Tags
breakup, breakups, dating, divorce, marriage, nice guy syndrome, nice guys finish last, red pill, relationships, remarriage, why girls like jerks
A commenter suggested a really good resource that explains the concept of Nice Guy Syndrome and explains why in the SMP and MMP, nice guys finish last.
Please visit the link above for the whole scoop, but in short (from the website):
“Who is a Nice Guy?
- He is the relative who lets his wife run the show.
- He is the friend who will do anything for anybody, but whose own life seems to be in shambles.
- He is the guy who frustrates his wife because he is so afraid of conflict that nothing ever gets resolved.
- He is the boss who tells one person what they want to hear, then reverses himself to please someone else.
- He is the man who lets people walk all over him because he doesn’t want to rock the boat.
- He is the dependable guy at work who will never say “no,” but would never tell anyone if they were imposing on him.
- He is the man whose life seems so under control, until BOOM, one day he does something to destroy it all.
Characteristics of Nice Guys
- Nice guys seek the approval of others.
- Nice guys try to hide their perceived flaws and mistakes.
- Nice guys put other people’s needs and wants before their own.
- Nice guys sacrifice their personal power and often play the role of a victim.
- Nice guys tend to be disconnected from other men and from their own masculine energy.
- Nice guys co-create relationships that are less than satisfying.
- Nice guys create situations in which they do not have very much good sex.
- Nice guys frequently fail to live up to their full potential.”
I think this information could help a lot of guys who have been taught, “Be nice and the girls will like you,” only to find out it does not work that way. Rather than the usual PUA advice, I think this route may work better for guys who don’t want to become a cad, but could use some tips for breaking free of being, “too nice.”
What do you think? Please share in the comments!
Basically both nice guys and cads are slaves to their passions and emotions rather than having some self-control. Both can be slaves to hornt…but cads are basically slaves to hornt and nice guys can also be slaves to trying to make people happy or feel good.
‘Nice guys sacrifice their personal power and often play the role of a victim.’
The later half of that statement is why nice guys are abhorrent. Really anyone that plays victim is a prisoner of their own emotions.
Exactly Earl! Good to see you!
I think that the whole nice-guy problem stems from low self-esteem, which is caused by an inability of a man to accept what he can’t change and change what he can. I don’t really think that it’s about being nice or a jerk. I think that it’s about being happy with yourself as a man, then projecting internal and external confidence. That allows you to easily set and enforce fair boundaries/rules.
Anyway, I always though that I was a nice guy until I discovered “red pill” and learned about the concept of “orbiters”. Jeez…..
I had to learn two things: The Nice Guy gets nothing but the decent man with standards does.
(2) Books like No More Mr Nice Guy are only a start. It takes awareness and experience, (and wisdom) to do better.
There is a lot more to it. First, women are not attracted to virtue. They are attracted to power, and the less inhibited by scruples, the better. Trashing “nice guys” is cover for this flaw in character. I don’t know if this has always been there or if feminism let it out of the bottle. One thing for sure, this does little to promote stable societies.
RPG,
You did tell me once that if I came to understand female nature, I wouldn’t like it.
Bear
Have to apologize for suggesting that a man just has to go, we have always had to do so. That may have been when my wife and I were courting, but no fault divorce had not then been legislated in either of our countries. We enjoyed our marriage but I would not recommend that today.
As for women being attracted to bad boys, that sense of risk turns them on, always did.. Hell, I was roughnecking in the rigs and wearing a saddle bronc trophy buckle, did that create tingles, you bet. Hey, it’s not that I am pretty ;-D
It definitely applies to women as well. There’s no reward in being the nice girl whatsoever. They’ll tell you there is, but I’ve spent a lot of time figuring out that there’s not.
One of the more memorable compliments I’ve ever received was, “You’re nice but not too nice.”
One can be friendly but carry themselves with an air of boundaries that let’s people know you are not to be trifled with.
I think the church at large has never gotten its collective head around the contradiction that exists between the Golden Rule (do unto others) and what God told Eve (he will rule over you).
Having been raised in the church, that was one of the most difficult lessons I had to learn. That I needed to pay attention to that contradiction occurred to me the moment my thinking when is it my turn? poked its head out of my subconcious thinking and into my rational awareness (yes, my wife is a woman and I did not like this part of her nature when it became visible to me). And there is a contradiction there (first paragraph) that I think many of the guys raised in the church never see. So “nice guy” grows out of the Golden Rule. There needs to be an extension to that Golden Rule that honors what God said about Adam and Eve (she help / he rule over) – do unto others – but only within boundaries).
Growing up, and even still, I heard the cliche from time to time – spoken by women or about women: what’s mine is mine and what’s yours is mine. The guy who hears that only within the context of the Golden Rule (do unto others) is going to get taken to the cleaners, as stories around these parts attest to. That may even be the seed of coming to consider himself a victim (“when is it my turn…?”). We need to teach our young men that what’s mine is mine and what’s yours is mine needs to be heard from the context of “he will rule over you”.
Boundaries. That benefit the two in the relationship going both ways. She understanding that “help” means focusing on his agenda, not hers. He understanding that “husband / husbandman” means setting boundaries the he alone will be responsible for enforcing (because she will be constantly pushing against them rather than helping to enforce them) – the boundaries that the husbandman who is husbanding in the truest meaning of the word will enforce through the pulling of weeds, the setting of fences so the wildlife don’t munch on what is his, and the encouragement of growth through the proper and appropriate pruning of what is his.
