Charity

A non-trivial part of my “image problem” with much of the manosphere is that I refuse to trash women. And a certain amount of trashing women in this space is a tribal boundary marker. There’s actually a couple of good faith reasons for this. 1. The hate is a signal to angry young men—we’re on your side. You’ve been dismissed as toxic and villainized as the dregs of society. We’re a group not afraid to hit back against those that are hitting you. 2. The manosphere was also an attempt to create a male-only space in a world where male-only spaces were being rooted out. And so one way to keep the girls out was to have a language that put them off so much that they stayed clear. The best-kept secret of the red pill world is that the most committed guys don’t actually hate women at all. 3. Civility has been weaponized against men in many settings to get them to fold on things they should hold firm. To buck the cultural faux pas against trashing women is a flex to show we aren't exploitable. There’s a problem though. It attracts a swarm of orbiters who take the toxicity at face value and buy it in earnest. And they do themselves plenty of harm in the process and become useless at dating. I think I’d have to change surprisingly little about my messaging to satisfy the gatekeepers. A pinch of incense: “Sometimes a guy is married to a real shit wife, a total bitch, and he needs to tell her that he didn’t sign up for celibacy and she needs to shape up or ship out.” Then I’d be a fine upstanding member of the red pill adjacent identify-as-Christian relationship twitter community. So why don’t I? Because I find that, with the guys I coach, the “shit wife” assumption about their wives is pure poison and does not move them nearer to their goals on any front. I absolutely urge men to stand up to bad behavior from their wives and enforce standards in their relationships. But that has to be done on the foundation of extreme ownership—of building his own frame first, regardless of her response. Femininity is inherently responsive, and though the wife has a contribution to make, the husband MUST take the first step of the dance. With many guys that come to me, any hint of a chance to put the ball back in her court will be seized on with both hands. Furthermore, there’s a huge number of women languishing in marriages like dry feminine ground without masculine rain, because he’s not taking ownership. I feel for them, because many of them are truly stuck. A man can often reignite the fire of a relationship almost single-handedly; a good woman can often be as kind and patient as she can and it has zero pull on her passive man. Once the man has gotten his own house in order (and I don’t mean just “doing more” but truly living in his own frame, doing what he thinks is best unapologetically and not chasing her validation), I’m much cooler with “come to Jesus” conversations with his wife as part of the larger context of leadership. But even then, any hint of complaining or entitlement will work against him. “You agreed,” or “the Bible says,” has far less pull than, “this is what I want to have happen.” Resentment and bitterness holds men back. Pragmatism and assertiveness moves them forward. Generic denunciations of “shit wives” don’t serve these goals. And I think many apparently “shit wives” are waiting for the masculine catalyst they need to get out of the rut they’re in. I’d estimate 80/20. Some are beyond saving; most aren’t. So I simply refuse to say it. I’ll trash feminism all day long, but I will not bitch about women. Thus I have image problems with the tribe. And I may be ultimately cast out. But there are benefits. In expressing this red pill knowledge of intersexual dynamics without the bitter edge, I’ve found that conversations with women open up that would be completely closed otherwise (And yes, I’m aware, “watch what they do,” but there is STILL value in talking to them, guys). I say things to full-on feminists that would rally against these concepts in the manosphere, but they listen to me when I say it—simply because I’m confident, curious, and not a dick to them. And that’s crucial to my mission of bringing this message to the churches—as we all know, often an unfortunately feminized space. This practice also passes another tribal boundary marker in a different tribe: civilized society. It is not traditionally considered masculine to trash women—at all. That’s not the triumph of the longhouse. It’s Christian Civilization. For this work to have the impact I want it to have, it needs to break out of edgelord containment and impact the rank-and-file in the pews.

