Quote:Quote:

I didn’t realize I’d married a sex addict until years after our wedding day. We only dated for a few months before we got married, so basically I was still in sex-addict mode myself when I promised to love him until I died.

Eventually, I’d start wishing I were dead.

This part here makes me think this woman really is mentally ill. Just because the guy wanted the same consistent access to pussy he got early in the relationship she wants to kill herself and thinks only "addicts" want to fuck on a regular basis.

The whole "sex addiction" thing has basically been debunked. They've done brain scans of people who are addicted to things like drugs and find that similar patterns don't come up in the brain for alleged "sex addicts." A man's brain is wired to consistently want to get some kind of sexual release, this is only seen as a problem in dysfunctional societies.

Marriage is particularly unhealthy for men when you realize that after most women pop out a couple of kids they tend to get short haircuts and become asexual.

Quote: (02-16-2014 02:55 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

The sad truth is that society never really changes. The so-called sexual revolution made the scoldings of nuns and priests seem dated...but feminists, psychologists, and counselors (gag) stepped right in to take their place. What was once "sin" became "addiction" or a disorder.

These charlatans made the nuns and priests look good by comparison. At least clergy didn't take your money and convince your wife to take your house.

This is yet another reason why I plan on never getting married.

Marriage from its inception has always been a poorer deal for men, but at least in its original form it served a purpose. Yes, it required the men who got married to devote his time and resources to the woman he got married to and their subsequent children. It also required the woman to stay chaste, and devote herself to the man both sexually and maternally.

Ultimately, it was a legally binding contract that required both the man and woman to devote their natural inborn talents to each other in order to form a strong family unit.

Now with no-fault divorce, child support laws, and alimony laws, marriage in its original sense is dead. It is no longer about a man and woman coming together to combine forces and forge their way together in the world. It is now about a man signing over every legal right he has to a woman, ultimately giving up 100% of his power in the relationship.

This is why modern marriage is a sham. It is too bad really...

I'd bet $100 that Jenny Erickson is the author of this piece. That is where she blogs and I am sure she could not resist justifying her divorce, even under a nom de plume. There is nothing inconsistent in that piece from what Erickson has already written about her divorce.

Roosh V Forum threat: "Christian" woman decides to divorce husband, crew at Dalrock obliterate her

Quote: (02-16-2014 01:28 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  

Now with no-fault divorce, child support laws, and alimony laws, marriage in its original sense is dead.

You forgot to mention the criminalization of marital rape, which is especially apposite to the discussion at hand.

As a consequence of marital rape laws, marriage legally no longer implies a conclusive presumption of consent to sexual relations with the spouse.

In other words, sex is no longer a part of the legal construct of marriage and the granting of intimacies or sexual relations has effectively become supererogatory. By having sex with her husband, the wife is going above and beyond her contractual obligations, and therefore, by not having sex, she is still operating comfortably within the contractual bounds of marriage as currently defined.

Nowadays, any man who has even the slightest expectation or assumption that a woman ought to grant sexual access just because she contracted matrimony with him is a blooming idiot, and out of line. Because those are simply not the terms and conditions of the contract that he had signed. (He did know what he was signing, right???).

Quote: (02-16-2014 01:49 PM)WD-40 Wrote:  

Quote: (02-16-2014 01:28 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  

Now with no-fault divorce, child support laws, and alimony laws, marriage in its original sense is dead.

You forgot to mention the criminalization of marital rape, which is especially apposite to the discussion at hand.

As a consequence of marital rape laws, marriage legally no longer implies a conclusive presumption of consent to sexual relations with the spouse.

In other words, sex is no longer a part of the legal construct of marriage and the granting of intimacies or sexual relations has effectively become supererogatory. By having sex with her husband, the wife is going above and beyond her contractual obligations, and therefore, by not having sex, she is still operating comfortably within the contractual bounds of marriage as currently defined.

Nowadays, any man who has even the slightest expectation or assumption that a woman ought to grant sexual access just because she contracted matrimony with him is a blooming idiot, and out of line. Because those are simply not the terms and conditions of the contract that he had signed. (He did know what he was signing, right???).

I believe that you're wrong here. Let me explain. Indeed, the marital contract doesn't list having sex with the husband as one of the wife's obligations. But neither does it list the husband having to provide for his family or fix the car as one of his obligations either.

