Lighting the Fire

This post is a response to Sunshine Mary’s thread titled Is it possible to generate sexual attraction in a marriage where there has never been any? I’m going to try and answer that question, and hopefully clear up a few things in the process. Here is the central question that she asked:

But let’s say there is a situation, however rare, where a woman has married a man to whom she is not sexually attracted at all.  Is there anything that can be done by either the husband or the wife to create attraction where there was none to begin with?

I would say that the answer is yes. Both the husband and the wife can help “create” attraction where there was none before. It is possible to create a spark in order to get the fire started.  Although I would say that only the husband can generate attraction. Before I explain further, some clarification is required.

Clarifications-

I noticed there was a lot of confusion over the meaning and use of words like attraction and arousal. I’m sure that other manospherians have their own definitions of these terms, so I’m going to briefly explain how I use the words in order that the rest of this make sense.

Attraction- Refers to sexual attraction. A good description would be sex appeal.

Attractive- Short for sexually attractive. Signifies an individual whom a member of the opposite sex would be willing to have sex with.

Arousal- A state of sexual excitement.

Desirable- An attractive individual who also possesses certain character and personality traits that members of the opposite sex want in a mate.

See here for ideas on what men find attractive and desirable in a woman.

The Goal

There are two different approaches here: the women making her husband more attractive in her eyes, and the husband making himself more attractive in his wife’s eyes.  The LAMPS formula provides some guidelines on how either process would work, as it explains what features women find attractive in men. Raising the value of one of those categories increases a man’s overall attractiveness to women.

In order to “create” attraction where there was none before, a man needs to move from “unattractive” in his wife’s eyes to “attractive.” In my post Romantic Architecture I provided a graphic showing how this might look:

1-10 Scale of men- Hypergamy doesn't care

The goal is for the husband to move from below his wife’s attraction floor to above it. That means increasing his effective LAMPS “score” in his wife’s eyes to a level where she will be sexually attracted to him. Athol Kay’s MAP is one example of how a man can go about this. Working out, getting a higher status, better paid job and becoming more masculine are all critical steps in a man becoming more attractive.

Something from Nothing

Some of the commenters at Sunshine Mary’s blog seem to think that you can’t create attraction from nothing. But this is what happens with every man that a woman encounters. He starts off as a blank slate to her, and as time passes she will evaluate his attractiveness and decide how he measures up. Given the hypergamous nature of women, it doesn’t make sense to presume that men start off attractive in the eyes of a woman. No, the only logical conclusion is that they start off unattractive indifferent[NSR has pointed out that the word Indifferent is a superior choice here, and I agree] and then are rated upward.

The problem that an unattractive husband faces is that his wife has a highly developed evaluation of where he fits on her “scale” of male attractiveness. Essentially, his position has hardened over time. Even if he raises his LAMPS values, he will be fighting against that deep seated impression of him that she holds. This means that he will have to work harder to raise his attractiveness in his wife’s eyes than would be the case for another woman who doesn’t know him as well.

Of course, that assumes there was no attraction to begin with. In the graphic above  there was a very clear line separating attractive from unattractive. I’m not convinced that the line is actually like that in real life. It could be that in reality there is no distinct point separating the two, but instead a blurry region of uncertainty where a man might be somewhat attractive. At such a point he might or might not be able to arouse a woman, with outside environmental factors making the difference (alcohol,  where she is in her cycle). Or it could be that it is the man’s position which is uncertain, with him occupying not a discrete point but falling within a certain region that might nor might not cross the line from unattractive to attractive. At this point I can only speculate.

Attraction v. Arousal

I wanted to really quickly distinguish between how attraction and arousal work for men and women.

The male arousal threshold is lower than the male attraction threshold. A man can be aroused by a woman to whom he is not attracted. For a visual understanding:

1-10 Scale of women with attractive and unattractive lines

The “not unattractive” region would be one where a man might not necessarily find a woman attractive, but might still be aroused by her. Since men can be aroused fairly easily by certain stimuli (especially visual and tactile), even a woman who is below his standard attraction floor can arouse him. In fact, I suspect that you could rename the “not unattractive” floor to “arousal” floor without affecting its accuracy.

