When I wrote my last entry on Friday and left the office for the weekend (I don't have internet access at home,) I expected that post would garner some responses...I even expected an angry MGTOW or two...but the replies have been mostly pretty well thought and expressed logically.
However, there was a lot more commentary than I expected, so rather than try to respond in the comments, I'm just going to post this in response.
Anon 66
There may indeed by men in MGTOW who use it as an excuse for personal failures, but I hope other men do not start painting all MGTOW that way. The last thing we need is more men enemies of men. That has been the norm for 45 years, and the reason things have turned as bad as they are.
I was very conscious of this, which is why I did try to write my last post without naming any names or linking to any examples of what I was referring to...I was merely trying to be a voice of reason to perhaps inspire some men to really look honestly at themselves and their decisions they make in their lives. It's all well and good for a MGTOW to shun relationships with women...but he may one day look back and realize he did have an opportunity to have a wife and family with a good woman, but his ideological zeal kept him from realizing his potential.
MarkyMark:
But, after examining the whole dating scene, I decided that the 'prize', an Ameriskank, wasn't worth the effort.
I'd agree with you there...afterall, if my wife were an Ameriskank, I would be divorced right now. My only point to you is that while feminism has screwed up society to an unbelievable extent right now, not all women have fallen under it's hideous spell. By all means Mark, nothing wrong with protecting yourself from falling prey to a female that can and will screw you over under our current regime...but on the other hand, don't let it poison you to the point where you find yourself with the opportunity should you actually come across a woman who would be worthy of getting involved with. For instance, have a read of Kim's blog, Equal but Different. If you met a young, single version of a lady like her who expressed the same thoughts and ideas, you telling me you'd write her off as an Ameriskank and hit the road?
Deadbeat Dad:
If it works for you, then fine. But do you honestly believe that -- all other things being equal -- your relationship would have endured if your wife were an American citizen? No? Neither do I.
I'll beg to differ...but I will definitely concede that the chances of finding an American girl worthy of a long term relationship, marriage and child bearing is getting increasingly harder and harder as the feminist zeitgeist continues to ascend in cultural dominance - but there are still some good ones out there. Afterall, I THINK I married one. (I say think, because nothing is ever 100% in this life, of course).
Anonymous:
Can a woman add to my peace, satisfaction and tranquility? Certainly if her values and mine are similar. But that has not happened much in my life and I'm not willing to surrender my values for hers if hers differ.
I concur with this 100%. If you do indeed want to get married and have children, this needs to be your number one means of measuring and weighing her worthiness for you making yourself vulnerable to the feminist system. Be true to yourself, and if you can, find a woman whose values match yours before you even begin to think about committing to her.
Rudderstone:
As to applying this PUA stuff to marriage, I don't think it will work. Married women simply don't want to have sex with their husbands. They find it to be a boring, tiring chore that they get no pleasure from. Married women do not give their husband "shit tests," they just flatly refuse to have sex with them. There is no clever comeback to that.
You don't have to take my word for it, but I tell you that you are wrong in this regard.
The "PUA" really deals with analyzing and applying what kinds of behaviors work to turn a woman's attraction on or off. The wife that doesn't want to have sex with her husband anymore is the wife that is really not attracted to him anymore...and he has his own role to play in that state of affairs as well.
Married women certainly DO shit test their husbands. If you read the link I provided from the Reality Method, you would understand that the "Shit Test" is really an intrinsic part of the female psyche - it's her subconscious desire to ensure that her mate has enough dominant genes worthy to inseminate her eggs. I can tell you this...for the first 7 years of my marriage, my relationship was on a deteriorating arc, as I continually failed her "shit tests." Yes, the sex became almost non-existent, and we fought all the time, and I was actually headed towards the brink of divorce. Once I discovered the whole MRA/MGTOW/PUA blogosphere (and I group them all together, because as a whole, they are all dedicated to finding the basic truths and exposing the LIES of our socially engineered feminist society), and especially the Reality Method's post on "Shit Tests" it was like a dramatic turnaround in our relationship.
I've been married 10 and a half years now. We have never been happier. NEVER. And it's all because I discovered that I had been acting like a beta and turning off all of her attraction cues that she herself is not even consciously aware of...but I am. Thanks to the PUA blogs.
By the way, I have never spent a single dime on pickup artist manuals or coursework or subscriptions or anything like that. I was able to read whatever is out there for free on the internet and learn about the basic truths of female and male mating instincts.
Marriage is supposed to be a reciprocal arrangement; both partners are supposed to sometimes do things for the other partner that they don't necessarily feel like. And, for men, the main thing that his wife can do for him is have sex with him.
I'll certainly agree with you there. All I'm saying is that I went through a period of our marriage where she did look at sex like a chore...which is because she didn't even consciously realize it, but she was no longer attracted to me because I had turned into a spineless beta. Needless to say, things are MUCH different now....even better than when we were both hormone raging teenagers infatuated with each other.
In other words, I "GAME" my wife, and she is not bored...and it's really not that hard to do once you figure it out.
Jay Fink:
While I enjoy reading the blogs, I have no desire to learn and practice PUA techniques. I am not a dominant male, I dislike dominant males, and have no desire (or energy) to go through life pretending I'm somebody I'm not. Men shouldn't have to learn "game", Instead women should evolve to the point where it doesn't work on them. But they require it, the result is the downfall of Western civilization. Got popcorn?
I just want to be clear - PUA "techniques" are really nothing more than recognizing what women are attracted to on an instinctual level. I don't "fake" anything, I don't pretend to be somebody that I'm not. In fact, I would say to you that having "game" is nothing more than developing a conscious awareness and development of your social skills with the opposite gender. Yeah, there are some PUA that are over-the-top machismo dominant alpha's and all that that entails...but that doesn't mean you have to put up a front and fake being one of those types.
"Game" just reconnects men with their traditional role of masculinity. The feminist mainstream has tried it's hardest to screw that up and emasculate men from their own "game." Following the cultural cues of worshiping women as goddesses is in fact a deliberate social engineering ploy designed to create the gender war we are now in.
Anonymous:
I close with a fundamental question: If a man is decent chap who plays by the rules yet a woman finds that boring, why are we asking HIM to change and be something he's not?
Anon, you wrote a very long response...but let me be clear here: there is definitely a difference between PUA gaming girls to run up a notch count of conquest...and that certainly entails "being a jerk." But what I'm referring to has nothing to do with that...I'm talking about learning the specific cues that women are biologically attracted to and what turns off that attraction.
Look, I think one of the best ways I can try to get my point across is to refer you guys to the writing of John Ross from Ross in Range. This guy is NOT a PUA...but he is what a PUA would call a "natural."
His most recent article is the perfect example of what I'm referring to...
Women, Teasing, Tests, One-itis & Hope
Follow that up by reading this.
Learning About Women at a Young Age
In short, grovelling, trying to bribe her or acquiescing to her every whim and demand, i.e. treating her like a goddess, is what society constantly tries to instill in us as to how men should treat women. That behavior drives women away, not increase their attraction for you.
In the end, I have to say that I'm not trying to judge anyone, or to try and put myself above MGTOW guys...and if you know what work's best for you, great.
My only real point is that not ALL women are gold digging whors just waiting for their chance to suck you in and chain into wage slavery. Some ARE suitable wife and mother material...and if you do find one, it helps to understand what pushes her attraction buttons on basic, biological level. Than it's just a matter of continuing to push those buttons...and I think once you know how to do that, you have a much greater chance of having a long term, successful and happy relationship.
Can it still end up badly for you or me? Of course...but than no one ever said life was without danger.
33 comments:
I think you're leaving out an important part of the equation: namely that men can emigrate to less regulated societies.
I went to Taiwan, which is highly technological but less politically correct. However, the Philippines, Laos, etc. are much more "Wild West."
Simply going to such places and surviving is infinitely more interesting than impressing some spoiled female.
As civilization declines, more and more open violence is breaking out. PUA technique won't help much if you have to deal with violence.
That's what martial arts and target practice with firearms are for. :)
The problem is that the "teasing" mentality is a load of bad habits.
"Teasing" is just starting a fight or harassing someone who isn't capable of fighting back.
People who are good at "teasing" are just bullies, and young people should not be taught to tease. They should be taught to be courteous when possible, and to strike when necessary.
Furthermore, getting excited about other people's opinions can be extremely pernicious in many areas of life. The men who start by "gaming" women end up caring about their popularity -- and that is almost always the death of integrity.
So I strongly disagree with this "Ross" person.
SellCiv, "Teasing" the context of Ross' scenarios are really "flirting." It's called being a "challenge" to the female. Something females will find entertaining and interesting - especially if they're already attracted to your physical appearance.
Note that none of his examples involve malicious, downright cruel "teasing."
Very well said on your reply to markymark's comment. I'm not into labeling and I find it utterly discriminating. Past experiences or hearsay shouldn't be the basis, that's why we were all given our own judgement, to use it in the best possible way and not as an excuse to look down on other people.
"Rudderstone [actually, it's Ruddyturnstone]:
"As to applying this PUA stuff to marriage, I don't think it will work. Married women simply don't want to have sex with their husbands. They find it to be a boring, tiring chore that they get no pleasure from. Married women do not give their husband 'shit tests,'they just flatly refuse to have sex with them. There is no clever comeback to that."
Hawaiian Libertarian:
"The wife that doesn't want to have sex with her husband anymore is the wife that is really not attracted to him anymore..."
That's just a tautology. The question is why she's not attracted to him. I say because, as a rule, as women get older they are less into sex and more into babies, married or not. And, that sex with one's husband is inherently unexciting to them because it is a duty, it has no thrill of the forbidden, and it doesn't stroke their egos because they know their husband is "stuck" with them.
". . .and he has his own role to play in that state of affairs as well."
I disagree. The experience of the wife's declining desire to have sex with her husband is almost universal. Are all those husbands doing something wrong? Weren't their wives attracted to them before they got married? What changed?
I know guys, as "beta" as they come, who had girlfriends who couldn't keep their hands off them, who would rip off their clothes the second they walked through the door. But, after a few years of marriage--nothing. What "role" did these guys play?
It's just a fact of life. Like a man's declining libido when he reaches late middle age. Is that because of anything his wife or girlfriend does or doesn't do? No. A 60 year old guy is just not as horny as an 18 year old guy. Whether his wife is alpha, beta or whatever.
"Married women certainly DO shit test their husbands."
In my experience, they don't. When they ask if "this dress makes them look fat," they really do want a real answer, even if it's a tactful one. And, they don't ask what kind of car you drive or what your job is and so on and so forth, because they already know, and moreover, you know they know, so the whole thing wouldn't even make sense.
Also, even if some "shit testing" is going on, it has little or nothing to do with sex. She just doesn't want it, at least, not with her husband, and no amount of clever repartee on his part is going to change that.
The whole shit test/response thing is based on the idea that you, the guy, have some other option. She shit tests you, and you respond in a matter that shows, even if falsely, that you are cool, confident, and cocky. You are not desperate or needy. You do not have "oneitis." There are plenty of fish in the sea, and if she won't bite, another one will.
