656
657

Married Red PillMore egalitarian marriages (and relationships) are less successful, study finds. (What a shocker.) Woman's NY Times article that references it is LOADED with RP truths. (self.TheRedPill)

submitted by HeatseekingLogicBomb

TLDR: Modern marriages are more often egalitarian or egalitarian leaning. As any non-newbie to RP should know, this is detrimental to the couples' passion and sex life, meaning obviously it's crippling for the marriage. Marriage is a massive life affecting decision, and sex is a crucial component of a romantic relationship so an egalitarian marriage is simply a business deal that is crippling to your life.

Warning: Very, very long post (MAX post length - I was bored), long article linked, long study referenced by linked, featured article. I pretty much completely break down the article. I think this post is 7,400+ words, so the last bit of it will be in a comment.

Body:

--- Featured article info and summary

About two weeks ago there was a post called "Why you shouldn't date single moms thread #82974", by exit_sandman. In that thread, sandman referenced a 2008 article written by Lori Gottlieb entitled "Marry Him! - The case for settling for Mr. Good Enough". Lori is a psychologist, who was pretty much writing (in a subtext) that she was unhappy at never being married, envious of friends that were, was way past the wall, and had artificially inseminated.

So while browsing online the other day I noticed an article from 2014 on the NY Times site, written by none other than Lori Gottlieb. It was called "Does a More Equal Marriage Mean Less Sex?". The author's name sounded familiar so I checked back to sandman's thread and sure enough, it was her. I chuckled to myself about the RP truths this woman lets slip through her writing avalanches through her writing and tries to reframe.

Lori's article referenced a study (25 pages, PDF) from 2012 performed by the American Sociological Association. This study found that when couples have less traditionally based responsibilities their sex lives suffered. The egalitarians' sex was more infrequent, and reported to be a lower quality upon surveying than couples that were more traditionalist. The study Lori referenced by ASA referenced a different study from the 90s, so things were already going downhill at that time. They've only gotten worse. Lori tries to spin that, but really the surveying being dated only serves against her, despite her reframe attempts (which she basically simultaneously concedes as she makes them - kind of hilarious).

Now, I still need to read further into this study (as I said it's 25 pages and it's on the to-read list, I've only skimmed a bit so far) but according to Lori's summary of it's findings:

The more traditional the division of labor, meaning the greater the husband’s share of masculine chores compared with feminine ones, the greater his wife’s reported sexual satisfaction.

--- Article breakdown (You can stop reading now if you're a veteran, this is quite redundant)

The article begins with her talking about her social life. Huge surprise, though that's typical enough of modern journalism (it's all pretty bad; anecdotes and Appeal to Emotion everywhere). The intro is about a dinner party, where one couple starts fighting about porn after the husband makes some joke. Lori, on the way home, says to her boyfriend that the fighting couple probably wouldn't fuck that night. However, her boyfriend seems to understand the underlying dynamics in life better than she does. Another huge surprise. She's a relationship counselor, so, basically paid to spew carefully regimented bullshit. Her "ideal, model married couple" that was hosting the party, he says, is the pair that won't be fucking.

She talks about how great they are, how equal they are...

“Exactly,” my boyfriend said. “Least likely.”

Marriage is hardly known for being an aphrodisiac, of course, but my boyfriend was referring to a particularly modern state of marital affairs. Today, according to census data, in 64 percent of U.S. marriages with children under 18, both husband and wife work. There’s more gender-fluidity when it comes to who... [performs responsibilities]...

She admits right off the bat that everyone knows of this phenomena that as women gain increased commitment and have less responsibility they respect and desire the man less, and work to "betafy" him the whole time regardless. His only option is to hold frame. Marriage is TRP on hard mode, as they say.

A vast majority of adults under 30 in this country say that this is a good thing, according to a Pew Research Center survey: They aspire to what’s known in the social sciences as an egalitarian marriage, meaning that both spouses work and take care of the house and that the relationship is built on equal power, shared interests and friendship. But the very qualities that lead to greater emotional satisfaction in peer marriages, as one sociologist calls them, may be having an unexpectedly negative impact on these couples’ sex lives.

I'm curious what "vast majority" is, but we can conclude; it's going to get worse before it gets better. Maybe your grandchildren, if you're in your 20s-30s, have a shot at a decent SMP. You however, do not, in terms of marriage or high value LTRs given the social climate. That doesn't mean you can't have them, it means your odds are fucked. Life is like gambling, you can do everything right and lose everything.

A study [...] surprised many, precisely because it went against the logical assumption that as marriages improve by becoming more equal, the sex in these marriages will improve, too.

Indoctrination based feminine primary projection**

Women don't know what they want. You are the leader. When the leadership is weak, the followers don't know how to steer the ship. The ship necessarily crashes and sinks. (The ship is both your LTR, and Western society cumulatively).

Then comes where she cites what the study (linked above) found, going against the oh so logical assumption!

Then, the hamster starts up it's wheel:

Granted, some might view a study like this with skepticism. Correlations don’t establish causation, and especially when it comes to sex, there’s always a risk of reporting bias and selective sampling, not to mention the mood of a subject at the time of the survey. (Was she answering the questions while standing next to a big pile of garbage that hadn’t been taken out?) What’s more, while this study used the most recent nationally representative data that included measures of sexual frequency and a couple’s division of labor, it was drawn from information collected in the 1990s. (Julie Brines, an author of the chores study, explained, however, that many studies on housework since then show that not much has changed in terms of division of labor.)

A few things here:

  • Women fear loss of social standing, at all times, subconsciously and invariably. Plenty of men do too (most men are betas), but almost all women are helpless to this. If anything the bias, even in an anonymous or one-on-one interview survey, is inaccurately towards data being more moderate, because women don't want to seem non-conforming to what's politically correct. Similarly nor do they want to seem like the biggest project of their life, their marriage, is a failure, even in a private, professional, and confidential setting. They don't want to seem like they're a major contributor to said failure, because they know people can infer that it's a failure, especially when the person is a professional. Make no mistake about it; women are adept at social intuitions, they just rationalize whatever they want after the fact, if it's a situation where they're attracted to someone or perceive themselves as losing social value because they're like spoiled little kids who won't accept not getting what they want, even if their own brain is providing a disagreeable assessment.

  • The mood? So, Lori is projecting her own inability (or her gender's inability) to offer candid feedback in a professional setting. Irony, she's a related professional herself. Who knows, the professional may have even been in a position to offer constructive advice. The loss of social standing, even just within her own mind (as professionals deal with an endless stream of this type of data and probably don't actually give a fuck besides on how to hamster it in her case - collectivizing social losses or gains), out-weighs the opportunity to clear her conscience, be truthful, or possibly get feedback herself. AND she blame shifts. Must have been an interview where the woman was surrounded by unfinished male chores!

  • The survey was from the 90s. As I said before, early in the post; things have only gotten worse in this regard and this doesn't help her narrative, which she knows and tries to hamster (half-heartedly, at that).

But as a psychotherapist who works with couples, I’ve noticed something similar to the findings. That is, it’s true that being stuck with all the chores rarely tends to make wives desire their husbands.

Does this even need commenting on? As I said, she's pretty half-hearted in trying to deny this study she's writing about. It gets way worse too, in both content and quantity of the data she presents against her own (ultimate) conclusions...

Many of my colleagues have observed the same thing: No matter how much sink-scrubbing and grocery-shopping the husband does, no matter how well husband and wife communicate with each other, no matter how sensitive they are to each other’s emotions and work schedules, the wife does not find her husband more sexually exciting, even if she feels both closer to and happier with him.

Even decently intelligent, qualified, educated people can fall victim to the immersion of propaganda. Especially when it fits their own feelings that they are incapable of disseminating. Sexual attraction isn't based on men doing female chores. Period. That isn't "value added", or a display of masculinity. The reason it affects them negatively is because all it can do is subtract masculinity and frame. It doesn't add frame, physical SMV, or leadership. A little helping is okay when things are extra busy and stressful, but routinely taking on a woman's role is emasculating yourself to her hindbrain. But, it's not a PC truth, so it just can't be true!

I first noticed this while doing a yearlong training in marriage therapy. I was seeing a couple who had been married for five years and wanted to work out some common kinks related to balancing their respective jobs, incomes and household responsibilities in, as the wife put it, “an equal way.” Over the course of treatment, the couple reported more connection, less friction and increased happiness. One day, though, when their issues seemed largely resolved and I suggested discussing an end to their therapy, the husband brought up a new concern: His wife now seemed less interested in having sex with him. He turned to her and asked why. Was she still attracted to him? After all, he wondered, why did she appear less interested now that their relationship seemed stronger in all the ways she wanted?

Because with increased responsibility the woman feels a burden to secure continued reciprocation and validation. Decrease that and decrease the demand for your dick. Simple.

“I’m very attracted to you,” she said earnestly. “You know when I really crave you? It’s when you’re just back from the gym and you’re all sweaty and you take off your clothes to get in the shower and I see your muscles.”

No shit. Lift. BUT, look, you taking on her job is Pandora's Box. You can't win. She doesn't know what she wants. You just have to know she wants dominant leadership.

