Congratulations Athol Kay and MMSL

H/T Badger.  For those who don’t already know, Athol Kay has spent the last several years helping married couples with his blog Married Man Sex Life.  As I’ve said before, he is the king of his topic, and his book is the best introduction I’m aware of to the concept of game for traditional men.   While his passion is clearly to help others, along the way he helped his own family as well.  In a recent post You Don’t Need Cancer For Permission he announced that he is now able to quit his job:

Anyway… a year ago Jennifer and I were all but filing for bankruptcy and that was even after strip mining my 401k, checking the couch for change and deferring the taxes. If the Primer didn’t sell, we were going to be totally hosed. I seriously love my readers. Seriously, seriously, seriously love my readers. Which means my next news is kind of amazing…

…I’m quitting my day job.

Commenter pdwalker shared what I’m confident is a very common sentiment amongst MMSL readers:

I hope you and the missus makes a mint for what you’ve done for me and my family. I’ve had a fantastic week and it’s all your fault. I hope yours is even better.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to Congratulations Athol Kay and MMSL

  1. CL says:

    His new site looks spiffy. Best of luck to him!

  2. Samuel says:

    Athol Kay rocks. Problem is, with rock solid blogs like Dalrock, Athol Kay/MMSL, and 7man/CL… I have very little I can add. The red pill is well represented in these places, and it is saving people from suffering and heartbreak all over the place, including children.

    I can’t think of a finer mission.


  3. Amirantes says:

    [Wild Applause] From a fully satisfied customer.

  4. Höllenhund says:

    “is book is the best introduction I’m aware of to the concept of game for traditional men”

    Didn’t you mean to write ‘married blue pill men’?

  5. slwerner says:

    Indeed, props to Athol.

    But, it isn’t just young men that need to be educated about reality.

    Women cannot rewind the ‘biological clock’

    “Many women do not fully appreciate the consequences of delaying motherhood…”

    Oh course, it wasn’t really necessary to go to researchers as Yale U to gain this understanding. Anyone who’s at all familiar with Dalrock and other androsphere bloggers already knew what they are now reporting.

  6. slwerner says:

    Sorry to stay off-topic, but, reality be coming to a television near you.

    “If you aren’t intrigued by a story in which overeducated, underemployed young women seek rude sex with slacker guys who treat them poorly, you may be offended.”

    A show about young women who aren’t exactly “empowered” by feminism? What’s going on here? Did I miss the sign, and accidentally wander unaware into the Twilight Zone?

    TV and Single Women: “Girls” of HBO’s frank new television comedy share their mortifying moments

  7. Dalrock says:


    Good! The incorrect grammar of ‘manosphere’ is being purged.

    I’m not sold on the new term. I like manosphere. It has a ring to it. What is the gramatical beef with it?

  8. slwerner says:

    [still managing to remain off-topic]

    TFH = “The incorrect grammar of ‘manosphere’ is being purged.”

    Yes, the use of the Greek-derived andro not only points to “maleness”, but also suggests a more “masculine” type of “maleness” as well (even if only by accident of andro often being conflated with anabolic steroids).

    Simply using “Man”, while some what useful, is too broad as it includes not only the masculine, can be construed to encompass all human beings (“mankind”), but it also allows for the non-masculine and highly gynocentric individuals to include themselves by mere happenstance of being born with both X & Y chromosomes and expressing the primary sexual characteristics of being male. Thus and excessively estrogen-addled males (like David Futrelle) and complete gynocentric male sell-outs (the “Dear Woman” guys and some of the “Good Men Project” types) might well call themselves contributors to the “Manosphere”.

    So, if we uniformly adopt the more accurate androsphere nomenclature to describe more narrowly those elements that include (a returned to) a more androcentric POV, it should serve to exclude those who are men, but who are wholly gynocentric; while including those who are women, but who also prefer that the androcentrism be included as a counter-balance to the gynocentrism which now predominates in our society. – Gynocentrism (Greek, gyno-, “woman, female”) is the practice, conscious or otherwise, of placing female human beings or the feminine point of view at the center of one’s world view. The perceptions, needs, and desires of women have primacy in this system, where the female view is the reference point or lens through which matters are analysed.[1] Ideologically, gynocentrism prioritizes females hierarchically, as the overriding focus, and at the exclusion of all else. Observed in practice, the preeminence of women is seen as absolute: interpersonally, culturally, historically, politically, or in broader contexts socially (i.e. popular entertainment).
    It is the reverse of androcentrism where the male view is the central reference point. – Androcentrism (Greek, andro-, “man, male”) is the practice, conscious or otherwise, of placing male human beings or the masculine point of view at the center of one’s view of the world and its culture and history. The related adjective is androcentric, while the practice of placing the feminine point of view at the center is gynocentrism.

  9. Brendan says:

    I wish him well, yet I disagree with his philosophy in many ways, at least as it comes to (1) less attractive couples getting together who have both low SMVs and (2) men who are unmarried (although his recent post recently about that was better). In many ways I find his suggestions exhausting and, in a very real way, as a massive disincentive for me to remarry, personally.

