• Home
  • Diversity + Proximity = War: The Reference List
  • Shit Cuckservatives Say
  • The Sixteen Commandments Of Poon
  • Alpha Assessment Submissions
  • Beta Of The Year Contest Submissions
  • Dating Market Value Test For Men
  • Dating Market Value Test For Women
  • About

Chateau Heartiste

Feeds:
Posts
Comments
« Women, Divorce And Misleading Statistics
The Pay Gap Is A Lie »

Shacking Up Vs Tying The Knot

April 17, 2012 by CH

What advantage accrues a man who decides to cohabit instead of marry? Well, for one (and it’s a BIG one), women tend to let themselves go once they’ve extracted marital vows from their men. Here’s a referenced study which shows that once a woman gets what she wants from a man, she doesn’t (subconsciously) care anymore about pleasing him. (Study title is hilariously droll: “Entry into romantic partnership is associated with obesity”.)

Several studies examining longitudinal changes in romantic relationship status report a differential sex effect of entry into marriage, with greater weight gain in women (9,10,30). Women may be differentially impacted by transitions in romantic relationship status; for example, through increased social obligations encouraging consumption of regular meals (31,32) and larger portion sizes (33), resulting in increased energy intake (30). Further, entry into cohabitation or marriage is associated with decreased physical activity (34) and a decline in desire to maintain weight for the purpose of attracting a mate (6). In contrast, obese women may be less likely to marry (35). Our longitudinal findings suggest that both men and women who enter marriage are more likely to become obese, consistent with findings from another large, racially diverse sample of young adults (36). Moreover, we found that individuals who lived with romantic partners for a longer duration had higher likelihood of incident obesity suggesting that shared household environmental factors may contribute to changes in obesity.

Cohabitation may not be good for society in the long run (we’ll see how Scandinavia turns out), but in the here and now it is very good for the individual man, and most people think in the latter terms. As a friendly reminder, a wife bloating up and disfiguring her womanly profile is as repulsive to a husband as he would be to his wife if he lost his job and confidence and skulked around the house with his chin buried in his chest, begging for morsels of sexual release.

Again, we come back to incentives, latent or blatant, and their influence on human behavior. Men have “hand” within cohabiting relationships, while women have hand within marriage. Women are on their best behavior — read: their least bitchiest and gluttonous — when they are cohabiting with men who can leave them at a moment’s notice with little cost to the men. A woman in such a precarious circumstance feels inchoate pressure to maximize her sexual appeal, both physical and temperamental.

Conversely, wives who are not kept in desirous thrall to their husbands — read: hubby became a mincing betaboy or lost his social or economic status, or the spark simply vanished from the passage of time and mundane familiarity — gradually slip into their worst behavior, which includes getting fat and ugly, as the science and conventional wisdom demonstrates. Now, women who do this in pre-marital relationships can easily be dumped; but within marriage, not so much, at least not without SEVERE cost to the disillusioned husband. Women know this, on a very deeply primitive apebrain level, even if they don’t discuss it or acknowledge it outright. Which leads to…

Maxim #204: Modern marriage is a waiver of liability that relieves wives of the responsibility to remain attractive to their husbands.

Corollary to Maxim #204: The modern marriage waiver of liability does not extend to husbands, who must remain optimally attractive to their wives so long as the marriage is intact and the cost of failing in this responsibility is excessive.

Let’s be clear about this, so you don’t get the wrong impression reading these issues in the stark, remorseless light in which I prefer to present them. Social, sexual and romantic incentives and disincentives don’t operate in a coldly calculating way — it’s not like a wife punches numbers into a mental spreadsheet or draws up wistful pros and cons lists before willfully deciding that an extra tub of Ben & Jerry’s won’t matter since her husband can’t divorce without losing a lot of money and the house and kids. The differential power structures of various relationship models aren’t grasped by the bit players in anything more than a gut feeling.

No, these still-human behavioral reactions work on the level of the id. Without really thinking about it, the existence of an incentive to behave a certain way subtly and slowly influences a person to act in accordance with their self-interest. What that self-interest is varies by context and circumstance. A single woman seeking love will avoid overeating and take a lot of yoga classes so that her tight bod will catch the eyes of, hopefully, some high value alpha males.

A married woman who has achieved her objective of locking a man into long term commitment backed by the strength of the state will feel imperceptible undertones or impulses that guide her along paths which take her away from staying sexually desirable and toward fulfilling her other hedonic needs. It doesn’t help her attraction for her husband that the threat of state sanction effectively neuters him by rendering his choice to remain married to her one of coercion rather than mutual delight.

Game is a useful ameliorative to these natural human instincts, (and I know how much asserting that gets under the skin of anti-gamers). But I’ve seen it in action; a husband who uses game (or charisma, if it helps your digestion) on his wife will mold her incentive structure so that selflessly pleasing him takes precedence over selfish solipsism. This will happen because, as I’ve said previously, up-front, near, tangible incentives trump downstream, far, less tangible disincentives. A sexy husband woos a wife better than a powerful state and natural inclination woos her away from him.

Share this:

  • Click to email (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)

Like this:

Like Loading...

Related

Posted in Hungry Hungry Hippos, Love, Marriage Is For Chumps, The Id Monster, Ugly Truths | 126 Comments

126 Responses

  1. on April 17, 2012 at 4:39 pm Lara

    I think the best way to handle this is to blatantly check out thinner women in her company. Monitoring what she eats is giving her too much attention.

    LikeLike


    • on April 17, 2012 at 5:59 pm RafterManFMJ

      Female hindbrain after marriage, “You’ve won the race, take off the uniform.”

      LikeLike


    • on April 18, 2012 at 12:02 am Bigfoot

      The most important thing to do is to work out and stay fit and make sure she sees all the looks you get in public from other women. Combine that with acting in a masculine manner and tingling her vagina and she’ll feel pressure to stay in shape for you.

      A man getting fat and becoming a couch potato just means that she knows he has 0 options, allowing her to get fat.

      LikeLike


  2. on April 17, 2012 at 4:44 pm GeishaKate

    At this point in my life, I very much like this idea of not having anything be too sure and keeping one another on their toes. Any vow I would wish to extract from another human being would be: promise that you will never stop living, evolving, and developing. While romance is greatly appreciated, pragmatism is as well. Periodic assessments and adjustments to the arrangement could be made over time depending on how it is working. So, anybody know anybody? 😉

    LikeLike


    • on April 17, 2012 at 4:56 pm Firepower

      You
      sound perfect
      too bad you can’t cook

      LikeLike


      • on April 17, 2012 at 6:59 pm GeishaKate

        🙂

        LikeLike


    • on April 17, 2012 at 5:53 pm 357

      This smacks of a smitten girl declaring her “love of sports” to a new found object of desire, so that she might win his attention.

      LikeLike


      • on April 17, 2012 at 7:06 pm GeishaKate

        I can see why it sounds that way, and I’ve certainly been influenced by what I’m reading here, but no one will ever convince me to like sports 🙂 But, truly, ask yourself, if you were a woman who had been with an ex-husband for ten years, you already have a child, you are financially independent, unless the person you were with was adamant about marriage, would you want it? Its quite possible that I could fall in love and go all woman crazy and start having wedding fantasies, but it really is something I’ve been thinking about: what do I really want, what do people assume I want, etc.