Did God make us men a bunch of sex hounds who want to jump on every pretty woman we see? In a way...yes. Yes he did. The male sex drive isn’t a tame lion. I’m not going to sanitize it. It’s not just about love and connection with someone special. It’s raw, hungry, and aggressive. There’s a famous story where President Calvin Coolidge and his wife were visiting a chicken farm. Seeing a rooster mounting a hen right in front of her, the first lady asked the attendant, “how often does he mate?” She was told, “dozens of times a day.” She grinned, “tell that to the President!” Not to be outdone, the President asked, “is it the same hen every time?” to which the attendant replied, “Oh no, Mr. President, a different hen each time.” President Coolidge gave a mischievous smile and said, “tell that to the first lady.” Researchers call this “the Coolidge effect”—the insatiable appetite of males for new females. If you drop a female rat in with a male, he’ll immediately mate with her several times in a row. But he’ll lose interest over time and mate less and less often. However, add a new female to the cage, and the male will immediately drop everything he’s doing and jump on her. If you keep adding new females, the male will mate himself into an unconscious stupor. His sexual desire is stronger than his little rat body. You’re not a rat, but can you relate? Your primal drive is spontaneous. A pretty woman walks into the room, catches your eye, and your shaft gets hard and points toward the thing it wants to mate with. Your rational mind may not want to marry her or raise children with her, but your primal mind doesn’t care. He yells out loud and clear: “mating opportunity at twelve o’clock, let’s go get her!” Your primal mind doesn’t seem very moral! But actually, he’s trying to obey God in his own simplistic way. In Genesis 1, God commanded every living thing to “be fruitful and multiply,” and to mankind added the command to “fill the earth and subdue it.” This is our “cultural mandate” from God, to build families, societies, civilizations. Our bodies (and those of the animals) don’t think about the command consciously—the instinct to follow it is just built into our essence. Your primal mind sees a chance for fruitfulness and jumps at it. If you let him go at it aimlessly, you’ll be that fire that burns the entire landscape. The result throughout history? Sexual assault. Single mothers. Fatherless children. Jealousy. Adultery. Broken homes. Ruined marriages. Murderous rivalry with other men. Without wisdom, your primal mind’s innate desire to obey the cultural mandate will end up destroying families, societies, and even civilizations. The Cost of Being Careful Since male sexual power can be so destructive, it makes sense that people try to tie it down. You can’t grab every pretty woman you see. Without a moral outlet for his desire, every Christian man can feel faced with a constant battle. It may seem that the price of virtue is eternal vigilance. I once heard a sermon by a megachurch pastor who talked about lust. At any point he could stumble into sexual scandal, which would jeopardize his entire ministry. His solution? Stay away from anything that could tempt him. His phone was so locked down that he couldn’t even do a search for a hot air balloon ride. His wife and his staff had all the passwords. He admitted that it might seem extreme, but would you welcome a tiger into your home and just hope it doesn’t attack your family? He asked the congregation, “what do I lose by being careful?” The pastor saw his own virility as a stalking predator, with his soul as the prey. A chance circumstance landing him alone in a room with a woman would be an emergency. A new ipad out of the box might as well be a pit viper. To protect himself from the capacity to do harm, he became someone else’s responsibility to manage. Another child to his wife, and a burden to his staff. Christ said that the gates of Hell would not prevail against his church. That implies that we are on the offense against the forces of darkness. We’re coming to batter down the gates and set slaves free. But in this man’s framework, he’s the one under siege, frantically running from defense to defense, and hoping the devil doesn’t get through. This is no way to live. One little chink in the defenses and the whole thing comes crumbling down. There’s no keeping the tiger away when the tiger is you. But even if he succeeded, what then? What sort of frame does a man have who truly believes he can’t trust himself? What power does a man have for life and ministry, when he is terrified by his own primal drive? What did he lose by being careful? His manhood. If you live like this, you’ll be the guy frantically chasing new outbreaks of an underground fire. Your energy will be spent reacting to crises, rather than chasing your goals. You’ll always be vulnerable to unexpected slips. And if you do finally quench your fire, the landscape you preserve will be cold and cheerless. The journey of Christian discipleship isn’t about becoming a nice boy, but a good man. By “good” I don’t just mean morally