Mistaking fecklessness for wisdom

Commenter Arual recently pointed out this bit of airy feminine wisdom:   Some People Can Stay In Your Heart But Not In Your Life

As she spoke, the sadness was audible in her voice.  From the outside looking in, someone may wonder why she is asking for a separation.  He didn’t cheat on her.  He’s not abusive to her.  He’s a decent guy.  He’s been an okay partner to her – they have good memories and good times together.

However, she knows that they were brought together for a time… and that time has come to an end.  It’s hard for her to explain why it needs to be over.  She just knows it does.

Behold the great mystery of feminine relationship wisdom.  How does a woman know when the time is right to detonate her family and collect the resulting cash and prizes?

She just knows.

See Also:

About these ads
This entry was posted in Aging Feminists, Divorce, Feminine Imperative, Foolishness, selling divorce. Bookmark the permalink.

228 Responses to Mistaking fecklessness for wisdom

  1. ron says:

    Did getting half the house, the car, and alimony payments help her “just know”?

    Aside from the sarcasm, I don’t have any problem with a woman getting a “just cuz” divorce. Provided she walks away as she walked in. The problem here is that is almost certainly NOT what happened in this case.

  2. ar10308 says:

    It’s hard for her to explain why it needs to be over. She just knows it does.

    The Hamster. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

  3. tweell says:

    An oath taken before God is broken so easily these days.

  4. Cautiously Pessimistic says:

    @ron –
    I most certainly DO have a problem with women getting a ‘just cuz’ divorce. It’s hideously corrosive to the concept of marriage, and hideously corrosive to a coherent society with families that amass their own wealth, rather than vote to steal (sorry, tax) away other folks’ wealth. And that’s not even getting into what happens to any kids that might be caught out by the abandonment.

    That said, I’m thinking the damage is already done, and there’s not really a good way to put the genie back in the bottle without significant societal collapse. *shrug* Enjoy the decline, I guess.

  5. She decides the marriage is over but won’t actually leave, the cowardly broad asks him to move out.

    Naturally, the “self-help” coach bats for team woman and is proud that the wife kicked her husband out of the house.

    Yeah, I see how the feminine imperative works.

  6. sunshinemary says:

    I did not see any mention in the article about whether or not the woman has children with her husband. I have asked that question, but my comment there has not been released from moderation.

  7. Because life is all about meeeeeee!!!

    No?

  8. FuriousFerret says:

    “She just knows.”

    Maybe ‘the Force’ told her to do it.

  9. Mitchell says:

    I started to leave a reply to Tara the Divorce Coach, but I figured it wouldn’t see the light of day. I hope no man with any redeeming qualities ever has anything to do with Tara’s “friend,” other than to use her like a box of tissues. It sounds like that’s all she’s good for anyway.

  10. Dalrock says:

    @Mitchell

    I hope no man with any redeeming qualities ever has anything to do with Tara’s “friend,” other than to use her like a box of tissues. It sounds like that’s all she’s good for anyway.

    In other words:

    He knows that they were brought together for a time… and that time has come to an end. It’s hard for him to explain why it needs to be over. He just knows it does.

    Then of course she can call her girlfriend of much airy wisdom, and they can spend hours discussing What is wrong with men? Why won’t they commit?

  11. The poor husband probably had no idea what hit him!! Amazing how that can be social acceptable. I know a case in reverse where the husband left for no reason and he has been completely shunned by many people. As he should be, sacrificing his most sacred vows to his family.

  12. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dalrock
    In other words:

    He knows that they were brought together for a time… and that time has come to an end. It’s hard for him to explain why it needs to be over. He just knows it does

    Nicely done.

    Then of course she can call her girlfriend of much airy wisdom, and they can spend hours discussing What is wrong with men? Why won’t they commit?

    But wait, there’s more! She and her girlfriend can call up their churchlady friends, and spend even more hours discussing the inherent bad nature of men. And the churchlady friends can go lean on the White Knight men in their church, demanding that they push other men to manUp! And the preachers can preach it from the preacher’s roost.

    All the while, totally ignoring men like the sucker in this story. Totally, absolutely, ignoring him on the street, in the workplace, in any church. Seeing around him as though he just is not there.

    And then, for extra bonus points, the whole mob – dumped woman, girlfriend of much airy wisdom, churchladies, White Knights, preachers, and other assorted riffraff, can take to the various branches of the media, ululating and wailing and gnashing teeth about the terrible, awful, bad nature of men, and how they won’t be Real Men (TM) to these fine, upstanding women…

    Yeah. Up, standing on the street corner….

  13. judgybitch says:

    The disposable male. It’s so common a cultural trope that hardly anyone even notices it anymore. A woman called Esther Walker wrote an article for the Daily Mail about how she hates her unborn baby because it looks like it’s gonna be a boy, and everyone knows that boys suck. She put her face on her post! Shameless. And just so sad.

    I posted a gender reversal of her story at my blog, http://www.judgybitch.com, just to show how truly awful what she is saying really is. If it were a man talking about how much he hates his unborn daughter, there would be an uproar across the internet.

    But hating your baby boy? That’s okay. It’s that mindset that allows women to just “know” when the time is right to nuke a relationship and a marriage. Boys suck, men suck, everyone sucks but me!

    Disgusting.

  14. Perhaps it was her inarguable Feminine Intuition that told her it was time?

    https://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2011/09/07/the-feminine-mystique/

  15. Martian Bachelor says:

    It’s like a bottle of opened pop going bad, and instead of you throwing it in the trash, it throws you. WTH?!

    If Cola Inc. did that they’d be justifiably bankrupt and out of business in months. You couldn’t sell that kind of shit anywhere worth living, but men are supposed to swallow such dreck and profess liking it.

  16. Mark says:

    I was married to a woman with Tara Schofield’s hamster. She nuked our marriage “just because”. You should also read her entry on abusive relationships.

  17. Icaerus says:

    In my case, when she left me she cited “just ’cause” as her reason. Three months later, I find the truth: she knew our time was up, because she was already banging another dude and that was the confirmation…. Of course she wanted half of the whole nine yards. She collected her prize alright. Never again.

  18. DeNihilist says:

    And of course you must have seen/heard about this couple.It is all about getting MY 15 minutes of fame/happiness.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2244403/Just-invite-parties-work–dont-feel-weird–Couple-announces-split-posting-musical-breakup-video.html

  19. This is where waking up to the true nature of women and wrapping your mind around it can really save some people. How much better is it to assimilate the knowledge (and grieve over time) rather than having the shocking truth crash in on them (inevitably) in one day. Men need to start hardening themselves to reality instead of getting ambushed by it. I think we’ve already seen to many men responding to reality in inappropriate ways?

    Just say no to cognitive dissonance.

  20. deti says:

    I sense a hamsterlation in this post.

  21. One observation I have to make here is this “I just knew it was time” aspect, and how it realtes to women’s instinctual hypergamy. Schofield carefully avoids revealing any personal details about ‘her friend’ thus making her a ‘generic woman’. She has no character, no circumstance, no peculiarities, and as far as we know is faceless and ageless. However, she is every woman by virtue of being a homogenous representation of women in this instance – and in a fem-centric reality, just being female places you above conditions and circumstance.

    Whether she’s aware of it or not, Schofield’s ‘generic scenario’ really illustrates the instinctual nature of feminine hypergamy. When a woman has paired off with a less than optimal male, “she just knows” because her limbic hypergamy eats away at her psyche. Since we don’t know any detail about her ‘friend’, the investment in their marriage, the length of that marriage or the respective sexual market value of her or her husband, we can only conclude that it is naked, feral hypergamy prompting her to break off with her mate.

    BRIFFAULT’S LAW:

    The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.

    Past benefit provided by the male does not provide for continued or future association.

    Any agreement where the male provides a current benefit in return for a promise of future association is null and void as soon as the male has provided the benefit (see corollary 1)

    A promise of future benefit has limited influence on current/future association, with the influence inversely proportionate to the length of time until the benefit will be given and directly proportionate to the degree to which the female trusts the male (which is not bloody likely).

    Women (including Schofield) instinctually know this on some level of consciousness, which is responsible for a mental incongruity that requires resolution. In walks the Hamster is the easy answer, but the mental rationalization engine that the hamster represents is a necessary part of the female psyche – she needs the Hamster to survive or be driven insane by her inability to resolve the actions to which she is compelled by her innate hypergamy.

    Thus we get cutesy aphorisms from ‘Self-Help Coaches’ to help cope with the very real issue of her ‘friend’ realizing her hypergamous mistake in pairing off with what turned out to be a less than optimal male, and then is prompted to leave him (but “keep him in her heart”) to explore better options to satisfy that hypergamy while (she thinks) her sexual market value is still high enough to be appreciated by a more hypergamously suitable male.

  22. Norm says:

    I know a guy who’s wife decided in her 40’s that she wanted a divorce. In his case their two sons were in their late teens. He said he didn’t see it coming. His mother advised him in the early 80’s before he got married to put his paid for home in her(his mother) name. Needless to say he still has the house, and the divorce while costing some $$$, didn’t financially ruin him for life. His mother saw something in his ex which he didn’t.

  23. Feminist Hater says:

    You missed the best part.

    I am very proud of her for following her intuition… for knowing she can still love and honor him without staying in a marriage that is no longer right for either of them.

    She ‘loves and honours’ him by detonating the marriage. If it ain’t for life, then what’s the point; never mind the love or honour?

  24. DeNihilist says:

    But, but, but, I want to live a higher vibrational life!

  25. FuriousFerret says:

    @Norm

    Other people can see situations in relationships with non-attractive people much better than those people themselves. When we see a dork getting married to the first or second girl that he has ever had, and we also see that woman in her late 20s/early 30s, most intelligent people know the score, especially older women.

    However, for the blue pill world what are you going to do? Tell said dork to not to marry her? Good luck with that. In his mind, that is his last chance for any kind of regular sex, so his mom did the practical thing. She could see the train wreck a mile away and made sure to minimize the damage.

  26. Sojourner says:

    That’s the end of may marriage in a nutshell. Way too much beta on my part sure (which is quickly becoming remedied) but man not I, nor the counseling pastor, could get a straight answer on the why.

    I’m in one of those areas where I’m over it but it still blows my mind as to how it ended on such a whimper.

  27. 22to28 says:

    I don’t really care for relationships with women. No matter what you are talking about, sooner or later, she’ll defend her point of view with “I just think that it is that way” or “that’s how it is.” No further explanation is required.

    How can you have a productive discussion with such a person? Would you make a 50-50 business deal, sign a contract with such a person?

    Imagine:
    “I can’t deliver the products as agreed on Friday.”

    “Why?”

    “Just because.”

    I take myself too serious to put up with this from a business partner. A marriage is a business, with a contract.

  28. Dalrock says:

    @Rollo

    When a woman has paired off with a less than optimal male, “she just knows” because her limbic hypergamy eats away at her psyche. Since we don’t know any detail about her ‘friend’, the investment in their marriage, the length of that marriage or the respective sexual market value of her or her husband, we can only conclude that it is naked, feral hypergamy prompting her to break off with her mate.

    I think you are making a general assumption which I see no evidence nor logical explanation for. Implicit in your comment is that women routinely are “tricked” into choosing worse men than they really deserve, and that our epidemic of divorce is triggered by this. While I agree that the woman in question has convinced herself (including her hind brain) that this is the case, the likelyhood of this actually being true on a large scale is vanishingly small. We can test this by looking at the SMV reality which crashes into the lion’s share of divorcées, especially those with children. If stories like Eat Pray Love were actually true, the “true life” author wouldn’t have had to round up a short, nearly bald old dude and tart him up as an alpha. Likewise the author of “Stella” wouldn’t have spun her yarn of divorce empowerment based on a gay man who married her for a visa.

    Women aren’t being rushed into marriage, and due to hypergamy they pick the highest status man they can get commitment from when they do marry. Given that women’s SMV and especially MMV decline as they age and after having another man’s child, the likelyhood that she can score a better man is laughable. What is really happening here is a combination believing the divorce fantasy hype along with misconstruing offers for no strings sex (or perhaps even a friendly hello) for offers of lifetime commitment.

  29. Sojourner says:

    Whether it’s hypergamy or not, you make an oath before God and family YOU KEEP TO THE OATH! I understand the secular woman far more than the Christian woman.

  30. okrahead says:

    Followed the link to the article, found the blog by Tara Schofield, a self-proclaimed, ” Intuitive Soul Coach.” Tara provides “soul reading” sessions at $150/hr (but still has her “summer special” rate of $75.00/hr posted) through Skype.
    Now I think most of us here already know that marriage counselors are nearly universally a ridiculous and useless bunch, but this takes it up a notch. Since Tara is advertising herself as a “soul coach” she need not apply for a counselor’s license of any sort, yet can still charge perfectly ridiculous rates for her “services.” Women who claimed to be able to “read souls” and took money for it, while encouraging immoral behavior, were at one time known as “witches.” Some communities even burned witches at the stake. I am beginning to wonder whether those communities might not have in truth been more enlightened than our own.

  31. sunshinemary says:

    Ms. Schonfield seems like a bit of a new-agey wing nut, and her picture sort of makes her look like she wants to bite you, but I think she does give a similar kind of advice as the EPL lady – that whole “put yourself first, think about what you want and what makes you happy!” thing.

    The reason why this is dangerous to a married woman is that after some years of marriage, if her husband has gotten in the habit of deferring to her and has maybe let himself go a little bit, then she’s going to be feeling that I love you but I’m not in love with you feeling – which basically means she is not attracted to him. When that happens, if someone from the herd (such as Ms. Schonfield) starts whispering in her ear about looking within to find her own happiness, the woman going to fall for it. Christian women should know better than to fall for it, but nevertheless that lack of attraction will still be a problem even if she doesn’t nuke her marriage. That is why information like Dalrock’s Romance 101 post and the MMSL stuff is so important.

  32. Zippy says:

    Female attraction to the opposite sex (the involuntary kind) is far more socially conditioned than male attraction: her hind brain really does respond, or not, based primarily on social conditioning. This is very different from men (and therefore very perplexing to men): our involuntary hind brain attraction is based on objective characteristics. Female hind brain attraction is based on social characteristics, which are inherently subjective or relative to the social situation.

    Female-targeted porn therefore doesn’t show airbrushed photos. It shows airbrushed social situations and relationships. It isn’t even considered porn, which makes it far more ubiquitous than male-targeted porn. It reaches women of all ages, and is in their face all day every day. This conditions many women’s hind brain attraction to the extent where the majority of Western women would literally need to be deprogrammed – if such a thing were possible, let alone politically feasible – in order to “fix” the MMP.

    These porn-conditioned women have a kind of mental illness, to the extent that mental illness is a mismatch between reality and involuntary, basic perceptions. They literally undergo a kind of constant SMV/MMV hallucination from which they cannot escape. Trying to reason with it is like – is like in a very literal sense – trying to reason with a mental patient suffering from constant hallucinations. These hallucinations are reinforced by the culture and by the fact that mostly there is always some man around willing to fornicate with her, by social media, etc.

    I don’t know what the “answer” is to the problem on a large scale. Quarantining particular women at a young age from all the female-targeted porn, a strong father planting counter-narratives that better correspond to truth in them early … those sorts of things may help on the margins.

    But I don’t know how to negotiate with insanity, and I don’t think anyone else does either.

  33. FuriousFerret says:

    “her hind brain really does respond, or not, based primarily on social conditioning.”

    No, her hind brain responds to social dominance, social status and decent looks. Social conditioning is the one that says she should be attracted to being nice and supplicating.

  34. Zippy says:

    FuriousFerret:
    No, her hind brain responds to social dominance, social status …

    Right. Her hind brain involuntarily responds to its own perception of social circumstances, not to objective characteristics.

    I’m not suggesting that her hind brain can be conditioned to respond to different (Beta) social characteristics. It can’t.

    I’m suggesting that ubiquitous female-targeted porn makes her hind brain misperceive reality. It makes her literally unattracted to anyone other than fifty shades of millionaire hunky handyman.

  35. Zippy says:

    Look at it this way:

    Plenty of folks have claimed that male-targeted (visual) porn has conditioned men to find ordinary women unattractive. That may be true to a small degree or in extreme cases. But in part I think it may be projection: women understand on some level that all the female-targeted porn, which isn’t even considered porn and is therefore everywhere, has a far more profound effect on women’s capacity to find ordinary men attractive than male-targeted porn has on men’s capacity to find ordinary women attractive.

    So female targeted porn is far more ubiquitous than male targeted porn, and it has a more profound affect on women’s hind brain attraction to real men than visual porn has on men’s hind brain attraction to real women.

  36. FuriousFerret says:

    Well, women are always going to only be attracted to the top 20 percent of men.

    I can see where you are coming from. The issue is when you define the scope of those men in the 20 percent. In today’s global connected world, the top 20 percent become distorted. So in the hindbrain they associate the top 20 percent to celebrities and the actual top 20 in their inimate reality to simply normal and all the rest of the men are pretty much screwed and invisible without busting their ass to get noticed.

  37. Dalrock says:

    @Zippy

    These porn-conditioned women have a kind of mental illness, to the extent that mental illness is a mismatch between reality and involuntary, basic perceptions. They literally undergo a kind of constant SMV/MMV hallucination from which they cannot escape. Trying to reason with it is like – is like in a very literal sense – trying to reason with a mental patient suffering from constant hallucinations. These hallucinations are reinforced by the culture and by the fact that mostly there is always some man around willing to fornicate with her, by social media, etc.

    For some women this is certainly true, but I don’t think it is impossible to get through to most aspiring frivorcées. The female porn is targeted to the ultimate fantasy, similar to a man imagining he suddenly has a harem of eager young women. But there appears to be a primal counterpart to this in the form of fear. From my own experience on Yahoo Answers, and from my wife’s experience with women in person and online, it is possible to break through if you remind them of this counterbalancing fear.

    One effective way is to ask the aspiring frivorcee how many women she knows who divorced in real life and found commitment from a quality man. Essential to this is to keep the hamster at bay by steering her toward actual real life women (Friends, neighbors, colleagues, relatives), not unverifiable internet accounts, Lifetime movies, friend of a friend experiences.

    Another way to do this (and what I do frequently on Answers) is to help her imagine a time in the near future where she is complaining to a girlfriend (the same one who is currently egging her on to divorce) “What is wrong with men? Why won’t they commit?”. The reality is as a divorcée with another man’s child(ren), she isn’t likely to be getting offers for commitment from the kind of man she wants commitment from. Deep down she knows better, and pointing this out preemptively removes her future victim status.

    Yet another way is to contrast the divorce fantasy stories with their real life foundations (Stella, EPL, etc). One commenter here recently mentioned having sent a woman to my site and she reported back feeling “deflated” after seeing the truth behind these stories.

