Monday, July 15, 2013

Run, don't walk

If you get this sort of reaction to the idea of a prenup, I'd give the marriage about a 15 percent chance of surviving.
I’m a 32-year-old woman who has just started a fantastic relationship with a great guy (he’s 39). We’ve been together for approximately three months and we both would like something long-term. The other night, he told me he would not get married without a prenup. I felt a divide between us when he said that.

I guess I’ve always thought someone that wanted a prenup is someone selfish and doesn’t want to share things or their full life with someone else. I come from a family of refugees who have worked from the ground up. My family hardly has any assets, and I have a middle-class salary and only a small 401(k) and stock account -- $50,000 and $15,000 respectively. He’s been working many years more than I have, makes double what I make, and his family is definitely more wealthy, although I wouldn’t expect a huge inheritance because he has many siblings, and he’s doing great financially.

I talked to him a little bit more that night and haven’t brought it up since; I just don’t know what to think. Sometimes I cry when I think about it. I just don’t want to get married, get divorced and have a guy kick me to the curb or I move into an apartment. If a prenup let’s him keep all his money, then I’d rather not continue staying with someone like that.
Note in particular the phrase: "if a prenup lets him keep all his money, then I'd rather not continue staying".  Any man who goes ahead and proposes to a woman who is clearly signaling her intention to divorce-rape a man if things aren't to her liking in this legal environment fully merits his fate.

Talk about the rationale for a marriage strike; this one woman sums up not only the reason, but the requirement for one.

83 comments:

JCclimber said...

If ya can continue to get the milk for free, if not from one particular cow, than from another cow, then why buy the cow?

Trust said...

I'm guessing she expects to keep all her money.

Res Ipsa said...

"if a prenup lets him keep all his money,"

That's the thing, they don't. Most prenups are about defining the how and how much in a given set of circumstances. Most prenups aren't so one sided as to keep the women from getting anything in the event the divorce is the mans fault.

newrebeluniv said...

Yep. Signing up to be with someone for the rest of your life and have them completely take care of you isn't enough. You want their stuff even if you get divorced.

--Hale

Red Pill Warrior said...

A prenup is going to do squat in a divorce court and if you think you need one you better not be getting married at all. A good way to smoke out a female predator is tell them you will never sign a marriage contract. Their reaction will let you know what the real agenda is.

Trust said...

I know a man who married a nice girl a decade ago. Now, every other Friday he pulls into the driveway of their marital home that he bought to pick up his kids, and the door is answered by the druggie he caught shagging his then wife.

Then, every other Sunday, a car that he paid for pulls into his driveway, driven by the man he caught shagging his wife, to pick up his kids.

Neither the ex wife nor her now live in boyfriend work. They live off $1,800 a month alimony and child support... more than enough with no house or car payment.

Money isn't the only cost. Psychologically, this man is a wreck.

ajw308 said...

Oh, come on, she's only looking for a moderate inheritance, not a big one. After all, she's 32 and deserves it.

Trust said...

I wonder now this woman would feel about a legal climate where if cheats or walks bc he's not happy, yet she's still required to put out once a week including a monthly bj. After all, she "agreed" by marrying him.

Any takers?

En-sigma said...

Now, THIS is the guy that deserves his fate - but only IF he is aware of this money-grubbing thief's intentions. Which, if you plan on marrying anyone, you should at least know this part.

BUT HERE IS THE KICKER - this woman will be this honest with complete internet strangers, but most likely not with her mark. What smart thief would would alert her potential sucker? There may be one born every minute, but this particular sucker has the added benefit of immediate proximity!

It is the reverse of the PUA community. Only it is the same. Tell your mark everything they need to hear (and maybe throw the v at em' no big deal either way), and nothing that they don't, and if you mess up a little on calibration, then adjust and don't brake frame (keep marriage the goal - not wealth sharing). But, while the mark is happily planning out college for your kids aint looking, tell everyone else that whatever his plans are, they might as well all end with "give ex-wife everything."

I have a hard time pinning fault on the blue pillers. We as a group imagine that the choice of taking either pill was put before us, but it was hidden from us - we had to find it ourselves. Otherwise, the blue pillers that are self aware enough to know that there is a problem think that they might just be crazy because what they know to be true flies in the face of everything that every single person has ever told them. What else would crazy be - but opposite of your entire life?

Ends up that the opposite of what we have in society is sanity.

If you are lucky enough to snipe a quality, feminine, intelligent woman from 1000 yards out like a red pill mercenary, thank God in Heaven and don't blow it. But if not

STAY OUT OF THE BATTLEFIELD

I am red-pilling my son and I just now that the family tree will go from pink crepe myrtle to a towering oak...at least on my side. The next job is to find the cache of good women in America...

Trust said...

@En-sigma: I am red-pilling my son
________

I have two daughters, and I often get told to "teach a man to treat women how you want your daughter treated" or asked "would you teach a man to treat your daughter that way?"

I always tell them no. It would be useless to try to teach men how to treat my daughters. All that would do is teach the men how to get rejected. I'll do my best to teach my daughters about men and hope they reward the right qualities. Iwould be useless to teach a man to be nice while my daughter is busy writing letters to a tatooed inmate.

Mildly off topic, but related as this woman clearly has a sense of entitlement.

Unknown said...