  10. slwerner says:

    Brendan – ”…yet I disagree with his philosophy in many ways, at least as it comes to (1) less attractive couples getting together who have both low SMVs…”

    I’m not sure why this would be disagreeable? I would imagine that you have thought it through, and could give a very compelling explanation of your position vis-à-vis less attractive people pairing up.

    But, quickly, my own observation has been that unattractive couples (sometimes) seem to be some of the happiest people (of course, they are likely outnumbered by the angry and bitter ugly couples).

    I’ve mused that this might be because they have managed to honestly appraise their own SMVs, and have decided that they have done as well as they possibly could to have found someone of comparable value; and they can therefore forego a lot of the angst of “second-guessing” their choice, and can simply get on with trying to enjoy themselves with each other.

    Additionally, I would imagine that they would enjoy an additional benefit in terms of marital stability in that they are less likely to attract “outside” sexual interests from others.

    So, aside from it actually being “on-topic” for this thread, perhaps you might elaborate as to why you would differ with Athol Kay on that particular aspect of his relationship philosophy.

  11. deti says:


    Married game can be a lot of work.

    What’s your disagreement about low SMV couples getting together? The only problem I can see is if one of them gains SMV, which men usually do as they age. It’s probably not a good idea for a low SMV man in his 20s to “settle” for a low SMV woman, because as he ages, he will realize he “made a bad deal”.

  12. Brendan says:

    Low SMV couples are simply not sexy for each other. Period. No MMSL is going to change that. They may be happy or they may be not, but by following MMSL and upping their sex rank, they’re going to get split. I just don’t see it helping people who don’t have at least average or above SMVs.

    Also I dislike his atheism and his lack or regard for morals (“start with what works practically, and make that moral”). Um, no thanks. I’m not going to take advice from someone who believes that.

  13. slwerner says:

    Brendan – “Low SMV couples are simply not sexy for each other. Period. No MMSL is going to change that. They may be happy or they may be not, but by following MMSL and upping their sex rank, they’re going to get split. I just don’t see it helping people who don’t have at least average or above SMVs.”

    I suspect that you are right about MMSL having no (positive) influence over the unnatractive realities for such couples. In that light, your first comment makes much more sense. I had misunderstood you to mean that you simply thought that two low SMV people getting together was a bad idea.

    Thank you for clairying that.

  14. Looking Glass says:


    Kind of hilariously, Athol still operates much like an Evangelical. A point I’ve made a few times over there. The reason why most Christian men are actually very responsive to his work is he pretty much constructed it like a 12-step program, which is a set of concepts modern Christians are fairly familiar with. There’s a lot of good there.

    At the same time, he does put practicality but moral holdings, but, generally, as Christians you should know that Christianity isn’t the most effective method for operating in the human realm. Killing someone and taking their stuff does make your life better, in the short term, but there’s prohibitions against that. Same in the realm of human sexual relations.

    It’s a bit like having someone read Machiavelli’s The Prince. Yes, it was written a bit tongue in cheek by him, but it’s pretty much exactly the way an authoritarian can operate. Understanding why is really, really, really important, as it goes to explaining the human condition. So I can’t “unreservedly” suggest Athol’s work to people. But I can give it a “buy his book” and “here’s some things you need to remember”.

  15. androsphere can be promoted by rubbing on the cream, androgel

    aint no such thing as manogel

    case closed

  16. 7man says:

    I like most of what Athol writes and enjoyed his book. As with many people, I can 75% agree but find 25% neutral, wacky or contrary to my belief system for any number of reasons. I too see the Christian moral underpinnings in Athol’s advice.

    Therefore I recommend his book and blog while not agreeing with everything.

  17. Höllenhund says:

    @TFH 11:52 am

    Athol directs his message at men in Marriage 2.0, not LTRs. I’m sure it’s fair to say that Game certainly has less relevance in Marriage 2.0. Less in the sense that Game is one option among many for single men but pretty much the only option left for married men, an option of very limited usefulness in Marriage 2.0 due to the husband’s legal inability to walk out of the relationship without great loss.

  18. deti says:


    I suspect that some men who divorce will simply quit their good jobs and take lesser paying ones, then cry “poor mouth” to the judge when seeking reductions in their alimony/child support obligations. I think some men will be willing to take 3 hots and a cot over wage slavery. Faced with certain financiai ruin, I think some men will simply drop out and GTOW, like “John” in “A Case for Anger”. Men like these have literally nothing left to lose.

  19. Good for Athol. All Manosphere bloggers should give his book(s) some link love every now and again.

  20. atholkaymarriedmansexlife says:

    Thanks Dalrock, very much appreciated.

