Tag: women

This comment at Amazon concerning Athol Kay’s book on marital sex is educational and highlights both the effectiveness of what he has written as well as the intrinsic challenge its concepts pose to husbands and wives alike:

Let me just say, as a feminist, I found so much of it to be revolting and awful. I stayed up all Saturday night reading it. I was irritated and pissed off at times, yet I could not put it down…. My husband is a VERY good looking man, think Tom Brady good looking. He is incredibly attractive. 6’3″, green eyes, blondish brown hair/full head, a member of Mensa and makes six figs. His genetics alone are what women would kill for. So why is it then that for me (the higher sex drive person), sex is just eh and I often don’t want it….

It hit me like a torpedo last night after everybody else had gone to bed. I want the Captain husband and me as his First Mate. I am tired of being the person in control. I never wanted it in the first place, he assumed I did as he saw this dynamic with his parents. I am tired of words vs. actions. He always says I turn him on, I am the one he wants, I am sexy. He doesn’t back it up with action though. His “action” is to wait and see, a very unsexy trait. He is very dominant in his career, so clearly he has the ability. I want him to be dominant in our relationship. I want my husband to say “be ready at 10 pm, wearing these heels and this lingerie” instead of “are you staying up?”. I want the directive and the passion that comes across with it. I would literally be putty in his hands if he told me instead of asked.

In most marriages there are one of four problems, and this woman is a good example of at least one of them. The first thing to understand is that there is absolutely no such thing as a 50-50 marriage, any more than there can be a true 50-50 presidential election. It’s not so much that it does not exist as that it cannot possibly exist. The two-party marriage, like the two-party political system, means that one party must be in the effective majority at all times or nothing will be decided and no actions will be taken. If both parties are in agreement, then obviously there is no issue. It doesn’t matter who is in charge. But when they are not in agreement, one party will decide and it will either be the party that is a) the default majority if one was previously determined or b) the more static party. The reason for (b) is because it is always easier to do nothing than act.

The four problem scenarios are 1) Captain wife, First Mate husband, 2) Two Captains, 3) Two First Mates, 4) abdicated Captain husband, insubordinate First Mate wife. Scenario (1) can actually work for a while if the wife has a dominant personality and the husband a submissive one, although it is a fragile relationship and likely to eventually break down due to female hypergamy. It’s usually only a matter of time before the wife loses all respect for the delta husband and starts pursuing an alpha or beta who makes her feel submissive and sexy. In any case, there isn’t any fix for this scenario, it simply is what it is.

The problem with scenario (2) is obvious. In this case, the marriage is likely headed for divorce sooner rather than later since both parties will tend to simply go their own way and neither will offer much support for the other. Unless one party breaks the other one to their will, there isn’t going to be much space for negotiating disagreements, and in most cases, both parties will find it easier to end the relationship and move on. The one positive observation is that such breakups tend to be on the amicable side.

Scenario (3) is almost always the husband’s fault. In this case, the wife is actively trying to submit to her husband and follow his lead, only he will not permit her to do so because he doesn’t want the responsibility that goes with the Captain’s role. It’s fairly difficult to make someone assume leadership when he doesn’t want it, but the one tactic that can work for a woman in this position is to simply refuse to make decisions or even express an opinion. The key, of course, will be for her to avoid second-guessing those decisions once she finally forces him into making them by default, as that will undermine the very objective she is hoping to accomplish. This is superficially the situation described by the Amazon reviewer, but based on certain things she says, it appears to be more a combination of (3) and (4). And this is the one scenario where the constant Churchian calls to “man up” are actually pertinent advice.

In the case of scenario (4), both the husband and the wife are typically culpable to varying degrees. It is usually, though not necessarily, started by the wife’s repeated refusal to follow her husband’s lead, an action which is subsequently exacerbated by his abdication of the Captain’s role and refusal to even attempt to offer leadership anymore. While (4) can be fixed in a relatively easy manner, the challenge is that it will require the wife to do two things that tend to be difficult for women, which is to first accurately share her desires for her husband’s leadership and then to clamp down on her inevitable desire to engage in back-seat driving as soon as he begins to exercise it. No man is going to lead where no one follows.

