I realized something when mulling over commitment.
Most men are not afraid of commitment. The reality is that most men are afraid of a lack of commitment from women and the consequences thereof. It is pure projection from women.
We know that the majority of divorces — 65-70%+ — are initiated by wives who are unhappy.
Men will often go a hell of a long way — wording intended — to try to satisfy a discontented and contentious wife because he loves her. Albeit, it isn’t the right thing to do, according to the Scriptures.
Men are not dumb. They can see that marriages are a bad deal for them when women are commitment-phobes. Likewise, they can see how many wives are completely apathetic about their marriage: uninterested in sex, uninterested in his likes and dislikes, uninterested in his hobbies. Men can see women that blow up marriages with no consequence win cash and prizes.
Next time I hear “men are afraid of commitment,” I’m countering with “men are afraid of women’s lack of commitment.” Some interesting conversations will probably come from this.
Christianity and masculinity 
Most men are not afraid of commitment. The reality is that most men are afraid of a lack of commitment from women and the consequences thereof. It is pure projection from women.
This.
Of course since Cause and Effect is a concept that is utterly lost on women, arguments and discussions with them on this particular issue will be pointless wastes of time. Just deliver the fact and let it go at that. NEVER waste time and effort trying to reason with a woman.
Great points. The running joke about how men are commitment averse is usually trotted out my post wall hags. Men can’t commit to young virgins fast enough.
Indeed. There is a carefully crafted form of doublethink here that the system relies on.
Everyone knows men are afraid of commitment.
Everyone knows that women only divorce if driven to do so by adultery, abuse, or abandonment.
Everyone also knows that no fault divorce was a triumph for women, since it freed them from commitment (being “trapped” in marriage). Now women no longer need to claim adultery, abuse or abandonment like they did under the oppressive old system.
Salon wants everyone to know that women often eject the father from the home because it is easier to have full parental and financial control.
Everyone knows women love a good divorce fantasy, like Eat Pray Love. This is normal, and women should feel no shame in this.
Everyone knows that husbands need to be forever on guard to keep their wife from becoming unhappy and kicking them out of the family. This is the bedrock of modern Christian teaching on marriage, from Fireproof to Pastor Powell.
I like your analysis, but I think there’s another situation in which this phrase is pulled out.
Bob and Jane have some sort of prelude romance and move in together. Either because Bob is just that cool, Jane that desperate, or whatever, Bob hasn’t actually had to put forth that much effort into the relationship.
Time passes. Jane gets nervous and starts pushing for “committment.” Bob basically likes Jane, but he knows that a) she has her faults, and b) he didn’t try that hard. “What kind of girl could I get if I actually tried?” he wonders.
He doesn’t leave Jane — I mean, sex with her is sex, and she isn’t crazy or anything — but he’s definitely open to something on the side. Maybe he alphas up and looks for a better girl, maybe he settles and marries this girl with mixed feelings, whatever. But before he does any of those things, Jane is pressuring him for committment, and he’s resisting. He’s not afraid of committment, he’s afraid of commitment to her. This is the live-in version of women’s ego inflation (“I slept with a 9, so I’m a 9.” -> “I’m living with an 8, so I must be an 8.”).
I agree that men are not afraid of commitment. But marriage puts a man into a fickle situation.
Where I live a couple must have a licence to marry, and consent is required of both parties to the marriage. But a divorce only requires one party! This is crazy. What kind of foundation is that for a family? At best the church offers platitudes, at worse they support the rebellion. A man gets married at his own risk, if it was purely a legal deal you would never agree to such.
There’s an only saying:
Love is blind. And marriage is an eye opener.
That used to be funny, but no-fault divorce has changed marriage into a roll-on-the-dice.
@ Dalrock
Indeed. The system is that everything is to be blamed on men. Women don’t have faults.
@ seriouslypleasedropit
Good point.
For high status men or beautiful women, we tend to see a lack of commitment on their part because everything just falls into their lap easily.
The thing that should require commitment just come to them, so they either don’t understand the nature of commitment and/or want to have their cake and eat it too.
Reading Dr. Helen’s “Men on Strike” helps elucidate this. Men, I think, naturally have a drive to prove themselves, to do tough things – at least in my opinion. But if you don’t give them incentives, and slap on a bunch of untenable consequences, they’ll just back out because they’ll see it as not worth their time. Learning more about the Red Pill, I see how fickle women can be – it makes me wonder if marriage is worth it, especially knowing that even if I try my best, and do everything right, my wife could abandon me, leave me with heartbreak, and I would be obligated not to “please” her. But it’s the cost that godly men have to bear.
As Chesterton said, marriage is a duel to the death in which no honorable man should decline.
