Five years of keeping her happy proves David Swindle is a better man than you.

Dr Helen has been exchanging posts with PJ Media Associate Editor David Swindle about the famous sex excuse spreadsheet.  Swindle expresses contempt for the frustrated husband whose wife made their private life public:

I have absolutely ZERO SYMPATHY WHATSOEVER for this loser. Why?

Because it’s not a wife’s responsibility to be her husband’s happy whore, eagerly providing him with his orgasms on demand.

Note how Swindle takes the modern day moral elevation of desire/romantic love to its natural extreme, declaring that biblical/traditional wives are the new whores.  As I’ve previously explained, we have inverted the roles of marriage and romantic love.  Now instead of seeing marriage as the moral place to pursue sex and romantic love, we see romantic love as the moral place for sex and marriage.  While most don’t take this idea to the extreme that Swindle does, the basic premise is so common that virtually no one notices that we have adopted a new code of sexual morality.

Rollo expressed a similar moral sentiment in the discussion of the Radio Silence post:

…one truth becomes glaringly apparent: under our current social mores, premarital sex and its inspired urgency is a more honest, motivated and passionate proposition than married sex will ever be. 

However, there is a fundamental difference between Swindle and Rollo’s positions.  Swindle declares that a sense of duty is immoral while arguing for marriage, while Rollo is not only less strident but logically consistent by arguing that it is better for a man to keep a rotation of women in order to maximize the authenticity of the act.  If you believe that really liking something is the fundamental test of morality, obligation is anti-morality.  Under that point of view, marriage and duty are at best foolish, and are at worst (under Swindle’s view) evil.

Swindle’s profound internal contradiction about marriage becomes more understandable when you read further, as he trots out conventional wisdom which would make Oprah proud:

Dissatisfied husbands, want to know the secret to having sex with your wife whenever you want? It is not your wife’s responsibility to be ready to go on command, it’s YOUR responsibility to know your wife so well that you are capable of seducing her anytime. When you want to have sex with her you don’t ask her, you put her in the mood yourself. It’s really that simple: know you wife well enough so you can push the right buttons, say the right things, and create an environment where sex just naturally happens.

Unfortunately, that’s more work than most men are used to for getting orgasms. Twenty or thirty minutes of close attention, massage, and foreplay first? Taking the effort to really get to know your wife’s unique preferences and turn-ons? Learning how to read her moods? That’s effort — and energy.

I’m a bit disappointed in Swindle.  He forgot to mention foot rubs.  And what about learning her love language?  Giving her a footrub while speaking her love language is guaranteed to get her hot.  If it doesn’t, you probably aren’t doing enough choreplay.

Dr. Helen accurately identifies Swindle as a white knight, but I would argue his windmill tilting comes from him assuming the position of hostage negotiator.  Swindle has convinced himself that his ability to keep his wife happy in the face of laws and a culture which encourage her to divorce him is proof of his superiority to other men.  Swindle actually has a long track record of espousing this view.  Well, it is long when compared to the length of his marriage.

Back in May of 2011 Swindle wrote a post explaining why columnist John Hawkins shouldn’t be concerned about modern marriage.

John, let me tell you something directly: people with hearts as big as yours shouldn’t worry so much about divorce. I don’t foresee you having a hard time making a woman feel loved, cherished, and appreciated — as long as you put your mind to it. The failure rate of divorces says more about our broken human nature than a problem with the institution of marriage itself. Marriage is a job like any other. (I sometimes feel like when I’m clocking out at NRB that I’m just clocking in with the Swindle-Bey household.)

If you are good enough John, she will be happy.  If she is happy, she won’t push the detonator.  Those men who are divorced by their wives deserve it.  Swindle continues:

Marriages don’t have to fail when both people in them take them seriously and don’t allow them to crumble under the pressures of life and our own selfish, broken nature. Read a few books on marriages — The Five Love Languages is very useful — spend enough quality time together, and pay attention to their needs and things will work out.

As I mentioned above, Swindle is an old hand at explaining that husbands just have to be good enough and marriage 2.0 will work just fine.  He gave the advice to Hawkins just before his second wedding anniversary.

This Monday will be my wife April and my second wedding anniversary. It hasn’t always been easy. We’ve had big changes, angry fights, and plenty of surprises. But we’ve both grown and are starting to evolve slowly into better people than we were before we came into each other’s life.

Now that he is three years wiser and his family has grown (they now have a dog), Swindle has of course moved on to newer books explaining the secret to a great relationship.  He now knows that the secret to a good marriage is to follow the Bible, at least the Bible as reinterpreted through Jewish mysticism.

You can’t make this stuff up.

I should note that not elevating sexual desire and romantic love to a position of moral barometer doesn’t mean diminishing or eschewing either one.  Recognizing that liking something doesn’t make it moral doesn’t mean you don’t like it.  The irony is that by elevating romantic love and desire out of their rightful place both become much harder to sustain.  The (real) biblical model of marriage does work.  It isn’t guaranteed to produce passion and romantic love, but there is immense wisdom in the design.  I’m always amused when people mistake my wife and me for newlyweds (only when we are out without our kids).  When my wife explains that we have been married for twenty years the look of surprise is comical.

Moreover, I strongly disagree with Swindle that a good marriage is all about work.  Swindle describes being married as a second full time job, but my wife has frequently expressed puzzlement at the claim that a marriage is about work.  She is right.  Marriage is far more about commitment than work.  While we have the same kinds of disagreements that every couple has, most of the time our marriage is downright fun.  It is far more like a lifelong slumber party than work.  Much of this is due to the closeness which comes when the path to the marriage bed isn’t strewn with obstacles, and much of it comes from being blessed beyond what we deserve.  Our marriage isn’t proof that I’m a better man than others, but our marriage and countless others like it are proof that the biblical model which so offends Swindle is infinitely wiser than those who would try to improve upon God’s design.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Foolishness, New Morality. Bookmark the permalink.

426 Responses to Five years of keeping her happy proves David Swindle is a better man than you.

  1. Pingback: Five years of keeping her happy proves David Swindle is a better man than you. | Manosphere.com

  2. Neguy says:

    He’s starting to get to the zone where wives will suddenly discover how unhaaaappy they are. We’ll see how it works out for him.

    I find the brazenness with which on the one hand people insist with righteous indignation that women owe nothing and have absolutely no obligations to men, while on the other demanding that men “Man Up” and do their duty. I’ll be eagerly awaiting the day that a guy like Swindle claims men have absolutely no obligation or responsibility to their wives.

  3. AdmiralBenbow says:

    I don’t foresee you having a hard time making a woman feel loved, cherished, and appreciated — as long as you put your mind to it.

    The quickest way to frivorce is to work to make your woman feel loved, cherished, and appreciated. Treat her like a doormat and she’ll stay with you forever.

    Bro, do you even game?

  4. theasdgamer says:

    “I have absolutely ZERO SYMPATHY WHATSOEVER for this loser.”

    What do we call other men who blame men for the wife’s sex strikes? Manginas.

    “Because it’s not a wife’s responsibility to be her husband’s happy whore, eagerly providing him with his orgasms on demand.”

    Ok, so sex is optional. Sounds like roommates, not lovers. Makes you wonder what their vows were. How romantic.

    If you believe that really liking something is the fundamental test of morality, obligation is anti-morality. Under that point of view, marriage and duty are at best foolish, and are at worst (under Swindle’s view) evil.

    Important point. Marriage necessarily involves vows, which are obligations. Sometimes those obligations require doing things that we don’t like. Hence, if being forced to do something that we don’t like is immoral, then taking on vows is immoral; hence, marriage is immoral under Swindle’s view.

  5. Sisyphean says:

    In part he’s right though. If you’re in the top ten percent of men, a catch that your wife feels lucky to have (but never lets you, the husband, know for fear of giving you the idea that you have options) then this guy is absolutely right: marriage 2.0 can work fine. The big lie being that regular guys out there can do enough dishes, rub enough feet, or take her out for enough candle light dinners to make up for not being that rich, hot, and funny/talented guy all today’s women are told they deserve.

  6. HawkandRock says:

    “It’s really that simple: know you wife well enough so you can push the right buttons, say the right things, and create an environment where sex just naturally happens.”

    Not a troll but what’s the difference between what Swindle advocates here and ‘marriage game’ as championed by Dalrock, Athol K. et al.?

    I’m really not seeing it….

  7. deti says:

    Here’s the meat of what Swindle said in response to Dr. Helen:

    “What I advocate for in my post goes far deeper than just rituals and more foreplay. I put the philosophy embedded in Shmuley Boteach’s three books on Jewish mysticism and Biblical marriage on the table. It’s not that this is just some magic trick that will result in more sex, it’s that I’m advocating that both husband and wife together choose to embrace a religious attitude toward sex and marriage instead of being secularists.

    “A sexless marriage is not an actual problem — it’s just one outward symptom of a deeper disease. In focusing on fixing sexlessness in a marriage we miss the source of what’s driving it. In any marriage — apart from where physical illness prevents partners from performing — when either husband or wife all of a sudden isn’t interested in sex the reason is so obvious and simple it seems silly to point it out: something else exists that is more important to them than their marriage. They have found a new idol and their devotion to it will destroy their lives as a result. They are engaged in self-sacrifice in service to their new deity.”

    He’s partly right, but doesn’t get all the way to it. In a sexless marriage, the problem is that the withholding party is committing a deep wrong against the other and is in sin. The problem is that the withholding party is refusing to uphold (usually her, could be his) end of the bargain.

    Note that in this answer he seems to have abandoned the notion that to get sex, the husband has to court his wife constantly, must be able and willing to seduce her at any time, and must do all the work to “earn” her love. Now, he seems to be saying that if there’s no sex, one or both of them have something in their lives that takes precedence over the marriage.

  8. Swindler’s advice sounds less geared toward married men than it is toward menstruating women on the Serengeti. “Watch your step and always be on the look-out.”

    The fact that a wife will be more receptive to her husband’s physical needs if he’s more receptive of her emotional ones goes without saying. But I get the impression that there’s far more reciprocal on his part than there is hers.

  9. Dalrock says:

    @HawkandRock

    HawkandRock says:
    July 29, 2014 at 8:20 am (Edit)

    “It’s really that simple: know you wife well enough so you can push the right buttons, say the right things, and create an environment where sex just naturally happens.”

    Not a troll but what’s the difference between what Swindle advocates here and ‘marriage game’ as championed by Dalrock, Athol K. et al.?

    I’m really not seeing it….

    1) Hubris. No one I’m aware of on the marriage game side claims it is simple, just do X and Y is guaranteed to happen. See Vox’s recent reply to a reader for just one example:

    There are two things to keep in mind here. First, not all marital problems can be solved. Second, all strategies for addressing and attempting to solve marital problems have to be viewed in terms of estimated probabilities. It’s not about knowing the magic word or striking the magic pose, but rather giving oneself the best chance of success. And sometimes that best chance is still a long shot, which appears to be the case here.

    2) Swindle is clueless. He advocates putting out the fire with gasoline, we suggest water or a fire extinguisher. Yes, we both suggest using something to put out the fire, but the quality of the advice matters.

  10. Aquila says:

    Excellent post, Dalrock. Swindle’s life sounds completely awful, going from one job to the next. Swindle says it’s not a wife’s job to be her husband’s “happy whore,” but the truth is… it is her “job.” And it’s his job not to deprive her either. The Bible warns against depriving your spouse of sex, lest Satan come along and provide temptation. If a wife won’t satisfy her husband, she should be aware that there’s very likely a woman out there who will fill the void she created.

  11. deti says:

    The other funny thing about this whole exchange is how it absolutely exposes that “conservative” and “Christian” and “religious” organization and media outlets are just as clueless about sex and marriage as the liberals they claim to oppose. Here they are, openly advocating supplication and pedestalization – things that we here know don’t work.

    PJ Media is an unabashed, openly conservative online media source. They’re friendly to “conservative Christian” organizations and religious groups. They advocate marriage and are hostile to divorce, infidelity, extramarital sex and the like.

    This is exposing what I’ve finally come to realize: Conservatives and Christians like to bash the sexual revolution and all the ills it brought to American society. The dirty little secret is that those conservatives and Christians obviously wanted that sexual revolution too. They wanted to take part in the sexual experimentation, the divorcing in the event of a loveless, sexless marriage. They wanted to have their premarital and extramarital fun too, and to escape judgment for it.

    But the real point is that the feminist narrative on how relationships work has taken hold so deeply and reached down so far, that even the right wing conservatives believe it. Even conservative Christians don’t know or read what the Bible says about female nature (and the Bible has A LOT to say about that).

  12. jf12 says:

    A great ending. “Much of this is due to the closeness which comes when the path to the marriage bed isn’t strewn with obstacles, and much of it comes from being blessed beyond what we deserve. Our marriage isn’t proof that I’m a better man than others, but our marriage and countless others like it are proof that the biblical model which so offends Swindle is infinitely wiser than those who would try to improve upon God’s design.”

    EVERY study/experiment in which the woman agrees to have sex every day, and follows through, produces a much better wife. It doesn’t matter if she is consciously trying to be Biblical, merely that she is consciously trying to do what pleases her husband instead of how she feels.

  13. the bandit says:

    In your article on closeness, an early commenter noted “Nobody calls a lady a whore by having sex with her husband.” Apparently, those who practice the inverted romantic marriage actually do.

  14. jf12 says:

    re: “The fact that a wife will be more receptive to her husband’s physical needs if he’s more receptive of her emotional ones goes without saying.”

    I suggest continuing to go without saying it, because it is not, in fact, factual. It “feels” right, which I’ve come to know is almost proof that it is wrong. More seriously, women concern themselves more with their husband’s needs when he is less concerned about hers, unfortunately.

  15. deti says:

    bandit:

    ““Nobody calls a lady a whore by having sex with her husband.” Apparently, those who practice the inverted romantic marriage actually do.”

    Well, you see, that’s why the husband has to make her feel good about the sex. He has to make her feel loved, cherished and cared for. If she is having sex because he wants sex, that’s dirty and base and evil. If she gives in to his wanting sex, then SHE is a whore — she is dirty, base and evil just like he is. That won’t do. So we have to do something to help this along; and that’s to make her feel good about what she’s doing.

    She has to feel good about it so she will want sex; and if she could only feel that way, then she’ll have sex. So the husband must jump through this and that hoop; must do this and that and the other thing, to make her “feel loved” and thus “push all the right buttons”.

  16. okrahead says:

    Be advised as well that if you post any comments disagreeing with Swindle he will use his position as a PJMedia editor to promptly ban you from the site.

  17. Here’s to his future divorce! You deserve it, man!

  18. jf12 says:

    @Neguy re: “I find the brazenness with which on the one hand people insist with righteous indignation that women owe nothing and have absolutely no obligations to men, while on the other demanding that men “Man Up” and do their duty” …

    A great start that cries out for a flourishing finish. I suggest “and do their duty, to be verminously repugnant.”

  19. If you have to keep courting your wife, everyday, for the rest of your life… are you really married and can you court women more willing in the meantime?

  20. jf12 says:

    Apparently one of the right button to push is the time stamp on the time clock.

  21. theasdgamer says:

    “push all the right buttons”

    Sounds like his wife is a Sex-o-matic 5000.

  22. Dave Swindle can go and swindle other men into marriage.

  23. theasdgamer says:

    Apparently one of the right button to push is the time stamp on the time clock.

    Careful not to push the speed dial to her frivorce attorney.

  24. Funny how these “happily married men” are constantly providing ample proof of why marriage is such a bad idea..

    They spend so much time trying to convince men that they have all the obligations in marriage and that their future wives have none that it isn’t surprising that, outside of marriage, men have far more options and choose being a sinning bachelor to a sexless chump. In marriage, you will spend all your time worrying about pleasing your wife and stopping her from pushing the divorce button, that you won’t be doing much else, especially sex, this in turn shows men that marriage is nothing but a one way proposition and that you can more easily pursue your life’s work outside of marriage, even though you sin by having sex outside of it.

    It seems Swindle now has to convince men that sin in marriage is better than sin outside of it. Keep swindling, Swindler, you’re sure to convince a few “losers”!

  25. Opus says:

    So, I am on the case. According to Linked-In, David Swindle has no less than 47 skills but amongst that number I cannot find ‘making your wife happy enough to give you orgasms’, or even ‘persuading your wife to make you a sandwich’ indeed the subject of marriage does not occur even once. David has a degree in English with a special emphasis on Creative Writing; perhaps that explains David’s view – as I see it – that a husband should act as an unpaid Gigolo.

    I gain the impression that sex in the Swindle household may be rather thinly rationed which strikes me as rather sad and odd for a young couple. I’d definitely have a large dog for comfort if that were my situation.

  26. jeff says:

    Mr. Dalrock and Mrs. Dalrock,

    I stumbled on this site recently. Try to put this in perspective as a christian man who has been submissive to my wife, but both of us trying to change and follow the biblE and God’s plan for marriage. It has been difficult. I’ve read athol kays site, but wish not to take advice from a non christian.

    Is this site too blue pill/red pill for my wife? She is feministic in some ways. I am wondering is this something i can tell her about? She is prone to critique something like this when it doesnt benefit her sensensibilities.

    Thank you in advance

  27. ballista74 says:

    Funny how these “happily married men” are constantly providing ample proof of why marriage is such a bad idea..

    Or married folk in general…I really haven’t come across a case on these blogs or in real life that hasn’t been a gigantic red pill against marriage. Yes, really.

  28. I’m four years in my marriage and my wife and I have been together over nine years. I agree marriage isn’t all about work but it does take time. Swindle is very one sided when he says the the husband is suppose to be in tune with his wife but isn’t the wife suppose to do the same?

    I’m dumbfounded that he goes to call a wife a whore. I questioned his faith in God and i wonder what other areas will he go into which I believe most of his readers are women who supports everything he says.

  29. greyghost says:

    He doesn’t have kids. As soon as honey gets herself knocked up she is stepping off from that pussy of a man. And besides all of that the cat’s name is Swindle. ha ha ha ha

  30. NeverGiveUp says:

    “In their case the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled, which says, ‘YOU WILL KEEP ON HEARING, BUT WILL NOT UNDERSTAND; YOU WILL KEEP ON SEEING, BUT WILL NOT PERCEIVE; FOR THE HEART OF THIS PEOPLE HAS BECOME DULL, WITH THEIR EARS THEY SCARCELY HEAR, AND THEY HAVE CLOSED THEIR EYES, OTHERWISE THEY WOULD SEE WITH THEIR EYES, HEAR WITH THEIR EARS, AND UNDERSTAND WITH THEIR HEART AND RETURN, AND I WOULD HEAL THEM.’ “But blessed are your eyes, because they see; and your ears, because they hear. ” Mathew 13:14-16

  31. If marriage had to require this much hard work by the husband, constantly coddling his wife and staying on guard against her whims, humanity would have given it up long ago.

  32. okrahead says:

    Also, note that it is the “Swindle-Bey household”, not the Swindle home. That right there tells you all you need to know.

  33. Sounds like his wife is a Sex-o-matic 5000.

    Yep. It’s funny how these white knights dehumanize women far more than any PUA does, seeing them as machines that will perform correctly as long as you maintain them on schedule and provide the right inputs, but that have no responsibility for their own output.

  34. I don’t value Paul higher than the Torah the way Pagan Christians do. This is a theological disagreement about which verses are more important than others.

    Straight from the horses mouth.

    If you value Paul’s advice, you’re a Pagan Christian…

  35. Always amusing to see a man blame other men for their problems with their marriage. No, don’t bother to blame the wife for anything, she’s as pure as snow.

  36. I’m just clocking in with the Swindle-Bey household.

    Hyphenated surname noted without comment.

  37. Opus says:

    One of the reasons civilisations was able to get going was because monogamy ensured that men could involve themselves with things other than fighting over or pandering to women. Women could then produce the next generation safely and with a reasonable assurance of the provision of resources. Swindle appears to be encouraging adultery even as his marriage remains childless.

    How deliciously ironic therefore that in Turkish the word Bey means Chieftan.

  38. Swindle says it’s not a wife’s job to be her husband’s “happy whore,” but the truth is… it is her “job.”

    That’s the crux of it. If it’s not the wife’s “job” to satisfy her husband’s sexual needs, why is it his “job” to satisfy her emotional needs? There are two possible reasons:

    1) Men aren’t as important or as deserving of happiness as women.
    2) Physical pleasure is a lower thing than emotional pleasure — perhaps even evil.

    They believe a mix of both. As white knights, they naturally believe that women are superior to men in every way. But there’s also a strong strain of gnosticism going around that says spirit good, body bad. So sex can only be good if it has some spiritual or emotional purpose, even if that purpose is “experimenting and finding yourself.” It’s also good if it brings the couple closer together spiritually, a la Theology of the Body. But when it’s just about making babies or releasing tension at the end of the day, then it’s unseemly at best, and you’re a brute to expect it.

  39. Morpheus says:

    “Helen accurately identifies Swindle as a white knight, but I would argue his windmill tilting comes from him assuming the position of hostage negotiator. Swindle has convinced himself that his ability to keep his wife happy in the face of laws and a culture which encourage her to divorce him is proof of his superiority to other men. ”

    I have a theory that men who so fervently advocate this sort of husband-wife dynamic actually are experiencing a sort of Stockholm Syndrome type effect.

  40. imnobody00 says:

    Being a foreigner, the thing I dislike the most about (many) American men is this attitude of “I have all the answers. Listen to me, you loser. If you have problems, it’s because you are not doing things right. Follow my example”. Often said with a lot of smugness and a tone of “I am the mega-man and everybody else is a bunch of losers”. For example, Matt Walsh and Swindle thinking three years of marriage makes them the worldwide experts about how making a marriage work. Although I criticized Matt Walsh in his own blog when it comes to relationships between sexes, he is good at pointing the absurdness of liberal ideology in other aspects, by writing texts I agree with. But I find reading these texts insufferable because of his complete smugness and his attitude of “Everybody is a bunch of losers. I don’t know why a superior man like me bothers with this”. (I am exaggerating but not so much).

    The same can be said about some guys who come to the manosphere and write comments. With the attitude “you are worms. Listen to me. I have all the answers. Even Jesus should listen to me”.

    I have had this experience in my work. We had a consultant from Arizona. The guy was good but not that good. A B-, so to speak. The guy was always saying that he was very good, very professional and was the best. We were doing a project in Central America and, in the documents he wrote, he praised himself by writing how successful was his previous project in Armenia (in Asia).

    I think this is why MRA does not progress. Every man is so smug and so full of himself that any cooperation is futile. This is why any divorced man is labelled as a loser and feminism has won. Don’t whine, baby! Be a macho MAN! Anyway, it is a cultural trait that does not cease to amuse me. And I wonder what is the reason for that.

  41. Oscar says:

    Swindle is a lost cause. He used to be a diehard Leftist, then a Conservative Christian, now a Jewish Mystic – all within ten years. He’s more flighty than any girl I dated in college. Who know what he’ll believe next year?

    By the way, Earl left this comment at Dalrock’s post: “What if a Wife Doesn’t Regulate the Couple’s Sex Life?”

    taterearl says:
    February 1, 2013 at 10:31 am

    “Newsflash: God made sex to be okay in marriage and marriage only. Nobody calls a lady a whore by having sex with her husband.”

    Dave Swindle does!

  42. Here’s to his future divorce! You deserve it, man!

    I’m sure he’ll agree, when she explains that he’s no longer doing a good enough job of keeping her happy.

  43. okrahead says:

    I see Swindle prefers the Torah to us “Pagan Christians”. Does that mean if his wife cheats on him he advocates stoning her to death? I see no other way to read that remark.

  44. ballista74 says:

    I have a theory that men who so fervently advocate this sort of husband-wife dynamic actually are experiencing a sort of Stockholm Syndrome type effect.

    In other words, “Misery loves company”?

  45. greyghost says:

    Funny how these “happily married men” are constantly providing ample proof of why marriage is such a bad idea..

    no kidding feministhater reading this guy’s stuff say’s MGTOW, gandarusa, and surrogacy. Makes you what to go to a gay married couple and ask them where they got that baby from. There is no way I would get or have gotten married listening to the Swindle’s love story.

  46. Is this site too blue pill/red pill for my wife? She is feministic in some ways. I am wondering is this something i can tell her about? She is prone to critique something like this when it doesn’t benefit her sensibilities.

    Jeff, your wife should not read this site or even know that you are reading it or sites like it. Even submissive, traditional wives struggle with the content here at times. Read here yourself, ask questions if you like, and use what you learn to improve your marriage if you can, but don’t tell her what you’re doing. It will do her no good to see the man behind the curtain.

  47. cicero says:

    “Dissatisfied husbands, want to know the secret to having sex with your wife whenever you want?”
    Wrong question. It should actually be. Why are men dissatisfied to begin with?

    “It is not your wife’s responsibility to be ready to go on command, it’s YOUR responsibility to know your wife so well that you are capable of seducing her anytime.”
    Well then if that is the case then it is not his responsibility to at a moments notice be ready willing and able to protect her and even lay down his life for her. It will be her responsibility to know and protect her own life and well being, including her own happiness.

    “When you want to have sex with her you don’t ask her, you put her in the mood yourself.”
    Well if she wants to have an emotional conversation and connection with her husband then why does she not put him in the “mood” for that as well?

    “It’s really that simple: know you wife well enough so you can push the right buttons, say the right things, and create an environment where sex just naturally happens.”
    And why doesn’t the same apply to her? Know your husband and push his buttons, say the right things and create an environment where sex just naturally happens

    “Unfortunately, that’s more work than most men are used to for getting orgasms.”
    No those are too many hoops to jump through to be intimate with your wife in order to have an orgasm with her and her alone.

    “Twenty or thirty minutes of close attention, massage, and foreplay first?”
    Interesting question mark at the end. Seems like a hit and miss affair form his personal experience.

    “Taking the effort to really get to know your wife’s unique preferences and turn-ons?”
    Would that include reading her mommy porn novels?

    “Learning how to read her moods?”
    Wait… I thought he said that if you press the right “buttons” you will get the mood and bingo you become the vampire seducer of her dreams… sorry unique preferences (aka fetishes) and turn-ons.

    “ That’s effort — and energy.”
    That is called wasted effort and wasted energy.

  48. Dalrock says:

    @jeff

    Mr. Dalrock and Mrs. Dalrock,

    I stumbled on this site recently. Try to put this in perspective as a christian man who has been submissive to my wife, but both of us trying to change and follow the biblE and God’s plan for marriage. It has been difficult. I’ve read athol kays site, but wish not to take advice from a non christian.

    Is this site too blue pill/red pill for my wife? She is feministic in some ways. I am wondering is this something i can tell her about? She is prone to critique something like this when it doesnt benefit her sensensibilities.

    Thank you in advance

    I wouldn’t bring her here. It isn’t just that this is a primarily male space (women are welcome, but it is a male space). The dynamic would be all wrong. You don’t want me teaching and leading your wife, you want to be the teacher and leader. I wouldn’t try to explain everything to her. Instead, learn how to lead, and change your frame of mind from the modern (cross dressing) one to the biblical one. As you do this, especially if you are leading her in more mundane areas, she will tend to naturally follow. Study biblical marriage and understand the role of headship, and then learn how to playfully Game her. Then as appropriate teach her about biblical roles. Don’t send her to the Bible (or a website), teach her. She can of course view the verses to back this up if she wishes, but don’t start there. Teach her, as the Bible says a husband should (1 Cor 14:34-35, Eph 5:25-28).

    From how you describe your dynamic she probably won’t be open to sitting down for a formal Bible study (very few wives are), or to a lecture on what the Bible says (again, very few are). But you don’t have to do this, you can work it naturally into normal discussions. My wife always wants to know what I’m reading; what is it that has captured my attention so deeply? I’m guessing your wife will as well. Read the Bible (as you should), and when she asks you what you are reading (what you just learned), tell her about the fascinating and profoundly wise things you are reading. Just don’t overdo it by trying to get it all done at once, and don’t focus solely on the topic of marriage. In fact, you might want to start elsewhere and work your way to marriage. Also, don’t turn the conversation into a lecture or formal Bible study, unless that is what she is wanting.

  49. greyghost says:

    Swindle-Bey household

    Is he one of those fairies that took his wife’s name? There is no way that is sustainable. A sure sign that she doesn’t respect him is that she won’t have his child. When she leaves she will leave pregnant with not necessarily his child but with his child support. Enjoy the decline good conservative churchian.

  50. BuenaVista says:

    I really wonder how it is, that someone with two years of experience at a complex activity, is a public, shaming expert. It’s a little like a student pilot, working on his instrument rating, sneering at a retired Naval aviator.

    Be that as it may, he has multiple abstractions (Boteach, Oprah pop sentiment, Jezebel how-dare-you contempt, any productivity guru (“hey it’s just a job being married”)) that support his certainties. That’s the first clue that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, as much as he suggests he’s got it all figured out. It also suggests that he is somewhat desperate to proclaim his just-graduated honeymoon evidence of an ‘evolved’, ‘successful’, union. He protests and justifies too much. His frustration and true feelings emerge in the word choice of “whore”. That’s a pretty weird projection, right there.

    I’m not surprised by his incredulity, because all of my married friends in the intelligentsia, and in my religious circle (sola scriptura conservative), speak the same way. With the secular, we need to sponsor the wife’s “journey.” With the so-called religious, we are to worship the idol — the counterfeit god — of wifely happiness, whether or not she can define it, and abase ourselves if we do not.

    My biography, which includes 25 years of marriage, inclines me toward Rollo’s conclusions. I have a catch-and-release, one-at-a-time-and-then-again approach to companionship. I know it’s time to throw one back in the pool for a bit, when, after a few months of my attention and devotion, they are openly rude, self-serving, or manipulative. I cannot imagine being married again to a woman who knows that ALL of the legal and financial cards are on her side of the table. On top of which her knowing that I would sooner chain-saw an appendage than get divorced again. I suspect I’m getting more action than Dave Swindle, nevertheless.

  51. Dalrock says:

    @Opus

    I gain the impression that sex in the Swindle household may be rather thinly rationed which strikes me as rather sad and odd for a young couple.

    Indeed. He repeatedly refers to other men trying to get their orgasm’s from the orgasm dispenser without first doing the required work; what lazy fools! This is such a bizarre outlook, yet he must not have understood how much he was giving away by using such language.

  52. JDG says:

    Well done once again Dalrock.

  53. From Rewriting the Rules:

    http://therationalmale.com/2011/09/13/rewriting-the-rules/

    One of the most common things I’m asked on SoSuave is “how do you keep a marriage fresh Rollo?” Among my responses to this is usually how, contrary to the advice column Oprah-standard answer, a good relationship should be effortless. All of this “marriage is a constant work” is bullshit meant to keep a husband in a constant state of qualifying for his wife’s intimacy intended for her long term frame retention. Women in marriage and LTRs want to push past that nagging competition anxiety, they want security, not just financial, but emotional, and the security that comes from a locked in commitment in knowing they are the only source of sex & intimacy for their spouse/partner.

    […]One of the reasons sexual frequency declines for women after a romantic commitment is that the urgency of sex that was necessary prior to the commitment is replaced with the agency of sex being a reward / reinforcer within that LTR. In single, uncommitted, non-exclusive life, sex, while being very enjoyable, becomes a proving ground for most women. In essence, it’s the free samples before the buy, and its urgency is fueled not only by (hopefully) genuine attraction, but also the at least subconscious knowing that she is in a sexual marketplace of competition. It’s one of the few times in life when a woman must qualify for a man’s approval. And admittedly, most men are so sex-deprived or so inexperienced early on in life that the sell is usually not a tough one for her. However, on some level of consciousness, even when the sell is virtually assured, she is aware that she could be replaced by a better competitor.