"Iwould be useless to teach a man to be nice while my daughter is busy writing letters to a tatooed inmate."

Understatement of the millennium!

Stickwick Stapers said...

"If a prenup let’s him keep all his money, then I’d rather not continue staying with someone like that."

It isn't 100% clear whether she's referring to sharing resources while married or not getting his money in the event of divorce. Hopefully she puts it in those words when she brings it up with him, and he can divine her meaning. Having recourse in the unlikely event he decides to frivorce her is one thing, but if "lets him keep all his money" is in reference to a post-divorce payout, then it's a big, fat tell that her intentions aren't to protect herself from frivorce.

En-sigma said...

@Trust

Yeah, I have a daughter too and I spend A LOT (I mean a really lot) of time with her trying to not-so-obviously make her aware of her choices and why she is making them. I don't think you can red-pill women. Dr. Helens, Venkers, and especially Walshs aside, they will never get it. I have not met the women who can completely get it. I love my wife, but I gotta game her like anybody else. I don't need to game my daughter (yet), I am still the hero.

A couple of weeks ago while I was walking into a hotel with the family, two teenaged boys said "hi" to my daughter. She was two steps ahead of me and ignored them. (thank you, Lord)

I stopped dead and my ears laid back. My wife later said that she had not heard my voice that hard in a while, when I (barely under control) said, "NOT...IN FRONT...OF HER FATHER...YOU IDIOTS." One was taller, but neither was bigger. They got the point.

Here is my point. I can't teach them how to treat her - SHE IS THE ONE WHO DICTATES THAT. Girls want to be treated like dirt cuz they like guys who treat them like dirt.

But I can teach them that WHICHEVER way she wants to be treated, THEY DAMN WELL BETTER WALK THE LINE IN FRONT OF ME.

Stickwick Stapers said...

I love my wife, but I gotta game her like anybody else.

But what does that prove, En-sigma? Would it say anything about the unteachability of men if I observed that I love my husband, but I have to make an effort not to weigh 300 lbs and act like a bitch? You're never going to change the fact that women prefer to be dominated, no matter how much you philosophize them, any more than you can change that men prefer slender and sweet. Neither is a flaw.

I don't need to game my daughter (yet), I am still the hero.

If your daughter's a teenager and you're still her hero, then you very likely game her without even being aware of it. You are in charge, are you not? Or does your daughter routinely disobey you? You probably don't defer to her emotions, do what she demands lest she be upset with you, or do any of the countless other things lower-rank men do that elicit feelings of disrespect from their wives and girlfriends.

WendyRaf said...

He’s been working many years more than I have...

Mmm, seven? Or is that code for "lots of school debt"?

En-sigma said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
En-sigma said...

@ stick

It proves that women will never fully get the red pill. No matter who they are.


And "father game" is the easiest when they are young. Yes, she is a teenager, yes, I am what I am, (and we don't game our little kids - we are the parents and that is partly a component of situational alpha - partly alpha male) but there is a point in everyone's life when the frame of I am Daddy's Girl/Buddy changes to what do I/MY/ME want cuz I aint marrying my Dad. This is where they start telling you they are going to the movies and meet their dirtbag boyfriend instead and do what she knows full well she should not be doing. This is when Dad game (if it can be called that) emerges - we can't ever be a husband to our daughters, nor should we ever cross into the relationship she has with her husband/dirtbag boyfriend. A father's game for a dating - aged daughter is one of intellectual benefit for her. I'll admit it is a losing battle - because of the aforementioned inablility to completely grasp the red pill concept, but fighting a hypergamous hampster is what red pill fathers do.

I am not fighting that half of the battle yet

With boys it is when they fight against their fathers and strain against blazing their own trail. Situational alpha still has a hand in father/son relationships, but alpha will recognize alpha if he has been taught well. And a wise old alpha has plenty of uses for an alpha looking to snipe the best phillies from the heard before they get too many saddles.

sunshine mary said...

Someone on my site recently mentioned that men need to start designing some sh-t tests of their own. One that he mentioned was telling a woman that he would never marry without a pre-nup, and that he would never agree to have a State marriage license. If she's not okay with that, she has failed his sh-t test.

Stickwick Stapers said...

It proves that women will never fully get the red pill. No matter who they are.

What would it mean for a woman to fully get the red pill? What would that look like?

En-sigma said...

It will probably start the zombie appocalypse.

Doom said...

Definitely check the prenup. My Church suggests no such thing should go forth, and on this I would tell them to shove it. The problem with prenups is they are often no more court supported than a woman's typical vows.

What I would like to see is legislation that makes reasonable prenups absolute law. What she comes in with is what she leaves with, nothing more, nothing less. Replace DOMA with that and you might get a revival of marriages. But I don't think the government wants that.

Plus, the look on her face when you bring up a prenup is fantastic. Been engaged four times, brought it up three times (slipped every noose... I'm cagey mind you). Damn, for a camera and time travel. The look is... beautiful, and can affect women in odd ways. Yum!

Res Ipsa said...

"What would that look like?"

Barbara Billingsley aka June Cleaver

donalgraeme said...

What would it mean for a woman to fully get the red pill? What would that look like?

I don't think that they really can. Men and women are wired too differently for that to be a possibility. Women can get a lot of it, but never all of it.

Stickwick Stapers said...