Women, on the other hand, have an arousal threshold that is higher than their attraction threshold. This means that, barring extreme circumstances, a woman can only get aroused (think Tingles) by a man that she finds attractive. The more attractive the man is, the easier it is for him to arouse her. This plays into why there are two types of duty sex. There is duty sex where the woman is attracted to her husband, and duty sex where she is not. If she is attracted to her husband than it is just a matter of him arousing her during their conjugal relations in order for her to enjoy it. When she isn’t attracted to her husband, I suspect that he cannot arouse her during intercourse, and as a result she cannot enjoy it. In fact, the experience is probably quite unpleasant for her, because any physical pleasure she receives is more than offset by her mental/emotional distress at having intercourse with an unattractive man. This link between attraction and arousal in women is why duty sex is a “hard sell” to wives who aren’t attracted to their husband.

Submission and Attraction

Here is what Sunshine Mary said about submission’s role in attraction:

  If a woman decides that she is going to train herself to see her man as sexually appealing, what she needs to do is view herself as his subordinate in the relationship.  If she sees herself as being owned by him, as having a duty to obey him and serve him in all ways, including sexually, that increases his relative power in the relationship without his having to do anything.  I am not talking about D/s role-playing, either, a subject about which I know very little. I am talking about a radical transformation in how she views herself in relation to her husband.  Feminine submission to masculine authority generates sexual attraction in the same way that game does – by changing the power dynamic in the relationship.

I think that she is on the right track here. When a wife submits to her husband’s authority, she can alter her attraction to him. It is not so much that she (or he) is generating attraction, but that she is recalibrating her attraction filters to him and him alone. Two things are happening: she is changing her status in relation to his, and she is magnifying the effects of his Masculine Power.

The hypergamous nature of women means that a mans Status value depends not only on his overall position in society, but also his position and authority in relation to the individual woman. By submitting to her husband, a wife lowers her position relative to his, and enhances his Status value in her eyes. This makes him more attractive, which makes it easier for her to submit to him in the first place. As for Power, as a general rule the more submissive a woman is, the more feminine her nature will be. This will contrast more strongly with the Masculine Power of her husband, boosting it in her eyes.

By itself I don’t think that this is enough in most cases. While she can magnify her husbands Status and Power in her eyes, he still has to have a certain amount to begin with in order for it to move him from unattractive to attractive. If he is close to the line to begin with, than submission might make all of the difference. Certainly if she has the opposite attitude it stands to reason it would lower his attractiveness in her eyes, and so fixing it might boost him above the floor. I should note that there is also the risk that a wife who doesn’t submit, when faced with a more attractive husband (who will naturally have to be more assertive as well) will rebel against him. The power shift in her relationship threatens her, and fear may induce her to actively fight her husband in whatever manner she can.

Conclusion

Yes, it is possible to generate attraction where there was none before. It isn’t easy, and will take a long time for the husband to chip away at his wife’s impression of him. But it can be done, both by him improving himself and boosting his LAMPS values, and by his wife adopting a submissive attitude.

Update:

Ballista has challenged my “blank slate” idea of how women rate men as attractive. His words:

The issue is not “creating attraction from nothing” as she frames it, but “creating attraction from disgust”. To clarify the definition, disgust is the exact opposite of attraction. Many marriages exist for reasons other than attraction, namely because women can’t have the bull alphas (or apex alphas as you put it).

In other words, this woman didn’t start with a blank slate (and actually women almost never do – their own perceptions color men they deal with from second one with a man). She came to look at the peon beta with disgust because she couldn’t have her very own apex alpha. But her baby rabies, or the need to have status with the herd caused her to settle for this lesser man that repulses her the moment she looks at him.

What Ballista is proposing is a different idea on how attraction works for women. Rather than being a 1-10 scale, it is more akin to the -10 to 10 scale that Deep Strength has discussed at different occasions. Here is a visualization of this:

-10 to 10 scale of male attractiveness

While I think that such a model has merit, I disagree with him that once a man enters the disgust phase, he can’t claw his way back out. However, I must acknowledge that both of us are speculating here. There aren’t any studies which have ever covered this to be the best of my knowledge. And as Deep Strength has pointed out, most marriages that enter the negative territory tend to dissolve quickly. So testing out which of us is correct is something that nigh-well impossible to accomplish.

Perhaps Ballista is correct that women who “come into marriages with bitter hearts and that bitterness comes out in disgust towards the sorry victim of her rage,” cannot change their impression of their husband. I’m not convinced he is correct. But I have to acknowledge that he might be. Which again explains why I am very discerning when it comes to a potential wife.