    This then is the contrast for committed sexual interaction. The dynamic now shifts from qualification sex to utility sex. Now before anyone jumps to conclusions, yes, sex is still enjoyable, it can still be passionate, and she can definitely want it, but the impetus shifts. Sex is now a tool. In her uncommitted sex life it was a tool for qualification; in her LTR life it’s a tool for compliance. This is pretty obvious, and it may be more or less extreme depending upon the woman’s disposition or how important a particular issue is to her, but make no mistake, there isn’t a woman on the planet who doesn’t take her sexual agency into account when dealing with her LTR / husband. That agency may be more or less valuable – dependent upon her looks, demeanor, sexual availability, etc. – in comparison to the sexual market value of the man she’s paired with.

    Swindle-Bey simply hasn’t learned this lesson yet, but retains his pre-marriage blue pill idealisms about marriage, and desperately wants affirmation for them in the face of such a glaring contradiction of them in the Spreadsheet Guy’s sex log.

    Swindle-Bey’s ego-investment in this idealism is challenged, so rather than reconsider that idealism with critical insight he must defend that investment by characterizing any guy who doesn’t comply with that investment as a failing loser – who’s sexlessness is due not so much to his inattentiveness to his wife’s need for emotional / physical foreplay, but rather more to his lack of complying with Swindle-Bey’s own idealism.

    Swindle-Bey’s idealism is just the same Beta pedestalization carried over from single-and hopeful to married-and-hopeful.

  54. Don’t whine, baby! Be a macho MAN!

    Yes, articles like this are a sort of male counterpart to the humble-bragging that women do. They’re like the woman who “complains” about cleaning up after her kids when she’s really bragging about how well she does it and fishing for compliments. He’s saying, “I don’t even need to understand this ‘game’ stuff, so I must be more Man than you. In fact, I’m so chock-full of Man that my wife doesn’t even have to make an effort; my astronomical levels of Man just draw out her natural womanly perfection in response.”

    And it works beautifully, because complaining IS unattractive in a man, even when the complaint is completely valid. So every time some men start to discuss wifely rebellion, he can immediately grab the macho high ground by calling them whiners. If they let him reframe it that way, they’re toast.

  55. Read through the comments of any post about Spreadsheet Guy and notice the commonalities of men in ‘acceptable’ marriages wherein they hold the Frame of that relationship. One thing you’ll see is that each of these marriages maintains a degree of competition anxiety, most due to at least a passive sense of dread on the wife’s part. This situation, the satisfying / acceptable marriage, mirrors that of a relationship in non-exclusive dating and long-term, unmarried, monogamy.

    Essentially a good marriage is one in which both parties behave as, and have the tacit understanding of, a non-married or dating couple.

    So, considering this, beyond a religious mandate what’s the advantage of marriage if the underlying behavioral set of a good marriage mirrors that of being single anyway? When the overwhelming consensus and even feminine social convention expectation is that “sex tapers off after marriage”, why get married if you already have the foresight to know that the power dynamic will shift away from what will make for a good marriage?

    Equality or complementarity, the basis remains the same; good marriages are the ones in which the couple retain the sexual anxiety and urgency of being single – not an endless qualification on a man’s to merit the frequency and intensity of the sex he most likely enjoyed premaritally or if not, then the earlier stages of his ‘virgin’ marriage.

  56. “The Kosher Sutra”? Did anyone catch the comment where he slammed citing Paul and called people who did so “Pagan Christians” for embracing their “pagan roots” more than their “Jewish roots”. I’ve run across this HRM fruit-nuttery before and I’m not even slightly shocked that it is raising it’s head in the middle of the feminist white-knightery. It’s entirely fitting.

  57. HawkandRock says:

    imnobody00 says:
    July 29, 2014 at 9:36 am

    “Being a foreigner, the thing I dislike the most about (many) American men is this attitude of “I have all the answers. Listen to me, you loser. If you have problems, it’s because you are not doing things right. Follow my example”. Often said with a lot of smugness and a tone of “I am the mega-man and everybody else is a bunch of losers”.

    I think this is why MRA does not progress. Every man is so smug and so full of himself that any cooperation is futile. This is why any divorced man is labelled as a loser and feminism has won. Don’t whine, baby! Be a macho MAN! Anyway, it is a cultural trait that does not cease to amuse me. And I wonder what is the reason for that.”

    This comment is very well taken. A solid 30% of advice, even here — which I consider one of the more thoughtful sites in the manosphere — boils down to bluster: “Your problem is that you are not more like me….allow me to grace you with accounts of my exploits as a dancer, weightlifter, general tall, handsome, natural alpha leader….blah blah blah…”

    Online almost everyone is an ‘alpha’ grandmaster in the art of making women wet their knickers. LOLZ

    Being an American, I didn’t realize that this was an American thing. I just thought it was a man thing — i.e., predisposed to dick measuring contests no matter the forum.

    If you stick with it though you will find there are some well intentioned men here who have their egos in check and can offer some invaluable advice. Their writing is calm, clear and logical and doesn’t need bluster as a crutch. Learn to filter out the dudes who bench press 350 (online) and this site is more than worth it.

  58. imnobody00 says:

    @HawkandRock

    Being an American, I didn’t realize that this was an American thing. I just thought it was a man thing — i.e., predisposed to dick measuring contests no matter the forum.

    Only for the record, I am from Spain and live in Central America. I know South America and I have lived in the States. Only in the States I have seen this attitude. Maybe it is present in some countries I don’t know but it’s not a (universal) man thing.

    If you stick with it though you will find there are some well intentioned men here who have their egos in check and can offer some invaluable advice.

    Of course, this is why I am here. NAMALT. For example, Dalrock is not like that. But this is an attitude that always surprises me.

  59. jf12 says:

    Rollo piledrives to bedrock again: “beyond a religious mandate what’s the advantage of marriage if the underlying behavioral set of a good marriage mirrors that of being single anyway?”

    That’s just it. If Marriage 2.0 necessarily involves endless (happy-ending-less) courting (as well as endless passing of shit tests, and endless scurrying around punching time clocks), then there is no reason to marry because it’s not actually religious (Christian Bible-based) marriage anyway.

  60. greyghost says:

    “It is not your wife’s responsibility to be ready to go on command, it’s YOUR responsibility to know your wife so well that you are capable of seducing her anytime.”
    Well then if that is the case then it is not his responsibility to at a moments notice be ready willing and able to protect her and even lay down his life for her. It will be her responsibility to know and protect her own life and well being, including her own happiness.

    cicero
    You have to put a little dread seasoning on that.
    “Well if that is the case then it is not his responsibility to at a moments notice be ready willing and able to protect her and even lay down his life for her. (this is where we add a little seasoning) It will be her responsibility to make herself someone he will willingly risk protecting and saving.

  61. Oh yeah, you saw that too okrahead. I really think Swindle-Bay (is that like Pirate Bay) has had his “lump” leavened with the teaching of the Pharisees. Chucking Paul for Lurian Kabbalism is a sure sign of this. It’s all wrapped in a Churchian package with a humanist bow. Jesus said that their disciples would be twice the children of hell that they were. How many generations have gone by since? 30? x2? Yikes.

  62. deti says:

    @ Rollo:

    “ good marriages are the ones in which the couple retain the sexual anxiety and urgency of being single – not an endless qualification on a man’s to merit the frequency and intensity of the sex he most likely enjoyed premaritally or if not, then the earlier stages of his ‘virgin’ marriage.”

    That’s an accurate description of what most women require now to remain married to a man – sexual attraction usually fomented by low-intensity tension and fear. It’s not much different from what a Game-aware man understands is going on in his marriage – low level hypergamy which, if not satisfied, threatens at any time to ramp up into full on alarm mode and propel her to nag her man into improvement or to seek a better man.

    Each participant to the marriage thus holds a sword of Damocles. Mutually assured destruction.

    Until about 60 years ago it wasn’t so. Most men held elevated positions above women anyway in an artificially constructed patriarchy which has since been dismantled. Most women didn’t have time to worry about hunky handyman; they were busy enough with things like day to day survival.

  63. feeriker says:

    Swindle has convinced himself that his ability to keep his wife happy in the face of laws and a culture which encourage her to divorce him is proof of his superiority to other men.  Swindle actually has a long track record of espousing this view.  Well, it is long when compared to the length of his marriage.

    While I most certainly don’t want to see any man burned by divorce, should it happen to Swindle, I think some hardball questions are in order. Specifically, I would see him grilled on why his own methods failed him, and given the fact that they failed him, why 1) should any man listen to another word that comes out of his mouth, or 2) he thinks his wife SHOULDN’T be divorcing him, given the fact that he is obviously a miserable failure as a husband by his own standards.

    Having to answer such questions will leave him only three options:

    1. Hamsterbate, spin, and deflect, whining that his audience has “misunderstood and misinterpreted” him;

    2. Abandon his beshrapneled white knight armor and blame his wife, or

    3. Admit that he is a clueless moron who has been giving toxically bad advice all along and that he deserves to be kicked off stage and into well-deserved obscurity.

    Count on him choosing option 1.

  64. PuzzledTraveller says:

    To me it sounds like this Swindle guy dislikes women and is a misogynist. I mean, if he believed all the things he espouses how come he didn’t go all in for equality and change his last name to Swindle-Bey too? Sounds like he has real issues with gender roles and discrimination. Maybe he needs to take a class or something and educate himself.

    It appears that in the Swindle-Bey household women are seen as helpless victims with no agency of their own. Incapable of making decisions on their own or controlling their own behavior. He demonstrates his belief of these things by relating to us the manner in which he treats his wife.

    Look at how he debases his wife and refers to her in terms of some non-human machine or a job that he can manipulate, and “push buttons” on to get the response he wants. This man comes across as selfish and as just using his wife for his own ends without any regard for her wants.

    If anyone appears to be treating his wife like a whore it’s this guy. In my opinion he is manipulating the poor woman into giving him sex. Spreadsheet guy was just being honest and asking straight up. This guy Swindle-Bey, no, he’s playing psychological games with her far worse than any pickup artist I’ve ever heard of and trying to mask his scheming sex plots and manipulations as some kind of moral crusade in order to soothe his ego’s doubts about how he might measure up to other men.

    It’s the Internet sex-hero equivalent of “Hahaha, I have a girlfriend!” “Hahaha, I had sex with her.” “You guys are losers!!!!”

    How can she give informed consent if this man is using all sorts of psychological manipulation tactics against her to force her to give in to his twisted sexual impulses? In fact, he seems to be a man who seems to put into practice the opposite of everything he imagines himself to be and rails against. Except of course when he does it, it’s romantic. When another guy tries to convince his wife to have sex, he’s a loser.

    Finally, he doesn’t know jack about being married. Pontificating like a smug child on the subject. Come back and talk to us in ten years when you’re two or three kids in and up to your eyeballs in a mortgage and tuition. What are you arguing about now? Dishes? Which table set to get from Ikea? Whose turn it is to walk the dog-child you adopted? Hehe. Dummy. Just you wait.

  65. Highwasp says:

    Taking Swindle’s “wife logic” and layering it upon Churchianity: If your prayers aren’t answered – – “pray harder” – – mix in some ritual and worship and jewish mysticism, then presto – – God is happy and you’re wife doesn’t divorce you. If He is not happy then she’s not happy and you aren’t praying hard enough or maybe you aren’t a ‘real’ Christian…

  66. greyghost says:

    Dalrock you keep this up you will be the cultural yardstick. Some relationship witch doctor will have his blog make “dalrock”s. That will be enough . check out this cat here How dare you http://crosscut.com/2014/07/16/religion/121033/inside-mars-hills-big-meltdown/
    I wonder if Brink is going to be publicly whoring for applause with out second thought.

  67. Novaseeker says:

    Only for the record, I am from Spain and live in Central America. I know South America and I have lived in the States. Only in the States I have seen this attitude. Maybe it is present in some countries I don’t know but it’s not a (universal) man thing.

    It arises from the largely individualist culture in the US. Ties — familial, communitarian, other — are weak here, and the norm is a lot of individualism. This is further coupled with a lot of mobility, further weakening ties. Social context is constantly shifting, constantly new, and mostly revolving around the individual movement and individually-negotiated limited ties, again based on time and context. The upshot of this is that hierarchy among men is constantly being tested and retested, again and again, because context is constantly shifting — such that the norm is almost incessant hierarchical jostling as if people had never met each other. This settles down in contexts that are slightly more permanent (say, the workplace or, for people who maintain significant family ties, the extended family), but even there is subject to a good deal of shift due to mobility and a constantly changing context of men.

  68. LiveFearless says:

  69. deti says:

    Here, let me clear up my prior comment for the benefit of haters who will read here.

    The female tension and fear is premised on the man’s attractiveness and the ever present potential that he could replace her should the marriage end.

    There are at least two marriages in the manosphere in which the female half confesses to more or less this dynamic being quite active in those marriages. There are more such marriages, I’m sure.

  70. PuzzledTraveller says:

    @Rollo

    “Essentially a good marriage is one in which both parties behave as, and have the tacit understanding of, a non-married or dating couple.

    So, considering this, beyond a religious mandate what’s the advantage of marriage if the underlying behavioral set of a good marriage mirrors that of being single anyway? When the overwhelming consensus and even feminine social convention expectation is that “sex tapers off after marriage”, why get married if you already have the foresight to know that the power dynamic will shift away from what will make for a good marriage?

    Equality or complementarity, the basis remains the same; good marriages are the ones in which the couple retain the sexual anxiety and urgency of being single – not an endless qualification on a man’s to merit the frequency and intensity of the sex he most likely enjoyed premaritally or if not, then the earlier stages of his ‘virgin’ marriage.”

    Yes.

    Right there it is. What every young man needs to know. Also what every old fool considering jumping into the arena a second time should remind himself of.

  71. jf12 says:

    On topic but with different emphasis. “Love” (in quotes) as an excuse for immorality. Swindle-Bey’s big error is thinking that “what makes the woman feel better about herself” defines love.

    http://www.christianpost.com/news/theologian-says-love-is-the-new-cultural-apologetic-affirming-immoral-activities-such-as-assisted-suicide-123832/

    I think this development was due to elevating principles of 1 Peter 4:8 above James 5:20 (note to Swindle-Bey: I didn’t even have to mention Paul).

  72. Robin Munn says:

    @LiveFearless –

    That capital W speaks volumes.

  73. Aquinas Dad says:

    The fact that Dave Swindle writes for PJ Media is one of the reasons I ignore PJ Media.
    As some know I spend time writing and speaking on courtship, engagement, and marriage from the viewpoint of Catholic teaching and guys like this and his rants really tick me off.This attitude that ‘women are gatekeepers’ or that ‘sex is contingent upon the man being a certain way’ is rather upsetting and something I see too often.
    There is a situation that comes up too often (and the recent Excel Spreadsheet of Doom reminded me of it a lot). It goes something like this:
    I give a presentation, often to young marrieds (less than 7 years of marriage, under the age of 45) and (almost always the guy) approaches and says
    ‘My wife and I are struggling with the marriage debt’
    [a key idea of Catholic theology on matrimony is that sex is a debt each owes the other within marriage]
    This always boils down to ‘she wants sex far less than I do so we don’t have much sex’.
    Although a non-zero number of times the wife is complaining about too little.
    Anyway, I sit with her either privately or with her priest and have this discussion (general);
    Me: “So you and your husband are struggling with the marriage debt?”
    Her: “Yes. He wants it too much (sometimes they admit it and say ‘more than I do’)”
    Me: So how often are you comfortable and happy with?”
    Her: [most common answer] “twice a month”
    Me: And how often does he want?”
    Her: [most common answer] “It feels like every day!”
    Me: [I ask first] “He says he has told you he would be happy with 3 times a week” [again; most common answer]
    Her: [some variation of 'we tried that and it wasn't enough for him']
    Me: Well, he tells me you had sex 4 times one month, then once the next, and now you are back to once or twice a month”
    Her: [again, this is so common I anticipate it] “He is just putting so much pressure on me! I have to be in the mood, can’t he understand that it doesn’t just happen for women?”
    Me: “So what you are saying is that you want him to control himself?” [THIS is the point I am aiming for in the early discussion]
    Her: “Yes! That’s it! Why can’t he control himself?”
    Me: “So what you really want is for the two of you to reach a compromise and for him to control his libido so the compromise can work?”
    Her: “Sure”
    Me: “So part of love and marriage is self-control; control of your libido so you can please the other person. To prove that you care for them enough to control yourself, right?”
    Her: “Yes”
    Me: “So you agree that that means that YOU must control YOUR libido, too, right?”
    Her: “What?”
    Me: “If you expect your husband to control his sexual desires for your sake, surely it is just that YOU control YOUR sexual desires for his sake, right?”

    This often gets a little messy for a few minutes.

    Eventually,
    Me: “So now that we agree that both of you owe each other not just love, appreciation, and help around the house but *each* of you *owes* the other self-control of desire, then we can reach a real compromise, right?”
    Her: “Yes [usually with an 'I guess']”
    Me: “OK, then. Since you want sex about twice a month and he wants sex and lest 3 times a week a safe compromise is that you will both pledge to have sex at least 7 times each month, right?”
    Her: “I think I can do that, yes”
    Me: “Good. Now, it will be your responsibility to keep track and make sure you are sticking to the minimum frequency. Use a calendar app or something so both of you can see it and know what is expected of you so there are no surprises. heck, if I was you I would use, oh, google calendar and set dates so you can prepare ahead of time. he knows when it is going to happen, you know when, etc. You don’t need to do it forever, but especially the first 90 days it will help both of you with your self-control”

    etc.

    Does this always work? No. But it works often enough I keep using it. Most women have been told their entire lives that the man is responsible for ‘making her want it’ to the point that they quite directly don’t realize that they are both avoiding it and responsible for avoiding it. I have had several women tell me something along the lines of ‘why didn’t my mother tell me to schedule sex? Now that I have learned to control myself that way I like sex more and want it more than 7 times a month!’

  74. That’s just it. If Marriage 2.0 necessarily involves endless (happy-ending-less) courting (as well as endless passing of shit tests, and endless scurrying around punching time clocks), then there is no reason to marry because it’s not actually religious (Christian Bible-based) marriage anyway.

    Exactly, marriage is a sham. Entered into by fools. I wanted to get married, properly at a young age. What age, wisdom and Dalrock and others have taught me, is that it is nigh impossible to obtain currently. It’s a game to women, they really have turned marriage into such a minefield, even the ‘good’ ones have to be shunned until they get it, apoligise and beg forgiveness.

  75. Oscar says:

    feministhater says:
    July 29, 2014 at 9:28 am

    “‘I don’t value Paul higher than the Torah the way Pagan Christians do. This is a theological disagreement about which verses are more important than others.’

    Straight from the horses mouth.

    If you value Paul’s advice, you’re a Pagan Christian…”

    Acts 17:11 – Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

    The Scriptures the Berean Jews “examined every day to see if what Paul said was true” were definitely NOT the New Testament, since it hadn’t been written yet. They examined the Old Testament (including the Torah) and consequently found Paul’s words persuasive because Paul’s preaching and writing are consistent with the Old Testament.

    After all, Christ fulfilled the Law and the Prophets by his birth, life, ministry, death, burial and resurrection.

    Swindle has no clue what he’s talking about concerning Scripture OR marriage. The disjointed, convoluted, rambling nature of his writing is a result of his confusion.

  76. TFH says:

    His surname is ‘Swindle’?

    Gee, there are times when the jokes about such a person giving advice write themselves.

  77. TFH says:

    Keep in mind what I wrote about manginas doubling down. I called this since the start of 2010 – they are getting less and less per unit of groveling, so double down.

    Using Caps? Casually calling the man a loser?

    Yep. Doubling down in desperation.

  78. PuzzledTraveller says:

    @imnobody00

    “Only for the record, I am from Spain and live in Central America. I know South America and I have lived in the States. Only in the States I have seen this attitude. Maybe it is present in some countries I don’t know but it’s not a (universal) man thing.”

    It’s just kind of the way we are. Perhaps because the people who founded our country were of the type of personality that could throw all caution to the wind, travel across the ocean for unknown lands and tame them. Individualists, with the ability to operate in groups for the common good, but loathe to sacrifice an inch of individual freedom unless sorely needed.

    The positive side of that is it compels us to do things like found a nation, write the Constitution, liberate Europe from Nazis, put men on the moon, feed a large chunk of the world, and invent almost all of modern medicine and technology. (Not all, but almost all.)

    The negative side is that it can rub other cultures the wrong way I suppose. We also let our ego get us into trouble. Like, oh Vietnam and things. Don’t take it personal, because it’s not. We don’t really take it personal when we see that other cultures are envious of out success and hate on us.

    The bottom line is that Americans are winners, and we’re not ashamed of it nor do we feel that we should not toot our own horn about it. It’s why we inspire the rest of the world and why tens, perhaps hundred of millions would give their left nut to be here if they could. Everyone wants to be on the winning team.

    Winners build from one success to the next, and winners have the expectation of winning. When they lose, they dust themselves off, figure out why they failed and come up with a new plan to win.

    Losers don’t. When a loser wins they think they “got lucky” They don’t know how to take that win and build on it. When they lose, they think that was the expected outcome anyway so no need to do much deep thinking on why it happened.

    I suppose you can say the same things when observing patterns of behavior with guys dealing with women. Or you can say the same thing about why it is that some cultures just never seem to get it together and advance without the help of others, and some cultures do things like put men on the moon and liberate Europe from Nazis, etc.

  79. anonymous_ng says:

    @Aquinas Dad, that’s an excellent story. Good work.

    @Deti “The female tension and fear is premised on the man’s attractiveness and the ever present potential that he could replace her should the marriage end.”

    The single happiest marriage I know has such a dynamic, either of them could replace the other in about three minutes, but only with someone about 90% as awesome, and they both know it.

    It doesn’t hurt that she’s got a STEM degree and runs an IT company from their house while at the same time being mother to their kids.

  80. I like that point Aquinas Dad,

    “Me: “So part of love and marriage is self-control; control of your libido so you can please the other person. To prove that you care for them enough to control yourself, right?”

    That is the part that Swindle is missing, that women have responsibilities and have made vows and promises as well. I think Swindle is typical of modern feminists in that he STARTS off in the position that even though he has taken a covenant vow with his wife that she is incapable of keeping her part in it.

    The way he frames it we might as well be getting married to a grapefruit or a gallon of milk, if we do are part they won’t spoil as fast but they all have expiration dates and if we leave them unattended in a warm place all bets are off.

  81. cicero says:

    @greyghost
    “You have to put a little dread seasoning on that.’
    “Well if that is the case then it is not his responsibility to at a moments notice be ready willing and able to protect her and even lay down his life for her. (this is where we add a little seasoning) It will be her responsibility to make herself someone he will willingly risk protecting and saving.”

    Okay I will play devils advocate and agree with you that one should ad “dread seasoning”.

    So how would you apply this “dread seasoning” to let her actually realize and feel the fear (true dread) as well as the actual depth and extent of the sacrifice involved? Seeing as you find yourself in a nanny state.

  82. PokeSalad says:

    …surprised his name is first in line, actually.

  83. imnobody00 says:

    @Novaseeker.

    Great explanation. It remembers me the fact that individualism is seen as a virtue in the States and a vice in anywhere else. “Proud of Texan individualism!”, some banners said. In other countries, being individualist = being selfish = being evil.

  84. PokeSalad says:

    [[Rollo piledrives to bedrock again: “beyond a religious mandate what’s the advantage of marriage if the underlying behavioral set of a good marriage mirrors that of being single anyway?”

    That’s just it. If Marriage 2.0 necessarily involves endless (happy-ending-less) courting (as well as endless passing of shit tests, and endless scurrying around punching time clocks), then there is no reason to marry because it’s not actually religious (Christian Bible-based) marriage anyway.]]

    This is pure gold. When the (apparent) goal of churcianity is reached to make marriage no different than the single sexual marketplace, why should any male Christians sign up?

    Thus the church itself destroys marriage, whist pretending to ‘save’ it.

  85. TFH says:

    Wait, so David Swindle doesn’t have kids, even after 3 years?

    Adamangina Lee also does not have kids.

    Remind me again what the primary reason for Marriage is?

    I would like to see a picture of what David Swindle’s wife looks like. I suspect more similarities will emerge among manginas who think Marriage 2.0 is a great contract for men, and their entry into such a contract makes them experts.

  86. TFH says:

    Dalrock,

    He repeatedly refers to other men trying to get their orgasm’s from the orgasm dispenser without first doing the required work; what lazy fools! This is such a bizarre outlook, yet he must not have understood how much he was giving away by using such language.

    A man more psychologically prepared for a future alimony payment order, we will not find.

  87. Ras Al ghul says:

    I wonder what his wife looks like . . .

    And I’m reminded of the adage that no man should count himself lucky (or for that matter better) until he is on his death bed.

    No man should brag about his marriage these days, its like pride going before a fall

  88. MacAllistar says:

    I must be doing something wrong, I don’t do any chores yet i still get it whenever i want! Could it be her upbringing by a woman who understands what men want and need?

  89. TFH says:

    I would normally hate to pry into someone’s personal life just to see if a pattern emerges, but here is a picture of David Swindle and his wife, April Bey :

    https://www.facebook.com/april.bey.1/media_set?set=a.802203670458.2428806.20715954&type=3

    1) She has not taken his last name.
    2) She, like Adamangina Lee’s wife, could stand to lose several points of BMI.
    3) No kids, of course. No, because that would be ‘misogynisitic’.

    So, from Adamangina Lee to David Swindle, marrying a fat woman, and having no kids, seems to be the basis for a mangina declaring themselves a tremendous expert on marriage. At least Lee got his wife to take his surname. The pattern is pretty consistent based on these two examples. The hubris that *they* will never get divorce is priceless, and unfortunately makes us in fact want these manginas to get caught in the system they propagate….

    I should add that these manginas themselves make me become a type of person I would rather not become.

  90. I think part of that pre-marriage blue pill idealism, particularly for churchies, also involves a lot of self-righteous pride. A lot of guys, go into marriage thinking that they’ll buck the trend and show everyone how great marriage can be by being an SJW for marriage.

  91. Dalrock,

    Although I hardly post anymore, I do read your posts. Thanx again for taking on the idiotics like Swindler. Amazing he is an expert after a couple of years of marriage.

    I wish I had your blog available to me 30 years ago…

  92. TFH says:

    Rollo,

    I think part of that pre-marriage blue pill idealism, particularly for churchies, also involves a lot of self-righteous pride. A lot of guys, go into marriage thinking that they’ll buck the trend and show everyone how great marriage can be.

    Note how he got one of the worst deals imaginable….

    1) She is fat.
    2) She does not take his surname,
    3) No kids yet, and maybe never (Married couples don’t usually get a dog *before* having a kid).

    The overcompensating pressure under which he is gloating about how this makes him an expert (much like Adam Lee did) is covering up some extremely entrenched humiliation on his part.

    Then again, I think our primary goal in the androsphere should be to ensure that all costs get transferred to manginas/whiteknights, and away from red-pill (or future red-pill) men. That is the natural order. David Swindle is evidence that this process is working quite well.

  93. JDG says:

    I don’t value Paul higher than the Torah the way Pagan Christians do.

    The very definition of a pagan is a person holding religious beliefs other than those of the main world religions.

    So who is the pagan, someone who actually adheres to biblical teaching, or the guy who picks and chooses what to believe from the Bible while publicly declaring himself not a Christian?

    http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2014/07/21/would-you-want-a-husband-this-incompetent-at-turning-you-on/?singlepage=true&show-at-comment=792299#comment-792299

    Or is it possible to retain partial beliefs of one or more of the world’s main religions and not be a pagan?

  94. okrahead says:

    David Swindle is also a gay “marriage” advocate, and, as I noted earlier, is well known for blocking commenters who disagree with him from any website where he has editorial privileges. He also maintains, bizarrely enough, to be following the Torah. Since I know what the Torah says about homosexuality I can only conclude the man has unresolved sexual issues.

  95. Boxer says:

    TFH:

    Then again, I think our primary goal in the androsphere should be to ensure that all costs get transferred to manginas/whiteknights, and away from red-pill (or future red-pill) men.

    You are the Che Guevara of this society — not the one it needs, but the one it deserves — and my hat’s off.

    Poast Moar

    Boxer

  96. Sounds like he’s a leftist plant..

  97. okrahead says:

    Homosexuality, while embraced by many pagans, is definitely not accepted by any writer n any of the Holy Scripture.

  98. Mr Swindler that is..

  99. Morpheus says:

    Aquinas Dad,

    Your comment appears to me to be proof positive that in fact most wives are not really that sexually attracted to their husbands. Perhaps “settling” for women is quite common. Their husbands are resources for providing, not objects of sexual desire

  100. TFH says:

    Boxer,

    Thanks.

    Realistically, the best thing the androsphere can do is facilitate the transfer of costs onto manginas, since that is something women want too. It is the one area where women and MRAs have a common goal, as both detest manginas/whiteknights.

    Effectively, the red-pill vs. blue-pill bifurcation actually lets man to decide whether he is in a 90% tax bracket or a 0% one, because that is how far apart the lives are of a properly red-pill man vs. a mangina.

  101. Novaseeker says:

    Your comment appears to me to be proof positive that in fact most wives are not really that sexually attracted to their husbands. Perhaps “settling” for women is quite common. Their husbands are resources for providing, not objects of sexual desire

    Which is basic AF/BB.

    The issue in the current cultural context, however, is that the lifting of sexual rules has enabled this natural tendency to run amok, such that it is now openly espoused by alpha females themselves (Sandberg’s bit about this is basically openly advising an AF/BB life plan for women in general). Fun and sex are for guys you wouldn’t want to marry, whereas you marry guys who are sensible and competent, but not the guys you would “have sex with just for fun”.

    My “guess” is that this desire is wired into women, but the reason why it’s become more of an issue is due to the sexual revolution, which basically made it much easier for women to indulge.

  102. greyghost says:

    Cicero
    tell the truth and let the woman natural selfish interest carry the load. Let her think her insecurities and restlessness are a good thing. Especially if she has a husband ,you. The light in her life is you that is all she needs. I tell my wife about the story of the woman that died and nobody knew until they smelled her. My wife told a story of a career woman 50 plus divorced of course whose son that lived way out in Abilene came all the way to Arlington (Tx.) to go to the Parks Mall with his family to shop. he didn’t go by moms house. I told my wife she did that to herself. 65 plus k a year and lonely. Her leadership style was hysterical and caused a lot of emotional issues with the staff. I have a sister that is 53 now and she goes on vacation with other old bitches she has an on-line dating profile now. She’s lonely. Nobody wants a woman over 40. I never hide that from mrs greyghost.
    Right now people are really into prepping for the collapse or a new financial crisis buying guns, storing food looking for property outside of the city etc. I don’t see spread sheet guy dying for his wife when the neighbors 23 year old daughter and tells him she’s worried about things. There is a lot more to a husband than romance and financial security. Even a rotten loser of a husband is better than no husband as shown by the ex wife that got it all and is in her 50’s married to a pot head. (It is all a part of the feminist strong woman rebellion but the point is she still desires a man in her life)
    Game as practice in modern marriage is just a away to safely show reality and trigger the emotions that reality brings in a woman. This allows the natural selfishness to run her life .It is the drama. This is why romance has replaced morality of duty in marriage. The fear of being alone for a woman is healthy for her in the big picture. It also motivates her to choose a solid beta male in the first place. Now to a stupid cunt growing up immersed in feminism that sounds awful and cruel to women. now compare that to Brink or that Ericson chick referring to her children as thing 1 and 2 etc. etc.

  103. Kevin says:

    I think Dalrock is the height of the manosphere (I am a Christian married man).

    I agree that Swindle calling wives who willingly have sex with their husbands even when they dont want to whores is pretty low. I have not seen much lower. Dalrocks insight that this represents the ultimate inversion of romantic love and Godly marriage is profound. Love and attraction now replace God.

    But for many of these people God is not in the equation. If you are Godless and have no interest in God why have sex if you don’t want to. What is the humanistic morality of marriage that would make a workable solution for society since the current is awful? Sadly I don’t see much chance of widespread conversion so we need a workable morality.

    Interestingly I think love and a lack of selfishness would be enough. Women who refuse sex to their husbands cannot truly care about them or have compassion on them. It’s cruel and heartbreaking. I would not deny my wife that I love the house I pay for. Because I don’t want her to suffer in the rain. But many wives will not reciprocate – not for duty or love or compassion or self sacrifice or anything.

