He was unhaaaaappy.

Ladies, you might think you love your husband, but you really don’t.  That is because you are an opportunistic, resource-sucking, hypergamy-driven, cold-hearted fembot.  Never forget, ladies, that you are actually incapable of love.  It doesn’t matter how much you feel like you love your man, whether or not you honor your wedding vows, nor even whether you’ve stood beside him through times of trouble and difficulty.

Allow Rollo to explain to you how you don’t love right, like men do:

I have no doubt that the idealization of marriage, enduring companionship, mutual love and respect are very strong desires for men, but as I stated in my love series, men love idealistically, whereas women’s love is rooted in opportunism. Women get very upset at this proposition because they tend to conflate an unrealistic desire for unconditional love with a love based on a man’s performance for her in order to earn  and keep it. It’s not that men expect some childish form of unconditional love, it’s that a man must continue to maintain that love through performing and meriting it – this is what I mean by women loving opportunistically.

So you don’t really love him, you just like what he can do for you a whole lot.  You are not, however, aware of the fact that you like what he can do for you.  Even though both men and women have prefrontal cortices where our responses to emotions are regulated, you ladies can’t even understand love and loyalty.  Rollo explains:

I think what most men uniquely deceive themselves of is that they will ultimately be appreciated by women for their sacrifices. Learn this now, you wont. You can’t be because women fundamentally lack the ability to fully realize, much less appreciate the sacrifices a man makes to facilitate her reality.

You might be feeling convicted right now, dear female reader.  You may be saying to yourself:

Of course I love my husband and will be loyal to him until death do us part  But Rollo is right.  I have been taking my husband for granted.  He works so hard, and I really do appreciate it, but I have been very remiss in not expressing my gratitude to him.  I will tell him tonight how much I appreciate all that he does for me!  Will that make it alright, Sunshine Mary?

I would have thought so, dear lady, but sadly, the answer is no.  Deti explains:

I think women get upset at the proposition that their love is based on opportunism, i.e. what he does for her, because it reveals that her love for a man is conditional. This in turn causes her to confront the reality that she just might be as shallow and utilitarian as she accuses the men in her life of being.

No doubt you are confused now.  You are ungrateful for not acknowledging your husband’s sacrifices while at the same time being a shallow, utilitarian opportunist if you do express your gratitude for all that your man does.   I can’t really help you out here because I am just as confused as you are, but one thing we can know is this: we only love men for their semen and their dollars, and we are simultaneously ungrateful for not saying thank you and opportunistic gold-diggers for saying thank you.

And because men love idealistically, they are not prone to doing what women always do, which is blow up their marriages because they are unhaaaaaappy.  Women get that unhappy feeling because they think they might be missing out on something much better, so they chuck their men overboard to chase after it.  Usually they end up either alone or with men who are worse than their first husbands (this is actually true and you should read Dalrock’s article on that if you are thinking of dumping your husband to chase after something “better”).

Men, however, never do this.  Except when they do.  Sam Spade, commenting on Rollo’s thread, tells the story of how he frivorced his wife:

I was married for 3 years (and together for 4.5), post-Red Pill, to a helluva woman. Game came easily in the marriage, in part because I selected a woman who was game “friendly” shall we say. We got along great.

Yet being in my mid-30s, after (I felt) the relationship had run its course, I realized I missed plate-spinning. I could not in good faith reconcile it with my marriage to my wife. I ended the marriage, and although she was heartbroken, we ended it mutually and honorably and with no ill will…It may sound twisted, but I’m proud of how I handled it …In short, I enjoyed the “comforts” of marriage, but missed the adventures of the single life.

Of course, once men do chuck the old ball and chain, it’s a non-stop sex-a-thon for them.  Right?  He continues:

So here I sit, single. I’m not currently “getting laid” because I’m in the last stages of getting over the breakup.

Oh.  Poor guy.  My husband “got laid” last night.  But no doubt Sam’s harem ship is going to come in any moment now and then he’ll be haaaappy again.  Sucks to be his heartbroken ex-wife, who by his own admission was a helluva woman, but then again it was very opportunistic of her to suck him into marriage knowing full well that she had only one poozle to offer up when what he really wanted was a different one each night.  So, because Mr. Spade has that superior idealistic love thing that men have, he dumped her ass.

Thank God men don’t love opportunistically like women do.

Undoubtedly the only reason I am pointing any of this out to you is because I am afraid that men will see the inherent amorality of the Feminine Imperative and so I am trying to rebuild the mound by pointing out that this idea that women cannot love or be loyal is actually total bull-pucky.

Just as both women and men will blow up their marriages because they are unhaaaappy, so too are both men and women capable of selfless love, devotion, and loyalty.  Believing that women are incapable of love and loyalty just gives women an excuse for all kinds of bad behavior.  After all, we can’t expect a woman not to frivorce her man if we don’t even believe she is capable of loving him for anything other than what he can do for her.  But women are capable of loving their husbands for more than just his money and performance, and they are capable of fulfilling their vows, and because they are capable of this, we should expect it from them and demand that they exhibit this loyalty or face social censure.

And we should expect both sexes to be able to honor their wedding vows regardless of how haaappy they are.

773 thoughts on “He was unhaaaaappy.

  1. Miserman

    There are consequences are simply labeling woman incapable of doing important things. If they are incapable of it, then they should naturally be excused from it. Such thinking can cut both ways.

  2. sunshinemary Post author

    @ Miserman
    Exactly. If women can’t love when the chips are down, then we shouldn’t even be expected to keep our wedding vows, and if we aren’t expected to keep our vows, then every article Dalrock has ever written on frivorce would basically be pointless, akin to being angry that one’s dog is unable to play poker.

  3. Lynn

    As much as his post angers me, I feel very sorry for him. He doesn’t understand love and never will. I also feel bad for the woman he “honorably” divorced….a word I never associate with divorce.

  4. tbc

    hmmm…. should be interesting… I’ll get the popcorn and sit back and get ready to enjoy the show

  5. okrahead

    Pedestalization of anyone, man or woman, is idolatry. Men sin. Women sin. All suffer. All mankind is capable of the banal evils that destroy marriage, God’s plan for male-female interaction.

  6. Ton

    All I can say is my personal experience confirms Rollo’ s position, and note that women are not commanded to love in the Bible ( regarding marriage)

    And for the record, I forced the divorce, though my ex wanted to file. Not sure why, but statistically it would like she fits the trend. I forced the divorce because I was unhappy, in the worst physcial pain in my life. She refused the offer of six months to fix her shit and elected for the divorce part. Many would say I fivorced her. So be it. All that to say, I don’t necessarily buy into a lot of the statistics that get thrown around, though personally I am the only man I know who did drive the divorce.

    [ssm: As I recall, your wife had engaged in egregious behavior for some time before the divorce, including withholding sex and cheating on you (correct me if I am misremembering). Many people would not consider that a frivorce. By the way, women also aren't commanded to paint their toenails in the Bible but that doesn't mean we aren't capable of doing so. Just because the Bible doesn't command women to do something doesn't mean we are unable to do it.]

    [EDIT: See Scorch's comment below about how the Bible does command women to love their husbands.]

  7. sunshinemary Post author

    By the way, this is not an I-hate-Rollo-and-Deti post or anything like that. I simply disagree with them that women are incapable of gratitude or selfless love. And also it was just too rich, practically a blogging gift from God, that a man wrote an I-opportunistically-frivorced-my-wife story on a thread about how men know how to love but women don’t.

  8. Deborah

    I usually lurk without commenting, but I had to express my appreciation for this post! I read a lot of blogs in the manosphere, but don’t comment because it seems like a woman’s voice just isn’t welcome. So many commenters seem to share Rollo’s views of women, but they fail to see the illogic of believing those things while still expecting us women to behave like morally capable beings. Thank you for this post!

  9. Elspeth

    I didn’t think this was a hate post at all. I think it needed to be said. You’re simply stating the obvious: that if a woman is incapable of loving, then why all the outrage when she proves you correct?

    I am actually working on a post myself about the notion that SAH wives/mothers are leeches, enslaving men and flouting Biblical tradition. It’s some of that “silly stuff I read in the manosphere” that makes me want to scream because my being at home full time is totally an act of submission to my husband. I wrestled for years with the idea that I needed to be helping him by earning income.

    Sometimes I managed to earn a bit but as soon my endeavors got in the way of something husband needed from me or if my availability to him was hindered in any way, he’d remind me that he has never told me to do that. That being frugal, low maintenance, and responsible with what he earns is the extent of what he wants from me right now. And then I read about leeches and enslavement and how it’s unBiblical and I want to screech in protest. This is what submission looks like in OUR house, and what’s more Biblical than a wife who submits to her husband?

    Sometimes it’s good to push back on absurd notions and you’re very good at it. Better than me, LOL.

  10. KMan

    @SSM

    Great post. I agree. I think some of the stereotypes in the manosphere miss a lot of the truth. For example, the idea that ALL women are naturally hypergamous and ALL men are naturally polygamous.

    I do think there are differences in the way love is expressed between men and women, but God has created us both in His image, both capable of love. I would also say that all love is corrupted by sin, and both genders have different ways that this sin is expressed too (though again, no hard and fast rules). Both men and women, though, have equal access to the Holy Spirit and the gift of Christ-like love though Him.

    [ssm: That's well-put, KMan.]

  11. sunshinemary Post author

    I also want to point out that both men and women can be fairly opportunistic due to their sin natures, it’s just that we are opportunistic about different things. Women tend to be much more opportunistic about resources and men tend to be much more opportunistic about sex, but even that is not set in stone.

    Furthermore, the fact that modern women are notably disloyal does not mean they are incapable of loyalty. It is mostly because feminism has allowed women’s bad behavior to grow unchecked, but society still enforces some behavioral standards on men. I have no doubt that men would act every bit as bad as women if there weren’t laws against it, and THAT is a big reason I would never call myself an MRA. Essentially MRAs just want to change the laws so that men can act as bad as women. That’s no way to build a society. Things functioned far better when behavioral standards were enforced on both men and women.

  12. Amanda

    Fantastic post! You put my thoughts into words exactly. There’s a lot of really good Biblical examples of women in the Bible acting sacrifically, so I’m not sure about the ideas of these guys. That Sam Spade example was perfect.

    @Deborah. Me too. I find the manosphere a fascinating group of blogs and I enjoy reading them, but it took me a long time to delurk because of the unwelcome undercurrent towards women. Glad you “de-lurked.”

  13. sunshinemary Post author

    I don’t care about the unwelcome undercurrent, if there is one. Male bloggers aren’t obligated to make things all nice and cozy and sanitized for female commenters, and men should be free to have their women-free zones and should drive off intruding women if they don’t want them there. I stay on sites where I have been told that I am welcome and just read the others. However, since I am welcome to comment at both Dalrock’s and Rollo’s, I think discussing what I read there is fair game, especially if I think it’s wrong.

  14. Elspeth

    Furthermore, the fact that modern women are notably disloyal does not mean they are incapable of loyalty. It is mostly because feminism has allowed women’s bad behavior to grow unchecked, but society still enforces some behavioral standards on men.

    This. I totally agree. To the extent that equality means that women are held to the same strict standards and responsibilities as men, I can get on board with it. Women need to be reigned in. But if equality means a complete sexual free-for-all on both sides, I cannot get on board with that.

  15. MargeryM

    @SSM I think you mean MGTOW not MRA? MRAs want to see an end to feminism because of the bad it has done for men in particular. Think father’s right and divorce laws. MGTOW want to use the new (feminist) slut to their advantage and “behave badly”.

    [ssm: No, I think it's the other way around. Most MGTOWs are just going their own way and don't want to engage with women, which is no problem. Some of them are MRAs, too, though. And I don't disagree with a number of MRA goals. I support divorce reform, alimony reform, equitable custody after a divorce, etc., but I also support an end to no-fault divorce, something very few MRAs would support.]

  16. Saint Velvet

    Gold digger?!?!? If I’m a gold digger, than why did I dump my wealthy fiance for my broke ass husband? Oh, yeah – I heard my husbands street name was Nine Inch Nails, done and done. Also, Rollo did not use the word “solipsism” nor the phrase “Team Woman” one damn time in that little dissertation, so fail.

    Say whatever you want to about me, it’s probably true, but when you attempt to deride all married men, including my husband, if only collaterally, based on your own fucked up neuroses, which is what these little “women can’t love” rants amount to, well fuck you anyway. In my little incapable, calculating, hopelessly insincere mind, only one word presents itself on my vocabulary flashcards : ineligible. Next.

  17. DrTorch

    But, but…how are men going to stay angry today!? (Especially after that big BGSU win last nite! )

    So you’re saying men sin too? And there might be truth in Prov 18:22? Shocking!

  18. sunshinemary Post author

    the notion that SAH wives/mothers are leeches, enslaving men and flouting Biblical tradition. It’s some of that “silly stuff I read in the manosphere” that makes me want to scream because my being at home full time is totally an act of submission to my husband.

    I know the exact posts to which you are referring and had the same reaction to them. Whether the traditionalists say that men have a moral responsibility to keep women at home or whether manospherians say that housewives are leeches, it really doesn’t matter because each man is the head of his home and must decide how it will be ordered, and the wife must obey his decision. Anything else violates God’s word. This means some wives will work full time, some part time, and some not at all.

  19. warrior

    I didn’t like Rollo’s post when I read it, either, despite the fact that every woman* in my life has been pretty much as he described in the post, it’s foolish to categorically make statements to the effect that “women are incapable of love”.

    On the other hand, I know you’ll keep in mind that the women of the red pill are extreme outliers. You lovely ladies are so far away from normal that you can’t even see normal. Normal is the comments section of Manboobz. That’s the mainstream. If Rollo had been a little bit more careful in describing distributions instead of reified categories, I wouldn’t have taken exception.

    *And there have been a lot of women. You good Christians would be horrified.

  20. hurting

    sunshinemary on August 30, 2013 at 8:44 am

    As to your statement (with which I agree)

    Things functioned far better when behavioral standards were enforced on both men and women.

    How are we going to get back there?

    Also as to whether or not women or men are more capable of behaving honorably vis-à-vis their marriage vows, you clearly point out that we are assessing their behavior in the context of a social, political, economic and legal environment that holds men to ridiculously higher standards of behavior than women, and at least some of these standards are higher than in the ‘good old days’. Are men more honorable than women? Or are they just responding to the incentives at play? Are all women who don’t actually frivorce their husbands honorable, or is that just too low a standard? How many use threatpoint to make their husbands lives hell on earth yet remain putatively married?

    The deafening silence of women on the unfairness of the current system, despite their power to change it, is perhaps the most damning evidence of their culpability in the whole mess.

  21. jaybeespancakes

    One should always be on guard for a small group of people who think alike to turn into an echo chamber and to invent self-reinforcing heresies. This is one of the risks of oral traditions. The article reminded me of this excerpt from the Gospel of Thomas:

    “(114) Simon Peter said to them: Let Mariham go out from among us, for women are not worthy of the life. Jesus said: Look, I will lead her that I may make her male, in order that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who makes herself male will enter into the kingdom of heaven.”

    Unless some be led to misunderstanding, this is a heretical document, never accepted by a council of church fathers, found only recently in the Nag Hamadi library of gnostic texts, but, reading the Internet commentary on it, you would believe that this was, indeed, the very record of Jesus’s words and an example of scriptural bigotry.

    There is nothing canonical that says that women will not be judged as moral agents the same as men and among those forced to kneel before the great bar of justice at the end of the age. There may be certain accommodations to the idea that the woman is the submissive partner and helpmeet, but nothing says she gets a pass or rots in the ground; if such were the case, Jesus would not have rebuked the Samaritan woman. In fact, there is specific scripture against the idea of gendered or ethnic moralities:

    “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Gal 3:28

    There are different routes to seduction into sin, and the opulence of the American empire over the last hundred years has me that women are more easily seduced by materialism (hence more susceptible to frivorce lottery – but men are not immune to seduction by the material) and that civilization is much more readily destroyed than cultivated, but the beasts will not be judged at the great bar of justice because they are incapable of moral culpability.

    [ssm: Well-said.]

  22. Sarah's Daughter

    men love idealistically, whereas women’s love is rooted in opportunism

    I think you might be misrepresenting what Rollo is saying here. Take the emotion out of it and think this through. We talk all the time about women’s innate need to find a protector/provider. I don’t know many women whose love for their husband doesn’t suffer at least temporarily when her husbands ability to protect/provide is lessened. In fact, without God, prayer, and a deep commitment to obedience to His Word, I don’t know many women who maintain love for their husbands when he is no longer able to protect/provide. Though they may not always end the marriage, their treatment of their husbands (withdrawing sex/affection/admiration/respect) gives clear evidence of their lack of love for him.

  23. sunshinemary Post author

    Normal is the comments section of Manboobz.

    Because feminism, that’s why. Feminism allows women’s worst tendencies to flourish like weeds. But that isn’t what Rollo is saying. He’s saying women are incapable of selfless love and loyalty. I say they are capable of it, red pill or no, outlier or not. Women were able to demonstrate this kind of love when society expected them to behave like civilized human beings rather than cats in heat.

  24. DJ

    Don’t they say that those who love least win? Opprotunism is an excellent way of life as long as its not self centered. Unopprotunistic people miss all kinds of things waiting for perfection to be handed to them. Its like they want to fail or something, don’t take it badly take it as a compliment.

  25. thehumanscorch

    Excuse me. What Bible are you reading?
    Women are indeed commanded to love their husbands and children:

    http://biblehub.com/titus/2-4.htm

    New International Version
    Then they can urge the younger women to love their husbands and children,

    New Living Translation
    These older women must train the younger women to love their husbands and their children,

    English Standard Version
    and so train the young women to love their husbands and children,

    New American Standard Bible
    so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children,

    King James Bible
    That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,

    Holman Christian Standard Bible
    so they may encourage the young women to love their husbands and to love their children,

    International Standard Version
    They should encourage the younger women to love their husbands, to love their children,

    NET Bible
    In this way they will train the younger women to love their husbands, to love their children,

    Aramaic Bible in Plain English
    And chasten those who are young women to love their husbands and their children,

    GOD’S WORD® Translation
    In this way they will teach young women to show love to their husbands and children,

    Jubilee Bible 2000
    that they may teach the young women to be prudent, to love their husbands, to love their children,

    King James 2000 Bible
    That they may teach the young women to be sensible, to love their husbands, to love their children,

    American King James Version
    That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,

    American Standard Version
    that they may train the young women to love their husbands, to love their children,

    Douay-Rheims Bible
    That they may teach the young women to be wise, to love their husbands, to love their children,

    Darby Bible Translation
    that they may admonish the young women to be attached to their husbands, to be attached to their children,

    English Revised Version
    that they may train the young women to love their husbands, to love their children,

    Webster’s Bible Translation
    That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,

    Weymouth New Testament
    They should school the young women to be affectionate to their husbands and to their children, to be sober-minded, pure in their lives,

    World English Bible
    that they may train the young women to love their husbands, to love their children,

    Young’s Literal Translation
    that they may make the young women sober-minded, to be lovers of their husbands, lovers of their children,

    [ssm: Excellent point, Scorch. Thank you. Of course you are right; women would not be told to train other women to love their husbands if they were incapable of doing so. I think the reason we tend to think the Bible doesn't tell women to love is because we focus so much on those verses from Ephesians 5:

    33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

    Here men are told to love and women are told to respect. However, you are right that elsewhere the Bible does tell women to love their husbands.]

  26. sunshinemary Post author

    I don’t know many women who maintain love for their husbands when he is no longer able to protect/provide.

    I have known many women who were able to maintain their love for their husbands when he was no longer able to protect/provide. I absolutely expect women to do this. The fact that women need resources to raise children is relevant to how they select for a man who would make a good husband but does not mean they cannot demonstrate selfless love or loyalty or that they are incapable of loving their husbands for anything other than resources. Go back and read his entire article; that is what he is saying.

  27. Amanda

    @SSM
    Yes! That’s what I meant — don’t want to glut up the guy spaces. I appreciate your blog for just this purpose.

  28. Elspeth

    Unable to maintain love for a husband who can no longer provide? Are you serious, SD? You surely don’t believe that! So you’re saying that if your husband was somehow disabled and you had to switch roles and be the primary provider you wouldn’t love RB anymore?

    I have a hard time believing that. It’s one thing to agree that modern women are by and large, a monstrous regimen. It’s something else altogether to assert that there is no woman anywhere that is capable of loving unless there is something in it materially for her.

    @ Saint Velvet:

    You made me laugh, as usual. Your commentary is so truthful and simultaneously entertaining.

  29. MargeryM

    I agree with Rollo and Deti. To an extent. I agree that women do not love the same way or for the same reasons men do. Where I disagree is that that means there is no love there. If you believe masculine is the baseline from which all love must be measured than yes, women don’t love. Not all of us believe that, though. I personally think that’s unreasonable.

    I actually don’t have a problem with Deti’s post here:
    “I think women get upset at the proposition that their love is based on opportunism, i.e. what he does for her, because it reveals that her love for a man is conditional. This in turn causes her to confront the reality that she just might be as shallow and utilitarian as she accuses the men in her life of being.”

    I think he’s right. Men and women need different things but men and women need things, nonetheless. Not receiving those needs from their significant other puts a strain on the relationship and, yes, diminishes love. Women need to feel protected and provided for. These days that is considered by both feminists and many in the Manosphere as selfish bad behavior. I disagree. It’s completely natural and a part of our design, for a reason. Men also need women, albeit differently. Anyone who says otherwise is living in a fantasy world.

    The problem here isn’t pointing out that love is, in fact, conditional, but assuming that those conditions are frivolous all of the time. If Jane marries Adam and Adam stops making her feel safe and provider for (let’s say Jane becomes a video game widow and thus no longer Adam’s priority) the love will suffer, flicker, fade. I don’t think that that is unreasonable, I think it’s absolutely natural; just as it would be if Adam were holding up his end but Jane decided she was in the right in withholding physical affection and tending his home.

    The other issue here is misunderstanding loyalty and honor. Sure, women are capable of both but men, in general, have the luxury/curse of both whereas women are shielded from them. Meaning women are unable to fend for themselves quite as well making loyalty and honor an option for us, not engrained. Because it could be detrimental to our survival we can easily opt out. Again, if we are measuring loyalty by masculine loyalty women don’t make the cut. We can’t afford to stay loyal to a man that won’t ensure our safety. Women fight dirty. Our only chance at overpowering a man that is threatening us is to wait until his back is turned or he is otherwise put into a weakened position (9 times out of 10). How is that honorable? The thing is it doesn’t matter if it is or not, we have no other option in such a scenario besides harm to ourselves. Generally speaking men do not have this dilemma. The problem is that even parts of the Manosphere are falling into the idea that men and women are the same or that we should be.

    I don’t think it serves, however, to deem these things bad or shallow necessarily. It just is what it is. Men and women need things from each other. If we don’t get them it weakens our bond. It’s really that simple. It’s on both sexes to provide those needs for the other (meaning in a relationship) and suffer the consequences if they don’t.

    I’m not trying to excuse frivorce here or say only women are capable of it; I agree that men are, too. This is Me culture, everyone is being frivolous and looking for the most easy and most pleasurable path. I just think it’s a separate conversation from the differences in love and loyalty one in general. I am also not trying to say women should be free from higher expectations, of honor, of loyalty, etc. I’m just trying to point out we simply aren’t wired the same way out of necessity.

  30. LeeLeeBug

    Good post SSM. Thank’s for pointing out the hypocrisy that flourishes on some manosphere sites.

    I have to confess to smirking when I read nonsense the the Rollo post you mentioned. Even the revered Dalrock is guilty of talking out of both sides of his mouth when it comes to demonizing women while, at the same time, holding them to high moral expectations.

    Plus, don’t you think it’s strange that men who say they are happily married to sexy wives who submit to them (whether b/c of game or for biblical reasons) spend an inordinate amount of time researching and writing about divorce and infidelity statistics?

    My hubby is much more happy eating a delicious meal I’ve prepared or enjoying my company in the evening then sitting hunched over his computer looking at stats after a long day at the office.

  31. MargeryM

    “I have known many women who were able to maintain their love for their husbands when he was no longer able to protect/provide. I absolutely expect women to do this.” -SSM

    For how long, though? If it is a bump in the road, that’s one thing. I have stood by my man, unwavering, through unemployment after a series of lay offs while he tried to shift careers as the one he was in took a blow from the economy. No part of me wanted to call it quits in that tough year. But I knew it was a bump in the road and that he was working hard to get back on track. There is a difference between that and being able to and willing to protect and provide in the long term.

  32. deti

    “I think you might be misrepresenting what Rollo is saying here. Take the emotion out of it and think this through. We talk all the time about women’s innate need to find a protector/provider. I don’t know many women whose love for their husband doesn’t suffer at least temporarily when her husbands ability to protect/provide is lessened. In fact, without God, prayer, and a deep commitment to obedience to His Word, I don’t know many women who maintain love for their husbands when he is no longer able to protect/provide.”

    Thanks, SD.

    SSM, you and I have had this conversation before, and we’ve disagreed about it. Women are capable of love. It is simply that the CHARACTERISTICS of that love as between men and women is different.

    The way men love women is different from the way women love men.

  33. sunshinemary Post author

    Plus, don’t you think it’s strange that men who say they are happily married to sexy wives who submit to them (whether b/c of game or for biblical reasons) spend an inordinate amount of time researching and writing about divorce and infidelity statistics?

    Nah, I don’t think that’s odd. You don’t need personal involvement to study something.

    My hubby is much more happy eating a delicious meal I’ve prepared or enjoying my company in the evening then sitting hunched over his computer looking at stats after a long day at the office.

    I don’t know, some of us have weird hobbies; I actually like researching stuff and so does my husband. In fact, he has today off work and we are both sitting in bed drinking coffee and reading with laptops/iPADs in front of us right now while the kids pack so we can go on our last weekend vacation of the summer later today.

  34. MargeryM

    @SSM re: MRA vs MGTOW You could very well be right. The whole thing is filled with so many sub categories and what not it gets confusing. I have read some MGTOW stuff mocking MRAs and I have come across the attitude you mentioned (“Essentially MRAs just want to change the laws so that men can act as bad as women.”) within MRAs. Like I said, you’re probably right.

  35. Ton

    Yes SSM, that is true about her behaviour. I did not know about the infidelity at the time of my divorce ( but or pastor, the one giving us marital advice/ counseling did). My theory is she set out to sabotage the marriage after she went to whoring vs telling me what occurred.

    Yes many have said I friovorced and said I must reconcile with my ex/ I’m going to hell etc etc. Wind, as meaningful as a fart.

    Still I think my story is a useful to demonstrate that the statistics are tools to be use with caution.

    As for the command of love, that’s a ligit point, however if it is not commanded I don’t think it’s to be expected. Love having nothing to do with marriage until recently.

    Any rate, good blog post SSM, and a useful reminder for many I’m sure

    Encouraged is now command? Try again. Women are commanded to respect

  36. sunshinemary Post author

    @ Deti
    Oh sure, now you are all willing to concede that women are capable of love. But reading what you write about this everywhere else makes it obvious that you think it’s an inferior kind of love, practically not love at all, and that women are incapable of loyalty, especially if a man has a setback like illness or injury. Weren’t you the one who said that women put men on a clock in those scenarios?

  37. Sarah's Daughter

    Elspeth,
    I wrote about this very thing: http://sarahsdaughterblog.blogspot.com/2013/02/honor-him-through-storms.html
    The enemy strikes hard during times when a husband’s ability to protect and provide are challenged. I wouldn’t have written about the struggle if there wasn’t a struggle. It has taken surrender to obedience to God for me to maintain love and respect for RLB, and I’m thankful for it. The only way I continue to love and respect him in a way he receives it is “as unto the Lord.” I’ve looked hard and long into my shortcomings about this. Without obedience to God in this, I fail miserably. Now I know there are no conditions he need meet to earn my love and respect. But when I honestly reflect on when I have been challenged most (when I sense I’m not loving him the way he receives it, or I’m not “feeling” it) it has been when his ability to protect/provide have been uncertain.

  38. warrior

    Margery, your interpretation is the best one. I have never believed that I could hold a woman’s love without providing for her, protecting her, and entertaining her. This is the reasonable consequence of the observation that I have never gained a woman’s love without doing those things. Sure, it’s possible that I could marry a Christian fundamentalist like Sunshine or Elspeth, who would honor her vows to me as her interpretation of the Bible enjoins her to, even after I stopped providing her with the things she married me for in the first place. But I don’t think a sense of duty can compel a feeling of love, which, I think, is what Rollo is trying to say. Love isn’t a choice we make.

    I don’t blame a woman for that any more than I blame gravity for pulling me to the earth when I would rather fly. After all, I wouldn’t continue to love woman who’s become a fat, depressed, passive-aggressive energy leach just because I married her when she was beautiful and gay. But that red pill thought is an indictment of marriage, which is why it’s controversial to the Christian sect of the red pill world. You have to keep this one blue pill thought alive, that love is unconditional, in order to make marriage seem a reasonable choice.

  39. sunshinemary Post author

    I do not agree that women’s love is conditional. If she has conditions on it, then it isn’t love. It’s just a contract. I know for sure that I would still love my husband even if he never earned another dollar ever again. I would not only behave in a loving and loyal way, I would actually feel love for him.

  40. Ton

    Women tingle for men who say women are incapable of love, loyalty etc etc. They don’t next us, they follow us like puppy dogs

  41. sunshinemary Post author

    Also, you can say that a marriage has conditions attached to it, but not love. Love has to be unconditional or it isn’t love, full stop. A woman might say that she will divorce her husband if he loses his job, which means her commitment to him is conditional. However, if she says that she will stop loving her husband if he loses her job, then she doesn’t love him. Whatever she is feeling for him, it isn’t love.

    Women are capable of unconditional love. However, almost everyone, male and female, has a conditional commitment to their spouses. There are, for each of us, some condition that could occur that would cause us to leave our spouses. For some, it would be even minor stuff because their commitment level is low. For others of us, it would take almost unimaginable conditions to cause us to leave our spouses.

  42. Saint Velvet

    “I think women get upset at the proposition that their love is based on opportunism, i.e. what he does for her, because it reveals that her love for a man is conditional. This in turn causes her to confront the reality that she just might be as shallow and utilitarian as she accuses the men in her life of being.”

    (from MargeryM’s comment)

    This represents a larger problem both men and women suffer, which is a fundamental misunderstanding of what marriage is. I imagine a couple 100 or so years ago would consider the idea of marriage being conditional and be like “duh!”. It’s an exchange of resources. The problem is we’ve devalued the products on both sides. We live in a culture of roommates who have sex and share children, but the nature of civil unions, as that’s all they’ve been reduced to, is they have no intrinsic integrity, of which loyalty is a part, and you don’t really get the latter without the former. Sticky-ness, for both men and women, comes at a price that no one seems willing to pay.

    [ssm: True.]

  43. deti

    @ SSM:

    You are using the word “Love” in a very different way than a man uses it.

    A man wants a woman to love him for who he is: his personality, his wit, his body. And he wants her to show that love by having sex with him and by wanting to have sex with him and by being into having sex with him.

    A woman wants a man to love her by giving her children and then giving her what she needs for herself and those children. She wants him to be committed to her.

    Consider this quote: “I have known many women who were able to maintain their love for their husbands when he was no longer able to protect/provide. I absolutely expect women to do this.”

    No. What you are really saying is:

    “I have known many women who were able to maintain their COMMITMENT for their husbands when he was no longer able to protect/provide. I absolutely expect women to do this.”

    Well, me too.

    But love is NOT the same thing as commitment.

    I’ve known plenty of women who stay with their husbands, and do for them, and cook and clean. They honor their commitment.

    But those women sure as hell don’t love those men. They don’t like those men for who they are, they don’t like what he does, and they absolutely REFUSE to have sex with them.

    So those women kept their commitments.

    But they did not, and do not, love.

    That’s the difference.

    Rollo is talking about love, affection, intimacy, caring.

    You’re talking about commitment, mundaneness, doing the work, going through the motions.

  44. Alte

    “I have known many women who were able to maintain their love for their husbands when he was no longer able to protect/provide.”

    Same here. Birds of a feather, and water seeking its own level, and all that.

    [ssm: No matter how many examples I give, though, they are always discounted around here. But seriously, I worked in a therapy clinic in the hospital for awhile with post-stroke patients who had aphasia, most of whom were men. In general, their wives demonstrated total loyalty to them. I only knew of one man whose wife left him post-stroke.]

  45. Elspeth

    My playtime is just about up, but I want to address Margery’s points.

    Margery, you’re right that men and women love differently, and to the extent that Rollo (or whomever else parrots this line) acknowledges that, I totally agree. That’s not what has been done here. It is being asserted that women can. not. love.

    Further, they’re saying that a husband shouldn’t expect it. This is of course, what set off my friend Saint Velvet, the backhanded implication that husbands who expect loyalty and love from their wives are somehow foolish.

    We all know that women need a man who can provide. If we could pop out a baby, be well enough to work the next day, and baby could fend for itself within a week, it may be ruthless of us to consider the ability to provide when selecting a mate, but given the God-designed limitations, we have no such luxury.

    Still, we understand (I’m speaking of the women here not the culture at large) that life happens and when it does we have to adapt accordingly and keep the vows we made to love and honor our husbands for better or for worse, sickness and in health, for richer or poorer.

    But say for instance that women are hamstrung by our need with regards to love. I can acknowledge a grain of truth in that. My friend Cane Caldo expresses it well in his post:

    This loving respect of a devoted follower is what husbands want from their wives, and this is what wives want to give to their husbands. A woman’s love is ALWAYS oriented-upward; out of respect for his authority; for what he produces and provides; for his abilities. She will never feel intimacy with him for who he is except as she recognizes him on the basis for what he has done, what he currently does, and what she expects him to do in the future. This isn’t a bug in women, but a feature: It’s another way of saying, “women like dick, and that is good.” Within this relationship, there is no room for judgment, or recrimination; just enjoyment and intimacy.

    I think this idea has been pushed into the territory of the absurd.

  46. MargeryM

    “Sure, it’s possible that I could marry a Christian fundamentalist like Sunshine or Elspeth, who would honor her vows to me as her interpretation of the Bible enjoins her to, even after I stopped providing her with the things she married me for in the first place.” -warrior

    Add me to that list.

    “But I don’t think a sense of duty can compel a feeling of love, which, I think, is what Rollo is trying to say. Love isn’t a choice we make.” -warrior

    This I agree with. But I also won’t knock that sense of duty.

  47. Saint Velvet

    I do not agree that women’s love is conditional.

    As voiced in my last comment, I disagree with that. It is conditional. Otherwise there would be no reason to cultivate loyalty.

    A woman who leaves her husband in hard times was either improperly vetted or…no that’s it. It’s an HR problem. Bad hire.

  48. LeeLeeBug

    @MargeryM
    “I have known many women who were able to maintain their love for their husbands when he was no longer able to protect/provide. I absolutely expect women to do this.” -SSM

    For how long, though? If it is a bump in the road, that’s one thing. I have stood by my man, unwavering, through unemployment after a series of lay offs while he tried to shift careers as the one he was in took a blow from the economy. No part of me wanted to call it quits in that tough year. But I knew it was a bump in the road and that he was working hard to get back on track. There is a difference between that and being able to and willing to protect and provide in the long term.

    You would be surprised at how hard a woman who loves her man will work to support him when he is no longer capable of being the head provider/protector.

    I have a neighbor who was a very healthy athletic man with his own business until two years ago when he broke his neck in a mountain biking accident. Thankfully, he wasn’t paralyzed. But the injury healed in such a way that he is in constant pain to the point where he can’t even fall asleep many nights.

    He had to close his business and work for someone else on a part-time basis. He had to stop coaching his sons’ sports teams. He had to stop doing all of the fun athletic activities his family enjoys.

    His wife moved from working part-time to working full-time. She’s an accountant and during tax season will work as many as 60 hours a week. She also takes their sons to sports practices and games (driving as much as an hour each way) because it’s uncomfortable for him to drive. On the weekends she packs up their pop-up camper and they go on fun camping trips where she does the hiking and kyacking with the boys while her husband relaxes by the lake.

    This is a permanent situation. Barring some miracle, her husband will never fully recover. Yet, rather than being bitter or walking away, she’s handled the situation with endless strength and grace.

    Women are certainly capable of loving their men through the worst of situations despite what certain manosphere bloggers have to say on the matter.

    [ssm: Agreed. I have observed a number of men and women exhibit this level of commitment and love to their spouses, and I fully believe that both men and women are capable of unconditional love and total commitment.]

  49. deti

    @SSM:

    “Oh sure, now you are all willing to concede that women are capable of love. But reading what you write about this everywhere else makes it obvious that you think it’s an inferior kind of love, practically not love at all, and that women are incapable of loyalty, especially if a man has a setback like illness or injury. Weren’t you the one who said that women put men on a clock in those scenarios?

    With all due respect, please calm down. You’re about to the point of being unable to discuss this in a rational manner, and you’re lashing out. (HHG, delete this comment if you think I’m out of line.)

  50. Ton

    And as always the question is if the majority of women are capable of these things, what as it been such a rare occurrence, now and through out history? Why was patriarchy successful and required for civilization to thrive? The answer ready to mind is that most women, now and then are not capable.

    And I have no problem with gold digging and what not as long as the woman holds up her end of the deal

    [ssm: I don't deny that women need resources. In fact, when we had that big kerfuffle awhile back when we discussed Alte's post about marrying for money, I remember men being outraged by that. But why are ya'll so pissed about the idea of women marrying for money if we are only capable of opportunistic love based on what you can do for us? I understand that it doesn't bother you, but many men were howling about that for like 500 comments. Dem bitches jes wants our money! Well, if we aren't capable of loving you for anything else, then why are you so pissed about that, gentlemen?]

  51. Alte

    Deti,

    You’re confusing love with desire. Jesus is love. Sacrifice.

    Romantic love is nice, but it isn’t the essential thing. It waxes and wanes and leads to a lot of idiotic behavior.

  52. sunshinemary Post author

    I have never believed that I could hold a woman’s love without providing for her, protecting her, and entertaining her. This is the reasonable consequence of the observation that I have never gained a woman’s love without doing those things.

    Disagree. You might not be able to catch a woman for commitment without those things, just as she could not catch you for commitment without bringing youth, beauty, sex, etc. But love is not conditional. Commitment can be, but women are not incapable of commitment and loyalty, nor are men incapable of having conditional commitment to their wives.

  53. MargeryM

    @LeeLeeBug, I don’t doubt it! For one I have seen it happen and for two as I don’t believe in divorce for such a reason that would be me. But I’m not just talking about “incapable of” I am talking about “unwilling to”, as well. I also find it hard to believe that there wouldn’t be a strain on the love.

  54. sunshinemary Post author

    Alte

    Romantic love is nice, but it isn’t the essential thing. It waxes and wanes and leads to a lot of idiotic behavior.

    Well said. Let us pause to remember that the Bible speaks of four kinds of love:

    eros (sensual/sexual)
    philia (friendly)
    storge (familial)
    agape (spiritual/divine)

  55. Saint Velvet

    Romantic love is nice, but it isn’t the essential thing. It waxes and wanes and leads to a lot of idiotic behavior.

    This. I fell in and out of love with my husband about four times yesterday, and yet I would still swear at random strangers on the internet to defend his poor choice of marriage to me. Cray-cray.

  56. MargeryM

    “Romantic love is nice, but it isn’t the essential thing. It waxes and wanes and leads to a lot of idiotic behavior.” -Alte

    I do not agree that women’s love is conditional.

    As voiced in my last comment, I disagree with that. It is conditional. Otherwise there would be no reason to cultivate loyalty.” -Saint Velvet

    Agree completely here. I do think it’s a part of the “happily ever after” fantasy that love in unconditional and eternal. Love takes work. Love waxes and wanes.

    “but women are not incapable of commitment and loyalty, nor are men incapable of having conditional commitment to their wives.” -SSM

    Agreed. But this is not one and the same with love being unconditional. Love is conditional and women are capable of commitment and loyalty. Because you don’t need romantic love for this.

  57. deti

    Elspeth:

    “Margery, you’re right that men and women love differently, and to the extent that Rollo (or whomever else parrots this line) acknowledges that, I totally agree. That’s not what has been done here. It is being asserted that women can. not. love.”

    With all due respect, Elspeth, you’re just flat out wrong about this. I know you and SSM are smarter than this.

    Neither Rollo nor I said that women cannot love, and YOU KNOW IT, or at least you should know it. Read the pertinent part of Rollo’s post again:

    “I have no doubt that the idealization of marriage, enduring companionship, mutual love and respect are very strong desires for men, but as I stated in my love series, men love idealistically, whereas women’s love is rooted in opportunism. Women get very upset at this proposition because they tend to conflate an unrealistic desire for unconditional love with a love based on a man’s performance for her in order to earn and keep it. It’s not that men expect some childish form of unconditional love, it’s that a man must continue to maintain that love through performing and meriting it – this is what I mean by women loving opportunistically.
    Whether a man comes to terms with how women love them, they still want to get married because they believe in the dream. Despite all the risk, despite every red flag a woman waves, and even despite the bitter disaster of his previous marriages, men still want to be married – they desire the ideal union.”

    What is being asserted is that women do not love UNCONDITIONALLY. Men need to earn a woman’s love, and they need to continue earning it. Don’t like it, but that’s how it is.

    Guess what?

    Men don’t love unconditionally either!

    This discussion is frankly veering off into misrepresentation and irrationality. Get back to WHAT WAS ACTUALLY SAID at RationalMale. Not what you and SSM THINK was said.

    [ssm: What absolute crap. He said that women's love is opportunistic and men's love is idealized. Nowhere did he say that men's love is opportunistic (conditional) even when a male commenter told a textbook anecdote about opportunistic love and frivorce! The entire point of his post was that men should NOT ever marry, that they should only have what he called "modular monogamy" and plate spinning, because women aren't capable of loving men the way men want to be loved anyway, so why try, only a sucker would do that.