But, if you are married, she knows that none of the above is true. You have vowed to be faithful to her, so, no, you don't have any place else to go to get it. By definition, you have "oneitis." And, she knows when she last screwed you, so she knows if you are needy and desperate too. I have heard women taunt their husbands, quite literally and explicitly, with this kind of "I'm all you got so you had better behave" thing.
"If you read the link I provided from the Reality Method, you would understand that the 'Shit Test' is really an intrinsic part of the female psyche - it's her subconscious desire to ensure that her mate has enough dominant genes worthy to inseminate her eggs."
First of all, don't be so easily taken in by pop sociology/single's bar evolutionary psychology. The "shit test" is really a pick up bar phenonomen, rather than some universal female behavior. It has more to do with hot chicks putting would-be players on the spot, seperating the guys who really are "alpha" (or can fake it well) from the average, horny guys who have learned a few pick up lines. It shortens the field in the barroom considerably. But, it has very little to do with how most women actually go about choosing their mates, let alone their husbands.
In any event, once you are married, she has already chosen you. And vice versa. The time for shit testing, or any other selection method, is over.
"I discovered that I had been acting like a beta. . ."
If you were "acting like a beta" for years, then you ARE a beta (to the extent you really buy into these labels, again, don't be so easily convinced of pop psych theories). Don't you think your wife knows that? You think having a snappy answer to some stupid question convinces her that you have suddently become, at age fortysomething, James Bond, when you really are Woody Allen, and showed it, for years? In my experience, women aren't that stupid.
"In other words, I 'GAME' my wife, and she is not bored...and it's really not that hard to do once you figure it out."
What you really mean is you pretend to be something you're not, because you think that will make her have sex with you. Well, even it it works, and I doubt it does, is that so great? Does your wife have to pretend to be something she's not to get you to put your paycheck in your joint account? Does she have to play act to get an "I love you" or a kiss or a hug out of you when she wants one? If not, why should you have to do so just to get sex? Again, didn't she like having sex with you before you got married? Why should you have to change now? Unless you were fronting, she married you as you were; she should now have sex with you as you were.
There's nothing wrong with being a good flirt. It's a skill that many men could do with learning. Nor is there anything wrong with, as Proust said, of creating just enough of an air of mystery to create the slightest bit of jealousy, as a way of keeping a long-term relationship interesting. But, remaking one's personality into an "alpha" will not turn the average American woman, who has little or no interest in having sex with her husband, into a bedroom tigress. Like the modicum of jealousy Proust talked about, it can help. Just as the totally disimilar backrub--bubble bath--candles--champagne approach can help. But nothing can make the average wife lust after her husband as if he were Brad Pitt, or even the pool boy or car mechanic. The wife should provide sex for her husband whether he does any of the above or not, and, if she doesn't, it's her fault, not his.
"I just want to be clear - PUA 'techniques' are really nothing more than recognizing what women are attracted to on an instinctual level. I don't 'fake' anything, I don't pretend to be somebody that I'm not. In fact, I would say to you that having 'game' is nothing more than developing a conscious awareness and development of your social skills with the opposite gender. ..but that doesn't mean you have to put up a front and fake. . ."
I'm not buying any of this. It's called "game" because it's something you learn, like having "game" when you play basketball. If it were natural, or who you really are, or not fake, or not a front, or not pretending, then you wouldn't have had to "learn" it in the first place. It's not you. It's one thing to learn moves and techniques to use on the basketball court, because that's sport, it's not real life. But we are talking about your whole personality here, not some sport. Who you are and what you say and how you act. You have changed your personality to meet expectations which you believe, on the basis of some web sites, that your wife has. To me, that is about as far from a man "going" his "own way" as you can get.
"'Game' just reconnects men with their traditional role of masculinity."
First of all, "traditional" roles of masculinity had very little to do with coming up with smart ass answers to questions that hot chicks ask in single bars to scare off the minor league Romeos. To be a "traditional" man meant working your ass off on a farm or down a coal mine, so that your wife could keep house and your children might have something better. It meant going off to war when your country was in danger. It meant keeping your word. It had a lot more to do with doing than with talking. It meant not bragging. "A big mouth doesn't make a big man," says John Wayne in "The Cowboys." That's the traditional male role, not some lounge lizard saying "I don't really know what kind of car I drive, I'll have to ask my chauffer."
Some MGTOW men embrace that role, and want a return to it. Others don't, and are happy to shed it to lead a life unbeholden to a wife and children, in which they can follow their owm dreams and desires. Others would like to embrace the traditional role, but believe that AW and the laws they have enacted, make it impossible. But, none of them want a life in which they re-programme themselves so that they can say what women who hang around in bars want to hear. Still less do they want to do so that the woman who already promised to love them till death do them part, who they financially and emotionally support, will do them the big favor of spreading her legs once in a while.
Another thought-provoking column, HL. What some folks see as PUA techniques, I see similar to you. That women want and need a man, not a conformist. At least the healthy ones need that. I don't live the PUA artist lifestyle but having experimented with its effect when interacting with women, confidence, a sense of humor and an ability to convey that while I may like her, I don't 'need' her is attractive to most women.
The only difference is that I have no need for a woman so for me it's not acting. I like them, like being around them but am I willing to go through their nightmarish self-discovery phases simply hoping for a 'relationship' that society tells me I'm incomplete without? Not likely. Besides that, I don't believe what society tells me on that subject anyway.
I know how tough it's been for me to arrive at peace in my life and I'm not willing to surrender that for a woman unless it were God's will for my life. Otherwise, I have no desire to play the 'rescuer'. This world is too full of interesting people to be tied down trying to help someone deal with their own garbage.
At least as my interests go, these last few columns have been intriguing. I think you've struck a chord with many of us. Cheers.
Anon 2:44
"I don't live the PUA artist lifestyle but having experimented with its effect when interacting with women, confidence, a sense of humor and an ability to convey that while I may like her, I don't 'need' her is attractive to most women. The only difference is that I have no need for a woman so for me it's not acting. I like them, like being around them but am I willing to go through their nightmarish self-discovery phases simply hoping for a 'relationship' that society tells me I'm incomplete without? Not likely."
Obviously, unlike Hawaiian Libertarian, you're not married. And that makes all the difference. Yes, the PUA stuff may work in your case, because when you convey the attitude that you "don't need" a wowan, any woman,including the one you're talking to, that is at least plausible.
But, how is a married man, who, if he intends to remain faithful to his vows, must rely on his wife alone for sex and TLC, going to convey that attitude to her, and not have it be seen as transparently false? Unless he truly doesn't really want sex and love from a woman at all, she knows he is dependent on her, as she is the sole legitimate provider of it. In other words,he needs her, and she knows it, and no amount of cocky posturing or wise cracking is going to change that.
"...that she herself is not even consciously aware of...but I am."
Question: is she aware now? Does she know what her innate switch-ons are, or does she continue to labor in ignorance?
Regarding PUA tactics and the modern dating scene: I'm glad I'm married now. I'm one of those "nice guys" who didn't wise up to the futility of kissing up to pretty girls and their shite tests until way late in the game.
Luckily I happened to stumble across a good woman who actually appreciates and respects a nice guy with values and not some neg-comment-spouting, strutting, overbearing poseur.
I'm not an alpha male in the sense that I'm a high-powered, high-earning handsome man with nice clothes, a huge house, and a Benz. Nor do I want the kind of woman who lusts after that kind of guy. Which is why game, while useful to some, particularly the findum fuckum and flee crowd, I think won't serve someone like me very well. I don't want to attract that kind of remora. Because that would turn me into a shark.
The best change I ever made in myself was to stop treating females as if they were my better (they're not) and if I needed to be with them (I don't). When I became my own self-contained man, that's when the world changed for me. It was just a shame that I had no older man to tell me that, so I didn't have to wait until a decade or so after I left the house to become what I should have been at 15.
That's what MGTOW means to me--charting my own course according to God's plan for me and not conforming to the pattern of the world just because the culture says that you have to be this-or-that to be a real Christian man or be successful or whatever.
All that said, PUA tactics have identified some of the things that fundamentally turn women on at a biological level. Even if, as HL said, they don't realize it. I don't have to act like an ass in order to make use of this information to meet my wife's needs.
RuddyTurnStone wrote:
"I have heard women taunt their husbands, quite literally and explicitly, with this kind of "I'm all you got so you had better behave" thing."
Yikes. If any man hears a taunt/threat like this, even if made in jest, look out. You have been forewarned by her lack of an "inner monologue". She considers herself to be the one in charge, and you are disposable (but not your income). What's more, the law and the culture agrees with her. Time to prepare yourself to eject, 'cuz you're going down buddy.
Best take steps to divorce proof yourself, the first step of which is to find a way to get her to start working, and then have her become the primary wage earner with you keeping house. This is particularly true if you have kids.
Fail to do that, and don't be surprised if the process server shows up on your doorstep in the near future.
"The wife should provide sex for her husband whether he does any of the above or not, and, if she doesn't, it's her fault, not his."
Totally true. An excellent litmus test for a wife, gents, is her attitude toward who really is in control of her sexuality. If she thinks it is her, then find yourself another prospect. She's been tainted by the stain of feminism. If she answers her father (pre-marriage) and then you (post-marriage) then you know that you have a keeper.
Ruddy - Look, all I know is that after almost 7 years of a very contentious marriage in which I thought that by trying to cater to my wife's emotional state and trying to always ask her what she wanted in the mistaken idea that I thought that would make her happy, I discovered PUA websites did a lot of reading and reflection, and started applying the psychology of it in my interactions with her, and it worked.
It worked.
I wouldn't be wasting all this time recommending that you at least try out what I found works for me if it didn't.
You can take it or leave it, it won't affect me no way, no how if you think I'm full of it.
I know what a difference it made for me.
"I have heard women taunt their husbands, quite literally and explicitly, with this kind of "I'm all you got so you had better behave" thing."
Yup - that's her shit testing her husband. I used to fail such tests. I don't anymore, thanks to the Reality Method's "agree and amplify" technique.
It REALLY does work.
You might think it's bogus, or it's fronting, or being something fake.
I say, I don't care what it is, those kind of shit tests used to result in arguments, fights and leaving me literally wanting to bang my head against the wall.
Not anymore.
"Look, all I know is that after almost 7 years. . .in which I thought that by trying to cater to my wife's emotional state and trying to always ask her what she wanted in the mistaken idea that I thought that would make her happy, I discovered PUA websites. . ."
And that was a mistake. Did you really need a PUA website to tell you that people, including women, don't like doormats and "yes men?"
"It worked.. . .it won't affect me. . .if you think I'm full of it."
I don't think you're full of it. As I said, I think the PUA techniques can help, to some extent. So can some other approaches. But I don't beleive that any of them can make a long-term wife return to her pre-marital level of sexual attractedness to her husband.
You say, "it worked." But you are only one man. I know plenty of men, beta and alpha, "women's men" and "ladies' men," tough guys and wimps, guys that make all of the mistakes that the PUA websites talk about and guys who are born PUA's, guys who were virgins when they got married and have never had sex with any woman but their wives and guys that could, and did, score women left, right and center before, and after, they got married. And, you know what? They almost all say the same thing--that the quality and quantity of sex drops dramatically after marriage.