        LikeLike


    • on April 17, 2012 at 6:15 pm herpaderp

      GeishaKate please post nudes.

      LikeLike


    • on April 17, 2012 at 6:41 pm LionSoul

      So, like a job evaluation?

      Maybe people should have something like a 90 day probationary period before they take things further in the relationship–moving in or whatever.

      I don’t think people’s egos would allow it.

      LikeLike


      • on April 17, 2012 at 6:57 pm GeishaKate

        Just habitual communication. It doesn’t have to be formal with a clipboard and ruler, although it could 🙂 (Why is that scene of Elaine grilling the candidate about his sideburns to see if he’s “spongeworthy” coming to mind?)

        LikeLike


    • on April 17, 2012 at 7:54 pm Anon

      Tits or GTFO

      LikeLike


    • on April 17, 2012 at 8:25 pm Goyim Butthexted International MasterClass (TM), (Patent Pending)

      SHISKA SHOW BOOBS lzolzolzolzolzo

      LikeLike


    • on April 18, 2012 at 11:20 am Redleg

      Much as I don’t want to feed a western woman more attention, I have to agree. “Never stop living, evolving, and developing” should be tattooed on every adult’s arm. Complacency is deadly.

      LikeLike


      • on April 18, 2012 at 12:45 pm GeishaKate

        “Complacency is deadly.” I couldn’t agree more. We are alive to live, afterall. As for feeding attention, well, all good things must end, I suppose 🙂 It has been wonderful to have intelligent and fun conversation, and I could talk about all this stuff for another year, but time to let the boys be boys again! Enjoy your brandy and cigars:)

        LikeLike


      • on April 18, 2012 at 1:07 pm King A (Matthew King)

        Just when you were beginning to demonstrate to Maya the proper way to get the web host’s attention, you’re going to bail? What about the sisterhood?

        You can e-mail me the nudes privately. I promise I will not post them here.

        LikeLike


      • on April 18, 2012 at 1:12 pm Redleg

        The best trolls pull out before they’re discovered.

        LikeLike


      • on April 18, 2012 at 2:10 pm GeishaKate

        Perhaps I could demonstrate something infinitely more valuable to “Maya”: the ability to curtail hypergamy.

        (btw, the song? There are no words…:))

        LikeLike


      • on April 19, 2012 at 12:19 pm King A (Matthew King)

        C’est impossible! You cannot curtail hypergamy in the presence of true alpha.

        LikeLike


      • on April 19, 2012 at 12:47 pm Maya

        So true, King A. All you can do is to let him fuck you.

        LikeLike


      • on April 19, 2012 at 10:49 pm King A (Matthew King)

        The student of Geisha has already fled the lesson. Perhaps she was intimidated by its “infinite[]” scope.

        Baby steps, ladies. Baby steps to full Geishahood.

        Step one. Pictures of tits. Let a thousand breasteses bloom.

        Step two. Refer to step one.

        Step three. ENLIGHTENMENT.

        LikeLike


      • on April 20, 2012 at 9:03 am GeishaKate

        “You cannot curtail hypergamy in the presence of true alpha.”

        Presence being the operative word. Only those with the presence of mind or the instinct will be smart enough to flee. The female gives chase from time in memoriam.

        Step one: These “show us your tits” remarks are not alpha and are instead wearing. In time water erodes rock, but that is girl game.

        Step two: Never underestimate anyone. There’s a very thin veneer to the illusion of our reality. Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should. Just because I take the bait doesn’t mean I don’t know its a worm.

        Step three: Hurry up. I’m waiting at step four.

        LikeLike


      • on April 21, 2012 at 4:48 pm King A (Matthew King)

        GeishaKate wrote:

        These “show us your tits” remarks are not alpha and are instead wearing. In time water erodes rock, but that is girl game.

        If they’re not alpha, then, um, then … I was just kidding about them! It was all a joke. All of those requests for images of your jugs (or are they more apple-sized?) were obviously examples of my amusement and mastery! Couldn’t you tell? I would never not act alpha in everything I do. Even in my internet commentary I throw off such an alpha vibe bitches often faint upon reading it.

        The step beyond Enlightenment is Nirvana. What kind of Geisha are you? The Southern Baptist variety? Reread the koan until you become the koan. Step Four is Step Zero is Step One is Step Infinity. Wait for me there, baby. I’m a couple daily grains of rice and a few hours meditation away.

        And what’s taking the tea so long?

        Matt

        P.S. Please send us pictures of your awards and accomplishments.

        LikeLike


      • on April 21, 2012 at 5:02 pm King A (Matthew King)

        BTW: Tsk tsk. Your “time in memoriam” should be “time immemorial.” I publicly sic you only because I know you like to be spanked hard on the malapropism. All the correcting a schoolmarm must do all day! Where might the perfectress find one worthy to perfect her?

        Or was your memorial service for “time” some kind of sly Buddhist reference?

        LikeLike


      • on April 23, 2012 at 1:10 pm GeishaKate

        If you’re going to go around making women faint, you shouldn’t expect your tea on time. I am only just now regaining conciousness with a mysterious pain in my malapropism. These pictures: grad or undergrad?

        King, you are a noble beast. We could go round and round. Are you ready to be friends yet? Om Namah Shivaya 🙂

        LikeLike


      • on April 23, 2012 at 4:20 pm Anon

        Stingray is gonna get jealous.
        Or will she tingle more, because of fear of loss/preselection?

        LikeLike


      • on April 24, 2012 at 4:49 pm King A (Matthew King)

        GeishaKate wrote:

        Are you ready to be friends yet?

        Oh, so you did get the pictures I emailed you of my cock?

        Undergrad accomplishments, if you please. Full length photos so I can gauge proportion.

        LikeLike


      • on April 26, 2012 at 7:38 am GeishaKate

        I hope people realize you’re joking 😦

        LikeLike


      • on April 26, 2012 at 9:04 pm GeishaKate

        With that ^ said, was that what that was? I thought somebody sent me a picture of the Washington Monument!!!

        LikeLike


      • on April 27, 2012 at 2:51 pm King A (Matthew King)

        GeishaKate wrote:

        I hope people realize you’re joking.

        Really? Are you going to put 🙂 stickers on everything just to eliminate the possibility of anyone mistaking humor for earnestness? Effing women.

        For the record: I never joke about my dick. It inspires enough laughter all by itself.

        Are you ready to be friends yet?

        FRIENDZONED. And by a chick with no (verifiable) tits! I am way off my game.

        LikeLike


      • on April 29, 2012 at 12:42 pm GeishaKate

        And I never joke about my virtue. New picture added at your command. One trembles to disobey a king, even if one was once a QueenBee.

        LikeLike


      • on April 29, 2012 at 2:03 pm Captain Save-a-hoe

        nice A – cups, Kate. 😉

        LikeLike


  3. on April 17, 2012 at 4:47 pm Anon

    Numerous studies have shown that both genders gain weight right after entering a relationship.

