The hidden costs of inequitable divorce

Dr. Helen shares Shawn Smith's thoughts after reading Men on Strike:

The bias against men in divorce and family law causes direct damage in some relationships. I’ve known dozens of men who choose to tolerate awful treatment from their wives because their only alternative is a divorce that promises financial ruin and part-time fatherhood. There is a reduced incentive for a woman of immature or low character to monitor her behavior if she stands to profit from divorce. It’s like having a job in which she will win the lottery if she gets fired. The courts have established a moral hazard for which men pay the price....

If the burden of divorce were more equitably shared, these men would have standing to push for changes in behavior, and the women in their lives would have an incentive to raise their maturity level, improve their communication, and beef up their coping skills. Not so ironically, the possibility of a painful divorce can lead to better behavior, which leads to healthier relationships. But as it stands, men who choose their wives poorly might pay the price for decades (along with any children who are involved) because the courts not only allow for bad behavior from abusive women, they indirectly encourage it.

This may be true.  But it occurs to me there is another set of unexpected consequences that stem from unequitable divorce laws, and they are considerably more significant than immature behavior on the part of some married women. The rise of "silver divorce" has been in the news of late, as "the number of over-60s divorcing has increased by over a third in 10 years."

I haven't read any statistics on whether it is disproportionately women leaving men or the other way around, but based on the fact that it is described as people waiting until the children have grown before ending the marriage, I strongly suspect that it is men who are filing more of them.  First, because women tend to be more impatient than men, second because child support creates a financial incentive for women and a disincentive for men to file for divorce when children are still in the picture, and third because every individual who has ever told me that they intend to wait until the youngest child is 18 before filing for divorce has been male.

It would be interesting to see if the 4/1 female to male divorce ratio holds up in silver divorces, as the lower the ratio, the stronger the indication that more men are simply biding their time until they can safely exit the marriage on more equitable terms.

Nor is that the only potential consequence, as it occurs to me that men who are biding their time would be well-served by refusing to work hard or to build household wealth, since they already know that they are going to lose at least half of whatever wealth they manage to accumulate. So, divorce may not only have significant negative effects on children, but on the economy as well as it creates significant disincentives for the single most productive class, the married male with children, to produce anything.

The Alpha walk

A reader at the Chateau asks how to handle an attempted AMOG:

I would like your take on this situation that arose with my GF. Been together about a month. Went to a pub, I brought a friend, its kind of her turf so she runs into coworkers and friends there a lot. Two dudes she used to work with come in, she hugs them. She is pretty bad for introducing me to people…often she says hello to a group, I wait a minute then introduce myself. She follows up by saying I’m her BF, etc, but she leaves it to me to break the ice.

Once again no intro, this time I didn’t care much to say hi, so me and my friend went for a drink. At last call, her and I are chatting, I see another friend and go say hi, she sees these two coworkers again. I come up to do the introduction, and one of the dudes grabs her tit when she moves in for a hug. She shoves his hand away but laughs and hugs him. I’m literally over this dudes shoulder, she knows I saw it.

What’s the alpha play here? (I walked away, she chased after me asking why i was running away…fully aware of the reason)

First, one's response to another man hitting on your wife or girlfriend completely depends upon her response to it.  If she reacts coldly or angrily to his attention, the correct move is to support her rejection of the other man.  Keep in mind that sexual poachers seldom attempt anything, no matter how hot the woman, if she appears to be sufficiently into you. 

Spacebunny is not infrequently the prettiest woman at the party, and while we tend to split up and circulate, I occasionally see her catching my attention and pointing me out to a man who is talking to her.  I just nod or raise an eyebrow; if she feels she needs more in the way of backup, she'll wave me over.  If it's late and everyone has a few drinks in them, I'll stick closer if a man appears to be visually locked in on her; almost always my presence in the vicinity is enough to prevent any awkwardness.

The one time a guy did try to AMOG me with her was, ironically enough, the evening of the day we got engaged.  The bass player from a popular local band she and her friends had followed for years - the lead singer was in love with her, but had been involved with one of her friends - positioned himself in a manner to try to physically edge me out of the conversation when I walked up to the group.  I simply cleared my throat, and when he glanced over at me, I made a flicking "move over" gesture with my fingers.  He did so, albeit a little reluctantly, at which point the lead singer, who had noticed the budding confrontation, stepped in and introduced me to the rest of the band as a) Spacebunny's fiance, and, b) a member of Psykosonik, ergo a man with an amount of status in their little world.  Problem solved.

So, there is seldom any problem when a woman doesn't welcome the would-be rival's attention, so long as a man stands his ground and doesn't exacerbate the situation.  It can be done in a threatening manner: "dude, watch that hand if you don't want to lose it".  It can be done in a polite and non-confrontational manner: "excuse me, but I can only assume you did not notice the pretty lady is wearing her wedding ring". It can be done in a humorous manner: "My wife?  Lady, I've never seen you before in my life!"  But it has to be done, one way or another.