    Often I feel like someone above said – lots of these articles and posts are people who are already blessed bragging about it without clear connection between cause and effect. I suspect Athol of married man sex just has a high testosterone wife and so he would have lots of sex no matter what he did. We need more websites by men who had no sex for years and figured out how to change their marriages and wife’s responses to welcome sex. Any websites or experiences like that?

  104. Lyn87 says:

    GOL writes,

    That is the part that Swindle is missing, that women have responsibilities and have made vows and promises as well. I think Swindle is typical of modern feminists in that he STARTS off in the position that even though he has taken a covenant vow with his wife that she is incapable of keeping her part in it.

    David Swindle clearly has little understanding of either Paul or the Torah if he believes what he writes. He has the idea that women do not possess agency, because that is the only logical conclusion we can draw from his words (words he wrote, then edited and revised – surely more than once – to express exactly what he thinks).

    To Swindle, his wife April Bey is a Cherry 2000 (except April doesn’t look like the then-22-year-old Pamela Gidley did when she played the sex-bot in the movie of that name). Since he’s a self-declared expert on making a wife want sex, and it apparently involves pushing the right buttons in the correct sequence, starting with a significant amount of time to warm up the circuitry, what else could he mean?… he talks like a technician trying to explain how to start a complicated piece of machinery, rather than a guy who knows the first thing about women.

    Machines have checklists that allow the operator to derive the desired output by performing the correct manipulations. By his definition, if a man isn’t getting the desired SEX output from his wife, it can only be because he took shortcuts on the checklist. The woman herself has no say – if the husband follows the checklist then “sex just naturally occurs“… geez, he sounds like one of those internet game-gurus that swindle (pun intended) guys out of their money with promises to teach them “How to Score With Hot Chicks! (have your credit card ready and call in the next ten minutes for a special offer…)”

    So Swindle says women have no agency. I say otherwise, and so does God in more places than I can easily count. Women DO have agency, and they are not machines where the “correct” input reliably produces the desired output. But since Swindle thinks that women are machines with no agency, he has to gloss over (scripture and…) the fact that his wife made vows – and implicit in those vows was her promise to be sexually available to her husband – her moods be damned. A vow from a machine is nonsensical, it literally has no meaning… and a vow that is only binding when she feels like honoring it is no vow at all.

    Since Swindle certainly accepted vows from his wife, logically he must reject the idea that she is categorically immune from the possibility of blame – machines don’t make vows: people do. People can be bad… even when those people are women.

  105. MO_Dufus says:

    My wife just made a very foolish mistake. She asked me for my expectations within our marriage so she could share them with her (actually shared but separate) counselor. Knowing full well, she would not share anything that would show her failure to be responsible for her actions, I satisfied the request by sending them directly to the counselor. One of my Spiritual gifts is knowledge of Scripture so, it is sufficient, to say my expectations became a Theological dissertation on marriage from my perspective, fully showing how my expectations were consistent with Scripture and far too long to re-post here.

  106. davidvs says:

    @HawkandRock says:

    “Not a troll but what’s the difference between what Swindle advocates here and ‘marriage game’ as championed by Dalrock, Athol K. et al.?”

    I have two answers.

    First, Swindle is advocating being a follower (doing what the wife requests because she claims it will help) whereas Husband Game is being a leader (doing what you know will help, whether or not the wife requests it).

    Second, Swindle is advoating demonstrating the message “you are worthy of comfort”. Husband Game advocates balancing that message with “you are attractive” and “I am attractive”.

    http://davidvs.net/hobbies/masculinity-connection.shtml

  107. mojohn says:

    @TFH wrote that: (Married couples don’t usually get a dog *before* having a kid).

    At the risk of making a “solipsistic” statement, I’ve been married for 36 years to my one and only wife. We have known hundreds of couples in our married life in 4 different cities. Of the couples we knew when they were first married, it was extremely common to get a pet before starting a family.

    Now, I bring this up not to pick, but to make the point that manospherians don’t help themselves or each other when we make categorical statements not substantially grounded in fact. This kind of behavior gives our opponents the opportunity to dismiss stronger points by discrediting a poorly sourced claim like TFH’s.

  108. deti says:

    “The bottom line is that Americans are winners, and we’re not ashamed of it nor do we feel that we should not toot our own horn about it.”

    That’s the other half of it; the first part being what Nova explained about individuality as being a common thread in American culture.

    The US still claims a culture of “rugged individualism”. We still have the individualism part but we’re rapidly losing the “rugged” part. We USED TO be a nation of winners. We’re now a nation of whiners. Few are willing to work hard, to suffer, to do their own work, to risk failure, to get back up and try again after failing. The truth is that failure, or at least mediocrity, is protected and cocooned in safety nets and government programs and mindless distraction. Success is rewarded, sure; but the failures and mediocrities don’t starve under our rapidly collapsing social safety net program. Query how long this will last, though.

  109. feeriker says:

    Sounds like he’s a leftist plant..

    It certainly wouldn’t be the first time a “Conservative” organization was co-opted by such. In fact, given what others here have mentioned of Swindle’s personal history, his erstwhile leftism being a prominent feature of it, he fits the textbook definition of neocon. In other words, a Trotskyite leftist in see-through conservative costume. ‘Nuff said.

    The dirty little (not so) secret is that “Conservatives” devour that sewage as if it was mother’s milk.

  110. mojohn says:

    @Deti, your last paragraph (1:32 PM) reminded me of The Eagles’ song “Get Over It.”

  111. TFH says:

    mojohn,

    These are all anecdotes (as are yours), but I know of no one (who did not already have a pet from their single days) who went out to get a pet after marriage but before kids. I used the word don’t usually, which you conveniently ignored.

    Usually, a pet is gotten after the kids are old enough to grow up during the pet’s lifetime. Having the pet around before kids makes the workload very high, and is also not ideal for the infant’s health.

    but to make the point that manospherians don’t help themselves or each other when we make categorical statements not substantially grounded in fact.

    It is like you are fishing for something to discredit the androsphere, by holding it to a standard that our opponents would fail several times over in a single day. To use *this* as a straw to grasp at to make a sweeping generalization about the androsphere (a place where more assumptions are questions, and more dissent is welcomed, than anywhere else), is pretty lame on your part.

  112. mojohn says:

    TFH, I didn’t ignore “don’t usually.” I merely posited that in my 36 year-long married life, my experience has been much different than yours. Hence, by implication, a statement of “don’t usually” – which speaks to broad generality – isn’t as accurate and precise as you undoubtedly intended.

    As to whether my comment was “lame,” that’s for others to judge. I won’t argue that point with you. As to my comment’s value, some may perceive limited or no value. But others might, and I thought it worth mentioning on the off chance that it might be helpful.

  113. Dalrock says:

    I see now that Swindle has one more post in the series which I hadn’t noticed. In it he continues to express his discomfort with the male orgasm. He really has an unhealthy hangup here. Here are words of wisdom that he quotes (emphasis his):

    Male orgasm — his spasmodic release of tension and seminal fluid — is not the reason a decent man cherishes his lover’s body and access to it. That there are a fair number of “indecent” men roaming about need not cloud the central issue.

    Indeed, a mature, self-assured man, properly reared and past the urgings of adolescence, is less concerned with his own physical pleasure than with bringing pleasure to her. Her desire for his desire, with all that follows from that, gives him what he most wants: the opportunity to bring her pleasure, even if he gets little or none for himself. This has often been dismissed as merely a form of politeness, but in fact it’s the source of his greatest sexual fulfillment and, apart from progeny, his principal reason for wanting her to want him.

    Yes, there are men so self-absorbed that a woman’s sexual desire is merely an opening through which to seek their own fulfillment, including the evanescent and essentially trivial pleasure of orgasm. Yes, there are men who never bother to learn “what she likes.” But in any decent society these will be a minority.

  114. Novaseeker says:

    Ah, yes the whole “she comes first” approach to sex.

    No wonder he has no kids.

  115. TFH says:

    mojohn,

    You are just concern trolling, which is obvious given that your comment is effectively “My life has seen anecdotes that don’t match what was stated, hence this greatly weakens to credibility of the entire androsphere”. Again, lame. Why are your anecdotes better than mine? And why focus on the least important part of my original comment?

    And by ‘pet’, I mean a dog or a cat, as these are the only two creatures a woman can use as a child substitute. A goldfish does not count. I see you used ‘pet’ in your comment, without specifying type.

    If a married couple gets a new dog or a cat, that is often a leading indicator of ultimately not having children at all, from many examples I have seen.

  116. Guilty As Charged says:

    “Dissatisfied husbands, want to know the secret to having sex with your wife whenever you want? It is not your wife’s responsibility to be ready to go on command, it’s YOUR responsibility to know your wife so well that you are capable of seducing her anytime. When you want to have sex with her you don’t ask her, you put her in the mood yourself. It’s really that simple: know you wife well enough so you can push the right buttons, say the right things, and create an environment where sex just naturally happens.”

    Married game. Athol Kay promotes this.

  117. TFH says:

    D,

    In it he continues to express his discomfort with the male orgasm. He really has an unhealthy hangup here.

    How else to convince himself daily that he is happy with an unattractive wife? Didn’t Adam Lee say similar things?

    If he cannot get orgasms with April, then rationalize that male orgasms are unnecessary or even misogynistic. Easy.

  118. Lyn87 says:

    I know others have mentioned this, but it keeps getting my goat whenever I see it. Husbands do NOT have to prove themselves to their wives. They do NOT have to re-qualify themselves to their wives. They do NOT have to keep courting their wives.

    And woman who demands such from her husband is not worthy of the title “MRS.” And any wife who doles out sex based on her estimation of her husband’s willingness and skill at jumping through her hoops is in grave sin. This really isn’t complicated – despite the feminist crap that “Nobody owes anybody sex.” Well, guess what, David? Spouses owe each other sex. Period.

    All that Spreadsheet Guy (SSG) did was catalog his wife’s non-adherence to their agreement. Think of it as an indictment… because that is what it is.

    Anyway, Swindle and Bey were practically newlyweds when he started writing this stuff. What does he know about it? “Hey Guiz…. I’m a newlywed and I get sex all the time. How come you looooozers don’t get it as often as I do? You’ve had decades to work on your marriage and I have it better than you do even though the ink isn’t even dry on my wedding license! I must be some kind of sexual prodigy! Listen to me!

    Great… a guy who thinks that because he got laid every night of his honeymoon that he’ll keep batting 1.000 forever. As Kevin noted above, that’s like that Athol Kay guy, who married a nymphomaniac and now lectures everyone else about how much action he gets. Rule #1 – Marry a nymphomaniac. Rule #2 – There is no Rule #2.

  119. TFH says:

    Speaking of Married Game, another point of view was that of Dave in HI/HI-Lib/Keoni Galt. He was famous to Roissy readers for using Game to save his marriage and turn it around entirely.

    YET, he still said that it was more about recovering a situation he was in, and that if a man discovers Game *before* marriage, he is likely to be better off not getting married at all. There are too many goodies to be had, at much lower risk, than marriage, if one discovers Game while still single.

    That is just one other point of view, from another prominent ‘Married Game’ person. But that is what Keoni Galt said.

  120. jf12 says:

    It is not only love that was redefined in service of the feminine imperative, but morality itself. Instead of holding women to the standard of them wanting what is good, we are now forced to pretend that whatever women want is thereby good.

  121. mojohn says:

    TFH @ 1:49 pm.

    I offered my commentary because as a lawyer I’ve seen several strong legal arguments sabotaged by weak arguments that weren’t necessary to include to make the point. That was the intent behind my initial comment to you. Thus, I am not a “concern troll” in spite of your assertion to the contrary.

    Before making accusations against a person’s character or intent, it behooves one to ask questions in an effort to find out where an apparent opponent is coming from before jumping to conclusions. In this regard, I don’t know if you’re a Christian or not, but Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 2:11 is instructive:
    “For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him?”

  122. deti says:

    @ Kevin:

    “We need more websites by men who had no sex for years and figured out how to change their marriages and wife’s responses to welcome sex. Any websites or experiences like that?”

    Most of the men fitting that description are commenters in and around the manosphere. I’m not aware of any blogs run by men who fit that bill. Some of the men running blogs in and around here are divorced men who now are players.

  123. jf12 says:

    I only have discomfort with the male orgasm if it happens too infrequently. Then it hurts.

  124. imnobody00 says:

    @PuzzledTraveller

    Your explanation boils down to “We can be proud because we are the best. And everybody want to be with us. We are not making excuses about being winners while other countries are losers”.

    Sorry, but no. Of course, the poorest of the poor want to go to America (The vast majority of immigrants that go there are complete losers in their own countries). Not because they love the culture or admire the country but because there is money to be made doing low-qualification jobs (as in “cleaning other people’s sh*t”) and they can send some dollars back to the (loser) family.

    But most people in the world don’t want to go to America. I had a friend (a legal resident, as I was) who used to say: “I don’t like the States, I am moving back to Europe”. American people used to get completely shocked about that. But, IMHO, life in America is completely sh*tty. The elites oppress you with your pride. “You are lucky of being here! You are American! Don’t leave the rat race, the pointless consumption and spending, the complete exploitation by corporations and the economic support of land whales that don’t give you the time of the day! Don’t go to other country. You could discover that you can live as a human and not as a machine”.

    I lived one year there and I will never go back. It was completely pointless. I remember when high school dropouts felt superior to me (a PhD, two masters, four languages, having worked for the United Nations and the World Bank, having had great responsibilities in the government of a country) only because they were American, as if everything made by another American person was their personal success. “Another American man went to the moon, so I have to be proud even if I didn’t got to college”.

    Sure, the United States has accomplished great things and it’s to be admired because of that. You are the first power in the world, the way that England, France, Spain and Rome were before you. The way China will be after you. You have had a good run because you were hard workers, had traditional values, were Christian and not hedonists. But you have become complacent (the way these former powers were during their decline). As with these powers before you, you think your success is because the way you are and not because you have worked hard in the past. The destruction of the family, the piling on debt, etc. You are in complete decline.

    Anyway, praise were the praise is due. America has had a lot of success and the American people that made that possible are to be admired. But the average American is not part of that. So I don’t know where all this smugness comes from.

  125. TFH says:

    mojohn,

    You said my rather unimportant point is ‘poorly sourced’, and extrapolated that as something that might weaken the credibility of the entire androsphere (especially since our opponents meet this standard so well)..

    But what is your well-sourced counter? Anecdotes! That too of ‘pets’ (which may be goldfish). You present only your anecdotes, and then say my anecdotes are ‘poorly sourced’.

    Corinthians for me but not for thee, eh?

    I believe you are a lawyer, though, as you take something unimportant and stretch it into an elongated issue that can consume a lot of time. A useful skill in inflating billable hours.

  126. KB says:

    TFH,

    You are basically using the same type of personal anecdotes and Mojohn and then calling him lame.

    No reason to be butthurt about something that is really really off topic.

  127. mojohn says:

    TFH, sorry for have wasted your time. I’m out.

  128. TFH says:

    KB,

    HE is the one doing what you said. He started by saying my anecdotes are wrong, based on……his anecdotes. You have the sequence reversed, on top of not grasping the important issue and fixating on the unimportant. The problem is that this is used to extrapolate the entirety of androsphere credibility, which is far-fetched to say the least.

    And who are you, exactly? What have you contributed, of value?

  129. Guilty As Charged says:

    “First, Swindle is advocating being a follower (doing what the wife requests because she claims it will help) whereas Husband Game is being a leader (doing what you know will help, whether or not the wife requests it).”

    Six of one half dozen of the other. Swindle appears to be advocating that men do what they know will help, whether or not the wife requests it. It appears if the wife has to request it, that the man is slacking off in his estimation. He doesn’t “know his wife so well”.

    “it’s YOUR responsibility to know your wife so well that you are capable of seducing her anytime. When you want to have sex with her you don’t ask her, you put her in the mood yourself. It’s really that simple: know you wife well enough so you can push the right buttons”

  130. jf12 says:

    re: anecdotes about pets. What the world needs now is not more cute kitty video clips, but more stories about feelings about how others reacted to seeing expressions of appreciation for having liked yet others’ cute kitty clips.

  131. PuzzledTraveller says:

    @ Deti

    Here’s my theory on that.

    When we first started on this continent with the English, German, Dutch, Irish, Scots, Welsh, Spanish, French, etc. It was the people with balls and who had a “who dares wins” attitude that came here and made colonies and the nations out of the wilderness. The same people that went to Canada, New Zealand, and Australia.

    Now, those streaming into the country are primarily composed of the people that were conquered and used as a resource extraction tool by the Spanish for 350 years. They are the descendants of extinct cultures and a conquered people who then mixed with their relatively few conquerors.

    As compared to up north here, where large chunks of population came over to setup shop, Spain did not follow a similar policy of large population moves to the new colonies. Instead they focused on territorial conquest, forced religious conversion, cultural extermination and trade and resource exploitation until their efforts were ended in the 19th century.

    I can’t help but think an event of that magnitude, the utter extinction and replacement of the native culture and society, has had a long and loud reverberation down through the generations that influences the long term social expectations, and group behaviors of said descendants.

    Have we seen many marvels of technology, industry, theoretical science, medicine, economics, agriculture, or the fine arts emerge from this cataclysmic event a few hundred years ago? Not really. I’m sure there are some, but nothing jumps out at me right now.

    I’m not saying that they are less valuable people, deserve to have miserable lives, are stupid or anything of the sort.

    I am wondering if there is a kind of cultural malaise or resignation to having “the short end of the stick” that permeates and influences today’s generations and how successful they have been able to make their countries compared to the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and what not. Is there a leftover sense of defeat from the period of the Conquistadors and cultural upheaval that has to be shaken off before they can find a more upward trajectory?

    To be fair, some of these countries have had a 100 years less of independence than we have here. So maybe they are still catching up. And when you think about it, Americans started off as winners on day one that the British were finally defeated and driven out of the colonies. We started on a high note.

    Anyway, that is who, in the main, is coming here now and every people brings their cultural baggage with them. They can be winners here, everything required is in place. They would just have to shake off any cultural impediments and adopt the culture of having the expectation of winning that America has created.

    But, if people don’t want to integrate with that, and they prefer the comfort of the culture and the expectations for future success that they grew up in, or to cuddle together in comfortable mediocrity so as not to rock the boat amongst their peers, then nothing will change for them no matter where they live.

    Maybe we’ll see our current “native” culture replaced through a soft “conquest” of demographics and birth rates and become more like current Latin regions. Or, maybe they will come here, adopt the mores and values that we have and excel and bring great benefit to themselves and everyone else.

    That is what I hope for, but I’d be lying if I said I was not concerned that if they were inclined to do such things, they would have been able to do it in their own countries and turn them into jeweled cities. They do not lack for natural resources, water, useful land, energy resources, favorable climates or for assistance from many other nations. Which leads one to ask, what’s up?

    We’ll see.

  132. Guilty As Charged says:

    “As I’ve previously explained, we have inverted the roles of marriage and romantic love. Now instead of seeing marriage as the moral place to pursue sex and romantic love, we see romantic love as the moral place for sex and marriage. While most don’t take this idea to the extreme that Swindle does”

    Is Swindle positing that married men should not expect their wives to be ready on command but unmarried can expect that of their girlfriends and its a-ok? It doesn’t look like that to me. command. The general theme appears to be that sex on command is something men should not expect across the board.

    “while Rollo is not only less strident but logically consistent by arguing that it is better for a man to keep a rotation of women in order to maximize the authenticity of the act. ”

    Rotations come with their own problems. I wouldn’t recommend more than two.

  133. KB says:

    TFH:

    “You have the sequence reversed”

    I didn’t sequence anything. I simply said you both are using anecdotes. Your assumption, while we’re on it, actually came first and he respectfully disagreed.

    (For the record, I think couples are perhaps equally likely to get a dog before having kids as a crash course or when their kids are young to teach them responsibility.)

    You then made a personal attack (complete with internet snark) by assuming that he profits by elongating unimportant details for billable hours. That is a low blow chief.

    “on top of not grasping the important issue and fixating on the unimportant”

    You are the one upset about this while simultaneously claiming it isn’t important.

    “And who are you, exactly? What have you contributed, of value?”

    I’m that guy who remains anonymous on the internet, like most men on the internet.

  134. mojohn says:

    KB, to borrow from Bartles & Jaymes – Thanks for your support.

  135. PuzzledTraveller says:

    @imnobody00

    “I lived one year there and I will never go back. It was completely pointless. I remember when high school dropouts felt superior to me (a PhD, two masters, four languages, having worked for the United Nations and the World Bank, having had great responsibilities in the government of a country) only because they were American, as if everything made by another American person was their personal success. “Another American man went to the moon, so I have to be proud even if I didn’t got to college”.”

    You say it all above my friend. Even you wanted to come here. To be an American. You will deny this, but in your heart you know this is true. Come back to America. We will welcome you with open arms. We appreciate men of accomplishment and education. There is a place for you here. Sincerely.

    You state that high school drop outs felt themselves superior to you because they were Americans. Is that really true, or was this a feeling in yourself that you projected onto them? I don’t really know any high school dropouts but I would imagine they would not be very proud of this. Not finishing high school here is regarded as a trait of being a huge loser, a certain ticket to poverty and it makes the person suspected of being borderline retarded.

    I can sense in you something that often permeates the thoughts and the writings of some of those who are not Americans. It is a kind of simmering, low-level anger and impatience with us. Anger because we maybe don’t understand the complexities and nuances of other regions’ problems to the degree that they think we should. Anger because you know that we don’t want to, but not out of malice in our hearts, but because it isn’t really something we can be bothered about. We’re too busy being American to pay attention to it all. And that makes non-Americans rather upset, because everyone would like to have the undivided attention and assistance of the big man.

    You are correct that we do take pride in one American’s accomplishment as our own. That’s something very positive here. Even the person accomplishing a feat will quite often take time to publicly thank the country for being a place where they could have such an opportunity. Think of it as a national way of giving oneself positive affirmation in the mirror every morning.

    On a side note, China will not be the superpower that you imagine and that you perhaps hope will bring America to its knees before all the little countries of the world so that they may gloat at the pride of the fallen. Nope. They have screwed themselves. Their one child policy is going to turn them into a very, very big aging Japan. Demographics, always demographics are destiny. But you know this.

    You will see after the next twenty years that their economic prospects diminish. Even now they build empty cities out of desperation to transfer useless debt money into something concrete that might hold its value. Their attempts to create their own economic alliance with the Russians is the last raspy gasp of a failed dream for a pacific empire.

    Don’t worry. We are currently working very hard to turn ourselves into a crap-hole like most of the rest of the world, economically and socially. Then you will be able to feel like you have “won” and that we were wrong all along.

    However, where will you be able to run to when no other place is safe? Who will you have to blame for all the ills of the world? Who will give you your next Jayzee and Gwar? Who will invent such marvels as we have? Who will people call on to help them fight injustice or to save them from slaughter or genocide?

    You might be less than pleased with what comes after us, so don’t seek to hasten the day.

  136. davidvs says:

    @Guilty As Charged

    “Six of one half dozen of the other. Swindle appears to be advocating that men do what they know will help, whether or not the wife requests it. It appears if the wife has to request it, that the man is slacking off in his estimation. He doesn’t ‘know his wife so well'”

    The summary statements are indeed identical: husbands should internalize and use behaviors that keep them attractive to their wives.

    But the details are very different.

    Swindle only mentions “comfort” behaviors when listing examples of what those behaviors might be. (In contrast, my link above has plenty of examples of both “comfort” and “attraction”.)

    Swindle neglects reciprocity. He might believe that wives should internalize and use behaviors that keep them attractive to their husbands. But in the sections cited, he never says or implies this.

    Swindle attaches “responsibility” to the wrong place. He claims attraction and/or being in the mood legitimizes sex and the expectation of sex, not the marriage contract.

    Finally, Swindle maintains a success-or-failure mindset instead of a more effective perspective of social confidence from growth and learning.

    http://davidvs.net/hobbies/masculinity-confidence.shtml

  137. MarcusD says:

    “Newsflash: God made sex to be okay in marriage and marriage only. Nobody calls a lady a whore by having sex with her husband.”

    Dave Swindle does!

    The amazing thing to me is that a woman who sleeps around before marriage isn’t given that descriptor. It’s an incredible inversion.

    “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil”

    Truly astounding.

  138. AnonS says:

    Also sounds like provider peacocking. I do my second job so well that my wife doesn’t have any obligations and she hasn’t divorced me yet > therefore I’m a superior man > wife, please notice that I’m superior because of all the work I do and give me more affection.

    The word Dread is thrown around a lot. But isn’t dread a constant side effect of any real obligation or prohibition? I “should” do this and “shouldn’t” do that. The core of Dread in society used to be God and objective morality (each culture had a system). Now it is missing out on pleasure or social rejection.

    Marriage 1.0 had the dread of “you are in sin and will suffer for it in the afterlife, change your ways and do not compound it”.

    Marriage 2.0 has “If they are higher quality than you can get elsewhere you will miss out”. Which is the same as a long term relationship.

    One of the most important phrases I’ve read is this, “Prohibitions are the foundation of happiness”. The idea of the “sacred” is foundational to human happiness, if it isn’t fulfilled, we are left unfulfilled. The sacred didn’t go away (it is part of our humanity), it has just shifted to “human rights” and “my well being and happiness”. Now having your pleasure or happiness taken away is the greatest evil to violate your sacred happiness.

    Now this shapes what is prohibited or not instead of the Bible, but the effect is the same. Happiness is when the ideal self and actual self are closer together. Dread and even forced decisions (http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_gilbert_asks_why_are_we_happy) rein in the ideal self and makes us happier.

    Rollo, you are very smart and insightful but I feel you are missing this. Under duty and obligation the brain rewires itself to be happier under it. Forced actions become habits, become character. You realize this works about men improving themselves but seem to want to avoid any obligations surrounding desire for fear that it isn’t “authentic”.

    Authenticity is manufactured, you can either manufacture it around objective moral values or around “my happiness”. Maybe we have never seen many living examples of the former but if anything the failure rate when it becomes “my happiness” has been much greater.

  139. Guilty As Charged says:

    “Swindle attaches “responsibility” to the wrong place. He claims attraction and/or being in the mood legitimizes sex and the expectation of sex, not the marriage contract.”

    Unless he’s religious, why would he?

    “Newsflash: God made sex to be okay in marriage and marriage only. Nobody calls a lady a whore by having sex with her husband.”

    I didn’t click the link. Does Swindle believe in God or make God part of his argument?

  140. LiveFearless says:

    Kerri Kasem (Casey’s daughter) explains spreadsheet guy’s wife. It’s Candida.

    http://bit.ly/KerriKasemSpreadsheetGuy

  141. deti says:

    Morpheus: “Your comment appears to me to be proof positive that in fact most wives are not really that sexually attracted to their husbands. Perhaps “settling” for women is quite common. Their husbands are resources for providing, not objects of sexual desire”
    Nova: “Which is basic AF/BB.”

    Many times I hyperbolize this by saying women are marrying men they aren’t sexually attracted to. I still think this happens more frequently than we realize. A woman doesn’t have to be attracted to a man to have sex with him.

    What is actually happening, of course, is that a lot of women are marrying men they feel some attraction for, but it’s not hard sexual attraction. It’s certainly not “I want to f**k that guy silly” attraction. It’s more along the lines of “I like him well enough; we get along pretty well, and yeah he makes me feel kind of good such that I can see a future with this guy” attraction.

    Being a typical woman, she has had sex with other men before; and with men who were sexier and more exciting than the man she’s settling for. So it’s not so much that she has no attraction for him at all; it’s that she’s not as attracted to her husband as she was/is to the men she used to have sex with as a younger woman. She can’t help comparing her husband to the men she used to have sex with; and finds him wanting. She comes to believe she could do better than her husband because, after all, she did before.

    She starts rationalizing the marriage’s problems by taking note of all his flaws, foibles and failures. She then puts them on him, rationalizing further that if he were just sexier and more attractive, then she would want to have sex with him. Or, if he would help her around the house, then she would want to have sex with him. Or if he just earned more money, or fathered the kids better, or fixed the leaky faucet, whatever, ad nauseum ad infinitum.

    So the issue of lack of sexual attraction is a big one in marriages. It’s largely because girls get to go cock sampling for a good number of years with men they like sleeping with but which men will not give them commitment.

  142. Dalrock says:

    @Guilty As Charged

    “Swindle attaches “responsibility” to the wrong place. He claims attraction and/or being in the mood legitimizes sex and the expectation of sex, not the marriage contract.”

    Unless he’s religious, why would he?

    The point is, why ascribe moral significance to marriage if it doesn’t come with obligations? If sexual morality is determined by the amount of desire involved, then why marry? As I wrote in the post, while I disagree with Rollo at least he is logically consistent.

    “Newsflash: God made sex to be okay in marriage and marriage only. Nobody calls a lady a whore by having sex with her husband.”

    I didn’t click the link. Does Swindle believe in God or make God part of his argument?

    Yes, he does. The title of one of his posts in the series is Deeply Religious Marriages Are Better Than Secularist Civil Unions. But as I touched on in the OP, he quickly goes off the rails into Jewish Mysticism. But even if he didn’t bring religion in at all, calling a woman a whore because she honored her marriage vows when she wasn’t in the mood is deeply, profoundly, absurd. He is incredibly hostile to that which is moral and healthy.

  143. Mark says:

    @Dalrock

    Another Great Post Mister “D”

    …….and the comments are GREAT!

    “”He now knows that the secret to a good marriage is to follow the Bible, at least the Bible as reinterpreted through Jewish mysticism.””

    I don’t know how to take this.If this guy is into “Jewish Mysticism” then I am going to assume that he started his Trek via the Kabbala….maybe the Torah.If you read any of these ancient Jewish Texts you will find that the ‘authors’ consider women…or wives,nothing more than chattel property(King Solomon had 700 wives?…wtf?) .Therefore,I find it very contradictory on his behalf that this is what he bases his marriage on??? His wife is “equal”.He gets sex by knowing how to “seduce” her?…Yada…Yada! Nonsense! if this guy treated her like the “Ancient Jewish Texts” prescribe???…..She would be nothing more than a “piece of property”…..Shalom!

    @feministhater

    “‘If you value Paul’s advice, you’re a Pagan Christian…””

    As an Orthodox Jew….and someone who just recently purchased a New Testament…..how is the “Apostle Paul” a pagan?…..just curious.Thanks.

    @greyghost
    “”I have a sister that is 53 now and she goes on vacation with other old bitches she has an on-line dating profile now. She’s lonely. Nobody wants a woman over 40. I never hide that from mrs greyghost.””

    I never hide this from my 46 year old(frivorced) sister either!

    @Dalrock

    “”I’m always amused when people mistake my wife and me for newlyweds (only when we are out without our kids). When my wife explains that we have been married for twenty years the look of surprise is comical.””

    YOU DOG!……L*…..whatever you are doing?…..keep it up!(Obviously it is working)….^5’s

  144. Buck says:

    SO, making the rounds on the net is the story of the cute Irish twenty-something gal from the religious family who blew 24 guys for a free drink at some place called Magaluf in Spain while on holiday. The story is so whorishly depraved it defies description, I gave you the basic facts.
    I tell Mrs Buck about the story with all the incredulity it merits and in a men/mars-women/venus moment she responds…..drum roll please….”men are such pigs”
    WHAT!!!!!
    I asked her, what about little snowflake who placed 24 strange weenies in her mouth on a dance floor in a crowded bar…for a free drink! “well, yeah, that’s crazy too” Gee , ya think!

    Mrs Buck is no left wing crazy…. she is a typical woman ….and that’s all you need to know!

  145. Oscar says:

    @imnobody00 says:
    July 29, 2014 at 2:03 pm

    “having worked for the United Nations and the World Bank”

    You say that as though it’s a good thing.

  146. As an Orthodox Jew….and someone who just recently purchased a New Testament…..how is the “Apostle Paul” a pagan?…..just curious.Thanks.