    Is it a sign that they’ve taken themselves off the market, or is it because they no longer give a fuck about their partner?

    A wife overly preoccupied with staying hot could mean: (1) she’s afraid her husband might stray, OR (2) she’s looking to stray.

    Just looking at the woman’s effort to maintain weight/hotness isn’t very useful. We’d have to take a closer look at the man’s status. So, as always, it comes down to whether the man is alpha.

    Maybe it’s more accurate to correlate increasing level of a male beta-ness with increasing level of female CHANGES IN APPEARANCE. The more beta the guy, the more the girl changes her appearance, positively or negatively.

    LikeLike


    • on April 18, 2012 at 12:07 am corvinus

      Numerous studies have shown that both genders gain weight right after entering a relationship.

      Both of my most recent girlfriends have liked to cook me stuff. Things like lasagna and German chocolate cheesecake. Mmm.

      LikeLike


    • on April 18, 2012 at 2:21 pm jadoescher

      At what point in the relationship? When it becomes exclusive, when they move in together, when they marry, after 10 dates, what?

      LikeLike


  4. on April 17, 2012 at 4:54 pm Ron

    Old joke. What is the most fattening food a woman can eat? Wedding cake.

    LikeLike


    • on April 17, 2012 at 5:10 pm Firepower

      Better yet:
      Why do brides smile, walking down the aisle at weddings?

      That’s the last blowjob they ever have to give..

      LikeLike


    • on April 23, 2012 at 3:25 am Sam

      I heard a similar joke. “What is the number one food that decreases sex?” Wedding cake.

      LikeLike


  5. on April 17, 2012 at 5:04 pm dave

    If women are more likely to bloat up in marriage, then could that be a good thing? A man without game will probably have less difficulty hanging onto a fat wife than his hot cohabiting girlfriend. Especially for those men who enjoy romantic relationships for reasons other than sex, this could be a good option.

    Flame on.

    LikeLike


  6. on April 17, 2012 at 5:22 pm Transmillenium

    Here in Colombia, the Union Marital de Hecho / Marital Union (Ley 54 de 1990) is more common than the marriages (http://m.eltiempo.com/gente/el-matrimonio-es-una-prctica-en-desuso-en-colombia/10939773).

    In its economical aspect is analogous to the Marriage: you acquire goods during your union/convivence during 2+ years that conform the Patrimonial Factual Society (Sociedad Patrimonial de Hecho), and when for whatever the cause you are going to separate, the goods are splitted also by the half (50-50). Sadly, is almost sure the man would have to pay alimony to the woman to maintain her and also it’s possible that he is accused (often falsely, because lawyers recommend women doing that to gain an upper hand in court) of domestic violence so he also would have to pay for damages.

    The same way with children: the children born during the union are by legal suposition from the male partner so he has to prove that they’re not his in order to avoid child support and alimony in case of separation from the woman. If they’re his descendence, he has to pay and it’s more plausible that he’s not going to get the custudy just for being male and therefore not supposed to be a good father, better than the woman.

    There are no ‘prenups’ for these kinds of relationships and if there were (you can’t pact freely in therms of family law), you’d not be saved from the court rape that is so common that even my family law school teacher accepts that there’s a bias against men in the colombian family courts.

    What can you do in order to avoid this? Having relationships with women that don’t last over 2+years to avoid the conformation of the Patrimonial Society or have sporadical LTR’s or MLTR’s avoiding permanency of 2+years; not cohabitate nor engage in unprotected sex.

    If you commit the mistake of marriying or engaing in Union Marital de Hecho, avoid that your properties enter the common sociedad patrimonial. You can do that by acquiring them before marriage/marital union, by acquiring them in donation/heritage/legacy (a título gratuito), or by celebrating simulatory acts (e.g. like donating those goods to a relative/close friend to appear that you don’t have goods to split; or creating a fund; or putting all your money in a foreign account). The last resort is selling everything before your properties get seized and leaving to a country without extradition.

    What about Civil Unions? How are the Civil Unions in the US?

    LikeLike


    • on April 18, 2012 at 3:27 am Nepenthe

      You bring up a good point, namely that due to the US centric nature of this blog, some of the advice can get you reamed even more royally in another country. Doesn’t necessary lessen it’s value, just something to keep in mind.

      LikeLike


      • on April 18, 2012 at 11:08 am Transmillenium

        That US centrism is what is changing laws in every part of the world. In Colombia, I have witnessed closelly that feminist legislators want to make analogous laws to those in the US so that can be dangerous to continue changing the family law legislation and making institutions irrecognizable (see Legal Security).

        LikeLike


  7. on April 17, 2012 at 5:28 pm The Perils of Civil Unions (Unión Marital de Hecho) in Colombia | Transmillenium

    […] This is a reponse to Shacking Up Vs Tying The Knot by Heartiste, who argues that there are some advantages “accrues a man who decides to cohabit […]

    LikeLike


  8. on April 17, 2012 at 5:29 pm Jericho

    Cohab/marriagle laws will anally rape you regardless. Do neither one. Long term relationships are fine – just make sure to drive the bitch home to her parents after an overnight stay at your place. No cohab, it’s just as bad as marriage if law finds out. Date 18 consent no limit.

    LikeLike


    • on April 17, 2012 at 9:16 pm dave

      could you be more specific as to how cohabitation is just as bad as marriage in the eyes of the law for people over 18?

      LikeLike


      • on April 18, 2012 at 7:03 am Harland

        It’s called common-law marriage. If a man and a woman live under the same roof and represent themselves as married, then they ARE married in the eyes of the law. Of course, all a woman has to do is throw out an offhand comment, once, about ‘my hubby’ or call him ‘honey’ in front of her friends, and that’s it. What’s the man going to do, immediately demand she retract her statement?

        LikeLike


      • on April 18, 2012 at 11:01 am itsme

        If a man and a woman live under the same roof and represent themselves as married, then they ARE married in the eyes of the law.

        all depends on where you live. in the u.s., this can only happen in about 10 states.

        LikeLike


      • on April 18, 2012 at 11:38 am Transmillenium

        See “Why Cohabitation is Generally for Chumps” by Ferdinand Bardamu http://www.inmalafide.com/blog/2012/01/25/why-cohabitation-is-generally-for-chumps/

        LikeLike


  9. on April 17, 2012 at 5:34 pm David

    I’d be interested to see what effect an iron clad pre-nup would have on this. If the woman is aware that she effectively gets nothing post-divorce (as opposed to the usual divorce rape), wouldn’t she be more inclined to behave like a cohabitator with respect to weight gain?

    In other words, if the risk was transferred from the man’s side to the woman’s side, I would expect her to worry a lot more about losing her appeal – especially as the years pass and her SMV declines even more.

    LikeLike


    • on April 18, 2012 at 9:33 am Hung One On You

      Pre-nups dont’ mean you get “Nothing.” That just mean you get less. And people who require prenups usually have a lot of money so that “nothing” is usually “something” compared to what she brought into the marriage. Look at Tiger’s ex wife. Chick got 100 fucking million bucks for 3 years of marriage. What a joke. I don’t care how many times he cheated. 100 million bucks for a girl that was a former babysitter before she started blowing him. She went from working for 10 bucks an hour to have 100 million dollars in the bank.

