No disclosure means divorce

Remember the dictum about never asking a woman for advice about women? This answer from Dear Prudence to a man who belatedly found out about his wife's sexual past is exhibit A.

Your wife violated two rules: One, she didn’t tell you when she should have told you. Two, when she told you, she told you too much.

But you now need to put what you’ve learned into perspective. You two have been together for five years, and you don’t indicate that during that time you have ever had cause to doubt your wife’s fidelity or her satisfaction with your sex life. I don’t know if meeting you was the turning point in her life, or if by the time she met you she had moved past her emotional problems and was ready for a more fulfilling relationship. Whatever it was, it’s clear that when you got together she was a different person from the one who sought out illicit and even degrading encounters. You must know that people do change and that many people are able to leave destructive habits behind for good.

Your wife was not obligated to spill all to you when you were courting. But at some point after you two became serious, she should have informed you to some degree about her past, enough to convey the salient point that she once went through a difficult period during which she “self-medicated” through sex. She could have mentioned that she’d slept with married men and been unfaithful in previous relationships without going into detail. It would have allowed you to have a sense of her past without having disturbing images seared in your mind.

What’s important now is for you to remember that your wife is the same person you’ve known for the past five years, and that there’s no reason this confession should cast a shadow on your good fortune at finding each other. It would be sad if her desire to have you understand her better leads to your loving her less. You just recently got this news and have understandably been ruminating on it. Now it’s time to stop. See if you can decide to push these thoughts out of your mind and make the choice to return to being grateful for your life together.

Notice that at no point does Dear Prudence say that the woman should have told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Being solipsistic, women are always eager to protect their ability to hide their own secrets from men. But the fact is that any woman who behaved like this because "she felt sad" is almost certainly going to do it again, particularly one who exhibited no respect for the institution of marriage when on the other side of it. They've only been married for two years, and it's quite obvious that the distressed gentleman is a Delta fall-back scenario for the woman; the fact that he feels "quite lucky" to have her suggests that she's the most attractive woman who has ever been nominally interested in him, or at least in a relationship that involves him supporting her. Imagine that.

It's true, people do change. But they change for the worse as well as the better, and the scenario he is in is so common that there is a name for it: Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks. It seldom ends well even when there is a considerably less sordid backstory. There is a good reason he's having trouble accepting the fact that he married under false pretenses; he should follow the lead of the gentleman who belatedly found out about his wife's college threesomes and Next her without looking back.

There will always be reasonable exceptions, but in general, young men should start expressing a firm No Disclosure Means Divorce policy, as this is the only way that women will begin coming clean and permitting men to make informed decisions with regards to whom they will or will not marry. In law, willful failure to fully disclose amounts to misrepresentation and is grounds for negating a contract, and the same principle obviously applies to marriage.

Wikipedia: Misrepresentation is a concept in the contract law of England and some other Commonwealth countries, referring to a false statement of fact made by one party to another party, which has the effect of inducing that party into the contract. For example, under certain circumstances, false statements or promises made by a seller of goods regarding the quality or nature of the product that the seller has may constitute misrepresentation. A finding of misrepresentation allows for a remedy of rescission and sometimes damages depending on the type of misrepresentation.

Read More

The past has consequences

Rollo astutely juxstaposes Sheryl Sandberg's advice for women to sow their wild oats with Alphas, then settle down with Deltas and Gammas afterwards with one woman's actual experience of having her past unexpectedly disclosed to her husband:

As of this morning, we still hadn’t slept in the same bed or spoken more than 10 words to each other in passing. As I was waking up, he was walking in the front door with two coffees. He sat me down at our kitchen table and finally opened up to me.

Basically he feels that he was “conned” (his word) into the marriage, saying that he wouldn’t have even dated me, let alone married me, if he’d known what he knows now. His view of me has been irreparably changed and he no longer sees me “as someone worthy of being [his] wife”. (quoting him here… fucking prick) Beyond the sexual aspect, he says he no longer trusts me because I “kept something this big” from him our whole relationship. Nothing I could do or say could convince him that these were past mistakes and not reflective of who I am today. He wasn’t angry with me, didn’t call me a slut or anything like that. Never once raised his voice. Part of me wishes he did, although I can’t exactly say why right now. It felt like I was being laid off from a job.

So that’s it. We are getting divorced. My supposed life-partner turning his back on me without a second thought. He didn’t even have the decency to discuss it with me first – apparently he visited his lawyer during the week and “the process is in motion” (his words). Knowing him, there is absolutely no changing his mind.