Her husband countered by saying that this very situation had occurred that morning but that his wife became irritated when he tossed his clothes on the floor, which led to a conversation about his not vacuuming the day before, when she worked late. He had worked late, too, which accounted for the lack of vacuuming, but still — she hated waking up to a messy room, and it was his turn to vacuum.

“Right,” she agreed. “I wasn’t focused on sex, because I wanted you to get out the vacuum.”

“So if I got out the vacuum, then you’d be turned on?”

His wife thought about it for a minute. “Actually, probably not,” she said slowly, as if hearing the contradiction even as she was speaking it. “The vacuuming would have killed the weight-lifting vibe.”

Now, you could say he could have vacuumed when he got home the previous night. You could operate on the premise "but if I just keep up on all my chores!!"... what is she, your mother? Your boss? Do you see how this is operating without any frame at all?

Correct response: Some variation of "get in this bathroom right now" (or go loom over her and usher her in) and DGAF. Then she can make you food after you are done showering together (tell her that, and tell her what you want to eat), and you can pick up some shit, so you're not completely black knighting her, if you want.

Brines believes the quandary many couples find themselves in comes down to this: “The less gender differentiation, the less sexual desire.” In other words, in an attempt to be gender-neutral, we may have become gender-neutered.

These people get so close, yet are so far away in their conditioning. May have? May have?

She then talks about a peer discussing how the same can be observed in homosexuals. Differentiation in roles provides the avenue for attraction. The article talks about how gay men are more distinctly different. Hm, why is that? Because women operate a certain way, and men don't:

...lesbian and heterosexual couples share sexual challenges because both relationships involve women who tend to seek similar mates.

Between men and women, women are betas. Women seek betas for LTRs. This article is just blatant.

This isn’t to say that egalitarian heterosexual couples aren’t happy. [...] a professor ... in England found that American couples who share breadwinning and household duties are less likely to divorce. And [an] author [...] told me that having a partner who does housework and child care has become a bigger factor in women’s marital satisfaction than many other factors that used to predict marital happiness, like a man’s level of income or shared religious beliefs.

  • Not sexual satisfaction. Which is why they push for open relationships now, or as I like to call them, non-committed "committed" relationships. AF/BB. You're the BB? Permanent, contractual friendzone. Seems legit.

  • Also, income? Yeah, that's always relevant.

[when] the husband did plenty of traditionally male chores [there was] 17.5 percent higher frequency of sexual intercourse than those in which the husband did none. These findings, Brines says, “might have something to do with the fact that the traditional behaviors that men and women enact feed into associations that people have about masculinity and femininity.” She calls these associations and behaviors sexual scripts.

  • might

  • Associations / scripts = instincts = biological hard-wiring

[people...] are continuously sending out cues that signal attractiveness to a potential partner, and often these cues involve “an ongoing reminder of difference and the sense of mystery and excitement that comes with the knowledge that the other person isn’t you.”

  • Mystery. Distance. No over-accessibility.

  • Don't be a beta. Women are betas.

  • Constant signals. If your signals aren't clear, or are absent, expect constant shit tests instead.

But it gets even better.. another woman she spoke to is alluding to raw, primal fantasies that disregard consent. HMM...

When I asked Esther Perel, a couples therapist whose book, “Mating in Captivity,” addresses the issue of desire in marriage, about the role sexual scripts play in egalitarian partnerships, she explained it like this: “Egalitarian marriage takes the values of a good social system — consensus-building and consent — and assumes you can bring these rules into the bedroom. But the values that make for good social relationships are not necessarily the same ones that drive lust.” In fact, she continued, “most of us get turned on at night by the very things that we’ll demonstrate against during the day.”

Power — and the act of balancing it — is a common topic with the couples I see in therapy. They’re eager to talk about leveling the domestic playing field but tend to feel awkward about bringing the concept of power into conversations about sex, mostly because it can feel so confusing.

Simple. Women don't want to admit they like to be dominated to the point of it almost being rape, and most men are betas no matter what. Especially the ones who have driven marriages into the ground and need counseling. They cringe at the thought of dominating a female.

See, the SMP is wide open for you. It's not that hard to out-compete most men and make the girls get their tingles.

One woman in her late 30s, for instance, who has been in a peer marriage for 10 years, said during couples therapy that when she asked her husband to be more forceful, “rougher,” in bed, the result was comical.

“He was trying to do what I wanted,” she explained, “but he was so . . . careful. I don’t want him to ask, ‘Are you O.K.?’ I want him not to care if I’m O.K., to just, you know, not be the good husband and take charge.

You heard the female hindbrain; beat it up.

And yet, she said, his [...] concern that she’s O.K. with what he’s doing are what she loves so much about him in every other area of their marriage, [...] “I don’t want him to take charge like that with anything else!” she said.

He's a BB servant, and she's quite happy with the leash she has on him, yet she's plagued by solipsism. They're at a marriage counselor. The nagging discontent she feels and yet doesn't fully comprehend is self-evident.

I mentioned this situation to Dan Savage [...] who told me that he sees similar themes in the letters [...] and the questions he fields [...]. At a recent talk, for instance, one woman asked him if a certain sex act was “loving or degrading?”

“My reply was, ‘Yes,’ ” he told me. “Why can’t it be both?” He continued: “People have to learn to compartmentalize. We all want to be objectified by the person we love at times. We all want to be with somebody who can flip the switch and see you as an object for an hour. Sometimes sex is an expression of anger or a struggle for power and dominance. They work in concert. People need to learn how to harness those impulses playfully in ways that are acceptable in equal relationships.”

If by "equal" he means "complementary".

A desire for equality, and the lack of desire that equality can create, may make scientific sense, even as it challenges conventional wisdom

Blue pill propaganda**

As Daniel Bergner has written in his book “What Do Women Want?” and in this magazine, many studies show that women often report fantasies, like those involving submission, that tend to be inconsistent with our notion of progressive relationships.

But Pepper Schwartz says that while women may have always had these types of fantasies, now they have permission to give voice to them because of how much power they have in real life. “The more powerful you are in your marriage, and the more responsibility you have in other areas of your life, the more submission becomes sexy,” Schwartz says. “It’s like: ‘Let me lose all that responsibility for an hour. I’ve got plenty of it.’ It’s what you can afford once you don’t live a life of submission.” Married women, she adds, may have had a very different relationship to their fantasies back in the ‘50s, but even so, “this mixture of changing gender roles and sexual negotiation is tricky.”

Another "may have" that is context tempering. While I agree with them such fantasies have probably only increased, women are submissives, men are dominants, by nature's wiring.

So tricky, in fact, that when I was speaking about relationships at a conference and mentioned that I was writing about this topic, a large group of women who had just waxed poetic about “Fifty Shades of Grey” suddenly seemed outraged. Was I saying people can’t have good sex in egalitarian marriages? (No, I wasn’t.) Isn’t marriage better over all when partners have equal power? (In my opinion, yes.) Then why write about this kind of thing? (Because when a roomful of women who just raved about “Fifty Shades of Grey” don’t want me to write about “this kind of thing,” that tells me it should be talked about.)

Solipsism. Elephant in the room. Lori isn't a total idiot, she just has made a career, world-view, and identity based on reframing. She has probably taken her fair share of shit for even discussing this as a moderate. Pretty telling.

Men, of course, can feel just as uneasy with overt expressions of power in marriages that are otherwise based on equality.

Again, most men are and always will be betas.

During a couples session, one woman in her early 40s said that it wasn’t until she came across some porn scenes her husband had viewed online that she felt comfortable telling him about her fantasies, which happened to be very similar to what she found. She thought he’d be thrilled, but although he enacted the scenes with her, she was surprised by his lack of enthusiasm.

“I felt like he was just doing it because I asked him to, not because he wanted to,”

Because she had destroyed his frame completely by that point. (Again: self evident, they're in counseling).

I wondered if she was putting her husband in a double-bind, [...]. No, she said. It was something else: It bothered her that her husband acknowledged being turned on by watching the fantasy online but not by doing it in real life with her. “I felt so rejected,” she said. “I told him, ‘I want you to want to dominate me,’ but he said he just doesn’t see me that way, that he doesn’t see us that way.”

...aaand cue AWALT. I'd bet my cock she cheated on him before or after this.

The article goes on to explain how equal they are, and how their sex life is pedestrian, which he's content with.

Before we got married, we always said we’d have a 50-50 marriage, and you’d think that would be great for our sex life, but instead it’s the one area where we’re having trouble. Everything else is great. It’s the sex we don’t agree on.”

Are you seeing a trend yet?

He took a deep breath before adding: “I know what a 50-50 marriage should be like. But what is 50-50 sex supposed to be like?”

You doing what you want. Her loving you doing what you want (and getting off on it). Don't get it mixed up; you need to satisfy them. But obviously that comes from dominating, and the desire to be dominated comes from not constantly being your equal. Just how it goes.

the idea that married sex should be steamy is reflected in our culture. Take the fascination with MILFs — consistently one of the most-searched porn categories and a staple in mainstream media — in which mothers are depicted as alluring and sexually lively. In the past, a fantasy woman may have been the young, single secretary; now she’s the middle-aged mother of three with a graduate degree.

Non-sequitur, wrong, and tempering (hamstering). Media and men celebrate the beauty of youth far more, because it's evolutionarily ingrained based on fertility, energy, and physical excellence.

