# MMSLP, Misogynistic Bullcrap or Misunderstood Message



## Dogbert

Having spent some time over the Ladies Lounge thread, FaithfulWife made it be known that Athol Kay's writings were hateful towards women. There is truth to what she says that some of Kay's views can be considered misogynist.

Or do you share our moderator MEM11363 views on the thread titled *MMSL, taken with plenty of salt.*?

Is Athol Kay a misogynist? Yes or No.

I say yes.


----------



## MountainRunner

I say yes.


----------



## pidge70

I also say yes.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## NotLikeYou

First of all, you should stay away from the Ladies Lounge. You will get e-cooties and e-strogen poisoning if you hang out in there with all those stinky girls.

Second of all, if you let feminists tell you what is "hateful towards women," you are probably suffering from e-cooties and e-strogen poisoning. Go eat a steak, quick.

Third of all, it seems like real, manly-man misogynists would be so terrible that they wouldn't, uh, be married. Because they would, you know, hate wimmen so bad that they couldn't actually have a long term relationship with one.

Fourth of all, I believe AK is making most of his money from counseling sessions over the phone, nowadays. I thought I read somewhere that more than half of that was counseling women on how to help their men "man up."

Ima have to vote "no."

I can certainly see where some people might say that MMSLP is bullcrap, while secretly wishing their husbands would start passing their sh1t tests, though


----------



## Tubbalard

Misogynistic no? Admittedly, I never read his material, but have seen his books paraded by men and women on this site. His material is mostly geared toward the nice guy or the geek type that had trouble getting women in highschool or got duped into marriage and divorce and was railroaded by the system. Kind of like money ball GM's; geeks that want to take over sports and infiltrate it with loads of analytics and number evalutions without taking into account the human element. As Sir Charles eloquently stated "Guys that want to get in the game because they didn't have the ability when they were younger."

Misogynistic? hardly. Women that are usually upset at his material aren't your more traditional type of women. It's usually women that most likely had a wild past, or educated intellectual types, that are bent on changing the male female dynamic. These women like the nerds in highschool were probably somewhat an outcast when they were younger and don't fit the modern day type of how women think. Any book that that gives rankings or assigns numbers are seen as Misogynistic to these type of women.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## GusPolinski

Nope.


----------



## pidge70

> these type of women.


Nice, and by that I mean not so much.


----------



## Ikaika

I really don't know... He says he's been married to his wife Jennifer for 20 years (two neurotypical daughters) and has sex nearly every day. Well, I too have been married 20 years (21 this year), two boys (one has a mental disability, my added crutch) and we not only have sex nearly every day we still experiment  

All the other stuff he says seems to be hidden behind $$$. So I really don't know. 

I say if it helps some guys and their wives or SO is hip to to it, who am I to judge. No more than I would judge any woman who calls herself a feminist.


----------



## Ikaika

The no more Mr nice guy? I leave that for the gridiron, as an assistant coach/trainer for my youngest son's football team.


----------



## Deejo

Atholk said:


> It's no problem. You're talking about my stuff and it all helps.
> 
> I had a blog devote a post to how I was running a scam and giving the worst advice in the world because of the way I teach men to work tirelessly to try and please women like the pathetic chump that I am...
> 
> ...sales _tripled _for that day.
> 
> I suspect someone from TAM left the most scathing review of my book on Amazon and it sells more copies for me than anything I could say without sounding like a snake oil salesman.
> 
> Don't worry too much about what other people think.


So ... folks aren't paying much attention to any of the OTHER non-controversial books he has written, so, I'd say his quote above applies.

When it comes to this arena of relationship dynamics, there is only one author I now recommend; read his book, he says much of the same things, but he doesn't much care about your marital status, and he says it without the vitriol and controversy.

Books - Mark Manson


----------



## optimalprimus

never read his stuff. don't intend too.

Some of the ideas people post about exerting masculinity do ring true for me, but that's pretty basic biology really.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

There are books I have read by 3rd wave feminists that have rubbed me the wrong way MORE than anything I have read in Athol's book.. this will win me no points with the women here..but that's nothing new...

Truth is, MY HUSBAND... (I guess that means he's a geek loser) would have not turned into an a-hole if he read his book.. it would have been better than reading some of the stuff women have written ...to deal with me back in the day...and yeah that's what I believe.. However.. "*No More Mr Nice Guy*" is a far better book. (I have them both, bought them for pure curiosity) I don't believe I am the type of women who can't be talked to and turned around, I don't care for games & such....like AT ALL... yet I still didn't find his book that Gawd awful.. 

But then again.. I am more of a Traditional older fashioned type lady.. 

I am still willing to read books by those I disagree with and accept the good I find (and yeah I can admit it -but I rarely see others do this).....and throw out the bad... 

Slaughtering the author to pieces , throwing up his pictures , making fun of his wife...doesn't make me think very well of those who go there... much better to just concentrate on what he says.. and debate it rationally.. I just don't go for character assassination that stoops to THAT level...no matter who it is.


----------



## WandaJ

oh the guy who fantasizes about twenty years old girls as the best dating material?and advises to keep your old 40-ty yo wife in check by making sure she knows she can be replaced by 20 yo?

I guess that makes me feminist,because I refuse to die at my "old" age


----------



## WandaJ

Tubbalard said:


> *Misogynistic no?* Admittedly,* I never read his material,* but have seen his books paraded by men and women on this site. His material is mostly geared toward the nice guy or the geek type that had trouble getting women in highschool or got duped into marriage and divorce and was railroaded by the system. Kind of like money ball GM's; geeks that want to take over sports and infiltrate it with loads of analytics and number evalutions without taking into account the human element. As Sir Charles eloquently stated "Guys that want to get in the game because they didn't have the ability when they were younger."
> 
> *Misogynistic? hardly. Women that are usually upset at his material aren't your more traditional type of women. It's usually women that most likely had a wild past, or educated intellectual types, that are bent on changing the male female dynamic. These women like the nerds in highschool were probably somewhat an outcast when they were younger and don't fit the modern day type of how women think. Any book that that gives rankings or assigns numbers are seen as Misogynistic to these type of women.*
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Nice....


----------



## naiveonedave

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.

Also, he blatantly states that improving yourself may not be for the benefit of your current wife. That really inflames women, but if you are in a crap marriage and you work to clean up your side of the street and she doesn't, the M was doomed anyway.

So NO....


----------



## Brigit

WandaJ said:


> oh the guy who fantasizes about twenty years old girls as the best dating material?and advises to keep your old 40-ty yo wife in check by making sure she knows she can be replaced by 20 yo?
> 
> I guess that makes me feminist,because I refuse to die at my "old" age


It's this type of stuff that gets under my skin. The author writes such bizarre crap and after seeing his picture I really don't care what he thinks. Truth be told I WAS better looking at 26 than I am now at 46. However, I was also emotionally unstable and a bit out of control. I don't know too many 40 year old men who would put up with my 20 something insanity...I'd probably would have given them a stroke.


----------



## Wolf1974

SimplyAmorous said:


> There are books I have read by 3rd wave feminists that have rubbed me the wrong way MORE than anything I have read in Athol's book.. this will win me no points with the women here..but that's nothing new...
> 
> Truth is, MY HUSBAND... (I guess that means he's a geek loser) would have not turned into an a-hole if he read his book.. it would have been better than reading some of the stuff women have written ...to deal with me back in the day...and yeah that's what I believe.. However.. "*No More Mr Nice Guy*" is a far better book. (I have them both, bought them for pure curiosity) I don't believe I am the type of women who can't be talked to and turned around, I don't care for games & such....like AT ALL... yet I still didn't find his book that Gawd awful..
> 
> But then again.. I am more of a Traditional older fashioned type lady..
> 
> I am still willing to read books by those I disagree with and accept the good I find (and yeah I can admit it -but I rarely see others do this).....and throw out the bad...
> 
> Slaughtering the author to pieces , throwing up his pictures , making fun of his wife...doesn't make me think very well of those who go there... much better to just concentrate on what he says.. and debate it rationally.. I just don't go for character assassination that stoops to THAT level...no matter who it is.


I had never heard of either these books prior to coming here. I am curious and probably should read both to make my own decision. Any recommendations on which to start with?


----------



## Constable Odo

optimalprimus said:


> never read his stuff. don't intend too. [...] Some of the ideas people post about exerting masculinity do ring true for me, but that's pretty basic biology really.


I've never read his books. I've seen (read) excerpts.

Generally from what I have seen sentence #2 rings true.

The human animal is an interesting species, and many of our behaviors are deeply-ingrained instinctive traits. 

Many women "know" how to use their "curves" to catch the eye of a man they are interested in, and likewise, many men know how to project their masculinity in order to attract women. 

Some of us do not even do it consciously, it is just the way we are. For example, my SO mentioned to me, after our first date, that I was clearly a "man used to getting my way", how I interact/project my personality onto others. 

This same type of personality is present in police officers and other authority figures, which is why women are drawn to men in those professions (as a Constable, hence my moniker, my SO was just drawn to the fact that I have handcuffs... plus she was a huge STDS9 fan as a teenager ). Women, at an instinctive level, want a man who is going to stand up for them and protect them.... this was something very important, perhaps not in today's world, but historically from caveman days until the recent modern world.

Hence their "$#!+ tests", to "test for firmness", which I joke about from time to time. (I built a 2nd shelf for more beanies )

Feminists despise me, because I refuse to conform to their modern-day ideals. Nature evolved men and women different for a reason. Women should not be firefighters simply because they do not (generally) have the upper-body strength necessary to do the job. That's just reality. Instead, we try to poo-poo it away with politically-correct nonsense and multiple "standards" to qualify (if a woman is built like Arnold and can bench 300 lbs, then fine, let her be a firefighter.) Rather than fight these differences, embrace them. Celebrate the differences.

From what I have read, most of AK's materials seems to focus on these instinctive differences between men and women, teach men what women are looking for at that instinct, fundamental level, and how to shape their behavior to appeal to it.

Now, of course, if men use that information to manipulate women (sort of how red-pill guys will use that methodology to appeal to women in order to bed them), I would not necessarily agree with doing so... but I see nothing wrong with a man learning how to make himself appear more attractive, at an instinctive level, to a woman he is pairbonded to.


----------



## lifeistooshort

WandaJ said:


> oh the guy who fantasizes about twenty years old girls as the best dating material?and advises to keep your old 40-ty yo wife in check by making sure she knows she can be replaced by 20 yo?
> 
> I guess that makes me feminist,because I refuse to die at my "old" age



Ha ha, the best thing about that is the way so many 40 something and older guys have convinced themselves a 20 year old has any real interest in him besides money. 

History is full of stuff like that; while it is true that men have looked at younger women only the rich and powerful ones could get one and that's only because he could buy one. She had no choice in it and had to be watched because she wanted men closer to her age. The broke grandpa down the street didn't get young women. 

Young woman marries old dude for money and keeps young lover on the side is a well known dynamic. And then of course he's a huge victim because although he's allowed to base his choice on nothing but sex appeal she must be above that and love him for him.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SimplyAmorous

This was a post on the link above...about taking his book "with a grain of salt"... I agree with what is said here by Mr Brown.... the book was never written for ALPHA men who women are crawling all over them, or who are naturally assertive / confident already...do they need any more of this.. Hell NO!!!

But married men who have fallen into the unhealthy Beta trap -where the woman is taking him for granted (Yep.. *ME* back in the day! He could have turned up the "heat" some/ gotten my attention!! ... but I never had my eyes on anyone else, just too much into the kids/ projects)... 



Mr_brown said:


> *Athol is just playing the odds... How many alpha personalities visit Athol's blog? Or have read the books? My guess is the percentage is very low. *
> 
> If you are completely beta and your wife decides to stray on you it will be with an alpha, it's what she is missing... And if a beta isn't getting what he wants/needs it's because he is letting her walk all over him. This all makes sense down to the natural selection of mates.
> 
> All I have to say is after employing the MAP I have benefited and my wife is happier. The proof is in the pudding!


----------



## Married but Happy

I haven't seen more than a few short segments and quotes from the book. I think he may get a lot of the evolutionary biology correct. I also think that he may underestimate the influence of culture to supersede biological compulsions. If women were as biologically driven as seems to be implied, there'd be a lot greater than 3% (roughly) false paternity. Apparently, cultural values play a big role than he credits. Still, it seems like there is a useful message to men who can understand and adjust the role that their own biology and behavior plays in attracting women - and maintaining that attraction.

It appears that there is some of both: misogyny, and useful message. Unfortunately, there are men who will embrace the misogyny and miss the message. That's a problem.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Wolf1974 said:


> *I had never heard of either these books prior to coming here. I am curious and probably should read both to make my own decision. Any recommendations on which to start with?*


I bought this one too.. Hold on to Your NUTs: The Relationship Manual for Men ...really what I was wanting to see in these books is IF they took temperaments into consideration....because my husband is naturally on the passive side being a* Phlegmatic *.... they are known for that....just as a *Choleric* temperament is KNOWN for being assertive (that's me.. these 2 are also known for attracting).... these things were NOT addressed in the books in any way that I found (never read them all the way through - just skimmed pretty much)
We went through the







traits together and we assessed him guilty or half guilty of some of these.. now he knows I want him to give it to me BOTH [email protected]#$ ...I will thank him for unleashing what is on his mind (and I have!)....

Taken from  No More Mr. Nice Guy! : Robert A. Glover: Books

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



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


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

Here is the "not-so nice" traits of Nice Guys ...



> Nice guys can be Dishonest, secretive, compartmentalized, manipulative, controlling, they give to get, passive aggressive, some are full of rage, additive, have difficulty setting boundaries, frequently isolated, often attracted to people & situations that need fixing, frequently have problems in intimate relationships, have issues with sexuality, usually only relatively successful .


 Good book! it will make many things clear to help a man 1st Win her *RESPECT* & this should lead to sexual attraction & keep that humming.


----------



## jld

I definitely agree that winning her respect, her trust, is key to establishing a healthy relationship with a woman.


----------



## Wolf1974

SimplyAmorous said:


> I bought this one too.. Hold on to Your NUTs: The Relationship Manual for Men ...really what I was wanting to see in these books is IF they took temperaments into consideration....because my husband is naturally on the passive side being a* Phlegmatic *.... they are known for that....just as a *Choleric* temperament is KNOWN for being assertive (that's me.. these 2 are also known for attracting).... these things were NOT addressed in the books in any way that I found (never read them all the way through - just skimmed pretty much)
> We went through the
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> traits together and we assessed him guilty or half guilty of some of these.. now he knows I want him to give it to me BOTH [email protected]#$ ...I will thank him for unleashing what is on his mind (and I have!)....
> 
> Taken from  No More Mr. Nice Guy! : Robert A. Glover: Books
> 
> Here is a list of NICE GUY Characteristics - Most guys have a few of these, but the headed for doormat status "NICE guys"- posses these in abundance . The book has more details to each little item ...
> 
> 
> 
> There is problems with each one of those -it's the *motivation* behind the doing is the issue. What is happening is -- These men have been conditioned to believe that if they are "NICE" they will be loved, get their needs met and have a smoother life.
> 
> Here is the "not-so nice" traits of Nice Guys ...
> 
> 
> 
> Good book! it will make many things clear to help a man 1st Win her *RESPECT* & this should lead to sexual attraction & keep that humming.


Thanks I will check this out. I know I was a doormat in my marriage and have completely done a 180 on what I was before. You're right many guys are taught this is how you love ....repress and give into everything to make your wife happy. It's a flawed philosophy but what I was taught none the less. I don't think it could help or fix me anymore but sounds like I could identify with a lot of it so I will check it out. Thank you for the explanation.


----------



## Constable Odo

Wolf1974 said:


> You're right many guys are taught this is how you love ....repress and give into everything to make your wife happy. It's a flawed philosophy but what I was taught none the less.


Yup. Modern-day feminism has worked hard to pussify the American male. 

The unfortunate downside is this plethora of beta-males also makes us weak in the eyes of others in the world today, and means we have dangerous times ahead of us.

A bare-chested Putin wrestling polar-bears, or a chicken-legged Obama in mom-jeans shooting "hoops"... which one personifies the Alpha Male needed to lead the world? Which one attracts women more?

We both know the real answer, even if they won't admit it.


----------



## jld

Constable Odo said:


> Yup. Modern-day feminism has worked hard to pussify the American male.
> 
> The unfortunate downside is this plethora of beta-males also makes us weak in the eyes of others in the world today, and means we have dangerous times ahead of us.
> 
> A bare-chested Putin wrestling polar-bears, or a chicken-legged Obama in mom-jeans shooting "hoops"... which one personifies the Alpha Male needed to lead the world? Which one attracts women more?
> 
> We both know the real answer, even if they won't admit it.


I am not attracted by Putin. I think he is a really scary guy.

I think Obama is very attractive. And he's not evil.

And feminism never tried to pussify men. It is trying to protect women and children. If men had always respected and valued women, there never would have been a feminist movement.


----------



## EllisRedding

SimplyAmorous said:


> Here is a list of NICE GUY Characteristics - Most guys have a few of these, but the headed for doormat status "NICE guys"- posses these in abundance . The book has more details to each little item ...
> 
> 
> There is problems with each one of those -it's the *motivation* behind the doing is the issue. What is happening is -- These men have been conditioned to believe that if they are "NICE" they will be loved, get their needs met and have a smoother life.
> 
> Here is the "not-so nice" traits of Nice Guys ...


Never seen a Nice Guy / Not So Nice guy list before. Always thought I was a "relatively" Nice Guy, but I guess happy to say I am not a nice guy since I don't carry many of those traits (the good and the bad). BRB, going to let my wife know she really married an a$shole :smthumbup:


----------



## happy as a clam

Constable Odo said:


> A bare-chested Putin wrestling polar-bears, or a chicken-legged Obama in mom-jeans shooting "hoops"... which one personifies the Alpha Male needed to lead the world? Which one attracts women more?
> 
> We both know the real answer, even if they won't admit it.