Books can be written (and have been) that expand on the concepts I’ve touched on here. But I think they all start at the mostly unrecognized conflict between the Golden Rule (do unto others) and what God said to Adam and Eve (she help / he rule over). I seriously think that many relationship problems that young boys grow into would be lessened or done away with outright if those young boys were taught that the Golden Rule must be lived out always within the context of what God said to Adam and Eve – she help / he rule over. That is, the Golden Rule leads to heartache and heartbreak if it is not taught that it is constrained by God’s concept of boundaries.
I don’t wish to put words into Ash’s mouth – but I think I’ve read enough of what she has written to to think that she probably disagrees with what I’ve written. And, for the life that she has chosen, she would be correct to disagree. Ashe said there’s no reward in being the nice girl whatsoever. To which I respond – it all depends on whose reward you are seeking.
Whose standards are you seeking to match to or distance from? Whose reward are you seeking? Those are questions presented to the children in Sunday School. And those questions are answered by teaching the Golden Rule – without also teaching the companion idea that may be more important than the Golden Rule: God works entirely through the setting of boundaries – this far and no farther. See the Creation story, establishing order out of chaos through the setting of boundaries. See what he did with Adam and Eve, establishing order out of chaos through the setting of boundaries (what she is to do; what he is to do). See what Christ did in the Temple when he drove out the money changers (out, b*astards; my house is not a den of thieves; compare to “what’s mine is mine and what’s yours is mine” re thievery). See what Christ did/does to those who are lukewarm (Christ speaking to his bride) – if you are only lukewarm towards me, I will separate you from myself.
Boundaries. It’s whats for lunch. Leads to the nourishment requried for flourishing relationships. But the boundaries are his to establish and maintain. Do unto others, but only up to a point. When was the last time you heard any of this taught in church?
@Ash:
It definitely applies to women as well. There’s no reward in being the nice girl whatsoever. They’ll tell you there is, but I’ve spent a lot of time figuring out that there’s not.
Eh, no.
You get no rewards being a “nice girl” because you, like the nice guy, want the wrong things.
You want power. You want to be in charge not only of your own life, but also of any man who you date or have sex with. You want control.
So of course a nice girl won’t get those rewards. Women who crave power, control and authority can’t be “nice”.
Now, if you wanted the love of a good man, modesty, children, family, and the respect of younger women, then being a “nice girl” is more likely to get you those things. But, of course, you don’t want those things. As Richard up there says, you don’t want a good man to rule over you. YOU want to rule over HIM. And you will. You’ll find a man you can rule over, and who will let you rule. You’ll be miserably unhappy in the long run. But hey, at least you won’t be a dreaded “nice girl”.
One can be friendly but carry themselves with an air of boundaries that let’s people know you are not to be trifled with.
Heh. Women have “boundaries” only for nice guys and unattractive men. Women drop those boundaries in a heartbeat for attractive men. It’s quite amazing how women love it when attractive men trifle with them. Women absolutely melt for attractive men who don’t take them seriously and who do what they want, when they want, irrespective of the women they’re with.
The only time women put down “boundaries” is when dealing with nice guys and unattractive men (but then,I’m being redundant).
Deti, might that be a projection because greater control is what *you* want instead?
Being the authority over my man isn’t what I want, nor would I be that even if he wanted. It seems like a lot of work and I am far too laid back to be his mom in addition to being his lover and partner.
He’s his own man and he knows I don’t control him and he doesn’t control me.
That’s how we’ve made it work happily for the last 12 years.
Also, only low value women become weak enough to drop their boundaries for an attractive man. Smart ones drop them for no one.
Ash:
No. You’re the one here who wants power and control. THe only person here who’s projecting is you.
It is good and right for men to have power and control over their relationships. It is not good and it is wrong for women to have that power and control.
this is not because men are on power trips or because men are particularly good at it. It’s because men being in control and having that power simply works better than when women are in control and have that power.
“Your desire shall be to your husband, and he shall rule over you.” That’s what works. Sorry-not sorry.
No one is talking about controlling YOU. It’s about who is in control over THE RELATIONSHIP. Men do not have power or control over women. Men have power and control over their relationships with women.
No. Smart women select men for whom boundaries are not needed. All women put down boundaries only for unattractive men.
You still don’t get it after all this time.
If a woman is putting down boundaries for a man, it is because
–you do not trust him, or
–you demand power and control over him and/or the relationship, or
–you are not attracted to him.
That’s the truth. Sorry-not sorry.
Not boundaries for the man, but rather boundaries for herself, which everyone has the right and responsibility to set.
Anyone is welcome to have the kind of relationship that they want and they works for them. I know what works for me. We know what works for us.
@deti: Thanks. I need to be more careful to make the point that you make, in the way that you make it. “Rule over you” = rule over the relationship, not necessarily the person. I usually make reference to him ruling over his kingdom and inviting her to become a part of it. He has frame and invites her into it. That implies what you said, but probably needs to be stated outright, as you did.
The one issue I would take with your wording is this: Eve was created to be a help for Adam. How can she help unless he tells her what she needs to do in order to help him? Within that context, that “ruling over” is getting fairly personal, ruling over the person, as instructions from him as to how she can help him is directing her behaviors. But one should understand that this “directing her behaviors” is / should be directly tied to helping her help him – when he needs help – by giving instructions. That directing of behaviors is going to creating big-time problems if it is 24/7, if it is being done in areas outside of her helping him, done in areas where she clearly should be able to direct her own behaviors. A husbandman, who is husbanding in the manner of the original defintion of the word, understands that it is necessary to allow all within the sphere of his care their own space if they are to flourish and grow.
