Friday, December 9, 2016

When solipsism resembles sociopathy

Among other things, this is a good example of why a man should never, ever, ask advice from women:
User PseudoDad wrote on the site: 'Since our son was conceived 2 1/2 years ago we have had sex just 5 times. Prior to this, we weren't at it like rabbits but I was very happy with twice a week.' He said he wanted to broach the subject in a way that respected his 'wonderful' wife of six years, and asked: 'When is enough enough?'

His post received hundreds of replies, with women suggesting he do more housework, consider counselling, or simply 'accept that she might just not be interested right now'.

Mumsnet user monkeysox was the first to reply when she asked him whether he was doing enough housework.  PseudoDad replied to insist he does his share, but another mum told him to 'accept that she might just not be interested right now and you have to grit your teeth until she feels she wants it again. 'You're not owed sex just because you want it,' said BravoPanda.
Actually, as a husband or wife, you quite literally are owed both sex and sexual exclusivity. Otherwise, there is absolutely no point to marriage other than legally establishing who the father of the children is.

Game-aware readers will immediately recognize the problem; the man's socio-sexual rank is too low to attract the interest of his wife. No man who does housework, worries about respecting his wife, and considers his wife to be "wonderful" when she is more frigid than the average iceberg is going to be attractive to a woman.

What the man should have done is left his wife one year ago; 18 months is more than sufficient time to determine that a man's wife is simply not committed to actually being a wife and performing the single most important function of a wife. But in a case as hapless as this, I can't imagine it doing any good.

My recommendation for a man in this situation would be to continue to play the family guy martyr as long as the wife wants to be financially supported by him, then hope for a reasonable divorce settlement when she finally tires of the pretense and decides to go in search of more interesting men.

What I find more remarkable is the average female response. It is clear that their first instinct is to justify the woman's actions and defend them, simply on the remote chance that they might one day find themselves in a similar position. This lack of empathy is solipsism, not sociopathy, but in this case, it genuinely resembles the latter.

69 comments:

Jew613 said...

The wife will eventually decide she can do better and a demand a divorce. She will ride the carousel for a while but won't be able to lock down a man better then the husband she obviously despises. She will then lament her situation, at no point will the wife believe herself responsible for what happened.

Boko Harambe said...

Maybe his wife is a late booming lesbian. I've recently learned this is a thing. One woman separated from her husband (she never seemed to love him all that much) and decided, after years of marriage and having a child, she was gay.

Sigh.

The wife here is looking for an out. She does not even consciously know that what she is doing is damaging her marriage. It will all be his fault, in the end.

"You are not owed sex." Wonder how these women would feel if the husbands said same about money...

RmaxGenactivePUA Mgtow said...

The flip side is, women require game & smv to be turned on, because they have no ability to pair bond.

In the past only prostitutes required game & pua tactics, as they were broken deranged women. Women didnt require game or pua, as they had fully functioning pair bonding biology.

Normal women with fully functional pair bonding form deep bonds with men, easily without the need to imitate a jacked up alpha or thug.

Bitches today are deranged monsterosities, with more cocks & burnt out lifestyles then any coke whore.

Only broken crackwhores require insane amounts of game, the rare normal woman is easily satisfied with the biology of a man to keep her in check.

In short, women who arent deranged crack whores, require virtually no game or pua, only prostitutes require pimps to keep them in line.

Red pill, game & pua are pimp techniques designed to control prostitutes & deranged crack whores.

Normal women no longer exist, this is the reality today, womens feral thirst for alphas & bad boys is really her wanting a pimp to control her, as she's too feral to bond with normal men.

Women today are too feral & deranged, hence the need to behave like a pimp using game & pua.

Cataline Sergius said...

He's describing her as a "wonderful wife."

Not a "sexy wife."

She got fat after having the kid and doesn't feel attractive anymore. Although he's probably packed on a few pounds himself. Dad bod being what it is.

I'd recommend reading Mindful Attraction my Athol Kay.

And then stop reading Athol Kay.

In this situation I'd move from the entry drug to the hard stuff as fast as possible.

liberranter said...

The wife here is looking for an out. She does not even consciously know that what she is doing is damaging her marriage.

As if she'd give a shit even if she did know.

Old Ez said...

"What the man should have done is left his wife one year ago" - Do you mean just leave her or divorce her? Assuming they took a vow before God, do you see any issue there? Or is it just a necessary sin sometimes? Honest question.

Jacks Carlton said...

I don't understand the recommendation. Why should he just resign himself to ignoble defeat and languish in this pitiable state?

David Taylor II said...

"Assuming they took a vow before God, do you see any issue there?"