Point well made. :iagree:


----------



## EllisRedding

Constable Odo said:


> Yup. Modern-day feminism has worked hard to pussify the American male.
> 
> The unfortunate downside is this plethora of beta-males also makes us weak in the eyes of others in the world today, and means we have dangerous times ahead of us.
> 
> A bare-chested Putin wrestling polar-bears, or a chicken-legged Obama in mom-jeans shooting "hoops"... which one personifies the Alpha Male needed to lead the world? Which one attracts women more?
> 
> We both know the real answer, even if they won't admit it.


One interesting item, I was actually reading an article about the growing "beta males" in society (of which tbh I have called the pussification of males to my wife). The author believes that some of this is environmentally related. Studies were done to show that the test levels of men back in the 50s were dramatically higher than men of today (thought being high levels of estrogenic chemicals in the water, food sources, etc... were in part to blame). Also, men who were married had lower test levels than those single. When a guy held a baby his test levels would actually drop (theory being lower levels would lead him to be more of a protector/provider and not on the hunt). Also, test levels were shown to spike up when a married man got divorced. I am not claiming the validity of any of this (don't have the article in front of me but I know the author was quoting some medical references). I just find it more interesting how as a guy without really any control over, your body will naturally adapt to the environment/situation you may be in.


----------



## Pluto2

Constable Odo said:


> Yup. Modern-day feminism has worked hard to pussify the American male.
> 
> The unfortunate downside is this plethora of beta-males also makes us weak in the eyes of others in the world today, and means we have dangerous times ahead of us.
> 
> A bare-chested Putin wrestling polar-bears, or a chicken-legged Obama in mom-jeans shooting "hoops"... which one personifies the Alpha Male needed to lead the world? Which one attracts women more?
> 
> We both know the real answer, even if they won't admit it.


No.
And no.

You want to see Putin as a world leader go right ahead.

I see him as lawless sociopaths who abuses women, animals and his country. Nothing at all attractive there. He's a thug.

And please stop using such derogatory language.


----------



## Marduk

Fair warning: MMSLP helped me. A lot. 

But... I've talked to the guy. Quite a bit. 

He has a metric ton of biases. Including a conservative christian background, that while he doesn't think colors his situation, it does.

At the end of the day, I think a mentally healthy and non-angry guy can probably read MMSLP, weed out the obvious mysogeny, and take it for what it's worth. I will say that when I red it, and swallowed the 'red pill,' I got very angry at women for about a month. 

Because I had wrongly put the blame for the lie the red pill exposes on women, when the truth is it harms them as much or more than anyone. And the lie is that there is some kind of magical social contract that being nice and expecting others to somehow know what you want and give it to you is the real deal.

It just isn't. So standing up for what you want, being clear about it, having a life of your own, getting in shape, paying attention to your appearance, being confident, and expecting sex while married... all good things. If you're a passive aggressive nice guy husband who's wife isn't attracted to you, odds are this book will help you get laid.

The things that aren't so good is the agism that happens -- it's very magnified. And goes away day by day. Sure, maybe it used to be the case that it was typical for a 40 year old single guy to be dating 20 something women, but we see the opposite of that now every day.

And plenty of women that take care of themselves actually look hotter than their husbands that have let themselves go.

So there's all kinds of exercises in futility happening, and magnification of minor effects.

I think having outward appearances of confidence, success, intelligence, etc are all good things for a guy. And raising your T may be part of that equation.

Blaming not getting what you want from women because they've locked you into a lie is not a good thing.

And, after living the red pill lifestyle for a few years, it got me laid a lot but almost zero emotional intimacy. Because relationships aren't a zero sum game; I don't win by making my wife lose sex. I don't win power by making my wife lose it. 

What I want is to win by helping my wife win. And actually be able to be vulnerable and intimate with her, you know?


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> What I want is to win by helping my wife win. And actually be able to be vulnerable and intimate with her, you know?


I think this is really important. And it is where I think reading Gottman and Sue Johnson can be very helpful.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

EllisRedding said:


> One interesting item, I was actually reading an article about the growing "beta males" in society (of which tbh I have called the pussification of males to my wife). *The author believes that some of this is environmentally related. Studies were done to show that the test levels of men back in the 50s were dramatically higher than men of today (thought being high levels of estrogenic chemicals in the water, food sources, etc... were in part to blame). Also, men who were married had lower test levels than those single. When a guy held a baby his test levels would actually drop (theory being lower levels would lead him to be more of a protector/provider and not on the hunt). *Also, test levels were shown to spike up when a married man got divorced. I am not claiming the validity of any of this (don't have the article in front of me but I know the author was quoting some medical references). I just find it more interesting how as a guy without really any control over, your body will naturally adapt to the environment/situation you may be in.


I've read these things too.. not to mention the growing # of prescription drugs have an effect too.. medforum (diabetes) & statins for high cholesterol -these are known to lower testosterone levels...

If I had to compare, I would say my Husband is better with the kids over me... for instance.. more patience / calm... I am the Battle-ax in comparison...though I still say this comes down to temperaments.


----------



## Satya

I don't find Athol to be hateful toward women, but he doesn't have a problem being blunt. I read MMSLP as one of my first post-divorce books. Often I was disturbed by the language, but I lived among angry Brits for a while so no issues. I said to myself, "I can't argue with much of this, as much as I'd like to." 

In his blog and revisions of mmslp book (if I remember correctly) he has his wife add her own comments/responses to sections. A real anger-phase RP man wouldn't care to incorporate her views. Sometimes she agrees, sometimes disagrees but says it still lights her fire, etc and she attempts to explain why his behavior/actions works for her.

Not everyone will agree with the premise, execution, basis, or reasoning, but one can choose to not read it, not believe in it, and not support it if it's that unsavory. There are a good deal of men on reddit that would say RP has been the most rewarding and hardest lesson in self-improvement they've ever experienced.


----------



## Marduk

Satya said:


> I don't find Athol to be hateful toward women, but he doesn't have a problem being blunt. I read MMSLP as one of my first post-divorce books. Often I was disturbed by the language, but I lived among angry Brits for a while so no issues. I said to myself, "I can't argue with much of this, as much as I'd like to."
> 
> In his blog and revisions of mmslp book (if I remember correctly) he has his wife add her own comments/responses to sections. A real anger-phase RP man wouldn't care to incorporate her views. Sometimes she agrees, sometimes disagrees but says it still lights her fire, etc and she attempts to explain why his behavior/actions works for her.
> 
> Not everyone will agree with the premise, execution, basis, or reasoning, but one can choose to not read it, not believe in it, and not support it if it's that unsavory. There are a good deal of men on reddit that would say RP has been the most rewarding and hardest lesson in self-improvement they've ever experienced.


I find it fascinating that he himself has dumped the red pill and his target audience of helping husbands that can't get laid to helping women mostly... after finding it a more lucrative market.

Telling, that.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> I think this is really important. And it is where I think reading Gottman and Sue Johnson can be very helpful.


Esther Perel too.


----------



## Tubbalard

Constable Odo said:


> A bare-chested Putin wrestling polar-bears, or a chicken-legged Obama in mom-jeans shooting "hoops"... which one personifies the Alpha Male needed to lead the world? Which one attracts women more?
> 
> We both know the real answer, even if they won't admit it.


Sorry Bro, most women are choosing obama. The smooth pretty boy type of guy usually gets all the girls. No amount of polar bear wrestling is going to change the hunch back looks of putin. Displays of masculinity can only take you so far. But I understand your overall point
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SamuraiJack

I am about halfway through MMSLP and I have to say that there have been a 'few things' that have made me shake my head.

What I see is very rough mixing of evolutionary biology and current social practices and how they effect certain people.

I think it would be easy to misinterpret this if a person was not "as well read" as others. 
I have stayed away from the forums because of that rabidity that some seem to have there. 

I support Deejo's reference to Mark Man. He seems to have a simpler way of saying it and I find it resonates with me.

To me the bottom line is talk. 
As both sexes get more clear about things, we need to talk more and figure out where we all are in the world. Just a few generations ago, things were VERY different and I see men AND women struggling to find their place in the world every day.

Like any relationship, doing nothing and not saying anything gets us nowhere


----------



## Marduk

Bugged said:


> 'pussify' as in, weak maybe? doormat or what?? negative connotation anyway, like everything related to women..isn't it too obvious? while a woman with balls has a positive connotation...
> 
> language is the mirror of society, the last thing we needed was Athol Kay and all of his BS...


I actually believe that feminism is good. Real feminism.

Was raised by a feminist.

Where some of the more radical feminists take it too far is the assumption that reducing men's power, status, or agency somehow improves women.

Which it doesnt, and isn't equality.

But, just like with the red pill you can't throw it all out because of some freaks that take it too far.

But it can help facilitate -- and I think it has helped facilitate -- the current passive-aggressive stance of many married men. Because standing up for themselves is somehow putting down their women.

Which, of course, when done in a loving and truly feminist way, isn't. Me being attractive doesn't make my wife less attractive. It actually seems to make her more happy. And powerful, herself, you know?


----------



## SamuraiJack

marduk said:


> I actually believe that feminism is good. Real feminism.
> 
> Was raised by a feminist.
> 
> Where some of the more radical feminists take it too far is the assumption that reducing men's power, status, or agency somehow improves women.
> 
> Which it doesnt, and isn't equality.
> 
> But, just like with the red pill you can't throw it all out because of some freaks that take it too far.
> 
> But it can help facilitate -- and I think it has helped facilitate -- the current passive-aggressive stance of many married men. Because standing up for themselves is somehow putting down their women.
> 
> Which, of course, when done in a loving and truly feminist way, isn't. Me being attractive doesn't make my wife less attractive. *It actually seems to make her more happy. And powerful, herself, you know*?


My ancestors (Celts) had their women fight right alongside the men. They were true equals...and shocked the HELL out of invaders. In my house we dont usually use the words masculine and feminine, but rather careing or firm.
...and I never worry about my daughters dating.
Never. 

Poor, poor, Boys.
:rofl:


----------



## NobodySpecial

Constable Odo said:


> Yup. Modern-day feminism has worked hard to pussify the American male.
> 
> The unfortunate downside is this plethora of beta-males also makes us weak in the eyes of others in the world today, and means we have dangerous times ahead of us.
> 
> A bare-chested Putin wrestling polar-bears, or a chicken-legged Obama in mom-jeans shooting "hoops"... which one personifies the Alpha Male needed to lead the world? Which one attracts women more?
> 
> We both know the real answer, even if they won't admit it.


I think Obama is hot.


----------



## tech-novelist

I have read several of his books and find him far from misogynistic. His advice can be very helpful to those men who are trying to "nice" their wives into wanting to have sex with them. Is his style blunt? Yes. Does he generally give good advice? I think so, including his explanation of what "I'm bored" and "ILYBINILWY" mean and what to do about these statements, which I'm pretty sure many people here would agree with.


----------



## SamuraiJack

NobodySpecial said:


> I think Obama is hot.


Soooooo....Mickey Mouse and Dumbo turn you on as well?


----------



## Marduk

technovelist said:


> his explanation of what "I'm bored" and "ILYBINILWY" mean and what to do about these statements, which I'm pretty sure many people here would agree with.


I agree with that.

What hit me between the eyes was MMSLP basically saying "well, why _would_ your wife want to have sex with you? Would _you_ want a guy that acted like you do?"


----------



## NobodySpecial

Wolf1974 said:


> Thanks I will check this out. I know I was a doormat in my marriage and have completely done a 180 on what I was before. You're right many guys are taught this is how you love ....repress and give into everything to make your wife happy.


Help me out here. WHO teaches boys this? And how does this Mom NOT teach her son this? That is not what he sees day in and day out in his home. Is that enough?


----------



## NobodySpecial

SamuraiJack said:


> Soooooo....Mickey Mouse and Dumbo turn you on as well?


I had to think about this. Good looking SMART men turn me on. Dumb is just unattractive.


----------



## Marduk

NobodySpecial said:


> Help me out here. WHO teaches boys this? And how does this Mom NOT teach her son this? That is not what he sees day in and day out in his home. Is that enough?


"Happy wife, happy life."

"If momma ain't happy, ain't nobody happy."

Etc.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SimplyAmorous

NobodySpecial said:


> Help me out here. WHO teaches boys this? And how does this Mom NOT teach her son this? That is not what he sees day in and day out in his home. Is that enough?


I think if you are a genuinely good hearted person, you are more prone to falling into this.. my Husband for example.. is like this.. He doesn't like to hurt anyone, he doesn't want to be a burden.. he likes to be a help.. that pleases him.. so much of this is his temperament though.. his Mom & dad were BOTH very kind hearted people.. I didn't see his dad as a doormat in any way.. although he let his Mom get what she wanted -in ways, if I was the husband , I would have put my foot down (she was a hoarder).. instead, he just didn't stay home much, had his own social life with his guy friends a # of nights during the week... so they were not all that close.. but stayed together for the family..

Husband & I talked about this once...he admitted if we didn't get along well.... too much fighting, etc.. he'd probably do the same...just back away and do his own thing.


----------



## EllisRedding

SimplyAmorous said:


> Husband & I talked about this once...he admitted if we didn't get along well.... too much fighting, etc.. he'd probably do the same...just back away and do his own thing..and we wouldn't be as close..


I think it in part comes down to the personality. I am the same way as your husband admitted. Part of that is b/c in general I am very independent and can happily exist on my own, so if things aren't going well my first reaction is just to back off and do my own thing. At times it is productive and at times it is not


----------



## Lila

NobodySpecial said:


> Help me out here. WHO teaches boys this? And how does this Mom NOT teach her son this? That is not what he sees day in and day out in his home. Is that enough?


In my experience, having a strong male role model makes a world of difference in the life of a boy. I see this with my son and his friends. 

My husband is the disciplinarian in the family and does 50% of the childrearing. My son's best friend has a hands off dad - his wife is responsible for 100% of the parenting. I can tell you this child will have problems in his relationship with women in the future. Lots of passive aggressiveness, and zero control over his emotions and behaviors.


----------



## Deejo

I love feminisms.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

EllisRedding said:


> I think it in part comes down to the personality. I am the same way as your husband admitted. Part of that is b/c in general I am very independent and can happily exist on my own, so if things aren't going well my first reaction is just to back off and do my own thing. At times it is productive and at times it is not


I love spending time with him and I treat him very well... of course he loves to be appreciated LIKE THAT.. if not. it would bother ME.. we fight now & then ..but it's rare.. and it's using pretty funny too.. which just shows how silly our fights are.. He accuses me of fighting for the make up sex.

I would not be happy if I was in a marriage like his parents. but I also feel SHE contributed to that divide very nicely.. it wasn't all dad's fault.. I loved his father. and had to tie my mouth shut when she wanted to trash talk him about burning her JUNK.. the way she kept that house was a fire hazard.. I don't see any excuse for that at all.


----------



## NobodySpecial

marduk said:


> "Happy wife, happy life."
> 
> "If momma ain't happy, ain't nobody happy."
> 
> Etc.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I don't know what that means. Where do these messages come FROM?


----------



## naiveonedave

jld said:


> And feminism never tried to pussify men. It is trying to protect women and children.


It may not have tried to, but it certainly did. Hence the need for these so called self help books.


----------



## Catherine602

NotLikeYou said:


> First of all, you should stay away from the Ladies Lounge. You will get e-cooties and e-strogen poisoning if you hang out in there with all those stinky girls.
> 
> Second of all, if you let feminists tell you what is "hateful towards women," you are probably suffering from e-cooties and e-strogen poisoning. Go eat a steak, quick.
> 
> Third of all, it seems like real, manly-man misogynists would be so terrible that they wouldn't, uh, be married. Because they would, you know, hate wimmen so bad that they couldn't actually have a long term relationship with one.
> 
> Fourth of all, I believe AK is making most of his money from counseling sessions over the phone, nowadays. I thought I read somewhere that more than half of that was counseling women on how to help their men "man up."
> 
> Ima have to vote "no."
> 
> I can certainly see where some people might say that MMSLP is bullcrap, while secretly wishing their husbands would start passing their sh1t tests, though





Tubbalard said:


> Misogynistic no? Admittedly, I never read his material, but have seen his books paraded by men and women on this site. His material is mostly geared toward the nice guy or the geek type that had trouble getting women in highschool or got duped into marriage and divorce and was railroaded by the system. Kind of like money ball GM's; geeks that want to take over sports and infiltrate it with loads of analytics and number evalutions without taking into account the human element. As Sir Charles eloquently stated "Guys that want to get in the game because they didn't have the ability when they were younger."
> 
> Misogynistic? hardly. Women that are usually upset at his material aren't your more traditional type of women. It's usually women that most likely had a wild past, or educated intellectual types, that are bent on changing the male female dynamic. These women like the nerds in highschool were probably somewhat an outcast when they were younger and don't fit the modern day type of how women think. Any book that that gives rankings or assigns numbers are seen as Misogynistic to these type of women.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


If this is what you get out of his message then yes. It's not misogynistic though, it is much worse, it's divisive. One side of the coin can't battle the other. 

The biggest problem with this stuff is that it does not work. It would work if he could convince women that they are numbers and pawns to be gamed into submission. He is preaching to the wrong choir. 

It's sad because he seems to attract followers. If he could get his message in line with reality, he could help. From what i have observed, nothing in human relationships is easy or simple. 

Basically, men and women don't understand each other. There are few voices that speak to the need to study and accept our differences as natural and welcomed. The difficult work should be directed towards moving together not pulling apart and taking ams to face each other.