    Unfortunately I think significant portions of the manosphere have bought into the feminine fantasy that women can generally divorce their way to better men. It isn’t that it doesn’t ever happen, but that in general the opposite is in fact true (which is the foundation for the male form of divorce theft).

  38. DeNihilist says:

    Dalrock, in my opinion, it is the nature of leisure time. As a society grows and becomes more productive, the citizens are given more time to do me things. They do not spend 90% of their waking hours trying to survive. Leisure time allows the masses to move more into a fantasy/what if state of being. This too meshes with our western way of having government slowly take over all of the “charity” work. It use to be, that as the upper class gained leisure time, a majority would fill it with real life volunteering/service work. With even most of this avenue now gone, society is left with inane ways to fill this time void. Not surprisingly with the job of helping others having been poached by governments/unions, most turn to making themselves better. Unfortunately most have forgotten that introspection is more like Christ’s forty days in the desert, as opposed to “higher vibrational” life styles.

    With greater freedom comes greater responsibility seems to be lost on western society.

    An interesting look at the minipulation of the masses by the psychology of consummerism:

  39. deti says:

    @ Dalrock:

    “Women aren’t being rushed into marriage, and due to hypergamy they pick the highest status man they can get commitment from when they do marry. Given that women’s SMV and especially MMV decline as they age and after having another man’s child, the likelyhood that she can score a better man is laughable. What is really happening here is a combination believing the divorce fantasy hype along with misconstruing offers for no strings sex (or perhaps even a friendly hello) for offers of lifetime commitment.”

    I think the first two sentences are absolutely correct. But I don’t know about the third. You might be in the same boat as Rollo here: There’s no evidence of divorce fantasy/hunky millionaire handyman dreaming. We don’t know if this woman is getting offers for NSA extramarital affairs or is looking to replace her husband. Can we really assume this woman doesn’t have another man waiting in the wings; but still thinks to herself “I can do better” any more than we can assume it’s “naked, feral hypergamy”?

    And while we’re at it, isn’t divorce fantasy/misconstruction of politeness from higher status men pretty much the same thing as “naked, feral hypergamy”, when we strip away the florid descriptors?

  40. Lovekraft says:

    There’s likely NO way to completely insulate your woman from today’s hypergamic feminist “you go girl” subversion. If she has just one friend, this will be enough to keep the hamster in full operation, and even without that, there’s still magazines, TV, internet etc.

    Even the amish are being infiltrated via reality shows like Going Amish that subvert their traditional beliefs.

  41. “Don’t ask me how I know, I just know.”

    Revolting!

  42. Dal, the motivating force behind what drives a woman to seek out a better option (or the best she can get in the first place) is still hypergamy.

    I would certainly agree that women’s innate hypergamy has been in the past, and can be now, mitigated by social conditions as well as a more realistic assessment of her own SMV. Unfortunately with the social climate we’ve had evolve over the past 60 years, and with the advent of social media those mitigations and SMV insights have been greatly diminished and distorted.

    We’ve come to a point where these distortions are no longer unintentional, and in fact are very profitable. Widespread, ubiquitous pornography men have instant access to plays upon men’s sexual imperatives in the same way widespread ubiquitous social affirmation plays upon women’s sexual imperatives (hypergamy).

    For the male sexual imperative (unlimited access to unlimited sexuality), porn demotivates men by providing the sexual release they would otherwise have to ‘earn’ from women by becoming more hypergamously acceptable. For the female sexual imperative (hypergamy), their ‘porn’ motivates them to seek out more hypergamously suitable mates by falsely inflating their SMV, limiting the scope of their capacity to evaluate it and re-engineering the mitigating social conventions that used to hold them accountable for their hypergamy.

    An oath taken before God is broken so easily these days.

    Hypergamy doesn’t care about those words you said at your wedding.

  43. Dalrock says:

    @Deti

    I think the first two sentences are absolutely correct. But I don’t know about the third. You might be in the same boat as Rollo here: There’s no evidence of divorce fantasy/hunky millionaire handyman dreaming. We don’t know if this woman is getting offers for NSA extramarital affairs or is looking to replace her husband. Can we really assume this woman doesn’t have another man waiting in the wings; but still thinks to herself “I can do better” any more than we can assume it’s “naked, feral hypergamy”?

    Fair question, but I think there is strong evidence that part of the script is remarriage. This explains the declining divorce rate as women age, and it also explains why she doesn’t simply stay married (beta bucks) and indulge on flings on the side. The fantasy isn’t to be pumped and dumped. The fantasy is to secure commitment from a better man. If the fantasy were to be pumped and dumped we would see something different in female porn. I also see this frequently in the framing from women on Answers, as well as the complaining from frivorcees who come back shocked that men only want them for sex. See also this post from Heartiste explaining that older women want less alpha and more signs of commitment than younger women. Riding the carousel is fun for young women, but it turns into something very different, something terrifying, for older women.

  44. Dalrock says:

    @Rollo Tomassi

    Dal, the motivating force behind what drives a woman to seek out a better option (or the best she can get in the first place) is still hypergamy.

    Yes, I agree. My quibble was more with the wording you used. It left the impression that she was likely correct in assuming she could secure a better man. We don’t have any evidence either way, but going by both logic and the data we have available it isn’t an assumption we should make. In fact, it is the opposite of what we should assume. The reason I point it out is I think other men (and women) are likely to read this and risk have it reinforce the message that is “in the water” (feminine imperative).

  45. Robert in Arabia says:

    “Norm says:
    December 12, 2012 at 11:25 am
    I know a guy who’s wife decided in her 40′s that she wanted a divorce. In his case their two sons were in their late teens. He said he didn’t see it coming. His mother advised him in the early 80′s before he got married to put his paid for home in her(his mother) name. Needless to say he still has the house, and the divorce while costing some $$$, didn’t financially ruin him for life. His mother saw something in his ex which he didn’t.”

    I know a fellow who made his mother joint owner of his 6 figure investment account. She stole it all and gave most of it to his sister.

  46. “Yet another way is to contrast the divorce fantasy stories with their real life foundations (Stella, EPL, etc)”

    Over a year ago, within a month from each other, two women told me their desire to leave their husbands. With both I said the following, “Are you sure? He’s quite a catch. He won’t be single long, have you thought about what it will be like knowing he’s having sex with other women and having those women around your children?” Both looked at me horrified. I told them to think about it. Both are still married, one is expecting baby #2 this month.

  47. It left the impression that she was likely correct in assuming she could secure a better man.

    As you said, we’re unclear on this because Schofield conveniently leaves out every detail imaginable. However, my point wasn’t whether she could or couldn’t, rather that her ‘friend’s’ hypergamy was the root motivator behind her feeling or intuition that she was it was time for her to abandon her husband – “feelings” and “intuition” which Schofield congratulated her for.

    It would be like me congratulating a guy on sorting out his feelings about his frigid wife by paying a prostitute to have his needs (his sexual imperative) met.

  48. an observer says:

    Rollo,

    ” …widespread ubiquitous social affirmation…”

    Via the mobile affirmation device.

  49. MaMu1977 says:

    Sarah’s Daughter FTW, for pointing out yet another example of female solipism:”I’m not finding him as attractive as before, so that feeling must be universal!’ I have a good friend who’s over six feet tall, darkskinned, muscular, sings like a bird and is gainfully employed (just put on E-6 in the USAF at Year 8 of enlistment.) He’s married to a white woman. His former girlfriends (all black) castigate him for marrying outside of his race, despite their willingness to admit that *they* dumped *him*. His crime, you may ask? He’s a beta’s beta with a low alcohol tolerance (he couldn’t keep up with his YOLO, black female counterparts.) In essence, he married outside of his race because the women in his areas (base, hometown, etc.), who he was most attracted to didn’t see his immediate value (at least two of them have admitted on Facebook that they assumed he would wait for them.) Irony being what it is, his wife saw his initial reluctance to get her pregnant and subsequent reluctance for PDA as alpha markers, which makes her work even harder for his approval (including losing excess birth weight and learning how to cook), even though he has told everyone *but her* that the best decision he ever made was marrying her.

    The current SMP is weird.

  50. Dalrock says:

    @Sarah’s Daughter

    Over a year ago, within a month from each other, two women told me their desire to leave their husbands. With both I said the following, “Are you sure? He’s quite a catch. He won’t be single long, have you thought about what it will be like knowing he’s having sex with other women and having those women around your children?” Both looked at me horrified. I told them to think about it. Both are still married, one is expecting baby #2 this month.

    Great story. I forgot about that specific angle, as it is one my wife uses to good effect as well. The concept of ending up alone or with an undesirable man while their now ex husband is with a younger prettier woman (who the kids love and now call “mom”) is extremely potent.

  51. 8oxer says:

    Whether it’s hypergamy or not, you make an oath before God and family YOU KEEP TO THE OATH! I understand the secular woman far more than the Christian woman.

    It is a mistake to give secular people a pass on basic morality. You have the bible, we have Aristotle and Epicurus who say the same thing: deliberate at leisure, but when a decision is made the promise must be kept.

    As an atheist, I have absolutely no sympathy for the secular woman (or man, for that matter) who breaks her promise. People with decent values don’t divorce outside of absolutely unlivable circumstances. That’s pretty much as it’s spelled out in the Christian (Jewish, Muslim, etc.) traditions. Whether such a person has a religious tradition or not, every adult knows the basics of right and wrong.

    If someone has a breakdown and becomes an uncontrollable libertine or untrustworthy thief, then sure, divorce them; but, not until then. All this “I love him but not in love with him” hamster-wheel nonsense is for the birds.

  52. Crank says:

    “I can’t really explain how I know that I and my aging wife weren’t meant to be together any longer, but somehow I just knew we were no longer right for eachother when the young hottie in our public relations department smiled at me a lot and let her absolutely perfect taut ass sway a little more when she knew I was looking it at.”

  53. Brendan says:

    For the male sexual imperative (unlimited access to unlimited sexuality), porn demotivates men by providing the sexual release they would otherwise have to ‘earn’ from women by becoming more hypergamously acceptable. For the female sexual imperative (hypergamy), their ‘porn’ motivates them to seek out more hypergamously suitable mates by falsely inflating their SMV, limiting the scope of their capacity to evaluate it and re-engineering the mitigating social conventions that used to hold them accountable for their hypergamy.

    Very much so, yes.

    I’d only add that there is also some science out there about how women get a remating tickler after a few years of marriage — most pronounced if there are kids, but mimicked also if there are not at around the same time-frame of 5-8 years in. There appears to be a bio-genetic trigger to re-test the existing sire and, if not passing the test, to seek a new sire for repeated mating and reproductive opportunities so as to optimize her downstream inheritance. Of course, other factors complicate that, like social norms and legal rules and so on, but in an environment which socially, legally, religiously and economically is not restrictive — as we have today — we can see these more “raw” bio-genetic tendencies coming to the fore. I think it’s true that, as Dalrock notes, a part of the puzzle is divorce porn for women, which creates an expectation that finding a new and superior mating sire will be an easy process — that is, this aids and abets and inflames the preexisting bio-genetic tendency.

  54. Kaehu says:

    Imagine the outrage if the genders were switched. . . .

  55. The concept of ending up alone or with an undesirable man while their now ex husband is with a younger prettier woman (who the kids love and now call “mom”) is extremely potent.

    Is it? I suppose it is relative to other extrapolations. Imagine when the topic of divorce theft or cash and prizes arises, its women rushing in to defend frivorce saying “we all know women end up far worse off financially”……yet they persist in doing it.

    They can know this, and still not know it.

    But I do agree it is a skin getter under

  56. greyghost says:

    Hypergamy is the cause and I do believe the hypergamy is driven by gina tingle. When a married woman or any woman claims to be happy she is in gina tingle. That is why game is so good for long term relationships. Dalrock likes to use kind social words like attraction but it is gina tingle. When fear and reality insecurity are present she gina tingles for the reliable beta male. As he removes her fear with stablility and security provides her with the title of motherhood she will lose the gina tingle. The eat pray love stories assist in removing the fear of reality. With confidence she is now free to act on her hypergamy. It is the basis of female empowerment and liberation any and checks,fears,reality limitations on hypergamy is oppression including honoring wedding vows and the lives of her own children. The whole purpose of the hamster is to remove guilt. (one reason talking to women is useless) Just one more check on hypergamy. Social status is just a tool to allow an unattractive women competitve hypergamy.
    Until women have something to lose divorcing a perfectly good man for no reason this will continue. No amount of stats on the suffering of others will matter one bit.

  57. Arual says:

    I don’t know how many details are really safe to share, but this is not your typical trading-up scenario, so far as we can tell. Her husband is very tech-savvy and says he’s done due diligence to be certain she isn’t cheating. She is, however, surrounded by the same type of trash you read above because she works for a self-help guru for women. I don’t think we can rule out being attracted to someone else entirely–only time will tell, as this is a fresh divorce.

    I felt it appropriate for the Romance 101 post because the issue seems to be lack of attraction, which makes all other flaws of the husband magnified.
    They don’t have children, though they’ve been trying as long as they’ve been married.

    They are part of the dominant religion (it’s Utah, I’ll let you guess) in these parts, and she’s not going to swing into any NSA lifestyle–though the fact that she’s divorced her husband for no real reason (“she just knows” doesn’t cut it for me) makes me question her religious stability, personally.

    The husband’s biggest mistake so far as I can tell (supplication aside), is job instability. She’s not young and hot and looking for alpha, though I’m sure some alpha would have helped overall. They married in their 30’s, tried to start a family, and haven’t managed it. Now she says she thinks that was God’s way of telling her that they shouldn’t be together. She has long pulled the financial weight in their relationship, in part because of the job instability. No cash and prizes here.

    I tend to agree with above posters theorizing the female imperative to jettison excess (useless) baggage in the form of husbands that can’t live up to The Dream. In this case there were no kids, but as she is self sufficient in terms of finances, she has no need of her husband.

  58. Norm says:

    I know a fellow who made his mother joint owner of his 6 figure investment account. She stole it all and gave most of it to his sister.

    So true unfortunately. i guess the best be these days is not to get married or live in another country where you won’t get burned. I also agree never to sign away your investments, though my co-workers case, his mother wasn’t a feminista.

  59. Dalrock says:

    @empathologism

    The concept of ending up alone or with an undesirable man while their now ex husband is with a younger prettier woman (who the kids love and now call “mom”) is extremely potent.

    Is it? I suppose it is relative to other extrapolations. Imagine when the topic of divorce theft or cash and prizes arises, its women rushing in to defend frivorce saying “we all know women end up far worse off financially”……yet they persist in doing it.

    They can know this, and still not know it.

    Anecdotally it does seem possible to penetrate past the hamster here. It isn’t about logically convincing the woman that what she is doing is immoral, stupid, or will hurt her kids. That will run off like water off a duck. However, if you do as Sarah’s Daughter did and poke at what I’ll call primal fears, it really does seem to sink in. Just as we see the feminine imperative of hypergamy as themes in the culture, the primal fears are right out in the open too. Think of how many movies have been made where one woman steals another woman’s family. Likewise the rash of movies we see where women are suddenly forced to have a family. The first is an outright expression of the fear, the second slightly more subtle but not much; Don’t worry, if you are too choosy a husband will be chosen for you. There are counterbalancing forces to hypergamy in a woman’s psyche: Fears of slut shaming, being overly choosy and ending up alone, and having another woman take her place.

    BTW, your italics closing tags keep failing because you are putting the forward slash after the “i” instead of before it. No big deal, but I’m guessing you wouldn’t know what was causing it since you can’t see the raw comment after it is posted.

  60. Dalrock says:

    Thanks for the background Arual. From what you are saying, I gather it is safe to assume that her expectation is remarriage, even if it isn’t top on her to do list. Put another way, you’ve clarified that her intent isn’t to divorce and slut it up. I would also assume her intent isn’t to divorce and remain alone.

  61. Dalrock says:

    @Brendan

    I’d only add that there is also some science out there about how women get a remating tickler after a few years of marriage — most pronounced if there are kids, but mimicked also if there are not at around the same time-frame of 5-8 years in.

    There is a very visible bump in divorce in the second five year period which would correspond to this. Do you happen to have any links to studies on this?

  62. Brendan says:

    Helen Fisher is the main source ( a light-weight secondary article is here: http://www.sixwise.com/newsletters/07/03/28/the-myth-of-the-seven-year-itch—-and-why-its-actually-a-four-year-itch.htm ). Probably some googling would avail the source data she used (she claims to have used source data on a global basis).

  63. RedPillPaul says:

    “less than optimal male” is a problem because SHE is the one who defines “optimal”. That darn female imperative.

  64. greyghost says:

    Arual your comment was a perfect example of what I was getting at. With out the other factors muddying the waters the woman you commented on is basing things on gina tingle.

  65. TFH says:

    The concept of ending up alone or with an undesirable man while their now ex husband is with a younger prettier woman (who the kids love and now call “mom”) is extremely potent.

    It is potent only in the short-term, and if there is not another woman telling these women the opposite of the wise caution that SSM is giving them.

    What is telling is that the women could not envision this outcome themselves. Of course, by now we know that women don’t understand cause and effect very well.

  66. TFH says:

    *that Sarah’s Daughter is giving them, not SSM.

  67. Je Suis Prest says:

    While I found the “she just knows” aspect of this story disturbing, the sentence that bothers me the most is, “If you find yourself in a relationship that is not serving your higher good or has served its purpose, it’s okay to release yourself and the other person.”

    Regardless of your religious beliefs, how could you think it is ethical to promise someone that you will join them “till death do us part” when what you really mean “until it doesn’t serve me or I’ve gotten what I wanted out of it.” In the questions for evaluating whether to stay in a relationship, there was a conspicuous absence of advice to consider how your own actions would affect others, aside from the idea that you would be doing something positive for them by ending the marriage. While I don’t dispute that the unnamed man in the story might be better off unattached to someone calloused enough to end their relationship based solely on considerations of how it would affect her as I can’t imagine that someone like that would be pleasant to live with, I think her husband (and kids, if any) should have a say in the outcome as well.

    Part of me wonders if Tara is deliberately enlarging her client base by providing this advice. First, she could encourage women to get divorced when nothing is actually wrong, then, she could help them “create a high-vibration life” when divorce doesn’t end up being the expected happiness booster. She would also be attractive to anyone who destroyed their family without a good reason as, in her world, they don’t need one; Tara will be proud of them solely for following their intuition. I’m sure that needing to mentally justify her own divorce doesn’t play into this advice at all…

  68. Arual says:

    greyghost: Yeah, I’m with you on that. The only thing that explains this brutish behavior after an LDS temple marriage (Think till death do we part, only it’s supposed to be forever, there is no parting) is biological imperative.