That's not true if a woman clearly welcomes the attention. In such cases, the worst thing a man can do is get angry, petulant, and confrontational.  That is BETA behavior. Unless she is seriously drunk, the woman knows what she is doing and she simply doesn't care that you don't like it. I think the reader's response in this particular case was absolutely flawless; she was only a girlfriend of short standing, she probably had a sexual history with the man concerned, and the fact that she went chasing after him illustrates that she was testing him and that his response was effective, especially if he didn't permit her to play dumb about attempting to provoke him.  Her behavior doesn't necessarily mean that she's an out-of-control slut, it just means that she seeks a high level of dominance and rejecting her behavior by walking away is sufficient to demonstrate that.

It's a bigger problem if a wife or longtime girlfriend behaves in such a manner.  In that case, a higher level of dominance, bordering on the violent, is necessary, because the test is a more serious one.  If you carry and she knows it, or if you are observably physically superior to the other man, you can probably step forward and simply demand an apology from him.  He'll likely back down and apologize, however insincerely, if she reacts in a wide-eyed manner indicating a visible concerned about the prospect for immediate violence.

If he not only doesn't back down, but she takes his side and starts trying to defend his actions, this is an indication that the relationship is in dire straits.  In which case, the best thing to do is to look at her, say: "I see", and leave.  I'm not saying it is necessary to leave the relationship altogether, especially if it is a marital relationship, but it is necessary to leave her to her own resources in those circumstances as a warning that the relationship is in a critical condition.  No self-respecting man will tolerate a woman who takes sides against her own husband on behalf of a man who is pursuing her sexually, especially if she does so in public.

It should be kept in mind that "forsaking all others" is a vow that does not merely refer to sex.  It means "my wife, right or wrong".  It means "my man, right or wrong".

Anyhow, ALPHAs walk all the time.  They walk every single time a woman sufficiently displeases them.  This is why women are so often chasing after them, and why women tend to feel so stimulatingly insecure in their relationships with them.  Because the Alpha, (and particularly the Sigma, who unlike the Alpha, is unconcerned about the social implications), is never, ever, afraid to walk.  He may not want to walk, he may have no intention of walking, but he is always willing to do so if sufficiently provoked. Why?  Because there are plenty of girls on the girl tree.

A failure of principle

More than a few men around the androsphere are disappointed, if not openly disgusted, by former anti-marriage advocate Mark Minter's unexpected announcement of his upcoming nuptuals.  Roosh, in particular, was particularly displeased.

He is like the conservative politician who espouses family values while diddling young boys on the side. He is the PUA who sells products on how to get laid but can’t even approach a single woman, someone who creates a false character to gain either money or—in this case—praise, at the expense of everyone’s trust. For that reason, he has lost all respect from me. If he were to knock on my door, starving, begging for food and drink, I would only place the sustenance on my front step. He would not be permitted to enter my home so that the foul odor of hypocrisy that now trails him does not infect my place of sleep.

I hope his name will forever be synonymous with a man who doesn’t live by his own code. He deserves to be permanently exiled from the manosphere community. 

This is an illustrative lesson in the importance of discernment when it comes to those we accept as opinion leaders or even take seriously as commenters.  While everyone is fallible, and everyone is capable of changing their minds as they are introduced to new information, Minter's behavior is hypocritical and unprincipled to such an extent that it indicates he never genuinely held the principles he espoused.

The Chateau, on the other hand, is considerably more blase' about the matter:

What a slap in the face this news must be to the barbarian peasants who incessantly claim CH is about nothing but pumping and dumping bar skanks.  Excuse me, good haters, but I don’t see your blogs resulting in any nuptial engagements.

As for me, I'm not familiar with Minter and I have nothing for or against the man.  But I will note that his response to criticism was not only juvenile and disrespectful, it was irrelevant.  Minter's vulgar response doesn't provide any rational basis for his massive change of heart, it doesn't even begin to address any of the very criticisms that he himself had previously articulated,  or indicate sufficient integrity to admit the way in which his actions belie his previous words.

However, Minter's actions should not have taken so many people by surprise. Very, very few of the writers and commenters in the androsphere are natural alphas. Most are deltas or gammas who embraced Game in order to improve their success with the opposite sex, and as such, both their rhetoric and socio-sexual personas tend to be exaggerated to some degree.  Again, being unfamiliar with him, I can't say to what extent that was true of Minter, but it appears to have been a considerable amount, since so readily he abandoned his oft-professed principles for a mid-thirties divorcee.

I sincerely wish Mr. Minter and his bride-to-be well.  I hope their marriage works out well for everyone involved. I suspect they have a better shot than many given that his fiance is familiar with many of the potential pitfalls involved. But I also hope that Minter understands that he is finished as an individual who merits being taken seriously by the androsphere.  Like Edward VIII of England, Mark Minter will henceforth serve as a cautionary example of how readily men are capable of sacrificing their honor, their integrity, and their credibility for love of a woman.  One hopes that Mr. Minter will have the sense to follow the Duke of Windsor's lead in stepping away from participation in the public discourse.