You mean the vow that she is breaking by defrauding her husband? While still using his last name, insurance benefits, and fathering to cover the child? The one where she doesn't have any responsibilities as wife? That vow?

Mr.MantraMan said...

My .02, don't become a fat American clown.

Thomas Davidsmeier said...

David Taylor II,

Jesus Christ addressed this issue specifically while He was here on this Earth. He said that the only reason someone can divorce their wife is if they commit adultery. For no other reason should a man sunder what God has brought together.

Vox is making an absolutely unChristian suggestion for the man to leave his wife. He is completely wrong to suggest it, unless he is assuming that the man is not a Christian and he is giving "practical" advice.

As best as I understand it, Jesus Christ was speaking specifically against the type of action that Vox is advocating for this man to undertake. Jews of Jesus's day took Moses's law and had twisted it to the point where the only thing that was required to divorce a wife was to give her a certificate when you did it. You didn't even need to have a reason or justification. Jesus Christ condemned this attitude toward marriage. I'm not sure why Vox is taking the Devil's side on this one.

MC227 said...

Maybe because back then they didn't have half the culture trying to destroy the nuclear family, steer the youth in the wrong direction, destroy religion and be disobedient to the husband. There were laws in place that made perfect sense unlike today where the wife gets actually rewarded for destroying her family and whoring around.

David Taylor II said...

"Jesus Christ addressed this issue specifically while He was here on this Earth. He said that the only reason someone can divorce their wife is if they commit adultery. For no other reason should a man sunder what God has brought together."

Nope. Wrong. That scripture has been taught wrong by Westerners for years.
Read Deuteronomy 22:13-21 and then read Matthew 19:3-9 again.
People have been saying what you said, that the Lord said if your wife cheats on you, you can divorce her.

Nope.
Fornication is something single people do. Adultery is something married people do.
What the Lord said was, "except it be for fornication." Not, "except it be for adultery." The Lord was talking about what was said in Deuteronomy 22. If your wife is not a virgin on your wedding night, you don't have to stay married to her.
The Jewish standard was, no hymen, no diamond.

And all of that is just for starters.

swiftfoxmark2 said...

I have to disagree with the divorce scenario. If he and his wife swore before the altar, then they have sworn an oath before God. Breaking such an oath is worse than a sexless marriage.

She will divorce him eventually anyway. The path has been set. On the other hand, I have my doubts that this man is actually approaching her. Usually people who complain about this stuff on the Internet are passive about such things in real life.

David Taylor II said...

"Vox is making an absolutely unChristian suggestion for the man to leave his wife. He is completely wrong to suggest it, unless he is assuming that the man is not a Christian and he is giving "practical" advice.

As best as I understand it, Jesus Christ was speaking specifically against the type of action that Vox is advocating for this man to undertake. Jews of Jesus's day took Moses's law and had twisted it to the point where the only thing that was required to divorce a wife was to give her a certificate when you did it. You didn't even need to have a reason or justification. Jesus Christ condemned this attitude toward marriage. I'm not sure why Vox is taking the Devil's side on this one."

Once again, your perspective betrays you. If you actually knew the scriptures, you'd know that the Bible says 26 times, that there is no respect of persons with God. Twenty. six. times.

There's not one word in your response about the wife's sin.

I Corinthians 7:5 (NLT)
Do not deprive each other of sexual relations, unless you both agree to refrain from sexual intimacy for a limited time so you can give yourselves more completely to prayer. Afterward, you should come together again so that Satan won't be able to tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

She has absolutely no right to be not be available to her husband sexually. While still getting the legal, physical and social benefits of having a husband. SHE has broken HER vows.

It is absolutely unChristian for a woman to present herself as wife-worthy and she's not a virgin.
It is absolutely unChristina for a woman to deprive her husband of sex while still taking his last name, insurance benefits, and father benefits for the child.

And I'll say again, I notice you said nothing about HER. So one more time. There is no respect of persons with God. Disobeying God's Word is sin.

NOT, disobeying God's Word is sin unless you're a woman.

David Taylor II said...

And finally, the marriage laws of this country are unjust.

Women get to cash out in a divorce and keep getting benefits from a marriage they are no longer a part of. AND they get to get married regardless of how they lived before the marriage. AND they get benefits regardless of how they behave in the marriage. AND they get alimony even if they're the ones who cheated on their husbands. There is nothing just about these laws, and they are unbiblical.

So as the Manosphere knows, Western women take full advantage of these accursed, unjust laws that Feminism has wrought. And everyone here can see that she will divorce sooner rather than later and move on to become a carousel rider, while still getting a check from a man she is no longer married to.

Did you hear THAT?

She will be living in fornication while getting financial compensation for exploding her family.
So you're saying that the "Christian" thing for him to do is wait until that happens and go along with it.

