“The Married Man Sex Life Primer” And Its Use For The Unmarried Man

As an unmarried man who has thrown a lot of his blogging weight behind game for LTR (long-term relationships), Athol Kay’s “Married Man Sex Life” blog has been required reading for me for the better part of the last year. It gives me great pleasure to wholeheartedly recommend “The Married Man Sex Life Primer 2011,” which despite its name has a special utility to single men.

Among pickup artists, nihilistic cynics, theorists, MGTOWs and other denizens of the Manosphere, Athol is one of the very few who has made the systematic application of game to LTRs his modus operandi. A look at the divorce stats shows he has hit on an obvious market failure, and like the successful game writers across the Internet, he has empirical proof of success from the dozens upon dozens of readers who have told him his blog has saved their marriages, or at least their sex lives.

Athol’s writing doesn’t have the epic and soaring quality of, say, Roissy, but it hits just as hard in his practical, no-nonsense way. At the same time his one-liners and whimsical language make it laugh out loud funny. (I need to send a copy to the Aussie guy I know who told me Kiwis didn’t have a sense of humor.)

BEGIN WITH THE END IN MIND

Fit for his intended audience – dissatisfied husbands and wives – Athol opens his tome with some “how we got here” human mating psychology and the Body Agenda (which includes a shockingly frank discussion about the biological incentives and strategies for both genders to cheat) and then moves into the Male Action Plan for attraction value and tactics for leveraging that value. The final portion waxes philosophic on modern marriage and choosing a spouse.

The single person reading the book should consider reading the last section first, however, because it’s so obvious that the right partner is key to making this work. With good choices and a bit of good fortune, one can hopefully avoid the need for the intervention in the first place. That’s not to say the alpha and beta traits won’t be necessary – just that by choosing the right mate, they’ll be highly effective in getting the life you want (and the one she wants too).

The book contains repeated references and anecdotes to what an attractive, cooperative and all around high-quality wife Jennifer is. It’s easy to say that Athol’s stuff works well because he has a great wife, and that’s certainly part of the story, but it’s the biggest part of the story for someone who hasn’t married yet and thus has control over that variable. Choosing the right spouse will make all of it possible; choosing the wrong one, well you can read any number of manosphere blogs to see how that turns out.

The checklist items for choosing a wife are incredibly insightful, and remarkable quite simply for the fact that Athol is unapologetic about passing on wife candidates for what we’ve been told are shallow and “unloving” reasons – such as weight and health problems, lack of discipline, sexual promiscuity or poor family history. Athol underlines that men of quality who want to marry have to understand their market value is sky high, they can afford to be choosy, and that marital happiness won’t result if she’s just “almost good enough.”

He is also unapologetic about his view (one I concur with) that a reasonable sex life flowing from mutual sexual attraction is a key part of the marriage contract. A happy marriage and a sex life are too critical to throw away by marrying, or staying married to, a person uninterested in reasonable attention to your needs. On this point, he says simply “don’t settle.”

A MAGNUM OPUS

I was very impressed with how Athol adapted his blog material to book format. Most of his blog posts are short and succinct and he has the comments section to refine and update the ideas. In a book you have a one-way information push, a big risk with the subtle nuances and implications of many of the topics.

Athol’s manosphere research shines through the entire book, hitting core points such as Alpha and Beta traits, general fitness, sexual escalation, oneitis, dominance, chumpitude, acting the prize and fitness tests.

You should buy it. And read it (important step there). And buy copies for friends, married or not, happily or not. Anyone who is serious about their relationship can learn something from it, even if it’s only why what comes naturally to them works.

It’s that good.

About these ads

36 Comments

Filed under beta guide, living a good life, media, primary sources

36 responses to ““The Married Man Sex Life Primer” And Its Use For The Unmarried Man

  1. I strongly disagree with much of the material on Athol’s website.

    1. When it comes to the institution of marriage, I take the same view as the MGTOW guys. DON’T.

    2. The descriptions of alpha and beta.

    Rather than “Beta = Comfort = Oxytocin” I would say that
    “Beta = Submissive Role = Taking Orders” is much a better formulation.

    3. Guys qualifying themselves to women.

    Apart from learning Game, any “self-improvement” that a man does for other people is worse than useless. He should either do it for himself, or not at all!

    I am not a work-in-progress or a fixer-upper. Either accept me as I am now or GTFO.

    3. Criteria used to screen women for LTRs.

    I don’t want kids, so that’s always been the number one screen for me. If a woman wants more babies – I’m not her guy!

