1974. Compatibility Axioms #391-400


 391. Having many sex partners hardens a woman’s emotions, which softens her thinking about the opposite sex. She doesn’t learn enough positive and affirming things about men that are so vital for keeping one as her own. [138]
392. Natural female beauty attracts sex partners, but it fades for each conqueror as romantic love inevitably fades. The cheaper his conquest, the sooner the fading. Beauty earned at higher price lasts longer. [138]
393. Older women used to pass down lessons learned. Modern girls ignore their elders, their immaturity expands, and boys and men exploit female immaturity for sex only. Seeds of marital incompatibility are thus planted.[138]
394. Over time, delaying a man’s conquest pushes him to expose his real character, reveal her true role in his life, and correct whatever of his faults that displease her. Round heels relieve those pressures on him. [138]
395. Female adoption of masculine-style sexual freedom generates cheap sex for men. It arouses, encourages, and lures the male conquering spirit to venture outside the home. Wives suffer the unintended (or sometimes intended?) consequences. [138]
396. The popularity of masculine-style sexual freedom seduces women into playing the man’s game. It devalues the woman’s game of marriage and weakens or destroys husbandly responsibility and fatherly help in the raising of children. [138]
397. Promiscuous behavior hardens a woman’s heart, softens her natural hard-headedness, and makes her easy prey for selfish or manipulative men. With girls, the damage is both worse and imprints immaturity for life. [138]
398. The promiscuous woman experiences too few tough decisions that mold the character required to promote her self-interest to the fullest with one man. [138]
399. The promiscuous woman eventually learns that uninvolved sex leaves her empty. [138]
400. Our Judeo-Christian culture over several centuries has taught this: Two separate and distinct roles provide the greatest insurance for family harmony and success. He’s the head and she’s the heart. [139]

5 Comments

Filed under Dear daughter

1973. Sexes Differ on Jealousy Too


Her Highness Cocoa at post 1098 asked how jealousy may be different between the sexes. So, I start with this definition. Her greatest asset is not sex itself. It is a couple’s first sex together, his conquest. Once conquered—except for minor (and temporary for her) differences in sexual performance—she is just another woman to the conqueror. He’s ready to look for the next one. The natural urge to conquer another far outweighs the natural urge to own one. She is left with the task of earning his devotion and winning his loyalty other than with sex.

Conquest confirms this to the conqueror. By yielding her greatest asset to his persuasiveness, she follows his leadership. He has done enough to thereafter dominate their relationship. Effectively he ‘owns’ her if he wants to. Her natural bonding during sex supports his conclusion. By marrying her, he doubles down on that presumption. It makes ownership permanent in his heart and obligations arise to produce, provide, protect, and problem solve on her behalf.

The lessons of life teach some men to question their nature, to doubt that their conqueror’s right guarantees her loyalty. They perceive even the smallest signs of possible disloyalty as weakening their sense of significance, and they respond easily to jealous motives. Fear motivates them.

Other men, more confident of themselves and their ability to win and hold any woman’s loyalty, do not so easily succumb. ‘Possession’ of a woman is not so large a part of their significance. They focus on earning self-admiration in ways other than owning someone. They are not immune to jealousy; it’s just much harder to trigger it.

Very different from men, women have no natural conviction that they deserve to own another. They know they must earn and keep one’s commitment through his words, devotion through his actions, and loyalty through his monogamous fidelity. The closest thing they achieve to ownership comes from conquering a man for marriage before he conquers her for sex.

Highly prone to guilt, women react differently to signs of disloyalty in their man. The lessons of life teach some women to question or abandon their instincts. To such a woman, jealousy follows her sense of impending loss of ownership in her man. She automatically blames him and just as intuitively assumes herself as the innocent victim. She reacts accordingly, and her man rejects her implications of owning him. Her obvious lack of trust wilts his respect for her and turns him off regardless of his innocence or guilt.

Other women, more confident of themselves and their ability to capture and keep a man’s loyalty, do not easily succumb to jealous thoughts. They recognize their nature and that emotional fidelity is more important than physical faithfulness. They can live with the latter but not the former. So, jealousy does not enter their thoughts until they see the red flags of impending infidelity. Mere association with another woman does not induce jealous thoughts. It just triggers suspicions intuitively held in check until evidence is more convincing. Intuition informs them that to verbalize suspicions is to destroy the trust so vital to a man’s respect of his woman. Such women are not above it but are far less prone to appear jealous.

Jealousy is not natural to either sex. It springs from lessons learned growing up and arises and intensifies according to one’s self-image of how well or poorly they relate to the opposite sex.

 

6 Comments

Filed under sex differences

1972. Eyes and Ears in Relationships


Background. Judging the behavior of others is a necessary function of life. We judge harshly when others’ actions or words make us feel bad about ourselves. We judge kindly when they make us feel good. It’s not so much what they do, it’s how it impacts us and how our reactions spring from our feelings at the moment. The accumulation of micro judgments compiles into our opinion of the worth to us of the one we judge. However, the process makes a huge turnaround after conquest. Men and women judge quite differently after than before conquest; they primarily use another sensor.

The Natural Way. As hunter-conqueror and sex prey before conquest, his eyes and her ears are the dominant sense organs. Within any relationship that follows conquest, they switch. Their relationship primarily depends upon what he does to and for her and what she says to and about him. Thus, her femaleness urges her to judge by looking at what he does. His maleness urges him to judge after hearing that she says something and, if relevant to his interest, listening to what she says.

Irony follows. His ears and her eyes play the most important roles at energizing their behavior. It explains why innocent actions often offend and reactions often seem to not be directly connected. Such as:

  1. Her nagging assaults his ears, which tends to make him want to avoid the noise by favoring his most natural sensor, his eyes. Perhaps by looking for other attractive females (which means that nagging also reduces her attractiveness).
  2. His laziness spoils her vision of their future.
  3. He hears about her gossiping about him, and he feels doubly offended by her apparent betrayal.
  4. She sees that he won’t ask for a pay raise, and she loses respect for his courage in the mistaken belief that she knows what’s best for him at his job.
  5. She sees him refuse to take time off from work for her, and she feels taken for granted or less important than his job.
  6. He hears her whining about lack of money. He becomes de-motivated instead of energized to do better, especially when he also sees that she’s not as frugal as he and is also well-clothed and -fed.
  7. He hears her speak admirably of another man. First, he feels inadequate in whatever feature/trait she admires. Second, he gets more suspicious than if he sees her talking to some other guy.
  8. She sees him flirting, which to her is worse than hearing him admire another female. (His admiration of another does not register with her as emotional infidelity—at least not at first, that is.)
  9. She sees that he’s extra tight with money. She hears his reasoning but intends to never agree, which separates their interests about money.
  10. She sees him litter the house wherever he goes. She flares visibly and he learns quickly to disregard her.

He trusts his judgment when he can see her reactions, which enables him to more easily disregard her. He figures he sees the full picture; her messages get through loud and clear. But, precisely because of loud and clear, he can easily disregard her. He can more easily identify his interest and weigh his risk.

He’s not so confident of his judgment when he hears her displeasure. He seeks efficiency in his judgments, but he’s less sure he perceives the whole picture, or that he’s gotten the full message clearly. Doubt intrudes. Consequently, her words spoken gently, shrouded in indirectness, crowded with curiosity, and lacking in blame generate delays in his judgments and carry more weight and influence.

Her success in getting what she wants takes us back to this sentence at the top: “His maleness urges him to judge after hearing that she says something and, if relevant to his interest, listening to what she says.” She has to first learn—long courtship maybe?—how to make it habitual with him to listen immediately rather than hearing her and deciding what to do next. When she can close that gap, she emerges on top of relationship communication. Imagine it this way, he isn’t truly devoted until he habitually listens rather than just hears before making judgments. Reduced to the simplest form, true devotion depends on sincere listening at her first words.

Both change after conquest. One major change is that they switch dominant sensors from what prevails outside any subsequent relationship. Relationship management calls for utilizing those phenomena to solidify and harmonize the relationship, which requires relationship expertise that men lack.

8 Comments

Filed under sex differences

1971. Compatibility Axioms #381-390


381. People highly value the unavailable or unattainable. The ultimate result of male pursuing female boils down to one question. What’s her ‘price’ to be sexually available to him? The higher her price, the greater her perceived value, and the greater his effort must be to discover her price, earn her acceptance, and decide whether or not to pay it. (It’s a major reason her sexual history should be none of anyone else’s business.) [136]

382. Repeated refusals for first-time sex together make her appear unattainable. Relative, of course, to how determined she defends herself. Each refusal escalates her value, keeps him guessing, and pushes him to try harder. If she holds out long enough, her continually rising price makes him consider whether she’s worth her ultimate price—most likely marriage. [136]

383. Men feast with their eyes. The higher her price, the more attractiveness she adds to whatever he already perceives of her. Strengthened desire works much like a few martinis with these exceptions: Attractiveness enhanced by martinis doesn’t last. Attractiveness loses its captivating appeal after conquest. Conquerors view the conquered in a much different light.[136]

384. Expectant conquerors wonder: What’s her price to be sexually accessible to other men? Virtual virginity signals she’s not active. If he can’t penetrate her defenses, other men can’t either. After all, he’s First Stud in his eyes. [136]

385. Before conquest, if she’s unwilling or unable to match wits and wills to hold him off, his dominance will always prevail in their relationship. Before conquest is both her testing and proving ground for what their relationship future looks like. [136]

386. Wives cheat on their husband and expect him to respond as women do. It doesn’t work. When he cheats, she wants to know. When she cheats, he wants to go.  [137]

387. Women should be but don’t seem to be haunted by these questions: Do younger women attract husbands away from their wives? Or do wives lose their ability to hold their man? Or, do wives drive husbands away? Women automatically blame husband or his new attraction. Wives proclaim themselves to be innocent and victimized. Flooding the wife with peer empathy and sympathy, friends and family help restore emotional letdown or breakdown. The rest of the story isn’t explored, because feminists inspired women to not listen to men about man things. (IMHO, this sums it up. Husbands wander away from wives because the wife is no longer the woman they married.) [137]

388. Conquered women lack the allure of attractive unconquered ones. She may be a good lay or good wife or both, but the attractive and unconquered still attract men. To hold a man’s devotion, a woman must compensate for his giving up his independence, reward him for husbanding and fathering. Instead, modern women view as unfair this inequality of Nature. Thus, they ignore, demean, or lose focus on their natural abilities to capture and hold onto one man. [137]

389. Successful marriage requires relationship management. Women qualify as experts, but men don’t. Men are too easily seen as culprit, plus they lack the soft relationship skills to restore marital peace. It’s much simpler and easier for husbands to let masculinity steer them away from one woman. Consequently, it takes an expert’s best efforts to overcome his hormonal urges. Once again, life ain’t fair, but women want a permanent mate more than the reverse. [137]

390. The female gender has made itself politically, morally, and socially entitled to masculine-style sexual freedom. It’s a major cause of so much trouble trying to keep a man’s devotion. When many women act sexually unattached, wives too easily become suspect in the eyes of their husband. He knows what other men are after. Can he remain positive that she’s different from other women? Consequently, casual sexual practices within the sisterhood poison faithful marriages. [137]

 

3 Comments

Filed under Dear daughter

1970. Compatibility Axioms #371-380


NOTE: I can’t say it often enough. I have no objections to the legal, political, and economic progress made by women. Advancements were deserved long before they were won. I address Feminism only as the public fallout impacts social and domestic life among men and women.