Why is that? Again, many of them are natural PUAs, they are "alphas," who have no problem getting women other than their wives to bed them regularly, and to do all kinds of hot stuff, but still, the wife remains cool.
me:
"I have heard women taunt their husbands, quite literally and explicitly, with this kind of 'I'm all you got so you had better behave' thing."
HI:
Yup - that's her shit testing her husband."
No, it isn't. It's a harsh, but true, statement of fact. Women are not, in most jurisdictions, legally required to have sex with their husbands. Yes, the husband can seek a divorce, but that tends to be a financial and/or child custody nightmare for most men. The wife has the man by the short hairs, and she knows it. The quoted statement is her reminding her husband of it, and announcing it to the rest of the world.
A "shit test," on the contrary, according to the web site you linked, is designed as a screening device. Women, so the completely unproven, overblown, pop evolutionary psychology theory goes, use it to weed out bad mate prospects. Here, we are talking about a woman who is already married, who has already made her selection. So, the "shit test" is quite inappropriate. She knows who and what you are already. The time for testing and selecting is over. If the wife is still "shit testing" her husband, then she is unfairly demanding that he perform an audition after they are already married. Most men don't do this to their wives, and for them to do it in reverse is simply unacceptable. The last thing one would want to do is encourage such behavior by adopting a set of PUA techniques that play into it.
But, in the instance which I described, she is not doing any "shit testing" at all. She is telling you the facts. You will get sex when and if she says so; if not, you are being unfaithful to your marriage vows, and, she may very well divorce you. Which, again, will probably be a nightmare for you.
"I used to fail such tests. I don't anymore, thanks to the Reality Method's 'agree and amplify' technique."
WTF? How do you "agree and amplify" to "I'm all you got, so you better behave." If you "agree" to her characterization of the state of affairs, and "amplify" it, you are only proving her all the more right. "Yes, dear, you are in control of my sex life and, therefore, I am your humble servant." OK, maybe that's cute and witty, but it doesn't change the underlying situation.
On the site you linked, the woman in a bar gives the man a real shit test, eg "Does this dress make me look fat?" The A and A technique ("Yeah, it makes you look hyyyuuuuge!) might "work" because it undoes the dilemma of her fake question (be honest in a "real" way and you've insulted her; be dishonest, and you've proven you are a liar just looking to flatter). By being clever and witty, by "agreeing andamplifying," you have won the bar room exchange and successfuly passed the "shit test." But
I don't see how that works here. She's not giving you a test; she's telling you like it is.
The other anti shit test moves recommended on the website are equally useless here. Do you make a joke out of it. Well, OK, ha, ha, but the fact still remains that you are in sexual prison and she holds the key. Do you change the subject? That won't matter. Nor will making faces, or employing mimickry, or trying to turn it around, or whatever.
"You might think it's bogus, or it's fronting, or being something fake."
It seems to me you pretty much admit this yourself. You acted a certain way for years. I can only conclude that that represents your real personality. Then, you deliberately altered your personality on the basis of information you found on some web sites. That sure sounds like fronting and pretending to me. And, you're doing it just so that your wife will provide what she should have been giving you freely in the first place. You are dancing to what you think is her tune, and taking the word of some internet guys that it really is her tune.
And that's not the way I want to be in the world. I would rather be single, and, basically, celibate, then get married and then still have to go through all the BS of single bars pick up routines just to have sex with a woman who has already vowed to love me forever, and to whom I am upholding my end of the bargain by providing her with love and emotional and financial support.
It seems to me you pretty much admit this yourself. You acted a certain way for years. I can only conclude that that represents your real personality. Then, you deliberately altered your personality on the basis of information you found on some web sites. That sure sounds like fronting and pretending to me. And, you're doing it just so that your wife will provide what she should have been giving you freely in the first place. You are dancing to what you think is her tune, and taking the word of some internet guys that it really is her tune.
I'm telling you that women in relationships still "shit test" there men...not to screen, but to reaffirm their initial choice in mate selection.
Here's a post I made at Roissy in D.C.'s blog about "Common Shit Tests"
Common Shit Tests in a long term relationship…
“Do you think my sister/best friend is more attractive than me?”
“Do I look fat in these jeans?”
“Where were you last night? Who were you out with? What was her name?”
“We never do anything together anymore!”
“You don’t spend enough time with me!”
“I’m hungry.”
“All you want me for is sex!”
“Is that (sex) all you ever think about?!”
I spent years failing these common shit tests, and almost got divorced more than a few times.
After reading about game and applying the techniques, these shit tests that usually turned into huge fights and living in utter fear of her passive aggressive bouts, are now opportunities to inspire and maintain attraction.
You know you’re doing everything right when your wife/girlfriend calls you a jerk right before she rips your clothes off….
I spent years "failing" those typical questions. Once I applied the "Agree & Amplify approach, those questions that were once land mines in our relationship were what I turned into playful banter with me acting over the top silly and making her laugh rather than her getting upset at my answers.
I would rather be single, and, basically, celibate, then get married and then still have to go through all the BS of single bars pick up routines
It's not a bunch of bs or pickup routines...it's just a conscious, deliberate mental approach at re-framing conversational intercourse. One in which I learned rather than to let her lead us into a passive-aggressive conflict, I literally take over the conversation that started with her "shit-test" and turning it into playful banter. I literally just "play" a cocky, arrogant bastard...and she eats it up and plays along all the time. Once I got some practice, it literally has become second nature to me now. That is ALL I'm trying to point out to people. If you are in a relationship, and you find yourself in constant conflict, you need to look at how you're behaving and playing your part in that relation dynamic. Can you respond differently or are you simply going to let yourself stay stuck in a cycle of contention and conflict? Because once I learned about "Shit Tests" it was like the light bulb went off over my head, and we are both happier for it.
Look, I can see you're not going to be convinced...or that you're going to be "right" no matter what I write here.
To each his own, we are all free to Go our own way...
HL is correct. Part of the deal is your technique must be correct for your wife. I will not agree that all wives are exactly the same and the same exact technique must be used for all. But, the basic idea is the same.
Married 33 years.
That "you just want me for sex" should not be disputed. "Hayell yes, you thought I married you for your brilliant mind? Smirk. Hey, that gives me a great idea. Do you want it in the bedroom or in the bathroom or in the front yard while the neighbors cheer?"
There is another more important fact here. HL is reporting what actually happened in his marriage, and his critics are heavy into hypothesis and deep thinking. Har, har. Guess who wins this one.
Anonymous age 66
HI:
Two thoughts:
(1) Almost all of the "shit tests" on both of the websites you've cited were questions. And the other two were complaints ("I'm hungry," "We don't go out togehter") My examples. . ."I am not going to have sex with you" (flat refusal of sex) and "I am all you got, so you better behave") are neither questions nor complaints. They are not "shit tests." There is nothing to amplify, agree or reframe. No smart ass answer expected or sought. Just statements of fact, which many, if not most husbands, are faced with, no matter how "alpha" they are. And both of which mean, "No (or very little) sex for you; see you in divorce court if you don't like it." "Amplify" your way out of that!
(2) "It's not a bunch of bs or pickup routines."
". . .it's just a conscious, deliberate mental approach at re-framing conversational intercourse. One in which I learned . .I literally just 'play' a cocky, arrogant bastard. . .Once I got some practice. . ."
Sure sounds like applying BS pick up routines to me. And fronting, and pretending and faking and play acting and being something you're not.
You're like a guy accused of shoplifiting who says "I'didn't not 'shoplift,' I'm merely took the merchandise from the store shelves and placed it in my breifcase. Then, I proceeded to exit the store without paying a visit to the cashier. . ."
Just rephrasing something in different words does not refute an accurate characterization of it.
Anon 8:59
In the case you present ("You just want me for sex"), the A and A approach may well be called for ("Hell yeah. . .")
But, that's not what I am talking about. I'm not talking about a wife who wants a little reassurance that she's a hot property. A wife who wants a little compliment paid to her desirability, and playfully fishes for it with the kind of fake "complaint" you presented.
No, I'm talking about a wife who says, flat out, "No, I don't want to have sex with you." She may or may not give excuses, mental or physical. She may or may not tell you straight up that she just isn't into it, at least not with you. She may or may not get nasty, and recount all the ways in which you disappoint her, including your lovemaking techniques and equipment. But, in any event, it's no go and any further move on your part could be construed as marital rape. See the difference? And many, many husbands face the second situation.
What was said in the previous posts is precisely why I will not ever be married again. It took a bad marriage and a divorce to show me how unwise it is to equate success with women with self worth. I came to realize that I do not need women to define me as a person. More importantly, I decided I don't want to put up with their games, cruelty, duplicity and gold digging. I want peace and tranquility in my life, not constant conflict. I would sooner be a prisoner than an husband in the west because even prisoners have rights, husbands have [b]none[b/].
Some observations:
1. The less people know about GAME, the more they are against it. Don't take it personally guys, but being against something you don't know is kinda stupid.
It's laughably easy to tell who knows GAME and who doesn't know sh*te.
2. 50% of GAME is knowledge: (sexual) psychology, sociology, biology, etc. It does not change you in any way, not any more then learning maths or physics would change you.
Let me tell you an example:
A little piece of the core knowledge of GAME is that at the moment a girl realizes you're interested in her, she makes the choice of what to do with you. (This means if you stare at a girl for an hour then walk up to her across the room, she will decide if you're good enough before you open your mouth to say 'hi'.)
Now, does this piece of PUA knowledge change you in any way? Are you a bad boy thug now?
It's only information you can use, nothing more. If you wish not to use it, that's up to you, but if you actively refuse to learn this stuff you're retarded.
3. Thinking that you're either a nice guy OR a bad boy is mistaken. Thinking that GAME has anything to do with this is even more mistaken. If anybody says that learning GAME equals to becoming a bad boy, that person clearly shows he/she knows sh*te about GAME. (See example above.)
4. I know some MGTOW-ers believe that there's a hidden elite controlling feminism with an agenda to destroy societies. (I too believe this.) Doesn't it occur to you that by never marrying and never fathering children you do EXACTLY what these social engineers WANT you to do? It's not 'fighting the system', it's not 'winning against feminism'. At best it's escaping.
The only way you can 'win', the only way you can 'save your country' is having STRONG marriages and raising healthy children.
5. Everyone says that men in our modern age are being feminized. Then you say you cannot stand masculinity, and you don't want to be masculine even if it costs you your life. Am I the only one seeing some contradiction here?
6. Saying that you do everything right and that womenkind should 'evolve' to reach your moral level is stupidity on a cosmogonical scale. It's so stupid that feminists do it all the time: they keep whining that men should change in this and that and whatever. You're own fate is in your own hands, and if you have a chance to improve the quality of your life by learning some stuff about interacting with women, YOU SHOULD LEARN IT. Stop whining about women not being good enough.
Some of you sound like a 6-year-old whining that he doesn't want to learn to read and all books should be made into movies.