    Looks are important, but its so subjective that you can’t write about that. Does she pass the boner test?

    Barring problems of a Game-related nature, the selection of a long term partner then is about purely practical considerations.

    Where are we going to live?
    What are we going to do for money?
    Will living together be easier than living alone for both of us?
    How will we spend our time?

    Etc, etc.

    I’ve had girlfriends who seemed great when we were going out, but living with them was a nightmare.

    You have no way of knowing what a woman is really like until you move in with her.

    There are also no guarantees that practical circumstances won’t throw a wrecking ball at your relationship.

  2. TYPO: the second “3” should be a “4”.

  3. I’m surprised you didn’t like the tone of the Marriage 2.0 chapter Workshy Joe.

  4. detinennui32

    AK’s book is a must-have for married men, esp. on Marriage 2.0.
    Question: is marriage 1.0 completely gone? Has today’s culture completely destroyed it? Or are there still practitioners of it? Marriage 2.0 is unacceptable. So what will Marriage 3.0 look like?

  5. Marriage 1.0 is gone completely because the legal framework has changed. There’s simply no option to choose 1.0 as any legal marriage is 2.0 per the law.

    You can try and have a 1.0 marriage, but it can finish with a 2.0 ending whether you want it to or not.

    Marriage 3.0 is hopefully the solution, but it’s ill-defined and to be honest I haven’t put much thought into it beyond the obvious inclusion of mandatory paternity testing.

  6. I’m with Workshy Joe here: when it comes to women and marriage, DON’T play the game! To allude to the movie, Wargames, I can say this WRT Marriage 2.0: strange game-the only winning move is not to play…

    [Great to see you here, MarkyMark.]

  7. Brendan

    I think that the site and the book are very good resources for men who are already married or who really want to get married. Athol is quite right — if you are married or want to marry, it’s going to be marriage 2.0, whether you are “traditionalist” or not –> at the end of the day, it’s the legal regime governing marriage that matters, because your traditionalist wife can and will utilize marriage 2.0 legal tools if she ever changes her mind about being a traditionalist. So if you want to survive the gauntlet of marriage 2.0, you need a strategy and a plan, and you need to realize that it’s going to require a lot of work and effort along the lines described — if you do that, and want to do that, you can succeed, I think, despite the risks, provided you find a suitable partner.

    The broader question of whether men should marry is largely academic. Some of us who are divorced have our own points of view on that question. But the reality is that most men will marry, anyway. There is no real marriage strike, nor will there be: most undivorced men are attracted to women and want to be in relationships with them, for the most part. So the site and book are quite useful, I think, for most guys, because no matter what you might think, most guys are not going to be MGTOW — just isn’t reality.

  8. detinennui32

    @ AK and Brendan:

    First, I have been devouring AK’s book and it’s a real honor to get feedback directly from the author. Thanks, AK.

    I had not considered that you can have a marriage starting as 1.0 but end as a 2.0. I think that’s true, though my own up to this point has been mostly 1.0 with traditionally defined gender roles. I can see that lack of effort will cause 1.0 to morph rapidly to 2.0.

    Marriage 3.0 should probably include mandatory paternity testing, elimination of no fault divorce, elimination of punitive divorce laws, and more than perfunctory child custody decisions. If wife is at fault, she gets no alimony. Period. Child support has to be managed by the court, not the custodial parent, who should be held to account for dollars spent. There should be a return of social and legal pressure brought to bear on marrieds to remain married. The legal pressure can be applied with the change in laws, but I don’t see that happening unless the society begins to demand it en masse. Unfortunately I don’t see that happening either. The legal culture usually follows what the culture at large wants. As an aside, I can say that if my current marriage ended for any reason, I am pretty sure I would not marry again in today’s society or climate.

    Agree there’s no widespread marriage strike. Looks to me that men who want to marry get married, sometimes unwisely. OTOH I personally know many never married women and divorced women. Many are work colleagues or college friends born in the late 60s who came of age in the late 80s – and they spent their formative years marinating in feminism. They don’t get married or remarried — not because they don’t want to, but because they can’t. They’ve waited too long, or they didn’t work out their issues, and it’s too late now. They can’t find a suitable partner, they are way too picky, they have too many “issues”, or they’ve simply hit the wall and are sexually invisible. I know I’m just repeating what many, many others have said – and it’s experience that keeps being brought up time and again. It bears repeating — as a warning to women.