My husband owns multiple businesses and wouldn’t get married without a prenup. I signed it, honest-to-god thinking we’d never, EVER have to use it. Well, he had the fucking document with him this morning. He said he’d pay off the remainder of my student loans, which he isn’t “legally obligated” to do. While I appreciate that, I am going to meet with my lawyer this week and see if the agreement can be challenged in court. We have built a life together, I gave him 5 of the best years of my life and I’ve been 100% faithful to him – I don’t fucking deserve to be tossed out like a piece of trash.

So that’s it. My life turned upside-down in the span of a week, over something I did 10+ YEARS AGO BEFORE I EVEN KNEW HIM. It’s fucking asinine. The thing is, even as I wrote the original post, in the back of my mind I knew he was through with me. He’s ended friendships and business partnerships over less.

As Rollo points out: "One of the primary disconnects women are conditioned to believe during their Epiphany Phase is that a “good man” will be willing to forgive and forget her past indiscretions. On their journey of self-exploration and discovery women are encouraged to adopt a finely tuned cognitive dissonance with who they conveniently become and what should be the consequences of their pasts. While men are expected to live up to their responsibilities as men, and are expected to own up to the consequences of their failures, at the Epiphany Phase women are encouraged to convince themselves that they become someone else – someone who was “so different” from who she was in her Party Years. Her husband feels “conned” because he was conned; conned after discovering the dual personality of his pre and post Epiphany Phase wife."

It seems to me this gentleman was absolutely, if belatedly, correct about his wife's complete lack of character and he's doing the right thing by kicking her to the curb as quickly and cleanly as possible. Not only did she conceal her past from him, but now that she's been caught out, she's trying to figure out how to escape an arrangement she agreed to even though he's going beyond his legal obligations by paying off her student loans. (Is anyone even remotely surprised that a woman like this has debt?) Her Female Imperative of the right to historical revisionism and the lifestyle to which she has become accustomed has been violated, and rather than regretting her mistakes, she is enraged by the consequences of them.

Women always want to believe the past is irrelevant, which is remarkably stupid because the past informs who and what we are today. And those pasts can only be fully understood and accepted if they are admitted; lying about them is foolish because most lies are eventually exposed sooner or later over time. Not everyone is short-sighted enough to live only for today; most women don't want to be married to such men anyway since they tend to be unreliable and unable to support women and children.

Expecting any man who is sufficiently far-sighted to successfully launch multiple businesses and insist on a pre-nup to react like some drug-addled musician who can't remember yesterday or think past tomorrow is cognitive dissonance of the sort that gets Epiphany Phase women in trouble. If a woman is a slut in college, she's still a slut even when she cleans up her act, she's a reformed slut. Epiphany equals reform, not erasing history. A reformed slut is not the same thing as a woman who is not a slut. That doesn't mean the reformed slut can't be a lovely individual, or that she is a woman no man will marry, it simply means she can't marry any man who isn't willing to marry a slut. This isn't rocket science.

Once a gambler, always a gambler. Once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic. Once a player, always a player. Once a slut, always a slut. It's about the internal wiring, not the external actions. Even when one gets one's behavior under control, the wiring is still there.

And if the reformed slut does marry under false pretenses, she's a con artist, and she should be no more surprised when the man she conned no more wants to continue the marriage than Bernie Madoff's victims wanted to continue their investments with him.

Read More

Little girls need fathers

A woman who was raised by two mothers explains why girls need dads:

Heather Barwick, who was raised by her mother and her mother's lesbian partner, wrote in an essay this week that same-sex "marriage" is not the same as normal marriage between a man and a woman, that the traditional family is best, and that while growing up she "ached every day for a dad."

Heather Barwick, who was raised by her mother and her mother's lesbian partner, says "gay marriage" not only redefines marriage but also parenting and that "as a little girl, I so desperately wanted a daddy."

Barwick, who is 31 now, married, and has four children, said that "same-sex marriage and parenting withholds either a mother or father from a child while telling him or her that it doesn't matter. That it's all the same. But it's not."

"A lot of us, a lot of your kids, are hurting," wrote Barwick in her essay for The Federalist website. "My father's absence created a huge hole in me, and I ached every day for a dad. I loved my mom's partner, but another mom could never have replaced the father I lost."

"I grew up surrounded by women who said they didn’t need or want a man," said Barwick. "Yet, as a little girl, I so desperately wanted a daddy. It is a strange and confusing thing to walk around with this deep-down unquenchable ache for a father, for a man, in a community that says that men are unnecessary."

Ironically enough, it appears that her two mothers did a pretty good of raising her. She's married with four children by 31; many two-parent Christian homes can't say as much. But it would be foolish not to heed her words, and her warning.

