Friday, September 27, 2013

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.

Thursday, September 12, 2013

Wife Test: Red Pill Alerts

Fellas, when you're considering a relationship -- or hell, even a quickie behind the bar -- with a woman, it is wise to know at least something about her attitudes towards men and relationships and love in general. But dudes have an uncanny tendency to overlook important warning signs that a relationship with a particular woman might give you because you're too busy staring at her boobs.

I know.  Boobs.

If finding a good Mrs. is important to you, though, then sifting out the wheat from the chaff is essential, and identifying potential relationship disasters before they happen is vital, no matter how big the rack.  And if you aren't inclined to search for a foreign bride from a more traditionally-minded country, then pay careful attention to these key phrases and actions.  Consider them Red Pill Alerts.  When you hear them, they are indicators of red flags that should give you pause.

1.  "Rape Culture"

If a woman uses this term in casual conversation, end the conversation at the earliest possible moment and do your best to avoid her in the future.  This phrase is used as a blanket term by feminism for describing all male sexuality, far in excess of the actual crime of rape.  Use of this term indicates that a woman is suspicious and fearful of male sexuality, even if she finds herself attracted to it.  That's not to say that women who use the term aren't themselves drawn to strong male sexual displays, despite their political protests to the contrary, but it is also indicative of her level of respect for male sexuality in general.

Porn is "rape culture" to these women.  So is the music video and lyrics for this summer's pop R&B hit "Blurred Lines", because it expresses raw masculine sexuality unapologetically.  Women who use the term "rape culture" casually are giving you a shit test, whether they understand it as such or not.  By using it they are challenging your sexuality.  But the only proper response to a shit test is to ignore it.  And her.  A woman who uses this term does not respect men or their sexuality, and you can expect some rocky times ahead if you ignore this Red Pill Alert and plow ahead.

Good response: "You know, I think I'll go talk to some women who actually like men." LEAVE
Better response: "*Snort* What, are you eleven or something?  Time to find some grown-up girls." LEAVE
Best Response: "I've always preferred my victims to have bigger tits." LEAVE

2. "Delicate Male Ego"

Another shit test.  When a woman uses this term, she's deliberately challenging you and your response to her.  She's thinking she's displaying her strength and independence.  What she's actually doing is revealing her contempt for masculinity and her ignorance of its subtleties.  Yes, dudes, we have subtleties.

The male ego is oft bashed, particularly by ignorant feminists, because they really do lack any clear understanding or insight into it, insisting solipsistically that men should behave the way women do.   By implying anything about a man's ego without understanding it, they are betraying their inner frustrations with male-female relations, frustrations that are likely to blossom into brutal, heated arguments or even infidelity in a relationship.  A woman who throws around "delicate male ego" is calling herself out as being disrespectful of masculinity in general.

Sure, women don't like to see weakness or other BETA traits in a man . . . but men don't like to be reminded that we have those weaknesses, and a woman with the tactlessness to mention any man's ego to another is one to watch out for.  She might be a High Alpha female with exceptionally grand tastes . . . or she might be a scornful Gamma woman who thinks she can verbally abuse a man and expect him to find her attractive.

Either way, the wise Red Pill man will step around this indelicate flower and pursue worthier women.  Women who understand that verbally kicking all men in the balls is not the best way to find a worthy man.  Indeed, by calling out all men's egos, she's demonstrated herself as poor wife material.

Good response: "My delicate male ego is going to go talk to the pretty girls, now.  Thanks for the fluff, Cupcake." LEAVE
Better response: "My ego isn't delicate.  It's just highly discriminating." LEAVE
Best response: (LOUDLY) "Why no, I don't think you need a boob job!  A lot of guys like it when one is so much smaller than the other!  You shouldn't be so sensitive!"  LEAVE

3. "I deserve . . ."

Women who talk about what they deserve -- in work, in life, in romance, and especially in a man -- are best avoided as poor wife material.  Feminine entitlement is frequently a problem in a relationship, as women rationalize just what they "deserve", usually without much in the way of supporting data.

My ex sister-in-law is a case in point.  She left my brother and her son to go shack up with a richer dude because she "deserved to have nice things in her life and a man who can provide them".  This brutal assertion had no evidence to back up the claim that she deserved any such thing.  Indeed, if she actually got what she deserved, I don't think she'd be bragging about it.  In a way she did -- her new dude dumped her two months later, after he tired of her, and now she lives with her parents and her daughter from another relationship and her grandson . . . because the nut doesn't fall far from the tree.