the opposite of evil. I mean “good” like in “Good Friday.” Faithful, dependable, reliable—“all the knots held good.” And that means being trustworthy with power. A man doesn’t delegate the management of his own passions to his staff, his wife, or his mother. The buck stops with him. The Primal Hunt You’ve seen two approaches to your sex drive that don’t work. Now I’ll show you the one that does. You don’t have to learn some sophisticated technique to do it either—it’s as natural as breathing. We can understand our instincts better if we see them in their original context. Masculinity and femininity weren’t created first and foremost for life in the modern world. So let’s imagine a young man growing up in a tribe of several hundred people living off the land—like the camp of the Biblical patriarch Isaac. Our young hero is fourteen years old and puberty has arrived. He’s growing taller, his voice is cracking, and he gets erections. He’s sexually attracted to the young ladies in the camp, but none of them notice him. And so his virility feels like a frustrating irritation. He’s moody and antsy. How can he let out his sexual fire with no woman in his life? Then one day the burly Esau walks by, and invites him to join the men on the hunt. The young man is intimidated. He doesn’t want to look bad in front of the men. But all of that pent-up virility propels him forward. In the moment that matters, he overcomes his fears, and takes down his first kill. Walking back into the camp, the successful hunter has his head held high with the kill slung over his shoulders. Esau punches his arm and says, “not bad for your first hunt.” He’s not feeling sexual frustration at all. He’s on top of the world. And it’s at this point that one of the pretty young ladies attending Rebecca asks a friend, “Who is that young man? I’ve never noticed him before.” Sexual Transmutation Our hero just experienced “sexual transmutation.” That’s an esoteric word, but it just means responding to sexual arousal by using your virility for a non-sexual purpose. He started off sexually frustrated and channeled that energy into hunting. What was the result? His success satiated his drive while raising his status in the tribe. That’s why I started the book with the word “virility”—because your sexual drive and your status drive are fundamentally the same power. Notice that the cultural mandate includes both procreation and conquest, “be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it.” Think of the hunt as a kind of sexual conquest. The young man exerted his strength and fertilized reality with his will. This brought forth fruit (food for the tribe) and raised his status. Sexual energy built up his frame. It goes the other way too. This non-sexual pursuit was the young man’s clearest path to sexual abundance. If he had gone after the young ladies of the tribe as a nobody, they wouldn’t have been interested. But now that stalemate has been outflanked. There are new opportunities for courtship. The ladies love a conquering hero. It’s a totally natural thing for any guy to do. Here’s an example from married life. I remember feeling sexually frustrated one evening after an argument with my wife. I stormed out to the garage, and it was a disaster. I snapped. In a fury, I started organizing the area around my workbench. It felt like a battle. How dare these intruding objects be out of place in my garage—I’ll show them! By the time I was finished, I wasn’t frustrated or horny anymore. I was pleased with a job well done. My wife noticed the shift in me, we made up, and we made love. In that example, my sexual frustration was channeled into conquest energy. It wasn’t just that I distracted myself from being horny. Rather, going to war with the forces of chaos in the garage is what I did with those horny feelings. Virility was exerted and Primal was satisfied. Here’s another example. Last summer, I was with my kids at a waterpark. While climbing a slide, I looked up and found a woman’s bikini-clad rear right in my face. Before I understood how virility works, I would have tied myself in knots trying not to stare. Instead, I relaxed, took a deep breath, and realized I already had all I needed. I thanked Primal for his powerful drive, and shifted the energy into jumping that much higher into the water with my boys. After that, there was no internal pull to ogle, nor any resentment towards the woman for “tempting” me. Fuel for Mission Some guys have trouble imagining how to channel sexual energy into anything besides sexual release—orgasm through masturbation or sex. The solution is simple: you need to be OK with the feeling of sexual arousal. In a way, both indulgence and repression are forms of resistance—they’re both trying to get rid of the arousal. But is being horny really such a bad feeling? You get an erection. Your heart beats faster. Your body feels charged, like it’s humming with energy. There’s a tingling heat under your skin, a kind of restless aliveness. What if you just let yourself feel that? Sexual transmutation isn’t about reducing desire—it’s about moving forward