    Sorry Mark, I didn’t say Apostle Paul was a Pagan..

    That’s what David Swindle said..

  147. Mark says:

    @Buck

    “”I tell Mrs Buck about the story with all the incredulity it merits and in a men/mars-women/venus moment she responds…..drum roll please….”men are such pigs””‘

    Typical Wimminz response. If this broad was smart she would have gotten 24 drinks….not one! But,then again,typical American/Canadian wimminz! And here’s to the lucky shmoe that marries “IT”…..what a deal he is getting……UGH!

  148. Crank says:

    @Buck
    I think the story is that they promised her a “Holiday”, which to Brits and Irish normally means a vacation – she never asked for specifics. Turns out that “Holiday” was the name of a drink on the menu. Oops.

    Not saying that doing that for a vacation is logical or good, but I doubt she would blow 24 guys knowing it as just for a free drink, considering that one of those guys would have likely bought her two or three just to get the BJ. Her ROBJ (Return on Blow Job) is very low compared to what she could normally expect. ;)

  149. jf12 says:

    Off topic, almost, this Time article almost succeeds in renaming the Trial Marriage a Beta Marriage.

    http://time.com/3024606/millennials-marriage-sex-relationships-hook-ups/

    In the sense that Destiny is still a Beta game.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/destiny-beta-preview-2014-7

  150. Mark says:

    @FeministHater

    “”Sorry Mark, I didn’t say Apostle Paul was a Pagan..

    That’s what David Swindle said..””

    No problem.I am wondering about Swindle…………is he a “Christian Hebrew”……He talks the talk!….and seems to “walks the walk”……..

  151. jf12 says:

    What’s 1/24 of a holiday?

  152. Dalrock says:

    @Buck

    Mrs Buck is no left wing crazy…. she is a typical woman ….and that’s all you need to know!

    Funny. My wife was outraged about the sympathy for the woman who blew the whole bar, and she thought I should write a post on it. Yet, as you say no woman is immune from processing things in very funny ways. We watched the movie Idiocracy some time back, and before we were able to get it playing we had to wrap something else up. On the DVD menu there is a continuous loop of “Ow My Balls!”:

    This played for 10-15 min before we started the movie. Maybe 20 min into the movie they go to the hospital, and there is a whole menu of medical conditions depicted in international stick figure form. One of them was a woman giving birth (top center here). My wife cried out: “That’s offensive!”

    Once my laughing slowed down enough for me to speak a bit between breaths, I pointed out that we had just watched 15 min of a man getting repeatedly hit in the balls in every conceivable way, but this was beyond the pale. She laughed as hard as I had, and we both laughed for quite some time before we could restart the movie. She still brings up how funny that moment of recognition was for her.

  153. Guilty As Charged says:

    “Yes, he does. The title of one of his posts in the series is Deeply Religious Marriages Are Better Than Secularist Civil Unions.”

    Got it.

    “But as I touched on in the OP, he quickly goes off the rails into Jewish Mysticism.”

    Off the rails? I finally read the piece and thought the JM part was pertinent.

    “But even if he didn’t bring religion in at all, calling a woman a whore because she honored her marriage vows when she wasn’t in the mood is deeply, profoundly, absurd.”

    Agreed but he didn’t call a particular woman a “whore”. He was allegorical about a situation, that of husbands expecting “on demand orgasms” as he put it. Anyway without getting caught up in the semantics and literary license, I can see both sides, his and yours, and he very clearly advocated Athol Kay style married game.

    “He is incredibly hostile to that which is moral and healthy.”

    I didn’t see that in what he wrote at all.

  154. Guilty As Charged says:

    “Mrs Buck is no left wing crazy…. she is a typical woman ….and that’s all you need to know!”

    She probably didn’t grow up on porn so for her sexual exhibitionism is not normal and mainstream. The young woman who mamaded, or whatever they’re calling it these days, while on vacation in Spain is part of Generation Porn and Generation Selfie. I can assure you she doesn’t feel victimized and the young men on the receiving end don’t feel like pigs. Its the rest of us who have to catch up.

  155. Oscar says:

    @Mark

    “As an Orthodox Jew….and someone who just recently purchased a New Testament”

    My kids and I are reading through the Bible chronologically. We’re currently in the final chapters of Numbers, and I’ve made a point throughout our study to explain to them how the Old Testament ties into the New Testament.

    I’d like to read what you think about that subject.

  156. Mark says:

    @Dalrock

    “”Funny. My wife was outraged about the sympathy for the woman who blew the whole bar, and she thought I should write a post on it.””

    I think you should! Your post will be GREAT!……….The COMMENTS will be even better!

  157. Opus says:

    In the matter of TFH -v- MoJohn

    Having read the papers before me (I have nothing else to go on) I am afraid I have to find in favour of the Plaintiff. Getting rid of an animal before starting a family is the more common, and then so many marriages are shotgun.

    No order for costs as happily this is the internet.

  158. @Davidvs, who said: “Swindle neglects reciprocity.”

    Of course he does. Who expects reciprocity from a grapefruit or a gallon of milk? The only thing I expect from them is that if I keep them refrigerated that they may last a little longer and that I might have a chance to have them if nobody else eats them first.

  159. The Brass Cat says:

    Swindler says:

    “Because it’s not a wife’s responsibility to be her husband’s happy whore, eagerly providing him with his orgasms on demand.”

    Remove the emotional shaming language and we’re left with this premise:

    It’s not a wife’s responsibility to satisfy her husband’s sexual needs.

    That is such a curious notion. It begs the question: if not the wife, then who? I doubt whiteknighting Swindler would care for the answers: 1) cheating, 2) viewing porn, and 3) prostitution. Of course, he sidesteps this question altogether by placing the blame for the wife’s frigidity on the husband, making him by default responsible for the sexual needs of both spouses (making the optimistic assumption that her needs aren’t being met elsewhere). There is no reciprocation.

    In his view the wife has a complete lack of responsibility for both her’s and her husband’s sexual needs. The truth is they have shared responsibility (at least that’s my opinion). A married couple has made a life-long commitment to have sex with no one else, so the spouses really owe it to each other.

    I can imagine a frigid wife getting more and more turned off by her suddenly back-rub crazy husband who’s enthusiastically following Swindler’s ill advice.

  160. Lyn87 says:

    Completely OT, but I gotta toss this out there…

    One of my nephews (by marriage) was banging an acknowledged slut a while ago. He’s not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but he knew that she was spinning two plates at the time: him and her “ex” boyfriend that she was still banging. She announced she was pregnant and didn’t know who the father was. My nephew decided to play Captain Save-a-Ho and put a ring on it. I told him to get a DNA test instead.

    Apparently I’m the bad guy. Drama ensued: they were going to be okay, dontchaknow?

    She “converted” to Christianity. They got married. He insisted on claiming paternity. That was maybe two years ago.

    A few days ago my wife told me that the little whore met some guy on the interwebs recently and had taken the kid to [Insert name of medium-sized city here] to be with him. His parents have hired a lawyer to get the kid from her (the little girl and the mother both have serious medical issues and they were practically raising her anyway). Why is everyone doing this, you ask? Little Whore told everyone that she needed the kid in order to get more welfare… Oh: and the new boyfriend is going to help. Suuuuuuure he is. At first my nephew was behind his parents, but has since changed his mind. Why? Because his hussy of a wife said that, if it didn’t work out with the new guy, she would bring the kid back and they’d be a family again.

    My nephew agreed to that.

    Read that again:

    MY. NEPHEW. AGREED. TO. THAT.

    He’s willing to wait for his wife to quit whoring around with her new boyfriend, and then take his turn when they’re done. He appears to be – not to put too fine a point on it – content to be next if and when her current arrangement ends… until the next one, no doubt.

    He probably wasn’t giving her enough foot-rubs.

  161. PuzzledTraveller says:

    @AnonS

    You touched on something here:

    “Marriage 2.0 has “If they are higher quality than you can get elsewhere you will miss out”. Which is the same as a long term relationship.”

    Something that bedevils women. Reverse dread, or the dread of missing out on a better deal. That is hypergamy. So we have the dread of losing what they have on hand, versus the dread of missing out on what they imagine they could have. The aspect with more dread wins in the daily mental calculus.

    Throw in a huge helping of the narcissistic entitlement that is running rampant, and I would wager that many women are always telling themselves that they can easily step out of a marriage at 35+ years of age and get a better deal.

    Until they do, and then find out they can’t. Then it’s hamster time!

    Of course the other strategy often pursued, and remarked on here, is have your cake and eat it too. Keep the provider, and keep him in the dark as long as you can, and play on the side.

    With little to no materiel consequences, lack of a higher power guiding the moral compass in their lives, and the lack of social sanction, there is every reason in the world for many women to see this as an ideal road to travel. I suspect they do.

    In their mind, what’s the worst that can happen if it falls apart? They get the cash and prizes and the much vaunted freedom to become the special person they were always meant to be now that they have escaped the evil clutches of that wicked man who subjugated them and made them say those silly vows. And if he doesn’t have the wherewithal to support her after she’s no longer his wife (hah!), he gets jailed and big daddy guv shows up with the money, courtesy of other men’s taxes. It’s a huge win, and a low risk strategy in their mind.

    Except for that whole going to hell bit. But, then again, the churchians will redeem her and welcome them with open arms when the time comes. Why, by golly, they will even let her strut down the aisle a second time in another white dress some fine summer morning, all smiles and full of renewed innocence.

    It’s like a fairytale dream come true!

  162. Then there is this off topic bit of trash:

    http://variety.com/2014/tv/news/the-bachelorette-finale-sex-secret-surprises-live-audience-1201270790/

    Bachelorette sleeps with a guy that goes on to “lose” and then complains when he states that they had “something”. No buddy, she just slept with you because she is a carousel riding slut and you showed bad form by expecting differently.

  163. Anonymous says:

    Gee, Swindle, kiss you wife’s butt like that and see if you don’t wind up walking in on her getting slammed in it by some guy who’s more obnoxious than you… just sayin’.

  164. Mark says:

    @Oscar

    “”I’d like to read what you think about that subject.””

    The OT definitely coincides with the NT. You have to be a moron to think otherwise! The “Jewish Prophet” that is predicted to come among men is predicted in Isaiah(cannot quote the verse). The Jews denied him….Pilate and the Romans crucified him.All of the NT prophets make reference to the OT. Remember,that we PRAY to the same God.The Jews have been praying to him 2500 years(or so) before Christ walked the earth.The Christian or NT says that since the coming of Christ that no man comes to the “Lord” except through the “Son”…..We Jews say “HOGWASH”…..We have been talking to the “Father” a long time before you Christians were around….L*….and that is the truth!

  165. The Brass Cat says:

    I owned a cat prior to meeting the woman who became my fiance. Now he is “our” cat.

    But moving forward any planned editions to our family will be human babies. Sure, we might acquire another pet, but only when the kids are old enough to help take care of it.

    The idea of having pets rather than–in place of–children is bizarre.

    And not taking the husband’s last name is a HUGE vote of no confidence, one that everyone will be forced to be aware of.

  166. @ Guilty as Charged, “I can assure you she doesn’t feel victimized and the young men on the receiving end don’t feel like pigs. Its the rest of us who have to catch up.”

    Not sorry, no.

  167. TFH says:

    Opus,

    Getting rid of an animal before starting a family is the more common, and then so many marriages are shotgun.

    Yes. Thanks.

    And since getting rid is more common, a married couple overtly getting a new cat or dog before having children, where no animal previously existed, is rare. A cat or dog is what counts because a non-pettable, non-cuddly creature, below 6 pounds in size as an adult, cannot be rationalized into a child-substitute by a woman. A cat or dog by a childless married couple is often a leading indicator of no eventual children.

    Now, the main crux of this silly tangent is that this is used to rationalize how the entire credibility of the androsphere is compromised (of course, the same standard is not applied to ‘feminist’ writings). I notice that the proponents of this point are not those who have generated a strong history of useful comments on red-pill thought.

    I’m done with this tangent.

  168. TFH says:

    Alright, the only reason anyone is talking about Swindle is :

    1) For some reason, he is on PJMedia’s roster. They may have been desperate to find a former leftist who is young (others at PJM being around 50), and failed to vet this person before giving him a platform.
    2) That he is on PJMedia is the only reason Dr. Helen is rebutting him directly, for she assumes PJMedia did proper vetting.
    3) A simple examination of the looks and worldview of his wife April Bey, combined with Swindle’s mangina writing, effectively indicts his views as nothing more than an exhibit for men to see in a lesson of ‘Don’t be a mangina, or this is what you will end up as’.

    This is nothing more than a display of what happens when the vetting process lapses once in a while.

    Done.

  169. @TFH, I don’t think there is much “former” about the leftism of the Bey-Swindle household.

  170. Guilty As Charged says:

    “Bachelorette sleeps with a guy that goes on to “lose” and then complains when he states that they had “something”. No buddy, she just slept with you because she is a carousel riding slut and you showed bad form by expecting differently.”

    If you’re talking about the latest bachelorette, she is pregnant. She just chose her husband to be last episode and I’m wondering if the child is his.

  171. cynthia says:

    Isn’t this the jackass that’s on record over at PJ Media as promoting New Agism, with zero concept of how offensive most of what he believes is to true Christians? I stopped reading the site for a while, after they continued to publish his ramblings about Alastair Crowley.

  172. jf12 says:

    @GiL, re: ” I don’t think there is much “former” about the leftism of the Bey-Swindle household.”
    +1

  173. TFH says:

    @TFH, I don’t think there is much “former” about the leftism of the Bey-Swindle household.

    The various conversions in his ideology might have been just enough noise to get past the PJM vetting process on a lazy day. Which is the only reason *we* ever heard about Swindle. He is no more notable than any other mangina.

    We *should* start a viral photo meme of ‘I need Game because…’, with photos of the various manginas : “I need Game because I really don’t want to end up like this”, with obligatory photos of the Lees, the Swindle-Beys, and Futrelle (who apparently got outcompeted by Swindle and Lee), etc.

  174. feeriker says:

    Lyn87 says:July 29, 2014 at 4:50 pm

    My condolences on having “that” in the family. I’d like to be able to say that I’m shocked, but that’s just not an effect I suffer very much from anymore.

    I’m sure that you’re an infinitely more merciful man than I am. If he were my nephew, it would take ALL of my self-control to stop myself from pinning him to the ground and threatening to cut his nuts off with a dull butter knife. Your description “not the sharpest knife in the drawer” is the understatement of the new millennium. Sadly, there are far too many others like him still out there. The thought of these guys hooking up with sluts and breeding like rabbits is just too nauseating to abide.

  175. JDG says:

    MY. NEPHEW. AGREED. TO. THAT.

    Mindboggling this is. But there it is.

    I’m amazed by the things I see guys put up with for the company of a female. Only these days the guys don’t even seem to understand that they are being degraded and metaphorically spat apon.

  176. Lyn87 says:

    feeriker,

    Yep… my nephew is a sad case. His parents have had their own issues (often freely acknowledged), but he had more of a head start toward being a productive citizen than most people do. He just never learned the lesson, “Don’t stick your d*** in crazy.”

    I thought about what my reaction to all this should be, and decided that I’m not going to worry about it very much. They live three states away, and it’s not like anyone is going to pull their heads out of their butts and do what I tell them to do anyway. I have been advised that saying, “I told you so” would be bad form and not productive, which is true, I suppose. And frankly, I don’t know what I would advise at this point. It’s not like he has any power to effect the situation: he’s only the husband and father.

    If there’s one thing I’ve learned in all my years of having people ask for my advice it is this: it is generally true that you can only help people who want to be helped – and you can only help a small percentage of them, because suffering is usually easier in the short term than doing what it takes to turn things around.

    It’s a shame, though. The real victim is the little girl. I don’t even like to be around small children most of the time, but she’s a hoot.

  177. @TFH, Bey-Swindle and Lee didn’t START off their public personas by using anatomical monikers. Man-boobz has the ability to stick well past your lifetime, especially if you are visibly pathetic as Futrelle.

  178. Lyn87, I have a cousin in stage 4 of what you are describing. He’s back with her and her bastards AFTER she has drug him through court for child support of another man’s children (after several separations that included cuckoldry). I really wonder if some guys are damaged enough to go for this.

    My nephew put a ring on one recently. I haven’t heard how that is going for him just yet but I have my suspicions.

  179. jf12 says:

    Combine “It’s not like he has any power to effect the situation: he’s only the husband and father.” with “I really wonder if some guys are damaged enough to go for this.” and the pattern is clearer.

    What else can they truly expect?

  180. @jf12, well he has a valuable skill. I’m thinking if I were him I would drown in a “swimming accident” and start a new life in another part of the world.

  181. Edwin says:

    I like this excerpt of Poretto’s:

    “This aspect of sexual congress is so frequently dismissed that it approaches a kind of censorship. There are reasons for that, of course: the gender-war feminist movement treats men as “the enemy,” to whom nothing should be granted except on terms profitable to her, while the “Game” movement among men resentful of feminism’s representations and determined to assert sexual dominance is inclined to view contemporary women’s exploitative attitude toward men as a license to think and behave in a complementary fashion. In effect, each views the other as a means to an end, which demeans and shortchanges both.”

  182. Wait, “Game” is in existence because men are resentful of feminisms’s representation and is determined to assert sexual dominance because of why? If you base this on anything besides men desire to have sex you are pumping a dry hole in more ways than one.

  183. Morpheus says:

    Lyn87, I have a cousin in stage 4 of what you are describing. He’s back with her and her bastards AFTER she has drug him through court for child support of another man’s children (after several separations that included cuckoldry). I really wonder if some guys are damaged enough to go for this.

    Heh. I think I am on to something with this idea that some men really are suffering from a sort of Stockholm Syndrome in their relationships. What else could explain this sort of insanity?

  184. In short, Porretto is a three chinned mangina carrying on about how decent men feel about ejaculation. What is in the water over at PJMedia? Whatever it is I think it is VERY blue.

  185. Anonymous Reader says:

    TFH

    These are all anecdotes (as are yours), but I know of no one (who did not already have a pet from their single days) who went out to get a pet after marriage but before kids. I used the word don’t usually, which you conveniently ignored.

    Ok. On the other hand, I know multiple married couples – some related, some not – who while newly married adopted a puppy specifically to “pracice” for having a newborn in the house. Puppies have small bladders and have to go urinate often on the night, puppies must be house trained, puppies are both eager to please and easily forget, etc. and so forth. It used to be common knowledge in spme parts of American culture that newlyweds should get a puppy. I heard it from parents, grandparents, etc. and saw a co-worker do this with his SAH wife less than 5 years ago.

    Different subculltures, TFH.

  186. jeff says:

    Thank you for your replies. No, I will not tell her about this and other sites, but I wish there were some sights like these that point to redpill for women. She is open to things like this, especially concrete facts and studies.

  187. Guilty As Charged says:

    “Heh. I think I am on to something with this idea that some men really are suffering from a sort of Stockholm Syndrome in their relationships. What else could explain this sort of insanity?”

    Beyonce’s song “Crazy in Love” explains it. Which happens to be the theme song for the Fifty Shades trailer. Some people just love a good flogging.

  188. JDG says:

    What is in the water over at PJMedia? Whatever it is I think it is VERY blue.

    PJ Media is very blue. They are as “right winged” feminist as I’ve ever seen.

  189. theasdgamer says:

    @ jf12

    What the world needs now is not more cute kitty video clips, but more stories about feelings about how others reacted to seeing expressions of appreciation for having liked yet others’ cute kitty clips.

    And what caused you to feel this way about this sensitive subject? We all want to know how you really feel….

    I only have discomfort with the male orgasm if it happens too infrequently. Then it hurts.

    This calls for a dedication:

  190. Just Saying says:

    it’s not a wife’s responsibility to be her husband’s happy whore, eagerly providing him with his orgasms on demand.

    That’s what mistresses, and girl-friends are for… :) That’s why I’ll never marry – the women I see know that it is their responsibility to keep me happy so that I don’t go looking elsewhere. If they don’t, I will. Married men should be the same – the problem is that married men are already castrated by the legal system, and their wives know it. If you have bitten that poison apple, you are just waiting to die.

    The unmarried man is the prize – and women always compete for the prize, once you’re married you were the prize that is no longer in play and safely put aside. Never forget that… A man’s value comes from other women trying to win him, and women will ALWAYS work to do whatever they can to win him – and “providing him orgasms” is one of her tools… If she isn’t working to make you happy – she is working to make the man you don’t know about happy…

  191. Aquinas Dad says:

    Morpheus,
    I wouldn’t go that far – most of the young couples I speak to report few sex issues – money, work, and parents are the biggies

  192. Swindle-Bey “5 years a slave” coming to DVD in 2014.

  193. Crank says:

    I don’t understand the beef with Porretta’s rebuttal to Swindle. It’s a little flowery, I’ll grant you. But what he is saying, in a polite way, is that Swindell is a jackhole for assuming the reason the husband wants more sex is just so that his wife will give him more orgasms. If that’s what he wanted, he could just rub one out to porn or get a hooker. He wants access to his wife and all that that entails, including her submission to him and taking pleasure in being with him. In other words, he is supporting spreadsheet dude and defending him against the accusation that he wants a piece of meat for orgasm production (i.e., what many here refer to as “duty sex”).

  194. Gunner Q says:

    Lyn87 @ 4:50 pm:
    “MY. NEPHEW. AGREED. TO. THAT.”

    BuenaVista @ 9:54 am:
    “I really wonder how it is, that someone with two years of experience at a complex activity, is a public, shaming expert. It’s a little like a student pilot, working on his instrument rating, sneering at a retired Naval aviator.”

    feministhater @ 8:58 am:
    “Funny how these “happily married men” are constantly providing ample proof of why marriage is such a bad idea.. ”

    imnobody00 @ 9:36 am:
    Being a foreigner, the thing I dislike the most about (many) American men is this attitude of “I have all the answers. Listen to me, you loser. If you have problems, it’s because you are not doing things right. Follow my example”.

    I sense a recurring theme here. Does this tendency towards vain displays of success come from a cultural insecurity? I mean, where are we men supposed to find our self-esteem? Where is the average, hardworking guy openly respected? I’ve been feeling this myself. I’m in my prime and a rising star in my career… yet all I have to show for my success is a tiny rented apartment, an inexpensive but nice car and a couple hobbies. No family, no money, no retirement, no social status in either church or society. Where’s the reward for my hard work? (When I asked that question in church, their answer was literally “Judgment Day”… nothing until I’m dead, huh?)

    If American men have oversized egos, pretentious airs and inexplicable martyr complexes then perhaps it’s an attempt to manufacture self-respect and self-worth. Don’t know how other countries measure up… maybe dynasties, class-conscious societies and lower expectations are easier on the ego.

  195. My husband explained it to me like this: a whore is a woman who has sex in exchange for payment. Therefore, if a wife requires her husband to give her something or do something for her, like chores, in exchange for having sex with him, she is acting like a whore. The woman who has sex with her husband because he is her husband is acting like a WIFE. In the same manner, a husband who gives something to his wife in exchange for having sex with her is treating her like a whore, not a wife. I’m so glad he can spell it out for me.

  196. Johnycomelately says:

    Swindle is completely correct, Dalrock you are suffering from category error.

    You are arguing from the (obsolete) frame of marriage whereas Swindle is arguing from the correct (existing legal) frame of PAAWs (Partnership Agreements At Will).

    From the frame of PAAWs Swindle’s observations are perfectly valid, you cannot impose or demand non existing obligations under voluntary arrangements. Obligations don’t exist under PAAWs and Email man was committing domestic violence by trying to coerce and harass his partner for sex.

  197. theasdgamer says:

    @ Just Saying

    once you’re married you were the prize that is no longer in play and safely put aside.

    Lol, women will poach. A ring is a lure, not a ward against women.

  198. Dalrock says:

    @Crank

    I don’t understand the beef with Porretta’s rebuttal to Swindle. It’s a little flowery, I’ll grant you. But what he is saying, in a polite way, is that Swindell is a jackhole for assuming the reason the husband wants more sex is just so that his wife will give him more orgasms. If that’s what he wanted, he could just rub one out to porn or get a hooker. He wants access to his wife and all that that entails, including her submission to him and taking pleasure in being with him. In other words, he is supporting spreadsheet dude and defending him against the accusation that he wants a piece of meat for orgasm production (i.e., what many here refer to as “duty sex”).

    It is interesting the way that Swindle ignored Porretto’s refutation of his argument, and instead selectively quoted him with a focus solely on men wanting orgasms and how bad and selfish men are. Yet Porretto’s point was that the main danger is women acting just as Swindle argues is only proper. As just one example, Swindle quoted the first part of this but stopped at minority in order to avoid Porretto’s rebuttal (emphasis mine):

    Yes, there are men so self-absorbed that a woman’s sexual desire is merely an opening through which to seek their own fulfillment, including the evanescent and essentially trivial pleasure of orgasm. Yes, there are men who never bother to learn “what she likes.” But in any decent society these will be a minority. The great danger to marital relations arises from the accelerating tendency among women to view sex as an imposition, a venue for negotiation, even an unpleasant duty to be minimized. It’s not avoiding “being too tired” from one’s daily labors that’s central, but attaining and maintaining the variety of love that sees the couple as a transcendent entity, greater than the sum of its parts, that deserves every available opportunity to be more than two individuals obsessed with their own prerogatives.

    I think Porretto errs in the way our culture tends to err, in worrying whether sex will be “purified” by being emotional enough (but perhaps I’m misreading him). Either way, if he does err this way he is much less hung up on this than the culture at large, not to mention how hung up Swindle is.

  199. Novaseeker says:

    Lol, women will poach. A ring is a lure, not a ward against women.

    Indeed, and men will, too. It’s another indication that marriage is a fairly meaningless status, in cultural terms, in and of itself (obviously it’s status depends on how the individuals in the marriage view its meaning, and that is subject to “evolution”, as the chattering classes like to say today). For everyone extrinsic to that, the status itself is no more intrinsically meaningful than the fact that someone is in a BF/GF relationship. So, people will, and do, poach, just as they would in BF/GF situations. It’s just how it is today. In no way, in secular society, are people who happen to be married to others “off limits” as a matter of principle. It’s all open season. SMP all the time, 24/7 until you totally age out, and that age is increasing as time goes on and people are more fit/active/attractive for longer. You need to be in SMP mode most of your life, actively, unless you are one of the rare few who actually has a Christian marriage (and even there, as this blog and others point out, you need to go about things in a particular way in order to keep it that way and not have it morph into the typical secular situation of certified BF/GF, with all the constant, endless SMP competition that implies.)

  200. Morpheus says:

    I think Porretto errs in the way our culture tends to err, in worrying whether sex will be “purified” by being emotional enough

    This is an interesting point that I think explains much of the female approach to “moral” or “good” sex. Whether marriage, or serial monogamy, or even just a casual fling, from the female POV the sex is “moral” or “good” if it is rooted in some emotional feeling or “connection”. On the flip side, sex coming from a place of purely physical/sexual tension relief is “bad” or “immoral” even if taking place within the confines of marriage. A man simply wanting to orgasm for physical release is treating his wife like a “whore”.

    Really, this is just one more example of setting the way most female sexuality works as the “norm” while demonizing male sexuality as dysfunctional. I read elsewhere some 50+ woman mention that 99% of her sexual acts with her husband originate from “cuddling”. Speaking for myself, and probably most men, there are times you just want to f*ck.

  201. Novaseeker says:

    Speaking for myself, and probably most men, there are times you just want to f*ck.

    Women, too, of course … but with certain men only.

    The girl I lampooned recently on my blog who wrote about her infidelity with a super attractive male classmate made it a point to note that during the encounter, which she orchestrated at her own initiative (the guy was actually respecting the boundaries of her relationship in not trying to set something up … although he didn’t turn it down when offered, to be sure), they didn’t make love, but “fucked, hard”, and “three times” (she again, specifically mentioned) … and reflected that it was fantastic. No mention of cuddling. It was pure, raw, animal, monkey sex like they do on the Discovery Channel. Women love that, too, just often NOT with the men they pick as long term mates and husbands.

  202. Dalrock says:

    @Novaseeker

    Speaking for myself, and probably most men, there are times you just want to f*ck.

    Women, too, of course … but with certain men only.

    I believe a very large number of wives would be much happier if their husbands were to simply roger them good and hard, at least once and a while. There are quite a few women on Scary Mommy complaining that their husband was horrified when they told him what they wanted, with plenty of “Me too!” responses. One woman even mentioned having to show her husband the similar confessions of other women on the site before he would agree to do so. Men have been taught that women don’t want “animal” sex, and that only a bad man would ever have sex with his wife in such a way.

    As for why we conflate emotional sex with sexual morality, I think the mechanism here is the fear that men who aren’t attached emotionally won’t play the wayward woman’s game. Carousel riders want to have the freedom of sex outside of marriage (you don’t own me!) but an assurance that should they present any given man in the series with a “Man up” card he will do his duty and marry her. Teaching men that sex is only moral if they have an emotional connection works well toward this aim for 99% of men (Roissy is working on this number though). For the woman herself it isn’t an obstacle, because if she wants sex, it must therefore be good.

  203. Isa says:

    Off topic, but I just found this

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/11/divorce-facts_n_5575693.html?utm_hp_ref=marriage

    “New Study Says Women Are More Likely Than Men To Be Unhappy In Their Marriages” According to new research, women are more likely than men to want out of a marriage — and they’re also more willing to actually end it.

    In other news, water is wet.

  204. Mrs Buck is no left wing crazy…. she is a typical woman ….and that’s all you need to know!

    This.

    Then there is the typical American conservative man.

    Today I heard a story by radio. A policeman has a radio show, and he was discussing a woman who addicted her baby by using heroin while pregnant, and the pending prosecution of same.

    He said, “I just wish the law would allow for SOME way to hold the father accountable”

    Later, online, reading some forum where women comport, a woman who had divorced her husband, then remarried him, after she had a baby with some deadbeat, the recently remarried woman was whining about her husband. Within three responses was someone saying

    “Honey, you need time for yourself, and you need to put that man on rock bottom, and keep him there longer….you gave him his family back too quickly last time”

  205. Novaseeker says:

    I believe a very large number of wives would be much happier if their husbands were to simply roger them good and hard, at least once and a while.

    I don’t doubt it. The issue is the men they pick are not the ones who feel comfortable doing that, right off the bat. Yes, that’s an issue with the men, but the women also generally know what they are getting, because the men who are generally comfortable with just doing it like that are mostly fairly consistent behaviorally also outside the bedroom. Many of the women know this because the type is an ex-BF (or two, or three). But even if not, women can tell the difference, I think, outside the bedroom. So, yes, more men need to realize how they need to approach women and manage relationships with them, in and outside of the bedroom, but I think the issue with marriages is that these are generally not the men most women can snag, because in today’s market a man who has that has a cornucopia of sexual opportunity that our species hasn’t seen since it was swinging from the trees. (Of course, not for moral Christian men, but in the general market, and, as we know, that general market also impacts the Christian one in an indirect way).

  206. Guilty As Charged says:

    “That’s why I’ll never marry – the women I see know that it is their responsibility to keep me happy so that I don’t go looking elsewhere.”

    What’s in it for them? And if they aren’t married to you, why do they care if you look elsewhere?

  207. Isa says:

    @Dalrock and @Novaseeker

    Of course. See 50 shades of Gray for the proof or really any mainstream romance novel, full of rapey rapey sex with a guy who then becomes the perfect castle husband or whatever. So they’re replacing a good rogering with Captain Roger.

  208. I’m no great fan of game but Porretta’s analysis of it as a response to feminism is weak. Call it selfish, call it carnal, or call it shallow for all I care, but to call it a reaction to feminism seems to take the responsibility for it and throw it back into the lap of women. An inversion of the agency arguments that the feminists themselves make. I would maintain that all of the various things that arise in understanding game (hypoagency, hypergamy) were there to reward male strategies well before feminism arrived on the scene.