    You seem awfully vested in trying to defend his point. Are you trying to rebuild the masculine mound?]

  58. MargeryM

    “Romantic love is inherently utilitarian, no matter what chick flicks suggest.” -Alte

    You’re on fire today, Alte! I hope you’re tweeting these. ;)

  59. Amanda

    I feel Ike there’s a conflation of attraction, sexy Eros, affection kind of love and real agape 1 Cor. 13 sacrificial love. Women are capable of both of course, but they are not the same. The sacrificial kind isn’t really based on feelings, although those are nice to have, IMO.

    [ssm: Agreed. We should be teaching women AND men that their sexy feelings, though nice, are not the kind of agape love we are all supposed to have toward our spouses.]

  60. deti

    @SSM:

    “Commitment can be, but women are not incapable of commitment and loyalty, nor are men incapable of having conditional commitment to their wives.”

    So we’re talking about commitment now? I thought we were talking about love.

  61. sunshinemary Post author

    I just asked my man if he thought women were capable of unconditional love. He said, “About as capable of it as they are of beating a man to death.” Jerk. After all I’ve done for him.

  62. sunshinemary Post author

    So we’re talking about commitment now? I thought we were talking about love.

    I’m trying to point out the difference there. Commitment can be conditional, as Sam Spade demonstrates. I don’t believe love is. You might divorce your wife if she did something that you found unacceptable, but would you stop loving her? And if you would, then you have to admit that your love is opportunistic and conditional.

  63. Sarah's Daughter

    Go back and read his entire article; that is what he is saying.

    I have and I wish my father along with many other men I know would know what he is saying. For their own good they should not hold an unrealistic expectation with regards to the love they’ll receive from their wife. In the example of my father alone, I watch as he is aging and his strength is failing him and I see the treatment he receives from his wife. Had he known to not expect more than what she is giving it might not hurt so bad. Had he chosen to be the spiritual leader of his marriage it might not be this way either. As it is, he suffers the loneliness of being married to a disrespectful, unappreciative, woman void of compassion – the very expressions of love he needs right not.

    My husband, on the other hand has known not to have unrealistic expectations. And though he enjoys the love he does receive from me, he knows this unconditional love wasn’t always the case and it has taken my continued obedience to God for me to give it. Thankfully he is the spiritual leader of our marriage and continues to cultivate my love and obedience to the Lord.

  64. deti

    @SSM:

    Rollo’s post and my comment at RM focus on eros, which is conditional.

    But your post conflates what he said about eros with agape and storge, which are more in the realm of commitment. Once a man and woman take vows, those are not conditional and must be obeyed and cannot be ended absent the most extreme circumstances.

    You and Rollo are talking about Two. Different. Things.

    That’s the resolution of the conflict.

    [ssm: Eros is EQUALLY conditional for both men and women. So the conflict is not resolved even if you guys were only talking about eros; as Sam Spade's story clearly demonstrates, men's erotic love for women is hardly idealized. It's entirely opportunistic, as my own husband's past might also demonstrate.]

  65. Ton

    In as clear as terms as I can state man who expects love etc from a woman is a fool. If he finds such a rare creature he is blessed beyond most men.

    Unrealistic expectations ruins folks chance of happiness. It’s popular to say being happy is not the point of life and it isn’t but there is no point in setting oneself up for being unhappy

  66. thehumanscorch

    Also, this right here:

    I don’t know many women whose love for their husband doesn’t suffer at least temporarily when her husbands ability to protect/provide is lessened. In fact, without God, prayer, and a deep commitment to obedience to His Word, I don’t know many women who maintain love for their husbands when he is no longer able to protect/provide. Though they may not always end the marriage, their treatment of their husbands (withdrawing sex/affection/admiration/respect) gives clear evidence of their lack of love for him.

    This is also true for men when your wife gets older, i.e., over 35, or fat, bitchy, ungrateful, disrespectful, and refuses sex of any kind. Hard for a man to stay in love with a woman when there is diminished physical attraction and diminished respect.

    But. Not impossible, because some men have done it.

  67. TempestTcup

    Whereas I do think that men and women love differently, I still think they are both capable of lasting love. If not why did my grandmother mourn the loss of my grandfather for 40 years? She lost him when she was not much older than I am now and still a very attractive woman. If I lost my husband I would be devastated and not because of the loss of penis and money.

    There are a lot of women that are the way described in the post above; I see them every day, but just because they exist (and their population is growing exponentially) doesn’t mean that women are incapable of love or loyalty. I think the main problems are the instant gratification me me me society and the complete and total lack of consequences for women’s irresponsible actions against themselves (birth control, welfare, STD treatments, etc.).

    Most women today have never put anyone else first in their lives; they always came first in their own lives. When I put my husband first in my life, I grew so much closer to him. We were always very close, but now it’s like we fell in love all over again. I don’t know how to describe it; I can’t find the words.

  68. Ton

    I’d answer that if I could darling but I am on record as saying men only appear rational compared to women

  69. deti

    “Oh sure, now you are all willing to concede that women are capable of love. But reading what you write about this everywhere else makes it obvious that you think it’s an inferior kind of love, practically not love at all, and that women are incapable of loyalty, especially if a man has a setback like illness or injury. Weren’t you the one who said that women put men on a clock in those scenarios?”

    As I have said before and keep saying here, women’s love is not inferior. It’s different.

    I think women are capable of loyalty. But a setback like illness or injury severely tests both a woman’s love and her loyalty. A short illness from which he recovers quickly? No problem.

    It’s when a man’s depression or illness or injury stretches from weeks, to months, to years, that it starts becoming a problem. The sexual attraction (eros) lessens. (I’ve seen this FIRSTHAND.) Commitment can be tested too. You’ve seen plenty of women stay with injured husbands. I’ve seen plenty of women bail on injured/ill husbands after a certain amount of time. Those women loved their husbands; but the long, long illness dissipated that love to the point where she couldn’t or wouldn’t keep her commitment.

    Everyone has their limit. For those women, it was reached after a certain length of time when he couldn’t or wouldn’t recover from his illness.

    Last, let me point this out: A man wants commitment from his wife. But when he is ill or injured or debilitated, the last thing he wants is to know that his wife is staying with him out of obligation or duty. Because she doesn’t want to be there. He KNOWS she doesn’t want to be there. She isn’t attracted to him, and he KNOWS it. She doesn’t want sex with him, and he KNOWS it. It’s drudgery for her, and he KNOWS it. She hates him for putting her through this, and he KNOWS it. He hates himself for putting her through it.

  70. Elspeth

    The only way I continue to love and respect him in a way he receives it is “as unto the Lord.”

    SD, you write that as if it is in some way a sub-par category of love and respect. “The only way

    I say that loving and respecting our husbands “as unto the Lord” are the only ways that truly matter when all is said and done

  71. Sigyn

    I’m having fun watching the goalposts move in this discussion. First the complaint is that women’s love is completely opportunistic, implying that commitment is love (frivorce oh noes). When it’s demonstrated that there are women who’ve been loyal through hard times and dry spells, the standard changes to being regular sex. Regular sex proven, the goalposts move again and it’s now affection, not loyalty, not sex.

    And they say we WOMEN don’t know what we want.

    [ssm: LOL, right! One time on Julian O'Dea's blog, Lena S. wrote that the men and women of any given age deserve each other. The wisdom of her words is proven to me time and again.]

  72. thehumanscorch

    It’s also becoming obvious to me, as the conversation gets more heated, that a lot of our beefs are clearly rooted in the merciless bubble bursting that happens when one takes a red pill look at the base natures of males and females. Hypergamy vs. Polygamy. Many of us wish to GOD that the other gender would love the way we want them to, but alas, that is fantasy.

    Twilight is about “loving someone forever,” and sure a man could love you like that if you were eternally 19 and in your prime! What male do you know that wouldn’t opt for a non-aging woman, if such a thing existed. (And yes, I know, women want that too, they don’t get excited about wrinkled dicks that take three days to get hard either.)

    So of course a woman can love you more easily, and more intensely, when the provision is strong, and so is the mystery, challenge, excitement, etc. But that doesn’t mean she can’t or won’t love you if and when all that changes; same with a man and his aging wife.

    The problem is, the Bible understands all of that perfectly well, and basically tells us that part of what God is doing in a relationship is teaching you to love under all conditions, which is actually the way that God loves, and no one really naturally likes or wants that.
    So of course all the natural desires apply, but growing in love means going beyond a woman’s hypergamy and a man’s polygamy, and that is pretty much a divine construct of character building(whether you believe in God or not), which is why Rollo/Deti and SSM can both be right at the same time.

  73. Sarah's Daughter

    Deti,
    What you have said is so true. It has been a year and a half now that my husband has not been able to drive, I open his doors form him, he walks with a cane, and suffers periodic debilitating pain break throughs despite the pain medication he’s on. On his good days he over exerts himself because, well, that’s what men do. He works too hard and suffers the next day. I’ve been told in no uncertain terms to shut the f*** up about it. (When I try to tell him to not do too much). He has had a fantastic ability to maintain his frame as protector/provider and here’s the thing, I know at some level he does it so that I am not challenged with a weakened love (expression of love) for him.

    Is/Ought

    He shouldn’t have to do what he does, I should be wild about having sex with him and expressing love the way he receives it without his need to maintain his frame. This is what ought to happen. He should be able to expect this from me.

    Instead of whining about what ought to be, he understands what is and has become really good at staving off the devourer.

  74. deti

    @SSM:

    “What absolute crap. He said that women’s love is opportunistic and men’s love is idealized. Nowhere did he say that men’s love is opportunistic”

    You’ve really gone off the deep end here.

    Men believe in the dream. Men want the dream. It’s what creates beta males that write sappy poems to girls who don’t care one whit about them.. Lionel Richie’s entire solo career is based on it.

    A safe place where a man can pour out his whole heart. Safety, solace and freedom in the bosom of a woman who loves and cares for and accepts him for nothing except who is he at that moment. He doesn’t have to do anything, say anything, or be anything. He doesn’t have to run game, instill dread, or be attractive. He can refuse to shave for a few days, fart wherever he wants, and watch TV and eat Cheetos, and she’ll still love him. He can laugh, cry and emote, and she won’t think less of him or lose attraction for him. He can rest assured that nothing, nothing, not even the loss of his job and source of her security, will affect her love and commitment to him one iota. That’s the dream. That’s what he wants.

    Rollo is saying that that’s not how love and attraction work.

    [ssm: Except that isn't what he said. He said that spinning plates is as good as it gets for men. Because opportunistic love, that's why. And here we have a man (Mr. Spade) who frivorced his wife in order to spin plates, yet he isn't getting laid and my husband, who is married, is. It's absurd. Men are every bit as opportunistic as women. And by the way, we too want that idealized kind of love. I want to sit around in sweatpants on the couch horking down the icecream and sharing every single thought and feeling I have with my husband while he listens with rapt attention and rubs my feet. Think he'll be okay with that? No? That opportunistic bastard!]

    SSM, I’m invested in this viewpoint because you’re not getting it, and I’m trying to explain and illustrate it to you, and I’m not getting through to you on this.

  75. sunshinemary Post author

    Scorch @ 10:28

    Perfect. Thank you for that. That makes perfect sense.

    Also, since I don’t think Rollo acknowledges agape, we should consider that his entire discussion is framed in terms of eros and philia, I suppose. That makes it of only limited value for we Christians.

  76. Elspeth

    Men believe in the dream. Men want the dream. It’s what creates beta males that write sappy poems to girls who don’t care one whit about them.. Lionel Richie’s entire solo career is based on it.

    A safe place where a man can pour out his whole heart. Safety, solace and freedom in the bosom of a woman who loves and cares for and accepts him for nothing except who is he at that moment. He doesn’t have to do anything, say anything, or be anything. He doesn’t have to run game, instill dread, or be attractive. He can refuse to shave for a few days, fart wherever he wants, and watch TV and eat Cheetos, and she’ll still love him. He can laugh, cry and emote, and she won’t think less of him or lose attraction for him. He can rest assured that nothing, nothing, not even the loss of his job and source of her security, will affect her love and commitment to him one iota. That’s the dream. That’s what he wants.

    In other words, men are as unrealistic in their expectations as women are? Well, that’s a new school of thought from a man around these parts.

  77. deti

    @ Sigyn:

    “ I’m having fun watching the goalposts move in this discussion.”

    Due respect being given, come back when you’ve read Rollo’s post that actually created this emotional vomitorium.

    If there is any goalpost moving, neither Rollo nor I nor others defending the positions taken in Rollo’s post (which you obviously haven’t read) are the ones doing so.

    [ssm: I might be wrong, but I think Sigyn was talking about our discussion here, not Rollo's essay or comment thread, when it comes to goal-post moving.]

  78. Elspeth

    I should expand my thought: It’s unrealistic of any person to expect to live with another human being and never experience disillusionment or disappointment.

    All this time I’ve been reading that men understand this, but women don’t, and then Deti says the above. I’m confused, LOL.. Well not really, because I always knew that men are people too.

  79. Sigyn

    The problem is, the Bible understands all of that perfectly well, and basically tells us that part of what God is doing in a relationship is teaching you to love under all conditions, which is actually the way that God loves, and no one really naturally likes or wants that.

    Beautiful and true, Scorch!

  80. TempestTcup

    “I am on record as saying men only appear rational compared to women”

    Ton, my husband’s rationality is one of his most attractive traits; it balances out my emotionality. I tease him that the blue part of my avatar is me and the calm of the teacup is him. My rock.

  81. deti

    “A safe place where a man can pour out his whole heart. Safety, solace and freedom in the bosom of a woman who loves and cares for and accepts him for nothing except who is he at that moment. ”

    Elspeth snarked back:

    “In other words, men are as unrealistic in their expectations as women are?”

    No. Men don’t EXPECT this. We long, long ago learned not to EXPECT this. Doesn’t mean we don’t WANT it.

    IN any event, Elspeth, it’s good to see someone finally admit that men should not expect to be loved for who he is, but instead for what he does for his woman.

  82. Learner

    Interesting…….

    I do think several things are happening here. Love and attraction are getting conflated. When guys in the manosphere go on and on about women being incapable of love it is usually in the vein that Rollo did in the quote within the post…when he talks about “companionship, mutual love and respect” which to me clearly isn’t about sexual attraction. I mean I love my brother and we have a great companionable relationship built on mutual love and respect….and certainly no sexual attraction or Eros. That appears to be the clear meaning to many intelligent women reading it….perhaps instead of saying ” you are too smart to believe that” it is time to question if what you think is being said is what is being understood. A good communicator knows this…. It is the speakers responsibility to make themselves understood. Of course, that assumes the goal is communication and understanding….which it may well not be. However if the goal is not to be understood you can hardly get annoyed when people make a good faith plain reading of an idea being put forth and don’t see it the way you intended.

    Also (speaking to the Christians) we are all called to love….1 Corinthians 13 and all that. That love is not conditional.

    And… Alte is right. It is a plainly known fact in the medical community and I have witnessed it first hand over and over again, men are more likely to leave their wives or girlfriends in times of illness and injury. That is not to say men are not capable of staying….just that some choose not to. Some women choose not to as well…there are just less of them.

  83. Elspeth

    IN any event, Elspeth, it’s good to see someone finally admit that men should not expect to be loved for who he is, but instead for what he does for his woman.

    I saw this one coming Deti, which is why I followed up with an explanation. You’ve grown predictable, sir. My comment was in reference to your romantic description of the masculine dream. It sounded quite feminine really, like those chicks who gain 100 pounds and want their man to love them for who they are. You’d shoot that down in a heartbeat, and we both know it.

    I think you knew full well what I meant but chose to spin it in the worst possible light. You’re full of crap, because I know you have read my commentary over the past couple of years and just about everything I write about my man is about his character. what he’s made of. *Very little has been offered in the way of material things he does for me, even though he does a lot.

    Of course, I have a man whose character I can brag on. For that I am very thankful.

    * Oh yeah, I have very recently offered commentary about something he did for me on my blog, lest someone chooses to throw that one up.

  84. deti

    “Also, since I don’t think Rollo acknowledges agape, we should consider that his entire discussion is framed in terms of eros and philia, I suppose. That makes it of only limited value for we Christians.”

    (Channels King A Matthew King)

    By Jove, I think she’s got it!

    SSM, can you close comments on this little emotional flesh fest now that we’ve straightened this out?

  85. ar10308

    Welp, you can snark all these things, but the bottom line comes when you ask a couple questions: Who nuked the system of assortive mating at the first opportunity? Who wanted more than what they actually deserved? Who was deceived? Who wanted to be like God?

    [ssm: What does all that have to do with it? This isn't a post about listing every bad thing about women. I've written plenty of posts myself on that topic. The point is that women are perfectly capable of selfless love and men are capable of being quite opportunistic. What Rollo described was general human nature, not a man/woman thing. It's certainly not justification for abandoning marriage, though there are perfectly good reasons why Christian men should be extremely wary of marriage in modern times.]

  86. sunshinemary Post author

    Quoting from the Science Daily article to which Alte linked:

    A woman is six times more likely to be separated or divorced soon after a diagnosis of cancer or multiple sclerosis than if a man in the relationship is the patient, according to a study that examined the role gender played in so-called “partner abandonment.” The study also found that the longer the marriage the more likely it would remain intact.

    The study confirmed earlier research that put the overall divorce or separation rate among cancer patients at 11.6 percent, similar to the population as a whole. However, researchers were surprised by the difference in separation and divorce rates by gender. The rate when the woman was the patient was 20.8 percent compared to 2.9 percent when the man was the patient.

    “Female gender was the strongest predictor of separation or divorce in each of the patient groups we studied,” said Marc Chamberlain, M.D., a co-corresponding author and director of the neuro-oncology program at the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance (SCCA).

    Tell me again, guys, all about how opportunistic women are and how men want an idealized kind of love.

  87. Alte

    As Christians, the standard is to love everyone everywhere unconditionally. Even our greatest enemies and worst tormentors are to be loved as neighbors, as ourselves. We don’t always live up to it, but I fail to see how that is something particular to married women.

    To be honest, I’m not very impressed with American male love. I think they’re mostly a bunch of fickle romantics, but the current state of divorce laws keeps their shenanigans down to a dull roar. I just had one particularly charming gentleman admit unabashedly that he had traded his wife in for a better version. There were eight men present and nobody even blinked. He didn’t even have the decency to be ashamed of what he’d done.

    A throw away society, as a general rule.

  88. Sigyn

    Deti, I can read. And I have read both that long-winded post and your comments. Every time your complaint is answered, you come back with, “Yeah, well…That’s not good enough! There should also be this other thing! I’m still right!”

    Unlike you men, who according to you KNOW what we women think and feel, we women can’t KNOW what you men think and feel. If “this other thing” is also part of the equation from the get-go, then you need to state that up front.

    Otherwise, I’m free to accuse you of moving the goalposts. And I do. You’ve done it before.

  89. Just Saying

    “those who love least win?”

    There is a lot of truth to that. Always being willing to call it quits and walk away is a powerful thing. This is one of many reasons that I will never marry – puts too much power into the hands of a woman. I think I understand what is being gotten at in this post – it’s not that women are scheming (well some are, but I think many aren’t) but they do tend to be slaves to their “feelings”. A man will give his word and feel that to break it is a reflection on all that he is – so he will keep his word no matter what. A woman will rationalize it – “Yes, I said ’till Death do us part’ but surely they didn’t think of this. He’s not the man I married any more, so how can I stay with him?”

    I have see that – a friend at a young age had a stroke due to a genetic birth-defect, at the age of 34, lost the ability to speak. (They fixed it in surgery, but the damage was done.) Heck, he looked older than his Dad… Of course, this wife, and mother of his two kids stuck around – till he was out of the hospital. Then it was, “later”. Divorce was pretty quick… Now he made a full recovery (after more than two years of hard work and effort on his part – and set about working out, and is now in great shape. So she comes over and sees him – suddenly she wants to come back. He and I chatted about it – I told him one thing, “The government does full background investigations on you to see how you’ve behaved in the past. Since the best predictor of future actions is past actions.Knowing what you know now – do you think she is a good woman?” His answer – No, but she’s got a bangin body… So I told him to bang her, and enjoy life since he deserves it. But never forget those 18 months when he could barely feed himself, and she was out partying with his insurance. It was his parents that took care of him for the most part, and friends that came over to help out.

    Women tend to be focused on themselves – men aren’t. That is what Chivalry and such was all about. (Okay – I really am focused on myself, but that’s why I’m not a good candidate for marriage.) Anyway… in what I have seen of life – there are good women out there – a very few, but there are some. But like everything, you have to go with the odds – and the odds are a woman is driven by her attraction and feelings, and rationalizes everything to that. My friend was withered, and looked like he was 90, so wasn’t very attractive – so his then wife, rationalized why all of those vows she made meant nothing – and her female friends agreed with her. Not one called her on her actions and told her she was being a selfish b*tch. Of course some of them agreed with her, because they were planning on taking her place, but that is neither here nor there. Now, he and I move in some of the same circles, so I found out the “dirt” mostly through some of the women I see. When it was obvious he was making a full recovery, suddenly a couple of the women were coming over to “see how he’s doing”… I told him then exactly why they were coming over… Women are transparent creatures if you have proper lighting… And spies to feed you what “the girls” are talking about

    Women have their good points, and bad – just like men – but they are different. Never expect a woman to do what you would do. They don’t think the same way. Their brains literally don’t work like a man’s – you can see it easily. Go to a musical where several people are singing at the same time – tell the man and women to follow ONE song. A man can do this easily – a woman cannot. She hears all of the songs and cannot filter them to follow one. So if there are 5 people singing, the man has to listen to it 5 times to hear everything – now in practice he shifts his attention between them, to hear parts and assembles the whole. A woman cannot do this – it’s been studied and is one of those things. Sort of like putting a leopard in a tree and giving a photo of it to a man and woman – the man will see the leopard, the woman won’t. (Evolution is a powerful thing – the man that couldn’t see the leopard was lunch – the woman wasn’t so never evolved that ability.) But put a man and woman in an office. Take them out and ask them to describe it, and the woman can describe everything in it in great detail, the man can tell you there was a chair, and maybe a desk and maybe one thing, but in general, everything else is lost. Men and women are *very* different creatures – it is that difference that makes life fun, but only if you understand it… And appreciate it…

  90. MargeryM

    “It is a plainly known fact in the medical community and I have witnessed it first hand over and over again, men are more likely to leave their wives or girlfriends in times of illness and injury.”
    -Learner

    I think this plays to why we love as men and women. Providing and protecting is needed for women but being injured or having an illness doesn’t necessarily mean he isn’t doing either or can’t do either at some point. I knew a woman whose husband was in a horrible accident but through his insurance and their savings they were set for the rest of their lives. There was no strain there. However, men have a physical need. If a woman cannot sexually provide for her husband that’s a problem. Men very much need women’s bodies, women do not need men to be physically healthy necessarily.

    Just a thought.

  91. Cane Caldo

    When I read this post, my first thought was: Man, I love being right! I’m right about various folks. I’m right about ideas and their implications. I’m right about notions of love…Damn it feels good to be a gangsta!

    Thanks for the shout-out, Elspeth.

    @Deti

    But your post conflates what he said about eros with agape and storge, which are more in the realm of commitment.

    Actually, it is you and Rollo who have conflated with your words. Perhaps this is not what you meant, but I actually think it is. You two’s descriptions of the way a man loves is an unsound mix of philios (appreciation of the person’s worth), eros (sexual desire), and agape (commitment), but your description of women is a wandering philios with occasional waves of eros. Taken in aggregate, y’all’s statements have denied women’s ability for agape. For folks who believe this: spinning plates really is as good as it gets. Rollo is consistent, at least.

    What is being asserted is that women do not love UNCONDITIONALLY. Men need to earn a woman’s love, and they need to continue earning it. Don’t like it, but that’s how it is.

    Philios and eros are supposed to drive us towards something. They are both instigators and rewards for goodness in the here and now. They are not loves to which we should aspire, but loves which should surprise us, and encourage us onward, They make temporal sense of our immortal goals. In other words: They foreshadow what real love–love in a new life where we are not separated from He who is love–will be like.

    If the measure of love is what we experience in the here and now, we’ll never get there from here. You gotta have faith in things neither seen nor heard; including agape love. We can know if we have faith by how we behave. Commitment is its own test.

  92. thehumanscorch

    @Deti
    If there is any goalpost moving, neither Rollo nor I nor others defending the positions taken in Rollo’s post (which you obviously haven’t read) are the ones doing so.

    In all fairness…I think that there is a profound difference between:
    ‘That’s not the way attraction works’

    and

    ‘Women are incapable of unconditional love.’

    Because I think, just based on the examples given here, that there is a continuum. Because seriously, this male dream of ours that you perfectly describe?
    Men believe in the dream. Men want the dream. It’s what creates beta males that write sappy poems to girls who don’t care one whit about them.. Lionel Richie’s entire solo career is based on it.
    A safe place where a man can pour out his whole heart. Safety, solace and freedom in the bosom of a woman who loves and cares for and accepts him for nothing except who is he at that moment. He doesn’t have to do anything, say anything, or be anything. He doesn’t have to run game, instill dread, or be attractive. He can refuse to shave for a few days, fart wherever he wants, and watch TV and eat Cheetos, and she’ll still love him. He can laugh, cry and emote, and she won’t think less of him or lose attraction for him. He can rest assured that nothing, nothing, not even the loss of his job and source of her security, will affect her love and commitment to him one iota. That’s the dream. That’s what he wants.

    …that dream is always imagined with a woman in her prime! I mean seriously, do you think that when males think of this magic Utopian paradise it’s with senior citizen babes? Really?
    No it’s not! It’s with bikini clad babes, you don’t care anything about an overweight, unattractive woman loving you like this, do you?

    So that just goes to show that it works both ways…our love is opportunistic if we have the opportunity to have it with someone(s) young and pretty, methinks.

    @SSM
    Also, since I don’t think Rollo acknowledges agape, we should consider that his entire discussion is framed in terms of eros and philia, I suppose. That makes it of only limited value for we Christians.

    Yes, again, God calling us to a level of love that can’t be achieved by human means is a part of the deal, and thus laughable to non-believers. Again, it’s what makes Rollo & Deti right about much of what they say in terms of mechanics and biology. But while not totally incorrect, it’s possible that their assertions are incomplete, because it’s possible, possible, that there could be more to love than the base natures of hypergamy and polygamy, although it cannot be argued that the vast majority of human love starts there, and seemingly stays there, that’s their whole argument.

  93. sunshinemary Post author

    Just Saying wrote:

    Women tend to be focused on themselves – men aren’t.

    LOL, you have got to be kidding me. Men aren’t focused on themselves? Yeah, Mr. Spade was probably just thinking about Mrs. Spade’s happiness when he frivorced her to spin plates which as yet are not spinning, right?

  94. Sigyn

    I like how Just Saying says that men aren’t focused on themselves, in the same comment as he advises a friend to focus on himself. And on top of that, he says men keep their word because it reflects on themselves, which means that honesty for a man is all about…himself.

  95. deti

    “I saw this one coming Deti, which is why I followed up with an explanation. You’ve grown predictable, sir.”

    Perhaps, perhaps not. In any event, there’s a difference between what we WANT (the masculine dream) and what we can reasonably EXPECT.

    Similarly, a woman WANTS to get married and then pork out and wear flip flops and sweatpants. It’s a hell of a lot easier in this legal and cultural environment for a woman to do what she WANTS than it is for a man to do or get what he WANTS.

    Yes, Elspeth, you’ve talked much about your man’s character. But you’ve also talked much about his provision for you as well. You’re an outlier, and we both know it.

    No, actually I didn’t know what you meant and I didn’t spin it. I read the words you wrote in the combox. I didn’t infuse them with the meaning of two years’ worth of commentary spread out over a couple of dozen websites, as you did. I tend to read what people write AT THE TIME and respond to that. That’s why I drew the distinction between WANTS and EXPECTATIONS.

    Because, as Rollo said, “Want” has nothing to do with it. I can WANT that until I’m blue in the face. Doesn’t mean I’ll get it. If I want love and sex, I have to meet EXPECTATIONS or I’m shit out of luck.

    That’s the beginning, middle and end of all this.

  96. Cane Caldo

    @Deti

    SSM, can you close comments on this little emotional flesh fest now that we’ve straightened this out?

    What?

    @AR10308

    Who nuked the system of assortive mating at the first opportunity?

    Men, because women asked for it, and we love to please women.

    Who wanted more than what they actually deserved?

    Both. Well, it depends how we look at it. Women tend to want more quality than they deserve, but men tend to like more quantities of lesser qualities; i.e., more hoes and less God. Which is really strange because God is a never-ending source of women. He just keeps crankin’ ‘em out.

    Who was deceived?

    Women; they’re flibbertigibbets. Men are stupid on purpose.

    Who wanted to be like God?

    Women. Men wanted to be like women.

    @Alte

    To be honest, I’m not very impressed with American male love[...]

    This was totally unnecessary for you to say, and designed only to incite ridicule and disdain. You should know better.

  97. Alte

    “Tell me again, guys, all about how opportunistic women are and how men want an idealized kind of love.”

    It is an idealized love that they strive for, actually. It’s just the wrong ideal. A kind of romantic idolatry, rather than the respect and affection that comes with years of shared hardship and sacrifice. It seems to be predominant among those men prone to pedestalization, as if they are expecting to simply reverse the situation to a more satisfying perversion. Men with a more well-developed ability to love someone don’t seem to suffer the same fate.

    I blame television and their parents.

  98. sunshinemary Post author

    Philios and eros are supposed to drive us towards something. They are both instigators and rewards for goodness in the here and now. They are not loves to which we should aspire, but loves which should surprise us, and encourage us onward, They make temporal sense of our immortal goals. In other words: They foreshadow what real love–love in a new life where we are not separated from He who is love–will be like.

    If the measure of love is what we experience in the here and now, we’ll never get there from here. You gotta have faith in things neither seen nor heard; including agape love. We can know if we have faith by how we behave. Commitment is its own test.

    Oh, well-said, sir! Philios and eros aren’t bad, but they aren’t IT. Chasing after only those two kinds of love – or idealizing them – will leave us empty, but finding them suddenly is, as you say, most encouraging.

    If the measure of love is what we experience in the here and now, we’ll never get there from here. You gotta have faith in things neither seen nor heard; including agape love. We can know if we have faith by how we behave. Commitment is its own test.

    Indeed, and it would seem to be so from Jesus’ own words:

    John 13:34-35
    34 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

    and

    Luke 6:46
    46 “Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do what I tell you?”

    We demonstrate our love by our commitment to obeying God.

  99. Saint Velvet

    Men believe in the dream. Men want the dream. It’s what creates beta males that write sappy poems to girls who don’t care one whit about them.. Lionel Richie’s entire solo career is based on it.

    A safe place where a man can pour out his whole heart. Safety, solace and freedom in the bosom of a woman who loves and cares for and accepts him for nothing except who is he at that moment. He doesn’t have to do anything, say anything, or be anything. He doesn’t have to run game, instill dread, or be attractive. He can refuse to shave for a few days, fart wherever he wants, and watch TV and eat Cheetos, and she’ll still love him. He can laugh, cry and emote, and she won’t think less of him or lose attraction for him. He can rest assured that nothing, nothing, not even the loss of his job and source of her security, will affect her love and commitment to him one iota. That’s the dream. That’s what he wants.

    It’s not that I don’t get where you’re coming from, it’s that you’re portraying this “dream” as something other than a dream. Like it’s collective women’s fault you’ve been awoken. Welcome to our fallen reality, Deti, all kinds of people suck. This isn’t Unicorn Land, this is Babies Get Shot In The Face Land. If I voiced this dream of yours, from a woman’s perspective, “she doesn’t have to do anything, say anything, or be anything” the collective manospheres head would pop off of it’s body.

    I get the impression that men who have been abused by their wives (and I consider frivorce and the threat of it abusive, and there’s a certain psycho-social abuse that occurs as a result of the system as it stands, not discounting that, either) suddenly think that it’s either the abusive situation OR the dream, that there’s nothing in between, and not just for themselves but for ANY man. Just because someone isn’t living up to your fantasy doesn’t mean they’re not fulfilling the bargain they’ve made, their own conditions they’ve agreed to. There’s an extremism to it that doesn’t serve except to result in perpetual discontentedness. I get being disillusioned – welcome to marriage, a big part of which is setting aside childish things. We’re talking high stakes,here, I’m not gambling on fantasies.

  100. Elspeth

    Thanks for the shout-out, Elspeth.

    You saw my Bat signal?!

    Someone needed to make sense of all this and I couldn’t think of anyone better.

    I gotta finish this laundry.

    Again, great post Sunshine.

  101. Alte

    “This was totally unnecessary for you to say, and designed only to incite ridicule and disdain.”

    No, I think it’s very pertinent. This is a wider flaw in the American culture. It hits foreign countries through the media, and their societies quickly decline along the same path. Feminism always makes inroads through romance and idealization, after all. The mundane comforts of traditional marriage and civilization are the sort of dowdy thing no one values or misses until it’s gone.

    Also, although women initiate divorce proceedings moreoften, the male rate alone is still higher than the combined rate once was. Men have become progressively eager to chuck their wives. For them to now prance around and claim their undying and unfaltering love as a sex leaves me incredulous. The infidelity rates alone are atrocious.

    Love is a choice we make, not something inherent to one sex or the other.

  102. sunshinemary Post author

    When I read this post, my first thought was: Man, I love being right!

    Sometimes I find your rightness annoying, especially when it’s focused on something that I’ve done or said that was probably not exactly the bestest thing to have said or done. But in this case, I must concur with Elspeth:

    Someone needed to make sense of all this and I couldn’t think of anyone better.

  103. Stingray

    Perhaps, perhaps not. In any event, there’s a difference between what we WANT (the masculine dream)

    This is a not a masculine dream, Deti. It is the beta male dream, as you said. It is the dream of men today because of the untruths you’ve been taught. The dream, as you described it, would be many a masculine man’s nightmare.

  104. ar10308

    “The point is that women are perfectly capable of selfless love and men are capable of being quite opportunistic. What Rollo described was general human nature, not a man/woman thing.”

    Incorrect. The first woman who was ever created had a nature thusly described. The first man did not. Eve went for highest Alpha she could get and that wasn’t Adam. Eve nuked the assortive mating system before there was anyone else to mate with. Adam was guilty of loving Eve. That is the difference between male and female love. The female is an opportunist and tried to gain the love of a better partner and is exactly as Rollo described. Adam loved Eve, so he sacrificed himself for her. Eve did not reciprocate that love and Adam blamed her for being an opportunistic whore.

    [ssm: Why, it's practically like men don't even sin! Adam was just doing it for love after all. In fact, maybe men don't even share in Original Sin, since all Adam was trying to do was love Eve with total selflessness. He's only guilty of the sin of love!

    Oh, and of being a zoned out coward, too.

    Hmm. Guess we did both fall, AR.]

  105. deti

    “It’s not that I don’t get where you’re coming from, it’s that you’re portraying this “dream” as something other than a dream.”

    As I keep saying to deaf ears: It is a dream. It’s an ideal that can never be attained.

    Actually, the corresponding feminine dream/ideal wouldn’t cause the Manosphere’s head to pop off. That feminine ideal has been almost encoded in law in the United States. Get fat, have affairs, frivorce husband, take half the stuff and the kids, live off alimony forever. It’s been enshrined in our churches, and made corporate policy in our workplaces and governments.

  106. sunshinemary Post author

    Love is a choice we make, not something inherent to one sex or the other.

    I agree with this. Men and women come to marriage with different needs and different desires. We bring different skills to the table. However, we are both capable of selfless love if we choose to do it, and we are both capable of being evil and selfish when we choose not to love.

    It’s odd, though. Rollo and the other men say we are opportunistic – that it’s just a feature of women – but notice the reaction you got for your post about considering a man’s financial situation before marrying him. It was like you said you kill puppies and kittens for sport or something. But why should men be so deeply offended that a woman might consider finances in making a marriage decision if the only way we are capable of loving is opportunistically?

  107. Alte

    My general opinion is that the men in a society end up with women (and children, for that matter) that they deserve. If you are surrounded by unloving women, then a bit of introspection might be in order. Loving women do exist, but it’s very possible that they are not eager to marry you. Loving women will wish to be loved.

  108. deti

    “Men have become progressively eager to chuck their wives.”

    Assuming arguendo this to be accurate:

    Gee. I wonder why that might be. /sarc off

  109. sunshinemary Post author

    Get fat, have affairs, frivorce husband, take half the stuff and the kids, live off alimony forever.

    That isn’t the feminine dream. Obviously. The (sinful) dream is to be made to feel intense emotional highs every day, forever (i.e. tingles). What you describe is women’s sinful response to not getting those emotional highs. But those things in and of themselves are not the dream.

  110. deti

    “What you describe is women’s sinful response to not getting those emotional highs, but those things are not the dream.”

    Fine. The point is our laws, churches, employers and culture have made it clear she’s fully entitled to respond that way when cupcake doesn’t get what she wants, and that response is fully protected, enabled, and financed.

  111. Sigyn

    “Actually, the corresponding feminine dream/ideal wouldn’t cause the Manosphere’s head to pop off. That feminine ideal has been almost encoded in law in the United States. Get fat, have affairs, frivorce husband, take half the stuff and the kids, live off alimony forever. It’s been enshrined in our churches, and made corporate policy in our workplaces and governments.”

    And this doesn’t upset you (Manosphere), and it’s not something you write about constantly as a Very Bad Thing, and it’s not something you’re fighting against, and you wouldn’t go off on a woman who said this was good?

    No, all of these things are true, but OF COURSE it’s distinct from a colloquial description of one’s “head popping off”.

    C’mon, deti, you’re capable of better than this.

    [ssm: Wait - there've been manosphere posts about fat, slutty frivorcee gold-diggers? I must have missed (all ten thousand of) those posts. Surely such women do not upset men around these parts! :)]

  112. deti

    “However, we are both capable of selfless love if we choose to do it, and we are both capable of being evil and selfish when we choose not to love.”

    So that we’re clear, you are talking about agape.

    Rollo was talking about eros.

    There’s lots of women who are married but don’t feel eros for their men. THAT is what Rollo was talking about, I think. Men WANT their women to feel unconditional eros. That’s unrealistic, and we can’t expect that.

    A woman can remain in agape commitment to her husband despite feeling no eros for him whatsoever. I think that is very, very hard, but it can be done.

    Rollo’s post= eros.

    SSM’s post = agape.

    Let’s all keep it straight.

    [ssm: I disagree. He wasn't only talking about eros when he said that women are opportunistic. In fact, what he describes isn't even a kind of love. He's talking about eros on the man's side, and something that isn't even love on the women's side.]

  113. LeeLeeBug

    @alte
    My general opinion is that the men in a society end up with women (and children, for that matter) that they deserve. If you are surrounded by unloving women, then a bit of introspection
    might be in order. Loving women do exist, but it’s very possible that they are not eager to marry you. Loving women will wish to be loved.

    Brilliant observation as usual. I miss your sage posts. As my grandmother used to say, “Like attracts like.”

  114. javaloco

    h, well-said, sir! Philios and eros aren’t bad, but they aren’t IT. Chasing after only those two kinds of love – or idealizing them – will leave us empty, but finding them suddenly is, as you say, most encouraging.”

    A friend of mine once said, and I may have repeated it here before, that a cause of sin is Eros or Phileo in the absence of Agape.

    Eros minus Agape leads to sexual sin. Phileo is a little tougher to perceive but manifests itself in well-meaning activism (turned extremism) – MADD, ACLU, etc.

  115. Cane Caldo

    @Alte

    What was an argument between SSM and Rollo/Deti you’re redirecting into a
    You’re playing a mind-game (spiritual) version of “let’s you and him fight”, and you’re attacking American maleness in the very fight you incite.

    Deuteronomy 25:11 “When men fight with one another and the wife of the one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of him who is beating him and puts out her hand and seizes him by the private parts, 12 then you shall cut off her hand. Your eye shall have no pity.

    It would have been better for you to hold your tongue from that particular comment; even if you’re right. You’ll notice it doesn’t say, “If the wife of the instigator…”. It’s any wife.

    @SSM

    Sometimes I find your rightness annoying

    Me too. This just isn’t one of those times.

  116. Alte

    “It is a dream. It’s an ideal that can never be attained.”

    It’s a nightmare. Like something written by a spoiled teenager. Also the death of civilization as we know it. Men sitting around in their PJs, eating cereal while playing WoW all day, as their wives alternate giving them oral sex and telling them how wonderful they are.

    The female version is equally nightmarish, but I doubt any of us ladies here are dreaming it. Yes, our husbands must love us, but how much more noble of us to make it easy for him to do so.

    Men admire feminine accomplishment and services, too, you know. That men and women admire each other for different accomplishments and services does not negate that fact.

  117. sunshinemary Post author

    See, Deti, Sigyn is right. You are moving the goalposts! We weren’t talking about unfair divorce laws, we were talking about feeling and demonstrating love and also having unrealistic expectations of what love is or should be.

    To summarize my points:

    Women are capable of love. All four kinds.
    Men are capable of being opportunistic in the same way that women are.
    Both men and women have incorrect and unrealistic dreams about love.

    Also, I had a small minor subpoint in my post that no one mentioned, namely that a middle-aged man who frivorces his wife to spin plates is just as likely to end up on a poozle-free diet as he is to end up at a poozle smorgasbord.

  118. thehumanscorch

    @SaintVelvet

    It’s not that I don’t get where you’re coming from, it’s that you’re portraying this “dream” as something other than a dream.
    Like it’s collective women’s fault you’ve been awoken.
    Welcome to our fallen reality, Deti, all kinds of people suck.

    This isn’t Unicorn Land, this is Babies Get Shot In The Face Land.

    This is perfect. PERFECT. Because it’s so freaking true.