What would be very helpful at this point is if someone would please explain in just a few sentences what exactly a hypothetical fully red pill woman would look like. Not a reference to a character in a TV show that someone may or may not be acquainted with, but a definite description of key features of a fully red pill woman. Doesn't have to be an exhaustive, comprehensive encyclopedia entry, just enough of a description so that a person can reasonably judge whether or not it's possible for a woman to achieve such a state. (Note that I'm not yet arguing either way, that it can or cannot happen, but if you can't explain what it would look like, then it's not meaningful to say that it can't happen.)

Artisanal Toad said...

@Stickwick

A woman willing to accept accountability for her actions.

A woman willing to submit to her father/husband's authority over her.

A woman/wife able to make a commitment and keep it.

Res Ipsa said...

Stickwick Stapers

I believe that was covered in Proverbs chapter 31 vs 10-31. The only thing that might be added to that list is an enthusiasm for meeting her husbands sexual needs.

I can't believe you're not into classic TV.

Res Ipsa said...

Here it is written out for you.

10 Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies.

11 The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil.

12 She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life.

13 She seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands.

14 She is like the merchants' ships; she bringeth her food from afar.

15 She riseth also while it is yet night, and giveth meat to her household, and a portion to her maidens.

16 She considereth a field, and buyeth it: with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard.

17 She girdeth her loins with strength, and strengtheneth her arms.

18 She perceiveth that her merchandise is good: her candle goeth not out by night.

19 She layeth her hands to the spindle, and her hands hold the distaff.

20 She stretcheth out her hand to the poor; yea, she reacheth forth her hands to the needy.

21 She is not afraid of the snow for her household: for all her household are clothed with scarlet.

22 She maketh herself coverings of tapestry; her clothing is silk and purple.

23 Her husband is known in the gates, when he sitteth among the elders of the land.

24 She maketh fine linen, and selleth it; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant.

25 Strength and honour are her clothing; and she shall rejoice in time to come.

26 She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness.

27 She looketh well to the ways of her household, and eateth not the bread of idleness.

28 Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her.

29 Many daughters have done virtuously, but thou excellest them all.

30 Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the Lord, she shall be praised.

31 Give her of the fruit of her hands; and let her own works praise her in the gates.

Stickwick Stapers said...

Thank you, Artisanal Toad. That's very helpful.

Now, I would word those principles even more strongly. A fully red pill woman is a woman who:

- accepts responsibility for her actions.

- submits to her husband's authority over her.

- makes commitments and keeps them.

For clarification: Does a woman who hypothetically adheres to these principles still count as a fully red pill woman if she does so with the reinforcement of a dominant/red pill husband?

Stickwick Stapers said...

Res Ipsa,

Thank you, that is also helpful. However, It would be more helpful if it was expressed in more general terms, e.g. few women weave their own cloth out of necessity these days, so more generally what does this verse describe? Also, it ought to be in terms of what she actively does, i.e. if she has ungrateful children, then whether or not she's praised by them doesn't necessarily define her red pill status. (I'm not trying to be difficult or pedantic here; the more precise the statements, the easier it is to use them to judge whether or not women are capable of achieving the state. Also, in case it's not clear, I'm taking a dialectical approach here, not a rhetorical one. I'm only interested in the truth, and this is the best way I know how to get there.)

I can't believe you're not into classic TV.

Meh. I didn't even have TV until I got married and my husband got cable to watch hockey. It was intriguing for the first few weeks -- especially the commercials -- but it got old pretty fast. I do like classic movies, though.

fc6cedc2-d6a8-11e2-b860-000bcdcb471e said...

The states dissolution process is generally pretty consistent. So the lady is getting a prenup whether she wants one or not. In this sense it operates similar to a default will. Except most states have relatively consistent default wills whereas their prenups are all over the place. While these prenups are generally speaking antimale, she is still going to play a bit of residency lottery in terms of collecting her payday.

Res Ipsa said...

Stickwick,

Your comments are well taken. I'm heading off to work now and this web site is banned. I'll try to come up with a response that is more inline with your request.

jaybeespancakes said...

Tried reading the exact words to a woman at work who says she does not believe in divorce. First reaction was just an emotional outburst of anger -- she agrees with the letter writer, she doesn't want to have to spend her life subordinated to some man only to have him walk away and leave her destitute. I asked where it explained that was the condition of the prenup - which is not what the original article says.

Then I got the standard - why would you plan for divorce? That's just setting up for failure! You should plan as if it will last forever. I asked why we have contracts for employees then, since that's planning for their termination.

Lights slowly came on, but the best was asking whether a pre-nup that said that the divorcing party leaves with nothing -- although I was told that she still opposed pre-nups, she thought that was how marriage and divorce laws are supposed to be.

It's always interesting to ask a conservative woman one of these questions directly.

Jeremy said...

---> If a prenup let’s him keep all his money, then I’d rather not continue staying with someone like that.

Wow. Here is what she is saying:
"If I don't get cash and prizes, why am I marrying this man?"

Ho Lee Fuk

mina smith said...

Stories like this remind me why so many men are so angry.

I have a male friend who has been "going his own way" for a really long time (15 years!) and have been after him to starting reading "the manosphere" for several months.

Just this weekend he "got" it.

Very sad talking to him about all the ways women have screwed him over the years, although fun to listen to his plans for revenge. IIWII.

mina smith said...

