All women really aren't like that

Free Northerner points out that with judicious wife-selection, a man can reduce his statistical probability of divorce to around 10 percent:

Looking at all this, it’s easy to see the two best determinates of her divorcing you are her education and whether she has had sex prior to marriage.

A bachelor’s degree is a 40-point decrease in the odds of divorce over a high school graduate.

A women having sex with one other partner is an instant 25-point increase in the odds of divorce, with another 10-point drop for a second partner, and another for a fifth. Related to this, her having sex before age 18 is another major risk factor. Marrying her before she’s 20 is also a risk factor, but not as great a one as her having had sex with someone else; if the choice is between a virgin under 20 and older non-virgin, the young virgin is less risky. Do not marry a slut.

Religion is important, but the most important part is less what religion, but rather how devout she is. An actively religious couple is generally a 20-point decrease in the chance of divorce than a non-active couple.

Marrying an Asian is a 15-point decrease in the odds of divorce. Marrying a black was the opposite.

It won't show up in the statistics, but based on my observation, there is also a relative aspect to the divorce risk. For example, the statistics indicate that a woman with 15 prior sexual partners has a divorce risk of 70 percent, but how that applies to the specific marriage will vary greatly between the man who has had one prior sexual partner and the man who has had 100.

For the former, the knowledge that his wife has been with 15 other men is likely devastating. For the latter, that sounds like the summer after graduating from college and is of no concern to him. And given the way in which hypergamy works, it probably shouldn't be, as it's almost certain that she will, rightly, worry far more about his faithfulness than he does about hers. Rank and relativity are not easily accounted for, but they do matter.

Home invasions

This is why you don't ever permit unattached men and women to move into your home:

A vicar has been betrayed after taking in a destitute alcoholic who then embarked on an affair with his wife of 29 years. Ivan Mascarenhas, 49, moved in with Matthew and Sandra Taylor in Northamptonshire, after he began drinking again and was thrown out by his wife. The vicar of St Mary's in Rushden took pity on him and gave him a spare room while he found his feet. And Rev Taylor even praised Ivan in church for battling alcoholism, not knowing that he was sleeping with his wife.

You're not being a "good samaritan" by taking someone into your home. The Good Samaritan put up the waylaid man at an inn. He wasn't foolish enough to bring the man into his home.

If you want to help someone, give them money. Don't sacrifice your marriage on their behalf, no matter how bravely they are addressing their substance abuse problem or how badly they were abused by their boyfriend.

How the West was weird

Every now and then, I encounter a post that makes me realize how little I know, and how there are entire realms of thought that never, ever, cross my mind:

A great deal of weirdness in conservative life can be explained by the theory that smarter women were more likely to end up out in the West/frontier and also be able to offset the consequences of marrying a relatively lunkish guy because their domestic labors were monetized.  They also could afford to take the chance of marrying a lunk because he didn’t need to be all that clever to make it in the West.

Over time as the domestic sphere lost its financially remunerative aspects, the general pattern was established, but that just left such women scrambling to compensate in other ways, leaving them prey to scams and schemes because they had income pressure but no easy way to integrate it into their increasingly narrow domestic sphere.

It's true that the romantic heroes of the West tend to be taciturn and competent rather than facile and intelligent. But I have no idea what significance that might hold or how it has shaped modern society, nor have I ever given the matter a moment's thought.

However, we do know that intelligence tends to flow through the maternal line. So, it's an interesting line of thought, even if it is one that I am unlikely to pursue myself.

Straining at a gnat

And missing the camel. A psychologist fails to grasp the concept of "economic incentive":

Some new data about divorce and non-marital breakups contains an unexpected finding, and I think it underscores the fact that we're in the midst of an ongoing evolution in what people want and seek in their romantic relationships. The study, based on a survey of over 2000 heterosexual couples, found that women initiated nearly 70% of all divorces. Yet there was no significant difference between the percentage of breakups initiated by women and men in non-marriage relationships.