    I get the impression that men who have been abused by their wives (and I consider frivorce and the threat of it abusive, and there’s a certain psycho-social abuse that occurs as a result of the system as it stands, not discounting that, either)
    suddenly think that it’s either the abusive situation OR the dream, that there’s nothing in between, and not just for themselves but for ANY man.

    Guilty as charged.
    I’m only now realizing that that’s what I’ve been doing. Game happens, hypergamy happens, friendzoning happens, polygamy happens, rape happens, white knighting happens, frivorce and divorce theft happens, and happily ever after(non-Disney version) happens too.

    Just because someone isn’t living up to your fantasy doesn’t mean they’re not fulfilling the bargain they’ve made, their own conditions they’ve agreed to. There’s an extremism to it that doesn’t serve except to result in perpetual discontentedness. I get being disillusioned – welcome to marriage, a big part of which is setting aside childish things. We’re talking high stakes here, I’m not gambling on fantasies.

    Again, agreed.
    It’s not fair to say that she might not get as wet or wet at all if you lose your job, without saying that you might not get a boner over her any more once her boobs sag or when she just in general hits the wall.
    Our nature based system of love & attraction works a certain way, that’s undeniable. But we can also grow to a point where we are at least attempting to love based on other principles besides our natural hypergamy & polygamy.

    Are those easy? Or as much fun? No on both counts. Doesn’t mean that they don’t exist.

    It’s why hardcore Gamers still end up getting married, and hardcore feminists do too. Because people still want each other, and some version of their dream, even though there’s often a lot of crap you have to deal with along the way.

  119. Rollo Tomassi

    Ahh, there’s the binary response SSM I’ve come to know and love. You’re upset, I can see that, in fact I expect that. It’s very easy to go on the attack and pull all kinds of things out of context when you’re in a histrionic tizzy because you think someone might be questioning your commitment and devotion to your husband, so I’ll be the cooler head here and talk you off the ledge.

    First, I’ve never stated that women are “incapable of love” nor have I ever attempted to invalidate the love they do feel for men. Neither have I ever stated women lack an ability to remain loyal or that their contributions to a mutual love are in any way less valuable than men’s contributions. What I did state is this:

    http://therationalmale.com/2011/12/27/women-in-love/

    Women are incapable of loving men in a way that a man idealizes is possible, in a way he thinks she should be capable of.

    ,…In the same respect that women cannot appreciate the sacrifices men are expected to make in order to facilitate their imperatives, women can’t actualize how a man would have himself loved by her. It is not the natural state of women, and the moment he attempts to explain his ideal love, that’s the point at which his idealization becomes her obligation.

    ,…She’s not incapable of love in the way she defines it, she’s incapable of love as you would have it. She doesn’t lack the capacity for connection and emotional investment, she lacks the capacity for the connection you think would ideally suit you.

    Didja get that last part? Not enough for you? OK:

    http://therationalmale.com/2012/09/10/men-in-love/

    Women’s solipsism prevents them from realizing that men would even have a differing concept of love than how a woman perceives love. Thus her question, “can men really not tell when a woman doesn’t love them?”

    I don’t necessarily think it’s a ‘big lie’, it’s just a lack of mutuality on either gender’s concept of love. If it’s a ‘lie’ at all it’s one men prefer to tell themselves.

    And again:

    http://therationalmale.com/2012/09/11/of-love-and-war/

    We want to relax. We want to be open and honest. We want to have a safe haven in which struggle has no place, where we gain strength and rest instead of having it pulled from us. We want to stop being on guard all the time, and have a chance to simply be with someone who can understand our basic humanity without begrudging it. To stop fighting, to stop playing the game, just for a while.

    We want to, so badly.

    If we do, we soon are no longer able to.

    ,..There is no rest, there is no respite or reprieve from performing, but so strong is the desire for that unconditional love assurance that men thought it prudent to write it into “traditional” marriage vows – ‘for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love, cherish, and obey, forsaking all others until death do you part’ – in other words, a pledge of unconditional love in spite of all circumstance. Those vows are a direct plea for insurances against a female hypergamy that would otherwise be unfettered were it not made in the context of being before God and man.

    ,…I’m not debating the genuineness or sincerity of women’s capacity to love. What I’m positing here is that women’s concept of love isn’t what men would be led to believe it is.

    Are you ready to come off the edge now?

    I have no doubt of the sincerity and the seriousness you feel about your love for HHG, but simple fact of the matter is that, due to hypergamy, when you were single you would never have considered him for a life long commitment if he hadn’t performed to your subconscious standards.

  120. deti

    “See, Deti, Sigyn is right. You are moving the goalposts!”

    Talking about unfair divorce laws in connection with this topic is not goalpost moving, it’s observation making.

    Come on, SSM. Stop grasping.

    Rollo’s post: Eros.

    Your points: Agape.

  121. Alte

    “Men WANT their women to feel unconditional eros.”

    Oh good grief. Permalust? Even men don’t offer women that. Can’t people be allowed a bit of humanity? Do we always have to be on?

  122. Sigyn

    ” The point is our laws, churches, employers and culture have made it clear she’s fully entitled to respond that way when cupcake doesn’t get what she wants, and that response is fully protected, enabled, and financed.”

    Oh, Lord, here we go with the systemic oppression routine again. No heads popping off here!

  123. ar10308

    “Why, it’s practically like men don’t even sin! Adam was just doing it for love after all. In fact, maybe men don’t even share in Original Sin, since all Adam was trying to do was love Eve with total selflessness. He’s only guilty of the sin of love!

    Oh, and of being a zoned out coward, too.”

    Adam was a zoned out coward. He should have had better outcome independence and killed Eve on the spot and asked for God for a better Helpmate who wouldn’t betray him. His sin is that of loving Eve more than God. But that isn’t a sin against Eve, but against God. Eve sinned against both Adam and God.
    None here are denying Adam’s sin or the nature of it. It is the nature of the sin of Eve which is being denied, and that is the same then as it is today: Unchained Hypergamy, IE being an opportunistic whore.
    Adam’s sin is that as it is today: Being an idiotic White Knight.

  124. Cane Caldo

    @Deti

    Rollo’s post: Eros.

    You keep saying this, but it’s simply not true. It would be convenient for your argument if it were true, but it’s not.

    I think part of the reason you’re having a hard time understanding this is because you’re not really clear on the different loves. In manosphere terms, Alpha behavior is eros-oriented (let’s get it on, baby!), and Beta is philios-oriented (love you for you, and love me for me).

    It’s possible I just confused people more, but the responsibility for that lies with misunderstanding (and a lot of misrepresentation!) about the larger implications of various Game tenets. Also: Things are bad all over.

  125. Alte

    Cane,

    Do you ever interact with me other than to remind me that I’m not allowed to speak?

    I have to go have a lunch date with someone capable of saying something other than “shut up” to me, so enjoy my silence.

  126. ar10308

    “Oh, Lord, here we go with the systemic oppression routine again. No heads popping off here!”

    WOW, JUST WOW!

    [ssm: Just for the record, I have a huge issue with misandry, frivorce, lifetime alimony, chilimony, female sluttiness, unchained hypergamy, etc etc etc. It's just that these things aren't the topic of this one post. Continuing to argue against the idea that women are incapable of selfless love because of these other things is like when men try to talk about something women are doing wrong and women fly in to say, "BMDTT!"]

  127. deti

    “The female version is equally nightmarish, but I doubt any of us ladies here are dreaming it.”

    That female version of the feminine dream/nightmare is virtually reality in the West. Do I really need to go into detail about that?

  128. Sigyn

    “Talking about unfair divorce laws in connection with this topic is not goalpost moving, it’s observation making. ”

    And I can observe that it has been, is, and always will be MEN passing those laws, MEN enforcing them, MEN enabling and encouraging women to behave badly, MEN cuckolding other men and being the carousel, MEN not preaching against it, MEN deceiving other men, MEN hiding their heads in the sand…

    But guess what? Not all observations are relevant. Keep on topic. The victim card is not always a trump.

  129. Ton

    Any man who needs a safe place to vomit out the contents of his heart, soul etc needs to grow a pair.

    [ssm: Have I expressed to you recently how much I enjoy the way you just put everything right there on the bottom shelf for us? LOL. There is no B.S. in you, Ton.]

  130. Zippy

    SSM:
    Got a chuckle out of this post. I have zero sympathy for the manosphere tendency to view women as something less than fully human moral agents.

    Quoting from the Science Daily article to which Alte linked:

    I think there is a lot of male projecting going on here. Provision is to women as sex is to men, generally speaking. So people who got married to get their own needs (well, wants really) fulfilled, as opposed to getting married in order to love one’s spouse, get frivorced when they are no longer getting what they want.

    That is one of the reasons I recommend that men practice sexual abstinence. It is like a woman practicing frugality, even though the family may be well off: not only is it good for the development of virtue, but as a practical matter it keeps one prepared for the more difficult phases of life.

  131. sunshinemary Post author

    It’s not fair to say that she might not get as wet or wet at all if you lose your job, without saying that you might not get a boner over her any more once her boobs sag or when she just in general hits the wall.

    Right. Although in all fairness, I guess we should point out that turning out the lights first solves the man’s boner problem, but even in the dark, she’s still gonna be dry as the Sahara is she can’t stop thinking about the unpaid electric bill. But I don’t see this dynamic as a love issue. As you say, we can make every effort to love in accordance with our principles.

    That’s why I love the title of Elspeth’s blog: Loving in the Ruins. She’s talking about the ruins of our society, but I do believe that your entire life can fall apart around you, yet you can still love your spouse. I see my marriage as Sunshine and Philip against the world, you know? And that’s why I take umbrage at the idea that I only love him opportunistically. Bull crap. We’ve got each other’s backs. Do playahs’ plates have their backs?

  132. deti

    @ Alte:

    “Oh good grief. Permalust? Even men don’t offer women that. Can’t people be allowed a bit of humanity? Do we always have to be on?”

    Do people here really not understand the difference between WANT and EXPECT?

  133. deti

    “And I can observe that it has been, is, and always will be MEN passing those laws, MEN enforcing them, MEN enabling and encouraging women to behave badly, MEN cuckolding other men and being the carousel, MEN not preaching against it, MEN deceiving other men, MEN hiding their heads in the sand…”

    Apex fallacy.

  134. Sigyn

    “Apex fallacy.”

    You mean like the apex fallacy of assuming that all women frivorce, trade up, and live happily ever after on cash and prizes while all men must suffer?

  135. MargeryM

    “I do believe that your entire life can fall apart around you, yet you can still love your spouse. I see my marriage as Sunshine and Philip against the world, you know? And that’s why I take umbrage at the idea that I only love him opportunistically. Bull crap.” -SSM

    I think you may be missing the point here, SSM. It’s not that if things were to get rocky a woman would jump ship because that’s what women do, it’s that, as Alte said, romantic love is utilitarian. You are being opportunistic if you view your relationship as Sunshine and Philip against the world because in that you are stating that you are supportive of each other, have each other’s backs. You want to progress and you do so through your partnership. Now, if that ceased to be the case your love would falter because that is what you love is built on. It seems that you are caught up in the idea that opportunistic love = not real love, the gold digger kind where you sex him up and smile so you can run off with his cash or sit around at home all day eating bon bons. But that isn’t one and the same, here.

    [ssm: I respectfully disagree. Opportunism isn't even a kind of love. Yes, women can be very opportunistic, but that isn't love. What I describe with my husband isn't opportunism, it's total commitment born of our choice to love each other despite whatever. It's what the one-flesh union looks like on earth. And I know the difference because, for a long time, we were married but living like two separate fleshes, not one united one.]

  136. Joseph of Jackson

    Wow, this discussion devolved into a hate session on both sides quickly.

    Ladies First:

    Yes, we men are AS full of crap as YOU are. This is no secret and I’m sure you have spoken of this fact many times to women who are your friends. Women and men both love differently and love opportunistically. You are indeed capable of loving in a selfless manner, but the majority of you (across the US) don’t. The men you are speaking to are told from a very young age that they are rapists just because they were born. That women are to be treated better than themselves no matter what and that there are no excuses or exceptions to this. Women’s feelings are to come first in all things and your feelings mean nothing to anyone other than you. That they are responsible even to the point of death for the well being of every woman they see. That these same women are not only better than them, but that the women can do anything they can do, do it better, and do it in high heels. They are worthless, pointless, soulless, and they are lucky we let them enjoy a woman’s presence at all. At the same time, they are given the absolute worst advice for attracting one of these magnificent creatures, but they follow it blindly because there is nothing else. This leads to them not only being invisible to the opposite sex, but also repulsive if they attempt to speak to one. Add on top of this that the men who get it together enough to actually get married have a 50/50 chance of not only divorce but losing their homes, children, saving, earnings, and can be sent to prison simply because they were unable to pay.

    These men are hurting. They can’t say that like you can because there are SO MANY stereotypes about what men are supposed to be and how we are supposed to act. Everything (it seems) is stacked against them just because they want to live a normal human life. They come to places like this as a safe haven to vent that frustration. A lifetime of frustration about everything they have ever wanted. They are trying to collect their thoughts. Those thoughts are just as fallen as any man’s thoughts have ever been, but they are trying. Please be patient with them as this has quickly devolved into a team woman man hating session (or so it seems to me from the outside). Remember these are your brothers in Christ and they are looking for answers just like you are.

    Gentlemen,

    As my grandfather told me once “life sucks and then you die”. Granted life is pretty sucky right now, but Christ doesn’t call us to live happy lives. We are instead called to take up our crosses and follow him to a painful and inglorious end, full of shame and misery. That is our lot in life and there will be a new world where all this nonsense is just a distant memory, but for right now, we have to be honest with ourselves. Just because we feel it or some guy said it on a blog doesn’t make it true. Women are capable of much more than society expects them to be. They are different from us, but still capable of expressing love in a way that God Himself would be proud of. I know that the manosphere teaches many things that lead to a lot understanding, but that understanding must be tempered by Scripture. If it doesn’t line up with scripture then it isn’t true. And Rollo’s idea that women can’t love unconditionally isn’t scriptural, thus isn’t true. Remember your frame gentlemen, when you are wrong, you are wrong and there is nothing wrong with that. You say you are wrong and then you tell them to stop trying to Lord it over you. We have no places that are safe for us to simply be ourselves and make mistakes. Sucks, but it’s as true in this place as it is anywhere else.

  137. Höllenhund

    Now that you really started feeling the heat from feminists, you became scared and thus you now start to distance yourself from the ‘sphere in order to reduce negative feedback from those who wield power today. Eventually you’ll become part of the small, solipsistic online ghetto of tradcon women, talking to themselves and quoting the Bible all the time, making men yawn.

    Predictable.

    [ssm: LOL, you've been saying that for several years now, you know. I'm not really distancing myself from the sphere because I was never part of it to begin with; rather, I'm just trying to separate the mano-wheat from the mano-chaff as it were.]

  138. sunshinemary Post author

    @ Zippy

    That is one of the reasons I recommend that men practice sexual abstinence. It is like a woman practicing frugality, even though the family may be well off: not only is it good for the development of virtue, but as a practical matter it keeps one prepared for the more difficult phases of life.

    Hmm. I’ve disagreed with you on that point before, as I recall. Or at least I didn’t believe you when you said that practicing sexual abstinence in marriage can be a kind of preparation. But now that you put it like this, I think I understand it better. In fact, that is what I do – we are not poor, but I try to be frugal as a way of demonstrating that we would be okay even if we were poor. So maybe there is something to your idea about men practicing abstinence…so long at they are men to whom I am not married.

  139. MargeryM

    “What I describe with my husband isn’t opportunism, it’s total commitment born of our choice to love each other despite whatever.” -SSM

    Rollo made the best point with this in his comment:

    “I have no doubt of the sincerity and the seriousness you feel about your love for HHG, but simple fact of the matter is that, due to hypergamy, when you were single you would never have considered him for a life long commitment if he hadn’t performed to your subconscious standards.”

    Honestly, SSM, you’re talking about something completely different. Or, rather, the same thing with different labels. At this point everyone is talking around everyone on this thread. The things you insist Rollo and Deti are saying are not what they are saying at all, a misunderstanding based in semantics. Both sides of this need some Princess Bride wisdom “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

  140. deti

    “Continuing to argue against the idea that women are incapable of selfless love because of these other things”

    That is NOT the argument that is being made, and you know it. I’m really getting tired of your misrepresenting what is being said here, specifically by me.

    The frivorce et al came up because of the differing masculine and feminine ideals that they would WANT (not expect, WANT – people around here today seem to have a big, big problem understanding the distinction). St. Velvet said the ideal was something other than a dream, and SHE, not I , was the first to bring up frivorce.

    I brought up frivorce et al and pointed out that it was part of the feminine ideal (or a response to being denied it, as you said).

    I did NOT say that women are incapable of selfless love because they are able to frivorce.

    If anything, women have the ability to frivorce because they DON’T WANT TO provide selfless love.

  141. MargeryM

    “Now that you really started feeling the heat from feminists, you became scared and thus you now start to distance yourself from the ‘sphere in order to reduce negative feedback from those who wield power today.” -Höllenhund

    This isn’t fair. Like it or not this discussion needed to be had as it is something talked about quite a bit around the Manosphere and around the web in general. I don’t see how this moves SSM away from her message/agenda. It looks pretty cohesive to me.

    I’m not part of the Manosphere (obviously) but I have to ask, is it really not okay to push back? Because y’all realize all the problems with that, right?

  142. Höllenhund

    “I’m just trying to separate the mano-wheat from the mano-chaff as it were.”

    Hah! You’re not fooling me with that gibberish. No other man is falling for that either, I can tell you that. With the possible exception of the Man Up Brigade’s tradcon male members, of course.

    It’s time you, Elspeth, Alte, Kathy and the rest of your ilk started your own site. With heavy comment moderation, of course. To keep things civil, Christian and whatnot. There you can solipsistically talk about your butts, dresses, share baby pictures, brag about your husbands, gossip about the evil, promiscous, immoral men of the ‘sphere. Have fun!

  143. thehumanscorch

    People are starting to conflate and equate many different things here.

    -Hypergamy and polygamy are base female and male natures
    -People are incapable of loving you based on your fantasies of them being able to
    -Attraction works a certain way and that can’t be changed
    -There’s more to love than eros
    -The Feminine Imperative/Feminism has ruined contemporary Western society

    This is why I’m a proponent of comprehensive sex education when we’re young; then we all wouldn’t be so surprised and hurt and bitter that the world is the way it actually is.

  144. Stingray

    What I describe with my husband isn’t opportunism, it’s total commitment born of our choice to love each other despite whatever. It’s what the one-flesh union looks like on earth. And I know the difference because, for a long time, we were married but living like two separate fleshes, not one united one.

    And loving each other this way is both of your’s opportunity that you made and gave to each other. While the term opportunistic has a bad connotation, it doesn’t always mean a selfishness. If, because of some weird thing, HHG came home tonight and said, I’m done. I’m going to game and do nothing else, because I simply don’t feel like it and this attitude of his became a long term thing, would you really keep having that feeling of love for him? Would you really be able to maintain the same level of respect? Of course you would be able to act toward him exactly as you do now because we have complete control over how we act, but would you be able to maintain what you feel toward him now if this new HHG became this way for several years or indefinitely? I can tell you that if my husband did this, if he simply gave up, my feelings of love would fade. I would maintain my commitment because it’s what I have been called to do and have promised to do, but the feelings would fade no matter how hard I tried to maintain them.

  145. Zippy

    So maybe there is something to your idea about men practicing abstinence…so long at they are men to whom I am not married.

    Hah! I suppose it depends on whether your focus is more on what you want, or more on what is actually, objectively good for him.

  146. Höllenhund

    ” Like it or not this discussion needed to be had as it is something talked about quite a bit around the Manosphere and around the web in general. I don’t see how this moves SSM away from her message/agenda. It looks pretty cohesive to me.”

    No. It’s just an excuse for tradcon hens to whine and complain while confirming each other’s prejudices.

  147. sunshinemary Post author

    Are you ready to come off the edge now?

    LOL, don’t be such a goofball. I’m not upset. I’m enjoying this conversation, frankly. I do take exception to the idea that women are only able to love opportunistically, though, Rollo, and that is what you wrote, even if I’ve misunderstood other things you wrote.

    Also, there are men who disagree with you and who have stated their disagreements here. The problem is that you frame the argument of any man who disagrees with you being the rantings of a hopeless blue-bill beta white knight sucker, so that spares you from having to address what he actually said.

    Who else uses that tactic of trying to discredit one’s opponent by attacking them personally rather than attacking their ideas?

    Oh yeah – feminists!

  148. sunshinemary Post author

    I suppose it depends on whether your focus is more on what you want, or more on what is actually, objectively good for him.

    But Zippy, I am a woman! I am not capable of focusing on anything other than what I want! :)

  149. deti

    “I have no doubt of the sincerity and the seriousness you feel about your love for HHG, but simple fact of the matter is that, due to hypergamy, when you were single you would never have considered him for a life long commitment if he hadn’t performed to your subconscious standards.”

    Game. Set. Match.

  150. MargeryM

    “No. It’s just an excuse for tradcon hens to whine and complain while confirming each other’s prejudices.” -Höllenhund

    Not all the “tradcon hens” are in agreement here, though. You need a better argument.

  151. Zippy

    SSM:
    FWIW, I sometimes find the female focus on frugality in my household to be a mild source irritation. I like (some of the) economic niceties myself, and am more than capable of providing them. I’d imagine that a woman whose husband practices occasional abstinence might feel the same way, especially if she is more than capable of, um, providing.

  152. Farm Boy

    “I have no doubt of the sincerity and the seriousness you feel about your love for HHG, but simple fact of the matter is that, due to hypergamy, when you were single you would never have considered him for a life long commitment if he hadn’t performed to your subconscious standards.”

    I could mention something about tingles, but I won’t.

    [ssm: Perhaps you are confused on the meaning of the words "but I won't"? Just a thought. :)]

  153. Sigyn

    Joseph, most of what you say is true, but I have to take issue with something.

    “These men are hurting. They can’t say that like you can because there are SO MANY stereotypes about what men are supposed to be and how we are supposed to act. Everything (it seems) is stacked against them just because they want to live a normal human life. They come to places like this as a safe haven to vent that frustration. A lifetime of frustration about everything they have ever wanted. They are trying to collect their thoughts. Those thoughts are just as fallen as any man’s thoughts have ever been, but they are trying.”

    My husband often stops me when I go venting. He points out, rightly, that there is a point where venting becomes ranting, and that I also don’t have the right to say things that aren’t true or just. Saying something over and over can internalize it. There’s a point at which the venting has to stop, and if it’s done in the presence of strangers, one should expect to have one’s irrational, unjust, and factually wrong statements challenged.

    “Please be patient with them as this has quickly devolved into a team woman man hating session (or so it seems to me from the outside).”

    I can only speak for myself, but I don’t hate men, and I’m not on Team Woman, never have been. I’m calling people out on the silly and irrational things they say, as I usually do; it just so happens that today, it’s men saying silly and irrational things.

    “Remember these are your brothers in Christ and they are looking for answers just like you are.”

    Some of them. Some of them are unrepentant sinners determined to do what they want and are looking for an excuse. Which are which, I can’t know. But also, letting someone wallow in error doesn’t help him find answers.

  154. Tradcon Hen

    @ Stingray

    If he ditched game, I might feel less sexually attracted to him, but I would not love him less.

    @ Deti

    Rollo: “I have no doubt of the sincerity and the seriousness you feel about your love for HHG, but simple fact of the matter is that, due to hypergamy, when you were single you would never have considered him for a life long commitment if he hadn’t performed to your subconscious standards.”

    Deti: Game. Set. Match.

    No, that doesn’t disprove my original point at all. I love him from a place that is not based on opportunism, which Rollo asserts is the only way women can love. Love is separate from all the things that we (both men and women) do in order to vet a potential spouse, which includes things like sexual attraction, money, values, religious beliefs, etc. Those things are important but they are not love, with the exception of sexual attraction, which is rooted in erotic love.

  155. Martel

    I haven’t been able to read all the comments yet, so I may be repeating somebody. Anyhow…

    Blue Pill men tend to view female morality through a masculine lens, failing to understand that although we may all be held to the same standard, certain things are more difficult for women than most men realize (just like not staring down her shirt when she drops something is harder for us than most women realize).

    So, blue pill men tend to think that women have the same idealistic tendencies towards love that they do, or may in fact be even more idealistic about it. (After all, what they really want is a nice guy who’s in touch with his feelings.)

    Rollo correctly attacks this paradigm. However, instead of saying that for women it’s “especially difficult”, or “possible only in light of an intensely strong moral commitment”, or even “almost incapable”, he uses “incapable”. This takes a truth just a hair too far.

    Rollo’s purpose is to describe things as they are, and he’s very good at it. In doing so, he almost entirely refrains from mentioning morality. Therefore, in his mind, if we’re incapable of doing something without a strong moral commitment holding us back, we’re literally “incapable”.

    He also often views our moral codes through the lens of self-interest. He’s often right; it’s common for somebody to advocate a moral code that benefits them personally, like the male omega promoting chastity.

    However, in his strident attempts at realism, in his efforts to quash destructive idealism, he winds up implicitly rejecting individual human moral agency. If we’re incapable, there’s no choice in the matter. If that’s the case, there’s no point to a moral code.

    Again, he’s attacking an important problem. Men have idealized women to a thoroughly improper degree, and he’s doing a good job at tearing that down. But, just because you believe in the wrong thing before, that doesn’t mean that there’s no reason to believe.

    In order to promote a healthy morality, we need to understand each gender’s particular challenges in living out God’s commands. Recently, men have been called on their shortcomings far more than women have, so sometimes we’ve gotta call out just women to restore the balance. Nevertheless, this is no excuse to give either men or women a free pass. We’re primates, just like Rollo describes, but we’re called to be more than that, and with His help, we CAN pull it off.

  156. thehumanscorch

    Wait wait wait…we’re getting mad now because of the reality that a woman’s love would fade if you were to be permanently disabled, or if you are out of work for an extended period of time?

    Guess what people…..LOVE has to be FED.

    Is this really news to you? If you stop feeding your dog and kick them every day, eventually they’ll get sick of it, and bite you, and leave your house. If your parents treat you well and you keep disrespecting them, eventually they will get sick of you and put you out of their home. For Christians, if you keep disbelieving God, He will let you wander in the wilderness until you die. For non-Christians, if you reject God’s offer of atonement, you personally have to atone.

    Do we get it yet? LOVE has to be FED. No exceptions.

    I generally agree with Rollo & Deti on most things, but you dudes can’t keep making the argument that her hypergamy won’t let her love you without a job without talking about how her past-her-primeness doesn’t exactly make you give her unconditional commitment either. It can’t be just one-sided, or “anyone that disagrees with this is a beta male.” That’s ridiculous.

  157. Cane Caldo

    @Alte

    Do you ever interact with me other than to remind me that I’m not allowed to speak?

    You’re redirecting again, and playing the victim. I said you shouldn’t have said that particular thing about American men; especially when there was no good reason to do so, not supportive of anyone, and off-topic. It wasn’t even an attempt to be funny; which could be overlooked.

    Women do have particular burdens, and they should be particularly celebrated when they shoulder them. You did not, so you are not. If you won’t take a hand offered in help, then you’ll get the backhand of correction.

    I have to go have a lunch date with someone capable of saying something other than “shut up” to me, so enjoy my silence.

    Everything is put upon you, isn’t it? You are only told to be silent by me. You are oppressed by American society even in other countries. You even “have” to go to lunch.

    You are too often eager to be contentious. You too often ruin stimulating conversation, and chances for learning. Others won’t tell you this because they are afraid you will withdraw from their lives to a permanent “lunch” with other appeasers. Luckily for you, I lack that particular conundrum, and can tell you what is best for you, and not even be angry.

  158. Tradcon Hen

    Hell Hound

    It’s time you, Elspeth, Alte, Kathy and the rest of your ilk started your own site. With heavy comment moderation, of course. To keep things civil, Christian and whatnot. There you can solipsistically talk about your butts, dresses, share baby pictures, brag about your husbands, gossip about the evil, promiscous, immoral men of the ‘sphere. Have fun!

    LOL! And it’s time that you, Rollo, and Deti start your own site, a club perhaps…

    Stymie: Everyone raise your right hand . . (rolls eyes and sighs) No, your other right hand. . . I, Stymie…

    (all repeat)

    Member in good standing of the He-man Woman Haters Club…

    (all repeat)

    do solemnly swear to be a he-man and hate women and not play with them or talk to them unless I have to. And especially: never fall in love. And if I do, may I die slowly and painfully and suffer for hours or until I scream bloody murder.

    (all try to repeat)

  159. Novaseeker

    Ultimately everything in this area is conditional.
    What I mean is that everything – agape, eros, philia, the lot of them – is conditional. Some of that conditionality comes from external factors and some of it comes from internal factors, but ultimately it is conditional. Even something approaching “unconditional love” is subject to the express, prior condition of one’s choice to love unconditionally – and the prior condition of that choice can, of course, change – that is, one’s choice can change, which means that unconditional love is never less conditional than the continuation of the choice to love unconditionally. It is always conditioned upon that.
    To say that women are subject to a different kind of conditionality than men are is not incorrect, I think, provided that it is remembered that men are also subject conditionality. A man does not love unconditionally by virtue of being a man, but the conditions that must be prior in order for him to love unconditionally, namely his choice to do so, are subject to different preconditions than a woman’s choice to love unconditionally is. It can appear that the conditionality of one sex’s decisions in this area is more or less opportunistic than that of the other sex, but from my perspective, it’s really just a question of each sex having different preconditions needing to exist before the conditions are tripped that can support a decision to love unconditionally.

  160. Stingray

    I’m not even talking about ditching game, I could still love my husband if he ditched game as well, though I would feel the same as you in regard to the sexual attraction. I am talking about him completely stopping it all. Becoming a basement dweller gamma male. Becoming one of those men in that atrocious video that went around a couple of years ago where all the men apologized to women everywhere for masculinity and how horrible a thing it is. Would you still feel love for him if he became a submissive, whiny and lazy emasculated man? I absolutely agree that a woman can still be utterly committed to her husband and do everything for him exactly the same, but I do doubt being able to maintain those feelings.

  161. Rollo Tomassi

    SSM:

    The rate when the woman was the patient was 20.8 percent compared to 2.9 percent when the man was the patient.

    Tell me again, guys, all about how opportunistic women are and how men want an idealized kind of love.

    Gladly, it only proves the point; which gender is more likely to need post-mortem support men or women? Which gender is most likely to confer death benefits via insurance? Which gender is most likely to be subconsciously motivated by both?

  162. thehumanscorch

    I have no doubt of the sincerity and the seriousness that HHG feels about his love for SSM, but simple fact of the matter is that, due to polygamy, when he was single he would never have considered her for a life long commitment if she hadn’t performed to his subconscious standards. Meaning, the skin was tight, the vagina was tight, the boobs were perky, the hair was long, and the oral was given.

    Game. Set. Match.

    [ssm: D'oh!]

  163. Sigyn

    And now we’re delving into reductionism. “If you get any kind of benefit out of it, you’re an opportunist.” “Yes, but would you have married him if he weren’t the kind of man who’s suited to marriage?” “If you have tingles for your husband, that proves it’s really all about the tingles.” “If you DON’T have tingles, you shouldn’t have married him, because you can’t make him happy, and that proves you don’t love him!”

    It’s like the Kobayashi Maru on steroids sometimes.

  164. Farm Boy

    SSM,

    It would seem that you have been transformed into a more traditional women of years past, when women were socialized to keep their less than desirable tendencies in check. Furthermore, the laws of old assisted in this.

    These days, most women are not like that. So we have an “apples” and “oranges” type of discussion.

    Short answer – in the olden days, women displayed the fine qualities that you mention. They are much more rare these days.

  165. Zippy

    Stingray’s “what if he became a gamma” (or whatever Greek letter) is a fair question. It is roughly equivalent to the question “what if she stopped taking care of herself, got fat, and started spouting feminist platitudes?”

    [ssm: If I were a betting woman...]

  166. Stingray

    I should also add, that while I could still feel love, it would be to a lesser extent. His ability to maintain his frame and focus on his mission is in direct correlation to my level of respect for him. Respect is the foundation of feeling love. Also, the more I respect him, the more focused he is and the level of respect and love grows. It can wain in the same way.

    Again, none of this has to change what we do for each other.

  167. deti

    “there is a point where venting becomes ranting, and that I also don’t have the right to say things that aren’t true or just. Saying something over and over can internalize it. There’s a point at which the venting has to stop, and if it’s done in the presence of strangers, one should expect to have one’s irrational, unjust, and factually wrong statements challenged.”

    Translation: Venting is good when I agree with it. Ranting is venting that makes points I don’t agree with . Men who I disagree with and who need to rant need to shut up and go away.

  168. Stingray

    And now we’re delving into reductionism.

    Absolutely and very intentionally. We are talking about emotions vs actions and the two are very different things. If people could force their emotions all of this would be moot.

  169. alphabetasoup

    I ahve been lurking for a while now and saw no need to comment because of tall of the other rich infomation but fell compelled to chime in here. I would normally stay out of such a dustup but this one is too alluring to resist.
    It does sound like deti is backpedaling a bit on his initial assertion. As the OP the onus is on him to clearly state what he meant by “Love” I definitley get the impression that it was a blank statement about all love and all women. If this truly wasnt the case than the accusation of backpedaling is rescinded from me.I think we all use the word”very sloppily nowadays too. The biblical love we are all called to is at its very core a choice. That is what makes igehuine love. Free and clear volition is the only thing that frres both parties involved to give/receive unconditionally. Anything else is merely compulsion/extortion.

  170. Tradcon Hen

    Although my original point was quite serious, I hope the light-hearted, joking manner in which I am conducting myself in the thread is obvious. I’m not upset or freaking out or any such thing; I’m actually chuckling and invite readers to relax and do the same.

  171. Zippy

    Deti:
    I suppose in the Age of Oprah, guys do need to vent. But it is a fair observation that at some point encouraging nancy-boy behavior isn’t helping them. We might all disagree about where that point is; but surely it exists, no?

  172. earl

    Love is certainly capable for anybody on this planet…but it takes a strong person to love.

    This society props up every weakness and man and woman can do…that’s why love is fading fast.

    St. Max Kolbe…my avatar had one of the greatest examples of love a person could do. He took the place of a man he didn’t know who was supposed to die…because that man had a family…and he was a single priest.

  173. earl

    “LOVE has to be FED.”

    Or as I would say…love has to be an action. The man does things to show love…the woman does things to show love. And they aren’t the same things usually.

    Today it seems like love is nothing but emotions and feelings….that’s infatuation and lazy.

  174. Farm Boy

    what if she stopped taking care of herself, got fat, and started spouting feminist platitudes?”

    I dunno. Perhaps spouting feminist platitudes would be the worst of it.

  175. deti

    “I suppose in the Age of Oprah, guys do need to vent. But it is a fair observation that at some point encouraging nancy-boy behavior isn’t helping them. We might all disagree about where that point is; but surely it exists, no?”

    I, along with just about every other man posting here, put on my big boy britches every day and suck it up for the good of self, family, community and country. But I can only do that for so long, and can only take so much, before some of that has to be released.

  176. Sigyn

    “‘there is a point where venting becomes ranting, and that I also don’t have the right to say things that aren’t true or just. Saying something over and over can internalize it. There’s a point at which the venting has to stop, and if it’s done in the presence of strangers, one should expect to have one’s irrational, unjust, and factually wrong statements challenged.’

    Translation: Venting is good when I agree with it. Ranting is venting that makes points I don’t agree with . Men who I disagree with and who need to rant need to shut up and go away.”

    I’m sorry, but your manly skill of KNOWING what I think has failed you today.

    Translation: Venting has a place. Ranting is counterproductive. Venting can become ranting. People who say things that are unjust and/or untrue should be called out on it. Expecting total strangers to intuit that you are doing harmless venting is unreasonable, especially when you have been doing it for years and at the drop of a hat.

  177. earl

    “And I can observe that it has been, is, and always will be MEN passing those laws, MEN enforcing them, MEN enabling and encouraging women to behave badly, MEN cuckolding other men and being the carousel, MEN not preaching against it, MEN deceiving other men, MEN hiding their heads in the sand…”

    OOOOO…Burn!

    And yet when I bring this up at Dalrock’s place…I’m a white knight protecting the females. Nah…it’s called the truth.

    Women can only has as much power as what men give them.

  178. Farm Boy

    I am a woman! I am not capable of focusing on anything other than what I want

    That is more of a modern thing, than a women thing.

  179. Farm Boy

    Women can only has as much power as what men give them.

    By “men”, you mean primarily “men’s institutions”

  180. DJ

    All relationships are inherrently opprotunistic . Parents love their offspring because their offspring care their genetic code siblings try to love each other to foster cooperation. Men and women live each other to foster propogation. Friends love each other because of mutual benefit . We love God because he loved us. He loves us because he made us to love him. Why is this such a problem?

  181. Sigyn

    “I, along with just about every other man posting here, put on my big boy britches every day and suck it up for the good of self, family, community and country. But I can only do that for so long, and can only take so much, before some of that has to be released.”

    And I, along with just about every person reading here, can’t see you do that and can only judge based on your words.

    That’s not an apology. I did nothing wrong. Your expectations are unreasonable. You can vent, rant, whatever–but others will answer you as long as you do so in a place where answering is permitted.

  182. Deep Strength

    Cane’s picture is correct but a bit incomplete. Let me attempt to describe the whole picture.

    What Rollo/deti/etc. describe is what happens currently in the culture, that is:

    1. When men become like women (beta-ized, capitulating, white knights, etc)
    2. When women become like men (e.g. feminists, independent, “you go grrrl”, etc).

    In both of these scenarios you can see the truth in the statements of Rollo and deti have stated. Women become feral and ruthlessly opportunistic only caring about their own happiness. They cannot love as men do in any way shape or form. Men pine to be Captain Save-A-Ho and thus form an idealized love that is represented only in fairy tales.

    Now, as Cane and many of the women here have delineated.God/Jesus have called us to be unconditional (agape) lovers. As Cane points out eros, philia, storge are there to point us to the way that God loves (agape). This was not a mistake as we can do all things through Him who strengthens us and we are called to that. This is why Christian men and women can overcome our base desires and become more like Christ by taking off the old and putting on the new.

    And that concludes our lesson for today. The reason why you are talking past each other is because you are operating from two different frames of reference. What is and what should be are two different things, if coming from two different frames (e.g. secular/the world vs the kingdom of God).

  183. thehumanscorch

    @Deti
    I, along with just about every other man posting here, put on my big boy britches every day and suck it up for the good of self, family, community and country. But I can only do that for so long, and can only take so much, before some of that has to be released.

    This is different yet.
    What you clearly mean is that you are sick of swimming in this overfeminized culture. That I can agree with.

  184. Saint Velvet

    He should have had better outcome independence and killed Eve on the spot and asked for God for a better Helpmate who wouldn’t betray him.

    I confess this made me laugh real hard.

    Dammit, Novaseeker always comes around saying perfectly what I’ve spent a half-hour trying to cobble together in girl-speak:

    Ultimately everything in this area is conditional.

    This.

    And another thing, really more a question for the bigger theology thinkers who have shown up – as we grind through this topic, I’m increasingly skeptical of the notion of “selfless love” within the context of marriage. In being “one flesh” with my husband, in all things, not just the – you know – everything I do, I do for myself, including those things I would rather not. This is simply the discipline of love, or of marriage, I think. You can do it with proper (Godly) training, and as with all things, it gets easier with practice. It becomes internalized, a reflex kind of. Selfless love, in the eternal economy, would seem to imply something different? Is there really “sacrificial love” within marriage, if you’re doing it right?

  185. earl

    And my next thing to rail on…sexual immorality by men.

    The “alpha” males if you were are continuing to propagate this society of self destruction. Each time a woman has sex with a man her bond lessens…which increases infertility, divorce, abortions, STDs, etc. Then when beta males can’t get any…they’ll listen to any woman that gives them attention and try to curtail things to make her haaaaaaaaaaaaapy. Including passing unconstitutional laws that make life hell for almost every man.

    This would all stop if…men would keep it in their pants, resist her vapors, and have some self-control. Keep sex strictly to marriage. Yeah she will come at you because of desire…but men are the moral compasses and beacons of virtue which I hear many times around these parts. She might even get the message and start having some sexual morality of her own. How many times do I have to say “fornication leads to bad things” before they get it? I have never heard of a man’s life suddenly improving because of a harem. It’s only STDs, spending lots of time and money to find women, and then having to deal with the crazy train if a woman sticks around long enough. If that’s the life you get with a harem…you can keep it.

    I have never bedded a woman…I have never had to deal with any of those issues with the women I was involved with. Could it be a cause and effect?

    Rollo mentioned in his latest blog of bedding over 40 women before his wife…how many of those women are now messed up and either (single mothers, divorced, cat shelters, etc.). These women might have came at him with tingles and such and as a result they have part of the blame…but he made that future possible by giving into their “feminine imperative” of getting his cum.

  186. deti

    “That’s not an apology.”

    Don’t care. Didn’t ask for one.

    “ I did nothing wrong.”

    Neither did i.

    “Your expectations are unreasonable.”

    That’s your opinion.

    “You can vent, rant, whatever–but others will answer you as long as you do so in a place where answering is permitted.”

    Answer however you like. I didn’t tell you to shut up and go away. Doesn’t matter either way, really.

  187. LeeLeeBug

    Deti,

    I, along with just about every other man posting here, put on my big boy britches every day and suck it up for the good of self, family, community and country. But I can only do that for so long,
    and can only take so much, before some of that has to be released.

    Your posts seem to always drip with solipsism. You got a raw deal in the marriage department, based on what you’ve posted about Mrs. Deti over the year or so I’ve been reading this blog and this has colored your view of all women.

    But, your situation isn’t representative of all Christian marriages. Look at SSM and Elspeth and SD and the other women who post here who are making an concerted effort to do right by their husbands and make their home life heaven rather than hell

    I pray that God will speak to Mrs. Deti’s heart. I hope that one day you’ll come home from work and she’ll be waiting for you with a cocktail and your favorite dinner followed by very enthusiastic sex. I hope that God will transform her mind in this area since it appears to be a point of contention for you, and that she will strive daily to satisfy you beyond your wildest fantasies.

