# Can we start over?



## Faithful Wife

This thread about starting over with a new discussion about an old topic. Only this time I want to actually just discuss the topic itself and how we can maybe discuss it easier around here.

The topic is the riff between feminists and RP guys, though some who don’t identify as fems or RP may also feel alignment with this discussion and want to chime in.

I want to start by saying, I’ve concluded that if I listen to points by RP guys through my normal filters, I cannot hear what they are really trying to convey. Aside from those who may be deliberately trying to stir crap, I mean just the normal guys at TAM who are somewhat (at least) RP followers or those who share similar views. I have respect for them and when they say things that sound so disrespectful to women in general I get confused. This is how I’ve come to realize I will simply have to listen differently.

I’d like it to be understood as we discuss this that I’ve seen this inability in myself, so I want to ask for some leniency if I still don’t get things...I’m really going to try. I don’t know that this discussion will lead to any good relationship advice, but I hope maybe it can. I’m going to do my best to set aside what I think you are saying if it doesn’t make sense, and ask for more clarification until it does.

Or even if it doesn’t make sense to me, perhaps I will be able to accept it anyway. For instance, I accept now after reading so much about it here that most men are made to feel from childhood that they are not afforded empathy generally in the world, but specifically that many women will sexually shut down to a man who is in need of empathy (like, literally after a sibling or parent’s death). This doesn’t make sense to me on any level but I accept it. I have some ideas on how to maybe help that issue but it can come up later.

The part I’m hoping will also happen but which I won’t insist on, is that I hope to also be understood by some of you who before may have been using your own filters too heavily and assigning meanings to me that don’t exist. 

I posted this in the ladies lounge simply because it’s not really a general discussion, and I didn’t put it in men’s because I’m hoping other women will join the discussion too, but if it’s just me that’s ok too.

Here is another one. The thread about “you did it for him but not me” made me realize there is something deeper than jealousy, something more insulting to a man going on than what I can feel myself. I can’t dip into any similar feelings no matter how many comparisons might be made to other things. So finally I just determined this is one of those things that are so different in us (a large portion of us anyway) that I just want to accept it exists rather than try to understand it. That way I can hear the angst in men’s voices about it, and know that while I can’t feel what he’s feeling, he is certainly feeling something uncomfortable and that’s enough of a reason to be sensitive to it.

That doesn’t mean I would tell women what to do, it just means I’m understanding that it is a much bigger deal to a lot of men than I ever realized (also because I’ve never really been in that position).

Hopefully this helps explain the things I’ve been alluding to on the other thread. I want to drop my filters and actually hear what you guys are saying.


----------



## tech-novelist

I don't think I've ever seen a more compassionate and open message here, or really anywhere else either.

It's pretty late here so I won't post anything significant right now, but you can count on my participation tomorrow.

Thanks.


----------



## Luminous

To explain the 'rift between feminists and RP', one needs to understand what each stands for, and if that stance is being honoured, or abused, or neglected.

From your post, are you wanting to just talk generally about it? Or are there certain examples you could bring up that might get the ball rolling?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Luminous said:


> To explain the 'rift between feminists and RP', one needs to understand what each stands for, and if that stance is being honoured, or abused, or neglected.
> 
> From your post, are you wanting to just talk generally about it? Or are there certain examples you could bring up that might get the ball rolling?


I’m open to anything. I have some rolling around in my head to try on, but it’s really such a huge topic.

I guess I don’t necessarily want to completely unravel why RP or feminism is good or bad. But more like, I want to understand these things that seem bad because the men I respect are saying them so I must not be getting it.

So if a hard core RP guy rushes me ...I am not going to be able to learn from that. But for now I will also just agree upfront to not turn this into a snarky endless bus ride. My part in that is to not be the spirited scrapper I usually am when I feel insulted. I’m going to instead ignore anything that’s just ugly...but respond to and converse about things I honestly don’t have empathy for because I literally cannot feel what you feel. And so I have to start with compassion, whereby I acknowledge that even though I can’t feel it, I can see clearly something is harming or annoying you. Slowly I can build empathy through understanding because I know if I listen the right way, I will understand (or at least fully accept) many of the topics which usually get me scrappy.

Once I’ve developed the empathy necessary here, I will always be able to hear what men in the RP camp are saying so much better. And I want to do that.


----------



## Luminous

Faithful Wife said:


> I’m open to anything. I have some rolling around in my head to try on, but it’s really such a huge topic.
> 
> I guess I don’t necessarily want to completely unravel why RP or feminism is good or bad. But more like, I want to understand these things that seem bad because the men I respect are saying them so I must not be getting it.
> 
> So if a hard core RP guy rushes me ...I am not going to be able to learn from that. But for now I will also just agree upfront to not turn this into a snarky endless bus ride. My part in that is to not be the spirited scrapper I usually am when I feel insulted. I’m going to instead ignore anything that’s just ugly...but respond to and converse about things I honestly don’t have empathy for because I literally cannot feel what you feel. And so I have to start with compassion, whereby I acknowledge that even though I can’t feel it, I can see clearly something is harming or annoying you. Slowly I can build empathy through understanding because I know if I listen the right way, I will understand (or at least fully accept) many of the topics which usually get me scrappy.
> 
> Once I’ve developed the empathy necessary here, I will always be able to hear what men in the RP camp are saying so much better. And I want to do that.


I can give you my personal experiences that have had me become a RP'er.

As a result of my relationship ending earlier this year (documented in another section of this forum), I began to realise just how vulnerable I was from a legal stand point. When my relationship was heading in a really bad direction, I got legal advise. I asked where I stood with my partner should the relationship dissolve, or no longer being her visa sponsor. Basically, even though all the assets were in my name, and I owned them years prior to meeting her, and I had been making 100% upkeep on them myself, she was STILL entitled to a claim. It would have more than likely been only enough to cover legal costs (nett result = zero), but she still had that right. 

She also had an option if I no longer wished to be the visa sponsor, that the only other way she could stay, is if she either got pregnant, or there was a domestic violence claim against me. Now, the latter of those is of great concern, especially in light of how many false allegations are made these days. I had to pretty much record almost everywhere I went during this time, in case there was anything made against me. If she wanted to be vindictive, she would have had that option. 

As a result of the above, it lead me on a bit of a fact finding mission about what is going on in general, and led me to discover the following...

The family court system is extremely biased towards women. One of the podcasts I listen to, was by a gentleman who works in the US legal system (and has personally been divorced twice), spoke about the 'Duluth Model' being what the judges of family courts or domestic violence bases it's values on. It also is very one sided.

Even an 'allegation' against a man will make him guilty until proven innocent, as well as leave a permanent 'stain' against his standing in society, let alone affect any future job/career prospects.

This is why philosophies like Men Going Their Own Way are gaining so much traction. The laws are being changed more and more to accommodate for people's 'feelings' without taking into account the long term ramifications of such laws being put in place, as well as society subjugating men.

An example: Alot of people who claim to want 'free speech' for everybody, will be quite happy to label what you say as 'hate speech' if it doesn't conform to their idea of 'free'.

Whenever someone speaks up for men's rights, if they are a man, they either get labelled as 'misogynists' or do not get taken seriously. Just look at the differences between when a man reports domestic violence, versus a woman. Society has been conditioned for the man to 'man up' and just take it because, well, he's a man. There is next to zero accountability for women's behaviour in modern day life.

Marriage rates are dropping more than any time in recorded history. Men are waking up to the fact that marriage is a high risk, low return situation, and that it is vice-versa for a woman. A woman can say 'she would never do that to her man' (i.e. take him to the cleaners), but the State gives her that option at any time should that situation change. Not all circumstances are like this I realise, and there are women out there that have no doubt received the rough end of the stick. However, a majority of the time it is the former.

It is my belief, that RP'ers just want to system to be fair. For the laws to be more evenly dispersed. 

Feminism has gone further than achieving what it set out to do. It is now trying to dominate completely, and should it do so will cripple society possibly beyond repair. 

I have heard many times, feminists saying that there should be more women in the workplaces that are made up mostly of men. This is basing job selection on 'feelings' (gender) rather than 'merit' (skill). Also, how many women want to work in places such as Mines, Sewerage Treatment, any other type of job that involves either hard labour or high risk? They always seems to be aiming at the Corporate end of the spectrum, in areas where their is 'status' attached to it.

As it stands, there are very few people in positions of power (if any) that want to listen to men's issues, because the moment they do, they will get flamed by those around them because they are going 'against the grain'.

For me personally, if I woman claims to want equality then great. What is it that she is doing to achieve this? What is she bringing to the table of a relationship from their end? 

Any man that has his life together, and also has assets behind him, now becomes a target, and marriage is not between a man and a woman. It's between a man and the woman/State.

I won't go on any further at this stage, as I realise that this is a fair bit to digest at present.

I will say that I appreciate your openness on such a topic.


----------



## Faithful Wife

@Luminous...that was a lot! But not in any way offensive and I know all of those things are true but I just have a bit of a softer view of “why” everything is the way it is.

I’ll respond more later to your post specifically. Obviously I won’t be able to offer any solid answers or solutions to the problems you identified. But maybe I can just ease us into those difficult topics.


----------



## farsidejunky

Somewhere, off in the distance, ever so faint yet discernable, I swear I heard a "va clang"...

;-)

I'm looking forward to where this thread will go.

I also agree with Tech's opinion of your opening post, FW. 

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

I don't think one needs empathy or try that hard to understand one perspective or the other: all one needs to do is realise that if one solely focuses on the worst parts of men's behaviour, it makes perfect sense to be a feminist in today's society and if you focus on the worst parts of what women can do, then it makes sense to be a 'red piller' or whatever it is you youngsters call it today (I literally learnt the term yesterday).

There's definitely a lot of **** happening on both sides and I also get 'allergic' to some of the language used. I hope to think that that is accidental rather than deliberate.


----------



## Faithful Wife

farsidejunky said:


> Somewhere, off in the distance, ever so faint yet discernable, I swear I heard a "va clang"...
> 
> ;-)
> 
> I'm looking forward to where this thread will go.
> 
> I also agree with Tech's opinion of your opening post, FW.


Here’s what I’m kind of hoping...keeping in mind that I’m a very positive thinker...if I can find some words to bridge some chasms between the sexes on some of these issues, maybe there will be a little more va-ching and a little less va-clang. That would make us all happier and would be my contribution to mankind :grin2:


----------



## Faithful Wife

@Lunious please let me sum up as briefly as I can my relationship with divorce. As a human being, not as a feminist. 

I am the poster child for divorce, and I didn’t really ever want this “honor”, but it has given me a unique perspective.

My parents were high school sweethearts. They unfortunately both struggled with personal issues and had a sad up and down relationship. They divorced when I was 2. Then they were thrown back into each other’s arms and got married again when I was about 4. Later they divorced for the 2nd and final time when I was 6. I remember all of it, and it was quite difficult. There were absolutely no heroes and no villains in this - though both of my parents acted as heroes and villains at different times. I could see over time that this was just unfortunate and for the things I hated about having divorced parents, I vowed when I grew up I would never do such a thing to my kids. The main one was something like, if I’m ever married and have kids and then divorced I will never bad mouth my ex to my kids. I had very strong opinions about divorce of my own, from my perspective, which I felt should have been the most important one, being just a narcissist child and all. However as I matured, I saw that my parents were just doing their best to get through their own internal battles and couldn’t properly deal with mine.

Both of my parents remarried so I ultimately had a father, a mother, a step father and a step mother all at the same time. 

I learned a lot and made many more opinions about how kids should be treated and also how blended families should do things. It wasn’t always pretty, in hindsight, I can again see more of lack of knowledge and coping skills than any villains.

Ultimately my parents both divorced both of my step parents. They both remained single after that (my father has deceased).

I married at age 20 because I was pregnant though I also felt in love. We were married 14 years. We divorced because we were a terrible mismatch on most things and not actually in love. I married my second husband, we were married 6 years, divorced now for 3.

In both of my divorces, my exes ended up better off than I did in the assets division. This was because I didn’t want to fight them on anything so we just split things very close but not 100% in “half” (this is a complicated formula). I wasn’t screwed into the ground, but in both cases I lost quite a bit of money that wasn’t actually equitable. It hurt and I was irritated by it...but I also knew it wasn’t worth talking to attorneys about and costing money that way.

Then there’s this part of my history...I worked for several years for a collaborative family law attorney.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaborative_law

Collaborative law is a whole topic of its own, but how I want to incorporate it here is to explain that I worked for one of the most progressive attorneys in this field in the country, who also was a trainer of other attorneys in collaborative law.

I learned from the ground up what collaborative law means, what the goal is, why it is needed, how it can help in a lot of cases (but not all). I saw how the process works, why it works, when it doesn’t work. I have an in depth knowledge of this type of law which I found sort of topped off my divorce poster child tiara. Collaborative law is all about doing what is fair for every member of the family and doing it above board without courts, and not continuing to the end until a fair for all (including kids and dads!) settlement is reached.

That brings me to now.

I’ll have to start a new post and I will respond specifically to your post about mens rights and family courts....


----------



## Luminous

inmyprime said:


> I don't think one needs empathy or try that hard to understand one perspective or the other: all one needs to do is realise that if one solely focuses on the worst parts of men's behaviour, it makes perfect sense to be a feminist in today's society and if you focus on the worst parts of what women can do, then it makes sense to be a 'red piller' or whatever it is you youngsters call it today (I literally learnt the term yesterday).
> 
> There's definitely a lot of **** happening on both sides and I also get 'allergic' to some of the language used. I hope to think that that is accidental rather than deliberate.


Yes. Sometimes looking at things as they are without labels can be a good thing. Until recently, I had no idea what 'left wing' and 'right wing' were all about either, but kept on seeing it thrown about when talking about politics in this place and on the Internet in general (mostly US politics).


----------



## Faithful Wife

@Luminous ... My current position on marriage and divorce...

I just don’t know why people insist on doing it. Getting married was never a huge goal of mine. My first wedding was a $2500 ho down (heh heh) and my second I eloped with him (and paid for half of all of it, which was so worth it!) so a big princess wedding has never been my thang.

Now that I fully understand marriage and divorce as legal issues, I understand even less why people want to be married. The courts are going to sort through and force you to split your legal assets and your custody. They don’t care about your feelings, or who is right or wrong, who cheated on who, whose heart was more broken, etc. In fact, none of those things are any of the court’s business. Only your assets and your children are their business.

If only people really understood this. It should be fully explained to every person getting a marriage license exactly what will happen if they divorce. It should be like a warning label, or better yet, like the DMV where you should have to take a test that proves you understand the personal financial risks you are taking if you marry and end up divorced. And also that you understand you are statistically very likely to divorce if you marry, at least 50%. Like driving a car, you should have to prove you understand what’s at stake here. And also you understand what will happen to any future or current children in a custody dispute. It should be a basic competency thing, no marriage without it.

It should also be explained how the courts work, that it’s all about assets and custody, that they don’t care about your feelings. I think a lot of people have some romantic notion in their heads that courts would punish spouses for bad things like cheating or just being a horrible person. But they don’t. And they don’t care that your soon to be ex is a horrible person, possibly with mental health issues, etc.

Why doesn’t everyone know all of this before they sign into a legal agreement that may financially devesate them later at a time when they are highly likely to also be emotionally devastated? They really should know.

How this directly relates to your post...family law varies by state. Mine happens to be pretty good and trying very hard to be fair to men. But if a guy is in a state that rakes him over the coals...I suggest he scrape together every dime he has for whatever shark lawyer he has to get to get the best deal he can for himself. I understand some will do that and will still get screwed.

But I still suggest that you all use those lawyers that are getting results.

As to fixing it...I would love to see a men’s family law rights group that specifically focuses on that one issue and also if it could be a little welcoming to women. A lot of women can get behind the unfairness to men in family law and we want to help. But we don’t see a lot of organized movement that we are welcome to join. I also hope to see more men who want change to become judges and attorneys and local law makers. I think ultimately you’re going to have to change the courts the same way other groups do when they are being treated unfairly. Consistent infiltration into the court system with cases, judges, attorneys and others too like psychologists (who will insist that men being treated unfairly is unhealthy for all of us).

Recap: I fully endorse men going after what they need to aggressively when necessary and I am unhappy that many of them will get screwed anyway. I totally understand why marriage doesn’t benefit many men, and agree they don’t get equal time with kids. I am not able to make any big steps to help that. However I want to fully acknowledge it. I have tried in the past to tell what I’ve just said in the past couple of posts but it always gets drowned out. Specifically that I want the courts to change and be fair, and I will not argue that they aren’t. But sadly I think it will be up to you guys to change the courts.


----------



## Tasorundo

I think another thing where this comes up is the concept of 'the friend zone'. Feminists generally say that this is a made up term used by entitled me that think they are owed sex and men generally say this is a way women control men and use them to get what they want/need.

In reality I think both sides are right, however they both discount the fact that examples on each side exist.


----------



## BluesPower

I think that it is great that you started this thread, and your opening post was rational and welcoming. 

I won't post too much about some of this stuff because some of it I don't get it. 

I don't understand the RP stuff, or the heavy, anti male, feminist stuff. 

There are men that are not attractive to women, and they do not get laid for the most part. What I observe for the most part is that they are not attractive people. They are not confident, the may or may not be particularly physically attractive, the usually are out of shape but not always, they have very little in the way of social skills, to me, they just do not seem to be competent healthy people. 