371. The feminist challenge to millennia-old patriarchy is the fundamental cause of incompatibility. It separates the sexes, because it uses outside help in the form of public pressure to help prove women right and men wrong. Thus, Feminism leads women away from their natural strengths and relationship expertise. Misdirected, women give up their instinctive art of screening men until they become worthy of capture. Instead of dreaming of upgrading their Mr. Good Enough into Mr. Right during decades of living together, they try to ‘convert’ him immediately before or after marriage. [134]
372. Feminist-think calls for human nature to work backwards. Nowadays, women cooperate with each other for advice about men and unify support against them. They compete with their man for dominance. The first tends to prevent and the latter tends to melt compatibility. [134]
373. When women think and act like men, it transmutes into loss of the female genius that every couple needs to build longevity together. Romantic love fades faster. Sexual love becomes her manipulative tool. Enduring love doesn’t become mutual. Marital vows shrink in importance. One or both spouses become itchy to make a better go of it with someone else. [134]
374. The human competitive spirit and modern social pressures push women to act more like men—♫ I can do anything he can do better. ♫ Women imagine success and frustration arises at the lack of it. Frustration pushes them to escalate until they become the irresistible force trying to move the immovable object. Thus, womanly frustration generates greater manly stubbornness. [134]
375. A man’s love is founded on respect. And men respect women that persistently uphold values and standards that uplift women relative to men but not at the expense of men. It includes values and standards that men don’t initiate but value people who do. Femininity builds such respect, and Feminism discourages it. [135]
376. One woman says this. “Men need femininity. They call it ‘color in a black and white world.’ It heals their wounds, soothes their spirits and recharges their batteries. It is one of the things men look for in their wives; someone who makes them more powerful by feeding them with their femininity.” [‘Claudia’ as quoted in Keys to the Kingdom by Alison A. Armstrong, PAX Programs, Inc., p. 151] [135]
377. Femininity reflects intense femaleness with politics removed. It includes female traits that women rely on naturally to fulfill their hopes and dreams. Qualities such as feminine mystique, female modesty, religious morality, faithful monogamy, female-defined manners, female-friendly social standards, compassionate values, holy matrimony, and an eager-to-reveal emphasis against offense to a woman’s sensibilities. Femininity generates personal power dealing with men, because it enables women to reduce the hormone storms of male dominance—sometimes into submission or at least toleration. [135]
378. When the female gender institutionalizes the feminine qualities just cited, men learn to respect females more than males. Their unconditional respect for women provides the foundation for the conditional respect for one woman who eventually transmutes into the enduring love that sustains compatibility for life. A man’s enduring love of one woman isn’t all that strong, if he lacks respect for her gender. Old-school mothers made it work. Our forefathers built American greatness out of wifely inspirations, expectations, encouragements, and gratefulness shrouded in femininity. [135]
379. Our foremothers knew male dominance has to be outsmarted and outmaneuvered and not squelched obviously. They generated and sustained compatibility very differently than modern women. First, they competed with other women for a man with sex out of the picture. Sex was the bonus after he qualified as worthy to be her husband and father of her children. Second, they cooperated with their husband and revealed their respect and gratefulness by pleasing him. [135]
380.Further, our foremothers exploited their femaleness to clarify two very different and cooperative roles as a couple—separate responsibilities for each. His domain was outside the home, hers inside. He was chairman, she was CEO. With clearly separated roles, they balanced relationship power without outside influence. [135]

 

10 Comments

Filed under Feminism: OOPS!

1969. Anger and His Significance


At post 1968 Her Highness Cinnamon inquires if female anger undermines a man’s sense of significance. The natural principle first: Yes, if he has conquered her. No, if he has not.

Yes, because her anger challenges him. It puts them in instant competition. Men avoid competing with their woman and conquest confirms to the male nature that she is his. Conquest earns the natural male right to dominate, which means that expressions of anger at him—even though deserved—are inappropriate.

The male nature recognizes the superior competitive influence—“arguing power”—of females. It is worth the risk of losing arguments in order to conquer a woman, but after conquest it is not. So, competing with a conquered woman, the male nature tells men they will likely lose. That brings up their greatest fear, losing significance in their woman’s eyes, which means their ability is questionable for fulfilling manly missions of responsibility to her. Therefore, competing with their woman is too risky and should be at least avoided and preferably prevented.

The following bullets can be answered in the same way. Yes, if he has already conquered her. It opens the floodgate to competition and likelihood of reducing his sense of significance. No, if they have never had sex together. Competition protects her and he may lose sleep but not significance over a woman defending her ‘un-owned’ self.