----------



## naiveonedave

NobodySpecial said:


> Help me out here. WHO teaches boys this? And how does this Mom NOT teach her son this? That is not what he sees day in and day out in his home. Is that enough?


The problem is too many boys have very limited male figures in their lives, especially outside of their father, if one is around (which is not a given). Teachers are almost totally female (esp in K-8). Boys are ingrained to not act up, not be noisy, etc. (Not be boys, but girls). Many of the adult males in Western society have been taught to be wimps, pleasers, etc. Mainly due to these types of things.

I don't think women can do a good job teaching boys to be men, as a generalization.


----------



## EllisRedding

SimplyAmorous said:


> I love spending time with him and I treat him very well... of course he loves to be appreciated LIKE THAT.. if not. it would bother ME.. we fight now & then ..but it's rare.. and it's using pretty funny too.. which just shows how silly our fights are.. He accuses me of fighting for the make up sex.
> 
> I would not be happy if I was in a marriage like his parents. but I also feel SHE contributed to that divide very nicely.. it wasn't all dad's fault.. I loved his father. and had to tie my mouth shut when she wanted to trash talk him about burning her JUNK.. the way she kept that house was a fire hazard.. I don't see any excuse for that at all.


Funny enough you sound a lot like my wife and I :smthumbup: My wife and I are just the hotter younger version of you and your husband (nothing to back that except this is the internet, do you have any proof otherwise  j/k)

Now I think if my wife and I look at both our parents' marriage we want nothing to do with it. My parents actually got divorced, remarried, and then divorced again. I for one actually wanted them to get divorced, there was nothing pleasant growing up being in that house. I am not saying that my Mom was only to blame, but I did not like how she spoke/yelled at my Dad, and that in part has shaped who I am. I simply refuse to allow anyone to speak to me that way, and that is a big reason why my wife and I never really butt heads as she is not that type of person (and if at any point I ever got hint that she was like it would have never got off the ground). I also saw how my sister just further added to the divide with my parents, so that is another thing I am committed to, whatever needs to be decided for our children my wife and I will decide together and not be pit against.

If I look at my wife's parents, talk about a fu$in miserable marriage. My Mother in Law beats down my father in law, and has zero issue doing it in front of everyone. My wife as well hates this, so it is another thing we have in common.

Sometimes you can take on the traits of your parents (for better or worse) and sometimes you take those traits as motivation to not be that person.


----------



## SamuraiJack

NobodySpecial said:


> I don't know what that means. Where do these messages come FROM?


From the signs on your kitchen wall, the bumperstickers, and the gaggles of women boasting how their husband does everything for them.

Many women dont even realize that they are being "niced". They just expect it. Most nice guys wont complain so what your child see's is that subserviant nice guy behavior is rewarded.


----------



## naiveonedave

Catherine602 said:


> If this is what you get out of his message then yes. It's not misogynistic though, it is much worse, it's divisive. One side of the coin can't battle the other.
> 
> The biggest problem with this stuff is that it does not work. It would work if he could convince women that they are numbers and pawns to be gamed into submission. He is preaching to the wrong choir.
> 
> It's sad because he seems to attract followers. If he could get his message in line with reality, he could help. From what i have observed, nothing in human relationships is easy or simple.
> 
> Basically, men and women don't understand each other. There are few voices that speak to the need to study and accept our differences as natural and welcomed. The difficult work should be directed towards moving together not pulling apart and taking ams to face each other.


I think you are so off base, I had to comment. He is not about 'game'. He is about turning weak boy/men into adult men. His stuff is not easy and it is not about manipulation. It is about what it takes to be a man. I don't think you got anywhere close to his message, because it wasn't written for a woman to understand. And you would probably tell your hubby he isn't getting any tonight because he didn't do the dishes (which has been proven not to work, btw).


----------



## NobodySpecial

naiveonedave said:


> The problem is too many boys have very limited male figures in their lives, especially outside of their father, if one is around (which is not a given). Teachers are almost totally female (esp in K-8). Boys are ingrained to not act up, not be noisy, etc. (Not be boys, but girls). Many of the adult males in Western society have been taught to be wimps, pleasers, etc. Mainly due to these types of things.
> 
> I don't think women can do a good job teaching boys to be men, as a generalization.


Ok, help me out here. I am not trying to pick a fight. What is it about being a man needs to be taught? I have never heard of teaching someone how to BE. Just what to DO.


----------



## naiveonedave

NobodySpecial said:


> Ok, help me out here. I am not trying to pick a fight. What is it about being a man needs to be taught? I have never heard of teaching someone how to BE. Just what to DO.


the problem is all of the imagery they get tells boys the wrong stuff. Watch how typical male figures on popular TV act and get treated. Boys mimic this behavior because they think that is the way to be. Most women would not respect most of the male characters on TV, because they are not real men.

I think what do and who to be are very related for men.

Boys need to be taught about not being a doormat. Not to idolize their gf and spouses. (don't get me started on the current practices of what a boy must do to get a prom date, talk about building a pedestal.)


----------



## naiveonedave

Bugged said:


> Athol's 'core' point is that women are submissive, that they want their husband to lead them, that Women are turned on by dominant men(yes, some women maybe are, some like myself, are not)...that they want to 'follow someone else's leadership and general direction'... he makes tons of statements like these...are these thoughts empowering to you? What would your mother say?
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> however, what you say is probably not your total reality. You probably don't even realize it...
> 
> Most of the over the top feminists have very strong husbands


----------



## Marduk

NobodySpecial said:


> I don't know what that means. Where do these messages come FROM?


Oh, I don't know.

Only pretty much every LTR partner, my mother, my friends mothers, my partner's mothers...

And pretty much every family sitcom I saw growing up.


----------



## Wolf1974

NobodySpecial said:


> Help me out here. WHO teaches boys this? And how does this Mom NOT teach her son this? That is not what he sees day in and day out in his home. Is that enough?


Don't know about "boys". In my house it was the dynamic I saw.

My mother was a feminist and well educated. Through her whole career made more than double what my father made. Was the head nurse of the largest nursing home in our community my entire life. But she was never an extremist and valued my father as a man. Gender roles were a mash up. My mother made more money but my father ALWAYS paid the bills. My father also always grocery shopped and did 90% of the cooking. My mother spent her entire sunday, every Sunday cleaning and doing laundry.

My mother to this day will not put gas in her own car or get the oil changed lol.

The dynamic I learned about relationships was from them both. My father stepped way back so my mom could follow her dreams and live where they want and she could work as she wished. But that dynamic worked because she respects the hell out of him and never made him feel weak for stepping aside and letting her go as she felt she needed.

My dads philosophy that he shared about me on my wedding day was that to be a good husband you need to be strong and listen, follow through on all things. treat your wife a queen and she will love you and respect you. It was something to that effect though not word for word. From his perspective women were like my mom, strong but if you love them and support them in all things they will give back to you 10 fold. Women, like my x and that I have met are not like my mother though so that didn't exactly work well for me. But I don't blame him that was what he knows. They are celebrating 50 years next year.


----------



## NobodySpecial

marduk said:


> Oh, I don't know.
> 
> Only pretty much every LTR partner, my mother, my friends mothers, my partner's mothers...
> 
> And pretty much every family sitcom I saw growing up.


AFAIC every single parent on the earth should turn off the tv. Who in their right mind let's their kids watch sit coms?

I guess I am lucky that I did not grow up in a family like that. I have a "friend" whose family is like that. Thankfully they did not have any boys. But the husbands? Whew!


----------



## Constable Odo

naiveonedave said:


> Bugged said:
> 
> 
> 
> Athol's 'core' point is that women are submissive, that they want their husband to lead them, that Women are turned on by dominant men(yes, some women maybe are, some like myself, are not)
> 
> 
> 
> however, what you say is probably not your total reality. You probably don't even realize it...
Click to expand...

Exactly.

There is a difference between being "confident", and being "controlling".

Women instinctively want the former. An educated woman knows how to differentiate between the two.

Unfortunately, many fall in with the latter, because these two personality traits are difficult to distinguish between.

Confident men project power, and by the strength of his conviction makes a woman wants to follow him. 

A controlling man uses the power of persuasion, guilt-tripping, etc. to emotionally manipulate a woman into doing the same.


----------



## Buddy400

NobodySpecial said:


> Help me out here. WHO teaches boys this? And how does this Mom NOT teach her son this? That is not what he sees day in and day out in his home. Is that enough?


I see the "Who teaches boys this" question from women all the time. On the other hand, I see women's needs being catered to (and men's needs be ignored or ridiculed) everywhere I look in popular culture. 

It took me a long time to realize what most women want in a man (and I certainly didn't learn this by watching TV). I discovered that women were attracted to whatever they were attracted to (not what I felt they should be attracted to). Sometimes I didn't like what I learned. Then I sorted out what I was willing to do that was genuine from what I wasn't willing to do and seemed fake. 

Smoother sailing from then on.


----------



## norajane

naiveonedave said:


> however, what you say is probably not your total reality. * You probably don't even realize it...*


I never realized how many men believe that women don't know themselves and that men need to tell us what we really think before coming to TAM.

I guess it makes Athol and others feel better about themselves if they think they've learned some secret about women and that they now know women better than the women themselves do. It sells his books, for sure!


----------



## Marduk

Catherine602 said:


> The biggest problem with this stuff is that it does not work. It would work if he could convince women that they are numbers and pawns to be gamed into submission. He is preaching to the wrong choir.
> 
> It's sad because he seems to attract followers. If he could get his message in line with reality, he could help. From what i have observed, nothing in human relationships is easy or simple.


It all depends on how you define "work."

6 months into swallowing the red pill and in one week I had a very hot significantly younger woman openly proposition me for sex in the gym, and didn't care that I was married. I wasn't interacting with her at all.

A few days later I was at the bank and something similar happened with two tellers, who pulled me into a back room to talk about my account... which then proceeded to flirt city and how their boyfriends weren't romantic any more.

All while my wife was initiating almost every day.

So... to many undersexed guys, that looks a lot like "working."

To me, it actually became uncomfortable and awkward and I backed off on the whole thing.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Wolf1974 said:


> Don't know about "boys". In my house it was the dynamic I saw.
> 
> My mother was a feminist and well educated. Through her whole career made more than double what my father made. Was the head nurse of the largest nursing home in our community my entire life. But she was never an extremist and valued my father as a man. Gender roles were a mash up. My mother made more money but my father ALWAYS paid the bills. My father also always grocery shopped and did 90% of the cooking. My mother spent her entire sunday, every Sunday cleaning and doing laundry.
> 
> My mother to this day will not put gas in her own car or get the oil changed lol.
> 
> The dynamic I learned about relationships was from them both. My father stepped way back so my mom could follow her dreams and live where they want and she could work as she wished. * But that dynamic worked because she respects the hell out of him and never made him feel weak for stepping aside and letting her go as she felt she needed.*
> 
> *My dads philosophy that he shared about me on my wedding day was that to be a good husband you need to be strong and listen, follow through on all things. treat your wife a queen and she will love you and respect you. It was something to that effect though not word for word. From his perspective women were like my mom, strong but if you love them and support them in all things they will give back to you 10 fold.* Women, like my x and that I have met are not like my mother though so that didn't exactly work well for me. But I don't blame him that was what he knows. They are celebrating 50 years next year.


Outside of NOT being a career woman, well I wouldn't call myself a feminist so much either.. I sound a lot like your Mother. and My Husband has the same philosophy as your father...and I dearly LOVE this about him..

From all I have learned on this forum.. I am careful to teach our sons that women are NOT all the same..to weed out those who seek bad boys for one... and to not "bow" to their every whim....but stand up for themselves.. this garners RESPECT.. just do it in a loving way is all.


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> "Happy wife, happy life."
> 
> "If momma ain't happy, ain't nobody happy."
> 
> Etc.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Well, I think those are true.


----------



## Marduk

NobodySpecial said:


> AFAIC every single parent on the earth should turn off the tv. Who in their right mind let's their kids watch sit coms?
> 
> I guess I am lucky that I did not grow up in a family like that. I have a "friend" whose family is like that. Thankfully they did not have any boys. But the husbands? Whew!


My point is twofold, NS.

Not only are alot of boys taught that, but a lot of girls are taught to want that.

And then these girls wake up in marriages that are boring and with little attraction, and they get frustrated, too...

And then they try to figure out why.

Maybe that leads them to encouraging their men to be stronger, more confident, etc... or maybe it leads them to think "well, if he helped with the laundry more, I'd be more turned on by him." Or the dishes. Or a new ring. Or whatever...

It's confusing for everyone all round when we try to fit our sexuality into some socially normalized post-rockwellian view of americana. And it just doesn't get everyone off long term.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Buddy400 said:


> I see the "Who teaches boys this" question from women all the time. On the other hand, I see women's needs being catered to (and men's needs be ignored or ridiculed) everywhere I look in popular culture.


Bear in mind that the question coming from ME is coming from a person who has intentionally chosen not to participate in a LOT of popular culture. 

But thinking to the shows I DO watch, I do not see doormat men. Mc Dreamy? M Steamy? Commander Adama? Jaime Lanister? Not that these are high class shows by any stretch, but if you get your "messages" from watching Family Guy or Rosanne... Could not that maybe be the problem?


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> Well, I think those are true.


Only because of the way your husband makes you happy


----------



## jld

NobodySpecial said:


> I think Obama is hot.


I do, too. Smart, tall, slim, kind, genuinely respectful. A great guy.

Putin is repugnant.


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> Only because of the way your husband makes you happy


They are true within the context of my marriage. I am not married to a Nice Guy. I am married to a nice guy, though.


----------



## samyeagar

marduk said:


> *It all depends on how you define "work."*
> 
> 6 months into swallowing the red pill and in one week I had a very hot significantly younger woman openly proposition me for sex in the gym, and didn't care that I was married. I wasn't interacting with her at all.
> 
> A few days later I was at the bank and something similar happened with two tellers, who pulled me into a back room to talk about my account... which then proceeded to flirt city and how their boyfriends weren't romantic any more.
> 
> All while my wife was initiating almost every day.
> 
> So... to many undersexed guys, that looks a lot like "working."
> 
> To me, it actually became uncomfortable and awkward and I backed off on the whole thing.


If the goal is to get a woman, any woman, to have sex with you, a lot of the advice is pretty damned good. Granted, it's based on exploiting common vulnerabilities, so the motivation and tactics are despicable, but if the only concern is the ends, it works.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

NobodySpecial said:


> *I don't know what that means. Where do these messages come FROM?*


Here is a write up about it.. If Momma Ain’t Happy, Ain’t Nobody Happy | Dr. Marlo Archer I also feel if Dad isn't happy.. Momma won't be happy either... I need the connecting harmony.. I am very sensitive to it.. 



EllisRedding said:


> *Sometimes you can take on the traits of your parents (for better or worse) and sometimes you take those traits as motivation to not be that person.*


I completely understand this. I always say I learned from my mothers' mistakes what *NOT* to do.. she made about every wrong relationship choice one possibly could in my opinion & her life showed tremendous dysfunction because of it. 

But still...I had some inspiring examples growing up-that I looked up to, that gave me HOPE -in love, in marriage.... my Grandparents marriage...and also from my Dad & Step Mom.. 

..even though I near hated her when I lived with them in my teens.. we very much respect each other & get along well today /for the last 25 + yrs.... I thank god for her ...they are one of those inseparable couples that.. I think when one dies.. the other will probably keel over a week later from a broken heart...


----------



## Marduk

Bugged said:


> Athol's 'core' point is that women are submissive, that they want their husband to lead them, that Women are turned on by dominant men(yes, some women maybe are, some like myself, are not)...that they want to 'follow someone else's leadership and general direction'... he makes tons of statements like these...are these thoughts empowering to you? What would your mother say?
> 
> 
> 
> yes but..did you need Kay to tell you that...:scratchhead::scratchhead:


I'm not proud of that, but yes I did.

See in my 'blue pill' thinking, I had already done the work. I found a wife, bought her a shiny thing, a house, had kids... I had a right to her sexually, you know?

She should just somehow want me forever, right? If I just kept on trying to make her happy with stuff and service?

Wrong, of course.


----------



## Marduk

NobodySpecial said:


> Bear in mind that the question coming from ME is coming from a person who has intentionally chosen not to participate in a LOT of popular culture.
> 
> But thinking to the shows I DO watch, I do not see doormat men. Mc Dreamy? M Steamy? Commander Adama? Jaime Lanister? Not that these are high class shows by any stretch, but if you get your "messages" from watching Family Guy or Rosanne... Could not that maybe be the problem?


Commander Adama for the win!

Both of them!


----------



## Marduk

samyeagar said:


> If the goal is to get a woman, any woman, to have sex with you, a lot of the advice is pretty damned good. Granted, it's based on exploiting common vulnerabilities, so the motivation and tactics are despicable, but if the only concern is the ends, it works.


Exactly.

Some of it isn't exploitative, though. For me it was just bringing my single life back into my marriage more than anything, and trying to date my wife.

That's not exploitative.


----------



## Wolf1974

SimplyAmorous said:


> Outside of NOT being a career woman, well I wouldn't call myself a feminist so much either.. I sound a lot like your Mother. and My Husband has the same philosophy as your father...and I dearly LOVE this about him..
> 
> *From all I have learned on this forum.. I am careful to teach our sons that women are NOT all the same..to weed out those who seek bad boys for one... and to not "bow" to their every whim....but stand up for themselves.. this garners RESPECT.. just do it in a loving way is all.*




YES! They have got to be careful and make good decisions or they end up divorced and only seeing their kids 1/2 time

Also add to that mix to not get involved with women who have extreme daddy issues or hate men. They are generally one in the same but relationships with those types never end well. I'm sure they will listen to you. Wish that message had been told to me but I can't blame my parents for what they didn't know. My mother thought it was a great thing I was forgiving and moving past my x wives past and was certain she would love me for the kindness I showed her lol. How could she know.