"A woman willing to accept accountability for her actions.

A woman willing to submit to her father/husband's authority over her.

A woman/wife able to make a commitment and keep it."

Is that not just a description of a woman of good character and having integrity?

Why do we need to label it as "red pill" women? Stupid label.

Dexter said...

A couple of weeks ago while I was walking into a hotel with the family, two teenaged boys said "hi" to my daughter. She was two steps ahead of me and ignored them. (thank you, Lord)

I stopped dead and my ears laid back. My wife later said that she had not heard my voice that hard in a while, when I (barely under control) said, "NOT...IN FRONT...OF HER FATHER...YOU IDIOTS."


What was offensive about them saying "hi"?

artisanaltoad said...

@Stickwick

I worded it that way because everyone fails from time to time but it is the willingness to try that causes them to recognize their failures and try harder.

You dropped "father" from the second definition, which is completely incorrect. These traits must be trained for while a child and that is the father's responsibility.

You ask For clarification: Does a woman who hypothetically adheres to these principles still count as a fully red pill woman if she does so with the reinforcement of a dominant/red pill husband?

There is a reason the Bible makes it clear that a woman is to be under the authority of her father up until the day he gives her in marriage to some young man; after that her husband has responsibility for her. This is because women need reinforcement from time to time and always need to know they are going to be held accountable for their actions.

@Mina

No. Point one and point three would qualify a woman as one of good character and integrity. It is the issue of accepting her husband or father's authority over her and obeying them that sets her apart from the feminist woman of good character and integrity.

The red pill woman has come to understand that while her hamster hates it, she really wants to submit to a dominant man.

eumaios said...

Stickwick, the best examples I've seen of women asymptotically approaching red pill cures come at the very end of John Wayne's McLintock!. The whole movie is a working out of the entirety of Proverbs 31, not just the parts about good wives. The vices and virtues of the titular character are addressed in these lines:



4 It is not for kings, O Lemuel,
it is not for kings to drink wine,
or for rulers to take strong drink,
5 lest they drink and forget what has been decreed
and pervert the rights of all the afflicted.
6 Give strong drink to the one who is perishing,
and wine to those in bitter distress;
7 let them drink and forget their poverty
and remember their misery no more.
8 Open your mouth for the mute,
for the rights of all who are destitute.
9 Open your mouth, judge righteously,
defend the rights of the poor and needy.


George Washington McLintock, the first citizen of the town named after him, has resorted to strong drink because his wife, Katharine, though once a Proverbial wife, has become a haughty and wayward cosmopolitan. He speaks for the mute, he provides libations for the miserable, but he does not exercise authority over his straying wife...

Until the closing sequence, which is my favorite thing of all time.

eumaios said...

I hate Blogger SO much. It apparently can't display the WordPress profile name, only the login name. Thus I am "eumaios",

d.b.a. Matthew

Remo said...

I don't see why the demand for a pre-nup bothers this woman as even a cursory search of the web will provide endless tails of pre-nups being ignored if the woman doesn't like it. All she has to do is claim duress. Or if she judge shops accordingly, she can find a feminazi or white knight that will shred the stupid thing and make it toilet paper.

Even if the judge pretends to follow the pre-nup they absolutely hate the idea that power should be taken away from them. Judges adore power for its own sake like the party in Orwell's 1984, and any document that attempts to limit this will be treated like its covered in slime. At best you'll get a judge that does the following "compromise"... The man has an expensive house that his parents left him. He owns it free and clear and his pre-nup stated that this should NOT be considered marital property as the wife never had a hand in doing anything to obtain it. Fine... so in order to be "fair" the judge will demand that the ex provide "reasonable accomodations" to his ex that are "comparable" to his present estate, i.e. he needs to buy another house exactly like the one he has and give it to his ex and her new boyfriend. Of course he can'd do that as even if he has $700,000 sitting around she will have taken it all from their joint accounts and his half will be used to pay her lawyer. So.... in order to avoid contempt he will "voluntarily" sign over the house to her - pre-nup held up you see because he "volunteered" to do this.

On the no alimony deal... the judge will look at this and say okay no alimony but based on your current and expected lifetime income you should pay your ex some ridiculous lump sum as a settlement (not called alimony). He won't have this amount of money but the judge will be generous and let him make easy monthly payments, with interest, to his ex that approximately shadow how much alimony the ex-wife and her lawyers wanted. Oh and he better surrender his passport too.

A pre-nup is not the most important document to have if you decide you must get legally married - a 2nd passport from a non-western country is.

Doom said...

Stickwick Stapers,

Two have existed, beyond a doubt. One fell away from it, the other one received and retained it.

The first, Eve. The last, Mary. I don't know if that helps. But in all honesty, if you want to know, there you go. Study the latter. There isn't much about the former, while she was solid, that was left to us.

Doom said...

Stickwick Stapers,

I think the only way for a woman TO be red pill is through her man, to the extent that it is possible. Part of it is being true to him. To be honest, even if he is an ass. Maybe more so.

Some faiths even contend that a woman can't get to heaven without the consent of her husband. It might be a stretch... or truth. Time will tell.

His Lordship said...

A woman willing to accept accountability for her actions.

A woman willing to submit to her father/husband's authority over her.

A woman/wife able to make a commitment and keep it.


My consort is a splendid creature, is not she?