No, that's not the Christian thing to do. That's the stupid thing to do.

Thomas Davidsmeier said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dexter said...

"You are not owed sex." Wonder how these women would feel if the husbands said same about money...

They would say: "I can get the courts and the police to force you to give me money, but no can force me to give you sex, sucker."

David Taylor II said...

""porneia" is the Greek word used in Matthew that I'm referring to. Strong's gives the definition as "harlotry (including adultery and incest); figuratively, idolatry:--fornication."

So, yes, Jesus is giving humans an "out" for harlotry, though he does go on to say that it is preferred that we not get divorced for any reason. (As an aside, I belong to a church that believes that there is no acceptable reason for divorce)."

An "out" that his step-dad was going to use against his mom, remember? Joseph thought Mary had cheated on him, since she turned up pregnant before the wedding. Get it? They weren't married. He could've had her stoned, but decided to put her away privately. THEN he got a visit from Gabriel. and Gabriel told him to not be afraid to marry her.

"Though, I fail to see how your point has anything to do with my original response to you. I thought that you were supporting the recommendation to leave the wife based on the fact that she was breaking her vow. I was responding by saying that vow breaking was not a sufficient Christian reason to advise a divorce. Then you respond by saying that I'm being to LENIENT in my interpretation of what constitutes allowable divorce? I'm just a little confused as to which side of the issue you're on here."

My points were clear:
You didn't say anything about her sin. You didn't say anything about HER at all.
You're turning a blind eye to the unjust laws of the land.
You're advocating that the "Christian" thing to do was for him to continue to pay after she blows up the family.

You, like most Westerners, use scripture misinterpretation and selective scripture reading to justify stupidity.

I notice you also haven't quoted Ephesians 5 once.

Ephesians 5:22-24 (KJV)
22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

No calling out of HER sin. No scripture quotes about the WIFE'S responsibility. Just a selective misinterpretation to tell the MAN that he's stuck with a disobedient wife. A wife that WE all know is going to keep charging him after she blows up the family.

Selective. Scripture. Misinterpretation. Cuckolding.

DD said...

WHY WOULD YOU COMPLAIN ABOUT THIS? He got THE BEST ANSWER TO THE QUESTION HE ASKED!

Seriously, WHY?

This beta male who worships his wife as the ideal infinite perfection that he does not deserve goes to mumsnet.com to ask how can serve his wife better. And the answer is exactly right: "Do more housework." And he should. That is obviously something he likes doing. Yes perhaps if he performs his tasks perfectly his master may throw him a bone now and then. I wouldn't expect sex, more likely she may dress for her real lover with the bath/dressing area door ajar so he gets a glimpse of side boob, which would probably constitute a boner for this guy. He asks "How should I approach this [lack of sex topic] in a way that respects my wife - but stops this eating away at me?" What better answer could you give? He wants to 'respect' a wife who does not respect him because he does not respect himself. He says he wants this eating away to stop but I do not believe him because if he really wanted it to stop he would ask a different question. "He would ask how can I regain my self respect?" If he asked this question the honest answer might still be 1. Clean the house, set table for two, make bed, buy wine, prepare dinner &c. 2. Ask your wife to invite her lover to come to the house so you can see what a guy with some glimmer of self respect looks like. 3. Leave and never come back to #@$^ mumsnet.com again because no man with a single pubic hairs worth of self respect would go there asking that sort of question. He got exactly the answer he asked for, and exactly the answer he deserves. The more servile he acts the sooner the divorce will come and the sooner the charade can move to the next act in the drama, and then he can progress to the next level of hell.

In another universe there is a better answer of course; if he really respected his wife he would say "I am sorry that it has come to this point, where you have discovered that you have married such a sorry loser that you can't bear to have sex with him. I am going to try to make restitution for my failure by granting you an immediate divorce, you can have the house, the kids, all our money, everything. For myself I am immediately beginning a program of reading Alphagameplan every day, working out at the dojo, and taking my career to the next level so that I can fully provide for you, your unemployed lovers, and my next wife who will likely be a 19 year old stripper ( I want to be realistic, gotta walk before you can run, perhaps someday I will deserve sexy AND classy, but I'll work up to it.)"

BUT HE IS NOT ASKING FOR THAT ANSWER. He's not ready for it, he wants to stay in hell. And when he is ready for that answer you will know it because he will no longer be posting on mumsnet, he will be posting here. But he ain't ready. So don't complain that somehow he got bad advice.

David Taylor II said...

Marriage is not a god to be worshipped.
Something else that has become an anti-Scripture mantra in this culture.

