbage try very hard to convince men we really don't care about physical attraction. This does a disservice to everyone, and isn't true.


OK but he was given an opportunity for intimacy and trust implicitly because you found him attractive, right?

Which is why I started there. Because if the physical stuff isn't there, the rest is gonna get really hard.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Blossom Leigh said:


> FW asked me earlier in the this thread or another one, can't remember, if my H was physically attractive to me to which I responded VERY, but you must know, he was NOT attractive to me when we first met. It was his mind and heart that grabbed my heart 1st and THEN he became massively attractive to me.


Meaning you no offense, I think this is one of the cases where what someone says isn't what they mean.

Another way women often say this same things is "I never really noticed him *that way* until..."

Which is to say, he passed your bar, but was low enough on it relative to others you could reasonably get, so as to go unnoticed (common) or be dismissed, until you discovered those non-physical characteristics that were game changers.

Suddenly, his formerly unnoticed looks are seen within a very nice context, and you're massively attracted.

Am I wrong? You actually think your husband is plain physically ugly if not for his heart and mind?


----------



## Blossom Leigh

marduk said:


> OK but he was given an opportunity for intimacy and trust implicitly because you found him attractive, right?
> 
> Which is why I started there. Because if the physical stuff isn't there, the rest is gonna get really hard.


It can and could have with my H, so I agree. But, his uniqueness of thought and compassion is what grabbed my attention and made me take a second look and I found an unmined diamond in the rough.


----------



## Tubbalard

Brigit said:


> The thing is Devil is really talking about how relationships work when you're in your teens and 20's. That kind of nonsense stops in your mid thirties for most people. When I met my husband we were in our 20's. His primary objective was to get my clothes off ASAP. I think that's normal. Now that we're married he sometimes listens to what I have to say and sometimes he blows me off. That is also normal.


 Single 40yr old women are more sexually aggressive than the young gals. They hit their sexual prime and go wild.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Meaning you no offense, I think this is one of the cases where what someone says isn't what they mean.
> 
> Another way women often say this same things is "I never really noticed him *that way* until..."
> 
> Which is to say, he passed your bar, but was low enough on it relative to others you could reasonably get, so as to go unnoticed (common) or be dismissed, until you discovered those non-physical characteristics that were game changers.
> 
> Suddenly, his formerly unnoticed looks are seen within a very nice context, and you're massively attracted.
> 
> Am I wrong? You actually think your husband is plain physically ugly if not for his heart and mind?


lol... no

He needed a hair cut, a beard trimmed and a change of clothes. When we did that I was like holy s*** you are good looking. But that was after his heart and mind had caught me.


----------



## Brigit

jld said:


> But how does just blowing you off make you feel? I can't imagine very good.


It gets me angry. He also has a temper and for a long time verbally abused me, mostly because he was stressed out. That was a problem for a long time. Recently, he's been better.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I agree there's too much focus on the numbers.
> And if he simply stated that he needed someone he was attracted to it would be fine. Needing someone who is at least as attractive as he thinks he is is where the problem comes in.
> It's a game where you win by picking the hottest one you can get.
> 
> You can still have a natural attraction to someone based on their whole package even if they are less attractive than you are.


Perhaps, but I think most people derive their "minimum bar" at least partly by how they perceive themselves. And even allowing for attraction to less attractive people, you still face a problem. The more attractive person is likely to be able to attract a more attractive person who is still compatible, and they're going to go for those people first - possibly never needing to look lower, if you will.


----------



## jld

Brigit said:


> It gets me angry. He also has a temper and for a long time verbally abused me, mostly because he was stressed out. That was a problem for a long time. Recently, he's been better.


Just don't protect him, okay? Make him own his behavior.


----------



## Tubbalard

Blossom Leigh said:


> lol... no
> 
> He needed a hair cut, a beard trimmed and a change of clothes. When we did that I was like holy s*** you are good looking. But that was after his heart and mind had caught me.


So you saw the potential under the beard and dirty clothes, right?....What made you want to give him a haircut and new clothes?


----------



## Brigit

Tubbalard said:


> Single 40yr old women are more sexually aggressive than the young gals. They hit their sexual prime and go wild.


IDK. One of my BFF's is in her mid 40's and single. She's picky as hell and plays by Gen X Girl Rules.


----------



## Brigit

jld said:


> Just don't protect him, okay? Make him own his behavior.


I protect him because he's one of the kindest people I know and I love him very much. 

When he yelled it was scary. Sometimes I was afraid but most of the time I'd make a comment like "Keep yelling at me and you'll wake up with missing body parts." And he's not sure if I mean it or not....so..


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Tubbalard said:


> So you saw the potential under the beard and dirty clothes, right?....What made you want to give him a haircut and new clothes?



I'm a touch OCD regarding symmetry

The clothes weren't dirty, just out of balance for his body


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Brigit said:


> I protect him because he's one of the kindest people I know and I love him very much.
> 
> When he yelled it was scary. Sometimes I was afraid but most of the time I'd make a comment like "Keep yelling at me and you'll wake up with missing body parts." And he's not sure if I mean it or not....so..


:rofl:

humor is a great pattern interrupt


----------



## jld

Brigit said:


> I protect him because he's one of the kindest people I know and I love him very much.
> 
> When he yelled it was scary. Sometimes I was afraid but most of the time I'd make a comment like "Keep yelling at me and you'll wake up with missing body parts." And he's not sure if I mean it or not....so..


Well, I could not do that. I could not protect a man.

But whatever works for you.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> I can copy it for you again from home, if you like. It was also lined out neatly in a blog post which I already linked on this thread, about how sex rank for women is only about looks and sex rank for men is about more than just looks...and that a woman's rank tanks at age 30 but a man's rises at age 40. :rofl:


Ok I agree that's bunk but I'm having trouble connecting that with what you said above about attracting 20-year-olds.

Honestly I am having trouble following your logic.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> That's exactly right.
> 
> Attraction IS non-negotiable, but these guys want to believe they can take what they have and add cars and status, and then somehow the girl who wasn't attracted to them before, will be now...and yet, they want "real" attraction. And "real" attraction is non-negotiable. That's why it doesn't make any sense.
> 
> Are you hot for me? Am I hot for you? If neither of us owned anything, just us two seeing each other walking down the street, are we hot for each other? If no, then it is NON-negotiable.


Right on the first part, wrong on the second part. Everyone has a minimum standard - THAT is non-negotiable. Attraction is not binary however - "hot" or "not". Everyone you meet sits somewhere along a scale from less attractive to more attractive physically, and somewhere on that scale is the minimum you will accept. The minimum you will accept generally goes unnoticed if you are readily drawing more attractive men. You don't actually feel attracted to him until something else grabs your attention, and you see him in a more positive light.

This is implied by the many studies on attractiveness and status. You pass on Joe the Plumber, but you're totally into Joe the Doctor, when it's actually the same Joe. He was in fact attractive enough, but not so much that you bother to register it in light of the more physically attractive guys you know/think you can get. Presented as a Doctor, or with the great "heart and mind" as blossom would say, you re-evaluate. Other guys you can get are still physically hotter, but the TOTAL attractive qualities of this guy has put him in the running. If all you want is a f*ck, the physically hotter guys will be picked. If you want the whole package, which women are prone to do, this guy is in play where formerly he wasn't.

That's what status and non-physical factors do for men. I know, I get it all the time. I'll be sprawled out on the couch or stretching with no shirt on and a woman I'm seeing will say something like "omg you're hot... stretch like that again... just like that... mmmm"... even though she readily admits she didn't even notice me. I got a lot of it when I was trying the online thing. One girl ignored my first message because she wasn't attracted to bald guys, but reconsidered me because she really liked the second message I sent that was playfully indignant about being ignored. We ended up dating for awhile, and lying with my head in her lap on the couch watching tv became a common thing because "she loved my head" (which was also a little sexual innuendo). Bald got me rejected. Clever got me a date anyway. And once the sum of me was seen, lo and behold she was plenty physically attracted too. There was no shortage of sex in that relationship - in fact, the sex continued after the relationship.

I've asked you to explain that online scenario several times before, even before you became ignore happy, but you never do.


----------



## Brigit

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Right on the first part, wrong on the second part. Everyone has a minimum standard - THAT is non-negotiable. Attraction is not binary however - "hot" or "not". Everyone you meet sits somewhere along a scale from less attractive to more attractive physically, and somewhere on that scale is the minimum you will accept. The minimum you will accept generally goes unnoticed if you are readily drawing more attractive men. You don't actually feel attracted to him until something else grabs your attention, and you see him in a more positive light.
> 
> This is implied by the many studies on attractiveness and status. You pass on Joe the Plumber, but you're totally into Joe the Doctor, when it's actually the same Joe. He was in fact attractive enough, but not so much that you bother to register it in light of the more physically attractive guys you know/think you can get. Presented as a Doctor, or with the great "heart and mind" as blossom would say, you re-evaluate. Other guys you can get are still physically hotter, but the TOTAL attractive qualities of this guy has put him in the running. If all you want is a f*ck, the physically hotter guys will be picked. If you want the whole package, which women are prone to do, this guy is in play where formerly he wasn't.
> 
> That's what status and non-physical factors do for men.


My mother would have been very happy if I married Joe the Doctor. 

Is he still single?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes, mutual sexual attraction. Nothing less than this will sustain a long term sexual relationship.


I have to say, I don't know many women who had *sexual* attraction for their husbands the very moment they met. Some clearly did, most did not. The more common expression is just "I thought he was cute". The idea of having sexual attraction at that point is even repugnant to many of them.


----------



## jld

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I have to say, I don't know many women who had *sexual* attraction for their husbands the very moment they met. Some clearly did, most did not. The more common expression is just "I thought he was cute". The idea of having sexual attraction at that point is even repugnant to many of them.


Come on. That can't be true.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> No, I want your perspective on that.
> 
> Have you ever experienced any more attraction for a man because of wealth, or power, or high social status, or celebrity, or anything like that? What was that like if you did? How did it show up? Were you conscious of it?



What I personally find attractive won't help you understand what your wife finds attractive, or even what women in general find attractive (because I go for freaky sh*t).

But I already answered you, and you just batted it down.

These women are of a particular character. 

If I asked you "why do you think such and such guy dumped this really nice girl after he screwed her and then ran off with her sister" you would probably say "because the sister was hot and the guy was a jerk" or some equivalent.

Ie: you are hot, you looked good beaming with pride, these women who were just waiting for a chance to bag you anyway leaned in at that moment. It isn't surprising or strange or needing of a lot more explanation. Women want to have sex with hot guys. People who act this way just have a certain value system. The hypothetical guy is the same. He wants to get with chicks, this is his goal.

There are LOTS of people like this.

It is easy to find them, they are everywhere. Some are not in it for disconnected banging, some are actually trying to meet people through sex (it works).

This is why it appears that "so many" women are like this (or men are like this). It is a significant portion of the population.

It still doesn't mean long term sustained mutual attraction in either case. It is more like an attraction phenomenon, a temporary one....similar to the concept of glamour in magic.


----------



## Brigit

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I have to say, I don't know many women who had *sexual* attraction for their husbands the very moment they met. Some clearly did, most did not. The more common expression is just "I thought he was cute". The idea of having sexual attraction at that point is even repugnant to many of them.


I don't think that's true either, however, it was true in my case. Maybe take a poll.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> if one party is not actually physically and sexually attracted to the other, then eventually the heat will fade.


I think you have it backwards. If all you have is physical attraction, the heat will fade. The non-physical traits we like (men and women) tend to be the more resilient.

I think it's more than clear that we all have a minimum standard for all traits. My take is that there are many people above our minimum standard we would find attractive given the right light, but don't actually notice because we have more physically attractive options available to us. Non-physical qualities can level that playing field or even provide advantage.

Just good enough looking Doctor beats studly bum every time, except for a ONS - which isn't much of a problem since most women don't want one-nighters.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I think you have it backwards. If all you have is physical attraction, the heat will fade. The non-physical traits we like (men and women) tend to be the more resilient.
> 
> I think it's more than clear that we all have a minimum standard for all traits. My take is that there are many people above our minimum standard we would find attractive given the right light, but don't actually notice because we have more physically attractive options available to us. Non-physical qualities can level that playing field or even provide advantage.
> 
> Just good enough looking Doctor beats studly bum every time, except for a ONS - which isn't much of a problem since most women don't want one-nighters.



Now we finally resonate... To me the non-physical traits are what seals the deal and makes it last.


----------



## Icey181

FrenchFry said:


> Got your attention, changed your behavior--girl game.
> 
> When I was not happy with my husband (and he wasn't listening to why I was unhappy --key point--) this is what I did.
> 
> 
> This was after MMSL. He got the message but staying destabilized wasn't an option at all so we went back to our roots.


Yeah...that actually sounds like perfectly deployed female dread game. :smthumbup:

Not sure if it was intentional or not, but it certainly motivated.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Perhaps, but I think most people derive their "minimum bar" at least partly by how they perceive themselves. And even allowing for attraction to less attractive people, you still face a problem. The more attractive person is likely to be able to attract a more attractive person who is still compatible, and they're going to go for those people first - possibly never needing to look lower, if you will.


I have seen many couples of all different rank pairings. I'm lower than my H. Plus, looks can change, come and go. Picking someone based on how they look and then adding some years and a few babies and what if they've dropped below your ranking? Just find someone else? 
Isn't this what AK says women do just keep trying to get the best rank they can? I don't agree that most of us do it either.

I've never thought about who the best looking guy I could get was based on my own looks. I like a wide range of guys and emotional connection means more to me at this point in my life. If anyone thought I wasn't good enough for him then he's more than welcome to find someone who is. I believe in myself and that I'm a good person and can make a good partner.

Maybe I could get hotter guys if I went out dressed in my best, make-up all done, acted more outgoing. But they are not the ones who want ME because I'm going to end up in a relationship wearing my comfy pants and wanting to stay in to watch netflix.

FTR- The last guy I had some kind of attraction to was 20 years older than me, missing some teeth and a lot of his hair and worked min. wage at the fast food place in the building that I work in. Why? Cause he listened to me. 

and I was instantly sexually attracted to my H. Like I saw him, wanted him and pounced. And I'm not the pouncing type.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Icey181 said:


> Yeah...that actually sounds like perfectly deployed female dread game. :smthumbup:
> 
> Not sure if it was intentional or not, but it certainly motivated.


I played female games fall of 2013, but it was to stroke my own battered ego. Then I switched to address boundary issues surrounding abusive behavior only then were our problems headed back where they needed to be.


----------



## Marduk

FrenchFry said:


> Got your attention, changed your behavior--girl game.
> 
> When I was not happy with my husband (and he wasn't listening to why I was unhappy --key point--) this is what I did.
> 
> 
> This was after MMSL. He got the message but staying destabilized wasn't an option at all so we went back to our roots.


Ok so you're saying she might have been playing a long game just to get me to step up?

I just don't think my wife thinks that way. Maybe I'm wrong.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## tech-novelist

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> This is incorrect. In the long game, it's about finding the hottie whose interest values and morals line up.
> 
> Just because you're able to attract hotter women than previously, doesn't mean you throw out other factors. Your situation changes from scarcity to plenty. Instead of one unattractive woman who lines up well with you, you have two attractive women... one of whom doesn't line up well, and one who does. Having a lot of attractive options to the degree that he can be discerning isn't something that most of the guys who find RP ever had. If they had, they wouldn't have sought it.
> 
> *You ladies appear to be advocating that men settle for women they're not physically attracted to, over adjusting the way they court women so as to attract the women they want. It makes no sense to me.* Especially after pages and pages of saying women don't want guys they're not physically attracted to. I explained earlier how we all have some minimum standard of physical attractiveness we will accept, above which we will make all sorts of trade offs. For guys who seek things like RP, none of their options meet that minimum standard. So the same thing you ladies were arguing early about not amount of anything making you attracted to an ugly guy applies. I agree with it. A guy has to pass the bar, and everything else just differentiates amongst guys who are good enough looking. The same thing applies to guys. It doesn't matter how compatible they are if she doesn't pass the bar. Differentiation and selection of a woman on interests, values and morals occurs AFTER that.


*That *makes perfect sense from the viewpoint of the Feminine Imperative, which is that women should have all the power and men should have none.

On the other hand, this is incorrect. A guy who is much more attractive (including the effects of status, pre-selection, etc.) than the minimum will have much more drawing power than one who just meets the minimum. This is why famous musicians, for instance, have women throwing their panties at them at concerts, whereas a corresponding show of availability never happens for normal men.

Of course, this is different from the way men respond to women, where if the woman passes the bar, that's good enough. To be sure, a man would rather have a 10 than a 7, but the effect isn't like that of fame on women, which is multiplicative rather than incremental.


----------



## tech-novelist

marduk said:


> Why did I suddenly get hit on a lot more within 72 hours of a public announcement of a recent, highly visible, and high status promotion?
> 
> Coincidence?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Absolutely! It's just one of millions of scarily similar occurrences that is explained only by a crazy theory that predicts a number of similar coincidences... :scratchhead:


----------



## john117

I now realize where you find the chicks that hit on you at work. Thirty years ago I had a job offer fresh out of grad school with a company specialized in data analysis software for the social sciences (*) I have never seen so many miniskirts outside prom night. And lots of dimes too... Maybe some of you work there?

(*) yea, that software in the Windy City..


----------



## Faithful Wife

Oh lookie, there's *a red pill constitution*. How cute.

The Red Pill Constitution | Illimitable Men

Some gems from this lovely document (this is actually only a small portion of the complete nonsense...I've bolded the particularly hilarious or horrible bits):

Women are irrational and inconsistent, they have a capacity for logic but they are not naturally inclined to reason with it. *Women must exert concentrated effort to be logical as it is not their factory setting*, unlike men who are, most of the time, rational in nature. A logical woman is easily baited into becoming emotional. Regardless of her intellect women are much more likely to lose lucidity due to their hormonal composition and natural preference for emotion. It is thus by extension of this that we observe they are more easily compromised than men are. Their decisions are based on their current emotional state rather than logic. Once overwhelmed by the feeling of the moment and riding on a tidal wave of emotion, even if an awareness of what is fair and rational remains intact in the woman, she shall opt to ignore it in favour of indulging “what feels right.” Ever witnessed a woman hear something reasonable and in her emotion say “I don’t care!” and then crazily mutter something that makes no sense to anybody but her? This is a prime example of the feminine propensity to “reason” with emotion. Being ruled by emotion, there is thus a proclivity to change erratically and impulsively, leading women to often behave inconsistently and contradictorily in comparison to previous claims and behaviours they have made and exhibited. *Watch what she does, not what she says, for women are fickle.*

Women are Machiavellian in nature. In comparison to the average man they are far more proficient in the art of manipulation as well as comprehending the realm of subtext to “read between the lines.” *The theoretical evolutionary basis for this sex difference is that due to smaller body mass and inferior musculature women had to learn to use men as tools rather than directly oppose them in physical competition.* This makes the pronunciation of female strength a propensity to be mentally violent rather than physically. Physical violence is outlawed whereas mental abuse is not, and it is this which allows women to get their way using their favoured method of coercion without being held accountable by a system of law. The law unfortunately does not legislate interpersonal morality to a degree that criminalises emotional violence. *Where a man’s instinct is to hit, a woman’s is to do a big sh*t in your mind*. In summation, women tend to be more emotionally and psychologically aggressive than men, and on average, have a far more developed sense of cunning than men do.

Your race/ethnicity does not matter if you are rich and/or successful. *A lot of men are small-minded and stuck on the superficial, White, Black, Arab, Indian, Asian whatever, you have a certain perception of the world based upon your culture. Non-whites are very consciously aware of their ethnic identity, and oft it is so that non-white men feel shame or anger over their lack of whiteness.* Asians in particular seem to glorify whiteness and perpetuate a culture of racial self-hatred. This “but I’ll never have it good because I’m not white” mentality will not help you in life, it will hold you back and make you insecure. Perhaps where you live the white man is god, but know all racial barriers are overcome by power, for money is power. *If you’re a 5’0 Asian with a 2 inch d*ck that girls laugh at, then a 7 digit bank balance and a confident as f*ck attitude will offset that*. You won’t get there being jealous/bitter towards whites and putting yourself down, so time to cut that sh*t out. Focus less on self-deprecation over your race and more on achieving success, for men are treated as success objects. Your insecurities will get you no where, you must tangle with them, overcome them and finally: banish them.

Women are hypergamous, this means that they feel entitled to a superior mate. *A woman always wants a man who is better than her in life.* Women are biologically programmed to keep a keen eye out for any new man on the horizon who is a potential upgrade versus her current mate (this is a concept known as “branch swinging.”) Thus you must be richer than her, or at least equally rich, more educated than her, or at least equally educated. You must be better looking than her, or at least equal looking, you must be more popular than her, or at least equally popular. You can offset one area (L.M.S – looks, money, status) with another area, *but if you’re fundamentally inferior to her in at least 2 areas then just forget it as it is more than likely she will not be interested*. Of course there are always exceptions, and that is another topic in and of itself, but as a widely applicable generalisation: *women want a man who is objectively better than they are*, more successful, stronger, smarter etc.

*Elaborating from the last point, this is why 20% of men are f*cking 80% of the women (the Pareto Principle.)* Women are far more sexually picky than men, so when they do have sex they want to be f*cking only the very best men. Women date up, men date down and yes this has created rising social inequality since women entered the professions.

If a woman thinks she is better than you then she can’t respect you and if she can’t respect you she can’t love you. Women love men differently to the way men love women. Woman’s love is based on adoration, adoration is a combination of both explicit admiration and respect. *Respect is derived from power. Thus it follows that you must be powerful if you want to be loved, or you will never be loved*. You will be held in contempt for being weak. For more on this topic, refer to this article.

*Women love pragmatically and have no capacity to love unconditionally for romantic partners*, only their children. This is a behaviour governed by an effect known as Briffault’s Law. Men can love women unconditionally by outcome of significant personal investment into her. There is a hierarchy of love: Men > Women > Children.

Women have a sexual plurality, if you are a nice guy with money then you are deemed husband material. You get to nail her after the 12th date where she’s had so many glasses of wine she forgets how you don’t “create a spark,” but are rather a safe, boring bet. *If you’re an azzhole with tight bulging muscles on the other hand, you’re the guy who gets to nail her after 20 minutes of meeting.* You “create a spark,” you make her tingly, you give her butterflies. We call this sexual plurality in rather rhythmic slang: “alpha f*cks, beta bucks.”

Women do not care about male weakness and neither does society. *If you are weak, depressed, small, poor, uneducated, unconfident, essentially anything which stops you from being powerful, then nobody cares. People only care about you when you’re powerful or a beautiful woman*. You have to pull yourself up by the bootstraps and rely on yourself because nobody else gives a sh*t about you. You’re given a dichotomy, sink or swim, you sink, then you end up drowning yourself in failure and self-pity.

*Women are depreciating assets, their major asset and unique selling point is their sexual beauty and fertility. Most of them squander their best years on “riding the c*ck carousel,” which means f*cking lots of different guys they met in nightclubs in a daze of smoke-filled hedonism. Most women spend the bulk of their 20’s being generally irresponsible and riding through life on easy mode getting ahead on beauty rather than talent thinking they have all the time in the world “to settle down.” Then around the age of 30, they reach something known as “the wall,” their fertility falls off a cliff alongside their looks and they clamour in desperation to find a man to settle down with. Women are born, their ability to conceive children is what makes them women.*

(end quote)

Gee, I wonder if this guy is good with women? :scratchhead:

I'd take the c*ck carousel over this loon any day.

I do like the idea the evolution caused us to learn how to use men like tools, however....I'm not sure he meant the same kind of tool I want to use my husband for but...anyway.

The part about women being fickle is funny....um, right, and men aren't fickle, even though it is their mantra that they "like variety" and "won't ever stop looking" and "would do any acceptably f*ckable woman". But no, that's not fickle.

Plus you gotta love it when a white man tells a man of another race to get over the pity party he's having over his LACK OF WHITENESS!


----------



## john117

The above is anti-gestalt in that the total is way less than the sum of the parts. A few gems here and there I could agree with but overall it's too bad to even be funny. At the end you keep reading like you watch a YouTube crash best of....


----------



## Faithful Wife

I know that guy must get a lot of dates and sex. I hope he writes a relationship book. He has such a clear understanding of women.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Was also going to leave this book suggestion here for the guys who have asked for suggestions...I haven't read this one, but a guy friend of mine had his wife give it to him (to clue him in apparently). The only problem here would be that if a wife wasn't into this and a husband read it on his own and tried stuff, he might not get far. But it is intended as a couple's guide so hopefully it works best that way.

http://www.amazon.com/Just-****-Me-...8&qid=1431491313&sr=1-1&keywords=just+****+me


----------



## Idyit

Reading the Red Pill Constitution out loud in your best Beavis and Butthead voices makes it pretty entertaining. 

~ Passio


----------



## Faithful Wife

he he...he said tool


----------



## Brigit

I still waiting for Devil to introduce me to Joe the Doctor.


----------



## RandomDude

The Red Pill Constitution | Illimitable Men

Ah, so this is what you guys n gals are on about eh... hmmm...
Not going to comment on everything but:

1) Feminists claim they want equality but their actions and reactions indicate it is power without responsibility that they strive for. 

_I have to agree with this, and is the main reason I am not a supporter of modern/western feminism._


4) Your race/ethnicity does not matter if you are rich and/or successful. A lot of men are small-minded and stuck on the superficial, White, Black, Arab, Indian, Asian whatever, you have a certain perception of the world based upon your culture. Non-whites are very consciously aware of their ethnic identity, and oft it is so that non-white men feel shame or anger over their lack of whiteness. Asians in particular seem to glorify whiteness and perpetuate a culture of racial self-hatred.

_I have seen this actually, it's not something that can be denied. I still remember an Indian woman who was absolutely stunning but was so insecure with her skin color she went for treatment. I was very, very disappointed.
I also remember lots of non-white guys who blame whites for all their dating woos. Middle easterners get it the worst in my country. Racism is a fact of life, even though I have learnt to deal with it, I don't deny it exists._


05. ) Women are hypergamous, this means that they feel entitled to a superior mate. A woman always wants a man who is better than her in life

_
This can be true for alot of women, again, not something that can be denied. Nor is it something that is absolute._


07.) – If a woman thinks she is better than you then she can’t respect you and if she can’t respect you she can’t love you. 

_I do agree that without respect there can be no love._


10.) – Always set boundaries with everyone. Do not be a pushover. This may be one of the briefest points here, but it is one of the most important.

_This is a universally accepted principle_


11.) – Women are more selfish than men are in matters of money and love. Man’s love is expected to be sacrificial in nature, woman’s isn’t. Women love opportunistically, men love sacrificially.

_Actually I disagree, there's enough male gold diggers out there to prove that women can and do love sacrificially. But it brings us back to the previous point about respect._


12.) – Women love pragmatically and have no capacity to love unconditionally for romantic partners, only their children.

_Considering I was abandoned on the street at an early age I don't believe in receiving any unconditional love, not even from family. I give it to my daughter however out of principle - and a promise_


20.) – In contrast, men are not born, they are created. Pain, poverty, difficulty, heartache, oppression: these are the things which make men out of boys.

_I agree with this._


24.) – Always be focused on maintaining your physical appearance to the highest possible standard.

_Can't deny or disagree with this._


Anyway, discuss!!!


----------



## EllisRedding

RandomDude said:


> 20.) – In contrast, men are not born, they are created. Pain, poverty, difficulty, heartache, oppression: these are the things which make men out of boys.
> 
> _I agree with this._
> 
> Anyway, discuss!!!


Maybe I am taking out of context, but this makes no sense to me. Life experiences will shape both a male and female. According to point #20 if you are a male, you only become a man if you experience Pain, poverty, difficulty, heartache, oppression, huh :scratchhead: Any other life experiences have no impact???


----------



## Holland

Icey181 said:


> *So basically, you are going to stick with your caricature and run with it?
> *
> ...............................
> 
> *Second, Red Pill rhetoric rather ineloquently points out that, to men, women reach a peak of physical attractiveness in their early 20s. They make some further claims from there (some with credibility, others without), but the reality is that at 50 you do not look as sexually attractive as you were at 20. Seriously.
> *
> ......................................................


Firstly, nice way to completely dis my POV about what a good man is. You asked and I explained what a good man is to me. If you don't agree then all power to you but as someone that has always been surrounded by good men and not dealt directly (although via my sis and other women I have witness complete pigs of men) then I stand by my interpretation of what a good man is. 

Secondly no one has said that women AND men are not what they were at 20 when they reach 50. But that does not mean that women lose their sexual appeal at 50. What it means that generally a 50 year old is not attractive to a 20 year old and usually visa versa. 
It is complete rubbish that women lose value in the dating world at 40 plus, I can tell you from first hand experience that in my 40s plus I had lots of power in the dating world and am much more confident with myself, mind, body and spirit.
The women lose value as they get older would only be relevant if women were looking to date in a much younger age bracket which is not usually the case.
I can also say with great experience that the middle aged man often is no prize so why they think they are worth more in the dating world than women is odd.

Ok been busy for a couple of days, will go and skim the rest of the thread.


----------



## RandomDude

Women have made alot of gains when it comes to gaining rights but at the same time I've seen how these rights have been abused, some examples can be: 

- Single mums who abuse the child support system for their sustainable income, shamelessly lying to get what they want. Injuring themselves and claiming abuse even. These are real life stories.
- Women who call it sexism when denied promotions yet in their positions of power hypocritically favor their female colleagues, and in many cases, do an inferior job that they simply aren't experienced/qualified enough for. But - "equal rights!"
- Women who simply can't do the job that a comparative male can (especially physical work) yet is entitled to the same pay or its time to pull the sexism card.

Other non court-based or workplace examples can be in our love lives, where although women are now in a position to earn as much or even more than men, men are still expected to earn more as it's our responsibility to be the bread-winners. Many women still struggle with the concept of this responsibility.

Of course none of this is absolute. I have several female staff members and the ones I have at present are professionals and I pay them accordingly on a meritocratic basis. And I'm not one against women in the workforce, what do I want? A sausage fest? Bah!

However, I have already terminated several women in my business many times due to workplace politics being detrimental to my staff cohesion as well as lack of performance, and some have even tried to pull the sexism card on me simply due to the fact that I didn't believe the quality of their work was adequate enough for the pay they demanded (and not to mention I already pay my full-time staff above award)

EDIT: Oh, and since the article touched on race, I encountered the racist card pulled on me as well when terminating employees. From whites! Pfft! It's pathetic really.


----------



## RandomDude

EllisRedding said:


> Maybe I am taking out of context, but this makes no sense to me. Life experiences will shape both a male and female. According to point #20 if you are a male, you only become a man if you experience Pain, poverty, difficulty, heartache, oppression, huh :scratchhead: Any other life experiences have no impact???


For me, I was a boy at 12, I became a man at 12, within 3 days of forced adulthood. So I encountered what may be considered a... "metamorphosis". Those experiences shaped me far more than any other in my life, hence why I agree with it.


----------



## EllisRedding

RandomDude said:


> For me, I was a boy at 12, I became a man at 12, within 3 days of forced adulthood. So I encountered what may be considered a... "metamorphosis". Those experiences shaped me far more than any other in my life, hence why I agree with it.


Yeah, I do understand your point. I just meant the way that point read it comes across as those are the only life experiences you can experience in order to be a man, when in reality there are so many factors/experiences that contribute to this, not just a short list.


----------



## RandomDude

Perhaps, but not in my experience. I guess for me it was very sudden, and it was through hardship. As I didn't have a normal, gradual learning curve, other life experiences only reinforced the lessons of manhood for me, not taught me anything new. But this is just my experience.


----------



## RandomDude

Anyway back on topic, I recommend watching the reboot movie "Rise of the planet of the Apes", which came to mind as I posted my impressions of feminism. *If you haven't watched the movie, please skip my post!* I hate spoiling movies! Now...





Spoiler



Remember when Caesar was shot by Koba, and he lamented his one mistake? Thinking apes were morally superior to humans?



I see alot of well-meaning women who do believe in equality as Caesar, I also see alot of women just like Koba. In the end, men/women, genetically-enhanced apes/humans, when we share the same intelligence, we share the same moral flaws.


----------



## EllisRedding

RandomDude said:


> Perhaps, but not in my experience. I guess for me it was very sudden, and it was through hardship. As I didn't have a normal, gradual learning curve, other life experiences only reinforced the lessons of manhood for me, not taught me anything new. But this is just my experience.


The workplace issues you mention are interesting, and unfortunately a reality (whether based on gender, age, race, etc...). My buddy works at a firm where they had to let go a female employee for performance reasons (under-performance in her assignments, frequent absences, showing up late, etc...). I guess she was friendly with one of the other higher ups at the firm (friendly as in joking around and nothing further, but I got the sense some of the joking may not have been entirely appropriate by either party in a work environment). Even though it was clearly laid out and documented the performance issues that led to her termination, she made it a point to bring up these conversations in order to get a better severance....

This is not a target at women, just an example that came to mind when dealing with people, especially in a diverse work environment, and something you have to almost protect yourself from.


----------



## DayOne

Faithful Wife said:


> Was also going to leave this book suggestion here for the guys who have asked for suggestions...I haven't read this one, but a guy friend of mine had his wife give it to him (to clue him in apparently). The only problem here would be that if a wife wasn't into this and a husband read it on his own and tried stuff, he might not get far. But it is intended as a couple's guide so hopefully it works best that way.
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Just-****-Me-...8&qid=1431491313&sr=1-1&keywords=just+****+me


Been meaning to order that, as i've heard good things about it too. Thanks for the reminder. It's now on it's way! :smthumbup:


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Women are are depreciating assets.. and wasted their 20's sleeping around. HAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHA!

What a putz.

In my 20's I was working my a$$ off, working full time, putting myself through college, already married and now have three houses that will be paid off in the next three years. And my fertility blessed me with my child at 40 years old. So, wrong again Mr. AK. 

And all the slurs against men and race?? I am not a PC gal, but good Lord. This guy objectifies everyone, men and women. That is straight out of a former addicts behavior. I don't see him as anti women. I see him as anti mankind as a whole. This guy hasn't done his personal work on how to not see people as objects and it shows in his writing. That my friends is the writing of an unrecovered addict.

I really appreciate the men and women around here who are mature enough to see this guys issues and dismiss this work as seriously flawed regardless of nuggets here and there he stumbled upon. Even those who just took the nuggets and did good work with those, you are appreciated. As a whole his delivery is just flat out wacked. And I would be saying the same thing if he were a woman who had written it.


----------



## RandomDude

EllisRedding said:


> The workplace issues you mention are interesting, and unfortunately a reality (whether based on gender, age, race, etc...). My buddy works at a firm where they had to let go a female employee for performance reasons (under-performance in her assignments, frequent absences, showing up late, etc...). I guess she was friendly with one of the other higher ups at the firm (friendly as in joking around and nothing further, but I got the sense some of the joking may not have been entirely appropriate by either party in a work environment). Even though it was clearly laid out and documented the performance issues that led to her termination, she made it a point to bring up these conversations in order to get a better severance....
> 
> This is not a target at women, just an example that came to mind when dealing with people, especially in a diverse work environment, and something you have to almost protect yourself from.


Aye, I despise people who feel they should be entitled to this that just because of this that, when I learnt from an early age the WORLD OWES ME NOTHING. Bah! And my posts aren't against women it's against this "feminism" that gives women this stupid "sexist card" to pull which pisses me off whenever it's used on me.


----------



## Julius Beastcavern

Faithful Wife said:


> Was also going to leave this book suggestion here for the guys who have asked for suggestions...I haven't read this one, but a guy friend of mine had his wife give it to him (to clue him in apparently). The only problem here would be that if a wife wasn't into this and a husband read it on his own and tried stuff, he might not get far. But it is intended as a couple's guide so hopefully it works best that way.
> 
> Just **** Me! - What Women Want Men to Know About Taking Control in the Bedroom (A Guide for Couples) - Revised Edition: Eve Kingsley: 9781608422999: Amazon.com: Books


Is there any peer reviewed science in that book?


----------



## naiveonedave

Blossom Leigh said:


> lol... no
> 
> He needed a hair cut, a beard trimmed and a change of clothes. When we did that I was like holy s*** you are good looking. But that was after his heart and mind had caught me.


right out of the rp play book, btw.


----------



## Brigit

Blossom Leigh said:


> Women are are depreciating assets.. and wasted their 20's sleeping around. HAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHA!
> 
> What a putz.
> 
> In my 20's I was working my a$$ off, working full time, putting myself through college, already married and now have three houses that will be paid off in the next three years. And my fertility blessed me with my child at 40 years old. So, wrong again Mr. AK.
> 
> And all the slurs against men and race?? I am not a PC gal, but good Lord. This guy objectifies everyone, men and women. That is straight out of a former addicts behavior. I don't see him as anti women. I see him as anti mankind as a whole. This guy hasn't done his personal work on how to not see people as objects and it shows in his writing. That my friends is the writing of an unrecovered addict.
> 
> I really appreciate the men and women around here who are mature enough to see this guys issues and dismiss this work as seriously flawed regardless of nuggets here and there he stumbled upon. Even those who just took the nuggets and did good work with those, you are appreciated. As a whole his delivery is just flat out wacked. And I would be saying the same thing if he were a woman who had written it.


One of my best friends is 43 and she's pregnant with her first child. Everything is going well. She married a guy 12 years younger. He has a great job outside the home she manages the household.

I agree with you that AK's message is "flat out wacked."


----------



## DayOne

Blossom Leigh said:


> Even those who just took the nuggets and did good work with those, you are appreciated.


I did read and apply SOME aspects of MMSLP and NMMNG following "Day One". But quickly realised that I was only going to use the parts that made sense to me. A lot of it was WTF. If I'd gone fully Red Pill I'm d*mn sure I (and we) wouldn't be where we are now. 

I needed to change my way of thinking, to sack up. But not to the point where I lost all respect for women, especially the one that eventually wanted me again. I can be myself, but still appreciate what a lady can bring to the relationship.


----------



## RandomDude

@Bugged

Think about it, where you reckon we can get stats of how many people pull out their sex/race cards when terminated? These occurences are a fact of life, and they don't use statistics to prove it. It's like trying to use stats to prove racism doesn't exist or something.

You say you have never encountered it - good for you, whereas I've encountered it several times within many years of running my business.

As for your source with stats of men earning very slightly more than women in similar professions it has already explained on the same site why that is so and it's not due to "keeping women underpaid". 

However, these SAME stats are used often by many women as a tool to justify pulling out that stupid sexist card outta their ass.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

naiveonedave said:


> right out of the rp play book, btw.


It doesn't bother me that he gets some things accurate. I'm a traditionalist and agree with many common patterns and techniques to right a sinking relational ship, but Its the wacked delivery that I find off putting. This coming from someone who is not a feminist.


----------



## RandomDude

DayOne said:


> I did read and apply SOME aspects of MMSLP and NMMNG following "Day One". But quickly realised that I was only going to use the parts that made sense to me. A lot of it was WTF. If I'd gone fully Red Pill I'm d*mn sure I (and we) wouldn't be where we are now.
> 
> I needed to change my way of thinking, to sack up. But not to the point where I lost all respect for women, especially the one that eventually wanted me again. I can be myself, but still appreciate what a lady can bring to the relationship.


In my opinion I believe this is the typical outcome of a man using these books; you take in what makes sense, what you agree with, you leave out the whacky stuff.

Also why I disagree with Deejo's decision to take the books out of the recommended list, it's up the reader what they get out of it. By closing the window on these books due to the whacky ideas presented, is like assuming that grown men can't make their own decisions.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

RandomDude said:


> In my opinion I believe this is the typical outcome of a man using these books; you take in what makes sense, what you agree with, you leave out the whacky stuff.
> 
> Also why I disagree with Deejo's decision to take the books out of the recommended list, it's up the reader what they get out of it. By closing the window on these books due to the whacky ideas presented, is like assuming that grown men can't make their own decisions.


Good point. Leave it in with a warning label


----------



## RandomDude

Aye, and I believe the best way to voice one's views on the book is by posting a review on Amazon or whatever distribution channel the book uses.


----------



## always_alone

I'm too lazy to go back and pull the specific posts, but there is an awful lot of equivocation about hypergamy on this thread.

Hypergamy is the act of marrying above one's status or caste. Much like bigamy or polygamy or monogamy, it refers to a type of marriage.

What Athol and red pill does is take the type, and then assume it applies to women's sexual desires and attraction, claiming things like "it is innate."

No, hypergamy has nothing to do with women's desires, what they are attracted to, or their biology, any more than bigamy or polygamy do.

This is the whole problem with evo-psych in a nutshell: It utterly fails to distinguish between description, theory, hypothesis, test and proof. It just rolls it all up into a big ball of logical fallacies.


----------



## naiveonedave

Blossom Leigh said:


> It doesn't bother me that he gets some things accurate. I'm a traditionalist and agree with many common patterns and techniques to right a sinking relational ship, but Its the wacked delivery that I find off putting. This coming from someone who is not a feminist.


what I think is important about MMSL is that some of this stuff (especially attraction) is very much built into our DNA. And this goes totally against the grain of much modern thought (that we are better than our emotions, etc.) and a lot of feminist ideas.

I can agree that women see the book as a whacked delivery, however, as a man, I can see that it provides a useful 2x4 to force me to rethink what I thought were truths.

Thanks for posting on this thread, I have learned a bit from your perspective.


----------



## naiveonedave

always_alone said:


> I'm too lazy to go back and pull the specific posts, but there is an awful lot of equivocation about hypergamy on this thread.
> 
> Hypergamy is the act of marrying above one's status or caste. Much like bigamy or polygamy or monogamy, it refers to a type of marriage.
> 
> What Athol and red pill does is take the type, and then assume it applies to women's sexual desires and attraction, claiming things like "it is innate."
> 
> No, hypergamy has nothing to do with women's desires, what they are attracted to, or their biology, any more than bigamy or polygamy do.
> 
> This is the whole problem with evo-psych in a nutshell: It utterly fails to distinguish between description, theory, hypothesis, test and proof. It just rolls it all up into a big ball of logical fallacies.


I don't disagree necessarily with hypergamy (though my guess is that there is some significant fraction of women who are), but the attraction part is very much part of our DNA....


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

always_alone said:


> I'm too lazy to go back and pull the specific posts, but there is an awful lot of equivocation about hypergamy on this thread.
> 
> Hypergamy is the act of marrying above one's status or caste. Much like bigamy or polygamy or monogamy, it refers to a type of marriage.
> 
> What Athol and red pill does is take the type, and then assume it applies to women's sexual desires and attraction, claiming things like "it is innate."
> 
> No, hypergamy has nothing to do with women's desires, what they are attracted to, or their biology, any more than bigamy or polygamy do.
> 
> This is the whole problem with evo-psych in a nutshell: It utterly fails to distinguish between description, theory, hypothesis, test and proof. It just rolls it all up into a big ball of logical fallacies.


:iagree: and for all AK's b*tching about how he thinks women do this, I've seen more examples of it from the men's side. 
Get as hot as possible to attract women above his current ranking.
If your wife isn't putting out, get hotter and go find a younger, better vagina.

Whatever happened to "treat people how you want to be treated"?



RandomDude said:


> In my opinion I believe this is the typical outcome of a man using these books; you take in what makes sense, what you agree with, you leave out the whacky stuff.
> 
> Also why I disagree with Deejo's decision to take the books out of the recommended list, it's up the reader what they get out of it. By closing the window on these books due to the whacky ideas presented, is like assuming that grown men can't make their own decisions.


So you would be perfectly fine if a mod made a sticky in the LL with something like this? Because it would be up to each woman to decide what they get out of it?

How to train your man like a dog
Is your man forgetful, untidy, disobedient, slobbering? Fear not, because Mic Wright reveals the seven secrets to keeping men in check - no collar required.


----------



## RandomDude

Well, from my experience, I wasn't always successful. In my earlier years I was deemed "non-boyfriend"/"non-husband" material as I did not have an education or career (I STILL don't have a formal education or career lol). My ex-wife however, didn't care, but she was a rarity.

At the same time, I've never had financial or educational standards when dating women - I still don't. I simply don't care, if a woman is attractive to me and doesn't piss me off then yay! However, can this be considered the norm with women's standards? I live in the big city as well so the culture is much different from lets say, a smaller town where human worth isn't gauged too often based on material aspects.

So yes, it is a double standard, and hypergamy exists.


----------



## RandomDude

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> So you would be perfectly fine if a mod made a sticky in the LL with something like this? Because it would be up to each woman to decide what they get out of it?
> 
> How to train your man like a dog
> Is your man forgetful, untidy, disobedient, slobbering? Fear not, because Mic Wright reveals the seven secrets to keeping men in check - no collar required.


If those books have proven themselves like Athol's book to radically change the lives of women for the better then sure. Have they?

I never thought I would be defending a book that I haven't even read but I do know that it was stickied for a reason, and several years ago it was referenced frequently on this forum as it has helped ALOT of men especially those suffering from sexless marriages.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

naiveonedave said:


> what I think is important about MMSL is that some of this stuff (especially attraction) is very much built into our DNA. And this goes totally against the grain of much modern thought (that we are better than our emotions, etc.) and a lot of feminist ideas.
> 
> I can agree that women see the book as a whacked delivery, however, as a man, I can see that it provides a useful 2x4 to force me to rethink what I thought were truths.
> 
> Thanks for posting on this thread, I have learned a bit from your perspective.


But IMO, this book/mindset has had negative impact on you. Several of your posts talk about what women "really want" and what the "truths" really are. What feminism has done to men.

You didn't just work out and be a better father and husband. 
You actually ended up believing the "2x4s" and are now teaching these kinds of beliefs to your kids. 

That's exactly the kind of thing that scares and upsets me about this book. That it won't just be a tool for men to gain confidence in themselves and not be a doormat like so many say it does, but it will flip them to the other side of thinking poorly of women. I've been in the anger stage and I know how easy it is to get there. This book just gives them permission (because, science ) instead of building the tools to have mutual respect, love and a healthy relationship. 

That's why it shouldn't be recommended here.


----------



## Lila

RandomDude said:


> If those books have proven themselves like Athol's book to radically change the lives of women for the better then sure. Have they?
> 
> I never thought I would be defending a book that I haven't even read but I do know that it was stickied for a reason, and several years ago it was referenced frequently on this forum as it has helped ALOT of men especially those suffering from sexless marriages.


Here is the article where the author of "How to Train Your Husband like a Dog" originated.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/25/fashion/25love.html?pagewanted=all


----------



## Blossom Leigh

naiveonedave said:


> what I think is important about MMSL is that some of this stuff (especially attraction) is very much built into our DNA. And this goes totally against the grain of much modern thought (that we are better than our emotions, etc.) and a lot of feminist ideas.
> 
> I can agree that women see the book as a whacked delivery, however, as a man, I can see that it provides a useful 2x4 to force me to rethink what I thought were truths.
> 
> Thanks for posting on this thread, I have learned a bit from your perspective.


You are welcome 

The reason I am a traditionalist and not a feminist is I believe that God put those patterns into our DNA. I am a Christ centered female, therefore I believe His way is best and have learned not to fight His way. And His way is not what AK promotes even though AK bumps into the patterns. IMO one would do MUCH better truly doing a deep study into relatioships and Christ's heart in the Bible. It mentions standards, boundaries, balancing Alpha and Beta without degrading mankind. Who else balanced Alpha and Beta better than Christ Himself. So that is where I'm parked on this issue.

I prefer language that is constructive, not destructive, that honors what God has created, male and female.  Its kind of why I kind of "bridge a gap" on this issue because on one hand I am not a feminist, but a traditionalist, so I don't support the feminist language necessarily and yet I have a problem with AK's language, though not some of the underlying patterns. Oddball I am


----------



## naiveonedave

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> But IMO, this book/mindset has had negative impact on you. Several of your posts talk about what women "really want" and what the "truths" really are. What feminism has done to men.
> 
> You didn't just work out and be a better father and husband.
> You actually ended up believing the "2x4s" and are now teaching these kinds of beliefs to your kids.
> 
> That's exactly the kind of thing that scares and upsets me about this book. That it won't just be a tool for men to gain confidence in themselves and not be a doormat like so many say it does, but it will flip them to the other side of thinking poorly of women. I've been in the anger stage and I know how easy it is to get there. This book just gives them permission (because, science ) instead of building the tools to have mutual respect, love and a healthy relationship.
> 
> That's why it shouldn't be recommended here.


the problem is some of this stuff is true, that many/most women want is not a hard concept. A lot of attraction is this way. To deny is crazy. Hypergamy is more controversial, but to deny that a lot of women are in this camp is crazy. The book is written to the most, not the all, or that is how I took it anyway.

I don't disagree that if you take the negative extreme, you could become an a$$hat, but I think most men who read this, discard the stuff you see as hateful. The ones that don't have other issues and they would get this info from PUA sites, which are likely more hateful.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

naiveonedave said:


> the problem is some of this stuff is true, that many/most women want is not a hard concept. A lot of attraction is this way. To deny is crazy. Hypergamy is more controversial, but to deny that a lot of women are in this camp is crazy. The book is written to the most, not the all, or that is how I took it anyway.
> 
> I don't disagree that if you take the negative extreme, you could become an a$$hat, but I think most men who read this, discard the stuff you see as hateful. The ones that don't have other issues and they would get this info from PUA sites, which are likely more hateful.


There is just poor behavior in both genders. What you are describing at the core is just plain ole greed. And to me the gold diggers are the same as the persons so career focused for money that they neglect their families.


----------



## RandomDude

Are you serious? 

There's a MASSIVE infographic on that site that explains it (like, the whole page), do I really have to spell it out?


----------



## DayOne

Bugged said:


> ...after all women are not logical



I wouldn't say that! (though of course, the ones that are, aren't from around here...)


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

naiveonedave said:


> the problem is some of this stuff is true, that many/most women want is not a hard concept. A lot of attraction is this way. To deny is crazy. Hypergamy is more controversial, but to deny that a lot of women are in this camp is crazy. The book is written to the most, not the all, or that is how I took it anyway.
> 
> I don't disagree that if you take the negative extreme, you could become an a$$hat, but I think most men who read this, discard the stuff you see as hateful. The ones that don't have other issues and they would get this info from PUA sites, which are likely more hateful.


It's not most, that's the problem.

There are _some _men who are weak and whiny and begging for attention. There are _some _women who care more about status and marry the guy they didn't find attractive and would be more sexual with a man that they did and would respond to her husband either threatening to take away her status/money and/or being less of a begging, whiny boy. 

But thinking these are most of the men and women is insulting to both. 

Men and women have individual and personal emotional needs. Most issues in a relationship, IMO, have more to do with when these become unbalanced in either direction rather than some crap science about what women really want and hypergamy. 

Many of the men who get the mmslp suggestion have also stated that at one time or another things got lazy and they both stopped meeting each other's needs and dating each other, no alone time, no romance. Sometimes it started with him, sometimes with her.

The best place to start is not "she's a wh*re and a b*tch and probably BPD too. You should mmslp to learn about how women _really _are and man up. If it doesn't work with her, find yourself a new vagina"


----------



## RandomDude

Insulting? I think that's the problem. You are taking offense to these generalisations. It's a completely human thing to do, don't get me wrong. My point is - don't.

In previous pages, that red pill guy insulted my race as "white worshippers". Should I be offended? It doesn't apply to me, and not to mention I've seen way too many occurences of it to deny that it exists, amongst both men and women.

Stop applying it to yourself when it shouldn't, look at it objectively, acknowledge the experiences that many men have already shared in regards to how real these occurences actually are.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

RandomDude said:


> Insulting? I think that's the problem. You are taking offense to these generalisations. It's a completely human thing to do, don't get me wrong. My point is - don't.
> 
> In previous pages, that red pill guy insulted my race as "white worshippers". Should I be offended? It doesn't apply to me, and not to mention I've seen way too many occurences of it to deny that it exists, amongst both men and women.
> 
> Stop applying it to yourself when it shouldn't, look at it objectively, acknowledge the experiences that many men have already shared in regards to how real these occurences actually are.


There are forums and places for red pill guys to talk about how horrible women and feminism are. A marriage and relationship forum should not be one of them. It should not be a place where people are looked down on because of their race, sexual orientation or anything else about who they are. 
"Just don't be offended" is not a solution to making a place that feels safe for everyone to share and read.


----------



## Brigit

RandomDude said:


> In my opinion I believe this is the typical outcome of a man using these books; you take in what makes sense, what you agree with, you leave out the whacky stuff.
> 
> Also why I disagree with Deejo's decision to take the books out of the recommended list, it's up the reader what they get out of it. By closing the window on these books due to the whacky ideas presented, is like assuming that grown men can't make their own decisions.


That's funny you say this. Me FW and some of the other women have decided to get together and write a book. Here is a quick synopsis:

Men are essentially dogs which is great for us since dogs are very trainable. If you don't train your man/dog they will bite you and piss all over your furniture. In our book we'll outline some of our methods:

Chapter One:
Pus*y Whipping: The most important skill a woman needs to learn.

Chapter Two:
Conversations Men Enjoy

Chapter Three:
How to turn him against his friends and other ways to keep him home.
--------------------------------------------------------
RandomDude, I can't wait till our book comes out and we start promoting it on this site.


----------



## RandomDude

These topics are natural occurences in discussions related to marriage and relationships. You can't shut out what people end up discussing, especially when the topics themselves hit close to home.

I do agree that people should not be looked down upon based on race, sex, whatever - either on this forum or real life. I wasn't arguing that these topics aren't offensive. I posted previous post for your benefit actually =/

Nevermind


----------



## RandomDude

Brigit said:


> That's funny you say this. Me FW and some of the other women have decided to get together and write a book. Here is a quick synopsis:
> 
> Men are essentially dogs which is great for us since dogs are very trainable. If you don't train your man/dog they will bite you and piss all over your furniture. In our book we'll outline some of our methods:
> 
> Chapter One:
> Pus*y Whipping: The most important skill a woman needs to learn.
> 
> Chapter Two:
> Conversations Men Enjoy
> 
> Chapter Three:
> How to turn him against his friends and other ways to keep him home.
> --------------------------------------------------------
> RandomDude, I can't wait till our book comes out and we start promoting it on this site.


Ha! As I mentioned before - if the book goes well and helps out women the same way Athol's controversial book has helped out tons of men who frequented this forum, then you have my endorsement.

As for being a dog, nah, I love cats (see avatar) more than dogs for a reason. I'll let you guess why


----------



## Brigit

RandomDude said:


> Ha! As I mentioned before - if the book goes well and helps out women the same way Athol's controversial book has helped out tons of men who frequented this forum, then you have my endorsement.
> 
> As for being a dog, nah, I love cats (see avatar) more than dogs for a reason. I'll let you guess why


NICE!

Remember we are going to have a whole chapter on the importance of working out, eating clean and makeup application 101. We are working with chapter adjustment right now. We're not sure if the "Health and Fitness" section should come before of after the "Helping him to Hate his Hobbies" section.


----------



## EllisRedding

Brigit said:


> That's funny you say this. Me FW and some of the other women have decided to get together and write a book. Here is a quick synopsis:
> 
> Men are essentially dogs which is great for us since dogs are very trainable. If you don't train your man/dog they will bite you and piss all over your furniture. In our book we'll outline some of our methods:
> 
> Chapter One:
> Pus*y Whipping: The most important skill a woman needs to learn.
> 
> Chapter Two:
> Conversations Men Enjoy
> 
> Chapter Three:
> How to turn him against his friends and other ways to keep him home.
> --------------------------------------------------------
> RandomDude, I can't wait till our book comes out and we start promoting it on this site.


I have no issues with, please go ahead with . I love how you guys (sorry, gals to be PC) put this stuff together as your defense b/c you are so close minded to the idea that guys are capable of making their own choices, sifting out the good from the bad. If you do write a book I have enough confidence in the females on this site (well, most female, a few I don't know about lol) that they would be able to do the same and aren't mindless drones.


----------



## RandomDude

Brigit said:


> NICE!
> 
> Remember we are going to have a whole chapter on the importance of working out, eating clean and makeup application 101. We are working with chapter adjustment right now. We're not sure if the "Health and Fitness" section should come before of after the "Helping him to Hate his Hobbies" section.


Good idea, makeup can make alot of difference! And before, keep the "working on self" parts early, leave the "working on others" part later, right now it's a mess!


----------



## Brigit

EllisRedding said:


> I have no issues with, please go ahead with . I love how you guys (sorry, gals to be PC) put this stuff together as your defense b/c you are so close minded to the idea that guys are capable of making their own choices, sifting out the good from the bad. If you do write a book I have enough confidence in the females on this site (well, most female, a few I don't know about lol) that they would be able to do the same and aren't mindless drones.


We shall see won't we. 

(BTW all the wives of the men on TAM get free copies.)


----------



## Blossom Leigh

RandomDude said:


> Ha! As I mentioned before - if the book goes well and helps out women the same way Athol's controversial book has helped out tons of men who frequented this forum, then you have my endorsement.
> 
> As for being a dog, nah, I love cats (see avatar) more than dogs for a reason. I'll let you guess why


Because they give you their space. 

OH... AND are low maintenance


----------



## EllisRedding

Brigit said:


> We shall see won't we.
> 
> (BTW all the wives of the men on TAM get free copies.)


haha, best of luck on your mission with your ring leader  I am sure my wife could use some good comedic material anyhow


----------



## Julius Beastcavern

Brigit said:


> That's funny you say this. Me FW and some of the other women have decided to get together and write a book. Here is a quick synopsis:
> 
> Men are essentially dogs which is great for us since dogs are very trainable. If you don't train your man/dog they will bite you and piss all over your furniture. In our book we'll outline some of our methods:
> 
> Chapter One:
> Pus*y Whipping: The most important skill a woman needs to learn.
> 
> Chapter Two:
> Conversations Men Enjoy
> 
> Chapter Three:
> How to turn him against his friends and other ways to keep him home.
> --------------------------------------------------------
> RandomDude, I can't wait till our book comes out and we start promoting it on this site.


My wife would like a signed copy


----------



## RandomDude

Blossom Leigh said:


> Because they give you their space.
> 
> OH... AND are low maintenance


Haha! I find their independent personalities most adorable lol

Everything has to be on their terms, and as the saying goes, feed a dog and he thinks you're GOD! Feed a cat and he thinks he's GOD! 

Anyway you're tempting me to go off topic about cats >.<
Wish I could have a tiger or lion but, my baby tiger (baby forever) will have to do...


----------



## Blossom Leigh

RandomDude said:


> Haha! I find their independent personalities most adorable lol
> 
> Everything has to be on their terms, and as the saying goes, feed a dog and he thinks you're GOD! Feed a cat and he thinks he's GOD!
> 
> Anyway you're tempting me to go off topic about cats >.<
> Wish I could have a tiger or lion but, my baby tiger (baby forever) will have to do...


I love them too ....


----------



## tech-novelist

Brigit said:


> That's funny you say this. Me FW and some of the other women have decided to get together and write a book. Here is a quick synopsis:
> 
> Men are essentially dogs which is great for us since dogs are very trainable. If you don't train your man/dog they will bite you and piss all over your furniture. In our book we'll outline some of our methods:
> 
> Chapter One:
> Pus*y Whipping: The most important skill a woman needs to learn.
> 
> Chapter Two:
> Conversations Men Enjoy
> 
> Chapter Three:
> How to turn him against his friends and other ways to keep him home.
> --------------------------------------------------------
> RandomDude, I can't wait till our book comes out and we start promoting it on this site.


If it helps women improve their marriages, I'd say it was worthwhile.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Bugged said:


> f...*hilarious *!!!:
> no i mean really...are we really wasting our time to even discuss this pile of crap???


We are doing a public service here.

Future generations of men will thank us for helping them see the ridiculousness that is the red pill, thye will no longer read that crap and instead will actually listen to the wise women who WANT to have sex!


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

EllisRedding said:


> I have no issues with, please go ahead with . I love how you guys (sorry, gals to be PC) put this stuff together as your defense b/c you are so close minded to the idea that guys are capable of making their own choices, sifting out the good from the bad. If you do write a book I have enough confidence in the females on this site (well, most female, a few I don't know about lol) that they would be able to do the same and aren't mindless drones.


It's not a matter of can you read it without being sucked in by the hateful parts, it's will a book like that make for a productive and safe environment for both genders to talk about marital issues. 

If every woman who came on here was suggested a book like that, it would hurt the site as a whole _even if _most of the women who read it didn't believe the bad parts.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

FrenchFry said:


> 100% percent know as soon as the key comes out--witholding and using sex to get what you want--all of you would be howling.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Yep and the part where you should get all sexy looking and go on GNOs to have other men flirt with you if your man isn't doing enough around the house. Show them that they can go get a new man if they don't obey their wives. 
They'll love that part. Won't want to VAR them or anything.


----------



## Brigit

technovelist said:


> If it helps women improve their marriages, I'd say it was worthwhile.


You say that now because you know I'm joking. If I really wrote a book that helped women play "Dread Games" on men like "withholding sex" and giving him "the silent treatment" I don't think you'd like it.


----------



## EllisRedding

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> It's not a matter of can you read it without being sucked in by the hateful parts, it's will a book like that make for a productive and safe environment for both genders to talk about marital issues.
> 
> If every woman who came on here was suggested a book like that, it would hurt the site as a whole _even if _most of the women who read it didn't believe the bad parts.


See, I see it the opposite. Women could filter out the good parts to discuss with other women on the forum. I would actually think this would be beneficial to the forum as a whole, to have an open and honest discussion about.


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> See, I see it the opposite. Women could filter out the good parts to discuss with other women on the forum. I would actually think this would be beneficial to the forum as a whole, to have an open and honest discussion about.


Not quite what happened when everyone found out about ladymisato's book . . .


----------



## samyeagar

Brigit said:


> That's funny you say this. Me FW and some of the other women have decided to get together and write a book. Here is a quick synopsis:
> 
> Men are essentially dogs which is great for us since dogs are very trainable. If you don't train your man/dog they will bite you and piss all over your furniture. In our book we'll outline some of our methods:
> 
> Chapter One:
> Pus*y Whipping: The most important skill a woman needs to learn.
> 
> Chapter Two:
> Conversations Men Enjoy
> 
> Chapter Three:
> How to turn him against his friends and other ways to keep him home.
> --------------------------------------------------------
> RandomDude, I can't wait till our book comes out and we start promoting it on this site.


I think such a book would be quite amusing personally. If you could make a buck off of essentially collecting every stereotype about men and fathers that are currently widely perpetuated in our every day media...go for it I say!


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> Not quite what happened when everyone found out about ladymisato's book . . .


No clue who that is, and yeah, no guarantee that would happen. For me though, that is what I would hope would happen with a forum, a place to discuss and share ideas. You just hope everyone can at least be open minded regardless of whether they agree or not.


----------



## samyeagar

EllisRedding said:


> I have no issues with, please go ahead with . I love how you guys (sorry, gals to be PC) put this stuff together as your defense b/c you are so close minded to the idea that guys are capable of making their own choices, sifting out the good from the bad. If you do write a book I have enough confidence in the females on this site (well, most female, a few I don't know about lol) that they would be able to do the same and aren't mindless drones.


Or the women who run into men who that crap wouldn't work on, and then walk away scratching their heads wondering why it didn't work. No doubt though, there are a lot of men who could easily fall victim to it, who are easily gamed...that's largely on them, and not the women gaming them.


----------



## Marduk

FrenchFry said:


> Long game?
> 
> No, I just think she didn't like how you were acting and womaned-up.


hmm... maybe.

If so, I don't think it was consciously done.

She's more of an act then think kind of girl.

This is part of my confusion and fascination with the red pill. There's a lot operating below the surface in relationships, and people that know how to consciously trigger that rather than unconsciously bumbling about can perhaps get to a better place.


----------



## Julius Beastcavern

jld said:


> Not quite what happened when everyone found out about ladymisato's book . . .


I started to read her book but found myself physically unable to turn the page after reading the 'penis clamp' section


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

EllisRedding said:


> See, I see it the opposite. Women could filter out the good parts to discuss with other women on the forum. I would actually think this would be beneficial to the forum as a whole, to have an open and honest discussion about.


Women and men can already do that without needing books that are insulting to either gender. 

If men want to talk about getting in shape, being more proactive and confident- go for it. You don't need to recommend mmslp - and all the hateful and insulting things that come with it- to do so. 

These types of books aren't adding anything that couldn't be discussed without them AND have the potential to be used in a hateful way (even many of the men defending this book as _not hateful because they can see past the lies and 2x4s_ have said things that show you otherwise)


----------



## Blossom Leigh

EllisRedding said:


> No clue who that is, and yeah, no guarantee that would happen. For me though, that is what I would hope would happen with a forum, a place to discuss and share ideas. You just hope everyone can at least be open minded regardless of whether they agree or not.


I railed against that book because it creates a sexual addiction or at least leverages a preexisting sexual addiction in your spouse as a tool of control which is not loving. Takes codependency to an extremely warped level.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Oh lookie, there's *a red pill constitution*. How cute.
> 
> The Red Pill Constitution | Illimitable Men
> 
> Some gems from this lovely document (this is actually only a small portion of the complete nonsense...I've bolded the particularly hilarious or horrible bits):
> 
> Women are irrational and inconsistent, they have a capacity for logic but they are not naturally inclined to reason with it. *Women must exert concentrated effort to be logical as it is not their factory setting*, unlike men who are, most of the time, rational in nature. A logical woman is easily baited into becoming emotional. Regardless of her intellect women are much more likely to lose lucidity due to their hormonal composition and natural preference for emotion. It is thus by extension of this that we observe they are more easily compromised than men are. Their decisions are based on their current emotional state rather than logic. Once overwhelmed by the feeling of the moment and riding on a tidal wave of emotion, even if an awareness of what is fair and rational remains intact in the woman, she shall opt to ignore it in favour of indulging “what feels right.” Ever witnessed a woman hear something reasonable and in her emotion say “I don’t care!” and then crazily mutter something that makes no sense to anybody but her? This is a prime example of the feminine propensity to “reason” with emotion. Being ruled by emotion, there is thus a proclivity to change erratically and impulsively, leading women to often behave inconsistently and contradictorily in comparison to previous claims and behaviours they have made and exhibited. *Watch what she does, not what she says, for women are fickle.*
> 
> Women are Machiavellian in nature. In comparison to the average man they are far more proficient in the art of manipulation as well as comprehending the realm of subtext to “read between the lines.” *The theoretical evolutionary basis for this sex difference is that due to smaller body mass and inferior musculature women had to learn to use men as tools rather than directly oppose them in physical competition.* This makes the pronunciation of female strength a propensity to be mentally violent rather than physically. Physical violence is outlawed whereas mental abuse is not, and it is this which allows women to get their way using their favoured method of coercion without being held accountable by a system of law. The law unfortunately does not legislate interpersonal morality to a degree that criminalises emotional violence. *Where a man’s instinct is to hit, a woman’s is to do a big sh*t in your mind*. In summation, women tend to be more emotionally and psychologically aggressive than men, and on average, have a far more developed sense of cunning than men do.
> 
> Your race/ethnicity does not matter if you are rich and/or successful. *A lot of men are small-minded and stuck on the superficial, White, Black, Arab, Indian, Asian whatever, you have a certain perception of the world based upon your culture. Non-whites are very consciously aware of their ethnic identity, and oft it is so that non-white men feel shame or anger over their lack of whiteness.* Asians in particular seem to glorify whiteness and perpetuate a culture of racial self-hatred. This “but I’ll never have it good because I’m not white” mentality will not help you in life, it will hold you back and make you insecure. Perhaps where you live the white man is god, but know all racial barriers are overcome by power, for money is power. *If you’re a 5’0 Asian with a 2 inch d*ck that girls laugh at, then a 7 digit bank balance and a confident as f*ck attitude will offset that*. You won’t get there being jealous/bitter towards whites and putting yourself down, so time to cut that sh*t out. Focus less on self-deprecation over your race and more on achieving success, for men are treated as success objects. Your insecurities will get you no where, you must tangle with them, overcome them and finally: banish them.
> 
> Women are hypergamous, this means that they feel entitled to a superior mate. *A woman always wants a man who is better than her in life.* Women are biologically programmed to keep a keen eye out for any new man on the horizon who is a potential upgrade versus her current mate (this is a concept known as “branch swinging.”) Thus you must be richer than her, or at least equally rich, more educated than her, or at least equally educated. You must be better looking than her, or at least equal looking, you must be more popular than her, or at least equally popular. You can offset one area (L.M.S – looks, money, status) with another area, *but if you’re fundamentally inferior to her in at least 2 areas then just forget it as it is more than likely she will not be interested*. Of course there are always exceptions, and that is another topic in and of itself, but as a widely applicable generalisation: *women want a man who is objectively better than they are*, more successful, stronger, smarter etc.
> 
> *Elaborating from the last point, this is why 20% of men are f*cking 80% of the women (the Pareto Principle.)* Women are far more sexually picky than men, so when they do have sex they want to be f*cking only the very best men. Women date up, men date down and yes this has created rising social inequality since women entered the professions.
> 
> If a woman thinks she is better than you then she can’t respect you and if she can’t respect you she can’t love you. Women love men differently to the way men love women. Woman’s love is based on adoration, adoration is a combination of both explicit admiration and respect. *Respect is derived from power. Thus it follows that you must be powerful if you want to be loved, or you will never be loved*. You will be held in contempt for being weak. For more on this topic, refer to this article.
> 
> *Women love pragmatically and have no capacity to love unconditionally for romantic partners*, only their children. This is a behaviour governed by an effect known as Briffault’s Law. Men can love women unconditionally by outcome of significant personal investment into her. There is a hierarchy of love: Men > Women > Children.
> 
> Women have a sexual plurality, if you are a nice guy with money then you are deemed husband material. You get to nail her after the 12th date where she’s had so many glasses of wine she forgets how you don’t “create a spark,” but are rather a safe, boring bet. *If you’re an azzhole with tight bulging muscles on the other hand, you’re the guy who gets to nail her after 20 minutes of meeting.* You “create a spark,” you make her tingly, you give her butterflies. We call this sexual plurality in rather rhythmic slang: “alpha f*cks, beta bucks.”
> 
> Women do not care about male weakness and neither does society. *If you are weak, depressed, small, poor, uneducated, unconfident, essentially anything which stops you from being powerful, then nobody cares. People only care about you when you’re powerful or a beautiful woman*. You have to pull yourself up by the bootstraps and rely on yourself because nobody else gives a sh*t about you. You’re given a dichotomy, sink or swim, you sink, then you end up drowning yourself in failure and self-pity.
> 
> *Women are depreciating assets, their major asset and unique selling point is their sexual beauty and fertility. Most of them squander their best years on “riding the c*ck carousel,” which means f*cking lots of different guys they met in nightclubs in a daze of smoke-filled hedonism. Most women spend the bulk of their 20’s being generally irresponsible and riding through life on easy mode getting ahead on beauty rather than talent thinking they have all the time in the world “to settle down.” Then around the age of 30, they reach something known as “the wall,” their fertility falls off a cliff alongside their looks and they clamour in desperation to find a man to settle down with. Women are born, their ability to conceive children is what makes them women.*
> 
> (end quote)
> 
> Gee, I wonder if this guy is good with women? :scratchhead:
> 
> I'd take the c*ck carousel over this loon any day.
> 
> I do like the idea the evolution caused us to learn how to use men like tools, however....I'm not sure he meant the same kind of tool I want to use my husband for but...anyway.
> 
> The part about women being fickle is funny....um, right, and men aren't fickle, even though it is their mantra that they "like variety" and "won't ever stop looking" and "would do any acceptably f*ckable woman". But no, that's not fickle.
> 
> Plus you gotta love it when a white man tells a man of another race to get over the pity party he's having over his LACK OF WHITENESS!


Where do you think this is getting us FW?

I think a lot of people here agree there are anti-woman problems in the red pill. I could find and cherry pick similar diatribes from feminist literature... and where would that get us?

Nowhere, because people would have to line up on sides and fight each other.

What I want, and what I think a significant fraction of the people here are looking for, is understanding what *works* (because some of it does work), *why it works*, and *how to apply that knowledge* in a thoughtful, sensitive, respectful way to improve their marriage.

Fighting over lunatic quotes is simply divisive and gets us nowhere.


----------



## jld

Julius Beastcavern said:


> I started to read her book but found myself physically unable to turn the page after reading the 'penis clamp' section


I don't remember that part. Must not have been reading carefully enough.


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> No clue who that is, and yeah, no guarantee that would happen. For me though, that is what I would hope would happen with a forum, a place to discuss and share ideas. You just hope everyone can at least be open minded regardless of whether they agree or not.


Could anyone link the Wife-Led Marriage thread? My iPad won't let me do it.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/general-relationship-discussion/211954-wife-led-marriage.html


----------



## EllisRedding

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Women and men can already do that without needing books that are insulting to either gender.
> 
> If men want to talk about getting in shape, being more proactive and confident- go for it. You don't need to recommend mmslp - and all the hateful and insulting things that come with it- to do so.
> 
> These types of books aren't adding anything that couldn't be discussed without them AND have the potential to be used in a hateful way (even many of the men defending this book as _not hateful because they can see past the lies and 2x4s_ have said things that show you otherwise)


I think Blossom fits my point exactly though. If you have an issue with the book, please be vocal about it (after all, isn't that the point of this thread). Instead, no one talks about the book, some guy (or girl) is reading the book on their own, don't quite know what to make of it, maybe takes thing too literally, etc.... who knows. Having an avenue to discuss on a forum like this would only serve to benefit a person like that.



Blossom Leigh said:


> I railed against that book because it creates aa sexual addiction or at least leverages a preexisting sexual addiction in your spouse as a tool of control which is not loving.


----------



## Marduk

EllisRedding said:


> Maybe I am taking out of context, but this makes no sense to me. Life experiences will shape both a male and female. According to point #20 if you are a male, you only become a man if you experience Pain, poverty, difficulty, heartache, oppression, huh :scratchhead: Any other life experiences have no impact???


I've always grown because I had to, not because I wanted to.

Meaning the pain of growing was less than the pain of staying where I was, or it was intolerable to stay where I was.


----------



## jld

Thanks, SGC.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Oh geeze... here we go...

I was about to say please don't link it, but wasn't fast enough.


----------



## Marduk

RandomDude said:


> Women have made alot of gains when it comes to gaining rights but at the same time I've seen how these rights have been abused, some examples can be:
> 
> - Single mums who abuse the child support system for their sustainable income, shamelessly lying to get what they want. Injuring themselves and claiming abuse even. These are real life stories.
> - Women who call it sexism when denied promotions yet in their positions of power hypocritically favor their female colleagues, and in many cases, do an inferior job that they simply aren't experienced/qualified enough for. But - "equal rights!"
> - Women who simply can't do the job that a comparative male can (especially physical work) yet is entitled to the same pay or its time to pull the sexism card.
> 
> Other non court-based or workplace examples can be in our love lives, where although women are now in a position to earn as much or even more than men, men are still expected to earn more as it's our responsibility to be the bread-winners. Many women still struggle with the concept of this responsibility.
> 
> Of course none of this is absolute. I have several female staff members and the ones I have at present are professionals and I pay them accordingly on a meritocratic basis. And I'm not one against women in the workforce, what do I want? A sausage fest? Bah!
> 
> However, I have already terminated several women in my business many times due to workplace politics being detrimental to my staff cohesion as well as lack of performance, and some have even tried to pull the sexism card on me simply due to the fact that I didn't believe the quality of their work was adequate enough for the pay they demanded (and not to mention I already pay my full-time staff above award)
> 
> EDIT: Oh, and since the article touched on race, I encountered the racist card pulled on me as well when terminating employees. From whites! Pfft! It's pathetic really.


I've had the sexism card played by a female peer when I got promoted.

Luckily, both my boss and my boss' boss are women, so it didn't go anywhere.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

EllisRedding said:


> I think Blossom fits my point exactly though. If you have an issue with the book, please be vocal about it (after all, isn't that the point of this thread). Instead, no one talks about the book, some guy (or girl) is reading the book on their own, don't quite know what to make of it, maybe takes thing too literally, etc.... who knows. Having an avenue to discuss on a forum like this would only serve to benefit a person like that.


I definitely have big problems with the ethics behind leveraging someone's sexual addiction for personal gain.


----------



## Marduk

Blossom Leigh said:


> Women are are depreciating assets.. and wasted their 20's sleeping around. HAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHA!
> 
> What a putz.
> 
> In my 20's I was working my a$$ off, working full time, putting myself through college, already married and now have three houses that will be paid off in the next three years. And my fertility blessed me with my child at 40 years old. So, wrong again Mr. AK.
> 
> And all the slurs against men and race?? I am not a PC gal, but good Lord. This guy objectifies everyone, men and women. That is straight out of a former addicts behavior. I don't see him as anti women. I see him as anti mankind as a whole. This guy hasn't done his personal work on how to not see people as objects and it shows in his writing. That my friends is the writing of an unrecovered addict.
> 
> I really appreciate the men and women around here who are mature enough to see this guys issues and dismiss this work as seriously flawed regardless of nuggets here and there he stumbled upon. Even those who just took the nuggets and did good work with those, you are appreciated. As a whole his delivery is just flat out wacked. And I would be saying the same thing if he were a woman who had written it.


Here's why this works, and is baked into the red pill mantra:

1. it plays on weaker guys that have never been able to get with the women they want, and play into the 'women have it all' vibe.
2. it plays on guys insecurities by giving a superficially plausible mechanism whereby the 'meek shall inherit the earth' -- where the meek are the weaker guys that don't get hot babes, and suddenly there will be magic tipping point when they get older when they get all the hot babes! Because science.
3. it's an instant on-ramp to the 'rage time' that is dangerous, but can also fuel the work that needs to be done. Double edged sword, that.


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> What I want, and what I think a significant fraction of the people here are looking for, is understanding what *works* (because some of it does work), *why it works*, and *how to apply that knowledge* in a thoughtful, sensitive, respectful way to improve their marriage.


I think this might be how ladymisato sees her book.

Just trying to help us see MMSLP from a different angle, by comparing it to another controversial book.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

EllisRedding said:


> I think Blossom fits my point exactly though. If you have an issue with the book, please be vocal about it (after all, isn't that the point of this thread). Instead, no one talks about the book, some guy (or girl) is reading the book on their own, don't quite know what to make of it, makes takes thing too literally, etc.... who knows. Having an avenue to discuss on a forum like this would only serve to benefit a person like that.


It's suggested so often, are we supposed to keep guard and when someone mentions mmslp to jump in with the disclaimers? 
Can we make some kind of bat signal alert system?

If someone reads the book and wants to talk about it they can make a thread like this one and we can have this same discussion. If someone wants to respond to a poster by saying something like "when I have having X issue, I took Y and Z from the book mmslp and it helped me", that's fine. 

It's when it's suggested to almost everyone with a penis who posts on this site, people are going to think it's a good book. It's being recommended over and over again as some kind of magic truth about women and sex. 

I'm not suggesting banning it. I'm just saying it doesn't need to be whipped out so much.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

marduk said:


> Here's why this works, and is baked into the red pill mantra:
> 
> 1. it plays on weaker guys that have never been able to get with the women they want, and play into the 'women have it all' vibe.
> 2. it plays on guys insecurities by giving a superficially plausible mechanism whereby the 'meek shall inherit the earth' -- where the meek are the weaker guys that don't get hot babes, and suddenly there will be magic tipping point when they get older when they get all the hot babes! Because science.
> 3. it's an instant on-ramp to the 'rage time' that is dangerous, but can also fuel the work that needs to be done. Double edged sword, that.


So this author leverages others personal insecurities for personal gain. Totally agree. That is why I would choose to not to line his pockets with my money.


----------



## Marduk

DayOne said:


> I did read and apply SOME aspects of MMSLP and NMMNG following "Day One". But quickly realised that I was only going to use the parts that made sense to me. A lot of it was WTF. If I'd gone fully Red Pill I'm d*mn sure I (and we) wouldn't be where we are now.
> 
> I needed to change my way of thinking, to sack up. But not to the point where I lost all respect for women, especially the one that eventually wanted me again. I can be myself, but still appreciate what a lady can bring to the relationship.


Agreed D1.

The point, I think, is to pull out what works, polish it off, and embed it into a new model. One without the crap.

Now, one might argue it's 99% crap and 1% useful, or 90/10%, or 50/50% or whatever.

But throwing the whole thing out only achieves two things:
1. the red pill guys can always fall back on 'it works.' *Because it does work.* So they become more entrenched in their position, not less.
2. those that find it distasteful will lose the bits that do work. Out of angst, out of guilt, out of disgust, for any of a number of reasons.

That's my point, and thanks for making it so well D1.


----------



## Julius Beastcavern

jld said:


> I think this might be how ladymisato sees her book.
> 
> Just trying to help us see MMSLP from a different angle, by comparing it to another controversial book.


I'm not sure you can compare the books, Misatos book is for female dominatrix


----------



## jld

Blossom Leigh said:


> So this author *leverages others personal insecurities for personal gain. * Totally agree. That is why I would choose to not to line his pockets with my money.


It does seem like this is the main problem with it.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> It does seem like this is the main problem with it.


I agree, which is genderless.

I look past gender on both of these books and into the hearts of the victims.

And call out what I feel is poor behavior and an abusive attitude.


----------



## jld

Julius Beastcavern said:


> I'm not sure you can compare the books, Misatos book is for female dominatrix


Is Kay's not to show men how to get power in their relationships? And as Blossom said, by leveraging women's insecurities against them?


----------



## EllisRedding

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> It's suggested so often, are we supposed to keep guard and when someone mentions mmslp to jump in with the disclaimers?
> Can we make some kind of bat signal alert system?
> 
> If someone reads the book and wants to talk about it they can make a thread like this one and we can have this same discussion. If someone wants to respond to a poster by saying something like "when I have having X issue, I took Y and Z from the book mmslp and it helped me", that's fine.
> 
> It's when it's suggested to almost everyone with a penis who posts on this site, people are going to think it's a good book. It's being recommended over and over again as some kind of magic truth about women and sex.
> 
> I'm not suggesting banning it. I'm just saying it doesn't need to be whipped out so much.


I follow where you are coming from. All I can go by is what I have seen since I have been on this forum for a short time. The book or concept was never mentioned once in the thread I had started. Also, other threads I have followed along with I have not seen mention. It was only in threads like this did I even become aware of such a book or concept. Maybe before my time it was all the craze, but from my viewpoint it is not being recommended nowhere near the extent now that some are claiming (earlier on someone suggested it gets recommended to every guy who comes onto TAM which is not true).


----------



## jld

Just to be clear, I am not against men's gaining power in their relationships. I think they should do it through empathy and sharing power with their wives, a la Gottman.


----------



## Marduk

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> :iagree: and for all AK's b*tching about how he thinks women do this, I've seen more examples of it from the men's side.
> Get as hot as possible to attract women above his current ranking.
> If your wife isn't putting out, get hotter and go find a younger, better vagina.
> 
> Whatever happened to "treat people how you want to be treated"?
> 
> 
> 
> So you would be perfectly fine if a mod made a sticky in the LL with something like this? Because it would be up to each woman to decide what they get out of it?
> 
> How to train your man like a dog
> Is your man forgetful, untidy, disobedient, slobbering? Fear not, because Mic Wright reveals the seven secrets to keeping men in check - no collar required.


Here's the really nasty, but powerful nugget in that.

If everyone is replacable, and I make it really, really apparant to my partner that she is replacable... it can trigger a kind of 'red pill cold war.'

Which can show up as she races to make sure that she is the best mate she can be, so that I chase her instead of she chases me. And then I up my game so that she is chasing me again. And then she ups her game...

And on and on. What it's based on is a constantly unstable power structure fueled by constant insecurity and an arms build up -- just like the cold war in the 60's.

Which, from a really cold hearted perspective, could be viewed as "yay! everybody has to bring their best to a marriage and that's good" which is difficult to argue with. Because I believe you should bring your best to your partner every day.

Until of course you realize it's based on insecurity, assymetrical information sharing, and constant destabilization of the marriage. And it will all fall apart if, say, one of you busts a leg or something.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

FrenchFry said:


> Perfect example, that thread.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


That thread *really* upsets me.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

marduk said:


> Here's the really nasty, but powerful nugget in that.
> 
> If everyone is replacable, and I make it really, really apparant to my partner that she is replacable... it can trigger a kind of 'red pill cold war.'
> 
> Which can show up as she races to make sure that she is the best mate she can be, so that I chase her instead of she chases me. And then I up my game so that she is chasing me again. And then she ups her game...
> 
> And on and on. What it's based on is a constantly unstable power structure fueled by constant insecurity and an arms build up -- just like the cold war in the 60's.
> 
> Which, from a really cold hearted perspective, could be viewed as "yay! everybody has to bring their best to a marriage and that's good" which is difficult to argue with. Because I believe you should bring your best to your partner every day.
> 
> Until of course you realize it's based on insecurity, assymetrical information sharing, and constant destabilization of the marriage. And it will all fall apart if, say, one of you busts a leg or something.


Bravo to this insight.


----------



## Julius Beastcavern

jld said:


> Is Kay's not to show men how to get power in their relationships? And as Blossom said, by leveraging women's insecurities against them?


Not quite, Kay doesn't suggest putting your wife in a chastity belt if she misbehaves


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> Until of course you realize it's based on insecurity, assymetrical information sharing, and constant destabilization of the marriage. And it will all fall apart if, say, one of you busts a leg or something.


Agreed.

What is needed to sustain a healthy marriage is a heart change. Both partners need to be humble, just completely lose their pride in front of one another. They need to be tender with each other's hearts. That will build a strong marriage. That will survive the real challenges in life.

For anyone who has not read it, _Hold Me Tight_ by Sue Johnson goes into depth about this.


----------



## jld

Blossom Leigh said:


> That thread *really* upsets me.


Do you want to talk about it?


----------



## Julius Beastcavern

jld said:


> Agreed.
> 
> What is needed to sustain a healthy marriage is a heart change. Both partners need to be humble, just completely lose their pride in front of one another. They need to be tender with each other's hearts. That will build a strong marriage. That will survive the real challenges in life.
> 
> For anyone who has not read it, _Hold Me Tight_ by Sue Johnson goes into depth about this.


I'll have a look at that one. Just for info, Kay based most of his 'fill her up with sperm' stuff on a book called _sperm wars _
I must say I found that book disturbing. Apparently there is a preceding title with all the science in it but I haven't read that


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> Not quite what happened when everyone found out about ladymisato's book . . .


Exactly, JLD. Was wondering when one of the ladies would bring that up.

If you don't think that the female version x 10 isn't actively operating (even in a small group) here, you'd be mistaken.

It does not make AK or the red pill guys right.

It does mean we need to view the whole -- men and women, and the various viewpoints, as a spectrum.

Lining it up on gender lines is purely artificial and speculative. You get women who agree with the red pill, and guys that disagree with it. You get women who think the men should be trained instead, and the men who agree with that.

All kinds of things, when not viewed end to end, lead only to superficial and categorical divisions and conflict.

Which to some folks in this debate, I'm starting to think, is the real point.


----------



## jld

Julius Beastcavern said:


> I'll have a look at that one. Just for info, Kay based most of his 'fill her up with sperm' stuff on a book called _sperm wars _
> I must say I found that book disturbing. Apparently there is a preceding title with all the science in it but I haven't read that


Not familiar with that book, but thanks for the info.

Tbh, I have not read MMSLP, either. I bought it, but just could not get into it. Most of what I know about it I read on TAM.


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> Exactly, JLD. Was wondering when one of the ladies would bring that up.
> 
> If you don't think that the female version x 10 isn't actively operating (even in a small group) here, you'd be mistaken.
> 
> It does not make AK or the red pill guys right.
> 
> It does mean we need to view the whole -- men and women, and the various viewpoints, as a spectrum.
> 
> Lining it up on gender lines is purely artificial and speculative. You get women who agree with the red pill, and guys that disagree with it. You get women who think the men should be trained instead, and the men who agree with that.
> 
> All kinds of things, when not viewed end to end, lead only to superficial and categorical divisions and conflict.
> 
> Which to some folks in this debate, I'm starting to think, is the real point.


I don't think division and conflict is the point. I think we all want to feel safe. I think that is the point.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> I think this might be how ladymisato sees her book.
> 
> Just trying to help us see MMSLP from a different angle, by comparing it to another controversial book.


OK, here's my point.

If you can't laugh at the BS in MMSLP, then you can't laugh at the BS in crap like hers, either. 

Because something that hurts women hurts men, too, and _vice versa._ You can't have it only one way.

And if you can laugh (like me) at the book suggested be written for women, then _you can laugh at the crap in MMSLP, too._

You can't act hurt by one and laugh at the other, because it's somehow OK. This has a name - 'reverse sexism' and in my book is even worse than sexism itself... because those hurt by sexism know more than others how it impacts their lives.

For me, ladymisato's stuff crosses the line because, quite simply, she advocates a behavioral manipulation without the consent of the person being manipulated -- and it's not simply by improving herself. It's by an active, one way, and non-participatory way of using a human mind's ability to be manipulated through classical and operant conditioning, a series of ego-depletion maneuvers, and creates in the men a shame in their own sexual identity.

Now, none of that is cool. And one might argue that AK did the same thing.

And what I would say to that is it's like comparing a hand grenade to a nuke, but if you disagree and rail against the hand grenade, you bloody better rail against the nuke, too. Even if the nuke is the weapon in your arsenal.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> I don't think division and conflict is the point. I think we all want to feel safe. I think that is the point.


I think that is your point.

I think there's other agendas in operation as well.


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> OK, here's my point.
> 
> If you can't laugh at the BS in MMSLP, then you can't laugh at the BS in crap like hers, either.
> 
> Because something that hurts women hurts men, too, and _vice versa._ You can't have it only one way.
> 
> And if you can laugh (like me) at the book suggested be written for women, then _you can laugh at the crap in MMSLP, too._
> 
> You can't act hurt by one and laugh at the other, because it's somehow OK. This has a name - 'reverse sexism' and in my book is even worse than sexism itself... because those hurt by sexism know more than others how it impacts their lives.
> 
> For me, ladymisato's stuff crosses the line because, quite simply, she advocates a behavioral manipulation without the consent of the person being manipulated -- and it's not simply by improving herself. It's by an active, one way, and non-participatory way of using a human mind's ability to be manipulated through classical and operant conditioning, a series of ego-depletion maneuvers, and creates in the men a shame in their own sexual identity.
> 
> Now, none of that is cool. And one might argue that AK did the same thing.
> 
> And what I would say to that is it's like comparing a hand grenade to a nuke, but if you disagree and rail against the hand grenade, you bloody better rail against the nuke, too. Even if the nuke is the weapon in your arsenal.


I'm not defending her, Marduk. I am trying to elicit empathy in those defending the red pill, trying to help them see how it feels when the shoe is on the other foot.

It hurts, doesn't it? It is threatening. I think that is how some perceive RP as well.

And you are right; we have to move past power games if we want to get our needs met in healthy ways.


----------



## Anon1111

Brigit said:


> Chapter One:
> Pus*y Whipping: The most important skill a woman needs to learn.
> 
> Chapter Two:
> Conversations Men Enjoy
> 
> Chapter Three:
> How to turn him against his friends and other ways to keep him home.
> --------------------------------------------------------
> RandomDude, I can't wait till our book comes out and we start promoting it on this site.


no need for a book, most women already do this automatically.


----------



## jld

Anon1111 said:


> no need for a book, most women already do this automatically.


Is this attitude not also divisive?


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> Do you want to talk about it?


Not really.. I may have to take a breather on this one for a while. Y'all have at it. I'll be back later.


----------



## DayOne

BTW, "Pu*y whipping" means different things to different people...


----------



## Blossom Leigh

marduk said:


> OK, here's my point.
> 
> If you can't laugh at the BS in MMSLP, then you can't laugh at the BS in crap like hers, either.
> 
> Because something that hurts women hurts men, too, and _vice versa._ You can't have it only one way.
> 
> And if you can laugh (like me) at the book suggested be written for women, then _you can laugh at the crap in MMSLP, too._
> 
> You can't act hurt by one and laugh at the other, because it's somehow OK. This has a name - 'reverse sexism' and in my book is even worse than sexism itself... because those hurt by sexism know more than others how it impacts their lives.
> 
> For me, ladymisato's stuff crosses the line because, quite simply, she advocates a behavioral manipulation without the consent of the person being manipulated -- and it's not simply by improving herself. It's by an active, one way, and non-participatory way of using a human mind's ability to be manipulated through classical and operant conditioning, a series of ego-depletion maneuvers, and creates in the men a shame in their own sexual identity.
> 
> Now, none of that is cool. And one might argue that AK did the same thing.
> 
> And what I would say to that is it's like comparing a hand grenade to a nuke, but if you disagree and rail against the hand grenade, you bloody better rail against the nuke, too. Even if the nuke is the weapon in your arsenal.


There is a difference between the two for me, but for now I can't articulate it. be back later....


----------



## john117

Julius Beastcavern said:


> I started to read her book but found myself physically unable to turn the page after reading the 'penis clamp' section



Maybe she meant one of those 

http://nextshark.com/new-fitbit-for-your-penis-tracks-how-well-you-have-sex/


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> I'm not defending her, Marduk. I am trying to elicit empathy in those defending the red pill, trying to help them see how it feels when the shoe is on the other foot.
> 
> It hurts, doesn't it? It is threatening. I think that is how some perceive RP as well.
> 
> And you are right; we have to move past power games if we want to get our needs met in healthy ways.


100% get your point, and I'm 100% behind it.

For men and women alike.


----------



## Marduk

FrenchFry said:


> I have never recommended nor bought ladymisato's book.
> 
> In fact, I haven't seen it recommended to anyone on this forum outside of the author herself.
> 
> There was a thorough take-down of the concept in that thread, with what was potentially harmful and unfair to men and marriage about her concept.
> 
> Which is exactly what happens here to books like that for women.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I mean, yeah.


OK, let's put LM's crap aside.

Either MMSLP's crap is funny, in which case the book suggested some here write is also funny.

Or it's not funny, it's abusive, in which case the book suggested some here write is also abusive.

Which way is it?

My vote is the former. But you can't pick from the choices like a menu, and order the onion rings instead of the fries.


----------



## Anon1111

jld said:


> Just to be clear, I am not against men's gaining power in their relationships. I think they should do it through empathy and sharing power with their wives, a la Gottman.


This is a general statement, so don't take it the wrong way. It's not meant as a statement about your marriage or my marriage.

Some people do not respect empathy.

For example, do you think Vlad Putin respects empathy or views it as weakness and an opportunity to take more?

Some people get married to people of this description.

The best choice would be to not marry such people in the first place. The second best choice MAY be to divorce such people.

But some people, for whatever reason, don't feel as though divorce is a viable option.

So how to you improve this type of situation with this type of person?


----------



## Julius Beastcavern

john117 said:


> Maybe she meant one of those
> 
> “Fitbit” For Your Penis Tracks How Well You Have Sex | NextShark


----------



## Anon1111

marduk said:


> Here's the really nasty, but powerful nugget in that.
> 
> If everyone is replacable, and I make it really, really apparant to my partner that she is replacable... it can trigger a kind of 'red pill cold war.'
> 
> Which can show up as she races to make sure that she is the best mate she can be, so that I chase her instead of she chases me. And then I up my game so that she is chasing me again. And then she ups her game...
> 
> And on and on. What it's based on is a constantly unstable power structure fueled by constant insecurity and an arms build up -- just like the cold war in the 60's.
> 
> Which, from a really cold hearted perspective, could be viewed as "yay! everybody has to bring their best to a marriage and that's good" which is difficult to argue with. Because I believe you should bring your best to your partner every day.
> 
> Until of course you realize it's based on insecurity, assymetrical information sharing, and constant destabilization of the marriage. And it will all fall apart if, say, one of you busts a leg or something.


I like this interpretation.

If you're really cynical, you might think that this is what is happening regardless of whether you intend it or not.

The only difference is whether you are conscious enough to wake up and see it. If you're cynical, that is.


----------



## Anon1111

jld said:


> Is this attitude not also divisive?


Depends on your perspective.


----------



## john117

jld said:


> Is this attitude not also divisive?



It is - for all the good reasons.


----------



## Anon1111

why is it important to have consensus?


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> OK, let's put LM's crap aside.
> 
> Either MMSLP's crap is funny, in which case the book suggested some here write is also funny.
> 
> Or it's not funny, it's abusive, in which case the book suggested some here write is also abusive.
> 
> Which way is it?
> 
> My vote is the former. But you can't pick from the choices like a menu, and order the onion rings instead of the fries.


Do you see why the ladies brought this up? To get you to see, we have to bring up examples that make you see.

Marduk, there is some truth to what AK says, like there is some truth to what lm says. 

I think where you stand on them depends on which one you find more threatening.

I tend to think men have more power than women, and so I find MMSLP more threatening. Though, since my husband does not (usually) abuse his power, and never would in the ways AK suggests, I am not as personally invested in exposing RP as some might be.

I think TAM has drawn some women who are very intelligent and very strong. I think TAM tends to draw men who give their power away.


----------



## Marduk

Anon1111 said:


> no need for a book, most women already do this automatically.


Ladies, please hear what he just said. Because it's true.

Many men feel exactly this way about how women treat them. We may laugh, we may cry, we may do all these kinds of things.

But, deep down, when we're feeling insecure, sometimes, for some of us...

This is exactly what we feel the women in our lives do to us.

And that feels pretty ****ty. And encourages us to go look for things like the red pill and MMSLP to even the playing field. Or even tip it in our favour.

I'm not saying it's right. Or true for everyone.

But it happens.


----------



## jld

Anon1111 said:


> This is a general statement, so don't take it the wrong way. It's not meant as a statement about your marriage or my marriage.
> 
> Some people do not respect empathy.
> 
> For example, do you think Vlad Putin respects empathy or views it as weakness and an opportunity to take more?
> 
> Some people get married to people of this description.
> 
> The best choice would be to not marry such people in the first place. The second best choice MAY be to divorce such people.
> 
> But some people, for whatever reason, don't feel as though divorce is a viable option.
> 
> So how to you improve this type of situation with this type of person?


Empathy is most effective from a position of strength, I agree. I just think it is sad that in some marriages people feel the need to protect themselves rather than reach out from a position of trust.

For you, I have been encouraging developing inner strength. It is the best route for most men. Do not react, do not give in to your negative emotions. Act in the highest interests of both of you, even if it means sacrifice, especially sacrificing your pride.

You did not answer all my blue questions yesterday, btw. It might be helpful to do that.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> Do you see why the ladies brought this up? To get you to see, we have to bring up examples that make you see.
> 
> Marduk, there is some truth to what AK says, like there is some truth to what lm says.
> 
> I think where you stand on them depends on which one you find more threatening.
> 
> I tend to think men have more power than women, and so I find MMSLP more threatening. Though, since my husband does not (usually) abuse his power, and never would in the ways AK suggests, I am not as personally invested in exposing RP as some might be.
> 
> I think TAM has drawn some women who are very intelligent and very strong. I think TAM tends to draw men who give their power away.


I get why it was done.

What I'm trying to say is that this behavior FUELS the red pill mindset. Because it is the mindset.

It's "you have more power or privledge than I do, so me acting out is OK, but yours isn't."

The problem is that BOTH sides see it this way.

*A big part of why a guy swallows the red pill is because he feels powerless.* Therefore, any tools he needs to use is OK, because he's the underclass. So all kinds of stuff becomes 'OK' but the reverse isn't.

The reverse is true for some women that think it's all abusive and speak that truth.

More of the latter thinking only makes more of the former thinking OK. Because what one side does, the other side matches, and then one ups, to feel powerful again.

And on and on we go. Getting further and further apart.

JLD, lots of guys aren't getting laid or respected in their marriages. And they desperately want to feel desired and powerful. They are weak, and need to become strong.

What we need to show these men is that you don't become strong by making your wife weak. You become strong by looking inward, and working from that strength.

What we need to show people that say it's OK to do the female version of that is the same thing. 

If that's through laughter, so be it. But intellectual honesty demands that if we value people as human beings first, equally, we must do the same for both.


----------



## Julius Beastcavern

jld said:


> Do you see why the ladies brought this up? To get you to see, we have to bring up examples that make you see.
> 
> Marduk, there is some truth to what AK says, like there is some truth to what lm says.
> 
> I think where you stand on them depends on which one you find more threatening.
> 
> I tend to think men have more power than women, and so I find MMSLP more threatening. Though, since my husband does not (usually) abuse his power, and never would in the ways AK suggests, I am not as personally invested in exposing RP as some might be.
> 
> *I think TAM has drawn some women who are very intelligent and very strong. I think TAM tends to draw men who give their power away.*



From my short time on the forum, I believe the above bolded to be true. I also believe the some  of the red pill enables you to take that power back


----------



## Anon1111

jld said:


> Empathy is most effective from a position of strength, I agree. I just think it is sad that in some marriages people feel the need to protect themselves rather than reach out from a position of trust.
> 
> For you, I have been encouraging developing inner strength. It is the best route for most men. Do not react, do not give in to your negative emotions. Act in the highest interests of both of you, even if it means sacrifice, especially sacrificing your pride.
> 
> You did not answer all my blue questions yesterday, btw. It might be helpful to do that.


Your problem is that you couch your advice with shaming tactics.

You have some good insights, but not all of the answers.

When people do not accept your worldview in totality, you resort to shaming.

That speaks to your insecurity.


----------



## jld

Anon1111 said:


> Your problem is that you couch your advice with shaming tactics.
> 
> You have some good insights, but not all of the answers.
> 
> When people do not accept your worldview in totality, you resort to shaming.
> 
> That speaks to your insecurity.


Okay, help me understand. How am I shaming you?


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> I get why it was done.
> 
> What I'm trying to say is that this behavior FUELS the red pill mindset. Because it is the mindset.
> 
> It's "you have more power or privledge than I do, so me acting out is OK, but yours isn't."
> 
> The problem is that BOTH sides see it this way.
> 
> *A big part of why a guy swallows the red pill is because he feels powerless.* Therefore, any tools he needs to use is OK, because he's the underclass. So all kinds of stuff becomes 'OK' but the reverse isn't.
> 
> The reverse is true for some women that think it's all abusive and speak that truth.
> 
> More of the latter thinking only makes more of the former thinking OK. Because what one side does, the other side matches, and then one ups, to feel powerful again.
> 
> And on and on we go. Getting further and further apart.
> 
> JLD, lots of guys aren't getting laid or respected in their marriages. And they desperately want to feel desired and powerful. They are weak, and need to become strong.
> 
> What we need to show these men is that you don't become strong by making your wife weak. You become strong by looking inward, and working from that strength.
> 
> What we need to show people that say it's OK to do the female version of that is the same thing.
> 
> If that's through laughter, so be it. But intellectual honesty demands that if we value people as human beings first, equally, we must do the same for both.


Not sure we need to do the same. We need to meet needs, but not necessarily in the same way.

Marduk, my friend, I am going to speak bluntly: You married above what you can naturally handle. And it has caused you terrible angst.

I know, you cannot redo the past. And you love your wife dearly. But marrying above your ability to naturally command respect has cost you.


----------



## Anon1111

jld said:


> Okay, help me understand. How am I shaming you?


I'm not going to point out all of the examples. I think you know what I am talking about.

I do think you make a lot of great points, but I would imagine that many people are not willing to look through your rigidity on your worldview to see them.

This may or may not matter to you.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> Not sure we need to do the same. We need to meet needs, but not necessarily in the same way.
> 
> Marduk, my friend, I am going to speak bluntly: You married above what you can naturally handle. And it has caused you terrible angst.
> 
> I know, you cannot redo the past. And you love your wife dearly. But marrying above your ability to naturally command respect has cost you.


One of my personality flaws has always been what Woody Allen might say is "I'd never belong to a club that would have me."

Which, for me, isn't the self-loathing piece, it's being easily bored, and requiring constant challenge for me to function effectively.

In short: being with a woman that would naturally be commanded by me... such a woman would bore me, and I'd be gone long ago.

A positive side effect is that I'm forced to grow, constantly.

A negative side effect is that I'm never comfortable.


----------



## jld

Anon1111 said:


> I'm not going to point out all of the examples. I think you know what I am talking about.
> 
> I do think you make a lot of great points, but I would imagine that many people are not willing to look through your rigidity on your worldview to see them.
> 
> This may or may not matter to you.


I don't know. That is why I asked you.

I am brutally honest, Anon. It is not intended to be hurtful. It is intended to help you see where you are giving your power away, so you can stop doing it.

Of course your viewpoint matters to me. I learn from you, too.


----------



## Pluto2

Anon1111 said:


> I'm not going to point out all of the examples. I think you know what I am talking about.
> 
> I do think you make a lot of great points, but I would imagine that many people are not willing to look through your rigidity on your worldview to see them.
> 
> This may or may not matter to you.


just a bit passive-aggressive, aren't you.
She "shames you" (Well no. No one else can make you feel a particular way unless you chose to)
When she asked for specifics, you're response essentially is "you know what you did and I should have to tell you"
Then you call out her alleged rigid world view.

Make an argument or don't but this is not appropriate.


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> One of my personality flaws has always been what Woody Allen might say is "I'd never belong to a club that would have me."
> 
> Which, for me, isn't the self-loathing piece, it's being easily bored, and requiring constant challenge for me to function effectively.
> 
> In short: being with a woman that would naturally be commanded by me... such a woman would bore me, and I'd be gone long ago.
> 
> A positive side effect is that I'm forced to grow, constantly.
> 
> A negative side effect is that I'm never comfortable.


So then you have to accept the constant insecurity. And not let people think you are some kind of victim. You are not.


----------



## Brigit

samyeagar said:


> I think such a book would be quite amusing personally. If you could make a buck off of essentially collecting every stereotype about men and fathers that are currently widely perpetuated in our every day media...go for it I say!


I just finished Chapter One...


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> So then you have to accept the constant insecurity. And not let people think you are some kind of victim. You are not.


I don't think I'm a victim.

I did. And that's part of what brought me to MMSLP.

What I'm trying to say is that some of what attracts men to the red pill is feeling victimized by women somehow.

And playing into that dynamic even just to make it OK for the opposite to see the absurdity of it...

Just plays into that dynamic more. It's not the way out of it.


----------



## Marduk

Just tell her Anon. 

You won't break her, she's tremendously strong. 

I've said far worse to her than what you're about to say.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> I don't think I'm a victim.
> 
> I did. And that's part of what brought me to MMSLP.
> 
> What I'm trying to say is that some of what attracts men to the red pill is feeling victimized by women somehow.
> 
> And playing into that dynamic even just to make it OK for the opposite to see the absurdity of it...
> 
> Just plays into that dynamic more. It's not the way out of it.


Marduk, that is what education does. It shows us the side we are not seeing on our own.


----------



## Deejo

FrenchFry said:


> 100% percent know as soon as the key comes out--witholding and using sex to get what you want--all of you would be howling.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Not all of us. But if that were the behavior in our relationship, we'd be leaving.

Which is generally what we advise the ladies with men who are behaving badly.


----------



## UMP

marduk said:


> I don't think I'm a victim.
> 
> I did. And that's part of what brought me to MMSLP.
> 
> What I'm trying to say is that some of what attracts men to the red pill is feeling victimized by women somehow.
> 
> And playing into that dynamic even just to make it OK for the opposite to see the absurdity of it...
> 
> Just plays into that dynamic more. It's not the way out of it.


If this guy can do it, Marduk can!

http://parentscountry.com/photo-inspirational-man-without-arms-and-legs-in-hawaii-with-wife-and-son/


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> Where do you think this is getting us FW?
> 
> I think a lot of people here agree there are anti-woman problems in the red pill. *I could find and cherry pick similar diatribes from feminist literature.*.. and where would that get us?
> 
> Nowhere, because people would have to line up on sides and fight each other.
> 
> What I want, and what I think a significant fraction of the people here are looking for, is understanding what *works* (because some of it does work), *why it works*, and *how to apply that knowledge* in a thoughtful, sensitive, respectful way to improve their marriage.
> 
> Fighting over lunatic quotes is simply divisive and gets us nowhere.


So for the 105th time...*.there are no feminist diatribes that are regularly handed around here as advice to married women.* Why does anyone bother to keep bringing that up anymore? :scratchhead:

Feminist diatribes have nothing to do with MMSL being offered to every new guy at TAM.

Trying to conflate that with this is just silly, why do you go there when they have nothing to do with each other? I can't take you seriously when you do that.

And you may not know this...but I have in fact taken us to a new place here at TAM, by repeatedly trying to show just how insulting and divisive and polarizing MMSL and red pill crap is, and guess what? People are actually agreeing with me now, people are seeing it where they did not before, people are getting banned for trying to BEAT ME DOWN in an unfair and sickening way.

So I don't really care if some here see this as cherry picking just for fun and games. (In fact, it does not take cherry picking to do this, page one of any red pill search will turn up all the vile crap that is needed). And I don't care how many men come in to try to explain to me over and over that I "don't get the book, because it was written for men".

I will speak out against it. You and anyone who are tired of the topic can stop reading.

I really am doing a service here, whether you can see that or not.


----------



## Anon1111

Pluto2 said:


> just a bit passive-aggressive, aren't you.
> She "shames you" (Well no. No one else can make you feel a particular way unless you chose to)
> When she asked for specifics, you're response essentially is "you know what you did and I should have to tell you"
> Then you call out her alleged rigid world view.
> 
> Make an argument or don't but this is not appropriate.


Why am I required to point it out? Because she wants me to?

It's not worth my time.

If that offends you, tough luck.


----------



## naiveonedave

FF - I got nothing out of MMSL that leads to any behavior that is not focused on me. Get in shape, be more masculine, don't put up with BS, lead more, listen a lot more (which is important in a leader) and take her off of the pedestal (which is a main issue for men and self/society induced. Nowhere is there manipulation other than to pull back her needs if she is not trying to meet mine (sex is a need for me). 

AK really talks about how damaging it is if you cheat on your W or repeatedly, intentionally flirt to make her jealous.

The sperm wars and some of that gobbly **** may or may not be real, but it really doesn't cause me to do anything.


----------



## Brigit

FrenchFry said:


> I have never recommended nor bought ladymisato's book.
> 
> In fact, I haven't seen it recommended to anyone on this forum outside of the author herself.
> 
> There was a thorough take-down of the concept in that thread, with what was potentially harmful and unfair to men and marriage about her concept.
> 
> Which is exactly what happens here to books like that for women.


Why is that? Why is a book on wife manipulation advocated and a one on husband manipulation not?


----------



## jld

Brigit said:


> Why is that? Why is a book on wife manipulation advocated and a one on husband manipulation not?


Did you read the Wife-Led thread?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Brigit said:


> Why is that? Why is a book on wife manipulation advocated and a one on husband manipulation not?


And this is the point.


----------



## jld

Anon1111 said:


> Why am I required to point it out? Because she wants me to?
> 
> It's not worth my time.
> 
> If that offends you, tough luck.


You don't have to, but I would appreciate it.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> What I'm trying to say is that some of what attracts men to the red pill is feeling victimized by women somehow.


The only way out of this type of thinking (for men or women) is to accept that no matter what has happened to you along the way, only YOU are responsible for the choices you have made and no one actually victimized you.

MMSL seeks to keep men feeling victimized, and then uses that fuel to convince the men to victimize women back so they can get even.

And this is kind, loving and mature relationship advice? :scratchhead:


----------



## Marduk

FrenchFry said:


> Marduk, this is not to be divisive, believe me.
> Good for the men who feel that this has helped them. If you aren't a victim, the criticism nor the comparisons doesn't effect you.
> 
> But pointing out the crap and the difference in reaction to such crap isn't furthering victimization any more than speaking out against lm's conditioning is making me want to go clamp my husband's penis.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Ok, I'll take another swing at it. 

My point is to try to separate the crap from what works. Not to throw the whole thing out. 

Because that gives the red pill guys an easy out... "It works! They just don't want you to know!"

And it may deny those nuggets from those that could use it, but can't get at it, because it's verboten. 


FW: stuck in a meeting and my response needs a keyboard, not a phone.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> Ok, I'll take another swing at it.
> 
> My point is to try to separate the crap from what works. Not to throw the whole thing out.
> 
> Because that gives the red pill guys an easy out... "It works! They just don't want you to know!"
> 
> And it may deny those nuggets from those that could use it, but can't get at it, because it's verboten.
> 
> 
> FW: stuck in a meeting and my response needs a keyboard, not a phone.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


The nuggets that work can be stated without the gender hate.

For any man who thinks we "don't want them to know", I think he's probably too far gone already and I just pity his wife.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> The only way out of this type of thinking (for men or women) is to accept that no matter what has happened to you along the way, only YOU are responsible for the choices you have made and no one actually victimized you.
> 
> MMSL seeks to keep men feeling victimized, and then uses that fuel to convince the men to victimize women back so they can get even.
> 
> And this is kind, loving and mature relationship advice? :scratchhead:


I'm agreeing with you. It's not kind, loving, or mature. 

But it works for a small definition of "works."

It just happens that that small definition is really important and missing for some husbands. 

What I'd really like to see is a new MMSLP written by and for both men and women that takes what works out of the red pill and puts it into a kind, mature, and loving framework.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> The nuggets that work can be stated without the gender hate.
> 
> For any man who thinks we "don't want them to know", I think he's probably too far gone already and I just pity his wife.


I agree with the first. I have faith in the second, because I was that guy, and now aren't. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> What I'd really like to see is a new MMSLP written by and for both men and women that takes what works out of the red pill and puts it into a kind, mature, and loving framework.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


My husband is a natural and never had to read or hear any evo psyche or red pill nonsense in order to be a sex god.

Neither does any other man. It is unnecessary.

Red pill is out. There's no reason to reference it at all.

I've been pretty successful too, depending on what someone wants to call success. I don't need or want blue pill advice and would never give that, either.

F*ck the pills and let's start talking about SEX, desire and intimacy like adults.


----------



## DayOne

Unless its the blue pill of course...


----------



## Faithful Wife

DayOne said:


> Unless its the blue pill of course...


No, like I said....screw the blue pill, too.


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> Why did I suddenly get hit on a lot more within 72 hours of a public announcement of a recent, highly visible, and high status promotion?
> 
> Coincidence?


Why did I suddenly get hit on by several guys after accomplishing a major coup and was riding high?

Be careful what cause you attribute to the effects. It isn't necessarily what you think


----------



## Brigit

marduk said:


> One of my personality flaws has always been what Woody Allen might say is "I'd never belong to a club that would have me."


Sweetness, most men feel this way. THAT'S why women play "Hard to Get."


----------



## naiveonedave

Faithful Wife said:


> Neither does any other man. It is unnecessary.
> 
> .


So you think, but since you don't know every man in the world, how could you possibly generalize like this?


----------



## Brigit

jld said:


> Did you read the Wife-Led thread?


No. Is TAM now promoting a Husband Manipulation book?


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> Why did I suddenly get hit on by several guys after accomplishing a major coup and was riding high?
> 
> Be careful what cause you attribute to the effects. It isn't necessarily what you think


Exactly right a_a. 

Why did those guys come after you? What's really operating there?

I really want to replace the "women chase money power status" meme with "people tend to find this attractive, and for women it may show up as this and for men it may show up as that."
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

Brigit said:


> No. Is TAM now promoting a Husband Manipulation book?


No. Read it and see how even mention of the idea was received.


----------



## Marduk

Brigit said:


> Sweetness, most men feel this way. THAT'S why women play "Hard to Get."


Exactly. 

If it was easy, I wouldn't want it. I'm like that with many things, especially romantically.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> Exactly right a_a.
> 
> Why did those guys come after you? What's really operating there?
> 
> I really want to replace the "women chase money power status" meme with "*people tend to find this attractive, and for women it may show up as this and for men it may show up as that.*"
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I think the bolded is true, though not for everyone, and it may be changing as women become economically empowered.


----------



## Brigit

marduk said:


> Exactly.
> 
> If it was easy, I wouldn't want it. I'm like that with many things, especially romantically.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Our mothers teach us that Marduk. Men don't like safe easy boring girls. They like beautiful ones, that are spicy and complicated and fun to be around. I COULD write a book on man manipulation but I wouldn't want to. Because playing games may work but they won't make you happy.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> My husband is a natural and never had to read or hear any evo psyche or red pill nonsense in order to be a sex god.
> 
> Neither does any other man. It is unnecessary.
> 
> Red pill is out. There's no reason to reference it at all.
> 
> I've been pretty successful too, depending on what someone wants to call success. I don't need or want blue pill advice and would never give that, either.
> 
> F*ck the pills and let's start talking about SEX, desire and intimacy like adults.


Magical thinking, FW. 

Your husband won the lottery and what you're telling all the guys that didn't, or bought the line that they shouldn't, is "too bad, so sad."

Which is like the person holding the lottery ticket saying "it's easy, just go get a ticket."

I was a natural. That was somehow taught not to be while married. And still need to undo some, but not all, of that. 

Other guys were never naturals. 

So these guys should just go off to an woman less island somewhere and console themselves by saying "it just wasn't in the cards for me."
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

Brigit said:


> Our mothers teach us that Marduk. Men don't like safe easy boring girls. They like beautiful ones, that are spicy and complicated and fun to be around. I COULD write a book on man manipulation but I wouldn't want to. Because playing games may work but they won't make you happy.


Boys only want love if it's torture.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> Magical thinking, FW.
> 
> Your husband won the lottery and what you're telling all the guys that didn't, or bought the line that they shouldn't, is "too bad, so sad."
> 
> Which is like the person holding the lottery ticket saying "it's easy, just go get a ticket."
> 
> I was a natural. That was somehow taught not to be while married. And still need to undo some, but not all, of that.
> 
> Other guys were never naturals.
> 
> So these guys should just go off to an woman less island somewhere and console themselves by saying "it just wasn't in the cards for me."
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



Nope. He learned many things that can easily be written down and handed out to other guys, which I'm working on. It isn't magical, it is logical, fun, sexual, and obvious (once you have the right frame of reference).

I can explain it in his words, and I can explain how and why it worked on me.

I can also explain why and how my tricks and tips work, too. I could be considered a Natural at girl game as well.

The red pill books ALL idolize and try to emulate the Naturals so not sure why you don't see the point there.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> I think the bolded is true, though not for everyone, and it may be changing as women become economically empowered.


Agreed. Which is why I think it should be tied to the underlying human principles that may have more stability, and not the external projections of that principle which can be distorted by gender norms in culture which can change rapidly.

Like a genotype/phenotype thing as a metaphor. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Nope. He learned many things that can easily be written down and handed out to other guys, which I'm working on. It isn't magical, it is logical, fun, sexual, and obvious (once you have the right frame of reference).
> 
> I can explain it in his words, and I can explain how and why it worked on me.
> 
> I can also explain why and how my tricks and tips work, too. I could be considered a Natural at girl game as well.
> 
> The red pill books ALL idolize and try to emulate the Naturals so not sure why you don't see the point there.


You have my full and complete attention.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## john117

jld said:


> Marduk, my friend, I am going to speak bluntly: You married above what you can naturally handle. And it has caused you terrible angst.
> 
> 
> 
> I know, you cannot redo the past. And you love your wife dearly. But marrying above your ability to naturally command respect has cost you.



This is a typical attitude in my birth country - you generally marry up financially and socially and the woman marries up from a professional prestige point (Oooh look at my husband he's teaching psychology at Comrade SuchAndSuch State University - but she inherited a dozen properties from daddy and you live comfortably but that's it)

My wife's culture is quite different. Women there have a tendency to get even with the macro oppression - theocracy - at home so a lot of them end up either way too meek or way too aggressive.


----------



## TheGoodGuy

Faithful Wife said:


> Boys only want love if it's torture.


Not all boys. And not all men. I for one would love to find someone who isn't so freakin complicated. Who we can enjoy each other and do things together. Having to try to "figure someone out" and play games all of the time sounds exhausting. Been there done that. It's not for me. I'm not saying I want a lump on a log, but I also don't want love that's torture.


----------



## Faithful Wife

TheGoodGuy said:


> Not all boys. And not all men. I for one would love to find someone who isn't so freakin complicated. Who we can enjoy each other and do things together. Having to try to "figure someone out" and play games all of the time sounds exhausting. Been there done that. It's not for me. I'm not saying I want a lump on a log, but I also don't want love that's torture.


It was an ironic quote from song lyrics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-ORhEE9VVg


----------



## TheGoodGuy

Faithful Wife said:


> It was an ironic quote from song lyrics.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-ORhEE9VVg


Oops! Guess my secret is out: I don't listen to her music!


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> So for the 105th time...*.there are no feminist diatribes that are regularly handed around here as advice to married women.* Why does anyone bother to keep bringing that up anymore? :scratchhead:
> 
> Feminist diatribes have nothing to do with MMSL being offered to every new guy at TAM.
> 
> Trying to conflate that with this is just silly, why do you go there when they have nothing to do with each other? I can't take you seriously when you do that.
> 
> And you may not know this...but I have in fact taken us to a new place here at TAM, by repeatedly trying to show just how insulting and divisive and polarizing MMSL and red pill crap is, and guess what? People are actually agreeing with me now, people are seeing it where they did not before, people are getting banned for trying to BEAT ME DOWN in an unfair and sickening way.
> 
> So I don't really care if some here see this as cherry picking just for fun and games. (In fact, it does not take cherry picking to do this, page one of any red pill search will turn up all the vile crap that is needed). And I don't care how many men come in to try to explain to me over and over that I "don't get the book, because it was written for men".
> 
> I will speak out against it. You and anyone who are tired of the topic can stop reading.
> 
> I really am doing a service here, whether you can see that or not.


I'm not tired of it, I'm still here.

What service, specifically, are you offering?


----------



## Anon1111

jld said:


> You don't have to, but I would appreciate it.


I appreciate your sincerity. 

I am offering this in the spirit of constructive criticism.

Sometimes, when men do not want to just let the whole relationship ride on the ship of empathy, trust and openness at any particular point in time, it is not a manifestation of inner fear, sadness or lack of strength.

I believe you often make this inference. Sometimes this inference is valid. You have helped me to see this in myself in some respects. So that is very valuable.

However, other times, a man may be with a woman who is not worth total openness and trust. Who cannot be totally trusted. Not solely because of some weakness in the man, but because of some weakness in the woman.

I do not think you recognize this very often. It is a real factor and your credibility to me is sometimes questionable because of this blind spot.

I think this comes from your general view of men as being inherently stronger than women. I do not share this view. I think many people do not share this view.

Just because one does not share this view does not mean that the person has misperceived the world. It is a complicated question and reasonable people can come to different conclusions while still being reasonable. There is no definite answer.

My personal view is that men are generally stronger in SOME respects and women are generally stronger in some OTHER respects. So equal, generally, but not the same, generally. Obviously, people are individuals as well, so there are individual exceptions.

However, the upshot is that I don't let anyone off the hook. I won't let myself off the hook and I won't let my wife off the hook for owning her end.

I also won't say that I think most men are doing things right or most women are doing things right. I think most PEOPLE are weak and fail to do things. If it helps to put it into religious terms, most everyone is a sinner. The person who thinks he/she is not a sinner is most likely the one who is misunderstanding the situation.


----------



## TheGoodGuy

Brigit said:


> Our mothers teach us that Marduk. *Men don't like safe easy boring girls.* They like beautiful ones, that are spicy and complicated and fun to be around. I COULD write a book on man manipulation but I wouldn't want to. Because playing games may work but they won't make you happy.


I guess my point above was that *some* men don't like that. *Some* men like me would rather they be a bit more laid back. I've picked wrong in the past because the spicy complicated girls I picked were _not right for me._


----------



## Marduk

TheGoodGuy said:


> Oops! Guess my secret is out: I don't listen to her music!


She's quite good!

On mute.


----------



## EllisRedding

Brigit said:


> Our mothers teach us that Marduk. Men don't like safe easy boring girls. They like beautiful ones, that are *spicy and complicated* and fun to be around. I COULD write a book on man manipulation but I wouldn't want to. Because playing games may work but they won't make you happy.


Define spicy and complicated, from the sound of it I wouldn't make the assumption that all men want that ...


----------



## Brigit

EllisRedding said:


> Define spicy and complicated, from the sound of it I wouldn't make the assumption that all men want that ...


LOL!

You'll have to buy the book.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> I'm not tired of it, I'm still here.
> 
> What service, specifically, are you offering?


I'm prying that nasty poisonous red pill out of your hands and replacing it with a message of love, dignity, respect, intimacy, integrity, and a FUN HOUSE FULL OF SEX.


----------



## EllisRedding

Brigit said:


> LOL!
> 
> You'll have to buy the book.


Haha, only if spicy/complicated actually sounded appealing, otherwise you better keep the book as free


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> I'm prying that nasty poisonous red pill out of your hands and replacing it with a message of love, dignity, respect, intimacy, integrity, and a FUN HOUSE FULL OF SEX.


Law of unintended consequences though.

I think it's equally possible you're giving the red pill guys a solid by giving them fuel for the fire.

"Look, here's a woman that hates what we're saying, and yet we know it works, and her husband does a bunch of it!"

Except that's not what you're saying, or intending, at all, right?


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> Law of unintended consequences though.
> 
> I think it's equally possible you're giving the red pill guys a solid by giving them fuel for the fire.
> 
> "Look, here's a woman that hates what we're saying, and yet we know it works, and her husband does a bunch of it!"
> 
> Except that's not what you're saying, or intending, at all, right?


Doesn't worry me in the least. Just as I am no real threat to MMSL, they are no threat to me.


----------



## Anon1111

Faithful Wife said:


> I'm prying that nasty poisonous red pill out of your hands and replacing it with a message of love, dignity, respect, intimacy, integrity, and a FUN HOUSE FULL OF SEX.


Here is my current view, which is not exactly red pill but not exactly opposed to red pill. 

It is also somewhat loopy unless you happen to be on LSD.

You become fully present to yourself.

If you can achieve full presence, you have let go of resentment and anxiety regarding hopes/expectaions.

You have then created a pathway through which your true, pure self can radiate out. This is your best self because it does not carry the baggage of resentment and anxiety.

This pathway out also functions as a pathway IN. 

So you are able to receive the manifestation of the other person as he or she IS, not as how you ASSUME she is or as how you EXPECT her to be. 

Now, you are no longer hiding, manipulating or playing games. At the same time, your partner cannot hide, manipulate or play games with you.

Then, you follow that where it leads.


----------



## Brigit

Anon1111 said:


> Here is my current view, which is not exactly red pill but not exactly opposed to red pill.
> 
> It is also somewhat loopy unless you happen to be on LSD.
> 
> You become fully present to yourself.
> 
> If you can achieve full presence, you have let go of resentment and anxiety regarding hopes/expectaions.
> 
> You have then created a pathway through which your true, pure self can radiate out. This is your best self because it does not carry the baggage of resentment and anxiety.
> 
> This pathway out also functions as a pathway IN.
> 
> So you are able to receive the manifestation of the other person as he or she IS, not as how you ASSUME she is or as how you EXPECT her to be.
> 
> Now, you are no longer hiding, manipulating or playing games. At the same time, your partner cannot hide, manipulate or play games with you.
> 
> Then, you follow that where it leads.


Love it! I've just been listing to Eckhart Tolle. He would approve. 

(If you spend too much time game playing you'll eventually lose the game; hence playing the game to begin with isn't worth the effort.)


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Doesn't worry me in the least. Just as I am no real threat to MMSL, they are no threat to me.