 

Update 2: Ballista has written a post in response to this thread and its comments.

148 Comments

Filed under Alpha, Attraction, Beta, Desire, LAMPS, Marriage, Men, Red Pill, Women

148 responses to “Lighting the Fire

  1. deti

    “a guy who can’t be an effective husband outside of the bedroom will quickly become a turnoff to his wife “

    LOL. You’re a believer in “utilitarian tingles” too. Guess I shouldn’t be surprised.

  2. deti

    This “utilitarian tingles” nonsense deserves a post of its own, donal. That BS needs to die the quick death it deserves.

  3. You’re a believer in “utilitarian tingles” too. Guess I shouldn’t be surprised.

    LOL. Um, no. I’m decidedly not a believer in utilitarian tingles. I do believe in utilitarian negative tingles though.

  4. deti

    “What decent, sane, family-oriented woman gets turned on by a guy who can’t take care of his family?”

    LOL.

    Every Good Christian Girl who gave it up to a bad boy,

    Every GCG who gave it up to the worship leader at church camp.

    Every GCG who gave it up to the football quarterback.

    Every GCG who told the nice church guy how great a guy he is while climbing on the back of Harley McBadboy’s motorcycle.

    Every GCG who married the jerk dumb jock and divorced him five years later because he’s a deadbeat.

    Every GCG who stays with her layabout douchebag hot husband.

  5. Deep Strength

    Husbands are expected to provide: no tingles

    When they don’t provide: negative tingles

    There are no tingles for doing what you’re “supposed to.”

    Now, if this was some African tribe, and you made a nice spear throw and all of the men came back from a hunt and were praising your spear throw. That would provide your woman tingles (status tingles). Unfortunately, no modern job provides tingles unless you are boss level or running your own company and she can see you be a leader in action (status tingles).

    Protection provides tingles because the woman gets to see you exerting power/violence/etc. over another human being.

  6. @ Deep Strength

    Unfortunately, no modern job provides tingles unless you are boss level or running your own company and she can see you be a leader in action (status tingles).

    Major athletes would be another exception.

  7. I made a point of NOT using the *GCG* as my hypothetical woman. I made a point of noting that the woman in question is looking for someone to build a family with. This is a minority of young women, yes. But still..

    And you go and drag out the foolish woman who is looking for a thrill whilst hoping she can possibly change a loser into a family man.

    You’re as closed off to our real life experiences as you claim we are to yours. You’re actually worse, because I’ve felt actual sadness at some of your anecdotes. Prayed prayers for you.

    And you come back and tell us that what we have experienced isn’t real or relevant.

    Pot, meet kettle.

  8. Utilitarian tingles?

    I can see how providing for a woman can increase her affection for a man, IF she is already attracted to him. Provisioning can be like underlining the M & P in LAMPS.

    But, what if the husband is the nerd from the godaddy commercials?

    This guy could provision til the cows come home, and it’s not going to light anyone’s fire.

  9. There is only so much that a woman can do to “choose to be interested.

    There’s only so much anyone can do about anything. There’s actually quite a lot a woman can do, in this instance – practicing right behavior informs right attitude.

    I’m sorry you believe “utilitarian tingles” to be rubbish, Donal. That doesn’t make them so. Cheap tingles can come from anywhere, and are fleeting. Those of substance, the sticky kind, are forged, not sprinkled about by the Magic Tingle Fairy like pixie dust or something, and intelligence is a factor in recognizing what might be gold rather than what is merely shiny. I realize we’re at an impasse here, and I don’t want to further derail/hijack your thread, but the vastness of experiential differences doesn’t mean one is real and one is not. I’m not sure what is to be gained by denying the whole truth.

  10. Are we even talking about the same things Velvet, when you and I use the word “tingles”?

  11. This guy could provision til the cows come home, and it’s not going to light anyone’s fire.

    I could have him about a half-dozen possible dates by 5:30. I could probably have him married by Christmas, to a woman who loved him, assuming he’s interested. People don’t know how to find each other in our age of connectivity. He’s adorable anyway, nerd sells.

  12. We must be living on different worlds Velvet. I have no idea where you get this “nerd sells” stuff from. And when you are talking about that guy in particular…

  13. BTW,

    The godaddy nerd–Jesse Heiman–is 36 years old. He is at the height of his SMV.

    Maybe instead of talking about this in a theoretical vacuum, we should use Mr. Heiman as our example husband.