      Only in America….Only in America.

      LikeLike


    • on April 18, 2012 at 12:47 pm Anon

      Like 99% of men, you have clue about pre-nups or any other financial obligation related to marriage (i.e., divorce).

      1. Pre-nups that give the woman nothing are NOT valid. FAIL.

      2. Pre-nups that give your ex-spouse 30% of your billions are more likely to be upheld than 30% of your thousands.
      (Even so, ask Paul McCartney what happened to his pre-nup.)

      3. Pre-nups cannot cover child support, which is STEALTH alimony.

      4. So really, pre-nups are only used for keeping specific assets in exchange for paying your ex-spouse HALF its value.

      Example:

      A. Pre-nup says you keep your $5 million mansion that’s been in the family for generations? FAIL.

      B. Pre-nup says you keep your $5 million mansion & pay $2,500,000 to your ex-wife? MAYBE.

      Wait, her lawyers are saying the pre-nup doesn’t cover the manision’s appreciation, which is now worth $10 million, so you owe her $5 million.
      You don’t have $5 million, so guess what? You end up selling the house & splitting it in half just as if you didn’t have a pre-nup. OOPS!

      Marriage = Iron-clad financial obligations for men.

      Pre-nup = leaky lifeboat on Titanic.

      LikeLike


      • on April 18, 2012 at 1:02 pm corvinus

        In addition, my dad and sister have both made the argument that, besides the fact that they are as reliable in the court system as a classroom note, they are also beta in that you’re expecting her to dump you.

        LikeLike


  10. on April 17, 2012 at 6:39 pm Seraph

    “If women are more likely to bloat up in marriage, then could that be a good thing?”

    No.

    “A man without game will probably have less difficulty hanging onto a fat wife than his hot cohabiting girlfriend.”

    By that logic, a man without game should latch onto an already fat and ugly woman before marriage. Better yet, how about marrying a quadriplegic serving time?

    “Especially for those men who enjoy romantic relationships for reasons other than sex, this could be a good option.”

    You’re new here, right?

    “Flame on.”

    Yes, your flame is burning bright…

    LikeLike


    • on April 17, 2012 at 11:11 pm dave

      “You’re new here, right?”

      Long time reader…and restless button-pusher.

      LikeLike


  11. on April 17, 2012 at 6:39 pm doug1111

    It isn’t just the risk of her getting fat. Women often go off sex a while after marriage, or at least want it a lot less. They especially seem to after having a kid or two.

    LikeLike


  12. on April 17, 2012 at 6:43 pm Half Canadian

    Laws are passed to allow people to sue for property during cohabitation.
    Seriously. Common-law marriage statutes already exists. Under the law, how long do you have to shack up together for the common-law status to take effect?
    Numbers by state/province/country would be greatly appreciated.

    LikeLike


    • on April 17, 2012 at 7:05 pm doug1111

      In Canada I think now in every province cohabiting couples become effectively married after some fairly short period of time, two to three years in most. Aoefe (who used to comment here a good bit back in the day) told me it was only six months in Alberta though, where she lives.

      As for the states it takes more than the passage of time for a cohabiting couple to become common law married. The passage of time bit is around two years I believe in most of the 11 states (well including DC) that have common law marriage. However you as a couple have to “hold yourself out” as married to just about everybody, not just to some people. And that means both of you have to consistently. The idea of it wasn’t originally to trap cohabiting men into the obligations of marriage in the event of a divorce but rather to give the common law wife inheritance rights, life insurance rights, and the like.

      LikeLike


      • on April 18, 2012 at 12:13 am doug1111

        The idea was they considered themselves married, both of them, but just had never formalized it, due to low functioning types. I think this was mostly aimed at helping blacks but not entirely sure.

        LikeLike


    • on April 17, 2012 at 7:39 pm Samuel

      In Colorado, common law marriage can be affected immediately. No wait time.

      LikeLike


      • on April 18, 2012 at 1:10 pm doug1111

        Common law marriage in the eleven US states (well one is DC) where it exists is always based on the assumption that the co-habiting partners both considered themselves to be married, they just hadn’t gotten around to formalizing it. Thus a very simple agreement signed by both and notarized to be safe that neither of you wish to be considered married by the state would I’m quite sure work to prevent common law marriage from being declared later at the behest of the separating “wife”.

        Note the situation is different in Canada. There the state IS imposing marriage on the higher earner cohabited (by far mostly the man) whether he likes it even at the time things are going well or not.

        LikeLike


    • on April 17, 2012 at 9:22 pm MrSmith

      http://www.fldivorceonline.com/flpages/Alimony/commonlawmarriage.asp

      LikeLike


    • on April 17, 2012 at 10:34 pm Rex

      I’ve heard it’s from 1-3 years for a Canadian. Just learned about this today, coincidentally.

      LikeLike


    • on April 18, 2012 at 12:30 pm KillerQ

      Texas:

      Texas requires that you prove three things in order to be considered a Common Law marriage.

      First, you must have “agreed to be married.”

      Second, you must have “held yourselves out” as husband and wife. You must have represented to others that you were married to each other. As an example of this, you may have introduced you partner socially as “my husband,” or you may have filed a joint income tax return.

      Third, you must have lived together in this state as husband and wife.

      http://www.co.travis.tx.us/dro/common_law.asp

      LikeLike


  13. on April 17, 2012 at 6:46 pm LionSoul

    No amount of game I think I have will convince me to get married. In the end, man loses in marriage. Maybe when the laws change, I’ll give it a shot.

    Also, I don’t believe in love, so… I would need to find a ‘partner’ who understands the concept of adapting, sacrifice, and growing as a human being(not biologically, of course).

    LikeLike


    • on April 17, 2012 at 7:47 pm Gramps

      Yeah, I hear you .

      Loving a woman is a wonderful experience, maybe the best you’ll ever have. But, when the illusion is over, and she is fucking you over, the bitterness is strong.

      So, maybe love a woman, and then, before she gets around to showing her true colors, just dump her. Dump her when things are going good. It might be easier (emotionally for you) than you might think. Of course, there are reports from the field that some women are different, they will never turn on you or let you down, but, I haven’t known one personally. But, some people luck out. It happens.

      LikeLike


    • on April 17, 2012 at 10:02 pm Bali

      This is true. Don’t depend on Game to save yourself in marriage.

      Also co-habitation is not a good idea. In many places its considered common law marriage after a certain time.

      Stay alone in your own place or move out before threshold is reached.

      LikeLike


    • on April 17, 2012 at 10:02 pm Transmillenium

      The Laws have changed a lot in the last 30 years. For example, in the context I already know, before the man had the upper hand in marriage before reforming the law and the constitution making men and women “equals” (Art. 33 Colombian Constitution).

      Before, men could manage all the goods given by the woman in marriage, the man could have flings but not “amancebamiento” or leave the wife for his concubina, while the woman couldn’t even see other men. Men could have authority without having Mamma state knocking on his door.