Women who use this term almost uniformly DON'T deserve whatever it is they think they do.  A lot of the dichotomy between male and female ideas on the subject of entitlement are due, I believe, to the fact that women get handed the bulk of their sexual capital early, while men must earn theirs slowly and painfully.  That gives women an incentive to indulge in this kind of entitlement.  If you encounter a woman who uses "I deserve . . ." you can bet that she's going to deserve a second husband someday.  Avoid.

A woman with good wife potential won't discuss what she deserves; she'll discuss what she aspires to and what she hopes for . . . and most importantly, what she's willing to earn.

Good response: "And I deserve a more interesting conversational companion.  Have a good evening."  LEAVE
Better response: "On what basis do you deserve that?  Oh, wait, I'm not that interested."  LEAVE
Best resposne: "And I deserve a blowjob in the parking lot.  We gonna help each other out?"  LEAVE . . . FAST (or get a blowjob in the parking lot, if things go that route).

4. "I don't believe in marriage . . ."

This is such utter hamstereese bullshit that it should be sold by the pound.  Despite all the rationalization in the feminist media about how their thrilling careers and corporate ambitions are personally as fulfilling as a solid loving relationship and a family, the Red Pill fact of the matter is that MOST women believe in marriage.  Declaring that they don't, especially on short acquaintance, is a clear sign of one of two things: either she is so commitment-phobic that she will leave you for the next pair of pecs to ponder her panties, or she is clearly bullshitting because getting married is on her mind so much that she's desperate.  They're playing to the well-touted idea that men are the ones who don't want marriage, and think that by declaring their lack of desire to commit they are making themselves more attractive.

To a certain extent they are correct . . . but they are also setting themselves up for disappointment or duplicity, and either way a wise man will avoid them.  A good future wife isn't going to sell the idea of matrimony short -- she's going to protect it like a cherished treasure.  Declaring that she doesn't believe in marriage is probably the best indicator that she's either working an angle to lure you into one while you're looking at her boobs or she's been so badly hurt that her long-term prospects are tainted.  Move along, there's nothing to see here.

Good response: "That's too bad.  I do.  I think she does, too.  I think I'll go talk to her." LEAVE
Better response: "I think some people are just destined to be alone for their entire lives, until they die alone and forgotten.  Thankfully, I'm not one of them."  LEAVE
Best response: "That's a relief!  I don't either.  That's what gives me the mental clarity I need to sleep with as many women as possible behind my wife's back."  LEAVE

5.  "I want to work on my career . . ."

Hell, any mention of her career or job, outside of the basics, is a Red Pill alert.

That's not to say you should be looking for a woman with no career prospects, it just means that a woman who sees herself as a professional first will only see herself as a wife and mother second.  That's great, for some women.  After all, with fewer men working these days, it's going to require a lot of women filling the taxation gap, so that their brilliant careers can subsidize other women's children in the future.

But you should not reward such dedication to a job with your allegiance or commitment.  Because talking about her job is probably the best way she can let you know that you, regardless of what a worthy dude you might be, are going to stand in the shadow of her aspirations.  Feminists and ignorant dating advice columnists call this "being threatened by her success", and treat it with scorn.  They see things in terms of competition between men and women, with the women aspiring to elevate themselves to "respectability" in society's eyes through their dedication to their job.

But do you really want to marry a woman who will leave your ass if she gets transferred to California for "a golden opportunity"?  Either you are her "golden opportunity" or you need to find someone who sees that.  A good wife cannot be a _____________ first and a wife second.  If her career is more important than making a life with you, or even going to be challenging to your relationship, then move along to more fulfilling prospects.  The "strong, independent career woman" tends to be abysmally poor wife material.

Again, that isn't to say you want a woman who can't earn a living for herself.  Unless she's a gorgeous nymphomaniac, an expectation of you to financially support her is likewise a Red Pill Alert.  You can expect demands for alimony in your future.  But find a woman who is willing to be devoted to her man and her family, not her job.  Jobs come and go.  Careers rise and fall.  Marriage should be more durable than an employment contract . . . and if she doesn't agree, then she's self-selected out of the pool of potential good wives.

