[thoughtgypsy]

(11-27-2015 09:52 PM)RioNomad Wrote:  

The simple fact is that the large, large majority of women are not marriage material.

For those of us who have graduated high school within the last 5-15 years, how many girls did you know that would make legitimately good wives and mothers?

How many of them didn't fuck multiple, sometimes 5-10 or more, guys before they turned 21?

How many can cook?

How many were thin?

How many conducted themselves with class and integrity?

How many wanted to become wives to good men and raise a family?

How many view marriage as a life long commitment, and don't believe divorce is a backup plan?

Honestly, I couldn't even fill up one hand with the number of women who meet the above criteria.

Excellent points. A woman who can't accomplish a majority of those points is fundamentally broken and not worthy of marriage. There comes a certain age when women are pining for marriage that they realize they're broken too. That's why they react with extreme shaming language when they see you dating a much younger, or foreign woman. They know they can't compete.

It used to bother me, but I've accepted it now. To give these gals credit, women are much more adaptable and their environment places zero pressure on them to improve themselves. Part of it is the massive thirst of many guys, and part of it is cultural entitlement complex for women.

What I don't understand though is when they get to the age where they're looking for commitment, they double down on the behavior that makes them damaged and get angry about advice that would actually help them. If I were a woman, I'd be beating a path to culinary lessons or even recipe websites. Instead, they get an extra cat and write on feminist websites how horrible men are.

I know some guys will say I'm looking in the wrong places, but this also applies to the "good girls" to some extent. Because the expectations are so low for women in the west, the vast majority has zero incentive to improve themselves, because they've never had to. I was seeing a 26 year old with 3 previous partners and a good relationship with her family. She was cool to be around, but still overweight, couldn't cook, and kept a messy apartment. I put her in the FB category, and asked her what the deal was. She said she doesn't like gender roles and thinks things should be equal. The next time we went out, I ordered a huge meal and made her pick up the check. I wish you could have seen her face. She looked like I just punched her grandma. I have never met a woman who could actually live up to their words. Anytime these women say they want equality, it's just another way of them saying they're too lazy and entitled to become wife material. Whenever I hear this shit, I make it a point to ask for separate checks right off the bat.

The west is toxic for women. I'm convinced the only real solution is emigrating to where it hasn't fully reached yet.

[rw95]

The west is toxic for women. I'm convinced the only real solution is emigrating to where it hasn't fully reached yet.
[/quote]

Sadly, it looks as though that option won't be available much longer.

[ed pluribus unum]

(11-27-2015 10:06 PM)Suits Wrote:  

The responses in this thread are absolutely brilliant.

I like a lot of what Gavin does, so I'll cut him some slack here. I'll admit my first thought was, "what's with the forensic dissection of a years-old song that nobody hears anymore?" Some valid points but poorly thought out or executed. The final redeeming feature of Gavin's post is the quality of comments it has spurred on RVF.

[Captainstabbin]

A. Regarding 1:01ish. Never believe the reason a woman gives for a breakup...they ALWAYS lie to make themselves an innocent victim.

The vast majority of relationships end because the sex dries up and women don't bring anything else of value to the relationship. It's the old saying, if guys only want sex from you, it's probably because you have nothing else to offer. As I've mentioned before, I sometimes attack feminists on Y!A - the biggest anti-marriage trend in modern women is summed in a common phrase, "Women (wives) don't owe men (husbands) anything." A wife doesn't owe you anything in marriage - in spite of the fact that she took vows specifically to owe you things.

Which leads to B.

What used to be vows for life has, to feminists, become a suggestion. "I vow to do whatever I what based on my emotions of the day and if that includes you, great. If not, I'll take your money and children from you and the courts will force you to support me." If a wife doesn't feel any responsibility to me, it means I can't depend on her...which makes marriage irrelevant.

Nothing about people has changed - men want sex, women want support. The difference is that, legally, women can renege on their vows with no repercussions, while men are legally bound forever.

Women have found a way to get access to a man's resources with no responsibility to that man. The feminist dream has become a reality.

[R_Niko]

(11-28-2015 02:20 AM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  

How out of touch is Gavin? He once tried to set up his 23-year old producer with Mercedes Carera, a porn star almost twice the boy's age. When the producer turned down the opportunity to date the star of "MILF Gangbangs 7", Gavin got mad and [url=http://takimag.com/article/a_no_jerk_reaction_gavin_mcinnes/print#axzz3slcTaMeb
]wrote a long post[/url] at Takimag about how men don't just want to date women, and blamed it on porn.

I believe she's 31-32, but your point is still a valid one.

