Tuesday, December 18, 2012

Playing the long game

An interesting aspect on a female relationship tactic that more or less corresponds with Game theory:
For years, she argued, family therapists and counsellors had encouraged the wronged wife to blame herself (and, by default, the “other woman” to console herself), with the belief that men stray only when they are trapped in unhappy marriages. This, Shirley Eskapa maintained, was nonsense. Men have a built-in predisposition to wander, and a happy marriage is no guarantee that they will not succumb to erotic stimuli from outside. Whether this ends in the breakdown of a marriage, she believed, depends to a great extent on the cheated wife....

Some wives, she found, became so stricken by anger, jealousy or guilt that they unwittingly helped their rivals. Many women, however, managed to manipulate the situation to win back the errant spouse, either by pretending not to notice and waiting for the “crisis of ecstasy” to burn itself out, or by mounting a subtle campaign of calculated revenge, with the aim of “diminishing the Other Woman without diminishing the man”.

In one case a wife arrived at her husband’s love-nest, where she left their four young children and badly-behaved cross-bred Alsatian, along with a note containing elaborate instructions for their care and the declaration: “I’m going to Los Angeles. Like you, I am following a thing bigger than me.” After three weeks, the other woman was screaming like a harridan at the children, the dog and the husband. “She surrendered unconditionally,” Shirley Eskapa recalled. The husband duly returned to the marital home, not merely repentant, but supremely grateful. 
This is an interesting illustration of one of Roissy's more controversial assertions, which is that the effects of male infidelity are different than the effects of female infidelity.  The subsequent relationship effects, mind you, not the level of moral offense.  The point is not that men get some sort of free pass for cheating, only that a woman stands a pretty good chance of keeping her husband if she wants to and is willing to play her cards correctly.  Obviously, not every woman would want to do so, but the option does appear to exist in at least some cases.

Men, on the other hand, are pretty much toast if things reach that point because the female inclination to wander is usually predicated on the death of her attraction to her husband.

41 comments:

SarahsDaughter said...

Bitches be crazy, a wife simply needs to learn to be less crazy than the new bitch. It's just a matter of time.

whoism3 said...

Doug1 made this statement over and over again at HUS. Susan didn't take kindly to this train of thought for obvious reasons.

While i do not condone and abhor cheating, i have seen men who stray while still in love with their wives, and stray only because the wife has so isolated them, they almost do it out of a means to stave off giving up.

When women stray, it's because as you say, hubby's toast.. and theres no coming back from that.

Michael Maier said...

Isn't it Dr. Laura that says to women not having sex "Do you want him to go to a prostitute or a mistress?"

I have seen this up close. A dedicated husband and a good provider for at three decades of marriage, frozen out for years and he cheated on my friend. Stupidly, he fessed up. She told me about it and seemed miffed when I didn't condemn him in the least, but damn... what can you expect? I've known her over 20 years and I've never heard her speak well of sex in any capacity. Sad situation. She has medical issues which probably doesn't help the situation, but I bet most of it is her attitude.

They seem happy together lately, though.

HeligKo said...

This is absolute truth. I have never seen a marriage recover after the wife wander. Mine just became a more miserable mess for the next 10 years as I did the "Christian" thing and forgave her. As I have come to find out, the straying never ended. I have seen so many men stray and make things better afterwards. The psychology is completely different, and women hate to admit it. Many women actually find their husband more attractive after they have strayed, because it has been demonstrated he has value to other women.

Trust said...

As far as lost attraction goes, isn't it amazing how much more attractive a man is to a woman when he has something she wants (money, security, etc.) and she has to work to keep it. Also amazing how that attraction mysteriously vanishes when what they want is now mandatory by law instead of given willingly as reciprocation.

Unending Improvement said...

"Isn't it Dr. Laura that says to women not having sex 'Do you want him to go to a prostitute or a mistress?'"

Yes, I definately think it's her. She's a tradcon, but I always enjoy what she has to say

Mike T said...

Just look at the biology and that will tell you the material differences. A man can stray, impregnate 1,000 women and come back to his wife with her bearing no burden to support his bastards. If a woman strays, gets pregnant and comes back her husband must help her raise another man's child. That's assuming a quasi-state of nature, but the point stands.

redlegben said...