    Would it be possible to generate sexual attraction between Jesse Heiman and a woman who married him despite never being attracted to him?

    And yes, it is entirely possible he could marry. He makes good money; works in a glamorous industry; and is a celebrity–he has the M & S of LAMPS in abundance.

  14. We do live in different worlds, Donal. I’m actually mid-conversation with an objectively hot friend whose own husband asked her if she has “nerdar”, as the type is her preference. Women are weirdos, I’ll give you that, and we’re not at all consistent in what we find attractive, but assuming average intelligence, we are almost universally consistent in not wanting to watch our children starve while we pick aluminum cans out of the trash for the rebate all for the love of PlayuhThug or some deadbeat with a nice [posterior]. I don’t understand why that’s so hard to understand.

    Nerd sells because high intelligence = candidate for provision = attractive. These were the guys in high school who kept friend zoning the girls who had crushes on them because Science Fair! Assuming they didn’t opt for the Gamer/pizza delivery career they’re very marketable. And it’s just as for women who aren’t fabulously beautiful – change his clothes, change his diet, and cut his hair and he’s quite appealing.

  15. Sorry, I swore on your blog. Will you please change a** for me?

    [Ed: Fixed]

  16. I think women either notice men, or they don’t. If men don’t even cross the radar and thereby make the ‘possible’ list, then any interaction with that man will repulse/annoy/creep out the woman.
    How can a man go from ZERO attraction to attraction?
    Seems to me, said man would have to CHANGE who he is in some way shape or form which doesn’t really mean that he’s generated attraction but become more ATTRACTIVE.

    That clip is a FRIENDS episode that jumps to mind (haven’t watched it in years!) where Brad Pitt plays a guy who weighed 150lbs heavier in highschool and Rachel didn’t even know he existed. Enter Brad Pitt, and she’s suddenly all interested…. Pretty funny clip if you can be bothered. Quite painful moments!

  17. I fixed it Velvet.

    And yes, we clearly live in different worlds. Because I never have seen “nerd sell” outside of someone with kind of money that Bill Gates or Steve Jobs had.

    These were the guys in high school who kept friend zoning the girls who had crushes on them because Science Fair!

    What? You actually saw this? Good grief, I am really trying my best to not think you are trolling here. I concede that this might be possible, but it is so far outside my experiences as to be near-impossible to believe.

    Assuming they didn’t opt for the Gamer/pizza delivery career they’re very marketable

    Marketable to whom Velvet? To whom? To women who rode the carousel for years only to get thrown off, and are not desperate for babies and an ATM? Some women, almost certainly those raised properly, will perhaps see value in those men. But even then they won’t necessarily find them attractive.

  18. I think the negative tingling effect of an unintelligent man or a man withougt a drive to do something is being discounted.

    Whether you call it “utilitarian tingles” or whether you call it what I call it, the negative tingle effect when these things are missing, the point is that either way, provision makes a difference in the sex department over the long haul.

    I feel like channeling Zippy here. The post is about kindling attraction in marriage, the only acceptable place for sexual expression, and you have these commenters who keep dragging random GCG, Harley McBadboy and his motorcycle into it.

    Unless they are married to each other, they really have no place in this discussion. And I guarantee you if they are married, the lights are off, and baby needs anew pair of shoes, he probably won’t be gettin’ any.

  19. @ Elspeth

    I’m a little confused by your categorization of a man who is a 7 or greater beta as “unattractive.”

    Since when is 7 on a 1-10 scale a bad thing? I know it’s a male scale, but still. Numbers are numbers.

    By the way, that graphic I used in the main post showing the line at 7/8 for male attractiveness was purely arbitrary. I said as much in the post I created it for. But I do think it is accurate in explaining how women view far less men as attractive than men view women as attractive. Also, a 7 is not bad for a woman, it is good. But it is not good for a man, because women are so much more selective.

    Also, I tend to agree with the concept of “negative tingles”. But not necessarily the reasons you provided. A man who can’t provide, a man without a job, is low Status. This lowers his LAMPS values, and thus lowers his attractiveness.

  20. deti

    I understood very well what and who you were talking about, Elspeth. I grew up knowing several such women you’re talking about.

    One was a nice, kind woman. Decent. Sane. Family oriented. Fell in love with a drunk douchebag. Had two kids by him before deciding she couldn’t take it anymore, and divorced him. Stupid woman, ruled by her tingles. Totally turned on by a guy who couldn’t take care of his family.