(11-28-2015 02:20 AM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  

I hate to bring back the old manosphere trope of "shaming language" but it really does apply here. I guess even Gavin doesn't think he can sell you on the benefits of marriage, so instead you get a lecture about how you need to man up and marry the sluts. There wasn't a single word about why a man would want to get married, just a lot of hot air.

Bang on. This sentiment seems pervasive in our culture, with everyone telling young men to "man up" and take responsibility while refusing to even consider there might be something wrong with the women.

(11-28-2015 02:20 AM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  

I see lots of people who think they know what it takes to find a wife and have a successful marriage. They say things like, "If you want to get married, you have to go to a small town and look for a girl there," or, like Charles Martel above, "You need to game your wife endlessly, 24-7."
But I've never seen anyone in the manosphere who went to a small town and found a good girl there, or who was able to keep their wife happy by gaming them constantly. Just a lot of talk from people who've never actually done it. We're all virgin teenage boys, swapping sex tips we read in our older sister's copy of Cosmo.

This. Poignant.

[Constitution45]

I think marriage and relations between men and women have always been difficult. But generally it served as a rite of passage and a trial that was to be overcame. Once a man becomes more confident and understands how a woman's nature is different to his, then he can begin to focus on his purpose in life and less on simply obtaining comfort.

However what we have in the Anglosphere today, is a different animal completely.

[Saga]

Quote:

Men today are so spoiled rotten with infinite sex...

He very obviously has zero conception of what 90% of guys go through. Sexual 'liberation' plays out along highly asymmetrical lines, so all that "free milk" is increasingly available to only the top level of men. And this is common to almost all arenas of social interaction: college, nightclubs, dating apps, etc. Anyone with a basic grasp of neomasculine knowledge will know the reasons (hypergamy, SMV, alpha widowhood and so on), and men who've worked hard to bring their social presence from utter invisibility to being able to approach, meet and have satisfying relationships with women on a decently consistent basis will know the glaring inequities first-hand.

So no, most men aren't spoiled rotten with infinite sex...they're standing alone in a dark, stark nightclub, wondering why they wasted yet another night and paycheck chunk on something that brings them nothing in return. They're walking around a college campus wishing they were someone else. They're fruitlessly swiping right again, again, again and again in some fetid dating videogame that makes tetris seem profoundly human in comparison.

Nothing against Gavin, at times he's an indispensable voice, but I think he's the one who's been spoiled. Paucity of experience and reflection is the only way a perceptive person could come to such a mistaken conclusion.

[The Lizard of Oz]

(11-28-2015 12:29 AM)Charles Martel Wrote:  

1. NEVER wife-up a whore. A whore defined as a woman with more than three life time sexual events. "Oh? You've been with four guys? (That means a minimum of twelve anyway) See ya!"

u wot m8?

(11-28-2015 12:29 AM)Charles Martel Wrote:  

2. Game your wife endlessly. 24-motherfucking-7.

Credit for one of the most brutally annoying sentences I've ever head the displeasure of reading.

(11-28-2015 01:56 PM)Saga Wrote:  

So no, most men aren't spoiled rotten with infinite sex...they're standing alone in a dark, stark nightclub, wondering why they wasted yet another night and paycheck chunk on something that brings them nothing in return. They're walking around a college campus wishing they were someone else. They're fruitlessly swiping right again, again, again and again in some fetid dating videogame that makes tetris seem profoundly human in comparison.

No man. Why the endless exaggeration?

Most dudes are neither "spoiled rotten with endless sex" NOR "standing alone in a dark, stark nightclub" (LOL). Most dudes on a college campus will hook up with some girl every once in a while and/or have a couple of girlfriends while they're there. The hookups are not necessarily frequent and the girls are not necessarily beauties, but that's just how it is. It's true that there may be a lacrosse star who's fucked every athletics slut on campus, and there will be some severe geeks and aspies who never get any (although given that coeds are now the majority on most campuses even the latter can usually find a girlfriend with some effort). But neither of these extremes is at all representative of the typical guy's experience.

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.

[Hades]

Marriage minded women don't need to be gamed endlessly because they make an effort to resist temptation.

I know its like speaking a foreign language to you guys but when women lived in a day and age where they considered it a mark of status to have a husband, children, and be active in the church and community, and often lived on farms and lived harsh lives, they just didn't bother fucking around as much. I almost consider it an aspect of how safe and easy society has gotten where being abandoned by the father and head of house is not a big deal. We live in an age of decadence where marriage is not really needed as an institution, as shitty as that is for almost everybody.

