"When women start getting that uncomfortable feeling about sleeping with their husbands and they start making excuses not to have sex, they’re usually scared. The feeling is familiar to them. They’ve experienced it before in prior relationships. They are also afraid of their husband’s reaction to their disinterest in sex. They’re afraid their husband will cheat on them or eventually leave them because of it. It’s like having a problem falling asleep when you know that you have to get up early. Your fear of not being able to sleep actually keeps you awake. Women’s fear of not wanting to have sex keeps them from ever wanting sex. They become preoccupied with their disinterest in sex. Men may even fuel their wife’s fear by implying that they may go elsewhere for sex or leave them because of it, which is the worst thing a man can do if he wants to help the situation."Although she's correct in that it is too late to fix a married couple's problems once those problems involve more people than the two who are married to each other, Langley's advice is the exact opposite of Roosh and Roissy's and runs directly counter to Athol's as well. Ironically enough, the flawed nature of her advice can be seen for a reason that she herself identifies: "It’s impossible for you to understand anything about women in this country today, unless you understand that a) they’re angry, and b) their anger is directed at men.Women today aren’t seeking equality. They want retribution—revenge."
"Today, Kevin wanted advice on how to rekindle sexual desire. I think he’s under the impression that if he does what I recommend he will be able to fix his problems with Tracey. Unfortunately, if someone else has entered the picture it’s probably too late for that. Tracey’s problem will no longer be rooted in a loss of sexual desire, but in the awakening of sexual desire."
Now, obviously not all women are angry, much less seeking revenge for the vicissitudes of human history, and those who are angry are not angry because, as Langley piously asserts in conventional feminist manner, they are an oppressed people enraged by thousands of years of societal suppression. In my observation, women are primarily angry because of the imbalance between their perception imposed by 16+ years of relentless feminist propaganda and the experience of objective reality. But it should be obvious that one doesn't placate anger by supplication, and anyone with any knowledge of Game knows that whereas women respond very badly to BETA responses, they counterintuitively tend to respond in a more mutually positive manner when the fear of abandonment Langely mentions is stimulated. The problem with Kevin's response wasn't that he mildly suggested that he was unhappy his wife had gone off sex with him, it was that he didn't make it clear that she would be responsible for ending the marriage if she didn't get her act back together.
Regardless of one prefers the Dread approach or Athol's more civilized program of self-improvement, it is important for men to be decisive and make it clear that "loss of desire" is absolutely and totally unacceptable in any marriage barring genuine medical issues.
Similarly, if things have already progressed to what Langley calls the third stage in which a wife is being consciously attracted to other men despite her so-called "loss of desire" and is openly talking about separation, decisively applying the core Game tactic of amplification is probably the only thing that might head off an imminent affair at the pass. In this case, the man shouldn't attempt to pull her back to him, but rather push her away, hard and fast. This tactic works very well for players, so it has at least the potential to work with wives who are already mentally at least one step out the door.
The core principle is very straightforward. If a woman doesn't actively want to be with you, then you certainly do not want to be with her. And in case you're not sure that it's the Game guys and not the adulterous women who have it right, then consider this assertion from Langley: "Eventually men and women will abandon traditional gender roles and find new ways of relating to one another."
This time it's different. That sounds so familiar! Now, where, I wonder, have I heard that before?
15 comments:
And all that anger's there BEFORE the first divorce!
I hate this planet.
There are two reasons for the anger. Vox has explained one of them; the other is explained by the law of relativity of human value reactions, aka the Great Irony of Human Existence. The easier and more pleasurable life is for a person, the more s/he comes to resent it. This is why children who grow up without hardship or discipline tend to be so angry and resentful. Caucasian women in the West have had it disproportionately easy for a long time, without having to earn it. Therefore, logic demands that women will be far less angry if hardship is imposed on them. The imminent societal collapse will probably take care of that.
"If a woman doesn't actively want to be with you, then you certainly do not want to be with her"
Athol's work would indicate this can be changed (sometimes) in a marriage.
I definitely would apply it before marriage. Whether you try to keep a marriage together is up to the individual and their convictions.
Probably quite difficult even using game techniques, but it seems like those can be applied to change (or rekindle) desire.
You are so right that "women are angry because of the imbalance between their perception imposed by 16+ years of relentless feminist propaganda and the experience of objective reality." I just found these "Game" blogs, and they are almost entirely correct, and it's like a knife in my chest and a punch in the gut, as a woman. It's a knife in the chest and and a punch in the gut because I have been misled for so long. And I knew on some level that the advice (from my peers, from women's magazines, even my parents) was wrong but I never heard any authority figures with cultural credibility speak the truth, until recently, so it never really sunk in. I've been riddled with uncertainty for the past 15 years and I've been panicked about my inability to find a mate. I'm panicking now because I hope it's not too late for me, just as I'm learning the truth.
