5 ms·

Starting from a completely different set of philosophical assumptions, some readers may be interested in this completely free alternative to marriage counseling

by temphn 14y ago

Starting from a completely different set of philosophical assumptions, some readers may be interested in this completely free alternative to marriage counseling: http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2009/08/14/relationship-game-week-a-readers-journey http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2009/08/14/relationship-game-... Anecdotally this has been radically more effective for myself and my friends than paying a third party to intervene. One response to marriage woes is to blame the other person or society or fate; another is to blame oneself and improve your appearance and behavior so that you are the man she fell in love with rather than an uninteresting housepet (I speak of a common scenario). That link is about the latter path.

alanctgardner2 14y ago
This seems to promote a really toxic idea that women are only happy with/attracted to 'alpha' men, and that as the husband you're solely responsible for keeping her happy. If you're 'gaming' your wife, I definitely don't think you're doing it right. It's fine to be assertive and not fall into the 'try to make the other person happy all the time' trap, but you can let them know that's what's wrong, rather than hiding it and trying to engineer your reactions. It's kind of ironic, you went from trying to fulfill all her demands, to trying to guess her subconscious desires, and working to fulfill those instead. Either way, you're changing yourself to suit her, you're doing all the work. It sounds like you might have low self-esteem if you describe yourself as an 'uninteresting housepet'.
- temphn 14y ago
  Shrug. Being assertive is what it's about. Any long term relationship is going to require maintenance/effort. you're changing yourself to suit her Working out or wearing a suit or getting a good job or listening to a marriage counselor or acting more assertive are all examples of "changing yourself to suit her/women". Working out, for example, is the opposite of "just being yourself". Given that you will be doing this, the key is to spend time on actions that get results. The key premise is that men are attracted to beautiful women just as women are attracted to high-status/confident/alpha men. The first half of that sentence is not controversial to articulate; the last half is where there's a conflict. According to society women should instead want men who are caring, sensitive listeners. Try that yourself and compare that to their response to an assertive leader who gives clear directions. That's all that "alpha" is; it really is an empirically large difference.
  - antoko 14y ago
    That's fine when you're talking in generalities (actually its not its pretty blinkered) but if you're talking about your wife, you're talking about A WOMAN not WOMEN. So you don't need to appeal to the general woman you need to appeal to your specific woman, the best way to do that is to communicate with her. I can't imagine playing some silly guessing game where I try to intuit what she wants. I've been married for 10 years, it seems to me that your advice would apply mostly to people in the first 2 years of a relationship. EDIT - ok so I just read some of the article you linked, I can't really fathom anything about that, I couldn't ever be in a relationship like the ones described so I guess I'm not qualified to comment on how to fix a relationship like that. My relationship is a partnership - not to say that we're equal in every way, we each excel in different areas and support each other as needed. That said, I still don't think that advice is applicable to a lot of people, going from being a doormat to a arrogant alpha seems pretty extreme and likely to undermine the basis of whatever the relationship was founded on (assuming it was founded on something like her being a demanding princess and you being a cringing sycophant)
    - coroxout 14y ago
      Yes. I'd like to think that men, especially more introverted guys like the stereotypical hacker, might choose their wives and girlfriends because they liked them as people - real people, with a personality and thoughts and ideas they find interesting. The advice on this blog presupposes that your wife is just something you keep around to cook for you and sleep with you and be some kind of hunting trophy: "look, I bagged me one of these!" You can then keep her sweet with mindgames about how you're too good for her and she should be grateful you come home at all. I hope nobody whose relationship fits in the former category is tempted by these anecdotes into thinking the latter is a better lifestyle choice. Do you really want to treat your supposed loved ones like this?
  - alanctgardner2 14y ago
    > Working out or wearing a suit or getting a good job or listening to a marriage counselor or acting more assertive are all examples of "changing yourself to suit her/women" Wrong. Dead wrong. If you do everything to please your wife, you have a serious personality disorder. I don't mean that in a bad way, I mean it as a statement of something you might not realize. I like dressing up because I like dressing up. I've worn a suit around the house on a lark, I wear ties to a n office where T-shirts are the norm. I absolutely do not do it because I'm trying to please or attract women. On the contrary, it probably seems stuffy and uninviting. I work out because I want to be in good shape, so I can go on cycling trips, and live a longer and healthier life. I don't do it because I want women to stare at my abs (they're coming along, promise). I saw a counselor while I was in a relationship to work through my issues independently. I ended up leaving my girlfriend, who I still love dearly, because I needed space to work through my own pathologies. If I act assertive (and I usually don't), it's because I'm confident that I'm right, and I feel something is urgent. I don't push incorrect opinions on people just for the sake of being manlier than the other person. I try to be considerate