MRA is the recognization that there is something fundamentally wrong with feminism and the feminization of males.
MGTOW is saying you're not letting feminism ruin YOUR OWN LIFE.
'GAME' is the tool you can have to BUILD a life YOU WANT. It can help you find, get and keep women who are worthy.
Ruddy, you should read Michelle Langley's Women's Infidelity. You can learn lots of interesting things about women's sexuality.
Sure, most women stops having sex with their husbands, but there is a REASON to that and also a SOLUTION.
Deansdale:
According to Michelle Langley's Women's Infidelity, wives who stop having sex with their husbands nevertheless may continue to have sexual desires, it's just that they desire to have sex with someone else. That's just what I said.
Sex with one's husband is a duty. It's what HE wants and what she is expected, under the old rules, to give him. There is no novelty, no thrill, no illicit frisson t it. Nothing "extra" to make up for the fact that emotionally, physically and psychologically, a woman's sex drive is just not, on average, anywhere near as strong as a man's, particularly as she ages. And, any resentment the wife has against the husband comes out in the bedroom, the only place, she feels, that he will pay attention to her complaints. Modern Western women are never satifsfied with anything, including their husbands. They nag and complain and order their husbands about, until finally, even a loving husband tunes them out. He says "yeah, yeah" and turns back to the game on TV. To get even with him, the wife withholds sex, which she doesn't really want anyway, and which she knows he wants more than anything else from her. I know all this already. I know the REASONS for it.
As for there being a simple and easy solution, I would suggest to you that there isn't one. Yes, as I said, PUA "Game" may help to some degree, so might some other approaches.
But the problem is too widespread, too universal, to be reversed just by some play acting and snappy repartee. Right now, there is a firestorm of controversy over Dennis Prager's series of articles over this issues. The issue is regularly hashed out in newspapers and magazines. And on discussion boards with wide audiences, which are not dominated by feminists, PUA's or MGTOW's, the issue is acknowledged, even by women, and is discussed to death.
Under the law, women do not have to have sex with their husbands. And, according to everything they have been taught all their lives, it is "wrong" for them to do anything which is not consistent with their "feelings," particularly their feelings regarding having sex with a man. Why, according to everything that modern women have been taught, to have sex with a man when they don't "feel" like it is tantamount to rape, or to prostitution. Once upon a Victorian time, a wife who was tired of sex with her husband was told to lie back and suffer through it, while "thinking of England." No more. Do you really think that this enormous problem can be solved just by the application of some techniques developed in an entirely different context, ie that of meeting and bedding women that one meets in singles bars? I don't.
Some other thoughts.
You say this:
"50% of GAME is knowledge: (sexual) psychology, sociology, biology, etc. It does not change you in any way. . ."
But, then you say this:
"If you wish not to use it, that's up to you, but if you actively refuse to learn this stuff you're retarded."
Which is contradictory. It is NOT just "knowledge," rather, it is something I should act on ("use"). In other words, I should change my behavior by acting on it. And, if I don't, I'm "retarded."
You say this:
"If anybody says that learning GAME equals to becoming a bad boy, that person clearly shows he/she knows sh*te about GAME. (See example above.)"
Bull. The "example above" is about how to pick up girls. In fact, that is what "Game" and "PUA" is all about, picking up girls. PUA stands for "Pick up artist," for Christ's sakes. It's all about being a "bad boy." About meeting and screwing lots of women. And anyone who claims otherwise is, in your words, full of "sh*te."
You say this:
"Everyone says that men in our modern age are being feminized. Then you say you cannot stand masculinity, and you don't want to be masculine even if it costs you your life. Am I the only one seeing some contradiction here?"
But, as I said in a previous post, "masculinity," as traditionaly understood, had nothing to do with being a wise-cracking, strutting, arrogant PUA. It had everything to do with being a quiet, confident man who provided for his family, didn't boast, kept his word, and served his country (if need be).
You say this:
"You're own fate is in your own hands, and if you have a chance to improve the quality of your life by learning some stuff about interacting with women, YOU SHOULD LEARN IT. Stop whining about women not being good enough."
and
"'GAME' is the tool you can have to BUILD a life YOU WANT."
My fate is in my own hands. And, I refuse to remake my personality to suit the whims of women, or the whims of women as they are imagined to be by some internet guy who runs a PUA website. Being a MGTOW means just that, "going" your "own way." Not a woman's way. Not a PUA's way. It's not a question of whether women are "good enough" or not. The questions are whether they really require the kind of play acting nonsense that you, and the PUAs, say they do. And, if they do, is it worth it.
Perhaps they do in singles bars. These techniques may very well be successful in that environment. All well and good, but I do not think they are what women want in a marriage. And, I do not think it is the lack of them that turn wives off on sex, at least with their husbands. I think the reasons run much deeper.
But, even if I am wrong on that score, I still refuse to capitulate and become a PUA. It's one thing to pretend to be something one is not for a short period, so as to score some hot chick in a bar. But, to commit oneself to a lifetime of, as HI puts it, "playing a cocky, arrogant" bastard for the amusement of a wife? No way. I'd rather be single.
It's not that the woman is not "good enough," nor that I am not "good enough." It's that I am not a puppet, who dances on a string as his wife desires. Look, there is nothing wrong with being a little "macho" if that is what your wife wants in the sack. A little "Who's your daddy?" or "slap and tickle" or whatever floats her boat in the bedroom. You float her boat and she floats yours. That's what it's all about. But to remake one's whole personality, in and out of the bedroom, just so you can be the "tough guy" that her evolutionary psychology supposedly demands in order for her not to be a complete bitch? That is not in the least "the life" that I "want." No thank you.
Finally, you say this:
"The only way you can 'win', the only way you can 'save your country' is having STRONG marriages and raising healthy children."
That is not what MGTOW is all about. I "win" if I lead the life I want.
That may or may not include having a wife and kid. If it does include those attributes, it may mean having to leave the Western world. "Winning," in this context, would mean being able to marry and be confident that (1) my wife would continue to show me TLC and have sex with me, whether I "mastered" the techniques of PUA or not, and (2) that if we divorced, I would not be financially ruined and my relationship with my children would not be wrecked. If marriage and children in my own country is not possible on those terms, I will have to do without them.
As for "saving my country," that can only be done by destroying feminsm and undoing the social harm and legal regimes it has created. Learning some pick up techniques to use on wives is not going to do that. At best, it may marginally increase the rate of sex for a married man.
"According to Michelle Langley's Women's Infidelity, wives who stop having sex with their husbands nevertheless may continue to have sexual desires, it's just that they desire to have sex with someone else. That's just what I said."
Yep, but I said there is a REASON and a SOLUTION, both of which you can find in GAME.
"a woman's sex drive is just not, on average, anywhere near as strong as a man's, particularly as she ages."
In the book Langley says the opposite. Also most PUA would disagree with you on this.
"the wife withholds sex, which she doesn't really want anyway, and which she knows he wants more than anything else from her. I know all this already."
It seems that you experienced this stuff. (So do I.)
Now there's 2 things you can do:
1. Repeat until you lose any interest in women.
2. Learn how to avoid it.
Pardon me for stating that the second approach is a bit more productive.
"some play acting and snappy repartee."
You still make the mistake of thinking you know what GAME is. Learn more about it, because GAME is NOT play acting and snappy repartee.
"Do you really think that this enormous problem can be solved just by the application of some techniques developed in an entirely different context(...)?"
The entirety of this problem can not be solved. Never.
But we're talking about our own lives, we're MGTOW. You can solve this problem in your OWN life.
Also, you can understand the core of the problem a lot better if you learn GAME, because - as I said - GAME includes psychological and sociological knowledge about EXACTLY this problem.
"Which is contradictory. It is NOT just "knowledge," rather, it is something I should act on ("use")."
If you learn something which you understand to be true, and you don't change your behaviour according to that, well...
For example: you learned that thin ice may break under you, so you don't walk on thin ice.
You learn that acting feminine to your wife makes her LESS horny, so you do not act feminine.
If one does not use the knowledge he has, that says something about his intellectual capabilities.
"Bull. The "example above" is about how to pick up girls. In fact, that is what "Game" and "PUA" is all about, picking up girls."
No. You say this because you know less about GAME then either me or HL. We both benefited from GAME in our own life.
Basically you deny our existing everyday experience, which is also a bit... strange thing to do.
"PUA stands for "Pick up artist," for Christ's sakes."
Yep, but let me tell you this: it depends on your OWN PERSONALITY how you use knowledge. If you're an extrovert you can pick up girls with it. If you're an introvert, you might not pick up many girls, but you CAN make you're relationships better and longer-lasting.
"It's all about being a "bad boy.""
No, it isn't.
Look, if you want to argue, why don't you read some blogs or articles about GAME? I mean articles written by PUAs, not by outsiders.
""masculinity," as traditionaly understood, had nothing to do with being a wise-cracking, strutting, arrogant PUA. It had everything to do with being a quiet, confident man(...)"
Strange, I read some PUA stuff and it teaches you to be quiet and confident :)
I will not debate what GAME is or isn't with someone who does not know it. Read some of it (it cannot harm you) then come back and I'll be here to continue this conversation.
"And, I refuse to remake my personality to suit the whims of women"
See above. GAME is the direct opposite of what you are talking about.
"I do not think they are what women want in a marriage."
DO NOT take this personally, I mean no offense, but you seem to have had a bad marriage - why should I trust you to know what women want in a marriage? I consider myself an MGTOW but even I admit that the worst guy to ask what a woman wants is an average MGTOW.
"I still refuse to capitulate and become a PUA."
Learning something is usually considered to be an improvement, not a capitulation.
"HL puts it, "playing a cocky, arrogant" bastard for the amusement of a wife?"
You misunderstand the hole thing. HL never said anything similar to this. He said something along the line of he learned how to turn potential quarrels into jokes. (That's what reframing a shit test means.)
"But to remake one's whole personality..."
...has nothing to do with GAME.
"That is not what MGTOW is all about."
I know. I'm an MGTOW but I also consider myself somewhat of a conservative or traditionalist in the original meaning of these words. I think that our societies should be 'saved' from the social engineers.
I want (and will) go my own way, but I also want to build, not to destroy.
""Winning," in this context, would mean being able to marry and be confident that (1) my wife would continue to show me TLC and have sex with me, whether I "mastered" the techniques of PUA or not"
Let me get this clear:
1. There is a problem. (Wives often stop having sex with their husband.)
2. There is a solution to this. (Learning basic sexualpsychology, which can be found in a lot of places including GAME.)
3. You say that you don't want this solution, instead you want either every women on the planet change their biological wiring of a million years to suit you, or the law force them to have sex with you against their wills (in marriage).
I'm at a loss of words to describe how bizarre this is.
"and (2) that if we divorced, I would not be financially ruined and my relationship with my children would not be wrecked."
I'm 100% with you on this one.
me:
"a woman's sex drive is just not, on average, anywhere near as strong as a man's, particularly as she ages."
Deansadale:
"In the book Langley says the opposite. Also most PUA would disagree with you on this."