Please reconsider this.

You may be no threat to AK, or the red pill in general. But you could entrench some positions here.

If I would have read some of this thread and others when I was considering MAPping, I would have just done it faster and harder.

And when I was doing it, and it was working, I would have interpreted some of what you have said as proof or confirmation that the red pill way was right.

Do you watch Game of Thrones? 

I think we need to make peace with the wildlings, because every one of those we don't help could end up as a white walker climbing the wall.


----------



## Brigit

marduk said:


> Please reconsider this.
> 
> You may be no threat to AK, or the red pill in general. But you could entrench some positions here.
> 
> If I would have read some of this thread and others when I was considering MAPping, I would have just done it faster and harder.
> 
> And when I was doing it, and it was working, I would have interpreted some of what you have said as proof or confirmation that the red pill way was right.
> 
> Do you watch Game of Thrones?
> 
> I think we need to make peace with the wildlings, because every one of those we don't help could end up as a white walker climbing the wall.


"You know nothing Jon Snow."


----------



## Anon1111

I think some people need to go through the red pill process.

I understand why women don't like it. It is hostile to women on some level.

I don't think women can really understand why men would gravitate to it. Just like men can't really understand what it is like to be a mother. There are some things that are just different about the sexes.

Women don't have to like it. It is a real thing regardless of whether they like it or not. It will exist regardless of whether we give it this name or another name.

the red pill resonates so well for some men because it articulates the thoughts they've already had. that is why there is such a strong "aha!" moment for most people.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> You may be no threat to AK, or the red pill in general. But you could entrench some positions here.
> 
> If I would have read some of this thread and others when I was considering MAPping, I would have just done it faster and harder.


You don't know what it was like when I did this before, and I have done it several times.

Thanks for the warning, but I am actually ahead in this game. You just can't see it from where you are....but French Fry and Tiggy and a few others know exactly what I'm saying about what it used to be like around here.

I have no issue with any guy who buys MMSL faster just because of this thread. In fact, Conan is going to read it just so he knows the full extent of the nonsense. That's fine. I'm not out to stop AK from selling books. I'm here to expose the red pill crap for what it really is here on TAM, where many people just have heard about it but haven't actually read it and don't know what is behind it.

Lots of people have PM'd me thanking me for this, including men.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> You don't know what it was like when I did this before, and I have done it several times.
> 
> Thanks for the warning, but I am actually ahead in this game. You just can't see it from where you are....but French Fry and Tiggy and a few others know exactly what I'm saying about what it used to be like around here.
> 
> I have no issue with any guy who buys MMSL faster just because of this thread. In fact, Conan is going to read it just so he knows the full extent of the nonsense. That's fine. I'm not out to stop AK from selling books. I'm here to expose the red pill crap for what it really is here on TAM, where many people just have heard about it but haven't actually read it and don't know what is behind it.
> 
> Lots of people have PM'd me thanking me for this, including men.


Leverage what you have done and the wisdom you have found to find a new way. 

Defining your position by what it is not only allows what you're rejecting to define what your position is.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Julius Beastcavern

Faithful Wife said:


> You don't know what it was like when I did this before, and I have done it several times.
> 
> Thanks for the warning, but I am actually ahead in this game. You just can't see it from where you are....but French Fry and Tiggy and a few others know exactly what I'm saying about what it used to be like around here.
> 
> I have no issue with any guy who buys MMSL faster just because of this thread. In fact, Conan is going to read it just so he knows the full extent of the nonsense. That's fine. I'm not out to stop AK from selling books. I'm here to expose the red pill crap for what it really is here on TAM, where many people just have heard about it but haven't actually read it and don't know what is behind it.
> 
> *Lots of people have PM'd me thanking me for this, including men.*


Wonder why they have not felt able to post the thanks on this thread


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> Leverage what you have done and the wisdom you have found to find a new way.
> 
> Defining your position by what it is not only allows what you're rejecting to define what your position is.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


How many times do I have to say this?

I'm succeeding with my intended at TAM purpose on THIS thread.

Can you please stop telling me what you think I should do? :scratchhead:

It is fine to have your thoughts on it, but stop trying to make me see this another way. I see it exactly as I need to see it, here at TAM.

The people who have thanked me are proof enough of what I have accomplished here. You don't need to see it or approve of it.

I appreciate all your thoughts. Just stop telling me to stop or change my view of this. I will not.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Julius Beastcavern said:


> Wonder why they have not felt able to post the thanks on this thread


Several of them have ALSO posted the thanks on this thread.

Fizzbomb

Brigit

Moutain Runner

Dogbert

Elegirl

French Fry

JLD

...do I need to go on?

Some men who are still clutching to the red pill are here having their say, too. No one is stopping them and it doesn't bother me at all.


----------



## Dogbert

Thanks FW.


----------



## Brigit

Dogbert said:


> Thanks FW.


LOL!

You go Dogbert. BTW your thread was good too.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> How many times do I have to say this?


Infinity plus one.

You have my attention not because I think you're wrong, but because I think you're right about a lot of stuff.

And this is falling on deaf ears to some because of how it's being messaged. 

I think you're smart, feisty, and can be wise when you want to be. I love the fight in you. In fact, I respect and admire it.



> I'm succeeding with my intended at TAM purpose on THIS thread.


I believe you are with some. I believe you are also helping the very thing that you are resisting.

I believe that what you are trying to say could be very powerful... and very widely heard.

By _both_ sides.

Because I believe there are no sides. I believe we are all just people.


> Can you please stop telling me what you think I should do? :scratchhead:


You've told me many times what I think I should do. And I have said what I think you should do.

This is the dialectic. And, while it may not look like it, I'm value your opinion.


> It is fine to have your thoughts on it, but stop trying to make me see this another way. I see it exactly as I need to see it, here at TAM.


If I came here, four years ago, when I was about to read MMSLP, would you have wanted me not to?

Or a year into it, when I was riding high on the red pill, would you have wanted me to puke it back up?

Because I would have loved some help with that. And I think you could have helped me with that.


> The people who have thanked me are proof enough of what I have accomplished here. You don't need to see it or approve of it.


I do see it, though. Count your 'likes.' You'll find my name there on many of them.


> I appreciate all your thoughts. Just stop telling me to stop or change my view of this. I will not.


If you will not be open minded, why should anyone be open minded to your views?

You may say you don't care about my opinion. And that's fine. It doesn't bother me in the least. Some of the people I like the best can't stand me.

But to succed in your mission here, you do need to change some minds. At least those that are on the fence about it, or unaware of it.


----------



## Marduk

FrenchFry said:


> Racists will always be able to find fuel for their fire.
> 
> Misandrists will always be able to find fuel for theirs.
> 
> At some point, if you are speaking out against it, you have to stop caring what the anti's will use against you and just say it.
> 
> This thread has been a wonderful example of it.


What you say is true.

That doesn't mean that it's a good thing to add more to it.


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> Exactly right a_a.
> 
> Why did those guys come after you? What's really operating there?


When I'm feeling the joy, other people can see it written all over my face, in how I walk, how I carry myself, how I interact. And they all want some piece of that.

Because, frankly, there's already too much bloody misery around, and joy is a rare treat. 

This is reason number one why we need to abandon all the hate and resentment fueled gaming, and replace it with love, intimacy, fun, and sex.


----------



## jld

You are definitely a leader on TAM, FW. We all listen to you.

You may be the single most influential female voice here. The TAM Alpha Female.


----------



## Brigit

marduk said:


> Infinity plus one.
> 
> You have my attention not because I think you're wrong, but because I think you're right about a lot of stuff.
> 
> And this is falling on deaf ears to some because of how it's being messaged.
> 
> I think you're smart, feisty, and can be wise when you want to be. I love the fight in you. In fact, I respect and admire it.
> 
> 
> I believe you are with some. I believe you are also helping the very thing that you are resisting.
> 
> I believe that what you are trying to say could be very powerful... and very widely heard.
> 
> By _both_ sides.
> 
> Because I believe there are no sides. I believe we are all just people.
> 
> You've told me many times what I think I should do. And I have said what I think you should do.
> 
> This is the dialectic. And, while it may not look like it, I'm value your opinion.
> 
> If I came here, four years ago, when I was about to read MMSLP, would you have wanted me not to?
> 
> Or a year into it, when I was riding high on the red pill, would you have wanted me to puke it back up?
> 
> Because I would have loved some help with that. And I think you could have helped me with that.
> 
> I do see it, though. Count your 'likes.' You'll find my name there on many of them.
> 
> If you will not be open minded, why should anyone be open minded to your views?
> 
> You may say you don't care about my opinion. And that's fine. It doesn't bother me in the least. Some of the people I like the best can't stand me.
> 
> But to succed in your mission here, you do need to change some minds. At least those that are on the fence about it, or unaware of it.


FW don't you see Marduk is playing a "Dread Game" on you? 



Actually, from reading his responses he seems very interested in what you're saying and is encouraging you to keep it up.


----------



## Idyit

Faithful Wife said:


> You don't know what it was like when I did this before, and I have done it several times.
> 
> Thanks for the warning, but I am actually ahead in this game. You just can't see it from where you are....but French Fry and Tiggy and a few others know exactly what I'm saying about what it used to be like around here.
> 
> I have no issue with any guy who buys *MMSL* faster just because of this thread. In fact, Conan is going to read it just so he knows the full extent of the nonsense. That's fine. I'm not out to stop AK from selling books. I'm here to expose the *red pill crap* for what it really is here on TAM, where many people just have heard about it but haven't actually read it and don't know what is behind it.
> 
> Lots of people have PM'd me thanking me for this, including men.


I have a couple of questions. Just to say it, I haven't read or educated myself on anything PUA (ok one Youtube video for comic relief), scant overview of Red Pill (Beavis) and didn't finish MMSLP. So, not busting your chops or defending the above.

First, I see that you often draw a line directly between RP and MMSLP (And PUA?). Ie. equating them as one in the same. Why? There is definite crossover but they do not seem to be equivalents. 

The problem I see with this, as has been pointed out in this thread, there is a lot of stuff in MMSLP that is exhibited in your marriage. Even some of the more controversial stuff ie.. mate guarding, sperm warefare etc. With this in mind, how can PUA = RP = MMSLP?

To write a book with a message of love, dignity, respect, intimacy, integrity, and a FUN HOUSE FULL OF SEX, based on your marriage and experience it would seem that some of the content of MMSLP would have to be included. Therefor either they can't be equivalents or you are dipping into the pool of tripe. 

~ Passio


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> When I'm feeling the joy, other people can see it written all over my face, in how I walk, how I carry myself, how I interact. And they all want some piece of that.
> 
> Because, frankly, there's already too much bloody misery around, and joy is a rare treat.
> 
> This is reason number one why we need to abandon all the hate and resentment fueled gaming, and replace it with love, intimacy, fun, and sex.


Yes, I see it A_A. Thanks for this.

I see ties there with confidence, the 'bad boy' thing, success, all kinds of things.

Because they are inherintly joyful things. A guy who's just... there.

Why do you think it works when guys fake it? Because I've done that, and while it may not work as well, it still works.

Perhaps they're false signals of joy?


----------



## Marduk

Brigit said:


> FW don't you see Marduk is playing a "Dread Game" on you?
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, from reading his responses he seems very interested in what you're saying and is encouraging you to keep it up.


LOL.

Closer to negging, I think. Nasty stuff, that.

Dread game would be "I'm going to go talk more to JLD if you don't do what I want!"

Which I suspect would just get me a shrug from FW and smack on my head from JLD.


----------



## Marduk

FrenchFry said:


> Here is the thing, and I'm sure you've experienced this yourself.
> 
> Even if you are not adding to it, it can be interpreted that way. Or it will be willfully interpreted that way.
> 
> The people who want to hear the alternative have their ears open.


Passive resistance is still resistance.


----------



## EllisRedding

Faithful Wife said:


> Can you please stop telling me what you think I should do? :scratchhead:
> 
> It is fine to have your thoughts on it, but stop trying to make me see this another way. I see it exactly as I need to see it, here at TAM.


lol, but isn't that what you do? You clearly have your opinions (no complaints here). If someone is in disagreement you will just keep on against them to get them to see your way (which you believe is the truth ). When it doesn't eventually work out you make a stink if the person is unwilling to concede, you tell them you don't care about their opinion, and best yet go with the dreaded ignore feature....

Honestly I have seen Marduk treat you with nothing but respect in this thread. Your responses at time don't surprise me based on your posting pattern. Maybe it is just a test to get marduk to be more alpha, idk.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Idyit said:


> I have a couple of questions. Just to say it, I haven't read or educated myself on anything PUA (ok one Youtube video for comic relief), scant overview of Red Pill (Beavis) and didn't finish MMSLP. So, not busting your chops or defending the above.
> 
> First, I see that you often draw a line directly between RP and MMSLP (And PUA?). Ie. equating them as one in the same. Why? There is definite crossover but they do not seem to be equivalents.
> 
> The problem I see with this, as has been pointed out in this thread, there is a lot of stuff in MMSLP that is exhibited in your marriage. Even some of the more controversial stuff ie.. mate guarding, sperm warefare etc. With this in mind, how can PUA = RP = MMSLP?
> 
> To write a book with a message of love, dignity, respect, intimacy, integrity, and a FUN HOUSE FULL OF SEX, based on your marriage and experience it would seem that some of the content of MMSLP would have to be included. *Therefor either they can't be equivalents or you are dipping into the pool of tripe*.
> 
> ~ Passio


Here's the progression of this nonsense, from what I have found....

First there was a bunch of misinterpreted evo psyche literature that some men twisted into meaning, bottom line: women are hypergamous wh*res.

Then around the same time the PUA manual The Game was written.

Then around the same time, the mens rights movement grabbed the evo psyche crap and expanded on it.

The PUA's and MRA's took it all and created all the red pill drama we see today....it has now expanded into several empires.

In the middle there, the Nice Guy phenomenon was presented in various ways, mostly without referencing evo psyche or red pill. IMO, the anti-NG movement was a good thing.

Toward the end of the rise of this crap, reddit red pill became the place for men to go to share these ideas.

After all of that had already occurred, Athol Kay came to TAM, heard about it all, studied it, and came up with "game for married people", which then became MMSL.

So yes, red pill, PUA and MMSL are very much the same tripe.

As for the bolded statement, as I said to marduk earlier...my husband never heard of any of this crap yet still ended up being a Natural. So I don't understand why you (or anyone) thinks red pill tripe has to be dipped into. :scratchhead:

The things he does that turn me on and keep me coming back for more don't have to do with fearing and hating women, talking about how feminism keeps us all down, or about the ridiculous notion that the only reason we have sex is to make babies.


----------



## Anon1111

marduk said:


> Leverage what you have done and the wisdom you have found to find a new way.
> 
> Defining your position by what it is not only allows what you're rejecting to define what your position is.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


put differently, skepticism is easy.

it's easy to find the holes in an argument. most people can do it all day long.

solutions are hard.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Here's the progression of this nonsense, from what I have found....
> 
> First there was a bunch of misinterpreted evo psyche literature that some men twisted into meaning, bottom line: women are hypergamous wh*res.
> 
> Then around the same time the PUA manual The Game was written.
> 
> Then around the same time, the mens rights movement grabbed the evo psyche crap and expanded on it.
> 
> The PUA's and MRA's took it all and created all the red pill drama we see today....it has now expanded into several empires.
> 
> In the middle there, the Nice Guy phenomenon was presented in various ways, mostly without referencing evo psyche or red pill. IMO, the anti-NG movement was a good thing.
> 
> Toward the end of the rise of this crap, reddit red pill became the place for men to go to share these ideas.
> 
> After all of that had already occurred, Athol Kay came to TAM, heard about it all, studied it, and came up with "game for married people", which then became MMSL.
> 
> So yes, red pill, PUA and MMSL are very much the same tripe.
> 
> As for the bolded statement, as I said to marduk earlier...my husband never heard of any of this crap yet still ended up being a Natural. So I don't understand why you (or anyone) thinks red pill tripe has to be dipped into. :scratchhead:
> 
> The things he does that turn me on and keep me coming back for more don't have to do with fearing and hating women, talking about how feminism keeps us all down, or about the ridiculous notion that the only reason we have sex is to make babies.


OK, I'll say it again: naturals don't need it. Because they're naturals.

The guys that gravitate towards the red pill do so because they see the naturals in action, and want to have what they have.

That's the basic premise.

Offer them a better way.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> Passive resistance is still resistance.


And I strongly resist this crap, and will continue to do so. I don't intend to be passive about it, either.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> OK, I'll say it again: naturals don't need it. Because they're naturals.
> 
> The guys that gravitate towards the red pill do so because they see the naturals in action, and want to have what they have.
> 
> That's the basic premise.
> 
> Offer them a better way.


I never said I would be writing for naturals, I am saying I can explain to other guys what the natural has going on for him.

Which is exactly what every PUA book and blog tries to do. Except they always go at it from the red pill perspective.


----------



## Marduk

Anon1111 said:


> put differently, skepticism is easy.
> 
> it's easy to find the holes in an argument. most people can do it all day long.
> 
> solutions are hard.


Yes. But it's also deeper and far more insiduous than that, too.

If I, for example, define myself as anti-Anon, then who's in charge? Especially if I get a bunch of people behind that message and I'm now entrenched in it?

What happens if you change? Well, I have to change, too. Because I define myself by the opposite of you. So even if that change is positive, I now have to be against it.

And where do we end up?


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> I never said I would be writing for naturals, I am saying I can explain to other guys what the natural has going on for him.
> 
> Which is exactly what every PUA book and blog tries to do. Except they always go at it from the red pill perspective.


Please help people see this.

You'll get more of those guys to listen to you if you open yourselves to them, too.

People can't resist what's not resisting their worldview. People can see a different way if you offer it to them, and embed within it that which they think is true.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> Please help people see this.
> 
> You'll get more of those guys to listen to you if you open yourselves to them, too.
> 
> People can't resist what's not resisting their worldview. People can see a different way if you offer it to them, and embed within it that which they think is true.


But I have two goals, they are not the same.

My goal on this thread at TAM was to spread awareness of what is truly behind the red pill crap.

My goal for a book has nothing to do with TAM. I don't expect to market it here, and don't care of the red pill guys here ever see it or hear of it. It will be in the future.

So I'm not here to educate red pill guys about what my husband knows. The guys here who are clutching the red pill already just think I'm a dork anyway...and that's fine.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> And I strongly resist this crap, and will continue to do so. I don't intend to be passive about it, either.


Tilting at windmills.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> But I have two goals, they are not the same.
> 
> My goal on this thread at TAM was to spread awareness of what is truly behind the red pill crap.
> 
> My goal for a book has nothing to do with TAM. I don't expect to market it here, and don't care of the red pill guys here ever see it or hear of it. It will be in the future.
> 
> So I'm not here to educate red pill guys about what my husband knows. The guys here who are clutching the red pill already just think I'm a dork anyway...and that's fine.


I thought that you were far worse than that.

I'm starting not to.

But you made that really, really hard.

Or, do you only want to be heard by those that already agree with you?


----------



## Marduk

FrenchFry said:


> People who don't want to be don't get more racist because someone says "racism sucks and here is why,"
> 
> People who don't want to be racist find a way to do so, even if it is harder and takes more time than simply going Eh, everybody is!
> 
> People who don't, I'm not into holding their hand into not being racist. They'll come when they have to.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I'm sorry, are we going back to comparing AK to Hitler?


----------



## Idyit

Faithful Wife said:


> Here's the progression of this nonsense, from what I have found....
> 
> First there was a bunch of misinterpreted evo psyche literature that some men twisted into meaning, bottom line: women are hypergamous wh*res.
> 
> Then around the same time the PUA manual The Game was written.
> 
> Then around the same time, the mens rights movement grabbed the evo psyche crap and expanded on it.
> 
> The PUA's and MRA's took it all and created all the red pill drama we see today....it has now expanded into several empires.
> 
> In the middle there, the Nice Guy phenomenon was presented in various ways, mostly without referencing evo psyche or red pill. IMO, the anti-NG movement was a good thing.
> 
> Toward the end of the rise of this crap, reddit red pill became the place for men to go to share these ideas.
> 
> After all of that had already occurred, Athol Kay came to TAM, heard about it all, studied it, and came up with "game for married people", which then became MMSL.
> 
> So yes, red pill, PUA and MMSL are very much the same tripe.
> 
> As for the bolded statement, as I said to marduk earlier...my husband never heard of any of this crap yet still ended up being a Natural. *So I don't understand why you (or anyone) thinks red pill tripe has to be dipped into*. :scratchhead:
> 
> The things he does that turn me on and keep me coming back for more don't have to do with fearing and hating women, talking about how feminism keeps us all down, or about the ridiculous notion that the only reason we have sex is to make babies.


I get the progression and have a similar disdain for what I have read about PUA and RP. There were elements of MMSLP that I thought were useful but as a whole didn't get a great deal out of the book.

Please re-read my last post. I'm not in any way endorsing dipping into any of the above. 

Your marriage has content that is included in MMSLP. You have described interaction within your marriage that is eerily similar to parts of what AK wrote. Therefor MMSLP is either not an exact equivalent to PUA/RP or your marriage is tainted by the same tripe.

Short version - I think you should address the RP/PUA elements of MMSLP and not call it ALL the same.

~ Passio


----------



## Faithful Wife

FrenchFry said:


> People who don't want to be don't get more racist because someone says "racism sucks and here is why,"
> 
> People who don't want to be racist find a way to do so, even if it is harder and takes more time than simply going Eh, everybody is!
> 
> People who don't, I'm not into holding their hand into not being racist. They'll come when they have to.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


And this is why FF is the only one here who I will accept a slap in the face or a beat down from.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Idyit said:


> Short version - I think you should address the RP/PUA elements of MMSLP and not call it ALL the same.
> 
> ~ Passio


Yes, in my book I intend to talk about PUA and red pill and blue pill, to a tiny degree, just enough to point out why it is crap.

I don't really care if it looks like my relationship with my husband, from the very few examples I have given here, sounds like a red pill thing. There are so many things I will never share here that would erase that thinking....I'll save those for the book.

It doesn't matter to me what any red pill guy here who is slamming me on this thread thinks or says about me or my husband.

I do not need any validation here, or elsewhere.

I know sh*t.

And am married to a sex god.

The things I know can be applied in other relationships. But it is too hot to handle for TAM.


----------



## Marduk

FrenchFry said:


> It's coming girl.
> 
> Not comparing anyone to Hitler. I just have experience in this arena.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


As do I.


----------



## jld

FrenchFry said:


> People who don't want to be don't get more racist because someone says "racism sucks and here is why,"
> 
> People who don't want to be racist find a way to do so, even if it is harder and takes more time than simply going Eh, everybody is!
> 
> People who don't, I'm not into holding their hand into not being racist. They'll come when they have to.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I think the opportunity here is that sometimes someone comes along who everybody admires. That person, because of the respect and esteem people already have for them, can break through barriers quickly.


----------



## Anon1111

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes, in my book I intend to talk about PUA and red pill and blue pill, to a tiny degree, just enough to point out why it is crap.
> 
> I don't really care if it looks like my relationship with my husband, from the very few examples I have given here, sounds like a red pill thing. There are so many things I will never share here that would erase that thinking....I'll save those for the book.
> 
> It doesn't matter to me what any red pill guy here who is slamming me on this thread thinks or says about me or my husband.
> 
> I do not need any validation here, or elsewhere.
> 
> I know sh*t.
> 
> And am married to a sex god.
> 
> The things I know can be applied in other relationships. But it is too hot to handle for TAM.


that's cool.

as long as you understand you're basically saying, "just take my word for it."

you don't really have an argument then, which is fine.

I think you should just take my word for it too.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Anon1111 said:


> as long as you understand you're basically saying, "just take my word for it."


Which is exactly what Athol Kay did.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes, in my book I intend to talk about PUA and red pill and blue pill, to a tiny degree, just enough to point out why it is crap.
> 
> I don't really care if it looks like my relationship with my husband, from the very few examples I have given here, sounds like a red pill thing. There are so many things I will never share here that would erase that thinking....I'll save those for the book.
> 
> It doesn't matter to me what any red pill guy here who is slamming me on this thread thinks or says about me or my husband.
> 
> I do not need any validation here, or elsewhere.
> 
> I know sh*t.
> 
> And am married to a sex god.
> 
> The things I know can be applied in other relationships. But it is too hot to handle for TAM.


And how cool would it be if you could show the red pill stuff that works, but with a false understanding of why... and then provide a better understanding of why, and how to make it work even better, in a more sustainable, respectful, loving model?

And draw people from both sides of the fence towards that?

Take, for example, 'mate preselection.'

Red pill 101 is that if you can get the woman you want to witness other high status (i.e. younger and hotter) women to act like they're into you, then the woman you actually want will chase you right into her bed.

And this works. I've done it. I've even seen this in my marriage, accidentally.

Now, I think the whole "women are competing for my sperm" and "female sexual heirarchy intra-competition" i.e. a woman's mate is the social equivalant of a big diamond ring model is totally flawed. I think it's more akin to some combination of

- uh oh. He has options. I better secure my mate.
- oh, my. He really is kinda sexy, isn't he?
- he's really in his element and confident here. That turns me on.

Or some other things that I don't understand because I'm not a woman.

But because of intenionality, I would steer guys away from trying to trigger the mate guarding and more towards being confident and as A_A says, joyful. Because that's loving and sustianable.

The danger is in saying "mate preselection is nonsense because red pill is nonsense" when many of us have seen it work. You'll instantly get resistance to your thoughts.


----------



## Faithful Wife

jld said:


> I think the opportunity here is that sometimes someone comes along who everybody admires. That person, because of the respect and esteem people already have for them, can break through barriers quickly.


jld...You are so sweet. I know you think I am that person, but trust me, I understand I am not that person here at TAM.

The people who dislike me have their reasons to and will never listen to me (or anyone who opposes their belief system).

I get concerned when you say things with such high regard for me, because people will think *I* am the one saying those things and I'll be carried off via pitchfork. 

So for the record...I know I'm loud and pushy, but that doesn't make me a leader, and I'm not trying to be one.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> You'll instantly get resistance to your thoughts.


I have not yet revealed what I plan on saying....so hold tight and let's see how it turns out.


----------



## Marduk

FrenchFry said:


> And when our experiences don't overlap, what do you do?
> 
> I let go and let God. Metaphorically.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Was that question directed my way?


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> jld...You are so sweet. I know you think I am that person, but trust me, I understand I am not that person here at TAM.


Perception is reality at some level, FW.

And I think you're managing that perception very purposefully, for what it's worth.


> The people who dislike me have their reasons to and will never listen to me (or anyone who opposes their belief system).


You seem to enjoy that.

Why is that?


> I get concerned when you say things with such high regard for me, because people will think *I* am the one saying those things and I'll be carried off via pitchfork.


You seem to be far more comfortable with people not liking you than with people liking you... why?


> So for the record...I know I'm loud and pushy, but that doesn't make me a leader, and I'm not trying to be one.


LOL.

I respect you FW, but come on.


----------



## Faithful Wife

You're full of questions, marduk. I like that about you.

But I see you just have fun with the back and forth, and when I answer you don't seem to really absorb it, you just ask more questions.

I respect you as well, but if you are going to doubt my honesty, then don't ask me any more questions. I am not doubting yours.


----------



## john117

The red pill reminds me of the desperation games you saw in retailers during the Great Recession.... Ignore stores long enough and prices drop fast. Then you make your move.

Remember the equation of dread I used - if the woman is not concerned of the games, be it because she is too confident, savvy, loaded, and emotionally secure (Or void) then you can red pill her all the way to the Kremlin and it's not going to work. 

Do it to a more insecure woman and you'll be a lot more effective. 

The book assumes universal applicability except it ain't so. I know a lot of strong women and can't help but think what MMSL would look on them... How do you play the dread game with a woman smart enough to be a university president? Um, good luck there.


----------



## Idyit

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes, in my book I intend to talk about PUA and red pill and blue pill, to a tiny degree, just enough to point out why it is crap.
> 
> I don't really care if it looks like my relationship with my husband, from the very few examples I have given here, sounds like a red pill thing. There are so many things I will never share here that would erase that thinking....I'll save those for the book.
> 
> It doesn't matter to me what any red pill guy here who is slamming me on this thread thinks or says about me or my husband.
> 
> I do not need any validation here, or elsewhere.
> 
> I know sh*t.
> 
> And am married to a sex god.
> 
> The things I know can be applied in other relationships. But it is too hot to handle for TAM.


:scratchhead:
Maybe I'm saying it wrong. I made no equation between your marriage and RP. Quite opposite, I said that because there are elements of similarity between your marriage and MMSLP the book cannot possibly be exactly the same as PUA/RP.

~ Passio


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> You're full of questions, marduk. I like that about you.
> 
> But I see you just have fun with the back and forth, and when I answer you don't seem to really absorb it, you just ask more questions.
> 
> I respect you as well, but if you are going to doubt my honesty, then don't ask me any more questions. I am not doubting yours.


No, there's far more at play there FW.

I absorb far more than you may suspect.

I think you do see yourself as a champion rallying people to your cause.

Champions are leaders. If you're uncomfortable with being a leader you wouldn't have gone down that path. Or your passion for it overrulled it.

However I would be flat out shocked if you were surprised that you have a lot of people listening to you. Very carefully.

Here's a question for you: help me resolve the dichotomy between having what is clearly a very solid ego structure and being uncomfortable with praise?

This isn't a trap. I'm not about to poke at you about something.

It's a reflection on what appears to be your comfort in conflict, yet discomfort in praise.


----------



## john117

EllisRedding said:


> Define spicy and complicated, from the sound of it I wouldn't make the assumption that all men want that ...



My wife was spicy and complicated - all it did was to hide a lot of skeletons that could be explained as spicy and complicated. I can only be thankful that the spicy complicated part lasted as long as it did.


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> My wife was spicy and complicated - all it did was to hide a lot of skeletons that could be explained as spicy and complicated. I can only be thankful that the spicy complicated part lasted as long as it did.


And now that she has problems and is not fun anymore, you're leaving her.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Idyit said:


> :scratchhead:
> Maybe I'm saying it wrong. I made no equation between your marriage and RP. Quite opposite, I said that because there are elements of similarity between your marriage and MMSLP the book cannot possibly be exactly the same as PUA/RP.
> 
> ~ Passio


Yes, MMSL is the same as PUA/RP. That is where he drew his info from.

Let me put it this way....

Let's say that someone sees a guy and a girl meet up at a bar, and they leave together and have sex.

The person who saw them is another man who was trying to hit on this girl.

The person makes a quick and untrue assessment of the man who the girl left with, and declares that the guy was "a jerk".

The person now looks up "why do women like jerks" and finds the red pill crap, or MMSL, or PUA (they all address this) and within, they learn that "women like jerks because evo psyche".

Now let's see what really happened....

Why did this guy and girl actually leave the bar together, if we asked them both and didn't make false assumptions like one is a jerk and one is a hypergamous wh*re....

The reason was actually that they are both highly sexual people, they felt mutual attraction, and they were both DTF.

With no red pill whatsoever, these two ended up together (and had great sex).

Yet the observer will be convinced that evo psyche is "why" she left with this guy.

This is something similar to my marriage. It can look like one thing but not be that thing. Especially not to a person who already dislikes me or my husband or us or non-red-pill people.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> Here's a question for you: help me resolve the dichotomy between having what is clearly a very solid ego structure and being uncomfortable with praise?
> 
> This isn't a trap. I'm not about to poke at you about something.
> 
> It's a reflection on what appears to be your comfort in conflict, yet discomfort in praise.


You have assumed I feel discomfort with praise all because of that one post I made to jld?

Well you are way off base, I love praise, get it all the time from many sources, am loved and liked by so many wonderful people, and have never lacked for adoration in my life. Gosh darn it, people like me! 

Yet many people at TAM will never like me, and I am not trying to change their minds on that.


----------



## john117

jld said:


> And now that she has problems and is not fun anymore, you're leaving her.



The irony hasn't escaped me completely 

Only because she refuses a single move that would help the marriage. A SINGLE move. Nothing earthshaking...


----------



## john117

Thanks for your position and postings, FW. Add me to the minions that will be waiting to get a signed book


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes, MMSL is the same as PUA/RP. That is where he drew his info from.
> 
> Let me put it this way....
> 
> Let's say that someone sees a guy and a girl meet up at a bar, and they leave together and have sex.
> 
> The person who saw them is another man who was trying to hit on this girl.
> 
> The person makes a quick and untrue assessment of the man who the girl left with, and declares that the guy was "a jerk".
> 
> The person now looks up "why do women like jerks" and finds the red pill crap, or MMSL, or PUA (they all address this) and within, they learn that "women like jerks because evo psyche".
> 
> Now let's see what really happened....
> 
> Why did this guy and girl actually leave the bar together, if we asked them both and didn't make false assumptions like one is a jerk and one is a hypergamous wh*re....
> 
> The reason was actually that they are both highly sexual people, they felt mutual attraction, and they were both DTF.
> 
> With no red pill whatsoever, these two ended up together (and had great sex).
> 
> Yet the observer will be convinced that evo psyche is "why" she left with this guy.
> 
> This is something similar to my marriage. It can look like one thing but not be that thing. Especially not to a person who already dislikes me or my husband or us or non-red-pill people.


Are you going to propose a different model that's not based on evo-psych?


----------



## Blossom Leigh

marduk said:


> Agreed. Which is why I think it should be tied to the underlying human principles that may have more stability, and not the external projections of that principle which can be distorted by gender norms in culture which can change rapidly.
> 
> Like a genotype/phenotype thing as a metaphor.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


one has been written... milleniums ago  but I digress...


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> You have assumed I feel discomfort with praise all because of that one post I made to jld?
> 
> Well you are way off base, I love praise, get it all the time from many sources, am loved and liked by so many wonderful people, and have never lacked for adoration in my life. Gosh darn it, people like me!
> 
> Yet many people at TAM will never like me, and I am not trying to change their minds on that.


good, good, good, I misunderstood.

Well, you're a leader FW. Get used to it.


----------



## Marduk

Blossom Leigh said:


> one has been written... milleniums ago  but I digress...


I disagree, but perhaps not for the reasons you might think.

Different time, different thread.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

I am so glad y'all didn't dive deep into LM's book. I could not have stomached that. Still pondering on the differences between the two and when I've got it I will share.


----------



## TheGoodGuy

john117 said:


> The red pill reminds me of the desperation games you saw in retailers during the Great Recession.... Ignore stores long enough and prices drop fast. Then you make your move.
> 
> Remember the equation of dread I used - if the woman is not concerned of the games, be it because she is too confident, savvy, loaded, and emotionally secure (Or void) then you can red pill her all the way to the Kremlin and it's not going to work.
> 
> Do it to a more insecure woman and you'll be a lot more effective.
> 
> *The book assumes universal applicability except it ain't so. I know a lot of strong women and can't help but think what MMSL would look on them... How do you play the dread game with a woman smart enough to be a university president? Um, good luck there.[/*QUOTE]
> 
> I like your humor John. funny stuff. The bolded part I agree with and is what some including myself have called out several times. This book, or that book, this method or that method, this person or that person's opinion are never universally applicable to every single relationship.. Yet some books/methods/opinion are thrown around here at TAM at times as *the* silver bullet. It doesn't exist, IMO.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> Are you going to propose a different model that's not based on evo-psych?


Not based on evo psyche, not based on red pill, not based on blue pill, not based on games, not based on tricking people into liking you or wanting you, not based on what people assume about Naturals.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> You're full of questions, marduk. I like that about you.
> 
> But I see you just have fun with the back and forth, and when I answer you don't seem to really absorb it, you just ask more questions.
> 
> I respect you as well, but if you are going to doubt my honesty, then don't ask me any more questions. I am not doubting yours.


Btw, I loved this post.

Because it's pretty neo-classical in it's narritive.

1. compliment to draw him in
2. imply stupidity or dishonesty
3. claim to be insulted because he'll jump all over that

I don't know if that was a neg, or a sh!t test, or just a plain intelligent way to score a point. While simultaneously acknowledging and distracting from any of the questions.

I salute you.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Not based on evo psyche, not based on red pill, not based on blue pill, not based on games, not based on tricking people into liking you or wanting you, not based on what people assume about Naturals.


Looking forward to it.

If I can honestly help, I will.


----------



## Anon1111

Faithful Wife said:


> Which is exactly what Athol Kay did.


OK, but you're trying to say (I think) that your way is better.

It's cool if you just want to say: there's his way and my way and they're each just our respective opinions--- but I don't think that's what you are trying to say.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Anon1111 said:


> OK, but you're trying to say (I think) that your way is better.
> 
> It's cool if you just want to say: there's his way and my way and they're each just our respective opinions--- but I don't think that's what you are trying to say.


Actually, I'm saying "my way is based on personal research I've done over the years of literally hundreds of people, but in the end it is just my opinion and it may or may not help you."

....but he is saying "my way is PROVEN SCIENCE THAT WOMEN ARE WH*RES!!!" and then he offers no actual proof.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> And now that she has problems and is not fun anymore, you're leaving her.


Ouch. I felt that one from here.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Actually, I'm saying "my way is based on personal research I've done over the years of literally hundreds of people, but in the end it is just my opinion and it may or may not help you."
> 
> ....but he is saying "my way is PROVEN SCIENCE THAT WOMEN ARE WH*RES!!!" and then he offers no actual proof.


Wait wait wait...

Hundreds of people?

What's your evidence? How'd you select them? How did you control for biases?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> Wait wait wait...
> 
> Hundreds of people?
> 
> What's your evidence? How'd you select them? How did you control for biases?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


As I said, in the end it is just my opinion. People can take it or leave it...but when they read it, I know some of them will take it.

The ones who will leave it, that's fine, too.

I'll explain it all and where I'm coming from when I get there....

However, I have women all over the world contacting me on twitter or on my blog, asking where do they find their own sex god or how do they get their guy to become one or does mine have a brother...all just based on the opinions of mine I've already shared. I have lots of guys asking the same, but more women (of course). And none of them have ever even seen a picture of us! There's nothing there but words.

I know stuff. It is just too much stuff to put here. Or even on my blog. I'm getting to it.


----------



## Marduk

Ok FW. 

To summarize. 

Red pill sucks because of reasons. 

I'm coming up with something I think is better because of other reasons, but you'll have to wait for that.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Anon1111

jld said:


> And now that she has problems and is not fun anymore, you're leaving her.


This is the shaming thing again.

(You asked for examples)


----------



## Dogbert

Instead of the "Red Pill", could someone please give me "NZT-48"?


----------



## Anon1111

Faithful Wife said:


> Not based on evo psyche, not based on red pill, not based on blue pill, not based on games, not based on tricking people into liking you or wanting you, not based on what people assume about Naturals.


OK, here's the skeptic again. 

This is not necessarily a knock.

My favorite philosopher was a pretty hardcore skeptic. On some level, it's hard to look at the world and not be skeptical.

But don't confuse skepticism with idealism or problem solving.


----------



## Anon1111

Faithful Wife said:


> Actually, I'm saying "my way is based on personal research I've done over the years of literally hundreds of people, but in the end it is just my opinion and it may or may not help you."
> 
> ....but he is saying "my way is PROVEN SCIENCE THAT WOMEN ARE WH*RES!!!" and then he offers no actual proof.


I think you're both saying the same thing, but coming to different conclusions.

That's my opinion.


----------



## jld

Anon1111 said:


> This is the shaming thing again.
> 
> (You asked for examples)


How is that shaming him? To me, it is pointing out what is happening.


----------



## Anon1111

Faithful Wife said:


> As I said, in the end it is just my opinion. People can take it or leave it...but when they read it, I know some of them will take it.
> 
> The ones who will leave it, that's fine, too.
> 
> I'll explain it all and where I'm coming from when I get there....
> 
> However, I have women all over the world contacting me on twitter or on my blog, asking where do they find their own sex god or how do they get their guy to become one or does mine have a brother...all just based on the opinions of mine I've already shared. I have lots of guys asking the same, but more women (of course). And none of them have ever even seen a picture of us! There's nothing there but words.
> 
> I know stuff. It is just too much stuff to put here. Or even on my blog. I'm getting to it.


OK, I can respect this point of view.

You're being honest.

When you're not being honest is when you pretend like you can refute someone else's opinion. 

You've got an opinion and he's got an opinion. You both look at the world (which is complex) and come to different conclusions.

You both cherry pick your data to confirm your assumptions.

It's what most people do.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Dogbert said:


> Instead of the "Red Pill", could someone please give me "NZT-48"?


Yes, with a chaser of DMT and viagra. Sweet!


----------



## jld

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes, with a chaser of DMT and viagra. Sweet!


:lol:


----------



## Anon1111

jld said:


> How is that shaming him? To me, it is pointing out what is happening.


It's a gross oversimplification designed to call him out as a bad guy in front of the group.

shaming, most definitely. hard for me to believe you can't see that.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Anon1111 said:


> When you're not being honest is when you pretend like you can refute someone else's opinion.


:scratchhead:

Stating a dissenting opinion is not the same as saying I can refute another's opinion.

I have said there's no proof behind the SCIENCE he claims is real SCIENCE......he does not claim red pill or MMSL is an opinion. I keep asking for proof of this weird science and no one can come up with a single shred of proof. That is what I refute.

In fact I have said before, if he did not state his book is SCIENCE, if he said it is just his opinion, I would have never spoken out about it.


----------



## jld

Anon1111 said:


> It's a gross oversimplification designed to call him out as a bad guy in front of the group.
> 
> shaming, most definitely. hard for me to believe you can't see that.


That was just me calling it the way I see it, Anon.

You know, not everyone is into "strategy" here.


----------



## Anon1111

OK, we can just agree to disagree.

I think you have staked a much bigger claim to demolish all of this stuff beyond skepticism regarding evo psych, but I don't feel like going back through 200ish pages of posts to find all of your statements to this effect.

I understand where I think you're coming from, just trying to suggest that your accomplishment is more modest than you think.


----------



## Anon1111

jld said:


> That was just me calling it the way I see it, Anon.
> 
> You know, not everyone is into "strategy" here.


when you accidentally hit someone with your car, does it still hurt?


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> That was just me calling it the way I see it, Anon.
> 
> You know, not everyone is into "strategy" here.


She doesn't see it that way Anon. Honestly. 

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying you're both right. 

Keep going.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

John, do you feel shamed? Because that was not my intention, in any way. 

If I hurt your feelings, I'm sorry.


----------



## Dogbert

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes, with a chaser of DMT and viagra. Sweet!


Definitely no DMT - don't need no stinkin' "Machine Elves" - and instead of the possible blinding Viagra give me Cialis.

Better yet, I'll just up the dose of Modafinil and Cialis, and head right on down to "the chicken ranch".


----------



## Faithful Wife

Anon1111 said:


> I understand where I think you're coming from, just trying to suggest that your accomplishment is more modest than you think.


Being that you know nothing about me except what you know of me at TAM, I understand why you think this.


----------



## john117

marduk said:


> Ouch. I felt that one from here.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



Not me. I am in peace with myself knowing that I offered lots of options and they were declined or ignored.

You can only offer to help so much.


----------



## Marduk

john117 said:


> Not me. I am in peace with myself knowing that I offered lots of options and they were declined or ignored.
> 
> You can only offer to help so much.


I knew you wouldn't be hurt by it, and that I've taken runs at you, too... 

But damn.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

Anon1111 said:


> when you accidentally hit someone with your car, does it still hurt?


Nothing I have ever written to you was intended to hurt your feelings or embarrass you. And I am not trying to "win" here, or "beat" anyone, or "show them their place."

Anything I have said was to help your family. I just think the quickest way to help them is to point out to you your influence on them, and give some thoughts on how to use it more effectively.

I will tell you I have been mad at you a few times, though. And I know that was not very nice of me.


----------



## john117

jld said:


> John, do you feel shamed? Because that was not my intention, in any way.
> 
> 
> 
> If I hurt your feelings, I'm sorry.



Me? Shamed? Good one.


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> Me? Shamed? Good one.


No shame to be had?


----------



## john117

marduk said:


> I knew you wouldn't be hurt by it, and that I've taken runs at you, too...
> 
> 
> 
> But damn.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



It's all good. I voiced the sane concerns about MMSL two years ago in my now left for dead thread. I was told by the universal experts to use MMSL and so I did. As predicted it did not work. I pointed this out and was called out for it. Eventually I have up in favor of more catastrophic marital action.

Here we are two years later and my general views on MMSL were confirmed by one of the most respected posters in TAM in this here thread. 

Not a bad deal.


----------



## john117

jld said:


> No shame to be had?



None whatsoever.


----------



## Anon1111

Faithful Wife said:


> Being that you know nothing about me except what you know of me at TAM, I understand why you think this.


Your right, I know absolutely nothing about you. You could be Athol Kay for all I know. Is HE even a real guy?

Anyway- what do you think you've accomplished here?

I would say you've poked some holes in an idealogy you dislike. 

You haven't offered a coherent alternative (or at least anything more coherent than the idealogy you've attacked). 

You don't really have to, but at one or more points it has seemed as though you thought you had something in your back pocket. 

Is this just religion to you? I have no problem with religion- it doesn't rest on logic.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

Anon1111 said:


> Your right, I know absolutely nothing about you. You could be Athol Kay for all I know. Is HE even a real guy?
> 
> Anyway- what do you think you've accomplished here?
> 
> I would say you've poked some holes in an idealogy you dislike.
> 
> You haven't offered a coherent alternative (or at least anything more coherent than the idealogy you've attacked).
> 
> You don't really have to, but at one or more points it has seemed as though you thought you had something in your back pocket.
> 
> Is this just religion to you? I have no problem with religion- it doesn't rest on logic.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Maybe you missed a post....

The one where I said, I had one goal here at TAM which was to raise awareness of what is really behind red pill crap, and to slow the tide of the constant suggesting of that book to every new guy at TAM.

And a second goal which is a book I am writing, but which I have not offered many details of (yet)....that goal is yet to be accomplished because I've only just begun writing it. But yes, I do have some stuff in my back pocket...for the book.

Is this just religion for me....yes....bang bang, I am the warrior. Shootin' at the walls of heartache.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47y5bo8wtqM


----------



## Idyit

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes, MMSL is the same as PUA/RP. That is where he drew his info from.
> 
> Let me put it this way....
> 
> Let's say that someone sees a guy and a girl meet up at a bar, and they leave together and have sex.
> 
> The person who saw them is another man who was trying to hit on this girl.
> 
> The person makes a quick and untrue assessment of the man who the girl left with, and declares that the guy was "a jerk".
> 
> The person now looks up "why do women like jerks" and finds the red pill crap, or MMSL, or PUA (they all address this) and within, they learn that "women like jerks because evo psyche".
> 
> Now let's see what really happened....
> 
> Why did this guy and girl actually leave the bar together, if we asked them both and didn't make false assumptions like one is a jerk and one is a hypergamous wh*re....
> 
> The reason was actually that they are both highly sexual people, they felt mutual attraction, and they were both DTF.
> 
> With no red pill whatsoever, these two ended up together (and had great sex).
> 
> Yet the observer will be convinced that evo psyche is "why" she left with this guy.
> 
> This is something similar to my marriage. It can look like one thing but not be that thing. Especially not to a person who already dislikes me or my husband or us or non-red-pill people.


Your example is humorous and sad on a few levels.

How does sperm warefare fit into evo-psych? Is this a widely accepted notion among single, married, men, women, Americans, Brits, Europeans...? First time I ever heard anything like this was in AKs book. After an eyeroll and a shrug I moved on. The next time I'd heard anything like this was from you.

This is not just about you're right and they're wrong. The above example was too coincidental for me to overlook. AK may explain it via evo-psych and you may attribute it to your sex god husband. Doesn't matter to me. From the outside, having no vested interest in either position, they look the same.

~ Passio


----------



## Anon1111

OK, I get it.

I know almost everything I say sounds d-ckish (I am actually a d-ck, that's why), but this is a sincere deep thought:

Mystics, revolutionaries, freedom fighters, whatever, don't even stoop to argue with the uniniated. They are simply RIGHTEOUS. 

I think one is more effective as a rhetorical matter when one decides whether he/she is in the RIGHTEOUS camp or the DIALECTIC camp. 

But it's your message, so have at it however you like.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## john117

There may be no alternative. 

I can predict with reasonable accuracy consumer responses to my work. But only after we have spent a ton of time pigeonholing results into groups and massaging liberally with SPSS. 

So when my product goes out the door I know who's going to buy it, and why. 

This is phenomenally more difficult to do with people and relationships. Even Gottman took his sweet time and focused on a narrow range of outcomes. 

Making a "red pill" book that has universal appeal is as difficult as creating a real red pill.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Idyit said:


> How does sperm warefare fit into evo-psych? Is this a widely accepted notion among single, married, men, women, Americans, Brits, Europeans...? First time I ever heard anything like this was in AKs book. After an eyeroll and a shrug I moved on. The next time I'd heard anything like this was from you.


The only people who know or talk about sperm wars are red pill dudes on blogs and reddit. But yes of course they talk about it, a lot.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Anon1111 said:


> But it's your message, so have at it however you like._Posted via Mobile Device_


Thanks, I will.


----------



## Anon1111

Sounds like it's time to double down on the sex robots.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

Anon1111 said:


> Sounds like it's time to double down on the sex robots.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I, for one, am all for them.

Make mine a Blake Griffin model.


----------



## Idyit

Faithful Wife said:


> The only people who know or talk about sperm wars are red pill dudes on blogs and reddit. But yes of course they talk about it, a lot.


Ok RP dudes and reddit etc call it sperm wars. What you described as your husband pounding you good prior to going out for the purpose of(? can't remember your exact words but sounded like to remind you?, place scent??) seems to be very similar if not the same concept.

If they're not the same to you because of the perceived genesis ok. I'm simply pointing out that arriving at the same destination via different routes still produces similarity. It's this similarity in concept/content while calling them completely different is what has me stuck.

~ Passio


----------



## TiggyBlue

Faithful Wife said:


> I, for one, am all for them.
> 
> Make mine a Blake Griffin model.





Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Max Irons models for me please


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Faithful Wife said:


> I, for one, am all for them.
> 
> Make mine a Blake Griffin model.





TiggyBlue said:


> Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Max Irons models for me please


I like mine more rugged, beefy and bad boyish  but with a saint heart.


----------



## tech-novelist

marduk said:


> Ok FW.
> 
> To summarize.
> 
> Red pill sucks because of reasons.
> 
> I'm coming up with something I think is better because of other reasons, but you'll have to wait for that.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Exactly. Now you're getting it!

By the way, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for this supposed great new paradigm, since it is already clear that she can't account for the similarities between her marriage and what AK talks about, which are many and obvious.


----------



## Marduk

technovelist said:


> Exactly. Now you're getting it!
> 
> By the way, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for this supposed great new paradigm, since it is already clear that she can't account for the similarities between her marriage and what AK talks about, which are many and obvious.


I think that's ok. She's formulating something. It could be good.

I'm willing to call a time out and wait for it.

Give her the space to come up with that man, it's only fair. AK took a year of blogging to come up with MMSLP.


----------



## tech-novelist

Idyit said:


> Ok RP dudes and reddit etc call it sperm wars. What you described as your husband pounding you good prior to going out for the purpose of(? can't remember your exact words but sounded like to remind you?, place scent??) seems to be very similar if not the same concept.
> 
> If they're not the same to you because of the perceived genesis ok. I'm simply pointing out that arriving at the same destination via different routes still produces similarity. It's this similarity in concept/content while calling them completely different is what has me stuck.
> 
> ~ Passio


Well, what would YOU do if it were obvious that you were contradicting your own evaluation of a paradigm as "totally worthless" by giving personal evidence that supported some of the parts of that paradigm that seem most unlikely a priori?

One way to handle that, of course, is to say "OK, I was wrong; there is something to that paradigm but I still don't like the tone of the author."

Another way is to claim that you have a much better paradigm, but you just can't reveal it for some reason. Maybe it is "too large to fit within the margin"? :rofl:


----------



## tech-novelist

marduk said:


> I think that's ok. She's formulating something. It could be good.
> 
> I'm willing to call a time out and wait for it.
> 
> Give her the space to come up with that man, it's only fair. AK took a year of blogging to come up with MMSLP.


Ok, but I've got a (virtual) $100 bill that says she will never publish it. Which is a shame, because I'd really like to see how she accounts for the similarity between her own marriage and the suggestion in MMSLP of what the readers might dream about as the ideal marriage!


----------



## always_alone

technovelist said:


> Ok, but I've got a (virtual) $100 bill that says she will never publish it. Which is a shame, because I'd really like to see how she accounts for the similarity between her own marriage and the suggestion in MMSLP of what the readers might dream about as the ideal marriage!


You are confused because you are latching onto superficial similarities and ignoring fundamental differences.

Superficial similarity: she enjoys sex with her husband before going out

Fundamental differences:
-Explanation for why she enjoys this and what it's about
-Zero insistence that because *she* likes it, all women must also
-Focus on love and intimacy instead of resentment and controll
-her attraction to him is not dependent on other women's, nor fueled by it; her attraction is authentic and existed from the first time she saw him

For starters...

Oh, and I'll take your bet.


----------



## Faithful Wife

This is directed at technovelist....but anyone can answer if you have PROOF....For the purposes of my book AND in case you want to make me look really stupid....I'd love to see any PROOF that sperm wars is a thing with human beings. A real thing, a scientific fact, NOT a hypothesis.

Here, I'll start with this:

Sperm Wars - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It was a book, it was controversial, but it was not PROOF of anything.

"The book is controversial,[5] both because of its explanations of homosexuality, rape, and prostitution, and because some *critics have claimed that several of the hypotheses in the book are not supported by scientific research*."

So....just as soon as someone can provide scientific proof that sperm wars have anything to do with our mating choices, I will be happy to discuss why it appears that my husband is doing something that looks like a sperm war.

Until then....I will just say he likes knowing I will be dreamy the whole night, thinking of him.

There are times when he just gives me oral before I'm going out, or I just give him a BJ or a HJ.

As you know if you are into MMSL, oral and handjobs are absolutely forbidden by alpha males because it enrages them that they can't top her off with sperm.

So....how do you MMSL guys (specifically technovelist) reconcile the nonsense in your own heads? :scratchhead:

My husband IS red pill because he tops the sperm off....but he is a beta loser because he also just gets and gives hand jobs sometimes?

We also take separate vacations, I go out dancing with other men, he's had a vasectomy, and I'm bi-sexual.

So.....red pill is where in all of that? Do you guys (again this is directed at you, technovelist) know how stupid it sounds when you actually believe that crap? And how unsexy it is?


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> This is directed at technovelist....but anyone can answer if you have PROOF....For the purposes of my book AND in case you want to make me look really stupid....I'd love to see any PROOF that sperm wars is a thing with human beings. A real thing, a scientific fact, NOT a hypothesis.
> 
> Here, I'll start with this:
> 
> Sperm Wars - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> It was a book, it was controversial, but it was not PROOF of anything.
> 
> "The book is controversial,[5] both because of its explanations of homosexuality, rape, and prostitution, and because some *critics have claimed that several of the hypotheses in the book are not supported by scientific research*."
> 
> So....just as soon as someone can provide scientific proof that sperm wars have anything to do with our mating choices, I will be happy to discuss why it appears that my husband is doing something that looks like a sperm war.
> 
> Until then....I will just say he likes knowing I will be dreamy the whole night, thinking of him.
> 
> There are times when he just gives me oral before I'm going out, or I just give him a BJ or a HJ.
> 
> As you know if you are into MMSL, oral and handjobs are absolutely forbidden by alpha males because it enrages them that they can't top her off with sperm.
> 
> So....how do you MMSL guys (specifically technovelist) reconcile the nonsense in your own heads? :scratchhead:
> 
> My husband IS red pill because he tops the sperm off....but he is a beta loser because he also just gets and gives hand jobs sometimes?
> 
> We also take separate vacations, I go out dancing with other men, he's had a vasectomy, and I'm bi-sexual.
> 
> So.....red pill is where in all of that? Do you guys (again this is directed at you, technovelist) know how stupid it sounds when you actually believe that crap? And how unsexy it is?


I thought you had me on ignore. If that is not true, let me know so that I can continue the discussion with you. I think I can easily demonstrate that your take on MMSL is quite wrong, but you have to be willing to read my posts...


----------



## Faithful Wife

Here, I'll help:

No Evidence for Sperm Wars | Science/AAAS | News


----------



## Faithful Wife

technovelist said:


> I thought you had me on ignore. If that is not true, let me know so that I can continue the discussion with you. I think I can easily demonstrate that your take on MMSL is quite wrong, but you have to be willing to read my posts...


Show me scientific proof.

Otherwise, you can continue to bash me without my responding to you. I'm not interested in your opinion (you heart MMSL, got it, thanks), but if you have scientific proof, I'm all ears.


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> Show me scientific proof.
> 
> Otherwise, you can continue to bash me without my responding to you. I'm not interested in your opinion (you heart MMSL, got it, thanks), but if you have scientific proof, I'm all ears.


No problem. Here is scientific proof that your statements about MMSLP are incorrect.

1. You say this:
"As you know if you are into MMSL, oral and handjobs are absolutely forbidden by alpha males because it enrages them that they can't top her off with sperm."
2. If this is true, you should easily be able to come up with a passage or set of passages in that book that say this. 
3. I know you can't do that, because they don't exist.
4. Thus, you have made false statements about the book and have destroyed your credibility on that topic.

Q. E. D.


----------



## Marduk

What about the absorption of testosterone by the female from the male's ejaculate?

It appears that T is present in ejaculate (less so if you've had a vasectomy!):
Determinantion of testosterone concentration in semen of men with normal or subnormal sperm counts and after vasectomy. - PubMed - NCBI

Perhaps some of it is absorbed by the woman, assuming no condom use.

And if it's absorbed into her blood stream, increasing her T levels, could it make her more sexually aggressive (horny?)


----------



## Anon1111

technovelist said:


> Well, what would YOU do if it were obvious that you were contradicting your own evaluation of a paradigm as "totally worthless" by giving personal evidence that supported some of the parts of that paradigm that seem most unlikely a priori?
> 
> One way to handle that, of course, is to say "OK, I was wrong; there is something to that paradigm but I still don't like the tone of the author."
> 
> Another way is to claim that you have a much better paradigm, but you just can't reveal it for some reason. Maybe it is "too large to fit within the margin"? :rofl:


Personally, I would go one of two routes:

1. Say, f- it, I contradict myself, so what. Go Walt Whitman, "Do I contradict myself? Very well, i contradict myself. I am many, I contain multitudes." I'm getting all freshman dorm on you I know, but the point is, if you're making an emotional appeal (which I sort of think FW is doing), then you can just dispense with logic.

2. Flip the whole thing. Concede Kay is right on the facts, just say his analysis is totally wrong. I actually think FW is sort of attempting to do this too, but she has not really succeeded. What is a bit crazy about here view is that it is actually VERY similar to Kay's, she just draws different conclusions. His conclusions are total speculation as are hers. She could admit that and gain a lot of credibility.

Ta ta. Off to bang my dime wife!


----------



## Marduk

OK forgive me John, I'm spitballing here.

A dude's ejaculate can contain as much as 0.7 ng/ml of T.

A dude's ejaculate is about 4 ml on average? So that's 2.8 ng of T.

Assuming 100% absorption directly into her bloodstream (I know that's unrealistic)...

Assuming she has about 4L of blood...

That would be an increase to her blood T levels of about what, .7ng/L.

Average female T level is about 400ng/L?
Testosterone Levels by Age

So that's pretty much an increase to her T level (assuming 100% absorption) by .2%?

I don't think that's gonna pan out unless I've messed up somewhere.


----------



## john117

I should forward this to DD20 the neurobiology major 

The math does look right...


----------



## Marduk

Another one of AK's theories busted.

He always maintained that orgasming in a woman was essentially injecting her with testosterone, which would in turn increase her sex drive and the odds of her having sex with you again.


----------



## john117

Generally correct conclusion by AK yet wrong rationale... You may see increased odds for sex next time but unrelated to T.


----------



## Ikaika

marduk said:


> OK forgive me John, I'm spitballing here.
> 
> A dude's ejaculate can contain as much as 0.7 ng/ml of T.
> 
> A dude's ejaculate is about 4 ml on average? So that's 2.8 ng of T.
> 
> Assuming 100% absorption directly into her bloodstream (I know that's unrealistic)...
> 
> Assuming she has about 4L of blood...
> 
> That would be an increase to her blood T levels of about what, .7ng/L.
> 
> Average female T level is about 400ng/L?
> Testosterone Levels by Age
> 
> So that's pretty much an increase to her T level (assuming 100% absorption) by .2%?
> 
> I don't think that's gonna pan out unless I've messed up somewhere.


The only problem with this theory, is that androgens tends to decrease spermatozoa motility. So while there is some androgen in testicular fluid, much of it gets absorbed in the epididymis. That is not to say some does not make in the ejaculation. And, off the top of my head, I'm not sure what level is actually released, but I would say too much and it works against nature. On the other hand one thing found in the semen are prostaglandins that help to facilitate uterine anti-peristaltic contractions. This probably serves a better purpose for facilitating a female orgasm.


----------



## tech-novelist

marduk said:


> OK forgive me John, I'm spitballing here.
> 
> A dude's ejaculate can contain as much as 0.7 ng/ml of T.
> 
> A dude's ejaculate is about 4 ml on average? So that's 2.8 ng of T.
> 
> Assuming 100% absorption directly into her bloodstream (I know that's unrealistic)...
> 
> Assuming she has about 4L of blood...
> 
> That would be an increase to her blood T levels of about what, .7ng/L.
> 
> Average female T level is about 400ng/L?
> Testosterone Levels by Age
> 
> So that's pretty much an increase to her T level (assuming 100% absorption) by .2%?
> 
> I don't think that's gonna pan out unless I've messed up somewhere.


Apparently it can work, assuming a functioning vagina D):

"In this paper I hypothesize that a woman through her vagina absorbs sufficient quantities of the prostaglandins from her partner's semen, to affect her mood. The vagina appears to have an active transport mechanism which readily absorbs the hormones found in seminal plasma."

(from The intravaginal absorption of male generated hormones and their possible effect on female behaviour. - PubMed - NCBI)


----------



## Marduk

Ikaika said:


> The only problem with this theory, is that androgens tends to decrease spermatozoa motility. So while there is some androgen in testicular fluid, much of it gets absorbed in the epididymis. That is not to say some does not make in the ejaculation. And, off the top of my head, I'm not sure what level is actually released, but I would say too much and it works against nature. On the other hand one thing found in the semen are prostaglandins that help to facilitate uterine anti-peristaltic contractions. This probably serves a better purpose for facilitating a female orgasm.


It's in the link in my former post.

I agree the odds of much, if any, making it into her bloodstream is low.


----------



## Ikaika

technovelist said:


> Apparently it can work, assuming a functioning vagina D):
> 
> "In this paper I hypothesize that a woman through her vagina absorbs sufficient quantities of the prostaglandins from her partner's semen, to affect her mood. The vagina appears to have an active transport mechanism which readily absorbs the hormones found in seminal plasma."
> 
> (from The intravaginal absorption of male generated hormones and their possible effect on female behaviour. - PubMed - NCBI)


This is not androgens, this is prostaglandins.


----------



## Ikaika

marduk said:


> It's in the link in my former post.
> 
> I agree the odds of much, if any, making it into her bloodstream is low.


What is in the link is what I mentioned, not T, but prostaglandins.


----------



## Marduk

technovelist said:


> Apparently it can work, assuming a functioning vagina D):
> 
> "In this paper I hypothesize that a woman through her vagina absorbs sufficient quantities of the prostaglandins from her partner's semen, to affect her mood. The vagina appears to have an active transport mechanism which readily absorbs the hormones found in seminal plasma."
> 
> (from The intravaginal absorption of male generated hormones and their possible effect on female behaviour. - PubMed - NCBI)


Doesn't that say that having sex increases her own hormone levels, not the absorbed T from her husband?


----------



## Marduk

Ikaika said:


> What is in the link is what I mentioned, not T, but prostaglandins.


Whoops, yup.

Not sure.


----------



## Idyit

FW. I tried to PM but apparently you're a popular gal. This thread has been heating up and it looked like I was getting lumped into the bandwagon of RP defenders. 

Not sure how to assure you but my thoughts and questions are my own. To help explain my position a bit better, I never read or had a need for PUA/RP because that was never a problem. Dating was fairly easy and never found a reason to vilify, hate or blame women. 

Marriage is a whole other ballgame. When things got bumpy I looked for answers in books or others lives. Most of it was pretty hollow. I'm fairly adept at spotting BS in bad science due to: an undergraduate degree in molecular biology, MS molecular immunology and a career in healthcare. I've found that even peer reviewed literature can be garbage and good PR lit can become obsolete in short order with new literature. I'll take the scrutinized findings but will only adopt if it makes sense. But be ready to move because the goalpost can move in medicine, culture, etc. 

This is why I'm asking you the questions. I like that you're looking for, even formulating an alternative to some pretty ineffective, possibly harmful stuff. The questions arise because I'd like you to clearly differentiate. State why something only appears similar. Or say to heck with it Beavis and Butthead were on to something because of x,y,z but here's where they got it wrong. You may go in a completely different direction with your book but for now, in this thread, me or others like me could use some help understanding your rationale. 

Hopefully I've clarified my stance and reason for asking the questions I do. I look forward to a good read when you get the book done. 

~ Passio


----------



## Holland

marduk said:


> What about the absorption of testosterone by the female from the male's ejaculate?
> 
> It appears that T is present in ejaculate (less so if you've had a vasectomy!):
> Determinantion of testosterone concentration in semen of men with normal or subnormal sperm counts and after vasectomy. - PubMed - NCBI
> 
> Perhaps some of it is absorbed by the woman, assuming no condom use.
> 
> And if it's absorbed into her blood stream, increasing her T levels, could it make her more sexually aggressive (horny?)


I have lost track of the last 30 or so pages so simply responding to this post for no other reason that to add personal info.

Me and him are well past any interest in having kids, we root like rabbits (at least 10 times per week) I am peri menopausal, we do not use condoms, I swallow so getting T shots to both ends lol.

He is extremely HD man in his 50's and like last night can easily go again within 1/2 hr.

He is also considered on the lower end of average for his T levels (230ish of whatever unit it is measured by with the normal range being 120 to I think around 500).

So what does any of it mean? Simply that we screw each other senseless on a daily basis because we have a great, respectful relationship. We are well matched, we are loyal, giving, taking people that laugh our heads off regularly, don't play silly games with each other and have pretty good communication.

So great sex life, no cheating, lowish T and loads of mutually satisfying sex.

Knock yourselves out with unfounded theories (not aimed at you marduk) game playing, poor communication and listening skills.

Me and him have better things to do while you all figure out that the best path to a great sex life is to be a worthwhile person and to be with the right partner. The rest is wasting your precious time.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Idyit...I love your questions. I do appreciate the way you have worded everything and that you are sincerely asking an important question...._why does it look like MMSL is right?_ 

I get that. I have mentioned this a couple of times but it bears repeating...when I first heard of some of the red pill ideas and MMSL and evo psyche theories, I was like "hey, yeah, so there's actually science behind why some people are so sexy!"

But then when I read into it past the first few pages I was like "oh wow... I can't believe how utterly hateful this is....it is nothing like what I'm experiencing at all"....I also then researched the "science" behind it....and found that nobody in the credible science community believes any of the crap red pill guys says, none of it is backed up by anything. (As is shown here, when I ask for it, if it was easily proven, proof would be provided by the truck load).

There are a lot of differences between RP/PUA and what I am feeling and seeing, and I can list them for you and why there's a difference...it really will take some time, though. I'm working through it on every post I make here. The difference between what I have and what MMSL can give is what marduk and a LOT of other men (and women) are looking for. 

The short version is, what I have said several times now, a combination of MUTUAL sexual attraction and the ability by both partners to actually experience _intimacy_ at a heightened level.

MANY people at TAM know exactly what I'm talking about...it isn't just me claiming that this mythical awesome sex-land exists....

Holland
Happy as a Clam 
samyeager
Conanhub
jld and dug
GettingIt 
SimplyAmorous 
Cosmos (though she isn't here anymore)
Brigit
Blossom Leigh
Personal
Created2Write 
LarryGray
Moutain Runner (I forgot ya the first go round!)

This is just a small sample of several respected posters who love their spouse and have great sex with them, and have mutual sexual attraction with them. You can tell by the way they talk about their spouse. They may even sound like they are bragging, but really, they are just so amorous, in love, and hot for their spouse, that every thing they write about their spouse almost sounds like a script or something. I'm included in this, too.

But this is just what people sound like when they really have it going on. Great sex, mutual sexual attraction, and the ability to really be open to authentic intimacy. This is what MMSL and red pill don't touch on, this is what is missing. 

NMMNG got a little closer and tries for a deeper connection with the reader, even. The book itself is more intimate than most books will get with the reader. (It is not a red pill book, and I highly recommend it by the way).

Is this a decent start on a complicated topic?


----------



## Faithful Wife

technovelist said:


> No problem. Here is scientific proof that your statements about MMSLP are incorrect.
> 
> 1. You say this:
> "As you know if you are into MMSL, oral and handjobs are absolutely forbidden by alpha males because it enrages them that they can't top her off with sperm."
> *2. If this is true, you should easily be able to come up with a passage or set of passages in that book that say this. *
> 3. I know you can't do that, because they don't exist.
> 4. Thus, you have made false statements about the book and have destroyed your credibility on that topic.
> 
> Q. E. D.


Quote from MMSL:

On a biological level, the Male Body Agenda assumes that the female he is having sex with will be unfaithful. By constantly seeking to top off a female’s reproductive tract with sperm, he assures himself a standing army inside her ready to repel another male’s sperm if she cheats on him. A wife can avoid having a standing army of her husband’s sperm inside her by simply denying him sex. A couple can have fairly frequent sex, *but if she avoids sex with him, or just gives him handjobs or blowjobs in the three or four days before she ovulates, the husband is rendered defenseless from a sperm warfare perspective if she meets a lover for sex*. There’s no standing army of the husband’s sperm to fight off the lover’s sperm.

Importantly because the lover is not likely to have many attempts at sex with the wife, his ejaculation will be extremely large and flood her vagina. The husband is at a decided disadvantage. It’s important to wave the flag again that this sort of planned deceit on the wife’s part can happen completely unconsciously; the Rationalization Hamster can likely supply several excellent reasons as to why she avoided her husband’s semen in her vagina for a few days before she ovulated. Plus obviously the hook-up with the lover was just an appalling lapse of character. She’s not that kind of girl. In fact she’s just realized from that hook-up how very empty sex without love can be and she now knows that deep down she really loves her husband and wants to make it work with him. So perhaps some good came of the whole thing. The Rationalization Hamster is holding off on telling her she’s pregnant for a bit…missed periods sometimes just happen you know. (See how the Rationalization Hamster works?) 

*Sperm warfare also explains why if a husband is denied regular sex with his wife, he typically becomes fixated on the lack of sex with her to the exclusion of every other issue in the relationship. After five days of no vaginal sex, all his sperm inside her are either dead or have dripped out of her. In a “get her pregnant” sense it’s like he’s never had sex with her. He wants her topped off; instead she’s completely empty of his sperm*. She is therefore providing him with a very strong expression of disinterest in him. She may say that she loves him, but he will typically experience her actions as a deeply concerning rejection. 

(end quote)

Interpret this however you wish, technovelist. 

Now...I do not mean to be rude...but how many times do I have to ask you to put up proof of your supposed science? I mean c'mon now. Did ANYONE actually fact check this book or any of the other evo psyche nonsense you've heard? Anyone? 

Your answer above is total "look a monkey!" and that's exactly why I put you on ignore before. You want to bash me, go right ahead, but why do I need to read it? I've agreed to disagree with you, I'm not chasing you around the forum, disagreeing openly on every post you make. If you don't like what I say, why do you keep posting to me? I have asked you for proof and I'd be happy to talk about any proof you can show me. 

And if not then sheesh, just say it is your opinion and I'll be good with it. Either put up proof, or don't call it science. 

Marduk...as far as I'm concerned, my husband's jizz is magical fruit juice from God. I don't need any proof of THAT...but sure, if we're getting a testosterone injection OR if it is simply that sex releases a hormonal c*cktail, either way this is beautiful and amazing. I have no issue with talking about the mysterious magic that occurs when we get busy. I could write sonnets about it.


----------



## Holland

Faithful Wife said:


> .......................
> 
> Marduk...as far as I'm concerned, my husband's jizz is magical fruit juice from God. I don't need any proof of THAT...but sure, if we're getting a testosterone injection OR if it is simply that sex releases a hormonal c*cktail, either way this is beautiful and amazing. I have no issue with talking about the mysterious magic that occurs when we get busy. I could write sonnets about it.


Or, just maybe, could it be possible, should I say this.....

he is a good lay? He is an exceptional lover which, when combined with being a good, decent, loving man is a recipe for the best sex life ever.

Honestly the sperm warfare stuff is laughable. I don't have any desire to cheat because I love my partner not because I am full to exploding with his cum. Give me a break.


----------



## Idyit

Faithful Wife said:


> There are a lot of differences between RP/PUA and what I am feeling and seeing, and I can list them for you and why there's a difference...it really will take some time, though. I'm working through it on every post I make here. The difference between what I have and what MMSL can give is what marduk and a LOT of other men (and women) are looking for.


Nah. I'm all good on the PUA/RP stuff. I get it. 

I have some questions but it's late and I need some sleep. 

~ Passio


----------



## Julius Beastcavern

Faithful Wife said:


> This is directed at technovelist....but anyone can answer if you have PROOF....For the purposes of my book AND in case you want to make me look really stupid....I'd love to see any PROOF that sperm wars is a thing with human beings. A real thing, a scientific fact, NOT a hypothesis.
> 
> Here, I'll start with this:
> 
> Sperm Wars - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> It was a book, it was controversial, but it was not PROOF of anything.
> 
> "The book is controversial,[5] both because of its explanations of homosexuality, rape, and prostitution, and because some *critics have claimed that several of the hypotheses in the book are not supported by scientific research*."
> 
> So....just as soon as someone can provide scientific proof that sperm wars have anything to do with our mating choices, I will be happy to discuss why it appears that my husband is doing something that looks like a sperm war.
> 
> Until then....I will just say he likes knowing I will be dreamy the whole night, thinking of him.
> 
> There are times when he just gives me oral before I'm going out, or I just give him a BJ or a HJ.
> 
> As you know if you are into MMSL, oral and handjobs are absolutely forbidden by alpha males because it enrages them that they can't top her off with sperm.
> 
> So....how do you MMSL guys (specifically technovelist) reconcile the nonsense in your own heads? :scratchhead:
> 
> My husband IS red pill because he tops the sperm off....but he is a beta loser because he also just gets and gives hand jobs sometimes?
> 
> We also take separate vacations, I go out dancing with other men, he's had a vasectomy, and I'm bi-sexual.
> 
> So.....red pill is where in all of that? Do you guys (again this is directed at you, technovelist) know how stupid it sounds when you actually believe that crap? And how unsexy it is?



Hi FW, this book: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Human-Sperm...ation-ebook/dp/B00L1R3N9G/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8 contains the science behind the book sperm wars. I cannot comment on it as I haven't read it.


----------



## EllisRedding

Holland said:


> He is extremely HD man in his 50's and like last night can easily go again within 1/2 hr.
> 
> He is also considered on the lower end of average for his T levels (230ish of whatever unit it is measured by with the normal range being 120 to I think around 500).


Just imagine how he would be in the 500 range  For a man in his 50s, 230ish actually doesn't sound horrible since T levels should decline as he gets older.

One of these days I would love to get my T levels tested. Problem is my dr won't write me a prescrip for the test since I have no symptoms of low T. Next physical I might just have to tell him I have no libido, no energy, hate females, etc... and see if that does the trick lol.

I don't know if there is any research but I would love to see how easily a guy is able to overcome his low t if some of the other traits (as you describe) are present between the two parties. I would think at some point there would be a breaking point where no matter how in sync the relationship is low Ts would eventually have a negative impact.


----------



## Holland

Tis all new and interesting to me ER. In my past life of being married to a LD man I had asked him to do something pro active, go to the Dr etc but he didn't put in the effort. I am pretty sure his issues are more psychological but that is a long story.

So Mr H had a bit of a floppy moment a few weeks back and we both freaked out but to his credit he went to the Dr asap and the T results came back as lowish. But here is the thing, it only happened once but he did say he was finding it harder to get an erection for a few weeks prior, I had obviously noticed but chose to put my head in the sand.
Anyway he thought the Dr was going to say his age was the problem, I refused to buy that line of thinking and told him that age was no reason.


But onto the lowish T, we were both very surprised but have since found out that T levels are not the absolute indicator of male sexual performance, here is the kicker, it is as much to do with psychology as it is hormones. He got his performance levels right back up and beyond by the time the blood results were even back. He did something pro active about a possible problem and resolved it with his super mind powers. He LOVES sex, his brain rules his d.ck not his hormones.

Moral of the story... beating your (general) chest and being all alpha like, getting T shots or whatever is not going to be the fix for some men. Actually they need to do the complete opposite of RP et al and start off with a healthier mind.

ETA he is going to have his levels retested in 6 months just for curiosity sake. He does not ever want to take the T therapy option because the are implications with prostate cancer and he has already had one scare with that.
So now we know that the mind is as powerful as hormones when it comes to sex then it is up to he and I to keep his mind very happy.


----------



## EllisRedding

Interesting, that is great Holland that he was willing to discuss and take action. I am sure there are guys who would be embarrassed and just avoid the issue altogether. 

I know there has been discussion here about a wife possibly not being physically attracted to her husband any longer and what gets brought up is has he changed. There is the possibility that maybe he no longer has the extra pep in his step / confidence that she was attracted to. It could very well be a low T issue that impacts how "alpha" he is our how he carries himself. I just hope in general this is something to gets taken more seriously. There still seems to be the stigma that if a guy needs T it is to become some chest pounding meathead who is one move away from roid rage (the reality is healthy T levels are very important for a male, especially as he ages). You now see a lot of these clinics popping up which is at least a move in the right step. I believe though it should be more common to test levels to establish a baseline, not wait until a problem presents itself. If I found out I had low T to me it would be just as important to try and understand why my levels have changed as it would be to treat the issue.


----------



## Holland

EllisRedding said:


> Interesting, that is great Holland that he was willing to discuss and take action. I am sure there are guys who would be embarrassed and just avoid the issue altogether.
> 
> I know there has been discussion here about a wife possibly not being physically attracted to her husband any longer and what gets brought up is has he changed. There is the possibility that maybe he no longer has the extra pep in his step / confidence that she was attracted to. It could very well be a low T issue that impacts how "alpha" he is our how he carries himself. I just hope in general this is something to gets taken more seriously. There still seems to be the stigma that if a guy needs T it is to become some chest pounding meathead who is one move away from roid rage (the reality is healthy T levels are very important for a male, especially as he ages). You now see a lot of these clinics popping up which is at least a move in the right step.* I believe though it should be more common to test levels to establish a baseline, not wait until a problem presents itself.* If I found out I had low T to me it would be just as important to try and understand why my levels have changed as it would be to treat the issue.


Totally agree, we both wish he had of had his levels tested earlier so there would be some history. For all we know his level may have been 230 for his whole life but his absolute love of sex and his healthy attitude towards it ie his mind powers have been what has given him such a high drive.

But there are plenty of natural, healthy lifestyle options that we would take over and above T therapy. 

Anyway this is all a very clumsy way of saying to others, control YOUR mind, manipulate YOUR mind, it is a far better path than trying to manipulate your partner. Controlling your own mind is a super power IMHO and along with having super powers comes some serious sex appeal.


----------



## Pluto2

Julius Beastcavern said:


> Hi FW, this book: Human Sperm Competition: Copulation, masturbation and infidelity eBook: Robin Baker, Mark A. Bellis: Amazon.co.uk: Kindle Store contains the science behind the book sperm wars. I cannot comment on it as I haven't read it.


 By Amanda Dixson - Published on Amazon.com

It is now 10 years since this book was published. Surprisingly, it is still cited positively, especially by some evolutionary psychologists, along with citations of the Baker and Bellis papers in "Animal Behaviour", published in the 1990's. I say "surprisingly" because , in the intervening years, a substantial number of publications has appeared which fail to support many of the conclusions reached by Baker and Bellis concerning human sperm competition."Khamikaze sperm" , for example , don't exist in human beings...or at least Moore et al found no evidence to support the view that some human sperm block or interfere with those of other males( the paper was published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B...which has stringent reviewing standards). The is no evidence that men with larger testes are more likely to engage in extra-pair copulations ( Simmons et al published a very good study on this in Animal Behaviour in 2004). As for female orgasm , and Baker And Bellis bizarre views on its functions...I recommend Elizabeth Lloyd's book on this topic, as a much needed critique of theories for the evolution of orgasm in women. As a primatologist I could never reconcile the animal evidence with Baker and Bellis ideas either. Over the years reputable experts in the field of sperm competition....such as Birkhead, Gomendio and Roldan, Harcourt, and Short , have pointed out the deficiencies in Baker and Bellis work.


----------



## Brigit

As a side note...

I think reading AK's book would be helpful for young women who have not yet procreated. It would be an eye-opener to see how some men view women. I wonder if they knew that once they hit 40 men will view them as less valuable now that their functional vagina no longer produces product. Would they still decide to have children?

My dad put my mom threw hell. Cheated on her and then dragged her threw a terrible divorce. Treated me and my brother as credit card debt he didn't feel he should have to pay for. And moved away to live his new fun life. Needless to say it effected the way I view marriage and probably why I never had the need/want to procreate. So my thinking may be a bit skewed. However, I got a wonderful education on how men think before I became trapped like my mother and many other women. Sperm can ruin a girls life.

I'm just saying.....


----------



## NobodySpecial

Brigit said:


> As a side note...
> 
> I think reading AK's book would be helpful for young women who have not yet procreated. It would be an eye-opener to see how some men view women. I wonder if they knew that once they hit 40 men will view them as less valuable now that their functional vagina no longer produces product.


The notion that "men" feel one single way is as absurd as the notion that "women" do. The fact that a book says a thing does not mean that "men" buy it. We have posters on here who have used bits of ideas from the book while pitching the BS.

This thread is just another burst of fuel on the gender war fire.


----------



## EllisRedding

Brigit said:


> As a side note...
> 
> I think reading AK's book would be helpful for young women who have not yet procreated. It would be an eye-opener to see how some men view women. I wonder if they knew that once they hit 40 men will view them as less valuable now that their functional vagina no longer produces product. Would they still decide to have children?


Sigh ... you say in your post that "some men" view women this way, so why would it be helpful for a young woman to read??? All it will do is give her the assumption that all men are like this which is total bs. I thought it was even commented here that this book isn't even that popular or well known (someone quoted Amazon sales I believe where this book was significantly lower than other relationship books). I am sorry, but this is such a horrible suggestion, and as NS commented, just a way to further fuel the gender divide.


----------



## Brigit

NobodySpecial said:


> The notion that "men" feel one single way is as absurd as the notion that "women" do. The fact that a book says a thing does not mean that "men" buy it. We have posters on here who have used bits of ideas from the book while pitching the BS.
> 
> This thread is just another burst of fuel on the gender war fire.


Reread my post I stated "some" men.


----------



## EllisRedding

Brigit said:


> Reread my post I stated "some" men.


And read my post, if some men feel this way how is it beneficial for a young woman to read unless you want her to assume that ALL men feel this way ...:scratchhead:


----------



## Brigit

EllisRedding said:


> Sigh ... you say in your post that "some men" view women this way, so why would it be helpful for a young woman to read??? All it will do is give her the assumption that all men are like this which is total bs. I thought it was even commented here that this book isn't even that popular or well known (someone quoted Amazon sales I believe where this book was significantly lower than other relationship books). I am sorry, but this is such a horrible suggestion, and as NS commented, just a way to further fuel the gender divide.


What?

Apparently, this book has been promoted by TAM for years and here we are posting about it for days...it's the hottest thread on this forum and you think young women SHOULDN'T read it because...LOL..it might make them think twice before letting them get all "Spermed Up?" 

Nice.


----------



## Brigit

EllisRedding said:


> And read my post, if some men feel this way how is it beneficial for a young woman to read unless you want her to assume that ALL men feel this way ...:scratchhead:


You're right. Lets keep them dumb and unaware.


----------



## EllisRedding

Brigit said:


> What?
> 
> Apparently, this book has been promoted by TAM for years and here we are posting about it for days...it's the hottest thread on this forum and you think young women SHOULDN'T read it because...LOL..it might make them think twice before letting them get all "Spermed Up?"
> 
> Nice.


What is more amusing is that you think TAM is a reflection of everything going on in life ... Hey, if it is a hot thread here it must be a hot issue everywhere else, ok lol. No one I know outside of TAM even knows what any of this stuff is, and I wouldn't be surprised if the same applies to others who asked. But yeah, let's have every young woman read this book, that makes a ton of sense :scratchhead:


----------



## ConanHub

The concept of sperm war seems far fetched and has never applied to me.

I have never felt the urge to have sex with a woman that just had sex with someone else. Quite the opposite. I was actually repulsed by observing promiscuous behavior.

I can't count the young ladies that I wouldn't consider for sex because they seemed to hop from bed to bed like a game.

If sperm competition was a factor with me, wouldn't I have ravaged those attractive young women to have my sperm beat the competition?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Julius Beastcavern

ConanHub said:


> The concept of sperm war seems far fetched and has never applied to me.
> 
> I have never felt the urge to have sex with a woman that just had sex with someone else. Quite the opposite. I was actually repulsed by observing promiscuous behavior.
> 
> I can't count the young ladies that I wouldn't consider for sex because they seemed to hop from bed to bed like a game.
> 
> If sperm competition was a factor with me, wouldn't I have ravaged those attractive young women to have my sperm beat the competition?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


From what I can recall it's the woman who wants the sperm war so she gets the strongest seed


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> What is more amusing is that you think TAM is a reflection of everything going on in life ... Hey, if it is a hot thread here it must be a hot issue everywhere else, ok lol. No one I know outside of TAM even knows what any of this stuff is, and I wouldn't be surprised if the same applies to others who asked. But yeah, let's have every young woman read this book, that makes a ton of sense :scratchhead:


I think it is a good idea. Lets her in on the mindset of a player and user. Because ultimately, that is what these guys are being instructed to be.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

EllisRedding said:


> And read my post, if some men feel this way how is it beneficial for a young woman to read unless you want her to assume that ALL men feel this way ...:scratchhead:


I think it's important to teach my daughter that SOME men think this way because then she will have better luck finding one of the amazing ones who don't. 
She can understand that this kind of thinking is their issue, not hers, and to not waste her time playing silly games when there are truly wonderful men out there who respect women and deserve her respect back.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> I think it is a good idea. Lets her in on the mindset of a player and user. Because ultimately, that is what these guys are being instructed to be.


Please back up, what guys, what percentage, etc...? That is the point, you are all making the assumption that more than just "some" guys go about life with this mentality. I am sorry that you all have such a jaded view of guys that you believe enough of them act/think this way that all "non pregnant" women need to be warned in advance.


----------



## EllisRedding

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I think it's important to teach my daughter that SOME men think this way because then she will have better luck finding one of the amazing ones who don't.
> She can understand that this kind of thinking is their issue, not hers, and to not waste her time playing silly games when there are truly wonderful men out there who respect women and deserve her respect back.


Agreed as I have a daughter as well. My wife and I can teach her through communicating with her, talking to her about our life experiences, etc... not by handing her some obscure book that paints guys in such a bad manner.


----------



## Brigit

ConanHub said:


> The concept of sperm war seems far fetched and has never applied to me.
> 
> I have never felt the urge to have sex with a woman that just had sex with someone else. Quite the opposite. I was actually repulsed by observing promiscuous behavior.
> 
> I can't count the young ladies that I wouldn't consider for sex because they seemed to hop from bed to bed like a game.
> 
> If sperm competition was a factor with me, wouldn't I have ravaged those attractive young women to have my sperm beat the competition?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


LOL!

I guess so.


----------



## Brigit

jld said:


> I think it is a good idea. Lets her in on the mindset of a player and user. Because ultimately, that is what these guys are being instructed to be.


:iagree:


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

EllisRedding said:


> Agreed as I have a daughter as well. My wife and I can teach her through communicating with her, talking to her about our life experiences, etc... not by handing her some obscure book that paints guys in such a bad manner.


I couldn't even finish the book, it's laughable and ridiculous. I wouldn't give it to my daughter but I will explain about these types of men out there. 

There are some men here who have proudly stated that they give the book to their sons. Baffles me that they would encourage this type of behavior and thinking because of their own anger and insecurities instead of teaching their children to find a suitable partner.


----------



## Pluto2

EllisRedding said:


> Agreed as I have a daughter as well. My wife and I can teach her through communicating with her, talking to her about our life experiences, etc... not by handing her some obscure book that paints guys in such a bad manner.


If you really agree that the book paints guys in such a bad manner, than do you agree with FW that it should not be recommended here on TAM?

And sorry if you've already answered this, the thread is so long.....


----------



## Mycroft_63

I think a better book for dating would be "All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten." Treat your dates nicely, share what should be shared, if you don't have anything nice to say, say nothing. The golden rule applies as well.

For my wife, I would never use the red pill stuff on her on purpose. It's ridiculous. I love her and want her to be happy, not a nervous hamster trying to figure out what I'm thinking.

For my daughters, I want them to know and tell them that some guys are out there to get what they want and will use manipulation and lies to get it. There are also nice ones. Dating is how you figure it out. If the guy isn't nice, leave him alone.


----------



## Brigit

Pluto2 said:


> If you really agree that the book paints guys in such a bad manner, than do you agree with FW that it should not be recommended here on TAM?
> 
> And sorry if you've already answered this, the thread is so long.....


...and that's the million dollar question isn't it?


----------



## EllisRedding

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I couldn't even finish the book, it's laughable and ridiculous. I wouldn't give it to my daughter but I will explain about these types of men out there.
> 
> There are some men here who have proudly stated that they give the book to their sons. Baffles me that they would encourage this type of behavior and thinking because of their own anger and insecurities instead of teaching their children to find a suitable partner.


Trust me, I would not blindly give my sons' this book. Likewise though, I would not find some book about how women are evil to give to my sons b/c their are some women out there who look to manipulate guys. Goes both ways.



Pluto2 said:


> If you really agree that the book paints guys in such a bad manner, than do you agree with FW that it should not be recommended here on TAM?
> 
> And sorry if you've already answered this, the thread is so long.....


Just to confirm what I have stated before, I have never read this book, don't feel I am the intended audience, and don't plan on ever reading with where I am in life. As such I have not been here in support or against. My point has always been if there are guys who have been able to turn around their lives/marriages thanks to the book than we shouldn't just blindly dismiss, and I think at a minimum it has been helpful that they have verbalized exactly how the book helped them. I feel that is a fair assessment. Some members here though have such a hatred/bias though that they can't even consider this.


----------



## RandomDude

EllisRedding said:


> Just to confirm what I have stated before, I have never read this book, don't feel I am the intended audience, and don't plan on ever reading with where I am in life. As such I have not been here in support or against. *My point has always been if there are guys who have been able to turn around their lives/marriages thanks to the book than we shouldn't just blindly dismiss, and I think at a minimum it has been helpful that they have verbalized exactly how the book helped them*. I feel that is a fair assessment. Some members here though have such a hatred/bias though that they can't even consider this.


Agreed 100%

Hell this thread goes fast, one day and it's like... 20 pages =/


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

EllisRedding said:


> Trust me, I would not blindly give my sons' this book. Likewise though,* I would not find some book about how women are evil to give to my sons b/c their are some women out there who look to manipulate guys.* Goes both ways.
> 
> 
> .


^ that would be the same book


----------



## EllisRedding

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> ^ that would be the same book


lol, so no books for my kids unless they want to keep re reading Harry Potter


----------



## ConanHub

I think young ladies should be aware of red pill teaching. Would definitely help them when encountering a red pill or pua practitioner.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Pluto2

EllisRedding said:


> Trust me, I would not blindly give my sons' this book. Likewise though, I would not find some book about how women are evil to give to my sons b/c their are some women out there who look to manipulate guys. Goes both ways.
> 
> 
> 
> Just to confirm what I have stated before, I have never read this book, don't feel I am the intended audience, and don't plan on ever reading with where I am in life. As such I have not been here in support or against. My point has always been if there are guys who have been able to turn around their lives/marriages thanks to the book than we shouldn't just blindly dismiss, and I think at a minimum it has been helpful that they have verbalized exactly how the book helped them. I feel that is a fair assessment. Some members here though have such a hatred/bias though that they can't even consider this.


So then, you don't want your daughter to read it, but if you had a son, then it might help him?
:scratchhead:


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

EllisRedding said:


> My point has always been if there are guys who have been able to turn around their lives/marriages thanks to the book than we shouldn't just blindly dismiss, and I think at a minimum it has been helpful that they have verbalized exactly how the book helped them. I feel that is a fair assessment. Some members here though have such a hatred/bias though that they can't even consider this.


So it goes back to if it just works (on a base level) vs. healthy for a marriage.

Where do you draw the line? If a guy found that it "worked" if he physically threatened his wife everytime she rejected him-should that be ok to suggest to other men who have been rejected?
If a woman found that it "worked" to have her husband pay more attention to her if she went out and slept with other men- should that be ok to suggest to other women who's husbands don't pay attention?


----------



## EllisRedding

Pluto2 said:


> So then, you don't want your daughter to read it, but if you had a son, then it might help him?
> :scratchhead:


How you got any of that out of my post, you must be on Pluto 

I have sons and already stated I would expect myself and my wife to communicate with them and not rely on a book. 

As far as any sort of recommendation for the book, I would never recommend, but it really is very simple (although some of you don't want to believe this). I have never read the book, I would never recommend something that I have never read nor something I have never applied to my own personal experiences (which I have already stated multiple times here). You guys are reading way too much into this ...


----------



## Anon1111

different take:

there are 2 categories of relationship problems: mutual failures and singular failures.

This is an assumption. If you believe there are ONLY mutual failures, then you will disagree with what I am about to say.

A mutual failure requires that both partners step up. If either fails, the mutual failure will not resolve.

A singular failure requires that only 1 partner steps up. It can be solved by a single partner correcting his/her failure.

I think a lot of the disagreement here is around some people thinking singular failures are mutual failures and vice versa.

Put differently, maybe some red pill dudes are trying to solve a mutual failure as if it is a singular failure. They cannot really solve the problem with their method because they have misunderstood the problem.

The converse is that maybe some anti-red pill women (and men) confuse some singular failures as mutual failures. They fail to see that an individual action can correct a singular failure. This may be because the effect of correcting a singular failure can be a mutually satisfying relationship, so it looks like the problem was mutual all along.


----------



## EllisRedding

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> So it goes back to if it just works (on a base level) vs. healthy for a marriage.
> 
> Where do you draw the line? If a guy found that it "worked" if he physically threatened his wife everytime she rejected him-should that be ok to suggest to other men who have been rejected?
> If a woman found that it "worked" to have her husband pay more attention to her if she went out and slept with other men- should that be ok to suggest to other women who's husbands don't pay attention?


I know at this point I sound like a broken record, but once again, I am not here to make judgment on guys who have applied some/all of the principals in the book. I don't know anything about their situation, I don't know much about the book aside from what folks here have mentioned. If I am going to make a judgment on the book it would need to be based on me actually reading which as I have stated I see no need to read. All I am simply stating, and have stated many times, the guys who feel like this book has in some manner improved their lives/marriages should be allowed to express how it helped. You all are of course welcome to share your opinions which you do, and that is what a forum is for.

Any opinions I have thrown around here have been more directed at posts which have come across as being hypocritical from my viewpoint. If you want to paint me as some pro pill or whatever you call it, I really don't know what to say except shrug my shoulders and laugh.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Julius Beastcavern said:


> From what I can recall it's the woman who wants the sperm war so she gets the strongest seed


This book is so screwed up, which way is up and which way is down.


----------



## naiveonedave

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> So it goes back to if it just works (on a base level) vs. healthy for a marriage.
> 
> Where do you draw the line? If a guy found that it "worked" if he physically threatened his wife everytime she rejected him-should that be ok to suggest to other men who have been rejected?
> If a woman found that it "worked" to have her husband pay more attention to her if she went out and slept with other men- should that be ok to suggest to other women who's husbands don't pay attention?


you seem to ignore what the guys who read mmsl actually are doing.....


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Ellis- Did you read a lot before joining? I see you've been here about a month and I browsed through your thread. Many amazing posters on there who have made this forum a lot more inclusive and welcoming. 

As FW has said, it's come a long way. She couldn't have had a thread this productive a while ago.

A lot of the voices here have seen the mmslp and red pill stuff for years and it does become an issue which is why it's being talked about. Wives being called wh*res, b*tches, c*m buckets (yep) and men being told it's ok to treat them like that. There has been a lot of really insulting -yet completely accepted- talks about women and the more it happens, the more it attracts other men to do the same. 
Hopefully the more posters like FW stand up to it, the less it will happen.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I think it's important to teach my daughter that SOME men think this way because then she will have better luck finding one of the amazing ones who don't.
> She can understand that this kind of thinking is their issue, not hers, and to not waste her time playing silly games when there are truly wonderful men out there who respect women and deserve her respect back.


Be very wise, but very innocent


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Blossom Leigh said:


> Be very wise, but very innocent


LOL I'm hoping between me and her Dad we can keep her away from the idiot boys and won't have to be anything other than herself.

You know when some girls come home and say that "Bobby pulled my hair" and some parents will be all "awww he's just doing that because he likes you" 
Nope. He's doing that because he's a jerk. Stay away from him. 
(or H would say "kick his @ss" or "tell me where he lives so I can kick his @ss")

My daughter is beautiful. I worry for her.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> LOL I'm hoping between me and her Dad we can keep her away from the idiot boys and won't have to be anything other than herself.
> 
> You know when some girls come home and say that "Bobby pulled my hair" and some parents will be all "awww he's just doing that because he likes you"
> Nope. He's doing that because he's a jerk. Stay away from him.
> (or H would say "kick his @ss" or "tell me where he lives so I can kick his @ss")
> 
> My daughter is beautiful. I worry for her.


I even do that with my son. If a child is unkind I coach him to not return it and to lay a boundary. Teaching what kind of treatment is ok and what is not ok and how to navigate both.


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> Quote from MMSL:
> 
> On a biological level, the Male Body Agenda assumes that the female he is having sex with will be unfaithful. By constantly seeking to top off a female’s reproductive tract with sperm, he assures himself a standing army inside her ready to repel another male’s sperm if she cheats on him. A wife can avoid having a standing army of her husband’s sperm inside her by simply denying him sex. A couple can have fairly frequent sex, *but if she avoids sex with him, or just gives him handjobs or blowjobs in the three or four days before she ovulates, the husband is rendered defenseless from a sperm warfare perspective if she meets a lover for sex*. There’s no standing army of the husband’s sperm to fight off the lover’s sperm.
> 
> Importantly because the lover is not likely to have many attempts at sex with the wife, his ejaculation will be extremely large and flood her vagina. The husband is at a decided disadvantage. It’s important to wave the flag again that this sort of planned deceit on the wife’s part can happen completely unconsciously; the Rationalization Hamster can likely supply several excellent reasons as to why she avoided her husband’s semen in her vagina for a few days before she ovulated. Plus obviously the hook-up with the lover was just an appalling lapse of character. She’s not that kind of girl. In fact she’s just realized from that hook-up how very empty sex without love can be and she now knows that deep down she really loves her husband and wants to make it work with him. So perhaps some good came of the whole thing. The Rationalization Hamster is holding off on telling her she’s pregnant for a bit…missed periods sometimes just happen you know. (See how the Rationalization Hamster works?)
> 
> *Sperm warfare also explains why if a husband is denied regular sex with his wife, he typically becomes fixated on the lack of sex with her to the exclusion of every other issue in the relationship. After five days of no vaginal sex, all his sperm inside her are either dead or have dripped out of her. In a “get her pregnant” sense it’s like he’s never had sex with her. He wants her topped off; instead she’s completely empty of his sperm*. She is therefore providing him with a very strong expression of disinterest in him. She may say that she loves him, but he will typically experience her actions as a deeply concerning rejection.
> 
> (end quote)
> 
> Interpret this however you wish, technovelist.


Yes, I know that he said that. However, what YOU had previously said is that alpha males don't allow HJs or BJs, which is clearly not what the quoted passage said.

Thus, it is clear that you have been misrepresenting the book.

How many more of your false statements do I have to expose before you get the message that no one should believe your representations of the book?


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

naiveonedave said:


> you seem to ignore what the guys who read mmsl actually are doing.....


How they think is just as important as the actions they are doing. 

You keep saying all you did was work-out, be more involved with the kids, etc but your mindset has been altered. How you view women has changed. 
That is what mmslp is actually doing to many men.


----------



## Brigit

technovelist said:


> Yes, I know that he said that. However, what YOU had previously said is that alpha males don't allow HJs or BJs, which is clearly not what the quoted passage said.
> 
> Thus, it is clear that you have been misrepresenting the book.
> 
> How many more of your false statements do I have to expose before you get the message that no one should believe your representations of the book?


TBH I never read the book only the passages that I've read here which are disturbing. Can you quote some passages from the book which seem over the top?


----------



## EllisRedding

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Ellis- Did you read a lot before joining? I see you've been here about a month and I browsed through your thread. Many amazing posters on there who have made this forum a lot more inclusive and welcoming.
> 
> As FW has said, it's come a long way. She couldn't have had a thread this productive a while ago.
> 
> A lot of the voices here have seen the mmslp and red pill stuff for years and it does become an issue which is why it's being talked about. Wives being called wh*res, b*tches, c*m buckets (yep) and men being told it's ok to treat them like that. There has been a lot of really insulting -yet completely accepted- talks about women and the more it happens, the more it attracts other men to do the same.
> Hopefully the more posters like FW stand up to it, the less it will happen.


Do you mean read this forum before joining? If so no, only when I joined did I start reading, and the reason for me joining was to sort out some issues my wife and I were having which you saw in my thread (which I am happy to report have been sorted out :smthumbup. I do realize things may or may not have been different before I joined, and I don't discard the opinions of others who have stated as such. However, I can only speak to which I have experienced since being here.

Side note, just finished showering in the locker room at my office gym, and I guess the female custodian thought that would be a good time to buff the bathroom floors


----------



## jld

I think kids take their blueprint for marital relationships from watching their parents. That is partly why this RP stuff is so concerning. The attitude behind it, that you have to game your partner, instead of being honest and open with her, is just not a healthy example for kids.


----------



## Brigit

jld said:


> I think kids take their blueprint for marital relationships from watching their parents. That is partly why this RP stuff is so concerning. The attitude behind it, that you have to game your partner, instead of being honest and open with her, is just not a healthy example for kids.


And truth be told how long can one keep up the game? Or want to? Life is hard enough. All this Red Pill stuff will probably make the one playing it exhausted and the one getting played confused.

When you're dating there is going to some game playing: that's normal. Once you get married working together to solve the issues is the only answer.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

jld said:


> I think kids take their blueprint for marital relationships from watching their parents. That is partly why this RP stuff is so concerning. The attitude behind it, that you have to game your partner, instead of being honest and open with her, is just not a healthy example for kids.


:iagree: Treat your partner the way you'd want your son or daughter to be treated. 

If it wouldn't be good enough for your daughter to be with a man who looked at her like a replaceable vagina who he had to watch like a hawk because she's a wh*re and will go to fill herself up with sperm as soon as you run to the bathroom then don't think of your wife- and her mother- that way.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> I think kids take their blueprint for marital relationships from watching their parents. That is partly why this RP stuff is so concerning. The attitude behind it, that you have to game your partner, instead of being honest and open with her, is just not a healthy example for kids.


I got my blueprint from my parents as well ... how not to handle a marriage  Seems to have worked, my wife and I are a heck of a lot happier than my parents were ever (before they got divorced) and even my wife's parents.


----------



## tech-novelist

Brigit said:


> TBH I never read the book only the passages that I've read here which are disturbing. Can you quote some passages from the book which seem over the top?


*Most *of the book is deliberately "over the top" in the sense that it is intended as, and is written in the manner of, a slap in the face for men whose marriages are sexless or nearly so. It is not a theoretical tome on a theoretical subject, but a call to action. Such writing often requires harsh words to have the intended effect.

If one can get past the manner of delivery, and is in the target audience, one can indeed get a lot of information about how it might be possible to turn around an unsatisfactory marriage, and some men report great success in using this information.


----------



## jld

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> How they think is just as important as the actions they are doing.
> 
> You keep saying all you did was work-out, be more involved with the kids, etc but *your mindset has been altered. How you view women has changed. *
> That is what mmslp is actually doing to many men.


Totally agree. Instead of building trust, men are taught to be manipulative. And the playing on a woman's insecurities, as Blossom said, is so unkind.

I agree that FW has done a public service by drawing attention not only to one book, but the issue of misogyny, period. 

I was reading an article she posted last night about how fear and hatred of women drive the RP movement. I am slow to see that sort of thing, because I very idealistically tend to think everyone is honest.


----------



## jld

Brigit said:


> And truth be told how long can one keep up the game? Or want to? Life is hard enough. All this Red Pill stuff will probably make the one playing it exhausted and the one getting played confused.
> 
> When you're dating there is going to some game playing: that's normal. Once you get married working together to solve the issues is the only answer.


See, I don't even think that is normal during dating. I was honest from the second day with my husband. Just sat down (actually, during a walk ) and laid all my cards on the table. Told him every reason I could think of that he would not want to be with me. 

He heard everything and still wanted me. No surprises later, no tricks. Full disclosure.


----------



## EllisRedding

Here is an interesting article that tries to justify the "Happy Wife Happy Life" concept via a researched study.

One thing I found interesting was this tidbit:



> When it comes to a happy marriage, a new Rutgers study finds that the more content the wife is with the long-term union, the happier the husband is with his life no matter how he feels about their nuptials.


So this would imply that Happy Wife does not necessarily translate into a happy marriage. Maybe the husband is just happy with life b/c he may not be at home in as much a stressful environment or not getting what he may perceive as nagged as frequent?


----------



## Brigit

jld said:


> See, I don't even think that is normal during dating. I was honest from the second day with my husband. Just sat down (actually, during a walk ) and laid all my cards on the table. Told him every reason I could think of that he would not want to be with me.
> 
> He heard everything and still wanted me. No surprises later, no tricks. Full disclosure.


So you tried to scare him away?


----------



## jld

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> :iagree: Treat your partner the way you'd want your son or daughter to be treated.
> 
> If it wouldn't be good enough for your daughter to be with a man who looked at her like a replaceable vagina who he had to watch like a hawk because she's a wh*re and will go to fill herself up with sperm as soon as you run to the bathroom then don't think of your wife- and her mother- that way.


Totally agree. But a lot of men do not seem to show the same level of care for their wives that they do their daughters. Sad.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

technovelist said:


> *Most *of the book is deliberately "over the top" in the sense that it is intended as, and is written in the manner of, a slap in the face for men whose marriages are sexless or nearly so. It is not a theoretical tome on a theoretical subject, but a call to action. Such writing often requires harsh words to have the intended effect.
> 
> If one can get past the manner of delivery, and is in the target audience, one can indeed get a lot of information about how it might be possible to turn around an unsatisfactory marriage, and some men report great success in using this information.


I mentioned this before but the reason the woman hate is in the book is not to slap men in the face, it's part of his "plan". He needs you to look at women without respect so you can build yourself up enough to play them. Because HE can't be secure in himself without knocking someone else down. He preys on men in the same boat and instead of teaching love and respect, tells them that women are wh*res, slvts, and want to be used as such so put them in their place so you can feel like a man.


----------



## jld

Brigit said:


> So you tried to scare him away?


Not on purpose. 

I had just come out of an unhealthy relationship. I was pretty burnt out. And then there was Dug, expressing interest. I just did not have any energy to impress him in any way. He had to like me without any makeup, so to speak. And if he could not handle the things I had to tell him, I just did not want to bother trying to form a relationship.

One more thing on this: I don't think women should try very hard in relationships. I would advise total honesty. But beyond that, the man should be proving he is worth her while.


----------



## Faithful Wife

technovelist said:


> Yes, I know that he said that. However, what YOU had previously said is that alpha males don't allow HJs or BJs, which is clearly not what the quoted passage said.
> 
> Thus, it is clear that you have been misrepresenting the book.
> 
> How many more of your false statements do I have to expose before you get the message that no one should believe your representations of the book?


And once again, I ask for scientific proof that any of these have anything to do with human mating....

sperm wars (none)

preselection (none)

hypergamy (none)


And your answer every time I ask for proof of the things you believe that come from MMSL and red pill stuff....these things that you and other men bandy about as SCIENCE!!! yet when asked for proof your answer is..."look, a monkey!"

Yet you want me to listen to you and your opinion, while you put me and my opinion down?

Back on ignore.


----------



## Julius Beastcavern

jld said:


> Not on purpose.
> 
> I had just come out of an unhealthy relationship. I was pretty burnt out. And then there was Dug, expressing interest. I just did not have any energy to impress him in any way. He had to like me without any makeup, so to speak. And if he could not handle the things I had to tell him, I just did not want to bother trying to form a relationship.
> 
> One more thing on this: *I don't think women should try very hard in relationships*. I would advise total honesty. But beyond that, the man should be proving he is worth her while.


What lead you to that viewpoint? past experience?


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> Here is an interesting article that tries to justify the "Happy Wife Happy Life" concept via a researched study.
> 
> One thing I found interesting was this tidbit:
> 
> 
> 
> So this would imply that Happy Wife does not necessarily translate into a happy marriage. Maybe the husband is just happy with life b/c he may not be at home in as much a stressful environment or not getting what he may perceive as nagged as frequent?


I don't know how you got that out of it. I think the wife is happy because the man was nice to her in the first place. I think it is an endorsement of happy wife, happy life.


----------



## jld

Julius Beastcavern said:


> What lead you to that viewpoint? past experience?


Yes. I think the best relationships are where the man carries the marriage. The more I hear a man focus on his wife's shortcomings, the more suspicious I am of him as a husband.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> I don't know how you got that out of it. I think the wife is happy because the man was nice to her in the first place. I think it is an endorsement of happy wife, happy life.


It is an endorsement of happy wife happy life.



> the happier the husband is with his life no matter how he feels about their nuptials.


So this quote says it did not matter how he felt about his nuptials. This could just as easily imply he wasn't happy with his marriage, otherwise why separate this from happy life?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Sooooo.... I have said this a few times now.....is there anyone here, man or woman, who can show any PROOF of anything behind MMSL or red pill, and I mean the SCIENCE parts?

Anyone?

Bueller?

And if this isn't possible, why do rational thinking men read this book and NOT check into ANY of the SCIENCE of it themselves?

And if it isn't SCIENCE....since there really isn't any evidence....then why do any of you continue to spread the message as if it is science? Why not just say "this is my opinion, this is Athol Kay's opinion?"

If we could at least get that far, I'd be fine with MMSL.

But honestly, I don't understand this....men usually seem to want to know there is evidence behind something if someone is saying it is PROVEN SCIENCE. Not this book though, someone lays this stuff out for you and you don't even question it.


----------



## Julius Beastcavern

jld said:


> Yes. I think the best relationships are where the man carries the marriage. The more I hear a man focus on his wife's shortcomings, the more suspicious I am of him as a husband.


I don't really agree with that viewpoint but I thinks it's great you told Dug upfront rather than spring it on him later and it works for you two


----------



## Pluto2

jld said:


> One more thing on this: I don't think women should try very hard in relationships. I would advise total honesty. But beyond that, the man should be proving he is worth her while.


I agree with a lot of what you've posted but I disagree with this. IMO, both parties have equal responsibility and obligation to work on the relationship. Obviously, nothing is completely equal, but I don't see one person carrying a healthy relationship. But that's me, and my opinion, is just that, my opinion. What works for one couple won't work for all.


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> It is an endorsement of happy wife happy life.
> 
> So this quote says it did not matter how he felt about his nuptials. This could just as easily imply he wasn't happy with his marriage, otherwise why separate this from happy life?


Well, as I understand it, he is happy regardless of any particular feelings he has about the marriage. 

Maybe he thinks it is kind of unfair what he does in the marriage compared to what she does. But if she is happy, he is happy.

Sheesh, if they are both happy, it is all good!


----------



## EllisRedding

Pluto2 said:


> I agree with a lot of what you've posted but I disagree with this. IMO, both parties have equal responsibility and obligation to work on the relationship. Obviously, nothing is completely equal, but I don't see one person carrying a healthy relationship. But that's me, and my opinion, is just that, my opinion. What works for one couple won't work for all.


Can't agree with this post enough ... :iagree::iagree::iagree:


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> *Well, as I understand it, he is happy regardless of any particular feelings he has about the marriage. *
> 
> Maybe he thinks it is kind of unfair what he does in the marriage compared to what she does. But if she is happy, he is happy.
> 
> Sheesh, if they are both happy, it is all good!


We are saying the same thing . I just thought it interesting that there wasn't necessarily a correlation between being happy in life and actually being happy with the marriage itself. I know you like to argue for the sake of arguing though, so its all good


----------



## jld

Pluto2 said:


> I agree with a lot of what you've posted but I disagree with this. IMO, both parties have equal responsibility and obligation to work on the relationship. Obviously, nothing is completely equal, but I don't see one person carrying a healthy relationship. But that's me, and my opinion, is just that, my opinion. What works for one couple won't work for all.


I appreciate that, Pluto. I think my viewpoint concerns a lot of women. And I can certainly learn from hearing those concerns.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> I don't know how you got that out of it. I think the wife is happy because the man was nice to her in the first place. I think it is an endorsement of happy wife, happy life.


Yet that happiness comes from within AND without, it is not all from without


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Pluto2 said:


> I agree with a lot of what you've posted but I disagree with this. IMO, both parties have equal responsibility and obligation to work on the relationship. Obviously, nothing is completely equal, but I don't see one person carrying a healthy relationship. But that's me, and my opinion, is just that, my opinion. What works for one couple won't work for all.


I am in agreement


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> I appreciate that, Pluto. I think my viewpoint concerns a lot of women. And I can certainly learn from hearing those concerns.


There is a balance that is missing


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> We are saying the same thing . I just thought it interesting that there wasn't necessarily a correlation between being happy in life and actually being happy with the marriage itself. *I know you like to argue for the sake of arguing though, so its all good*


Projection? 

What I am imagining from the article is a guy saying, I go to work all day, I go where she wants on vacation, I eat at the restaurants she wants to eat at. It seems unfair in a way. But you know what? When she is happy, she not only does a lot for me, too, but she does it cheerfully. And _that_ makes me happy!

Sounds like my neighbors, actually.


----------



## EllisRedding

Blossom Leigh said:


> There is a balance that is missing


I would have no desire to be in my marriage if it was solely my responsibility to make it work. If she doesn't want to try very hard in a relationship, than don't let the door hit you on the way out ...


----------



## Blossom Leigh

FW I think you said you looked for the science to back up Athol's work and found it lacking, is that correct?

Just wanted to confirm.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> *Projection? *
> 
> What I am imagining from the article is a guy saying, I go to work all day, I go where she wants on vacation, I eat at the restaurants she wants to eat at. It seems unfair in a way. But you know what? When she is happy, she not only does a lot for me, too, but she does it cheerfully. And _that_ makes me happy!


Just havin some fun, hopefully people here still remember it is ok to joke around a little (although I know it is frowned upon lol) 

And I do see your point, but if she does a lot for him too than he should be happy with the marriage  I am not saying that is the case, solely that why break out separately how he feels about the nuptials, if they are tied directly together there is no need to.


----------



## jld

Faithful Wife said:


> Sooooo.... I have said this a few times now.....is there anyone here, man or woman, who can show any PROOF of anything behind MMSL or red pill, and I mean the SCIENCE parts?
> 
> Anyone?
> 
> Bueller?
> 
> And if this isn't possible, why do rational thinking men read this book and NOT check into ANY of the SCIENCE of it themselves?
> 
> And if it isn't SCIENCE....since there really isn't any evidence....then why do any of you continue to spread the message as if it is science? Why not just say "this is my opinion, this is Athol Kay's opinion?"
> 
> If we could at least get that far, I'd be fine with MMSL.
> 
> But honestly, I don't understand this....men usually seem to want to know there is evidence behind something if someone is saying it is PROVEN SCIENCE. Not this book though, someone lays this stuff out for you and you don't even question it.


They want to believe it, I think, so they do not need much convincing.

I suppose it reassures them to think there is some sort of science behind it. Makes them feel smart, or maybe not as bad about themselves for doing the manipulative things recommended. Justifies it all somehow?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Just a cute footnote....last night I talked to my husband. I have told him before that I will be writing a book eventually. So I said I'm about to start writing it finally, and said I was going to need his help on some of it, to get his take on these issues. He asked some questions, who was the target reader, did I have a title yet, a little more about the meat and potatoes of the book. He nodded along in agreement and said he'd help me. I told him I would still stay anonymous and use my pen name for now, but eventually it probably won't matter. Besides a book I plan to do some other things, like some fun non-porn, fully clothed, but sexy instructional videos for youtube (with us giving the demonstration)...he already knew I have that in mind, too.

Then after we wrapped up this conversation, he pretended he had a microphone in his hand which he shoved in front of my face like he was interviewing me for my book release and he said "so....what's your position on inflatables?"


----------



## Faithful Wife

Blossom Leigh said:


> FW I think you said you looked for the science to back up Athol's work and found it lacking, is that correct?
> 
> Just wanted to confirm.


Yes...but I am still open to anyone else showing me something I couldn't find on my own....something that is real, backed up science. I'm still waiting, and have actually asked for this going back 3 years now.


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> And once again, I ask for scientific proof that any of these have anything to do with human mating....
> 
> sperm wars (none)
> 
> preselection (none)
> 
> hypergamy (none)
> 
> 
> And your answer every time I ask for proof of the things you believe that come from MMSL and red pill stuff....these things that you and other men bandy about as SCIENCE!!! yet when asked for proof your answer is..."look, a monkey!"
> 
> Yet you want me to listen to you and your opinion, while you put me and my opinion down?
> 
> Back on ignore.


No, my response is "you are misrepresenting the book, and here's exactly how".

Of course I understand that you don't want to admit that, because then your credibility collapses.

But it is true nonetheless.


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> And once again, I ask for scientific proof that any of these have anything to do with human mating....
> 
> sperm wars (none)
> 
> preselection (none)
> 
> hypergamy (none)
> 
> 
> And your answer every time I ask for proof of the things you believe that come from MMSL and red pill stuff....these things that you and other men bandy about as SCIENCE!!! yet when asked for proof your answer is..."look, a monkey!"
> 
> Yet you want me to listen to you and your opinion, while you put me and my opinion down?
> 
> Back on ignore.


Hypergamy is well established as having an effect on human mating. See Hypergamy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


----------



## Faithful Wife

jld said:


> They want to believe it, I think, so they do not need much convincing.
> 
> I suppose it reassures them to think there is some sort of science behind it. Makes them feel smart, or maybe not as bad about themselves for doing the manipulative things recommended. Justifies it all somehow?


But if we were to talk about something we claim is science and can be proven...yet there is no actual proof available...wouldn't they just freak out about this? 

Why hasn't even one man stepped up to Athol or others who push the red pill and pointed out this lack of science? In what other community would this happen, where people can claim science backs up their claims, yet there is literally NO evidence. Actually I'm sure there ARE men who put the book down the moment they realized this....but why haven't other men actually brought this issue forth themselves in the red pill community?


----------



## Lila

Faithful Wife said:


> But if we were to talk about something we claim is science and can be proven...yet there is no actual proof available...wouldn't they just freak out about this?
> 
> Why hasn't even one man stepped up to Athol or others who push the red pill and pointed out this lack of science? In what other community would this happen, where people can claim science backs up their claims, yet there is literally NO evidence. Actually I'm sure there ARE men who put the book down the moment they realized this....but why haven't other men actually brought this issue forth themselves in the red pill community?


FW, it's interesting that some of the guys keep overlooking AK's claim that his book is based on SCIENCE. I wonder if they feel the same way about this article published in the British Medical Journal last year.

The Darwin Awards: sex differences in idiotic behaviour | The BMJ

The article supports the “Male Idiot Theory” (MIT)". "The theory suggests that the differences in risk seeking behavior between men and women can be explained by the observation that men are idiots and idiots do stupid things."

Here's a short synopsis:



> In the paper, the authors state, “there is a class of risk—the ‘idiotic’ risk—that is qualitatively different from those associated with, say, contact sports or adventure pursuits such as parachuting. Idiotic risks are defined as senseless risks, where the apparent payoff is negligible or non-existent, and the outcome is often extremely negative and often final.”


Now, keep in mind that this article WAS published in a academic medical journal. Was it as a joke or tongue-in-cheek? Probably, but if we used the logic that many here are taking with AK, then this is SCIENCE proven solely by "Darwin Awards" records. Yes, it's all very stupid.


----------



## jld

Faithful Wife said:


> But if we were to talk about something we claim is science and can be proven...yet there is no actual proof available...wouldn't they just freak out about this?
> 
> Why hasn't even one man stepped up to Athol or others who push the red pill and pointed out this lack of science? In what other community would this happen, where people can claim science backs up their claims, yet there is literally NO evidence. Actually I'm sure there ARE men who put the book down the moment they realized this....but why haven't other men actually brought this issue forth themselves in the red pill community?


All they really want is sex, right? That is their bottom line.

So if they get that, the brain turns off. The mission has been accomplished.

I don't think _integrity_ is what they are seeking.


----------



## naiveonedave

Brigit said:


> And truth be told how long can one keep up the game? Or want to? Life is hard enough. All this Red Pill stuff will probably make the one playing it exhausted and the one getting played confused.
> 
> When you're dating there is going to some game playing: that's normal. Once you get married working together to solve the issues is the only answer.


here is the problem with what you said. Nothing I did based on mmsl is a game nor is it faking stuff. I made deliberate changes to me physically and mentally how I approach my marriage. They are not temporary, or at least I don't plan them to be.


----------



## Marduk

technovelist said:


> Hypergamy is well established as having an effect on human mating. See Hypergamy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


I think the question at hand is if it's driven by biology or society.

Personally, I think it's both, and that both men and women do it. It's called finding people attractive, and going for the most attractive person you think you can get. In other words, dating.

Personally I think the biological component is probably pretty small beyond "find a good babymaking mate" and is swamped by all kinds of societal defintions of what "a good mate is." Because that likely looks different than it did 100K years ago.

Although external secondary sexual characteristics probably trigger some of that -- signs of fitness, vitality, strength, intelligence, etc.

It's just what what those signs are probably flexes quite strongly with what society tells us they are. What they are probably not going to manifest as is "oh, goody, there's an available man with SR+1, I'm going to go cheat on my husband because science."


----------



## naiveonedave

Faithful Wife said:


> And once again, I ask for scientific proof that any of these have anything to do with human mating....
> 
> sperm wars (none)
> 
> preselection (none)
> 
> hypergamy (none)
> 
> 
> And your answer every time I ask for proof of the things you believe that come from MMSL and red pill stuff....these things that you and other men bandy about as SCIENCE!!! yet when asked for proof your answer is..."look, a monkey!"
> 
> Yet you want me to listen to you and your opinion, while you put me and my opinion down?
> 
> Back on ignore.


meh, I gave you preselection, but you chose to ignore me. I buy the sperm wars is bunk, though there may actually be some biology behind it, I am sure it is not proven. Hypergamy - you see it all the time, but I am sure that not all women are. What fraction, who knows? You look around CWI and SIM, and men with out jobs lose attraction from their wives. Not science, but it does seem to lead to problems.


----------



## jld

naiveonedave said:


> here is the problem with what you said. Nothing I did based on mmsl is a game nor is it faking stuff. I made deliberate changes to me physically and mentally how I approach my marriage. They are not temporary, or at least I don't plan them to be.


You don't strike me as a bad guy, Dave. Don't you think you could have gotten what helped you from a less controversial source?


----------



## naiveonedave

jld said:


> You don't strike me as a bad guy, Dave. Don't you think you could have gotten what helped you from a less controversial source?


yes, but as Marduke has pointed out ad naseum, no other source has been presented. I didn't get it from WOSM or NMMNG.

I went on a red pill blog last night. There is hate there. MMSL, maybe some, but you need to really read the MAP section, which prescribes what to do..... And the hate ain't there.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> All they really want is sex, right? That is their bottom line.
> 
> So if they get that, the brain turns off. The mission has been accomplished.
> 
> I don't think _integrity_ is what they are seeking.


Actually JLD that's a pretty ****ty thing to say. And, for me, it's not what happened at all.

It was borne out of desperation. I was literally about to walk away from my wife and dynamite my little cozy family for my kids.

It presented what looked to be a plausible model, and even more than that it spoke to the male primate in me -- 'do this, get that.'

No fuzziness. No ambiguity. No reliance on my wife buying into anything or trying anything. It was simply 'follow these steps and she will either comply or not.'

When it worked, my brain did not shut off. I sought to figure out why it worked. I engaged AK and others on deep dialogue about it. I looked at society and biology as best I could. And... I did not find answers. From either side of the debate -- one side said it was stupid and didn't work, but it did work. The other side said it worked, and here's why. But they 'why' only made sense in certain limited situations.

So I re-wrote my MAP. I took from it what made sense to me, and rejected the rest. And then when I discovered that it was actually forming a barrier to emotional intimacy, I jettisoned all of it.

And, in doing so, almost lost my marriage again.

That's not what happened at all.

Don't shame men who are desperatly trying to keep their marriages intact, and desperately trying to love their wives, and make them happy.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Evolutionary Psychology Can't Be Wrong, Says Evolutionary Psychologist


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> Don't shame men who are desperatly trying to keep their marriages intact, and desperately trying to love their wives, and make them happy.


Sorry but that is exactly what men learn to do by swallowing the red pill.

Women need to be ashamed of how WOMEN and feminism have ruined men.

Women need to be ashamed of their sexuality, since they are hypergamous wh*res.

Women need to be ashamed that hamsters run around in their brains.

Women need to be ashamed that they have sexual attraction to hunky NBA players and not to regular Nice Guys with beer guts (because hey, the Nice Guy would "do anyone", therefore the woman should be ashamed of her desires, how dare she be turned on by that?).

Men read this stuff and try to get their egos back in check, by shaming and hating women, meanwhile trying to "get sex" from them.

Sorry, but that IS shameful.

The desire to fix your marriage isn't shameful. But reading, believing and applying the dark stuff in red pill is shameful.

Just as a woman reading gold digger books would also be shameful, even if she did it out of love for some man.

MMSL states right up front that it is shady and lacks integrity and that men DO just want sex. JLD didn't make that up, that crap is what the book is based on.


----------



## Marduk

The only path through this, ladies and gentleman, is a reconciliation.

I'm firmly convinced of that.

Because both sides of the debate are both right and wrong.

The red pill folks are right about it getting them laid, but wrong about the 'why' of that. Or even the 'how' long term (loving, kind, etc).

The anti-red pill folks are right about finding faults with the 'whys' and the 'hows' long-term. But they're wrong if they think it doesn't work, or saying it doesn't matter if it does work. Because sexless marriages are a problem in society.


