Elizbaeth

Awwwww. My husband also wanted kids from a young age. A lot of women think men are family and relationship-averse (not true, but lots of women believe that) so it's always refreshing and nice to know that men want and look forward to those things. Totally agree. I am a little confused as to why there is all this talk about "alphas" being the ones to ditch families... It doesn't make sense to me. I would think, that if a man were really an alpha, he would never question his own desire and choices in love, and would only feel happier surrounded by the product of his own love. Yep, agree again. But you know...we are in a weird time of change. I have strongly felt the void of a strong family network, and have mourned it, to be honest. But by the same token I am not bound to adopt the crazy or burdensome traditions that would be inescapable. I miss tradition and family, but I am not forced to swallow all the oppression and lies that are also tied up with a solid, stable, old tradition and web-like family network. It is a problem to solve. I would like to get the best of both worlds - the community/stability and the choice of values and ability to judge skeptically. But yes. I do believe family was once a real thing, and very useful. I've wondered the same thing about pregnancy. All I know is my own experiences. Pregnancy is utterly physical (spiritual, too, which is often left out and the spiritual side is very important). Young women definitely handle it better, physically. Also, I think it's so destructive to the bowels for lots of unnecessary reasons - I am a very bitter towards modern birthing practices. A healthy woman, who gives birth in the place of her choosing, and is emotionally supported and feels safe and is allowed to act on her urges and impulses does not need an obstetrician. Maybe I'm wrong, but I the more I see, the less I think doctors have any place in births, apart from the basics of hygiene. All they do is interfere and complicate a process which a woman is rightfully equipped to handle on her own, by birthright. Almost everything is wrong - moving a woman during labor halts the process, lying down is very unproductive; the hips cannot spread apart as easily from this angle (the bones need to be able to move), and the baby will come out, the woman can't use her own muscles effectively and is hobbled and hindered by the bed and all the I.V.s; I'm convinced that all the drugs are evil; pitocin (they give you this to induce labor and to stimulate contractions) makes the labor contractions SO much more painful, and can cause stress to the baby which can lead to interventions like c-Section, because it unnaturally amplifies contractions and forces them to be harder and longer than they would have otherwise been. The body will ramp up contractions naturally in response to hormones given out by the baby. In a natural birth the baby controls the speed and force, and the baby's heart rate and stress levels are typically sustainable. And usually, when the mother is given pitocin, the contractions are so painful for her that she will end up begging for pain meds or an epidural (epidural are often made from strong opioids, which does drug the baby and often causes problems with the baby nursing after birth), and usually this blocks the mother's ability to "push" (a mother should never be told to push. This in itself is responsible for most pelvic floor damage. The tissue does tear, often, in natural births, but natural tears actually heal much easier, and there is literally no need to push. If the mother pushes forcefully, before she is ready and before her muscles and tissue have opened, there is tremendous damage because everything has been forcefully ripped. A woman's body is made to open, and it will open, on it's own, when it and the baby are ready to open. I have heard countless stories of women being told to "push" by a Dr who is tired of waiting, and she is usually given an episiotomy to "speed up the opening." It's infuriating. A man has no reason to be in that room, unless the father wishes to support the woman - on her terms - and to be part of the child's entrance into the world. Men do not understand the meditation, the soul-searching, the totally-encompassing event that birth is, and they meddle and want to make it clinical and they get uncomfortable and want to stop the woman from hurting and they get impatient so they try to expedite the process. And yes, modern woman are weak. They are afraid of pain. That's so stupid. It's such a different pain than a broken leg or a cut or anything like that. This pain will not kill you. My first birth was a hospital birth and I regret it and feel robbed of my crowing achievement and of my birthright. My baby was taken by the doctors and I was not allowed to bond, I ws poked and prodded, I was on display, I was examined and interfered with and denied water (denied water! it's barbaric!), and I was butchered for no other reason than the doctor's convenience. I don't know if I will ever "get over" that experience. My second birth was in the hospital parking garage, and I LOVED it. I labored at home for 24 hours, and walked around, ate apples and fruits until food was unappealing and I took warm baths and swam and watched movies and I sank, ever more deeply, into myself, and into what I was feeling, and into this timeless moment of becoming and of welcoming a deep, deep pain and just primordial knowing - it was really an ancient as my DNA, no other way to say it - and understanding that my other soul, that other human inside me was getting ready to come into this reckless but lovely world, and listening to him and knowing that he and I were in harmony. We waited until the last minute then drove to the hospital at 4 am, and almost as soon as I stepped out of the truck in the parking garage I felt my hip bones split apart and his head slip down. It was incredible. Then his came out in a rush and my husband caught him - how incredible is that! my husband caught him so that he didn't hit the concrete floor! The only downside was actually being in the hospital. They were like swarms of extremely irritating bugs. I needed to sleep, and my baby needed to be with me, and they just kept pestering me and sucking my blood, and I would have been happy to swat them all away. I know this is very detailed and intimate, but that's what birth is. I think women should give up the attention of the outside world and only wish to gain their husband's attention and the love of their family. I'm just saying that it is a problem I see. I think the seeds of it are planted very early on, since women are encouraged to gain attention while they're growing up, and then the game and rules change once in a marriage, and once in a marriage, feminist-raised women have little to zero understanding of how to connect with a man, or to please him, or to be useful or valuable to him - they only know how to get the superficial attention of the dating world. An older woman, who had been through it all, would be useful in shepherding her through this and showing her what to do, but then again, if a woman like that was in a girl's life, she might not have trouble in the first place giving up the attention of the outside world in exchange for a place in a family. Right. I think our generation inherited some pretty messed up things, and we did our fair share of perpetuating them, and now we're all seeing how screwed up it is and how badly it damages everything. And I used to think that men were the only ones who could save society, but I'm starting to think it's women, because, like you said we're the gatekeepers of fertility. Which is interesting - growing up, it never once occurred to me that a woman had power by deciding who to have children with. Never once. Honestly, it makes me mad to see how deceived I was. I should have been aware of my glorious power when I was a girl. Not so that I could be mean or misuse it or anything like that, but so I could be humbled by it, and honest with myself, and could have proceeded with grace and could have celebrated my unique place in this life. But girls are now taught that is is power to use their femininity in only the most shallow and destructive ways. And it destroys all of us. Yup. And childbirth is sexual, too. But I don't think it's sexual in a gross, obscene way. But this is how I think true female sexuality is - it's not that aggressive, overly sexual hook-up sexuality that is pushed right now, and that cares about orgasm. That's a man's sexuality. A woman's sexuality is about the whole process, and it is about being wrapped up in being desired and it about being the object of love and passion, and of making new things and absorbing. Women's sexuality is about a mode of being. It's not the sex act itself. No, intelligence does not at all make a woman dislike children. I can't imagine how it could. I think intelligence makes is somewhat less desirable to do the other chores surrounding the care-taking of children, like the cleaning. But the children themselves? Not at all. ' Right. That's why most women now dislike men - most of them don't have fathers they are close to, and they see examples of men doing these sorts of things and think all men are like that. But really, most people are just acting out their brokenness and hurt. Men who do this are weak. They're trying to become powerful by taking value and power from someone else - a woman (ironic, in a way) and they should not behave in this way by any means, and yet I've developed a lot of sympathy for what drives the action. They need to see a better path, and they need to know that they can become better. Why cheat? Two wrongs don't make a right. If she is too disgusted and the trust is too broken, she should leave and save her own integrity. I would, however, think that it would be worthwhile to investigate the man and see if he is just in a lost place in his life, and needs to be reminded of his own values and integrity. This is one instance of when I think a wife needs to put of the mother hat. Is the man a chronic scoundrel? Leave him. Is he lost and in need of direction? For me, it might be worth discovering. A marriage vow is not something to dissolve lightly. Even if the other person breaks their vows, I would have to know that I did my best to ask for the best out of the other person before I walked away for good. The time, at least in my opinion, to be stern and extreme is in the beginning, when you are selecting. Once you make those vows, I think the question is more a matter of clearly defending my own boundaries and integrity, because I think it is my duty and job to try to help, understand, forgive bad and encourage good of my partner as much as possible, only ceasing to do this when it costs me my own self-value and integrity. But yes, overall, if he's cheating to make himself feel powerful, he probably is so far gone that there's no hope, and staying with him would only be emotional suicide. Right. Cheating is cheating, and a broken vow or broken trust is still just broken trust. I've heard a lot of people in the Red Pill community try to justify make cheating by saying that an alpha-enough guy is biologically driven to have a main girl and then impregnate as a many others as he can, and they hey, it's just biology. It's pretty disgusting. But, if a man is going to cheat and be dishonest or cruel or selfish or whatever you call it, that's usually how he justifies it, and when women decide to be dishonest or cruel or whatever, it's by branch-signing. If a man or woman has no morals or standards, these are the ways in which their lack or morals usually manifest.