It's pretty much a scientific fact (due to hormones and such) that a woman's sex drive, on average, decreases much more than a man's throughout her mid 20's and 30's, what Langley and most PUA's say (or would say) to the contrary notwithstanding. The sex drive of a woman does tend to start incrasing again some time in her 40's, again, due to hormones, but that is often to late to save the marriage.
me:
"the wife withholds sex, which she doesn't really want anyway, and which she knows he wants more than anything else from her. I know all this already."
you:
". . .there's 2 things you can do:
"1. Repeat until you lose any interest in women.
"2. Learn how to avoid it.
"Pardon me for stating that the second approach is a bit more productive."
Again, you just don't seem to get it. Of course I would prefer that the wife NOT lose interest in sex. But, I find there to be two problems with your approach: (1) I think it will only be marginally effective, at best, and (2) there is a limit on what I am willing to do to keep a woman interested.
you:
"Learn more about it, because GAME is NOT play acting and snappy repartee."
I read the sites HL linked to. I've looked at some other sites too. And, besides some obvious body language stuff, it does seem to mostly consist of play acting and snappy repartee. HL himself said that he "literally 'plays' a cocky and arrogant bastard."
I'm sorry, but despite what you say, PUA or "Game" or "GAME" or whatever you call it, is mostly just some pick up lines, a few patently obvious "insights" into body language, phony, bar room (and bar stool) evolutinary psychology, and play acting. That and creating a lot of cutesy-poo acronyms and abbreviations. It is not the key to the universe.
"But we're talking about our own lives, we're MGTOW. You can solve this problem in your OWN life."
I disagree, and I think you are giving young men terrible advice. That's why I am continuing this dialogue. Not because I hope to convince you, I realize that is impossible. But to show young men that there is another side to this argument.
My position is that your PUA techniques are overrated. That they may work very well in the singles bar, but that they will only work marginally well in a marriage. It is a scientific fact that a woman's sex drive, on average, will be much less than her husbands throughout their mid 20's and their 30's and into their early 40's. It is a legal fact, in most jurisdictions, that a wife is not requiured to have sex with her husband. It is a sociological fact that, on average, most women believe they should not have sex with their husbands unless they, the women, "feel" like it. These facts leads to sexless, and from there, loveless, marriages. And to divorce, and to all the disasters that brings to men, and to children.
You claim that all of the above can be avoided by applying some "PUA" techniques. You are telling young men not to worry about all of the above, to disregard what the MRA's and MGTOW's are telling them about marriage and divorce, because, when the wife cools down, you can always throw some "GAME" at her, and that will hot her back up. I say it won't, not enough. And, even if it does, it means you, the husband, are dancing on a string, are perpetually playing the role of the suitor or singles bar propositioner to a woman who has already promised to love you forever, and to whom you are doing your part (giving her money, love, emotional support, etc.) without requiring any similar, constant auditioning or play acting from her.
me:
". . .that is what 'Game' and 'PUA' is all about, picking up girls."
you:
"No. You say this because you know less about GAME. . ."
I've read the websites, and I know what it is. By its own admission (advertisement, really), PUA is a method for meeting lots of women, and getting them to sleep with you without making a commitment to any of them.
me:
"It's all about being a 'bad boy.'"
you:
"No, it isn't. . .why don't you read some blogs or articles about GAME? I mean articles written by PUAs, not by outsiders."
First of all, I have read the blogs and articles, and I can actually leave aside the obvious mistake you are making in a judging a phenonmenon strictly by what its supporter and often financially interested promoters, rather than disinterested "outsiders," have to say about it. I can say with confidence, that, judged on its owm terms, PUA is all about just what I said it is all about: meeting and bedding lots of women without making a commitment to any of them. That's what the websites all promise to be able to teach. To intorverts as well as to extroverts. That's the goal. Let's not kid ourselves here, guys take up this PUA stuff so that they can meet and screw lots of women. End of story. And a guy who does that is a "bad boy."
Your claim is that a married woman wants her husband to continually play the role of a "bad boy." My claim is that I don't think that's true, because women are not, by and large, stupid, and they know that any attitude of cockiness on the part of their husband, any talk of "take it or leave it baby, there's lot of fish in the sea and I don't need a woman anyway," is BS. Because, for one thing, he got married, didn't he? So he must want and need a woman. And for another thing, because he is married and has vowed to be faithful to her, she is the only "fish" in his sea. Also, while a woman may be intrigued by the "bad boy" in a bar, she, by the time she marries, may very well not want one around all the time.
I also claim that, even to the extent that she does want a "bad boy," an aging wife is still not going to have as strong a sex drive as her husband, and since she feels that she has no obligation to have sex with him just to please him, she will still refuse him quite often. This is the problem with any approach towards heating up the wife (a little jealousy, the PUA approach, the backub-bubble bath-candles-champagne approach). They all might work to some extent, but not enough.
And, I furthermore claim that, even if it does work, it's not worth it. And that brings us to. . .
me:
"'masculinity,' as traditionaly understood, had nothing to do with being a wise-cracking, strutting, arrogant PUA. It had everything to do with being a quiet, confident man. . ."
you:
"Strange, I read some PUA stuff and it teaches you to be quiet and confident."
Yeah, it is strange. Because when I read the PUA stuff it consists of boastful pickup lines. It consists of bragging, swaggering comebacks to "shit tests." It consists of learning how to blow your own horn louder and more insistently than the other guys in the bar. About how to dress like a "peacock." And so forth. And there is very little about being reserved and confident. Not to mention all of the other masculine qualities that you cut out when you quoted me, like keeping your word, providing for your family, fighting for country when needed, and so on. I hear very little about that kind of thing from the GAME boys either.
you:
"I will not debate what GAME is or isn't with someone who does not know it. Read some of it (it cannot harm you) then come back and I'll be here to continue this conversation."
As I said, I have read it.
And, I don't know where you get off having such an attitude. Your precious "GAME" is as open to debate and criticism as anything else. But, to hear you tell it, you and your PUA boys are like Moses come down from the Mount, and anyone who questions you is a heretic. Also, you ARE arguing about it with me, so you are not even consistent in your arrogance. I'm not some bimbo in a bar; your strutting and posturing does not impress me, Mr. PUA.
me:
"And, I refuse to remake my personality to suit the whims of women"
you:
"See above. GAME is the direct opposite of what you are talking about."
You see above. According to the websites, and to HL, "GAME" (by the way, don't you ever get tired of writing it that way, doesn't it seem kinda' foolish?) is exactly that. It's changing your personality (or, at least, pretending to change it) because that's what you think a woman wants.
me:
"I do not think they are what women want in a marriage."
you:
". . .why should I trust you to know what women want in a marriage?"
And why should I trust you, or some guy on a PUA site? And, anyway, the point is that "what women want" should not be the only consideration in a man's life. Too much time, energy, and money is devoted to figuring out "what women want." If "what they want" is unreasonable, then too bad for them, men should not give them "what they want." I believe that young men would do better in saying to women, "This is who and what I am. This is what I have to offer. If that is not what you want, then I don't want you."
me:
"I still refuse to capitulate and become a PUA."
you:
"Learning something is usually considered to be an improvement, not a capitulation."
I would say it depends on what you're learning. But, even conceding that, I still refuse to BE a PUA. Play acting to suit the whims of others is not "usually considered to be an improvement."
me:
"HL puts it, "playing a cocky, arrogant" bastard for the amusement of a wife?"
you:
"You misunderstand the whole thing. HL never said anything similar to this."
Bull! That's a direct quote. HL said:
"I literally just 'play' a cocky, arrogant bastard...and she eats it up and plays along all the time."
with the "..." being HL's, not mine.
"He said something along the line. . ."
No. He said just what I claimed he said. That he play acts for his wife's amusement and entertainment.
me:
"But to remake one's whole personality..."
you:
"...has nothing to do with GAME."
Remaking it, or pretending to, is the essense, the alpha and the omega of "GAME."
If one's personality was already succesful in the world of pick up bars, why would one need to learn game? If you could just "be yourself," why would you need a website, complete with approaches, pick up lines, snappy answers to shit test questions, "field tested" techniques and on and on. The avereage Joe aleady knows how to be himself. He goes to a PUA site to learn how to be someone, and something, else, a person other than who and what he already is. In other words, he wants to change, or, at least, become good at pretending to have changed, his personality into one that women like.
you:
"1. There is a problem. (Wives often stop having sex with their husband.)"
Yes.
"2. There is a solution to this. (Learning basic sexualpsychology, which can be found in a lot of places including GAME.)"
Actually, as I have said repeatedly, I do not believe that this "solution" is anything but marginally effective.
"3. You say that you don't want this solution, instead you want either every women on the planet change their biological wiring of a million years to suit you, or the law force them to have sex with you against their wills (in marriage)."
No. I realize (unlike you and your PUAs, by the way) that it is impossible for women to change their bio hard wiring. As for the law, yes, I do think that it should be an explicit part of the marriage contract that regular sex (barring injury or illness) be provided by both parties. What's so unreasonable about that? It would certainly forestall a lot of misunderstandings. Also, I would like to see society reformed at the non-legal level (and, the marriage strike may be helping in this regard) to the point where women realize that the world does not revolve exclusively around them and their grossly overrated feeeEEEEeeeEEeelings. That, if they want to be married, if they want their husbands to do things for them that they, the husbands, don't always "feel" like doing, that they, the women, have to reciprocate, and sometimes do things (like have sex) that they don't feel like. Again, I see nothing wrong with that.
you:
"I'm at a loss of words to describe how bizarre this is."
What's bizarre about it? We agree there's a problem. We disagree as to the effectiveness of your proposed solution. We also disagree as to the cost of your solution. So, we disagree about what should be done. Remember, it's men going there own way, not men going YOUR way.
You say that you are a traditionalist, and want a constructive solution. Well then, rather than calling my ideas "bizarre," maybe you should do a little listening, and not just to your PUA gurus.
Women are the spoiled children of our society. They are used to having everything their own way from the time they are little girls. The only way to get them to change is "tough love." If we want them to be reasonable marriage partners, we have to make it clear to them that we are not available on any other terms. Catering to their whims only serves to empower them further. That's why we are on a marriage strike. Not because we don't want to be married. Not because we don't want kids. But because we will not put up with being married to a brat who thinks we should meet her every need, desire and whim, while she does next to nothing for us. And, it's the same with the divorce laws that women have demanded and gotten. We will not marry them on such ridiculously disadvantaging, one-sided terms. Change yourselves, and change the laws, and then we will talk about marriage. If not, we will go our own way without you. That's what its all about. That's the reality. Not acting like a "bad boy" in the hope that it will amuse Her Royal Hine-Ass enough so that she deigns to throw a sexual bone our way once in a while.
Women's sex drive increases in their mid 30's due to increased testosterone levels. Sometimes even a bit sooner.
The thing you keep referring to is what Roissy aptly calls 'asshole game', but that is only a small part of game. There is day game for example, which in itself excludes any cocky arrogant stuff.
Also, as I said it what feels like a thousand times, it is up to you what you do with knowledge. If you want to f*ck all girls, you can adjust your behaviour accordingly, but if you just want to keep your wife - and also yourself - happy, you might just need some tricks & tips.