The idea that marriage is supposed to be steamy is because of a romanticized narrative that women will reciprocate servitude with lust, which is entirely false.

More of the same, pandering to the audience:

In a way, this might seem like an encouraging shift for married moms. Instead of becoming invisible, we’re wanted and capable of doing it all

Wrong. You're invisible. Shoe's on the other foot now. 80-90% of men are invisible to women, permanently. Get a dose of that "male privilege".

“The passionate marriage used to be a contradiction in terms,” Esther [...said]. The quality of sex in marriage — and not just the frequency — is a relatively new conversation that has come about with more egalitarian marriages. In today’s marriages, she said, “we don’t just want sex; it has to be intimate sex. It has to be transcendent and self-actualizing.”

And again: "we want betas who are somehow also natural alphas but then revert to being betas when we don't want alphas and we don't want to work on our problems!"

Which brings me back to the dinner party... The conversation started [...] with the husband [...saying] that with men and women both balancing the responsibilities of work and household, even sex needs to be outsourced sometimes. By day’s end, he said, men feel so worn out that they, too, “get headaches” because they don’t necessarily have the energy to make sex happen or, more specifically, to make it happen in the way their wives want it to. The modern marital tableau [...] is two overwhelmed people trying to relax before bed: he on Pornhub, she on Pinterest. Then they kiss and go to sleep.

Fucking sad.

The men at the dinner party laughed; the women smiled uneasily. His wife seemed perplexed. If men found release on Pornhub, what about women’s sexual needs? That’s when things got dicey. Without missing a beat, the husband deadpanned, “Vibrators do for modern men what dishwashers did for modern women.” His wife became upset, calling the comment “selfish.”

Sad. Funny, but pretty sad. Telling though, he sees his wife as a chore. And she probably is. He's been yoked for years. He probably just wants to watch ESPN, have a beer, and tell her to fuck off already. But he can't risk half the assets he'll ever own (while the government rapes him for the half of the remainder).

Translation for her: see previous translation about magical alpha-beta simultaneity.

I’m guessing we were all thinking the same thing: How impossible it often feels for two exhausted equals to meet each other’s sexual needs.

The exhaustion claim here is tempering. Lori spent the whole article so far outlining how equality is killing the libido, not being physically tired. The rest of the article is the same.

Porn, of course, doesn’t tend to be about reciprocity.

It goes on to talk about how porn is male-needs centric, which is true. Betas outsource and live vicariously through the dominance of others.

In other words, it’s (porn is) the antithesis of peer marriage. In “Marriage: A History,” Coontz writes that one recent marital development “is that husbands have to respond positively to their wives’ requests for change.” Yet no matter how many requests wives make and how hard their husbands try to accommodate them, the women may still end up disappointed

Women are domestically insatiable. In this modern era of their own domestic inability, this translates to them betafying you, you doing their work, you outsourcing masculine jobs, and her being repulsed and wanting to fuck the dude that shows up to do the masculine job. Good luck with that, gents. (Don't get married. Be outcome independent in any LTR.)

After all, women are now coming into marriage with sexual histories and experiences on par with men’s, leading to expectations that are difficult to replicate in any marriage, especially now that people live longer and will be having sex, presumably with the same person, for decades more.

And there are studies about how increased n-count create a female inability to maintain LTRs. And (healthy) men are disgusted by sluts. Just like women are disgusted by betas. Both signify desperation and inabilities, and low value. Also relevant in this quote: alpha widows.

Similarly, older c​ouples who can now wait and marry for love have less time together during their sexual primes and, if kids are in the plan, they may even miss that year or two of newlywed abandon. (Ask a 40-year-old couple trying and failing to conceive how much fun the sex is.)

Pretty candid here. The only tempering here is saying 40 instead of 30. Without fertility drugs, 35 is a pretty serious cut-off on average for women.

50-year-olds of the past were often grandparents without great expectations about their sex lives. Now those same 50-year-olds might have a 10-year-old, placing them in a life stage formerly occupied by people in their 30s and subjecting them to pressure to maintain the culture’s view of “youthful sexuality” in marriage, especially with the ubiquity of Viagra and Estrace.

Trapped in futility. And super post-wall. Pity evoking, really.

Paraphrasing this one:

One day I was talking about these expectations with a [traditionalist] friend [...] He and his wife, who have two young children [...] She takes care of the house and kids, and he provides all of the income. He said that he and his wife consider their sex life to be good.

“We use X number of positions and various forms [...] stimulation, and we’re happy as clams, [...] But a lot of people think it’s supposed to be more exciting than this.”

He believes that we have to accept that we’re not going to get everything we want in our marriages and our sex lives, instead of constantly complaining about it or wondering if we might not be compatible with our spouse. “How much are you going to let the 10 percent of your differences dictate your future?” he asked. “Is anal sex more important than your marriage?”

If she wants to keep you, you get her ass too. Fact.

I shared [this] with [...] a [fellow researcher...] She noted that even people who are satisfied with their sex lives often crave more [...and] told me about a study she conducted that asked participants who had had affairs why they did so. Fifty-six percent of her male subjects and 34 percent of her female subjects said they were “happy” or “very happy” in their partnerships but cheated anyway.

Dead bedrooms. "Peer marriages" and boom, they need a spark elsewhere because they're starving.

While past research has shown that men have higher rates of infidelity than women, those rates are becoming increasingly similar, particularly in younger people in developed countries, where recent studies have found no gender differences in extramarital sex among men and women under 40. This may be [is] because younger women are more likely to be in peer marriages — and conditions in peer marriages make female infidelity more probable than in traditional ones.

This article is just TRP truth overkill.

A large national study in the late 1990s found that women who were more educated than their husbands were more likely to engage in sexual infidelity than if they were less educated than their husbands

Translation: when women perceive their mate as lower SMV than them, the men get cheated on more. Hypergamy putting out branch-swing feelers.

Studies also find that people who work outside the home and whose partners remain in the home cheat more — and the traditional gender roles in this situation are now frequently reversed.

Get her back in the kitchen!

There’s a phrase I often use in therapy with couples: “competing needs.” What do partners do when they have needs that directly conflict with those of their spouses? [...] It used to be that husbands and wives operated largely in their own spheres with so little overlap that these questions rarely came up

With women demanding more masculine frame of their own, it's no surprise what is happening now at large. It's rough as economically speaking, they have to contribute now if you want multiple kids and don't have a stellar job yourself. We don't live in the same world as was around two generations ago, but it's not good at all for families or couples, obviously (or society / the species).

...Sheryl [...] encourages women to [...] make a determined effort to push [...] careers — it may seem as if women are truly becoming, [...] “the men we want to marry.”

And no one wants to marry you. Surprise.

A study put out last year by the National Bureau of Economic Research shows that if a wife earns more than her husband, the couple are 15 percent less likely to report that their marriage is very happy; 32 percent more likely to report marital troubles in the past year; and 46 percent more likely to have discussed separating in the past year. Similarly, Lynn Prince Cooke found that though sharing breadwinning and household duties decreases the likelihood of divorce, that’s true only up to a point. If a wife earns more than her husband, the risk of divorce increases. Interestingly, Cooke’s study shows that the predicted risk of divorce is lowest when the husband does 40 percent of the housework and the wife earns 40 percent of the income.

So the farther you can get toward traditionalism, the better. Got it yet?

...Kerner, a [...] counselor and [...] author of “She Comes First,” sees couples struggle to find a ratio that works. “I work a lot with stay-at-home dads and men who work from home,” he said, “and one thing I hear a lot is that in theory they’re really happy balancing [...] while their wives are out working full-time [...]. But [...] a common complaint is that Mom comes home and feels guilty for being away all day, and so much time has to be made up connecting with the children, who take first priority, that these dads feel lost in the mix.” In many couples, Kerner says, the wives start to feel disgruntled because their husbands get to see more of the kids, and the husbands, whose wives are controlling more of the spending, start to feel “financially emasculated.” Sometimes, he says, a vicious cycle begins: The husband feels marginalized and less self-confident, which causes the wife to lose respect for and desexualize him. Under these circumstances, neither is particularly interested in sex with the other.

There's no recovery from that sort of shit. That's a huge hole to try and claw out of. The key is not jump in the hole to begin with.

A writer who works from home [...] told me that was exactly what happened when he reduced his work hours and took on child-care responsibilities so that his wife could rise to partner at her company. [...] she said, “When we met, you said this was going to be a two-income family.” And he said: “It is! Your income is bigger because I take care of the kid.” They would talk about it — given his flexibility, they both agreed it made more sense for him to do more at home — but the tension would resurface, and ultimately they stopped having sex.

Now that they are divorcing, he’s still confounded. “For all the men [...] who felt like the woman’s place was in the home, all the sexist troglodytes who might have thought that way, or even the enlightened men who cared deeply about their partners’ happiness,” he said, “you could round up a thousand of them, and not one would say the woman should watch the kids, clean the house, do the cooking and at the same time make the same amount of money as the guy. So when my wife had those expectations, it seemed a bit unrealistic. She’d say, ‘I work 10 hours a day.’ I’d say, ‘I work 16, and half of those I don’t get paid for.’ ”

He's so betafied he even gained a massively powerful solipsistic hamster! Calling traditionalist views sexist while getting burned by trying the functionally equivalent inverse. Idiot. I'd feel a little bad for him getting played by an even bigger solipsist who ignored that she was performing the inverse of traditionalism, but he did it to himself.