Hey @barn !! Ok. I appreciate all the response and will try to give you some thorough feedback. So, for the above quote, you should take it as an exaggerated opinion. I was not being Spock-literal, and was blowing a perceived tendency into an hyperbole. I will take the pointer and work to not use needless exaggerations like that. Thank you for that. I do appreciate the willingness, quite sincerely. I don't mind disagreements. I don't think you're off... One of the reasons I have asked very little questions of you, when I am unsure of your meaning or whenever I think we are disagreeing, is that I'm not entirely sure myself what it is that is giving me trouble. I have tried to figure it out, precisely, and just really am not sure why I seem to feel foggy whenever we talk. The best analysis I have been able to come up with is that it seems like you typically open conversation with a vague, slightly negatively connoting remark, wait for me to take the bait, and then it feels like I get slammed with so much analytical, so very technical language that I don't even feel like I'm talking about the main, original topic anymore, and I just feel very bogged down in a case of extreme hair-splitting. I don't know for sure where the problem lies, though, and I think that this feels like such a big hindrance to gainful conversation that I simply try to avoid getting into - what seems to me - an impossible tangle, and have usually just tried to restate what I said with more clarity, hoping that I just didn't state things in a good enough manner to be received well, and that if I communicate better, the fog will magically lift. I guess it's hard to ask questions when I'm not exactly sure what it is that throws me off... I feel like I'm mostly just guessing. I know that's not a scientific way to do this, and I will try to ask more specific questions. Hah. Lol thank you for the emojis. Yes, I see how my statement was not appropriate, as I could not have possible known every single person's opinion about this, and also how making a statement like that was me trying to mind-read. Mind-reading is something I am very often guilty of. I don't think I always realize that I do it, because I do it quite naturally. Maybe it's not a mature, seasoned love. I don't know that it could be with being so young and inexperienced. But it could be a ripe grounds for growing a loving partnership. I find it very romantic to be bound together and to grow together. I was talking to another woman the other day who told me she and her husband had been together since she was 14 (obviously not married then - they married after college) and that she had been friends with and known him since 1st grade. She said she thought the secret to their relationship was they they choose each other and then sort of grew up together, and formed their values and goals and personalities together. He would obviously have to take on a fatherly role for a few years, but that would eventually change, as she grew and learned and came into her own, and then they would be in sync with one another, with a young family already blossoming. It is not nothing for a young girl to be taken notice of, and loved and committed to in the prime of her youth, to be cherished as the years rolled by. As long as he is being upfront about intentions of marriage and holding to very careful standards of conduct (I would think having sex or physical relations with this girl, if marriage and commitment is not firmly agreed to, would be devastating to her and would make him into quite the power-wielding user), I can't see any wrongness at all. I see some very strong possible benefits. What I think is creepy is a 17 year old girl being allowed to date a 17 year old boy. Why would that ever be a good idea? What will come out of that? Nothing, except for a bruised heart and sexual exploration. As long as the older guy isn't preying upon her youth and naivety, I don't see it as creepy. I just think the standards you have to act by are just going to have to be that much higher. But again. I don't think you're a bad guy or a dumb guy. I think you've been tired of the dating game and wanting to settle down for a while. People used to tell me to "leave room for Jesus" if I was with a boy. We might all be satisfied on here if you "leave room for Stefan and virtue" on here. WWSD?