    I’m not snarking on you. I’ve struggled in my marriage b/c of my husband’s disobedience to God’s commands in this area and I know how easy it is to become hurt and bitter. I also know firsthand how destructive that bitterness can be. And, I believe that God’s grace is sufficient to heal us and transform our marriages when we fail to fix things in our own strength.

    You seem like an intelligent man who loves the Lord and is trying to live according to His commands. I pray that He will heal the broken parts of your marriage so that you can be a living testimony to His grace and you in turn can provide encouragement and mentoring to other men.

  188. Saint Velvet

    I, along with just about every other man posting here, put on my big boy britches every day and suck it up for the good of self, family, community and country. But I can only do that for so long, and can only take so much, before some of that has to be released.

    I guess I don’t understand why it’s though of it as “sucking it up”? Why is just doing what we do such a demeaning set of wretched chores? I just planted 20 tomato plants, scooped dog shit out of the yard and got cat called by the guys trimming the trees next door while I was doing it. I don’t think I’m put upon by these things. I think it’s just living life, strange though it may be.

  189. Emma the Emo

    There ARE women who will love you for your personality, wit and body. There are women who will not struggle to love you even if you can’t protect and provide. But these women have hidden flaws. Margery, I think, has the right idea – a normal woman is made to want protection and provision, because she takes care of kids. If you want a woman not fearful of your lack of protection and provision, you pick a woman who is also not into kids, or wants YOU to take care of the kids, or acts like your parent/protector.

    A woman who naturally doesn’t care for provision and protection will be masculine in other ways.

  190. deti

    “But, your situation isn’t representative of all Christian marriages. Look at SSM and Elspeth and SD and the other women who post here who are making an concerted effort to do right by their husbands and make their home life heaven rather than hell”

    SSM and Elspeth have successful marriages in no small part because from the outset they were strongly sexually attracted to their husbands. At least in this part of the web, that seems to be one of the linchpins of a successful marriage.

    Thanks for the other sentiments, LLB, but there are larger things here and other issues here besides my personal history and experiences.

  191. Frank

    So if I get the gist of what Rollo wrote, women ARE capable of love, just not in the way men idealize.

    Well, what’s considered ideal then? Because I would say a woman willing to bake me a nice batch of delicious gluten-free cookies would be pretty ideal to me.

  192. Some Guy

    Sunshine Mary is not bad when she is teaching women how to love their husbands.

    But she has no place correcting men or calling them out… especially on these points.

  193. earl

    And before I hear the…”He never had sex because he couldn’t get sex.”

    Sorry folks…I’ve had offers. Turned them down every time. I saw the real life results quite a bit from others when they went down that route.

  194. deti

    “But why are ya’ll so pissed about the idea of women marrying for money if we are only capable of opportunistic love based on what you can do for us?”

    How about this? Men will stop being pissed about women wanting money when women stop being pissed about (average, non-alpha) men wanting sex.

    deal?

    [ssm: Well, that works for me. You'll have to clear it with the other 3.5 billion women, though.]

  195. Frank

    I wonder how many here really believe SSM, Elspeth, etc’s love for their husbands are merely an illusion and would evaporate as soon as they were no longer attracted to them.

  196. Deep Strength

    @ Saint Velvet

    And another thing, really more a question for the bigger theology thinkers who have shown up – as we grind through this topic, I’m increasingly skeptical of the notion of “selfless love” within the context of marriage. In being “one flesh” with my husband, in all things, not just the – you know – everything I do, I do for myself, including those things I would rather not. This is simply the discipline of love, or of marriage, I think. You can do it with proper (Godly) training, and as with all things, it gets easier with practice. It becomes internalized, a reflex kind of. Selfless love, in the eternal economy, would seem to imply something different? Is there really “sacrificial love” within marriage, if you’re doing it right?

    No and yes.

    1. No because the primary goal of a Christian is to please God. 1 Corinthians 7 NASB

    Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband. 3 The husband must [a]fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and [b]come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 But this I say by way of concession, not of command. 7 [c]Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am. However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that.

    32 But I want you to be free from concern. One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord; 33 but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, 34 and his interests are divided. The woman who is unmarried, and the virgin, is concerned about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how she may please her husband. 35 This I say for your own benefit; not to put a restraint upon you, but [r]to promote what is appropriate and to secure undistracted devotion to the Lord.

    2. Yes, because Ephesians 5 NASB

    22 Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. 24 But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.

    25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, 26 so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that He might present to Himself the church [a]in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. 28 So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; 29 for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, 30 because we are members of His body. 31 For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. 32 This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church.

    Marriage is supposed to representative of Christ and the Church including the sanctification process. A marriage of “sacrificial love” is one that points to God because of the glory it brings to Him. Those who loves Christ obeys His commands, laying down their own desires.

  197. Rollo Tomassi

    SSM’s panties are in a wad because she mistakenly presumes I’m advocating for the case that Plate Spinning is “as good as it gets”, and then jumps off the deep end with out of context presumptions of my intent.

    But what if as good as it gets is simply entertaining a succession of non-committed, non-exclusive relationships? In essence, a sustainable plate spinning until such time as a woman demands committed monogamy, and then she’s replaced with a new plate and the cycle continues. I’m sure this would seem manipulative and horribly selfish to women, and furthermore it might contradict what I’ve just written about men’s general want for marriage (or at least an idealized union), but contrast this perpetual plate spinning strategy with the perspective extremes of both the raw deal men and women I mentioned in Lu Bu and Dalrock’s posts.

    Rather than a deliberate or unintentional “marriage strike” perhaps the direction we’re headed is a sustainable series of modular monogamy or perpetuated singleness? Maybe that’s as good as it gets?

    I’m asking a question with this post, not issuing a mandate.

    [ssm: OK. And I'm not equipped to answer that particular question, naturally, so I won't address it. I disagreed, and still disagree, with your assessment that women's love is solely rooted in opportunism and that men's is not. If your assertion is correct, there is no reason for you to be so defensive. Make your case, preferably without personal attacks and insinuations.]

  198. deti

    Frank:

    That love isn’t an illusion.

    I didn’t say anything about love in my comment either.

    I was responding to LLB’s making me and my personal history the issue here, which is an attempt to deflect from the points I made by calling me a bitter angry guy who isn’t getting laid.

    What I said was, and I’m not the one who first made the observation, was that it appears that in this SMP, a good indicator of a successful marriage is that the wife is strongly sexually attracted to her husband. SSM and Elspeth were from the outset and still are strongly sexually attracted to their husbands.

  199. Cane Caldo

    @SV

    And another thing, really more a question for the bigger theology thinkers who have shown up – as we grind through this topic, I’m increasingly skeptical of the notion of “selfless love” within the context of marriage. In being “one flesh” with my husband, in all things, not just the – you know – everything I do, I do for myself, including those things I would rather not. This is simply the discipline of love, or of marriage, I think. You can do it with proper (Godly) training, and as with all things, it gets easier with practice. It becomes internalized, a reflex kind of. Selfless love, in the eternal economy, would seem to imply something different? Is there really “sacrificial love” within marriage, if you’re doing it right?

    Keep in mind that what I mean be love is Voddie Baucham’s: “an action for the benefit of it’s object”

    My view is that it works together: Loving another gets you love. From the eternal perspective: Wanting to be loved is a characteristic of God Himself, so wanting this is not bad. More later.

    From the secular perspective it’s a paradox; like trying not to think about something in particular. This is literally the Satanic view. It’s intent is to condemn (e.g.”You aren’t really trying to love the other person. You just want them to love you more. Your intentions aren’t pure, sinner!”) Mixed in with this is the reality that it’s not a tit-for-tat world. There are people who love, and get little-to-no-love in return. This is the downward spiral of sin which hoards love, and teaches that “whoever loves less has the most power”.

    “Better to reign in Hell than serve in heaven.” the devil said.

    Well, what are God’s intentions? That we all are loved more, and that there are more of us to love. Wanting to be loved isn’t a bad thing, and God’s way is a cycle of elevation where each makes the other better, and it’s reciprocated, and passed-on, and it’s just a big ol’ explosion of love shot right into the womb-like heart of mankind.

    “I love it when you come!”, the good wife says.

  200. Alte

    I’m with Zippy on the marital abstinence issue. Everyone is shocked and surprised, I know. Catholics recommending that married people refrain from sex. Also, the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, and water is still widely acknowledged to be wet.

    Just thought I’d get everyone caught up on the latest news.

  201. Frank

    It is roughly equivalent to the question “what if she stopped taking care of herself, got fat, and started spouting feminist platitudes?”

    If this happened to me I’d do my best to love and honor my wife in obedience to God, but I also suspect I’d take up drinking too.

  202. RichardP

    Thank you Sunshine for starting a topic that has brought out some pretty sophisticated points. The point is not about being perfect in what you have done here. The point is about having done it.

    I have a few rhetorical questions/points. I’m asking for readers to consider them. I’m not asking for a response.

    “I’m just trying to separate the mano-wheat from the mano-chaff as it were.”

    Written by a female I believe. If it is true that male and female think differently, for legitimate biological reasons, how can a female ever correctly separate men-wheat from men-chaff? How can a female know that she has correctly interpreted what a male has said, to know that it is chaff rather than wheat? These questions are equally relevant when men are evaluating what women have said.

    The Bible says that husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the church. Was / is Christ’s love for the church a “feeling”?

    – A subset of that, which is beyond the scope of this thread, is the question of who can rightly expect to receive Christ’s love? Who belongs to the Church that Christ loved? Christ extends his love only to those who obey him. If husbands are supposed to love (not a feeling) their wives in the same way Christ loved the Church, then technically husbands can deny that love to wives who do not obey them – in the same way that Christ denies his love to those who do not obey him.

    The Bible exhorts the older women to teach the younger women to love their husbands. Why would the Bible need to admonish this is “loving their husbands” came naturally to the young women?

  203. Alte

    “which means that unconditional love is never less conditional than the continuation of the choice to love unconditionally”

    Yes, that’s also how I see it. It’s a choice, and one you have to make over and over. You have to remain steadfast in your decision to remain steadfast. It sounds circular, but that’s because it’s an absolute applied to a temporally finite being.

    It’s an attempt to be like Christ, but we’re not yet residing in Heaven, so we’re still part of the Church Militant. This means that all attempts at virtue are a permanent struggle, although the struggle tends to become less as our soul exercises the virtue and eventually becomes more proficient, even to the point of habit.

  204. Bike Bubba

    I’m enjoying this one almost as much as one a while back where Alte responded to some bigoted/asinine comments by “Traditional Housewife” by hearkening back to the “good old days” when “blacks knew their place as wind chimes.” Almost–sorry, SSM, but Alte still wins in the “delightful application of acid and bile to the creative process” award, IMO.
    But seriously, if women, or men for that matter, cannot love in any way except for opportunistically, God help us when we get too old to work as we do now and various parts of our bodies are no longer perky. The very survival of the aged is a rebuke to Rollo’s premiss.

  205. Rollo Tomassi

    Quiet earl, Men are speaking.

    You can come back when you’ve had your first drink, gotten into a fist fight and actually have had a woman touch your dick.

  206. Frank

    Both sides of this need some Princess Bride wisdom “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

    You used a quote from Princess Bride?? INCONCEIVABLE!!!!!

  207. Frank

    You can come back when you’ve had your first drink, gotten into a fist fight and actually have had a woman touch your dick.

    Will you accept two out of three?

  208. Bike Bubba

    Regarding the question of getting fat, or various other things said to degrade a relationship, are we really to believe that the motivation is to be gross? Or is it more likely that our motivation is not to be fat, but rather to feel satisfaction of that food being eaten? Are we motivated to be gross, or are we too lazy to shave?

    And for that matter, is the fix to remember that we love only, or primarily, opportunistically, or to realize that selfless love includes the opportunity to….ya know….do something for the good of the other person? Count me out of the “twitosphere.”

  209. Cail Corishev

    That is NOT the argument that is being made, and you know it. — deti

    Yeah, I’m bowing out of this one because there’s something here I’m not getting. We’ve had this discussion before, and you’ve explained exactly what you mean and don’t mean by it, and all of a sudden it’s like that never happened. So either I dreamt all the times that you and Rollo carefully followed “a woman isn’t capable of loving a man” with “in the way that he wishes she were” and explained what that means, or there’s something else driving this. I can’t imagine it’s just a reaction to some random commenters saying stupid stuff like “honorable divorce” around the manosphere, because surely that happens every day.

  210. Some Guy

    @Cail —

    This sort of thing happens about once a month at this blog. Don’t worry– it’ll blow over and go back to normal.

  211. Rollo Tomassi

    People tend to think of love as coming in different varieties and colors – platonic, fraternal, familial, erotic, agape, etc. All of this is nonsense. Love is love, it’s how it’s expressed that’s different. I love my Mom, my brother, my best friend and my daughter, but I only fuck my wife – that’s what makes us husband and wife, not brother and sister.

    Here’s a good challenge of “Scriptural” agape love:

    http://www.acts17-11.com/cows_agape.html

    [ssm: You are free to believe it is nonsense if you like. We are Christians here, though, and so we believe what the Bible tells over what you say.]

  212. Sigyn

    “That’s not an apology.” Don’t care. Didn’t ask for one.

    I’m glad you have some reasonable expectations.

    “ I did nothing wrong.” Neither did i.

    I didn’t say you did. I’m simply pointing out that it is not wrong to correct a misrepresentation or misapprehension, for which action I will not apologize.

    “Your expectations are unreasonable.” That’s your opinion.

    It’s an observation, based on consistent experience across the Internet. Can’t I make observations?

    “You can vent, rant, whatever–but others will answer you as long as you do so in a place where answering is permitted.” Answer however you like. I didn’t tell you to shut up and go away. Doesn’t matter either way, really.

    Then kindly stop getting your undies in a bundle when someone, any someone, answers you.

  213. seriouslypleasedropit

    “Women are incapable of love,” at face value, is obviously tripe. But there is something there, even if it’s badly stated. I suspect we lack the philosophical tools to really nail it down.

  214. Sigyn

    Quiet earl, Men are speaking.

    You can come back when you’ve had your first drink, gotten into a fist fight and actually have had a woman touch your dick.

    Is this bit of shaming language Code Green? I don’t think it’s Code Pink.

    I do like how having been drunk makes one’s opinion on whether women are capable of love more valid, though. Men are so logical!

    [ssm: I have to agree with this. That was shaming language pure and simple, meant to discredit him without having to address what he was saying. This is a suspicious tactic between two men.]

  215. deti

    @ Cail Corishev:

    “So either I dreamt all the times that you and Rollo carefully followed “a woman isn’t capable of loving a man” with “in the way that he wishes she were” and explained what that means, or there’s something else driving this.”

    Yeah, Cail, I ‘m done on this thread too. SSM does not like it when men assert observable differences in the character of male and female love. When I tried to defend it; Sigyn and then LeeLeeBug broke out the “deti is just an angry, bitter guy who isn’t getting laid!” shaming language in an effort to attack my credibility and deflect from the points I made. Instead of responding to the actual message, they decided to shame the messenger.

    [ssm: It has nothing to do with "like", Deti. It's that I don't believe that women's love is rooted in opportunism any more or less than men's is.]

  216. Bike Bubba

    Rollo, your reference refutes your hypothesis that “love is love” by demonstrating that koine Greek does differentiate between different kinds of love, and anyone familiar with family life knows full well that the obligations of family relationships are quite different than those of work or friendship relationships.

    Nice try, though.

  217. driversuz

    Late to the party again. Thank you SSM. Both sexes take each other for granted, both sexes “love” because they get something out of it, both sexes are opportunists, and both sexes give selflessly. I’ve been patiently waiting for nearly three years for an explanation of that “idealistic” (and apparently quite ethereal) love felt by men, of which women are incapable. It always comes down to something men “just feel,” while they assume that women can’t “just feel” the same thing. There’s an implication here that when a woman “feels” something, it’s irrational but when a man “feels” something, it’s special. This sentiment is very common among traditionalists and I think it’s related to the Christian Mary/Eve or Madonna/Whore dichotomy: No woman can be Mary, who couldn’t sin if she tried, and every woman is Eve, who couldn’t NOT sin if she tried. Christian tradition absolves women of agency, by either forgiving them because they’res trying to emulate Mary or by condemning them for emulating Eve. But the overriding assumption is that women can’t help it (and apparently men can.)

    “Bull-pucky” is a good word for it. Whatever our differences, what ever our strengths or weaknesses, whatever we have to offer to God and His creation, the innate ability to love unconditionally is within all of us. Or it’s within none of us.

  218. LeeLeeBug

    @Frank
    It is roughly equivalent to the question “what if she stopped taking care of herself, got fat, and started spouting feminist platitudes?”
    If this happened to me I’d do my best to love and honor my wife in obedience to God, but I also suspect I’d take up drinking too.

    The best way to prevent this from happening is to make sure that you provide you wife with adequate opportunities to eat well, exercise, and get to the beauty salon on a regular basis.

    You’d be amazed at the number of women I know who have to practically beg their husbands to watch their children for an hour so they can go for a walk or hit the gym. Not to mention the men who force their wives to stick to such tight grocery budgets that there’s not enough money for the produce and lean meats needed for an optimum diet. And, of course, there are always the men who don’t understand why their wives need to go to the salon every six weeks when they can just buy a $5 box of Miss Clairol.

    Beauty takes time and money, especially when you reach a certain age. At this point in my life, staying attractive and toned requires an hour in the gym most days and a fairly strict clean-eating type diet. Not to mention money to cover my grays and keep my hair long and healthy. I would quickly start to look like a typical middle-aged frump if my husband didn’t support my efforts to be attractive for him.

  219. Sigyn

    When I tried to defend it; Sigyn and then LeeLeeBug broke out the “deti is just an angry, bitter guy who isn’t getting laid!” shaming language in an effort to attack my credibility and deflect from the points I made. Instead of responding to the actual message, they decided to shame the messenger.

    So pointing out that you move goalposts, that you try to nuke dissent by dropping your Oppressed Victim bomb at the mostly wildly irrelevant moments, and that you paint your opponents in a civil discussion as heartless beasts trying to silence you…that’s shaming the messenger.

    All righty then.

  220. Sir_Chancealot

    I think some people miss seeing the forest because of all the trees.

    What man anywhere on the planet has to teach a young man to love a woman? Where in the bible does it instruct older men to teach younger men to love their wives?

    And yet, we have that verse in Titus that someone pointed out. Read it carefully again. It does not command women to love their husbands. It commands older women to teach younger women to love their husbands.

    If love came so naturally to women, as asserted by almost every woman here, why would they have to be TAUGHT to love?

    A woman’s loyalty is almost always directly tied to her tingles. A man forgets this at his own peril. A great many men will still be loyal to their wives, even if they are not sexually attracted to them anymore.

    Methinks the actual unique snowflakes think ALL women are unique snowflakes.

    The truth is that ALL human love is conditional.

    Think of Rollo’s argument like this: The necessary conditions to satisfy a man for love are WAY, WAY lower than the conditions necessary to satisfy a woman’s. The individual conditions are also different.

    Most men would be ecstatic to have the following in a woman,: 1) Lots of enthusiastic sex, 2) her respect, 3) Peace in his home, and 4) Don’t spend money frivolously.

    [ssm: Maybe. That certainly wasn't the case for Mr. Spade, though.]

    I believe it should be a given that in both cases, the partner is considered physically attractive to the other.

    Women, can you put a simple list like that together? Really think about it, now. (Hint: “Physically attractive” doesn’t include “dressing well”. Hint#2: “Well paying job” doesn’t include “socially dominant.”)

    [ssm: I think Donal Graeme's LAMPS covers it.]

    So go ahead women. Let’s see your short list.

  221. sunshinemary Post author

    @ Cail
    I understand the point about about women not loving men in the exact way that men want to be loved. What I am arguing against is Rollo’s assertion that women’s love is rooted in opportunism. I am arguing that men and women are equally cspable of being opportunistic, a point I have not previously made.

    I have more to say about this but we are on the road and I hate writing long comments on my phone.

  222. Cane Caldo

    @Rollo

    People tend to think of love as coming in different varieties and colors – platonic, fraternal, familial, erotic, agape, etc. All of this is nonsense. Love is love, it’s how it’s expressed that’s different. I love my Mom, my brother, my best friend and my daughter, but I only fuck my wife – that’s what makes us husband and wife, not brother and sister.

    The different words are used to express different modes. So, you’re not revealing anything with this statement, but just re-stating.

    The author of the post you linked is trying to combat a particular (but frequent!) misuse in church that tries to sell agape as a “super-secret special God love that only comes from good people like me”. It actually just means “a committed love”. So, when John speaks “they [agape] the praise of men”, or “they [agape] the darkness” he doesn’t mean they “super-secret-God-loved” them, but that they were committed to the praise of men and to darkness.

    None of that has anything to do with whether or not there are in fact different modes of love, and whether or not it is useful to delineate them for ease of discussion…which it is, and which you yourself have here agreed with by (strangely) by your argument.

  223. Sigyn

    If love came so naturally to women, as asserted by almost every woman here, why would they have to be TAUGHT to love?

    And if love came so naturally to men, why would they have to be COMMANDED to love?

    [ssm: True enough.]

    So go ahead women. Let’s see your short list.

    I don’t need a list. I’m married, and I take him as he is, with all his virtues and all his flaws. I am happy today; I don’t need to think about what would make me happy.

  224. sunshinemary Post author

    Sigyn
    I don’t like your disrespectful attitude toward Deti. Nor do I appreciate LLB’s assumptions about his personsl life.

    Deti
    I apoligize for the personal comments that have been directed at you. I will redact them later when we get to our hotel and I can get at my laptop.

  225. Elspeth

    I wonder how many here really believe SSM, Elspeth, etc’s love for their husbands are merely an illusion and would evaporate as soon as they were no longer attracted to them.

    You’d be surprised, Frank. My take:

    each of us has to make the decision to do the right thing every morning when we open our eyes and before our feet touch the floor. There is always the temptation to do wrong and it’s a woman’s s nature to rebel. Submission Love and obedience requires a belief and commitment to something greater than one self.

    I said that at Dalrock’s recently, and I appreciate Alte reiterating the point about love being a choice we make rather than the sum total of our emotional state at any given moment.

    I can’t take credit for this because it’s not my thought but a friend of mine queried this:

    “So …. love = wants to have sex?”

    I think this is what it comes down to here. Differing approaches (or at least incomplete approaches) to the meaning of the word love. The two sides seem fully entrenched. I suspect that ne’er the twain shall meet.

    [ssm: Perhaps, but I disagree with the other side on this issue, and I will say so even if they never see my point.]

  226. deti

    SSM:

    No. Don’t redact them. Leave them here. I want them preserved for posterity so that all can see how this was argued.

  227. deti

    I want all to see the personal and disrespectful tone that was taken not only towards me but to anyone else defending Rollo’s points.

  228. Sigyn

    SSM, Deti was has deliberately misinterpreted my HUSBAND’s instructions to me about venting vs. ranting, and furthermore has characterized me as trying to shame him when I have done no such thing. I, on the other hand, have told him not to get upset that people will not always respect his desire to vent, and reacted with measured incredulity to his accusations that I’ve at all said he was “just an angry, bitter guy who isn’t getting laid!”

    Considering some of the things that have been permitted to go unchallenged by others that were much, much more vicious than anything I’ve said, I’m confused as to why you feel the need to single me out for rebuke.

  229. Frank

    Lifted from Rollo’s site:

    {Why can’t men not tell when a woman doesn’t love them?} Why? Because men want to believe that they can be happy, and sexually satisfied, and appreciated, and loved, and respected by a woman for who he is. It is men who are the real romantics, not women, but it is the grand design of hypergamy that men believe it is women who are the romantic ones.

    Hypergamy, by its nature, defines love for women in opportunistic terms, leaving men as the only objective arbiters of what love is for themselves. So yes, men can’t tell when a woman doesn’t love them, because they want to believe women can love them in the ways they think they could.

    The takeaway from this seems to be that as soon as things go sideways in a relationship/marriage, game over. Like one commenter basically saying, “Yeah, as soon as I lost my job my wife stopped loving me.”

  230. Alte

    Trying to go back and parse a bit.

    But why should men be so deeply offended that a woman might consider finances in making a marriage decision if the only way we are capable of loving is opportunistically?

    I think they have trouble differentiating between a woman vetting a potential husband and how the same woman would feel and react ten or twenty years down the road. This goes straight to the idea that women don’t emotionally bond with their husbands, but just see them as a source of provision, or only bond with them because of the provision, or whatever the argument is. As if the premarital state were a permanent situation that just sort of unraveled on the way to the divorce court, rather than something inherently different from the marital state.

    This is a pseudo-feminist idea, harking back to the idea that housewives are all prostitutes.

    [ssm: Yes, exactly so. I cosign this comment. You have hit upon what I was really trying to saying in the OP.]

  231. Frank

    The best way to prevent this from happening is to make sure that you provide you wife with adequate opportunities to eat well, exercise, and get to the beauty salon on a regular basis.

    Wait, you mean marriage is a give and take proposition? I do things for her and she does things for me? What a novel concept.

  232. LeeLeeBug

    @SSM
    Deti
    I apoligize for the personal comments that have been directed at you. I will redact them later when
    we get to our hotel and I can get at my laptop.

    Please delete my entire comment if it was hurtful to Deti. That certainly wasn’t my intention, especially given that I was very transparent in sharing how God has healed the hurt I’ve experienced while helping to turn around a situation I couldn’t fix on my own.

    I was only trying to be encouraging while pointing out how we view the world with a certain degree of solipsism, which affects our ability to be objective on touchy subjects like Rollo’s post.

    [ssm: OK, thank you for explaining. Deti prefers that your comment remain in place.]

  233. deti

    SSM:

    Please leave LLB’s shaming post up. Please don’t delete it. I want it left up as an example of the way argumentation almost always proceeds when discussions like this take place: A woman feels that her side is losing the argument; and she then resorts to shaming one of her male opponents.

    I’d like Sigyn’s attacks on me left up as well. She attacks me as “goalpost moving” (which I didn’t); falsely claims I’m advancing “oppressed victim” status (I didn’t, the observation was a response to St. Velvet bringing up frivorce); and then accused me of ranting (I wasn’t; but she interpreted it as such). If a claim of “ranting” isn’t shaming, I don’t know what is. Essentially, Sigyn was saying “deti is so angry. No one should believe such an angry guy!”

    SSM, the points being made in Rollo’s post and in my replies on this thread have been misrepresented and distorted, repeatedly and, I think, deliberately. You’ve finally come around to part of it, which is that the character of men’s love for women is different from the character of women’s love for men.

    [ssm: If I misrepresented anything in my original post, it was not deliberate. I don't purposefully set out to deceive, which is not true of everyone, by the way.]

  234. theshadowedknight

    Now that this little incident has calmed down, what in perdition is going on? I woke up and checked my sites, and I find… I am not sure what to call it. A battle, at the least. Where did all the women on this site go, and who are you lot? I followed the argument and the only woman who seems to have a clue is Sarah’s Daughter, and you know how often we agree.

    There is something missing. Either the post by Rollo hit a sensitive spot, or something else happened, but the reaction is not proportionate. What is not seen?

    The Shadowed Knight

  235. thehumanscorch

    @driversuz
    I’ve been patiently waiting for nearly three years for an explanation of that “idealistic” (and apparently quite ethereal) love felt by men, of which women are incapable.

    Because the males are not telling the truth about our love.

    All that stuff that men feel and want to feel? It’s for women in their prime, for 8-10s on the attractiveness scale. For 19-23 year old fresh faced virgins or low N count women who will swoon at everything you do and blow you dry.

    That’s who men want to love.

    I guarantee you that none of this supposed unconditional love that only men have is for sixty-five year old women.

    Again….of course love is conditional. and of course it has to be fed. This may not seem fair, but a woman with no tingles or security is going to have a hard time staying in love, as is a man that never got to get in your pants or see you naked when the coochie was fresh.

    [ssm: Your comments on this thread have been really helpful. Thank you.]

  236. Tradcon Hen

    @ Deti
    Yes, I accept that men and women have some differences in the way that they experience and express love. I don’t have a problem with that. Again, my issue is with the idea that women only love opportunistically.

    I guess if you want the comments left up, I’ll leave them up.

    Sigyn, your tone toward Deti is what I am objecting to the most. I ask women on my site to be respectful toward the men that comment here and to apologize (as LLB did) when they are disrespectful.

    LLB –
    My point to you is that Deti’s past issues with his spouse don’t invalidate any rational argument he might be trying to make. And also, don’t make assumptions about his marriage now. People make assumptions about my marriage all the time based on what I’ve shared about some of our past issues. However, my marriage is really good now. Perhaps Deti’s is; I don’t know and he hasn’t said, so don’t assume anything. For all I know, his wife very well may meet him at the door with a cocktail and offers of sexual services.

  237. Alte

    “The biblical love we are all called to is at its very core a choice. That is what makes it genuine love.”

    Yes, but I would go a step further.

    Once you have fully internalized the fact that romantic love is always pleasurable for the person who is giving it, and involves a bit of delusion on their part, you learn to discount it in favor of sacrificial love. You will see that the latter has more value because it always involves a loss on the part of the person who gives it, it asks nothing in return, and it always accepts you with all of your most glaring and unattractive flaws.

    That is a view married people tend to mature into, over time, as they come to rely upon the other person’s selflessness and commitment, rather than upon their own ability to generate sexual passion and desire in their spouse. At some point, we’re all old and ugly (yes, even men!). Romantic love is flattering, and everytime my husband and I go through one of our periodic flights-of-fancy seasons it’s downright pleasant, but it’s not actually worth very much in the end.

    So, when men say, “She fell out of (romantic) love with me and divorced me,” what they are really saying is that she woke up from the hormonal high that she’d been in, one that had precluded the need to develop any sort of sacrificial love, and when her romantic feelings vanished… there was nothing left to sustain the marriage. All that was holding them together was lust and a mortgage payment. It is silly to say that her inability to feel romantic love was the problem. The problem was that she offered nothing else.

    I’ve always felt like Game was makeup and push-up bras for men. It’s not really the basis for a sound marriage, but it’s mean to not make a bit of effort for the sake of the other person.

  238. Tradcon Hen

    Good grief. Here is how my post was linked on Viva La Manosphere:

    Views not endorsed. Presented for the ‘women and the manosphere’ debate only. Comments are revealing. – Ed

    Dang, guys.

    Listen up if you are visiting from the Manosphere (or anywhere, really) – my site is for learning purposes. I am not affiliated with any particular spheres, I do not parrot anyone’s ideas or rhetoric, I am not selling anything, and I am not moderating the views that can be presented here. No topic is so sacred that I will accept what is written about it hand out of mouth without examining it carefully. And questioning the validity of Rollo’s comments is not the same thing as expressing hate or playing for Team Woman. If we never get to talk about anything, if all we are allowed to do is parrot talking points, then this is just useless and no one is going to learn anything. If anyone is offended by that, then my site is not one they will probably enjoy visiting.

    However, I do agree that some of the comments by we women (including myself) have bordered on being rather disrespectful. Where that is the case, I apologize to the man who was the recipient of the comment.

    And finally, Some Guy said I ought not to be schooling men on these issues. He is correct that I should not, but actually, I am not doing that. That is why I made my own separate post on my blog instead of commenting on Rollo’s OP. My site is by a woman and meant to educate women, although men are most welcome here, too. I do not intend anything on my site to be construed as a lecture pointed at men. Not in this post and not in any other.

  239. Cadders

    SSM you have (I think) supported the notion that women are attracted to the LAMPS traits.

    Money, Power and Status are all features of what a man DOES, not what he IS. If a man, often through no fault of his own, finds himself in a situation when his M/P/S significantly reduce, is it not simply logical to expect that his woman’s attraction will decline? That other alternatives start to appear more appealing. That if she is able to take up these alternatives, that she may? In an environment that enables, supports and rewards her for doing so?

    I am not saying all women will act on this dynamic, but it is hard coded into ALL women. I am sure we have all seen the familiar trajectory of the husband’s unemployment leads to divorce. I have not seen this dynamic play out in reverse.

    I find it hard to argue against Rollo’s position when the facts on the ground are about 50% of divorces are initiated 70% of the time by women overwhelmingly for trivial, emotional, reasons.

    Your rage and snark in this post, I suspect, comes from the sense that you would not behave in this way but real world experience suggests that the majority of women will and do. And that is the reality that men have to deal with. It should not be a surprise that men are increasingly assuming the worst of women – it certainly doesn’t help the decent women – but for many men it is now simply a survival tactic.

    [ssm: You are reading nonexistent emotions into this. I feel no rage. The rest of your points are valid.]

  240. FuzzieWuzzie

    I just got to the end of the thread. Whew!
    In all the arguements, what is overlooked is the maturity of the relationship. I once heard that marriage has to go through five stages, like grief. In this modern world, a lot of them would seem to get stuck in the third stage, which would manifest as rebellion. I think a lot of the women commenters have gotten to the fifth stage, acceptance.
    Applying this to Rollo’s assertion complicates things.

    But, what do I know. I’m a never married beta love bug.

    To those of you who would cast aspersions on Deti, two months ago, he mentioned that he had a breakthrough experience and let’s all hope that things have only gotten better since then.

  241. RichardP

    And if love came so naturally to men, why would they have to be COMMANDED to love?

    The answer to this question is part of the point I hinted at in my post above, but it is a subject for a different thread.

    The Bible does not command men to love their wives in that verse. Rather, the Bible gives instruction on HOW men are to love their wives – as Christ loved the Church. We have been parsing the different types of love, or different manifestations of love. In this thread, and elsewhere, have been discussions of men who keep “loving” their wife long after she has left the relationship – emotionally, if not physically. That verse is a notice to men that they should guard against doing that.

    The Church that Christ loved / loves is made up only of those who obey him. Those who stop obeying Christ (or those who never start) are not part of the “Church” (and I’m not talking about those who sin thoughtlessly and who immediately repent when called to repentence by the Holy Spirit). This is the kind of love men are directed to have toward their wives … as Christ loves (not a feeling) his Church. That love is not directed toward those who reject him by not keeping his commandments. That love is to be directed toward those who obey him (Christ/husband).

    Christ expects his commandments to be obeyed. His commandments are not capricious. They are for the benefit of the Church (the Church will be better off for having kept Christ’s commandments). Does the Church know better what it needs (not wants) that it is allowed to tell God how to treat it?? That is the model in the verse – husbands love your wives as Christ loves the Church.

    And what women will agree that any man knows what she needs that she should obey his commands? So how can any man, in today’s environment, truely love his wife in the manner he is directed to in that verse? Even when his commands are designed to meet her needs (not wants), even as Christs commands are designed to meet the needs of the Church.

    I’m afraid women do not really think through what it means for their husband to love them as Christ loves the church. The thought sounds pretty. But the application of that thought is anything but pretty to a woman who does not know of whom the Church is really comprised.

    Note: I’m trying to say the minimum here, while still responding appropriately to the question asked at the top of this post, since this discussion belongs in a thread of its own.

  242. Scott

    At the risk of sounding like a pedestalizer, it seems for every 20 or so posts from Tradcon Hen (I see what you did there) telling women “have more enthusiastic sex with you husbands!” “dress more modestly!” “be sweet and deferent!” “give him the position of authoristy that is due him!” she writes one post that says “I’m not sure I agree with this one thing” and gets blasted.

    [ssm: Yes, and as another commenter points out upthread, some people appear to be surprisingly thin-skinned and upset by disagreement. Nevertheless, if I disagree, I will say so and that will be that.]

    Reading the comments now, and it looks pretty intense. My initial take on the post is basically this: It’s not so much an issue of being “incapable” but the current laws/societal framework is set up to reward the absolute worst parts of female nature.

    [ssm: I agree with you; the laws allow women to behave badly. That doesn't mean they are incapable of doing right.]

  243. Alte

    but I only fuck my wife – that’s what makes us husband and wife, not brother and sister

    Actually, you’re only allowed to have sex with your wife (without breaking your vows), but your vows are actually what make marriage a unique form of relationship. That is why, if your bride died right after your exchange of vows, but before you had consummated your marriage, you’d be a widower. Also, if you stop having sex with her, she doesn’t stop being your wife.

    It’s a technicality, but it’s the reason why the commitment (vows) weigh more heavily on the existence of the marriage than the sex (romance), although the usually expectation is that there will be both.

  244. Alte

    After all, if you had sex with a prostitute, she still wouldn’t be your wife unless you exchanged vows with her. Even common law marriage rests upon the idea that there was an informal exchange of vows. Otherwise, it would just be more fornication.

  245. Scott

    By the way, does anyone have any idea how to solve the problem of the comment box that only allows you to see the first 2 lines of what you are writing? This is why so many of my comments look like they are written by a retarded non-native English speaker. I cannot proof read anything I write.

  246. theshadowedknight

    Well, SSM, that is how this post is seen by men. You started off with misrepresentation and then it declined into a exhibition of the worst of feminine argumentative tactics I have seen in some time. I watched, and I was disgusted with the behavior I saw.

    [ssm: I disagree with your assessment of the post. This conversation has been ongoing for about a year and half now, as demonstrated the conversations to which I linked.]

    You have the influence you do over women because the men are here. They draw the women, who get a look at how men approve of your ideas. If the men leave, you will see the women follow. Challenging the status quo is made easier by the presence of approving men. If the men decide to abandon you, why would the women stay? They follow the men, wherever they go.

    [ssm: Are you seriously suggesting that I should moderate what I write in order to curry favor with men so that I will have more female readers? That would indicate a complete lack of integrity. I write what I think. I pray and ask for wisdom and guidance, I read and study the issues, and I invite correction from my readers when I am wrong. I have admitted to being wrong before and will undoubtedly do so again in the future, but one thing I will not do is pretend like I believe certain things which I do not believe just so I can write words that are pleasing to men's ears and earn their approval. A number of verses guide me here:

    For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ. (Galatians 1:10)

    But just as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, so we speak, not to please man, but to please God who tests our hearts. (1 Thessalonians 2:4 )

    For they loved the glory that comes from man more than the glory that comes from God. (John 12:43)

    I would rather write honestly for five readers than dishonestly for five thousand.]

    The Shadowed Knight

  247. Sir_Chancealot

    “And if love came so naturally to men, why would they have to be COMMANDED to love?”

    Silly Sigyn. How can someone to be “COMMANDED” to do something they don’t already know how to do?

    If someone has to be taught something, that requires (from the very definition of the word) that they don’t know how to do it.

    You don’t want to put a list together, not because you are already married, but because you know it would prove my point. That wasn’t a “What does Sigyn look for in a guy” request. It was a “What 4 simple things, and ONLY those 4 things, can a man possess and have a woman love him” request, in general.

  248. Emma the Emo

    I hear someone saying that women’s love is conditional because “you would not have picked your husband in his current state, if you were still single”. But this is precisely what men have to work with, too. He wouldn’t pick the 60-year old you if he was single, but he loves you at 60 because of his love goggles. His love is unconditional *in practice*.

    Unconditional romantic love is a trick. You basicly take conditional love, pick your person right, and then for the rest of your life, the love you feel might as well have been unconditional. And you don’t think too much about how it’s a bit of a trick, and you are much happier for it.

  249. Alte

    In being “one flesh” with my husband, in all things, not just the – you know – everything I do, I do for myself, including those things I would rather not. This is simply the discipline of love, or of marriage, I think. You can do it with proper (Godly) training, and as with all things, it gets easier with practice. It becomes internalized, a reflex kind of. Selfless love, in the eternal economy, would seem to imply something different? Is there really “sacrificial love” within marriage, if you’re doing it right?

    Well, it would be mutual sacrifice for mutual benefit. But I agree that it eventually stops feeling like any sort of sacrifice, as you sort of meld into one being. Sort of the way sacrificing for children feels like helping yourself. It just looks like a sacrifice from the outside because observers do not understand the emotional state of the person performing the action.

    It always reminds me of the way people start to look alike when they’ve been married for a long time. They even start to have identical mimics, which is amazing.

  250. Frank

    Good grief. Here is how my post was linked on Viva La Manosphere.

    Be encouraged, my heart still hearts you, SSM.

    [ssm: :)]

  251. Miserman

    I just asked my man if he thought women were capable of unconditional love. He said, “About as capable of it as they are of beating a man to death.”

    I’ve known women who’ve gone to jail for assault with a deadly weapon on a man where he was hospitalized. A woman driven by her murderous rage is capable of serious violence.

    [ssm: Indeed, and I think this may have been his point. They can do these things, but it isn't what one normally observes. So yes, he and I are not fully in agreement on this issue, though he agrees with me that women are quite capable of loving in a non-opportunistic way. Apparently he just thinks they don't do so very often.]

  252. Rollo Tomassi

    Re: moving the goal posts – go have a look at the dates on the posts of the links I provide in my first comment here and tell me I’m moving any goal post.

    SSM even HHG concurs with my observations.

  253. Alte

    You have the influence you do over women because the men are here.

    I think you’re projecting a bit, sir. We ladies are perfectly capable of talking amongst ourselves. We came here to read and comment because we think SSM is interesting in her own right, even if we don’t always agree with her on everything.

  254. Alte

    You can come back when you’ve had your first drink, gotten into a fist fight and actually have had a woman touch your dick.

    Even Jesus wouldn’t qualify to take part in this discussion of unconditional love, apparently.

  255. MargeryM

    “Even Jesus wouldn’t qualify to take part in this discussion of unconditional love, apparently.” -Alte

    And He’s the only one capable of it.

  256. Elspeth

    You have the influence you do over women because the men are here. They draw the women, who get a look at how men approve of your ideas. If the men leave, you will see the women follow.

    LOL. What Alte said.