God Himself divorced Israel because He got tired of her giving her love to everyone else but Him.
Jesus told the Jews that the kingdom was being taken from them, and given to a people worthy of bringing forth the fruits thereof. That would be us Gentiles. Who's been carrying the Gospel since the early Jews died out? That would be us.

So tell me again how "no divorce under no circumstances" is biblical when God Himself moved on to the Gentiles once He'd had enough of Israel's unfaithfulness.

dc.sunsets said...

Like a million others, this guy bought a pig in a poke. Women are masters of presenting the face they think will get them what they want. A man must discern beyond that facade to see if there's Danger Lurking, but most don't bother; if she's reasonably attractive and lets him play with her girl parts, he thinks he's gold.

There are no solutions to predicaments as large as marrying a girl whose soul is paper-thin or stained. Every step down that path is like an insect in a Pitcher Plant. The trip ends in digestive fluids.

dc.sunsets said...

I'm convinced that large numbers of women either don't enjoy sex, or have so embraced the Romance Novel Utopian expectations of it that their desires cannot possibly be fulfilled (much like a man coming to think his sex life should mirror pornographic videos.)

As someone said, "Eat, Pray, Cats."

DD said...

Regarding Mr. dc.sunsets coment "I'm convinced that large numbers of women either don't enjoy sex...."

True. I think at this point I have interviewed enough women in candid circumstances** to ascertain that most women do not much enjoy sex with wussy effete housebroken guys.

** those circumstances being the point where this next assertion has just been proven false, at least for a fleeting moment.

"..... that their desires cannot possibly be fulfilled"

If you actually read the romance books, you find that the expectations of happily ever after are unrealistic perhaps, but the romance books aren't selling happily ever after; they are selling happy right now. And happy right now is actually childishly easy to deliver. If you are wondering how its done here is a recipe: Combine one part happiness right now with one part leadership skill. Visit your local salsa dance studio for lessons.

DD said...

Regarding dc.sunsets comment "Like a million others, this guy bought a pig in a poke."

From what I read the guy had no complaints about the wife. His complaint boiled down to "I'm not HAAAAAPY!"

I don't expect that any amount of virtue on the part of a wife can outweigh a complete lack of self-respect in a man. I suspect that the woman may have been more likely the victim of (self-) deception. "You'll grow to love him more over time." Not that she necessarily got a bad deal, a kid and a nice clean house ain't nothin.

Log said...

KJV Matthew 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

KJV 1 Corinthians 7
10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:

11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

Log said...

Luke 6:46 ¶And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?

Matthew 5
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. [That's what he means by "least." You don't get in.]

Wild Man said...

She sold him a dream (her dream) instead of the other way around. As such she be the pimp, and he be the slave ho or wage ho. He not even the trick (he the only one in the dynamic whose dream is never fulfilled, even by way of pretense).

And now there is a baby too. Mmmmm ..... what to do in this dynamic? (After he f*cked up big time - by not fashioning his own dream to live by). Does he wannabe the king man? Yes he should want that (being a man and all). If he don't want that he need to figure out why (if that's where he is at that gonna probably be one long and painful process).

But let's assume he do wannabe be king man, and he was simply conned by the dream he be pimp-fed, but now realizes this fact. Mmmmmm - well he gotta transform himself into a king then. That a long road too (given his current circumstance) but doable ..... and the kingly forbearance he must achieve is surely going to be harshly tested by the current conditions he accepted for himself. So there you have it ....... his mantra shall be "kingly forbearance" - as the harsh pathway towards transcendence of his current quandary. Only he will know what that means precisely ..... given his particular circumstances.

Such is life for the western man.

haus frau said...

Both husband and wife are taking the path of least resistance. If she felt she needed to tend to his needs to get what she wanted then she would show some respect and fulfill her marital obligations. I highly doubt she would admit she doesn't love him as love and sex are not closely intertwined with most women. They just don't need physical romance like men do.
On the other hand, this guy doesn't sound like he understands his wife's lack of respect for what it is. He is probably afraid of confrontation and so is going the appeasement route. These female commenters are directing him to view her disrespect as some sort of physical pathology that can't be helped. Evil bitches. He needs a major intervention but probably would reject the advice. Too bad.

Cail Corishev said...

A few women are truly nymphos or frigid; but for most, interest in sex is based entirely on how attracted to the man she is. There's nothing unusual about a woman who hooks up with a man and can't get enough of him at first; then a few years later she's having month-long headaches; and then she frivorces him and goes out with the gals every night, banging every interesting-looking guy who approaches for a while. Does that woman like sex?

Occasionally a woman will truly love and want to please her husband, but something is depressing her libido. That woman will consult doctors, read books, try to find a way to get her own motor running.

