I’m a dude with an opinion. If you are a really hot girl send photos to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Here’s a question that has been bugging me for some time:
Bloggers like Solomon II, et al seem to have ascribed the prevalence of unhappy LTRs to a change in gender roles. People have gone from advocating “equality” to advocating for “sameness” because they think equality and sameness are the same thing. This has led to the masculinization of women and the feminization of men, thus leading to unhappy marriages, faithless women, etc.
But have marriages or LTRs ever been “happy”? Sure, they were more stable back in the day when divorce was taboo. But back then, affairs were more prominent, cuckoldry was more commonplace amongst the educated middle class, etc.
So while I agree with the diagnosis that fundamentalist feminism may be to blame for a lot of social ills, is the solution really to wind the clock back?
Nailhead, meet Confidunce’s hammer.
Men and women are not the same. Equal before the law, yes. But they don’t think, behave or process information the same. They also don’t approach each other in the same way. The biological imperatives driving us are quite different. I did not get this until very recently.
Were pre-feiminist marriages or LTRs “happy”? I suspect the answer is that like today, some were, some weren’t. I don’t advocate going back to the days when women could not vote, hold jobs, work in certain jobs, own property, etc. I do think that if men and women get married, the marriage works best and the participants happiest and most satisfied with the man and woman in their traditionally defined roles (man usually as breadwinner and provider/protector; woman rearing the children and caring for and making a home). I am NOT saying that a woman has to be barefoot, pregnant and unemployed to be a good wife. I am NOT saying she has to be a doormat. I am NOT saying the man has a right to beat or rape his wife, or have sex with her against her will. What I am saying is that marriage works best when man and woman move into these roles. That is what is commonly called Marriage 1.0.
I tend to agree with Athol Kay that what we have now is Marriage 2.0 in which men are at a decided disadvantage. To level the field, the man has to incorporate game into his life. Being a beta provider and bringing home a good paycheck ain’t gonna cut it with today’s woman. He has to lead her, insist on her subordination, and push back when need be. He has to lead her in sex. And he has to improve himself in his key weak areas and keep his market value high.
(In market value, the man has an advantage: a man’s market value declines far less rapidly and precipitously than a woman. His MV goes up and peaks in his 30s and 40s, then declines gradually as he ages. For a woman, on the other hand, her MV skyrockets from age 18 to about age 30; after which her market value plunges back to earth far and quickly. If a woman found herself widowed or divorced, she was (and is) quite unlikely to marry again. This is commonly known as “hitting the wall”. Marriage 1.0 protected women from this phenomenon.)
Staying the same will lead to wife’s loss of tingles, and that leads to misery, affairs, and divorce. When push comes to shove, he needs to demonstrate he can and will walk away if he’s not getting what he needs from his marriage; and then make good on the promise.
We’re never going back to Marriage 1.0. If it can be done, Marriage 3.0 will probably look something like 2.0 with the following;
1. mandatory paternity testing for all children born to a marriage on request of the putative father;
2. elimination of alimony;
3. proof that child support payments to custodial divorced parents are actually being used for child support, and
4. more equitable property distribution in divorce (if wife gets house, wife takes over house payments and pays husband his share of the equity).
very well said Sir. well said, indeed.
“3. proof that child support payments to custodial divorced parents are actually being used for child support, and”
I think they should create something like divorce coupons that can only being spent on things the kids actually need. Food, clothes and all that. The father could pay the government his monthly child support and they will print it in coupons and deliver it to the mother. That will probably guarantee the money is used for the kids needs only and coupons are not glamorous at all, something that will take the shine a bit of the divorce fantasy, YMMV.
You lost me, Detinn. Started off with great points, then plummeted to some of the most depressing and distasteful views of marriage I’ve seen. This isn’t said in anger; I’m uniformly sad about the condition of marriage and the views of confused people all around.
“People have gone from advocating “equality” to advocating for “sameness” because they think equality and sameness are the same thing. This has led to the masculinization of women and the feminization of men, thus leading to unhappy marriages, faithless women, etc.”
Brilliant points. What we need to do is remember what marriage is really about: self-sacrifice, teamwork, real love (and I don’t mean the romantic kind perse).
Jen said: “You lost me, Detinn. Started off with great points, then plummeted to some of the most depressing and distasteful views of marriage I’ve seen. This isn’t said in anger; I’m uniformly sad about the condition of marriage and the views of confused people all around.”