  209. Robin Munn says:

    @jf12 –

    Thank you for linking to April Bey’s site; it was very informative to click on her “Bio/CV” page (http://www.april-bey.com/biocv.html) and discover the following:

    April began her work as an artist living and growing up in the Caribbean (Nassau, Bahamas). Her work is interdisciplinary and varies based on the content of her work. Her current work is an introspective and social critique of American popular culture. Racial ambiguity, self identity issues and non-traditional racism are also themes seen in her current body of work.

    She received her BFA in drawing in 2009 from Ball State University in Muncie Indiana studying closely with award winning professor and artist John Gee. She received her MFA in painting in 2014 at California State University, Northridge in Los Angeles.

    Can anyone spot what’s missing from her biography page? Answer below, in ROT13 form so you can try to spot it for yourself before looking up the answer:

    Fur zragvbaf ure ON naq ZN… ohg abg ure uhfonaq.

  210. jf12 says:

    @Dalrock re: “There are quite a few women on Scary Mommy complaining that their husband was horrified when they told him what they wanted, with plenty of “Me too!” responses.”

    There are quite a few women on everwhere who make noises with their mouths and or typings with their fingers that don’t have anything to do with reality. Does anyone here actually believe a significant percentage of husbands are reluctant to do it harder, much less ever being horrified? I’m going to guess that if any part of what these women said corresponded in some twisted way to someone’s misremembering of something real, then it was the wife wondering why, after telling him 99 times to stop doing it harder, that he didn’t read her silent mind the 100th time.

  211. Robin Munn says:

    @jf12 –

    What’s 1/24 of a holiday?

    A holihour. (Rhymes with cauliflower).

  212. I wonder who “works in” racial ambiguity and non-traditional racism? Rebecca Watson?

  213. jf12 says:

    @Robin Munn, re: holihour.

    Good one! But when I’m smiling in bed shortly, I’ll have to think of something else, some other reason to be smiling

    Somewhat boringly, but maybe crucially revealingly, this Magaluf story is the kind of thing she would/will bring to my attention as soon as some woman forwards it to her facebook or whatever, and she would/will definitely sputter and scold the girl for being a slut. But if I were to bring it to her attention instead, then she would hound me for days, literally, about why I thought she should be interested in a sex scandal story.

  214. jf12 says:

    Oh yeah, I forgot to mention knowing too well what pushes her buttons …

  215. Snowy says:

    Dalrock: “Much of this is due to the closeness which comes when the path to the marriage bed isn’t strewn with obstacles, and much of it comes from being blessed beyond what we deserve.”

    The ‘irony’ of fighting against, rejecting, dismissing, and even hating God’s Word, not only in relation to man-woman relationship/marriage, but in all things, is that when we follow/do God’s Word, we are blessed one hundred fold. Nonbelievers have no such access to such immense blessings. Great going Dalrock. May you and your family continue doing God’s Word and receiving His blessings.

  216. Guilty As Charged says:

    From Dr. Jeremy’s Psychology Today page.

    “Many theories circulate as to why this couple has a mismatch in desire. Underneath them all, however, is one simple truth… This husband does not have the power to influence his wife’s desire to have sex with him when he wants it. In the primary definition of the word, he is impotent – unable to take effective action; helpless or powerless.

    From this perspective it is easy to see both the husband’s frustration and the wife’s lack of desire for him. As others at Psychology Today have noted, an equal balance of power is essential for satisfying relationships (see here). Such power allows each partner to get their needs met in the relationship. Seeing the other person as powerful (valuable/attractive) also motivates desire to meet their needs. The balance keeps both partners satisfied and desiring each other. Therefore, anything that significantly disempowers either partner reduces the satisfaction of both partners in a relationship.”

  217. JDG says:

    Seeing the other person as powerful (valuable/attractive) also motivates desire to meet their needs.

    I don’t equate valuable or attractive with powerful. And powerful is probably in my top ten list of things I would prefer a woman not to be.

  218. Dalrock says:

    @JDG

    Seeing the other person as powerful (valuable/attractive) also motivates desire to meet their needs.

    I don’t equate valuable or attractive with powerful. And powerful is probably in my top ten list of things I would prefer a woman not to be.

    Yeah. The operating assumption is men and women are the same, so if women find powerful men attractive, the same must also be true for men finding powerful women attractive. Because women are just men who sit to pee, and can have babies.

  219. theasdgamer says:

    @ jf12

    But if I were to bring it to her attention instead, then she would hound me for days, literally, about why I thought she should be interested in a sex scandal story.

    ,Perhaps she had just been listening to Christian radio? I’m not actually gonna blame Christian radio for this phenomenon, but it seems that Christian women who have just been listening to Christian radio become offended if their husbands tell them sex jokes or talk about things that they have observed or heard which have in any way to do with immoral behavior. Of course, within a half hour, they will have totally forgotten all that and will flirt aggressively with their husbands.

    What name should we give to this phenomenon? Electromagnetically-Homiletically-Induced Anti-Carnalism?

  220. theasdgamer says:

    From Dr. Jeremy’s Psychology Today page: …an equal balance of power is essential for satisfying relationships…

    If we accept that women prefer dominant men for sex and relationships, then the notion that women would be satisfied with an equal balance of power in a relationship is hogwash. If the man isn’t dominant, then the woman will attempt to gain dominance until she can replace the man.

  221. jf12 says:

    @tasdg, re: “Of course, within a half hour, they will have totally forgotten all that and will flirt aggressively with their husbands.”

    It has been known to happen. Is this Magaluf story not being circulated in the women’z newz sites?

  222. theasdgamer says:

    @ jf12

    I’m going to guess that if any part of what these women said corresponded in some twisted way to someone’s misremembering of something real

    Don’t forget to mention how the hamster can magically blend all kinds of fantasies into a woman’s memories. All based on her hurt feewings. Really, you can’t make up stuff as crazy as a woman’s hamster can.

  223. jf12 says:

    re: “Therefore, anything that significantly disempowers either partner reduces the satisfaction of both partners in a relationship.”

    Yes. The woman’s unilaterally unretaliatable veto power *completely* disempowers the man, thereby reducing *her* satisfaction.

  224. Lyn87 says:

    The problem with the Psychology Today article is that is was written by a psychologist – Jeremy Nicholson – who is basically a shaman in a suit (not hyperbole – strip away the highfalutin faux-academic mumbo-jumbo, and modern psychology is nearly indistinguishable from what shamans have been doing from the dawn of time – right down to the hypnotism and the “guided imagery”). David Hunt did some excellent work on deconstructing modern psychology and the utter incompatibility of its basic precepts with Biblical Christianity
    (see http://jdlarsenmn.tripod.com/psyc_church2.htm for a small taste).

    So… Mr. Nicholson (I don’t refer to psychologists as “Dr”) got it about half right. He’s right that the husband has no power, and that sex is an implicit part of the marriage “contract” that is no longer in force. What he doesn’t understand is WHY the husband has no power – legal misandry that forbids husbands from wielding power in their own households, with criminal charges if he tries to do so and his wife picks up a telephone. And of course we all know that the other big thing that he gets wrong is his absurd declaration that “an equal balance of power is essential for satisfying relationships.” To apply that thinking to marital relationships demonstrates a lack of understanding about human nature so profound that only a psychologist or a feminist would think it. If this clown knew anything about female psychology or the dynamics of male-female relationships he would know that an “equal-power partnership” is unsatisfying to both normal men and normal women. If a woman has as much power as a man, what does she need him for? Briffault’s Law then kicks in. For the uninitiated, Briffault’s Law is as follows:

    “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.”

    Spreadsheet Guy is pulling the only lever available short of going to war with his wife and the entire judiciary – a fact-based appeal to his wife’s sense of shame for reneging on their agreement. That’s a thin reed to lean on because she is already actively defrauding him, and no matter what she does or refuses to do, she gets to hold him to his part of the deal – and both her rebellion and his obligations are enforceable by white knights with guns and badges.

    Mr. Nicholson is less clueless than David Swindle, but it’s a mainly a matter of degree.

  225. MarcusD says:

    Where does a single man meet a good, single woman??

    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=899628

  226. BradA says:

    His comments section stuck in my craw and I posted some smart replies, enough so it told me I was spamming.

    Hopefully I don’t get banned from Instapundit now, where I sometimes comment.

    Though that is a good way for them to help me save money by not buying a membership in their site, so maybe that would be good….

  227. BradA says:

    I remember seeing this a while back:

    I am not sure I completely agree with it any more though.

  228. Cane Caldo says:

    @Dalrock

    As for why we conflate emotional sex with sexual morality, I think the mechanism here is the fear that men who aren’t attached emotionally won’t play the wayward woman’s game.

    Disagree. It is men who are searching for the emotional sex connection. Women want men to want it, exploit this desire, but it is men who drive it. Players roam, stay, or leave based upon it; always chasing it. Betas moan about duty sex, “But she doesn’t mean it!” Even doofuses like Swindle are after it.

    To women (the exploitive ones) it is the drama and self-actualizaiotn. Can they get him emotionally involved? Am I a a worthy or attractive enough woman?

    Hence, the medicine of a good rogering. Their desire is to provoke the love, sex, emotions, etc. In the immortal words of The Cars

    I guess, you’re just what I needed
    (Just what I needed)
    I needed someone to feed
    I guess, you’re just what I needed
    (Just what I needed)
    I needed someone to bleed
    Yeah, yeah, so bleed me

  229. BradA says:

    TFH,

    I had 2 cats before I got married. We have 3 now, down from 4. I like cats and would have more, but more than 2 limits some options, so that will likely be our max amount. I will get a couple of big dogs if I ever move out to the country as we are considering.

    Noting pets before children is a stupid argument.

    I adopted my children (and wish I hadn’t, unfortunately), but not giving birth to children had nothing to do with having a pet before we had children. (Plenty of attempts, the plumbing just didn’t work and we didn’t like fertility stuff at the time. Far too late now baring a Sarai/Sarah-type miracle.)

  230. Guilty As Charged says:

    “The problem with the Psychology Today article is that is was written by a psychologist – Jeremy Nicholson – who is basically a shaman in a suit (not hyperbole – strip away the highfalutin faux-academic mumbo-jumbo, and modern psychology is nearly indistinguishable from what shamans have been doing from the dawn of time – right down to the hypnotism and the “guided imagery”).”

    All for naught without ayahuasca in my book. Nothing, and I mean NOTHING, worked for me until my first journey under the guidance of a medicine man in the Amazon. I am forever humbled and awed by that experience.

    Dr. Jeremy doesn’t miss a beat. He even recommends foot rubs!

    How to Balance Power, Increase Desire, and Find Satisfaction in Relationships

    “Taking another look at the infamous spreadsheet, we see that the husband is not totally powerless. How can I tell? He was able to entice his wife into sex three times in a month! Not to mention, she presumably married him for some reason. Clearly then, he has some influence and value here. The task is to figure out what she values in him…and leverage it for greater power, desire, and satisfaction for both of them.

    Put simply, to get what he wants, when he wants it, he needs to make sex a more rewarding experience for her. I mean this literally…he needs to make sure he rewards her behavior on the occasions that she chooses to have sex. Because there are a lot of reasons why people have sex (again, see here), that reward will depend on what she values and needs from him.

    For example:

    Perhaps she agrees to have sex on nights she wants physical pleasure…He should be sure, especially after he is satisfied, that she is rewarded with sexual pleasure and satisfaction too.
    Maybe she wants to feel emotionally close…He could then make sure she is cuddled and loved, especially after sex, rather than just rolling over to sleep.
    Possibly she would like to be considerate and satisfy her partner…He should remember to reinforce her behavior afterwards by telling her how much he appreciates her caring for him.
    It could be that she wants a favor of another kind…He could be sure to take out the trash or rub her feet, after she takes care of him, to reinforce her sexual behavior.

    In other words, to make the relationship better for the both of them sexually (and beyond), the husband needs to:

    Figure out the reasons why his wife desires and chooses to have sex sometimes – and increase his ability to meet those wants/needs. This will increase his value to her…and her desire for him.
    He then has to to stop chasing her for sex constantly and only reward her with the things she wants/needs when she addresses his needs too (in this case, his sexual needs).”

  231. This is a general comment, but I sense a general air of bewilderment at the idea of men disliking women asking for rougher sex, but it’s not as odd as you might think. If anybody has read “Brave New World”, think of John the Savage’s reactions to Lenina, basically a slut he’s attracted to. John comes to see sex as something the weak and immoral do and becomes terrified of sex with her to the point where he attacks Lenina if she attempts to initiate it.

    It’s similar thinking with some of these men. Every man WANTS sex. Not every man may have a specific idea of “rough” sex, but I highly doubt any are particularly interested all the time in a lot of foreplay leading up to it. But they are terrified, due mostly to feminist conditioning, that they are doing something “wrong” if they initiate things in a way that makes the wife unhappy. So if a man is asked if he “wants” rough sex many will honestly answer no, in the sense that they do not want to do anything they consider immoral – similar to a man saying they wouldn’t “want” to commit adultery. Well, yeah, duh, EVERY man will be tempted at some point, but when asked point blank morality will trump and the majority of men will say they wouldn’t do anything like that.

    Same principle.

  232. Don Quixote says:

    Did somebody [Dalrock] say tilting at windmills?
    Never fear the knight of the woeful figure is here

  233. theasdgamer says:

    Girls like a hard rogering, assuming that they aren’t chafing. “It’s the anatomy, stupid.” The clitoris is all through the vulva–the head and shaft are connected to clitoral tissue that wraps the first three inches of the vagina and a whole lot more. A hard rogering impacts a whole lot of the clitoris.

    Clitoris graphics here: http://uppercasewoman.com/2012/01/23/whip-it-out-how-big-is-your-clit/

    The new info was found through MRI studies in the last four years.

  234. jf12 says:

    @tasdg, what will not surprise any men is that the “internal penis” is MUCH bigger than the “internal clitoris”. FWIW the not-really-erectile “clitoral” tissue that wraps around the vaginal is a vestigial version of part of the base of the penis.

    Your larger point, that women often are harder to get off than men, is well taken.

  235. theasdgamer says:

    @ jf12

    FWIW the not-really-erectile “clitoral” tissue that wraps around the vaginal

    But that tissue does engorge with blood during sex, which increases the pressure from surrounding tissue. Shaking the surrounding tissue hard stimulates a whole lot of nerve endings in the clitoris and explains why women like hard collisions with a man’s hips during sex.

    Your larger point, that women often are harder to get off than men, is well taken.

    YMMV. Not all women are slower than men. The PUA claim that women can get off quickly is quite accurate. Dancer’s hips might make a difference. Or maybe it depends on how she perceives her partner.

  236. greyghost says:

    A woman in gina tingle can get off from voice tone and light touching any where on her body. There is no this “gets her off”

  237. hurting says:

    Anonymous Reader says:
    July 29, 2014 at 6:50 pm

    The idea of puppy as training for parenthood is intriguing. From my own experience I can see where caring for a puppy (and training it to be a well-behaved dog) would give someone practice in establishing clear cut roles or authority that many parents seem to be incapable of developing. In my estimation cats don’t count as they are exceedingly low maintenance.

    As to whether or not having a cat/dog before children is a leading indicator of ultimate childlessness, I’d hypothesize that it depends on whose idea it is. If it’s hers, you betcha.

  238. Opus says:

    I must say, I found this exchange of views from Swindle’s site pretty funny – and confusing:

    Amwassil: Dave, I thought you were a Christian. Now, I see you are a Manichean Gnostic.
    Swindle: I am most definitely not a Manichean Gnostic. I am a Judeo-Christian-Hermeticist.
    Reformed Trombonist: You sound like a half-crazed Calvinist to me.

  239. Dalrock says:

    Something is quite off about “Guilty as charged”, and I see now that she showed up right after I banned Barb. It could well be a coincidence, but I’m going with my already loudly ringing troll alarm.

  240. jf12 says:

    @hurting re: “I’d hypothesize that it depends on whose idea it is. If it’s hers, you betcha.”

    A related point has been raised a couple of times in passing: it matters if the pet itself is his or hers.

  241. jf12 says:

    @Opus, re: dash-dash-combo people.

    It seems logical to me that if someone wants to self-identify as a continual Boundary-Crosser, then one should Agree and Amplify. “Ah, I see, you are a Transgressor.”

    But that probably marks me as a Snidely-Sneerer.

  242. Oscar says:

    @Dalrock says:
    July 30, 2014 at 9:11 am

    “Something is quite off about “Guilty as charged”, and I see now that she showed up right after I banned Barb. It could well be a coincidence, but I’m going with my already loudly ringing troll alarm.”

    I didn’t know you were Norwegian!

  243. Cane Caldo says:

    Good call on Guilty.

  244. tacomaster2 says:

    @Feminist Hater

    “They spend so much time trying to convince men that they have all the obligations in marriage and that their future wives have none that it isn’t surprising that, outside of marriage, men have far more options and choose being a sinning bachelor to a sexless chump. In marriage, you will spend all your time worrying about pleasing your wife and stopping her from pushing the divorce button, that you won’t be doing much else, especially sex, this in turn shows men that marriage is nothing but a one way proposition and that you can more easily pursue your life’s work outside of marriage, even though you sin by having sex outside of it.”

    Well spoken FH. Men are taught, especially in church, that we hold the blunt of the responsibility of marriage happiness. I always wonder what women are taught at their conferences? The men’s conferences I used to attend would always ultimately lead to this conclusion that the husbands are to make the woman happy. I remember one conference where one of the pastors spoke of women needing love notes and flirtation ALL DAY LONG–“leave notes in her purse! Leave them by her night stand!” . He suggested to make it an all day process because “they are slow cookers” and need to be reminded how much we value and love them.

    Men outside marriage do have lots of options like you said FH. I think the three main reasons people in my age group, I’m a millennial, get married are: 1) don’t want to live in sin so get married which is a big reason i got married, B) fear of being alone at an older age, and C) all your friends are getting married so why the heck not?. I attribute C to peer pressure and 90% of the men in church who lie about how awesome marriage is or are never honest about it to the younger guys. Case in point, even after my mom frivorced my dad and stole my brother and I away him, he never spoke ill of marriage. He never gave me wisdom or knowledge which is what I think a lot of older Christian guys or maybe guys in general do.

  245. Gaza says:

    Buena Vista,
    Nice to see you here. Hope to see more of your commentary. I used to read/lurk over at just four guys until it was hijacked by that race-obsessed, self-aggrandizing dolt. Hope you are healing well. Cheers.

  246. Novaseeker says:

    Case in point, even after my mom frivorced my dad and stole my brother and I away him, he never spoke ill of marriage.

    That is tricky and has to be done very carefully. If it is done bluntly it can be considered to be parental alienation (many divorced people don’t diss marriage as much as they diss marriage to their ex, which is alienating to the kids) and also the idea that they don’t want to spread their own mess/anger/cynicism to their children. So I can see why people do NOT do it.

    I am very general in things with my own son. He knows the score about girls, based on numerous conversations about them with me. We haven’t gotten to the marriage issue yet, but that’s because he’s still quite young (15) when it comes to marriage. What I can say, however, is that his generation of boys is generally NOT very blue pill about girls. Growing up with the internet and nude selfies and pr0n everywhere has acted to dispell much of the outright guff that older generations thought of girls at that age. I know I was solidly blue pill at 15, way back in the late middle ages.

  247. jf12 says:

    @tacomaster2, re: “we hold the blunt”

    Bogart!

    I’m feeling weird today, btw.

  248. Gaza says:

    “A woman in gina tingle can get off from voice tone and light touching any where on her body. There is no this “gets her off””

    True enough, if you inspire those kind of gina tingles to begin with, something that seems to be out of reach for a significant percentage of husbands. When I emerged from a sexless marriage I had no idea as to the extent of my sexual appeal and subsequent ability to generate tingles-through-O rather easily in women who actually found me attractive in that visceral way. Sure enough, my deep voice and caress would have her going plain and simple.

    Of course, keeping a wife “happy” also includes taking responsibility for her unique anatomical wiring and arousal/stimulation triggers. A “skill” that is often criticized since of course no woman should have to understand her own triggers and communicate those to her husband, even those with lotsa “experience”.

    In fact for those with experienceIt is just becomes one more way in which those previous sex partners are elevated above the husband in terms of sexual “quality”; she didn’t have to tell them how to touch her. Which goes back to the precondition of gina tingle; if that cannot be organically generated and maintained consistently, he’s dead in the water. A lack of tingles erodes respect rather quickly and when that vacates what backfills are emotions that are rarely reversed.

  249. deti says:

    “I think the three main reasons people in my age group, I’m a millennial, get married are: 1) don’t want to live in sin so get married which is a big reason i got married, B) fear of being alone at an older age, and C) all your friends are getting married so why the heck not?”

    I think that most Christian men get married because of (1). Most men get married, whether secular or Christian, because they are already having sex with a “serious girlfriend”, and one or both of them decide it is time to marry for whatever reason – to have kids, to “make it official”, what have you.

    The main reason the man who is sexing his “serious girlfriend” marries that girlfriend is because she decides it is time for her to marry, and he wants to keep the sex spigot open. He worked hard to get this one girl, and he knows that if he doesn’t want to get married, she will eventually break up with him. She’s using her ease of securing men and sex against him. The implicit message she’s sending is:

    “I want to get married. If we don’t, I’ll break up with you, and it will be very difficult for you to get another woman to have sex with you. I know this because I made you wait a while. It will be months before you get sex again. I, on the other hand, will be able to find another man inside of a week and I can have sex pretty much when I want. Your choice, big boy.”

    Taco: “I attribute C to peer pressure and 90% of the men in church who lie about how awesome marriage is or are never honest about it to the younger guys.”

    Married men in church from my experience never talk much about their marriages because it’s considered bad form to speak ill of a woman (see AlphaGamePlan’s topic today). And it’s even worse for a married church man to badmouth marriage, because if he is saying these things, what does that say about his wife? Men are conditioned hard never to do this, because that’s “kicking a woman when she’s down” and all that. And most married men from my dad’s generation had, I suspect, little sexual experience apart from the women they married, so their frames of references are limited.

    I don’t agree that most men outside church are marrying because their male friends are marrying. Most men aren’t taking marital or marriage cues from what other men do; they take that cue from the woman/women they’re dating, sexing or serious about.

  250. Oscar says:

    tacomaster2 says:
    July 30, 2014 at 10:20 am

    “The men’s conferences I used to attend would always ultimately lead to this conclusion that the husbands are to make the woman happy.”

    I think one of the greatest services Dalrock and Cane provide is how they explain the difference between LOVING ONES WIFE and MAKING ONES WIFE FEEL LOVED. The former is what God commands us to do, and leads to greater marital fulfillment (even if it didn’t, we should obey God). The latter is what feminism commands us to do, and it’s a trap!

    “I think the three main reasons people in my age group, I’m a millennial, get married are: 1) don’t want to live in sin so get married which is a big reason i got married”

    According to St Paul, that’s a good reason to get married (1 Cor 7:9).

    “even after my mom frivorced my dad and stole my brother and I away him, he never spoke ill of marriage. He never gave me wisdom or knowledge which is what I think a lot of older Christian guys or maybe guys in general do.”

    I don’t think it’s necessary to “speak ill of marriage”. I do think it’s necessary to be clear about all the temptations and trials facing those of us who want to practice Biblical marriage (that includes humanist and Satanic philosophies that have infiltrated the Chruch).

    The Bible does that without speaking ill of marriage. The trouble is that most Churches no longer preach the Bible, but then, the Bible warned us that would be the case.

    As an older (pushing 40), married, older dude with lots of children, I empathize. I had to figure most of this stuff out on my own, but sites like Dalrock’s and Cane’s opened my eyes to issues I hadn’t considered.

    Stick around. There’s a lot to learn here and at Cane’s. Older Christian men SHOULD mentor the younger ones. And if we can’t do so in person, this is probably the next best thing.

  251. Well, at the very least we know that Guilty is “tripping” (on ayahuasca). I’ll always remember to reward my wife for good sex by taking out the garbage. I’m sure that will keep the good times rolling. (Or maybe I’m just not tripping).

  252. Lyn87 says:

    Oscar writes, “Stick around. There’s a lot to learn here and at Cane’s. Older Christian men SHOULD mentor the younger ones. And if we can’t do so in person, this is probably the next best thing.

    I wholeheartedly agree Oscar, but would offer a word of caution. I’m a bit older than you, and I describe my marriage very similarly to how Dalrock describes his. I married a 20-year-old virgin nearly 27 years ago (that’s where the “87” in “Lyn87″ comes from, in fact), and my wife and I have never once raised our voices to each other in anger.

    I have been accused of rubbing guy’s noses in… something, merely because I stand up in testimony that not all women are lying, cheating, whores (although most of them are). Also, despite the fact that the divorce rate is now lower than it was when I was in the marriage market (it peaked in the early/mid 1980’s), I have also been accused of not understanding the perilous odds a man faces when he gets married, etc..

    “There is nothing new under the sun,” and the situation really hasn’t changed all that much over the past 40 years. In some ways it’s more obvious (smartphone selfies and the internet have put things in the public eye that used to be more hidden), but the average girl of my generation was every bit as slutty and destructively hypergamous as their daughters are now. The legal ground has shifted some as well: on the one hand, child support extortion is a much bigger deal than it used to be, but on the other hand there’s less alimony overall and 35 states already have joint custody as the default arrangement, rather than the “always the mother” mindset of entire 20th Century. I expect that before long the presumption of joint custody will be universal in the United States.

    Anyway, like you, I intend to keep beating the drums against feminism (especially in the church), and I find myself not recommending either marriage or military service for the average guy anymore – although earlier in my life I heartily endorsed both.

  253. greyghost says:

    Anyway, like you, I intend to keep beating the drums against feminism (especially in the church), and I find myself not recommending either marriage or military service for the average guy anymore – although earlier in my life I heartily endorsed both.

    Lyn87
    That is very telling and one day we all here will have changed that.

  254. tacomaster2 says:

    @ Rollo
    “I think part of that pre-marriage blue pill idealism, particularly for churchies, also involves a lot of self-righteous pride. A lot of guys, go into marriage thinking that they’ll buck the trend and show everyone how great marriage can be by being an SJW for marriage.”

    Not sure if you have ever heard of Tom Leykis or heard his show but he would often express this same exact point–“But were innnnnn loooooovvvveeee! We have a love no one has ever seen before! You are all doing it wrong! We know what to do!” And then he would tell the caller that him and millions of other mens were idiots (sarcastically) and good luck after he told him how the odds were against them. One example he’d give was “would you get in a car if you had a 50% chance of getting in an accident? That’s what marriage is these days”.

  255. jeff says:

    Question again,

    I have NOT done dread on my wife. However, I have started chuckling when she wants to argue something mundane, and when we do have a heated discussion and she concedes and says ” you’re right”, I will say “I know I am”. She has seen acting like an abused wife.

    I have read how this is a feminist tactic to get husbands to submit. BUT I haven’t read how to deal with this, you know the down turned mouth and puppy eyes with the shoulders drooped looking down.

    Do I ignore this?

  256. Novaseeker says:

    35 states already have joint custody as the default arrangement, rather than the “always the mother” mindset of entire 20th Century. I expect that before long the presumption of joint custody will be universal in the United States.

    That’s joint legal. Joint physical is still rather uncommon, and it’s also the lynchpin for CS.

  257. greyghost says:

    Jeff
    Ignore it from a point of view of having to “fix” it. Tell her “I know I am” Then add to that “that is why you have chosen to commit yourself in marriage. You have a husband.

  258. TFH says:

    That’s joint legal. Joint physical is still rather uncommon, and it’s also the lynchpin for CS.

    Nothing that ends or even reduces the diabolical genius behind the current ‘child support’ mechanism will happen without extreme revolt.

    The financial media whines about corporate tax loopholes, and whether the top individual bracket should be 39.6% or 35%. In the meantime, 10-30% of working-age US men are effectively under a 70-80% tax bracket, through little or no fault of their own.

    Even if the income from their day jobs is imputed, people under this bracket will certainly not start any side venture or work on any inventions in their garage.

    That cannot be good for the economy.

  259. deti says:

    “That’s joint legal. Joint physical is still rather uncommon, and it’s also the lynchpin for CS.”

    Mostly because joint physical (or “joint residential custody”) isn’t really considered to be in the ‘best interest of the child(ren)”, in most cases. You can do it sometimes with an older kid if the law permits taking the kid’s own preferences into account. Most of the time, “primary residential custody” goes to mom.

    There’s a presumption in the law that developed in the 1960s and 70s that mom should get the kids in a divorce because mom is considered to be a more “natural” caregiver because of her sex and because as a practical matter she did more hands on child care. Moms were just considered “more nurturing” and “more caring” and “more attentive” to children’s needs than men. It probably grew out of the “tender years” doctrine, where in a divorce, the infant went to mom because the infant was still breastfeeding and nursing, and thus had to be with mom.

  260. Jeff, when a woman acts offended or hurt and tries to get you to back down, your two main choices are to ignore her or what’s called “agree and amplify.” If she says you’re being a jerk, you say something like, “Yep, biggest jerk in town; aren’t you lucky?”

    When a man becomes more dominant and stops letting his wife push him around, she’s guaranteed to test him to see if this change is for real. She probably won’t know why, or whether she likes it (she may think she’s sure she doesn’t), or even that she’s testing. But when you stick to your guns, it’ll gradually reframe you in her eyes as more masculine and less susceptible to manipulation. It can take a while, especially if you were too beta for a long time, and she’ll probably never stop testing completely; but if you’re consistent, she’ll usually relax and cut back on it after a while.

  261. TFH says:

    deti,

    Most of the time, “primary residential custody” goes to mom.

    Also, it is a diabolical way to ensure that the woman gets the house.

    Ironically, if a man has 3 or more kids, the magnitude of injustice done to him is less than if he has only one kid, at the time of divorce. So if men marry, they better swiftly have 3 or more kids, close together, so that the woman does not have much time to watch any TV or media, and get the wrong ideas.

    The idle female mind is the devil/divorce industry’s workshop.

  262. greyghost says:

    Novaseeker
    father still pays the mother for the kids and he gets to pay for day care.

  263. cicero says:

    @greyghost
    Thanks for that example

    So what you are saying is that the “dread seasoning” that you are referring to is an attempt to get a running of the Pamplona Hamsters. To trigger her emotions in order to make her fear the feeling of ending up *alone* and turning into some or other crazy cat lady

    Because by what I read your “dread seasoning” does not actually involve her discovering the actual value of the sacrifice involved on the husbands part in laying down his life.

  264. hurting says:

    Lyn87 says:
    July 30, 2014 at 11:53 am

    One point of clarification, if you please…

    You indicate that 35 states have some form of joint custody presupposition – do you have a source for this? The research I’ve done would suggest that there are few if any jurisdictions that truly support such a notion, especially as physical custody is concerned (physical custody drive the dollars). Further, I think even where it is encouraged, it can essentially be unilaterally revoked by all but axe-murdering mothers either at the time of the divorce or after the decree is issued; all she has to do is claim that your relationship is too difficult and she’s going to be awarded sole legal custody and primary physical custody. The upshot of this is that you will be the ‘every other weekend and Wednesday night dad’ whose job it is to pay the bills and keep his pie hole shut.

    I think the attorneys commenting here would agree that custody is a bit more complicated than most of the world realizes.

  265. Novaseeker says:

    Also, it is a diabolical way to ensure that the woman gets the house.

    Ironically, if a man has 3 or more kids, the magnitude of injustice done to him is less than if he has only one kid, at the time of divorce. So if men marry, they better swiftly have 3 or more kids, close together, so that the woman does not have much time to watch any TV or media, and get the wrong ideas.

    father still pays the mother for the kids and he gets to pay for day care.

    Yes and yes.

    The name of the game in child-related stuff in divorce is where the kid(s) live. That determines who gets the house (in most cases), and it also determines CS. If the kids live with both, it muddies up the CS (the CS fornulae have deductions if the kids live more than X days with the payor spouse), and makes it more like what most people would think CS payments are like, instead of the mortgage-level payments they are currently.