Isn’t it common knowledge that women don’t love the way men do? Women love so long as they feel all their needs are met, but as soon as those needs are either a)gone or b) inflated to become impossible to meet (gotta keep up with the Jones’s, right?) they lose their “love”. Men will trudge through the thick and the thin of it because (most) men are loyal and actually care for those under their authority. Smart men know they have to maintain something to keep a woman happy and in a relationship, and they also know that the bar will move from time to time (or sometimes as erratically as a sine wave). Some men don’t want to deal with that, and I don’t blame them, while others are willing to take the risk, hoping they can play the game well enough to avoid divorce.
Afraid of commitment? Goodness no, dear, I just don’t want to deal with your insanity! No commitment means I can walk away at the drop of a hat, no strings attached. It also means that if you enjoy how I am treating you, then you had better stay in my good graces, because there are plenty of other women out there who would love to take your place…..
…if you enjoy how I am treating you, then you had better stay in my good graces, because there are plenty of other women out there who would love to take your place…
Dread game. What feminism fears most and works feverishly to undermine by co-opting the State as a weapon.
“men are afraid of women’s lack of commitment.” — So true it literally hurts!
I’m countering with “men are afraid of women’s lack of commitment.”
Now THAT’S how to have some fun with it. Count me in.
With things like traditional feminism (all discussion of marriage, really), one has to decode these kinds of things. In light of a full understanding of feminism, when women (and fully sycophantic men, most all of them) say “men are afraid of commitment” they really mean “men are afraid of placing themselves into the place of prey for parasitic women”. Women don’t get their big day (the marriage ceremony), nor the fruits of the “kill” that marriage represents in a feminist society (traditional or otherwise).
When it comes to actual true commitment, all women always flake, and society always makes it easier for women to flake. While most men do not realize the full breath of this Red Pill truth, and even rebel against it, a good fraction are starting to realize how easy it is for women to flake out (not that they ever truly commit within the confines of marriage at all to anything other than the “kill” aspect). “Men are afraid of women’s lack of commitment” only applies in the minds of most to the presence of no-fault divorce, not to any demonstrated commitment of a woman within marriage (which generally only consists of staying in as long as she gets something out of it and has to only give little).
(of course, I’d link several posts if I could, but like I said elsewhere, better to group those up)
well his fear of commitment only applies to her stated “goals” not to his, and her goals include a divorce of him from his assets+kids if she dosnt want him for the long haul.
the “kill” really is just that unfortunately for many. Ive met a few guys that got away scot free, both earned the same+no kids. but when kids involved and particularly if he paid exponentially more than her, he will be taken to the morgue.
DS, the actual initiation of separation leading to divorce is actually approaching 90%.
the missing 20-25% from the divorce stats is actually the guy having to file for divorce as part of her settlement, as the filer pays, its just that simple. if she could get him to pay while she files, she would. as its big fat brownie points for her in this culture particularly church culture.
@SnapperTrx, ive thought for a while, that women love men like men love God. Only when its all going well, do men seem to love God, and its easy for us to fall out of love with him when things are hard.
the hierarchy seems to work God->Jesus->Man->Woman->child
wonder do all love the ones above them in the same way?
@seriouslypleasedropit
This is the way Jane would like to frame her own promiscuity. In reality, Jane has had no commitment sex with a string of men, demanding varying degrees of displays of investment by the man along the way. With Bob, Jane decides that she wants Bob to signal greater investment in their sexual relationship, by moving in together. Bob is either happy to do so because he expects more sex due to proximity, because he really is hoping Jane will be the one who finally commits to him, or because he feels pressured by threatened loss of sex.
From here, Jane has her options entirely open. She has secured public investment without offering any form of commitment. If Jane decides that she can do better, she will toss him aside as she has done with so many other men, and find another man to have sex with. Eventually Jane finds that one of these men is the one she wants to marry, so she pressures him to propose. He could be man #3 in her quest, or man #53. If man #53 doesn’t propose, Jane loudly complains that all men are afraid of commitment. And she should know, given her wide experience with men.
Jane then says to any conservative who will listen:
And the conservative is outraged. Here Jane is following the sacred path to marriage, nobly sampling penises (poor Jane tirelessly sampled 53 just to be thorough) until she finds the one whose owner owes her a marriage vow, and now that she found the one she wants to propose he is ruining the whole thing!
Pingback: Jane’s noble path to marriage. | Dalrock
Pingback: Jane’s noble path to marriage. | Dalrock
Are we aloud to talk about the root cause of feminism here?
I tried to at Dalrock’s blog and was banned.
It’s like this.
There is an elephant in the room.
The elephant is pooping and it smells bad. Very bad.