Read More

#NotYourShoulder

Dalrock reminds men that their wives are not there for emotional support:

Imagine working for a small firm and having the boss/owner tell you all of his fears for the business.  If you are relying on that job to support your family this could very quickly become unsettling.  The same is true if your surgeon, dentist, or airline pilot doesn’t communicate confidence and a command of the situation.

Your wife (and even your girlfriend) wants you to be her rock, especially if her own emotions are storming over her.  This is a profound gift a husband can give his wife, and should not be seen as something negative.  A wife also relies on her husband for protection and financial support of the family.  For these reasons there is a limit as to what kinds of things and more importantly how, how much, and how often you talk about these things with your wife.  This isn’t because there is something wrong with women, it is due to the difference between men and women, and more importantly the nature of the roles of husband and wife.

However, this doesn’t mean you should shut her out when something is troubling you, it just means there is a balance.  Especially after you are married for a number of years, your wife will know when something is troubling you.  If you pretend that nothing is bothering you, or refuse to discuss it at all, this could be even more unsettling to her. 

Hiding your concerns is probably not a good idea, since she'll always pick up on your feelings and will likely imagine them to be worse than they are. But don't look to her for emotional support and a shoulder to cry on. She's looking at you to demonstrate that you are worthy of her reliance upon you. So be honest about the situation, but don't look to share your feelings or unburden yourself.

Your wife should be your cheerleader, not your therapist.

Read More

Dr. Helen on the Marriage Strike

I'm not particularly into watching videos, but this is an excellent panel being run by Dr. Helen. The perfect storm is a pretty good way to explain the reason for the rapid decline in the statistical rate of young men and women getting married. Vids and porn don't help, but notice that Matt Orr, the one millennial, immediately points out that the combination of witnessing previous generations ravaged by female-initiated divorce and a dreadful credit bust is much more important than vids and porn.

Whittle's evo-psych isn't relevant, but his point about the lack of incentive for men is. He also made a very good point about the superabundance of choice in modern society. And Klavan's statement that despite being happily married for many years, he would probably not get married today is particularly damning.

"All they really want is a man with a job," Dr. Helen says. But any man with a job is smart enough to not put his head into a divorce-rape trap. I particularly liked the way she pointed out the way that women are aggressively invading every male space and attempting to remake them to their liking.

Read More

Don't sweat "the turning"

BETA men worry far too much about keeping their unhappy wives. If what Rollo describes is what is happening to you, my advice is not to worry about it, but focus on easing her path out of the marriage in the least mutually destructive manner possible.

Once the first (and possibly second) child arrives, a woman’s order of intimate priorities changes, “turns” to that of the child. The sex “reward”, the ‘cookie time for good boy’, for desired behavior or performance ‘turns’ off, or sex is used as an intermittent reward for desired behavior (i.e. Choreplay). Sex becomes a utility; a positive reinforcer for her Beta increasing his provisioning capacity rather than the true visceral enjoyment she had with her past lovers.

This new functionality sex represents to a wife becomes ‘turning’ on her husband who believed he would always be her most intimate priority. In the instance of a woman marrying her ‘Alpha Provider’ this may in fact be the case, but as with the hierarchies of love that Alpha doesn’t have the same concern with, and didn’t marry his wife under the same pre-expectations a Beta does.

For the man who persists in his Beta mindset (or the guy who regresses into that mindset) this ‘turning’ becomes more and more pronounced. The turning comes out of the bedroom and into other aspects of their relationship – finances, familial ties, her expectations of his ambitiousness, his asserting himself at work or with their mutual friends – on more and more fronts he’s compared to other men and the ghosts of the Alphas she knows or has known.

Even though the Beta is aware his children are now his wife’s true priority, his Blue Pill conditioning still predisposes him to sacrifices. Again, he meets with ready-made social conventions that shame his discontent; “Is sex all that’s important to you?” It shouldn’t be, because it’s really “what’s on the inside that counts”, but he can’t shake the feeling he’s slipping out of her respect.

This is when Beta Dad doubles down. His Blue Pill expectations of himself require an all-consuming, self-sacrificing predisposition. The horse will work harder. His wife may have lost respect for him by this point, but his sense of honor and duty press him on. He doesn’t want to be like his oppressive or non-present father was. He wants to ‘out-support’ his father’s ghost, or what he believes ‘other guys’ would do when their marriages get tough.

So he waits it out, but she’s ‘turned’ on him by this point. It wasn’t planned, but all of his martyr-like determination only makes her that much more resentful for having settled on this Beta. After a certain stressing point, her disinterest or indignation goes even beyond his capacity to stay committed to a losing investment.