How to explain? I find that these data are consistent with what I and others have seen clinically. When men and women seek couples therapy and then subsequently divorce; or, when either partner seeks individual therapy about a marriage conflict that ends in divorce, it’s often the woman who expresses more overt conflict and dissatisfaction about the state of the marriage. On the other hand, the man is more likely to report feeling troubled by his wife’s dissatisfaction, but pretty much “OK” with the way things are; he's content to just lope along as time passes.

The difference is that in a marital breakup, a woman gets cash and prizes. In a non-marital breakup, a woman gets nothing.

This indicates that since there are 2.3 marital breakups initiated by women for every marital breakup initiated by a man, the divorce rate could be reduced by 39.4 percent by removing the economic incentive from women.

Identity defines

The heartbreak of a woman who identifies as the wife of a man to whom she is not married:

I am a cisgender heterosexual female, but I am also something more. I am the voice of the thousands whom civil rights progress has passed by and who still conceal their true identity from an exclusive society.

This is the identity closet no one wants to acknowledge, which is what makes it so devastating for those who find themselves inside. I did not even realize how hard I had been working to hide my true self until I met Mr. X, but suddenly it was as though all those awkward moments of my past came into focus and I could see the meaning of my whole life. I am—I always have been—the wife of Mr. X.

Coming out was one of the hardest decisions of my life, and at times the hatred and heartache I’ve faced have been worse than I could have imagined. Hardest of all is the rejection from Mr. X himself, who has declared publicly he has no interest in me whatsoever. But I know that no matter what anyone says, I have to be true to myself. And I know without a shadow of a doubt that my true identity is wife of Mr. X.

The real question for society is a difficult one. If this poor non-cismarried woman decides she wants a divorce, how much money should Mr. X be required to pay her?

Actually, he has lots of choices

Then again, if her husband was the sort of man who wouldn't put up with spousal abandonment, she probably wouldn't have lost attraction to him in the first place:

Linda B., 48, admitted that after 23 years of marriage, she doesn't have any interest in having sex with her husband — and she is fine with that. 'I’ve had all the sex I need to in my life, and truthfully, I’m just over it. Plus I’m a little bored,' she explained.

Like Ruth's boyfriend, Linda said her husband is having trouble understanding her sudden lack of interest, and he has even suggested that they take a 'sex class' or 'order a book on Amazon' so they can rev up their sex life.

However, Linda explained to him that although she loves him and wants to spend the rest of her life with him, she doesn't want to have sex with him right now.

'He has to deal with that. He doesn’t have much of a choice,' she noted.

One thing I've noticed over the years is that with the exception of the overly jealous types, women usually a) overrate their own attractiveness, and b) underrate the attractiveness their husbands hold to other women.

Don't defer, don't hire

The Chateau provides an example of how to lose hand despite power:

Beta males, especially those of the cuck variety, have a knee-jerk urge to publicly elevate their wives to positions of influence in their lives that are all out of proportion to reality. Jeb!, Kasich, Cruz…they all did it. A little self-abnegating generosity toward the wife is fine until it turns hyperbolic and comically supplicating. Beta males still haven’t learned that the handicap principle is easy to abuse and backfire on them, and that a man has to show a little alpha gumption before he can safely indulge some oily deference toward women.

Deltas, in particular, love to publicly pedestalize their wives. Put a Delta in a position of authority, and before you know it, he'll make his wife an executive of some sort. I don't quite understand the thinking behind it, but it's as if they can't decide anything without being sure to get her approval.

I know one CEO that made this mistake. He made his wife the vice-president of a technology company despite the fact that she didn't know a single damn thing about computers or even what the company did. He set her up for failure in the corporate world; unsurprisingly, the marriage failed too.

Alpha Mail: marriage and the Gamma box

A recovering Gamma wonders how to get past his wife's determination to keep him in the Gamma box:

I read a quote on another site “People who don’t respect you won’t change how they perceive you once you better yourself, they’ll see the old you and a new imposter.” The wife always brings up old stuff in every argument we have despite my significant strides to de-gamma.