I suspect you, like I, would advocate a return to Marriage 1.0. I’d like that but it’s not likely to happen, at least not without other cultural or societal events or effects. Otherwise, the marriage rate will continue to decrease mostly because many men will decide (and have already decided) that marriage isn’t worth it and the costs and risks are too high relative to the benefits.
I say a man should show he can and will walk away from his marriage if he isn’t getting what he needs. This is showing the alpha traits women repeatedly keep saying and showing they want their men to have, Do you find this objectionable? He’s saying he won’t put up with her endless complaining. Is this objectionable?
It’s really no different from a woman deciding her husband is too beta, deciding she has no attraction for him anymore, and looking for sex elsewhere. This is played out millions of times in marriages.
I have told my wife straight out – if she ever cheats on me, or if I find she has ever cheated on me, I will drag her through the ugliest divorce she’s ever seen. And I will inform everyone I know of the reasons for the divorce. I love her. But I won’t tolerate being cheated on or cuckolded == not for one minute. And I’ll have paternity tests on the kids. And I will tell everyone I know that paternity tests are being done, and why they are being done.
Marriage 2.0 with paternity testing, no alimony and equitable property distribution is the only way to make marriage palatable and attractive to men. Without it, marriage as an institution will be dead, if it isn’t dead already.
“It’s really no different from a woman deciding her husband is too beta, deciding she has no attraction for him anymore, and looking for sex elsewhere”
Well exactly, and I don’t advocate walking away from a marriage for anything other than extreme measures (like cheating) for either sex. Being alpha doesn’t mean you take vows loosely. I find it pretty unbelievable you spread around the fact that you’re doing paternity tests. I don’t think it’s unreasonable, but it sure is a private matter. I haven’t given up on marriage for people who really take it seriously; we don’t need to return to historical marriages on every point, but we do need to return to what the Bible says, and that requires sacrifice on both sides with neither demanding something from the other.
It would also help tremendously to change the laws playing babysitter to women and giving them more than 50% of the assets regardless of what’s occured in the marriage.
I would only do the paternity tests on the kids if I discovered cheating.
OH. Okay, thanks for clarifying; sorry I missed that.
“Marriage 2.0 with paternity testing, no alimony and equitable property distribution is the only way to make marriage palatable and attractive to men.”
Makes perfect sense. Women haven’t needed alimony for God knows how long.
In Sweden, men paying child support is quite unusual and when it exists it’s usually paying for things like clothes for the children (not paid to the mother).
Sweden still has a high divorce rate.
“In Sweden, men paying child support is quite unusual and when it exists it’s usually paying for things like clothes for the children (not paid to the mother).
Sweden still has a high divorce rate.”
I mostly men the women that see divorce as something glamorous and “empowering” for women in American society. Is the way is seen in Sweden?
meant no men
Pingback: Friday Wrap-Up: Yes My Pants Won’t Button, But I Was Nominated For The Versatile Blogger Award! | The Woman Formerly Known as Beautiful
Wow. I see cringe worthy outcomes in the future here. Funny how game, even when he apparently accidentally applied it got her hamster going. I would not have married this chick but to each his own.
Just commenting so I can get email notification of new posts.
A few months ago you posted a link at Alpha Game to a blog post about how a woman aging is still beautiful in her husbands eye, because he still sees her the way he did when they married. Would you mind providing me with the link again and, do you know if the person who originally posted it would mind me reposting it at my blog? Thank you for your time.
Can I solicit an opinion on this?
You may already have a post you can link?
I am surprised at Susan Walsh’s last post where she groups you unfavorably with Roissy and Roosh. You seem to me a gentleman.
Yes, it was quite a “et tu Brute” moment.
I stumbled across your blog via a guest post on Hooking Up Smart.
“The entire field of game has centered around men who, despite considerable life success and community respect, don’t know how to market themselves to women. (Much of game rests on the paradox that you are selling while looking like you are buying.) The eventual success of countless men proves they had it in them and just had to discover it.”
Can you explain to a guy that doesn’t get it, what marketing themselves to women is? How do I do it effectively?
I have success in my career, good income, and even good looks. However, online I get a majority of emails from 5′s, and not many responses back from the 7-8-9′s I email myself. Maybe 1 out of 12.
Is that considered normal? I am sure there are strategies I can work on to increase my response rate.
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Google+ account. ( Log Out / Change )
Connecting to %s
Notify me of follow-up comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.
RSS - Posts
Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Join 652 other followers
Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.