'Wait a minute', you're surely thinking, 'if the wife divorces the husband, he is legally bound to earn money for her, either through direct means (alimony) or indirect means (child support) That means that he has an obligation after all'.

And you're right. But notice that the obligation comes out of the unfair divorce laws / family court practice, not marriage itself. That means that it's divorce that needs to be changed, not marriage.

Instead of adding yet another layer of bureaucracy (an authority which can force the woman to provide sex in the similar manner by which the woman can force the man to provide money), we ought to apply Occam's razor and go with the solution that requires less assumptions and less enforcement: end the man's obligation to provide money through divorce. BAM! Problem solved.

How? Now no party has an obligation to one another, and their cooperation returns to natural and mutual self-interest, without means of abuse or cheating. The wife who withholds sex now lives with the knowledge that her husband can stop providing money in return, and she won't be able to extract it by force (or vice versa).

This arrangement is much simpler, less open to abuse and more fair than legalizing marital rape, which would provide the man with a threatpoint ("I can force you to have sex if you're not providing it") similar to the one the woman holds at the moment ("I can force you to provide money if you're not providing it").

Let's solve this issue by righting the current injustice, not by creating another injustice for the sake of balance. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Quote: (02-16-2014 01:49 PM)WD-40 Wrote:  

Quote: (02-16-2014 01:28 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  

Now with no-fault divorce, child support laws, and alimony laws, marriage in its original sense is dead.

You forgot to mention the criminalization of marital rape, which is especially apposite to the discussion at hand.

As a consequence of marital rape laws, marriage legally no longer implies a conclusive presumption of consent to sexual relations with the spouse.

In other words, sex is no longer a part of the legal construct of marriage and the granting of intimacies or sexual relations has effectively become supererogatory. By having sex with her husband, the wife is going above and beyond her contractual obligations, and therefore, by not having sex, she is still operating comfortably within the contractual bounds of marriage as currently defined.

Nowadays, any man who has even the slightest expectation or assumption that a woman ought to grant sexual access just because she contracted matrimony with him is a blooming idiot, and out of line. Because those are simply not the terms and conditions of the contract that he had signed. (He did know what he was signing, right???).

If exclusive sexual access to the woman is no longer part of the deal, the entire raison d'etre of marriage has gone out the window, from a man's perspective. The other presumptive benefits - cooking, cleaning etc - also are gone.

Note how YOUR obligations to her - financial support for her and her offspring - are not only retained, but amplified! For example, if my Dad had lost his job, my mom and my brothers and I would have to make do with a little less - fewer or less expensive vacations, clothes, etc. His obligations to the family unit were capped - they did not exceed what he actually achieved. But under today's draconian child support laws, if you lose your job, your obligations to contribute to the fund cupcake uses for shoes, expensive handbags, breast implants, and jack daniels for her sexy new bad boy boyfriend do NOT scale downward - they are retained, even if they exceed 100% of your gross income.

The deal has, in short, become COMPLETELY asymmetrical. It's like placing a bet where if you win, you can win some modest amount and if you lose, you can lose EVERYTHING you own, not just now but in the future. Only a fool would enter into such a contract!

If you had entered into such a contract on behalf of the company you worked for, the court's would likely conclude you had been the victim of legal malpractice, that your legal advisor did not execute his fiduciary responsibility to look after your best interests. But, our courts and elected representatives have sold us into this lousy deal and NONE of them suffered any consequences. Not yet, anyway.

If marriage is prostitution, then by not having sex with him, she has broken the contract. He should be granted an instant divorce.

This is actually a common situation. About 20% of married couples have sex less than 10 times/ year: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexless_marriage

Women today no longer see sex as an obligation in marriage. So, to be married today you have to game her in perpituity in order to have any sex in marriage and not risk your wife becoming unhappy and divorce raping you. You can't rely on a sense of duty, so you have to game your wife like any other woman to get sex. One of the biggest manosphere sites (http://marriedmansexlife.com/) is all about gaming your wife forever.

I don't know about you guys, but this doesn't appeal to me at all. I don't want to concern myself with running game every single day of my life until one of us dies without the chance to take a break. And I don't want to be in a situation where a few failed shit tests means my life gets destroyed. If marriage is not based on a sense of duty, then there is no point to it.