  257. MargeryM

    If theshadowedknight was talking within the Manosphere he’s right; women come here because it is “Manosphere approved” to learn more about it through a woman. If they took away that stamp of approval a lot of women wouldn’t seek this blog out for advice anymore.

  258. Deep Strength

    @ RichardP

    Christ expects his commandments to be obeyed. His commandments are not capricious. They are for the benefit of the Church (the Church will be better off for having kept Christ’s commandments). Does the Church know better what it needs (not wants) that it is allowed to tell God how to treat it?? That is the model in the verse – husbands love your wives as Christ loves the Church.

    And what women will agree that any man knows what she needs that she should obey his commands? So how can any man, in today’s environment, truely love his wife in the manner he is directed to in that verse? Even when his commands are designed to meet her needs (not wants), even as Christs commands are designed to meet the needs of the Church.

    I’m afraid women do not really think through what it means for their husband to love them as Christ loves the church. The thought sounds pretty. But the application of that thought is anything but pretty to a woman who does not know of whom the Church is really comprised.

    Yes, as Christ loved the Church by washing her in the water of the Word.

    That which husbands are commanded to do is to love is to address her needs spiritually, through the Word. 2 Tim 3:16 “All Scripture is [a]inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for [b]training in righteousness;”

    Nobody minds teaching and training…. but no one likes to be corrected or reproofed/rebuked if they are in the wrong.

    It is in this correction that the man is supposed to provide to the woman as to where his masculine frame will shine through. He is the teacher and she is the student. He should know the Scriptures to the point that he can say: “No, that is incorrect.”

    When you can say “no” to a woman, you are someone she can respect and submit to and that also has the consequence of being attractive to her as well.

  259. Miserman

    Even within the Christian context, unconditional love among adults is immature. There is always a line where one or both spouses are justified for withdrawing their love. We give unconditional love to infants, babies, children, and pets. Adults, however, are expected to receive love only if they’ve met certain standards, though such standards change from situation to situation and person to person.

    Unconditional love is ultimately immature and more in line with sentimental notions of love. Adults practice conditional love for each other on a regular basis because we expect a certain measure of behavior.

    Within my own understanding of my faith, God’s love is conditional. In order to receive it, I must meet a condition by being exclusively loyal to Christ. The alternative is that God’s love is unconditional, with no loyalties required.

  260. theshadowedknight

    Alte, while you lot might, I am not referring to you. Nor was SSM, for that matter. She has been clear that she writes for the women lurking here. The regular commenters are a different group.

    Those women who just read and absorb the points raised here will move on. When the interesting men go, so will the women.

    The Shadowed Knight

  261. Red

    The Greeks and the Roman’s thought that romantic love was madness sent from the gods. I’m inclined to agree that’s it’s form madness that destroys lives. Marriage is about duty, not love. To make marriage about love destroys not only marriage but legitimizes things like gay marriage.

    And you’ll notice that when men speak of love they mean duty. When women talk of love they usually mean desire. The term as it’s commonly used is rather less than clear.

    [ssm: Excellent points.]

  262. tz2026

    Do you mean this in the context of a mature Christan man and woman or pagans engaging in a magnificent and hopefully monogamous debauch within the bounds of civil matrimony? (I mean magnificent in the sense Augustine – his feast day was last wednesday – used in describing pagan virtues as magnificent vices).

    As a Catholic, I believe the Grace of God transcends the official church, but that under secularism, paganism, animism, Gnosticism, or the rest, it requires more grace and creates exceptions.

    If both the wife and husband are “New Creatures in Christ”, then the old categories don’t apply, except as temptations. In Voyage of the Dawn Treader, the “dragon” had to be ripped off painfully to get back to the core of Eustace. We are something like that but we still have bits of the dragon clinging. Husbands lose their heads instead of being heads. Wives will slowly be seduced into escalating polite and reasonable requests into shit-tests.

    What has changed over the past hundred or more years is the nature of the temptation. Society has become a series of Milgram experiments where the tempters don’t attempt to have anyone lose themselves to sin initially. It is first something good and innocent. Then innocent but not so good. Then evil, but rationalizable. As the hamster spins up, they can get the (in the term CS Lewis’ Screwtape used) “patient” to with full knowledge and consent of the will, press the mortal sin, loss of grace button because the experiment must go on – and Mr. Heller says it is ok to do so.

    Game shatters the illusion, but it doesn’t replace it with what reality should be. The mirage has disappeared, but we are left with a desert.

    [ssm: Indeed, and I have read a shocking number of comments from men who "take the red pill" and end up sounding like they are majorly depressed or suicidal.]

    We have not created a righteous and Godly alternative to “Game”. So although we can reject sin and the flesh, what then? In the previous post, someone was looking for “a wife”. Most responses were to use Game. But if we never fell, if we all together – as a community – placed Christ first – what would the result be? Shouldn’t he, and I, and women desiring holy motherhood be able to find a mate? Perhaps not the best or most attractive, but substituting Biblical – Christian values for even good pagan values, much less the limbic system and rationalization hamsters of both sexes.

  263. Miserman

    tz wrote, Perhaps not the best or most attractive, but substituting Biblical – Christian values for even good pagan values, much less the limbic system and rationalization hamsters of both sexes.

    Forgive me, tz, but this sentence confused me. Could you rephrase it?

  264. Sigyn

    SSM, you are free to impose and enforce whatever rules please you on your own blog. This means that I am obligated to be somewhere else if I cannot comply with those rules, for whatever reason.

    I do, however, feel I owe you an explanation for my departure. You say that women are obligated here to treat all men “respectfully”, but you do not appear to obligate men to treat other men with respect, women to treat other women with respect, or men to treat women with respect, regardless of deservingness.

    I refrained from insulting anyone. I refrained from making personal accusations. I limited myself to remarking on conduct, lapses of reasoning, and expressed attitudes. In return, I have been slandered and insulted and had my honesty questioned, and my objective points ignored. You can understand why this would appear to be a deeply uneven and even unjust application of the rules of engagement.

    If this is the atmosphere you would prefer for women and men visiting your blog, that’s your call, and I will respect that by not returning, and by seeking other arenas where I am allowed to return fire as I am fired upon if I choose to do so.

    [ssm: Indeed I do expect women to treat men respectfully here. The reason for this is because men are treated terribly disrespectfully in the wider culture and women are celebrated and built up beyond all reason. So I'm quick to jump on female to male disrespect. However, I will also jump in eventually when two women are repeatedly disrespectful to each other, and although it's rare for men to be repeatedly rude to a woman, I will moderate that as well. Modding threads is more of an art than a science, and I don't always do it well. I'm trying to get better at it. You are welcome here, but I just ask that you keep your tone respectful, that's all. Not everyone agrees with me that you even were disrespectful, but I'm the one who has to manage this dog and pony show. In any event, perhaps we can continue this discussion by email.]

  265. Emma the Emo

    Alte,
    Or in nerd language, we’d call it an approximation. And those work wonderfully to solving real life problems. Things absolutely don’t need to be exact to work as you wish them to :)
    (ok, maybe no one will get this one, but oh well)

  266. Rollo Tomassi

    Still no response to this one eh?

    ,..There is no rest, there is no respite or reprieve from performing, but so strong is the desire for that unconditional love assurance that men thought it prudent to write it into “traditional” marriage vows – ‘for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love, cherish, and obey, forsaking all others until death do you part’ – in other words, a pledge of unconditional love in spite of all circumstance. Those vows are a direct plea for insurances against a female hypergamy that would otherwise be unfettered were it not made in the context of being before God and man

    This was the original pre-nuptial agreement for men.

    I find it interesting that while today’s “new women” opt for hyphenated surnames (or hang onto their own) in some symbolic effort not to appear as “some man’s property” after marriage, none of them want to forego the wedding ring (also a sign of ownership) as some anachronistic ritual.

    [ssm: Yes, this is exactly right. Of course, they want veils and white dresses, too, and we know what those symbolize. Actually, on wedding rings - men didn't use to wear them, for exactly the reason you give, because they are a sign of ownership and he was the owner not the owned.]

  267. deti

    I challenge Sigyn to point out anywhere she was slandered, insulted or disrespected. I challenge her to point out where someone said something untrue about her personally or introduced any personal attacks upon her.

    Making a fair opinion/comment on one’s prior assertions or statements is not slander. Vigorous, rough and tumble debate is not insulting, and disagreement is not disrespect.

  268. Looking Glass

    I think this is one of those posts where the details do matter and, once emotions enter the picture, all attempts to get at the main issue are lost.

    To the main point, if we take “love” in the romantic/affectionate context, then it’s completely & utterly conditional. If the “romance” can be killed, then it’s by condition. Wells of emotion don’t carry you through drudgery for very long. I think that’s the best take away of the entire Pentecostal movement, as even strong “emotion” for the Lord can’t carry you that far.

    Though I think Paul does his usual wonderful work on addressing this entire concept:

    1 Corinthians 13 (KJV):

    “1Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 2And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 3And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

    4Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, 5Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; 6Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; 7Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

    8Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. 9For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. 10But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. 11When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 12For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. 13And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.”

    Like all times when dealing with the concept of “love” in English, it can get a little messy to deal with. Unless you put in the right adjectives. I tend to prefer “agape” with “abiding love”, as it pushes most people a little past their vocabulary comfort zone.

    But the “Love” or “Charity” that Paul is talking about is from the Spirit. It is *not* something you are capable of on your own. You can’t force that type of “Charity”. It’s far beyond intentions. It’s the entire place your intentions come from. This is the difference between Non-Christians, Fake Christians and actual Christians. Oh, we still screw it up quite a lot (Paul also addresses this quite a bit in Romans), but it’s where you put your life that matters.

    So, yes, romantic Love from a Woman is always conditional. It’s also conditional from a Man, it’s just that there’s a massive time-gap differential and tendency. It’s much easier for a Woman, in the modern age of unreality, to “fall out of Love”. It normally takes an odd Man or a horrible harridan to kill off a Man’s romantic Love.

    This is also why selecting for a Christian that shows the Fruits of the Spirit is so important. It makes all of the difference in the World.

    [ssm: Yes, that is true. In particular men need to be ever so careful in selecting for Christian women who are showing the fruits of the Spirit, in particular gentleness and self-control.]

  269. FuzzieWuzzie

    To all the women who wanted to pile on a guy, aren’t we forgetting about Sam Spade as mentioned in the original post?
    While the alphaq cad lifestyle is not my choice, it does seem that cads do have difficulty settling in to marriage. While it is popular to promote the price of promiscuity in women, in these parts, there does seem to be a corresponding price for men.

    SSM, don’t worry about Sam Spade getting poozle. He’ll be up and running iin short order given the current market. To admit as much makes me a little ill.

  270. Deep Strength

    @ deti

    I challenge Sigyn to point out anywhere she was slandered, insulted or disrespected. I challenge her to point out where someone said something untrue about her personally or introduced any personal attacks upon her.

    Well, you already know the answer.

    She *feels* slandered, insulted, and disrespected. It’s not that she actually was.

  271. deti

    There has been no slander, insult or disrespect.

    On this thread alone, I have been accused of being “full of crap” (Elspeth), making “crap” arguments (SSM/tradcon hen), and of dishonest and misleading argumentation (Sigyn). I have been accused of “ranting” (Sigyn), and implicitly told that ranting is inappropriate. I have been subjected to shaming language while my substantive argument was ignored (LLB). Sigyn ordered me not to get all uptight when she responds to me, and did so in a consistently sarcastic tone. She pointedly and in an unsolicited manner told me she owed me no apologies and had done nothing wrong, when I demanded no apologies and never accused her of doing anything wrong.

    Does she owe me any respect? No. Is it insulting? No, and even if it were it doesn’t matter because this is academic debate. Is it slander? Hardly, since no one said anything untrue and even if it was, it’s fair comment. Anyone is free to disagree with me and attack my credibility based on my biases; but I’m free to call it out for the shaming language it is.

  272. alphabetasoup

    By the way, does anyone have any idea how to solve the problem of the comment box that only allows you to see the first 2 lines of what you are writing? This is why so many of my comments look like they are written by a retarded non-native English speaker. I cannot proof read anything I write.
    I’m glad it is’nt just me

  273. Sigyn

    Forgive me this last “disrespectful” comment, SSM, but I am invited to respond.

    Deti, you accused me of calling you a bitter, angry loser who can’t get laid, although I said none of those things nor even approached them, nor have I ever done so to you. I have never spoken to your relationship with your wife, not here nor anywhere else, because it is not my business. I do not resort to those tactics. However, you put said phrase in quotes, which implies that I said those exact words when I said no such thing.

    The “ranting” was speaking to Joseph, and it was not directly about you. Your “Translation” of my comment about that matter was a direct attack not only on what I was saying and what my husband had said to me, but on my intentions and integrity in relating it.

    If you look up just a few comments, you can see Sir Chancealot calling me “silly” and accusing me of declining to give my “short list” because I have something sinister to hide, despite my stated position to the contrary–an overt accusation of dishonesty.

    I submit to you that these are much more blatant and proper examples of insults and shaming than remarking on you changing your position every time the conditions were met, remarking on your comments about how hard men have it that were off-topic, and noting that you have a demonstrated habit of repeatedly “venting” on the things that you claim happened to you whether or not they were on-topic.

    I think the best summary of why I did not insult you in my comments goes like this: “Making a fair opinion/comment on one’s prior assertions or statements is not slander. Vigorous, rough and tumble debate is not insulting, and disagreement is not disrespect.”

    But you are not obligated to treat me with the same courtesy I am obligated to treat you, so this was only for your information.

  274. theshadowedknight

    Deti, have you noticed a commitment to balanced debate and reasonable discourse from her, yet? Rollo, the same goes for you, as well. You two should know better than to argue with a woman, let alone a group. You are letting them set the tone and control the frame. Deti, you are defending yourself instead of going on the attack, as Rollo does. Both of you are fighting on their ground. Pick your battles.

    The Shadowed Knight

  275. Joseph of Jackson

    @Shadowed Knight

    “Now that this little incident has calmed down, what in perdition is going on? I woke up and checked my sites, and I find… I am not sure what to call it. A battle, at the least.”

    I’m not really sure why, but this is what it reminded me of.

  276. jack

    The biggest difference is not between men and women, it is between what our society currently accepts/excuses from them.

    Women are not any more prone to frivorce because of their nature, they are prone to it because the ambient cultural environment cheers it.

    If you reversed the entire culture (adjusting for gender polarity differences), men would be selfish creeps and women would be getting screwed over by it.

    It isn’t the people, it’s the lie that feminism has sown into our society. And part of the lie is that only men frivorce. In mmanosphereland, only women frivorce.

    In truth, they both do, but only to the extent that society permits, abets, and excuses it.

    The big lie of feminism is that promiscuous men were lauded as “studs”, when in reality in days gone by, this was not the case. Alpha was always alpha, but the notion of high fiving in the locker room was a caricature that was used to seed female promiscuity.

    [ssm: This is a good comment and is close to my own thoughts on the matter.]

  277. Elspeth

    I have been accused of being “full of crap” (Elspeth)

    I’m not going to try and defend myself, because I said what I said and meant what I said.

    The debate was getting pretty heated and I did say you were full of crap.

    You and I have been going around this mountain for a while Deti, and I do believe it is appropriate to weigh all comments in light of the totality of your dealings with someone (online as much as off).

    I meant no harm or offense but I felt as if you would receive my spirited debate as just that..

  278. taylor

    “none of them want to forego the wedding ring (also a sign of ownership) as some anachronistic ritual.”

    There are women out in lurkdom who chose to forgo the wedding ring. My husband had a certain amount of money saved for a wedding ring, but I couldn’t wrap my head around spending that much money on a piece of jewelry for me. I matched the amount he had saved, and we invested the money in real estate instead.

  279. deti

    Sigyn:

    The claim that you called me a bitter angry guy who isn’t getting laid is withdrawn and am doing so publicly since you’re clearly trying to set me up.

    You did appear to accuse me of “ranting”. The rant comment appeared to have been directed at me. The “translation” is a fair comment on your statement and is hyperbolic for the purpose of argument. It was not an attack on your intentions and integrity; it was a fair interpretation of your words. The claim of shaming language of “bitter and angry” and that therefore no one should believe me is also fair comment and hyperbole for argumentation purposes. People are allowed to “read between the lines” in interpreting combox comments.

  280. Bike Bubba

    I hope that I’m not violating a rule by trying to go back on topic, but Rollo’s challenge about the nature of the vows caught my eye. Marriage vows date back to the Middle Ages, and thus were written by celibate priests with no fear of cuckolding in a day when adultery was punishable by death. So the vows would be a pitable bulwark against “hypergamy” compared to what they already had, to put it very gently. I’d rather suggest that it was simply a reminder that while marriage involves youth, wine, and roses, it can also involve poverty, sickness, and the like.

    I’m also noting that some of you wee laddies from the “manosphere” have thinner skin than the President. :^)

    [ssm: Yes, I'm suddenly noticing that, too. Odd.]

  281. deti

    Elspeth:

    I know you meant it. Just as I mean it when I tell you you’re wrong, in my opinion.

    I took no offense and it’s no skin off my nose. The point is that we disagree in heated debate all the time, and it gets personal sometimes, and we shake it off, and we go on to the next debate.

    You think I’m wrong about things; and I think you’re wrong about things. We’ll talk about it, shout about it, and then kiss and make up, like we always do.

  282. Miserman

    If I were to disagree with SSM and argue that women are incapable anything more than selfish patterns of behavior, without the capacity to choose selfless patterns, then the only remaining option for men is to bring women into a state of forced subservience and submission through exploitation and force.

    Norse pillaging, anyone?

  283. tbc

    Quiet earl, Men are speaking.

    You can come back when you’ve had your first drink, gotten into a fist fight and actually have had a woman touch your dick.

    Those aren’t indications of manhood, but generally of a lack of self-control — the antithesis of manhood.

  284. Zippy

    Well, SSM, that is how this post is seen by men.

    Speak for yourself. Dalrock’s conception of the manosphere seems best: it is a conversation, not a set of doctrines. And the folks claiming to state the official position on “how this post is seen by men” are frankly full of crap. They certainly don’t speak for me.

  285. Ton

    LOL, two out of three counts in my book Frank. And let’s face it, my book is the only one that counts.

    What’s ideal? Utopian whatever that post was… that’s for women and children. The world is cold, ugly and brutal. It’s a man’s job to overcome. You don’t do that by jabbering on about ideals and utopianism. You don’t that by busting your ass and being relentless.

    Which isn’t to say a man does not need R&R from time to time but that to must be grounded in the ugly reality of our fallen world. Men need advice and confidants and all manner of things but not is some womanish emotive way.

    I’m also fair certain Sunshine, if memory serves and mine usually does, that at one point you poked some holes in that report about men leaving sick wives. Something to do with statistical methodology or some such but it was on your old blog, in the comment sections when you posted about wives leaving men when they are down and out.

    Men do love older women unconditionally. We love older sisters, grandmothers, wives ( dumb idea but yea men do) etc etc.

    We all see a metric shit ton of men stay with fat wives and put up with their bullshit. Everyfucking day you go to a wall Mart you’ll see many examples of semi fit men taking their land whales out into public. It’s sickening on every level.

  286. deti

    Elspeth:

    Saying someone is “full of crap” is hyperbole for the purpose of argumentation. If you disagree with me you have every right to call me “full of crap”, just as I have every right to assert, as I’ve done here and elsewhere, that some of your assertions are “false”.

    The use of hyperbole and vehement disagreement during online academic debate is completely appropriate.

  287. RichardP

    Deep Strength – my comments were not so much about what Christ does for the Church. Rather, they were focused on the definition of the “Church” that Christ does these things for, regardless of what “these things” are.

    Christ does not share his resources with those who have rejected him. Christ’s promises and love are intended only for those who obey him (the Chuch). That is the model for a husband’s attentions toward his wife.

    If a wife has risen up in rebellion against her husband, or has left him, the husband cannot love her as Christ loves the Church – because she is no longer occupying the position that the Church occupies relative to Christ. Again, Christ does not share his resources with those who have rejected him.

  288. Elspeth

    The use of hyperbole and vehement disagreement during online academic debate is completely appropriate.

    See how quickly we made up? :)

  289. FuzzieWuzzie

    Rollo, all the things you mentioned in your last comment seemed to have one thing in common; when men marry, they’re committed up to the hilt. Under Marriage 2.0, committment seems to be “a la carte” for women. Would this mean, that in modern marriage, the parties are unequally yoked?
    Farm Boy might say something like: “This looks like trouble before we even get started.”.

  290. Lolly

    Awww….the pure submissive, meek pseudo-Christian ingrate ladies are all angry, because the random men they have been [redacted]ing off this whole time, decided to reject them. Awwwww…tear. Sunshine Mary please wipe off [redacted]‘s [redacted] off your face.

    [SSM: I am only allowing this comment, with redactions, in order to demonstrate for readers the classy types of comments feminists leave on my site.]

  291. Ton

    No men take risks we fight, we fail, we celebrate. Woman call that drive to conquer immature etc but a man with no drive is no kind of man.

    Great point about the vows Bike B

    The only rational ways to argue with a woman is with an icy stare, a command to be silent or the back of your hand

    [ssm: Naturally a man should be able to argue rationally with a woman who is being rational. That said, we do tend toward emotional manipulations and irrationality, so your suggestions are likely quite useful.]

  292. Rollo Tomassi

    @Fuzzie, I’ll be happy to discuss your question in the comment thread of my post on my blog. SSM doesn’t have the sac to challenge anyone outside her own blog.

    [ssm: You are coming across as weirdly insecure. I don't get it. Are you seriously not able to handle minor criticism of your ideas? If not, that says something. I haven't attacked you personally, yet you keep making ad hominem attacks on me. Knock it off. And you know perfectly well that I am no coward. I have stayed out of most conversations in the manosphere because a) I have always maintained that I am not "part" of the manosphere and b) there have been a lot of posts lately decrying women's presence on manosphere blogs, so I've been careful not to comment on most sphere sites because that was what I thought men around here wanted. That's why I have my own blog; so that the men don't have to deal with women on their blogs if they don't want to. However, if there is something you want me to come to your site to discuss, say the word and I will come.

    And are we really back to deleting me out of your blogroll because you didn't like one post I wrote that was critical of one of your ideas? I thought you had more backbone than that, Rollo.]

  293. FuzzieWuzzie

    Rollo, thanks for the invitation, but I think that I would be over matched. Any way, SSM is following good advice confirmed by Keoni last night. In essence, it’s don’t go off your patch and make waves.

    BTW, you’re a better student of human nature than I am.

  294. Pingback: Dodged a Bullet There | Donal Graeme

  295. Farm Boy

    BTW, you’re a better student of human nature than I am.

    I would not expect a bear to understand people.

  296. Learner

    ““What 4 simple things, and ONLY those 4 things, can a man possess and have a woman love him” request, in general.”

    I’ll bite. For me they are:
    1. Share my faith
    2. Be intelligent
    3. Be cuddly
    4. Be good at your job

    I actually kinda thought Sigyn was arguing pretty logically. She didn’t seem any snarkier than SSM or Deti did.

  297. Farm Boy

    Farm Boy might say something like: “This looks like trouble before we even get started.”.

    No, I would have said, “The future, unclear it is. The Dark Side, clouds all it does”

  298. Chris

    Rollo” SSM has kids and trolls have tried to doxx them. She’s gotta play defence. A bit: I have spent a bit of time trying to get her husband (HHG) to go troll hunting. Will S used to do a LOT of this.

    Guys like you can play offense.

  299. sunshinemary Post author

    I havent abadoned this thread but we are on vacay and husbabd has said, “Face out of your device.” I will be responding later when kids are in bed.

    But real quick on the topic of land whales – we are staying in one of those hotel/themed water park resorts and dear God. Women of America: time to put down the doughnuts.

  300. Zippy

    I actually kinda thought Sigyn was arguing pretty logically. She didn’t seem any snarkier than SSM or Deti did.

    Second. It was a different commenter who brought up TMI about Deti that apparently Deti had vented publicly some time in the past. That was clearly ad hominem.

  301. deti

    I didn’t have any problem with Sigyn’s argumentation. She’s the one who is all butthurt claiming she was slandered, insulted and attacked.

    She wasn’t slandered. Insult and attack and hyperbolic argument is par for the course around here. I hope she can come back when she can develop a thicker skin.

    As for the ad hominem, that’s a reference to my wife saying to me some time ago she wasn’t sexually attracted to me and how I’ve handled it. It’s commonly brought up in an effort to shame me with “deti is just a bitter angry guy who isn’t getting laid and therefore no one should listen to him or believe him” (even if that’s not explicity stated, that is the clear import of it being raised) and to call attention to me rather than the arguments I advance.

  302. Fist of Vulkan

    Ok folks… Here’s my two cents.
    Speaking for myself as a grown, single, never married childless man, I feel out of place in today’s society. First off I would like to know where I can meet women who think like the ladies who post on blogs like these. Secondly, the only thing I’ve really ever wanted is a family. I would like one day to come home to more than a dog and a beer. I would also like maybe one day to read The Three Musketeers to a son, whom I may never meet thanks to society and feminism, and see the looks of wonder and amazement at the tales of honor, friendship, and brotherhood. I would also like to take a daughter to the museum and see the wonder in her eyes as she gazes on works of art from down the centuries or listens to the symphonies of the greats. I don’t want it to be someone else’s children I do that for. I want it to be my children, flesh of my flesh, blood of my blood. Created by a bond stronger than myself or her, whomever she is, and raised to the best of my ability.
    I’m now 37. In a few short months I’ll be 38. Not old, but not as young as I once was. I’m tired of plate spinning or whatever it’s called. I don’t have the patience, and quite frankly, I’m not that good at it. It’s a difficult field to plow, but I’m chugging along. So if somebody could please confirm for me that I don’t live during the most dicked up era of humanity, I would be greatly appreciative.

  303. Rollo Tomassi

    I havent abadoned this thread but we are on vacay and husbabd has said, “Face out of your device.” I will be responding later when kids are in bed.

    I see. So this was just a half-cocked, half-considered, never checked, post you fired off between bloody marys from your ipad while on “vacay”.

    I think I got it now.

    [ssm: Nein. I wrote this yesterday evening. We left for vacation today. This wasn't half-considered by any stretch. If you click the links, you'll find that Suz, myself, Jacqui, David Collard, and a number of other people at Dalrock's have had a number of conversations about this topic over the past couple of years.]

  304. Farm Boy

    ….the pure submissive, meek pseudo-Christian ingrate ladies are all angry,

    Well, if they are pure submissive and weak, they would probably would not be all angry.

    What is pseudo about their Christianity?

    What are they ingrate about?

    Perhaps next time, one should try to make sense.

  305. FuzzieWuzzie

    SSM, you only addressed women about doughnuts. Are the men relatively lean? If they’re all living in the same house and eating the same food, how can this be?

  306. Farm Boy

    you’ll see many examples of semi fit men taking their land whales out into public

    Probably they want access to the blowhole.

  307. FuzzieWuzzie

    Farm Boy,
    I am trying to form a mental picture of that and it is just too weird.
    Let’s all go to a water park and then eat split pea soup at Andersen’s in
    Solvang CA.

  308. Hannah

    Yikes! ….. This was never going to be pretty. I might stay low and stick with Abed (The Shadowed Knight in this case!)

  309. Farm Boy

    Even if somebody is “angry and bitter”, it does not disqualify them from making logical arguments.

  310. Hannah

    Frank I remember you saying you were heavily influenced by epic songs growing up…so you already know that you are Meatloaf approved! What else matters?! :)

    “I want you
    I need you
    But-there ain’t no way I’m ever gonna love you
    Now don’t be sad
    ‘Cause two out of three ain’t bad”

  311. infowarrior1

    Men are amenable to being manipulated by women and reluctant to visit harm to them. Its women that hold that hold power in society in terms of influence or social power. That’s why women are given few rights in the past because of their enormous power of influence:

    “Call to mind all the regulations respecting women by which our ancestors curbed their licence and made them obedient to their husbands, and yet in spite of all those restrictions you can scarcely hold them in. If you allow them to pull away these restraints and wrench them out one after another, and finally put themselves on an equality with their husbands, do you imagine that you will be able to tolerate them? From the moment that they become your fellows they will become your masters.” -Cato the elder.

    [ssm: Great quote.]

  312. theshadowedknight

    Hannah, who is Abed? I do not watch much TV. Nice video, though.

    Do any of the men know what is going on today? I feel like I just wandered into an alternate reality. Is Lindy West still a fat, shrill feminist? Did Germany still win WW2? Is John McCain still the president?

    The Shadowed Knight

  313. Bluedog

    Wow 344 comments and not a day has passed, I barely saw this almost missed it.

    Couple things:

    1) Women and men are conscious agents. To the degree that the manosphere or denizens thereof deny that women are conscious agents … they are either deluded, mis-informed or simply wrong

    2) All people do not act according to their conscious agency … our mammalian nature allows us to act according to programming rather than conscious agency, this is true of men and women. Moral faculty, cultivated through culture, religion, philosophy or experience, develops the cognitive tools necessary to act with moral agency. From time to time everyone fails to act on their agency … I have in other spaces commented on the sad fact of our “imp”

    3) Women, generally possessed of more value in the dating marketplace, at a younger age than men, face greater temptation at a younger age to act on the imperatives of their mammalian hindbrain … WHEN women do this (and for that matter, when MEN do this) … they are acting on the programming that Rollo takes pains to point out

    4) It is good for men to know this, because many, many, many men … men you saw today, in the last two hours even … many men BELIEVE that women can fulfill them the way that, for example, Christians believe Christ can fulfill them

    Men … Christian or not … must be disabused of this belief. To the degree Rollo’s piece convincingly delivers the blow that shatters men’s illusions that (a) another (b) human being (of any gender for that matter) is capable of fulfilling them in the way that they seem prone to hope and wish and yearn for, then Rollo does a service.

    To the degree that Rollo, in placing female reproductive programming under a microscope, either understates female agency or overstates male agency, then Rollo is simply wrong, and he misleads.

    That said, in his defense, if you read the article very, very carefully, you will notice Rollo is not talking about male or female agency. He’s talking about the fact that: “men! listen up! Women won’t fulfill you!”

  314. FuzzieWuzzie

    Real Pacific whales migrate to the Gulf of California to birth. As soon as baby whale can manage, they get back north where there is food.
    Not much is known about the land based variety.

  315. Hannah

    Sir_Chancealot seems to have the right handle on the situation IMO.

    I’d like to give you my short list, but as you mentioned, it will be more individual and far less likely to be the female template to work with. Conversely, the male list seems pretty universal:

    “Most men would be ecstatic to have the following in a woman,: 1) Lots of enthusiastic sex, 2) her respect, 3) Peace in his home, and 4) Don’t spend money frivolously.”

    My List:

    1. Desire me
    2. Maintain physical attractiveness
    3. Kindness
    4. Willingness to protect and provide basics for family

    My list crosses over my husbands list at number 1 and this keeps us together in more ways than one. Being physically united pretty much on a daily basis means that we’re able to face whatever difficulties may come our way in those other points. As long as my husband’s desire is towards me then ‘Kindness, Attractiveness, Provision’ is less important although highly valued. Does this make sense? Perhaps not clearly :)
    Number 1 is number 1 for a reason. It keeps us connected. Nothing else matters half as much.

    Because I’m in agreement with men on the sexual need topic, it may appear that I am a ‘better woman’ (not meant to sound vain!) but indeed I am not. Perhaps it’s because of my high sex-drive that I am not as naturally meek or gentle as many many other lovely ladies.
    Doesn’t mean I can’t work on these aspects, and nor does it mean that the sexual element should be brushed away as just ‘all very well and good for you Hannah’.
    We can all learn from each other’s wisdom if we choose to remain teachable.

    Hope I make some sense!

  316. Hannah

    The Shadowed Knight – Abed is the character in Community (the Modern Warfare link) who observes more than anyone else and is hyper-aware of what is really going on.
    He’s portrayed as probably being somewhere on the spectrum so when things get totally chaotic in the group (ala what happened here today!) he separates himself from the crazy and makes an exit.
    I’d follow him :)

  317. LeeLeeBug

    @Hannah
    My List:
    1. Desire me
    2. Maintain physical attractiveness
    3. Kindness
    4. Willingness to protect and provide basics for family

    I love your list. I think most women would be very happy to be married to a man with these qualities.

  318. LeeLeeBug

    @ Fuzzie
    SSM, you only addressed women about doughnuts. Are the men relatively lean? If they’re all living in the same house and eating the same food, how can this be?

    I doubt the men are lean. Middle aged men w/o flabby guts are about as rare as unicorns though I think most men can carry a few extra pounds better than most women can.

    On a bright note, wives can really help their hubbys stay slim by cooking healthy meals that are also tasty. Today I made my husband blackened shrimp on top of a bed of mixed greens and chopped cantaloupe with a homemade sherry vinaigrette and roasted pumpkin seeds. I served homemade bread with rosemary and olive oil on the side.

    It was a very healthy meal and he cleaned his plate. He’s usually willing to follow the clean eating diet that I prefer as long as the food tastes good.

  319. FuzzieWuzzie

    Hannah, I like your list! It’s simple and do-able. As to sex, there was an ald slogan that fell out of favor with the onset of feminism: “Sex every night and never a fight.”. Could it be that you’re a traditional girl?
    The upside to this is that you can never go to bed angry. It all has to be sorted out beforehand.

  320. FuzzieWuzzie

    LeeLeeBug,
    I want to be married so that I can eat good food!!! You have no idea how tired I am of bachelor food.

  321. Ton

    What’s going on… tidal pull of the moon every 28 days? Not sure why men take what women say so serious. Talk about pointless. I don’t argue with 9 year-olds either.

    Most dicked up time in history? Read much history? No black death, we have modern antibiotics, do shit and use things that was science fucking fiction 50 years ago, no Mongol invasion ( ok a toss up between them and the soft invasions of immigration) no small pox out breaks, this is the golden age of firearms, muscle cars and hookers….. things don’t seem that bad to me.

    I’m out drinking with my daughter, sooooo many manosphere stereotypes playing out it hurts. Or would if it wasn’t for the Maker’s Mark.

  322. Saint Velvet

    There are women out in lurkdom who chose to forgo the wedding ring. My husband had a certain amount of money saved for a wedding ring, but I couldn’t wrap my head around spending that much money on a piece of jewelry for me. I matched the amount he had saved, and we invested the money in real estate instead.

    Hello – tap, tap – is this thing on. THIS!!

    After about two months of marriage, I sold my husbands ring of engagement for more than he paid, used it for a down payment on his house, bought him an SRV Strat, and I probably gave him a blow job, too, who remembers, anymore? I was his. wife. Acting in his ( meaning our) best interest was a reflex that didn’t include – well – things that cost more than a house. Once I had a date on it, the ring became superfluous.

  323. Sarah's Daughter

    There are several reasons a woman would claim she has an absolute unconditional love for her husband:
    1. she’s lying
    2. her husband is a natural alpha who keeps her on her toes, so to speak (very rare) Or her (non natural alpha) husband has been enlightened to the truth prior and stays vigilant and does not falter.
    3. she hasn’t been married very long
    4. she has experienced a confusing time of “losing that loving feeling” and sought Wisdom, and has come to understand that it will take a constant pursuit of this Wisdom to carry her through the trying times that WILL come.

    What’s been lacking in the women’s comments here is which one of these she is. Come on ladies. Don’t snowflake on this. Who among you doesn’t understand that men have an unrealistic expectation of unconditional love from us and often get completely blindsided when they learn of their wives “losing that loving feeling.” That you may be a Christian wife committed to biblical marriage you are still in category four (or three). Can you really not put aside your solipsism to observe the reality of marriages (Christian or secular). Can you really not comprehend that what you observe of most women’s love for their husband is opportunistic (exploiting chances offered by immediate circumstances without reference to a general plan or moral principle.) Most women ARE short term oriented. MOST women do not adhere to a general plan or moral principle for their marriages. What she feels at the moment is what she feels. As has been mentioned, vows fly out the window “cuz this is different” – whether that be an illness/injury that makes him horribly moody, intense depression that renders him bed ridden and slovenly, infidelity etc.

    We, as wives, need to be able to honestly say: “Should my husband be so tempted by the enemy that he succumbs to adultery, I will love and respect him, I will fight the enemy with prayer and not leave his side, I will not leave his physical presence, I will not withhold love (in the way he receives it – ie sex, respect, admiration), I will not divorce him, I will not slander him, I will require my children to continue to show him respect, I will hold on hope for the future of our marriage and I will endure all suffering knowing that hope awaits at the end of this life, I forgive him and ache for him as a brother in Jesus Christ, our Lord. Never will I forsake him in this time of challenge.” (substitute adultery with anything else.)

    What an unfathomable statement for MOST women today.

    Perhaps this is why marriage is a covenant with God. I know NOT ONE woman able to say the above without Him. And even with Him, I’ll call you a liar if you claim to never had had a time in your marriage that these words would be impossible. (unless you’re in category #3).

  324. Tradcon Hen

    OK, I have some time now, so I’m going to go back through the thread and address some of the comments. To save time, I’m just going to write my comments at the bottom of readers’ comments.

  325. Sarah's Daughter

    Most men would be ecstatic to have the following in a woman,: 1) Lots of enthusiastic sex, 2) her respect, 3) Peace in his home, and 4) Don’t spend money frivolously.

    I believe it should be a given that in both cases, the partner is considered physically attractive to the other.

    Women, can you put a simple list like that together? Really think about it, now. (Hint: “Physically attractive” doesn’t include “dressing well”. Hint#2: “Well paying job” doesn’t include “socially dominant.”)

    So go ahead women. Let’s see your short list.

    1) Exhibits audacious authority
    2) Protection
    3) Provision
    4) Unwavering self confidence
    5) Always smells good

  326. Farm Boy

    1) Exhibits audacious authority
    2) Protection
    3) Provision
    4) Unwavering self confidence

    Tingles Über Alles

    One more data point supporting Farm Boy’s First Law, “Tingles Trump Provisioning”

  327. FuzzieWuzzie

    Farm Boy,
    You left out No. 5-Always smells good.

    Sarah.s Daughter,
    In all fairness, you’re the only commenter here that I am aware of that has had to care for a disabled spouse. That counts!

  328. nightskyradio

    Eh, let’s kick some crabs back down into the bucket just for laughs…

    Tell me again, guys, all about how opportunistic women are and how men want an idealized kind of love.

    Terri Schiavo.

    [ssm: Just so.]

  329. Sarah's Daughter

    One more data point supporting Farm Boy’s First Law, “Tingles Trump Provisioning”

    Yes, this is true. We have been poor and he has embodied point number one and conversely he has provided tremendously and not embodied point number one. His sexual needs, need for respect and admiration were fulfilled more with the poor/audacious authority than the financially well off/floundering authority.

    I thought for a long time about this list, reviewing my behavior toward him at various times during our marriage. I can not claim this list to be true of all women. It is for me and I have 18 years to reference. It might be just me, and it felt weird writing it, but “always smells good” is a thing for me…kinda a big one – it made the top five.

    Fuzzie – Perhaps having a disabled spouse for this long is unique to my experience. I’m not sure. I’ll tell you this, I am fascinated by his ability to elicit my sexual desire as he walks along with his cane.

    Farm Boy – Tingles (elicited by the audacious authority) trump physical capability as well.

  330. Bluedog

    Rollo,
    I admire you and SSM. I disagree with SSM more often than I disagree with you, for what it’s worth, and it’s probably not worth much.
    I feel like when I read your article, I got it. But there’s a few things about me “getting it”. One is that I actively practice a discipline of trying not to read my ideas into another person when I listen or read his words. Another is that I thrive in non-binaries, do if you are being non-binary, it doesn’t blow my skull since I’m not trying to fit your candelabra into my square-binary peg.

    But I can read things and get how a person, coming from another perspective, can “get it” the way they do, often in some senses either (a) mis-reading frequency 101.1 for frequency 102.1 or on an n-band dial or (b) taking point-priority “q” that you are making, and shifting it to point-priority A+++.

    Your article did not claim that women do not have moral agency. I got that. Your article did not even confuse attraction and the absolute essential fact of attraction (for men or women) with women’s moral agency. I got that. You were channel 101.1. And yet … many of your commenters/readers clearly walked away thinking you had completely validated their knavish prejudices that women have no moral agency, they got channel 102.1 … they have no dial to anything else, so pegged you as close to what they know, as they could.

    Apart from that … I could also read that your angle was to dis-abuse men of lies they tell themselves about the way that women love them … lies that are the baked denatured dough of quasi-religious ideas of love (i.e.: “soul mates”), fiction (i.e.: Disney and all others in the theater, now) and raw human hopes, yearnings, dreams.

    You can’t un-denature cooked dough. So you blew it apart. That is your typical M.O. when trying to confront men’s false ideas.

    But women aren’t likely to read it that way. A woman would be wrong to come away from the article thinking you said that women cannot love men … where love is a choice, of conscious free agency, followed through upon, over and over again, day after day, test after test. You never said that. You were talking about attraction.

    But women don’t conflate their attraction to themselves with their love of men … where the target of your rhetorical explosive charge was men’s conflation of their attraction to women with their love of them. I can’t put it in Chi Squares on a WordPress comment, but the trouble is that for a woman to hear your message, as you meant it, she has to take several steps of psycho-sexual-cognitive displacement not just to see things the way a man sees them, but to specifically mis-understand things the way men are prone to.

    That many women would walk away hearing that you said women can’t love men, however wrong the interpretation, doesn’t surprise me.

    As a reader and admirer of both you and SSM … I would not like to see you at loggerheads. You needn’t agree. It isn’t bad if you disagree. There isn’t going to be a satisfying “I WAS RIGHT” moment. We are all on this … trying to compare notes and learn from one another, aren’t we?

    I’m a secular Democrat who wants to use markets to spread capital and who doesn’t think Cap’n Capitalism for all his self-adulating more-capitalist-than-thou posturing would recognize a public market if he, ehhhh, worked in one every day of his life as a professional specialist. Not that I have the status of anything more than a knat, but so far no one has kicked either of us out. Don’t beat each other up. Don’t shut each other out. We are not Futrelle/Manboobz or HUS/Walsh here. Adults. Next round of beer, together, is on me.