Now, I am sure that some will disagree, and that is fine. To me, these men are weak in mind and for the most part body. It would seem that these men are angry towards women, because women really don't want to be around them much less have sex with them, but what these men do not understand is that, for the most part, no one except other weak sexually unsuccessful men want to be around them. 

However, somehow they do not see that. 

Now for the feminists... I believe that woman should receive the same pay for the SAME WORK. I also believe that the statistics on equal pay, presently are skewed to promote the feminist view that women are underpaid. 

If you look at actual jobs, same jobs often are equal, often because of political correctness, lean toward women in some cases. 

Are and have women been discriminated against, yes, does it happen sometimes even now, yes. It is wrong morally and legally, yes. Should it happen no. 

Are men discriminated against in the work place, yes, it has in fact happened to me, so I know that it is real. Are men falsely accused or sexual harassment and even rape yes. Are woman sexually harassed and do they get raped yes. 

All of this is wrong, and it should never happen. 

In general, in most states in the US the divorce laws discriminate against men. Now @Faithful Wife, and other woman have actually lost and been mistreated in the system, and it does happen. It happened to my GF as well. 

However my ExW, got more than she ever deserved, but it was fair in the grand scheme of things. 

Is it wrong for this to happen, yes, should it be fixed, yes. How would you do it, I have no idea. I think that their should be more AT FAULT states, where if you cheat, you get less, if you have been abusive your should get less, if you don't have sex with your husband or wife for no reason, you should get less. 

How you do this I have no idea. 

Something that feminist and the publically correct crowd should be aware of is the following: 

If you are against all masculinity, and you call all masculinity bad, you will get more of what you have gotten so far, weak men that are scared to speak their mind and be a man. You will get more of these confused sissy men that are afraid to stand up for themselves and don't know how to stand up for themselves... the problem is that they are afraid and don't know how to stand up for you. 

They don't know how to fix things, and yes you could learn how to do it an might like to do it but MOST woman don't WANT to do it. 

Men should learn to be men, grow up being men, and not be ashamed of their masculinity. The current society discourages men from being masculine and it does this to its peril. 

So these are my general beliefs about all of these issues, which everyone is welcome to agree of disagree in whatever way they want.


----------



## 269370

BluesPower said:


> There are men that are not attractive to women, and they do not get laid for the most part. What I observe for the most part is that they are not attractive people. They are not confident, the may or may not be particularly physically attractive, the usually are out of shape but not always, they have very little in the way of social skills, to me, they just do not seem to be competent healthy people.


See? This is what I mean (and why I sometimes break your balls). Why do you assume that a man must be 'unhealthy' or 'incompetent' if they he is not having daily sex. This is kind of insulting to people who have an actual problem in their marriage. There may be a million reasons why those marriages suffer. You can't paint everyone with the same brush just because currently, you are getting plenty of sex and it seems foreign to you. I know you mean well.

I am totally onboard with the rest of your post.


----------



## lifeistooshort

One thing that stands out to me is that if you set aside the nuts of either sex, many of the remaining people are struggling with changing gender roles. A lot of people grew up witnessing one dynamic with their parents and now have a different one in their marriage. 

In the past marriage was more of a business deal and the roles were clear and tangible. Men provided, women took care of kids and home, and men expected sexual access as opposed to enthusiasm. Easy to gauge.

Once you invoke feelings though it becomes much more complicated. Wife isn't happy? What does that mean? Husband is unhappy with wife's sexual enthusiasm? That's tough to deal with. 

Emotions are hard to understand and deal with. 

And women are now working, and I get the feeling that a lot of men struggle with what their role is supposed to be. Women struggle too because while we're more independent their is still part of our biology that wants to be taken care of. 

I know I do....I make far more than the national average so I don't need a guy to pay bills for me, but there is still part of me that wants to feel safe and taken care of. What does that even mean? If I don't know how would a guy know?

Sorry for one rambling post.... was just typing out thoughts as I had them.


----------



## BluesPower

inmyprime said:


> See? This is what I mean (and why I sometimes break your balls). Why do you assume that a man must be 'unhealthy' or 'incompetent' if they he is not having daily sex. This is kind of insulting to people who have an actual problem in their marriage. There may be a million reasons why those marriages suffer. You can't paint everyone with the same brush just because currently, you are getting plenty of sex and it seems foreign to you. I know you mean well.
> 
> I am totally onboard with the rest of your post.


I am not talking about married men for the most part. But it does apply to them as well. How many men, are not fit, in fact they let themselves go once they got married. And, that happens on both sides. How many men, do we read about here, that don't like to go out with their wives, don't want to be social, in fact they are anti-social. 

And a lot of these men wonder why their wives do not want to have sex with them. 

Now, for a lot of other men, if they are straight, and they want to have a SO, and they are in fact healthy, they in fact want to get laid, they want a GF at the very least. These men for the most part are what I was describing. 

And yes if they meet the above criteria, then yes they want to have sex, they are unattractive and socially awkward and yet, instead of changing that, the RP crowd, thinks it is the female populations fault that they are not getting laid. 

Conversely, weak men, that are not sexually secure, allow their marriages to become sexless and refuse to believe that they in fact may be the problem. 

So as usual I stand by what I wrote. 

Now I will confess a couple of things to you and anyone else that cares to read. When I was younger and after my divorce, I was one of those guys the sometimes slept with married woman. Yes, I was a POS at those points in my life. I am not proud of some of the things that I have done in my past, but I none the less did them. 

These women had several things in common as a group: 1) Their husbands were not good in bed, in fact to a woman, they told me that they thought it would get better, and it never did. Eventually, they could not take it any more and they came to men like me. I, to my shame, accommodated them. 

2) The other common thing that the group had, was that their husbands sex drive had fallen way off, and the did not have sex very often if at all.

3) The last thing that the group had in common was that their husbands had really let themselves go, and they had lost all attraction with them and they did not want to have sex with their husbands. 

So, whether you agree with me or not, I do have a certain amount of experience in these areas to at least have some understanding of why married woman do not have sex with their husbands. 

To me, I attribute most of the above problems to WEAK, clueless men. 

And please don't beat me up too much about the above stuff, I know it was wrong, I feel bad about a lot of it, and I am a much better person at this point in my life...


----------



## tech-novelist

Luminous said:


> I can give you my personal experiences that have had me become a RP'er.
> 
> As a result of my relationship ending earlier this year (documented in another section of this forum), I began to realise just how vulnerable I was from a legal stand point. When my relationship was heading in a really bad direction, I got legal advise. I asked where I stood with my partner should the relationship dissolve, or no longer being her visa sponsor. Basically, even though all the assets were in my name, and I owned them years prior to meeting her, and I had been making 100% upkeep on them myself, she was STILL entitled to a claim. It would have more than likely been only enough to cover legal costs (nett result = zero), but she still had that right.
> 
> She also had an option if I no longer wished to be the visa sponsor, that the only other way she could stay, is if she either got pregnant, or there was a domestic violence claim against me. Now, the latter of those is of great concern, especially in light of how many false allegations are made these days. I had to pretty much record almost everywhere I went during this time, in case there was anything made against me. If she wanted to be vindictive, she would have had that option.
> 
> As a result of the above, it lead me on a bit of a fact finding mission about what is going on in general, and led me to discover the following...
> 
> The family court system is extremely biased towards women. One of the podcasts I listen to, was by a gentleman who works in the US legal system (and has personally been divorced twice), spoke about the 'Duluth Model' being what the judges of family courts or domestic violence bases it's values on. It also is very one sided.
> 
> Even an 'allegation' against a man will make him guilty until proven innocent, as well as leave a permanent 'stain' against his standing in society, let alone affect any future job/career prospects.
> 
> This is why philosophies like Men Going Their Own Way are gaining so much traction. The laws are being changed more and more to accommodate for people's 'feelings' without taking into account the long term ramifications of such laws being put in place, as well as society subjugating men.
> 
> An example: Alot of people who claim to want 'free speech' for everybody, will be quite happy to label what you say as 'hate speech' if it doesn't conform to their idea of 'free'.
> 
> Whenever someone speaks up for men's rights, if they are a man, they either get labelled as 'misogynists' or do not get taken seriously. Just look at the differences between when a man reports domestic violence, versus a woman. Society has been conditioned for the man to 'man up' and just take it because, well, he's a man. There is next to zero accountability for women's behaviour in modern day life.
> 
> Marriage rates are dropping more than any time in recorded history. Men are waking up to the fact that marriage is a high risk, low return situation, and that it is vice-versa for a woman. A woman can say 'she would never do that to her man' (i.e. take him to the cleaners), but the State gives her that option at any time should that situation change. Not all circumstances are like this I realise, and there are women out there that have no doubt received the rough end of the stick. However, a majority of the time it is the former.
> 
> It is my belief, that RP'ers just want to system to be fair. For the laws to be more evenly dispersed.
> 
> Feminism has gone further than achieving what it set out to do. It is now trying to dominate completely, and should it do so will cripple society possibly beyond repair.
> 
> I have heard many times, feminists saying that there should be more women in the workplaces that are made up mostly of men. This is basing job selection on 'feelings' (gender) rather than 'merit' (skill). Also, how many women want to work in places such as Mines, Sewerage Treatment, any other type of job that involves either hard labour or high risk? They always seems to be aiming at the Corporate end of the spectrum, in areas where their is 'status' attached to it.
> 
> As it stands, there are very few people in positions of power (if any) that want to listen to men's issues, because the moment they do, they will get flamed by those around them because they are going 'against the grain'.
> 
> For me personally, if I woman claims to want equality then great. What is it that she is doing to achieve this? What is she bringing to the table of a relationship from their end?
> 
> Any man that has his life together, and also has assets behind him, now becomes a target, and marriage is not between a man and a woman. It's between a man and the woman/State.
> 
> I won't go on any further at this stage, as I realise that this is a fair bit to digest at present.
> 
> I will say that I appreciate your openness on such a topic.


I have been through the mill to a relatively minor extent in my divorce (20+ years ago). She tried to take me to the cleaners but was thwarted in that ambition because I fought back, and because we had no children. She eventually ended up with exactly what I had offered her in the first place (less $30,000 in completely unnecessary combined legal bills), namely that she kept her assets and I kept mine. I would have been entitled to some of hers because she had more than I did, but I didn't want to take advantage of her. 

I'm now happily remarried for 20+ years but I doubt I would ever remarry again, at least in the US, if my wife died. The court system is too heavily stacked against men, as you point out, the Duluth system being only part of the problem.

BTW, my proposal to deal with the child support issue in particular is that while a woman has the right to decide whether she will carry a child to term, the man should have an equal right to say "fine, but I'm not paying any child support if you decide that". That would greatly reduce the unfairness in that issue at least.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> Once I’ve developed the empathy necessary here, I will always be able to hear what men in the RP camp are saying so much better. And I want to do that.


This is such a great and rare attitude.

I'd doubt that it could actually be done if I hadn't seen you do it already on the "emotional men" thread.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

BluesPower said:


> Conversely, weak men, that are not sexually secure, allow their marriages to become sexless and refuse to believe that they in fact may be the problem.
> 
> So as usual I stand by what I wrote.


And as usual, you are reductionist to the point of pointlessness.


----------



## Buddy400

BluesPower said:


> If you are against all masculinity, and you call all masculinity bad, you will get more of what you have gotten so far, weak men that are scared to speak their mind and be a man. You will get more of these confused sissy men that are afraid to stand up for themselves and don't know how to stand up for themselves... the problem is that they are afraid and don't know how to stand up for you.


Assuming that women want this.....



lifeistooshort said:


> One thing that stands out to me is that if you set aside the nuts of either sex, many of the remaining people are struggling with changing gender roles. A lot of people grew up witnessing one dynamic with their parents and now have a different one in their marriage.
> 
> .......
> 
> And women are now working, and I get the feeling that a lot of men struggle with what their role is supposed to be. Women struggle too because while we're more independent their is still part of our biology that wants to be taken care of.
> 
> I know I do....I make far more than the national average so I don't need a guy to pay bills for me, but there is still part of me that wants to feel safe and taken care of. What does that even mean? If I don't know how would a guy know?


It seems like they might.

That's what I find most interesting.

I'm not as interested about the legal stuff as I am in the future of male / female relationships.


----------



## Buddy400

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> And as usual, you are reductionist to the point of pointlessness.


 @BluesPower, @Rocky Mountain Yeti

Guys, can we avoid going round and round on this topic again on this thread?


----------



## BluesPower

Buddy400 said:


> @BluesPower, @Rocky Mountain Yeti
> 
> Guys, can we avoid going round and round on this topic again on this thread?


I cannot see what he writes, I have him on ignore. 

So I am just putting out my opinions, and I don't really care who agrees or does not agree. 

Mean while he is still trying to figure out why he cannot get laid, which is his problem, not mine. 

I just ignore him because I don't want to fight...


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

BluesPower said:


> I cannot see what he writes, I have him on ignore.
> 
> So I am just putting out my opinions, and I don't really care who agrees or does not agree.
> 
> Mean while he is still trying to figure out why he cannot get laid, which is his problem, not mine.
> 
> I just ignore him because I don't want to fight...


Just so you know, I am "getting laid." But more importantly, during the lean years, I did in fact know _why_, and it had nothing to do with weakness or lack of confidence. 

As someone who spent a quarter century with a drug addict, you've got zero grounds to criticize what others put up with. 

And an adulterer to boot. Yes , you're a shining example to all mankind.


----------



## tech-novelist

BluesPower said:


> I cannot see what he writes, I have him on ignore.
> 
> So I am just putting out my opinions, and I don't really care who agrees or does not agree.
> 
> Mean while he is still trying to figure out why he cannot get laid, which is his problem, not mine.
> 
> I just ignore him because I don't want to fight...


While I'm not a moderator, I think we should all try to be civil. All the time, but *especially *on this thread, given the humble and compassionate tone of the original post.


----------



## Emerging Buddhist

inmyprime said:


> See? This is what I mean (and why I sometimes break your balls). Why do you assume that a man must be 'unhealthy' or 'incompetent' if they he is not having daily sex. This is kind of insulting to people who have an actual problem in their marriage. There may be a million reasons why those marriages suffer. You can't paint everyone with the same brush just because currently, you are getting plenty of sex and it seems foreign to you. I know you mean well.



A common perception in the manosphere... it is a good thing that pendulums spend most of their time in the middle.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Tasorundo said:


> I think another thing where this comes up is the concept of 'the friend zone'. Feminists generally say that this is a made up term used by entitled me that think they are owed sex and men generally say this is a way women control men and use them to get what they want/need.
> 
> In reality I think both sides are right, however they both discount the fact that examples on each side exist.


I’m happy to discuss this one. I admit upfront, I don’t know why this one is a considered feminism thing. It seems that even a non feminist may put a guy in the friend zone. Meaning, she feels the way she feels about the guy, and she may be an RP girl herself or just not affiliated either way with any gender politics.

If you are saying that people are *******s and jerk each other around, such as if a woman keeps a guy friend around just to get him to move her couches and compliment her, I agree with that. If you are saying more women are *******s than men when it comes to jerking people around, I’m not sure I agree.

I definitely think it is wrong to manipulate people and I’ve been saying many times here especially in game threads that women game men all the time. It’s just that I don’t think only feminists game men, women of every leaning do it on some percentage because some percent of women are *******s.


----------



## BluesPower

tech-novelist said:


> While I'm not a moderator, I think we should all try to be civil. All the time, but *especially *on this thread, given the humble and compassionate tone of the original post.


I resent that you are quoting me here. I have not started anything with anyone, so I believe that you are out of line. 

If @Buddy400 had not said something I would not have know that RMY had another issues with me. 

I don't engage him, nor do I care about his opinions. I understand that he does not appreciate mine, which is his right. 

You, @tech-novelist are welcome to comment on what I post whether you agree or not. 

Actually, you can say whatever you want, if it bothers me, I will not read it...


----------



## Faithful Wife

BluesPower said:


> I resent that you are quoting me here. I have not started anything with anyone, so I believe that you are out of line.
> 
> If @Buddy400 had not said something I would not have know that RMY had another issues with me.
> 
> I don't engage him, nor do I care about his opinions. I understand that he does not appreciate mine, which is his right.
> 
> You, @tech-novelist are welcome to comment on what I post whether you agree or not.
> 
> Actually, you can say whatever you want, if it bothers me, I will not read it...


Blues, there’s an ancient misunderstanding here that I am trying to work on. I’m only able to commit my own part in not taking the thread sideways to places that won’t help repair the misunderstanding. Others as always can post what they want, and they will, such as you have done. But some posters here are asking you not to go off on tangents that don’t help with the premise of the thread because they also want to work on easing this misunderstanding and we won’t be able to do that if the thread goes sideways.

I would be happy to discuss some things with you and involve your opinions, but if you don’t really understand what we are trying to do here, it won’t be easy for me. If you would like to join the convo can I ask that you at least absorb a bit more of the nuanced layer of what we are trying to do first?


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

BluesPower said:


> I resent that you are quoting me here. I have not started anything with anyone, so I believe that you are out of line.
> 
> If @Buddy400 had not said something I would not have know that RMY had another issues with me.
> 
> I don't engage him, nor do I care about his opinions. I understand that he does not appreciate mine, which is his right.
> 
> You, @tech-novelist are welcome to comment on what I post whether you agree or not.
> 
> Actually, you can say whatever you want, if it bothers me, I will not read it...


Waaaah waaaaah, I'm being treated unfairly says the guy who who's every post calls everyone not like him weak, who has multiple posts containing "you are a moron," and has been banned for being hostile.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> I’m happy to discuss this one. I admit upfront, I don’t know why this one is a considered feminism thing.