I don't think one should be too harsh on Minter for violating his former principles.  This is hardly the first time a man has done something out of the ordinary for love.  Let the man live and love in peace and privacy. However, if he attempts to continue to maintain his position as an outspoken figure in the androsphere, it would be hard for anyone to be too harsh on him.

A failure of leadership

Clearly this man simply isn't leading his soon-to-be ex-wife sufficiently well, otherwise I have no doubt she would be a fine, upstanding, submissive woman who would always put her marriage first.




Some things can't be fixed. Some people can't be fixed. They're just broken, or in some cases, simply unfit for specific purposes. Just as not every man is capable of being an NFL quarterback, not every woman is capable of being a wife and mother under the current legal regime. This woman might be capable of being married in Saudi Arabia or another country where such behavior would not be legally tolerated. But not in the USA, where it is not only tolerated by the law, but protected.

Alpha Mail: more sexlessness

FE wants to know how long is long enough? 

"Sex is not the entirety of marriage, but it is a foundation and a necessary aspect of it.  A sexless marriage is intrinsically oxymoronic and cannot be expected to last without an amount of external support."

So how long?

Another (recent) reader seeking your opinion.  I married a 34 yo virgin three years ago.  I am x years older.  Sex was down to twice a week within a year.  Stopped completely [two years] into the marriage.  Now she has decided that I am not allowed to even *touch* her without asking permission.  She says that I frighten her -- even while acknowledging that I have never been violent, never been verbally abusive, never even raised my voice in anger.  Her main complaints are that I am a poor listener (past girlfriends would say I'm pretty good, for a guy) and that I turned to porn when I was unsatisfied sexually (guilty as charged -- and I've since made much progress in giving it up).

It's now been 8 months with the no sex.  Our Christian counselor is perplexed as to why I have a problem with having to ask for permission before rubbing her back, stroking her neck, or giving her a peck.

So how long?

Legally, one year.  Realistically, I think the marriage was over the moment she announced that her husband could not touch her without asking permission.  If that's the case, then the marriage obviously does not exist because the husband has no more marital rights than anyone else on the planet.  A woman like this has issues that have nothing to do with her husband; whatever is going on inside her head may not be her fault, but the reality is that she is no more mentally fit to be married than a woman with an IQ of 30.

Any woman who is genuinely frightened of a man who has never so much as lifted his voice is psychologically screwed up in ways that the average man cannot possibly understand, let alone fix.  And any woman who carries on her play-acting to this extent when she isn't genuinely frightened is a psychopath of whom the average man should be more than a little frightened himself.  She's the sort who will kill her husband in his sleep and claim self-defense.

Alpha Mail: the sexless marriage

JG asks advice concerning fidelity to an asexual wife:

I am normally reluctant to discuss my personal business with others, but after reading TIA & RGD and lurking on VP for a few years (and now AG) I have come to place a lot of stock in your analytical abilities and was hoping for your insight. It's somewhat complicated so I'll do my best to trim the fat and avoid boring you with any unrelated rambling.

A dozen years ago I started dating a girl from where I worked at the time, who left her 1st boyfriend to 'trade up' to me. She is 7 years younger than me, was 20 at the time. We hit it off very well and became very close, but I noticed one odd problem: there was no sex or sexuality. That baffled me, as I was unaccustomed to 'dry spells', but I thought perhaps she just needed time, which I allowed. After 6 months things started happening, but only just barely...as in, once a month or so, no foreplay allowed, and she would get noticeably restless after a few minutes.
Despite this, I felt close enough to her that I eventually proposed, and we got married. (I know, sounds delta or gamma or something but that's where I was then).
After a while, even the minimal sex stopped altogether. She flinches if I touch her near a sexual area, it is clearly unwanted. No amount of flowers or jewelry or other traditionally romantic gestures has ever deactivated her force field. After ruling out theories like closet lesbianism, an inexplicable nosedive of Game, previous sexual abuse, that I might unwittingly be an odorous troll, etc, I eventually realized she may well be one of the statistical minority of people who are genuinely asexual, which pretty much killed my sexual desire for her since she has none to reciprocate with; I just have no physical interest in any woman who has none in me, or with whom I have no strong bond. So, I no longer pressure her with notification of frustration over my unmet needs.

Of importance is the fact that at some point I evolved from agnosticism to a strong interest in following God, whereas she remains unconvinced and uninterested, even though she is aware of the abundance of supporting evidence that might otherwise cause the intellectually honest to reconsider their previous skepticism. However, this has never been a source of friction between us, we're both pretty laid back. So I feel compelled to honor my commitment to her despite her absence of sexuality. And despite being otherwise somewhat misanthropic, she in turn leans heavily on me, having formed some deep bond that doesn't include any intimacy beyond holding hands. Not even kissing. (both non-smokers, good oral hygiene, so not an olfactory problem) So, I had no idea what spiritually acceptable recourse I may have.