One example of this process would be the “Magement by Objectives” approach that one can find in the business world. Set the objectives, make sure that they are understood, provide the tools required for the job, and then back off and let the helper run with it. This gives the helper as sense of control and accomplishment. Of course, the MBO approach requires that the helper actually be on board with the idea of actually helping the helped. Probably wouldn’t work out too well to use this approach with the folks that Christ spewed out of his mouth for being lukewarm towards him.
@Ash said: I know what works for me. We know what works for us.
Yes. This is not a one-size-fits-all world. We all become what we are able to be. And we are not all able to be the same thing.
@deti – it has been well documented that infants and children that are not cherished and nourshed, who have caregivers that are not dependable or reliable in the giving of such cherishing and nourishing, become adults with trust issues. In that context, and other contexts that have been identified as well, the relationship becomes whatever it takes to support the people in that relationship. A person who has never learned to trust absolutely is not going to flourish in a relationship where the other demands absolute trust. They likely will avoid such a relationship. I’m thinking I remember Ash’s story. And that information informs my understanding of the kind of relationship that works best for Ash.
Bottom line – relationship things are a bit more complex than how many folks in this corner of the manosphere describe them.
The great part is there was further clarification of what that means after Christ died and Resurrected. The husband rules the relationship by showing the wife the same love Christ showed the church.
Her response to that love is submitting to her husband like the church does to Christ. Granted we are imperfect humans when it comes to this…but the point is it’s not a power play or who’s superior or inferior. It’s how we show each other love in marriage.
I think the thread has been deflected from the original point. We have come to a place where Nell can’t feel attraction for Dudley DoRight. That leaves Snidely Whiplash. This isn’t going to work out too well when Snidely ties up Nell and leaves her on the train tracks. Nell’s dad can’t live forever.
For those who miss the reference,
There is something else that I stumbled upon in Reddit. An adult male commenter found himself in the midst of the a thread written by twelve year old girls. They were discussing the relative merits of certain characters and gushing about it. They were all villains. None were heroes. This will carry through into adulthood.
Ash
Your relationship style is outlier-ish and will not work for most. You should be careful not to prescribe outlier type relationships which will not work for most people.
You are using the word “boundaries” incorrectly, and in a manner not commonly understood. “Boundaries” our limits use it for other people, not for yourself. We miss you set for yourself or called “standards”. Now that you have clarified that what you were talking about are “standards” You impose upon yourself, and not boundaries you impose upon others, I agree with you.
Again, what you were talking about are called “standards”, not “boundaries”.
Let’s try this again.
You are using the term “boundaries” incorrectly, and in a manner not commonly understood. You are talking about “standards”. Standards are limits and expectations we impose upon ourselves. Boundaries, in stark contrast, are limits we impose upon others.
Now that you have made clear that what you are actually talking about is “standards” and not “boundaries”, I agree with you. In the future, I suggest that you use the word “standards” and not “boundaries” to refer to the expectations you have for yourself. Because you are not talking about boundaries.
Deti – interesting on differentiation between ‘boundaries’ and ‘standards.’ i haven’t thought of it that way before.
– – –
i think that this convo among Deti, Richard, and Ash brings up a tangential topic that i’ve asked privately but have not broached ‘publicly’ in RP places … but it would be interesting to get the pov from two strong men (Deti and Richard) …
Deti said, “this is not because men are on power trips or because men are particularly good at it. It’s because men being in control and having that power simply works better than when women are in control and have that power.
“Your desire shall be to your husband, and he shall rule over you.” That’s what works. Sorry-not sorry.”
there are women whose husbands refuse to take on this role, and a family needs leadership. as you well know, not all men are strong, not all men assume their leadership role, and not all men understand the difference between ruling ‘over’ and dogmatically ruling. as a woman who has other women come to me with such situations, how would you men recommend i instruct them?
“Nice Guys” are largely a by product of a gynocentric society that panders to women while consistently degrading & dehumanising men & boys. Also, need to factor in the influence single mothers have on males – seeing as such an overwhelming amount of toxic social dysfunction stems directly from single motherhood.
@deti: Boundaries…. are limits we impose upon others.
a person can not really set a boundary on another person. A boundary is actually an if/then statement. If you (the other person) do X then I will do Y. It is a statement of what you will tolerate from someone else, but when it comes to action it requires the person setting the boundary to act or fold on their boundary. To reword your statement “boundaries are limits of what a person will tolerate from another”.
@ame: I will give you a few thoughts on your question. This topic came up recently on Dalrock’s site. To help these women you need to understand how the family needs leadership. There are somethings like finances and schedules that need to be organized. There are other things like ‘i wish he would lead us in scripture study’ or ‘he should plan the visit to his family this summer’ which really don’t need his leadership even if it would be nice.
Ultimately these women need to learn to follow, even if it appears that there husband will not lead. The lack of leadership in itself is a type of leadership. It does not determine how well a women can follow. So you should teach these women to follow their husbands lead regardless of what he does. If there is something vital that needs to be done and the husband will not take the lead, then the women should assume that he has delegated that responsibility to her. Finances are a good example of what I am referring to. The problem for most women is they will identify 20,000 things that they think are vital, when they really are not. That is a whole other topic in itself.
@ame,
This link is related to your question but not exactly on topic: https://thetransformedwife.com/he-wont-take-out-the-trash/
Deti,
I don’t think there is too much point in arguing with Ashley. She is a good looking woman and it follows that she is successful in the SMP. There is a big problem with success. It only confirms suspicions and does not lead to knowledge. Only by finding ways to make things work do we gain knowledge of how they work.