@barn I really never know whether or not you're toying with me or being serious. . . You always seem so skeptical of my comments, and it always makes me wonder what I'm doing wrong. Are you being serious? Am I sure about what I said? Yes, I was sure. Are you saying I shouldn't be sure about what I said? Should I not be sure about why other people haven't responded? Do you think others on here have a different opinion? Or am I wrong to think a 32 year old dating a 17 year old might be territory for extra caution and care? Basically there's a huge power disparity between them, since he's a fully-mature adult who has been in the world and is much more aware of how things work, how people and women work, and it's probably going to be very natural for a 17 year old girl to go along with what a grown man wants, and she may easily be too swayed by him to voice her own self-interests or even to do the self-reflection necessary to know her own self-interests. That's why I mention the need for greater integrity. A young woman of 17 might very easily get swept up in the romance and novelty of being in a relationship with a wealthy, attractive older man and might not be fully thinking clearly. I don't know. Maybe she's not affected by those things at all. I'm only guessing. I'm not saying at all that such a big age gap can't work. I just think it probably requires much extra care on his side. I also think he needs to be just as picky about her morals/virtues, and not get swept away in finding himself the center of affection of a hot, young girl. But he doesn't seem like a stupid guy. I think he probably has thought about all of this. I'm also not his mother - I do feel like some caution is warranted, but in the end, he's going to do exactly whatever he thinks and feels that he wants to do, in whatever part of the world he lives in. I feel a sort of a weird online friendship for the dude. He's posted on here a lot and it has sounded like he has really wanted to find a girl to settle down with. I would be happy if he did, in fact, find someone. People have been marrying at 17 for untold years, and I think it could very well be perfect for both of them. I think I would have been perfectly happy settled down and married around 16-19 years old. He also seems to really like the younger ladies, and I doubt that will change. Why not find a very young lady, provided he loves and cares for her and is 100% committed?

I’m sure no one else has posted on here because it’s sorta a delicate subject, what with the age difference and all. You understand why people might be skeptical about this. That being said, I’ve read your past comments about dating and have felt a lot of sympathy for you, and have hoped you could find someone compatible who you could be happy with. All else aside, I don’t think the age difference in itself is a real barrier. I actually think it could work in both of your favors in some circumstances. As long as you know your own intentions and are acting with the upmost integrity, and she is, too, then it might be perfect. Best wishes!