of everyone's opinion, and make reasoned decisions. I frequently say 'I don't know', and then go and find out. > According to society women should instead want men who are caring, sensitive listeners The Ryan Gosling school of thought. Unfortunately, as much as you think you're working against society, you've just described a different caricature: James Bond. There are as many bad boys in movies as good ones, and the bad ones usually get the girl. The whole premise of your post is that you live your life and define yourself to optimally please/attract women. If you define yourself only in terms of other people's opinions, you likely suffer for poor self-esteem. As much as the blog you linked is funny, it's not helping you work through your issues. edit: I forgot about > Shrug. You're honestly so afraid of a little introspection that you've resorted to writing out gestures of indifference. Rather than consider your own life and marriage, you're looking for a quick-fix that sounds like a movie ( Grease, specifically, but you're Oliva Newton John).
- waterhouse 14y ago
  (You bring up a point I wish to address, and I'm inclined to agree with you, so I direct my comment to you.) Does anyone ever consciously choose mates based on good qualities they see in them? Admirable qualities? Useful qualities? For example, does anyone say to themselves, "This person is [intelligent|physically beautiful|strong|empathic|emotionally resilient], and I want my children to be like that, and I suspect these traits are heritable, so I'll have kids with this person"? Or, "This person [complements my weaknesses well|is good at [cooking|managing a household|managing finances|entertaining friends|...]|understands and accepts me like few others|works well with me in various situations|enjoys similar activities as me], so I expect living with him to be pleasant and work well, so I'll marry him"? I wouldn't call myself an expert in this area, but that seems to be the obvious thing to do. I would expect a well-developed person to think about things like this, and to have this conscious thought get compiled into reflexes and emotions: you notice a guy can cook really well, and you start paying attention to him more and maybe reconsider your evaluation of him; you notice a guy behave terribly without good reason, and your estimation of him lowers. The picture I get from this blog post is that the husband and the wife are unaware of any admirable qualities the husband might have, and are unaware that they should expect any to exist. Or, if the husband has any good qualities, the wife doesn't care about them--e.g. maybe he writes blog posts well, but she does not do blogging and cannot admire his skill there. Why are they married? Why did she marry him? The author supplies an answer at the top: "I got married young". I guess she was young too and maybe it can be explained as a dumb youthful mistake. Anyway, the lesson seems to be that if you suddenly wake up married to someone because God knows why, and you have no idea what qualities of yours might appeal to her, then you can appeal to her in the lowest-common-denominator way: putting on behaviors that make you seem like an alpha male who can afford, socially, to carelessly hurt people. That can be understood as an extremely limited form of "exhibiting admirable qualities": exhibiting some negative personality traits that, apparently, the unconscious mind has some hard-wired admiration for, because they are correlated with admirable qualities found in alpha males. ... Maybe it has some use, maybe I would use it if I were thrown into a primitive, violent society where you do not expect to have much interaction with potential mates before making your decision--but I can't admire this. I want much better. I'd like to enjoy and admire my mate with my full conscious mind. I'd like to pick a mate based on this desire. Do people seriously not do this? (I expect there are people who come from primitive, violent societies who are unaware of anything else and will tell me "no, of course not; lol, this guy srsly believes in fairytales". This will not faze me. I'm basically soliciting input from civilized people here. Also wondering if there's anyone with a similar perspective as me who can explain the thought-processes of people like "Dave from Hawaii" in that blog post: has he simply not been brought up to think that this "idealism" is a serious possibility? 'Cause that was probably true once--that there weren't many admirable qualities to look for (if the most important things about a man are those that determine how he'll fare in a hunt, and maybe how large a section of the winnings he'll get--and how he'll do in tribal politics), and not much opportunity for a woman to observe them herself. Other personal qualities would be more important in a husband who goes homesteading and raises a nuclear family with you on a farm. So I expect some people come from cultures that haven't gone through something like the latter phase; that might explain the difference between them and me.)
tehwebguy 14y ago
All this page described was abused men becoming abusers. Being assertive and abusive are not the same thing.
paganel 14y ago
From the article: > HER: “I don’t want to eat here.” > ME: “What? I thought you said…” > HER: “I never said I wanted KFC.” I'm a divorced guy, and my ex-wife sure did have her faults (like, cheating), like I did have mine, but I thank the gods of marriage and divorce that she never pulled that kind of stuff on me. I find this kind of stuff very disingenuous, it's like the weight of the whole relationship falls on only one person.
girvo 14y ago
It's refreshing to see a Roissy link posted here on HN. If it interests you, check out the blog roll there, particularly http://rationalmale.WordPress.com http://rationalmale.WordPress.com
brudgers 14y ago
The man she fell in love with was short fat and balding. The man she loves has gone from balding to bald, but made up for it by graying. One of the things I love about her is that she isn't inclined to take shit from people. Functionally, this includes me. My best friend isn't a bauble. She's a grown-ass woman.

