To be irresistible a man must:
1. Study and deploy game?
2. Become a gym rat and get a fake tan?
3. Be rich and powerful and dashing?
4. Be a thug, treat women badly?
5. Take a woman to Vienna for a Sacre Tort?
6. All of the above will not be enough…
one key to thriving in your relationship is to understand your wife
This is a lie. Its one of the most blatantly twisted applications of scripture in the evangelical feminism Christian churchian church. It finds wrong application all along the spectrum of absurdity, from more main stream ministries like Family Life, to the most outlandish ones like Joel and Kathy Davisson. That Peter wrote we men are to live with our wives in an understanding way does not mean we are to understand our wives. To be understanding is to gently correct, rather than brashly correct, or to admit we are wrong and she is right at times, or to choose simply to not correct meaning something akin to -choose your battles-. It also means to express sympathy. Express. Sympathy. “In an understanding way says zero about empathy. It means the manner in which we live, the outward overt actions we take in reaction to her. Not some deliusion that we are able to be inside the swirling maelstrom that is a woman’s feelings and claim to “know how she feels”
Its also a lie because its an imperative to an impossibility. The dishonesty is that what he really means is that we must make our wives feel understood, not that we should understand them. To not state it the way it is intended is to be disingenuous. To lie.
The man bad woman good frame is nailed to the wall right up front.
I have to admit that I defined romance for years using my distinctly male dictionary. We men spell romance: S-E-X. However, I’ve learned when I want to communicate romance with Barbara, I’d better understand how she defines the word! As a husband does this, he understands the three nonnegotiables for a romantically satisfying relationship: security, acceptance, and an emotional connection.
Man bad. The mere act of spelling out S-E-X degrades and demeans the man who deigns value it. Sex is too basic, unsophisticated, a bit tawdry, somewhat childlike in that, like a child expresses interest in cheap candy upon encountering it because they have this urge, this physical manifestation of desire, to taste the cheap candy because it is S-W-E-E-T. Adults of both genders are guilty of thinking this way about food and drink, and music and art, etc etc. so it is not difficult for Rainy to drop this indirect suggestion and have it taken on board.
Woman Good. As they grow, the palate becomes more discerning, and they learn to suss out the nuanced flavors of things that require more than pulverizing sugar and adding food color to it. The refined palate is better than the child like urge to eat something sweet. This refined higher order taste finds analogy in the non-negotiables. “I will not eat powdered sugar from a straw, I must have souffle, its consistency (security), texture (acceptance) and the way the flavors singularly titillate the taste buds (emotional connection) make this a far more desirable dessert. I don’t want just SWEET (S-E-X), I will not negotiate, I will only have the texture, consistency, and titillated taste buds afforded me by souffle. (security, acceptance and emotional connection)
It starts with women in the superior position because they are so well considered, so ill inclined to any urges, and to meet a woman’s needs therefore is a more studied task, not simple, different for every snowflake. In other words the chef needs to come out from the back and sit and have coffee with the diner, learning what he needs to know to decide what a pinch of this and a dram of that would do for the discriminating taster. The man can place his order at the drive up window, the woman wants to be a part of the process.
This is partially why men have gone mad about culinary things. Dalrock mentions men cooking as a necessity, and he explained it wasn’t this culinary pursuit he was on about. I agree with him. But realize, several years back (in the late 90’s) there was a surge of men who rushed to learn carpentry, wood working and such. The number of ladies who included wood working in their dating profile wish list was far fewer than those who say they love a man who can cook. Men want to make women happy. That pro is really a con. Cooking is a “Her Needs”, a “her Love Language” thing. Wood working, not so much. Rainy would council that you cook for her. Make a book case for your buddy or your Mom.
He addresses security, acceptance, and emotional connection separately.
Rainy writes that of course a man would defend his wife against a home intruder. What he fails to do, right here, is to even hint that that IS something, some real thing that a man agrees to do. Rather, like provision and other things men do naturally, its assumed. Its background noise. Oh, and it is SWEET, not something well considered and complex. Flattery of women is at every turn, subtle or overt.
Rainy then says that here are other things intruding into the wife’s life that the man must defend against.
Often they come in the form of unresolved issues from the past—wounds from abuse, from family abandonment, from poor choices in the past, or from a divorce. These trespassers might not be obvious to you on the surface, but they can rob your wife’s sense of well-being years after the fact.
Abuse. Of course. Family abandonment. Dad was kicked out? Oh the irony….”poor choices in the past, or from divorce”. Take out the “or” Dennis. But that would make her accountable. She is not accountable for any poor choices, repentance and forgiveness from God Himself is not sufficient to settle her down, how then can a man do so? But Ive just dared mention holding a woman accountable for something she and she alone did! No, her present husband must pay, pay an indulgence or something that shows that not only is she still grieving her guilt (cough), no, even her husband is prostrating himself over this issue.
The next point is straight from Rod Serling.
She desires to know her husband is committed to providing financial security in the home. Do you take the lead in establishing a family budget and pay off bills in a timely manner that creates security, or do you create fear with reckless financial decisions?
Yesterday, I read somewhere a young man commenting on why he and his friends were not marrying. He wanted to make the point that there was more at work than a marriage strike or the family courts or even just women being bad-news-these-days. The reason was the women were maxed on credit card and student loan debt and no responsible young man would merge his ledger credit with her ledger debit. She needn’t fear his reckless spending indeed. What’s that statistic? Some 70% plus of consumer spending is controlled by women? I’ve known a couple of guys who tossed some big bucks away on bad investments, maybe even gambling or an addiction. Ive also known a couple of women who spend and save wisely….only a few. Most cannot look at a budget and see arithmetic, rather they see a list of things they must weight their feelings about as a metric with which to make spending decisions.
Does she struggle with the memory of an abortion, sexual abuse, or her parents’ divorce that robs her joy today? Are there unhealthy influences or relationships in her life? Does she fear the future: growing old, children leaving home, the loss of parents and friends?
I don’t know. Does HE suffer any of these past issues? A parents divorce? An unhealthy relationship? Fear of the future? What does he do?
Respectively…sucked it up, sucked it up, consider divorcing this wife that is clearly an unhealthy relationship if she is this much a drain but ends up staying for the kids because they would be the back up help, suck it up.
Rainy has been attending or giving those wonderful marriage seminars a poster at Dalrock was heralding. How do I know? because he writes,
If so, how do you plan to evict these home invaders?
Allow me to suggest that you do not try to “fix” it or “fix” her.
Never fix anything. That caps the empathy well. Just don’t do it. instead, open newq sources for feelings of empathy.
Most importantly, I’d encourage you to pray with and for her.
repeatedly verbalize your love and commitment to her. Your wife may be about to take on an emotional giant in her life and she needs to know that you are standing with her and for her. Remind her that you promised “for better or worse.”
give her the freedom to process what she is experiencing emotionally with you
What does this even mean? Glad you asked. It means allow her to become and remain an unstable emotional terrorist for as long as you shall live. It means jump through hoops but with no incentive that its a one way hoop course with a beginning and an end. It means DO NOT tell her that God’s healing is real and once and done, not something to endure, but something to look back on with joy.
It means you cannot really do any of the things Rainy is saying, and that’s the point. You will fail. And you’ll come back and try again, reducing the distance between you and the floor asymptotically as you slither to serve more and more. There are no absolutes when it comes to women and their emotions. There is no such thing as “the best souffle”, because once discovered there is no reason to keep venturing to more exotic places seeking new ones.
A trip to Vienna will not get you any S-E-X. The Sacre Tort was a cheap try bub.
[Edited to correct my redundancy, I had the same sentence in the man bad and woman good sections]