Red Pill Marriage: Romance Is A Verb

There have been some murmurings around the Manosphere about the conundrum of Romance in a Post-Red Pill relationship.  The argument on the one side is that Romance is blue-pill propaganda designed to obfuscated the stark, cold reality of male/female intersexual relations and our respective reproductive strategies.  The other side says that the Red Pill simply means a re-definition of romance.

This should not be an issue, but I understand why it is for many men. You see, I'm a die-hard romantic, and one of the hardest things I had to do was rectify my new Red Pill perspective with my innate desire to pursue romance.  I like romance.  I'm a writer, it's kind of my bread-and-butter.

The problem is that most men have an imperfect understanding of "romance" in the truest sense.  Like "chivalry", the term is oft-misused, sometimes damnably so.  For our purposes, consider "romance" to be the cultural context surrounding the desire and attraction involved in mating.

Undoubtedly there are those who will take issue of such an unromantic definition of romance.  But that's what the Red Pill truth is. Game is Romance.  Of course, the flirtation and infatuation implicit in Single Game is usually what is meant by the term -- a cursory inspection of romance literature will reveal a poverty of married heroines -- and almost always, culturally speaking, our common conceptions of romance are wrapped around the rituals and enterprises associated with that electrifying first meeting.

If one were to distill the impulse for middle-aged women to read romance novels like teenage boys watch porn, then one could reasonably draw the conclusion that their addiction is to the novelty of the infatuation experience.  That also explains why a woman's devotion to romance literature is usually in inverse proportion to her happiness with any given long term relationship.

But if Game Is Romance, then Married Game must have -- and does have -- a romantic component.  Indeed, it is essential for the satisfying and nourishing fulfillment of a long-term committed relationship.

 Mating without romance is possible, and it's done all too often, but it is an imperfect and unfulfilled expression of the art.  Married couples in a "sexless relationship" are watching their marriage die as much due to the lack of cultural context to provide meaning, structure, and enjoyment to their mating as lack of physical sex.

What the Red Pill man must understand, if he is to have a successful Red Pill marriage, is that romance is the essential lubrication that eases the emotional communication involved in mating.  Married Game-style romance involves dating your wife (see my Red Pill Date series for details), understanding and communicating with your wife, and -- perhaps most importantly of all -- enjoying your wife.

Enjoying her company.  Enjoying her conversation.  Enjoying hearing her perspective and engaging her intellectually and emotinoally.  Looking forward to seeing her at the end of the day and appreciating seeing her as the first thing you see every morning.  Enjoying your sexual relationship.  Enjoying your cultural relationship.  Enjoying those interests you have in common and appreciating those interests you have separately.

Romance is how you do that. It's how you build attraction that culminates in sex, and sustain attraction through those times when stress and real life make sustaining attraction (or even finding the time to indulge in attraction) challenging.  Romance is what you do to engage your spouse's passion.  People aren't romantic.  People do romantic things.

Think of it this way: Romance is a verb. It is something you do.

Just about all of the Alpha Displays I've discussed are romantic in nature, even if they are subtle.  When a man displays a dominant presentation to his wife, demonstrating his value as a partner, and projecting the confidence and desire he feels for his woman, he is being romantic whether he understands it or not.

When a woman indulges in an Alpha Display and invites a man's attention through her presentation, she is being romantic whether she knows it or not.  Romance is the expression of your desire and attraction in a manner in which your partner understands and appreciates it.

That means that romance occurs as the common denominator between the two of you.  Romance is your mutual cultural context for mating.

While you might think waving your penis in her face is romantic, unless she understands it for the sincere symbol of desire and attraction that it is (and, let's face it, that's highly unlikely), it ain't romantic.  While she might see buying you three new shirts and two new sets of underwear as a heartfelt demonstration of her attraction and desire for you, unless you really understand what that symbol means, you just got new underwear.  It ain't romance.  

Of course, everyone wants to be able to experience that first blush of infatuation again -- that's why both men and women crave novelty in their relationships.  It's Nature's way of keeping things interesting.  Romance, in a Red Pill relationship, should ideally be a way to revisit that delightful sensation through novel experience . . . or re-investing old experience with new meaning.  In a Red Pill marriage, romance should be a reflection of the enjoyment that has gone before coupled with the stability and emotional security you have mutually established, and charged with a jolt of novel experience to re-invigorate the feeling.