      Now, with the excuse of being equals, men and women have a lot of conflicts becasuse who’s the boss? Who carries los “pantalones de la familia”? Who’s the man?

      LikeLike


    • on April 18, 2012 at 8:00 am GeishaKate

      Ack! You don’t believe in love? In its existence or its ability to conquer all? It certainly does exist, it just that our definition of it changes as we do, so, in retrospect, we can question whether something was love or not. Nothing exists beyond the moment, anyway, except memory. And there is much more to love than its meaning in a romantic sense.

      LikeLike


      • on April 18, 2012 at 12:56 pm Somboed

        Okay, I’ll bite. I’m not sure what a woman would consider love “to conquer all”. That’s usually what a man does – slaying dragons, laying down his life for his family, working himself to an early grave, etc.

        Please elaborate and show female examples, if you have any.

        LikeLike


      • on April 18, 2012 at 1:14 pm Redleg

        Love is a force strong enough to – temporarily – reign in a woman’s hypergamous urge.

        That’s pretty fucking strong, wouldn’t you say?

        [heartiste: true. many a woman’s love has blinded her to all other conventionally “better” men.]

        LikeLike


    • on April 18, 2012 at 11:24 am Redleg

      Don’t believe in love. Believe in an extremely euphoric chemical cocktail that you can stumble into with members of the opposite sex.

      LikeLike


  14. on April 17, 2012 at 6:58 pm doug1111

    David—

    I’d be interested to see what effect an iron clad pre-nup would have on this. If the woman is aware that she effectively gets nothing post-divorce (as opposed to the usual divorce rape), wouldn’t she be more inclined to behave like a cohabitator with respect to weight gain?

    There’s basically no such thing as an iron clad prenup. That’s certainly what her divorce lawyer will in all likelihood tell her. Also cohabitating is a free prenup; otherwise they cost quite a bit of change.

    Prenups if properly done (she needs her own lawyer, you can’t spring it on her at the last minute before the wedding, and there must be full disclosure of assets and income) will generally be enforced as to property division. They’re never enforced with respect to child custody or child support=also stealth alimony. They also may or may not be enforced with respect to alimony, depending on the state, the judge, and so on.

    So it works like this. She decides to consider divorce and goes to a lawyer bringing her prenup. The lawyer says hire me, I can break that sucker. Versus assuming you haven’t lived in a state that creates common law marriages (about 11 still do mostly though not entirely in the south), if she’s think of moving out of a cohabiting situation the lawyer tells her alimony is hopeless and property division will go according to who has title or possession or bought it, etc.

    Canadian readers though, you need a prenup. After two or three years of cohabitation depending on the province you’re effectively married, in terms of her economic rights upon a dissolution.

    LikeLike


    • on April 18, 2012 at 11:39 am Nathan

      Everything you’re saying is accurate – and I am saying this as a lawyer. However, I would still recommend that everyman get a prenup prior to marriage. Even though there is a good chance that her lawyer can get it tossed, it gives you some bargaining power. For example, if the prenup says she gets $40,000 and, otherwise, it is likely a judge will give her $200,000 if the prenup is thrown out, her lawyer may advise her to take $100,000. Thus, the prenup just saved you $100k.

      LikeLike


      • on April 18, 2012 at 7:49 pm Student

        ” Everything you’re saying is accurate – and I am saying this as a lawyer”

        are you a family lawyer? or are you just saying: “trust me, im a *lawyer*!”

        LikeLike


    • on April 18, 2012 at 7:45 pm Student

      ” Canadian readers though, you need a prenup. After two or three years of cohabitation depending on the province you’re effectively married, in terms of her economic rights upon a dissolution.”

      you need to stop giving legal advice man. you are wilding out on a MRA bent and making mountains out of molehills. cohab doesn’t work as you think it does, neither in alberta nor canada generally. guys like you think that if you live w a chick for X amount of years, that she is automatically entitled to 50% of assets. the reality is, individuals (both M&F) are usually entitled to their fair share of what they invest in. IE, if they split the cost of a house 50/50, mortgage etc, then the parties are entitled to an equitable division on that basis. you can easily google how it actually works, you know. but hey, pedantics, right?

      LikeLike


      • on April 18, 2012 at 8:51 pm doug1111

        You have a lot to learn.

        LikeLike


      • on April 18, 2012 at 9:35 pm Student

        yeah, I’ve never been divorced. so i don’t look at family law from a butthurt MRA perspective. im not gonna qualify myself to you (good job on the last post btw! bragging about WS wouldve been cool up until ’07, whereas now its kind of a scarlet letter. assuming you weren’t BSing about that tho, cuz i kno GS/MS types and they tend to be very different than you on many levels) just want interested parties out there to know that guys like you BS all the time and get away with it- until they meet someone who actually knows what they are talking about because they might have a bit of neutral (again, never divorced) perspective on the issue.

        LikeLike


      • on April 18, 2012 at 9:52 pm doug1111

        Yes I’m divorced but that was quite a while ago and I’m well over it. No kids, made out relatively well, as these things go. I thought it was very unfair but comparatively, well. That did stimulate me into seriously looking into divorce law mostly to see how I could protect myself in any future marriage, and I was appalled at how unfair it is to men especially as applied by family courts in this age when women can work at all levels of the workforce if they want to make the sacrifices to do so and have the individual native ability.

        LikeLike


      • on April 18, 2012 at 10:03 pm Student

        and btw man, i agree with you that there are some inequalities. I’ve lunched with judges that admit there are some problems. but its not the anti-man dystopia that so many ppl here seem to make it out to be.

        LikeLike


      • on April 18, 2012 at 10:37 pm doug1111

        It’s much worse than you think much of the time.

        LikeLike


    • on April 18, 2012 at 10:02 pm Student

      im just gonna at one of your assertions, to show ppl your emotional MRAery.

      “child support=also stealth alimony. ”

      so are you saying that a woman who raises children spends no money on raising them, and that child support is just a sneaky way that judges help women snake money for handbags and perfume?

      just curious. because my understanding was that children have to be, inter alia: fed, clothed, sheltered, bought school supplies, enrolled in extracurriculars, etc etc etc. and would you not agree that the above costs money and is often spent up front by the parent (usually mom) in whose home the child/ren live?

      im not a family lawyer dude, but your logic is so ridic it bludgeons even the average man’s common sense. that’s the reason family law is such a fucking nightmare: the system has to work w ppl like you on a daily basis, ppl who are so upset they aren’t willing to hear any perspective other than that based on than their negative emotions.

      LikeLike


      • on April 18, 2012 at 10:31 pm doug1111

        You did notice the word “also” in child support=also stealth alimony right?

        How large a proportion of it is stealth alimony depends on the income of the man, the higher it is the greater the proportion.

        Child support rates were jacked WAY up in the early nineties under the slogan “dead beat dads”.

        Also consider this. Although it varies by state, child support for a second kid only goes up by 1/3 to 1/4 the rate for one. If it’s all direct costs of the kid, what gives?

        For high earning men in high tax states child support=also stealth alimony can be almost or as much as half of his after tax income.

        As well courts often / usually impute income if a man’s income has gone down. That’s especially true if he leaves a higher paying job for a lesser paying one that gives him more job satisfaction. They about never do that with the rare women who pay child support.