I would agree with most of this. I think what's happened is that women's nature has been weaponized against us and against society. We're still women underneath it all, and can never truly be the "men" we're encouraged to be. The girl having a kid at 18 probably has more to do with her own upbringing. I've read that if a father is absent, a girl will have risky sex and seek out unstable sexual relationships because her biology was primed to believe that father involvement was not a possibility, therefore the next alternative for her to reproduce is to just get pregnant as young and as quickly as possibly, because the risk is on her anyways. I wish I had discovered the Red Pill of sexual strategies much sooner. It was such a relief to understand why I did some of the things I did. I gave me power. I made lots of poor choices, and always felt depressed and wanted to be better and felt stuck and blah blah blah, and seeing why I was doing what I was doing allowed me to hack my nature to be something more aligned with what I desired to be. It's really a tragedy that our own natures are hidden from us so thoroughly. It would be much kinder for us to admit what we are and then submit to the reality of our own weaknesses and then act in ways which help us be the good person I think we all wish to be. This was pretty much me. I got a degree in Literature and Biblical Studies, worked super hard through college, and graduated without a single idea of what to do to support myself. Lots of panic attacks later, I found myself working at Starbucks to supplement my art teacher income. I had zero ability to think well under any threat of uncertainty, and had no ability to be competitive or creative when I felt uncertain about my finances. I also never wanted to go to college. I graduated high school at 16 and wanted to go work as a maid in this gorgeous house in New England. I thought it would be a fun way to see the Eastern Coast and I wanted to see what people were like there. If I had had my way I probably would have gone to New England, worked for a while, and found a guy and got married and knocked up. My mother actually applied to college for me, and then informed me that I was going to this stupidly conservative Christian college. It was awful. We had mandatory chapel every day, and I was locked into my dorm every night between 11pm and 6 am, and we had to ask permission to go out of town or be alone with someone of the opposite gender. It was miserable. She also took out lots of loans for it and never told me, signing my name for them. I should have known, tbh. But I had very little ability to go against her when I was younger. I always thought I was somehow defective. I really understand now that I was being a typical female, and I really would have benefited from having a strong, loving masculine presence in my life to teach me how to resist my "group" and to act in accordance with my own vision and integrity.

I don't think the sin of the average guy is to divorce his wife... I think most men value the long-term bond. However, I think the sin of the average guy is to want to stay married, but also cheat. I think most guys would leave only if things were utter hell for them. I think that this is true. I think there are lots of reasons for it and it's a little complicated, but the end result is what you said. I personally think it comes from the model of culture we have at the moment. Right now, for a woman, giving up independence means giving up SMV to her husband and family. You have to have a lot of trust that you will be cherished, loved, and valued by your husband and society once your SMV is gone. There is very little incentive to trade in SMV for anything else, because nothing else really exists to take its place at the moment. We did away with everything that could help transition women from high SMV to existing on the "inside" and building a family. Plus, if a woman does have an amount of intelligence, it is difficult to do the "baby life" of feed, change diaper, clean house, bathe, sleep (or not sleep), rinse repeat. You keep thinking to yourself, is this what I learned all that stuff for? Don't we pay 3rd world immigrants to do all this stuff? I thought my husband wanted me to be the mother of his children because I was an intelligent woman - you don't need more than just-enough IQ to sweep a house and fold clothes and change diapers. It took me a long time to adjust and just go with the flow and enjoy this season of life, and it wasn't without a full-on grieving process for the person I once was. I was also sad because I thought my husband would not love me as much, since he originally chose the person I used to be, and it is no longer possible for me to be that person anymore - I mean yes, I still have the same basic preferences and tastes, but the change has been profound. I think it would have been very useful to have had a social network put in place around me to help soften that blow. I wish I had had a mother and M-I-L who cold have sort of guided me through this, or anyone else. I have been working very hard to build up our social circle, but it really is tough. Everyone is so isolated, and people seem content to waste away in front of Netflix. And there is no attention. This is so important for women. All the attention that hot, smart Conservative women enjoy in their conservative circles disappears once they give up their SMV and choose to stay home, and it leaves a big hole for a woman. It takes quite a lot of connection and intimacy to counterbalance the lack of attention.

Wow. Sounds like you're having a rough pregnancy! I hope everything ends up ok for yall. And to what all you said - yup! I would like many more kids, but hate pregnancy so much that it's really giving me second thoughts. Pregnancy isn't just a woman getting fat. It can be very painful. I remember stepping over one of our baby gates (to keep our son from getting into certain rooms), and the scissoring motion of my hip and pelvis hurt so much I had to sit and cry for a while. Your bones spread apart to make way for the baby and that can cause a lot of pain. My mother-in-law lost multiple teeth during each pregnancy. Many, many woman (most, I would say, although most usually don't talk about it) have pelvic floor dysfunction for the rest of their lives, and it usually gets worse with each subsequent pregnancy and delivery. This means fecal and urinary incontinence, and internal organs like the uterus and bladder literally start to fall out of the body through the vagina, not to mention that sex is less pleasurable for the man and can often be painful for the woman, or there is a total lack of sensation at all. The lack of sleep is severe. I have a few friends who got those magical unicorn babies that just somehow sleep through the night from 3 days old, but that has not been the case for either of my sons. They both seem to loathe going to sleep, and will fight it very hard. This means I'm often on Baby Duty from 4:30 am to 9-10pm, and sometimes till wake up in the night between those hours. It gets to you. The mood swings are tough to deal with, too. So there's so excuse for acting poorly, but imagine that you take a whole bunch of mood-altering, perception-altering drugs and then you're expected to act and feel normally, just like people who aren't doing drugs. The inner struggles I have fought to just act sanely and rationally have been substantial, and depending on the mood swing, it can really take a tremendous amount of will power to calm to extreme storm going on on the inside. Also add to the fact that women are basically cut off from society at large once you get pregnant and have kids (no sports, no socializing, no restaurants, no movies, no music festivals, no quiet library times, no personal preferences because you can't afford to want what you want, because what you want is just not going to happen and you will inevitably feel resentful or disappointed if you hold out expectations of it), and that women live off of attention, and it's really not hard to understand why someone like Tomi Lahren isn't having kids at the moment. Why would she? She is popular because she is a beautiful, high SMV woman who spouts ideas that one certain portion of the population agrees with. If a plain, Average Joe were to say the same things people would not give him half as much attention and might even be annoyed with him. If she trades in her fame for motherhood, the attention she receives will severely drop, unless she is the woman who "does it all and still looks just as hot after n+ kids." Women can get pretty desperate for attention, and society has nothing to offer modern women in return for them giving up their SMV and independence. I think we used to have a system set up that more or less ushered women into the different roles, and rewarded them for the sacrifice by making them the most powerful player in the domestic sphere. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the matriarch of the family used to have much more status and respect than the high SMV, unmarried girl. One had SMV and the other had power and status. So there was a safety net put in place for the women who traded in their SMV for family, but that really is gone. And there's very little reconciliation in the general culture for married women. No one is there to show women how to gracefully transition from high SMV to wife to mother, and how to become more womanly and of even more value even as her youth and looks fade. It's just not there. The closest I've been able to find is in the Christian world. Why would an intelligent, conservative woman, who enjoys the popularity of being an attractive Conservative woman (and you know the men in her circle all like her because she's an attractive conservative woman) give that up for something which costs her attention and value in the eyes of the world at large? Why would she give up the opportunity to self-actualize, to follow her own ambition or dreams or to utilize her intelligence? Because the truth is that a mom who raises her kids at home needs to have all the skills taught in HomeEc - and no one wants a woman who focuses on that. People look down on those girls for being dull or dumb. Conservative men want a woman who looks like a young, high SMV hottie but who can talk politics and business with the men, who isn't emotional, and who is hard-hitting and fully logical. We are all screwed up and backwards. Masculinity is not valued in men and femininity is not valued in women, and even conservative men have fallen prey to this liberal misdirection as well.