We have three kids so I want to believe that her running her mouth, i’m unhaaaappppy, I want a divorce, etc can be turned around as I continue to improve in all areas and reduce # of failed shit-tests, but the idea that she will never come around  seems to be increasingly likely.

QUESTION: How can I tell if she really hates my guts or if this is just her inherently miserable nature and her privileged upbringing having made her a defiant brat (child of the 1%)? She yells about a divorce/tells me to move out after every disagreement or heated discussion (lot of BLM crap recently, she's a fucking SJW nutcase and obsessively hates Trump, dont' ask me how I got into this) I thought she would outgrow this crap post-kids but she still has a lot of concern for the poor and brown and during arguments routinely mocks my status as a poor angry white man (she's white too, I dont know WTF).

I recently starting taking my kids to church and she came once - luckily she missed the sermon where the pastor referred to women's 20% less upper body strength - but in the one she heard he made fun of liberals and spoke negatively about gay marriage which pissed her off. despite her never attending church since she was 12 or something she has requested I find a more liberal church that we can go to as a family which I've blown off so far. I take my 2 sons but I think she is going to try to make a fight when the youngest is old enough to go (youngest is a girl).

She clearly could go file any day and take me to cleaners, so I discount the bluster but perhaps I am just naive and will get slammed with it soon. But in terms of fitness, career/$$$, game/dread/etc I have upped the ante across the board and I’m still getting pushback. There’s no way a 5 should be this demanding. Staying for the kiddos but sometimes feel I am negotiating with a terrorist that has already decided to take me out regardless of my cooperation.

The one big plus on my side is that we still have sex all the time and she continues to do things that I've heard most marrieds stop after awhile.  Maybe this gusto comes from some sort of devotion? It's the one big difference I see between my situation and those I read about who are post-divorce. So how fucked am I and anything I can do differently?

People who are threatened by a man's self-improvement will always attempt to undermine and belittle it. It doesn't matter if you lose 30 pounds; they'll harp on the 10 more than you could still stand to lose. It doesn't matter if you earn $30k more, they'll complain that it isn't $50k. If you get promoted to Assistant Vice President they'll wonder why you're not good enough to be Vice President.

This is the way of the world, and in particular, women. Complaining and pointing out flaws is how they maintain what they weirdly see as the upper hand.

My first advice is for this guy to never talk politics or current events with this woman. My second advice is for him to refuse her demand to go to a more liberal church. My third advice is for him to tell her that the next time she threatens divorce, he will take her at face value and separate from her. Don't be a drama queen about it, don't indulge her appetite for theatrics, just make it clear that will be the consequence. Then, when she does it again, (and she probably will, as a test if nothing else), he should tell her he'll be going on a road trip - go to Vegas, go to Thailand, go somewhere you've always wanted to go, it doesn't matter - at the end of which time he will return and find out if she still wants to remain married or not. If she wants to file for divorce, then she can go ahead and do it. But no more threats. Either file or shut the hell up.

However, he should not issue the warning if he is unable or unwilling to follow through. Threats, followed by inaction, is the very worst thing that a man can do in this situation. He's already dealing with an inappropriate lack of respect, which may or may not be merited. Failing to follow through would cement her disdain for him and rightly so.

And if she tries to prevent the road trip, probably by presenting some practical objections relating to work, money, or the children, there is only one response: I don't give a fuck. I warned you. Now deal with it. Then go and have a good time. Remind yourself that there is a whole world outside of your insane little box, that you are a free man, and you are not a prisoner.

If the wife is an emotional terrorist, stop negotiating with her. And don't let her use "the kiddos" as hostage either. (Note: "kiddos" is a gamma tell here.) It's actually worse for his sons to see him continue to constantly kowtow to her than for them to see him refuse to take her bullshit anymore and walk out; they know very well what she is like and they will lose respect for him too if he continues to be submissive to her.