I'd comment on how he's qualifying and trying to diffuse with logic, but he already went and smashed his frame and launched it into outer space, never to return. His shit was terminal.

frequently I hear from [people] who say they want progressive marriages, in which [people] have the option to do anything, then start to feel uncomfortable when that reality is in place. And that discomfort, more often than not, leads to less sexual desire — on both sides.

Say it with me slowly; biological... hardwiring...

Recently, a male therapy client who came to me because he began feeling depressed said that he had tremendous empathy for what women have been voicing all these years. “I have to hold down a job, I have to juggle the kids’ schedules, I have to get dinner on the table three nights a week, I have to volunteer at school, I have to get the bills sent in each month and on top of this I have to be the fun dad and the sensitive husband and then be ready to romance my wife if I want sex before bed — usually after listening to the rundown of her day and going over the list of what needs to happen the next day,” he said. “I rarely even have time to get to the gym, which is the one thing that relieves my stress.” As he tries to balance work and parenthood and his marriage and household responsibilities, he’s going “a bit mad — and I mean that in both senses of the word.”

I asked how interested he was in having sex with his wife, and he looked at me and laughed.

Don't be your wife's wife, or your girlfriend's girlfriend, or your plate's plate.

And look, they're still trying to put a romanticized spin on just living in permanent, contractual friendzones. And why wouldn't they? They're women. Men do it too though, because they need to protect their egos and avoid world shattering cognitive dissonance:

I met my boyfriend online, and like many marriage-minded people clicking on search criteria, I was seeking a partner similar in intellect, background and interests. I shared this with Betsey [...], [an economist] who studies relationships and whose egalitarian partnership was profiled in The New York Times two years ago, and asked how she feels about so much similarity. In her view, she said, going through life with a peer is a positive development.

“It used to be,” she explained, “that you lived your life in one way, and he lived his in another. With equal partners, there’s more of a sense of people who are kindred spirits. Now you have people who have similar interests and lifestyles.”

Remember, this is the woman who wrote, in sandman's linked article, how she was basically sour as fuck about gender dynamics and never finding "Mr. Magically somehow Beta-Chad, The One".

On an emotional level, “kindred spirits” sounds lovely. But when it comes to sexual desire, biology seems to prefer difference. Helen Fisher, for one, pointed me to the famous “sweaty T-shirt” experiment, conducted in 1995 by the Swiss researcher Claus Wedekind. He had women sniff the unwashed T-shirts of various men and asked them which scent they were most attracted to. Most women selected the T-shirts of men with genes markedly different from their own in a certain part of the immune system. Other studies confirmed these findings. Presumably this attraction to genetic variation is an evolutionary adaptation to prevent incest in our ancestral environments and improve the survival prospects of offspring. Interestingly, a later experiment found that women partnered with men who had genes similar to their own in this part of the immune system were more likely to be unfaithful; and the more of these genes a woman shared with her partner, the more she was attracted to other men.

Reference to what a few people have mentioned throughout my time here, and something I've discussed with others too. How hormonal birth control disrupts a woman's natural ability to select mates, and once she comes off of it, her pheromone detection system rings the alarm bells and she cheats or leaves (generally while conceiving or post-birth, ironically).

Lessons:

  • DON'T GET MARRIED.

  • Enjoy the decline. It's unstoppable.


[–]Senior Endorsed ContributorVasiliyZaitzev 221 points222 points  (27 children)

TL:DR: Nice guys don't get laid. Sexist jerkboys do.

Put another way: "I can't believe she left me for that NICE GUY!!!" - said no Outlaw Biker or Escaped Mental Patient, ever.

If buying her flowers, cooing to her and watching SITC together in your 'jammies put men on the Express Train to Poundtown, then TRP would feature posts on "Roses, Should You Bring Her Red or White On The First Date?" and "Pajamas: Are Flannel or Silk More Appropriate For A Cuddle Party?"

When in doubt the best thing you can say to a woman is the most sexist thing you can think of, provided you pull it off with Amused Mastery with a dash of subversiveness.

In marriage or LTR, you LEAD, she FOLLOWS.

[–]michael_wilkins 20 points21 points  (0 children)

Put another way: "I can't believe she left me for that NICE GUY!!!" - said no Outlaw Biker or Escaped Mental Patient, ever.

To be fair, I don't think they'd notice. Which is why it probably never happens.

[–]rossiFan 33 points34 points  (4 children)

Reminds me of a cartoon I once saw, where some metrosexual was in the shower getting ready for his date, thinking to himself "She's going to LOVE my new orange blossom vanilla body wash!"

Next panel, his "date" calls him and calls it off.

Next panel she's hanging up and some big tatted biker dude is pounding away and says "Let's go for three, baby!"

[–]joe579003 9 points10 points  (3 children)

That's an OOOLD playboy cartoon.

[–]OmegaMan2 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Would you be able to post a link to that cartoon?

[–]rossiFan 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It is? I think I saw it first here on Reddit, actually.

[–]swift_phoenix 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I have not seen such a good TRP gold comment in a while. Good on you.

[–]HeatseekingLogicBomb[S] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Definitely a TLDR, which is why I said that numerous times to preface. Heh. I couldn't resist just commenting on it all, the whole thing is just one big TRP endorsement. It's not so much a revelation of content, as it is psychologists and marriage counselors exhaustively corroborating what we already talk about.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I actually read 99% of it. Very funny and an interesting study

[–]Gawernator 1 point2 points  (8 children)

If she leads she will become unattracted.

[–]Senior Endorsed ContributorVasiliyZaitzev 2 points3 points  (7 children)

Oh, you can let them off of the leash now and again. Generally, they don't like it because then they have to take actual responsibility for things.

I had a convo with one of my girls, once upon a time. She was older than my usual girl and she asked if I was ever stressed about always having to do the planning and such--she was admiring my organizational skills and telling me how stressful it would be for her. So I said "No. For me it comes naturally. Plus I get to do what I want all that time," and then smacked her on the ass.

Once we were down in NYC and I offered to let her plan our day. She started off by taking us down to the wrong subway platform (uptown instead of downtown). So as we were standing there, waiting for the wrong train, I asked her if she wanted me to correct her, if she made a mistake. She said, "yes", so I said, "okay, well, we're standing on the wrong platform, because to get to Chelsea, we need a 'downtown' train." So we went over to the other side and I said something like, "I'll pick the station we get off at if you don't mind" and she agreed. /grin But we had an okay time doing what she wanted to do which was visit Chelsea Mkt.

Moral: girls suck at logistics, but sometimes it's ok to let them try, if only so they get that what you do isn't easy (for them), you just make it look easy.

[–][deleted]  (4 children)

[deleted]

    [–]Senior Endorsed ContributorVasiliyZaitzev 0 points1 point  (3 children)

    What about girls who are genuinely good at planning/logistics?

    This is the, "But what about that one girl who has mega-talent?" question.

    What about them? They're pretty rare, and given the age gaps involved, plus the amount of travel I do, I rarely run into women who can out-do me on travel plans. This last week I was traveling and met a couple of women in the airport club, a 50 y.o. MILF and her friend. The MILF wanted to meet me, hard, so I went along with it--actually, I was more or lest trapped, so not much to be done, and she had a 'yoga body' and was an interesting conversationalist. She was probably a total fox back in Reagan's 2nd term.

    Anyway, we were on the same TATL and do you think either of them had the least clue about things like, I dunno, where the gate was. They were likewise up front, so we skipped past the horde, and over to the bullpen for J, with them wondering aloud why we weren't in the other line.... "Our line is over here, ladies."

    We booked to go to Paris for the weekend and then the next day she had a page full of activities planned and all the travel routes there and back etc.

    And she probably already had baby names picked out.

    If I'm in a country with a girl who speaks the local lingo better than me, fine, but I'm still the shot-caller, and the reality is, as noted above, the likelihood that I run into a girl who can manage the vagaries of international (or domestic) travel better than I can is pretty limited.

    [–][deleted]  (2 children)

    [deleted]

      [–]Senior Endorsed ContributorVasiliyZaitzev 1 point2 points  (1 child)

      Guess who else is an ENTJ? Notice how I knew. (Although really I'm on the border of ENTJ and ENTP. So Commander vs Visionary. Or Cult Leader, I forget.)

      [–]RestoreTheUnion 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Sexist jerkboys as well as leaders are both people who have figured out to manipulate mechanics: different flavors of redpiller. Here's the question. Are you a boy, or are you a man? If you're a man, what does that mean?

      [–]Daddie0 91 points92 points  (13 children)

      Women truly believe that they can have it and do it all. When reality sets in they are ashamed of themselves. With shame comes blame.

      What happened? Feminism blamed men. How can she be expected to do it all?! He needs to start helping out!

      The part they forgot was men never expected them to do it all in the first place, women put those unreal expectations on themselves.

      Women were / are sold a lie with feminism, but either don't want to admit it or cannot see it.

      Guys get married and what alpha they had gets sucked out of them and become more beta.

      Women will despise you when you are having success with traditional feminine chores, on top of working, coaching the kids sports, and even initiate sex (but since she is butt hurt you will get rejected).