----------



## jld

naiveonedave said:


> yes, but as Marduke has pointed out ad naseum, no other source has been presented. I didn't get it from WOSM or NMMNG.
> 
> I went on a red pill blog last night. There is hate there. MMSL, maybe some, but you need to really read the MAP section, which prescribes what to do..... And the hate ain't there.


Have you ever said exactly what you did, Dave? Because I think a book like _7 Habits of Highly Effective People _could have given you the same lose weight, work out advice as MMSLP, plus a lot of great instruction on how to form emotional bonds. And those bonds are what will carry a marriage long term.


----------



## Marduk

naiveonedave said:


> yes, but as Marduke has pointed out ad naseum, no other source has been presented. I didn't get it from WOSM or NMMNG.
> 
> I went on a red pill blog last night. There is hate there. MMSL, maybe some, but you need to really read the MAP section, which prescribes what to do..... And the hate ain't there.





Faithful Wife said:


> Sorry but that is exactly what men learn to do by swallowing the red pill.
> 
> Women need to be ashamed of how WOMEN and feminism have ruined men.
> 
> Women need to be ashamed of their sexuality, since they are hypergamous wh*res.
> 
> Women need to be ashamed that hamsters run around in their brains.
> 
> Men read this stuff and try to get their egos back in check, by shaming and hating women, meanwhile trying to "get sex" from them.
> 
> Sorry, but that IS shameful.
> 
> The desire to fix your marriage isn't. But reading, believing and applying the dark stuff in red pill is shameful.
> 
> Just as a woman reading gold digger books would also be shameful, even if she did it out of love for some man.
> 
> MMSL states right up front that it is shady and lacks integrity and that men DO just want sex. JLD didn't make that up, that crap is what the book is based on.


Yes!

But I didn't shut my brain off, or lack integrity about it.

If I did, I'd still be doing it, and wouldn't have rejected the dark stuff to begin with.

And lots of guys here are saying that.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> All they really want is sex, right? That is their bottom line.
> 
> So if they get that, the brain turns off. The mission has been accomplished.
> 
> I don't think _integrity_ is what they are seeking.


I see guys with integrity here, so this statement is offensive AND I believe you owe them an apology.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> Yes!
> 
> But I didn't shut my brain off, or lack integrity about it.
> 
> If I did, I'd still be doing it, and wouldn't have rejected the dark stuff to begin with.
> 
> And lots of guys here are saying that.


And as long as these guys are saying that it is all just opinion based on observations and not science, then I'm down with that.

The "why does it work" is the problem I have, as you know.

I could still give other ideas as to why it works, but as long as no one is claiming they have science in their back pocket (and I don't either) then we're all just bantering about what works and what doesn't.

You have to understand though, for several years here at TAM, when I or other women would speak up about the "why" it works and offer another perspective, men rushed in and yelled SCIENCE!!!! and then were closed to anything a woman had to say.

And that went on and on and on, while men bashed us to bits and it literally over ran the board.

This morning, a woman who was beloved here for many years and who left TAM because of the crowd of men I'm talking about who used to bash us behind a fake veil claiming science, PM'd me (haven't heard from her in almost a year) to thank me for this thread and said she was shocked how well it is going compared to in the past. 

So no matter what it looks like to new comers who haven't even read MMSL, I really have done a service here in changing the tides of that old pervasive mindset that used to permeate this space.

You're welcome.


----------



## jld

You absolutely have done a service, FW, in many ways. You have linked Dr. Nerdlove how many times, and I finally read him last night. Learned a lot. Thank you!


----------



## Idyit

Lila said:


> FW, it's interesting that some of the guys keep overlooking AK's claim that his book is based on SCIENCE. I wonder if they feel the same way about this article published in the British Medical Journal last year.
> 
> The Darwin Awards: sex differences in idiotic behaviour | The BMJ
> 
> The article supports the “Male Idiot Theory” (MIT)". "The theory suggests that the differences in risk seeking behavior between men and women can be explained by the observation that men are idiots and idiots do stupid things."
> 
> Here's a short synopsis:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, keep in mind that this article WAS published in a academic medical journal. Was it as a joke or tongue-in-cheek? Probably, but if we used the logic that many here are taking with AK, then this is SCIENCE proven solely by "Darwin Awards" records. Yes, it's all very stupid.​




Yep. Some of us are idiots. 

~ Passio​


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Ladies, the problem I have with this thread is that if you are going to make a case about the language and attitude used in Athol's work regarding women, whether its backed by science or not, you cannot in turn make the same kind of blanket statements about the men here or men in general to make your case. You MUST take the high road and demonstrate the language you would have preferred even when you speak of the other gender. To not do so loses a LOT of credibility now and in the future. Set a new course and stop stooping to Athol's poor choices of language and attitude regarding his opposite gender.

I challenge the guys to check yourselves too, but right now I'm addressing my fellow ladies because they are the one's up in arms about that very language and attitude yet keep slipping into it themselves.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> And as long as these guys are saying that it is all just opinion based on observations and not science, then I'm down with that.
> 
> The "why does it work" is the problem I have, as you know.
> 
> I could still give other ideas as to why it works, but as long as no one is claiming they have science in their back pocket (and I don't either) then we're all just bantering about what works and what doesn't.


And that's what we're waiting with baited breath for. Your ideas of why it works.

Especially from a woman's perspective.


> You have to understand though, for several years here at TAM, when I or other women would speak up about the "why" it works and offer another perspective, men rushed in and yelled SCIENCE!!!! and then were closed to anything a woman had to say.
> 
> And that went on and on and on, while men bashed us to bits and it literally over ran the board.


BS.

This betrays a fault in your thinking.

And I say that because I respect you. You just fell into the trap, yourself, do you see that.

"Men" didn't bash anyone to bits. "Some guys" did. Not me, and I suspect not many guys on this thread.

You make it really hard for me to be on your side by doing that. You may not care, but I care, because I want to know what you're trying to say. And you have a lot of ladies respect here, who I also respect, and I'm trying to reach out to you to give you the benefit of the doubt.


> This morning, a woman who was beloved here for many years and who left TAM because of the crowd of men I'm talking about who used to bash us behind a fake veil claiming science, PM'd me (haven't heard from her in almost a year) to thank me for this thread and said she was shocked how well it is going compared to in the past.


Because of that crowd. Not because of this crowd.

Do you see what I'm saying?


> So no matter what it looks like to new comers who haven't even read MMSL, I really have done a service here in changing the tides of that old pervasive mindset that used to permeate this space.
> 
> You're welcome.


OK. You're amazing. You're fantastic. You've singlehandedly changed TAM. You're it's anti-red pill saviour. I say that without a hint of sarcasm.

Can we get on with it now that your ego feels better about that?


----------



## Anon1111

jld said:


> Totally agree. But a lot of men do not seem to show the same level of care for their wives that they do their daughters. Sad.


it's a different kind of relationship

one is parent/child

the other is two equals

you naturally expect more from an equal than a child


----------



## Lila

Blossom Leigh said:


> Ladies, the problem I have with this thread is that if you are going to make a case about the language and attitude used in Athol's work regarding women, whether its backed by science or not, you cannot in turn make the same kind of blanket statements about the men here or men in general to make your case. You MUST take the high road and demonstrate the language you would have preferred even when you speak of the other gender. To not do so loses a LOT of credibility now and in the future. Set a new course and stop stooping to Athol's poor choices of language and attitude regarding his opposite gender.
> 
> I challenge the guys to check yourselves too, but right now I'm addressing my fellow ladies because they are the one's up in arms about that very language and attitude yet keep slipping into it themselves.


I'm not sure I understand where post is coming from BL. Could you elaborate as I didn't see any offensive language that was used towards men.


----------



## Pluto2

Anon1111 said:


> it's a different kind of relationship
> 
> one is parent/child
> 
> the other is two equals
> 
> you naturally expect more from an equal than a child


You know where all those wives come from, right


----------



## Anon1111

jld said:


> Yes. I think the best relationships are where the man carries the marriage. The more I hear a man focus on his wife's shortcomings, the more suspicious I am of him as a husband.


if you expect someone to carry you, then it seems to me that you give up the benefits that come with acting as an adult too and owning your own situation.

I am glad you have a relationship that works for you, but I do not believe this point of view makes sense on the whole.

You seem to essentially be advocating for women to take all of the benefits of their husband as a father figure, but then the husband is also supposed to respect his wife as an equal.

Bottom line is you're either a child or an adult.


----------



## Lila

Idyit said:


> Yep. Some of us are idiots.
> 
> ~ Passio


I agree with you....SOME is the key word. That article describes ALL men as idiots which is simply not true, and in my experience, not even close to the truth. 

That article is a good example of why generalizations, like those in MMSL/PUA/RP, can cause much damage when read by someone with the wrong mindset or who lacks maturity.


----------



## Anon1111

EllisRedding said:


> I would have no desire to be in my marriage if it was solely my responsibility to make it work. If she doesn't want to try very hard in a relationship, than don't let the door hit you on the way out ...


I sort of agree with this, but on the other hand I am coming to a view that the "trying" is really just another manifestation of "gaming."

If you are doing it right, there is no "trying." It just _happens_, or it doesn't.


----------



## jld

Anon1111 said:


> if you expect someone to carry you, then it seems to me that you give up the benefits that come with acting as an adult too and owning your own situation.
> 
> I am glad you have a relationship that works for you, but I do not believe this point of view makes sense on the whole.
> 
> You seem to essentially be advocating for women to take all of the benefits of their husband as a father figure, but then the husband is also supposed to respect his wife as an equal.
> 
> Bottom line is you're either a child or an adult.


I probably am not explaining it very well. I am certainly an adult, with all the responsibilities of an adult. But I do think women can easily end up doing more than their share in a marriage. That is what I saw in my sisters' marriages. Looked risky to me.

Dug really wanted to be with me. To him, it is normal that if there is a problem in the marriage, he looks at what he could do, and uses his influence over me secondly. I think he would be the first to say that his not accepting my influence is usually the source of any conflict. When he takes the time to listen to me, even if he ends up disagreeing, things run much smoother.

Does that make more sense?


----------



## Anon1111

Lila said:


> FW, it's interesting that some of the guys keep overlooking AK's claim that his book is based on SCIENCE. I wonder if they feel the same way about this article published in the British Medical Journal last year.
> 
> The Darwin Awards: sex differences in idiotic behaviour | The BMJ
> 
> The article supports the “Male Idiot Theory” (MIT)". "The theory suggests that the differences in risk seeking behavior between men and women can be explained by the observation that men are idiots and idiots do stupid things."
> 
> Here's a short synopsis:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, keep in mind that this article WAS published in a academic medical journal. Was it as a joke or tongue-in-cheek? Probably, but if we used the logic that many here are taking with AK, then this is SCIENCE proven solely by "Darwin Awards" records. Yes, it's all very stupid.​




definitely think there is something to the male idiot theory.

I believe it is a well known fact that male intelligence is more stratefied. 

Females tend to be more consistently intelligent than men, men more tend to extremes.

I am on the extreme idiot end.​


----------



## Anon1111

jld said:


> All they really want is sex, right? That is their bottom line.
> 
> So if they get that, the brain turns off. The mission has been accomplished.
> 
> I don't think _integrity_ is what they are seeking.


so what?

what's wrong with wanting sex?

why is integrity more important?

I think you should want BOTH, but I don't see why one is better than the other. It's just an opinion.


----------



## Idyit

Lila said:


> I agree with you....SOME is the key word. That article describes ALL men as idiots which is simply not true, and in my experience, not even close to the truth.
> 
> That article is a good example of why generalizations, like those in MMSL/PUA/RP, can cause much damage when read by someone with the wrong mindset or who lacks maturity.


I was attempting to infuse some humor. Note my name.

~ Passio


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Blossom Leigh said:


> We all give off both. Attractive and unattractive.
> 
> And we are aware of some and unaware of some. It's what makes us human.
> 
> Being authentic for me means deciding who I am and staying true to me.


Do you believe you are defined by your bad habits?

I believe it's beneficial for any person to increase their awareness of the signals they don't mean to send, and send those that more accurately and attractively represent themselves.


----------



## Lila

Idyit said:


> I was attempting to infuse some humor. Note my name.
> 
> ~ Passio


Lol, okay, okay, I get it now. My name should be Mrs. Dumas.

So what's Passio?


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Lila said:


> I'm not sure I understand where post is coming from BL. Could you elaborate as I didn't see any offensive language that was used towards men.


 I just quoted one from JLD and Marduk just quoted one from FW. There are MANY derogatory gender blanket remarks on both sides on this thread, but I take bigger issue with the side doing it that started this complaint to begin with.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Do you believe you are defined by your bad habits?
> 
> I believe it's beneficial for any person to increase their awareness of the signals they don't mean to send, and send those that more accurately and attractively represent themselves.


No, I am defined by my innate spirit and God given attributes. The rest is choice.


----------



## Anon1111

marduk said:


> Yes!
> 
> But I didn't shut my brain off, or lack integrity about it.
> 
> If I did, I'd still be doing it, and wouldn't have rejected the dark stuff to begin with.
> 
> And lots of guys here are saying that.


Bingo.

I did the same thing.

Am I a bad guy because I found a way to flip my wife's sex switch, then realized it was manipulative and fake and went out to find a better way?

I don't think so.

I also don't blame me for finding that stuff appealing in the first place. It showed me that I could fix my situation.

If I hadn't done that first, I would have never even started down a better path.


----------



## jld

Anon1111 said:


> so what?
> 
> what's wrong with wanting sex?
> 
> why is integrity more important?
> 
> I think you should want BOTH, but I don't see why one is better than the other. It's just an opinion.


The post was in response to FW's questioning why men would accept the "science" presented without questioning it.

I think integrity will lead to good sex. The kind that might be gotten from RP techniques is likely to be emotionally empty. Ultimately, that kind is unlikely to be satisfying long term.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> OK. You're amazing. You're fantastic. You've singlehandedly changed TAM. You're it's anti-red pill saviour. I say that without a hint of sarcasm.


:yawn2:

Thank you...thank you....and I say that without a hint of sarcasm.

Dude, you weren't here. You don't know what was said, by whom, and in what tone and under what circumstances. The people who were here know what I'm talking about. Just because you don't and can't see it doesn't change what I did see and hear. I don't care if you just think I'm going off for no reason, that's fine. I know what really happened and a lot of people here also know.

As for my ideas and reasons of why these things may or may not work, where would you like me to start?

How about here: Men are not more sexual than women. To assume so is to show you don't understand what is going on out there in the sexual jungle. That is my opinion, that is what I've seen and experienced, and that explains most if not all of the phenomenon you think you are seeing.

The women who want to bang you because you got a promotion? Already wanted to bang you. Simple.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Anon1111 said:


> so what?
> 
> what's wrong with wanting sex?
> 
> why is integrity more important?
> 
> I think you should want BOTH, but I don't see why one is better than the other. It's just an opinion.


Wait. Is integrity somehow at odds with sexuality? This is news to me.


----------



## jld

NobodySpecial said:


> Wait. Is integrity somehow at odds with sexuality? This is news to me.


From what I hear about sex in the RP world, it certainly seems to be.


----------



## Mr. Nail

Blue pill and yellow pill aren't working. Red pill isn't half the pill it used to be. 
I simply can't believe that this thread has stayed at the top of the forum for 200 pages.


----------



## Lila

Blossom Leigh said:


> I just quoted one from JLD and Marduk just quoted one from FW. There are MANY derogatory gender blanket remarks on both sides on this thread, but I take bigger issue with the side doing it that started this complaint to begin with.


Sorry BL, but I just don't see what you're seeing. 

There has been some language that I found insulting, to me personally as well as to others, but no one seemed to blink an eye so I guess to each there own.


----------



## Anon1111

jld said:


> I probably am not explaining it very well. I am certainly an adult, with all the responsibilities of an adult. But I do think women can easily end up doing more than their share in a marriage. That is what I saw in my sisters' marriages. Looked risky to me.
> 
> Dug really wanted to be with me. To him, it is normal that if there is a problem in the marriage, he looks at what he could do, and uses his influence over me secondly. I think he would be the first to say that his not accepting my influence is usually the source of any conflict. When he takes the time to listen to me, even if he ends up disagreeing, things run much smoother.
> 
> Does that make more sense?


yes, this makes sense.

what I think does not make sense is the assumption that this is the only model for a successful marriage.

there are people who expect that both partners will mutually look to do this sort of thing-- that it is not the primary burden of the husband.

that is a valid belief system as well and I would actually say it is healthier than relying on one person to have primary ownership of the health of the relationship.


----------



## Pluto2

jld said:


> The post was in response to FW's questioning why men would accept the "science" presented without questioning it.
> 
> I think integrity will lead to good sex. The kind that might be gotten from RP techniques is likely to be emotionally empty. Ultimately, that kind is unlikely to be satisfying long term.


One of things I told my daughters is that any dog in the gutter can have sex, but making love is something more than the physical act. You have to have an emotional connect and respect for each other, first. Isn't that the kind of integrity everyone hopes to have in a meaningful relationship.


----------



## Anon1111

NobodySpecial said:


> Wait. Is integrity somehow at odds with sexuality? This is news to me.


I don't think it is.

My point was that if you've got a whole lot of integrity and you're still hard up for sex, you're not going to be happy and no one should expect you to be.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Lila said:


> Sorry BL, but I just don't see what you're seeing.
> 
> There has been some language that I found insulting, to me personally as well as to others, but no one seemed to blink an eye so I guess to each there own.


I just explained why I take the bigger issue. I hold the one complaining about that behavior to a higher standard regarding that behavior.


----------



## jld

Pluto2 said:


> One of things I told my daughters is that any dog in the gutter can have sex, but making love is something more than the physical act. You have to have an emotional connect and respect for each other, first. Isn't that the kind of integrity everyone hopes to have in a meaningful relationship.


Totally agree, Pluto.


----------



## Brigit

Anon1111 said:


> if you expect someone to carry you, then it seems to me that you give up the benefits that come with acting as an adult too and owning your own situation.
> 
> I am glad you have a relationship that works for you, but I do not believe this point of view makes sense on the whole.
> 
> You seem to essentially be advocating for women to take all of the benefits of their husband as a father figure, but then the husband is also supposed to respect his wife as an equal.
> 
> Bottom line is you're either a child or an adult.


I also see my husband as a father figure. Sometimes. And sometimes I see him as a kid I have to watch out for. My mom thinks my husband treats me like a little girl and I guess that's true...some of the time.

Relationships are complicated and roles are constantly in flux.


----------



## jld

Anon1111 said:


> yes, this makes sense.
> 
> what I think does not make sense is the assumption that this is the only model for a successful marriage.
> 
> there are people who expect that both partners will mutually look to do this sort of thing-- that it is not the primary burden of the husband.
> 
> that is a valid belief system as well and I would actually say it is healthier than relying on one person to have primary ownership of the health of the relationship.


I guess from what I have seen, Anon, women are not usually the ones slacking off in the marriage. Jme. 

Though, when I look at Gottman's research, he seems to back up what I have observed.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> I can copy it for you again from home, if you like. It was also lined out neatly in a blog post which I already linked on this thread, about how sex rank for women is only about looks and sex rank for men is about more than just looks...and that a woman's rank tanks at age 30 but a man's rises at age 40. :rofl:


This isn't an accurate retelling. No one's rank is entirely summed up by looks - though admittedly many authors often fail to specify whether they're referring to only looks or the whole package. AK himself explains that women often up their sex rank by increasing the perception of their sexual availability. ie - the less attractive girl going after a more attractive guy, by behaving more overtly sexual toward him.

The things that factor into attraction are mostly the same for men and women. The degree to which they have influence is what differs, as is how commonly we'll accept someone for just sex.

Most men and women's appearance declines with age. But given that women are influenced by non-physical traits to a greater degree than men, means men are typically more able to remain appealing to women in their physical prime than women are, without sacrificing some other standard. For the majority of 40 yr old women to nab a young 25 yr old stud, she's probably going to have to increase her sexual availability without security/commitment (sacrificing standard). The 25 yr old stud can get a better looking, younger woman with all of the 40 yr old's traits that he prioritizes - her career success, for example, has very little influence on him. This isn't true of a 40 yr old man. While his physical attractiveness declines just as hers did, his career success will tend to keep him in the running with younger women against younger men. Confidence is another thing that tends to improve with age, and is more highly prized by women than men. How well he can do this depends on just how great those non-physical qualities are relative to how much he's physically declined with age.

I've seen it myself repeatedly from both ages (I'm not quite 40 though). Before meeting my EW, and being a broke college student still figuring myself out, I lost a number of women to significantly older men who were more established and sure of themselves even though they weren't on par with me on looks. Today, I'm on the other end, and often steal the attention of women in their 20s from more physically attractive men their age.


----------



## Anon1111

Pluto2 said:


> One of things I told my daughters is that any dog in the gutter can have sex, but making love is something more than the physical act. You have to have an emotional connect and respect for each other, first. Isn't that the kind of integrity everyone hopes to have in a meaningful relationship.


I totally agree with this.

Personally, it was a huge eye opener to me when I realized I could act like a complete a-sshole and my wife would respond to that sexually, but it left ME feeling empty.

I honestly never realized that I required an emotional connection for sex. I seriously did not know that about myself.

There are somethings you can't realize except when you actually have a choice.

Another example is money. It's easy for a guy who is rich to say, "money doesn't solve all of your problems."

To a poor guy, he may need to experience that to learn it for himself.

I actually had to learn that lesson the hard way too.

The point is, the EXPERIENCE teaches you.

A lot of people here are telling guys who are hard up, "take my word for it, money doesn't solve all of your problems."

But these guys are poor and that money sure looks good to them.


----------



## Anon1111

Brigit said:


> I also see my husband as a father figure. Sometimes. And sometimes I see him as a kid I have to watch out for. My mom thinks my husband treats me like a little girl and I guess that's true...some of the time.
> 
> Relationships are complicated and roles are constantly in flux.


OK, I get that and agree. In a couple, sometimes one of you will be strong and sometimes the other. That is how it's supposed to work, I think.


----------



## Anon1111

jld said:


> I guess from what I have seen, Anon, women are not usually the ones slacking off in the marriage. Jme.
> 
> Though, when I look at Gottman's research, he seems to back up what I have observed.


OK, that's your opinion.

Really hard for me to believe that 50% of the population is just off the hook like that.

I would question why women would even get married in the first place if they are by nature so much more capable than men.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> *I guess from what I have seen, Anon, women are not usually the ones slacking off in the marriage. Jme*.
> 
> Though, when I look at Gottman's research, he seems to back up what I have observed.


Just curious (and not meant to criticize your experience) do you think this could be in part b/c as a female it is easier to see the woman's side? In the same manner it might be easier for a male to relate to another male when discussing marital issues and see it as the wife who is the one slacking off?


----------



## jld

Anon1111 said:


> OK, I get that and agree. In a couple, sometimes one of you will be strong and sometimes the other. That is how it's supposed to work, I think.


And in reality, each has their strengths. Each offers leadership in different areas.

But in my marriage, my husband does feel responsible for the marriage overall. It is a big disagreement he has with most of the guys on TAM. 

To Dug, if there are problems in the marriage, the man should look at himself first, and what he can do to change things. He does not first look at me, and what I should be doing. 

Often, just by his listening better, and really trying to understand my side of things, we are able to find a compromise, or go with whoever has the better idea, happily. Again, illustrative of Gottman's findings.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Anon1111 said:


> Personally, it was a huge eye opener to me when I realized I could act like a complete a-sshole and my wife would respond to that sexually, but it left ME feeling empty.
> 
> I honestly never realized that I required an emotional connection for sex. I seriously did not know that about myself.


I'm glad you learned this. Thank you for sharing it.

When people say men don't care about that connection, I know better. Most men do want an actual connection and intimacy and not "just sex".


----------



## jld

Anon1111 said:


> OK, that's your opinion.
> 
> Really hard for me to believe that 50% of the population is just off the hook like that.
> 
> I would question why women would even get married in the first place if they are by nature so much more capable than men.


Well, this is the new issue coming up, and why I am pushing guys here to learn empathy. As women make more money, marriage may strike them as purely optional.


----------



## Anon1111

jld said:


> And in reality, each has their strengths. Each offers leadership in different areas.
> 
> But in my marriage, my husband does feel responsible for the marriage overall. It is a big disagreement he has with most of the guys on TAM.
> 
> To Dug, if there are problems in the marriage, the man should look at himself first, and what he can do to change things. He does not first look at me, and what I should be doing.
> 
> Often, just by his listening better, and really trying to understand my side of things, we are able to find a compromise, or go with whoever has the better idea, happily. Again, illustrative of Gottman's findings.


I agree that you should look at yourself first before casting stones at your partner.

I just disagree that the man is the only one who has a responsibility to do this.


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> Just curious (and not meant to criticize your experience) do you think this could be in part b/c as a female it is easier to see the woman's side? In the same manner it might be easier for a male to relate to another male when discussing marital issues and see it as the wife who is the one slacking off?


I could see that, but for what seems to be concurrence from Gottman's research.

Have you read anything by Gottman?


----------



## jld

Anon1111 said:


> I agree that you should look at yourself first before casting stones at your partner.
> 
> I just disagree that the man is the only one who has a responsibility to do this.


It will certainly go smoother if each is looking at his or her hand in the troubles. 

But from what Gottman has said, it seems men are usually the key to getting things back on track.


----------



## tech-novelist

Anon1111 said:


> I totally agree with this.
> 
> Personally, it was a huge eye opener to me when I realized I could act like a complete a-sshole and my wife would respond to that sexually, but it left ME feeling empty.
> 
> I honestly never realized that I required an emotional connection for sex. I seriously did not know that about myself.
> 
> There are somethings you can't realize except when you actually have a choice.
> 
> Another example is money. It's easy for a guy who is rich to say, "money doesn't solve all of your problems."
> 
> To a poor guy, he may need to experience that to learn it for himself.
> 
> I actually had to learn that lesson the hard way too.
> 
> The point is, the EXPERIENCE teaches you.
> 
> A lot of people here are telling guys who are hard up, "take my word for it, money doesn't solve all of your problems."
> 
> But these guys are poor and that money sure looks good to them.


Exactly. I also need an emotional connection with sex, but if I weren't having sex with my wife, that wouldn't be the most obvious problem.


----------



## naiveonedave

FW:Sorry but that is exactly what men learn to do by swallowing the red pill.

Women need to be ashamed of how WOMEN and feminism have ruined men. Feminism has hurt men, the pendulum in some areas has swung too far

Women need to be ashamed of their sexuality, since they are hypergamous wh*res.AK suggests more like women have 'hidden' their sexuality too frequently and men and their wives can benefit by ending this repression. Some fraction, much greater than zero of women have hypergamy tendencies, but most/many don't choose to act on them.

Women need to be ashamed that hamsters run around in their brains. no, this is just one way for men to try to understand the female mind. Perfect model, no, but not something anyone would shame anyone for.

Women need to be ashamed that they have sexual attraction to hunky NBA players and not to regular Nice Guys with beer guts (because hey, the Nice Guy would "do anyone", therefore the woman should be ashamed of her desires, how dare she be turned on by that?).No - men need to realize that if you grow a beer gut over the 20+ years of marriage, it may have consequences that are 'natural.'

Men read this stuff and try to get their egos back in check, by shaming and hating women, meanwhile trying to "get sex" from them.Nah - some large fraction of men need to learn some of this stuff so they can change into better men

Sorry, but that IS shameful.

The desire to fix your marriage isn't shameful. But reading, believing and applying the dark stuff in red pill is shameful.

Just as a woman reading gold digger books would also be shameful, even if she did it out of love for some man.

MMSL states right up front that it is shady and lacks integrity and that men DO just want sex. JLD didn't make that up, that crap is what the book is based on. Well, since physical touch and sex in marriage is important to men, I guess we men should just suck up our needs in marriage and not try to improve our selves to get our needs met.


----------



## Marduk

Bugged said:


> it works because people who let others walk all over them are NOT sexy (anyway your wife was a f...ing *GENIUS*). people who don't pursue their own life/interests are NOT sexy AND boring AND got nothing to talk about. Indipendent people are sexy, clingy people are boring.
> People who are fit are sexier than people with fat all over their bodies
> 
> You don't need ak to know that.
> 
> Assuming this is the part that 'works'.


That's a critical part of the equation. But only part of it, and doesn't explain the cause and mechanism for it.

I.e. why do people become this way, how do they stop it, and what does that have to do with attraction and love?


----------



## naiveonedave

jld said:


> Have you ever said exactly what you did, Dave? Because I think a book like _7 Habits of Highly Effective People _could have given you the same lose weight, work out advice as MMSLP, plus a lot of great instruction on how to form emotional bonds. And those bonds are what will carry a marriage long term.


I don't disagree. The problem is that men would not think to find such a book to help with lack of sex in their marriage. If Covey were to retitle it and add some verbiage about how this applies to sex, maybe.... Which leads to :

I think that there is probably a worthwhile book that is not yet written that is aimed at teaching men whats and whys of maintaining attraction is good for their sex life. It would have parts of mmsl, parts of HNHN, and maybe some very minor doses of RP that have basis in science or social science (i.e., what most of the egg heads at universities who study this stuff this is true.)


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> :yawn2:
> 
> Thank you...thank you....and I say that without a hint of sarcasm.
> 
> Dude, you weren't here. You don't know what was said, by whom, and in what tone and under what circumstances. The people who were here know what I'm talking about. Just because you don't and can't see it doesn't change what I did see and hear. I don't care if you just think I'm going off for no reason, that's fine. I know what really happened and a lot of people here also know.
> 
> As for my ideas and reasons of why these things may or may not work, where would you like me to start?
> 
> How about here: Men are not more sexual than women. To assume so is to show you don't understand what is going on out there in the sexual jungle. That is my opinion, that is what I've seen and experienced, and that explains most if not all of the phenomenon you think you are seeing.
> 
> The women who want to bang you because you got a promotion? Already wanted to bang you. Simple.


Oh, I figured that out in grade 10, thanks. 

I don't know where the whole "girls don't like sex" thing came from.

However, I will say that I did have a few of them claim I somehow victimized them by allowing them into my bed. Even if they were the one that initiated.


----------



## Marduk

Mr. Nail said:


> Blue pill and yellow pill aren't working. Red pill isn't half the pill it used to be.
> I simply can't believe that this thread has stayed at the top of the forum for 200 pages.


I vote plaid pill.

As in:


----------



## Julius Beastcavern

jld said:


> I could see that, but for what seems to be concurrence from Gottman's research.
> 
> Have you read anything by Gottman?


Gottman uses junk science A dissection of John Gottman's love lab.

You should probably stop recommending him


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> That's a critical part of the equation. But only part of it, and doesn't explain the cause and mechanism for it.
> 
> I.e. why do people become this way, how do they stop it, and what does that have to do with attraction and love?


There are lots and lots of books that talk about how complacency in marriage or LTRs is a problem and kills attraction.

There is also a lack of pre-marriage information given to young people tying the knot. I think they should have to read horrors stories at TAM and write a report on what they learned before getting a marriage license.

OR....they can just not get married, which is what a lot of people are doing.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> I could see that, but for what seems to be concurrence from Gottman's research.
> 
> Have you read anything by Gottman?


No, honestly haven't had a need to read any relationship based books (now that I think about it, probably the last book I have even had time to read was years and years ago dealing with the financial markets, granted that is more work related). Everything for me is just based on my own personal experiences and what I have seen around me (which contradicts you but similar to you I may have bias as well).


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> I'm glad you learned this. Thank you for sharing it.
> 
> When people say men don't care about that connection, I know better. Most men do want an actual connection and intimacy and not "just sex".


Ya, and being honest, that was a brutal thing for me to learn, too.

Because it's hard to know what to do then.


----------



## jld

naiveonedave said:


> I don't disagree. The problem is that men would not think to find such a book to help with lack of sex in their marriage. If Covey were to retitle it and add some verbiage about how this applies to sex, maybe.... Which leads to :
> 
> I think that there is probably a worthwhile book that is not yet written that is aimed at teaching men whats and whys of maintaining attraction is good for their sex life. It would have parts of mmsl, parts of HNHN, and maybe some very minor doses of RP that have basis in science or social science (i.e., what most of the egg heads at universities who study this stuff this is true.)


I think FW is working on that book. 

Have you read Dr. Nerdlove's site? He talks about some interesting things. FW has linked him several times, but I just read him for the first time last night. 

I think a big part of my attraction to my husband is that I am emotionally safe with him. He does not hold grudges, emotionally withdraw from me, try to manipulate me, etc. And when a woman feels emotionally safe, she is likely to want to be close, I think. And willing to reveal her fantasies to him.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> There are lots and lots of books that talk about how complacency in marriage or LTRs is a problem and kills attraction.
> 
> There is also a lack of pre-marriage information given to young people tying the knot. I think they should have to read horrors stories at TAM and write a report on what they learned before getting a marriage license.
> 
> OR....they can just not get married, which is what a lot of people are doing.


Sure, but there's none that I'm aware of that put this into a larger context as a piece of that pie, nor gives a husband a sense of agency when his wife just isn't interested, nor gives a serialized set of dead simple steps to follow.

That's the appeal.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

marduk said:


> I vote plaid pill.
> 
> As in:


Why can't it be paisely... why does it have to be plaid

and thus it starts all over again...


----------



## john117

jld said:


> And in reality, each has their strengths. Each offers leadership in different areas.
> 
> 
> 
> But in my marriage, my husband does feel responsible for the marriage overall. It is a big disagreement he has with most of the guys on TAM.
> 
> 
> 
> To Dug, if there are problems in the marriage, the man should look at himself first, and what he can do to change things. He does not first look at me, and what I should be doing.
> 
> 
> 
> Often, just by his listening better, and really trying to understand my side of things, we are able to find a compromise, or go with whoever has the better idea, happily. Again, illustrative of Gottman's findings.



That's because your "problems" are blips compared to the heavy duty stuff - aka real problems - other people have. 

I'm not talking external issues, only internal.


----------



## naiveonedave

jld said:


> I think FW is working on that book.
> 
> Have you read Dr. Nerdlove's site? He talks about some interesting things. FW has linked him several times, but I just read him for the first time last night.
> 
> I think a big part of my attraction to my husband is that I am emotionally safe with him. He does not hold grudges, emotionally withdraw from me, try to manipulate me, etc. And when a woman feels emotionally safe, she is likely to want to be close, I think. And willing to reveal her fantasies to him.


I really don't have time to read any new stuff right now, though I may if I get time this weekend.

Not to pick on you JLD, but I think your M is so far away from a M where the good parts of mmsl would be useful, you can't even comprehend what that M would be like. 

When my M/sex was going down hill, it was pretty much loss of attraction of me from W and me being too willing to accept anything and everything from her. I changed that, basically, based on what I read in the MAP part of mmsl. AK specifies if you want change in your M, you need to change you. So I did.


----------



## lucy999

Faithful Wife said:


> I, for one, am all for them.
> 
> Make mine a Blake Griffin model.


I had to google. He's cute!

Can I get in on this order? I'll split S&H with y'all.

Vinnie Jones. That gold tooth he wore in Snatch? OHHHMYYYGOSHHHHH.


----------



## jld

naiveonedave said:


> I really don't have time to read any new stuff right now, though I may if I get time this weekend.
> 
> Not to pick on you JLD, but I think your M is so far away from a M where the good parts of mmsl would be useful, you can't even comprehend what that M would be like.
> 
> When my M/sex was going down hill, it was pretty much loss of attraction of me from W and me being too willing to accept anything and everything from her. I changed that, basically, based on what I read in the MAP part of mmsl. AK specifies if you want change in your M, you need to change you. So I did.


You're right. I think that is why I was not drawn in by the book. Does not fit us.

I love _7 Habits_. I think it is the best marriage manual out there.

Totally agree with AK on working on yourself first. Also agree that men need to take responsibility for the marriage (that was covered a few dozen pages back). Also agree with him that the only emasculation is self-emasculation.

But I reject the unhealthy parts of the book.

Again, Dave, you're a decent guy. I appreciate the honest dialogue.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> Sure, but there's none that I'm aware of that put this into a larger context as a piece of that pie, nor gives a husband a sense of agency when his wife just isn't interested, nor gives a serialized set of dead simple steps to follow.
> 
> That's the appeal.


I agree there are a lack of good books.

But the Marriage Builders material does actually give a good plan, listed out well, including worksheets, etc. It isn't for everyone, nothing is, but it is pretty good. And in fact part of why I liked it and recommend it is because it does accurately describe WHY my husband and I remain strongly attracted to each other.


----------



## jld

Julius Beastcavern said:


> Gottman uses junk science A dissection of John Gottman's love lab.
> 
> You should probably stop recommending him


Gottman is a well-respected, world-reknown researcher. If his findings were seriously flawed, there would be a bigger outcry.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

lucy999 said:


> I had to google. He's cute!
> 
> Can I get in on this order? I'll split S&H with y'all.
> 
> Vinnie Jones. That gold tooth he wore in Snatch? OHHHMYYYGOSHHHHH.



I didn't think Blake was cute at all.


----------



## naiveonedave

jld said:


> But I reject the unhealthy parts of the book.


If I were a woman, I probably would too 

Though, as a man, I don't think they are particularly unhealthy IF you are the intended audience: married, poor sex life that used to be much better and meeting her emotional needs more or less. Teenaged boys certainly don't need the 'rough parts'. Maybe I should write the book to replace it LOL.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> I agree there are a lack of good books.
> 
> But the Marriage Builders material does actually give a good plan, listed out well, including worksheets, etc. It isn't for everyone, nothing is, but it is pretty good. And in fact part of why I liked it and recommend it is because it does accurately describe WHY my husband and I remain strongly attracted to each other.


Agree that it's good.

As I said before, the core problem with it is that it requires the spouse's buy in that there's a problem, and for her to honestly give it a go.

My wife was totally disinterested in improving her marriage, because it was already a pretty sweet deal from her vantage point.


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> That's because your "problems" are blips compared to the heavy duty stuff - aka real problems - other people have.
> 
> I'm not talking external issues, only internal.


Our son's cancer has certainly been our greatest sorrow. We lean on each other for that. Though I feel I mostly lean on Dug. But my love for him surely comforts him, too.


----------



## Anon1111

Julius Beastcavern said:


> Gottman uses junk science A dissection of John Gottman's love lab.
> 
> You should probably stop recommending him


I think the bigger issue is confirmation bias.

I don't think jld cites Gottman because he is the objective guru on relationships.

she cites him because he confirms her assumptions.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> Agree that it's good.
> 
> As I said before, the core problem with it is that it requires the spouse's buy in that there's a problem, and for her to honestly give it a go.
> 
> My wife was totally disinterested in improving her marriage, because it was already a pretty sweet deal from her vantage point.


So there are two topics here:

Marriage

and

Your Marriage

This is true for everyone and is why there's no one book that hits everything.

But which one of these two things are you interested in, because when I discuss one, you throw out the other one, and when I discuss that one, you go back to the first one.

In YOUR marriage, I think your wife is simply not capable of the level of intimacy you desire. I'm only basing that on what you said about her childhood and parents. 

A lot of people simply aren't capable of true intimacy and don't want to work to change that. 

I'm glad you found that you are, but if she isn't then.....what? What if she just isn't?

ETA: A lot of people just aren't very sexual either, and so you have spouses who need to just get that and stop hounding their partners to change....because becoming a more sexual person in general is not easily accomplished nor wanted by people who aren't that sexual. I have to respect Cletus, because he really gets this about his wife.


----------



## Julius Beastcavern

Anon1111 said:


> I think the bigger issue is confirmation bias.
> 
> I don't think jld cites Gottman because he is the objective guru on relationships.
> 
> she cites him because he confirms her assumptions.


I believe you are correct, but why dismiss one point of view for lack of science and not another?


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> So there are two topics here:
> 
> Marriage
> 
> and
> 
> Your Marriage
> 
> This is true for everyone and is why there's no one book that hits everything.
> 
> But which one of these two things are you interested in, because when I discuss one, you throw out the other one, and when I discuss that one, you go back to the first one.


OK, fair point.

I was meaning 'marriage' and using 'my marriage' as an example, because I don't think that kind of thing is uncommon, from my vantage point.

The basic attractor for MMSLP is my kind of situation. Husband feels powerless and isn't getting sex, although he feels he's doing everything society and his wife tells him is 'right' and 'nice.'

It feels like you're on this endless treadmill where you have to keep running and running and running...

But you never seem to get anywhere.



> In YOUR marriage, I think your wife is simply not capable of the level of intimacy you desire. I'm only basing that on what you said about her childhood and parents.
> 
> A lot of people simply aren't capable of true intimacy and don't want to work to change that.
> 
> I'm glad you found that you are, but if she isn't then.....what? What if she just isn't?


Meh.

I guess I have more faith in people than you do, maybe.

Or maybe I'm too emotionally invested to let go. I dunno. I made a commitment, and I'm going to take it to the mat, for what that's worth.


> ETA: A lot of people just aren't very sexual either, and so you have spouses who need to just get that and stop hounding their partners to change....because becoming a more sexual person in general is not easily accomplished nor wanted by people who aren't that sexual. I have to respect Cletus, because he really gets this about his wife.


See...

I don't buy it.

I mean, I do buy that there's a small subset of the population that is LD. I get that.

What I find fascinating is that I've had repeated direct experience of people that labelled themselves LD so they don't have to have sex with their partners, and then be all crazy sexual with me.

So I think that there's a large set of people within the LD subset of people that aren't really LD at all. They just need the right triggers to start their engine, you know what I mean?

We've all heard stories like "my wife is asexual" and then "OMG, she's having an affair and doing all these crazy things with her affair partner!"

And the converse from men, too. "What the hell, he wouldn't sleep with me for years but he jumps into bed with the first woman that offers it?"

That's what I'm getting at.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

jld said:


> Come on. That can't be true.


It depends on how we're using the word. When guys use it, it's more in the "I'd hit it" sense. Nothing else about her needs to be known and we don't care if its short term or long term, we're sexually attracted, we're ready to go.

I think when women use it, that's not often the case. Sometimes it is, I just think it's less so. By all means correct me if I'm wrong and most women would jump right into bed.

I think most women require a bit more to reach that point of sexual attraction, unless the guy is "knock your socks off" good looking. Either way, it would be the less common case, since most guys aren't going to knock your socks off. Looks are a normal curve - most are about average.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> What I find fascinating is that I've had repeated direct experience of people that labelled themselves LD so they don't have to have sex with their partners, and then be all crazy sexual with me.
> 
> So I think that there's a large set of people within the LD subset of people that aren't really LD at all. They just need the right triggers to start their engine, you know what I mean?
> 
> We've all heard stories like "my wife is asexual" and then "OMG, she's having an affair and doing all these crazy things with her affair partner!"
> 
> And the converse from men, too. "What the hell, he wouldn't sleep with me for years but he jumps into bed with the first woman that offers it?"
> 
> That's what I'm getting at.



What you are describing is not long term sustained mutual sexual attraction, however.

Yep, people can get it up for some strange. This is known and proven over and over in so many ways. Yep, even people who think they are LD can get it up for some strange.

But then they can't get it up for that same strange on a consistent basis over a sustained period....that's when we call it familiar instead of strange.

So if you want to talk about attraction and sex motivation in the sexual jungle as applied to people who don't care about having the same person want them consistently over time, then we can talk about that...it is a different topic completely, however.

Long term relationships are where people find out what their actual baseline level of sexual proclivity is....their own and their partner's.

I totally agree that many people are not sexually self aware and don't know this about themselves. People assume things about themselves based on what happened with one or two encounters or people....but then like you discovered about yourself, you actually want more than just to be able to get it up for some strange, which is pretty easy for most people.

I can make a lot of people be attracted to me enough to want to have sex with me...but I know for a fact that most of them won't want to in the long term. To find that special, mutual attraction and chemistry, is not something easy, you either have to know exactly what you are looking for, or stumble upon it by accident and get lucky.


----------



## jld

Julius Beastcavern said:


> I believe you are correct, but why dismiss one point of view for lack of science and not another?


Where are you getting lack of science for Gottman?

That critic disputes his ability to predict with a certain accuracy who will get divorced. _I _am citing his research findings as summarized in the first post of my "Relationdship Truths" thread.


----------



## Julius Beastcavern

jld said:


> Where are you getting lack of science for Gottman?
> 
> That critic disputes his ability to predict with a certain accuracy who will get divorced. _I _am citing his research findings as summarized in the first post of my "Relationdship Truths" thread.


Gottman relies on patterns. If he unable to predict which couples will stay together and which will not (as he says he can) he can't go on to say why they will stay together or not


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Picking someone based on how they look and then adding some years and a few babies and what if they've dropped below your ranking? Just find someone else?


Attraction and attachment are two different things in these texts thinking. Ergo, you hear women talk about how they love their husbands but aren't attracted to them anymore.



SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I've never thought about who the best looking guy I could get was based on my own looks.


And no PUA-based text would disagree with you. It is expressed as more primal desire than conscious thought. Hence why our motivations are often thought to be in conflict. The sensible choice isn't always (or even usually) the choice we're most attracted to. If you believe everything you do is dictated by conscious thought, then you'll no doubt not believe anything books like this say.



SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I like a wide range of guys and emotional connection means more to me at this point in my life. If anyone thought I wasn't good enough for him then he's more than welcome to find someone who is. I believe in myself and that I'm a good person and can make a good partner.


All of which is accepted, but with the caveat that you'll still opt for the most of each trait you value. If you had the same connection with two guys, but one is physically hotter, you'll choose him if you can get him. I also agree that what you seek changes as you age. Younger women tend to place higher priority on status than older women for example.



SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Maybe I could get hotter guys if I went out dressed in my best, make-up all done, acted more outgoing. But they are not the ones who want ME because I'm going to end up in a relationship wearing my comfy pants and wanting to stay in to watch netflix.


Well no, you might not, because you don't value the hotness as much as you value chemistry/connection - exactly as these books explain. Men tend to be more looks centered. This is exactly the point I've been making about differences in what the sexes tend to prioritize. Everything else is just shaking an angry fist over whether we believe they "should", or mixing up attraction and attachment.


----------



## jld

Julius Beastcavern said:


> Gottman relies on patterns. If he unable to predict which couples will stay together and which will not (as he says he can) he can't go on to say why they will stay together or not


Well, you have found one critic there. I think if his research were seriously in question, there would be many more, and his findings would be under review.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Status was never an issue to me D8, younger or older.

I was paving my own way.

please say "some."


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> What you are describing is not long term sustained mutual sexual attraction, however.
> 
> Yep, people can get it up for some strange. This is known and proven over and over in so many ways. Yep, even people who think they are LD can get it up for some strange.


The question is... _why?_

And can that 'why' be brought back into the marriage without the need for a third person to be involved?

What do some guys trigger in these "LD" wives, that their husbands can't, or won't?

I get why they'd label themselves LD. It's an easy out, a plausible justification. That way, they don't have to fess up that their husband doesn't do it for them anymore, and why.

They don't have to hurt them, they don't have to be introspective, or they don't have to take any accountability if the husband goes "OK" and gives them what they said they wanted, and it still doesn't work.

All that is scary.


> But then they can't get it up for that same strange on a consistent basis over a sustained period....that's when we call it familiar instead of strange.


Again... why?


> So if you want to talk about attraction and sex motivation in the sexual jungle as applied to people who don't care about having the same person want them consistently over time, then we can talk about that...it is a different topic completely, however.


I disagree.

I think the 'jungle' is what is missed in some marriages.

Take, for example, the common female fantasy that their husband pretends to be a stranger, and tries to pick her up, like in that episode of 'Modern Family.'

Phil is trying to pick up his wife (and they are both pretending to be other people) when she playfully asks him why she's trying to pick her up instead of go back to his wife was something along the lines of:
"Because I love her too much to want to do the kinds of things to her that I want to do with you."

Which is pretty damn sexy and sealed the deal.

There's something in the non-intimate other that allows us to be profoundly free and selfish -- which is a big key to eroticism, yes?

And somehow that gets lost for some in intimate, loving, respectful relationships.

Especially for nice guys.


> Long term relationships are where people find out what their actual baseline level of sexual proclivity is....their own and their partner's.


I think that's far more variable.

I'm far more sexual with my wife than I was with almost anyone else, and she says the same of me.

And I haven't lost interest in that. She did, at least a bit, for a time with me. Mostly because I stopped being the guy I was when we met.

My point is that I've been with hot women that I wasn't that sexual with. For many reasons, many triggers.

Chemistry is a thing. But triggers and responses are also a thing.



> I totally agree that many people are not sexually self aware and don't know this about themselves. People assume things about themselves based on what happened with one or two encounters or people....but then like you discovered about yourself, you actually want more than just to be able to get it up for some strange, which is pretty easy for most people.


Wouldn't it be fun for people to go on this discovery together?


> I can make a lot of people be attracted to me enough to want to have sex with me...but I know for a fact that most of them won't want to in the long term. To find that special, mutual attraction and chemistry, is not something easy, you either have to know exactly what you are looking for, or stumble upon it by accident and get lucky.


Ya.

My point is targetted at people that are still together, and at least one of them wants more from the other.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> The question is... _why?_


Mating in Captivity: Unlocking Erotic Intelligence: Esther Perel: 9780060753641: Amazon.com: Books

There you go, answers to everything you said in your post.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

A relationship that at one time was balance and now is no longer balanced. There are certain approaches that right that balance temporarily and marduk is wanting to know why and if there is a permanent fix to that imbalance issue.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> There's something in the non-intimate other that allows us to be profoundly free and selfish -- which is a big key to eroticism, yes?
> 
> And somehow that gets lost for some in intimate, loving, respectful relationships.


I can tell you, again, how my husband and I accomplish it. Through actual intimacy.

We are each so deep and so unique (meaning us specifically but also applies to everyone) that there is no way to EVER truly know all of someone else. We all have built in mystery. We are even mysterious to ourselves.

When you are truly intimate with someone, you attempt to allow them deeper inside of you to the bigger you, the more you, the real you, the depths of you. You may not even know what is in there yourself! 

So...the reason my husband and I have this constant feeling of not only strong mutual attraction but also mad love for each other, is that we are both very good at intimacy. We can see each other as strangers in an instant, and recognize that strangeness for what it is. We understand that we will never, ever "get to the bottom" of each other, sexually or emotionally or mentally. We understand that even though we are individual people, there is the equivalent to hundreds of different people inside each of us, because most personalities are not static.

Whereas...if I just want to bang someone, the sex might be great, but the lack of intimacy will always make me lose interest, sooner than later.

And on that same note...if I can't feel truly intimate with a partner (which might very well be MY fault, if I'm the one who isn't capable of real intimacy) then it will seem to me that I am not attracted to them, I will see their flaws bigger, my mind will go about framing them in a way that is unappealing to me.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Faithful Wife said:


> Mating in Captivity: Unlocking Erotic Intelligence: Esther Perel: 9780060753641: Amazon.com: Books
> 
> There you go, answers to everything you said in your post.



"Perel suggests the discrete affair, open marriage, swingers clubs."

A review from a poster on Amazon

Heads up


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Brigit said:


> I still waiting for Devil to introduce me to Joe the Doctor.


Sorry, I don't know a lot of Doctors. Both of my friends already have very hot wives who are both at least 10 years younger and homemakers.

I do know that women do a sort of "high five" congrats about landing a Doctor though. The last time I saw it was at a charity/art gala. My friend (the doc) and I were outside smoking (btw... it is really bizarre how many doctors smoke or are really unhealthy - shocking even). I came back in early and caught the tail end of the women's discussion about how they met their husbands. My friend's wife started into her story when something she said gave away that he was a Doctor. My date then says "Your husband is a Doctor? Way to go girl!" And his wife responds, "I know right!" with a big grin and wink. I made a joke about being shallow and she says something like "Oh don't talk to me about shallow... we all know what you guys want." It was very tongue in cheek, but not far off what I don't think a lot of people want to admit. And besides, whether one is attracted to looks or status or any other feature doesn't preclude falling in love or attachment.

One thing I've learned is that women are a lot more forthcoming with other women than they are with men.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Blossom Leigh said:


> "Perel suggests the discrete affair, open marriage, swingers clubs."
> 
> A review from a poster on Amazon
> 
> Heads up


Yes, she is quite a progressive thinker. Which may not fit with many people's goals....yet her ideas will work and do work for many. There is a lot going on in non-monogamy these days. There is also a huge benefit to remaining single, if you highly value exciting sex and don't care as much about monogamy, which like it or not, is true for lots of people who aren't horrible people. The desire for sex is natural and innocent, and those who can do it ala carte can be very happy.

I feel that her points can still all be put back into your marriage or monogamous relationship, however. I really do.

It is just that when you try to describe how you do it (the way I do it with my husband) you can only describe what works for you. I do know it can be done though, because I'm doing it.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Faithful Wife said:


> I can tell you, again, how my husband and I accomplish it. Through actual intimacy.
> 
> We are each so deep and so unique (meaning us specifically but also applies to everyone) that there is no way to EVER truly know all of someone else. We all have built in mystery. We are even mysterious to ourselves.
> 
> When you are truly intimate with someone, you attempt to allow them deeper inside of you to the bigger you, the more you, the real you, the depths of you. You may not even know what is in there yourself!
> 
> So...the reason my husband and I have this constant feeling of not only strong mutual attraction but also mad love for each other, is that we are both very good at intimacy. We can see each other as strangers in an instant, and recognize that strangeness for what it is. We understand that we will never, ever "get to the bottom" of each other, sexually or emotionally or mentally. We understand that even though we are individual people, there is the equivalent to hundreds of different people inside each of us, because most personalities are not static.
> 
> Whereas...if I just want to bang someone, the sex might be great, but the lack of intimacy will always make me lose interest, sooner than later.
> 
> And on that same note...if I can't feel truly intimate with a partner (which might very well be MY fault, if I'm the one who isn't capable of real intimacy) then it will seem to me that I am not attracted to them, I will see their flaws bigger, my mind will go about framing them in a way that is unappealing to me.



My H and I too seek to discover new about each other and pay attention to our uniqueness. Just last night he was marveled at the way I handled two grill cheese sandwiches in a pan. Something so simple, but he chose to watch and absorb and then allow marveling to hit him. It was a sweet moment.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Mating in Captivity: Unlocking Erotic Intelligence: Esther Perel: 9780060753641: Amazon.com: Books
> 
> There you go, answers to everything you said in your post.


I'm almost done that book, and love it, and grok it...

But she doesn't give a ton of answers or things to do.

Just great questions to reflect on.

Giving this to a guy doesn't help him solve the problem, it points him in many directions which may help him solve his own problem.

What I needed at that time was a car repair manual, not a description of the end to end lifecycle of oil and how the internal combustion engine came to be.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes, she is quite a progressive thinker. Which may not fit with many people's goals....yet her ideas will work and do work for many. There is a lot going on in non-monogamy these days.
> 
> I feel that her points can still all be put back into your marriage or monogamous relationship, however. I really do.
> 
> It is just that when you try to describe how you do it (the way I do it with my husband) you can only describe what works for you. I do know it can be done though, because I'm doing it.


I don't classify that as "progressive thinking." 

But I do agree with honoring your marriage vows.


----------



## Anon1111

there is an attraction in becoming something together

when you are already there, there is no excitement

men and women lose that sense of "becoming" together

they can find it easily with someone new


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> I can tell you, again, how my husband and I accomplish it. Through actual intimacy.
> 
> We are each so deep and so unique (meaning us specifically but also applies to everyone) that there is no way to EVER truly know all of someone else. We all have built in mystery. We are even mysterious to ourselves.
> 
> When you are truly intimate with someone, you attempt to allow them deeper inside of you to the bigger you, the more you, the real you, the depths of you. You may not even know what is in there yourself!
> 
> So...the reason my husband and I have this constant feeling of not only strong mutual attraction but also mad love for each other, is that we are both very good at intimacy. We can see each other as strangers in an instant, and recognize that strangeness for what it is. We understand that we will never, ever "get to the bottom" of each other, sexually or emotionally or mentally. We understand that even though we are individual people, there is the equivalent to hundreds of different people inside each of us, because most personalities are not static.
> 
> Whereas...if I just want to bang someone, the sex might be great, but the lack of intimacy will always make me lose interest, sooner than later.
> 
> And on that same note...if I can't feel truly intimate with a partner (which might very well be MY fault, if I'm the one who isn't capable of real intimacy) then it will seem to me that I am not attracted to them, I will see their flaws bigger, my mind will go about framing them in a way that is unappealing to me.


OK.

Put yourself in a position where, for some reason, you no longer have that with your husband. 

What specific actions would you take to reclaim it?

What if he wasn't on board with that?

Or put yourself in a position where you were a man in that situation -- 'my hot wife isn't down to F any more, what can I do, starting today?'

Or... imagine a spouse waking up one day realizing that something profound was missing in their marriage. It's comfortable, happy, a roommate kinda deal.

What to do?


----------



## Marduk

Blossom Leigh said:


> "Perel suggests the discrete affair, open marriage, swingers clubs."
> 
> A review from a poster on Amazon
> 
> Heads up


Actually, she doesn't.

Although she does explain why, sometimes, people seek it out.

Surprisingly, as a way to stay married.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Brigit said:


> One of my best friends is 43 and she's pregnant with her first child. Everything is going well. She married a guy 12 years younger. He has a great job outside the home she manages the household.
> 
> I agree with you that AK's message is "flat out wacked."


And you think this is the norm? Also, without context as to what other options were available to them, the example doesn't carry much weight.

The bombshell at 25 will probably still be good enough looking at 43, assuming she takes care of herself, to attract an average or even good looking 31 year old... but not likely her equivalent at 31. I mean c'mon. When she's 50, he's going to be my age. If he's decent looking her competition is likely as low as the 20s. I'll say one thing... that's a brave woman.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Well no, you might not, because you don't value the hotness as much as you value chemistry/connection - exactly as these books explain. _Men tend to be more looks centered._ This is exactly the point I've been making about differences in what the sexes tend to prioritize. Everything else is just shaking an angry fist over whether we believe they "should", or mixing up attraction and attachment.


Eh, there are both women and men who are looks centred and both women and men who don't care as much. "Tend to be"? I guess it depends on your personal experience. 

FTR - Needing an attractive mate can also be explained in HNHN
Meeting The Emotional Need For Physical Attractiveness #1Physical Attractiveness Letter #1

See. No red pill needed to read something that tells you that working out and looking good might provide an EN for your wife.


----------



## Icey181

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Eh, there are both women and men who are looks centred and both women and men who don't care as much. "Tend to be"? I guess it depends on your personal experience.
> 
> FTR - Needing an attractive mate can also be explained in HNHN
> Meeting The Emotional Need For Physical Attractiveness #1Physical Attractiveness Letter #1
> 
> See. No red pill needed to read something that tells you that working out and looking good might provide an EN for your wife.


That does not even come close, sorry.

All that was stated is certain people find physical attractiveness to be an important need.

That is not what the Red Pill advice states.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Icey181 said:


> That does not even come close, sorry.
> 
> All that was stated is certain people find physical attractiveness to be an important need.
> 
> That is not what the Red Pill advice states.


Certain people, men and women, DO find physical attractiveness to be an important need.

Other people do not. 

Obviously it's not going to talk about the fake science crap the red pill does. You don't need that part and it's not true anyway.


----------



## Julius Beastcavern

jld said:


> Well, you have found one critic there. I think if his research were seriously in question, there would be many more, and his findings would be under review.


Lets be honest, I could whip out 1000 critics and it wouldn't change your marital dynamic and why should it? it works for you and you have a happy marriage. This is the trouble with trying to convince someone that something they have been using with great success is in fact wrong. 

Just out of interest did Dug believe in the man taking complete responsibility for the marriage before he met you?


----------



## Marduk

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Certain people, men and women, DO find physical attractiveness to be an important need.
> 
> Other people do not.
> 
> Obviously it's not going to talk about the fake science crap the red pill does. You don't need that part and it's not true anyway.


There's a funny thing there.

I am most definatly one of those guys who needs to be with someone I think is hot.

It's interesting though how broad my defintion of 'hot' can be with my wife when I'm head over heels in love with her ("what 5 lbs babe, I don't know what you're talking about!") ... and how narrow it is for other women ("ya, she's pretty, but not my type -- you are!").

And how the reverse is true when I'm feeling ignored, disrespected, not desired, angry, resentful...


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Eh, there are both women and men who are looks centred and both women and men who don't care as much. "Tend to be"? I guess it depends on your personal experience.


We'll simply agree to disagree then. I accept there are outliers of both genders. I have ample reason to believe, both in research on the subject and personal experience, that men place higher priority on looks than women. It's not even close in my assessment. So yes... "tend".



SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> FTR - Needing an attractive mate can also be explained in HNHN
> Meeting The Emotional Need For Physical Attractiveness #1Physical Attractiveness Letter #1
> 
> See. No red pill needed to read something that tells you that working out and looking good might provide an EN for your wife.


This doesn't actually disagree with RP, it just uses different language and perspective to describe it. I'm not sure it's even a "healthier" way to describe it - because that as an "emotional need" is awfully similar to other-validation. "I need you to stay fit so I know you're still trying to appeal to me and want me attracted to you". Ergo, I just want to know you're crazy about me. Other-validation. Maybe even a stretch of reasoning for a PC author.


----------



## Icey181

The only people I have ever met who claimed not to care about physical attractiveness either:
1) Had personal self-esteem and body issues of their own or
2) Were intimately or emotionally involved with an individual who did.

As far as I see it, physical attractiveness is a baseline and non-negotiable characteristic of all romantic relationships. It is a fundamental requirement to maintain sexual attraction.


----------



## jld

Julius Beastcavern said:


> Lets be honest, I could whip out 1000 critics and it wouldn't change your marital dynamic and why should it? it works for you and you have a happy marriage. This is the trouble with trying to convince someone that something they have been using with great success is in fact wrong.
> 
> Just out of interest did Dug believe in the man taking complete responsibility for the marriage before he met you?


I think he always expected to financially support a wife. He is traditional that way. But he figured out pretty quickly after our relationship started that it was not going to be a 50/50 emotionally, either.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> OK.
> 
> Put yourself in a position where, for some reason, you no longer have that with your husband.
> 
> What specific actions would you take to reclaim it?
> 
> What if he wasn't on board with that?
> 
> Or put yourself in a position where you were a man in that situation -- 'my hot wife isn't down to F any more, what can I do, starting today?'
> 
> Or... imagine a spouse waking up one day realizing that something profound was missing in their marriage. It's comfortable, happy, a roommate kinda deal.
> 
> What to do?


I got divorced once already for all that you just described. Because "it" was actually never really there for us, we thought it was but it was just the phenomenon of people having more sex in the beginning of a relationship.

So I've been through it myself. It just wasn't there for us, even though we loved each other. Love wasn't enough. We tried to fix it, I tried to explain what was missing for me, he tried to explain what was missing for him.

Ultimately, great sex is so important to me that I left, and found it elsewhere.

Some people will not be successful at what you are trying to do, marduk. I wasn't, and I lived to find what I was looking for on the other side. I would have preferred not to be divorced, it sucked, wouldn't wish it on anyone.

But I'm a highly sexual person, and I can't be deeply in love without great sex (each person's definition of this may vary, but I know what mine was). And my ex-h and I did not have that. Even though we loved each other and wanted it to work.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Icey181 said:


> The only people I have ever met who claimed not to care about physical attractiveness either:
> 1) Had personal self-esteem and body issues of their own or
> 2) Were intimately or emotionally involved with an individual who did.
> 
> As far as I see it, physical attractiveness is a baseline and non-negotiable characteristic of all romantic relationships. It is a fundamental requirement to maintain sexual attraction.


There are a lot of men and women, even on TAM, that it's just not a priority to them. They have sexual attraction based on personality, character, love. 

The whole "like attracts like" applies here I think. You meet people with high needs for attractive spouses because you are one yourself.


----------



## Julius Beastcavern

jld said:


> I think he always expected to financially support a wife. He is traditional that way. But he figured out pretty quickly after our relationship started that it was not going to be a 50/50 emotionally, either.


So would it be unreasonable to suggest he changed or adapted his way of thinking/behaving in order to make his marriage a success?


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Faithful Wife said:


> I got divorced once already for all that you just described. Because "it" was actually never really there for us, we thought it was but it was just the phenomenon of people having more sex in the beginning of a relationship.
> 
> So I've been through it myself. It just wasn't there for us, even though we loved each other. Love wasn't enough. We tried to fix it, I tried to explain what was missing for me, he tried to explain what was missing for him.
> 
> Ultimately, great sex is so important to me that I left, and found it elsewhere.
> 
> Some people will not be successful at what you are trying to do, marduk. I wasn't, and I lived to find what I was looking for on the other side. I would have preferred not to be divorced, it sucked, wouldn't wish it on anyone.
> 
> But I'm a highly sexual person, and I can't be deeply in love without great sex (each person's definition of this may vary, but I know what mine was). And my ex-h and I did not have that. Even though we loved each other and wanted it to work.


What was missing for you?

What was missing for him?


----------



## Faithful Wife

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> There are a lot of men and women, even on TAM, that it's just not a priority to them. They have sexual attraction based on personality, character, love.
> 
> The whole "like attracts like" applies here I think. You meet people with high needs for attractive spouses because you are one yourself.


Totally agree. I talk about women wanting to have physical attraction to a guy because I'm speaking for myself and for those women who agree, and I'm speaking this against the ridiculous notion some men have that ALL women rank physical looks as lower in importance than ALL men.

Some do, some don't, in both genders.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> I got divorced once already for all that you just described. Because "it" was actually never really there for us, we thought it was but it was just the phenomenon of people having more sex in the beginning of a relationship.
> 
> So I've been through it myself. It just wasn't there for us, even though we loved each other. Love wasn't enough. We tried to fix it, I tried to explain what was missing for me, he tried to explain what was missing for him.


so...

what didn't work?



> Ultimately, great sex is so important to me that I left, and found it elsewhere.


Here's the thing. 

I've had good sex with hot women.

I've had good sex with average looking women.

I've had good sex with women that I liked.

I've had good sex with women that I couldn't stand.

All that kind of stuff.

Here's my point: theres a central variable to all that, and that variable, is me. I'm pretty good at making sure I have a good time.

Maybe I'm just selfish enough to make sure I have a good time.

And maybe that's what some dudes need to hear. Because if I know one thing to be true, having sex with someone who's selfish enough to make sure they enjoy it is pretty damn sexy. Not in the "I only care if I get off" sense but in the sense of "I care if I have a good time" sense.


> Some people will not be successful at what you are trying to do, marduk. I wasn't, and I lived to find what I was looking for on the other side. I would have preferred not to be divorced, it sucked, wouldn't wish it on anyone.


Been divorced, too. And had terrible sex with her, too.

Mostly because she was trying to get me to leave her.



> But I'm a highly sexual person, and I can't be deeply in love without great sex (each person's definition of this may vary, but I know what mine was). And my ex-h and I did not have that. Even though we loved each other and wanted it to work.


I'm not saying it will work for everyone.

What I'm saying is giving people a decent shot at throwing a hail mary pass and spiking the ball in the end zone is better than a 0% chance.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Blossom Leigh said:


> What was missing for you?
> 
> What was missing for him?


Because I still love and respect him, I don't want to discuss his flaws here, or anywhere.

We just weren't right for each other, we misjudged who we both were, we met very young, and I was pregnant within 1 year of being with him. We did not really know who we were or what we wanted. We tried to "do the right thing".

He was very physically attractive to me, so it wasn't that.

The details though are where I respect him enough to not go there, it would just sound mean if he or my kids were ever to find me here.


----------



## jld

Julius Beastcavern said:


> So would it be unreasonable to suggest he changed or adapted his way of thinking/behaving in order to make his marriage a success?


That is pretty accurate. He wanted to be with me. And he saw pretty quickly what he could expect from me. I did not hide anything.


----------



## Icey181

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> There are a lot of men and women, even on TAM, that it's just not a priority to them. They have sexual attraction based on personality, character, love.
> 
> The whole "like attracts like" applies here I think. You meet people with high needs for attractive spouses because you are one yourself.


There is a difference in identifying something as a priority in exclusion of other items and a general priority.

And I personally do not believe in the notion of sexual attraction independent of physical attraction.

I somehow doubt that if I imbued an individual you found physically repulsive with a character and personality you find attractive that those other characteristics would override the former.

In my experience when an individual talks about how they find the personality or character of their SO the basis for their _physical attraction_ what they mean is that their SO is on the lower spectrum of acceptable physical attractiveness for them and that their other qualities make the trade off reasonable and acceptable.

I do not think it is a coincidence that a good portion of the dead bedroom situations I have read about and know of in real life occur in relationships in which otherwise loving and emotionally attentive men are no longer physically attractive to their wives.

Physical attractiveness is not optional.

This is usually the point where I look for the example of a husband or a wife who no longer finds their spouse physically attractive and yet still have an enthusiastic and mutually satisfying sexual life.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> I'm not saying it will work for everyone.
> 
> What I'm saying is giving people a decent shot at throwing a hail mary pass and spiking the ball in the end zone is better than a 0% chance.


Yes and they should try everything they can, based on THEIR specifics. The details of the specifics of the dynamic in my first marriage won't help anyone else. 

You can only go with you and your partner and work from there. You should read books and try to learn about this stuff, study your own circumstances, go to counselors, go to marriage retreats, whatever. Try everything!

But in the end, sometimes it just won't work no matter what you try.


----------



## Julius Beastcavern

jld said:


> That is pretty accurate. He wanted to be with me. And he saw pretty quickly what he could expect from me. I did not hide anything.


I guess my point is that this is exactly what the chaps on this board are trying to do, change their behavior and/or way or thinking in order to have a successful marriage. I think it's to be commended


----------



## Anon1111

another perspective:

what is achievable for where you are today?

is your relationship so bad that getting to "perfect" seems impossible?

should you let the "perfect" be the enemy of the "good"?

if good (in your opinion), relatively speaking, is to go from (1) a crappy marriage where you don't have sex, to (2) a crappy marriage where you do have sex, can anyone really blame you for choosing (2)? Should you even blame yourself?

If you can get to point (2), do you then realize that it is not a binary choice, but there may be choices (3), (4), (5), etc?

Isn't it possible that the value of (2) is not (2) itself, but the introduction of POSSIBILITY?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> As you know if you are into MMSL, oral and handjobs are absolutely forbidden by alpha males because it enrages them that they can't top her off with sperm.
> 
> So....how do you MMSL guys (specifically technovelist) reconcile the nonsense in your own heads? :scratchhead:
> 
> My husband IS red pill because he tops the sperm off....but he is a beta loser because he also just gets and gives hand jobs sometimes?


There's no need to reconcile a strawman. This is why it's so difficult to communicate with you. What you present as MMSL is not the case MMSL is making. Nobody says anything about forbidding BJs/HJs.

The message is to be wary of a woman doling out BJs more often than sex. It signals a latent sexual disinterest - flagging attraction. If she feels a sexual attraction for you, she wants him in the vagina, she doesn't want to just make him feel good with a bj. Instinctually, as the thinking goes, non-reproductive sexual favors are "provider maintenance", whilst reserving pregnancy potential for higher quality mates. So she may hand out the BJs willy nilly on the basis of affection for this man (who is or has tipped beta), while feeling totally "blah" about actually having intercourse with him - the subconscious context is that his having tipped beta has cost him on more primal attraction levels, so she doesn't actually care about having sex with him (that's the only part that surfaces consciously... and she doesn't know WHY). Doesn't mean she will necessarily cheat, but it's the machinery in her primal brain at work promoting her biological agenda. Obviously mostly conjecture, as it would be exceptionally difficult to prove one way or another.



Faithful Wife said:


> We also take separate vacations, I go out dancing with other men, he's had a vasectomy, and I'm bi-sexual.
> 
> So.....red pill is where in all of that?


The RP says you're way out in la la land outlier. Most people will give a big fat "screw that" to vacations without the person they most want to share their lives with, and going out dancing without the person they most want to dance with, in exchange for dancing with other men.

The vasectomy does have an attraction cost with young women. I've seen it. They think I'm the perfect guy until they find out that choosing me means making a choice against having children, even if they haven't really decided whether they want children yet, or think they won't. The possibility being eliminated is very unattractive to most young women. They aren't ready to make that decision.

As for being bi-sexual, it depends on the nature of the bi-sexuality. Multi-partner sex or one on one sex. One on one bi-sexually is effectively excluding. No man who allows that is alpha, period, besides speaking of your worth to that person given they have no problem with you giving your sexual attention to someone else to their exclusion.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes and they should try everything they can, based on THEIR specifics. The details of the specifics of the dynamic in my first marriage won't help anyone else.
> 
> You can only go with you and your partner and work from there. You should read books and try to them, go to counselors, go to marriage retreats, whatever. Try everything!
> 
> But in the end, sometimes it just won't work no matter what you try.


OK good. 

What I'm saying is that if you want to reach a guy like me in the kind of position I was in...

all that wouldn't have worked if it required my wife's complicity in the fix. Because she wouldn't have fixed what she didn't see as broken.

What I would have needed is:

Step A: Look at yourself, you pathetic fat lazy slob. Would you want to f you? No! Go get back in shape and get a life. Oh, by the way, here's how: (simple diet plan) + (simple exercise plan) + (some cool things to do to re-energize yourself)...

Step B: You call that being sexy? Is that seduction? That's lame. Here's how to seduce a woman: (have a plan) + (be assertive) + (learn how to take no for an answer)... 

Step C: Do you think you know what you're doing in the sack? Could you even tell me where stuff is? (here's where stuff is) + (here's how to stimulate that stuff) + (common female fantasies) + (always shake things up)...

That kind of stuff. If we're talking about sex.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> Step A: Look at yourself, you pathetic fat lazy slob. Would you want to f you?


Kind of like this? Sexy+Positive Blog: Would You Do You?

I actually have blogged a lot about the other stuff you mentioned, too. I'll be gathering it into a better format for a book.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> when I first heard of some of the red pill ideas and MMSL and evo psyche theories, I was like "hey, yeah, so there's actually science behind why some people are so sexy!"
> 
> But then when I read into it past the first few pages I was like "oh wow... I can't believe how utterly hateful this is


ie it said sl*t so she rage quit, dismissed more readily available supporting evidence in favor of specifically sought opposing evidence.

The book was a meanie. Rational process indeed.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Kind of like this? Sexy+Positive Blog: Would You Do You?
> 
> I actually have blogged a lot about the other stuff you mentioned, too. I'll be gathering it into a better format for a book.


What I'm saying is that I'm a bit of a blunt instrument. And needed step by step directions.

Like when you try to put those ikea things together. But maybe without that stupid little wrench, and in english, please.

No "insert SVENKLABEN into slot B in FLORGENGRUVEN."


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Mycroft_63 said:


> I think a better book for dating would be "All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten."


They neg hardcore on the playground.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> What I'm saying is that I'm a bit of a blunt instrument. And needed step by step directions.
> 
> Like when you try to put those ikea things together. But maybe without that stupid little wrench, and in english, please.
> 
> No "insert SVENKLABEN into slot B in FLORGENGRUVEN."


Did you read the blog post or not? I am working on it, marduk. I'm already going where you are suggesting I go and have been for quite a while.


----------



## Idyit

marduk said:


> What I'm saying is that I'm a bit of a blunt instrument. And needed step by step directions.
> 
> Like when you try to put those ikea things together. But maybe without that stupid little wrench, and in english, please.
> 
> *No "insert SVENKLABEN into slot B in FLORGENGRUVEN."*


I don't care what anyone else says. That right there is funny!

~ Passio


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Kind of like this? Sexy+Positive Blog: Would You Do You?
> 
> I actually have blogged a lot about the other stuff you mentioned, too. I'll be gathering it into a better format for a book.


Please don't take this the wrong way. Because that blog post was great. 

But it was an insightful description of the problem for 80% of the post and then a simple bit at the bottom that says "work it out, work it over, get a wardrobe..."

When I knew what the problem was. What I wanted is more solution. Explicitly. Step by step, with diagrams if possible.

Take a wardrobe. A typical guys wardrobe sucks?

Why? 

Fit. Fit is really important.

Do guys naturally know that? No.

How do they know if it fits properly? For me, I went and asked a gay guy, because I knew he would tell me.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> Please don't take this the wrong way. Because that blog post was great.
> 
> But it was an insightful description of the problem for 80% of the post and then a simple bit at the bottom that says "work it out, work it over, get a wardrobe..."
> 
> When I knew what the problem was. What I wanted is more solution. Explicitly. Step by step, with diagrams if possible.


As I said...because it was a blog post it was simple and not all inclusive....but I linked it because it does touch on exactly what you said.

The book is being created now, marduk. I'm on it.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Did you read the blog post or not? I am working on it, marduk. I'm already going where you are suggesting I go and have been for quite a while.


I hadn't yet, but I did, and then I posted the next post.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> As I said...because it was a blog post it was simple and not all inclusive....but I linked it because it does touch on exactly what you said.
> 
> The book is being created now, marduk. I'm on it.


But..

*I want it now!*
http://youtu.be/6hZ56mHlKB0


----------



## jld

Julius Beastcavern said:


> I guess my point is that this is exactly what the chaps on this board are trying to do, change their behavior and/or way or thinking in order to have a successful marriage. I think it's to be commended


But he would never do the things I read are in that book, Julius. 

He would not try to make me jealous in any way. He would not play on my insecurities. He would never tell me that as I get older, I have less value to him. 

I have been through five pregnancies, and he has never told me I looked anything but lovely to him. He has always helped with the kids and the house, too, as well as supporting all of us.

But I think the real key to my attraction to him is his emotional stability. He has never sworn at me or called me names. He is not needy or moody or manipulative. He does not need to be stroked or shored up. I can tell him anything, go to him with anything, at any time. He is secure in himself.

I don't get it when men want to blame their wives for issues in the marriage, or when they are quick to say she is half the problem. I do not see confidence in that. It is as though he is saying he does not believe in himself and his ability to influence his wife. I don't understand that.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> Sooooo.... I have said this a few times now.....is there anyone here, man or woman, who can show any PROOF of anything behind MMSL or red pill, and I mean the SCIENCE parts?


Every time I provide research the "MMSL is mean" brigade dismisses it. I did it again in this thread with status. The only person with a halfway decent response was Always Alone, whose study basically amounts to "trait exchange hasn't been studied enough" for larger conclusions according to actual pairing evidence. Her non-experimental study also failed to account for reasons beauty-status exchange may be limited, including class stratification and availability constraints. Her study actually provided no contradiction of the attraction bias of status females had for men, which men didn't have for women.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Faithful Wife said:


> Did you read the blog post or not? I am working on it, marduk. I'm already going where you are suggesting I go and have been for quite a while.


Then be direct about it instead of skirting him.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> But he would never do the things I read are in that book, Julius.
> 
> He would not try to make me jealous in any way. He would not play on my insecurities. He would never tell me that as I get older, I have less value to him.
> 
> I have been through five pregnancies, and he has never told me I looked anything but lovely to him. He has always helped with the kids and the house, too, as well as supporting all of us.
> 
> But I think the real key to my attraction to him is his emotional stability. He has never sworn at me or called me names. He is not needy or moody or manipulative. He does not need to be stroked or shored up. I can tell him anything, go to him with anything, at any time. He is secure in himself.
> 
> I don't get it when men want to blame their wives for issues in the marriage, or when they are quick to say she is half the problem. I do not see confidence in that. It is as though he is saying he does not believe in himself and his ability to influence his wife. I don't understand that.


After he influences her, what is her responsibility?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Blossom Leigh said:


> Then be direct about it instead of skirting him.


Blossom....did you even read what I wrote? There is a lot to write for an A. B. C. plan of action. I haven't written it yet. I am formulating it now. What is so hard to understand about that?

He could also go pour over my blog and get lots of other ideas.

But it still won't be the ABC plan he asked for and as far as I know, there isn't one out there that I would recommend.

How am I skirting him? What he's asked for hasn't been written yet. It is more complicated than one post on a message forum.


----------



## Julius Beastcavern

jld said:


> But he would never do the things I read are in that book, Julius.
> 
> He would not try to make me jealous in any way. He would not play on my insecurities. He would never tell me that as I get older, I have less value to him.
> 
> I have been through five pregnancies, and he has never told me I looked anything but lovely to him. He has always helped with the kids and the house, too, as well as supporting all of us.
> 
> But I think the real key to my attraction to him is his emotional stability. He has never sworn at me or called me names. He is not needy or moody or manipulative. He does not need to be stroked or shored up. I can tell him anything, go to him with anything, at any time. He is secure in himself.
> 
> I don't get it when men want to blame their wives for issues in the marriage, or when they are quick to say she is half the problem. I do not see confidence in that. It is as though he is saying he does not believe in himself and his ability to influence his wife. I don't understand that.


Different strokes for different folks. I think it's one of the wonders of life how so many completely different dynamics can work


----------



## Icey181

jld said:


> But he would never do the things I read are in that book, Julius.
> 
> He would not try to make me jealous in any way. He would not play on my insecurities. He would never tell me that as I get older, I have less value to him.
> 
> I have been through five pregnancies, and he has never told me I looked anything but lovely to him. He has always helped with the kids and the house, too, as well as supporting all of us.
> 
> But I think the real key to my attraction to him is his emotional stability. He has never sworn at me or called me names. He is not needy or moody or manipulative. He does not need to be stroked or shored up. I can tell him anything, go to him with anything, at any time. He is secure in himself.
> 
> I don't get it when men want to blame their wives for issues in the marriage, or when they are quick to say she is half the problem. I do not see confidence in that. It is as though he is saying he does not believe in himself and his ability to influence his wife. I don't understand that.


Basically, it comes down to this:

You seem to be in and enjoy a relationship, not between equals, but between a caretaker and those he takes care of.

Seriously…the longer this thread goes on the less I find it possible to reject some of the stupider things Red Pill people say about women in general…


----------



## jld

Blossom Leigh said:


> After he influences her, what is her responsibility?


By influence, I mean inspire or persuade. If she feels loved and understood, she will likely want to please him.

You are into boundaries and consequences, right, Blossom? I think a softer approach can be more effective, if the man really knows his wife.


----------



## always_alone

technovelist said:


> *Most *of the book is deliberately "over the top" in the sense that it is intended as, and is written in the manner of, a slap in the face for men whose marriages are sexless or nearly so. It is not a theoretical tome on a theoretical subject, but a call to action. Such writing often requires harsh words to have the intended effect.
> 
> If one can get past the manner of delivery, and is in the target audience, one can indeed get a lot of information about how it might be possible to turn around an unsatisfactory marriage, and some men report great success in using this information.


Since it is *men* that he is supposedly slapping in the face, why are all the harsh words directed at women? :scratchhead:


----------



## Icey181

always_alone said:


> Since it is *men* that he is supposedly slapping in the face, why are all the harsh words directed at women? :scratchhead:


Might have something to do with the fact that the book is targeted at men who idolize women and are guilty of the "Women are Wonderful" effect throughout their own lives.


----------



## Holland

ConanHub said:


> I think young ladies should be aware of red pill teaching. Would definitely help them when encountering a red pill or pua practitioner.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I think children of both genders should be raised with enough self esteem to not fall victim to the RP type of mentality, also a good dose of reality. In our little home we have some pretty open discussions, they don't always talk about really intimate stuff but they know that they can when they are ready and without judgement.

The RP ways do not work on intelligent, self aware women in general. I would not want to send my kids out into the world so unbalanced that this type of thinking could be used on them.

Off to catch up on the rest of the thread. Very interesting thread.


----------



## jld

Icey181 said:


> Basically, it comes down to this:
> 
> You seem to be in and enjoy a relationship, not between equals, but between a caretaker and those he takes care of.
> 
> Seriously…the longer this thread goes on the less I find it possible to reject some of the stupider things Red Pill people say about women in general…


It is a symbiotic relationship. It meets both of our needs. His to care for a woman, and mine to be cared for. It is loving and warm and harmonious. 

Makes me feel peaceful just thinking about it.


----------



## Faithful Wife

jld said:


> It is a symbiotic relationship. It meets both of our needs. His to care for a woman, and mine to be cared for. It is loving and warm and harmonious.
> 
> Makes me feel peaceful just thinking about it.


I think the important thing that people should learn from jld is that she and Dug have found what works for them and they know why it works for them. 

What works for you will work for you.

Find out what that is.

My book will not work for everyone, nor should it or could it ever.

No book will.

jld and Dug are self-aware and mutually attracted.

That's the place to start.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Faithful Wife said:


> Blossom....did you even read what I wrote? There is a lot to write for an A. B. C. plan of action. I haven't written it yet. I am formulating it now. What is so hard to understand about that?
> 
> He could also go pour over my blog and get lots of other ideas.
> 
> But it still won't be the ABC plan he asked for and as far as I know, there isn't one out there that I would recommend.
> 
> How am I skirting him? What he's asked for hasn't been written yet. It is more complicated than one post on a message forum.


Yes I read it. You have struggled to acknowledge the situation he keeps repeating or else he wouldn't be repeating it. He wants to know that you understand the dilemma he was in. And then your answer was you understood, but your choice was to end the relationship and found someone else. He doesn't want to do that, so address HIS situation directly. Guys generally tend to be linear thinkers by design, you are talking to him in a non linear way AND He wants that discussion here... and you are just sending him chasing your blog or future book.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Icey181 said:


> As far as I see it, physical attractiveness is a baseline and non-negotiable characteristic of all romantic relationships. It is a fundamental requirement to maintain sexual attraction.


In your experience, are you aware of women who only found a man physically attractive after noticing him for some other non-physical reasons?

This is the gray area I believe is responsible for a lot of confusion on this point.

As women commonly describe it, "He's attractive, but I didn't really see him that way until [some appealing behavior/non-physical trait]"


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> By influence, I mean inspire or persuade. If she feels loved and understood, she will likely want to please him.
> 
> You are into boundaries and consequences, right, Blossom? I think a softer approach can be more effective, if the man really knows his wife.


Boundaries and consequences are a small portion of my relational navigational tools. And reserved for extreme situations like abuse.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Blossom Leigh said:


> Yes I read it. You have struggled to acknowledge the situation he keeps repeating or else he wouldn't be repeating it. He wants to know that you understand the dilemma he was in. And then your answer was you understood, but just went and found someone else. He doesn't want to do that, so address HIS situation directly. Guys generally tend to be linear thinkers by design, you are talking to him in a non linear way. That's what I mean. He wants that discussion here... and you are just sending him chasing your blog or future book.


He asked for a detailed list of how to get from where you are at to your goal. This has not been written yet.

If you don't understand that, sorry honey.

Your "just went and found someone else" was cold, I expressed sadness over being divorced and kindness and respect for my ex. I did not word it like it was just an easy choice. You reading me that way just makes me not want to interact with you because this isn't fair or kind to me.


----------



## Icey181

jld said:


> It is a symbiotic relationship. It meets both of our needs. His to care for a woman, and mine to be cared for. It is loving and warm and harmonious.
> 
> Makes me feel peaceful just thinking about it.


Well, I am happy that it works for you.

I would not describe what is essentially a male-oriented caretaker who you think owns responsibility for the entirety of the marriage as a symbiotic relationship, however.

Between the descriptions of both your and FW's marriages, you have essentially made me rethink my _rejection_ of certain off-the-wall Red Pill arguments…

…and it has done nothing but convince me that the Red Pill is 100% correct in its descriptions of what men need to be in order to maintain a healthy and mutually satisfying relationship.


----------



## Anon1111

jld said:


> But he would never do the things I read are in that book, Julius.
> 
> He would not try to make me jealous in any way. He would not play on my insecurities. He would never tell me that as I get older, I have less value to him.
> 
> I have been through five pregnancies, and he has never told me I looked anything but lovely to him. He has always helped with the kids and the house, too, as well as supporting all of us.
> 
> But I think the real key to my attraction to him is his emotional stability. He has never sworn at me or called me names. He is not needy or moody or manipulative. He does not need to be stroked or shored up. I can tell him anything, go to him with anything, at any time. He is secure in himself.
> 
> I don't get it when men want to blame their wives for issues in the marriage, or when they are quick to say she is half the problem. I do not see confidence in that. It is as though he is saying he does not believe in himself and his ability to influence his wife. I don't understand that.


here's what sounds great about your husband:

he could be a great husband for anybody (or nobody).

he sounds totally secure in who he is. that is awesome. every man should aspire to be this way.

what I don't get is why you don't seem to think women should aspire to the same standard.

do you think women are incapable of this?

or do you think that they simply don't need to because a man can do it for them?

in either of the above situations, I think the ultimate conclusion has to be that women are lesser than men.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> He asked for a detailed list of how to get from where you are at to your goal. This has not been written yet.
> 
> If you don't understand that, sorry honey.
> 
> Your "just went and found someone else" was cold, I expressed sadness over being divorced and kindness and respect for my ex. I did not word it like it was just an easy choice. You reading me that way just makes me not want to interact with you because this isn't fair or kind to me.


I'd rather just learn from it.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Faithful Wife said:


> He asked for a detailed list of how to get from where you are at to your goal. This has not been written yet.
> 
> If you don't understand that, sorry honey.
> 
> Your "just went and found someone else" was cold, I expressed sadness over being divorced and kindness and respect for my ex. I did not word it like it was just an easy choice. You reading me that way just makes me not want to interact with you because this isn't fair or kind to me.


I get the impression he wants the prewritten ideas written here... 

Hurting you wasn't the intent.

ETA: I revised it... hopefully to something less hurtful, but without knowing you I can't fully know what that is. Do you have a preferred way its stated?


----------



## jld

Icey181 said:


> Well, I am happy that it works for you.
> 
> I would not describe what is essentially a male-oriented caretaker who you think owns responsibility for the entirety of the marriage as a symbiotic relationship, however.
> 
> Between the descriptions of both your and FW's marriages, you have essentially made me rethink my _rejection_ of certain off-the-wall Red Pill arguments…
> 
> …and it has done nothing but convince me that the Red Pill is 100% correct in its descriptions of what men need to be in order to maintain a healthy and mutually satisfying relationship.


I think FW and I have both described the differences in our marriages from what the RP advocates. No manipulation here.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Since it is *men* that he is supposedly slapping in the face, why are all the harsh words directed at women? :scratchhead:


Think of it as manspeak. Locker room talk. Message: stop being a doting politically correct weenie.

In actual practice most readers get the message, and don't go around calling women sl*ts and wh*res. Even so, AK is referring to a facet of a woman, not a whole self, with the purpose of convincing the weenie man that his wife isn't just a "dead fish" but rather his behaviors likely contribute to her disinterest. If he takes care of his sh*t, and takes care of himself, and asserts himself and his needs, more likely than not she will eagerly jump on board the new program. In fact, I can't say I've ever met someone who has read MMSL and started thinking of women as sl*ts and wh*res, other than tongue in cheek and circumstance/company appropriate, as in to jokingly poke/provoke.

For example, take all the flak Chris Evans and ...(forget his first name) Renner, got in for joking that Scalet Johansens character Black Widow in Avengers was a sl*t in reference to a relationship with Bruce Banner rather than them. It was clearly tongue in cheek humor between two guys being irreverent and faux jealous.

You probably wouldn't get the message in the crude language of MMSL. The tip toeing guy is likely to.


----------



## Anon1111

Faithful Wife said:


> I think the important thing that people should learn from jld is that she and Dug have found what works for them and they know why it works for them.
> 
> What works for you will work for you.
> 
> Find out what that is.
> 
> My book will not work for everyone, nor should it or could it ever.
> 
> No book will.
> 
> jld and Dug are self-aware and mutually attracted.
> 
> That's the place to start.


I agree with this as it pertains to their relationship.

Where it falls apart is where jld sees it as a paradigm for all other relationships.

Also, where she repeatedly implies that anyone who disagrees with her is afraid or weak.


----------



## Icey181

jld said:


> I think FW and I have both described the differences in our marriages from what the RP advocates. No manipulation here.


I am not talking about the caricatured concepts of manipulation that are borne from an anger-phase pandering idiot.

Between yourself and FW you have confirmed the necessity of all the Alpha-male traits talked about in Red Pill. This includes sexual confidence and dominance, emotional stoicism, and treating women like the "most responsible teenager in the house."

Given the general terminology, the relationship you described between you and your husband sounds like the relationship between a father and his daughter, to be frank.


----------



## Idyit

I'd like to say something about the issue of studies and burden of proof. No one study or even series of them will ever prove something. Evidence will strongly support one thing or another but will never completely rule out all other options and obviate future research.

Two examples from a fairly well studied branch of science. Medicine. 

Ten years ago the cardiovascular stent was the perfect answer to the trauma, recovery time and infection rates seen with open heart surgery. It was less expensive and better for the patient. Studies showed that the percent blockage of the coronary artery was the best indicator for placement. 

This research made sense and was well supported. The problem with all the good science is that it was not supported for re-admits/stents and survival rates. New research shows that flow rate through the vessel is most important. An 80% blocked vessel with good flow is better than one with 20% blockage and poor flow.

Good peer reviewed literature that could normalize for age, BMI etc was wrong.

Second example. What do you see when you walk in any hospital door, next to the elevator, in every patient room, heck everywhere? Hand sanitizers. How many millions of dollars do you think are spent on hand sanitizers in hospitals each year? Tens of millions..hundreds? Take a guess how many studies have been done to show that hand sanitizer reduce infection rates or in any way positively impact health care. None..not one.

My point is that not one study mentioned in this thread or all of TAM for that matter has the ability to prove anything. They may support a position with good (or bad) evidence. The bottom line is that like hand sanitizer we often do things because it makes sense.

~ Passio


----------



## Marduk

Blossom Leigh said:


> I get the impression he wants the prewritten ideas written here...
> 
> Hurting you wasn't the intent.


Yup. 

It's ok. Lots of women don't get that about some guys. 

I'm fully capable of non-linear thinking. It's just that describing general picture ideas often presents itself as a tactical plan with very different outcomes than expected. Just ask my wife. 

"Husband, I clicked on a link I shouldn't have, and now my email is hacked into. Can you fix it?"

"Sure. Gimme 30 mins."

- 30 mins later - 

"Ok wife, it's all fixed."

"Great, what did you do?"

"Oh, I traced the remote login through a couple systems in California and ended up in China. They weren't behind a firewall so I triggered what I hope is filling their drive up with anime tentacle porn. It seems to work because they've gone down. I then emailed what I hope are the folks in Cali letting them know that their machines appear to be being used as pass thrus. I've since blocked all those ips from all our devices at home."

"... I just wanted you to change my password..."

"Oh, I did that too. It's now 'yourhusbandneedsablowjob'"
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

Anon1111 said:


> I agree with this as it pertains to their relationship.
> 
> Where it falls apart is where jld sees it as a paradigm for all other relationships.
> 
> Also, where she repeatedly implies that anyone who disagrees with her is afraid or weak.


She hears this criticism a lot. I can see why you see it that way. Their way is different and they really believe in it. I just admire their conviction.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

marduk said:


> Yup.
> 
> It's ok. Lots of women don't get that about some guys.
> 
> I'm fully capable of non-linear thinking. It's just that describing general picture ideas often presents itself as a tactical plan with very different outcomes than expected. Just ask my wife.
> 
> "Husband, I clicked on a link I shouldn't have, and now my email is hacked into. Can you fix it?"
> 
> "Sure. Gimme 30 mins."
> 
> - 30 mins later -
> 
> "Ok wife, it's all fixed."
> 
> "Great, what did you do?"
> 
> "Oh, I traced the remote login through a couple systems in California and ended up in China. They weren't behind a firewall so I triggered what I hope is filling their drive up with anime tentacle porn. It seems to work because they've gone down. I then emailed what I hope are the folks in Cali letting them know that their machines appear to be being used as pass thrus. I've since blocked all those ips from all our devices at home."
> 
> "... I just wanted you to change my password..."
> 
> "Oh, I did that too. It's now 'yourhusbandneedsablowjob'"
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



:rofl:


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

It took a long time... but I have caught up with the thread. It's the small victories. lol 

Until tomorrow when I'm 30 pages behind again.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> Yup.
> 
> It's ok. Lots of women don't get that about some guys.
> 
> I'm fully capable of non-linear thinking. It's just that describing general picture ideas often presents itself as a tactical plan with very different outcomes than expected. Just ask my wife.
> 
> "Husband, I clicked on a link I shouldn't have, and now my email is hacked into. Can you fix it?"
> 
> "Sure. Gimme 30 mins."
> 
> - 30 mins later -
> 
> "Ok wife, it's all fixed."
> 
> "Great, what did you do?"
> 
> "Oh, I traced the remote login through a couple systems in California and ended up in China. They weren't behind a firewall so I triggered what I hope is filling their drive up with anime tentacle porn. It seems to work because they've gone down. I then emailed what I hope are the folks in Cali letting them know that their machines appear to be being used as pass thrus. I've since blocked all those ips from all our devices at home."
> 
> "... I just wanted you to change my password..."
> 
> "Oh, I did that too. It's now 'yourhusbandneedsablowjob'"
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



And yesterday you asked someone else who was getting on my case to give me some time to come up with it, right?

When I don't have it canned and prepared for you today, you are surprised?

I did appreciate the I Want it NOW skit.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Fw, did you see that I changed that line. I hope it takes the sting out. I wasn't trying to hurt you with that brevity.


----------



## Faithful Wife

No worries. And thank you.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Faithful Wife said:


> No worries. And thank you.


You are welcome


----------



## jld

Anon1111 said:


> here's what sounds great about your husband:
> 
> he could be a great husband for anybody (or nobody).
> 
> he sounds totally secure in who he is. that is awesome. every man should aspire to be this way.
> 
> what I don't get is why you don't seem to think women should aspire to the same standard.
> 
> do you think women are incapable of this?
> 
> or do you think that they simply don't need to because a man can do it for them?
> 
> in either of the above situations, I think the ultimate conclusion has to be that women are lesser than men.


Of course women should aspire to be secure in themselves. They are definitely capable. I see it all around me, including in my own daughter.

And as I said earlier, women may increasingly reject marriage, as they get more education, earn more money, and are able to easily and comfortably live the lives they want, including with children, on their own. I think Holland mentioned recently that more and more women in Australia are hiring male sex workers to meet those particular needs, too.

By encouraging men to develop empathy and the skills to form deep emotional bonds with women, I am hoping to keep them from seeming, well, _optional_ to women in the future.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> And yesterday you asked someone else who was getting on my case to give me some time to come up with it, right?
> 
> When I don't have it canned and prepared for you today, you are surprised?
> 
> I did appreciate the I Want it NOW skit.


That was yesterday. 

I gave you a whole day. 

That's like, a long time. 

Where is it?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Anon1111

Faithful Wife said:


> She hears this criticism a lot. I can see why you see it that way. Their way is different and they really believe in it. I just admire their conviction.


I think it's cool too. For them.

She is all about explaining to men what they should do, but doesn't do it herself (based on her posts here).

So she has no first hand experience of "getting there."

So why does she really think she knows what she is talking about?

By the way, I will be straight up and say that I feel the same way (though to a lesser degree) for most women who attempt to give men in these types of marriages advice. They simply lack the right perspective. They have not been in this particular place and have not had to go on this journey. Not their fault, but relevant.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> Of course women should aspire to be secure in themselves. They are definitely capable. I see it all around me, including in my own daughter.
> 
> And as I said earlier, women may increasingly reject marriage, as they get more education, earn more money, and are able to easily and comfortably live the lives they want, including with children, on their own. I think Holland mentioned recently that more and more women in Australia are hiring male sex workers to meet those particular needs, too.
> 
> By encouraging men to develop empathy and the skills to form deep emotional bonds with women, I am hoping to keep them from seeming, well, _optional_ to women in the future.



"male sex workers.."

that makes me sick

so women want to rail against female prostitution as oppressive and then turn and hire male prostitution... unbelievable.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Anon1111 said:


> By the way, I will be straight up and say that I feel the same way (though to a lesser degree) for most women who attempt to give men in these types of marriages advice. They simply lack the right perspective. They have not been in this particular place and have not had to go on this journey. Not their fault, but relevant.


Which is why red pill and PUA study the Naturals. They want to know what he knows and how he gets what he gets. (even though they still don't understand it because they start from the position of thinking women don't want sex)

And which is what hopefully will add some credibility when I try to say the things I have to say....the sex god said he'd help me. We'll see what happens.


----------



## jld

Anon1111 said:


> I think it's cool too. For them.
> 
> She is all about explaining to men what they should do, but doesn't do it herself (based on her posts here).
> 
> So she has no first hand experience of "getting there."
> 
> So why does she really think she knows what she is talking about?
> 
> By the way, I will be straight up and say that I feel the same way (though to a lesser degree) for most women who attempt to give men in these types of marriages advice. They simply lack the right perspective. They have not been in this particular place and have not had to go on this journey. Not their fault, but relevant.


My husband sees it the same way as I do, Anon. If anything, he is much harder on men than I am.


----------



## Marduk

Anon1111 said:


> I think it's cool too. For them.
> 
> She is all about explaining to men what they should do, but doesn't do it herself (based on her posts here).
> 
> So she has no first hand experience of "getting there."
> 
> So why does she really think she knows what she is talking about?
> 
> By the way, I will be straight up and say that I feel the same way (though to a lesser degree) for most women who attempt to give men in these types of marriages advice. They simply lack the right perspective. They have not been in this particular place and have not had to go on this journey. Not their fault, but relevant.


See past it Anon. 

I know it's hard. It was hard for me, too. 

She cares. And she's right about a lot. It just comes from a really different angle. 

And that angle can make it really valuable. If you don't take it personally.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> That was yesterday.
> 
> I gave you a whole day.
> 
> That's like, a long time.
> 
> Where is it?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I keep telling you but you don't listen....IT'S IN YOUR PANTS!!!!


----------



## Anon1111

jld said:


> By encouraging men to develop empathy and the skills to form deep emotional bonds with women, I am hoping to keep them from seeming, well, _optional_ to women in the future.


OK, let me get this straight. If women gain greater autonomy, they won't need men.

Men have autonomy today, but they need women.... why?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Anon1111 said:


> OK, let me get this straight. If women gain greater autonomy, they won't need men.
> 
> Men have autonomy today, but they need women.... why?


Duh, for bjs.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Anon1111 said:


> OK, let me get this straight. If women gain greater autonomy, they won't need men.
> 
> Men have autonomy today, but they need women.... why?


For the record men and women both will never not be needed by the other... that's just the way it is and will be til the end.


----------



## jld

Anon1111 said:


> OK, let me get this straight. If women gain greater autonomy, they won't need men.
> 
> Men have autonomy today, but they need women.... why?


You tell me.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Idyit said:


> I'd like to say something about the issue of studies and burden of proof. No one study or even series of them will ever prove something. Evidence will strongly support one thing or another but will never completely rule out all other options and obviate future research.


Exactly! In fact, thank you for saying this, because the most common refutation I encounter here is "that's all bunk because [insert specifically sought after study that offers doubt here]. I reject your studies!!"

Absolute conclusiveness is rare - especially in cognitive science. It's evidence which points toward one thing or another. So suggestions that these ideas are baseless are flatly false.




Idyit said:


> Take a guess how many studies have been done to show that hand sanitizer reduce infection rates or in any way positively impact health care. None..not one.


I've read a study on hand sanitizer effectiveness not specific to health outcomes but rather remaining bacteria post-wash. It suggested that there is little to no benefit to hand sanitizer because it could only be shown to be more effective when subjects sufficiently "scrubbed" their hands aggressively, and most test subjects did not.



Idyit said:


> My point is that not one study mentioned in this thread or all of TAM for that matter has the ability to prove anything.


Absolutely agree and something we should always keep in mind, even when we throw around jargon like "prove it" and "concludes". I'm guilty myself.

Throwing around hyperbole and mockery like FW's catch phrase, "because SCIENCE!" and "unsupported/debunked/junk science", or my own "100% proven", only encourages hyperbole in response.


----------



## Anon1111

marduk said:


> See past it Anon.
> 
> I know it's hard. It was hard for me, too.
> 
> She cares. And she's right about a lot. It just comes from a really different angle.
> 
> And that angle can make it really valuable. If you don't take it personally.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


It's actually not hard.

The impression I get of her husband is that he is top shelf. Awesome. That is a great model to aspire toward.

she is saying a lot more than that and really does not have any perspective on a lot of what she pretends to understand.


----------



## Anon1111

jld said:


> You tell me.


I don't.


----------



## jld

Anon1111 said:


> It's actually not hard.
> 
> The impression I get of her husband is that he is top shelf. Awesome. That is a great model to aspire toward.
> 
> *she is saying a lot more than that and really does not have any perspective on a lot of what she pretends to understand.*


Would you like to explain?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> Which is why red pill and PUA study the Naturals. They want to know what he knows and how he gets what he gets. (even though they still don't understand it *because they start from the position of thinking women don't want sex*)


"women don't want sex"... that's what you got from "inner sl*t" in MMSL? :scratchhead: lol


----------



## Julius Beastcavern

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> "women don't want sex"... that's what you got from "inner sl*t" in MMSL? :scratchhead: lol


Yeah, one of the more bitter pills to swallow from MMSLP is "of course your wife wants sex, just not with you"


----------



## Anon1111

jld said:


> My husband sees it the same way as I do, Anon. If anything, he is much harder on men than I am.


what's his view on women?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Blossom Leigh said:


> For the record men and women both will never not be needed by the other... that's just the way it is and will be til the end.


We'll see about that when science has 1) created a life like fembot android, and 2) created reliable designer artificial sperm insemination for the ladies and designer eggs and artificial wombs for the guys. Remove sex and reproduction from the male/female dynamic and you remove it all. 

We're already on our way to economic equality (with some ways to go) so provider-ship is dwindling, and baring #1 and #2, the only remaining need is companionship - which need not be filled by a sexual partner (oh wait, that describes a lot of marriages today anyway ).

So maybe you're right.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Anon1111 said:


> I don't.


Serious or sarcasm?

Honest question.

Some people are better off not married.


----------



## Idyit

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I've read a study on hand sanitizer effectiveness not specific to health outcomes but rather remaining bacteria post-wash. It suggested that there is little to no benefit to hand sanitizer because it could only be shown to be more effective when subjects sufficiently "scrubbed" their hands aggressively, and most test subjects did not.


Alcohol kills germs at a known rate in controlled conditions. Your study only showed if the variable of scrub vs not affected kill rates. Take it a step further. Kajillions of dollars spent and not one study related to infection rates or healthcare outcomes. Money is spent because someone believes it works.

And by the way, never EVER touch the elevator buttons in a hospital. Just sayin.

~ Passio


----------



## Anon1111

jld said:


> Would you like to explain?


sure, although I think I already have.

you married an awesome guy. he takes great care of you. such great care that you believe you are relieved of responsibility for maintaining the relationship. that is his job.

based on the success of this situation in your own home, you have taken the view that this is the ONLY way to create a harmonious marriage.

any man who questions whether this makes sense by and large, you will label as avoiding making the hard choices to be a better man. you never address the substance of any questions toward your point of view, you only impunge the character of your questioner. if only all men were like your husband, you reason, there would be no marriage problems.

your husband is an idol to you. you look at him in awe, but (at least in your posts here) you show little insight into why he is the way he is. he just is that way.

you suggest that men should be more like him. but how? you cannot answer that. and THAT is the key question.


----------



## Faithful Wife

This book was written by an awesome husband and wife team who follow my blog on twitter. They also asked me for a quote for the book, which I provided. I loved their first book, too.

This book is full of great ideas, but as usual, it will only appeal to certain readers. But just thought I'd share it here for anyone who might be drawn to it:

http://www.amazon.com/Soulmate-Love...1431639847&sr=8-1&keywords=the+soulmate+lover


----------



## Julius Beastcavern

Idyit said:


> Alcohol kills germs at a known rate in controlled conditions. Your study only showed if the variable of scrub vs not affected kill rates. Take it a step further. Kajillions of dollars spent and not one study related to infection rates or healthcare outcomes. Money is spent because someone believes it works.
> 
> And by the way, never EVER touch the elevator buttons in a hospital. Just sayin.
> 
> ~ Passio


I work in a hospital, you're freaking me out man


----------



## Anon1111

Faithful Wife said:


> Serious or sarcasm?
> 
> Honest question.
> 
> Some people are better off not married.


I am serious.

I do not need to be married any more.

I would LIKE to remain married, but I don't need it.

That was the first step on my path to getting where I am today (which is far from a perfect place).

I am not dependent on my wife for my personal happiness. I can live without her and there are many scenarios where I know I would be better off without her.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Anon1111 said:


> your husband is an idol to you. you look at him in awe, but (at least in your posts here) you show little insight into why he is the way he is. he just is that way.
> 
> you suggest that men should be more like him. but how? you cannot answer that. and THAT is the key question.


I'm confused by this because she describes the "how" all the time.

Also check out David Deida, read everything by him, if you really want to know the answer to this question. That's why it is in her sig line.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Anon1111 said:


> I am serious.
> 
> I do not need to be married any more.
> 
> I would LIKE to remain married, but I don't need it.
> 
> That was the first step on my path to getting where I am today (which is far from a perfect place).
> 
> I am not dependent on my wife for my personal happiness. I can live without her and there are many scenarios where I know I would be better off without her.


Are you still planning to leave in a few months? (haven't caught up on your thread lately)


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Idyit said:


> Money is spent because someone believes it works.


Money is spent because someone makes more money on it than soap and markets their product well. lol



Idyit said:


> And by the way, never EVER touch the elevator buttons in a hospital. Just sayin.


:lol: I don't even like being IN hospitals.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Which is why red pill and PUA study the Naturals. They want to know what he knows and how he gets what he gets. (even though they still don't understand it because they start from the position of thinking women don't want sex)
> 
> And which is what hopefully will add some credibility when I try to say the things I have to say....the sex god said he'd help me. We'll see what happens.


There's more.

I think I was a natural, lost it, and started to recover it.

And I still don't know why it works. Or what specifically is it that is working.


----------



## Idyit

Julius Beastcavern said:


> I work in a hospital, you're freaking me out man


Then I guess I shouldn't tell you about the water.


----------



## Julius Beastcavern

Idyit said:


> Then I guess I shouldn't tell you about the water.


:lol:


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> There's more.
> 
> I think I was a natural, lost it, and started to recover it.
> 
> And I still don't know why it works. Or what specifically is it that is *working*.


By working, do you mean:

*more sex is happening

*more sexual attraction is happening and sex

*just more attraction but not more sex

*more intimacy

*more intimacy AND more hot sex AND mutual sexual attraction


----------



## Brigit

Blossom Leigh said:


> "male sex workers.."
> 
> that makes me sick
> 
> so women want to rail against female prostitution as oppressive and then turn and hire male prostitution... unbelievable.


So with women becoming more "equal" the world won't become better it shall just become sicker.

This is why I listen to Eckhart Tolle. He helps me to focus on what really matters. I know this isn't a thread about Enlightenment but I'm starting to believe this is the way to go for any sense of peace and happiness in a relationship of any sort.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Anon1111 said:


> sure, although I think I already have.
> 
> you married an awesome guy. he takes great care of you. such great care that you believe you are relieved of responsibility for maintaining the relationship. that is his job.
> 
> based on the success of this situation in your own home, you have taken the view that this is the ONLY way to create a harmonious marriage.
> 
> any man who questions whether this makes sense by and large, you will label as avoiding making the hard choices to be a better man. you never address the substance of any questions toward your point of view, you only impunge the character of your questioner. if only all men were like your husband, you reason, there would be no marriage problems.


I would hate being married to her husband and he me.




> your husband is an idol to you. you look at him in awe, but (at least in your posts here) you show little insight into why he is the way he is. he just is that way.
> 
> you suggest that men should be more like him. but how? you cannot answer that. and THAT is the key question.


More to the point, why? You hear about being authentic all the time here. People should be themselves, if their better selves.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Brigit said:


> So with women becoming more "equal" the world won't become better it shall just become sicker.
> 
> This is why I listen to Eckhart Tolle. He helps me to focus on what really matters. I know this isn't a thread about Enlightenment but I'm starting to believe this is the way to go for any sense of peace and happiness in a relationship of any sort.


Did you see the book suggestion link I left on the previous page? (it is from a spiritual perspective, not a Christian one)


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> By working, do you mean:
> 
> *more sex is happening
> 
> *more sexual attraction is happening and sex
> 
> *just more attraction but not more sex
> 
> *more intimacy
> 
> *more intimacy AND more hot sex AND mutual sexual attraction


Yes.

And a nice hot breakfast Sunday mornings.

And she lets me have the remote again.


----------



## Brigit

Faithful Wife said:


> Did you see the book suggestion link I left on the previous page? (it is from a spiritual perspective, not a Christian one)


I'll take a look.


----------



## Marduk

Brigit said:


> So with women becoming more "equal" the world won't become better it shall just become sicker.
> 
> This is why I listen to Eckhart Tolle. He helps me to focus on what really matters. I know this isn't a thread about Enlightenment but I'm starting to believe this is the way to go for any sense of peace and happiness in a relationship of any sort.


Sure, or you could cut out the middleman and go straight to the source.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> Yes.
> 
> And a nice hot breakfast Sunday mornings.
> 
> And she lets me have the remote again.


Oh, I see, you mean a Bang Maid.

That's my second book.


----------



## jld

Anon1111 said:


> what's his view on women?


Dug says Woman was created to be loved by Man. 

He has great respect for women, great respect for mothers.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Oh, I see, you mean a Bang Maid.
> 
> That's my second book.


Wait, there's a difference?


----------



## Brigit

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Sorry, I don't know a lot of Doctors. Both of my friends already have very hot wives who are both at least 10 years younger and homemakers.
> 
> I do know that women do a sort of "high five" congrats about landing a Doctor though. The last time I saw it was at a charity/art gala. My friend (the doc) and I were outside smoking (btw... it is really bizarre how many doctors smoke or are really unhealthy - shocking even). I came back in early and caught the tail end of the women's discussion about how they met their husbands. My friend's wife started into her story when something she said gave away that he was a Doctor. My date then says "Your husband is a Doctor? Way to go girl!" And his wife responds, "I know right!" with a big grin and wink. I made a joke about being shallow and she says something like "Oh don't talk to me about shallow... we all know what you guys want." It was very tongue in cheek, but not far off what I don't think a lot of people want to admit. And besides, whether one is attracted to looks or status or any other feature doesn't preclude falling in love or attachment.
> 
> One thing I've learned is that women are a lot more forthcoming with other women than they are with men.



...WTF??? Dude you have issues. This post has some underhanded jabs in it. Right away you pointed out that you have two friends with hot wives that are 10 years younger.

I like to crack jokes and you were just suppose to give me a funny one liner. 

I don't think you're a bad guy but I do think you have a mean streak in you. You're overly focused on attractiveness that you seem to mention it in all your posts. Plus you always seem to take a jab at older women. 

Dude..I'm gonna say this once and then leave it alone. You may be younger than me but we look the same age and as far as looks go...

You know what I'm not going there.

Just chill out.


----------



## NobodySpecial

jld said:


> Dug says Woman was created to be loved by Man.
> 
> He has great respect for women, great respect for mothers.


How about CEOs?


----------



## jld

Anon1111 said:


> you suggest that men should be more like him. but how? you cannot answer that. and THAT is the key question.


Learn to manage your fears. Face your weaknesses instead of denying them.

Don't take your wife's emotions personally. Look past her words, into her heart.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Brigit said:


> So with women becoming more "equal" the world won't become better it shall just become sicker.
> 
> This is why I listen to Eckhart Tolle. He helps me to focus on what really matters. I know this isn't a thread about Enlightenment but I'm starting to believe this is the way to go for any sense of peace and happiness in a relationship of any sort.


It is a comment on the hypocrisy


----------



## jld

NobodySpecial said:


> How about CEOs?


Also.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> Wait, there's a difference?


Yes. A wife can collect your life insurance, a Bang Maid can't.


----------



## always_alone

Idyit said:


> I'd like to say something about the issue of studies and burden of proof. No one study or even series of them will ever prove something. Evidence will strongly support one thing or another but will never completely rule out all other options and obviate future research.


This is absolutely true and sums up nicely why evo-psych is such a scientific disaster.

Real science operates on the principle of falsification. A well-designed study will test a hypothesis, and results will either confirm or disconfirm that hypothesis. If it confirms, the underlying theory is considered supported. If not, the underlying theory is called into question.

Evolution-psych, in contrast, never tests the underlying theory, and never allows for disconfirming evidence. Whatever the facts are, no matter how contradictory, they are still taken as "proof" of the truth of the theory. For example, it is "adaptive" for women to only care about security and safety, so she is attracted to the provider. But sometimes she isn't. But that too is "adaptive" because she is seeking the better gene pool from the "alpha". (Why we are to assume "alphas" are a better gene pool is never explained, as far as I've seen).

Similarly, men are "programmed" to spread their seed as much as possible, to ensure the survival of the species. Sleeping around is "adaptive". But they are also "programmed" to insist on tracking paternity, and so getting married is also adaptive.

No matter what we do, it is all "adaptive" and all confirms the theory. Evo-psych thinks it's "always right" because it will not allow for the possibility of being shown false.


----------



## Anon1111

NobodySpecial said:


> I would hate being married to her husband and he me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More to the point, why? You hear about being authentic all the time here. People should be themselves, if their better selves.


Very good point (your second one). 

I am me. I have layered a lot of BS on top of me. I want to strip that away. 

I also want to strip away all of the BS on my wife that is hiding her. 

Underneath all of that are two people. Can those people accept and love each other for who they are? That is really the essence. 

To the extent jld (or anyone else) can talk about love like this, I am down with it. 

If you're about saying I've got to be something and she just gets to be her, f- that.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Anon1111

Faithful Wife said:


> Are you still planning to leave in a few months? (haven't caught up on your thread lately)


No. My marriage right now is the best it has been in years, maybe ever. Mostly because I have started to figure myself out in a way I never did before. I think we are going to make it.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## john117

jld said:


> I don't get it when men want to blame their wives for issues in the marriage, or when they are quick to say she is half the problem. I do not see confidence in that. It is as though he is saying he does not believe in himself and his ability to influence his wife. I don't understand that.



If you had the experience of many men in this board with less accommodating wives (or vice versa) you would understand. I won't name individuals but we know who we are


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes. A wife can collect your life insurance, a Bang Maid can't.


Which one gets the mercedes?

I only have one thing in my life more high maintenance than my wife, and that's it.

Although, come to think of it, at least she comes with a manual.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> This is absolutely true and sums up nicely why evo-psych is such a scientific disaster.
> 
> Real science operates on the principle of falsification. A well-designed study will test a hypothesis, and results will either confirm or disconfirm that hypothesis. If it confirms, the underlying theory is considered supported. If not, the underlying theory is called into question.
> 
> Evolution-psych, in contrast, never tests the underlying theory, and never allows for disconfirming evidence. Whatever the facts are, no matter how contradictory, they are still taken as "proof" of the truth of the theory. For example, it is "adaptive" for women to only care about security and safety, so she is attracted to the provider. But sometimes she isn't. But that too is "adaptive" because she is seeking the better gene pool from the "alpha". (Why we are to assume "alphas" are a better gene pool is never explained, as far as I've seen).
> 
> Similarly, men are "programmed" to spread their seed as much as possible, to ensure the survival of the species. Sleeping around is "adaptive". But they are also "programmed" to insist on tracking paternity, and so getting married is also adaptive.
> 
> No matter what we do, it is all "adaptive" and all confirms the theory. Evo-psych thinks it's "always right" because it will not allow for the possibility of being shown false.


It is a core criticism with it. Verifiability, I mean.

But string theory has the same issue, just with math instead of science, and it appears to have had people all spun up for decades, too.


----------



## always_alone

Anon1111 said:


> No. My marriage right now is the best it has been in years, maybe ever. *Mostly because I have started to figure myself out in a way I never did before.* I think we are going to make it.


Yes, the bolder part is key, isn't it?

Red pill is all about insulting women, slapping men, pushing a stereotype down everyone's throat. 

It is possible that the stereotype does describe who you are and what turns you on, but odds are also pretty high that it doesn't.

But you can't go wrong learning more about your own authentic self and desires, or that of the one you love.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Brigit said:


> ...WTF??? Dude you have issues. This post has some underhanded jabs in it. Right away you pointed out that you have two friends with hot wives that are 10 years younger.
> 
> I like to crack jokes and you were just suppose to give me a funny one liner.


I have no idea how old you are so it definitely wasn't a jab. I was returning to the thread topic. If my friends weren't Doctors, do you think they'd have attracted those women?



Brigit said:


> Dude..I'm gonna say this once and then leave it alone. You may be younger than me but we look the same age and as far as looks go...
> 
> You know what I'm not going there.
> 
> Just chill out.


You're mad because my doctor friends have way younger and hotter wives than themselves? :scratchhead: It's just relevant to the thread and I threw in the caveat that I only know two doctors.

As far as being older and more attractive than I am, no sweat... you wouldn't be the only woman who is if that's what you're saying. They were likely significantly more physically attractive than me at any given same age. The greater the disparity in age, the less disparity in physical attractiveness will remain (for both men and women). The hottest woman at 25, isn't going to be on the level of the hottest guy at 25, when she's 60... no matter what she does. That's no revelation right?

I'm sorry you took my anecdote as jabbing you on age. I make no claim to being better looking than anyone on this forum, and the anecdote is just a relevant example of the subject at hand, not a jab at older women who even when they're still smoking hot, tend to prefer men older than themselves.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> My husband is a natural and never had to read or hear any evo psyche or red pill nonsense in order to be a sex god.
> 
> Neither does any other man. It is unnecessary.
> .


But that's why I find it SO hard to relate to anything you say.

Your husband is a "natural" and therefore, he doesn't need red pill nonsense.

Then you say "Neither does any other man. It is unnecessary."

You completely ignore the fact that most men are NOT "naturals" and, therefore, might need some things that your husband doesn't. 

The "non-naturals" most definitely need *something*.


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> It is a core criticism with it. Verifiability, I mean.
> 
> But string theory has the same issue, just with math instead of science, and it appears to have had people all spun up for decades, too.


Math is a different game altogether. Science is empirical, and so based in the world. Math is abstract and based in deduction, much like logic.


----------



## Buddy400

always_alone said:


> This is reason number one why we need to abandon all the hate and resentment fueled gaming, and replace it with love, intimacy, fun, and sex.


But, that's such an inane thing to say to a guy coming here to complain that his wife won't have "love, intimacy, fun, and sex" with him anymore.

And, that's an inane thing to say to a woman coming here to complain about her husband.


----------



## Idyit

always_alone said:


> This is absolutely true and sums up nicely why evo-psych is such a scientific disaster.
> 
> Real science operates on the principle of falsification. A well-designed study will test a hypothesis, and results will either confirm or disconfirm that hypothesis. If it confirms, the underlying theory is considered supported. If not, the underlying theory is called into question.
> 
> Evolution-psych, in contrast, never tests the underlying theory, and never allows for disconfirming evidence. Whatever the facts are, no matter how contradictory, they are still taken as "proof" of the truth of the theory. For example, it is "adaptive" for women to only care about security and safety, so she is attracted to the provider. But sometimes she isn't. But that too is "adaptive" because she is seeking the better gene pool from the "alpha". (Why we are to assume "alphas" are a better gene pool is never explained, as far as I've seen).
> 
> Similarly, men are "programmed" to spread their seed as much as possible, to ensure the survival of the species. Sleeping around is "adaptive". But they are also "programmed" to insist on tracking paternity, and so getting married is also adaptive.
> 
> No matter what we do, it is all "adaptive" and all confirms the theory. Evo-psych thinks it's "always right" because it will not allow for the possibility of being shown false.


You've thought about Evo-psych way more than I have. My only exposure to it was in MMSL. I saw quickly that what was being offered was not for me and stopped. Some found a benefit and continued.

In my work I see physicians that are very fluid to change with new 'medicine'. Others I can tell where they went to medical school based on tools or techniques they use that are long outdated. They get comfortable and do what works. And these are the smart people.



My stance on Evo-psych or any studies is that they present an argument, flawed or not, that some will adopt. Even when different and better 'proof' is presented some will hold fast others will shift. Read, study, learn then do what best works for you.

I may not fully agree with you, FW, Marduk, Icey, Dvls, Brigit et al but I am enjoying learning from everyone. 

~ Passio


----------



## GTdad

Buddy400 said:


> But that's why I find it SO hard to relate to anything you say.
> 
> Your husband is a "natural" and therefore, he doesn't need red pill nonsense.
> 
> Then you say "Neither does any other man. It is unnecessary."
> 
> You completely ignore the fact that most men are NOT "naturals" and, therefore, might need some things that your husband doesn't.
> 
> The "non-naturals" most definitely need *something*.


I think I started out as a "Natural", that is, if I correctly understand how the term is being used. Attracting women, of ANY age for whatever that might be worth, wasn't an issue when I was young man.

But somewhere during the decades that followed I lost my way. I got comfortable and lazy, until I woke up to the trouble my marriage was in. I needed some serious prompting to find my way again. To some extent, it was merely a matter of reading some of the less-offensive Red Pill stuff and thinking "oh yeah, I sort of remember being that guy." And striving to be a mature, caring version of that guy.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

jld said:


> But he would never do the things I read are in that book, Julius.
> 
> *He would not try to make me jealous in any way. He would not play on my insecurities. * He would never tell me that as I get older, I have less value to him.
> 
> I have been through five pregnancies, and he has never told me I looked anything but lovely to him. He has always helped with the kids and the house, too, as well as supporting all of us.
> 
> But I think the real key to my attraction to him is his emotional stability. He has never sworn at me or called me names. He is not needy or moody or manipulative. He does not need to be stroked or shored up. I can tell him anything, go to him with anything, at any time. He is secure in himself.
> 
> *I don't get it when men want to blame their wives for issues in the marriage, or when they are quick to say she is half the problem*. I do not see confidence in that. It is as though he is saying he does not believe in himself and his ability to influence his wife. I don't understand that.


I may not be confidence JLD. but it could be *the reality*....you know we've had this conversation.. Now in our situation back in the day...had I witnessed my husband with some heavy interaction with another female.. It COULD have put a rise under me in a GOOD WAY.. *because I was THE ONE PAYING LESS ATTENTION TO HIM*.. and really he was being a good man.. so in this light of things... it's WHY I understand Athol Kay's objectives ... and they do not bother me so much.. 

My husband SHOULD have tried more than he did back then to turn my head.. and notice..

For instance....I never felt jealousy over him.. he was faithful incarnate... he'd never leave me, he adored me.. if we went to a party, had the kids with us.. I was more the social animal telling him "hey honey, will you watch them" -while I'd go run around talking to everyone....He should have done that on me a time or 2 !.... I deserved it , didn't I? 

*This book is specifically written for the men who have been TOO CATERING to their wives*.. darn it.. Most of the women on this thread can not understand this...it hasn't been their experience.. And as Buddy400 just explained.. some are Naturally MR ALPHA -"women drool all over him"-he is that social Chick magnet , heck NO, he doesn't need any more of that... . 

When a women looks across the room and starts to feel a little jealous over her man.. it does something to her... I have experienced it myself not long ago.. (finally)...

Yeah.. it puts a rise UNDER US to claim him for our own.. it also confirms to us, that HE could have plenty of women.. if HE so wanted... So we better be careful and treat him right.. or there WILL be others who can fill our shoes.. 

I think we all need to feel.. that our partner is special.. don't take advantage.. the men who buy this book FEEL like they are being taken advantage of.. the partnership is not equal.. 