I'm panicking now because I hope it's not too late for me, just as I'm learning the truth.
It's never too late, so long as you adjust your expectations appropriately.
"so long as you adjust your expectations appropriately"
Isn't that the root issue in most areas? Our expectations are out of line with reality.
Thanks for the hope that it's not too late as long as I adjust my expectations appropriately. For example, if I'm 34, a 40-year-old man might want to marry me. Or, for example, I'm not expecting an alpha male - which I don't think I ever really did, but I have invested energy in guys who might be "players," in that they are are not really interested in me as a partner, because are not pursuing me unequivocally, but seem to like me in some way. I cannot get this through my thick skull.
For example, if I'm 34, a 40-year-old man might want to marry me.
Correct. In general, women do well to pursue men who are older, with the gap increasing with age. Whereas at 25, a woman should look for a man who is 27-30, at 40, a woman should look at the 55+ crowd.
This will significantly increase a woman's chances of marrying a man with the qualities she prefers.
@: "it is important for men to be decisive and make it clear that "loss of desire" is absolutely and totally unacceptable in any marriage barring genuine medical issues."
____________
I have some experience with how this works. My wife has had ovarian cancer twice during our marriage, both times necessitating extended celibacy. Neither was frustrating or demoralizing, neither bothered me.
Going weeks or months without when she is health is frustrating, demoralizing, and bothersome.
The difference is not in the amount of sex, but in the deliberate neglect and disconnect.
It shouldn't be hard for women to understand either... if a woman is hurt that her husband ignores their anniversary, it isn't about being deprived of flowers or a gift, it is about her husband's lack of giving a damn about her. Well, ladies, that's how your husband feels... that you don't give a damn about him.
So let's say that one's longstanding wife has mentioned one or two models in fashion magazines or some such things (their bulges specifically). She's never done this before, and it comes at a time when I've clearly stated that I need sex a bit more often and varied from our previous years, which she has complied with. The magazine thing bothers me slightly but my first inclination was to say, dont talk about other guy's bulges, and then not give it another thought. Anyone have any other ideas?
Anonymous
What took you so long?
Younger girls like me have become more cynical about all the male-bashing and male-blaming. It has gotten really old.
OzGirlie
The magazine thing bothers me slightly but my first inclination was to say, dont talk about other guy's bulges, and then not give it another thought. Anyone have any other ideas?
It shouldn't bother you at all. She's just telling you what she likes. Are you out of shape? If so, that's her way of suggesting that if you get in better shape, she'll probably be inclined to have more sex.
Don't be a little girl. Of course she is attracted to other men. All women are, just as all men are attracted to other women. It's not like she's going to suddenly start having an affair with a male model she met in a magazine.
I don't agree with all of it, but I found Langley's sequel "Women's Infidelity 2" to be interesting and hilarious (not intentionally).
She wouldn't let the woman of the story's nonsense go unchallenged. She told her that she put on a false front to win her husband, who was a hot commodity when she married him. Then she was left with a choice to either continue without her undisclosed needs being met, or she could come clean and feel like a fraud. Since she was neither willing to let her needs go unmet, nor take responsibility for her deceit, she invented a third option: making her husband the culprit.
She also told her that while it may be easy for her to get other to rally behind her and blame her husband, that she was responsible for create the situation.
While I agree with most of Vox's criticisms here, I will say it is refreshing to see a book on man/woman relations that actually acknowledges two sides to the story, and is willing to both defend men and hold women accountable. It goes the other way at least 99.9% of the time.
I think it is amazing how no one bats an eye lid when a women hears something she doesn't like and admits having violent thoughts.
Remember when Lawrence Summers said women weren't as good at math as men? He was killing them in the aisles!
""It’s impossible for you to understand anything about women in this country today, unless you understand that a) they’re angry, and b) their anger is directed at men.Women today aren’t seeking equality. They want retribution—revenge.""
Nothing new here:
"We Europeans see it every day in the case of our American visitors. The American woman is set on getting the best she can for her money, or her father’s money, or it may be her husband’s. She rides over man rough-shod. ‘I guess you’re an Englishman. I don’t like Englishmen,’ said a young American beauty to Sir Philip Burne-Jones in some such words. ‘We Americans are accustomed to have the men at our feet,’ said an American lady to me. ‘We wouldn’t take up the position your women do for anything.’ It is the era of the woman’s revenge, and apparently she is getting it. But in the result it is achieved by a demoralization of sex, even by a debauch of sex."
See the rest here: Notes of Simple Remembrance.
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.