Quote:Quote:

We live in a materially different society for sure -- but that's not the same as "unnatural" or "unhealthy". I think these characterizations in themselves reflect an unhealthy sense of guilt, foreboding and fear of change and of the future.

I believe it is unnatural and unhealthy. I do have a foreboding of the future. I do have guilt in watching the decay all around me. Yeah, it makes me sick. It bums me out to see people in pain, on psychotropics, without two parents. And it bums me out to think we honestly don't know better.

Quote:Quote:

The human being makes progress -- this is something to be celebrated, not feared or bemoaned.

We're talking about unrestrained libido as progress? Progress comes from taming that instinct and putting that energy into higher Truths. It comes from everyone agreeing that there are better things to do. Granted that genie is out of the bottle and it's not going back in, but I wouldn't call it progress.

Quote:Quote:

The period was good because to a large extent its heart was in the right place -- and the right place is always progress and the future. That is what has been lost to some extent -- particularly among the elites -- and needs to be regained.

Its heart was in the right place because there were yet enough adults in the building to stop it from wrapping its libido around its neck and hanging itself with it.

It may be that our great new borderless, debt-ridden, psychotropic-soaked, gender-fluid, collapsing-infrastructured, TSA-fondled future will in fact at some point be seen as a great leap of progress. But damn if it won't look to me exactly like a people being led by their libido into brainwashed slavery.

Quote: (02-16-2014 02:27 PM)Walter White Wrote:  

Quote: (02-16-2014 01:49 PM)WD-40 Wrote:  

Quote: (02-16-2014 01:28 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  

Now with no-fault divorce, child support laws, and alimony laws, marriage in its original sense is dead.

You forgot to mention the criminalization of marital rape, which is especially apposite to the discussion at hand.

As a consequence of marital rape laws, marriage legally no longer implies a conclusive presumption of consent to sexual relations with the spouse.

In other words, sex is no longer a part of the legal construct of marriage and the granting of intimacies or sexual relations has effectively become supererogatory. By having sex with her husband, the wife is going above and beyond her contractual obligations, and therefore, by not having sex, she is still operating comfortably within the contractual bounds of marriage as currently defined.

Nowadays, any man who has even the slightest expectation or assumption that a woman ought to grant sexual access just because she contracted matrimony with him is a blooming idiot, and out of line. Because those are simply not the terms and conditions of the contract that he had signed. (He did know what he was signing, right???).

If exclusive sexual access to the woman is no longer part of the deal, the entire raison d'etre of marriage has gone out the window, from a man's perspective. The other presumptive benefits - cooking, cleaning etc - also are gone.

Note how YOUR obligations to her - financial support for her and her offspring - are not only retained, but amplified! For example, if my Dad had lost his job, my mom and my brothers and I would have to make do with a little less - fewer or less expensive vacations, clothes, etc. His obligations to the family unit were capped - they did not exceed what he actually achieved. But under today's draconian child support laws, if you lose your job, your obligations to contribute to the fund cupcake uses for shoes, expensive handbags, breast implants, and jack daniels for her sexy new bad boy boyfriend do NOT scale downward - they are retained, even if they exceed 100% of your gross income.

The deal has, in short, become COMPLETELY asymmetrical. It's like placing a bet where if you win, you can win some modest amount and if you lose, you can lose EVERYTHING you own, not just now but in the future. Only a fool would enter into such a contract!

If you had entered into such a contract on behalf of the company you worked for, the court's would likely conclude you had been the victim of legal malpractice, that your legal advisor did not execute his fiduciary responsibility to look after your best interests. But, our courts and elected representatives have sold us into this lousy deal and NONE of them suffered any consequences. Not yet, anyway.

Yes, since the lower earner (the female) has the ability to enforce the male's unstated financial and provisional obligations, it is a defacto obligation and might as well be in the actual contract.

Quote:Quote:

Quote: (02-16-2014 02:27 PM)Walter White Wrote:  

Nowadays, any man who has even the slightest expectation or assumption that a woman ought to grant sexual access just because she contracted matrimony with him is a blooming idiot, and out of line. Because those are simply not the terms and conditions of the contract that he had signed. (He did know what he was signing, right???).