    Even when I was in college with these girls, I could see they would never be suitable marriage material for me, because they had been so steeped in feminism. With my male friends, the main thing we wanted from women to marry were (1) for her to be pleasant; and (2) for her to want to be with me more than her career. These college girls were career oriented. They weren’t pleasant. They were in there mixing it up with us men, and becoming junior ballbusters. I considered having sex with some – and did have sex with a few. But marriage? That was simply never, NEVER going to happen.

  9. detinennui32

    And as it turned out, these women, love them as I might, weren’t marriage material for anyone — mostly because they chose not to do the things that could have made them attractive to a possible mate.

  10. The Man Who Is . . .

    Buyer beware. Mr. Kay seems to be a well meaning guy who has kept his wife happy and improved his marriage through application of game techniques. However, his wife was and is, how shall I put this delicately, not as attractive as some other women, even in her early 20s, so I am somewhat skeptical of his qualifications in this area. I’d take it all with a big grain of salt.

  11. Mister Lettuce

    “May 4, 2011 at 11:22 am
    And as it turned out, these women, love them as I might, weren’t marriage material for anyone — mostly because they chose not to do the things that could have made them attractive to a possible mate.”

    That’s a profound quote there.

  12. Lovekraft

    detinennui32 is on the mark as far as changing the legal landscape of marriage to ensure fairness and balance, not to mention eliminating the incentive for divorce for some women.

    To add to this, we should also look at the framework PRIOR to getting married, to ensure the right questions get asked and feminist leanings get weeded out.

    Primarily, I want the onus on winning over the women to be changed, so that men aren’t under this notion that their only purpose is to serve her, thus feeding her entitlement ego.

    Let HER prove herself worthy to the man. Let society start putting her under the microscope as far as her attitudes, sexual history, social skills etc. The man still has to bring something to this, but not under feminism’s definition.

    The goal of this is to amplify the beta status.

  13. Actually one of the things I cover is that even the people (like my parents) that married under 1.0 law, had their marriage agreement changed to 2.0 whether they wanted that or not. When the law changes, so does your marriage agreement retroactively.

    You simply can’t marry 1.0 anymore – that law is gone. You can be delusional that you are marrying 1.0, but you sign a 2.0 marriage license under 2.0 law. Traditional roles =/= marriage 1.0.

    What Marriage 3.0 will be is unknown at this point.

  14. Oh and to be completely blunt – having a big party at a wedding is perfectly fine. But you really should have legal representation before you sign on the dotted line for any binding legal agreement.

    The fact that people DIY the biggest contract of their life is beyond stupid. That really is something that should be changed.

  15. My Name Is Jim

    I saw the MMSL book is out in Kindle now, bought it. It’s behind several other good books in the queue, but I’ll get to it. So much great material, so little time.

  16. @ The Man Who Is…

    I met my wife when I was 21. I published my book when I was 41. Regardless of your perception of my wife’s attractiveness when she was in her early 20’s, it doesn’t rule out the possiblity that I learned something over the two decades between the two events.

    In anycase, I’ve already written about how neither one of us is a 10. But we do have a dramatic reaction to each other better than our Sex Rank would seem to justify. We have excellent chemistry together and are quite happy with each other.

  17. The Man Who Is,

    I’ve blocked your further comments. Direct debate about a friendly commenter’s wife’s sex rank is not for this blog. In any event I can’t figure how you know so much about the topic anyway.

  18. The Man Who Was . . .

    Badger:

    Athol seems like a nice enough guy, but he is putting himself out as an expert and the sex rank of his wife is extremely relevant to whether he actually qualifies as such an expert. I have tried to be as nice as possible about this, but just there is no getting around it. I can’t see how pointing this out is illegitimate.

  19. No… you claimed I’m not an expert now, based on how you think my wife looked twenty years ago.

  20. TMWW,

    You’ve put a lot of good stuff on the net. I suggest you not ruin that by doubling down on this. I gave you a way to draw down but you blew right past it.

  21. The Man Who Was . . .

    Athol:

    Dude, pictures of your wife are publicly available through a major newspaper, plus lots of your photos on Facebook are available for other people to look at. Based on all of those pictures, I think I have a pretty good idea what your life looks, and looked, like. In my experience, women of that level of attractiveness do not take much, if any, game to get and keep happy. Admitting that neither of you is a 10 is no admission at all and a bit of a dodge.

