Two snowflakes make a pile of…

I was sliding off to sleep last evening, suffering a horrible back strain injury and having laid on a heat pad most of the evening, and, no surprise to me, I still harbored thoughts of intimacy when my wife came to bed. No potential for translation to action. Zero. But the thoughts…

It made me think about how women perceive sex drive in men, and in their husband. I stated it that way intentionally because the evidence Ive seen suggests that Christian women in particular see “men”, and then separately, their husband. The church may accidentally have a role in creating this dichotomy.

Its easy to see how “men” and their sex drives are perceived, by women as a collective and individually. “Men only want one thing” is as common an expression as “taken to the cleaners” (I take great umbrage because I was the cleaner while owning dry cleaning businesses). Oddly, men at large buttress that expression in one of the most seemingly un-selfaware proclamations frequently heard. Pastors say it.

Women  lap it up. Its low fruit for moral stratification. Betty Church can put her hate on men while….rubbing circles on her husbands back.

OK Empath, so what, women do that with all of these issues don’t they?

Sort of. But its different because there aren’t many things with stakes as high as how a wife views her husbands sexual needs.

Ive read the extreme view, which is handy for illustration of my point. One woman would comment that her husband had such control, God given no less, that he “never ever even had a fleeting thought about sex”, even with her as the  partner, if she wasn’t in physical proximity to him. He’d been delivered. All men can thus be delivered.

Then in another context she’d say that men only want one thing.

That is the far end of the spectrum. I suspect that most women have created a reality in which they can go hearts aflutter while considering how their husband is fine with the sexual frequency she controls. He considers her very generous with it…per–her.

Ive seen this skewed view of men manifest innocently in my own life when on occasion my wife remarks, “I was under the impression you didn’t feel well or you are tired or you are in a down mood”, expressing surprise at my advances. Not understanding that under even moderate discomfort the sex drive persists. My wife’s innocent misconceptions are not her thinking that men only want one thing….except for the one man that she chose to marry.

The silliness of this thinking  is that women sort for it in advance when they use cyber-chastity-belt language in dating profiles.

“If you want to hook up, move along”

“Friends first, see what happens”

“Not looking for anything physical too soon”

She believes that HER (future) husband is like her. He is an outlier among men. She hears all of her married friends saying that they married a real winner, a man who is not at all concerned about her sexual availability but rather he wants her for her heart.

This is partly old ground covered many times before. But the idea of women assigning snowflake status to husbands and the cognitive dissonance required to do so is something Id not read or considered before. Many Christian men embrace the descriptor…unique in their lack of drive save for when they see it is safe to activate it.

Like someone somewhere recently wrote of women who are being admonished by sermon, these men hear it said that men want one thing and think, “thank goodness I’m not like that”.

If you put two snowflakes together it makes a pile of…what?

Advertisements

87 thoughts on “Two snowflakes make a pile of…

  1. What woman in her right mind thinks her husband doesn’t think about sex? I don’t know if I really believe that Empath. Not that you haven’t encountered such a wife, but I don’t believe that the woman really believes that. About herself or even about other women her husband may encounter.

    @Jf12:

    Then those husbands need to be more honest with their wives. I can easily imagine a husband appeasing his wife by telling her that everything she does is perfectly fine and satisfies him in every way all the time: “You’re wonderful, honey.” It keeps the peace.

    I sometimes wish I was married to that guy…until I consider the alternative. They can keep that brown, wilted AstroTurf over in their marital yard.

  2. @ Elspeth

    What woman in her right mind thinks her husband doesn’t think about sex? I don’t know if I really believe that Empath. Not that you haven’t encountered such a wife, but I don’t believe that the woman really believes that. About herself or even about other women her husband may encounter.

    I don’t know Elspeth. The human capacity for self-delusion never ceases to amaze me. I mean, how many women earnestly believe they are “good wives,” or used to believe that, when they aren’t/weren’t anything of the sort?

  3. True. I was one of those self-deluded women of which you speak until I figured out that if I want to be a truly good wife, this required that I accept that my husband knows best what it would take for me to be one.

    But that’s a different issue isn’t it, from a woman saying, “Men only want one thing”, and then looking at the man she married, who fathered her children, and not seeing a MAN?

    That’s utterly bizarre.

  4. From my experience, people often see what they want to see.

    I mean, if it is easy to believe that you are a better wife than all the other women out there, and miss that you aren’t, how much more difficult can it be to believe most men “want one thing” and yet (conveniently) believe that one man in particular is different? “Snowflakism” goes both ways.

  5. In my case, me ex knew I wanted sex and that’s precisely why she was miserly. It turned into choreplay. Throughout our 30s, it happened maybe once a month. I kept in shape and was a good Churchian. Of course, I now see a better way I could’ve handled things, but the truth was that she was never interested in marriage. She just wanted kids.

    She literally told me to go find a girlfriend around year 5-6.

    So, I’m not so sure they don’t know their husbands desire sex all the time. I think they play dumb and continue to leverage for resources (work, upgrades to lifestyle, etc).

  6. @Elspeth re: “Then those husbands need to be more honest with their wives.”

    The men generally could not be more honest.

    Empathologism may be very slightly cartooning the situation when he suggests wives (almost …) universally project their lack of desire. But I would suggest even more garishly crayoning the depiction: all wives believe, totally backwards to reality, that it is their desire that creates desire in their husbands. Universally their internal dialogue involves females going into heat and sending neighborhood males into conniptions. Wives hate thinking of their husbands as a fountain of desire. For some reason.

  7. Simpler version: very much most often, the husband’s sexual desire impels his efforts to finally provoke a sexual response in his wife, i.e. a sexual reaction to his action. Much less often, the wife’s unprompted sexual desire creates a surprise celebratory reaction in the husband. “Yay, this is going to be easy today, maybe even a quickie.”

  8. I hear you guys, and I will give that some thought. It’s often hard for me to appreciate some of this stuff. I know full well the area as a wife where I drop the ball on or slack off because they are areas where my husband is a little more lenient. I could do better, and then don’t. Ouch.