I don't think any of this has much to to with feminism other that that feminism is one of the things affecting male / female relationships (which was inevitable anyway).


----------



## red oak

Faithful Wife said:


> @Luminous ... My current position on marriage and divorce...
> 
> *I just don’t know why people insist on doing it*. If only people really understood this. *It should be fully explained to every person getting a marriage license exactly what will happen if they divorce.*
> 
> However I want to fully acknowledge it. I have tried in the past to tell what I’ve just said in the past couple of posts but it always gets drowned out. Specifically that I want the courts to change and be fair, and I will not argue that they aren’t. But sadly I think it will be up to you guys to change the courts.


Just something to consider, and couple questions to know if this is a subject I should even get involved with. :smile2: 

To have a companion is a drive of human nature. Older cultures believed a man only learned to become a man, and a woman only learned to be a woman from being in a committed relationship. Such was the last step to emotional and mental maturity.

As you have been in legal, what are you referring to on the second bold above? 

What is your idea of a marriage?

For the record I don't fit as a RP'r, MGTOW, or feminist supporter.


----------



## Buddy400

Emerging Buddhist said:


> A common perception in the manosphere... it is a good thing that pendulums spend most of their time in the middle.


I believe this is pretty much accurate.

The previous state allowed most men to have sex (at least some) with a woman and have a family.

It allowed most women to find commitment and a family (even if they didn't necessarily want to have sex with their mate).

But it worked because women needed a husband (because women were unable to provide for themselves and kids by themselves, and poor women still can't). And the wasn't effective birth control. I think these restrictions on women were largely caused by the conditions of the time, not because men forced them on women.

Most importantly, it didn't give everyone the freedom to do as they want (very important to me). 

I'm mostly interested in everyone being aware of the "current state" and what impact it has on gender relations.

There's no going back.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> @Luminous ... My current position on marriage and divorce...
> 
> I just don’t know why people insist on doing it.


I just don't see how having children outside of committed relationships would work.

Say a woman has three kids by different fathers and the man has three kids by different mothers. How the heck to you decide where the children spend their time? What to you do if the father of your second kid wants to move across the country?

In many marriages, it's a decision by both parents to have one de-prioritize or give up their career to focus on the kids. 10 or 20 years later, the SAH is at a significant earnings disadvantage and I'd think alimony is appropriate. A woman gives up her career, focuses on the family, her husband takes up with his secretary..... it's just not right for the wife to walk away with nothing.

Then again, I know a lot of male executives whose wives were going to "work part time" and resume their careers when the kids got older. But, they never seemed to get around to it (to their husband's dismay).

I think what might be needed is getting rid of no-fault divorce when children are involved (and perhaps marital contract when it's agreed that one spouse will sacrifice career for family.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> I just don't see how having children outside of committed relationships would work.
> 
> Say a woman has three kids by different fathers and the man has three kids by different mothers. How the heck to you decide where the children spend their time? What to you do if the father of your second kid wants to move across the country?
> 
> In many marriages, it's a decision by both parents to have one de-prioritize or give up their career to focus on the kids. 10 or 20 years later, the SAH is at a significant earnings disadvantage and I'd think alimony is appropriate. A woman gives up her career, focuses on the family, her husband takes up with his secretary..... it's just not right for the wife to walk away with nothing.
> 
> Then again, I know a lot of male executives whose wives were going to "work part time" and resume their careers when the kids got older. But, they never seemed to get around to it (to their husband's dismay).
> 
> I think what might be needed is getting rid of no-fault divorce when children are involved (and perhaps marital contract when it's agreed that one spouse will sacrifice career for family.


Any response I give here is just going to be my opinion, and I know that simply sharing my opinion can’t solve any of the issues you raised. But I will say again that I encourage a men’s family rights group to officially form and make change in the courts. Each state is different so it’s going to take a lot of work around the country. Also I think men who live in states that are toughest on them unfairly should cause peaceful protests, they should work on their local governments, they should write up changes to laws and push them on their politicians, they should do whatever they have to in order to cause light to fall on the topic and change of any kind. I also think men should just boycott these states as far as marriage. Don’t live there if you want to marry (and make sure you know the laws of cohabitation and unmarried child raising before you do those).

I think there would be a lot of positive media coverage of the men’s family rights issues if they could be viewed as one thing on its own. If it was a more organized and specific goal of the people behind it, it would be easy to show how men are being treated unfairly.

The truth here, and I can’t help this truth it just is what it is for now....the truth is that you are going to have to gain the empathy of women in order to get their help. And as discussed, that isn’t really on your side.

But I do think it can be done, because we women have brothers, sons, friends, cousins, co workers and other men in our lives who we have seen get unfair deals (this does not negate the fact that many women also get unfair deals, that’s another topic, not relevant to this thread). When we see the close men in our lives suffering around these issues, we do care and we do know when someone got screwed and it was unfair. 

I know it is possibly true that aunts and sisters also don’t have a lot of empathy for men, but I think at least they have more of it for you because of the non romantic element (which was explained to me on the empathy thread). These women are a source of support and help in change for you. I’m sorry it may take a minute to get their attention, but I encourage every way possible to try to at least identify and welcome into the change women who have empathy for you. Example: if your sister is totally on your side after your horrible divorce and knows exactly how you were screwed and that it was unfair, talk to her about it a little more and try to explain also the feeling that men are not afforded empathy in the world. Ask her thoughts on it. Try to get her to think it through (she probably has never really thought of it before).

I think men have a lot more allys than they know about but it’s as if the allys haven’t been activated. 

To be clear, you know that I don’t mean making unmasculine displays to women just to garner empathy. I’m imagining it would be more of a discussion and an invitation for a woman to help your “cause” by literally enlightening her to something she is probably ignorant about (both the problems men face in family court, and the problems they face in how women generally lack empathy for them).


----------



## 269370

BluesPower said:


> I am not talking about married men for the most part. But it does apply to them as well. How many men, are not fit, in fact they let themselves go once they got married. And, that happens on both sides. How many men, do we read about here, that don't like to go out with their wives, don't want to be social, in fact they are anti-social.
> 
> 
> 
> And a lot of these men wonder why their wives do not want to have sex with them.
> 
> 
> 
> Now, for a lot of other men, if they are straight, and they want to have a SO, and they are in fact healthy, they in fact want to get laid, they want a GF at the very least. These men for the most part are what I was describing.
> 
> 
> 
> And yes if they meet the above criteria, then yes they want to have sex, they are unattractive and socially awkward and yet, instead of changing that, the RP crowd, thinks it is the female populations fault that they are not getting laid.
> 
> 
> 
> Conversely, weak men, that are not sexually secure, allow their marriages to become sexless and refuse to believe that they in fact may be the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> So as usual I stand by what I wrote.
> 
> 
> 
> Now I will confess a couple of things to you and anyone else that cares to read. When I was younger and after my divorce, I was one of those guys the sometimes slept with married woman. Yes, I was a POS at those points in my life. I am not proud of some of the things that I have done in my past, but I none the less did them.
> 
> 
> 
> These women had several things in common as a group: 1) Their husbands were not good in bed, in fact to a woman, they told me that they thought it would get better, and it never did. Eventually, they could not take it any more and they came to men like me. I, to my shame, accommodated them.
> 
> 
> 
> 2) The other common thing that the group had, was that their husbands sex drive had fallen way off, and the did not have sex very often if at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 3) The last thing that the group had in common was that their husbands had really let themselves go, and they had lost all attraction with them and they did not want to have sex with their husbands.
> 
> 
> 
> So, whether you agree with me or not, I do have a certain amount of experience in these areas to at least have some understanding of why married woman do not have sex with their husbands.
> 
> 
> 
> To me, I attribute most of the above problems to WEAK, clueless men.
> 
> 
> 
> And please don't beat me up too much about the above stuff, I know it was wrong, I feel bad about a lot of it, and I am a much better person at this point in my life...




Haha, don’t worry I won’t beat you  
Just to say that most men here who are complaining are married, fit (as far as I know) and try everything to get their wives interested in sex...and can’t succeed.
You are going for the ‘low fruit’ to make fun of, a group that is not really present here as much.
(A bit like making fun of religious people who also happen to be stupid (which is not related to being religious): it’s too easy but they are not representative of the rest).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## anonmd

Warning labels, who needs tramp stamps. Should be one for women and a different one, often 180 degrees apart, for men. The degree of false expectations is somewhat astonishing.


----------



## Faithful Wife

red oak said:


> Just something to consider, and couple questions to know if this is a subject I should even get involved with. :smile2:
> 
> To have a companion is a drive of human nature. Older cultures believed a man only learned to become a man, and a woman only learned to be a woman from being in a committed relationship. Such was the last step to emotional and mental maturity.
> 
> As you have been in legal, what are you referring to on the second bold above?
> 
> What is your idea of a marriage?
> 
> For the record I don't fit as a RP'r, MGTOW, or feminist supporter.


My idea of marriage is that people should be free to choose to do it, and I know a large percentage of people will always do it regardless of the topics we are talking about here.

For myself personally, I still believe in love and devotion, but I have no emotional or financial reasons to ever marry again. My 2 marriages simply showed me that I had no clue how much divorce could hurt me financially before I did it (shame on me and I should have understood it better). No hard feelings towards either of my exes on those issues, they did not mean to jack me over.

That’s why I do think it would be wise to properly educate everyone who is getting married on what would happen to them in a divorce. So they actually are not ignorant of those issues and can go in with eyes at least a teensy bit more open. Though I know this wouldn’t make family law more fair or anything, it would perhaps make men much more aware.

Did that answer your question?

Keep in mind, I have lots more thoughts about love, devotion, male and female different needs in marriage, why it works or doesn’t. But those thoughts won’t really help any of us expand our understanding. They are just my opinions, which this thread isn’t mostly about (though I’m sharing other opinions but only in trying to explain my position. I don’t want to express my broad opinions about women’s needs or rights or how they are treated or anything. I’m here to understand before being understood).


----------



## Tasorundo

Faithful, most definitely it goes both ways. I have just seen people demand that any mention of friend zone is a male problem and that no females ever keep guys on the hook they have no intention of progressing with.

People, in general, are pretty crappy and selfish.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Tasorundo said:


> Faithful, most definitely it goes both ways. I have just seen people demand that any mention of friend zone is a male problem and that no females ever keep guys on the hook they have no intention of progressing with.
> 
> People, in general, are pretty crappy and selfish.


Well I think it would be weird for any woman (feminist or not) to say that. Because yes, obviously some women do that (feminist or not). I’m all for agreeing that women are *******s and they game men all the time. I just think when I say “all the time” I mean, all the time somewhere that is going on. I do think all the time somewhere some woman is being treated poorly by an ******* too. I actually think we are pretty equal gender wise in ******* count.


----------



## tech-novelist

As requested by FW on the MMSLP thread I'll repeat my comment about hybristophilia here:

'In the case of men, I don't agree that being an ahole is a deterrent to being attractive to women. It is a commonplace observation that when a guy who has been previously a nonentity goes berserk (e.g., becomes a mass murderer), he often then gets a lot of fan mail from women who wouldn't have given him the time of day previously. This is a psychological disorder called "hybristophilia" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybristophilia). In the case of women, being an ahole is a deterrent to men, because men aren't very susceptible to hybristophilia.'


----------



## 269370

Since humour is not welcome, I will put down my thoughts differently.
I don’t really believe it is just a ‘misunderstanding’. I think both (active) sides know exactly what it is they are facing and what it is they are dealing with: this is what they choose to focus on and this is THEIR reality.

I do think the best way to change someone’s mind is to prove them wrong with actions: for example if a red piller got together with a great woman that made him enormously happy, it would undoubtedly shape his beliefs going forward or even change his mind. Same would be true if an extreme feminist met a great guy (and the relationship lasted). Our experiences shape our thoughts and beliefs. I believe for every view, no matter how extreme, there’s always some history that is highly relevant. I think this thread could be useful to hear people’s stories in order to understand how they arrived at their core beliefs. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rubix Cubed

@Faithful Wife

I haven't put any effort into RP or MGTOW to even know the finer points of their ideas, I have an overview and that may not even be 100% correct, but could you cut to the chase and express what the RP guys do that gets you twisted up? Maybe this conversation will have a specific direction vs. waiting for a comment to hit the target and then your grievances may be addressed in the spirit of that dreadful holiday Festivus.

My opinion on just about all of this kind of stuff ( and politics as well) is I despise a ****ing hypocrite. If you have ideals that make you a hypocrite i.e. "Men do this but women shouldn't do it", unless it's shaving your balls or some other gender specific action, then at this point I think the ideals are likely bovine dookie. That goes for both sides of the divide.
If this post is all babble that doesn't pertain to the original premise then obviously I didn't get it.


----------



## Rubix Cubed

tech-novelist said:


> As requested by FW on the MMSLP thread I'll repeat my comment about hybristophilia here:
> 
> 'In the case of men, I don't agree that being an ahole is a deterrent to being attractive to women. It is a commonplace observation that when a guy who has been previously a nonentity goes berserk (e.g., becomes a mass murderer), he often then gets a lot of fan mail from women who wouldn't have given him the time of day previously. This is a psychological disorder called "hybristophilia" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybristophilia). In the case of women, being an ahole is a deterrent to men, because men aren't very susceptible to hybristophilia.'


Would it be safe to say that Hybristophilia equals extreme "want the bad boy disease"?


----------



## Red Sonja

tech-novelist said:


> As requested by FW on the MMSLP thread I'll repeat my comment about hybristophilia here:
> 
> 'In the case of men, I don't agree that being an ahole is a deterrent to being attractive to women. It is a commonplace observation that when a guy who has been previously a nonentity goes berserk (e.g., becomes a mass murderer), he often then gets a lot of fan mail from women who wouldn't have given him the time of day previously. This is a psychological disorder called "hybristophilia" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybristophilia). In the case of women, being an ahole is a deterrent to men, because men aren't very susceptible to hybristophilia.'



This is a rare phenomena and therefore is not useful in describing common behavior in either gender. There is absolutely nothing to learn from in the above quoted statement unless you happen to be specifically interested in rare psychological disorders.

This is what frustrates me the most about gender politics ... this tendency to take outlier-type behavior and project it onto all men and/or all women.


----------



## BluesPower

inmyprime said:


> Haha, don’t worry I won’t beat you
> Just to say that most men here who are complaining are married, fit (as far as I know) and try everything to get their wives interested in sex...and can’t succeed.
> You are going for the ‘low fruit’ to make fun of, a group that is not really present here as much.
> (A bit like making fun of religious people who also happen to be stupid (which is not related to being religious): it’s too easy but they are not representative of the rest).


The RP crowd are supposed to not get laid and hate women, although some say that they don't hate women. 

Anyway, @inmyprime, I am taking myself out of this thread, PM me if you want to talk more about this...


----------



## 269370

Rubix Cubed said:


> Would it be safe to say that Hybristophilia equals extreme "want the bad boy disease"?



The question is really: is this evolutionary gimmick a mistake or aberration on the woman’s part or a true advantage for the male species?

This explanation makes sense (from same link):

“Some mental health experts have compared infatuation with killers to extreme forms of fanaticism. They view such women as insecure females who cannot find love in normal ways or as 'love-avoidant' females who seek romantic relationships that cannot be consummated.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Buddy400

BluesPower said:


> The RP crowd are supposed to not get laid and hate women, although some say that they don't hate women.
> 
> Anyway, @inmyprime, I am taking myself out of this thread, PM me if you want to talk more about this...


We really need to label RP things better.

Can we go with"

Icels - Guys who don't attract women, don't get laid and whine about it.

PUA - Guys whose only desire is to have sex with women and have no issue with manipulating women for that purpose. They don't seem to have any desire to actually have relationships with them

MRA - Men's Rights guys complaining about legal and structural issues that they see as being unfair to men. The believe that all of the attention that's been given to women's issues (which were valid and significant) has now gone too far for women and against men. Oddly enoughm this is what "The Red Pill" documentary was about. If you actually listen to what they say, it's hard to see what all the fuss is about (although they do have a loser, whiny feel about them) but they get tagged (I believe unfairly as "women haters". 

MGOTW - Men who've had a lot of issues and women have "given them up" (they claim) and want nothing further to do with them.

*Most of the guys here. Red Pill?* (Don't know what label to give them). The idea is that the "Blue Pill" is the view of women that most women would like to have about themselves and "taking the Red Pill" allows you to see how hey really are. There is absolutely nothing wrong with women being how they actually are and no reason to think that they are under any obligation to be any different. These men like women, who want to be more successful with them (as in marrying them and having good sex with them once they're married). They don't hate women but they don't understand them. They think the things they've been told by women and popular culture that women want (i.e. Happy Wife, Happy Life) don't work. I believe many can be helped by removing the illusions they operate under and replacing them with better information.


----------



## Buddy400

Experiences from 45 years of being involved with women.

If you act like sex isn't that important to you (because after all, one of the main things you learn from popular culture is that women are always annoyed with the fact that "men always want sex"), your women won't desire having sex with you very often,

If you do everything your woman wants, rather than being happy, she'll probably just take advantage of you and lose respect for you.

While popular culture tells men that women are sick of men seeing them as sexual objects, telling them that they've got great tits has a better result than telling them how smart they are.

While women say that want men to show their emotions more, they'll be sexually off-put if men actually do it. Women seem to want men to be their emotional rocks. 