Although I'd be interested in your commentary on that, here's where it gets more complicated: In your opinion, is it technically possible to cheat on a person with whom you have no sexual relationship? The reason I ask is, I met a woman at church and we were drawn to one another and have been in regular contact. She and I are strongly attracted to each other, and none other, but she periodically reminds me that if my faith in God is not a top priority like hers, then she will have to sever our relationship. Her faith is strong, and at times I have given her some very reassuring input when she has questions, or when her atheist friends attack her beliefs. In turn, she tries to keep me on track, spiritually. She is aware of my unusual marital situation, and proposed a solution I didn't expect: sharing me with my wife, but with exclusive sexual rights. (she has a very...vigorous drive)

I would much prefer to have everything straightforward and out in the open with nothing to hide, and I can't help thinking that since my wife has permanently said 'no' to me sexually, then she has essentially forfeited the right to say 'no' to this, but then again, I'm sure she will somehow not see it that way, so I have been procrastinating having "the talk" with her because historically, she has a meltdown if she feels our stability is threatened. However, the other woman is becoming increasingly anxious about it, and wishes I would proceed with all due haste.

Although I'm not looking forward to "the talk", I'm about ready to pull the trigger on this but first I need to know: I'm sure that mainstream 'Churchianity' would make no provision for any non-standard relationship but given the unusual circumstances in my situation, if I were to conduct myself responsibly towards these 2 women according to our individual relationships and spiritual principles, do you feel that such an arrangement would find disfavor in Gods eyes? Aside from my unmet needs, aside from the presumably conflicting desires of both women whom I love in different ways, aside from disapproval from those with strictly conventional perspectives, above all else I would greatly prefer not to displease God. If it were permissible, I'd have to tell my wife that it comes to this. If not, I'd have a different talk with the other woman. So I am requesting the aid of your advanced analytical abilities as well as your spiritual perspective. If you have made it here to the end of the email, I would like to thank you for your consideration of this matter, and I look forward to your perspective on it.

Considering that he's essentially talking about de facto polygyny here, for which there is not only copious evidence that it is Biblically acceptable, but soon to be entirely legal in the USA as well.  I am a little skeptical that the wife will be as accepting of the expanded structure as the other woman, but if she's genuinely asexual and is sufficiently intelligent to protect her own long-term interests, she might accept it with an amount of relief.

Regardless, I think JG has a free hand here, as the wife has clearly violated her marital vows to love her husband and has failed to perform her primary marital duty.  She's fortunate that he takes his vows as seriously as he does, because there is little question that he has firm grounds for a divorce, if not a legitimate annulment.

Sex is not the entirety of marriage, but it is a foundation and a necessary aspect of it.  A sexless marriage is intrinsically oxymoronic and cannot be expected to last without an amount of external support.

How to lower divorce rates

China leads the way:

Since August 13th, when China's Supreme People's Court reinterpreted the country's marriage law, many of the women leaving marriage registry offices like the one in Chaoyang have more than just the end of their marriages to bemoan. According to the new law, residential property is no longer to be regarded as jointly owned and divided equally in the event of a divorce. Instead, whoever paid for the apartment or house is the legal owner and gets to keep it in its entirety.

In China, the rulings of its most senior judges automatically replace existing law. For the male-dominated Supreme Court, which features just one woman amongst its 13 judges, the new ruling is a brutal attempt to shore up the crumbling institution of marriage by making divorce less attractive....

A major reason why the new law is regarded as unjust by most women is that in China men, or their parents, traditionally buy the family home. Indeed, many women will refuse to marry until that happens. It is such a custom that tying the knot with a man who doesn't own a property is known as a 'naked wedding'.

Notice that Chinese women want it both ways.  They won't marry a man if he doesn't buy a house, but they want to automatically claim a half-interest in it simply by marrying him.

When viewed from the socio-sexual perspective, the inevitable failure of democracy with universal suffrage appears obvious.

Run, don't walk

If you get this sort of reaction to the idea of a prenup, I'd give the marriage about a 15 percent chance of surviving.

I’m a 32-year-old woman who has just started a fantastic relationship with a great guy (he’s 39). We’ve been together for approximately three months and we both would like something long-term. The other night, he told me he would not get married without a prenup. I felt a divide between us when he said that.

I guess I’ve always thought someone that wanted a prenup is someone selfish and doesn’t want to share things or their full life with someone else. I come from a family of refugees who have worked from the ground up. My family hardly has any assets, and I have a middle-class salary and only a small 401(k) and stock account -- $50,000 and $15,000 respectively. He’s been working many years more than I have, makes double what I make, and his family is definitely more wealthy, although I wouldn’t expect a huge inheritance because he has many siblings, and he’s doing great financially.

I talked to him a little bit more that night and haven’t brought it up since; I just don’t know what to think. Sometimes I cry when I think about it. I just don’t want to get married, get divorced and have a guy kick me to the curb or I move into an apartment. If a prenup let’s him keep all his money, then I’d rather not continue staying with someone like that.