You can only control your own behavior. No one else's. If your wife is unhappy about the choice she made, if her children and friends and family and fun are her priorities and she wants out, then by all means, let her walk! Show her to the door with a smile!

There is a saying: if you love someone, set them free. You can't control her actions, much less her desires. You can't control the legal system. You can't control your feelings. You can't control anything except your own actions.

Ironically, the more willing you are to let her go, the less likely she is to actually continue down that road. With what is she actually threatening you anyhow? Doing whatever you want to do all the time instead of what she wants you to do? Being able to follow up on any indications of interest expressed by women who are half her age whenever you're so inclined? Do you genuinely think you're going to be able to spend LESS of your future income on things you want if she only gets HALF of it?

Do the math. Whether women control 73 percent or 85 percent of the household spending (depending upon which survey you prefer to credit), keeping only half your income amounts to an effective raise between 46 to 70 percent. Effectively tax-free too!

It suddenly doesn't sound so awful when you put it that way, does it. Remember, most men come out of the divorces that their wives sought happier and better off than they were before. Being around a miserable person who despises you and blames you for their various disappointments in life isn't a desirable state of being. You can't fix feelings, so don't even try.

It is wrong for men to walk out on their wives. There are egregious examples of the archetypical abandonment of women and children that has fueled the anti-male legal bias that exists today. But conversely, a man is not obliged to knock himself out in order to keep a miserable, self-destructive woman from imploding her life. Don't ever make any sacrifices for an angry, bitter, unappreciative woman. She will only despise you for it.

Read More

She's off the drugs and high on life!

I always find it amusing when newspapers and magazines run the "she shows  him what he's missing" angle after a celebrity couple breaks up or divorces. In terms of sheer idiocy, it's right up there with the conventional post-rehab angle:

For most couples caught up in a divorce the prospect of dividing the property or making arrangements for the children are more than enough to worry about. But for surprising numbers of British couples one seemingly unlikely expense is being viewed as an essential part of the separation process - plastic surgery.

Divorce lawyers have noticed a marked increase in separations involving significant expense on cosmetic surgery including cases where the wife spends a significant slice of the initial settlement on treatments such as liposuction and breast enhancements.

One such firm, JMW Solicitors, based in Manchester, says it now handles dozens of such cases every year. The firm, which handles about 300 separations annually, calculates that between five and 10 per cent of its caseload over the last three years involved cosmetic surgery. In most cases, it was seen as part of the process of making a new start, but in a handful the motivation appeared to be "revenge", Sam Hall, a partner in family law at the firm said.

My take on this sort of thing is straightforward. If a woman is more interested in improving her appearance in order to try to hurt you than please you, you should get down on your knees and thank God, whether you believe in him or not, that you are no longer tied to such a wretched, petty, short-sighted creature. And the same thing holds true for men.

I often wonder if men and women would put the same time and effort into their marriages that they do in seeking to improve themselves in order to find a replacement mate post-divorce, if more marriages wouldn't succeed in the first place.

Read More

Bride/First Mate vs Wife/Woman

Rational Male explains the danger in the attitudes behind certain forms of marital address:

Whenever I read or hear a man consistently refer to his wife as his “bride” it alerts me to his Blue Pill state of mind as well as his conditioning. This is a relatively new colloquialism for the Christian set (“christianese”). Generally I hear and read this from Evangelical Christian men because their context (or domain) is one of a self-enforced reverence for their wives. Usually it’s meant to be a not-so-veiled attempt at pedestalizing their wives in casual conversation with people they think will appreciate it (and hopefully earn cookie points with the wife), but what it reveals in my Red Pill lens is a guy who believes his “voluntary” deference to her makes him more respectable to her.

Before you think I’m unfairly highlighting “Christian Beta Game” there is a similar, but more pervasive dynamic in the married-man set of the manosphere. Whenever I read a man (I’ve never heard a guy verbalize this) refer to his wife as the “First Mate” or “First Officer” it similarly sets off the same sensitivity I get with the “brides” men – and for much of the same reasons.

Any man with a cursory experience in the manosphere recognizes this buzz-term from Athol Kay’s Married Man Sex Life. The principle of the term stems from the idea that a husband needs to be the ‘captain’ of his marriage, his family and the director and decision maker of where that unit will go, what their goals are, etc. On the face of it, this male headship positioning stresses what men (and wives) interpret as an old-order conventional complementarity between the sexes.