If a woman is content to go six months without her husband inside her, she simply doesn't want him anymore. She just hasn't gotten a better offer yet.

S. Misanthrope said...

Is in-group preference really about a solipsistic notion that "one day it might be you?" Genuinely curious, that seems like more of a thought process than what I observe among women. I see it as much more instinctual. I either skipped that allele or had the effects beaten out of my as a kid, because female group-think has always been a mystery to me.

Somehow I got to adulthood firmly believing that spouses literally owe each other sex. I was surprised to find disagreement on that from many Objectivists. Something about sex being "too sacred" to undertake out of obligation rather than full enthusiasm. The similarities between Oism (as practiced by Oists) and feminism continues to disappoint me on so many levels.

Nate73 said...

This is kinda horrible, because how can you know your wife will be uninterested you after a pregnancy... until the pregnancy has happened and your life is ruined?

SirHamster said...

This is kinda horrible, because how can you know your wife will be uninterested you after a pregnancy.

You can't. But a woman who is willing to make babies with you has some attraction you can work with; whether to build it, or rebuild it.

The rest depends on Faith, Hope, and Love. If you don't have that, find it. If you don't want to find it, go die alone and unloved and leave living to those who will.

Remo - Vile Faceless Minion #99 said...

"Actually, as a husband or wife, you quite literally are owed both sex and sexual exclusivity. Otherwise, there is absolutely no point to marriage other than legally establishing who will be forced to pay the child support"

Needed to fix that quote a little. As Dalrock has mentioned numerous times we no longer have fatherhood in the United States, it has been replaced with child support. The legal term for fatherhood now is "child support payer"

Bob Loblaw said...

This is kinda horrible, because how can you know your wife will be uninterested you after a pregnancy... until the pregnancy has happened and your life is ruined?

In all likelihood she was never interested in sex with her husband, but realized she wasn't going to have a child without it. Now she has what she wants. I'll bet she never, once, had sex with him using birth control after they were married.

dc.sunsets said...

I guess I just don't really get it. After 4 decades from the first date, three kids, two careers and three grandkids (so far), my wife and I clearly float each other's boats. It helps that we maintain proper weight & proportion (albeit without health club membership) and also realistic expectations. She even is the breadwinner now (horrors! I know!)

Mutual respect is the essential ingredient of any successful human relationship.

Common sense isn't common, I guess.

Mike said...

Thomas,

The Church has always held that a man is not obligated to stay with his wife if she just refuses to be a wife. A civil divorce is even permissible when it is necessary to limit her ability to harm him. The fact that the metaphysical reality of the marriage may remain intact does not mean the man has to stay with her or even be legally recognized as her husband anymore. There is a point where a wife can truly be rejected--legitimately--by every human authority and her only recourse is an appeal to Heaven that God would intervene and heal her situation.

So Vox may be wrong to the extent he supports remarriage in such a case, but the principle of leaving a wife who just flat out refuses to be one and is seriously disrupting or harming her husband and family is well established even unto the early Church.

Mike said...

On the flip side, both spouses must agree to the requirements of Christian marriage going into the marriage. There is probably a strong case that the marriage was never valid if the wife admits that she was informed of orthodoxy and steadfastly remained heterodox in private. One aspect of that is that a woman who refuses to submit to Pauline instruction and is aware of the Apostle's teachings, can be regarded as a heretic who lied to her pastor or priest during the exchange of vows before God.

David Taylor II said...

"I guess I just don't really get it. After 4 decades from the first date, three kids, two careers and three grandkids (so far), my wife and I clearly float each other's boats. It helps that we maintain proper weight & proportion (albeit without health club membership) and also realistic expectations. She even is the breadwinner now (horrors! I know!)
Mutual respect is the essential ingredient of any successful human relationship."

There are many factors affecting what you said.

The biggest one is "four decades." Your wife knows at this point she has almost zero sexual market value and could not easily start over. Guaranteed that when she was in her 20s all she thought about was, "Can I get a better deal?" She just didn't voice that to you. Women don't like to destroy a sure thing unless they have another sure thing lined up.

Next is "realistic expectations." Yeah that doesn't mean anything past 40. Because life itself forces you to get real. It counts when the women is young, the hypergamy is high, and the options are plentiful. It's possible that you got a woman that was raised well, and had a good relationship with her dad. That means that stability is a part of her background.

So, that's the funny thing about life, and all this relationship stuff. The good relationships don't make a lot of noise. People just tend to vocalize about the train wrecks.

Rex Little said...

What the man should have done is left his wife one year ago

Let's see. . . the kid would have been about 9 months old then. Anyone care to guess how much child support and spousal support the poor schmuck would have to pay out over the next 17+ years? Or how much he'd get to see his son?