Note in particular the phrase: "if a prenup lets him keep all his money, then I'd rather not continue staying".  Any man who goes ahead and proposes to a woman who is clearly signaling her intention to divorce-rape a man if things aren't to her liking in this legal environment fully merits his fate.

Talk about the rationale for a marriage strike; this one woman sums up not only the reason, but the requirement for one.

The fourth reason

Dalrock considers why conservatives instinctively turn to big government to fix the marriage strike:

So what makes marriage different to conservatives?  Why instead of pushing to remove the built in incentives for women to legally abuse marriage and the uncompensated risks men take in marrying, do so many conservatives reflexively dismiss the need for reform and passionately respond with bizarre and incomprehensible arguments and calls to duty and patriotism? (H/T SlargTarg)

There are three main reasons for this:

    They are responding emotionally and reflexively to the term marriage strike.
    They have been suckered into the role of enabling feminists.
    They are invested in the current corrupt model of marriage.

Allow me to suggest a fourth reason: most conservatives don't understand the difference between Marriage 1.0 and Marriage 2.0, which is a little ironic given that the Supreme Court has now created Marriage 3.0.  Which, I suppose, will make the inevitable legalization of polygamy Marriage 3.11.

Why men don't marry

Dr. Helen lists eight reasons:

1. You'll lose respect. A couple of generations ago, a man wasn't considered fully adult until he was married with kids. But today, fathers are figures of fun more than figures of respect: The schlubby guy with the flowered diaper bag at the mall, or one of the endless array of buffoonish TV dads in sitcoms and commercials. In today's culture, father never knows best. It's no better in the news media. As communications professor James Macnamara reports, "by volume, 69 percent of mass media reporting and commentary on men was unfavorable, compared with just 12 percent favorable and 19 percent neutral or balanced."
2. You'll lose out on sex. Married men have more sex than single men, on average - but much less than men who are cohabiting with their partners outside of marriage, especially as time goes on. Research even suggests that married women are more likely to gain weight than women who are cohabiting without marriage. A Men's Health article mentioned one study that followed 2,737 people for six years and found that cohabiters said they were happier and more confident than married couples and singles.

I can thing of two more:

9.  Technology.  Porn and video games are, to be blunt, considerably more attractive than the average overweight woman these days. The realistic answer to the question: "wouldn't a real woman be better?" for the average BETA male, is no.  And this is a problem that is only going to get worse.

10. Marriage provides no rights or rewards, only responsibilities.  The current institution of marriage offers little in the way of incentive for men and a great deal of disincentive.  Do the term "marital rights" of men and "marital duties" of women even make sense anymore? Were it not for religion and societal inertia, marriage would already be a dead institution.

30 percent of women are sexually dysfunctional

Yet another aspect of intersexual relations to keep in mind with regards to the increased male tendency to avoid marriage.  There is a very good chance she will not always be as sexually interested in you as she is at the start.

Lack of lust, when it creates emotional distress, meets the psychiatric profession’s clinical criteria for H.S.D.D., or hypoactive sexual-desire disorder. Researchers have set its prevalence among women between the ages of about 20 and 60 at between 10 and 15 percent. When you count the women who don’t quite meet the elaborate clinical threshold, the rate rises to around 30 percent.

What is worse is that this doesn't even count the women with a lack of sexual desire that doesn't create emotional distress for them.  However, it is unlikely that the pharmaceutical industry will be able to provide the answer; even if they do manage to artificially provide a sexual picker-upper, the potential for disastrous consequences should be obvious.

Game, and specifically Dread Game, are much more likely to be successful for men faced with sexually avoidant women.  Consider this aspect of the connection between relationship length and the decrease of female attraction for their husband or long-term male partner.

All scientists really know is that the disparity in desire exists, at least after a relationship has lasted a while. Dietrich Klusmann, a psychologist at the University of Hamburg-Eppendorf in Germany, has provided a glimpse into the bedrooms of longtime couples. His surveys, involving a total of almost 2,500 subjects, comprise one of the few systematic comparisons of female and male desire at progressive stages of committed relationships. He shows women and men in new relationships reporting, on average, more or less equal lust for each other. But for women who’ve been with their partners between one and four years, a dive begins — and continues, leaving male desire far higher. (Within this plunge, there is a notable pattern: over time, women who don’t live with their partners retain their desire much more than women who do.) 

It is very clear that attempts "to reach through the invisible barriers" erected by sexually avoidant women will not work.  Closeness and intimacy is what is turning them off.  Therefore, to increase sexual desire in a long-time female partner who has become sexually dysfunctional, a man will have to engage in his own avoidant behavior.  This doesn't mean it is necessary to go out and have an affair, only that it is necessary to create space in the relationship and induce an amount of fear in the woman.