If exclusive sexual access to the woman is no longer part of the deal, the entire raison d'etre of marriage has gone out the window, from a man's perspective. The other presumptive benefits - cooking, cleaning etc - also are gone.

It is completely true that the benefits of guaranteed sexual access and domestic labor have gone out the window.

There are, however, two reasons why it can still make sense to marry.

1. For younger men that want children, a stable two-parent family is still the best way to raise them. Chances are that, within the context of a functioning marriage, you will be able to give your children more and better resources then you could if you were a child-support-paying weekend dad. Not just material resources such as housing, clothing, food, health care but also- even more importantly- the immaterial ones such as paternal time, attention, presence, care, love, education, guidance and discipline. To be able to satisfy the true underlying purpose of a marriage of this type- which to be the best father to your children that you can be- you will need to have the emotional resiliency to make certain sacrifices and accept certain risks.A marriage of this type guarantees nothing whatsoever to you as a man, except- at best- a fighting chance that you will actually be able to make a difference and experience your kids growing up. A man that cares about more in life than running the same old laps on the hedonic treadmill might still want to take up the challenge. But given the unforgivingly harsh nature of the marriage game as played by the current rules of Western society, it behooves him to be rigorously selective in his choice of a spouse.
2. For more mature men that desire stable, long-term domestic female companionship as they continue to grow older, marriage can still be a means to that end. As opposed to marriages of the first category, the wife must necessarily offer other benefits than her fertility and her gracious permission to allow the father to stay around and help raise his kids. These marriages are more about resource pooling, mutual support and companionship with a view towards comfortable retirement. A marriage of the first category can and often does graduate into a marriage of this sort once the nest is empty. But as above, sex is more of a possible add-on benefit of the marriage and not its main raison d'être.
   

Sawyer,

Why are you so confident about what the future will look like? How do you know that it will be "borderless, debt-ridden, psychotropic-soaked, gender-fluid, collapsing-infrastructured, TSA-fondled", to quote your litany?

You are taking certain trends that you dislike about the present (while ignoring all sorts of other things) and extrapolating them into the future. That's not a good way to understand how things will go.

If there is one thing we can learn from the past, it is that such headstrong predictions about the future are not worth the paper they're written on -- except whoops, I guess they're not written on paper anymore.

It always strikes me how the one thing that the progressive left and the nostalgic right can always agree on is the inevitability of impending doom. The left sees it coming from environmental collapse due to unstoppable "climate change" which will finally remind us that Gaia really runs this place and always bats last. The right sees a societal collapse brought about by the erosion of traditional values. Either way, the idea is really the same -- we have sinned, whether in greed and carbon emissions or internet porn and fiat currency, and the punishment for our sins is sure to come.

Don't you see that both of these mythologies of doom are really two sides of the same coin -- they are fueled not by any rational understanding of how things are likely to go, but by a pervasive sense of fear and guilt. There is a sense that we, mankind as a whole, have gone too far, overstepped our bounds, played God for too long, and one way or another we will be punished for it. Depending on where you are on the ideological spectrum the mechanism of the punishment looks different. But the emotion is exactly the same.

Well, guess what --I think we as a species are just getting warmed up. We've only just started playing God and we're not even good at it yet but we'll get there. All the bounds are only there for us to laugh in their face and kick them out of our way. And I believe these things as fully and as serenely as any programmer working for IBM in 1953 coming home from an exhilarating day of ground-breaking work to his sweet and pretty sci-fi wife and three wholesome 50s kids.

Quote: (02-16-2014 02:15 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

Let me explain. Indeed, the marital contract doesn't list having sex with the husband as one of the wife's obligations. But neither does it list the husband having to provide for his family or fix the car as one of his obligations either.

It really depends.

In some jurisdictions, for example, criminal abandonment, e.g. "willful and malicious desertion and absence from the marital home" may be grounds for a fault divorce, which can result in a more unfavorable settlement to the man than a no-fault divorce.

Quote: (02-16-2014 04:11 PM)WD-40 Wrote:  

Quote: (02-16-2014 02:15 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

Let me explain. Indeed, the marital contract doesn't list having sex with the husband as one of the wife's obligations. But neither does it list the husband having to provide for his family or fix the car as one of his obligations either.