with it. Being OK with that sensation and doing something purposeful while it’s still running hot in your system. Once you get the hang of directing your virility, you’ll experience sexual arousal as a gift and not a nuisance. It’s your “fuel for mission.” For me with my wife, that mission may be sexual, but most of the time it’s not. Maybe you’re looking forward to married life as this oasis of sex on demand. You may be shocked to discover that, in a given week, I spend more waking hours not having sex than having sex! My sexual desire far exceeds sexual opportunities, even in a passionate marriage. But that’s OK, because there are other conquests in my life that require virility. There’s a spiritual component to the “Coolidge effect.” If you dig a little, you’ll find high desires hidden in the base ones. Behind the desire to couple with every beautiful woman sits the desire to read every great book, to explore every wilderness, to understand every mystery of science and nature, to embark on every worthy adventure, and to express the infinite fullness of God himself. The cultural mandate, as its sights aim higher, merges with the great commandment, “love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength.” That means a virile man who is clear in his frame before God makes love to life. Train yourself to welcome a tinge of sexual energy when you feel it. And then look for ways to bring a virile charge to whatever you are doing. Type like you’re laying bricks—building a cathedral one keystroke at a time. Turn the doorknob like you're entering a space that was waiting for your presence. Walk down the street with a swagger as a member of God’s vanguard on the earth, with each footstep marking your territory. Feel an electric energy as you fertilize that exam with the lead of your pencil. Plant the seed of excellence in the work that you do. Bear fruit with your intentions. Multiply your efforts. Fill your sphere of influence. Subdue your goals. From THE WAY OF MEN WITH MAIDS 👇

Should Wives Submit to Husbands? Sharon called her mom in a panic, “Dad’s having the contractor break ground in my backyard!” Her aging parents had moved down and were building on her 20 acre property. Her father, a brilliant man on the autism spectrum, was completely ignoring his daughter’s pleas. Her mother marched out and confronted him, “No, you can’t tell them to build the house right there next to Sharon’s house. Dig in the field on the other side of the woods like we agreed.” He finally relented, “Oh, ok.” Telling me this story, she concluded, “I’m so thankful that my mom isn’t a submissive wife.” It’s an oddly specific word, submission. I think of a dog yielding in a fight, or someone tapping out in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu. We all know the meaning: back down and let the other party have their way. In Ephesians 5, St. Paul told wives to submit to their husbands, “in everything.” Since strict traditionalists allow only a single exception (him commanding her to sin), women like Sharon hear the message that good wives should dutifully go along with their husbands as they blunder off a cliff. But would St. Paul have wanted Sharon's mother to stand aside? You Keep on Using That Word A month or so ago, I heard a familiar passage read in Church—the boy Jesus in the temple. Mary and Joseph had accidentally left him behind. When they discovered he wasn’t in their caravan, they returned to Jerusalem in a panic and finally found him after a three day search. Twelve-year-old Jesus seemed surprised they were so upset—wouldn’t anyone know this was where he belonged? And then the passage concluded: “And he went down with them and came to Nazareth and was submissive to them.” I straightened up. That’s a strange choice of words. Living in East Asia for seven years, I’ve learned to spot a concept distorted in translation. You’ll have a word that’s coherent in one language, but it sits in between two different words in the new one. A more literal translation like the ESV sometimes opts for stilted English to keep these connections intact. My instincts were right: both Luke 2 and Ephesians 5 use the same Greek word, hypotassō. The English word doesn’t seem to fit in the temple story. Jesus hadn’t resisted his parents. When they found him, there wasn’t an argument where he finally backed down. In the text, his “submission” came after he got back to Nazareth. But what Jesus had done was to detach from his parents. The story resolved with Jesus embracing his role in family life, not in the temple. And it’s attachment that’s the emphasis of hypotassō. Literally, “to arrange yourself under.” It’s a word used to refer to soldiers lining up in a unit. Taking up your full station in the service of the body you are joining. Just Following Orders It’s not that hypotassō has nothing to do with obedience. After all, St. Peter praises Sarah for obeying Abraham, Christ tells the church, “if you love me, you will obey what I command,” and the book of Proverbs complains about contentious and quarrelsome wives. Strife creates a detachment all its own. But