Go on more business trips and don't bother calling in.  Go to Vegas or Bangkok with your friends. Start living more like the single man you once were and who once attracted her.  Don't be always available or always at her beck and call.  And if she starts worrying about your loyalty, don't be quick to reassure her of it.  Even if the thought of infidelity doesn't occur to you, she doesn't need to know that.  She doesn't deserve to know that because the knowledge will only kill whatever budding desire her dread is beginning to produce.

Now, it should be clear that this is not advice for most couples; the 70 percent of women who are not sexually dysfunctional and avoidant don't merit such behavior anymore than they should be taking the drugs.  But once a woman exhibits a regular pattern of going to bed early or finding various excuses to forestall sexual overtures, more serious measures are in order.

Who needs men?

When you've got cats....

Alpha Mail: is it already over?

A reader who understandably wishes to remain anonymous requests advice:

I am hoping you can give me some advice or point me in the right direction. My wife and I are having trouble and she is about to move out. There is no other man or anything like that. The marriage just deteriorated for both of us.

I just read your post, "Maxim 2: make her jealous" and it just slapped me hard in the face that in the 3 years of marriage I forgot almost every damn thing that I learned about game that I used to win her in the first place. I was an alpha dog fucking her and ever other girl I could find. Now, I am some boring predictable husband that simply provides her a safe comfortable live. Worse, I thought it was enough. Shame on me.

I want to save the marriage if I can because I certainly like her well enough and she is gorgeous but mostly because of the financial ruin it will wreck on me. She doesn't work and I will pay a fortune for her and our child if she leaves, which will seriously cramp my style when finding another girl. If I do the things she needs I think we would both be happy.

She hasn't left yet and it is like she is waiting for me to react a certain way. I think my game hasn't been terrible in the last few days in trying to keep her to stay - but I don't think it has been great either. I didn't ask her to stay or do anything pathetic. Instead, I bought lots of very nice clothes to up my wardrobe, started making myself scarce, and showing no signs that it bothered me that she is leaving. I told her that I wanted the same thing, that I already felt free and the idea of hunting again made me feel alive. I also told her that I am going to start dating a girl from work (which is true if I want to).  But, I really want to say, "I remember what I need to do and I am going to take you upstairs and show you right now".

I think I have the inner game mostly right but I am not sure of the best immediate tactical steps I need to do to get her to stay so I can do for her what she needs. It may be too late and if that is the case then so be it. But I am going to try. I am concerned that any affection will simply signal AFC and any indifference will simply tell her that it is over and she should go. I am thinking that maybe it is best to let her go and then be the alpha dog to get her back. Not sure - as I have no experience here. If I could, I would be the first to leave but I can't because I own the house and there are kids involved.

I would appreciate any advice you can give.

First, let me point out that Maxim 2 is Roissy's advice, not mine. Second, while I'm loathe to intrude upon what is more properly Athol's territory, I would say that before this man attempts anything, he must first ascertain if his wife is already engaging in an affair.  It sounds to me as if that is at least a possibility, even if she denies that is the case.

Third, I think he has to stop dancing around the issues. If he really wants to say something, he should say it. How can he worry about showing affection being too AFC when he's afraid to say what he really thinks, and tell her what he really wants? There can be a fine line between Indifference Game and actively driving a woman away.

He's obviously running the MAP, which is necessary, but in this case apparently insufficient.  If she's really so unconcerned that she doesn't care if he's dating other women or not, it's already over and his attempts to win her back are likely to be futile.

How to be not married

It would be very difficult to do a more thorough job of ensuring one's eventual divorce than this man has managed:

Now my heart is broken once more due to a swath of life events culminating in my wife’s recent confession of her ongoing infidelity. My wife is an honest woman, and says she is truly in love with this other man, and she does not love me anymore, so she does not want to reconcile. She told me the man she loves is a more solid man, an assertive mature man who makes her feel like a woman and confident to be around.

People tell me I need to let her go. I tell people that marriage is a covenant which people need to take seriously. This is not a situation of abuse, but rather my wife had a change of heart because she no longer saw me as a man she can be with. I left my job in marketing a year ago with my wife's consent and support, due to stress as my job was making me miserable. My wife then became the breadwinner while I was actively seeking new employment....

I am devastated and feel empty inside. I am working through a range of emotions and find it difficult to think clearly. I am working to acknowledge my responsibility (or rather irresponsibility and sin) in the events leading up to her falling out of love and leaving me. I am working on improving myself. I want to save my relationship and marriage, and I want to make it stronger.

Wife is from Bulgaria. Her religion is Greek Orthodox. I'm Catholic. She came to the U.S. seven years ago to work and study. We met through a mutual friend back in 2007. We've been married for 3.5 years, together for over 5. She received her permanent green card in the mail a few days prior to her confessing having an affair.

While it is true that Christian women are considerably less likely to divorce, there are no shortage of those who put their female imperative above the Bible's marital directives.  Look at the things this guy balanced against his wife's Christian commitment to marriage:

1. Green card seeker
2. Non-dominant husband
3. Left his job because he was unhappy
4. Let her become the breadwinner

Men seem to think that it matters when a woman agrees to something that she doesn't like.  It doesn't; it merely means that she is intellectually repressing her feelings, but she isn't going to be able to do that forever. The fact that she agreed to let him quit his job and agreed to become the family breadwinner doesn't mean she was genuinely okay with it; that was probably when the thought of finding a man who would actually behave like a man and the head of a Christian household began to occur to her.