Going to the same old place for dinner on date night is moderately romantic.  Going to the same old place for dinner on date night . . . dressed as if you were going to prom is romantic.

Getting her flowers "just because" is low-level romantic.  Getting her an exotic orchid you grew yourself in secret is much more romantic.

Giving him a note saying "I Love You!" in his lunch is low-level romantic.  Giving him a note that says "I Love You!  Skip lunch and meet me in the parking lot!" is much, much more romantic.

And that brings us to an important point: ladies, to dudes, sex IS romantic.  That becomes harder to pull off the longer your acquaintance, as the desire for novelty and the familiarity with your partner make it difficult to turn "boring married people sex" into something exciting enough to be romantic.

There's an unfortunate willingness to separate sex and romance in marriage as women get comfortable with their husbands.  A man with enough ALPHA is going to find this distressing and up his dominance to counter -- which means upping his game, and increasing her excitement level.

But the poor dude who's mired in BETAland is going to think that Romance is the same thing as Ass Kissing. He's going to make the tragic mistake in thinking that if he just gives a woman what she says she wants, she's going to reward him with her love, affection, and sexuality out of pure gratitude.

He doesn't understand that the vibrant, ALPHA component of sexual dominance MUST BE present, that the spark of excitement and novelty necessary to re-awaken those feelings of infatuation, no matter how many times she's backed over them,  MUST BE engaged if you want to engage her feelings of romance.

In short, you can't be a romantic pussy.  Real romance, in a Red Pill marriage, requires thoughtful consideration, understanding, and a willingness to dare to push the emotional and physical boundaries of your relationship. It's part of the years-long subtextual conversation you and your spouse enjoy -- and you had better be enjoying it -- and the need and desire for this context doesn't go away over time.

Your wife won't suddenly decide she doesn't need to be flattered and complimented any more when she's 40 -- quite the contrary.  Your husband isn't likely to decide that exciting, exotic sex is just too adolescent for a man of his maturity.  Nothing could be further from the truth. You both want passion, excitement, and enthusiasm to compliment your stability, commitment, and security.  You both want romance -- sexually charged, lust-building, will-be-thinking-about-it-when-I-masturbate-later ROMANCE -- in your life.

All you have to do is make it happen.

It may be helpful to think of it this way: Romance, in a Red Pill marriage, is that cultural context that makes your spouse feel loved, cherished, appreciated, and genuinely excited about still being with you.  Do those things, whether it's a love sonnet or a blowjob, and you will be tapping into the vital vein of romance you desire.

Romance is a verb.  Go do some.

Wife Test: Red Pill Alerts

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

A Failure To Communicate

I got this comment on my blog recently, and after a lot of thought I decided it deserved its own post.  Since I'm slowly breaking out of my summer hiatus (don't worry -- I haven't been sitting on my ass eating bon-bons, I've been writing 15-20k word a day) I thought this would be a good way to ease back into more regular blog posts. So, let's begin:

I'm a late 20's woman, in a very young relationship (under 2 years). In reading this post and thinking back to things my bf has said, I can see now that this communication "disparity" you explained is a problem present in our relationship. 

It is leading me to feel unappreciated, and though I know there will be phases like this from time to time, this feeling shouldn't be as pervasive as it has been for me. 

The thing that gets me about this post is that you're saying men aren't aware of these "other channels" of communication....yet you are describing an awareness of them very articulately in this post. My bf has stated things or responded to nonverbal cues enough for me to know that he is aware of more than one layer of communication when we're talking with each other.

OK, so far this is fairly straight-forward: the lady has recognized the problem of a communication discrepancy in her relationship and acknowledges that it's causing problems - at least on her end.

But there are a few errors in perception that the commenter makes that I'd like to point out.  First, the fact that I, a 45 year old man who has been on a solid Red Pill diet for a few years is aware of the role subtextual communication plays and your 20-something boyfriend is not shouldn't surprise you.  Expecting a man to understand that before he even understands his own sexuality is a stretch, and one that assumes far too much about men and how they communicate.  Just because he has responded to nonverbal cues doesn't mean he's aware of them . . . or understands them in context.

It's one thing if a person is unable to understand or is unaware of these other channels, and quite another for a person to have awareness and just choose to ignore it or tune it out. In my experience the latter is what a lot of men do. 