----------



## Lila

Constable Odo said:


> There is a difference between being "confident", and being "controlling".
> 
> Women instinctively want the former. An educated woman knows how to differentiate between the two.
> 
> Unfortunately, many fall in with the latter, because these two personality traits are difficult to distinguish between.
> 
> Confident men project power, *and by the strength of his conviction makes a woman wants to follow him*.
> 
> A controlling man uses the power of persuasion, guilt-tripping, etc. to emotionally manipulate a woman into doing the same.


I agree with everything....except the bolded part.  Personally, I have no desire to follow any man. I do however want to be with a man who is confident enough to _share_ his life with me and vice versa. It's cliche but don't lead, don't follow, just walk next to me.


----------



## Dogbert

EleGirl brought a good point when she said that when a female newbie arrives at TAM, none of the female TAM members highly recommend her to buy and read a female version of Athol Kay and his book. If that were to change, I can almost hear the howls of protests from us guys that the TAM women were promoting misandrist feminism. C'mon guys, you know it's true.

ETA: "highly recommend" instead of "push"


----------



## EllisRedding

NobodySpecial said:


> Jaime Lanister?


Didn't he get his sister knocked up?????


----------



## Wolf1974

Dogbert said:


> EleGirl brought a good point when she said that when a female newbie arrives at TAM, none of the female TAM members push her to buy and read a female version of Athol Kay and his book. If that were to change, I can almost hear the howls of protests from us guys that the TAM women were promoting misandrist feminism. C'mon guys, you know it's true.


I have been reading for 3 years actively posting for one. I never felt pressure to read anything other than the forum rules myself


----------



## batsociety

I never finished this book, I couldn't. I read about half seriously and then skimmed/read over certain parts after that. So maybe I missed something profound, but I really don't think so. I thought it was gross and yes, misogynistic. Any book written by a man about what women supposedly want, or how they apparently function, is going to be at least slightly problematic.

Problematic like... hm, men maybe dismissing women when they say they believe something is misogynistic rather than reevaluating their point of view? Fairly typical oppressive behavior.


----------



## Constable Odo

Dogbert said:


> EleGirl brought a good point when she said that when a female newbie arrives at TAM, none of the female TAM members push her to buy and read a female version of Athol Kay and his book. If that were to change, I can almost hear the howls of protests from us guys that the TAM women were promoting misandrist feminism. C'mon guys, you know it's true.


Women don't need a female version of Althol Kay.

They have Oprah, Ellen, "The View" and dozens of other televisions shows spoon-feeding them mindless drivel.


----------



## Dogbert

Wolf1974 said:


> I have been reading for 3 years actively posting for one. I never felt pressure to read anything other than the forum rules myself


Sorry, poor choice of word on my part. I should have said "highly recommend".


----------



## Dogbert

Constable Odo said:


> Women don't need a female version of Althol Kay.
> 
> They have Oprah, Ellen, "The View" and dozens of other televisions shows spoon-feeding them mindless drivel.


But how many of the established female TAM members, "highly recommend" to newbie female TAM members a reading list of misandrist female authors? Name me one.


----------



## Wolf1974

Dogbert said:


> Sorry, poor choice of word on my part. I should have said "highly recommend".


Fair enough. Especially in the CWI section


----------



## SamuraiJack

EllisRedding said:


> Didn't he get his sister knocked up?????


3 times...


----------



## SamuraiJack

batsociety said:


> I never finished this book, I couldn't. I read about half seriously and then skimmed/read over certain parts after that. So maybe I missed something profound, but I really don't think so. I thought it was gross and yes, misogynistic. Any book written by a man about what women supposedly want, or how they apparently function, is going to be at least slightly problematic.
> 
> Problematic like... hm, men maybe dismissing women when they say they believe something is misogynistic rather than reevaluating their point of view? Fairly typical oppressive behavior.












Try to keep it light folks...


----------



## Marduk

Dogbert said:


> But how many of the established female TAM members, "highly recommend" to newbie female TAM members a reading list of misandrist female authors? Name me one.


I can think of several off the top of my head. 

But it's pointless to give them more air time than they already get, and go down another never ending flame war of "who's sexism is worse" when in fact both hurts everyone.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Constable Odo

Dogbert said:


> But how many of the established female TAM members, "highly recommend" to newbie female TAM members a reading list of misandrist female authors? Name me one.


It is axiomatic. They don't need to be told, any more then they need to be told to breathe.

Men on the other hand are constantly being conditioned, from the earliest points when they start to take a notice in the opposite sex, that women really want a "nice guy". They then think they can "nice" themselves into a woman desiring them.

Any male who survived high school has experienced this first hand. They likely can't keep track of the number of hot cheerleaders in high school who would gravitate towards the alpha-male jocks, leaving all the beta-male wussies in their wake.

(Naturally, there are always statistical outliers to these naturally-occurring events, but observational evidence illustrates they are 4 to 5 standard deviations outside the norm.)


----------



## Tubbalard

Dogbert said:


> But how many of the established female TAM members, "highly recommend" to newbie female TAM members a reading list of misandrist female authors? Name me one.



None. But there's no market for it. Women don't need intellectual conferences on how to snag a man. Men are natural hunters, so the market is there for hunting a deer or catching a fish. Women instinctively know how to get a man. It's either their cooking and cleaning abilities are top notch, body and face on point, or have intellectual and sexual attraction that makes men melt.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## LonelyinLove

I think his sex ranking is hilarious.

He's no 10, that's a for sure.


----------



## Marduk

LonelyinLove said:


> I think his sex ranking is hilarious.
> 
> He's no 10, that's a for sure.


Heh.

Very true.


----------



## Marduk

Tubbalard said:


> None. But there's no market for it. Women don't need intellectual conferences on how to snag a man. Men are natural hunters, so the market is there for hunting a deer or catching a fish. Women instinctively know how to get a man. It's either their cooking and cleaning abilities are top notch, body and face on point, or have intellectual and sexual attraction that makes men melt.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


The older I get, the more I disagree with that.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Tubbalard said:


> None. But there's no market for it. Women don't need intellectual conferences on how to snag a man. Men are natural hunters, so the market is there for hunting a deer or catching a fish. Women instinctively know how to get a man. It's either their cooking and cleaning abilities are top notch, body and face on point, or have intellectual and sexual attraction that makes men melt.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


One of the most objectionable things about this topic, FOR ME, is the whole other gender is a thing to "get". It's pretty freaking offensive to think of "getting" either a wallet or a sex kitten. 

And really, if you are choosing me for my cooking and cleaning skills? Don't.

If you look at a woman as an object to "get", then you are already really freaking mentally unattractive and need all the help and tricks you can get. Woe is you and whomever it works on.


----------



## Marduk

NobodySpecial said:


> One of the most objectionable things about this topic, FOR ME, is the whole other gender is a thing to "get". It's pretty freaking offensive to think of "getting" either a wallet or a sex kitten.
> 
> And really, if you are choosing me for my cooking and cleaning skills? Don't.
> 
> If you look at a woman as an object to "get", then you are already really freaking mentally unattractive and need all the help and tricks you can get. Woe is you and whomever it works on.


Word.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## naiveonedave

NobodySpecial said:


> One of the most objectionable things about this topic, FOR ME, is the whole other gender is a thing to "get". It's pretty freaking offensive to think of "getting" either a wallet or a sex kitten.
> 
> And really, if you are choosing me for my cooking and cleaning skills? Don't.
> 
> If you look at a woman as an object to "get", then you are already really freaking mentally unattractive and need all the help and tricks you can get. Woe is you and whomever it works on.


the point of the book is to have a happy married sex life. If you don't buy into that being good, I guess I can see your objections. Most men I know would prefer more sex than they get. This book does help explain the whys.


----------



## Forest

To each his own, but if I were looking for advice, I would take one look at him and his website, and go elsewhere.


----------



## dash74

I have given both nmmng and mmslp to my boys just call me papa misogynist I don't care I have to prepare them for life but it is still not enough

A young man can have his life and name ruined by a single phone call the whole yes does not always mean yes title IX college culture, I have already told them not to date or be alone with young women in college never hook up with them till they graduate if they need their jollies look in town for someone who is not in college and use a condom every time and flush when you are done 

this whole thing is crazy it is not like it used to be if I was them I may come out the far side a mgtow and they may come to the same conclusion too I pray they will find someone like I did but at the very least both books help counter act 3rd wave/sjw indoctrination found in college 

"All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others." George Orwell, Animal Farm


----------



## NobodySpecial

naiveonedave said:


> the point of the book is to have a happy married sex life.


I was replying to a very specific point that is made in threads like this fairly frequently. I am intentionally not commenting on the book itself since I have never read it.


----------



## naiveonedave

NobodySpecial said:


> I was replying to a very specific point that is made in threads like this fairly frequently. I am intentionally not commenting on the book itself since I have never read it.


this cracks me up, you are dead set against a book you never read.


----------



## NobodySpecial

naiveonedave said:


> this cracks me up, you are dead set against a book you never read.


I have exactly no opinion of the book. I have an opinion on something the poster said in a thread ABOUT the book. I have no idea if the poster in question is even commenting on something he thinks is in the book.


----------



## naiveonedave

NobodySpecial said:


> I have exactly no opinion of the book. I have an opinion on something the poster said in a thread ABOUT the book. I have no idea if the poster in question is even commenting on something he thinks is in the book.


okay I misunderstood, 
sorry


----------



## Dogbert

marduk said:


> I can think of several off the top of my head.
> 
> But it's pointless to give them more air time than they already get, and go down another never ending flame war of "who's sexism is worse" when in fact both hurts everyone.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Fair enough but can you tell me where in the Ladies Lounge is the stickie "The Woman Up and Nice Girl Reference"?

Saying that it is not needed is BS considering that just as many women as men are fvcked up when it comes to handling relationships with the opposite sex.



Tubbalard said:


> None. But there's no market for it. Women don't need intellectual conferences on how to snag a man. Men are natural hunters, so the market is there for hunting a deer or catching a fish. Women instinctively know how to get a man. It's either their cooking and cleaning abilities are top notch, body and face on point, or have intellectual and sexual attraction that makes men melt.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


No market? Have you been living in a cave for the last 50 years? Have you ever been to a book store in your life? If you go to the sex and relationship section you'll see the vast number of books are targeted to (drum roll please) women.

If women "instinctively know how to get a man" then why are there so many books and articles written for women on the very subject itself?




Constable Odo said:


> It is axiomatic. They don't need to be told, any more then they need to be told to breathe.


I disagree. If this was the case, then there wouldn't be any forums, many specifically for women, dealing with relationship issues. Nor the plethora of sex and relationship books, throughout the years FOR women. There wouldn't have been, nor still exist, a market. And you can bet your bottom dollar that among those books are some man-hating female authors that could be recommended by some of the female TAM members to newbie female members, on how to treat and dominate their men. That they don't do it is a credit to themselves.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Dogbert said:


> Fair enough but can you tell me where in the Ladies Lounge is the stickie "The Woman Up and Nice Girl Reference"?
> 
> Saying that it is not needed is BS considering that just as many women as men are fvcked up when it comes to handling relationships with the opposite sex.


So I have not read the book. So I don't know if what FW in the other thread clipped is cherry picked, accurate, out of context or what. So I am going to speak to why there is not advice in the LL.

The advice this board and most relationship self help give to women is crap. Which is why I almost never post help for women. Talk more. Tell him YOUR needs more. And then talk more. Guess what that is? That is nagging.

When I give advice like

-Listen to him when he tells you how he feels about your nagging, sexuality or whatever. NO he is not TRYING to offend you, you are inferring an offense that HE does not feel. Accept his feelings.
- If you are not feeling it sexually, but you have an action plan to fix the OTHER stuff, fake it until you can make it in the sex department.
- Use effective limit setting on your Must Haves (NUTs equivalent for guys), accept everything else. INCLUDING his "offensive" sense of humor. That is what you married, including the sense of humor.

I get caterwauled out of the LL.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Dogbert said:


> But how many of the established female TAM members, "highly recommend" to newbie female TAM members a reading list of misandrist female authors? Name me one.


Dogbert, you're my new favorite poster.


----------



## MEM2020

Dogbert,
If you'd like to co-author a 'woman-up and nice girl' stickie I'd be glad to participate. 

One way to do it would be to seed a thread with a good starting text from the men's stickies. And then ask the participants for feedback. 

I haven't read that stuff recently but am guessing that much of what's true for men is true for women. 

I honestly believe that we would all benefit from a 'No More Overly Nice Person' post that is free of genderizations.....








Dogbert said:


> Fair enough but can you tell me where in the Ladies Lounge is the stickie "The Woman Up and Nice Girl Reference"?
> 
> Saying that it is not needed is BS considering that just as many women as men are fvcked up when it comes to handling relationships with the opposite sex.
> 
> 
> 
> No market? Have you been living in a cave for the last 50 years? Have you ever been to a book store in your life? If you go to the sex and relationship section you'll see the vast number of books are targeted to (drum roll please) women.
> 
> If women "instinctively know how to get a man" then why are there so many books and articles written for women on the very subject itself?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree. If this was the case, then there wouldn't be any forums, many specifically for women, dealing with relationship issues. Nor the plethora of sex and relationship books, throughout the years FOR women. There wouldn't have been, nor still exist, a market. And you can bet your bottom dollar that among those books are some man-hating female authors that could be recommended by some of the female TAM members to newbie female members, on how to treat and dominate their men. That they don't do it is a credit to themselves.


----------



## WandaJ

It is one thing to "man up", feel more secure about themselves, positive, assertive. The other thing is to manipulate other into making yourself feel better. 

The first one shows strenght, the second one is a coward.


----------



## Marduk

Dogbert, are you claiming that reverse sexism isn't occurring here at times, or that it's not as prevalent, or that it's not as impactful?

I'm wondering what you are getting at.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## NobodySpecial

MEM11363 said:


> Dogbert,
> If you'd like to co-author a 'woman-up and nice girl' stickie I'd be glad to participate.


Outline:

1. You married HIM, accept HIM. Stop trying to turn him into your version of "husband".
2. Lighten up. My god you get offended at everything. Did he have a radically different personality/sense of humor/outlook on things when you got married? NO he is not trying to offend you.
3. It is not always about you. When he forgets to do something, he is not in a massive plot to piss you off, or diminish you. He just forgot.



> One way to do it would be to seed a thread with a good starting text from the men's stickies. And then ask the participants for feedback.
> 
> I haven't read that stuff recently but am guessing that much of what's true for men is true for women.
> 
> I honestly believe that we would all benefit from a 'No More Overly Nice Person' post that is free of genderizations.....


I understand less the sexless wife posts. The almost universally read, once the thread bleeds out more information, that the whole entire relationship is in flames, but he won't have sex with me. Well Duh. With the guys, they are mostly happy and just need a smack to understand that their wife isn't.


----------



## Marduk

WandaJ said:


> It is one thing to "man up", feel more secure about themselves, positive, assertive. The other thing is to manipulate other into making yourself feel better.
> 
> The first one shows strenght, the second one is a coward.


Good point Wanda. 

It's easy to cover up insecurity with a confident swagger. I've done it myself.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EllisRedding

WandaJ said:


> It is one thing to "man up", feel more secure about themselves, positive, assertive. The other thing is to manipulate other into making yourself feel better.
> 
> The first one shows strenght, the second one is a coward.


Without reading the book but based on what folks have posted here, it would seem that has more to do with the person, how they read and interpret the book than the book itself.

And I do agree with your comment, except wouldn't just apply to "manning up" as it would apply to "womaning up" as well (if that is such a word)


----------



## dash74

NobodySpecial said:


> - Use effective limit setting on your Must Haves (NUTs equivalent for guys), accept everything else. INCLUDING his "offensive" sense of humor. That is what you married, including the sense of humor.
> 
> I get caterwauled out of the LL.


Honey are we going to the bar tonight for triva, oh your not my wife but you sure sound like her :smthumbup:

I have never understood the whole I can fix/change him or her argument 

If you feel the need to fix/change somthing get a house or an old car


----------



## Faithful Wife

MEM11363 said:


> Dogbert,
> If you'd like to co-author a 'woman-up and nice girl' stickie I'd be glad to participate.
> 
> One way to do it would be to seed a thread with a good starting text from the men's stickies. And then ask the participants for feedback.
> 
> I haven't read that stuff recently but am guessing that much of what's true for men is true for women.
> 
> I honestly believe that we would all benefit from a 'No More Overly Nice Person' post that is free of genderizations.....



I would suggest that if there is a woman up pinned thread, that you ask Elegirl, French Fry or CoffeeAmore to do the pin and to link the original posts to it.

Similar to how the man up thread was pinned and began by Deejo.


----------



## Lionelhutz

Misogynistic ? No. Bullcrap? Yes
It is part of the ocean of self-help pop-psych gobbledygook that is out there.
The term "misogynistic" is tossed around too much in modern political-speak for me so I am instantly skeptical when I see it since there are those who say society itself is "misogynistic" therefore it is a short step for those who believe that to label everything and anything as falling into that category. 
There are those who consider any male who seeks to have sex with women without a long term relationship as necessarily misogynistic and I think that in it is groundless. 
There are lots of "gaming" approaches to finding and keeping a mate based on imagined lessons we create out of our primate ancestry. It reminds me in some ways of an inversion of the "The Rules" where women are coached on now to pick-up men by utilizing supposedly innate male competitiveness.
In this case, MMSLP is primarily directed towards men who are or imagine themselves to be dominated or submissive or otherwise taken advantage of by women. And thus its tone is intended to motivate that group but can come across as adversarial.
All that said, I’m just talking about the program as I have read it and taken at face value. That isn’t to say the author may actually be a misogynist or say things that are idiotic and misogynistic.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

> *dash74 said*: *I have given both nmmng and mmslp to my boys just call me papa misogynist I don't care I have to prepare them for life but it is still not enough*





> *Lionethutz said*: *The term "misogynistic" is tossed around too much in modern political-speak for me so I am instantly skeptical when I see it since there are those who say society itself is "misogynistic" therefore it is a short step for those who believe that to label everything and anything as falling into that category*.