  69. an observer says:

    On the enlarging client base thing.

    The woman might well be attempting to create a selfsustaining customer base. Feeding and watering hypergamous niggles leads to fullblown frustrations, frivorce and an ensuing spin on the carousel.

    Labelling such a turn of events as empowerment is false advertising, but it syncs with the me-first principles of feminism.

    Women who take this bad advice simply create the potential for a large and ongoing client base of middle aged cougars. Of course they will be unhappy and need more counselling. But thats good business for the counsellor.

  70. Anonymous Reader says:

    While I found the “she just knows” aspect of this story disturbing, the sentence that bothers me the most is, “If you find yourself in a relationship that is not serving your higher good or has served its purpose, it’s okay to release yourself and the other person.”

    Yeah, it is really spiritual to make your marriage less durable than a cell phone contract. Or a car loan. Or rental-to-own furniture…

  71. DeNihilist says:

    @ Je Suis Prest

    +1

  72. Farm Boy says:

    Women were not always like this. In the olden days they were taught to love their husbands and follow their lead. Hamsters starved to death under such circumstances.

  73. Hurting says:

    @Cautiously…

    I concur with your expansion’s of ron’s comment. Even if she weren’t likely to collect the cash and prizes you enumerate, the emotional damage she would render on him and/or the kids is indeed reprehensible in its own right and can’t be compensated for. Nor is it likely to be punished societally by shaming as it properly should be.

    I would like to assert again that the equitable result for a man in a frivolous divorce is not simply being able to walk away with his share of the accumulated assets and his earnings intact (no alimony). It would involve the payment of compensatory damages by the wife to the husband to make him whole for the outcome of the contract he entered.

    In the business world, if a partner to a contract wants to simply walk away, he/she has to compensate the other partner for this ‘out’.

  74. SarahsDaughter says:

    @Farm Boy
    I love that this is your moniker. It is a devoted farmer’s wife who felt it her responsibilty to pour out her wisdom to me (my mother-in-law) and I, now, eagerly sit at her feet to listen. And the old farmer, he remains his son’s mentor.

    They’ve enjoyed 51 years of marriage and a combined 63 years of marriage between three of their children. It’s not just the olden days that this teaching existed, small pockets of rural USA still value truth.

  75. Martian Bachelor says:

    WRT the biology, a recent interesting finding was that the DNA of children a woman had had could be found in her brain way later (like after death). Nobody knows exactly what it does there, but a reproduction quality assessment feedback signal of some sort is plausible.

    I’m not saddled with any belief in “hypergamy”, so I think the impulse to bail on a guy is not about her looking for something better, just different (-blood type, histocompatibilty complex… “chemistry”). As women’s odometer rolls, they acquire more and more “intuition” about what they don’t want. There is little direction in this, since it’s driven by repulsion rather than attraction.

    There was a certain functionality to this during the long Stone Age, where mortality was high and mate loss had to be common. Strict monogamy couldn’t evolve until a certain level of longevity could almost be guaranteed. Now that we’re there (and then some), women still want to go back to the Stone Age.

    OTOH, maybe the woman and her ex tried to get preggers and were just incompatible, which has always been an acceptable reason for divorce, but her hamster can’t spit that out. Insufficient info results in too much projection and speculation.

  76. Zippy says:

    Farm Boy:
    Women were not always like this. In the olden days they were taught to love their husbands and follow their lead. Hamsters starved to death under such circumstances.

    That is why I tend to think that femporn is a significant causal factor. Her hind brain calibrates attraction based on social status and dominance. Women famously are not aroused instantly by looks the way men are, but have a “slow cooker” of attraction over time. The pervasive presence of femporn subconsciously calibrates her hind brain to respond only to artificially amplified status markers: the average guy is competing against EPL and 50 Shades, not other guys. Thus “Game”: ordinary men playing games of dubious honesty, amplifying their “alpha” to compete against femporn in her subconscious hindbrain.

    The “society” perceived by modern women is an artificial construction of femporn. It isn’t actual society: it is a media-constructed simulacrum. So that – and not real men – is what conditions the hindbrain of the modern media-saturated woman.

    It is true as Dalrock suggests that one can appeal to the aspiring frivorcee as a rational self-interested person, by painting a realistic portrait of the future she faces in stark terms. But I’m not sure if that reaches her media-conditioned hind brain. It may make her reconsider frivorce; but I’m not sure it would regenerate attraction to the husband she isn’t “in love” with anymore.

  77. Zippy, I don’t disagree with all that you’ve said except this: women…have a “slow cooker” of attraction over time.
    This is a myth. Men can spend hours/days/weeks on end wooing a women; treating her to gifts, pleasantries, time spent in meaningful conversation, etc. The result does not even come close to a well timed wink and a seductive smile from a passer by.

    Husbands waste their time buying in to this myth. One sexually provocative statement from my husband coupled with a naughty grab manages to produce (how do I say this lady like?) everything necessary for sex, so much more so than a day’s worth of romance.

  78. Zippy says:

    Sarah’s Daughter:
    If that well timed wink and grab came from a man you had been conditioned over time to think of as beneath you, would it have the same effect? Or would you think he was being a creep?

    With men, we couldn’t care less about social dominance, status, etc: it doesn’t condition our hind brain response. The ugly duckling she was yesterday is immediately forgotten when we behold the beautiful swan in front of us now.

  79. infowarrior1 says:

    Desecrating the holy covenant of matrimony How Despicable!

  80. Jack Amok says:

    Dalrock and Rollo,

    Common (at least in the past) scenario was a woman in her early-to-mid 20’s (her SMV peak) marrying a man in his mid-to-late 20’s (not yet at his peak). She’s let’s say a 7, he’s a 5 or 6 but has potential to be an 8, maybe even a 9, but he won’t reach that for another eight to ten years, since men’s SMV peaks a decade later than women. She marries him based on potential.

    But the 30’s are hard on men. The Great Filter gets applied. Guys enter their 30’s as “promising young bucks” but only some of them actually make it. Many falter, victims of bad luck, bad choices, or just the ordinary insults of the game of Musical Chairs that social succes turns out to be. There are more guys with potential than there are spots at the Success Bar. So some guys get winnowed out.

    She probably married a 6 with the potential to be a 9, but he flamed out and ended up no better than a 7. She was expecting more. Doesn’t matter that she’s no longer a 7 or 8 herself, that time and childbirth have dropped her to a 5, she still thinks she’s the hot stuff she was at 25, and feels cheated.

  81. lavazza1891 says:

    Few men are catches after a divorce. An average man will be severly emotionally and financially handicapped by a divorce, and that for many years. He will also be careful about dating, because he does not trust women like he used to, he’s careful not to let his dating have a negative influence on the children and he might even be afraid to inspire jelousy in the ex.

  82. lavazza1891 says:

    From the Daily Mail:

    “To my horror, I’ve discovered even men in their 50s and 60s like John aren’t interested in me. I was talking to a silver-haired guy at a party a few weeks ago when I noticed his eyes swivel past me to the leggy blonde sauntering past, who was young enough to be his granddaughter.

    It’s cruel and unfair, and there are examples of it everywhere.”

    Really? Was this woman never younger and prettier? Her idea of fairness is that women who have not used their youth and beauty in their best long term interest should be given youth and beauty forever, so that they can stick to the short time plan for their whole life.

  83. Rickenbacker says:

    I experienced similar behaviour the other day as I was talking to a girl at my gym, a mother with a son and boyfriend, who I get along with and respect.

    For whatever reason our usual joking, silly or borderline inappropriate banter, shifted to relationships and she mentioned her own experiences. How she always told guys up front how “they where together until they where not”. How they never saw the break-up coming and often was devestated on how she just left without warning or regret.
    I, at my most diplomatic behaviour, tried to suggest that since the only common denominator in all her relationships was her and if her boyfriends always reacted like this maybe she needed to work on her communication skills. A concept she didn’t outright dismiss but had obvious problems grasping.

    I’ve heard about the upgrade-my-boyfriend behaviour, females staying in a relationship to enjoy its comforts and benefits as well as not having the pressure of having to settle for anyone due to being single, while looking for a new one. But I always though it was understood this was not completely legitimate, something to keep on the low. The fact it’s now not only acceptable but even possible to brag about surprised me to say the least. Particularly coming from a girl who to me, and most other guys, seemed like a perfectly decent person.

  84. Tarl says:

    “I feel my ex-boyfriend has stolen the best and most precious years of my life.”
    Um, you met him when you were 42 – you had ALREADY hit the wall. (“My youth was slipping away” — you are deluded, it was LONG GONE.)
    And now you look like a postop tranny.

  85. Zippy….
    I’m am surprised that you buy the myth of the slow cooker. This myth is passed out at churches weekly in the form of silly metaphors about ovens and pilot lights and how a man must tend the slow fire all day to have a hot night……..not so, I just do not buy it. I have two quick reasons.

    One, I made the mistake in my blue pill days of signing on for the His Needs Her Needs Seminar at church. 10 couples, 10 weeks….each week we covered a need, switching back and forth weekly male to female needs. As most know this is a summary list of the top 5 needs for men and women based on over 40,000 surveyed. If handled correctly the information could have been used for good, but it is filtered through the evangelical feminist lens and diluted.
    Comes the final week, the need is sex, men’s number one per the survey.

    the place melted down. Couples arrived clearly fighting, we’d all been charged to pre-read the weeks material and be prepared, well, the material pissed off more than half the women. The air crackled. Finally one women literally could not contain her anger and launched into a tirade that this need had no business on the list. Some chimed in. Then men chimed in saying that they can follow the church advice, tend the fire all day so to speak, and one tiny thing….he mentioned a battery dying in a smoke alarm….beeping….and the whole days work shot and she denies him.

    The other reason is more compelling. Women cheating on their husbands are not receiving any lathering up. They may receive a phone call saying the paramour is free in 15 minutes at a nearby park….she is smokin’ when she gets there, or torrid affairs for the first time…..

    Many men here, and not a few women Ive read tell that, as others have stated, an aggressive expectant approach works as well or better, I concur, in fact Id say the whole tend all day thing is a sex killer, and hat tip to gamers, its sure bad game like it or not.
    While the literal physical translation and compulsion may indeed be different for women in that the MERE sight of the physique may not instantly show on an arousal potentiometer, it is just not this slow cooker thing. And that myth has been adopted and exploited by women to control their men. Its a dangerous measure of control to hand out.

  86. No amount of stats on the suffering of others will matter one bit.

    [Dalrock thks for schooling my error, I was banging my head wondering just as you said, I could see what I'd quickly done]

    This to me is one of a handful of the most disturbing things. The absolute creation of an artificial reality that is different from actual reality, and the ability to move towards it as if it really exists.
    Churchianity feeds this with The Personal Jesus (TM). I cannot count the times Ive heard or read, from people I know or strangers, that “I know divorce is tough on kids but me and a whole bunch of people are surrounding MY kids with prayer and you know all things are possible and I can all things (and other scriptures turned to cliche) and onward with the death march of the family while in full denial.
    Statistics move the majority of women exactly zero, all they need is one anecdote to cling to, and a few , uh, well thought out rejoinders like “stats can be made to say anything” and off she goes.
    I hope I am wrong, but i am convinced that there is nothing, not the threat of the new wife/gf and her relationship with the kids, nor the threat the kids become socially pathological, nor the threat of financial devastation can reach her when she decides she is released.

    In my personal experience there was a meeting of lawyers, the very first meeting when we made our run at divorce 10 years ago, and there was a forensic accountant because we were self employed and we sat down and the accountant laid out the nasty spot we were in financially then, and the wife’s lawyer tamps a stack of papers and says “Okay, looks like we picked the wrong time to divorce”…….I’d been explaining the declining fiscal train wreck on the horizon for years to no reception from her. When some other authority concurred, i have to say despite the circumstances it was sweet. It didn’t change anything….but vindication was a good thing because the room swung to my side. It took another 18 months for the created reality to fall apart and fix everything averting the divorce, but even after that meeting, that financial situation meant absolutely nothing.

  87. Opus says:

    This is what Tara says about herself:

    ‘After struggling for a decade in a difficult challenging relationship she found herself depleted and empty inside [she wouldn't by chance be an argumentative button pusher would she?]… she put so much of her heart and soul into trying to save her marriage [that is presumably the "relationship" previously referred to] that she had nothing left for herself … it was only when she met with an Intuition Life Coach [this wouldn't perchance be a hunky smooth Player, keen to breach the Seventh Commandment would it?] that she understood the purpose of the relationship [The marriage here again downgraded to a relationship] … Her sessions helped her to realise how great she is and how much she has to offer the world [at only £150 an hour!!!]‘ That is it: no mention of a Bachelors in Women’s Studies, a Masters in Counselling or a Doctorate in Clinical Psychology or any form of academic study to bolster her advice.

    I’ll be back shortly with more tales from the dating world.

  88. Zippy says:

    empathologism:

    I think the slow cooker is right but the recipe is wrong. It isn’t flowers and cards and such that provide the flame: it is social qualification as dominant. A chump (as far as her subconscious is concerned) who suddenly tries to act all alpha toward her isn’t going to light her fire, he is going into the creep file.

  89. Opus says:

    Tara’s ‘About Tara’ from which I quoted just above put me in mind of the following:

    On Sunday ( I forget what motivated me) I was looking at some old love-letters, wondering what I had ever seen in the bitch, and accidentally came across the following priceless juxtaposition:

    I’d been dating this woman for a couple of months and she wrote me ‘…I know that I overplay the use of the word POSITIVE but it is really how I have been feeling for the last two months'; that is to say since I met her, and she goes on to say referring to a couple of her girlfriends who were crying on her shoulder that she ‘felt so strong and big-sisterly’ – by reason of her relationship with me. A couple of months later I ended the relationship, at an opportune moment, that is to say when she was out of the country, (and not a moment too soon in my opinion) and ten days later I received a final letter; a letter which had she been trying to make me change my mind largely only confirmed me in my decision, but in which she writes: ‘I’m in control for the first time in four months. I’m back in my strong POSITIVE mood and feel that I have regained most of my former character. I underwent a substantial personality loss in the last four months’ – obviously and conveniently overlooking her earlier letter.

    As I say, Tara’s ‘About Tara’ – where the Hamster is strong – put me in mind of this.

  90. Brendan says:

    The slow cooker myth simply means that a woman is not very attracted to you, either initially or eventually as is the case at some point in the majority of marriages in the West. Women only talk about the need to slow cook if they are not otherwise attracted to the guy, and do not require slow cooking when they are really attracted to an exciting, hot, new guy. As empath says, affairs generally do not feature slow cooked attraction. That kind of thing is reserved for, you know, husband types.

    The tragic truth is that in many marriages the wives are just not attracted to the husbands very much any more. When that happens, as we know, the women tend to excel at finding every manner of foot fault with the husband, as the hamster tries to find objective reasons to justify her lack of attraction to a man to whom she is sexually committed and explain it in a way that is less obviously self-damning. So the tale is then woven about “slow cooking”, in terms of addressing these “reasons” in order to address the underlying cause for the lack of attraction — which is, of course, all wrong. As Dalrock points out in his recent post, developing and maintaining attraction in a marriage is just as visceral as it is outside of one, for both men and women. Women do not need to be slow cooked, they simply need to be attracted to their husbands, and many of them are not for various reasons, some of them having to do with the husbands and some of them having to do with the ambient culture that consistently validates every instance of female dissatisfaction. But the key isn’t “slow cooking” — it’s a more visceral key, just like the one her eventual paramour will be using. Of course the paramour, like the mistress, has a leg up on any spouse, because he/she doesn’t have to do the regular, administrative, routine things of life with your spouse — so you need to be even more attractive, really, or at least attractive enough to make the risk of an affair less appealing.

    =======

    Few men are catches after a divorce. An average man will be severly emotionally and financially handicapped by a divorce, and that for many years. He will also be careful about dating, because he does not trust women like he used to, he’s careful not to let his dating have a negative influence on the children and he might even be afraid to inspire jelousy in the ex.

    This is very true as well. It tends to create a guy who, in many cases, is very damaged when it comes to women, on the one hand, and, especially if there are kids, is tied into the ex-wife in a more or less permanent way. It’s a messy, complicated picture. While it’s true that men have higher remarriage rates after divorce than women do, the quality of the women is not the same as what can be achieved in a first marriage, in general terms (and this is appropriate given his own drop in quality, objectively speaking, due to the all the complications he presents) — a woman who has a lot of attractive options isn’t going to opt for this guy, unless he is quite exceptional in other ways.

  91. Ms. Schonfield seems like a bit of a new-agey wing nut

    You’ve touched on an important point. Most Christians aren’t aware of it (though it’s infiltrated our churches to a dangerous extent) but New Age pushes the idea that intuition (which mostly means women’s intuition, of course) is a sort of divine guidance. But it goes way beyond the idea of a guardian angel or the Holy Ghost dwelling in your soul and helping you out by poking your conscience. Being pantheists, they believe that they are God, so their intuition is their divinity speaking to them. I’ve known them to specifically cultivate their intuition, trying to train themselves to be more obedient to it and not question it with pesky thoughts or reason.

    Women are already emotion-driven enough, but when you convince them that their feeeeelings are divine, that turns it up to 11. It’s like they’ve gotten a commandment from God saying, “If it feels good, do it.” It’s a train wreck just waiting to happen.

  92. Opus says:

    @Brendan

    I was talking to a married buddy last weekend, and was comparing ass-hole game with romance. He said Romance sickened him, but there was a third way. Oh yeah! – so what was this otherwise unknown alternative? Simple, you don’t spend a fortune (he is well-off) but constantly surprise her with less expensive but unexpected activities. I refrained from suggesting this is just another version of Romance and Flowers, and turns the man into unpaid entertainment where when she ceases to be amuuuused will become unhaaaaapy. He tells me that she is seeking one more promotion at work which may make her better paid than him. I predict hypergamy as well as her Feminist merit badge.

  93. Pingback: Amelia Earhart: turning marriage into a plane wreck! « judgybitch

  94. Zippy says:

    I understand where the resistance is coming from because, again, the feminist slow cooker recipe is just wrong. The contents of the recipe, the ideas about what generates attraction, are not just wrong but are attraction killers.

    But a man knows instantly if a woman is physically attractive and how attractive she is; a woman does not know instantly if a particular man is attractive, and even if he makes a great first impression her attraction is not as stable as man’s. Her attraction is based in significant part on unconscious calibration of non-visual social factors, most notably dominance; a playful and inviting dominance that doesn’t disqualify her. It takes time to establish that.