the English word submission is defined by yielding, whereas hypotassō (with its military origins) leaves a lot more room for loyal opposition. Insubordination is certainly punished. But when the stakes get high, the good soldier is defined not by complying with every utterance of his commander no matter the situation on the ground, but by doing what is best for his comrades and his mission. As Napoleon said: “Every general and chief who undertakes to execute a plan which he knows to be bad, is culpable. He should communicate his reasons, insist on a change of plan, and, finally, resign his commission, rather than become the instrument of his army’s ruin.” The early martyrs anchored themselves to the governing authorities as good citizens, while at the same time refusing to obey the command to sacrifice to Caesar. This wasn’t an exception to the call to hypotassō in Romans 13, it was an example of it—maintaining attachment while insisting on the highest good. That’s the measure of hypotassō: serving the interests of the body you are arranging yourself under. Often this involves submission. But sometimes it requires the opposite. Blessed be your Discretion There’s a story in the Old Testament about a “beautiful and discerning” woman named Abigail, who was married to an arrogant blowhard named Nabal. David’s band of marauders had guarded Nabal’s herdsmen, but when David requested some food in return, Nabal insulted his messengers and sent them away. David was furious, and set out with 400 men to kill every male in Nabal’s house—in the King James’ colorful language, “any that pisseth against the wall.” The servants briefed Abigail, who they saw as the de facto leader. Without telling her husband, she immediately set out with a caravan of food and gifts and intercepted David’s death squad. She told him that Nabal was a fool, and begged him to hold her accountable for the insult. David was deeply impressed with her, and thanked her for helping him avoid bloodshed. The story ends with Abigail telling her husband what she’d done after he had sobered up. Conveniently, Nabal got sick and died ten days later. David then took Abigail as his wife. I think St. Paul would have seen Abigail as hypotassō to Nabal, though she was anything but submissive. She didn’t hypergamously detach and join David in killing him. She didn’t flee for the hills. She took up her station under Nabal, even though that meant directly defying his wishes, because that was the only way to save his life and every male in his family. Ancient commentators overwhelmingly praise Abigail. Interestingly, there is one rabbinic source that has a slight criticism. It’s not for disobeying Nabal or calling him a fool. It’s for this line to David: “When the Lord has dealt well with my lord, then remember your servant.” This is seen as angling for David while still Nabal’s wife—a slip of attachment. But it’s hypotassō, not submission, that matters. Half My Kingdom If Abigail had hypotassō without submission, Herodias in the New Testament had the reverse. John the Baptist criticized King Herod’s marriage to her, since she had divorced his brother to marry him. Herod then imprisoned John, but didn’t want to kill him—partly because it would be unpopular, and partly because he found him intriguing. Herodias never directly opposed her husband. Instead, when her daughter Salome danced for him during a banquet, and Herod promised a reward—“up to half my kingdom”—she had her daughter ask for John’s head on a platter. Herod didn’t want to do it, but couldn’t refuse without losing face. Thus perished John. So Herodias was technically submissive—Herod had blundered into undermining his own goals by making a rash promise. But her scheming wasn’t hypotassō. Herodias put her personal vendetta over her husband’s political interests. She wasn’t arranging herself under his mission. What a contrast with the “excellent wife” in Proverbs 31! Not much in the passage about submission, but she’s the paragon of a wife, “hypotassō to her husband in everything.” She has attached herself to the husband’s estate completely—appraising and buying a field, planting a vineyard from her own earnings, trading at a profit, clothing the household against winter. Her husband has total confidence in her, and he is honored among his peers because of what she builds. Anchoring in his Frame My wife talks about biblical “sub-mission” as being “under a mission.” It’s a made-up etymology, but it’s far truer to hypotassō. The husband is to build up his frame, and expand his own personal vocation into one that includes her passion and flourishing. And then she is able to anchor herself in his frame. Some see encouraging loyal opposition from wives as undermining male leadership in marriage, but it’s actually how we uphold it. As @jockowillink and @LeifBabin, navy SEAL veterans of the battle of Ramadi, write in Extreme Ownership: “We want to dispel the myth that military leadership is easy because subordinates robotically and blindly follow orders…they must believe in the cause for which they are fighting.” Jocko and Leif then outline all that goes into good leadership, emphasizing the relational capital that needs to be carefully budgeted with both pulling rank and pushing back up the chain of command. They continue in The Dichotomy of Leadership: “No one person can control multiple people executing a vast number of actions in a dynamic environment, where changes in the situation occur rapidly and with unpredictability. It also inhibits the growth of subordinates: when people become accustomed to being told what to do, they begin to await direction. Initiative fades and eventually dies. Creativity and bold thought and action soon die as well. The team becomes a bunch of simple and thoughtless automatons, following orders without understanding, moving forward only when told to do so. A team like that will never achieve greatness.” A marriage like that will never achieve sexiness either. It’s one thing for a wife to “salute a man’s rank” as husband, it’s quite another thing for her to admire the man himself. And that is proven through the challenges in life together. When he isn’t threatened by her pushback, and proves himself strong and wise over time, her body agenda can actually encounter him as an inspiring presence. Returning to Sharon: she was thankful that her mother wasn't a “submissive wife.” But her mother wasn't rejecting the biblical vision of marriage. She remained firmly on her husband's side, working for his good and the good of their family, even when that meant standing in his way. It’s the kind of follower that all good leaders want.

@MarkQueppet is a national treasure. He’s as priceless as @jockowillink, and someday the world will see it.

Women are obviously adult females, but men have similar shepherding instincts for them that women do with children. We enjoy being patient with them, care if they cry, and find physical weakness cute rather than contemptible. That's in tension with seeing women as our equals in ALL respects, but the fun of romance is seamlessly bouncing from an equal context to an unequal one. Having a budget meeting=equals. Afterwards sweeping her off her feet and carrying her upstairs=not equals. To infantilize her in her area of expertise is degrading to her. And yet to treat her like a man where her femininity is designed to anchor on a man's frame is degrading as well--she'll feel guilty and inadequate just for being a woman in the world. "Women are allergic to accountability." I'm not sure that's really true. I think they have instincts that implicitly know when they depend on a man's frame, but no cultural language to communicate this explicitly. Our modern society has deprived women of masculine men, and we see a more anxious, disagreeable, and astray expression of womanhood. She's accountable for what she builds on his frame (and she's instinctively very receptive for HIM to hold her accountable--why do you think "good girl" is sexy talk?). However, to blame her when she reaches out for him and his frame isn't present or gives way, is to expect her to make bricks without straw.

She's getting a lot of hate for this, but @TheEcho13 is fundamentally right. "Withholding" in 1 Cor 7 refers to an intentional choice to no longer be sexual in a marriage---in ancient Corinth probably done by living apart like monastics. That nonsense needs to be countered directly and morally: your bodies belong to each other in marriage. But if your wife genuinely has no desire for you, despite consenting to be in a sexual relationship with you, you have a problem to solve. You CAN pressure her into guilt ridden duty sex. But most guys reaching for this underappreciate just what a non-solution it is, for her AND for you. The passionate, free, heart-thumping, creative, animalistic, "I'm desperate to PROVE how into you I am," sex that YOU are longing for lies in the opposite direction of her "lying back and thinking of England." This can be hard for a guy to understand, because if he isn't in the mood (because he's fully engaged in something else), but his wife is really horny, it doesn't take much to context switch and he can be all there. The sex can be great. But if her body isn't at least on the path to arousal, women are just a different animal. Sex is different for women. Sex is a deeply vulnerable full-body "yes,"---her saying on a primal level: "I want to have YOUR baby, I want to go through the pain and danger of childbirth and take on all the risk and work around it, because bringing YOUR seed into the world is worth it all. Take me, take all I have, I am yours." When her body isn't actually saying this to you, and you try to short circuit its voice through rational negotiation, her body-agenda hears you saying, "I am not worthy of your genuine desire, so I need to trick you so that I get you anyway." Rationally, she doesn't think this about you. She's confused and frustrated. But more and more, her sex drive concludes that her own husband isn't the right man. Transactional sex is bad news. It's a shortcut that leads to ruin. Cultivating genuine desire can seem a harder road. But it's what both you and her ultimately want.