If you wait until your woman seems to want sex to initiate sex with her, you won't have sex very often. If you let her know how much you desire sex with her and how important and emotionally fulfilled you are as a result, the opposite is more likely.

If your woman loves you and cares about your happiness, she will do her best to please you. Making you happy makes her happy. But, since women aren't men, it can be difficult for her to take your stated desires seriously unless you are very straight forward. 

A woman's sexual desire is largely driven by your sexual desire for her.

Sex is often seen as by women as just "icing on the cake" in a relationship.

Women like men who are decisive. When asked what I wanted to do, I used to respond with "whatever you want to do". I now respond with what I want to do (even if I have to flip a coin n my head because it really doesn't matter to me. My wife and I often go to lunch on Saturday afternoon. One Saturday we hadn't explicitly discussed where we were going. Eventually she recognized that we were not going to a usual place. She asked where we going and I told her it was a surprise. Her response" "That's so romantic!". Who knew? 

Women like men who are capable. I have a bit of a phone-phobia and my wife doesn't. I initially thought that a relationship that splits responsibilities according to capabilities was ideal and I would ask / expect her to make phone calls (reservatons, etc). She agreed, but I always felt a bit of pushback and resentment when this happened. I sucked it up and started making the calls myself. It seemed like that made a difference.

When planning vacations, it seemed like the best thing to do was make plans together. She always seemed to have a problem with this and would ask why I couldn't just decide and make the plans. For the last 5 years or so, we decide together on a destination and I find the nice B&B's, decide on the itinerary, etc. She loves it. This isn't necessarily the way I want things to work, but I don't have a big issue with it and I'm willing to work with the way she IS instead of the way I'd LIKE HER TO BE (There are limits to this of course). 

Why exactly she should be able to make important decisions in her professional career but be able to dump it all on me in our personal lives does seem a bit unfair, but so it goes.


----------



## sokillme

Buddy400 said:


> Experiences from 45 years of being involved with women.
> 
> If you act like sex isn't that important to you (because after all, one of the main things you learn from popular culture is that women are always annoyed with the fact that "men always want sex"), your women won't desire having sex with you very often,
> 
> If you do everything your woman wants, rather than being happy, she'll probably just take advantage of you and lose respect for you.
> 
> While popular culture tells men that women are sick of men seeing them as sexual objects, telling them that they've got great tits has a better result than telling them how smart they are.
> 
> While women say that want men to show their emotions more, they'll be sexually off-put if men actually do it. Women seem to want men to be their emotional rocks.
> 
> If you wait until your woman seems to want sex to initiate sex with her, you won't have sex very often. If you let her know how much you desire sex with her and how important and emotionally fulfilled you are as a result, the opposite is more likely.
> 
> If your woman loves you and cares about your happiness, she will do her best to please you. Making you happy makes her happy. But, since women aren't men, it can be difficult for her to take your stated desires seriously unless you are very straight forward.
> 
> A woman's sexual desire is largely driven by your sexual desire for her.
> 
> Sex is often seen as by women as just "icing on the cake" in a relationship.
> 
> Women like men who are decisive. When asked what I wanted to do, I used to respond with "whatever you want to do". I now respond with what I want to do (even if I have to flip a coin n my head because it really doesn't matter to me. My wife and I often go to lunch on Saturday afternoon. One Saturday we hadn't explicitly discussed where we were going. Eventually she recognized that we were not going to a usual place. She asked where we going and I told her it was a surprise. Her response" "That's so romantic!". Who knew?
> 
> Women like men who are capable. I have a bit of a phone-phobia and my wife doesn't. I initially thought that a relationship that splits responsibilities according to capabilities was ideal and I would ask / expect her to make phone calls (reservatons, etc). She agreed, but I always felt a bit of pushback and resentment when this happened. I sucked it up and started making the calls myself. It seemed like that made a difference.
> 
> When planning vacations, it seemed like the best thing to do was make plans together. She always seemed to have a problem with this and would ask why I couldn't just decide and make the plans. For the last 5 years or so, we decide together on a destination and I find the nice B&B's, decide on the itinerary, etc. She loves it. This isn't necessarily the way I want things to work, but I don't have a big issue with it and I'm willing to work with the way she IS instead of the way I'd LIKE HER TO BE (There are limits to this of course).
> 
> Why exactly she should be able to make important decisions in her professional career but be able to dump it all on me in our personal lives does seem a bit unfair, but so it goes.


I agree with most of this for the most part. The only thing I would expand upon is I think this whole idea of "women say that want men to show their emotions more" is a misunderstanding. I think women want men who are emotionally intelligent, meaning capable of talking about and occasionally showing their emotions when appropriate. What they don't want is men who are emotional. You have to be strong in showing your emotions. I get the sense that overly emotional men make women feel unsafe. 

If I was being more cynical I would say she doesn't want you to talk about YOUR feelings, she wants you to be able to talk about hers with you. Which is fine with me, I have no desire to look weak in front of my wife. She needs me to be strong and I like being strong for her. 

There is a lot of good stuff in this post though, but you got to marry the right women to start with.


----------



## sokillme

Do you guys think that women care about what men want, or is it they just assume we want sex? I mean why are there never any posts like this from the other way around?

For instance why do I never read a similar post as Buddy400's from but from a women about what men want? 

Now a days they probably think Buddy and I are mansplaining.

I don't know it just seems like there is a lot more angst from Men worrying about what women want then the other way around.


----------



## tech-novelist

Rubix Cubed said:


> Would it be safe to say that Hybristophilia equals extreme "want the bad boy disease"?


Yes.


----------



## tech-novelist

Red Sonja said:


> This is a rare phenomena and therefore is not useful in describing common behavior in either gender. There is absolutely nothing to learn from in the above quoted statement unless you happen to be specifically interested in rare psychological disorders.
> 
> This is what frustrates me the most about gender politics ... this tendency to take outlier-type behavior and project it onto all men and/or all women.


I believe it is an extreme manifestation of a tendency that is much more common at less extreme levels.
That's why I consider it relevant.


----------



## Luminous

Buddy400 said:


> Experiences from 45 years of being involved with women.
> 
> If you act like sex isn't that important to you (because after all, one of the main things you learn from popular culture is that women are always annoyed with the fact that "men always want sex"), your women won't desire having sex with you very often,
> 
> If you do everything your woman wants, rather than being happy, she'll probably just take advantage of you and lose respect for you.
> 
> While popular culture tells men that women are sick of men seeing them as sexual objects, telling them that they've got great tits has a better result than telling them how smart they are.
> 
> While women say that want men to show their emotions more, they'll be sexually off-put if men actually do it. Women seem to want men to be their emotional rocks.
> 
> If you wait until your woman seems to want sex to initiate sex with her, you won't have sex very often. If you let her know how much you desire sex with her and how important and emotionally fulfilled you are as a result, the opposite is more likely.
> 
> If your woman loves you and cares about your happiness, she will do her best to please you. Making you happy makes her happy. But, since women aren't men, it can be difficult for her to take your stated desires seriously unless you are very straight forward.
> 
> A woman's sexual desire is largely driven by your sexual desire for her.
> 
> Sex is often seen as by women as just "icing on the cake" in a relationship.
> 
> Women like men who are decisive. When asked what I wanted to do, I used to respond with "whatever you want to do". I now respond with what I want to do (even if I have to flip a coin n my head because it really doesn't matter to me. My wife and I often go to lunch on Saturday afternoon. One Saturday we hadn't explicitly discussed where we were going. Eventually she recognized that we were not going to a usual place. She asked where we going and I told her it was a surprise. Her response" "That's so romantic!". Who knew?
> 
> Women like men who are capable. I have a bit of a phone-phobia and my wife doesn't. I initially thought that a relationship that splits responsibilities according to capabilities was ideal and I would ask / expect her to make phone calls (reservatons, etc). She agreed, but I always felt a bit of pushback and resentment when this happened. I sucked it up and started making the calls myself. It seemed like that made a difference.
> 
> When planning vacations, it seemed like the best thing to do was make plans together. She always seemed to have a problem with this and would ask why I couldn't just decide and make the plans. For the last 5 years or so, we decide together on a destination and I find the nice B&B's, decide on the itinerary, etc. She loves it. This isn't necessarily the way I want things to work, but I don't have a big issue with it and I'm willing to work with the way she IS instead of the way I'd LIKE HER TO BE (There are limits to this of course).
> 
> Why exactly she should be able to make important decisions in her professional career but be able to dump it all on me in our personal lives does seem a bit unfair, but so it goes.


Regarding your comment, I think we are seeing social programming playing against primal hard wiring. 

People may have heard me rattle on about this before, but anyway, here is an example. A woman wants (consciously) for her man to be more expressive or open up emotionally, but can lose sexual attraction to him when he does (unconscious). 

It is like she goes into Mother Mode to nurture him when he shows he is vulnerable. It takes an emotionally mature woman to see past the programming at play here.

Women tend to always say what they 'want', but the men who seem to have better success don't prioritise the wants, they focus on the 'needs'. The things that a woman cannot consciously or logically explain, but just knows when these needs/requirements are met.

Regarding your missus being decisive at work but not at home, that tends to happen alot. I see guys on construction sites and in offices carrying on like they are the Gestapo, yet when in the company of their Significant Other, they are submissive to the point of me wondering if they have a personality disorder... But it seems like it is some sort of 'pendulum effect' in order to create balance in their life.


----------



## Red Sonja

sokillme said:


> For instance why do I never read a similar post as Buddy400's from but from a women about what men want?


You won't see a post like that from me because I never assume or worry about what men (or women) as a group want. I experience people as individuals, not groups. Therefore I seek to know what _my partner_ wants and I expect him to verbalize his needs if he is missing out on something.

I viewed Buddy's post as his experience with _his partner_ so there is no wrong or right about it, it's his experience. Most of his post does not apply to me or any other woman I have known in my life ... however that doesn't mean it's wrong.


----------



## Red Sonja

tech-novelist said:


> I believe it is an extreme manifestation of a *tendency that is much more common at less extreme levels*.


Yes, I know that is why you use extreme examples such as that, you have done it may times on this forum. Your opinion of women in general (which can be extrapolated from such examples) is mind-boggling in its irrationality.


----------



## Faithful Wife

tech-novelist said:


> Red Sonja said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a rare phenomena and therefore is not useful in describing common behavior in either gender. There is absolutely nothing to learn from in the above quoted statement unless you happen to be specifically interested in rare psychological disorders.
> 
> This is what frustrates me the most about gender politics ... this tendency to take outlier-type behavior and project it onto all men and/or all women.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe it is an extreme manifestation of a tendency that is much more common at less extreme levels.
> That's why I consider it relevant.
Click to expand...

Tech, do you also see the crimes the men the women like committed as a tendency that is much more common at less extreme levels? Honestly asking.


----------



## stillthinking

> Women tend to always say what they 'want', but the men who seem to have better success don't prioritise the wants, they focus on the 'needs'. The things that a woman cannot consciously or logically explain, but just knows when these needs/requirements are met.


Every guy has seen this. Since highschool. The dichotomy between what is stated and what is preferred. 

She says she wants a nice guy. And then you see her dating the player. Attraction and arousal are two separate things. 

Over time one learns to disregard what is said, and instead watch what is done. Actions speak louder than words and so on. Isn’t this what we hear so often in regards to infidelity, and what constitutes remorse?

The collection of books authored by Rollo Tomasi, particularly The Rational Male, were helpful to me in understanding this line of thought.


----------



## MaiChi

inmyprime said:


> I don't think one needs empathy or try that hard to understand one perspective or the other: all one needs to do is realise that if one solely focuses on the worst parts of men's behaviour, it makes perfect sense to be a feminist in today's society and if you focus on the worst parts of what women can do, then it makes sense to be a 'red piller' or whatever it is you youngsters call it today (I literally learnt the term yesterday).
> 
> There's definitely a lot of **** happening on both sides and I also get 'allergic' to some of the language used. I hope to think that that is accidental rather than deliberate.


I am with you 100% on this one. 
Let me start by saying I worked in prisons for two years with Young people. I noted that the majority of the boys there have never had a male figure in their lives. Some in the prisons are not to be taught by male teachers and there are instructions on their profiles to that effect. I kept asking myself whether that issue is men making women pregnant and refusing to participate in the child's life or women using men to get pregnant because they want a baby which they see as an accessory. They are too many to be all accidents. 

My conclusion was that both are to blame for this catastrophe on children. A man should not have sex with a woman whose contraceptive status he does not know. A woman should not be having sex with a man without contraception and without any discussion about starting a family together. 

That said this world is run by men primarily. If they think they are subjugated in some way by the whims of women, they can easily pass new legislation to curb those whims. As it is feminists are trying but they are way away from a point where both men and women can start to feel represented in society. it is still a huge disadvantage socially, economically, legally criminally, etc to be born a girl child. Just as examples:

We suffer infinitely more domestic violence than men
we are subject to a lo more murders from men than we murder them
We suffer a lot more rapes than we will ever rape them
We are always left holding the baby that the men do not want
Men have a lot more infidelity than women
Men are allowed by society to have a lot more sexual partners than women and actually do, without any telling off at all. 
Men safeguard jobs for men, especially when the woman is child bearing age
Male players are seen as studs while female ones are seen as ****s
A man who rapes a young boy gets a higher sentence than a man who rapes a young girl
Society dismisses a female politician simply because of what she is wearing or her frame size while accepting poorly dressed fat men at the same time
All religions look down on women and the girl child at tell them to be subject to their male family members, their husbands etc
etc

There simply are no equivalent disadvantages for men. 

The law should, on child custody, simply give equal custody to both parents, but again the reason the courts do not do that is historical. All societies have taught the fathers to be unresponsive to child care demands so that we all accept that a young child, who is not breast fed, should be in the care of his/her mother. There is no logic to this at all but all courts will do that because men decided that was the norm. If the man gets custody, he is encouraged to find a surrogate mother for the child so he can walk away from child care. 

There is a lot wrong with our societies the world over and women, though they comprise 52% of the global population, are the victims. I am not convinced that feminists understand the full picture nor that their solution are effective for their objectives. I think the solutions lie in the education of the family mothers as it is them that can change the next generation by teaching the children.


----------



## Buddy400

sokillme said:


> Do you guys think that women care about what men want, or is it they just assume we want sex? I mean why are there never any posts like this from the other way around?
> 
> For instance why do I never read a similar post as Buddy400's from but from a women about what men want?
> 
> Now a days they probably think Buddy and I are mansplaining.
> 
> I don't know it just seems like there is a lot more angst from Men worrying about what women want then the other way around.


There are plenty of blogs on the internet that know exactly what men want and how a woman can go about giving them what they need.

There just seems to be a lack of interest on the part of women. There was a book by several women about "baby-proofing" your marriage. They noted that, just because the woman's sex drive might disappear, their husband's wouldn't. One of the woman briefly shared that she'd found giving her husband oral sex once a week was a nice compromise. The internet blew up at the ridiculous idea that women were now required to deep throat their husbands while breastfeeding the baby and doing all the housework 

On the other hand, men (especially these days) are very confused and trying hard to figure it out. Also, the advice they're getting is very contradictory.


----------



## Buddy400

Luminous said:


> Women tend to always say what they 'want', but the men who seem to have better success don't prioritise the wants, they focus on the 'needs'. The things that a woman cannot consciously or logically explain, but just knows when these needs/requirements are met.


When we talk about the "conscious" vs the "unconscious" in women, I think women tend to take offense as if we aren't considering them rational, thinking creatures like us men.

This isn't the case. Obviously, it's the same for men.

I do, however, think that the vast gap between the current circumstances for women and the circumstances they were historically exposed to is so wide that the dissonance in what women consciously and unconsciously want in men is larger than usual at the moment.


----------



## Buddy400

Red Sonja said:


> I viewed Buddy's post as his experience with _his partner_ so there is no wrong or right about it, it's his experience. Most of his post does not apply to me or any other woman I have known in my life ... however that doesn't mean it's wrong.


It's very true that these are my experiences with my partner and therefore there is no right or wrong, it just IS.

However, I am implying that there are come commonalities between my relationship with my wife and relationships between men and women generally.

There are no hard and fast rules that apply to everyone and the individual is always more important than the general.

Most of my changes came about because what I thought instinctively wasn't working and I looked for alternatives.

Most of what I ended up doing that "worked" was almost never what I started out thinking would work. Then again, I never "faked" anything or pretended to be anyone I wasn't. I just made better choices based on better information (i.e. I always thought my SO had a great rack, I had just thought it would offend her to say so).


----------



## uhtred

Another part of this is that people who put a high value on sex are likely to get more sex. They may be be more likely than average to end relationships and start new ones until they find what they want. This can give the impression that various 
"techniques" work when what really matters is the priority. 

There may be some correlation with "bad boys" because "nice guys" are less likely to dump women - so the nice guys seem to be less successful in sexually attracting women.


----------



## Bananapeel

I guess I'll put in what happened with me and why I read up and adopted some (not all) of the RP philosophy.

I was married for about 14 years and followed the traditional gender dynamic that I was led to believe was going to result in a happy life and good relationship. I went to school and got a great education, developed a successful professional career and a very good salary, helped around the house and with the kids, took my wife's needs and wants into account and made them a priority, and did the general good stuff I was taught as a boy. Then, low and behold my wife has an affair and was willing to throw everything away for a guy that was so far below me in every way that I couldn't comprehend it. I was smarter, better looking, in better shape, better hung, earned a ton more money, and was always there by my wife's side when she needed me including supporting her when she had disagreements with my family. Since I'm a logical person (INTJ personality) I realized that I didn't really understand the rules of relationships, what attracts women and keeps then attracted, and what I could do to unbalance things in my favor. That was the stage of my life where I read a ton of self help books on all different subject matters including some PUA/RP books. 