A strong male leadership role is very appealing to both men and women, and I’ll be the first to cosign the need for a man’s ‘captaincy’ as it were in his marriage and his life in general. This ‘Manning Up’ into a headship of his relationship hits the right buttons for a man predisposed to Beta complacency (not to mention it gives him a faint hope for resolving a sexless marriage), but also for women who are encouraged by the ‘new’ Alpha-ish husband they hope will take the lead (usually from her) and potentially generate the tingles he’s never quite been able to do for her.

Unfortunately, this push for ‘captaincy’ is self-defeated by the equalist-mindset compromise of allaying a woman’s inherent insecurities by giving her assurances that she will be the “first mate” in this new arrangement. Even in a position of instated headship (relinquished or otherwise), men predisposed to an egalitarian equalism still want to ‘play fair’ and offer an appeasement for being allowed to be the head of the home.

Her voice will be heard, her input will be considered, because he just “loves her that much”; this is the self-satisfying rationale for being allowed to direct the course of his marriage and family. The problems inherent in this are rooted in the compromise of his assuming all accountability for the failures of that arrangement while still granting her his magnanimous assurances that he’ll always have her best interests in mind.

I have much the same reaction that Rollo does to those two terms. Even worse, of course, is "Milady" or "My Lady" or "My Better Half" (oh, you rogue!) or "She Who Must Be Obeyed". But the problem with both "Bride" and "First Mate" is that they are terms which are chiefly meant to pedestalize (in the case of "bride") and appease (in the case of "first mate") women. Both are problematic in this regard.

How a man refers to his wife is a surprisingly significant indication of his level of control over the relationship. For example, what would be your reaction to a man who refers to his beaming wife as his "fucktoy"? Sure, you'd find him uncouth and appalling, but that alone would have the women around the happy couple either a) sexually melting or b) physically assaulting him. There would be no doubt at all about who was wearing the pants in that relationship. Better yet, imagine the consternation if she introduced herself as his fucktoy....

The converse is also true.

Men who habitually say "my wife" or "my woman" are intrinsically stronger in relationship terms because they are not concealing the possessive aspect of the male-female relationship. And remember, women desperately want to be possessed. They want to feel owned. Denying them that feeling makes them feel rejected and alone when it doesn't make them feel contempt for the man who does not have the strength to possess them.

Symbols matter. Titles matter. So sit at the head of the table, address your wife as "my wife", not some weaselly construction, and be the master of your house. Your wife will appreciate you all the more for it.

Read More

A lesson in what not to do

Translation: don't do this if you want grandchildren:

What, exactly does a man doing the dishes have to do with an ambitious woman? A study in the journal Psychological Science says that the way a father handles domestic duties can have a strong influence on girls' career aspirations. In the study, researchers analyzed 326 children aged 7-13 and at least one of their parents by calculating the division of chores and paid labor in each home, as well as attitudes towards gender and work. What they found was that even when fathers said they supported gender equality, if they retained a traditional division of labor at home (ie. women handling most of the housework), their daughters were more likely to aspire to traditionally female-dominant jobs.

A traditional division of labor isn't only solid economics, it is responsible, eucivic parenting.

Read More

Porn IS better than the average woman

I don't see what is so surprising about this study, let alone shocking. Women, on average, have gotten worse since 1970 in almost every possible way. Porn has gotten considerably better. Throw in the relative costs involved, and frankly, it's pretty damn hard to make any sort of rational secular case for women, let alone marriage, over porn, video games, and sports.

Pornography is replacing the desire among young men for marriage, according to a new study that finds males are chasing “low-cost sexual gratification” on the web over a wife and family. “Traditionally, one of the reasons to enter into a marriage was sexual gratification. But as options for sexual gratification outside of marriage have grown, the need for a marriage to serve this function is diminishing,” said the report....

Researchers analyzed data from 1,512 surveys completed by American men aged 18-35 between 2000-2004. What they found is that porn use makes marriage unappealing. The study is titled: “Are Pornography and Marriage Substitutes for Young Men?”

The researchers were interested in how declining marriage rates impact society and the economy. They said that “stable marriages create substantial welfare improvements for society, especially to the degree that marital stability produces high-quality children.”

Porn use, they said, can be credited with cutting the marriage rate. They cited statistics showing that men 25-34 are six times less likely to be married than the same age group was in 1970. They also found that divorce rates are twice what they were in 1950.

Women still have a tendency to think they're the only game in town and behave accordingly. But they're not. Men have always felt the call of the wild, but the combination of a good woman and societal pressure tended to overwhelm that. But when marriage increasingly looks like not having sex with an obese bitch who can rob you at any time, it's little wonder that more young men are opting for doing whatever they hell they want all the time for the rest of their lives instead.