As for my analogy of Dudley DoRight and Snidely Whiplash, after giving it a day, there is more merit to it than I thought. In the 1960s, Nell Fenwick would be accepting of Dudley. Not today. Dudley should head north and find an Eskimo girl who makes walrus burgers so good that Wimpy comes over to the igloo every Tuesday. That’s how poisonous this culture is.
@ Dean welcome, very good points for sure about the origins of noce guy syndrome. Thanks for commenting and dont be a stranger!
Ame
There are as many ways of leading as there are husbands. You know that my wife insisted upon promising obedience as one of her vows. You also know that I said that a woman’s home is her nest and only a damned fool would interfere in her nest ;-D
@gofigure good advice! i coukd spin several posts off this alone!!!
lol have not read the link yet but if hes gone he wont take out the trash either, is my 10,000 foot view. Plus I live it — if I dont take out the trash, nobody does! (unless I pay them!)
@bg lol! I had a man who was in no way a pushover, clearly tge leader and patriarch of his huge clan admit, hes never done anything but work and hand over his paycheck — he leaves the nest running to her! and I’m sure he’s no fool he would not do that if she was not doing it well of course. But they are very well situated and have a very cushy life and a very happy clan and so I think he had delegated well.
@ Ame:
“Your desire shall be to your husband, and he shall rule over you.” That’s what works. Sorry-not sorry.”
there are women whose husbands refuse to take on this role, and a family needs leadership. as you well know, not all men are strong, not all men assume their leadership role, and not all men understand the difference between ruling ‘over’ and dogmatically ruling. as a woman who has other women come to me with such situations, how would you men recommend i instruct them?
The Red Pill Wives subreddit addresses this quite well, or at least it used to. r/redpillwives
Their advice was essentially:
1) Stop leading and get out of his way. Someone will have to step in, and hopefully he will.
2) Stop leading, get out of his way, and encourage him to step in.
with 1) and 2), prepare for some considerable growing pains and colossal screwups and failures while he finds his way.
3) If these things don’t work, either (a) lead and learn to live with the stress and lack of sexual attraction; or (b) end the relationship and get out of the marriage.
I know it’s probably not the best advice, but for most women in marriages like this with no children, she should end the relationship/marriage, leave, and find another man more suited to leading her.
I know a lot, A LOT, of women living in situation 3a up there. They lead their families, they hate their husbands, their sex lives are in the toilet, and some of them cheat or are strongly considering cheating.
It’s hard to do 1) and 2), which are essentially what the MarriedRedPill subreddit used to be about.
Good points Deti. I know many women who complain to me their hisband wont lead simultaneously have a death grip on the wheel. And it just can’t work that way.
I could write a whole post on this, but yes let go, let him lead, support him as he grows even if he makes mistakes, and give it time. Its called submission, and its a choice. It requires self control and self discipline. Its become so taboo in our culture its not even talked about. But true submission isnt alavery its freedom! Let him take the lead, slay the dragons, and fight the world. Have sammiches and tea and comfort waiting.
I don’t think there is too much point in arguing with Ashley. She is a good looking woman and it follows that she is successful in the SMP.
Ashley will not admit that good looking women have immense power in the SMP. If she is a good looking woman, she has most of the power in her relationship with her man. I dont’ care what anyone says, I don’t care what she says — good looking women have sexual and relational power, they know very well how to use it, they use it to maximum advantage, and that gives them a surfeit of authority over the relationship, control over its direction, and power over the man in that relationship. All she has to do is say, hint or imply “do what I want or no sex for you” and he will snap to. I will guarandamntee you that’s what her relationship with her man looks like.
RPG
Well we came from a kinder, gentler era, when it was normal to establish a family account rather than separate spousal accounts. Largely because both spouses do need to know the complete financial situation. A wife can usually cut down on household expenses when necessary, and in lean times that matters..
Separate accounts became a fad about the same time as the bride deciding not to take the groom’s family name or using Ms. rather than Mrs. And while these non traditional fads didn’t do much harm, women setting up their own accounts with their own earnings usually ended up living all on their own ;-D.
There is a new post at Spawny’s
https://spawnyspace.wordpress.com/2019/08/05/young-women-be-a-unicorn/
So a nice guy is a man without boundaries, low or non existent self respect, and a lack of dignity. Not healthy at all.
goFigure –
thank you very much for answering me. this sentence especially caught my attention: If there is something vital that needs to be done and the husband will not take the lead, then the women should assume that he has delegated that responsibility to her.
i would add that she should do so with dignity, humility, and grace … and not bitterness or anger or anything like that.
b g
Ame
There are as many ways of leading as there are husbands. You know that my wife insisted upon promising obedience as one of her vows. You also know that I said that a woman’s home is her nest and only a damned fool would interfere in her nest ;-D
BG – i love your wife!
there are men who micromanage everything about their wives; it’s … exasperating. my first Husband was mixed and unpredictable on this.
The Red Pill Wives subreddit addresses this quite well, or at least it used to. r/redpillwives
Their advice was essentially:
1) Stop leading and get out of his way. Someone will have to step in, and hopefully he will.
2) Stop leading, get out of his way, and encourage him to step in.
with 1) and 2), prepare for some considerable growing pains and colossal screwups and failures while he finds his way.
3) If these things don’t work, either (a) lead and learn to live with the stress and lack of sexual attraction; or (b) end the relationship and get out of the marriage.
I know it’s probably not the best advice, but for most women in marriages like this with no children, she should end the relationship/marriage, leave, and find another man more suited to leading her.
I know a lot, A LOT, of women living in situation 3a up there. They lead their families, they hate their husbands, their sex lives are in the toilet, and some of them cheat or are strongly considering cheating.
It’s hard to do 1) and 2), which are essentially what the MarriedRedPill subreddit used to be about.