    I know the areas which man the most to him (food, sex, my appearance, kids’ education, written in random order), and I go above and beyond in those areas so that when he pays attention to that, he doesn’t as readily notice the other stuff.

    But he always notices that other stuff eventually and calls me on it and then I shape up- a little. The point being that I am fully aware of the games I am playing with myself and with him. When he isn’t working a lot, he see it too, pretty quickly, and he lets me know that.

    Everyone projects, and I know that. I know that we women are especially adept at it. It’s a coping mechanism. What I don’t get is how a wife is able to live in that space as a lifestyle if her husband is being honest with her about how messed up that is and expects that she is going to get with the program. Particularly when she has certain expectations of him that he is fulfilling and then some.

    Or maybe my husband is just a big ol’ meanie.

  9. Here is the AWALT scenarios:

    Husband: Makes move in bed.
    Wife: I’m tired lecture how dare you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Baby: Cries.
    Wife: Gets up puts baby to sleep, falls asleep in babies room.
    Morning>
    Husband: Grumpy from 2 weeks without sex.
    Wife: You could’ve woken me up!!!!!!! It’s your fault!!!!!!!!!!!
    Husband’s thought: ?????? Too tired, but I could’ve woken up for some?????? If you’re asleep doesn’t that mean you’re tired? Why is waking you up ok, but initiation earlier isn’t?

    Another:

    Husband: Makes a move in bed.
    Wife: NO, cause you don’t love me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Lectue time!!!!!!!!!!!
    Husband: Busts his ass to show love, but still gets rejected…
    Argument ensues after another 2 weeks:
    Wife: I thought everything was fine between us. I’ve been blissfully unaware that you want anything? (but still rejects in bed)
    Husband: ????? If everything was fine and blissful doesn’t that mean you feel loved? Wouldn’t that translate into sex?
    Wife: What do you mean? I don’t understand…

    Female blame shift to delusional denial of reality. Someone once said that women deceive themselves and when confronted deny. I am quite sure that is why Peter calls them the weaker vessels. Men will rationalize why they sin. Women will rationalize why it isn’t sin.

  10. Elspeth

    The example is one woman, and it is 100% real. I stated that it is the extreme. There is nothing you need to believe other than that one woman stated that unequivocally at CF, repeatedly, along with other bizarre things.

    The woman has an extensive well constructed blog. She is an academic type, very well spoken, something of a quiver full type which is not congruent with these bizarre gender assertions of hers until you realize her assertions are rebellion to that lifestyle. She stopped writing a few years ago but the blog is still up (last i checked)

    Its not that women are unaware of the husbands sex drive. they are aware of it, just like they are aware of submission and not denying one another and winning him through meekness and yet they have a work around for all of those. Same with his drive.

  11. Any other men go through the RP stages and have a part of their soul die? I’ve come out of it the last 3 weeks only to turn that sorrow into humor when I observe the IF all around. My wife always says, “what?, what?” How do you explain the obvious that is obviously overlooked?

  12. @Elspeth, re: “Or maybe my husband is just a big ol’ meanie.”

    Maybe he is more demanding of his expectations, but much more likely he simply doesn’t have to be because you have worked yourself at overcoming the typical female reluctance. It’s strictly up to the wife to choose to exert herself, to make herself easier for her husband instead of more difficult, and to make his life better for him instead of worse.

  13. @jeff re: “Any other men go through the RP stages and have a part of their soul die?”

    You mean besides becoming more of a big ol’ meanie? I lost some innocence and garnered some unwanted culpability, for which I am sorry.

  14. Head scratcher here because doesn’t the Bible tell us the point of women and marriage is access to God ordained sexual outlets? Otherwise I don’t see the point in having a wife or woman around. They are, as a rule, a burden to bare. Not just the fiscal aspects either

  15. It’s strictly up to the wife to choose to exert herself, to make herself easier for her husband instead of more difficult, and to make his life better for him instead of worse.

    I agree, but it is the nature of human beings to choose the path of least resistance and we women aren’t generally all that great at self-direction and discipline when left to our own devices for a very long time. That’s not to say we can’t be righteous. We most certainly can and should. That’s not what I’m referring to. We just do better under some strong leadership and structure, whatever that structure might be.

    When I made the comment about a “big ol’ meanine”, I was referring more to the way most women (and not a few men!) view a husband who is more outspoken with his wife about his expectations of her.

    He really isn’t a big ol’ meanie, as I can’t ever really recall a time when I felt unloved, undervalued, or that he is anything other than passionate about me. It’s just that included in that is the expectation that I be a wife and not just a useless appendage. Because he knows that I can be one, and a good one. Gives me something to live up to which is a good thing.

  16. @Elspeth, I can’t disagree (no matter how hard I try!).
    re: ” passionate about me. .. included in that is the expectation that I be a wife”
    Yes. And included in THAT is the expectation that you shouldn’t have to be coerced, that he shouldn’t have to strain himself to overpower you with his strength, etc. I have never understood where some women got the idea that their men like to be challenged.

  17. And included in THAT is the expectation that you shouldn’t have to be coerced, that he shouldn’t have to strain himself to overpower you with his strength, etc.

    I agree and I don’t know that anyone would advocate that. What you’re describing is not only a bully, or it indicates that his wife hasn’t earned his trust in her competency.

    That’s a separate and distinct issue from not allowing him to actually be a husband, which includes the authority to direct and correct his wife, have a reasonable expectation that she will fulfill not only her marital duties (sexually and every other duty), but also make an earnest effort to help him as he works out his vision for the family.

    The problem from where I stand (and I have like many of you become a keen observer of and listener to the action and words of wives) is that if a husband does any of these things, he is branded a meanie, accused of overpowering his wife. They would use the word “overbearing”; they love that one. But the husband is expected to be the wife and fulfill her reasonable expectations he perform her list of marital duties and supports her as she works out her vision for the family.

    One of my biggest peeves is the wholesale demonization of strong husbands. They get beat up by evangelical feminist types simply because they have the actual nerve to call their professed Christian wife to account to actually be a Christian wife and not a Scripture quoting carbon copy of a wife who has bought into the cultural narrative about how she is entitled to equal status and that hierarchy is of the devil.

    @Empath (O/T):

    I heard the strangest thing on the radio today. It was called Family Life Blended.

    Far be it for this pot to started pointing fingers at the kettle that is the blended Christian family. We know that what we started from was a sin-filled mess and not ideal in any sense. Still, it struck me that for a Christian family and marriage ministry to have an entire wing devoted to blended families, along with the website page they advertised, is a tacit endorsement and condoning of the sins that cause them to be in the first place.

    I didn’t know they had such a ministry.

  18. re: “if a husband does any of these things, he is branded a meanie, accused of overpowering his wife”

    Amen. But the flip side of the demonization of “strong husbands” is the strawman argument that women swoon at “good” strength and that all of her failures are due to HIM not being strong enough “in a good way”.

  19. But the flip side of the demonization of “strong husbands” is the strawman argument that women swoon at “good” strength and that all of her failures are due to HIM not being strong enough “in a good way”.

    Oh, I’m not in that camp. I do think the strength has been good for me, but I think that’s as much about the fact that my father is that kind of man, so I saw the virtue in it, was drawn to it, and instinctively respond to it. Nurture as much as nature, if not more so.

    I think it’s just as likely that a woman who was used to the opposite dynamic will have a very hard time settling in with a strong man, even though he’s exactly what she needs. Unfortunately a lot of men who marry such women marry them for the same reasons I chose my husband: she’s what they are used to and she takes a lot of the pressure off.

    Until she doesn’t.

  20. re: “I’m not in that camp.”

    Good to know.

    “she’s what they are used to”

    Amen. Again I say, amen.

    “she takes a lot of the pressure off.”

    I don’t agree with this, assuming I’m understanding it. An unruly woman creates pressure (or, rather, stress, which is tension, which is negative pressure, but the science teacher in me requires the digression), which even if the man knew of, going into marriage, he didn’t want. Retreating to the high-maintenance car analogy, he may have known it was a bit of an oil-burner, exactly like the last several cars he test drove (metaphorically), i.e. “what he is used to”, but he didn’t want her to turn out to be a lemon and to require *so* much effort and strength on his part. I think by taking the pressure off, you wanted to convey that he was lazily choosing the “easier to choose” difficult woman instead of pressing harder to obtain the unicornish easy woman.

  21. Empath:
    It’s also noteworthy that, those dating sites you mention, the same women with the cyber-chastity belt are invariably looking for men who are handsome and sexually attractive to women.

  22. By “takes the pressure off”, I mean that there are plenty of men who are happy to follow their wife’s lead, particularly if she seems more “spiritual” and certain about the direction that they should go than he is. He’ll work, pay the bills, play with the kids, and let her chart the course.

    Opponents of “the patriarchy” often fail to acknowledge the enormous responsibility it is to be a husband who is a true leader. It requires wide shoulders. There’s pressure and some men are happy to be rid of it especially if she’s just gonna kick and scream the whole way. He’ll bankroll the enterprise and let her take the helm.

    It’s often easier to go along to get along than it is to stand up. Until it isn’t easier any more, and that day always comes.

    I hope I better explained what I meant by “takes the pressure off”.

  23. re: “plenty of men who are happy to follow their wife’s lead”

    Ok. I’d disagree about both the “plenty” aspect and the “happy” aspect, but now I know for sure what you mean, and like I expected I disagree primarily with the “he must not be doing his job right” aspect. The only real negative of being a True Leader is when there are such lousy followers. Hence, that is the *reason* “some men are happy to be rid of it especially if she’s just gonna kick and scream the whole way”. Hence, that is the reason I used to erroneously think that the more difficult the woman the more manly the man for not getting rid of her.

  24. Trucks may proverbially drive straighter with a heavier load, within reason, but a farmer plows crookeder furrows with an obstinate mule.

  25. Trucks may proverbially drive straighter with a heavier load, within reason, but a farmer plows crookeder furrows with an obstinate mule.

    LOL. I wasn’t trying to be insulting, just calling it like I see it, and like I (or rather my husband) hears it. To wit: “I’m not up for arguing with her man, so I just let her do it her way”, or some variation of the theme,

  26. Just seeing my face crowding up Emapth’s comment stream compels me to wrap this, but I probably should have used the words “plenty” and “happy”. And I certainly didn’t mean to imply that such men are bad leaders.

    Just like I learned from watching my father and stepmother how a marriage is supposed to work, these men often learned from their parents (or in many cases their mother sans father) how a household is supposed to work. I wasn’t denigrating them. That wasn’t the point.

  27. @Elspeth, re: variations on the theme.

    Yes, you’re right, but almost always the *reason* the man gave up trying with her is because he DID try with her and it didn’t work with her. His bad leaderships is not because it makes for easier plowing, it’s because no other plowing was getting done at all.

    re: lorialexander’s article.
    Just compare these:
    1. “any husband who leads well, his Christian wife will naturally follow”
    2. “Man up! Go to your wife and tell her that your love for her is strong, and that you intend to continue to try and please her, but that she must learn to become a godly wife who loves and respects her husband God’s way; one who is willing to listen and to follow your leadership instead of trying to control you by her displeasures, moods and snide remarks. The conversation does not have to last long, but it should result in a changed approach where a wife is quickly learning”

    These are the SAME wolves in hardly different sheep’s clothes. If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t work. And what doesn’t work is insisting that if there is bad followership then that is strictly because of bad leadership.

  28. The Bible is not full of examples of lousy wives whose behaviors improved because of their husbands’ Strength and Leadership. In fact, the Bible is instead full of examples of lousy wives who continued to behave worse and worse despite the Strength and Leadership of their husbands. We could start with Eve, literally married to the perfect sinless man. We could pass on to Samson’s wife from Timnath. We might as well mention Michal. The seven times that Solomon reminds us that nothing works with uppity wives and the only thing to do is to just leave and just eat crackers by ourselves in the tent or toolshed. The disobedient nation of Israel itself, the bride of God Himself. How about the New Testament? Yeah, how about it: wives are continually rebuked for their rebelliousness and continually commanded to submit despite not feeling like it. Nowhere are husbands blamed for not making their wives sufficiently feel like their husbands are Strong Leaders. Instead, husbands are advised to try to love their wives despite their wives being so lousy, and to try to not be bitter about their raw deal.

  29. So is there an example, any example, a single example, named or unnamed, of a woman who was a lousy wife who was changed into a good wife (or even less-lousy) wife because of her husband’s Strength and Leadership? I’m serious. Is there one? Shouldn’t there be at least one if this is supposedly the Biblical pattern?

  30. You are on a tear, and I’m not sure what I said to make you think I believe that a husband can make his wife be a better wife. I honestly didn’t get that from Ken Alexander’s post either. What I got was him advising men on a course of action and consistently refusing to bow to their wife’s emotional tirades. He suggested that in the presence of his refusal to play along with her madness, maybe she’ll get a clue, and start to get better.

    He offered absolutely no guarantees and nowhere in this conversation have I claimed that a man can save his wife from her sinful tendencies. He can’t. Repentance and turning is a choice and growing in righteousness is an act of God in response to the repenting and turning.

    What I said was that I need, prefer, and respond instinctively more positively to strong leadership.

    What I’m not understanding is your knee jerk reaction to any counsel offered to men for a way to deal with such women without resorting to letting her carry his manhood in her purse. Even if she doesn’t respond positively, what is does he have to lose?

  31. Aw shoot. Can I scratch that last question? ‘Cause I know either Empath or Anonymous Reader are going to tell me he has everything to lose.

  32. re: “Even if she doesn’t respond positively, what is does he have to lose?”

    This is the ENTIRE justification. I have never seen any evidence in MY life that women “respond instinctively more positively to strong leadership.” I ask, again, for any Biblical evidence.

  33. Since, therefore, it is not actually in the Bible, why would anyone bother promoting it as Biblical at all, much less THE Biblical pattern?

  34. Who promoted it as THE Biblical pattern? Where did you read that? I certainly didn’t say it, and neither was it in the post that I linked. There was nothing more than advice for a husband on NOT allowing the subordinate of the couple to turn his how home into an emotional terror zone.

    You have never answered me why you think a man doesn’t have to actually DO anything to husband his wife; to wash her in the Word, to lead her and present her blameless. I agree with you that it is incumbent upon the Christian wife to submit herself to God and godly authority (her husband). But what in your opinion is he to do with his authority, if not lead, set the tone, set some kind of example of what is acceptable to him (or more importantly to God?)

    Explain your objection to a man asserting any kind of authority over his wife. Is this just laziness talking? What am I not getting, because you keep making assertions that I am saying things that I have not said.

    And don’t start all that foolishness about being a jerk, mean, abusive, and all that because no one is advocating that.

  35. 1. I do think a man has to husband his wife. But I know for a fact that it doesn’t work, AT ALL, in terms of getting the woman to act right.
    2. I do think he is supposed to use his God-given authority to lead, set the tone, etc. But I know for a fact that it doesn’t work, AT ALL, in terms of getting the woman to act right.
    3. I have absolutely no objection to any man asserting any authority. But I know for a fact that it doesn’t work, AT ALL, in terms of getting the woman to act right.
    4. Unfortunately for us all, what does work is him being a jerk, mean, abusive, and all that. It’s not my fault.

  36. @Elspeth

    Opponents of “the patriarchy” often fail to acknowledge the enormous responsibility it is to be a husband who is a true leader. It requires wide shoulders. There’s pressure and some men are happy to be rid of it especially if she’s just gonna kick and scream the whole way. He’ll bankroll the enterprise and let her take the helm.

    That right there. That is why I had to mourn when I took the red-pill. It was saddling me with being responsible for me. That is why I think we have so many blue-pill shills and white knights, they are Peter Pan’s ironically squawking about “Manning Up”.

  37. @Ton,
    I was really, really surprised at how effective is the (believable) threat of violence. It’s definitely a shortcut, probably also the highway, to obtaining women’s good behavior. I’m also greatly disappointed, both that it works so well and that being nice does not work at all.

  38. This whole thread has just gotten sick.

    Men who have to resort to violence on women are pussies; and deserve to lose their wives to someone else. They aren’t fit to be husbands.

    If women valued men, they wouldn’t respond to jerks and thugs. Instead of teaching men to be jerks and thugs, how about teaching women to value men? Seems like that make a lot more sense.

  39. So, Ton and jf12, how often do you beat your wife or girlfriend – once a day? Once a week? Monthly?

    What’s the most effective frequency and method – fists? Slaps? Hard objects?
    Or if you just threaten her with violence, how often and what kind?

    Share your specific experiences.

  40. Women are basically children so correcting them like children makes sense

    The notation of spanking etc a rebellious wife was common place as recently as the 60’s and 50’s. A day or two of watching movies from that era, or viewing adds will demonstrate this. To consider this violence demonstrates how pathetic men are these days

  41. @Eric, re: “Seems like that make a lot more sense.”

    Amen, brother. I am often stunned by the lack of willingness to work on changing women, and always disappointed by everything wrong with women being blamed on some man not doing things quite right.

  42. @Eric,

    Men who have to resort to violence on women are pussies; and deserve to lose their wives to someone else. They aren’t fit to be husbands.

    Women have been resorting to State violence against men for years. As far as “deserving to lose their wives to someone else”, I think you may be barking up a telephone pole (instead of a tree). I’m not for violence, I’m also not for civilizational collapse or a culture wide feminist rebellion.

    Where does this get turned around? You going to pray for your wife as she is cuckolding you?

  43. No dilemma here. On record… perpetrating violence on wives is NOT the fix. If that’s what someone wants to recommend please do so elsewhere. I totally understand the underlying thinking,
    It differs only by degree the emptiness that would come from a conciliatory wife brought to such by some form of adequate game deployment…so much more the case with physical violence.