Uh . . . no.  Again, you are assuming that your boyfriend is both aware and able to understand these channels like a woman does, and that's as unfair as assuming you know who's in the World Series this year just because you went to a baseball game once.  He might be vaguely aware of them, but he doesn't understand them and he's not cluing in to them the way . . . well, the way one of your girlfriends would.  Your dismissal of his lack of understanding as him "choosing to ignore" it is as unfair of you as it would be of him if he looked at you like an idiot when you didn't know who was playing in the World Series.

You are expecting him to react to your non-verbal cues as a woman would.  That's just wrong of you to expect.  Let's examine the next part, and I'll show you why.

I find it insulting on my part to assume that a man can't understand what I say if I don't put it in words. 

Let's look at that again: "I find it insulting . . . if a man can't understand what I say . . . if I don't put it into words."

There's a cognitive disconnect here that underlies most couple's failure to communicate effectively.  You are expecting him to understand what you're saying . . . when you aren't saying it.  Essentially, you are asking your boyfriend to read your mind.  And then getting pissed off when he doesn't.

Would you be willing to subject yourself to that same pattern?  Should he find it insulting if you don't understand everything he doesn't say?  Think about that.

Because men are intelligent too, and most have plenty of social and emotional intelligence, more than enough to pick up on all that women are communicating when they're conversing with them. A prime example of this is when a man pisses his woman off, and even if she hasn't said anything, the man knows when she's mad, knows he's "in trouble", and gets proactive about trying to fix the situation. 

And here is where you are utterly off-base - not about how most men react to a woman being pissed off, but about their understanding and motivations.

Men can tell a woman is upset if she's not saying anything, but that doesn't mean he knows the details.  It's a common danger sign, and we know it: when you stop using your big-girl words, we know you're pissed off.  But a man in this situation isn't being "proactive", as much as you'd like to think that.  He's being reactive . . . and he's guessing.  Let's see how you view his "proactive" approach to a woman being pissed off at him:

The man starts cleaning up around the house, or buys the woman flowers, or tries to treat/appease her in some way, even though she never said she was mad. If she didn't say anything, how'd the guy know to take action? He knew because he understood the non-verbal communication. So guys know how to read more than one method of communication......they just pick and choose when to act on that awareness. 

If he's running a BETA program, sure.  Let's assume he's not a Red Pill dude, for a moment.  And then let's follow your logic: So that means that because you've seen a baseball game, and know you're supposed to cheer when everyone else stands up and cheers, that you understand the subtleties of the infield fly rule and the designated hitter issue, right?  Really?  Or are you just standing up because you see everyone else do it and you think that's the proper response?  

That's the difference between "proactive" and "reactive".  More, it demonstrates an appalling lack of understanding about how men communicate.  Men are far less contextually-dependent in communication, and rely far more on, y'know, actual words.  Words that mean things.  In and of themselves, without layers of context that add noise to the signal-to-noise ratio.  Because your silence may mean you're pissed off, and he might get that, but since you haven't given him any other real data he's going to flail around trying to figure out what got sand in your vagina this month.  

You could just tell him, get it out in the open, and discuss it.  But then your house wouldn't get cleaned and your vanity wouldn't be flattered with flowers.  And you would feel like he "failed", if he doesn't figure out your subtle cues on his own -- he would if he loved you, right?

(That's the moral equivalent of the dude who's upset because his woman still doesn't sleep with him when he knows she knows just how badly he wants it . . . you'd do it if you really loved him, right?  That's what's going through a dude's head, even though you may have a thousand legitimate reasons for not wanting to have sex.  Fair?  No, of course not.  But it's the same level of un-fair as you are putting on him with this complaint.)

So instead of just saying "hey, you fucked up and forgot X", you sit back, stay silent, and let him emotionally twist in the wind without additional input, waiting for him to read your fucking mind about what is bothering you . . . because you'd rather use a female mode of communication (non-verbal) that doesn't give him the data he needs.  Because when it comes to relationships, women find the ability to screw with a dude's head by making him guess and act like an idiot terribly empowering.  

Why?  It's a shit test.  If the dude can read your mind and know why you're mad, he must somehow be more "in touch" with you . . . which is bullshit.  Your subtle silence and non-verbal communication might be great for a conversation over Sunday brunch with the girls, but when it comes to your relationship you are purposefully communicating with your man for the purpose of putting him at a disadvantage. You are giving him a test you know he'll get wrong.  You are screaming at him in a language he does not know, and then getting angry at him for not knowing it.  He might know it exists, like I know Mandarin exists, but that doesn't mean he understands it or knows how to speak it. 