        There is no doubt among those that have looked into it that current American levels of child support include a significant proportion of allowing the woman and her child to enjoy a comparable standard of living as during the marriage to the extent feasible — which is called alimony.

        Further American levels of child support for middle class on up seem so far as I’ve been able to figure out without spending oodles of time trying to be about 50% higher on a percentage of pretax income basis than that in the UK.

        LikeLike


      • on April 18, 2012 at 10:34 pm doug1111

        Why don’t you start to learn about what you presume to talk about before mouthing off?

        You could learn something about the actual risks of marriage these days in America esp. without the right sort of prenup.

        As well to my knowledge there’s nothing I’ve said about divorce law on this post or otherwise on this site that the site author disagrees with, and much that he’s said similar things about. He’s primarily about game, and so am I.

        LikeLike


  15. on April 17, 2012 at 6:59 pm doug1111

    Jericho–

    You’re wrong. You’re spouting nonesense.

    LikeLike


  16. on April 17, 2012 at 7:47 pm James123

    Another brilliant entry!

    LikeLike


  17. on April 17, 2012 at 7:55 pm Scott

    Friend of mine lost his job in journalism. He sent out hundreds of resumes without any luck. His wife, an employed professional, told him he had 6 months to get a job or he was out the door. Meanwhile, she was withholding marital relations. I wonder, would any man do that to his wife? And if he did, wouldn’t a chorus of femcunts shout him down for not being understanding?

    Don’t get married.

    LikeLike


  18. on April 17, 2012 at 8:22 pm Laguna Beach Fogey

    Old news.

    Yet another “study” to confirm our empirical analysis.

    :::yawn:::

    LikeLike


  19. on April 17, 2012 at 8:30 pm demetri ustinov

    As you stated, most of this probably occurs subconsciously. Nevertheless, I remember a girl I studied with relaying a conversation she overheard between 2 late-teenage girls. One of them advised the other to stay in shape for the first 6 months of marriage; after which, she may let herself go.

    This study seems to reflect what I see around me. Many of the married men living near me earn well, but their wives have made little effort to stay in shape.

    LikeLike


  20. on April 17, 2012 at 9:21 pm dave

    It’s posts like this that make me realize how similar the alpha male ideology espoused by this blog is to certain parts of many fundamentalist christian takes on male-female relations. Not coincidentally, one of the most “alpha” dudes I ever knew was a pastor’s son.

    LikeLike


    • on April 18, 2012 at 12:14 am corvinus

      I’m a traditional Catholic.

      LikeLike


      • on April 18, 2012 at 1:49 pm King A (Matthew King)

        ΙΧΘΥΣ <

        Peace be with you, brother.

        I am amazed at the widespread ignorance about Christ — the Logos, the Alpha and the Omega. I have to remind myself that these latter-day self-styled “Venusian Artists” misapprehend the Lord as some feminized straw-puss. So they take up arms against a domesticated Kumbaya Jesus-figment of their little sister’s imagination, and think they’ve become übermenschen transcending all thrones and dominions. It is an advanced form of escapism, like playing God of War on the Xbox 360 all day.

        But, as I’ve said all along, the alliance is temporary. Atheists will unite with feminism on the last day rather than uniting with us. They have to. The radical solipsism/self-divination they have in common with the left is more binding than any ends the Ecclesia Militans might presently and coincidentally share with them. Unfortunately, at some point we will be bound to inform them and the feminist left alike: you are not gods, able to remake the world in your image. You are made low, and your knee will bend with all others.

        Until then, the more ginas we together reintroduce to their nature, by talk or by cock, the easier our reversion of their souls will be. PUAs, whatever their motivation, are unwittingly doing the Lord’s Work. But then, that is how it always has been: “We know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.”

        Happy hunting, mercenaries! And the peace of Christ be with you, too.

        Matt

        LikeLike


      • on April 18, 2012 at 5:14 pm Ben

        True. One other thing too, it will lead to the resuppression of women. And then, with a less feminised society, rationality will be stronger than emotionalism (and then no more mass neo-atheism of the kind that little fag Dorkins likes to wave around.)

        LikeLike


      • on April 19, 2012 at 1:23 pm King A (Matthew King)

        “Resuppression” is a feminist cognate. What the feminist calls “suppression” is its opposite. The attempt to “liberate” a woman from her inescapable, irreducible nature leads to mutilation and tyranny and slavery. Bringing women back to their nature is her true liberation.

        And the Christian frame allows for the maximum female freedom possible. Before the revaluation of all values affected by the universal adoption of the Christian mode, women were man’s property and rape-cushions. Christianity dignifies women as something more than object or beast or incubator. The communists and the feminists took the Christian doctrines of historicism, eschatology, and individualism, subtracted the all-important divine linchpin, and radicalized it into a program of violent, utopian force-feeding. In other words, a thousand times too much of a good thing, like a cup of tea with fifty pounds of sugar poured into it.

        We are not idiot Muslims. Neither are we credulous liberal sock puppets being manipulated by the left. We Christians have humanized the woman when all of her nagging, deceit, treachery, irrationality, and emotional instability constantly tempts man to “resuppress” the bitch for her own good. The Aristotelian greater-than-child-but-less-than-man formula for female dignity is the equilibrium point between chattel and pedestal.

        Matt

        LikeLike


  21. on April 17, 2012 at 9:23 pm brian

    And yet millions of men (even alphas who have the most to lose) continue to get married.

    LikeLike


    • on April 17, 2012 at 11:44 pm LionSoul

      It’s because people believe that love exists, when it’s just a chemical reaction created by the body to help raise a child after intercourse. After the chemical effects fade, you are ‘morally obligated’ from the force fed ‘getting married’ aspect; which derived from the capitalistic machine in the forms of Disney movies/cartoon shows/religious shaming.

      LikeLike


  22. on April 17, 2012 at 10:11 pm Don

    For all the fellow Australian readers here be aware that de-facto is now treated exactly the same as marriage in Australia when a relationship breaks down. The rule of thumb is that once you co-habit for 2 years – you are now essentially the same as being married. Once you go over the 4 year mark you can start steadily kissing goodbye to your assets if you split. If you don’t believe me then please google it but sadly it is true.

    BE ON YOUR GUARD!!!!

    LikeLike


    • on April 18, 2012 at 12:06 am doug1111

      Sounds like Canada.

      Except what’s this worse thing that happens after four years?

      LikeLike


    • on April 18, 2012 at 9:07 am Gil

      Can I get a link explaining this?

      LikeLike


      • on April 18, 2012 at 5:07 pm Ben

        Yes, me too. The last time I checked (I’m Aussie–in melbs) this wasn’t the case. Frightening if it is though.

        LikeLike


      • on April 19, 2012 at 1:33 am Don

        Check out that forum link Ben. Bottom line is that it is better to be safe than sorry. You can do a pre-nup of course either before or during the relationship but that might prove to be a bit of a buzz-kill. Also they need to get independant legal advice for it to be valid so if you are in it neck deep already they might not go for it then either.