  21. Samuel says:

    @TFH and Deti

    you don’t have to quit your good job and cry ‘poor mouth’ in protest

    the good job/good income thing vanishes nicely on its own… especially when women show up to take your job away, fresh with the glow of their college degrees paid for by the very men they are ruining.. and your reputation is simultaneously slaughtered. I’d venture to say the ‘poor mouth’ effect happens involuntarily, most often, and that most guys hang on as long as they can…

    and then they get accused of quitting purposely, get ‘imputed’, and then become criminals when they can’t comply with the judge’s imaginations and the ‘should-bes’ of liberalism.

  22. Good on Athol, but I’ll have to remain cautiously optimistic until he gets fronted a cool million to write a book after having written a series of articles for the Atlantic and had a tour of subsequent appearances on daily talkshows.

    In girl-world, it’s the Kate Bolicks that obscenely profit from fem-centric tripe, while the Athol Kays are the voices of wisdom crying in the wilderness.

  23. Ian Ironwood says:

    Actually, I find Athol’s lack of overt Christianity refreshing. It makes him easier to follow, as a Pagan man. He doesn’t resort to scripture for his reasoning, he is informed by science. If you want to add a little scriptural frosting to his cake, go for it . . . but I think the Humanist approach to the Red Pill has the best chance of spreading its use.

    As a highly satisfied customer, I can certainly say that MMSL took my very good marriage into Legendary territory. All the best just isn’t enough for the man.

  24. greyghost says:

    I always thought too many people were wrapped up in the appearance of being christian for the social status. This guy doesn’t talk shit he just handles his bussiness. That is straight up man stuff there.

  25. ray says:

    TFH -“Note that some denialists will still claim that Game has no relevance in LTRs. These fools continue to look ever more pathetic”

    ok Pathetic Fool, thats my cue

    oprah-for-men doesnt address our subjugation to our matriarchies, increasing daily (especially in the “law”) but instead leads to expert discussions of whether manosphere or androsphere are the preferred nomenclature (h/t the dood)

    obsession on sexuality and relationships is womanish and anti-productive; when it comes to Game, the only thing i like less than its self-evident “tactics” is turning the nonsense into yet another Relationsip Industry

    it’s a fase hope, a false tool, and a false road

    i now regret my patronage of athol’s blog last year, and hope he can forgive me for helping to lead him even deeper into this world, instead of out of it

    my bad, and i’m lookiing to amend a bit here

    i hope athol DOESNT fulfill the Amerikan Dreem and “make a mint” (you christian posters might wanna check jesus on that . . . course he’s not an expert like so many others). . .

    best to athol, hope he finds the way outta matrixworld

  26. Höllenhund says:

    @Rollo Tomassi 10:50 am

    Excellent point. A growing number of people, especially men, are indeed noticing that feminism is intellectually dishonest and bankrupt, but the fact is that there’s much more money to be made by being a gynocentric feminist than by being an anti-feminist Game-proponent. Bolick is a good example. It’s small wonder that most well-known PUAs are either avowed feminists like Neil Strauss or at least they avoid criticizing feminism.

  27. Retrenched says:

    @ Rollo

    “In girl-world, it’s the Kate Bolicks that obscenely profit from fem-centric tripe, ”

    No one has ever gone broke by telling women what they want to hear.

  28. Pingback: Thanks | Married Man Sex Life

  29. ray says:

    TFH — “Your cue? You don’t even know what you are talking about.”

    i see

    well fortunately the world has The Fifth Horseman to set it straight, and to let any who disagree understand the fullness of their ignorance, not having admitted the fabulouseness of Game

    “Fifth Horseman” of course is a biblical reference . . . however doubtless youre an expert on Revelation and the Bible, as well, having progressed so far beyond its mundaneness that you, in your magnificence, requre it not!

    “And this also proves another maxim of mine : Anyone who makes a waaaaaay off-base accusation/observation about another, is merely projecting themselves outward. Projection.”

    youve sure got a lot of Maxims and Grand Theories and Self-referential Truths, there, chief

    must be exhausting

    God aint got a chance in hell of getting to you, what with the surfeit of Wonderfulness and Genius that pervades your being

  30. Athol Kay is just Susan Walsh with a penis. I’m glad he’s been able to parlay his blog into some revenue, but he still lives in girl-world and has since he was a 24 year old virgin. Just like Susan, he plays to the feel-good female emotive response while offering just enough of what he could stomach of the Red Pill ideology he learned from Roosh and Roissy to sound like a convincing teacher for married guys with sexually disinterested wives.

    I’d say he was a sell-out, only his whole personal journey has always been about reconciling his white knighting with his sex drive.

  31. @Rollo Tomassi Wow dude, you just can’t stomach the fact that he gives better advice than you and his views are far more rational and better worded than yours. Writing a blog in a bizarro and incomprehensible way doesn’t make you right on every account. Even the Susan Walsh that you are so evidently abhorring gives great advice. Also yeah, I’m a mangina for pointing out you’re wrong so you don’t have to reply.

  32. hoellenhund2 says:

    F*ck off, you mangina cunt.

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

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

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.