No, of course this does not "contribute" to your mutual self-pity exercises. I simply like to boast of having what you claim to desire but never desired to claim.

Markku said...

What would be very helpful at this point is if someone would please explain in just a few sentences what exactly a hypothetical fully red pill woman would look like.

One who applies the principles even when they work against her advantage.

Asterisk said...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/8857708/Chinas-divorce-rule-dubbed-Law-that-makes-men-laugh-and-women-cry.html

Looks like the even the Chinese government's got a dose of the Red Pill. Notice how in the article, the white knight author fails to mention that the rampant divorce in China was a direct result of women instantly divorcing their husbands in order to secure (steal) themselves a nice home. That law was enacted to prevent that.

Stickwick Stapers said...

This is because women need reinforcement from time to time and always need to know they are going to be held accountable for their actions.

Okay, but what I wanted to know is if a woman, under the authority of a man, who adheres to the principles you listed, still counts as a fully red pill woman. The answer is presumably yes, since you've given me a list of criteria and also stated that a woman is always to be under the authority of a man.

Okay, I'm going to use Artisanal Toad's list with the addition of "meeting her husband's sexual needs" as a working definition of what constitutes a fully red pill woman. Two more questions before we go on. I don't think we need to define the key features of a fully red pill man (FRPM) at this point, so let me just ask the following. Are men capable of being FRPM? (By this, I mean men in general, not every single man in the world, and not just a few men, either.) If not, why not? If so, does this mean a FRPM never falters, never momentarily fails to act on his principles, or does it mean that he generally / the majority of the time / by any reasonable human standard acts according to the principles of a FRPM?

Weouro said...

I don't see how anyone could be fully anything except by either intellectual assent or faith. Whose behavior matches perfectly with his beliefs 100% of the time?

Will someone give a parallel definition for FRPM?

e96dd1c6-d05b-11e2-ad29-000bcdcb2996 said...

OK, I'll take a swing at it...

A Red Pill woman understands her hypergamous impulses. And understands that yielding to them can lead to disaster, so she uses her reason to override those impulses.

She realizes that a relationship is a two-way street, and there are rights and obligations on both sides. Not her rights and his obligations only.

She doesn't undermine or belittle her husband in particular...and rarely men in general.

She understands the difference between sarcasm and wit...and that wit can be attractive, but sarcasm isn't.

She knows that men are visual, and tries to look her best.

She understands that a Red Pill man will try to be strong, but knows that his case-hardened exterior needs reinforcement on the inside - and provides the affection and affirmation to do it.

The result is very powerful Girl Game. The sort of woman that men are eager to load into the lifeboats, while the men go down with the ship.

Weouro said...

Yeah, wouldn't there need to be kindness and generosity of spirit in the mix?

mina smith said...

Athol Kay has a long and rather over done synapsis of the "red pill woman" on his blog from 2012

no one can think of anything better than "red pill woman"? what a dumb label.

The Aloof Guy said...

Is anyone else a little creeped out by how thorough her knowledge of his finances is after three months?

I keep that shit close to the vest. I can remember a chick saying I probably have a hidden family I'm keeping (I don't, but I take pride in the fear and uncertainty engendered in that).

No way in hell would a chick know my finances after three months. In truth, she would never get to know.

His Lordship said...

The result is very powerful Girl Game. The sort of woman that men are eager to load into the lifeboats, while the men go down with the ship.

Why should they, when there are so many girls on the girl tree? Doubtless they would find another, so why should they yield up their lives? After all, women were made to serve men, not men for women, were they not?

Eric Mueller said...

Considering the divorce I'm going through, which is running about $20,000 for an UNCONTESTED divorce, I'm not getting married again without a prenup. The prenup will state is the woman wants a divorce, she will pay for it and do all the work herself. Oh, yeah, and I keep all my stuff.

I used to be naive and thought prenups were wrong. In this day and age when women don't honor their covenants and keep their promises, I think a prenup should be required.

Crowhill said...

Imagine you could structure a prenup that basically says "this marriage will be governed by the old rules of marriage." For example, if either party initiates a divorce without cause (adultery, desertion, etc.) that person loses all property in the marriage, all rights to custody, etc.

Would it stand up in court?

IOW, is it even legal to have a traditional marriage these days, if you want one?

matamoros said...

A man should have everything he owns in either a corporation, or a trust - before he gets married.

Anything he buys should be bought by the said corp/trust and in its name.

That way he owns nothing, and she can get nothing.

En-sigma said...

Creating a red-pill woman is a bit like creating the bride of Frankenstein. The major problem with the construction, these days, would be that no one wants the same woman. Most red-pill men can agree that we want more feminine women, but the vast spectrum of preference always proves to be impossible to distill into one red-pill woman.

Creating an ideal for the community is also a bit of a trap - something for MSM to point at and say, "SEE!!! They want all women to look like that!!" It is a bit like legislating how women should act. There was a story in the news last week about a muslim cleric trying to make law how a woman should act. How she should treat her husband. We all learned long ago that forcing an individual to do something against their nature will have bad consequences. The Manosphere is a result of society trying to force men into something they are not - forcing women to fit into a per-conceived red-pill mold would result in something that no man would want.