I don't want to sound like I had a bad relationship when I was married, because I didn't. I was happily married for about 13/14 years, had a very frequent but somewhat boring sex life, and we got along well and treated each other with respect. But after my D I wanted more than just good and wanted to know how to trigger that in others, especially knowing that my wife had more to her than what she had shown me and more than what society had conditioned me to believe was normal. 

So what I learned from those books was that the way I was living my life wasn't likely to give me the outcome I desired. I learned that women have a lot more power in relationships than they actually claim they have. Their power comes from the ability to select their mates because men and women value different things in each other. I know that many people will say there is equal selection, but I do not find that to be true and my anecdotal (not scientific) experiences throughout life would confirm that's how things worked for me and my male and female friends. 

I also learned that women were traditionally the guardians of sex and used it to negotiate for the best man they can get. Men as a whole were valued higher for their success and women were valued more for their beauty. I also find this to be true and it's why women put so much emphasis on looking young and attractive, and buy makeup, go to fancy hairdressers, get various beauty treatment vs men that put more emphasis on working hard to be a doctor, lawyer, or other successful professional. Whether this should happen is irrelevant because it does happen and it's the system we navigate. So the way to "beat the system" is to realize that there is uneven relationship power at different points in each gender's lives and I'm at a point of higher power than most of the women my age which is opposite of how it was when I was in my 20's. 

What I do with this knowledge is I recognized that I have a lot more choices than I had before and I was not going to settle for a woman that is below my personal standards for myself. I was OK dating and having sex with women and if they weren't worthy of more then I'd just keep the relationships casual because I had the power to do so and could easily find a replacement. I also learned to read women quite well and learned to decipher between women that liked me because I was good looking and successful (i.e. someone that just wants arm candy to show me off to their friends) from those that liked me for my character and who I really was as an individual. 

So to me, RP taught me a different way to look at the world and to really understand my true value and to not settle for less than I could get. I also learned some tricks to keeping relationships exciting and keep maintaining the attraction rather than getting complacent. I'm a better man now than I was before and I am far better at relationships now that my eyes were opened into how they function. I used some RP tactics when I was getting my current GF such as dating multiple people openly and letting the women compete for my attention. But I never lied, abused, or manipulated anyone in the process.


----------



## red oak

Faithful Wife said:


> This thread about starting over with a new discussion about an old topic. Only this time I want to actually just discuss the topic itself and how we can maybe discuss it easier around here.
> 
> The topic is the riff between feminists and RP guys, though some who don’t identify as fems or RP may also feel alignment with this discussion and want to chime in.
> 
> I want to start by saying, I’ve concluded that if I listen to points by RP guys through my normal filters, I cannot hear what they are really trying to convey. Aside from those who may be deliberately trying to stir crap, I mean just the normal guys at TAM who are somewhat (at least) RP followers or those who share similar views. I have respect for them and when they say things that sound so disrespectful to women in general I get confused. This is how I’ve come to realize I will simply have to listen differently.
> 
> I’d like it to be understood as we discuss this that I’ve seen this inability in myself, so I want to ask for some leniency if I still don’t get things...I’m really going to try. I don’t know that this discussion will lead to any good relationship advice, but I hope maybe it can. I’m going to do my best to set aside what I think you are saying if it doesn’t make sense, and ask for more clarification until it does.
> 
> Or even if it doesn’t make sense to me, perhaps I will be able to accept it anyway. For instance, I accept now after reading so much about it here that most men are made to feel from childhood that they are not afforded empathy generally in the world, but specifically that many women will sexually shut down to a man who is in need of empathy (like, literally after a sibling or parent’s death). This doesn’t make sense to me on any level but I accept it. I have some ideas on how to maybe help that issue but it can come up later.
> 
> The part I’m hoping will also happen but which I won’t insist on, is that I hope to also be understood by some of you who before may have been using your own filters too heavily and assigning meanings to me that don’t exist.
> 
> I posted this in the ladies lounge simply because it’s not really a general discussion, and I didn’t put it in men’s because I’m hoping other women will join the discussion too, but if it’s just me that’s ok too.
> 
> Here is another one. The thread about “you did it for him but not me” made me realize there is something deeper than jealousy, something more insulting to a man going on than what I can feel myself. I can’t dip into any similar feelings no matter how many comparisons might be made to other things. So finally I just determined this is one of those things that are so different in us (a large portion of us anyway) that I just want to accept it exists rather than try to understand it. That way I can hear the angst in men’s voices about it, and know that while I can’t feel what he’s feeling, he is certainly feeling something uncomfortable and that’s enough of a reason to be sensitive to it.
> 
> That doesn't mean I would tell women what to do, it just means I’m understanding that it is a much bigger deal to a lot of men than I ever realized (also because I’ve never really been in that position).
> 
> Hopefully this helps explain the things I’ve been alluding to on the other thread. I want to drop my filters and actually hear what you guys are saying.


There could be volumes written on this. Hopefully one can see this is actually on topic.

As for RP and feminists. Most RP people only know a small portion relating to legal. Imagine it as layers. Rep pill being the first layer of the onion. They have simply learned it isn't at they thought.
Feminism is a strike back against the industrial revolution which minimized the womans natural role.

Knowing what marriage is, its in a woman's nature to want to marry, and a man's to take a woman in marriage. _Very big difference there._ Which explains the thread *"you did it for him but not me” *, although I doubt there are even 10,000 people in the world who know what marriage actually is, let alone be able to give an analogy. 

It's mostly because of parties holding onto ideas instead of looking with open eyes which cause the rift between men and women. Lack of knowledge of times past is a huge detriment to to both men and women. Without even getting into the why's.
An example from scriptures as most use such for examples: the idea of the bride price being to purchase a wife. 
How it's seen: a man saw a woman he wanted as wife. The suitor would give her father maybe 100 sheep; depending on what he could afford, and she was his. That's where most stop and in their ignorance assume he bought her. 

How it was: a man saw a woman he wanted as wife. They would ask the woman. If she agreed a contract would be written up as to each parties obligations. The suitor would give her father maybe 100 sheep; depending on what he could afford, and her father thought was needed.

Yet there was her dowry given to the husband to *oversee.* It was not his to keep. If he divorced her all the dowry, and it's increase, went with her, (depending on the aforementioned contract), plus he lost all that he had given her father, because what he had given to her father was a type of guarantee, in case he mismanaged dowry, and treated her so disrespectfully as to kick her out. She was allowed to manage her dowry but her husband had a responsibility to make sure she wasn't taken advantage of. PRov 31 being an example of woman managing all the family property.

Much of the rift is caused by each not knowing themselves and dissonance between what they were taught and their nature tells them.

I feel sorry for both men and women in these times. They have both been minimized in their proper roles. Before the industrial revolution women were the center of family communal life. Everything revolved around them and they were indispensable to their husband, children. They were directors, organizers, confidants, teachers. Children, and husband alike turned to them for many things. Now we are somehow supposed to juggle "not needing" anyone yet showing concern. Oxymoron.
Starting in the 1930's men had taken from them true and close male friendships.

As for women losing attraction for a man who needs empathy, blame the westerns of the 60's-70's. It wasn't always so. Except for those who prefer the Machiavellian types. 

The issue with RP, and Feminists is actually a problem that is linked and both sides are so busy blaming the other or holding onto sacred cows they can't see past the issue and the same thing is effecting them both.

One issue today, men sense it, and neither men, nor women, understand it: When a woman "marries" in our culture she already has 1 or 2 husbands of some type or ideology each competing for dominance and the physical husband most often loses.

Modern marriage will have to be addressed another time.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Just a comment, for the guys describing how you got to RP advice, I am reading. I’m not commenting on those specifically because I think the story stands on it’s own. 

I have read lots of stories like this and have read a lot about the phenomenon of the disillusionment of men of this generation and can intellectually understand it and can also have empathy (because even though my side of the story may not be the same, it also didn’t feel very good and I was not given all the right tools or knowledge either, resulting in no one getting what they wanted).

I may come back around ask some questions of those posters about some finer points. But as for the personal story itself, all of it makes sense to me. No confusion.

Others are welcome to share those stories. I don’t know if women have read them in succession like this to see how much of a pattern it is, so even though I have read many similar stories previously it is still good to share them here so that others readers can see them.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> There are plenty of blogs on the internet that know exactly what men want and how a woman can go about giving them what they need.
> 
> There just seems to be a lack of interest on the part of women. There was a book by several women about "baby-proofing" your marriage. They noted that, just because the woman's sex drive might disappear, their husband's wouldn't. One of the woman briefly shared that she'd found giving her husband oral sex once a week was a nice compromise....


One point, I think women consistently buy more relationship books than men. Some of them certainly buy the ones about how to keep a man happy sexually as evidenced by number of copies sold. 

But I also think that men who are married to a woman who fits the RP stories we have read here, those wives also have things in common and are not the demographic who buy relationship books.

That’s one of the markers I have noted in the similar stories of guys who went looking for advice and read through a lot of them and some of you finding RP as a result....seems like in every one of these stories, the husband is reading relationship books and has even asked the wife to read them too and she refuses. Or he has at least expressed a desire to talk about how the relationship is not fulfilling him and she refused or shuts him down or gets angry.

Even some of the men who did not end up at RP but found other good books and sources have wives who refused to read anything, refused to go to counseling, refused to comprehend that he is unfulfilled. 

I’m just pointing out that while I think on the whole women read more relationship books, men who are coupled and not feeling fulfilled will read those books while their wives aren’t so inclined to. Because it seems in all of these stories, the wife wasn’t really complaining about lack of fulfillment. If she doesn’t see any need to change things (see other thread about why don’t our spouses hear us) she isn’t likely to read any books or blogs.

But since we know women are definitely reading them it seems we can conclude that the type who doesn’t is also maybe the type to not really understand herself and her own motivations (ie: the things described in RP about women’s motivations which do not correspond to what they say).


----------



## sokillme

I think the problem with RP and 3rd wave F is that it judges each respective gender by the worst of such. I mean there are heartbreaking stories by both husbands and wives here and elsewhere. I think the common theme in all of them is that the spouse who cheated lacks character. 

I think there are some good things in both philosophies too, but there are many men and women out there who are empathetic towards each other. This is necessary if you want to have good relationships. But the most important thing in all of that is for you to have character and to look for someone who also has such.


----------



## Faithful Wife

sokillme said:


> I think there are some good things in both philosophies too, but there are many men and women out there who are empathetic towards each other. This is necessary if you want to have good relationships. But the most important thing in all of that is for you to have character and to look for someone who also has such.


On empathy, I think that there is some kind of significant issue with empathy for some people. I believe it is true that generally, women have more empathy than men. And more men have autism and other disorders that include a lack of empathy, which although it is a different thing in that case it does mean that statistically more men have less empathy than women. 

https://www.livescience.com/61987-empathy-women-men.html

Also I do see a general lack of empathy by men for women around here (though I’m going to speculate that this is in direct response to the fact that they have not been shown empathy by women in their lives, and/or they have been made to feel that women are somehow more valuable than they are, in which case I can see why they would lack empathy for them).

So I don’t think men are full of empathy generally. And women’s may be statistically higher. 

The problem seems to be that in general, women’s empathy does not extend to their romantic partners the same way it extends to others. And that empathy from a woman to a man tends to cause va-clang in many women. 

This is what I see as the biggest part of the whole problem. I don’t think many women are aware that this is happening, and this would be one of the areas where women say one thing but it doesn’t match their responses and behaviors. Also I think it is going to be impossible for a woman to hear what her man is really saying when it comes time to have important conversations if she doesn’t have empathy and especially if she doesn’t even realize she lacks empathy.

I definitely think men need more empathy too and that many women experience a lack of empathy from their man on certain issues. But that would be a separate discussion and isn’t really relevant here. With the lack of empathy from women toward men, I’m reading and thinking about ways this can be addressed. Obviously no huge change will come over night. But I’m trying to look at a way to build a bridge between RP and feminism, including a new language and analogies that can help people. I think we have reached a stalemate, and I want to find ways to move us through it to the other side. Hopefully with some new understanding.

ETA: another thought is that men who were raised to place more value on females were likely to have been trained early on to have empathy for women but not necessarily men (some were even told that men didn’t deserve empathy, including themselves). I think this is why for so many who have had that type of life view, they are likely more adept at empathy for women than other men who weren’t raised that way. And then if they partner with a woman who lacks empathy for men (which seems to be a large percentage of them), you end up with a husband who can empathize with his wife and a wife who cannot empathize with her husband.


----------



## Luminous

Faithful Wife said:


> On empathy, I think that there is some kind of significant issue with empathy for some people. I believe it is true that generally, women have more empathy than men. And more men have autism and other disorders that include a lack of empathy, which although it is a different thing in that case it does mean that statistically more men have less empathy than women.
> 
> Also I do see a general lack of empathy by men for women around here (though I’m going to speculate that this is in direct response to the fact that they have not been shown empathy by women in their lives, and/or they have been made to feel that women are somehow more valuable than they are, in which case I can see why they would lack empathy for them).
> 
> So I don’t think men are full of empathy generally. And women’s may be statistically higher.
> 
> The problem seems to be that in general, women’s empathy does not extend to their romantic partners the same way it extends to others. And that empathy from a woman to a man tends to cause va-clang in many women.
> 
> This is what I see as the biggest part of the whole problem. I don’t think many women are aware that this is happening, and this would be one of the areas where women say one thing but it doesn’t match their responses and behaviors. Also I think it is going to be impossible for a woman to hear what her man is really saying when it comes time to have important conversations if she doesn’t have empathy and especially if she doesn’t even realize she lacks empathy.
> 
> I definitely think men need more empathy too and that many women experience a lack of empathy from their man on certain issues. But that would be a separate discussion and isn’t really relevant here. With the lack of empathy from women toward men, I’m reading and thinking about ways this can be addressed. Obviously no huge change will come over night. But I’m trying to look at a way to build a bridge between RP and feminism, including a new language and analogies that can help people. I think we have reached a stalemate, and I want to find ways to move us through it to the other side. Hopefully with some new understanding.


Both 'sides' have their good and bad. 

Empathy towards someone that is genuine I agree with. What I see many times though, is a person's empathy being used for manipulation, or the other person losing respect for them because they are showing them a 'softer' side.

I showed plenty of empathy towards my previous partner, and all that achieved was enabling her to complain or feel sad about things in her life even more, without striving to fix these grievances. When I cut back on the empathy, and became a little more authoritarian about things, did it seem to get a balance back (structure).

A lot of people these days do not have a backbone, and will cry that their lot in life is tough and it's not fair. They fail to see the following...

Life is not fair. Life is not even. Not everyone is going to be a millionaire, and the sooner you play the hand that you are dealt the best way possible, the better life you will have.

From a personal perspective, I have seen myself cut back on the amount of empathy I have towards people. I put it down to there are far less people with genuine issues worthy of it, and more people just wanting attention as a result of where society is at.

If someone is make a true effort to improve themselves, and for whatever reason is failing, I will have empathy, but at the same time if I can see a way to help said individual, without compromising their growth as a result of involvement, then I will do it.

Faithful Wife I believe this might be why you see less empathy from men then women. We men may show empathy less, because we would rather 'fix' things, make things better through physical action. It is how we have evolved as a species.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Luminous said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> 
> On empathy, I think that there is some kind of significant issue with empathy for some people. I believe it is true that generally, women have more empathy than men. And more men have autism and other disorders that include a lack of empathy, which although it is a different thing in that case it does mean that statistically more men have less empathy than women.
> 
> Also I do see a general lack of empathy by men for women around here (though I’m going to speculate that this is in direct response to the fact that they have not been shown empathy by women in their lives, and/or they have been made to feel that women are somehow more valuable than they are, in which case I can see why they would lack empathy for them).
> 
> So I don’t think men are full of empathy generally. And women’s may be statistically higher.
> 
> The problem seems to be that in general, women’s empathy does not extend to their romantic partners the same way it extends to others. And that empathy from a woman to a man tends to cause va-clang in many women.
> 
> This is what I see as the biggest part of the whole problem. I don’t think many women are aware that this is happening, and this would be one of the areas where women say one thing but it doesn’t match their responses and behaviors. Also I think it is going to be impossible for a woman to hear what her man is really saying when it comes time to have important conversations if she doesn’t have empathy and especially if she doesn’t even realize she lacks empathy.
> 
> I definitely think men need more empathy too and that many women experience a lack of empathy from their man on certain issues. But that would be a separate discussion and isn’t really relevant here. With the lack of empathy from women toward men, I’m reading and thinking about ways this can be addressed. Obviously no huge change will come over night. But I’m trying to look at a way to build a bridge between RP and feminism, including a new language and analogies that can help people. I think we have reached a stalemate, and I want to find ways to move us through it to the other side. Hopefully with some new understanding.
> 
> 
> 
> Both 'sides' have their good and bad.
> 
> Empathy towards someone that is genuine I agree with. What I see many times though, is a person's empathy being used for manipulation, or the other person losing respect for them because they are showing them a 'softer' side.
> 
> I showed plenty of empathy towards my previous partner, and all that achieved was enabling her to complain or feel sad about things in her life even more, without striving to fix these grievances. When I cut back on the empathy, and became a little more authoritarian about things, did it seem to get a balance back (structure).
> 
> A lot of people these days do not have a backbone, and will cry that their lot in life is tough and it's not fair. They fail to see the following...
> 
> Life is not fair. Life is not even. Not everyone is going to be a millionaire, and the sooner you play the hand that you are dealt the best way possible, the better life you will have.
> 
> From a personal perspective, I have seen myself cut back on the amount of empathy I have towards people. I put it down to there are far less people with genuine issues worthy of it, and more people just wanting attention as a result of where society is at.
> 
> If someone is make a true effort to improve themselves, and for whatever reason is failing, I will have empathy, but at the same time if I can see a way to help said individual, without compromising their growth as a result of involvement, then I will do it.
> 
> Faithful Wife I believe this might be why you see less empathy from men then women. We men may show empathy less, because we would rather 'fix' things, make things better through physical action. It is how we have evolved as a species.
Click to expand...