A tube sock, an economy size jar of Vaseline, and a YouPorn account add up to a LOT less.

Hammerli280 said...

Honestly, he needs a good divorce lawyer. She's effectively abandoned the marriage.

I've taken to calling this the "Three I Wants" nightmare...She wants his sperm, she wants his wallet, and she wants him gone. There was never any intent for mutual support, affection, or comfort.

Laramie Hirsch said...

Red pill, game & pua are pimp techniques designed to control prostitutes & deranged crack whores.

Normal women no longer exist, this is the reality today, womens feral thirst for alphas & bad boys is really her wanting a pimp to control her, as she's too feral to bond with normal men.

Women today are too feral & deranged, hence the need to behave like a pimp using game & pua.


Very cool. I agree with this statement. I sort of came across something similar to this statement, over at a Catholic forum I sometimes go to. The guy is criticizing dread game within marriage:

This is worldly advice. Marriage is supposed to be an honest relationship, an institution with very clear duties. To have to go to such depths to trick your wife into giving you what she already owes you in the marriage contract is extremely demeaning, not to mention vicious and irreligious. It is repulsive that a husband should have to be the seducer of his own wife; that he should have to convince her in the same way a fornicator would seduce. What you said about taking the initiative and demanding sex rather than asking for it is correct. If your wife refuses sex then she is ipso facto refusing to be your wife; she is effectively divorcing you. But don't force sex with violence. If she refuses then do what this man says and consider her cut off from you and look into an annulment, or at least cut yourself off from her for awhile and don't let her return until she is penitent. She is committing an act of gross injustice against you. In an earlier age, such a wife would probably have had her hair cut off and shamed for disobedience. This is a case where it's a shame for a pagan wife to do this, but for a Christian wife to do this to her husband is really wicked. St. Paul didn't speak vainly when he said that wives should look up to their husbands like their husbands should look up to God. A woman that has no regard for her husband is a godless woman. A woman that does not care to please her husband is no better than a child that has no respect for its parents. What she is doing is tantamount to rebellion approaching adultery. She is not that much better than an adulteress.

Trust said...

It's remarkable the way people -- especially people who preach equality -- can contradict themselves without batting a lash.

Take this wife's neglect of her husband, and there is consensus that love is conditional (such as the ever popular you're not doing enough housework).

However, create an identical post, word for word, except flip it to the husband neglecting the wife in some way, and there will be consensus that love should be unconditional.

Stg58/Animal Mother said...

Trust,

It's the same question as in political matters:

Who, whom. The political is the personal, and vice versa.

Jed Mask said...

Thing is...

As harsh as the ultimate reality of the situation is in *GOD'S IDEAL* husband and wife are to be 100% in the marriage towards each other even if the other spouse is refusing sex, personal, social or financial areas closed off to the other.

At this point, the spouse doing "wrong" is held accountable by God for his/her sin against unrepentant spouse in question.

God don't won't divorce to happen. He *NEVER* allows it under *ANY CIRCUMSTANCES* whatsoever. That's what *GOD WANTS*...

Ooooweee that's a VERY hard pill to swallow nobody really wants but that what *GOD EXPECTS*.

Me, being just "me" and doing my own "personal thing" I'd be understanding of married people in some marriages where one spouse commits adultery or is being a complete "menace" in the marriage that the other party wants to split in a divorce.

It's just normal human reaction really. Who could blame such person? You (or I) would probably end up doing the same thing if we were in that person's shoes, now would we? At least "hidden" in private we'd try to keep it but nonetheless, *SAME ACTIONS*.

Smh... I've long come to the realization that I'm an "unlovable, hateful, scornful" person that all humanity would hate and despise if they saw the "real ugly me".

I have to be fine with that, cuz that's the reality, no?

Yeah, so I'm caught in a "dilemma" cuz I'm trying to be a "good obedient Christian" with the wicked, inner heart and evil imagination of a devil and I'm supposed to be "Christ-like" cuz I've chosen to "walk the Christian path" and not be of this world. Yeah... Can't "go back" into the world or I'm the most pathetic, pitiful hypocrite there is. Even so I personally could, but would regret it cuz I know it's not the "right thing" I should be doing lol. Yeah...

So... Really "feeling" for said married persons dealing with these kinds of crappy life situations with their "significant other" lol but seriously concerned things work out in *YOUR WALK WITH CHRIST*.

Even if a spouse is being "sucky"; God's not "grading you" on your spouse's poor behaviour. God's looking at YOUR RESPONSE* of *YOUR LIFE* in loving and caring for your spouse as your own body even if your spouse ends up hating you. HARD TASK TO DO!

But that's what *GOD EXPECTS*.