      Then comes the need to find the chink in the armor. You wonder why you got 20 things done around the house and she comes home to bitch about the 1 or 2 things you didn't get to yet? Makes sense now doesn't it?

      Wait a minute he did all of that, I could never... (I have personally seen this). Let me tell you boys, your sex life plummets. Why? Read the first part of my response again.

      [–]FractalFactorial 34 points35 points  (3 children)

      Nothing exemplifies this more than the average (casual) feminist: a girl who'll preach equality until the end of the day but still lust for smelly, sweaty, hairy, muscular man to gorilla fuck her into submission.

      [–]Tipsy_Gnostalgic 38 points39 points  (2 children)

      Emma Watson is a perfect example. She has made preaching feminism her new life's goal, yet all of her boyfriends are alpha as fuck.

      [–]FriedHayek 24 points25 points  (0 children)

      Of course she is. The High Church of Feminism pays her more for lying. Telling the truth generally costs you money. Besides, she is an actor, so it isn't difficult for her to have someone else's words on her tongue.

      [–][deleted] 14 points15 points  (7 children)

      It's true. We are objectively better at everything. They are true obligate inferiors. To encourage their ambition is cruel because they will fail at everything they attempt without male supervision and leadership. The irony is that they are prone to unrelenting, unmerited self esteem which only perpetuates the hoax of feminism, or that she is somehow capable of self actualization.

      There was a banned study conducted at a left coast university that showed how the female brain is not only incapable of rotating 3 dimensional objects in the mind, but it is also incapable of rotating concepts, ideas and deeper comprehension of all subjects within the female mind's eye. It was discovered that they are only capable of rote memorization without any nuanced understanding of the words comprising the concepts they were memorizing. Think of it like a chimpanzee that understands what basic nouns are along with fathoming basic verbs with strong visual associations like "run" "stop" or "jump." You can imagine how controversial these findings were and the neuroscience students involved were drummed out of their college for their efforts.

      Of course you're better at household management and childcare than she is. The only thing separating her from the great apes is less hair and vocal chords and only one of those features benefits us as men hint: it aint her ability to speak.

      [–]Daddie0 13 points14 points  (3 children)

      https://therationalmale.com/2016/11/16/shes-unhaapppy/

      American women are wealthier, healthier and better educated than they were 30 years ago. They’re more likely to work outside the home, and more likely to earn salaries comparable to men’s when they do. They can leave abusive marriages and sue sexist employers. They enjoy unprecedented control over their own fertility. On some fronts — graduation rates, life expectancy and even job security — men look increasingly like the second sex.

      But all the achievements of the feminist era may have delivered women to greater unhappiness. In the 1960s, when Betty Friedan diagnosed her fellow wives and daughters as the victims of “the problem with no name,” American women reported themselves happier, on average, than did men. Today, that gender gap has reversed. Male happiness has inched up, and female happiness has dropped. In postfeminist America, men are happier than women.

      And, as would be expected, women’s dissatisfaction with their lives is always traced back to uncooperative men and their reluctancy to make feminism the roaring success they just know it could be if men would simply accept their diminishing importance and superfluousness. What Today’s Woman has been sold is that the careerism, status seeking and ambitiousness that’s driven men to their sense of happiness-through-accomplishment (with all the prerequisite sacrifices needed to get there) is necessarily the same path to women’s sense of happiness and fulfillment.

      [–]Short-changedChad 11 points12 points  (2 children)

      If male happiness has inched up it must have increased from a very low starting point. Everywhere I go and in most social interactions I see men who while not all depressed, certainly look hollow and downtrodden- save for the naturally gifted and successful. Most men, single or not, still have the capacity to have fun but there is a sardonic gallows humour about it. I'm sure that behind closed doors a lot of gloomy thoughts are had by the average man. Depression/suicide statistics show that.

      90% of men are invisible to women for reasons we all know. Their behaviour and general malaise signals (to those who can see it) that their souls know the system is broken even if they themselves do not.

      [–]1OneRedYear 10 points11 points  (1 child)

      “The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation. What is called resignation is confirmed desperation. From the desperate city you go into the desperate country, and have to console yourself with the bravery of minks and muskrats. A stereotyped but unconscious despair is concealed even under what are called the games and amusements of mankind. There is no play in them, for this comes after work. But it is a characteristic of wisdom not to do desperate things..”

      Henry David Thoreau

      [–]HeatseekingLogicBomb[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

      I was about to say:

      They're better at certain things. But you kind of alluded to it:

      unrelenting, unmerited self esteem

      ...like coddling (read: not disciplining and refining, but just showering unearned praise) on kids. To an extent, kids do need some ego-building, but not to the extent the modern society goes to with it's participation award culture. They need to be guided towards successes. So, corrected when they make mistakes, with unflinching, stern delivery. And discipline for defiance. (Male strengths.)

      [–]mummersfarce_is_done 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      I have reached the exact same conclusion based on my experiences.

      [–]bowie747 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      incapable of rotating concepts, ideas and deeper comprehension.

      I work with mostly women in medical research. Most of them don't understand why I'm constantly asking why, why, why to my Professors. Hint: it's because I care about understand what I'm doing and why I'm doing it, as a pose to only understanding how to do it.

      [–]joh2141 9 points10 points  (0 children)

      Those salty cunts dry faster than regular ones.

      [–]HeatseekingLogicBomb[S] 47 points48 points  (9 children)

      ...continued:

      T-shirt / divorce pill, from where we left off:

      There’s an important exception, though. These findings didn’t apply when women were on the birth-control pill: They responded differently to the T-shirt test by selecting partners who had similar immunity and were less “other.” One study even suggested that when “a woman chooses her partner while she is on the pill and then comes off it to have a child, her hormone-driven preferences change, and she may find she is married to the wrong kind of man.”

      Go scroll back up: test confirmed multiple times over. Go search up on "The Divorce Pill".

      the idea was that you’re only half a person and you can’t be complete unless you get the opposite half. Both men and women were trained to find attractive somebody who did things and had things and were things that they were not.

      Women are betas. Don't be a beta.

      It'd be funny if it weren't so sad:

      But now that women do and have and are many of the things that they used to seek in their partners... research [...] suggests that too much similarity in egalitarian marriages leads to boredom and decreased sexual frequency

      And as you can see from this article, simply having an egalitarian marriage between polar opposites will fuck you over as well.

      “Introducing more distance or difference, rather than connection and similarity, helps to resurrect passion in long-term, stable relationships.”

      Don't be overly accessible. Don't be a woman (a beta). It's just a broken record of TRP truth.

      ...a married friend who described his wife as his “best friend” said he was happy to take a high degree of simpatico over a high degree of sexual pull. “I can walk down the street and be attracted to 10 people and want to have sex with them but it doesn’t mean they’re going to make me happy. It doesn’t mean I’d want to live the day-to-day with them. There are always going to be trade-offs.”

      Is the trade-off of egalitarian marriage necessarily less sexual heat? It’s possible that the sexual scripts we currently follow will evolve along with our marital arrangements so that sameness becomes sexy.

      Yes, that's the trade off. Which you, Lori, exhaustively documented. Cue solipsism and tempering: "oh well nature will just evolve with us!" Uh, no. That isn't how this works. Nature doesn't care about your morality, and the people running this model are literally experiencing negative birth rates. They're vacating the gene pool, not taking it over. It's not even K-selection, because it's not quality, but it sure as shit is going to get annihilated by r-selection. It already is.

      Regardless, more people marrying today are choosing egalitarian setups for the many other benefits they offer. If every sexual era is unhappy in its own way, it may be that we will begin to think of the challenges of egalitarian marriages less as drawbacks and more like, well, life, with its inherent limitations on how exciting any particular aspect can be.

      Who said that was true? Some women were unhappy civilly, therefore we have to project no women are satisfied sexually (or in any manner) with traditionalist culture even though this whole article proved Westerners are basically unhappier than ever?

      “It’s the first time in history we are trying this experiment of a sexuality that’s rooted in equality and that lasts for decades,” Esther Perel said. “It’s a tall order for one person to be your partner in Management Inc., your best friend and passionate lover. There’s a certain part of you that with this partner will not be fulfilled. You deal with that loss. It’s a paradox to be lived with, not solved.”

      No, it doesn't last. Ridiculous. You can't prove a premise of sexuality disappearing, and call a business partnership sexuality. Further solipsism, tempering, and projecting. Again they're just saying "when women are more submissive overall all women are automatically unhappy". Basically, what doesn't conform to their dualistic goals is "unsolvable". No. People like this are creating the problem. The extreme dissonance required to correctly identify what is destroying people's marriages, and then sell them more of it, is nothing short of appalling.

      I forgot a piece:

      23 percent of married mothers have a higher income than their husbands.

      Interesting way to say 77% of women prefer their men to have a higher income than them. (Reframing)


      ...the proportion of all women who are never married at age 25 to 29 has increased substantially from 1986 to 2009 (27 percent to 47 percent), it did not differ statistically for women aged 55 and over (5 percent to 6 percent).

      Percent never married by age:

      1986:

      +25-29: 26.9%

      +30-34: 14%

      2009:

      +25-29: 46.8

      +30-34: 26.7

      [–]Rufferto_n_Groo 59 points60 points  (1 child)

      If your boredom was ever weaponized, you'd be declared a weapon of mass destruction.