    A lot of modern pretty lies wouldn’t have such a hold if there weren’t some truth to them: truth which has been badly distorted. The hazard faced by the reactionary is the temptation to replace one lie with another. Female attraction doesn’t work like male attraction, and that includes the fact that it doesn’t work on the same time scale nor with the same stability. Men respond viscerally in seconds; women in minutes to hours to days. Her perception of “attraction time” is not like yours. It is impossible to reliably determine who is the Alpha in a matter of seconds.

  95. Most Christians aren’t aware of it (though it’s infiltrated our churches to a dangerous extent) but New Age pushes the idea that intuition (which mostly means women’s intuition, of course) is a sort of divine guidance.

    ^^^^^
    This +1000!

    Excellent observation.

    This is the culmination of what I was getting at initially Dal; a woman’s mythologized “intuition” (i.e. her hypergamous instinctual impulse) is now conflated with the Holy Spirt or some divine gifting God has ordained uniquely for women. We constantly hear this placation repeated by churchianity authorities on gender issues.

  96. Zippy says:

    And this, again, is how a guy who starts off interesting can suddenly find himself a creep; or how a guy in orbiter status will get dismissed as a creep if he suddenly acts as if he has alpha cred.

    Her time frame is not your time frame, at all.

  97. deti says:

    Brendan: “[a husband] needs to be even more attractive, really, or at least attractive enough to make the risk of an affair less appealing.”

    Opus: “He said Romance sickened him, but there was a third way. Oh yeah! – so what was this otherwise unknown alternative? Simple, you don’t spend a fortune (he is well-off) but constantly surprise her with less expensive but unexpected activities. I refrained from suggesting this is just another version of Romance and Flowers, and turns the man into unpaid entertainment where when she ceases to be amuuuused will become unhaaaaapy.”

    This is one of the expectations of modern marriage, i.e. marriage 2.0, that Brendan and Dalrock have pointed up. Women come into marriage now with expectations that marriage is fun and enjoyable, and it will always be so. It is dating, only she lives with her boyfriend now, so the wife will now get to go on dates with her husband all the time. So the husband has to continue doing all the things he used to do as the boyfriend but without any of the humdrum and mundane things that go with living together. He has to be fun, exciting, fresh, and interesting, with a dash of caring, comfort and “romance”. He has to continually sweep her off her feet every day. He has to provide entertainment, amusement, excitement, surprise, anticipation and drama. If he doesn’t, or he has a bad day (or a bad year, God forbid), then something is “wrong” and they need to “work on our marriage” because she is “not haaaappy”. it’s the expectation of constant courtship Dalrock has written about.

    I suspect a big part of this is the broken marriages many of these women come from. They have never seen a successful marriage up close and personal, where they would be most likely to see it — with their mothers and fathers. Their own parents’ marriages busted up when they were kids. Many people coming into their 20s and 30s now have never seen two people make a marriage work through good and bad times. So the only models they have for marriage are their Janette Oke novels, the “Love Comes Softly” series, Hallmark/Lifetime/Oxygen/Disney/TBN movies, and 50SoG, which depict only the funny, the exciting, the fresh, the surprising, the sexy, the dramatic. All of these have the woman/wife/girlfriend as the central character, and life is always scripted so it comes out exactly as she wants it. She is hero, savior, courtesan, slut, loyal wife, devoted mother, sultry paramour, capable professional — and sometimes all of these at once.

  98. sunshinemary says:

    @ Zippy
    I think I understand now what you are saying, but you should probably not use the phrase “slow cooker” to describe that, because that term has already been widely disseminated in Churchian culture to mean a supplicating method of trying to beg your wife for sex by doing a list of chores, kissing her, bringing her flowers, etc; this myth is widely propagated by men in the church. However, you seem to be saying something different than that.

    Rollo wrote:

    a woman’s mythologized “intuition” (i.e. her hypergamous instinctual impulse) is now conflated with the Holy Spirt or some divine gifting God has ordained uniquely for women.

    Oh my gosh, that is such an important point. What a neat way women have found of making something rather ugly (unrestrained hypergamy) look spiritual. It is very important for men to continue to believe that we are the more spiritual sex, though, or the jig would be up.

  99. lavazza1891 says:

    My 80 YO Indian guru once asked why Westerners are getting divorced all the time. He could not see anything good coming out of that. I told him that it would be better for him to ask some women, because women are more often the instigators of divorce. I guess it’s him being old and coming from a poor and traditional country. Divorce is (social/cultural/financial/health) capital destruction for those directly involved as a group and for the society in general. It’s a bit like “we have so much fresh water that we shit in it”.

  100. Zippy says:

    SSM:

    You are probably right about the terminology. Though I am always somewhat reluctant to let the moderns steal the language.

  101. lavazza1891 says:

    Interesting to read about the amalgam between intuition, spirituality, instincts and being dominated by the senses.

    In Indian philosophy the sensual mind is called “manas”. It has to be controlled by “buddhi” (discrimination/intellect). I found this in a discussion:

    “If man wants to attain moksha [liberation], he should control his manas using his buddhi. This is possible by calming down manas in dhyaanam [deep meditation], so that it surrenders to buddhi, which in turn surrenders itself to Atman [the true Self]. If woman wants to attain moksha, it is not possible for her to contain her manas in her buddhi, because a woman’s manas is far too powerful to be contained by her buddhi. Therefore, ordinarily dhyaanam cannot help a woman like a man to attain moksha. Hence there is a totally different procedure, which is based on ‘manas’, unlike in case of a man which is based on ‘buddhi.’ This is called as “Paathivrathyam.” [no idea, but connected to matrimony, that's for sure] In this technique, a woman concentrates on her husband and controls her manas.”

  102. 8oxer says:

    @Tarl Um, you met him when you were 42 – you had ALREADY hit the wall.

    Good grief, that article was terrible, and I’m embarrassed for this woman.

    I often wonder about the contrast between the divorce trend in women, and the fact that a lot of females see being single as the very worst thing that can happen to themselves.

    Personally, I like being single and at this point wouldn’t change it. If the average Christian church was less devoted to serfdom for my brothers (and didn’t demand absolute celibacy) I might study to join a monastery or the priesthood. For all the big talk about how they “don’t need a man”, most women sure seem to torture themselves without one.

  103. lavazza1891 says:

    Sorry for the detour, but I find this interesting:

    “All the rules followed by Pathivrathas are put together and called as “Pathivrathaa Dharmas.” A pathivratha focuses on her husband and treats him as a revered person, a Guru, a God and a Lord, and as a holy person enabling her to attain Moksha. Therefore, in Vedic religion, husband and wife relationship is holy. Hence marriage is a “sacrament” unlike in any other religion in the world. The wife follows husband in Dharma [law/order/path], Artha [purpose] and Kaama [action/deed] and attains Moksha. A pathivratha doesn’t regard her husband as a mere friend, lover, protector, or emotional supporter, but as a form of God in whose service she can attain the state of lack of rebirth. In Kaliyuga [our era], such women are rare … “

  104. Alpha Dog says:

    “Behold the great mystery of feminine relationship wisdom. How does a woman know when the time is right to detonate her family and collect the resulting cash and prizes?

    She just knows.”

    This is the “Eat, Pray, Love” concept that so many women now have internalized. Sad thing is I don’t see it changing anytime soon, so expect more of this in the future.

    And people wonder why marriage is on the decline. Ha!

  105. Womanly “wisdom” is a pain in the ass. When my wife changes her mind about something, and I try to ask why (especially if it’s a change in plans that’s a major inconvenience or letdown for me) she’ll say “I just don’t”. I keep telling her she’s not getting away that easily, but somehow she always does.

  106. lavazza1891 says:

    “Really? Was this woman never younger and prettier?”

    Excellent comment. I would only add: I’m sure she, like other women, has overlooked plenty of men for shallow reasons herself, so she has no leg to stand on. Heck with her.

  107. taterearl says:

    She just knows means she probably has found another cock to hop on and will try to bleed that new male sucker dry.

    And the priesthood does look more enticing. You know the church won’t cheat on you with another religion who has more money or is more alpha.

  108. UnicornHunter says:

    @deti
    [quote]It is dating, only she lives with her boyfriend now, so the wife will now get to go on dates with her husband all the time. So the husband has to continue doing all the things he used to do as the boyfriend but without any of the humdrum and mundane things that go with living together. He has to be fun, exciting, fresh, and interesting, with a dash of caring, comfort and “romance”. He has to continually sweep her off her feet every day. He has to provide entertainment, amusement, excitement, surprise, anticipation and drama. If he doesn’t, or he has a bad day (or a bad year, God forbid), then something is “wrong” and they need to “work on our marriage” because she is “not haaaappy”. it’s the expectation of constant courtship Dalrock has written about.[/quote]

    You know, when I read this the first thing that came to mind was that it describes the upper class, or at least my impression of the upper class as portrayed via Hollywood. I know my ex expected the courtship behaviors to continue forever. Well, I expected the first year of sex to continue at that pace forever too. We were both disappointed.

  109. There was a book written about the possible four-year itch recently, and though I haven’t read it I found interesting F. Roger Devlin’s discussion of it (without endorsing all of his views, particularly those on race):

    http://dontmarry.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/rotating.pdf

    “Women’s Infidelity” by Michelle Langley

  110. Brendan says:

    Right. Langley is also a bit off the wall and has a few rather large axes to grind in her book, but she also mentions Helen Fisher in it for what it’s worth.

  111. deti says:

    “I know my ex expected the courtship behaviors to continue forever. Well, I expected the first year of sex to continue at that pace forever too. We were both disappointed.”

    What goes on here, I think, is that during dating both are putting their best feet forward — he with the fun, sexy boyfriend; she with the good sex. After marriage it often happens that he settles into his routine; while she stops “feeling it” and the hot shake-the-plaster-off-the-wall sex dries up.

    He is getting about the business of life. There’s insufficient time and resources to “date” and “be the fun sexy boyfriend” because resources now must be committed to providing for her and any children that might come. In return for his planning, commitment and foresight, he is supposed to get a permanent sex partner, access to good sex — or so he thinks.

    She no longer has to use sex as the carrot because she’s locked him down and a major aspect of her feminine imperative (securing provisioning and commitment, the status of marriage) has been satisfied. A man has found her worthy of commitment and wifed her up; she now has unfettered entitlement to his resources.

    In reality she can hold him to his end of the bargain (provision) but he can’t hold her to hers (sexual access). He must continue providing despite her noncompliance. But she can do whatever she wants with her sexual access: end it, restrict it, suspend it, make it conditional on compliance with other conduct, or give it to persons outside the marriage. He has no real legal right to demand that his wife put out. His only recourse is to frame her conduct as marital abandonment and end the marriage. She, on the other hand, can take what she wants (his resources) and discard the rest.

  112. lzozozlz

    when men run the world/church, life is ruled by honor, story, commitment, principle, faith, family, truth, and beauty.

    when women run the world/church, life is ruled by butt and gina tingellzolzozlzloz

    zlzozllzz

  113. Martian Bachelor says:

    ^^^ They call it love and marriage. We call it bait and switch.

    The “slow cooker” discussion misses the fundamental problem with all dating advice aimed at men: unless the rules that one is telling men to follow are enforced equally on women, it just amounts to sending men out on wild goose chases.

    Virtually anything would “work” if women were made to obey the same rules men are being sold. In the absence of this, rules for men are worse than pointless.

  114. Lisa says:

    Maybe humans weren’t meant to be monogamous:

    http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/51-are-humans-meant-to-be-monogamous.html

    Definitely seems that way.

    Divorce is just a natural consquence of that. Perhaps “she just knows” is a nice way of saying that “she is no longer attracted to her husband.” Seems plausible, so why not seek a new mate if the attraction is no longer there?

    Either way, all of the doom and gloom on the so-called manosphere about divorce is a bit over blown…and a bit creepy.

  115. Zippy, I still do not think the slow cooker is right, regardless the recipe.
    I agree its not…..see boobs, bing, arousal…..female version…..but it is not slow cooking. It may be that she decides less frequently to go ahead, but the decision is not made after marinating.

  116. Anonymous age 70 says:

    Thought I’d bring the following article to your attention. A “Christian” pastor explaining how Jesus; Joseph; and Mary were a blended family. Clearly a sign from God that y’all are supposed to marry a woman with kids.

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/12/05/jesus-was-part-blended-family/?intcmp=obnetwork

    “Jesus could have come into the world in a lot of ways, but He chose to come in and experience a blended family. Why? So He could minister to the thousands of us who are also from blended families.”

    This may be a good idea if you are 100% certain the angels impregnated her. Otherwise, take a pass on it.

  117. The Right Hon. Msgr. Fred Flange says:

    Just in time for this week on Jezebel.com today:
    “Fuck You Week: Fuck You, MRA’s”
    With a special mention of Kate Harding’s piece on beta saps whose poor approaches to women they want to meet makes the women “keep their guard up” which means the betas are the real EVIL CREEPY RAPISSSES
    Could link – but what’s the point? Them’s as wants their craniums popping know where to look…

  118. TFH says:

    Note that in a mature democracy, everything become female-centric.

    Hence, ANY action a woman takes, no matter how evil, becomes normalized as justified or even good. At the same time, any man taking the same action is evil.

  119. “…As we work to create positive, healthy, high-vibration lives…”

    Translation 1 – to borrow from Eric Hoffer, today’s women “cannot operate at room temperature.” High-vibration means being compelled to seek out the new, the exciting, and being bored to the point of near-death by the everyday and mundane. Like a marriage.

    http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2009/11/29/intellectuals-cannot-operate-at-room-temperature/

    Translation 2 – Start investing in batteries, because pretty soon that’s the only vibration you’re going to get. That and your dozen cats purring when you feed them.

  120. A “Christian” pastor explaining how Jesus; Joseph; and Mary were a blended family.

    Yes, every year there are sermons about Mary being a single mother and/or the Holy Family being homeless and not having a place to live. Total crap, but it lets people score political points on their enemies and shame people into supporting certain policies.

  121. Templar says:

    Notice that her article does not have a single “like” and a month! Hmmm why might that be??

  122. Bobby says:

    Dalrock, I just googled Tara Schofield and it appears that she’s done some reputation management. Her prospective clients deserve a different perspective… perhaps from this blog.

    Some on-page SEO would have helped this post stand out:
    Title: Tara Schofield: Mistaking Fecklessness for Wisdom?
    Wp Tags: tara schofield, marriage, divorce

    Other manosphere bloggers can help the off-page SEO by linking to this post with “Tara Schofield” in the anchor text.

  123. freebird says:

    In this age of unfettered hypergamy agreeing to marriage is the ultimate submissive act and immediately makes the man beta.

    It would be a good idea to boycott for a generation so the wimmin can find the proper theology out of necessity.

    Also it’s time to reverse the roles of the sexes,let the wimmin do the approaching and take on all the risk and responsibility of commitment,or no sale.
    Single is simply way to good to give it away to someone who has the power to unjustly destroy.

    I think the one guy’s theorem that frivocing wimmin need to not only get cash and prizes,but to compensate the man for what he’s already got into it,”restore him to wholeness’ like the real law requires in contract and civil law.

    The gals are going to have to learn how to approach,seduce and take on the risk and cost.Don’t like rejection?
    Learn to deal with it,men have.
    Either that or go it alone.

    As far as gaming goes,true seduction requires a new partner.Coming to terms is a beta move,familiarity breeds contempt,and absence makes the heart grow fonder.
    My lifelong absence should really work well then.
    (at least for me,I get to keep my fond heart,and I am fond of it.)

  124. Alex says:

    But wait, there’s more! She and her girlfriend can call up their churchlady friends, and spend even more hours discussing the inherent bad nature of men. And the churchlady friends can go lean on the White Knight men in their church, demanding that they push other men to manUp! And the preachers can preach it from the preacher’s roost. And then, for extra bonus points, the whole mob – dumped woman, girlfriend of much airy wisdom, churchladies, White Knights, preachers, and other assorted riffraff, can take to the various branches of the media, ululating and wailing and gnashing teeth about the terrible, awful, bad nature of men, and how they won’t be Real Men (TM) to these fine, upstanding women…
    —–
    All of the above is nothing but an admission of impotence, as it’s nothing but nagging from women and their mangina mouthpieces. No attempt to persuade men through a changed behaviour from women, no logical reasons that would persuade men to commit & marry, just nagging, shaming, etc… None of that works on me, and I bet it doesn’t work on many men out there. The women/churches/manginas are going to have to try a new approach, or else go pound sand. The time to buy stock in feline food and kitty litter companies is now!

  125. FuriousFerret says:

    “None of that works on me, and I bet it doesn’t work on many men out there.”

    It simply doesn’t work because the woman saying such things are unattractive.

    It’s not rocket science for a frivorcer to get a new decently attractive guy. Simply starve yourself which they have to do since they think low carb is non-sense, go the gym, spend a shit ton on makeup and get the subtlest plastic surgery all on the ex-husband’s dime.

    It just goes to show you how the hamster screws over these women even when the solution is right in front them because they will frivorce and not even put in the work to satisfy their hypergamy.

  126. 8oxer says:

    Some female troll kookfarted:

    Maybe humans weren’t meant to be monogamous. Divorce is just a natural consquence of that. Perhaps “she just knows” is a nice way of saying that “she is no longer attracted to her husband.” Seems plausible, so why not seek a new mate if the attraction is no longer there? Oh and you’re all creepy, blahdeeblah…

    Humans weren’t meant to be monogamous, but then humans weren’t meant to, like, keep from murdering each other, refrain from theft, etc. Why not just remove all restraint from these “natural” human behaviours, while we’re removing the discipline of monogamy?

    Civilization is a tradeoff. Those who don’t believe in the literal truth of the bible (as the kooky troll apparently doesn’t, and as I admittedly don’t) can read Sigmund Freud and get the identical message.

    Human beings refrain from certain “natural” things, sublimating the energies therein to create high art, technology and culture. You can’t have both civilization and free love, and those who still don’t understand this truth will soon find it out, as civilization continues to collapse around them.

    Boxer

  127. 8oxer says:

    Apologies to Dalrock for this off topic derailment, but the “Jesus chose a blended family nonsense” is just too rich to keep from spilling my story.

    So, I went along with a girl I’m seeing socially, and her parents, to her gigantic megachurch last night, for what I was supposedly a fun evening of singing Christmas carols. I haven’t set foot in a church in at least three years, but have nothing against Christianity and had been looking forward to the event since I was invited, a couple of weeks ago.

    The service was led by a male, and during the first round of singing I thought nothing was awry. I remember some of the songs from my childhood (I attended different protestant churches sporadically as a kid) and it was genuine fun. It was a huge crowd. At least 1000 people attended, so my inability to carry a tune was thankfully drowned out by screeching kids and the roar of the crowd.