There is also well researched evidence that men generally have less empathy than women.

But I think there should be studies on empathy for our partners. That way we could see that the higher levels of empathy in women doesn’t necessarily apply to their partners.


----------



## sokillme

I really didn't mean individual empathy though that is certainly worth talking about. What i meant was empathy for the challenges that each gender faces in the world and make no mistake there are unique challenges that we all face that has to do with that. I think that is something that both men and women could work on. It doesn't always have to be a point of contention.


----------



## Faithful Wife

sokillme said:


> I really didn't mean individual empathy though that is certainly worth talking about. What i meant was empathy for the challenges that each gender faces in the world and make no mistake there are unique challenges that we all face that has to do with that. I think that is something that both men and women could work on. It doesn't always have to be a point of contention.


There could and should be a lot of discussions on empathy. And of course there are some things that we can’t empathize with directly (I can’t empathize with what it is like to be a man, in general, or to have a penis, and all that implies).

But the point I’m focused on here is what the men are telling me and how it affects them. I can empathize with not being empathized with because I’ve experienced that in my life in one way or another. But I cannot empathize with having never been shown consistent empathy in my life, or at times when I truly needed it, or to be made to feel that I don’t matter as much as men. So I’m try to understand through compassion.

Women should be able to empathize with their husbands even without being able to empathize with being a man, because she should be able to recognize he is being bothered or harmed by something based on what he is saying and his actions. Everyone has experienced some kind of pain or disappointment, and that should be empathized with easily. It doesn’t mean we will necessarily totally understand the level of their discomfort for whatever that topic is, but simply seeing he is unhappy about something is an easy empathetic cue that any woman should be able to access.

There is definitely a problem here and it is more understandable to me that some RP men have the view of women that they do. Having been never shown empathy, I would also conclude women were much meaner and nastier than the world would have us think. When a woman lacks empathy for her partner, she’s just asking to be seen as an *******.

I don’t think all the women who lack empathy for their partners are *******s, I think some of them are just unaware. 

I have read a few stories by wives who when some kind of dam broke within them and they finally had empathy for what their husbands had been going through, they broke down in tears at how cruel they had been before that moment. Usually the moment comes when she finally reads a book or article that says everything her husband has been saying for years.

This moment isn’t necessarily going to preclude the wife entirely becoming empathetic to him, but it may at least shift her thinking enough to make improvements.


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> Tech, do you also see the crimes the men the women like committed as a tendency that is much more common at less extreme levels? Honestly asking.


I'm not sure exactly what you are asking. Is it whether the criminal behavior exhibited by the men is an extreme example of something that is much more common at less extreme levels?

If that's not what you're asking, could you clarify?

If that is what you're asking, yes of course that is the case. Men are much more aggressive than women. They commit far more violent crime than women do. They get into car wrecks much more than women do.

And in fact that is the reason that hybristophilia is relevant in the wider context: some women are extremely attracted to the extremely aggressive behavior that criminals exhibit, and therefore it is not at all surprising that more typical women are often attracted to moderately aggressive behavior that won't get you thrown in prison.


----------



## Faithful Wife

tech-novelist said:


> I'm not sure exactly what you are asking. Is it whether the criminal behavior exhibited by the men is an extreme example of something that is much more common at less extreme levels?
> 
> If that's not what you're asking, could you clarify?
> 
> If that is what you're asking, yes of course that is the case. Men are much more aggressive than women. They commit far more violent crime than women do. They get into car wrecks much more than women do.
> 
> And in fact that is the reason that hybristophilia is relevant in the wider context: some women are extremely attracted to the extremely aggressive behavior that criminals exhibit, and therefore it is logical to assume that more typical women might be attracted to moderately aggressive behavior that won't get you thrown in prison.


But wouldn’t it also be logical then to assume that more men may be more inclined to rape women than the number of men who actually do it? If men are struggling to keep their aggression in check based on their need to fit into society (or face jail or other consequences) and if women are biologically attracted to them anyway, then isn’t this saying that rape is in fact in men’s genetic code?

I am just trying to understand the logic and it doesn’t work unless we admit some portion of men have extreme aggression and many of them have enough to “turn on” that part of a woman’s attraction. That same aggression is what is apparently behind rape (generally speaking).

I do have another point on this, too, one which kind of disallows me to understand the logic behind your point. 

It goes like this. Did you know that if a man anally raped you, if he pounded your prostate just right, it may cause you to spray semen across the room? And further, some men know this and deliberately try to achieve this effect while raping a man. And for a moment, the victim may feel an incredible rush along with the abject orgasm and ejaculation, which temporarily transports them away from the pain of the experience. Men who this has happened to have had some confusion afterwards because the experience was horrific but it yielded the abject orgasm and incredible feelings.

Would it then make sense for women (or men) to conclude that men want to be anally raped? That they subconsciously want it because it causes the best orgasm they ever had, even if they are trying to escape and are truly harmed. Also that maybe by being raped they will learn that they do actually want it, if they didn’t realize before that they will get the best orgasm of their lives (at the cost of physical damage).

In fact, many men already know about the prostate effect on orgasm and seek it out themselves, either solo or from their partners. The same men most likely don’t want to be raped by a man or an object at the hands of whoever. But I have heard gay men speculate before that most men would come if they were raped, and the implication sounded the same as the sort of argument there is about hybristophilia.


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> But wouldn’t it also be logical then to assume that more men may be more inclined to rape women than the number of men who actually do it? If men are struggling to keep their aggression in check based on their need to fit into society (or face jail or other consequences) and if women are biologically attracted to them anyway, then isn’t this saying that rape is in fact in men’s genetic code?


Some men have trouble keeping their aggression in check. Those are the ones who end up in prison for violent crimes.

Most men don't have that problem. For example, I have never launched an unprovoked attack against anyone, so my probability of being thrown in prison for committing a violent crime is extremely low.

So I would say that it is outliers who don't have enough self-control to avoid rape, not typical men.



Faithful Wife said:


> I am just trying to understand the logic and it doesn’t work unless we admit some portion of men have extreme aggression and many of them have enough to “turn on” that part of a woman’s attraction. That same aggression is what is apparently behind rape (generally speaking).
> 
> I do have another point on this, too, one which kind of disallows me to understand the logic behind your point.
> 
> It goes like this. Did you know that if a man anally raped you, if he pounded your prostate just right, it may cause you to spray semen across the room? And further, some men know this and deliberately try to achieve this effect while raping a man. And for a moment, the victim may feel an incredible rush along with the abject orgasm and ejaculation, which temporarily transports them away from the pain of the experience. Men who this has happened to have had some confusion afterwards because the experience was horrific but it yielded the abject orgasm and incredible feelings.
> 
> Would it then make sense for women (or men) to conclude that men want to be anally raped? That they subconsciously want it because it causes the best orgasm they ever had, even if they are trying to escape and are truly harmed. Also that maybe by being raped they will learn that they do actually want it, if they didn’t realize before that they will get the best orgasm of their lives (at the cost of physical damage).
> 
> In fact, many men already know about the prostate effect on orgasm and seek it out themselves, either solo or from their partners. The same men most likely don’t want to be raped by a man or an object at the hands of whoever. But I have heard gay men speculate before that most men would come if they were raped, and the implication sounded the same as the sort of argument there is about hybristophilia.


I didn't know that, and probably could have happily lived the rest of my life without knowing it.

But that example of sexual response to *unwanted *violence corresponds to the fact that some women have orgasms while being raped, a different topic.

It does not correspond to the fact that some women *deliberately *go out of their way to be involved with violent criminals.


----------



## 269370

I don’t think men have less empathy than women. It is just expressed differently and perhaps it has a different meaning. 
How do you even define empathy to make a ‘study’ out of it? It’s totally a personal perception. There’s no objective ‘judge’ who can determine whether you are more or less empathetic.

When my wife complains to me about something, my first thought is to find a way to fix it. She sometimes gets annoyed about it because ‘not everything can be fixed’ and she feels I show a lack of empathy because instead of just listening and acknowledging, I’m offering constructive solutions. So yes, as far she is concerned, I’m not exhibiting a high amount of empathy even though I’m hurting inside from listening and not ‘allowed’ to do anything about it.

Also: if women are supposed to be more empathetic than men, then how come they get turned off if their partner is getting something off his chest? (I’m not sure this always happens actually but according to most men here who experienced it, there seems to be enough evidence to give this observation some traction).



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## lifeistooshort

This is a great discussion..... and as it touches on some sensitive topics I wanted to throw out a friendly moderator reminder to keep things civil :smile2:


----------



## Faithful Wife

tech-novelist said:


> Some men have trouble keeping their aggression in check. Those are the ones who end up in prison for violent crimes.
> 
> Most men don't have that problem. For example, I have never launched an unprovoked attack against anyone, so my probability of being thrown in prison for committing a violent crime is extremely low.
> 
> So I would say that it is outliers who don't have enough self-control to avoid rape, not typical men.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't know that, and probably could have happily lived the rest of my life without knowing it.
> 
> But that example of sexual response to *unwanted *violence corresponds to the fact that some women have orgasms while being raped, a different topic.
> 
> It does not correspond to the fact that some women *deliberately *go out of their way to be involved with violent criminals.


Ok but.. you are trying to make a correlation between women’s attraction to men in general based on the fact that a tiny portion of women are infatuated with the tiny portion of men who are criminally violent. 

So it isn’t apples to oranges anyway because as you said, most men don’t have that type of agresssion. But you believe a part of our ancient attraction may be stimulated in women by aggressive displays in men.

Gay men actually say similar things (not saying they all do, and certainly not all men don’t believe as you do either, but...). They say sometimes that more men would realize they are gay or bi if they were raped. That when they experience being forced to submit, their brains then allow the real pleasure to be experienced and their bodies would “learn” their real abilities and pleasures and even possibly orientation.

Since the male body does have this incredible organ that can add so much pleasure to orgasm (or even cause orgasm all by itself without stimulating the penis or testicles), it would seem this fact was designed by nature for the benefit of the man. And since when having PIV sex a man typically cannot also have his prostate massaged at the same time, yet it is in the perfect position to be hit by a penis in his ass, some gay men are concluding similar evolutionary reasons for it to your hypothesis. That there is something biologically within a man’s body and psyche which he yearns to experience, and has a certain type of attraction toward aggressive men because “deep down” he senses the pleasure he is missing.

It is also pretty clear that men generally admire successful men, including the more dark triad types. They watch all the gladiator movies, etc.

Since homosexual attraction is apparently as biological as heterosexual attraction and since apparently we all have some fluidity in orientation, the argument by some gay men sounds the same as yours. It seems to be based on the (conscious or subconscious) desire to be overcome by an aggressive male, which according to them is very present in most men.

Having seen a huge number of men who have boy crushes on big “alpha male” types, I can also see this would be evidence of that theory, and it still sounds like essentially the same theory you have.

It is one group of people speculating about the attraction and motivations of another group of people. Both groups seem to be pinning the “proof” on the abject orgasm and the dissociation of knowing what turns us on. I know you are saying the proof is in the infatuation of criminals, but I assume you know that this is not the full theory. The theory actually includes that plus the abject orgasm during rape aspect. They aren’t actually separate topics. In fact, abject orgasm was mentioned in your link about it.


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> Ok but.. you are trying to make a correlation between women’s attraction to men in general based on the fact that a tiny portion of women are infatuated with the tiny portion of men who are criminally violent.
> 
> So it isn’t apples to oranges anyway because as you said, most men don’t have that type of agresssion. But you believe a part of our ancient attraction may be stimulated in women by aggressive displays in men.
> 
> Gay men actually say similar things (not saying they all do, and certainly not all men don’t believe as you do either, but...). They say sometimes that more men would realize they are gay or bi if they were raped. That when they experience being forced to submit, their brains then allow the real pleasure to be experienced and their bodies would “learn” their real abilities and pleasures and even possibly orientation.
> 
> Since the male body does have this incredible organ that can add so much pleasure to orgasm (or even cause orgasm all by itself without stimulating the penis or testicles), it would seem this fact was designed by nature for the benefit of the man. And since when having PIV sex a man typically cannot also have his prostate massaged at the same time, yet it is in the perfect position to be hit by a penis in his ass, some gay men are concluding similar evolutionary reasons for it to your hypothesis. That there is something biologically within a man’s body and psyche which he yearns to experience, and has a certain type of attraction toward aggressive men because “deep down” he senses the pleasure he is missing.
> 
> It is also pretty clear that men generally admire successful men, including the more dark triad types. They watch all the gladiator movies, etc.
> 
> Since homosexual attraction is apparently as biological as heterosexual attraction and since apparently we all have some fluidity in orientation, the argument by some gay men sounds the same as yours. It seems to be based on the (conscious or subconscious) desire to be overcome by an aggressive male, which according to them is very present in most men.
> 
> Having seen a huge number of men who have boy crushes on big “alpha male” types, I can also see this would be evidence of that theory, and it still sounds like essentially the same theory you have.
> 
> It is one group of people speculating about the attraction and motivations of another group of people. Both groups seem to be pinning the “proof” on the abject orgasm and the dissociation of knowing what turns us on. I know you are saying the proof is in the infatuation of criminals, but I assume you know that this is not the full theory. The theory actually includes that plus the abject orgasm during rape aspect. They aren’t actually separate topics. In fact, abject orgasm was mentioned in your link about it.


If there were evidence that a lot of heterosexual men are attracted to gay men, I'd consider this relevant to a discussion of heterosexual men's attraction to gay men.

However, there is no such evidence that I'm aware of, and we're not having that discussion anyway.

There is, however, evidence that a lot of heterosexual women are attracted to men who display at least some level of aggression, although not generally enough to end up in prison, and are repulsed by men who are seen as ineffectual or weak.


----------



## Tiggy!

tech-novelist said:


> Some men have trouble keeping their aggression in check. Those are the ones who end up in prison for violent crimes.
> 
> Most men don't have that problem. For example, I have never launched an unprovoked attack against anyone, so my probability of being thrown in prison for committing a violent crime is extremely low.
> 
> So I would say that it is outliers who don't have enough self-control to avoid rape, not typical men.


You speak like rape is never a deliberate premeditated act.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

Just a thought to throw into the discussion here; one that my be relative to more than just the extremes.

Very few men can't control their violent tendencies. Very few women respond positively to these men.

But do more want to, just in a less severe or risky package? We know the very primal attraction many women feel toward "bad boys" and how many otherwise good women end up with abusive men or just relative jackasses. Is this not just a less extreme manifestation of the same phenomenon.

Just a thought; not sure how much validity it has. Curious to how others may interpret this.


----------



## tech-novelist

Tiggy! said:


> You speak like rape is never a deliberate premeditated act.


I didn't mean to give that impression. Of course it is sometimes a deliberate premeditated act.

But that doesn't mean it isn't aggression.


----------



## tech-novelist

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Just a thought to throw into the discussion here; one that my be relative to more than just the extremes.
> 
> Very few men can't control their violent tendencies. Very few women respond positively to these men.
> 
> But do more want to, just in a less severe or risky package? We know the very primal attraction many women feel toward "bad boys" and how many otherwise good women end up with abusive men or just relative jackasses. Is this not just a less extreme manifestation of the same phenomenon.
> 
> Just a thought; not sure how much validity it has. Curious to how others may interpret this.


Yes, that's what I was attempting to get across.


----------



## Faithful Wife

tech-novelist said:


> If there were evidence that a lot of heterosexual men are attracted to gay men, I'd consider this relevant to a discussion of heterosexual men's attraction to gay men.
> 
> However, there is no such evidence that I'm aware of, and we're not having that discussion anyway.
> 
> There is, however, evidence that a lot of heterosexual women are attracted to men who display at least some level of aggression, although not generally enough to end up in prison, and are repulsed by men who are seen as ineffectual or weak.


But you are trying to tie this to women’s inability to understand why they want to be with an aggressive man, and that they cognitively don’t have access to why that occurs, but it comes out in subconscious behaviors like writing letters to serial killers.

So to me, your point is about that subconscious attraction.

Gay males argue that straight males do have subconscious attraction to other men and that they are just culturally conditioned to ignore that attraction. They also point to how men will quickly convert to homosexual behaviors in certain situations (prison, military, etc). Even if the argument can be made that this only happens because women aren’t present, the same happens to women in prison. So to me this says that our sexual attraction and orientation can be dependent upon our environment and who is available to us. Since this happens literally every time (straight people will quickly flip if only presented with only same sex options), I would surmise that sexual attraction is far more about who you have a reasonable chance of getting it on with than about strict rules about gender roles or ancient lizard brain desires.