What the Amazon reviewer has belatedly discovered thanks to Athol is that she wants influence and respect, not actual leadership and responsibility. She clearly doesn’t want to decide when and how to have sex, although the chances are that she also has a contradictory desire for a veto over his decisions. The problem stems from the observation that very few women truly understand the difference until they obtain, either purposefully or inadvertently, a position in the relationship they do not want. This problem is compounded by the fact that most men make lousy First Mates; men tend to believe that if a decision is not our responsibility, then we have no need to spend any time thinking about it or even having, let alone expressing, an opinion.

This is why an atheist like Athol has nevertheless recognized that the Biblical model of the husband is a superior one, even for irreligious couples. When the man is the Captain and the woman is the First Mate, he is more likely to be comfortable making decisions and she is more likely to offer him both advice and support. When the woman is the Captain and the man is the First Mate, she is likely to be forced to make decisions that she does not want to make without any advice or support on a regular basis. And, of course, the 50-50 model, be it Captain-Captain or First Mate-First Mate, is structurally liable to devolve into the tragedy of the commons while it lasts.

Both men and women would benefit from accepting the actual state of their relationships. If you’re the one making the decisions in an aspect of your marriage, then you are the leader whether you consider yourself to be or not. And since you can’t be the leader and not be the leader at the same time, if you don’t want to be the leader then you have to ask your husband or wife to accept leadership on that issue. If you are the leader, then you need accept the fact of your leadership and the decision-making responsibilities that go with it. A significant problem with most American marriages, as indicated by the Amazon reviewer, is that women are the sexual Captains and they do not want to be. But unless they are willing to turn over sexual leadership to their husbands and actively embrace the First Mate role, there can be no permanent improvements in that aspect of the relationship.

In summary, married women have two choices before them. Either accept your man’s decisions or accept the fact that you’re going to making the decisions for both of you for the rest of your marriage. Whether one likes that choice or not, the logic is inescapable. In a democracy of two, one vote always has to count more than the other one.

One can respect the woman for her honesty, but it’s hard to have a whole lot of pity for those who simply refuse to prioritize pursuing marriage and children:

I never envisaged life without a family. I had three significant relationships in my 20s and 30s, each of which I assumed would lead to marriage and children. My first relationship, with a fellow university student, ended after five years. We were 25, and he wasn’t ready to settle down, so we parted.

At 27, I started seeing the man who was to become my second major boyfriend. We had been together for 18 months when I found out he had been seeing someone else, so I was left with no choice but to end it.

I became involved with a man I was sure would be The One when I was 30. Right partner, right life-stage; what could go wrong? Three years down the line, he announced that he had fallen in love with someone else, and that it was over between us. And so, at the age of 33, I suddenly became single. The years that followed were some of the most difficult of my life, as close friends married and started families….

My regrets will always linger. My life is a poorer place for not having children, and I am less of a woman for not being a mother.

Needless to say, there are far many parents blithely encouraging their daughters to pursue worthless college degrees and dead-end “careers”, and far too few encouraging them to place a priority on meeting and marrying the right kind of man. It’s bizarre how young women are taught to apply to the right colleges, while at the same time waiting for the right man to drop unannounced out of the sky. Does anyone tell high school girls to simply wait and be patient for a university admission office to eventually ask them to show up on campus at the moment they least expect it?

Needless to say, I haven’t exactly been paying a lot of attention to the marriage of the new Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, but it’s inescapable over here. So, a few observations:

1. The two princes make a good pair. Unlike so many politicians, they always come off as two men you wouldn’t mind hanging out with. Even on a formal state occasion. If it’s merely an act, they’ve got it down. And the British people obviously have great affection for them.

2. The bride looked very pretty. A streamlined bridal gown always beats fluff and poofery, in my opinion. I still don’t understand the whole train thing, though.

3. The little groomsmen in their red coats were cute.

4. Prince Charles has aged remarkably well for a man who looked like a prince of dorks in his prime. Of course, as SB commented, there was nowhere to go but up.

5. I wish they’d had a mike on the Duke of Edinburgh. He always has some hilariously inappropriate comment for every occasion.

6. The service was remarkably and explicitly Christian for a nation that is supposed to have moved beyond all that Dark Age mysticism. The selection of Romans 12 for the Bible reading was well done.

7. I think it is vastly preferable for a woman to not vow to obey her husband than to vow it when she does not mean it. I am much more inclined to trust a woman who values her word enough to refuse a knowingly false vow than a woman who will blithely agree to say anything.