The reason most women maintain the whip hand in a marriage is because most men are afraid to walk out on them and they know it. And the man who lives in fear of his wife is a man no woman can respect. Don't worry about the house, the bank account, or even the children. If your marital relationship is disordered, all of those things will be screwed up anyhow. I'm not counseling that he file for divorce; I don't believe in it. But the wife affects to believe it is an option, so call her on it.

UPDATE: a reader suggests the emailer might benefit from this man's experience in resetting his marriage.

The man who learned nothing

This foolish man's infertility is a metaphor for his insipid failure to understand the concept of marital commitment:

In the days that follow, I’m not ready to collapse into existing expectations about what is to come. I ask her: what do you actually want? Was this an accident? Do you still want to be with me? Do you want the three of us to co-parent?

Amid ongoing tears and the wreckage of our old life, she confesses her terrible dilemma: I don’t think I can love more than one man. Therefore, I choose him.

Soon we are sitting across the table from my parents, married 30-plus years, who look to us with cautious optimism. I’d already warned the news wasn’t what they might be expecting. In truth, to them and most of our friends, Katherine and I were the perfect couple. Loving, productive and stable, we never quarreled. Ever.

I break the news. “Katherine and I are separating.” My mother immediately bursts into tears. My father leaps into fix-it mode, suggesting the merits of marriage counseling. “We’re certain,” I confirm. They did not know about our open relationship, and I feel it is too much to reveal the pregnancy now.

Plus, I can’t admit the secret shame that I had screwed things up. I had ruined my marriage.

“I’m sorry,” my mother wept. “I’m sorry your marriage didn’t work.”

I spent the rest of the month on the road, returning only to pack my share of the belongings. No battle. No lawyers. Katherine finds the paperwork online and we fill it out on the kitchen table. We agree to split the mortgage equity. I will take the vehicle, the blender, and the Nintendo Wii. She will retain “the rest of the household contents.”

I spend the afternoon carrying my things out the front door and packing them in the car. It’s both freeing and sorrowful when I realize my life now fits into a 2002 Subaru hatchback. My plan is to catch a ferry to Victoria, where my friend has already set up a desk in her office. I had found a temporary apartment just outside downtown, close to Mya, whose long-term partnership had also ended for reasons that remain their own.

For one last time, I sit alone on the backyard patio of the house that no longer bears my name. I light the cigarette I had taken from Katherine’s secret stash (I rarely smoke) and watch it curl into the amber dusk.

A few hours before, she had revealed how she had begun drifting from our marriage the first time I’d confessed about kissing the other women, almost a year earlier. “You never told me,” I pleaded. “How could I have saved us?”

I believed wholeheartedly the myth of the One. The belief that human happiness means finding your other half, pledging them your heart and soul, and committing until death do you part.

She was my One. Yet I struggled for years to reconcile my desire for others with the inherited story of traditional monogamous marriage. The hidden cost of monogamy, when culturally reinforced as the only acceptable ideal, is the unquestioned coupling of sexual fidelity with “real” partnership. Anything falling outside these norms is, at best, labelled an unwillingness to commit, at worst, condemned for hedonistic promiscuity.

Marriage is difficult enough for women, bombarded as they are with encouragement to behave like unthinking, hedonistic animals, without their husbands throwing them at other men so they don't feel guilty about unwashed, dreadlocked hippy girls at Burning Man. What on Earth did the idiot think was going to happen the first time his wife came across a man willing to give her a better offer?

It's also a reminder that it's not always women who ruin marriages.

The Game never ends

Rollo considers the way in which Late Life Hypergamy can destroy an older married couple's sex life:

Whenever I get a link to something the women on The View discuss it’s almost always a confirmation of some Red Pill principle I’ve covered previously, and in this instance Loose Women doesn’t disappoint. Saira Khan (I apologize for my lack of knowing who she is or why I should care to) related to the panel of women – and the expectedly disproportionate female audience – that at 46 years of age and two children (only one by her husband) she has entered some commonly acknowledged phase where she finds herself lacking all libido for her husband.