The point that emerges here is that women are not by nature red-pill. Seems obvious, we have a Manoshpere as a result of that very fact, but trying to create what a woman would look like if she became red-pill is like the part of the IQ test where they ask what this shape would look like inside out - only humans are not so static as a simple shape draw on a page. Fully dynamic, a person would change in ways not necessarily predictable.

En-sigma said...

@Dexter

Sorry - I had not seen your question. So I will take a stab at it.

Wake the hell up. You do not engage one person in a group of four without tipping your hand. If that group is a family unit consisting of both parents and her Dad is two freaking steps behind her, you engage the family and then use the chance so say hi to her. It is a matter of respect.

I get that the only thing on their minds was getting my daughter's attention (I know what she looks like) BUT!!! I also know that they were not hoping to marry her later that night. They wanted a number and neither one cared what I thought about it. Again, that is what cads do. I was not upbraiding them for being bold cad POS dirtbags - that is for their father's to address - but I was telling them like I will tell all POS dirtbags that want to come into my house, YOU DAMN WELL BETTER WALK THE LINE IN FRONT OF ME.

And any PUA out there knows that you don't pull that crap in front of her father - especially a red-pill father that knows full well what you are up to(and owns everything from a crossbow to blackpowder to shotgun to handgun to centerfire). Even if you could stomp a mudhole in her father, that would really lessen your chances of making any headway with your target and open you up to a litany of legal problems.

Some states have amended castle doctrine to include your vehicle wherever it is - I say that the barriers of my family travel with me and you don't get through those barriers by spitting on them

Res Ipsa said...

Stickwick Stapers,

I apologize for not getting back sooner but this is my first chance. I agree with those who are saying that “red-pill women” is a bad descriptor. Let’s call this women, “an excellent wife”.

I have to admit that it was easier to come up with a list of things this women is not, rather than a list of positive attribute, i.e. not a nag, not a slut, not a bitch, etc. Coming up with examples of these women is also harder than one would think, as the ones I know personally are either long dead or very advanced in years. The positive examples from old TV shows, back when TV still tried to show positive examples, may very well prove to be the best example common to most Americans.

AN EXCELLENT WIFE

Recognizes that men and women are fundamentally different creatures.,
Respects the differences between her female personality traits and her husband’s male traits,
Submits herself to a role of respecting and honoring her husband and his point of view,
Recognizes and acts on the fact that her man requires sexual intimacy in order to provide her with the emotional and relational intimacy she requires.
Works for the betterment of her husband and family.
Places her husbands and children’s needs ahead of her own.
Keeps her word.
Is trustworthy
Is honorable
Is industrious
Recognizes a higher standard , independent of herself, to which she will be held accountable

I’m sure there are a number of other traits that could be added to my list, but these should get you start in developing your own list.

Minna Koponen said...

My high school history teacher made everyone in our class to swear to always have a prenup, no matter who you were going to marry.

He said that if we need to remember one thing from his lessons, it's this one. I think it was the best thing anyone could teach to the young guys in our school.

Markku said...

"Now where have I seen that surname before?" thinks the Ilk.

Stickwick Stapers said...

I’m sure there are a number of other traits that could be added to my list, but these should get you start in developing your own list.

What I would put on a list is probably irrelevant, since the excellence of a wife comes down to what any reasonable man would consider excellent.

Anyway, thank you for the list. That's helpful. Now, my two questions above were: Are men capable of being FRPM? (By this, I mean men in general, not every single man in the world, and not just a few men, either.) If not, why not? If so, does this mean a FRPM never falters, never momentarily fails to act on his principles, or does it mean that he generally / the majority of the time / by any reasonable human standard acts according to the principles of a FRPM?

Weouro said...

Are men capable of being FRPM? (By this, I mean men in general, not every single man in the world, and not just a few men, either.) If not, why not? If so, does this mean a FRPM never falters, never momentarily fails to act on his principles, or does it mean that he generally / the majority of the time / by any reasonable human standard acts according to the principles of a FRPM?


Sounds like you already know.

Stickwick Stapers said...

I don't know the answer to the first question. If it's no, then I'm quite interested to know the answer to the second question. If it's yes, then I'm anticipating the answer to the third question, but prefer confirmation before continuing.

Res Ipsa said...

Are men capable of being FRPM?

Yes.

It means that he generally acts according to the principles. No one is going to be UNDERSTOOD to be doing it all the time. That doesn't negate lifestyle of acting on the principle.

Stickwick Stapers said...

Thanks, Res, and thank you for your patience with this. In light of your response, the big question:

What is it about women that differs from men that prevents them from becoming FRP / excellent wives? Is it biological or is it societal? Please explain. (Also, for clarification, does this mean not even a minority of women is capable of being FRP, or does this just mean most women aren't capable of it?)

Trust said...

@: " What is it about women that differs from men that prevents them from becoming FRP / excellent wives? Is it biological or is it societal?"

Both. Women are naturally hypergamous. Societal pressures used to keep that under control. Now society feeds and funds it.

Stickwick Stapers said...

Thanks to everyone who has answered so far. I want to understand this as well as I possibly can, so I'm looking for something more than just "hypergamy" for an answer. The most helpful response will be one that includes an explanation with supporting evidence and even some examples, if necessary. How does hypergamy prevent women from becoming FRP to the extent men are? Why is this insurmountable for most (all?) women?

Markku said...