Kudos to lizard of oz for voicing my sentiments exactly, Charles Martel's comment is pretty irritating.

[username]

I like a lot of what Gavin McInnes' opinions and the videos he puts out but this one was garbage. I couldn't listen to the whole thing.

[Wutang]

I'll defend Gavin a bit here just to play devil's advocate. Disclaimer: I'm a pretty big fan of his material.

I know in this particular vid he's shitting on males pretty hard but he has called out females in the past for not doing their part - just look at any of the Gavin vs feminism videos around on youtube. Below is one that has been posted on the forum before:

And if you look at the video posted in the OP from 6:00 and on he does have a little "heart to heart" with the ladies - he did cut down on the swearing and general mockery but he still was pretty straight forward with his points - mainly that girls have to stop giving the milk away for free if they're going to be complaining about "where all the good guys have gone?" He also tells girls straight up that there's a time limit for them to settle down as opposed to all the articles talking about how 40 is the new 20 and to not listen to the feminists that are telling women to slutwalk and yolo it up. This is way different the usual MSM platform that tells women that they can have everything while contributing nothing in return. Rater there's an acknowledgement that it takes two to tango. Yeah he had to mix it up with some "You are valuable" and go girl-isms but hey remember he's address women here and they aren't as accepting of cold hard truth without plenty of honey to coat it.

[Saga]

(11-28-2015 02:21 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

No man. Why the endless exaggeration?

Perhaps my personal experience is slanted but I don't think the picture I painted is as extreme as you make it seem. Getting a hookup every once in awhile in a highly sexualized environment carries a lot of static noise in between...the disparity between expectation (largely peddled by the media) and reality makes for a rough time for young men who haven't refined their game. You're right, the average and everyday can't get overlooked, but getting a decent relationship with a nice looking girl isn't what a lot of men would call mundane, and that's my real point: many would be joyful to get what others might call mundane.

So your point is taken, I'll not disagree with you that a middle ground exists...I simply think it's being eroded by various factors, and those on the wrong side of it are the most likely to be glossed over.

As a last thought, I often suspect that there's a degree of selective storytelling at work. No one really tells their friends about the 12 nights out that yielded nothing, of course they prefer to talk about the 1 time they pulled. Realism means giving fair consideration to the 12.

[Captainstabbin]

(11-28-2015 03:08 PM)Saga Wrote:  

As a last thought, I often suspect that there's a degree of selective storytelling at work. No one really tells their friends about the 12 nights out that yielded nothing, of course they prefer to talk about the 1 time they pulled. Realism means giving fair consideration to the 12.

Like the gambler who constantly talks about his $50k night but never mentions the losses or that he's still $100k in the hole.

(11-28-2015 12:29 AM)Charles Martel Wrote:  

2. Game your wife endlessly. 24-motherfucking-7. For those of us whom it does not come naturally, it is not easy...it is exhausting. Nevertheless, that is the requirement of a successful marriage and you had better understand that from the beginning.

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?

[R_Niko]

(11-28-2015 03:22 PM)Captainstabbin Wrote:  

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.

[Renzy]

(11-28-2015 03:22 PM)Captainstabbin Wrote:  

(11-28-2015 12:29 AM)Charles Martel Wrote:  

2. Game your wife endlessly. 24-motherfucking-7. For those of us whom it does not come naturally, it is not easy...it is exhausting. Nevertheless, that is the requirement of a successful marriage and you had better understand that from the beginning.

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?

I think a lot of men want to believe that Marriage 1.0 is still possible as long as you are Red Pill enough / game her enough (24/7) / hold frame at all times / etc.

This is the flip side of female hypoagency (the idea that women are not responsible for anything): male hyperagency - the idea that men are responsible for everything.

I think men want to believe this because then they can convince themselves that with enough effort they can *always* control the outcome (rather than just influence it) with women and get the security they desire.

To me it's ironically a very liberal view in the sense that it implies that people only behave badly because of external circumstances. IE, a woman only cheats if you weren't red pill enough sounds like the same reasoning liberals use when they ague that people only commit crimes because society drove them to it.

[thoughtgypsy]

(11-28-2015 04:00 PM)R_Niko Wrote:  

(11-28-2015 03:22 PM)Captainstabbin Wrote:  

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]

(11-28-2015 02:21 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

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:

(10-03-2015 10:19 AM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

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]

(11-28-2015 04:41 PM)thoughtgypsy Wrote:  

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]

(11-29-2015 10:24 AM)Renzy Wrote:  

(11-28-2015 04:41 PM)thoughtgypsy Wrote:  

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]

(11-29-2015 04:33 AM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  

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.