I decided to write a full post on these clips because Saira amply demonstrates every facet of the latter phases of maturity I outlined in Preventive Medicine. She begins her self-serving apologetics by prequalifying her previously “fantastic sex life in her younger years” and moves on to her bewilderment over her lack of arousal for her glaringly Beta husband. We’ll get to him later, but she’s a textbook example of a woman in what I termed the Alpha Reinterest phase from Preventive Medicine. Granted, at 46 Saira is experiencing this “stage” a bit later than most women, but we have to consider the difficulty she had in having and adjusting to children later in life – all undoubtedly postponed by her obvious fempowerment mentality and careerism.

The solution is the same as it ever was. If a wife loses attraction to a husband and ceases to fulfill her marital duties, she has set him free to have sex with other women and he should behave accordingly. Contra conventional expectations, this behavior will reliably regenerate the attraction that she ceased to feel when he was a dutiful and faithful husband, particularly if he gets involved with younger, more attractive women.

There is nothing noble about a husband suffering in dutiful acquiescence. That will only cause his frigid wife to further despise him. When you're given carte blanche, play the damn card!

China bans interracial marriages

Only for women, for now, as a result of the One-Child Policy:

The Supreme People’s Court of China today passed legislation that will ban Chinese women from marrying non-Chinese men, with the law coming into effect at the beginning of 2018. The policy had been fiercely debated for a number of months before it finally won approval from the required number of legislators earlier today. Civil rights groups in China have condemned the restriction, pointing out that it discriminates against women by still permitting males to enter into interracial marriages.

“We strongly urge the People’s Court to reconsider this new law, and repeal the legislation before it comes into force.” A small group of protesters staged a rally outside the courthouse in central Beijing today, but were soon dispersed by authorities. Following decades of the one-child policy, China is now faced with a shocking gender imbalance – for every girl below the age of 18 in China, there are now three boys. “The law was introduced in order to promote social harmony,” commented one of the People’s Courts legislators. “We need to ensure there are enough Chinese women available for marriage; otherwise there is a high probability of increased levels of rape and other violence.” One of the more controversial aspects of the new law is the fact that Chinese men are not banned from marrying women of other races. “Because we have such a shortage of women in China, we need to make sure Chinese men have as many opportunities as possible to find a bride.”

UPDATE: Or not. Apparently the story is a hoax.

N matters, a lot

Some might look at this increase in women's premarital N-count and celebrate the sexual liberation of women. But it actually represents a fairly serious social problem, as the next chart will demonstrate.

The chance of finding yourself divorced after five years is presently 560 percent greater if you marry a woman with 10+ partners than if you marry a virgin. Of course, there are one-quarter as many virgins marrying as there were in the 1970s, so it is a considerably more difficult challenge to find one.

The interesting thing about this study is the way that it shows how the second-greatest risk is marrying a woman with only 2 partners; the researcher's theory is that this might be the result of over-emphasized comparisons; the woman has just enough experience to realize that there is something else out there, but not enough to realize that most of it isn't an improvement.

In any event, it is important to recognize that despite one might assume, a woman's premarital sexual experience is actually more of a risk factor with regards to divorce than it was in previous decades.

Dan Quayle was right

Even the Washington Post admits it now:

On May 19, 1992, as the presidential campaign season was heating up, Vice President Dan Quayle delivered a family-values speech that came to define him nearly as much as his spelling talents. Speaking at the Commonwealth Club of California, he chided Murphy Brown — the fictional 40-something, divorced news anchor played by Candice Bergen on a CBS sitcom — for her decision to have a child outside of marriage.

“Bearing babies irresponsibly is simply wrong,” the vice president said. “Failing to support children one has fathered is wrong. We must be unequivocal about this. It doesn’t help matters when prime-time TV has Murphy Brown, a character who supposedly epitomizes today’s intelligent, highly paid professional woman, mocking the importance of fathers by bearing a child alone and calling it just another lifestyle choice.”