        You can thank Labor and the greens for that little gem as well in case you were wondering.

        LikeLike


      • on April 19, 2012 at 1:35 am Don

        Spread the word to your mates as quietly as you can. Don’t alert the women to this development. Also once you break up, there is a two year window in which they can start proceedings (law came into effect 2009) – it’s scary but believe me it is 100% true. Be careful out there guys and try before you buy!

        LikeLike


    • on April 18, 2012 at 5:48 pm Don

      http://www.aussielegal.com.au/forum/forum_topics~FID~9.htm

      The bottom line is the longer the relationship goes on, the great the chance that you will be forced to do the old 50/50 shuffle. Generally under 4 years you might get away with it but every year after number 4 and things are not looking good.

      LikeLike


    • on April 18, 2012 at 6:00 pm Don

      Sorry not to provide links – I have put a link to a forum where advice is given on actual cases. According to the lawyers who post there, once the relationship goes over 4 years you are heading towards equal splitting of property.

      LikeLike


      • on April 18, 2012 at 9:00 pm doug1111

        What about alimony if there’s no kids or child support=also stealth alimony?

        Do prenups work in Australia?

        LikeLike


  23. on April 18, 2012 at 12:17 am Elioenai

    “Game is a useful ameliorative to these natural human instincts, . . . so that selflessly pleasing him takes precedence over selfish solipsism.”

    Not for the first time, I wonder whether all this Game stuff isn’t substituting for (filling the vacuum left by) Christianity.

    LikeLike


    • on April 18, 2012 at 5:09 pm Ben

      Where there’s a vacuum.

      No social construct of such a size is created by accident.

      LikeLike


  24. on April 18, 2012 at 1:54 am M Simon

    Women are only nice to you when they want something from you. Once they get it they lose interest. Until they want something else. I said this to a friend in front of my mate. They both laughed. No denial. Just guilty laughter. Too funny. I like chasing other women (the catching is optional). Keeps her on her toes.

    LikeLike


  25. on April 18, 2012 at 1:56 am Anon

    “(we’ll see how Scandinavia turns out)”

    Badly, very badly. Here is the latest sexual education film being shown to 13-15 year olds in schools in Sweden and in Finland. It is in Swedish but what the narrator says isn’t that interesting, its what happens on the video:

    http://www.rfsu.se/sv/Sexualundervisning/RFSU-material/Sex-pa-kartan–filmen/

    Gotta wonder why its always a black dude and a white chick and never a black chick and white man. Pretty blatant multi cultist propaganda, especially considering how vulnerable girls that age are to outside influences and the people who made that are well aware of it.

    LikeLike


  26. on April 18, 2012 at 3:16 am ILoveBigTittles

    agree with herpaderp – geisha post your tits then we can tell if we shoud pay attention or not. otherwise, no one really gives a sh*t. sorry

    not really sorry

    LikeLike


    • on April 18, 2012 at 11:13 am GeishaKate

      “post your tits then we can tell if we shoud pay attention or not”
      TOO LATE! I LMTO!

      [heartiste: i think this calls for a rousing rendition of the ‘titty train’ song (sung to the tune of ozzy’s ‘crazy train’)

      All aboard! Ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaa!

      Ah, Ah, Ah, Ah, Ah, Ah, Ah

      Bouncy, but that’s how it goes
      Millions of titties living as floats
      Maybe it’s not too late
      To learn how to love
      And fondle her cakes

      Nipple mounds are growing
      Oops she almost came
      I’m sucking off the nips on a titty train
      I’m twisting off the nips on a titty train

      Let’s grope!
      I’ve handled the flapjacks
      I’ve squeezed the pontoons
      I’ve watched the tits fall out
      From bras and swimsuits
      Two boobies conditioned to rule and control
      The mammaries guide you down to her hole

      Milky mounds still bouncing
      Driving me insane
      I’m flicking the dark nips on a titty train
      I’m flicking just the tip on a titty train

      I know that thing is getting hard on me
      You gotta motorboat her orbs
      Yeah

      Pairs of a warm globe
      That shake when she comes
      Smooshing them down they pop right back up
      Perky, I just cannot stare
      I’m fuckin’ her titties and dousing her hair

      Pointing at the ceiling
      Dairy bomb’s to blame
      I’m crushing on the cans of a titty train
      I’m greasin’ up the crease of a titty train

      tiiiiiiiiiiitty traaaaain, hahahha hahaaaaaa]

      LikeLike


    • on April 18, 2012 at 11:35 am Lara

      If you aren’t sorry, then why’d you say it?

      LikeLike


      • on April 18, 2012 at 12:53 pm King A (Matthew King)

        Thank God women consistently comment here, despite all the obstacles. The occasional squirt of estrogen logic cleanses the palette. Brava, Lara.

        [heartiste: if a woman can scale my K2 cock without slipping into a crevasse of hysteria and lies, she is worthy of my kind and considerate company.]

        LikeLike


      • on April 18, 2012 at 1:17 pm Maya

        “[heartiste: if a woman can scale my K2 cock without slipping into a crevasse of hysteria and lies, she is worthy of my kind and considerate company.]”

        What do you mean by that?

        [heartiste: if you have to ask…]

        LikeLike


      • on April 18, 2012 at 12:58 pm King A (Matthew King)

        P.S. Tits. Let’s see them.

        LikeLike


  27. on April 18, 2012 at 9:48 am Rollo Tomassi

    A married woman who has achieved her objective of locking a man into long term commitment backed by the strength of the state will feel imperceptible undertones or impulses that guide her along paths which take her away from staying sexually desirable and toward fulfilling her other hedonic needs. It doesn’t help her attraction for her husband that the threat of state sanction effectively neuters him by rendering his choice to remain married to her one of coercion rather than mutual delight.

    Sounds an awful lot like FDIC insured ‘dread’ doesn’t it?

    You know, I had a lot of shit thrown at me from screeching fembots about my posts on dread.

    https://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2012/03/16/the-gift-of-anxiety/
    https://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2012/03/27/dread-games/

    Not just the utility of using dread, but just the exploration of the topic as it relates to intergender dynamics was enough to evoke wailings and accusations of fiendish, psycho-manipulative misogyny.

    You see, for women to covertly (see hindbrain) use dread is a normal function of a female defined monogamy, it’s even sanctioned by the state, but let a man even identify their use of it, much less employ or speak of it overtly and all the fires of femospheric hell will be unleashed.

    Achilles heels are a bitch. I forget which number Maxim it was, but the closer you get to the truth the louder women will screech.

    LikeLike


    • on April 18, 2012 at 3:11 pm Anton

      Rollo, man, you’ve got a lot of good things to say, but you need to cut back on the excess verbiage. Maybe you and Lara (of delightful concision) could hook up?

      LikeLike


      • on April 18, 2012 at 4:27 pm Rollo Tomassi

        I refuse to insult my reader’s intelligence by writing ‘down’ to them. I’ll leave the 8th grade reading level stuff to advertisers and PR people.