      Longest post I've seen yet. Also, nice work.

      [–]HeatseekingLogicBomb[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

      Literally laughed at this one. Thanks.

      [–]Hans_im_Hopfenglueck 11 points12 points  (0 children)

      Incredible work and great breakdown of the article. Each of your explanations hits the nail on the head.

      [–]haxurmind 9 points10 points  (1 child)

      /u/redpillschool , can we get this stickied?

      Nice work HeatseekingLogicBomb.

      [–]bethyannlover 4 points5 points  (1 child)

      Not sure why you think the statistic about never-married percentages going up has anything to do with "the wall" - the end result is that by age 55, 95-96% of women (virtually no difference between 1986 and 2009) have married at least once.

      What can be deduced from that is that women are marrying later, which is a well known fact, and actually invalidates (your) concept of the wall (which to you seems to be about women losing their ability to get married) - almost half of women in 2009 were not married before 30, but virtually all of them ended up married, so a great number were married after 30.

      [–]HeatseekingLogicBomb[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      I guess I could have put more context there.

      The stats just show that women will settle, just to achieve a goal like it's a check-box regardless of how wise a decision it is, based on where a perceived "wall" is (based on their perception). Years ago it was younger. Now we know, not like it was a controversial assertion, that women wait until after "The wall" (as we define it - not as they perceive it) more often.

      But at that point, women will feel that instinctual urge to leverage declining SMV even more desperately. So the "never married" goes down. Even if they fail miserably, perhaps numerous times, to get a marriage under the belt, even still by age 55 (look at the link) the "never married" grouping is marginal.

      [–]Chiptehubah 3 points4 points  (0 children)

      This is gold right here. There's evidence provided via studies and statistics to prove a point. Great stuff man

      [–][deleted] 44 points45 points  (4 children)

      Jesus Christ.

      TL;DR

      A woman will GLADLY do all the chores for the chance at sucking Chad's dick and having his children.

      A woman will not find Beta Brad appealing, no matter how much of the chores he does.

      [–][deleted]  (3 children)

      [deleted]

        [–]BobbyPeru 6 points7 points  (2 children)

        Unless they lift and read the sidebar

        [–][deleted]  (1 child)

        [deleted]

          [–][deleted] 38 points39 points  (0 children)

          Long article but great stuff. Here's a money quote:

          “The less gender differentiation, the less sexual desire.” In other words, in an attempt to be gender-neutral, we may have become gender-neutered.

          [–]manuelazana 15 points16 points  (3 children)

          [–]1nonthaki 13 points14 points  (1 child)

          And again: "we want betas who are somehow also natural alphas but then revert to being betas when we don't want alphas and we don't want to work on our problems!"

          So funny :')

          The modern marital tableau [...] is two overwhelmed people trying to relax before bed: he on Pornhub, she on Pinterest.

          T.R.U.E.

          He probably just wants to watch ESPN, have a beer, and tell her to fuck off already. But he can't risk half the assets he'll ever own (while the government rapes him for the half of the remainder).

          Also telling your gf straight on that you are not attracted to her can backfire sometimes (instead of her trying harder to win your affection) and she will run off to fuck some other Chad or alpha .

          I asked how interested he was in having sex with his wife, and he looked at me and laughed.

          DARK

          Also , Bookmarked , Upvoted and I think this might be contending for the Side - Bar .

          [–]Shubrook 11 points12 points  (1 child)

          But...but why didn't they just fly out to mount doom on the eagles?

          [–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (2 children)

          The question is, how much black knighting is too much? I've done some pretty horrible things and the women invested more in me as a consequence, but sometimes I still feel like i'm going too far.

          [–]HeatseekingLogicBomb[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

          Think of it like a kid. That's something that gets talked about around here; "women are like children - especially in regards to things where their sexual drive is active". So think of them like really stubborn kids. Some kids are great, they're helpful and want to learn. That's not who we're talking about, we're talking about little shitlords.

          You want to help the kid learn and grow, if possible. If you are going to be continually invested with them, you need to see some sort of level of performance met. There needs to be a value-added, for your attention and invested energy to be continual. The burden of male performance is initiation, and earning sex. The burden of female performance is reciprocation, and earning commitment.

          There's definitely a give and take. Men contribute in their own way, no question. But it doesn't work to sit and try and have that logical argument; "hey I'm doing X, you do Y, and we'll both be better off". That stuff should only really come up in certain situations, and the male should still take a leadership role. It's more of a heads-up that something's going to happen a certain way, than it is "would you please extend me your authority to do this a certain way?" It's presenting frame and allowing her her complaints and the chance to give actual valuable input or perspective you may have missed. But you are still the executor.

          Sometimes, you have to accept that some women are culturally conditioned beyond what you will be able to override. People are programmed the same way, but look at yourself and other men. Does it manifest the same? No. Some women will be more willing and able to handle their roles, and feel comfortable in them. Some will have a more comfortable innate understanding of the value reciprocation between the two of you.

          So going back to a kid that you want to help.. there's a point where you are damaging their self confidence and willingness to reciprocate, but you can't coddle them at all. They have to earn your praise, and their own success. You can pitch in a little bit here or there, if things are really hectic like I said earlier, but you have to do it in a way that says "I'm just helping because I'm awesome, and you slipped up this time. Don't expect me to pick up your slack all the time, and don't expect me to overlook this all the time." (Amused mastery.) Because honestly? They will hold you to the same standard whether they know, you know it, or society knows it, or not.

          [–]Kalepsis 11 points12 points  (1 child)

          I read the article you referenced, and I didn't seem to learn anything new. But this was my favorite part:

          "While past research has shown that men have higher rates of infidelity than women, those rates are becoming increasingly similar, particularly in younger people in developed countries, where recent studies have found no gender differences in extramarital sex among men and women under 40."

          I think the only reason those infidelity figures are moving closer together is that women feel less guilty or stigmatized about lying about their affairs now than they used to, so the surveys are getting slightly more accurate information.

          [–]HeatseekingLogicBomb[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          It's definitely not new. It's just professionals; psychologists and marriage counselors and researchers, corroborating what TRP already talks about and believes.

          I also think you're right about that, as I mentioned in regards to other research earlier in the article. Women will lie, even in a private, confidential setting. That surveyed "equal rate now achieved" is probably in actuality women cheating far more.

          Given their access especially, and how hook-up apps and social media have altered things further to exacerbate the already present access disparity, it's definitely higher female infidelity in the modern Western world.

          [–]rigbed 30 points31 points  (0 children)

          Cough cough, *The failing New York Times

          [–]1KyfhoMyoba 5 points6 points  (3 children)

          Ask ten women what 3 qualities/behaviors/attributes/characteristics make for a good husband. Then ask them what 3 qualities/behaviors/attributes/characteristics make a man sexy.

          I've done this with about 50 women. So far I have found zero overlap from column 'A' to column 'B'. IOW, none of the women found any quality that made for a good husband to be sexy, or any quality that was sexy to be desirable for a husband.

          NEVER POINT OUT THIS CONCLUSION TO ANY WOMAN WHATSOEVER!!!

          [–]HeatseekingLogicBomb[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

          This is a great suggestion for anyone to help completely solidify the reality of TRP.

          [–]LiteSoul 0 points1 point  (1 child)

          Why can't we point out that conclusion to any woman? (Serious question). Besides, by asking them those question they must have concluded the same I guess

          [–]1KyfhoMyoba 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          The female sexual strategy searches for strength, and is diametrically opposed to the beta values, which create civilization. We are all, male and female, conditioned to (overtly, at least) embrace these values. When you expose her duplicity, her dual nature, her schizophrenia, she won't like this. If you don't point it out, she won't get it. She's lived with her sexuality all her life - it's entirely unconscious for her. Don't ruin the movie for her.

          The first rule of Fight Club is that you don't talk about FightClub. This information is for your benefit only. She already has this knowledge, albeit unconsciously. She's happy with the rationalizations that she's already created to keep this dichotomy in check. Don't go and start a disagreement between her unconscious and her consciousness. You will get stuck in an endless argument of AWALT vs NAWALT. You will be called a creep and a misogynist. You will be exposed as one that "doesn't get it" (See Rollo's post on the same topic), i.e., not a natural alpha, you've just demonstrated that your persona is consciously constructed.

          Women talk, men do. Demonstrate, don't explicate. Acta, non verba.

          [–]bigelephantfat 3 points4 points  (0 children)

          The vast majority of non-obese or ugly women not married or with a long term partner they latter intend to marry by around 25 at the absolute latest are stupid and are whores.

          Men have known this since men existed. Get on with life.

          If you are a fat un-married, non-good looking 28 year old woman you are what was affectionately known as an "old maid" back when society still made sense. You were one of the women no one else wanted, for whatever reason. Being an older woman with out a partner, should cause women a great deal of shame. And it still does.

          [–]michael_wilkins 2 points3 points  (0 children)

          Quality post.

          Having everything set out and explained in action is perfect.

          [–]SillyPutty47 2 points3 points  (0 children)

          Omg. Better heat up my lunch before I sit down to read this one.