Deti – thank you … very wise advice. i think this works most of the time. there are the exceptions. i am a firm believer in submission and respect (as i hope you know by now), so i don’t say it lightly when i say there are men who, no matter how much encouragement they get, no matter how well she steps back and submits and does ‘all of the above,’ he’s just not going to step up. i don’t understand it, but i know it exists.
however, there is a wide gap in there where women absolutely do need to step back and give him the freedom, safely, to lead without her wringing his neck all the time … and with her supporting and encouraging him.
my first Husband was also mixed on this … and no matter what i did and how i did it, i was damned if i do; damned if i don’t. so i *know* the frustrations there. they are real. and i have no idea if this will become more of a problem with culture over time as testosterone levels drop and women encourage men to be weak through public education and single mom homes, etc.
Deti –
Ashley will not admit that good looking women have immense power in the SMP. If she is a good looking woman, she has most of the power in her relationship with her man. I dont’ care what anyone says, I don’t care what she says — good looking women have sexual and relational power, they know very well how to use it, they use it to maximum advantage, and that gives them a surfeit of authority over the relationship, control over its direction, and power over the man in that relationship. All she has to do is say, hint or imply “do what I want or no sex for you” and he will snap to. I will guarandamntee you that’s what her relationship with her man looks like.
this came up at Spawny’s sometime back, and it was very interesting to me that none of the men understood what all of the women stated – that the vast majority of women do *not* completely understand the sexual power a good looking woman has over men. the only man who came in and stated we were correct was Ton.
if Ashley has that power, it is likely she doesn’t understand it and/or that she doesn’t know why she has that kind of power.
the women who understand this usually fall into one of two categories:
1. they have immense experience with men … like, a lot. like, prostitutes a lot.
2. they have been taught thoroughly by their mother and/or father or another such person in their lives.
i will agree that after that, there are a very few women who naturally, for whatever reason, ‘get’ it all on their own, but this is extremely rare.
perhaps another Spawny’s person can find and link to that post where this came up?
Ame,
Here is the post you referred to. It was a doozy
https://spawnyspace.wordpress.com/2019/02/13/how-can-this-be/
@deti, ashley personally aside, is that not what women (and men) do? maximize their unique advantages and leverage their strengths in the smp/mmp? And especially now w no barriers, why would they not? (inless they are somehow savvy enough to see the cost.) In youth one does not see the downsides of such a plan, only the upside. once one sees the downsides, its often too late. a messed up system for sure! not sure what a global fix would be but on an individual level… be aware!
thank you Farm Boy for finding that!
i just glanced over and realized/remembered that Deti was a part of that convo! 🙂
yes Ame I remember that. Its true too. I even know this but will forget it on the daily until I notice a guy, ummm, thinking about me sexually when I am not doing ANYTHING to trigger that, intentionally. I am cheery and talk with my hands a lot and smile and get excited about things easily which may come off as signals I don’t intend. And even at nearly 50 I get hit on quite often, which used to rattle me but now i just take it as flattering and am careful to decline graciously vs nuclear rejection. But if were to conciously be manipulating that power, yikes! Vixen on the other hand does work that and I suppose it kindof gets her results short term, but she doesnt have staying relationship game. So it works against her long term.
Deti,
I did wander over to her blog once where she had a picture of herself with a hula hoop. Yes, she is good looking. How this is working for her is questionable. She has had the same BF for twelve years.
I get hit on quite often, which used to rattle me but now i just take it as flattering and am careful to decline graciously vs nuclear rejection
i think this is important, Bloom … we have to learn these things as women, and it’s much easier to be taught than to learn ‘the hard way’ in these areas.
i’ve always wondered why Dad’s don’t tell their daughters *not* to wear certain things … and i’ve learned it’s b/c they don’t know that *she* doesn’t know what she’s doing.
unless you’re Ton …
https://spawnyspace.wordpress.com/2019/02/13/how-can-this-be/#comment-124780
interesting on this teaching girls . . .
Aspie’s are very objective and analytical – a lot of information is just ‘data’ to them.
Aspie-Girl told me that a couple summers ago at camp she explained this to all the girls – how what they wear affects boys. she said they were all shocked and immediately changed the way they were dressing.
if girls are not taught, they do not know.
@Ame – I think others have answered your question pretty well. I would just add a couple of issues.
First: Opposites attract. That suggests that a gal who is a go-getter and has a high need for stimulation (going new places; seeing and doing new things, etc.) is likely to attract a man who is not all of those things. If he does not have the need for stimulation in the same way she does, it is not going to occur to him to take the initiative in going exploring – going new places, seeing and doing new things, etc.
Second: The issue of wanting him to lead her to where she wants to go, rather than following him to where he wants to go. I won’t elaborate because this has been discussed frequently. Best summed up by this example: He: hey hon, let’s go out to dinner tonight (taking charge, initiative, leading). She: OK. They get into the car, and half-way there she asks where they are going. He answers. She responds; ewww. I don’t like that place. Doesn’t take too many times of this happening before he stops taking the initiative.
Third – which is basically a subset of Second: she says she wants him to lead from time to time. I’d bet that what she really wants is for him to take the initiative from time to time. Particularly in situations where she has made clear from the beginning that the home is her domain, his response would reasonably be to leave it to her to take the initiative in her domain. Were she to look, she might be surprised at the level of initiative her man displays in his domain (the workplace). But the guy’s sense of fair play leaves it to her to do the initiative thing in her own domain. In this context, factor in how much of the “First” and the “Second” paragraphs above might also be in play here.
———–
For the short version, jump to the last two paragraphs.