""GAME" is mostly just some pick up lines (...)"
You're like a fifth grader telling a physics prof that physics is about apples falling and that's all there is to it.
I refuse to believe that you do not understand that I know more about game then you, and I know that you are wrong.
"I disagree, and I think you are giving young men terrible advice"
Now this is getting interesting.
HL said he improved his marriage with game, which is also true for me. If young men would follow our steps, their relationships would improve. Can't see anything wrong with that.
OTOH you seem to tell them to avoid women altogether. How is that good advice? You seem to have forgotten that young men are insane for/without women.
"You are telling young men not to worry about all of the above, to disregard what the MRA's and MGTOW's are telling them about marriage and divorce"
I never said anything like this.
All men should study BOTH MRA, MGTOW AND! GAME, because the combination of these 3 is the most empowering for them.
MGTOW should not mean running from women (like Marky Mark). MGTOW should mean an inner integrity, and not letting any women rule over you - and game fits this image perfectly.
"Let's not kid ourselves here, guys take up this PUA stuff so that they can meet and screw lots of women. End of story."
Oh, I see. So that HL and I keep saying that it improved our long term relationships must mean we are liars. Why would we lie remains unfathomable though.
Usually I'm not offensive but continually denying our experiences is plain stupidity.
"Your claim is that a married woman wants her husband to continually play the role of a "bad boy.""
No it isn't.
My claim is that with some psychological knowledge you can have better relationships, and you can get this kind of knowledge from PUA sites. Sure, you have to filter some bullshit, but it's well worth it. You never cared to filter the bullshit, so you keep saying that's all there is, but I just happen to know that you're wrong.
"women are not, by and large, stupid"
"Women are the spoiled children of our society"
Hmm.
Care to explain?
"It's changing your personality"
You can do that, but noone forces you to. PUA's say that if you want to reach a certain goal, there are tools for it. If you want to fck lots of girls, there is a method you can follow.
But you can use any bits of information any way you like. You are not forced to take or leave game as it is presented. I usually discard a good 50% of what I read on PUA sites, but the rest is very usable. I consider myself intelligent enough to recognise what might work for me or what info is usable in everyday life. You condemn the whole thing and by doing this you lose valuable knowledge.
I'm sure you could find most PUA stuff in psychology books too, but it will be scattered and harder to find.
"Bull! That's a direct quote. HL said:"
Well I missed it. It only means HL took the whole thing a step further than I would. Nothing much to argue about there. If he's comfortable with it and it makes his marriage better, well, all the better for him.
Pick up lines, answers to shit tests etc won't change you. You can use them as tools at your disposal.
You also can (just like me) extract what you like and leave the rest to others. I never cared about pick up lines or whatnot, but I still learned a lot.
"The avereage Joe aleady knows how to be himself."
Yep, and knows that he can't get enough girls. Probably that's why he's reading the sh*t.
Your advice is: DO NOT improve your communication and social skills, DO NOT learn what makes women horny, etc.
So basically our friend Joe could get more women, but you advize him to sit on his ass and do nothing, maybe to turn into a moaning avoider of women like Marky Mark.
Not good enough.
"I do not believe that this "solution" is anything but marginally effective"
You never tried it. I have.
"I do think that it should be an explicit part of the marriage contract that regular sex (barring injury or illness) be provided by both parties. What's so unreasonable about that?"
I don't enjoy sex with anyone who does not want to do it with me. I don't want the law to force my wife to have sex with me. I want my wife to WANT to have sex with me, and - believe it or not :) - I have the tools to do it.
I would abolish the legal concept of 'marital rape' though.
"We agree there's a problem. We disagree as to the effectiveness of your proposed solution. We also disagree as to the cost of your solution. So, we disagree about what should be done. Remember, it's men going there own way, not men going YOUR way."
Look, this paragraph of yours is mighty fine, except for a fundamental problem: I don't want to force anything on anyone, I only advize them to LEARN anything they can get their hands on.
OTOH you say something like they must NOT seek PUA stuff.
It's not me who's forcing "his way" on anyone.
"maybe you should do a little listening, and not just to your PUA gurus"
I don't have any :)
But I think my sex life is my businness, not the government's, so if something is wrong with it, I try to do it better instead of trying to create some laws enforcing unwilling women to have sex with me.
I have no personal problem with you but I sincerely cannot understand how you can argue with someone on a topic they clearly know more about. There sure are hundreds of things you know more about then me, but game is not one of them.
"Women's sex drive increases in their mid 30's due to increased testosterone levels. Sometimes even a bit sooner."
Actually, that usually happens in their 40's. In any event, it happens too late to save this average marriage, which is the real point.
"'asshole game' . . is only a small part of game."
"C and F." Being COCKY and Funny. A big part of "game." "Neg." Making left handed compliments, ie negative comments, to women. A big part of game. Go BS someone else. Most of game is projecting an asshole, "alpha" attitude. The rest is obvious body language "insights," unproven evo psych babble, and abbreviations and acronyms that aren't necessary or useful.
"If you want to f*ck all girls, you can adjust your behaviour accordingly. . ."
That's exactly what "game" is designed to do.
". . .but if you just want to keep your wife - and also yourself - happy, you might just need some tricks & tips."
That isn't what it was designed to do. And, for the umpteenth time, I refuse to resort to "tricks" to keep my wife "happy." I don't ask her to perform tricks, and I beleive that marriage should be an equal partnership. Not one in which she is allowed to be herself, and still get everything she wants from me, while I have to perform "tricks," like a trained seal or lap dog, to get what I want from her.
me:
""GAME" is mostly just some pick up lines (...)"
you:
"You're like a fifth grader telling a physics prof that physics is about apples falling and that's all there is to it."
And you're like a smart ass 4th grader who thinks that, just because he has learned that there is more to physics than gravity, that, somehow, means that gravity won't cause the apple to fall. Two can play at insults.
"I refuse to believe. . ."
I don't care what you believe.
"HL said he improved his marriage with game, which is also true for me. If young men would follow our steps, their relationships would improve. Can't see anything wrong with that."
How about this? A young man follows your advice. He disregards what science says about a woman's sex drive, what MRA's and MGTOW's say about marriage and divorce, and the state of divorce law and family court practice. So, he gets married. After a few years, his wife starts to shut down sexually. But, our hero remembers what you told him. He consults the PUA sites, and works on his "Game." When his wife says "No, I don't feel like having sex" he tries to A and A, he tries to make a joke out of it, he tries to be cocky and funny, he tries to "neg" her. He tries every trick in the PUA book, and while it works once in a while, it doesn't work nearly often enough to keep him satisfied. If he presses her, she simply tells him that she is under no obligation, legal or moral, to have sex with him when she doesn't "feel" like it, which is most of the time.
Now what? Should he divorce her, and get hammered in family court? Should he write to you and ask for his life back?
That's the scenario I envision. That's why I say your advice is terrible.
"OTOH you seem to tell them to avoid women altogether. How is that good advice? You seem to have forgotten that young men are insane for/without women."
I understand that, which is why my advice is not for young men to avoid women. My advice to them is to avoid making a legally enforceable commitment to a woman, through marriage or cohabitation. Enjoy having serial girlfriends, or doing one night stands (if you can get them, and if you find them to be satisfying).
"All men should study BOTH MRA, MGTOW AND! GAME, because the combination of these 3 is the most empowering for them.
MGTOW should not mean running from women (like Marky Mark). MGTOW should mean an inner integrity, and not letting any women rule over you - and game fits this image perfectly."
Marky Mark is not "running" from women. He is older, and no longer suffers from the lust that young men feel that you just alluded to. He is happy being single and feels no need for close relations with women.
As for combining PUA with MRA and MCTOW, I agree that that is possible. I'm not sure, though, that PUA is consistent with having an "inner integrity." Maybe no individual woman "rules over" the PUA, but women as whole seem to.
me:
"women are not, by and large, stupid"
"Women are the spoiled children of our society"
you:
"Hmm. Care to explain?"
Into debaters' points, are we? Actually, there is no contradiction there. A spoiled child is not necessarily a stupid child.
me:
"It's changing your personality"
you:
"You can do that, but noone forces you to."
Of course no one "forces" you to. When did I say otherwise? Stop setting up and knocking down strawmen.
The point is that the main technique of PUA is for you to change, or, at least, to be good at pretending you have changed, your personality. What are "alpha" and "beta" if not designations of personality types? The PUAs say that women want alphas, and, if you're a beta, you had better change into an "alpha" (or be good at pretending) if you want to score with them.
Of course, one is always free to disregard the advice of the PUA's, but that is hardly the issue here.
you:
"I'm sure you could find most PUA stuff in psychology books too, but it will be scattered and harder to find."
Actually, real psychology is quite different from PUA. It is not nearly so reductive, nor so one size fits all. It is also a real science, and as such, it relies on peer reviewed., replicable experiments and so on to make its points. Not on what Joey So and So says on his website that women want to hear based on his own alleged success in the bars.
"If he's comfortable with it and it makes his marriage better, well, all the better for him."
I do not think that any man should have to play act in his marriage. As one of the commenters on the last thread said, marriage is supposed to be about integrity, honesty, and transparency. Not pretending. OK, sure, HL is stuck. He is already married. Doing this PUA stuff may be a good thing for him because it gets him laid marginally more frequently and because it keeps him and Mrs. HL out of divorce court. But, a single man has the option of NOT being stuck by not getting married, so that he needn't make the best of a bad circumstance.
me:
"The avereage Joe aleady knows how to be himself."
you:
"Yep, and knows that he can't get enough girls. Probably that's why he's reading the sh*t. Your advice is: DO NOT improve your communication and social skills, DO NOT learn what makes women horny, etc. So basically our friend Joe could get more women, but you advize him to sit on his ass and do nothing, maybe to turn into a moaning avoider of women like Marky Mark. Not good enough."
First of all, I ask you, just for the sake of comity among MGTOWs, to leave MM out of it. He is happy at this stage of his life going his own way without women, and he is not even trying to dictate what other men, particularly younger men, should do.
As to your main point, you are again attacking a straw man. My comment about Joe average was in response to the claim that becoming a PUA is NOT about changing your personality. Well, I think that's bunk. It is about changing your personality. But, I also think, and I have said this more than once, that, for a young man, horny, lonely and unsuccesful with women, it might well be worth it for him to learn some PUA stuff. He might think that some personality changes, or some tips on faking it, are a reasonable price to pay to finally get somewhere with women. What I dispute is the efficaciousness, the fairness, and the advisibility of applying this line of reasoning to marriage.
me:
"I do think that it should be an explicit part of the marriage contract that regular sex (barring injury or illness) be provided by both parties. What's so unreasonable about that?"
you:
"I don't enjoy sex with anyone who does not want to do it with me."
That's what women say to rationalize their refusals to have sex with their husbands. Tell me, does your wife enjoy recieving a card, or flowers, or a night out, or presents on her birthday and other such "special" days? Does she like for you to praise her when she needs it, to hug and kiss and hold her and reassure her when she needs it? To give her your shoulder to cry on when she needs it? Does she? If the answer is yes, is it also absolutely necessary for her to be sure that you really "feel" like doing all these things each and every time you do them? I doubt it. Most men want regular sex. They want their wives to be totally into it, sure, but they will take it even if she's not.