CULTIVATING HER GENUINE BURNING DESIRE I hear it all the time on this platform from frustrated husbands: “What does my wife mean she’s not in the mood for sex? I didn’t want to go to work this morning, but I went anyway! How hard is it just to lay there? It would cost her so little and make a world of difference to me. We all have duties. Grow up!” Seems reasonable, but there’s a problem. He knows exactly where that road ends: with her resigned eyes staring at the ceiling as he pounds away, essentially masturbating with her disengaged body, knowing in his heart of hearts that his wife doesn’t want him inside her. The experience doesn’t give him peace; he doesn’t feel admired, masterful, or exhilarated. It’s the hollow corpse of passion, without even the novelty of porn, and his soul dies a little each time. She hates it, and deep down he hates it too. Even husbands in bad marriages have probably experienced a wife’s genuine desire at least a handful of times. Perhaps they were on a weekend away without the kids, at the very peak of her cycle. Skin touching skin was electric, her body melted to his touch, her hungry mouth searched for his lips. By the time he entered she was practically begging for him. There was ecstasy, thrill, where she desperately wanted him to give her his all. And they collapsed exhausted in each other’s arms with a deep peace washing over them. I have my disagreements with Rollo Tomassi (@RationalMale), but he is dead right that “you can’t negotiate genuine burning desire.” A day as a lion is worth a hundred years as a sheep, and no amount of promises or pressure will turn bad sex into good sex. You can’t negotiate desire, but you can cultivate it. Life is a betting man’s game. You can’t guarantee her enthusiasm any more than a farmer can guarantee a good harvest, but there’s a lifetime of skill and art to playing the odds well. Some men say this is living in her orbit and seeking her affirmation. Nothing could be further from the truth. Whatever a woman’s personal opinions, her unconscious body agenda is almost perfectly calibrated to respond to strong generous masculinity. The path of becoming a man you admire is also the path to maximizing your chances of good sex in your marriage. It’s here where expectations of duty sex will ruin everything. Male neediness kills a woman’s libido. At best it engages her maternal instincts, and women are not sexually attracted to their children. The more she feels you need sex to be ok, the more you will feel like a hungry infant sucking the life out of her, not a strong man sweeping her up in his arms. Sexual self-mastery is the key to sexual abundance in marriage. When you give up the childish idea of fulfilling “sexual needs,” you unlock the sexual power of manhood. Do not approach your wife to fill a lack within yourself, but to give the gift of your passion. With the fear of rejection gone, you’re free to initiate often, playfully, adventurously, unapologetic in your desire. You and your wife will never look back.

Everything this video says is TRUE™️ BUT, it uses feminine/therapeutic language that's WORSE THAN USELESS for most men. Let me translate: Therapy Speak: "When emotional connection breaks down, the nervous system starts treating intimacy as a threat. Not a choice. A body response." Man Speak: "When you're a little bitch, her sexual firmware dries up, because it doesn't want to have weak babies with only a little bitch to protect her." Therapy Speak: "The is called a protest behavior. She's reaching, the only way her nervous system will let her." Man Speak: "Her mind doesn't WANT to reject you. But her body sees sex with a little bitch as a visceral threat." Therapy Speak: "The research is clear. Women's desire for physical intimacy is directly tied to felt emotional safety. This isn't manipulation. It's biology." Man Speak: "Her body's ability to want you is directly tied to how much it feels you showing up as the fucking man. Her mind has zero control of this." Therapy Speak: "She's not keeping score. She's trying to stay." Man Speak: "She's actually rooting for you. She just doesn't know how to teach you how to be a man, because she's never had to become one herself." teapawt.net/claritywithcl/status/2…

Hell hath no fury like a nice guy whose covert contract has been scorned.