When daughter was pre-school, she had a couple of girl friends who lived close by and they would be at our house a lot. I found a video on-line filmed through an electron microscope. It showed one cell dividing into two, in slow-motion. The girls were fascinated to watch the process from start to finish. That gave me opportunity to hand them a powerful magnifying glass so that they could see the cells on their skin and in the leaves we would collect from outside. That foundation allowed me to have an ongoing conversation with daughter and her friends about all of the different kinds of cells that we have in our bodies. The girls reinforced this knowledge by talking about it amongst themselves over time and looking at each other’s skin and hair and fingernails with the magnifying glass.
At the appropriate time, this foundation allowed me to introduce daughter to one more cell that we had not yet discussed: baby cells. She was familiar with the concept of cell division, so it was not a stretch for her to get the concept that baby cells did not divide – one becomes two. Rather, male and female baby cells only had half the normal number of chromosomes. To make another person, those two cells had to join together in a single cell. That cell would contain the appropriate number of chromosomes – with half coming from the female baby cell and half coming from the male baby cell. After that joining together, that single cell would begin the dividing process that she was familiar with from the video.
At some point in her developing thinking process, it occurred to daughter to wonder where that single cell from two baby cells actually lived while it divided. “Mommy’s tummy; and that tummy gets larger as that single cell continues to divide.” was the proper answer. Daughter computed that and came to understand it – because she had been watching the tummy get bigger and bigger on one of the ladies in the neighborhood. She came to understand that the tummy was getting bigger because the lady was making a baby.
Some years later, she started to wonder how the two baby cells got together to create the single cell. I told her that the daddy puts his baby cell in the mommy – paying attention to the advice to “just answer the question, and nothing more”. She was content with that answer until she got older and wanted more detail. I gave the correct answer, which allowed me to then shift the conversation to a different level by asking her a question: “how does a mommy get a male baby cell so that it can join with her baby cell to create a baby?” (Not “how does it get in her”, but “how does she convince a male to give her one of his cells”?)
I did not answer that question for her. I let her think for a few weeks. I then began an ongoing conversation about the concept of attraction and the idea that females were made (God or evolution; your pick) so that, when they behave in certain ways, they would attract male attention. And, specifically, sexual interest. I explained how, around the time of the female’s ovulation, her body and behavior changes in certain ways that will arouse sexual interest in an observant male. Scattered throughout all of this ongoing conversation was the subject of – how a female dresses can directly trigger a male’s sexual interest in her.
All of this conversation was spread out over many years. And the conversations all flowed naturally and comfortably, as they were really just an extension of the conversation started when she and her friends watched the video of cell division. It was a thoroughly biological discussion, with no religious overtones thrown into the conversation. But the result was that daughter arrived at high school with a solid biological understanding of why girls she had known since kindergarten were suddently acting the way they were and dressing the way they were around the boys who were becoming men. She had a solid biological understanding that “the way girls dress at certain times” was part of the answer to the earlier question I had asked her: “how does a mommy get a male baby cell so that it can join with her baby cell to create a baby?” She never wondered aloud why it was that way. She never wondered aloud why these things worked the way they do to attract the sexual interest of boys. She just understood that they did work that way. And, underneath all of that understanding, she understood that she needed to avoid acting and dressing in the manner that attracted boys’ sexual interest if she didn’t want a baby (or venereal disease, or a broken heart, etc.)
At some point along the way, we taught daughter that God expects us to confine sexual activity to marriage. But that was never the main theme of the conversation that started way back with the watching of the video of cell division. And that on-going conversation about cell division has informed her attitude towards modesty of dress and behavior as she grows into young adulthood.
And, specifically, sexual interest. I explained how, around the time of the female’s ovulation, her body and behavior changes in certain ways that will arouse sexual interest in an observant male. Scattered throughout all of this ongoing conversation was the subject of – how a female dresses can directly trigger a male’s sexual interest in her.
Richard – how did you know to teach this to her? was it a conscious choice based on wanting her to be prepared? was it just the next thing she asked about?
goFigure – i copied your comment on my site -https://blendingame.wordpress.com/2019/07/13/husband-rule-over-your-wife/#comment-3483
I didn’t think this was possible. Here’s the link to Dalrock.
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2019/08/06/andi-does-melbourne/
“I swiped through so many men on Tinder I was told there were NO matches left – and I’m still single.”
Folks, it’s not just Nice Guys. I wonder what walrus tastes like?
Hmmm, walrus and seal are greasy, but aribou is excellent, as is Arctic Char. Unfortunately the Inuit females are also infected with welfare, thirty years ago both the males and women were still trying, particularly the males as the females only had to have a child to secure a position in society. Wherever welfare occurs, the same misery is established. The young males harvest whales and geese, and have a few days being impressed, but they cannot compete with the government cheque.
BG,
Thanks. There is no competing with a government check. So much for that idea.
As for Andi in Melbourne, how in hell could she reject every man in her area on Tinder? This takes the story of the Princess and the Pea to whole new level.
Ame – I’ve been busy and there were a few threads that went by without me reading them until just now. One was your anouncement of getting a home-based job. So – I add my congratulations for achieving that.
@Ame asked: Richard – how did you know to teach this to her? was it a conscious choice based on wanting her to be prepared? was it just the next thing she asked about?
It was a concious choice. When I ran across the video of the cell dividing, it occurred to me that this would be a good way to establish a foundation of talking about plant and animal cells. That would create the condition that, when the time came, I could begin “the talk” simply by adding on to a discussion about cells that had been ongoing for some time. That is, I could start by saying “there is one more cell that we haven’t discussed yet … ” – and the conversation would not be perceived as a “sex education” conversation. Rather, just an extension of an ongoing conversation. In this way, her receptivity to what I had to say stayed high.