  331. sunshinemary

    SD, I don’t think I agree with your list of 4 points. I am not lying, natural alphas are very rare so my husband probably isn’t one, I’ve been married for a long time, and I’ve never lost that loving feeling for him. Does that mean I love him unconditionally? I think I do but not because of the things on your list.

  332. RichardP

    Hopefully this text displays OK, as I won’t have a chance to correct it.

    Men are quite capable of living and loving in the abstratct – that “yearning for the thing that men must learn not to expect” that Rollo talks about. Women seem to take a more practical view. Here are a couple of examples of this dynamic.

    From Wikipedia. Dante had an arranged marriage, but loved Beatrice. Do we suppose his love for Beatrice ever did her any good?

    Dante said he first met Beatrice Portinari, daughter of Folco Portinari, at age nine, and claimed to have fallen in love with her “at first sight”, apparently without even talking with her. He saw her frequently after age 18, often exchanging greetings in the street, but never knew her well. In effect, he set an example of so-called courtly love, a phenomenon developed in French and Provençal poetry of prior centuries. Dante’s experience of such love was typical, but his expression of it was unique. It was in the name of this love that Dante left his imprint on the dolce stil novo (sweet new style, a term which Dante himself coined), and he would join other contemporary poets and writers in exploring never-before-emphasized aspects of love (Amore). Love for Beatrice (as Petrarch would show for Laura somewhat differently) would be his reason for poetry and for living, together with political passions. In many of his poems, she is depicted as semi-divine, watching over him constantly and providing spiritual instruction, sometimes harshly.

    The Female of the Species – last two stanzas
    Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936)

    So it comes that Man, the coward, when he gathers to confer
    With his fellow-braves in council, dare not leave a place for her
    Where, at war with Life and Conscience, he uplifts his erring hands
    To some God of Abstract Justice—which no woman understands.

    And Man knows it! Knows, moreover, that the Woman that God gave him
    Must command but may not govern—shall enthral but not enslave him.
    And She knows, because She warns him, and Her instincts never fail,
    That the Female of Her Species is more deadly than the Male.

  333. Sarah's Daughter

    Okay, you’re not lying, you’re not married to a natural alpha nor a man who is not a natural alpha but understands the nature of women and is vigilant and does not falter, you’ve been married a long time and you’ve never lost that loving feeling? Not once?

    (I beg to differ about him not being a natural alpha based on the limited information I know of him, his comments on this blog, and his ability to attract women – again, just from testimony on this blog, his authoritative stance when you are fitness testing him etc). But lets pretend he’s not a natural alpha:

    You are claiming to be a woman who not once has had a diminished ability to love your husband in the way that he receives it? Even prior to becoming a Christian? (I thought you had written of how you were separated from him for a time.)

    From this I conclude:
    – I must suck as a wife (and perhaps this is true. My upbringing and my past may make for my experience to be the worst case scenario – though the observances/experiences of multitudes of men in the manosphere lead me to believe I am more common than you).
    – You are an exceptional woman married to an exceptional man. To have never felt a wavering love for him, a questioning, a faltering ability to give him what he needs to feel love, though he is a Beta (prone to non-alpha characteristics like exposing his weaknesses to you, questioning his abilities to provide, insecurity, etc)

    There is nothing he could do that would inhibit your ability to love him the way he receives love, having nothing to do with your obedience to God’s calling for wives in marriage. You are a woman who doe not need God’s words? It comes naturally to you to always display love to your husband in the manner he receives it?

    [ssm: Well, you've increased it here a bit, haven't you? Yesterday it was just love him, now it's perfect obedience? Sometimes I don't obey him though I should.

    Well, I guess it depends on how we define beta. I think of natural alphas as people who would never marry, so by virtue of being married, he can't be a natural alpha, but he doesn't do the things that you described as beta hardly ever. Maybe he feels those things, but if he does, he rarely mentions them to me. Fitness testing and all that is quashed immediately, usually by making a sexual comment to me. He jokingly treats me like I'm a dim-witted f-ck toy a lot of the time, and despite what feminists will say, I like that. But he's quite capable of being serious with me when it's needed, and we will sit down together in the evening and have really interesting conversations. But I don't think these qualities make him a natural alpha, just a good husband. We were separated not because I no longer loved him or wanted him but because he wouldn't stop sleeping with women that he worked with, had gone to school with, were my friends or coworkers, were his friends' girlfriends, etc ad nauseum.

    But anyway, I just realized there was a time when my attraction to him suffered; when he became a Christian. I think I'll write more about that in a separate post, though.]

  334. Cane Caldo

    @SSM

    I have admitted to being wrong before and will undoubtedly do so again in the future, but one thing I will not do is pretend like I believe certain things which I do not believe

    This is true, and admirable; as much as it pains my black cherry snowcone of a heart to say it.

    there have been a lot of posts lately decrying women’s presence on manosphere blogs, so I’ve been careful not to comment on most sphere sites because that was what I thought men around here wanted.

    Is this true? The only comments I’ve seen are the ones I made at Dalrock’s, but there are many sites that I don’t read. I’m genuinely curious.

    If that’s not the case: I think it’s unfair to the rest of the men and myself to lay my comments at their doors. Unfair to them because I don’t actually think most of them agree. Your site’s very large number of male commenters stand in contrast to this wisdom. It’s unfair to me because it is wisdom and I’d like my thunder back. Ha.

    Your own blog, however, is an entirely different matter. More importantly: I think you acquit yourself much better than you used to, and this particular post was (mostly) written in your own defense as a member of the malignant maligned sex. I didn’t detect any maliciousness in it.

    @Bike Bubba

    Count me out of the “twitosphere.”

    &

    I’m also noting that some of you wee laddies from the “manosphere” have thinner skin than the President. :^)

    What good are you hoping to do by these general and derogatory comments? Who do you expect to be reproved or improved by them? It’s bad enough when chicks do it.

    Well, that’s concludes today’s session of AMOG-ing with CC. Stop by our vendor booths and get a free tee shirt. Remember: None of this fine programming is possible without the support of our corporate sponsors!

    [ssm: LOL, good humor.

    As for my participation in the manosphere: I still comment at Dalrock's, though less than I used to, because he directly told me that I was welcome to do so. And then I comment occasionally on sites like Zippy's which aren't exactly manosphere but are near the border. I used to comment sporadically on many other sites but no longer do so. To be honest, I reached that conclusion in discussion with my husband a while ago and had started backing off. Every once in a while I will still comment on sites like Captain Capitalism. Beyond that, I limit my direct participation in the manosphere to reading. The sites that have been most up in arms about women participating in the sphere have been ones like Roosh and bloggers like him whom you probably don't read. I don't read them regularly, either, but I did read those posts. And I really don't have any problem with what they wrote, either.

    That is why I have always, always, always said my site is not part of the manosphere and since day one I have said that women should never consider themselves "part" of it. Dalrock's place is the exception of course, and even there, women should follow your recent good advice and mostly shut up unless they have something really useful to say. Your comment was correct in that the temptation is quite strong for women (including me) to come onto a site with a large number of men and be like, "Look at me, look at me!"]

  335. bluedog

    Sorry … last point was incomplete. I believe that part of the project that Dalrock and SSM are both up to with their blogs is a sort of rear guard action to shore up marriage and monogamy by, among other things, confronting women as adults, with their moral agency and all the demands of moral agency.

    There are many on the manosphere who dismiss women as children. Whatever their Christian views of male and female roles, the substructure of their whole project is that women are morally responsible beings.

    The sideways mis-read of Rollo’s article is that women aren’t agents with moral faculty. Though this may be a misread, the fact that it is a misread does not disallow a writer from using it as rhetorical cold water to the face, i.e. “some say you can’t. Well, can’t you ladies?”

    This serves two purposes. It serves up women with women’s side of the demand for moral agency in the economy of monogamy … and it confronts some of the manosphere’s knavish men with the spectacle of women acting as moral agents.

    Neither may be sufficient but both seem necessary in any gambit to revive monogamy and marriage.

  336. nightskyradio

    CC – Damn it feels good to be a gangsta!

    C-Blogga! or Ice-Cald. They already make oversized gold diamond-encrusted crosses on bling-loaded gold chains for OG’s (or AM-OG’s) like you.

    Stop by our vendor booths and get a free tee shirt. Remember: None of this fine programming is possible without the support of our corporate sponsors!

    No wonder I ain’t making no money. I need merch and sponsors. Radio ain’t cheap.

  337. Jenny

    Surely all human love is conditional to some degree simply because of our sinful nature. People are broken – they can’t love unconditionally as God does.

  338. Modern Drummer

    I have four sisters ,one frivorced her husband,the others have remained true to their husbands despite difficult financial times. They all could have “upgraded” because of their looks and men who were more than willing to be the “upgrader”
    I like much of what rollo writes but like much of what is written in the manosphere you have to eat the chicken and throw out the bones.

  339. Random Angeleno

    wot a thred!

    What I think? Women are capable of commitment. And of loving what they commit to. But they must be taught this and they must have examples to follow. Some things that are in short supply.

    Some men are cads. This is true, SSM is granted her point there. But women initiate somewhere around 2/3’s of all divorces when children are present. Dalrock has amply demonstrated that a substantial portion of that is frivorce. Which implies there are a dang lot of women for whom Rollo’s words are quite accurate descriptions. Which also supports SSM’s point about the degree of disrespect men get from society in general.

    So again, are women capable of love and commitment? The answer is still yes, but … certainly not in the numbers they used to be.

    Ok, I will offer my $0.02 on what a woman needs to be in marriage with a man. Dunno if I ever get married again, God has hidden that from me, but I will vet prospective women for this:

    – respect him and show him that respect. among other things, that includes submitting to him
    – be pleasant and feminine in your demeanor.
    – know when to leave him alone. don’t cut him off from his friends and his interests.
    – never nag or criticize. instead think of positive ways to persuade him.
    – be physical with him both in and out of the bedroom. hard to check out the bedroom part before marriage for chaste Catholic Christians, I know that.
    – keep your weight under control. did not say be skinny as a high school girl, just saying do your best to stay close to where he found you and liked you well enough to wife up.

    There are other things that a man might prefer in a woman but these are individual things like hair color, figure shape, level of intelligence, activities, etc. The list above is fairly comprehensive and should be common to all women looking to be married. Have to remember lasting marriage isn’t solely about yourself, it’s about coming across to your husband in ways that appeal to him.

    What a man needs to know is well covered elsewhere, will not repeat that here as SSM aims her blog at women readers.

    on a more amusing topic
    @LeeLeeBug

    Middle aged men w/o flabby guts are about as rare as unicorns

    then as a man past a certain age who sports flat in shape abs, I must find that unicorn.

  340. home_remedies (@home_remedies)

    I am confused by Elsapeth’s comment on how her husband is not a believer of her faith and yet she is attracted to his character.If his character does not emanate from the faith which you hold so dearly,how can there be attraction for such a character.Perhaps she is suffering from the the ‘5 minutes of alpha’ thing and the only option left there is to rationalise.

    I am a Muslim and one of requirements of being a Muslim is that my dos and donts should be regulated by Quran and Sunnah,not my mind or any expediency.If I decided not to eat pork because I thought its unhealthy,then I am not following the Islamic command.The action has to be linked to the belief.

  341. tbc

    @fistofvlukan (or whatever your name is.. I’m too lazy to scroll back up).

    37 is not the end of the world and this is not the worst time in history. It is an ordinary time, but since we’re living through it, it is the worst for us (and the best). There was no magical mystical age of wonderful marriages between men & women, with God in his heaven and all right with the world. There have always been shrewish women and caddish men. There have always been people who had a hard time getting married, or even when they did marry, were miserable and felt trapped, or who cheated on their spouse, or who fornicated left, right, and centre with whomever was willing. Law & custom kept some of this in check, but not all.

    There are many good women out there in the world, though it may be difficult to find one. But I suspect you will have to work hard to find one, and even then there is risk. Marriage is always a risk — everything in life is. You may marry a woman who pretends to care for you,but only wants children and who will abandon you (literally or figuratively) once they have them. You may marry a woman who turns out to be a ball-buster. Then again you may get a sweet wonderful submissive bride who stays with you through thick and thin. It isn’t quite as random as all that, and there are things you can do to maximize your odds of obtaining the former rather than the latter, but the risk will always be there.

    Coming home to a dog and a beer is not so bad, but I understand the desire for something more. I married later than most, so I get it.

    The biggest problem (related to this thread) is that commitment is really the principal thing. Find someone you enjoy and can live with and settle with them. Commit to them and prayerfully she will be the same kind of person. She doesn’t need to be the cutest — in fact she may not be. But you need to find someone who is sensible, who is not deluded, and who can look on you as her hero. Such a woman may not be the *ideal* (i.e. she probably won’t be skinny, young & super hot), but so what. Some men are married to what has been termed ‘landwhales’ and you know what? Many of them are reasonably happy. Not because their wives are fat, but because they found someone who loves and is committed to them. And many of those women are happy too because, heck, they know they aren’t the hottest thing on the market. But let’s face it — you probably aren’t either. it is better to marry a chubby girl who is chaste, submissive, and fiercely committed to you than a super hot babe who is just using you — which is not to say that the chubby girl isn’t doing the same, but I hope you get the point.

    Love is not a feeling. Jesus didn’t feel like going to the cross. He wanted to get out of it in fact. Some would say he did it out of duty and obligation. So what? He did it. He choose to do it. A woman who chooses to stay with a man, serve him, obey him, care for him, support and encourage him even when he isn’t doing anything to make her feel anything is really actually loving him. There is something powerful to be said about duty and obligation which gets short shrift these days — as if something done from duty is somehow less done. Yet, parents do things for their children strictly out of duty and obligation all the time. No one feels like pacing the floor in the middle of the night with a screaming baby. No one feels like cleaning up shitty diapers and projectile vomit from a sick toddle who five minutes earlier was screaming NO! No one feels like waking up early to put breakfast on the table for ungrateful teenager who think you’re an idiot. But they do it because you know — duty and obligation — or love in action.

    Don’t marry someone who only makes you tingle. Marry someone who is willing to do all of the above and more for your children and for you when you need it (and you will if you live long enough).

    [ssm: Wonderful comment, tbc, full of good sense. I wish more men and women were trained to be dutiful.]

  342. tbc

    I am confused by Elspeth’s comment on how her husband is not a believer of her faith and yet she is attracted to his character.If his character does not emanate from the faith which you hold so dearly,how can there be attraction for such a character.Perhaps she is suffering from the the ’5 minutes of alpha’ thing and the only option left there is to rationalise.

    If I recall, Elspeth’s husband was not a Christian when they met & married, but has long since converted and if now a strong Christian believer. Her husband did though have an admirable character, despite his irreligion. The same is (I think) true of SSM and HHG, except that neither of them were Christians when they married.

    Were you born into the Islamic faith or did you convert?

  343. Pingback: The curse of the alpha women | House-Wife Sexuality

  344. Chris

    Vanessa (Alte) was on fire with some of her comments, gentlemen. The idea that love is not mere romanticism (though it is a lot of fun to have flights of fancy) is so correct. I’ve updated my post with some of the more witty and pithy comments… but particularly want to cosign this..

    Once you have fully internalized the fact that romantic love is always pleasurable for the person who is giving it, and involves a bit of delusion on their part, you learn to discount it in favor of sacrificial love. You will see that the latter has more value because it always involves a loss on the part of the person who gives it, it asks nothing in return, and it always accepts you with all of your most glaring and unattractive flaws.

    That is a view married people tend to mature into, over time, as they come to rely upon the other person’s selflessness and commitment, rather than upon their own ability to generate sexual passion and desire in their spouse. At some point, we’re all old and ugly (yes, even men!). Romantic love is flattering, and everytime my husband and I go through one of our periodic flights-of-fancy seasons it’s downright pleasant, but it’s not actually worth very much in the end.

    So, when men say, “She fell out of (romantic) love with me and divorced me,” what they are really saying is that she woke up from the hormonal high that she’d been in, one that had precluded the need to develop any sort of sacrificial love, and when her romantic feelings vanished… there was nothing left to sustain the marriage. All that was holding them together was lust and a mortgage payment. It is silly to say that her inability to feel romantic love was the problem. The problem was that she offered nothing else.

    She then comments that game is like makeup and bras for guys. Not so. Game is self improvement, and self improvement is part of the struggle for us.all. It;s about going to the gym, sticking to the diet, getting fit, dressing beautifully (women) and sharply (men). It is about those small mercies of attraction we do because it makes our husband or wife smile.

    For if they stop, that hurts It comes down to a sense of caring: do we choose to tend the garden of our marriage or do we simply let the weeds take over?

    I’m fully aware that many people deny there are weeds, but they do exist, and how do we handle them? For we are accountable for how our households fare.

    Finally, a little charity goes a hell of a long way, folks.

  345. Ceer

    This thread reminds me of one where Susan of Hooking Up Smart made a specific challenge for information. Following a response by Dalrock, she proceeded to go on a campaign to…encourage every mannosphere participant to leave. Susan feels better now that she doesn’t have the mannosphere over there contributing. Recently going back to look at how it is now, some commenters are allowed to openly conflate pickup artistry and rape. It’s a decidedly blue-pill fem-centric shift that seems like it will do nothing much more than to rob their comments section of some good advice.

    Seeing your blog post about culture, sex issues, relationships, and society from a conservative, game aware perspective, I began enjoying your posts. Something about reading female-written blogs gives me hope that cooperation can be achieved towards a more stable (and hopefully more christian) society.

    Today, I see a post where you seem to mischaracterize a comment by Deti and a post by Rollo. While I don’t always agree with Rollo, there is a reason why he and Deti are respected widely in the mannosphere. My interpretation of this entire thread is one where Deti and Rollo’s statements are taken out of context. Since not every statement can be 100% unambiguous, it seems that a few people have latched onto their words, nitpicking. When one of the men who made those statements tried to clarify, he was accused of moving the goalposts (equivocation). While this is used by some mannosphere writers to describe feminist tactics, it’s unfair to call this the same thing. I’d give reasons why, but judging by the tone of this entire thread, you’d probably not be interested.

    Rollo’s pullout of the conversation was due to being reminded about arguing with a woman, and how his actions don’t square with his statements in regard to this thread (namely, he tried to argue logic with a woman). He’s merely stating by his actions that this person is right, so he gets to have it implied that he’s running away.

    Regardless of whether or not you see yourself as being connected to the mannosphere, I’ve read your blog because of the mannosphere. To me, one of the biggest growth potentials in Christianity today is in mannosphere participation. Society could certainly benefit from such a conversation.

  346. Hannah

    Fantastic Nick Cave song Chris…. we’ve just finished watching ‘The Proposition’ here with plenty of wonderful Cave music :)

  347. Alte

    “And you’ll notice that when men speak of love they mean duty. When women talk of love they usually mean desire.”

    Yes, this is the normal dynamic. What I find so strange is that it is the opposite in this thread, with some of the men emphasizing the importance of infatuation and all of the women praising sacrifice and commitment.

    I think that most of us ladies here have been married for a while and we’ve put away childish things. We still enjoy romance, but we no longer chase it. At this point, after over a decade together, the thing that impresses me most about my husband is that he’s still here.

    [ssm: I think there is something to your thought here. I still love romance and sex, but that isn't the sum of our marriage. We've built an entire life over nearly 23 years together, with a shared history, a family. Duty is a big part of how both my husband and I express love within the context of our marriage and we both like that.]

  348. Remo

    Mary – the reason Rollo wrote this (IMHOP) is that the opportunism of today’s modern woman is astounding. The man who wrote that he frivorced his wife did NOT say that he also took everything she had and put her into prison with false allegations – but this is common behavior for women today.

    Yes women can love but they can also fall into the sin of loving themselves and loving POWER. 100 years ago when a woman got mad she sulked and maybe threw a pot or two, today she calls the police and gets cash and prizes. So yes – to Rollo and others like me (yes I agree with him) this looks identical to women not appreciating men because – they aren’t – and no the woman isn’t thinking about wonderful her ex was as she drives the car he bought and lives in the house he bought or screws the biker guy in the bed he bought ad nauseum. All of this happens – everyday – so yes men do tend to look down on team woman considering exactly NONE of them seem to have any problem with this beyond a few exceptions. How many marches have gone on demanding an end to male slavery in the event of divorce? Did I miss those million moms? Of course not – they may not divorce but they certainly want the option of divorce rape should they decide exercise it.

    How can any man, any person, ANY CHRISTIAN look at that and think “Why yes! Women really *are* grateful for all our sacrifice – they just want to keep that gun handy and loaded in case we get out of line and they want to destroy us – no worries!”

    [ssm: I understand what you are saying, Remo, and of course I agree that modern women are amazingly ungrateful. I haven't argued otherwise, nor was that the point of Rollo's posts. His stated points were that women's love is rooted in opportunism and that they fundamentally lack the capacity to appreciate what men do for them. I strongly disagree that women lack this capacity and that women cannot love from a place other than opportunism. In the modern, feministic era they are allowed not to exhibit these capacities, but that does not mean they lack the capacity. I believe they do have that capacity and should be expected to demonstrate it.]

  349. Alte

    “Of course, they want veils and white dresses, too, and we know what those symbolize.”

    Actually, they’re rejecting all of that now, as well as engagement rings and traditional vows. I blogged about it a while back. It’s just a big party now.

    Catholic vows and wedding rings are different, by the way. The difference in the vows is significant. Marriage traditions split after the Reformation.

  350. Hannah

    Sunshine Mary at the risk of being banned here just a month later…. I’ve read Rollo’s original post and yours here again and it appears to me that you may have your wires crossed.
    May I again suggest that we women learn from men and then pass that wisdom on to other women. Let’s not disrespect men in the process. By and large it is men that have the answers.
    Apologies in advance if my words offend you.

  351. Remo

    Power corrupts – everyone – and it was Eve satan tempted by saying that she would be as GOD. He tempted her with power. Adam’s sin was standing by. Interestingly enough the good thing to do would have been to slap the fruit out her hand and chastise her – this would be labeled “domestic violence” in today’s world. No surprise there – labeling evil good and good evil.

    Women today are granted enormous unearned power that is almost always misused. They are celebrated in this and this leaves men feeling that they are ungrateful for their sacrifices which in turn leads to theories that they can’t really love. In fact, the truth is far worse in that they can love but they love themselves much MUCH more. So instead of being creatures with no moral agency and not enough intelligence to choose the right thing if Rollo is wrong it means that most women today are instead actively, satanically evil, and should be stoned.

    Rollo is in essence trying to fool himself because the truth is worse and he wants to imagine a lack of the ability to discern because if it does exist that means most women are evil, selfish, and satanically minded rather than incapable of love. They love evil – not nothing.

    If you tipped the balance completely and gave men the power women had in today’s society (essentially making every woman a sex slave to her man and able to be bought and sold with no rights AT ALL) you still wouldn’t have the level of evil we have now IMHOP. Men are designed to protect and although many would abuse the power most probably wouldn’t. Women however have different wiring and with the lack of actual real male authority present today (thank you family courts) it is natural for a woman to resent that and look for authority somewhere else to submit too. You honestly couldn’t design a system better suited to foster divorce, unhappiness, unGODliness, and evil better than our current system – and all they had to do was simply reverse the roles and make women men and men into women. Grand slam for hell I’d say.

    But lets ignore all that – men are stupid and we shouldn’t say women are ungrateful for all that we do while they rob us, have us arrested, and thrown into prison on false charges. NAWALT – just 70+% according to the divorce statistics.

    When I see actual women protest the monstrous system they voted and protested for and cease going into conniptions and screaming fits whenever the least bit of it is challenged I will take seriously the notion that they are grateful for something other than a government check and blue gun thug squads on command.

    You will see men making theories (incorrect theories) like this because they are trying to make sense of a truly horrific situation. It is now considered normal for a man to lose everything and become a criminal and a slave instantly just because she is unhaaaaaapy. In such an environment, yes, bad theories will abound. This one by Rollo while unflattering at least provides an excuse. The alternative is worse, albeit true for many sadly.

  352. Alte

    “Once I had a date on it, the ring became superfluous.”

    My husband would have been horrified. He’s very pious and traditional that way. I don’t wear my rings because of a skin condition and it really bothers him. He’s never once taken his off.

  353. Alte

    “So go ahead women. Let’s see your short list.”

    1. Loves Jesus and actively practices the faith.
    2. Good father for the children.
    3. Intelligent, with a dry sense of humor.
    4. Honorable and industrious.

  354. Ton

    Lair. Men like that are the ones who struggle the most in today’s smp/ mmp.

    Just when you think a woman’s capacity for self deception is maxed out, she’ll prove you’re wrong.

  355. Alte

    I just realized that mine are all sort of redundant. Big overlap between 1 and 2 and 4. I’d like for him to be patriotic and pious, too, but I don’t know if that is different from 2.

  356. Alte

    Sarah’s Daughter, it’d be #4 in my case. Some assume it’s #2, but where we come from being a “natural alpha” isn’t any sort of rarity, so I tent to take it for granted.

  357. Alte

    I am confused by Elspeth’s comment on how her husband is not a believer of her faith and yet she is attracted to his character.

    Virtue and faith are not synonymous. You can be very virtuous and still end up going to Hell, or lack much virtue and still end up going to Heaven. It’s not an orthopraxic religion, but a primarily orthodox one.

    Virtue is the formation of good habits and sound character. Anyone can do that, it’s just that it’s easier to do it with the help of grace.

  358. Stingray

    SSM,

    Just from the quotes that you left in your comments yesterday from HHG tell me that he is Alpha if he speaks to you like that on a regular basis. He may not be an uber alpha or what have you, but alpha he is. If that is his regular frame with you and others . . . indeed.

    I wonder, are most of the men in your life this way? I ask, because because I have a few beta men in my life that I can easily contrast to my husband (whom says things just as HHG does to you and I love him for it). I also have a fairly alpha father. If all, or most of the men you are very close to are like HHG, then the contrast wouldn’t be as stark. Your children and your whole family will do very well.

  359. Stingray

    It was a combination of 2 and 4 for me on SD’s list. 2 first and then (thankfully) over time, 4. It took me too long, but here we are.

    Also, as to the short list, it is very much like SD’s but slightly different:

    1) Exhibits audacious authority
    2) Protection
    3) Provision
    4) self confidence

    In that order as well, though the unwaivering part, I would take out. I used to want that, but I have been taught that it is not fair to my husband. There are short periods of time that I must be more confident than my husband and this is a good and necessary thing. And, no, it does not make my love for him waiver because I know with 100% certainty that it will be temporary.

  360. Alte

    I would characterize my own husband has beta and he seems just normal to me, but I do find him very attractive. Most of the women I know well, including all of my female relatives, find their husbands very attractive, though.

    I do know that a lot of people are amazingly corrupt now, though. That this is having a negative effect on marriages isn’t a surprise to me, and very believable. A lot of women I see in public are just generally rude, so I can’t imagine that they go home and play the lady.

  361. Stingray

    Actually, the self confidence sort of goes hand in hand with 1 and 2 so it would not be last on the list. So, those are not in order. It’s actually difficult to put them in order other than to say authority must be #1 for me. The others will move around depending on the circumstances.

  362. FuzzieWuzzie

    Alte, I do like having you around here commenting. Tell me when you’re ready for bagpipes.

  363. Stingray

    @ Alte,

    I have very often wondered that if those rude women would take a look at their husband’s in a different light, if they would just let go and let themselves see what he, does if their attraction would wake up. The thing about this is, when this does happen, when she begins to respect him, very, very often he will begin to have more self confidence and become even more attractive to her. It is a upward spiral for both of them.

  364. Alte

    Bagpipes now, actually. I have to go finish cleaning out the house. We move out tomorrow!

    Just wanted to point out that I think we women are elaborating things in our lists which can best be summed up in my #1 point. It’s all sort of redundant to him being an orthodox Christian.

  365. Alte

    I agree, Stingray. A lot of it is the reinforcing of perception. That “trick” or “magic” that Emma mentioned.

  366. FuzzieWuzzie

    Farm Boy,
    The best I could do for you is to find pipers playing “The Black Bear”. I think I may run into the same problem that I had with Alcest. I couldn’t find Angolan bagpipers for her either.

  367. The Tin Man

    Sweeping generalizations rarely work and like statistics – they are there to prove you’re own point(s). But reading Rollo’s post and the comments, I “generally” agree with his assessment. Because we as a society have “generally” set the wheels in motion for this to happen. Does that mean that I believe that is always the case? No. I believe there are women that will shoulder through the tough times, and there are men that will be leaders in their families, and that both are working in partnership to be the best they both can be. I just don’t believe that’s the prototype or marketable model that is being sold to the world – for either the wife or husband roles.

    And that is why, besides looking at the generalities, we have the mess that we have today.

  368. Farm Boy

    To reiterate, of course women can love their husbands. The modern world is just not very facilitating to allowing this to happen

  369. FuzzieWuzzie

    I really don’t mean to kill comment threads when I post bagpipe videos.

    Slightly related, Dalrock had a post recently, Option A or Option B, wherein women admitted to riding the carosel in their 20s, snagging a beta and having children in their 30s, and dumping said beta. Now that they have owned up to it, it must mean that they percieve the model as broken and no longer viable. That is good news. When they go back to their drawing boards, let’s hope that consider something that will be of benefit to all parties.

  370. deti

    “ Most of this thread reminds me of Charlie Brown’s teacher”

    Perceptive that, Ton. Everyone talking, no one listening

    Wah, wah wah wahWAH, wah.

  371. home_remedies (@home_remedies)

    “Virtue and faith are not synonymous. You can be very virtuous and still end up going to Hell, or lack much virtue and still end up going to Heaven. It’s not an orthopraxic religion, but a primarily orthodox one.

    Virtue is the formation of good habits and sound character. Anyone can do that, it’s just that it’s easier to do it with the help of grace.”
    ——

    In my religion,this confusion does not exist.One I decide to become a Muslim(after proper investigation),all morals are defined by the text,not the mind.Mind is just a tool to understand the reference point.i.e.the texts.That is to say,I am required to exercise my mind to the fullest to be convinced of the correctness of my faith and after that,the role of the mind changes as regards the actions,what I am allowed to do,..etc..For example,lying is not a virtue per se.Islam allows lying in some certain situations

    1)In war(you are not allowed to tell secrets to the enemies)

    2) A husband can lie to his wife if she asks how does the food taste and if you didn’t like it

  372. deti

    One thing I discovered from this thread is the manner of argumentation that takes place.

    (NOTE: This is hyperbole offered for the sake of entertainment and argumentation. No one individual’s motives, intentions or integrity are being referred to, addressed, attacked or insulted.)

    “You’re full of crap!” (Translation: “I disagree with you.”)

    “You’re moving the goalposts!” (Translation: “I disagree with you.”)

    “You’re bringing up the Oppressed Victim canard again!” (Translation: “I disagree with you.”)

    “That’s an irrelevant observation!” (Translation: I’m losing the argument. I can’t argue with the truth of the observation, but I still disagree with you.)

    “There’s a difference between venting and ranting.” (Translation: If you’re ranting, shut up and go away. You’re an angry guy, and therefore you have no credibility, and no one should listen to you or believe you. I know that my side is just about to lose this argument.)

    “Your comments drip with solipsism. I know from your history you got a raw deal in the marriage department. I’m going to pray for Mrs. Deti.” (Translation: Don’t listen to the validity of his arguments, pay attention to the past history of the person making the argument. He’s just a bitter angry guy who isn’t getting laid, and therefore he has no credibility, and no one should believe him or listen to him. By making this point, I know that my side has just lost the argument.)

    [ssm: OK, fine. Can I do this, too, then?

    It’s that time again, huh?

    This sort of thing happens about once a month at this blog.

    Are you ready to come off the edge now?

    With all due respect, please calm down. You’re about to the point of being unable to discuss this in a rational manner, and you’re lashing out.

    I’ll come back when SSM’s finished her box wine.

    Translation: I don't want to answer the point you are making so I will make insinuations about your character, state of mind, or hormonal status in a backhanded attempt to discredit anything you say.

    Any moment now, someone will surely say that I'm just like Susan Walsh because that is always what happens whenever I dare to disagree with something someone has written in the manosphere.]

  373. sunshinemary

    Deti, may I ask you a direct question? And you can ask me one if you want to, and I’ll answer it.

    a) Do you believe that women’s love is only rooted in opportunism and

    b) do you believe that women are fundamentally incapable of appreciating what men do for them?

    Note that I am asking about what women are capable of, not what many/most modern women are exhibiting.

  374. deti

    And I might add:

    The point of accusing the opponent of goalpost moving and making irrelevant observation is to suggest that the (usually male) opponent is not only incorrect, but also acting out of malevolence, sinister intent, or bad faith; or is dishonest; or is engaging in some sort of rhetorical trickery or sleight of hand.

  375. sunshinemary

    Actually, I would ask the same question to all of my male commenters. Don’t be shy now; tell me what you think:

    a) Do you believe that women’s love is only rooted in opportunism and

    b) do you believe that women are fundamentally incapable of appreciating what men do for them?

  376. deti

    “ I don’t want to answer the point you are making so I will make insinuations about your character, state of mind, or hormonal status in a backhanded attempt to discredit anything you say.”

    Touche. And well played.

    [ssm: Thank you.]

  377. deti

    SSM:

    Direct questions deserve direct answers, which will be lengthier than you want because they can’t be answered with a simple yes or no.

    “ Do you believe that women’s love is only rooted in opportunism”

    No. I will quickly add, again, and for the eleventy billionth time, that THIS IS NOT THE ARGUMENT THAT WAS MADE, EVER, AT ANY TIME. The argument is that women’s love is rooted in opportunism. The argument was NEVER, EVER that the ONLY basis for women’s love is opportunism.

    That being said, the foundation for a woman’s lasting commitment to one particular man is what he brings to the table, i.e., what she will get from the contract. She will get a man who earns a good living, or a good looking man, or a fun-loving, interesting man, or a committed man. And he needs to bring that, and keep bringing that, or her commitment will wane. (Same for a man, but that is another matter entirely. I mentioned the “masculine dream” of unconditional love, but that is a WANT. It is NOT, repeat NOT, an expectation. Men learn very, very early never, never to EXPECT unconditional love.)

    With apologies to BJ Clinton, it also depends on what the meaning of the word “love” is. We’ve been all over the place in this damn thread about what “love” is. Is it lust? Sexual attraction? Romantic love? Affectionate love? Eros/agape/phileo/storge? At bottom as Nova said, all love is conditional. It all comes down to the person’s individual choice to love.

  378. deti

    Sorry . I meant to say “a foundational aspect”, not “the foundation. ”

    One of, not the only.

  379. deti

    And by the way, if we are talking about sacrificial love, then no, a woman’s love is not ONLY ROOTED in opportunism; but a foundation of her love is opportunistic (as is a man’s) because it is premised on her maximizing what she will get out of the contract.

  380. sunshinemary

    HIS IS NOT THE ARGUMENT THAT WAS MADE, EVER, AT ANY TIME. The argument is that women’s love is rooted in opportunism. The argument was NEVER, EVER that the ONLY basis for women’s love is opportunism.

    Yes, that was the argument:

    I have no doubt that the idealization of marriage, enduring companionship, mutual love and respect are very strong desires for men but….men love idealistically, whereas women’s love is rooted in opportunism.

    Didn’t you catch that? Women’s love IS rooted in opportunism – not can be or sometimes is or even usually is but just plain old IS.

    Are you really going to argue with me about what the definition of is is?

    And you know, I don’t even disagree with Rollo 100% – part of women’s feelings of love is rooted in opportunism, but that does not represent all of the love we are capable of giving.

  381. Farm Boy

    Do you believe that women’s love is only rooted in opportunism

    This is an “all or nothing” phrasing. The reality is always somewhere in between. The question varies on a per woman basis.

    [ssm: Oh my lawd, people, that was the entire point of my essay! Criminy! Rollo said it in an all or nothing sentence: her love IS rooted in opportunism. My point was that it's not all or nothing. So if that is what you believe, then you agree with me and not with Rollo.]

  382. Zippy

    If Rollo has to exaggerate to the point of falsehood for effect to get through to today’s men, that is a sign of how effeminate the thinking patterns of today’s men have become.

  383. alphabetasoup

    Is anything rooted in opportunism actually “Love”?

    [ssm: Indeed, I wondered that myself. My conclusion is that her feelings of love may be rooted in opportunism. In other words, she feels very loving toward him if he does something for her. My personal belief is that this isn't really love.]

  384. sunshinemary

    My husband actually read this thread this morning at my request. Hopefully he doesn’t mind me sharing a few of his comments. If he does, I guess I’ll delete this later when he gets back from the pool and I can actually ask him:

    1. That I am lucky he chooses not to participate in my comment threads. It sounded sort of ominous when he said it and he didn’t elaborate, so I don’t know what that means.

    2. He didn’t think Sigyn was particularly disrespectful.

    3. He likes both Ton’s and Cane’s sense of humor.

    4. He thinks Rollo is right in that many men do believe in some kind of romantic delusion/dream about women’s love that will always be unconditional. Apparently he thinks Rollo’s right about what he’s written about that, and that it’s good for men to be aware of this, so I guess my husband and I don’t exactly agree with each other, but that’s okay. It’s annoying enough to argue about it in the blogosphere, and I don’t want to argue about with him while we’re on vacation.

    5. But he also says that women’s love is not only opportunistic. He says that he doesn’t find my love to be rooted solely in opportunism. So he and I agree on that point.

    So saith the man of the house.

  385. deti

    “ do you believe that women are fundamentally incapable of appreciating what men do for them?”

    No. But again, THAT IS NOT THE ARGUMENT THAT WAS MADE.

    The argument that was made, and which was, for lack of a better term, distorted, was that women lack the ability to FULLY realize, much less appreciate, the sacrifices a man makes BECAUSE THOSE THINGS ARE SIMPLY EXPECTED OF A MAN UNDER THE FEMININE IMPERATIVE. What is being said here is that women expect those things to be done for them and thus don’t fully realize these things are sacrifices. They are not consciously considered or thought about. They are simply part of the package that he’s expected to bring. Do you, SSM, or any other woman commenting here, dispute that she EXPECTS her man to continue doing what he did that attracted her to commitment; or to continue bringing what he brought that attracted her to commitment?

    By analogy, male employees don’t receive blue ribbons for meeting quotas. We simply expect them to do it. We don’t give out gold Timex watches to men for not sexually harassing their cute secretaries. They are simply expected to refrain from it. We don’t give Joe Schlub a pat on the back for knowing he’s out of that 9.5’s league and therefore not asking her out. We simply expect him to realize it, know it, and comply.

    You’re equating “incapable of appreciating” with “cold, uncaring woman who doesn’t give a shit”. That’s not what’s being said. What’s being said is “incapable of appreciating” means “doesn’t fully understand that the way a man sees it, this is just part of the expectation on him that goes with being in a committed relationship with a woman.”

    Once again, you and Rollo are talking about two different things. Rollo is talking about how women in general are permitted to operate within the reality of the social constructs in place. You, on the other hand and in stark contrasts, are talking about the innate composition of female nature and the development of individual women’s character – which is NOT AT ALL what Rollo was addressing.

    Please read Rollo’s passage again, IN FULL and IN ITS PROPER CONTEXT.

    “Appreciation
    I think what most men uniquely deceive themselves of is that they will ultimately be appreciated by women for their sacrifices. Learn this now, you wont. You can’t be because women fundamentally lack the ability to fully realize, much less appreciate the sacrifices a man makes to facilitate her reality. Even the most enlightened, appreciative woman you know still operates in a feminne-centric reality. Men making the personal sacrifices necessary to honor, respect and love her are commonplace. You’re supposed to do those things. You sacrificed your ambitions and potential to provide her with a better life? You were supposed to. You resisted temptation and didn’t cheat on your wife with the hot secretary who was DTF and ready to go? You were supposed to. Your responsibilities to maintaining a marriage, a home, your family, etc. are common – they’re expected. They are only appreciated in their absence.
    This is the totality of the feminine-centric reality. Men only exist to facilitate the feminine reality, and any man who disputes this (or even analyzes its aspects) is therefore not a ‘man’. It just IS. Even the most self-serving, maverick among men is still beholden to the feminine imperative in that he’s only defined as a rebel because he doesn’t comply with the common practices of ‘men’ in a female defined reality. And ironically it’s just this maverick who is appreciated by the feminine above those men who would comply with it (or even promote it) as a matter of course.”

  386. Zippy

    Far be it from me to give advice to high traffic bloggers attempting to influence lots of people; because that is not, and has never been, me. I’m just some guy voicing his point of view, and I wouldn’t have it any other way.

    But in real life, I’ve found that when I address insecure effeminate men as men, they naturally respond by becoming more manly. When other men address them in more effeminate modes, they respond effeminately. So guys like Rollo and Deti who use effeminate polemics (e.g. exaggerating to the point of falsehood for effect, refusing to grant that at some point a legitimate vent becomes effeminate whining, etc) may be shooting themselves in the foot — assuming that their mission is to teach effeminate men how to act more manly.

  387. Jeremy

    @sunshinemary

    Actually, I would ask the same question to all of my male commenters. Don’t be shy now; tell me what you think:

    a) Do you believe that women’s love is only rooted in opportunism and

    You use the world “only” improperly here. Either something is rooted in something, or it isn’t. You can’t have a tree that is rooted in soil, saltwater, and/or floating in mid air. Either something is rooted in something, and is born from something or it isn’t. No one has two biological mothers.

    And yes, I do believe that women’s attraction triggers, where their love springs from, is rooted in opportunism. That also means that the care and feeding of the love of a woman also involves satisfying those needs. It does not mean that women are incapable of loyalty, or that men who they are with do not at some point earn “points” for which she will not break her commitment. Loyalty and by extension avoiding frivorce has almost nothing to do with love. I’ve been loyal to male friends since I was a kid, they obviously never try to play on my attraction triggers or make me love them romantically.