It's idiotic to claim that porn is the problem. It's not the problem, it is the suboptimal solution to the real problem. The problem is that far too many women have been raised in a manner that renders them unattractive to the opposite sex and essentially unmarriageable. The boys always go where the attractive girls are. If they can't be bothered, that means the girls are insufficiently attractive.

Read More

Alpha Mail: Daughters of divorce

BL asks about the risks of divorced parents:

I have a question for Alpha Game that I would be interested in your thoughts on.  I think it is too politically incorrect to ask anyone else. I know that children of divorced parents have a higher chance of divorce. I was going to automatically eliminate all women who had divorced parents; however, I have been surprised at what a large percentage of women have divorced parents.  Would you recommend avoiding all women with divorced parents or what criterion would you judge them on?

A lot of women do have divorced parents and it is definitely a strike against them. However, not all divorces are created alike. I would consider divorced parents to be more of a yellow light than a red flag; it's important to learn why the parents are divorced, when the parents divorced, and what her relationships with her parents are like.

For example, my parents are divorced. But they divorced long after my formative years, when I was in my late thirties, after their marriage was subjected to extreme situational stress. So my upbringing, and my psychological attitude towards marriage and family, is more or less identical to the average individual whose family is intact. This sort of thing is going to be true of some women.

Other mitigating factors:

• A good, healthy relationship with a father or step-father
• A large extended family
• Genuine (as opposed to cultural) Christianity
• Young parents married out of necessity
• Strong traditional orientation
• High level of domestic skill 

Warning factors:

• Bitterness
• Feminism
• Anger at either parent
• Pride in mother's independence
• Promiscuity, drug use, or tattoos
• A tendency to be quarrelsome 
• Predilection for romance novels and emoporn movies

Divorced parents are not an absolute red flag because we are not our parents, they are an influence, not a causal factor. But one should be quicker to next a woman whose parents are divorced than one would normally be and one should refrain from giving them any additional benefit of the doubt.

Don't pay much attention to her asserted opinion of divorce, unless she is convinced it was a good thing. Most women will talk about divorce being A Bad Thing, but that has very little significance with regards to the likelihood of her following her parents' example.

Read More

Statistics and the slut

Forget the diseases, abortion, alpha widowhood, and walking baggage. Chief among the risks of marrying a well-used woman is a 4x greater chance of divorce.

Social conservatives are often described as hateful and misogynist for railing against promiscuity, but the statistics don’t lie. Marriages in which the wife was a virgin have an 80% chance of succeeding, while the figure for brides who have had 15 or more premarital partners is just 20%.

However, this strong correlation doesn't necessarily mean that the wife being a slut is a primary causal factor in divorce. It could merely be a symptom of higher rank men marrying younger, inxperienced women and lower value men "wifing up those sluts" and marrying older, more experienced women as so many are urging them to do.

But it is one HELL of a correlation.

Read More

A reasonable precedent

Automatically awarding custody to the father should be standard procedure any time the mother makes a false claim of child abuse during divorce proceedings:

A father has won custody of his daughter after his former partner falsely accused him of sexually abusing their child. The man was investigated by police and social workers after the woman said her daughter had made "disclosures of sexual abuse". But Judge Jane Miller has ruled that the girl, now nine, should live with her father after concluding the woman's allegations were untrue.

Divorces are ugly enough without women crying child abuse in order to get a more favorable settlement.

Read More

Dr. Helen, call your office

US marriage rates hit all-time low:

According to the latest available census data, the percentage of U.S. adults who have never been married has hit a new, all-time high.

In 1960, about one in ten adults over the age of 25 fell into that category.

By 2012, the number had jumped to one in five.

Combine disincentives to marry with incentives to not marry, and unsurprisingly, the result is half as much marriage. The solution is simple. End no-fault divorce. End asset-stripping. Ban the pill. Prosecute adultery and punish it with severe fines. Harshly slut-shame non-virginal women.

It will work. We know it works from history. But instead, societal decline, soft totalitarianism and feral children are preferred because women are short-sighted. Imagine what US society will be like when those rates fall to one in two.

Read More

Alpha Mail: Divorce in Italy

Hermit asks about the pressure to make divorce easier in Italy:

I have been reading your blogs for some months now. I would like to ask for your opinion on a matter that regards game and marriage but also the way leftism is changing society and relationship.

Until a few years ago I was an atheist, leftist, high IQ gamma and now I'm following a long march to fix everything in my life, for now with decent success. Everything started when I recovered my faith, I can actually relate to and confirm everything you said about many leftists atheists being feminized gamma males with lack of empathy and basic social skills.