    But the point is that joint legal is a trojan horse. Yes, it gives you the right, with legal backing almost impossible to enforce properly, but it’s still something) to have your say in very major decisions, like schools, healthcare crises and so on. It doesn’t impact much else, as a practical matter. BUT … it is a great false flag because it helps convince people that “hey, man, it’s all joint now, that’s the norm, so quityerbitchin, bitches!”. In other words, it serves as a great neutralizer for criticism, because most people who aren’t directly impacted or who do not work in the field cannot be arsed to educate themselves about the actual details and therefore slogans like “hey, it’s now joint custody man” have the desired effect of neutralizing criticism.

    The enemy is both smart and effective and is not to be underestimated, gentlemen.

  266. cicero says:

    Well I guess this is an example of Swindle’s setting the mood and pressing the right buttons. Still looks like a *pussy* cat to me.

  267. jeff says:

    gg,

    Thank you. I have read dalrock’s posts on reframing marriage, and christianity that has been invaded by the feminist. We are both christian now, but only for 12+ years. Her mother worshipped gloria steinham, so I hope you understand where I am coming from.

    She has claimed some good has come from the feminist movemnt in the past. The other night I challenged her on it. I asked for 3 examples. She couldn’t come up with one. I don’t see this as improvement but for the fact that I didn’t get into an emotional fight with her hamster.

  268. Escoffier says:

    Speculating here, but I would bet that in a plurality, and maybe a majoirty, of UMC marriages “who gets the house” is a moot point, because after the divorce and with all related one-time and ongoing expenses, that house payment is no longer going to be within reach.

    I know the court can “purport” income and demand from the man whatever it wants to (though I have no idea how often this happens), but if the money’s not there, it’s not there. Vindictive ex-wife can send her former hubby to jail for it, but she’s still going to have to move out.

  269. greyghost says:

    The words joint custody are used to keep the man under the blue pill during the court proceedings because during that time is when the red pill rush causes the murder suicides and court house shootings. let him think he has rights and hope and he won’t try and kill the judge or his ex-wife and hopefully will go back to work and not kill himself so everybody gets paid. NEXT!

  270. TFH says:

    The enemy is both smart and effective and is not to be underestimated, gentlemen.

    That is because this particular thing was a collaboration between feminists and conservatives, with no opposition to this collaboration.

    When they get together, the zeal behind ‘the man must pay more’ is just as unquestioned as a belief that mosquitos should be killed.

    Even now, many (perhaps even most) conservatives thing the law is not tough enough on fathers, and that any and all abortions and single motherhood can be lessened by punishing the *man* further.

  271. tacomaster2 says:

    @ Novaseeker–
    “That is tricky and has to be done very carefully. If it is done bluntly it can be considered to be parental alienation (many divorced people don’t diss marriage as much as they diss marriage to their ex, which is alienating to the kids) and also the idea that they don’t want to spread their own mess/anger/cynicism to their children. So I can see why people do NOT do it.”

    I think that is amazing that you speak with your 15 year old about these things. I see your point; it wouldn’t be wise to spread your anger and cynicism to your children. That would probably backfire in the long run. What I meant is that my dad never gave me any direction or knowledge about women or relationships. It would have been nice to have received some wisdom from him. I noticed about that you have a blog. What is the website for that?

    @ Deti

    “Married men in church from my experience never talk much about their marriages because it’s considered bad form to speak ill of a woman (see AlphaGamePlan’s topic today). And it’s even worse for a married church man to badmouth marriage, because if he is saying these things, what does that say about his wife?”

    True. I see your point. I think male Christian mentors or male church leaders however could explain –“ok, these are the things you should look for and desire in a wife based on these verses in the Bible”, go into scriptures, especially Proverbs and Corinthians. Then, on the other hand explain what attributes and qualities would lead you to a life of pain in marriage. I like that you, Dalrock and other Christian guys on here break it down like that but I don’t see much of that at church these days. I think more mentoring needs to happen.

    And I live in the south where guys do get pressured into marrying but maybe not to the same extent you are thinking of. It still happens.

    @Oscar
    “I think one of the greatest services Dalrock and Cane provide is how they explain the difference between LOVING ONES WIFE and MAKING ONES WIFE FEEL LOVED. The former is what God commands us to do, and leads to greater marital fulfillment (even if it didn’t, we should obey God). The latter is what feminism commands us to do, and it’s a trap!”

    Yes. I forgot to put in the word “FEEL”. Big difference there.

    I do get a lot out of these postings but don’t always have the time to comment.

  272. deti says:

    RE: “who gets the house”.

    Esco, I think you’re correct that in most cases mom and kids can’t afford the house, but it depends on the house’s value and the payments/mortgages/liens on it. I’ve not seen it work out such that ex H continues paying the mortgage. The way I’ve seen it done is that ex H quitclaims (or deeds whatever his interest is) to ex Wife; and at the same time she has to “buy him out” such that he no longer owns any interest or has any liabilities on the (former) marital house. This is one way it can work, particularly if ex W is working. Sometimes, exW can make the payments – barely – between her job and the hefty CS.

    Another way, of course, is that the house has to be sold because even with CS she can’t afford the (refinanced) mortgage.

    Either way, ex H loses because he’s lost all equity interest in the largest marital asset. Whatever equity he gets from either a quitclaim or a house sale is a pittance compared to his actual equity while he was married to his now ex W.

    People who have gotten divorced tell me it’s horribly, horribly expensive monetarily. Very, very expensive.

  273. hurting says:

    Novaseeker says:
    July 30, 2014 at 1:45 pm

    Yes, joint legal custody is a false flag operation, especially, to amplify my earlier point, the first time you have a major disagreement driving one of the parties to seek the court’s further interference you’re goint to end up with a sole legal custody arrangment on top of the likely lopsided physical. Guess what, guys? It probably isn’t going to be you.

    Even if you do adjust the CS formula due to a more even splitting of the physical custody, CS will not be eliminated completely if there’s any meaningful difference in income.

    The CS formulae that I’ve investigated are so horrendously flawed from an economics standpoint it would take a month of Sundays to explain.

    I’d also add that one needs to be careful about assertions about trends in alimony. It is generally alive and well in many jurisdictions and is typically awarded without respect to fault, extends to pensions in many cases and is subject to considerable discretion by the presiding judge.

    Caveat emptor.

  274. anonymous_ng says:

    Regarding physical custody, I think there is a difference depending on whether the point is contested or not. Our separation/divorce went down in a well known liberal bastion in the Western state where I live, but, as we both had agreed on an every other week custody scheme, the judge declined to meddle with it.

    Also, I know a woman who after remarrying, moved one state over for a new job, but the judge denied her petition to take her son with her to the new state. It seems at least in this case, that the state is less willing to rubber stamp moving the children away from the other parent.

  275. Lyn87 says:

    Hurting asks me: “You indicate that 35 states have some form of joint custody presupposition – do you have a source for this?

    http://ancpr.com/joint_custody_laws_in_the_united.htm

    That’s the website of the Alliance for Non-Custodial Parents Rights (ANCPR), which is VERY much opposed to the presumption of mother-custody. These guys are our allies, they’re successful activists, this is their main focus… and they’re calling it good news, so I would be reluctant to blithely assume that they’re missing some critical nuance that we understand.

    Note that I’m NOT saying that we’ve reached Custody Nirvana – far from it. My preference would be for presumptive father custody of legitimate children… But any way you slice it, the current situation IS better in 35 states now than it was 25 years ago. Is the current situation perfect? Not even close. Good? Not really. Better than it used to be? Absolutely.

    I realize that one should not take feminist whining all that seriously, but major feminists and their organizations have been going apoplectic over this trend. If you read the state laws you’ll see that one of the common things those laws frown upon is “unwillingness to cooperate with the other parent in the joint custody arrangement.” Since it almost always women who attempt to use the kids as hostages and weapons, that common provision benefits men to a great degree.

    Again… I’m not saying that we’re where we need to be, but in this area progress has been made in recent years.

  276. Novaseeker says:

    Speculating here, but I would bet that in a plurality, and maybe a majoirty, of UMC marriages “who gets the house” is a moot point, because after the divorce and with all related one-time and ongoing expenses, that house payment is no longer going to be within reach.

    It tends to be “priced” in a very extravagant way, actually. In my case, with both of us earning the same, payment was just under 2k/mo, which, coupled with her income, more than paid the mortgage. The additional living cost on my end is just sucked up by me. And that’s a roughly equal income situation, mind you. Doctor acquaintance of mine had two kids and pays around 2700/m0; his ex is remarried to a partner at a downtown lawfirm, and basically the money is gravy time. Great system, eh?

    I think that is amazing that you speak with your 15 year old about these things. I see your point; it wouldn’t be wise to spread your anger and cynicism to your children. That would probably backfire in the long run. What I meant is that my dad never gave me any direction or knowledge about women or relationships. It would have been nice to have received some wisdom from him. I noticed about that you have a blog. What is the website for that?

    I’m at this address: veritaslounge.com.

    I do talk with my son in general about some of these kinds of things (I think it would be abuse not to do so, given my experiences in the area), but never about his mom or what happened with us or anything negative in general about marriage as such. He needs a chance to do that himself if he wants, based on his own sober evaluation, which should be based on a clear eyed view of women, sex relations, divorce law and so on (he understands the latter from personal experience, unfortunately). But I DO talk to him about red pill stuff about girls and frankly, for the most part, his baseline is red pill oriented, to a large degree, already. It’s an amazing shift, and one I think many are just unaware of. The general feeling of benevolence and goodwill towards peer age girls among boys of that age seems not to have lessened … it seems to be gone. Poof. The default setting is changing pretty quickly.

    Even if you do adjust the CS formula due to a more even splitting of the physical custody, CS will not be eliminated completely if there’s any meaningful difference in income.

    Yes, that’s very true. It does get reduced a lot, though, but not eliminated.

  277. Novaseeker says:

    Regarding physical custody, I think there is a difference depending on whether the point is contested or not. Our separation/divorce went down in a well known liberal bastion in the Western state where I live, but, as we both had agreed on an every other week custody scheme, the judge declined to meddle with it.

    Also, I know a woman who after remarrying, moved one state over for a new job, but the judge denied her petition to take her son with her to the new state. It seems at least in this case, that the state is less willing to rubber stamp moving the children away from the other parent.

    It’s all very localized — within states, and counties within states, and judges within counties. That’s one of the issues with the system.

    I’ll say this, though. Both WA (where Bill Price of the Spearhead lives) and VA (where I live, hence moniker) allowed our ex-wives to remove the child(ren) not only across state lines but to Canuckistan. Again, it varies a lot by where you live, who the judge is and so on.

  278. Dalrock says:

    @jeff

    Question again,

    I have NOT done dread on my wife. However, I have started chuckling when she wants to argue something mundane, and when we do have a heated discussion and she concedes and says ” you’re right”, I will say “I know I am”. She has seen acting like an abused wife.

    I have read how this is a feminist tactic to get husbands to submit. BUT I haven’t read how to deal with this, you know the down turned mouth and puppy eyes with the shoulders drooped looking down.

    Do I ignore this?

    Others have suggested ignoring it, and I don’t think that is bad advice. Much of this is a matter of style/taste. If I imagine my wife doing the same my own instinct would be something playful which sets a new frame. I might start walking past her with a mock serious look on my face, and then all of a sudden pull her into my arms from behind while laughing and kiss her on the neck. If you can imagine doing that with your wife as something fun/loving, then it would probably work well. Another possibility would be to suddenly take her hand and whisper conspiratorially; I just remembered! You have to see this incredible thing in the kitchen/living room/wherever (a room you aren’t in which is on the same floor)! Take her hand and urgently lead her into the other room, then pull her into you and declare “us!”. This is pretty goofy stuff, and may not be right for you. But it matches with the goofiness of the mock puppy dog look, and also resets the frame.

    I’d be interested in Cane Caldo’s approach to the same question as well.

  279. Novaseeker says:

    @Lyn —

    Did you look at the statutes cited in that link? They don’t provide for joint physical custody in general. The key in most of them is what is in the best interests of the child, in the court’s finding. For many judges, unless you live down the street from your ex so that there is not much transit back and forth and in the same school district and so on, that is enough of a disruption to find that it is not in the best interests of the child to have JC. Even aside from that, many of the statutes specifically mention economic impact, which means that if it will reduce CS too much, then it is not in the best interests of the child.

    The devil is in the details, as usual.

  280. Dalrock says:

    @jeff

    She has claimed some good has come from the feminist movemnt in the past. The other night I challenged her on it. I asked for 3 examples. She couldn’t come up with one. I don’t see this as improvement but for the fact that I didn’t get into an emotional fight with her hamster.

    I would agree that the big win there is not getting into an emotional fight with her hamster. I would also resist the temptation to make everything a logical debate. This is how you change men’s minds, and not typically how you change a woman’s mind. What she came away from there is probably much more about you not backing down than any logical points you made.

  281. Looking Glass says:

    In the early 2000s, I came across an article in a business magazine pointing out divorce would normally cost you 70% of your net worth. Though that depends on where it happens, most definitely.

  282. Oscar says:

    Lyn87 says:
    July 30, 2014 at 11:53 am

    “Anyway, like you, I intend to keep beating the drums against feminism (especially in the church), and I find myself not recommending either marriage or military service for the average guy anymore – although earlier in my life I heartily endorsed both.”

    You and I need to have a beer some day. I get the feeling I’d learn a lot. Unfortunately, I’m inclined to agree with you, although I’m probably a little more optimistic about military service. I still recommend it as a method to learn useful skills, especially leadership, but not for a career.

  283. jf12 says:

    re: no change in custody statistics.

    The numbers and proportions of custodial parents have not changed in two decades.

    http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p60-240.pdf

  284. hurting says:

    deti says:
    July 30, 2014 at 2:05 pm

    There is no more ruthless and effective destroyer of personal wealth than divorce for the average bear. Not hookers, not meth, not college for kids, not healthcare. None of it.

    It has been almost exactly four years since my wife depressed the plunger on the detonator. At that time we had a net worth of of $145K exclusive of real estate equity (which was notably higher than $0), drove two, paid-off late model cars, had kids in private schools, a household income of $120K and generous benefits from my employer, and I was ten years away from a comfortable defined-benefit pension.

    I begged her to let me have the house for what was owed on it, as selling it would net us quite little after a forced sale in a terrible market. She was not having it, so we ended up selling the house under duress and were lucky to leave closing with a check as opposed to bringing one.

    She is in bankruptcy (negative net worth) and is now unemployed. I am hanging on by the skin of my teeth, having been able to buy a decent house in a comparable neighborhood despite an effective “tax” rate of 50%. All but about $35K of my net worth has been exhausted, liquidating IRA’s to pay my attorney and get my kids through the same private HS they started. There is no money for college, needless to say, but I can help them by providing them a place to live while they attend one of the local colleges or universities.

    On my less charitable days, I’d like to take aside a few of the folks from the ‘you go girrrrl’ crowd and show them the numbers, including the report cards of two kids who could have gone to any college outside the most selective in the country. But then again, I’m not much into teaching pigs to sing.

  285. Dalrock says:

    A bit more on not always choosing to logically argue an issue. When she says something like:

    The feminist movement has been a good thing in the past.

    you could simply tease her. A shit eating grin while saying “My wife the feminist” is one way to respond. Now she’s trying to qualify herself as not really a feminist. Feel free to be playful and have fun with her while doing this. A more elaborate response would be to ask her to wait a minute, go in to the kitchen and get the fire extinguisher, come back and ask her to continue, as if what you did was perfectly normal. When she asks why you did that, “I want to be ready if you are going to burn your bra”. Or, “Does this mean we are going to save money on razor blades?”

    Others may well have better ideas.

  286. JDG says:

    Because by what I read your “dread seasoning” does not actually involve her discovering the actual value of the sacrifice involved on the husbands part in laying down his life.

    The comment below isn’t meant as a for or against using dread. Neither is this in regards to female moral agency. It’s just a passing thought:

    I’m not sure there are very many women who are able to grasp the idea that their husbands make sacrifices for them, let alone appreciate what is being done.

    I’m grateful to have a wife who was raised in a traditional and somewhat patriarchal environment, but she still fails to grasp many of the things I sacrifice for her benefit. I also see this frequently in other women in regards to the men in their lives.

    I just go ahead and do what needs to be done. I have tried to explain it sometimes, but usually without success. It really doesn’t matter to me if she thinks I am being selfish or not as long as she abstains from rebellion.

  287. TFH says:

    hurting,

    The worst thing about your story is the kids.

    Even when a kid of divorce ‘turns out alright’ and is in a stable $60K job, people mistakenly think this means he was not harmed. Instead, I see that as a $300K earner who ended up being a $60K earner by not having his father with him.

    The conversion of the $300K earner to the $60K earner is just as bad as the conversion of a $60K earner into a chronically unemployed man.

    On my less charitable days, I’d like to take aside a few of the folks from the ‘you go girrrrl’ crowd and show them the numbers,

    It won’t sway them. If they cared about the numbers, they would have looked them up themselves by now.

    What shocks me is how many *conservatives* see no other solution to these problems beyond ‘more misandry is needed’. From abortion to single motherhood to divorce, tougher laws on men is the only solution they have.

  288. hurting says:

    Novaseeker says:
    July 30, 2014 at 2:46 pm

    Better example to cite the absolute inability of the fathers’ rights movement to get any traction at all on a presumption of joint physical custody. It’s been tried in my state, but none of the interested parties (read: family law practicitoners and judges) want to see it happen, putatively out of concern for the nebulous child’s best interest (or that of the public), but more likely from the suspicion that without the all but guarantee of a significant income stream through chilimony, fewer women would divorce.

    Excellent point about the arbitrary nature of domestic relations law (how jursiprudence can differ from one judge to the next in a large jurisdiction). My divorce was tried in a bastion of blue pill conservatism where an elected Democrat can not be found with a search warrant and a bloodhound; I got skinned alive. If it had been adjudicated in an adjacent county (literally 100 feet from my property line), I probably would have fared no worse and likely a little better based on what post mortem analysis I’ve been able to do.

  289. jf12 says:

    re: a good thing in the past. Back when they won the right to wear bloomers?

  290. jf12 says:

    re: better ideas. Clearly my mood today isn’t conducive to peace-making.

  291. JDG says:

    My preference would be for presumptive father custody of legitimate children

    This X 1000!

    I’m convinced that divorce rates would plummet if this were the case.

  292. hurting says:

    TFH says:
    July 30, 2014 at 3:33 pm

    Your analogies are spot on. While I try not to dwell on ‘what could have been’, it is crushing to realize the emotional devastation wrought on children by divorce (and yes, the divorce, at least when it happened, will have been worse than us trying to have made it work).

    Both my kids are smart, especially the younger one (think terminal degree in hard science or engineering, medicine, law), but the toll the divorce itself exacts in well nigh incalculable. They will eventually be OK, I think, but they will have to work far harder to get where they would have been absent the break-up of their parents’ marriage.

    It hasn’t been a picnic for me, either. It’s difficult to get motivated to work really hard and advance one’s career when you make less than your subordinates.

  293. Dr. Jeremy says:

    To Dalrock and Others…

    I am familiar with female psychology, hypergamy, and biblical headship… None are incompatible with the ideas I put forth. There are many types of power and value…society simply focuses on some and ignores others. This strategy allows women to appear completely disempowered, which is not the case. The rest of you seem to be focused on that limited notion of power and value as well – which confuses the point I am trying to make.

    In truth, women have a great deal of power, particularly from reproductive value. They use that value to attract a mate…and that power to get their needs met in a relationship. In a traditional relationship, that is traded for a man’s survival power/value. He get a wife, mother to his children, and homemaker…she gets provisioning and protection.

    He may still be the decision-maker, given his role as HOH, but that does not mean that she does not have equal value or power to influence the dynamic. If she did not have value, he would not desire her. If she did not have value, she would have no power to trade for what she wants in return.

    For example… Ephesians 5:33, “Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband”.

    Clearly, from a biblical point of view, a husband is charged with leadership. His value and power comes from the protection, provisioning, and direction he provides. This is used to get what he needs from his wife, who should feel respect and submit. However, he is also called to love his wife as himself. Thus, even in her submission, the value she provides, and the love he feels for her because of it, give her power to get her needs met. After all, there is power in submission too…”blessed are the meek”…”turn the other cheek”, etc.

    IMO then, relationships are breaking down because things like marriage laws are artificially entitling/empowering one trading partner…while devaluing the other. This ruins equitable trade. Eventually, although someone clearly “wins” in the short run, it creates chaos and dissatisfaction for all in the long run. Equitable, complementary relationships, where both partners trade value and get their needs met, are the only long-term, mutually satisfying, arrangements. Whether you want to contemplate it from a biblical perspective, or a psychological one, the conclusion is still the same.

  294. Lyn87 says:

    hurting, nova, et al,

    I understand everyone’s reluctance to break out in the “Hallelujah Chorus” over the recent changes in presumptive custody in 35 states, but there really IS a silver lining here…

    Feminists have become caught in a trap of their own making. They have always been lying about their desire for “equality.” Anyone who hasn’t been in a cave since 1963 knows that feminism has always been about releasing women from their obligations under the old social construct while counting on men to retain theirs. But to get to where they want to go (female supremacy in all things at all times), they have to pretend to want actual equality… and in this case, they over-reached themselves. After all the “gender-neutrality” they asked for – and got – they were dismayed to discover that there were, indeed, plenty of areas where women enjoyed enormous privilege, and “gender-neutral” laws undermined them. One of those is presumptive custody of minor children.

    Oops. They didn’t want THAT much equality!

    But it is without doubt that – in the last few years – the idea that a husband would automatically lose his kids is no longer true – the odds are still stacked against him, but he now has a fighting chance. A fair number of men who fight for custody get some form of it, and lawyers no longer tell all their male clients, “Don’t even bother: you’re just going to lose,” like they did until very recently.

    Bottom line: feminists screwed themselves over by demanding equality when they didn’t really mean it. We’re a long way from “winning,” and it’s too early to uncork the champagne, but we can at least smirk at the schaudenfreude, can’t we?

  295. Dalrock says:

    Thanks Dr. Jeremy. Good insight. Where I disagreed upthread was what I interpreted as a claim that men are attracted to power in women similarly to how women are attracted to power in men.

  296. Opus says:

    I cannot recall any case of Joint Custody, not that I think it forbidden, but it always begs the question as to whose decision, when there is disagreement, is to prevail. That requires an application to the court, which is both time consuming and expensive. As usual with law possession is nine-tenths of it. 100% of nothing is worth very little. Joint Custody is (in my view) a refusal to accept that the marriage is over, and frankly it is better to move on, and rearrange your life. I have seen the misery that Access (or as it now called, Contact) causes men, and would not wish that on any but my worst enemy. Every case on its own merits, however, for no two cases are identical.

  297. deti says:

    “his baseline is red pill oriented, to a large degree, already. It’s an amazing shift, and one I think many are just unaware of. The general feeling of benevolence and goodwill towards peer age girls among boys of that age seems not to have lessened … it seems to be gone. Poof. The default setting is changing pretty quickly.”

    I have a daughter about the same age (coming up on 15) living with me in the midwest. Your son’s experience lines up with what my daughter is telling me and what I’m seeing. Teen boys’ relationships to peer age girls is one of two mindsets: Either it’s overtly sexualized, charged with sexual innuendo and conduct; or it’s indifference. Either fledgling player or budding MGTOW.

  298. TFH says:

    deti,

    Either it’s overtly sexualized, charged with sexual innuendo and conduct; or it’s indifference. Either fledgling player or budding MGTOW.

    Remember how I said a few days ago that the next generation of men deciding not to orient themselves toward being family men (and taxpayers) could jump from 10% to 40% pretty quickly, as there have been similarly swift cultural changes on seemingly unchangeable topics, in the past.

    It really only takes 20% of first-time marriage-aged men (22-40) to decide to pursue different goals to change everything. This is not a ‘marriage strike’, but rather a ‘deprioritization of preparation for family formation’.

  299. hurting says:

    Lyn87 says:
    July 30, 2014 at 4:02 pm

    Lyn,

    I believe your optimism is earnest and sincere and do not question your motives, but in the interest of giving advice seekers here full disclosure, I have heretofore and will continue to present a dissenting view in the absence of better evidence.

    Men who obtain custody in the manner that women typically do (sole legal and primary physical) are outliers as others have ably demonstrated; as to how they pulled it off, I would not speculate as I’m not privy to all of the details of their situations. Even the one case I know pretty well (a friend of mine whose wife left him high and dry to ‘see other people’ who eventually wrested custody of his two daughters from his abandoning wife) was a herculean effort. Odds are that even those who had some kind of modified arrangment (joint legal custody and a more equal sharing of parent time) probably had to concede something along the way to get there because judges will typically not order non-traditional arrangements over the objection of either party (read: woman) and may impose their own judgment over an agreed-upon custody arrangement between the parties.

    You are right that we should not give up hope or write off our present situation as hopeless, but I beleive your characterization is just a bit too optimistic for an advice seekng man. The odds are simply too long that he would realistically win a custody lottery. And that’s essentially what it is.

  300. TFH says:

    hurting and Lyn87,

    Remember that the current misandric regime is so extreme that if they make a small concession, they still retain 90% of the misandry that has cumulatively been enacted since 1960.

    This sort of ‘concession’ by them is actually perfect from their point of view, because now they can point out that they made a concession, and just run interference until people accept the new status quo. They still retain 90% of the legislative changes.

    Sort of like how 96% of alimony paid is by men, and 4% by women. That 4% is immensely valuable, for it enables feminists to say “See! Women pay alimony too!”, and dupe the distressingly large percentage of the population who take anecdote as sufficient proof of something.

  301. deti says:

    “This is not a ‘marriage strike’, but rather a ‘deprioritization of preparation for family formation’.”

    Well, that could be, and remains to be seen. It’s not happening yet. Could be in the teen boy range. Elspeth talks about her 20 year old daughter who can’t seem to find any men of husband material. But she is of a group (young devout virgin Christian) that is so infinitesimally small as to be statistically insignificant.

    What’s striking about this is the boys don’t seem to be under any illusions about female nature. They’re not having any of this “sugar and spice and everything nice” stuff. They’re not even trying to hear about deference and “ladies first” and assuming the best.

    Another unintended consequence of feminism, I think.

  302. TFH says:

    deti,

    I see plenty of 20-29 y/o men who are surprisingly up to speed about at least the legal risks of marriage. This corresponds directly to the number of manginas of every age doubling down (Swindle, etc.).

    The key is, fence-sitters are becoming fewer and fewer, and men are falling into one camp or another (certain aspects of this might be innate, as many manginas seem utterly unreachable). Fence-sitting gets harder as the topic comes up in more and more places.

    For each man who becomes even slightly more red pill, manginas have to double down, as each unit of worship gets less and less return.

    The intensity of mangina doubling-down is perhaps the best indicator of what is really happening on the ground, at what rate.

  303. JDG says:

    Dr. Jeremy:

    In truth, women have a great deal of power, particularly from reproductive value. They use that value to attract a mate…and that power to get their needs met in a relationship. In a traditional relationship, that is traded for a man’s survival power/value. He get a wife, mother to his children, and homemaker…she gets provisioning and protection.

    Yes this is correct and was once common knowledge, but when I read your earlier comment and the article you wrote, the context for relationship power seemed to be represented as more egalitarian in nature. Perhaps it was the filters that trigger in my mind when ever I read the word “psychologist”.

    Nevertheless, I agree with the paragraph as stated above.

  304. JDG says:

    I should add that in non-“traditional” relationships the reproductive and other natural advantages for the female are still present in addition to the power of an egalitarian or matriarchal relationship plus any power given by the state. I submit that these combined influences work together to maintain the “despotism of the petticoat” that John Adams forewarned of.

  305. Bee says:

    lyn87, JDG,

    “My preference would be for presumptive father custody of legitimate children.”

    These books advocate this forcefully:

    “http://www.fisheaters.com/gb6.html”

  306. JDG says:

    Thank you Bee.

  307. The Brass Cat says:

    It occurred to me that an interesting point of distinction between MRAs and Feminists is that only one of these groups hides its hatred of manginas. That parallels what is happening inside the manginas’ own psyches.

  308. Crank says:

    “It occurred to me that an interesting point of distinction between MRAs and Feminists . . .”

    Another is billions of dollars of federal funding.

  309. greyghost says:

    Because by what I read your “dread seasoning” does not actually involve her discovering the actual value of the sacrifice involved on the husbands part in laying down his life.

    jeff, cicero,all
    “game’ as I know it and explain to other men solid beta family men (Christian) is just understanding female nature. No woman has the capacity to understand or appreciate sacrifice others do for them. We can split hairs on it but that is a solid responsible baseline frame of reference. Use her hamster we know we are the stability in her and our children’s life regardless of income. As Hurting’s story shows logic and reality has no place. he tried to reason with her she says fuck you my hamster is running this and Opera said I am entitled to my share the kids will be alright. As he said she is done financially and the kids paid a price. The only thing that would have stopped the frivorce would have been the hamster FEELING what the reality would have been in the future only a loving husband with true headship can do that. A supplicating churchian loving his wife so she feels love and happiness can not. Because he is pleasing her and not carrying out the mission. Will fully deny the concept of game and projecting virtue on to a woman to show how righteous and biblical you are is the worse kind of crime. The only thing worse is to deliberately keep other men in the dark isn’t an effort too please the feminine imperative. (we have assholes working in the church calling themselves Chistian deliberately ignoring the bible. and then we wonder where all the Atheist come from.) When a hamster feels reality of the future there is fear speaking to the hamster is “dread” The truth works wonders here. That fear is soothed away by her husband.
    I have a 13 year old daughter her first “dread’ from her father is “there is no such thing as cheating on a girlfriend” That is a romance killer. I always present a flippant attitude towards a girlfriend. “If she was worth the hassle she would be a wife” (when she is old enough to drive I’ll add “she is just some skank he’s sticking his dick in” that father daughter love there) That is a sample of how I speak to a 13 year old daughter or any single girl/woman. Just doing my part.
    What Dalrock was describing to Jeff is how a husband soothes away the fear from dread. You are the source of security and comfort at the hamster level (where it is real for a woman.) All of that logic, good looks and money have no place on the hamster wheel. I hope this helps explain some of beta family man Christian game as a non church employee.

  310. greyghost says:

    Bee

    It only has 141 views and one was me Be nice if it went all over the manosphere

  311. The Other Jim says:

    I’m late to this discussion and the previous commentary has been excellent and informative. The only thing I could possible add is the following; Cherchez la femme.

    It’s a French phrase made famous by Alexandre Dumas who used it to imply that if one wants to understand a man, then you must look to the women in his life. Most often that means the influence of their mothers or their wives. It is applicable to understanding the behavior of supposedly influential & powerful men. Colin Powell, Paul Krugman, Barack Obama, John McCain, Roger Ebert, and Bill Gates, to name a few come foremost to mind. While men can escape the influence of their mothers at the very least by leaving their childhood homes, few men can escape the influence of a headstrong wife who dominates their households. In the case of Mr. Swindle, it’s apparent he is trying to supplicate his beastly-with regards to her character-wife.

    What I find interesting is that like Rebecca Brink, Mrs. Swindle-Bey’s devotion to Contemporary art reveals much about her character and thus, Mr. Swindle’s as well. It takes a tremendous amount of self-delusion and deceit to convince oneself that Contemporary Art is “Art”. The entire basis of Contemporary Art is that its ideology is inherently about abandoning traditional Western Canons of Art that have defined art for aeons-Clarity, beauty, symmetry, balance, figuration, harmony, narrative, philosophy, skill, et al. Even its physicality as an object. To embrace Contemporary Art is to reject all of these standards. In essence, it is the rejection of “Truth” itself.

    That is what Mrs. Swindle-Bey(& Mz. Brink) has done by embracing Contemporary Art-the rejection of Truth itself. No doubt she didn’t start off with that rejection of truth, but like building an immunity to poison by imbibing small amounts of poison in order to later consume large quantities of poison, the end result is the same. For these people the lies have become the truth. By marrying a woman like Mrs.Swindle-Bey and seeking to supplicate her, Mr. Swindle has imbibed the same poison she has which perhaps explains Mr. Swindle’s own irrational and incoherent beliefs.

