Western women have no values. The solution: Propose to them (?)

[thoughtgypsy]

I will not game my wife 24/7. A woman worthy of being a wife understands self-sacrificial love and that regular sex is one of her vows. What's the point of getting married to a woman who will only keep her vows when she's being gamed?

Agreed 100%. If I had to explain my choice to remain single as succinctly as possible, it would sound like this. I've gotten several women by running a bit of game, but if that's what it takes to get her to stick around, what's the point, besides a steady stream of sex that seems less and less important as time passes.

The expectation that you need to game a wife 24/7 is an over-exaggeration, but I think it's equally folly to assume that zero game is needed to keep a wife. A woman craves security, and if a man backslides in his ability to provide or his masculine qualities atrophy, she's inclined to probe for weaknesses and start looking elsewhere. It's the same with men whose wives get fat- their eyes will start to wander, by nature. It may even be in a woman's nature to start looking elsewhere after 4-7 years. Some women have the self control to hold their vows regardless, but they are battling their instinct to do so. I would be willing to marry someone, and if I failed to stand by my vows I would not blame them for abandoning me.

The reason I (most likely) won't be getting married in the west is the complete lack of accountability on women if they break their vows. If you screw up, she gets half your stuff and if you have kids, your servitude. If she screws up, well, she gets the same thing anyway. I think the most sure fire way to keep a wife is to make the risks for divorcing so high, and the reward for doing so nonexistent. In saner times, the consequences for divorce were extreme in order to discourage it. Now it's encouraged and instead of consequences there are substantial incentives for the woman.

If I may make an analogy, it would be like giving a reformed (by their own admission only) kleptomaniac a key to your home filled with extravagant valuables, and expecting them to not steal everything and skip town every day for the rest of their lives, in a city that never prosecutes thieves.

 

[Easy_C]

No. You don't need to "game" 24/7. It's a useless proposition. over the amount of time involved it is going to show sooner or later. The only cure is the game has to be in you...a permanent part of your personality. Anything else won't work.

 

[joseywales]

Didn't watch the video but I wanted to comment on the "game your wife 24/7" comment:

The ability for your to establish and maintain frame in your marriage will GREATLY reduce the need for you to have to continually game your wife.

If you are focused on the cultivating the elements of neomasculinity for yourself you are doing what I like to call "passive dread" where she consciously/unconsciously realizes that she isn't going to do better. If combined with establishing and holding frame (i.e. not just passing shit tests, but not playing within her frame) the amount of time you have to game your wife is minimal.

It should also be understood that you should only marry a woman who understands divorce is not an option (committed to staying married) and who can keep her hypergamy in check.

 

[SamuelBRoberts]

Josey, have you applied what you said in your own marriage? Did it help a lot?
How long have you been married? Do you think being red-pill helps?

 

[262]

It's easy to get carried away with mere ideas that look good on the screen. But it's better and more useful for poster and reader alike to hew somewhat closely to reality, which is in most cases more mundane and less exciting than the fantastical pronouncements on either side.

I agree with this, as I did in another thread, but again, I must reiterate how this reads to a mainstream audience.

TO THEM, it basically says, "Nah, the manosphere is wrong. Everything is fine. Girls, slut it up and accept nothing but perfection from others. Guys, man up and accept any bullshit."

I'm pretty sure that's not what you meant, but I'm also pretty sure you don't want it to read like that.

 

[The Lizard of Oz]

262, I think that the main audience for this forum is men trying to improve their lives and find their path in the world. And the best way any of us can serve that audience is by giving them a view of life that is as grittily realistic as possible. A mere caricature may capture the imagination of the young and impressionable for a while, but it will not survive actual contact with reality for very long; and once the caricature is belied by reality, even the useful insights it may have contained will be discarded.

In other words, there are certainly plenty of young dudes who will be drawn to the most extreme and caricatured version of manosphere ideas, since young men are always in search of very general explanations that seem to give them a key to the world all at once. But if these ideas are so caricatured as to be utterly unrealistic, these men will sooner or later discover this for themselves. And as a result, they will eventually dismiss the whole gamut of manosphere ideas as a juvenile phase that they have now transcended -- throwing out the proverbial baby (all the important insights that can be found here and almost nowhere else) with the bathwater of reductive caricature.

I described the process of repeated conversion and disillusionment in this post:

One of the lessons that can be learned from this thread -- and from following posters on a forum like this over a longish period of time -- is that men that are passionate and enthusiasts by nature will replace beliefs that they cherish, and imagine to be fundamental, with surprising speed and violence.

Furthermore, men who have undergone this process once never think it can happen again; in their enthusiasm, they feel that their current set of beliefs is permanent, because it has struck them with the force of revelation and seemed to explain and pull together so many phenomena that had appeared disparate and unrelated. They know that they have arrived at their destination, and can now survey the landscape from a vantage point that allows them to see behind mere appearances, and into things as they really are.

But the likelihood is great that for many of these men, the current set of beliefs is far from final, and the process of shedding them almost wholesale and acquiring new ones will be repeated. Indeed, I am convinced that some of the most passionately ideological and doctrine-besotted posters on this forum have another conversion or two in their futures. What had to seemed to go to the very core of one's worldview will be discarded almost overnight, like a spent battery that had once powered some loud device which is no longer in use.