        LikeLike


  28. on April 18, 2012 at 10:12 am Rollo Tomassi

    One of the reasons sexual frequency declines for women after a romantic commitment is that the urgency of sex that was necessary prior to the commitment is replaced with the agency of sex being a reward / reinforcer within that LTR. In single, uncommitted, non-exclusive life, sex, while being very enjoyable, becomes a proving ground for most women. In essence, it’s the free samples before the buy, and its urgency is fueled not only by (hopefully) genuine attraction, but also the at least subconscious knowing that she is in a sexual marketplace of competition. It’s one of the few times in life when a woman must qualify for a man’s approval. And admittedly, most men are so sex-deprived or so inexperienced early on in life that the sell is usually not a tough one for her. However, on some level of consciousness, even when the sell is virtually assured, she is aware that she could be replaced by a better competitor.

    This then is the contrast for committed sexual interaction. The dynamic now shifts from qualification sex to utility sex. Now before anyone jumps to conclusions, yes, sex is still enjoyable, it can still be passionate, and she can definitely want it, but the impetus shifts. Sex is now a tool. In her uncommitted sex life it was a tool for qualification; in her LTR life it’s a tool for compliance. This is pretty obvious, and it may be more or less extreme depending upon the woman’s disposition or how important a particular issue is to her, but make no mistake, there isn’t a woman on the planet who doesn’t take her sexual agency into account when dealing with her LTR / husband. That agency may be more or less valuable – dependent upon her looks, demeanor, sexual availability, etc. – in comparison to the sexual market value of the man she’s paired with.

    LikeLike


    • on April 18, 2012 at 11:49 am Hung One On You

      This is a very very very very good point. And speaks to why dread works so well in getting a woman to fuck you or want to fuck you in a long term relationship.

      Because dread reverts back to the qualification stage of the courtship.

      LikeLike


  29. on April 18, 2012 at 10:29 am sensei

    I would like to see if this is true for lesbian “marriage”.

    LikeLike


    • on April 18, 2012 at 11:27 am Redleg

      Oh yes it is. And it happens even faster. Go ask a lesbian how many dates it took for the U-Haul to pull up.

      I have an extremely voracious lesbian friend (calls herself a dyke) who gets sick of all the butchy, older women she shacks up with because they become … well … beta. Complacent. Boring. Soft. This is WITHOUT marriage. I can only imagine how bad it’d get with marriage.

      LikeLike


  30. on April 18, 2012 at 2:58 pm Rollo Tomassi

    When used by a woman, dread is a hit song on the top 40 charts:
    http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/beyonceknowles/irreplaceable.html

    When used by a man, he’s a dehumanizing monster with a gun to his LTR’s head.

    LikeLike


  31. on April 18, 2012 at 3:37 pm Keep doing good work, keep being yourself « stagedreality

    […] mediocrity? Look at couples cohabitating or married – while the ‘Sphere is correct that women are worse at staying in shape than men, men do it […]

    LikeLike


  32. on April 19, 2012 at 1:04 am Anon2

    How much projection can this ‘student’ faggot mouth off.

    He thinks women are entitled to unilateral custody, for god’s sake, even if SHE is leaving the marriage. He also does not think women should be required to show they spent the money on the child.

    Read Wedded Abyss for a rundown of at least some of the unfair laws.

    Anyone who can argue that the laws are not unfair to men is a moral retard mangina of such magnitude that he *deserves* the slavery that family law would give him.

    fed, clothed, sheltered, bought school supplies, enrolled in extracurriculars, etc etc etc. and would you not agree that the above costs money and is often spent up front by the parent (usually mom) in whose home the child/ren live?

    Faggot assumption #1 : The woman should get custody even if SHE is leaving the marriage. This causes women to use children as pawns for maximum extraction.

    Faggot assumption #2 : If there is no accountability of how the money is spent, how do you know the mother spent it on the kid? And shouldn’t child support be a fixed amount, rather than a percentage of the man’s income?

    LikeLike


  33. on April 19, 2012 at 2:24 am Anonymous

    Around where I live there seems to be movement toward thinness among women, a lot of the fatties are starting to lose weight. It’s not quite a trend yet, but it’s discernible.

    LikeLike


  34. on April 19, 2012 at 7:36 am What the Think Like A Man Pre-Screening Taught Me About Relationships « Indigo Moods

    […] Shacking Up Vs Tying The Knot (heartiste.wordpress.com) Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. […]

    LikeLike



Comments are closed.

  • Copyright © 2018. Chateau Heartiste. All rights reserved. Comments are a lunchroom food fight and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Chateau Heartiste proprietors or contributors.
  • Visit the Goodbye, America photojournal website.

    Then cleanse your visual palate with a visit to the Welcome Back, America photojournal website.

  • Pages

    • About
    • Alpha Assessment Submissions
    • Beta Of The Year Contest Submissions
    • Dating Market Value Test For Men
    • Dating Market Value Test For Women
    • Diversity + Proximity = War: The Reference List
    • Shit Cuckservatives Say
    • The Sixteen Commandments Of Poon
  • Twitter Updates

    Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.

  • Recent Comments

    Johnny Redux on The Essential Femaleness Of…
    Publius on The Essential Femaleness Of…
    Publius on The Essential Femaleness Of…
    Publius on The Essential Femaleness Of…
    Les Saunders, Protes… on The Essential Femaleness Of…
    plumpjack on The Essential Femaleness Of…
    martin2 on The Essential Femaleness Of…
    plumpjack on The Essential Femaleness Of…
    plumpjack on The Essential Femaleness Of…
    Roy on Shudderthought Of The Day
  • Top Posts

    • Shudderthought Of The Day
    • The Essential Femaleness Of Leftism
    • Comment Of The Week: The Unwavering Self-Amnesty Of Leftoid Projection
    • The Sixteen Commandments Of Poon
    • How To Get A Girl To Send Nudes Of Herself
    • Biomechanical Truth Of The Day
    • Dating Market Value Test For Men
    • America, Then And Now
    • How To Attract Girls By Doing Almost Nothing
    • Dating Market Value Test For Women
  • Categories

  • Game

    • 60 Years of Challenge
    • Alpha Game
    • Cajun
    • Krauser PUA
    • Rational Male
    • Roosh V
    • Tenmagnet
    • Treatise of Love
  • MAGA MEN

    • Alternative Right
    • AmRen
    • Anonymous Conservative
    • Audacious Epigone
    • Dusk in Autumn
    • Education Realist
    • Evo and Proud
    • Gene Expression
    • Hail To You
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • Lion of the Blogosphere
    • My Posting Career
    • OneSTDV
    • PA World and Times
    • Page For Men
    • Parapundit
    • Rogue Health and Fitness
    • Steve Sailer
    • The Anti-Gnostic
    • The Kakistocracy
    • The Red Pill Review
    • The Spearhead
    • Unqualified Reservations
    • Vox Popoli
    • West Hunter
    • Whiskey's Place
  • Syllogism and Synthesis

    • Alias Clio
    • Arts & Letters Daily
    • Deconstructing Leftism
    • Elysium Revisited
    • Feminine Beauty
    • hbd chick
    • Human Biological Diversity
    • Library of Hate
    • Overcoming Bias
    • Stuff White People Like

WPThemes.


loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.
%d bloggers like this: