The weakened signal

Paul Murray recently made a comment which fits with a theory of mine on how men and women decide when to get married:

PA is reading the situation at work completely wrong. I guarantee you that when one of the girls at PA’s work gets engaged, they all will.

First: women control relationships with betas, not the betas. If they are not married, it’s because they (the women) don’t want to be.

Second, they are herd creatures. These discussions about how the guys are not popping the question are actually discussion amongst themselves as to whether it’s time for them all to stop playing musical chairs and all sit down with the ones they have.

When the girls as a group decide that its wedding time, then all the various guys will be issued their ultimatums and most will fall into line. Until then, the guys will carry on in blissful ignorance.

(oh: and they’ll all get their divorces at around the same time, too)

His last statement is of course backed up by science.  I experienced something similar to what he is describing right around the time I graduated from college.  In this case however the women didn’t know each other, yet they all seemed to be triggered to start pushing for marriage around the same time.

My PUA roommate was surprisingly the first to get married.  We all thought he was joking when he brought his latest girlfriend home and announced not only that he was in love (as he always did), but that he was going to get married.  In retrospect it probably would have been nicer of us not to laugh when he told us this, or at least to have waited until his fiancée was out of the room.  Likewise for starting up the betting pool for how long before he found another woman.  I honestly thought it was a practical joke, as we were constantly playing jokes on each other.  It wasn’t a joke and I later took my then girlfriend/now wife to their wedding.  True to form he hit on my now wife as he greeted us in the line of guests making our way into the church for the ceremony.

Not too long before this I had a girlfriend for a short while who was treating me with the kind of contempt reserved for a boyfriend who has become too beta.  I had within the previous few years just gone from not being able to get a date to save my life to having the odd girlfriend.  Given this and her obvious contempt for me, marriage was the last thing on my mind.  Yet she actually raised the issue of us getting married.  I was incredulous.  As with my roommate announcing his decision to marry, I admit I shouldn’t have laughed.

I remember around the same time a girl I met at a bar who I called a day or so later.  We hung out for a little bit and she made it clear that she was looking for a husband.  I had just met her.  At a bar.  This really surprised me.  No laughter this time, but it was still bizarre.  Along the way other friends of mine married within a year after we graduated.  None of us had planned it this way.

My wife was four years younger than the other women in the pattern, but I do think that me graduating college was a signal that caused women to suddenly see me as marriage material.  Likewise I think seeing friends of mine start to marry or at least be in relationships which seemed headed towards marriage had primed me to change my thinking on the issue over a fairly short period of time.  My wife was also in an entirely different category as well.  Since she was a beautiful young woman who hadn’t been with another man and had fallen for me as hard as I had for her, her broaching the topic had a very different feel to it.

While I think it is a bit more complex than Paul describes, I do think that men and women both tend to respond to the actions of others in their peer group as well as those just a few years older than them.  If a woman starts to see other women her age marry this seems to cause her to pursue marriage with newfound urgency.  In this sense I think we pay too much attention to whatever the proximate milestone is (graduating, turning a specific age, etc).  These milestones play a role, but the specific trigger strikes me as being more about what others in their peer group are doing.  As proof of this see the continuing delay in the median age of marriage.

I also agree with Paul that women are generally the ones who are driving this.  In my experience the women were always the ones to bring up the issue first.  I have always thought that only a fool would propose to a woman  if he didn’t already know this was what she wanted with him.  The same goes only to a slightly lesser degree for even discussing marriage in the abstract.  If she isn’t the one driving this the mechanics are all wrong.

The reason I think all of this is so important is I think the bubble of white women* in the US in their 20s and early 30s delaying marriage are greatly weakening the signal to prepare for marriage that the cohort of men they would traditionally expect to marry are receiving.  I’ve shared this chart before, but it serves to describe the cohort of women whom I’m referring to:

These women aren’t just delaying marriage;  they are collectively weakening the signal which in past generations has told men to prepare for marriage both mentally and professionally.  I haven’t seen hard stats on the number of Peter Pan men** who are coasting professionally while playing video games with their buddies, but to the extent that this is in fact occurring the missing/weakened signal strikes me as a significant cause for this.  Men in their 20s are now seeing far fewer of their peers getting married or even involved in “serious relationship” LTRs.  These things are of course still happening since not all women of this cohort are delaying marriage, but the strength of the signal is much weaker.  The specific peer group a man is in will make a big difference here, but overall large numbers of men are receiving much weaker signals indicating that they should begin preparing for marriage.

The problem here for those women hoping to only delay marriage is there is generally a limited window for young men if they are going to become candidates for marriage.  A man who spent his 20s coasting instead of developing his professional skills can’t immediately make up for that lost time, even if he wants to.  At the same time, there is a window of opportunity when men are most interested in marriage.  As Solomon II pointed out fairly crassly in his post The Marriage Zone, the changing fortunes of young men and women in the Sexual Market Place (SMP) as they age creates a limited window when men are most likely to be eager to try to “lock in” a woman who shows interest in marriage.

All of this is of course assuming that the unmarried women in question are only trying to delay marriage and haven’t decided that they don’t need a man. If they truly don’t feel the need for the commitment and investment which women can receive only in marriage, the limited prospects they will likely face for husbands in the future won’t be an issue.

*I haven’t run this data for other races, but marriage rates vary greatly by race so the normal practice of averaging all races together can be very misleading. If you have this data charted out and published for other races please let me know so I can include a link here.

**I use the term “Peter Pan men” to reference the hysterics coming from the Where have all the good men gone? crowd.  As I’ve written previously women had the right to change the rules, but men have every right to decide how they want to respond.

This entry was posted in Aging Feminists, Choice Addiction, Finding a Spouse, Marriage, Patriarchal Dividend. Bookmark the permalink.

148 Responses to The weakened signal

  1. Opus says:

    I once dated a teenager (I was one myself) and I saw what happened with her friends, though they were all still at school. By age 17 they were all engaged, by 19 married and by 21 divorced. (that is the English working class for you). I agree with AP that it is the women who drive these things.

  2. jbamai says:

    I’ve noticed that as I’ve aged and those around me have become married, there is even LESS pressure for me to get married. Seems unreal doesn’t it? In fact, there is even some peer pressure to NOT get married. Every married male friend I’ve spoken to envies my singleness and sometimes outright admonishes me against considering marriage. I can’t deny their advice has somewhat of an influence especially when I hear tales of unimiaginable long dry spells where there is no sex.

  3. Lily says:

    dalrock, have you ever seen this? What do you think of it?

    [D: Thanks! Only briefly. I saw a few weeks back where the author was apologizing for being “sexist” in writing that. That is a lot of info, at first glance it looks like there might be something there. However, he is going on surveys which have the problem of people answering why they think they did something.]

  4. Lavazza says:

    Lily: “The more amicable a man’s divorce, the more likely he is to remarry.”

    I think this cuts both ways. If a man sees that even a decent woman can be fickle and divorce frivolously, he will not take his chances. If his wife has proved to be a total disaster, he’s more likely to respond to the NAWALT argument and chalk her off to the idea that the problem was him lacking in judgment, which has later improved.

  5. Lavazza says:

    jbamai: You are a strange woman, with strange friends. 😉

  6. Lavazza says:

    Oh shit. I did not read carefully, so my joke does not work.

  7. jbamai says:


    Ok sorry if I didnt make it clear in my previous post…I am a guy

  8. Jennifer says:

    Fascinating stuff, Darlock. Thank you.

  9. Eric says:

    In our warped culture, women are presumed to ‘have all the power in relationships’. In reality, therefore, men who date American women never really make any choices at all. If most were honest about it, men would admit that they feel ‘lucky’ to have anyone at all; and that their women were simply the least objectionable of the few available potential partners. It has nothing to do with being a ‘beta’; a man is more or less forced into a subservient position because the minute Ms. Princess gets annoyed or bored with him, she’s on to the next guy. Then the poor guy is stuck going through dating/relationship hell all over again.

    For men in America today, relationships are strictly a lose-lose situation. An MRA blogger recently mentioned the term INCEL (Involuntarily Celibate) which describes accurately the condition of most non-MGTOW single males in the Anglosphere. I remarked, too, that, socially speaking, most men in the Anglosphere live under famine conditions—it’s not that relationships are necessarily undesirable or unavailable per se; it’s that the materials to build a meaningful ones have ceased to exist. Just like in famine-stricken parts of the world the elites, military gunmen and bandits who rob relief shipments may be eating well, the rest of the worthy men are dying of starvation and working to no actual purpose. That’s exactly like the marriage/relationship scene here operates. To try and talk about ‘techniques’ is like giving the guys in the famine-countries cookbooks and trying to convince them that shoe leather and tree bark is just as good for them as beef and potatoes.

    The only choices men realistically have in these situations is the same facing men here: learn to conquer your appetite (MGTOW); pretend that the situation is actually advantageous (manginas and gamecocks); or get out and go to a place where real substantive material exists. It’s completely pointless to try and build anything meaningful in this environment.

  10. ybm says:

    Gamecock….I like it!

  11. Brian says:

    “a man is more or less forced into a subservient position because the minute Ms. Princess gets annoyed or bored with him, she’s on to the next guy. Then the poor guy is stuck going through dating/relationship hell all over again.”

    You are so doing it wrong if it’s hell to you.

    If a woman starts making unreasonable demands, or even reasonable ones in a very unreasonable way, they get one warning and then I’m history. Being single is far better than being in a bad relationship.

  12. Doug1 says:


    • Misc. negative traits and warning signs

    • Men who see marriage as a financial arrangement in which women have the most to gain

    I.e. it’s disadvantageous to women who want to marry if the man they’ve set their sights on knows the truth about divorce 2.0 in Britain and especially America. Hell he might require a prenup that by and large mimics the financial results of living together in the event of a divorce.

  13. Aurini says:

    Making even reasonable demands of a woman before you marry her, vastly reduces the number of available women.

    As I was saying to a friend of mine (upper beta with hot, nerdy fiance who cooks for him, and loves video games – brother’s got game) the probabilities are bad. Take: (percentage of women who are good-looking and at a fertile age)x(percentage of women who are decent human beings – 5%, maybe)x(percentage of women who share my interests, and are compatible) = a very small number of potential girlfriends, as opposed to one-night-stands.

    It’s the second factor that kills things – so many women today, who should have been high-quality, have embraced the bitchyness and entitlement complex of feminism. Maybe they are only slightly bitchy and entitled, and don’t really identify themselves as feminist, but still, it’s enough to ruin them as long-term prospects for any man with self respect.

  14. Twenty says:


    Funny link. It’s always interesting to see what happens when a sliver of sunlight penetrates the dark cave of the PC/feminist mindset.

    Consider the “Six Basic Guidelines”:

    Insist on it.
    If you find yourself in a dead-end relationship, move on.
    Love yourself first.
    Commit yourself to the idea of getting married
    Keep in shape, watch your weight, and take care of your appearance
    Time is running out—use time wisely in your search for the marrying man

    2, 4, 5, and 6 are good advice. 3 is nuts, a woman committed to “loving herself first” is a toxic timebomb just waiting to go off. 1 is lousy advice as well — to the extent that it implies something beyond 2 and 4, it will put off any man who still has his balls.

    Or this:

    All wives are trophy wives—men marry women whom they admire and like to show off (but not for their physical appearance)

    Some truth mixed in with lots and lots of female projection. Men do want to show off their women (whether they marry them or not) but almost entirely for their physical appearance. No man wants to impress his fellows by telling them of wifey’s MBA. (In second place to hotness might be tales of her traditional wifely nature.)

    Then there’s crap like this:

    Let him put you on a pedestal. Don’t treat him any differently than you would another man, just because he’s good-looking.
    Let him see your talents and accomplishments. Very good-looking men often marry women who have qualities they lack—education, professional accomplishment, social standing, and ambition.
    Make demands on him. Advise him to go back to school or get a better job.

    O.M.G. As if any man worth his dick would put up with this nonsense. Marry an (implicitly) frumpy, princess-complex, demanding harpy who thinks put-on masculine qualities (education, professional accomplishment, social standing, and ambition) make her attractive? Kill me now.

  15. DW says:

    Read Edward L. Bernay’s “Propaganda”. Very informative… Chapters 7-10

  16. R6T says:

    TFH, your link is broken, I think WordPress doesn’t like double dashes in links. Here’s a working link:

  17. Badger says:

    Nice post on the immense power of social proof.

    “However, he is going on surveys which have the problem of people answering why they think they did something.”

    By the same token, I have all but stopped reading studies that ask people hypotheticals, like “would you rather date an engineer or a doctor?” or “is looks or compatibility more important to you in a relationship?”

    These types of studies are stupid because:
    1. People can’t predict with their minds how their gut instinct will react to a choice; only when the choice is put in front of them can they be sure what they’ll choose.
    2. There’s never a true binary choice to be made, the choices are among people with a range of traits we are trying to balance.
    3. People tell pollsters what they think they want to hear, and what flatters their own sensibilities (“I’m such a noble person!”)

  18. Eric says:

    “You are doing it wrong if you’re stuck in a bad relationship.”
    Today’s women offer men no other kind of relationships but bad ones. A lot of men choose to stay stuck in them because they fully realize that the next relationship will be no better—and probably worse than the one they got out of.

    “Being single is far better than being in a bad relationship”
    That explains the whole appeal of MGTOW. More and more are opting out of relationships altogether because they realize that ANY relationship with a typical feminist-bred American female will bring them less happiness than staying single. INCELs realize the same thing, but singlehood is more a necessity, born of healthy self-preservation, than a lifestyle choice.

  19. Eric says:

    “Making even reasonable demands on a woman before marrying her vastly reduces the number of available women.”

    Actually, making any demands on them at all practically eliminates the number of available women. Women in our culture are essentially narcissists with a massive sense of entitlement and overweening superiority complexes. They don’t believe they have any obligations to men whatsoever; but that we should desire them and please them regardless of anything they have to offer. In fact, they feel it’s beneath them to offer men anything; since their gender alone entitles them to unquestioning servitude from men.

  20. Bob says:

    This pretty much explains why I seem to find more Latina and black women who share my mindset, they seem to pull this “delay until practically infertile” crap way less than white chicks. It’s kind of amusing when the white girls get jealous of the other races taking “their” men too. I think the future will be inhabited by white cat ladies and a lot of interracial marriages. White guys are just going to give up on the bs white women seem to be promulgating. Look at the femnazis in the NYTimes and other publications. They’re all angry old white ladies, for the most part.

  21. Interested says:

    The “decision to be married” doesn’t seem to change with age either. But a couple other factors do when it comes to dating in your forties. First off, the guys are far less inclined to respond to ultimatums, especially the marry me type. Secondly, many women have hardened their expectations into something well beyond what their SMV can attract. Add in the fact that many of them have done nothing to grow as an individual over the last twenty years. They are just older and more worn out. So they still believe that the attraction they pulled in their twenties exists today in their forties. You know. The attraction of a young sexy body for regular sex that most ignorant guys in their twenties get blinded by.

    Then you add in the 5-15 years of rejection since they divorced their 1st husband and they have the shaming language down to an art.

    What I find interesting is how differently men and women respond to the question, “What do you bring to the table in terms of a relationship?”

    Ask any guy and he might think about it and then describe whatever skills or experience he has accumulated over the years. He might even talk about all the new things he is involved in or his variety of interests. Most will not get angry.

    But ask the same of a divorced women in her forties? You are almost guaranteed anger or harsh shaming language.

    I used to think that maybe it was a harsh and potentially rude question. But now I think the anger and shaming are due to the fact that they do not want to look in the mirror with clear eyes. Many women ( and some men) get angry because deep down they know they don’t bring much to the table. It’s just easier to pretend, order the next martini on girls night out, and join the chorus of cricket chirping about all the terrible men out there.

  22. Doc says:

    “a man is more or less forced into a subservient position because the minute Ms. Princess gets annoyed or bored with him, she’s on to the next guy..”

    This is only true if you allow it to be. Women want to feel they have achieved something when they are with a guy. Having a guy that puts up with such non-sense only makes her more dissatisfied. So the question you have to ask yourself, is: “WIll I live by my rules, or someone elses?” Never allow a woman to set the pace of a relationship – be in control and stay there. If she gives an “ultimatum” kick her to the curb ASAP. This is why it is always advisable to have a stable of available women so that when one falls into disfavor, you can pull another one from the ranks. Never make the mistake of thinking “this is the one” or “she’s perfect” – she isn’t unless you make her that way.

    This isn’t difficult if you understand the psychology of women – they crave excitement and that which they cannot have. You always have to be WILLING to walk away. If you are not, the writing is on the wall since she will. It never ceases to amaze me that men continue to sabotage themselves by their actions – they think that by acquiescing and giving in, that they will keep a woman happy – and the exact opposite is true. The only way to keep a woman happy, is for her to be complaining about how difficult it is to “keep” you, or how much she has to work to keep you happy. Keep her focused on keeping you happy, and she won’t have time to worry about anyone else.

    You are the prize. You bring everything to the table, she brings only what every other woman brings. So who is worth more? Never forget that every eighteen year old woman could keep you as happy as any other woman out there – and you will do fine. Sure, she may lack experience – but you can teach her what you like. It’s easier to teach a woman something new, then to break her bad habits that someone else allowed her to develop.

  23. @interested

    What the women has to offer is simple, an unreconciled blob of emotions swirling through her mind, like those cartoon storms following then around, and an endless series of “I feel” and “I believe” statements based on seeing everything through only the lens of her own experience. Never discount a woman’s likelihood to say how SHE sees something because of …..then fill in anecdotal story here.

    When a person is unable to collate experiences, see things outside their experiences, process all that and gain wisdom, they are not anchored to anything. Even the Christian women who ostensibly are anchored to something, aren’t. They just ask the personal Jesus to see it their way

  24. deti says:

    This post and the excellent comments following it illustrate a couple of things.

    1. The “weakened signal” to men to prepare for marriage is yet another unintended consequence of feminism. Women have their own money and their own financial independence, and aren’t afraid of making that fact crystal clear to men. And therefore, many men simply think to themselves that she doesn’t really need men or want them.

    2. It’s evidence of the different communication styles of men and women. Men take what people say at face value. Hence, when a woman says she wants a “nice guy who will treat her right”, blue pill men or men who have not put on the glasses tend to think she actually wants what she says she wants — a “nice guy” who treats her with kindness.

    Women almost speak in code with each other. And women instinctively know what each other is talking about when they say these things.

    “He’s creepy.” Translated: “He’s a non-alpha man who is showing interest in me.”
    “I just want a nice guy who will treat me right.” Translated: “I want an alpha man who knows who he is, pursues what he wants, does what he wants, but is devoted to me and only me, has sex with me and only me, and treats me with kindness.”
    “There’s just something about him.” (said with bedroom eyes) Translated: “He makes me tingle. I’m going to find out what that something is.”
    “There’s just something about him.” (said with mock concern and a hint of revulsion) Translated: “He doesn’t make me tingle. There is no way I will ever think about sleeping with him. Not ever.”

    3. It is evidence of the entitlement attitude and expectations many women have. They expect alpha men to fall into their laps at just the right moment – not before, not after.

    “Well, I’ve had my fun working/partying/at school/ riding the carousel. I’m ready to get married now. So I’ll go out and find a good alpha man who makes lots of money and loves me, and we’ll get married and I’ll get my 2.4 kids and the house with the picket fence and the nanny and the puppy and I will get to quit my icky, boring HR/PR/communications job which I only got after I had to get a job because my college boyfriends/beautiful alpha f**kbuddies didn’t or wouldn’t marry me. (I still can’t figure out why.) I will spend my days wearing an apron, baking cookies, and watching TV.”

    This was most prominent in the Kate Bolick article in the Atlantic (All the Single Ladies) in which she said she and many women like her just figured men would always be there to marry them. Implicit in the statement is the sentiment that a man “to marry them” would be only the right kind of man, the wealthy alpha man with high status.

  25. ybm says:

    I think men need to be a bit more willing to call women creepy for saying things. For example a woman I was seeing said that she would love to have kids with me because she would have “good looking kids” (my first experience with the sexy-sons phenomena) and it was absolutely skin-crawlingly creepy when she said it.

    Creepy is not a man-only insult and we, as men should be much, much more willing to use it than we are, there are a ton of creepy women out there, usually because of their lack of social skills (by being ugly, fat, or princesses).

  26. imnobody says:

    she said she and many women like her just figured men would always be there to marry them.

    It boils down to the differences between sexes and the eternal solipsism of the female mind. Most women would never date a guy unless this guy has potential (for marriage). So when they see all these men interested in dating them, they think the guys are open to the idea of marrying them. In fact, 90% of these men only want to p*mp them and d*mp them.

    So women go through life with an unrealistic idea of their MMV. This is why they are so smug in their twenties and they think they always have time. When they decide to commit (“I’ve had my fun”), then they see that this is not so. But the rationalization hamster comes to the rescue.

  27. Anonymous Reader says:

    2. It’s evidence of the different communication styles of men and women. Men take what people say at face value.

    At least some men not only take what is said at face value, but tend to assume it is true for an extended period of time. So when some 25 year old woman with a job announces proudly she doesn’t need or want a man to settle down with, the men who hear that will take it as true not just now, but for years to come. Then 5 years later when she’s whining about “no good men”, she might just be reminded by some man in her life that, well, so what? She already stated she doesn’t want or need a man, good, bad or indifferent. So what’s the problem? For some reason women don’t much care for being reminded of what they said in the past if it contradicts what they are saying at the moment. But from a man’s perspective, truth should not be time-variant. Something that was “true” 5 years ago ought to still be “true” today, absent some fundamental change in the real world – and “real world” means the observable, physical reality, not whatever someone’s making up inside their head.

    Or consider a 25 year old man dating a 23 year old woman; if the latter says “I don’t want to have children” he may well assume that is true not only for the moment, but will still be true 5 to 10 years later. Thus, if he wants children, he’ll lose interest in her. On the other hand, if he doesn’t care for children, but marries her, then he’ll get a surprise when she’s pushing 30 and seemingly out of nowhere announces it’s time to make babies.

    In both of the above examples, a man who is wearing the glasses, who understands the real nature of women, would dismiss the words said by the woman at a younger age as merely a sign of immaturity. Because the vast, vast majority of women want to pair bond with a man and have children – it’s deeply buried within their psyche. Going against deeply buried drives is a pretty sure fire way to unhappiness. As the current number of prescriptions in the US for mood-altering drugs supports.

  28. Herb says:

    While the weakened signal is important there is also an anti-signal: that men and marriage are not desirable.

    While the cliche example is the fish/bicycle line consider the following just from the comments here:

    Well, I’ve had my fun working/partying/at school/ riding the carousel. I’m ready to get married now.

    This, and variations of it, are what feed me the red pill when after my divorce plenty of single mother types found my steady job interesting. I realize I wasn’t good enough for the fun but I was good enough to provide.

    Telling someone they aren’t fun or enjoyable does nothing for their ego or make them interested in you. Add in that you still want to be with someone boring and they’ll conclude (quite correctly) they’re just being used for something. Unless you’re in the BDSM world (and that world operates is such an alien context to the mainstream SMP that even then it’s not the same thing) finding people who enjoy being used is pretty much impossible.

    For example a woman I was seeing said that she would love to have kids with me because she would have “good looking kids”

    Another “means to my ends” anti-signal.

    But ask the same of a divorced women in her forties? You are almost guaranteed anger or harsh shaming language.

    If you can’t articulate what you’re bringing to the deal (ie, what the other person gains) that’s an anti-signal to them in terms of wanting the deal.

    Another strong anti-signal is not only are women giving up sex without marriage they’re rapidly showing a loss of interest in it after that makes 50s jokes about wifes not wanting sex seem tame. If there is a stronger anti-signal than “If we marry I’ll quit having sex with you” I don’t know what it is.

    Women are not only failing to signal to men to prepare for marriage, they are actively signaling men to find it uninteresting/unappealing.

  29. You know what?

    I agree with all the post and comments here, as far as feminism, misandry, and dumbfuck american narcissist women. I really do.

    What I am disappointed with is that everyone is so doom and gloom. Poor Man, pissing and moaning about how girlies all suck now. How about some solutions, brothers? How about learning to TRAIN A BITCH how to be. How about the concept of getting inside a woman’s head and bringing her to her knees (at your feet) and getting control of your situation.

    It can be done, and I can prove it. Stop being such whiny bitches all the time and start talking solutions. They are there. If you get good enough, you can train a bitch so well you’ll actually want to keep her (and she’ll beg to be kept)

  30. deti says:


    Fully agreed with your basic point. Your post seems to come from a position of hating women or viewing them as subhuman. If I’m misreading you or missing the hyperbole, fine.

    A big part of what we do here is getting to the truth. This has to be done first before we can work to improve our relationships with women. We strip away the false veneer and the rationalizations. We smash the pedestal. We put on the glasses (or take the red pill). We see women as they really are, not as we would like them to be or wish they are. Perhaps some women are malicious. Most are not; they have become this way through decades of getting what they want by batting eyelashes or attention whoring, being hoisted onto pedestals, being supplicated to, and/or working at careers and imitating male conduct. And all this has happened with almost no male pushback except for the marriage age creeping upwards and more men opting out of marriage.

    Once you get at the truth, you have to accept it. That can take some time. Many of us, myself included, took a lot of time to digest the red pill. You realize everything you thought you knew about women was wrong. Everything your parents, pastors, teachers and other civic and religious authorities told you about male-female relations was not only wrong, but almost intentionally fraudulent. It takes time to work that out of your system. It can take some time to start seeing results in dating or a marriage. And you’re shocked to find out it actually works.

    The first time I tried out game in my marriage I was literally backed up against a wall. I was pleasantly surprised and actually a little disappointed at how well it worked. I thought “I cannot believe a woman married to me for 15 years turns literally from a raving lunatic bitch into a purring kitten sex machine in 48 hours after doing nothing other than tell her I’m done putting up with her crap.” The next thought I had was “why is no one talking about this? Why didn’t anyone tell me this when I was growing up? Why didn’t anyone tell me this when I got married?”

  31. Dalrock says:

    Deti, you really are on fire! When/if I write a book, would you mind if I quoted that last comment?

  32. deti says:

    Dalrock: Sure.

  33. deti says:

    I want to tell a story here about how I think women just got this way and really aren’t malicious. Leaving aside the obvious dysfunctions and unattractiveness of many women in contemporary America, I’m not sure “training” is the answer for most. Maybe some women need “training”. To me that would seem like having to game a woman constantly. A wife or LTR who has to be gamed all the time isn’t wife or LTR material. Maybe it’s more a matter of a woman acclimating herself to her husband’s masculinity and doing things to make herself more attractive.

    I dated this girl for 4 years. I met her when we were both college seniors. I had been accepted into a pretty prestigious graduate program, one with potential for high status and a good living This was the one who finally got me over First College Girlfriend. She was probably a 7 or 8 in the midwest where I live (a 6 at best in DC or on the coasts). She was very accustomed to male attention and received it when and where she wanted.

    We started dating after I gamed her pretty hard. She quickly revealed herself to be a first order entitlement princess and attention whore. Her previous BFs were out of school and had jobs, so she was accustomed to being wined and dined, entertainment, and gifts. She demanded more and more tribute in the form of expensive nights out. (How a starving college senior putting himself through school is supposed to do this I still don’t know.) Gifts were never good enough. The sex was mediocre at best. We trudged on through another couple of years of my grad program. She kept talking about wanting to get married, but at the same time acting as though she couldn’t stand me and resisting sex. She was so demanding and the return on my investment so poor I finally broke up with her after I’d settled into my new job. I told her I was sick of her complaining. She seemed to hate me I thought we’d both be happier apart than together. I never saw her again.

    A week later I received several phone calls from her telling me she was having trouble getting over me. I talked to her and expressed a lot of surprise that she wanted to speak to me. She did nothing but hate me and complain at me when we were together. What did she care about seeing me again? Why did she even want to talk to me?

    It dawned on me years later, looking back, and after having learned about game: No one had ever denied her anything before. No one had ever told her “No.” No one had ever laid down the law and removed himself from her manipulation. And my mind went back to an obscure conversation we had had: she was always the dumper, never the dumpee. No one had ever broken up with her before. She was accustomed to getting everything she wanted by manipulation, using feminine charm, even using sex if she had to. Her world was populated with men who did everything she wanted, including her father, her male coworkers, and a coterie of beta orbiters out of Central Casting. Those beta orbiters were nice to me, but I know now why they all paid her any attention. One of them even pulled an all nighter road trip, driving 400 miles to attend her college graduation. Anyone here want to guess why? Would anyone posting on these boards drive 400 miles fo attend a female “friend’s” anything if you didn’t want to get her into bed? I don’t know if she cheated on me, but I would not be at all surprised if she had.

  34. Legion says:

    Lavazza says:
    January 8, 2012 at 3:07 pm

    I recognize I had a good divorce. My ex was concerned with us still raising our son. I wasn’t taken to the cleaners or anything. We have helped each other out at times and I know my son appreciates that.

    Yet she still divorced me when I was laid off and I’m not marrying again. I had a live-in girlfriend last year and that isn’t happening again either. My home will be my oasis.

  35. Opus says:


    I have really appreciated your last two posts so allow me to answer your question as to whether a man would drive four hundred miles to attend your ex-girlfriend’s graduation, that is, if he were not having sex with her. The Answer, you will be perhaps relieved to learn, is a very definite YES. He wants to, sure, but the fact that he did it (when you are the boyfriend) shows that he is a treacherous Omega, a losert who is getting absolutely nothing. Your ex may have been sleeping around (I know not) but not with him. If he had sex with her, he would most certainly NOT have gone to such trouble.

  36. @Deti Quite right, sir. In fact, I do not hate women, but LOVE them!!! Know why??

    Because rather than sit here and be pissed at how much they suck, I have endeavored to help them to NOT suck. I’m telling you, I know how to make a woman feel beautiful. Not by gifts or praise or pedestals, but by Discipline. Just as a child feels loved when they receive a rebuke, so does a woman.

    “Whom the Lord loves, He rebukes.”

    I am not angry at women for being how they were designed to be. I am just thrilled that I finally “get it”, because it makes me SO optimistic!!! Now, we will always be susceptible to the hypergamy problem, and are never fully insured against cheating, but we can get wayyyy closer than just taking a woman’s word for it.

    Additionally, you don’t have to “game” a woman constantly to achieve what I am talking about. Just like with a dog- you train that dog how to sit and lay down and roll over and that damn dog will do it the rest of their lives!! Especially if you reward it. I have 2 sons, (14 and 17) and I have zero discipline issues with them, because I set the tone from their early childhood that I RUN THE SHOW. That’s how I have to have it, and frankly, that’s how they want it.

    Women will constantly fight for power and to sit in the throne, with a guy, but will be pissed if they ever get it, and dissatisfied to the point of leaving/cheating. We don’t need to hate on them for this madness, we just need to be MEN and never abdicate the throne. THIS is a woman’s happiest state. This is why they like bad-boys- because they cannot manipulate them. Women both reject and crave a man’s authority in relationship. Therefore, we must withstand and shut down their tantrums, guide with a firm and even hand, and reward obedience, and rebuke rebellion.

    A woman who has a man who is willing to make this investment will feel more beautiful than she ever has before, because she KNOWS she acts like spoiled shit and fucks up most everything she touches, and she knows that this man’s guidance is helping her battle (and win) against her own demons. Women who are attracted to their man do not become “unhaaaapy” and leave/cheat. Women who deeply admire their man for knowing how to subject them skillfully will not discard him capriciously. Further, this man can help them feel absolved for their fuck-ups with discipline. (I cannot tell you how relevant things like spanking are right here)

    I am so thankful for the wonderful, delightful, totally crazy women in this world, They really do keep things interesting, don’t they? They are beautiful people, even more so when their madness is put in check and managed. A woman will fall deeply in love with a man who rules well, but never lets her take over the throne. So, rule well, brothers.

    In the end, it is the MAN who will determine the fate of his relationship. The buck stops here, folks. Men who can’t understand how to rule well and be a King in the life of his woman are either too lazy and just want to hump everything with minimal investment, or they don’t understand, and so they try to get her to be happy through supplication.

    I am glad that the manosphere offers the Red Pill to the brotherhood, but I find it lacking the element of SOLUTIONS that would keep men loving and helping women, and enjoying them, and too often just becomes a bitch-fest about how retarded they are.

    rock on

  37. deti says:

    Opus: Agree. Looking back, the 400-mile friend didn’t sleep with her. I can now tell that he certainly wanted to, but I don’t think he did, at least not at that time.

  38. ybm says:

    “A wife or LTR who has to be gamed all the time isn’t wife or LTR material.”

    If a man like the married-man game sect really had to learn game to have a happy home life, who was the one who was really trained? I doubt it was the wife!

  39. deti says:


    Maybe. Keep in mind married man game isn’t PUA game. Most men, even single men, just aren’t going to become proficient enough to become full fledged PUAs. Most men don’t have the will, the drive, or the horsepower to become the next Roissy.

    Any wife who needs hardcore a**hole game is not marriage material. Telling a wife to be quiet and stop blabbing private information isn’t a**hole game. Telling a wife firmly not to disrespect you in public, and correcting her when she does, is not a**hole game. Raising your voice on occasion to drive home a point is not a**hole game.

    Hardcore a**hole game to me is open flirting with other women; putdowns, hard negging, daily shouting, silent treatment, or having an affair and making sure your wife finds out about it. If you have to pull stuff like this to keep a wife in line and faithful, then it is she, not the husband, who is the problem. If a man has to game a wife this hard, then she doesn’t take her marital vows seriously.

  40. Opus says:


    Nor at any other time. The fact that he drove four hundred miles for her graduation when he was not her boyfriend, will have persuaded her that he was loser, heck, a woman will perceive you as a loser if you drive four hundred miles to see her when she has pleaded and begged you to do so (I speak from experience – and more than once). If a woman wants you, she will come to you unasked! Trust me.

  41. van Rooinek says:

    Very good-looking men often marry women who have qualities they lack—education, professional accomplishment, social standing, and ambition.

    LOL. Bass ackwards. Don’t think I can come up with ONE example of this in real life!

    It should read — Very good-looking WOMEN often marry MEN who have qualities they lack—education, professional accomplishment, social standing, and ambition. That happens every day!

  42. Dex says:

    @YBM – it’s possible that the MMSL is undoing the bad training the man had previously.

  43. Höllenhund says:

    For some reason I cannot fully explain, I feel zero desire to live as a dog trainer. As far as I’m concerned, all the dogs can go f*ck themselves. I generally don’t feel hatred towards them, maybe not even contempt, but I sure as Hell have no inclination whatsoever to put up with their sh*t. Maybe that makes me a defective male, maybe not. I don’t really care. I’m learning more and more of the gynonormativity and gynocentrism all societies seem to be based on, and the one thing I now know for sure is that I want to have nothing to do with it.

  44. Eric says:

    ‘This is true unless you understand the psychology of women”
    Their psychology is explained in one sentence: they hate men.

    “Women want to feel they have achieved something if they are with a guy.”
    Are you serious here? The only achievement they care about is esmasculating a man and feeling superior to him.

    “They won’t be 9perfect, or the one, unless you make her that way.”
    They’re not going to stand for anything that reduces their ‘girl power’. You aren’t going to make any of these Amazons into anything. The average American female is hard-wired to see men as inferiors and trying to make her do anything is going to be met with resentment. The reason they like men ‘with stables full of women’ is not because those men are ‘exciting’ but because women see them as moral inferiors. They can play the loving, giving victim of a situation like that.

    “You are the prize. You bring everything to the table.”
    Oh please. Women in our culture decidedly DO NOT value men in the least. The idea that they consider any of us ‘prizes’ is laughable. As to the average 18 y/o’s you described, have you met any lately? At that age they get off on rejecting men for sport and setting them up for false accusations.
    They’re even more ruthless than the older ones, since they’ve had their man-hating single moms as role models all their lives.

    “You can break her of her bad habits, &c.”
    Uh-huh. So someone raised with the attitude that ‘women have all the power in relationships’ is going to sit idly by and allow you to do that? The same goes for ‘keeping her happy by complaining how hard is to keep you.’ Aside from the unmigated hell a relationship like that would be like; it isn’t realistic. Again, women are taught that ‘all men care about is sex’ (i.e. all men desire her sexually). It won’t be hard for her to stop complaining and jump into bed with any lowlife she encounters, because she doesn’t value sex any more than she values men.

    The entire problem with the line of reasoning you take is that you don’t understand the depths of the self-absorbed nature and sense of entitlement that accompanies female narcissicism. We men are capable of loving a ‘special someone’; women see us—to use Koffka’s eloquent phrase— as ‘an undifferentiated hostile field’. There’s no such thing as a ‘special someone’ to them, Only she is important and everyone who doesn’t serve the all-consuming female ego is seen as an enemy or an obstacle to be gotten out of the way. We men feel empathy and have a sense of responsibility towards others; women do not. When you understand that women are basically guided by a moral code centering on a species of sociopathic amorality, you’ll avoid them like the plague! Because they don’t mean you any good, regardless of what they say to the contrary.

  45. ybm says:

    Epic post Eric.

  46. nyccine says:

    “Just like with a dog- you train that dog how to sit and lay down and roll over and that damn dog will do it the rest of their lives!!”

    “In the end, it is the MAN who will determine the fate of his relationship”

    Please re-read That Way Rationalization Lies and, while you’re at it, re-read Gaming Your Wife, particularly the part where our esteemed host says:

    “The foundation for her commitment to your marriage shouldn’t be your game. If she is only one, or a few, or even 50 failed shit tests away from walking away from her sacred vow and/or whoring around, then she isn’t a wife, she is a whore.”

  47. Bob says:

    I totally agree with Solomon. God does not make mistakes, and he made women hypergamous and men, well, men. He TOLD us men to take dominion. You are meant to be a king. A woman is part of your realm and responsibility. If you don’t lead her well, you can expect a revolt. Betas are men who simply abdicate the throne and try to appease their “populace” (the woman) by giving away his power. But a king’s subjects really want a firm, kind, wise king to lead them. Similarly, a woman wants a firm, kind wise man to lead, even if they say the opposite (women cannot simply overcome hypergamy).

    I personally love women the way they are. I embrace my role. Men need the red pill or else they won’t realize they must be the “king” they are meant to be and take control. Bitching about reality is like a king bitching about his responsibility and wishing he was a hermit: it’s being weak. Solomon has the right attitude. Let’s browse for solutions and leave the kvetching to Gloria Steinem. Men before us figured it out. As I mentioned in another post, Rome was once mired in a downfall of the patriarchy, and eventually the patriarchy came back to power.

    “Since nature has so decreed that we cannot manage comfortably with them (women), nor live in any way without them, we must plan for our lasting preservation rather than for our temporary pleasure.” – Roman general, statesman, and censor Quintus Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus, 131 B.C.

  48. Höllenhund says:

    Bob’s and Solomon’s comments seem to be perfect examples of the online phenomenon Brendan has written about here:

    To be frank, I didn’t really know what to make of it because I don’t read Manosphere blogs that frequently so I couldn’t decide whether he’s correct or not, but now I think he’s definitely onto something, as usual. I find it somewhat alarming that even in the Manosphere, many men are basically siding with feminists and socons by declaring that men, especially young men, are ultimately responsible for all social problems, even though it should be blatantly obvious to everyone that this is exactly the mentality that got us into the current mess in the first place. This is the ’Man up 2.0’ decree that Rollo T. has warned about:

    Another thing they are forgetting is that a dog trainer or a king – or any other head of state for that matter – can only fulfill his role if he has legally and culturally sanctioned authority over dogs and common folk, respectively.

  49. Suz says:

    I tend to agree with Bob, except for this:
    “Men need the red pill or else they won’t realize they must be the “king” they are meant to be and take control.”
    Having and reigning over a “kingdom” isn’t necessary, but men with families should see themselves as kings and should seek to maintain a balance of duty and power. Yes, I know it’s like herding cats, which is a VERY good reason for more and more men to walk away from it. As long as women have the legal right to too much power, were going to use it to emasculate men. Feminism has given a loaded gun to a retarded child.
    I think it’s important for men to remember though, that having a “king” mentality is extremely attractive to women. Having a kingly personality and not wanting a kingdom, will drive older women NUTS, and will drive younger women to want to learn how to become good subjects. The smart ones anyway. A man who wants a family should spend a few years developing the moral authority that will enable him to say, “If you want to be my queen, you must agree to be my subject.”
    Is it possible to write a prenup stating that a party who files for a “divorce without cause” forfeits child custody all marital assets? I know that the courts would have the final say regarding custody, but wouldn’t such an agreement be a pretty powerful tool? I know there’s no such thing as a sure bet, but could such a agreement drastically reduce a man’s risks? It would certainly reduce the number of predatory women who’d even consider marrying him.

  50. Höllenhund says:

    I’d argue Bob’s and Solomon’s advice actually will be useful – AFTER Western civilization has collapsed. When the entire edifice which screwes up the current SMP – female-oriented education and workplaces, the divorce theft industry, the false rape industry, the false domestic violence industry, the welfare state, the urban cock carousel – has crumbled into dust and feminism’s corpse is rotting next to it, when the choice every young woman faces is between ‘marrying a man and living under his authority’ and ‘starving to death under the bridge or getting hunted down by roaming bands of barbarians’, THEN and only then will it make any sense to start a high-minded discussion about preparing young men for their responsibilites as paterfamilias and grooming them how to live as kings. Until then it’s completely pointless.

  51. Höllenhund says:


    I’ve seen well-informed and reasonable men discuss prenups on The Spearhead and elsewhere. There’s a consensus among them that prenups are pretty much useless in the US. The family court judges can shred them anytime with the justification that ‘the best interests of the child demand it’ or some other line of utter BS. They won’t really protect any man from anything.

  52. Suz says:

    Hollenhund, you may be right, collapse might be necessary. I hope not, but it’s a real possibility and considering the state of the world economy, it may come sooner than we expect. Today’s boys and young men might well be the leaders of the future; I don’t think it’s pointless to start grooming them for what might well be their salvation. I sure don’t want my son to be among the roaming barbarians. And in the meantime, if he decides he wants a family he’s going to need every bit of wisdom he can find.

  53. Suz says:

    Is there a place where I can research prenups more thoroughly? I’m wondering if lawyers are working on ways to incorporate the good of future children into the agreements. Is it at all helpful to find a lawyer who actively advocates for men’s rights? My son’s a Marine and last time the subject came up he said he never wanted to get married, but he’s 19 and he could change his mind. I want him to understand what he may be in for, but he thinks I’m a little paranoid…)

  54. Children and custody cannot be covered in pre-nups.

    The most effective protection is to protect against divorce. That is simple.

    1. shared parenting laws decrease divorce
    2. a prenup or law that is simple, it says whoever files the divorce lacking a predetermined criteria (physical abuse, etc etc) has to move out and be a visitor to kids for the time the divorce is in process.

    Rates would plummet

  55. suz you can research them fairly easily online just like anything else. is a good resource that has links to various states, some law firms linked then have articles posted about pre nups and other family law issues, some even link up state code

  56. umslopogaas says:


    Feminism has given a loaded gun to a retarded child.”

    This is a truly epic metaphor. Outstanding, brilliant work. I’m copying this quote to my all time favorites. LOL

  57. umslopogaas says:

    Incidentally, isn’t it ironic how feminism is eternally bleating about “men only want sex” and how we ‘see women as sex objects’?

    At the same time *they* for the most part only seem to want our wonga…and see us as status objects.

    So were both objectified, each in its own way…

  58. umslopogaas says:


    Vis a vis Susan Walsh being on *our* side I’d say there’s fresh evidence to the contrary, at least from my perspective.

    A certain Mike recently wrote about his rather traumatic experiences in adolescence (on HUS). He was for the most part ignored. I wrote a comment somewhat snarikily pointing out that fact. Said comment was subsequently deleted by the esteemed Mrs Walsh.

    So the female imperative would seem to be alive and well on HUS.

    I wrote this here in response (dedicated to Mike and all other good men in the Western Femisphere):

  59. ybm says:

    How a man can call himself king when at any second his “queen” could have him removed from his house, thrown in jail, forced into poverty and prevented from seeing his family at her whim is beyond me. Maybe my “married game” isn’t tight enough to get the legal system to side with me. Then again i don’t engage in magical thinking.

  60. van Rooinek says:

    Women will constantly fight for power and to sit in the throne, with a guy, but will be pissed if they ever get it, and dissatisfied to the point of leaving/cheating.


    “….thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”

    The word for “desire” used here, as I’ve heard from the pulpit, doesn’t translate into “sexual lust”, but to a desire to usurp or control. In modern language it might read, “you will long to rule over your husband, but instead he shall rule over you.”

    Game 1.0. From the highest source. Go thou and do likewise.

  61. Höllenhund says:

    Spot on, ybm.

  62. deti says:

    ybm, Hollenhund:

    Of course, you are correct. I agreed with Bob and SolomonPress yesterday, but only up to a point. The alpha/king they speak of rules a queen who is a willing subject. The rub is that the queen must agree to be ruled.

    The concomitant Biblical directives that SolomonPress alluded to yesterday are (1) Wives, respect your husbands, and (2) Husbands, love your wives and give yourselves up for them. The directive to “respect” essentially means to submit VOLUNTARILY to the husband’s leadership. It does NOT mean she is to be a doormat. It DOES mean she has to let him lead, and do it willingly and without compulsion, duress or force. In my view, it also means she has to submit FIRST, BEFORE he has an obligation to lead.

    (It occurs to me this is probably why there’s a wedding ceremony in which the father or some other older man “gives away” the bride. The symbolism is clear: She’s being submitted to the husband to be. She is voluntarily giving herself up to him. The groom, for his part, has no obligations to her before this point. It is only when she has voluntarily submitted to him that his obligation to protect, provide and lead are triggered.)

    It’s pretty clear that the husband is not commanded to lead, and cannot lead, a woman who resists and actively subverts his benevolent rule. For that reason, there is also a proverb in which King Solomon wisely and presciently exhorts his sons to avoid two types of women: (1) sluts, and (2) shrewish, combative women.

    Hence my post yesterday at 3:43 pm. If you have to pound her into submission with hardcore a**hole game, she is not a willing subject, she won’t agree to be ruled, and therefore is not marriage material.

    Many others have spoken of this and game’s application to marriage. There’s no question that marriage is risky, and that conditions on the ground have increased the risk so much that many men are eschewing it entirely. But for those who want to be married for whatever reason, that risk can be managed and reduced, but, unfortunately, cannot be eliminated. The best way to manage it in today’s environment for those who want to be married or want to stay married is to find a candidate who (1) exhibits a strength of character directing her to marital obligations and to long-range consequences; and (2) has a moral compass indicating she is unlikely to attempt to use the culture and the existing legal framework to influence short term consequences into her short term favor.

    To reduce the risk further, the man must incorporate game into his life and himself. He cannot give in to her every whim. He cannot let the winds of popular culture, or trends, or his wife/GF’s emotions, whip him about like a ship lost at sea. He needs to let her know he won’t put up with her unreasonable complaints, her incessant, pointless nagging, or her deliberate defiance. He needs to make clear that he knows when she’s fitness testing him, and that he blows them up with regularity. She can feel her feelings, have her emotional outbursts, and cry all she wants, but none of these things will affect the course of the marriage or influence any major decisionmaking needing to be done. He needs to anchor himself firmly to principle, to a belief system, to a way of life he established for himself and those close to him. When a husband does these things, everyone is happier.

  63. Strong posts, you guys. I do like the comment that we will need to see full collapse and revert to tribalism and take the bullets out of the feminist gun. I can appreciate the truth in that.

    What I was trying to point out is that everyone seems to overlook how easy and fun it is to get inside a woman’s head. I mean, really fuck with her. Once you get inside her head, she is at your mercy. THEN she will behave. I do this sort of thing not to be a manipulative bastard, but in fact, in their best interest. They are always free to leave. But of course, once you get inside their head, there’s little fear of that.

    @Van Rooinek – you are exactly right. It was right then, that the battle of the sexes began. It indicates that woman’s original design was subservience without the damned rebellion and mutiny. Well, the rebellion is there, now. BUT so is that subservience. This puts women in an eternal conflict with themselves. Yes, it’s a pain in the ass for men, but instead of whining, I recognize the condition, and simply take the lead in shutting down that rebellious streak of the usurper inside each woman, and then shit WORKS. People become happy and functional. If a little mutiny rises up in her, it gets shut down skillfully, and the woman will love the man all the more, for being able to do that. This brings great admiration of the man, which is excellent currency.

    I must point out that I can only hold my position as King with a woman as long as I am not married to her. Divorce theft, emotional blackmail, and tilted courts have already destroyed me once. I can only hold my position absolutely by not allowing that sort of leverage. In the spirit of the comment above about how society will have to collapse to tribalism in order to fully fix the problem, I must add that back in those days, if a woman couldn’t get her shit right, the man was also allowed to kill her. I’m not down with that, but I bet if a woman knew that he could kill her with impunity, her behavior might be different. They don’t have a crime problem in Saudi Arabia, know what I mean?

    Just as we are no longer allowed to discipline our own children without going to jail, we are also not allowed to discipline our women now, and that has everything to do with the rise of feminism. I have never ever laid my hand on a woman in anger, because discipline must be measured, not outraged. Discipline I administer is even consensual, as the woman has the option to GTFO if she is not down with it.

    Tell me, boys- can you imagine getting inside a woman’s head so much, right here in this generation, to where she agrees to accept physical discipline voluntarily, just to preserve good standing with her man?

    I’m here to tell you it is possible. I have seen it and done it. You cannot help but admire a woman who has the guts to accept it, and take responsibility. And a woman like this who has a man who rules well, including ‘correction’, is a very happy woman. Follow it with hot rough sex and see if she likes that too. (she will.)

    The woman becomes more beautiful, under your guidance, and the trust and intimacy required to operate at this level is mighty powerful. A woman who loves her man enough to set herself naked at his feet and even offer her body up for punishment is a woman a guy can fall in love with.

    Not all women even qualify to be under my care, because there really are a lot of dumbshit women that are not ready to accept this truth. Only women who show strength of character and fortitude would I even bother to invest in. I will say, though, that many of those messed-up, dumbshit women are the way they are because no one has ever DISCIPLINED them. Spoiled little brats, the lot of them. They just need a good Daddy to put them over his knee once in a while…

  64. ybm says:

    You are entitled to live whatever fetish lifestyle you desire but you, fundamentally, are dependant on her not having you thrown in jail for your discipline. And no amount of waxing poetic will make the baton hurt any less or the handcuffs not cut into your wrists. No amount of “game” can get you out of jail from a false accusation.

  65. ybm says:

    Hence, you are not a king, but a court jester dancing to the tune his queen prefers. The king is big daddy government.

  66. Dalrock says:

    Good discussion. As nyccine already pointed out, I gave my take on the question of whether a husband should feel responsible for his wife keeping her vows in a previous post. If you feel that you are the responsible party for both of your actions why would you ever dream of marrying? You will be held legally to your commitment, she (generally) won’t. All you gain from marriage is the moral force the concept of marriage holds on your wife. If you assume that force is small or even zero, why would you bind yourself legally? Men gain very little by marrying; I don’t see the logic in giving that last little bit up out of a sense of purity of game.

    It is also worth noting that most men here (including me) don’t want to live that way. As Hollenhund put it:

    For some reason I cannot fully explain, I feel zero desire to live as a dog trainer.

    This is important to remember when you hear feminists screech about how men love to dominate women. We don’t (most men at least). Here we have someone offering us the tools to do just that, and most men aren’t interested. Some women need that much alpha, and some men are suited to sign up for the task. The women who find such men have demanded this treatment, so it isn’t for me to argue with. But most men aren’t chomping at the bit to take on that role. Leadership and displaying some dominance is one thing, totally dominating a woman is something else.

  67. deti says:

    The SolomonPress:

    I’m more or less with you until you get to this:

    “everyone seems to overlook how easy and fun it is to get inside a woman’s head. I mean, really fuck with her. Once you get inside her head, she is at your mercy. THEN she will behave. I do this sort of thing not to be a manipulative bastard, but in fact, in their best interest. They are always free to leave.”

    This is dark triad game. This isn’t really designed for LTR or marriage — at least not the kind of marriage I know. This kind of game is geared to low-self-esteem women, bar sluts, and strippers. It seems to me to be good for getting them into bed, not for an LTR. A woman who has to be gamed that hard is a pump and dump, not a GF and certainly not marriage material.

    “and even offer her body up for punishment is a woman a guy can fall in love with.”

    ybm’s right. If she turns on you or decides you “manipulated” her into it, and calls the cops, you’re toast.

  68. Anonymous Reader says:

    This is important to remember when you hear feminists screech about how men love to dominate women. We don’t (most men at least). Here we have someone offering us the tools to do just that, and most men aren’t interested.

    Don’t assume that SolomonPress’s definition of “dominate” is anything like what feminists mean. I strongly suspect most feminists (with the exception of some sex-pozzies) would consider SolomonPress’s approach to be “abusive” or “domestic violence”. In my experience, there are plenty of 2nd stage and 3rd stage feminists who consider disagreeing with them to be an attempt to “dominate”. Suggesting a different course of action, whether it’s in business or where to go for lunch, can be considered “dominating”.

    As with “violence”, “rape”, and so forth, the definition of “dominate” has been warped by feminist dogma. I expect to see Game labeled as “domination” at some point. Certainly Athol’s approach to marriage can be called ‘domination” by feminists.

    Tangentially, I was just thinking the other day that one reason for the increase in BD/SM in the West may well be that some modern women require that much Alpha. Anything less looks beta to them.

  69. Bob says:

    Of course for any of it to work properly you need a good woman, but they do exist. The fact is, it does take work and you will have to invest, whining about it gets you nowhere. I think some men are lazy and don’t want to deal with it, and that’s fine, if that’s their choice. A relationship requires some voluntary surrender from both sides. The Bible says the wife’s body belongs to the husband, and the husband’s belongs to the wife. I’m not going as far as Solomon – I think “punishing” your wife/girlfriend physically is just real weird – but, you do have to learn to manage a relationship. Women do too, it’s a two way street, it requires both men and women to work. Both have to play their roles and invest a lot of hard work. This is just like a king and his subjects – if they aren’t moral, decent human beings, it won’t work no matter how great the king is or how great his people are. Fortunately, we can enter relationships with women voluntarily and pick a right fit.

    I also believe that often times the man is to blame for a divorce or broken relationship. I think some folks here have an attitude that it’s always the woman’s fault. Men need to work on themselves too. If you’re going to have an excellent wife, you need to be an excellent husband, and it’s not easy.

  70. ybm says:


    Would you say that man need to MAN UP! and marry whatever they can get nad pump ‘dem western babies out for the good of civilization/white race/western modernism?

  71. Brendan says:

    On pre-nups: they are mostly useful when dealing with pre-marital property and assets, in terms of setting up beforehand that it is not marital property and is not to be distributed as marital property in a divorce. Thus, if you are entering a marriage with substantial assets and property going in, in many states it makes sense to have a pre-nup to try to “wall off” these assets from being distributed by the family court in a divorce proceeding. Some courts even won’t enforce these kinds of agreements (family courts are “courts of equity”, generally, which quite broadly means that they won’t enforce an otherwise valid contract if they think that doing so would be unfair or “inequitable” in result).

    The further you get away from that core idea of protecting pre-marital separate assets, the less likely you are to have the agreement enforced. Courts don’t like people trying to rewrite the family law (i.e., you can only divorce me for X, Y Z reason, and if not you pay a penalty) or handcuff the family court ((i.e., if you do X to me, Y is the penalty), and they also per se will ignore anything in a pre-nup that has to do with the couple’s children (courts determine that themselves).

    So pre-nups can be useful for high net-worth people marrying with substantial pre-marital personal assets — but even there, some states (and notably some countries, like the UK) are reluctant to enforce these if they don’t like the result.

  72. Bob:

    What did you say?

    I mean I can read the words on the page, but what did you SAY?

    Hint: Nothing

    Well it could be yes, could be no
    Depends on yer perspective
    Some see it that way, others this way
    Its 50/50
    Wait, no it isnt! its 100/100!

    Playing with absolutes (always, never, all, none) to create a strawman is pedestrian Bob.

    Its not as if you said anything wrong, per se, you just didn’t say anything at all. These kinds of posts will definitely allow you to get positive female feedback. But when do YOU get to the part about holding women accountable? Does that idea make any sense in and of itself? It needs to, because wrapping things in ribbons of 50/50 aint accountability.

  73. Brendan:

    All true, it doesnt preclude dreaming of the codified end to legal frivolous divorce encouragement via making consequences immediate. Women think in the now, less abstract hypothetical, men think abstract, men would see the consequences of divorce regardless if we suffered them now, or 6 months in the future. Women, not so much. They nearly all scurry to the lawyer and try and delay the final date of a divorce they filed, because what was obvious to the man is taking her by surprise.

    So, to dream of a day when the abstract is taken out of it is one way I pass idle time

  74. Opus says:


    I am a little bit rusty on Family Law in England and Wales (mercifully) , but when I practised the same, the position was that Pre-Nuptial agreements were unenforcable, in that one could not oust the jurisdiction of the courts. A Pre-Nuptial agreement however (not that I ever came across one) was however, merely evidentiary as to the intentions of the contracting parties to the marriage, at the time of the agreement. Doubtless however it has all changed as whatever happens in the U.S.A. we imitate a quarter of a century later.

  75. Bob says:

    @ybm – No I would not. My definition of manning up is a far cry from what the feminists are asking for. Manning up to me is getting in shape, making a decent living, having the courage and drive to find a good woman and to get one’s act together if they need to (stop drinking so much, move out of mom’s basement, etc). All men need to man up in that regard. Women also need to woman up. If you spent the time working on yourself and “manning up” you should not settle for anything less than a woman who has “womaned up.” That means she takes care of herself, has her act together, acts like a woman and understands that while a career is great in the right place, family needs to come first and she is the one cut out to raise children. I think we should find wives and have children, but her race is irrelevant. If we have to go overseas and bring a good woman back, that is better than marrying a femnazi shrew or a ho from the U.S. The good men and women will change society as we simply have more kids than the others. Let the feminists butcher their own children, catch STD’s being sluts, neglect their families for meaningless careers. Let them ruin themselves and we’ll carry on without them.

  76. Bob says:

    @empath – How do you plan to hold women accountable? Posting about how fat American women are, how manly they are, etc isn’t going to hold them accountable. Furthermore, you cannot change society by focusing exclusively on one gender when males have problems too. The obesity rate for men is the same if not higher, yet you never see men on game blogs or in the manosphere complaining there (although Heartiste at least gives out a lot of fitness/health advice). I blame both men and women for the predicament we’re in. It is not like once upon a time women decided to become evil and we are all helpless at the mercy of women. I refuse to believe that men are at the mercy of womankind like some believe. The truth is, we are where we are today because of evil men and women pushing a leftist ideology.

  77. JT says:

    “I have always thought that only a fool would propose to a woman if he didn’t already know this was what she wanted with him. The same goes only to a slightly lesser degree for even discussing marriage in the abstract. If she isn’t the one driving this the mechanics are all wrong.”

    I have noticed this too..
    It’s so true!

  78. Brendan says:

    I am a little bit rusty on Family Law in England and Wales (mercifully) , but when I practised the same, the position was that Pre-Nuptial agreements were unenforcable, in that one could not oust the jurisdiction of the courts. A Pre-Nuptial agreement however (not that I ever came across one) was however, merely evidentiary as to the intentions of the contracting parties to the marriage, at the time of the agreement. Doubtless however it has all changed as whatever happens in the U.S.A. we imitate a quarter of a century later.

    It’s not so different in many US states. The main difference, I think, is how much weight (if any) the family court will give the intentions of the parties entering into the marriage in any case. In most cases the “equities at the time of divorce” seem to rule the day, regardless of the intentions expressed back before marriage occurred.

  79. Bob:

    I could give a rats rear about obesity in this context. Or any other thing outside of the destruction of the family.
    In any pragmatic sense, if you have a problem you sort out causes, then you try to fix them. If the problem is water getting in your house, do you tackle the roof thats missing over the family room due to a tornado, or the shingle you tore off over the bedroom when you were walking on the roof. Silly obvious.

    Its the same with family disintegration. I was watching Patrick Swayze’s widow answer a question how did that make it 33 years married in Hollywood environment. Her answer shocked me with its profundity. She said, chuckling, “someone once told me the secret to staying married was don’t split up”. I doubt she even realizes what she said. But we need to realize what she said.

    Women are filing the divorces at more than 2 to 1 to men. Filing is a causative action, that I even have to say that is goofy. Yet women and men will say “divorce is running rampant” like we need a tranquilizer gun and a cage. If you decide to tackle divorce, you tackle the largest source…head on. Stop the bleeding.

    You can argue on the margins forever, “well its not all their fault” etc. I never said it is. Im saying the 40 years of fix man fix the family is failing miserably. Going from an environment (in the church especially) of accountability for men only, to “its 50/50” doesn’t afford a corrective swing of the pendulum. The attitudes are too deeply cast, the flow is channeled such that the entire river has to be redone like they did in Chicago years ago, stop the river and reverse it….a “balanced” approach won’t work, the water seeks its way around that.

    You seemed to be coming at it from a church perspective, thats where the very first efforts must be, stop coddling and start accountability, stigma, calling it as it IS, not as it feels good.

    I agree about leftist ideology, do you not see the glove and hand of leftism with feminized ideology? The men pushing leftward are feminized men. The church has its evangelical feminists with their gynocentric ideology. Its got to be stopped, and you will find SOME men, and few women who will even acknowledge the problem. That alone tells you something.

  80. Eric says:

    Get a grip. Nothing is going to change until women get off their asses and DO something about their own attitudes. The number of dysfunctional men you complain about would drop radically if women would start valuing decent men over them. But they won’t do anything as long as our culture continues to feed their superiority complexes, entitlement mentality, and egomania.

    Neither is ‘learning Game’ or any other scmaltz some self-appointed guru touts as an infallible system. Women are going to compete with a man and drive him into an ever-tightening downward spiral until he’s so completely inferior to her that he’s worthless as a man. This is why they pursue thugs and metrosexuals, BTW—those men don’t require any effort to feel superior to them.

    Also, women never have to commit to males like that; consequently always retaining their ‘independence’ and ‘girl power’. They play the loving, sacrificing victim, but they know they can leave these creeps anytime they want to and nobody will blame them.

    The best thing men can do is withdraw from this miasma; disconnect and disengage from it. That could mean MGTOW; pursing women from better, healthier cultures; or various other options. But no real man can win in this atmosphere; and it’s beneath most men’s dignity to attempt to, anyway.

  81. Eric says:

    To be quite honest, I would have serious reservations about pre-nuptial agreements. it’s rather like settling the divorce before the marriage even starts! Any woman who needs a pre-nuptial agreement should probably not be married in the first place!

  82. Game has worked in my marriage. Even after 25 years of marriage, I am still learning and my wife and I are happy. A reasonable degree of male dominance seems best. I do sometimes spank my wife, but it is mainly in fun. I can still get my wife on her knees to suck my cock. Game works.

    Yes, the laws are unfair to men, though not as bad here in Australia. But men have always had to deal with unfair social pressures. Feminists are corrupt and will always push for vague, unfair laws. But public opinion still counts and unreasonable laws tend to get ignored and disrespected.

  83. Professor Mentu says:

    Great article as always, Dalrock. I have been to 4 weddings in the past 6 months, and in every single case the groom said he proposed because “Well man, it was time. I guess I have to grow up sometime….oh, and I love her”. Paraphrasing of course, but the message was the same.

    I’d never be a dick and question a man too much on his wedding day, but during conversations leading up to the big day, I was able to conclude that all 4 men were receiving a surprising amount of pressure from their girlfriends, both mothers, sisters, coworkers, and other married men.

    Of the four men, one seemed “ready” whatever the hell that means, but in my opinion the other three made nothing more than an impulse buy to satisfy social requirements. One got a flat-out ultimatum to which he caved like a child. So much for “growing up”.

    I know marriage works for some men, but I caution those who blindly recommend the institution to young men based solely on their own experience. Men who support marriage are really supporting their choice of marriage partner. It’s not the institution that brings happiness or sadness, it’s the woman you enter the institution with. That’s why when men advise me to marry, I ask them if I can ask their wife out on a date.

    That never goes over very well.

  84. Suz says:

    “You are entitled to live whatever fetish lifestyle you desire but you, fundamentally, are dependant on her not having you thrown in jail for your discipline.”

    Very true. That is not a marriage, or even an adult relationship. It’s a game, a matter of who manipulates whom. (And Solomon, don’t think she’s not manipulating you by allowing this sort of role-playing. She’s getting just as much out of it as you are.)

    I’ll also point out the true nature of “discipline.” To discipline is to teach. One disciplines a child, not an adult. Why would a man intentionally marry a woman who is mentally a child? It’s not his job to raise her. How many times have you heard a woman complaining about her immature husband, “I’m trying to raise my children, I don’t have time to raise my husband!” This is the exact same game – my spouse would be an idiot if it weren’t for me. I always want to ask my friends, “So why did you marry an idiot?”
    As for disciplining a child with spanking, we spank children in place of “real-world” consequences, because real-world consequences can be deadly. (Being hit by a car after running out into traffic, doesn’t have much in common with a spanking, beyond the most basic principle.) A spanking is an artificial consequence used in place of a real consequence. A woman who is old enough to be married, is old enough to face the real-world consequences of her actions. Furthermore, she SHOULD face them. Nothing will cure her of her spoiled brat tendencies faster. To spank an adult is to infantilize them. If maturity is what you want from a woman, spanking is counterproductive. If it’s merely your idea of foreplay, so be it, but don’t confuse it with genuine leadership or moral authority.

  85. Suz says:

    ” Eric: To be quite honest, I would have serious reservations about pre-nuptial agreements. it’s rather like settling the divorce before the marriage even starts! Any woman who needs a pre-nuptial agreement should probably not be married in the first place!”

    I used to agree with this, but not so much anymore. Women have been taught that breaking their vows can be profitable. If a man insists on a prenup, many MANY women will flat-out refuse. It’s a good way to weed out the “entitled” ones. A prenup can be a woman’s first exposure to the very concept of “consequences.” If nothing else, requesting one might make her think.

  86. Bob says:

    @Eric – I agree with you that we cannot win in this atmosphere and that we need to look for women in other cultures, or really hard here in the States for the special ones. I don’t need to get a grip, I have a grip. The people who need to get a grip are the ones who bitch and moan about how what awful people all women are. There are solutions, some of which you mentioned, and men are at least partially culpable for the problem.

    @Empath I think you are misreading me as a run of the mill SoCon. I agree with just about all you said in your last post. I don’t get what exactly it is you and some others are taking issue with in regards to what I’ve said. The only thing we can change immediately is ourselves, and if we put the time and effort in to become good men, we will have an easier time of finding a good wife, whether here or abroad. I’m not saying we should go marry 30 year old Suzy Skankface with her grrrlpower PR job and Eat Pray Love fan club membership.

  87. Bob

    Heck Ive been misread as that too. No, I’m not adding anything to your words by labeling you SoCon and assuming things. I’m responding to exactly what you have written, and I strongly disagree with it, content wise and as a workable strategy. I just don’t see the dearth of good men, or men needing work on themselves in the sample populations I move in, which is mainly a church crowd. These men are not only good men, they still weep when the preacher tells them to get better and step up, yet again.

    They are being trampled like the rest, and it is assumed that continued putting upon them will be the answser.

    Its not. Half the population is not under any pressure at all. The other half are under all the pressure. Thats unsustainable for one thing, and sociologically a failure for another, not to mention magnifying the narcissistic tendencies of those it doesn’t hold accountable.

    “Men need to work on us” is just not a helpful message at all. Today I am meeting with the pastor of a mega church to tell him so

    Wish me luck

  88. Opus says:

    Of course the ideal situation is where two people motivated by mutual attraction decide (like two sumo wrestlers about to begin a bout) that they want to marry, however, in the absence of that, an agreement to marry takes place, so it seems to me, in one of only two ways:

    1. The threat to withdraw access to Pussy (fairly common).
    2. The appeal to a man’s selflessness when confronted with pregnancy (more common) although I once had a client – and I have no reason to disbelieve him – who was threatened by his girlfriend that if he did not marry her, her brothers would physically assault him. Mind you, she was so big and he so small, I don’t think she really needed to invoke her male siblings.

    The acceptance of the Proposal in those two cases are a forgone conclusion. Any other proposal will be rejected, or ignored – so one must regard those very romantic and public proposals one sometimes sees on television as falling in to either 1 or 2 above. A rejected proposee is like the Sumo wrestler who has gone off his mark too soon.

  89. Buck says:

    If I could be King-for-a-day, I would pass a law mandating Pre-nups and DNA tests for all childbirths. If the Govt passed this sort of law, men wouldn’t have the shame of having to ask for it, the bureaucrats would just push the papers in from of you and say sign.

    I do agree with SUZ on a pre-nup being a great filter for moneygrubbing ho’s.

    There is this idea I see in the threads pretty often that goes something like this, well if you thought she would____then you shouldn’t have married her in the first place.
    First, again, blame the man syndrome.
    Second, of course we want to think little suzy snowflake is ms wonderful…duh. BUT we also live in a world where the battle field is littered with the casualties of girls gone wild…any man who doesn’t feel at least a bit of trepidation walking down the aisle is a nitwit!
    There is a huge difference between marrying to a pole dancer or whore and having them revert to form, and getting sandbagged by something no reasonable person could anticipate, like a hidden addiction problem.
    I think there is way too much silence in the ranks of friends and family when it comes to the past life of the prospectives.
    Case in point, I have a relative who is in chronic debt…he owes everyone, and a lot of money too.
    He met snooggums, got engaged and introduced her to the family. I asked her how she felt about his unbelievable debt load…she knew nothing about it ( this was 1 year before the wedding). I was excoriated by the family for trying to disrupt this relationship. I defended myself by explaining the obvious, full disclosure of this huge issue will only HELP the marriage prospects! She married him anyway and sure enough, debt and bill collectors have been a constant burden in this marriage. They are on the brink of divorce after 10 years of marriage…why??? DEBT PROBLEMS!!!! well no shit!
    In her case she really has no grounds to bitch, she was told and decided to ignore the problem. It would be quite different if this problem was hidden from her….here is where the Govt mandated pre-nups would have done a great service. You apply for a marriage license and must do a declaration of assets/liabilities.

    There is lots of discussion about manning up on this blog, but the code of silence thing is a real problem. It takes guts to tell those in “love” that little Ms cupcake is a known tramp, or your own sister has a bit a of a problem with prescription drugs, or Don Juan has a nasty recurring cold sore on his lip… or the neighbor kid looks very similar to Mr perfect and the wife winks at him alot. I’m not talking gossip, but friendly warning.
    I know most of this advice will be ignored, and the messenger will be despised but at least some will listen and reconsider and perhaps save themselves years of mental anguish.

  90. Anonymous says:

    Good post, and you’re absolutely right that women make herd decisions. 3 of my female cousins all became pregnant within a six-month period.

  91. Anonymous says:

    “@empath – How do you plan to hold women accountable? Posting about how fat American women are, how manly they are, etc isn’t going to hold them accountable. Furthermore, you cannot change society by focusing exclusively on one gender when males have problems too. The obesity rate for men is the same if not higher, yet you never see men on game blogs or in the manosphere complaining there (although Heartiste at least gives out a lot of fitness/health advice). I blame both men and women for the predicament we’re in. It is not like once upon a time women decided to become evil and we are all helpless at the mercy of women. I refuse to believe that men are at the mercy of womankind like some believe. The truth is, we are where we are today because of evil men and women pushing a leftist ideology.”

    I agree. The problem is that we are being ruled by a cabal of psychotics. That being said, informin men to “drop out” or use Game can help self-destruct the system, bringing down the plutocrats with it.

  92. Anonymous says:

    “It takes guts to tell those in “love” that little Ms cupcake is a known tramp, or your own sister has a bit a of a problem with prescription drugs, or Don Juan has a nasty recurring cold sore on his lip… or the neighbor kid looks very similar to Mr perfect and the wife winks at him alot. I’m not talking gossip, but friendly warning.”

    The problem is that few people actually understand what is going on, and fewer of those select few are in positions of authority.

  93. ybm says:

    Blame the man syndrome hard at work.

  94. Just1X says:


    “I know most of this advice will be ignored, and the messenger will be despised but at least some will listen and reconsider and perhaps save themselves years of mental anguish.”

    Well…I love you (in a brotherly, platonic way). I also value the insight you give, given where you’re coming from. Please keep it coming

  95. Thrasymachus says:


    Slightly off-topic, but have you seen this post from Boundless (hat tip – Haley)?

    This is quintessential whiteknighting. Remember that Boundless is supposed to be a conservative Christian site.

  96. Suz says:

    @ Thrasymachus:

    Yeah, he missed about 2/3rds of the point, didn’t he?

  97. ybm says:

    That is no pro-man blog, they even wrote a MAN UP! article about hookup culture. Of course, hookup culture is ONLY due to dirty ugly males and their ugly nasty sexual preferences which are wrong and dirty and unchristian.

  98. @Deti-

    I hear you, my friend. It’s not dark triad stuff though, because I am the most tender and affectionate with the sort of woman I described. I am not unfeeling. I elevate a submissive woman, not destroy.

    As far as the physical stuff, it is common these days to have them sign actual contracts or even have a camera rolling for protection. Dominant/Authoritative structure is very much a business arrangement first, just as marriage is (or should be)

  99. p.s… you don’t have to punish girls that fucking ACT right. My girls either come with strong character, or I teach it to them.

    Don’t want to be treated like a fucking child? Don’t act like one.

  100. Eric says:

    I agree that the MRM generally could find it profitable to engage in more support and help one another find positive solutions. There’s a point where we should move on from defining the problem and move on to helping one another avoid them. However, remember that men who think like we do are brutally shamed in this culture; and absolutely no sympathy or support exists for men who’ve endured the hell of the American relationship scene outside the MRM. One of the ways the MRM really helped me when I first encountered it was openly stating what I had long been feeling—but more importantly showed that I was not alone. That’s a problem a lot of men outside the MRM have—they are made to feel false guilt, shame, and isolation because our culture offers them nothing but contempt for all men and blame for all relationship failures.

    That being said, the other kinds of men—those who like and gain from the current situation—are pretty much beyond redemption, in my opinion—so there’s not really much of a point in working on them, since they have no incentive for self-improvement. Since women go for the worst kinds of men these males, are by inference, already pretty far down on the chain of civilization.

  101. P Ray says:

    Don’t mind me, just adding in this gem (all the married friends I know tell me their marriages are bad and their wives had much mileage on them, refuse to fairly contribute to the household and childcare). They’ve been told in counseling sessions with religious family therapists (some of whom are Muslim), that it is the duty of the man to keep his wife happy and earn the bucks.
    “Author: unknown
    99.9% Of The Single Women In Femerica Are Not Even Marriageable (Comment: I would amend this to say wherever female promiscuity is celebrated or ignored)
    1. Take away the women beyond the marriageable age (over 30)
    2. Take away the fat women
    3. Take away the ugly women
    4. Take away the psycho Zoloft / Prozac women
    5. Take away the raped women
    6. Take away the women with STDs / HIV
    7. Take away the women who can’t cook
    8. Take away the women who already have kids
    9. You’ve eliminated 99.9% of the single women in this country.”

  102. Kari Hurtta says:

    [ Fix for X ]

    @ TFH January 8, 2012 at 8:13 pm; Strange I do not see any story on here. A defunct page?

  103. Alistair. says:

    My evidence of “strong” women is the hockey player type trying to be hyper-male without the responsibility for their actions. A man who teaches this to their daughter is asking for trouble.

    And regarding women and their control of the process of marriage; one only has to look a the cover of marriage magazines to understand the game.

  104. van Rooinek says:

    I’d amend this list a bit…

    1. Take away the women beyond the marriageable age (over 30)
    2. Take away the fat women
    3. Take away the ugly women
    4. Take away the psycho Zoloft / Prozac women
    5. Take away the date-raped women, ie, drunken regret that’s spun by the rationalization-hamster as “rape.” A genuine innocent victim is okay.
    6. Take away the women with STDs / HIV and/or have had abortions
    7. Take away the women who can’t cook
    8. Take away the women who already have kids except widows or pro-life rape victims
    9. Take away the women who are separated/divorced/annulled or have filed restraining orders against any exboyfriend, for any reason
    10. You’ve eliminated 99.9% of the single women in this country.” Sadly probably true

  105. Phil says:


    Another Christian leader is attacking young men. This time it’s Mark Driscoll, founding pastor of Mars Hill Church. The article is “The World is filled with boys who can shave” over at the “on faith” section of the washington post. Pastor Mark doesn’t mention the behavior of young women or changes feminism has brought to society.

  106. van Rooinek says:

    Another Christian leader is attacking young men. This time it’s Mark Driscoll, founding pastor of Mars Hill Church.

    Maybe it’s time to start contacting these guys and inviting them to defend their positions here!

  107. gdgm+ says:

    Right on cue, the Mark Driscoll latest attack is on a Washington _Post_ blog. It’s called “Why Men Need Marriage”:

    One quote from his entry essentially sums it up:
    “Men are like trucks: they drive straighter with a weighted load. Young men are supposed to load themselves up first by being responsible for themselves and not expecting their mom to fill up their sippy cup with beer and push them in a stroller to the unemployment line. ”

    Wow, just wow.


  108. Dalrock says:

    I’ve been very busy at work and at home. I should have another post up shortly though.

    Anon Reader your point above is well taken.

  109. Dalrock says:

    That Mark Driscoll article is amazing. I’ll do a post on it later this week if someone else doesn’t crush it before then.

  110. I sat for 1.5 hours today with the pastor of a mega church (this one has 10-15k members) in Memphis today. I had emailed him because of one sentence he spoke in a Christmas Day sermon. he responded thoughtfully, then agreed to have a talk.
    I put a great deal of time into organizing my thoughts because I’m usually bursting with facts and figures and enthusiasm for the cause, etc, and must guard against scatter shooting.

    I was pleasantly surprised, I’m saying this because of the comment about challenging these guys, its IMO something we have to do, period.

    This man actually acquiesced to some facts, he said he’d “never thought of things that way” before, and was by the end asking what a salesman would call buyer questions…even going so far as asking to brainstorm a different approach that would be helpful. If you can get a guy that is smart, and open minded, you can at least have the discussion. We started with this man predictably telling me the “role of husband”….the etymology of the word husband, etc etc. By the end he was asking what can be said to women that would be effective and not utterly disruptive.

    Well, anything effective is going to be disruptive, we ultimately agreed.

    In any case he invited me to speak with the mens leader at the church and even brainstorm a study for men or something that is NOT about fixing men, but about at least telling the men the facts about the world, the stats about divorce and abuse, and how things are badly out of line and its not been fair to keep piling it on men.

    In any case, Ive had that conversation with a dozen pastors and this one was the most at least agreeable at its conclusion.

    So…yea…challenge Driscoll, and others, dont soften the approach. I would say that if you get the chance to dialog with one of these guys, there are things that would not be productive to say, and those things are the non MRA relevant attacks that would invariably manifest should one actually expose himself here. They should agree to dialog not to debate the existence of God…IOW….but the problems with evangelical feminism and white knights in church

  111. Buck says:

    RE; Driscoll et al

    I’m a Christian and serious about my faith. I want very much to live according to God’s will/law as written in the Bible. BUT, the American marriage landscape is so treacherous for men, the worst decision you can make financially and legally is to marry.

    To expect people to live a sex-less life in order to cling to their faith is not realistic either and this goes a long way toward explaining the rapidly growing numbers of people leaving the Christian church and becoming atheists.

    I’ve considered what I would do if the lovely and gracious Mrs Buck were no longer here.
    Probably stay single, but if not, I would pledge my loyalty to another ( and mean it), but I would not sign a legally binding document. Adam and Eve did not have a Church officiated ceremony, and how did the Government get it’s grimy hands on this institution?

    The bible calls Christians to be wise, right now in America, marriage for a man is just plain stupid!

    I too echo the siren call for Christian ministers to start holding Christian women accountable to their vows.
    I know of divorcee’s leading marriage small groups, acting as youth leaders and deacons. The first step the church should take is purity in the church leadership. The bible is VERY clear that ministers are to be once married, or chaste, sober, honorable in every way, (even those with physical defects were prohibited from ministry)….harsh I know, but hey, he’s God and this is what he demanded!

    I was listening to a radio minister the other day on the “Ask the Pastor” show on WYLL; a woman caller asked if divorce was OK if she didn’t feel “loved” by her husband.
    The “pastor” advised counseling then said no one should stay in an “abusive” relationship…..WHAT!!!!
    I turned the radio off, disgusted!

  112. Hello All

    I don’t really have anything to add to the fine discussions going on here at Dalrock’s. Just making an introduction. I’ve been lurking around the manosphere now for a while. Started at the spearhead, a couple forray’s into Roissey’s. I had already taken the red pill years before I was even aware of that catch phrase. I will say the MRM has been a breath of fresh air, just the fact that I wasn’t alone. For so long I’ve felt like I’ve been drowning in a sea of socially enforced estrogen.

    I’ve never felt particularly drawn to the game lifestyle of Roissy so I’m left with the sobering conclusion that I’ll have to GMOW. I never would have guessed that when I younger. All the misinformation I was fed growing up!! GOD, it makes me angry. I was raised believing all the lies, and mangina BS. I was truly set up for failure by the very ones who claimed to love me. I made all the damn beta moves like I was trained, all the chivalry and white knighting crap and I’m sure you all can guess how that ended. I only hope that some day there is a day of reckoning for those people. I hope to watch millions of broke used up old hags cry as they share the same cat food with the only companions they deserve.

    I never thought I’d be so bitter. I’m a Christian and still identify with Christ and the church, but can not reconcile my beliefs with current ‘Churchianity.’ It has really become a stumbling block for me. I find it very difficult to ‘Love my neighbor’ when they (women) seem so hell bent on destroying me. I guess this is the particular cross I’ll have to bear.

    Anyway, enough woe-is-me crap. Greetings all. Maybe someday I’ll have something constructive to add.

  113. Buck:
    Adam and Eve did not have a Church officiated ceremony, and how did the Government get it’s grimy hands on this institution?

    Because the church abdicated when it was convenient to do so. And yes I mean church with a small ‘c’ not Church the bride of Christ. It fit with a particular social view of the churches at the time. Were’nt marriage ‘licenses’ a way of controlling who got married ie interracial marriages. From there I’m guessing it was the same process as the suffragettes and all the other misguided social ‘reforms.’ And now the church complains about gay marriage. Ha! What a laugh. Talk about closing the barn door after the horses got out.

    I’ve considered what I would do if the lovely and gracious Mrs Buck were no longer here.
    Probably stay single, but if not, I would pledge my loyalty to another ( and mean it), but I would not sign a legally binding document.
    Probably won’t be an option as women will just backdoor some type of common law marriage. Document or not, kitty’s gonna want her cream. And big daddy G will be there to make sure she gets it.

  114. Rmaxd says:


    Curious to hear what you told these pastors, what did you say to get these pastors to agree with you …

  115. Read the Bible. Women are weaker than men morally. That is one reason they are meant to be under male authority.

  116. Rmaxd says:

    Whole heartedly agree, women are herd creatures

    Herds are always driven by novelty or artificial forms of scarcity

    Herd behaviour, especially women, are always status driven relative to artificial forms of scarcity

    That is artificial forms of scarcity are the driving factors behind status, which in turn is the driving behaviour behind herd behaviour

    The lower status a woman & the higher status a man, the more she wants to get hitched

    Hypergamy is a herd driven trait …

    If a womans status gap is wide enough she will automatically assume marriage & automatically act as if she’s in a longterm relationship

    That is if a womans status gap is wide enough she will automatically bestow the benefits of a long term relationship on a higher status male, regardless of how long she has been in the relationship prior to her lower status bf/hubby

    This also applies to a group, hence women poaching other womens men

    What dalrocks describing here is what I call a Cascade of Status Whoring

    Cascade status whoring, is a response to an artificially created form of scarcity

    In a group of women, the first couple to get hitched is always the woman with the largest status gap

    The most socially dominant female either gets hitched first, with usually a beta as a status gap, or the most alpha with the highest status gap

    The woman with the highest status gap is most obviously using the status difference to satisfy her need for hypergamy, & leveraging it to raise her own status

    The marriage is used as status whoring, turns the marriage into an artificial form of scarcity

    That is the couple has now become a precious commodity

    The male is now seen as an artificial form of scarcity, hence raising their status, even the beta males

    Forcing the womans hypergamy to marry the guy

    The woman with the largest amount of hypergamy, or social ability to leverage the group always marries first

    Women with the most forced amount of hypergamy always marry first

    The higher the status gap, the more forced her hypergamy, & the more pressure she applies on the bf to marry

    The amount of pressure applied by the gf, is always relative to the amount of status she’ll gain by leveraging the group as status

    The girl with the lowest amount of status, always exerts massive amounts of pressure to get married

    The couple with the next largest status gap, now see’s a way of leveraging their relationship as a form of status whoring, & the Cascade Status Whoring begins …

    The lower a womans status the more pressure she applies on her high status bf to get married

    Without this hypergamy pressure, a man simply doesn’t get married, as men are biologically designed to be polygamous

    The status gap, or the level of her hypergamous state triggers her need for marriage

    For a woman to pressure a bf to marriage, her hypergamy, or her status gap has to go past a certain threshold

    If a woman has a large status gap to begin with, she will become infatuated & experience love at first sight

    If a woman see’s a male, as an artificial form of scarcity in a group setting, she experiences love at first sight, & all the rest of the cliche’s in a romance novel

    Mills & boon & most romance novels, are simply describing a woman experiencing status gap at first sight ….

    Women only marry if their hypergamy reaches a certain threshold, once that threshold is reached, her hypergamy triggers her biology to apply pressure to marry

    Even to unsuitable mates …

    A used up carousel rider is the lowest of the low, biologically & socially & morally, hence their marriage to beta’s

    For a woman to marry a beta, her biology has to reach a new social low, only achievable by riding the carousel, or extreme poverty, hence their sudden noticing of the betas around them

    With her newfound status gap, she finally finds the hypergamy necessary to trigger the amount of pressure to apply for marriage

    Without status gap, there’s no hypergamous need for status whoring, without the carousel there’s no marriage for the beta

  117. deti says:

    David C: I’ve also found that women have an astonishing lack of insight when it comes to understanding their own motives, feelings and conduct. They simply know not what they do nor why they do it.

    Mortarman: Better to go your own way than to marry a harridan.

  118. Mr.A is Mr.A says:

    @Deti, MortarManMike — RE: Mark Driscoll:

    From the Bible, New International Version (©1984):
    Better a dry crust with peace and quiet than a house full of feasting, with strife. (Proverbs 17:1)

  119. I used to wonder why Scripture and Tradition were so insistent that Christian women were not to be trusted with power. I think we can all see why now. There is nothing stupider than a pedestalising pastor.

  120. KBK says:

    I was listening to a radio minister the other day on the “Ask the Pastor” show on WYLL; a woman caller asked if divorce was OK if she didn’t feel “loved” by her husband.
    The “pastor” advised counseling then said no one should stay in an “abusive” relationship…..WHAT!!!!
    I turned the radio off, disgusted!

    A married man should call the same radio show and tell the “pastor” about his wife denying him sex on a regular basis. As a consequence, he didn’t feel “loved”. He should then ask the “pastor” if divorce was OK under the circumstances.

    When the “pastor” inevitably says ‘NO!’ and tells the husband that he should stick it out and “try and work things out”, the married man should remind the “pastor” of the advice he gave the unloved wife in his previous radio broadcast. He should then ask the “pastor” why he, the husband, should stay in an abusive relationship.

    Aside from exposing the “pastor’s” double standards, it should be good for a laugh.

  121. Bob says:

    @Eric I agree, I see where you’re coming from. I was just saying that there are solid women out there and I think it’s important to develop ourselves and find them. But at some point in the past, enough men kowtowed to the feminist mantra and let it become policy. Leftist men. That’s why I point the finger at some men. Some men have to route out the feminist “nice guy” crap, and the feminized men and leftist men are just as much a problem as the feminists themselves.

    @Empath – I totally agree, and I hope that meeting went great. I used to attend a mega church up in NH many years ago, and it cratered when the pastor, who was pretty famous back in the 90’s, died, and his wife took over. We went from having a massive sanctuary that was often too small to house everyone, to meeting in the hallway to save heating costs. Eventually the state used eminent domain to claim the land and built a highway right through the place. I think it was God’s way of dealing with a church that He greatly blessed at one point and then turned around and violated His word by appointing a female pastor (who was a good woman all things considered). I thought this before I ever was introduced to blogs like this. Women in church leadership always hurts things, I’ve noticed. They threaten to leave when the pastor is honest and Godly (preaches against dressing like a ho, acting like a ho, says men are the heads of households, etc) and the pastor’s often just listen to them and cave. It’s a tough situation the church faces, as a whole.

  122. Dex says:

    I read the whole series of his WaPo articles. I don’t have a problem with what Driscoll wrote; it’s what he didn’t say that’s troublesome.

    A few men’s responsibilities that he didn’t mention:

    You have a responsibility to your family and unborn children to not marry a woman likely to break her vows and take your children from you and your family.

    You have a responsibility to your family and children to reject a woman likely to leave you destitute out of spite for her changed feelings.

    You have a responsibility to your family and children to reject a woman likely to cheat on you, to reject a woman who will not follow your leadership, or who will sow discord in your family and your church, or who is otherwise a “handful”.

    Perhaps Driscoll has in store a later article exhorting women to be better marriage material. I’d be surprised if there was.

    I went to his website and found this, though:

    That’s Driscoll in a sermon from 2008. It’s quite clear that he’s got a lot of feminists in his church and he’s taking a professional risk in preaching this, but he doesn’t back down from saying why and how women are to submit to their husbands. Gotta give at least partial credit for that.

  123. imnobody says:

    Well, it’s obvious what the next years are going to be. All society (Churches, government, academy, so-cons, poliiticians, feminists, intellectuals) saying that men are immature for not getting married and telling men to “man up” and “be a real man”, while the strong independent women age without marriage prospects.

    The 70s were all about “a woman without man is like a fish without bicycle”.
    The 80s were all about “women are more competent than men in the workplace” (a.k.a “we can do it”).
    The 90s were all about sexual harassment and date rape hysteria.
    The 2000s were all about finding fulfillment through divorce.
    The 2010s will be all about “man up”, “be a real man”, “man are immature losers playing games instead of marrying these fabulous women”.

  124. @Rmax

    It has pretty much failed with the exception of 2 pastors…this one and another one 5 years ago. I have contacted dozens by finding them online via their sites, sent them messages, and those who responded basically were intellectually lazy inferring my meaning and who I am, then responding to that straw man, that being that I am a man whining that the church tries to hold men accountable. Even as I disclaim that they stay with that line unable to even think openly on what I say.

    Over the years I have amassed some data on my own. I have downloaded, for example, Mothers Day and Fathers Day sermon text files, I have also downloaded sermons that are clearly of the “marriage series” sort where they talk to men one week and ostensibly to women the next. These come off church websites all over the country, I have over a hundred of them to juxtapose. I show that on the Fathers Day and mens part of the marriage sermon it is predictably “step up”, on the Mothers Day and womens part of marriage sermon its encouragement that they can succeed, sometimes overtly saying “despite the man working to drag you down”… I have that data and context I refer to with them.

    My approach to this guy was from a silly remark he made Christmas day, and i allow that that uniquely afforded an opening because he flat knew he messed up. He said, “Jesus had to be born of spirit and women to avoid mens sin nature”. Bull crap! I nicely asked him if he really belives that, and told him its flat wrong scripturally. He agreed and was intrigued by some other charges I made in my initial email and he requested the meeting.

    Then I lay out a hypothetical. I tell of a girl, raised in church…what does she hear? That men are walking a greased ledge almost lost in sexual sin all the time and BUT FOR women to hold them up and keep them straight the men will fail. That girl marries a man and takes that on board, its an invitation to jealousy, to low expectations of her husband, and a license to control him and adopt a spiritually superior attitude. Thats one thing.

    The aesthetics of church a la Murrows book about men hating church is another, lesser, but real thing.

    The history of feminiszation of the church from Leon Poddles book The Church Impotent is powerful too, in explaining the genesis of Jesus as husband, Jesus as BFF, and the little “personal Jesus” who will listen to her rationalize what she wants, he will understand and go along with her feelings based choices. Women are not taught anything that counters this, and the teachings they do get are so steeped in self improvement and encouragement it feeds this wrong headed idea anyway. I list off a contrast of mens ministry offerings and womens ministry offerings, by title, that i also gathered online. There are NO EXCEPTIONS in dozens of each. Mens are either corrective or silly. Womens are either encouraging or silly. Silly is what I call the sports or hot rod and burger night for men or quilting or scrapbooking for women kind of stuff.

    I build these scenarios, then lay out the reality of female filed divorce. I explain that if we agree that the secular world affects the church….and that the secular world moves along spectrum towards feminism for decades…how can women complain about MORE patriarchal teachings in church? Cognitive dissonance. That if a preacher mentions submission, a raging feminist, a complimentarian, and egalitarian and an old fashioned ogre who wants barefoot in kitchen women ALL can get what they want because he teaches so apologetically and vague anyone hears what they want.

    That divorce isn’t treated unequivocally. Its treated like some 3rd thing thats sentient, and “rampant in the church” when meanwhile women are the filers and rational people would attack that 1st based on good prioritization skills.

    Anyway, I’m long in this post. These things presented in an orderly fashion, face to face, where he can see its not about men whining, its about getting some accountability on the other half of the congregation, can get them challenged. Better if you can be clever enough rhetorically to set up blocks where if he tries to go outside the narrative he impeaches himself, locking him into your thoughts and allowing no predictable escapes.

  125. @Dex

    I missed your post before. That’s the gist of what I say to the pastors. When they say the “man up/step up” stuff, I agree, then tell them what that looks like, and it looks like what you say. Don’t change what’s said to men, ADD these things and maybe some more, give men the facts, unabridged, as to why they need to do these due diligence things. Now THATS ministry and a call to action.

    Churches (some) dedicate huge resources to fight causes, abortion, gay marriage, whatever. Set aside whether you agree on those or not, its irrelevant, my point is they actually point out what they see as the problem, talk openly about ways the problem is getting worse or better, then equip people to address it. Exactly the same approach here on divorce and familial destruction, which I contend actually predates most of the social pathologies they do openly offer assistance with such as addictions, anger, serial marriage and divorce, depression etc. Dig in and see that divorce at some time in the past, parents of grandparents, started a ball rolling leading to these. There is a massive truth rationale and call to arms to fight this, and yessir its men doing that stuff that you mentioned that will help.

  126. Pingback: Linkage is Good for You: We Will Survive Edition

  127. Pingback: Rules of the road for fornication. | Dalrock

  128. Pingback: How young should a woman marry? (Part 1) | Dalrock

  129. Pingback: “29/31″: A Time-Travel Video About The Wall | The Badger Hut

  130. Pingback: Don’t Pay Attention To Psych Surveys That Amount To Self-Fortune Telling | The Badger Hut

  131. Pingback: Never marrieds piling up | Dalrock

  132. Pingback: Will betas shrug? | Dalrock

  133. Pingback: Losing control of the narrative. | Dalrock

  134. Pingback: Beauty taming the savage beast. | Dalrock

  135. Pingback: Manosphere: Marriage and Age | 3rd Millenium Men

  136. Pingback: Connecting the pathological fear of husbands having power with the peter pan manboy syndrome. | Dalrock

  137. Pingback: She needs more men! | Dalrock

  138. Pingback: The Marriage Strike seems to be working. | Bohème Chinois

  139. Pingback: This won’t end well. | Dalrock

  140. Not a Chump says:

    I used to be a nice guy. Couldn’t get anywhere. Started listening to Tom Leykis. Transformed into a male chauvinist pig and found that it works like a totem charm with women. Good luck nerds. All your romancing, gifts, free dinners, etc… are gladly taken while she and her friends ridicule you behind your back. While you’re being a chump, I’m treating her like a wet hole and getting it for free night after night after night. When she gets too old, I dump her. Maybe you can have her then chump. Feminism started it and nerds like you are victims of it. The rest of us simply adjusted.

  141. Pingback: Fear to greed. | Dalrock

  142. disenchantedscholar says:

    Reblogged this on Philosophies of a Disenchanted Scholar and commented:
    I liken it to a game of chicken among the sluts.
    Who can fuck around for the longest and still land a supportive husband.

  143. Pingback: Our Fates Are Bound—And Some Good News « Calculated Bravery

  144. Pingback: Das schwache Signal in den Zwanzigern – oder: Die Auswirkungen des Feminismus auf Männer und Frauen – Scheidende Geister

Comments are closed.