  • Refusing sex?
  • Extreme silence, pulling away, refusing to communicate?
  • Continuing to argue after he declares a final decision?
  • Refusing to do as he says after he has demonstrated that he expects his dominant role to prevail?
  • Blaming him? However, add this caveat. If he senses he is wrong, he is still pressured by the male nature to defend himself and prove her wrong. In which case, she is the mother of fault-finding, he is the father of rationalized self-defense, and the competition continues. (For a man to admit wrongdoing to a conquered woman comes from lessons learned in life long after his birth.)

In short, whatever DIRECTLY challenges a husband’s authority and decision-making dominance tampers with his sense of significance. In his mind, he gave up his independence for the responsibility of ruling the relationship. Outside of marriage and without conquest, however, directness serves women better because men are amenable to letting women have their way.

Moreover, lessons learned living inside different cultural value systems make men more or less willing to compete with wives and conquered females, e.g., more within our Judeo-Christian value system and less within non-Western societies.

Women can learn to get more of what they want by trial and error. Before conquest, they compete diligently with men to prevent conquest except under female terms. After conquest, they compete drastically if necessary to preserve their dignity within female standards and expectations. After marriage they cooperate and avoid direct competition with their husband. Competition calls for directness. Cooperation calls for indirectness. Wise women know how to exploit the differences that arise in life.

 

7 Comments

Filed under Dear daughter

1968. Sex Confirms His Significance


Her Highness Magnolia inspired this post. At 1482 she described an Army man prior to deployment who did not marry the woman he loved; he could not trust her. Instead, he married one he did not love but felt he could trust. I describe some reasons behind such manly thinking.

When away from home, suspicion or knowledge of his woman cheating disturbs everything else in a man’s life. Misery follows even discomfort with loss of confidence in her physical fidelity.

A man depends greatly on his woman’s faithfulness to help maintain his sense of significance. His suspicions threaten and one cheating incident destroys his sense of significance with her. If he is not worthy of her fidelity, she is not worthy of his presence. When she cheats he wants to walk.

One instance of unfaithfulness instantly transforms his significance into insignificance. Loss of face—and having fooled himself for trusting her—prevent her recovering his commitment or devotion. He can never trust her again. A man won’t live with a woman who—in the worst possible way—destroys his sense of significance with her.

Hardwired before birth, the foundation of male significance primarily confirms his role in life. It is built and confirmed regularly with thrusting sexually, energetically, and deeply into a woman to prove himself to himself. Use of his hardness and determination-to-satisfy himself rule the event. Nothing else in a couple’s relationship compares much less matches that primal urge. The quality of orgasm proportionally confirms both his magnificent significance and her worth as partner. Yes, even though she may have had little more to do than serve as a receptacle. The determination and energy expressed in thrusting serve as foundation to his whole sense of significance. Undermine or destroy his confidence or faith in himself and he has to couple with another woman to rebuild his sexual significance first and the rest to follow.

Beyond the hard wiring from birth, all else is learned behavior, e.g., other than minimal foreplay, trying to please his partner, pledging exclusive loyalty. In the eyes of what women expect, men are born sexually uneducated. They hunt and conquer, pursue diligently and thrust energetically, display their sexual worth in a woman’s life and thereby prove their significance. That women expect men to be different does not alter the natural and hormonal drive to prove himself to himself first. Men must be taught what women expect. The greater he perceives his significance with a woman, the more willing and able he is to try harder to fulfill her needs both in and out of bed.

Once a man’s determination rises up to ‘do his duty’ in bed, his sex partner’s reactions add to or detract little from his primary effort. Internally proving himself to himself first is the preeminent truth of his significance as a man.

If his sex partner just enjoys or even has orgasm too, his significance is further heightened. However, anything and everything negative about his ‘expertise’ sends loud messages about his insignificance, which of course is his greatest fear especially coming from his mate to whom he has devoted himself.

Now, let us return to the soldier who married out of trust rather than love. Deployment may not be good but it will not be misery either. He may worry about many things of concern to his wife. But, he spends no time imagining other men—his natural competitors—using his wife to confirm their significance at his expense, using his wife to thrust, twist, turn, and otherwise interrupt the imagined scene of his wife’s nakedness as he remembers her. By trusting her, he spends no time speculating if he will be betrayed. Consequently, she is worth what he paid for her—his independence.

 

14 Comments

Filed under Dear daughter