And you know this.  Coming right out and telling him unambiguously means (in estrogenland) that you have FAILED, because he didn't read your mind the way he would if he truly loved you.  The problem is, if he could handle the non-verbal communication you are throwing at him at a conscious level, then he'd be a great girlfriend for you, not a good boyfriend.  You are holding his masculinity against him and punishing him for not knowing.  It's unfair and myopic of you.

It's unfair for you to put down women for how they communicate when as men you can understand those multiple channels and just choose not to expend the effort to communicate in that way/those ways. 

Firstly, I'm not putting down women for how they communicate.  I'm calling out women who, like you, are under the impression that awareness means understanding, and lack of understanding means willful ignorance and deliberate rudeness.  Men do not communicate in a multi-channel system.  They are "WYSIWYG", and all of your wishes to the contrary won't change that.  Assuming he's being willfully rude by ignoring you is actually you being willing to be pissed off at your man because he's a man, and he's acting like a man, and nothing less.  

If I'm misunderstanding something about the communication thing you explained, I'd really appreciate you clarifying that misunderstanding for me. I want to be fair to my boyfriend - he is wonderful in many ways and I voice my appreciation for what he does as often as possible. 

Do you?  Or do you just believe you do?

I'm not being facetious, here, or purposefully insulting.  I'm calling this out because plenty of women feel that they are being "fair" to their men, when they are not.  Plenty of women feel that they "voice their appreciation in many ways", but the fact is men only know a few ways to communicate, and if you aren't on that wavelength then your appreciation is missing him as much as a love poem in Mandarin would.  

Men understand straight-up words: "I appreciate you doing that for me, thank you, that was very thoughtful," and men understand actions: dropping to your knees and worshiping him, for instance.  Men do not understand how you telling your sister what a wonderful guy he is on the phone because she's in a bad relationship and you aren't is "appreciation".  To us, it sounds like bragging, pure and simple.  The fact that I understand that that's how women voice their appreciation doesn't help -- I'm exceptional.  The poor schlub you're with certainly doesn't, and even if he was aware, he would not be understanding.  Why?  Because he's a dude.  Which, apparently, you aren't happy with:

But there are a lot of times when he pulls this "I don't understand what you're saying because I'm a guy" crap on me. I'm trying to understand if he's really incapable of understanding or just choosing not to. I have more evidence of the latter than the former and your post just reinforces the latter. In which case...my bf's only half listening when it's convenient for him, and why shouldn't I feel unappreciated when someone's choosing not to invest the effort to listen to me? 

Actually, I think you probably think you have more evidence, but when examined from an objective and impartial perspective you probably would find that he really is incapable of (or at least unfamiliar and likely uninterested in) your non-verbal communication.  And since you are using it to compel him to read your mind (read: guess about your feelings until he gets it right or you give up and actually speak real words to him on the subject) he sees it far more as manipulation, not communication.  

And this is where you start to fuck up your relationship, like so many women do.  Because they're in relationships with men, and "only half listening" means that they are, indeed, being men and communicating like men, not paying attention to the thousand subtle clues, cues and context-dependent hints you enrich your communication with like your girlfriends do.  

So go ahead and feel "unappreciated" because your dude isn't a woman.  When a woman feels unappreciated, she issues shit tests to force a man to "appreciate" her.  And when you issue shit tests, the only valid way for a man to respond is to ignore them . . . which is what you're complaining about.  If you continue to feel "unappreciated" enough, you'll talk yourself out of the relationship . . . or he'll find a less complicated, less demanding, more understanding girl.  

And then you can turn instead to the thousands and thousands of men who are sensitive enough to understand your subtextual cues . . . and like dick as much as you do, if not more.

(Actually, I have to re-state that: most gay men in relationships communicate like men do, not like women, in my experience.  Despite the stereotypes, the rank-and-file gay relationships I am familiar with tend to be far more signal-focused than female communication.  While a few gay men do, indeed, understand the female art of subtextual communication implicitly, they also understand why it's utterly lost on even most gay men.  And why most men, even gay men, see it as "manipulative".)