Y'all, just wanted to say that I finished Dr. Zhivago and it was the dumbest book ever. In case you were wondering.

Pretty cool thread. Thanks for the reading tips. I am very interested in the Robert Wright book and will buy it. I don't always think it's bad to begin with a grim perspective of things, btw. If you can look at things at their very worst, and try to understand and prepare accordingly, then it seems like you have a better chance of doing well in reality. And plus, any good outcomes are just that much more surprisingly hopeful. One of the best books I read as a kid was August, by Bernard Beckett. It was an investigation of free will and, if I remember correctly, the "moist robot" theory (which I kinda tend to lean towards). I think this is an endlessly fascinating idea. I think that everything we are/do at least originates from something useful, or else it wouldn't be a part of us. But I sometimes wonder how purposeful it is to try to get too meta about our own consciousness - not that that really prevents me from speculating. Can we really understand things outside of our own filter, our own structure of being? How can we even have the imagination to know that there is something else to reason within/without, since we are only able to know, define, test, and enact within the confines of what we are by experience and consciousness? I feel like this is almost close to the "existence as a stimulation" theory. Interesting, but ultimately not relevant. If we are nothing but a stimulation, than we are a simulation. Being a simulation or pre-destined or being in total control of my own will does not change the fact that I experience my existence and being, and I still believe I choose my course, and I still feel my feelings and believe that I am me. I do not know how I could avoid any of these things, and I do not know how it could be possible for me to understand free will, reality, myself and the universe through any other modes than the consciousness that I experience and believe that I have. It's really a startling idea - that our atoms are somehow aware, and somehow our atoms have an integrity which maintains borders and boundaries of self. It is fascinating to examine, but I think the most mysterious and worthwhile aspect is that we are granted the ability to witness it unfolding. My thoughts tend to stick there, and on that I can sit and contemplate with lots of satisfaction.

Your post actually made me smile. I appreciate this so much. I don't want to say too much else - there is lots to say, but I think it could go on and on and on - and I'd rather just end things on this fabulous note. Thanks for the time and all your thoughts!

