The trouble with alcohol only at celebrations is the risk of going to a bash turning into going on a bender
Sounds kinda weak on your part. Like, you want to simultaneously be incapable (for whatever reason) and command respect/submission. Can't have one without the other. Don't know what the nature of your medical condition is. But if you're going to be out of commission, then maybe let your wife decide for herself what she needs. If you just acknowledged that in the first place, then you wouldn't have to lose face by first resisting, and then not getting your way anyways.
That whole "not coming around for Easter holidays" ordeal seems kinda pointy and childish too. If your frame is really so weak that you can't stomach an Easter holiday around your nagging (but helpful) mother-in-law, then maybe you should take it as an opportunity to practice a bit of game.
As for the first 2-3 years of a kid's life; Sure, you could say a lot of the practical, baseline nurturing stuff is more mother's domain. But you still form a strong bond with them (one that subconsciously impacts them for the rest of their lives). And that takes time spent with them.
Read MoreAITAH for giving my wife an insincere complement?
She was feeling down, and so she asked me to give her a sincere compliment. I told her: "Your beard looks nice". I was lying though. Her beard doesn't look nice.
This is where you and I differ on this. You seem to think "ignorance is bliss" for the unplugged guy.
Not quite. No one is promised bliss under anything, but rather just optimized outcomes. In the real world, and all too frequently, "optimized" really means "least shitty".
As long as he's plugged in, the old social contract is going to work for him.
Also not quite.
More like, for the average plugged-in man, the old way was better.
He wouldn't ruin it by unplugging, but he'd likely never have the sort of life changing event that causes most men to unplug.
He will know frustration and misery in so many ways
Certainly less frustration and misery than most men have now in the current system.
Fat chicks and trade cons have this thing in common where, despite knowing how people actually work, they'd rather try to shame everyone into becoming how they think people "ought to be", in stead of just getting with the program, accepting reality for what it is, and adjusting accordingly.
Fat chick goes: "Men bad for not being into fat chicks! Reason: Problematic society! Choose me in stead, or else shame on you! Men should lower their standards! Me seeing the inside of a gym, and stop stuffing my face = not an option!"
Trad-con goes: "Women bad for not being into dependable guy! Reason: Problematic society! Choose me in stead, or else shame on you! Women should lower their standards! Me leaving my Christian, blue pill ideals behind, and go out and get laid = not an option!"
Read More@Durek_The_Bald as far as the working class is concerned, you are right.
But for as low as the lower-middle class, the mistress was quite normalized. You didn't face automatic divorce. And you certainly didn't expect your wife to cheat, as much as it is today.
I don't think we can appreciate the "old way of things" unless we bring the marital triad (husband, wife, mistress) into focus.
Apex fallacy. It may have been that way for the nobility, and maybe the top 20% of guys But average Joe, working the steel plant, doesn't have a mistress (unless he's hot, charming stuff). No, he goes to the brothel on the rare occasion he can afford it, comes home with syphilis, and gets beaten over the head with a rolling pin.
@woodsmoke, @derdeutscher, and I think @Vermillion-Rx to an extent are putting themselves into the shoes of the men who don't know about this stuff, and thinking about what would set them up for the most desirable life.
(...)
I mean, I personally know the things I need to do to maximize my odds of favorable outcomes. I'd rather live as things are with what I now know. But thinking about all the men who will never find a space like this or any other Red Pill material, I think they may have been much better off under the old system with marriage 1.0. Too many of them are just left with nothing.
This is where you and I differ on this. You seem to think "ignorance is bliss" for the unplugged guy. As long as he's plugged in, the old social contract is going to work for him.
I'd argue it's not, and that the ignorance us going to bite him in the ass. He will know frustration and misery in so many ways, even if he can't put two and two together as to why. Rather, not being able to put two and two together is going to make it that much worse. Because now he's going to think he "deserves" stuff, and be mad as a result.
Ref. "Michael's Story" - which really is a story about how guys hobble themselves, and grow resentful, by clinging onto the "good, Christian boy" thing, and working from the perspective of how women "should" be, and what women "should" appreciate.
Why should a man lose his house, access to his kids, etc because of fleeting feelings?
I agree with that. Divorce doesn't have to be unnecessarily difficult for neither women nor men. Draconian divorce laws (and practices) need to die in places where they haven't already (certain parts of the English speaking world, it seems).
Read More@Durek_The_Bald I still need to go back and read through what everyone said. I was in the middle of getting caught up late yesterday afternoon but got interrupted and never got back to it.
From what I remember seeing so far, I think the two "sides" (for lack of a better term) of this discussion are talking past each other a bit.
You, @mattyanon, and whoever I'm forgetting in my pre-coffee haze are looking at things from the perspective of guys who have been unplugged for a while.
@woodsmoke, @derdeutscher, and I think @Vermillion-Rx to an extent are putting themselves into the shoes of the men who don't know about this stuff, and thinking about what would set them up for the most desirable life.
For my part, life had and still has its problems and uncertainties no matter what time period one picks, and I can see the advantages (and disadvantages) in either one.
Because I like things being based on tingles and horniness, rather than duty, commitment, and potential punishment
Why not both?
Tingles can come and go. Why should a man lose his house, access to his kids, etc because of fleeting feelings?
covenants without the sword are mere words
I mean, I personally know the things I need to do to maximize my odds of favorable outcomes. I'd rather live as things are with what I now know. But thinking about all the men who will never find a space like this or any other Red Pill material, I think they may have been much better off under the old system with marriage 1.0. Too many of them are just left with nothing.
Read More