Dalrock talks endlessly about the stench of the elephant poop, somehow concluding that men need to learn game. But Dalrock never, ever mentions the elephant.
And the elephant says, “Look at Dalrock. He is the only man in this room! He knows the stench like no other! Be like Dalrock and learn game!”
But if you mention the actual elephant, you are banned.
Can we speak of the elephant here?
Than you!
“There’s an only saying:
Love is blind. And marriage is an eye opener.
That used to be funny, but no-fault divorce has changed marriage into a roll-on-the-dice.”
And those dice are loaded to roll snake eyes.
Just because the woman initiates a divorce, it doesn’t mean she’s the one at fault. If your husband cheats and moves in with the other woman, what are you supposed to do? Put up with it?
gbfm, are you suggesting that Dalrock’s audience is the elephant?
If your husband cheats and moves in with the other woman, what are you supposed to do? Put up with it?
OK, I’ll swallow the troll bait.
If you were a demanding, frigid, loveless, nagging, sexless harpy who made your husband’s life living hell and who had already abandoned your marriage for all practical purposes by refusing him regular sex, then yes. Not only are you supposed to “put up with it,” you are supposed to acknowledge what you did, stop trying to have your cake and eat it too by claiming the “wife” crown while refusing to exercise the obligations of the role, sign the divorce petition when he serves you with the papers, accept responsibility for your actions, and move on. Deliberately defecating, soiling, and urinating in your own bed doesn’t earn you a sympathetic nanny who will clean you up, change you, kiss you, and make it all better.
Jeremy,
Who created feminism and why?
Agreed.
Most men who are in the process of deciding to marry aren’t afraid of the prospective wife at all, in my experience. He presumes he’s “got what it takes” to keep her happy. His concerns are 1) If he can provide the way he imagines he should, 2) If married life will get boring, or full of nagging. I suppose that we could frame 2) as a fear, but it’s a fear of harassment rather than commitment.
I think straight-up manipulation is more often the cause. They want the commitment, and they know that courage is at the heart of men so they push the “coward” button. They’re not pushing the “commitment” button. (If you follow.)
Projection assumes too much self-awareness on the part of the women. Most are unaware that their sin nature inclines them to serial monogamy. They don’t imagine one day they’ll get bored, or resentful, and then use that as excuse to divorce.
Well, I am not sure if the Rockefellers created feminism, but they certainly funded it. The Rockefellers knew that women will always work for less than men will. As Chesterton said, “It [feminism] is mixed up with a muddled idea that women are free when they serve their employers but slaves when they help their husbands.”
@ Minesweeper
I also have heard that is the case.
Among college graduates, the rate is 90% by women even without that metric.
@ GBFM
As long as you don’t go off topic.
@ Frank K
Love ain’t blind, but it is deliberate and often comes with heaps of suffering.
See: 1 Corinthians 13.
@ Cane
Good insight.
DS,
GBFM has a little bit of point. Go there and say, “forget game, we need to shut women down and put them in there place”, you will get a screen full of how much of a beta you are. Rollo himself has admitted that in his younger years that although he had his share of women and he played in a band (I think) after being married his wife did refuse him sex and he was endlessly frustrated. Now that he is older and “recognized” his wife’s ovulating time, he knows when to game her for sex. He does not try to have sex other times or risks rejection or low enthusiasm from his wife. I am a little younger than Rollo (in my mid 40s) and can handle waiting a couple of days or longer sometimes depending on my business stress level or how hard I put in some workouts, so acting like he’s the man for waiting is not impressive. At a younger age waiting was horrible.
This can be verified by reading biblical gender roles dialogue between Larry and Rollo. Rollo does not recommend porn or masturbation because he thinks women can pick up on this “weakness” or that it lowers your desire for it when it comes time to game the wife for mutually enthusiastic sex. Larry asked about when he wants sex, but she is clearly going to reject or be not enthusiastic. Rollo’s reply was telling. He said to know her cycle in order to know and wait for it. That is not biblical. She should be enthusiastic, but even if she isn’t she should consent, right?
We need to teach women to love, respect, obey, submit to her husband’s authority and to allow him to have sex with her any time, preferrably enthusiasitcally.
Talk to any woman and they will tell you that the more sex they have the more they want it. We are wired the opposite. This goes against game teaching because in most new marriages sex is usually frequent, but then frequency goes down because she is refusing. Rollo was kind enough to answer questions I had regarding my marriage and he concluded that although I am not BB and not AF either, my wife’s own refusal had more to do with her exhaustion because of her lack of homemaking inefficiency etc. When we did have sex it was very good for her based on her comments to counseling. Frequency dies because wives have never been taught to be content and to love their husbands, not because he gained a little wait or doesn’t tease her. She forgets to see her husbands good attributes and that he loves her.