Is she to blame for her infidelity?  Of course.  Is it his fault?  No, she's the one who voluntarily elected to permit another man to penetrate her.  But he did do the male equivalent of a wife inviting the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders to move into the house, instilling a pole and a jacuzzi in the bedroom, then leaving for nine months for Tibet in order to "find herself".  While moral failure cannot be justified in this manner, in circumstances such as these, it should hardly take one by surprise.

Also, I've seen so many of these "green card" marriages fail at administratively significant times that I think they are to be avoided by men and women alike.  Unless the foreign spouse is completely fine with the two of you moving to the foreign country instead of living in the USA, the chances  that she is marrying American residence and not you are likely more than fifty percent.

As for what this guy should do, I believe he he should divorce his wife for infidelity, move on, and learn to become a man before he seeks to become a husband again.

Guys, it's a metaphor

It would appear some of India's lawyers are less than perfectly clear on how they are expected to go about divorce-raping their clients:

A woman has alleged that she was raped by four men, including her estranged husband, inside a lawyer's chamber here, police said on Tuesday. The victim claimed that the incident took place in a chambers of the lawyer practicing in Patiala court complex. She claimed that her husband's lawyer called her to the court on pretext of settling her divorce petition. She claimed her husband and sister-in-law took her to the chamber where she was raped by the lawyer, his assistant and her husband and her husband's brother-in-law.

There are often negative consequences when people make the mistake of taking metaphors literally, but in this case, I suppose something probably got lost in translation.

Sleep is the wonder drug

This may sound a little strange, but after reading this article about the deleterious effect of crying babies and sleepless nights, I thought I'd mention some advice I give to every new father-to-be of my acquaintance:

As any parent will testify, sleepless nights caused by a crying baby can put a strain on the relationship. But research claims it is the prime reason for as many as one in three divorces or separations.... 30 per cent of those who had split up blamed sleepless nights caused by their children.  Some 11 per cent admitted pretending to be a sleep when their child woke-up so their partner would have to deal with them.

The sleep deprivation that accompanies babies for the first three months is brutal.  It's brutal for both parents, but it is particularly hard on the mothers, who are still recovering from childbirth and tend to be more sensitive to the child crying than the fathers.  So, approach it the way soldiers do: if you have even 15 minutes of downtime, sleep.  If she isn't doing anything vital, encourage her to go to bed and crash.

Adjust your schedule if you can so that you're already up to deal with the late night bottles; it's actually a lovely time to spend with your little son or daughter.  I got quite a bit of writing done during those months.

Forget things you'd like to do, forget about everything except the absolute priorities that cannot be put off for a few weeks.  Sleep comes first, her sleep in particular.  Keep in mind that a sleep-deprived new mother is about as charming and reasonable as a demon-tortured soul in Hell; she desperately needs sleep and craves it more than the average heroin addict is jonesing for the drug.  So make sure she gets it.  If it's easier on her, it will be easier on you.  This isn't about Game, this is about mutual survival.  She'll also bond better with the child if she isn't resenting him for causing her to feel like a zombie.

Also, both parents have to learn to let the baby cry himself to sleep.  Do it, and he'll be sleeping through the night months, if not years, sooner than if you let her rush in to settle him down every time he wakes up.  And worse, neither of you will learn to distinguish between the "I'm going to cry for ten minutes and conk out" cry and the various other cries, which are not a uniform symbol of distress but rather an informative mode of communication.

It's important.  It may even preserve your marriage during one of its natural stress points.

The power of uncertainty

There are two things that one can glean from this graphic showing the frequency with which more than two thousand men report they have sex.  The first is that men tend to have much more sex if they are married or partnered than when they are single.  The second is that denying a wedding ring to a woman who is 30 or older tends to create enough uncertainty to inspire her to engage in more regular sexual relations than she otherwise would if she was married.

Consider how the percentages of men having sex 2 or more times per week switch once a woman passes the age of thirty:

Married:  43 percent (25-29), 32.6 percent (30-39)
Partnered: 33.4 percent (25-29), 45.5 percent (30-39)

Now, there are a number of potential explanations for this.  But Game provides the most obvious one, which is that the more secure a woman feels in her relationship, the more inclined she is to ignore a man's sexual desires and only indulge them when she happens to feel like it.

There is another, slightly more ominous explanation that is nearly as credible, which is that the roughly 11 percent difference is explained by women attempting to get pregnant.  However, the fact that 40.1 percent of Partnered men between 60-69 are in the 2+ category versus only 9.5 percent of the Married men lends support for the uncertainty hypothesis.

As is so often the case, it appears that following the recommendations provided by women tends to be sexually self-defeating for men.