While I eliminated almost all of my old readings, sometimes, living in a left-wing family, I still bump into their literature. Today I read a journalist on "Internazionale" answering to a reader about marriage. I would like to hear your opinion about this exchange, in particular about the final part and the mindset in a marriage relationship.

A female reader asked "I am divorcing from my husband; why it looks like the law, instead of helping us, makes everything even more difficult?"

The journalist replied: "According to ISTAT (italian institute of statistic) 49% of italian marriages end with divorce. But we continue to consider divorce as an unforseen event and we accept to embark into a slow, expensive and mentally tiring proceeding. We see divorce as an exception without realizing that now is the rule. Like it or not, divorces are very common and the proposals of reform on "fast divorce" are a legitimate way to be more pragmatic and let many italians spare sorrow and money. But as usual the loud screams of the "paladins of family" succeeds in distracting politics from the reality of facts. Years ago I've heard a swiss female sociologist propose temporary marriage terms that had to be renewed after ten years. If the marriage isn't renewed it is considered to be immediately null without any additional slow bureaucratic procedure and expensive lawyers. I'm amused to think how the dynamics of the couple would change in the year of the renew: maybe many would be motivated (or forced) to regain the momentum and bring out the best of themselves to be reconfirmed by the spouse."

The law is intended to make divorce difficult. It's not supposed to be easy, in fact, from a Christian perspective, it should be impossible barring physical adultery on the part of either the husband or the wife.

But in today's post-Catholic Italian society, pragmatism and deference to the short-sighted female perspective triumphs over all, as it does throughout most of the post-Christian West. This is no surprise, it was inevitable once the voting franchise was granted to women, and we are still experiencing the inevitable consequences of those decisions.

What is presently called "marriage" is the law's mockery of the institution. Not only because the State now increasingly permits male and female couples to pretend to be "married", but because what the State puts together, it most certainly can put asunder whenever it wants. So, there is no reason whatsoever to attempt to protect the State's legal parody of marriage or care what mutated form it eventually takes, except in that it will likely be used to further strip resources from men and transfer them to women.

Read More

Be yourself

A light bulb goes off for a commenter at Rollo's place:

I think I get it!

For years I have been bitter about this need to “perform” about how this shows that women do not love us as we love etc.. And just now I was reviewing my old relationships and I recalled something.

In each of my relationships, prior to meeting the women I eventually fell in love with, I was constantly working on myself, I would get in shape, hang out with friends, explore my environment and work on myself and my music etc. As soon as I would “fall in love” I would slowly drop those activities, I’d focus on being a good bf, I would focus on providing and “being what she wanted” what I thought she wanted, better said.

But here is my Eureka moment, what I recalled each time was being unhappy, what I recall each time was feeling boxed in and kind of dull.. of feeling trapped.

Is this what Rollo means when he says our response to women is a conditioning, and that the sadness we get from Red Pill truth is the result of behaving and believing something that is not really our nature, but the result of having someone else’s behaviors and beliefs installed into us?

So I think I finally understand it for myself… the talk of putting yourself first, of “performing” etc is really just a way of saying “you don’t have to do what people say you’re supposed to do in a relationship – you don’t have to drop everything for her, you don’t have to stop doing what you like and love and you don’t have to kiss her ass”

Be the man that attracted her in the first place, not the mythical man you think she might be idealizing. Every time I get away from who I am and what I do, not only do I end up feeling out of sorts and discontented, but usually things don't go as smoothly in my family life.

A marital relationship with a woman should be a capstone on your self-determined identity forged over the years, not a complete transformation of your being. The more you attempt to turn yourself into some sort of nebulous Husband or Father figure, the less you will be yourself. And you are precisely what she was drawn to in the first place! So focus on being that guy, not some figment of your interpretation of her imagination.

"Be yourself" is terrible advice for men who are failing to attract women. But it is very good advice for men who have proven themselves to be attractive to women.

Read More

The perils of a generous heart

Women admire generosity in men, right up to the point that it negatively affects their own lives:

A multi-millionaire who gave away £16million to help cancer patients after his wife survived the disease has ended up losing his home, possessions and even his spouse.

Brian Burnie, who owns a recruitment business, paid for his wife Shirley's treatment when she was diagnosed with breast cancer, and became so inspired he devoted his life to helping other sufferers.

But after selling the family home, cars and possessions, the couple have divorced as Mrs Burnie reveals she could no longer put up with her husband's generosity.

Shirley and Brian Burnie divorced in 2012 after the 70-year-old businessman sold their 10-acre estate and all of their belongings when his wife was given the all-clear from breast cancer

Speaking for the first time since their 2012 split, Mrs Burnie told the Sunday Mirror: 'I didn't want to give everything away. I wanted security for us and our family.'