    After about half an hour, the man called several people up to the stage. One, a female, he identified as “a judge” and made a dumb joke about how he gets his tickets fixed by her. I thought this was odd. Those called up (about six or seven) took turns leading the congregation in song.

    The music then stopped and he began giving a sermon. He started being very self-effacing. “Men don’t know how to wrap presents correctly, isn’t that right honey…” and he nodded to his wife. I thought this was more and more bizarre.

    He then read a story to the children of the faithful. It’s not necessarily a terrible story, but it is a secular one, and the protagonist is the father of a male narrator. In the narrative, the adult male is a rather pathetic oaf who doesn’t seem to know anything or do anything correctly without his wife. Mother is the head of the family, clearly. The one thing this man is able to do (after his wife gives him instructions) is help a single mom, whose evil husband “ran off and left her to fend for herself”.

    to be continued…

  128. 8oxer says:

    …part ii

    The entire story is here:
    hxxp://www.thefamilyinternational.org/christmas/article7a3f.html

    Without the mangina priest/preacher/pastor setting the tone, I don’t know if it’ll have the same impact, but anyone interested can read it for himself.

    After this there were a few more songs, and to cap the evening off, the men in the audience were told that the highest virtue of Christmas is (no, I’m not kidding) making one’s wife happy. The emphasis was on buying her something expensive, or getting her some spa time, etc. Then there was a prayer, and then we were let go.

    I never really understood just how deeply you Christian brothers feel until last night, when I saw my date’s dad sit through this. As an outsider I sympathize with you guys deeply. It was incredibly disrespectful to all the men in the audience, listening to this halfwit mangina yap from the pulpit about how women are the only important people in the church, and the only thing Christian men are good for is to serve them. In one sense it’s sorta humorous, but I’d hate to be a part of that congregation.

  129. Lovekraft says:

    There seems to be a narrative re divorce which differs among the sexes:

    for da wimminz, it’s about denial and propping up the notion that they are victims, or are ‘following their hearts.

    for men after a breakup/divorce, it’s about getting people to mind their own business. To not judge until the facts have come out.

    Society seems to emphasize the former, whereas men have to endure. Perhaps a blend of the two would be ideal: supportive associations, with more emphasis on moving on as opposed to denial/glossing over.

  130. Bobby says:

    About Daily Mail article (My mortifying moment at the Christmas party and why it’s hell to be 48, alone and desperate) Kirran wrote: “Brick, meet Wall….”

    The star of the DM article is a Pied Piper of women and destroyer of worlds. She has been spewing poisonous garbage for many years and deserves no sympathy.
    ———-
    From her blog: “Kate Mulvey is a freelance journalist for the major newspapers and magazines: Her articles on lifestyle, comment, humour and emotional intelligence articles appear in the Times, Sunday Times, Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail, Daily and Sunday Express, She and Red magazine. ”
    ———
    Kate starred in “Duped out of motherhood” (Daily Mail, 2006) in which she complained about childlessness.
    ———
    In 2007, was quoted as saying: “Having grown up with successful women such as Margaret Thatcher and Madonna as role models, and with popular culture awash with fantasies of all-powerful women, from Lara Croft to Buffy the Vampire Slayer, men are not so uncomfortable with the woman in control. This value system recognises the trend of female supremacy, which while not as yet the norm seems to be pointing the way for future relationships.”
    ———
    She also wrote: “How to Date a Younger Man: The Cougar’s Guide to Cubhunting” (Published 2011)
    ———
    Kate wrote in her blog (in 2010):
    “THE RISE OF THE FEMALE KIDDULT
    Why some girls just wanna have fun.

    My best friend got married last week. The setting was perfect, a bit like a modern day Noah’s Ark. Everyone came in twos and some with children attached to their hips. There was only one thing ruining things – me.

    I tripped over as I walked into the church (not surprising as I was wearing 5in Marc Jacobs heels), then I flirted and generally misbehaved. I even brought along a pretend husband who was actually my best gay male friend.

    Welcome to the world of a female kidult. Middle aged, nmarried, childless and not a mortgage in sight. I realised in a moment of existential angst that I had reached 44 and I still hadn’t grown up.

    Yikes – what has happened? How come both my sisters have a husband and a couple of children each and yet I am still acting as if I was stuck somewhere in my twenties? We all had the same upbringing but somehow they are content to spend their Saturdays in Ikea and I want to spend them at Glastonbury getting drunk with other overgrown adolescents.

  131. Farm Boy says:

    @SarahsDaughter

    small pockets of rural USA still value truth.

    On a farm one develops a sense of reality early. If you don’t do your chores, the animals die, etc. It is a real tragedy that there are so few kids growing up on farms these days.

    I live in suburbia. I hate it. I want to move back to the farm.

  132. DeNihilist says:

    Yay or Nay?

  133. Pingback: Man-Up Rants Take No Season Off | The Society of Phineas

  134. ballista74 says:

    Anonymous age 70:

    Thought I’d bring the following article to your attention. A “Christian” pastor explaining how Jesus; Joseph; and Mary were a blended family. Clearly a sign from God that y’all are supposed to marry a woman with kids.

    It’s the usual Churchianity crap that comes out. Take a certain personal agenda, look for relevant Scripture to wrap it up in, and present it as wholly Scriptural. My other thoughts on it are here. One look at the writer’s by-line says enough: “Pastor David McGee is founder of Cross the Bridge Ministries and the senior pastor of The Bridge Church in Kernersville, N.C.”

    Sarah’s Daughter wrote:

    This is a myth. Men can spend hours/days/weeks on end wooing a women; treating her to gifts, pleasantries, time spent in meaningful conversation, etc. The result does not even come close to a well timed wink and a seductive smile from a passer by.

    This has been somewhat well known for a while. This whole conversation in this thread reminds me of a Married With Children episode called Mystery of Skull Island, where Bud is off doing all these things to impress this date, Kara, ultimately going to skydive. Literally the whole point out of this was encapsulated by one of Kelly’s lines: “Now as we both know, you are doing this for sex. But let me tell you something. It doesn’t matter what a guy does or says or how he treats us. The second we see a guy we already know whether or not he’s gonna get sex.”

    One of the show’s ending lines by Kara is this towards the skydiving instructor: “Thank you. You’re cute, too. The second I saw you I knew we were going to have sex.”

    Attraction (or lack thereof) from a woman is instantaneous, be it for sexual purposes or otherwise. You can do all the things in the world before a woman, but if she isn’t attracted to you you won’t get anywhere.

    People lose track that this stuff even is remotely factual, much less how to create it. Needless to say, the Bud character compared with the Biff character (the skydiving one) is a perfect contrast.

  135. ballista74 says:

    Since I mentioned it, hopefully the Youtube embed works this time. I set the link to the line I mentioned above.

  136. ballista74 says:

    Guess the time part didn’t work. It’s 13:21.

  137. greyghost says:

    ballista74
    I’m glad you mentioned this. I had a 3 year stretch of being somewhat a player. very ackward and out of character for me and a lot of work. One thing I picked up on was the best time to have sex with a woman is the the first moment you meet them. That observation went against everything you thought you knew.

  138. Opus says:

    @greyghost

    Let me chime in and concur with your observation that the best time to have sex with a woman is the first moment you meet them. That, not only goes, as you say, against all that you were taught, but also makes those who practise Game, for the same purpose, look rather inept or at least unatttractive – of course such things do not happen every day, at least not to me – but sometimes.

    ————————

    I should be interested in a good Christian response as to why the story of Jesus, Mary and Joseph is not Biblical support for marrying a single Mum. I am sure there must be an answer, just as there must be an answer as to why the Twelve Apostles (or was it thirteen) are not just dead-beat Dads? I am not recommending either course of action, of course.

  139. I’ve been to the Bridge Church, and it has more single mothers than any other church in Kernersville. McGee doesn’t want to jeopardize his meal ticket.

  140. I should be interested in a good Christian response as to why the story of Jesus, Mary and Joseph is not Biblical support for marrying a single Mum.

    Because Joseph and Mary were already halfway married, at least. Marriage didn’t work then exactly as it does now, and there was a bit of a trial period at the beginning between the espousal and the final ceremony. But they were committed to each other, and if Joseph had not wanted to claim Jesus as his own son, he would have had to divorce her. She was not a single mother in the sense that people use the term today.

    Also, there’s that little thing about an angel coming to Joseph personally and telling him that Mary wasn’t unfaithful, that the child was conceived by the Holy Ghost. That’s not exactly the case with the single moms men are being encouraged to wife-up today. In most cases, not only did they sleep with the father(s) of their children (obviously), but they’ve slept with a number of other men too. Comparing them to Mary the Virgin Mother of God isn’t just stupid, it’s blasphemous.

  141. koevoet says:

    Agreed with Cail Corishev on all points. I take particular interest in this story as St. Joseph is my patron saint. One thing that should be stressed, St. Joseph was within his rights to call off the whole thing. St. Joseph was known to be a righteous man and it says something about his character that he wanted to “put her away quietly”. Usually he would have been fully justified in not being so quiet about it. The situation was so exceptional (due to the very nature of the event) that God Himself sent an angel to tell Joseph what was up. So yeah, theology-fail on the part of that “pastor”.

  142. if we are using the Mary/Joseph bit as a parallel for why its good to marry a single mom

    let us recall that Mary was also a VIRGIN.

    If the single mom you want to marry is also still a virgin, then by all means, you have yourself a parallel you can follow.

    Mary wasn’t an unpaid whore. The single moms today, well….

    if the shoe fits…

  143. Zippy says:

    greyghost:
    One thing I picked up on was the best time to have sex with a woman is the the first moment you meet them. That observation went against everything you thought you knew.

    An alternate explanation is that for some men, the most ‘alpha’ they have to put on display is in that first impression, after which they have nowhere to go but orbiterville. A man who can show a flash of fake alpha but cannot sustain it will experience the world that way: he will occasionally make a good first impression, and that will be the best he can do.

    This happens in all sorts of other areas too. Some people are better at making first impressions than they are at following through. A first impression guy will not experience a situation where the more women get to know him, the more they find him irresistible. But it is a mistake for him to extrapolate his experience to all men.

    But I still think folks are missing my point. This is partly my fault, because the “slow cooker” language, in addition to denoting time frame, also has connotations (for people in this discussion) which are contrary to my point.

    I’m not talking about individual one-off encounters here. I am talking about the fact that a man’s ‘hindbrain’ does not need to learn over time what he finds attractive through social calibration. A woman’s does; this takes time, and it means that a woman’s subconscious attractions are more plastic or malleable than a man’s.

    This does not mean that a woman can be conditioned to be attracted to wimps. She can’t.

    What it means is that social dominance manifests itself differently in different cultures. A woman’s hind brain ‘learns’ or calibrates the signs of social dominance in her particular culture over time.

    In our culture, her subconscious isn’t being trained and calibrated by actual experience with actual reality. It is being trained and calibrated by femporn. So today’s men are (again) not competing with each other: they are competing with the false reality created by femporn.

    That is one reason why, in patriarchal societies, there wasn’t this problem of 80% of the women being attracted only to the top 10% of men. Today’s women are literally insane: their attraction triggers have been calibrated to a false reality, not to actual reality. This theme is pervasive in these very comboxes.

    Mind you, that isn’t the only thing going on. Men have unquestionably become more effeminate in parallel with the recalibration of female attraction to unreality, just as one example of another factor. But I suspect that femporn calibration is a significant factor in its own right.

  144. Buck says:

    Cail Corishev says:
    December 14, 2012 at 8:16 am

    And to add to your rebuttal of the bible critic above,
    RE: the “dead-beat dad disciples”…gee lets see, a man comes along, JESUS, who heals the sick with the passing of his shadow or touch of his garment, gives sight to the blind, clears leprosy, walks on water, calms storms with a word, casts out demons, has evil spirits scream at the very mention of his name, raises the dead back to life, debates the most educated members of society and leaves them speechless with his logic… hundreds want to follow him, yet he chooses 12, and these 12 drop EVERYTHING to accompany the most remarkable man in history…WOW, what losers, I’m glad our critic can find moral equivalence with such a life experience….good god!

  145. Zippy says:

    The idea that femporn is falsely calibrating women’s attraction triggers isn’t an original idea of mine, by the way. It is really just taking a spade and digging into Dalrock’s advice to women that they should try to calibrate attraction by controlling the venue. I’m just fleshing out why this is good advice, and pointing out that it should be extended to her entire social experience not just to where she meets men.

    If she is “meeting” men in 50 shades, Twilight, EPL, etc all the time then she is destroying her own capacity to be attracted to good men, probably moreseo than the porn-addicted man destroys his attraction to real women.

    One of the big manosphere themes is to pay attention to what she does, not what she says. I could add another: pay attention to what she criticizes in men, and figure out how that is precisely what she is doing herself under the protection of the hamsterdome.

  146. gdgm+ says:

    I think Zippy is gradually closer to filling in the pieces of the flawed “slow cooker” analogy.

    Where the “slow cooker” exists, it isn’t for a particular man. The cooker is stoked by “femporn” BEFORE a specific man appears. As greyghost and others note, if a man quickly appears who pushes all of her femporn-induced buttons, POW she is on him just like that! It may be a ‘one off’ which Zippy dislikes, but it’s successful from the alpha male’s viewpoint.

    The confusing piece is the perceived time horizon. Alpha G meets a woman when he’s pre-qualified with all her attraction criteria, then zip, very little time spent for him to get what he wants from her. Husband has been with wife for a long time as wife gradually loses attraction for him, in that case the time horizon is much longer.

  147. Zippy says:

    gdgm+
    Where the “slow cooker” exists, it isn’t for a particular man. The cooker is stoked by “femporn” BEFORE a specific man appears.

    It is really both/and. If she is used to thinking of you as the alpha from past experience, that colors her perception of you now. Otherwise there would be no “alpha widow” phenomenon. If she is used to thinking of you as beta, trying to act all alpha now could drop you into the creep bucket.

    Women aren’t like us. When the girl who was ugly yesterday shows up looking stunning today, that’s all it takes for us. We aren’t state machines the way women are.

  148. Umm, what was I saying? A domestic dispute apparently at the core of the Connecticut mass murder. Too early to tell.

  149. Opus says:

    My thanks to Cail Corbishev and Samuel Solomon for bringing me up to speed on the correct Theological interpretation, which may well come in handy at this season of the year: it all comes back to me now “..and lo it came to pass … an angel of The Lord .. tidings of great joy”.

  150. Zippy
    Wasn’t Tina Turner under the hamsterdome looking for Mel Gibson?

  151. Where the “slow cooker” exists, it isn’t for a particular man. The cooker is stoked by “femporn” BEFORE a specific man appears.

    This…..100% agreed

  152. Zippy says:

    @empathologism:
    Yes, and all we want is life beyond the hamsterdome.

  153. TFH says:

    That stupid sluttroll ‘Lisa’ upthread was so boilerplate that her comment might as well have been computer generated.

    1) Rationalizing that ‘divorce is no big deal’. I am sure she would change her tune if the person leaving did not have rights to the money of the person not wanting a divorce (what a morally sane law should be).
    2) Very primitive shaming language at the end, which indicates that she thinks that on a 1 to 10 scale of morality, that she is a 10, when in reality, she is a 2.
    3) Unaware that we know more about how women think than she does.

  154. Flip says:

    It’s call the “Marriage Contract.” When one party breaks a contract without cause, that party suffers a penalty. We need to get back to that.

  155. greyghost says:

    Zippy
    This is why I love the manosphere. This little nugget is huge to me and could be a topic for discussion in it’s own right.
    “I’m not talking about individual one-off encounters here. I am talking about the fact that a man’s ‘hindbrain’ does not need to learn over time what he finds attractive through social calibration. A woman’s does; this takes time, and it means that a woman’s subconscious attractions are more plastic or malleable than a man’s”.

    This is very important for any one involved in beating feminism. At one time the boring loyal dude was a man a civiized christian woman gina tingled for. The same guy that a bitch today will” just know” she needs to frivorce. Women have a few things about them that makes them women Hypergamy – My definition is a drive for more of ……. it doesn’t matter and is not important
    Status- relative social position in desired or real peers.
    Gina tingle – sexual and emotional arousel, women think it is love (women don’t have the capacity to actually love) but it will do.
    The triad are intertwined and constantly moving. Up until fairly recently the MRM falsely believed femminism was a change in women and that the pain and societal destruction was a mistake in an effort to acheive equality for women and that women just needed to know. It came off as weaklings begging for mercy. The response from women was the usual, bitter loser,it takes two,man up, take responsibility, etc. etc. The last few years have been different with active blogs unabashedly challenging feminism and women in general with anger.
    This is where your comment and Dalrock and his follow bloggers and commenters will shine you will define social status. You get to point to where hypergamy is directed or kept under wraps. 80 percent of the women will truely gina tingle for the 80 percent of men. Christians were supposed to do that but they became churchians so they could guilt free worship pussy. The point is women are the same as they always have been. The social stucture the female triad is in has changed not the female.

  156. James says:

    You will love and honor him without staying in a marriage that is no longer right … he will stay in your heart but not in your life… It’s okay to release yourself and the other person. It’s okay to let go and move on.

    When a woman’s hamster is not smart enough to dream up excuses for her to follow her tingles, she can hire an “Intuitive Self-Help Coach”, who will supply a suitable rationalization for the princely sum of $150 per hour.

    Outsourcing of the hamster. It beggars belief.

    Is there any limit to the depravity of the feminine “thought” that can be proudly advertised as a paid service, safe in the knowledge that most people do not see anything wrong with it?

  157. James says:

    @Rollo:

    Briffault’s Law is interesting. When combined with our divorce laws, it means that a marriage is disposable as soon as the wife has completed “her” family.

    The fact that the divorce rate is “only” 50% suggests either that some husbands do find a way to remain of value to their wives, or that some women are actually grown-up enough not to believe the EPL bullshit.

  158. TFH says:

    Is there any limit to the depravity of the feminine “thought” that can be proudly advertised as a paid service, safe in the knowledge that most people do not see anything wrong with it?

    No. See my Dec 13, 2:50 PM comment above.

  159. taterearl says:

    If there are things women should emulate from Mary…being a single mother isn’t one of them.

    I do like the idea of being a virgin, submitting to God’s will, and supporting her husband…such as going into Egypt when he has warnings in a dream about Herod’s jealousy resulting in infanticide. Even in her womanly moments such as at Cana…in the end she still said “Do whatever He tells you”

  160. Either way, all of the doom and gloom on the so-called manosphere about divorce is a bit over blown…and a bit creepy.

    Lisa…..creepy? Like TFH suggested, that is pedestrian, and mendacious. Its a favorite choice word for women wishing to pop in and bring the shame.

    What in the world would decrying divorce be creepy?