The reason that the conversion process is quite likely to repeat itself is that it is precisely the need for belief of some kind, almost any kind, that drives the process far more than the content of the ideas themselves. These ideas and frameworks, so cherished at the moment of revelation and acceptance, are far more fungible than they seem; they are really the temporizing of intelligent and enthusiastic men who struggle to understand the world in all its complexity, and who know only that the socially condoned and dominant ideology of the time cannot help them. They alight on some pattern, some framework, that seems to impose order on the apparent chaos; they cling to it with great conviction; but as the ideological framework reveals itself, over time, to be a good deal less than adequate, they will eventually discard it in favor of a new one which seems to be more persuasive and meets the needs of the day.

It is precisely because the infallible ideas of today will so often, for enthusiastic and yearning men, become the discarded illusions of tomorrow that it's so important for men to be open to the world as it is, to find a way to engage it with a modest attentiveness that is not entirely blighted and evacuated by any fundamentally reductive ideology. Otherwise, a man will lose the world -- and all because of a set of beliefs and ideas that had seemed to fit well at the time, but that proved far too thin and threadbare a garment to survive the surprisingly long and various journey that life amounts to.

To this I will add that this forum contains a great wealth of posts that proceed from gritty observation and experience, and that give men precious and detailed information and insight about the world that can be found almost nowhere else. There is no need to adulterate this rich and nutritious stew with the seemingly stronger-tasting but ultimately empty (and even poisonous) spices of mere reductive ideology.

 

[Renzy]

The reason I (most likely) won't be getting married in the west is the complete lack of accountability on women if they break their vows. If you screw up, she gets half your stuff and if you have kids, your servitude. If she screws up, well, she gets the same thing anyway. I think the most sure fire way to keep a wife is to make the risks for divorcing so high, and the reward for doing so nonexistent. In saner times, the consequences for divorce were extreme in order to discourage it. Now it's encouraged and instead of consequences there are substantial incentives for the woman.

To me this pretty much cuts to the heart of the matter - there used to be repercussions for women and now there aren't.

It used to be a man had "game" + culture + law + family working in his favor when it came to making a marriage last.

The last 50 years has taken away the last three. Now all a man has left is game.

Whether that's enough these days is what I think we're all arguing about.

Now, I'm not arguing that a man should be able to get married and then go on autopilot, not lift a finger, and expect it to work because vows.

I'm arguing that men now have to put all their eggs in one basket with game and hope that it's enough to keep their marriage together.

And in many cases, it won't be until a man is sitting in a courtroom having a judge tell him how often he's going to be able to "visit" his own children that he discovers it wasn't enough.

Law, culture, and family are no longer on your side. In fact, in many cases they're actively working against you and your ability to have a stable marriage.

Maybe game is enough to counteract all that and tilt the odds back in a man's favor.

 

[R_Niko]

The reason I (most likely) won't be getting married in the west is the complete lack of accountability on women if they break their vows. If you screw up, she gets half your stuff and if you have kids, your servitude. If she screws up, well, she gets the same thing anyway. I think the most sure fire way to keep a wife is to make the risks for divorcing so high, and the reward for doing so nonexistent. In saner times, the consequences for divorce were extreme in order to discourage it. Now it's encouraged and instead of consequences there are substantial incentives for the woman.

To me this pretty much cuts to the heart of the matter - there used to be repercussions for women and now there aren't.

It used to be a man had "game" + culture + law + family working in his favor when it came to making a marriage last.

The last 50 years has taken away the last three. Now all a man has left is game.

Whether that's enough these days is what I think we're all arguing about.

Now, I'm not arguing that a man should be able to get married and then go on autopilot, not lift a finger, and expect it to work because vows.

I'm arguing that men now have to put all their eggs in one basket with game and hope that it's enough to keep their marriage together.

And in many cases, it won't be until a man is sitting in a courtroom having a judge tell him how often he's going to be able to "visit" his own children that he discovers it wasn't enough.

Law, culture, and family are no longer on your side. In fact, in many cases they're actively working against you and your ability to have a stable marriage.

Maybe game is enough to counteract all that and tilt the odds back in a man's favor.

Yep. When you boil it down, Game is really all we have left. What I personally struggle with, is constantly asking myself "is it worth it". Every single interaction I have with a woman--is it worth my time, energy, money, self-respect? It's like I need to run a cost-benefit analysis, not just with relationships, but with approaching, maintaining conversation, asking for a date, following through on said date, maintaining contact, etc. Even friendships with women no longer seem worth the trouble, and growing up I often had female friends. No longer. Every woman--and maybe every man, too--is looking to take as much s possible while giving as little in return.

To those who assume Game doesn't cost us anything, I say nothing is free. All you can do is defer or externalize the cost, but the cost is still there.

 

[joseywales]

Josey, have you applied what you said in your own marriage? Did it help a lot?
How long have you been married? Do you think being red-pill helps?

Yes and no. Yes in the aspect that I was seeking a woman who aligned with my vision for marriage, sex, family, work/money and any (most) who didn't align were nexted. No in the aspect that I was still blue (or at most purple) pill until after I got married. Honestly, if I had discovered the RP prior to getting married, I probably would have still but more cautiously and been more inclined to seek a younger 21-24 mate.

I've been married 3 years so far. We have a 6 month old daughter and are trying to have another. Being RP is not just helpful, but essential IMHO. Women follow strong leadership influences. They're also more easily duped. She already had a complementarian, traditional view of marriage but I have lead her in being able to look at single moms, divorce, female careerism, etc. through a RP lens and she has grown to detest the cultural degeneracy that feminism and the sexual revolution has brought on. She's not perfect, so I don't want to idealize things. Like most any woman, she's got emotions and insecurities obviously.