    Another was a decent, sane family oriented woman. Nice lady. Fell in love with a deadbeat meth user. Had a kid by him. Divorced him when the state ruled him an unfit father.

    Should I go on?

    As you can see, decent, sane and family oriented does not mean “intelligent” or “not ruled by tingles”.

  21. Women are not physically attracted to the average man, unlike men who ARE physically attracted to average women.
    Power and looks are the things that make a female physically respond in favour toward a man. Given that this feeling is ‘rarer’ for a woman, and not something to be dealt with on a daily basis (as it is for men) I think many many many ‘decent, sane and family oriented’ women throw caution to the wind when she actually DOES feel physically aroused/attracted.
    Wanting sex with a man right there and then has nothing to do with provision or sensible thinking…. it’s all about the moment.
    (a moment they may have to contend with for a lifetime… but that’s later)

  22. deti

    “Women are weirdos, I’ll give you that, and we’re not at all consistent in what we find attractive, but assuming average intelligence, we are almost universally consistent in not wanting to watch our children starve while we pick aluminum cans out of the trash for the rebate all for the love of PlayuhThug or some deadbeat with a nice [posterior]. I don’t understand why that’s so hard to understand. “

    *Scratches head, bangs head on desk*

    WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT!!??

    PlayuhThug is attractive. NiceGuyProvider can be used. The fact that NiceGuyProvider keeps her and her kids out of the poorhouse and off the soupkitchen line DOES NOT MEAN HE’S ATTRACTIVE!!

  23. deti

    A woman’s intelligence has absolutely ZERO to do with what she finds sexually attractive.

    I’ve seen National Honor Society members in the back seats of cars with Dumb Jock McNiceButt. I’ve seen female lawyers going home with bartenders. I’ve seen the most intelligent, capable, hardworking women who can figure out spreadsheets and summarize thousands of pages of documents go all weak-kneed and flushed at that hot guy across the bar.

  24. @Elspeth, I agree that a man’s lack of ability to provision can be a sexual arousal killer.

    For one thing, a man’s ego is closely tied to his ability to provide for his family. A man that is unable to provide for his family (due to a job loss, injury, or inability to progress in his career) generally takes a huge confidence hit. And we know that men that lack confidence are a turn off for women.

    @Velvet, I think mixing apples and oranges. Consider these two statements:

    1) he provides, so she is turned on

    2) he provides, so she is not turned off

    These two statements are not the same. Provisioning might prevent a woman from getting turned off (due to its lack), but it’s hard to fathom that a woman will get sexually turned on by a man’s ability to provide, unless…she’s a gold-digger.

    Think about what you are really saying when you talk about “utilitarian tingles.” This implies that you get sexually turned on by a man’s money–by the size of his bank account. That’s what the men reading your comments think, and that’s why it’s so hard for them to believe you.

    @Donalgraeme, I think @Velvet has outed herself as a troll (or delusional) with her “nerds putting girls in the friend zone” comment.

  25. deti

    “Nerd sells because high intelligence = candidate for provision = attractive.”

    Um. No.

    High intelligence = candidate for provision = DESIRABLE BECAUSE CAN BE USED FOR PROVISION.

    Fixed it for you.

  26. @ 8-12

    Actually, I think that money can be factor in making a man attractive. I included it in my LAMPS formula, after all. The problem is that it takes a LOT of money for it to make that much of a difference in attraction. Now, for desirability, that is another matter.

    I think @Velvet has outed herself as a troll (or delusional) with her “nerds putting girls in the friend zone” comment.

    I don’t think she is a troll. But I am inclined towards delusional. I mean, I’m trying to think of when I’ve seen a nerd put a woman in the friend-zone. From my experience they are so unlikely to get female attention they/we would never reject any that came their way.

    More likely is that the nerd never recognized the female attention for what it was. Most nerds have little to no experience with women, and so miss indicators of interest that would be obvious to other men.

  27. Updated the post to include the new graphic, and briefly respond to Ballista.

  28. He starts off as a blank slate to her, and as time passes she will evaluate his attractiveness and decide how he measures up. Given the hypergamous nature of women, it doesn’t make sense to presume that men start off attractive in the eyes of a woman. No, the only logical conclusion is that they start off unattractive and then are rated upward.