Yeah, nobody really likes hearing this, but truth has to be said. This message is only out for the people who *want* (more than "need" but they *need* more than want as well) to hear it.

Hate the messenger along with the message. I don't care if people hate me, I like it if they *LOVE ME* cuz it's ideal for me but if someone "hates me" boohoo to YOU cuz I'm not gonna feel "ashamed" or "sad" by your worthless attacks to make me feel bad about myself. Hate me, hate me. It's only my amusement.

Other than that, take care of yourself. Don't crap my style and have yourself a good day. :P Amen.

~ Bro. Jed

liberranter said...

This is worldly advice. Marriage is supposed to be an honest relationship, an institution with very clear duties. To have to go to such depths to trick your wife into giving you what she already owes you in the marriage contract is extremely demeaning, not to mention vicious and irreligious. It is repulsive that a husband should have to be the seducer of his own wife;

That Christian husbands today have to constantly game their wives not only reminds us of humanity's fallen nature, but also of how thoroughly --and I dare say, irremediably-- corrupted by the world the church and its teachings have become. The advice of churchian "marriage counselors" differs from its pop culture counterpart only with the addition of perversely misquoted Scripture. Other than that, the advice of Moore, Mohler, Rainey, et al. is centered on the same premise as that of Oprah and Dr. Phil: the idol of women's happiness and indulgence.

Bob Loblaw said...

I realize every long term relationship takes work, but all that dread game stuff sounds just... tiring. I'd rather be single than be stuck with a wife who required that much care and feeding.

dc.sunsets said...

It's possible that you got a woman that was raised well, and had a good relationship with her dad. That means that stability is a part of her background.

Yes. Her parents are still happily married at 80, too.

No, she wasn't looking for a better mate while she was young and quite pretty. While this whole AG stuff appears to be universal to many, it is not. As with every system, exceptions exist. Other than being utterly feminine in appearance, she has always lacked the prototypical female behaviors often described in Game discussions. I was spoiled rotten by finding the rare exception, and doing so as a teenager.

Dexter said...

I realize every long term relationship takes work, but all that dread game stuff sounds just... tiring.

You mainly need that when you're trying to climb out of the dead bedroom / lack of attraction hole created by your beta behavior. But hey if you don't want to do the work to rekindle her attraction to you, you will be relieved of the necessity for such tiresome effort when she nexts you.

Dexter said...

Marriage is supposed to be an honest relationship, an institution with very clear duties. To have to go to such depths to trick your wife into giving you what she already owes you in the marriage contract is extremely demeaning, not to mention vicious and irreligious. It is repulsive that a husband should have to be the seducer of his own wife; that he should have to convince her in the same way a fornicator would seduce.

What a load of Churchian self-righteous bullshit. But mostly, false and irrelevant.

Is your wife "tricking you" when she does things you find attractive and seductive, like not being fat, dressing nicely, using makeup, etc? No. And you are not "tricking" her when you display the male behaviors she finds attractive and seductive that fall under the rubric of "game".

Log said...

"Dread game" is not an option for those who keep the commandments of God - 1 Corinthians 7:11.

Those who break, and teach others to break, the commandments of God shall reap their reward with the scribes and Pharisees.

Of course, that only matters if one wishes to obey the commandments of God. The Church is willing to excuse them who don't. I don't know that God will.

Michael Maier said...

OH NOES! Log says Hell awaits! Because all sins condemn us and Jesus won't forgive any of them! Oh wait a second....

Besides, using Dread is not actually leaving. It is showing the woman you have the capacity to leave and plenty of ability AND incentive to live life after she's gone.

manuel hernandez said...

And yet, if those Viagra ads are to be believed, women expect men to keep their erectile dysfunction in check. Of course, this happens when said women are in their 40s and don't have much going for them.

Log said...

That's a swell Jesus you got there - one who gives commandments but doesn't care if you keep them, since you'll get to heaven if only you ask for forgiveness on your deathbed. You can, if you're a female, ride the cock carousel - or, if you're a male, rape an infant - and invoke the magical spell, "Jesus, please enter my heart and forgive my sins; I believe you to be the Lord, the resurrected Son of God" just before you die and voila! It's like you never did any of those things; you'll be saved and in heaven along with Jesus, God, and all the holy angels. And the baby you raped. It's all good.

To you, who take Paul over Jesus, the entire Bible can be reduced, without loss, to Romans 10:9. The rest of the Bible only matters to you insamuch as it gives ammunition against others with whom you disagree. And you do worship Paul over Jeus. When asked what one must do to be saved, he said: keep the commandments (Luke 18:18). God is no respecter of persons - the requirements of salvation are the same for all (1 Peter 1:17). Do you suppose his death and resurrection altered his nature, or the requirements of salvation? Naw, you think no such thing; Romans 10:9, shorn of its historical context, means you have carte blanche to do whatever you like, you think, so long as you utter the magic spell the instant before you die. And that's the point: do whatever you want; there is no sin except dying without saying the magic words.

Mr.MantraMan said...

Great twitter thread posted over at WRSA by a Cornelius Rye

Mike said...

Those who break, and teach others to break, the commandments of God shall reap their reward with the scribes and Pharisees.

Given that remarriage under these circumstances is often adultery, a wise man would choose MGTOW to at least some extent once he has to leave his wife. Odds are very good that a woman like this will be on a path that leads to Hell, and there is no profit for him to get a "good woman" and follow her by embracing what is called a "public and perpetual state of adultery." (an illicit remarriage)

Pity the pastors who teach these heresies for it is very likely that great will be their condemnation in the next life and they will see all of their "planted churches" and other good works burned up as a price for the execrable heresy they teach on marriage.

Mike said...

*follow her

Should have said "follow his ex-wife"

Unknown said...

The trick, guys, is be flexible. Accept her for what she does well (cleaning, cooking, keeping the little monsters under control...etc.) and outsource what she fails at or refuses to do(sex or whatever domestic chore she sucks at). The French have made this an art form.

At former French Premier Jacques Chiraq's funeral, the wife and kids stood on one side of the casket; his mistress of several years (well-known to wife and family) stood on the other. No animosity between them, merely recognition of each woman's separate function is his life.

An alpha who had it wired. One way Europeans are a tad more civilized than us blue nosed Yanks.

Gunnar Thalweg said...

Chirac is still alive. I think you meant Mitterand.

entropyismygod said...

@Log

When you clean up after forgiving another of your wife's indiscretions do you pleasure yourself?

Do you do exactly as Mark Driscoll says and believe that Joseph was the first biblically endorsed cuck? Do you think all single mothers are miraculous conceptions?

Do you advise young men to marry women with hundreds of sexual partners, lots of experience so that they "Know what they want?"

For someone who calls others pharisees you dished out alot of condemnation.

Log said...

I advise those who call themselves "Christians" to familiarize themselves with what Christ actually said to do, and to both do and teach it, lest they unnecessarily reap this particular reward for this particular reason.

Matthew 5
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

For they also neither kept nor taught the commandments of God but taught men to break them.

If you know what Christ said to do and go astray and lead others astray - by encouraging "dread game" when the Lord has commanded that husbands not put away their wives, for example - you reap the same reward as those before you who did the same, for God is not a respecter of persons.

Log said...

In this world, Christ was the omega, the one everyone despised, who yielded in every conflict, the servant of all.

In the next world, where Christ is the alpha, the social hierarchy of this world shall be reversed, he said (Mark 9:35).

You might want to rethink this alpha game stuff.

Michael Maier said...

Log, are you stupid, lacking in imagination or just trying to virtue signal to Jesus?

Jesus Christ used harsh words of truth. Dread can be used the same way. ESPECIALLY since there is nothing in the Bible that prohibits multiple wives. If your wife knows you think like that

"IF you use the divorce laws to leave, you choose to be a whore, I will get a younger and prettier and tighter version of you."

Every one of us FAILS, every day. To pretend that we have to be perfect to be forgiven is a vicious lie. And if using "mean" Dread gets a woman in line, then that serves God a lot more than you and Mark Driscoll do.

Log said...

God has already said what serves him - the keeping of his commandments. If you do not keep and also do not teach his commandments, then you do not serve God, but you serve some other master, and it is from that other master you will receive your reward when the day of judgement comes.

Log said...

There are two ways to virtue-signal verbally.

You can talk yourself up, or you can talk the other down.

I leave it to you to figure out which end of virtue-signalling mockery and scorn represent.

Log said...

And this is a commandment: Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Log said...

And the Lord has commanded wives not to leave their husbands - what kind of husband encourages, or even dares, his wife to sin by telling her to "go ahead and leave, I can get a younger, more atttractive model of you!"

Both ends of "dread game" run afoul the commandments of Jesus Christ.

entropyismygod said...

@LOG

Do you enjoy your wife cucking you? Did God order you to be a cuck? Which God?

Log said...

The Lord's teaching on marriage is clear.

Mark 10
2 ¶And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.

3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?

4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.

5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.

6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

10 And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter.

11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.

12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

1 Corinthians 7
10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:

11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

Why do you call him Lord if you break and teach others to break his commandments? How then is he your Lord, if you are disobedient, recalcitrant, and unrepentant?

Stg58/Animal Mother said...

Log,

Do you have a watching chair?

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.