@Durek_The_Bald

The respectability of cheating Vs. chasing:

Men who cheat on their frigid spouses are generally looked upon less favourably than men who keep chasing their frigid spouses. Not only by women, by other men as well. And not least, by themselves.

Granted, the guy who keeps chasing will feel bad about himself from a "value" point of view. And other people will see it as kinda pathetic and sad. But it won't be an issue with morality, ethics, or respectability.

Meanwhile, the guy who solves his problem by cheating on his wife will think of himself as a piece of shit. Other people will tell him he's a piece of shit. And if he asked online: "Hey, my wife doesn't want to fuck me. Should I cheat on her?", the answer will pretty unanimously be: "No don't cheat, cheating is the worst".

But is cheating really "the worst"? Is it worse than to keep soliciting for sex - covertly and overtly - someone who's already made it abundantly clear she isn't interested in you in that way? More dishes, more date nights, more back rubs, more communication. It's like the guy at the pub who keeps coming up to this chick who keeps rejecting him, trying to talk to her, trying to order her drinks.

Now, we all know this doesn't work. And even people outside this space increasingly know it doesn't work. But that's not my point. My point is: Is it even acceptable behavior, compared to just cheating? Is it more respectable behavior?

I would argue not. I would argue that cheating is preferable to chasing - not just from point of view of " what works" - but from point of view of which type of behaviour is more respectable, and morally sound. If the guy who keeps taking his wife on date nights doesn't feel like a piece of shit - and nobody else is telling him he's a piece of shit - why should the guy who simply cheats be seen as piece of shit?

In order of more to less respectability and moral/ethical soundness, I'd rank the three typical solutions to married men's sexual frustrations like this:

1. Leave
2. Cheat
3. Chase

That would depend on which of the most common motivators for entrance into marriage apply, such as:

• A sincere to form a family and spend the rest of their lives together.
• Deceived into marriage, as part of the females wealth building strategy.
• If the groom believed maintaining a romantic relationship with that specific female was worth marrying them to begin with.
• If the groom entered into marriage out of the misplaced idea that they had to do right by the child she claimed he sired.
• If the couple see their marriage as a medium through which they might engage in some type of marriage 2.0 experimentation.
• Or if the marriage is a total sham, so that either party can gain access to government, employer, or clan provided benefits.

@Durek_The_Bald

It's just that, in this thread, people were expressing what they don't want. So I got curious about what they do want.

My take?

I don't believe in hard power between the genders. I agree that marriage and divorce laws within the anglosphere are largely fucked, because they weaponize finances and custody in favour of women, thereby handing over hard power. That doesn't mean I think men should have any such power over women either though (I don't).

I think a fair divorce practice (if parties don't agree) is default 50/50 custody split, and default 50/50 split of assets made during the course of the marriage. And that's pretty much it. Possibly some form of child support as well, but nothing ridiculous.

I don't think it's an unrealistic thing to implement either. Many western countries (outside the anglosphere) already do. We're not very different cultures.

I don't think "staying together" is a good goal to have for a man. I don't count marriage success in staying together. You stay together for as long as it's enjoyable enough for you to stay together. The statistics on divorce impact on children are largely inflated, due to conflicts caused by unfair divorce laws. Divorce isn't anything for a man to fear, unless it's artificially, and unfairly made so.

Hard power doesn't make for an actual enjoyable dynamic. It's just enforced beta buxxery, a recipe for a not-so-enjoyable dynamic. Soft power makes for an enjoyable dynamic.

Soft power = be attractive + have boundaries + be at least somewhat competent.

It's not up to me to say who or what is "red pill" or not, but I personally find traditionalist conservativism to be semi bluepill.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBxgrr0wL8M

You mention culture, society, government, divorce, the sexes, wealth, and politics, more so than specifically authority itself. It reads like your own thoughts are still all over the place on this. I hope you take the time to keep asking questions until such a time as you've found conclusive answers for yourself.

The first experience any of us have with authority is what's exercised by our parents. Some of us had parents who exercised their authority over us well, while others did not. Some of us come out of those experiences seeking to be, among other things, better potential parents than those we had, while others did not. This tends to be the trend with the other groups you'll deal with in life. Some will be good, many will be bad. The proof of their health will be in their retention and growth.

In such things, as the Spider-man comics character Uncle Ben would say, "with great power, comes great responsibility". Whether employing hard power, or soft, how you ultimately wield it will inform others as to what sort of person you really are regardless of what mask you wear, or image you otherwise think you've built of yourself.

Regardless of context, I can only understand authority being for all practicality a license. Either from god, nature, or expressly issued from some worldly hierarchical organization, like a school, court, government, agency, the military, that exist to legitimize members to take action in fulfilling a given mission. Whether one may be understanding of that mission, or if their actions are moral or ethical, is a topic of discussion for another time. Whether you agree with it or not, that's just how I understand authority.