by temphn 14y ago

alanctgardner2 14y ago

This seems to promote a really toxic idea that women are only happy with/attracted to 'alpha' men, and that as the husband you're solely responsible for keeping her happy. If you're 'gaming' your wife, I definitely don't think you're doing it right. It's fine to be assertive and not fall into the 'try to make the other person happy all the time' trap, but you can let them know that's what's wrong, rather than hiding it and trying to engineer your reactions. It's kind of ironic, you went from trying to fulfill all her demands, to trying to guess her subconscious desires, and working to fulfill those instead. Either way, you're changing yourself to suit her, you're doing all the work. It sounds like you might have low self-esteem if you describe yourself as an 'uninteresting housepet'.

temphn 14y ago
Shrug. Being assertive is what it's about. Any long term relationship is going to require maintenance/effort. you're changing yourself to suit her Working out or wearing a suit or getting a good job or listening to a marriage counselor or acting more assertive are all examples of "changing yourself to suit her/women". Working out, for example, is the opposite of "just being yourself". Given that you will be doing this, the key is to spend time on actions that get results. The key premise is that men are attracted to beautiful women just as women are attracted to high-status/confident/alpha men. The first half of that sentence is not controversial to articulate; the last half is where there's a conflict. According to society women should instead want men who are caring, sensitive listeners. Try that yourself and compare that to their response to an assertive leader who gives clear directions. That's all that "alpha" is; it really is an empirically large difference.
- antoko 14y ago
  That's fine when you're talking in generalities (actually its not its pretty blinkered) but if you're talking about your wife, you're talking about A WOMAN not WOMEN. So you don't need to appeal to the general woman you need to appeal to your specific woman, the best way to do that is to communicate with her. I can't imagine playing some silly guessing game where I try to intuit what she wants. I've been married for 10 years, it seems to me that your advice would apply mostly to people in the first 2 years of a relationship. EDIT - ok so I just read some of the article you linked, I can't really fathom anything about that, I couldn't ever be in a relationship like the ones described so I guess I'm not qualified to comment on how to fix a relationship like that. My relationship is a partnership - not to say that we're equal in every way, we each excel in different areas and support each other as needed. That said, I still don't think that advice is applicable to a lot of people, going from being a doormat to a arrogant alpha seems pretty extreme and likely to undermine the basis of whatever the relationship was founded on (assuming it was founded on something like her being a demanding princess and you being a cringing sycophant)
  - coroxout 14y ago
    Yes. I'd like to think that men, especially more introverted guys like the stereotypical hacker, might choose their wives and girlfriends because they liked them as people - real people, with a personality and thoughts and ideas they find interesting. The advice on this blog presupposes that your wife is just something you keep around to cook for you and sleep with you and be some kind of hunting trophy: "look, I bagged me one of these!" You can then keep her sweet with mindgames about how you're too good for her and she should be grateful you come home at all. I hope nobody whose relationship fits in the former category is tempted by these anecdotes into thinking the latter is a better lifestyle choice. Do you really want to treat your supposed loved ones like this?
- alanctgardner2 14y ago
  > Working out or wearing a suit or getting a good job or listening to a marriage counselor or acting more assertive are all examples of "changing yourself to suit her/women" Wrong. Dead wrong. If you do everything to please your wife, you have a serious personality disorder. I don't mean that in a bad way, I mean it as a statement of something you might not realize. I like dressing up because I like dressing up. I've worn a suit around the house on a lark, I wear ties to a n office where T-shirts are the norm. I absolutely do not do it because I'm trying to please or attract women. On the contrary, it probably seems stuffy and uninviting. I work out because I want to be in good shape, so I can go on cycling trips, and live a longer and healthier life. I