    I know how pat this sounds, but the sum of all the ways our society is gone to hell, figurative and literal, is manifested in so many painfully obvious ways. Remarking that why not divorce once the attraction is gone reflects an utter lack of any social guardrails. Heck, why keep a kid when they are no longer cute and little, who keep a job when it gets rough or boring, why make the payments on a car that was cool the first year but the luster is off……BECAUSE it is not just right, but in some cases it is compelled legally…..and roundly accepted as fine. yet for women and this happiness and attraction thing, society damn well better not erect any boundaries for the little showflakes because that would be creepy.

    You want creepy? If you are not one of the women that dismisses statistics (and I suspect you do with anecdote like most) check the marriage stability stats vs. the social pathology stats, crimes and dysfunctions often find commonality in broken homes in the past. But some women dang it, found a man she was quivering for!

  161. @ greyghost
    women don’t have the capacity to actually love

    Could you expand on this for me? Or provide a link if it’s been discussed previously? It is a revelation that has been creeping into my awareness but I am without words to express it. Of course I also realize that the mentioning of it will illicit all manner of hand waving from women. Is it necessary to give definition to the word love (Eros, Philos, Agape)?

  162. imnobody says:

    As she spoke, the sadness was audible in her voice. From the outside looking in, someone may wonder why she is asking for a separation. He didn’t cheat on her. He’s not abusive to her. He’s a decent guy. He’s been an okay partner to her – they have good memories and good times together.

    BUT HE DOESN’T GIVE HER THE TINGLE…Time to go back to the carousel. Thank you for the cash, sir.

  163. Anonymous age 70 says:

    >>I should be interested in a good Christian response as to why the story of Jesus, Mary and Joseph is not Biblical support for marrying a single Mum.

    I advise you to marry any woman who was impregnated by God. Otherwise, investigate what the Bible says about the word, “harlot.” It is said there are no stupid questions, but this one came close, and is not up to your usual highly intellectual postings.

  164. an observer says:

    SarahsDaughter,

    Love is by definition impossible for the solipsim-addled woman. It is axiomatic that self interest is incompatible with sublimation of the self. Contemporary society feeds female self interest. Arguably, even biblical texts tell women to respect and submit, as though recognising this is what they are capable of.

    Related reading:

    http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/09/18/female-solipsism/

    http://thewomanandthedragon.wordpress.com/2012/11/01/are-women-insightful-schemers-or-myopic-narcissists-thoughts-on-solipsism-and-meta-cognitive-awareness/

    http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com.au/2012/01/utilility-of-solipsism.html

    http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/why-solipsism-matters.html

    http://theredpillroom.blogspot.com.au/2012/11/of-objectification-solipsism-and-glass.html

    http://verusconditio.wordpress.com/2012/12/02/solipsism/

  165. Anonymous Reader says:

    James replies to Rollo:
    Briffault’s Law is interesting. When combined with our divorce laws, it means that a marriage is disposable as soon as the wife has completed “her” family.

    The example can be tested rather easily. Talk with any married man who has children. It may take a beer or two, but in time you will learn what happened to his marriage after the birth of the “last” child (in modern cases, that often is “1”, but may be “2”. Rarely more than that). Again I point to Keoni Galt’s epic work at Roissy / Heartiste. There are ways to mitigate or even avoid the situation, but a man must be pro-active. He cannot expect any other person or institution to help him save the situation. He cannot count on any of her female relations; more likely, they will join in tearing him down to her. He cannot count on any church ladies, or church leaders. They will offer her sympathy and assisance in tearing him down, nothing in building anyone up (except her hypergamy). He cannot count on anything – anything – in popular media. that is strictly oriented to tearing men down. He can’t count on any “marriage counseling”, that is strictly oriented to tearing him down, blaming him, and facilitating divorce, cash & prizes.

    Only in the androsphere (or, as tradcons call it, “the lost boys”, “the men responsible for feminism”, “the mysogynists”, “the boys hiding in their mother’s basement playing games all day”, etc., etc.) will a man find any tools to salvage his family. Only in the androsphere will he find the knowledge that the rest of society denies, hides, and covers up.

    But since only he is likely to care enough to try to preserve a family for his children, this is only to be expected. . Certainly hypergamy doesn’t care…and the rest of society, expliclty including far too many churches, is in service to the feminine imperative, and therefore in service to unleashed hypergamy.

  166. Martian Bachelor says:

    More like unrestrained dumbshittery.

    Otherwise you’re guilty of confusing fecklessness for some sort of feminine wisdom IME.

  167. greyghost says:

    Sarah’s Daughter
    Women do not have the capacity to love.
    That is not something I read it is a conclusion i came up with through personal observation of my wife and red pill eyes. It was about 1 to 2 am commenting on the spearhead when i made the comment and it took my breath away. When ever i repeat a woman will always react to it men that acknowledge the comment tend to agree.
    It is normal and something to keep in mind is just because you can’t love doesn’t mean a man will not love you. To help you understand look at the article itself. Could a person that loved actually write the statements this married women makes. Any man treats me the way i treat my wife will have a man willing to die for him. And a woman can hate can and will leave that same boring loyal dude without a second thought. It is not a faulty woman it is normal. (for a feral woman) It is faulty for a civilized woman. You as a woman have chosen your path to status as a civilized woman. A man knowing you are a woman will hear you say “i love you” and with observation make a judgement of your behavior and decide you are worthy of his love. Your status in the herd and hypergamy will allow gina tingle and you are in love. In the feral cesspool of feminism the gina tingle goes away and a you will leave a man that loves you. It is normal as a feral woman, and a churchian woman. What keeps you faithfully committed is the strength of your desire to status marker you have chosen. The churchian church is feminised to allow a hypergamous women keep her “christian” status marker. None of these observations would be possible if love was present. It is like trouble shooting electronics, This part test bad but works in the system while this part was “good’ but doesn’t work in the system. The bad part was good and the good part was bad return the working system to the customer. A woman lives up to her commitment of her wedding vows she will enjoy the peace and laughter of her grand children and will live in security of family when her SMV is gone. That is all that matters.

  168. driversuz says:

    Greyghost:
    “it is a conclusion i came up with through personal observation of my wife and red pill eyes.”

    You’ve said it before that women cannot love, and I disagreed. I still do. It’s been what, a year, give or take, and nobody ever came up with a sound definition of a love that women can’t feel. And now you just stated that your personal observation of your own wife is the foundation for that belief? I’m still waiting for something that resembles empirical evidence.

  169. greyghost says:

    Driversuz
    Their is none will never be that you will ever understand and accept. But that doesn’t mean you are not worthy or are unloved yourself personally. It is only something men need to understand anyway. If you know I am wrong and love then good for who ever loves you and may you enjoy inner peace.
    I’m more sure of myself now than I ever was.

  170. imnobody says:

    @driversuz @greyhost

    It is not that women are unable to love. It is that they are unable to love men the way men want to be loved: unconditionally as Rollo Tomassi says http://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2011/12/27/women-in-love/.

    Men love women and women love children, because this is what makes sure the survival of the species. Children loving mothers and women loving men? Yes, but not so much. Not even in the same order of magnitude.

    Since children are physically dependent of mothers, mothers have to be emotionally dependent of children. A woman who doesn’t love their children won’t sacrifice her life to feed them and take care of them because the transfer of resources is from women to children and not the other way around.

    The same way, in primitive societies, women couldn’t work because they were not contraceptives, compulsory schooling , running water, electricity or appliances. So women depended on men for their survival. This is why men love women much more than women love men.

    Do you want scientific evidence? There is none, because the concept of love is diificult to quantify and, hence, difficult to deal with the scientific method. But I guess most of what any of us says is not backed by a scientific study, because this is a blog, not a scientific journal. And because most things in life have not been backed by empirical evidence and this does not prevent people to talk about them. I am familiar to the tactics of demanding scientific evidence only of the things one cannot admit.

    The thing closer to scientific evidence that I have is things like these:

    – After a divorce, the probability of the ex-husband of committing suicide doubles. The probability of the ex-wife of committing suicide stays the same.

    – There are reports of men risking their lives to save their wives. There are reports of women risking their lives to save their children. There are no report of a woman risking her life to save her husband.

  171. Looking Glass says:

    Since this is a Christian blog, this is one of those discussions that has to be removed partly from English. One of the oddest issues we have in the language is that “love”, of which nearly all other languages have multiple words for, we actually don’t. You “love” someone and you “love” your sports team and you “love” your new smartphone. Very, very different emotions, but the same words. That means this topic will be riven with strawmen.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_words_for_love

    The argument I would make is that men feel “agape” very deeply, while women don’t. While our culture definitely confuses topics to no end, as a quick argument, I think the female solipsistic nature is the biggest break here and what causes the most confusion. Quite a lot of Christian men will define “agape love” as “doing what is best for the person”. This is irrespective of its effect on the man.

    Let me repeat that: “irrespective of its effect on the man”. To “love” someone in this way is to think hard about what is “best” for them and to leave yourself out of it. The solipsistic nature & the hamster’s personality rationalization effects make a woman’s life “all about what happens to her.” This highly limits her ability to think of the person’s actual best interests. So, when men say that women really don’t “love”, this is what their point will actually be. We’re well aware that women do “eros” with the best of them, though attraction triggers are different.

    In the Christian context, this also explains the point of the push for “easy grace”. “Agape” is part of our understanding of God’s Forgiveness, Love and Grace, so deadening the importance and effect of “what it means” is a way to inject very worldly views into the theology. It pushes hard on the “sacrifice” aspect that we’ve taken from the concept, while underplaying what the “love” aspect really means.

    I have to get going, but thinking on that a bit more, I might have just stumbled across the entire Betatization streak in Churchianity, beyond the normal social order aspects. They go heavy on the “sacrifice” then switch the context of the “action” parts from a “firm” application to the “soft, soft” emotionally appealing conception of “love” we like to use now. The classic example being that you can “love” a children without condition, while you’re severely disciplining them because enforcing order in their life is to think about their future and what is necessary. You could even extrapolate this out as why it is that men enforce order in the way they do.

    I’ll think about this more, but I do want to point out that women can “love” in this way. It’s just very hard for them and takes a lot of training and work. In many ways, it is to “think ahead” for the person. Which takes us back to “Future Time Orientation” and wife selection, does it not?

  172. The evidence about women and their capacity to love is all around. The statistics Dalrock posts, nearly all of them, are plain empirical evidence, overwhelmingly so. It is not just some esoteric thing, its tangible and measurable…..the article linked in this very post is empirical evidence of it.
    Suz, I think either you are not realizing exactly what grey is suggesting, or you are reacting too quickly, and doing so from a personal perspective, which you know to guard against. You know he isnt saying “Suz doesn’t lover her husband” or similar. The thing he is talking about is actually illustrated often in churchian sermons with the phrase feelings follow actions. This is something different than the whole Corinthians list of things love does and doesn’t do, which is so malleable as to be no guide whatsoever as taught.

  173. infowarrior1 says:

    @looking glass

    Agape in the context of what is understood at the time of Jesus christ as Agape is that it is group centered and collectivist. Therefore it is not about mushy feelings but about what is best for humanity as a whole and as creation as a whole therefore the closest description of agape is tough love:

    http://www.tektonics.org/whatis/whatlove.html

  174. Joshua says:

    Hey greyghost just tell em:

    “For those who believe, no explanation is necessary; for those who do not believe, no explanation will suffice.”

  175. 8oxer says:

    @driversuz

    Here’s a simple example: Name a dozen female authors who have penned love poetry about men.

    No hurry, I’ll wait…

  176. driversuz says:

    @Looking Glass:
    “This highly limits her ability to think of the person’s actual best interests.”
    Limits. And I agree. However a limited capacity for love is not NO capacity for love. Solipsism is a huge obstacle to overcome, but it can be overcome. I think it’s disingenuous of Greyghost (whom you all know I deeply respect, and whose approval gratifies me) to essentially say, “This is how I feel based on my personal experience, and many men agree with me,” and treat the sentiment as fact. Would this site even exist if such statements weren’t a hallmark of female behavior?

    @ Emp:
    “Suz, I think either you are not realizing exactly what grey is suggesting, or you are reacting too quickly, and doing so from a personal perspective, which you know to guard against.”

    No this is not a knee-jerk reaction, it is me reiterating a challenge to that same statement, which I made months ago, and nobody who agrees that “Women cannot love” was able to define a love that women can’t feel. Even Rmaxd was dodging and feinting. Joshua defines greyghost’s statement well:
    “For those who believe, no explanation is necessary; for those who do not believe, no explanation will suffice.”
    That’s what we say about faith.

    Imnobody:
    “There is none, because the concept of love is diificult to quantify and, hence, difficult to deal with the scientific method.”
    Exactly. Which is why I question greyghost’s statement of his opinion as fact, particularly since he has a great deal of moral authority here. As women can’t comprehend love as men feel it, neither can men comprehend love as women feel it. And due to differences in brain chemistry, I don’t doubt that there are many subtle differences in how men and women experience love, and there is no doubt that there are not-so-subtle *learned* differences. It’s not logical for anybody to say,”what I feel is love and what they feel is not.”

    “Men love women and women love children, because this is what makes sure the survival of the species.”

    I don’t think “love” is the right word for that. Men “protect” women and women “protect” children. Men “loving” women is not necessarily good for survival; men must love children, or few children would survive.

    I think women’s “obstacle” to love is our limited ability to *comprehend* ANYBODY’S best interests, due to our lesser (but not non-existent) capacity for logic. This doesn’t mean we are incapable of it, it means it’s more difficult for us. Our ability to love is handicapped, but it exists. To tell us it is impossible for us to love, is to tell us not to bother seeking and developing a greater love. It absolves us of responsibility by removing our agency. That is a justification for White Kinghtery, which treats women as children – eventually to the detriment of the children themselves. Not conducive to the survival of the species.

  177. Zippy says:

    @driversuz:
    It absolves [women] of responsibility by removing [their] agency.

    Exactly. Count me out of the “women cannot love” brigade. Women are fully human moral agents. They are fully responsible for their choices, with all that that implies.

    Women don’t generally express and act on love precisely the same way men do, as the “how many poets” question assumes. So what? Men and women are different. Why grant the feminist premise when looking at this particular issue? Why grant it ever?

    I do think that in modern circumstances most women are relentlessly conditioned not to love.

  178. 8oxer says:

    Setting aside the dismissive tone of Zippy and Driversuz, I’ll answer my own rhetorical question.

    I can only name one poetess who ever wrote love poetry about her man: Elizabeth Barrett Browning. To my knowledge, this is the only one, contrasted with the thousands upon thousands of male authors who wrote love poetry about their wives, mistresses and girlfriends, from Wm Shakespeare and Edgar Allan Poe to Robert Frost and Jack London.

    The fact that women are incapable of the depth of feeling men are born with is, after a time, something of a comfort. Once one properly sees women for exactly what they are, he can (ironically or not) appreciate them properly for exactly what they bring to the table.

  179. 8oxer says:

    @Imnobody:

    Men love women and women love children, because this is what makes sure the survival of the species.

    Do you really think women love children, after all the reading you must have done on this blog?

    Women often pretend to love the children they accept in modern society, as children are useful, income generating pieces of property. Women tend to see children as nothing more than this, and at the first opportunity the children are generally abandoned when they inconvenience the mother.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2085163/Children-dumped-streets-Greek-parents-afford-them.html

    This is what happened in Greece, when the child support/alimony/welfare gravy train stopped running. Ignore the politically correct gender neutral language. The abandoned kids were children of single mothers: Women who had used their children the way men use land or businesses.

    It might seem harsh, but all the evidence suggests that women (not just modern women, nor American women, but women everywhere) are completely incapable of loving anyone but themselves. That’s neither a good nor bad thing, but it is what it is, and the sooner men accept this, they can start appreciating women in a more realistic fashion.

    Incidentally: What happened in Greece will likely happen in North America in the next few years. Greece is a highly patriarchal society, so the abandoned kids were a tiny minority. When it happens here, it won’t be nearly so containable. I’m not really looking forward to the day when little Johnny and Janie no longer function as mommy’s cash cow.

  180. Opus says:

    … and it is not just that with the exception of Elizabeth Barrett Browning no woman ever wrote love poetry about a man: they are all useless at all types of versification; even Germaine Greer [arch-feminist] has written a book bemoaning that very fact, for she calls these women [the title of her book] Slipshod Sybils.

    As an O’ Level student for Eng Lit, our enlightened examiners set us a compilation of poems by six then middle-aged English Poets. Intriguingly Thom Gunn [Homosexual] was (as I now see) noticable by his absence. The others: Philip Larkin, Ted Hughes, R.S. Thomas, to name three of them are all fine modern poets, but the one female Elizabeth Jennings (although she has some good lines) is largely, simply, unreadable and it is all ‘Poor me – things happen or not – but I have no agency’ the whole time – no sense of line, or meter, never mind rhyme. That this sentimental dross was foisted on impresionable young lads was quite inexcusable.

    It is worse than that however: I was reading some love-letters on-line, from a while ago; the woman is college educated, yet her letters are repetitively bland and dull as ditch-water – as she expresses her baby-rabies infected love; her fiancee (left school at fourteen), writes vividly, is thoughtful, reflecting on the past and the probablilites for the future. Which reminds me of that ex-gf of mine who sent me (following her creative-writing course) some prose fiction. ‘That is dreadful Porn’ I replied – and it was awful – ‘That is not Porn she replied, that is how I feel about you’. Ugh.

  181. Zippy says:

    What the poetry thing shows isn’t that women aren’t at all capable of loving. What it shows is that women aren’t very good at writing poetry.

  182. 8oxer says:

    Zippy, you’re wrong again, but your endless attempts at obfuscation are endlessly entertaining.

    What the poetry thing shows isn’t that women aren’t at all capable of loving. What it shows is that women aren’t very good at writing poetry.

    Sylvia Plath, Emily Bronte, Dorothy Parker, Elizabeth Bishop, etc. etc. etc. The reality is that women are generally better writers than men. I’ll leave it to the neurologists to explain such esoterica. Maybe the affection area of the male brain is developed for communication in the female. Either way, thanks so much for your response.

  183. 8oxer says:

    Dear Opus:

    With respect, I have to disagree. I like a lot of female writers. Alice Munro is one of my favourite modern authors (she’s a 19th century writer who somehow took a time machine here, I think). E.B. Browning was a far better writer than her husband, though he was no slouch. All that aside, I’ve never formally studied literature. I wish I had the time and money to do so. My argument is based upon personal preferences rather than expertise.

    Another of my favourite authors is an American named Naomi Shihab Nye. A couple of years ago I went to a reading she gave. In the middle of her performance she announced that she was going to read “a love poem” (I forget to whom, her husband or father I presume). She then started listing all this man’s faults, quite derisively. At the end of the roast, she turned with something along the lines of “but I love the old fool anyhow.”