If anything, I think it can be shown that male lizard brains are more conscious than female ones. But I don’t think this really helps us know anything about current male female interactions that we don’t already know.

To me the evidence that straight people will flip shows plenty of evidence that straight males may have unconscious desires to experience gay sex. Also, I don’t think the Greeks were unaware people. And being far more ancient than us, I think their actions are more representative of our ancestry and natural behaviors than current man.


----------



## 269370

If women are (supposedly) more attracted to violent/aggressive/rapey men (as assumed in the above posts) then evolution would favour those men’s genes to be carried forward. Which would make women responsible for evolution churning out rapists (I don’t think so!) Because if they favoured nerdy/geeky type, then obviously those would be in more abundance...

I think this is too simplistic and mostly non sense. While going for ‘bad boys’ is clearly sometimes a thing, it is by far not the majority of women who prefer that type, contrary to what is portrayed here. Just like having a fetish for amputated limbs - it exists and been observed, but isn’t all that common.

And no, it doesn’t follow that most men are sitting at home trying to suppress their rapey urges. Just like most women are not standing in line in a grocery store, secretly hoping that somebody might come along and rape them (because many rapes result in ‘mind blowing’ orgasms for women). Both scenarios are pretty much equivalent.

We have been through this: you can have a certain physical response (like being tickled) but not necessarily want it. It’s not 100% black and white because rape fantasy is also a thing (with the emphasis on the word ‘fantasy’) but I don’t see how any of these things can be extrapolated on the whole or majority of gender to derive any kind of conclusion. 

I don’t think it’s so easy for a guy to come from prostate stimulation alone, even in a non-rapey setting, I never managed (and wife is by now an expert at it after it was discovered that it feels.....different. )

What differences is this thread trying to bridge again? I’m not sure where this is going. The disconnect between what we say we want and what we actually want or do is actually greater amongst women (again, this is not something that is statistically significant enough to form any kinds of conclusions to put into practice. It’s normally healthier to assume that what people say they want, is what they actually want, and work form there.)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

Gay men who think that heterosexual men would like to submit: this is wishful thinking. I have heard it many times too (only from gay men. Never have I heard it from a straight man that he’d like to subconsciously or consciously submit to a gay man). I don’t think there’s anything to it as far as heterosexual men are concerned. It’s a gay man’s dream, not reality.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tech-novelist

inmyprime said:


> Gay men who think that heterosexual men would like to submit: this is wishful thinking. I have heard it many times too (only from gay men. Never have I heard it from a straight man that he’d like to subconsciously or consciously submit to a gay man). I don’t think there’s anything to it as far as heterosexual men are concerned. It’s a gay man’s dream, not reality.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Agreed.


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> So to me this says that our sexual attraction and orientation can be dependent upon our environment and who is available to us. *Since this happens literally every time* (straight people will quickly flip if only presented with only same sex options), I would surmise that sexual attraction is far more about who you have a reasonable chance of getting it on with than about strict rules about gender roles or ancient lizard brain desires.


*This *is clearly incorrect from my own experience.

There were years on end in my 20s when I had no sexual activity because I wanted it only with women and couldn't attract a woman even for a one-night stand.

If I had been interested in gay sex in any way, I'm sure I could have found that pretty easily.

I'm pretty sure I'm not the only man with this very seriously fixed orientation.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Just a thought to throw into the discussion here; one that my be relative to more than just the extremes.
> 
> Very few men can't control their violent tendencies. Very few women respond positively to these men.
> 
> But do more want to, just in a less severe or risky package? We know the very primal attraction many women feel toward "bad boys" and how many otherwise good women end up with abusive men or just relative jackasses. Is this not just a less extreme manifestation of the same phenomenon.
> 
> Just a thought; not sure how much validity it has. Curious to how others may interpret this.


But wouldn’t it make sense to also explore why some good men go for bad girls consistently and are burned by them and try to deduce why a good man would go for a bad woman?

Honest question, and this is one I really struggle with so I ask for your patience. Why would studying why girls want bad boys yield any different answers than why boys want bad girls?

This is an area that to me is equal and obvious, and I don’t know why men think there is something to learn about why women go after bad men that doesn’t apply the other way.

In other words when I see a guy friend who goes for bad girls and I see a female friend who goes for bad boys, in both cases the same thing is present: lack of awareness and poor mental health.

Here’s where I ask for your patience. As a man who wants to see things logically, why wouldn’t this issue seem obviously mostly the same in men and women? For instance I think most men understand why other men go for bad girls: because they think or it is true that the sex will be great. Why isn’t it just obvious that this is the same reason women may go for a bad boy? She thinks or it is true that the sex will be great.

But keep in mind what I said about lack of awareness and poor mental health. I’ve found in friends who were unhealthy and had relationships with “bad kids”, they report that the sex was great “a few times”. Both genders report that after that initial rush the sex wasn’t as great but they were trying to get it back. They also reported a lot of drama, fighting or games, break downs, etc.

Same friends, a few years later who have their **** together a bit more...in reflection they tell me that the sex with the “bad kid” was great in a certain way, but that now that they are healthier, they realize that the way it was great wouldn’t be great for them now. They realize with regained mental health and partnering with healthy people that healthy sex is more awesome than “bad kid” sex. It’s just that if you are a bad kid or someone who has sex with them, you haven’t yet experienced what “good sex” really means.

Both male and female friends have said the exact same things to me, if they recovered their own mental health enough to have healthy relationships (and sex) later.

So I’ve never quite understood why men would want to study what attracts less healthy women. Same as a woman studying what attracts less healthy men, it just wouldn’t make sense.

What I think men really want to know is how to attract a sexual woman. So they mistakenly study these women who for various reasons are not picking wisely and who have definite mental health issues. 

I agree that there is not yet a lot of women like me who just know they love sex and know how to find good men (versus bad) who also love sex and know how to talk about sex, etc. (At least it is true that women like this are not available to men in enough numbers for them to study).

All I can say to that is that if it was studied throughout my life who I was attracted to, why, what attributes those men had, which ones were in fact better or worse at sex, and all my other data...it just wouldn’t look anything like what some RP men believe. It would actually look more like guys like you. A good man, jockishly handsome but not some pretty boy, a fit manly physique, confident but also humble, a good dad, a good person. That profile has almost always been a good match for me. Oh let me also throw in there, I’m quite aware and connected to my inner cave woman, and I instantly perk up sexually when I see a man chop wood, do a sport he loves, or exhibit mate guarding behaviors when other males are present. To me, none of that says bad boy in any way but it does say yummy strong man who is here to protect me.

You and I talked about Blast from the Past on another thread. I had to watch the movie again after we talked. There is a point where the main character is being physically threatened by another man. He is so cute and says to the man “I have to warn you, I do know how to defend myself” with a big smile. The man tries to take a punch and the main character punches him square in the nose before the other guys hand ever made contact. The bad guy takes the hit, rubs his face for a moment. Then tries another punch. Again the main character has punched him in the nose before the bad guys hand has reached him. All the while the main character has not become upset or flustered, and was never doing anything but defending himself. You can see he even would help the man if necessary. He did not want to cause physical harm, and only did so in defense. If the threat is over, tend to the wounded.

That was like, the hottest moment of the movie. 

This is not of course the type of thing to happen in real life. But this is the type of attitude that the men I’m most attracted to have consistently had.


----------



## Faithful Wife

tech-novelist said:


> *This *is clearly incorrect from my own experience.
> 
> There were years on end in my 20s when I had no sexual activity because I wanted it only with women and couldn't attract a woman even for a one-night stand.
> 
> If I had been interested in gay sex in any way, I'm sure I could have found that pretty easily.
> 
> I'm pretty sure I'm not the only man with this very seriously fixed orientation.


Im talking about as in prison or the military. You still had access to try to get a female because you were not incarcerated with only males, but the argument is that the moment you are, you will start considering gay sex acts because there is an abundance of that available and zero sex with a woman available.

Since this does in fact happen every time with incarceration, I see it as a valid point. There is a small number of men in prison who would completely forego (consensual) sex with men and be celibate (other than rape). But this has been shown to be a small percentage of men if the incarceration lasts a certain amount of time. I think most men can imagine why this happens and it doesn’t make them think they are gay. And I’m not saying that means they are gay.

What I am saying is that some men think it does mean that.

Some men do not think that hybristophilia has anything to do with women’s sexual attraction. They think it is simply a manifestation of mental illness.

You do think it has to do with women’s sexual attraction.

I honestly can’t see more logic in either argument, all we have to do to witness straight male attraction for other males is to put them around only men. Maybe it isn’t the lack of women present and it is actually social conditioning. Once a man is in prison he conforms to that social conditioning very quickly and behaves as a gay man. This is very well documented and also seems to come very naturally to these men once they are used to prison life.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

I'm not buying the homosexual angle here. 

When I'm genuinely upset with my wife, there's no way she can even arouse me, let alone get me off. And I'm actually highly attracted to her. I have a difficult time understanding this concept of involuntary pleasure.

That and the fact that I have had prostate orgasms. At least for me... not at all mind blowing or in any way superior to, or even comparable to good old fashioned penile stimulation by vagina, mouth, or even hand.... or even pure mental concentration without any direct physical stimulation for that matter.


----------



## Faithful Wife

tech-novelist said:


> *This *is clearly incorrect from my own experience.
> 
> There were years on end in my 20s when I had no sexual activity because I wanted it only with women and couldn't attract a woman even for a one-night stand.
> 
> If I had been interested in gay sex in any way, I'm sure I could have found that pretty easily.
> 
> I'm pretty sure I'm not the only man with this very seriously fixed orientation.


Also, this is the same as a woman saying she wanted a partner but couldn’t find one that wasn’t a total ******* or creep or somehow dangerous to her, therefore she remained celibate.

You would say that she probably would have been turned on by those guys, she just didn’t consciously realize it.

To me, this is the same as me saying to you that you may not consciously realize you would have felt sexual attraction for a man if you had given it a chance. I see the arguments as the same. It is about subconscious desire of things we may actively claim turn us off.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Faithful Wife said:


> Im talking about as in prison or the military. You still had access to try to get a female because you were not incarcerated with only males, but the argument is that the moment you are, you will start considering gay sex acts because there is an abundance of that available and zero sex with a woman available.
> 
> Since this does in fact happen every time with incarceration, I see it as a valid point. There is a small number of men in prison who would completely forego (consensual) sex with men and be celibate (other than rape). But this has been shown to be a small percentage of men if the incarceration lasts a certain amount of time. I think most men can imagine why this happens and it doesn’t make them think they are gay. And I’m not saying that means they are gay.
> 
> What I am saying is that some men think it does mean that.
> 
> Some men do not think that hybristophilia has anything to do with women’s sexual attraction. They think it is simply a manifestation of mental illness.
> 
> You do think it has to do with women’s sexual attraction.
> 
> I honestly can’t see more logic in either argument, all we have to do to witness straight male attraction for other males is to put them around only men. Maybe it isn’t the lack of women present and it is actually social conditioning. Once a man is in prison he conforms to that social conditioning very quickly and behaves as a gay man. This is very well documented and also seems to come very naturally to these men once they are used to prison life.


I wonder if there's actually about any data regarding how many men flip and go for other men in prison. It's possible that while it does happen....perhaps more often then it might with women available... it's also possible that the true rate is less than people think. 

Also, at least in prison, there is a hierarchy of power and people look for dominance. As women know rape is often not about sex but power.... men have been raping to assert power throughout history. So it's quite possible that a lot of rapes in prison have little to do with flipping preferences and a lot to do with establishing power.

I know in the military... I'm ex army..... there were plenty of men that just went without. But there's also an established power hierarchy with one's own troops.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> I'm not buying the homosexual angle here.
> 
> When I'm genuinely upset with my wife, there's no way she can even arouse me, let alone get me off. And I'm actually highly attracted to her. I have a difficult time understanding this concept of involuntary pleasure.
> 
> That and the fact that I have had prostate orgasms. At least for me... not at all mind blowing or in any way superior to, or even comparable to good old fashioned penile stimulation by vagina, mouth, or even hand.... or even pure mental concentration without any direct physical stimulation for that matter.


What I’m actually doing is comparing the homosexual subconscious desires theory to the rape subconscious desires theory that RP guys have developed. 

To me, it is the same argument. So I don’t know why one is followed but not the other. They are both logical and based on the same thing: deep rooted unconscious reasons for why we want certain sexual behaviors.

There is some speculation that species with gay behaviors spring those behaviors forth when sex becomes about more than reproduction for the members of that species. In some species, just getting off somehow is good enough and they have found ways to achieve this without PIV sex, which means sometimes male on male sex. In some species this is still a non consensual act (or so it seems if you watch it) but they also can document males of some species who appear to be signaling that they want to be anally entered.

To me there is a lot of evidence that could suggest our attraction may have a lot of subconscious possibilities, including the possibility that orientation is 100 % fluid if it becomes a luxury in a species to simply have sex because it’s awesome.

That is why I can’t understand the seeming “one way” direction that men who think hybristophilia is a clue to women’s sexual attraction follows. Logic would say a case about how men want to be raped is the same. And we have accounts by men who claim that being raped is what in fact made them know they were gay (even while still of course saying that the rape itself was horrific).

I think if we are going to try to deduce the subconscious dark desires of women, it is relevant to also do it about men. I do not see any reason to think that nature would give one half of us subconscious desires but not the other half.


----------



## Faithful Wife

lifeistooshort said:


> I wonder if there's actually about any data regarding how mamy men flip and go for other men in prison. It's possible that while it does happen....perhaps more often then it might with women available... it's also possible that the true rate is less than people think.
> 
> Also, at least in prison, there is a hierarchy of power and people look for dominance. As women know rape is often not about sex but power.... men have been raping to assert power throughout history. So it's quite possible that a lot of rapes in prison have little to do with flipping preferences and a lot to do with establishing power.
> 
> I know in the military... I'm ex army..... there were plenty of men that just went without.


But we also know that a lot of straight military men have gay sex while they are away from home. Seemingly nothing except having to go without for awhile was the reason for them to go for a gay sex act. No matter if this is a small percentage of men, it is definitely not rare.

My bigger point is that this is the same argument some men make that hybristophilia is a clue about women’s sexual attraction toward men. See the reason I’m pointing it out? 

If we really want to find correlations here, it is very easy. Does it make sense to do so? To me it only makes sense in the light of some men trying to find correlations between hybristophilia, abject orgasm from rape, and the fact that some women go for bad boys. They are reducing it to “women want to have sex with rapists and killers even if they don’t consciously know it”.

If it’s unconscious, then men wouldn’t be aware of their homosexual feelings either. And therefore we could say basically anything and point to anything and claim it is evidence of some unconscious desire.


----------



## 269370

Men don’t ‘want’ bad girls. They sometimes or often end up with bad girls (maybe because they are not able to read them well enough or as it is called around here: their picker is broken). They don’t actually set out to be with a ‘bad girl’. There is not really a clear equivalent btw: because violence or aggression is not really all that common in women, so a ‘bad girl’ will usually mean some other traits; perhaps ‘high maintenance’ or a woman with a troubled personality or bpd or hysteria or self destructive personality or whatever else. Yet those can be mistaken for a ‘mystique’ quality in the beginning, especially if she is attractive enough. That’s was my perception anyway; it could be mistaken. Anyway, I would rather discuss positive attributes of women, rather than negatives as I don’t believe men set out to be with troubled girls anyway.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

Faithful Wife said:


> What I’m actually doing is comparing the homosexual subconscious desires theory to the rape subconscious desires theory that RP guys have developed.
> 
> To me, it is the same argument. So I don’t know why one is followed but not the other. They are both logical and based on the same thing: deep rooted unconscious reasons for why we want certain sexual behaviors.
> 
> There is some speculation that species with gay behaviors spring those behaviors forth when sex becomes about more than reproduction for the members of that species. In some species, just getting off somehow is good enough and they have found ways to achieve this without PIV sex, which means sometimes male on male sex. In some species this is still a non consensual act (or so it seems if you watch it) but they also can document males of some species who appear to be signaling that they want to be anally entered.
> 
> To me there is a lot of evidence that could suggest our attraction may have a lot of subconscious possibilities.
> 
> That is why I can’t understand the seeming “one way” direction that men who think hybristophilia is a clue to women’s sexual attraction follows. Logic would say a case about how men want to be raped is the same. And we have accounts by men who claim that being raped is what in fact made them know they were gay (even while still of course saying that the rape itself was horrific).
> 
> I think if we are going to try to deduce the subconscious dark desires of women, it is relevant to also do it about men. I do not see any reason to think that nature would give one half of us subconscious desires but not the other half.


I'm tracking with your logic here. I cant say I have any real insight here and have been following this thread with as much bewilderment as understanding. I was just trying to ferret out whether or not bad boy attraction was just a safer version of an extreme condition that could apply to a larger segment of the population.

Im not on board with the RP idea of subconscious rape desire, so it's hard for me to see any logic in it in the first place, let alone relate it to a homosexual scenario. IMO, the RP idea (if I understand it correctly) that women subconsciously want a strong man to rape them is a twisted manifestation of extreme RPer's desire to control the women they cant get anywhere with on an equal footing. It's classic projection; they want to rape women out of frustration, but can't admit that their frustration is the source of their anger, so they have to create a "she wants it" fantasy to go with their rape fantasy.

I know rape fantasy is not uncommon with women, but I've always chalked that up to society shaming and suppressing female sexuality.... or maybe something else I don't know or can't comprehend.