Good response: "Wow.  Your parents must be very proud.  I'm sure they've got your resume in a frame where they expected to put pictures of grandchildren."  LEAVE
Better response: "I like strong and independent career women.  I expect I'll have plenty of them working for me and my wife some day."  LEAVE
Best response: "Unless you work in a strip club, I'm gonna go focus my energies on the girls whose ambitions are longer and harder than yours, if you know what I mean."  LEAVE

6. "Why can't guys just . . . ?"

This is an expression that clearly predicates ignorant male-bashing.  In most cases women do know why guys can't just ______________.  They just don't like the answer, and want someone to change it for them.

A woman who has so little knowledge and experience with men as to not understand their basic motivations (Sex, food, shelter, entertainment, companionship, in that order) is an unwise choice.  A woman who is so willing to express her ignorance so quickly is announcing herself as a future ex-girlfriend, if not a future ex-wife.  Women who use this phrase are taking issue with the entire masculine experience.  They are insisting on measuring the men they meet against a yardstick used for women.  They are virtually screaming that they are going to question your motives and motivations and express dismay, contempt, and resentment when there's a future issue in your relationship.

Avoid this woman.  If she can't figure out why guys like pretty girls, sports cars, beer and baseball -- or she actually feels a burning desire to know why -- then this woman is not going to be a good relationship risk.

Good response: "Because we're not chicks."  LEAVE
Better response: "You know, I'm kind of insulted by that question.  Ask yourself this: why can't guys just listen to my stupid bullshit instead of leaving me to talk to prettier and more interesting girls?  Discuss."  LEAVE
Best response: "Because we have penises.  Want me to show you mine?" LEAVE

7. "...feminism..."

Yep.  Pretty much any mention of feminism in a positive light, beyond the basics of equity feminism, is a Red Pill Alert for stormy seas ahead.  Women who invoke feminism are shit testing you.  Women who self-declare as feminists are challenging your masculinity right up front, and no clearer sign of a life of torment and abuse in a relationship with them is available.  No more should be needed . . . but some dudes think they can either "tame" a feminist (and it can be done) or that they can use her feminism against her to drop her panties (which is done with such frightening regularity it's humorous).

Feminism is a danger sign.  I haven't been able to find any official facts-n-figures on the subject, by my apocryphal, unscientific study into the manner is telling.  Of the 37 self-declared feminists in the Womens' Studies Club of my university who graduated the same year I did, after 20 years their numbers are telling, as my alumni association has it.  Fifteen never married.  Of the 22 who did, 18 were divorced. Eleven had two or more divorces under their belt.

As I said, that's apocryphal, observational data without scientific merit.  But it's also enlightening.  That means that only 4 out of 37 feminists in my class managed to get married and stay married.  That's just around 10%.

Which means, anecdotally, that marrying a feminist gives you roughly an 80% chance of getting divorced.  Not the comfortably awful 50-50 coin flip of most marriages, but eight times out of ten saying "I do" to a feminist is going to lead to divorce, by my calculations.  If folks have real data on this, I'd love to hear it, but feminism is decidedly NOT a precursor to a happy, fulfilled marriage.  And a self-declared feminist has embraced the idea that a feminist can be anything she wants to be . . . except a good wife. 

So listen to them.  Don't marry them.  Don't even fuck them.  It's just too dangerous, and you do your fellow men a discourtesy by encouraging them.

Good response: " . . . " LEAVE
Better response:  "I'm sorry, did you say something, Cupcake?  I was staring at your boobs."  LEAVE
Best response.  "I like feminists.  I can usually talk them into a little bi-sexual exploration, if you know what I mean.  They love bullshit like that."  LEAVE

8. "Men feel threatened and intimidated by me."

A woman who honestly believes this is confused or has a couple of hamsters in her bra.  No matter how loudly she protests the contrary, most men don't feel "intimidated" by her.  Most men are merely annoyed by her, and she chooses to see that as "intimidation", because that little rationalization means it's THEIR fault, not hers.  Behold the power of hamsterization.

The fact is, men are intimidated by beautiful women . . . period.  A powerfully attractive woman who understands she's attractive and knows how to turn that into incredible social capital very rightly intimidates the lesser men among us.  She is Alpha, and she is searching for a stronger Alpha, and most dudes just aren't going to measure up.

But be "intimidated" merely by a woman's intelligence and ambition?  Not so much.