So, who in your mind raises the 1000 children?

The One said...

As Mike said said women have guaranteed paternity, men don't. So men cheating is biologically not as bad, biologically, not morally.

Jack Amok said...

Yes, I definately think it's her. She's a tradcon, but I always enjoy what she has to say


But tradcon advise to women is usually pretty good. It's only when given men advice that tradcons go off into the weeds.

Tradcons have a view of the world the way it was back when society worked. It's a view that is actually pretty good. Their problem is that they don't understand (or perhaps admit) that it's overwhlemingly women who have walked away from that world, that men by and large are still trying to live decent, civilized lives, abiding by the old rules.

So advising men to be, shall we say, more tradtional, is bogus advice. Most men already are, and that's what's torpedoing them. But advising women to be more traditional - that's likely to be good advice.

Desiderius said...

"mandatory by law instead of given willingly as reciprocation"

Volumes could be written.

The crux of problems far beyond the scope of this post topic.

Anonymous said...

So, who in your mind raises the 1000 children?

Under the old law where children born into wedlock were the property and responsibility of the man and children born out of wedlock were the property and responsibility of the woman, the woman would raise them, naturally, which undoubtedly kept many women from slutting it up and opening their legs to any cad and his dog.

Nowadays? The man and society (other men paying taxes) does. That is to say, just about everyone except the irresponsible woman.

finndistan said...

It starts way before marriage;

Woman sees man with some woman, she goes "Ooooh I got to have that"...

Man sees woman with some man, he goes "Next..."

I suppose this goes on into marriage.

Man cheating refuels the hamster, "Ooooh, he managed to get laid, he still must be attractive...", besides, he is paying for the marital upkeep anyway...

Woman cheating enrages the cobra, "Disgust, blood, death, or peacefully, simply the end of the relationship", besides, he is paying for the marital upkeep anyway...

Trust said...

Desiderius

True. That was a loaded statement. I did mean it in context of the topic, how government maims what it claims to help. We pay women to leave dependable husbands then wonder why women don't value them.

marellus said...

Vox, you owe me a beer.

Eff that nonsense said...

Mine just became a more miserable mess for the next 10 years as I did the "Christian" thing and forgave her.

God and his priesthood are in the forgiveness business. I'm not. If she cheats, she's dead to me forever.

taterearl said...

"God and his priesthood are in the forgiveness business. I'm not. If she cheats, she's dead to me forever. "

No...you have to forgive too. Forgiveness however doesn't mean that consequences are taken away.

I'd forgive then go our separate ways. I have done this in the past and it's more for me than her.

Eff that nonsense said...

No, I don't have to forgive, and some things do not deserve forgiveness.

Loki of Asgard said...

No, I don't have to forgive, and some things do not deserve forgiveness.

Precisely. And also, if you have the presence of mind not to kill her outright, you can plan out the means to destroy everything and everyone she loves, while she watches helplessly, and finally takes her own life in a desperate bid to stop your rampage.

Is it murder if she commits suicide? No indeed.

Eff that nonsense said...

I was thinking more along the lines of never have anything to do with her ever again, which is both necessary and sufficient.

My mom moved 10,000 miles away from my dad after he cheated on her. That might be going too far. Two or three thousand miles is enough.

Loki of Asgard said...

I was thinking more along the lines of never have anything to do with her ever again, which is both necessary and sufficient.

Yes, that way you can shelter your rage, like an ember in your bosom, forever keeping it afire. And though you risk your flesh burning up, risk destroying everything else you hold dear, at least you want for nothing to keep you warm.

Nothing aids one in his quest for identity or importance like an old injury never healed over, that can break out bleeding again at the least provocation. Who would wish to forgive any slight, even the very least, when he can forever parlay his various injuries into that hallmark of your modern society--perpetual victimhood?

Religion is the refuge of the naive, is it not?

Eff that nonsense said...

Loki, I realize you are a stupid troll and I shouldn't feed you, but I will.