Quayle’s argument — that Brown was sending the wrong message, that single parenthood should not be encouraged — erupted into a major campaign controversy. And just a few weeks before the ’92 vote, the show aired portions of his speech and had characters react to it.

“Perhaps it’s time for the vice president to expand his definition and recognize that, whether by choice or circumstance, families come in all shapes and sizes,” Bergen’s character said.

Her fictional colleague Frank, meanwhile, echoed some of the national reaction: “It’s Dan Quayle — forget about it!”

Twenty years later, Quayle’s words seem less controversial than prophetic. The number of single parents in America has increased dramatically: The proportion of children born outside marriage has risen from roughly 30 percent in 1992 to 41 percent in 2009. For women under age 30, more than half of babies are born out of wedlock. A lifestyle once associated with poverty has become mainstream. The only group of parents for whom marriage continues to be the norm is the college-educated.

The Left was, and is, and always will be, dyscivic and dyscivilizational. All those who scoffed at Dan Quayle and claimed he was a stupid lightweight will now be forced to deal with the humiliating reality that their intelligence didn't even rise to the level of his.

The reality of interracial divorce

Just in case the domestic violence, the near-total lack of financial support, and the low-IQ children weren't sufficient disincentive.

If you meet a girl like this

Marry her.

BrowningMachine @BrowningMachine
Has an all-women remake of "Top Gun" been announced yet? #TheEndOfSJW #EjectionSeatsMussYourHair

Space Bunnyopoulos ‏@Spacebunnyday
Yes, it is subtitled the "Hultgreen-Curie Effect"

Don't take the words of the angry, the embittered, and the wounded too much to heart. All women have the POTENTIAL to be like that, but not all women are.

For the record:

Hultgreen-Curie Syndrome: The lethal disease that strikes female pioneers. Named after Kara Hultgreen and Madame Curie, the syndrome has struck down numerous brave women on the frontiers of female innovation, including the first woman to use a washing machine, who tragically drowned in it, and the first Roman woman to eat reclining on a couch, who choked to death on a grape.

Short time preferences in action

One of the great challenges married men face is that a bored or unhappy wife won't hesitate to blow up her own future. Never mind his.

According to the Office of National Statistics, the number of 'silver divorces' has risen by three-quarters in the past 20 years, while the divorce rate among the rest of the population has fallen.

As well as fractured relationships and infidelity, the rise in late-life divorce is also fuelled by women fed up with old-before-their-time husbands and a lack of excitement.

Few of these women anticipate that their silver divorce will cost them all the home comforts and financial security they once took for granted.

Dominik Lipnicki, a housing expert for Your Mortgage Decisions, believes this boom in divorce and the financial instability it can cause is a huge problem for older women.

One would think the right way to address this problem is to encourage older men and women to stay married. Instead, they are encouraged to pursue bucket lists and make the most of what time remains to them. It is apparent that wisdom does not always come with age.

The very last thing that is needed is more support for short-sighted fools.

Why she's returning to her maiden name

A woman makes a decision:

I had to make a decision. Scribbling into my journal, I compiled a list, the good and the bad. The pros and the cons. My identity, my family connection — these things I felt I was losing. These things had been swirling around in my head, they weren’t a surprise. They were simply now on paper.

And then I wrote, “It doesn’t feel equal.” It doesn’t feel equal. That equality thing surfaced again.

We have always been a unit. Two whole people, more whole together, but always equal. Without him making the change too, it was out of balance.

I race through the list of alternatives. Keeping our own names, hyphenations, new last names.

Frustrated with no obvious solution, I step back a moment. Why am I getting married in the first place? We’ve been together 10 years. We’re practically married. Why did we decide to get married anyway?

Also why she's going to be returning to her unmarried status before long, one presumes.

Idealize, don't pedestalize

It's important to understand the difference:

HOW 'HEALTHY IDEALISING' WORKS

The trick isn't to simply see your partner more positively and/or ignore their faults, it's to see them as ideal for you, warts and all.