It really depends.

In some jurisdictions, for example, criminal abandonment, e.g. "willful and malicious desertion and absence from the marital home" may be grounds for a fault divorce, which can result in a more unfavorable settlement to the man than a no-fault divorce.

More important, in some jurisdictions, the unjustified refusal to have sexual relations can be grounds for divorce. In real life, at least in this day and age, the reason for the divorce doesn't really mean a whole lot. 99% of the divorces which I have seen have been because of adultery, domestic violence, or both. Little sympathy is generally shown to people who claim that they are entitled to receive additional benefits because of their spouse's adultery. Similar claims made as a result of domestic violence often do not cause much more sympathy. With regard to domestic violence claims, the truth is generally somewhere in the middle and the court system definitely realizes that.

Quote: (02-16-2014 04:17 PM)Merenguero Wrote:  

More important, in some jurisdictions, the unjustified refusal to have sexual relations can be grounds for divorce.

Oh, absolutely.

But the true test is in the divorce settlement.

I would be willing to bet beer that even if you are divorcing in a fault divorce jurisdiction and can prove your wife's unjustified refusal to have sexual relations, this fact in and of itself it will not lead to a significantly more favorable divorce settlement than if you were to obtain a no-fault divorce. Whereas maxing out the cards and ghosting will come back to bite your ass for sure.

Quote: (02-16-2014 04:26 PM)WD-40 Wrote:  

Quote: (02-16-2014 04:17 PM)Merenguero Wrote:  

More important, in some jurisdictions, the unjustified refusal to have sexual relations can be grounds for divorce.

Oh, absolutely.

But the true test is in the divorce settlement.

I would be willing to bet beer that even if you are divorcing in a fault divorce jurisdiction and can prove your wife's unjustified refusal to have sexual relations, this fact in and of itself it will not lead to a significantly more favorable divorce settlement than if you were to obtain a no-fault divorce. Whereas maxing out the cards and ghosting will come back to bite your ass for sure.

Exactly. A lot of people are embarrassed about that kind of stuff, along with adultery, and therefore have more motivation to settle. When I was a brand new attorney, I represented a lady whose husband claimed that she had not only never had sex with him, but that she had never had sex with anyone. The guy's attorney filed a Motion for a Physical Examination in order to prove that this lady's hymen was still in tact and that she had never had sex. That Motion was obviously denied, but this lady was obviously embarrassed about the situation, which affected the case.

Quote:Quote:

Why are you so confident about what the future will look like? How do you know that it will be "borderless, debt-ridden, psychotropic-soaked, gender-fluid, collapsing-infrastructured, TSA-fondled"

I look at today, and I see we are borderless, debt-ridden, psychotropic-soaked, gender-fluid, collapsing-infrastructured and TSA-fondled, then measure the countervailing forces, see they are almost nonexistent, and then rationally therefore predict that tomorrow will be similar.

Quote:Quote:

You are taking certain trends that you dislike about the present (while ignoring all sorts of other things) and extrapolating them into the future. That's not a good way to understand how things will go.

I'm only talking about the effect of unhinged libido. I'm not talking about computer science. I'm talking about willful neglect of souls and its consequences.

Quote:Quote:

If there is one thing we can learn from the past, it is that such headstrong predictions about the future are not worth the paper they're written on -- except whoops, I guess they're not written on paper anymore.

Do you really think we are headed towards more territorial sovereignty, less psychotropic use, greater gender bifurcation, less draconian security measures, stronger national infrastructure and less debt?

Quote:Quote:

they are fueled not by any rational understanding of how things are likely to go, but by a pervasive sense of fear and guilt.

I don't think it's rational to believe that massive debt, greater pyschotropic use, open borders, harsher security measures, greater gender confusion/fluidity won't be a part of our future. You'd have a better argument if you simply said none of this matters -- that it's irrational of me to think it does -- irrational to judge our path based on antiquated notions of a time long past. But to say that's not our path? Come on.

Quote:Quote:

Well, guess what --I think we as a species are just getting warmed up.

I think we're the same we've always been. We just have better toys and less spiritual maturity.