    Im not wading into the whole spanking thing at all,

  44. re: “It differs only by degree”

    Yes. Practically the worst part about making women comply, against their wishes, is that the negative methods work so well. And in tandem, definitely the worst part about trying to make women want to comply is that no positive method works at all.

  45. It differs only by degree the emptiness that would come from a conciliatory wife brought to such by some form of adequate game deployment…so much more the case with physical violence.

    Wait. You’re anti-game, LOL?

    Practically the worst part about making women comply, against their wishes, is that the negative methods work so well.

    Only if you’re interested in fearful obedience not born of love does a negative method work “so well”.

    And in tandem, definitely the worst part about trying to make women want to comply is that no positive method works at all.

    I disagree with this, to a degree. Positive reinforcement isn’t the magic pill people claim it is, even when parenting. It gives you (hopefully) more of the good behavior, but the sinful tendencies we struggle with, whatever they may be, are most effectively addressed through consequences attached to them.

    When we first married and I was careless with my debit card and the man confiscated it, I learned to be more careful with the debit card. I hated having to go tot the bank and withdraw cash or worse, write checks. In the long run, it was a positive thing even though it felt negative for that month.

    The issue I think is one where a husband feels he has to always deal with his wife that way. I would not be able to deal with the accountability my husband places on me if he never balanced that out with love, grace and just plain ol’ spoiling me from time to time.

    Marriage should never be antagonistic. And intimacy should be the glue that keeps things running smoothly so that you have a bond through the drudgery.

  46. How about teaching women to value men? Seems like that make a lot more sense.

    You would stand about as much chance of success teaching dogs to subsist on bird seed; that is to say, you’d be attempting to train the target to go against its evolutionary programming. That might work on individual specimens in the short term, for a short time, but the chances of widespread permanent change are zero.

  47. Here comes my broken record thing again. (I’ve said most of this many times round these parts.) Rhetorical questions, all.

    1.How is it that so many men expect a better wife than the one Adam’s Father gave to him?

    2. Where in the Bible does it say, anywhere, that one of the jobs a man has is to lead his wife? As Eve was being ushered out of the Garden, God had no conversation with Eve about her responsibility to “submit” to the man he made her for. There is no discussion of “submit” anywhere (action required from the woman). There is only the simple statement that her husband would “rule” over her (action required from the man). Not “lead” her. “Rule” over her. If leadership and rulership were the same thing, we wouldn’t need two different words.

    3. Women have always been Eve’s daughters. Throughout history, this has been managed by men doing what God said they would do – ruling over their wives. However, we now have a legal system where it is impossible for a man to do what God said he would do – rule over his wife. If a man tries to do that today … you can fill in the blanks based on what is common knowledge round these parts. So – if a man “can’t” rule his wife today (for all of the obvious reasons), it only makes sense that he should “lead” her. Right? That’s the politically-correct way of phrasing it. Right? Only problem with that is it is not how God said men would/should interact with their wives. Since God knew what Eve would do to Adam, but created her anyway, I’m guessing that he purposely told Eve that her man would “rule” her rather than “lead” her. What a crazy world we create when we are required by our laws to “lead” those whom God said we would “rule”.

    4. jf12 above said “I have never seen any evidence in MY life that women “respond instinctively more positively to strong leadership.” I think it was elspeth who responded above that consequences must be attached to behavior if we hope to change behavior. If “rule over” is to mean something more / different than “lead”, the meaning comes from the responsibility for, and authority to, attach and enforce consequences to behavior. The legal environment today makes it impossible for any man to attach and enforce consequences to behavior. God gave man the responsibility for doing and authority to do that – attach and enforce consequences to behavior. Man still has the responsibility to do (since it seems that women won’t do it themselves), but the state has taken away his authority to do (attach and enforce consequences to behavior). All we are left with is “lead her”. Lead she who will not follow (swwnf).

    Leadership: it is your responsibility to be behind the leader – wherever he is. It is not the leader’s responsiblity to be out in front of you, wherever you are.

    So, how are we going to fix that relationship between leader and follower when it is broken? How did God tell Eve it would fixed? Did he use the term lead, or rule?

    4. jf12 above said “I have never seen any evidence in MY life that women “respond instinctively more positively to strong leadership.” I think it was elspeth who responded above that consequences must be attached to behavior if we hope to change behavior. If “rule over” is to mean something more / different than “lead”, the meaning comes from the responsibility and authority to attach and enforce consequences to behavior. The legal environment today makes it impossible for any man to attach and enforce consequences to behavior. God gave man the responsibility and authority to do that – attach and enforce consequences to behavior. Man still has the responsibility to do (since it seems that women won’t do it themselves), but the state has taken away his authority to do (attach and enforce consequences to behavior). All we are left with is “lead her”. Lead she who will not follow (swwnf).

    Leadership: it is your responsibility to be behind the leader – wherever he is. It is not the leader’s responsiblity to be out in front of you, wherever you are.

    So, how are we going to manage that relationship between leader and follower when it is broken? How did God tell Eve it would be managed (not fixed; managed)? Did he use the term lead, or rule? Why are we afraid to use the word that the creator of us used? Oh, that’s right: the state has taken away our authority to do what God said we would do: Rule over her. Attach and enforce consequences to behavior. All we can do now is lead. An activity not mentioned when God told Eve that her husband would rule over her.

    Is it any wonder that men say they don’t get significant results when they “lead”?

  48. @Elspeth, yes I consider “adequate game deployment” to be a negative method.

    Your anecdote about the debit card illustrates … your compliance. It does NOT illustrate your husband’s strengthly leaderliness. It illustrates you going along with what he told you to do. Most wives are in the spiritual condition of going out and getting another credit card just to spite Him.

  49. Espeth complies because she fears losing her husband. Most wives want to drown their husbands in the toilet like an unwanted puppy so the semi soft approach carries no weight. There is no love to base any sort of compliance off of.

    Nothing about women’s poor behaviour will be rectified with the soft approach. Whatever mock outrage that idea creates will solve exactly nothing but it lets folks feel good about themselves

  50. LOL, Ton. That’s a little overstated. Well a lot overstated, as I genuinely have no fear of my husband leaving me.

    I just know that he’s not sticking around because he can’t do any better. He most certainly has options if he chose to exercise them. I know it. I think that’s kind of good for me. No point in pretensions of super spirituality.

    But it is not the overriding factor in my “compliance”. Believe it or not I desire to do what’s right because it is right. Submission is right because Scripture commands it.

  51. @Elspeth, re: “Believe it or not I desire to do what’s right because it is right.”

    I believe it. I have known more than a few good women (i.e. modest, shamefaced, submissive, etc.) who strove to be good women because they knew it was right. But I don’t know any women who strove to be good women *primarily* because their husbands were good men, *primarily* because their husbands wanted them to be good women, *primarily* anything to do with their husbands. These good women would have been good women to any other man or to no man. I have never seen a bad woman cured by her husband’s goodness.

    The question of this post has been why women are so very disrespectful of their husbands’ sexualness (“I like it just as much as you if not more so! Just not this week, ok?”) and manliness, and what men can do about. As Ton (and I) have noted, Dread is the ONLY thing that we know of that a man can do that actually works in curing his (necessarily bad) woman’s disrespect. But it has the side effect of curing him of love.

  52. @jf12, re: dread

    You have to stop blaming your propensity for violence on women. Your desire to mistreat women (the woman) is a product of your own troubled mind and exclusively your own responsibility.

    What you mean by “curing” anyone’s “disrespect” by violence or threats of it is nothing but bullying and abuse.

    Sure, bullying and abuse, or threats thereof, “cure” people’s — men’s, women’s, and children’s alike — “disrespect” in that they induce temporary compliance based on fear. But along with that fear, they also induce anger and, sure enough, hatred.

    If you believe human relationships, particularly of the intimate kind like marriage, can be happy and successful when based on fear, anger, and hatred, you are gravely mistaken.

    You should really re-examine your own attitudes and start taking responsibility for them, rather than blame them on women.

  53. @Sal, what is actually true is that women HAVE to cease projecting the responsibility for their bad behavior onto men. Period.

  54. jf12, everything you’ve said here shows that you project and blame your predilection for bad behavior (dread) on women, making them responsible for it.

    It does not work this way. What women do is one thing, but what you choose to do is another and separate thing.

    Again, your propensity for aggression and violence toward women (dread) is not women’s responsibility. It is entirely yours. Period.

  55. Elspeth
    It’s often easier to go along to get along than it is to stand up. Until it isn’t easier any more, and that day always comes.

    I’ve been reading Gottman’s book on “The science of trust”, and he takes the better part of a chapter to say that.

    Note to jf12: This latest book is solid confirmation of Gottman going much more feminist, although it takes a keen eye to see it for the most part; one example is how he deals with “contempt” as a danger to marriage, it’s all equal now, and there’s a specific mention of “contempt by husband” causing increased illness in women, but nothing directly noting the health effects of “contempt by wife”. Later on there’s a brief digression about how men being stressed are likely to die 4 to 8 years earlier than expected, but no tie to women’s behavior.

    Go figure that out.

    It’s not the same man who wrote thos papers in the 80’s, and frankly I attribute it to aging and marrying a feminist woman – but it’s also likely he’s blue pill and has been from the start. The section on porn is straight out of the 2nd stage feminist / tradcon hanbook: it’s a bad thing men and maybe a few women do.

    I’d love to sit down at a table with him, his wife, and the latest sales figures for 50 Shades (book, “accessories”, movie ticket sales) and have them try to explain it.

  56. @Sal, I have no propensity for aggression and violence toward women. But I happen to know that if I did, women would behave better.

  57. re: “the science of trust”

    Let me guess, crystal ball savant that I am: In all of Gottman’s examples of couples, the husband is a boorish nincompoop who leaves his dirty socks on the floor, uses the rent money to buy beer, and is also impotent. Meanwhile, the wife is venerable, well on her way to canonical beatification. The husband’s main problem is failing to be as alike his wife as he should be, which is what “emotional attunement” is supposed to produce.

  58. Ah, yes, of course I was right. Gottman evidently decided many years ago to AMOG-up himself by speaking entirely to women.

  59. Sal:
    “Everything you’ve said here shows that you project your predilection for bad behavior (dread) upon women making them responsible for it.”

    Yep. That’s ‘Dread Game’ in a nutshell. Essentially no different from the feminists who project their own misandry onto men. Like I’ve said a million times, Game and Feminism are two sides of the same coin.

  60. jf12, the basic idea of attunement isn’t a bad one per se. The idea of “turning towards” rather than “turning away” is a good one. But in this book, the assumption of egalitarianism, that each “partner” has the same propensities is just really obvious to me – probably because of The Glasses / red pill thinking. The egalitarian premise just permeates the book, and leads to some interesting contradictions; each person is to have his or her needs heard, and each person is to do what they can to meet the other’s needs, but it is at the same time extremely important that the right to refuse sex at any time for any reason be preserved.

    This is gynocentric. It extends a one-sided power to the woman in a couple that trumps his biological and emotional needs. Again, Gottmann is an older man, and he married a feminist some years back, so it is not difficult to determine where this comes from.

    This book also could have used a better editor. Gottman expends a lot of pages discussing Cold War strategy in the context of relationships that most people will just skip over. There’s a definite clunky feel to some chapters, with scholarly research terms dropped in with minimal explanation, or the term is used (“negative affect”) before it is defined. I’m used to reading technical documents that are written at an advanced level, and I found some parts of the book to be puzzling and requring multiple read-throughs to understand, so I dunno what the average reader will get from those parts of this book. Some of the Amazon reviews note this, and also that he’s essentially rehashing work from previous books.

    I did not read all the Amazon reviews, so I don’t know if anyone else noted the very blue-pill nature of the book.