8. Don’t ask me about the NFL draft. I can’t think about the NFL draft. I’m still in denial. I just hope Spielman knows what he’s doing by selecting Ponder. He’s smart, so here’s hoping that the idea is that he’ll be better able to read NFL defenses than his more highly rated peers.

It’s always somewhat amusing to see how some young women attempt to make the political personal, never realizing how it is guaranteed to come around and bite them in the behind. And I tend to doubt that the national championship- and Heisman trophy-winning multimillionaire pro quarterback is going to be overly concerned about the threat that some would-be babykiller would not date him due to his willingness to speak out against the legal murder of unborn children:

I realize I’m not the most reliable when it comes to dating guys who are totally on the up-and-up. But I draw the line at hardcore pro-lifers. I refuse to date a guy who doesn’t believe in a woman’s right to choose because I essentially view that as someone who believes women are too stupid to make decisions for themselves.

This woman is certainly too stupid to understand that a pro-life position has nothing to do with a belief concerning women’s inability to make decisions, (that would be Game and “disinclination” would be the more appropriate term), but rather, revolves around a belief that she has no right to pay people to kill other individuals. And while some pro-life men might be BETA enough to fall for this female posturing, the reality is that pro-choice women won’t think twice before dating pro-life men.

Even before I was a Christian, I was forthright about my anti-abortion position. It spawned numerous arguments, as you might expect, but it never once caused a woman to lose any interest in me. In fact, the fact that I was impervious to their waxing emotional tended to make me more attractive to them. As with most things that women say they want, politics that are in sync with her own are one of the many things that would be required of a BETA but will be jettisoned on sight should a sufficiently attractive man enter the picture.

A woman misdiagnoses the cause:

Sitting in traffic sucks, but it’s the ultimate observation capsule for people-watching. Might as well scrutinize while you’re stuck between a ditzy chick in a monster SUV and a tourist trying to snap pictures of the White House from the driver’s seat.

It’s where I spied a young couple out on a date. He cracked a wry joke, she giggled daintily, and they held hands as they strolled up a block in the heart of downtown D.C. How in-the-honeymoon period adorable are they? I thought. But when Cute Couple paused to enter a restaurant, my foot almost slipped off the brake: he all but broke his neck to get in ahead of her and let the door slam—I mean, physically slonk her—on her shoulder.

I sent her a telepathic message to turn tail, hail a cab, and end that date immediately. But she didn’t. She grimaced and limped in after him. And that’s one of the reasons why chivalry is dying a slow, brutal death.

A failure to provide negative reinforcement for impolite behavior is one of the reasons, but it’s not the primary or the secondary one. The primary reason is that women are behaving in an increasingly rude manner and men are taking note of their behavior and reacting accordingly. And by rude, I mean ludicrously, obnoxiously so. It’s not just the classic door-opening routine. Women just no longer wait for men; watch a man park at the mall sometime and you’ll notice that more often than not, the woman will be halfway to the entrance by the time the guy has locked the car door. Women have also become prone to issue commands rather than making requests; if you hear someone barking “hold this” or “buy that” in public, it will almost always be a woman issuing orders to a man.

I’ve also noticed that many women will simply come to a complete stop on the sidewalk or in public places without warning those behind them. It happens all the time in the grocery store, but I was most impressed with a woman I saw at a theme park a few weeks ago. She actually stopped, bent over, and started messing around with her kid’s stroller despite the fact that she was standing right in the middle of the single chokepoint through which hundreds of people were passing. It would have taken all of three seconds to move off to the side before blocking off the central portion of the passageway, but clearly that would have been far too much trouble given the apparent urgency of removing her little boy’s sweater. So, why would anyone, man or woman, be polite to those who behave in such an ridiculously inconsiderate manner?

The second reason is that men are being taught by example that it is totally pointless to even attempt to be polite. I was brought up to be conventionally “chivalrous”, but I am increasingly less so these days since one can seldom do so successfully. After the fourth or fifth time you start to walk around the car to get a door for a woman, but by the time you get there she has already opened it, gotten in, and is pulling the door shut, you start to feel like an ass. Eventually, you stop bothering. Each little such lesson adds up, until finally you reach the point where you are blithely allowing heavy glass doors to slam into your date entering behind you, much to the horror of a watching passerby.

It’s pretty simple. If women are not going to provide men, especially young men, with opportunity, positive reinforcement, and an example, they cannot reasonably lament that men don’t treat them the way their grandfathers treated their grandmothers. However, it must be noted that the young woman does correctly identify what she can do to help improve a man’s social graces.