    If you are disputing that you have put yourself out as an expert, well you’ve just published a self help book. If that isn’t putting yourself out as an expert, I don’t know what is. I used to be a fan, but after seeing the pictures, to be honest, I felt kinda duped. I don’t think you should be giving out advice.

  22. I’ll just keep running posts of marriages saved and sex lives restarted.

    /shrug

  23. The weakness of the internet is the inability to use steel caps on someone who really deserves it.

  24. The Man Who Was . . .

    [you're done, man.]

  25. “Now I’ve got to wonder just how attractive were those women.”

    Does it matter? Kept some guys out of getting divorced by them. A few less men dropped into the family court combine harvester seems like a win.

  26. The Banned Person

    you’re done, man.

    So public figures now exempt from criticism?

    [I see your point - if America is a place where a blogger won't let a keyboard alpha who has already made his point abundantly clear continue to cast aspersions on a third party's wife, then the terrorists have won.]

    What I have said here has had substance and direct relevance to Mr. Kay’s qualifications. Argument isn’t always going to be pretty and this kind of banning nonsense reminds me of Jezebel or Feministing.

    [The Badger Hut = Jezebel? GMAFB. Nobody's been banned. When you want to contribute sensible discussion you'll be welcomed back.]

    Why can’t someone point out that the emperor is missing, at the very least, a few pieces of clothes? [Is that a double entendre?] And if someone is being snarky and condescending with me, why just ban me? [You are the only person on this thread who fits this description.]

    Stop being so thin skinned.

    [It seems you're the guy who's butthurt I'm enforcing some standard of argument here. You've got a clear case of Internet Male Syndrome and if you have such exacting taste in women, pics or GTFO.]

    I guess I just got really pissed off at Badger’s over the top panegyric and some of the other hype being put out there.

    [Don't think I'm playing favorites...I'll write a review of your "How To Game HB10 Wives" as soon as it's published. Better get writing.]

  27. Stephenie Rowling

    Heh you should post the Dalrock pic of Lorraine Berry here, our OP will see that low maintenance game is not about looks.

  28. Pingback: Linkage is Good for You: Defying Gravity Edition

  29. PT Barnum

    The broader question of whether men should marry is largely academic. Some of us who are divorced have our own points of view on that question. But the reality is that most men will marry, anyway. There is no real marriage strike, nor will there be: most undivorced men are attracted to women and want to be in relationships with them, for the most part. So the site and book are quite useful, I think, for most guys, because no matter what you might think, most guys are not going to be MGTOW — just isn’t reality.

    But they don’t have to marry to have children, DO THEY? That’s the little package you blantantly blatant try to sell. Oh sure, women latch on to that child as hard as they can, but you really only need a woman’s womb for maybe 27 months all told. Then they are basically useless.

    Did I just make the poor little “practical” man upset? Did I just enter a “no go” zone?

    Even in marriage 2.0, child support for 18 years is only child support for 18 years. You still don’t have to marry her.

    And that’s what almost nobody every says.

    Where do single mothers come from? Men not being stupid. As such, they need to be shamed. The meal ticket sequence most be preserved.

  30. Will S.

    Thursday is a pretty bright guy, but he has a rather high opinion of himself (with much justification; like I said, he’s quite bright, but still; nobody is always correct, and Christians should know something about striving for humility), and also, little patience for those who disagree with him.

  31. PT Barnum

    Thursday is a pretty bright guy, but he has a rather high opinion of himself (with much justification; like I said, he’s quite bright, but still; nobody is always correct, and Christians should know something about striving for humility), and also, little patience for those who disagree with him.

    You have no patience for those who disagree with you as you have already demonstrated. Nor are you really Men’s Rights. “Your going to have to attract a woman or you will go extinct” is right out and pointed at men. Immediately. Very few mention the idea of children out of wedlock.

    It’s okay for women to leverage their power as brutally as possibly while you sit on your hands. But men’s very obvious power of “leave her”…. well, that’s just not fair!

    Witness Badger, two major relationships, two desires to get married. It is clear his major practical power of “Bye, dear” is zero. Or as close to zero as you can be and not be in marriage hell. That’s why Susan likes him.

    Oh what a Ladies Man he is! Owned by the Ladies I mean. And when he has to chose between men and women, how swiftly is the decision made!

  32. You’re not as funny as the real PT Barnum.

  33. PT Barnum

    Smiles or fangs, you are all the same.

  34. Jennifer

    Excellent points.

  35. Pingback: Happy Birthday to the Badger Hut, Part 2: Best Posts | The Badger Hut

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s