  61. Like I’ve said a million times, Game and Feminism are two sides of the same coin.

    Repeating a falsehood does not make it become true. Elementary axiom of logic.

  62. @Anonymous Reader, re: “This is gynocentric. It extends a one-sided power to the woman in a couple that trumps his biological and emotional needs.”

    Yep. This is attunement: him attuning himself to her.

  63. re: rehashing

    It’s entirely possible Gottman realizes all his best work was his early work. After his first wife left, after his early work Gottman remarried the divorcee Julie and they had one daughter. Julie idolized Gottman, who was fourteen years older than her and already a giant in his (their) field. Since then, apparently, he’s been “attuning” himself to them. Gottman credits his wife with teaching him how to be a husband, and his daughter with teaching him how to be a father.

  64. re-rehashing. Gottman’s contention is that “A husband’s ability to be influenced by his wife (rather than vice-versa) is crucial – because research shows that women are already well practiced at accepting influence from men.”
    http://www.gottman.com/top-7-ways-to-improve-your-marriage/

    Look around your house. Whether you are a man or a woman, be honest. Exactly how much influence did the husband have in *anything* at all that you see? Is there *any* thing, one thing even, in which the husband’s influence is evident in any way? If so, please describe it.

  65. jf12

    From Gottman

    In studying heterosexual marriages, we found that a relationship succeeds to the extent that the husband can accept influence from his wife. For instance, a woman says, “Do you have to work Thursday night? My mother is coming that weekend, and I need your help getting ready.” Her husband then replies, “My plans are set, and I’m not changing them.” As you might guess, this guy is in a shaky marriage. A husband’s ability to be influenced by his wife (rather than vice-versa) is crucial – because research shows that women are already well practiced at accepting influence from men. A true partnership only occurs when a husband can do the same thing.

    Did anyone see what “the research” is? Was it from a ballroom dancing exercise? And look at the example. Without qualifiers, does the man HAVE TO work? Few will recognize this as such, but the question is raw passive aggressive.

    First, if the guy is scheduled to work Thursday nights, then he HAS TO work. If the guy is an over the top workaholic the right question is “do you have to work late?”. If he is not a workaholic (and this is highly subjective but the woman is usually deemed the decider on the applicability of the moniker) but has stated he needs to work late Thursday night then again….he does need to work that night to some degree. A woman who asks this in this way doesn’t do so in a vacuum.

    Its part of a pattern of passive aggressive emotional manipulation not unlike the trick where she wants to exceed the budget and says “but we haven’t done anything for aunt Mildred for years”…as if that has arithmetic efficacy in the discussion about spending money that needs to go to bills or savings.

    Gottman is using scenarios he has experienced, clearly, and he is so subordinated to his wife’s fleeting whims that he sees his submission as a template for men.

    So he is in a shaky marriage. Consider the money argument I listed, then the argument example Gottman uses and see that he lives between the rock of his marriage and the hard place of work…between making money and controlling its disposition. Yes, he is in a shaky marriage, but there is not a dang thing he can do about it.

  66. re: Gottman’s research

    Gottman encouraged couples to fight during therapy by forcing them to bring up issues of major disagreement, then videotaped the arguments, then dissected the arguments idiosyncratically, then applied a lot of ex post facto statistics (i.e. correlation not causation). Originally he found that pushy wives and contemptuous wives were the real problems, but after getting together with Julie all of a sudden he found that husbands were the ones in error.

    Specfically, firstly Gottman’s major-award-winning couples’ therapy finding was that husbands should not take their wives negative emotions so seriously. His advice boils down to the husband trying to pretend it isn’t personal when the wife is screaming at him. Secondly, what Gottman menas by “influence” here is weaselly. His actual research finding is that when husbands barked back at their wives’ yapping, then the wives escalated further so Gottman scored the husbands at fault. When the husbands pretended the wife wasn’t screaming, then the wife didn’t scream louder, so Gottman scored that as win-win.

  67. Whether you are a man or a woman, be honest. Exactly how much influence did the husband have in *anything* at all that you see? Is there *any* thing, one thing even, in which the husband’s influence is evident in any way?

    I didn’t want the 42″ flat screen in the family room (I used to call it “the monstrosity”), but here it sits. I’ve gotten used to it and can’t imagine watching a movie on anything smaller. Not a big fan of the 5 speakers either, LOL. But I have gotten used to the surround sound.

    My husband designed and built the shelving that we display our photos on in the foyer. It was his idea, his plan, his execution. He designed the paver plan for the patio, and I helped put them in.

    When I wanted to buy a less expensive bedroom set, he influenced me to choose something more to his liking and which will certainly last long enough to pass on to our kids.

    To be sure, the vast majority of the decor and space usage in our house has my fingerprints on it more than my husband’s, but those things on which he has an opinion, we do his way.

  68. Like I’ve said a million times, Game and Feminism are two sides of the same coin.

    Repeating a falsehood does not make it become true. Elementary axiom of logic

    The problem with the argument is to be found in the “two sides of coin” portion. But they do fall into neighboring trash bins, maybe one for recycle plastics and the other just rubbish

  69. E….you’ve jumped the shark. You cannot respond to every point with “N/A in my house”

    I’m not going to accept that jf12’s observation is not also applicable at your place. Here is how it works, sure he may choose a sturdy bed, more expensive, but he didn’t choose the aesthetics, the coverings, the things one sees and appreciates.

  70. No sir, Empath. I answered the asked question. Let me re-post it (again):

    Whether you are a man or a woman, be honest. Exactly how much influence did the husband have in *anything* at all that you see? Is there *any* thing, one thing even, in which the husband’s influence is evident in any way?

    How did I jump the shark. I wasn’t attempting to say “N/A in my house.” I was just answering the question.

  71. Here is how it works, sure he may choose a sturdy bed, more expensive, but he didn’t choose the aesthetics, the coverings, the things one sees and appreciates.

    You don’t have to believe me Emath, but the man takes it upon himself to present me with the clothes I wear on my very person if he sees something he wants me to wear. Thank goodness he has good taste!