    Best, Boxer

  184. Opus says:

    @Boxer

    Sylvia Plath (Mrs Ted Hughes) still searching for Daddy; why doesn’t she just top herself!
    Emily Bronte – ‘reader I married him’ – even though he has a mad woman in the attic.
    Dorothy Parker – never heard of her.
    Elizabeth Bishop – Ditto

    So how about

    Jane Austen – I had to endure Persuasion for A’ level – never again.
    Mary Shelley – hopeless without Percy Bysshe to help her out.

    Shall I go on? – no better not. Even if you think I am being particularily cruel, are any of these women, even worthy to lick the boots of (I choose absolutely off the top of my head – and some 19th century Americans too) Herman Melville, Henry James or Edgar Alan Poe?

    I think Agatha Christie is rather good.

  185. Opus says:

    19th Century Americans – how could I forget Henry Thoreau – or Emerson!

  186. 8oxer says:

    Dear Opus:

    I believe Plath did ice herself, eventually. She was still a pretty fantastic writer. Never cared for Jane Austen much. Nor do I like Joyce Carol Oates, though she’s a much better writer than Steven King (though not quite on par with Cormac McCarthy).

    Back to the point: All these female writers( whether or not you or I like one or the other or all or none) are generally considered great literary figures. Why is it that none of them wrote the sort of lovey-dovey stuff that’s common among male writers? Even Jane Austen, who wrote decent love stories (whether they’re my thing or not, she was a great writer) depicted the males in her narratives as bumbling, sympathetic oafs or unfeeling cads. You can’t deny the pattern exists. Is there any other explanation, than the one that women, as a whole, tend to see men as objects rather than independent beings for which respect or devotion is due?

    Best, Boxer

  187. Anonymous Reader says:

    Empathalogicalism
    The thing he is talking about is actually illustrated often in churchian sermons with the phrase feelings follow actions. This is something different than the whole Corinthians list of things love does and doesn’t do, which is so malleable as to be no guide whatsoever as taught.

    I have demonstrated clearly here that I am no scholar of the BIble. However, in some churches where several different translations are used, one can get a pretty good discussion going in short order on the proper translation of the words involve: there are versions that use the word “charity” rather than “love”, in that context. And that has a fair number of implications, or so I have been told.That’s about all I can contributed at this point, however.

  188. greyghost says:

    Back from work.
    Driversuz
    You can’t see love you can’t scientificly define and quantify it and you know that. Trust me I did not like having that realization come to past. No one will ever be able to answer your challenge ever. It is impossible. A thousand words and deeds will lead one to conclude that women do not have the capacity to love. But no words or deeds will ever define love. No woman ever hearing these words spoken amungst men will ever accept it. It is not for a woman to accept but it is something a woman needs to understand that men know. I will never ever try to convince a woman she has no capacity to love. I will speak to men on the subject . With the exception of one man, your husband, it is his call whether or not you love him.

  189. That is a justification for White Kinghtery, which treats women as children – eventually to the detriment of the children themselves. Not conducive to the survival of the species.

    Actually, setting aside the misplaced efforts of white knights, this thing you describe IS conducive to the survival of the species. Women, left unfettered, unchecked, will…..well, look around, the hand basket we are going to hell in was woven by women. This statement is generally true.

  190. driversuz says:

    greyghost:
    “You can’t see love you can’t scientificly define and quantify it and you know that.”

    If this is true, which I believe it is, how can your exclusion of women from love be logical? I’m not here to say, “Hey wait a minute! I can love!” It’s not about me, it’s about subjective opinion vs. objective fact. If you can’t define love, you can’t know who loves and who doesn’t.

    Emp:
    “Women, left unfettered, unchecked, will…..well, look around…”
    Unchecked by what? Men? Sure, pressure from men keeps women in line. So does pressure from life circumstances, circumstances like a lack of food and shelter. When there is no surplus of basic necessities, women are perfectly capable of “checking” themselves and each other. Our brains evolved at a time when surplus of any kind was rare. I don’t think our species would have survived if women were as idiotic then as we are now. We are stupid now because the price for stupidity is no longer a very high risk of death, for ourselves, our providers, or our children. Women are born with the ability to be fully moral and responsible humans. We don’t exercise and develop that ability, because society has given us permission not to.

  191. greyghost says:

    “We don’t exercise and develop that ability, because society has given us permission not to” Character was said to be when you did it right when nobody was looking. What you said in that quote was the manosphere is right about it’s take on women only it is not entirely womens doing because we can vote and with a filled refrigerator we have plenty to eat. Women will never be moral and responsible humans but are fully capable of behaving that way if neccesary. They can even behave in a loving way towards others.

  192. xnook says:

    Not sure of where else to contact you via the site, but I remember your questions re “are there churches that preach actual scripture re: men and women”

    Well, another one proved it’s a failure in that regard – http://thewomanandthedragon.wordpress.com/2012/12/16/if-you-challenge-femdom-churchianity-the-white-knights-will-attack-an-update-on-joseph-of-jackson/#comment-8169

    That said, the guy sounds like he might be able to shake things up even further now that they’ve expelled him…

  193. driversuz says:

    OK greyghost, I’ll be more specific. Women are *rewarded* for not being moral and responsible. Many women are moral and responsible anyway. This is not a sex-specific trait. Many men who are rewarded for bad behavior, engage in it as well. Many do not. There are two main factors that I see. One is the strength of a person’s inborn conscience, the other is (a combination of innate and cultivated) intelligence. Members of both sexes have varying degrees of inborn “strength of conscience.” It exists, but it can’t be accurately measured. OTOH, intelligence is an attribute that can be measured, and men are decidedly more likely to be logical than women. People who are more prone to rational thought, are likelier to make moral and responsible decision, but good reasoning skills don’t make men more innately moral than women.
    I’m just fine with defining society as a whole according to generalities, but to insist that a generalized trend, even an overwhelming trend, can be applied equally to every person of either sex, is simply inadequate. It doesn’t explain variations in male morality or in female morality.

    You assumed that my objection was based on my need to believe that I am capable of love. It’s not; whatever I believe love to be, I am perfectly confident in my capacity for it. Is it possible that you are projecting? That you need to believe that no woman is capable of love, as an explanation for your own wife’s inability to love? You are, in most matters, one of the most rational men I have ever encountered, yet in this issue, you refuse to apply the same standards to males and to females, with no justification besides your feelings. You can easily define every “female” motive as mercenary, but how hard do you try to define “male” motives as mercenary. It can easily be done when one keeps in mind that after food and shelter, the primary goal of any species is successful reproduction.

  194. Michael says:

    “She just knows”

    The question is. What does she do AFTERWARDS. I wonder if they think about this.

    Dear All:

    Is their a section on dealing with over dressed spinsters who interrupt guys in their own age group while observing them having a lively conversation with a much younger girl after they have ease dropped the entire conversation hiding behind an end-aisle pretending to look at something when they are ease dropping – because they are now PAST THEIR PRIME hanging out at Target alone on a Sunday night wearing long a black jacket with knee high boots and a scarf.

    Today I got lucky. I put my heart out there and had a 10 minute conversation with an 8.5 – 9.0 who then happened to be Russian. She was amazing to talk to. Polite, kind, interactive, smiling, laughing, and struck me as intelligent. She spoke 4 languages and had a degree in International Economics from St. Petersburg. Normally I don’t approach girls this attractive. But I sense she was different. The accent confirmed it.

    I was also feeling my best. I hammered down the nervousness like those things at Chucky Cheese that pop up and you hit them back down. Hot girls overwhelm me with their aura of beauty that leaves me speechless and stammering as I’m looking up at this perfect creature God put on this earth who God has given me the chance to talk to.

    The spinsters sole intent was to redirect the interaction and pull the girl away from me for the sole purpose of leaving me standing alone. I just want to make it clear she was not interrupting because she was interested in me.

    I’m sad to report the spinster was able to destroy the interaction.

    I was left standing alone looking like I was searching for something to say (I don’t know anything about color coding purses and smoke style makeup you fucking bitch) . When I finally regained control to ask for the Russian girls number her demeanor had changed and she hesitated. When I asked again she clamped up and insisted on taking mine. But she will not call me I know it. 8(

    The Spinster looked at me with a smirk as she walked away. It was as though she meant to totally destroy the interaction but was satisfied with a 90% destruction rate.
    :(
    :(
    :(

    I really like this website and I enjoy reading all the articles. The analysis feels spot on perfect. But does anyone know any sites where guys like me share experiences like the one just had!? This site is wonderful. But I want to get married. So I’m trying really hard to talk to younger girls. But I’m having problems. I was not prepared for what happened today. I need to talk with other guys in the same boat. Does anyone have any suggestions for more interactive support? Thank you.

    P.S. I mean no disrespect to Mr. Dalrock. I’m not trying to pull traffic from his site. Thank you.

  195. 8oxer says:

    Dear Michael:

    Sorry about the shootdown. Bear in mind that there are millions of other women in the world. C—blocking is simply a way of life and you need to put it into context. It is not the end of the world.

    That aside, did you get the hot Russian chick’s number before the c—block? Wait a few days, study heartiste and roosh v site, and then try texting or calling.

    There is really no need to be nervous. Women are just people, like men. Approach anxiety is conquered by approaching a lot of women, so you are doing the right thing.

    This site is wonderful. But I want to get married. So I’m trying really hard to talk to younger girls. But I’m having problems. I was not prepared for what happened today.

    If you really want to get married, the dalrock blog is the place to be for advice. Stay here. This site will help you get and keep a healthy monogamous relationship. There are other resources you will find helpful also. Get Athol Kay’s book “Married Man Sex Life”. Athol has forums too, which are excellent. There is a book called “No More Mr. Nice Guy” which may also be helpful. There are forums there. Spider out if you are not comfortable, but stay if you can. You are among friends here. Many men post here and you are not out of place, particularly if you are interested in maintaining a monogamous relationship. Heartiste and roosh are excellent, but cater more to playas/pua types who want to cat around in short term flings.

    Best, Boxer

  196. Michael says:

    No.

    I did not get her phone number. I asked for her phone number after the C-blocker showered her with compliments and slinked away (while smirking at me). The hot Russian girl hesitated then when I asked again (in a more assertive tone) she asked for mine instead. So I gave her my phone number. But I don’t feel like she will call me.

    WHY did that F-ing Spinster have to interrupt? Why. I want to know the reason. This has happened before but I mistook it for social interaction. But now I see that it’s not just social interaction because there is no common site (church, club, meeting area, party etc). This was in Target Store. A public store. I put my heart out there and walked up to this girl and scored a lively conversation with momentum building up to the point of having this Spinster intentionally direct her away from me by – a complete stranger – for no logical reason whatsoever.

    I just don’t understand WHY.

    I strongly believe if I would’ve have asked for the Russian girls number sooner she would have given me. The Spinster heard the ENTIRE conversation. Approaching, trading names, and conversing. I let the conversation go on too long because – we were having a good conversation! Like…Tennis. Back and forth. Back and forth. Then this women decides to come into the court uninvited. The sole reason was to run all over the net and interrupt the match.

    I cannot help but be nervous. The more attractive a female is the more I feel is at stake. The more I see her as a heaven sent creature. The more idolize her. The more nervous I become. I feel like everything is at stake. I know it’s crazy.

    I like this site but will try the others. I lacked the skills today… to get rid of that walking bottle of milk with two legs and a tacky scarf. She looked 36-37…. she had that run down slut look…

    The problem with those sites you mentioned is they filled with low class people. And there doesn’t seem to be an interactive forum where people can post their experiences.

  197. Michael says:

    The problem with those sites you mentioned is they ARE filled with low class people.

    They ARE filled with low class people.

  198. 8oxer says:

    Hi Michael:

    Look, don’t be so discouraged. You opened and kept the attention of a hb 8-9 today. This is a good thing. You need to do this many times before you find a marriage worthy woman, as many women, despite how they look, will not be worthy of you.

    Giving your number is rarely effective, but occasionally works (about 20% of the time, I get a callback, and it is usually a few days). Don’t get your hopes up, but do be ready on the off chance you get a call from this woman. It might happen.

    Don’t get your hopes up too high. Even if you meet her, she might not be the girl for you. If that happens, it will be OK. This is a learning experience. It is somewhat unsettling, but should be fun too. You are being social, and this is a good thing, even if you don’t make a lifetime connection on the first try.

    I realize that heartiste and rooshv are somewhat tasteless. They are pickup sites, for people who want one night and short term, but you can still learn things there. Filter the advice and don’t lower your standards, but I do suggest going and just picking up what you can. Even marriage worthy women have triggers, and you need to know them.

    Some of the older brothers will be by to give more advice for you. In the interim, be proud of your ability to at least open and chat with this girl. It is intimidating at first and you did something many men never do. Be prepared to do it again, many times. You’ll also get better at deflecting the c—blockers in time. Think about the situation and what you could have done to maintain frame, and be prepared to act next time. One thing I can tell you with certainty, it will happen again. ;)

    Best, Boxer

  199. imnobody says:

    @driversuz

    I never said that women are unable to love. I said that they are unable to love men the way men want to be loved: completely and unconditionally.

    I don’t think “love” is the right word for that. Men “protect” women and women “protect” children. Men “loving” women is not necessarily good for survival; men must love children, or few children would survive.

    Men love women and children more than the other way around. Otherwise, they would not be willing to give them resources. It’s true that today’s women don’t necessarily need men for survival but this is a modern invention. Our biology is adapted to a world when women were dependent on men, as I have explained before.

    The way children love their mothers is not the way mothers love children. The way women love men is not the way men love women. As I have proved with the statistics of suicide. As I have proved with the reports of men rescuing women and women rescuing children, but no women rescuing men.

    Women cannot understand the deepness of the love in men. This is why men are able to sacrifice everything for a woman.

    Women’s love is conditional: if you meet the woman’s need (this usually means: babies and economic stability), you will be loved. Otherwise, the woman will look for someone else to love.

    How many men in the history of mankind have married when presented an ultimatum (“marry me or loose me)? Lots. This means that they love more the woman that their singleness.

    Women are not this way. Women want to be married and have children. And if you are not willing, they will drop you and “love” other guy.

    The fact that women are unable of that doesn’t make them little children and does not mean they have no responsibilities. A blind cannot see: this does not means that he is not a free agent and has responsibility as a grown up. So love and free will are two different concepts and I don’t know why you confuse them.

    Having said that, Suz, I am not talking about you and your husband. I am talking about women in general. I am well aware that they are exceptions in every rule.

  200. driversuz says:

    imnobody:
    “I never said that women are unable to love.”

    No you didn’t. greyghost did, and he is also the one who assumed that my comments were based in fear for myself and my marriage. I was disagreeing primarily with him.

    ” This is why men are able to sacrifice everything for a woman.”

    What if male sacrifice and generosity aren’t motivated by love for a woman, but by love for the mate and the tribe that will nurture his children? What if male love and female love are both functions of the need to protect the well being of their offspring, at any cost? What if what makes men sacrifice, is not a deeper love, but a deeper understanding of what serves his children’s futures? Men willingly sacrifice themselves for women they don’t know or love, for other men’s children, and even for other men. Men’s overall capacity for logical thought is well documented as being greater than women’s. What if what you call a deeper love, is actually a deeper and broader unconscious knowledge of love’s “purpose,” combined with a proactive mindset? And what if a woman’s “lesser” love is actually a lesser grasp of the “big picture,” combined with fluctuating hormones that distract her already relatively tenuous focus?

    What you describe as conditional love, isn’t love, even if a woman feels passion and attraction, and believes herself to be in love. It’s the process of securing assets for her offspring, and it is often the first step on the road to love, but it’s not love. I do think it’s fair to say that because of the instinctive need to mate with a good provider, women grow more slowly into love. People used to say that for a woman, love comes after marriage. I think there’s quite a bit of truth to that, and these days most women actively sabotage their ability to love, with choice addiction, but that’s a matter of decisions; it’s not how we were designed. We were designed to be cautious and risk-averse. (And in out culture we don’t need to be cautious because everyone else absorbs our risk for us. But we are instinctively slow to give our hearts.) When women do love, we love deeply, and it takes a lot to destroy that love. Of course passion and attraction are different. Female attraction fluctuates more than male attraction, primarily thanks to hormones, but once deep love is established, it’s hard to kill.

  201. Opus says:

    @Boxer

    It is a curious thing, to which you alude, namely the inability of women writers to – as you put it – see men as other than clods or oafs, that is other than when they see them as White-Knights – is it any wonder therefore that so many men try to present themselves as such a Knight!

    Take Jane Austen – and Persuasion – to which I refered. Long before I had ever heard of the Manosphere, and when the number of computers in the world probably could be counted more or less on the fingers of one hand, I could not help but observe that Miss Austen’s hero, a Captain Wentworth, was nothing but a cardboard-cutout character. Her Herioine Anne Eliot simply made me yawn. Again; such things should not be foisted on adolescent boys and I have since had the dubious pleasure – and to their great surpise – in the presece of their teacher, of telling a room full of A’ level Eng Lit students, previously indoctrinated into worship of St Jane, exactly how useless Miss Austen is. As for her elegant prose, it turns out that it is largely the work of her male editor!

    Compare that with say Leo Tolstoy – who never ever attended a creative writing class. Consider how he is able to get inside his female characters and even make someone like the dreadful Anna Karennina seems sympathetic. I need hardly say that his lead male characters – Pierre Bezuhov, Andrei Bolkonsky, even Vronsky just jump off the page as real people – as they say Russia consist of some one hundred and fifty million souls and the characters in Tolstoy’s novels. Women seem unable to write either decent male or even female characters without resorting to treating their males as either oafs or cut-out heros or as victims – consider Anne Radcliffe – I’ve only read her 1791 opus, Romance of the Forest – but her heroine spends the entire novel, fearing (i.e secretly longing for) a fate worse than death, eventually goes off with a rather effeminate metrosexual, and is simply too pedestalled and full of her own self-importance to take any action to improve her allegedly desparate situation even while she is more privileged than one could imagine. That is female fiction for you. I have already dealt with their poetic limitations. As for Philotophy it is exactly the same (Woolstecncraft, De Beauvoir. Judith Butler – all me me me me me).

    Finally on the question of science, we are now being treated to the amusing idea that – after all – women were great scientific originators. Only last week Google, you may have noticed, were holding out that a certain Ada Lovelace was the world’s computer pioneer. Do not be misled! Mrs Lovelace, that is to say Ada Byron, daughter of Lord Byron, Romantic Poet, Deadbeat-Dad, and Freedom Fighter, learnt some Arithmetic, and was introduced to a certain Charles Babbage, who promptly invited her back to his place to see his Universal Difference Engine, (the way men do) subsequently attended some of his lectures (and probably made the tea and cut the cucumber sandwiches) and took some notes – like a good shorthand-typist. She being a Byron turned to gambling, lost most of it, and died tragically young: Like Father; Like Daughter, but she is not a great scientest, nor for that matter a great Poet.