          [–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (1 child)

          I have a strong feeling this is a correlation, not a causation. Wimpy men are more likely to accept egalitarian marriages and thus we see them with a high failure rate.

          I know my evidence is anecdotal, but some of the best marriages I know are egalitarian while some of the worst are the opposite. The only thing I've ever seen be 100% correlated with a strong marriage is the guy being as we say "alpha as fuck."

          Women want to follow a strong leader, that's all. Some paths make that easier but as long as you are that strong leader, you'll be fine.

          [–]HeatseekingLogicBomb[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          That's a good point as well. The context of the article and my post being there are many statements from marriage counselors, so as I mentioned in the post; it's self evident they're failing.

          That said, we do know marriage is decaying terribly as an institution. People are avoiding it, particularly men.

          Your anecdote may be an exception; it might be successful in both areas (domestic and sexual) or it may be like what the article said: the marriage itself (a business transaction) is more stable in certain ways, and the coupling, romantically, is worse off. You know better than I. Personally I'd go for a more dynamic situation where the romantic aspect can be satisfied, because a broken home is a disaster for kids anyway.

          [–]deeman010 1 point2 points  (1 child)

          I read through everything... thanks for condensing so much RP knowledge into one place (I guess we should thank the author for allowing so much to be discussed in this one space).

          I've immersed myself in RP so much and The more I read the angrier I get. What happens when anger phase never ends?? It's been 1 and a half years now and this shit is just depressing to be honest. It doesn't help that I have a lot of sociopathic tendencies.

          [–]cashmoney_x 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          You need to work on removing false expectations. Nature is what it is.

          [–]LOST_TALE 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          K just skip to page 15 of the pdf. motherfucker didn't put in vertical unit for graph. 3,5 what? sex per day, per month? what?

          But at-least it covers the entire distribution so if you can find an average you can determine.

          [–]redzorp 1 point2 points  (1 child)

          Thanks for taking the time to write all that. Lengthy but very insightful. While it's nothing new to TRP, it's a great summary of all that is wrong with modern marriage and the state of male-female relations in general.

          [–]RestoreTheUnion 1 point2 points  (1 child)

          Egalitarian marriage is only consistent with egalitarian societies. We created more egalitarian societies by staking our collective past onto the victories of our popular armies on the battlefield, and the victories in the marketplace of our enterprise. The tensions and disunity sown by liberalism and its tendency to shatter collective media markets and pit taste against taste and enforce team-picking among us weakens our national phalanx. We've got to fix these problems. The future awaits. There's a lot of Chinese, and they go to school. Chinese intellectual tradition stems from early realism - it's why Sun Tzu is a fond choice for many a redpiller. They only will pick fights they can win, and they realize war is not the only arena. We must learn from what will hopefully be a friendly rival.

          We did it before. Can we do it again?

          [–]HeatseekingLogicBomb[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          You sound more optimistic than I feel on most days as far as Western society itself is concerned..

          Definitely troubling.

          [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

          Not to offend, but it seems that Americans got their men and women brainwashed and fucked up. All this talk about alpha, beta, nice guys, is a repetitive cliche that few seek to eliminate on a large scale. No one ever discusses about finding a rigid, basic structure for educating daughters or son about sex. No one ever discusses solving the problem of how to get female desire without being an asshole and learning how to accept rejection (healthily from a young age). Instead, I often see "fuck marriage, ect." It's not the marriage that's inherently bad, it's the people who can abuse it by not understanding what it's for.

          This problem with alpha, beta, nice guy, and marriage being a bad deal will not change until you starting educating the youth about what marriage, men, and women mean for society. Until then, this sub reddit is virtually ineffective on a large scale and encourages the minority of males (most whom learned the world is not nice) to post polarized advice here. Find a rigid, system to educate both young males and females about adult hood, on a wider, national scale, and this alpha beta nice guy problem may be addressed more effectively.

          [–]HeatseekingLogicBomb[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          No offense taken.

          It is true, it's not that marriage as a concept is terrible. It's that marriage, conceptually at this point in time, is terrible. The court system is terrible as well.

          The issue is America is the third largest country, and has one of the widest ranges of various cultures and beliefs held within it. To get this "rigid control structure" you speak of would require people understanding the problem, facing it honestly, and having a real discussion about it. Then they'd be able to elect officials to try and change things, to change educational standards as well as organize non-governmental organizations or try to have their churches approach things differently as well.

          But there's an issue to this... most men are automatically beta. They take a beta approach, which means not standing up for themselves or what's right. It means compromising as much as possible to female desires, to compensate for a lack of value. So this basically leaves us with a situation where things have to explode and fail for people to really learn the lesson again, seeing as how it's a lesson that has been learned before.

          But as for this subreddit, and "alpha / beta"...

          • This sub is just about being the best masculine you you can be. It's not about creating a widespread social change. It's about attracting women, whether that is getting laid a lot by many different women, or attracting and securing a long-term relationship, the framework of masculinity that women require is the same. For a LTR they also want certain beta behaviors, but you can't lose the alpha behaviors too much.

          • Alpha/beta itself is established by psychology. They're just terms to describe behaviors. And those behaviors existed before they had those terms applied, and they will always exist. The fact that some men will always be perceived as much higher value than the rest will never change. Same goes for women. They just behave a lot differently. They're basically all betas compared to fully alpha or partially alpha men. They're supposed to be the submissive sex. Which is why the most assertive, demanding, masculine women do poorly in the dating market. It's unattractive to a man's subconscious brain.

          [–]VickVaseline 1 point2 points  (1 child)

          This is the best post I have ever read.

          [–]kamwren 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          Amazing comments from the NYT users.

          [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

          These men who "ended up unhappy" don't seem to ever know how they got to where they are, which speaks loudly of a distinctive commonality between them: they became passive, and allowed someone who is as passive as a leaf in a stream to veer things their way. As a result, every single time, the woman has been given every advantage there is to have in their situation, thanks to a repeatedly yielding man, while he gets jack shit to show for his compliance.

          Are these men really surprised when they have their little "I can't take it anymore" speech, and the woman is baffled at this sudden uprising? While they're stroking themselves off on how clever their zingers are, the female already won the war ages ago. These beta pussies made it clear very early on that they wanted to be used for utility, and women, being women, were all too eager to accept a one-sided deal.

          [–]HeatseekingLogicBomb[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          Well said. It's a great example of the passive-aggressive, ingratiating sexual strategy that is inherently employed by beta approaches.

          [–]LiteSoul 1 point2 points  (1 child)

          I'm interested on what /u/TheFamilyAlpha has to say about these studies, I'm sure he can milk-write a few posts from this, and blend it with his own marriage

          [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          I chose not to touch this as, what aim would it serve?

          True, I could provide an example of a marriage that doesn't suck - but I could also provide an example of one dude who smoked a pack of cigarettes every day for 20 years and didn't get lung cancer.

          Pointing out the exception doesn't help men, it hurts them.

          [–][deleted]  (11 children)

          [deleted]

          [–]FriedHayek 6 points7 points  (0 children)

          You haven't met the guys she rejected.

          Middle class boys are so very well-behaved compared to upper class and lower class. It's cute and useful, when it isn't so sad. Upper class boys know how to, and know when to, but middle class boys get the 'well-behaving' bred into their bones.

          [–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (4 children)

          ...Men cook better. Just saying.

          [–]segagaga 8 points9 points  (0 children)

          Or rather, modern women have lost all of these cooking skills that used to be handed down mother-to-daughter.

          [–]logicalthinker1 4 points5 points  (1 child)

          Ehh. The gap is closing. Modern tech has made cooking easier than ever. Women still "love" to do it because it satisfies a natural biological need: to take care of their man. Just like men "love" to fix things. We're great at problem solving and manipulating the world around us.

          [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

          Technology makes it easier for sure... Which makes it sad that there are women who cannot cook...

          [–]kanyewost 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          see gordon ramsay, jamie oliver and co

          [–]throwawayurbuns 14 points15 points  (0 children)

          Don't know why you're getting downvoted for this, but girls like this do actually exist. I've also had the pleasure of dating a few of them.

          Things didn't work out for whatever reason, but I've stayed good friends and FWB with nearly all of them.

          From my experience though they tend to lack self esteem and see you as someone with exponentially higher SMV - but hey, your mileage may vary.

          [–]FortunateBum 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          You are in what's known as the honeymoon phase. Enjoy it while it lasts.

          Protip: It will last until about two weeks after you move in.

          [–]tallwheel 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          Sounds all right, as long as you don't have a wimpy supplicating attitude. The only thing I'd be wary of is that she makes more money. Stay alpha as possible in her eyes, or she'll start wondering why her beta money machine is not paying up.

          [–]rossiFan 2 points3 points  (0 children)

          Had to click the ol' "save" button on this wall of text, but I'll read it when I have more time. From what I saw, however, it's solid from top to bottom.

          [–]bigelephantfat 0 points1 point  (1 child)

          Nice guys get laid with women of a similar level of attractiveness. Nice guys who can't get laid are ugly.

          [–]1Entropy-7 0 points1 point  (1 child)

          You can't win. Traditional marriages are more enjoyable and I believe they have a lower divorce rate, but an egalitarian marriage is the only way to insulate yourself from getting divorce raped if and when divorce comes.