  312. TFH says:

    BrassCat,

    It occurred to me that an interesting point of distinction between MRAs and Feminists is that only one of these groups hides its hatred of manginas. That parallels what is happening inside the manginas’ own psyches.

    That is why I often say that one of the highest-impact strategies MRAs can use is to (unofficially) align with ordinary women to transfer all costs onto manginas.

    That is one thing that MRAs and women (and ‘feminists’) agree on : all costs should be piled onto manginas.

  313. JDG says:

    Another is billions of dollars of federal funding.

    True dat!

    It only has 141 views and one was me Be nice if it went all over the manosphere

    One of those was me from a month or so ago. I actually have it book marked along with this:

    http://www.fisheaters.com/garbagegeneration.html

  314. JDG says:

    greyghost says:
    July 30, 2014 at 6:35 pm

    I forgot to mention I also recommended it to my pastor. I don’t know if he followed up on it or not yet, but it wouldn’t surprise me if he did.

  315. enrique432 says:

    empathologism: Those stories of women cuckholding their husbands (raising another man’s child etc). leave me SMH. Recall the guy on the Catholic forum, someone cross posted here, who was feeling all guilty for feeling not totally cool with raising the black baby his wife was about to have from a weekend cheat or whatever it was (side note: if the baby was going to be white, think she might have tried to fool him?).

    We have reached the Event Horizon–

    We’ve gotten to a point where hold grown women to lower standards than teens were when I was a teen (80s). I hold my 5 year old to higher “age of reason” standards than most men, and our culture seem to want to hold women to. There is next to ZERO accountability for women (yes, even fat women), in this culture.

    Have to crack up at my Christian friends who think we are so “backward” in our culture. Not that we are perfect, and I live here after all, but imagine a universe where FATHERS have presumed custody, and women who commit adultery are shamed by everyone (e.g. Lebanon), ostracized from both families of origin (e.g. Egypt), or executed (Saudi).

  316. tacomaster2 says:

    @Lyn87 and Oscar

    Re: “Anyway, like you, I intend to keep beating the drums against feminism (especially in the church), and I find myself not recommending either marriage or military service for the average guy anymore – although earlier in my life I heartily endorsed both.”

    Honorably discharged veteran and I probably wouldn’t suggest the military to people these days. Glad I had the experience and met some awesome guys along the way, but it’s drastically changed in the last 5-10 years. Like you said Oscar, you can gain a skill or leadership IF you want to. A lot of guys waste their time and don’t get anything out of it.

  317. Bluepillprofessor says:

    “I’m a bit disappointed in Swindle. He forgot to mention foot rubs. And what about learning her love language? Giving her a footrub while speaking her love language is guaranteed to get her hot. If it doesn’t, you probably aren’t doing enough choreplay.”

    This column had golden bars- not just nuggets- Dalrock. Thanks!

    I am really offended by the claim wives have no duty to have sex with their husbands. When the hell did this become the norm? Brothers, if a woman is not having sex with you regularly it is because she is deliberately avoiding bonding with you. Sex bonds the couple, especially the woman, and if she views you as below her standards she will have an aversion to having sex. In marriage 1.0 she was encouraged by the culture to overcome this and to follow the bible and actually submit to her husband.

    With marriage 2.0, women were given the power to refuse- but even more they are encouraged to tantalize and punish and dangle the forbidden fruit while making their man dance like a puppet for his treat. Perhaps the power is initially intoxicating but the women don’t seem to understand why they see their defeated husbands who desperately jump to please them on the chance they might get an ovulation frack or a pity frack every month or so in such a poor light. Why they are suddenly so…Beta. Yuck. Why is my husband such an undesirable, unworthy man? Wahhh! Cue the where are all the good men music.

    Master Rollo teaches us that you cannot negotiate desire. However, all the way through history until the very, very recent past men simply commanded the woman to respond and she was compelled to comply by all the social norms and laws.

    (Spoiler Alert…)

    In most cases the act of commanding a woman generates immense desire in her. This is not a bug, it is the actual programming that was put in there for a reason. It was why marriage 1.0 worked and why marriage 2.0 is unbiblical and not a tenable social institution.

    On the other side of a command is compliance. With the Red Pill we focus on masculine power and frame but never forget the power of the feminine and the power of submission. The same previously undesirable and defeated man will, in many cases, suddenly become strong and desirable if he has a respectful wife who submits to him as the Bible describes. Imagine if this dowdy, pouty man/loser with a whiny voice and an attitude was getting some every other night in a loving happy relationship. His entire attitude and demeanor changes. He suddenly becomes desirable! Now it is no longer a duty for the wife to service him. See how that works? Who knew the Biblical way of marriage was right and feminism was wrong?

  318. Anonymous age 72 says:

    Coincidentally, on a blog I prefer not to name, I have been having fun sword fighting with AW of the worst sort. The blogger explained why he did not want women over 25 years old. You can imagine the hysterical screams from certain women. You can be sure most of them are fat and past their expiration date.

    I tossed some gasoline when I told that when I was 64, a 14 year old Mexican girl fell head over heels in love with me. True every word.

    And, that I believe right now a 16 year old Mexican girl has at least a major crush on me. And, in both cases, I explained why that happened. Of course this cannot be since AW are in touch with all the women of the world. NOT!

    Anyway, at one point I mentioned the local 78 year old rich guy in my village had a baby with a 20 year old ranch girl. Roar!!!

    One woman called her a whore, because he “gives her things” and she gives him sex, which constitutes prostitution.

    A week ago, I would not have understood her. But after reading the comments of insane women on the Spreadsheet Man article, I understood her. And, a lot of insane AW.

    It is bad if a husband gives his wife things, which in this case means take her off a very poor ranch, and putting her up in upper class housing, her kids going to university instead of going hungry. And, expecting sex, as it was in Marriage 1.0.

    No, he is supposed to give her all those wonderful things, and she is supposed to give him N.O.T.H.I.N.G. Then, it’s not prostitution. Clever, isn’t it? How to eliminate prostitution in one simply move! Pay the woman and reject the sex!

    I wrote the article describing AW as clinically insane quite a few years ago on DGM-2. Apparently, I had no idea just how insane they really are.

    I wonder if this latest insanity is an upgrade from the Fat Girl BBW thing that we are supposed to ignore tons of blubber and ascertain what is in a hog’s heart, and just love her for that. So, the next step is we are supposed to be married and give all our worldly goods to our wives, just because of what is in their heart, and not even expect sex?

  319. Bluepillprofessor says:

    @Deti: “The female tension and fear is premised on the man’s attractiveness and the ever present potential that he could replace her should the marriage end.

    There are at least two marriages in the manosphere in which the female half confesses to more or less this dynamic being quite active in those marriages. There are more such marriages, I’m sure.”

    Your not supposed to talk to your wife about such things but if I count make it a 3rd. My wife admitted even before I used the heavy dread that she would want to have sex more if younger, hotter girls also wanted to have sex with me, prompting my note to self: Read Day Bang, the Natural, and The Art of Seduction. As Dalrock pointed out upthread nothing gets the hamsters running like reading certain books. Studying pickup artistry is hamster Meth.

  320. jf12 says:

    Our Lord’s Dread game. After extreme examples don’t work (e.g. Jer 3:7-8), extreme measures are dealt (Isa 50:1).

  321. Snowy says:

    I reckon guilty as charged is guilty as charged. Follow this link:

    http://globalskywatch.com/chemtrails/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=6526#Post6526

    and watch ‘Internet shills and hired trolls: what you need to know.’

  322. Snowy says:

    imnobody00 says, regarding (North) Americans:

    “As with these powers before you, you think your success is because the way you are and not because you have worked hard in the past.”

    I don’t think so. The Americans now, as those empires that have fallen before them, will fall because they fail to acknowledge that all things they have received (blessings) are from God, not themselves, and are therefore setting themselves up for God’s curses. See Deuteronomy. It is especially so for the USA because they officially identified themselves as a Christian nation. I’m Australian, and I believe we’re only just hanging on to God’s blessings by a thread too. Australia is a Christian nation too, though not officially so.

  323. b g says:

    Anonymous age 72

    You know it may be luck or it might be grace, but sometimes you find a worthy lover ;-D

  324. JDG says:

    Snowy says:
    July 30, 2014 at 10:14 pm

    Yikes!

    Snowy says:
    July 30, 2014 at 11:30 pm

    My thoughts are along this line as well.

  325. JDG says:

    “From bondage to spiritual faith.
    From spiritual faith to great courage.
    From courage to liberty.
    From liberty to abundance.
    From abundance to selfishness.
    From selfishness to complacency.
    From complacency to apathy.
    From apathy to dependency.
    From dependency back again into bondage.”
    –Sir Alex Fraser Tyler, A Scottish jurist and historian

  326. feeriker says:

    Anonymous age 72 says:July 30, 2014 at 8:57 pm

    It never ceases to amaze (and sicken), does it?

    My next-door neighbor’s South American wife has been up here in El Norte for not even a year, and of all things American that have formed an impression on her, one of the things that has horrified her most is how absolutely abominably most AWs treat their husbands and boyfriends (what has especially shocked her has been the discovery that Hispanic women in America are no different than their gringa counterparts in this regard). This lady is no wallflower, but she cannot imagine why American men put up with what they do from American women. My only hope is that she doesn’t become infected with same condition over time.

  327. JDG says:

    This lady is no wallflower, but she cannot imagine why American men put up with what they do from American women.

    Me neither.

  328. MarcusD says:

    Daughter sending inappropriate emails

    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=899911

    On deciding not to have children…

    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=899769

    It’s not just blonds: Why intelligent women are more fun, and gentlemen are finally starting to prefer us

    http://life.nationalpost.com/2014/07/29/its-not-just-blonds-why-intelligent-women-are-more-fun-and-gentlemen-are-finally-starting-to-prefer-us/

  329. jf12 says:

    @feeriker re: “horrified her most is how absolutely abominably most AWs treat their husbands and boyfriends”

    I’ve never heard anything different from the two or three hundred foreign-origin women living in America that I’ve known well through the years. Every single one has been shocked and amazed and frightened at how poorly the women treat the men in America.

    “My only hope is that she doesn’t become infected with same condition over time.”

    I’ve never known any one that held out more than a few years. They all become American Women.

  330. feeriker says:

    I’ve never known any one that held out more than a few years. They all become American Women.

    This what I fear most for my neighbor, although his wife will probably take much longer to acculturate than usual. Were I he, I would never have brought her back to Norte Amerika. Unfortunately, she hails from one of South America’s less stable countries, so I can understand from his perspective why he chose not to expatriate.

  331. imnobody00 says:

    @PuzzledTraveller

    You say it all above my friend. Even you wanted to come here.

    I went there only to improve my English but it was a fiasco. I was living in Houston and everybody spoke Spanish with me. The Wal-mart near my house was remodeled and all the banners and prices were written in Spanish. The Houston bus station has a title calling “Estación de autobuses” (only in Spanish, not even in bilingual). I try to speak in English in malls or pharmacies and I was replied in Spanish. I tried to make friends but they spoke Spanish. So much for learning English.

    But I really hated the American lifestyle. My assignment and my visa were for three years. After the first year, I said to me: “enough is enough. I don’t want to live like a slave”.

    Come back to America.

    I will go back someday for tourism. The Grand Canyon is the thing I liked the most, especially before sunset. When it comes to visiting, American cities are uninteresting when compared with European cities (which have great art, culture, beauty and history). But some natural sites are completely worthwhile.

    But when it comes to live there, not in a million years. I learned my lesson. This is not the place for me. But you enjoy it and I feel happy for you. I don’t have bad feelings toward American people. They are mostly nice and I want them well. When people in my country criticize American people, I rush to defend them

    I can sense in you something that often permeates the thoughts and the writings of some of those who are not Americans. It is a kind of simmering, low-level anger and impatience with us.

    I cannot speak about other people. In my case, it’s mostly contempt about an overinflated ego and the narcissism it implies. I think it is easier to explain with a comparison. Imagine the typical American land whale that thinks she is the next Angelina Jolie and she is going to marry George Clooney. The woman who is always saying everybody how great and utterly fascinating she is and that every man is dying to date her and marry her. It’s exactly like that.

    But, again, I am not talking about every American. There are many American people who are very nice. It’s only that there is a kind of American that his ego is much greater than his accomplishments. So he resorts to list the accomplishment of other Americans as if they were his own.

    Anger because we maybe don’t understand the complexities and nuances of other regions’ problems to the degree that they think we should. Anger because you know that we don’t want to, but not out of malice in our hearts, but because it isn’t really something we can be bothered about

    Well, some American people are mostly ignorant about the rest of the world and also about the United States. When I lived in the States, it was the time of the campaign of Obama vs. McCain. I used to ask people who wanted to vote for Obama: “Why do you want to vote for Obama? What are the policies you like the most about him?”. Most people couldn’t answer me and had to reply with platitudes (“He is young”, “He brings a new perspective to Washington”, etc). I couldn’t blame them. The TV news consisted of 2 minutes about the campaign and 30 minutes about some little girl lost. Of course, NAMLT.

    But this ignorance does not seem a problem to me. It’s only funny to remember.

    And that makes non-Americans rather upset, because everyone would like to have the undivided attention and assistance of the big man.

    No, I think you don’t understand us. We don’t think you are the big man and we don’t give a damn about your attention or assistance, whether divided or undivided. It’s rather annoying to see somebody that things that being born in a certain geographical location is an accomplishment and makes him better than other people.

  332. Lyn87 says:

    Bluepillprofessor writes:

    Master Rollo teaches us that you cannot negotiate desire. However, all the way through history until the very, very recent past men simply commanded the woman to respond and she was compelled to comply by all the social norms and laws.

    In most cases the act of commanding a woman generates immense desire in her. This is not a bug, it is the actual programming that was put in there for a reason. It was why marriage 1.0 worked and why marriage 2.0 is unbiblical and not a tenable social institution.

    And he is, of course, largely correct. Unlike Mr. Nicholson (who fashions himself “Dr Jeremy”), who wrote this patent nonsense about marriage:

    an equal balance of power is essential for satisfying relationships.

    Further proof (as if more were needed) that psychology is a pseudoscience and that a “Doctor of Psychology” is worthy of the same credibility than we would accord to a “Doctor of Phrenology” or the “Grand Master of the Alchemist’s Guild” – and that a doctorate in that “subject” may be acquired without being able to understand the first thing about how human beings think and act.

    Here’s the real deal – “Equal power” puts a husband on the fast track to a sex-starved marriage, and a wife on the fast path to disdain for her husband who has, after all, no more power than a girl… pretty much the exact opposite of a “satisfying relationship.”

    To borrow a few paragraphs from the now-departed David Hunt [emphasis in original]:

    The heroes and heroines of Bible history all triumphed by faith in God and in His promises. They neither had nor needed any help whatsoever from “Christian psychology”, which didn’t even exist in their day. Wouldn’t faith in God and His Word, which has been proved thousands of times through the ages to be more than sufficient in every conceivable circumstance and in the deepest trials, be sufficient for Christians today, no matter what their trials and challenges might be? What could possibly persuade a Christian to look to psychology, invented by anti-Christians, for help in living a life pleasing to God?

    Of course, [some] Christian psychologists claim to have a firm faith in the inerrancy of Scripture. But no matter how firmly a psychologist adheres to inerrancy of Scripture, they all must deny its sufficiency. This is the only way to justify their profession. If any part of the Bible is in error, however, then where can the line be drawn? If the Bible has not given us all we need to live the Christian life, that fact alone would be enough to make all of it suspect in view of the many places where it claims to be sufficient for living triumphant lives pleasing to God.

    How and why would psychology, invented by atheists and anti-Christians as a substitute for God, the Bible, and Christianity, provide new insights into the Bible unknown to (and obviously unneeded by) millions of believers over the last four thousand years or more? And why would we need it now? There is neither a biblical nor rational answer to that logical question.

    “Christian” psychology is not a recognized classification in this field. Textbooks and reference manuals list hundreds of psychologies (Freudian, Jungian, Rogerian, humanistic, etc.), each named after its founder or its founder’s chief theory. But there is no school of psychology that was founded by a Christian and is therefore called “Christian” and recognized as such in university libraries. Psychology is in fact anti-Christian. It doesn’t come from the Bible but is simply an attempt to integrate the theories of atheists into the Bible in order to supply missing essentials for daily living that the Holy Spirit apparently failed to include. Does that sound reasonable?

    Here is what two leading Christian psychologists had to say in a paper delivered at a convention of Christian psychologists:

    We are often asked if we are “Christian psychologists” and find it difficult to answer since we don’t know what the question implies. We are Christians who are psychologists, but at the present time there is no acceptable Christian psychology that is markedly different from non-Christian psychology.

  333. MarcusD says:

    As France Grants Asylum to Iraqi Christians, Rep. Wolf Slams ‘Silence’ in Washington’

    http://cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/france-grants-asylum-iraqi-christians-rep-wolf-slams-silence

  334. Spike says:

    Greyghost 6.35pm July 10:
    Thanks so much for A YOUTUBE video of Daniel Amneus’s great work “The Case For Father Custody”. This work is now available over the Net (Anyone interested Google it) and is a MUST READ for any man who is a father or intends marriage.
    I didn’t know this existed, and it is another very potent weapon in this fight.
    Thanks again.

  335. LiveFearless says:

    From http://relinquishingjunk.com/aboutdavid.htm

    Our initial relationship was too brief. Other guys pursued April and miscellaneous bits of drama provoked me to foolishly end the relationship too soon.
    We wouldn’t get back together for a year and a half or so.”

  336. Opus says:

    @Anon 72

    When I was just out of school, a woman, in her twenties, where I then worked, had, pinned above her desk endless photographs of the actor John Wayne – and as he looked in his latter years – that is to say well over sixty years of age. She explained she had a major crush on him.

    Some years later I had a client, a man in his early seventies – otherwise unprepossessing – whose girlfriend, who was not fat although perhaps a bit introverted, was in her mid twenties.

    Sometimes one sees the opposite, the older woman with the young guy.

  337. cicero says:

    @greyghost
    Well I do remember saying that I would play devils advocate and agree with you that one should ad “dread seasoning”. My subsequent question was with regards to how you would go about applying it within the context of what I wrote about the sacrifices of a husband and your interpretation on your changes of my text. The discussion wasn’t about the ethics of game or whether it works or not.

  338. Opus says:

    @Lyn 87

    Whereas (and purely from prejudice) I like to regard Psychology as pseudo-science, in fact pseudo-religion and bearing much in common with Voodoo, I do feel that although women may on occasions respond well to being told what to do, that sadly is not usually the case. Consider John Milton, whose wife, and within a day or so of marriage, running back to her parents, his vain attempts to get her to return. No wonder one of his pamphlets is entitled The Doctrine and Divinity of Divorce, wherein – knowing Milton – I am sure he finds plenty of Biblical authority for divorcing the baggage. How he must have envied the serpent in Book 4 of Paradise Lost (Dalrockians can find it in Genesis but not, sadly, in rolling blank verse) with his smooth tongued appeal to Eve’s Hypergamy.

    Personally I have always found women to be as difficult and intractable as the most pampered of house cats. Getting a woman to do what she does not want to do seems to be beyond any power of mine short of running the risk of incarceration. Readers here with teenage daughters may well attest to this, even as they seek to blame the hapless male would-be suitor.

  339. greyghost says:

    Cicero
    I was hoping that I was answering that very question. It is a tough one to quantify in words. It has to be about her and not about others sacrifice. Women just don’t seem to have the ability to understand sacrifice It is something that she can’t understand and any attempt to explain it will be seen by her as a butt hurt man whining. I wish I could explain it better. The nature of women the solipsism, childlike selfishness and complete lack of empathy is real and it is powerful enough to destroy civilizations. When it is said that matriarchies live in grass huts that is the truth.
    The best you can ever get is for her hamster to associate you with removing the fear and discomfort of dread.. You are the best deal she can get She will never ever honor you or respect you for any thing you do or have done for her nor will she ever appreciate any sacrifice made for her benefit. That is a romantic thing men came up with because they are in love with that woman.
    Women make shitty combat soldiers and team members in general for this reason even beyond any physical or emotional/psychological limitation.
    You are asking for a recipe for toasted ice. Eve lived in the garden of Eden with God himself running the place. Wasn’t good enough.

  340. jf12 says:

    @Opus, re: “Personally I have always found women to be as difficult and intractable as the most pampered of house cats.”

    More so.

  341. cicero says:

    @greyghost
    Well thank you anyway for taking the time to try and put it into words. And as for women not understanding sacrifice I would have to argue taking into account cultural differences . No I am not ignoring the nature of women. I just think that in yours (and most of the Western world) they just haven’t been trained properly in what it is and so leads to a compounding of the problem. That is why I asked how you thought this could be achieved in your nanny state using “dread seasoning”.

  342. greyghost says:

    cicero
    Where are you from? I’m in Texas maybe 28 miles from Dalrock. I think a woman can be taught sacrifice and the value of it but it has to be a part of her solipsism and hypergamy. It cannot be a replacement for normal.

  343. Readers here with teenage daughters may well attest to this, even as they seek to blame the hapless male would-be suitor.

    I concur. Not that the teen girl is utterly out of control necessarily, that was not the case, but that the dynamic involved in the application of my will, or her mothers will, or our collective will was something that tests a man’s fortitude. Teen boys, now one 21 and one 18, both still respond with “Sir” in any serious discussion.

  344. jf12 says:

    OT, but I comment here because I can’t post there. Donal’s article about men’s romanticism has struck a nerve in many women commenters. The women hate the fact that men feel romantic easily (about exactly as easily as men feel sexual, in case you wimmin lurkers still don’t know it). AWALT. Moreover, all of the women believe that bad boys who dole out romance infrequently and manipulatively are the “real” romantics, but nice guys who bring flowers “just because” are the real jerks for trying to get more female attention than they deserve.

    Keeping her happy …

  345. jf12 says:

    @empathologism re: testing fortitude.

    I’ve come to recognize that a woman’s shit tests are merely an invitation to force her to stop, to show her who’s the boss of her. “Make me!” But somehow until your comment it didn’t register that it was the exact same attitude of a teen girl towards her father.

    Partly, potentially boring personal info ahead, that may be because I missed my daughters’ teen years, except long distance, after my ex-wife absconded interstate with them.

  346. greyghost says:

    jf12
    link us man

  347. Oscar says:

    tacomaster2 says:
    July 30, 2014 at 8:38 pm

    “Honorably discharged veteran and I probably wouldn’t suggest the military to people these days. Glad I had the experience and met some awesome guys along the way, but it’s drastically changed in the last 5-10 years. Like you said Oscar, you can gain a skill or leadership IF you want to. A lot of guys waste their time and don’t get anything out of it.”

    Like most things in life, you get more out of the military if you put more into it. The ones that don’t often whine about what a terrible waste of time it was.

    I would no longer recommend it as a career for a few reasons.

    First, our government is going broke and politicians refuse to cut the entitlement programs that are biggest cause of our debt, which leaves defense spending as the distant second that IS getting cut. The stability that used to offset the risk simply isn’t there anymore.

    Second, there’s too much corruption in the upper ranks. I don’t know if that actually got worse with time, or if I just began to notice after I commissioned.

    Third, political correctness – which was already excessive when I enlisted – is out of control now, and getting worse.

    Fourth, there’s too much focus on the next gadget and not enough on the foundations of training Soldiers for combat.

    I think all those problems are interrelated, and probably won’t get fixed until some existential crisis forces people to face reality.

    Despite all that – amazingly enough – it’s still a great place to learn how to lead people. The higher one climbs, however, the more frustrating it gets. That’s why I advise young men to serve long enough to learn, and then take their skills elsewhere.

  348. Oscar says:

    imnobody00 says:
    July 31, 2014 at 12:57 am

    “No, I think you don’t understand us.”

    Nor you us.

    “We don’t think you are the big man and we don’t give a damn about your attention or assistance, whether divided or undivided.”

    What a heaping, steaming pile of steer manure!

  349. cicero says:

    @greyghost
    “Where are you from?”
    Where I am from no longer exists, however I grew up in two countries on this map and lived in others not on it.

    “ I think a woman can be taught sacrifice and the value of it but it has to be a part of her solipsism and hypergamy.”
    Well I am glad to see that game has not totally corrupted your masculine faculties of reason and logic yet.

    “It cannot be a replacement for normal.”
    The goal is not replacement (that would be like asking a leopard to change its spots)… the goal is realization of the sacrifice through training. Just like males need to be trained how to be righteous men, females need to be trained how to be righteous women. Without training you are left with nothing more than a Lord of the Flies, free for all, emotional rollercoaster society. And training (whether it be yourself or others) takes time and effort and in societies of instant gratification, zero responsibility and quick fixes game, like feminism, finds fertile ground.

  350. Cicero, now you’ve piqued my interest..

    Where I am from no longer exists, however I grew up in two countries on this map and lived in others not on it.

    Rhodesia, either North or South? South West Africa? The two Boer Republics didn’t exist after 1902, so I guess that cuts those two out..

  351. hurting says:

    feeriker says:
    July 31, 2014 at 12:41 am

    Because incentives matter. A lot.

  352. hurting says:

    Opus says:
    July 31, 2014 at 5:18 am

    Psychology is a secular religion, except that it can’t truly operate as a religion because religions typically operate within the domain of absolute truth and morality, a concept that can not be reconciled with the inherent flexible, situational morality that is part and parcel to the helping professions. That’s why counseling does not work.

    How possibly can even a putatively Christian psychologist (functioning as a counselor) be bound to both his faith and his professional code of ethics? In fact, he can not. He can not simultaneously counsel his supposedly client not to frivorce on the basis of her faith and adhere to his professional code of ethics that says it’s okay for her to change her mind and substitute her own morality for that of her faith.

  353. Opus says:

    @Hurting

    I am told that in NYC every one has the benefit of Counselling, but if they can’t afford that they go in for Therapy. There is, apparently, a difference.

    It has always struck me that counselling was a considerably longer and more profitable form of the Sacrament of Confession. After every major disaster one hears that Counsellors are on hand to comfort the bereaved. What on earth can they do other than be an ear to listen. That may help of course, but I suspect that it is merely a device to make the Airline or as the case may be look concerned and effective – as if the accident was not that serious.

    Anon 72 used to counsel men but what he did (as he explained) seemed to be closer to solid legal advice than anything else. Of course they used to say that you go to see your Attorney, talk to him for half-an-hour, then when you leave your troubles have vanished, even though all the lawyer has done is listen – a bit like visiting ones Medical Doctor. I did a lot of that.

  354. BradA says:

    Some elements (I would guess fewer than many think) are based on reality. Knowing the part that is based on reality is helpful, though you definitely need a foundation that the Word of God is primary.

    People stood for God’s Word prior to understanding gravity, but understanding gravity can certainly help make sure you don’t try something completely stupid without a firm command from God to do so.

    Human psychology is missing the power to transform however, especially since it is focused purely on the natural end of things.

  355. BradA says:

    That previous comment should have noted I was referring to modern human psychology throughout. I trimmed the start and didn’t add that back in.

  356. Bee says:

    @greyghost,

    Good speech/video. Thank you.

  357. Bee says:

    This wife says duty sex is a good thing and she practices it:

    http://lindsays-logic.blogspot.com/2014/07/should-you-only-have-sex-when-you-feel.html

  358. JDG says:

    Lyn87 says:
    July 31, 2014 at 1:09 am

    Thank you for this.

    If I may ask, where did you get this quote? Google produced David Hunt the actor, photography, LinkedIn, ect.

  359. Gunner Q says:

    Lyn87 @ 1:09 am:
    “Psychology is in fact anti-Christian. It doesn’t come from the Bible but is simply an attempt to integrate the theories of atheists into the Bible in order to supply missing essentials for daily living that the Holy Spirit apparently failed to include. Does that sound reasonable?”

    Yes.

    1. The Bible gives us only some answers, not all of them and not the reasons for the answers. The greatest success of the twentieth century, in my opinion, is how science (including psychology) has validated Biblical principles. A lot of that science came from atheists.

    2. Just because atheists are wrong about God doesn’t mean they’re wrong about other matters. I will never forget it was the PUAs who taught me female nature after a lifetime of Churchian lies.

    3. The Holy Spirit is good for spiritual development but useless for most mundane purposes. If we only use what the Bible gives us then mildew would be handled by pastors instead of Lysol… and people with phobias would be exorcized instead of cured by psychologists. Such “missing essentials” are commonplace (glances at all the Christian incels today, remembers that last toothache).

    If psychology seems to be hostile to Christianity then I would attribute it to the fact that, like economics, the field hits closer to the heart of human rebellion than the hard sciences. That makes it an excellent opportunity for evangelism and theology. We should not shun it.

    “The heroes and heroines of Bible history all triumphed by faith in God and in His promises.”

    I don’t see it. Abraham did an Ishmael instead of trusting God’s promise; Gideon was idol-obsessed instead of trusting God’s promise; Samson triumphed by brute strength, not faith; David triumphed through homicide, not faith, and started by bringing a gun to Goliath’s swordfight; and I suspect that a great portion of the Apostles’ triumph came from the miracles they worked.

    God made us to need tools. Faith alone doesn’t cut it in this world.

  360. hurting says:

    Opus says:
    July 31, 2014 at 11:31 am

    Better than confession with a priest. That counselor is never going to tell you that you are sinning (but she is going to expect payment at time of service).

    Divorce attorneys are expensive sources for therapy.

  361. JDG says:

    Gunner Q says:
    July 31, 2014 at 1:50 pm

    Lyn87 @ 1:09 am:
    “Psychology is in fact anti-Christian. It doesn’t come from the Bible but is simply an attempt to integrate the theories of atheists into the Bible in order to supply missing essentials for daily living that the Holy Spirit apparently failed to include. Does that sound reasonable?”

    No it does not sound reasonable. …the Holy Spirit apparently failed… Seriously???

  362. JDG says:

    Psychology tells us that sins are not sinful but instead are disorders, and that sodomy is just fine. In psychological circles sodomy used to be viewed as an illness, but no longer. The illness view contradicts the biblical view as well as the current view.

    Psychology tells us that:

    1) We are products of our environment.
    2) Therefore, we are not responsible or accountable for our actions.
    3) This leads to placing blame for our actions on anything else but on us, making us victims.
    4) Self-esteem is paramount.

    All of which are false.

    Psychology changes with popular notion, and as Lynn stated above, it’s roots are bad. If the root is bad, what kind of a tree will it be?

  363. BradA says:

    Does psychology say that or just the modern interpretation of it? It sounds a lot like saying “Game is just about having sex with as many women as possible” since many use it for that. The principles are not the same as the application.

    I can use a hammer to build something or to tear it down. The tool is not the problem most of the time. The application of it is.

    The core flaw with psychology however is that it treats man as a completely natural being and that leaves out a big part of reality (the spiritual).

  364. Lyn87 says:

    JDG asks me, “where did you get this quote?” The link to the entire excerpt is here:
    (http://jdlarsenmn.tripod.com/psyc_church2.htm)

    GunnerQ disagrees with me, but I’ll address that:

    There’s a HUGE difference between saying “Not all true statements are found in the Bible” and saying, “The Bible gives us only some answers, not all of them and not the reasons for the answers. The greatest success of the twentieth century, in my opinion, is how science (including psychology) has validated Biblical principles. A lot of that science came from atheists.

    Simply put, there is no “Atheist Physics” or “Atheist Mathematics” that is any different from any other variety of those subjects. But there are hundreds of variants of psychology (which alone tells you that it is wrong to consider it to be a science. If I wished to be very charitable I would say that observing human behavioral patterns and formulating tentative conclusions is – at best – an art).

    Hard sciences like Chemistry and Physics help mankind to obey God’s command in Genesis 1:28, “And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” Atheists can figure out God’s natural laws as well as anyone else, because atheists are every bit as in tune with “nature” as Christians are, but they are babes in the woods when it comes to spiritual things, since “The things of God are spiritually discerned” (I Corinthians 2:14). That’s why a defense of extrabiblical scientific facts does not extent to extrabiblical non-scientific pronouncements like those found in psychology.