Many otherwise intelligent women make this mistake, dismissing a snub or a lack of attention as the result of the men around her being "intimidated".  In fact, it's likely that she's just annoyingly direct, argumentative, and bossy . . . not the sort of thing you want to cuddle up to after a three-hour cunnilingus marathon.  These women mistake their clumsy social stumbling as being "strong and independent", and then fault the men around them for not being attracted to them.

These are the same women who feel that they are in a perpetual competition with men -- it's always 'us' vs. 'them' in their minds, an eternal struggle that they are determined to 'win'.  They feel intimidation, usually in the workplace, and they respond how they feel the workplace demands: with hardcore competitive drive.

That's great if you're on the same sales team.  It's lousy if you want a happy marriage.

That stumps a lot of women who just don't get this subtle fact of male sexual psychology: the vast majority of men don't want to fight with their wives for the rest of their lives, and a woman who is willing to argue about stupid stuff to demonstrate her intellectual superiority to the man in her life is ultimately going to shit test her way out of a relationship.  Not because her dude feels "threatened".  Because her dude feels marginalized and diminished for being forced to compete with the woman who is supposed to be a loving support.

A woman who claims men are intimidated by her is almost always a poor matrimonial risk, and she's going to be trouble in even a casual relationship.  Her unwillingness to acknowledge the idea that in the romantic realm competition should be with other women FOR men, not AGAINST the men, is the keystone in her temple of solipsism.  She walks around with a chip on her shoulder, demanding masculine prerogatives without accepting masculine responsibilities . . . and then wants to be valued for whatever shreds of femininity she has left.

The "intimidation" that these women feel they exude is mere bossiness.  Men don't like bossy wives, in general, and therefore a woman who feels "intimidating" is self-selecting out of your marriage pool.  That's not to say that intelligence and ambition aren't factors in the equation -- I found Mrs. Ironwood's ability to demonstrate her great intelligence one of the things most attractive about her.  Thing was . . .

. . . she didn't feel like she had to beat me over the head with it.  As Vox has recently stated, "The fact that a man is capable of having a substantive intellectual discussion with a woman doesn't mean he wants to do so every time he makes a simple observation."  Intelligence is a valued factor in a wife . . . but so is the social understanding to know when displaying that intelligence will be seen in a negative light.  Thinking that the dude who you just crushed in the monthly sales contest is going to like and respect you for your victory is foolishly ignorant of a woman: she simply cannot earn the same kind of masculine respect a man's male peers would, in the same situation.  

And even if he does show that he respects your intelligence and your acumen, your drive and ambition . . . that doesn't mean he wants to have to face that challenge every day for the rest of his life.  A man wants to come home to comfort and security after a hard day's struggle, not face an even fiercer competition that he cannot hope to win at home.  So when a woman mentions that men seem intimidated by her, and she's not drop-dead gorgeous, pay the bar tab and move on.  This one is trouble.  She's not threatening, she's just really obnoxious and annoying . . . and doesn't have the sense to recognize it.

Good response: "I can see why."  LEAVE.
Better response: "You poor girl.  How awful for you.  Count me among them."  LEAVE
Best response: "Intimidated?  By you?  Miss Bossypants?  That's HILARIOUS!" LEAVE . . . laughing.

9. "Women can do everything just as well as a man can."

Well, no.  

Don't get me wrong -- in about 80% of the cases, that's a correct assumption.  Men and women are fairly on par in aggregate when it comes to everything from long division to programming Javascript.  But if a woman thinks that the gender differences stop at the physical, then she's not wife material.  In the slightest.

Men and women have traditionally sub-specialized in various tasks as our society has progressed through various economic fields.  The roles have changed as the economy has -- I rarely make Mrs. Ironwood go out and glean the wheat fields or field dress and skin a deer -- but the fact of gender specialization has remained constant.  Men and women do different tasks, in general, because men and women are different.  We have different goals, aspirations, measures of success, drives and ambitions.  We have different strengths and weaknesses. We have different areas of interest.  

The problem with the idea that "women can do everything just as well as a man can" is that it encourages the idea that the same abilities necessarily stem from the same font of motivations.  For instance, a woman who enrolls in an all-male workout group just to prove that she can work at the same level as the men can isn't demonstrating her competence . . . she's demonstrating her willingness to mess with your masculinity.