How does a dad talk to a daughter about how babies are made without generating embarassment in both parties which might lead to a drop in receptivity on her part? Somewhere along the way of talking about cells, it occurred to me that a non-stress way of doing this is what I described above. Talk about cells in general, then “baby cells” in particular, and then ask how does a female get a male baby cell for herself. At this point, the conversation is still about cells, and so her defenses are down, and her receptivity is high. Don’t know that it works for everybody, but it worked for us.
Think it through: whether designed by God or evolution, how are babies made in the animal kingdom? The male gives the female his half of the “baby cells”. Why? What convinces the male to do that? The answer to that question is the foundation for any conversation about sex education. Ignoring modern technology, the only way a female can ever make a baby is by convincing a male to giver her some of his baby cells. How does she do this? Well, for starters, she has to do something to get the male to recognize that she even exists.
Notice that this approach is backwards from what generally happens: don’t dress like that because the boys will rape you. Immediatly triggers the rebellion response that is so easily triggered in young kids. Leaves the house looking like dad or mom wants her to look, and then changes into how she wants to look before she gets to school. I’ve known people who did this, so I know it happens. My approach did not generate that response in my daughter, and probably wouldn’t in others. Because I was focusing on the utility angle of it all: if you want to make a baby, you need the cooperation of a male. How do you get his attention first, and then how do you get him aroused second, because how can a limp poker ever get the male baby cells you need into your body? It was a utility discussion that was simply an add-on to all our other discussions about cells. It left her with the useful notion that “this is how I have to behave toward my husband when I want to make a baby”. But what it really did was teach her the mechanics of the arousal dance that goes on between sexually mature males and females – without her really knowing that this is what she had learned. Plus, I was a dad, very much involved in her life, in “seeing” her, in cherishing her, in nurturing her. And plenty has been said already about the difference in outcomes in kids (particularly girls) when there is a father in the home who pays attention to the children versus when there is not.
Add on: Search YouTube on “breeding horses”. You will find plenty of graphic evidence of the condition a stallion must be in before he can give the mare his baby cells. None of that happens without the female “prepping” the male (for non-humans, if she doesn’t smell right, none of that is going to happen). I went through what you see there for a few years because my wife’s parents had five or so Arabian show horses – one of which was a stallion that they bred to their mares and other horses for a hefty fee. Watching those videos / holding the mare while the stallion is brought to her provides ample evidence of the role that the female plays in getting the male into a condition where he is able to give her his male baby cells. If you want the male baby cells delivered successfully, whether horses or rhinoceroses or humans, it is strictly a utility thing that must be done by the female. Humans are more complicated than horses or rhinoceroses, so that utility thing that must be done by the female is way more complex / complicated / subtle. But it is still a utility thing. If you don’t get it, consider the difference in quantity and type of male attention given to Plain Jane versus hot-to-trot Jane. Some of the difference may be personality. But a large part of the difference is caused by the utility of dress and makeup and whether she is ovulating (which influences sparkly eyes and body language) versus having her period.
With regard to these mechanics of a female obtaining male baby cells, what’s love got to do with it? Love is real, and has it’s place. But not here. It ain’t love that conditions the male to want to, and to be able to, deliver his male baby cells to the female that wants them.
Bear
There is a pretty good movie near the end of the free Inuit called “The Snow Walker”
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=the+snow+walker+full+movie&view=detail&mid=12BF81D6D10EFBE1B6C112BF81D6D10EFBE1B6C1&FORM=VIRE
People really were like that when I first went North, both the bush pilots and the natives, but it couldn’t last. I have close friends amongst both. By the way, I was inoculated against TB, and still show up as positive. I wonder why the hell the @#$%%@#$ government didn’t inoculate the Inuit.
bg,
Thanks. I am still grieving for my ambitions for Dudley DoRight. I hope that Nell has some time to think about her options before the train rolls in.
For years, well more than a decade, Paul Elam has been telling men that it is a mistake to get married. In the past year or so Paul has added a new admonition to his list: Don’t have children. Things have gotten so bad, and we have heard so many horror stories regarding child welfare agencies persecuting responsible fathers for acting like responsible fathers, that Paul feels that for young men having children is not a risk worth taking.
Paul has a new book out, Men, Women, Relationships. He, Tom Golden, and Prof. Janice Fiamengo reviewed Paul’s book during their weekly Youtube show. Prof. Fiamengo highlighted Paul’s “iron rule of men and women”. Paul’s rule is that women will stop at nothing in their demands that men sacrifice to make women’s lives better and that men will stop at nothing to make those sacrifices. Furthermore, men will stop at nothing to throw men under the bus who do not tow the gynocentric line.
It is in the context of Paul’s iron rule of men and women that I find the exchange between Deti and Ame talking about married women letting their husbands lead so interesting. Consider this: Paul decided that the cover of his book would be a photo of the statue of Perseus holding up Medusa’s severed head. Paul mentions that early feminists chose Medusa as their mascot.
I am arguing that Paul’s decapitation of feminism is not misogyny. It is the opposite. Paul’s decapitation of feminism is gynocentric. More and more women are admitting that they are miserable if their men don’t lead them. More and more women are also admitting that they are incapable of voluntarily allowing their men to lead. More and more women are admitting that if they are ever going to be happy again, men are going to have to take the leadership position by force. We as men are going to have to symbolically wander the landscape like Woody Harellson in a zombie movie dispatching feminism wherever we find it. And we do this in order to liberate women. Women are secretly begging us to do it.