Speaking of the dreaded M word.... I found this on another forum .. I, too, feel the word is thrown around far too easily .....

Do we abuse words like "misogyny"? [Archive] - INTJ Forum



> The more I think about this, the more I think we're abusing some pretty powerful words.
> 
> *mi•sog•y•ny *(mĭ-sŏjˈə-nē)
> n. Hatred of women.
> 
> I see this word abused (particularly on this forum) on a daily basis. Misogyny is a powerful thing: it is a hatred of women as a whole. Let me repeat that: a hatred. This word is thrown in the face of anyone who seems to disagree with gender activists, social justice warriors, or some feminists on hotbutton gender issues. Personally, I think it's a slimy and cowardly tactic to silence and/or discredit opposition and it needs to stop.
> 
> Are there legitimate misogynists? Do some people really, truly, from the bottom of their heart, hate women? Of course. But these people are few and far between. Even your typical traditionalist conservative is probably not misogynist, they simply have different values. I really don't think that they sit around, boiling over with a hatred of women.
> 
> Not only are people with differing opinions slandered with the word, but people who do things that are, to the liberal eye, seen as unfavourable, are slandered as well. Prime example: cat calling. People who cat call (or don't think cat calling it wrong) are almost always called misogynists. Now, you won't find any disagreement with me when it comes to cat calling being a ****ty practice. It can be humiliating and I truthfully think that it needs to stop.
> 
> However, cat calling does not make someone a misogynist. It's a ****ty practice but it is not in any way indicative of someone hating women. Perhaps they are (either willfully or unwillfully) ignorant about how it can make the people they cat call feel, but to assert that they hate women simply because they cat called someone is ridiculous.
> 
> Abusing the word takes away from the importance of actual, real misogynists. When you throw it at everyone you disagree with, you're putting people who legitimately have a hatred for women on the same level as people who are simply rude (e.g. ala cat calling). By attempting to discredit your opponents you are, in actuality, discrediting your own fight: the fight to end real sexism and misogyny.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Faithful Wife said:


> I would suggest that if there is a woman up pinned thread, that you ask Elegirl, French Fry or CoffeeAmore to do the pin and to link the original posts to it.
> 
> Similar to how the man up thread was pinned and began by Deejo.


Really? A male mod cannot pin a post in the LL? That is just wild to me.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Thanks for totally trying to make something out of that, NS. 

The point is that a woman up thread put together by men isn't going to carry as much weight with women as it will if put together by women. That doesn't mean men can't add to it. Elegirl, FF and Coffee all have a lot of good things to contribute to such a thread.

But of course, keep trying to paint me to be some kind of weirdo or whatever. You have done that a few times now. I'd much rather if you would just ignore me than keep taking side ways jabs at me.


----------



## WandaJ

marduk said:


> Dogbert, are you claiming that reverse sexism isn't occurring here at times, or that it's not as prevalent, or that it's not as impactful?
> 
> I'm wondering what you are getting at.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



There are gender wars here all the time. But there is difference between what anonymous posters say here, their own opinions, whether we like it or not. And between the guy who is on pedestal here for men, and who basically recommends very nasty, manipulative crap for men. All women are ****s? really, that's your message to men who come here to try to fix their marriages?


----------



## NobodySpecial

Faithful Wife said:


> Thanks for totally trying to make something out of it, NS.


Oh my goodness, it must be hard to have everyone out to get you! Plonk.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Well, you do so....not sure why you're trying to deny it.


----------



## NobodySpecial

WandaJ said:


> There are gender wars here all the time. But there is difference between what anonymous posters say here, their own opinions, whether we like it or not. And between the guy who is on pedestal here for men, and who basically recommends very nasty, manipulative crap for men. All women are ****s? really, that's your message to men who come here to try to fix their marriages?


Is the word that got bleeped slvt? I am pretty sure he does not mean what you are inferring. If my husband were to call me that, he would not be deriding me. But cheering me on. It is speak for wold and crazy sex kitten. Gents who have read the book, am I reading that right? I am not reading derision or accusation. 

I mean. I know I am a slvt. In all the nicest ways.


----------



## Marduk

WandaJ said:


> There are gender wars here all the time. But there is difference between what anonymous posters say here, their own opinions, whether we like it or not. And between the guy who is on pedestal here for men, and who basically recommends very nasty, manipulative crap for men. All women are ****s? really, that's your message to men who come here to try to fix their marriages?


Sorry Wanda maybe I'm a little tired after lunch but I'm having trouble connecting this with my question.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EllisRedding

NobodySpecial said:


> Oh my goodness, it must be hard to have everyone out to get you! Plonk.





Faithful Wife said:


> Well, you do so....not sure why you're trying to deny it.


----------



## MEM2020

SomebodyS,

This makes for a healthy discussion. Right after M2 and I started living together I made a crude joke. A crudely sexual joke. The first and last one of our marriage. 

M2 reacted fairly strongly to that - and FWIW she generally has a terrific sense of humor. 

But I realized in the moment that she was very put off, turned off by that. We had a phenomenal sex life, so it certainly wasn't a matter of her being a prude. It was just a strong, hard wired response. 

So guys who feel entitled to behave that way towards their wives - don't get much sympathy from me. 

As for the other points - I KNOW M2 was in a 'tolerate sex' until you make it mode - when I let myself go physically. Maybe not fake it, perhaps easier to say - accept that it was fairly one sided for a while. 

And part of the marriage getting better was her recognizing that I'm human too. And certain of her behaviors were hurtful and not good for US. 





NobodySpecial said:


> So I have not read the book. So I don't know if what FW in the other thread clipped is cherry picked, accurate, out of context or what. So I am going to speak to why there is not advice in the LL.
> 
> The advice this board and most relationship self help give to women is crap. Which is why I almost never post help for women. Talk more. Tell him YOUR needs more. And then talk more. Guess what that is? That is nagging.
> 
> When I give advice like
> 
> -Listen to him when he tells you how he feels about your nagging, sexuality or whatever. NO he is not TRYING to offend you, you are inferring an offense that HE does not feel. Accept his feelings.
> - If you are not feeling it sexually, but you have an action plan to fix the OTHER stuff, fake it until you can make it in the sex department.
> - Use effective limit setting on your Must Haves (NUTs equivalent for guys), accept everything else. INCLUDING his "offensive" sense of humor. That is what you married, including the sense of humor.
> 
> I get caterwauled out of the LL.


----------



## Constable Odo

dash74 said:


> if they need their jollies look in town for someone who is not in college and use a condom every time and flush when you are done


Odd you should mention this, but recently my SO and I were discussing our parenting attitudes to see if we were on the same page. One thing she said is she will tell any male child we have to always keep it wrapped, and always make sure he takes the condom with him when he leaves. (Living in the boonies w/ septic systems, "flush it" is not a viable alternative).



Dogbert said:


> No market? Have you been living in a cave for the last 50 years? Have you ever been to a book store in your life? If you go to the sex and relationship section you'll see the vast number of books are targeted to (drum roll please) women.


well, duh. Which was exactly my point. There's no shortage of similar material out there geared specifically for women. Although I cited specific examples on television, you could equally point out any number of books or magazines. What is this months' issue of Cosmo dealing with anyway? "How to give him incredible orgasms (and he will be putty in yours hands)!" ?




> If women "instinctively know how to get a man" then why are there so many books and articles written for women on the very subject itself?


It isn't hard for a woman to get a man. All she has to do is go to a bar and announce she's willing to put out for anything with a penis.



> And you can bet your bottom dollar that among those books are some man-hating female authors that could be recommended by some of the female TAM members to newbie female members, on how to treat and dominate their men. That they don't do it is a credit to themselves.


Which, to my point, was they do not need recommendations, because there any are number of sources out there already for them to find.




NobodySpecial said:


> I understand less the sexless wife posts. The almost universally read, once the thread bleeds out more information, that the whole entire relationship is in flames, but he won't have sex with me.


The "sexiest" thing a woman has going for her is her attitude. Many women don't get this basic fact. Sure, they may not be "10's" (and neither are their men), but they can easily become an "11" with a great attitude when it comes to sex.


----------



## WandaJ

marduk said:


> Sorry Wanda maybe I'm a little tired after lunch but I'm having trouble connecting this with my question.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


marduk. What you are implying indirectly, that the answer to reverse sexim is to be basically unscrupulous ass.. - because that's what this guy is advocating.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Constable Odo said:


> Women don't need a female version of Althol Kay.
> 
> They have Oprah, Ellen, "The View" and dozens of other televisions shows spoon-feeding them mindless drivel.



Hard as it may be to believe, some of us work and don't have time for Oprah or the view, even if we were interested.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## WandaJ

NobodySpecial said:


> Is the word that got bleeped slvt? I am pretty sure he does not mean what you are inferring. If my husband were to call me that, he would not be deriding me. But cheering me on. It is speak for wold and crazy sex kitten. Gents who have read the book, am I reading that right? I am not reading derision or accusation.
> 
> I mean. I know I am a slvt. In all the nicest ways.


if you read the quoted paragraph, he did not mean in in the nice way. he literally implied that if the man does not keep his wife on short leash, she will go and f..ck other man while he is taking a leak.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Constable Odo said:


> It isn't hard for a woman to get a man. All she has to do is go to a bar and announce she's willing to put out for anything with a penis.


Right. Because we all want some rando from a bar for a relationship, we are indiscriminate and it doesn't matter which penis it is, just whoever is ready to jump on when we're willing to put out.


----------



## happy as a clam

Along the lines of Constable Odo... (and NO, I am no fan of Putin). But from the pure, raw observation of a female "looking" at a male, which would YOU choose?? (I know which one I WOULDN'T choose...)

*Ladies, SEPARATE the politics from the RAW images and tell me YOUR thoughts...*


----------



## EllisRedding

happy as a clam said:


> Along the lines of Constable Odo... (and NO, I am no fan of Putin). But from the pure, raw observation of a female "looking" at a male, which would YOU choose?? (I know which one I WOULDN'T choose...)
> 
> :lol:


Keep in mind, the picture of Obama is a still picture. If you actually saw how he throws a ball any opinion of him should drop that much lower


----------



## naiveonedave

WandaJ said:


> if you read the quoted paragraph, he did not mean in in the nice way. he literally implied that if the man does not keep his wife on short leash, she will go and f..ck other man while he is taking a leak.


ah, that little thing called context, ignore it at your peril. The whole chapter is aimed at what can you do to affair proof you marriage. To make it impactful (most people naively believe their spouse will never cheat, its only going to happen to the other guy) the author stretches the truth. It is his 2x4.


----------



## Dogbert

marduk said:


> Dogbert, are you claiming that reverse sexism isn't occurring here at times, or that it's not as prevalent, or that it's not as impactful?
> 
> I'm wondering what you are getting at.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


No I don't. I have seen a few instances of what could be construed as reverse sexism here and other forums and it is usually another male member that points that out.

I agree that the self improvement for men in Athol's books and blogs is a good thing, but he tarnishes it with a blatant disrespect for women, something we wouldn't brush off or tolerate if it was coming from a successful female author writing to women and disrespecting us men.

I'm not afraid to call a spade a spade when I see it, be it coming from a woman or a man.


----------



## EllisRedding

Faithful Wife said:


> Right. Because we all want some rando from a bar for a relationship, we are indiscriminate and it doesn't matter which penis it is, just whoever is ready to jump on when we're willing to put out.


I don't believe he is saying that is what every woman will do, but yes, it is easier for a girl to get a guy b/c she is in control of whether or not she spreads em. That can very well imply that guys have very low standards, but you can't deny that this is a fact ...


----------



## Faithful Wife

Dogbert gets:

:allhail:


----------



## Faithful Wife

EllisRedding said:


> I don't believe he is saying that is what every woman will do, but yes, it is easier for a girl to get a guy b/c she is in control of whether or not she spreads em. That can very well imply that guys have very low standards, but you can't deny that this is a fact ...


I absolutely deny this is a fact, Ellis. We can start a whole thread about that if you want.


----------



## Constable Odo

lifeistooshort said:


> Hard as it may be to believe, some of us work and don't have time for Oprah or the view, even if we were interested.


No TV in the laundry room?

(ducks to avoid bricks tossed in his direction)

There's these things called "DVRs" these days, and "On Demand" features cable companies offer, for the working woman.




Faithful Wife said:


> Right. Because we all want some rando from a bar for a relationship, we are indiscriminate and it doesn't matter which penis it is, just whoever is ready to jump on when we're willing to put out.


Hey, I didn't say it would be a *quality* penis. But, in absence of any grotesque deformities, many layers of gelatinous fat, or missing teeth, any woman can find a man to sleep with her. I would even suspect that given the level of desperation of some men, even the three examples I listed would be overlooked by some men. 

Women are the gatekeepers to sex. Men ask. You decide.


----------



## EllisRedding

Faithful Wife said:


> I absolutely deny this is a fact, Ellis. We can start a whole thread about that if you want.


Lol, go for it, you are in denial if you don't believe it is a fact ...


----------



## Marduk

WandaJ said:


> marduk. What you are implying indirectly, that the answer to reverse sexim is to be basically unscrupulous ass.. - because that's what this guy is advocating.


I feel like I'm missing something... which guy?

I think reverse sexism needs to be called out as much as sexism.


----------



## happy as a clam

EllisRedding said:


> Keep in mind, the picture of Obama is a still picture. If you actually saw how he throws a ball *any opinion of him should drop that much lower*


Ba ha ha!!!!

I agree! And the "Mom jeans" further deflate any "ranking." (Where the H*ll was Michelle -- who appears to be quite the 'fashionista' -- when his staff agreed to send him out in those 1990s JC Penney (or Sears) mom jeans?????

Sheesh....


----------



## Faithful Wife

EllisRedding said:


> Lol, go for it, you are in denial if you don't believe it is a fact ...


Being a woman and knowing exactly how likely this is, I am actually in a better position than a man is of knowing whether this is a fact or not.

But given your disrespectful attitude about this by calling me "in denial" I'll drop it, clearly there's nothing to pursue.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Constable Odo said:


> Hey, I didn't say it would be a *quality* penis. But, in absence of any grotesque deformities, many layers of gelatinous fat, or missing teeth, any woman can find a man to sleep with her. I would even suspect that given the level of desperation of some men, even the three examples I listed would be overlooked by some men.
> 
> Women are the gatekeepers to sex. Men ask. You decide.


First you said it is easy for women to get a relationship.

Then you suggested she offer to put out in a bar, and that's how she'll find one.

Then you say that yeah, it wont' be a quality penis.

So we're back to....you really think it is easy for a woman to get a relationship because she is indiscriminate and wants any man who can get it up?


----------



## Constable Odo

Dogbert said:


> I agree that the self improvement for men in Athol's books and blogs is a good thing, but he tarnishes it with a blatant disrespect for women, something we wouldn't brush off or tolerate if it was coming from a successful female author writing to women and disrespecting us men.


As I stated in my original reply some pages ago, I have never read his material, although I have seen some excerpts. What I have seen, as pointed out by another poster, tends to gear men to recognize aspects of instinctive behavior in women which as become prevalent in the gender through eons of evolutionary biology.

Now, there certainly may be more material beyond that which is disrespectful towards women.... simply nothing I have seen in the limited material I have been exposed to.


----------



## EllisRedding

Faithful Wife said:


> Being a woman and knowing exactly how likely this is, I am actually in a better position than a man is of knowing whether this is a fact or not.
> 
> But given your disrespectful attitude about this by calling me "in denial" I'll drop it, clearly there's nothing to pursue.


And you talk as you know exactly what a guy thinks, and if they don't agree, just keep posting walls and walls of text to prove your point ... Constable nailed it when he said "Women are the gatekeepers to sex. Men ask. You decide." It is a fact ...

Also, saying you are in denial as disrespect, yikes. You need to get out and have some fun, this is just an internet forum, no need to be so serious and take everything so literal...


----------



## Marduk

Well, there goes another reasonable thread discussing the issue...

Sigh.


----------



## Faithful Wife

sigh....


----------



## MEM2020

Wanda,
There is a subset of Ahtol's stuff that was very helpful to me. It helped me to balance the mix of bonding/endorphine and exciting/dopamine activities we do. 

And there is a subset of his stuff that I just plain disagree with. 

I used the good, ignored the stuff I disagree with. 

Overall I never got the impression that he dislikes or hates women. I did get the occasional sense that he sees male/female relationships as inherently more adversarial than I do. 

And I believe that is why he is so focused on the whole 'man must be captain' theme. 

Overall M2 drives and is happiest in the captains chair. Now and again in specific situations that play to my strengths I'll ask her: would you like me to drive 'this' to which she almost always replies: YES

We have different skill sets. But overall she's more - determined. That, like gravity is neither good nor bad. It just is. 





WandaJ said:


> if you read the quoted paragraph, he did not mean in in the nice way. he literally implied that if the man does not keep his wife on short leash, she will go and f..ck other man while he is taking a leak.


----------



## Pluto2

EllisRedding said:


> And you talk as you know exactly what a guy thinks, and if they don't agree, just keep posting walls and walls of text to prove your point ... Constable nailed it when he said "Women are the gatekeepers to sex. Men ask. You decide." It is a fact ...
> 
> Also, saying you are in denial as disrespect, yikes. You need to get out and have some fun, this is just an internet forum, no need to be so serious and take everything so literal...