    He doesn’t really CARE about a lot of the details, but when he does, it’s done his way. That doesn’t mean I always LIKE it, but that’s how it goes.

  72. It was 70 here today. Not to rub it in, LOL.

    Seriously, I understand the incredulity. I really do. That’s a normal resonse; incredulity or the fear that I am being “controlled”.

    True story: About 7 years ago my sister went through a spurt for about 2 months where she came over for dinner or to just hang out every Saturday. I was kind of happy because she’s 13 years older than me and our closeness has always been in fits and starts. Half hour drive, every week.

    When the visits tapered off and then stopped I asked her what prompted them in the first place. At first she said she just wanted to spend more time with her nieces. And she paused. And got to the point. She was worried about me, she said, for a whole bunch of reasons I’ll not bore you with. Her verdict, as it were, was that what she thought was going on wasn’t. That it felt more “like kink than control so I’m cool with it if you’re cool with it.”

    I didn’t know whether to laugh or be indignant, but it’s par for the course; this suspending of belief that any woman with a will or a brain (especially a black woman!) can get in a submissive role.

    I am actually looking forward to the end of my blog later this week because I am tired of defending it, truly.

  73. @Elspeth, re: “Seriously, I understand the incredulity.”

    I believe you. And I know you know almost all husbands’ influence (NOT just the menz feewings about it) is severely limited by the woman: she simply does not permit him to be a major influence in any way whatsoever. The *best* he can hope for is her grudging admission, sometimes, rarely, that he didn’t screww up too badly in trying to implement her demands. And these are the *better* women, the ones who aren’t shrieking harridans all the time.

    It’s literally horrifying.

  74. Anonymous Reader will be pleased. Gottman’s observation that contempt by the wife is correlated with divorce, but contempt by the husband is not correlated with divorce, is found in the first paragraph of section 6.3 on page 124 of the 1994 edition of “What Predicts Divorce” as republished by Psychology Press in 2014 (see also Footnote 2 on that page, listing p-values). In addition, in Figure 6.1 on page 125 *only* Model 3, with wife contempt *causing* divorce, fits the data.
    https://books.google.com/books?id=ziABAwAAQBAJ&pg=PP1&dq=%22what+predicts+divorce%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=39vwVKKGC4asogT_4oBA&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22wife%20contempt%22&f=false

  75. I had opportunity to think about this some more. Not only the incredulity, but the reason why my testimony falls flat.

    It doesn’t take into account the idea of, “What if you do everything ‘right’ and your spouse doesn’t respond in kind?”

    And I don’t have an answer other than Galatians 6:9. I don’t know.The more resolved I became to submit, the more my husband (who is a stubborn and confident man) seemed to value my opinion, and frankly, spoil me at times.

    There are some things about him that will never change, but nothing I can’t live with and do so peacefully. So perhaps the problem is that I seem to offer something formulaic when many women and most all men know that you can’t change your spouse no matter how good you are.

  76. Empath
    The problem with the argument is to be found in the “two sides of coin” portion. But they do
    fall into neighboring trash bins, maybe one for recycle plastics and the other just rubbish

    Huh. So you equate deliberate rabid misandry with applied psychology that enables a man to manage his wife? Well, ok.

    I await your denunciation of Toastmasters with patience. Because it’s a lot like Game, so it must be a bad thing.

  77. Excellent find, jf12, that fits in with the latest reading in Gottman’s Trust; the last chapter is a not very coherent collection of paragraphs that argues in favor of the importance of women’s negative affect, concluding with a paen to feminism.

    I looked up Gottman’s WIki bio and could only find one wife listed.

  78. Elspeth
    It doesn’t take into account the idea of, “What if you do everything ‘right’ and your spouse doesn’t respond in kind?”

    Depends on what “in kind” people mean. The golden rule is supposed to be universal, but in fact it does not literallly apply between men and women. A man who finds that his wife is becoming more and more shrill, argumentative, contentious might think that if he’s just more conciliatory she’ll be the same, if he’s more calm she’ll calm down too, if he’s more careful with speech she’ll watch her mouth as well. But as plenty of men can testify, it won’t work. Being ever nicer to a contentious woman fails. The exact opposite may or may not work, but a man modeling the behavior he wants from his wife won’t.

    Sometimes nothing works. People don’t like to read or hear or think about that.
    I’ve read Proverbs. There’s wisdom in there about women. Most of it is cautionary. But there is nothing in that book that tells a man how to change his wife. Nothing. It isn’t in there.

    Those men who peddle the “you’re not doing it right! You’re not washing her right! You’re not praying right! Do it my way and be right” are just handing out a version the “prosperity” church.

    It’s not pleasant to think about, but some people change for the worse with time and don’t ever get better. There are ways to manage such a person, and that’s mighty useful, but managing is not the same thing as leading a willing follower.

  79. Huh. So you equate deliberate rabid misandry with applied psychology that enables a man to manage his wife? Well, ok.

    No, not exactly. You’ve over read me. If I threw away a pile of doggy poop in one bin and in another a magazine of my wife’s that she’d finished reading I’m not equating poop with periodicals. I simply have no use for either thing….which suggests nothing of their relative value or equality.

    Not so much on the Toastmasters. Ive even been involved in that nearly 20 years ago as I was trying to get my shine on regarding speaking and engaging people.

    It isn’t that I think there are no solid principles that inform game. I’m not that fool who would deny the many painfully obvious truths. Funny as I think back even Toastmasters had some zealots, wide eyed and breathless as if they had a secret view of the universe dawning.

    People are funny. These tools that are conceived that have some efficacy in how we comport, the psychological and sociological observations that lead to these tools, we seem to want to go all “make me one with everything zen hotdog vendor” about them. Imagine if each time a new tool was created, an actual tool , a device, computer, phone, tools for repairing these devices….my point is higher and higher specialization in these “tools”…..if we went gaga over those tools. Oh wait…..we do…..think standing all night to buy the Iphone 269z…..the more folks want to not conform, and set themselves apart, the more they seem like Huxely’s soma swallowing occupants of his brave new world.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s