    Something about this didn’t sound right to me, but I wasn’t hitting on the right word to fix it until FBNF wrote “I was indifferent to him, then found him annoying and therefore unattractive (“unattractive” can be interpreted as “disgust” in many cases),” The last line in your paragraph might read better as “they start off indifferent and then are rated upward.”

    women deliberately choose to be disinterested all.the.time, so it stands to reason she can choose to be interested.

    Since I’m being all annoyingly legalistic and shazbot, I suppose I should point out that “disinterested” should probably be “uninterested.” Our culture has gotten lax on word usage, so now no one knows that “disinterested” meant “not having a stake or concern in a matter” and not “Bored now!”

    This post was just something I whipped up quickly. Not exactly on the back of a napkin

    I hope you remembered the difference between 18′ and 18″, Nigel… I mean Donal.

  29. deti

    Elspeth:

    I don’t begrudge you your experience. It’s just that, as we’ve discussed elsewhere, you keep trying to tell us your experiences are normal and typical. They are not. They aren’t typical of most women, and SAM’s are not typical of most men, from what you’ve written. Your bewilderment at this, and your continual clinging to the belief that your experiences are typical of the modern day SMP, is a source of constant fascination to me.

  30. Donal
    Thanks for the linkbacks. Great post.

    I think that she is on the right track here. When a wife submits to her husband’s authority, she can alter her attraction to him. It is not so much that she (or he) is generating attraction, but that she is recalibrating her attraction filters to him and him alone. Two things are happening: she is changing her status in relation to his, and she is magnifying the effects of his Masculine Power.

    100% agree.

    I plan to read the comments later tonight after we get home again, but for now, let me say this. If you have women reading here who are not attracted to their husbands, I would love for them to try this submission to authority thing and see if it helps. If it does, I would love to hear back from them. They can email me anonymously if they wish. My email address is on my blog.

  31. @ NSR

    Good points about indifferent rather than unattractive. My new graphic “fixes” that, but I will edit that part of the post to reflect your thoughts.

  32. More likely is that the nerd never recognized the female attention for what it was. Most nerds have little to no experience with women, and so miss indicators of interest that would be obvious to other men.

    Bazinga! Looking back I can see a number of times where my younger, geeky INTJ (or INTP?) self completely missed female interest. I’ve seen a number of male commenters around this neighborhood of the internet say the similar things (not surprising, since the manosphere is largely populated by, and was largely developed by, nerds and geeks).

  33. @deti,

    @Velvet doesn’t realize she is making the gold-digging former carousel-rider case for why should should marry a man.

    * He’s intelligent.
    * He has a good job.
    * He makes good money.
    * He’ll be able to provide for me.
    * I’m getting sexually aroused thinking about what a good provider he’ll be (utilitarian-tingles).

    Most guys are horrified at the thought of ending up with a woman that views them in that light. “She doesn’t love me because of my personality or who I am on the inside; she loves me because of my money–I’m nothing more than an ATM machine to her.” That’s not love; that’s a financial arrangement.

  34. @donalgraeme,

    I view money as a form of power, and (imho) it’s the weakest form of power. As you said, it takes a boatload of money to actually make a difference. Money is a logical form or power. It registers in your mind, but doesn’t register at a deep emotional level.

    A guy who physically punches another guy (or threatens to) will set off more tingles than a guy spreading around cash.

    Donald Trump’s “you’re fired” line probably sets off more tingles than all the money he has in the bank, because it represents real power he has over other people’s lives.

  35. @ 8-12

    When you say power, I think you are referring to what I consider Status in my LAMPS formula. Status includes the power derived from authority of position. Power (with a capitol P) is short for Masculine Power, the masculine aspects of a man’s personality that he dynamically demonstrates to the rest of the world.

    I’ve long thought about eliminating Money as a category and just folding it into Status, for exactly the reasons you describe. And in terms of how much it contributes to Status, Money is far less influential than most other Status markers, unless you are a billionaire.

  36. ballista74

    Further clarification – this is what I meant by “digust”:

    Disgust means creeped out,or repulsed

    The whole thing implies no hate at all, just a desire in the woman to want to have nothing to do with the man involved. This can be caused by a number of things both inside and outside of the bedroom from gaining a few pounds to losing his job and taking a pizza delivery job because it’s the only thing he can find to bring any money in to her having to work because she “deserves” to be a SAHW to her pulling in more money than him to a whole host of other things.