Again.. I KNOW it wouldn't have hurt a man like my husband -to read anything in that book....He could use more Jack a$$ frankly.... he still probably wouldn't have done these things however.... he is too stubborn to do anything manipulative .. even though I THINK it could have helped deal with a woman like me. ... that's just my perspective...


----------



## Brigit

marduk said:


> Sure, or you could cut out the middleman and go straight to the source.


I've been spending so much times on Buddhist sites.

This guy is freaking great:

http://www.ajahnbrahm.org

I've listened to almost all of his Dharma Talks. But I still like Eckhart better. I feel a surreal connection to his message.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> But that's why I find it SO hard to relate to anything you say.
> 
> Your husband is a "natural" and therefore, he doesn't need red pill nonsense.
> 
> Then you say "Neither does any other man. It is unnecessary."
> 
> You completely ignore the fact that most men are NOT "naturals" and, therefore, might need some things that your husband doesn't.
> 
> The "non-naturals" most definitely need *something*.


You are mixing up my meaning here.

NO MAN needs red pill. These things can be learned WITHOUT red pill.

Yes lots of men need help. We can help them and we are helping them.

It isn't the HELP they don't need, it is the bull crap in red pill they don't need.

There are standard bits of advice in MMSL that are not red pill....such as lose weight and stop being a beer guzzling slob. That is NOT red pill.

Do you get it now?

I'm happy to discuss things respectfully. But if you are just going to paint my words wrong, don't bother, I will not respond.

And SA...I'm surprised and hurt that you "liked" his post.

If you think I'm saying men don't need any advice, clearly you haven't listened to anything I've ever said. Why the hell would I be behind Marriage Builders if I thought men didn't need help?


----------



## Faithful Wife

SimplyAmorous said:


> I may not be confidence JLD. but it could be *the reality*....you know we've had this conversation.. Now in our situation back in the day...had I witnessed my husband with some heavy interaction with another female.. It COULD have put a rise under me in a GOOD WAY.. *because I was THE ONE PAYING LESS ATTENTION TO HIM*.. and really he was being a good man.. so in this light of things... it's WHY I understand Athol Kay's objectives ... and they do not bother me so much..
> 
> My husband SHOULD have tried more than he did back then to turn my head.. and notice..
> 
> For instance....I never felt jealousy over him.. he was faithful incarnate... he'd never leave me, he adored me.. if we went to a party, had the kids with us.. I was more the social animal telling him "hey honey, will you watch them" -while I'd go run around talking to everyone....He should have done that on me a time or 2 !.... I deserved it , didn't I?
> 
> *This book is specifically written for the men who have been TOO CATERING to their wives*.. darn it.. Most of the women on this thread can not understand this...it hasn't been their experience.. And as Buddy400 just explained.. some are Naturally MR ALPHA -"women drool all over him"-he is that social Chick magnet , heck NO, he doesn't need any more of that... .
> 
> When a women looks across the room and starts to feel a little jealous over her man.. (and let's face it, women married to ALPHAs deal with this near daily).. I've read PLENTY of FW's posts attesting to this... and she runs over there.. claiming him...
> 
> Yeah.. it puts a rise UNDER US to claim him for our own.. it also confirms to us, that HE could have plenty of women.. if HE so wanted... So we better be careful and treat him right.. or there WILL be others who can fill our shoes..
> 
> I think we all need to feel.. that our partner is special.. don't take advantage.. the men who buy this book FEEL like they are being taken advantage of.. the partnership is not equal..
> 
> Again.. I KNOW it wouldn't have hurt a man like my husband -to read anything in that book....He could use more Jack a$$ frankly.... he still probably wouldn't have done these things however.... he is too stubborn to do anything manipulative .. even though I THINK it could have helped deal with a woman like me. ... that's just my perspective...


Clearly you just don't get me SA. I'm tired of trying to explain it to you as no matter what I say, you refuse to see my side of it. Even though I have always upheld and respected your relationship and your love for your husband, you have to sneak in and diss on mine.

And you haven't even read MMSL, yet you think it doesn't matter that you haven't read it because you think my problem with it is "a little jealousy". If you actually read it and were still all for it, I would accept this and we could banter about it.

But no, you just sneak in with a jab here and there.

Sigh....I'm done.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Idyit said:


> My stance on Evo-psych or any studies is that they present an argument, flawed or not, that some will adopt. Even when different and better 'proof' is presented some will hold fast others will shift. Read, study, learn then do what best works for you.
> 
> 
> ~ Passio


This is fine, but when I ask for even ONE shred of evidence of 

preselection

sperm wars

hypergamy

No one can give me any. MMSL was BASED on proven science, per the author. And no one ever fact checked it? No one?


----------



## always_alone

Buddy400 said:


> The "non-naturals" most definitely need *something*.


Personally, I don't much like the language of "natural". It makes me think the opposite is "unnatural", and there's nothing "unnatural" or non-normal about having difficulty with dating, sex, and relationships. All of us have our hard times, no matter how desirable we are.

More importantly, I think there's a danger in typecasting ourselves. I mean, yeah, sure, maybe you had a hard time in high school (not meaning you personally, necessarily, but one), but that doesn't define you for life. Or, just because your current sex life with your wife isn't all that, doesn't necessarily brand you "unnatural" for all time.

What it really boils down to is context: what do you want, who do you want it with, what's important to you, and what are you willing to do to get there?

And maybe some goals are unrealistic, maybe part of what you (one) need to learn is that you actually don't get everything your way, or that all things come with a cost or a trade-off. 

But, ultimately, we are all "natural". We just need to realize that "natural" doesn't always look the same, that there are many ways of expressing it, and we need to be true to ourselves and open to the truths of our partners.

This, BTW, doesn't mean that there isn't a lot to learn or no need for self-improvement. Indeed, IMHO, the "natural" is always learning and always open to self-improvement.


----------



## jld

Anon, I get the feeling I have hurt your feelings somehow. I did not mean to. I am sure it has been challenging the last few years. Your marriage is a lot better now, and I want to congratulate you for that. 

Anon, like many wives, I am idealistic about my husband. When I come to TAM and read some of the stories, I appreciate him even more. But that does not mean I don't have my own heartaches, too. 

Sometimes I feel like I wait all day just to see him, but might get just a quick hello and he is into a project. Or he is away and does not call me until late. Or he prioritizes a meeting over spending time with me.

I feel like I have devoted myself to him, given my whole life to what he wanted. Those little, unintended slights are so hurtful. I feel irrelevant sometimes, even though he swears that is not true.

So just to say, we all have our challenges, we all have our sensitivities. And how I could fix mine probably seems as obvious to you, and as hard to me, as yours do to me. And I doubt you are trying to hurt my feelings any more than I am trying to hurt yours.


----------



## GTdad

Faithful Wife said:


> This is fine, but when I ask for even ONE shred of evidence of
> 
> preselection
> 
> sperm wars
> 
> hypergamy
> 
> No one can give me any.


I certainly wouldn't try. I think the reason I glossed over that stuff is because I don't remotely care about any of that stuff.


----------



## always_alone

Buddy400 said:


> But, that's such an inane thing to say to a guy coming here to complain that his wife won't have "love, intimacy, fun, and sex" with him anymore.
> 
> And, that's an inane thing to say to a woman coming here to complain about her husband.


But trying to foster greater love, intimacy and sex through resentment, demeaning and insulting women, is not inane?

:scratchhead:


----------



## Faithful Wife

GTdad said:


> I certainly wouldn't try. I think the reason I glossed over that stuff is because I don't remotely care about any of that stuff.


Which is why I have enjoyed all of your posts on this thread.

But when men claim "preselection is why you think your husband is hot" or "hypergamy is why you will always want a higher status man" and I ask for any type of proof of these....and no one can give me any....I mean, really?


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Faithful Wife said:


> Clearly you just don't get me SA. I'm tired of trying to explain it to you as no matter what I say, you refuse to see my side of it. Even though I have always upheld and respected your relationship and your love for your husband, you have to sneak in and diss on mine.
> 
> And you haven't even read MMSL, yet you think it doesn't matter that you haven't read it because you think my problem with it is "a little jealousy". If you actually read it and were still all for it, I would accept this and we could banter about it.
> 
> But no, you just sneak in with a jab here and there.
> 
> Sigh....I'm done.


FW.. please hear me.. I have not been following all the posts here by any stretch.. too busy at home.. I can't keep up with this thread [email protected]#$.. I think the only post I read on this page was Buddy's & one by Blossom to be honest.. and I caught that one of JLd's a page ago.. I have no desire to slight you or diss you at all.. 

I just have a difference of opinion..and I do have the book.. I read SOME OF IT.. and I wasn't bothered like you.. Should I lie.. does it make me a fool.. I know you think so..

JLD is my friend.. she thinks I should share my opinions ...even when the women here will hate on me more so....

It bothers ME that you feel the need to make me feel bad for misreading you all the time.. why isn't it possible we just don't see things the same.. and agree to disagree.. 

I feel you are trying to make me feel bad..that you will cut me off ... put me on IGNORE no less cause you can't stand anyone who doesnt look upon Athol as slime, the ruination of MEN.... . that I dare have a difference of opinion.. I wish you would not do that... just for the record.. I will never BE "DONE with you".. even if you hate me.. I will still read your stuff !

Even though we surely don't think alike on a # of issues....so what ! that brings variety to the forums..


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> A well-designed study will test a hypothesis, and results will either confirm or disconfirm that hypothesis.


Please let us know when evolution is testable.



always_alone said:


> Evolution-psych, in contrast, never tests the underlying theory, and never allows for disconfirming evidence.


The underlying theory is the same as evolution, but applied to behavior rather than form.



always_alone said:


> Whatever the facts are, no matter how contradictory, they are still taken as "proof" of the truth of the theory. For example, it is "adaptive" for women to only care about security and safety, so she is attracted to the provider. But sometimes she isn't. But that too is "adaptive" because she is seeking the better gene pool from the "alpha". (Why we are to assume "alphas" are a better gene pool is never explained, as far as I've seen).


Do you have this same problem with evolution in general? 

You've misstated it. The proposal is that human females often show mating preference for strong, healthy males with good provider and socially dominant traits, so those behaviors must have played a strong role in survival of offspring for them to be so prevalent. Your proposed conflict isn't with this idea, but rather the side effect that many females can't secure all of these qualities in one male, giving rise to a number of mating strategies and conflict.



always_alone said:


> Similarly, men are "programmed" to spread their seed as much as possible, to ensure the survival of the species. Sleeping around is "adaptive". But they are also "programmed" to insist on tracking paternity, and so getting married is also adaptive.


Getting married is meaningless in the evolutionary perspective. I presume you mean supporting the offspring of one particular woman with his resources?



always_alone said:


> No matter what we do, it is all "adaptive" and all confirms the theory. Evo-psych thinks it's "always right" because it will not allow for the possibility of being shown false.


This is incorrect, but understandable - because we're working backwards in time from what exists using a premise that what exists is largely the product of evolution. However, any idea that can explain current phenomenon better is welcome. What have you offered that explains what we see better? Nothing. Is evolution itself falsifiable? While there's some people here I bet would oppose evolution itself, I suspect you're not one of them.

Evo-psych uses the same reasoning as evolution in general and applies it to behavior/psychology. At it's most basic, it theorizes that natural selection - both the choices of mate and survivability/proliferation of children - can be used to explain widespread behaviors we see today.

You're entirely welcome to propose alternative reasons it's not uncommon for a woman to love her husband, and not feel attracted to him in spite of little to no physical changes, his excellent providership/companionship, and no extraneous problematic issues. Or even fantasize about/desire other men, but still love him so as not leave him. It'll be awesome when you explain it, because they usually can't explain it themselves. Evo-psych offers a possible answer and how it would come to be. What's yours?

You're entirely welcome to propose an alternate reason a woman would so highly value status that it influences her perception of a man's physical attractiveness. Evo-psych offers a possible answer and how it comes to be. What's yours?

For all the attempts at shooting down evo-psych I've seen, there sure are scant alternatives to explain how we came to behave as we do. Lot's of hand-wringing and complaints and squat for alternative explanations.

And no, the generic "we're all special unique flowers and seek our own special unique flower things" is not an answer as it would dictate that the patterns we see don't exist, when they clearly do. That would be saying "there is no explanation".


----------



## Idyit

Faithful Wife said:


> This is fine, but when I ask for even ONE shred of evidence of
> 
> preselection
> 
> sperm wars
> 
> hypergamy
> 
> No one can give me any. MMSL was BASED on proven science, per the author. And no one ever fact checked it? No one?


I hope it's clear that my statements are no endorsement of Evo-psych, preselection, sperm wars, hypergamy or any of the above.

~ Passio


----------



## Buddy400

Icey181 said:


> Seriously…the longer this thread goes on the less I find it possible to reject some of the stupider things Red Pill people say about women in general…


:iagree:

The more I know about women, the less I like them.

Seriously. I have a wonderful wife and have been happily married for 25 years. 

I got interested in this topic pretty much by accident. I was looking for information about how male/female relationships *really* work so that I could pass it on to my (then) teenage sons and daughter. 

Absolutely fascinating intellectually! 

But, I occasionally feel the negativity start bleeding over to my attitude towards my wife, who doesn't in any way deserve it. I know better and restrain myself. But sometimes I wish I would have taken the blue pill instead and gone back to a life of ignorance.


----------



## Faithful Wife

SimplyAmorous said:


> FW.. please hear me.. I have not been following all the posts here by any stretch.. too busy at home.. I can't keep up with this thread [email protected]#$.. I think the only post I read on this page was Buddy's & one by Blossom to be honest.. and I caught that one of JLd's a page ago.. I have no desire to slight you or diss you at all..
> 
> I just have a difference of opinion..and I do have the book.. I read SOME OF IT.. and I wasn't bothered like you.. Should I lie.. does it make me a fool.. I know you think so..
> 
> JLD is my friend.. she thinks I should share my opinions ...even when the women here will hate on me more so....
> 
> It bothers ME that you feel the need to make me feel bad for misreading you all the time.. why isn't it possible we just don't see things the same.. and agree to disagree..
> 
> I feel you are trying to make me feel bad..that you will cut me off ... put me on IGNORE no less cause you think I am a fool.. that I dare have a difference of opinion.. I wish you would not do that... just for the record.. I will never BE "DONE with you".. even if you hate me.. I will still read your stuff !
> 
> Even though we surely don't think alike on a # if issues....so what ! that brings variety to the forums..


If you want to read the whole book and then discuss it with me, I'd be delighted. Please start over from the beginning and read the whole thing if you want to discuss it with me.

If you don't want to, then please don't ASSUME why *I* don't like the book. Please stop saying things like you did in the last post about the jealousy. There is MORE to it than that, and for you to boil it down as if THAT is my problem with the book is irritating.

Look - if there was a book that talked about how beta wussies are idiots (which is actually what MMSL says, but whatever) and how NO women love them and how any woman who does is a lying wh*re....I would speak out AGAINST this book, too. Because I know that we are not all the same, and men like your husband are well loved by women like YOU.

But first I would actually read the book so I knew what it said.

Please STOP assuming you know my position on this, because every time you address me about it you have it WAY OFF.

MMSL is a hateful book to men AND women, and THAT is my problem with it.

The fun sex stuff is available in non red pill form in many other books.


----------



## Holland

always_alone said:


> But trying to foster greater love, intimacy and sex through resentment, demeaning and insulting women, *is not inane?*
> 
> :scratchhead:


I would say it is insane.


----------



## Buddy400

always_alone said:


> Personally, I don't much like the language of "natural". It makes I mean, yeah, sure, maybe you had a hard time in high school (not meaning you personally, necessarily, but one), but that doesn't define you for life. Or, just because your current sex life with your wife isn't all that, doesn't necessarily brand you "unnatural" for all time.


Well, I certainly wasn't a "natural" in high school!

I figured out most of the essentials around 30, quite by accident, well before the red-pill existed (I think). 

I wouldn't have wanted to save my first two marriages. I figured out just enough, just in time to meet the fabulous woman that I've been happily married to for 25 years. She might have run over me and not respected me (even though, she had no desire to) if the experiences of the first two marriages (especially the second) hadn't shown me the error of my ways.


----------



## Holland

Faithful Wife said:


> If you want to read the whole book and then discuss it with me, I'd be delighted. Please start over from the beginning and read the whole thing if you want to discuss it with me.
> 
> If you don't want to, then please don't ASSUME why *I* don't like the book. Please stop saying things like you did in the last post about the jealousy. There is MORE to it than that, and for you to boil it down as if THAT is my problem with the book is irritating.
> 
> Look - if there was a book that talked about how beta wussies are idiots (which is actually what MMSL says, but whatever) and how NO women love them and how any woman who does is a lying wh*re....I would speak out AGAINST this book, too. Because I know that we are not all the same, and men like your husband are well loved by women like YOU.
> 
> But first I would actually read the book so I knew what it said.
> 
> Please STOP assuming you know my position on this, because every time you address me about it you have it WAY OFF.
> 
> *MMSL is a hateful book to men AND women, and THAT is my problem with it.
> 
> The fun sex stuff is available in non red pill form in many other books.*


Sadly it appears many here do not understand this FW. 

Everyone should up their personal "game" strive to be better in all aspects of their lives, show their kids better examples. There is absolutely no need plus it is counter intuitive to do this via putting their partners down, manipulating them and other such tactics.

The men that do well in relationships are the ones that better themselves for the right reasons, the ones that have good self esteem and respect for their partners.

A book or mantra full of hate and manipulation is the last place these men should be looking for help. If a man wants to better his life then he would be well served by reading material from and conversing with men that are emotionally healthy. 

How any woman can condone a way of life that manipulates women is mind blowing to me.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> :iagree:
> 
> The more I know about women, the less I like them.


Of course, because this is one of the side effects of the red pill crap. This is what the writers of it WANT to have happen, and it does.


----------



## EllisRedding

SimplyAmorous said:


> FW.. please hear me.. I have not been following all the posts here by any stretch.. too busy at home.. I can't keep up with this thread [email protected]#$.. I think the only post I read on this page was Buddy's & one by Blossom to be honest.. and I caught that one of JLd's a page ago.. I have no desire to slight you or diss you at all..
> 
> I just have a difference of opinion..and I do have the book.. I read SOME OF IT.. and I wasn't bothered like you.. Should I lie.. does it make me a fool.. I know you think so..
> 
> JLD is my friend.. she thinks I should share my opinions ...even when the women here will hate on me more so....
> 
> It bothers ME that you feel the need to make me feel bad for misreading you all the time.. why isn't it possible we just don't see things the same.. and agree to disagree..
> 
> I feel you are trying to make me feel bad..that you will cut me off ... put me on IGNORE no less cause you can't stand anyone who doesnt look upon Athol as slime, the ruination of MEN.... . that I dare have a difference of opinion.. I wish you would not do that... just for the record.. I will never BE "DONE with you".. even if you hate me.. I will still read your stuff !
> 
> Even though we surely don't think alike on a # of issues....so what ! that brings variety to the forums..


Sigh ... just throw in the towel SA, you are going to get put on time out ... If you haven't learned yet, to some your opinion is only valued ... if it is the "correct" opinion.

I don't understand why some of the people here who run into issues with FW (a growing #?) still find a way to somehow kiss her ass while protesting her behavior :scratchhead: Not trying to attack you on this SA as I do enjoy your posts, but if you feel like she is treating you bad, why subject yourself to that, just move on? Saying " I will never BE DONE with you", that is kinda creepy to be honest.


----------



## always_alone

I would add that, at least IMHO, one quality that seems consistent in attractive men is respect for others.

Those that shrug off disrespect and insults as "just locker room talk", and think nothing of being demeaning or dehumanizing are never, ever, ever desirable in my book.

I wouldn't sit around in a women's locker room dissing men, and I wouldn't date, marry, or have sex with a guy who thinks there's nothing wrong with dissing women.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Faithful Wife said:


> If you want to read the whole book and then discuss it with me, I'd be delighted. Please start over from the beginning and read the whole thing if you want to discuss it with me.


 I don't see any point to that..because chances are.. I will still not see it as evil as you do.... just as books I have read by 3rd wave feminists BOTHER ME.. but YOU would likely praise them.. we're not going to agree on everything FW.... that's the bottom line here..

.. it's not that I care to uplift any Bull sh* from this author.. I hate people who lie and manipulate. I'd tell them all to F** off in a heart beat.. but in a world full of hook ups.. this is the type of sh* that is born.. No one is going to stop this.. at least his book is for the married.. it is far above Gaming books just to F***... . 

Now believe you ME.. it's not what I think is healthy.. this wouldn't be MY ROUTE to teach anyone .(I too love Gottman & Marriage Builders, very very very respectful -full of wisdom & love !).... 



> If you don't want to, then please don't ASSUME why *I* don't like the book. Please stop saying things like you did in the last post about the jealousy. There is MORE to it than that, and for you to boil it down as if THAT is my problem with the book is irritating.


 I will delete my comments... . 



> Look - if there was a book that talked about how beta wussies are idiots (which is actually what MMSL says, but whatever)


 I didn't get this from the book .. Beta men make better lovers ...that IS in the book.. and he is the only author I know that explained the GOOD in Beta.. it's where I got my definitions ! 



> and how NO women love them and how any woman who does is a lying wh*re....I would speak out AGAINST this book, too. Because I know that we are not all the same, and men like your husband are well loved by women like YOU.


 I'd hate to be an author today..your saying he is calling all women who**es ..I read your opening post.. I didn't get that , or feel this is what is implied.. I'm sorry.. 



> Please STOP assuming you know my position on this, because every time you address me about it you have it WAY OFF.
> 
> MMSL is a hateful book to men AND women, and THAT is my problem with it.
> 
> The fun sex stuff is available in non red pill form in many other books.


 I'm sorry I mentioned you. again.. I will delete that part of my post.


----------



## Faithful Wife

EllisRedding said:


> Sigh ... just throw in the towel SA, you are going to get put on time out ... If you haven't learned yet, to some your opinion is only valued ... if it is the "correct" opinion.
> 
> I don't understand why some of the people here who run into issues with FW (a growing #?) still find a way to somehow kiss her ass while protesting her behavior :scratchhead: Not trying to attack you on this SA as I do enjoy your posts, but if you feel like she is treating you bad, why subject yourself to that, just move on? Saying " I will never BE DONE with you", that is kinda creepy to be honest.


And you have posted many posts here just dissing me and doing nothing else, yet I have not reached back to diss you.

What is it you'd like to hear from me Ellis? Why are you on this thread at all, just to diss me and not get a response?

You'd rather I diss you back than ignore you?

SA is a friend of mine, she and I are having words, it actually has nothing to do with you....

So what do you want here?

I would think you would be glad I'm ignoring you because you clearly think I am a nutcase (or whatever you think) so why would you want my responses? Or do you? Or don't you?

I honestly have no clue why you keep posting on this thread, just to diss me.


----------



## Faithful Wife

SimplyAmorous said:


> I don't see any point to that..because chances are.. I will still not see it as evil as you do.... just as books I have read by 3rd wave feminists BOTHER ME.. *but YOU would likely praise them*.. we're not going to agree on everything FW.... that's the bottom line here..
> 
> .. it's not that I care to uplift any Bull sh* from this author.. I hate people who lie and manipulate. I'd tell them all to F** off in a heart beat.. but in a world full of hook ups.. this is the type of sh* that is born.. No one is going to stop this.. at least his book is for the married.. it is far above Gaming books just to F***... .
> 
> Now believe you ME.. it's not what I think is healthy.. this wouldn't be MY ROUTE to teach anyone .(I too love Gottman & Marriage Builders, very very very respectful -full of wisdom & love !)....
> 
> I will delete my comments... .
> 
> I didn't get this from the book .. Beta men make better lovers ...that IS in the book.. and he is the only author I know that explained the GOOD in Beta.. it's where I got my definitions !
> 
> I'd hate to be an author today..your saying he is calling all women who**es ..I read your opening post.. I didn't get that , or feel this is what is implied.. I'm sorry..
> 
> I'm sorry I mentioned you. again.. I will delete that part of my post.


Thank you, SA. I also PM'd you.

As for the bolded part...again you don't know me that well just yet...I have never read any "feminist" book. This is an assumption on your part.

xoxo and let's talk on PM....


----------



## EllisRedding

always_alone said:


> I would add that, at least IMHO, one quality that seems consistent in attractive men is respect for others.
> 
> Those that shrug off disrespect and insults as "just locker room talk", and think nothing of being demeaning or dehumanizing are never, ever, ever desirable in my book.
> 
> I wouldn't sit around in a women's locker room dissing men, and I wouldn't date, marry, or have sex with a guy who thinks there's nothing wrong with dissing women.


Sometimes locker room talk is just locker room talk and nothing more ... a well, assuming it stays in the locker room ...


----------



## EllisRedding

Faithful Wife said:


> And you have posted many posts here just dissing me and doing nothing else, yet I have not reached back to diss you.
> 
> What is it you'd like to hear from me Ellis? Why are you on this thread at all, just to diss me and not get a response?
> 
> You'd rather I diss you back than ignore you?
> 
> SA is a friend of mine, she and I are having words, it actually has nothing to do with you....
> 
> So what do you want here?
> 
> I would think you would be glad I'm ignoring you because you clearly think I am a nutcase (or whatever you think) so why would you want my responses? Or do you? Or don't you?
> 
> I honestly have no clue why you keep posting on this thread, just to diss me.


Actually I am quite content to not get responses from you, never said I needed otherwise. Wasn't expecting a response back. If you want to diss me back you can, it is an open forum

Pretty sure I have made plenty other posts here that have nothing to do with you, but if you want to believe I am here for you for an added ego boost, ok I guess...

And to clarify, I actually dont think you are a nutcase. I think you are well spoken and passionate, and regardless of whether or not I agree with your opinion ( I would say maybe 50/50 agree/disagree) I have no issues with that. My issues have always been around the way you talk to other members (including down to them), and for t hat I have no issues calling you out on.


----------



## Ikaika

I just want to make a few simple comments and please don't anyone take this the wrong way:

1. *Science* is more than a wild ass guess. Too many misconceptions I see made about science and I would prefer not to address. However, when it comes to science and figuring out this whole aspect of mate selection, that is really hard to draw a hard conclusion. The core of our understanding of biology is based on evolutionary principles but as a highly social animal we tend to change the aspects of our surrounding through what is often termed as cultural evolution. To put it into concrete terms we have in essence created throughout our society cultural norms that sometimes run counter to our own biological evolution in that we have mismatched conditions. The example of type 2 diabetes mellitus is a mismatched disease. We know from old plant studies and even some of the current wild type vegetation that the first apples had all the sweetness of a carrot. We have long since managed to manipulate the vegetation to create an apple with all the sweetness of a candy bar. So, to suggest that we still select our mates based on the same evolutionary principles as our hunter gatherer ancestors on the East African planes, is only partially true. Cultural evolution changes far quicker than any biological evolutionary events and in turn, we can be conditioned even away from our ancestral roots to find desirable traits in a mate. This is not to suggest there are some traits we and our ancestors would still find attractive, but there are too many nuances in this story to come up with a very specific formula that fits every condition and characteristic (being that the normal brain lies upon more of a spectrum than some dichotomy of decision making). On the upside, the complexity in choosing a mate has expanded the HLA gene pool for our species survival against a potential microbial pandemic. 

2. *Medicine* has its roots in science but its operative day to day procedures can be based on the inertia "to do something" rather than to "wait and see". It can backfire, but not always.


----------



## Personal

technovelist said:


> *Most *of the book is deliberately "over the top" in the sense that it is intended as, and is written in the manner of, a slap in the face for men whose marriages are sexless or nearly so. It is not a theoretical tome on a theoretical subject, but a call to action. Such writing often requires harsh words to have the intended effect.
> 
> If one can get past the manner of delivery, and is in the target audience, one can indeed get a lot of information about how it might be possible to turn around an unsatisfactory marriage, and some men report great success in using this information.


If only it were a wake up "slap in the face" to a man! Unfortunately from what I have read it is a call to action that encourages one to figuratively slap the woman in the face.


----------



## Personal

Faithful Wife said:


> Men are not more sexual than women.


Yep! :iagree:


----------



## Personal

naiveonedave said:


> FW:Sorry but that is exactly what men learn to do by swallowing the red pill.
> 
> Women need to be ashamed of how WOMEN and feminism have ruined men. Feminism has hurt men, the pendulum in some areas has swung too far


Despite the fact that men (even in the Western World), still remain dominant through positions of workplace, political and military authority. Men rail against _those big bad_ women, who are all equal while blaming them for their own ills instead of accepting responsibility for their own failings.

I'm a man and I have not been hurt by feminism! Why are some men so weak and insecure that they they think it is a bad thing that women are treated a bit less (and so far not completely) like second class citizens?



naiveonedave said:


> Women need to be ashamed of their sexuality, since they are hypergamous wh*res.AK suggests more like women have 'hidden' their sexuality too frequently and men and their wives can benefit by ending this repression. Some fraction, much greater than zero of women have hypergamy tendencies, but most/many don't choose to act on them.


One doesn't end sexual repression by believing and encouraging others to think that women are hysterical slvts!



naiveonedave said:


> Women need to be ashamed that hamsters run around in their brains. no, this is just one way for men to try to understand the female mind. Perfect model, no, but not something anyone would shame anyone for.


While-ever men think that women only have hamsters running around inside their brains, they will never understand the female mind!



naiveonedave said:


> Men read this stuff and try to get their egos back in check, by shaming and hating women, meanwhile trying to "get sex" from them.Nah - some large fraction of men need to learn some of this stuff so they can change into better men


[/QUOTE]

Shaming and hating women does not change one into a better man!



naiveonedave said:


> Sorry, but that IS shameful.
> 
> The desire to fix your marriage isn't shameful. But reading, believing and applying the dark stuff in red pill is shameful.
> 
> Just as a woman reading gold digger books would also be shameful, even if she did it out of love for some man.
> 
> MMSL states right up front that it is shady and lacks integrity and that men DO just want sex. JLD didn't make that up, that crap is what the book is based on. Well, since physical touch and sex in marriage is important to men, I guess we men should just suck up our needs in marriage and not try to improve our selves to get our needs met.


Physical touch and sex in marriage is important to most women and men. I wouldn't call swallowing the premise that women as a gender are shallow, irrational wh*res, a form of self improvement.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

EllisRedding said:


> Sigh ... just throw in the towel SA, you are going to get put on time out ... If you haven't learned yet, to some your opinion is only valued ... if it is the "correct" opinion.
> 
> I don't understand why some of the people here who run into issues with FW (a growing #?) still find a way to somehow kiss her ass while protesting her behavior :scratchhead: Not trying to attack you on this SA as I do enjoy your posts, but if you feel like she is treating you bad, why subject yourself to that, just move on? Saying " I will never BE DONE with you", that is kinda creepy to be honest.


 I won't kiss anyone's a$$ unless I felt my life was in danger.. then YEAH.. I'm gonna suck up and manipulate you.. sure..

Let me try to explain EllisRedding.. I agree with you.. never would I put a dent in her thinking or the women here ..... I am not even trying to..

I just want to be able to post here as freely as she does and everyone else.. even if I have *a difference of perspective,* ... looking through my own situation - this really shouldn't bother anyone else..

BUT if they are offended that I used their name, and misread them,. I will honor that.. . I am a nice person and I will make it right.. it's not sucking up.. this does not hurt me in any way. 

As far as Not being DONE.. it's like this.. I LIKE to read ALL VIEWS... they don't have to agree with me...how else do I learn.. and understand other people ?? I will leave those completely alone who hate me though.. absolutely.

In all things, if we don't have the ability to Pick out the wheat and throw away the chaff (oh heavens. I might be offending someone somewhere as that is taken from the Bible) - SO WHAT.. a lot of Good came out of that book too. but someone else will hate us because that book is full of misogyny too.. .

What can you do.. I am open to ALL . I have never put a soul on ignore and I never will.. if the day comes where I am that da** offended.. I need to leave this place for good.

I didn't mean anything creepy.. that is surprising to me.


----------



## Faithful Wife

EllisRedding said:


> Actually I am quite content to not get responses from you, never said I needed otherwise. Wasn't expecting a response back. If you want to diss me back you can, it is an open forum
> 
> Pretty sure I have made plenty other posts here that have nothing to do with you, but if you want to believe I am here for you for an added ego boost, ok I guess...
> 
> And to clarify, I actually dont think you are a nutcase. I think you are well spoken and passionate, and regardless of whether or not I agree with your opinion ( I would say maybe 50/50 agree/disagree) I have no issues with that. My issues have always been around the way you talk to other members (including down to them), and for t hat I have no issues calling you out on.


If you would care enough to point out exactly which posters I am talking down to, I would also ask you to read their posts to me and notice that the ones I am disrespectful to are also disrespectful to me.

Do you see me being disrespectful to anyone who is being *respectful* to me?

There are many people on this forum who like me and are respectful to me and I like them and am respectful to them.

When someone comes and goes on and on about how my ideas are stupid because I don't get MMSL and I don't get red pill and yada yada yada....why should I be respectful to them when they are not being so to me? That's an honest question.

I prefer to put them on ignore. That way they can go on and on about me, say whatever they want about me, they get to say anything at all....but why do I have to read it?

Meanwhile, I do not follow those same people around just to go behind their posts and disagree with them. I don't keep trying to get their attention just so I can tell them their opinions are stupid.


----------



## Holland

Personal said:


> Despite the fact that men (even in the Western World), still remain dominant through positions of workplace, political and military authority. Men rail against _those big bad_ women, who are all equal while blaming them for their own ills instead of accepting responsibility for their own failings.
> 
> I'm a man and I have not been hurt by feminism! Why are some men so weak and insecure that they they think it is a bad thing that women are treated a bit less (and so far not completely) like second class citizens?
> 
> 
> 
> One doesn't end sexual repression by believing and encouraging others to think that women are hysterical slvts!
> 
> 
> 
> While-ever men think that women only have hamsters running around inside their brains, they will never understand the female mind!


Shaming and hating women does not change one into a better man!



Physical touch and sex in marriage is important to most women and men. I wouldn't call swallowing the premise that women as a gender are shallow, irrational wh*res, a form of self improvement.[/QUOTE]

Quoting isn't working on this post.

Anyway Personal, the comments you have made through this thread and elsewhere on TAM are IMHO those of a decent, well balanced, confident man. Now that is everything I wish for my son, to grow up to be a great man.


----------



## ConanHub

EllisRedding said:


> Sigh ... just throw in the towel SA, you are going to get put on time out ... If you haven't learned yet, to some your opinion is only valued ... if it is the "correct" opinion.
> 
> I don't understand why some of the people here who run into issues with FW (a growing #?) still find a way to somehow kiss her ass while protesting her behavior :scratchhead: Not trying to attack you on this SA as I do enjoy your posts, but if you feel like she is treating you bad, why subject yourself to that, just move on? Saying " I will never BE DONE with you", that is kinda creepy to be honest.


Maybe FW has a nice ass? 

I like SA and FW. I don't always agree with either and have been helped by both.

It is ok to get spirited and let it be known.

I think both their intentions are honest and good.


----------



## EllisRedding

SimplyAmorous said:


> I won't kiss anyone's a$$ unless I felt my life was in danger.. then YEAH.. I'm gonna suck up and manipulate you.. sure..
> 
> Let me try to explain EllisRedding.. I agree with you.. never would I put a dent in her thinking or the women here ..... I am not even trying to..
> 
> I just want to be able to post here as freely as she does and everyone else.. even if I have *a difference of perspective,* ... looking through my own situation - this really shouldn't bother anyone else..
> 
> BUT if they are offended that I used their name, and misread them,. I will honor that.. . I am a nice person and I will make it right.. it's not sucking up.. this does not hurt me in any way.
> 
> As far as Not being DONE.. it's like this.. I LIKE to read ALL VIEWS... they don't have to agree with me...how else do I learn.. and understand other people ?? I will leave those completely alone who hate me though.. absolutely.
> 
> In all things, if we don't have the ability to Pick out the wheat and throw away the chaff (oh heavens. I might be offending someone somewhere as that is taken from the Bible) - SO WHAT.. a lot of Good came out of that book too. but someone else will hate us because that book is full of misogyny too.. .
> 
> What can you do.. I am open to ALL . I have never put a soul on ignore and I never will.. if the day comes where I am that da** offended.. I need to leave this place for good.
> 
> I didn't mean anything creepy.. that is surprising to me.


No worries SA, like I said I have enjoyed your posts and thought it was a shame that you actually felt as below:



> she thinks I should share my opinions ...even when the women here will hate on me more so....


You seem like a good person who has a good head on their shoulder, who gives a crap if your opinion brings some hate


----------



## EllisRedding

Faithful Wife said:


> If you would care enough to point out exactly which posters I am talking down to, I would also ask you to read their posts to me and notice that the ones I am disrespectful to are also disrespectful to me.
> 
> Do you see me being disrespectful to anyone who is being *respectful* to me?
> 
> There are many people on this forum who like me and are respectful to me and I like them and am respectful to them.
> 
> When someone comes and goes on and on about how my ideas are stupid because I don't get MMSL and I don't get red pill and yada yada yada....why should I be respectful to them when they are not being so to me? That's an honest question.
> 
> I prefer to put them on ignore. That way they can go on and on about me, say whatever they want about me, they get to say anything at all....but why do I have to read it?
> 
> Meanwhile, I do not follow those same people around just to go behind their posts and disagree with them. I don't keep trying to get their attention just so I can tell them their opinions are stupid.


Well, I would say we have a different definition of what it means to be respectful/disrespectful. I don't see some of these people being disrespectful to you, I see them as challenging your opinions, the same way you challenge them. Anyways, I could go on and on about this as well as other points, but it would in no way be beneficial to this thread, we can just agree to disagree.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Maybe FW has a nice ass?









I like SA and FW. I don't always agree with either and have been helped by both.

It is ok to get spirited and let it be known.

I think both their intentions are honest and good.[/QUOTE]

Why yes I do have a fine ass...but SA is straight as an arrow and doesn't even check it out. 

Thank you for the support of us both Conan.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Well crap the quotes didn't work right on that one...will have to fix it later.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Ellis...thank you.


----------



## john117

jld said:


> Dug says Woman was created to be loved by Man.
> 
> 
> 
> He has great respect for women, great respect for mothers.



If he had married J2 he would be back pedaling fast enough from this position to win the Tour De France.... Backwards.

You're letting your personal experience color your view here. We all do. It's human nature. But evil / intentional or not / is usually needed to get one to arrive at a more wholistic view of interpersonal relationships.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

EllisRedding said:


> No worries SA, like I said I have enjoyed your posts and thought it was a shame that you actually felt as below:
> 
> You seem like a good person who has a good head on their shoulder, *who gives a crap if your opinion brings some hate*


Well this place has surely helped me get a thicker skin ...but I don't think I will  ever be FOND of being disliked/ ignored or thought of as a misogynist...because I have a more Traditional view of Life , love and sex.


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> If he had married J2 he would be back pedaling fast enough from this position to win the Tour De France.... Backwards.
> 
> You're letting your personal experience color your view here. We all do. It's human nature. But evil / intentional or not / is usually needed to get one to arrive at a more wholistic view of interpersonal relationships.


I am sure there is evil in some people. But a lot of people just have unmet needs, I think.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Personal

Holland said:


> Anyway Personal, the comments you have made through this thread and elsewhere on TAM are IMHO those of a decent, well balanced, confident man. Now that is everything I wish for my son, to grow up to be a great man.


Thanks Holland, I feel the same way about your comments on TAM as well.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

jld said:


> I am sure there is evil in some people. But a lot of people just have unmet needs, I think.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


:iagree:

I have personally gone a little crazy due to unmet needs.


----------



## Thundarr

Faithful Wife said:


> You are mixing up my meaning here.
> 
> NO MAN needs red pill. These things can be learned WITHOUT red pill.
> 
> Yes lots of men need help. We can help them and we are helping them.
> 
> It isn't the HELP they don't need, it is the bull crap in red pill they don't need.
> 
> *There are standard bits of advice in MMSL that are not red pill....such as lose weight and stop being a beer guzzling slob. That is NOT red pill.
> 
> Do you get it now?
> *


Hi FW, I think the highlighted text is particularly important and I'm glad you pointed it out (maybe more than once?) because it hasn't been all that clear in this thread to me what red pill means to each person. But looking back I can see you've been focusing on the hatefulness of MMSL and I agree with you that it's hateful.



Faithful Wife said:


> *And SA...I'm surprised and hurt that you "liked" his post.*


I think SA was identifying with Buddy's and his frustration. I don't think it was directed at you but that's only my opinion. Her comment pointed out that some of the stuff in MMSL is valid which is actually the same think you said above.


----------



## jld

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> :iagree:
> 
> I have personally gone a little crazy due to unmet needs.


Happens to me regularly, my dear. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Holland

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> :iagree:
> 
> I have personally gone a little crazy due to unmet needs.


Well my unmet needs meant I ended up divorcing my then husband. I went crazy afterwards and drank wine like it was an Olympic sport. Then took stock of myself and got on with life, so far it has been the best move ever.

So if it was the other way around and I became all RP should I have manipulated and abused my husband? Nope, no way because if you have to do those things to get your spouse to have a healthy sex life with you then it just isn't worth it or real.

Divorce is the better option for those in unsustainable relationships, why we as a society keep setting ourselves up for failure by thinking we have to be married forever to the wrong person is nuts. 
Thinking you can manipulate you way to a healthy marriage is even more nuts.


----------



## EllisRedding

SimplyAmorous said:


> Well this place has surely helped me get a thicker skin ...but I don't think I will  ever be FOND of being disliked/ ignored or thought of as a misogynist...*because I have a more Traditional view of Life , love and sex*.


Nothing wrong with a refreshing view 

If you want, just give me a heads up right before you are going to post something that will generate hate. Since I seem to do a good job of generating as well, I will post something like the below immediately after your post. All the hate will move from you to me


----------



## Thundarr

EllisRedding said:


> Sigh ... just throw in the towel SA, you are going to get put on time out ... If you haven't learned yet, to some your opinion is only valued ... if it is the "correct" opinion.
> 
> I don't understand why some of the people here who run into issues with FW (a growing #?) still find a way to somehow kiss her ass while protesting her behavior :scratchhead: Not trying to attack you on this SA as I do enjoy your posts, but if you feel like she is treating you bad, why subject yourself to that, just move on?* Saying " I will never BE DONE with you", that is kinda creepy to be honest.*


Lol. I see where that could sound creepy Ellis but for the record SA, it's what makes you one of my favorite posters. Now I'm not taking sides here because FW is pretty awesome too :smthumbup:.


----------



## Holland

EllisRedding said:


> Nothing wrong with a refreshing view
> 
> If you want, just give me a heads up right before you are going to post something that will generate hate. Since I seem to do a good job of generating as well, I will post something like the below immediately after your post. All the hate will move from you to me



See I think that is funny because well, it just is.

But while we are getting stuff out in the open here, yep ER you have not made a friend of me. But I am a big kid now and deal with it.
Just going to reinforce to you with all due respect that you accusing me earlier of being a man hater when in fact I am the opposite was a ****ty move on your part.

So there are some pretty mixed up accusations going on around here about man hating. Most if not ALL the women I know adore men but the caveat is that they adore good quality men, not misogynistic manipulators. Why on Earth would any woman with good self worth adore men that treat women badly? And the opposite is true, I love the women in my life but have no time for ones that are anti men just because they were treated badly by a man in their life.


----------



## ExiledBayStater

NobodySpecial said:


> The notion that "men" feel one single way is as absurd as the notion that "women" do. The fact that a book says a thing does not mean that "men" buy it. We have posters on here who have used bits of ideas from the book while pitching the BS.
> 
> This thread is just another burst of fuel on the gender war fire.


When I had issues with my wife, like the millennial I am, I Googled my issues. At one point, what I found was a lot of blogs by dominant women. Including ladymisato's material before she ever joined TAM. Probably also some blogs by men who get their kicks presenting a dominant female persona. 

All that material was very intriguing and a little bit habit forming, but it was making me distrusting. I was assuming that my wife's motivations were the same as the bloggers'. *Thank G-d I stopped reading* those. Our issues stemmed from inadvertent missteps rather than deliberate plotting. The marriage is so much better, and I am so much more rational, when I'm not paranoid that my wife wants to put me in a chastity belt and tell me to clean while she goes to the mall with my credit card.

Having read the material I did, I'm in no position to say women shouldn't read red pill or PUA literature. I just want to warn of that pitfall. 

Besides, I once bought one of the older PUA books and found it insufferable reading. Even then as a desperate virgin, nothing could motivate me to read more than a few chapters.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Thundarr said:


> *I think SA was identifying with Buddy's and his frustration. I don't think it was directed at you but that's only my opinion. Her comment pointed out that some of the stuff in MMSL is valid which is actually the same think you said above*.


You are absolutely CORRECT ...thank you for jumping in there Thundarr .. I have known MORE MEN like Buddy who are frustrated over MEN who score with women easily ... just the other day.. whom we call our 6th son left this on my Facebook .. 

"Something I have come to realize as I go through life, I have realize that i don't need to chase after a women. They can come to me if they want me. I am who I am, If you don't like me for me than you are missing something amazing. I am not tooting my own horn or anything, I'm done trying to prove myself to someone or many someones (lol) and try changing who I am for that person or persons. I have also decided to try becoming a Big Brother. So, If I don't find someone that one day i will adopt a child of my own. " 

Have I suggested he go buy "The Mystery Method' or join some PIck up Artist forum.. NO !! Of course not.. though if he did..I bet he'd probably do better.. which is a darn shame.. Some guys just need more help over others.. I really feel for him.... he's a GOOD PERSON.... big heart.. but this DOES NOT PULL the women in.. we all know this.. 

I probably should lend him "No More Mr Nice Guy!" though..


----------



## RandomDude

EllisRedding said:


>


:rofl:


----------



## john117

People who are evil are evil regardless of unmet needs....


----------



## Thundarr

SimplyAmorous said:


> You are absolutely CORRECT ...thank you for jumping in there Thundarr .. I have known MORE MEN like Buddy who are frustrated over MEN who score with women easily ... just the other day.. whom we call our 6th son left this on my Facebook ..
> 
> "Something I have come to realize as I go through life, I have realize that i don't need to chase after a women. They can come to me if they want me. I am who I am, If you don't like me for me than you are missing something amazing. I am not tooting my own horn or anything, I'm done trying to prove myself to someone or many someones (lol) and try changing who I am for that person or persons. I have also decided to try becoming a Big Brother. So, If I don't find someone that one day i will adopt a child of my own. "
> 
> Have I suggested he go buy "The Mystery Method' or join some PIck up Artist forum.. NO !! Of course not.. though if he did..I bet he'd probably do better.. which is a darn shame.. Some guys just need more help over others.. I really feel for him.... he's a GOOD PERSON.... big heart.. but this DOES NOT PULL the women in.. we all know this..
> 
> I probably should lend him "No More Mr Nice Guy!" though..


Knowledge is power. Some guys really need to read "No More Mr Nice Guy", some guys really need to read "his needs / her needs", and some guys really need to read FW's future book that picks out the useful part out of MMSL but throws away the red pill stuff. 

It is a shame that he would do better. Waiting on that book FW....... foot tapping..... There is a void needing filled.

One thing I've learned as I grow older is that we don't know what we don't know. Looking back to me at 20 in my first marriage, I needed to read "no more mr nice guy" but I didn't know it at the time. Maybe there are things I need to be reading now? Na I know everything :smthumbup:.


----------



## GusPolinski

EllisRedding said:


>


I LOLed. Like REALLY loud.


----------



## Thundarr

Gus, you've killed the thread for a couple of hours. That's impressive.


----------



## GusPolinski

Thundarr said:


> Gus, you've killed the thread for a couple of hours. That's impressive.


I posted that about 30 minutes ago. Your time zone setting might be whack.

ETA: Still laughing, by the way. :lol: :rofl:


----------



## MountainRunner

ConanHub said:


> Maybe FW has a nice ass?


I believe she may as she made mention that she frets over her "cankles" to which her husband replies "It's to support that wonderful ass of yours baby" (I'm paraphrasing) and I can attest to that as my wife suffers from the same physical traits and I'm always trying to cop a cheap feel of that delicious derriere...know what I mean? *grin*


----------



## Faithful Wife

Sexy+Positive Blog: He even loves my Cankles...

This post was one of my husband's favorites.


----------



## MountainRunner

Faithful Wife said:


> Sexy+Positive Blog: He even loves my Cankles...
> 
> This post was one of my husband's favorites.


It's all good FW, you ain't got nothing to fret over my friend...I'll take her legs in my hands as I'm...heh..."_*DRIVING*_" and lick'em and kiss'em. *grin*


----------



## Buddy400

Buddy400 said:


> But that's why I find it SO hard to relate to anything you say.
> 
> Your husband is a "natural" and therefore, he doesn't need red pill nonsense.
> 
> Then you say "Neither does any other man. It is unnecessary."
> 
> You completely ignore the fact that most men are NOT "naturals" and, therefore, might need some things that your husband doesn't.
> 
> The "non-naturals" most definitely need *something*.


FW, you've responded to me a couple of times like I was attacking you. I'm sorry you feel that way, as that was not my attention. It's true that I've almost always disagreed entirely with you, but I don't know why that would seem personal. Put a Liberal and a Conservative in a room and they'll disagree about everything. Just because they disagree doesn't mean that they are "attacking" each other.

The quote from you above was verbatim, not twisted in any way. If, after reading many of your posts, the context of this one seemed off, I would have given you the benefit of the doubt. But the context seemed consistent to me.

It's just that your description of the world you live in is directly at odds with the world that I live in. I'm not questioning your veracity. It's just that you and I are living in completely different places. I'm guessing more people are in my neighborhood than yours.

But, I could be wrong.


----------



## always_alone

Ikaika said:


> However, when it comes to science and figuring out this whole aspect of mate selection, that is really hard to draw a hard conclusion. The core of our understanding of biology is based on evolutionary principles but as a highly social animal we tend to change the aspects of our surrounding through what is often termed as cultural evolution. To put it into concrete terms we have in essence created throughout our society cultural norms that sometimes run counter to our own biological evolution in that we have mismatched conditions.



Agreed that it is hard, and this does have to do in part what you are calling mismatches here. But the problems with evo-psych (and its sister, sociobiology) run much deeper than that. It is an entire literature based on the rather dubious premise that social and cultural evolution follows the same basic principles of biological evolution. 

And then, from that very dubious premise, constructs a series of ad hoc explanations of why current cultural stereotypes are "adaptive", and therefore, must have held since time immemorial. The reasoning is entirely backwards from what we normally think of as science, and it produces utterly ludicrous "explanations" such as "women like pink because they picked berries as hunter/gatherers and are programmed to search out bright colors." Nevermind that berries aren't pink, that pink was actually a color for boys for a long time, or that many women don't even like pink. 

And while you might think this an extreme example, the fields are rife with poor methodology (like using stick figures, and photoshopped pictures as measures of complex phenomena like attraction). Or super sloppy logic like inferring that just because someone selects one photo over another, this demonstrates their priorities, even though at best it simply points to a value.

No doubt careful science does exist, and is being conducted with respect to mate selection and sexual behaviour. But there is also a frightening amount of utter garbage, particularly in the evo-psych and sociobiological literature.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy, here is what I said that you quoted:

"My husband is a natural and *never had to read or hear any evo psyche or red pill nonsense* in order to be a sex god.

Neither does any other man. It is unnecessary."

My point was that you don't need *red pill or evo psyche* to achieve being a sex god. The RED PILL stuff is unnecessary. You took that post by itself without the posts I was responding to. If you had paid more attention to what I was responding to, it may have been more clear.

So I'm telling you what I really meant, and it is in no way inconsistent with what I have always said: Advice, self help, books, counselors...I'm all for it.

Red pill, evo psyche hateful propaganda, I'm all against it.

If I thought no man needs ANY HELP, which is what you said you interpreted me as saying, then why would I be contemplating writing a book at all? :scratchhead:

I read lots of relationship books and I recommend lots of them. 

I'm all for self help.

So that's the real deal and I hope you trust my sincerity here, because otherwise I don't know what to say. Only a very ignorant person would ever think that no man needs any help.

What no man needs is to be filled with hateful red pill propaganda.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> It's just that your description of the world you live in is directly at odds with the world that I live in. I'm not questioning your veracity. It's just that you and I are living in completely different places. I'm guessing more people are in my neighborhood than yours.
> 
> But, I could be wrong.


As to this part Buddy...I agree we probably live in different worlds. And yet, you could be my neighbor. Part of what is so awesome about my husband is that he just looks like your average neighbor type guy. No one would see him and think "hey I bet that dude is a sex god".

And part of the message I hope to deliver when I can finally write this stuff, is that you too, any normal man, can be your wife's sex god. We wives want that, and lots of us are ready and happy to get some heavenly sex with you.

I don't know your story, so maybe not your wife.

But some very average normal every day people are already living like I do. I get women reaching out to me at my blog sometimes just saying "hey thanks for your blog, I'm married to one, too so I get it, wink wink". When I see these women, they are always just normal looking people you'd never suspect are living this amazing lifestyle like I do.


----------



## Personal

Icey181 said:


> Because, apparently, he is successful with women. Either he is a natural at this or had a solid role model to follow.
> 
> And I would be interested to hear:
> 1) What he does in College
> 2) What the Gender imbalance is like on his campus
> 
> But this gets back to basics.
> 
> The men who have access to casual sex and/or the women who see these men cannot fathom, for some reason, that this is not, in fact, the norm for men in College.
> 
> Enough studies have been done demonstrating that IQ is a high-level predictor of virginity and enough anecdotal evidence has piled in from across the internet and in my own experience to demonstrate that it does not work like that for most.
> 
> So good for you nephew. (Kind of…not a fan of the hook up culture myself).
> 
> But so what?
> 
> Do you really think shy, intelligent college guys are getting tons of casual sex and "BJs being handed out like tic tacs?"
> 
> Really?


Having a high IQ isn't a disability! Although some men with high IQ's like to tell themselves that women aren't interested because they're too smart, they're intelligence is not what makes them unattractive.

My wife is an introvert with a great professional career who has graduate science and other qualifications. Yet despite being intelligent (not that I think it is an impediment), she is sexually and socially successful.

One can have a low, average or high IQ and still be socially awkward, social failure isn't exclusive to high IQ's. Introverts can also be just as socially and sexually successful as extroverts.

Do you think socially dysfunctional college guys ought to be getting BJ's handed to them like tic tacs because they're intelligent?

I think the idea that being smart limits one's mating opportunities is a red herring.


----------



## Personal

naiveonedave said:


> jld said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you worried about friend zoning or "less of a total package"?
> 
> Maybe I just don't understand your goals for your kids?
> 
> 
> 
> I see they are frustrated. I don't really have goals for them, I see them clearly as having the same issues I had at that age and Devils discussed pages back.
> 
> being Friendzoned is worse than prison. You think you are 'finally getting the girl', only to be shot down if you ask her out.
> 
> Like any parent, I want the best for my sons. I don't want them to have GF who treat them like crap or expect the impossible. Which is incredibly common now..... Just look at what a boy is supposed to do to ask a girl to prom, more drama than a marriage proposal.
Click to expand...

All I read is entitlement!

No one owes anyone time, conversation, friendship or sex.

Seriously if both or more involved parties aren't mutually feeling that attraction at the beginning. Most people (not all) would be far better served if they are looking for a great sexual relationship ought to, "Shove it brother" and "Just Keep Walking" (thanks INXS).

If a women or man friend zones you they don't wan't you like that, I can't see anything wrong with that, people really don't owe anyone sex because someone put in some time.


----------



## RandomDude

The thing is FW, not all women are like you, you can write a book for men about how to pick YOU up and how to keep YOU, but it probably won't work for the majority especially when they are going for a very different type of woman.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Personal said:


> If a women or man friend zones you they don't wan't you like that, I can't see anything wrong with that, people really don't owe anyone sex because someone put in some time.


This is the type of thing my husband says. He says there's no reason to have hurt feelings if someone doesn't dig your particular flavor that way. He has had lots of sexual interest from women he wasn't into sexually, and therefore he knows it is nothing against them. So if someone ain't into him, no hard feelings.

The way he says this is really sexy. He's so self assured. He knows that only mutual attraction is any fun at all.


----------



## Faithful Wife

RandomDude said:


> The thing is FW, not all women are like you, you can write a book for men about how to pick YOU up and how to keep YOU, but it probably won't work for the majority especially when they are going for a very different type of woman.


Yes I will try to cover the perspective of people who aren't like me as much as possible.

But no book is for everyone, and I already know there actually is a huge market of people a whole lot like me. There are a lot more highly sexual people in the world than some people suspect.

I think even other highly sexual people don't always know how many others are out there.


----------



## Holland

Faithful Wife said:


> As to this part Buddy...I agree we probably live in different worlds. And yet, you could be my neighbor. Part of what is so awesome about my husband is that he just looks like your average neighbor type guy. No one would see him and think "hey I bet that dude is a sex god".
> 
> And part of the message I hope to deliver when I can finally write this stuff, is that you too, any normal man, can be your wife's sex god. We wives want that, and lots of us are ready and happy to get some heavenly sex with you.
> 
> I don't know your story, so maybe not your wife.
> 
> But some very average normal every day people are already living like I do. I get women reaching out to me at my blog sometimes just saying "hey thanks for your blog, I'm married to one, too so I get it, wink wink". *When I see these women, they are always just normal looking people you'd never suspect are living this amazing lifestyle like I do*.



Agree with everything but this part FW..................

I often walk around with a stupid smile on my face, I'm sure some must suspect that I getting lots of action :smthumbup:


----------



## Holland

Personal said:


> Having a high IQ isn't a disability! Although some men with high IQ's like to tell themselves that women aren't interested because they're too smart, they're intelligence is not what makes them unattractive.
> 
> My wife is an introvert with a great professional career who has graduate science and other qualifications. Yet despite being intelligent (not that I think it is an impediment), she is sexually and socially successful.
> 
> One can have a low, average or high IQ and still be socially awkward, social failure isn't exclusive to high IQ's. Introverts can also be just as socially and sexually successful as extroverts.
> 
> Do you think socially dysfunctional college guys ought to be getting BJ's handed to them like tic tacs because they're intelligent?
> 
> I think the idea that being smart limits one's mating opportunities is a red herring.


Mr H has 3 degrees, is super intelligent. I admire his intellect and I can tell you that when he gives me some random fact relevant to whatever we are doing at the time, my heart melts. He seems to have an unlimited knowledge base.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Yes look out for anyone with a twinkle in their eye. That's usually what it means!


----------



## RandomDude

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes I will try to cover the perspective of people who aren't like me as much as possible.
> 
> But no book is for everyone, and I already know there actually is a huge market of people a whole lot like me. There are a lot more highly sexual people in the world than some people suspect.
> 
> I think even other highly sexual people don't always know how many others are out there.


Well, I've been waiting for someone to write a book that just gives the hard facts instead of relying on this stupid trend of "alpha" vs "beta" and all that crap.

From what I've seen, the only thing stopping these so-called "betas" from picking up is that they don't know how to approach, don't know how to flirt, don't know how to have fun with a woman. Hell when I head out, they just sit there and watch me steal their potential dates. 

Sometimes I felt sorry for them enough I go full wingman to help them. Doesn't always work, I approach a lady, chat her up, then introduce her to my friend, leave the two alone, and the lady ends up looking for me instead of continuing to chat with my friend 

I've also never had a problem initiating sex with any woman including those who never even thought they could get that horny, still remember one FB who came over pretty much every night and told me she's not like that with other guys and when I asked why she just went "I don't know... maybe it's because you're a man"... :scratchhead:

Hell in alot of these sexless marriage threads on the forum, the guy ASKS for sex. Like come on, who the hell ASKS for sex? Baby, can we have sex? Like WTF?! No wonder it's sexless! This has nothing to do with "alpha"/"beta". Hell I wouldn't consider myself "alpha", in fact, I despise the term. I hate being categorised anyway. In the end, I get results but it just takes a bit of know how, experience, and understanding of the opposite sex.

If you can write a book like that, then yay! However, at present, it seems MMSL and NMMNG have been the most helpful books for men thus far, and there's nothing out there that can help men universally from a variety of different backgrounds and experiences.


----------



## Faithful Wife

RandomDude said:


> If you can write a book like that, then yay! However, at present, it seems MMSL and NMMNG have been the most helpful books for men thus far, and *there's nothing out there that can help men universally* from a variety of different backgrounds and experiences.


To the bolded, correct, and my book won't/can't be either.

So I'll target guys like you and marduk and wolf and a few others here who have said "I had game, lost it somewhere", that type of guy who ends up with a dead bedroom.

And also for the wives of these guys.

And for a few other types on either end of this small spectrum.

Can't write for everyone. This group is huge, however.

Because my blog is all about monogamy and sex (among other topics), I get a lot of traffic from people who were searching for "married sex blog" and "sex marriage blog". Married people want to have good sex too, dammit! 

Advice wanted: For this type of book, for these type of readers, would you want to hear more specific sexy sex tips? Or no?

It seems like this always comes across as cheesy when other people try to write specific sex tips, and I wasn't planning on going there....but....maybe I have to? Thoughts?


----------



## RandomDude

I must rephrase, there's nothing out there LIKE IT that can help men universally thus far; So far, MMSL and NMMNG has been referenced because it HAS helped men universally.

Sure it has its negative perks, but can you think of a PROVEN alternative? Anyway, a dead bedroom? Me? :rofl:

As for sex tips, argh... I wouldn't, it's up to the couple. If anything I would recommend simply encouraging better transparency and communication and leave it as that.


----------



## Faithful Wife

RandomDude said:


> I must rephrase, there's nothing out there LIKE IT that can help men universally thus far; So far, MMSL and NMMNG has been referenced because it HAS helped men universally.


Um....no, these books have not helped men universally. What does that even mean? Not every man has ever heard of them, not every man even finished reading them who bought them, not every man put any effort into self improvement after reading them...what do you mean universally?


----------



## RandomDude

Read the responses of the men here on this thread, it's not like they even took all this crap about "sperm wars" or whatever (lol) seriously. They got what they needed out of it; manning up or whatever the heck the book goes on about, and that's it.

When I mean universally, the books have already helped out loads of men from a diverse range of circumstances. I've seen it over the years on this forum, hence why my stance in this debate is "it was stickied on the men's clubhouse for a reason"


----------



## Faithful Wife

RandomDude said:


> Read the responses of the men here on this thread, it's not like they even took all this crap about "sperm wars" or whatever (lol) seriously. They got what they needed out of it; manning up or whatever the heck the book goes on about, and that's it.
> 
> When I mean universally, the books have already helped out loads of men from a diverse range of circumstances. I've seen it over the years on this forum, hence why my stance in this debate is "it was stickied on the men's clubhouse for a reason"


So you missed the several guys who said they didn't even finish the book because of the red pill crap? No, not every man has said it was a huge thing to them, some have said they couldn't buy it at all as soon as they hit the hateful stuff. Which is why there needs to be other options that aren't hateful and divisive.


----------



## RandomDude

A man is starved, would you deny him scraps, for the slight chance of fresh food and clean water later - IF it even comes? 

Cause that's what you are doing and also why I still don't agree with Deejo taking the recommendation off the sticky.

There's simply no better alternative at present, until there is, I say keep the book on there considering how I've seen it help many men who have come from sexless marriages.


----------



## Faithful Wife

RandomDude said:


> A man is starved, would you deny him scraps, for the slight chance of fresh food and clean water later - IF it even comes?
> 
> Cause that's what you are doing and also why I still don't agree with Deejo taking the recommendation off the sticky.
> 
> There's simply no better alternative at present, until there is, I say keep the book on there considering how I've seen it help many men who have come from sexless marriages.


Yes, the message is so hateful that I would beg moderators at TAM not to make it TAM endorsed. It is as hateful as a book full of racist slurs, IMO (and others have said the same, it isn't just me, how could this thread be going on so long if no one agreed with me?)

But I never asked Deejo to do that and if you can persuade him otherwise to put it back, I won't even be the wiser because I'm not going to go back and check that thread for updates.


----------



## RandomDude

Racism is a part of life, so are plenty of the issues mentioned in Athol's book. You can't just deny everything, shove it under the carpet and hope it doesn't exist/that it disappears or whatever.

Another poster mentioned she was insulted by how the book apparently goes on about women being hypergamous or whatever - date up not down etc etc. I've seen it, and it's normal in society. Just because it's an offensive topic doesn't mean that these issues do not exist. Just because it doesn't apply to you, doesn't mean it's not the reality of many people's lives.


----------



## RandomDude

IQ tests are so full of sh-t, when I was 16 I got a score of 126 during my aptitude tests for the military and they wanted me to go to Duntroon for officer training instead of general entry. At the same time I'm done way too much stupid sh-t in my life to even dare call myself intelligent! 

Anyway I reckon the most intelligent thing I've ever done in my life is to acknowledge that I am stupid lol. As for that site, meh, I lost my virginity at 16, however, I dropped out of high school early so, guess I had that "rebel" thing going for me


----------



## Brigit

Holland said:


> The men that do well in relationships are the ones that better themselves for the right reasons, the ones that have good self esteem and respect for their partners.
> 
> A book or mantra full of hate and manipulation is the last place these men should be looking for help. If a man wants to better his life then he would be well served by reading material from and conversing with men that are emotionally healthy.
> 
> How any woman can condone a way of life that manipulates women is mind blowing to me.


I've heard endless times on this site that there aren't any other books that work. I think that's silly. There's tons of "Male-Friendly" Self-help/Relationship Help books written by QUALIFIED professionals.

Also, the men continue to say "You don't understand this is locker-room talk. Men understand this language." So, of course as a female I don't have a good answer. Men will continue to read AK's books. It is what it is. But I also don't get why WOMEN would back this book. The women who do are either too mentally messed up to recognize abuse or they're just plain stupid.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Personal said:


> Having a high IQ isn't a disability! Although some men with high IQ's like to tell themselves that women aren't interested because they're too smart, they're intelligence is not what makes them unattractive.
> 
> My wife is an introvert with a great professional career who has graduate science and other qualifications. Yet despite being intelligent (not that I think it is an impediment), she is sexually and socially successful.
> 
> One can have a low, average or high IQ and still be socially awkward, social failure isn't exclusive to high IQ's. Introverts can also be just as socially and sexually successful as extroverts.
> 
> Do you think socially dysfunctional college guys ought to be getting BJ's handed to them like tic tacs because they're intelligent?
> 
> I think the idea that being smart limits one's mating opportunities is a red herring.


My H is an introvert, often socially awkward, but very sexually intelligent. 

One of the things I love about him is he was deeply painfully shy growing up, but today you would never know how bad it was because he kept himself engaged in billiards on a team for years, playing strangers and engaging in team comraderie for the expressed purpose of helping him with his shyness. He knew it was healthy for him. It worked. Though he went through a season of where major issues surfaced, he has amazed my three degreed Christian male professional licensed counselor with his unexpected changes last year and the degree of emotional intelligence, high degree of self awareness, determination and willingness to face his demons. He said he has never seen anything like it in his decades of counseling. He marvels at both of us and said we inspire him as to what is possible in relational restoration.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Brigit said:


> I've heard endless times on this site that there aren't any other books that work. I think that's silly. There's tons of "Male-Friendly" Self-help/Relationship Help books written by QUALIFIED professionals.
> 
> Also, the men continue to say "You don't understand this is locker-room talk. Men understand this language." So, of course as a female I don't have a good answer. Men will continue to read AK's books. It is what it is. But I also don't get why WOMEN would back this book. The women who do are either too mentally messed up to recognize abuse or they're just plain stupid.


Can we not resort to name calling. You just threw a bunch of people here under the bus with one shot, male and female whether you realize it or not. I don't see a soul here that is stupid and we all have issues we are working through. Let's keep it in the short grass.


----------



## Brigit

Blossom Leigh said:


> Can we not resort to name calling. You just threw a bunch of people here under the bus with one shot, male and female whether you realize it or not. I don't see a soul here that is stupid and we all have issues we are working through. Let's keep it in the short grass.


Girlfriend, the name of the title is "Please don't take the red pill..."

Everything I stated in my post was how I feel and what I've observed here on this thread. And yes, I think a woman who thinks the Red Pill stuff is wonderful is stupid. Maybe she thinks I'm stupid. 

Whatever.


----------



## Anon1111

jld said:


> Anon, I get the feeling I have hurt your feelings somehow. I did not mean to. I am sure it has been challenging the last few years. Your marriage is a lot better now, and I want to congratulate you for that.
> 
> Anon, like many wives, I am idealistic about my husband. When I come to TAM and read some of the stories, I appreciate him even more. But that does not mean I don't have my own heartaches, too.
> 
> Sometimes I feel like I wait all day just to see him, but might get just a quick hello and he is into a project. Or he is away and does not call me until late. Or he prioritizes a meeting over spending time with me.
> 
> I feel like I have devoted myself to him, given my whole life to what he wanted. Those little, unintended slights are so hurtful. I feel irrelevant sometimes, even though he swears that is not true.
> 
> So just to say, we all have our challenges, we all have our sensitivities. And how I could fix mine probably seems as obvious to you, and as hard to me, as yours do to me. And I doubt you are trying to hurt my feelings any more than I am trying to hurt yours.


Thanks for the message. I mean that sincerely. 

I guess I am at the point where I think there is limited usefulness in the "outside looking in" perspective. 

What I feel this conversation lacks on this thread is a recognition of the quality of this experience for the men who are living it and trying to solve it. 

Much in the same way I am sure that it would be received as somewhat naïve were I to claim to understand the perspective and give advice to someone who is struggling with how to be a mother, or a teenage girl, etc, I find it a bit weird how so many women think they know what it is like to be a man.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Anon1111

Like Snoop Dogg said:

And we expose
Ways for the youth to survive
Some think it's wrong
But we tend to think it's right
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Holland

Anon1111 said:


> Thanks for the message. I mean that sincerely.
> 
> I guess I am at the point where I think there is limited usefulness in the "outside looking in" perspective.
> 
> What I feel this conversation lacks on this thread is a recognition of the quality of this experience for the men who are living it and trying to solve it.
> 
> Much in the same way I am sure that it would be received as somewhat naïve were I to claim to understand the perspective and give advice to someone who is struggling with how to be a mother, or a teenage girl, etc,* I find it a bit weird how so many women think they know what it is like to be a man.*
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Sorry but I think you have missed the point entirely. Grow, learn, better yourselves, have locker room banter, want all the sex you can handle etc.

None of it is an issue, we don't know what it is like to be a man, we don't want to be men, we love the ones we have and we wish that everyone could feel the love and respect we feel, we wish everyone had good healthy sex lives.

The thread is about the vile terminology and ideology referencing women. About the completely disrespectful way women are cut down and degraded.
It is about the fact that men can learn and grow and find happiness without having to manipulate women.

It is also about how shameful it is that it is actually men that are sending their fellow man down a path that has little hope of achieving real, loving, intimate results in the long term.


----------



## Deejo

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes, the message is so hateful that I would beg moderators at TAM not to make it TAM endorsed. It is as hateful as a book full of racist slurs, IMO (and others have said the same, it isn't just me, how could this thread be going on so long if no one agreed with me?)
> 
> But I never asked Deejo to do that and if you can persuade him otherwise to put it back, I won't even be the wiser because I'm not going to go back and check that thread for updates.


MMSL doesn't need my endorsement. It has been referenced by many, many here, myself included, whom it helped.

It will continue to be endorsed and referred


----------



## jld

Anon1111 said:


> Thanks for the message. I mean that sincerely.
> 
> I guess I am at the point where I think there is limited usefulness in the "outside looking in" perspective.
> 
> What I feel this conversation lacks on this thread is a recognition of the quality of this experience for the men who are living it and trying to solve it.
> 
> Much in the same way I am sure that it would be received as somewhat naïve were I to claim to understand the perspective and give advice to someone who is struggling with how to be a mother, or a teenage girl, etc, I find it a bit weird how so many women think they know what it is like to be a man.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I think those of us who are speaking up against the RP do so because we are concerned that it stokes fear and hatred of women. It may not seem like those are risks, and maybe for some there is no chance of that. Not everyone living at the time of Jim Crow was a racist, after all.

But when you live in an atmosphere where racism is considered an acceptable lifestyle choice, that can be threatening not only to people most affected by discrimination, but also to people who don't think it brings out the best in the human spirit. 

I think it is similar with RP. Some of us feel it does not bring out the best in humans, however effective some people find it.


----------



## Pluto2

Deejo said:


> MMSL doesn't need my endorsement. It has been referenced by many, many here, myself included, whom it helped.
> 
> It will continue to be endorsed and referred


THis is the most disappointing post I've ever read on TAM.

-see ya


----------



## Brigit

Deejo said:


> MMSL doesn't need my endorsement. It has been referenced by many, many here, myself included, whom it helped.
> 
> It will continue to be endorsed and referred


Deejo,

Holland has summed up our feelings on AK's books nicely:

_"The thread is about the vile terminology and ideology referencing women. About the completely disrespectful way women are cut down and degraded.
It is about the fact that men can learn and grow and find happiness without having to manipulate women."
_

Are you disputing this?


----------



## Bugged

I give up. They don 't give a **** about respect, love, the wrongs of manipulation or dread games, the insults... as long ad they ****.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Brigit said:


> Girlfriend, the name of the title is "Please don't take the red pill..."
> 
> Everything I stated in my post was how I feel and what I've observed here on this thread. And yes, I think a woman who thinks the Red Pill stuff is wonderful is stupid. Maybe she thinks I'm stupid.
> 
> Whatever.


I do not see one soul here 100% sold out to AK. 

Your choice to call the people here stupid who are clearly not stupid.


----------



## Brigit

Blossom Leigh said:


> I do not see one soul here 100% sold out to AK.
> 
> Your choice to call the people here stupid who are clearly not stupid.


I didn't call anyone here stupid. I said I think women who support a book that refers to women as nothing but "functional vagina's" are stupid. You might think those woman are brilliant.

(This conversation is giving me a stupid headache.)


----------



## ConanHub

MountainRunner said:


> I believe she may as she made mention that she frets over her "cankles" to which her husband replies "It's to support that wonderful ass of yours baby" (I'm paraphrasing) and I can attest to that as my wife suffers from the same physical traits and I'm always trying to cop a cheap feel of that delicious derriere...know what I mean? *grin*


&#55357;&#56841;&#55357;&#56833;&#55357;&#56833;&#55357;&#56833;&#55357;&#56833;
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Brigit said:


> I didn't call anyone here stupid. I said I think women who support a book that refers to women as nothing but "functional vagina's" are stupid. You might think those woman are brilliant.
> 
> (This conversation is giving me a stupid headache.)


Your underlying assumption is incorrect.

And do not assume what I think. Read my words and you will know where I stand.


----------



## arbitrator

* While Athol Kay's MMSLP does have a plethora of worthwhile advise, more especially to a married man who is summarily being cheated on by his adulterous, deceptive wife, I in no way condone, nor accept, his flippant, over-egotistical, misguided mistreatment of women in general. 

I do remember that when I first read his book, that I had to "look past" most of his unjustified asidery of how mentally shallow that women are, in order to ferret out the most valid and worthwhile parts of his overall excellent book!

But I, in no way, can even begin to agree with him on his "theory" of women being rather shallow and unintuitive!*


----------



## jld

arbitrator said:


> * While Athol Kay's MMSL has a plethora of worthwhile advise, more especially to a married man who is being summarily cheated on by his wife, I in no way condone nor accept his flippant mistreatment of women in general.
> 
> I do remember that when I read his book, that I had to "look past" most of his unjustified asidery of how mentally shallow that women are, in order to ferret out the most valid and worthwhile parts of his overall excellent book!*


Arb, if someone wrote a book that you thought had some good advice, but talked about minorities the way this book talks about women, would you consider it an "overall excellent book"? Would you just "look past" it?


----------



## Brigit

jld said:


> Arb, if someone wrote a book that you thought had some good advice, but talked about minorities the way this book talks about women, would you consider it an "overall excellent book"? Would you just "look past" it?


I think we have made our point. We keep repeating:

"Look AK's books have some helpful tips for marriage BUT they encourage men to treat their wives like replaceable cattle and therefore shouldn't be recommended."

We stated it with jokes.
We stated it with research.
We stated it with honest pleading from the heart.

The guys still say the same thing, "It helped me so I'm gonna recommend it anyway."

Nothing has been accomplished.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

RandomDude said:


> When I mean universally, the books have already helped out loads of men from a diverse range of circumstances. I've seen it over the years on this forum, hence why my stance in this debate is "it was stickied on the men's clubhouse for a reason"


There is little if any proof that this book has already helped out loads of men from a diverse range of circumstances. 

Seeing how there are tons of reasons, there will be just as many ways to resolve the situation. 

Simply being recommended does not mean it works and yes, I do agree that it's been suggested to men even when his situation has nothing to do with him being a weak man. That's really the problem here. 

I can get behind the fact that some of the _actions _(not the mindset) from the book can help some men in that specific situation. But it is far from universal and will not help most men. 


And let's face it, some men can be manipulated too and not because of gender "science" crap. If we pulled the same things we could get the same results. But no one on this forum wants to recommend that wives get all sexy and go out on a GNO to have men hit on them to try and wake up a complacent husband. You'll get jumped on if you suggest to stop meeting his sexual needs if he doesn't meet your domestic ones. How do you think people would react to women laughing about how upping your sex ranking will mean you get to bang all the hot studs while you're then ex-husband is struggling finacially, dealing with his mid-life alone. 

You guys don't want that environment here either.


----------



## Lila

RandomDude said:


> I must rephrase, there's nothing out there LIKE IT that can help men universally thus far; *So far, MMSL and NMMNG has been referenced because it HAS helped men universally..*


Even the author acknowledges that MMSL HAS NOT helped all men universally. 

In the first couple of pages of his follow up book, AK states:

"_MMSL wasn't working for everyone. It was working amazingly well for about half of my readers, some degree of positive for the rest and a tiny handful said it made things worse_"​
Quantifying 'some' and 'tiny' would have helped but I interpret his quote above to mean that MMSL worked as intended for about 1/2 of the men who read it. The majority of the other 1/2 saw no or minimal improvement in their sex lives, with the remainder experiencing negative results. 

Based on the author's own admission, MMSLP HAS NOT helped men universally.


----------



## Lila

Bugged said:


> I keep on reading this ...but apart from bsdm what is dominance in a non D/s relationship...I'm really finding it hard to understand this point.:scratchhead::scratchhead:


I don't understand that one either.:scratchhead:


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Lila said:


> I don't understand that one either.:scratchhead:


I think it plays into his male essence. My H though compassionate and tender unlike any man I've known has a fierce streak. I shows up when he plays pool, when he believes in something and you cannot move him off of it standing his ground, his volume, strength in his body, etc. As strong as I am, he trumps me. Its almost hard to put it into words and yet I'm the breadwinner and we work to keep equal respect and equal responsibility, voice, those kinds of things. Even though I am the extrovert and he is the introvert his fierceness is very intimidating even to many outside of me. He just has this "thing." And it is very dominant.


----------



## Anon1111

Holland said:


> Sorry but I think you have missed the point entirely. Grow, learn, better yourselves, have locker room banter, want all the sex you can handle etc.
> 
> None of it is an issue, we don't know what it is like to be a man, we don't want to be men, we love the ones we have and we wish that everyone could feel the love and respect we feel, we wish everyone had good healthy sex lives.
> 
> The thread is about the vile terminology and ideology referencing women. About the completely disrespectful way women are cut down and degraded.
> It is about the fact that men can learn and grow and find happiness without having to manipulate women.
> 
> It is also about how shameful it is that it is actually men that are sending their fellow man down a path that has little hope of achieving real, loving, intimate results in the long term.


I haven't missed the point.

I see the point you are making.

I am making a different point.

There's more than one point being made.

On the one hand, there is a point being made about terminology and attitude that some view as manipulative and hateful.

I don't disagree with that assertion.

What I am asserting is that there is something to the experience of certain men in certain types of relationships for whom this language and attitude has an appeal because of their experience.

That experience is not "wrong." It is simply real.


----------



## Anon1111

Anon1111 said:


> Like Snoop Dogg said:
> 
> And we expose
> Ways for the youth to survive
> Some think it's wrong
> But we tend to think it's right
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I'm quoting myself quoting Snoop because somehow I think that many people here don't understand the significance of this quote. Maybe I underestimate you, but whatever.

Snoop is rapping about a "little ghetto boy."

This little ghetto boy carries a gun. He is scared.

Snoop (as narrator) is saying, don't trip, boy, carry that gun if you need it to survive. You didn't create the ghetto, you just live there.

Snoop acknowledges in the verse I quoted that "some think it's wrong" to advocate the gangster life.

But most of those people aren't young men who live in the ghetto.

Can you really say that if you were in that situation you would not see the appeal of living that way?

Now, I am NOT saying that being in a bad marriage is the same as being afraid for your life. 

I am just saying, you might need to walk a mile in a man's shoes before you are in a position to judge him.


----------



## Deejo

Brigit said:


> Deejo,
> 
> Holland has summed up our feelings on AK's books nicely:
> 
> _"The thread is about the vile terminology and ideology referencing women. About the completely disrespectful way women are cut down and degraded.
> It is about the fact that men can learn and grow and find happiness without having to manipulate women."
> _
> 
> Are you disputing this?


I have no need to 'dispute' anything. You are posting your opinions surrounding a given topic and a given author.

We could parade 10,000 guys through here claiming this subject matter helped them, and strengthened their relationship. 

It won't matter a whit, to you, Holland, FW or the others who see it as destructive or offensive.

My issue is that those who do make such a claim are tagged as defending or endorsing hatred. That's EXACTLY why I closed the other thread.

And if that's the ground we're starting from, then there is no conversation.

I don't much care if or how I am pigeonholed.

You get to express your distaste for the subject matter.

A man whom the content helped gets to sing it's praises.

What I do find ironic is about 4 years ago, TAM received a cease and desist from Michelle Weiner Davis regarding members here endorsing and posting about the 180.

TAM doesn't endorse anything. 

Other than finding ways to recover and strengthen marriages.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

So Deejo, if the women started promoting male manipulation and insults as much as the mmslp goes around here, would that be ok too?

I think if the book stays, the actions of bettering yourself, that's fine, but there should at least be something to stop the mindset aspect of it. The women are wh*res and c*m buckets, the "all women want..... but they don't know what they want", the using financial power to manipulate your wife into having sex with you, not taking no for an answer, talking about holding her down and doing what you wanted anyway (because all women like that anyway) , the suggestions that do not strengthen marriage and can do serious damage to it.


----------



## Deejo

Don't know.

Why not try it and see?


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Deejo said:


> Don't know.
> 
> Why not try it and see?


Nothing of the rest? Does that mean that kind of talking is allowed here? I have to say I've been triggered (past abuse) by posts of those kind here. I know I'm not the only one. 
I really would hate to think that so many people are being turned away from this forum and the help some posters could give because of the insults and the allowed promoting of unhealthy and dangerous tactics against women.

But hey, if it works, who cares.


----------



## jld

I don't think SGC believes in treating either sex that way.


----------



## tech-novelist

jld said:


> Gottman is a well-respected, world-reknown researcher. If his findings were seriously flawed, there would be a bigger outcry.


So are you saying that article was incorrect in its statements of how Gottman got his results, and that he indeed has validated them with a new group? Because if that article is correct, then Gottman is indeed purveying junk science, regardless of anyone else's reactions to it.


----------



## Brigit

Deejo said:


> Don't know.
> 
> Why not try it and see?


So we can make a thread for women about using manipulation tactics on their spouse to help save their marriage?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Brigit....of course we can. And it will end up being shut down because people will come and rail at us until there's a huge rift. But we can open the thread.


----------



## always_alone

jld said:


> I think those of us who are speaking up against the RP do so because we are concerned that it stokes fear and hatred of women. It may not seem like those are risks, and maybe for some there is no chance of that. Not everyone living at the time of Jim Crow was a racist, after all.
> 
> But when you live in an atmosphere where racism is considered an acceptable lifestyle choice, that can be threatening not only to people most affected by discrimination, but also to people who don't think it brings out the best in the human spirit.
> 
> I think it is similar with RP. Some of us feel it does not bring out the best in humans, however effective some people find it.



QFT! Shrugging and "looking past" denigration and dehumanization as "just" talk reveals that this denigration and dehumanization is considered acceptable and just a part of our society that we live in.

Those of us who find this sort of thing completely unacceptable will continue to speak out against it even if just as a matter of principle.

If someone wants to build their marriage or lives on fostering fear, resentment, insecurity or playing manipulative games to extract the behaviours that they desire, well no one can stop them. 

But if they want to build love, intimacy, and authentic relationships, they should at least get to hear opinions that don't immediately slam every man as a wussy pvssy and every woman as an irrational, cheating wh0re.


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> Brigit....of course we can. And it will end up being shut down because people will come and rail at us until there's a huge rift. But we can open the thread.


Could be interesting. Although I expect the ban hammers to come down pretty quickly!


----------



## Deejo

Report them. If they are breaking the forum guidelines the post and poster will be dealt with.

Respectfully, if we had to be concerned with all of the subject matter here that triggers people, there wouldn't be a whole lot of meaningful conversation. 
I encourage anyone who finds themselves triggered over a forum post or topic, to step away from the keyboard.


----------



## Brigit

always_alone said:


> Could be interesting. Although I expect the ban hammers to come down pretty quickly!


Honestly, I know plenty of tricks that work. A lot of them are a bit unethical, unmoral, and downright bit*hy but they work. I've done some terrible things in my life but some of those terrible things have got me what I've wanted.

IDK I don't want to make bad karma.


----------



## Anon1111

Brigit said:


> Honestly, I know plenty of tricks that work. A lot of them are a bit unethical, unmoral, and downright bit*hy but they work. I've done some terrible things in my life but some of those terrible things have got me what I've wanted.
> 
> IDK I don't want to make bad karma.


Now this is getting interesting.

I want to know all of the girl tricks, personally.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

jld said:


> I don't think SGC believes in treating either sex that way.


No I don't. And as much as I b*tch about my H, his flaws are his own and not with his gender. That's not to say my anger hasn't gotten the best of me and I've not always acted or spoke the way I should, but this should be a place that includes everyone and promotes healthy ways to build your marriage.

I'd love for a mod to clarify some things though

What is the stance on calling women names, either directed at a specific person or towards women in general? (this includes the terms like wh*re, slVt, c*m bucket)

Again with ideas of women without directly calling names (this includes stuff like "women just money vine from one man to the next, women marry for money, women don't know what they want", etc) 

Then on manipulation suggestions- where is the line drawn here?

And on suggestions of any kind of abuse, including sexual?

In other words, are these things allowed here and to what degree?


----------



## always_alone

One thing that really concerns me about the red pill is this assumption that we all have to be the same to be attractive. We've heard it here so many times: men *can't* just be themselves; they *have* to alpha up; they *have* to be someone else or they will forever and always be destined to a life of aloneness.

All of this, just because the head cheerleader in high school failed to whip off her knickers for him.

But we don't actually all have to be the same, and this insistence on the alpha does a great disservice to men, I think. And indeed, I believe that the insistence on "alpha" here probably drives more than a small amount away. 

I get that, especially as a teenage boy, it can be very difficult if you aren't one of the "cool" kids. Girls mature faster than boys, and so teenage girls are already looking for men at a time when the boys often just don't have the maturity or development to keep up with that. 

But this in no way is proof of "alpha" or the need to be "alpha" or that sexual attraction operates in this uniform and unimaginative way. There are all sorts of people in the world, and if you open your eyes to it, all sorts of people find love, sex and intimacy.

Take my brother for example. He is the antithesis of alpha. He is extremely, painfully socially awkward. *I* find it difficult to talk to him, and I am his sister. He has over the years matured and worked hard on self-improvement, doing things like Toastmasters to develop public speaking skills and so on. But the fact is that he is very introverted, shy, uncomfortable in social situations, and has absolutely zero game. He also has a lovely wife and two wonderful children.

The funny thing is that according to TAM "rules", he is doing everything wrong. He dotes on his wife, he is the epitome of "nice guy", he lets her boss him around, and you can see it in his eyes: he worships the ground she walks on. 

But you know what? She also looks at him in that same way. They are happy, and have been for 20 odd years.


----------



## EllisRedding

Out of curiosity, *at this point *in the thread what does anyone really hope to get out of it? FW's goal with this thread was obviously to highlight what she felt was so unbelievably wrong with this pill stuff, and I would say she has accomplished this. There are a group of people who will only be content if the pill is abolished from the face of the earth. There are a group of people who believe the pill can in fact be useful for those it targets. Right now there is no middle ground, so the conversations just seem to be going in circles.

And in all honesty, there are only so many funny memes I can post to keep this thread lively


----------



## Brigit

Anon1111 said:


> Now this is getting interesting.
> 
> I want to know all of the girl tricks, personally.


LOL!

What do call it? Take the Pink Pill


----------



## Brigit

always_alone said:


> The funny thing is that according to TAM "rules", he is doing everything wrong. He dotes on his wife, he is the epitome of "nice guy", he lets her boss him around, and you can see it in his eyes: he worships the ground she walks on.
> 
> But you know what? She also looks at him in that same way. They are happy, and have been for 20 odd years.


That's precious.


----------



## Lila

EllisRedding said:


> Out of curiosity, *at this point *in the thread what does anyone really hope to get out of it? FW's goal with this thread was obviously to highlight what she felt was so unbelievably wrong with this pill stuff, and I would say she has accomplished this. There are a group of people who will only be content if the pill is abolished from the face of the earth. There are a group of people who believe the pill can in fact be useful for those it targets. Right now there is no middle ground, so the conversations just seem to be going in circles.
> 
> And in all honesty, there are only so many funny memes I can post to keep this thread lively


Then stop following the thread. Sometimes the best solution is the simplest one.


----------



## EllisRedding

Lila said:


> Then stop following the thread. Sometimes the best solution is the simplest one.


Huh? What does my post have anything to do with following or not following the thread. You obviously are unable to answer an honest question, but your response speaks volumes about you, thanks for at least clearing that up for me ...


----------



## Faithful Wife

Deejo said:


> Report them. If they are breaking the forum guidelines the post and poster will be dealt with.
> 
> Respectfully, if we had to be concerned with all of the subject matter here that triggers people, there wouldn't be a whole lot of meaningful conversation.
> *I encourage anyone who finds themselves triggered over a forum post or topic, to step away from the keyboard*.


Like someone else asked, it is against the rules to use words that imply that women are wh*res in general? If we report posts like that, will that be truly taken as name calling?

As to the bolded part, of course you are right and everyone has control over whether they read or post here...so if something is triggering us, it is on us to protect ourselves from further harm and walk away. However, I have appreciated the fact that even in this thread, there has been a very slow progression from lots of the hateful crap in red pill jargon being slung around, to less and less of that. I hope that this spirit does move forward a little bit....

I mean, I no longer want to hear from anyone that it is proven science that women are hypergamous wh*res, and I will ask for evidence of this in human mating biology everytime I see it from here on out (knowing there isn't any)...but perhaps just because of this thread, we might hear that a little bit less.

But still....if we report being called wh*res in general, is this going to be taken seriously?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Brigit said:


> Honestly, I know plenty of tricks that work. A lot of them are a bit unethical, unmoral, and downright bit*hy but they work. I've done some terrible things in my life but some of those terrible things have got me what I've wanted.
> 
> IDK I don't want to make bad karma.


Me too, sister. There's a dark side to girl game, of course.

But if we talk about it here, the women would beat us down too, because it is unethical.

The men would like it at first and would think they are getting a peek into a secret treasure box, but soon they would be screaming that we are manipulative wh*res and asking for the thread to be shut down.

I wouldn't go there simply because those games are for immature people, not the lovely married people here at TAM....but boy is it tempting...


----------



## Faithful Wife

Yeah LILA....you just revealed VOLUMES of information about what kind of PERSON you are!!!

Aren't you ASHAMED of what kind of person you are???? You should be, obvi.


----------



## EllisRedding

Faithful Wife said:


> Yeah LILA....you just revealed what kind of PERSON you are!!!
> 
> Aren't you ASHAMED of what kind of person you are???? You should be, obvi.


Ooohhh, FW getting feisty 

Funny, my post was not targeted at the pro or anti pill group, was just asking for an honest assessment where this thread is. Of course some will only get out of it what they want or what they are capable of, so ok.


----------



## Brigit

Faithful Wife said:


> Me too, sister. There's a dark side to girl game, of course.
> 
> But if we talk about it here, the women would beat us down too, because it is unethical.
> 
> The men would like it at first and would think they are getting a peek into a secret treasure box, but soon they would be screaming that we are manipulative wh*res and asking for the thread to be shut down.
> 
> I wouldn't go there simply because those games are for immature people, not the lovely married people here at TAM....but boy is it tempting...


I know what you mean. Because at first, we'd start off with the little tricks that men might already suspect and then move on to the ones they don't know we're doing and they would get enraged. 

Some secrets are meant to be kept.


----------



## jld

Faithful Wife said:


> Yeah LILA....you just revealed VOLUMES of information about what kind of PERSON you are!!!
> 
> Aren't you ASHAMED of what kind of person you are???? You should be, obvi.


:rofl:

Lila, you are a wonderful person. So intelligent, so grounded, so much fun. Love your posts!


----------



## Lila

EllisRedding said:


> Huh? What does my post have anything to do with following or not following the thread.


You made the following comment in your post 

"Right now there is no middle ground, so the conversations just seem to be going in circles.

And in all honesty, *there are only so many funny memes I can post to keep this thread lively*"​
My suggestion was to stop following the thread if you feel the conversation is going round in circles and your "funny" memes were no longer going to help liven up the thread. 

You've fought a good fight with your "funny" memes but alas, they weren't enough to convince others to stop their discussion.



EllisRedding said:


> You obviously are unable to answer an honest question, but your response speaks volumes about you, thanks for at least clearing that up for me ...


While you judge me by my post to you, I am silently doing the same to you.

I do accept your thanks in clearing up your confusion with regards to my post.


----------



## always_alone

Brigit said:


> Honestly, I know plenty of tricks that work. A lot of them are a bit unethical, unmoral, and downright bit*hy but they work. I've done some terrible things in my life but some of those terrible things have got me what I've wanted.
> 
> IDK I don't want to make bad karma.


Yes, doing terrible things often gets you what you want.

That's when it becomes ever so important to ask whether it's more important to get what you want, or to be the kind of person that you want to be.

I choose the latter. I don't want bad karma either, nor do I want to be a part of that sort of world.


----------



## Deejo

I have seen the word wh0re, slvt and c*m bucket used multiple times in this thread.

You are asking to parse intent, which we try to do within reason. 

Reason being highly variable.

So no. I can't give you any absolutes.


----------



## always_alone

Brigit said:


> I know what you mean. Because at first, we'd start off with the little tricks that men might already suspect and then move on to the ones they don't know we're doing and they would get enraged.
> 
> Some secrets are meant to be kept.


Okay, I'll admit, you're even making *me* curious. Not because I actually would want to use tricks or manipulation -- but just because I do sometimes wonder how some women manage to be *so* successful at extorting men with their sexuality.


----------



## EllisRedding

Lila said:


> You made the following comment in your post
> 
> "Right now there is no middle ground, so the conversations just seem to be going in circles.
> 
> And in all honesty, *there are only so many funny memes I can post to keep this thread lively*"​
> My suggestion was to stop following the thread if you feel the conversation is going round in circles and your "funny" memes were no longer going to help liven up the thread.
> 
> You've fought a good fight with your "funny" memes but alas, they weren't enough to convince others to stop their discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> While you judge me by my post to you, I am silently doing the same to you.
> 
> I do accept your thanks in clearing up your confusion with regards to my post.


I forgot, some people lack a sense of humor which was obviously all that was meant by my meme comment...

All I did was make an assessment and asked an honest question, which you have conveniently ignored ... no part of my post was meant to be offensive or an attack, but hey, take out of it what you need ... 

As far as judging, I think it is safe to say everyone has been judging each other based on their posts for a while now. You are more than welcomed to judge me silently or out loud

I do accept your thanks for clearing up my post, you are unable to give an honest answer to an honest question ...


----------



## Icey181

Personal said:


> Having a high IQ isn't a disability! Although some men with high IQ's like to tell themselves that women aren't interested because they're too smart, they're intelligence is not what makes them unattractive.


I never said it was.

General Aside: Why do people react to their interpretations of statements instead of the actual statements?

Back on Topic: Whether or not intelligence makes an individual unattractive is uncontested. The reality is that higher IQs correlate immensely strongly with virginity in College age males.



Personal said:


> My wife is an introvert with a great professional career who has graduate science and other qualifications. Yet despite being intelligent (not that I think it is an impediment), she is sexually and socially successful.


Great for her.

Care to explain to me how the experiences of a successful women with a healthy sexual and social life has anything to do with the experiences of an intelligent but otherwise isolated, introverted, and unsuccessful sexually/romantically young man?



Personal said:


> One can have a low, average or high IQ and still be socially awkward, social failure isn't exclusive to high IQ's. *Introverts can also be just as socially and sexually successful as extroverts.*


Of course it is not. Point to me where I said it was.

Seriously, if you want to react to arguments people did not make, go write a blog post.

And no, by definition, introverts are not as socially and sexually successful as extroverts.

If they were, they would not be _introverts_.



Personal said:


> Do you think socially dysfunctional college guys ought to be getting BJ's handed to them like tic tacs because they're intelligent?


This is both a back handed insult to introverted and shy educated college men which reinforces my original point as well as a demonstration that you did not read the orignal exchange.



Personal said:


> I think the idea that being smart limits one's mating opportunities is a red herring.


Correlation =/= causation.

The correlation of high IQ and low sexual success (and high as hell rates of virginity in college-age men) is real.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Deejo said:


> I have seen the word wh0re, slvt and c*m bucket used multiple times in this thread.
> 
> You are asking to parse intent, which we try to do within reason.
> 
> Reason being highly variable.
> 
> So no. I can't give you any absolutes.


I didn't ask about the words being said, I asked about calling women those names (and other things that you didn't answer. )

How can you expect us to report things if you don't say what is and isn't allowed?

Simply- Is it against the rules or not to call a woman or all women derogatory names?


----------



## tech-novelist

Icey181 said:


> Well, I am happy that it works for you.
> 
> I would not describe what is essentially a male-oriented caretaker who you think owns responsibility for the entirety of the marriage as a symbiotic relationship, however.
> 
> Between the descriptions of both your and FW's marriages, you have essentially made me rethink my _rejection_ of certain off-the-wall Red Pill arguments…
> 
> …and it has done nothing but convince me that the Red Pill is 100% correct in its descriptions of what men need to be in order to maintain a healthy and mutually satisfying relationship.


So you are saying that women want to have men take care of them? How can you be so misogynistic? :rofl:


----------



## Faithful Wife

always_alone said:


> Okay, I'll admit, you're even making *me* curious. Not because I actually would want to use tricks or manipulation -- but just because I do sometimes wonder how some women manage to be *so* successful at extorting men with their sexuality.


It is so easy always....so so easy. I'll email you.


----------



## Buddy400

RandomDude said:


> Hell in alot of these sexless marriage threads on the forum, the guy ASKS for sex. Like come on, who the hell ASKS for sex? Baby, can we have sex? Like WTF?!


That's one of the things that's so confusing to guys.

There are all kinds of people in the mainstream media that think NOT asking for sex is sexual assault or marital rape. 

Guys that care about the woman's happiness feel the need to ask. 

Guys that only care about themselves, don't.

It turns out that many women (in an on-going relationship) want to be "taken". So the guy that cares about women ends up not doing what women want, The selfish guys *does* do what she wants. 

The "nice" guys need to know about this (although, personally. if my wife wanted me to pretend to take her against her will she'd be out of luck since simulated rape doesn't give me a stiffy).

I'd also appreciate it if women would acknowledge that they seem to be giving off mixed signals.


----------



## Icey181

Bugged said:


> I keep on reading this ...but apart from bsdm what is dominance in a non D/s relationship...I'm really finding it hard to understand this point.:scratchhead::scratchhead:


Go back to the descriptions of these women's marriages.

FW literally finds the social and sexual dominance of her husband highly attractive and a requirement in her relationship.

JLD has described a marriage that is effectively nothing more than pure male dominance, right down to an assumption that dominance is the man's _responsibility_.

Despite all of these denunciations of the Red Pill coming from these two voices, neither of these women could sustain a relationship with a "Nice Guy" because he would fail to exhibit all of the tendencies the Red Pill instructs men to attain and that they have argued are necessary for their relationships.


----------



## Lila

EllisRedding said:


> I forgot, some people lack a sense of humor which was obviously all that was meant by my meme comment...
> 
> All I did was make an assessment and asked an honest question, which you have conveniently ignored ... no part of my post was meant to be offensive or an attack, but hey, take out of it what you need ...
> 
> As far as judging, I think it is safe to say everyone has been judging each other based on their posts for a while now. You are more than welcomed to judge me silently or out loud
> 
> I do accept your thanks for clearing up my post, you are unable to give an honest answer to an honest question ...


Telling me that I have "conveniently ignored" or am "unable to give an honest answer" are back handed insults. I am neither dishonest or a liar. 

If your sole intent is to make disrespectful comments towards me, I would ask you to STOP addressing me, period. Not a joke, not side ways jab, not a full on back handed insult. Stop addressing me.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Deejo said:


> I have seen the word wh0re, slvt and c*m bucket used multiple times in this thread.
> 
> You are asking to parse intent, which we try to do within reason.
> 
> Reason being highly variable.
> 
> So no. I can't give you any absolutes.


I'm talking about out in the rest of the forum, on any random thread someone may start going off about how "women" are wh*res or liars or whatever....is name calling in a general sense that way about the entire gender ok or not?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> I'd also appreciate it if women would acknowledge that they seem to be giving off mixed signals.


Yes, we want to keep you guessing because we want you to do all the work while we sit back, everything is so perfect in our world! And of course, men are perfectly consistent and NEVER give off mixed signals. (snark)


----------



## Icey181

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes, we want to keep you guessing because we want you to do all the work while we sit back, everything is so perfect in our world! And of course, men are perfectly consistent and NEVER give off mixed signals. (snark)


I find it interesting that, almost every time someone points out that women are in fact not perfect and have a hand to play in these confusions, you feel it necessary to act as though the poster declared men were perpetual victims and women were all evil.

Essentially, as with a lot of your posts in this thread, you are basically making the points you think you are fighting against, with your own behavior.


----------



## Anon1111

Brigit said:


> I know what you mean. Because at first, we'd start off with the little tricks that men might already suspect and then move on to the ones they don't know we're doing and they would get enraged.
> 
> Some secrets are meant to be kept.


I for one would not get enraged.

I doubt you ladies have tricks I haven't already seen.

If you were a dude and this was ancient France, this would be the moment I would remove my white glove, slap you with it and challenge you to a duel.


----------



## EllisRedding

Lila said:


> Telling me that I have "conveniently ignored" or am "unable to give an honest answer" are back handed insults. I am neither dishonest or a liar.
> 
> If your sole intent is to make disrespectful comments towards me, I would ask you to STOP addressing me, period. Not a joke, not side ways jab, not a full on back handed insult. Stop addressing me.


None of it was meant as an insult, and it is funny this is your approach given you were the one who started this all with your response.

Nowhere in my original question did I imply the thread should be shut down. Nowhere in my original question did I imply that people should leave. Nowhere in my original question did I attack one group on another. Your response basically read as "Well, if you don't like it just leave." If you believe you are the innocent one here, well, not much else I can say.


----------



## Icey181

Anon1111 said:


> I for one would not get enraged.
> 
> I doubt you ladies have tricks I haven't already seen.
> 
> *If you were a dude and this was ancient France, this would be the moment I would remove my white glove, slap you with it and challenge you to a duel.*


:rofl:

Lawled really loudly at that one...


----------



## always_alone

Icey181 said:


> Go back to the descriptions of these women's marriages.
> 
> FW literally finds the social and sexual dominance of her husband highly attractive and a requirement in her relationship.
> 
> JLD has described a marriage that is effectively nothing more than pure male dominance, right down to an assumption that dominance is the man's _responsibility_.


You have the example of 2 women. I personally have always spoken in favour of "nice guys" and really can't understand why so many here are so determined to paint them as useless wussy pvssies that can never get laid.

If my SO went MMSL on me, he would find himself single.


----------



## always_alone

Buddy400 said:


> That's one of the things that's so confusing to guys.


It would stop being confusing, if it could just be acknowledged that women are not all the same person.

Yes, we all tell you different things about what we like. Why?

Because we all like different things!!!

It really is just that simple.


----------



## Buddy400

Brigit said:


> Nothing has been accomplished.


That's true. But, when was the last time anybody's opinion was actually changed on an internet forum?

I think it's mostly for the benefit of the lurkers.


----------



## Lila

Icey181 said:


> Go back to the descriptions of these women's marriages.
> 
> FW literally finds the social and sexual dominance of her husband highly attractive and a requirement in her relationship.
> 
> JLD has described a marriage that is effectively nothing more than pure male dominance, right down to an assumption that dominance is the man's _responsibility_.
> 
> Despite all of these denunciations of the Red Pill coming from these two voices, neither of these women could sustain a relationship with a "Nice Guy" because he would fail to exhibit all of the tendencies the Red Pill instructs men to attain and that they have argued are necessary for their relationships.



That's just it...my relationship with my H is not anything like FW and JLD, yet I too denounce Red Pill. Why? Because it's not, nor should it be, doled out as the first response to every man that comes onto this or any marriage forum for help. 

My personal situation with my husband is a great example of this. Had he come onto a forum like TAM and been told "take the Red Pill", our relationship would be over today. 

He's not a Nice Guy, he's not a "natural" (FW), he's not a dominant presence (JLD).....he is who he is, a individual and unique person like every other individual and unique man out there.

One size does not fit all.


----------



## Brigit

always_alone said:


> Okay, I'll admit, you're even making *me* curious. Not because I actually would want to use tricks or manipulation -- but just because I do sometimes wonder how some women manage to be *so* successful at extorting men with their sexuality.


LOL!

Remember they are tricks. They are things me and my friends used on men while "husband hunting" and to get the ring on our finger. Then there were the tricks during the engagement and now of course there are the marriage tricks. Some aren't bad some are really...BAD. 

Here's the thing I'm 46 and want to change my life and my behavior so I'm trying to become a more spiritual person. TBH I still play some tricks because they are survival mechanisms for me now. We could make a thread of funny girl games one can play or have played but I still think the men would get angry.


----------



## Icey181

always_alone said:


> You have the example of 2 women. I personally have always spoken in favour of "nice guys" and really can't understand why so many here are so determined to paint them as useless wussy pvssies that can never get laid.
> 
> If my SO went MMSL on me, he would find himself single.


So, you would divorce your husband if he began to go to the gym more often, developed out of the house hobbies, was more socially confident, and made it clear he had particular needs he wanted to be met in his relationship?

Why do I doubt that somehow? 




always_alone said:


> It would stop being confusing, if it could just be acknowledged that women are not all the same person.
> 
> Yes, we all tell you different things about what we like. Why?
> 
> Because we all like different things!!!
> 
> It really is just that simple.


The reality is that individuals still fall into general categories and that there is a baseline of items which most women find attractive.


----------



## Icey181

Brigit said:


> LOL!
> 
> Remember they are tricks. They are things me and my friends used on men while "husband hunting" and to get the ring on our finger. Then there were the tricks during the engagement and now of course there are the marriage tricks. Some aren't bad some are really...BAD.
> 
> Here's the thing I'm 46 and want to change my life and my behavior so I'm trying to become a more spiritual person. TBH I still play some tricks because they are survival mechanisms for me now. We could make a thread of funny girl games one can play or have played but I still think the men would get angry.


Why is it that, when girls do these things, they are funny girl games, but when men do them they are misogynistic-emotional abuse?

Serious question here, because I do not understand what you mean by "funny girl games."


----------



## Lila

Icey181 said:


> Why is it that, when girls do these things, they are funny girl games, but when men do them they are misogynistic-emotional abuse?
> 
> *Serious question here, because I do not understand what you mean by "funny girl games."*


LOL, it's just ladies locker room talk.


----------



## Brigit

Anon1111 said:


> I for one would not get enraged.
> 
> I doubt you ladies have tricks I haven't already seen.
> 
> If you were a dude and this was ancient France, this would be the moment I would remove my white glove, slap you with it and challenge you to a duel.


OMG you're a riot! OK. I'll make a "Fun Girl Game Thread." I'm not sure how many women will like to share their secrets so don't be surprised if you see tons of views and no posts. It's not going to be the hard-core bad stuff. Just the fun stuff that you probably already know about. 

(My gut tells me this isn't a good idea but...WTF.)


----------



## samyeagar

Brigit said:


> LOL!
> 
> Remember they are tricks. They are things me and my friends used on men while "husband hunting" and to get the ring on our finger. Then there were the tricks during the engagement and now of course there are the marriage tricks. Some aren't bad some are really...BAD.
> 
> Here's the thing I'm 46 and want to change my life and my behavior so I'm trying to become a more spiritual person. TBH I still play some tricks because they are survival mechanisms for me now. We could make a thread of funny girl games one can play or have played but I still think the men would get angry.


I think you'd be surprised by some of the reactions. I think there are some, maybe even a lot of men who would get a good laugh at the fact that some men fall for the crap you'd lay out.

Even when things were at their worst with my ex-wife, and the sh1t she'd do, I was always aware of my option to leave. I was always aware that I was the one letting my boundaries be violated. I was solely responsible for tolerating all of it, regardless of the game playing on her end.


----------



## tech-novelist

Buddy400 said:


> But that's why I find it SO hard to relate to anything you say.
> 
> Your husband is a "natural" and therefore, he doesn't need red pill nonsense.
> 
> Then you say "Neither does any other man. It is unnecessary."
> 
> You completely ignore the fact that most men are NOT "naturals" and, therefore, might need some things that your husband doesn't.
> 
> The "non-naturals" most definitely need *something*.


If I'm understanding her comments correctly, what she thinks they "need" is involuntary celibacy. Because if they learn to act alpha, they are FAKE and might fool women into have sex with them even though they are actually icky betas. The horror! :rofl:


----------



## Icey181

Lila said:


> LOL, it's just ladies locker room talk.


----------



## Brigit

samyeagar said:


> I think you'd be surprised by some of the reactions. I think there are some, maybe even a lot of men who would get a good laugh at the fact that some men fall for the crap you'd lay out.
> 
> Even when things were at their worst with my ex-wife, and the sh1t she'd do, I was always aware of my option to leave. I was always aware that I was the one letting my boundaries be violated. I was solely responsible for tolerating all of it, regardless of the game playing on her end.


LOL! I don't what is going to happen with this thread but I'm already entertained.


----------



## tech-novelist

Personal said:


> Having a high IQ isn't a disability! Although some men with high IQ's like to tell themselves that women aren't interested because they're too smart, they're intelligence is not what makes them unattractive.
> 
> My wife is an introvert with a great professional career who has graduate science and other qualifications. Yet despite being intelligent (not that I think it is an impediment), she is sexually and socially successful.
> 
> One can have a low, average or high IQ and still be socially awkward, social failure isn't exclusive to high IQ's. Introverts can also be just as socially and sexually successful as extroverts.
> 
> Do you think socially dysfunctional college guys ought to be getting BJ's handed to them like tic tacs because they're intelligent?
> 
> I think the idea that being smart limits one's mating opportunities is a red herring.


High IQ is not a detriment to sexual success... in women.
It is in men.

Of course this is a generalization, so it's not necessary to post counter-examples. I'm an exception, but I know I'm an exception.


----------



## Brigit

Icey181 said:


> Why is it that, when girls do these things, they are funny girl games, but when men do them they are misogynistic-emotional abuse?
> 
> Serious question here, because I do not understand what you mean by "funny girl games."


I started the thread to give you an idea. Nobody else may post so you might only get one trick. 

Sorry.


----------



## tech-novelist

RandomDude said:


> Well, I've been waiting for someone to write a book that just gives the hard facts instead of relying on this stupid trend of "alpha" vs "beta" and all that crap.
> 
> From what I've seen, the only thing stopping these so-called "betas" from picking up is that they don't know how to approach, don't know how to flirt, don't know how to have fun with a woman. Hell when I head out, they just sit there and watch me steal their potential dates.
> 
> Sometimes I felt sorry for them enough I go full wingman to help them. Doesn't always work, I approach a lady, chat her up, then introduce her to my friend, leave the two alone, and the lady ends up looking for me instead of continuing to chat with my friend
> 
> I've also never had a problem initiating sex with any woman including those who never even thought they could get that horny, still remember one FB who came over pretty much every night and told me she's not like that with other guys and when I asked why she just went "I don't know... maybe it's because you're a man"... :scratchhead:
> 
> Hell in alot of these sexless marriage threads on the forum, the guy ASKS for sex. Like come on, who the hell ASKS for sex? Baby, can we have sex? Like WTF?! No wonder it's sexless! This has nothing to do with "alpha"/"beta". Hell I wouldn't consider myself "alpha", in fact, I despise the term. I hate being categorised anyway. In the end, I get results but it just takes a bit of know how, experience, and understanding of the opposite sex.
> 
> If you can write a book like that, then yay! However, at present, it seems MMSL and NMMNG have been the most helpful books for men thus far, and there's nothing out there that can help men universally from a variety of different backgrounds and experiences.


Thanks for giving us your experience as a natural. Of course it may not be all that helpful for those of us who aren't naturals. :rofl:


----------



## Thundarr

Faithful Wife said:


> Me too, sister. There's a dark side to girl game, of course.
> 
> But if we talk about it here, the women would beat us down too, because it is unethical.
> 
> The men would like it at first and would think they are getting a peek into a secret treasure box, but soon they would be screaming that we are manipulative wh*res and asking for the thread to be shut down.
> 
> I wouldn't go there simply because those games are for immature people, not the lovely married people here at TAM....but boy is it tempting...
> 
> 
> Brigit said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know what you mean. Because at first, we'd start off with the little tricks that men might already suspect and then move on to the ones they don't know we're doing and they would get enraged.
> 
> Some secrets are meant to be kept.
Click to expand...

Of course there's psychology behind girl game and it's effectiveness on us bumbling men. Does girl game not use evo psych?


----------



## tech-novelist

Bugged said:


> Gene Expression: Intercourse and Intelligence
> 
> I have a degree in computer science...what is written in that article is very true (in my personal experience). I wonder what evo-psych-crap whateverthatis makes of that


Actually, I don't think it is IQ that is the cause; I think there is a confounding variable in the very high correlation between high IQ and introversion. Men with high IQs who are extroverts don't have nearly as much trouble in this area, in my experience.


----------



## john117

technovelist said:


> High IQ is not a detriment to sexual success... in women.
> 
> It is in men.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course this is a generalization, so it's not necessary to post counter-examples. I'm an exception, but I know I'm an exception.



Allow me to have my doubts. 

I know a number of smart women and their husbands. All PhD's in science or engineering (and one in lolz science).

Invariably the issue of sex with high strung career women comes up and in all three cases it's "she's too busy / driven / stressed". Among other things. 

My experience is that such women will either have sky high expectations for career and be pi$$ed off that the "male dominated world" is the problem or they will achieve their expectations and be worn out...

Just my experience mind you.


----------



## Deejo

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I didn't ask about the words being said, I asked about calling women those names (and other things that you didn't answer. )
> 
> How can you expect us to report things if you don't say what is and isn't allowed?
> 
> Simply- Is it against the rules or not to call a woman or all women derogatory names?


Point number 1 of the forum guidelines has your answer.


----------



## Icey181

technovelist said:


> Actually, I don't think it is IQ that is the cause; I think there is a confounding variable in the very high correlation between high IQ and introversion. Men with high IQs who are extroverts don't have nearly as much trouble in this area, in my experience.


The studies (this and others) do not identify it as a cause. They specifically point out the high-level of correlation.

There are obviously confounding variables to take into account: issues such as a lack of social skills, a lack of romantic skills, and a particular body-type amongst the higher intelligence population all likely play into it.

But for a short hand, IQ is a rather useful and predictive variable to determine virginity.

And from what I have seen, this does seem to be more true in men than in women.


----------



## Tubbalard

Brigit said:


> I know what you mean. Because at first, we'd start off with the little tricks that men might already suspect and then move on to the ones they don't know we're doing and they would get enraged.
> 
> Some secrets are meant to be kept.



Nothing new under the sun. Game recognizes game. Any "secret" you have has been done throughout time. Men that will get enraged are men that don't know women well enough. Skillful hunters can see these tricks from a mile away.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Brigit

Tubbalard said:


> Nothing new under the sun. Game recognizes game. Any "secret" you have has been done throughout time. Men that will get enraged are men that don't know women well enough. Skillful hunters can see these tricks from a mile away.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Perhaps but they still work.


----------



## tech-novelist

Buddy400 said:


> That's one of the things that's so confusing to guys.
> 
> There are all kinds of people in the mainstream media that think NOT asking for sex is sexual assault or marital rape.
> 
> Guys that care about the woman's happiness feel the need to ask.
> 
> Guys that only care about themselves, don't.
> 
> It turns out that many women (in an on-going relationship) want to be "taken". So the guy that cares about women ends up not doing what women want, The selfish guys *does* do what she wants.
> 
> The "nice" guys need to know about this (although, personally. if my wife wanted me to pretend to take her against her will she'd be out of luck since simulated rape doesn't give me a stiffy).
> 
> I'd also appreciate it if women would acknowledge that they seem to be giving off mixed signals.


It's fine if the man is the kind of man they want to have sex with. Otherwise it is almost RAPE, especially if the man is just pretending to be an alpha using some horrible book!


----------



## tech-novelist

Icey181 said:


> Go back to the descriptions of these women's marriages.
> 
> FW literally finds the social and sexual dominance of her husband highly attractive and a requirement in her relationship.
> 
> JLD has described a marriage that is effectively nothing more than pure male dominance, right down to an assumption that dominance is the man's _responsibility_.
> 
> Despite all of these denunciations of the Red Pill coming from these two voices, neither of these women could sustain a relationship with a "Nice Guy" because he would fail to exhibit all of the tendencies the Red Pill instructs men to attain and that they have argued are necessary for their relationships.


Shh, you're not supposed to notice that!


----------



## always_alone

Icey181 said:


> So, you would divorce your husband if he began to go to the gym more often, developed out of the house hobbies, was more socially confident, and made it clear he had particular needs he wanted to be met in his relationship?


No, I would divorce him if he started assuming that I didn't know what I want or wasn't capable of rational thought, or if he decided he needed to be more "dominant" and tell me what to do, or insist that I be more submissive, or a "first officer" to his "captain". 

Or if he started playing any of the other alpha games that are pushed in MMSL. (I don't count your list above at all because to me it is actually just common knowledge and completely obvious that fitness is generally better than no fitness, and that people might have interests and needs that don't revolve around me.)


----------



## always_alone

Tubbalard said:


> Nothing new under the sun. Game recognizes game. Any "secret" you have has been done throughout time. Men that will get enraged are men that don't know women well enough. Skillful hunters can see these tricks from a mile away.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


:rofl::rofl::rofl:

This is too funny. Of course the "skillful hunter" can see all the tricks, but yet somehow assumes his "prey" is oblivious, and will never recognize any of the tricks he is playing.

What craziness dating and relationships must be for some people!


----------



## samyeagar

always_alone said:


> :rofl::rofl::rofl:
> 
> This is too funny. Of course the "skillful hunter" can see all the tricks, but yet somehow assumes his "prey" is oblivious, and will never recognize any of the tricks he is playing.
> 
> What craziness dating and relationships must be for some people!


A skillful hunter often assumes his "prey" knows the tricks and is playing the game too. That's part of what makes it so appealing to some.


----------



## Tubbalard

always_alone said:


> :rofl::rofl::rofl:
> 
> This is too funny. Of course the "skillful hunter" can see all the tricks, but yet somehow assumes his "prey" is oblivious, and will never recognize any of the tricks he is playing.
> 
> What craziness dating and relationships must be for some people!


see samyeager's post.
I never assume someone is oblivious. I've been accused many times of trying to game someone. But Then I just rachet up the natural charm and they melt like butter.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Buddy400

always_alone said:


> No, I would divorce him if he started assuming that I didn't know what I want or wasn't capable of rational thought, or if he decided he needed to be more "dominant" and tell me what to do, or insist that I be more submissive, or a "first officer" to his "captain".
> 
> Or if he started playing any of the other alpha games that are pushed in MMSL. (I don't count your list above at all because to me it is actually just common knowledge and completely obvious that fitness is generally better than no fitness, and that people might have interests and needs that don't revolve around me.)


Here's the thing, you sound like the kind of woman that I would be attracted to and who would be able to appreciate my "nice guy" attributes. I'd appreciate being able to be myself and not having to "game" you.

However, in my experience (and that of other men I've talked to) what would work in attracting YOU, wouldn't work with most women.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Lila said:


> That's just it...my relationship with my H is not anything like FW and JLD, yet I too denounce Red Pill. Why? Because it's not, nor should it be, doled out as the first response to every man that comes onto this or any marriage forum for help.
> 
> My personal situation with my husband is a great example of this. Had he come onto a forum like TAM and been told "take the Red Pill", our relationship would be over today.
> 
> He's not a Nice Guy, he's not a "natural" (FW), he's not a dominant presence (JLD).....he is who he is, a individual and unique person like every other individual and unique man out there.
> 
> One size does not fit all.


I would also like to point out that there are many non-alpha, absolutely OPPOSITE to red pill things that go on in the sexual dynamic I have with my husband.

If I were to list them here, certain people would be freaked out and/or offended and/or would say mean things about me or my husband.

So do you (red pill supporter guy) think I'm going to list those things here and open myself to further ridicule? Or let anyone talk bad about my man or my sex life just because I opened myself up a little more? Hell no.

So therefore, those who think you know everything there is to know about my sex life and that is matches red pill and my husband is simply a PUA artist, I understand that I have only offered a few nuggets about our life that make you think that way and that you don't have the full picture. Trust me that if you did, you would no longer think you "get it", you would be further confused.

What you see from over t here is not what I'm getting over here.

One size doesn't fit all or even most.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Personal said:


> If only it were a wake up "slap in the face" to a man! Unfortunately from what I have read it is a call to action that encourages one to figuratively slap the woman in the face.


Which part is figuratively slapping a woman in the face, and if she has withdrawn sex and affection for no good reason, who is to say she doesn't deserve it?

You know what's a slap in the face? Shutting down on a man who is doing his best to make her happy, to the degree that he's so flustered as to look to options like MMSL in the first place.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Thundarr said:


> Of course there's psychology behind girl game and it's effectiveness on us bumbling men. Does girl game not use evo psych?


:rofl:

Evo psyche is a figment of some men's imaginations.

What is REALLY happening is so much more mysterious and powerful than anything evo psyche could ever come up with.

Mwah ha ha!


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> Here's the thing, you sound like the kind of woman that I would be attracted to and who would be able to appreciate my "nice guy" attributes. I'd appreciate being able to be myself and not having to "game" you.
> 
> *However, in my experience (and that of other men I've talked to) what would work in attracting YOU, wouldn't work with most women*.


The problem with game in general is that it seeks to tell men how to game any/all women.

Yet, there are different manuals for every type of fishing.

Different manuals for every type of car.

For every computer.

And so on.

But for women men want to believe one size fits all (ie: evo psyche does say this) and then expect to be effective on ONE specific woman?

So this is actually a compliment to always, IMO.

Of COURSE what would work on "most women" wouldn't work on her. She is an individual.


----------



## Satya

I want to contribute more to this never-ending topic, but my SO said he'd dread game me hard due to neglect if I got sucked back in.


----------



## Anon1111

It's like a baseball swing.

Ted Williams had the perfect swing, but he was a natural.

You can try to imitate Ted Williams' swing, but you will never be able to do it like him.

You've got a natural swing style. You've got to stick with your own style and make it as good as it can be. That is the path to getting "on base" the most.

If you try to adopt someone else's style, even someone mutch better than you, you will strike out. It will be forced and unnatural.


----------



## UMP

Anon1111 said:


> It's like a baseball swing.
> 
> Ted Williams had the perfect swing, but he was a natural.
> 
> You can try to imitate Ted Williams' swing, but you will never be able to do it like him.
> 
> You've got a natural swing style. You've got to stick with your own style and make it as good as it can be. That is the path to getting "on base" the most.
> 
> If you try to adopt someone else's style, even someone mutch better than you, you will strike out. It will be forced and unnatural.


Conversely, you can get really good, even great with unorthodox swings. Lee Trevino, Chi-Chi Rodriquez, and Jim Furyk come to mind visa vie the golf swing.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Or super sloppy logic like inferring that just because someone selects one photo over another, this demonstrates their priorities, even though at best it simply points to a value.


What? You literally cannot devise a simpler, more constrained test than the status-attraction photo test. 

Women show a strong economic status attraction bias. Men do not show an economic status attraction bias. Thus we infer that a man can increase his attractiveness by increasing his economic status, and a woman can't. Status being more important to women than men is synonymous with saying women give greater priority to status than men.

Where is the sloppy logic?


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> Could be interesting. Although I expect the ban hammers to come down pretty quickly!


I dunno.

I'd certainly kick in some ways that I quite enjoy being manipulated.


----------



## john117

Faithful Wife said:


> :rofl:
> 
> 
> 
> Evo psyche is a figment of some men's imaginations.
> 
> 
> 
> What is REALLY happening is so much more mysterious and powerful than anything evo psyche could ever come up with.
> 
> 
> 
> Mwah ha ha!



Some of evo psych is off the wall, some is not.

But the reality is, as you state, the whole intimacy cycle is too complex to model with any accuracy...


----------



## john117

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Women show a strong economic status attraction bias. Men do not show an economic status attraction bias. Thus we infer that a man can increase his attractiveness by increasing his economic status, and a woman can't.



Maybe because men and women have different risk aversion attitudes?


----------



## Julius Beastcavern

john117 said:


> Maybe because men and women have different risk aversion attitudes?


N=1


----------



## Faithful Wife

Anon1111 said:


> It's like a baseball swing.
> 
> Ted Williams had the perfect swing, but he was a natural.
> 
> You can try to imitate Ted Williams' swing, but you will never be able to do it like him.
> 
> You've got a natural swing style. You've got to stick with your own style and make it as good as it can be. That is the path to getting "on base" the most.
> 
> If you try to adopt someone else's style, even someone mutch better than you, you will strike out. It will be forced and unnatural.


You know what is so ODD about this is that it sounds like "just be yourself".


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> I dunno.
> 
> I'd certainly kick in some ways that I quite enjoy being manipulated.


Because you assume you would get some kind of sexual favor out of it?

What if instead you assumed you were going to be robbed via manipulation? Is it ok as long as you think you will get sex in there somehow, even if you don't?


----------



## Anon1111

Faithful Wife said:


> You know what is so ODD about this is that it sounds like "just be yourself".


well... yes, but that is an oversimplification.

there are hitting coaches for a reason. the aim is to bring out the best in you, but starting with you (not a cookie cutter template).

If you're way outside the norm, they're probably going to try to correct your swing UNLESS you show them you dominate despite that quirk.

You've got to be able to take the coaching but know yourself well enough to know what to reject.

My sense is that this is what most men do with this type of romantic advice too.


----------



## Icey181

always_alone said:


> No, I would divorce him if he started assuming that I didn't know what I want or wasn't capable of rational thought, or if he decided he needed to be more "dominant" and tell me what to do, or insist that I be more submissive, or a "first officer" to his "captain".