----------



## 269370

lifeistooshort said:


> I wonder if there's actually about any data regarding how many men flip and go for other men in prison. It's possible that while it does happen....perhaps more often then it might with women available... it's also possible that the true rate is less than people think.
> 
> Also, at least in prison, there is a hierarchy of power and people look for dominance. As women know rape is often not about sex but power.... men have been raping to assert power throughout history. So it's quite possible that a lot of rapes in prison have little to do with flipping preferences and a lot to do with establishing power.
> 
> I know in the military... I'm ex army..... there were plenty of men that just went without. But there's also an established power hierarchy with one's own troops.



There is no data. This is made up. Equating rape to ‘flipping’ sexuality seems a completely ignorant thing to say to me, at the very least. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Faithful Wife

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> I'm tracking with your logic here. I cant say I have any real insight here and have been following this thread with as much bewilderment as understanding. I was just trying to ferret out whether or not bad boy attraction was just a safer version of an extreme condition that could apply to a larger segment of the population.
> 
> Im not on board with the RP idea of subconscious rape desire, so it's hard for me to see any logic in it in the first place, let alone relate it to a homosexual scenario. IMO, the RP idea (if I understand it correctly) that women subconsciously want a strong man to rape them is a twisted manifestation of extreme RPer's desire to control the women they cant get anywhere with on an equal footing. It's classic projection; they want to rape women out of frustration, but can't admit that their frustration is the source of their anger, so they have to create a "she wants it" fantasy to go with their rape fantasy.
> 
> I know rape fantasy is not uncommon with women, but I've always chalked that up to society shaming and suppressing female sexuality.... or maybe something else I don't know or can't comprehend.


Rape fantasy is also not uncommon for men (both raping and being raped). But to me, that doesn’t actually mean men want to rape women generally (or be raped), even the ones who fantasize about it.

Yet some men want to believe women’s rape fantasies mean they subconsciously crave to actually be raped.

I think most red pill men think it means women just want to be taken aggressively and understand it doesn’t mean she wants to actually be raped. But since some of the RP articles do include speculation about abject orgasm during rape, some still secretly (or not) think it means she actually (subconsciously) wants to be raped. It is written about extensively at RP sites. This would be, I assume, the kind of thing I think some men say they “ignore” while absorbing the parts that are relevant to them. It is directly linked to hybristophilia.


----------



## 269370

Ok, I see what’s happening. Desperately trying to find equivalence where none exists is not really going to help the two sides. 

The whole point is (as I keep saying): some differences as well as common traits do exist within BOTH sexes. None is above the other, even if some areas are potentially more problematic for one gender versus the other: in the end, it’s some of the differences that make both sexes so fascinating and that’s what (I believe) we should acknowledge and embrace. Laboured efforts at trying to force (literal) equivalence is actually going to drive the two groups further apart (IMO).

I think this is one of the flaws in some of the (late) feminist thinking that is not really helping the original cause of feminism: equality between men and women doesn’t mean both are wired to think, feel or act identically at all. It means both sexes have the same value and deserve equal respect and be given the same opportunities while acknowledging that some differences do exist. (Eg if men statistically kill more; it doesn’t mean that subconsciously, women want to kill more too, because...equality. That’s not going to get anyone anywhere). There should be a distinction between what one wants an ideology to be, and what the reality IS otherwise crazy things could start to happen...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

Why does anyone care what some crazy ‘red pillers’ write on some fringe sites? As far as I know, nobody here actually follows this movement blindly. Certain aspects might be helpful or attractive to some men (I guess?) but as far as I know, there’s no one here who embraces this as an ‘ideology’. (Contrary to extreme feminism actually).
Anyway, I think I will let this one play out...Otherwise I will miss wife’s birthday. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> Im talking about as in prison or the military. You still had access to try to get a female because you were not incarcerated with only males, but the argument is that the moment you are, you will start considering gay sex acts because there is an abundance of that available and zero sex with a woman available.


First, the fact that there were women all around me did not mean that I had any option to have sex with one of them. Actually that made it worse, not better. If I had been on a desert island or the like, at least I wouldn't have been reminded constantly that there were women around, just not for me.

And as for the incarceration, that "argument" is an unfounded assertion. Most men who have been incarcerated have not voluntarily had sex with other men. In fact, https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=187063, a study of this issue, states: "One-fourth of the prison sample indicated they had engaged in some form of consensual homosexual activity while incarcerated; 18 percent had engaged in homosexual activity prior to incarceration."

Of course there is a lot of prison rape. In fact, more men are raped than women are raped, precisely due to prison rape. However, that doesn't make the victims of prison rape into homosexuals.

I'd like to bring the discussion back to voluntary sexual activity. If you want to have a discussion of rape, of course that is your choice, but I don't want to discuss that on this thread.


----------



## Faithful Wife

tech-novelist said:


> First, the fact that there were women all around me did not mean that I had any option to have sex with one of them. Actually that made it worse, not better. If I had been on a desert island or the like, at least I wouldn't have been reminded constantly that there were women around, just not for me.
> 
> And as for the incarceration, that "argument" is an unfounded assertion. Most men who have been incarcerated have not voluntarily had sex with other men. In fact, https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=187063, a study of this issue, states: "One-fourth of the prison sample indicated they had engaged in some form of consensual homosexual activity while incarcerated; 18 percent had engaged in homosexual activity prior to incarceration."
> 
> Of course there is a lot of prison rape. In fact, more men are raped than women are raped, precisely due to prison rape. However, that doesn't make the victims of prison rape into homosexuals.
> 
> I'd like to bring the discussion back to voluntary sexual activity. If you want to have a discussion of rape, of course that is your choice, but I don't want to discuss that on this thread.


This is where I’m asking you for patience.

I am trying to truly understand the logic behind why rational men would think hybristophilia is some kind of marker of sexual attraction in general populations of females. I have read the arguments. Every argument includes the abject orgasm via rape and women’s rape fantasies as part of their reasoning.

Can you see why to me, men are ok with talking about women being raped and equating it to their sexual attraction, but they don’t seem to be willing to discuss what being raped means about men’s sexual attraction? I have presented my argument, but (again please have patience with me), it seems to me you are not willing to see why it is also a logical argument. It is a sound argument and I’m not the one who came up with it.

Now I’m talking to you, a man I respect. And you seem to be ok with talking about seriously mentally ill women and how their behavior probably points to secret hidden desires in me, too. 

But I can’t say that to you (about what you being raped might mean) and have you honestly listen to me. You reject it outright and claim it isn’t the same thing, but to me both arguments are talking about subconscious desires (of which there are many, many more than simple heterosexual interactions).

I’m not asking you to consider whether my argument is true or not. I’m asking you to consider if it is possible that your argument may also not be true in the way you think it is.

You say you don’t want to talk about rape but it seems you are only willing to not talk about male rape in a discussion that does include female rape.

Again I know you haven’t specifically said that you think the abject orgasm via rape is indication of the hidden desire of women to be raped, but you do know that plenty of RP guys say that. I’m trying to understand it, I really am.

If I don’t include my other argument in trying to understand your logic, then it looks like RP guys just want to keep saying that women subconsciously want to be raped (and some of them literally say that). I know that RP isn’t written for women, but I am honestly trying to understand why decent men would discuss something like how women subconsciously want to be raped. I don’t mean a discussion among scientists either, I mean the men at RP and PUA and MRA and incel blogs. In order to empathize, I have to understand why it would seem ok for them to discuss these things and spread them around.

Even if you separate The hybristophilia and try to exclude the abject orgasm and rape part, I don’t understand why it would seem logical to apply what mentally ill women do to what healthy women do. Unless like I said, we are also going to discuss what mentally ill men do (including violent criminals) and extrapolate that healthy men also have a deep desire to be criminally violent (ie: rape.)


----------



## Faithful Wife

And @tech-novelist just one more point. Saying that 25% of men engaged in some form of consensual sex in prison kind of proved my point in my mind. If a man knew that 25% of females reacted sexually to perceived “bad boys” you would say that’s only the ones who do it consciously and the rest want him subconsciously.

25% is not a small number and I do think it represents the reality of how many straight men would have consensual gay sex if they were removed from normal society expectations. Again, this is easily evidenced in Kinsey and other sources.


----------



## Luminous

If I may interject for a second... I'm suffering from a major post Xmas lunch food coma, so I might not be with with it. However...

This thread has taken a massive tangent from the original path it was on. I'm just curious if it is going to get back on track...?


----------



## Handy

What happened to the original questions RP VS feminist? Why has rape taken over the thread? 

For me the cultural expectations for male-female roles have changed so much, it is difficult to know what works and what doesn't with different individuals or groups. I even was in a "Gender's Studies" class as the only male. So OK, some women were treated poorly by some men. Well it wasn't me that did them wrong so now I am supposed to not be trusted or make up for some other bad boy player's miss-deeds? I can only do what I can do and that takes most of my time. 

What I am learning is to not make up for others miss-deeds and to be in charge of my own life and if a woman sees what i am doing is something she might like, if she respects me for the most part and visa-versa, she is welcome on board as a friend.

I barely know about any RP or feminist subjects. I have been around some mild feminist and subjected to maybe too many sensitivity training sessions so much that I avoid being honest and play the "politically correct" method, so much so that I rarely give my honest opinions among close friends I deal with on a regular basis.

One time after recovering from a physical injury I applied for a job and was told I could have qualified if I was a 35 or older female of non Caucasian ethnicity. And i am supposed to support a non-working wife and 2 kids OR if the W works her paycheck is her play money.

Yea, very old school. I get it but that was the way it was and that is why I said there were drastic changes during my lifetime.

BTW, I read a divorced women's form that are dating. The woman has a long term boyfriend but won't marry him because she will lose her spousal support, which goes on for 5 years, then marries him after the spousal support ends. The same goes for widows with a pension or benefits that end if she marries the guy, so they don't get married. Some of this is also on the new boyfriend. Money drives lots of people to do shady things.

I still think many people treat others fairly but a few rotten apples spoil it for almost everyone.

Well, except to when it comes to money. Money seems to win out.

OK back to:
* FW The topic is the riff between feminists and RP guys, though some who don’t identify as fems or RP may also feel alignment with this discussion and want to chime in.*


----------



## Faithful Wife

Luminous said:


> If I may interject for a second... I'm suffering from a major post Xmas lunch food coma, so I might not be with with it. However...
> 
> This thread has taken a massive tangent from the original path it was on. I'm just curious if it is going to get back on track...?


Do you mean about the hybristophilia conversation?

I asked @tech-novelist to bring that discussion here from another thread. Do you understand how RP uses the concept? That is what I am sincerely trying to do. It is one of many RP things I want t understand. So I’m hoping Tech can help me out with that.


----------



## Luminous

Faithful Wife said:


> Do you mean about the hybristophilia conversation?
> 
> I asked @tech-novelist to bring that discussion here from another thread. Do you understand how RP uses the concept? That is what I am sincerely trying to do. It is one of many RP things I want t understand. So I’m hoping Tech can help me out with that.


I have no idea about the concept. And as it has not appeared once in the hundreds of videos/podcasts/documents I have taken on board regarding this topic (Red Pill), I am curious why it would be relevant.

Faithful Wife, it's your thread and you appear to have a strong stance/interest in this hybristophilia. I was only wondering because it started out in a more universal field about understanding where men who follow (or at least understand) the Red Pill theory are coming from.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Handy said:


> What happened to the original questions RP VS feminist? Why has rape taken over the thread?
> 
> For me the cultural expectations for male-female roles have changed so much, it is difficult to know what works and what doesn't with different individuals or groups. I even was in a "Gender's Studies" class as the only male. So OK, some women were treated poorly by some men. Well it wasn't me that did them wrong so now I am supposed to not be trusted or make up for some other bad boy player's miss-deeds? I can only do what I can do and that takes most of my time.
> 
> What I am learning is to not make up for others miss-deeds and to be in charge of my own life and if a woman sees what i am doing is something she might like, if she respects me for the most part and visa-versa, she is welcome on board as a friend.
> 
> I barely know about any RP or feminist subjects. I have been around some mild feminist and subjected to maybe too many sensitivity training sessions so much that I avoid being honest and play the "politically correct" method, so much so that I rarely give my honest opinions among close friends I deal with on a regular basis.
> 
> One time after recovering from a physical injury I applied for a job and was told I could have qualified if I was a 35 or older female of non Caucasian ethnicity. And i am supposed to support a non-working wife and 2 kids OR if the W works her paycheck is her play money.
> 
> Yea, very old school. I get it but that was the way it was and that is why I said there were drastic changes during my lifetime.
> 
> BTW, I read a divorced women's form that are dating. The woman has a long term boyfriend but won't marry him because she will lose her spousal support, which goes on for 5 years, then marries him after the spousal support ends. The same goes for widows with a pension or benefits that end if she marries the guy, so they don't get married. Some of this is also on the new boyfriend. Money drives lots of people to do shady things.
> 
> I still think many people treat others fairly but a few rotten apples spoil it for almost everyone.
> 
> Well, except to when it comes to money. Money seems to win out.
> 
> OK back to:
> * FW The topic is the riff between feminists and RP guys, though some who don’t identify as fems or RP may also feel alignment with this discussion and want to chime in.*


Handy, yes the riff is for obvious reasons, but my attempt to discuss the riff with new ways of trying to listen is what this post is about. It is mostly me trying to understand RP, and men telling their tales (though a few lovely women have chimed in). I want to be able to actually hear each other, or at least I want to start with hearing them so I can understand it.

For a long time at TAM I have known about RP guys and have read a lot of those blogs and books myself. Because some of those blogs and books have really scary and weird positions on things regarding women, I have prejudiced myself to the point that I can’t hear what any of them are saying without painting them with the brush of what the other men are saying.

The good men at TAM who I respect have told me that they don’t believe or pay attention to the bad stuff and just study the useful stuff. I have challenged myself to be able to stop being prejudiced and listen to them.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and please continue to.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Luminous said:


> I have no idea about the concept. And as it has not appeared once in the hundreds of videos/podcasts/documents I have taken on board regarding this topic (Red Pill), I am curious why it would be relevant.
> 
> Faithful Wife, it's your thread and you appear to have a strong stance/interest in this hybristophilia. I was only wondering because it started out in a more universal field about understanding where men who follow (or at least understand) the Red Pill theory are coming from.


Here’s a YouTube video that explains it, by a MGTOW guy. 

https://youtu.be/Gdyy0BArH74

Here’s a blog post:

http://sheddingoftheego.com/2015/08/23/hybristophilia-the-female-attraction-to-violence/

I do know that @tech-novelist believes this theory and that he is not a rare outlier in RP, so I’m not sure why you haven’t heard of it. There is something about the topic on almost every RP blog.

I’m truly trying to understand it and why RP men think it is logical.


----------



## Handy

I don't know how BluesPower ideas fit in to the RP or feminism divide, but like a few other posters it is usually the same spiel, do this or do that, be a man and do XYZ. I don't see doing XYZ over coming a partners clinical depression or any other medical issue that influences a relationship to go off the rails. He is correct a person can leave a relationship if they want to take the financial hit and go against long held beliefs that marriage is a long term deal.

I used to think women in general were the kind hearted bunch but now I see it comes down to money when there is a break up after a long term relationship. I think this spurs the RP guys and makes them who they become. 

The lifetime spousal support is bunk, more motivation to fuel the RP guys. I was in college with lots of walking wounded people(men and women) and some made them self into someone very different than what was their old life in 4 years.

One thing I have learned is change is constant, so adapt or suffer. RP, PUA, feminist, it all depends on who you are around and what the trend calls for at the moment.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Handy said:


> I don't know how BluesPower ideas fit in to the RP or feminism divide, but like a few other posters it is usually the same spiel, do this or do that, be a man and do XYZ. I don't see doing XYZ over coming a partners clinical depression or any other medical issue that influences a relationship to go off the rails. He is correct a person can leave a relationship if they want to take the financial hit and go against long held beliefs that marriage is a long term deal.
> 
> I used to think women in general were the kind hearted bunch but now I see it comes down to money when there is a break up after a long term relationship. I think this spurs the RP guys and makes them who they become.
> 
> The lifetime spousal support is bunk, more motivation to fuel the RP guys. I was in college with lots of walking wounded people(men and women) and some made them self into someone very different than what was their old life in 4 years.
> 
> One thing I have learned is change is constant, so adapt or suffer. RP, PUA, feminist, it all depends on who you are around and what the trend calls for at the moment.


Handy, if I understand your story correctly, I think you felt the “hit” of feminism the same way many of the RP guys did, but you didn’t necessarily find RP and study it.

I do still value your opinion because your story sounds a lot like theirs anyway and your disappointment in your marriage rings through and seems to be the same. I do think it’s useful to hear your story and your views because it helps to understand how wide spread these feelings are in men.

I’m reading your stories even if I don’t respond directly to any specific part of it. It’s still very useful.

PS...Blues Power has some habits of posting to others that I don’t really appreciate, even though he isn’t speaking to me.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Mods...in light of the fact that I cannot stop people from disrupting this discussion, will you please close this thread.

What I will do instead is create a group to discuss this topic. I will invite some of the people on this thread and if I don’t invite you but you would like to join the discussion, please PM me.

I also have some theories to share that we haven’t gotten to here. And they are definitely not feminist theories. I would like your opinions on them @tech-novelist @Buddy400 @rockymountainyeti and several others who I will invite.


----------



## tech-novelist

I see the discussion is going to a private group, so my previous message is now unnecessary.


----------