:banghead:
Gee, there she goes being an emotional woman again. 
Full sarcasm intended.


----------



## happy as a clam

I am a self-sufficient, high-earning, successful WOMAN. I "earn my own way."

But I am most definitely NOT a feminist!!

I completely recognize the differences between males and females, both evolutionarily (is that a word?? ) and culturally, speaking from a Western perspective.

There are kernels of truth (as Satya, GusPolinski, SimplyAmorous, and others pointed out) in Athol Kay's books. However, much of it is male-blustering garbage, likely to sell books.

There are also kernels of truth in "No More Mister Nice Guy". Some real gems to be gleaned, for both males AND females.

*Again, take what works for YOU, and toss the rest.*

Men and women ARE biologically different. You cannot ignore evolution. Men are programmed to impregnate women. Women are programmed to raise their young. Just watch a b*tch give birth to  her puppies... watch what she does and how she reacts to any males in the vicinity. Watch a mother elephant, a mother lion, a mother otter, a mother whale or dolphin. Who NURTURES their young? Females!!!

Feminists claim that both males AND females do, simply because *feminists want it to be SO!!!*

Bullsh*t!!! The mothers of any species are the nurturers, and the males are the providers. Cave Man stuff. Go Athol!!!

Then, tell me we're DIFFERENT because we're HUMAN. Yeah, right...


----------



## Faithful Wife

EllisRedding said:


> And you talk as you know exactly what a guy thinks, and if they don't agree, just keep posting walls and walls of text to prove your point ... Constable nailed it when he said "Women are the gatekeepers to sex. Men ask. You decide." It is a fact ...
> 
> Also, saying you are in denial as disrespect, yikes. You need to get out and have some fun, this is just an internet forum, no need to be so serious and take everything so literal...


Yes it is disrespectful to tell someone else they are in denial when they are expressing their opinion about something you disagree with. I honestly thought you may be interested in hearing *why* I disagree and I can guarantee you that you'd be shocked to hear the things I know about the world, because it won't match up with the things you implied here.

But again...I guess there isn't a point. 

Thanks for shutting me down with "get out and have some fun"...another way to just be disrespectful rather than exchange new ideas you perhaps haven't heard before. I get it, though. I'm an easy target.


----------



## samyeagar

Faithful Wife said:


> *First you said it is easy for women to get a relationship.*
> 
> Then you suggested she offer to put out in a bar, and that's how she'll find one.
> 
> Then you say that yeah, it wont' be a quality penis.
> 
> So we're back to....you really think it is easy for a woman to get a relationship because she is indiscriminate and wants any man who can get it up?


In fairness, he didn't specify a relationship. The implication was simply finding sex.


----------



## Faithful Wife

samyeagar said:


> In fairness, he didn't specify a relationship. The implication was simply finding sex.


No, his answer was in response to this question by Dogbert:

"If women "instinctively know how to get a man" then why are there so many books and articles written for women on the very subject itself?"


----------



## EllisRedding

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes it is disrespectful to tell someone else they are in denial when they are expressing their opinion about something you disagree with. I honestly thought you may be interested in hearing *why* I disagree and I can guarantee you that you'd be shocked to hear the things I know about the world, because it won't match up with the things you implied here.
> 
> But again...I guess there isn't a point.
> 
> Thanks for shutting me down with "get out and have some fun"...another way to just be disrespectful rather than exchange new ideas you perhaps haven't heard before. I get it, though. I'm an easy target.



I admit I was probably a bit harsh in my fun comment, apologies for that although I am learning that this forum does not take to joking around all that much so lesson learned I guess, but like the above, someone saying you are in denial should not garner a "you are being disrespectful" response. We can agree to disagree on the denial aspect ... I will leave that as is ...

If you would like to start a new thread I am more than willing to listen and be open to what you have to present. However, if you even read your response here you have already assumed that what you will say will shock and awe me into seeing things your way (apologies if I am misinterpreting, but that is how it reads to me).


----------



## happy as a clam

Never mind... pointless.


----------



## happy as a clam

EllisRedding said:


> If you would like to start a new thread* I am more than willing to listen* and be open to what you have to present.


Don't bother, Ellis. You will just be put on "Ignore" (as I have been) once your opinions don't "meet muster."



EllisRedding said:


> However, if you even read your response here *you have already assumed that what you will say will shock and awe me into seeing things your way* (apologies if I am misinterpreting, but that is how it reads to me).


Don't fall trap to this. Intimidation (especially by "GroupThink") is one of the lower levels of pursuasion. It rarely works, because most people hold true to their VALUES, rather than "going along with the majority".

Just look at the Jews and Naziism (I can say this because I have BOTH Jew and German relatives)... the Jews never bought into the Nazi line of CR*P. They held true to their beliefs...


----------



## Faithful Wife

EllisRedding said:


> I admit I was probably a bit harsh in my fun comment, apologies for that although I am learning that this forum does not take to joking around all that much so lesson learned I guess, but like the above, someone saying you are in denial should not garner a "you are being disrespectful" response. We can agree to disagree on the denial aspect ... I will leave that as is ...
> 
> If you would like to start a new thread I am more than willing to listen and be open to what you have to present. However, if you even read your response here you have already assumed that what you will say will shock and awe me into seeing things your way (apologies if I am misinterpreting, but that is how it reads to me).


Thank you, Ellis...

I will make a new thread in Ladies, and I would enjoy your input.


----------



## GusPolinski

MMSLP is about as misogynistic as a handgun is homicidal.

There's nothing wrong w/ having the insight, even if that means obtaining it from a third party; it's how a given man chooses to utilize said insight that makes him either (a) a decent guy looking to do nothing more than empower himself or (b) a snarling, neanderthal d**chebag.


----------



## Dogbert

I get a chuckle when I talk to another guy and he says "women have it good" when it comes to getting sex. They seem to forget that women have deal with issues that we men rarely have to worry about. Issues like rape and stalking. So personal safety is of the utmost concern for a woman trying to meet a new man. And sure there are women who care nothing about their personal safety and would welcome a gang bang, but they are few in numbers. It's funny the expression on a guy's face when they finally realize that what I said was true.


----------



## Pluto2

GusPolinski said:


> MMSLP is about as misogynistic as a handgun is homicidal.


just can agree with this. The book is not a mechanical instrument, and a handgun doesn't have a point of view.


----------



## GusPolinski

Dogbert said:


> I get a chuckle when I talk to another guy and he says "women have it good" when it comes to getting sex. They seem to forget that women have deal with issues that we men rarely have to worry about. Issues like rape and stalking. So personal safety is of the utmost concern for a woman trying to meet a new man. And sure there are women who care nothing about their personal safety and would welcome a gang bang, but they are few in numbers. It's funny the expression on a guy's face when they finally realize that what I said was true.


:slap:


----------



## happy as a clam

GusPolinski said:


> *MMSLP is about as misogynistic as a handgun is homicidal.
> *
> There's nothing wrong w/ having the insight, even if that means obtaining it from a third party; it's how a given man chooses to utilize said insight that makes him either (a) a decent guy looking to do nothing more than empower himself or (b) a snarling, neanderthal d**chebag.


Gus!! You're the "Man of the Day"!!!


----------



## Dogbert

Hey Hitler had some good stuff as well in his book Mein Kampf, but I doubt that we would highly recommend others to read it for self empowerment purposes, would we?


----------



## GusPolinski

Pluto2 said:


> just can agree with this. The book is not a mechanical instrument, and a handgun doesn't have a point of view.


I believe that my analogy will stand up to scrutiny pretty well.

Also, from my own experience, a handgun -- whether used offensively or defensively, and whether legitimately or otherwise -- tends to communicate a point of view pretty damn well.


----------



## GusPolinski

Dogbert said:


> Hey Hitler had some good stuff as well in his book Mein Kampf, but I doubt that we would highly recommend others to read it for self empowerment purposes, would we?


/facepalm


----------



## GusPolinski

happy as a clam said:


> Once again, I am on "Ignore" by OP...
> 
> ...so no real reason for me to participate in this thread.
> 
> Unless others want to hear my opinions, of course!!


LOL... go for it. After all, others can quote you!


----------



## NobodySpecial

MEM11363 said:


> SomebodyS,
> 
> This makes for a healthy discussion. Right after M2 and I started living together I made a crude joke. A crudely sexual joke. The first and last one of our marriage.
> 
> M2 reacted fairly strongly to that - and FWIW she generally has a terrific sense of humor.
> 
> But I realized in the moment that she was very put off, turned off by that. We had a phenomenal sex life, so it certainly wasn't a matter of her being a prude. It was just a strong, hard wired response.
> 
> So guys who feel entitled to behave that way towards their wives - don't get much sympathy from me.
> 
> As for the other points - I KNOW M2 was in a 'tolerate sex' until you make it mode - when I let myself go physically. Maybe not fake it, perhaps easier to say - accept that it was fairly one sided for a while.
> 
> And part of the marriage getting better was her recognizing that I'm human too. And certain of her behaviors were hurtful and not good for US.


By all means, if you want to respect her wishes in the regard to humor, do so. My comments were aimed at wives who seek to change their husbands after marriage. I am guessing you id not use a lot of objectionable humor before.


----------



## Dogbert

happy as a clam said:


> Once again, I am on "Ignore" by OP...
> 
> ...so no real reason for me to participate in this thread.
> 
> Unless others want to hear my opinions, of course!!


There, there. I want you to continue being "Happy As A Clam".


----------



## Dogbert

GusPolinski said:


> /facepalm


You're looking a wee bit black and blue there Gus from so many face slaps.


----------



## Anon1111

haven't read the book, but have read many summaries of this and other similar views.

my take is that the better versions of these types of pieces are all polemics. 

they are meant to be overly blunt and controversial as an attention-grabbing mechanism-- in effect "waking up" the reader, by means of this rhetorical device, in order to cause them to consider a new and controversial idea.

I think the more intelligent reader realizes the main goal is to tap into something more primal that excites raw sexual attraction.

The polemic is a good style of writing to get at this because it gets you fired up. 

When you take this stuff really literally, like you are running a program, it is not sexy because it is totally forced-- it's not primal.

When people dismiss this stuff, I think they are reacting to the idea that guys are running this forced program model, which is fake, lame, manipulative, etc.

I think it would be great if there was a similar movement to cause women to tap into raw, primal sexuality. 

Oh yeah, there is-- it's called feminism.


----------



## GusPolinski

Dogbert said:


> You're looking a wee bit black and blue there Gus from so many face slaps.


Eh... not quite.


----------



## dash74

Dogbert said:


> I get a chuckle when I talk to another guy and he says "women have it good" when it comes to getting sex. They seem to forget that women have deal with issues that we men rarely have to worry about. Issues like rape and stalking. So personal safety is of the utmost concern for a woman trying to meet a new man. And sure there are women who care nothing about their personal safety and would welcome a gang bang, but they are few in numbers. It's funny the expression on a guy's face when they finally realize that what I said was true.


yes they are a few pesky numbers but they are all criminals so who cares and its funny. Is the US the only country where more men are raped than women? | Jill Filipovic | Comment is free | The Guardian

And its funny when a minor is raped and has to pay child support to his rappest but to quote whoopi "it was not rape rape" so its all good 

Statutory rape victim forced to pay child support

County of San Luis Obispo v. Nathaniel J. (1996) :: :: California Court of Appeal Decisions :: California Case Law :: California Law :: U.S. Law :: Justia


----------



## lifeistooshort

Constable Odo said:


> No TV in the laundry room?
> 
> (ducks to avoid bricks tossed in his direction)
> 
> There's these things called "DVRs" these days, and "On Demand" features cable companies offer, for the working woman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, I didn't say it would be a *quality* penis. But, in absence of any grotesque deformities, many layers of gelatinous fat, or missing teeth, any woman can find a man to sleep with her. I would even suspect that given the level of desperation of some men, even the three examples I listed would be overlooked by some men.
> 
> Women are the gatekeepers to sex. Men ask. You decide.



Don't use them.....thus the "if we were interested" part. Though I'll admit that I do record the Big Bang Theory, besides that every recording we have is hubby's.


----------



## Catherine602

naiveonedave said:


> I think you are so off base, I had to comment. He is not about 'game'. He is about turning weak boy/men into adult men. His stuff is not easy and it is not about manipulation. It is about what it takes to be a man. I don't think you got anywhere close to his message, because it wasn't written for a woman to understand. And you would probably tell your hubby he isn't getting any tonight because he didn't do the dishes (which has been proven not to work, btw).


Can I assume that your response is encouraged by what you've learned from this man about what it takes to be an adult male?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## john117

The premise that women "have it good" is not an unusual one. Women use looks and gender to get ahead - if they have it, might as well use it. But it's fair only because they've been out of the boys club for ever. 

Where the book falls short in my opinion is that the same demographic of "manipulative slvtty women" that will use looks and sperm wars etc to their advantage is not likely to fall for the book's suggested antics of self flowering or self meatloaf or whatever. The suggestions in the book - and I've read it - work well with the more "simple" women but I don't expect as much efficacy with the more "sophisticated" crowd.


----------



## john117

Constable Odo said:


> Women don't need a female version of Althol Kay.
> 
> 
> 
> They have Oprah, Ellen, "The View" and dozens of other televisions shows spoon-feeding them mindless drivel.



Lifetime Movie Network... 'Nuff said


----------



## Dogbert

dash74 said:


> yes they are a few pesky numbers but they are all criminals so who cares and its funny. Is the US the only country where more men are raped than women? | Jill Filipovic | Comment is free | The Guardian
> 
> And its funny when a minor is raped and has to pay child support to his rappest but to quote whoopi "it was not rape rape" so its all good
> 
> Statutory rape victim forced to pay child support
> 
> County of San Luis Obispo v. Nathaniel J. (1996) :: :: California Court of Appeal Decisions :: California Case Law :: California Law :: U.S. Law :: Justia


*WTF?*
:scratchhead:


----------



## MEM2020

SomebodyS,
Ah - now I get the core point. 

M2 acted the same before and after moving in, getting engaged and than married. 

And you are right - this had not happened before. It was a one off thing. And stayed a one off thing. 

If we'd gotten married and then M2 had become a different person or insisted I do - that likely wouldn't have turned out well.





NobodySpecial said:


> By all means, if you want to respect her wishes in the regard to humor, do so. My comments were aimed at wives who seek to change their husbands after marriage. I am guessing you id not use a lot of objectionable humor before.


----------



## WandaJ

marduk said:


> I feel like I'm missing something... which guy?
> 
> I think reverse sexism needs to be called out as much as sexism.


marduk! The Athol guy, the whole thread is about him! LOL.


----------



## WandaJ

Constable Odo said:


> As I stated in my original reply some pages ago, I have never read his material, although I have seen some excerpts. What I have seen, as pointed out by another poster, tends to gear men to recognize aspects of instinctive behavior in women which as become prevalent in the gender through eons of evolutionary biology.
> 
> Now, there certainly may be more material beyond that which is disrespectful towards women.... simply nothing I have seen in the limited material I have been exposed to.


well, have your read the quotes posted by FW and Ellegirl right at the beginining of this thread? there is several of them. 

It does feel that many men posting here have abstract discussion, without checking what FW meant when she started this thread. Just read the damn quotes on teh first page, and tell me that they are not disrespectfull and advise given manipulative and selfish.


----------



## WandaJ

You know I have not read the books. But I have read several paragraphs that FW and Ellegirls quoted just at the beginning of this thread. They are psychopatic, manipulative, b/s. making your wife jealous so she behaves ? How insecure this guy is? This is supposed to be about making men stronger and more assertive or just bigger ass..s?

There is always small percentage who is capable of picking the smarter part of his writing, and disregard the rest. Unfortunately, most will take it literally. 

I do believe we all benefit from accepting our own most primal sexual needs and instincts. This will give us more satisfaction, more pleasure, more intimacy iwht our partner. But you still owe your partner respect, and trust , and love. I think Athoy is not familiar wiht those emotions, he is cold, selfish guy who so far got lucky his wife didn't notice yet.

I think someone was right at the beginnning of thread saying that this is advise for unsecure men looking for unsecure women. maybe it does work for them, I don't know.


----------



## Marduk

Dogbert said:


> Hey Hitler had some good stuff as well in his book Mein Kampf, but I doubt that we would highly recommend others to read it for self empowerment purposes, would we?


That made me laugh, but probably not for the reasons that you think.

It's because I've been watching a lot of "Danger 5."


----------



## Marduk

WandaJ said:


> marduk! The Athol guy, the whole thread is about him! LOL.


oh, oh, oh.

Duh.

Just little old me. 

Good thing I'm hot.


----------



## EllisRedding

WandaJ said:


> You know I have not read the books. But I have read several paragraphs that FW and Ellegirls quoted just at the beginning of this thread. They are psychopatic, manipulative, b/s. making your wife jealous so she behaves ? How insecure this guy is? This is supposed to be about making men stronger and more assertive or just bigger ass..s?
> 
> There is always small percentage who is capable of picking the smarter part of his writing, and disregard the rest. Unfortunately, most will take it literally.
> 
> I do believe we all benefit from accepting our own most primal sexual needs and instincts. This will give us more satisfaction, more pleasure, more intimacy iwht our partner. But you still owe your partner respect, and trust , and love. I think Athoy is not familiar wiht those emotions, he is cold, selfish guy who so far got lucky his wife didn't notice yet.
> 
> I think someone was right at the beginnning of thread saying that this is advise for unsecure men looking for unsecure women. maybe it does work for them, I don't know.