There are few things I find as annoying as women's charity with the money their husbands make. The fact that it is a form of conspicuous consumption rather than genuine charity couldn't be more obvious when it comes to their reluctance to doing the same with the money they earn themselves, or the money that they thought was going to provide them security.

You can't really blame the woman for not being happy with her husband giving away his wealth, on the other hand, it underlines that while he may have signed up for the "sickness or in health", she didn't sign up for "poverty or in wealth".

Read More

Start sooner

It's a good thought, but in reality, young women should start prioritizing family over career no later than 25:

'When you're in your twenties, everything is about you. But when you enter your thirties, your world then begins to centre around your family.

'I know I said in the past that I was putting my career first, but when you reach your thirties, things change.

‘You get to a point where you seriously have to think about choosing between work and having babies.

Still, it's interesting to see that the younger actresses putting their careers on hold instead of working, remaining single, then adopting an token African child-substitute in their mid-40s as their predecessors are doing. One has to suspect there may be a connection between the two things.

Read More

Ghosts of the Alpha Widow

Alpha Widowhood is a description of an observed behavior, not a cruel invention of the Game theoreticians meant to plague BETA husbands and give them sleepless nights:

Steve has been with me for the past 50 years and Ron for 47. Neither is the man I am married to, nor have I seen or spoken to either since our love affairs ended in my 20s. All the same, there is no denying they have both messed with my marriage to Olly, the man who has been by my side for the past 40 years.

I found myself thinking about them both as I read recent research that suggested women who played the field before marriage are unhappier with their lot than those who entered matrimony virginal.
Angela Neustatter has often questioned what life would have been like had she married another man

Angela Neustatter has often questioned what life would have been like had she married another man

My first reaction was: why on earth would that be? I have always believed a bit of experience, in both love and sex, to be an asset to understanding what we really want when selecting a partner for life.

Having no history to draw on — settling down with no idea what else the world has to offer — seems a recipe for disaster, not satisfaction.

And yet there is no denying that my past lovers have made their presence felt in my marriage — at times, even making me question my commitment....

[W]omen, far more than men, according to Susan Nolen-Hoeksema, Yale psychologist and author of Women Who Think Too Much, are likely to find themselves ruminating on how life might have panned out with the past loves that seemed so magical in their time. Whether the thrill might have endured and could have made for an infinitely more satisfying relationship than the one we have now.

These fantasies, as I see it, are like powerful ghosts, haunting the darker recesses of our psyche, ready to swoop in and cause trouble, when given the chance.

Certainly, my marriage became crowded with ghosts when, after my first decade with Olly, the little things that had once been no more than niggles began to take on greater significance.

Note that Alpha Widowhood is not primarily about sex, although that is where the ghosts of Alphas past are formed. Even after 40 years of marriage, the woman is still hooked on the memories of the two men in particular who made an impression on her sexual psyche; it's not even a little surprising that one of them dumped her because he found "fidelity too hard". She pines for that long-gone Alpha buzz.

And observe that it is obviously not male insecurity that is to blame when women are literally questioning their multi-decade commitments to their husbands due to their past sexual experience. The simple and observable fact is that sexual experienced women find it harder to bond to their husbands and to live up to their marital commitments. This doesn't mean it is impossible for them to do either, only that it is a material challenge that has to be recognized and surmounted by both parties, particularly the wife.

As for those who would prefer to remain in ignorance, recall that it is always considerably easier to surmount a challenge that one knows is there.

Read More

Why low-N matters

Alpha widows don't know they're widowed:

This goes against the premise of every single romance novel, but you’re not going to marry the best sex of your life. At least, not if you’re like most women. According to a recent study by iVillage, less than half of wedded women married the person who was the best sex of their lives (52 percent say that was an ex.) In fact, 66 percent would rather read a book, watch a movie or take a nap than sleep with a spouse.

Amanda Chatel, a 33-year-old writer from the East Village, says, “With the men I’ve loved, the sex has been good, sometimes great, but never ‘best.’ It’s resulted in many orgasms and was fun but, comparatively speaking, it didn’t have that intensity that comes with the ‘best’ sex.

“I knew [my best sex partner] was temporary, and so the great sex was the best because the sex was the relationship,” she adds. “We didn’t have to invest in anything else.”

Just what every man wants to hear from his wife, I suppose. "You're not bad, darling, but you just can't compare to that drunk guy who ravished me in bathroom of that nightclub."

This also explains why higher N is less of a problem for Alphas. Even if she's experienced, she's less likely to be pining for his predecessors.

Read More