These guys that claim Alphahood say on one hand don’t be yourself, work on you. Game by doing this or that, but then tell you to “do your own thing”. Doing your own thing includes being yourself, whether you are or not into working out and stylish clothes. Their contradictions are evident.
Dalrock says that women should be consenting to sex with their husbands with regards to 1 Cor 7, but then says to game your wife? Why the hell did I get married? I could game other women, have younger women etc. If she is following her role as my wife by God’s standards, she doesn’t need to be gamed. Don’t listen to me though I am the loner who showed up late to parties with one girl and left early with another. I could never figure out why women were attracted to me in the first place. I still can’t figure out how I ended up with who I did.
Listening to your wife if it doesn’t involve sudden death or catastrophic collapse is a mistake.
@ jeff
I’m not quite sure what your point is and/or why it’s addressed to me in particular?
I 2nd GBFM’s last comment. That “gaming” our christian wives is the wrong path to take. Dalrock’s articles are great…. Love them and if his intent is only to keep us informed as feminists and christian feminists collapse on their own sword, I agree. If his intent is to show that we need to game our wives, I think he is as wrong as Rollo.
If our christian wives are rebelling, we need to ignore them to the point that they divorce us, or fall in line. We need to careless about what they want and focus on what our role is from God’s commands. I don’t gaming our wives will bring them under our authority or get them to submit. The only thing gaming our wives does is allow us sex and give them the tingles while they carry on with their rebellion.
It is often said that who ever cares less, wins. We have to care less at all costs. Even the divorced men in the room tell us she is worse off after the divorce. Even though the men didn’t want the divorce, they seem to say they are clearly better a year or two out.
Gaming to me seems like BB
@ jeff
My blog is anti-game. It is also pro-personal responsibility to God.
Relationships tend to fall into alignment when a husband adheres to God’s commands for the husband in marriage: otherwise known as acting like a strong, masculine leader.
Of course, this is not always the case (e.g. things may not always fall into alignment), as many Christians and Churches and Church leaders do not reinforce and adhere to the Word. However, the husband is still supposed to live and speak the Truth, even if it ends up in suffering. There is joy in acting righteously in suffering, but it is difficult.
I agree that husbands need to care less. But specifically it should be caring less about a wife’s negative response to Scriptural roles and responsibilities and more about what God has said about marriage.
Women want that day in the sun. If the marriage they demand doesn’t give her feelies somewhere along the way, easy enough to cash out. Every aspect of society, feminism and family courts are bent to the woman’s desires. Men should just enjoy women for the pleasure they derive and move on when the woman starts in with her ownership and “commitment” issues. There is no foundation upon which to base marriage. until men make clear that gets fixed or else, nothing changes.
@jeff,
“It is often said that who ever cares less, wins. We have to care less at all costs. Even the divorced men in the room tell us she is worse off after the divorce. Even though the men didn’t want the divorce, they seem to say they are clearly better a year or two out.”
err, no, maybe 40 years ago, nowadays, expect an armed SWAT team to escort you from your owned home. expect to maybe see your children after a few years and $100k+ legal expenses.
nothing is normal anymore. its all lies and pain going down that road nowadays. Enter that path with terror in your heart as that is what you will experience – by design.
i would game your wife if its what you need to keep in the fold, as she wont otherwise.
@Jeff
GBFM is quite right in that we need to be bringing up the big elephant in the room and its giant deuces that are smelling up the place. The problem is that it’s not popular in the slightest to bring it up – to the point that if you bring it up, you’re accused of “hating women” (the first response to the opposition of the feminist agenda). You can find it everywhere in these parts, not just with Rollo. It also happens to be the thing that needs to be addressed if you want to truly take down feminism.
The catch is, most all of the voices in these parts, and most all the voices in the churches at the moment not only leave the elephant unaddressed, but champion everything the elephant does, because in fact they truly support feminism. A full understanding and reckoning of the elephant (i.e. truly taking the red pill, most really are blue pillers) reveals that most of the fight is really between two factions of feminism as opposed to feminism vs. anti-feminism. Game is just an expression of support for the elephant – to support game is to support feminism. But it’s a bit more than just “game”, which is why you are being addressed, DS (as I recall.
This is correct. You are on the right track. But also good for those who are not yet married to remind themselves that for what is a man profited, if he shall gain a wife, and lose his own soul? (think Matthew 16:24-28 there)
Ballista74 & Minesweeper,
I agree and have been RP for 3 years. I do not game my wife.
B74, wish I had your articles at my finger tips. I hadn’t finished them.
@Jeff
While I hope to bring back most of what I wrote in a more organized form eventually, if you want to see anything specific, you can always request it over on the blog I have now (linked on my comment id here).