No. I fucked the shit out of my now wife the day after meeting her, and I wasn’t her first. We casually saw each other for a while, mutually decided something different was at play and decided to commit. The rest is history.
I live in a high middle class to upper class neighborhood now, have a wrought iron fence, mature trees, dog and a kid but I’m still me. You’re adding the labels. I was very much a “bad guy” when we met.
Were you a “bad guy” when she wanted to marry you?
I don’t know. I was still drinking, smoking and occasionally snorting, taking motorcycle rides with mostly above board people but also a few legitimately bad guys in the mix (if you’re at all familiar with the Harley culture you know exactly what I mean), but I wasn’t sleeping around. We had committed.
I would say I became a good guy from a very strait laced standpoint once our daughter was born. I had already calmed down a bit due to age mostly, but she really changed things.
In any case, the premise that women look for separate qualities in hookups vs marriage isn’t true. We were each a hookup for the other initially. Now we are married.
The premise of this discussion is that Plenty of dudes date and marry and still have “dead bedrooms.” So married pencil necks not getting laid don’t count for anything, and they’re just a confounding variable.
Married or not, Reverse curls = Dangerous = Intercourse
Focus on that correlation.
My wife gave me a nice compliment the other day, something about being a good guy with an edge. And maybe that’s the secret sauce to a lot of the discussions above: you can be a nice guy without being a soy boy. You can serve and honor your wife and be a scoundrel in the bedroom. You can be kind and whup somebody’s ass if you have to. You can be responsible and stable and exciting. That kind of balance.
Lol /thread
I think a more appropriate term would be ordinary rather than good. I mean, I believe I’m an ordinary middle-class man and I’m married with children and had some hookups in the past (most of which I would not do if I knew or thought what I do now). I’m also not and never was a thrilling man. But had I known better and had a more sound mind when younger I most likely could’ve married and had children sooner.
I also know what it’s like to be an incel. Perhaps I’ll use the term recoveredcel or rehabbedcel in the future.
But my points still stand:
Ordinary or “good” guys can have flings or marry from a relatively small pool of women who want them. This is fine.
Powerful, high-status, dangerous, violent, and thrilling men have to fight women off!
Can people see both of these points?
Accountants should carry switchblades. Any maybe use them to clean their nails in front of everyone from time to time.
I would twist a little here. I don’t think violence, power or even necessarily status automatically lend themselves to female attraction. But everything you mention in point two requires confidence and assertiveness, and so does getting laid. Especially spur of the moment for a one night stand or fling. Correlation more so than causation.
Edit: and confident nerds get laid all the time. Cue tech/finance bros and tennis players.
These “hook-up artist” archetypes are ridiculous.
I like Clint Eastwood movies.
He’s usually some combination of actor/director/writer, so he’s always a bad dude getting chicks. Then things end. Sometimes he just wanders off, sometimes he settles down and messes up. Or wives die. Movie after movie chased by women and through different ways, ending up alone at the end.
And if all husbands understood this, id argue there are probably nearly 0 dead bedrooms.
My point was that the aforementioned “good guys” never had that edge and were told to wait their turn. That this “edge” is the same thing that attracts all women, and “marriagable” means nothing more than “stability”.
So you’re describing a lack of assertiveness.
This really is the root.
Women like to be pursued. Period cycles and hook-up artist magic tricks aside. Assertive men pursue. They also demonstrate other qualities many deem “bad”, but it’s the assertiveness that gets them laid, assuming they’re passable to their target (for a lack of better terminology).
Even ugly dudes who assert themselves get laid, and bang hot chicks.
Be assertive. This is how relationships leading to marriage start too. It’s not that complicated.
I think there’s more to it than being assertive, but yes Assertiveness is necessary for any man wanting to get laid. Married or not.
Well, it was either never fostered in the first place, or it was drummed out of many of us. Discussing what made this so can have this thread going for a long time.
Regarding the thread’s main topic, yes, I think in many, though not all, cases it is the husband’s fault.
There is so much information on the internet these days and many actually great guys who’ve produced content that men can put to work so that it dead bedrooms don’t happen. Hence why I put that excerpt in my first post in this thread just to show one example.
I think many men these days are completely out of touch about the female mental makeup.
I mean you can’t be Igor and expect to bag whoever the current pop culture hot chick is but within reason of personal scope it really is all there is to it. And even Igor may be surprised if he tries. He can definitely get laid by somebody if he gets out there.
Fathers and male family members are a start. That doesn’t require government, unlike the heavy-handed government, entertainment media, and educational institutions that degrade men.
You don’t need a hypertrophied government to get the best out of women or men. But you need a government to take away male household authority.
In the bad old days, when men had some authority over their wives and daughters, other men had to approach either with caution, permission, or through introduction. Communities would stand behind the man who dealt with interlopers. Law enforcement would tacitly look the other way. Now the bloated state forbids a man from dealing with such matters; he has to call a lawyer.
Some think think such protection and oversight are oppressive versus men getting the best out of women.
As I’ve said many times, not all men are good men, which is why women fought so hard to establish independence from them.
Most women don’t need an authority; they are able to govern themselves.
I’m not saying the current state of affairs is the ideal - far from it - but returning women to chattel status is not the solution.
No, it isn’t. Hence why I don’t propose that.
Is there no in-between of the current state of affairs and chattel status?
There is, hence why I want explanation for mentions of extreme forms of female subordination, such as “like the Middle East” and slavery.