Putting her out of your life does not mean you cherish your rage and never let the hurt heal over. Nor does it mean you are wallowing in victimhood. It means just the opposite. It means she is gone and forgotten. You have moved on. You are implementing the maxim that the best revenge is to live well.

Any man so lacking in self-respect that he keeps a woman in his life after she gave the most powerful expression of her contempt for him that it is possible to give, is psychologically unhealthy and only setting himself up for further victimization.

Doorstop said...

Loki strikes me as a very intelligent troll. In fact, it sounds like he has a better understanding of what forgiveness (or rather, a lack thereof) entails than many Christians do. It's true that a grudge usually hurts the bearer more than the recipient, but that doesn't mean the grudge-bearer doesn't enjoy wallowing in that hurt and the ego-affirming self-righteousness that goes with it. I strive to forgive and give up those toxic emotions (easier said than done), but that doesn't mean I welcome the offender back into my life to eviscerate me all over again.

Josh said...

I don't think eff that understands what forgiveness is...

Eff that nonsense said...

I strive to forgive and give up those toxic emotions (easier said than done), but that doesn't mean I welcome the offender back into my life to eviscerate me all over again.

Um, that's exactly what I've been saying.

Perhaps we're all in violent agreement?

Eff that nonsense said...

I don't think eff that understands what forgiveness is...

Why don't you tell me then, smartypants?

Does the Bible specify exact requirements for forgiveness?

I don't see any contradiction between forgiving someone and having nothing further to do with them - or indeed, with the imposition of even more stringent penalties.

Anonymous said...

Actually it does. Jesus said to forgive someone who sins against you basically unendingly. Don't ask me how to do that. I still can't forgive some things.

Loki of Asgard said...

God and his priesthood are in the forgiveness business. I'm not. If she cheats, she's dead to me forever.

No, I don't have to forgive, and some things do not deserve forgiveness.

"I strive to forgive and give up those toxic emotions (easier said than done), but that doesn't mean I welcome the offender back into my life to eviscerate me all over again." Um, that's exactly what I've been saying.

I heard a charming little song recently. It goes something like this: "One of these things is not like the others."

Anonymous said...

Forgiveness has 3 components.
Never bringing up the offense to that person again, never bringing it up to anyone else again...and never bringing it up to YOU again.
As I like to say, that's a tall order. Forgiveness means forgetting, yes. It does not mean you have to have an intimate relationship with anyone again though. It just means do your best to forget.

SarahsDaughter said...

"Nothing aids one in his quest for identity or importance like an old injury never healed over, that can break out bleeding again at the least provocation. Who would wish to forgive any slight, even the very least, when he can forever parlay his various injuries into that hallmark of your modern society--perpetual victimhood?" - Loki

Precisely why most women would never dream of forgiving a man his adultery. Even women who profess their rejection of feminism hold tight to these delicious gems; emotional abuse, emotional immaturity, adultery etc. Why ever would she forgive when indulging in this victimhood gives her a card to play forever?

Anonymous said...

If the perp is not repentant, or even conscious of the fact that they screwed up royally and need to make amends, then fuck forgiveness. Forget about them and move on with your life, sure, but forgive? Nah

Eff that nonsense said...

If you had the wit to read them in context, you would appreciate that the first statements are in reference to the allegedly "Christian" notion of forgiveness (HeligKo, December 18, 2012 12:55 PM) in which you are required to continue living with a cheating wife and pretend nothing ever happened. This concept is not Christian and should be rejected entirely, as per the third statement.

Yup said...

Christianity preaches forgiveness, not masochism. If a woman wants to forgive an abusive husband, that is above and beyond the call of duty: she can forgive him from the visitor’s room of the hoosegow, because wifebeaters should be behind bars. Better yet, she can forgive him when he is on the gallows.

-- John C. Wright

Naturally, the same applies to husbands forgiving wives.

Josh said...

This concept is not Christian and should be rejected entirely, as per the third statement.

It's also not forgiveness.

You said,

God and his priesthood are in the forgiveness business. I'm not. If she cheats, she's dead to me forever.

Now you're trying to backtrack and say that you didn't really mean forgiveness in that comment. Well, it couldn't be in the context of staying with a cheating wife, because she's the wife of neither God nor his priests. And, on a digression, if you are a Christian, you are a priest, per the book of Hebrews.