(Farm Boy, feel free to post this over there if you like it.)
@Roger said: More and more women are admitting …
Who is talking here Roger? You? Or Paul Elam? Is there a source that is being referenced by the “more and more women …” statements, or are they anecdotal / lived experience? Just curious.
More and more women are admitting that if they are ever going to be happy again, men are going to have to take the leadership position by force.
Kinda sounds like the knock them over the head and drag them by the hair to your cave of old. What goes round comes round?
Richard,
If you want to hear some refreshing content on Youtube, check out Nicole Michelle’s channel called Inner Beauty Movement. She is a black dating coach in Atlanta. She frequently says, “Ladies, we are here to practice hypergamy.” She also often says, “When high-value men are talking, we shuts up.”
My point about taking leadership by force is that men cannot wait for women to course correct. Men are going to have to go on the offensive. It is time for men to start pointing out that feminism is an illegitimate set of ideas.
Thanks Roger.
Ame said
, how would you men recommend i instruct them?
Any one, anything under my roof are under my protection. Period.
They get hurt, they go without, they are not up to their potential, that is on me.
ALL, repeat ALL outcomes in my house are my responsibility. Not my doing, my responsibility. I may not Do the thing but fixing the outcome of me and mine falls to me. Period.
Therefore we discuss things, plan, even fight but in the end the decision is mine.
The rules are mine, the boundaries are mine.
Wanna rule over others? Fine. Then you also protect them. You are to blame if they fuck up. You heal the wounds they caused. You are in charge.
“But they didn’t follow my rules”
Your accountable for that ON TOP OF the mess from them not following your rules.
Why? Because They are your rules! Make them follow them.
So short version. Rule means to be responsible for and guide your charges even if its only yourself living alone.
And a ruler never EVER whines, feels self pity or uncertainty.
Following applies to any leader even head of household. Your decisions on finances, food, clothes, repairs can injure as much as a depth charge.
Bloom
Check mod please
Bear
I don’t know if you have tried to watch that movie, but I hope that this has the complete movie. My wife loved it because it is a bit of a tear jerker and she was always a truly gentle soul: https://archive.org/details/TheSnowWalker
Roger
“More and more women are admitting that they are miserable if their men don’t lead them. More and more women are also admitting that they are incapable of voluntarily allowing their men to lead. More and more women are admitting that if they are ever going to be happy again, men are going to have to take the leadership position by force. We as men are going to have to symbolically wander the landscape like Woody Harellson in a zombie movie dispatching feminism wherever we find it. And we do this in order to liberate women. Women are secretly begging us to do it.”
Agreed.
But how to do it when the first time you exert this authority on a woman you barely know, say a month of dating, her programming or her frenemy pack will convince her to cry rape, abuse, metoo etc. And have you ruined.
I can do it because of thirty years with the mrs lets me predict her behaviour, but with a stranger I just am getting to know?
But how do you “take the leadership position by force” when “they are incapable of voluntarily allowing their men to lead”. And as we all know anything done involuntarily to a woman is punishable.
So how does average joe at the two month mark when they are settling into a relationship pull this off?
And more importantly…….why fucking bother at all?
bg,
I just finished it. Outstanding and I can’t think of anything to compare it to. Thank You.
bear
Glad to hear that. It is pretty realistic except the biting bugs never seem to end and the moose flies are about three times the size of horseflies and everybody has a personal supply of a couple of dozen ;-D
bg,
There is a story about a mosquito who landed at Elmendorf. A ground crew attempted to refuel it. I don’t think that it ended well.
There aren’t that many nations at the top of the world. Canada, Russia, the US, Norway, and, not to overlook Greenland, Denmark.
Horesman, I totally agree with you. I am not suggesting that relationships with women are possible or that it would be worthwhile for men to pursue relationships with women.
These days you will hear Paul Elam say something curious. I am paraphrasing, but he says essentially this: “When I hear Roger talk about hookers and sex dolls, the less conscious part of my brain, i.e., the back ten percent of my brain, says, ‘What are you doing?” The rear ten percent of Paul’s brain would like for me to find a nice girl, get married, and have kids. But the front ninety percent of Paul’s brain acknowledges I and other MGTOWs are making a well-thought-out decision in choosing the least worst option available to us. Paul says that this reality facing younger men makes him truly sad.
The truth is that I, Roger Blakely, am way out in front on this. When Paul talks about MGTOW guys choosing hookers and sex dolls over ordinary women, he is really only talking about Roger Blakely. The vast majority of red pill guys have not given up on their blue pill dreams. The vast majority of red-pilled men secretly harbor fantasies of finding a rainbow-farting unicorn, marrying her, having children, and living happily ever after.
Roger,
I get the feeling that Paul is trying to tell women that they have collectively “screwed the pooch”, but they are too thick to get it. Conforming to the herd mentality isn’t helping.
Boromir. “Leave it. It is over”
bg,
I did see the movie. It was a nice touch at the end where he put the ivory tusks into the cairn. He learned something valuable from her.
Fuzzie
Hmmm, I saw several cairns in the high arctic islands and one in Labrador, I never looked inside out of respect for those that went before.
bg,
The concept is not unfamiliar. I understand, in Moses’s time, friends would do this for the deceased. Moses outlived all his friends and God promised him to not worry. To this day, no one knows where he is buried.
All of that area is harsh, but that Labrador fiord is actually now a National Park. Doesn’t actually surprised me that much, most of the more interesting areas that either I took my wife or those I alone saw in more difficult areas are now national or provincial parks. Some were desecrated where the pine groves where we courted half a century ago, have been removed to create golf links, what can I say?