And if I did so happen to be out with a dude who apparently didn’t know better, I’d stop at the restaurant door and wait. And wait. And wait some more until he got the drift. Same thing at the table pausing for a chair to be pulled out. Same thing at the car door.

That’s what my mother did with me when I was younger. Once, when I was about 10, I was curious to see what would happen if I didn’t get the door. She didn’t say anything at first, she just stood there silently at the entrance to Rosedale looking straight ahead. Finally, without turning towards me, she said “I don’t know about you, but I’ve got all day.” My curiosity assuaged and my lesson learned, I opened the door.

That’s all you’ve got:

The average female spends 180 seconds sizing up a man’s looks and fashion sense as well as appraising his scent, accent and eloquence, the Daily Mail reports. Women are also quick to judge how a man interacts with her friends and whether or not he is appropriately successful or ambitious. The study found women are reluctant to change their minds about a man and are likely to believe ‘they are always right’ in their judgements.

If you’ve only got three minutes before you are judged, you had better be sure to make the most of the time allotted. And in Alpha Mail, PC asks how to educate his young daughters in a Game-informed manner.

A woman provides twelve reasons:

Not real: Nice guys are too nice. No one can always be that nice unless they’re a saint. They are busy being nice instead of being real and women instinctually don’t trust that. Bad boys “keep it real”. Nice guys don’t want to upset the apple cart.

Respect: No one respects a doormat. Nice guys don’t set boundaries or make any real demands. A bad boy doesn’t let a woman walk all over him or control him. Women can’t respect a man they can control. No respect = No attraction.

Predictable: Most people lead boring, predictable lives, so they’re attracted to people who are exciting and a bit unpredictable. Bad boys are always a challenge. Nice guys are never a challenge. Predictable + No excitement + No challenge = I prefer a bad boy.

I think there is another, more important reason that young women in particular tend to prefer bad boys that is omitted from this otherwise extensive list. When women just want to “have fun” and are not in a relationship-seeking mode, they will tend to avoid sexual relations with men they believe will be inclined to push them for a more lasting relationship. They know the bad boy won’t stick around, which is not the downside that it is usually assumed to be, but is actually a large part of his attraction for them. And better yet, the bad boy can quite convincingly be blamed for not sticking around afterwards, so that the woman is subsequently able to absolve herself of any blame for the relationship failing to go anywhere.

The amusing thing is the way in which women often attempt to hide their casual flings with the bad boys from both their female friends and the men who are potential long-term relationship material alike.

Women like this are really out there.

“I’ll come right out and say it: Children repulse me. They frighten me. They make me anxious. Babies all look the same, and they are all ugly. Toddlers are praised for doing ordinary things like speaking and waving. Children have a comment and a question about everything…Each stage of development brings with it new things to annoy me.

Don’t marry this one either.

Valerie Curnow argues for the female right to initiate violence:

I have to admit: I don’t think that a woman hitting a man is the same thing as a man hitting a woman. Don’t get me wrong: I’m anti-domestic violence (physical and emotional), or any violence for that matter, but I just don’t believe that if a woman hits a man, the ramifications are the same as when the reverse happens.

Now, I’m not talking about slugging your boyfriend or husband with a brass-knuckled left hook. Or smashing him over the head with a portrait painting. Or bludgeoning him with a blunt object. Obviously these acts are wrong, violent, and possibly a felony. I don’t mean pulling a Lorena Bobbitt or a Phil Hartman’s wife or a Francine Hughes in The Burning Bed (although the latter was found not guilty by a jury of her peers). I’m not talking about drawing blood, using lethal weapons, or murder. I’m talking more about smacks and slaps to the upper-body region when a gentlemen is behaving badly: Shoulders, chest, that kind of thing.

If Curnow believes that “smacks and slaps” are acceptable when an adult is behaving badly so long as no serious physical damage is delivered, then clearly she should have no problem whatsoever endorsing men administering spankings to adult women. After all, a spanking doesn’t have the same ramifications as a punch to the jaw. What Curnow is arguing, although she clearly doesn’t realize it, is that it’s okay for a man to strike a woman so long as he doesn’t do her any actually injury.

Of course, we’ll need some sort of guideline on what sort of spankings are permissible. Perhaps a limitation on the spanking rod to about the width of the man’s thumb?