    But reading through this thread confirms one thing I’ve seen repeatedly: Women don’t know themselves what they are attracted to, so it’s generally not good to trust anything they say on the issue, and look to men for advice.

  37. ballista74

    While I think that such a model has merit, I disagree with him that once a man enters the disgust phase, he can’t claw his way back out.

    One thing I’ve found with women is that their minds and hearts swing their perceptions of a man’s attractiveness considerably. An 8 who loses his job doesn’t become a 6 in her eyes, he immediately becomes a negative score. Let’s say -2, she merely tolerates him with the proviso that he will soon find a job that pays comparably or more. The more that it is proven not forthcoming the more negative the score becomes until she divorces him. This length of time is dependent on how bound she is to her own commitments. As Rollo is fond of saying, women love opportunistically. When the conditions aren’t met that she’s expecting, the disgust immediately sets in, and the man will never recover from it and be an 8 in her eyes ever again. The incident will always harbor a resentment in her heart.

  38. deti

    “Most guys are horrified at the thought of ending up with a woman that views them in that light. “She doesn’t love me because of my personality or who I am on the inside; she loves me because of my money–I’m nothing more than an ATM machine to her.” That’s not love; that’s a financial arrangement.”

    Yes. A man is horrified at this because he knows that if he fails to perform, or if he falls on hard luck, or gets injured and cannot work, or for whatever reason the money gravy train comes to an end, she will toss him aside like yesterday’s newspaper.

    He knows that if he cannot provide her with what she expects, she will be as cold to him as if she had never known him. He knows she’ll destroy his life and that of his kids, and will not lose a second’s sleep over it.

  39. @ Ballista

    One problem I have with your contention is that it doesn’t seem consistent with the flighty, feelings based nature of women. Since their moods and feelings are so variable, I’m not sure that they can be as consistent as you claim in always holding a guy in disgust. But I must acknowledge I don’t have any personal knowledge where this area is concerned. I’m just speculating.

  40. ballista74

    @donalgraeme
    There’s truth in the saying “hell hath no fury like a woman scorned”. I’ve seen it myself. What women are consistent in doing is holding grudges and resentments. This is something I’ve witnessed time and again in married couples (and been told about by married men as well). Husband does something to disappoint wife, wife holds onto disappointment as weapon, ready to throw it back in his face when the time is right (often repeatedly). They can be forgetful of even the simplest good things, but can hold onto these things for years.

    And this is speculation, but I think this is where the apex alpha bitterness comes from too. Apex alpha rejects granting woman commitment, woman gets bitter about “not getting the man she deserves”, takes it out on all the men afterwards because they’re neither this apex alpha or a man that’s anything like him.

  41. ballista74

    It could be mentioned too that this “hell hath no fury” dynamic exists because women are lifted up in their pride via tradcon feminism to believe that they deserve anything and everything their hearts desire out of men, especially the one she selects as her personal servant. When she catches a whiff of the fact that the world doesn’t revolve around her, it sets off the fury, scorn, resentment, and the disgust she has for the man who dares tell her no.

  42. They can be forgetful of even the simplest good things, but can hold onto these things for years.

    But we can train ourselves to think in a more godly and constructive way.

  43. I’m a delusional troll? Hmm. That’s not really fair, is it, considering I’m simply disagreeing based on my own experience? I’ve been called worse, I guess.

    Most guys are horrified at the thought of ending up with a woman that views them in that light.

    My husband would have thought I was an idiot and would not have married me if I didn’t hold him in this light. I married the proverbial lieutenant, and he prizes competence above all else. He doesn’t want to have to worry that I don’t know what I’m doing or that I can’t be left alone for five minutes without running off or hurting myself. (I’ll let him speak for himself on the matter, going forward, as this particular thread is the only one in the years of trolling I mean combox corresponding I’ve done that has piqued his interest in the least.) Lets just say he appreciates a little calculated self-interest in a woman, in people in general actually. It’s healthy, and makes people reliable.

    “She doesn’t love me because of my personality or who I am on the inside; she loves me because of my money–I’m nothing more than an ATM machine to her.” That’s not love; that’s a financial arrangement.