I wonder though, how much of your reaction is b/c you are not the target audience for the book? Several folks here have commented that the book is meant to be blunt, have some shock factor, and that could very well be what the intended audience needs. I have no idea what percentage take the book completely literal vs what percentage are actually able to use the book as a tool to better themselves, better their marriage etc... Based on some responses here there are some guys who fall into the latter. In the same manner I wonder how guys (some/many?) would react to a book about feminism, they could very well see it as a bunch of garbage for the same reasons you may find with this guy. Just trying to look at both sides here.


----------



## Wolf1974

happy as a clam said:


> I am a self-sufficient, high-earning, successful WOMAN. I "earn my own way."
> 
> But I am most definitely NOT a feminist!!
> 
> I completely recognize the differences between males and females, both evolutionarily (is that a word?? ) and culturally, speaking from a Western perspective.
> 
> There are kernels of truth (as Satya, GusPolinski, SimplyAmorous, and others pointed out) in Athol Kay's books. However, much of it is male-blustering garbage, likely to sell books.
> 
> There are also kernels of truth in "No More Mister Nice Guy". Some real gems to be gleaned, for both males AND females.
> 
> *Again, take what works for YOU, and toss the rest.*
> 
> Men and women ARE biologically different. You cannot ignore evolution. Men are programmed to impregnate women. Women are programmed to raise their young. Just watch a b*tch give birth to her puppies... watch what she does and how she reacts to any males in the vicinity. Watch a mother elephant, a mother lion, a mother otter, a mother whale or dolphin. Who NURTURES their young? Females!!!
> 
> Feminists claim that both males AND females do, simply because *feminists want it to be SO!!!*
> 
> Bullsh*t!!! The mothers of any species are the nurturers, and the males are the providers. Cave Man stuff. Go Athol!!!
> 
> Then, tell me we're DIFFERENT because we're HUMAN. Yeah, right...


Time for you to get one. 

:allhail:


----------



## norajane

EllisRedding said:


> I wonder though, how much of your reaction is b/c you are not the target audience for the book? Several folks here have commented that the book is meant to be blunt, have some shock factor, and that could very well be what the intended audience needs. I have no idea what percentage take the book completely literal vs what percentage are actually able to use the book as a tool to better themselves, better their marriage etc... Based on some responses here there are some guys who fall into the latter. In the same manner I wonder how guys (some/many?) would react to a book about feminism, they could very well see it as a bunch of garbage for the same reasons you may find with this guy. Just trying to look at both sides here.


Men are biologically programmed to want sex, and thus are easily controlled through sex. If you learn to masterfully give him sex and to take sex away, you will have him following you around like the dog he is. (Buy my book so I can tell you how to masterfully control your man through sex!) 

For example, sometimes you will need to pay attention to other men so that your husband doesn't get bored with you. If he sees that other men are interested, his territorial instincts will kick in and he'll leap to fend off any other dogs that come sniffing around. That will renew his interest in sex with you, since men want to think of themselves as the alpha who beat off other dogs to get the sex. (Buy my book so you can learn how to apply morning bj's to get your man to clean the garage after he draws your bubble bath!)

I made this up as an example of something equivalent to the guidance provided in MMSL. I'm sure that might be helpful to the right audience, but should I be promoting this on a healthy marriage site?


----------



## dash74

Dogbert said:


> *WTF?*
> :scratchhead:


Yes wtf more men are raped in the us than women 

And young boys are forced to deal with the person that raped them (child support) until the child of that rape turns 18 under threat of jail and possible rape again while in jail 

try to make a woman who was raped by a man and got pregnant keep that child or give the child to the rapest and have to pay child support to him and all he11 would break loose 

So to say woman are more likely to be raped than men is not true in America and has not been for some time so when you educate men who say women have it easy at least you will know the "more likely to be raped" is bs especially raped by a stranger or meeting a new man about 2/3 of women's rapest where known by them before hand. 
https://rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-offenders


----------



## Wolf1974

norajane said:


> Men are biologically programmed to want sex, and thus are easily controlled through sex. If you learn to masterfully give him sex and to take sex away, you will have him following you around like the dog he is. (Buy my book so I can tell you how to masterfully control your man through sex!)
> 
> For example, sometimes you will need to pay attention to other men so that your husband doesn't get bored with you. If he sees that other men are interested, his territorial instincts will kick in and he'll leap to fend off any other dogs that come sniffing around. That will renew his interest in sex with you, since men want to think of themselves as the alpha who beat off other dogs to get the sex. (Buy my book so you can learn how to apply morning bj's to get your man to clean the garage after he draws your bubble bath!)
> 
> I made this up as an example of something equivalent to the guidance provided in MMSL. I'm sure that might be helpful to the right audience, but should I be promoting this on a healthy marriage site?


If in fact that's how this other book is then I guess it's relevant. Plenty of discussions here have stated much the same. I don't see those Being shouted down so guess I don't understand the difference between the two


----------



## Wolf1974

Dogbert said:


> Hey Hitler had some good stuff as well in his book Mein Kampf, but I doubt that we would highly recommend others to read it for self empowerment purposes, would we?


Wow man come on.....Hitler now? Seriously regroup and let's not make this crazy. 

You may not agree with the insights this guy has in his book. I don't know cause I haven't read it but I don't think I will agree with most of it either. But comparing him to Hitler? If a point you are trying to make you automatically loose the argument when you enter into the absurd.


----------



## norajane

Wolf1974 said:


> If in fact that's how this other book is then I guess it's relevant. Plenty of discussions here have stated much the same. I don't see those Being shouted down so guess I don't understand the difference between the two


You really don't see anything wrong with what I wrote? You think that's a healthy attitude, and healthy advice to promote to a couple? 

If that's the case, then I really don't know how to explain my objections so that you can understand how damaging to a relationship I believe Athol's words and ideas can be.


----------



## EllisRedding

norajane said:


> EllisRedding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder though, how much of your reaction is b/c you are not the target audience for the book? Several folks here have commented that the book is meant to be blunt, have some shock factor, and that could very well be what the intended audience needs. I have no idea what percentage take the book completely literal vs what percentage are actually able to use the book as a tool to better themselves, better their marriage etc... Based on some responses here there are some guys who fall into the latter. In the same manner I wonder how guys (some/many?) would react to a book about feminism, they could very well see it as a bunch of garbage for the same reasons you may find with this guy. Just trying to look at both sides here.
> 
> 
> 
> Men are biologically programmed to want sex, and thus are easily controlled through sex. If you learn to masterfully give him sex and to take sex away, you will have him following you around like the dog he is. (Buy my book so I can tell you how to masterfully control your man through sex!)
> 
> For example, sometimes you will need to pay attention to other men so that your husband doesn't get bored with you. If he sees that other men are interested, his territorial instincts will kick in and he'll leap to fend off any other dogs that come sniffing around. That will renew his interest in sex with you, since men want to think of themselves as the alpha who beat off other dogs to get the sex. (Buy my book so you can learn how to apply morning bj's to get your man to clean the garage after he draws your bubble bath!)
> 
> I made this up as an example of something equivalent to the guidance provided in MMSL. I'm sure that might be helpful to the right audience, but should I be promoting this on a healthy marriage site?
Click to expand...

If the author believes his methods can lead to a healthy marriage why wouldn't it be promoted here? Whether or not you agree with the writings does not mean it shouldn't be a possible tool for those who find useful .


----------



## Deejo

Faithful Wife said:


> I would suggest that if there is a woman up pinned thread, that you ask Elegirl, French Fry or CoffeeAmore to do the pin and to link the original posts to it.
> 
> Similar to how the man up thread was pinned and began by Deejo.


To be clear, I was NOT a mod when that thread got stickied. It had to be approved by the mods and Chris at the time. Most of the mods back then, were women. Women who, I might add, I did not seduce.


----------



## Faithful Wife

WandaJ said:


> well, have your read the quotes posted by FW and Ellegirl right at the beginining of this thread? there is several of them.
> 
> It does feel that many men posting here have abstract discussion, without checking what FW meant when she started this thread. Just read the damn quotes on teh first page, and tell me that they are not disrespectfull and advise given manipulative and selfish.


That's actually a separate thread in the Ladies Lounge...Dogbert started this one here in mens. So they may not have actually read the one in womens (though they also may not change their belief if they do).


----------



## Faithful Wife

Deejo said:


> To be clear, I was NOT a mod when that thread got stickied. It had to be approved by the mods and Chris at the time. Most of the mods back then, were women. *Women who, I might add, I did not seduce.*


Thank you for always being a professional and not abusing your power.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Wolf1974 said:


> Wow man come on.....Hitler now? Seriously regroup and let's not make this crazy.
> 
> You may not agree with the insights this guy has in his book. I don't know cause I haven't read it but I don't think I will agree with most of it either. But comparing him to Hitler? If a point you are trying to make you automatically loose the argument when you enter into the absurd.


He was responding to another poster who brought up Hitler, he was joshing back at the other poster.


----------



## norajane

EllisRedding said:


> If the author believes his methods can lead to a healthy marriage why wouldn't it be promoted here? Whether or not you agree with the writings does not mean it shouldn't be a possible tool for those who find useful .


You really believe it would be acceptable if ran around TAM promoting "MWSLP" and telling every woman who has a problem in her marriage that she should learn to properly withhold sex from her husband in order to better control him? 

And it would be perfectly fine if I were joined by many women who see nothing wrong in thinking of men as dogs to be controlled by their d*cks?

And that this belongs on a site to promote healthy marriages?



I feel like I've entered the Twilight Zone.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Nora, we know we would hauled out of here on pitchforks if we actually did that.


----------



## norajane

Faithful Wife said:


> Nora, we know we would hauled out of here on pitchforks if we actually did that.


I DO know that, which is why I feel like I'm suddenly in the Twilight Zone!


----------



## Wolf1974

norajane said:


> You really don't see anything wrong with what I wrote? You think that's a healthy attitude, and healthy advice to promote to a couple?
> 
> If that's the case, then I really don't know how to explain my objections so that you can understand how damaging to a relationship I believe Athol's words and ideas can be.


Did you not see what I wrote? I said I don't agree with the notion being passed along but I haven't read his book so I can't comment on the whole thing. But here what is passed on TAM and often is manipulation. While I don't agree with it it is encouraged in many threads. From what I understand this book is about manipulation. A woman Using sex as a weapon also manipulation. That's never shouted down here. I don't think manipulation is a great way to a healthy relationship personally but many people here do and it is stated over and over again. So no I see no difference in the type of Manipulation. Some say that it works and others don't


----------



## Faithful Wife

norajane said:


> I DO know that, which is why I feel like I'm suddenly in the Twilight Zone!


I'm glad Dogbert gets it, at least.


----------



## Wolf1974

norajane said:


> You really believe it would be acceptable if ran around TAM promoting "MWSLP" and telling every woman who has a problem in her *marriage that she should learn to properly withhold sex from her husband in order to better control him?
> 
> And* it would be perfectly fine if I were joined by many women who see nothing wrong in thinking of men as dogs to be controlled by their d*cks?
> 
> And that this belongs on a site to promote healthy marriages?
> 
> 
> 
> I feel like I've entered the Twilight Zone.


Wait I'm confused. Are you saying that doesn't happen here? Now I think I'm in twlight zone

As I recall the last thread that this type of manipulation was being suggested but also encouraged you and I were the only ones who disagreed with the vast majority that this was perfectly acceptable. Do you recall that? I'm hoping I don't have you confused with another person


----------



## norajane

Wolf1974 said:


> Did you not see what I wrote? I said I don't agree with the notion being passed along but I haven't read his book so I can't comment on the whole thing. But here what is passed on TAM and often is manipulation.While I don't agree with it it is encouraged in many threads. From what I understand this book is about manipulation. A woman Using sex as a weapon also manipulation. That's never shouted down here. *I don't think manipulation is a great way to a healthy relationship personally* but many people here do and it is stated over and over again. So no I see no difference in the type of Manipulation. Some say that it works and others don't


And that is exactly why I am advocating against it. Manipulation is not healthy and does not lead to healthy relationships. 

Trust and respect lead to healthy relationships. So why is MMSL so highly promoted here instead when there are healthier ways to learn to stop being a doormat and go to he gym? Because some people say manipulation works? Some people say cheating works for them, too. But that's not a healthy action to promote on a site about healthy marriages.


----------



## EllisRedding

norajane said:


> You really believe it would be acceptable if ran around TAM promoting "MWSLP" and telling every woman who has a problem in her marriage that she should learn to properly withhold sex from her husband in order to better control him?
> 
> And it would be perfectly fine if I were joined by many women who see nothing wrong in thinking of men as dogs to be controlled by their d*cks?
> 
> And that this belongs on a site to promote healthy marriages?
> 
> 
> 
> I feel like I've entered the Twilight Zone.


The point being, is this not a forum where various views should be allowed to be promoted? It sounds like b/c you do not agree with his views that his book/methodology should not be tolerated on TAM. If so who is supposed to decide what is and isn't acceptable for the members here, you? If the book/methodology is relationship based and members here have stated it has helped them either better themselves or their marriages, that ultimately sounds like what the goal should be at TAM. You don't have to agree with him, no one is saying you have to. However, to imply that his writings have no place here, well IMO that is against the spirit of TAM. I would like to think the members here are educated enough to make their own informed decisions based on everything presented, don't you?


----------



## Marduk

Wolf1974 said:


> Wait I'm confused. Are you saying that doesn't happen here? Now I think I'm in twlight zone
> 
> As I recall the last thread that this type of manipulation was being suggested but also encouraged you and I were the only ones who disagreed with the vast majority that this was perfectly acceptable. Do you recall that? I'm hoping I don't have you confused with another person


I know of at least one female poster that does exactly that. 

And I haven't heard to many people yelling about it.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## norajane

EllisRedding said:


> The point being, is this not a forum where various views should be allowed to be promoted? It sounds like b/c you do not agree with his views that his book/methodology should not be tolerated on TAM. If so who is supposed to decide what is and isn't acceptable for the members here, you? If the book/methodology is relationship based and members here have stated it has helped them either better themselves or their marriages, that ultimately sounds like what the goal should be at TAM. You don't have to agree with him, no one is saying you have to. However, to imply that his writings have no place here, well IMO that is against the spirit of TAM. I would like to think the members here are educated enough to make their own informed decisions based on everything presented, don't you?


People can post anything they want and promote anything they want. 

But people like me who think what they're promoting is bullsh*t do not have to be silent in expressing our opposition to it. 

And we are free to talk about it how much we dislike it and post in threads about it.


----------



## Wolf1974

norajane said:


> And that is exactly why I am advocating against it. Manipulation is not healthy and does not lead to healthy relationships.
> 
> Trust and respect lead to healthy relationships. So why is MMSL so highly promoted here instead when there are healthier ways to learn to stop being a doormat and go to he gym? Because some people say manipulation works? Some people say cheating works for them, too. But that's not a healthy action to promote on a site about healthy marriages.


And that is also something, cheating, that is promoted here. Not as much as using sex as a weapon or this book but it's here and seen it suggested more than a few times.

I agree with you about promotion of healthy marriages but as long as I have been here that has never been a goal or guideline that I have seen enforced here. What I see though is people sharing their opinion. Some I agree with and others I don't. I don't really have a problem with the varying opinions just want it recognized that both side do promote, and claim success, with manipulation 

I actually don't disagree with you at all . I have been in a relationship where I was used and manipulated and I wouldn't do that to someone. That's not what works for me so I have always and will always share my opinion that manipulation isn't the best route......

I mean if you can't get it, no matter what "it" is, willingly is it even worth having?


----------



## norajane

Wolf1974 said:


> And that is also something, cheating, that is promoted here. Not as much as using sex as a weapon or this book but it's here and seen it suggested more than a few times.
> 
> *I agree with you about promotion of healthy marriages but as long as I have been here that has never been a goal or guideline that I have seen enforced here.* What I see though is people sharing their opinion. Some I agree with and others I don't. I don't really have a problem with the varying opinions just want it recognized that both side do promote, and claim success, with manipulation
> 
> I actually don't disagree with you at all . I have been in a relationship where I was used and manipulated and I wouldn't do that to someone. That's not what works for me so I have always and will always share my opinion that manipulation isn't the best route......
> 
> I mean if you can't get it, no matter what "it" is, willingly is it even worth having?


I wish that were more the goal. That's what I was hoping this place would be when I came here.


----------



## tech-novelist

Dogbert said:


> Hey Hitler had some good stuff as well in his book Mein Kampf, but I doubt that we would highly recommend others to read it for self empowerment purposes, would we?


Godwin's Law strikes again!


----------



## EllisRedding

norajane said:


> EllisRedding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point being, is this not a forum where various views should be allowed to be promoted? It sounds like b/c you do not agree with his views that his book/methodology should not be tolerated on TAM. If so who is supposed to decide what is and isn't acceptable for the members here, you? If the book/methodology is relationship based and members here have stated it has helped them either better themselves or their marriages, that ultimately sounds like what the goal should be at TAM. You don't have to agree with him, no one is saying you have to. However, to imply that his writings have no place here, well IMO that is against the spirit of TAM. I would like to think the members here are educated enough to make their own informed decisions based on everything presented, don't you?
> 
> 
> 
> People can post anything they want and promote anything they want.
> 
> But people like me who think what they're promoting is bullsh*t do not have to be silent in expressing our opposition to it.
> 
> And we are free to talk about it how much we dislike it and post in threads about it.
Click to expand...

That is fine, don't recall anyone ever saying you or anyone else had to be silent so I don't understand where are you are going with this??


----------



## Dogbert

Wolf1974 said:


> Wow man come on.....Hitler now? Seriously regroup and let's not make this crazy.
> 
> You may not agree with the insights this guy has in his book. I don't know cause I haven't read it but I don't think I will agree with most of it either. But comparing him to Hitler? If a point you are trying to make you automatically loose the argument when you enter into the absurd.