    I fear I have gone way off topic.

  202. Looking Glass says:

    @Opus:

    Might be slightly off topic, but that was an awesome post. I’ll now use “Universal Difference Engine” as a euphemism of the highest order. :)

    @Michael:

    Still got a lot of reading to go, as you’ve got to relearn a bunch of your personality outcroppings. You’ve gotten a little better, but some insights, both general and specific: (Though I will believe at this point that you are being mostly honest; normally takes a bit to trust someone around here, haha)

    – 1 person distracting you broke your frame control. So, obviously, you need to work on it. A LOT.

    – Once your frame got broken, the HB realized you weren’t being completely “you” in your previous interactions.

    – “Evil Bitches be Evil Bitches”, welcome to the real world. There’s a lot of evil out there, even in little interactions. Though that’s probably your first open c-block.

    – Agree & Amplify. Biting Humor. Negs. Learn to deploy them instantly. And if you can “throw up an eyebrow” like some of us can, that also helps.

    – This was your first trial run. IT WENT WELL. Take comfort in that. This is like a science experiment.

    – STOP. Being. So. Desperate. You probably don’t come off like that in person, but reading your posts, it’s really noticeable. You need to learn that life is a “long game”. Don’t shoot yourself in the foot by worrying about it. Go and buy yourself a new, nicely tailored suit, then go have a nice dinner by yourself. Enjoy your life, otherwise you’re just out to acquire a trophy and get laid.

    – Every interaction with women can be used as practice for Game. I’m not dating, nor have any desire to, at my current state in life. Doesn’t mean I don’t use this stuff to great effect. You don’t know how much better little bits of life are when people are happy to see you and serve you. (Seriously, Game nurses hard. Doctors visits are great. :) )

    – Hit the Gym if you haven’t. The higher Testosterone levels alone are worth the trouble. If you need advance on what to actually do, get a copy of Starting Strength by Mark Rippetoe. (Yes, I know there’s a lot of other authors out there, but it’s probably the best book to just throw at someone)

    – Love God. Love Life. Be Awesome. (That’s my motto. :) )

  203. Anonymous says:

    Yeah, she got bored and wanted to ride the “carousel” some more: “I do… until I don’t feel like it” (cash and prizes, please, to pay for getting a new stud).

  204. Opus says:

    @Looking Glass

    Thankyou.

    It had not previously occured to me that the term ‘Difference Engine’ [the first computer] might also be a euphemism. Splendid!

    It might also therefore (on the subject of euphemisms) and to prevent confusion, be helpful if I explain to the non-brits (that is to say most readers) what A’levels and O’levels are or rather, were. This is important, as, should you be visiting London, you might in phone-booths see cards with phone numbers where young ladies are offering both O and A levels. Hint: this is nothing to do with academic study. A’ and O’ levels were exams previously sat by (some) 16 and 18 year olds – perhaps something like your SATS (which I do not understand).

  205. FuriousFerret says:

    “The problem with those sites you mentioned is they ARE filled with low class people.

    They ARE filled with low class people.

    The people that write those sites are your class. Your just a lawyer not some 19th century aristocrat. Hell that being said, I think they are above your class. It’s not like the world needs more lawyers.

    Roosh V – Phd student or has a Phd in science before he left that industry.

    Roissy – Washington DC professional

    Krauser – Upper level London professional

    Krauser is probably the guy you want to study, he is very cerebal and he deals in street day game in London. He would fit your style.

    http://krauserpua.com/

  206. Anonymous Reader says:

    Michael – in addition to the excellent, excellent advice given by Looking Glass, please drop by some of the sites in the blogroll on this site, on the right hand side. Consider Alpha Game and Badger’s site for a start. You likely will find the conversation at one of them to be better suited to you at this time than the other, depending on your personality. By all means look at other links Dalrock has generously provided but I suggest starting at the top of the list for now. As Looking Glass has laid out, there are ways to deal with the situation you found yourself in.

    As for the “why” you ask, search up the term “dog in a manger”. Some people are just that way. Men and women express it differently, that’s all. (It occurs to me that many people will have never heard of this ideomatic phrase before – the decline of literacy standards has many implications, including impoverishment of speaking, and that implies an impoverishment of thinking.)

  207. You’ve said it before that women cannot love, and I disagreed. I still do. It’s been what, a year, give or take, and nobody ever came up with a sound definition of a love that women can’t feel.

    Note how you switched from a verb to a noun here. As Looking Glass explained very well, part of the problem is that “love” has too wide a meaning in English. There’s love as something you do, a commitment, and then there’s love as something you feel — an attraction or a response to certain values in the other person. I’m sure that women feel the second one, but I’m not sure they’re capable of the first one, at least in the way that men are. It’s instructive that St. Paul instructs men to love their wives, but wives to submit to their husbands rather than to love them. You might almost think they aren’t wired for that.

    The thing is, if a wife submits to her husband in all the right ways, he will feel incredibly loved. What men crave from a woman is loyalty, respect, and submission. (That’s why men become white knights: they assume women want the same thing from men, so they amp up the loyalty, respect, and submission toward women, who have little to no interest in those things.)

    Here’s something I don’t think women realize at all, and may have difficulty comprehending: When a man says “I love her” (and it’s not just physical attraction, but real love), he means that he spends his time thinking about what he can do for her — how he can help her to be a better person, how he can protect her and provide for her, and so on. Yes, he thinks about what he wants from her — sex, mostly — but his focus really is on what he can do for her. I just don’t think women do that, at least not on the same level, and certainly not automatically. Making a man’s mission her own is something she has to learn to do, and it probably requires a lot of grace. I just don’t see it happening naturally.

    At one time the boring loyal dude was a man a civilized christian woman gina tingled for.

    I think that’s a stretch. Women’s attraction triggers may be malleable, but not that malleable. I don’t think women ever tingled for “boring and loyal.” Two things were different. First, men hadn’t been hammered down by feminism and modern technology, so they weren’t as boring. A man who goes out and kills supper and brings it home for the wife to cook probably can’t be as boring as the guy who goes and works in a cubicle for a female boss and brings home what the government lets him keep. When people lived closer to nature and live wasn’t as comfortable, men necessarily were more masculine.

    The other thing is that women didn’t have so many options. If her husband got boring to her, she could only leave him if she was willing to give up her home and kids and face public scorn. She had an incentive to look for the best in her husband and find ways to stay happy, and she didn’t have friends and family and TV working against that. Maybe she didn’t still tingle for him after 10 years, but she hadn’t learned contempt for him either. There’s something to be said for mild contentment, if it means you have a good roof over your head and a good family to care for.

    John Derbyshire had a bit that I’ve always liked about marriage then and now:

    The narrator, Nick Jenkins, a sophisticated metropolitan type, has been commissioned in a Welsh regiment during WW2. He is in conversation with one of his sergeants, a man with a working-class background, from a small town in Wales. The sergeant has mentioned a relative of his, who got married a few years previously. “And how are they now?” asks Jenkins. “Why, all right,” replies the sergeant, somewhat puzzled. “Why should they not be?” For the worldly, upper-crust Londoner it is natural to ask how a marriage is going; for the provincial proletarian, the question is baffling. They met, they got married, that’s the end of it. How could anything else happen to them now? The sergeant has, to use Orwell’s words again, “the working-class outlook which takes it as a matter of course that youth and adventure — almost, indeed, individual life — end with marriage.”

    People didn’t used to expect the tingles to last forever. Now they do. At the same time, things have changed to make the tingles harder to maintain.

  208. I meant to add: I don’t know Greek, but the word from Corinthians in Latin is caritas, charity. Modernists prefer to translate it as ‘love,’ because they’d rather talk about gooshy feelings than doctrinal requirements, but that misses the point. Yes, love is part of it, but the kind of love that leads you to sacrifice yourself for others. That may or may not involve “feelings” of love. It’s a commitment to give of yourself for the sake of another. It’s the way we’re called to love God, and the way a man — at his best — loves his wife.

  209. Looking Glass says:

    @Opus:

    They don’t quite translate across, but the board answer would be this:

    O-levels are like a GED here in the States, it’s just everyone takes them. It’s, effectively a High School Equivalency test. Just more directly “tested” in the UK.

    A-levels are training to pass SAT or ACT like tests. They’re for admission to colleges/universities.

    @Michael:

    I somehow missed this on the first read through of your posts, but it does explain 1 or 2 things: Get off your high horse.

    Some of us here have exquisite manners, great diction, supreme tact and can out-elitist you at the drop of a hat. There are lots of high class and intelligent men around these parts. You conception of Class is non-operative at this point in time. Further, that’s not an argument for ignoring them.

    Thinking they’re loathsome or reprehensible, however, is a fully acceptable reason. Learn the difference.

  210. Höllenhund says:

    “People didn’t used to expect the tingles to last forever. Now they do.”

    Indeed, but I doubt unrestricted hypergamy is the only reason. The modern way of life breeds pathological behavior. The proliferation of singleness, single mother households, the sedentary lifestyle and the cocooned, alienated existence in general all contribute to it. We’re as removed from our natural state as never before. And when one’s life becomes severely unbalanced in one way, one will subconsciously seek balance in other areas.

    I believe this is a crucial reason why current women are coming up with more and more ridiculous demands towards men: they are just incredibly screwed up, both psychologically and physiologically. They’re pathological, stressed out, overweight, poisoned by all sorts of chemicals and plainly fucked in the head due to feminism. Motherhood isn’t there to calm their nerves, because they’re delaying it. Their subconscious is crying out for anyone to balance out their self-inflicted misery, which is why they’re looking for unicorn men (the perfect mix of alpha and beta etc.)

  211. greyghost says:

    At one time the boring loyal dude was a man a civilized christian woman gina tingled for.
    Cail Corishev
    Your response is what I had in mind boring loyal guy is a modern term for a solid reliable man. The man little boys were taught to be. Now they are hated and laugh at as beta chumps that need game.

  212. driversuz says:

    Cail:
    I mostly agree with you, except for this:
    ” Making a man’s mission her own is something she has to learn to do, and it probably requires a lot of grace. I just don’t see it happening naturally.”

    A woman who is well provided for, doesn’t need to learn this, so why would she bother unless it comes naturally? I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but aren’t you suggesting that women aren’t wired to respond in kind to men’s greatest contributions to species survival?

    I think it does come naturally, but is easily overridden by options and distractions. It already exists and it needs to be cultivated. Due to our emotional nature, I think women do need to be isolated and “sheltered” from the temptation to explore other options, once we have committed to our primary options; most of us need help and guidance in reinforcing our commitments. But within that sheltered environment, we can grow to a point where we have a great capacity to truly “become one” with out mates, and to love unconditionally. Once we reach that point, and it takes time for us to trust that our mates are everything we need them to be, we become immune to the influence of what society tells us we should WANT our mates to be. These days this doesn’t happen very often because we are not sheltered from temptation during the years when we should be sheltered. Feminism has made tempting distractions impossible to ignore, and it impossible for men to compete against them.

    I think any man who wants to get married in this culture, needs to know that although his future wife is probably capable of loving him as deeply as he loves her, the chances that she will ever live up to her potential, are very slim, and it’s going to take a lot of extra work on his part, work that he shouldn’t have to do.

  213. Cail Corishev says:

    Höllenhund, I tend to agree. I’ve been thinking lately that a lot of the personality disorders that get diagnosed today — BPD, NPD, etc. — are really unrestrained hypergamy combined with the modern lifestyle. (The explosion of them, mostly among women, calls for some explanation.) A girl used to find a husband around age 16-20, and from then on, he made a lot of decisions for her, so she could concentrate on the home and children. Today, the same girl spends her 20s and maybe part of her 30s being independent and deciding everything for herself (even if she’s not paying for it herself). We talk a lot about the cock carousel, and that’s a big part of it, but even if she’s not riding the carousel much or at all, she’s making all her own decisions about what classes to take in college, what jobs to apply for, where to live, what car to buy, what pet to get, etc. Basically, she has to fill the role of husband to herself, and she’s not designed for that. After a decade or so of trying to be everything to herself, with a few bad relationships thrown in for good measure along the way, is it any surprise she ends up narcissistic or borderline or otherwise completely unable to handle a normal relationship?

  214. I mostly agree with you, except for this:
    ” Making a man’s mission her own is something she has to learn to do, and it probably requires a lot of grace. I just don’t see it happening naturally.”

    A woman who is well provided for, doesn’t need to learn this

    Sure she does. Providing for a woman is no guarantee that she’ll submit herself to your headship, which is just another way to say “make your mission her own.” If it were, no rich man would ever be faced with infidelity or frivorce, because his well-provided-for wife would be too busy placing herself at his feet and looking for ways to support him to be getting into mischief. The two really have little to do with each other. A woman can submit herself completely to an unemployed drunk who beats her, and she can be strongindependent while married to a wealthy guy who makes her needs his #1 priority.

    aren’t you suggesting that women aren’t wired to respond in kind to men’s greatest contributions to species survival?

    Pretty much. I think they’re wired to respond, but not “in kind.” Even (maybe especially) in a perfect, blissful marriage, the way the wife loves is very different from the way the man loves. Also, as I suggested before, the man doesn’t need his wife’s love to be happy, if he has her submission. She does need his love, though, reflected in how he provides for her physically, emotionally, and spiritually.

  215. driversuz says:

    “A woman who is well provided for, doesn’t need to learn this.”

    I meant she isn’t required to, not that learning isn’t part of the process of coming to love.

    I agree that there are differences between male and female love, but I think those differences are peripheral. This is an interesting point, but I think it’s also conditional: “She does need his love, though, reflected in how he provides for her physically, emotionally, and spiritually.”

    A woman only needs her husband’s love if she loves him. To not have his love would be a devastating rejection. However if her “love” for him isn’t deep, she only needs his commitment to behave as if he loves her.

  216. SarahsDaughter says:

    A woman lives up to her commitment of her wedding vows she will enjoy the peace and laughter of her grand children and will live in security of family when her SMV is gone. That is all that matters.

    This is the vision I held firm to prior to truely understanding Biblical submission. It is a vision of a full Christmas table not complicated by divorce.
    It was that vision I held to when my husband emotionally detached from me (tough love) so that I would seek God for myself (not through him). I can only describe what resulted as emotional surrender (red pill if you like).

    In a casual conversation I told my husband I would never divorce him even should he be unfaithful. That his failings are for him and God to work out together and have no bearing on what I am committed in Covenant to do. I wasn’t prepared for my husband’s emotional response but have come to understand this is what Paul wrote of to the Corinthians.

    I know with certainty this commitment did not exist naturally within me until my husband loved me first. I also know now that I must recognize my solipsism and go to God in prayer. Not only is it not naturally within me, it is something I must pray continually for. If this action of love is what exists in men by nature than I do agree, it is not (without God) something a woman posesses. Much like honor.

  217. driversuz says:

    SarahsDaughter, if the seeds of this commitment did not exist within you naturally, you would not be able to develop it; you could only fake it for as long as it’s worth the trouble.

  218. If the seeds of this commitment… Your first response to greyghost regarding this was: “I’m still waiting for something that resembles empirical evidence.” and now we’re going to discuss seeds that exist within us naturally?

    I assure you, nothing was being faked, just as I’ve never faked a logical response. When it was missing from my awareness, it was just that, missing. Now, I suppose we can talk about illusive seeds and say that prior to reading The Republic, if the seeds of logic did not exist within me naturally I would not have been able to develop reasoning skills. Or should we use the example of physics?

    Are you a Christian, Suz?

  219. driversuz says:

    By “seeds,” I mean the innate capacity. Like all aspects of personality, there must be an inborn potential for love and commitment. Deep love and commitment do not suddenly appear, fully formed, in any woman’s heart. (In men, I’m not so sure.) They must be cultivated and nurtured because they start out small and vulnerable, like seedlings.

    I did not imply that you faked anything. My implication was that most women, who can’t or won’t cultivate their capacity to love, “fake it for as long as it’s worth the trouble.” If your love is genuine, you were born with the ability to love, and you chose to cultivate that love. And your husband’s love is somewhat like a greenhouse, it is the safe environment in which your love can grow.

    I too, had a pivotal moment in my marriage, when I was stunned to discover the depths of my husband’s love for me. As a woman, I had two options for what I would do with that knowledge. I could follow my hypergamous instincts and treat his love as a semi-material asset for me to hoard and use as I wished, or I could nurture my inborn ability to love, starting by “stepping off the edge of the cliff,” and trusting that his love would protect me. It’s no secret which path modern society had trained me to follow, and it took me a few years to be able to say with confidence, “That’s useful, but no thanks,” and stumble blindly (with little outside guidance) down the other path.

    But I had the option. If the seeds of deep love had not been in my heart, there would have been no choice, no love to develop.

    I am an agnostic Christian, a heretic by the standards of most Christians.

  220. SarahsDaughter says:

    Emperical evidence does appear to be your stumbling block, except, of course, for your insistence on something that you’ve subjectively decided is innate or natural within you.

    I’m afraid I have nothing to debate or discuss further here, you and I speak from very different perspectives. Neither of which contain that elusive emperical evidence.

  221. driversuz says:

    SarahsDaughter:

    You consider my “belief” that the physical human brain influences human behavior and emotions, to be “subjective?”

    You completely evaded every single point I made, by tossing out a “criticism” that applies to absolutely nothing. Then you turn up your dainty nose, flip your hair, and flounce out of the room?

    Here?

    Is this still “Dalrock?”

  222. If you’ll notice, what I said does not vary much from what greyghost said:
    Their is none will never be that you will ever understand and accept

    Or Joshua:

    “For those who believe, no explanation is necessary; for those who do not believe, no explanation will suffice.”

    However, I am a woman, to which you respond with:

    Then you turn up your dainty nose, flip your hair, and flounce out of the room?

    Do you see the difference?

  223. driversuz says:

    The difference in my response is not because you are a woman, the difference is because you argue like a woman. ” you and I speak from very different perspectives,” is similar to what Greyghost and Joshua said. The rest of your comment was designed to belittle and dismiss.

    Do you see the difference?

    While I have more sense than to take offense at Classic Grrrl Shaming Tactics, I guarantee you that a year ago, nine or ten of the smartest men in cyberspace would have jumped all over your little display of smug superiority, and you’d have found yourself slinking back to some “kinder, gentler” female-dominated space, with your tail between your legs.

  224. Pingback: Feral love | Dalrock

  225. Peacemaker says:

    “It didn’t feel *right* anymore”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s