Sawyer,

You cannot neglect what you call "computer science" because more than anything else that is indeed what will shape our future. That is what will bring about the "countervailing forces" that you fail to recognize.

The very local trends that you speak about (which I'll accept for the sake of argument, though I don't necessarily agree with your specific characterization) will be mooted by differences in kind brought about by increased computing power and all the unimaginable change that it entails.

Do you really believe that the vast transformation already brought on by what I denoted with the shorthand of "Google and Amazon" can be adequately characterized as having "better toys"? Is the ability to have infinitely more information than was dreamt of in the Library of Alexandria within the palm of your hand of no cognitive consequence to the human being? Does that really seem like a plausible idea if you stop and think about it?

As for our souls -- they are threatened far less by "unhinged libido", of which I see very little evidence in any case (judging by how willing most men are to become obedient and monogamous white-knights) -- than by the loss of faith in the future and the spread of mythologies of defeat and futility that dominate the current cultural climate. That is where the real danger lies.

The human spirit and indeed soul is at its best greatly various, adaptable and creative. It can feel threatened and thwarted by what seem like new or alien environments but it always finds ways to humanize them and surround itself with the warmth it craves. Look at a forum such as this one, and marvel at how the human mind takes an entirely new and unfathomable technology like the internet and makes a comfortable home of it. This is what human beings do -- if they approach the new world with patience and tenderness, rather than fear and dread. This is what we always do.

This is why I keep dwelling on those 50s sci-fi movies -- because they come from a mind and spirit that looks into a future that is shaped by human beings that set out to conquer the universe and humanize it. And the seemingly naive faith that emanates from these movies is in fact the most rational and justified way to look at the future, the world, and the human being's place in it.

Quote: (02-16-2014 01:44 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  

I'd bet $100 that Jenny Erickson is the author of this piece. That is where she blogs and I am sure she could not resist justifying her divorce, even under a nom de plume. There is nothing inconsistent in that piece from what Erickson has already written about her divorce.

Roosh V Forum threat: "Christian" woman decides to divorce husband, crew at Dalrock obliterate her

I was thinking the exact same thing. This thread could be subtitled, "Jenny Erikson, Is That You?"

Jenny got paranoid after a ton of people criticized her on her blog. She even shut off comments on her blog and deleted a bunch of comments.

She also blogs for The Stir. Virtually every time that Jenny writes something about her breakup, she gets savaged on the internet (because her actions are so obviously indefensible to everyone but her). It's clearly bothering her. She's also on record stating that she doesn't want to get into the details of her breakup with her husband.

Despite all this, Jenny is so self-absorbed and uncreative that it was always inevitable that she would return to writing about her divorce. This is especially so because Jenny is (1) not a good writer, (2) not intelligent or insightful, and (3) was sure to run out of material for her 33-post-a-week gig at The Stir in no time flat.

The writer of the "sex addict" article:
-only dated a few months before getting married;
-had a good marriage in the beginning;
-had multiple small kids before the breakup;
-had a husband who was faithful to her;
-had a husband who was "long-suffering";
-went to couples therapy;
-could not identify any single incident that justified or prompted a divorce;
-moved into a separate apartment after the breakup and took the kids with her;
-took a lot of criticism from her social circle for her decision to destroy her marriage with a loyal, faithful husband who merely wanted to have sex with her.

In addition to all this, the writer of the article has a poor writing style that utilizes a small vocabulary that is unduly reliant on made up words and contractions like "put-upon-ness" and "friggin'." That is typical of Jenny Erikson's barely-literate writing style.

All signs point to Jenny Erikson as the source of the article.

It just goes to show you. Even when women publicly promise not to trash the father of their children on their mommy blog, they cannot be trusted. Jenny Erikson may have just done it anonymously.

Although the wife certainly deserves some blame, this divorce was partly due to the husband having poor game. Although we don't know his side of the story, we do know he showed petty, bitchy emotion when he was denied sex.

As even the author points out in her post, hormones surge in a new relationship, and eventually wear off. Crudely, these hormones are similar to drugs in that our brains develop tolerance to them (the mechanism is different… in relationships, oxytocin and other such hormones stop being produced in response to the same old experiences (partner/spouse), as opposed to our brains developing tolerance to the hormones). The length of time it takes for this tolerance to develop varies individually, but the writing is on the wall… there is a shift in virtually every relationship after a certain amount of time. I don't believe women are being frivolous and cold when they say 'no' in a marriage, they are merely acting according to the diminishing effects of that initial high. It's biological.