Another strike against marriage?

At first glance, it appears a contract is no longer a contract if state marriage is involved:

A Long Island mother of three has become a postnuptial hero, after a prenup nearly cost her everything. In a landmark case, Elizabeth Cioffi-Petrakis, 39, won an appeal overturning a bizarre premarital agreement with her millionaire husband. Now she says she may be entitled to half of her ex’s worth when their divorce becomes final.

However, if one read the article, it is readily apparent that isn't actually the case.  A contract induced by fraud is intrinsically invalid.

The "morality" of serial monogamy

This is where the moral flexibility championed by the relativists and moderates was guaranteed to eventually result.  I don't say "end", because it isn't the end, it is merely a waypoint on the descent to complete pagan immorality.

In the past marriage was for life and this left serial monogamists in a moral bind.  However, now the rules have changed.  Under the new definition of marriage so long as she waits until it is “official” she is fully within the letter and spirit of marriage to jump to another man.  Those who are moral sticklers would of course insist that she marry this new man before having sex with him, and when she is ready for the next man after that divorce husband number two and then marry husband number three, etc.

This is why divorce laws must be eliminated in the interest of preserving Western civilization.  While it remains state-sanctioned, marriage is reduced to nothing more than an elevated, legally-recognized boyfriend status.  If women are worried about not being able to exit a marriage, then they should not get married in the first place.  Neither abuse nor unhappiness are justifications for divorce.

This also demonstrates why the state should not be involved in marriage at all.  Let it sanction legal civil unions for any two or more people of either sex who wish to establish one and leave marriage up to the church.  The legal sanction of the state has not strengthened marriage, it has drastically weakened it.

Alpha Mail: what's a woman to do?

AM asks how, as a thirty-something non-carousel rider, she is expected to navigate an increasingly difficult marriage marketplace:

I am a 32 year old woman of Indian descent that was raised in a extremely Christian and god-fearing household and am still single.

I need some advice on finding a husband. I really don't know what to do and thought you might have some suggestions. I was reading 3rd Millenium Men and they were listing 7 reasons Not to Seriously Date Girls over 30 (and I am 32). I am not disputing that the guy has given valid reasons for this. I am human. I can't help the fact that I am probably hitting the wall (though I and my family are relatively youthful looking, I don't or never got into the party lifestyle, rarely drink alcohol, eat relatively healthy and exercise so it might take longer), my fertility is declining and maybe a bit emotional but does that mean I have to prepare for a life of spinsterhood? This search isn't new, I have been at this for several years and it has become very discouraging, my mother started helping when I turned 25 as arranged marriages are very popular in our culture (and I am open to them). I promise, I was never one of those women that wanted to put off marriage and family for a career. I did go to college, but now have a low paying dead end office job. I really did want to get married and have children by now. I would have married in college if I found any guy that I liked that much.

The positives about me (I think) is that I have no ex boyfriends to speak of and have never had sex, as I think it is something important to save for marriage. I have never  I am relatively attractive and am not fat or have been overweight. I have waist length hair, no grays. While you might call this "Churchanity", I attend church every Sunday (and no there aren't any single guys remotely in my age range) and Bible Study Fellowship every Monday.

The negatives about me is that I am extremely shy and socially awkward. I have been diagnosed with ADHD, which I inherited, which I don't want to take drugs for but would change my diet. I rarely went out in college or in my twenties, not even to safe, Christian centered events. While people like me, I don't have any close friends. I can cook (or at least can easily learn to do so, I do cook and bake for my self and family) I am not the best housekeeper.

My mother says I should pray to god about this and look presentable, and that is the extent of it. Do you have anything that I might not have thought of, or should I got to the nearest animal shelter and adopt a dog and prepare for spinsterhood?

It's really up to AM.  If she is going to continue to be ruled by her shyness and social awkwardness, she probably is going to end up alone.  The rules have changed and the low deltas and gammas of the world are no longer expecting or even trying to find wives, not with the ready availability of Female Alternatives such as porn and games combined with a decade or more of invisible sexual maturity.

If she wants it, she has to be prepared to seek it out and find it.  There are plenty of delta/gamma Indian men in the programming world; it can't be that hard to figure out where they are and what is of interest to them.  But then, the decision has to be made to go and let it be known that she is available and interested in pursuing marriage and children.

Feminized churchianity has all but driven off all the men under 40, so it's not a very good place to meet a Christian man these days.  Does anyone else have any suggestions?  Unfortunately, AM serves as an example of how the uncontrolled behavior of some women makes life that much more difficult even for those who behave in a more traditional manner.

In the meantime, she shouldn't get too down over the androsphere rhetoric.  Most men over the age of 35 are perfectly open to marrying a woman in her thirties, particularly early thirties, regardless of the arguments presented against it.  The only relevant point is that 32 is a little late to be extraordinarily picky about the men on offer; she shouldn't make the mistake of the forty-something laundry list cat collector and turn up her nose at a fundamentally decent man who might be lacking in a few areas.