"I don't want the law to force my wife to have sex with me."
Good for you. You realize though, don't you, that that WAS the law not so very long ago, and the accepted social practice.
No one is "forced" to get married. But, if a woman chooses to do so, she should realize that providing regular sex to her husband is part of the deal. A big reason many men marry is just that--they trade the low probablity of having sex with lots of women for the certainty of having sex with one woman. They assume that their wives will provide them with regular sex, as they thought that was still part of the deal, as they have foresworn having sex with all other women, and as she provided him with regular sex before they gotmarried. Then, often enough, these husbands are bitterly disappointed when they realize that that "certainty" does not pan out. I think everyone would be better off if the duty to be a sex partner to one's spouse was spelled out before the wedding.
". . . you say something like they must NOT seek PUA stuff."
Another strawman. That's not what I'm saying. Everyone should seek out whatever interests them. What I'm saying is don't expect this PUA stuff to save you from a sexless and loveless marriage. And, if you say differently, no matter how much you claim to "know" about the topic, I will still insist that you are giving young men bad advice.
Let me conclude by reviewing a little history, and making a couple of observations. When I was a kid, I was told that "what women wanted" was either a "man's man" (like the characters played by John Wayne--the "better" sort of women supposedly wanted this type of man) or a "ladies' man" (more like a Cary Grant character, or Clark Gable as Rhett Butler, a smooth talker, a flirt, kind of like a PUA--less worthy, superficial women were said to prefer this kind of man). Then, women's liberation and feminism came along, and, I was told that women didn't really want either of the above types of guys--a man's man was a "macho asshole" and a "ladies man" was, well, he was a pickup artist (originally meant as a term of derision), a bullshitter, an "exploiter" of women. The kind of man that women supposedly "wanted" was now a "woman's man." The model here was Alan Alda, sensitive, "respectful" of women "as persons," "in touch" with his "feelings," and maybe even his "feminine side." Then, only a few years later, I was told that this was all wrong. Women now "wanted" a "real man" (which sounds awfully similar to a "man's man"), not a whining, half-feminized, wannabe woman, girlie-boy going on and on about his "fee-fees" (ie his feelings). Paula Cole asked, "Where is my John Wayne?" Now, it seems, that was all wrong too. No, what women REALLY "want" (this week) is a "ladies man," a PUA, a Cary Grant/Rhett Butler type. A man should be a cocky, couldn't care less, "plenty of fish in the sea and I don't need any of them, least of all you, baby" "neging" "Alpha," and the women will go wild. On the other hand, we all know that this is really just an act. That the women actually "know" (and I think this would particularly apply to married women) that the guy is not "really like that," but is only performming, is consciously trying to push her buttons by play acting and pretending.
Well, frankly my dear, I don't give a damn. I no longer care what Her Majesty "wants." I doubt she even knows herself what she "wants." Still less am interested in, as a husband, playing the part of the cock of the walk for her amusement. The idea seems to be that she knows you're no top rooster, that she's your only hen, but that you should pretend the situation was otherwise. Then, like a lap dog making a show of how tough he is by jumping around and barking a lot at a big dog from behind the safety of a fence, she will find your antics cute and entertaining and deign, every so often, at her sole discretion, and if and when she really, really "feels" like it, to stroke you a couple of times as a reward for your ridiculous performance. I want no part of that. And I don't think most young men do either. All of your alleged "knowledge" and "experience" to the contrary notwithstanding.
I'm an American wife and I'd be horrified to find out that I'm a skank by default of being American. Only thing is, I had to move to a remote rural island in Scotland to find a man that actually wanted to get married and have kids. And I had to search amongst the 40-something crowd at that. It's not just *men* that are having a hard time finding potential spouses that behave like grownups, haven't slept with 800 people and actually have values and a desire to settle down and raise a family. There are plenty of "Ameriskank" men out there too. It's a problem on both sides of the fence.
My hope is that the MGTOW movement doesn't turn into a hate movement that is a mirror image of Feminism. That would be a shame.
Hmmm. I read all these men blogs and the common complaint is married women not being interested in sex. I must be a weirdo or something. I can't get enough of it! And I think my husband is totally hot. Still. Even with a baby now.
I dunno what's wrong with these other women...
Great commentary Deansdale.
Ruddy, all I can say is yeah, I do "play a cocky arrogant bastard." But my point is that when my wife throws out one of those "shit tests," -- which is nothing more than her biological instincts to see if the man she chose to mate with has a sufficient backbone -- I would respond according to the current, feminized cultural paradigm. I would try to cater to her, or deny any wrongdoing. I thought that being a "nice guy" all the time was the key to making her happy...yet that somehow always ended up with us arguing.
I literally did not know what the hell was going on.
Now that I have gained the knowledge with regards to feminine sexual psychology, it's not that I'm being "fake."
I HAVE FUN.
When my wife "shit tests" me, I now react without thinking. I go into "arrogant bastard" mode...but I do it PLAYFULLY.
And when I do that, my wife gets a gleam in her eye, and she plays right along with me and we banter bank and forth...often "negging" and "backhand-compliment" each other...and such conversations always end in laughter and affection.
And when I really took a step back and looked at my relationship with her...I realized something.
This is the exact kind of relationship she has with her dad.
When her and her father get together, she has the EXACT same type of conversations with her Father. He teases her, she teases him back and everyone ends up laughing.
If learning about what behavior and techniques makes my wife maintain her attraction and her lust for me means I'm being "fake" than I'll happily fake this until I die...because my wife and I get along far better in the past 2 years than we did for the first 7-8 years of our marriage. No comparison.
Believe me, I'm going on 11 years of marriage...and it's never been better.
HL:
Again, you seem to be agreeing with my assessment, and yet denying it at the same time. You yourself admit that you are only playing at being a cocky and arrogant bastard, but, a few paragraphs later, you put the word fake in scare quotes when you use it to describe your behavior. By your own admission, you playing at being something you're not, so, by your own definition, you ARE faking it. Semantics are not the issue here, the fact of the change in your behavior is.
You are not your wife's daddy. Why in the world should you have to pretend (or "play" or "fake") to be like him? Does you wife have to act like your mommy to keep you happy?
As I said, I realize we live in an imperfect world. You are already married, and you have found that the best way you have of dealing with your wife's bullshit is by using this PUA stuff on her. OK, its your marriage and your life.
But, I don't think you are doing young men any favors by portraying this PUA stuff as some sort of magic bullet. Maybe it works better on your wife than it will on other women. Maybe other men will not be as good as it as you are. Or, maybe they will find it intolerable to even have to try to use it.
In any event, PUA techniques, or "game," do not suffice to change the average Western women into a reasonable spouse. And it does nothing whatsoever to change the divorce laws which, as you put it, allows the wife to "cash out" at the husband's expense in divorce court whenever she feels like it.
My opinion remains the same (despite my acceptance of your description of your marriage and the positive effect that PUA has had on it): marrige is a bad deal for men in Western world. It, and its legal equivalent, cohabitation, should be avoided by men. The marriage strike should continue, grow and widen until women change their behavior and the laws.
"You yourself admit that you are only playing at being a cocky and arrogant bastard"
You know what? Strangest thing for me was when I realized that the previous behaviour of mine was also learned. And what a burden it was! For me to change the tiring, boring, self-humiliating play-acting feminized behaviour to a free-flowing, funny play-acting masculine behaviour was one of the best things in my life.
The main difference between us is that I want a happy family life and you don't. (No offense, just an observation.) If I know that I have to do certain things to ensure happy family life, I do those things readily and willingly. (Also learning game doesn't take much of an effort.)
You will do nothing.
We get results accordingly.
"He disregards what science says about a woman's sex drive, what MRA's and MGTOW's say about marriage and divorce"
I never said anyone should disregard MRA or MGTOW. Also I very much encourage every guy to learn about divorce before he marries.
"That's the scenario I envision."
Yes, it's a scenario you envision.
I don't have any problems with MarkyMark, in fact I have lots of respect for him. I read his blog often and I find most of his articles good. That he is bitter about women and avoids them is just a factual observation. It does not make him "less of a man". But he cannot be a role model for young men because they can't control their lust like an older man can do.
> "I don't enjoy sex with anyone who does not want to do it with me."
"That's what women say (...)"
No, it's what I said because I am this way :)
Your argument about wifely duties is perfect on a logical level, but simply does not work in real life. Sure, a wife should reciprocate a husband's work with sex, but - sadly - sex does not work this way that easily. In my view it's a lot better to be attractive to my GF and make her to want me, then to tell her in plain words that she should spread her legs because "it's reciprocation".
I say this again: what you say is logically and ethically true, but life does not work that way.
"that WAS the law not so very long ago, and the accepted social practice."
Yep, but I still do not enjoy sex with someone who's not enjoying it. My bad.
Also I believe that humankind should evolve, and in the process we should lose these kinds of laws.
And also I'm - besides being somewhat conservative - libertarian, and I'm very much against every law which interfere with private matters.
I know that it was a part of the marriage contract that the wife should have sex with his husband, but not many wives know that nowadays. If a woman signes a contract that explicitly says she must have sex anytime the husband wants to, then it must be enforcable. But I can't see any woman sign these kinds of contracts. If you would enforce this reinterpretation of marriage according to the old ways, that would only mean that marriage as an institution would cease to exist.
"if you say differently, no matter how much you claim to "know" about the topic, I will still insist that you are giving young men bad advice."
Practically what you say is we are liars.
I made a few mistakes ("her husband" of course...). Sorry, english is not my native language. This might also explain why I sound a bit more arrogant then I want to :)
Deansdale:
"Strangest thing for me was when I realized that the previous behaviour of mine was also learned. And what a burden it was!For me to change. . . "
Whatever, dude. First, you said THAT being a PUA was not about changing your personality. Now, you admit that it is. But, somehow, that is a good thing. You are so hung up on this stuff that you can't keep your rationalizations straight.
"The main difference between us is that I want a happy family life and you don't. (No offense, just an observation.)"
Not an "observation," just a misjugement. As I have said repeatedly, I would like a happy family life, but unfortunately, that is highly unlikely with a Western woman and under Western laws. You are just pretending that I didn't already respond to this claim of yours. I have. You are becoming boring and repetitive.
"If I know that I have to do certain things to ensure happy family life, I do those things readily and willingly. . . "
More boring repetition. You think it is worth changing your whole personality so that your wife will remain amused, and not throw you out of bed and into divorce court. I don't. There is no resolution possible here. It's called a difference of opinion.
"You will do nothing. We get results accordingly."
Yes, I live my life as a free man, according to my own lights. You play bantam rooster for your wife's amusement.
"I very much encourage every guy to learn about divorce before he marries."
Then, we are in agreement there.
"Marky Mark. . .avoids [women]. . .he cannot be a role model for young men because they can't control their lust like an older man can do."