Dominant and domineering are two different things.

While I guess it is theoretically possible, I am not sure I have ever seen a marriage or a relationship that was a true partnership.

As I think about it there was always a "Captain" and a "First-Officer," when couples attacked issues.

Sometimes those roles might switch, but there tends to be a consistent leader in most regards.

Personally, it seems that has always been me. And unsurprisingly (post-Red Pill) when I ceded that leadership my marriage slid into a lovely little-dead bedroom situation.

As much as women tend to rail against the notion and declare "I would never want a man to lead me," the reality tends towards the opposite in almost every case I know.

Hell, the reality of women describing their marriages in this very thread flies in the face of female rejection of the Captain-1st Mate dynamic.

Apparently, a confident Captain who takes advice from his First-Mate is sexy as hell and makes a lot of women feel safe…



always_alone said:


> Or if he started playing any of the other alpha games that are pushed in MMSL. (I don't count your list above at all because to me it is actually just common knowledge and completely obvious that fitness is generally better than no fitness, and that people might have interests and needs that don't revolve around me.)


Of course you do not count the list.

And of course those things are "common knowledge."

Because if you were forced to concede that men are in fact not told those items, especially not by women, and that they needed to have unhealthy conceptions of women torn down, including the assumption that they should listen when a woman tells him to "be nice" or "be himself" then you would have to face the notion that Red Pill is actually more than the caricatured anger-phase kids you want to focus on.

But that is really what this entire thread is about.

Women telling men that all the stuff _they could not find as advice_ really is just "common knowledge," and that they should ignore one of the few sources that actually tells them those things because it brings baggage along with it.

The reality that the advice which comes from women basically never actually manages to articulate those "common knowledge" tidbits is of course besides the point.


----------



## Icey181

Anon1111 said:


> It's like a baseball swing.
> 
> Ted Williams had the perfect swing, but he was a natural.
> 
> You can try to imitate Ted Williams' swing, but you will never be able to do it like him.
> 
> You've got a natural swing style. You've got to stick with your own style and make it as good as it can be. That is the path to getting "on base" the most.
> 
> If you try to adopt someone else's style, even someone mutch better than you, you will strike out. It will be forced and unnatural.


But of course, that is not how baseball works.

In reality hitting coaches take young and unsuccessful hitters and forcibly alter their mechanics and approach at the plate to produce better results.

They are not allowed to "just be themselves."

Mark Teixeria is not hitting more balls the other way this season because he "is just being himself." He is doing it because he cannot find as much success hitting like he once did and because the Yankees' management has been demanding he change for years.

He was forced to change.


----------



## Anon1111

Icey181 said:


> But of course, that is not how baseball works.
> 
> In reality hitting coaches take young and unsuccessful hitters and forcibly alter their mechanics and approach at the plate to produce better results.
> 
> They are not allowed to "just be themselves."
> 
> Mark Teixeria is not hitting more balls the other way this season because he "is just being himself." He is doing it because he cannot find as much success hitting like he once did and because the Yankees' management has been demanding he change for years.
> 
> He was forced to change.


yes, but see my post above.

you do correct the swing, but it is rare that a radical alteration of style is successful. 

much more often you simply refine the style you already have to be more effective.

so if you are a bookish guy, for example, pretending like you are a dumb jock is unlikely to fly.

much more straightforward and likely successful approach is to become a more fun, interesting bookish guy.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Anon1111 said:


> well... yes, but that is an oversimplification.
> 
> there are hitting coaches for a reason. the aim is to bring out the best in you, but starting with you (not a cookie cutter template).
> 
> If you're way outside the norm, they're probably going to try to correct your swing UNLESS you show them you dominate despite that quirk.
> 
> You've got to be able to take the coaching but know yourself well enough to know what to reject.
> 
> My sense is that this is what most men do with this type of romantic advice too.


Gee my sense of the MMSL crowd is that they are following someone like sheep and that they are trying to be someone they are not, because they think all women want the same man. Because like, that's what it SAYS and that's the same drivel the supporters of it keep saying....you know, they mock anyone who says "just be yourself". Their mantra is "be alpha man or no woman will ever love you because they are all the same and are all looking for the same guy".

If the red pill fan club would stop outright mocking "just be yourself" and would stop promoting "be alpha stud man or die" then maybe I could believe that they are capable of actually finding themselves.

They are all just talking about finding out how to be someone else to get "women", nameless, faceless groups of "women".

*Now if you mean "most men" and are not talking about the red pill fans, then I agree with you. Most men understand that they really do just need to be their best selves and not follow some pre-fab plan.*


----------



## Icey181

Faithful Wife said:


> Gee my sense of the MMSL crowd is that they are following someone like sheep and that they are trying to be someone they are not, because they think all women want the same man.


Which flies in the face of the half a dozen posters in this very thread who have demonstrated otherwise and specifically remarked how they took the useful tidbits of Red Pill advice without the dogmatic anger-phase musing, and used those parts successfully.


----------



## Icey181

Faithful Wife said:


> If the red pill fan club would stop outright mocking "just be yourself" and would stop promoting "be alpha stud man or die" then maybe *I could believe that they are capable of actually finding themselves.*


What does this even mean?

"Finding yourself" only works if "yourself" is already confident and successful with the opposite sex.

Does literally nothing for everyone who is not like your husband.


----------



## Anon1111

Icey181 said:


> What does this even mean?
> 
> "Finding yourself" only works if "yourself" is already confident and successful with the opposite sex.
> 
> Does literally nothing for everyone who is not like your husband.


I will try to answer.

It just means being comfortable and confident with who you are.

I don't mean this as a platitude, even though I know it sounds this way.

The #1 thing by FAR is confidence. It doesn't really matter how you get it. You could be really good looking, or rich, or outgoing, or jacked. But if you lack confidence, you fail.

All you really need to see is that you can be confident right now.

It's a simple realization and not easy to effect, but THAT is the path.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Personal said:


> I think the idea that being smart limits one's mating opportunities is a red herring.


I think it's more of a correlation than red herring. Being intelligent is actually attractive, but it also tends to mean greater time spent on study or otherwise geeky somewhat obsessive interests at the expense of socializing.

Just my conjecture, but the resulting social awkwardness tends to outweigh the attractiveness of intelligence imo.

My office is full of programmers - extremely intelligent people - and the vast majority are abnormally awkward.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Anon1111 said:


> I will try to answer.
> 
> It just means being comfortable and confident with who you are.
> 
> I don't mean this as a platitude, even though I know it sounds this way.
> 
> The #1 thing by FAR is confidence. It doesn't really matter how you get it. You could be really good looking, or rich, or outgoing, or jacked. But if you lack confidence, you fail.
> 
> All you really need to see is that you can be confident right now.
> 
> It's a simple realization and not easy to effect, but THAT is the path.


Right, it takes authentic confidence. I understand fake it till you make it, but that is actually a rabbit hole.

What my husband has that others don't - - but which is something ANYONE can have - - is self awareness. Specifically sexual self awareness, but general self awareness, too.

You can't become confident until you know who you actually are.


----------



## T&T

Faithful Wife said:


> You can't become confident until you know who you actually are.


These words are SO true. It just takes some longer than others. Some never find out because they don't take a good hard look at WHO they really are.


----------



## Icey181

Anon1111 said:


> I will try to answer.
> 
> It just means being comfortable and confident with who you are.
> 
> I don't mean this as a platitude, even though I know it sounds this way.
> 
> The #1 thing by FAR is confidence. It doesn't really matter how you get it. You could be really good looking, or rich, or outgoing, or jacked. But if you lack confidence, you fail.
> 
> All you really need to see is that you can be confident right now.
> 
> It's a simple realization and not easy to effect, but THAT is the path.





Faithful Wife said:


> Right, it takes authentic confidence. I understand fake it till you make it, but that is actually a rabbit hole.
> 
> What my husband has that others don't - - but which is something ANYONE can have - - is self awareness. Specifically sexual self awareness, but general self awareness, too.
> 
> You can't become confident until you know who you actually are.


These sound like platitudes because they are platitudes.

"Be more confident" and "be comfortable with who you are" are platitudes.

They are not actionable changes a person can put into motion. They are general end-goals, that is all.

There is a reason why the Red Pill semi-seriously jokes about de-programming men. In order for them to achieve these long-term goals of confidence and self-awareness, for many the first step is to recognize and accept the amoral reality of dating and intimate relationships, stop idolizing women, and purse actionable changes in their life that help build a sense of confidence.

Telling someone to be self-aware and confident is a platitude.

Telling someone to hit the gym, which will help them look and feel better, telling them to engage in social hobbies outside of their home and normal circle of friends forces social-skill development, and telling men to recognize that the world does not care about fairness and that they need to identify what they want and go after it via certain steps, are actionable changes.

Telling a man to be more confident is like telling a lonely woman to be more interesting.


----------



## Julius Beastcavern

Faithful Wife said:


> Right, it takes authentic confidence. I understand fake it till you make it, but that is actually a rabbit hole.
> 
> What my husband has that others don't - - but which is something ANYONE can have - - is self awareness. Specifically sexual self awareness, but general self awareness, too.
> 
> You can't become confident until you know who you actually are.


Do you think your husband popped out of the womb a 'natural' or learnt from trial/error, observation and instruction?


----------



## Icey181

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I think it's more of a correlation than red herring. Being intelligent is actually attractive, but it also tends to mean greater time spent on study or otherwise geeky somewhat obsessive interests at the expense of socializing.
> 
> Just my conjecture, but the resulting social awkwardness tends to outweigh the attractiveness of intelligence imo.
> 
> My office is full of programmers - extremely intelligent people - and the vast majority are abnormally awkward.


Agreed.

Personal development is a zero sum game. You either dedicate the hours to developing intelligence or you spend those hours developing something else, such as physical fitness.

Any focus on one inherently reduces allot-able time for the other.

The most intelligent people tend to be the most socially awkward because of the things they prioritized during their younger years.

Intelligence is an attractive quality. However, it is most often significantly outweighed by a lack of physical attractiveness or social awkwardness.


----------



## Anon1111

Icey181 said:


> These sound like platitudes because they are platitudes.
> 
> "Be more confident" and "be comfortable with who you are" are platitudes.
> 
> They are not actionable changes a person can put into motion. They are general end-goals, that is all.
> 
> There is a reason why the Red Pill semi-seriously jokes about de-programming men. In order for them to achieve these long-term goals of confidence and self-awareness, for many the first step is to recognize and accept the amoral reality of dating and intimate relationships, stop idolizing women, and purse actionable changes in their life that help build a sense of confidence.
> 
> Telling someone to be self-aware and confident is a platitude.
> 
> Telling someone to hit the gym, which will help them look and feel better, telling them to engage in social hobbies outside of their home and normal circle of friends forces social-skill development, and telling men to recognize that the world does not care about fairness and that they need to identify what they want and go after it via certain steps, are actionable changes.
> 
> Telling a man to be more confident is like telling a lonely woman to be more interesting.


I understand why you say this, but you are looking at it only from one perspective.

You see confidence as a GOAL.

It is a process.

It is a way of looking at yourself. You see yourself and you accept it. The more you can truly see yourself and accept it, the more you seriously DGAF.

When you DGAF, you exude sexiness.

Stop thinking of "confidence" as this abstract thing that you get to once you stack up enough chips.

Start thinking of confidence as a path you travel down where you understand and accept yourself.


----------



## T&T

Icy,

They are not just platitudes...

Taking a good hard look at who you are, where you came from, how you got here and what you have to offer helps promote confidence. 

Those lacking in it need to take a long hard look at themselves and ask *why.*There could be numerous reasons why they don't have confidence in themselves and many of their belief systems could be false. 

This RP stuff gives the guys a "formula" to follow and disallows them to find themselves. Find their inner being, self. They're being robbed of something very special! It's almost spiritual. 

This goes for the ladies as well...


----------



## Faithful Wife

Julius Beastcavern said:


> Do you think your husband popped out of the womb a 'natural' or learnt from trial/error, observation and instruction?


Kind of. Only what really happened is that his natural abilities weren't ever stunted by parental shame or repeated bad experiences with women. He had a good and healthy sexual attitude from the start, and quickly learned that some women are highly sexual, like he is. 

Highly sexual people find each other. We do it all the time. I can walk in a room and know who is a more sexual person than others. 

So he didn't hit much error along his path. And no one was there shaming him or telling him he was a pig or anything like that. Lots of chicks dig him.

But he learned quickly not to be butt hurt if someone isn't into you.

Learning to be self assured takes some experience, meaning, you have to get rejected at least a few times. And he has been. 

Not every woman would think he's all that. Some think he is unattractive in what ever ways. We're not all the same.

So he learned quickly how to find women who there was MUTUAL attraction with, and then sort through these for the highly sexual ones.

Even still, most relationships do not last forever, so no matter who you are, you will likely experience rejection and loss in your life...even a sex god.

He's had both good and bad relationships. He also had long periods of time of playing the field. When he was ready to find me, he went about it with deliberate intention....and there I was.


----------



## john117

Julius Beastcavern said:


> N=1



Actually men and women do have differences in their risk aversion. That's one of the first homeworks one gets to do the silly risk/reward assessment exercises...


----------



## john117

Faithful Wife said:


> You can't become confident until you know who you actually are.



AND what you're dealing with...


----------



## john117

Icey181 said:


> Agreed.
> 
> 
> 
> Personal development is a zero sum game. You either dedicate the hours to developing intelligence or you spend those hours developing something else, such as physical fitness.
> 
> 
> 
> Any focus on one inherently reduces allot-able time for the other.
> 
> 
> 
> The most intelligent people tend to be the most socially awkward because of the things they prioritized during their younger years.
> 
> 
> 
> Intelligence is an attractive quality. However, it is most often significantly outweighed by a lack of physical attractiveness or social awkwardness.



"Develop Intelligence"... Please elaborate 

It's not like I can go to the library and develop brain muscle - it's there or not. Not after the formative years at least.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Personal said:


> All I read is entitlement!
> 
> No one owes anyone time, conversation, friendship or sex.
> 
> Seriously if both or more involved parties aren't mutually feeling that attraction at the beginning. Most people (not all) would be far better served if they are looking for a great sexual relationship ought to, "Shove it brother" and "Just Keep Walking" (thanks INXS).
> 
> If a women or man friend zones you they don't wan't you like that, I can't see anything wrong with that, people really don't owe anyone sex because someone put in some time.


This is something the friend zoned guy doesn't get. To his mind, he's doing what it takes to win her over. He can't see that he's being abused, and doesn't understand what about his behaviors repeatedly turn him into the friend rather than the boyfriend.

It's very easy for an outsider looking in to make such statements. The guy in it doesn't see it and doesn't know what to change. The worst of these become Eliot Rogers and hate what they perceive as being used by women for the relationship affection they want, while he's being sexually teased and frustrated - finally lashing out toward women and the men they choose - always believing he was the guy who they "should" have picked because he was doing everything they wanted. The opposite of Eliot Rogers accepts that there must be some behavioral issue within themselves that is the root cause, and seeks to discover and resolve it - which usually means breaking the pattern of woman worship. Hence all the irreverence and offensiveness. For most, it isn't woman hate... it's about destroying the idol - that she is some perfect being who graces men with her presence and determines the winners and losers. That she has some magical power over sex to reward and entice with it. She doesn't have squat. Such power is given by the neediness of the giver. The one who needs the other less will always have the power in a relationship - and the friend zoned relationship is all his need and her power. But she's a flawed human being like any other, not worthy worship or granting that power. It's a pretty fundamental thing - so yeah, these books often burn women in effigy. Not actual women, but the IDOL of woman. The message really is to dismiss her. The lesson is to never give that power away. As a result of doing so, you achieve a balanced state free of the need to cater to her... and you become a more independent, value holding man who is much more interesting and desirable to women.

I'm not sure someone who hasn't been that guy can truly relate. Things like MMSL break the idol worship, and offer ideas on the mechanisms of attraction that women do not generally express or are not aware of, and follows through to some extremes mostly as a logical exercise.

Some will see what it suggests as manipulation, I get that. I see it as the male equivalent of a push up bra in terms of attraction, or a less destructive ultimatum in terms of assertiveness. To each their own, I'm happy with what I got from it even though I got into it long before MMSL was written. Had I better asserted myself and my needs, rather than falling into the trap of overvaluing my wife and my desire for her happiness, I'd either still be married today or divorced years earlier (the marriage itself was still a good choice with the information at hand). Some will see that as inability to "keep up the game", but I rather see it as a conflict inherent with loving someone else vs keeping oneself. My "game" was still there in most respects. My EW was still very much in love with me, and sex didn't dry up for my lack of attractive qualities or the build up of resentments on her part. Ultimately the marriage ended because we wanted different things, a different way of life. It lasted as long as it did because instead of standing my ground on what I wanted and forcing her to choose between me or her new direction, I chose her and the life she wanted. I chose poorly. Sure, all the PUA/Game/RP/Seduction/Self-help books will tell you not to make that play. Love has a funny way of getting in the way of reason and self, even for the aware.

MMSL isn't about the marriage. It's about the husband. The wife's attraction and drive comes back into alignment, or he leaves. So it may save a marriage from a drifting wife, perhaps save a man from following a course against his actual desire, and/or ultimately promote the end a marriage that shouldn't continue -one that still exists only because of his continued sacrifice of self and fear of loss. I think the book would help with restoring self and a proper attitude that "sunk costs are sunk". There's no sense in throwing good money after bad. If you're still not getting what you want, put your remaining time to better use.


----------



## Anon1111

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I'm not sure someone who hasn't been that guy can relate. Things like MMSL break the idol worship


great point.


----------



## Holland

Well good luck to all you guys that need it. TBH I would have thought the better way to learn about healthy relationships was via people that do have healthy relationships not via material that has hatred at its core. 

Have not read past deejos post making it clear that misogyny and disrespect for women is acceptable on TAM. Many of us already knew that so "meh".

My prediction is that those of you that employ these tactics will never find what it is you are looking for, your wives will never respect you and your daughters will be disgusted by you.


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> Of COURSE what would work on "most women" wouldn't work on her. She is an individual.


And a moderately decent one at that. 

So if you want "most" women, be my guest. Head out there and pursue most women. If you want someone with my qualities ....

well the "most women" tactics ain't gonna work.


----------



## Brigit

You can try not to worship us but you will anyway.

Sorry.


----------



## always_alone

Icey181 said:


> Of course you do not count the list.
> 
> And of course those things are "common knowledge."
> 
> Because if you were forced to concede that men are in fact not told those items, especially not by women, and that they needed to have unhealthy conceptions of women torn down, including the assumption that they should listen when a woman tells him to "be nice" or "be himself" then you would have to face the notion that Red Pill is actually more than the caricatured anger-phase kids you want to focus on.


You keep saying stuff like this, but never once have I ever heard anyone, woman or man, that you (one) shouldn't make an effort to be fit and healthy. Nor have I ever heard anyone, woman or man, say that "be nice" means be a complete and utter doormat and let her walk all over you.

"Be nice" and "be respectful" mean just that. Aren't you the one here complaining about others reading too much into what you're saying? Well, you are doing the same thing. "Be nice" and "be respectful" absolutely do not mean give up every need, interest, hobby, lifestyle choice, value so that you can pander more to your gf. 

If you want to be hypogamous, that is absolutely fine with me. But if you are going to be hypogamous, well, you have to realize that there are certain consequences to that.

And don't assume that because you are hypogamous that therefore I must be hypergamous, because I'm not. And yes, I know the difference between dominating and domineering.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Holland said:


> Well good luck to all you guys that need it. TBH I would have thought the better way to learn about healthy relationships was via people that do have healthy relationships not via material that has hatred at its core.


Funny thing I learned in therapy. A lot fewer people have "healthy relationships" than most people think.



Holland said:


> My prediction is that those of you that employ these tactics will never find what it is you are looking for, your wives will never respect you and your daughters will be disgusted by you.


That's funny. I'm quite happy with where I am, which is all I'm ever looking for. My 8 year old daughter is now in a gifted stem program at my encouragement and tutoring. We will be building a robot together this summer and she's so incredibly excited about it.

But oh dear... I read books that refer to women's inner sl*ts and wh*res aimed at dispelling men's misconceptions about women's sex drive and knocking them off the perch in his mind. Or worse, I did things that women found attractive after reading such books! *gasp*

You know what I'll tell her if we ever have that conversation? "I didn't design women. I'm just another guy trying to understand, like every guy since the dawn of man."


----------



## Brigit

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> You know what I'll tell her if we ever have that conversation? "I didn't design women. I'm just another guy trying to understand, like every guy since the dawn of man."


And she'll say "Oh daddy don't be silly. You'll never understand us."


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> well the "most women" tactics ain't gonna work.


"Most women" say this.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Women show a strong economic status attraction bias.


No, some women (usually young undergraduates) display a tendency to rank a man as more "attractive" (whatever that means) when his photo is adjusted to display some sort of stereotypical status symbol, and no other items change. 



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Men do not show an economic status attraction bias.


No, some men (usually young undergraduates) display a tendency to rank a woman as attractive with or without the stereotypical status symbol.



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Thus we infer that a man can increase his attractiveness by increasing his economic status, and a woman can't.


No, we can guess that if all other things are always kept equal, a women will display more likelihood of deciding a man is attractive (whatever that means) if he has a status symbol of some sort than a man would.



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Status being more important to women than men is synonymous with saying women give greater priority to status than men.
> 
> Where is the sloppy logic?


This here is where the logic flies out the window. 

Just because (mostly young undergraduate women) will say someone is "attractive" with a status symbol, what do you suppose that means? 

And how did you get from there to priority? 

None of the data or studies you've posted support the conclusions you are drawing from it. Rather, you have already decided the conclusions are correct, unassailable in fact, and completely overlook the actual data and what it is actually saying.


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> R Specifically sexual self awareness, but general self awareness, too.
> 
> You can't become confident until you know who you actually are.


Self awareness is sexy!


----------



## tech-novelist

always_alone said:


> No, some women (usually young undergraduates) display a tendency to rank a man as more "attractive" (whatever that means) when his photo is adjusted to display some sort of stereotypical status symbol, and no other items change.
> 
> 
> 
> No, some men (usually young undergraduates) display a tendency to rank a woman as attractive with or without the stereotypical status symbol.
> 
> 
> 
> No, we can guess that if all other things are always kept equal, a women will display more likelihood of deciding a man is attractive (whatever that means) if he has a status symbol of some sort than a man would.
> 
> 
> 
> This here is where the logic flies out the window.
> 
> Just because (mostly young undergraduate women) will say someone is "attractive" with a status symbol, what do you suppose that means?
> 
> And how did you get from there to priority?
> 
> None of the data or studies you've posted support the conclusions you are drawing from it. Rather, you have already decided the conclusions are correct, unassailable in fact, and completely overlook the actual data and what it is actually saying.


Donald Trump has no problem getting girlfriends, or wives for that matter. It isn't his physical attractiveness that accounts for that, even though he is tall.

Henry Kissinger was and maybe still is quite the ladies' man, and he is not at all attractive (or tall either, as far as I know).

It would be quite easy to multiply these examples indefinitely, as almost everyone knows. Fame, power, and wealth attract women; it's as simple as that.

Now let's hear about all the rich, famous women who have men falling all over them.

...

Do I have to go on?


----------



## jaquen

EleGirl said:


> Here is one that just creeps me out...
> 
> (8.8) Isolation – Leverage Her Isolation Anxiety with Surprise
> 
> Moving to a second location works to make alone time more exciting to her, but that can be made even more exciting by adding the element of surprise and triggering momentary Isolation Anxiety.


----------



## always_alone

Icey181 said:


> Telling someone to be self-aware and confident is a platitude.
> 
> Telling someone to hit the gym, which will help them look and feel better, telling them to engage in social hobbies outside of their home and normal circle of friends forces social-skill development, and telling men to recognize that the world does not care about fairness and that they need to identify what they want and go after it via certain steps, are actionable changes.


They are all platitudes. Being self-aware is no more or less a platitude than "get fit". Both are generic good advice that may or may not solve your problems. 

At the same time, if taken to heart, they are both actionable changes that can make a difference about how you feel about yourself, and how you are in the world. Which can change your life quite considerably.


----------



## Faithful Wife

always_alone said:


> Self awareness is sexy!


It so is.

When we were first together and getting to know each other, I asked him....damn dude, how ARE you doing this? Why are you so sexy??

And he said "It's because I'm self aware".

Honestly, at the time I had no idea what he was talking about. Eventually I learned, and became self aware myself.

I've blogged about sexual self awareness, but it is a really huge topic. Much better for a book.


----------



## Deejo

Holland said:


> Well good luck to all you guys that need it. TBH I would have thought the better way to learn about healthy relationships was via people that do have healthy relationships not via material that has hatred at its core.
> 
> Have not read past deejos post making it clear that misogyny and disrespect for women is acceptable on TAM. Many of us already knew that so "meh".
> 
> My prediction is that those of you that employ these tactics will never find what it is you are looking for, your wives will never respect you and your daughters will be disgusted by you.


Well, that's an unfortunate post.


----------



## always_alone

technovelist said:


> Donald Trump has no problem getting girlfriends, or wives for that matter. It isn't his physical attractiveness that accounts for that, even though he is tall.
> 
> Henry Kissinger was and maybe still is quite the ladies' man, and he is not at all attractive (or tall either, as far as I know).
> 
> It would be quite easy to multiply these examples indefinitely, as almost everyone knows. Fame, power, and wealth attract women; it's as simple as that.
> 
> Now let's hear about all the rich, famous women who have men falling all over them.
> 
> ...
> 
> Do I have to go on?


Define "attract". 

And is that really what you want in life? If so, I guess you're golden.


----------



## Bugged

No I mean...some men make an idol of someone and instead of calling themselves idiots they call women ****s and *****s ..
No really men are completely illogical 'hormonal' beings...


----------



## always_alone

Bugged said:


> No I mean...some men make an idol of someone and instead of calling themselves idiots they call women ****s and *****s ..
> No really men are completely illogical 'hormonal' beings...


Yeah, I too am a bit mind-boggled at this idea that somehow denigrating and demeaning women is somehow necessary and important because otherwise he would be putting her way too high on a pedestal. 

I mean, seriously?

What about just, you know, treating people like people.


----------



## Faithful Wife

My husband worships and idolizes me, and has no problem saying so.

In fact his friends are probably tired of hearing about me.

We both have Oneitis to a HUGE degree.

(In red pill land, Oneitis is supposedly a libido killer and a mega beta wussy thing to do).


----------



## lifeistooshort

always_alone said:


> Define "attract".
> 
> And is that really what you want in life? If so, I guess you're golden.


QFT. If you're content with someone pretending to like you to get some money out of you then go for it, but don't live in fantasy land that they really have all that much attraction for you.

Money doesn't create attraction, it just makes giving it up to someone you're not that attracted to less disgusting.

Gotta love the guys that go on about how money and power attracts the women they want but then simultaneously b!tch about gold diggers. They can use money to get a woman but she can't actually be in it for the money or she's a gold digger. Quite a conundrum isn't it?


----------



## Holland

Deejo said:


> Well, that's an unfortunate post.


Well that's a very telling post.

So the concept of men treating women like chattels is not unfortunate but my post is? Very interesting.

FWIW my dad is in his 70's he is my idol, we have a very close relationship and he is my go to man for advice about life and relationships. He is a good, decent, successful man that has never had a problem finding women to love him.

I can say with great conviction that I would not worship the ground he walks on if he were the type of man that spouted this drivel. It might not be important to some guys but the respect of your children is a pretty worthwhile goal to me.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Holland said:


> Well that's a very telling post.
> 
> So the concept of men treating women like chattels is not unfortunate but my post is? Very interesting.
> 
> FWIW my dad is in his 70's he is my idol, we have a very close relationship and he is my go to man for advice about life and relationships. He is a good, decent, successful man that has never had a problem finding women to love him.
> 
> I can say with great conviction that I would not worship the ground he walks on if he were the type of man that spouted this drivel. It might not be important to some guys but the respect of your children is a pretty worthwhile goal to me.




My dad was awesome on so many levels, straight out of a 1950's gang tough guy. He would NEVER employ any of these ridiculous tactics to make your woman realize what a catch you are and how lucky she is you don't trade her in. If any of the men in my life had treated me this way my dad would not have been happy about it. When he was dying of lung cancer and couldn't get around much he had 3 women who wanted to push him in a wheelchair to hang out with him. There was another one that called his phone after he was gone that we didn't even know about. In his final stages of cancer he still knew how to treat women. Did I mention he was 5'5?

Misogyny is alive and well here on TAM and is tolerated. Many times us woman have been labeled "man haters" for expressing opposing opinions.....yet I've never seen a guy here labeled a "woman hater" even when he clearly is.

Whatever, I'm married to a guy who would never employ these tactics. He doesn't have to.

There are some decent ones here that from time to time restore my faith.


----------



## tech-novelist

Holland said:


> Well good luck to all you guys that need it. TBH I would have thought the better way to learn about healthy relationships was via people that do have healthy relationships not via material that has hatred at its core.
> 
> Have not read past deejos post making it clear that misogyny and disrespect for women is acceptable on TAM. Many of us already knew that so "meh".
> 
> My prediction is that those of you that employ these tactics will never find what it is you are looking for, your wives will never respect you and your daughters will be disgusted by you.


Your prediction has already been falsified, in this very thread, by a number of men who have said that using some of the tactics under discussion has resulted in significant improvement in their marriages.

Now of course you can claim that they are all lying, but I don't think that is a reasonable claim to make in the absence of evidence. And by evidence I don't mean further claims about the absurdity of the tactics under discussion, but actual information about the change in relative happiness of the marriages involved from before, to after, the men starting to employ said tactics.

Alternatively, you can withdraw your prediction, which would be the most logical response.


----------



## tech-novelist

lifeistooshort said:


> My dad was awesome on so many levels, straight out of a 1950's gang tough guy. He would NEVER employ any of these ridiculous tactics to make your woman realize what a catch you are and how lucky she is you don't trade her in. If any of the men in my life had treated me this way my dad would not have been happy about it.
> 
> Misogyny is alive and well here on TAM and is tolerated. Many times us woman have been labeled "man haters" for expressing opposing opinions.....yet I've never seen a guy here labeled a "woman hater" even when he clearly is.
> 
> Whatever, I'm married to a guy who would never employ these tactics. He doesn't have to.
> 
> There are some decent ones here that from time to time restore my faith.


Women who are married to guys who don't have to employ these tactics seem to be uniquely unqualified to give advice to men who do have to employ these tactics.


----------



## Holland

lifeistooshort said:


> My dad was awesome on so many levels, straight out of a 1950's gang tough guy. He would NEVER employ any of these ridiculous tactics to make your woman realize what a catch you are and how lucky she is you don't trade her in. If any of the men in my life had treated me this way my dad would not have been happy about it.
> 
> Misogyny is alive and well here on TAM and is tolerated. Many times us woman have been labeled "man haters" for expressing opposing opinions.....yet I've never seen a guy here labeled a "woman hater" even when he clearly is.
> 
> Whatever, I'm married to a guy who would never employ these tactics. He doesn't have to.
> 
> There are some decent ones here that from time to time restore my faith.


Oh there are plenty of great ones out there thankfully.


----------



## Brigit

Holland said:


> Well that's a very telling post.
> 
> So the concept of men treating women like chattels is not unfortunate but my post is? Very interesting.
> 
> FWIW my dad is in his 70's he is my idol, we have a very close relationship and he is my go to man for advice about life and relationships. He is a good, decent, successful man that has never had a problem finding women to love him.
> 
> I can say with great conviction that I would not worship the ground he walks on if he were the type of man that spouted this drivel. It might not be important to some guys but the respect of your children is a pretty worthwhile goal to me.


My dad is a Narcissistic Sociopath. Can we trade?


----------



## Holland

Brigit said:


> My dad is a Narcissistic Sociopath. Can we trade?


No sorry, he is my buddy. He already has two daughters and two DIL's but I'm sure there is room for more.

You can keep yours, not my type of father figure.


----------



## Brigit

Holland said:


> No sorry, he is my buddy. He already has two daughters and two DIL's but I'm sure there is room for more.
> 
> You can keep yours, not my type of father figure.


You sure? I'll throw in a car and some Truffles.


----------



## Faithful Wife

brigit....sorry your dad is yucky. 

It is hard on anyone to have a yucky father.


----------



## john117

technovelist said:


> Women who are married to guys who don't have to employ these tactics seem to be uniquely unqualified to give advice to men who do have to employ these tactics.



To some extent. 

Knowledge of what is NormalPeople (tm) behavior is useful. I've often thought in the aftermath of a spat with J2 as to WWJLDD... Or WWFWD... Or WWAPD... (Thinks about the business opportunity of TAM WW???D bracelets...)

To this extent having a normality baseline is pretty helpful even if the advise is off due to lack of exposure to the specific traits.


----------



## Brigit

Faithful Wife said:


> brigit....sorry your dad is yucky.
> 
> It is hard on anyone to have a yucky father.


He really is horrible but what he did teach me was what *NOT* to look for in a man and that worked out well. I told him so once. He said "At least I was good for something."


----------



## Holland

Brigit said:


> You sure? I'll throw in a car and some Truffles.


oh well truffles, how many?

Actually he is ace, my dad :smthumbup: and he has raised two very amazing sons. 
He is so ace that even when the ex and I split, dad has maintained a relationship with him (ex and I are amicable)

A good male role model is what grows good men. A good male role model is what grows daughters to be confident and decent women.

The more I read here the happier I am with my life.


----------



## tech-novelist

john117 said:


> To some extent.
> 
> Knowledge of what is NormalPeople (tm) behavior is useful. I've often thought in the aftermath of a spat with J2 as to WWJLDD... Or WWFWD... Or WWAPD... (Thinks about the business opportunity of TAM WW???D bracelets...)
> 
> To this extent having a normality baseline is pretty helpful even if the advise is off due to lack of exposure to the specific traits.


Sure, assuming you know which is "normal". :rofl:


----------



## Faithful Wife

Holland said:


> The more I read here the happier I am with my life.


God me too, so much.


----------



## john117

technovelist said:


> Sure, assuming you know which is "normal". :rofl:



Tell me about it 

Validation of knowing what normalcy is, really, not definition per se.


----------



## lifeistooshort

technovelist said:


> Women who are married to guys who don't have to employ these tactics seem to be uniquely unqualified to give advice to men who do have to employ these tactics.


Wasn't aware I actually gave any advice. I was just pointing out that my dad, who was a tough man by many standards and also had the short issue going on, didn't need to employ tactics involving bringing your woman down to make yourself better. If that makes you self conscious I don't know what to tell you.

Besides, according to much of TAM us women aren't qualified to give advice on much of anything. If it involves men we're told we don't understand men and if it involves women we're told that we don't really understand how women operate or what they respond to so we're not to be believed :scratchhead:

I just think it's sad if you have to resort to being a jerk to keep you wife "in line". Don't see women being advised to let him know that if he doesn't do your bidding there's more money and a bigger c0ck on the next guy and you'd love to hand it. Most men would consider that disrespectful.


----------



## FizzBomb

Bugged said:


> No I mean...some men make an idol of someone and instead of calling themselves idiots they call women ****s and *****s ..
> No really men are completely illogical 'hormonal' beings...


Couldn't agree more with this.

Own your OWN sh!t, red pill people. You are the way you are because of YOU and nobody else. Blameshifting at its worst.

Fix yourself, but don't be an ar$eh0le about it .... Common Decency 101.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Holland said:


> Well that's a very telling post.
> 
> So the concept of men treating women like chattels is not unfortunate but my post is? Very interesting.


:iagree:
I'm quite disappointed at the "oh well, who cares" attitude when women are upset by some of the things that goes on here.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Thank you for being brave enough to speak out against it anyway, ladies. Even though there is heavy amounts of "oh well who cares" thrown at us...I'm glad to see you all not letting that shut you down.


----------



## FizzBomb

technovelist said:


> Donald Trump has no problem getting girlfriends, or wives for that matter. It isn't his physical attractiveness that accounts for that, even though he is tall.
> 
> Henry Kissinger was and maybe still is quite the ladies' man, and he is not at all attractive (or tall either, as far as I know).
> 
> It would be quite easy to multiply these examples indefinitely, as almost everyone knows. *Fame, power, and wealth attract women; it's as simple as that.*
> 
> Now let's hear about all the rich, famous women who have men falling all over them.
> 
> ...
> 
> Do I have to go on?


Re the bolded part - "*Fame, power and wealth attract women; it's as simple as that*." Sigh. That's a very low attitude you have of women. I feel sorry for you actually. Do you base this on *first hand knowledge*? Was your father stinking rich and your mother some young hot bimbo that was only after him for his riches? I think you've been watching too many Hollywood movies or maybe reading too many fake internet 'surveys' and 'articles'.


----------



## FizzBomb

lifeistooshort said:


> Misogyny is alive and well here on TAM and is tolerated. Many times us woman have been labeled "man haters" for expressing opposing opinions.....yet I've never seen a guy here labeled a "woman hater" even when he clearly is.


Unfortunately this is true. It really is unfortunate. I think this site is great and I've learned alot. However, it would be a whole lot better without that element rearing it's hateful, oldfashioned, ugly head. I think it is used by a small minority to 'shut women down and shut them up.' Sad really. Could be having a lot more interesting discussions around here. Which is a good thing, a very good thing.


----------



## tech-novelist

FizzBomb said:


> Re the bolded part - "*Fame, power and wealth attract women; it's as simple as that*." Sigh. That's a very low attitude you have of women. I feel sorry for you actually. Do you base this on *first hand knowledge*? Was your father stinking rich and your mother some young hot bimbo that was only after him for his riches? I think you've been watching too many Hollywood movies or maybe reading too many fake internet 'surveys' and 'articles'.


Yeah, that must be it. I've been brainwashed into thinking women were attracted to wealth, fame, and power. Thanks for clearing that up!


----------



## Personal

Personal said:


> Having a high IQ isn't a disability! Although some men with high IQ's like to tell themselves that women aren't interested because they're too smart, they're intelligence is not what makes them unattractive.





Icey181 said:


> I never said it was.


Then we concur, I never claimed you said it was. If I did claim that I would have for example written the following: So Icey181 why do you think having a high IQ is a disability?



Icey181 said:


> General Aside: Why do people react to their interpretations of statements instead of the actual statements?


Is your question as quoted above a nuanced rhetorical question that requires interpretation to discern, or should one instead accept what you have written literally and presume you have absolutely no idea why you and all others interpret what they read, see, touch, taste or hear.

Why do you react to your interpretations of statements instead of the actual statements?



Icey181 said:


> Back on Topic: Whether or not intelligence makes an individual unattractive is uncontested. The reality is that higher IQs correlate immensely strongly with virginity in College age males.


Anecdotally from my experience as a former (PSYOPS/HUMINT background) Intelligence Professional, most of the military and civilian intelligence colleagues that I worked with both male and female (all with high IQ's) were socially and sexually successful.

One can be highly intelligent, and highly attractive while being sexually successful at the same time.

The best sex I have ever had has always been with clever people!



Icey181 said:


> Great for her.
> 
> Care to explain to me how the experiences of a successful women with a healthy sexual and social life has anything to do with the experiences of an intelligent but otherwise isolated, introverted, and unsuccessful sexually/romantically young man?


Men are not the only ones who are intelligent but otherwise isolated, introverted, and unsuccessful sexually.



Icey181 said:


> Personal said:
> 
> 
> 
> One can have a low, average or high IQ and still be socially awkward, social failure isn't exclusive to high IQ's. *Introverts can also be just as socially and sexually successful as extroverts.*
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it is not. Point to me where I said it was.
> 
> Seriously, if you want to react to arguments people did not make, go write a blog post.
> 
> And no, by definition, introverts are not as socially and sexually successful as extroverts.
> 
> If they were, they would not be _introverts_.
Click to expand...

Introverts can be socially and or sexually successful.



Icey181 said:


> Personal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Icey181 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really think shy, intelligent college guys are getting tons of casual sex and "BJs being handed out like tic tacs?"
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think socially dysfunctional college guys ought to be getting BJ's handed to them like tic tacs because they're intelligent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is both a back handed insult to introverted and shy educated college men which reinforces my original point as well as a demonstration that you did not read the orignal exchange.
Click to expand...

No it isn't, it is simply a direct challenge against significantly socially and emotionally flawed people thinking they are owed sex because they are intelligent, while coincidentally ignoring the fact that they are otherwise dysfunctional.



Icey181 said:


> Correlation =/= causation.
> 
> The correlation of high IQ and low sexual success (and high as hell rates of virginity in college-age men) is real.


Yet despite having a high IQ, I lost my virginity at 17.


----------



## ConanHub

Not too sure about high Q guys not getting any.

I got a lot and my Q rivals a famous dude in a wheelchair.

I'm a little hotter than him though. &#55357;&#56841;
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MountainRunner

Wait a minute, I've been "kinda" following this threat after initially becoming involved...Did someone make the assertion that men with high IQs are less prone to getting laid? I can assure you that such is not the case. I myself am a complete computer geek that even has a degree in Computer Science, I have an exceptionally rare Star Wars poster hanging on my wall ("Revenge of The Jedi"), and I don't watch any kind of sports. I have 12 computers in my house, all networked via ethernet or wifi, a LAMP server (Linux/Apache/MySQL/PHP). When I took my ASVAB test for the military I scored in the top 3%...Us "smart" guys don't get the girl? Puhleeeze.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I think there is data that higher IQ college age males are more often virgins than lower IQ males. Though of course, in some sort of silly magical math, they want to extrapolate "why" this is and guess what? As usual, it is a woman's fault. We should be ashamed that we don't want to screw these higher IQ guys and not only that, we should be handing them free bj's to make up for our shame.

So it is of course assumed, that the "reason" these higher IQ college aged virgins are virgins is because "women like stupid idiots", because as usual, women are stupid. You know, all those dumb people banging each other....that must be "why" this occurs. 

That's the gist of it in red pill speak.

Which is so funny, because here I thought they might be virgins because they are intelligent and make a choice to remain virgins and they are less likely to do things they don't actually want to do, because they are smart like that. I actually credited the higher IQ virgins with more agency and self determination than to assume the "poor things" must be unwanted sexually. Some people really are more concerned with academics than they are with sex or attraction at that age.

Delayed gratification is a sign of high intelligence.

It is also a sign of high sexual intelligence.

I've always thought intelligence is sexy and have never had sex with anyone who wasn't intelligent. But I have known people who have remained celibate for their own reasons, including remaining virgins because they were honestly holding out for the right person.

Something I'm not clear on though is if the higher IQ virgin discrepancy is ONLY males? I think the only study I read gave a percentage but it was implied that it was both males and females with higher IQ that were virgins for longer.

But regardless, red pill has to make it out that women are dumb sl*ts, even if the higher IQ virgins are half women.


----------



## MountainRunner

Gotcha. Well, I happen to be one of those "higher intelligence" guys and you already know how I feel about all this "red pill" rhetoric.

It's reciprocal as well. I fell in love with my wife before we ever physically met. We were in a long distance relationship for 6 months before meeting. We would have discussions for hours on the phone about current events, archaeology, biology, computer tech, name it...

She does hate the fact that I can handily beat her at Scrabble (she is my toughest opponent to date though and gives me a run for my money) though...But she chose to marry a school district spelling bee champ, so there!  *grin*


----------



## Personal

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Which part is figuratively slapping a woman in the face, and if she has withdrawn sex and affection for no good reason, who is to say she doesn't deserve it?
> 
> You know what's a slap in the face? Shutting down on a man who is doing his best to make her happy, to the degree that he's so flustered as to look to options like MMSL in the first place.


If my wife shuts down on me and no longer feels affection, attraction, love and respect for me. I will very quickly walk if reconciliation is not likely.

I will not tolerate a sexual relationship with someone who no longer wants me. Why would anyone want that?

What is the benefit in punishing a woman or man for feelings they can't help but have. Falling out of love with someone isn't a malicious act, wanting to punish someone for that is not an attractive character trait.

MMSL shamefully builds up weak and insecure men by encouraging them to think women are lesser than them.


----------



## Personal

Faithful Wife said:


> Something I'm not clear on though is if the higher IQ virgin discrepancy is ONLY males? I think the only study I read gave a percentage but it was implied that it was both males and females with higher IQ that were virgins for longer.


25 for my wife, I was her second sexual partner.


----------



## Holland

Well as I said Mr H is a smart guy but he has only beaten me once at Scrabble haha, considering I have no where near the academic intelligence he has I find it amusing, he finds it frustrating.

I am much more street smart than him though. Maybe that is why I usually get him in Scrabble with all my little yet sneaky words that add up to big scores. I tend to play scrabble a bit like chess, think out my moves and play both offense and defense. He is spending his time looking for the big words


----------



## RandomDude

225 PAGES!

Anyway... IQ talk? Bah!

*heads out*


----------



## MountainRunner

I often do find myself telling people "I'm smarter than I look."...What does that mean?  LOL!


----------



## Brigit

Personal said:


> MMSL shamefully builds up weak and insecure men by encouraging them to think women are lesser than them.


And that is AK's target market: weak and insecure men who feel powerless. 

This is a dangerous group of men. They're so angry they might resort to unspeakable acts to keep what they think they own.


----------



## john117

While I'm going to be the last person to defend MMSL, what's the alternative ???

To an extent the verbiage is shock material - but a skilled writer needs not resort to such.


----------



## Brigit

john117 said:


> While I'm going to be the last person to defend MMSL, what's the alternative ???
> 
> To an extent the verbiage is shock material - but a skilled writer needs not resort to such.


Here you go:

Amazon Best Sellers: Best Marriage

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=sr_nr_n_8?fst=as%3Aoff&rh=n%3A283155%2Cn%3A4736%2Ck%3Apassionate+marriage&keywords=passionate+marriage&ie=UTF8&qid=1431774394&rnid=1000


http://www.amazon.com/Hot-Monogamy-Essential-Passionate-Lovemaking/dp/1475176910/ref=sr_1_28?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1431774512&sr=1-28&keywords=passionate+marriage


----------



## Marduk

LOL.

High IQ and later virginity?

I had sex a few weeks after my 15th birthday, and my IQ is... well... pretty high. Not that I think that means anything much, of course. Attempting to measure what you can't define is pretty stupid.

My point is that once I liked girls, I used that IQ to get closer to them, not further away. I had been 'making out' with girls for a long time before then.


----------



## Marduk

Brigit said:


> Here you go:
> 
> Amazon Best Sellers: Best Marriage
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=sr_nr_n_8?fst=as%3Aoff&rh=n%3A283155%2Cn%3A4736%2Ck%3Apassionate+marriage&keywords=passionate+marriage&ie=UTF8&qid=1431774394&rnid=1000
> 
> 
> Hot Monogamy: Essential Steps to More Passionate, Intimate Lovemaking: Dr. Patricia Love, Jo Robinson: 9781475176919: Amazon.com: Books


I'm repeating myself, but the power that I found in MMSLP was it's sense of agency.

It didn't require my wife's understanding, approval, effort, energy...

In fact it all worked better when she had no idea.

People need some direct approach that doesn't require their spouse's buy-in.


----------



## john117

It's a matter of emotional Q and not IQ. Usually the two are inversely related 

Sex at a younger age is largely a function of availability and not IQ/EQ. I spent my summers in our village where supply exceeded demand by quite a margin . In the city, the higher IQ girls in my classes are probably still waiting for Mr. Right


----------



## Marduk

john117 said:


> It's a matter of emotional Q and not IQ. Usually the two are inversely related
> 
> Sex at a younger age is largely a function of availability and not IQ/EQ. I spent my summers in our village where supply exceeded demand by quite a margin . In the city, the higher IQ girls in my classes are probably still waiting for Mr. Right


Totally agree, John.

And what I got, at an early age thanks to feminism, was that:

#1 girls like sex
#2 if a girl offers sex (or she happily says yes to it) that I'm not victimizing her.

Once you get that, where there's women, there's sexual abundance.


----------



## Brigit

marduk said:


> I'm repeating myself, but the power that I found in MMSLP was it's sense of agency.
> 
> It didn't require my wife's understanding, approval, effort, energy...
> 
> In fact it all worked better when she had no idea.
> 
> People need some direct approach that doesn't require their spouse's buy-in.


OK...

TBH I never read any of AK's books but the quotes I've heard here make me want to vomit.

But you seem likable enough and you've stated that this book worked for you.

Can you give me an example of something in the book that worked for you? I DON'T want to hear that you started working-out and being more confident. Ton's of self-help books say that. I want to hear something that you can only get from this book that worked.


----------



## Marduk

Brigit said:


> OK...
> 
> TBH I never read any of AK's books but the quotes I've heard here make me want to vomit.
> 
> But you seem likable enough and you've stated that this book worked for you.
> 
> Can you give me an example of something in the book that worked for you? I DON'T want to hear that you started working-out and being more confident. Ton's of self-help books say that. I want to hear something that you can only get from this book that worked.


It's what happened. I can see why it might want to make you vomit. 

At risk of repeating myself too much in this thread, my wife had no interest in improving our marriage. Because she was getting a pretty sweet deal - sweeter than mine. And basic economics tells you that if someone's getting a larger piece of the pie, they're not going to readily re-distribute it. Instead, they're going to entrench in that position. So, having rational conversations failed. Having emotional conversations failed.

What MMSLP told me to do first was go dark and improve myself. So I did that, got into shape, and payed close attention to what had my wife's attention. This made her pretty happy because I was off her back about stuff, so she felt free about it.

Then I declared a clear vision for what I wanted out of our marriage. She all but laughed in my face.

And then I started to live that vision. Which included a more equitable power structure and a different path -- instead of 'if you take more, you'll get more' it became 'if you give more, you'll get more.'

Which at the heart of it is what love is, right?

Here's one thing the book got right.

As an example, you don't give your wife expensive jewelry hoping to get her affection.

You give your wife expensive jewelry when she freely offers her affection.

One is a covert contract and an attempt to buy it. The other is an appreciation of it.


----------



## Brigit

marduk said:


> It's what happened. I can see why it might want to make you vomit.
> 
> At risk of repeating myself too much in this thread, my wife had no interest in improving our marriage. Because she was getting a pretty sweet deal - sweeter than mine. And basic economics tells you that if someone's getting a larger piece of the pie, they're not going to readily re-distribute it. Instead, they're going to entrench in that position. So, having rational conversations failed. Having emotional conversations failed.
> 
> What MMSLP told me to do first was go dark and improve myself. So I did that, got into shape, and payed close attention to what had my wife's attention. This made her pretty happy because I was off her back about stuff, so she felt free about it.
> 
> Then I declared a clear vision for what I wanted out of our marriage. She all but laughed in my face.
> 
> And then I started to live that vision. Which included a more equitable power structure and a different path -- instead of 'if you take more, you'll get more' it became 'if you give more, you'll get more.'
> 
> Which at the heart of it is what love is, right?


What is "Go Dark?"

It sounds like you liked that his book told you to work out and engage in activities that you enjoy. Lot's of self-help books say the same thing.

It also sounds like you communicated your needs of what you want in a marriage to your wife. Lot's of relationship books say the same thing.


----------



## Brigit

marduk said:


> You give your wife expensive jewelry when she freely offers her affection.
> 
> One is a covert contract and an attempt to buy it. The other is an appreciation of it.


That is called Behavior Modification (rewards and punishments) a very old technique.


----------



## Marduk

Brigit said:


> What is "Go Dark?"
> 
> It sounds like you liked that his book told you to work out and engage in activities that you enjoy. Lot's of self-help books say the same thing.
> 
> It also sounds like you communicated your needs of what you want in a marriage to your wife. Lot's of relationship books say the same thing.


Go dark is basically to go inward and stop emoting about your pain to your wife.

And, they do. AK isn't a brilliant guy. What he did though is offer a step by step path away from being a 'nice guy' and reclaiming a husband's agency in a marriage, for those like me that lost it.

I'm not saying it's a great book. I don't even like it any more. 

What I'm saying is that there's not really anything else or better to offer like it.


----------



## Marduk

Brigit said:


> That is called Behavior Modification (rewards and punishments) a very old technique.


Absolutely.

But it's also honest -- I give you a gift because I appreciate you. Not because I want to manipulate you.

And people need to be very conscious of even accidental conditioning that occurs.

For example, I find myself accidentally rewarding my wife being crappy to me all the time. What's that going to do?

Condition her to be that way more, of course.


----------



## Brigit

marduk said:


> I'm not saying it's a great book. I don't even like it any more.


LOL! Well alright then. 

I do understand WHAT you liked from the book. You liked the step by step approach.

1. Work out
2. Stop whining like a baby
3. Engage in activities that you like.

Easy to follow instructions. And I'm glad it worked for you. But this really is traditional self-help stuff. He must have said something really questionable that you did to your wife that you don't want to verbalize on the forum.


----------



## Brigit

marduk said:


> Absolutely.
> 
> But it's also honest -- I give you a gift because I appreciate you. Not because I want to manipulate you.
> 
> And people need to be very conscious of even accidental conditioning that occurs.
> 
> For example, I find myself accidentally rewarding my wife being crappy to me all the time. What's that going to do?
> 
> Condition her to be that way more, of course.


True. We teach people how we want to be treated. Sometimes you have the upper hand sometimes you don't. In a marriage there is a constant power struggle and you need to know when to push and when to pull back.


----------



## samyeagar

marduk said:


> Absolutely.
> 
> But it's also honest -- I give you a gift because I appreciate you. Not because I want to manipulate you.
> 
> And people need to be very conscious of even accidental conditioning that occurs.
> 
> For example, I find myself accidentally rewarding my wife being crappy to me all the time. What's that going to do?
> 
> Condition her to be that way more, of course.


There is a lot in the book that can be found elsewhere for sure, but one underlying message that I really don't see front and center in very many places is...if you are a good husband, doing the right things for your wife and marriage, you deserve a good wife. There is nothing inherently more special about her than there is him.


----------



## Marduk

Brigit said:


> LOL! Well alright then.
> 
> I do understand WHAT you liked from the book. You liked the step by step approach.
> 
> 1. Work out
> 2. Stop whining like a baby
> 3. Engage in activities that you like.
> 
> Easy to follow instructions. And I'm glad it worked for you. But this really is traditional self-help stuff. He must have said something really questionable that you did to your wife that you don't want to verbalize on the forum.


Hmmm....

I rejected the anti-woman stuff while reading it. And heavily modified the MAP for what worked.

The worst thing I did to my wife was quite accidental -- 'dread game.'

There were a few incidents where younger and (to my wife hotter) women actively hit on me. Which terrified my wife.

And made me feel pretty ****ty, even though it was honestly unintentional. And she was running some hardcore dread on me, so I knew how it felt.


----------



## Brigit

samyeagar said:


> There is a lot in the book that can be found elsewhere for sure, but one underlying message that I really don't see front and center in very many places is...if you are a good husband, doing the right things for your wife and marriage, you *deserve* a good wife. There is nothing inherently more special about her than there is him.


So he is saying if you are a good husband you're entitled to a good wife.


----------



## Brigit

marduk said:


> Hmmm....
> 
> I rejected the anti-woman stuff while reading it. And heavily modified the MAP for what worked.
> 
> The worst thing I did to my wife was quite accidental -- 'dread game.'
> 
> There were a few incidents where younger and (to my wife hotter) women actively hit on me. Which terrified my wife.
> 
> And made me feel pretty ****ty, even though it was honestly unintentional. And she was running some hardcore dread on me, so I knew how it felt.


That doesn't tell me much. Did you give the hot younger women eye contact to make them know you were interested?

(BTW - I do think it's only fair to tell you I have a LMSW and spent a couple of years working as a therapist.)


----------



## Marduk

Brigit said:


> That doesn't tell me much. Did you give the hot younger women eye contact to make them know you were interested?
> 
> (BTW - I do think it's only fair to tell you I have a LMSW and spent a couple of years working as a therapist.)


I don't know what LMSW is.

I had my wife's friend ask her if my wife would 'share' me. Which freaked her out.

I also had a buddy's wife flat out proposition me.

I'm not real good at the subtle stuff. I'm better now, but I'm usually a brick about most of it.


----------



## samyeagar

Brigit said:


> So he is saying if you are a good husband you're entitled to a good wife.


Absolutely not. There is a subtle difference between deserve and entitled.


----------



## ScrambledEggs

I do understand where Red Pill comes from. I can't get away from it how much it is on mark with my wife. The status seeking--in my case it is not enough to have a high status, which I do, but my status has to constantly grow because the previous status becomes boring even as her declines (in the MMSL context). I have to have a high status among cliques of high status people--it is all relative to her. That she pushes me to be more competitive and achieve more (money influence, notoriety, etc...) and makes her feelings to me conditional based on my growing status is pretty obvious when you look back on it. There is a difference between supporting and requiring. 

Add to that contempt for perceived or expressed weakness of any kind, the cooling affect that my affection had on her libido, and how responsive she is, emotionally and sexually, the more selfish I am, her willingness to wander and use her sexuality to gain attention, you have a total Red Pill archetype.

I hope thats not all that there is out there to be found in women. There is plenty evidence on TAM that that is not the case. I have come to view Red Pill as a very bad/immature, but real and not uncommon, archetype of a women modeled along side a corrupted, but real, example of men.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

marduk said:


> I'm repeating myself, but the power that I found in MMSLP was it's sense of agency.
> 
> It didn't require my wife's understanding, approval, effort, energy...
> 
> In fact it all worked better when she had no idea.
> 
> People need some direct approach that doesn't require their spouse's buy-in.


It triggered the thought "I need to love her while retaining my identity. Right now, that identity is too enmeshed with hers."

The identity she fell in love with.

If it disappears, there is loss of respect and gratitude.

Recovering identity in its best form brings back respect and gratitude because now something exists to attach those feelings to and it is in good form.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

ScrambledEggs said:


> I do understand where Red Pill comes from. I can't get away from it how much it is on mark with my wife. The status seeking--in my case it is not enough to have a high status, which I do, but my status has to constantly grow because the previous status becomes boring even as her declines (in the MMSL context). I have to have a high status among cliques of high status people--it is all relative to her. That she pushes me to be more competitive and achieve more (money influence, notoriety, etc...) and makes her feelings to me conditional based on my growing status is pretty obvious when you look back on it. There is a difference between supporting and requiring.
> 
> Add to that contempt for perceived or expressed weakness of any kind, the cooling affect that my affection had on her libido, and how responsive she is, emotionally and sexually, the more selfish I am, her willingness to wander and use her sexuality to gain attention, you have a total Red Pill archetype.
> 
> I hope thats not all that there is out there to be found in women. There is plenty evidence on TAM that that is not the case. I have come to view Red Pill as a very bad/immature, but real and not uncommon, archetype of a women modeled along side a corrupted, but real, example of men.


This is tapping into something that leads me to wonder if it is more about the growth vs the status, etc because I told my H from the get go that any man who wants to stay with me be warned that he will always need to be growing or he risks me outgrowing him.


----------



## Brigit

marduk said:


> I don't know what LMSW is.
> 
> I had my wife's friend ask her if my wife would 'share' me. Which freaked her out.
> 
> I also had a buddy's wife flat out proposition me.
> 
> I'm not real good at the subtle stuff. I'm better now, but I'm usually a brick about most of it.


LMSW - Licensed Masters in Social Work

If your wife's friend asked your wife if she could fu*k you that has nothing to do with you playing a game. Unless of course you instigated this by flirting heavily with her. Which is a *GOOD* possibility.


----------



## MarriedDude

ScrambledEggs said:


> I do understand where Red Pill comes from. I can't get away from it how much it is on mark with my wife. The status seeking--in my case it is not enough to have a high status, which I do, but my status has to constantly grow because the previous status becomes boring even as her declines (in the MMSL context). I have to have a high status among cliques of high status people--it is all relative to her. That she pushes me to be more competitive and achieve more (money influence, notoriety, etc...) and makes her feelings to me conditional based on my growing status is pretty obvious when you look back on it. There is a difference between supporting and requiring.
> 
> Add to that contempt for perceived or expressed weakness of any kind, the cooling affect that my affection had on her libido, and how responsive she is, emotionally and sexually, the more selfish I am, her willingness to wander and use her sexuality to gain attention, you have a total Red Pill archetype.
> 
> I hope thats not all that there is out there to be found in women. There is plenty evidence on TAM that that is not the case. I have come to view Red Pill as a very bad/immature, but real and not uncommon, archetype of a women modeled along side a corrupted, but real, example of men.


Damn...that truly sucks. I do understand how that could happen though, i guess. 

Glad I didn't have to deal with that...I have seen the status thing in my own marriage -but I was also able to see it evolve. My wife and I came from VERY different backgrounds. The first 3 years or so of our marriage -we were no where near my family -home-old friends. I did warn her about them, the different motivations...status seeking..stuff acquiring, etc. She resisted at first -but then spent a number of years right on that bandwagon. She began to change into the type of girl I had been used too -but also abhorred. I guess she had to learn the emptiness that creates all on her own. The pointlessness of it. 

She came back to herself. Stopped chasing the shiny things -nicer car -bigger house-bigger and better vacations. She Became the person she was before. Now she see's that life kinda like I do...Money and Status...they are just tools -a means to an end...not the end. 

The times I have shown concern, maybe weakness, she seemed to be more relieved than anything else.


----------



## bandit.45

Man I am so glad I removed myself from all this bullsh!t.


----------



## Faithful Wife

ScrambledEggs said:


> I do understand where Red Pill comes from. I can't get away from it how much it is on mark with my wife. *The status seeking--in my case it is not enough to have a high status, which I do, but my status has to constantly grow because the previous status becomes boring even as her declines (in the MMSL context). I have to have a high status among cliques of high status people--it is all relative to her. That she pushes me to be more competitive and achieve more (money influence, notoriety, etc...) and makes her feelings to me conditional based on my growing status is pretty obvious when you look back on it.* There is a difference between supporting and requiring.
> 
> Add to that contempt for perceived or expressed weakness of any kind, the cooling affect that my affection had on her libido, and how responsive she is, emotionally and sexually, the more selfish I am, her willingness to wander and use her sexuality to gain attention, you have a total Red Pill archetype.
> 
> I hope thats not all that there is out there to be found in women. There is plenty evidence on TAM that that is not the case. I have come to view Red Pill as a very bad/immature, but real and not uncommon, archetype of a women modeled along side a corrupted, but real, example of men.





Sheesh.

What do you even do with that?


----------



## ScrambledEggs

Faithful Wife said:


> Sheesh.
> 
> What do you even do with that?


Get Divorced.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I don't know your story, are you divorced? (I hope so, man!)


----------



## samyeagar

Faithful Wife said:


> Sheesh.
> 
> What do you even do with that?


In my very similar case, I divorced her.


----------



## ScrambledEggs

Faithful Wife said:


> I don't know your story, are you divorced? (I hope so, man!)


Working on that right now.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I'm still sorry to hear that because divorce sucks but....damn! 

I don't even know how to process someone like that. What the hell?


----------



## ScrambledEggs

I re-read my post and started to question in my mind is she really that bad?

But then I remember all the times in our marriage where she was really happy and affectionate with me.


Got a job with a big enough salary for the both of us.
Gave her a huge ring.
Got a major promotion.
Exerted alpha like influence and leadership in an a non-profit organization we support. (which I do at work all the time but she does not see)
Got a job a four year assignment in France with great financial support to live there-- for both of us.

I guess even if I am only half right about it, it is still pretty bad. For all my success and devotion to her it I get a hand held out for more and a snarl if I want to talk about feeling down or depressed.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Faithful Wife said:


> I'm still sorry to hear that because divorce sucks but....damn!
> 
> I don't even know how to process someone like that. What the hell?


I agree. I don't want to be with someone stagnant and lazy. I get antsy, but its not status related.


----------



## Marduk

Brigit said:


> LMSW - Licensed Masters in Social Work
> 
> If your wife's friend asked your wife if she could fu*k you that has nothing to do with you playing a game. Unless of course you instigated this by flirting heavily with her. Which is a *GOOD* possibility.


Wasn't the case.

At least it wasn't _intentionally_ the case.

I was being charming, confident, and paying very careful attention to my appearance and how women may perceive me.

But I never once touched her, or intentionally flirted with her, or tried to lead her anywhere.

And I found it fascinating that her friend asked my wife for me -- in that half joking way that you know has an undertone of testing a person out.

Like I was a piece of livestock or something.


----------



## ScrambledEggs

Faithful Wife said:


> I'm still sorry to hear that because divorce sucks but....damn!
> 
> I don't even know how to process someone like that. What the hell?


Did I mention she always asks for gifts during foreplay? I don't even trust what I believe anymore when it comes to emotions. I going in for IC to work on setting boundaries more and balancing my life. I have managed to compartmentalize my life into professional competence and emotional incompetence I just need to man up to the reality I need help also I think. It all sounds so outrageous but it really is real and for some reason I still love this women a lot.


----------



## Marduk

ScrambledEggs said:


> Did I mention she always asks for gifts during foreplay? I don't even trust what I believe anymore when it comes to emotions. I going in for IC to work on setting boundaries more and balancing my life. I have managed to compartmentalize my life into professional competence and emotional incompetence I just need to man up to the reality I need help also I think. It all sounds so outrageous but it really is real and for some reason I still love this women a lot.


A thought occurred to me that might connect with you.

There was, and is, and always has been a real sense for me of sex, and women's affection, too... of allowing me to access parts of myself that I can't get at without it.

I don't know if that's part of the male social conditioning (simultaneously celebrating the strong independent masculine while denying the sensitive little boy in all of us), or if it's just nature in action, drawing male to female.

But there are places that I need a loving, sexual, woman to get at, you know what I mean?

And the denial of that, in a marriage, somehow cuts parts of myself off from myself. And that denial creates a vast sense of longing, and emptiness, and frustration.

MMSLP at once gave me that back, and took it away -- because it gave me back the sex and attention, but became a barrier to the emotional end of that.

I'm not sure if I'm making sense. As an extravert I tend to throw ideas out there before they're fully baked.


----------



## Faithful Wife

ScrambledEggs said:


> Did I mention she always asks for gifts during foreplay? I don't even trust what I believe anymore when it comes to emotions. I going in for IC to work on setting boundaries more and balancing my life. I have managed to compartmentalize my life into professional competence and emotional incompetence I just need to man up to the reality I need help also I think. It all sounds so outrageous but it really is real and for some reason I still love this women a lot.


I'm so sorry this has beaten you down like this. 

It doesn't sound outrageous, I think people can still love someone they have a really horrible or even abusive dynamic with.

But hopefully after some time passes you will get right with yourself again and that is the important thing in the long run. In the short run, divorce really sucks though and I hope you have lots of support around you in real life. It is important to get that support where you can.


----------



## Brigit

marduk said:


> Wasn't the case.
> 
> At least it wasn't _intentionally_ the case.
> 
> I was being charming, confident, and paying very careful attention to my appearance and how women may perceive me.
> 
> But I never once touched her, or intentionally flirted with her, or tried to lead her anywhere.
> 
> And I found it fascinating that her friend asked my wife for me -- in that half joking way that you know has an undertone of testing a person out.
> 
> Like I was a piece of livestock or something.


OK so this was a joke?


----------



## Blossom Leigh

ScrambledEggs said:


> Did I mention she always asks for gifts during foreplay? I don't even trust what I believe anymore when it comes to emotions. I going in for IC to work on setting boundaries more and balancing my life. I have managed to compartmentalize my life into professional competence and emotional incompetence I just need to man up to the reality I need help also I think. It all sounds so outrageous but it really is real and for some reason I still love this women a lot.


So sorry Scrambled eggs. You are headed in the right direction. You will find the answer to why. And when you've healed enough for clearer vision of the past relative to your value, you will be able to lay it to rest.


----------



## Marduk

Brigit said:


> OK so this was a joke?


It was a half joke. That became serious, you know?

And then it was really awkward when it became clear it was a real request.


----------



## Brigit

marduk said:


> It was a half joke. That became serious, you know?
> 
> And then it was really awkward when it became clear it was a real request.


What did your wife do?


----------



## Marduk

Brigit said:


> What did your wife do?


Flipped out. She's very possessive.


----------



## Marduk

SE, have you thought about why she asks you for that stuff during sex?

I mean, on the one hand it could just be about using her sexual power over you to get things.

On the other hand, she herself may not feel worth it (receiving pleasure I mean) and may be looking for tokens to bolster her self-esteem, so she can allow it for herself.

Sex has to be simultaneously selfish and selfless, I think.


----------



## Brigit

marduk said:


> Flipped out. She's very possessive.


I'd flip out too. Don't flirt with your wife's friends. You sound like a very sexual guy and sexual people know when their turning on the charm. When you're around your wives friends turn the charm off.


----------



## Marduk

Brigit said:


> I'd flip out too. Don't flirt with your wife's friends. You sound like a very sexual guy and sexual people know when their turning on the charm. When you're around your wives friends turn the charm off.


Oh, I did that hardcore after that.


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> A thought occurred to me that might connect with you.
> 
> There was, and is, and always has been a real sense for me of sex, and women's affection, too... of allowing me to access parts of myself that I can't get at without it.
> 
> I don't know if that's part of the male social conditioning (simultaneously celebrating the strong independent masculine while denying the sensitive little boy in all of us), or if it's just nature in action, drawing male to female.
> 
> But there are places that I need a loving, sexual, woman to get at, you know what I mean?


If you are relying on someone else to make you feel whole, you will always feel empty. MMSL can't help with this because it insists that a male's worth is determined by how many hot chicks are into him. His "self" isn't good enough, he must both fit a prescribed stereotype AND succeed with external validators.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> If you are relying on someone else to make you feel whole, you will always feel empty. MMSL can't help with this because it insists that a male's worth is determined by how many hot chicks are into him. His "self" isn't good enough, he must both fit a prescribed stereotype AND succeed with external validates.
> 
> If you are relying


It's more than that.

Maybe it's 'the divine feminine,' maybe it's connecting with the other. I'm not sure exactly what I'm pointing at, but it's there.

It's like when I first became a dad, and all of a sudden a whole part of my mind lit up with being a father, and all of this stuff was there that I wouldn't have had access to without having a child.

Same thing with when things are really loving and intimate and sexual with my wife... there's something there, that I can't articulate, that I can't get to on my own. But is still me, you know? Just that is only accessible through her, somehow.


----------



## Marduk

The closest metaphor I can come up with right now is the water of life from Dune. Where only woman can take it without dying, but there's this one place that women can't go, that only Paul Atreides can go, to show them what's there.

It's a bad metaphor, but if that helps, that's what I mean.


----------



## Brigit

marduk said:


> Oh, I did that hardcore after that.


You flirted hardcore AFTER that????


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Brigit said:


> You flirted hardcore AFTER that????


No, he shut down the charm hardcore after that.


----------



## Marduk

Brigit said:


> You flirted hardcore AFTER that????


I _stopped_ hardcore after that. By realizing that I may be being ****y and flirtatious only towards my wife, but other women may pick up on that, too.


----------



## MarriedDude

marduk said:


> The closest metaphor I can come up with right now is the water of life from Dune. Where only woman can take it without dying, but there's this one place that women can't go, that only Paul Atreides can go, to show them what's there.
> 
> It's a bad metaphor, but if that helps, that's what I mean.


THE SLEEPER HAS AWAKENED!!!!!!!

I totally get that. Before my wife...I never had the feeling of connection with anyone. ever. Then with her. Boom. Right from the start. She taught me and showed me things I didn't even know I was missing. 

I doubt I could have learned these things from a dude


----------



## Brigit

marduk said:


> I _stopped_ hardcore after that. By realizing that I may be being ****y and flirtatious only towards my wife, but other women may pick up on that, too.


Got it!


----------



## Faithful Wife

marrieddude said:


> the sleeper has awakened!!!!!!!
> 
> I totally get that. Before my wife...i never had the feeling of connection with anyone. Ever. Then with her. Boom. Right from the start. She taught me and showed me things i didn't even know i was missing.
> 
> I doubt i could have learned these things from a dude


swoon!!


----------



## Marduk

MarriedDude said:


> THE SLEEPER HAS AWAKENED!!!!!!!
> 
> I totally get that. Before my wife...I never had the feeling of connection with anyone. ever. Then with her. Boom. Right from the start. She taught me and showed me things I didn't even know I was missing.
> 
> I doubt I could have learned these things from a dude


That's what I mean.

And when all that goes away, and you don't know how to get it back, and nothing everybody tells you (including her) is working...

Well, it's like you lost a profound piece of yourself, and is locked away by her...

And in my case, that came with a simultaneous denial that it was there at all, mixed with some kind of de-masculinized shame in needing it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEMdJyY-1K0


----------



## Faithful Wife

That really sucks....but it does happen to women as well. Exactly the same. If someone just loses interest in you or falls out of love with you, whether man or woman, it hurts and is hard to find your way back. Sometimes impossible.


----------



## MarriedDude

marduk said:


> I _stopped_ hardcore after that. By realizing that I may be being ****y and flirtatious only towards my wife, but other women may pick up on that, too.


Very True...some women just pick right up on it and think there is way more going on than there is. It gets a little strange. I am frequently accused of being a horrible flirt. My assistant gave me an example as she was just reading over my shoulder (which I find incredibly rude)...

I call all women either Ms. or Ma'm. If I know her than it's Ms. Kelly or Ms. Katie. If I don't know her it's Ma'm. If I know she is married and she is not a family friend it's Mrs. Jones. Even my wife is Ms. S**** most of the time...and baby the rest. My assistant is Ms.**** or "young lady"

I was raised to have manners -as they are an indicator of respect for others. I open doors / hold doors / pull out chairs / show a general deference to ladies in my vicinity. None of this means I have any interest in other women...but some get interested...touching my arm/shoulders/leaning in too close to speak to me. 

Sometimes it feels like I was taught good manners and (at least with young ladies) they were most definitely not. Many tend to think that asking after her family and pulling out her chair means I want to get in her shorts. Not the Case.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

marduk said:


> That's what I mean.
> 
> And when all that goes away, and you don't know how to get it back, and nothing everybody tells you (including her) is working...
> 
> Well, it's like you lost a profound piece of yourself, and is locked away by her...
> 
> And in my case, that came with a simultaneous denial that it was there at all, mixed with some kind of de-masculinized shame in needing it.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEMdJyY-1K0





Faithful Wife said:


> That really sucks....but it does happen to women as well. Exactly the same. If someone just loses interest in you or falls out of love with you, whether man or woman, it hurts and is hard to find your way back. Sometimes impossible.


This is where I was hoping this thread would go, mutual understanding and empathy.

And is the reason I was trying to steer the thread away from mutual battering, which was non productive and many on this thread are trying to get to. Solutions that work without gender warfare. 

Good job, you two. Applause!!


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> That's what I mean.
> 
> And when all that goes away, and you don't know how to get it back, and nothing everybody tells you (including her) is working...
> 
> Well, it's like you lost a profound piece of yourself, and is locked away by her...


Yes, I better understand where you are coming from now.

Intimacy is like the tango: it takes two. But not two people desperately trying to fill the void at the center of their being, but two who are willing to share that void.

If that makes sense. (?!)

I have spent my life in quest of that connection, and it has always eluded me. I think it's because I was seeking fulfillment from another, rather than embracing my own emptiness.

If that makes sense????!?


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> Yes, I better understand where you are coming from now.
> 
> Intimacy is like the tango: it takes two. But not two people desperately trying to fill the void at the center of their being, but two who are willing to share that void.
> 
> If that makes sense. (?!)
> 
> I have spent my life in quest of that connection, and it has always eluded me. I think it's because I was seeking fulfillment from another, rather than embracing my own emptiness.
> 
> If that makes sense????!?


In that context, can you see how seductive the red pill would be to a guy?

Especially when large parts of it, objectively and quickly, seem to work?

And - regarding embracing your emptiness - I don't think it's a bad thing to seek your partner's help with that. I think that's a big part of why we get married to begin with.

Hold Me Tight goes into that in detail, about labelling such things as 'codependant' and bad. When we 'partner' up with someone... to have a _partnership_ in such things, right?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Blossom Leigh said:


> This is where I was hoping this thread would go, mutual understanding and empathy.
> 
> And is the reason I was trying to steer the thread away from mutual battering, which was non productive and many on this thread are trying to get to. Solutions that work without gender warfare.
> 
> Good job, you two. Applause!!


Not too fast Blossom...if someone comes along and starts mocking me and talking about red pill non-science, I'm going to mock them back and keep talking about how stupid red pill non-science is.

Marduk and I are cool. Some of these other guys are still trying to shut me up, and that is what will cause a continued gender divide on this thread. I will not be shut up, in case anyone hasn't noticed by now.


----------



## MarriedDude

marduk said:


> *In that context, can you see how seductive the red pill would be to a guy?
> *
> Especially when large parts of it, objectively and quickly, seem to work?
> 
> And - regarding embracing your emptiness - I don't think it's a bad thing to seek your partner's help with that. I think that's a big part of why we get married to begin with.
> 
> Hold Me Tight goes into that in detail, about labelling such things as 'codependant' and bad. When we 'partner' up with someone... to have a _partnership_ in such things, right?


It offers the illusion of control....without stating the obvious that control is impossible.....not to mention tiring and pointless.

All dressed up as a gift giving them what they think they want -and/or have wanted for a very long time but have been unable to achieve. 

I believe there is some good in the Red Pill area -anything that promotes fitness, accountability , owning your ****...is good. Unfortunately -too many are VERy angry when they find it...and only cherry pick the parts that reinforce their anger.


----------



## always_alone

ScrambledEggs said:


> Did I mention she always asks for gifts during foreplay? I don't even trust what I believe anymore when it comes to emotions. I going in for IC to work on setting boundaries more and balancing my life. I have managed to compartmentalize my life into professional competence and emotional incompetence I just need to man up to the reality I need help also I think. It all sounds so outrageous but it really is real and for some reason I still love this women a lot.


It sounds to me like she is heavily caught up in the rat race and is using you as her proxy. That is, you've become her ticket to external validation and "success" because she feels she herself doesn't have what it takes.

This doesn't make her evil or unlovable. Just very misguided and selfish. Have to say, though, that I couldn't live like this either. Too taxing, too draining. And for what?

Very sad when it comes to this.


----------



## MarriedDude

always_alone said:


> It sounds to me like she is heavily caught up in the rat race and is using you as her proxy. That is, you've become her ticket to external validation and "success" because she feels she herself doesn't have what it takes.
> 
> This doesn't make her evil or unlovable. *Just very misguided and selfish. * Have to say, though, that I couldn't live like this either. Too taxing, too draining. And for what?
> 
> Very sad when it comes to this.


I believe that most, in time, realize that this is not the path. But some take longer than others and then again some (few) never learn. 

It just depends on how long one would wait and attempt to guide before it gets to be, like you said..too draining


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Faithful Wife said:


> Not too fast Blossom...if someone comes along and starts mocking me and talking about red pill non-science, I'm going to mock them back and keep talking about how stupid red pill non-science is.
> 
> Marduk and I are cool. Some of these other guys are still trying to shut me up, and that is what will cause a continued gender divide on this thread. I will not be shut up, in case anyone hasn't noticed by now.


Just keep this in mind and this is encouragement for everyone participating in this discussion. When bashing is rampant it chokes out mutual empathy, understanding and focus on actual solutions. Keeping it at a minimum gives mutual empathy, mutual understanding and progress on solutions room to unfold and if thats where we all want to go then we all need to do our part to keep rampant or unnecessary bashing at bay.

I just encourage us all to operate at that level.


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> In that context, can you see how seductive the red pill would be to a guy?
> 
> Especially when large parts of it, objectively and quickly, seem to work?


Actually, no, I still don't get it. Red pill is all transactional covert contracts wrapped up in behavioral modification tactics.

It is the exact opposite of how I want to live my life.

Yes, I do understand that when you exploit someone's vulnerabilities and anxieties, they will respond in a way to give you what you want. I can easily "make" my SO more solicitous and attentive by withdrawing affection.

But exploiting his vulnerability will only in the long term make him more anxious, more resentful, more distant. None of which I want.

My point in my last post about fulfillment was not about getting "what I want". It was more to the point that intimacy requires acceptance. Acceptance of the ugly, the vulnerability, the weakness, the hurt, the shame, ....all those things we cover up and pretend are not there so we can appear to others as beautiful, cool, popularly successful, and so on.


----------



## RandomDude

Ey? Withdrawing affection - playfully that is - is a good thing. It's called a tease, and way too many women don't know how to give a good tease.


----------



## MarriedDude

always_alone said:


> *Actually, no, I still don't get it. Red pill is all transactional covert contracts wrapped up in behavioral modification tactics.*
> 
> It is the exact opposite of how I want to live my life.
> 
> Yes, I do understand that when you exploit someone's vulnerabilities and anxieties, they will respond in a way to give you what you want. I can easily "make" my SO more solicitous and attentive by withdrawing affection.
> 
> But exploiting his vulnerability will only in the long term make him more anxious, more resentful, more distant. None of which I want.
> 
> My point in my last post about fulfillment was not about getting "what I want". It was more to the point that intimacy requires acceptance. Acceptance of the ugly, the vulnerability, the weakness, the hurt, the shame, ....all those things we cover up and pretend are not there so we can appear to others as beautiful, cool, popularly successful, and so on.


It's draw is the promise...or implied promise that they can get what they want. They aren't looking at the maintenance required to manipulate a situation or person for an extended period. Just as many are not looking inward for the solutions to their problems -many have convinced themselves that it can't be a problem with them -it must be "her" -the generalized free-floating-undefinable "her". 

It's a short cut for some (or they see it that way) -for others it can provide them the means to improve themselves -which changes the dynamic of their relationships. They improve themselves and make themselves more attractive in all ways...then what do you know...they suddenly attract women.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> Actually, no, I still don't get it. Red pill is all transactional covert contracts wrapped up in behavioral modification tactics.
> 
> It is the exact opposite of how I want to live my life.
> 
> Yes, I do understand that when you exploit someone's vulnerabilities and anxieties, they will respond in a way to give you what you want. I can easily "make" my SO more solicitous and attentive by withdrawing affection.
> 
> But exploiting his vulnerability will only in the long term make him more anxious, more resentful, more distant. None of which I want.
> 
> My point in my last post about fulfillment was not about getting "what I want". It was more to the point that intimacy requires acceptance. Acceptance of the ugly, the vulnerability, the weakness, the hurt, the shame, ....all those things we cover up and pretend are not there so we can appear to others as beautiful, cool, popularly successful, and so on.


I don't disagree with any of that. And that wasn't my point.

My point is that guys seek the red pill, ultimately, because they feel vulnerable to their women. Or victimized. Or powerless.

That was my point.


----------



## Brigit

always_alone said:


> Actually, no, I still don't get it. Red pill is all transactional covert contracts wrapped up in behavioral modification tactics.
> 
> It is the exact opposite of how I want to live my life.
> 
> Yes, I do understand that when you exploit someone's vulnerabilities and anxieties, they will respond in a way to give you what you want. I can easily "make" my SO more solicitous and attentive by withdrawing affection.
> 
> But exploiting his vulnerability will only in the long term make him more anxious, more resentful, more distant. None of which I want.
> 
> My point in my last post about fulfillment was not about getting "what I want". It was more to the point that intimacy requires acceptance. Acceptance of the ugly, the vulnerability, the weakness, the hurt, the shame, ....all those things we cover up and pretend are not there so we can appear to others as beautiful, cool, popularly successful, and so on.


You nailed it AA.


----------



## Anon1111

marduk said:


> A thought occurred to me that might connect with you.
> 
> There was, and is, and always has been a real sense for me of sex, and women's affection, too... of allowing me to access parts of myself that I can't get at without it.
> 
> I don't know if that's part of the male social conditioning (simultaneously celebrating the strong independent masculine while denying the sensitive little boy in all of us), or if it's just nature in action, drawing male to female.
> 
> But there are places that I need a loving, sexual, woman to get at, you know what I mean?
> 
> And the denial of that, in a marriage, somehow cuts parts of myself off from myself. And that denial creates a vast sense of longing, and emptiness, and frustration.
> 
> MMSLP at once gave me that back, and took it away -- because it gave me back the sex and attention, but became a barrier to the emotional end of that.
> 
> I'm not sure if I'm making sense. As an extravert I tend to throw ideas out there before they're fully baked.


I feel (or felt?) the same way, but I think I am getting past it now.

I will admit that sex is not nearly as satisfying or cathartic. But everyday life is better, so I think it is an easy trade.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Anon1111 said:


> I feel (or felt?) the same way, but I think I am getting past it now.
> 
> *I will admit that sex is not nearly as satisfying or cathartic*. But everyday life is better, so I think it is an easy trade.


Interesting. Talk more about this?


----------



## Anon1111

Faithful Wife said:


> Interesting. Talk more about this?


Sure.

Well, when you are closed off emotionally all of the time, as I was and as I believe many men are, you only have a few outlets to express that.

One of those is anger.

Another big one was sex. Sex was the only place I ever really expressed tenderness, for example. 

So when sex occurred, it was intense and exhilarating. It was a rush of emotions that I did not really understand all coming out at once.

Now that doesn't happen to me as much. I am starting to see and understand my emotions much better now. They are not so invisible to me.

Here is an analogy. Even when I was working all of the time, massively stressed out,etc, I still managed to go surfing here and there. When I would catch one good wave it would feel like I was exploding into outer space. I had so much bottled up that it was just amazing.

Now when I go surfing it is not as intense, just peaceful.


----------



## Anon1111

I would add that I am sympathetic to the red pill thing because I understand the draw of anger.

Many men feel no emotion other than anger.

You cannot wish this away. You must understand the anger before you can let it go.

When you try to pretend the anger is not real, you very often wind up making it worse.

I don't expect women to really understand this. This is not because I think women are dumb,it's because I don't think women can really understand what it is like to feel no emotions the way men do. Women are not raised to hide their emotions and fears.


----------



## jld

Anon1111 said:


> I would add that I am sympathetic to the red pill thing because I understand the draw of anger.
> 
> Many men feel no emotion other than anger.
> 
> You cannot wish this away. You must understand the anger before you can let it go.
> 
> When you try to pretend the anger is not real, you very often wind up making it worse.
> 
> I don't expect women to really understand this. This is not because I think women are dumb,it's because I don't think women can really understand what it is like to feel no emotions the way men do. Women are not raised to hide their emotions and fears.


I hope DayOne will respond to this. I think this is where he was nearly a year ago. He has made tremendous progress.


----------



## Brigit

Anon1111 said:


> I don't think women can really understand what it is like to feel no emotions the way men do. Women are not raised to hide their emotions and fears.


I agree. I don't think women really can understand how men feel and perceive things. We have an idea but the male mind does work differently. 

I think anger is an "acceptable" emotion for men to have according to our society. We expect anger from a man. We even think it's sexy. If the red pill stuff wasn't so nasty to women I wouldn't be so opposed to the whole thing but it is.


----------



## jld

I don't think anger from a man is sexy. I think it's scary.


----------



## Brigit

jld said:


> I don't think anger from a man is sexy. I think it's scary.


I kind of like it which is why my husbands temper doesn't bother me so much. But sometimes he does get scary and very annoying.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Brigit said:


> I agree. I don't think women really can understand how men feel and perceive things. We have an idea but the male mind does work differently.
> 
> I think anger is an "acceptable" emotion for men to have according to our society. We expect anger from a man. We even think it's sexy. If the red pill stuff wasn't so nasty to women I wouldn't be so opposed to the whole thing but it is.


It does work differently. That's why my male counselor has been such an asset. He shared with me that some men can feel fear or sadness as base emotions, but express it in anger. He recommended the book Beyond Anger a guide for men. I haven't fully vetted it. I appreciated his heads up on male emotion like that. That is not a familiar pattern for women in general.


----------



## Anon1111

jld said:


> I hope DayOne will respond to this. I think this is where he was nearly a year ago. He has made tremendous progress.


Well, I will say I don't have it all figured out. 

However, I have been working on this piece for about 3 years now.

I did the individual therapy,etc. I have thought for a long time about this. And I am still discovering things that are new to me.

I was never a really bad guy. Never violent. Some situations always had it under control. My father was certainly worse than I ever was. Funny thing is that I think I finally understand him now.

Anyway, my point is that I highly doubt most men choose to feel this way. They mostly don't know another way. It's on them to learn, but no one really sympathizes with them and no one really wants to teach them. So they are really on their own in a profound way, and that can be a scary place to be.


----------



## Anon1111

I'm impressed by the cool turn this thread is taking 230 pages in, by the way. Impressive guys!


----------



## jld

Anon1111 said:


> I'm impressed by the cool turn this thread is taking 230 pages in, by the way. Impressive guys!


I think everybody is kind of chilling now. That's why it is good to keep talking. Eventually we start listening to each other. And then we start to understand and really help each other.


----------



## Brigit

Bugged said:


> I suddenly remembered what part of the book made me think this guy is sick..
> 
> from MMSLP


Actually, that quote sort of turns me on.

LOL.


----------



## Anon1111

I'm going to take it a step further while everyone is still chill.

The first emotion I started to understand was my anger.

If I had not been so angry, I would have never even thought to take a hard look at myself.

So, as Rage Against the Machine said, in an odd way, this anger was a gift.

Would it have been better if I could have started to understand myself more clearly in a different way? Sure. Of course.

But that path did not open for me. This one did.

And I think this path can open for many men. Red pill men, specifically. They are angry, no question. It sucks for them and it sucks for everyone they touch.

They just are 1 step away from asking the RIGHT question. Why am I REALLY so angry?

They avoid it so much because they are very afraid to look behind a door they've never opened before.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> I don't think anger from a man is sexy. I think it's scary.


I agree. Calm assertive is sexy as hell. But, angry.. not for me. Too many triggers.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Anon1111 said:


> I'm going to take it a step further while everyone is still chill.
> 
> The first emotion I started to understand was my anger.
> 
> If I had not been so angry, I would have never even thought to take a hard look at myself.
> 
> So, as Rage Against the Machine said, in an odd way, this anger was a gift.
> 
> Would it have been better if I could have started to understand myself more clearly in a different way? Sure. Of course.
> 
> But that path did not open for me. This one did.
> 
> And I think this path can open for many men. Red pill men, specifically. They are angry, no question. It sucks for them and it sucks for everyone they touch.
> 
> They just are 1 step away from asking the RIGHT question. Why am I REALLY so angry?
> 
> They avoid it so much because they are very afraid to look behind a door they've never opened before.


Great question... Emotions are your feedback system.


----------



## Anon1111

Blossom Leigh said:


> Great question... Emotions are your feedback system.


I agree.

But here's what's weird.

As I get deeper into this I start to see that emotions have an indentity beyond being the result of something.

Sometimes they just ARE. For no reason. Or no reason you can easily pin down.

And I think this is huge too. Accepting that they are there and there might not be a reason.

Because if they can be there without a reason, then you can let them go without having a reason to do so too.


----------



## jld

Anon, are you trying to say these guys are scared and hurt? I can believe that. I am sorry that is how they feel. 

Maybe guys that have overcome that can reach out to them and help them deal with their emotions in a healthy way. Men tend to listen to other men.


----------



## Anon1111

jld said:


> Anon, are you trying to say these guys are scared and hurt? I can believe that. I am sorry that is how they feel.
> 
> Maybe guys that have overcome that can reach out to them and help them deal with their emotions in a healthy way. Men tend to listen to other men.


Yes, exactly.

And they seek the validation from women any way they can get it to cover that up.

They are rather like drug addicts. Who I also feel badly for.


----------



## john117

Anon1111 said:


> So when sex occurred, it was intense and exhilarating. It was a rush of emotions that I did not really understand all coming out at once.



I experienced the same mixed bag under the exact same conditions. After a while I sorted out my emotions and identifier the errand emotions as coming from plain physical sex, with no strings attached. The married version of a one night stand.


Once I realized this was recurrent I gave up the ghost emotionally.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Anon1111 said:


> I agree.
> 
> But here's what's weird.
> 
> As I get deeper into this I start to see that emotions have an indentity beyond being the result of something.
> 
> Sometimes they just ARE. For no reason. Or no reason you can easily pin down.
> 
> And I think this is huge too. Accepting that they are there and there might not be a reason.
> 
> Because if they can be there without a reason, then you can let them go without having a reason to do so too.


Agreed. In my case and my husbands case they can be tied to the past and are only triggered in the present. So we have a pact not to hold each other hostage to our past. If an old tape is triggerd we will own our own. If we recognize it in each other we give heads up and stop to try and figure out where its coming from. And always emotionally support each other through a triggered old tape. THAT has been some tough work, BUT has produced some serious results in both of us, especially on the level of old tapes disappearing and no longer becoming a trigger.


----------



## Anon1111

Blossom Leigh said:


> Agreed. In my case and my husbands case they can be tied to the past and are only triggered in the present. So we have a pact not to hold each other hostage to our past. If an old tape is triggerd we will own our own. If we recognize it in each other we give heads up and stop to try and figure out where its coming from. And always emotionally supoort each other through a triggered old tape. THAT has been some tough work, BUT has produced some serious results in both of us, especially on the level of old tapes disappearing and no longer becoming a trigger.


Very cool!


----------



## john117

Anon1111 said:


> Very cool!



That's pretty much what reconciling the Potemkin Village of a marriage is all about...


----------



## Blossom Leigh

john117 said:


> That's pretty much what reconciling the Potemkin Village of a marriage is all about...


Can you expand that for me?


----------



## john117

Potemkin Village.... It's something that is put up for show, a situation that is not really what it appears to be.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potemkin_village

At some point when things turn good in life most people have a tendency to forget the past. However, the past is ingrained in us and ain't going away any time soon. Without understanding what went wrong and without committing to address it, it is quite easy to repeat the same mistakes. 

Which is pretty much what you said


----------



## Blossom Leigh

john117 said:


> Potemkin Village.... It's something that is put up for show, a situation that is not really what it appears to be.
> 
> Potemkin village - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> At some point when things turn good in life most people have a tendency to forget the past. However, the past is ingrained in us and ain't going away any time soon. Without understanding what went wrong and without committing to address it, it is quite easy to repeat the same mistakes.
> 
> Which is pretty much what you said


So you were saying we are doing the real deal of a reconciliation since we are addressing those issues.

Which I will be very honest was extremely difficult at times since it we were trying to navigate an old tape in one of us while triggered at the same time only to discover at times we had old tapes playing simultaneously on both sides at the same time and both triggered. It was a b!tch, but was extremely effective.


----------



## john117

That's exactly how I saw it.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

john117 said:


> That's exactly how I saw it.


Thank you, John.

I sure do wish I had known about male anger base emotions sooner. It would have prevented relational damage and we would have shortened our recovery. So I truly agree that there is a great need for good information about what you guys go through.


----------



## Thundarr

Anon1111 said:


> I'm going to take it a step further while everyone is still chill.
> 
> The first emotion I started to understand was my anger.
> 
> If I had not been so angry, I would have never even thought to take a hard look at myself.
> 
> So, as Rage Against the Machine said, in an odd way, this anger was a gift.
> 
> Would it have been better if I could have started to understand myself more clearly in a different way? Sure. Of course.
> 
> But that path did not open for me. This one did.
> 
> And I think this path can open for many men. Red pill men, specifically. They are angry, no question. It sucks for them and it sucks for everyone they touch.
> 
> They just are 1 step away from asking the RIGHT question. Why am I REALLY so angry?
> 
> They avoid it so much because they are very afraid to look behind a door they've never opened before.


I'm glad you posted this Anon because I think this is true for many men who've read MMSL. When my first marriage ended I remember being jaded, angry, and frustrated. Mostly I was angry at myself and unsure. I don't think MMSL existed back then and I'm glad it didn't because I was a jerk without reading it. MMSL might have pushed me over the edge .


----------



## Faithful Wife

Anger danger!

Yes anger is a strange beast. Anon1111, hopefully we will stop raising boys who don't get to feel and express emotions.

Girls become angry and turn into angry women, too.

I am sure it is more common and more intense in most men. I understand why it happens. I think each person has to unravel their own and figure it out...not an easy path.

We all want that easy path, but if we're to this point, there isn't one.

Though I suppose some people might find it easier than others. I like the way UMP describes his transition from grumpy man to actively interested in his wife, and letting her charms cheer him up.

So how can you rally an angry man...without offending him, making him more angry, or telling him something he might use against himself or others due to misplaced anger?


----------



## john117

An angry man may already be rallying - for the wrong reason or towards the wrong goal.


----------



## jld

MEM says that anger is a cover for hurt or fear. Maybe addressing the hurt or fear, in an empathetic way, is the best route?


----------



## ScrambledEggs

marduk said:


> A thought occurred to me that might connect with you.
> 
> There was, and is, and always has been a real sense for me of sex, and women's affection, too... of allowing me to access parts of myself that I can't get at without it.
> 
> I don't know if that's part of the male social conditioning (simultaneously celebrating the strong independent masculine while denying the sensitive little boy in all of us), or if it's just nature in action, drawing male to female.
> 
> But there are places that I need a loving, sexual, woman to get at, you know what I mean?
> 
> And the denial of that, in a marriage, somehow cuts parts of myself off from myself. And that denial creates a vast sense of longing, and emptiness, and frustration.
> 
> MMSLP at once gave me that back, and took it away -- because it gave me back the sex and attention, but became a barrier to the emotional end of that.
> 
> I'm not sure if I'm making sense. As an extravert I tend to throw ideas out there before they're fully baked.


I contemplate the very same thing and I think that is really the Red Pill / Blue Pill choice. A life a cynical (they would say realistic) emotional isolation where you service your desires and ego with manipulation and games or try to stay open and connect with someone on a different level. The thing is I know the former will work and what to expect. You don't know to what extent the later can be real until you live it.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> MEM says that anger is a cover for hurt or fear. Maybe addressing the hurt or fear, in an empathetic way, is the best route?


This is a big part of it, but has layers to it. My H was not practiced at recognizing his base emotion. I realized it the day his grandmother was buried. A fear about money surfaced, but he was expressing it as anger. I recognized the base emotion as fear and asked him. Once he confirmed I proceeded through empathy and it was one of our best moments in conflict. But, it took me helping him name his based emotion. Since then he seems to be doing that on his own.


----------



## Thundarr

Faithful Wife said:


> Anger danger!
> 
> Yes anger is a strange beast. Anon1111, hopefully we will stop raising boys who don't get to feel and express emotions.


I agree and beyond that, addressing anger, fear, frustration, uncertainty, and emotions doesn't have to be a weak thing. A strong father or father figure can have a huge impact on sons, daughters, and others who respect them. When someone who seems like a rock tells you it's okay to feel afraid or vulnerable, it has an impact.


----------



## Anon1111

Faithful Wife said:


> Anger danger!
> 
> Yes anger is a strange beast. Anon1111, hopefully we will stop raising boys who don't get to feel and express emotions.
> 
> Girls become angry and turn into angry women, too.
> 
> I am sure it is more common and more intense in most men. I understand why it happens. I think each person has to unravel their own and figure it out...not an easy path.
> 
> We all want that easy path, but if we're to this point, there isn't one.
> 
> Though I suppose some people might find it easier than others. I like the way UMP describes his transition from grumpy man to actively interested in his wife, and letting her charms cheer him up.
> 
> So how can you rally an angry man...without offending him, making him more angry, or telling him something he might use against himself or others due to misplaced anger?


I've thought about this a lot as I have two sons.

My sons are both on the autism spectrum, so emotions are a special challenge for them.

One bit of freedom that has resulted from having special needs boys is that we have been free to raise them outside of traditional education. I know that any parents could really choose to do this, but it easier when you believe, as we have, that you must.

In any case, the primary focus of our children's therapy and education has been to help them to feel and identify their emotions!

My boys think mindfulness is totally normal like breathing air (even though they don't know what that word means).

My younger son can barely talk due to his disability . Yet he will come up to me and look me in the eye and say "Sad." Then I can help him.

When I was a boy I would NEVER admit I was sad. NEVER.

I feel so proud that we have taken our boys down this path at such a young age. My wife really deserves so much credit for this.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Anon1111 said:


> I've thought about this a lot as I have two sons.
> 
> My sons are both on the autism spectrum, so emotions are a special challenge for them.
> 
> One bit of freedom that has resulted from having special needs boys is that we have been free to raise them outside of traditional education. I know that any parents could really choose to do this, but it easier when you believe, as we have, that you must.
> 
> In any case, the primary focus of our children's therapy and education has been to help them to feel and identify their emotions!
> 
> My boys think mindfulness is totally normal like breathing air (even though they don't know what that word means).
> 
> My younger son can barely talk due to his disability . Yet he will come up to me and look me in the eye and say "Sad." Then I can help him.
> 
> When I was a boy I would NEVER admit I was sad. NEVER.
> 
> I feel so proud that we have taken our boys down this path at such a young age. My wife really deserves so much credit for this.


That is awesome...


----------



## jld

Anon1111 said:


> I feel so proud that we have taken our boys down this path at such a young age. My wife really deserves so much credit for this.


I really love to hear the respect and admiration you have for her, Anon. She has worked very hard for you and the boys.


----------



## Faithful Wife

(lump in my throat)


----------



## always_alone

MarriedDude said:


> It's draw is the promise...or implied promise that they can get what they want. They aren't looking at the maintenance required to manipulate a situation or person for an extended period. Just as many are not looking inward for the solutions to their problems -many have convinced themselves that it can't be a problem with them -it must be "her" -the generalized free-floating-undefinable "her".
> 
> It's a short cut for some (or they see it that way) -for others it can provide them the means to improve themselves -which changes the dynamic of their relationships. They improve themselves and make themselves more attractive in all ways...then what do you know...they suddenly attract women.



I understand the appeal of the quick fix. Very in keeping with our current culture of easy solutions:. Have a problem? Just take a pill.

I even understand that sometimes we slide into complacency, and need a bit of a shock to wake up. Or need to pull back and re-evaluate. 

But my concern with the red pill is that the quick fix it offers is one that is designed to foster anger at and contempt for women. And that the "quick fix" fosters other problems, resentments, disconnections that are never explored here because on the surface, it appears to "work".

A number of men here have spoken out that they are easily able to ignore the bad, to not let this anger and contempt infiltrate into their ongoing efforts to improve their marriages. And I see this as a good thing.

But I also see just how much these angry and comtemptuous attitudes are adopted, held up as "the way things are", the way the men should be. And I find this very, very sad.

We would do much better, IMHO, to reject the red pill and focus on the real problem that so many men are taught to deny and repress their emotions and tie their self worth and esteem into how well they fit into some ridiculous predetermined stereotype.


----------



## Faithful Wife

How do you get an angry person to read a book about letting go of anger? It seems like a very difficult thing to do. :scratchhead:

The real message that angry spouses need is "hey dude/dudette, your anger is messing up YOUR life! YOU have the power to change this by getting control of YOUR anger!"

But as any previously angry person knows, when you're angry, you don't think you are the one who needs to adjust, everyone else should.

I'm just trying to find a way to slip a message past an angry person's filters somehow, I guess. 

But I think it takes a personal epiphany to realize you have anger issues and you are the only one who can control that.

How do you inspire someone to have an epiphany?

I wish I could say "dudes/dudettes, I can promise you the best sex of your life with someone who is madly in love with you, as proven by SCIENCE! if you just learn to manage and understand your own anger".

Anger can be transmuted into sexual energy. Which is a problem some people here can probably relate to. If you do this as an emotionally healthy person, it can be really fun. If you do it from an unhealthy place, it is super non-fun.

Thoughts?


----------



## farsidejunky

Discomfort. Which is essentially one of the things taking the red pill advocates that men should do when their spouse is neglectful of their needs.


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> How do you inspire someone to have an epiphany?
> 
> I wish I could say "dudes/dudettes, I can promise you the best sex of your life with someone who is madly in love with you, as proven by SCIENCE! if you just learn to manage and understand your own anger".
> 
> Anger can be transmuted into sexual energy. Which is a problem some people here can probably relate to. If you do this as an emotionally healthy person, it can be really fun. If you do it from an unhealthy place, it is super non-fun.
> 
> Thoughts?


Epiphanies are super slippery. You can only really have them when you are ready to have them, and while people surely can inspire you, they cannot make it happen for you.

On top of that, some really fantastic sex comes from really unhealthy places. Indeed often our erotic fantasies are driven by trauma, anger, hate and pain. Which is not to say that this kind of fantastic sex brings us to a better place; indeed it can leave us as empty and unhappy as before. Or, worse, feed our trauma, pain and unhappiness even more. But it's good sex nonetheless and tempting to not look any deeper than that.

That said, there is a ton of research on happiness, and most of it shows that self-awareness, letting go of anger and ego, and acceptance of people for who they are is always the ticket. It doesn't matter how rich you are, how much status you have or how good looking. It matters how generous and giving and open you are.

And not coincidentally, I would say, these same qualities also boost your attractiveness and desirability.

Maybe not a guarantee from SCIENCE, but a start at least?


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> Discomfort. Which is essentially one of the things taking the red pill advocates that men should do when their spouse is neglectful of their needs.


Would you consider yourself a red pill guy, far?


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> Would you consider yourself a red pill guy, far?


Only loosely. 

I think what Athol is trying to do is covert the art of attraction into a science. Attraction is indeed an art. And we all have our own styles of stoking it. 

But Picasso is unique, as is Monet, Mozart, etc. To replicate their art is not exactly easy, because art is inherently their own, our own, etc. I sing well, but can't play a lick of guitar, etc.

But if you turn art into a science, you can come close enough to replicating it that your greatness may come close to matching, but never really eclipse the great ones.

I look at MMSLP as if it follows the same principle as Painting With A Twist; you can be given step by step instructions on how to stoke attraction, but the finished product will never look quite like an artist.

As for the extremists of the red pill, they are the men I have little for. And it can be misogynistic, sure. But extremists from any ideology are the same way.

Take from it what matters, which is mix of alpha/beta, remember to date your wife, understand ovulation has an impact on attraction, focus on your own pleasure as much as your wife's during sex, and remember that a little bit of an edge is a good thing.


----------



## jld

Interesting response, far. Thank you.


----------



## farsidejunky

And back to the idea of discomfort. Mem once made a very simple statement that holds a tremendous amount of power:

Never allow your spouse to become comfortable with your discomfort.


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> And back to the idea of discomfort. Mem once made a very simple statement that holds a tremendous amount of power:
> 
> Never allow your spouse to become comfortable with your discomfort.


Maybe he could come and explain?

I know Dug hears about it when I am not happy!


----------



## always_alone

farsidejunky said:


> And back to the idea of discomfort. Mem once made a very simple statement that holds a tremendous amount of power:
> 
> Never allow your spouse to become comfortable with your discomfort.


And yet that is *exactly* what MMSL teaches men to do: become comfortable with their spouse's discomfort. Indeed, to *disrupt* her comfort.

And this is good for the gander, but somehow not for the goose?


----------



## jld

always_alone said:


> And yet that is *exactly* what MMSL teaches men to do: become comfortable with their spouse's discomfort. Indeed, to *disrupt* her comfort.
> 
> And this is good for the gander, but somehow not for the goose?


Good point, aa.

This could create resentment and escalate conflict.


----------



## farsidejunky

always_alone said:


> And yet that is *exactly* what MMSL teaches men to do: become comfortable with their spouse's discomfort. Indeed, to *disrupt* her comfort.
> 
> And this is good for the gander, but somehow not for the goose?


You pose a statement regarding Athol, and ask the question of me. Are you indicating I do that? Is that why you are asking me? Or are you asking me to speak on behalf of Athol?

I am confused...


----------



## always_alone

farsidejunky said:


> You pose a statement regarding Athol, and ask the question of me. Are you indicating I do that? Is that why you are asking me? Or are you asking me to speak on behalf of Athol?
> 
> I am confused...


It was meant purely as a rhetorical question. Not accusing, not trying to put you on the spot.

It just struck me as odd that one would defend MMSL on the grounds that a wife should never feel comfort with her husband's discomfort, when the whole principle of MMSL is to tell men to disrupt their wife's comfort, and to grow comfortable with this, as they will have to keep doing it throughout their marriages to keep her interested..

I do agree with both you and jld that we owe it to ourselves AND our spouses to let them know when our needs are not being met.


----------



## farsidejunky

Sometimes this is what is necessary to reestablish balance. 

I had to create discomfort in my wife in order for her to really begin to feel empathy towards me. Granted I was doing it while doing a ton of other things, to include reestablishing our emotional connection. And in fairness, she was not doing it deliberately. She was just being a bit apathetic about some things. But I would only advocate it as a means to restore balance, not to permanently lower my wife. 

That proposition feels distinctly empty to me.


----------



## tech-novelist

Bugged said:


> an interesting thing is that in so called female porn(where the directors and producers are women) NONE of the above is present.
> 
> RPillers really are fine connoisseurs of the female soul..:smthumbup::smthumbup::smthumbup:


Right, like "50 Shades of Grey", which I understand is very kind and gentle! :scratchhead:


----------



## tech-novelist

Bugged said:


> 50 shades is a very edulcorated version of the most vanilla bsdm that there is.
> It's a sick and crappy movie though.


Right, and the books have been *enormous* hits, almost entirely among women. Why is that, do you think, since we know that women don't like that sort of thing? :scratchhead:


----------



## Faithful Wife

always_alone said:


> Epiphanies are super slippery. You can only really have them when you are ready to have them, and while people surely can inspire you, they cannot make it happen for you.
> 
> On top of that, some really fantastic sex comes from really unhealthy places. Indeed often our erotic fantasies are driven by trauma, anger, hate and pain. Which is not to say that this kind of fantastic sex brings us to a better place; indeed it can leave us as empty and unhappy as before. Or, worse, feed our trauma, pain and unhappiness even more. But it's good sex nonetheless and tempting to not look any deeper than that.
> 
> That said, there is a ton of research on happiness, and most of it shows that self-awareness, letting go of anger and ego, and acceptance of people for who they are is always the ticket. It doesn't matter how rich you are, how much status you have or how good looking. It matters how generous and giving and open you are.
> 
> And not coincidentally, I would say, these same qualities also boost your attractiveness and desirability.
> 
> Maybe not a guarantee from SCIENCE, but a start at least?


I have tried this before....have offered things like "hey you know, there is research that backs up how having a positive attitude actually creates more happiness and that makes you sexier!" but generally, if someone is in an angry place, especially for the long term, it take more than that to interest them.

Revenge tastes better than anger when you are in it.


----------



## Thundarr

Bugged said:


> So, I've been lurking for a while on the red pill..the *rabbit hole *goes much, much deeper that i initially thought.
> AK is pretty vanilla to be honest when it comes to rp 'philosophy'.
> I've come to the conclusion that these men are simply *projecting*.
> What these 'men' think women really are and want is just what they want them to want and be. It's a *fantasy*.
> How do I know?
> All of the things 'women' sexuality is about according to them *is ubiquitous in main stream porn.*


I've been snooping too and I think a lot of guys on those forums feed on each other's bravado trying to maintain their virtual alpha-ness. I suspect if AK created an anonymous user and commented, he'd be run off due to being so beta.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Faithful Wife said:


> How do you get an angry person to read a book about letting go of anger? It seems like a very difficult thing to do. :scratchhead:
> 
> The real message that angry spouses need is "hey dude/dudette, your anger is messing up YOUR life! YOU have the power to change this by getting control of YOUR anger!"
> 
> But as any previously angry person knows, when you're angry, you don't think you are the one who needs to adjust, everyone else should.
> 
> I'm just trying to find a way to slip a message past an angry person's filters somehow, I guess.
> 
> But I think it takes a personal epiphany to realize you have anger issues and you are the only one who can control that.
> 
> How do you inspire someone to have an epiphany?
> 
> I wish I could say "dudes/dudettes, I can promise you the best sex of your life with someone who is madly in love with you, as proven by SCIENCE! if you just learn to manage and understand your own anger".
> 
> Anger can be transmuted into sexual energy. Which is a problem some people here can probably relate to. If you do this as an emotionally healthy person, it can be really fun. If you do it from an unhealthy place, it is super non-fun.
> 
> Thoughts?


This was a huge issue for us and I will be back to share about how we got past it.


----------



## john117

Faithful Wife said:


> Revenge tastes better than anger when you are in it.



Is there an echo in this here chat room  ??


----------



## Brigit

always_alone said:


> And yet that is *exactly* what MMSL teaches men to do: become comfortable with their spouse's discomfort. Indeed, to *disrupt* her comfort.


This is the difference between Fun Girl Games and AK's Games. Girl Games cause no harm. This causes psychological harm. 

I think men do know that using AK's tactics are evil, they just want to pretend they're not.


----------



## farsidejunky

Brigit said:


> This is the difference between Fun Girl Games and AK's Games. Girl Games cause no harm. This causes psychological harm.
> 
> I think men do know that using AK's tactics are evil, they just want to pretend they're not.


Games of any sort can potentially be used for evil. It largely depends on the person running the game and what they are trying to achieve. 

Now, as to the last paragraph, you just labeled me evil as well. I have used several of his tactics, even though I am not necessarily a "red pill guy". I mean, the 15 second kiss just simply OOZES nefarious intentions, no? But that 14.5 second kiss? Pure as the driven snow...


----------



## Brigit

farsidejunky said:


> Games of any sort can potentially be used for evil. It largely depends on the person running the game and what they are trying to achieve.
> 
> Now, as to the last paragraph, you just labeled me evil as well. I have used several of his tactics, even though I am not necessarily a "red pill guy". I mean, the 15 second kiss just simply OOZES nefarious intentions, no? But that 14.5 second kiss? Pure as the driven snow...


AK's book is infused with "non-evil" tactics. To quote some of the benevolent ones isn't making a point. It's actually a "lawyerish" defense strategy to distract one from the issues.

We can debate this topic to the end of time and the same main issues pop up. 

1. There are unmoral and unethical strategies AK teaches in his book.

2. Men state his book helped them when others couldn't and don't care if there is unmoral and unethical strategies being taught.

3. Just about every man on this thread has denied using the unmoral and unethical strategies.

Just for the record boys: I don't believe you.


----------



## thread the needle

Anybody here have the ability and interest in writing a fair and accurate 25 word executive summary of this 3500 post thread so I don't have to read it all?


----------



## farsidejunky

Brigit said:


> To quote some of the benevolent ones isn't making a point. It's actually a "lawyerish" defense strategy to distract one from the issues.


I am really glad you brought this up. 

Because cherry picking EITHER way is a lawyerish thing to do, and it has been happening in this thread from the very beginning.

It distracts from YOUR issues. The premise of your statement is that your issues with the book are my issues, when in fact they are not. Nor are your issues with the book the only issues open for discussion.

One other very important lesson taught by AK: never allow someone else to determine ones frame. Of course, unless you want to.

Have a great day!


----------



## naiveonedave

Personal said:


> All I read is entitlement!
> 
> No one owes anyone time, conversation, friendship or sex.
> 
> Seriously if both or more involved parties aren't mutually feeling that attraction at the beginning. Most people (not all) would be far better served if they are looking for a great sexual relationship ought to, "Shove it brother" and "Just Keep Walking" (thanks INXS).
> 
> If a women or man friend zones you they don't wan't you like that, I can't see anything wrong with that, people really don't owe anyone sex because someone put in some time.


where on gawds earth did I say they were owed anything? I want them to realize that they don't need to put up with crappy behavior from girls and what they can do to be more attractive. STOP PUTTING WORDS INTO MY MOUTH, THANK YOU.


----------



## tech-novelist

thread the needle said:


> Anybody here have the ability and interest in writing a fair and accurate 25 word executive summary of this 3500 post thread so I don't have to read it all?


Sure, although it's a bit longer than 25 words.

Men should "just know" what to do to make their wives excited to have sex with them. 

But if they don't "just know", then they should ABSOLUTELY not take advice as to how to act differently to achieve that goal, unless that advice could not be misused in any way, including by single men to pick up women. Because if the advice could be misused, then they certainly would misuse it!


----------



## naiveonedave

Personal said:


> MMSL shamefully builds up weak and insecure men by encouraging them to think women are lesser than them.


So you say, I totally disagree.


----------



## Brigit

naiveonedave said:


> So you say, I totally disagree.


I think FW had a good idea with creating this thread but it didn't do much except provide some fun debate.

If something works people will use it regardless of the possible damage. That is our society.


----------



## naiveonedave

marduk said:


> Oh, I did that hardcore after that.


This was a good side discussion on this thread. After getting serious with getting in shape and taking women off of the pedestal, similar things have happened to me. And no, I was not flirty at all.


----------



## farsidejunky

Brigit said:


> I think FW had a good idea with creating this thread but it didn't do much except provide some fun debate.
> 
> If something works people will use it regardless of the possible damage. That is our society.


Are you suggesting this book only promotes unhealthy means to improve ones relationship?


----------



## Brigit

farsidejunky said:


> Are you suggesting this book only promotes unhealthy means to improve ones relationship?


No. AK has cleverly woven in helpful techniques into his book on abuse.


----------



## john117

Yet in a marriage a joint frame is needed.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Brigit said:


> I'd flip out too. Don't flirt with your wife's friends. You sound like a very sexual guy and sexual people know when their turning on the charm. When you're around your wives friends turn the charm off.


You REALLY want to make this his fault entirely, don't you?


----------



## naiveonedave

Bugged said:


> I suddenly remembered what part of the book made me think this guy is sick..
> 
> from MMSLP


every woman I ever had sex with, would get turned on by that quote (at least if they were honest with themselves). That is how they wanted it, most of the time.


----------



## farsidejunky

john117 said:


> Yet in a marriage a joint frame is needed.


Agreed, unless the other is not acting in the best interest of the marriage.


----------



## farsidejunky

Brigit said:


> No. AK has cleverly woven in helpful techniques into his book on abuse.


And here we go with the lawyerish (or political if you will) techniques. 

"That Alan guy... You know him? He is an okay guy for a racist."


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> And here we go with the lawyerish (or political if you will) techniques.
> 
> "That Alan guy... You know him? He is an okay guy for a racist."


This thread does not have to be adversarial. It could be empathetic.


----------



## Brigit

NobodySpecial said:


> You REALLY want to make this his fault entirely, don't you?


Why do you say that?


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> This thread does not have to be adversarial. It could be empathetic.


Its starting to lose what it had yesterday. Unfortunately.


----------



## Satya

thread the needle said:


> Anybody here have the ability and interest in writing a fair and accurate 25 word executive summary of this 3500 post thread so I don't have to read it all?


The topic initially was on the subject of red pill (according to subject line), then shifted to specifically discuss AK's MMSLP book and other lessons as rife with misogyny, citing examples/quotes from red pill tactics that are disagreeable to the majority of ladies (and sampling of men) posting in this topic. 

The majority of men posting in this topic appear to agree that AK uses extreme tactics, but point out that to discount them in their entirety would be unfair to the population of men that have personally benefitted from the large takeaway lessons red pill and AK, has to offer,namely "owning your sh1t" among other mantras. 

There will always be angry men that only use the alpha/dominating lessons of red pill. There will always be women that believe red pill is nothing but hateful toward them and has very little constructive lessons to offer in terms of keeping a marriage and attraction alive. 

Delving deeper, we see the men and women involved heavily in the topic go back and forth about very specific facets, arguments, and laws of nature/science behind attraction, seeming to take more of an individual "it works/worked/doesnt/didn't work for me" and use the personal experiences as a basis by which the thread has grown to eclipsed most other topics on the board. There are also challenges offered to produce more scientific evidence that red pill's claim to understand the nature of all women is true. Despite the numerous field reports one could find on reddit of men using red pill tactics with moderate success, there is still an outstanding request to produce more conclusive scientific proof behind red pill's notion that AWALT. 

The takeaway from my pov: there's been a lot to learn for both sides, lots to learn for some contributing members in particular, which is nice, but ultimately there's no getting off this carousel, it just keeps on going 'round. Beyonce, while I'm not a fan, sang a song which included the lyrics, "what I'm gonna do is be a woman and you can be a man." I think this might be poignant to those contributing.... But maybe not. 

Just my attempt at a somewhat unbiased take, (which I may have failed at), and then injected an opinion. More than 25 words.... Apologies.


----------



## jld

Blossom Leigh said:


> Its starting to lose what it had yesterday. Unfortunately.


Let's bring back the empathy. It's hard to learn when we are defensive.


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> This thread does not have to be adversarial. It could be empathetic.


I agree, JLD. And I have said I have very little for "red pill" extremists. But to paint MMSLP as abusive is a leap. Adversarial is painting MMSLP as all negative. I see the negative in it, but I also see the positive. And the positives are every bit as powerful as the negatives.

Here is where is comes back to philosophy again.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> Let's bring back the empathy. It's hard to learn when we are defensive.


I'm right there with ya jld... I'm in.

Personally I feel if a woman here cannot be empathetic with the guys and what they experience they need to back away from this thread and let those of us who do dig into great solutions that build toward ideas that are refined and effective without degrading either gender, but keeps them the gender they are.


----------



## farsidejunky

Satya said:


> The topic initially was on the subject of red pill (according to subject line), then shifted to specifically discuss AK's MMSLP book and other lessons as rife with misogyny, citing examples/quotes from red pill tactics that are disagreeable to the majority of ladies (and sampling of men) posting in this topic.
> 
> The majority of men posting in this topic appear to agree that AK uses extreme tactics, but point out that to discount them in their entirety would be unfair to the population of men that have personally benefitted from the large takeaway lessons red pill and AK, has to offer,namely "owning your sh1t" among other mantras.
> 
> There will always be angry men that only use the alpha/dominating lessons of red pill. There will always be women that believe red pill is nothing but hateful toward them and has very little constructive lessons to offer in terms of keeping a marriage and attraction alive.
> 
> Delving deeper, we see the men and women involved heavily in the topic go back and forth about very specific facets, arguments, and laws of nature/science behind attraction, seeming to take more of an individual "it works/worked/doesnt/didn't work for me" and use the personal experiences as a basis by which the thread has grown to eclipsed most other topics on the board. There are also challenges offered to produce more scientific evidence that red pill's claim to understand the nature of all women is true. Despite the numerous field reports one could find on reddit of men using red pill tactics with moderate success, there is still an outstanding request to produce more conclusive scientific proof behind red pill's notion that AWALT.
> 
> The takeaway from my pov: there's been a lot to learn for both sides, lots to learn for some contributing members in particular, which is nice, but ultimately there's no getting off this carousel, it just keeps on going 'round. Beyonce, while I'm not a fan, sang a song which included the lyrics, "what I'm gonna do is be a woman and you can be a man." I think this might be poignant to those contributing.... But maybe not.
> 
> Just my attempt at a somewhat unbiased take, (which I may have failed at), and then injected an opinion. More than 25 words.... Apologies.


Perfect. QFT.


----------



## Brigit

jld said:


> This thread does not have to be adversarial. It could be empathetic.


I agree. It doesn't have to be adversarial but to ignore some of the obvious parts of the book that has to do more with gaining power over your wife rather than making marriage work cannot be discounted. 

From a lot of AK's passages quoted right here on this thread I get the feeling that AK doesn't even WANT to have sex with his wife. He want's to use his penis as a weapon to keep her in her place. There is a lot of "good ol' boy" thinking in that book which what appeals to men. 

TBH I don't care if all the men on TAM continue to read AK's books. I don't have to fu*k them.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Brigit said:


> I agree. It doesn't have to be adversarial but to ignore some of the obvious parts of the book that has to do more with gaining power over your wife rather than making marriage work cannot be discounted.
> 
> From a lot of AK's passages quoted right here on this thread I get the feeling that AK doesn't even WANT to have sex with his wife. He want's to use his penis as a weapon to keep her in her place. There is a lot of "good ol' boy" thinking in that book which what appeals to men.
> 
> TBH I don't care if all the men on TAM continue to read AK's books. I don't have to fu*k them.


This is more about the guys here at TAM seeking solutions than it is about AK. That is where this thread is evolving to, action for the future, not discussing AK's issues. Those are already known and discussed.


----------



## Faithful Wife

thread the needle said:


> Anybody here have the ability and interest in writing a fair and accurate 25 word executive summary of this 3500 post thread so I don't have to read it all?


Yes here you go: Please don't take the red pill.


----------



## Muse1976

Disclaimer: I did not read every page in this thread. 

I understand where FW is coming from when she posted her initial post. I can understand it completely. Yes there are some pretty sh1tty things said in MMSLP. But at the same time there are helpful things as well. Yes I have read it, and when I did the useful things came to the top while the slightly misogynistic crap was left to the side. Are all men going to do that. No. There are many guys who are to butt hurt to see past the end of their nose. This is the nature of the human species. We want to naturally take the path of least resistance. Do I think that MMSLP is nefarious? No. I believe that it was written as a 2x4 for men to wake up. 

I believe the fact that that book gets mentioned so much around here is the fact that Athol spent a lot of time on this forum. That is both his blessing and his bane. Do I think that MMSLP is the right tool for the job? Not necessarily. The guy has written more than just MMSLP. If I was going to suggest a book by Athol it wouldn't be MMSLP. It would be his last book. The mindful attraction plan. It's written from a far more objective standpoint and wrote to address both genders. I know that Deejo dropped the name of a book that was similar to MMSLP in both topic and scope. 

Does anybody have the name of the book and the author? 


As far as nefarious sh1t goes. One only has to look as far as RooshV. This guy's site drips with hate and contempt at every page. I'm quite sure there are other just as bad or worse. This is the kind of sh1t we should all be trying to stamp out. I would love to have "5 minutes alone" with this puke.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Muse1976 said:


> As far as nefarious sh1t goes. One only has to look as far as RooshV. This guy's site drips with hate and contempt at every page. I'm quite sure there are other just as bad or worse. This is the kind of sh1t we should all be trying to stamp out. I would love to have "5 minutes alone" with this puke.


I don't really see the difference. It is all based on the same non-science and I don't see why we would dislike one level of hate, but be ok with a slightly less level of hate....it is ALL coming from the same set of hateful ideas that paint women as wh*res whose only value is their youth and beauty, and encourages men to "get sex" from them.


----------



## Brigit

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes here you go: Please don't take the red pill.


We should have left the title alone. No further posting was needed.


----------



## Muse1976

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes here you go: Please don't take the red pill.


So what's your opinion of the other book by Athol? The Mindful Attraction Plan? Is it also misogynistic? Or is it discounted based solely on the fact that the author also wrote MMSLP? 

So is there a book similar is subject and detail without all the hate that is in MMSLP? I'm not discounting your opinion as I agree with most of it. Just trying to come up with a better solution.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Muse1976 said:


> So what's your opinion of the other book by Athol? The Mindful Attraction Plan? Is it also misogynistic? Or is it discounted based solely on the fact that the author also wrote MMSLP?
> 
> So is there a book similar is subject and detail without all the hate that is in MMSLP? I'm not discounting your opinion as I agree with most of it. Just trying to come up with a better solution.


I'm working on writing my own book now. In this thread, we've discussed and suggested a few other titles. But apparently for a certain group of angry men who feel jilted out of sex, you have to write in an edgy enough manner to keep their attention, and MMSL's promise of revenge is a large factor in why it is popular. So we've been talking about how to reach those guys who are already pissed off, but without telling them they should hate all those hypergamous wh*res.

I would encourage anyone and everyone who wants to write books and blogs on this topic to do so! There is a huge market out there and people need help. 

And yes, IMO, AK is entirely discounted because his main body of work is the blog and MMSL and there is so much hateful and mean spirited stuff in there that I would not recommend anything he has done to anyone I know, ever.