I'm happy to admit that there are some tasks that women, in general, are just better at.   Networking, likewise.  Most social situations, actually.  But the belief that women are equally equipped and educated for any given task as well as a man is can be poison to a relationship.  I've also noted how short-lived this is once a couple is wed, too.  It seems within months of the wedding, the number of things a new bride can do - even if she's the same gender as she was before the ceremony - drops dramatically as she basks in the accomplishment of her marriage.  She no longer needs to prove that women can do everything just as well as a man can.  She has a husband to take care of that now.

But gods help you if that poor schmuck is you.  You just bit into a massive shit test.  The proper response was a bold retreat.  This woman is NOT wife material.

Good response: "Really?  Then you don't mind giving me a few pointers on lactation, for instance -- I suck at it." LEAVE (while her eyes glaze over)
Better response: "Yeah, Cupcake, show me your draft card, THEN I'll take you seriously." LEAVE
Best response: "Are you ready to prove it? Otherwise, shut the hell up about it.  That's what I'd say to a man."  LEAVE 

10. "I don't need a man."

This is a feminist classic . . . and the best evidence yet for the rationalization hamster becoming the dominant life form in America.  Women who proudly declare that "they don't need a man" are trumpeting a competence and independence they mistakenly feel men, in general, admire.  And while most of us can't stand a truly helpless woman, a woman who doesn't need a man shouldn't get one.

Marriage is a partnership -- that much hasn't changed.  While the specifics and the conditions have changed around, that much hasn't changed across history, economies, or cultures.  We get married because we have a need to -- economic, sexual, social, or personal -- and we need to fulfill that need.  Just because I can masturbate doesn't mean I don't need a woman as a sex partner.  Just because Mrs. Ironwood can now cook doesn't mean she doesn't need a man as a husband.  People in general are interdependent, particularly in the institution of marriage. 

When a woman proudly proclaims her independence in these terms, she is revealing her attitude toward men and marriage in general, right on the box.  Few couples who have been married longer than 10 years will say that kind of bullshit, because they have established that yes, indeed, part of them DOES need to be married.  That's not to say you can't survive without a man, obviously, but making your lack of need known so early and so proudly demonstrates that a woman does not understand what marriage truly entails.  

Often a woman proclaiming her independence in this manner is actually thinking she's making herself more attractive, not the target of the pump-and-dump humpsters.  The thing is, the kind of man she most hopes to attract is likely to be appalled by such a declaration and the wise ones will quietly move on.  Declaring your independence from needing a relationship isn't a statement of strength to a man, as are most of these Red Pill Alerts it's a defiant and insulting attempt to emasculate.  

Stay the hell away from her.  She's trouble.

A wife who doesn't need her husband won't have him long.  Without a compelling reason -- besides love -- for them to stay together, the odds say (and Married Game backs up) that a marriage will implode or explode, depending upon the principals.  Wiser couples tend to realize that men in relationships need to be needed, and wise women allow themselves to express that need in a way he can accomodate.  A man who doesn't feel useful in a relationship will find someplace where he can feel useful, if he is any kind of quality at all.  

It's not an admission of incompetence to admit you need a man in your life,  ladies.  It's an expression of general desire that men find hopeful.  "I don't need a man" is essentially your declaration that your heart is closed to the prospect of a real union, in favor of the roommates-with-slowly-decreasing-benefits model that feminists are trying to pass off as happy marriages these days.  Feminists see any other admission than "I don't need a man" as a capitulation to the stereotype of feminine weakness, and have spent the last 40 years attempting to ensure that their daughters, indeed, won't need a man when they grow up.

Of course, now that many of them have grown up . . . they discover that while they may not need a man, they want one more than the breath of life. Yet they can't understand why their declarations of independence and strength aren't getting the dudes lining up any faster than when she kept mentioning her resume. 

Good response: "Oh, thank goodness - we were starting to think you weren't going to leave without one tonight.  I'll spread the word that we're safe." LEAVE
Better response: "I just wanted to thank you on behalf of all the men in the room."  LEAVE
Best response: "Don't worry, Cupcake -- with an attitude like that, you're in no danger of getting one."

So there you go, fellas: ten Red Pill Alert danger signs that the woman you are talking to is NOT wife material.  There are others, and more subtle signs indicating more insidious dangers, but if you pay attention and raise a red flag on the play when you hear one of these statements, you will save yourself a tremendous amount of grief with your future wife.

Wednesday, September 11, 2013

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 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".)