@Siegfried von Walheim I have thought a lot about your posts. I was obviously very emotional about this whole thread, and your responses were highly emotional for me and I felt very angry that you would purposefully throw insults (there were multiple) at me when I was intentionally baring my flaws and uglier characteristics and asking for help and feedback. I have not been sure about what I really thought in response to your posts. I was really shocked at the intentional meanness. I thought it was taken as a matter of course that my thoughts about male sexuality were wrong and needed to be changed. (I am becoming more convinced, though, that my issues are not solely about male sexuality but about healthy sexuality in general.) You did say some helpful things. So thank you for that. It also was obvious from your response that I really offended you. I understand how any negative thoughts I have about men are something you would take personally, since you are male. I don't wish to helped, though, if the "help" comes with a large dose of contempt. Who wants that? Certainly not me. Should you wish to engage with me in the future, I really do ask that you try to answer with a generous spirit. If you are more wise than me and wish to enlighten me, than wonderful. But you can be honest with me and speak harsh truths without being contemptuous. I understand that you may wish to be contemptuous, since I said offensive things to you. Fair enough. But if you can't speak without that contempt, I do wish for us to not engage anymore. I would say, though, that this post has lead me to feel more upset about the complete failure of my family and culture to adequately prepare me to do my job, and I am now scrambling to not only learn the skills and things needed to be a good wife and mother, but am also having to go through my own psyche and heart and actively un-do/unlearn most of what has been taught to me. And it's infuriating. Over and over, I see more evidence of all the ways in which our whole culture is sabotaging people's abilities to be healthy and to be truly empowered. I look at my sons and wonder why I, as a young girl, who was extremely trusting and happy and tender-hearted, was told so many lies for so long. I have never had an issue with this. I have felt swelling admiration for the nature-defying feats of man, in a very Ayn Randian way. I feel a huge surge of positive emotions, almost like awe, when I see men striving, overcoming, creating, and being dedicated, inventive, and strong. You most likely hit the nail of the head, here. My father is the ultimate beta. He was a handsome has-been, and has zero worth except for crying and being emotional over things that I have never been able to fix or help. My grandfather - probably the biggest male influence in my life, is not a beta, though. He is alpha to his marrow. He is extremely smart, very domineering, practically runs the whole Bible Belt, super wealthy, very strict conservative fundamentalist Christian, and literally has summoned whatever female was around to get up and refill his coffee for him. You don't argue or have conversations with him. You agree, or you are wrong and therefore sinning and against God's word. But the most accurate thing you probably said was about being a low quality woman with only a body to offer. I have known, from as young as I can remember, that no one cared about anything I said, thought, or felt, if I did not look pretty. I have a cousin who has never been attractive (who is now in her mid 30's, obese, and dotes on her two small dogs and fills her heart with Netflix), and the treatment between me and her growing up was stark. Both of us had single mothers, and both of us were partially raised by our grandmother as our mothers went back to school and got jobs. She was largely ignored. I was ignored if I was not being extra smiley, accommodating, or if I was not looking attractive. The difference between how I was treated when I looked good or when I looked bad was amazing. My granddad would smile at me and ask me questions when I was pretty. It was obvious. And he would literally ignore me or be much more critical when I did not look as good. It is easy to see this, even as a small child. And that together with the guilt of being a woman and single-handedly being responsible for bringing sin in to the world. Fundamentalist Christians put a lot of blame on Eve and her descendants. And I was desperate for a close male relationship. I have always wanted a man to love me. I honestly think it, if I had had a fmaily I trusted to choose wisely for me, that I would have been very happy being married at 17 and starting a family then. But I was confident that I had nothing to offer except for my looks (and this has nothing to do with what I actually look like. I could be ugly or pretty. Whatever. But I thought that was all I had to bargain with.) Honestly, time and time again I can recall this being shown true. I remember moving (again) and starting my sophomore year at a new high school, and I was thrilled that this guy asked me to the Homecoming dance. He picked me up, took me to a restaurant, and I was stupidly excited. I spent the time talking about Anna Karenina, and he ended up ditching me at the dance and I spent the whole time in the bathroom, alone. All of jr high was like that. All of high school was like that. Most of college was like that. I can't tel you how many times my "friends" told me that they were surprised that I was not just a stupid bimbo. I thought it was obvious that no one cared anything about anyone besides the body they could offer and their looks. And it could be the chicken or the egg argument - maybe that's all I saw because that's all I had to offer, or that was all I thought I had to offer because that's all I saw around me. At this point, I think it probably began as that latter and ended up as the former. And yes. You could say that, if I were really more perceptive, I would have seen all of this and just separated from the herd and dealt with the loneliness and revelled in the isolation and consoled myself with knowing that I had something more to offer, but my single biggest fear is emotional rejection. It is a tough one for me. Even disappointing someone fills me with a dark, heavy feeling, and the anger, emotional withdrawl, or rejection of someone I feel close to is unbelievably painful. It's really just as if I were ripped from a tropical beach and hurled onto a hanging cliff in some arctic wasteland. I have made most of my life's choices in relation to whether or not it would upset my mom and my granddad. It is excruciatingly painful for me to disagree with them, much less to be someone different from what I was supposed to be. Quite frankly, it was not until I had my husband on my side that I was able to really stand up to them at all. I simply did not have the courage. I needed his strength, and his GTFO attitude and his indifference to social acceptance. And your post was really helpful because I realized, as I was reading it, that I have only been able to feel any courage at all since I have had him and his strength. I think I have so much more negative things to uncover in myself, and at times I'm really discouraged, but it gives me a huge boost in motivation to see how quickly these "demons" lose their force of power and depth as I inquire into them. I do not this I should be shown contempt for exposing myself in hopes of learning, growing, or improving. I do believe that I should be encouraged in this. And I don't think that it should be surprising to learn that dark, incorrect thoughts/feelings are ugly and/or disgusting. Of course they are. That is why they need to change. There is no need to add further negativity to this. I liked how you phrased this, and it did slant things in a way in which I had not thought of before. And this is also part of this issue, I think. If this is the case - that male sexuality is inherently loving because he is investing himself in a woman and in those potential children - than a man is unloving when he has sex without total commitment and without total exclusivity. Promiscuity and non-monogamy is bad for both genders, if this is true. I think this is probably true, but it is definitely not the world I grew up in nor is it the norm for what I see around me. It's a bit of a mind-f to reconcile those two things. If a man is a loving man, how could he wish to create risk and danger for a woman he is not committed to by having casual sex? It seems sociopathic to me. The danger that this exposes the woman to is extremely high, and if a man is willing to put another person through that without any compunction, than is is truly chilling to me. If we are to look at things from what they mean biological, then he is willing to risk the woman's life and the potential child's life for his own instant gratification. And I see it everywhere. Everywhere. And this is not even to mention the negative feelings I have about women's sexuality, which seems to be bent on manipulative, deceitful entrapment and coercion. I think, overall, the more I dig into things - into myself and into the world - the more it seems urgently imperative that all relationships and interactions be guided by the NAP and UPB. I do not know how love can exist otherwise. It's not real, otherwise. It's easy for me to believe that women are built to bond through monogamy and are only really meant to have one lover, and that men are more easily able to have casual sex, but if a man is being inherently loving by having sex, than is he loving each and every one night stand? Does he love that chick he knocked up and wishes he could get away from? If a man is investing himself in a woman when he has sex with her, why is he unhappy when a child is born? Why does a man not love to be the provincial beast of burden that is required in wedlock? If a man's sexuality is inherently loving, but he has sex with women whom he has no wish to invest fully in, then is he not loving? Is he lying about his love? Isn't he sinning against his own heart, and his own ability to love when this happens? It seems to be the only conclusion of that statement, but this is not what is presented to me, even in this forum. There is this idea that it isn't bad, and maybe it's even good, for a man to be sexually promiscuous and to have "conquered" lots of women and have lots of experience. But if your statement is true, then what does it say about the men who are promiscuous? Are they being dishonest about they intentions, or about their ability to love? Or to invest? Or will they suddenly flip a switch and sex will no longer be for sport but for love? Does something like that just "happen?" I think I've answered a lot of these questions over the past few days/weeks, but these were some of my issues. Part of this is learning to appreciate my own femaleness. I know we live in a currently female-privileged culture, but honestly no one likes femininity or wants women to be women, just like no one wants men to be men. It's been so surprising to me to continually discover and rediscover the fact that I am utterly feminine down to my bones, and it is freedom for me to embrace it instead of trying to be a man, just hotter. And I know it sounds crazy, but it's so freeing to understand that I am a deeply emotional, largely subjective creature. It's my superpower and my weakness, I believe. I think that we will be a better society if we really appreciate and respected the differences, and worked to meet each other's needs in an upright, moral way, with integrity and truth for the betterment of the team. Men + women would really be unstoppable.