Which I already agreed with. As I said, I think younger men should interact with women, only do so in ways that do not legally commit themselves to any one of them (by avoiding marriage or cohabitation).
"Your argument about wifely duties is perfect on a logical level. . ."
Thank you.
". . . but simply does not work in real life. Sure, a wife should reciprocate a husband's work with sex, but - sadly - sex does not work this way that easily. . . "
Actually, what I referred to as being comparative to sex was more in the line of the little emotional and physical things a man does for a woman (flowers, presents, shoulder to cry on, hugs, kisses, "I love you's" and so on). These are things of the heart, and of the body, much like sex, and the man does them, to some extent at least, out of duty. There is nothing in the world wrong with the wife having a reciprocal duty as to sex.
Marriage should be a two way street. If it isn't, then, in my opinion, it's not worth having. You may disagree. OK, but so what? Does that make my opinion wrong?
"In my view it's a lot better to be attractive to my GF and make her to want me, then to tell her in plain words that she should spread her legs because 'it's reciprocation.'"
Again, there can questions of degree. I would say it's one thing for to try to be "attractive," but it's another for you to change, or pretend to change, your personality. The former is reasonable, the latter, again, in my opinion, is not.
Also, it now turns that you AREN'T married. If your GF consistently and flatly refuses to "reciprocate," despite all your "GAME" and PUA antics, you can always bail on the relationship. If you were married, you wouldn't have that option. And, I am advising men not to marry, not to avoid having girlfriends.
"I say this again: what you say is logically and ethically true, but life does not work that way."
Again, I realize that. So, the question is what to do about a less than ideal situation. In HL's case, as I said, PUA might be called for because he is already married, and using it might get him laid more often and keep him and Mrs. HL out of divorce court.
But, a single man has a choice to make. He has to decide whether he can and should live in a situation that is, as you admit, "ethically" unbalanced. I say no. Don't enter into any relationship that is not fair. Don't play the subordinate role to anyone. Marriage, with a Western woman and under Western law, is unethical, and should be shunned.
Obviously, this means giving up, at least temporarily, having a real family life with a wife and children. But, that needn't be forever. A young man can apply himself and get the money and skills needed to live outside the West. And, he can work towards changing the women and the laws in the West. Men can marry and procreate well into middle age. Maybe, by then, some real reforms will be in place and marrige can be a real option again.
". . .I still do not enjoy sex with someone who's not enjoying it. My bad."
Stop patting yourself on the back for this. You are not married. You can bail on your GF at any time, if she stops putting out. You have no idea what it's like to have vowed to only have sex with one woman, and then to have that one woman turn around and refuse to have sex with you. And for that to be the prospect for the rest of either yours or her life. Walk in those shoes, Mr. Experienced Expert, and then come back and tell me what you think.
". . .we should lose these kinds of laws. . . "
Why? Marriage is all about reciprocal duties. Why is it so outrageous that one of them should be providing sex to your spouse?
That's supposed to be the very basis of marriage. That's what a marriage is, and has always been all about: a societal, familial, moral, spiritual, religous, community and governmental sanction for two people to engage in a sexual relationship. Barring injury or illness, that's what it means to "be married." That it is lawful, expected, licit, right and proper for the two of you to be having sex.
". . .besides being somewhat conservative - libertarian, and I'm very much against every law which interfere with private matters. . ."
Marriage is a legal contract. The matter is not strictly "private." As you would quickly find out if ever you got married and then were served with divorce papers. A marriage license is a government document. It is only given to people who meet certain, legally defined, requirements. A married couple have all sorts of reciprocal rights and duties, including everything from property and inheritance rights to health care proxies, powers of attorney, control over burials, and so on. It is a legal relationship, not a "private matter."
"If a woman signes a contract that explicitly says she must have sex anytime the husband wants to, then it must be enforcable. But I can't see any woman sign these kinds of contracts. . . ."
If a woman won't sign a contract guaranteeing her husband regular sex (barring injury, illness, or other compelling excuse), I say don't marry her. Period. No man should give up his right to seek sex with other women if his wife will not give up her right to refuse him regular sex. The deal is too one-sided otherwise.
"If you would enforce this reinterpretation of marriage according to the old ways, that would only mean that marriage as an institution would cease to exist."
I doubt it. First of all, I would make it explicit, so that no woman could claim to have had the rug pulled out from under her.
And, woman want to get married very, very much (like men want sex). They dream of it and pine for it. They watch movies and TV shows and read magazines and books about it. And, they know marriage is a good deal for women (it's too good, actually, that's the problem). If they want kids, and most of them do, at some point, they need a husband to share the costs and burdens of childcare, or else risk falling out of the middle class.
So, I think a good many of them would still like to get married, even if regular sex were an explicit requirement. But, if that is not true, then I still say it's a good thing, because men will no longer be bamboozled into thinking that today's girlfriend, who puts out, will also put out tommorow, when she is his wife.
Women get too damn much out of marriage and give too little back. That's one of the reasons why there is a marriage strike in the first place. I see no problem whatsoever with taking steps towards righting that imbalance.
"Practically what you say is we are liars."
Again, you are repeating yourself. I'm not saying you or HL is a liar. I'm saying you are only two people. Which does not represent more than an anecdote.
And, I now realize, in your case, you are not even married. You have been sort of presenting yourself as an "expert" in how "GAME" can work in a marriage. But, it turns out, you have no actual experience in this regard. When you "neg" or A and A, or whatever it is you do, to your GF, it may have some credibility, precisely because you not married, because you are legally free, because you have not vowed to be faithful to her, because she is not necessarily the only "fish" in your "sea." I think that makes a big difference, as I have said all along.
In any event, what is the basis of your alleged "expertise?" That you have perused some websites? Big deal, I've looked at them too. That you've read a pop evo-psych book? I've read such books too. And, "GAME" is NOT a recognized science, so any notion of "expert credentials" is misplaced. You are (no offense intended) just a guy who thinks his girlfiend screws him more often than would otherwise be the case because you use "GAME." That is the alpha and the omega of your "expertise."
Furthermore, this is the internet. What people do here is express their opinions. And an opinion is not invalid merely because someone who disagrees with it claims to "know more" about the topic, even if that were true. If Donald Rumsfeld was here defending the invasion of Iraq, would your (hypothetical) opinion opposing it be out of line just because he "knows more" about the topic than you do? Or, if Noam Chomsky was here opposing the invasion of Iraq, would your (again, hypothetical) opinion opposing it be illegitimate because he "knows more" about it than you do? That's not the way the internet works. No one has to bow or defer to anyone else, merely because that person claims the status of an "expert."
Fascinating discussion here. I'm young and as yet unmarried. Ruddy's reasoning is very sound.
I do not want to be any woman's 'bantam rooster'. It's a powerful realization; thank you good Sir.
Ruddy, you're an intelligent person with good logical skills, but you cannot get away from the concept that you are perfect. You have less information then me, also you have less experience then me in the theory and application of game, yet you still stick to the belief that you are right and I am wrong.
Ancient greeks said that you can prove anything with logic, but that doesn't make that thing "really true". This discussion is powerful proof of this.
Your basic premise is wrong, so despite your logic being flawless, your results are still wrong.
90% of men in the western world live feminised lives. They are raised to believe that they must cater to their GF's needs. AW uses this shamelessly to it's limits. That is why marrying an average AW is a bad idea.
I was feminized too, and I lived in a relationship where I tried to do everything for my GF thinking it will make her happy.
It never worked. Our relationship became sexless and later fell apart.
Game tought me that I was doing it wrong. I realized that besides it didn't work, it was also very tiring and not "natural".
Game didn't change me. It just made clear statements that certain actions result in certain consequences. Feminized actions lead to sexless relationships, masculine actions lead to the opposite.
If you interpret this as "being a PUA changes your personality", well, whatever. I interpret this as learning what I did wrong and improving myself.
I never spent a second memorizing pickup lines, practising anything in front of mirrors of whatever. I just read PUA stuff, I realize that doing X causes Y and that's it.
You think that using game is a sacrifice, it's hard work and a radical change of one's personality, but it's none of that. I know because I USE IT every day. And you are wrong because you never tried it for a second and you never even gave it a good thought. Sticking to a belief in spite of evidence to the contrary is childish, that's what I tried to tell all along. I did not want to insult you.
Thinking that you ought to be loved the way you are, and if it does not work then it's the other's fault IS WHAT FEMINISTS PREACH ALL DAY LONG. That is why they are absolutely unlovable. They are egoistic assholes.
So please consider dropping this mentality.
I stopped whining and learned how to interact with women successfully, and IT WORKS. And I'm not arrogant, not even really cocky. But I certainly do not give in to a girl's whining and nagging or whatever - and my GF keeps on telling me how manly I am (which I never heard from girls until I learned game).
In other words, game tought me to go my own way without any remorse, and that girls will like me more for it. It's the core of MGTOW! Game gave me tools to reach my goals, but surprisingly to use most of these "tools" means only to act natural, to act like I would act if I had the confidence in myself, and so on. It's not hard, it's not unnatural. In fact it is liberating. I care less about what a girl might think if I just make a joke instead taking her seriously and girls love it. This way I don't have to tire myself with all the female shit they used to trow at me. If a girl acts hyper or throws a fit I just ignore her or make fun of her. That's what I would have done all my life if I hadn't been tought that that would make her love me less. In fact it makes her love me more.
I will not continue this discussion because I know that I am right and I don't have the energy to try again and again to prove what I experience to some disbelievers. You don't like game? Fine with me. You're free not to like it. It works for me and for others, and I suggest every intelligent guy should look at it.
In other news, if 50% of marriages ends in divorce, that means the other 50% works. More or less :)
So my advice is not to leave women alone altogether, just be REALLY careful in who you choose to live with. There are some good women out there and if you find one, don't hesitate. You'll be a lot happier.
"You have no idea what it's like to have vowed to only have sex with one woman"
I didn't want to go into details but it seems I have to.
I cohabitated with my GF for 5 years. Apart from the paperwork it was exactly like marriage. I learned game at the very end of our relationship, when it was already sexless and dead so it could not help there.
It's a lot different with the GF I have now. If I learned game sooner, my whole life would have been different.
Hi, HL
Just finished reading your blog entries about the MRAs, PUAs, and MGTOWs; whose claims, attitude, and tones I've researched for a couple of years before making a firm decision about where I stand. It turns out that I'm not really ANY of these groups - I'm a "Free Agent" so to speak (although by definition I'm probably more of a MGTOW than anything else, but not of the bitter sort).
YOUR DEBATES with MGTOWs: Both sides put up a very admirable defense of their views, but in the end I declare you the victor by a hairwidth, but only within the limits of the issues you and the other MGTOWs debated.
I'm committed childfree and have been so since my late 20s (I'm 41 now) - for a wide variety of personal and philosophical reasons. I won't go into detail about them here because they're not germane to MGTOWs reasons most frequently posted in the debates. The point is that, even if on some level men are designed to reproduce, reproduction should not be obligatory for a man, particularly if he wouldn't be a happy and/or respectable father.
Other than overlooking my claim, I'd say you won the debate overall, though the MGTOWs did put up a very good fight.
Post a Comment