If the guy acknowledged this from the beginning, preferably before walking off the plank, he'd already be doing something good to inoculate himself and delay the inevitable. Showing knowledge about relationships like that always wets the panties. But even after the wedding, after the kids, you still need to make yourself scarce, never ever show her big dried up vag holds power over your emotions, etc etc… you still need game.

Just read the article...I think you're absolutely correct glock.

This is jenny telling "her side" but doing it anonymously. Ever since Dalrock posted about her, the commentariat of the manosphere has been relentlessly poking her hamster every time she posts at the-stir and whenever tweets. It's been beautiful to behold!

Quote: (02-16-2014 06:33 PM)Rotisserie Wrote:  

Although the wife certainly deserves some blame, this divorce was partly due to the husband having poor game. Although we don't know his side of the story, we do know he showed petty, bitchy emotion when he was denied sex.

As even the author points out in her post, hormones surge in a new relationship, and eventually wear off. Crudely, these hormones are similar to drugs in that our brains develop tolerance to them (the mechanism is different… in relationships, oxytocin and other such hormones stop being produced in response to the same old experiences (partner/spouse), as opposed to our brains developing tolerance to the hormones). The length of time it takes for this tolerance to develop varies individually, but the writing is on the wall… there is a shift in virtually every relationship after a certain amount of time. I don't believe women are being frivolous and cold when they say 'no' in a marriage, they are merely acting according to the diminishing effects of that initial high. It's biological.

If the guy acknowledged this from the beginning, preferably before walking off the plank, he'd already be doing something good to inoculate himself and delay the inevitable. Showing knowledge about relationships like that always wets the panties. But even after the wedding, after the kids, you still need to make yourself scarce, never ever show her big dried up vag holds power over your emotions, etc etc… you still need game.

Some blame? You've got to be kidding. If his only fault is not having good enough "game," that is the same as admitting he has no real fault at all.

Being a guy who was married/with my ex wife for 12 years. She almost could have written that. Sex was all the time, constant for a couple years. Then it slowed, which I had no problem with as I figured it would.

The last two years was hardly any. I had to use the guest bathroom because one time I brushed up against her by mistake getting out of the shower. She took it that I wanted sex and blew up. When I was actually trying to avoid her and just get ready for work. She flipped out and that was it.
Soon after I took a job across the country and divorced her.

WD-40 is right on the money. If you are ok with at some point sex becoming almost non existent and even when it does happen it will be nothing like it was. Then go ahead and get married.

Quote: (02-16-2014 03:56 AM)Ziltoid Wrote:  

Sorry, but as much of a cunt as this bitch is, this guy deserves everything he gets.

Can't get sex from a bitch you're basically legally allowed to rape...? WTF is wrong with you?

Stick your dick in her face.
Wake her up forcibly from sleep and say, "Time for some fuckin', stupid."

Zero excuse.
Omega.

Uhhmmmm Ziltoid, you do realize that the courts established Marital Rape 50 years ago? Sounds like someone is still drinking the Feminist Koolaid that men are actually allowed to do this. In most jurisdictions, you have fewer rights than a stranger that dragged her into an alley due to draconian Domestic Violence laws.

Quote: (02-16-2014 06:38 PM)Glock Wrote:  

Some blame? You've got to be kidding. If his only fault is not having good enough "game," that is the same as admitting he has no real fault at all.

This is my main problem with MMSL. Because Game can fix some problem people tend to assume that it can fix every problem and if a guys marriage is falling apart it's because his Game isn't good enough. Thinking of Game in terms of a skillset is useful because it allows us to roughly track our progress. I want to be better this year than I was last year, etc. But that doesn't mean that there is some level of Game that will get me any girl I want - in fact that's exactly why newbie threads are about one girl and the more advanced threads are about patterns among many girls. How one situation plays out isn't necessarily a good indicator of your Game, what matters is long term are you doing better with women than you were last year? Your spouse is just one woman in your life. If your Game stops working with her there's no guarantee that any amount of improvement is going to change the situation.