    And once again we’re back to a fundamental misunderstanding of what marriage is. It is not a romantic exercise. It is, in fact, a financial arrangement – an exchange of resources – between two people (of the opposite sex, in case anyone is confused) – and/or their parents/families, for the benefit of the larger community. When it was recognized as such, people were wise enough to know that there better be “something”, usually between the pair for it to not be a soul-killing life, but the falling in love came over shared experiences and histories, not “tingles”. As for love, I’m not discounting the importance of love in marriage, but it is a SACRAMENT, not a party, and the necessary seriousness of that divine obligation should inform the participants above all else. I love my husband, I would die for him. His vetting of me required that, love was a fortunate value-added.

    If a woman can respect a man, she can love him. Without respect, all is lost. Whether or not a woman is properly brought up to show this respect, and to recognize what is respectable, is a different matter entirely, but it doesn’t change the meaning of marriage. You can’t fight Marriage 2.0 with Marriage 2.1. You either have to write a new program (to be fair, the MGTOW crowd, though not by entirely Biblically sound reasoning, does this), or ditch the “upgrade” and go back to the old operating system.

  44. This is all so disheartening. Do all men think that women love so conditionally?

  45. “She doesn’t love me because of my personality or who I am on the inside; she loves me because of my money–I’m nothing more than an ATM machine to her.” That’s not love; that’s a financial arrangement.

    I’m sorry, but that is totally ghey. Let’s look at it from an equally absurd pov: “He doesn’t love me because of my personality or who I am on the inside; he loves me because of my looks- I’m nothing more than a sex outlet to him.” That’s not love, that’s a financial arrangement.”.

    Hellur? Missing context, much? My husband didn’t marry me for my personality, of that I am quite sure. If I faulted him for that, I would be an ungrateful b**** of a wife. It works in reverse, too, assuming everyone is doing their job.

  46. Since I’m being all annoyingly legalistic and shazbot, I suppose I should point out that “disinterested” should probably be “uninterested.” Our culture has gotten lax on word usage, so now no one knows that “disinterested” meant “not having a stake or concern in a matter” and not “Bored now!”

    Thank you for the correction, that’s a very important distinction. signed, Lax
    Not annoying, at all.

  47. The reductionism here is unbelievable. Men only marry for sex. Women >b>only marry for money.

    I was younger than Velvet when I married, so I wasn’t nearly as smart and I was certainly way more libidinous. So thank God for a strong father because I never in a million years would have brought a guy to him who wasn’t employed and upwardly mobile no matter how much I tingled.

    My husband was even younger than I was, but he was well known, knew a lot of people and he did his homework before he got in too deep with me as well.

    He appreciated that I was taking care of myself, was bothering to get an education, and had some common sense. He wasn’t at all interested in having a working wife (to my shock and surprise) but he certainly wanted someone who could hold her own if need be.

    I got the opportunity when he was laid off a year into the marriage. My hot body was not going to help pay the bills.

    Marriage is more than an exchange of sexual favors and tingles. I think I still have more of a libidinous way of thinking about than Velvet, but she’s right. And she is smarter and more mature than me anyway.

  48. More likely is that the nerd never recognized the female attention for what it was. Most nerds have little to no experience with women, and so miss indicators of interest that would be obvious to other men.

    I guess that explains why I left chess club feeling so dejected every week. I mean, I was right there, Wendall! A. girl. in. chess. club. Earth to Wendall.

  49. @ Maeve

    This is all so disheartening. Do all men think that women love so conditionally?

    Not all men. But many men in the manosphere do, because that is what they see all the time.

    I don’t believe that women can’t love unconditionally. Some of the stories from women in these parts proves that. Of course, other stories show that even the “best” wives still suffer that same instinct. They can rise above it, of course, and many do. But from the perspective of men, including men like myself, women who do so are rarer than hen’s teeth.

  50. @ Velvet

    I guess that explains why I left chess club feeling so dejected every week. I mean, I was right there, Wendall! A. girl. in. chess. club. Earth to Wendall

    I’m not sure if you are being serious or not Velvet. Assuming you are serious, yes, that is exactly what happened. Is that so hard to believe? Men and women are different, you know that. Nerds, and I speak as one of them, often have the kind of personality types that makes it very hard for us to understand other people. This is doubly so for our understanding women.

    Velvet, I don’t think you understand just how rare a woman like you really is. Men are having trouble believing you because most of them have NEVER met someone like you in real life. You are utterly alien to them. When you say things like “Nerds sell” and “Women find provision attractive”, they look around and don’t see how that can be. Because they have never seen that in their lives. And they come to this part of the net and find other men, lots of other men, who tell the same stories.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s