I've had a fascination/obsession with death for many years now. Didn't eat meat for a long time (funny now, because I have been doing the carnivore diet for a few months and love it) because it reminded me too much of my own flesh and potential for decay and "meatment," and in my late teens and early 20's I would always undress people down to their different muscle layers and ligaments and try to imagine the person as their meaty self, then tease apart whatever it was that made them unique, human, or anything better/more special than just a walking bag of worm food and rot. I grew up in a very strict Church of Christ environment, and it was a given that there was Heaven and Hell after death, so death was not THE END, but more like a transition. I'll never forget the day that the idea occurred to me that this may not be true, and that non-existence might actually be what happens once biological life ceases. At first it terrified me. At the time I would rather have chosen Hell than non-existence. Now, though, the fact that this life is just an effervescent burst of consciousness makes me see things as much more precious. The world is more precious, as are the lives, experiences, and beings of the world, and it is now more urgent to do well and live happily where possible, because this is it - after your time is up, there is no more time to feel love, or feel happy, or to be that person you always dreamt you could have been. . . And I have to think that the idea of Heaven/an afterlife is a cruel drug, meant to lull people into inertia and make them complacent. I really am disgusted by how far removed we are from reality. We're anesthetized from everything real - death and birth being among some of the biggest, most substantial ones, I believe, and it's crazy to expect us as a collective society to live greatly when we are continually saved from the things that give our whole existence meaning (I think birth control, abortion, and government also keep us from knowing reality and from realizing our full selves). If we want to be scientist and empiricists, our thoughts should line up with reality, right? Death is reality. So should we spend more time, as a culture, examining death and seeking to correctly prepare our minds and lives for it? Death happens, of course, just like births do, but I think that we are shielded from the full force of them by many conventions, and I believe that it is not to our advantage. I was shocked at the bloody, primal, beast-like ordeal giving birth was - I saw pictures of Princess Kate hours after delivering her son with her hair done and a cute sundress on, and all the women I knew had this unspoken competition as to who could look the best in FB photos while in the maternity ward. It's insane. And I've had few relatives die, but only saw them in the casket, embalmed, with makeup on and nicely dressed and it's all so civil and clean. Not that I wish to see my grandmother in a gruesome, macabre death, but I really had a difficult time accessing my own grief and feelings when her death and the events afterwards were so nicely, so cleanly, so artificially handled. I feel like incredibly important emotions and moments are being stolen away at both modern births and deaths. To some degree, I think we need to see the truth about what happens. I'm reading Doctor Zhivago in my spare time, and stumbled on this passage: " So what will happen to your consciousness? Your consciousness, yours, not anyone else's. Well, what are you? There's the point. Let's try to find out. What is it about you that you have always known as yourself? What are you conscious of in yourself? Your kidneys? Your liver? Your blood vessels? No. However far back you go in your memory, it is always in some external, active manifestation of yourself that you come across your identity — in the work of your hands, in your family, in other people. And now listen carefully. You in others — this is your soul. This is what you are. This is what your consciousness has breathed and lived on and enjoyed throughout your life — your soul, your immortality, your life in others. And what now? You have always been in others and you will remain in others. And what does it matter to you if later on that is called your memory? This will be you — the you that enters the future and becomes a part of it. " It really struck a chord with me and appreciated it. I have been perplexed at why the fear of death is such a strong force. When I think about it, it seems like the fear ought to be fear of an untimely death, or fear of a wasted life. It seems like it should be proper, mature, and informed to be dispassionate and at ease with death once a person has had children and guided those children (and perhaps grandchildren) through the more harrowing ordeals of life. I doubt other creatures contemplate their own mortality, and it seems like some accept it without notice. I think it is incredible that humans can reflect on death. It seems unbelievably useful and informative, but only if we bow to the limits of our existence and accept the final measures, instead of making up endless extensions like Heaven or any other type of afterlife. When I think of things like this, and have to grapple with my own burst of personality and consciousness becoming no more, I feel greatly consoled to think that if I live correctly, my unique imprint will have served its purpose, that my reason for being born will have been achieved, and that my body and soul can rest and that the World will be enriched for my having been alive. I will not need my own unique consciousness then, and so I will die. I will have kissed the World with my being. I sould have no fear about this. It should just be. I'm not totally there yet in my thinking, and of course, I really only think this stoic, dispassionate view should be for old people. It would be awful if I died now. I have a family and there is so much more for me to do learn and accomplish and be, but I do want to get to a place where death is just death. Anyone else think about death? Edit: I am not talking about anything suicidal or murderous.