----------



## Muse1976

Faithful Wife said:


> I don't really see the difference. It is all based on the same non-science and I don't see why we would dislike one level of hate, but be ok with a slightly less level of hate....it is ALL coming from the same set of hateful ideas that paint women as wh*res whose only value is their youth and beauty, and encourages men to "get sex" from them.


"kill a man and your a murderer
Kill many and your a conqueror 
Kill them all and your a god"

It's a matter of perspective. I don't disagree that it's all tinged in some shade of dislike or hate if you will. 

As far as RooshV goes. 
Metaphorically. 
"Slay the Shepherd and the sheep shall be scattered "


What's a solution in your eyes? Because the whole putting genders on pedestals that many many men are taught is not an ideal solution. The enemy of your enemy is your friend in this particular case is you so want it? We are on the same side just a different perspective.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Muse1976 said:


> What's a solution in your eyes? Because the whole putting genders on pedestals that many many men are taught is not an ideal solution. The enemy of your enemy is your friend in this particular case is you so want it? We are on the same side just a different perspective.


I don't know exactly what you mean here, but I think what you are saying is that if men don't learn red pill crap they must learn blue pill crap?

Not sure if that's what you meant, but it sure isn't what I meant.

I think it is funny that some men seem to think that women are the ones who push blue pill advice, yet there really is no such thing as "blue pill advice". Red pill men are the only people who know what "blue pill advice" even means since they are the ones who made up the term.

As for what message I would like to give men, for ONE part, I would like to paint a picture of what a Natural sex god acts like and what he thinks like...because I'm married to one...and show how this is a lot different than what the red pill crap has told them. I will try to do this in a witty and edgy enough way to not lose the readers...and there will be an underlying hope that knowing these things he knows can help a man find that within himself (as it really is inside of you). I'm going to get my hubby to help write these parts.

There is more I will cover, as well. Such as how girls can run all the same game that guys can, and it won't work for us either if the goal is long term sustained attraction.


----------



## Muse1976

Faithful Wife said:


> I'm working on writing my own book now. In this thread, we've discussed and suggested a few other titles. But apparently for a certain group of angry men who feel jilted out of sex, *you have to write in an edgy enough manner to keep their attention, and MMSL's promise of revenge is a large factor in why it is popular*. So we've been talking about how to reach those guys who are already pissed off, but without telling them they should hate all those hypergamous wh*res.
> 
> I would encourage anyone and everyone who wants to write books and blogs on this topic to do so! There is a huge market out there and people need help.
> 
> And yes, IMO, AK is entirely discounted because his main body of work is the blog and MMSL and there is so much hateful and mean spirited stuff in there that I would not recommend anything he has done to anyone I know, ever.



Are we so sure that your have to write in a "edgy" way, or is it the fact that these men are so self-obsessed and have such a short attention span that nothing else works? Just because a person shows symptoms of a disease does not mean that it's something else. 

OK, so there have been other books and authors brought up. Are any of them a viable solution in your eyes at all? 

I understand your reluctance on suggesting anything to do with Athol. Your view is the same as mine when it comes to Willard Harley. There is some good stuff that he has, but the man-hate oozes out of everything he writes.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I think NMMNG is a far better book with far better value to it (because it encourages men to look at themselves instead of whining about how women ruined your life)...but at this point it is outdated.

But I just mean for this particular type of man. There are lots of better books for the average reader about marriage and sex and relationships. But for the man who is confused as to where the sex in his marriage went, especially if this man hasn't yet found any useful self help, there doesn't seem to be much available. Thus, I'm going to give it a shot...but as I mentioned earlier, anyone else here or a collaborative effort for a book, would be great, too. The more the better. There is a huge market and they do need help, and as a woman, I say please, let's help them! Their wives want it, too!


----------



## farsidejunky

Bugged said:


> I really wonder how the 'positive' stuff can work, powerful??I mean really?
> ..flirting with other women is powerful?
> Only works for insecure/confused women..like when you're in junior school..you don't pay attention to me, so I talk to another girl to make you jealous...
> How old are these women, 10 or something?
> 
> And again...the dread about women growing old and losing sexual attractiveness...even IF that was true (i completely disagree that men age better than women, usually they're fat and bald by age 45..), a woman after menopause does not give a **** about that, they have almost zero hormones left...sex is usually a nuisance, so were's the powerful weapon here?It doesn't exist.
> They have grown up children/grandchildren/friends to care about.
> 
> My Godfather (58) is divorcing his wife because he's been having an affair with a 40-someting woman for 2 years and my godmother told him to basically go **** himself, mostly for going behind her back.
> She's cool with that, he's a trainwreck.
> 
> I don't seen anything powerful at all in this 'teachings'. Only a delusional outlet for anger.


Cherry picking. I did not mention anything about these suggestions being powerful. 

I did however say that a mix of alpha and beta, remembering to date your wife, and caring as much about yourself as you do about your partner during sex are all critical. 

Do you not see these things as important?


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> Cherry picking. I did not mention anything about these suggestions being powerful.
> 
> I did however say that a mix of alpha and beta, remembering to date your wife, and caring as much about yourself as you do about your partner during sex are all critical.
> 
> Do you not see these things as important?


I wonder how this could be rewritten in a more empathetic style . . .


----------



## Muse1976

Faithful Wife said:


> I don't know exactly what you mean here, but I think what you are saying is that if men don't learn red pill crap they must learn blue pill crap?
> 
> Not sure if that's what you meant, but it sure isn't what I meant.
> 
> I think it is funny that some men seem to think that women are the ones who push blue pill advice, yet there really is no such thing as "blue pill advice". Red pill men are the only people who know what "blue pill advice" even means since they are the ones who made up the term.
> 
> As for what message I would like to give men, for ONE part, I would like to paint a picture of what a Natural sex god acts like and what he thinks like...because I'm married to one...and show how this is a lot different than what the red pill crap has told them. I will try to do this in a witty and edgy enough way to not lose the readers...and there will be an underlying hope that knowing these things he knows can help a man find that within himself (as it really is inside of you). I'm going to get my hubby to help write these parts.
> 
> There is more I will cover, as well. Such as how girls can run all the same game that guys can, and it won't work for us either if the goal is long term sustained attraction.



[email protected] it FW, I like you, but let's just cut all this "Red pill, blue pill, alpha, beta, omegzeta obligata, crap right now and talk like human beings, because I buy NONE of it. I don't believe in any of that garbage. I have read it, assessed it, and in the end, threw it all away. Because it wasn't worth anything for the most part anyways. What we are doing by continuing this garbage is just speaking to the lowest common denominator. And it dumbs down everybody in the process. 

My whole thought and principle behind the comment was that many many men are taught to be "nice guys". Point blank. It's taught from the day your born. And we both know it. I apologize for not making myself clear. "Happy wife, happy life" 

I'm glad you are writing a book. I'm a book worm and read quite voraciously. I'm sure that it will have something that adds to the TAM vernacular.


----------



## john117

I have spent three decades studying human behavior and in my semi professional opinion indeed AK caters to the LCD (least common denominator)

But

That's not unusual. Take a 300 lb obese person, put them on a cat food diet, and soon they're down to 280. Does this mean the diet worked?

The appeal to LCD, reasonably voiced approach, lack of objective science and numbers simply tells me that the AK approach is similar to his fellow misogynist Rush Limbaugh. 

A science based approach involves a thorough review of current literature, background, methodology, scope, limitations, data protocols, analysis, conclusions, references, and the like. Nothing of the sort here.


----------



## Brigit

For the record I still like Marriage Builders. 

And for a more sexual book:

Mating in Captivity: Unlocking Erotic Intelligence Paperback – October 30, 2007
by Esther Perel (Author)

http://www.amazon.com/Mating-Captivity-Unlocking-Erotic-Intelligence/dp/0060753641



Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

Developed originally from an article she wrote on "erotic intelligence," psychotherapist Perel's first book sets forth a thesis for today's couples that is as revelatory as it is straightforward. Languishing desire in a relationship actually results from all the factors people look for in love and marriage: grounding, meaning, continuity. Partnerships are supposed to provide "a bulwark against the vicissitudes of modern life," Perel notes, and in one person we turn for all the emotional connections that the greater society (church, community, family) can no longer provide. Habit and certainty kill desire, yet how to live comfortably with the elements of unpredictability and risk that are necessary for healthy eroticism? Perel supports her nicely accessible work with case studies of couples both heterosexual and gay, spanning all ages, with kids and without, in an attempt to cure what ails their sex life. Some of the proposals Perel recommends for rekindling eroticism involve cultivating separateness (e.g., autonomy) in a relationship rather than closeness (entrapment); exploring dynamics of power and control (i.e., submission, spanking); and learning to surrender to a "sexual ruthlessness" that liberates us from shame and guilt. In short, Perel sanctions fantasy and play and offers the estranged modern couple a unique richness of experience. (Sept.)


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Speaking like fellow human beings is where this thread evolved to yesterday and it was refreshing.


----------



## NobodySpecial

^^ As it relates to empathy, my empathy goes out to the guys who regularly getting beaten up on this topic. I feel strongly that they should be commended for doing what was necessary to improve their marriage. So many people would just bail. Being half guy myself, the proof winds up in the pudding. We have 4 men, solid citizens, who changed their lives around. They have to listen to women freaking out over what they don't even understand. While men may "think differently" they darned well better not speak that way! 

I am glad for them and think that at least one of them has been more than patient in explaining his PoV.TO him I say, you go man.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

NobodySpecial said:


> ^^ As it relates to empathy, my empathy goes out to the guys who regularly getting beaten up on this topic. I feel strongly that they should be commended for doing what was necessary to improve their marriage. So many people would just bail. Being half guy myself, the proof winds up in the pudding. We have 4 men, solid citizens, who changed their lives around. They have to listen to women freaking out over what they don't even understand. While men may "think differently" they darned well better not speak that way!
> 
> I am glad for them and think that at least one of them has been more than patient in explaining his PoV.TO him I say, you go man.


Exactly...


----------



## Brigit

Bugged said:


> In my relationship we're pretty egalitarian. last night i wanted to clean up the kitchen because he had cooked dinner but I was worn out. After 5 minutes of 'fighting' about who was supposed to clean the kitchen i gave in. was my partner Alpha for making the decision or beta for cleaning the kitchen?? :scratchhead::scratchhead:
> 
> So to me, *it doesn't make any sense*.


Right now I'm cleaning the bathroom and the whole house smells of bleach.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Bugged said:


> Since you said that the positive are as powerful as the negatives I assumed you thought the negatives were powerful as well. Sorry if i misundestood.
> Alpha and beta to me are concepts that cannot be applied to humans.
> One can be beta in one aspect of his life and be alpha in another (assuming alpha and beta actually mean something).
> It's notorious that the typical dominatrix clients can be men that are very Alpha in their everyday lives (CEO'S, lawyers, judges,people in charge that need to have their mind freed from stresses).
> In my relationship we're pretty egalitarian. last night i wanted to clean up the kitchen because he had cooked dinner but I was worn out. After 5 minutes of 'fighting' about who was supposed to clean the kitchen i gave in. was my partner Alpha for making the decision or beta for cleaning the kitchen?? :scratchhead::scratchhead:
> 
> So to me, *it doesn't make any sense*.


He should have recognized your condition and stepped up. Relationships cannot be egalitarian 24/7. We have to pay attention and take care of each other when we have weak times. UNLESS it has turned to laziness, THEN the loving thing is a swift kick in the rear.  figuratively speaking of course.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Muse1976 said:


> [email protected] it FW, I like you, but let's just cut all this "Red pill, blue pill, alpha, beta, omegzeta obligata, crap right now and talk like human beings, because I buy NONE of it. I don't believe in any of that garbage. I have read it, assessed it, and in the end, threw it all away. Because it wasn't worth anything for the most part anyways. What we are doing by continuing this garbage is just speaking to the lowest common denominator. And it dumbs down everybody in the process.
> 
> My whole thought and principle behind the comment was that many many men are taught to be "nice guys". Point blank. It's taught from the day your born. And we both know it. I apologize for not making myself clear. "Happy wife, happy life"
> 
> I'm glad you are writing a book. I'm a book worm and read quite voraciously. I'm sure that it will have something that adds to the TAM vernacular.


In my book, I most certainly won't be using terms like alpha and beta, it isn't necessary at all.

I get that many men are taught to be nice guys...many women are taught to be things other than what would serve them best as well.

So I was just planning on touching on that issue/problem...that relates to both men and women...how we were all taught a lot of crap that doesn't serve us.

I was just going to make that point and then move on from it, and try to talk about "where do you go from here".


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Faithful Wife said:


> How do you get an angry person to read a book about letting go of anger? It seems like a very difficult thing to do. :scratchhead:
> 
> The real message that angry spouses need is "hey dude/dudette, your anger is messing up YOUR life! YOU have the power to change this by getting control of YOUR anger!"
> 
> But as any previously angry person knows, when you're angry, you don't think you are the one who needs to adjust, everyone else should.
> 
> I'm just trying to find a way to slip a message past an angry person's filters somehow, I guess.
> 
> But I think it takes a personal epiphany to realize you have anger issues and you are the only one who can control that.
> 
> How do you inspire someone to have an epiphany?
> 
> I wish I could say "dudes/dudettes, I can promise you the best sex of your life with someone who is madly in love with you, as proven by SCIENCE! if you just learn to manage and understand your own anger".
> 
> Anger can be transmuted into sexual energy. Which is a problem some people here can probably relate to. If you do this as an emotionally healthy person, it can be really fun. If you do it from an unhealthy place, it is super non-fun.
> 
> Thoughts?





Blossom Leigh said:


> This was a huge issue for us and I will be back to share about how we got past it.


I promised an answer to this and I just now got around to having a moment to get it into words. 

My H had gotten to the point where his anger was a chronic bad habit. His anger was not only chronic, but big and non responsive, making it dangerous, so I chose to view it as an addiction and no longer enable that choice any longer. After trying everything in my arsenal to affect it, I finally chose to *cause* him to HAVE to face it head on. The reason I chose that route is that his anger was chronically on me and didn't belong there. So, I effectively told him I was no longer going to carry it. I said... "Your anger has grown to the point that is beyond my capacity to cope. It is a professional level issue. I need you to see a professional for your anger issues. If you refuse to do so by the first of the year I will be separating from you as this is no longer sustainable for me. If you still refuse to seek help you will be choosing to risk divorce with me." 

Then I stuck to my guns.....

Once he started doing the work, THEN I *allowed* him to do it.

I used boundaries when he screwed up and fell back into old patterns and mercy/grace when he was doing well and let go of the past myself during that process. This was a new day with new efforts and not a time for resentment. So I didn't. It took a solid year for him to be practiced enough and have enough therapy to consistently not walk in anger.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I do agree that an ultimatum (that is true and will be followed up on) is about the only hope most people have if it has gone that far.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Faithful Wife said:


> I do agree that an ultimatum (that is true and will be followed up on) is about the only hope most people have if it has gone that far.



And it was a Herculean effort, just like with an addict who is far gone. So for him to come as far as he has this past year is a miracle. This time last year we were ending our four month separation and just moving back in together. We've come a long way since then. We would never be here had I not drawn the line in the sand. He didn't think he had a problem. It took my Dad, our pastor, family minister and professional counselor in addition to me to convince him that his anger was totally out of control. So he sought help reluctantly, but his heart softened deeply through the process and he embraced the assessment that indeed he was out of control.

So anger awareness and management is super important in relationships, glad you brought it up. I think part of the issue is assessing just how big the problem is. I quantified it in a way that made sense to him and in looking at the numbers the math didn't lie.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Aww man, I typed a reply to this Friday and it apparently didn't post. :\



always_alone said:


> No, some women (usually young undergraduates) display a tendency to rank a man as more "attractive" (whatever that means) when his photo is adjusted to display some sort of stereotypical status symbol, and no other items change.


Yes, *usually* young undergraduates. However, the experiment has also been performed with representative female populations in the US, UK and Germany. You only need about 400 people representing the US population to have a MOE of less than 5%.

Don't be coy. You know who you find physically attractive and who you don't. If not, what happened to "looks are important to women"?

The common experiment does not involve tampering with the photo in any way. It usually includes a "bio" line, with a name and occupation. The degree of status attributed to the occupations is not ambiguous, there is a large difference between the high status career and the low status careers. The control photos only have the name.




always_alone said:


> No, some men (usually young undergraduates) display a tendency to rank a woman as attractive with or without the stereotypical status symbol.


Same as above.




always_alone said:


> No, we can guess that if all other things are always kept equal, a women will display more likelihood of deciding a man is attractive (whatever that means) if he has a status symbol of some sort than a man would.


It's not a guess, it's a mathematical prediction. Women's perception of looks is heavily influenced by status. Men's is not.




always_alone said:


> This here is where the logic flies out the window.
> 
> Just because (mostly young undergraduate women) will say someone is "attractive" with a status symbol, what do you suppose that means?


Given the instructions in these experiments specify rating his physical appearance, it means women's judgment of appearance is influenced by status. Then, it's determined that its actually a pretty strong influence... says math. 




always_alone said:


> And how did you get from there to priority?


The dictionary.

PRIORITY 
noun

2. the right to precede others in order, rank, privilege, etc.; precedence. 

3. the right to take precedence in obtaining certain supplies, services, facilities, etc., especially during a shortage. 

4. something given special attention. 


adjective 

5. highest or higher in importance, rank, privilege, etc.: 
a priority task.


Physical attractiveness is the quality of a person's appearance in degree that it attracts. Women are more attracted to men with status than men without. Men are no more attracted to women with status than women without. Therefore status "precedes in rank, is given special attention, and is of higher importance" for women than for men. By definition, women prioritize status more than men.



always_alone said:


> None of the data or studies you've posted support the conclusions you are drawing from it. Rather, you have already decided the conclusions are correct, unassailable in fact, and completely overlook the actual data and what it is actually saying.


I agree with the conclusions yes. No, I don't believe they are unassailable. I believe you've failed to assail them. You posted on status-beauty exchange earlier and I pointed out that the lack of exchange may be explained by availability and class stratification without invalidating the attractive influence of status.

Did all of these researchers overlook their actual data, because it was their conclusion too. You're really reaching to deny it. These are simple experiments that overwhelmingly show women find men more physically attractive when presented in high status context, while men don't. If it influences women and doesn't influence men, then it's more important to women than men. It's an influence on women even though the majority of subjects claim not to be influenced by it. There is no getting around it.

It's bizarre, no doubt. It's not intuitive. However it also informs that it would be difficult to determine a commonly held priority for male traits among women, because the experiment points to physical attractiveness being affected by or dependent upon a non-physical trait. If one is composed even partly of the other, how can we determine priority/weight? Of course, "pickup" has "known" this for 30 or 40 years and has always held that several non-physical traits, not just status, can have a similar affect of altering women's perception of a man's physical attractiveness.


----------



## naiveonedave

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> .
> 
> 
> 
> It's bizarre, no doubt. It's not intuitive. However it also informs that it would be difficult to determine a commonly held priority for male traits among women, because the experiment points to physical attractiveness being affected by or dependent upon a non-physical trait. If one is composed even partly of the other, how can we determine priority/weight? Of course, "pickup" has "known" this for 30 or 40 years and has always held that several non-physical traits, not just status, can have a similar affect of altering women's perception of a man's physical attractiveness.


Unfortunately, too many people feel that free will is really free, but there is a DNA aspect to free will that has significant influence on our choices. As humans, we can and frequently avoid acting on these DNA impulses, but to deny them existing is almost funny.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

EleGirl said:


> Here is one that just creeps me out...
> (8.8) Isolation – Leverage Her Isolation Anxiety with Surprise


There is a demonstrated link between sexuality and "danger". The anxiety/fear/danger of being alone with a guy for the first time is similar to that of a roller coaster, ride on my motorcycle, or scary movie.

Feelings of safety and attachment after fear is gone are amplified. This, among other reasons (dopamine, adrenaline etc), increases the interest in sex.

Life is a rollercoaster. Each emotion colored by the preceding emotion. Good after bad is amplified. Ups and downs are more engaging. This is also one of the reasons why "push, pull" works. The pull and all of its excitement and happiness is amplified by the push. It's also one of the reasons makeup sex is so good.


----------



## Brigit

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Life is a rollercoaster. Each emotion colored by the preceding emotion. Good after bad is amplified. Ups and downs are more engaging. This is also one of the reasons why "push, pull" works. The pull and all of its excitement and happiness is amplified by the push. It's also one of the reasons makeup sex is so good.


And it's another reason why crazy bit*ches like myself have always done well with men.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> (In red pill land, Oneitis is supposedly a libido killer and a mega beta wussy thing to do).


Oneitis is a concept that applies to single men not married men.

In marriage, the equivalent concept would be for him to not sell out his wants in favor of hers simply to keep the relationship. The worshipper will never move on (she is irreplaceable), and there are times when one should move on. The reality is that there are many people with whom he would be just as or more compatible with.

On name calling, one should recognize that ideas of how people should be treated are extremely deeply held. So a guy who idolizes women isn't likely to change at all, much less at the push of soft words. Notice how soldiers and marines get past the natural human tendency to be repulsed at the thought of actually killing another human being? They do so by bringing down the opponent, in their case to something subhuman. They're Iraqi "savages", *********, gooks, etc. So it has been and so it will be in each and every war ever fought and we can whine about it, but in the end the soldier uses it to turn a human he can't kill into a subhuman he can.

The beta male uses the same strategy to turn a goddess into a dirty little human that f*cks, pisses and sh*ts like everyone else; full of base desires, human vice and virtue. The whole point is to reduce his sensitivity from it's nuclear levels so it's purposefully abrasive and even dismissive. It's not for every guy. It's for the guy with this problem.

The solid male is going to think it's over the top or juvenile. The high beta is going to think it's mean to women. It **IS** over the top and juvenile - and the high beta probably missed an appropriate dose of irreverence at some point in his upbringing or otherwise grew up in the shadow of females feeling like they were kingmakers and deciders of value. All of that junk needs to get knocked down.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Brigit said:


> And it's another reason why crazy bit*ches like myself have always done well with men.


Guilty.


----------



## Tubbalard

This entire thread is a debate among the nerds/geeks. male beta nerds vs feminists female nerds. non descript overlooked introverted women and introverted computer nerds that wasn't accepted into the cool group as young boys. Why is there so much contention among these groups?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

lifeistooshort said:


> Gotta love the guys that go on about how money and power attracts the women they want but then simultaneously b!tch about gold diggers. They can use money to get a woman but she can't actually be in it for the money or she's a gold digger. Quite a conundrum isn't it?


Not really. I don't b*tch about gold diggers anymore than I think women should b*tch about men choosing sexy legs.

Neither as a factor of initial attraction precludes anything else.


----------



## Brigit

Tubbalard said:


> This entire thread is a debate among the nerds/geeks. male beta nerds vs feminists female nerds. non descript overlooked introverted women and introverted computer nerds that wasn't accepted into the cool group as young boys. Why is there so much contention among these groups?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



Is *THAT* what we were talking about???

Who knew?


----------



## always_alone

NobodySpecial said:


> ^^ As it relates to empathy, my empathy goes out to the guys who regularly getting beaten up on this topic. I feel strongly that they should be commended for doing what was necessary to improve their marriage. So many people would just bail. Being half guy myself, the proof winds up in the pudding. We have 4 men, solid citizens, who changed their lives around. They have to listen to women freaking out over what they don't even understand. While men may "think differently" they darned well better not speak that way!
> 
> I am glad for them and think that at least one of them has been more than patient in explaining his PoV.TO him I say, you go man.


Have to listen? The thread is pretty clearly marked as to what it's about, and I don't recall holding anyone at gunpoint forcing them to read and participate.

And pretty much wherever else you go in this forum, red pill is advocated, pushed even, for every man regardless of circumstance. And when a woman like me suggests that this sort of strategy won't work in every situation, and may cause more harm than good, we are told that we don't understand women, don't know our own minds, and of course want to be "fvcked like we are rented.". If we object further, we are told we are man-haters who just want all men to be sexless --or we're just outliers. (Not "precious snowflakes, of course, as I can easily be replaced, indeed improved upon, by a functional vagina half my age -- but an outlier, whose opinion represents no one but myself).

Personally, I'm all for a situation where a man had some focus on pleasing me, on my sexual pleasure, on "happy wife". And would be more than happy to return in kind. I do have great empathy for those who find themselves unappreciated for all they give, and am happy for them if they can find a solution. I don't understand, though, how it is so easy to shrug off misogyny. Especially when the good message is get fit, and don't be a total doormat. No misogyny is required for that. Indeed, there are many women who would also benefit from this sort of advice.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Tubbalard said:


> This entire thread is a debate among the nerds/geeks. male beta nerds vs feminists female nerds. non descript overlooked introverted women and introverted computer nerds that wasn't accepted into the cool group as young boys. Why is there so much contention among these groups?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Hey... you left _me_ out.... lol


----------



## NobodySpecial

always_alone said:


> Have to listen? The thread is pretty clearly marked as to what it's about, and I don't recall holding anyone at gunpoint forcing them to read and participate.
> 
> And pretty much wherever else you go in this forum, red pill is advocated, pushed even, for every man regardless of circumstance. And when a woman like me suggests that this sort of strategy won't work in every situation, and may cause more harm than good, we are told that we don't understand women, don't know our own minds, and of course want to be "fvcked like we are rented."


I don't know where on this board you tend to hang, but I have NEVER see that sort of talk. 

Honestly AA, your chip from whatever you perceive your history is is really huge and challenges your judgement and causes you to see things that are not there and fail to see things that are, like the good people who did get better marriages from an education. How can that be bad?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Personal said:


> Yet despite having a high IQ, I lost my virginity at 17.


Everything is relative. I have a high IQ and I lost my virginity at 17, but I consider that late.


----------



## Tubbalard

Brigit said:


> Is *THAT* what we were talking about???
> 
> Who knew?



Essentially yes. These type of discussions brings out the most emotion for these types.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Tubbalard

Blossom Leigh said:


> Hey... you left _me_ out.... lol



Ok. what group are you in?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Pluto2

NobodySpecial said:


> I don't know where on this board you tend to hang, but I have NEVER see that sort of talk.
> 
> Honestly AA, your chip from whatever you perceive your history is is really huge and challenges your judgement and causes you to see things that are not there and fail to see things that are, like the good people who did get better marriages from an education. How can that be bad?


Why are you so dismissive?

I know I signed out of this thread, but honestly, have you not read the prior 280 some pages.

And again, glad for the results some-not all-have gotten, but the means used and advocated by red pill world are reprehensible.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Pluto2 said:


> Why are you so dismissive?
> 
> I know I signed out of this thread, but honestly, have you not read the prior 280 some pages.
> 
> And again, glad for the results some-not all-have gotten, but the means used and advocated by red pill world are reprehensible.


I read the thread. I don't agree with her. I voiced my PoV. That is what a board is for.


----------



## Brigit

Tubbalard said:


> Essentially yes. These type of discussions brings out the most emotion for these types.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


You could be right. IDK. I thought we were discussing the importance of not advocating a ridiculous book on an otherwise reputable site. 

In any case, sounds like FW has some good stuff for her book. 

What's next on the agenda?


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> The common experiment does not involve tampering with the photo in any way. It usually includes a "bio" line, with a name and occupation. The degree of status attributed to the occupations is not ambiguous, there is a large difference between the high status career and the low status careers. The control photos only have the name.


Women are conditioned to deliberately seek out "provider" when selecting mates, and men are conditioned to see high status women as a threat. This is why we see the results we do.

I get that you don't care at all about the source of these results, that you are indifferent to whether it is biological or culturally conditioned. All that matters to you is whether your statistical odds of succeeding to get laid are increased by driving your Porsche.

But what you aren't seeing is that attraction is actually very complex. This is not just an issue of availability, it is a function of the fact that we are complex creatures with complex mating habits. These studies show what they do because they are designed in a way to show them, and strip out all other variables that impact on attraction levels.

Imagine for example a study that shows a guy dressed in very attractive clothes, good haircut, good physique. Then another photo of the same guy with a hideous haircut and plaid pants belted over his ribcage. Will women pick the more attractive guy? You bet! Does this prove that looks are the most important priority for women? Not at all!

And in the end of all the statistical tendencies you cite are actually not very strong, and effect sizes are quite low. You can see that clearly if you look at the results of the studies you've posted and at further meta-analyses which demonstrate that the sorts of conclusions you wish to draw are completely overblown.


----------



## Buddy400

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> It's bizarre, no doubt. It's not intuitive. However it also informs that it would be difficult to determine a commonly held priority for male traits among women, because the experiment points to physical attractiveness being affected by or dependent upon a non-physical trait. If one is composed even partly of the other, how can we determine priority/weight? Of course, "pickup" has "known" this for 30 or 40 years and has always held that several non-physical traits, not just status, can have a similar affect of altering women's perception of a man's physical attractiveness.


This is an example of strange things that happen when having a conversation with feminists (or some other word if "feminist" is seen as being derogatory). 

The way this discussion always went was; women would say that men only care about looks and are superficial. Women would claim that they are better than that. Discussion would ensue. 

Now, if someone says that men only care about looks and are superficial, feminists immediately declare "women are exactly like men, we also only care about looks". Is that an improvement?

The number one goal seems to be to prove that women and men are exactly the same. Why? Are men seen as being "better" than women?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> And yet that is *exactly* what MMSL teaches men to do: become comfortable with their spouse's discomfort. Indeed, to *disrupt* her comfort.


Disrupt her comfort does not mean become comfortable with her discomfort. The status quo is lopsided in her favor. MMSL teaches men to re-level the field. If she doesn't care that her behavior makes him unhappy, then its time for him to stop caring whether his behavior makes her happy.

The destabilization is not meant to be permanent, but rather to allow the setting of a new equilibrium that doesn't take him for granted, nor allow himself to be taken for granted again in the future. It's a statement of what should be obvious, but aren't because of his weakness: her behavior has consequences for the relationship. He will not stay with someone he is unhappy with.

The guys who have done so will probably tell you it's not comfortable for them to do (hence we get sayings like "man up"), and the women seeing their stability endangered will probably speak to how much they fought it at first, only to feel better and more attracted to him in the long run. It's very much along the lines of nobody wants to fight, but we're usually better off for having fought than avoiding the fight and burying issues just for stability.


----------



## always_alone

NobodySpecial said:


> I don't know where on this board you tend to hang, but I have NEVER see that sort of talk.
> 
> Honestly AA, your chip from whatever you perceive your history is is really huge and challenges your judgement and causes you to see things that are not there and fail to see things that are, like the good people who did get better marriages from an education. How can that be bad?


You've never seen MMSL or red pill pushed here? Really? Where is it that you are hanging out?

And you have no objection at all to the POV expressed in the many, many quotes on this thread? Colour me bitter if you like, but what I'm seeing is definitely there. I guess it's just so normal and expected that we're all just supposed to accept it without comment?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> This is an example of strange things that happen when having a conversation with feminists (or some other word if "feminist" is seen as being derogatory).
> 
> The way this discussion always went was; women would say that men only care about looks and are superficial. Women would claim that they are better than that. Discussion would ensue.
> 
> Now, if someone says that men only care about looks and are superficial, feminists immediately declare "women are exactly like men, we also only care about looks". Is that an improvement?
> 
> The number one goal seems to be to prove that women and men are exactly the same. Why? Are men seen as being "better" than women?


My goal is to say that people are different, and sometimes when they are the same it doesn't land on gender lines.

So "men want sex more than women" is a fallacy.

"Men ONLY want sex while women want emotional connection" is also a fallacy.

Taking these fallacies out of the discussion and replacing them with useful ideas and information is my goal. And I am not a "feminist"....so assuming I am just because I am against red pill crap is just silly. I have never read a "feminist" book in my life. I'm for equality, yes, but have never said or felt that men and women have to be exactly the same.

But men are not even the same as each other, and women are not the same as each other, either.

That's why it is more useful to talk about how some people are more sexual than others, and self awareness, than "men like this and women like that".


----------



## NobodySpecial

always_alone said:


> You've never seen MMSL or red pill pushed here? Really? Where is it that you are hanging out?


..." and of course want to be "fvcked like we are rented.""



> And you have no objection at all to the POV expressed in the many, many quotes on this thread? Colour me bitter if you like, but what I'm seeing is definitely there. I guess it's just so normal and expected that we're all just supposed to accept it without comment?


What I object to is the vitriol cast at the gentlemen who had the utter audacity to read a book and find nuggets of usefulness in it. That's all.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Tubbalard said:


> This entire thread is a debate among the nerds/geeks. male beta nerds vs feminists female nerds. non descript overlooked introverted women and introverted computer nerds that wasn't accepted into the cool group as young boys. Why is there so much contention among these groups?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_





Blossom Leigh said:


> Hey... you left _me_ out.... lol





Tubbalard said:


> Ok. what group are you in?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Well.. could be the outlier here

Have never been labeled a geek or nerd
I'm extroverted
I'm not a feminist
Nor a computer nerd
never overlooked until you 

so... hmmm... what am I...

Extroverted Christian Non Feminist Empath... who believes in preserving the dignity of both genders and supporting ethical engagement even during contention if possible


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Buddy400 said:


> This is an example of strange things that happen when having a conversation with feminists (or some other word if "feminist" is seen as being derogatory).
> 
> The way this discussion always went was; women would say that men only care about looks and are superficial. Women would claim that they are better than that. Discussion would ensue.
> 
> Now, if someone says that men only care about looks and are superficial, feminists immediately declare "women are exactly like men, we also only care about looks". Is that an improvement?
> 
> The number one goal seems to be to prove that women and men are exactly the same. Why? Are men seen as being "better" than women?


I believe it is safe to say that neither gender is neither better nor worse than the other. So, I agree, there are lines being drawn that are ineffective and non productive in these discussions.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Buddy400 said:


> The number one goal seems to be to prove that women and men are exactly the same. Why? Are men seen as being "better" than women?


I dunno, the voodoo I get from these conversations is "whatever it is, women are the best!" lol  :rofl:

It all depends on the context. 

If the context is hostile to the superficiality of physical traits, then women place emphasis on their desire for a "person", personality, and good nature. The "good man". They're hostile to men who express a "looks are most important" mentality. But then when such statements are turned around to reveal less emphasis on looks on the part of females, the response is "looks matter just as much to us as men!!" 

When the context is a woman withholding sex, the women point to what emotional need the man must not be meeting, rather than pointing out the dirty game of withdrawing sex from him to force him to address her needs. Or, if she did try to address her needs head on, the withdrawal game is still accepted if he doesn't respond. Ergo "why should she have sex with someone who isn't meeting her emotional needs!" Yet when the context is changed to a man withdrawing security in response to lack of sex (his need) after failing in head on discussion, it's considered a dirty game and harmful to the marriage. 

Longstanding pattern of "woman good, man bad" imo. Nothing new. Unfortunate.


----------



## EllisRedding

always_alone said:


> You've never seen MMSL or red pill pushed here? Really? Where is it that you are hanging out?


I think it is more the fact comments keep being made that make it appear as if every thread created by a guy is rampant with Red Pill pushing, as if this is part of some initiation when a guy joins TAM. One other poster made a comment that EVERY GUY gets pushed Red Pill when they join. Absolute statements like this I think are more made purely to support ones POV instead of being completely factual. 

Myself and others have stated the opposite already. Not one mention in a thread I started, not one mention in threads I have followed. Only ever heard about it with these chat threads that recently popped up.

I only joined TAM about a month ago, so I can't say what went on then, only what I see now. Not saying RP isn't still brought up in threads, but there seems to be an over exaggeration to some extent (once again, just my POV from being here)


----------



## NobodySpecial

EllisRedding said:


> I think it is more the fact comments keep being made that make it appear as if every thread created by a guy is rampant with Red Pill pushing, as if this is part of some initiation when a guy joins TAM.


I have actually NEVER seen red pill mentioned, just MMSLP. When I asked if that author referred to the red pill in a supportive way, no one answered. The ONLY person I have ever seen mention red pill in an OP is FW.


----------



## always_alone

NobodySpecial said:


> ..." and of course want to be "fvcked like we are rented.""


That was a direct quote from MMSL, and the basic jist of it was just advocated by one poster a couple of pages back. 

Maybe this is descriptive of some women's desires, but as long as it's painted as what women want, even if they don't know it, I will likely speak out.

And I fail to see how challenging "science" or stereotypes is nothing but aiming vitriol at men. :scratchhead:


----------



## Lila

NobodySpecial said:


> I have actually NEVER seen red pill mentioned, just MMSLP. When I asked if that author referred to the red pill in a supportive way, no one answered. The ONLY person I have ever seen mention red pill in an OP is FW.


The author mentions Red Pill in the Acknowledgements of the book, specifically the 'Manosphere'. From the Acknowledgements section of the book:



> "The Manosphere - The collection of bloggers, Pickup Artists, commenters and Men's Rights writers on the Internet. I've ransacked the Manosphere for many ideas. Roissy was particularly helpful in framing the benefits of the Alpha approach."


----------



## NobodySpecial

Lila said:


> The author mentions Red Pill in the Acknowledgements of the book, specifically the 'Manosphere'. From the Acknowledgements section of the book:
> 
> ​


Thank you.


----------



## Brigit

NobodySpecial said:


> What I object to is the vitriol cast at the gentlemen who had the utter audacity to read a book and find nuggets of usefulness in it. That's all.


I have another book you might like:

Self Help: Your Complete Book of Bad Advice for Every Situation in Life Paperback – April 12, 2010

Self Help: Your Complete Book of Bad Advice for Every Situation in Life: Quentin Smeltzer: 9781432753146: Amazon.com: Books


----------



## Tubbalard

Blossom Leigh said:


> Well.. could be the outlier here
> 
> Have never been labeled a geek or nerd
> I'm extroverted
> I'm not a feminist
> Nor a computer nerd
> never overlooked until you
> 
> so... hmmm... what am I...
> 
> Extroverted Christian Non Feminist Empath... who believes in preserving the dignity of both genders and supporting ethical engagement even during contention if possible


Lol...Eh, Im not so sure you're an outlier...possibly a choir or theatre geek. Lmao..but who knows?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

NobodySpecial said:


> I have actually NEVER seen red pill mentioned, just MMSLP. When I asked if that author referred to the red pill in a supportive way, no one answered. The ONLY person I have ever seen mention red pill in an OP is FW.


Are you asking if Athol Kay referred to the red pill advice in a supportive way? Yes, MMSL is entirely based on red pill advice (except the general self help parts that could come from any books). Red pill advice includes:

*negging

*dread game

*preselection

*learning that all women are hypergamous wh*res and what this means to men (ie: women can never love unconditionally, we just want a bigger better deal)

*understanding that alpha males have to top of their women with sperm every day due to "sperm wars" and the fact that EVERY woman is just waiting for you to look the other way so she can cheat on you...you poor betas will ultimately be raising an alpha male's child, of course.


ALL of this is in MMSL (plus much more), ALL of it comes from red pill and PUA crap originally (none of it was the author's original idea), and ALL of it supposedly is backed up by SCIENCE!!! 

Even though when you ask for proof of this science, there isn't any.

Nobody Special....I get it, you think I'm just cherry picking and these "poor guys" are getting railed at. 

I'm sorry you feel that way, but you get to feel however you want...as do I.

I'm so happy that a bunch of guys who were originally on this thread taking shots at me and my message have actually turned around and started agreeing with me, especially on topics such as the fact that INTIMACY is actually what is missing in the red pill schtick and is why those methods will not actually create long lasting attraction.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Yes be sure to check out Roissy, aka Heartiste. This is one of the nicer posts of his:

https://heartiste.wordpress.com/the-sixteen-commandments-of-poon/


----------



## Faithful Wife

Another lovely post from the man who Athol Kay took his lead:

https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2008/12/29/its-easy-to-identify-a-****/

A nice excerpt:

Women seem to think that men are too thickheaded and inattentive to identify which of them are c*ckgobbling c*mguzzling sl*ts. Or they prefer to believe their sly poses of innocence and white lies are good enough to keep men in the dark about their sexual histories. They would be wrong. The dirty little secret is out: Men have finely tuned straydar for sl*tty women because they are the ones more likely to cheat. Women lie more about their sexual pasts to men and to themselves, or otherwise expend great effort covering it up, because they know that men will downgrade them as potential long term mates if their sl*ttiness were revealed in all its jizz-spackled bukkaked glory.

(end quote)

And this really is what the red pill crap is all about. It always comes back to how women are all sl*ts and how men need to keep them in their place, "or else".


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Tubbalard said:


> Lol...Eh, Im not so sure you're an outlier...possibly a choir or theatre geek. Lmao..but who knows?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Nope... soloist


----------



## Brigit

How many men here followed AK's advice on "taking wife off her pedestal?"

I'm very curious as how one goes about doing this.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Faithful Wife said:


> I'm so happy that a bunch of guys who were originally on this thread taking shots at me and my message have actually turned around and started agreeing with me, especially on topics such as the fact that INTIMACY is actually what is missing in the red pill schtick and is why those methods will not actually create long lasting attraction.


This is why I think beating the dead horse of focusing on Athol is counter productive by now. I'm glad there was finally some empathy coming from the women yesterday regarding how the guys were feeling. They started opening up more, but its starting to shut back down now and the case about Ahtols quotes has been made. I would keep shifting this thread to alternatives when possible. Attempt to stay on that track. I think it will take you directing it there. 

If it can't stay on that track I will probably shift over to the "positives" thread that Anon1111 started so that the thoughts forward are not pulled backwards by all the fighting.

This has been a great effort FW. You are to be commended.


----------



## Tubbalard

Faithful Wife said:


> Another lovely post from the man who Athol Kay took his lead:
> 
> https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2008/12/29/its-easy-to-identify-a-****/
> 
> A nice excerpt:
> 
> Women seem to think that men are too thickheaded and inattentive to identify which of them are c*ckgobbling c*mguzzling sl*ts. Or they prefer to believe their sly poses of innocence and white lies are good enough to keep men in the dark about their sexual histories. They would be wrong. The dirty little secret is out: Men have finely tuned straydar for sl*tty women because they are the ones more likely to cheat. Women lie more about their sexual pasts to men and to themselves, or otherwise expend great effort covering it up, because they know that men will downgrade them as potential long term mates if their sl*ttiness were revealed in all its jizz-spackled bukkaked glory.
> 
> (end quote)
> 
> And this really is what the red pill crap is all about. It always comes back to how women are all sl*ts and how men need to keep them in their place, "or else".


That's just regular talk among men. Even among women too. The appeal is to the guys that couldn't tell the difference.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## naiveonedave

Brigit said:


> How many men here followed AK's advice on "taking wife off her pedestal?"
> 
> I'm very curious as how one goes about doing this.


you start to look for warts (figuratively). When I did this, I started to see how she really treated me and the kids. She isn't perfect. This gave me some ammunition to stand up for myself.

It really was pretty simple, when I realized I was probably doing the pedestal worship thing.....


----------



## Blossom Leigh

naiveonedave said:


> you start to look for warts (figuratively). When I did this, I started to see how she really treated and the kids. She isn't perfect. This gave me some ammunition to stand up for myself.
> 
> It really was pretty simple, when I realized I was probably doing the pedestal worship thing.....


I had to do the same thing with my H eventually and call his behavior for what it was, but I didn't have to degrade him to do that. You probably didn't either. Its just readjusting to an accurate view instead of a level of denial.


----------



## Faithful Wife

That's fine, Blossom. And I'm really glad Anon opened that thread.

But I am not really on the "track" you are on nor what anyone else is on, necessarily. I'm accomplishing a lot on this thread. I don't mind the divisive stuff because these things need to be said out in the open. This thread has given people the opportunity to speak out about things....for a long time women would try to speak out against red pill advice here, and we would get harassed relentlessly until we backed down.

This time, we did get harassed but did not back down...and we are now on the other side with the understanding of a lot of men who before weren't able to hear us. A lot of them now are able to hear us.

I actually feel this thread came to a very good place. We are never going to gain empathy from everyone since some topics are too painful on either side to feel the pain of the other side.

For the record however, I have never felt that a man should be ridiculed for wanting help...and anyone who is trying to paint me that way can try as many times as they want to, but since that isn't my goal or my message, it is just a jab at me for no reason.


----------



## TiggyBlue

It's also on Athol Kay's site about taking the red pill.

What is the Red Pill? | Athol Kay's Married Man Sex Life


----------



## Tubbalard

Brigit said:


> How many men here followed AK's advice on "taking wife off her pedestal?"
> 
> I'm very curious as how one goes about doing this.


Never read an AK book but it's always been taught among men to not put women on a pedastal and to keep your woman in check. Ak took what he heard from regular guy talk and formed it into a language that appeals to his demographic. Nothing new under the sun. As for taking a wife off the pedastal that's just good solid everyday advice for the struggling nice guy. Basic common sense.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Buddy400

always_alone said:


> And I fail to see how challenging "science" or stereotypes is nothing but aiming vitriol at men. :scratchhead:


The problem with "science" is that we could convene a conference full of people with PhD's that have devoted their lives to study on this topic and we still wouldn't have a consensus.

Stereotypes, in some form, have to be used since we can't address every problem for each individual within the confines of only their unique circumstances. Generalizations are needed to even pretend to talk about anything. Sure, Mugsy Bogues was a fine NBA player at 5'3", but deciding that height is unrelated to success in the NBA because of this would be a mistake. Lots of women could beat the crap outta me, but I don't think we want to start questioning whether or not women, in general, are in more danger of physical abuse at the hands of their spouses. 

Now, can we disagree as to whether some stereotypes are true or false? Sure, but we can't just forgo them entirely.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> So we've been talking about how to reach those guys who are already pissed off, but without telling them they should hate all those hypergamous wh*res.


Your book is doomed to fail if you fail to realize that "angry guys" is only a subset of the target audience.

I was not remotely angry. The vast majority of the seduction community is not angry. The angry guys are those who haven't reconciled that what they were taught/told women respond to, isn't what women actually respond to. In spite of all the tips and tactics and whether they work for them or not, they still hold the false blueprint - they're mad that women aren't what they think women "should be". Which is to say, they think women don't like them because they're too nice... and women should like nice guys. They haven't properly differentiated nice guy and all the false qualities they associate with it, from the bad guy and all the false qualities they associate with it. If the tips work, it's just revenge for those guys - ergo, I'm going screw you with no regard because you (representation) ignored me when I was nice, so you don't deserve sh*t. These men still haven't gotten the whole picture, and most of them are very young.

This is not the majority of the community, with or without derisive words any more than locker room brags are hateful of women. There's plenty of other reasons that guy might have, including just not giving a damn. These are separate concerns.

The vast majority of the community is not angry. Whatever women are, or what women respond to is all good, and they just want to know what it usually is so they can get the woman or women they want. It wouldn't be such a thing if it didn't work, so whether you realize it or not, women are getting what they want when men apply these tips.

If the sweet guy, selfless guy with no game was appealing, these communities and books wouldn't exist. I know for certain I wasn't angry. I just realized the map I had wasn't getting me where I wanted to go, so I found a map that did. Amazingly enough, I've never called a woman a sl*t in any manner other than tongue in cheek irreverence in teasing humor. The word doesn't have much meaning for me, nor the majority of the community, other than to say women are sexual and will have sex. I personally don't care how much, how many people or with whom a woman has sex. You could post up in any of those forums and say "men are sl*ts" and nobody would care. "And the sky is blue."

So what is a sl*t? In books, it's usually used to convey female interest in sex, or desensitize men. To me, the word is nothing more than a joke in the face of hypocrisy: That women will so often say "no hookups" and "you're not getting laid on the first date"... and still do it anyway. The community opinion is that women aren't really saying "I don't give it up on the first date" to inform the man of anything or even deny sex. They're saying it to alleviate their own sense that he has some expectation of her. In my experience, and that of the community, it's meaningless and we ignore it. I've yet to hear it and not get laid anyway. It's more her way of saying "no guarantees". Which is like... duh. -So there's a jest about such behavior (and its REALLY REALLY common behavior if my experience is any evidence). She was seemingly very concerned about not being thought a sl*t or denying sex upfront, yet slept with me anyway. So I might tease her about it. A sort of teasing that says, "wow, you're a sl*t and I like you anyway. See how that sh*t doesn't matter?" It's a message guys in the community hear often: do what you want to do, and stop caring so much about other people's judgment. Do what you want.

I get it, women here really think it's insulting women for behaving sexually. I don't. It's a c*cky irreverent way of make fun of hypocritical/dissonant behavior - a tease. The guys who would use the word "sl*t" in its pure 1950s chastity insulting sense are the wholesome types who really think it's wrong of a woman to sleep around - traditional "good guys". Personally, I don't see any reason why anyone, male or female shouldn't sleep with whoever they will, whenever they will. In fact, groups of women even tease each other with the word. "You went to his place last night didn't you!?" ... "maybe..." ... "You sl*t!" *laughs all around* I've been present to dozen of these conversations, and if you've been amongst the club going crowd FW, you know you have too.

I'm sure none of this will resonate with women here, but it's clear as day to me that what you think it is, isn't what most in these communities think it is. There will never be progress on this subject because we can't even agree on basic definitions. You really think men are insulting the women they want to sleep with or have slept with.


----------



## naiveonedave

Tubbalard said:


> Never read an AK book *but it's always been taught among men to not put women on a pedastal and to keep your woman in check*. Ak took what he heard from regular guy talk and formed it into a language that appeals to his demographic. Nothing new under the sun. As for taking a wife off the pedastal that's just good solid everyday advice for the struggling nice guy. Basic common sense.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Unless, of course, you weren't taught this as a kid.... I take exception to what is highlighted, because I don't think this is universal.


----------



## Faithful Wife

So again....if there was a book for women talking about how it is a scientific proven fact that men are worthless and lazy and that women need to game them to get what they want....wouldn't someone say "hey can you please show me how this is actually science?" instead of just handing it out and saying "hey look it SAYS this is SCIENCE, therefore we now have biological reasons to think men are worthless and lazy!" 

Again...I wouldn't have one word to say against MMSL if the author claimed it was entirely his opinion based on observation. But no, he and other red pill authors claim SCIENCE on this crap. That is what I object to. And so far, not once shred of reliable evidence has been provided for preselection, hypergamy, sperm wars, or any of the rest of it as far as human mating.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Ok so.....people who think FW is full of crap and/or just trying to stir up gender war....

Dvls

Nobody Special


Got it. Thank you. Your message has been duly noted. You think I'm off on some tangent. Check. I have heard you.

So....unless you have something else to talk to me about, I don't see the point in addressing me. I did hear you both. I am not going to take shots back at you. Therefore, if you want to continue to take jabs at me, I don't see why you feel the need to do that. I get it, you think I'm full of crap and/or "don't get it". You have been heard. What else do you think I need to hear from you?

Again, I HAVE HEARD YOU. If your only point in addressing me is to continue to tell me you don't like what I have to say....I HEARD YOU ALL THE OTHER TIMES YOU SAID IT.


----------



## Brigit

Tubbalard said:


> Never read an AK book but it's always been taught among men to not put women on a pedastal and to keep your woman in check. Ak took what he heard from regular guy talk and formed it into a language that appeals to his demographic. Nothing new under the sun. As for taking a wife off the pedastal that's just good solid everyday advice for the struggling nice guy. Basic common sense.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Here's the funny thing. When my husband puts me on a pedestal it makes me feel good, amazing and happy. When he cooks me dinner and brings me my meal or brings me a glass of wine when I'm in the shower. When he does these things I feel much more giving, kind and generous. 

When he treats me like a Queen I WANT to treat him like a King. When he yells at me or ignores my feelings I want to shoot him.

(I know it sounds like I'm joking but it's true. Those are my real feelings.)


----------



## NobodySpecial

Brigit said:


> Here's the funny thing. When my husband puts me on a pedestal it makes me feel good, amazing. When I feel like that I'm much more giving, kind and generous.
> 
> When he treats me like a Queen I WANT to treat him like a King. When he yells at me or ignores my feelings I want to shoot him.


Being nice and good to someone (the opposite of yelling) does not necessarily equate to a pedestal. Pedestal means someone whose **** does not stink. And that is not good for anyone IMO.


----------



## Julius Beastcavern

Faithful Wife said:


> Ok so.....people who think FW is full of crap and/or just trying to stir up gender war....
> 
> Dvls
> 
> Nobody Special
> 
> 
> Got it. Thank you. Your message has been duly noted. You think I'm off on some tangent. Check. I have heard you.
> 
> So....unless you have something else to talk to me about, I don't see the point in addressing me. I did hear you both. I am not going to take shots back at you. Therefore, if you want to continue to take jabs at me, I don't see why you feel the need to do that. I get it, you think I'm full of crap and/or "don't get it". You have been heard. What else do you think I need to hear from you?
> 
> Again, I HAVE HEARD YOU. If your only point in addressing me is to continue to tell me you don't like what I have to say....I HEARD YOU ALL THE OTHER TIMES YOU SAID IT.


I think they are trying to explain to you WHY they don't agree, shutting down the debate doesn't do anyone any good


----------



## Faithful Wife

Julius Beastcavern said:


> I think they are trying to explain to you WHY they don't agree, shutting down the debate doesn't do anyone any good


I understand why they don't agree and they are free to say so, and they have.

Addressing me in particular is no longer needed, however. They can disagree with my position without expecting me to engage with them.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Julius Beastcavern said:


> I think they are trying to explain to you WHY they don't agree, shutting down the debate doesn't do anyone any good


I cannot see how I can be jabbing at someone in my ignore list. I would not have even seen her post except for your quote. But then anything short of adoration for her is seen as jabs. God forbid one has an opinion other than hers, it causes such offense!


----------



## Brigit

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Your book is doomed to fail if you fail to realize that "angry guys" is only a subset of the target audience.
> 
> I That women will so often say "no hookups" and "you're not getting laid on the first date"... and still do it anyway. The community opinion is that women aren't really saying "I don't give it up on the first date" to inform the man of anything or even deny sex. They're saying it to alleviate their own sense that he has some expectation of her. In my experience, and that of the community, it's meaningless and we ignore it. I've yet to hear it and not get laid anyway.


I don't think FW is writing a book about how the 20-something crowd fu*ks which is what you're describing. 

Her book is for the mature married man who wants a step-by-step approach to getting his marriage back on track. You have no idea how a book like that will do. Your goal is to go to bars/clubs/online dating and have sex with as many attractive younger woman as you can. The book isn't for you.


----------



## Faithful Wife

NobodySpecial said:


> I cannot see how I can be jabbing at someone in my ignore list. I would not have even seen her post except for your quote. But then anything short of adoration for her is seen as jabs. God forbid one has an opinion other than hers, it causes such offense!


So you have me on ignore but you still have to drop by here to make jabs at me. Nice.

That's ok. I will not do the same to you, but you can still pretend you are a better person than me if you wish. Meanwhile, I will not be following you around to disagree with you on your threads or try to make you look silly. Because I actually DO believe you are entitled to your opinion, even if your opinion is that I'm just a pot stirring weirdo or whatever you think. 

You can't please everyone, and I don't try to. 

But one thing I won't do is harass people by trying to tear them down on a personal basis just because I don't agree with their message.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Brigit said:


> I don't think FW is writing a book about how the 20-something crowd fu*ks which is what you're describing.
> 
> Her book is for the mature married man who wants a step-by-step approach to getting his marriage back on track. You have no idea how a book like that will do. Your goal is to go to bars/clubs/online dating and have sex with as many attractive younger woman as you can. The book isn't for you.


Again, there is nothing I could do "right" from Dvls's perspective, so please don't bother trying to defend me there.


----------



## Bugged

**** that! I put my partner on a pedestal, he's the best man I know.Cynicism stinks.


----------



## Brigit

Faithful Wife said:


> Again, there is nothing I could do "right" from Dvls's perspective, so please don't bother trying to defend me there.



It's no bother.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Mine is on one, too. Oh wait, no....he's just really tall.


----------



## Thundarr

Brigit said:


> Here's the funny thing. When my husband puts me on a pedestal it makes me feel good, amazing and happy. When he cooks me dinner and brings me my meal or brings me a glass of wine when I'm in the shower. When he does these things I feel much more giving, kind and generous.
> 
> When he treats me like a Queen I WANT to treat him like a King. When he yells at me or ignores my feelings I want to shoot him.
> 
> (I know it sounds like I'm joking but it's true. Those are my real feelings.)


I don't think that's exactly the meaning behind 'putting someone on a pedestal'. It's usually labelling a bad dynamic where one partner sees the other as perfect and can't really see who they are therefore don't really hold them accountable. It would seem frustrating for the partner hoisted upon the pedestal as well.

What you describe sounds more like respect and appreciation and being with someone who thinks your awesome (except for when your not  ).


----------



## Faithful Wife

Brigit said:


> It's no bother.


Just realize that by addressing those direct jabs, it just promotes more jabs.


----------



## Faithful Wife

NobodySpecial said:


> ^^ As it relates to empathy, my empathy goes out to the guys who regularly getting beaten up on this topic. I feel strongly that they should be commended for doing what was necessary to improve their marriage. So many people would just bail. Being half guy myself, the proof winds up in the pudding. We have 4 men, solid citizens, who changed their lives around. *They have to listen to women freaking out over what they don't even understand*. While men may "think differently" they darned well better not speak that way!
> 
> I am glad for them and think that at least one of them has been more than patient in explaining his PoV.TO him I say, you go man.


Yeah, sure...this wasn't a jab.

And it is coming from someone who hasn't even read the book, yet "women are freaking out over what they don't even understand!" Oh, the horrible horrible women who don't understand. So says the woman who DOES understand? The one who hasn't read it?

But this was in no way a jab, no, of course not.


----------



## farsidejunky

Brigit said:


> How many men here followed AK's advice on "taking wife off her pedestal?"
> 
> I'm very curious as how one goes about doing this.


I did.

It starts by learning how to tell her "no", something that I allowed misplaced guilt to trap me into.


----------



## Brigit

Thundarr said:


> What you describe sounds like respectful admiration of each other. I don't think that's exactly the meaning behind 'putting someone on a pedestal'. It's usually labelling a bad dynamic where one partner sees the other as perfect and can't really see who they are therefore don't really hold them accountable. It would seem frustrating for the partner hoisted upon the pedestal as well.


IDK Thundarr. My husband over-looks my faults. TBH I'm not an easy woman to deal with but he deals and that touches my heart. I can be very demanding and a downright hard-core bit*h. But I have insight into my behavior and I *want* to be better. People are complex and situations can get messy. 

You cannot bully someone into being a different person. In the long run it won't work.


----------



## Brigit

farsidejunky said:


> I did.
> 
> It starts by learning how to tell her "no", something that I allowed misplaced guilt to trap me into.


Was it a "no" to something that was reasonable?


----------



## farsidejunky

Brigit said:


> Was it a "no" to something that was reasonable?


Reasonable to whom?

When I said "yes" to the 4th dog, the 3rd horse, a truck that we couldnt really afford, or wanting to spend tons of dollars for those and others? Nope.

The 5th dog, which she adopted without my permission, set into motion our recovery because I snapped.

Why? In large part, I learned that what I want and need is just as important. But wait, happy wife=happy life, right? Not quite...

And the truly funny thing? She actually respects me because she knows she I will not allow her to walk over me.

And the thing that really opened my eyes? She likes it when I treat her like my personal **** in the bedroom.

None of that has come without emotional intimacy, which you will see me consistently advocate for in nearly any thread I post in. As a matter of fact, other than this one, the only threads I really post in are ones where men are seeking emotional intimacy that has been lost. Anon is a prime example.

So you tell me: Was I being unreasonable?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> And this really is what the red pill crap is all about. It always comes back to how women are all sl*ts and how men need to keep them in their place, "or else".


I don't find that passage particularly representative of the community at large. Do some men think a woman with casual sexuality is more prone to cheat? Sure. I bet many do. Just as many if not more in the community don't.

How does it keep women in their place other than to say that those men don't want such women for relationships? Those men are free to choose women with whatever sexual standards they will no? If those men have casual sexual attitudes reserved for their own behavior, then they're undoubtedly hypocrites.


----------



## Thundarr

Brigit said:


> IDK Thundarr. My husband over-looks my faults. TBH I'm not an easy woman to deal with but he deals and that touches my heart. I can be very demanding and a downright hard-core bit*h. But I have insight into my behavior and I *want* to be better. People are complex and situations can get messy.
> 
> You cannot bully someone into being a different person. In the long run it won't work.


hard-core bit*h . I was just pointing what I think people mean when using the phrase as a negative thing. Their context doesn't conflict with me thinking my wife is awesome. Pedestal I think has more to do with some guys (or girls) who just flat out don't have self esteem or are afraid and would prefer not to deal with issues when they should. Things like not being treated with respect. After all no one is perfect so even our awesome spouses can be ugly to us once in a while. And then we say you just did X. Don't do X. That wasn't nice and I don't like it.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> the fact that INTIMACY is actually what is missing in the red pill schtick and is why those methods will not actually create long lasting attraction.


Intimacy is definitely separate from the strategies suggested, but not exclusive. In fact, I'd argue that real intimacy is only possible when a man is his full self, versus the reduced, unassertive, catering, conflict avoiding, worshipping version.

How and whether a man succeeds at building intimacy after re-balancing the relationship is left an open question. RP and MMSL etc, only deal with a woman's inexplicable withdrawal. I think intimacy follows more intuitively, or rather, better fits what women say than attraction. Still, I think the later comes first. You don't worry about what you don't have "lasting". You have to have it first.


----------



## Idyit

Brigit said:


> How many men here followed AK's advice on "taking wife off her pedestal?"
> 
> I'm very curious as how one goes about doing this.


I'll play. We married and had 3 children within the first five years of marriage. I worked to build a career and take care of my family. Progressively, her needs and that of the family eclipsed mine. This grew to a point of diminishing returns where my wants and desires were all but ignored.

The triggering event was her EA with a single man. I tried to be a good man, listened to what she said and tried to respond to her accordingly. In addition to whatever I could bring to the table she felt that it was acceptable to have a male 'friend'. 

The pedestal that I placed her on was one of neglecting myself. She did not belong there and won't be so again. I love my wife and we are in a very different relationship now. For me this was not an act of lowering her. It was a conscious series of actions to regain myself.

~ Passio


----------



## Faithful Wife

Idyit....is there anything you could have read BEFORE she had an EA that would have woken you up to whatever you needed to learn? (In hindsight, I mean).


----------



## Thundarr

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I'd argue that real intimacy is only possible when a man is his full self, *versus the reduced, unassertive, catering, conflict avoiding, worshipping version.*


Ah there's the proper context of what is normally meant by pedestal.


----------



## notmyrealname4

Faithful Wife said:


> Also...I have to say....something I never see at TAM is the idea of *the Power of C*ck.*
> 
> . . .and is understood as the *very powerful thing it actually is*.
> 
> At TAM, I don't see any men or women saying it nor does anyone even imply it.
> 
> Myself, I'm quite influenced by the Power of C*ck ..........do any of you other ladies even know what I'm talking about?


*Yes*, Faithful.

And thank-you so much for posting this. Because sometimes I feel like I'm stranded on a remote island for feeling this way.

[I know this post of yours was a bazillion pages ago, but I couldn't let it go by without responding]


----------



## Faithful Wife

Oh good, intheory...that's one of my favorite subjects so, please do resurrect it!


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> So again....if there was a book for women talking about how it is a scientific proven fact that men are worthless and lazy and that women need to game them to get what they want....wouldn't someone say "hey can you please show me how this is actually science?" instead of just handing it out and saying "hey look it SAYS this is SCIENCE, therefore we now have biological reasons to think men are worthless and lazy!"


On the lazy question, you could probably say that. Even in dual income households, the women tend to have the majority of the household and childcare related work according to surveys.

So men are largely lazy.

Worthless is too vague. 



Faithful Wife said:


> Again...I wouldn't have one word to say against MMSL if the author claimed it was entirely his opinion based on observation. But no, he and other red pill authors claim SCIENCE on this crap. That is what I object to. And so far, not once shred of reliable evidence has been provided for preselection, hypergamy, sperm wars, or any of the rest of it as far as human mating.


No, you just aren't convinced by the available scientific thought, because there is plenty. 

For example, the shape of the penis is shown to have a plunger effect during intercourse. It actually draws fluid OUT of the vagina. Kind of a strange thing to evolve absent a mating advantage. We can say our ancestral females preferred an arbitrary shape that just happens to do this, or we can infer that it evolved because of its advantage in preventing fertilization by a recent sexual encounter with another male - an indication our ancestors may have been wildly promiscuous and "sperm wars" a thing. The near universal behavior of masturbation in men is also explained by masturbators having greater supply of young, more motile sperm in their ejaculate - a clear advantage to masturbation. There is substantial conflicting evidence on "sperm wars", but conflicting studies are not "lack of evidence".

For hypergamy, again your problem isn't a dearth of evidence but rather that you are not convinced by it. There are plenty of studies that support hypergamy, and several competing explanations. Again, a conflict is not lack of support. There is support. How convincing it is versus evidence against it, comes down to one's own judgment and ongoing study.

Same for pre-selection. Pre-selection may have a lot of support, as it appears to be more than a mating behavior and somewhat of a herd behavior. There is enormous evidence that we make many decisions based on the decisions of our peers - all the way down to many of the very things we think we want. Many of the things we want, we want only because other people picked them. Plus, there have been studies that show a male rated more highly when presented in context of highly rated females.

So please, stop claiming a lack of evidence. There's a lot of evidence. Just not enough for you. Maybe not very conclusive... perhaps many open questions remain and conflicts to resolve. MMSL isn't a science paper. It's one man's wrapping all of those things into a coherent narrative that is useful even if its evidence is preliminary/contentious on some fronts.


----------



## Bugged

I might be old fashioned but a husband saying he treats his wife ad his personal **** is outrageous...something's off


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> On name calling, one should recognize that ideas of how people should be treated are extremely deeply held. So a guy who idolizes women isn't likely to change at all, much less at the push of soft words. Notice how soldiers and marines get past the natural human tendency to be repulsed at the thought of actually killing another human being? They do so by bringing down the opponent, in their case to something subhuman. They're Iraqi "savages", *********, gooks, etc. So it has been and so it will be in each and every war ever fought and we can whine about it, but in the end the soldier uses it to turn a human he can't kill into a subhuman he can.


An apt analogy that nicely demonstrates all that is wrong with MMSL, including the attitudes it fosters and the resulting damage to both parties.


----------



## NobodySpecial

My son was reading over my shoulder. "What's the red pill, Mom? Does it have to do with The Matrix?" Short discussion followed. His question "I don't get it. Why would you want to get laid if you hate women?" (I spoke to the non-hating reforming Nice Guys as well.) I just thought that was really interesting. When I made a comment about women being bad guys because they would not go out with the guy, he said, well that's dumb. She has a right to go out with whomever she chooses.

Hot damn I love that kid!


----------



## Faithful Wife

NobodySpecial said:


> My son was reading over my shoulder. "What's the red pill, Mom? Does it have to do with The Matrix?" Short discussion followed. His question "I don't get it. Why would you want to get laid if you hate women?" (I spoke to the non-hating reforming Nice Guys as well.) I just thought that was really interesting. When I made a comment about women being bad guys because they would not go out with the guy, he said, well that's dumb. She has a right to go out with whomever she chooses.
> 
> Hot damn I love that kid!


So funny as this is not what red pill advocates. It actually advocates entitlement to nice guys, after they have alphaed up and followed the red pill rules, of course. It also advocates pushing women for sex and learning how to over ride last minute resistance.

But of course, your post isn't a jab or anything. 

You just need to prove you "get it", and we "don't get it"....even though neither you nor your son has read the book. Sure, you "get it".


----------



## NobodySpecial

Faithful Wife said:


> So funny as this is not what red pill advocates. It actually advocates entitlement to nice guys, after they have alphaed up and followed the red pill rules, of course. It also advocates pushing women for sex and learning how to over ride last minute resistance.
> 
> But of course, your post isn't a jab or anything.
> 
> You just need to prove you "get it", and we "don't get it"....even though neither you nor your son has read the book. Sure, you "get it".


I actually did tell him what the red pill advocates or at least some of their proponents. He thought it was dumb. I'll take that as a win. I'd be curious if you could define what "feminism" "advocates". There is quite an interesting range. But I bet you know what you think it means for all people over all time.

I spend so little time thinking of you, I could not muster the energy to "jab" you. Your head is big enough without my effort.


----------



## Faithful Wife

NobodySpecial said:


> I actually did tell him what the red pill advocates or at least some of their proponents. He thought it was dumb. I'll take that as a win. I'd be curious if you could define what "feminism" "advocates". There is quite an interesting range. But I bet you know what you think it means for all people over all time.
> 
> I spend so little time thinking of you, I could not muster the energy to "jab" you. Your head is big enough without my effort.


Since I'm not a feminist, I really don't what "feminism advocates".

Thank you for stopping by to take more jabs at me, and do remember that I will not be doing the same to you.


----------



## always_alone

Buddy400 said:


> The problem with "science" is that we could convene a conference full of people with PhD's that have devoted their lives to study on this topic and we still wouldn't have a consensus.


Consensus among scientists is actually quite easy to achieve. You don't see anyone disputing Newton's laws do you? And when Einstein came along with his relativity theory, which did show exactly the flaw in those laws, scientists were quick to realize where the issues lay, and simply amended Newton's laws by noting that they only apply in certain contexts.

The reason that there is no consensus in the "science" of attraction is because a lot of it is just ad hoc speculation that the data does not support.

Generalizations can be useful, but they can also be quite harmful, particularly when they are utterly false.


----------



## NobodySpecial

always_alone said:


> Consensus among scientists is actually quite easy to achieve. You don't see anyone disputing Newton's laws do you? And when Einstein came along with his relativity theory, which did show exactly the flaw in those laws, scientists were quick to realize where the issues lay, and simply amended Newton's laws by noting that they only apply in certain contexts.


I am not disagreeing with you. It is just your post that brought the thought into my mind. 

Consensus is not the goal of science. So when consensus is achieved, it is a testament to the scientific method working.

Your post reminds me of the Tim Minchin skit Storm.

"Science adjusts it's beliefs based on what's observed
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved.
If you show me
That, say, homeopathy works,
Then I will change my mind
I'll spin on a ****ing dime
I'll be embarrassed as hell,
But I will run through the streets yelling
It's a miracle! Take physics and bin it!
Water has memory!
And while it's memory of a long lost drop of onion juice is Infinite
It somehow forgets all the poo it's had in it!"


----------



## Brigit

farsidejunky said:


> Reasonable to whom?
> 
> When I said "yes" to the 4th dog, the 3rd horse, a truck that we couldnt really afford, or wanting to spend tons of dollars for those and others? Nope.
> 
> The 5th dog, which she adopted without my permission, set into motion our recovery because I snapped.
> 
> Why? In large part, I learned that what I want and need is just as important. But wait, happy wife=happy life, right? Not quite...
> 
> And the truly funny thing? She actually respects me because she knows she I will not allow her to walk over me.
> 
> And the thing that really opened my eyes? She likes it when I treat her like my personal **** in the bedroom.
> 
> None of that has come without emotional intimacy, which you will see me consistently advocate for in nearly any thread I post in. As a matter of fact, other than this one, the only threads I really post in are ones where men are seeking emotional intimacy that has been lost. Anon is a prime example.
> 
> So you tell me: Was I being unreasonable?


Pets are like children and both people need to agree upon bringing home a new member to the family. Also, four dogs is a lot of dogs which come with a lot of vet bills. A fifth dog is too much.

So you were in the right on that issue.


----------



## Faithful Wife

“Feminism is a sexual strategy”: Inside the angry online men’s rights group “Red Pill” - Salon.com

I'm not a feminist, but I would ask one directly if they felt the red pill guys have feminism correct or not. Maybe read this article and see if it jives right with the feminist crowd.

Is feminism a sexual strategy? :scratchhead:


----------



## Brigit

Thundarr said:


> Ah there's the proper context of what is normally meant by pedestal.


Pedestal=catering & conflict avoiding

I think my husband puts me on a pedestal he does let me get my way a lot. 

(I got a cool husband  )


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Faithful Wife said:


> “Feminism is a sexual strategy”: Inside the angry online men’s rights group “Red Pill” - Salon.com
> 
> I'm not a feminist, but I would ask one directly if they felt the red pill guys have feminism correct or not. Maybe read this article and see if it jives right with the feminist crowd.
> 
> Is feminism a sexual strategy? :scratchhead:


I am a feminist. My only strategy is supporting equal rights and opportunities for those rights for women if they choose them. No more, no less. That's really all there is to it.


----------



## Faithful Wife

farsidejunky said:


> Reasonable to whom?
> 
> When I said "yes" to the 4th dog, the 3rd horse, a truck that we couldnt really afford, or wanting to spend tons of dollars for those and others? Nope.
> 
> The 5th dog, which she adopted without my permission, set into motion our recovery because I snapped.
> 
> Why? In large part, I learned that what I want and need is just as important. *But wait, happy wife=happy life, right? Not quite...*
> 
> And the truly funny thing? She actually respects me because she knows she I will not allow her to walk over me.
> 
> And the thing that really opened my eyes? She likes it when I treat her like my personal **** in the bedroom.
> 
> None of that has come without emotional intimacy, which you will see me consistently advocate for in nearly any thread I post in. As a matter of fact, other than this one, the only threads I really post in are ones where men are seeking emotional intimacy that has been lost. Anon is a prime example.
> 
> So you tell me: Was I being unreasonable?


I guess it all depends on what someone interprets "happy wife, happy life" to mean.

My husband says that himself, I have never told him that one. However, he has never put my happiness above his. I think the way he interpreted it was "if you are only making yourself happy and don't care if your wife is also happy, she's probably going to let you know she isn't happy and disrupt your life".

My point is just that saying things like "happy wife, happy life is wrong and will harm your marriage" isn't really the right direction, either, since not everyone has had blue pill stuffed down their throats and maybe didn't take it to mean they were supposed to subjugate their own needs and desires.


----------



## Faithful Wife

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I am a feminist. My only strategy is supporting equal rights and opportunities for those rights for women if they choose them. No more, no less. That's really all there is to it.


And did you read the article, and do you feel that red pill dudes understand and agree with your position? Because they sure have a lot to say about feminism.


----------



## jld

I consider myself a feminist. To me, if you respect and value women, you are a feminist.

I don't think Red Pill respects and values women. I don't get all the anger. But again, MEM says anger is just a cover for fear and hurt. Addressing that fear and hurt is what is needed for healing.

And I would agree that some people are hurt possibly beyond our ability to repair.


----------



## Thundarr

Brigit said:


> Pedestal=catering & conflict avoiding
> 
> I think my husband puts me on a pedestal he does let me get my way a lot.
> 
> (I got a cool husband  )


You handle it with grace and appreciation so maybe you've earned your pedestal :smthumbup:.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Faithful Wife said:


> And did you read the article, and do you feel that red pill dudes understand and agree with your position? Because they sure have a lot to say about feminism.


I read through most of it, I don't think red pill guys understand feminism at all and just decided to use it as an insult for any woman that doesn't agree with them.


----------



## Idyit

Faithful Wife said:


> Idyit....is there anything you could have read BEFORE she had an EA that would have woken you up to whatever you needed to learn? (In hindsight, I mean).


I don't know. It's funny you asked this because I once asked the same question of a betrayed spouse here. He didn't have a solution either. 

If the question is about whether I could have prevented the EA by doing more or different I'd say no. There were some "man up/180' type things going on prior to the EA that I did on my own. She made her choice to cheat based on pure selfishness and I have a hard time owning any of that.

On the other hand if you're asking me if there were things I could have read to get my act together and more completely, yes. I just wasn't looking for them. The problem is that I thought I was doing the right things by taking care of her and deferring my needs. And truly didn't mind doing these things. It was the lack of return that sucked. 

This is why you will hear men balk at the happy wife happy life thing. 

~ Passio


----------



## NobodySpecial

jld said:


> I consider myself a feminist. To me, if you respect and value women, you are a feminist.
> 
> I don't think Red Pill respects and values women. I don't get all the anger. But again, MEM says anger is just a cover for fear and hurt. Addressing that fear and hurt is what is needed for healing.
> 
> And I would agree that some people are hurt possibly beyond our ability to repair.


My particular lens for looking at this issue is that of mother to a teen aged son. For me, the goal is to help him grow such that other people have only the power to hurt that he allows. If he is strong enough in himself, the hurt of disappointment is hopefully transitory.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Idyit said:


> I don't know. It's funny you asked this because I once asked the same question of a betrayed spouse here. He didn't have a solution either.
> 
> If the question is about whether I could have prevented the EA by doing more or different I'd say no. There were some "man up/180' type things going on prior to the EA that I did on my own. She made her choice to cheat based on pure selfishness and I have a hard time owning any of that.
> 
> On the other hand if you're asking me if there were things I could have read to get my act together and more completely, yes. I just wasn't looking for them. The problem is that I thought I was doing the right things by taking care of her and deferring my needs. And truly didn't mind doing these things. It was the lack of return that sucked.
> 
> This is why you will hear men balk at the happy wife happy life thing.
> 
> ~ Passio


Well, actually I asked because you said her EA was the wake up call (did I read that correctly?) so I thought maybe you were implying she had an EA because of something you later learned that might have prevented it. I agree with you though, it is on her no matter what you did or didn't do....I was just asking based on your last post.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Would anyone here who has read red pill stuff say that they feel the message within is to "respect and value women"?


----------



## jld

Faithful Wife said:


> Would anyone here who has read red pill stuff say that they feel the message within is to "respect and value women"?


Nope.


----------



## Idyit

Faithful Wife said:


> Well, actually I asked because you said her EA was the wake up call (did I read that correctly?) so I thought maybe you were implying she had an EA because of something you later learned that might have prevented it. I agree with you though, it is on her no matter what you did or didn't do....I was just asking based on your last post.


I'd say I woke up prior to the EA. Maybe still a little drowsy.

The triggering event as I referred to it was what made the pedestal a blatantly obvious poor choice.

~ Passio


----------



## Faithful Wife

Idyit said:


> I'd say I woke up prior to the EA. Maybe still a little drowsy.
> 
> The triggering event as I referred to it was what made the pedestal a blatantly obvious poor choice.
> 
> ~ Passio


Yes, I see.

Can I ask, if your wife had given you all the love and respect you deserved and had not cheated on you, would you still have her on a pedestal?

Not because I advocate pedestalizing, but just that I think it is quite misunderstood.

As I said in another post, "happy wife, happy life" has never meant to my husband that my needs should come before his.


----------



## Idyit

Faithful Wife said:


> Would anyone here who has read red pill stuff say that they feel the message within is to "respect and value women"?


No. No more than blue pill, feminism, pink power and girl power have a message focused on respecting and valuing men. They are targeted at empowering females. I have no skin in the game with the above and have expended about zero energy pondering them.

The problem I have with the red pill is that it gives no vision for what a relationship between a man and a woman could be. It's like going to a five star restaurant and ordering a cheeseburger.

~ Passio


----------



## Faithful Wife

Idyit said:


> The problem I have with the red pill is that it gives no vision for what a relationship between a man and a woman could be. It's like going to a five star restaurant and ordering a cheeseburger.
> 
> ~ Passio


Sure it does....they say all women need to be dominated, every single one of them. And that the man MUST dominate her, every single one of them. That's what a relationship between a man and woman can be, and _only that_, according to red pill.

I'm just saying that, but I do know what you meant.


----------



## jld

NobodySpecial said:


> My particular lens for looking at this issue is that of mother to a teen aged son. For me, the goal is to help him grow such that other people have only the power to hurt that he allows. If he is strong enough in himself, the hurt of disappointment is hopefully transitory.


I agree with this. It is risky to give our power to other people. We must choose those people wisely.


----------



## Idyit

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes, I see.
> 
> Can I ask, if your wife had given you all the love and respect you deserved and had not cheated on you, would you still have her on a pedestal?
> 
> *No. Because in this case we would be reciprocating and neither would be elevated above the other.*
> 
> Not because I advocate pedestalizing, but just that I think it is quite misunderstood.
> 
> *This seems like a definition issue. What you and Brigit have described is not what I would call a pedestal. I think AK would give a description of the pedestal similar to what my experience was as well.
> 
> Now, do I hold my wife up above every other woman on the planet. Yes. Do I think she's a smart, funny, beautiful, sexy woman, incredible mother to my children, devoted spouse that I would take many bullets for... yes. Maybe that's more in line with what you've described as pedestal.*
> 
> As I said in another post, "happy wife, happy life" has never meant to my husband that my needs should come before his.
> 
> *I heard this and agree. It's a balance issue. When it tips to one side no amount of trying to make her happy will make a happy life.*


~ Passio


----------



## Faithful Wife

I guess a pedestal will always be what each individual decides it is.

I have my hubby on one, but that has never meant to me that he is better than me or that I have to subjugate my needs to meet his. I think it is more of just the pedestal that makes him higher than all other men, in my case. He has me on one, too, in the same way. Neither of us think the other is above having issues or problems, though. We're both very aware that our sh*t stinks.

Can you tell me, did you read books or did someone give you the message that you must put her needs above your own? This is an honest question. Because "blue pill" is really vague and is open to interpretation, I'd like to hear from people where they specifically got these types of messages. Just trying to understand it from the outside.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Women are conditioned to deliberately seek out "provider" when selecting mates, and men are conditioned to see high status women as a threat. This is why we see the results we do.
> 
> you are indifferent to whether it is biological or culturally conditioned.


For the purposes of attraction, it doesn't matter whether is culturally driven or biologically driven. Conditioned or not, the result in mate desirability is the same.

The studies aren't investigating origin.



always_alone said:


> But what you aren't seeing is that attraction is actually very complex. This is not just an issue of availability, it is a function of the fact that we are complex creatures with complex mating habits. These studies show what they do because they are designed in a way to show them, and strip out all other variables that impact on attraction levels.


That is how complex things are studied. You control for other variables. You break it down into understandable elements. Once you understand those elements, you work on the interaction of elements. It isn't a black box of entirely unknowable magic.



always_alone said:


> Imagine for example a study that shows a guy dressed in very attractive clothes, good haircut, good physique. Then another photo of the same guy with a hideous haircut and plaid pants belted over his ribcage. Will women pick the more attractive guy? You bet! Does this prove that looks are the most important priority for women? Not at all!


It means women like men in attractive clothes with good haircuts and physiques. Now do the same test with men. If men don't respond the clothes/hair/physique any better than the "hideous" version, then women could be said to hold clothes/haircut/physique as higher priority than men.



always_alone said:


> And in the end of all the statistical tendencies you cite are actually not very strong, and effect sizes are quite low. You can see that clearly if you look at the results of the studies you've posted and at further meta-analyses which demonstrate that the sorts of conclusions you wish to draw are completely overblown.


What am I overblowing? It's exactly as I've described. 

I even used data from one such experiment for an assignment in Statistics in college. Several categories of men were presented differentiated by the car they were pictured in (although only the face was being judged). The same was then done with women and presented to men. Similar to this one: Determinants of male attractiveness: "Hotness" ratings as a function of perceived resources. | Gregory Shuler - Academia.edu

Just as the authors say here, "there is a clear positive relationship between male attractiveness and [status]". Low status men are rated significantly below high status men here with a p = .009.










In this experiment and virtually every similar experiment I've seen it was a difference of about 1 point on a 1-10 rating scale, and this is only a single object representing resources/status. Physical appearance undoubtedly plays the larger role and I've never argued otherwise, but status has quite an influence. It takes a 7 on looks with high status, and puts him in the same ballpark with an 8 on looks and low status - all other things being equal.

Status has no influence on men. A man can "look better" by increasing his status, a woman cannot. So clearly status clearly means more to women than men. And this is only one facet, one of many non-physical traits that a man can use to increase his overall attractiveness.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

That a married puts their husband/wife above all other men/women is self-evident. You freaking married them.

This isn't remotely similar to pedastalizing as described by RP or similar. In true problematic worship scenarios, one person does put the needs of the other above their own. It's not even a contests.

"Happy wife, happy life" clearly denotes dependency. He'll be happy if she's happy... and that's sappy romantic bullsh*t people shouldn't be told, spoken by people who haven't given put any thought into it at all. It's just a sappy catchy rhyme like half the romantic memes. You want a happy life? Do what makes you happy.


----------



## Thundarr

Idyit said:


> On the other hand if you're asking me if there were things I could have read to get my act together and more completely, yes. I just wasn't looking for them. *The problem is that I thought I was doing the right things by taking care of her and deferring my needs. And truly didn't mind doing these things. It was the lack of return that sucked.*
> 
> This is why you will hear men balk at the happy wife happy life thing.
> 
> ~ Passio


It's not easy to see this when we're in it either. A mixture of pride, and hidden fear and insecurity makes makes it almost impossible without an epiphany or light bulb moment. After all we've been able to fix things every time we needed to by working hard and putting forth more effort. So it doesn't compute that we're working hard to screw things up faster.

One thing I'm glad to see on this thread is that NMMNG didn't get thrown out as garbage along with MMSL. In my opinion some guys REALLY need to read about Robert Glover's description of nice guys. I figured it out the hard knocks way since the book didn't exist yet.

I'm pretty sure though that my current wife would not have liked the old me. Matter of fact I doubt she would have ever said "I do" to that guy. I'm lucky that me and my first wife wouldn't have been compatible either way. I feel bad thinking about couples who could have been really happy together if they had better boundaries and more esteem.


----------



## john117

Some of us fell for both status and looks.... 

A very hot looking chick with solid 1% ruling class upbringing and high intelligence to boot. 

What could possibly go wrong?

(A totally fvcked up family, upbringing in a theocracy, and entitlements worthy of a Disney Princess, that's what :lol: )


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> An apt analogy that nicely demonstrates all that is wrong with MMSL, including the attitudes it fosters and the resulting damage to both parties.


Ah yes, much better to lose the war and potentially your life than offend people. 

"YOU CANT HANDLE THE TRUTH!"


----------



## Buddy400

always_alone said:


> Consensus among scientists is actually quite easy to achieve. You don't see anyone disputing Newton's laws do you? *And when Einstein came along with his relativity theory, which did show exactly the flaw in those laws, scientists were quick to realize where the issues lay*, and simply amended Newton's laws by noting that they only apply in certain contexts.
> 
> The reason that there is no consensus in the "science" of attraction is because a lot of it is just ad hoc speculation that the data does not support.
> 
> Generalizations can be useful, but they can also be quite harmful, particularly when they are utterly false.


AA, I know we're often at odds, but this doesn't have anything to do with men and women.

The bolded is not true at all. Please read "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas S. Kuhn.

Einstein never believed Quantum Mechanics, Hubble never believed in an expanding universe. 

Once a paradigm is established, 99.7% of scientists devote all of their energy to filling out the details of the established paradigm. It is only after too many inconsistencies have accumulated that the search begins (or consideration is given) to alternate theories. It often takes a generation to get rid of the old beliefs.

It's said that science advances "one funeral at a time".


----------



## Faithful Wife

Thundarr said:


> It's not easy to see this when we're in it either. A mixture of pride, and hidden fear and insecurity makes makes it almost impossible without an epiphany or light bulb moment. After all we've been able to fix things every time we needed to by working hard and putting forth more effort. So it doesn't compute that we're working hard to screw things up faster.
> 
> *One thing I'm glad to see on this thread is that NMMNG didn't get thrown out* as garbage along with MMSL. In my opinion some guys REALLY need to read about Robert Glover's description of nice guys. I figured it out the hard knocks way since the book didn't exist yet.
> 
> I'm pretty sure though that my current wife would not have liked the old me. Matter of fact I doubt she would have ever said "I do" to that guy. I'm lucky that me and my first wife wouldn't have been compatible either way. I feel bad thinking about couples who could have been really happy together if they had better boundaries and more esteem.



I loved NMMNG and gave it to my son when he was about 19 so that he could read for himself the problems that can occur when being a NG. I have also bought and given or recommended NMMNG to lots of men, including one on this forum who when I first suggested it, told me it didn't sound like him. But then when he actually read it, he thanked me and told me how it was very much like him and he made many adjustments in his marriage based on it.


----------



## Idyit

Faithful Wife said:


> I guess a pedestal will always be what each individual decides it is.
> 
> I have my hubby on one, but that has never meant to me that he is better than me or that I have to subjugate my needs to meet his. I think it is more of just the pedestal that makes him higher than all other men, in my case. He has me on one, too, in the same way. Neither of us think the other is above having issues or problems, though. We're both very aware that our sh*t stinks.
> 
> Can you tell me, did you read books or did someone give you the message that you must put her needs above your own? This is an honest question. Because "blue pill" is really vague and is open to interpretation, I'd like to hear from people where they specifically got these types of messages. Just trying to understand it from the outside.


Pedestal fits both definitions pretty well but really different things.

No. I didn't read any books suggesting I do what I did. There's nothing I can specifically point to that instructed me to neglect myself. If anything, I would equate it to boiling a frog. Small progressions over a long period of time till I finally looked in the mirror and said this ain't working. As another poster put it, it became an issue of not saying no.

~ Passio


----------



## john117

Just to understand what research is out there in the "science of attraction"... 

https://books.google.com/books?id=w...a=X&ei=sIRaVZLCGZHboATIsIDACQ&ved=0CCIQ6AEwBg

If the link is bogus the book title is "the oxford handbook of close relationships" lolz. Peer reviewed for your enjoyment.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> AA, I know we're often at odds, but this doesn't have anything to do with men and women.


She knows it doesn't, Buddy. Her point is that the "science" in red pill literature and MMSL is actually based on very crappy and minimal studies, with very wild conclusions based on them but it is heralded as if it is all PROVEN FACTS.

Yet when I repeatedly ask for evidence that sperm wars, preselection or hypergamy are proven facts that are used by human beings for mate selection, no one can give me any.

She was bantering with another poster about the "science" involved.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Idyit said:


> Pedestal fits both definitions pretty well but really different things.
> 
> No. I didn't read any books suggesting I do what I did. There's nothing I can specifically point to that instructed me to neglect myself. If anything, I would equate it to boiling a frog. Small progressions over a long period of time till I finally looked in the mirror and said this ain't working. As another poster put it, it became an issue of not saying no.
> 
> ~ Passio


So here is where I get confused....

I have heard of women in the same position. That she subjugated her own needs and pedestalized her husband...did whatever he wanted....took care of everything, all that jazz. She doesn't notice that years go by since he has even spoken nicely to her or about her. When she starts asking for "more" he balks and is a jerk and acts like she should be happy he even comes home at night. Eventually she realizes that he doesn't even seem to love her, yet all these years she thought she was loving him waiting for him to give back to her in return.

What I am getting at is that this does happen to women, too.

So why is it a gender issue at all when this happens, since it does happen to both genders?

She may have adopted the "give him sex and make him a sandwich" philosophy, thinking her husband would eventually see how good she is to him and be kind to her, too. But he doesn't, because he was a jerk all along, she just hadn't realized it yet, she just thought he was stressed out from work, etc.

So "give him sex and make him a sandwich" wasn't actually good advice in her case, because her husband took those things and actually didn't want anything else to do with her. Yet she was giving those things out of love and in an effort to be a good wife. When he ends up having an affair, she finally gets the 2x4.

This is why I don't get why it seems like *I* am creating a gender divide when I question the whole notion of how all men of these generations are apparently ruined by women and wussified and blue pilled and now it is women's fault that they were taught these things. To me, that's the gender war message right there.

Women were taught wrong things, too. 

To me, what you (anyone) were specifically taught about relationships and how you used that information is still on you, no matter who you are.

So the woman in my example...if she's going to try to blame "men" for her issues, I would say "no honey, not men, YOUR man...and you picked him, so you get to deal with trying to fix it unfortunately".

Usually when we pick someone who treats us badly, there was a reason for it that has to do with our own issues we need to work out. 

Personal accountability is all we have and is the only thing that works.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> She knows it doesn't, Buddy. Her point is that the "science" in red pill literature and MMSL is actually based on very crappy and minimal studies, with very wild conclusions based on them but it is heralded as if it is all PROVEN FACTS.
> 
> Yet when I repeatedly ask for evidence that sperm wars, preselection or hypergamy are proven facts that are used by human beings for mate selection, no one can give me any.
> 
> She was bantering with another poster about the "science" involved.


I meant that the comment to follow isn't about men and women.


----------



## Thundarr

Faithful Wife said:


> Can you tell me, did you read books or did someone give you the message that you must put her needs above your own? This is an honest question. Because "blue pill" is really vague and is open to interpretation, I'd like to hear from people where they specifically got these types of messages. Just trying to understand it from the outside.


I know this was directed at Idyit but I'd like to give my two cents. I entered my first marriage c0cky and arrogant which probably looked a lot like confidence but it wasn't. I also didn't have personal boundaries which compounded things. So when inevitable issues popped up I arrogantly figured I could work harder and fix things (oh and I'm a fixer). Problem is when that didn't work my arrogance flew out of the window. What I was left with was fear, uncertainty, and denial. That's an unattractive combination.

Now there was a light bulb moment where having personal boundaries, only having control of ourselves, not being driven by fear, and especially not letting others treat us bad became clear as day. I woke up one morning and it was as if I'd known it all of my life. The damage was already done but I came out a better for it. It's a shame that some of us don't know these things without having to learn them.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> So here is where I get confused....
> 
> I have heard of women in the same position. That she subjugated her own needs and pedestalized her husband...did whatever he wanted....took care of everything, all that jazz. She doesn't notice that years go by since he has even spoken nicely to her or about her. When she starts asking for "more" he balks and is a jerk and acts like she should be happy he even comes home at night. Eventually she realizes that he doesn't even seem to love her, yet all these years she thought she was loving him waiting for him to give back to her in return.
> 
> What I am getting at is that this does happen to women, too.
> 
> So why is it a gender issue at all when this happens, since it does happen to both genders?
> 
> She may have adopted the "give him sex and make him a sandwich" philosophy, thinking her husband would eventually see how good she is to him and be kind to her, too. But he doesn't, because he was a jerk all along, she just hadn't realized it yet, she just thought he was stressed out from work, etc.
> 
> So "give him sex and make him a sandwich" wasn't actually good advice in her case, because her husband took those things and actually didn't want anything else to do with her. Yet she was giving those things out of love and in an effort to be a good wife. When he ends up having an affair, she finally gets the 2x4.
> 
> This is why I don't get why it seems like *I* and creating a gender divide when I question the whole notion of how all men of these generations are apparently ruined by women and wussified and blue pilled and now it is women's fault that they were taught these things. To me, that's the gender war message right there.
> 
> Women were taught wrong things, too.
> 
> To me, what you (anyone) were specifically taught about relationships and how you used that information is still on you, no matter who you are.
> 
> So the woman in my example...if she's going to try to blame "men" for her issues, I would say "no honey, not men, YOUR man...and you picked him, so you get to deal with trying to fix it unfortunately".
> 
> Usually when we pick someone who treats us badly, there was a reason for it that has to do with our own issues we need to work out.
> 
> Personal accountability is all we have and is the only thing that works.


The problem is that selfless people get taken advantage of by selfish people (and not always intentionally).

Popular culture has been helping selfless women deal with this for the last several decades.

Now, selfless men need to be taught how to avoid the trap as well. Red Pill's as good as they've got so far. I'd like to see better, I'd like to see a group of women helping them out...


----------



## Faithful Wife

Then maybe the book everyone needs is "how to not get gamed by a selfish person".


----------



## Thundarr

Faithful Wife said:


> Then maybe the book every needs is "how to not get gamed by a selfish person".


Cool. Here are some chapters
1. Who do gamers think you are?
2. Who set your price tag and why are you on the sales rack?
3. Don't be your own worst enemy.
4. Work smarter not harder.
5. If you use this book to be a jerk or b!tch then you will be cursed.
6......


----------



## Idyit

Faithful Wife said:


> So here is where I get confused....
> 
> ....
> 
> What I am getting at is that this does happen to women, too.
> 
> *Agreed*
> 
> So why is it a gender issue at all when this happens, since it does happen to both genders?
> 
> *I don't think it is a gender issue. Certainly happens to both sides and sucks every time.*
> 
> She may have adopted the "give him sex and make him a sandwich" philosophy, thinking her husband would eventually see how good she is to him and be kind to her, too. But he doesn't, because he was a jerk all along, she just hadn't realized it yet, she just thought he was stressed out from work, etc.
> 
> *It's interesting how the aftermath of an affair is similar to what may have been going on prior. Meaning, the betrayed was not going to nice them into loving them prior and will not love them out of an affair either. Boundaries, balls, big girl panties...sometimes has to be re-learned or taught as new.*
> 
> So "give him sex and make him a sandwich" wasn't actually good advice in her case, because her husband took those things and actually didn't want anything else to do with her. Yet she was giving those things out of love and in an effort to be a good wife. When he ends up having an affair, she finally gets the 2x4.
> 
> This is why I don't get why it seems like *I* and creating a gender divide when I question the whole notion of how *all* men of these generations are apparently ruined by women and wussified and blue pilled and now it is women's fault that they were taught these things. To me, that's the gender war message right there.
> 
> *I'm getting a little lost here. Are you connecting a dot between our pedestal defining to another issue?
> 
> If I've conveyed the thought that I blame my wife for everything let me correct that. She owns the EA. The connection between it and the pedestal is that the EA was confirmation that the pedestal had to go.
> 
> We both own the marriage problems. My side of fixing that was in motion for a while before the EA and continues. Call it a character flaw or whatever but I would much rather take a beating than run away.*
> 
> Women were taught wrong things, too.
> 
> *Yup. Took my wife a bit to see that I was not put on Earth to serve her.*
> 
> To me, what you (anyone) were specifically taught about relationships and how you used that information is still on you, no matter who you are.
> 
> *Absolutely agree. See above*
> 
> So the woman in my example...if she's going to try to blame "men" for her issues, I would say "no honey, not men, YOUR man...and you picked him, so you get to deal with trying to fix it unfortunately".
> 
> Usually when *we pick someone who treats us badly*, there was a reason for it that has to do with our own issues we need to work out.
> 
> *Often, not always. When I picked her she didn't treat me badly. I developed some pretty good nice guy traits over time and she learned to take advantage of it. In reading NMMNG I could see where things could be linked to FOO stuff. The confusing part for me was that I never had a relationship like this prior to marriage.
> 
> Ultimately it doesn't matter if I fit nicely into the NMMNG box or any other. I didn't like what had happened and wasn't going to wait for her to fix me or the marriage. Life isn't perfect just yet but still working on it. Maybe tomorrow. *
> 
> Personal accountability is all we have and is the only thing that works.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Idyit, you asked: "I'm getting a little lost here. Are you connecting a dot between our pedestal defining to another issue?"

No, I am sorry, that part was not directed at you personally, per se.

Thank you for that whole post.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Thundarr said:


> Cool. Here are some chapters
> 1. Who do gamers think you are?
> 2. Who set your price tag and why are you on the sales rack?
> 3. Don't be your own worst enemy.
> 4. Work smarter not harder.
> 5. If you use this book to be a jerk or b!tch then you will be cursed.
> 6......


:lol::lol::lol:

:smnotworthy::smnotworthy::smnotworthy:


----------



## Tubbalard

Brigit said:


> Pedestal=catering & conflict avoiding
> 
> I think my husband puts me on a pedestal he does let me get my way a lot.
> 
> (I got a cool husband  )


Nah. You have a husband that you walk all over. At least that's the way you're framing it. But if you're both comfortable with the status quo, then cool


----------



## Faithful Wife

6. Ain't nobody got time for neggin'

7. Sex ed 101: Turns out, sex isn't just for making babies!

8. Red Flags
*he wants to dominate you via text before your first date
*she asked if you know anything about diamonds on your first date
*he or she sent a peen or vulva pic _before_ the first date
*the first date is at your bank

9. What to do when someone is resisting your last minute resistance when you are irresistible 

10. Fun games for tops who are spinners, bottoms who are gamers, and switches who are witches

11. How preselection really works: Women talk about why men are attractive (and then argue about it and completely disagree with each other)

12. Eat the purple pill...the good half of the blue pill and the good half of the red pill....and then ride a unicorn!

....actually there is a tiny purple pill movement. Or there was one little place on reddit for it. 

Someone linked a blog post of mine at the purple pill reddit so I read some of the discussion there. 

I thought it was cute people were trying to merge the best of both.


----------



## Tubbalard

This is no hate. But your book is destined to be a hit at middle class yard sales for $.50 specials, and local hippie thrift stores across America, with this estrogen and pink pill talk. There's a reason AK books appeal to a lot of young men. He's speaking their language. You're trying to soften the language. You're better off writing a book on nice girls and coming up with your own scientific theories. MMSLP is locker room talk for the analytics guys. Your Estrogen theories aren't appealing to men.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Yes, I must be some kind of horrible and/or stupid person to even try.


----------



## GusPolinski

This thread is now the largest thread in the Ladies' Lounge. And by a pretty wide margin to boot!

Bravo!

:smthumbup: :smthumbup: :smthumbup:


----------



## EleGirl

Brigit said:


> How many men here followed AK's advice on "taking wife off her pedestal?"
> 
> I'm very curious as how one goes about doing this.


I read posts by a lot of the men on here who say that one of the benefits of the MMSLP book is that they do end up "taking wife off her pedestal".

One of the major points of the book is that no women/wife is all that special. Women/wives are easily replaced.


----------



## Faithful Wife

FrenchFry said:


> For those who measure success by their haters...
> 
> you are on your way. :rofl:


I was actually thinking "wow, I'm so happily surprised at the NON hate I'm receiving on that thread"...

People have been really cool to me. Thank you people.


----------



## TiggyBlue

FrenchFry said:


> For those who measure success by their haters...
> 
> you are on your way. :rofl:


lol she's the new AK


----------



## MountainRunner

EleGirl said:


> Women/wives are easily replaced.


I disagree...The "keepers" are few and far between. I almost lost a "keeper" by being all "alpha"...and it ain't all that great. I'm gonna say right now...All this RP and MMSLP crap....stow it.

The only reason why we're still together is that she feels I'm a "keeper" as well...as long as I can pull my head out of my ass and believe her when she tells me what she tells me. *would love to hear the RP cheerleaders on this one*

Wanna get the girl? Easy....Make her smile and put her at ease. The same goes for us guys too, right? Fundamentally, we're pretty easy to figure out once we discard the trappings of culture/sex/nameit.


----------



## Julius Beastcavern

a healthy woman doesn’t want to be more than the icing on a man’s great cake of a life.


----------



## Brigit

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Just as the authors say here, "there is a clear positive relationship between male attractiveness and [status]". Low status men are rated significantly below high status men here with a p = .009.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this experiment and virtually every similar experiment I've seen it was a difference of about 1 point on a 1-10 rating scale, and this is only a single object representing resources/status. Physical appearance undoubtedly plays the larger role and I've never argued otherwise, but status has quite an influence. It takes a 7 on looks with high status, and puts him in the same ballpark with an 8 on looks and low status - all other things being equal.
> 
> Status has no influence on men. A man can "look better" by increasing his status, a woman cannot. So clearly status clearly means more to women than men. And this is only one facet, one of many non-physical traits that a man can use to increase his overall attractiveness.


Next time you're at a bar you should take this chart with you and show the girls. It'll really turn them on.


----------



## Brigit

Tubbalard said:


> Nah. You have a husband that you walk all over. At least that's the way you're framing it. But if you're both comfortable with the status quo, then cool


We're comfortable thanks for asking. Now you please go fetch me my robe. It's a bit chilly here don't you know.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Faithful Wife said:


> Then maybe the book everyone needs is "how to not get gamed by a selfish person".


I have many on my list in my signature link. Thats headed into navigating narcissists and emotional manipulators, emotional blackmailers/abusers.


----------



## farsidejunky

Brigit said:


> We're comfortable thanks for asking. Now you please go fetch me my robe. It's a bit chilly here don't you know.


I'm rather tired. But I will take a glass of water when you fetch your robe...


----------



## Brigit

farsidejunky said:


> I'm rather tired. But I will take a glass of water when you fetch your robe...


I don't think I was talking to you. Now hush and be a good boy.

...or

:banned2:


----------



## samyeagar

Faithful Wife said:


> So here is where I get confused....
> 
> I have heard of women in the same position. That she subjugated her own needs and pedestalized her husband...did whatever he wanted....took care of everything, all that jazz. She doesn't notice that years go by since he has even spoken nicely to her or about her. When she starts asking for "more" he balks and is a jerk and acts like she should be happy he even comes home at night. Eventually she realizes that he doesn't even seem to love her, yet all these years she thought she was loving him waiting for him to give back to her in return.
> 
> What I am getting at is that this does happen to women, too.
> 
> So why is it a gender issue at all when this happens, since it does happen to both genders?
> 
> She may have adopted the "*give him sex and make him a sandwich*" philosophy, thinking her husband would eventually see how good she is to him and be kind to her, too. But he doesn't, because he was a jerk all along, she just hadn't realized it yet, she just thought he was stressed out from work, etc.
> 
> So "give him sex and make him a sandwich" wasn't actually good advice in her case, because her husband took those things and actually didn't want anything else to do with her. Yet she was giving those things out of love and in an effort to be a good wife. When he ends up having an affair, she finally gets the 2x4.
> 
> This is why I don't get why it seems like *I* am creating a gender divide when I question the whole notion of how all men of these generations are apparently ruined by women and wussified and blue pilled and now it is women's fault that they were taught these things. To me, that's the gender war message right there.
> 
> Women were taught wrong things, too.
> 
> To me, what you (anyone) were specifically taught about relationships and how you used that information is still on you, no matter who you are.
> 
> So the woman in my example...if she's going to try to blame "men" for her issues, I would say "no honey, not men, YOUR man...and you picked him, so you get to deal with trying to fix it unfortunately".
> 
> Usually when we pick someone who treats us badly, there was a reason for it that has to do with our own issues we need to work out.
> 
> Personal accountability is all we have and is the only thing that works.


That was certainly the conventional wisdom several decades ago, but a concerted effort, especially in television, and on social media has transformed that into almost a running joke. The broader message now is make him beg for sex, and revel in being a crappy cook.

Going a bit broader, infidelity is a prominent part of a lot of rom com's and other drama movies, and it is almost invariably then man who is the villain...either he cheats on his perfectly scripted woman, and the audience is emotionally driven to root for her, or she cheats on her man, who inevitably was not right for her, and again, emotionally, the audience is driven to root fr her.

Societally, we are being conditioned to place a higher value on women and their needs within the relationship than on mens.


----------



## always_alone

Buddy400 said:


> Once a paradigm is established, 99.7% of scientists devote all of their energy to filling out the details of the established paradigm. It is only after too many inconsistencies have accumulated that the search begins (or consideration is given) to alternate theories. It often takes a generation to get rid of the old beliefs.
> 
> It's said that science advances "one funeral at a time".


Yes, true, scientists can absolutely get stuck in paradigms that prevent forward progress, and there will be great resistance to someone who challenges the status quo. Just ask Galileo!

But the point really is that science is truth-seeking, at least in principle, and any consensus there is should be around the data. And in the science of attraction, there isn't even consistent data to work with.

Just because we are stuck in a "paradigm" of gender stereotypes doesn't mean they are true.


----------



## TheGoodGuy

samyeagar said:


> Going a bit broader, infidelity is a prominent part of a lot of rom com's and other drama movies, and it is almost invariably then man who is the villain...either he cheats on his perfectly scripted woman, and the audience is emotionally driven to root for her*, or she cheats on her man, who inevitably was not right for her, and again, emotionally, the audience is driven to root fr her.*


This part resonated with me. When my ex was leaving me for her OM, her toxic bio-mom was feeding her all the normal bullship: "You weren't right for each other" "It's a short life we live, you deserve to be happy". Makes me want to vomit.

ETA: I certainly don't want that cheating ***** back, but I also don't think justice gets served in our society anymore.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> That is how complex things are studied. You control for other variables. You break it down into understandable elements. Once you understand those elements, you work on the interaction of elements. It isn't a black box of entirely unknowable magic.


There is no real control in these studies. That's the point. What you describe works pretty well for some things, like investigating the efficacy of a drug. It works less well for something like attraction.

For starters, a well designed medical study will involve more than 39 undergraduates. 

For 2, it will use objective measures to determine efficacy of the drug, not simply ask people if they feel healthy again. They will also use objective measures to determine side effects.

For 3, it will control for other variables, and not simply pretend that they don't exist. The thing about people is that you simply cannot study them in suitably controlled environments because they are people and it wouldn't be ethical to do so. So you *must* factor in all of intervening variables and other sorts of noise. 

In the science of attraction, however, as soon as you do this, it becomes readily apparent that results are all over the map.

Also, "effect size" is a statistical calculation, not provided by your graph, which was clearly drawn to make reservations results look more dramatic than they really are.



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> It means women like men in attractive clothes with good haircuts and physiques. Now do the same test with men. If men don't respond the clothes/hair/physique any better than the "hideous" version, then women could be said to hold clothes/haircut/physique as higher priority than men.


Since men will downgrade on this just as readily as women, can we finally agree that looks are just as important for both men and women?

And if so, whatever happened to that "priority" of status?


----------



## Lila

Julius Beastcavern said:


> a healthy woman doesn’t want to be more than the icing on a man’s great cake of a life.


I think what you describe above is textbook Co-Dependent Woman, which by all accounts is VERY unhealthy.


----------



## jld

Lila said:


> I think what you describe above is textbook Co-Dependent Woman, which by all accounts is VERY unhealthy.


Could you please elaborate, Lila?


----------



## Lila

jld said:


> Could you please elaborate, Lila?


If I understood Julius's post correctly, his opinion is that men determine the greatness of life and "healthy" women are simply there for the ride. IMO, that's not a healthy view of women or marriages in general. Too much co-dependency on the part of the woman. 

If I were to use an analogy for women it would be something like this.... 

A healthy woman should be like a beverage (sweet dessert wine, savory coffee, robust tea, etc)- unique, special, and great all on it's own. A healthy man should be the best complete cake (icing and all) possible, tasty all on it's own. 

The best matches are those where the right beverage compliments the right cake. Both are good alone but they taste better together.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Bugged said:


> That's because his book is about sex and not love. He doesn't love his wife. He SELLS his wife a 'decent' husband. His wife sells him a 'decent(doormat) 'wife. THAT is the reason they're together. They are NOT soulmates (heaven forbid!!!!).
> *AK is a cynic.* If you tell people that people are replaceable, they are less likely to get hurt. problem is: anyone who has been in love and deeply loves someone knows that they're NOT replaceable.
> 
> So all this sex you're supposed to get if you follow his rules, WHO are you having it with?
> IMO Rp guys are just WEAK, to make themselves feel like a man they need someone even weaker.
> So what's the ideal woman for RP advocates? It's a very sad mix of an *insecure, dependent, weak minded, low self esteem cross between a dormat/sex slave and a butler*.


He does take what should be an effort to deal with an ingrate so far in the other direction that he shoots himself in the foot. But there is merit in having accurate perspective on our mates that when it does get bad enough to be encouraged that love can be found again and we don't have to endure toxicity to be happily in love.


----------



## Marduk

Anon1111 said:


> I would add that I am sympathetic to the red pill thing because I understand the draw of anger.
> 
> Many men feel no emotion other than anger.
> 
> You cannot wish this away. You must understand the anger before you can let it go.
> 
> When you try to pretend the anger is not real, you very often wind up making it worse.
> 
> I don't expect women to really understand this. This is not because I think women are dumb,it's because I don't think women can really understand what it is like to feel no emotions the way men do. Women are not raised to hide their emotions and fears.


I think of it more in an energetic sense.

When you bottle someone's sexual energy up, it's going to go somewhere. It may turn into anger, into political extremism, idealism, extreme sexual behaviour or fantasies...

All kinds of things.

I think, essentially, we have a significant fraction of the male married population that is living under self-imposed sexual repression... because they have to, to live out their obligations, to raise their children, to try to love their wives.

And it comes out in all kinds of ways. The energy will always come out somewhere, even if you try to bottle it up or turn it inward.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

marduk said:


> I think of it more in an energetic sense.
> 
> When you bottle someone's sexual energy up, it's going to go somewhere. It may turn into anger, into political extremism, idealism, extreme sexual behaviour or fantasies...
> 
> All kinds of things.
> 
> I think, essentially, we have a significant fraction of the male married population that is living under self-imposed sexual repression... because they have to, to live out their obligations, to raise their children, to try to love their wives.
> 
> And it comes out in all kinds of ways. The energy will always come out somewhere, even if you try to bottle it up or turn it inward.


Energy management is definitely beneficial in relationships.. that would be a great thread. I agree... you gotta deal with it or it's going to come out sideways somewhere else.


----------



## Marduk

Anon1111 said:


> I'm going to take it a step further while everyone is still chill.
> 
> The first emotion I started to understand was my anger.
> 
> If I had not been so angry, I would have never even thought to take a hard look at myself.
> 
> So, as Rage Against the Machine said, in an odd way, this anger was a gift.
> 
> Would it have been better if I could have started to understand myself more clearly in a different way? Sure. Of course.
> 
> But that path did not open for me. This one did.
> 
> And I think this path can open for many men. Red pill men, specifically. They are angry, no question. It sucks for them and it sucks for everyone they touch.
> 
> They just are 1 step away from asking the RIGHT question. Why am I REALLY so angry?
> 
> They avoid it so much because they are very afraid to look behind a door they've never opened before.


"There be no shelter here."

Anger can be useful, if channelled correctly. But it won't shelter you, just spur you to action.

Even Zach de la Rocha chilled out eventually.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Anger danger!
> 
> Yes anger is a strange beast. Anon1111, hopefully we will stop raising boys who don't get to feel and express emotions.
> 
> Girls become angry and turn into angry women, too.
> 
> I am sure it is more common and more intense in most men. I understand why it happens. I think each person has to unravel their own and figure it out...not an easy path.
> 
> We all want that easy path, but if we're to this point, there isn't one.
> 
> Though I suppose some people might find it easier than others. I like the way UMP describes his transition from grumpy man to actively interested in his wife, and letting her charms cheer him up.
> 
> So how can you rally an angry man...without offending him, making him more angry, or telling him something he might use against himself or others due to misplaced anger?


From my perspective, the answer is simple.

Allow him agency to act.

So many wives try to take this away from their husbands when they are angry.

"You shouldn't do that..." "You shouldn't expect that..." "Most husbands would be fine with..." "You don't see dave getting mad at this..."

Etc, etc, etc...

Everything in my marriage and in my life has always gotten better when at least I validated my anger, why I was getting angry, and clearing a path of action forward to deal with that, change it, or move from it.

Instead of living in denial and doing nothing about it.

Which I've had more than one woman ask me to do.

I say that not blaming women at all. I can see why they would think that was a good idea, and positive, and why my anger would be scary. And destabilizing.

But part of the masculine is to act.


----------



## Deejo

Lila said:


> I think what you describe above is textbook Co-Dependent Woman, which by all accounts is VERY unhealthy.


Is it? Or do you think that because your perception is colored by the thread topic?

Because he was linking a post of mine in another thread, where I emphasized that this is EXACTLY what men should take away. Particularly, young men.

Is Living a Great Life Demeaning to a Woman?

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/mens-clubhouse/266546-compare-nmmng-mmslp-3.html#post12683450


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> How do you get an angry person to read a book about letting go of anger? It seems like a very difficult thing to do. :scratchhead:
> 
> The real message that angry spouses need is "hey dude/dudette, your anger is messing up YOUR life! YOU have the power to change this by getting control of YOUR anger!"
> 
> But as any previously angry person knows, when you're angry, you don't think you are the one who needs to adjust, everyone else should.
> 
> I'm just trying to find a way to slip a message past an angry person's filters somehow, I guess.
> 
> But I think it takes a personal epiphany to realize you have anger issues and you are the only one who can control that.
> 
> How do you inspire someone to have an epiphany?
> 
> I wish I could say "dudes/dudettes, I can promise you the best sex of your life with someone who is madly in love with you, as proven by SCIENCE! if you just learn to manage and understand your own anger".
> 
> Anger can be transmuted into sexual energy. Which is a problem some people here can probably relate to. If you do this as an emotionally healthy person, it can be really fun. If you do it from an unhealthy place, it is super non-fun.
> 
> Thoughts?


For me, there's only one path to letting go of my anger. And I don't think that's the goal, or even a good one... letting go.

Anger is a finger pointing at something that isn't working. A big flashing red sign. It could be danger, it could be fear, it could be living against your purpose or integrity. It could be all kinds of things.

But just letting that go may placate it, but it will show up elsewhere.

The key, I think, to anger... is doing something about it. Something positive. Considered. Creative.

But do something. Don't just "let it go."


----------



## Marduk

farsidejunky said:


> And back to the idea of discomfort. Mem once made a very simple statement that holds a tremendous amount of power:
> 
> Never allow your spouse to become comfortable with your discomfort.


I need this tattood somewhere.

Thanks, Far.


----------



## Julius Beastcavern

Deejo said:


> Is it? Or do you think that because your perception is colored by the thread topic?
> 
> Because he was linking a post of mine in another thread, where I emphasized that this is EXACTLY what men should take away. Particularly, young men.
> 
> Is Living a Great Life Demeaning to a Woman?
> 
> http://talkaboutmarriage.com/mens-clubhouse/266546-compare-nmmng-mmslp-3.html#post12683450


That's exactly why I posted it, it's easy to take a quote out of context without seeing the bigger picture


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> It was meant purely as a rhetorical question. Not accusing, not trying to put you on the spot.
> 
> It just struck me as odd that one would defend MMSL on the grounds that a wife should never feel comfort with her husband's discomfort, when the whole principle of MMSL is to tell men to disrupt their wife's comfort, and to grow comfortable with this, as they will have to keep doing it throughout their marriages to keep her interested..
> 
> I do agree with both you and jld that we owe it to ourselves AND our spouses to let them know when our needs are not being met.


The answer is directly embedded in the philosophy.

MMSLP is based prima facie on the idea that the wife has sized power in the relationship. And has now constructed or distorted it for her maximum comfort and control, even at her husband's discomfort and powerlessness.

Therefore, making her uncomfortable and powerless somehow balances the equation.

Which, of course, it doens't. Two wrongs don't make a right. Just like criticizing the whole thing instead of targeting the derision doesn't make it right.

There is a vast gulf between standing up for yourself and on your own, vs standing on the broken back of your spouse.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> I have tried this before....have offered things like "hey you know, there is research that backs up how having a positive attitude actually creates more happiness and that makes you sexier!" but generally, if someone is in an angry place, especially for the long term, it take more than that to interest them.
> 
> Revenge tastes better than anger when you are in it.


Because that path forward will not work for a guy that MMSLP is aimed at.

I know; I tried it in two marriages. And watch several buddies live that outcome every day.


----------



## Marduk

Brigit said:


> This is the difference between Fun Girl Games and AK's Games. Girl Games cause no harm. This causes psychological harm.
> 
> I think men do know that using AK's tactics are evil, they just want to pretend they're not.


Many 'girl games' cause massive harm to boys.

Especially in high school when girls develop emotionally faster.

Had a buddy attempt to kill himself thanks to 'girl game.'

It's not harmless, either. It' can be soul- and ego-crushing, too.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Deejo said:


> Is it? Or do you think that because your perception is colored by the thread topic?
> 
> Because he was linking a post of mine in another thread, where I emphasized that this is EXACTLY what men should take away. Particularly, young men.
> 
> Is Living a Great Life Demeaning to a Woman?
> 
> http://talkaboutmarriage.com/mens-clubhouse/266546-compare-nmmng-mmslp-3.html#post12683450


Yea, in context that quote comes across totally different and backs up what Lila described as healthy. He just draws a different picture.


----------



## Marduk

Brigit said:


> AK's book is infused with "non-evil" tactics. To quote some of the benevolent ones isn't making a point. It's actually a "lawyerish" defense strategy to distract one from the issues.
> 
> We can debate this topic to the end of time and the same main issues pop up.
> 
> 1. There are unmoral and unethical strategies AK teaches in his book.
> 
> 2. Men state his book helped them when others couldn't and don't care if there is unmoral and unethical strategies being taught.
> 
> 3. Just about every man on this thread has denied using the unmoral and unethical strategies.
> 
> Just for the record boys: I don't believe you.


LOL.

Point 4: I don't care what your opinion is.

Because it's true.

Calling all the men liars in this thread, when several of us have tried to be painfully honest, is itself a display of a lack of integrity and intellectual honesty on your part.

And only harms your case.


----------



## naiveonedave

Deejo said:


> Is it? Or do you think that because your perception is colored by the thread topic?
> 
> Because he was linking a post of mine in another thread, where I emphasized that this is EXACTLY what men should take away. Particularly, young men.
> 
> Is Living a Great Life Demeaning to a Woman?
> 
> http://talkaboutmarriage.com/mens-clubhouse/266546-compare-nmmng-mmslp-3.html#post12683450


The link from Glover describes the Captain/1st mate concept as presented in mmsl, just uses different language to describe it. I didn't notice that when I read NMMNG, shortly after I read MMSL.


----------



## jld

Deejo said:


> Is it? Or do you think that because your perception is colored by the thread topic?
> 
> Because he was linking a post of mine in another thread, where I emphasized that this is EXACTLY what men should take away. Particularly, young men.
> 
> Is Living a Great Life Demeaning to a Woman?


I read the article. This comment that followed it brings up some of the concerns I think Lila was trying to address:


_I have been following Dr. Glover on and off for quite a while and often agree with his perspectives. I rarely comment on his articles, but this one calls to me. 

I want to first and foremost say that I agree that putting a woman on a pedestal doesn't help anything in a relationship, and I agree with many of the bullets in this article. Many people fall into the trap of "trying to please" their partner or making them a focus of the relationship. 

*I think, however, that the language of a good woman being "just icing on the cake" has a dark side that to easily calls to people at mediocre levels of emotional maturity (which would include many of us), and can lead them astray. *

This article speaks to a common problem (unhealthy emotional strategies common in nice-guys), but unfortunately can be read as encouraging another insidious strategy which unfortunately I have seen in some "reformed" nice-guys. As Dr. Glover himself has said, "the opposite of crazy is still crazy". 

Specifically, the language of a woman being the "icing on the cake" can support a darker strategy in maturing relationships: attempting to diminish the anxiety created by an increasingly important loving partner through various strategies to build insignificance and distance into the relationship. 

Many people find that when a partner truly becomes important to them, especially a really good partner with whom one has built deep, prolonged, and shared life experiences, that they react in ways to create space between them and their partner as a defensive measure. 

After all, if the person truly becomes precious and irreplaceable, that is highly threatening, for all the reasons Dr. Glover mentions. This is especially true if one has grown up (as many of us have) in an environment where having someone truly love us is an uncommon experience. 

People have many different strategies for handling the discomfort of a partner's increasing significance. Some of us start picking fights to create distance. Some people start having affairs. Some find porn a wonderful distraction from the painful poignancy of preciousness. 

"Declaring Independence", which can be healthy in some contexts, is also one of the strategies people use to justify their distancing from a precious partner. "I gotta be me and pursue my passion" can be healthy, but it can also be used a strategy for holding a partner at arms length. 

Some people start new ventures and throw themselves into pursuits that "they" newly find are "their" passion, even if it causes major inconvenience or pain to their life partner they claim to love. Some people start sleeping in separate bedrooms or maintain separate residences with limited visits as a way to "have their own space". 

Some people use the strategy of denying outright that having someone become truly precious to us is a good thing. 

*A truly great relationship can, over some time, evolve into something which is truly irreplaceable. Yes, you can find another partner, but it will never be someone who knows you as well or built a life of shared joy for so many years. 

If one develops enough maturity to truly allow oneself to feel a appreciate a precious relationship like this, one is also willing to relax many other agendas one may have had, as by comparison they no longer hold the shine they used to. This is not to say that one has compromised one's core values, but they have been expanded to include valuing the precious partner's agenda on par with their own. 

The move to defer or modify one's current or former agenda for the benefit of the partner is not always a move from weakness; on the contrary, it can be a show of deep maturity and strength, and an an acceptance of the limitations inherent in being a human being living a rich life with truly loving and enduring relationships. 

I find the idea of considering your woman just "icing on the cake" isn't nuanced enough, and it calls far too easily to those who are not ready to face the most painful realities of our relationship; that if we're very very lucky, our partners really will become truly precious and irreplaceable, valued more highly than anything else in our lives, and yet we may still lose them. *_


----------



## always_alone

Blossom Leigh said:


> Yea, in context that quote comes across totally different and backs up what Lila described as healthy. He just draws a different picture.


I do think we need some new language to talk about this stuff, though, because I think we can equally say that a man should be the "icing" on the woman's cake too.

And, FWIW, as a woman I too would want to be conscious, honest, transparent, and am happy to take on the "burden" of making decisions about what I want to do.


----------



## Lila

Deejo said:


> Is it? Or do you think that because your perception is colored by the thread topic?
> 
> Because he was linking a post of mine in another thread, where I emphasized that this is EXACTLY what men should take away. Particularly, young men.
> 
> Is Living a Great Life Demeaning to a Woman?
> 
> http://talkaboutmarriage.com/mens-clubhouse/266546-compare-nmmng-mmslp-3.html#post12683450


My perception is colored by my life experiences and what I see around me. TBH, it had nothing to do with the thread topic. 

I do not read all of the posts made on this board. That quote, all on it's own without all of the supporting information, can easily be misinterpreted as evident by Dr. Glover's blog where someone questioned his cake/icing analogy. Context is everything.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Blossom Leigh said:


> Yea, in context that quote comes across totally different and backs up what Lila described as healthy. He just draws a different picture.


And to further this thought, when I say "keep your eyes on your own paper" to my H, in essence I am responding to the times when he is trying to make me his entire icing AND the cake and I don't want him to do that. Stop making me take on more that I am supposed to. My boundary stops at the icing, thank you very much. You figure out the cake part and I will frost ya Baby, but I am not to be your cake. So I agree with this guy, though I feel some of his explanation needs a bit of tweaking because the reverse is true for my H. He also doesn't need to be my cake, that's my gig, you just frost me Baby.  I feel like when people bring in gender to what are just basic human behaviors and separating healthy and unhealthy the waters are muddied, therefore I would restate his premise without all the gender stuff and I feel it would be clearer. 

Yes there are nuances, but the gender thing is REALLY derailing the stuff underneath that works and confusing people.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

always_alone said:


> I do think we need some new language to talk about this stuff, though, because I think we can equally say that a man should be the "icing" on the woman's cake too.
> 
> And, FWIW, as a woman I too would want to be conscious, honest, transparent, and am happy to take on the "burden" of making decisions about what I want to do.


Exactly...


----------



## always_alone

jld said:


> People have many different strategies for handling the discomfort of a partner's increasing significance. Some of us start picking fights to create distance. Some people start having affairs. Some find porn a wonderful distraction from the painful poignancy of preciousness.
> 
> "Declaring Independence", which can be healthy in some contexts, is also one of the strategies people use to justify their distancing from a precious partner. "I gotta be me and pursue my passion" can be healthy, but it can also be used a strategy for holding a partner at arms length.
> 
> Some people start new ventures and throw themselves into pursuits that "they" newly find are "their" passion, even if it causes major inconvenience or pain to their life partner they claim to love. Some people start sleeping in separate bedrooms or maintain separate residences with limited visits as a way to "have their own space".
> 
> Some people use the strategy of denying outright that having someone become truly precious to us is a good thing.


This is so very true. There's a very fine line between protecting oneself and just throwing up barriers to intimacy.

And my sense is that much of what is advocated as self protection is really just wall-building that prevents intimacy.