    What this means is that at some point, when the man neglects her attraction triggers for too long, she will stop loving him. She may stay with him, and god bless her for doing so, she’s a saint for doing so. If she further tries to stoke his alpha to get him back tickling her attraction sometime later, she’s literally one of the best women on the planet. But the fact is she stopped loving him when he no longer met her attraction needs, and those needs come from a very raw base of opportunism.

    b) do you believe that women are fundamentally incapable of appreciating what men do for them?

    Those are not the words Rollo used. That’s either clever, or an error. Rollo said women are fundamentally incapable of appreciating what men SACRIFICE for a woman. What is sacrificed is not necessarily what is done for a woman. In fact, what is done for a woman in a relationship is only a small sub-set of what he sacrifices for her. Honestly, SSM, I think you should TRY to think about what a man sacrifices by being with a woman before deciding that Rollo is wrong on this point.

    Allow me to reverse the question.

    Do you believe that men are fundamentally incapable of appreciating what women sacrifice for men when they marry and stay loyal to their man?

    My answer to that is *YES*. I am, as a man, not able to appreciate what a woman sacrifices by remaining loyal to me. I cannot fully appreciate it because I have *never* had the greater SMP power gifted to me through biology. I lack the perspective of someone who can get the attention of the opposite sex by just showing a little skin. I lack the understanding of what it’s like to be able to lure and tempt people to do what I want simply by dangling the offer of sex. I lack perspective on what it is like to be a woman, hence I cannot appreciate what women sacrifice for being with me.

    Likewise, I find women utterly incapable of understanding what men sacrifice by being with them.

    And yes, I do think you are trying to rebuild the mound.

  388. deti

    “Didn’t you catch that? Women’s love IS rooted in opportunism – not can be or sometimes is or even usually is but just plain old IS.
    Are you really going to argue with me about what the definition of is is?”

    For crying out loud.

    “Rooted” and “ONLY rooted” are two different things. Rollo said “rooted”. You said “ONLY rooted.”

    For the second time, opportunism is not the ONLY BASIS of a woman’s lasting commitment and sacrificial love for a man, but it is a root of that love for a woman.

  389. sunshinemary

    “ do you believe that women are fundamentally incapable of appreciating what men do for them?”

    No. But again, THAT IS NOT THE ARGUMENT THAT WAS MADE.

    We’re yelling now? Is that what we’re doing? OK, fine.

    YES IT WAS TOO THE ARGUMENT THAT WAS MADE.

    This is a freaking DIRECT QUOTE from Rollo:

    You can’t be because women fundamentally lack the ability to fully realize, much less appreciate the sacrifices a man makes to facilitate her reality.

    Deti, can you hear me better when I speak in all caps??

  390. Zippy

    Mens’ love for women is “rooted” in a nice ass and curvy breasts in the same sense that women’s love for men is rooted in “opportunism”.

    [ssm: LOL, exactly. OH THE INHUMANITY! MY HUSBAND ONLY WANTS ME FOR MY ASS!]

  391. deti

    “So guys like Rollo and Deti who use effeminate polemics (e.g. exaggerating to the point of falsehood for effect, refusing to grant that at some point a legitimate vent becomes effeminate whining, etc) may be shooting themselves in the foot — assuming that their mission is to teach effeminate men how to act more manly.”

    Translation: Rollo and deti are pussies. Man up and put on your big boy pants, nancy-boy pussies! I’m the AMOG around here! (Thumps chest, looks longingly to SSM for approval, sticks out tongue for doggie treat)

  392. sunshinemary

    Everyone has returned from the pool and the pleasure of my company on an excursion to Bronner’s Christmas Wonderland (the world’s largest Christmas store!) is being requested. I love my family but I do not love Bronner’s. Maybe I am a curmudgeon. In any event, I have to go, but I will almost certainly be back later to argue whether or not an unqualified rooted means only rooted or sometimes rooted.

    And then maybe I will delete this entire post and thread and replace it with pictures of Christmas kitsch.

  393. deti

    Forgive me, SSM. Caps were supplied for emphasis, I didn’t mean to shout.

    I do not know the HTML codes for bold or italics.

    But I realize that is a direct quote from Rollo’s “Appreciation” essay at The Rational Male.

    I put that quote in its proper context so that we can all read exactly what is being talked about.

    Which is not what you are talking about.

  394. Farm Boy

    Rollo said it in an all or nothing sentence: her love IS rooted in opportunism

    Rollo makes assertions for effect, just like Alte makes assertions for effect.

  395. Jeremy

    [ssm: LOL, exactly. OH THE INHUMANITY! MY HUSBAND ONLY WANTS ME FOR MY ASS!]

    Actually, there are probably academic papers demonstrating men fall out of love for women when they let their bodies go. This shouldn’t be surprising at all.

    Both sexes are indeed shallow, SSM, just in different ways.

  396. Deep Strength

    a) Do you believe that women’s love is only rooted in opportunism and

    Yes, as a base instinct if they are feral like most women in this culture are, and sadly most of the churchianity is now.

    However, Christians are called out of it, and if they are to obey Jesus then they must. This is where Rollo and we as Christians will disagree.

    b) do you believe that women are fundamentally incapable of appreciating what men do for them?

    Yes, this is where Rollo is entirely correct.

    When women control a relationship they get extremely unhappy and want divorces. When men are in authority in a relationship they do it with a smile on their face because they love to take care of their woman.

    There is a reason why marriage is symbolic of Christ and the Church. Can the Church ever truly appreciate what Christ has sacrificed for it? Those that are under the authority (wives) of another (husbands) do not understand the sacrifices of the authority figure to facilitate their reality.

    This is just a fundamental aspect of the roles and responsibilities that God has assigned. It is not a denigration of women or trying to build up men. We gladly do it because we know it is the right thing to do.

  397. Zippy

    If Rollo and Deti were just saying “watch out guys, most modern women are shallow”, it seems like a lot less bandwidth would be required if they just said what they mean.

  398. deti

    Jeremy:

    I agree with you. I, as a man, am fundamentally incapable of understanding (I guess I don’t appreciate) what it’s like to have simply immense sexual power. I’ll never know what it’s like to be able to get hordes of men to do literally anything I want simply by showing skin or by giving sex as an exchange. I will never understand (appreciate) what it means to a woman to forego that immense sexual power and be faithful to one man. I simply expect Mrs. deti to do it. I simply expect her not to cheat on me, because it’s part of the bargain she made when she married me.

    I’ll never know what it’s like to reject the advances of men who might find her attractive, and whom she finds attractive. I simply expect her to do it, because it’s part of what she agreed to when she married me.

    I don’t understand what it’s like for a reasonably attractive woman not to flirt with an attractive man and to reject the flirtations of men. I simply expect her to refrain from it, and to respect me.

    I don’t understand what it’s like for her to have to respect me as her head, even when she doesn’t want to do it. I simply expect her to do it.

    The fact that I cannot understand these things or appreciate what she has to do to achieve these things does not mean I’m a cold hearted bastard who doesn’t care that she does them. It means I don’t consciously consider or think about them.

  399. Jeremy

    @sunshinemary

    “ do you believe that women are fundamentally incapable of appreciating what men do for them?”

    No. But again, THAT IS NOT THE ARGUMENT THAT WAS MADE.

    YES IT WAS TOO THE ARGUMENT THAT WAS MADE.

    This is a freaking DIRECT QUOTE from Rollo:

    You can’t be because women fundamentally lack the ability to fully realize, much less appreciate the sacrifices a man makes to facilitate her reality.

    As I said in a previous post, Mary… What men do does not equal what men sacrifice by being with a woman. You are not being honest when you say it is a direct quote, it is not a direct quote. The change of the word “sacrifice” to “do for” has huge implications.

    Do I believe men are capable of appreciating what women do for them? Yes, I can appreciate when a woman does things for me, like cooking, cleaning, helping me feel better on a bad day, etc. Those are things that women do that men are capable of doing. But that is only a subset of what women sacrifice to make married reality happen for me. I cannot truly appreciate what she has sacrificed by being with me, because I am not a woman.

    LIKEWISE…

    I believe women are capable of appreciating when men do yardwork for them, when men fix their cars for them, when men fix their computers for them, etc… But I do not believe that women are capable of understanding or appreciating ALL that a man will sacrifice by being with her. That is something that women cannot do because they are not men.

  400. deti

    Zippy:

    I see. Responding to SSM in a careful, logical and lengthy manner in writing is “act[ing] like a whiny woman”.

    I’ll keep that in mind. Let me know when you’re done AMOGing.

    /sarc off

  401. Deep Strength

    This entire argument is the same thing as women wanting to claim equality. Women are not equal to men in any sense of the word. Does it mean they are inferior? No, because God has set out different roles and responsiblities for each.

    Can men fundamentally understand and appreciate what being a helpmeet is like? No, because they are not women.

    That is why this statement is clearly true:

    “You can’t be because women fundamentally lack the ability to fully realize, much less appreciate the sacrifices a man makes to facilitate her reality.”

    Women cannot understand or fully appreciate the sacrifices a man has to go through as a protector, provider, etc because they are not men.

    As is clearly stated, God set out fundamental roles and responsibilities for men and women in marriage.

    This is just one part of the system, and I don’t understand why women are getting so butthurt over it.

    Women cannot understand fully what it is to be a man because they are not men. Nor can men fully understand what it is to be a woman because they are not women.

  402. Zippy

    Deti:
    Your response to me — “oh noes, Zippy is AMOGing not making a substantive point” — was definitely effeminate whining. Just because a substantial amount of what you write seems to be effeminate whining, it doesn’t follow that everything you write is effeminate whining.

  403. deti

    Zippy:

    Your post made no substantive points; it was a pretense for you to attempt to shame Rollo and me as whiny bitches because you disagree with the points I’m making this morning and yesterday.

  404. deti

    Zippy:

    You’re also trying to juxtapose yourself with me, show me up, and present yourself as more masculine. Hence, you’re AMOGing.

  405. deti

    Zippy:

    Since you’ve positioned yourself above the other men on this thread, let me ask you:

    What do you think about all this? Don’t tell me what you think about me, or Rollo, or whining. What do you think about the substance of this post?

    I’m tired of doing the heavy lifting. I’m gonna take a break from shoveling the gravel.

    You do it for a while.

  406. Alte

    My answer to that is *YES*.”

    Their point was that this lack of appreciation is supposedly entirely limited to one sex. I can assure you that my husband takes my efforts entirely for granted, and that this is typical for most of the men I know because my efforts are typical for the women they know.

  407. Alte

    Rollo makes assertions for effect, just like Alte makes assertions for effect.

    Yes, but I’m a girl.

    Zippy’s assertation was that making assertations for effect is a female habit, which isn’t an assertation that bothers me because I’m actually a female. Also, I’d like to point out that assertations for effect aren’t necessarily incorrect or inaccurate, they’re merely contentious.

  408. alphabetasoup

    Zippy’s assertation was that making assertations for effect is a female habit, which isn’t an assertation that bothers me because I’m actually a female. Also, I’d like to point out that assertations for effect aren’t necessarily incorrect or inaccurate, they’re merely contentious.”

    Not to mention a vital part of rhetoric i/e the art of persuasion.

  409. FuzzieWuzzie

    The bear will bite and probably be sorry for having done so.

    “Do you believe a woman’s love is only rooted in opportunism?”
    Imagine that I am sitting on a park bench with a bag of M+Ms. Lindy West takes up a spot on the bench. Now, imagine that bag is the last one in town. What do think is going to happen? What is not likely to happen is for her to offer to trade a Bit-O-Honey bar for the M+Ms.
    The point is, that in the attraction phase, a lot of opportunism is going on and it’s going both ways. Once there is committment, there is no more room for opportunism. I’ll keep my eyes open for M+Ms and she has to keep her eyes open for Bit-O-Honey bars. We’re a team now.

    Do you think women are fundamentally incapable of appreciating what men do for them?
    Gratitude is rare nowadays. It requires that the person who is to display it be able to walk in the other person’s shoes. That requires effort and intelligence.

    That leads to a question for the ladies: why do you have so much trouble understanding men? We consider ourselves to be pretty simple creatures.

    PS. Lindy, if you’re reading this, this not a proposal. I just used you as an example on the rumor of your fondness for M+Ms.

  410. alphabetasoup

    I think much of the contention here is due to the two DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED philosophies we are approaching this from. Is it any wonder that coming at this from a market/utilitarian perspective (as Rollo does) could cause him to arrive a the conclusion he does?

    An understandiing of Gods love as the ideal form of love CANNOT reconcile itself with the SMP approach. A market by defintion is a give and take paradigm and not the standard we as Christians are COMMANDED to. It is completely logical to see things the way Rollo does when approached from that “frame”, but is his “frame” correct?

  411. FuzzieWuzzie

    “My husband only loves me for my ass!”
    I wouldn’t know, but I do remember a picture of pork loin roast a while back. If he likes food as much as I do, there may be lots of reasons that he loves you.

    Alte, I may have to hold off on bagpipes. They seem to kill threads.

  412. alphabetasoup

    As to the point of women being uncapable of fully appreciating what we do for them, my first thought is “I dunno” My wife has shown capabilities where I would have never suspected them. My second is “so what if she doesnt” I think that is an immature way to look at it. If I look for appreciation from anyone for doing anything then I could RIGHTLY be accused of looking for a treat from them. And I sure as hell could’nt call anything done for a “treat” love could I? Maybe that is just taking what Rollo said a bit deeper.

  413. Farm Boy

    I, as a man, am fundamentally incapable of understanding (I guess I don’t appreciate) what it’s like to have simply immense sexual power. I’ll never know what it’s like to be able to get hordes of men to do literally anything I want simply by showing skin or by giving sex as an exchange. I will never understand (appreciate) what it means to a woman to forego that immense sexual power and be faithful to one man.

    Women do not understand what it is like for many guys in their teens and twenties. From the fellas experience comes humility and self-reflection. As from the women’s experiences comes entitlement and self-absorption.

  414. Ellie

    Want to see another side of a man’s “unconditional” love? Get cancer or some other very serious disease. The men stay married with their wives at every doctor’s visit, the wives get dumped. Even worse are the women who start chasing the man as soon as they hear the wife received a bad diagnosis.

  415. Jeremy

    I find This post by SSM to be flawed and likely sparked by the very thing Rollo is saying in Mary’s initial quote of him, the distaste that women feel when they come face to face

    with the fact that their own feelings of love are not rooted in selflessness. Even the Greeks knew this thousands of years ago, having invented (or at least defined in their own language)

    multiple definitions of love.

    For a little light reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Four_Loves

    Now, on to Mary’s post:

    Allow Rollo to explain to you how you don’t love right, like men do:

    That is actually misconstruation #1. Rollo made no judgement as to which sex loves “correctly”. Any argument based on which sex has the “correct” form of love is an excercise in utter

    foolishness, for neither sex loves “correctly”. Rollo is simply explaining what men in the modern age have been trained to forget, that women are not perfect angels who spoon feed true

    agape love to the worthy.

    I have no doubt that the idealization of marriage, enduring companionship, mutual love and respect are very strong desires for men, but as I stated in my love

    series, men love idealistically, whereas women’s love is rooted in opportunism. Women get very upset at this proposition because they tend to conflate an unrealistic desire for

    unconditional love with a love based on a man’s performance for her in order to earn and keep it. It’s not that men expect some childish form of unconditional love, it’s that a man must

    continue to maintain that love through performing and meriting it – this is what I mean by women loving opportunistically.

    So you don’t really love him, you just like what he can do for you a whole lot. You are not, however, aware of the fact that you like what he can do for you. Even though both men and

    women have prefrontal cortices where our responses to emotions are regulated, you ladies can’t even understand love and loyalty. Rollo explains:

    I think what most men uniquely deceive themselves of is that they will ultimately be appreciated by women for their sacrifices. Learn this now, you wont. You can’t be because

    women fundamentally lack the ability to fully realize, much less appreciate the sacrifices a man makes to facilitate her reality.

    That final bolded (by me) statement is absolutely true. Some women do not like to hear it, particularly the ones who have truly sacrificed, because it speaks to a childish nature they (may

    have) mostly put behind themselves during their lifelong efforts at cultivating agape with their mate. However, this dislike changes nothing about the inherent human nature on which a

    person builds themselves. Anything less than Rollos statement is absolutely incorrect when you are speaking of the dating world which is dominated by eros, not agape. Mary is trying

    to frame Rollo’s words about truths of eros (towards men who are trying to understand women) in the context of a woman who has sacrificed what men cannot understand in the pursuit of agape

    with her husband. She’s effectively enjoying the truth of the inverse of Rollo’s argument while simultaneously arguing its fundamental wrongness from improper context.

    Understand, Mary, that reality of women loving opportunistically and not being able to appreciate male sacrifice in a marriage is still fact despite you or anyone else’s protestations. You

    should not be so upset about this, because the converse on appreciation is also true. Human nature is still the landscape in which you or anyone else operates on a daily basis.

    Regardless of how well your faith or strong ethical boundaries have guided you into behaving as an adult, your default behavior when stressed too far still reveals the same fundamental

    human nature in all of us. This is evidenced by Mary’s next paragraph:

    You might be feeling convicted right now, dear female reader. You may be saying to yourself:

    Of course I love my husband and will be loyal to him until death do us part But Rollo is right. I have been taking my husband for granted. He works so hard, and I really do

    appreciate it, but I have been very remiss in not expressing my gratitude to him. I will tell him tonight how much I appreciate all that he does for me! Will that make it alright,

    Sunshine Mary?

    That’s human nature talking. If you say/think that then Rollo’s words have stressed you into making a snap judgement on what you like about his words, and not the bloody truth of them. You

    are upset that fundamental selfishness has been revealed for discussion, instead of simply, honestly, admitting your own human nature. Men can admit their shallowness, their own desires.

    Men desire large boobs, tight asses, pretty faces, and deferential treatment from women. That’s SHALLOW. The equivalent post by a woman of Rollo’s topic of discussion would be talking about

    men who leave their women after those women become pregnant, let their bodies go to shit, and refuse to make an effort to sexually attract their man after the kids are born. There would

    definitely be men who would be uncomfortable with that discussion, and some who would vehemently deny their own nature. They would say ridiculous things like they would always remain with a

    woman who wasn’t tripping his attraction triggers on a regular basis. Make no mistake, it is still a fundamental truth of human nature. Simply asserting your own virtue does nothing

    to erase your core nature. Men are attracted to the feminine, if a woman lets themselves go over the course of their marriage, their man is going to turn to porn, hookers, or he’s

    going to cheat on them. That’s men, men are shallow, and their shallowness has been explored since ages past. Why is it so painful to explore the shallow side of women in it’s fullness?

    Mary continues:

    I would have thought so, dear lady, but sadly, the answer is no. Deti explains:

    I think women get upset at the proposition that their love is based on opportunism, i.e. what he does for her, because it reveals that her love for a man is conditional. This

    in turn causes her to confront the reality that she just might be as shallow and utilitarian as she accuses the men in her life of being.

    Yes, Deti, you made my point for me. It is a shame that discomfort over truth makes some unwilling to see this.

  416. Miserman

    Ellie, the phenomenon of abandoned spouses due to ill health is on both genders. I have heard of men leaving their wives when the wife gets cancer. I have also heard of a wife in her thirties whose husband developed a debilitating disease (MS or MD), which left him in a wheelchair. She put him in a nursing home, divorced him, and remarried. Both men and women can be cold and cruel, plain and simple.

  417. Jeremy

    Or, without word-wrapping annoyingness…

    I find This post by SSM to be entirely flawed and likely sparked by the very thing Rollo is saying in Mary’s initial quote of him, the distaste that women feel when they come face to face with the fact that their own feelings of love are not rooted in selflessness. Even the Greeks knew this thousands of years ago, having invented (or at least defined in their own language) multiple definitions of love.

    For a little light reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Four_Loves

    Now, on to Mary’s post:

    Allow Rollo to explain to you how you don’t love right, like men do:

    That is actually misconstruation #1. Rollo made no judgement as to which sex loves “correctly”. Any argument based on which sex has the “correct” form of love is an excercise in utter foolishness, for neither sex loves “correctly”. Rollo is simply explaining what men in the modern age have been trained to forget, that women are not perfect angels who spoon feed true agape love to the worthy.

    I have no doubt that the idealization of marriage, enduring companionship, mutual love and respect are very strong desires for men, but as I stated in my love series, men love idealistically, whereas women’s love is rooted in opportunism. Women get very upset at this proposition because they tend to conflate an unrealistic desire for unconditional love with a love based on a man’s performance for her in order to earn and keep it. It’s not that men expect some childish form of unconditional love, it’s that a man must continue to maintain that love through performing and meriting it – this is what I mean by women loving opportunistically.

    So you don’t really love him, you just like what he can do for you a whole lot. You are not, however, aware of the fact that you like what he can do for you. Even though both men and women have prefrontal cortices where our responses to emotions are regulated, you ladies can’t even understand love and loyalty. Rollo explains:

    I think what most men uniquely deceive themselves of is that they will ultimately be appreciated by women for their sacrifices. Learn this now, you wont. You can’t be because women fundamentally lack the ability to fully realize, much less appreciate the sacrifices a man makes to facilitate her reality.

    That final bolded (by me) statement is absolutely true. Some women do not like to hear it, particularly the ones who have truly sacrificed, because it speaks to a childish nature they (may have) mostly put behind themselves during their lifelong efforts at cultivating agape with their mate. However, this dislike changes nothing about the inherent human nature on which a person builds themselves. Anything less than Rollos statement is absolutely incorrect when you are speaking of the dating world which is dominated by eros, not agape. Mary is trying to frame Rollo’s words about truths of eros (towards men who are trying to understand women) in the context of a woman who has sacrificed what men cannot understand in the pursuit of agape with her husband. She’s effectively enjoying the truth of the inverse of Rollo’s argument while simultaneously arguing its fundamental wrongness from improper context.

    Understand, Mary, that reality of women loving opportunistically and not being able to appreciate male sacrifice in a marriage is still fact despite you or anyone else’s protestations. You should not be so upset about this, because the converse on appreciation is also true. Human nature is still the landscape in which you or anyone else operates on a daily basis. Regardless of how well your faith or strong ethical boundaries have guided you into behaving as an adult, your default behavior when stressed too far still reveals the same fundamental human nature in all of us. This is evidenced by Mary’s next paragraph:

    You might be feeling convicted right now, dear female reader. You may be saying to yourself:

    Of course I love my husband and will be loyal to him until death do us part But Rollo is right. I have been taking my husband for granted. He works so hard, and I really do appreciate it, but I have been very remiss in not expressing my gratitude to him. I will tell him tonight how much I appreciate all that he does for me! Will that make it alright, Sunshine Mary?

    That’s human nature talking. If you say/think that then Rollo’s words have stressed you into making a snap judgement on what you like about his words, and not the bloody truth of them. You are upset that fundamental selfishness has been revealed for discussion, instead of simply, honestly, admitting your own human nature. Men can admit their shallowness, their own desires. Men desire large boobs, tight asses, pretty faces, and deferential treatment from women. That’s SHALLOW. The equivalent post by a woman of Rollo’s topic of discussion would be talking about men who leave their women after those women become pregnant, let their bodies go to shit, and refuse to make an effort to sexually attract their man after the kids are born. There would definitely be men who would be uncomfortable with that discussion, and some who would vehemently deny their own nature. They would say ridiculous things like they would always remain with a woman who wasn’t tripping his attraction triggers on a regular basis. Make no mistake, it is still a fundamental truth of human nature. Simply asserting your own virtue does nothing to erase your core nature. Men are attracted to the feminine, if a woman lets themselves go over the course of their marriage, their man is going to turn to porn, hookers, or he’s going to cheat on them. That’s men, men are shallow, and their shallowness has been explored since ages past. Why is it so painful to explore the shallow side of women in it’s fullness?

    Mary continues:

    I would have thought so, dear lady, but sadly, the answer is no. Deti explains:

    I think women get upset at the proposition that their love is based on opportunism, i.e. what he does for her, because it reveals that her love for a man is conditional. This in turn causes her to confront the reality that she just might be as shallow and utilitarian as she accuses the men in her life of being.

    Yes, Deti, you made my point for me. It is a shame that discomfort over truth makes some unwilling to see this.

  418. Ellie

    One thing I don’t understand is women who think that men have all the answers. Look, these guys can’t even get their own houses in order- with a few very notable and admirable exceptions- how can we look to them for life changing wisdom? Men don’t have the answers. Women don’t have the answers. “We grope for the wall like the blind… we stumble at noonday as at twilight; we are as dead men in desolate places. We all growl like bears and moan sadly like doves. We look for justice but there is none.” People, we are looking for some Christian culture that has long disappeared. Men can’t resurrect the dead. “Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die, for I have not found your works perfect before God.” These words could not be more timely.

  419. Farm Boy

    I may have to hold off on bagpipes. They seem to kill threads.

    Perhaps this thread should be given a lethal injection of bagpipes.

  420. Ellie

    At every point in time, at every place in the world, the men and women deserve each other. Water finds its own level and all.

  421. Miserman

    If women are incapable of unconditional love, selfless loyalty, appreciation of a man, or whatever, then it is a waste of time for men to be surprised and complain when women fail to do so. It’s like complaining that water is wet. Why should we expect water to be anything else?

  422. Ellie

    I don’t dispute the fact that a woman’s love might be based in opportunism. What I dispute is that a man’s love is not also based in opportunism. After all, we were made from the same ingredients. The majesty of God’s love is contrasted with the pitiful attempt that sinful man makes… and if men are capable of true love and women are not, then why don’t we see more true love from the men and less condemnation of unloving women… after all, they can’t help it, can they?

  423. Farm Boy

    One thing I don’t understand is women who think that men have all the answers

    Where does one find these women?

  424. Ellie

    See Hannah upstream, Farm Boy. I have read similar comments from several of the female commenters on other threads.

  425. Farm Boy

    At every point in time, at every place in the world, the men and women deserve each other.

    Bold, this remark is.

  426. Ellie

    Not really- she is charming. But that sentiment (men have the wisdom), while nice, is not actually true.

  427. Alte

    Wisdom (part of prudence) is a cardinal virtue that is bestowed by the Holy Spirit. It’s also one of the ten Marian virtues.

    Flattery will get you everywhere.

  428. Alte

    This whole thread is essentially just a reversal of women’s complaints under patriarchy. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, we’re supposed to pretend like the error is something inherent to women, the same way the feminists complained that it was inherent to men.

    She doesn’t appreciate me.
    She doesn’t love me the way I want to be loved.
    She’ll leave me for someone more attractive, if I don’t manage to stay hot enough.
    She doesn’t understand me.
    And so on.

  429. Christian Fellowship Ain't Here

    Their point was that this lack of appreciation is supposedly entirely limited to one sex.

    BINGO!! We have a winner!!

  430. Rollo Tomassi

    Do you think women are fundamentally incapable of appreciating what men do for them?

    Good question, maybe you should be asking the christo-girl scouts in the dinner line you mentioned in a post a few months back the same thing?

  431. Maeve

    This is really just me kind of out loud – but it feels as though this has been a tug of war over “how we love is more authentic than how you love”. I know that men and women love differently (I always assumed they were so inclined due to fundamental differences in our natures and the need for us to compliment rather than mirror each other), but I never thought that one was more authentic than the other. (Do feel free to ignore this comment if I’m off base – unexpected family emergency is sucking dry all of my cognitive resources).

    Fuzzie – Don’t you be handing out candy to strange women! You’ll just end up with a bunch of empty wrappers on the ground and some cop citing you for littering.
    Farm Boy & Hannah – you keep Fuzzie out of danger now.

  432. Zippy

    Histrionics, yes Alte. From my perspective histrionics are an effeminate behavior (effeminate, not strictly female — NAWALT etc).

  433. Ellie

    Should we actually be trying to get people to appreciate what we do for them? One of Satan’s errors was wanting to be praised for all he was. Do we really want to be like him?

  434. Alte

    Rollo,

    An anecdote can negate an absolute, but it doesn’t prove a generality. It is, at best, supporting evidence.

    The fact that some — or even most — women are XYZ, does not prove that all women are likewise. If, however, we can prove that any woman at all is not XYZ, then we have proven that it cannot be true that women are incapable of not being XYZ.

  435. theshadowedknight

    Hannah is trying to say that in order to construct a functional society, women must be disadvantaged and suppressed. In order to satisfy their biological impulse, they must be lower than the men. Men need to be in the superior position in society, and women the inferior. I do not think she has a firm grasp over it, which is why she is so awkward when she writes. That she recognizes this is one thing, understanding and communicating it is another.

    Alte, feminist complaints about Patriarchy are basically, “My life is too comfortable and secure. I am being oppressed, waaaaahhh!!!” What is the biggest difference between Patriarchy and Matriarchy? Patriarchy is a functional social system. Try to think before you write, and not just vomit your feelings onto and through your keyboard.

    The Shadowed Knight

  436. Jeremy

    @Ellie

    Should we actually be trying to get people to appreciate what we do for them? One of Satan’s errors was wanting to be praised for all he was. Do we really want to be like him?

    Leaving the bible stories aside, expecting anyone, regardless of sex, to fully appreciate your sacrifices is like expecting rain to fail to obey gravity.

    What should be done, is people should be held to account for breaking commitments.

  437. Ellie

    We are commanded to live up to certain standards- which involves appreciating other people as a way of saying thanks to God… but we are not supposed to be watching everyone else’s performance and giving these “I’m better than-worse than” evaluations. So if a man is better at appreciating than his wife (or vise versa), that is something that would be best not ruminated on or it will cause ungodly pride.

  438. Ellie

    “women must be disadvantaged and suppressed. In order to satisfy their biological impulse, they must be lower than the men. Men need to be in the superior position in society, and women the inferior.”

    This assumes that the place that God commanded women to be is actually a disadvantage or lower in terms of value. The way I see it, women today are like the bird pretending it is a fish. The place God made for women was uniquely created to suit her. Returning to is is not lowering yourself under men. It is choosing your natural place in the hierarchy. I really hate using words like “value” “inferior” and “superior” because in today’s egalitarian world, they have been stripped of the purely hierarchical meanings and the only part that remains is the assessment of worth.

  439. Jeremy

    @Ellie

    We are commanded to live up to certain standards- which involves appreciating other people as a way of saying thanks to God… but we are not supposed to be watching everyone else’s performance and giving these “I’m better than-worse than” evaluations. So if a man is better at appreciating than his wife (or vise versa), that is something that would be best not ruminated on or it will cause ungodly pride.

    Finding common ground on accepted ignorance is just delaying true understanding of anyone.

    Rollo’s comments made no judgement on which sex loves “correctly”.
    Nothing in what Rollo or Deti have said in any way described men as “more capable” of understanding the sacrifices women make.

    It is human nature that seeks to make an implication of professed superiority so that the straw man argument that begins all battles of sexes can continue.

  440. deti

    @ Alte:

    “An anecdote can negate an absolute, but it doesn’t prove a generality. It is, at best, supporting evidence.”

    OK. NAWALT. conceded.

    That said, can we agree that generalities can be useful?

  441. theshadowedknight

    Alte: “You cannot use anecdotes to prove a point.”

    Now compare and contrast.

    Alte and the other women: “I am not like that, so you are wrong.”

    Just thought that needs to be pointed out.

    The Shadowed Knight

  442. Alte

    From my perspective histrionics are an effeminate behavior

    Yes, it’s camp. I don’t respond well to emotional outbursts or manipulative behavior from men, even in writing. That’s why I tend to gravitate to the more stoic types, as a matter of course.

  443. Farm Boy

    Do you think women are fundamentally incapable of appreciating what men do for them?

    With modern women, the answer is mostly yes. These days the view is “can I find a guy who will provide for me better than the awesome system can”. Either way, it is an entitlement mentality.

    In the olden days, there really was no “system”, and it was very obvious what a fella was providing. My Mom appreciated all that my Dad did, as this was second nature to them.

    People do not realize how dependent they are on the “system”

  444. Farm Boy

    This whole thread is essentially just a reversal of women’s complaints under patriarchy

    Do you believe that, or are you just saying that?

  445. FuzzieWuzzie

    Ellie,
    Upthread, you mentioned the likelihood of husbands divorcing terminally sick wives. After some head scratching, the consideration for presevation of the estate came to mind. By divorcing, the estate is split and the surviving partner is not liable for the expenses of the deceased. Considering that men are usually the breadwinner, his future income would not be attached.
    This is cold and calculating, but catastrophic medical expenses are the second leading cause of bankruptcy.
    Please notice that my point is independent of how the spouses feel for each other. It would be a divorce in name only.

  446. Ellie

    Fuzzie, I acknowledge that might happen in some circumstances. However, I am part of a support group for a serious disease and fully half of the women were left by their husbands within 1 year of diagnosis. Men are no more constant in their love than women are.

  447. Alte

    Do you believe that, or are you just saying that?

    Oh, I believe it. It’s part of my overarching theory of the fact that masculinism is a reaction to feminism, and will therefore be couched entirely in feminist terms and philosophies.

    Christianity, on the other hand, is a holistic philosophy in its own right.

  448. Alte

    Alte: “You cannot use anecdotes to prove a point.”

    Since you put that in quotes, please link to the comment where I said precisely that.

  449. Alte

    “women must be disadvantaged and suppressed. In order to satisfy their biological impulse, they must be lower than the men. Men need to be in the superior position in society, and women the inferior.”

    I suppose this is the “Patriarchy is a boot stomping on women’s face… forever.” view of traditional Christian society.

  450. Ellie

    Well, if that is what TSK meant, he should take direction from this post and internalize it- women are incapable of love and moral agency. Then what he would end up with is something that looks more like Islam than Christianity…

  451. FuzzieWuzzie

    Maeve, I’ll take your advice and not give candy to strangers.

    Rollo, “data” is the plural of “datum”. Finally, all those years of Latin and I foind a use for it.

    Ellie, I’ll concede. You have direct experience with this issue. It is, however, saddening.

  452. Alte

    Well, if you’re just reacting to feminism, then Islam is probably the more intellectually- and sexually-satisfying end. Doesn’t mean that it’s true, but that doesn’t seem to be stopping anyone from joining it.

  453. Ellie

    Sexually satisfying… for wealthy men… what about the poor muslim men who can’t get a wife because theirs was preempted via polygamy. The only way their world can stay stable is if there is an outside population that they can steal women from.

  454. Ellie

    How is Islam more intellectually satisfying? It is only modern churchianity that is drivel. If Islam were more intellectually satisfying, I would be a Muslim.

  455. Jeremy

    @Alte

    Well, if you’re just reacting to feminism, then Islam is probably the more intellectually- and sexually-satisfying end. Doesn’t mean that it’s true, but that doesn’t seem to be stopping anyone from joining it.

    Nor does it seem to stop the ladies from joining that faith in larger numbers than men.

    http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/05/study-white-women-in-uk-converting-to-islam-more-than-men/

    http://islam.ru/en/content/story/reasons-why-female-converts-islam-have-increased-west

    http://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/staggering-numbers-women-converting-islam?ModPagespeed=noscript

  456. theshadowedknight

    Sure, Alte, I will link to it, as soo as you get me.the quote where Rollo said, “All women, forever and always, are incapable of appreciating the sacrifice men make for them, no exceptions,” and “Every single woman’s love is completely and unreservedly opportunistic, and furthermore, they are incapable of any greater level of love.”

    Well, Ellie, I went and asked the tens of millions of aborted babies and divorced men, “Are women capable of moral agency?” They said no, except for the fifty million babies, because they were dead.

    The Shadowed Knight

  457. Alte

    I meant that it would be more intellectually satisfying for someone with that philosophical focus. For someone interested in how the world and eternity actually are, it’s not very interesting.

  458. Emma the Emo

    A thought about appreciation of male sacrifices.

    “You sacrificed your ambitions and potential to provide her with a better life? You were supposed to. You resisted temptation and didn’t cheat on your wife with the hot secretary who was DTF and ready to go? You were supposed to.”

    I have for a long time wondered why one of these is not like the other. I finally realized why. There is a huge difference between making a commitment and keeping a commitment. You are not “supposed” to make a commitment to a woman. There is no law that says you must. You can instead live your life spinning plates, and that’s ok. It’s not immoral.
    But once you make a commitment, you are indeed supposed to keep it. Because breaking it is immoral. It’s very simple – you don’t have to promise anything to anyone, but once you do, you’re expected to keep it.

    That’s why I appreciate that my man committed to me (I didn’t expect it and sometimes it even feels he should have picked someone better), but thanking him every day for not cheating on me is ridiculous.

  459. Ellie

    Were the heads of the concentration camps capable of moral agency? I think you heard the babies wrong- they said yes… and that vengeance belongs to God and that He is the Almighty who is capable to deliver upon His promises.

  460. Alte

    You can’t have it both ways, TSK. If women are not moral agents, then you can’t condemn them for those abortions.

  461. theshadowedknight

    Ellie, she is trying to be insulting. By insinuating that I am no better than a goat humping Mohammedan heretic, she seeks to change my behavior. Of course, all she did was exhibit her own ignorance and lack of awareness. As if the only way to lower the social level of women was to wrap them in black cloth and beat them or kill them if they get out of line. The boot line is much the same. She is incapable of higher discourse or understanding, so she has to hit below the belt.

    You women wonder why I think the way I do, never considering that maybe I you taught me. I keep lowering my expectations, and each time I am disappointed anew. They can only go so far before it reaches absurdity, and I went past that point. Respect is something earned, so if you want it, try that, instead of just demanding it.

    The Shadowed Knight

  462. Ellie

    Look, when an animal kills, it does so without moral agency, and without moral implications. It cannot be a sin, it just is. TSK, you cannot demand “God will give me justice!” if you think women are equal to the animals (in the sense that neither have moral agency). Why would God make an animal pay for its sin? It is only following its nature. You think this philosophy gives you comfort. I get that. But I don’t understand it.

  463. Jeremy

    @Alte

    Well, if you’re just reacting to feminism, then Islam is probably the more intellectually- and sexually-satisfying end. Doesn’t mean that it’s true, but that doesn’t seem to be stopping anyone from joining it.

    I meant that it would be more intellectually satisfying for someone with that philosophical focus. For someone interested in how the world and eternity actually are, it’s not very interesting.

    What? We’re on to sexually-satisfying philosophy now?

    More women are converting to Islam than men. So, more women are just reacting to feminism? Is that what I’m supposed to take?

  464. FuzzieWuzzie

    Ellie,
    “What about the poor muslim man who’s wife was pre-empted…?”
    To expand on this, how about the poor Western man who’s wife was pre-empted by hypergamy?
    This is a profound social issue that should be considered. Society has disowned them and there is liitle cuse for loyalty on their part.

  465. Alte

    “but thanking him every day for not cheating on me is ridiculous”

    It would make more sense if you viewed yourself as a subhuman pest. The logic is all in the details.

  466. theshadowedknight

    Oh, I cannot condemn? When a dog pees on my floor, is the dog capable of moral agency? Hardly. Do I not still smack it on the nose and put it outside? Absolutely. I can still hold a dog to standards of behavior, and punish it when standards are not met. Dealing with women seems to follow a similar pattern.

    Now I will wait for the first woman to say that if I think women are no better than dogs, I should just get a dog and be done.

    The Shadowed Knight

  467. Ellie

    TSK, sin beastifies people (is that a word?)… the more engulfed this world gets in sin, the more it will look like the pre-flood days where God said that the wickedness of men was so great that every intent of his heart was only evil continually. People, all around us, are regressing towards that. So touchy about their feelings, so callous about their actions.

  468. Ellie

    Nah, TSK. I understand the analogy. My dad used to joke that the best child rearing books were dog training manuals. But with the dog, do you feel moral outrage or anything more than irritation?

  469. Alte

    “So, more women are just reacting to feminism?”

    Most women convert before marriage. The men and few women who convert for ideological reasons usually
    do cite a rejection of feminism.

  470. Bluedog

    @Jeremy re: August 31, 2013 at 3:19 pm,

    Well written and stated. Rest o’ folks … sometimes we skim over longer comments, Jeremy’s is worth unpacking.

    Rollo’s article was calculus for people not quite through pre-algebra. Best you can do is apply a divisor over and over again until you get to least common denominators, my stab:

    Men: the ladies aren’t angels or anything like it. They are more like you than angels. In fact, but for attraction vectors, they are damn near the same as you. The yearning/fulfillment you are looking for … look to God, Christ or philosophy, meditation, etc … but you will ONLY be happy with women, if you stop expecting something from them that they in no way or manner promise, or are capable of giving.

    Women: the manosphere, in places where it has not yet been infected with racism, anti-Semitism and white nationalism (look at it like a virtual city … you need to know what neighborhoods to go to) … seems to consist of a lot of colloquial, folk wisdom about men and women and sex and gender, but much confusion about what to do about that wisdom in a larger culture that either forgets or repudiates that wisdom.

    Among some men there is a view that you are not conscious moral agents. That “the answer” is to treat you all like children. Some might call this view “misogyny” (tongue-firmly-in-cheek).

    Others … especially in the “Christomanosphere” such as SSM and Dalrock, or in the secular manosphere such as AVfM, … these others, whatever they may be faulted with by feminists, the left, or other critics, are basically doing something that is deeply honoring to women:

    … it is calling on women to act in their moral agencies, with their moral faculties. It is saying that a culture that condemns men who fail in their moral agency, but looks the other way when women fail in theirs … is a culture that has not created the basic means to even so much as allow for thriving relationships between women and men.

    As Jeremy points out, the meaning of Rollo’s article is inverse and at cross-ways with the message SSM is giving here. Rollo has said, “Men! Listen up! Women. Are. Not. Angels.” He has said this at the top of his lungs, because millions of men believe the non-sense that they are!

    SSM can affirm female moral agency and furthermore up the ante and demand of her fellow females, moral agency, … and she is not contradicting anything Rollo said.

    Beers still on me.

  471. Alte

    “Respect is something earned”

    I don’t ascribe to this, but I will point out that you’ve never made any effort to earn my respect and are therefore hypocritical to lament any perceived absence of it.