Dude, you lost me there. I don't know what woman you're referencing and didn't know she was even in the conversation.

I went and checked out her website and read through all the blog posts she had - I really like how she writes and explains things. She makes the info very accessible and understandable. Men are very different at times, and I have made men a subject of study for the past few years and still find that I can be extremely surprised at how different my husband will react to and interpret a specific situation from me. That in itself can create a lot of tension, and I've really put a lot of energy into trying to do my best to see all possible disagreements and moments of tension through his perspective, and being as sympathetic as I can to what he is thinking and feelings. It can get exhausting, because I really have to be focused on his needs instead of mine, but I find that when I'm able to successfully put my emotional urgency aside and try to really understand him, then my needs actually do end up getting met, albeit usually much later. When I first started really trying to make my relationship with my husband better, I used a lot of The Feminine Woman and Laura Doyle's stuff. Both of those did a lot to help me find a better orientation for myself and for what I wanted out of my relationship. This is partly why I have become so much more conservative and Red Pilled in the past couple of years. It was only in marriage, and the conflict of my marriage, that I learned anything about men and even about women. It has been quite the journey of digging my own girly, female heart out of the wreckage of this bizarre, chaotic culture. So obviously this is a big issue and not something to just open and then close and never examine again, but I really am happily surprised at how much of a relief just this online thread has been for me. I have not had those feelings since I posted, and I can even hold the idea of having a daughter without feeling that giant knot of anxiety and fear. Whenever I've tested my feelings and tried imagining my sons hitting puberty and becoming sexually interested in women, I mostly feel curious to see how they will grow and develop. I think that my next task will probably be to identify what triggered those feelings and why it triggered them. I'm not exactly sure how I will go about learning what precisely triggered the feelings, but I think that I will at least get closer to knowing if I keep rooting around in my own head and being open and frank about what I find. Thanks for the feedback!

I will check out the book! Thank you for the tip. i have listened to RTR and it really hit home for me and shed a lot of light into my life. I have to say, writing/commenting/reading this thread has really been a great help for me. I do not feel like I am "in the clear" and done with this issue at all, but I am relieved to feel the huge assuagement of fear and anxiety that came about just from this little but of dialogue and processing. It encourages me. I think you're right. There are times when I think I have an accurate glimpse of my ego at work - a clear, detached, uninvolved perspective of this reflexive thing that forcefully and impulsively pushes ideas onto me. I think it requires a lot of discipline and self-control to circumvent these defenses. I think that's necessary, but I am unsure about how to do this in my current life. Really the time that I should have done all of this was before I had kids, but I didn't. I knew some things were off in my life pre-kids, but really only had a vague idea and thought most of them had been solved. I had lots of troubles in my marriage right in the beginning, and it brought a lot of my issues to the forefront, and I found Stefan's podcasts/youtube while trying to figure out how to understand my husband. Since then, it's basically been one watershed of discovery after another. I do believe that I should give myself credit for not hiding from my problems whenever I become aware of them, and for confronting them, but at times I feel discouraged to know that there is yet again something ill in me that I have carried into my marriage and parenting. But my point is that it is tricky for me to really do things which cause me to have great swings of negative emotions - even if it could be cathartic - because it interferes with my ability to take care of my kids. And yes, I do see the ironic catch-22 of this. I need to sort out these issues to be a better parent, but also need to do it in a way which does not detract from my ability to connect with them or be responsive with them - all of which is why I should have done all of this before kids. My solution so far is to come here, and post about things which I need help with while they are either napping or in bed for the night, and I can process things here in bite-size amounts, with the leisure to leave or come as needed and tackle things in a way which I find to be much more conducive to maintaining an active parenting role. You were quite helpful for me, and I really appreciated your input and responses. Thank you again for the time!