The more you see them as your perfect partner, the happier you are and the happier your partner is. Emotions are contagious and your mood is highly influenced by the person you spend most time with.

Focus on negatives and you'll become even more annoyed by them. Thoughts become stronger the more you dwell on them. The more positive your thoughts, the more positive you feel.

Idealising encourages you to think 'we' not 'I'. This means you'll see problems as something shared (rather than caused by one of you) and stop blaming.

Being positive isn't helping? Look hard at your relationship. Is your partner relentlessly negative, hostile, abusive and/or unlikely to change? If the answer is yes, get help and get out.

Pedestalizing a woman will kill your relationship. So will constantly criticizing her. The trick is to idealize them without viewing yourself as unworthy of them.

IMPORTANT: This is within the context of a permanent marital relationship, not a casual or short-termed youthful one.

Romance kills sexual attraction

If you want to make sure your wife doesn't want to have sex with you, do something really complicated and sweet for her:

Christian sex experts Pastor Dave and Ann Wilson inadvertently explain how to kill your wife’s attraction in The Art of Marriage:

    Dave:  On May 24, 1990, it was our ten-year anniversary—I sort of surprised Ann with a ten-year anniversary date. We dressed up and went to a really nice restaurant. I sort of set it up with the waiter, while we were having dinner / when I would queue him—sort of give him a look—he was supposed to bring a rose over. So, I queued him early in the dinner—he brought over a rose and laid it on the table. We talked about year one.

    Ann:  He was like a little boy that night—like waiting for the next thing to happen.

    Dave:  Then I looked over later, and he brought another rose. So, anyway, every rose was a year; and we would talk about that year.

    Ann:  He was so sweet—he even planned what he was going to say when each rose arrived.
Little boys are indeed sweet, but they aren’t sexy.  Later that night Dave tried to kiss his wife, and she explained that she no longer had feelings for him.

    Dave: So, I leaned over to kiss Ann. As I leaned over to kiss her in the passenger seat, she sort of pulls away.

    Ann: “Ugggghh!” I was just like, “Honey, I can’t even!” In my head, I was thinking, “I cannot even go there.”

    Dave: So I pulled back, and look at her, and said, “Is something wrong?” She looks at me—and I’ll never forget this—she goes, “Well, yes, there is something wrong.” I am like, “What’s wrong?” And she says, “Well, to be honest with you, I’ve lost my feelings for you.”

Pastor Wilson was an All-American quarterback at Ball State and a leader of men, but by supplicating to his wife he took on the form of a little boy and killed his wife’s attraction for him.

Let's be perfectly clear: a woman is more likely to want to have sex with you if you punch her in the face than if you bring her roses. I'm not saying that means you should punch her in the face, I'm saying you that you should stop thinking that bringing her roses is going to inspire her to want to have sex with you.

One very important thing to keep in mind if you want to stay married is to pay absolutely no attention to professional marriage experts. Their answer is always for the husband to grovel before the woman, which generally works about as well as Dave's little performance with roses did.

And even more important, remember that marriage doesn't turn off the rules of attraction.

Sex in the City lied

It's not all glamorous apartments in the city. It's living at home with Mommy and Daddy:

A record portion of young U.S. women are living with parents or other relatives, largely because of higher college attendance and delayed marriage, a research report said on Wednesday.

The Pew Research Center analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data showed that 36.4 percent of women ages 18 to 34 lived with family in 2014, mostly in the home of mother, father or both....

Young women are more likely now to be enrolled in college than in previous decades, with 27 percent of them college students last year, the report said. That compares with 5 percent in 1960.

Last year, 45 percent of young females in college, including those enrolled part time and at community college, lived with family. Among those not in college, a third lived with family.

Many young women are putting off marriage compared with those in previous decades, making staying at home more likely, the report said. In 2013, 30 percent of young women were married, compared with 62 percent in 1940.

It's interesting to see that in the interest of smashing the Patriarchy, more women are living under Daddy's roof. And as the economy continues to worsen, these numbers are only going to rise.