          [–]HeatseekingLogicBomb[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          You can avoid it, or go for a private contract.

          [–]iamthedaymanahhah 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          i have a stiffy and i like boy butts

          [–]Hillarysdilddo_2016 0 points1 point  (16 children)

          Ah, the pinnicle of integrity called the Jew New York Times.

          First we made the case for Iraq War WMDs.

          Second we made the case for Hillary and had a media blackout of her corruption.

          Third we write apology letters to our most astute and most intellectual duped readers.

          Oops! So sowwy! 😂😂😂

          [–]Battle-Scars 8 points9 points  (0 children)

          Jesus mods, when are you going to delete this douchebag?

          [–]HeatseekingLogicBomb[S] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

          Good thing it's based on peer-reviewed research that isn't a peddled government narrative then.

          [–]Hillarysdilddo_2016 1 point2 points  (1 child)

          True, the article you posted at least has research behind it.

          My point is NYT are habitual liars so why read/believe any of the tripe they ramble on about? Let them go out of business for being worthless, propagandous globalist shills.

          They couldn't find truth if it took a shit on their face. As it often does in the end.

          [–]HeatseekingLogicBomb[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          Agreed there, most of the mainstream when it comes to stuff outside of objectively evidenced science is pretty much all spin and reframing.

          [–]Horus_Krishna_2 1 point2 points  (2 children)

          they do lie a lot. that Iraq wmd thing got many killed but a lot of alphas signed up willingly as I remember it.

          [–]Hillarysdilddo_2016 0 points1 point  (1 child)

          Yes. And remember BILLIONS of dollars were to be made. It's the same movie that we've seen before.

          But not gonna lie. I do love the shadenfreude I get by seeng the most arrogant "intellectuals" get duped over and over again by their most revered publication. Fucking tools. Or should I say, useful idiots.

          Now, I should add, the interesting thing about the Times is that they don't always lie, but when they choose to lie, it's about things that matter most. That, is the most telling thing. They are masters of deception, gaining credibility by artfully leveraging their lies.

          [–]Horus_Krishna_2 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          "the war will pay for itself" reminds me of some of trumps lies

          [–]boomscooter 1 point2 points  (8 children)

          Yeah, making racial slurs and being racist is about the least red pill thing you can do. Scared of the brown people and Jews? Lol...

          [–]RestoreTheUnion 1 point2 points  (2 children)

          Jews have been historically forced into particular occupations. A subculture under stress and exclusion finds ways to hack the system in frameworks that they're allowed to. Who does that sound like? Judaism was forced by reality to take the red pill.

          [–]Hillarysdilddo_2016 -1 points0 points  (1 child)

          That probably has some truth to it.

          But are you really going to argue that 100 years ago Jews got "forced" into yellow journalism and the rest of the plebs oppressed them by instead keeping them out of coal mines and sweatshop factories?

          [–]RestoreTheUnion 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          q: How long will there be gamers on earth?

          a: As long as they keep playing.

          q: What's one way to make a gamer?

          a: Force her to play your game.

          [–]Hillarysdilddo_2016 -3 points-2 points  (2 children)

          that's so wacissst

          Looks like I struck a nerve.

          Don't forget sexist, misogynist, homophobe, etc etc. you should add those to your repertoire of ad hominems.

          [–]RestoreTheUnion 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          You will eventually realize that true redpillers (meaning people who understand social mechanics and drop all self-deceit and self-limitation) abandon racism, sexism, and all other forms of sophisticated excuses to play-act the Roman memes of domination. And they remember the mechanics. So they adopt the most powerful force in history: Leadership. The red pill is but one path to opening your eyes to reality.

          [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          Women have to be humiliated in order to be sexually stimulated. Few things are more demeaning to women than rubbing their noses in the vast intellectual discrepancies between your brain and hers. They are only cognitively able to master the rote memorization of words but are incapable of processing meaning from syntax or deeper concepts. They also across the board cannot assess the differences between subjective and objective. They spend easily 90% of their day faking it to everyone. When you show her that you unquestioningly know how incapable and little and frightened she is, she can drop the front that she isn't a complete dolt and just relax in her own skin and let you lead cause there's nothing left for her to hide. She's designed for pleasure and service not thoughtful achievement or self determination. Make sure she knows this and never forgets it. There's a reason she cleans the toilets and nurses infants, that is the totality of what she is.

          [–]skullminerssneakers -2 points-1 points  (12 children)

          Now im very very conservative but alot of this and the comments seem very sexist

          [–]1Paid_Internet_Troll 6 points7 points  (8 children)

          It's a discussion of observable and quantifiable differences between the sexes, backed up by citations, facts, figures, and sources.

          So, yeah, it's sexist. It's also demonstratably true.

          [–]RestoreTheUnion 0 points1 point  (7 children)

          Yes. We see evidence of the cultural effects of dissonance and domination throughout our society. The Redpill teaches us to take advantage and intervene, to manipulate the mechanics to our ends.

          What would it be like to run collective game on the whole country?

          Check out Frank Capra's 'Why We Fight' series, simply as a study of the deployment of frame on a national scale. You can find them on YouTube. And think of what it meant for our country to wake up millions of bluepillers and give them M1s. It meant this: Give 'em hell, boys. What's the world you really want?

          [–]1Paid_Internet_Troll 0 points1 point  (6 children)

          And think of what it meant for our country to wake up millions of bluepillers and give them M1s.

          Are you serious? There was no waking up.

          Bluepillers were told who to hate, and then handed guns to go kill the enemies of thier masters.

          "Why We Fight" could just as easily have been made to justify war with England in defense of Germany, and as long as all the societal control mechanisms were in place, the bluepillers would have marched off to fight England.

          Propaganda is great, just don't be dumb enough to snort your own supply.

          [–]RestoreTheUnion 0 points1 point  (4 children)

          If you think that it could 'just' as easily have been made to justify war with England, than you clearly do not understand people. That would have taken vastly more work to jump a greater gap.

          Not impossible 20 years before. We were probably closest to another war with Britain under Roosevelt. I believe were still making serious contingency plans (instead of lol ones) as late as the 1920s. Much, much more investment went into War Plans Black and Orange. (Germany and Japan)

          [–]1Paid_Internet_Troll 0 points1 point  (3 children)

          That would have taken vastly more work to jump a greater gap.

          Like harrassing and jailing returning Abraham Lincoln Brigade members after they returned from fighting Facism in the late 1930s, then flipping 180 degrees and putting out official propaganda about helping "Uncle Joe" (Stalin) against the scourge of Facism that threarened free people everywhere, and then flipping another 180 degrees and actually hiring high-ranking Nazis after the war (WW2) to run clandestine anti-Communist operations in Western Europe?

          Or half a century later, describing the Mujahadeen (literally Arabic for "people engaged in Holy War") as the Afghan equivalent of the Founding Fathers in the 1980s when paying and arming them to fight the Soviets, and literally inviting them for a photo opportunity at the White House, and then pulling a 180 and calling many of the exact same people a barbaric scourge against humanity 20 years later?

          I understand people quite well. Just tell them that we've always been at war with Eurasia, and that Eastasia has always been our ally, and watch the magic happen.

          The really dumb people will instantly believe, because they're dumb and just want to be led.

          The really smart people will instantly say they believe, because they're smart enough to know that bucking the system is suicide, so they'll play along.

          The semi-dumb people will have doubts, but when they see the mass of really dumb people being swept along, AND the really smart people going along too, they'll figure that they must have misunderstood something, because everyone else seems to get it, and they'll fall in line too, after an adjustment period.

          The only problem peopke are the semi-smart. They're too smart to instantly believe, and too dumb to instantly pretend to believe... so they'll start to fight the system.

          A few destroyed carreers, a few zealous prosecutions, a few examples of what happens when you don't obey (Manning, Assange, Schwartz), and the semi-smart fall in line eventually too.

          People are simple creatures really, like dogs with enlarged brains and opposable thumbs.

          [–]RestoreTheUnion 1 point2 points  (2 children)

          Lincoln Paraphrase: You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.

          You are forgetting the smartest of all. What do the really smart people do? You know who they are, the so-called clever and lazy of the German General Staff. Consider Georgi Zhukov's personal management of Stalin's temper. Then ask yourself why the Germans really lost to the Allies, and the scale of the benefit the postwar situation brought to the United States. In /addition/ to the fact that the rest of the world was bombed to hell.

          Ask Zhuang Zi and Sun Zi. They've been trying to tell you. But you're too locked into your frame to hear. Try another red pill.

          [–]1Paid_Internet_Troll 0 points1 point  (1 child)

          Ask Zhuang Zi and Sun Zi. They've been trying to tell you. But you're too locked into your frame to hear. Try another red pill.

          Tell me more. I'd be open to learning specifics.

          [–]RestoreTheUnion 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          Here is a hint:

          Q: What does Donald Trump have in common with Napoleon and Julius Caesar?

          A: The power of remembering people's names.

          [–]RestoreTheUnion 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          Conservatives purport to respect women as persons, and understand the importance of ritual and compassion. They are on the path to realism. Realism must also account for the victories of popular armies on the battlefield. Liberalism divides and weakens society. Conservatism is at risk of becoming obsolete. The answer is to tie the facts of the matter to the original question: What gives us the strongest phalanx?