Wednesday, January 18, 2017

The myth of relational equity

Rollo Tomassi examines the outdated myth that still imprisons far too many Delta men:
I’ve covered the fallacy of Relational Equity in a prior post, but I think it’s necessary to revisit the idea here to understand how it still undermines men in an era of Open Hypergamy and feminine social primacy. These men, most of whom are likely into their 70s now, had a preconception of what it meant to ‘do everything right’; to play by an understood rule set that women were supposed to find attractive, to acknowledge and honor. Furthermore, they were taught to expect a degree of mutual reason from these new, empowered and evolving women. If needs weren’t being met, well, then all that was necessary was a heart to heart and open communication and negotiation would set things back on track because women could be expected to be the functional equivalents of men. This was the golden, egalitarian, sexual equality, future that feminism promised the guys in the 70s and 80s.

Relational Equity is the misguided belief that ‘doing everything right’ would necessarily be what ultimately attracts a woman, kept a woman, a wife, an LTR, from both infidelity, and was an assurance of her continued happiness with her man. Needless to say, the collected experiences of men that’s led to the praxeology of what we know as Red Pill awareness puts the lie to this – but as men, we expect some kind of acknowledgement for our accomplishments. Rationally, in a male context, we expect that what we do will at least be recognized as valuable, if not honored, by other men. So by extension of our equalist social contract, women, whom we are told we should expect to be co-equal agents with men, should also be expected to see past their emotional Hypergamous natures and make a logical conclusion to be attracted to men who are good fits in a mutually understood sense.

This, of course, is nonsense for the same reason that expecting genuine desire can be negotiated is nonsense, but essentially this is essentially the idea the shifting social contract of the time was trying to convince men of. And as you might expect, those men, the ones with the insight to recognize it, saw it for the opportunism it really was. Even if they ended up at 40 hating who they’d become.
I would summarize it thusly:

  1. A woman who is sexually attracted to a man will find a way to express that attraction to him in all circumstances and at all costs.
  2. No woman has ever been sexually attracted to the performance of chores or everyday duties.
  3. No man having an affair with a woman has ever done the dishes or laundry for her.
Whatever the right answer is, relational equity isn't it.

12 comments:

Dave said...

It doesn't take 3500 words to say "Disney is a lie". This is why I don't read Rollo any more.

Trimegistus said...

Ah, but Disney isn't a lie. Watch _Beauty and the Beast_ with the sound off. Belle is attracted to a powerful, masculine, _huge_, vastly rich man. At the end when his "curse" is lifted and he reverts to a rather poncy-looking prince, not even the animators could keep the brief flicker of disappointment off of Belle's hand-drawn face.

Dexter said...

@Dave,

Merely saying "Disney is a lie" is useless. Nobody will connect that to how it applies to them. If you are a recovering beta who went redpill and this has not (yet?) changed your wife's opinion of you, then every single word of Rollo's post "The Reconstruction II" is useful, interesting, and hard-hitting. (Yes, that's me, that's how she's reacting, and it sucks.)

dc.sunsets said...

I'll buy that a decent woman is attracted to masculine men. I don't buy that cleaning the dishes after cleaning the 1911 degrades a man's masculinity. You're either masculine or you're not. If it has to be explained, the explanation won't do any good. Masculinity isn't a coat you put on and take off, or buy at the Men's Store.

dc.sunsets said...

I've been sole bread-winner, co-bread-winner and "full dependent." Division of labor around the house changed with each condition along sensible lines without causing my wife to grow a beard or the pitch of my voice to rise. I truly don't get why this is difficult for others.

Boko Harambe said...

I don't expect choreplay, etc. but recently a series of illnesses affected our household. Even the dog was sick. Having a mate capable of tending to chores while I was too feverish to move was a blessing, and I took care in return. We both took care of the kids. Laundry, food, what medicines were necessary...we worked as a unit.

THAT is where you need mutual competence. Absent illness or some other emergency, he does his work, I do mine.

Reconquista Initiative said...

The funny thing is that from time to time (like once a month), I make sure to do all the domestic chores for my wife just as a part of dread-game. It reminds the wife that I can do everything she can, and that I ultimately do not need her if she does not keep up her end of the domestic bargain. The point gets across nicely!

Regards.
www.reconquistainitiative.com

Unknown said...

I think one factor that drives many people to believe that "choreplay" can work is because they think they've seen it work. As an example: my wife is already sexually attracted to me. When I hang up the laundry for her (something that is usually her job), it's because she's sick, or super stressed out and needs a break, or something. And that pushes her emotional-comfort buttons: "My husband is taking care of me!" Because there's pre-existing sexual attraction, the emotional comfort reinforces the attraction, and later in the bedroom, she lets me know in no uncertain terms how much she appreciates me. BUT if I did the same kind of thing in a relationship where there was (and should be) no sexual attraction, let's say for my unmarried sister who needed a break... the emotional reaction would be very similar, "Aww, you're SUCH a nice brother to me!" But it would not, by itself, create ANY sexual attraction.

That's why some people end up thinking that "choreplay" works. Because it CAN help reinforce or heighten pre-existing sexual attraction, if done in the right frame ("I'm going to take care of you" makes her feel "I'm safe because my big strong man is on the job"). But they miss the necessary fact of pre-existing attraction, and end up thinking that it's the choreplay that created the attraction.

Since Blogspot apparently hates me, this comment will probably show up as "Unknown". I don't intend to post anonymously; my name is Robin Munn.

Tom Terrific said...

Whether it's emasculating or not, "No man was ever given a blowjob by his wife while doing the dishes".

The best doing the dishes does is kindle gratitude, if you're lucky. It does nothing for tingles.

S1AL said...

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that no man was ever given a blowjob while changing the oil in a car, either, because that's a *fucking stupid situation*.

Stg58/Animal Mother said...

I'd be willing to go out on a limb as well and say no man has ever been to me a blowjob while repairing the water heater.

iransafe vpn said...

خرید vpn
Nice post

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.