    Unlike real (hard) sciences, the pseudoscience of psychology does not concern itself with subduing the Earth, as we are commanded, but with subduing one’s spirit – which can only be done through faith, and the work of the Holy Spirit. On that score, God certainly doesn’t need any help from Freud or any of the other thousands of charlatans (shamans-in-suits) who dreamed up – and practice – psychology. The word “psychotherapy” is a combination of two words that mean, literally, soul and healing. Nobody needs any further information beyond what is found in biblical Christianity on that score, and to suggest that psychology contains truths about the healing of souls that God just forgot to tell us about is absurd on its face. To the extent that psychologists occasionally get such things right they are only reiterating what God has already revealed, and to the extent that psychologists go beyond that, whatever they say is either irrelevant (at best) or counter-productive (at worst).

    One could ask himself this question: If you were having marital difficulties and had to choose between two counselors – A) a board-certified psychologist or B) an older spirit-filled and -guided Christian man who has modeled biblical marriage his entire adult life, who would you choose?

    Anyone who answers A has made a very unwise choice.

  365. Lyn87 says:

    Dalrock, in the sixth paragraph of my last post would you change the phrase:

    but with subduing one’s spirit

    to read as follows:

    but with the health of one’s spirit

    Thanks… it makes a lot more sense that way.

  366. bonkti says:

    April Bey’s motto signifies both on Facebook and her blog: “Another Shitty Day in Paradise.”

    And Swindle must of liked it because he put a ring on it.

  367. bonkti says:

    *musta liked it*

  368. Mark says:

    @Novaseeker

    Canuckistan????……..L*….good one!

  369. greyghost says:

    My guess cicero was from Rhodesia.

    Lyn87
    The more you learn the clearer the bible gets. As the conversation goes the PUA science of game is slowly revealing itself in script. Looks like God had that covered too. I have more faith in the bible than some PC jack ass with a degree in socialism. The Chateau Heartiste is a better place for relationship advice than 90% of the churches simply for the reason the guy at least tries to tell the truth.

  370. JDG says:

    The principles are not the same as the application.

    But psychology as a vocation is at it’s core is missing one tiny little fragment of reality without which it cannot accurately diagnose the human problem. Psychology does not recognize that humans are fallen and are naturally inclined towards evil. With out this focus, psychology as a vocation cannot but error. We see this with Focus on the Feelings Family and other psychology based ministries that emphasize self-esteem and self-satisfaction.

    Sure there are probably some components of psychology that are based on real observations and can be relied upon within a certain framework, but without the understanding that man is sinful a psychologist will not be able to address the real problems that people are having.

  371. Boxer says:

    I find it funny to see regulars of the Dalrock blog railing against psychology, when that’s a huge portion of the content here. I ought to throw up the caveat that I’ve never formally studied this discipline, I’m just a fan of Freud, Jung and Adler. In any event…

    Unlike real (hard) sciences, the pseudoscience of psychology does not concern itself with subduing the Earth, as we are commanded, but with subduing one’s spirit – which can only be done through faith, and the work of the Holy Spirit.

    Psychology isn’t really concerned with subduing the psyche as much as understanding it. There are only two branches of psychology, by the way: Experimental (the type of psychology where rats run around mazes) and Clinical (the sort of psychology that puts people on a couch and lets them talk out their problems). All the schools you listed before would be under the clinical umbrella, and aren’t really in conflict or competition.

    to suggest that psychology contains truths about the healing of souls that God just forgot to tell us about is absurd on its face

    Freud agreed with you. Read Moses and Monotheism. So did Jung. Read Modern Man in Search of A Soul. Or you can just read Dalrock. “The Rationalization Hamster” isn’t a biblical term. It’s a psychological description, and it’s not really in conflict with the Bible, as I understand it.

    Best, Boxer

  372. greyghost says:

    Nothing wrong with psychology Boxer as lyn87 was saying it is an art that is heavily influenced by politics and culture

  373. Boxer says:

    Nothing wrong with psychology Boxer as lyn87 was saying it is an art that is heavily influenced by politics and culture

    There’s no doubt about that; but, the fact that feminism has infected various academic disciplines doesn’t mean we shouldn’t study them with a discerning eye.

    http://www.welmer.org/2009/08/13/carl-jung-founding-father-of-game/

    An old article about the intersection of psychoanalysis and seduction, from Welmer.

    Best, Boxer

  374. Art Deco says:

    He is 30. He has no children. He’s had a variety of short term jobs over the last 10 years. He has a humanities degree from an unremarkable state college. Am I out of order in thinking he is not someone who should be all that authoritative in offering advice on domestic life?

  375. Gunner Q says:

    JDG @ 2:16 pm:
    “No it does not sound reasonable. … Seriously???”
    Sure. Truth is truth. It doesn’t have to come from an approved source to be correct. The Bible is all we need for a proper relationship with God and each other but God left out a lot of valuable topics. The Bible would be unmanageably big if it contained all the knowledge we’d ever need.

    About the Holy Spirit. How many female divorcers believed the “Holy Spirit” said it was okay to pull the trigger? How many cults are based on “new revelation” from the “Holy Spirit”? We live in an age when sentimentalism is not to be trusted. Yes, the H.S. is part of the Trinity. Yes, the real H.S. is trustworthy. No, the real H.S. does not show up nearly as often as the guy who says “the Holy Spirit has laid it on my heart that…”

    Lyn87 @ 3:01 pm:
    “Psychology tells us that sins are not sinful but instead are disorders, and that sodomy is just fine. In psychological circles sodomy used to be viewed as an illness, but no longer.”

    A good example. Psychology has always held that sodomy is a mental illness and it has accumulated plenty of data that sodomy is extremely unnatural and unhealthy. Psychology has also linked sins to either destructive behavior–criminal psychology is that subfield–or increasingly treatable mental illnesses. (I think the word “disorder” originates from the Catholic usage of the word… could be wrong, though.) Psychology is not what the American Psychiatric Association says it is any more than Christianity is what the Churchians say it is.

    “One could ask himself this question: If you were having marital difficulties and had to choose between two counselors – A) a board-certified psychologist or B) an older spirit-filled and -guided Christian man who has modeled biblical marriage his entire adult life, who would you choose?”

    We’re here at Dalrock’s place because the “B” option has completely failed. Not partly failed. “Flee the church” failed. Hopefully we’ll eventually get option “C”, a parole officer for the wife. Until then the best option is “D”, for Dread Game, which is… a facet of psychology.

    No way I’ll ever trust my marriage to the advice of a happily married Baby Boomer who’s AMOG of the local church, no matter how many spirit voices he hears in his head. Better to flip a coin.

    “Simply put, there is no “Atheist Physics” or “Atheist Mathematics” that is any different from any other variety of those subjects.”

    Climate change? Keynesian economics? Environmentalism? Transhumanism? Statistics? All sciences all tools that can be misused, only the Devil prefers to misuse the ones most involved with human behavior. He can’t allow psychology to road-map how sin works so that even non-believers start adopting Christian morality, now can he?

  376. JDG says:

    Psychology is not what the American Psychiatric Association says it is any more than Christianity is what the Churchians say it is.

    We have the Bible to tell us what Christianity is. What do we have that will tell us what psychology is if not the American Psychiatric Association and it’s accomplices in academia?

  377. JDG says:

    I find it funny to see regulars of the Dalrock blog railing against psychology, when that’s a huge portion of the content here.

    But here at Dalrock’s it is generally acknowledge that people are inclined to do wrong and no one here is advocating “self-esteem” to fix our problems. Are there two types of approaches to psychology? Is there a “self-worth” “follow your heart” approach and then a completely different “stop sinning” approach?

    Does Freud acknowledge that man has fallen and naturally sinful in his fallen state? Did he agree that self-esteem was not a valid remedy for selfishness? (genuinely curious)

  378. greyghost says:

    We have the Bible to tell us what Christianity is. What do we have that will tell us what psychology is if not the American Psychiatric Association and it’s accomplices in academia?

    us, we got it covered

  379. JDG says:

    Okay I just read this:

    Sigmund Freud’s basic theory of human sexuality was different from that of Ellis. He believed all human beings were innately bisexual, and that they become heterosexual or homosexual as a result of their experiences with parents and others (Freud, 1905). Nevertheless, Freud agreed with Ellis that a homosexual orientation should not be viewed as a form of pathology.

    I guess I answered my own question.

  380. Kevin says:

    People have suggested that everyone agrees to transfer all costs to maginas. How exactly is that to be done?

    Costs cannot be transferred in that way politically. Costs will be borne by anyone who produces more than the median and that will include high powered men and women who are single, married working men and women, etc. The only people who will escape are MGTOW who choose to make less than they need. Fathers such as myself will never escape. I figured out that I pay for the girlfriends and illigitimate children of a few sexaul alphas (losers in all aspects outside of Darwinian fitness). I don’t see a way to concentrate the costs simply on tools who support the feminine narrative.

    As far as advice for young boys and people seeing young boys either ignore girls or sexualize with them, I would happily chalk that up to realizations about the true nature of women, but it could also be attributed to near universal exposure to porn (not a few stolen playboy pictures but hardcore stuff) by that age. That stuff rots your brain, especially at that early age.

    I will tell my boys women are not angels of infinite goodness, they are fallen just like men and so we respect and love the good women around us but not to reverence the women around us we don’t know. Treat them like you hope they could become, but don’t have illusions about what they probably are. And I will counsel them to stay virgins and refuse to marry a girl that slutted around – probably put a poster in their rooms – “No rings for sluts!”

  381. JDG says:

    us, we got it covered

    But is that really psychology or is it common sense observations?

    From the things I have read written by psychologists I was under the impression that psychology was more along the lines of politically correct observations.

  382. Gunner Q says:

    “From the things I have read written by psychologists I was under the impression that psychology was more along the lines of politically correct observations.”

    Well, there is that. I admit the field of psychology hasn’t done well since the APA gave in to political correctness.

  383. Anonymous age 72 says:

    @Opus says:
    July 31, 2014 at 11:31 am

    >>Anon 72 used to counsel men but what he did (as he explained) seemed to be closer to solid legal advice than anything else.

    To some extent that is correct. Most men, when they got their papers, had no idea what was involved. So, they also had no idea what decisions had to be made or what they meant if they did make them. Nor what the sequence of a divorce case was.

    And, at billing rates, few lawyers could afford to take the time to talk them through it all. I averaged 2 hours, not half an hour, on first call.

    I also did suicide counseling as a routine thing.

    And, anything else that was involved in their lives. Many men were never divorced before, and had no idea what it all meant in their lives.

    As an example, though women were receiving child support payments, it was a common trick to send the kids (for those men who actually got to see them) with almost no clothes at all, forcing them to buy clothes they had already paid for. I taught them about used clothing stores, and that girls even very young girls often could select suitable clothes if you trusted them. Then, when they go home, send them in what they came in, and keep the clothes for next time. Things like that.

    And, not to drive through the ex’s neighborhood in hopes of seeing your kids (a reasonable thing to do, actually) because lawyers and courts view this sort of drive-through as stalking.

    But, I had to be very careful about legal advice. I could tell them what decisions had to be made, but they had to make them. Crossing the line could have put me into practicing law without a license.

    On those decisions, I would explain what choices were available, and what those choices might mean to them. In other words, teach them how to make those decisions without making them for them.

    I remember one night an idiot called me up, telling me he had to answer a legal petition the next day, and didn’t know how. He also said he had no money, not a cent to pay an attorney, and asked me to make up those papers for him. I told him that I could not do so, that this would be practicing law without a license, and I was not going to do that. He could do it himself, I could give him some clues how to do it, but could not do it for him.

    He kept whining, and eventually offered me a hundred dollars, this man who had not a cent to his name, to make up those papers for him. Sheesh! Private detectives are not always smart. I well understood he was there for the Bar Association, hoping to put me in prison.

    No desire to offend, Opus, but I found most attorneys in my city were totally incompetent on men’s divorce issues. Their view of divorce was Mommy gets the kids; child support; property settlement; and daddy gets the bills. Oh, and ‘reasonable visitation’, which was ruled to be a vague and ambiguous thus unenforceable statement in my state, but stupid attorneys kept using it.

    And, any man who wants custody must be told not to bother, it can’t be done. But, there were a few cases where men steam-rolled their attorneys and did get custody anyway (with my help, ahem). More should have. Child abuse by women is much more common than generally believed. In fact, at that time women committed 56% of child abuse.

  384. Anonymous age 72 says:

    If someone here wants to have fun, join me over at

    hxxp://laidnyc.wordpress.com/2013/08/13/you-date-younger-women-because-youre-insecure-and-other-common-shaming-phrases/#comment-5690

    Either change the hxxp to http when you paste it into the browser box, or copy only all after the two slashes. This is to keep hostiles away by ping backs.

    The blog is abandoned, with no moderation. The dearies are buiding a posse to destroy me if they can. All help appreciated. Do try to keep within male honor limits, which does not mean you cannot call them names. Just avoid talk of violence and such things.

    The OP posted that he simply did not want a woman over 25, and it brought all the female trolls out, as you can imagine.

    I told them the truth, about having teen-age Mexican girls fall in love with me, and twenty somethings actually hitting on me. Their hatred for older men really set them off. Hee, hee.

    if you don’t want to participate, feel free to read. It is fun and a rare opportunity.

  385. Anonymous age 72 says:

    Actually, the thread is called You Date Younger Women Because You’re Insecure
    by laidnyc. I have never understood how to link specific comments, but in this case, it did it by itself.

    OP was crucified because of his statements of the wonders of young women, as opposed to older ones. So, he wrote a follow up thread on that topic.

  386. Lyn87 says:

    GunnerQ,

    I won’t accuse you of deliberately constructing straw men from my statements, but you’re pretty close. Perhaps you would agree with a few of the things I wrote when when taken as I actually wrote them:

    You wrote, “About the Holy Spirit. How many female divorcers believed the “Holy Spirit” said it was okay to pull the trigger? How many cults are based on “new revelation” from the “Holy Spirit”? We live in an age when sentimentalism is not to be trusted. Yes, the H.S. is part of the Trinity. Yes, the real H.S. is trustworthy. No, the real H.S. does not show up nearly as often as the guy who says “the Holy Spirit has laid it on my heart that…

    I agree with that, but it’s irrelevant to the point I made, since it is not the actual Holy Spirit telling women to initiate frivolous divorce. That’s why I stipulated that the counselor be “an older spirit-filled and -guided Christian man who has modeled biblical marriage his entire adult life” – not somebody who “hears voices in his head,” but an actual, spirit-filled and spirit-led man who has demonstrated through a lifetime of conduct that he’s the real deal. The only people who would have a problem with that are people who just don’t believe the Holy Spirit guides believers – I hope you’re not one of them. Can we at least agree that the Holy Spirit is a better guide than a shaman-in-a-suit?

    You also wrote, “Psychology is not what the American Psychiatric Association says it is any more than Christianity is what the Churchians say it is,” but that’s a false choice, because it is not churchians who define Christianity: it is the Bible that defines it. And in North America at least, psychology is defined by the American Psychological Association, not the American Psychiatric Association. One of the many differences between biblical Christianlty and the pseudoscience of psychology is that the APA changes its positions about as often as I change my socks, while the word of God is the same yesterday, today and forever. Can we agree that the word of God has thousands of years of success behind it, while psychology hasn’t even come close to getting it right in all its hundreds of variations?

    Finally, you wrote, “Climate change? Keynesian economics? Environmentalism? Transhumanism? Statistics? All sciences all tools that can be misused, only the Devil prefers to misuse the ones most involved with human behavior. He can’t allow psychology to road-map how sin works so that even non-believers start adopting Christian morality, now can he?

    I’m in general agreement, although the Devil is quite capable of using the “hard” sciences to lead people astray, such as all the people who ought to know better who still believe in Mr. Darwin’s bizarre theory. But my main disagreement with that paragraph is that you continue to refer to psychology as a “science.” Can we at least agree that it is, at best, an art?

  387. greyghost says:

    But is that really psychology or is it common sense observations?

    What the fuck does it matter. We don’t need to impress, we are men here, we take care of business. And so do you. Faith and common sense builds many wonders.

  388. greyghost says:

    From the things I have read written by psychologists I was under the impression that psychology was more along the lines of politically correct observations.

    As quoted from apocalypse now

    “absolutely goddamn right”

    “never get off the boat”

  389. Just Saying says:

    What’s in it for them? (snip) why do they care if you look elsewhere?

    Don’t know – don’t really care. If they don’t keep me happy, I’ll find what I need elsewhere. The same question could be asked in any relationship today – there is nothing keeping a woman with a man – it’s more cost effective for her to punt and blow up the marriage. Why don’t they?

    I live the way that is best for me – at some point I may have to change, but not today. Till then, the women I see are free to come and go – just as I am. If I stick around it’s because they provide me with something I see of value – either sex, or something else. It is that simple. As to why they do it? I don’t really care. That may be why they do it – no one likes to think of themselves as interchangeable – even if they are.

  390. JDG says:

    it is the Bible that defines it. And in North America at least, psychology is defined by the American Psychological Association, not the American Psychiatric Association.

    Okay! Which is considered legit? This one:

    http://www.psych.org/practice/clinical-practice-guidelines (American Psychiatric Association)

    Or this one:

    http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx (American Psychological Association)

    If both, then which one is top hog?

    They’re probably both reading from the same PC text book anyhow.

  391. Boxer says:

    JDG:

    Psychology and psychiatry are related disciplines, but they have no overlap, and they’re certainly not the same thing. A psychiatrist is an MD. Where a neurologist looks at the total nervous system, the psychiatrist looks specifically at the brain.

    A psychiatrist looks at human behavior and motivations. This is less centred on the physical brain than it is on the mind and human/animal intelligence and consciousness.

    In short, there is no “top hog”. These are professional associations supporting two different disciplines.

    Best, Boxer

    (Again, I am neither a psychiatrist, nor a psychologist, just a guy who reads a lot)

  392. Boxer says:

    JDG:

    Psychology and psychiatry are related disciplines, but they have no overlap, and they’re certainly not the same thing. A psychiatrist is an MD. Where a neurologist looks at the total nervous system, the psychiatrist looks specifically at the brain.

    A psychologist looks at human behavior and motivations. This is less centred on the physical brain than it is on the mind and human/animal intelligence and consciousness.

    In short, there is no “top hog”. These are professional associations supporting two different disciplines.

    Best, Boxer

    (Again, I am neither a psychiatrist, nor a psychologist, just a guy who reads a lot)

  393. JDG says:

    Thank you Boxer.

  394. Gunner Q says:

    Fair points.

  395. bob says:

    @imnobody00

    “I lived one year there and I will never go back. It was completely pointless. I remember when high school dropouts felt superior to me (a PhD, two masters, four languages, having worked for the United Nations and the World Bank, having had great responsibilities in the government of a country)

    The dropouts probably were superior to you. Certainly they did less damage.

    We are well rid of you. Don’t let the door hit you.

  396. Opus says:

    It is perhaps understandable that lesser mortals such as myself should be unclear as to the difference between Psychology and Psychiatry, especially when novels and movies have titles such as Psycho, American Psycho, and American Psycho in Paris (O.K. I just made the last one up – but it is more evocative than just American in Paris – which is a real film title).

    I think my scepticism of Psychology derives from the fact that Psychology is the Doctorate of choice for Feminists and their bizarre theories. I don’t think Darwin was a Psychologist, nor do I think his theory (pace Lyn 87) is bizarre. I would be more sceptical of his theory if people other than Protestant Christians thought it bizarre. That does not of course make it right either all or part of the time. I never think of it even as I gaze at the trees and listen to the murmur of the brook or the song of the thrush. I am with Thales: the world is made of water.

    Women go into Psychology because in the main they can there do little damage. Judges only ever read the last line of their lengthy reports as to why some Psycho should or should not be released into the community, so lets hope they are right, but if not The Home Office will appeal.

    Darwin is I am happy to say buried in Westminster Abbey as I believe is Lord Byron and various other scoffers.

  397. tacomaster2 says:

    @Anonymous age 72,
    I left a comment over there for you.

  398. Tam the Bam says:

    http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/07/29/five-years-of-keeping-her-happy-proves-david-swindle-is-a-better-man-than-you/#comment-134393imnobody00, there is a much easier and cheaper (for an EU passport-holder) way to improve one’s English. Although yours seems pretty watertight already.
    Go to England.
    The US overlords have allowed them a modest franchise on the continued use of the language, provided of course that they continue to behave.

    Go on, hop on one of Stelios’s Airbuses, and from Actual Spain you could be anywhere in the Isles for around 25-30 euros, off-season.
    And you can work any job you can talk your way into, no questions asked. And even better, after a while you can just sign on the Social, and ask for free accommodation, like the locals. Job’s a good’un.
    (Doesn’t work the other way round at all, a Good Thing, or Iberia would be chocka with feral britscum all year round, and not just the odd week).

  399. theasdgamer says:

    @ Opus

    I would be more sceptical of his theory if people other than Protestant Christians thought it bizarre.

    Lol, you should read what modern evolutionists have to say about various parts of Darwin’s “theory.” Everything he wrote is controversial except for his attack on the fixity of species (whateverthehell a “species” is). Darwin is all about thrashing about in quicksand.

    For real-world utility, stick with chemists, experimental physicists, engineers, some medical researchers, and odd experimental disciplines like perceptual psychology. The rest of the codswallop can be safely dumped in the bay.

  400. Oscar says:

    @bob
    August 1, 2014 at 12:15 am
    @imnobody00

    “’I lived one year there and I will never go back. It was completely pointless. I remember when high school dropouts felt superior to me (a PhD, two masters, four languages, having worked for the United Nations and the World Bank, having had great responsibilities in the government of a country)’

    The dropouts probably were superior to you. Certainly they did less damage.

    We are well rid of you. Don’t let the door hit you.”

    Isn’t it hilarious that he thinks working for the UN and the World Bank qualifies him for something other than wasting more productive people’s money while looking down his nose at them?

  401. jew613 says:

    As a Torah Jew I wanted to interject that Swindle does not speak for Judaism. When you marry this includes a specific obligation towards providing for your partners sexual needs. There is a marriage contract that you must sign before the rabbi will marry you, called the ketubah, that includes this provision. On a practical level that means the wife must engage in sexual congress with her husband at least twice a week when not in a state of ritual impurity. If she does not the husband has the right to divorce her with zero obligations after the divorce. Which would be minimal regardless.

  402. desiderian says:

    Dal,

    “Moreover, I strongly disagree with Swindle that a good marriage is all about work. Swindle describes being married as a second full time job, but my wife has frequently expressed puzzlement at the claim that a marriage is about work. She is right. Marriage is far more about commitment than work. While we have the same kinds of disagreements that every couple has, most of the time our marriage is downright fun. It is far more like a lifelong slumber party than work. Much of this is due to the closeness which comes when the path to the marriage bed isn’t strewn with obstacles, and much of it comes from being blessed beyond what we deserve. Our marriage isn’t proof that I’m a better man than others, but our marriage and countless others like it are proof that the biblical model which so offends Swindle is infinitely wiser than those who would try to improve upon God’s design.”

    You continue to knock it out of the park. I spent many years believing (and teaching) the marriage is work line, and I guess unsurprisingly had difficulty getting someone else (or maybe myself too) to get one started. Now that I’ve got one, and a good one, I’d have to say you’re exactly right.

    The funny thing is I’ve never even heard the “marriage is all about work” thing challenged. It’s become an article of faith. Now that you mention it, those who I’ve known in great marriages would take your view, that it’s a shelter from the storm and a source of work’s inspiration.

    Hope the above paragraph gets widely shared. It could make a name for you. Deservedly so.

  403. desiderian says:

    For a long time there, I could have been the one with Swindle’s attitude. Wish I’d been taken down by someone like you did in this post a long time ago. Better late than never.

    If he reads it, I can’t imagine him being unchanged by it.

  404. Opus says:

    @Theasdgamer

    I always thought Darwin’s explanation – by way of natural selection – for the long necks of Giraffes was more Occam efficient than Lamarck’s stretching hypothesis. I am on the foothills of Biology and nowhere near the shoulders of Giants.

    What always amazed me is (had I paid attention) I would have learned Evolution by way of natural selection in Biology class, and Biblical Creation in Religious Knowledge and with no seeming incongruity. Imagine learning Euclid in Math class and some entirely different system in some other subject.

    I like to keep an open mind about these things. I may be a natural sceptic; Big Bang theory does not persuade me, am entirely on the shelf as to Man-Made Climate Change, and likewise am entirely unconvinced that I.Q. tests are any accurate predictor of intelligence and doubt that, whether trained or untrained, black men can run faster than white men, though I am pretty certain that women are smaller and less strong than men.

  405. Art Deco says:

    Husband wants divorce

    What gets you is that they had a child four years before they were married (and two more in the six years since they were married) and that he prefaced his request for a divorce by quitting his job and going on a multi-day trip with his father and uncle. Her account of his explanation of himself is either sorely incomplete or it indicates his decision-making skills are shot.

  406. jf12 says:

    When in the Hierarchy of Needs is women’s need for evil located? Men have a need for sexual release, but women’s counterpart is a need for evil in their life. Often this manifests as her picking a fight, or creating drama, or slipping into a conspiracy, but what it really is is a drive for evil.

    Freud identified the death drive as that which counteracts, in most ways, the sex drive, the libido, the life drive. I posit that in women the division between the sex drive and the death drive has become pathologically diffused, with blurred lines, becoming the evil drive.

    So, I win.

  407. Snowy says:

    JDG:

    “Does Freud acknowledge that man has fallen and naturally sinful in his fallen state? Did he agree that self-esteem was not a valid remedy for selfishness? (genuinely curious)”

    I don’t know for certain; it’s probably something he kept to himself. But I’d say there’s a good chance he started with the premise/precept that humans are fundamentally flawed (sinful) and selfish. It is reflected in his theories; whether or not he received this through the Holy Spirit is another matter.

  408. Mark says:

    @Anon72

    I went over to that link that you provided.ABSOLUTE GOLD! Awesome comments from the red pill men posters.The wimminz?…YIKES! What a bunch of clusterf****! Also,your posts about “AW are mentally ill”…….priceless! Those are the best posts that I have ever read of yours…..and I have been reading you since you were Anon68 over at Happy Bachelors…..L*.In fact,I am giving this link to my father to read.He is 76.Ever since that University of Toronto debacle he has had his eyes opened.My brother and I make sure that he knows our opinions and he is in agreement with us. My father is red pill…he just does not realize it as he has never heard the term used before, until my brother and I pointed it out to him and mad him swallow it!

  409. Pingback: Things that We have Heard and Known

  410. cicero says:

    @feministhater.
    Daar is nog n paar state wat jy van vergeet het. Maar waar ek vandaan kom, al was, waar ek is of heen gaan maak nie saak nie.

    @greyghost.
    That would be a no. The Rhodesians I know are great people though.

  411. greyghost says:

    cicero the only other I can think of in that area was Swaziland a land locked country in South Africa that is based on the map you posted up.

  412. But aren’t you the one who espouses “married Game?” How is that any different, in the end, than the footrubs and the “choreplay” and the “love language” and so on? You can say Swindle’s white knight chivalric BS is “work,” while your “married Game” is Easy Peasy, plus it’s What the Bible Says. To me, though, its all the same deal. Either way, I have to jump through hoops to get my wife to do what she should (1) want to do, and (2) should be willing to do even if she doesn’t want to.

    If my wife doesn’t want to have sex with me, she should be the one heading to divorce court, not me. Of course, it doesn’t necessarily work out that way, because women have lower sex drives and can do without, and, flirting and “emotional affairs” and the like give them a good percentage of what real sex does, and so they can make do on that (and get it rather easily, from all the horny men out there, unless they are totally unattractive). And, she gets all the benefits of being a wife, the cash, the higher living standard, the social status, etc.

    Even if she doesn’t want to have sex with me, my wife should do so anyway, because marriage, by definition, means doing what you don’t want to at least some of the time. For example, I don’t much like her mother or her brother, but I have social relations with them anyway. I am not merely civil to them, but I feign a level of fondness and intimacy that I don’t feel. Another example, “special days” don’t really mean all that much to me. And yet I remember her birthday, our anniversary, Valentine’s Day, etc, and present her with cards and little gifts and flowers and take her out to overpriced meals and so on on those days, because they mean something to her. Furthermore, I act like I care when she reciprocates with cards and little gifts on my birthday and our anniversary. If she needs or even just wants a shoulder to cry on, or is fishing for a compliment, or is otherwise expressing some kind of need, I try to meet it. So, she should do the same for me.

    What, to me, is unacceptable, is demanding, in effect, that I take on an entirely foreign persona, that I engage in role playing not merely in the bedroom (which is fine), but 24/7, so as to coax some sex out of her. I am not going to pretend to be Sir Galahad or a troubadour, as Swindle suggests. But I am just as adamant in refusing to play the role of the “lady’s man,” the wise cracking, confident to the point of cocky, “pick up artist” either. Swindle’s role is inherently degrading. Despite what the troubadours say, women are no better than men, and I refuse to pretend otherwise. But the “Game” role, particularly the “married Game” role, is just as phony. I’m sorry, but acting the Cock of the Walk when you only have one Hen is pretty silly. The posturing, the braggadocio, coming from a husband who takes his wedding vows seriously, is about as convincing as a little yip dog sitting in his mistress’ lap, barking at a big dog passing on the street, knowing all the while that the door is locked and he won’t have to back up that bark! Like many men, I am more of a “nice guy”/”woman’s man” than a PUA. But I am not a doormat either. I won’t play either role, just so that my wife will give me what she should give me either out of love or duty without my having to do so.

  413. cicero says:

    @freemansfarm77
    “I won’t play either role”
    Good to hear. Now I have a question for you that you need to answer yourself.
    Who am I?
    The correct answer to that is a very good foundation to start governing your life and relationships.

  414. Midnight Train 2 GA says:

    @GunnerQ, “I sense a recurring theme here. Does this tendency towards vain displays of success come from a cultural insecurity? I mean, where are we men supposed to find our self-esteem? Where is the average, hardworking guy openly respected? I’ve been feeling this myself. I’m in my prime and a rising star in my career… yet all I have to show for my success is a tiny rented apartment, an inexpensive but nice car and a couple hobbies. No family, no money, no retirement, no social status in either church or society. Where’s the reward for my hard work? (When I asked that question in church, their answer was literally “Judgment Day”… nothing until I’m dead, huh?)”

    What your doing merits no reward. You are merely doing the bare minimum of being a responsible adult; working and providing food, clothing, transportation and shelter for yourself. That’s nothing to brag about, its just being a grown up. I suppose you could view being a “rising star” in your career as a reward for the hard work you put in. But there’s no reason to expect a reward for that outside of the work place. This entitlement mentality amongst young people has got to stop. I know a lot of young dudes who brag about “Hey, I work and provide for my kids”. Yeah so? That’s what you’re SUPPOSED to do as a parent. They want a reward for taking care of their own children!

  415. Patrick Pedat Ebediyah Golston says:

    Both of them (Swindle and Bey) are really hot messes…not that looks really matter all that much. I mean..sheesh…

  416. Curia Regis says:

    For crying out loud, if marriage 2.0 requires that much work, you’d be much better off on your own with a tube of good lube. Bugger that for a joke.

  417. They Call Me Tom says:

    Thanks for linking the photos of Ms. Bey-Swindle. It really begs the question of where Swindle thinks he’s earned the opportunity to step up to the pulpit. He’s telling other men how to ‘do marriage right’ when he’s clearly taken home the last girl at the bar. On top of that, he’s settled for the last girl at the bar but doesn’t expect sex, and if that’s really the case… why did he take home the last girl at the bar?

  418. Oscar says:

    I posted this elsewhere, but it really belongs here. If you’ve ever wondered why David Swindle writes so derisively about other men, behold the “man” himself and wonder no more.

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