FNG said...

Loki,

I got it. Well played!

Kickass said...

Loki is my favorite troll. Tad is just an idiot.

Kickass said...

@ Anon, great then forgive them.

If someone knocks you down and takes a deuce on your fact you are not requried to show your religion by holding your mouth open for the next juicy morsal.

Good grief people read the Bible. Forgivness is a matter of your soul. Keeping unrepentent evil around to torment you is your own stupidity.

The concept in this post has nothing to do with Biblical direction regarding those who follow Christ. It is just an astute observation on Human male and female relationships.

Females are valued for loyalty and chastitiy, Males are valued for protection and provision.

A female that is butt ugly but loyal and chaste might still score a decent Husband. Seen it.
A Good looking rogue who is an excellent provider gets taken back after taking a little time off from the marriage bed. Who hasn't seen this?

This has nothing to do with the Bible.

Hosea is not written as an instruction book to you.

Eff that nonsense said...

Now you're trying to backtrack and say that you didn't really mean forgiveness in that comment. Well, it couldn't be in the context of staying with a cheating wife, because she's the wife of neither God nor his priests. And, on a digression, if you are a Christian, you are a priest, per the book of Hebrews.

No, the comment is precisely relevant to that context alone, because the priests convinced HeligKo that God wanted him to remain with his cheating wife.

Aha said...

http://archive.catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0309bt.asp

The Limits of Forgiveness
...
What Forgiveness Is Not

Of course, what we would really like in getting someone’s forgiveness is for things to be just as if we had never offended him. We’d like things to go back to exactly the way they were.

That may not happen. Even if someone’s ill feelings for us go away, prudence may dictate that he will not treat us in exactly the same way. This is particularly the case if we have broken trust with him.

Consider the extremes we mentioned earlier: If someone is a terrorist or a child molester then—no matter how penitent he may be—he simply cannot be treated as if he had never committed his crimes.

Most of us have committed offenses nowhere near that bad, but the principle still holds. We sense it in our interactions with others. If someone has violated our trust, we may be able to let go of our anger, but that doesn’t mean that we’re going to put our trust in him again. Our trust will have to be earned.

Forgiveness thus does not mean treating someone as if they had never sinned. That would require us to let go of our reason as well as our anger.


The Church acknowledges this principle. In his encyclical Dives in Misericordia, John Paul II notes that the "requirement of forgiveness does not cancel out the objective requirements of justice. . . . In no passage of the gospel message does forgiveness, or mercy as its source, mean indulgence toward evil, toward scandals, toward injury or insult. In any case, reparation for evil and scandal, compensation for injury, and satisfaction for insult are conditions for forgiveness" (DM 14).

Preemptive Forgiveness?

We aren’t obligated to forgive people who do not want us to. This is one of the biggest stumbling blocks that people have regarding the topic. People have seen "unconditional" forgiveness and love hammered so often that they feel obligated to forgive someone even before that person has repented. Sometimes they even tell the unrepentant that they have preemptively forgiven him (much to the impenitent’s annoyance).

This is not what is required of us.

Consider Luke 17:3–4, where Jesus tells us, "If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him; and if he sins against you seven times in the day, and turns to you seven times, and says, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive him."

Notice that Jesus says to forgive him if he repents, not regardless of whether he does so. Jesus also envisions the person coming back to you and admitting his wrong.

The upshot? If someone isn’t repentant, you don’t have to forgive him.

Loki of Asgard said...

Yes. Therefore, if someone wrongs you and refuses to apologise for every single negative outcome of his act or omission, it is not wrong to seek his destruction.

Bring to his attention that he has wronged you, and if he calls you a "whiner" or objects that he never did such a thing and you're quite mad, you exact a proper penalty. Justice is served.

Thank you for agreeing with me, Aha. Your "catholic church" is remarkably useful at times.

tz said...

See Pope JP2's Theology of the Body.

Men wander - actually both husbands and wives.

Loved the anecdote. Not sure if the wife was not cooling things before finding the rival, but it might have just been the man.

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.