How does hypergamy prevent women from becoming FRP to the extent men are? Why is this insurmountable for most (all?) women?

It's more of a matter of almost never seeing a woman act on a principle when it has considerable personal cost. It's not a matter of "since a, b and c, therefore I guess women don't act on principle".

But if we're into hypotheses anyway, I suspect it is about testosterone. When I have to act on principle and damn the consequences, I enter an altered state of consciousness, quite unlike any other feeling. I strongly suspect that this feeling has a connection with testosterone, hence the description of "having some balls".

Stickwick Stapers said...

It's more of a matter of almost never seeing a woman act on a principle when it has considerable personal cost. It's not a matter of "since a, b and c, therefore I guess women don't act on principle".

Sure it is. We live in a universe governed by rules, and there's no reason human behavior -- even something as seemingly irrational as female behavior -- should be exempt from that. So, while it's valid to say that women aren't capable of being FRP, because they're almost never observed to be so, that doesn't rule out a coherent explanation for it. I'm interested in the explanation. Hypergamy seems the likely starting point, if someone is able to expand on that.

Markku said...

Hypergamy seems the likely starting point, if someone is able to expand on that.

Hypergamy merely is one particular temptation. It is another issue why one acts on a temptation. For men, the equivalent temptation is to have sex with fertile-looking young females.

Trust said...

Hypergamy is to women what promiscuity is to men.

Men can go from vagina to vagina, enjoying the sex without feeling much commitment.

Women in the other hand are the first to want into a monagamous relationship, and the first to want out. It is common for a woman to stick with a man she doesn't really care about for expensive dates or vacations, much the same way as men stick around for nothing more than sex, they might even marry the guy. It's not uncommon for women to have an alpha bastard on the side serving her sexual desires while enjoying the resources of another man.

Both male promiscuity and female hypergamy result in both sexes averaging quite a few sex partners, but they achieve their numbers on much different patterns and purposes. Usually an alpha rotating between four women while all four women are only riding his horsie on the carousel at that time, as 80% of women pursue 20% of men.

One almosts wonders if feminists were put up to their schemes by alpha masterminds.

Markku said...

And as to "sure it is", I mean that the nature of the claim is a generalization of personal experience, and not an inference from something else. Of course there has to be a reason for the phenomenon, but I'm talking about what kind of a claim it is. And we don't need to actually know the reason in order to notice the phenomenon.

Weouro said...

Here's my personal guess. The definition of red pill for a man should include, if it doesn't already, a responsibility FOR the women in his life exactly analogous to a woman's responsibility TO the man in her life. A woman can't really be submissive to a man who won't require and receive her submission. She'll eventually wander off and eat the fruit like Eve because someone else, such as pop culture or college professors, stepped into the vacuum to collect her submissiveness. By that definition not many men are FRP either and someone else becomes the girl's tacit master. Assuming, as someone said above, that willing subjection to rightful authority is the definitive quality of a FRPG.

Markku said...

That women can be merely "partially" red pill naturally doesn't mean that they can't act coherently with the principles - it merely means that the principle itself isn't enough. It has to be caused by something external, such as the fear of disappointing his man, who in turn does act that way independently and not for external reasons.

Benevolent patriarchy works around this problem by giving men the tools to be the head of the family. But take that away, and society becomes unstable.

Stickwick Stapers said...

Hypergamy is to women what promiscuity is to men.

I understand the equivalence. But (someone can correct me if I'm wrong) a man's desire for lots of young, fertile, healthy women doesn't seem to be a barrier to his becoming FRP. In fact, it can be a motivation, because becoming FRP will enhance his ability to get as many fertile, healthy, young women as possible. On the flip side, you stated above that hypergamy is a barrier to women becoming FRP. I want to know why. If, as Markku says, it's a matter of temptation, then why is it that a man's temptation doesn't get in the way of becoming FRP, but a woman's does?

I appreciate the responses, guys, but I'll wait for Res to respond, because so far he's addressed my questions in a way that I understand. I suspect Weouro has hinted at the answer, but it's just not forming a coherent picture for me yet.

JCclimber said...

The only times I've seen women overcome hypergamy and become FRP Women is when they completely submit to God. Period.

Married or unmarried. However, these are a rare, rare, rare breed even in the churches. They are a joy to be around. Unless you are mostly focused on getting laid or having fun all the time rather than on helping further God's gospel, in which case they are a real drag on your fun.

JCclimber said...

@stickwick.
The reasons it doesn't interfere with becoming FRP is because our brains work differently, our upbringing is different, and our peer support is different.

Men have learned since infancy that embracing pain, both psychic and physical, leads to growth. So finding the bitterness of the red pill will not lead him to reject it, if he is interested in accepting the pain and ugliness of the present and past in order to build a better future.

John the Revelator accepted the bitter scroll to eat, although he was warned it would taste sweet in his mouth but be bitter in his stomach. Because the Truth was more important to him than being uncomfortable.

Hence men being willing to be soldiers, being willing to go out in foul weather to work, taking dangerous jobs to support their family. Not liking the truth won't keep a real man from embracing it along with the consequences.

He would prefer to know the truth, painful as it may be, because it allows him to make better decisions.

Res Ipsa said...

What is it about women that differs from men that prevents them from becoming FRP / excellent wives? Is it biological or is it societal? Please explain. (Also, for clarification, does this mean not even a minority of women is capable of being FRP, or does this just mean most women aren't capable of it?)