----------



## Marduk

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Aww man, I typed a reply to this Friday and it apparently didn't post. :\
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, *usually* young undergraduates. However, the experiment has also been performed with representative female populations in the US, UK and Germany. You only need about 400 people representing the US population to have a MOE of less than 5%.
> 
> Don't be coy. You know who you find physically attractive and who you don't. If not, what happened to "looks are important to women"?
> 
> The common experiment does not involve tampering with the photo in any way. It usually includes a "bio" line, with a name and occupation. The degree of status attributed to the occupations is not ambiguous, there is a large difference between the high status career and the low status careers. The control photos only have the name.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same as above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a guess, it's a mathematical prediction. Women's perception of looks is heavily influenced by status. Men's is not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given the instructions in these experiments specify rating his physical appearance, it means women's judgment of appearance is influenced by status. Then, it's determined that its actually a pretty strong influence... says math.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The dictionary.
> 
> PRIORITY
> noun
> 
> 2. the right to precede others in order, rank, privilege, etc.; precedence.
> 
> 3. the right to take precedence in obtaining certain supplies, services, facilities, etc., especially during a shortage.
> 
> 4. something given special attention.
> 
> 
> adjective
> 
> 5. highest or higher in importance, rank, privilege, etc.:
> a priority task.
> 
> 
> Physical attractiveness is the quality of a person's appearance in degree that it attracts. Women are more attracted to men with status than men without. Men are no more attracted to women with status than women without. Therefore status "precedes in rank, is given special attention, and is of higher importance" for women than for men. By definition, women prioritize status more than men.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with the conclusions yes. No, I don't believe they are unassailable. I believe you've failed to assail them. You posted on status-beauty exchange earlier and I pointed out that the lack of exchange may be explained by availability and class stratification without invalidating the attractive influence of status.
> 
> Did all of these researchers overlook their actual data, because it was their conclusion too. You're really reaching to deny it. These are simple experiments that overwhelmingly show women find men more physically attractive when presented in high status context, while men don't. If it influences women and doesn't influence men, then it's more important to women than men. It's an influence on women even though the majority of subjects claim not to be influenced by it. There is no getting around it.
> 
> It's bizarre, no doubt. It's not intuitive. However it also informs that it would be difficult to determine a commonly held priority for male traits among women, because the experiment points to physical attractiveness being affected by or dependent upon a non-physical trait. If one is composed even partly of the other, how can we determine priority/weight? Of course, "pickup" has "known" this for 30 or 40 years and has always held that several non-physical traits, not just status, can have a similar affect of altering women's perception of a man's physical attractiveness.


There was a whole episode of mythbusters on this, and it pretty much confirmed what you just said.

What I found fascinating was when Kari padded her bra, she got significantly more tips... from women.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Bugged said:


> I agree with this only if it's mutual. An egalitarian relationship is like that. Problem is, we're also told that the man must be dominant, so it's not an egalitarian relationship.:scratchhead::scratchhead:
> 
> I act more or less in the way described in the article and my partner complanins that I don't take him into enough consideration...wtf???





always_alone said:


> This is so very true. There's a very fine line between protecting oneself and just throwing up barriers to intimacy.
> 
> And my sense is that much of what is advocated as self protection is really just wall-building that prevents intimacy.


This is where that delicate balance is of checking in on a partner, but not making them carry the whole relationship.

Consideration and depth of intimacy without expecting them to carry your entire emotional weight.

These are advanced relational topics for sure.

And for those of us who came from families where these lines weren't clear at all, it is a long road to learn.


----------



## Deejo

Lila said:


> My perception is colored by my life experiences and what I see around me. TBH, it had nothing to do with the thread topic.
> 
> I do not read all of the posts made on this board. That quote, all on it's own without all of the supporting information, can easily be misinterpreted as evident by Dr. Glover's blog where someone questioned his cake/icing analogy. * Context is everything*.


I don't disagree.

As for the bolded, I know I've seen someone around here say that very, very frequently.


----------



## jld

Blossom Leigh said:


> Consideration and depth of intimacy without expecting them to carry your entire emotional weight.


I expect that. I absolutely expect that. When I (temporarily) don't get it, I am really unhappy.

We all have different needs in relationships. When I feel completely accepted, I can completely give myself.


----------



## Marduk

Income as a delta on male attractiveness:
http://youtu.be/k224gY7Tn-Y

To quote Kari: "There's a reason for the cliche. Biology."


----------



## Deejo

jld said:


> I read the article. This comment that followed it brings up some of the concerns I think Lila was trying to address:
> 
> 
> _I have been following Dr. Glover on and off for quite a while and often agree with his perspectives. I rarely comment on his articles, but this one calls to me.
> 
> I want to first and foremost say that I agree that putting a woman on a pedestal doesn't help anything in a relationship, and I agree with many of the bullets in this article. Many people fall into the trap of "trying to please" their partner or making them a focus of the relationship.
> 
> *I think, however, that the language of a good woman being "just icing on the cake" has a dark side that to easily calls to people at mediocre levels of emotional maturity (which would include many of us), and can lead them astray. *
> 
> This article speaks to a common problem (unhealthy emotional strategies common in nice-guys), but unfortunately can be read as encouraging another insidious strategy which unfortunately I have seen in some "reformed" nice-guys. As Dr. Glover himself has said, "the opposite of crazy is still crazy".
> 
> Specifically, the language of a woman being the "icing on the cake" can support a darker strategy in maturing relationships: attempting to diminish the anxiety created by an increasingly important loving partner through various strategies to build insignificance and distance into the relationship.
> 
> Many people find that when a partner truly becomes important to them, especially a really good partner with whom one has built deep, prolonged, and shared life experiences, that they react in ways to create space between them and their partner as a defensive measure.
> 
> After all, if the person truly becomes precious and irreplaceable, that is highly threatening, for all the reasons Dr. Glover mentions. This is especially true if one has grown up (as many of us have) in an environment where having someone truly love us is an uncommon experience.
> 
> People have many different strategies for handling the discomfort of a partner's increasing significance. Some of us start picking fights to create distance. Some people start having affairs. Some find porn a wonderful distraction from the painful poignancy of preciousness.
> 
> "Declaring Independence", which can be healthy in some contexts, is also one of the strategies people use to justify their distancing from a precious partner. "I gotta be me and pursue my passion" can be healthy, but it can also be used a strategy for holding a partner at arms length.
> 
> Some people start new ventures and throw themselves into pursuits that "they" newly find are "their" passion, even if it causes major inconvenience or pain to their life partner they claim to love. Some people start sleeping in separate bedrooms or maintain separate residences with limited visits as a way to "have their own space".
> 
> Some people use the strategy of denying outright that having someone become truly precious to us is a good thing.
> 
> *A truly great relationship can, over some time, evolve into something which is truly irreplaceable. Yes, you can find another partner, but it will never be someone who knows you as well or built a life of shared joy for so many years.
> 
> If one develops enough maturity to truly allow oneself to feel a appreciate a precious relationship like this, one is also willing to relax many other agendas one may have had, as by comparison they no longer hold the shine they used to. This is not to say that one has compromised one's core values, but they have been expanded to include valuing the precious partner's agenda on par with their own.
> 
> The move to defer or modify one's current or former agenda for the benefit of the partner is not always a move from weakness; on the contrary, it can be a show of deep maturity and strength, and an an acceptance of the limitations inherent in being a human being living a rich life with truly loving and enduring relationships.
> 
> I find the idea of considering your woman just "icing on the cake" isn't nuanced enough, and it calls far too easily to those who are not ready to face the most painful realities of our relationship; that if we're very very lucky, our partners really will become truly precious and irreplaceable, valued more highly than anything else in our lives, and yet we may still lose them. *_


Dude is totally over-thinking it.

The simple point is/was; build your life. Build a good one. One that you are proud of, and the right partner will be proud to share with you. 

Let's face it, you could have the best tasting cake in the world ... but icing is the finishing touch, and makes the cake stand out.

Now for those caught up in the symbolism, it sounds like the woman is a pretty and sweet accessory.

For those who are wise in all things, they understand that the right partner is like that finishing piece. They add purpose, definition, vibrance and beauty. 

Ever seen a guy wearing a suit or dress clothes without a belt?

He just doesn't look quite 'finished'.


----------



## Deejo

always_alone said:


> I do think we need some new language to talk about this stuff, though, because I think we can equally say that a man should be the "icing" on the woman's cake too.
> 
> And, FWIW, as a woman I too would want to be conscious, honest, transparent, and am happy to take on the "burden" of making decisions about what I want to do.


I like this post.

This is the ground upon which we can, and I believe do, agree.


----------



## Brigit

marduk said:


> Many 'girl games' cause massive harm to boys.
> 
> Especially in high school when girls develop emotionally faster.
> 
> Had a buddy attempt to kill himself thanks to 'girl game.'
> 
> It's not harmless, either. It' can be soul- and ego-crushing, too.


I'm sorry about your friend. He must have been very hurt. However, this is rare. Most men won't attempt suicide from "Fun Girl Games."


----------



## Brigit

Deejo said:


> Dude is totally over-thinking it.
> 
> The simple point is/was; build your life. Build a good one. One that you are proud of, and the right partner will be proud to share with you.
> 
> Let's face it, you could have the best tasting cake in the world ... but icing is the finishing touch, and makes the cake stand out.
> 
> Now for those caught up in the symbolism, it sounds like the woman is a pretty and sweet accessory.
> 
> For those who are wise in all things, they understand that the right partner is like that finishing piece. They add purpose, definition, vibrance and beauty.
> 
> Ever seen a guy wearing a suit or dress clothes without a belt?
> 
> He just doesn't look quite 'finished'.


I agree with you. Here's an article to help prove your point:

Men With Attractive Wives Report Higher Levels Of Marital Satisfaction, New Study Finds


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> Income as a delta on male attractiveness:
> http://youtu.be/k224gY7Tn-Y
> 
> To quote Kari: "There's a reason for the cliche. Biology."


If anyone actually thinks it is this simple, then yeah I guess they can rely on something this simply to "prove" it.

100 women rated 100 attractive guys, rated them lower when their job was "retail clerk" and higher when the same guy was "vascular surgeon". 

Do we not think the same study could be done manipulating information about women's pictures and showing them to two crowds?

Here's the deal: When you actually meet someone face to face, all kinds of things happen to help you decide if this person is attractive to you or not. Yes, you do take in more information than just what he or she looks like...but most of that information is not only non-verbal, we don't even have ways of testing it yet. 

No one can predict if THIS man or woman will be attracted to THAT man or woman. And why would anyone try to do this anyway?

I can see trying to be attractive to the largest group of the opposite sex possible to cast the widest net for yourself. And whoever is attracted to you will be even moreso if you are at the top of your game, whether man or woman. 

But to go on and on about how women like men with more status when THIS kind of flimsy evidence is all there is about that? That completely misses the point of mutual attraction and without mutual attraction, nothing is going to happen anyway.

The mood of the women in the study also matters, too. The better mood she is in, the more likely she will find all of them more attractive. Also each woman's personal history matters, too. So if she associates a dark haired stranger with romantic getaways, those guys are cuter to her, but if she associates them with mean people who she doesn't like, she will rate those guys as less attractive.

It is sort of like trying to guess what food "everyone" will be most likely to want to eat by showing them pictures of the food. Fully ignoring the fact that if this food in the picture smelled rotten in person, the choice would always be "no thanks".


----------



## Lila

Deejo said:


> Dude is totally over-thinking it.
> 
> The simple point is/was; build your life. Build a good one. One that you are proud of, and the right partner will be proud to share with you.
> 
> Let's face it, you could have the best tasting cake in the world ... but icing is the finishing touch, and makes the cake stand out.


This is exactly why I dislike the analogy of icing/cake. It implies that there is something missing and the only way to be great is to find that someone who "completes" you. 



Deejo said:


> Now for those caught up in the symbolism, *it sounds like the woman is a pretty and sweet accessory.*
> 
> For those who are wise in all things, they understand that the right partner is like that finishing piece. They add purpose, definition, vibrance and beauty.
> 
> *Ever seen a guy wearing a suit or dress clothes without a belt?
> 
> He just doesn't look quite 'finished'*.


People should find others that compliment them not necessarily add/remove from who they are and definitely not "complete" them.


----------



## pidge70

What does it say about me that I don't like icing?


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> There was a whole episode of mythbusters on this, and it pretty much confirmed what you just said.
> 
> What I found fascinating was when Kari padded her bra, she got significantly more tips... from women.


Oh, well thank gawd for mythbusters! No more need for any actual scientists.

Too bad they don't actually bother to do any real statistical analysis. They see a slight increase in rankings that they can attribute to occupation, and then declare the myth confirmed.

Except, as I keep trying to point out: the effect sizes do not support the conclusion that "women find wealth attractive". The minute you allow other variables into the picture, you find that they hold as much or more importance in the determination of attractiveness. 

If you actually analyze the data, the conclusions spouted in the media and on TAM are hugely overblown. Take for example, this quote from one of the studies most commonly cited as "proof" that men choose looks and women choose status:



> Both men’s and women’s success at the events (i.e., the number of times they were chosen, regardless of
> their own choice) was mainly predicted by visible indicators of good physical condition (e.g., body mass index). Resource indicators (e.g., income and education) had surprisingly little impact on success.


Todd et al (2007). Different cognitive processes underlie human mate choices and mate preferences. _Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences_ 104(38): doi:10.1073/pnas.0705290104


----------



## Idyit

Bugged said:


> Honestly this is BS. The analysis of the result is *VERY superficial*.
> 
> For me a cardiologist or a mortgage broker are far sexier that a barman, but not for the MONEY, or because they can be good providers, who cares...for the *BRAINS it takes to be successful in that field*.
> Anyone can make a ****tail for God's sake.
> 
> *Boobs on the other hand are just boobs... are men shallow*?


Men gave 30% more tips for the big boobs.

Women gave 40% more tips for the big boobs.

Oops

~ Passio


----------



## Ikaika

pidge70 said:


> What does it say about me that I don't like icing?



Stuff is too sweet and leaves a film of grease on the roof of ones mouth, yuk. I like my poi, a week old, sour and full of complex flavors.


----------



## Deejo

pidge70 said:


> What does it say about me that I don't like icing?


It means you want to get all up in the cake.

Which is still pretty hot.

Especially if it's spice cake.

I love bad analogies.

I prefer pie. But cake makes a better analogy than pie.

Unless we're going for full sexual innuendo.


----------



## Deejo

Ikaika said:


> Stuff is too sweet and leaves a film of grease on the roof of ones mouth, yuk. I like my poi, a week old, sour and full of complex flavors.


Totally different analogy.

Nobody puts poi on cake, or icing on poi.

That's just wrong.

And you're basically saying that women are greasy, and stick to the roof of your mouth.


----------



## Ikaika

Deejo said:


> Totally different analogy.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody puts poi on cake, or icing on poi.
> 
> 
> 
> That's just wrong.



I don't like cake or pie, taste too one dimensional for me, give me my fish and poi.


----------



## Ikaika

Deejo said:


> And you're basically saying that women are greasy, and stick to the roof of your mouth.



Some can be, but I'm guessing that could be true for some men as well.


----------



## TheGoodGuy

A cool analogy I heard from my IC isn't about cake or icing at all. She said a great, non-codependent relationship can look like two people on a river. in the codependent relationship they are in the same canoe, one behind the other. In a healthy relationship each person is in their own kayak, going down the same river, holding hands side by side. 

Maybe not as flashy as cake and icing but it was a good analogy for me.


----------



## Deejo

always_alone said:


> Oh, well thank gawd for mythbusters! No more need for any actual scientists.
> 
> Too bad they don't actually bother to do any real statistical analysis. They see a slight increase in rankings that they can attribute to occupation, and then declare the myth confirmed.
> 
> Except, as I keep trying to point out: the effect sizes do not support the conclusion that "women find wealth attractive". The minute you allow other variables into the picture, you find that they hold as much or more importance in the determination of attractiveness.
> 
> If you actually analyze the data, the conclusions spouted in the media and on TAM are hugely overblown. Take for example, this quote from one of the studies most commonly cited as "proof" that men choose looks and women choose status:
> 
> 
> 
> Todd et al (2007). Different cognitive processes underlie human mate choices and mate preferences. _Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences_ 104(38): doi:10.1073/pnas.0705290104


Overblown. And correct nonetheless.

What's with you and science? Do we really need science to 'prove' that individuals that 'most' people find desirable are actually people that most people find desirable?

It's like asking for a scientific study to determine that putting Kate Upton on the cover of just about anything has no impact on circulation. Of course it does ... that's why shes on the cover. Hell I bet if the Jehovah's Witnesses got her on the cover of The Watch Tower, they'd have more people taking those pamphlets at the door.


----------



## Deejo

Ikaika said:


> I don't like cake or pie, taste too one dimensional for me, give me my fish and poi.


Kate Upton covered in poi?


----------



## always_alone

Ikaika said:


> I like my poi, a week old, sour and full of complex flavors.


Perfect! Sour and full of complex flavours!

(Disclaimer: I've never actually tasted poi)


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> I don't know exactly what you mean here, but I think what you are saying is that if men don't learn red pill crap they must learn blue pill crap?
> 
> Not sure if that's what you meant, but it sure isn't what I meant.
> 
> I think it is funny that some men seem to think that women are the ones who push blue pill advice, yet there really is no such thing as "blue pill advice". Red pill men are the only people who know what "blue pill advice" even means since they are the ones who made up the term.
> 
> As for what message I would like to give men, for ONE part, I would like to paint a picture of what a Natural sex god acts like and what he thinks like...because I'm married to one...and show how this is a lot different than what the red pill crap has told them. I will try to do this in a witty and edgy enough way to not lose the readers...and there will be an underlying hope that knowing these things he knows can help a man find that within himself (as it really is inside of you). I'm going to get my hubby to help write these parts.
> 
> There is more I will cover, as well. Such as how girls can run all the same game that guys can, and it won't work for us either if the goal is long term sustained attraction.


Every female matriarch in my family pushed blue pill thinking at me. 

As did almost every 80s and 90s sitcom and rom-com. Except maybe "married with children."
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Idyit

Deejo said:


> I bet if the Jehovah's Witnesses got her on the cover of The Watch Tower, they'd have more people taking those pamphlets at the door.


That right there is funny.

~ Passio


----------



## Ikaika

Deejo said:


> Kate Upton covered in poi?



Sounds delicious.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> If anyone actually thinks it is this simple, then yeah I guess they can rely on something this simply to "prove" it.
> 
> 100 women rated 100 attractive guys, rated them lower when their job was "retail clerk" and higher when the same guy was "vascular surgeon".
> 
> Do we not think the same study could be done manipulating information about women's pictures and showing them to two crowds?
> 
> Here's the deal: When you actually meet someone face to face, all kinds of things happen to help you decide if this person is attractive to you or not. Yes, you do take in more information than just what he or she looks like...but most of that information is not only non-verbal, we don't even have ways of testing it yet.
> 
> No one can predict if THIS man or woman will be attracted to THAT man or woman. And why would anyone try to do this anyway?
> 
> I can see trying to be attractive to the largest group of the opposite sex possible to cast the widest net for yourself. And whoever is attracted to you will be even moreso if you are at the top of your game, whether man or woman.
> 
> But to go on and on about how women like men with more status when THIS kind of flimsy evidence is all there is about that? That completely misses the point of mutual attraction and without mutual attraction, nothing is going to happen anyway.
> 
> The mood of the women in the study also matters, too. The better mood she is in, the more likely she will find all of them more attractive. Also each woman's personal history matters, too. So if she associates a dark haired stranger with romantic getaways, those guys are cuter to her, but if she associates them with mean people who she doesn't like, she will rate those guys as less attractive.
> 
> It is sort of like trying to guess what food "everyone" will be most likely to want to eat by showing them pictures of the food. Fully ignoring the fact that if this food in the picture smelled rotten in person, the choice would always be "no thanks".


My point is this: there's something to it. Many, if not most guys have seen it and felt it. 

Part of the power in the red pill is acknowledging it instead of denying it, and put an ego-psych model in place to try to explain it. 

Which of course is flawed. 

If you're going to reject the model of why, you should put something else in place. 

If you're going to pretend that it's not there, you're going to lose a lot of people, myself included. Because then it will also be based on a fallacy.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## samyeagar

marduk said:


> Every female matriarch in my family pushed blue pill thinking at me.
> 
> As did almost every 80s and 90s sitcom and rom-com. Except maybe *"married with children."*
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Which was considered very edgy and shocking.


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> Overblown. And correct nonetheless.
> 
> What's with you and science? Do we really need science to 'prove' that individuals that 'most' people find desirable are actually people that most people find desirable?


*Sigh* Popularity contests only show who's popular. 

When people tell me that something is true because it's "scientifically proven", I will look to the sources that back up that claim. Why is this so surprising or troubling to you?

If you think the answers to the questions are so obvious that they do not need to be researched, you can take that up with the multitudes of academics that are investing their time and resources in investigating it.

ETA: I'm saying this because from what I see, all you seem to care about is whether we can agree if Kate Upton is attractive/desirable. Which ensures that the discussion never even dares step beyond the purely physical, superficial gloss of celebrity photographs. If that's your only definition of "attractive" and "desirable", well, so be it I guess.


----------



## john117

Bugged said:


> For me a cardiologist or a mortgage broker are far sexier that a barman, but not for the MONEY, or because they can be good providers, who cares...for the *BRAINS it takes to be successful in that field*.



If brains were important in a relationship / marriage I should be on cloud 9...


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> Oh, well thank gawd for mythbusters! No more need for any actual scientists.
> 
> Too bad they don't actually bother to do any real statistical analysis. They see a slight increase in rankings that they can attribute to occupation, and then declare the myth confirmed.
> 
> Except, as I keep trying to point out: the effect sizes do not support the conclusion that "women find wealth attractive". The minute you allow other variables into the picture, you find that they hold as much or more importance in the determination of attractiveness.
> 
> If you actually analyze the data, the conclusions spouted in the media and on TAM are hugely overblown. Take for example, this quote from one of the studies most commonly cited as "proof" that men choose looks and women choose status:
> 
> 
> 
> Todd et al (2007). Different cognitive processes underlie human mate choices and mate preferences. _Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences_ 104(38): doi:10.1073/pnas.0705290104


It was two different experiments. 

And you can reject it all you like, but they at least sought empirical evidence, and were surprised by the result. And did so transparently. 

Theorizing based on what you want to be true is less compelling.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## john117

marduk said:


> Every female matriarch in my family pushed blue pill thinking at me.
> 
> 
> 
> As did almost every 80s and 90s sitcom and rom-com. Except maybe "married with children."
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



No wonder that my dream wife will always be Peggy Bundy...


----------



## Marduk

Brigit said:


> I'm sorry about your friend. He must have been very hurt. However, this is rare. Most men won't attempt suicide from "Fun Girl Games."


Non sequitor.

It's either not OK for girls to do this because it's not OK for guys to do this, or the opposite.

But what's not OK is for girls to do this and guys not to.

And don't try to tell me what kind of pain guys go through because of girl game.


----------



## Marduk

Bugged said:


> Honestly this is BS. The analysis of the result is *VERY superficial*.
> 
> For me a cardiologist or a mortgage broker are far sexier that a barman, but not for the MONEY, or because they can be good providers, who cares...for the *BRAINS it takes to be successful in that field*.
> Anyone can make a ****tail for God's sake.
> 
> Boobs on the other hand are just boobs... are men shallow?


Superficial based on what?

What evidence do you have to the contrary?

And what I found fascinating is that WOMEN tipped another WOMAN more based on her having bigger boobs.

The delta for women was higher than for men!


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> It was two different experiments.
> 
> And you can reject it all you like, but they at least sought empirical evidence, and were surprised by the result. And did so transparently.
> 
> Theorizing based on what you want to be true is less compelling.


Seeking empirical evidence is fine. But jumping to conclusions and exaggerating results are just downright sloppy thinking.

Meta-analyses are not strictly speaking empirical, but they are essential for careful weighing of evidence and results that help us in drawing sound conclusions.

I'm starting to see, however, that there is no interest in drawing sound conclusions of any kind. Just in insisting that Kate Upton is indeed attractive.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> *Sigh* Popularity contests only show who's popular.
> 
> When people tell me that something is true because it's "scientifically proven", I will look to the sources that back up that claim. Why is this so surprising or troubling to you?
> 
> If you think the answers to the questions are so obvious that they do not need to be researched, you can take that up with the multitudes of academics that are investing their time and resources in investigating it.


One of the ways I can tell that someone's arguing based on passion rather than rationality is resorting to ad hominem attacks.

Why does the *tendancy* for *some* women to find *some* guys more attractive because of $ bother you?

I'm not saying that all women are attracted soley based on money.

I'm not saying that all women will find the same guy more attractive if he has more money. Some women will be less attracted to him.

What I am saying is that the effect is there in the general population. Enough that effects like this can be measured, and controlled for, and we can argue about how large or small the effect is, and if it is increasing or decreasing.

But going "lalalala nothing's there" isn't going to get anyone anywhere, and just going to drive more guys at the red pill.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> Seeking empirical evidence is fine. But jumping to conclusions and exaggerating results are just downright sloppy thinking.
> 
> Meta-analyses are not strictly speaking empirical, but they are essential for careful weighing of evidence and results that help us in drawing sound conclusions.
> 
> I'm starting to see, however, that there is no interest in drawing sound conclusions of any kind. Just in insisting that Kate Upton is indeed attractive.


Point out the flaws in what they did.

Point out how the whole effect could be null, and come up with an experiment for that.


----------



## samyeagar

marduk said:


> Point out the flaws in what they did.
> 
> Point out how the whole effect could be null, and come up with an experiment for that.


I think that we may be seeing another bit of social conditioning entering in here as well...the MythBusters episode was all about initial attraction, and first impressions. We have been conditioned to believe that finding boobs attractive, or money and status attractive, and being a basis for approach to be a very negative thing, therefore admitting to the strength of those factors leads one to negative feelings.

The whole "shallow" thing. It is nothing but a shaming tactic to call someone shallow for having material preferences.


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> One of the ways I can tell that someone's arguing based on passion rather than rationality is resorting to ad hominem attacks.
> 
> Why does the *tendancy* for *some* women to find *some* guys more attractive because of $ bother you?
> 
> I'm not saying that all women are attracted soley based on money.
> 
> I'm not saying that all women will find the same guy more attractive if he has more money. Some women will be less attracted to him.
> 
> What I am saying is that the effect is there in the general population. Enough that effects like this can be measured, and controlled for, and we can argue about how large or small the effect is, and if it is increasing or decreasing.
> 
> But going "lalalala nothing's there" isn't going to get anyone anywhere, and just going to drive more guys at the red pill.


And I keep pointing out that the effects aren't actually there once you go through the effort of rigorous statistical analysis.

Even the *authors* of the study I cited (one that supposedly "proves" your case) pointed out that resources, wealth, education had surprisingly little effect on whether or not *men* and women were ranked as attractive by the opposite sex. 

One of the ways I can tell that someone is not engaging rationally with a topic is that they simply dismiss everything the other person says as "lalalalala".


----------



## Deejo

always_alone said:


> I'm starting to see, however, that there is no interest in drawing sound conclusions of any kind. Just in insisting that Kate Upton is indeed attractive.


Is Kate Upton NOT attractive?

I'm not attracted to her. (No, seriously)

But I can acknowledge that she is attractive.

That's sloppy thinking?

Here is what my intensive research has yielded; life is sloppy.

I like when we can make the slop into a nice cake. Or poi.


----------



## Brigit

I don't know why everyone is so hung up on all of these studies so much. In the dating world who gives a crap about statistics? There is a specialized skill that seems to be overlooked. It's called "common sense." 

People are not numbers they're complex. Someone who doesn't look so great on paper might do well anyway because of certain characteristics. In the end, people pick who they're most compatible with and who's company they enjoy.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> There is no real control in these studies.


Please explain how presenting a picture without the manipulated status text/object is not a control.



always_alone said:


> For starters, a well designed medical study will involve more than 39 undergraduates.


The last one I presented was several hundred people. At least two of the studies I posted earlier were 200-400 people. Statistically, it only takes about 400 people to represent the US population with a MOE of 5% at 95% confidence.

Note the p-value of the last one I posted on the high status/low status groups: .009

This is a significant result.



always_alone said:


> For 2, it will use objective measures to determine efficacy of the drug, not simply ask people if they feel healthy again. They will also use objective measures to determine side effects.


They do both. As this is a complaint about the subjectivity of rating attraction, I will tell you that very similar experiments without rating have been performed. Instead of rating men, women are given a pool of men from which they must choose for a date, and status is manipulated. Again the high status men are chosen significantly more than their lower status selves.

Another setup follows a speed dating scheme where women have several short conversations with men. Between rotations, the woman has an index card to that presents the bio of the next man she meets, with career manipulated. She is instructed to keep notes and at the end is asked which of the men she would most prefer a date with. The content of the conversation is uncontrolled. Again women show statistically significant preference for high status.



always_alone said:


> For 3, it will control for other variables, and not simply pretend that they don't exist. The thing about people is that you simply cannot study them in suitably controlled environments because they are people and it wouldn't be ethical to do so. So you *must* factor in all of intervening variables and other sorts of noise.


You CANNOT possibly account for all the intervening variables in mate selection, and doing so would be entirely beyond the scope of the experiment - which is to test whether or not status has influence. Some of it is even chance... that a conversation goes a certain way so as to make a great impression, or just happens to not gain traction.



always_alone said:


> In the science of attraction, however, as soon as you do this, it becomes readily apparent that results are all over the map.


They're all over the map because every person is a huge set of variables - the PEOPLE are all over the map. Maybe he has status but is socially awkward. Maybe he's gorgeous, middle class but has anger issues. The list of factors is enormous. What status-attraction experiments show, is that any of them would be more attractive with status than they are without it. If you take no status, socially awkward 3 and add status, he's a 4. He's more likely to be appealing to someone than he was prior.



always_alone said:


> Also, "effect size" is a statistical calculation, not provided by your graph, which was clearly drawn to make reservations results look more dramatic than they really are.


The graph wasn't intended to demonstrate strength of the effect. It is just a graph of the mean ratings by group. There's nothing about the graph that makes it look more dramatic. It shows exactly what was found: a 1 point increase in mean rating from low to high status. Not all of these studies include the strength of the effect, that one doesn't; but I've found those that do usually calculate a high small/ low medium effect (.3 -.4 in studies I posted and others I've seen; other values using methods I'm less familiar with differ, but the authors still characterize it as small or medium).

I have no objection to this. My contention has always been that status influences women's perception of attractiveness. You'll find about the same or less strength for height believe it or not. No one questions that looks alone are the largest factor - but it is more than clear that status has a significant positive influence for women, while it does not for men according to the vast majority of studies. I consider the fact that this conversation has shifted from questioning the very existence of this influence to the extent of it, vindication of my original claim that the positive influence of status on perceived attractiveness is well supported, dare I say proven.



always_alone said:


> Since men will downgrade on this just as readily as women, can we finally agree that looks are just as important for both men and women?
> 
> And if so, whatever happened to that "priority" of status?


I don't follow your reasoning at all. You changed the subject. Clothes/Hair/Physique is not status. I'll readily accept that men and women have equal preference for nice clothes, well kept hair and a good physique (might have some questions on physique). Those being the same wouldn't change the fact that women are more influenced by (value) male socio-economic status more than men are influenced by (value) female socio-economic status. I'll readily accept that everyone will trade on desired traits above their minimum standards. Men however, don't trade anything for female status, because men don't desire/value female status.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> And I keep pointing out that the effects aren't actually there once you go through the effort of rigorous statistical analysis.
> 
> Even the *authors* of the study I cited (one that supposedly "proves" your case) pointed out that resources and education had surprisingly little effect on whether or not *men* and women were ranked as attractive.
> 
> One of the ways I can tell that someone is not engaging rationally with a topic is that they simply dismiss everything the other person says as "lalalalala".


I'm not saying it proves my case.

I'm saying it's evidence for it.

Attacking the show isn't evidence for anything, and is by definition an ad hominem attack.

Is your position that the effect will vanish if they used ten times the women in the study? 100? 1000?

Because most political surveys actually use the same kind of number, or less so.

Even aside the survey... 

You can say that $ is a secondary characteristic of intelligence. Which may be true. Or aggression, or to provide, or many things...


----------



## Marduk

Brigit said:


> I don't know why everyone is so hung up on all of these studies so much. In the dating world who gives a crap about statistics? There is a specialized skill that seems to be overlooked. It's called "common sense."
> 
> People are not numbers they're complex. Someone who doesn't look so great on paper might do well anyway because of certain characteristics. In the end, people pick who they're most compatible with and who's company they enjoy.


Here's my hangup Brigit.

Unless you acknowledge and explain the effect, people who experience it and leverage it will go to what does -- the red pill.

And those that experience it and feel disempowered by it will go to the one source that provides and explanation and a model of how to leverage it -- the red pill.

This line of non-inquiry actually helps the red pill folks.


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> I'm not saying it proves my case.
> 
> I'm saying it's evidence for it.
> 
> Attacking the show isn't evidence for anything, and is by definition an ad hominem attack.
> 
> Is your position that the effect will vanish if they used ten times the women in the study? 100? 1000?
> 
> Because most political surveys actually use the same kind of number, or less so.
> 
> Even aside the survey...
> 
> You can say that $ is a secondary characteristic of intelligence. Which may be true. Or aggression, or to provide, or many things...


Pointing out that someone didn't do any statistical analysis is not an "ad hominem" in any way. 

My point is that "effect size" is a statistical calculation that helps bring a little bit of rigour into drawing conclusions from these rather problematic studies.


----------



## naiveonedave

Brigit said:


> I don't know why everyone is so hung up on all of these studies so much. In the dating world who gives a crap about statistics? There is a specialized skill that seems to be overlooked. It's called "common sense."
> 
> People are not numbers they're complex. Someone who doesn't look so great on paper might do well anyway because of certain characteristics. In the end, people pick who they're most compatible with and who's company they enjoy.


this is my take. If you want to attract a mate, you would like to have the biggest pool of potential mates to pick from. These type of studies suggest things you could do to increase your pool of potentials.

Also, if you are in a sexless marriage or a marriage where your spouse is not meeting some of your key needs (sex is a key need, since the thread is about RP and sex I singled it out), there are things these studies suggest you could do to improve yourself, that could have the a side effect of your spouse adapting to your changes to meet your needs.


----------



## pidge70

Deejo said:


> It means you want to get all up in the cake.
> 
> Which is still pretty hot.
> 
> Especially if it's spice cake.
> 
> I love bad analogies.
> 
> I prefer pie. But cake makes a better analogy than pie.
> 
> Unless we're going for full sexual innuendo.


----------



## Lila

Brigit said:


> I don't know why everyone is so hung up on all of these studies so much. In the dating world who gives a crap about statistics? There is a specialized skill that seems to be overlooked. It's called "common sense."
> 
> People are not numbers they're complex. Someone who doesn't look so great on paper might do well anyway because of certain characteristics. In the end, people pick who they're most compatible with and who's company they enjoy.


Instead of focusing on the studies that exclude people from possible candidacy for relationships, I'd love to see a study that explains how it's possible that mid-class, average looking, and/or unfit people still manage to have relationships....some very healthy ones. 

I mean according to Evo Bio, unattractive and/or poor people would be made extinct for lack of finding available partners, right?


----------



## Deejo

Brigit said:


> I don't know why everyone is so hung up on all of these studies so much. In the dating world who gives a crap about statistics? There is a specialized skill that seems to be overlooked. It's called "common sense."
> 
> People are not numbers they're complex. Someone who doesn't look so great on paper might do well anyway because of certain characteristics. In the end, people pick who they're most compatible with and who's company they enjoy.


Statistics and research indicate most people do not have this common sense you speak of, despite the fact of insisting they do. It cannot be measured or quantified. It's impact or lack thereof can not determine measurable or predetermined outcomes.

There is a movie on Netflix that I often recommend called 'Timer', the premise is that you can buy a device, kind of like a fit bit that will countdown to the moment that you will meet your soul mate. The ONE person with whom you are completely compatible and will be in love with for the rest of your life.

Part of the premise is whether or not that's a good thing.

It takes 'common sense' along with heart break, adventure, self discovery, spiritual growth, divorce, and monkey sex out of the equation.

Check it out.


----------



## Ikaika

Deejo said:


> Is Kate Upton NOT attractive?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not attracted to her. (No, seriously)
> 
> 
> 
> But I can acknowledge that she is attractive.
> 
> 
> 
> That's sloppy thinking?
> 
> 
> 
> Here is what my intensive research has yielded; life is sloppy.
> 
> 
> 
> I like when we can make the slop into a nice cake. Or poi.



I had to look up who Kate Upton... Yes she is attractive, but not my type. I don't care for blondes.


----------



## Julius Beastcavern

Lila said:


> Instead of focusing on the studies that exclude people from possible candidacy for relationships, I'd love to see a study that explains how it's possible that mid-class, average looking, and/or unfit people still manage to have relationships....some very healthy ones.
> 
> I mean according to Evo Bio, unattractive and/or poor people would be made extinct for lack of finding available partners, right?


The red pill explains that via the concept of sex rank


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> Pointing out that someone didn't do any statistical analysis is not an "ad hominem" in any way.
> 
> My point is that "effect size" is a statistical calculation that helps bring a little bit of rigour into drawing conclusions from these rather problematic studies.


Inferring the results are invalid because they aren't official scientists therefore results invalid is an ad hominem attack. 

I think the effect size is significant. Show me I'm wrong.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

Lila said:


> Instead of focusing on the studies that exclude people from possible candidacy for relationships, I'd love to see a study that explains how it's possible that mid-class, average looking, and/or unfit people still manage to have relationships....some very healthy ones.
> 
> I mean according to Evo Bio, unattractive and/or poor people would be made extinct for lack of finding available partners, right?


Wrong. 

If the effect is right, they would have access to a smaller selection of candidates. Still non zero.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> My point is this: there's something to it. Many, if not most guys have seen it and felt it.
> 
> Part of the power in the red pill is acknowledging it instead of denying it, and put an ego-psych model in place to try to explain it.
> 
> Which of course is flawed.
> 
> *If you're going to reject the model of why, you should put something else in place. *
> 
> If you're going to pretend that it's not there, you're going to lose a lot of people, myself included. Because then it will also be based on a fallacy.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I am and I do...

It is called MUTUAL attraction and it cannot be measured except by the two people feeling it or not feeling it.


----------



## Lila

marduk said:


> Wrong.
> 
> If the effect is right, they would have access to a smaller selection of candidates. Still non zero.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


So in other words.....people settle.


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> Is Kate Upton NOT attractive?
> 
> I'm not attracted to her. (No, seriously)
> 
> But I can acknowledge that she is attractive.
> 
> That's sloppy thinking?


I have no opinion at all on Kate Upton's attractiveness. I don't really know who she is, even, or what she looks like, and I don't really care.

What is sloppy thinking is making grandiose claims about what men find attractive and what women find attractive based on poorly conceived studies and presumptions about how we evolved.

And this is precisely what red pill philosophy does, and why I am even talking about it here in the first place.

Can't you see that the fact that you can say both that you don't find Kate Upton attractive, but you do recognize that she is attractive, and have no problem whatsoever with this, is exactly what's at issue here? 

What does attractive even mean, when your very own self-assessment determines someone as both attractive and not-attractive at exactly the same time? And if you are comfortable with this contradiction, what about all of those subjects in those studies? We are, after all, relying completely on their perceptions of "attractiveness".


----------



## samyeagar

Julius Beastcavern said:


> The red pill explains that via the concept of sex rank


That's what is at the root of this red pill crap. It seeks to explain observable perceived phenomena. Until there is a different, better more palatable explanation for the same phenomena, it will continue to have some traction.


----------



## naiveonedave

marduk said:


> Wrong.
> 
> If the effect is right, they would have access to a smaller selection of candidates. Still non zero.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


or more aptly, the right group of candidates. One of my friends has always aimed way too high. He started his career late, being 10 years older than most of his peers, not a very attractive man, overweight, but still thinks he can get (figuratively) Kate Upton. If he was honest about his own attractiveness, he would look at a different pool where, the women in said pool may pick him....


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> Inferring the results are invalid because they aren't official scientists therefore results invalid is an ad hominem attack.
> 
> I think the effect size is significant. Show me I'm wrong.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I did by quoting the *authors* of one of the studies that allegedly proves this "women love wealth thing". 

But all you heard was "lalalalalala".

And admittedly, I was sarcastic re mythbusters, but the reason their results aren't valid are simply that they conducted no rigorous statistical analysis.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> I am and I do...
> 
> It is called MUTUAL attraction and it cannot be measured except by the two people feeling it or not feeling it.


If your model includes socioeconomic triggers for attraction, or at least takes them into account, I'm in. 

I think you're looking at it as a 1:1 thing, others as a statistical artefact.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## naiveonedave

Lila said:


> So in other words.....people settle.


well, figuratively, if you can't attract a ten, but still want a relationship, you may have to settle for a 9.5.....


----------



## samyeagar

always_alone said:


> I have no opinion at all on Kate Upton's attractiveness. I don't really know who she is, even, or what she looks like, and I don't really care.
> 
> What is sloppy thinking is making grandiose claims about what men find attractive and what women find attractive based on poorly conceived studies and presumptions about how we evolved.
> 
> And this is precisely what red pill philosophy does, and why I am even talking about it here in the first place.
> 
> Can't you see that the fact that you can say both that you don't find Kate Upton attractive, but you do recognize that she is attractive, and have no problem whatsoever with this, is exactly what's at issue here?
> 
> What does attractive even mean, when your very own self-assessment determines someone as both attractive and not-attractive at exactly the same time? And if you are comfortable with this contradiction, what about all of those subjects in those studies? We are, after all, relying completely on their perceptions of "attractiveness".


I can objectively say that my ex-wife is attractive, yet I find myself physically repulsed by her. Generally speaking, the more widely a person is considered attractive, the better chance they have of someone being attracted to them.


----------



## Marduk

Lila said:


> So in other words.....people settle.


I think it's a more pragmatic thing, where you allow a certain set of people access to you emotionally, and then you fall in love, or don't.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Brigit

Deejo said:


> Statistics and research indicate most people do not have this common sense you speak of, despite the fact of insisting they do. It cannot be measured or quantified. It's impact or lack thereof can not determine measurable or predetermined outcomes.
> 
> There is a movie on Netflix that I often recommend called 'Timer', the premise is that you can buy a device, kind of like a fit bit that will countdown to the moment that you will meet your soul mate. The ONE person with whom you are completely compatible and will be in love with for the rest of your life.
> 
> Part of the premise is whether or not that's a good thing.
> 
> It takes 'common sense' along with heart break, adventure, self discovery, spiritual growth, divorce, and monkey sex out of the equation.
> 
> Check it out.


That is my kinda movie! The preview looks very intriguing. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4iMWM91cHY


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> If your model includes socioeconomic triggers for attraction, or at least takes them into account, I'm in.
> 
> I think you're looking at it as a 1:1 thing, others as a statistical artefact.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


No, my model doesn't take into account socioeconomic triggers for attraction. It takes into account two _human beings_ who have all they need within them to decide if they find each other attractive or not.

Whatever their looks or status, only THEY get to decide if they feel MUTUAL attraction.

This is what my husband has known all along.

He doesn't need to be attractive to all women to be a sex god.

He only needs to be mutually attracted to enough women to give him a good base to choose from.

This is how I've always operated too, and have never ever lacked for suitors who I'm mutually attracted to.

From there much more needs to happen before the two decide if there will even be ONE date....

Then from there...much more happens to decided if there will be a second date, or a kiss, or sex, or whatever.

In my book I'll describe how my husband and I both are able to know who has mutual attraction to us (and we're both also a good judge of who is highly sexual like we are).

There are actually tests that show that the more adept you are at knowing who finds YOU attractive, the more sexually successful you are. (I will see if I can find that study).


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> I have no opinion at all on Kate Upton's attractiveness. I don't really know who she is, even, or what she looks like, and I don't really care.
> 
> What is sloppy thinking is making grandiose claims about what men find attractive and what women find attractive based on poorly conceived studies and presumptions about how we evolved.
> 
> And this is precisely what red pill philosophy does, and why I am even talking about it here in the first place.
> 
> Can't you see that the fact that you can say both that you don't find Kate Upton attractive, but you do recognize that she is attractive, and have no problem whatsoever with this, is exactly what's at issue here?
> 
> What does attractive even mean, when your very own self-assessment determines someone as both attractive and not-attractive at exactly the same time? And if you are comfortable with this contradiction, what about all of those subjects in those studies? We are, after all, relying completely on their perceptions of "attractiveness".


The funny thing is, if you reverse the logic, that's exactly what you did. 

And I'm taking the time to say that to you a_a because I actually care about what you think.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

Brigit said:


> That is my kinda movie! The preview looks very intriguing.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4iMWM91cHY


It is really cute. I recommend it.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> No, my model doesn't take into account socioeconomic triggers for attraction. It takes into account two _human beings_ who have all they need within them to decide if they find each other attractive or not.
> 
> Whatever their looks or status, only THEY get to decide if they feel MUTUAL attraction.
> 
> This is what my husband has known all along.
> 
> He doesn't need to be attractive to all women to be a sex god.
> 
> He only needs to be mutually attracted to enough women to give him a good base to choose from.
> 
> This is how I've always operated too, and have never ever lacked for suitors who I'm mutually attracted to.
> 
> From there much more needs to happen before the two decide if there will even be ONE date....
> 
> Then from there...much more happens to decided if there will be a second date, or a kiss, or sex, or whatever.
> 
> In my book I'll describe how my husband and I both are able to know who has mutual attraction to us (and we're both also a good judge of who is highly sexual like we are).
> 
> There are actually tests that show that the more adept you are at knowing who finds YOU attractive, the more sexually successful you are. (I will see if I can find that study).


I'd love to see that, it actually makes sense to me. 

If you're going to offer it as a replacement for the red pill I think you're going to have to cover that.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Jellybeans

Faithful Wife said:


> There are actually tests that show that the more adept you are at knowing who finds YOU attractive, the more sexually successful you are. (I will see if I can find that study).


That is interesting. I've never thought of that before. Link it if you find it, please. 

I am only skimming but saw Kate Upton's name come up and will say: she has amazing chi-chis. Like, ridiculous.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I don't follow your reasoning at all. You changed the subject. Clothes/Hair/Physique is not status. I'll readily accept that men and women have equal preference for nice clothes, well kept hair and a good physique (might have some doubts on the value of physique). Those being the same wouldn't change the fact that women are more influenced by (value) male socio-economic status more than men are influenced by (value) female socio-economic status. I'll readily accept that everyone will trade on desired traits above their minimum standards. Men however, don't trade anything for female status, because men don't desire/value female status.


Just a couple of last thoughts on the "science":

Achieving significance on a study is only one small part of determining its validity. More important is effect size.

And, yes, my point in changing the subject was that you cannot determine "priority" from a single set of variables. You cannot determine that women "prioritize" looks from one study investigating their reactions to good-looking or non-good-looking men, and more than you can evaluate their "priority" on wealth or status.

At the very best, you can only conclude that when no other information is available beyond a photograph, women will display a slight tendency to determine attractiveness based on wealth. Maybe this shows that they place slightly more value on wealth and status than men, but it says absolutely nothing about their priorities.


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> The funny thing is, if you reverse the logic, that's exactly what you did.
> 
> And I'm taking the time to say that to you a_a because I actually care about what you think.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


????I'm confused. Where did I make grandiose claims about what men and women find attractive?????


----------



## Faithful Wife

Jellybeans said:


> I am only skimming but saw Kate Upton's name come up and will say: she has amazing chi-chis. Like, ridiculous.


To me there are only two kinds of sexual orientations in the world....

Those who have seen the Kate Upton cat daddy video more than 50 times.

And those who haven't.


----------



## Lila

marduk said:


> I think it's a more pragmatic thing, where you allow a certain set of people access to you emotionally, and then you fall in love, or don't.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I'm really not being difficult with this but "allowing people access to you emotionally" is not Evo-Bio theory. It is very particular about dictating what constitutes "scientifically proven" attractive vs. unattractive qualities. 

If one falls under the unattractive category then Evo-Bio theory would make you extinct, for lack of a better word. The limbic brain of man/woman would never willfully choose to mate with that person.

Furthermore, going by RP theory, should you choose to "settle" with a "lesser" attractive person, the risk is there for infidelity because the partner will always be seeking to procreate with someone that our limbic brain is calling out as attractive.


----------



## Brigit

Faithful Wife said:


> There are actually tests that show that the more adept you are at knowing who finds YOU attractive, the more sexually successful you are. (I will see if I can find that study).


Since everyone is so into research and tests here is a quote from Time:

"An October study from Rutgers University found that a specific balance of chemicals affects what type of person each individual is attracted to. People with active dopamine levels (impulsive, curious types) or high serotonin levels (social, conscientious types) tended to like people similar to themselves. But men with high testosterone tended to be drawn to women with high estrogen and oxytocin levels (and vice versa). So who you fall for all boils down to how the chemicals are distributed in your brain."

Dating Narcissism: Why We Look for Ourselves in a Partner


(So in the end it all comes down to Chemistry. Sorry dudes can't learn that in a book.)


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> I'd love to see that, it actually makes sense to me.
> 
> If you're going to offer it as a replacement for the red pill I think you're going to have to cover that.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Marduk....keep in mind that MOST of the world has not heard of the red pill. I am going to appeal to the people who may have found red pill and maybe turn them another direction.

But as for people who already swallowed the red pill? I will reach them if I can but converting them isn't my goal.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> Just a couple of last thoughts on the "science":
> 
> Achieving significance on a study is only one small part of determining its validity. More important is effect size.
> 
> And, yes, my point in changing the subject was that you cannot determine "priority" from a single set of variables. You cannot determine that women "prioritize" looks from one study investigating their reactions to good-looking or non-good-looking men, and more than you can evaluate their "priority" on wealth or status.
> 
> At the very best, you can only conclude that when no other information is available beyond a photograph, women will display a slight tendency to determine attractiveness based on wealth. Maybe this shows that they place slightly more value on wealth and status than men, but it says absolutely nothing about their priorities.


Exactly. 

Now, what fascinates me is why. 

Specifically, if that's something a married guy can understand to increase his wife's attraction for him.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Julius Beastcavern

Brigit said:


> Since everyone is so into research and tests here is a quote from Time:
> 
> "An October study from Rutgers University found that a specific balance of chemicals affects what type of person each individual is attracted to. People with active dopamine levels (impulsive, curious types) or high serotonin levels (social, conscientious types) tended to like people similar to themselves. But men with high testosterone tended to be drawn to women with high estrogen and oxytocin levels (and vice versa). So who you fall for all boils down to how the chemicals are distributed in your brain."
> 
> Dating Narcissism: Why We Look for Ourselves in a Partner
> 
> 
> (So in the end it all comes down to Chemistry. Sorry dudes can't learn that in a book.)


The chemicals are in MMSLP


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> ????I'm confused. Where did I make grandiose claims about what men and women find attractive?????


Because by inferring that the effect is not there, you are inferring on what large groups of women don't care about attraction wise. 

Simple logic. 

If it's not fair game for me, it's not fair game for you, either.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

Julius Beastcavern said:


> The chemicals are in MMSLP


No, they aren't.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Marduk....keep in mind that MOST of the world has not heard of the red pill. I am going to appeal to the people who may have found red pill and maybe turn them another direction.
> 
> But as for people who already swallowed the red pill? I will reach them if I can but converting them isn't my goal.


Sorry, FW, I thought this was a secondary goal for your book. 

An alternative to the red pill.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> Sorry, FW, I thought this was a secondary goal for your book.
> 
> An alternative to the red pill.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



Yes it will be an alternative, but most readers will have never heard of red pill, so only a tiny portion will be dedicated to those who have.


----------



## Lila

Brigit said:


> Since everyone is so into research and tests here is a quote from Time:
> 
> "An October study from Rutgers University found that a specific balance of chemicals affects what type of person each individual is attracted to. People with active dopamine levels (impulsive, curious types) or high serotonin levels (social, conscientious types) tended to like people similar to themselves. But men with high testosterone tended to be drawn to women with high estrogen and oxytocin levels (and vice versa). So who you fall for all boils down to how the chemicals are distributed in your brain."
> 
> Dating Narcissism: Why We Look for Ourselves in a Partner
> 
> 
> (So in the end it all comes down to Chemistry. Sorry dudes can't learn that in a book.)


Tangent post.........

I'm not sure if this is the same study or not but I watched a show on Discovery Science where they showed an experiment on the effects of pheromones on people. One of the things they were studying was how hormonal birth control seems to mask these pheromones causing incompatible pairings. I'd be interested in seeing those results.


----------



## always_alone

samyeagar said:


> I can objectively say that my ex-wife is attractive, yet I find myself physically repulsed by her. Generally speaking, the more widely a person is considered attractive, the better chance they have of someone being attracted to them.


Can't argue with that!

I'm just pointing out that a whole lot of things go into making someone attractive. Looks is a big piece, to be sure. And when you don't know someone at all, probably the biggest piece. But there's a whole lot more.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes it will be an alternative, but most readers will have never heard of red pill, so only a tiny portion will be dedicated to those who have.


Ok then as a guy I would be interested in an exploration of such triggers for female attraction. 

It's kind of an elephant in the room thing.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Deejo

always_alone said:


> I have no opinion at all on Kate Upton's attractiveness. I don't really know who she is, even, or what she looks like, and I don't really care.


And that's ok, but understand, you are a very small sample. Sample most Haole males living in the U.S. between the ages of 16 and 45 and they are going to know who she is. And odds are they are going think she's hot ... which is exactly why she's a super model.



always_alone said:


> What is sloppy thinking is making grandiose claims about what men find attractive and what women find attractive based on poorly conceived studies and presumptions about how we evolved.


Grandiose claims?! Me?! Oh pishaw. 

Seriously though it does still work, in fostering initial attraction. If one chooses to also foster being a duplicitous D-bag, then he can keep giving virtual high-fives to his online buds rather than actually choosing to build something with a worthwhile partner, particularly, because he himself isn't a worthwhile partner.

We here, don't have much control over that. Or what someone chooses to read. Or what they choose to take from it as a result.



always_alone said:


> And this is precisely what red pill philosophy does, and why I am even talking about it here in the first place.


Because you like us.



always_alone said:


> Can't you see that the fact that you can say both that you don't find Kate Upton attractive, but you do recognize that she is attractive, and have no problem whatsoever with this, is exactly what's at issue here?
> 
> What does attractive even mean, when your very own self-assessment determines someone as both attractive and not-attractive at exactly the same time? And if you are comfortable with this contradiction, what about all of those subjects in those studies? We are, after all, relying completely on their perceptions of "attractiveness".


No. In all honesty I can't. It isn't a contradiction. She's a beautiful woman ... but ... I'm not attracted.

I'm not attracted to blondes either.

Save for the fact that the last two women I fell deeply in love with, were blondes.

I don't know why we keep tripping one another up. Especially because it seems so clear to me that we are trying to get to the same place.

Maybe it's the dynamic we have established here on the board.

Maybe it's gender.

I don't know.

But I do see that despite the rhetoric, which no doubt many of us enjoy; we do want the same things.

We just can't agree on the methods and means of arriving there.


----------



## Julius Beastcavern

Faithful Wife said:


> No, they aren't.


Yes they are it talks about dopamine etc


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> Because by inferring that the effect is not there, you are inferring on what large groups of women don't care about attraction wise.
> 
> Simple logic.
> 
> If it's not fair game for me, it's not fair game for you, either.


If there's no effect then it's completely fair to say that there is no effect.

No?

At any rate, it's much a much different proposition to say that these conclusions are not sufficiently supported than to insist that "women are attracted to x" and "men are attracted to y".


----------



## Faithful Wife

Julius Beastcavern said:


> Yes they are it talks about dopamine etc


It also says that a man with no live sperm cannot give good sex to a woman because he can't transfer that magical aliveness to her womb. :rofl:

Just because he mentions brain chemicals that are widely studied, doesn't mean he does anything with those ideas that actually cause facts and conclusions to be drawn from them.

He is merely spouting his opinions about why chemicals = women are hypergamous wh*res.


----------



## Marduk

Playboy Playmate curves: changes in facial and body feature preferences across social and economic conditions. - PubMed - NCBI

"Past research has investigated ideals of beauty and how these ideals have changed across time. In the current study, facial and body characteristics of Playboy Playmates of the Year from 1960-2000 were identified and investigated to explore their relationships with U.S. social and economic factors. Playmate of the Year age, body feature measures, and facial feature measurements were correlated with a general measure of social and economic hard times. Consistent with Environmental Security Hypothesis predictions, when social and economic conditions were difficult, older, heavier, taller Playboy Playmates of the Year with larger waists, smaller eyes, larger waist-to-hip ratios, smaller bust-to-waist ratios, and smaller body mass index values were selected. These results suggest that environmental security may influence perceptions and preferences for women with certain body and facial features."

I wonder if similar effects are true in women...


----------



## samyeagar

Brigit said:


> Since everyone is so into research and tests here is a quote from Time:
> 
> "An October study from Rutgers University found that a specific balance of chemicals affects what type of person each individual is attracted to. People with active dopamine levels (impulsive, curious types) or high serotonin levels (social, conscientious types) tended to like people similar to themselves. But men with high testosterone tended to be drawn to women with high estrogen and oxytocin levels (and vice versa). So who you fall for all boils down to how the chemicals are distributed in your brain."
> 
> Dating Narcissism: Why We Look for Ourselves in a Partner
> 
> 
> (So in the end it all comes down to Chemistry. *Sorry dudes can't learn that in a book*.)


But see...that is exactly what the dread game and such IS teaching. Different ways of providing external stimulus manipulating the body into producing certain chemicals that tend to elicit certain behaviors.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> If there's no effect then it's completely fair to say that there is no effect.
> 
> No?
> 
> At any rate, it's much a much different proposition to say that these conclusions are not sufficiently supported than to insist that "women are attracted to x" and "men are attracted to y".


No.

If you're saying there's no effect, then you're implicitly saying that women *are not* attracted to displays of high socioeconomic indicators.

Which is in itself, a grandiose claim for what women find attractive, or not attractive.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Deejo said:


> I don't know why we keep tripping one another up. Especially because it seems so clear to me that we are trying to get to the same place.
> 
> Maybe it's the dynamic we have established here on the board.
> 
> Maybe it's gender.
> 
> I don't know.
> 
> But I do see that despite the rhetoric, which no doubt many of us enjoy; we do want the same things.
> 
> We just can't agree on the methods and means of arriving there.


I think the issue is obvious.

You don't see the harm in treating people like numbers to speculate about why people are attractive. And in your own life, it is not harmful to do so because you know people are not nameless, faceless numbers.

She objects to treating people like numbers to speculate why people are attractive because some people really do not care about the human beings behind the numbers, and are using these types of "studies" to justify the beliefs they already hold....beliefs like "women are gold diggers" and "men are more visual than women".

Since you don't associate yourself with those strongly held stereo types, they don't seem so harmful.

Since AA has been hurt in her life several times (various ways) by those who do strongly hold those stereo types, she sees the harm in them.

Keep in mind that all of these attraction tests were originally ways to prove that the incorrect assumptions people used to hold were correct.

Ie: We believe women are "wired" for monogamy but men aren't. So how can we prove this?

For a long time, they DID say this was proven.

Until some newer studies and scientists proved that all those studies were merely confirmation bias. And then it was proven that in fact, neither men nor women are "wired" for monogamy.

After THAT fact came out, THEN evo psyche came up with hypergamy, to describe why when women do it, they are wh*res but when men do it, it is normal.

All of these studies originally started in that line of thinking....the line of thinking that people already had, which was based on centuries of repression and conditioning.

You don't seem to care that this history is behind it and you don't see why it is harmful.

She does.


----------



## Faithful Wife

samyeagar said:


> But see...that is exactly what the dread game and such IS teaching. Different ways of providing external stimulus manipulating the body into producing certain chemicals that tend to elicit certain behaviors.


If there was a way to test the actual brain chemicals of a man or woman who is being dread gamed and found those changes to be significant, then I would buy more into this. But there is nothing like that possible at this time. Therefore to hypothesize about it is simply wishful thinking. There may be zero effect on the brain chemicals on a woman or man during dread game, and yet it still may or may not work. There is no PROOF of any of it.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

While I know many men are angry over situations that sent them looking for MMSL, I don't find this to be the overwhelming case. I wasn't angry when I found myself in a similar situation - sexless, childcare partnership marriage with little to no one on one time, nor desire for it from my EW.

I may get energetic in discussion, or attempts to solve problems I perceive, but I rarely ever get angry. Even after many attempts to solve the problems she'd come up with, I still wasn't angry. 

Even having an affair wasn't out of anger. I was rather resigned and plodding forward under the notion that if you cannot change a thing, have strength to endure it - it never really occurred to me to leave because the things I attributed to a bad relationship (shouting, throwing things etc) weren't present. My ego would prefer to say that by cheating I gave her the finger lol. But no, I was resigned, depressed and just going through the motions of day to day life. A 21 year old assertive hottie woke me out of that funk and put me into a different funk of other-validation. I didn't get mad until marriage counseling at the very end and finding out that all of her excuses that I had worked to resolve were just a cover for her own inexplicable and embarrassing lack of drive/desire.

Sure enough, after the affairs were outted and I was one foot out the door... she really came on hard with the sexuality. The problem then was that I didn't want her anymore. She got me to go with her to MC thinking it would keep us together, but insights from MC were what finally made me realize we were on different roads, and I'm better off finding someone else. I read MMSL about that time, so too late to be useful. Maybe my EWs drive faltered for the reasons AK says... maybe her prior drive was just exaggerated. I don't know. I can confirm that she sure was willing to throw sex and anything else I wanted at me left and right once she realized I was headed out the door. Too late.

Anger wasn't even my reason for seeking pickup/game material when I was a teenager. I wasn't anymore mad at women than I was mad at football when I first started playing, barely knew the rules and wasn't any good. I'd characterize it more as confusion. Trying to solve a math problem without knowing the math you need to solve it.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> One of the ways I can tell that someone is not engaging rationally with a topic is that they simply dismiss everything the other person says as "lalalalala".


Hello Pot.


----------



## Brigit

samyeagar said:


> But see...that is exactly what the dread game and such IS teaching. Different ways of providing external stimulus manipulating the body into producing certain chemicals that tend to elicit certain behaviors.


I understand what you're saying. The dread game teaches manipulation techniques that might provide instant gratification for a limited amount of time. Anyone can be "seduced" for short periods. But that's not healthy or sustainable. My chemical makeup will trump tricks. 

A woman might stay with someone she's not passionate about but that is an intellectual choice.


----------



## samyeagar

Faithful Wife said:


> If there was a way to test the actual brain chemicals of a man or woman who is being dread gamed and found those changes to be significant, then I would buy more into this. But there is nothing like that possible at this time. Therefore to hypothesize about it is simply wishful thinking. There may be zero effect on the brain chemicals on a woman or man during dread game, and yet it still may or may not work. There is no PROOF of any of it.


We already know that certain events trigger chemical release into the body, eliciting certain behaviors...i.e. the flight or fight response, adrenaline induced super strength, etc. It is generally accepted that certain chemicals are responsible for the feelings of bonding, and certain behaviors cause those chemicals to be produced in the body, so it is not really much of a stretch at all to consider that it works the same way in other very similar scenarios as well. Would you disagree that spending time with a partner, holding hands and talking intimately releases bonding chemicals in the body, which is why those two things are almost universally suggested as a way to improve a relationship?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Faithful Wife said:


> Keep in mind that all of these attraction tests were originally ways to prove that the incorrect assumptions people used to hold were correct.
> 
> Ie: We believe women are "wired" for monogamy but men aren't. So how can we prove this?
> 
> For a long time, they DID say this was proven.
> 
> Until some newer studies and scientists proved that all those studies were merely confirmation bias. And then it was proven that in fact, neither men nor women are "wired" for monogamy.
> 
> After THAT fact came out, THEN evo psyche came up with hypergamy, to describe why when women do it, they are wh*res but when men do it, it is normal.


As a follow up point....it used to be believed that men are fertile well into their golden years, but women were not. This was based on the fact that she goes through menopause but he can still ejaculate.

A whole lot of things were then assumed from this. Things like basically, women dry up but men do not and therefore it is SCIENCE that young women still like old men. They also used to believe that an older woman having a baby meant the baby was at risk for birth defects, regardless of the age of the father.

Guess what? This was wrong. It was always wrong, all the time. When a man gets older, his sperm make birth defected babies, just like a woman's body does. It is BOTH of the parents ages that rise this risk.

This was a shock to all those men who wanted to claim that women dry up but men do not.

Yet that was NEVER true to begin with.


----------



## farsidejunky

Faithful Wife said:


> As a follow up point....it used to be believed that men are fertile well into their golden years, but women were not. This was based on the fact that she goes through menopause but he can still ejaculate.
> 
> A whole lot of things were then assumed from this. Things like basically, women dry up but men do not and therefore it is SCIENCE that young women still like old men. They also used to believe that an older woman having a baby meant the baby was at risk for birth defects, regardless of the age of the father.
> 
> Guess what? This was wrong. It was always wrong, all the time. When a man gets older, his sperm make birth defected babies, just like a woman's body does. It is BOTH of the parents ages that rise this risk.
> 
> This was a shock to all those men who wanted to claim that women dry up but men do not.
> 
> Yet that was NEVER true to begin with.


This is a valid point, just like with all science believed and later discarded.

But in order to refute it, it took controlled experimentation to arrive at that conclusion. They didn't simply refute current science based on a feeling, an initial hypothesis, or simply because one did not want it to be so.


----------



## Faithful Wife

samyeagar said:


> We already know that certain events trigger chemical release into the body, eliciting certain behaviors...i.e. the flight or fight response, adrenaline induced super strength, etc. It is generally accepted that certain chemicals are responsible for the feelings of bonding, and certain behaviors cause those chemicals to be produced in the body, *so it is not really much of a stretch at all to consider that it works the same way in other very similar scenarios as well*. Would you disagree that spending time with a partner, holding hands and talking intimately releases bonding chemicals in the body, which is why those two things are almost universally suggested as a way to improve a relationship?


What is a stretch is to assume that one man can affect any woman in the same way with the same tricks.

When there is some science that can measure these chemicals, then sure, let's look at that.

Otherwise you are shooting in the dark.

All body chemicals will first and foremost be affected by the person's overall health and nutritional factors. Nothing about this is discussed in dread game.

And hear me say this: I know perfectly well that I can make my husband feel jealous. Do I want to go further and speculate about his brain chemistry too? Why would I bother?

And don't forget, oxytocin and other happy chemicals occur in children, too, and children are jealous of each other, their siblings and even their parents.

We are all greedy and want all the attention. Yes, it is natural.

To try to bottle this into dread game and call it attraction science is just plain stupid. If someone wants to call it their opinion based on observation, then fine. But I have a lot of observations to make too.


----------



## Faithful Wife

farsidejunky said:


> This is a valid point, just like with all science believed and later discarded.
> 
> But in order to refute it, it took controlled experimentation to arrive at that conclusion. They didn't simply refute current science based on a feeling, an initial hypothesis, or simply because one did not want it to be so.


No but they originally called it a fact based on wanting it to be so.


----------



## farsidejunky

Faithful Wife said:


> No but they originally called it a fact based on wanting it to be so.


Don't you mean based on the best evidence available at the time?


----------



## Faithful Wife

farsidejunky said:


> Don't you mean based on the best evidence available at the time?


Old crinkly men were scientists at time and wanted to believe that women dried up but men didn't. THAT confirmation bias was their evidence.

At the time, most men actually became sexually dysfunctional with age (ie: age related ED) (this is still true now but now there are ED meds). So just because they could ejaculate sometimes, there was an assumption that the ejaculate was healthy. 

They completely ignored the fact that NATURALLY a man's ability to stay erect erodes at around the same time a woman goes through menopause.

If they had taken THIS as evidence instead of what they wanted to believe, then the truth would have been obvious all along.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> I think the issue is obvious.
> 
> You don't see the harm in treating people like numbers to speculate about why people are attractive. And in your own life, it is not harmful to do so because you know people are not nameless, faceless numbers.
> 
> She objects to treating people like numbers to speculate why people are attractive because some people really do not care about the human beings behind the numbers, and are using these types of "studies" to justify the beliefs they already hold....beliefs like "women are gold diggers" and "men are more visual than women".
> 
> Since you don't associate yourself with those strongly held stereo types, they don't seem so harmful.
> 
> Since AA has been hurt in her life several times (various ways) by those who do strongly hold those stereo types, she sees the harm in them.
> 
> Keep in mind that all of these attraction tests were originally ways to prove that the incorrect assumptions people used to hold were correct.
> 
> Ie: We believe women are "wired" for monogamy but men aren't. So how can we prove this?
> 
> For a long time, they DID say this was proven.
> 
> Until some newer studies and scientists proved that all those studies were merely confirmation bias. And then it was proven that in fact, neither men nor women are "wired" for monogamy.
> 
> After THAT fact came out, THEN evo psyche came up with hypergamy, to describe why when women do it, they are wh*res but when men do it, it is normal.
> 
> All of these studies originally started in that line of thinking....the line of thinking that people already had, which was based on centuries of repression and conditioning.
> 
> You don't seem to care that this history is behind it and you don't see why it is harmful.
> 
> She does.


There is a path out of it, though.

I know it's there, because you took it.

You took the arguement from logic to science then to the specific and personal. And refined the scope to 1:1 to deal with that, synthesize your own path, and move from there.

If it's personal, it's personal. If it's science, it's testable. If it's logic, it's falsifiable. There are rules to each domain.

The rule to the personal is the domain of the subjective: what's true for you, what's your experience, what's the nature of the emotional landscape. Things to consider, ways maybe that allowed you to grow that could be useful to me.

1:1.


----------



## Deejo

Faithful Wife said:


> You don't seem to care that this history is behind it and you don't see why it is harmful.


'Prove' it's harmful. Scientific studies and case analyses that cause explicit harm.

Isn't that just going to be more confirmation bias?


----------



## Marduk

Brigit said:


> I understand what you're saying. The dread game teaches manipulation techniques that might provide instant gratification for a limited amount of time. Anyone can be "seduced" for short periods. But that's not healthy or sustainable. My chemical makeup will trump tricks.
> 
> A woman might stay with someone she's not passionate about but that is an intellectual choice.


Explaining the why and how it works is a fundamentally different thing that saying that it's a good thing that it works, or saying that it doesn't work at all.

I'm confused. Which of these are you now saying?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Deejo said:


> 'Prove' it's harmful. Scientific studies and case analyses that cause explicit harm.
> 
> Isn't that just going to be more confirmation bias?


To prove it is harmful is going to just cause more round and round about patriarchy and whose fault it is that women have been objectified and how we got from crinkly old scientists creating the original tests and science, to where we are at now.

Since I know you will not agree with those points, there is no way to prove it to you.

Men are harmed by this stuff, too, IMO.


----------



## samyeagar

Faithful Wife said:


> What is a stretch is to assume that one man can affect any woman in the same way with the same tricks.
> 
> When there is some science that can measure these chemicals, then sure, let's look at that.
> 
> Otherwise you are shooting in the dark.
> 
> All body chemicals will first and foremost be affected by the person's overall health and nutritional factors. Nothing about this is discussed in dread game.
> 
> And hear me say this: I know perfectly well that I can make my husband feel jealous. Do I want to go further and speculate about his brain chemistry too? Why would I bother?
> 
> And don't forget, oxytocin and other happy chemicals occur in children, too, and children are jealous of each other, their siblings and even their parents.
> 
> We are all greedy and want all the attention. Yes, it is natural.
> 
> To try to bottle this into dread game and call it attraction science is just plain stupid. If someone wants to call it their opinion based on observation, then fine. But I have a lot of observations to make too.


Would you accept that we are actually just shooting in the dark by claiming that bonding activities such as time, and holding hands for the vast majority couples are bonding because of the chemicals they release? Are you skeptical of that conclusion?

I guess what I am getting at here is that standard marital advice, advice that is very widely respected and accepted as true...because it works for all kinds of people across all walks of life...and is accepted scientifically with a strong basis in body chemistry...what exactly is the fundamental physiological difference between sweet talking a woman into be and never calling her back, and sweet talking her into bed and staying with her for the rest of your lives?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Bugged said:


> because you assumption is flawed.
> Ask kids in kindergarten what they want to be when they're grown up.
> Astronauts, doctors, fire fighters, actors..stuff like that. No one will say i want to be a barman or a waiter. C'mon.


When he was 5, my kid wanted to be "a dog" when he grew up.


----------



## Marduk

Bugged said:


> Did you hear the comments of the women when they were intervied? They were talking about drive, about achieving something that a barman (was it the barman???) was a job for a man child...and the conclusion they got to was that women cared about money?wtf?


If I listened to what all the women in my life told me was true for what attracted them...

I'd be single right now.

Now, one might argue that people don't know, or that it's distorted by expectations by society, or all kinds of things...

But at the end of the day I only got honesty from my wife about what attracts her when she was already getting what attracted her.

Then it was "oh, of course I like X."


> and what do you make of it? That women like big boobs? :scratchhead::scratchhead:
> what does it even mean?


I don't know what it means. I think it's fascinating. It could be an implicit underlying trigger that she may have just given birth and needs more economic support. It could be that attractive women just get more... even from other women. It could be she felt more attractive with bigger boobs, and people picked up on that.

All kinds of things that might be true, all kinds of things that might not be true.

What I don't think is true is that there's no effect there.


----------



## Faithful Wife

samyeagar said:


> Would you accept that we are actually just shooting in the dark by claiming that bonding activities such as time, and holding hands for the vast majority couples are bonding because of the chemicals they release? Are you skeptical of that conclusion?
> 
> I guess what I am getting at here is that standard marital advice, advice that is very widely respected and accepted as true...because it works for all kinds of people across all walks of life...and is accepted scientifically with a strong basis in body chemistry...what exactly is the fundamental physiological difference between sweet talking a woman into be and never calling her back, and sweet talking her into bed and staying with her for the rest of your lives?


We can say something works without also saying why it works. We can say "at this time we are not 100% sure why this works."

Yet you can't get the chemical soup started at all without mutual attraction.


----------



## farsidejunky

Faithful Wife said:


> Old crinkly men were scientists at time and wanted to believe that women dried up but men didn't. THAT confirmation bias was their evidence.
> 
> At the time, most men actually became sexually dysfunctional with age (ie: age related ED) (this is still true now but now there are ED meds). So just because they could ejaculate sometimes, there was an assumption that the ejaculate was healthy.
> 
> They completely ignored the fact that NATURALLY a man's ability to stay erect erodes at around the same time a woman goes through menopause.
> 
> If they had taken THIS as evidence instead of what they wanted to believe, then the truth would have been obvious all along.


So all scientists that conducted those studies were old, crinkly men? Every...single...one of them?

Right...


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> I don't know what it means. I think it's fascinating. It could be an implicit underlying trigger that she may have just given birth and needs more economic support. It could be that attractive women just get more... even from other women. It could be she felt more attractive with bigger boobs, and people picked up on that.
> 
> All kinds of things that might be true, all kinds of things that might not be true.
> 
> What I don't think is true is that there's no effect there.


What it really means is that the customer was hoping the waitress would let her motorboat her.


----------



## Marduk

Bugged said:


> because you assumption is flawed.
> Ask kids in kindergarten what they want to be when they're grown up.
> Astronauts, doctors, fire fighters, actors..stuff like that. No one will say i want to be a barman or a waiter. C'mon.


Again, non sequitor.

What you said literally doesn't follow from what I said. It's like saying "guns don't kill people, because the sky is blue."



> Anyway, the* $ doesn't bother me AT all*. If (back to 50 shades)I had met someone who had an Apache helicopter and I 'd have had the chance to learn to fly it, i would have probably given this guy a chance, but the sexual/physical attraction whatever you want to call it would have remained the same.


Hmm.

I wonder if you would have spent more time with him, and he may have grown on you?

Like an opportunity thing?


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> We can say something works without also saying why it works. We can say "at this time we are not 100% sure why this works."
> 
> Yet you can't get the chemical soup started at all without mutual attraction.


I think the attraction happens in the soup.


----------



## Icey181

samyeagar said:


> Would you accept that we are actually just shooting in the dark by claiming that bonding activities such as time, and holding hands for the vast majority couples are bonding because of the chemicals they release? Are you skeptical of that conclusion?
> 
> I guess what I am getting at here is that standard marital advice, advice that is very widely respected and accepted as true...because it works for all kinds of people across all walks of life...and is accepted scientifically with a strong basis in body chemistry...what exactly is the fundamental physiological difference between sweet talking a woman into be and never calling her back, and sweet talking her into bed and staying with her for the rest of your lives?


Simply, the emotions attached to the results.

There is no physiological difference, there is only a social one. 

As a general aside, I like how we get to reject any experimental conclusions we do not like, simply by claiming they were biased, without actually discussing any of the details.

For instance.

Study after study has found a correlation between a man's rate of attractiveness amongst women and his stated profession/income.

And yet apparently, that does not exist because FW does not like the implications of said conclusion.

Snazy.

News Flash: These studies are not claiming that all women everywhere at all times are always attracted to status.

What they have shown, repeatedly, is that there is a high correlation between socio-economic status and female-attraction.

That tells us something.


----------



## Faithful Wife

farsidejunky said:


> So all scientists that conducted those studies were old, crinkly men? Every...single...one of them?
> 
> Right...


Um well yes, duh....if you go back just a few decades, ALL scientists who had anything published in the fields we are talking about were men.

This is well documented.


----------



## Icey181

marduk said:


> I think the attraction happens in the soup.


If we want to break this down to actual science, attraction is the soup.

The chemical reactions which induce certain responses become conditioned responses to specific stimuli, whether that be a certain action, or a certain person.


----------



## farsidejunky

Faithful Wife said:


> Um well yes, duh....if you go back just a few decades, ALL scientists who had anything published in the fields we are talking about were men.
> 
> This is well documented.


Ah, but not old and crinkly. Maybe they were in school until they were old enough to be called crinkly. 

Please note you changed your qualifiers from old, crinkly men to just men...


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Um well yes, duh....if you go back just a few decades, ALL scientists who had anything published in the fields we are talking about were men.
> 
> This is well documented.


LOL.

Actually, no.

More men than women, sure.

But 10s on google shows that lots of women have been scientists for a long, long time.


----------



## Faithful Wife

farsidejunky said:


> Ah, but not old and crinkly. Maybe they were in school until they were old enough to be called crinkly.
> 
> Please note you changed your qualifiers from old, crinkly men to just men...


sigh....

Ok yes, some of them were young men when they started out. All of them eventually got old and crinkly before their "facts" were ever disputed, however.


----------



## Icey181

Faithful Wife said:


> Um well yes, duh....if you go back just a few decades, ALL scientists who had anything published in the fields we are talking about were men.
> 
> This is well documented.


It is abundantly clear that you have no idea what you are actually talking about and are instead repeating general knowledge discussions of this history.

That the source of experimental data comes from men in no way alters the experimental data.

Science is science and will be judged on the merits. If something is torn down it is because more accurate data was produced.


----------



## Marduk

Icey181 said:


> If we want to break this down to actual science, attraction is the soup.
> 
> The chemical reactions which induce certain responses become conditioned responses to specific stimuli, whether that be a certain action, or a certain person.


... yes, I see where you're getting at.

My question would be which attractors are built-in and hardcoded (if any), which attractors are built-in but overridable with social norms, and which attractors are social norms only?

And personal preference?


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> LOL.
> 
> Actually, no.
> 
> More men than women, sure.
> 
> But 10s on google shows that lots of women have been scientists for a long, long time.


We were specifically talking about "back in the old days" of science.....based on the types of studies we were talking about in the posts quoted.


----------



## always_alone

farsidejunky said:


> This is a valid point, just like with all science believed and later discarded.
> 
> But in order to refute it, it took controlled experimentation to arrive at that conclusion. They didn't simply refute current science based on a feeling, an initial hypothesis, or simply because one did not want it to be so.


No one here is rejecting anything based on "just wanting it to be so". They are doing so based on current evidence, which has been posted time and time again. Actual empirical evidence as well as meta-analyses.

And I can see that most people here are disparaging of meta-analyses because they are "not empirical", but the fact remains that you *need* meta-analysis to create a compelling case. A single study proves absolutely nothing. You need to assess the preponderance of evidence to draw meaningful conclusions.


----------



## Brigit

marduk said:


> Explaining the why and how it works is a fundamentally different thing that saying that it's a good thing that it works, or saying that it doesn't work at all.
> 
> I'm confused. Which of these are you now saying?


I'm saying manipulation can work but it has a short shelf-life.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> ... yes, I see where you're getting at.
> 
> My question would be which attractors are built-in and hardcoded (if any), which attractors are built-in but overridable with social norms, and which attractors are social norms only?
> 
> And personal preference?


Ok help me understand....

Husband wants to know how to get his wife attracted to him.

So he studies what makes other women attracted or not attracted to other men.

None of this helps him understand his wife at all because their history together is what is causing her attraction or lack thereof to him NOW.

So those studies helped him because.....why?

Because she is an interchangeable vagina?


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> sigh....
> 
> Ok yes, some of them were young men when they started out. All of them eventually got old and crinkly before their "facts" were ever disputed, however.


OMG FW you've earned my respect but because you have it...

*come on.* Just back away from this one, because that dog just won't hunt.

I'm not arguing that sexism doesn't exist in academia. But you can't say that it was only sexist until recently.

List of female scientists before the 21st century - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Buddy400

marduk said:


> If you're going to pretend that it's not there, you're going to lose a lot of people, myself included. Because then it will also be based on a fallacy.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


That's the issue.


----------



## farsidejunky

Here is the point, FW. When you talk out of your @$$, it reduces the credibility of your other, valid points.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> OMG FW you've earned my respect but because you have it...
> 
> *come on.* Just back away from this one, because that dog just won't hunt.
> 
> I'm not arguing that sexism doesn't exist in academia. But you can't say that it was only sexist until recently.
> 
> List of female scientists before the 21st century - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Dude. You aren't getting my point at all.

Since you don't get it, stop telling me I'm off.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Ok help me understand....
> 
> Husband wants to know how to get his wife attracted to him.
> 
> So he studies what makes other women attracted or not attracted to other men.
> 
> None of this helps him understand his wife at all because their history together is what is causing her attraction or lack thereof to him NOW.
> 
> So those studied helped him because.....why?
> 
> Because she is an interchangeable vagina?


No.

If something's hardcoded in what women find attractive in men, then it's something I can use to get my wife to be more attracted to me, and in theory, we both benefit.

If something's hardcoded but socially overridable, then by understanding her social norms, I can acheive the same benefit.

If something is social norms only, I might be able to get at it, but it's more tenuous now.

And if it's just personal preference, then I have to go by her honesty or self-awareness, which is really tenuous, or do what I did and try to figure it all out on my own.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Dude. You aren't getting my point at all.
> 
> Since you don't get it, stop telling me I'm off.


OK.

Was your point that sexual biology was off because it was all done by 'wrinkly old men?'

Because it wasn't.

And if that wasn't your point, then what was it?


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> No.
> 
> If you're saying there's no effect, then you're implicitly saying that women *are not* attracted to displays of high socioeconomic indicators.
> 
> Which is in itself, a grandiose claim for what women find attractive, or not attractive.


I'm saying that the effect claimed by others does not exist.

This is *not* the same as saying anything about what women do or do not find attractive.

No matter how you twist my words around.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> No.
> 
> If something's hardcoded in what women find attractive in men, then it's something I can use to get my wife to be more attracted to me, and in theory, we both benefit.
> 
> If something's hardcoded but socially overridable, then by understanding her social norms, I can acheive the same benefit.
> 
> If something is social norms only, I might be able to get at it, but it's more tenuous now.
> 
> *And if it's just personal preference*, then I have to go by her honesty or self-awareness, which is really tenuous, or do what I did and try to figure it all out on my own.


And this is the answer some men don't seem to want to hear. When we say it, even when you discover it yourself, you still don't want to hear it. You want women to all act the same so that we can be predictable.

Sorry, that isn't nature, it isn't true, and it isn't science.

Groups are predictable. Individuals are not (at least not by THOSE kinds of tests).

Especially not within a marriage.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> OK.
> 
> Was your point that sexual biology was off because it was all done by 'wrinkly old men?'
> 
> Because it wasn't.
> 
> And if that wasn't your point, then what was it?


Not my point, not going to rehash it though.

Just do a little research into the original studies that proved women were wired to be monogamous yourself, you will find it. It is right there. I don't have to prove this to anyone here, but will outline some of it in my book when I have more time.


----------



## Icey181

marduk said:


> ... yes, I see where you're getting at.
> 
> My question would be which attractors are built-in and hardcoded (if any), which attractors are built-in but overridable with social norms, and which attractors are social norms only?
> 
> And personal preference?


Well, here is the thing: Humans are social animals.

Social norms are inherent components of our evolutionary history, at least for the last 250,000 years or so.

I know little on the subject; I am aware of items such as pheromone attraction studies which demonstrated women were more inclined to be attracted to men that smelled like their fathers, for instance.

There are large numbers of things which are, seemingly, just biochemical responses.

The thing is, I think, humans are able to override a lot of them.

But then again, I would argue that the base lines of attraction, which are tied to fertility and Alpha-mannerisms (as in, pack animal behavior) are hard wired into us.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> I'm saying that the effect claimed by others does not exist.
> 
> This is *not* the same as saying anything about what women do or do not find attractive.
> 
> No matter how you twist my words around.


OK.

You can either say that some women are attracted to displays of wealth and it is statistically significant

-or-

You can say that no women are attracted to displays of wealth 

-or-

You can say that some women are attracted to displays of wealth but it isn't statistically significant

What you are saying is the third, I think, which is in dispute, and says that the effect is essentially random in women.

Which in itself is saying what is true or isn't true attraction wise vis-a-vis wealth in women.

You can't have it both ways.


----------



## Icey181

Faithful Wife said:


> Dude. You aren't getting my point at all.
> 
> Since you don't get it, stop telling me I'm off.


You are wrong on this point.

You are attempting to argue that gender imbalances in the population of the scientists meant we had scientific results which were built on inherent sexist concepts, due to the male scientist population.

You have no proof, really, of any of that.

I would invite you to provide examples of studies which prove your point, assuming you can find some.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> OK.
> 
> You can either say that some women are attracted to displays of wealth and it is statistically significant
> 
> -or-
> 
> You can say that no women are attracted to displays of wealth
> 
> -or-
> 
> You can say that some women are attracted to displays of wealth but it isn't statistically significant
> 
> What you are saying is the third, I think, which is in dispute, and says that the effect is essentially random in women.
> 
> Which in itself is saying what is true or isn't true attraction wise vis-a-vis wealth in women.
> 
> You can't have it both ways.


Yes we can have it both ways.

Wealth affects some women and not others.

Period.


----------



## Brigit

marduk said:


> No.
> 
> If something's hardcoded in what women find attractive in men, then it's something I can use to get my wife to be more attracted to me, and in theory, we both benefit.
> 
> If something's hardcoded but socially overridable, then by understanding her social norms, I can acheive the same benefit.
> 
> If something is social norms only, I might be able to get at it, but it's more tenuous now.
> 
> And if it's just personal preference, then I have to go by her honesty or self-awareness, which is really tenuous, or do what I did and try to figure it all out on my own.


So you're going to try your best to be something you're not?

I doubt you'll be happy for long.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Just a couple of last thoughts on the "science":
> 
> Achieving significance on a study is only one small part of determining its validity. More important is effect size.


Not more important, no. They are informative of different things. Originally, your argument was that there was no effect. Now, you say there is little effect. The studies routinely find small/medium effect. I don't have a problem with that. I've never said that status is the larger factor. I've always said it has a clear positive influence on attractiveness to females. I've previously pointed out that it takes a significant change in status to only slightly change attractiveness.



always_alone said:


> And, yes, my point in changing the subject was that you cannot determine "priority" from a single set of variables. You cannot determine that women "prioritize" looks from one study investigating their reactions to good-looking or non-good-looking men, and more than you can evaluate their "priority" on wealth or status.


I've said no such thing. Are you reading my posts? I addressed this very issue already. I have not referred solely to women's priorities. I said it is higher priority for women than for men. For men, it doesn't even rank - her status doesn't matter and has no influence. For women, it does.



always_alone said:


> At the very best, you can only conclude that when no other information is available beyond a photograph, women will display a slight tendency to determine attractiveness based on wealth. Maybe this shows that they place slightly more value on wealth and status than men, but it says absolutely nothing about their priorities.


It would make little sense and there is no reason to assert that the effect of status only applies when no other information is available. Other experiments show the same influence of status in spite of additional information available (see speed dating experiment). This points to status being one influential factor among many that women will trade on like all the others. It is not something a man will trade off anything to get. Her status is of no value to him.

I do not make any statement about where it ranks amongst women's priorities. My statement is that status is of higher priority to women than it is to men. It has value to women where it doesn't have value to men. Wherever it ranks amongst women's priorities, it's higher than it ranks for men, because it doesn't even rank for men. Ergo, status is higher priority for women than men.


----------



## tech-novelist

Brigit said:


> Since everyone is so into research and tests here is a quote from Time:
> 
> "An October study from Rutgers University found that a specific balance of chemicals affects what type of person each individual is attracted to. People with active dopamine levels (impulsive, curious types) or high serotonin levels (social, conscientious types) tended to like people similar to themselves. But men with high testosterone tended to be drawn to women with high estrogen and oxytocin levels (and vice versa). So who you fall for all boils down to how the chemicals are distributed in your brain."
> 
> Dating Narcissism: Why We Look for Ourselves in a Partner
> 
> 
> (So in the end it all comes down to Chemistry. Sorry dudes can't learn that in a book.)


Actually, AK discusses dopamine, serotonin, estrogen, testosterone and oxytocin in his blog and books.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Icey181 said:


> You are wrong on this point.
> 
> You are attempting to argue that gender imbalances in the population of the scientists meant we had scientific results which were built on inherent sexist concepts, due to the male scientist population.
> 
> You have no proof, really, of any of that.
> 
> I would invite you to provide examples of studies which prove your point, assuming you can find some.


Which is ironically sexist. lol


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> And this is the answer some men don't seem to want to hear. When we say it, even when you discover it yourself, you still don't want to hear it. You want women to all act the same so that we can be predictable.
> 
> Sorry, that isn't nature, it isn't true, and it isn't science.
> 
> Groups are predictable. Individuals are not (at least not by THOSE kinds of tests).
> 
> Especially not within a marriage.


I agree with groups and predictability. Individuals, however, are less predictable, but still very much so.

For example, you might say that worldwide, 8% of the world's population has blue eyes. This is testible, and verifiable, and countable. 

One might say that this makes no difference to guessing that the next person you meet may have blue eyes, but it's not true. The next person you meet has roughly an 8% chance of having blue eyes.

So I may form a strategy based on blue-eyed people, but it wouldn't work 92% of the time, and is a hard-coded variable, because I can select for that strategy if my wife has blue eyes.

Same goes if it's biological.

Now, if it's purely a personal preference, it's influenceable highly by society, and should follow roughly social norms, yes? Trendlines? Kinda the realm of sociology? 

And hence be a useful thing to consider in, say, my wife?


----------



## Brigit

Watch out A_A Devil might pull out another chart.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Not my point, not going to rehash it though.
> 
> Just do a little research into the original studies that proved women were wired to be monogamous yourself, you will find it. It is right there. I don't have to prove this to anyone here, but will outline some of it in my book when I have more time.


OK, I'll wait for it and read it, because I too think the effect is there, but that doesn't mean you can make blanket claims that it's all wrong, or that women didn't have a voice in that, too.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes we can have it both ways.
> 
> Wealth affects some women and not others.
> 
> Period.


OK, what women? How much? And why? How can I tell? Is it contextual? What do I do if it's present, say, in my wife? What to do if it isn't?


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> I agree with groups and predictability. Individuals, however, are less predictable, but still very much so.
> 
> For example, you might say that worldwide, 8% of the world's population has blue eyes. This is testible, and verifiable, and countable.
> 
> One might say that this makes no difference to guessing that the next person you meet may have blue eyes, but it's not true. The next person you meet has roughly an 8% chance of having blue eyes.
> 
> So I may form a strategy based on blue-eyed people, but it wouldn't work 92% of the time, and is a hard-coded variable, because I can select for that strategy if my wife has blue eyes.
> 
> Same goes if it's biological.
> 
> Now, if it's purely a personal preference, it's influenceable highly by society, and should follow roughly social norms, yes? Trendlines? Kinda the realm of sociology?
> 
> And hence be a useful thing to consider in, say, my wife?


All I can tell you is that my natural sex god of a husband never thought twice about why random groups of women he will never meet may or may not find him attractive.

He just focused on the interpersonal relationships between himself and one person.

I know you want a magic formula that tells you how to make one particular woman be into you. But there isn't one.

This is what the sex god knows.

There isn't one and therefore, if she's just not that into you, you accept this FACT gracefully and with dignity.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Faithful Wife said:


> Ok help me understand....
> 
> Husband wants to know how to get his wife attracted to him.
> 
> So he studies what makes other women attracted or not attracted to other men.
> 
> None of this helps him understand his wife at all because their history together is what is causing her attraction or lack thereof to him NOW.
> 
> So those studies helped him because.....why?
> 
> Because she is an interchangeable vagina?


ITA with this. I believe more often than not it's history, relationship issues, lack or time together, kind of issues that change how attracted people are to their spouse. You lose the connection and the attraction goes right down with it. 

Money, looks, boobs- all these things might make more of a difference in _some _people when they meet a partner. As you grow old together those things fade but you can still maintain love if you have the connection. 
There's a big difference between playing games for picking up a woman at a bar for a ONS and getting your wife to fall in love with you again for the long run.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> OK, what women? How much? And why? How can I tell? Is it contextual? What do I do if it's present, say, in my wife? What to do if it isn't?


Can you understand that women who desperately want one man to be into them ask the same questions....and yet still cannot make a man be into them who isn't.


----------



## Deejo

Faithful Wife said:


> To prove it is harmful is going to just cause more round and round about patriarchy and whose fault it is that women have been objectified and how we got from crinkly old scientists creating the original tests and science, to where we are at now.
> 
> Since I know you will not agree with those points, there is no way to prove it to you.
> 
> Men are harmed by this stuff, too, IMO.


I really don't want to argue about it either. My point is simple. Distaste and disdain does not equal harm.

For all we know those online RP'ers do nothing to ANYONE physically. It's all hearsay.

Is it an expression of ugly points of view and unhealthy and unfortunate attitudes? Sure it is.

None of all of that balls and bluster necessarily nets out to explicit harm caused to women.

It's noise.

And it's a very little corner of noise in the scheme of things.

And no, I don't want to support those messages and attitudes to struggling young men, or struggling married men.

But there are concepts behind the misogyny that can be re-tooled for people to make their own decisions about it's effectiveness and discoveries as to whether or not it works for them.


----------



## Marduk

Brigit said:


> So you're going to try your best to be something you're not?
> 
> I doubt you'll be happy for long.


Epistemology is kind of my game.

What 'I' am is what I determine 'me' to be. There are things that are hardcoded, and things that are not.

But none of them are 'me.'

I didn't work out. And now I do. Am I still me?

I didn't make a lot of money, and now I do. Am I still me?

I wasn't a father. I now am. Am I still me?

By what your logic looks like, I should never improve myself, because then I'd be changing who I am.

When I'd like to think I get to change who I am because of self-agency.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> All I can tell you is that my natural sex god of a husband never thought twice about why random groups of women he will never meet may or may not find him attractive.
> 
> He just focused on the interpersonal relationships between himself and one person.
> 
> I know you want a magic formula that tells you how to make one particular woman be into you. But there isn't one.
> 
> This is what the sex god knows.
> 
> There isn't one and therefore, if she's just not that into you, you accept this FACT gracefully and with dignity.


In other words, confirmation bias.


----------



## Brigit

technovelist said:


> Actually, AK discusses dopamine, serotonin, estrogen, testosterone and oxytocin in his blog and books.


I'm sure he does. But it sounds like he feels he can play "God" with these chemicals. 

"So your wife won't fu*k you? I know how to get her to not only open her legs but serve you a sandwich afterwards. I can teach you how to manipulate the chemicals in her brain to get her to be everything you deserve in a woman. But you'll have to follow my plan and take action. 

I can teach you to be the guy every woman wants to fu*k and every man wants to be. Are you ready?"


----------



## Faithful Wife

Deejo said:


> But there are concepts behind the misogyny that can be re-tooled for people to make their own decisions about it's effectiveness and discoveries as to whether or not it works for them.


Yes and hopefully, we can be part of the leading edge of people who are going to re-tool this stuff to help people find MUTUAL attraction. Stay tuned.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> In other words, confirmation bias.


Um, no.

Discovery and investigation of an individual and discovery of how mutual attraction may or may not be present between yourself and with that individual.

No matter what your confirmation bias, you cannot make someone be attracted to you. They either are or they are not.


----------



## samyeagar

Icey181 said:


> If we want to break this down to actual science, attraction is the soup.
> 
> The chemical reactions which induce certain responses become conditioned responses to specific stimuli, whether that be a certain action, or a certain person.


One of the partial explanations as to why some people are seemingly addicted to drama, or find themselves in a cycle of repeated abusive relationships is that they literally become addicted to the chemical c0cktail their body creates during the highs and lows of volatility. It makes some sense considering it is pretty much established fact that people can become addicted to chemicals, and some people can get addicted to things that others don't. There really is no difference in principle that since people can become addicted to chemicals external to them, people can become addicted to chemicals internal to them as well.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> When I'd like to think I get to change who I am because of self-agency.


And self-agency is exactly why a specific woman can be attracted to you or not, regardless of what studies show.


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> No. In all honesty I can't. It isn't a contradiction. She's a beautiful woman ... but ... I'm not attracted.
> 
> I'm not attracted to blondes either.
> 
> Save for the fact that the last two women I fell deeply in love with, were blondes.
> 
> I don't know why we keep tripping one another up. Especially because it seems so clear to me that we are trying to get to the same place.


Are we aiming for the same place? I would like to think so ...


So let's start with where we agree: No, of course it's not a contradiction to say that someone is an attractive woman and that you are not attracted.

And why? Because they are two different things. What do we mean when we say someone is attractive? And what do we mean when we say "I am attracted". Very different things, and often for very different reasons.

But instead of ever acknowledging this, there is a huge equivocation in the way that this word is used in these conversations, and in the research. Notably, despite claims to objectivity in studying this very subjective phenomena, attraction is never really defined or operationalized in the research that studies it. 

I often get the impression from you that your only interest is in reinforcing the beliefs that only looks matter for women, and the only way they can be attractive is to be super-model hot, while men, on the other hand, can turn to money and status. 

And I get that there are absolutely a lot of men who only care about looks. Just as there are absolutely a lot of women who care significantly about money or status.

I just think there is more to the picture, and that it's worth talking about. It's not helpful, for example, to any woman to be told that only her looks count and that she will be seen as a dried up old hag by the time she is 40. Even if there are plenty of guys who think exactly that.

Just as it is not helpful to tell men that being "nice" is the kiss of death to their sex lives, and that no woman will possibly find them attractive unless they become the dominant leaders. Even if there are plenty of women who think exactly that. 

That there are people who agree on certain things doesn't mean that the agreement has anything to do with truth.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Can you understand that women who desperately want one man to be into them ask the same questions....and yet still cannot make a man be into them who isn't.


You and I have a philosophical disagreement.

Because I think that woman can. I've seen it happen.

Even recently, my wife had a single friend over bemoaning the fact that she couldn't turn this guy's head. And she went on and on, blubbering about it. Begging me to explain why, as a guy.

And so I pointed out likely reasons why she wasn't turning his head. Lots of basic stuff -- like wearing baggy clothing. Not paying attention to her appearance. Being too available, hanging on his every word. Acting too needy. Not broadcasting her own interests and passions, just paying attention to his. Basic stuff.

Well, she got mad and stormed out. Which was great, because she was annoying me.

And a few weeks later I heard that she basically did what I said, and now they're dating. Which, I guess, is great for her.

Is it going to last? I dunno. I don't really care. But I do know that she's happy now. And not at my house whining about it.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Um, no.
> 
> Discovery and investigation of an individual and discovery of how mutual attraction may or may not be present between yourself and with that individual.
> 
> No matter what your confirmation bias, you cannot make someone be attracted to you. They either are or they are not.


That, and your source of one 'sex god,' is pretty much the definition of confirmation bias FW.

And circular reasoning.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> You and I have a philosophical disagreement.
> 
> Because I think that woman can. I've seen it happen.
> 
> Even recently, my wife had a single friend over bemoaning the fact that she couldn't turn this guy's head. And she went on and on, blubbering about it. Begging me to explain why, as a guy.
> 
> And so I pointed out likely reasons why she wasn't turning his head. Lots of basic stuff -- like wearing baggy clothing. Not paying attention to her appearance. Being too available, hanging on his every word. Acting too needy. Not broadcasting her own interests and passions, just paying attention to his. Basic stuff.
> 
> Well, she got mad and stormed out. Which was great, because she was annoying me.
> 
> And a few weeks later I heard that she basically did what I said, and now they're dating. Which, I guess, is great for her.
> 
> Is it going to last? I dunno. I don't really care. But I do know that she's happy now. And not at my house whining about it.


If this couple ends up married and staying strongly mutually attracted to each other, then your little bit of standard advice will have worked. 

Attracted enough to get a date or even get into a relationship isn't the same thing as being mutually into someone else in the long term.

Which I'm confused why you don't get the difference by now, since you keep saying this is all about getting your wife to be attracted to you (and other husbands).


----------



## naiveonedave

Brigit said:


> So you're going to try your best to be something you're not?
> 
> I doubt you'll be happy for long.


stop this nonsense about faking. The MMSL is for a man to change, not to fake. 

I agree if you are lying it won't work.... As will AK, as he states directly in print, in the book.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> That, and your source of one 'sex god,' is pretty much the definition of confirmation bias FW.
> 
> And circular reasoning.


But your constant searching for why women are attracted to men and ignoring the obviousness that we are individuals isn't confirmation bias and circular reasoning?


----------



## john117

Faithful Wife said:


> We were specifically talking about "back in the old days" of science.....based on the types of studies we were talking about in the posts quoted.



Lots of women in social sciences...


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> I really don't want to argue about it either. My point is simple. Distaste and disdain does not equal harm.
> 
> For all we know those online RP'ers do nothing to ANYONE physically. It's all hearsay.
> 
> Is it an expression of ugly points of view and unhealthy and unfortunate attitudes? Sure it is.
> 
> None of all of that balls and bluster necessarily nets out to explicit harm caused to women.
> 
> It's noise.


Why do you think that the only way to harm someone is physical? 

Do you not think contempt or disdain is harmful to those who are subject to it? Do you not think that it is harmful to people to fuel their anger, their resentments, and their sense of being inadequate for who they are?


----------



## Faithful Wife

john117 said:


> Lots of women in social sciences...


John...that wasn't my point.

So funny how women who have read a little further into these older studies get what I'm saying and agree with me, but men who think I just want to be all like "women don't get a fair shot in science wahhhhh!" think I'm talking about something totally different. (In places other than TAM, there are discussions like this where men are the ones talking about how the old days of science were all entirely about proving to themselves that men were right, via very specific "studies" that were entirely biased...but for some reason here at TAM, the men want to dispute this....)

(not saying that's you john but...)


----------



## samyeagar

Faithful Wife said:


> Ok help me understand....
> 
> Husband wants to know how to get his wife attracted to him.
> 
> So he studies what makes other women attracted or not attracted to other men.
> 
> None of this helps him understand his wife at all because their history together is what is causing her attraction or lack thereof to him NOW.
> 
> So those studies helped him because.....why?
> 
> Because she is an interchangeable vagina?


Things like the five love languages, and the emotional needs are completely based on generalities formed from studying countless people, and the generalities do not speak to any individual at all. When we here at TAM suggest those things, we are telling people to look at things that generally work, and find the one that works the best. Even for people who are not huge quality time people, we still suggest a minimum of 15 hours, we suggest intimate, non sexual touch because there are general patterns among groups of individuals. There are common patterns, and quite frequently, a new poster will post their story here, and the same suggestions come out, because it is a very familiar story to many of us, even though these are new individuals.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> If this couple ends up married and staying strongly mutually attracted to each other, then your little bit of standard advice will have worked.
> 
> Attracted enough to get a date or even get into a relationship isn't the same thing as being mutually into someone else in the long term.
> 
> Which I'm confused why you don't get the difference by now, since you keep saying this is all about getting your wife to be attracted to you (and other husbands).


No, I see what you're saying, and I get it.

What I think though is that things from dating can be applied to marriages, too.


----------



## Faithful Wife

samyeagar said:


> Things like the five love languages, and the emotional needs are completely based on generalities formed from studying countless people, and the generalities do not speak to any individual at all. When we here at TAM suggest those things, we are telling people to look at things that generally work, and find the one that works the best. Even for people who are not huge quality time people, we still suggest a minimum of 15 hours, we suggest intimate, non sexual touch because there are general patterns among groups of individuals. There are common patterns, and quite frequently, a new poster will post their story here, and the same suggestions come out, because it is a very familiar story to many of us, even though these are new individuals.


Yep. And that is all great advice, without one mention of anything like being able to measure the chemical changes involved, because it is unnecessary to speculate on that in specific terms.

But none of that further speculates on how to make a punch list of things to do to make an entire gender attracted to you.


----------



## Julius Beastcavern

MMSLP addresses the issue of turning around a sex less marriage and making it successful, a subject Athol has first hand knowledge of. FW's sex god has no knowledge of turning around a sexless marriage and making it successful. 

You are in a sexless marriage.

Whos advice are you going to take?


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> No, I see what you're saying, and I get it.
> 
> *What I think though is that things from dating can be applied to marriages, too*.


Yes they can, but not as far as predicting group behavior. That's why I'm confused why you are fascinated by it.

Each man and woman is a delicious treat to unwrap and discover, for the right person.

For everyone else, they are just a number.

You want more intimacy? Stop focusing on EVERY woman in the world and start focusing on YOUR woman.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Julius Beastcavern said:


> MMSLP addresses the issue of turning around a sex less marriage and making it successful, a subject Athol has first hand knowledge of. FW's sex god has no knowledge of turning around a sexless marriage and making it successful.
> 
> You are in a sexless marriage.
> 
> Whos advice are you going to take?


lol! How do YOU know what my husband's experience is, since I have never written out our entire histories here?


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> But your constant searching for why women are attracted to men and ignoring the obviousness that we are individuals isn't confirmation bias and circular reasoning?


LOL. Probably.


----------



## Julius Beastcavern

Faithful Wife said:


> lol! How do YOU know what my husband's experience is, since I have never written out our entire histories here?


So you have been involved in a sexless marriage, with a natural sexgod  and if he has, he obviously isn't now so it wasn't successful


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes they can, but not as far as predicting group behavior. That's why I'm confused why you are fascinated by it.
> 
> Each man and woman is a delicious treat to unwrap and discover, for the right person.
> 
> For everyone else, they are just a number.
> 
> You want more intimacy? Stop focusing on EVERY woman in the world and start focusing on YOUR woman.


Which is why I'm all for you sidestepping all of that, and just navigating that from a personal perspective.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> None of this helps him understand his wife at all because their history together is what is causing her attraction or lack thereof to him NOW.


If it's "their history together is what is causing her attraction or lack thereof" why would women lose attraction to their husband after two years (or seven, or some other constant number)?

I'm pretty sure you've admitted that this happens more readily with women than men.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Julius Beastcavern said:


> So you have been involved in a sexless marriage, with a natural sexgod  and if he has, he obviously isn't now so it wasn't successful


Whoever you are, I'm not going to sling insults at you or what you believe. Because I have no reason to. But for some reason, what I'm saying and doing is deserving of ridicule, even though you don't actually know what I am saying or doing based on just these few posts.


----------



## Deejo

always_alone said:


> Are we aiming for the same place? I would like to think so ...
> 
> 
> So let's start with where we agree: No, of course it's not a contradiction to say that someone is an attractive woman and that you are not attracted.
> 
> 
> *I often get the impression from you that your only interest is in reinforcing the beliefs that only looks matter for women, and the only way they can be attractive is to be super-model hot, while men, on the other hand, can turn to money and status. *


I'll have to work on that. Because that really isn't my position. I can understand that it can be perceived that way in the midst of these discussions. It's not what I want to convey.

I do believe there are distinct factors in attraction, and being aware of this can help either gender. I mean, we're not arguing that, are we?

The only cut and dry thing I see about attraction, and in alignment with FW, is that it is either present or it isn't. 

But it can most certainly be fostered or eroded. And if it completely bleeds out, it is virtually impossible to recover.

I've mentioned my 6'3" blonde Adonis friend before. Women swooned ... right up until he started talking.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes we can have it both ways.
> 
> *Wealth affects some women and not others.*
> 
> Period.


Thank you, that's what we've been trying to say for 200+ pages.

No one ever said wealth attracts ALL women.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> If it's "their history together is what is causing her attraction or lack thereof" why would women lose attraction to their husband after two years (or seven, or some other constant number)?
> 
> I'm pretty sure you've admitted that this happens more readily with women than men.


There are lots of studies as to why this happens.

But none of them will matter to an individual couple.


----------



## samyeagar

Faithful Wife said:


> Yep. And that is all great advice, without one mention of anything like being able to measure the chemical changes involved, because it is unnecessary to speculate on that in specific terms.
> 
> But none of that further speculates on how to make a punch list of things to do to make an entire gender attracted to you.


Quality time, physical touch, etc...it is often said here, and widely accepted that those things are bonding activities because of the chemicals they release in the body...

And none of those things I listed above are going to work on an entire gender either, but yet are widely considered a punch list to do just that.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> if she's just not that into you, you accept this FACT gracefully and with dignity.


I could easily accept the fact that a woman is just not that in
to me. The problem would be if I've been married to her for 20 years, had kids and built good financial life. 

Then, if she decides that she's "just not into me", it's sort of problematic.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Buddy400 said:


> If it's "their history together is what is causing her attraction or lack thereof" why would women lose attraction to their husband after two years (or seven, or some other constant number)?
> 
> I'm pretty sure you've admitted that this happens more readily with women than men.


You get married, you stop dating each other, you start taking each other for granted, stop meeting each other's needs, you have kids and forget about being a spouse... a lot can happen in 2 or 7 years.


----------



## Deejo

always_alone said:


> Why do you think that the only way to harm someone is physical?
> 
> Do you not think contempt or disdain is harmful to those who are subject to it? Do you not think that it is harmful to people to fuel their anger, their resentments, and their sense of being inadequate for who they are?


I dunno? Does it matter what I think?

When doesn't it matter what I think?

Do you have proof of this?


The above is pretty much how I see this whole discussion. That isn't meant as a knock.

Just means I think things have hit threshold.

There has been plenty of criticism leveled at men that consume MMLSP. Some pretty strong criticism.

Don't know if that's harmed anyone here.


None of the men here have referred to any of the women participating as c*m buckets but presumably somebody on the site has at some time ... and I still don't know if anyone was 'harmed' by it ... or just didn't like it much.

See what I mean?


----------



## samyeagar

Faithful Wife said:


> There are lots of studies as to why this happens.
> 
> *But none of them will matter to an individual couple*.


Therapists and counselors don't reinvent the wheel every time. They base their individual attention on years of generalizations.

Should we disregard Gottman, and not apply his work to any individual couples because he speaks of generalization?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> I could easily accept the fact that a woman is just not that in
> to me. The problem would be if I've been married to her for 20 years, had kids and built good financial life.
> 
> Then, if she decides that she's "just not into me", it's sort of problematic.


Yes and no amounts of studies about why college aged women are into or not into men who aren't you is going to help you with this problem.


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> OK.
> 
> You can either say that some women are attracted to displays of wealth and it is statistically significant
> 
> -or-
> 
> You can say that no women are attracted to displays of wealth
> 
> -or-
> 
> You can say that some women are attracted to displays of wealth but it isn't statistically significant
> 
> What you are saying is the third, I think, which is in dispute, and says that the effect is essentially random in women.
> 
> Which in itself is saying what is true or isn't true attraction wise vis-a-vis wealth in women.
> 
> You can't have it both ways.


Actually, I am saying none of the above. What I am saying is that studies that are held up as "proof" that women prioritize wealth as a measure of attractiveness aren't actual proof. 

I'm quite willing to allow that some women will find wealth attractive and that some women will not. 

But this is hardly a grandiose claim about what women find attractive. Indeed, it's about as watered down as it gets.


----------



## Faithful Wife

samyeagar said:


> Therapists and counselors don't reinvent the wheel every time. They base their individual attention on years of generalizations.
> 
> Should we disregard Gottman, and not apply his work to any individual couples because he speaks of generalization?


Gottman does not try to explain that we evolved a certain way to where women like pink.

He tries to explain what happens to couples in _marriages_.

If things he discusses helps a couple understand their own marriage, then it is good.

Yet that understanding does not mean the couple will make it, still.

Guys who swallow the red pill want a formula that works every time and there isn't one. Conflating that with marriage studies is silly.


----------



## Buddy400

samyeagar said:


> Things like the five love languages, and the emotional needs are completely based on generalities formed from studying countless people, and the generalities do not speak to any individual at all. When we here at TAM suggest those things, we are telling people to look at things that generally work, and find the one that works the best. Even for people who are not huge quality time people, we still suggest a minimum of 15 hours, we suggest intimate, non sexual touch because there are general patterns among groups of individuals. There are common patterns, and quite frequently, a new poster will post their story here, and the same suggestions come out, because it is a very familiar story to many of us, even though these are new individuals.


:iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree:

So. Sam's just shown that we *can* talk in generalities. Just not about the Red Pill, or anything that could be conceived in any way as negative about women.


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> I dunno? Does it matter what I think?
> 
> When doesn't it matter what I think?
> 
> Do you have proof of this?
> 
> 
> The above is pretty much how I see this whole discussion. That isn't meant as a knock.
> 
> Just means I think things have hit threshold.
> 
> There has been plenty of criticism leveled at men that consume MMLSP. Some pretty strong criticism.
> 
> Don't know if that's harmed anyone here.
> 
> 
> None of the men here have referred to any of the women participating as c*m buckets but presumably somebody on the site has at some time ... and I still don't know if anyone was 'harmed' by it ... or just didn't like it much.
> 
> See what I mean?



Not entirely sure I'm following your point. But, there is the microcosm of TAM, and there is the real world. 

TBH, I highly doubt that anyone has been seriously harmed by reading a post from some random stranger on an internet thread.

Unless, perhaps, they took the idea in that post to heart, implemented it in their marriage, and it turned out to be exactly the wrong thing to do. 

See what I mean?


----------



## tech-novelist

For those of you who care about whether it is true that Athol Kay discusses hormones, take a look at MMSLP here:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004W0IRQ8/ref=kinw_myk_ro_title#reader_B004W0IRQ8

and page down to section 1.7, entitled "Hormones are feelings", in which he describes the effects of dopamine, oxytocin/vasopressin, and testosterone on sexual behavior and feelings. There is more discussion of these systems in following sections.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> :iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree:
> 
> So. Sam's just shown that we *can* talk in generalities. Just not about the Red Pill, or anything that could be conceived in any way as negative about women.


Red pill crap is also negative about men. It talks about how all they want is sex with young hot women.

Yet all the men I have been in relationships with were not this way and would have been insulted to have been described this way.

It is fine to talk in generalities, but not fine to say "my wife should be into me because I read in MMSL that if I make her jealous, she will f*ck me". If you don't get that, then that's fine. I don't know how else to explain it to you, but you already think you know what I'm saying even though it is clear that you don't.


----------



## samyeagar

Faithful Wife said:


> Gottman does not try to explain that we evolved a certain way to where women like pink.
> 
> He tries to explain what happens to couples in _marriages_.
> 
> If things he discusses helps a couple understand their own marriage, then it is good.
> 
> Yet that understanding does not mean the couple will make it, still.
> 
> Guys who swallow the red pill want a formula that works every time and there isn't one. Conflating that with marriage studies is silly.


Except Gottman, Chapman, Harley all provide things that are essentially a formula to a good marriage, and they are quite successful because the generalities they tap into apply to a broad spectrum of people. Hell, Harley even laid out his book of emotional needs IN ORDER of importance as would generally apply to most people...in a gender specific way.


----------



## Faithful Wife

technovelist said:


> For those of you who care about whether it is true that Athol Kay discusses hormones, take a look at MMSLP here:
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004W0IRQ8/ref=kinw_myk_ro_title#reader_B004W0IRQ8
> 
> and page down to section 1.7, entitled "Hormones are feelings", in which he describes the effects of dopamine, oxytocin/vasopressin, and testosterone on sexual behavior and feelings. There is more discussion of these systems in following sections.


Yes there is a bunch of speculation on his part where he extrapolates that "this must mean that, because chemicals"....even though there is literally no way to measure these chemicals and no one in real science tries to make conclusions about specific levels of these in a specific person, because again, it simply cannot be measured.

All we know is that the body produces these chemicals, and we know when it happens sometimes.

Don't forget that babies are flooded with these chemicals when mommy holds him or feeds him. We are also flooded with chemicals when we experience fear, stress, etc. We can predict it will happen and what caused it, but we cannot predict the outcome OR predict all of the reasons behind it.

One individual (either male or female) can learn to sexually repress themselves until they experience NO sexual desire. This trumps the group studies every single time.


----------



## GTdad

Faithful Wife said:


> It is fine to talk in generalities, but not fine to say "my wife should be into me because I read in MMSL that if I make her jealous, she will f*ck me".


I suspect folks like that would find SOME way to f*ck up and make their situation worse, Athol or no.


----------



## Faithful Wife

samyeagar said:


> Except Gottman, Chapman, Harley all provide things that are essentially a formula to a good marriage, and they are quite successful because the generalities they tap into apply to a broad spectrum of people. Hell, Harley even laid out his book of emotional needs IN ORDER of importance as would generally apply to most people...in a gender specific way.


When he wrote his first books, there were more of the older gender roles in play. He has updated his later books to change some of that, because he has found that more recently, women complain about lack of sex as much or more than men, for instance.

And again, he doesn't speculate about evolution, just the current social norms of the people he works with.

Do you think I'm trying to say there is no difference between men and women? Because no, that's not it.


----------



## Faithful Wife

GTdad said:


> I suspect folks like that would find SOME way to f*ck up and make their situation worse, Athol or no.


Yes, but that same guy could have maybe done better if he found better advice first. Just because he might be kinda less emotionally intelligent or whatever, doesn't mean he can't learn good tools.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> And this is the answer some men don't seem to want to hear. When we say it, even when you discover it yourself, you still don't want to hear it. You want women to all act the same so that we can be predictable.
> 
> Sorry, that isn't nature, it isn't true, and it isn't science.
> 
> Groups are predictable. Individuals are not (at least not by THOSE kinds of tests).
> 
> Especially not within a marriage.


Predictable would be nice, but no, it isn't necessary. The rough probability of something is good enough, and far better than complete cluelessness. If everyone is so different, then there can be no general advice, and forums like this wouldn't exist.


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> I'll have to work on that. Because that really isn't my position. I can understand that it can be perceived that way in the midst of these discussions. It's not what I want to convey.
> 
> I do believe there are distinct factors in attraction, and being aware of this can help either gender. I mean, we're not arguing that, are we?
> 
> The only cut and dry thing I see about attraction, and in alignment with FW, is that it is either present or it isn't.
> 
> But it can most certainly be fostered or eroded. And if it completely bleeds out, it is virtually impossible to recover.
> 
> I've mentioned my 6'3" blonde Adonis friend before. Women swooned ... right up until he started talking.



Okay, hurray! We can agree! (Even when thousands doubted the possibility). 

No, we aren't arguing. Attraction happens. And it can surely be fostered and eroded by any number of things. And for successful LTR, we absolutely need to foster it continually, as complacency, boredom, and distractions can so easily erode it.

I'm even happy to agree that one key way to help foster attraction is to cultivate one's self: don't be a doormat, keep yourself interested and interesting, have hobbies, try new things, be fun to be around, look after your health and fitness. These are all good things.

Really it's just all the hateful baggage and pseudo-science of the red-pill philosophy that I object to. I can see why so many here want to forgive its faults because it "works", but I still think this focus on ends ignores both the problems inherent in the means, as well as glosses over the fact that it actually doesn't "work" for everyone. Not even all nice guys.


----------



## toolforgrowth

Faithful Wife said:


> Guys who swallow the red pill want a formula that works every time and there isn't one. Conflating that with marriage studies is silly.


As a guy who has "swallowed the red pill", I disagree with this.

I never once perceived it to be guaranteed method of success with women. And I have never heard AK make that direct claim.

To me, swallowing the red pill is a metaphor for a man becoming a self agent for personal change. We readily accept that the change may not lead to the specific desired outcome discussed in this thread, which is to reignite the attraction our wives once held for us.

However, there are other many positive outcomes for men, and there were for me personally. I began to no longer want to salvage my marriage with my xWW. I began to explore relationships with other women. I began to take direct control over the items in my life that I once perceived to be out of my sphere of influence, but in fact were within it.

I tried to save my marriage and ultimately failed. But the red pill allowed me to divorce myself from any perceived outcome. If I had been successful in retaining my marriage, I would have found peace. Even though I wasn't successful, I still found peace. Either outcome would have led to a positive new mode of life, due to the power of self agency.

As an aside, I have also had increasingly better results with relationships as result of it.

The only guaranteed formula of success that it has provided me with is one with which I can use to plot the course of my happiness, any obstacles life my place in my way notwithstanding.

To me, this entire thread is focusing on a secondary element of the red pill: Can it lead to the re-ignition of attraction in a woman for her husband? The best answer I can give for that would be "maybe".


----------



## samyeagar

Faithful Wife said:


> When he wrote his first books, there were more of the older gender roles in play. He has updated his later books to change some of that, because he has found that more recently, women complain about lack of sex as much or more than men, for instance.
> 
> And again, he doesn't speculate about evolution, just the current social norms of the people he works with.
> 
> *Do you think I'm trying to say there is no difference between men and women?* Because no, that's not it.


No, not at all.

Do you feel that it is just speculation with no real measurements or science behind it that time and touch are valuable because of bonding chemicals released in the body triggered by those actions?


----------



## always_alone

Buddy400 said:


> Thank you, that's what we've been trying to say for 200+ pages.
> 
> No one ever said wealth attracts ALL women.


Except Athol Kay and other red-pillers who are quite determined that all women are biologically programmed to be hypergamous.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> It is fine to talk in generalities, but not fine to say "my wife should be into me because I read in MMSL that if I make her jealous, she will f*ck me".


There is no such thing as "should". We can say what is, we can say what is common or uncommon, but there is nothing to say about what "should" be.

MMSL is literally a last ditch effort. If it doesn't work and she's all kinds of upset by it, so freaking what? His next step and only other option was to kick her to the curb. So if it works, good for them. If it doesn't the marriage is over like it was about to be anyway. Win-win.


----------



## Faithful Wife

always_alone said:


> Really it's just all the hateful baggage and pseudo-science of the red-pill philosophy that I object to. I can see why so many here want to forgive its faults because it "works", but I still think this focus on ends ignores both the problems inherent in the means, as well as glosses over the fact that it actually doesn't "work" for everyone. Not even all nice guys.


Not even all sex gods. Not even all bad girls. Not even no one.

Let's talk about self-agency again.

All people have the power to decide for themselves if they are into any specific person or not.

No amount of arguing with them about how "science claims you should be into me" makes any difference, and by even trying to argue it, it just shows you don't understand what self-agency means.

Me saying this doesn't mean people should give up at the first sign of trouble.

It just means that if you are looking at groups of strangers to figure out why YOUR spouse has the right to decide if they are into you or not, you are looking in the wrong place entirely. First accept they have this right and you do NOT have a right to impose what you want on them. Married or not, you don't get to decide if someone is into you. 

People fall out of love and lose attraction all....the....time. Both men and women.

Why not start from the premise that THIS is normal, instead of expecting people to behave in a way that has been shown isn't in their natural make up. IE: we do know that there is no natural gene or neural process that makes any of us ONLY attracted to one particular person and REMAINS attracted in the same way throughout their relationship. Instead, what is VERY naturally wired into us is that we are attracted to LOTS of different people, whether we are in a relationship or not, and that we tend to lose our attraction to those we have too much familiarity with.

It is our self-agency that gives us the right to work on our existing attraction, or follow another scent. Or even be asexual and not be attracted to any of them.

Most of the grief here comes from trying to MAKE people do what you want them to do.


----------



## MEM2020

Sam,

This is a great point. And that is how I look at all this stuff. 

Somebody says - generally speaking most people value this set of behaviors and/or attributes.

And most of us read it and say - yes that's what drives things, not only in my marriage but based on my past relationships and observations of other couples. 



QUOTE=samyeagar;12690562]Things like the five love languages, and the emotional needs are completely based on generalities formed from studying countless people, and the generalities do not speak to any individual at all. When we here at TAM suggest those things, we are telling people to look at things that generally work, and find the one that works the best. Even for people who are not huge quality time people, we still suggest a minimum of 15 hours, we suggest intimate, non sexual touch because there are general patterns among groups of individuals. There are common patterns, and quite frequently, a new poster will post their story here, and the same suggestions come out, because it is a very familiar story to many of us, even though these are new individuals.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Faithful Wife

samyeagar said:


> No, not at all.
> 
> Do you feel that it is just speculation with no real measurements or science behind it that time and touch are valuable because of bonding chemicals released in the body triggered by those actions?


The specific levels of of specific chemicals cannot be measured in specific people....so we can't speculate that Man A can neg Woman B and "make" her chemicals rise, and exactly which chemicals.

Time and touch studies do not even try to assert anything that stupid. They are not the same type of study.


----------



## Faithful Wife

toolforgrowth said:


> As a guy who has "swallowed the red pill", I disagree with this.
> 
> I never once perceived it to be guaranteed method of success with women. And I have never heard AK make that direct claim.
> 
> To me, swallowing the red pill is a metaphor for a man becoming a self agent for personal change. We readily accept that the change may not lead to the specific desired outcome discussed in this thread, which is to reignite the attraction our wives once held for us.
> 
> However, there are other many positive outcomes for men, and there were for me personally. I began to no longer want to salvage my marriage with my xWW. I began to explore relationships with other women. I began to take direct control over the items in my life that I once perceived to be out of my sphere of influence, but in fact were within it.
> 
> I tried to save my marriage and ultimately failed. But the red pill allowed me to divorce myself from any perceived outcome. If I had been successful in retaining my marriage, I would have found peace. Even though I wasn't successful, I still found peace. Either outcome would have led to a positive new mode of life, due to the power of self agency.
> 
> As an aside, I have also had increasingly better results with relationships as result of it.
> 
> The only guaranteed formula of success that it has provided me with is one with which I can use to plot the course of my happiness, any obstacles life my place in my way notwithstanding.
> 
> To me, this entire thread is focusing on a secondary element of the red pill: Can it lead to the re-ignition of attraction in a woman for her husband? The best answer I can give for that would be "maybe".


I do understand the appeal.

Did you believe that hypergamy, preselection and sperm wars were proven facts as far as human mating goes?