Before the start of WWII, Hitler was a great motivator and uniter of a people during a time when there was an economic meltdown the likes the world had never seen. German disenfranchisement was so great that the country was poised at the brink of a bloody civil war. His visionary leadership saved Germany. Sadly his bigotry and hatred for those he considered inferior and parasitic, sent the world into another bloody war the cost the lives of millions of innocent people.

I agree that my comparison of Athol with Hitler was way over the top but my point was that even the most darkest of human souls probably had a few good things that many people admired, even to this day. And while Athol is no Hitler, like him there is a duality of good and bad in his teachings to men.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Oh, I guess he wasn't referring to that other post.


----------



## Tubbalard

Dogbert said:


> Fair enough but can you tell me where in the Ladies Lounge is the stickie "The Woman Up and Nice Girl Reference"?
> 
> Saying that it is not needed is BS considering that just as many women as men are fvcked up when it comes to handling relationships with the opposite sex.
> 
> 
> 
> No market? Have you been living in a cave for the last 50 years? Have you ever been to a book store in your life? If you go to the sex and relationship section you'll see the vast number of books are targeted to (drum roll please) women.
> 
> If women "instinctively know how to get a man" then why are there so many books and articles written for women on the very subject itself?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree. If this was the case, then there wouldn't be any forums, many specifically for women, dealing with relationship issues. Nor the plethora of sex and relationship books, throughout the years FOR women. There wouldn't have been, nor still exist, a market. And you can bet your bottom dollar that among those books are some man-hating female authors that could be recommended by some of the female TAM members to newbie female members, on how to treat and dominate their men. That they don't do it is a credit to themselves.


I don't think you quite understand or get it. Many relationship books are geared toward women. Its like sports talk for women. We're talking about books written in the same vein as althol K. books. The equivalent of these books would be, how to get your man to do the dishes or mow the lawn. "Get him to buy that diamond necklace." "How to whip your man in shape using your sexual power." There's no high demand for women to obtain a man because women know how to use their feminine charm to get a man That she wants. Most women don't need a three part series on how to get a man using analytics and comprehensive assesments. There is a demand for men in this field because women are more complex and a lot of guys don't even know how to get in or play the game. To get women you need an array of skills. It's like a hall of fame pitcher, You can throw a slider or a curve but she not might take well to it. Well I can go with a knuckle or two seamer, which can get her to swing. If I'm equipped I can throw the high heat randy Johnson as a great equalizer. A lot of men need to be taught intellectually how to appeal to a woman mentally and emotionally. To get a man is fairly simplistic. Getting that man to commit is where an author can their money's worth with women. 

Women feel the books are misogynistic based on the uses of moneyball tactics or formulaic maneuvers to get them. Women hate it with a passion.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## WandaJ

Wolf1974 said:


> Did you not see what I wrote? I said I don't agree with the notion being passed along but I haven't read his book so I can't comment on the whole thing. But here what is passed on TAM and often is manipulation. While I don't agree with it it is encouraged in many threads. From what I understand this book is about manipulation. A woman Using sex as a weapon also manipulation. That's never shouted down here. I don't think manipulation is a great way to a healthy relationship personally but many people here do and it is stated over and over again. So no I see no difference in the type of Manipulation. Some say that it works and others don't


Really? have we been raeding the same forum?


----------



## WandaJ

Faithful Wife said:


> That's actually a separate thread in the Ladies Lounge...Dogbert started this one here in mens. So they may not have actually read the one in womens (though they also may not change their belief if they do).


oops! then guys, check those Athoy's quotes in a similar thread over at ladies lounge and tell me that you find them acceptable.


----------



## norajane

EllisRedding said:


> That is fine, don't recall anyone ever saying you or anyone else had to be silent so I don't understand where are you are going with this??


You questioned why I was posting about my belief that MMSL does not promote healthy marriages even though it is often recommended here. You said it sounds like I don't think multiple viewpoints should be posted here.

I am explaining to you that multiple viewpoints are fine and I am not saying it shouldn't be "allowed" here. But because multiple viewpoints are fine, I am posting MY viewpoint about MMSLP in this thread about whether MMSLP is Bullcrap or not. I think it is bullcrap and that is why I am saying so in a thread that asked my opinion.


----------



## Dogbert

Tubbalard said:


> I don't think you quite understand or get it. Many relationship books are geared toward women. Its like sports talk for women. We're talking about books written in the same vein as althol K. books. The equivalent of these books would be, how to get your man to do the dishes or mow the lawn. "Get him to buy that diamond necklace." "How to whip your man in shape using your sexual power." There's no high demand for women to obtain a man because women know how to use their feminine charm to get a man That she wants. Most women don't need a three part series on how to get a man using analytics and comprehensive assesments. There is a demand for men in this field because women are more complex and a lot of guys don't even know how to get in or play the game. To get women you need an array of skills. It's like a hall of fame pitcher, You can throw a slider or a curve but she not might take well to it. Well I can go with a knuckle or two seamer, which can get her to swing. If I'm equipped I can throw the high heat randy Johnson as a great equalizer. A lot of men need to be taught intellectually how to appeal to a woman mentally and emotionally. To get a man is fairly simplistic. Getting that man to commit is where an author can their money's worth with women.


Again, where in those books did the female authors make disrespectful comments about men? and if there are any such authors and books, when did the female members of TAM ever promoted them to their fellow female TAM as the solutions to their relationship woes?



> Women feel the books are misogynistic based on the uses of moneyball tactics or formulaic maneuvers to get them. Women hate it with a passion.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


If Athol had referred to other men with hateful comments based solely on their place of origin, would you argue that he wasn't a racist and that we should only look at the good parts of his message?

You can't argue being even-handed when you refuse to do so when valid criticism is leveled against those things and people you care about.


----------



## dash74

Tubbalard said:


> To get women you need an array of skills. It's like a hall of fame pitcher, You can throw a slider or a curve but she not might take well to it. Well I can go with a knuckle or two seamer, which can get her to swing. If I'm equipped I can throw the high heat randy Johnson as a great equalizer. A lot of men need to be taught intellectually how to appeal to a woman mentally and emotionally.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


:rofl::lol::lol::rofl:
Oh sh*t If I'm equipped I can throw the high heat Randy Johnson :rofl:

The only time they could say thay had a Randy Johnson and big unit on live tv and not have the fcc come down on them

More d*ck innuendos than you can swing a bat at


----------



## Catherine602

EllisRedding said:


> The point being, is this not a forum where various views should be allowed to be promoted? It sounds like b/c you do not agree with his views that his book/methodology should not be tolerated on TAM. If so who is supposed to decide what is and isn't acceptable for the members here, you? If the book/methodology is relationship based and members here have stated it has helped them either better themselves or their marriages, that ultimately sounds like what the goal should be at TAM. You don't have to agree with him, no one is saying you have to. However, to imply that his writings have no place here, well IMO that is against the spirit of TAM. I would like to think the members here are educated enough to make their own informed decisions based on everything presented, don't you?


There is nothing wrong with promoting these "methods". It is hard to stand by and watch a train wreck and say nothing. 

One of the hardest things I do is to admit that my thoughts and actions are part of the problem when we have issues in my relationship. It is so humbling to admit. It is me many times, not him. I wish I had some formula to make it easy to exert the daily effort it takes to maintain a balanced happy marriage. I wish I could find some outside forces to blame for having to work so hard. 

This MMSLP has taken on the fervor of a religion. That's what is so disturbing. I have to ask why is there so much anger and darkness surrounding this movement? If it is good and enlightening then then why does it make so many men vicious? 

I don't see happy, confident men who have resolved their issues with the opposite gender. There is no sharing of good news and happy encouragement to non-believers. I don't see men who are optimistic about their ability to attract a more suitable partner if their current unhappy relationship should end. Read the posts on this thread, there is little harmony, attempt to understand or kindness. If that is so among strangers how much more is it in intimate relationships IRL?

What I see are people who feel trapped in desperately unhappy partnerships who are looking for answers. There is no one answer. It's individual and depends on two people who are willing to work hard. I've learned that it takes constant tending because it's a delicate balance. I mean tending form me because I am the only one who can control my life.

Any message that advocates approaching relationships with a heavy hand is doomed to failure IMO. Also blaming the other gender for all of the problems will fail to fix anything.


----------



## EllisRedding

norajane said:


> EllisRedding said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is fine, don't recall anyone ever saying you or anyone else had to be silent so I don't understand where are you are going with this??
> 
> 
> 
> You questioned why I was posting about my belief that MMSL does not promote healthy marriages even though it is often recommended here. You said it sounds like I don't think multiple viewpoints should be posted here.
> 
> I am explaining to you that multiple viewpoints are fine and I am not saying it shouldn't be "allowed" here. But because multiple viewpoints are fine, I am posting MY viewpoint about MMSLP in this thread about whether MMSLP is Bullcrap or not. I think it is bullcrap and that is why I am saying so in a thread that asked my opinion.
Click to expand...

Idk, twilight zone here. You responded to my original comment directed at Wanda that really had nothing to do with what I asked, so that is really why I have no idea where you were going with that except for making you r opinion heard (no issues from me). I just found it odd , especially since at no point did I ever say I agreed or disagreed with this dude's methods...


----------



## Anon Pink

marduk said:


> Fair warning: MMSLP helped me. A lot.
> 
> But... I've talked to the guy. Quite a bit.
> 
> He has a metric ton of biases. Including a conservative christian background, that while he doesn't think colors his situation, it does.
> 
> At the end of the day, I think a mentally healthy and non-angry guy can probably read MMSLP, weed out the obvious mysogeny, and take it for what it's worth. I will say that when I red it, and swallowed the 'red pill,' I got very angry at women for about a month.
> 
> Because I had wrongly put the blame for the lie the red pill exposes on women, when the truth is it harms them as much or more than anyone. And the lie is that there is some kind of magical social contract that being nice and expecting others to somehow know what you want and give it to you is the real deal.
> 
> It just isn't. So standing up for what you want, being clear about it, having a life of your own, getting in shape, paying attention to your appearance, being confident, and expecting sex while married... all good things. If you're a passive aggressive nice guy husband who's wife isn't attracted to you, odds are this book will help you get laid.
> 
> The things that aren't so good is the agism that happens -- it's very magnified. And goes away day by day. Sure, maybe it used to be the case that it was typical for a 40 year old single guy to be dating 20 something women, but we see the opposite of that now every day.
> 
> And plenty of women that take care of themselves actually look hotter than their husbands that have let themselves go.
> 
> So there's all kinds of exercises in futility happening, and magnification of minor effects.
> 
> I think having outward appearances of confidence, success, intelligence, etc are all good things for a guy. And raising your T may be part of that equation.
> 
> Blaming not getting what you want from women because they've locked you into a lie is not a good thing.
> 
> And, after living the red pill lifestyle for a few years, it got me laid a lot but almost zero emotional intimacy. Because relationships aren't a zero sum game; I don't win by making my wife lose sex. I don't win power by making my wife lose it.
> 
> What I want is to win by helping my wife win. And actually be able to be vulnerable and intimate with her, you know?


Well said Marduk. 

The trouble is that it seems the red pill DOES teach men to blame women for their unhappiness. 

"I was a putz and its all women's fault!" No dude, you're a putz. Stop being a putz and maybe things will go better for you.


----------



## Marduk

Anon Pink said:


> Well said Marduk.
> 
> The trouble is that it seems the red pill DOES teach men to blame women for their unhappiness.
> 
> "I was a putz and its all women's fault!" No dude, you're a putz. Stop being a putz and maybe things will go better for you.


Freakin' exactly.

Which is why I still back a compassionate man-up kinda deal for some guys.

Because you're never gonna improve your deal by reducing someone else's. Not in the long run, anyway.


----------



## Marduk

Dogbert said:


> Again, where in those books did the female authors make disrespectful comments about men? and if there are any such authors and books, when did the female members of TAM ever promoted them to their fellow female TAM as the solutions to their relationship woes?
> 
> 
> 
> If Athol had referred to other men with hateful comments based solely on their place of origin, would you argue that he wasn't a racist and that we should only look at the good parts of his message?
> 
> You can't argue being even-handed when you refuse to do so when valid criticism is leveled against those things and people you care about.


I find it totaly hilarious that you're arguing for even-handedness after comparing Athol Kay to hitler.

Seriously. Laugh out loud in a board meeting hilarious.


----------



## Tubbalard

Dogbert said:


> Again, where in those books did the female authors make disrespectful comments about men? and if there are any such authors and books, when did the female members of TAM ever promoted them to their fellow female TAM as the solutions to their relationship woes?
> 
> 
> 
> If Athol had referred to other men with hateful comments based solely on their place of origin, would you argue that he wasn't a racist and that we should only look at the good parts of his message?
> 
> You can't argue being even-handed when you refuse to do so when valid criticism is leveled against those things and people you care about.


I'm not sure if we're discussing the same thing. I don't know any books that are geared toward women that are promoted in the same way as an athol k. book. I don't see any books that are equivalent that are promoted here to women that men view as misandrist. My point was there is no market or high demand for women to read books based on "misandry" in the vein of MMSLP that is "misogynistic". Most Women instinctually know how to get a man. It doesn't take a book to explain this. A mean cook and clean game, skillful in the bedroom, an awesome personality or intellectually stimulating is all takes and man is good to go. The books sell for women are in the vein of keeping that man, how to find the_ right_ man, how to get him to say I love you, how to win his heart, how not to nag, "Think like a lady, act like a man". It's not formulaic based approached type books that resonate with men.

I'm neutral on Althol K. I don't like or dislike him. His material is not meant or for me. It's more for guys that need the help or never acquired the proper skills to properly understand women. 

He's not really saying anything groundbreaking. He's taking what men sit down at a bar and chat about and fine tuning into language that strikes a chord with his listeners. He's essentially able to package PUA material, combine it with your standard relationship material, mix it up, add some of his own ingredients Make is less concentrated and package it up in away to appeal to his target demographic.


----------



## EleGirl

happy as a clam said:


> Along the lines of Constable Odo... (and NO, I am no fan of Putin). But from the pure, raw observation of a female "looking" at a male, which would YOU choose?? (I know which one I WOULDN'T choose...)
> 
> *Ladies, SEPARATE the politics from the RAW images and tell me YOUR thoughts...*


I would not choose either. 

Putin is a 3 trying to use his political power to look like a 10. It does not work. Politics aside, he makes my skin crawl.

Just because a man carries/uses a weapon it does not make him sexy or appealing. I and other women I know can carry a weapon and shoot it too. We can hit what we aim at. Actually I've been a good shot since the age of 10. 

Hunting animals with a weapon does not make him manly. It takes a lot more than that to be manly.

To me Obama is not attractive at all either but for different reasons.




happy as a clam said:


>


----------



## EleGirl

Wolf1974 said:


> And that is also something, cheating, that is promoted here. Not as much as using sex as a weapon or this book but it's here and seen it suggested more than a few times.
> 
> I agree with you about promotion of healthy marriages but as long as I have been here that has never been a goal or guideline that I have seen enforced here. What I see though is people sharing their opinion. Some I agree with and others I don't. I don't really have a problem with the varying opinions just want it recognized that both side do promote, and claim success, with manipulation
> 
> I actually don't disagree with you at all . I have been in a relationship where I was used and manipulated and I wouldn't do that to someone. That's not what works for me so I have always and will always share my opinion that manipulation isn't the best route......
> 
> I mean if you can't get it, no matter what "it" is, willingly is it even worth having?


What threads has cheating been promoted on?

Where have women told other women to manipulate? Can you please provide links?


----------



## EleGirl

norajane said:


> You questioned why I was posting about my belief that MMSL does not promote healthy marriages even though it is often recommended here. You said it sounds like I don't think multiple viewpoints should be posted here.
> 
> I am explaining to you that multiple viewpoints are fine and I am not saying it shouldn't be "allowed" here. But because multiple viewpoints are fine, I am posting MY viewpoint about MMSLP in this thread about whether MMSLP is Bullcrap or not. I think it is bullcrap and that is why I am saying so in a thread that asked my opinion.


But, but, if you voice your opinion the obviously you are trying to deny opposing opinions.. right? :scratchhead:


----------



## Dogbert

marduk said:


> I find it totaly hilarious that you're arguing for even-handedness after comparing Athol Kay to hitler.
> 
> Seriously. Laugh out loud in a board meeting hilarious.


Hope I didn't make you fart or cause you to suffer far worse "leakage".


----------



## Deejo

Dogbert, I'm closing your thread.

We now have another thread in LL discussing the topic of the book, or red pill. Primarily the book, the author and the concept of red pill itself.

I'm closing your thread because whether intentional or not, you chose to make it personal by fundamentally framing the argument as either agreeing with one poster or one moderator.

You make it clear that you see it as misogynistic.

It sets the stage so anyone who claims that they got beneficial results in their relationship as a consequence of reading THAT book, is a misogynist by proxy, or somehow is disingenuous.

Even if they wanted their marriage or relationship to be better, the vehicle they chose is wrong.

So, that makes MEM a misogynist.
Makes me a misogyinst.
Makes Marduk a misogynist.
Makes ALL of the men in the thread you linked outwardly claiming that both they, and their partners felt better about their relationship, misogynists.

I've made it clear, I'm really not a defender of Athol Kay. But ... I do feel compelled to defend people on this forum, and there is an insidious undercurrent in this thread which calls their integrity into question as the result of the disdain of others for a particular author.

So, you are indeed entitled to your opinion, as is anyone else. You are free to continue discussing Athol Kay, MMSL, and Red Pill.

Just not under the circumstances borne from this thread.


----------