I'm not sure of what the root cause is. I suspect that it is selfishness and egoism are to blame for the way women typically are and that the causes are nurture as much as nature.

Conversely the “excellent wife” is a women who by and large is unselfish and concerned with the needs of her husband and family above her own. Historically the “Excellent Wife” is a creature commented on mostly because of her scarcity. The Proverbs quote I gave earlier is somewhere between 3,500 and 4,000 years old. Regardless “virtuous women” have always been highly esteemed, which leads me to believe that they are a minority category of the sex.

As far as what women are capable of, in terms of becoming “excellent wives”, I have no way of knowing. I suspect it is like most habits. Women who get started early and stay in practice of maintaining a virtuous and courteous lifestyle, probably don’t find it very difficult. Those who are consciously trying to “remake themselves” will have a harder go of it, but may preserver in time.

Going back to my Leave it to Beaver analogy for a minute; in the 1940’s to early 1960’s the popular culture supported the idea of “good girls” and traditional marriage. June Cleaver was “normal” and the way most people thought life should be. The wife dressed nice for her husband, doted on him, dinner was ready as he came in the door, she was appropriately affectionate, the everyday household concerns were dealt with and he wasn’t bothered with them unless his input was required. No matter what a mans station in the real world, his queen had his crown ready for him when he returned to the castle. He loved her for it.

Compare that to today. The brazen hussy is considered “normal”. Rude crass behavior, sexual promiscuity, an attitude of extreme selfishness and “its all about me” are what prevail in our culture. A girl growing up today has fewer examples of “excellent wives” to look up to, its not the norm, an example may not even be available among people she knows. Unless she is watching Nick at Night, she won’t even have fictitious encounter with one.

I guess that is the long way around. Excellent wives are rare. I think they are trained into the role, either growing up (the easier way) or retrained as an adult (much harder). I do not believe that for most women it is a natural or default setting, unless they were raised into it. Human beings are creatures of habit, but we can change our habits.

a personal note: Part of my early education was in a private school setting. The girls were actively taught (I suspect at home as well) what it meant to be an "excellent wife". Only one girl from my class had an out of wedlock baby. 20 something years latter I am unaware of any of my class mates getting divorced. My younger siblings attended the same school and with the exception of one or two examples to the contrary, the results in their classes are about the same. So while antidotal nurture seems to be able to win out.

Stickwick Stapers said...

Thanks, Res. Looks like I'll have to be satisfied with "most of them don't, therefore most of them can't" with, unfortunately, a big part of that being societal input. We are, after all, the weaker sex.

For myself, personally, I know I wouldn't be as "red pill" as I am without my husband, who is one of the few men I've known who wouldn't put up with any female foolishness. I flatter myself that I am more "evolved" than the average woman in terms of my desire to understand, to value the truth, and to hew to principles, but without a doubt that has been developed through my marriage to a very good man who is essentially an unmovable rock.

Markku said...

I still suspect it is about testosterone. Needing to act on a principle causes a sort of a tunnel vision (in addition to the very recognizable and unique feeling, sort of like a waterfall in the chest) where it feels almost as if the risk in the circumstance doesn't exist. Intellectually you know it does, but emotionally you don't.

Res Ipsa said...

Stickwick,

You are welcome.

I think it comes down to habit and training for the female. Think of the red pill along the lines of a healthy lifestyle. A girl who grows up eating right and exercising is more likely to be healthy and fit her whole life. The girl that grows eating drive thru and never doing anything physical is going to turn into a porker at some point. She can change any time she wants, but she doesn't want to because she is doing what comes normal to her.

justlinen said...

I have found useful information from that blog about linen vests for men as it contains all the information about the linen vests which I really want to need.

Pussy-ManiaGirls: http://goo.gl/w9Oepq said...

watching my collection, we have upload more video at here:

Collection Part 1:

Doggy Style and In Missionary Position

Hot Sex Anal With Amazing Girl Friend

Sex Under Hot Lights Bad Girls

Give Me The Cum

Cum In My Panties

Nude Amateur Teen Girls

Sexy Brunette Girls

Young Kinky Sluts

Busty Tattoo Chick On Car

Young Asian fucked anal

Latina Havana Ginger gets

Teen Threesome Porn

Hot Blowjob

Amateur Pulls Down Tanga

Sweet girl amazing hot

Sexy japanese babes getting their tight

TEEN BLONDE ANAL SEX ORGY




Collection Part 2:


Hot asian blowjob and pussy creampie

Sucking dick, Audrey put vegetables in all holes

Blonde love fuck

Naomi Russell And Her Royal Ass

Sexy blonde gives blowjob in the car

ASIAN XXX PORN VIDEO

JAPANESE XXX PORN VIDEO

ARABIC XXX PORN VIDEO

HARDCORE PORN VIDEO

GAY XXX PORN VIDEO

WATCH STREAMING PORN VIDEO

USA CELEBS XXX PORN

LATINA XXX PORN

LESBIAN XXX PORN

Hardcore Porn Celebrity

HOT TURKEY PORN MOVIE

INDIAN NUDES CELEBRITIES VIDEOS

UZBEKS Fuck PORN VIDEOS

HOT RASTA GIRL


100% MAKE you satisfy......








































Reply Delete

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.