  472. theshadowedknight

    Irritation, Ellie, irritation and disgust. Sometimes, though, a dog does something it knows is wrong. He goes skulking around knowing that I will be unhappy. Then I feel outrage, because it knew better. Perhaps I should not leave my baking to cool on the counter. That is my fault, and I accept part of the responsibility.

    Until the artificial womb is perfected, the baking is not safe even when the bun is still in the oven.

    The Shadowed Knight

  473. theshadowedknight

    Alte, you are assuming that I am interested in your respect. I never mentioned it. I do not value it, so any effort set about to obtain it would be a waste of my valuable time.

    Although I fear this is an exercise in mind numbing stupidity, please explain to me just how respect is not an earned commodity. I have to hear this one.

    The Shadowed Knight

  474. Bluedog

    Women: is there any question in your mind what the attraction vectors are for men? Don’t you think that – those attraction vectors being completely crystal clear – that that puts you in a relatively favorable position to judge the quality of his more ephemeral state of “love” for you?

    So – if we can baseline on that … can we appreciate that many men, millions of men, and especially young men … have absolutely no idea what women’s attraction vectors are?

    And … if we can get there, can we appreciate that since they spend two-and-a-half decades being clueless about this until they are 25, and fully formed adults who everyone in the whole work would recognize as fully formed adults, and they STILL have absolutely no idea what women’s attraction vectors are?

    And … when its a recognized figure of speech in our culture to ask “what do women want?” … can anyone doubt this fathomless level of naivety on the part of adult men?

    Rollo’s article is designed to detonate a C4 block inside the decades-long, sunk-deep, often cherished, pollyanna ideas that too many men cling to about how women love. He is trying to show the relationship of women’s attraction vectors to their decisions about relationships and mating. He is doing much, actually, to show men that, in my words, “women are almost exactly like you”.

    His was is not an article that said: (a) “women are comprehensively shallow” … it does not either say (b) “women are comprehensively shallow and men are not”, nor does it say (c) “women are incapable of love” (or dedication or honor or loyalty, etc), nor does it say (d) “women are not possessed of conscious moral agency.”

    Men and women, need not be shallow. They have to be challenged and cultivated though, to be deep. I think that is part of this blog’s project … do challenge and cultivate as such.

    Men and women, are both capable of love. Not angelic love, or Christlike love, … we are mortal beings set apart from angels but above other creatures … we cannot divorce our mammalian natures and the programmed attraction vectors we have from all our decisions to love … and yet we can transcend those things. We have a life to give, and there are many ways to give that life. That … giving of your life … is: Being Human.

    Rollo is saying though that:
    … if Storge is a currency … you cannot trade Storge with Eros
    … if Phileo is a currency … you cannot trade Phileo with Eros
    … if Agape is a currency (and it should not be) … you cannot trade Phileo with Eros

    Men naively conflate female Eros with female Agape … and in so failing, fail to arouse either. Rollo is trying to help men stop doing this.

    Men and women have conscious moral agency. This, like depth, requires cultivation and challenge. That, as I read it, remains the project of this blog and Dalrock’s.

  475. Alte

    I think respect can be freely given, even if it has not been earned. I also think that all humans deserve a modicum of respectful address, simply by virtue of their own existence, because they are made in the image and likeness of God.

    Of course, such a philosophy requires one to consider all humans… human. And to not separate them into humans and subhumans incapable of moral agency that one views as pest or pet depending upon how well they respond to positive and negative stimuli.

    It’s all very complicated.

  476. Ellie

    “You women wonder why I think the way I do, never considering that maybe I you taught me.”

    Why allow your ideas or thoughts to be directed by those who do not earn your respect?

  477. Ellie

    I disagree- respect means that I give weight to someone- to their thoughts and to their actions. It is a form of deference. I can’t give that to just anyone.

  478. Jeremy

    @Alte

    “Respect is something earned”

    I don’t ascribe to this, but I will point out that you’ve never made any effort to earn my respect and are therefore hypocritical to lament any perceived absence of it.

    If respect is not earned, then it can assigned value outside of effort. How much does your respect cost?

  479. theshadowedknight

    Ahhh, just as I thought. You want the respect you think you deserve just for existing. Well, what you think and the respect you will receive are likely to be quite different. If you think you deserve it, prove it.

    Ellie, I do not respect inner city vibrants. That does not preclude me from recognizing that they are a danger to me. I understand that they pose a threat to me, and I act in accordance.

    The Shadowed Knight

  480. Jeremy

    Catechism Art 3, 1928 through 1948 is describing human rights, not respect among peers. The usage of respect in that case is individual respect for the existence and rights of others, not their opinion and perspective, which is what Shadowed Knight was referring to.

  481. Ellie

    Is it possible for a man to love an ugly wife with the same intensity that he would love a beautiful one?

  482. Farm Boy

    Well Fuzzie, it looks like it going to take both bagpipes and bears to kill this thread. You are not supposed to mix drugs, but it is for the best.

  483. theshadowedknight

    Whoa, you mean Alte is twisting words in order to make her arguments? She is misrepresenting the evidence she is using? Who would have suspected..? Oh, right, I did.

    Well, Alte, you could always try your hand at honest debate. It would be a refreshing change.

    The Shadowed Knight

  484. Joseph of Jackson

    @SSM

    I answered your questions way upstream before you even made them questions. So let meask you the same.

    Do you believe your husband is fully capable of realizing the sacrifices you make for him? Examples: when you submit to his decisions. When his authority legally is less than yours but you place his above yours intentionally. Etc

  485. FuzzieWuzzie

    Ellie and Alte, did either of you come here for an honest discourse?
    I’ll give you a reason to respect TSK. He’s serving in the US Marines. One of the drawbacks to serving in the present day military is being witness to bad behavior by military wives. Don’t take my word for it, ask Sarah’s Daughter. I don’t know the whole of it, but she does and, I don’t want to know any more. BTW, Je Suis Prest confirmed that this is also a problem in Canada.

  486. Farm Boy

    Is it possible for a man to love an ugly wife with the same intensity that he would love a beautiful one?

    One example of “yes” are the famous “wife goggles”

  487. Ellie

    Fuzzie, I am at a loss to see what part of my contribution has not been honest discourse. You don’t like me- I’m totally cool with that. But dishonest?

  488. Jeremy

    @Ellie

    Is it possible for a man to love an ugly wife with the same intensity that he would love a beautiful one?

    Is it possible for a woman to love a poor man the same as she loves a rich and socially/politically successful one?

    The answer is yes. As all things among humans are relatively relative, perception is key since a woman from the 3rd caste in India would consider bucktooth Billy from deep woods v’ginia to be wealthy compared to her in her home country. Likewise, there’s a relative beauty and even a taste-in-beauty element that comes into play with male attraction triggers. Just expect that all other things being equal, the effort expended by the disadvantaged mate in such a relationship to keep the love alive will be greater.

  489. Ellie

    You know why we seem to be talking past each other, right? It is because all we can do is talk about it, but it solves nothing, changes nothing, and we cannot even meet in the middle if women have no moral legitimacy to exist as moral agents or to love as fully human. Or did you mean dialog like as in chit chat? JK.

  490. theshadowedknight

    Fuzzie, Ellie has been quite decent in her points made. Obviously Alte did not come for honest discourse. Knowing her, I would be amazed if she did. See how when light shined on her, she runs to the shadows. Too bad for her I wait there. Ellie, however, was behaving well today. No need to pile on her.

    It is not just the Marine spouses. It is any women affiliated with or near to Marines. AWALT, driven home with every divorce, every rape brief, every harassment brief, every false accusation, every interaction.

    The Shadowed Knight

  491. FuzzieWuzzie

    Ellie,
    I have argued that women have agency here. I do get shouted down for it. I believe that it is the great lie that feminism has told women that disempowers them. All you have to do is reach out and take it back.
    My apologies for conflating you with Alte.

  492. Bluedog

    @sunshinemary
    re: August 31, 2013 at 12:12 pm said:
    “Actually, I would ask the same question to all of my male commenters. Don’t be shy now; tell me what you think:

    “a) Do you believe that women’s love is only rooted in opportunism and”?

    Bluedog’s answer: No, I do not. “Love” is a conscious decision, a product of moral agency, and just like you decide to do right by your children, every single day, oftentimes on several hours of every single day, “love” among spouses is a decision to do right by one’s spouse, every single day.

    Rollo is obviously not talking about this “love”. He is clear (at least longitudinally across many articles) that he is explaining attraction. Attraction, unlike love, is not a choice.

    A funny thing is that evangelical Christians are in some ways better suited to have this discussion than the population as a whole, because knowledge of C.S.Lewis/Greek “four loves” is common among evangelicals, so you have a language that allows us to dissect the problem the way the broader culture struggles, and fails, to do.

    Imagine being a regular bloke … never heard of the “four loves” and never had someone to lay out for you how female attraction works and not a “natural alpha”. Don’t you think you would be highly prone to conflate “agape” and “eros” and “storge” and “phileo” all into one thing? Don’t you think the culture would actually make this worse, rather than help it?

    Apart from these problems, Rollo is surgically attacking a specific tumor that this condition takes, where men who are not familiarized with the difference between attraction and love, or with the very human nature of … women … have a tendency to associate the “love” of a women that they so cherish with a transaction … where the male “relational equity” is transacted in exchange for the female agape+eros+storge+phileo.

    Rollo is trying to tell his readers:

    This will never ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, never, not in a million years, ever, no matter how badly you want it to, work. Ever.

    “b) do you believe that women are fundamentally incapable of appreciating what men do for them?”

    Answer:
    On an absolute basis, forced to answer “yes” or “no” as if by a prosecutor “just ‘yes’ or ‘no’ sir” …

    No. I believe women are capable of appreciating what men do for them and that men are capable of appreciating what women do for them.

    Having said that … for rhetorical purposes, I’m doubtful it matters.

    There are a couple ways to unpack it, but since Rollo is on the block here is the thing: Rollo is plugged in to the specific cognitive dis-function so many men have where they believe … i.e.: they are convinced … i.e.: they have and do and will keep doing the same thing over and over again even though it kills them, until someone like Rollo tells them their beliefs are wrong … they BELIEVE that if they “do” something, that the thing they do is like some kind of seed that grows love in a woman’s heart for them, and if they keep doing … it’s like “storing treasures in heaven” … treasures of her love.

    He is saying … she has no such fields of love-grain. There is no such treasure house in her heart.

    Her love, and her attraction, do NOT work that way.

    That said … YES, of course women are constitutionally capable of appreciating what men do for them, and if they are not, then this blog and Dalrock’s, are both vanities.

  493. infowarrior1

    Those whom god love he disciplines(Hebrews 12:6). Those who god sanctifies are those who are elect(1 Corinthians 6:11). If you lack the desire of righteousness and you love sin even as a “Christian” Born-again you are not. Damned you are still until you seek god in repentance until he saves you. If righteousness is your burning desire, the scripture your favorite literature and sin your hatred that if you partake it causes sickness and revulsion then rejoice, for you are saved.

  494. Morvena

    Surely all human love is conditional to some degree simply because of our sinful nature. People are broken – they can’t love unconditionally as God does.

    This is more or less my view of things as well. It’s the same as with attraction; as much as we Christians would like to deny our shallow natures, the things our spouse may or may not do for us over the course of a lifetime matters. For instance, I love my husband very much. I would *like* to be able to say that there’s nothing he could do to make me love him any less – but that would be a lie. In my case, I do believe that he would really have to put some serious effort into it, but there are definite actions that he could take (getting as big as a house, adultery) that would negatively affect my love for him and I daresay the same would apply to his feelings for me. This wouldn’t have to be a permanent result – weight can be lost, feelings and behaviors mended, and love can be rekindled – but the very fact that these actions can cause a loss or a rekindling of love would have to mean that love can be rekindled to some degree. It’s shallow and it’s ugly, but it’s a facet of who we all are as human beings and railing against the perceived unfairness of it all isn’t going to do anyone any good. Even in the best of times, I’m willing to bet that there will be moments where a man or woman will idly wonder if they could have done better than their current spouse – if things are good, they may never ACT on such a thought, but I’d almost guarantee you that it will cross their mind at some point.

    As far as feeling appreciative goes, I’m inclined to agree with those who say that women (and men) *can* be appreciative of the sacrifices one sex may make for another but that it does take some conscious thought and effort to do so – trying to walk in the other person’s shoes, as someone put it. Do any of us “deserve” praise or appreciation for upholding our end of the marriage contract? I’m not sure. I view it like having a job – as much as I enjoy getting praise at work (from management or patients) do I really have any right to expect it for simply doing what I agreed to do when I was hired? I’m not doing these things out of the sheer goodness of my heart, I’m doing them at least in part because my place of employment is paying me to do them. Both my employer and myself are each getting something out of this “relationship” and marriage is largely the same – I can be appreciative that I was the one hired for the job (literally and figuratively) but it takes a little more effort to remember, “Hey, I was picked when they could have picked someone else or saved themselves the money/time/effort and not picked anyone at all and simply dealt with an increased workload.” My employer can be appreciative of me being a good employee but it takes a little extra thought to remember, “Hey, they agreed to come work for me when they could have gone to work for someone else or didn’t even have to work at all if they didn’t want to.” It’s not a perfect analogy, but it’s close enough that it makes sense to me.

    Also, we certainly don’t praise men for holding down jobs and working hard to support their families because it’s what is expected of them – so why should women expect special treatment for performing the expected duties involved in being a wife and mother? On the other hand, there’s something to be said about a little positive reinforcement for both husbands and wives from time to time; good for morale and all that.

  495. Farm Boy

    Fuzzie,

    There has not been a response for a bit. Now is the time to drive in the final nail.

  496. Morvena

    …but the very fact that these actions can cause a loss or a rekindling of love would have to mean that love can be rekindled to some degree.

    Whoops, that should read, “…but the the very fact that these actions can cause a loss or a rekindling of love would have to mean that love is conditional to some degree.” Sometimes I think faster than I can type.

  497. Morvena

    Sorry Farm Boy, I’ve been trying to play catch-up and wasn’t intentionally trying to beat a dead horse. Feel free to continue with thread detonation as you and Fuzzie see fit!

  498. infowarrior1

    “Quiet earl, Men are speaking.

    You can come back when you’ve had your first drink, gotten into a fist fight and actually have had a woman touch your dick.”

    Masculine status jockeying I gather. Unsurprising. Whenever there is an adequate number of red hot blooded men congregated at a place virtual and non-virtual. There will be head-butting.

    http://cogprints.org/663/1/bbs_mazur.html

  499. theshadowedknight

    Lolly, shhh. Stop fighting; it will be over soon. Just let it happen. Shhh. Shhhhh… Just let it happen.

    The Shadowed Knight

    [ssm: LOLOLOL! This is possibly the best response I've ever seen to a commenter like Lolly. Sadly, it's only imaginary when the real thing would be ever so beneficial for her. Well-done TSK.]

  500. alphabetasoup

    Exactly what this thread needed. Thankyou Lolly(POP) for the thoughtful contribution in to the discussion. None of us had thought of that before.

  501. Morvena

    Since there’s no reasoning or arguing with folks like Lolly, this is my response to TSK’s post addressing him/her (all apologies to SSM):

    http://www.popcorngif.com/1/mj/

    On the other hand, it’s funny how they never seem willing or able to show us how it’s done if we’re apparently doing it wrong; only name calling and screeching which is the debate equivalent of throwing the empty gun.

  502. Maeve

    Fuzzie – I found a picture of a bear with bagpipes for you. Can’t figure out how to post unfortunately. But here’s happy news – It’s football season!

  503. Ellie

    To be perfectly honest, I don’t see what Alte did that incites such a level of emotionally intense response from people… Fuzzy, apology accepted… I don’t think one was needed though- you didn’t fight dirty.

    Problem with all these bagpipes is the tinny recordings…

  504. FuzzieWuzzie

    Maeve, thank you. To post “copy” the URL (web address) and “paste” it to its own line in the comment box.

    Ellie, the last time Alte was here, about a month ago, all the boys piled on her. I felt sorry. This time, it was like she was being provacative for no purpose.

    Chris, NO ARMED FORCES???? Don’t get caught short like Canada did for WWI. Thaey had so much success in the War of 1812, that they thought they could just arm shopkeepers and farmers and send them off. For us, it was thirty days from enlistment to trenches.

  505. sunshinemary

    Sorry about the comments from Lolly, everyone. I approved one of her comments yesterday as an amusing example for readers but neglected to immediately put her on the moderated or banned lists. I’ve remedied that now.

  506. Jeremy

    Profanity has never bothered me. Cursing at the world in general is necessary, imo.

    Profanity in service to an argument, it’s like being proud of a tattoo on your face, and just as telling.

  507. Chris

    Fuzzie, yes, we have an army, navy and airforce. LIke Australia, professional and small forces.

    We have a 1200 mile moat from Australia. The Gruen Transfer thing is a partial joke. The real geopolitical risk is Indonesia invading Aussie.

    Vanessa was saying nothing new for her… normally she takes this and blogs, but she’s in the process of moving (I think) so TC is kind of semi-dormant before she has three strong coffees with her missal and a trenchant message…

    This clip is for the gun nuts.

  508. theshadowedknight

    Please tell me that her last comment was a response to me. I love doing that. Rape jokes; they will make you laugh, even if you do not want to.

    The Shadowed Knight

  509. FuzzieWuzzie

    Maeve, You’ll find it again and, when you do, please post.

    Chris, you’re a bit of a wag. I’ve discovered “The Arrogant Worms” on youtube. They’re Canadian and they make fun of their southern neighbors. You might enjoy, but I don’t dare post links.
    i liked the new rifle , but it’s not as sweet as one that I once owned. It was a Martini-Enfield carbine and took an obsolete cartridge-.445/.577. The date stamped was 1879. Wish I still had it.

  510. Ton

    Women are not moral agents. If they were, patriarchy would be unnecessary and feminism would be a smashing social success.

    Cannot see how a man could love an ugly woman, romantically speaking. Romantic love requires a boner, ugly don’t make penis wrinkles disappear

  511. sunshinemary

    @ TSK

    Rape jokes; they will make you laugh, even if you do not want to.

    Oh, I think what we need is for you to write a guest post on the benefits of curative rape in cases of terminal feminism. Because there just isn’t enough controversy on this blog. LOL Practically everyone loves me and finds my blog a calm, pleasant place to hang out, so you know, I’m sure that would go over well.

  512. FuzzieWuzzie

    SSM,
    In honor of your last tongue in cheek comment, I found an Arrogant Worm video suitable for Americans. For those of you who aren’t familiar with Canadian geography, Saskatchewan is landlocked.

  513. RichardP

    SSM has proven herself to be a bright, articulate, well-educated female. Given this, I can’t shake the notion that she knows what an excellent rhetorical device for sparking conversation it can be to present someone else’s words out-of-context. I’m torn between concluding that she presented Rollo’s words out of context on purpose or concluding that she really didn’t get what he said. In the end, it doesn’t matter to me (mostly), because she sparked a most excellent thread – in terms of the ideas discussed and what it displays about the differences in the way men and women think. I think that, with some careful editing, this thread would make an excellent book for young men and women on the cusp of entering adulthood. Real men and real women discussing their real live, using real words. Better, I think, than many of the books and videos prepared for young men and women purporting to help them get ready for adulthood.

    Different subject. These are rhetorical question(s) / comment(s), as I don’t expect SSM to respond. SSM has stated that she will not teach men (recently refrained from responding to a young man’s question about marriage). I (and I am sure others) want to know how women think about things. The only way I am going to know that is to hear an actual women express herself. I would love to have heard SSM respond on the order of – “if my son came to me with that question, I would likely respond in the following manner.” In this way you are not presuming to teach the young man, but we still get to hear your thoughts on the question asked. That approach could also be applied in other situations where you don’t want to appear to be teaching men.

    But more specifically, I imagine SSM’s reluctance to teach men stems from her understanding that men and women are different, that their brains work in different ways, and men and women think differently (ignoring Pauline doctrine here for the moment). I have heard SSM make comments to this effect enough that I was genuinely surprised to see how this thread started out – and that is why I can’t shake the feeling that SSM knew what she was doing, and was misrepresenting Rollo’s words as a rhetorical device. To think otherwise is to see SSM “teaching” Rollo something – which is something she has consistently said tries to avoid.

    At the top, SSM flat-out told Rollo – on a subject that is confined to men, and is something that SSM cannot possibly know anything about (the way a man’s mind works internally about what he wants/desires from a partner) – that he was wrong. And proceeded to encourage a conversation in which she and other women “taught” Rollo what he should have said instead (a “teaching” moment SSM has said she tries to avoid). SSM and all the women ( with the exception of an admirable few) were flat-out wrong in their responses. The responses were correct insofar as the comments were directed to how the women had reframed the issue. But they were wrong insofar as they were addressing the issue that Rollo actually raised. The comments couldn’t possibly have been correct. There is not a woman alive who knows what it is like to have a man’s thoughts, particularly about a partner who he will be sharing his worldly goods with. It was those thoughts that Rollo was addressing.directly.because he knows what they are.because they are thoughts he has had at one point, no doubt. Rollo’s point, stated repeatedly above: Women cannot love you the way you want them to (this has to do with men’s desires being out line, not women’s deficiencies). Because they can’t understand the sacrifices you are making in your own life to be with them (and if they could, their emotion would more properly be labled gratitude rather than love). I immediately got what Rollo was saying because I am a man and I know what issue he was addressing, from experience. I also immediately got that the comments from the ladies were absolutely correct and spot on as well – when applied to the issue they were discussing. Problem was/is – the issue(s) they were discussing is not the same issue Rollo was writing about.

    And that, I think, is why it is wise for women to not teach men about issues that concern men, as a general rule. One plus one will always equal two and I don’t think women can get it wrong if they teach that to men. But I think it is dangerous ground for a woman to think that she really knows what a man is thinking, such that she could offer him legitimate solutions to what is going on in his mind.

    Rollo’s subject was not about whether women can ever appreciate what men do for them. The fact that most of the female commenters here thought it was speaks volumes. At it’s most basic, they took something that was truely about men, and made it about themselves. And then used the reframe to bash the men with. It distresses me to think that SSM maybe didn’t intentionally misrepresent Rollo’s comments as a rhetorical device. I had thought better of her. But maybe she has proved the point with this thread (female solipsism). Sad day if that is the case.

    When men are addressing other men, ABOUT men issues, I think it is not useful for women to interject themselves. Because you can get into trouble assuming you understand what the issue actually is that men are raising with other men. This thread makes that clear. On the other hand, this was a absolutely fabulous discussion about the issues as reframed by the females. That is a serious comment.

    [ssm: Richard, this is a blog written by a woman for women. Your comment would make sense if I had gone on a manosphere site to "school" men, but I did no such thing. Furthermore, if you read my OP, the point was not to talk about how men's minds work or any other such thing. I was talking about women and the fact that they can love non-opportunistically.]

  514. theshadowedknight

    Actually, I do have a couple of ideas along that line of thinking. I could have one written up for you, if you like. Rape apologetics, in defense of forcible intercourse. I am sure we can have a calm and open conversation on the subject.

    The Shadowed Knight

    [ssm: Super! Just send it along by email. It'll give all the lonely feminists something to fantasize about.]

  515. Hannah

    @Deep Strength:
    :This entire argument is the same thing as women wanting to claim equality. Women are not equal to men in any sense of the word.”
    “Women cannot understand fully what it is to be a man because they are not men. Nor can men fully understand what it is to be a woman because they are not women.”

    Agreed.

    @Ellie:
    “respect means that I give weight to someone- to their thoughts and to their actions. It is a form of deference. I can’t give that to just anyone.”

    This is why you and I disagree. I believe we women ought to respect all men. In the ways that you describe – to give weight to their thoughts and to their actions. As a form of deference. Hence my previous suggestions in past posts that women ought to be submissive toward all men as the stronger sex.
    I also would include respect for Titus 2 women but this is most likely given the fact that they’ve gained their wisdom through men over their years, and are now able to pass that wisdom on to other females.

    It’s an interesting core point – and The Shadowed Knight’s most likely correct that I’m clumsily explaining it. But I do get it. My brother’s say that I can be inflammatory and perhaps that’s what’s happening here.

    Farm Boy and FuzzieWuzzie how about Bears and Bagpipes AND emoticons for the kill?! :)

  516. LeeLeeBug

    @SSM, Shadowed Knight

    You may look to comedian Sarah Silverman for a really introspective take on this, especially what she calls g-rape: the gray area where certain women aren’t sure they’ve been raped or not.

    Here is a You-Tube link to her act:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5IoKVHNXmI

    And the Huff Post take on it:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gina-barreca/post_4924_b_3396205.html

    I was listening to an NPR interview in which she was talking about her rape jokes recently and I almost laughed out loud picturing the face of the very liberal reporter doing the interview.

    Disclaimer: I don’t think that real rape is funny. It’s the most horrific crime that could happen to a woman. Sarah’s jokes are about the gray area that comes up fairly regularly on this blog.

  517. Zippy

    At it’s most basic, they took something that was truely about men, and made it about themselves.

    The statement

    “… men love idealistically, whereas women’s love is rooted in opportunism.”

    is, actually, a statement about both men and women; not just men. Men who claim to be logical, rational, etc really ought to be capable of seeing that.

    Furthermore, I would suggest that it is a histrionic statement; which ties back into my previous comments.

    [ssm: I'm really baffled by the repeated assertions that I have attempted to school men about men with this post. Is it not clear that my post is about women and the fact that women's love is not a priori rooted in opportunism? Why are so many men (with the exception of you and a few others) unable to grasp the very simple thing that I was trying to say in this post? It's like I inadvertently went against their religious beliefs or something. The vehemence of the response is strange.]

  518. Hannah

    Bluedog, Jeremy and RichardP have long comments well worth the read.

    I think there ought to be ‘MEN ONLY’! / ‘WOMEN STAY OUT!’/ signs up in some conversations where women learn in silence.
    Think of it like being a cocktail waitress at a men’s supper club :)
    Lucky us getting to overhear the discussion! More fool us trying to dissect their argument.

    Yeah I know my heirarchy notion isn’t wildly popular but think when we ladies are having coffee with one another and the children butt in we say “Not now sweetie – the adults are talking!”
    Further up the heirarchy, I believe the men ought to be able to say it to the women.
    Or even better – that we women just know our place in the first place!
    How pleasant :)

    [ssm: The problem here, Hannah, is that this is my blog. If I stay silent, it kinda sort doesn't work. They can have men-only conversations on men's blogs. The conversations here are and will remain mixed sex.]

  519. FuzzieWuzzie

    Hannah,
    I have a new weapon in my arsenal. These guys out of Canada are funny! But some of their stuff is so imflammatory to Americans that it could start a war.

  520. LeeLeeBug

    @Farmboy

    I’m not as black and white as some who post here. I do believe there are some gray areas, even when it comes to issues as serious as rape. An example would be if a woman is drunk and passes out at a frat party and a frat boy who hasn’t been drinking at all takes advantage of the situation and has sex with her. I think that would be rape b/c the woman didn’t give her consent.

    A non-gray area would be if a woman and a man are drinking and have consensual sex and the women wakes up the next morning and decides it’s rape. In my opinion it’s not.

  521. sunshinemary

    LLB

    I don’t think that real rape is funny. It’s the most horrific crime that could happen to a woman. Sarah’s jokes are about the gray area that comes up fairly regularly on this blog.

    Real rape, as in violent, forcible rape is terrible, but not for the reasons that people usually think. I actually think it’s the lasting physiological consequences of bonding to the rapist that do more damage than the fear component that comes from the assault. It’s just that people make such an insanely big deal about the fear consequences that it actually makes it worse for the raped woman.

    In terms of date rape, I doubt if it’s really even that bad of an experience, even if it was involuntary. No one dates someone they aren’t attracted to, so even if it was in the “criminal” area rather than in the “g-rape” area, it’s unlikely that it was such a devastatingly bad experience. Women just enjoy being victims because they get a lot of attention for it, that’s all.

    Judgy Bitch, with whom I do not always agree, has her own take on this:

    Is rape the worst thing that can happen to a woman? Why do so many “victims” collapse into sniveling bags of snot? Is it really that bad?

  522. Hannah

    LeeLeeBug – cute name! Glad you liked my 4 Point List :)

    Maeve – I’ll do my best! Certainly don’t want FuzzieWuzzie surrounded by empty wrappers of any kind!

  523. Hannah

    FuzzieWuzzie you asked us ladies a question earlier but I can’t recall it exactly… I know you’re trying to Bagpipe this thread to death but in the interim would you mind repeating the question please and thank you? :)

  524. theshadowedknight

    I have one response to anyone offended by rape jokes: it is a joke, not a dick; do not take it so hard. Speaking of which, what did Cinderella say when she got to the ball? Ghaaagh, uuurk.

    The Shadowed Knight

  525. RichardP

    SSM said: “Your comment would make sense if I had gone on a manosphere site to “school” men, but I did no such thing.”

    You started the thread by saying that what Rollo said was wrong. What does it matter that you said it on your site rather than his? My “comments” were more about a woman’s ability to understand what one man is saying to another, as evidenced by the comments in this thread. If you didn’t/couldn’t understand what Rollo said because it was man stuff that women don’t experience, your ability to understand (or not) will not change based on whether you comment on Rollo’s site or your site. So which site you made your comments on is irrelevant to my larger point. My comments about “schooling” men were a minor point – an afterthought in support of your stated desire to not teach men. To focus on the “schooling” issue misses the larger point I was making.

    I will say no more than that – lest I appear ungrateful for what you did in this thread. And I really am grateful for it. I have passed it on to several young people I know. I know they will not be the same for having read all of this.

  526. LeeLeeBug

    @hannah
    I think there ought to be ‘MEN ONLY’! / ‘WOMEN STAY OUT!’/ signs up in some conversations where women learn in silence.
    Think of it like being a cocktail waitress at a men’s supper club :)
    Lucky us getting to overhear the discussion! More fool us trying to dissect their argument.

    I agree that it is advantageous for men and women to learn in separate spheres.

    I sometimes lurk at manosphere blogs such as Dalrock, but I never comment. Instead I learn by reading the male comments there.

    By the same token, I feel that it’s easier for me to learn in women-only places. I often feel too intimidated to post on blogs when there’s a lot of co-ed interaction.

    For instance, last night you wrote an amazing post in which you spoke about your attraction to your husband and how being intimate with him on a daily basis has positively impacted your marriage. It made me recall something the Lord recently showed me about why it’s so important for women to strive to please their husbands sexually and why we should see this as an honor instead of a chore.

    I wanted to share it, but I was embarrassed b/c of the number of men posting comments on this thread. Sex is such a personal and sensitive subject, I’d feel more comfortable discussing it with women only. Plus, it’s not really information that men would benefit from.

  527. sunshinemary

    If it would be helpful LLB, I could open up a women-only thread and ask the gentlemen to refrain from commenting on it. Men are far less likely to insinuate themselves into an all-female space than women are into an all-male space, so I’m sure they would honor the request.

    Hannah, I don’t recall your comment off the top of my head, but if you wanted to turn it into a little guest post for me, I could put it up for the ladies to discuss. If you want to, just email it to me.

  528. FuzzieWuzzie

    Hannah, I found it! Had to go back to 3pm. “That leads to a question for the ladies: why do you have so much trouble understanding men? We consider ourselves to be pretty simple creatures.”
    Consider yourself special. You’re the only one who bit.

  529. Hannah

    Thanks for your encouragement and I agree with your thoughts LeeLeeBug – there are certainly modesty issues due to the co-ed factor which makes me refrain from saying more.
    I learn more due to the men’s presence, but share less.

    It’s a little like this scenario IRL… I’d never discuss childbirth with women in my husband’s company as his ears would be bleeding! I’ve shut down many a similar conversation out of respect for him. If other women wish to discuss such things around their men well that’s their decision but I would limit my words out of respect just in case the men actually DO react similarly to my husband but just don’t show it!
    That’s not to say I’m not interested in girly topics but feel strongly that there’s a time and a place.
    Something to consider…

  530. FuzzieWuzzie

    About rape, the one thing that I don’t hear mentioned is the tradional enhancement in punishment over assualt is that the crime could result in a child. Who would provide?
    Now that women have complete reproductive control post-conception, is this issue pertinent?

  531. LeeLeeBug

    SSM,
    Thanks. Don’t do it just for me, but I’d be happy to comment further if you start a women-only thread.

    Hannah,
    I’ve never talked about my childbirth experiences in mixed company, nor do I talk about PMS or periods, or the perimenopause symptoms I’ve experienced of late. Men really don’t want to hear about these things and I’d feel awkward regardless.

    I think it’s a shame that many people here in the U.S. don’t see the value in having men and women bonding separately. Tonight we had our weekly small group where we get together with a few other couples from our church for a potluck dinner followed by a Bible study.

    Afterward, the men went outside to see a shooting range that the host had set up on his property and to talk about the upcoming hunting season. My husband doesn’t shoot or hunt, but relishes guy-only time like this.

    Meanwhile, the women stayed inside and had a clothing swap where we traded gently-used clothes and enjoyed a pleasant conversation. Everyone had a great time and it was much more fun than if the husbands and wives had ended the evening hanging out together.

  532. FuzzieWuzzie

    For reasons LeeLeeBug mentioned, taking the post private might be best. Besides, there’s always going to someone who won’t read the road signs.

  533. LeeLeeBug

    @fuzzie
    About rape, the one thing that I don’t hear mentioned is the tradional enhancement in punishment over assualt is that the crime could result in a child. Who would provide?
    Now that women have complete reproductive control post-conception, is this issue pertinent?

    This issue has been in the national news recently:www.cnn.com/2012/08/22/opinion/prewitt-rapist-visitation…/index.html

    Apparently, there are some states where a rapist can sue for custody and/or visitation rights.

    My state Legislature is looking at this as well. It came up following a statuary rape case. At first lawmakers were universally in favor of a law that would prevent rapists for suing for visitation rights. After all, a rape victim who gets pregnant and bravely decides to bring the baby to term has suffered enough trauma.

    But, then someone made the point that a woman who got pregnant by a man she no longer wanted to have a connection with could lie and say that she had been raped to avoid sharing child custody. Now, the legislation is up in the air while lawmakers figure out how to put safeguards in place.

  534. Hannah

    @FuzzieWuzzie:
    “That leads to a question for the ladies: why do you have so much trouble understanding men? We consider ourselves to be pretty simple creatures.”

    Thanks for finding the question for me! Ok here’s my take:

    Women by and large have no regard for the differences of the sexes.
    We assume wrongly that you’re just the same as us. Then it really confuses/annoys/enrages us that you act differently than we would.
    Women try to make sense of males as just ‘females with penises’ – instead of recognising that you are wired completely differently.

    I’ve always figured I have a higher level of testosterone than most females which means I’ve had some awareness of the male thought pattern but even then it’s pretty rudimentary and shallow (the testosterone also has negative qualities for a female that I’m sure I’ve had to deal with!)
    Perhaps it’s not testosterone at all – but something makes me and the other women here in this sphere far more cognitively aware than the average female. Yet we still have difficulty understanding men. Because we’re not men!

    You say you’re simple creatures but you’re using your manly rational logical brain when you came up with that thought :)
    I don’t know much but I AM aware that you have something that I do not!
    The difference between feminists and me is that I’m ok about this fact :)

  535. FuzzieWuzzie

    Hannah,
    From my side, it is tough to second guess women. Maybe, the answer for that is more exposure? Thanks for answering.

  536. thehumanscorch

    @SSM
    I’m really baffled by the repeated assertions that I have attempted to school men about men with this post. Is it not clear that my post is about women and the fact that women’s love is not a priori rooted in opportunism? Why are so many men (with the exception of you and a few others) unable to grasp the very simple thing that I was trying to say in this post? It’s like I inadvertently went against their religious beliefs or something. The vehemence of the response is strange.

    No, it’s not strange to another man, I can explain it.
    The pushback that you’re seeing, that most of us have, is the deep seething resentment that men have at the need for Game. The hoops we have to jump through. The fact that we have to stay guarded and do so much to keep the sex flowing.
    The other part of it is the deep seated resentment that most men have over the fact that we need women sexually WAY more than they need us.
    Because of those two things alone, men get frustrated that we have to earn sex and respect all the time. That’s why the male dream of having an unconditional place to rest is so prevalent in so many men.
    Rollo will probably try to assert that that’s beta talk, but screw him, he’s not God. He didn’t invent men or life and doesn’t know everything about either. That’s weak-minded, claiming that anything that disagrees with him is by default wrong or less manly, or that racking up N’s is the measure of manhood(see Jesus Christ).
    So the passion you’ve unleashed SSM is directly related to the struck nerve of men having to face how hard we have to work and how truly conditional a woman’s love and respect are and how we deeply wish to GOD that they weren’t.

  537. Priya Mishra

    you haven’t proved that women are capable of love…..
    you are trying to prove that men are incapable of love based on an anecdote, really???……
    my and rollo’s premise is that that only men are capable of love but not women, it doesn’t assert that all men are capable of love but “only men are capable of it”.
    for example, at present only men can be navy SEALS , it doesn’t imply every man can be one of them……

    This post is a classical female post, make illogical assertions and then get other females to do STUPID victory dance……
    Forgive me if i offend you but you are a living example for validity of AWALT….

  538. katmandutu

    “I loved you first: but afterwards your love”
    By Christina Rossetti 1830–1894 Christina Rossetti

    “I loved you first: but afterwards your love
    Outsoaring mine, sang such a loftier song
    As drowned the friendly cooings of my dove.
    Which owes the other most? my love was long,
    And yours one moment seemed to wax more strong;
    I loved and guessed at you, you construed me
    And loved me for what might or might not be –
    Nay, weights and measures do us both a wrong.
    For verily love knows not ‘mine’ or ‘thine;’
    With separate ‘I’ and ‘thou’ free love has done,
    For one is both and both are one in love:
    Rich love knows nought of ‘thine that is not mine;’
    Both have the strength and both the length”

  539. Sarah's Daughter

    ssm: Well, you’ve increased it here a bit, haven’t you? Yesterday it was just love him, now it’s perfect obedience? Sometimes I don’t obey him though I should.

    Well, I guess it depends on how we define beta. I think of natural alphas as people who would never marry, so by virtue of being married, he can’t be a natural alpha, but he doesn’t do the things that you described as beta hardly ever. Maybe he feels those things, but if he does, he rarely mentions them to me. Fitness testing and all that is quashed immediately, usually by making a sexual comment to me. He jokingly treats me like I’m a dim-witted f-ck toy a lot of the time, and despite what feminists will say, I like that. But he’s quite capable of being serious with me when it’s needed, and we will sit down together in the evening and have really interesting conversations. But I don’t think these qualities make him a natural alpha, just a good husband. We were separated not because I no longer loved him or wanted him but because he wouldn’t stop sleeping with women that he worked with, had gone to school with, were my friends or coworkers, were his friends’ girlfriends, etc ad nauseum.

    But anyway, I just realized there was a time when my attraction to him suffered; when he became a Christian. I think I’ll write more about that in a separate post, though.]

    No, I didn’t increase it, I’ve maintained that it is because of the change in me (becoming obedient to God) that I love my husband – in a way that he receives it – without condition. Having analyzed when I didn’t love him that way prior to becoming obedient to God, I have realized the truth to what Rollo and Deti are saying.

    I can see how this might be difficult for you to understand. You fail to understand that your husband is a natural Alpha. Natural Alphas do marry and though they are rare I have known a few and have gotten to know a few natural Alphas who comment in the sphere. When they are not Christians, they are very selfish sexually and often cheat on their wives. Your husband’s natural abilities are the very thing game sites attempt to teach men. Natural alphas have a terrible time understanding men who are not naturals, their advice usually amounts to “just be a man…duh.”

    I remember you telling about when he first became a Christian and wore an unnatural mask of “Christian beta.” – So you do understand a little, the short lived time that he denied his natural way was the time your attraction to him faltered. I’m going out on a limb here and assume that he quickly learned that he could separate his sinful nature from his natural socio/sexual personality, that being a Christian in no way means being a mealy mouth man, in fact the more a man exhibits audacious authority, the likelier men will follow him to Christianity. (A natural Alpha who is not Christian possesses irrational self confidence and a bizarre self absorption).

    What you can’t imagine is being married to a man who’s natural socio/sexual personality is not to exhibit audacious authority – in fact, this looks like work to him, He is polite and kind and often too doting on how his wife is feeling. He is challenged by her fitness tests and doesn’t naturally know what to do with them. He treats her like a respected equal instead of a subordinate. He is a committed lover who worked hard to find and secure a wife and could not imagine being unfaithful (because he would have to work hard to find another woman to have sex with and out of the fear he lose his wife). He’ll endure long periods of time without sex because he doesn’t know that he could control the situation (with game). When these men first learn some game (observance of natural Alpha males’ behavior and the emulation of it), and see that his wife responds as was advised she would, he actually is a bit disgusted by this (some men stay perpetually disgusted by this). They come to take the red pill and come to know and fell precisely what Rollo and Deti are saying.

  540. Manlyman

    I don’t post much, but I do read every thread and generally agree with the general thrust of what’s written here despite not being of a religious bent.

    That said, this thread has proven one thing to me: No matter how red pill women claim to be, no matter how anti feminst they claim to be, they will still battle long and hard for team woman. Women cannot separate the personal from the political.

  541. Sarah's Daughter

    I appreciate that, Ton.
    It is because of a painful time of coming to understand my own nature that I’ve learned these things. Thankfully, the observances of manosphere writers and the honesty of a few women (*who were qualified to speak on the subject) I learned I am not alone, it isn’t just me who, without God, loves opportunistically, tends to be shallow in the relationship, fails to keep correct score of my husband’s sacrifices and fully appreciates him for it.

    *Stingray has been a huge help for me, not that other women don’t speak the truth as she does, I’ve just “known” her the longest and got to read her comments when I was going through that painful time.

  542. Ellie