----------



## toolforgrowth

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is fine to talk in generalities, but not fine to say "my wife should be into me because I read in MMSL that if I make her jealous, she will f*ck me".
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as "should". We can say what is, we can say what is common or uncommon, but there is nothing to say about "should".
> 
> MMSL is literally a last ditch effort. If it doesn't work and she's all kinds of upset by it, so freaking what? His next step and only other option was to kick her to the curb. So if it works, good for them. If it doesn't the marriage is over like it was about to be anyway. Win-win.
Click to expand...

Precisely.

A man may prefer to save his marriage, and may be willing to try anything, while still being divorced from that outcome. Even my therapist told me "never pay attention to the word 'should'. That denotes an outside influence in your preferences and perceptions".

That is precisely what I did. I did the last ditch effort and failed. My only option after that was ending the marriage, which I did in short order and never regretted it. But to this day, I can honestly say I tried. I sleep peacefully at night knowing that.

To be fair, by the time I was done, she was showing clear signs that her attraction to me had reignited. But by then it was far too late.

If the red pill's sole purpose had been to get my wife back, I would have accepted her advances instead of spurning them. But that, for me, was merely the secondary effect. The primary was the drive for self determination.


----------



## Brigit

I have to say this FW you sure do have great stamina.


----------



## Brigit

toolforgrowth said:


> To be fair, by the time I was done, she was showing clear signs that her attraction to me had reignited. But by then it was far too late.


That is one of the saddest things I've ever heard. Did you remarry?


----------



## Faithful Wife

toolforgrowth said:


> If the red pill's sole purpose had been to get my wife back, I would have accepted her advances instead of spurning them. But that, for me, was merely the secondary effect. The primary was the drive for self determination.


What if the reality here is that when your wife first lost attraction to you, it was because biologically and psychologically speaking, you aren't a match for each other? What if her loss of attraction was really just evidence of this, and you should have accepted it and moved on then? What if her renewed attraction to you meant nothing and wouldn't have lasted anyway?

What if we allowed people the self agency to decide that they aren't into us, yet didn't allow this to make us feel unworthy?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Brigit said:


> I have to say this FW you sure do have great stamina.


Meh, this is nothing. Being married to and continuing the mating dance with my complicated, loving, amazing, mysterious and wildly attractive sex god takes way more stamina and mental power than this does.


----------



## Deejo

always_alone said:


> Not entirely sure I'm following your point. But, there is the microcosm of TAM, and there is the real world.
> 
> TBH, I highly doubt that anyone has been seriously harmed by reading a post from some random stranger on an internet thread.
> 
> Unless, perhaps, they took the idea in that post to heart, implemented it in their marriage, and it turned out to be exactly the wrong thing to do.
> 
> See what I mean?




YES!

Because we are in a microcosm. And that's what I keep wondering ... 

Who other than FrenchFry's husband has pulled a MMSLP or Red Pill change up and it harmed their spouse, or who would acknowledge that the implementation of such, was the causal element in the relationships downfall?

You can tell me that they don't want to out themselves, and that's fair.

But I can also tell you that there are women in our little microcosm who have made it clear that this stuff helped their marriage, and they don't want to be outed either. (And I mean that. I'm not making it up)

I'd rather focus on agreeing that the method of delivery needs to change rather than whether or not some of the content has efficacy. Because it quite clearly does.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Brigit said:


> I understand what you're saying. The dread game teaches manipulation techniques that might provide instant gratification for a limited amount of time. Anyone can be "seduced" for short periods. But that's not healthy or sustainable. My chemical makeup will trump tricks.
> 
> A woman might stay with someone she's not passionate about but that is an intellectual choice.


But she was passionate about him enough to marry him? It's fine for her to manipulate him out of the security he provides by making "intellectual choices"?

You know, the only reason I wouldn't recommend MMSL for a certain guy, is that I think a man should abandon such a succubus on principle. The problem is that without awareness of how these things come about and how he contributes he'll just end up in a relationship with another one. She isn't gonna stay with a guy who withholds security, he damn well shouldn't stay with a woman who withholds sex.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Deejo said:


> I'd rather focus on agreeing that the method of delivery needs to change rather than whether or not some of the content has efficacy. Because it quite clearly does.


:smthumbup:


----------



## Brigit

I've never read AK's book. But I just read a review that I think is a riot:

The #1 Guide to Seducing Athol Kay's Wife

The good:
Mr. Kay writes with humor and comes across as heartfelt
The advice to improve yourself via exercise, dress, behavior is never a bad thing
Setting firm boundaries for expecting change or leaving is a solid strategy

The not-so-good:
Almost all the advice is based on "The Red Pill" and pickup artist stuff. It would take longer than I have to go into why I think that approach is bad from practical and philosophical points of view, but let's just say, as a woman, most of this stuff wouldn't work on me. His wife was raised in a really religious home with strict traditional gender roles, so she apparently likes her husband being "the captain" of the ship and making all the decisions. If you're with a woman like that, maybe it will work for you, but it's likely to piss off more modern, independent women.

The bad:
The advice to marry a virgin is probably the worst part about this book. In studying what leads to the death of a martial sex life, I've found that more than half the guys who end up in sexless marriages married virgins or near virgins. Athol Kay got lucky in that his wife likes sex and isn't too repressed. Most guys who marry virgins will not be so lucky.


----------



## samyeagar

Faithful Wife said:


> Not even all sex gods. Not even all bad girls. Not even no one.
> 
> Let's talk about self-agency again.
> 
> All people have the power to decide for themselves if they are into any specific person or not.
> 
> No amount of arguing with them about how "science claims you should be into me" makes any difference, and by even trying to argue it, it just shows you don't understand what self-agency means.
> 
> Me saying this doesn't mean people should give up at the first sign of trouble.
> 
> It just means that if you are looking at groups of strangers to figure out why YOUR spouse has the right to decide if they are into you or not, you are looking in the wrong place entirely. First accept they have this right and you do NOT have a right to impose what you want on them. Married or not, you don't get to decide if someone is into you.
> 
> *People fall out of love and lose attraction all....the....time. Both men and women.
> 
> Why not start from the premise that THIS is normal, instead of expecting people to behave in a way that has been shown isn't in their natural make up*. IE: we do know that there is no natural gene or neural process that makes any of us ONLY attracted to one particular person and REMAINS attracted in the same way throughout their relationship. Instead, what is VERY naturally wired into us is that we are attracted to LOTS of different people, whether we are in a relationship or not, and that we tend to lose our attraction to those we have too much familiarity with.
> 
> It is our self-agency that gives us the right to work on our existing attraction, or follow another scent. Or even be asexual and not be attracted to any of them.
> 
> Most of the grief here comes from trying to MAKE people do what you want them to do.


Except that it IS starting from the place that loss of attraction is normal. That is the observation. The red pill crap is an explanation of the observations. The action part of the red pill crap is strategies to artificially elicit certain behaviors that counter the observation. It is widely considered normal for the initial physical spark of a relationship to wear off over time. It is so common an observation, it even has a name...the honeymoon phase. There are countless other strategies out there for countering this observation to keep this extremely common phenomena at bay.


----------



## MEM2020

AA,
I try to break these 'strategies/belief systems' down into two radically different dimensions:
- Those focused on strength
- Those focused on power 

I perceive the former to be positive and good and the latter to be somewhere between bad and truly toxic. 

Strength is all about self improvement. Whether that's working out or improving your non verbal communication skills. 

Power is all about getting your partner to do what you want or need them to do. And worse this often comes without any sense of the golden rule. Dread game. This sounds like something you do to an enemy who has declared war. Not to a life partner. 

There is overlap. When I do a home improvement project - this does usually turn M2 on. Would it be 'wrong' to do a home improvement to create desire? Only if I'm going to be upset or resentful if it doesn't produce the level of desire I want. 

Making someone jealous - this is solely about power. And it's a violation of the golden rule. 

I fully subscribe to the strength model.
And entirely reject the power model. 






always_alone said:


> Okay, hurray! We can agree! (Even when thousands doubted the possibility).
> 
> No, we aren't arguing. Attraction happens. And it can surely be fostered and eroded by any number of things. And for successful LTR, we absolutely need to foster it continually, as complacency, boredom, and distractions can so easily erode it.
> 
> I'm even happy to agree that one key way to help foster attraction is to cultivate one's self: don't be a doormat, keep yourself interested and interesting, have hobbies, try new things, be fun to be around, look after your health and fitness. These are all good things.
> 
> Really it's just all the hateful baggage and pseudo-science of the red-pill philosophy that I object to. I can see why so many here want to forgive its faults because it "works", but I still think this focus on ends ignores both the problems inherent in the means, as well as glosses over the fact that it actually doesn't "work" for everyone. Not even all nice guys.


----------



## samyeagar

Faithful Wife said:


> The specific levels of of specific chemicals cannot be measured in specific people....so we can't speculate that Man A can neg Woman B and "make" her chemicals rise, and exactly which chemicals.
> 
> Time and touch studies do not even try to assert anything that stupid. They are not the same type of study.


Similar vein here...why is it that we then suggest, among other things, a man have his testosterone levels checked when his wife is here with a sexless marriage, and a husband who no interest in her sexually? There are general levels considered "normal" across the entire male spectrum, and if a man is near the bottom, or below normal range, why do we bother suggesting diet and activities, and more extremely hormone therapy for him...he could just be normal for him right? Yet it is suggested because, while specific individuals may vary, the vast majority of healthy libido males fall within a certain range, and it is accepted that it might fix the problem.


----------



## Faithful Wife

samyeagar said:


> Except that it IS starting from the place that loss of attraction is normal. That is the observation. The red pill crap is an explanation of the observations. The action part of the red pill crap is strategies to artificially elicit certain behaviors that counter the observation. It is widely considered normal for the initial physical spark of a relationship to wear off over time. It is so common an observation, it even has a name...the honeymoon phase. There are countless other strategies out there for countering this observation to keep this extremely common phenomena at bay.


Yes and they don't include pretending that fake science is the "reason" women like pink.


----------



## Faithful Wife

samyeagar said:


> Similar vein here...why is it that we then suggest, among other things, a man have his testosterone levels checked when his wife is here with a sexless marriage, and a husband who no interest in her sexually? There are general levels considered "normal" across the entire male spectrum, and if a man is near the bottom, or below normal range, why do we bother suggesting diet and activities, and more extremely hormone therapy for him...he could just be normal for him right? Yet it is suggested because, while specific individuals may vary, the vast majority of healthy libido males fall within a certain range, and it is accepted that it might fix the problem.


This is about personal health and fitness which is always a good thing.

However in case you haven't noticed, I personally have been saying for the whole time I have been posting here that for some men, not being very sexual is NORMAL. For some women, being highly sexual and much higher than some men, is NORMAL.


----------



## Faithful Wife

MEM11363 said:


> AA,
> I try to break these 'strategies/belief systems' down into two radically different dimensions:
> - Those focused on strength
> - Those focused on power
> 
> I perceive the former to be positive and good and the latter to be somewhere between bad and truly toxic.
> 
> Strength is all about self improvement. Whether that's working out or improving your non verbal communication skills.
> 
> Power is all about getting your partner to do what you want or need them to do. And worse this often comes without any sense of the golden rule. Dread game. This sounds like something you do to an enemy who has declared war. Not to a life partner.
> 
> There is overlap. When I do a home improvement project - this does usually turn M2 on. Would it be 'wrong' to do a home improvement to create desire? Only if I'm going to be upset or resentful if it doesn't produce the level of desire I want.
> 
> Making someone jealous - this is solely about power. And it's a violation of the golden rule.
> 
> I fully subscribe to the strength model.
> And entirely reject the power model.


MEM, I have never heard anyone complain about red pill or MMSL wanting to improve men. I have only ever heard complaints about the parts which are hateful or mean spirited, such as dread game.

I hope you don't think always or anyone here has a problem with a man wanting to improve himself. Because not a single person has ever said this.


----------



## MEM2020

Brigit,
You are QFT !!!!




Brigit said:


> I've never read AK's book. But I just read a review that I think is a riot:
> 
> The #1 Guide to Seducing Athol Kay's Wife
> 
> The good:
> Mr. Kay writes with humor and comes across as heartfelt
> The advice to improve yourself via exercise, dress, behavior is never a bad thing
> Setting firm boundaries for expecting change or leaving is a solid strategy
> 
> The not-so-good:
> Almost all the advice is based on "The Red Pill" and pickup artist stuff. It would take longer than I have to go into why I think that approach is bad from practical and philosophical points of view, but let's just say, as a woman, most of this stuff wouldn't work on me. His wife was raised in a really religious home with strict traditional gender roles, so she apparently likes her husband being "the captain" of the ship and making all the decisions. If you're with a woman like that, maybe it will work for you, but it's likely to piss off more modern, independent women.
> 
> The bad:
> The advice to marry a virgin is probably the worst part about this book. In studying what leads to the death of a martial sex life, I've found that more than half the guys who end up in sexless marriages married virgins or near virgins. Athol Kay got lucky in that his wife likes sex and isn't too repressed. Most guys who marry virgins will not be so lucky.


----------



## Faithful Wife

MEM11363 said:


> Brigit,
> You are QFT !!!!


Can we take this to mean you are not into red pill, MEM?


----------



## Brigit

MEM11363 said:


> Brigit,
> You are QFT !!!!


Thank you.

BTW...What's a virgin?


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> I'd rather focus on agreeing that the method of delivery needs to change rather than whether or not some of the content has efficacy. Because it quite clearly does.


Okay, we can focus on method of delivery! 

No, wait, I have more to say: FrenchFry is not the only one who has made this claim, and moreso, it is *not just women* who have complained that red-pill stuff did more harm than good.

Some men too have noticed that it doesn't work on their wives.

It may "work" for some, who have certain sorts of desires and expectations from themselves and their marriages. It does not work across the board. Again, not even for nice guys.

We just aren't biologically programmed in the way that red-pill says we are.


----------



## always_alone

MEM11363 said:


> AA,
> I try to break these 'strategies/belief systems' down into two radically different dimensions:
> - Those focused on strength
> - Those focused on power
> 
> I perceive the former to be positive and good and the latter to be somewhere between bad and truly toxic.
> 
> Strength is all about self improvement. Whether that's working out or improving your non verbal communication skills.
> 
> Power is all about getting your partner to do what you want or need them to do. And worse this often comes without any sense of the golden rule. Dread game. This sounds like something you do to an enemy who has declared war. Not to a life partner.
> 
> There is overlap. When I do a home improvement project - this does usually turn M2 on. Would it be 'wrong' to do a home improvement to create desire? Only if I'm going to be upset or resentful if it doesn't produce the level of desire I want.
> 
> Making someone jealous - this is solely about power. And it's a violation of the golden rule.
> 
> I fully subscribe to the strength model.
> And entirely reject the power model.


I like it!


----------



## always_alone

samyeagar said:


> Similar vein here...why is it that we then suggest, among other things, a man have his testosterone levels checked when his wife is here with a sexless marriage, and a husband who no interest in her sexually? There are general levels considered "normal" across the entire male spectrum, and if a man is near the bottom, or below normal range, why do we bother suggesting diet and activities, and more extremely hormone therapy for him...he could just be normal for him right? Yet it is suggested because, while specific individuals may vary, the vast majority of healthy libido males fall within a certain range, and it is accepted that it might fix the problem.


Well, even with testosterone, there isn't a direct correlation between levels and sexual desire. A man can be very low T and still quite sexually active, and very high T and not so much.

With brain chemicals, the picture is even murkier still. People respond to the chemical levels in very different ways. 

And to make it even more complicated, different people will experience the same stimuli in very different ways, and this itself changes the chemical ****tail. It is widely believed that the chemistry causes the feeling, but it also happens that the experience changes the chemistry.

That plus neuroplasiticity, where the brain develops new pathways, and where different structures can adapt and change to take on new functions, makes it very, very difficult to simply parse out chemical levels to a particular emotion or desire.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> This is about personal health and fitness which is always a good thing.
> 
> However in case you haven't noticed, I personally have been saying for the whole time I have been posting here that for some men, not being very sexual is NORMAL. For some women, being highly sexual and much higher than some men, is NORMAL.


While I agree, I'm not sure what the hangup on "normal" is.

I've never wanted to be normal, or have my marriage be normal. I would never tolerate a "normal" marriage.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> What if the reality here is that when your wife first lost attraction to you, it was because biologically and psychologically speaking, you aren't a match for each other? What if her loss of attraction was really just evidence of this, and you should have accepted it and moved on then? What if her renewed attraction to you meant nothing and wouldn't have lasted anyway?
> 
> What if we allowed people the self agency to decide that they aren't into us, yet didn't allow this to make us feel unworthy?


What if monkeys fly out of your butt? "What if" is also useless.

What is known is that two people thought they matched well enough to think they should get married. Either she deceived in the beginning, or one of them changed. If she deceived or changed, it necessarily means the marriage is dead. If her want for him changed, then SHE needs to end the marriage, not torture him. If he changed, it was clearly not intended... whether he wants to correct is up to him.

It's far too easy to say to every failing marriage, "well, you weren't matched".  It's down right useless even. They thought they were compatible to begin with by all available evidence. There is no way to determine otherwise given her deception or future change. If she's not into him, don't freaking marry him. If she's not into him, divorce him don't deny him sex. Where are the women demanding sexually withholding women divorce because they're "not into him?" You assume HE is going to be able to tell any of this will happen so as to better select a match? He chose right by his wants the first time. He was misled or people changed. The best thing he can do, is strive to be the best version of HIMSELF he can be, and that's what MMSL encourages. Even if the marriage still ends because she was a bait and switcher, he's still going to be a more appealing guy afterward than otherwise.

Worthiness is a fluffy and pointless concept to me. Nobody determines my worthiness. No one determines anyone's worthiness. I care about getting what I want. MMSL gives advice on how to get and maintain attraction in order to get sex, or failing that, leave. The notion that we should blindly plod forward unaware of factors that contribute to attraction and never changing unattractive behaviors because "self-agency" is just anti-knowledge. If you even believed what you're saying, you wouldn't advise men to workout as you do. Just accept it dumpy guy. She's not into you. Why workout to prove your "worth"? 

Don't marry bad matches you won't know about at the time you get married. Improving your attractiveness is about seeking worthiness, don't do it, but it's okay to workout to improve your attractiveness and that's not seeking worthiness. Ok... well now it's perfectly clear as mud.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> While I agree, I'm not sure what the hangup on "normal" is.
> 
> I've never wanted to be normal, or have my marriage be normal. I would never tolerate a "normal" marriage.


You have taken something out of context, misunderstood my meaning of it, and then attributed to me than I am "hung up" on it.

I wish you wouldn't do this. If you don't know what I mean, please ask me instead.


----------



## naiveonedave

always_alone said:


> Except Athol Kay and other red-pillers who are quite determined that all women are biologically programmed to be hypergamous.


meh, he talks in much more general terms. It is most, not all, don't try to rewrite what he wrote.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

> *The bad*:
> The advice to marry a virgin is probably the worst part about this book. In studying what leads to the death of a martial sex life, I've found that more than half the guys who end up in sexless marriages married virgins or near virgins. Athol Kay got lucky in that his wife likes sex and isn't too repressed. Most guys who marry virgins will not be so lucky.


One of the best quotes on TAM in regards to marital sexual satisfaction..in regards to marrying a virgin or Not.... I feel Cletus got to the heart of it on one of those controversial virgin threads ...



Cletus said:


> To those advocating sex before marriage as a means of determining compatibility:
> 
> You're right, but for the wrong reason.
> 
> Sex before marriage does not ensure compatibility, and for my formal proof I offer the endless sad sack stories posted hereon of bait and switch, no sex after children, and countless other examples of the shine wearing off the sex life. Sex before marriage does not ensure compatibility. *All it can do is discover current incompatibility.* Which is of course a very useful thing to know, but you may not be answering the question you believe you're answering when you bed your future mate.


It means a great deal to myself and husband that we've only been with each other....though admittedly we were the type who wanted to marry younger & start our family....(no regrets, we'd do it all over again the same).

My Husband has always been happy with the QUALITY of sex... (only complaint was -he wanted more back in the day-nothing near sexless or I would have raised the roof myself!)..as we fit the old stereotype .. that men have higher drives in their younger yrs.. this was TRUE *in our situation* (he thought about it more, he wanted it more, he suffered more).... then this shifted....and I had a higher drive over him..


----------



## Marduk

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> What if monkeys fly out of your butt? "What if" is also useless.
> 
> What is known is that two people thought they matched well enough to think they should get married. Either she deceived in the beginning, or one of them changed. If she deceived or changed, it necessarily means the marriage is dead. If her want for him changed, then SHE needs to end the marriage, not torture him. If he changed, it was clearly not voluntary or desired.
> 
> It's far too easy to say to every failing marriage, "well, you weren't matched".  It's down right useless even. They thought they were compatible to begin with by all available evidence. There is no way to determine otherwise given her deception or future change. If she's not into him, divorce him don't deny him sex. If she's not into him, don't freaking marry him. You assume HE is going to be able to tell? The best thing he can do, is be the best version of HIMSELF he can be, and that's what MMSL encourages. Even if the marriage still ends, he's better prepared for life after it.
> 
> This isn't a issue of being made to feel unworthy or self agency or a "right match". The cause is deception and/or lack of awareness. Either way, you're not going to know the difference between a good match that looks like a good match, and a bad match that looks like a good match. Given the information he had, it looked like a good match.
> 
> Worthiness is a fluffy and pointless concept to me. Nobody determines my worthiness. No one determines anyone's worthiness. I care about getting what I want. MMSL gives advice on how to get and maintain attraction in order to get sex, or failing that, leave. Worthiness is worthless. The notion that we should blindly plod forward unaware of factors that contribute to attraction and never changing unattractive behaviors because "self-agency" is just anti-knowledge. If you even believed what you're saying, you wouldn't advise men to workout as you do. Just accept it dumpy guy. She's not into you. Why workout to prove your "worth"?
> 
> Don't marry bad matches you won't know about at the time you get married. Improving your attractiveness is about seeking worthiness, but it's okay to workout to improve your attractiveness and that's not seeking worthiness. Ok... well now it's perfectly clear as mud.


You know what I would have loved to have heard, which I would have never heard?

You got fat, lazy, and stopped paying attention to me.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> You know what I would have loved to have heard, which I would have never heard?
> 
> You got fat, lazy, and stopped paying attention to me.


Why would she have never said this to you? Didn't want to hurt your feelings?


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> You have taken something out of context, misunderstood my meaning of it, and then attributed to me than I am "hung up" on it.
> 
> I wish you wouldn't do this. If you don't know what I mean, please ask me instead.


You said that LD is "normal" for some people and marriges. And I agree. 

I don't want it to be my normal. 

And I don't even personally like that it is normal. 

I get why normalizing it acknowledges it. I get that it validates and reduces angst about it. 

But I don't get why it ends there.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## samyeagar

always_alone said:


> Well, even with testosterone, there isn't a direct correlation between levels and sexual desire. A man can be very low T and still quite sexually active, and very high T and not so much.
> 
> With brain chemicals, the picture is even murkier still. People respond to the chemical levels in very different ways.
> 
> And to make it even more complicated, different people will experience the same stimuli in very different ways, and this itself changes the chemical ****tail. It is widely believed that the chemistry causes the feeling, but it also happens that the experience changes the chemistry.
> 
> That plus neuroplasiticity, where the brain develops new pathways, and where different structures can adapt and change to take on new functions, makes it very, very difficult to simply parse out chemical levels to a particular emotion or desire.


So then why is it generally accepted to at least give serious consideration to things like testosterone levels?


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> Except Athol Kay and other red-pillers who are quite determined that all women are biologically programmed to be hypergamous.


Ya. 

And that sucks.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MEM2020

SA,
I believe the main knock on the book on this point is that AK views women who have their share of premarital partners as 'damaged goods'. 

No one is looking down on the folks who waited - especially the folks like you two who set the gold standard for doing it that way....

And I do get why it feels special for you. 




SimplyAmorous said:


> One of the best quotes on TAM in regards to marital sexual satisfaction..in regards to marrying a virgin or Not.... I feel Cletus got to the heart of it on one of those controversial virgin threads ...
> 
> 
> 
> It means a great deal to myself and husband that we've only been with each other....though admittedly we were the type who wanted to marry younger & start our family....(no regrets, we'd do it all over again the same).
> 
> My Husband has always been happy with the QUALITY of sex... (only complaint was -he wanted more back in the day-nothing near sexless or I would have raised the roof myself!)..as we fit the old stereotype .. that men have higher drives in their younger yrs.. this was TRUE *in our situation* (he thought about it more, he wanted it more, he suffered more).... then this shifted....and I had a higher drive over him..


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Not even all sex gods. Not even all bad girls. Not even no one.
> 
> Let's talk about self-agency again.
> 
> All people have the power to decide for themselves if they are into any specific person or not.
> 
> No amount of arguing with them about how "science claims you should be into me" makes any difference, and by even trying to argue it, it just shows you don't understand what self-agency means.
> 
> Me saying this doesn't mean people should give up at the first sign of trouble.
> 
> It just means that if you are looking at groups of strangers to figure out why YOUR spouse has the right to decide if they are into you or not, you are looking in the wrong place entirely. First accept they have this right and you do NOT have a right to impose what you want on them. Married or not, you don't get to decide if someone is into you.
> 
> People fall out of love and lose attraction all....the....time. Both men and women.
> 
> Why not start from the premise that THIS is normal, instead of expecting people to behave in a way that has been shown isn't in their natural make up. IE: we do know that there is no natural gene or neural process that makes any of us ONLY attracted to one particular person and REMAINS attracted in the same way throughout their relationship. Instead, what is VERY naturally wired into us is that we are attracted to LOTS of different people, whether we are in a relationship or not, and that we tend to lose our attraction to those we have too much familiarity with.
> 
> It is our self-agency that gives us the right to work on our existing attraction, or follow another scent. Or even be asexual and not be attracted to any of them.
> 
> Most of the grief here comes from trying to MAKE people do what you want them to do.


I 100% agree with this. 

How do you tip the odds in your favour (instead of make them) tho?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

MEM11363 said:


> Dread game. This sounds like something you do to an enemy who has declared war. Not to a life partner.


I wouldn't think a life partner withholds sex either.

Any man is within his right to tell a woman who is withholding sex that it is unacceptable and she puts out or he gets out of the marriage. That's dread in a nutshell and there's nothing wrong with that. It's truth.

Talking to another woman or creating jealousy is a non-verbal way of telling your withholding wife that you're not desperate for what she's withholding. If she won't, there are plenty who will. It's about telling her that her withholding has no power over you. It's taking the power you've given to her back. It turns her withholding into a affirmative choice - I am ending the relationship.


----------



## Marduk

toolforgrowth said:


> Precisely.
> 
> A man may prefer to save his marriage, and may be willing to try anything, while still being divorced from that outcome. Even my therapist told me "never pay attention to the word 'should'. That denotes an outside influence in your preferences and perceptions".
> 
> That is precisely what I did. I did the last ditch effort and failed. My only option after that was ending the marriage, which I did in short order and never regretted it. But to this day, I can honestly say I tried. I sleep peacefully at night knowing that.
> 
> To be fair, by the time I was done, she was showing clear signs that her attraction to me had reignited. But by then it was far too late.
> 
> If the red pill's sole purpose had been to get my wife back, I would have accepted her advances instead of spurning them. But that, for me, was merely the secondary effect. The primary was the drive for self determination.


Same. 

Wife #1 showed the highest attraction for me she ever did while we were married when I finally gave up, moved on, and was dating other women. And pulled the pin legally on our marriage. 

I think that's fascinating.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> Okay, we can focus on method of delivery!
> 
> No, wait, I have more to say: FrenchFry is not the only one who has made this claim, and moreso, it is *not just women* who have complained that red-pill stuff did more harm than good.
> 
> Some men too have noticed that it doesn't work on their wives.
> 
> It may "work" for some, who have certain sorts of desires and expectations from themselves and their marriages. It does not work across the board. Again, not even for nice guys.
> 
> We just aren't biologically programmed in the way that red-pill says we are.


Agreed. 

But how are women programmed, if at all?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> You said that LD is "normal" for some people and marriges. And I agree.
> 
> I don't want it to be my normal.
> 
> And I don't even personally like that it is normal.
> 
> I get why normalizing it acknowledges it. I get that it validates and reduces angst about it.
> 
> But I don't get why it ends there.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


It doesn't end there and that isn't what my post was about.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> Well, even with testosterone, there isn't a direct correlation between levels and sexual desire. A man can be very low T and still quite sexually active, and very high T and not so much.
> 
> With brain chemicals, the picture is even murkier still. People respond to the chemical levels in very different ways.
> 
> And to make it even more complicated, different people will experience the same stimuli in very different ways, and this itself changes the chemical ****tail. It is widely believed that the chemistry causes the feeling, but it also happens that the experience changes the chemistry.
> 
> That plus neuroplasiticity, where the brain develops new pathways, and where different structures can adapt and change to take on new functions, makes it very, very difficult to simply parse out chemical levels to a particular emotion or desire.


Can you keep going in that direction?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

samyeagar said:


> So then why is it generally accepted to at least give serious consideration to things like testosterone levels?


This is really only suggested when it is noticed that the physical or sexual health of the man is waning. What does this have to do with the rest of our topic here? :scratchhead:

As AA noted, there are plenty of men who have very low T but still have a high sex drive and plenty of energy. No one is going to suggest a T test for this man, because there's no symptoms that are causing a problem.

Hormonal testing is sometimes suggested for women, too.

Endocrinologists aren't here telling people that all their problems will be solved by HRT, because they know it is not a magic potion like that.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Why would she have never said this to you? Didn't want to hurt your feelings?


I've asked her that. And heard varying answers.

They generally fall into the following buckets:
#1 I didn't know that it impacted our marriage and my attraction
#2 I thought this was normal for marriages (and this is why I'm poking at 'normalizing' LD in marriages)
#3 As a 'good wife' it shouldn't matter

Trust me, of all my wife's problems, holding back anything to spare my feelings isn't one of them.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

marduk said:


> You said that LD is "normal" for some people and marriges. And I agree.
> 
> I don't want it to be my normal.
> 
> And I don't even personally like that it is normal.
> 
> I get why normalizing it acknowledges it. I get that it validates and reduces angst about it.
> 
> But I don't get why it ends there.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Normal has a meaning for FW unlike the common use of the word. Effectively everything is normal in her world. Whatever you prefer to do, is your normal. In other words, no meaning at all or redundant.


----------



## Brigit

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I wouldn't think a life partner withholds sex either.
> 
> Any man is within his right to tell a woman who is withholding sex that it is unacceptable and she puts out or he gets out of the marriage. That's dread in a nutshell and there's nothing wrong with that.


That's not a game that's verbalizing your want's and needs. I basically was in a sexless marriage and for a while I put up with it. Then I did some stuff that I'm not going to get into in this thread. Then I stated to my husband "Look, I can't see living the rest of my life not having sex. It's weird and not what I want."

But he wasn't withholding sex he just didn't feel like having sex. 

In any case, no game playing is needed.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> I 100% agree with this.
> 
> How do you tip the odds in your favour (instead of make them) tho?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


What if you actually can't? How about just accepting that sometimes you can't and that if your entire self worth is tied up in whether or not this person is into you, then that is where you need to find answers....about yourself.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> It doesn't end there and that isn't what my post was about.


What I've heard is:
- LD is normal for some people.
- LD is normal for some marriages.
- if the attraction isn't there, it will never be there.

What have I heard wrong?


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> I've asked her that. And heard varying answers.
> 
> They generally fall into the following buckets:
> #1 I didn't know that it impacted our marriage and my attraction
> #2 I thought this was normal for marriages (and this is why I'm poking at 'normalizing' LD in marriages)
> #3 As a 'good wife' it shouldn't matter
> 
> Trust me, of all my wife's problems, holding back anything to spare my problems isn't one of them.


Ok so now you have her attention and attraction again, yet you still feel a lack of intimacy with her.

Have you accepted that she just might not be capable of it? That you are more capable of it than she is? And that she may never be able to give YOU what YOU want?


----------



## Marduk

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Normal has a meaning for FW unlike the common use of the word. Effectively everything is normal in her world. Whatever you prefer to do, is your normal. In other words, no meaning at all or redundant.


Insightful, if true.

Is that true, FW?


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Ok so now you have her attention and attraction again, yet you still feel a lack of intimacy with her.
> 
> Have you accepted that she just might not be capable of it? That you are more capable of it than she is? And that she may never be able to give YOU what YOU want?


I can accept that.

I'm just not willing to pull the pin on that until I fully am taken to the mat and cry uncle.

And I'm nowhere near that.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> What I've heard is:
> - LD is normal for some people.
> - LD is normal for some marriages.
> - if the attraction isn't there, it will never be there.
> 
> What have I heard wrong?


The post that you pulled out of context was not about that topic at all.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

marduk said:


> You know what I would have loved to have heard, which I would have never heard?
> 
> You got fat, lazy, and stopped paying attention to me.


Oh I bet. She doesn't want to ask you to do the dishes. She wants you to want to do the dishes. 

You're supposed to intuit everything. If loses value if she has to say it. I grew up thinking men sucked at communication. As an adult I discovered women are even worse.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> I can accept that.
> 
> I'm just not willing to pull the pin on that until I fully am taken to the mat and cry uncle.
> 
> And I'm nowhere near that.


Ok, cool. And I'm not suggesting you do. I'm just suggesting that you may be ignoring the answer right before your eyes.


----------



## MEM2020

Marduk,

No offense intended by my word choices...

Any fool can create desire through the momentary introduction of extreme chaos. 

Sustaining long term desire inside stability - that's a whole different class of challenge....





marduk said:


> Same.
> 
> Wife #1 showed the highest attraction for me she ever did while we were married when I finally gave up, moved on, and was dating other women. And pulled the pin legally on our marriage.
> 
> I think that's fascinating.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## tech-novelist

I wonder how many women crush on nice, decent men compared to the number who are hot for this guy?

Arrestee's 'handsome' mug shot goes viral

Of course this has NOTHING to do with the red pill. Nothing! Do you hear me!?!


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> Insightful, if true.
> 
> Is that true, FW?


Hmmm....let's see, I wonder if this thing written by this person who strongly dislikes me and comes in to insult me over and over again even though I ignore them and never insult them back, I wonder if this person "really gets me"? Do you think they do? Because it sort of seems like this person goes out of their way to not understand most of the things I say and then frame them in a way I didn't mean them, and then calls me insulting names for thinking these things I don't even think.

And you are asking me if this is "true"?

I had given you more credit than this.


----------



## EllisRedding

Faithful Wife said:


> As AA noted, there are plenty of men who have very low T but still have a high sex drive and plenty of energy. No one is going to suggest a T test for this man, because there's no symptoms that are causing a problem.


I would be interested to hear what constitutes "Plenty" of men (I know you are just quoting AA so not targeted at you). I actually think it is a fascinating topic based on some of the articles I read where studies showed the average males T levels are significantly lower than males of 50+ yrs ago. This could undoubtedly affect their libido, energy, drive. It could also affect some of the alpha traits that has been stated here women look for (confidence, etc...), that could in turn affect how they interact with women (and at what success rate). This could just be one factor of many. Maybe a guy has low T but with a solid marriage/relationship is able to overcome this while a guy with the same low T but a $hitty marriage cannot. IDK.


----------



## Marduk

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Oh I bet. She doesn't want to ask you to do the dishes. She wants you to want to do the dishes.
> 
> You're supposed to intuit everything. If loses value if she has to say it. I grew up thinking men sucked at communication. As an adult I discovered women are even worse.


Part of the problem is that she said doing the dishes would make her want sex more, when it actually did the opposite. 

And more doing the dishes led to laundry and down all kids of paths, that just frustrated both of us.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

MEM11363 said:


> Marduk,
> 
> No offense intended by my word choices...
> 
> Any fool can create desire through the momentary introduction of extreme chaos.
> 
> Sustaining long term desire inside stability - that's a whole different class of challenge....


Life is chaos. 

Marriage is chaos. 

Such things can be leveraged and dealt with creatively, no?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Hmmm....let's see, I wonder if this thing written by this person who strongly dislikes me and comes in to insult me over and over again even though I ignore them and never insult them back, I wonder if this person "really gets me"? Do you think they do? Because it sort of seems like this person goes out of their way to not understand most of the things I say and then frame them in a way I didn't mean them, and then calls me insulting names for thinking these things I don't even think.
> 
> And you are asking me if this is "true"?
> 
> I had given you more credit than this.


I thought his point was that he thought you and I were using two different definitions of normal. 

Which made sense to me.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> I thought his point was that he thought you and I were using two different definitions of normal.
> 
> Which made sense to me.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I have asked you once already not to try to get me to respond to anything Dvls has said, remember that? Please don't do it again. I have already explained my position on it.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Brigit said:


> That's not a game that's verbalizing your want's and needs. I basically was in a sexless marriage and for a while I put up with it. Then I did some stuff that I'm not going to get into in this thread. Then I stated to my husband "Look, I can't see living the rest of my life not having sex. It's weird and not what I want."
> 
> But he wasn't withholding sex he just didn't feel like having sex.
> 
> In any case, no game playing is needed.


It's just like courtship. There's still a game to be played if she's playing it. Assume we take the good communication route (on his part, she's still a sh*tty communicator in this example): She is withholding sex. He's talked about it with her. She still refuses sex. Offers no reason or bogus runaround reasons. He probably does the runaround. The issue never improves, and actually gets worse the more he brings it up in communication. Soon he's accused of "hounding her for sex" or "all you want is sex". Eventually, he says he doesn't want to be in a sexless marriage. Nothing changes. She's effectively calling his bluff - he doesn't actually want divorce, he wants sex with his wife. Cue resentment and an increasingly difficult time actually getting what he wants. 

What's your advice? Divorce right? Sure enough, sometimes being served papers wakes people up and the divorce never happens. She has all the control because he wants something from her, and she wants nothing from him. But this isn't really true. She still wants that security, but it's "assumed". It's taken for granted. Dread works for the same reason many suddenly change their ways when served with papers, without threat induced resentment and legal fees. The status quo going forward is then established: withdraw sex from me, I'll withdraw security from you. Your actions have consequences.


----------



## always_alone

EllisRedding said:


> I would be interested to hear what constitutes "Plenty" of men (I know you are just quoting AA so not targeted at you). I actually think it is a fascinating topic based on some of the articles I read where studies showed the average males T levels are significantly lower than males of 50+ yrs ago. This could undoubtedly affect their libido, energy, drive. It could also affect some of the alpha traits that has been stated here women look for (confidence, etc...), that could in turn affect how they interact with women (and at what success rate). This could just be one factor of many. Maybe a guy has low T but with a solid marriage/relationship is able to overcome this while a guy with the same low T but a $hitty marriage cannot. IDK.


Low Testosterone Effects on Sex Drive: Low Libido and More


----------



## Brigit

marduk said:


> Life is chaos.
> 
> Marriage is chaos.
> 
> Such things can be leveraged and dealt with creatively, no?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Absolutely.

I think it's great that you are into self-improvement and asserting yourself in your marriage. 

If you feel the book helps you I know you'll continue to read it and recommend it. Not much I can do to change that. I'm glad your marriage is great now.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> I have asked you once already not to try to get me to respond to anything Dvls has said, remember that? Please don't do it again. I have already explained my position on it.


Ok. Anything he says is verboten. 

I think you may be using the word normal in "what's normal for me is vastly different than what's normal for you. And that's normal too. "

I'm using the word as in "its normal for human beings to inhale more oxygen than they exhale."
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

Brigit said:


> Absolutely.
> 
> I think it's great that you are into self-improvement and asserting yourself in your marriage.
> 
> If you feel the book helps you I know you'll continue to read it and recommend it. Not much I can do to change that. I'm glad your marriage is great now.


Whoosh.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## toolforgrowth

Brigit said:


> toolforgrowth said:
> 
> 
> 
> To be fair, by the time I was done, she was showing clear signs that her attraction to me had reignited. But by then it was far too late.
> 
> 
> 
> That is one of the saddest things I've ever heard. Did you remarry?
Click to expand...

No. I have a wonderful GF now, but I will never get married again. Too many risks, not enough rewards. I'm very lucky to have found a woman who also doesn't want to marry. We just want Rio live together and be a committed couple without getting the state involved.


----------



## Brigit

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> It's just like courtship. There's still a game to be played if she's playing it. Assume we take the good communication route (on his part, she's still a sh*tty communicator in this example): She is withholding sex. He's talked about it with her. She still refuses sex. The issue never improves, and actually gets worse the more he brings it up in communication. Soon he's accused of "hounding her for sex" or "all you want is sex". Eventually, he says he doesn't want to be in a sexless marriage. Nothing changes. She's effectively calling his bluff - he doesn't actually want divorce, he wants sex with his wife.
> 
> What's your advice? Divorce right? Sure enough, sometimes being served papers wakes people up and the divorce never happens. Dread works for the same reason without threat induced resentment and legal fees.


My advice wouldn't be divorce. It would be joint marriage counseling. There are so many reasons why married people stop having sex and it might not have anything to do with her not still finding her husband attractive.

Maybe she's overwhelmed and stressed out and is so emotionally burnt that having sex with her husband is the last thing on her mind? It's not that she still doesn't want him: it's that she's preoccupied with all kinds of emotional crap.

or

Maybe she's angry at her husband for some reason and her anger trumps her sex drive.

Sex or the lack of sex is a problem for both people and both people need to be on board to solve this problem.


----------



## Faithful Wife

toolforgrowth said:


> No. I have a wonderful GF now, but I will never get married again. Too many risks, not enough rewards. I'm very lucky to have found a woman who also doesn't want to marry. We just want Rio live together and be a committed couple without getting the state involved.


Not getting married would solve a lot of problems before they happened.


----------



## MEM2020

Devil,

I don't understand why you are being sarcastic. My view of this is that: 
- M2 feels the same way about me happily doing an act of service for her. 
- As I do about her happily working with her responsive desire for me. 

Both send the same message: you are important to me

Imagine a partner letting you know they wish they weren't doing either of those two things. Sends a different message. 

And obviously we can both insist the other 'self service'. I can complete a 'manual override' if our sex life is disrupted - in about the same time it takes M2 to unload and reload the dishwasher.....






DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Oh I bet. She doesn't want to ask you to do the dishes. She wants you to want to do the dishes.
> 
> You're supposed to intuit everything. If loses value if she has to say it. I grew up thinking men sucked at communication. As an adult I discovered women are even worse.


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> Not getting married would solve a lot of problems before they happened.


Yes, it has been proven scientifically that the number one cause of divorce is...

Getting married!


----------



## Faithful Wife

technovelist said:


> Yes, it has been proven scientifically that the number one cause of divorce is...
> 
> Getting married!


At last, we are in agreement!


----------



## SimplyAmorous

MEM11363 said:


> SA,
> I believe the main knock on the book on this point is that AK views women who have their share of premarital partners as 'damaged goods'.
> 
> *No one is looking down on the folks who waited - especially the folks like you two who set the gold standard for doing it that way....
> 
> And I do get why it feels special for you*.


I know some of you see this.. (I hope)...please understand.. it gets a rise out of ME when I see it being put down.. a little joking.. .. it makes me want to say "Hey, wait a minute!!" ... it's not always a disaster...it's not like we were hands off till marriage.. WE KNEW... What is very special to one person may be meaningless to another.. 

What Cletus spoke, I feel, was very balanced ..



> *EllisRedding said*: I would be interested to hear what constitutes "Plenty" of men (I know you are just quoting AA so not targeted at you). I actually think it is a fascinating topic based on some of the articles I read where studies showed the average males T levels are significantly lower than males of 50+ yrs ago. This could undoubtedly affect their libido, energy, drive.* It could also affect some of the alpha traits that has been stated here women look for (confidence, etc...), that could in turn affect how they interact with women (and at what success rate). This could just be one factor of many. Maybe a guy has low T but with a solid marriage/relationship is able to overcome this while a guy with the same low T but a $hitty marriage cannot. IDK*.


 I've read a lot about Testosterone when I was worried about my husband's levels 6 yrs ago.. I was told by an Endocrinologist his levels at age 45 were normal for a man in his 60's [email protected]#.. this comment worried me *for months*..... but he wasn't low enough for treatment.. and really.. I think he was OK.. it was just ME raging.. why I even sent him there..(kinda had to downplay that a bit)

He did have some heightened STRESS at work during that time.. then me being all over him... he was able to still give it to me 5-6 times a week.. and he was OK with this.. wanted it too. A few yrs later.. had his levels taken again & they were higher than all the previous 9 on morning tests.. so he didn't need the treatment.. I think he was in a dipped phase or something.. 

He was never the aggressive type.. on the introverted spectrum .. I will never know what his levels was in his youth.. but he's always been the calm laid back patient type.. 

I did a post on Testosterone early on coming to this forum taken from a book I was reading on the various hormones..


> TESTOSTERONE .......
> 
> taken from : Amazon.com: The Alchemy of Love and Lust Books
> 
> *As to Sexual roles -Testosterone *:
> 
> *Increases sexual thoughts & fantasies
> *Responds to Novelty , inspires one night stands & affairs
> *Increases aggressive sex drive in both men & women -but *Doesn't have a stong effect on erection except indirectly by increasing desire.
> *Increases the urge to masterbate rather than the desire for intercourse.
> 
> *As to Behavior, Testosterone *:
> 
> *Is activating
> *Maintains separateness & promotes aggression
> *Increases assertiveness and self -confidence
> *Has been implicated as a cause of certain types of criminal behavior and domestic violence.
> *Can trigger or contribute to psychotic behavior
> *Rises in response to winning, social status, and pecking orders
> *Is higher than usual in CAREER WOMAN
> 
> *How we can Influence Testosterone :*
> 
> *Winning compititions/arguments/battles
> *Sexual thoughtsm activities
> *Diet containing Meat
> *exercise
> 
> 
> As a potent aphrodisiac for both sexes, testosterone promotes a drive for specific genital sex & orgasm . It comes with some built in contradictions. Although full of LUST, you may become overbearing & irritable & unattractive to the opposite sex. At the least, it makes you want sex, but it also makes you want to be alone or thoroughly in control of sexual situations- so it specifically promotes masterbation or 1 night stands -which is as close to being alone as possible with another person.
> 
> Testosterone's motto: No emotional entaglements please. It is fair to say that it causes a compelling sexual urge that spurns relationships, unless they represent a conquest of acquisition of power.
> 
> Women, having considerably less testosterone than men, are more receptive to emotional intimacy and less reluctant to commit.
> 
> Luckily other hormones come into play to help us want the intimacy - such as *Dopamine *(Pleasure hormone) , *Oxytocin* (bonding -touching hormone), *PEA* -called the Molecule of love, PEA is the Romantic in us. *Estrogen* -men have this too & it increases as they age while test slowly descreases, *Vasopressin* -the tempering hormone - works closely with Testosterone to keep it from reaching extreme highs & getting too hot -they also call it the Monogamy hormone.
> 
> I really believe that much of our Behaviors ARE influenced by the specific levels of hormones in our body at any given time. If any of these hormones are out of whack/lacking/too high, it can cause colossal problems -which can indeed affect our relationships. We may not act as we should, as nature intended.


----------



## Brigit

technovelist said:


> Yes, it has been proven scientifically that the number one cause of divorce is...
> 
> Getting married!


You get five points for wit.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

marduk said:


> Part of the problem is that she said doing the dishes would make her want sex more, when it actually did the opposite.
> 
> And more doing the dishes led to laundry and down all kids of paths, that just frustrated both of us.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Preaching to the choir. Been there done that, was the fool that listened.

"You could help me around the house more you know. Then I wouldn't be tired all the time."

"You could get up with the kids more so I could sleep"

That carrousel never ends and you're perpetually weighing everything else in the marriage against the value of having sex. That's one reason I'll never remarry. I'm up front with women that my sexual exclusivity is contingent upon getting sex in light of my divorce. If I'm not getting it from her, I'll find someone else. She has no power to cut off my sex life. She has power to keep herself in it rather than someone else, and that's all.


----------



## pidge70

Ah Dvls, you're so jaded.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Not getting married would solve a lot of problems before they happened.


While true, it's limiting. You reason similarly to my wife. "We wouldn't need to learn how to fight effectively if you would never piss me off!"
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## toolforgrowth

Faithful Wife said:


> toolforgrowth said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the red pill's sole purpose had been to get my wife back, I would have accepted her advances instead of spurning them. But that, for me, was merely the secondary effect. The primary was the drive for self determination.
> 
> 
> 
> What if the reality here is that when your wife first lost attraction to you, it was because biologically and psychologically speaking, you aren't a match for each other? What if her loss of attraction was really just evidence of this, and you should have accepted it and moved on then? What if her renewed attraction to you meant nothing and wouldn't have lasted anyway?
> 
> What if we allowed people the self agency to decide that they aren't into us, yet didn't allow this to make us feel unworthy?
Click to expand...

This is exactly what I believe. We weren't a good match and were incompatible. And her renewed attraction was only temporary due to me meeting a woman better looking than her, among other personal decisions I made that impacted her.

However, I don't believe that a person should give up their marriage at the drop of a hat. And the general consensus by women in this thread is that a man should continue trying, as the onus oz placed upon him to fix things. I natively bought into that notion.

I'm also aware that attraction waxes and wanes over the course of a marriage. I don't believe in ending a relationship just because a waning period has been entered. When I took a vow for life, I meant it. I took action as such. I don't view that as a negative.

Absolutely my ex wife had the right to determine she was no longer into me. Marriage is a choice a person can no longer choose to make at any time. For a brief time I felt unworthy, but I was able to overcome that with the red pill.

I came to the same conclusion as you. What is apparently up for debate is the means by which I came to it.


----------



## Marduk

technovelist said:


> Yes, it has been proven scientifically that the number one cause of divorce is...
> 
> Getting married!


And life is a sexually transmitted disease with a 100% mortality rate. 

Doesn't mean I'm not going to rage against the dying of the light.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## john117

marduk said:


> Life is chaos.
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is chaos.
> 
> 
> 
> Such things can be leveraged and dealt with creatively, no?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



Chaos is when you're living as newlyweds in a tent and the Jerries are sending Stuka dive bombers to spoil your day.

A puffy hair wife not putting out as advertised because "she's not attracted to you any more" is not chaos.


----------



## Faithful Wife

toolforgrowth said:


> This is exactly what I believe. We weren't a good match and were incompatible. And her renewed attraction was only temporary due to me meeting a woman better looking than her, among other personal decisions I made that impacted her.
> 
> However, I don't believe that a person should give up their marriage at the drop of a hat. And the general consensus by women in this thread is that a man should continue trying, as the onus oz placed upon him to fix things. I natively bought into that notion.
> 
> I'm also aware that attraction waxes and wanes over the course of a marriage. I don't believe in ending a relationship just because a waning period has been entered. When I took a vow for life, I meant it. I took action as such. I don't view that as a negative.
> 
> Absolutely my ex wife had the right to determine she was no longer into me. Marriage is a choice a person can no longer choose to make at any time. For a brief time I felt unworthy, but I was able to overcome that with the red pill.
> 
> I came to the same conclusion as you. What is apparently up for debate is the means by which I came to it.


I also think people should try to save their marriages, if they want to.

The point I was making was....what if this natural loss of attraction is just as scientific of a "sign" as what red pill currently thinks other "signs" of attraction are? What if we are meant to trust our loss of attraction as well as our attraction? What if we have inner reasons and motivations that only WE know about and that if we follow them naturally, we will always end up in the right place? We are attracted and unattracted by forces within us, to be sure. What if the real way to get as much love and sex as we want is to FOLLOW our NATURAL ability to find who we are MUTUALLY attracted to?


----------



## Marduk

john117 said:


> Chaos is when you're living as newlyweds in a tent and the Jerries are sending Stuka dive bombers to spoil your day.
> 
> A puffy hair wife not putting out as advertised because "she's not attracted to you any more" is not chaos.


Then your relationships and mine are very different.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MEM2020

Devil,

No one is arguing you should stay married to someone who doesn't prioritize you. And that means prioritizing your needs. 

And dread can work in some situations. For instance I believe some marriages never make the transition to successfully dealing with responsive desire when one of the spouses goes from feeling it spontaneously to only feeling it responsively. 




DvlsAdvc8 said:


> It's just like courtship. There's still a game to be played if she's playing it. Assume we take the good communication route (on his part, she's still a sh*tty communicator in this example): She is withholding sex. He's talked about it with her. She still refuses sex. Offers no reason or bogus runaround reasons. He probably does the runaround. The issue never improves, and actually gets worse the more he brings it up in communication. Soon he's accused of "hounding her for sex" or "all you want is sex". Eventually, he says he doesn't want to be in a sexless marriage. Nothing changes. She's effectively calling his bluff - he doesn't actually want divorce, he wants sex with his wife. Cue resentment and an increasingly difficult time actually getting what he wants.
> 
> What's your advice? Divorce right? Sure enough, sometimes being served papers wakes people up and the divorce never happens. She has all the control because he wants something from her, and she wants nothing from him. But this isn't really true. She still wants that security, but it's "assumed". It's taken for granted. Dread works for the same reason many suddenly change their ways when served with papers, without threat induced resentment and legal fees. The status quo going forward is then established: withdraw sex from me, I'll withdraw security from you. Your actions have consequences.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> I also think people should try to save their marriages, if they want to.
> 
> The point I was making was....what if this natural loss of attraction is just as scientific of a "sign" as what red pill currently thinks other "signs" of attraction are? What if we are meant to trust our loss of attraction as well as our attraction? What if we have inner reasons and motivations that only WE know about and that if we following them naturally, we will always end up in the right place?


Is what you're saying "do nothing?"

A kind of Taoist or naturalistic approach?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

FW if your sex God got fat and lazy would you leave him or would you tell him to get in shape and pay attention to you?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> While true, it's limiting. You reason similarly to my wife. "We wouldn't need to learn how to fight effectively if you would never piss me off!"
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Again, took one post of mine out of context and then assigned me with what you think is my "reasoning", and meantime compared it to something you are clearly showing as "silly reasoning".

Marduk...I am being respectful to you. I do not try to cram your meaning and experience into a box and then tell you how you think. Can you please do the same for me?


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> FW if your sex God got fat and lazy would you leave him or would you tell him to get in shape and pay attention to you?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


First I'd tell him to get in shape, but I wouldn't give it very long.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Again, took one post of mine out of context and then assigned me with what you think is my "reasoning", and meantime compared it to something you are clearly showing as "silly reasoning".
> 
> Marduk...I am being respectful to you. I do not try to cram your meaning and experience into a box and then tell you how you think. Can you please do the same for me?


Ok, then help me out. Because what I thought I heard you say was that if you lose interest for your spouse, it would be helpful if you didn't marry them to begin with. 

I think lots of people get married that shouldn't. Maybe I was one of them. But once done, you should kinda take a swing at it, shouldn't you?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> First I'd tell him to get in shape, but I wouldn't give it very long.


How long?

What if he gets sick?

What if he tries and stumbles?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## toolforgrowth

Faithful Wife said:


> toolforgrowth said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. I have a wonderful GF now, but I will never get married again. Too many risks, not enough rewards. I'm very lucky to have found a woman who also doesn't want to marry. We just want Rio live together and be a committed couple without getting the state involved.
> 
> 
> 
> Not getting married would solve a lot of problems before they happened.
Click to expand...

Amen.

Marriage in its incarnation today is a joke. I can't speak for what women go through, but as a man, my experience was nightmare, especially during divorce. I truly can't comprehend why any man would voluntarily choose to make that choice, especially more than once.

No disrespect intended towards my fellow men who are married. Self determination means others can make choices we ourselves wouldn't make, and we all have that right.

But I'll still never comprehend it.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> How long?
> 
> What if he gets sick?
> 
> What if he tries and stumbles?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


These are variables I cannot predict as I don't know the answer, I don't know what sickness he has, and I don't know what he tried and what he stumbled on.

But I did answer you already that yes, I'd ask him to step it up and yes, I would leave him if he didn't. What is the point of your question?


----------



## Brigit

toolforgrowth said:


> Amen.
> 
> Marriage in its incarnation today is a joke. I can't speak for what women go through, but as a man, my experience was nightmare, especially during divorce. I truly can't comprehend why any man would voluntarily choose to make that choice, especially more than once.
> 
> No disrespect intended towards my fellow men who are married. Self determination means others can make choices we ourselves wouldn't make, and we all have that right.
> 
> But I'll still never comprehend it.


I couldn't imagine NOT being married. That sounds very lonely.


----------



## MEM2020

SA,
We ARE in agreement on this whole theme of knowing. 

And I have read numerous threads where the HD spouse was already well aware they had compatibility issues before marriage and proceeded anyway. So premarital sex is as Cletus described. 





SimplyAmorous said:


> I know some of you see this.. (I hope)...please understand.. it gets a rise out of ME when I see it being put down.. a little joking.. .. it makes me want to say "Hey, wait a minute!!" ... it's not always a disaster...it's not like we were hands off till marriage.. WE KNEW... What is very special to one person may be meaningless to another..
> 
> What Cletus spoke, I feel, was very balanced ..
> 
> I've read a lot about Testosterone when I was worried about my husband's levels 6 yrs ago.. I was told by an Endocrinologist his levels at age 45 were normal for a man in his 60's [email protected]#.. this comment worried me *for months*..... but he wasn't low enough for treatment.. and really.. I think he was OK.. it was just ME raging.. why I even sent him there..(kinda had to downplay that a bit)
> 
> He did have some heightened STRESS at work during that time.. then me being all over him... he was able to still give it to me 5-6 times a week.. and he was OK with this.. wanted it too. A few yrs later.. had his levels taken again & they were higher than all the previous 9 on morning tests.. so he didn't need the treatment.. I think he was in a dipped phase or something..
> 
> He was never the aggressive type.. on the introverted spectrum .. I will never know what his levels was in his youth.. but he's always been the calm laid back patient type..
> 
> I did a post on Testosterone early on coming to this forum taken from a book I was reading on the various hormones..


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> Ok, then help me out. Because what I thought I heard you say was that if you lose interest for your spouse, it would be helpful if you didn't marry them to begin with.
> 
> I think lots of people get married that shouldn't. Maybe I was one of them. But once done, you should kinda take a swing at it, shouldn't you?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Notice that the post I was responding to, which was about how he and his new girlfriend both decided they don't want to get married. 

Marriage isn't for everyone and people should be free from feeling it is some kind of requirement.


----------



## john117

marduk said:


> Then your relationships and mine are very different.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



I don't doubt it for a moment. 

The Stuka encounters were far from the only problem my parents encountered. After fighting WW2 they had to deal with oppression from various Great Powers (lolz), corrupt governments, poverty, chronic illness, and so on. Yet my parents stayed put and succeeded. 

By comparison I did just OK armed with $500, a suitcase full of clothes and another suitcase full of psych books. Thirty years later I'm quite happy and don't particularly consider life or marriage as chaotic by any stretch of the imagination.

It's all a matter of perspective.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> These are variables I cannot predict as I don't know the answer, I don't know what sickness he has, and I don't know what he tried and what he stumbled on.
> 
> But I did answer you already that yes, I'd ask him to step it up and yes, I would leave him if he didn't. What is the point of your question?


Here's my point. 

Your sex god that you love is in fact a human being. A human being is a frail and fallable thing. 

If, say, he had six months to get back in shape then this is his fitness horizon. He can be married to you within these tolerances. Everybody has them, I'm not suggesting you shouldn't. 

My point is that he may no longer conform to these tolerances. This may happen intentionally or not. Fixable, or not. 

Under your model, which of these would lead you to the conclusion that your mutual attraction just wasn't there, never would be, and perhaps by extension, would have been a mistake to choose him?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## toolforgrowth

Faithful Wife said:


> toolforgrowth said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is exactly what I believe. We weren't a good match and were incompatible. And her renewed attraction was only temporary due to me meeting a woman better looking than her, among other personal decisions I made that impacted her.
> 
> However, I don't believe that a person should give up their marriage at the drop of a hat. And the general consensus by women in this thread is that a man should continue trying, as the onus oz placed upon him to fix things. I natively bought into that notion.
> 
> I'm also aware that attraction waxes and wanes over the course of a marriage. I don't believe in ending a relationship just because a waning period has been entered. When I took a vow for life, I meant it. I took action as such. I don't view that as a negative.
> 
> Absolutely my ex wife had the right to determine she was no longer into me. Marriage is a choice a person can no longer choose to make at any time. For a brief time I felt unworthy, but I was able to overcome that with the red pill.
> 
> I came to the same conclusion as you. What is apparently up for debate is the means by which I came to it.
> 
> 
> 
> I also think people should try to save their marriages, if they want to.
> 
> The point I was making was....what if this natural loss of attraction is just as scientific of a "sign" as what red pill currently thinks other "signs" of attraction are? What if we are meant to trust our loss of attraction as well as our attraction? What if we have inner reasons and motivations that only WE know about and that if we follow them naturally, we will always end up in the right place? We are attracted and unattracted by forces within us, to be sure. What if the real way to get as much love and sex as we want is to FOLLOW our NATURAL ability to find who we are MUTUALLY attracted to?
Click to expand...

Then the onus is on ex wife for making me believe there was mutual attraction through initial consistent action, when in fact there wasn't.

By that logic, I could have had my ex girlfriend well before my wife left to engage her affair. There was mutual attraction, which came VERY naturally to us. There was no working at it...it was just there.

But I didn't. My vows meant more to me than that.

And my ex wife should have been up front about her intentions and ended the marriage instead of keeping her affair a secret from me and engaging her xAP behind my back. But she didn't.

Her actions are indicative of someone who wanted side action without losing their security blanket. I put a stop to it.

In other words, she was cake eating.


----------



## Marduk

john117 said:


> I don't doubt it for a moment.
> 
> The Stuka encounters were far from the only problem my parents encountered. After fighting WW2 they had to deal with oppression from various Great Powers (lolz), corrupt governments, poverty, chronic illness, and so on. Yet my parents stayed put and succeeded.
> 
> By comparison I did just OK armed with $500, a suitcase full of clothes and another suitcase full of psych books. Thirty years later I'm quite happy and don't particularly consider life or marriage as chaotic by any stretch of the imagination.
> 
> It's all a matter of perspective.


And your marriage isn't chaotic by your definition, but neither is it tolerable.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Notice that the post I was responding to, which was about how he and his new girlfriend both decided they don't want to get married.
> 
> Marriage isn't for everyone and people should be free from feeling it is some kind of requirement.


I'm cool with that. 

I'm trying to build a logical bridge between that, and people that are married and had it, and then lost it.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

MEM11363 said:


> Devil,
> 
> I don't understand why you are being sarcastic.


I'm not really being all that sarcastic. My doing chores will be on my time, not their time. I'll do it when I notice it and feel like doing it. Or by my routine, and my way, not theirs.

If someone wants something done outside of my timing, notice or routine, they can ask me. I couldn't intuit that she wanted me to run a laundry load of towels. I wouldn't know until I saw we needed towels or the towel hamper was full, which I hadn't seen.

That she would see things and do them first was on her. Want me to do it? Leave it or ask me.

Still I eventually determined that this wasn't really why she didn't want sex - as eventually I did almost all of the chores to prove. While sex didn't improve, funny enough, my doing most of the chores really bothered her. She said she felt like she wasn't needed anymore. So forgive the hint of sarcasm. There are years of trying to figure out my EWs bs behind it.


----------



## toolforgrowth

Brigit said:


> toolforgrowth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amen.
> 
> Marriage in its incarnation today is a joke. I can't speak for what women go through, but as a man, my experience was nightmare, especially during divorce. I truly can't comprehend why any man would voluntarily choose to make that choice, especially more than once.
> 
> No disrespect intended towards my fellow men who are married. Self determination means others can make choices we ourselves wouldn't make, and we all have that right.
> 
> But I'll still never comprehend it.
> 
> 
> 
> I couldn't imagine NOT being married. That sounds very lonely.
Click to expand...

Quite the opposite. The red pill has taught me that my value isn't placed on my marital status. It's determined within myself through my deeds and actions. I was single for two years and loved every minute of it.

A marriage certificate is a piece of paper. It means nothing. It is not indicative of a person's level of attraction, sex drive, fidelity, or quality of character. It simply states who gets what when the relationship ends, in addition to choices one party can make on behalf of the other in specific situations.

My GF meets all my relationship needs without a marriage. What's my incentive?


----------



## Faithful Wife

toolforgrowth said:


> Then the onus is on ex wife for making me believe there was mutual attraction through initial consistent action, when in fact there wasn't.
> 
> By that logic, I could have had my ex girlfriend well before my wife left to engage her affair. There was mutual attraction, which came VERY naturally to us. There was no working at it...it was just there.
> 
> But I didn't. My vows meant more to me than that.
> 
> And my ex wife should have been up front about her intentions and ended the marriage instead of keeping her affair a secret from me and engaging her xAP behind my back. But she didn't.
> 
> Her actions are indicative of someone who wanted side action without losing their security blanket. I put a stop to it.
> 
> In other words, she was cake eating.


Ok, but wanting side action actually is wired into us. Monogamy is not. Deciding that your vows mean more to you is also not wired into us.

So my point is that if we are talking about natural actions, this is one thing.

If we are talking about chosen values and morals, this is another thing completely.

Red pill confuses the two and has a lot of smoke and mirrors trying to make things different for men than they are for women.

When in fact, every single one of us is wired to want some strange.

If everyone would just start from this scientific fact and work from there, and then would understand their own sexuality (ie: become sexually self aware), then a lot of these problems would be more easily understood and handled.


----------



## Faithful Wife

toolforgrowth said:


> Quite the opposite. The red pill has taught me that my value isn't placed on my marital status. It's determined within myself through my deeds and actions. I was single for two years and loved every minute of it.
> 
> A marriage certificate is a piece of paper. It means nothing. It is not indicative of a person's level of attraction, sex drive, fidelity, or quality of character. It simply states who gets what when the relationship ends, in addition to choices one party can make on behalf of the other in specific situations.
> 
> My GF meets all my relationship needs without a marriage. What's my incentive?


If you found another book that gave you the same ideas without the hateful mean spirited speech and non-science, don't you trust that you would have still figured this out? I don't mean a blue pill book.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Ok, but wanting side action actually is wired into us. Monogamy is not. Deciding that your vows mean more to you is also not wired into us.
> 
> So my point is that if we are talking about natural actions, this is one thing.
> 
> If we are talking about chosen values and morals, this is another thing completely.
> 
> Red pill confuses the two and has a lot of smoke and mirrors trying to make things different for men than they are for women.
> 
> When in fact, every single one of us is wired to want some strange.
> 
> If everyone would just start from this scientific fact and work from there, and then would understand their own sexuality (ie: become sexually self aware), then a lot of these problems would be more easily understood and handled.


What is your scientific determination for this assumption?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> Here's my point.
> 
> Your sex god that you love is in fact a human being. A human being is a frail and fallable thing.
> 
> If, say, he had six months to get back in shape then this is his fitness horizon. He can be married to you within these tolerances. Everybody has them, I'm not suggesting you shouldn't.
> 
> My point is that he may no longer conform to these tolerances. This may happen intentionally or not. Fixable, or not.
> 
> Under your model, which of these would lead you to the conclusion that your mutual attraction just wasn't there, never would be, and perhaps by extension, would have been a mistake to choose him?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


You have apparently assumed that I think mutual attraction is static, but I do not.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> What is your scientific determination for this assumption?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


That we all want some strange?

Are you serious?


----------



## pidge70

This thread makes me so happy that I dropped my psych class.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> You have apparently assumed that I think mutual attraction is static, but I do not.


Ah, ok. Could you connect the dots between mutual attraction and how it can wax and wane, especially non-symmetrically?

And what to do about that?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> Ah, ok. Could you connect the dots between mutual attraction and how it can wax and wane, especially non-symmetrically?
> 
> And what to do about that?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


The best works on that are at Marriage Builders. None of it claims to be evolution, just what works to sustain long term attraction.

It will still not work on everyone, but it will work on many if they try it.


----------



## MEM2020

Devil,

I can see why you resent being totally jerked around. That would make me angry also. 

And I can also see why you have no desire to remarry. 




QUOTE=DvlsAdvc8;12693394]I'm not really being all that sarcastic. My doing chores will be on my time, not their time. I'll do it when I notice it and feel like doing it. Or by my routine, and my way, not theirs.

If someone wants something done outside of my timing, notice or routine, they can ask me. I couldn't intuit that she wanted me to run a laundry load of towels. I wouldn't know until I saw we needed towels or the towel hamper was full, which I hadn't seen.

That she would see things and do them first was on her. Want me to do it? Leave it or ask me.

Still I eventually determined that this wasn't really why she didn't want sex - as eventually I did almost all of the chores to prove. While sex didn't improve, funny enough, my doing most of the chores really bothered her. She said she felt like she wasn't needed anymore. So forgive the hint of sarcasm. There are years of trying to figure out my EWs bs behind it.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> That we all want some strange?
> 
> Are you serious?


Yes. 

Prove to me that this is hard wired and unchangable in the human animal. And is true for all seven billion of us. 

That's the standard of evidence you have been asking for when it comes to the red pill science. 

I think it's a tendency. Not a given.

You call me out on my logic and science. You can't change the rules for yourself. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> What if the real way to get as much love and sex as we want is to FOLLOW our NATURAL ability to find who we are MUTUALLY attracted to?


Non-advice.

If "natural ability" was working, nobody would seek these books. Total non-advice. Anti-knowledge.


----------



## Brigit

toolforgrowth said:


> Quite the opposite. The red pill has taught me that my value isn't placed on my marital status. It's determined within myself through my deeds and actions. I was single for two years and loved every minute of it.
> 
> A marriage certificate is a piece of paper. It means nothing. It is not indicative of a person's level of attraction, sex drive, fidelity, or quality of character. It simply states who gets what when the relationship ends, in addition to choices one party can make on behalf of the other in specific situations.
> 
> My GF meets all my relationship needs without a marriage. What's my incentive?


I'm really sorry that your marriage didn't work out. If you're happy with having a GF and not getting remarried then you're doing fine.

For me, a marriage certificate isn't just a piece of paper. It is a contract that I made to another person. And one that I fight to honor. Sometimes I don't have to fight. Sometimes its fun and easy. I find a warmth, comfort and sweet satisfaction with my martial status. My husband has his issues and I have mine. But I like having someone around so I don't have to deal with my issues alone and he feels the same.


----------



## Personal

john117 said:


> If brains were important in a relationship / marriage I should be on cloud 9...


Then there's personality.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> Yes.
> 
> Prove to me that this is hard wired and unchangable in the human animal. And is true for all seven billion of us.
> 
> That's the standard of evidence you have been asking for when it comes to the red pill science.
> 
> I think it's a tendency. Not a given.
> 
> You call me out on my logic and science. You can't change the rules for yourself.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Ok I will dig up one of many thousands of studies which say exactly this for you later when I get home.

Yet all it will say is that there is no "monogamy gene" and there is always sexual attraction toward other people no matter if you are monogamous or not. 

These studies will not try to further extrapolate from here that "women like pink". 

And again, there are hundreds of studies that all show the same thing, in animals and in humans.

Yet....no one can give me even ONE study that proves hypergamy, preselection or sperm wars are human mating strategies. 

Do you really not understand me by this point and you really still want to uphold the non-science on the red pill side, even though neither you nor anyone else have offered a shred of proof?

I'm beginning to question your sincerity here because I think you are a smart person yet this is just plain silly right here.


----------



## MEM2020

Brigit,

For a lot of valid reasons - that lay at my door - M2 didn't fully grasp my true commitment until she had health issues. 

For a while, she thought I was going to leave her. NOT due to anything I said or did in the here and now. Just due to her believing that I wouldn't make certain sacrifices. 

We're past that now. It is nice. 




Brigit said:


> I'm really sorry that your marriage didn't work out. If you're happy with having a GF and not getting remarried then you're doing fine.
> 
> For me, a marriage certificate isn't just a piece of paper. It is a contract that I made to another person. And one that I fight to honor. Sometimes I don't have to fight. Sometimes its fun and easy. I find a warmth, comfort and sweet satisfaction with my martial status. My husband has his issues and I have mine. But I like having someone around so I don't have to deal with my issues alone and he feels the same.


----------



## toolforgrowth

Faithful Wife said:


> toolforgrowth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then the onus is on ex wife for making me believe there was mutual attraction through initial consistent action, when in fact there wasn't.
> 
> By that logic, I could have had my ex girlfriend well before my wife left to engage her affair. There was mutual attraction, which came VERY naturally to us. There was no working at it...it was just there.
> 
> But I didn't. My vows meant more to me than that.
> 
> And my ex wife should have been up front about her intentions and ended the marriage instead of keeping her affair a secret from me and engaging her xAP behind my back. But she didn't.
> 
> Her actions are indicative of someone who wanted side action without losing their security blanket. I put a stop to it.
> 
> In other words, she was cake eating.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, but wanting side action actually is wired into us. Monogamy is not. Deciding that your vows mean more to you is also not wired into us.
> 
> So my point is that if we are talking about natural actions, this is one thing.
> 
> If we are talking about chosen values and morals, this is another thing completely.
> 
> Red pill confuses the two and has a lot of smoke and mirrors trying to make things different for men than they are for women.
> 
> When in fact, every single one of us is wired to want some strange.
> 
> If everyone would just start from this scientific fact and work from there, and then would understand their own sexuality (ie: become sexually self aware), then a lot of these problems would be more easily understood and handled.
Click to expand...

That doesn't excuse her behavior. And I doubt any woman would be so understanding if her man chose to engage in said side action himself.

Red pill confuses nothing. Between impulse and action, a human must make a voluntary choice to initiate that action. Does a man choose to talk to a woman he finds attractive or not? Does a woman choose to cheat or not? An impulse can be understood. A voluntary destructive choice is harder to comprehend.

What you define as a natural action may also be self destructive or inhibitive. Jeffrey Dahmer's natural action was to eat people. It's an extreme example, but one that without a doubt demonstrates that a natural action can be destructive. Some men's natural action may also be inaction; they have natural impulses (that aren't related to cannibalism) but lack the will to act on them, such as pursuing a romantic interest. Selected application of motivation to act on one's healthy impulses seems positive to me. 

I don't see smoke and mirrors. My experience was a clear path to follow to hopefully achieve my goal; in the event the goal is not achieved, the path will lead me to acceptance through the power of self agency.

My interpretation of what you find distasteful about the red pill is not what it does for men, but the potential consequences towards women that it may cause. Other than a lack of men willing to marry, I haven't been able to find any. Perhaps you're aware of more that I'm not?


----------



## toolforgrowth

Brigit said:


> toolforgrowth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quite the opposite. The red pill has taught me that my value isn't placed on my marital status. It's determined within myself through my deeds and actions. I was single for two years and loved every minute of it.
> 
> A marriage certificate is a piece of paper. It means nothing. It is not indicative of a person's level of attraction, sex drive, fidelity, or quality of character. It simply states who gets what when the relationship ends, in addition to choices one party can make on behalf of the other in specific situations.
> 
> My GF meets all my relationship needs without a marriage. What's my incentive?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm really sorry that your marriage didn't work out. If you're happy with having a GF and not getting remarried then you're doing fine.
> 
> For me, a marriage certificate isn't just a piece of paper. It is a contract that I made to another person. And one that I fight to honor. Sometimes I don't have to fight. Sometimes its fun and easy. I find a warmth, comfort and sweet satisfaction with my martial status. My husband has his issues and I have mine. But I like having someone around so I don't have to deal with my issues alone and he feels the same.
Click to expand...

More power to you. I in no way was trying to minimize your experience, and I apologize if it came across that way.

I think the biggest thing we can take away from this is that things mean different things to different people. What matters is intent. Your intent is honorable.


----------



## Faithful Wife

toolforgrowth said:


> That doesn't excuse her behavior. And I doubt any woman would be so understanding if her man chose to engage in said side action himself.
> 
> Red pill confuses nothing. Between impulse and action, a human must make a voluntary choice to initiate that action. Does a man choose to talk to a woman he finds attractive or not? Does a woman choose to cheat or not? An impulse can be understood. A voluntary destructive choice is harder to comprehend.
> 
> What you define as a natural action may also be self destructive or inhibitive. Jeffrey Dahmer's natural action was to eat people. It's an extreme example, but one that without a doubt demonstrates that a natural action can be destructive. Some men's natural action may also be inaction; they have natural impulses (that aren't related to cannibalism) but lack the will to act on them, such as pursuing a romantic interest. Selected application of motivation to act on one's healthy impulses seems positive to me.
> 
> I don't see smoke and mirrors. My experience was a clear path to follow to hopefully achieve my goal; in the event the goal is not achieved, the path will lead me to acceptance through the power of self agency.
> 
> My interpretation of what you find distasteful about the red pill is not what it does for men, but the potential consequences towards women that it may cause. Other than a lack of men willing to marry, I haven't been able to find any. Perhaps you're aware of more that I'm not?


You don't get where I'm coming from, but that's ok, too.

I am still glad you found yourself in a much better place.


----------



## Brigit

toolforgrowth said:


> More power to you. I in no way was trying to minimize your experience, and I apologize if it came across that way.
> 
> I think the biggest thing we can take away from this is that things mean different things to different people. What matters is intent. Your intent is honorable.


I just read your first post on your profile. I do that a lot because I think the first couple of threads a person creates on TAM tells a lot. You had a rough time with marriage and I can see why you feel the way you do now.

It's hard to find the _right_ person to marry. And it takes work to continue to be the _right_ person. There have been lots of times when I wanted out or I thought getting out was a good solution. Figured "Hey, I could start all over again with someone new." But my heart tells me to stay and make it work because it's worth it to me.


----------



## Idyit

"There's an "I want strange gene"?

~ Passio


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Ok I will dig up one of many thousands of studies which say exactly this for you later when I get home.
> 
> Yet all it will say is that there is no "monogamy gene" and there is always sexual attraction toward other people no matter if you are monogamous or not.
> 
> These studies will not try to further extrapolate from here that "women like pink".
> 
> And again, there are hundreds of studies that all show the same thing, in animals and in humans.
> 
> Yet....no one can give me even ONE study that proves hypergamy, preselection or sperm wars are human mating strategies.
> 
> Do you really not understand me by this point and you really still want to uphold the non-science on the red pill side, even though neither you nor anyone else have offered a shred of proof?
> 
> I'm beginning to question your sincerity here because I think you are a smart person yet this is just plain silly right here.


OK, keep piling on the insults. That will make your case.

You're wrong. Here's why.

You just fell into the "Black Swan" problem. As in, if someone says "All Swans are White" all someone needs to do to undercut your logic is to find one black swan.

And here's one: Asexuals. Asexuals are not 'wired for strange.' Therefore, not all human beings are wired for non-monogamy.

And even for those with more 'normal' drives, not everyone is wired for non-monogamy. People may be attracted, and never conscious of that attraction. People may be attracted, and never ever act on that attraction. Lots of people are 'just monogamous' just like lots of people aren't.

You also look pretty guilty here of the logical fallacy known as 'Moving the goalposts' - meaning, you change the standard for "proof" depending on what suits your agenda.

Now, keep on insulting me if you like. My point is that if you dropped all this nonsense, you'd get through to a lot more people. Because all that distracts from your core message, which at times I find to be extremely unclear and self-referential, and it makes it very hard for me to be on your side.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> OK, keep piling on the insults. That will make your case.
> 
> You're wrong. Here's why.
> 
> You just fell into the "Black Swan" problem. As in, if someone says "All Swans are White" all someone needs to do to undercut your logic is to find one black swan.
> 
> And here's one: Asexuals. Asexuals are not 'wired for strange.' Therefore, not all human beings are wired for non-monogamy.
> 
> And even for those with more 'normal' drives, not everyone is wired for non-monogamy. People may be attracted, and never conscious of that attraction. People may be attracted, and never ever act on that attraction. Lots of people are 'just monogamous' just like lots of people aren't.
> 
> You also look pretty guilty here of the logical fallacy known as 'Moving the goalposts' - meaning, you change the standard for "proof" depending on what suits your agenda.
> 
> Now, keep on insulting me if you like. My point is that if you dropped all this nonsense, you'd get through to a lot more people. Because all that distracts from your core message, which at times I find to be extremely unclear and self-referential, and it makes it very hard for me to be on your side.


:scratchhead:

Okee doke.


----------



## always_alone

toolforgrowth said:


> My interpretation of what you find distasteful about the red pill is not what it does for men, but the potential consequences towards women that it may cause. Other than a lack of men willing to marry, I haven't been able to find any. Perhaps you're aware of more that I'm not?


The consequence for men is that it encourages them to build walls instead of intimacy. Don't get me wrong: I fully appreciate he importance of boundaries, of not letting someone walk all over you. And I am not insisting on the importance of marriage either; I myself am not married, have never been married, and have never had the desire to be married --even though I have been with my SO for 17 years.

But the red pill is anti-intimacy. It might all be about getting laid, but it's sex without intimacy. It puts men on defensive watch for women who are using them as beta providers, don't know what they want, and will lie to you. It purports to give objective information about women, but in reality is all about how to be in control.

At the same time, it insists that all men must conform to certain stereotypical behaviours and if they fail to, they are destined to be losers.

I do understand why men who have been letting themselves be walked all over, their needs completely unmet, perceive the red pill as working. But they do very much run the risk of just becoming completely cynical, and cutting off true connection.

Which is fine if that's all you want, a succession of "lays". But it can be problematic if you're seeking more.


----------



## john117

marduk said:


> And your marriage isn't chaotic by your definition, but neither is it tolerable.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



It's quite chaotic alright, but much of it is by my choice. But I'm not extrapolating that because my marriage is chaotic, my life is.

Big difference there. I'm not defined by my marriage or my career or my hobbies or my sex life. 

And she knows that.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Brigit said:


> I'm really sorry that your marriage didn't work out. If you're happy with having a GF and not getting remarried then you're doing fine.
> 
> For me, a marriage certificate isn't just a piece of paper. It is a contract that I made to another person. And one that I fight to honor. Sometimes I don't have to fight. Sometimes its fun and easy. I find a warmth, comfort and sweet satisfaction with my martial status. My husband has his issues and I have mine. But I like having someone around so I don't have to deal with my issues alone and he feels the same.


I think this is a different topic....when you are already married, there's already been that choice made.

If you aren't married yet and have reasons to not get married, it is a different subject.

The same guy who doesn't want to get married this time was really trying to save his marriage last time, because he was already married. When you aren't yet and have been burned, then you see the benefits of not getting married.

Some will still get married anyway. My H and I are both each other's 2nd spouse.


----------



## john117

pidge70 said:


> This thread makes me so happy that I dropped my psych class.



And makes me so happy I did not choose the clinical/behavioral psych track


----------



## Faithful Wife

always_alone said:


> The consequence for men is that it encourages them to build walls instead of intimacy. Don't get me wrong: I fully appreciate he importance of boundaries, of not letting someone walk all over you. And I am not insisting on the importance of marriage either; I myself am not married, have never been married, and have never had the desire to be married --even though I have been with my SO for 17 years.
> 
> But the red pill is anti-intimacy. It might all be about getting laid, but it's sex without intimacy. It puts men on defensive watch for women who are using them as beta providers, don't know what they want, and will lie to you. It purports to give objective information about women, but in reality is all about how to be in control.
> 
> At the same time, it insists that all men must conform to certain stereotypical behaviours and if they fail to, they are destined to be losers.
> 
> I do understand why men who have been letting themselves be walked all over, their needs completely unmet, perceive the red pill as working. But they do very much run the risk of just becoming completely cynical, and cutting off true connection.
> 
> Which is fine if that's all you want, a succession of "lays". But it can be problematic if you're seeking more.


Thanks Always....I just didn't want to line it all out again....and our new guy seems very sweet. I didn't want to scare him off, yet. (lol!)


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> The consequence for men is that it encourages them to build walls instead of intimacy. Don't get me wrong: I fully appreciate he importance of boundaries, of not letting someone walk all over you. And I am not insisting on the importance of marriage either; I myself am not married, have never been married, and have never had the desire to be married --even though I have been with my SO for 17 years.
> 
> But the red pill is anti-intimacy. It might all be about getting laid, but it's sex without intimacy. It puts men on defensive watch for women who are using them as beta providers, don't know what they want, and will lie to you. It purports to give objective information about women, but in reality is all about how to be in control.
> 
> At the same time, it insists that all men must conform to certain stereotypical behaviours and if they fail to, they are destined to be losers.
> 
> I do understand why men who have been letting themselves be walked all over, their needs completely unmet, perceive the red pill as working. But they do very much run the risk of just becoming completely cynical, and cutting off true connection.
> 
> Which is fine if that's all you want, a succession of "lays". But it can be problematic if you're seeking more.


_Exactly._


----------



## toolforgrowth

always_alone said:


> The consequence for men is that it encourages them to build walls instead of intimacy. Don't get me wrong: I fully appreciate he importance of boundaries, of not letting someone walk all over you. And I am not insisting on the importance of marriage either; I myself am not married, have never been married, and have never had the desire to be married --even though I have been with my SO for 17 years.
> 
> But the red pill is anti-intimacy. It might all be about getting laid, but it's sex without intimacy. It puts men on defensive watch for women who are using them as beta providers, don't know what they want, and will lie to you. It purports to give objective information about women, but in reality is all about how to be in control.
> 
> At the same time, it insists that all men must conform to certain stereotypical behaviours and if they fail to, they are destined to be losers.
> 
> I do understand why men who have been letting themselves be walked all over, their needs completely unmet, perceive the red pill as working. But they do very much run the risk of just becoming completely cynical, and cutting off true connection.
> 
> Which is fine if that's all you want, a succession of "lays". But it can be problematic if you're seeking more.


If I understand correctly, the issue is that this anti-intimacy may have a negative effect on women, yes?

What if the man doesn't desire intimacy? Is he somehow wrong, or not a true "man" to you, if that's not what he desires? Maybe all he wants is a series of lays. You are attributing female sensibilities to a male mindset. That's not to say there isn't overlap, but I think we can all agree that men and women don't always want the same thing.

And I agree, it's definitely about being in control. See, I was one of those beta providers. I am literally the red pill poster child. I never once believed that women could be capable of the things my ex demonstrated, but I found out through life experience that they are. I am by no means saying that all women are capable of that, and I honestly don't think that any of the women I've encountered in this thread are capable of it. But that doesn't negate that there is a substantial set of women in today's society that will do just that. If there weren't, there wouldn't be a growing number of men reacting to it. The red pill gives me direct control over myself, my life, and my direction.

I can sum my interpretation of the red pill up very succinctly: it's okay for a man to place his wants and desires above those of others. In other words, a man doesn't have to sacrifice his wants and needs in order to make other people, including the women in his life, happy.

A person's happiness is their own responsibility. I have direct control over that. What I do not have is control over anyone else's happiness (with the possible exception of my daughter's).

I'm even going to take it a step further: Why is it a bad thing if men no longer want intimacy? If they're not harmed by it, and even prefer it that way, then what is the real issue? Aren't we all granted the right to self-determination?


----------



## EllisRedding

SimplyAmorous said:


> I've read a lot about Testosterone when I was worried about my husband's levels 6 yrs ago.. I was told by an Endocrinologist his levels at age 45 were normal for a man in his 60's [email protected]#.. this comment worried me *for months*..... but he wasn't low enough for treatment.. and really.. I think he was OK.. it was just ME raging.. why I even sent him there..(kinda had to downplay that a bit)
> 
> He did have some heightened STRESS at work during that time.. then me being all over him... he was able to still give it to me 5-6 times a week.. and he was OK with this.. wanted it too. A few yrs later.. had his levels taken again & they were higher than all the previous 9 on morning tests.. so he didn't need the treatment.. I think he was in a dipped phase or something..
> 
> He was never the aggressive type.. on the introverted spectrum .. I will never know what his levels was in his youth.. but he's always been the calm laid back patient type..
> 
> I did a post on Testosterone early on coming to this forum taken from a book I was reading on the various hormones..


I have no idea what my levels are but given how I am now (physically, etc...) I would hate to see how I would be if it turned out I did have low T and needed therapy lol. I figure that once the morning wood stops then it is time for a checkup  Completely unrelated, but my wife and I were talking about this a few days ago, I was trying to explain the challenges a guy goes through when trying to pee with morning wood, but yeah, that is probably a topic for a different thread 

I need to dig around to see if I can find some of the articles I was reading. It was fascinating how single guys had higher T levels vs married guys. A married guys T levels would increase when he got divorced. A guy holding an infant would see a drop in his T levels.

I know several guys who actually went on therapy and it was literally night and day for them. Not just libido, but energy, a little pep in their step, confidence, edge, etc...



toolforgrowth said:


> Amen.
> 
> Marriage in its incarnation today is a joke. I can't speak for what women go through, but as a man, my experience was nightmare, especially during divorce. I truly can't comprehend why any man would voluntarily choose to make that choice, especially more than once.
> 
> No disrespect intended towards my fellow men who are married. Self determination means others can make choices we ourselves wouldn't make, and we all have that right.
> 
> But I'll still never comprehend it.


I am one of those crazy guys who got married, is still married, and if I had a chance to go back in time I would still make the same choice, no regrets  :smthumbup: Call me old school or old fashioned I guess.

There are people around me who have great marriages, people who are married & miserable (where I look at them and think wtf are they even still together), and people whose marriage didn't last. As others have commented it just isn't for everyone. 

I am glad my parents got divorced, twice, but I am also glad they got married b/c if they had not I wouldn't be here.


----------



## always_alone

MEM11363 said:


> Brigit,
> 
> For a lot of valid reasons - that lay at my door - M2 didn't fully grasp my true commitment until she had health issues.
> 
> For a while, she thought I was going to leave her. NOT due to anything I said or did in the here and now. Just due to her believing that I wouldn't make certain sacrifices.
> 
> We're past that now. It is nice.


But...did you not say that you were very clear with her from the beginning that you absolutely would not be making certain sacrifices?

I'm guessing that she took you at your word.

I mean no disrespect, and I'm glad you've moved beyond this too. 

But we do need to be careful about what are boundaries and what are walls.


----------



## MEM2020

AA,

The post below is chapter book and verse - why I love you. 


QUOTE=always_alone;12694034]The consequence for men is that it encourages them to build walls instead of intimacy. Don't get me wrong: I fully appreciate he importance of boundaries, of not letting someone walk all over you. And I am not insisting on the importance of marriage either; I myself am not married, have never been married, and have never had the desire to be married --even though I have been with my SO for 17 years.

But the red pill is anti-intimacy. It might all be about getting laid, but it's sex without intimacy. It puts men on defensive watch for women who are using them as beta providers, don't know what they want, and will lie to you. It purports to give objective information about women, but in reality is all about how to be in control.

At the same time, it insists that all men must conform to certain stereotypical behaviours and if they fail to, they are destined to be losers.

I do understand why men who have been letting themselves be walked all over, their needs completely unmet, perceive the red pill as working. But they do very much run the risk of just becoming completely cynical, and cutting off true connection.

Which is fine if that's all you want, a succession of "lays". But it can be problematic if you're seeking more.[/QUOTE]


----------



## toolforgrowth

Faithful Wife said:


> Thanks Always....I just didn't want to line it all out again....and our new guy seems very sweet. I didn't want to scare him off, yet. (lol!)


LOL Thanks, FW. Truthfully, I read every post in the first 80 pages of this thread before I gave up and jumped to the end. This has got to be one of the best threads I've ever encountered and it sucked me in like a Hoover black hole.

Threads like this can easily become sexist in either direction. I believe in the red pill, and it's worked very well for me, but I want to be able to defend my positive perceptions of it without seeming like I'm bashing women as an aggregate. I've been extremely impressed with how both the guys and the ladies have conducted themselves in this thread, and I'll be darned if I start detracting from it!


----------



## Faithful Wife

toolforgrowth said:


> If I understand correctly, the issue is that this anti-intimacy may have a negative effect on women, yes?
> 
> What if the man doesn't desire intimacy? Is he somehow wrong, or not a true "man" to you, if that's not what he desires? Maybe all he wants is a series of lays. You are attributing female sensibilities to a male mindset. That's not to say there isn't overlap, but I think we can all agree that men and women don't always want the same thing.
> 
> And I agree, it's definitely about being in control. See, I was one of those beta providers. I am literally the red pill poster child. I never once believed that women could be capable of the things my ex demonstrated, but I found out through life experience that they are. I am by no means saying that all women are capable of that, and I honestly don't think that any of the women I've encountered in this thread are capable of it. But that doesn't negate that there is a substantial set of women in today's society that will do just that. If there weren't, there wouldn't be a growing number of men reacting to it. The red pill gives me direct control over myself, my life, and my direction.
> 
> I can sum my interpretation of the red pill up very succinctly: it's okay for a man to place his wants and desires above those of others. In other words, a man doesn't have to sacrifice his wants and needs in order to make other people, including the women in his life, happy.
> 
> A person's happiness is their own responsibility. I have direct control over that. What I do not have is control over anyone else's happiness (with the possible exception of my daughter's).
> 
> *I'm even going to take it a step further: Why is it a bad thing if men no longer want intimacy?* If they're not harmed by it, and even prefer it that way, then what is the real issue? Aren't we all granted the right to self-determination?


She's not saying it would be a bad thing, she's saying that many men DO want emotional intimacy, yet red pill would say men do NOT want that. For those who do want it, red pill would be a problematic group of beliefs and ideals.

And as long as a man seeks women who mutually want no intimacy and just sex, then no one is harmed.

Sadly though, red pill advises men like this to coerce and manipulate women, instead of just finding women who have a mutual goal and feel mutual attraction.

Have you read Models by Mark Manson?


----------



## Faithful Wife

toolforgrowth said:


> LOL Thanks, FW. Truthfully, I read every post in the first 80 pages of this thread before I gave up and jumped to the end. This has got to be one of the best threads I've ever encountered and it sucked me in like a Hoover black hole.
> 
> Threads like this can easily become sexist in either direction. I believe in the red pill, and it's worked very well for me, but I want to be able to defend my positive perceptions of it without seeming like I'm bashing women as an aggregate. I've been extremely impressed with how both the guys and the ladies have conducted themselves in this thread, and I'll be darned if I start detracting from it!


We're happy to have you join our Hoover Black Hole.

(he he, you said hole)


----------



## MEM2020

AA,
Guilty as charged. 

I over emphasized the importance of sex as a proxy for love. And we were at a low point in our marriage at the time. 




always_alone said:


> But...did you not say that you were very clear with her from the beginning that you absolutely would not be making certain sacrifices?
> 
> I'm guessing that she took you at your word.
> 
> I mean no disrespect, and I'm glad you've moved beyond this too.
> 
> But we do need to be careful about what are boundaries and what are walls.


----------



## Idyit

Faithful Wife said:


> We're happy to have you join our Hoover Black Hole.
> 
> (he he, you said hole)


Easy there Beavis.

~ Passio


----------



## always_alone

toolforgrowth said:


> I'm even going to take it a step further: Why is it a bad thing if men no longer want intimacy? If they're not harmed by it, and even prefer it that way, then what is the real issue? Aren't we all granted the right to self-determination?


There is no obligation for intimacy, and it is absolutely your right to decide whether you want it or not.

But make no mistake: this is not an issue of you harming women by rejecting intimacy, it is a question of whether you are harming yourself.

Emotional connection is a pretty basic need for all humans, men and women alike. But that said, there are plenty of both women and men who reject it, are uncomfortable with it, or are too jaded to ever consider trying to achieve it. It is up to them to decide whether this is what they want out of life, or not.


----------



## toolforgrowth

Faithful Wife said:


> She's not saying it would be a bad thing, she's saying that many men DO want emotional intimacy, yet red pill would say men do NOT want that. For those who do want it, red pill would be a problematic group of beliefs and ideals.
> 
> And as long as a man seeks women who mutually want no intimacy and just sex, then no one is harmed.
> 
> Sadly though, red pill advises men like this to coerce and manipulate women, instead of just finding women who have a mutual goal and feel mutual attraction.
> 
> Have you read Models by Mark Manson?


I'll definitely concede that in the confines of a marriage, something that is anti-intimacy can be perceived as a large negative. I certainly won't deny that.

As with feminism, I perceive red pillism (I like inventing new words) as a spectrum. Some are red shifted, others are blue shifted, and some may be a shade of green. I've found it rather difficult to develop a set of data points to which I can ascribe all feminists. Even self-declared feminists themselves can't do that.

I consider myself to be a green shaded red piller. I desire intimacy with women, but have placed a series of boundaries in effect to safeguard myself against the societal expectations and hardships that men experience today. I find that to be reasonable, and it's worked well for me.

In the context of your OP, red pillism is most definitely anti-intimacy. By the time men seek out the red pill, they are already starved of intimacy themselves by their girlfriend or wife and have tried everything they can think of to change it with no success. The sex has dried up, their SO is all but completely detached from them, and they are literally out of options. The standard female's answer is to respond with more intimacy. While that thought is understandable, a red piller's response would be, "I've already tried that and it _hasn't worked._"

Speaking from a male perspective, it seems wrong to reward a lack of intimacy from one's wife with even more intimacy. What is my incentive to continue investing if there is no return on said investment? A simple cost-benefit analysis would reveal there is none.

The red pill philosophy says, "Don't continue investing further intimacy if your prior investments are disregarded." I agree wholeheartedly with it.


----------



## MEM2020

TFG,

The right person brings out the best version of you. And you of them. 

I don't know what you were like pre divorce. But the process has made you assertive, comfortable with and skilled at conflict. All good things. 

I hope you reach the point where you depict events not as:
My ex W took advantage of me and treated me badly
But instead:
I gradually let my ex W treat me worse and worse until we reached the point of no return

The reason that matters is that the latter viewpoint will make it easier to find 'good intimacy'. Which IMHO is far superior to limited or no intimacy. 




toolforgrowth said:


> If I understand correctly, the issue is that this anti-intimacy may have a negative effect on women, yes?
> 
> What if the man doesn't desire intimacy? Is he somehow wrong, or not a true "man" to you, if that's not what he desires? Maybe all he wants is a series of lays. You are attributing female sensibilities to a male mindset. That's not to say there isn't overlap, but I think we can all agree that men and women don't always want the same thing.
> 
> And I agree, it's definitely about being in control. See, I was one of those beta providers. I am literally the red pill poster child. I never once believed that women could be capable of the things my ex demonstrated, but I found out through life experience that they are. I am by no means saying that all women are capable of that, and I honestly don't think that any of the women I've encountered in this thread are capable of it. But that doesn't negate that there is a substantial set of women in today's society that will do just that. If there weren't, there wouldn't be a growing number of men reacting to it. The red pill gives me direct control over myself, my life, and my direction.
> 
> I can sum my interpretation of the red pill up very succinctly: it's okay for a man to place his wants and desires above those of others. In other words, a man doesn't have to sacrifice his wants and needs in order to make other people, including the women in his life, happy.
> 
> A person's happiness is their own responsibility. I have direct control over that. What I do not have is control over anyone else's happiness (with the possible exception of my daughter's).
> 
> I'm even going to take it a step further: Why is it a bad thing if men no longer want intimacy? If they're not harmed by it, and even prefer it that way, then what is the real issue? Aren't we all granted the right to self-determination?


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

I've been watching a bunch of marriage stuff on youtube and this one was just recommended to me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfY6cs9R0o0
What To Do When You're No Longer Attracted To Your Spouse?

She mentioned a couple she worked with where the husband wanted a divorce and the wife kept doing more and more to try to please him. Turns out, he just wasn't attracted to her anymore and didn't want to say it. It doesn't just happen to men. 

But I think it's a good video for the other side of the situation, the spouse who lost attraction and what some reasons could be and how they should be honest about it. We don't hear much advice for the spouse who's lost attraction, just what the other spouse should do if it happens.


----------



## toolforgrowth

always_alone said:


> There is no obligation for intimacy, and it is absolutely your right to decide whether you want it or not.
> 
> But make no mistake: this is not an issue of you harming women by rejecting intimacy, it is a question of whether you are harming yourself.
> 
> Emotional connection is a pretty basic need for all humans, men and women alike. But that said, there are plenty of both women and men who reject it, are uncomfortable with it, or are too jaded to ever consider trying to achieve it. It is up to them to decide whether this is what they want out of life, or not.


Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification.

I would agree that emotional connection is definitely a basic need for all humans. I just don't believe that connection must always be a romantic one. One of my best friends is a big red piller. He is in no way misogynistic or woman-hating. He just doesn't seem to need it. He gets his emotional connections through close friendships, of which he has many.

Therefore, red pillism can only be defined as "anti-intimacy" in the context of heterosexual relationships; i.e., in the context of how a man perceives himself in relation to women, and the type of interpersonal relationships he has with them.

I think you truly mean it when you say that it's a question of whether or not we men are harming ourselves. But I can't help but conclude that there is a degree of female self-interest involved. I don't begrudge that and can certainly understand it, but I think it does provide a unique perspective on the voracity of the claims some women have made about the red pill.


----------



## MEM2020

SGC,

It all starts with being honest about it. If your spouse's reaction to being told you've lost your attraction - is to walk away - then that is likely the best outcome. 

If however, they have a sincere desire to understand why and work to improve the situation, than maybe it's fixable. 






SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I've been watching a bunch of marriage stuff on youtube and this one was just recommended to me.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfY6cs9R0o0
> What To Do When You're No Longer Attracted To Your Spouse?
> 
> She mentioned a couple she worked with where the husband wanted a divorce and the wife kept doing more and more to try to please him. Turns out, he just wasn't attracted to her anymore and didn't want to say it. It doesn't just happen to men.
> 
> But I think it's a good video for the other side of the situation, the spouse who lost attraction and what some reasons could be and how they should be honest about it. We don't hear much advice for the spouse who's lost attraction, just what the other spouse should do if it happens.


----------



## Faithful Wife

toolforgrowth said:


> Speaking from a male perspective, it seems wrong to reward a lack of intimacy from one's wife with even more intimacy. What is my incentive to continue investing if there is no return on said investment? A simple cost-benefit analysis would reveal there is none.
> 
> The red pill philosophy says, "Don't continue investing further intimacy if your prior investments are disregarded." I agree wholeheartedly with it.


I think a lot of times what gets missed is that women have the same problem. And women are given bad advice, too. And men cheat on women, too. And etc, so forth.

It really isn't a gender issue.

I would have told you whether you are male or female to work on yourself instead of spending so much time trying to figure him or her out, or trying to "make" him or her be into you.

The real question for everyone in this position should be: Why am I with a person who isn't into me?

For you do have self-agency, you always do. No matter who you are, man or woman. 

There are other books, other systems, etc.

The parts that MMSL got right could be put into different terms to take out the hateful, mean spirited and misogynistic parts. And DEFINITELY the fake science should be taken out and it is outrageous the number of men who just breeze right past the fake science and buy into it without any fact checking. That's my whole position right there.

Now, here are a couple of general points:

None of what I said above means I am pro-blue pill.

Nor does it mean I think men and women are always the same.

Nor does it mean I do not think there is any biological factor in attraction and mating.

Again welcome to our Hoover Hole Of Doom Hotel....you can check out any time you like but you can never leave.


----------



## toolforgrowth

MEM11363 said:


> I gradually let my ex W treat me worse and worse until we reached the point of no return.


I definitely think that. While she must own her actions, I must also own mine. I allowed her to use me as her doormat and placed her on a pedestal. That choice rests solely with me, as do the consequences, such as why she lost attraction to me. I can completely understand it. I wouldn't have found me attractive back then at all had I been a woman.

But my responsibility ends where the conscious decisions she made begin.

In terms of being taken advantage of, I more attribute that feeling to the divorce laws that are in place today. There's a lot of misandry in state statutes today, which is legally abused regularly. I went through it, and it was brutal. Hence, my decision to never remarry. It has nothing to do with not wanting or fearing intimacy, but everything to do with not choosing to gamble my livelihood a second time on the dispositions of another human being.


----------



## toolforgrowth

Faithful Wife said:


> I think a lot of times what gets missed is that women have the same problem. And women are given bad advice, too. And men cheat on women, too. And etc, so forth.
> 
> It really isn't a gender issue.
> 
> I would have told you whether you are male or female to work on yourself instead of spending so much time trying to figure him or her out, or trying to "make" him or her be into you.
> 
> The real question for everyone in this position should be: Why am I with a person who isn't into me?
> 
> For you do have self-agency, you always do. No matter who you are, man or woman.
> 
> There are other books, other systems, etc.
> 
> The parts that MMSL got right could be put into different terms to take out the hateful, mean spirited and misogynistic parts. And DEFINITELY the fake science should be taken out and it is outrageous the number of men who just breeze right past the fake science and buy into it without any fact checking. That's my whole position right there.
> 
> Now, here are a couple of general points:
> 
> None of what I said above means I am pro-blue pill.
> 
> Nor does it mean I think men and women are always the same.
> 
> Nor does it mean I do not think there is any biological factor in attraction and mating.
> 
> Again welcome to our Hoover Hole Of Doom Hotel....you can check out any time you like but you can never leave.


I definitely don't think it's strictly a male problem. I've encountered plenty of women who show intimacy to their husbands where none is reciprocated.

As for finding out why attraction was lost, to this day I never got a straight answer and don't know for sure (from her). All I can do is make educated guesses. But I became okay with not knowing a long time ago. I did exactly what you suggested: worked on myself, and asked myself that very question. It was a very eye-opening experience!

What you perceive as misogynistic, I perceive is bluntly honest. To say that women are fallible creatures who don't always have a man's best interest is not misogynistic; I view it as reality. The fact is men are the same way. They don't always have your best interests at heart.

I'm still unsure as to the claim of misogyny and mean spirits. If MMSL was turning scores of men into woman-haters, I think you may have a point. But that's not the result I've seen. A lot of men seem to have better relationships because of it. I can't accept the claim that the tone is hateful if it's not leading men to actually hate.

And I totally dig the Eagles reference. 

I can't ever leave, but I will check out for a little while. Got some stuff to do. Thanks for the fun discussion, and I shall return!


----------



## Faithful Wife

toolforgrowth said:


> I think you truly mean it when you say that it's a question of whether or not we men are harming ourselves. But I can't help but conclude that there is a degree of female self-interest involved. I don't begrudge that and can certainly understand it, but I think it does provide a unique perspective on the voracity of the claims some women have made about the red pill.


When I first found PUA/red pill stuff and MMSL, I thought "wow, this sounds like my husband!" (who is a natural sex god). But then when I actually read deeper I went "oh dear, yeah....no that doesn't sound like my husband".

One reason I saw quickly that it wasn't like my husband, was the list of things red pill/PUA claim to describe Naturals. Things like:

*doesn't care about the sexual desires of women, just f*cks them for his own pleasure (um...no, not even close)

*never turns down sex with a woman (um...no, not close again...a Natural is pursued by many women, some of whom he will not feel mutual attraction for)

*is a jerk and is mean to women (um...no)

*doesn't care about emotional intimacy, doesn't even have the capacity for it (um....no....my husband has the highest capacity for emotional connection of anyone I've ever known, man or woman)

*is a ****-phobe (um....no)


Once I started seeing how far off these theories were and how they all assumed a very low emotional intelligence level of Naturals, I just went "ok wow, these guys just do not get it, do they".

Then I read about how evo psyche came about, and then how game and red pill theory came out of that....and whooo boy....NOW I get it. Now I see why these guys are so invested in these theories.

But I know my husband is not the only man who is like him. We have several guys very similar to him right here on this thread. And all of them are very emotionally intelligent and want intimacy, not just sex.

I understand the desire to find blame in the other gender. Everyone makes that mistake after getting hurt.

But there actually isn't blame for just one gender.

All people are assh*les...and all people are saints. We have self agency and free will, and that's how we choose how we want to behave. Whether assh*le or saint, man or woman, we each get to choose what we want in life.


----------



## Faithful Wife

toolforgrowth said:


> I definitely don't think it's strictly a male problem. I've encountered plenty of women who show intimacy to their husbands where none is reciprocated.
> 
> As for finding out why attraction was lost, to this day I never got a straight answer and don't know for sure (from her). All I can do is make educated guesses. But I became okay with not knowing a long time ago. I did exactly what you suggested: worked on myself, and asked myself that very question. It was a very eye-opening experience!
> 
> What you perceive as misogynistic, I perceive is bluntly honest. To say that women are fallible creatures who don't always have a man's best interest is not misogynistic; I view it as reality. The fact is men are the same way. They don't always have your best interests at heart.
> 
> I'm still unsure as to the claim of misogyny and mean spirits. If MMSL was turning scores of men into woman-haters, I think you may have a point. But that's not the result I've seen. A lot of men seem to have better relationships because of it. I can't accept the claim that the tone is hateful if it's not leading men to actually hate.
> 
> And I totally dig the Eagles reference.
> 
> I can't ever leave, but I will check out for a little while. Got some stuff to do. Thanks for the fun discussion, and I shall return!


Have you read anything else about red pill, where it comes from, and what women feel and other men feel about it? Or have you just read MMSL? Because AK did not invent these ideas. 

However having said that, MMSL is full of hateful speech toward women, IMO. Saying women don't have your best interests at heart is one thing, calling them "chubby screechtards" is another.

I would love your opinion on this post:

http://marriedmansexlife.com/2011/10/treat-a-*****-like-a-lady-and-a-lady-like-a-*****/

You can read this and not see the hateful tone toward women? Honestly? And you can't see how his whole point could have been made without the disparaging talk?

And this is not a really bad example. As I said, red pill is much more than MMSL.


----------



## Thundarr

Brigit said:


> I couldn't imagine NOT being married. That sounds very lonely.


Not much is as good as being in a great relationship and not much is worse than being in a bad one. Being single sets pretty much in the middle of those two. Heaven, purgatory, hell. Hell is being lonely while laying beside the person who's supposed to lift you.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Thundarr said:


> Not much is as good as being in a great relationship and not much is worse than being in a bad one. Being single sets pretty much in the middle of those two. Heaven, purgatory, hell. Hell is being lonely while laying beside the person who's supposed to lift you.


I loved being single. I would say it was WAAAYYYY better than being in a bad relationship.

I would also say that hell is when you expect another person (or anything outside yourself) to be the basis of YOUR happiness.


----------



## Thundarr

marduk said:


> Here's my point.
> 
> Your sex god that you love is in fact a human being. A human being is a frail and fallable thing.
> 
> If, say, he had six months to get back in shape then this is his fitness horizon. He can be married to you within these tolerances. Everybody has them, I'm not suggesting you shouldn't.
> 
> My point is that he may no longer conform to these tolerances. This may happen intentionally or not. Fixable, or not.
> 
> Under your model, which of these would lead you to the conclusion that your mutual attraction just wasn't there, never would be, and perhaps by extension, would have been a mistake to choose him?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



I see what you're trying to ask Marduk but this analogy misses the mark because the problem and solution are easy to define. 'You're out of shape and it's not attractive so the solution is to get in shape (or not)'. 

In reality, material like NMMNG, MMSLP, His Needs/Her Needs, Divorce busters, etc are writen for men and women who know something's wrong but they can't put their finger on what it is.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> What if you actually can't? How about just accepting that sometimes you can't and that if your entire self worth is tied up in whether or not this person is into you, then that is where you need to find answers....about yourself.


So, if your wife of 10+ years decides that she's not into you; you just give her half your stuff (if she's not adding much to the family income) move out and live with seeing your kids every other weekend? You're not supposed to see if there's something you can do to improve things? After all, you wouldn't want to take a chance of having a woman that's not attracted to you having sex with you.


----------



## Thundarr

Faithful Wife said:


> I loved being single. I would say it was WAAAYYYY better than being in a bad relationship.
> 
> *I would also say that hell is when you expect another person (or anything outside yourself) to be the basis of YOUR happiness*.


I didn't mind being single either after my first marriage was such crap. Single was awesome compared to that. And your spot on that no one else defines our happiness. That's what Glover meant when he talked about a spouse being icing on the cake.


----------



## tech-novelist

Buddy400 said:


> So, if your wife or 10+ years decides that she's not into you; you just give her half your stuff (if she's not adding much to the family income) move out and live with seeing your kids every other weekend? You're not supposed to see if there's something you can do to improve things? After all, you wouldn't want to take a chance of having woman that's not attracted to you having sex with you.


Exactly! Now you're getting the idea! :smthumbup:


----------



## tech-novelist

I'm sure this article is completely irrelevant to this thread. Obviously there must be a perfectly good reason for the findings in this study, having NOTHING to do with ridiculous red pill claims about women's preferences for thugs!

http://www.ehbonline.org/article/S1090-5138(14)00077-4/abstract


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> Ok I will dig up one of many thousands of studies which say exactly this for you later when I get home.


I can't wait for Always to tear them apart.


----------



## Buddy400

MEM11363 said:


> Brigit,
> 
> For a lot of valid reasons - that lay at my door - M2 didn't fully grasp my true commitment until she had health issues.
> 
> For a while, she thought I was going to leave her. NOT due to anything I said or did in the here and now. Just due to her believing that I wouldn't make certain sacrifices.
> 
> We're past that now. It is nice.


If you'd had FW's attitude, you would have been long gone.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> :scratchhead:
> 
> Okee doke.


Does that mean you don't understand, don't agree, or something else?


----------



## Marduk

Thundarr said:


> I see what you're trying to ask Marduk but this analogy misses the mark because the problem and solution are easy to define. 'You're out of shape and it's not attractive so the solution is to get in shape (or not)'.
> 
> In reality, material like NMMNG, MMSLP, His Needs/Her Needs, Divorce busters, etc are writen for men and women who know something's wrong but they can't put their finger on what it is.


Actually, that wasn't my point.

My point was that was startlingly close to something AK told me about his wife.

As in, how fast she'd be out the door if she got out of shape.

And how cold hearted that seemed. And in itself seemed like a barrier to intimacy.

And is kinda exactly where I ended up with the red pill. I actually mapped out how long I thought my wife would keep having sex with me.


----------



## Marduk

Buddy400 said:


> I can't wait for Always to tear them apart.


I think she will.

She's many things, but being intellectually honest is one of them.


----------



## Marduk

Coming back to my post about correlating playmate's measurements, weight, and age with socioeconomic status (i.e. larger playmates seemed to correlate with economic downturns)...

I wonder if the same is true for women?


----------



## Anon1111

Hey guys.

Chicks don't want to know what goes into the sausage.

They just want to see it in the store and buy it like that.

If you try to emplain to them how you make the sausage, they're going to be like, ew, gross, why would you think any one would like that.

But when you just have a nice juicy sausage sitting there, it really is irresistible to them. That's all you need to know.


----------



## MEM2020

Buddy,

I actually think that FW and I are fairly similar in some key areas: 

If a partner chooses to 'let themselves go' physically, we both view that is an unloving thing to do. It's especially so when you have a situation where you communicated early on that: 
You are a very sexual and affectionate person with a strong preference for a fit toned partner. 

So both of us would perceive that as an unloving thing to do because it's a choice. 

The thing I mentioned to Brigit - was caused by M2 developing a medical condition. That's completely different. Following the golden rule I have tried my best to be supportive and compassionate. I believe FW would do just as I have were her partner to have a health issue that occurred through no fault of his own. 




=Buddy400;12695090]If you'd had FW's attitude, you would have been long gone.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Anon1111

On the flip side, I try to avoid thinking about chicks taking dumps. I'd rather pretend they don't do that.


----------



## Buddy400

MEM11363 said:


> I believe FW would do just as I have were her partner to have a health issue that occurred through no fault of his own.


Maybe. But she didn't say that. She had the chance and passed on it.



Faithful Wife said:


> These are variables I cannot predict as I don't know the answer, I don't know what sickness he has


----------



## MEM2020

I don't spend time thinking about the functional purpose of M2's booty - because I get so distracted looking at such a staggeringly perfect thing of beauty. 

It's kind of like when I'm looking at the Mona Lisa - I'm not really wondering the type of oil paints Leo used in makin her.....




Anon1111 said:


> On the flip side, I try to avoid thinking about chicks taking dumps. I'd rather pretend they don't do that.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> So, if your wife of 10+ years decides that she's not into you; you just give her half your stuff (if she's not adding much to the family income) move out and live with seeing your kids every other weekend? You're not supposed to see if there's something you can do to improve things? After all, you wouldn't want to take a chance of having a woman that's not attracted to you having sex with you.


I keep saying over and over that yes, you should first try. I also keep saying over and over that my position is not "dump her and move on". First try.

And if it isn't going to work, then you have no choice but to come to acceptance.

How many times do I need to say this?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> Maybe. But she didn't say that. She had the chance and passed on it.


Gee thanks, Buddy. Someone throws me a hypothetical question which I don't have all the relevant facts of the hypothetical information and is not a question that is well thought out or actually intending to get to know me but rather, is a question just born out of trying to "shake me up" for some reason, and I give my one line off the hip answer (along with about 100 other posts that were of far more interest to me), and from this one line answer you think you know me and have assessed me to be someone who would just up and run at the first sign of any illness. Or whatever you think.

It is really odd how some of you guys want to tear me down like this. I may be full of myself and arrogant, but I'm not out there doubting what you guys are saying about yourselves or trying to corner you into saying something I can then use against you to mock you and laugh at you.

I'm here expressing myself, which is something I'm good at. I know things that people would benefit from knowing. I am madly in love with my husband and love having sex with him and I talk about it all the time......but you want to tear this down and find holes in it.

Because.....I dare to not agree with all of your red pill jargon?

Or if you do this just because you don't like me, why bother? Just don't like me and leave it at that.

Where am I running around behind you and mocking your relationships or your behaviors? I mean YOU specifically (in this case Buddy but the rest of you guys know who you are).

I am in fact supportive of ALL of your marriages.

Like me or don't, but there is no reason to try to paint me any color than what I really am .... which is rainbow colored.


----------



## Ikaika

Anon1111 said:


> Hey guys.
> 
> Chicks don't want to know what goes into the sausage.
> 
> They just want to see it in the store and buy it like that.
> 
> If you try to emplain to them how you make the sausage, they're going to be like, ew, gross, why would you think any one would like that.
> 
> But when you just have a nice juicy sausage sitting there, it really is irresistible to them. That's all you need to know.



http://youtu.be/2NzUm7UEEIY


----------



## MEM2020

Buddy,

I've read a lot of FW's posts. I don't always agree with them. 

While I've never read an FW post that explicitly addresses this issue, she has never said anything that would cause me to believe she would leave a partner because he became ill. 

My general view of FW as a person is that she would support a sick partner, not leave him. 


QUOTE=Buddy400;12695394]Maybe. But she didn't say that. She had the chance and passed on it.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Faithful Wife

MEM11363 said:


> My general view of FW as a person is that she would *support a sick partner*, not leave him.


In our case, it is an asset.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> I keep saying over and over that yes, you should first try. I also keep saying over and over that my position is not "dump her and move on". First try.
> 
> And if it isn't going to work, then you have no choice but to come to acceptance.
> 
> How many times do I need to say this?


But the topic here is MMSL, which has to do with married people. 

And, what I hear over and over from you is: 



Faithful Wife said:


> What if you actually can't? How about just accepting that sometimes you can't and that if your entire self worth is tied up in whether or not this person is into you, then that is where you need to find answers....about yourself.





Faithful Wife said:


> What if the reality here is that when your wife first lost attraction to you, it was because biologically and psychologically speaking, you aren't a match for each other? What if her loss of attraction was really just evidence of this, and you should have accepted it and moved on then? What if her renewed attraction to you meant nothing and wouldn't have lasted anyway?
> 
> What if we allowed people the self agency to decide that they aren't into us, yet didn't allow this to make us feel unworthy?


But, from now on, I'll assume you mean that men that are married to women who have lost attraction to them are allowed take actions to attempt to reignite said attraction.


----------



## TheGoodGuy

Brigit said:


> For me, a marriage certificate isn't just a piece of paper. It is a contract that I made to another person. And one that I fight to honor.


Totally agreed. Too bad my ex did not feel like it was worth the effort (together) to uphold it. I'm not saying folks can't have good, healthy committed relationships outside of marriage, but once you've entered into that "contract", why not fight for it? Baffling.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> Gee thanks, Buddy. Someone throws me a hypothetical question which I don't have all the relevant facts of the hypothetical information and is not a question that is well thought out or actually intending to get to know me but rather, is a question just born out of trying to "shake me up" for some reason, and I give my one line off the hip answer (along with about 100 other posts that were of far more interest to me), and from this one line answer you think you know me and have assessed me to be someone who would just up and run at the first sign of any illness. Or whatever you think.
> 
> It is really odd how some of you guys want to tear me down like this. I may be full of myself and arrogant, but I'm not out there doubting what you guys are saying about yourselves or trying to corner you into saying something I can then use against you to mock you and laugh at you.
> 
> I'm here expressing myself, which is something I'm good at. I know things that people would benefit from knowing. I am madly in love with my husband and love having sex with him and I talk about it all the time......but you want to tear this down and find holes in it.
> 
> Because.....I dare to not agree with all of your red pill jargon?
> 
> Or if you do this just because you don't like me, why bother? Just don't like me and leave it at that.
> 
> Where am I running around behind you and mocking your relationships or your behaviors? I mean YOU specifically (in this case Buddy but the rest of you guys know who you are).
> 
> I am in fact supportive of ALL of your marriages.
> 
> Like me or don't, but there is no reason to try to paint me any color than what I really am .... which is rainbow colored.


I wasn't mocking your relationship or your behaviors. The only thing I did was; read the post and comment on what I read. Given what I know of you from your posts (which is virtually nothing about you), it did not strike me as an obvious miss-speak. I've heard you talk about your husband as a "sex god" once or twice and don't recall you talking about him as the love of your life (not saying he isn't, just that you haven't mentioned that).

I'm happy to hear your husband doesn't have any worries in that department.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I have this whole blog that is devoted to how much I love my husband...I gush about him as if it is my job. I'm hoping to make a job out doing just that, actually. 

I am sorry you had missed that point about me. Thank you for understanding my position better, and now you know.

And now.....

I have sent a PM to Deejo to ask him to close this thread.

Reason being, I feel it turned out* really great*, there was an awesome exchanges of ideas, people were reasonable and cool to each other...and before it just starts turning circles (because all long threads do eventually), I would like to just sing kumbaya with you all and put this thread to rest.

However...I would encourage threads about the same topic or similar topics to be opened. Or I will do so myself. I would like to open one called "please don't take the blue pill, either"....or if someone else wants to, I really want to discuss what blue pill advice is and why it sucks.

Cheers and thanks everyone!

Whoever sneaks in a post before Deejo sees my PM gets 10 points!


And........GO!


----------



## Ikaika

three point shot from behind the time line... nothing but net.


----------



## Brigit

Anon1111 said:


> Hey guys.
> 
> Chicks don't want to know what goes into the sausage.
> 
> They just want to see it in the store and buy it like that.
> 
> If you try to emplain to them how you make the sausage, they're going to be like, ew, gross, why would you think any one would like that.
> 
> But when you just have a nice juicy sausage sitting there, it really is irresistible to them. That's all you need to know.


I think you just turned me vegan.


----------



## Brigit

Faithful Wife said:


> I have this whole blog that is devoted to how much I love my husband...I gush about him as if it is my job. I'm hoping to make a job out doing just that, actually.
> 
> I am sorry you had missed that point about me. Thank you for understanding my position better, and now you know.
> 
> And now.....
> 
> I have sent a PM to Deejo to ask him to close this thread.
> 
> Reason being, I feel it turned out* really great*, there was an awesome exchanges of ideas, people were reasonable and cool to each other...and before it just starts turning circles (because all long threads do eventually), I would like to just sing kumbaya with you all and put this thread to rest.
> 
> However...I would encourage threads about the same topic or similar topics to be opened. Or I will do so myself. I would like to open one called "please don't take the blue pill, either"....or if someone else wants to, I really want to discuss what blue pill advice is and why it sucks.
> 
> Cheers and thanks everyone!
> 
> Whoever sneaks in a post before Deejo sees my PM gets 10 points!
> 
> 
> And........GO!


This thread rocks.


----------



## DayOne

(Getting in under the wire...)



Faithful Wife said:


> No, like I said....screw the blue pill, too.


You misunderstood. When I said the "Blue Pill", I meant the THE Blue Pill. The one that some of us older guys have to go see a doctor to get...


----------



## Brigit

DayOne said:


> (Getting in under the wire...)
> 
> 
> 
> You misunderstood. When I said the "Blue Pill", I meant the THE Blue Pill. The one that some of us older guys have to go see a doctor to get...


LOL!

I sort of feel like we should do a "Please don't take the red pill.." wrap up.

Any last words?

Thoughts?

Jokes?

Charts?

(BTW does anyone else think this icon is really inappropriate? :chinese: )


----------



## farsidejunky

This town needs an enema!


----------



## Brigit

farsidejunky said:


> This town needs an enema!


...what makes you say this?


----------



## NobodySpecial

Brigit said:


> LOL!
> 
> I sort of feel like we should do a "Please don't take the red pill.." wrap up.
> 
> Any last words?
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Jokes?
> 
> *Charts*?
> 
> (BTW does anyone else think this icon is really inappropriate? :chinese: )


I had to

Venn Diagram


----------



## Brigit

NobodySpecial said:


> I had to
> 
> Venn Diagram


LOL!

https://thechive.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/funny-charts-18.jpg


----------



## DayOne

So long, and thanks for all the fish!


----------



## farsidejunky

Brigit said:


> ...what makes you say this?


Jack Nicholson from Batman...

Brigit...jokes...okay?


----------



## naiveonedave

Faithful Wife said:


> Ok, but wanting side action actually is wired into us. Monogamy is not. Deciding that your vows mean more to you is also not wired into us.
> 
> 
> 
> .


where is your science on this, utterly not proven


----------



## Brigit

farsidejunky said:


> Jack Nicholson from Batman...
> 
> Brigit...jokes...okay?


Drinking coffee - still waking up.

:bunny::bunny:


----------



## naiveonedave

always_alone said:


> .
> 
> But the red pill is anti-intimacy. It might all be about getting laid, but it's sex without intimacy. It puts men on defensive watch for women who are using them as beta providers, don't know what they want, and will lie to you. It purports to give objective information about women, but in reality is all about how to be in control.


I disagree, at least in the confines of mmsl. Though AK doesn't specifically address intimacy, he pretty much states that in a M, you can't survive on Alpha alone. the Beta parts that you need to maintain a relationship are really partially intimacy related.


----------



## always_alone

MEM11363 said:


> AA,
> Guilty as charged.
> 
> I over emphasized the importance of sex as a proxy for love. And we were at a low point in our marriage at the time.


And you are a man of honour, so she took you at your word. It was a red pill moment. You may have intended it as a boundary, but she experienced it as a wall.

My SO has a quote that he likes: "true love is for a$$holes". My SO is not a red pill kind of guy, but this is a very red pill sentiment.

I too take him at his word, but when he says things like this, I do not feel turned on, I'm not impressed, not inspired to treat him better, nor inclined to have more sex. Instead I feel a bit dead inside, and will withdraw from him, think that trust or investment in him is a risk, and wonder if I want to take it.

My point in all of this is that philosophy matters. So many people want to shrug it off as "just words" that "harm no one". "Take the good and discard the rest." But the words we espouse and the attitudes we embody make a huge difference.

People will believe us.


----------



## Brigit

always_alone said:


> A
> My SO has a quote that he likes: "true love is for a$$holes".



That is a sad quote. I'm sorry your SO likes it. I couldn't be with a man like that. It's the opposite of romance. No point in letting a man like that touch you. Let him jerk off instead and find yourself someone who'll love you with warmth and kindness.


----------



## Deejo

To be continued ...

Closed at OP's request.


----------