don't do it because I want women to stare at my abs (they're coming along, promise). I saw a counselor while I was in a relationship to work through my issues independently. I ended up leaving my girlfriend, who I still love dearly, because I needed space to work through my own pathologies. If I act assertive (and I usually don't), it's because I'm confident that I'm right, and I feel something is urgent. I don't push incorrect opinions on people just for the sake of being manlier than the other person. I try to be considerate of everyone's opinion, and make reasoned decisions. I frequently say 'I don't know', and then go and find out. > According to society women should instead want men who are caring, sensitive listeners The Ryan Gosling school of thought. Unfortunately, as much as you think you're working against society, you've just described a different caricature: James Bond. There are as many bad boys in movies as good ones, and the bad ones usually get the girl. The whole premise of your post is that you live your life and define yourself to optimally please/attract women. If you define yourself only in terms of other people's opinions, you likely suffer for poor self-esteem. As much as the blog you linked is funny, it's not helping you work through your issues. edit: I forgot about > Shrug. You're honestly so afraid of a little introspection that you've resorted to writing out gestures of indifference. Rather than consider your own life and marriage, you're looking for a quick-fix that sounds like a movie ( Grease, specifically, but you're Oliva Newton John).
waterhouse 14y ago
(You bring up a point I wish to address, and I'm inclined to agree with you, so I direct my comment to you.) Does anyone ever consciously choose mates based on good qualities they see in them? Admirable qualities? Useful qualities? For example, does anyone say to themselves, "This person is [intelligent|physically beautiful|strong|empathic|emotionally resilient], and I want my children to be like that, and I suspect these traits are heritable, so I'll have kids with this person"? Or, "This person [complements my weaknesses well|is good at [cooking|managing a household|managing finances|entertaining friends|...]|understands and accepts me like few others|works well with me in various situations|enjoys similar activities as me], so I expect living with him to be pleasant and work well, so I'll marry him"? I wouldn't call myself an expert in this area, but that seems to be the obvious thing to do. I would expect a well-developed person to think about things like this, and to have this conscious thought get compiled into reflexes and emotions: you notice a guy can cook really well, and you start paying attention to him more and maybe reconsider your evaluation of him; you notice a guy behave terribly without good reason, and your estimation of him lowers. The picture I get from this blog post is that the husband and the wife are unaware of any admirable qualities the husband might have, and are unaware that they should expect any to exist. Or, if the husband has any good qualities, the wife doesn't care about them--e.g. maybe he writes blog posts well, but she does not do blogging and cannot admire his skill there. Why are they married? Why did she marry him? The author supplies an answer at the top: "I got married young". I guess she was young too and maybe it can be explained as a dumb youthful mistake. Anyway, the lesson seems to be that if you suddenly wake up married to someone because God knows why, and you have no idea what qualities of yours might appeal to her, then you can appeal to her in the lowest-common-denominator way: putting on behaviors that make you seem like an alpha male who can afford, socially, to carelessly hurt people. That can be understood as an extremely limited form of "exhibiting admirable qualities": exhibiting some negative personality traits that, apparently, the unconscious mind has some hard-wired admiration for, because they are correlated with admirable qualities found in alpha males. ... Maybe it has some use, maybe I would use it if I were thrown into a primitive, violent society where you do not expect to have much interaction with potential mates before making your decision--but I can't admire this. I want much better. I'd like to enjoy and admire my mate with my full conscious mind. I'd like to pick a mate based on this desire. Do people seriously not do this? (I expect there are people who come from primitive, violent societies who are unaware of anything else and will tell me "no, of course not; lol, this guy srsly believes in fairytales". This will not faze me. I'm basically soliciting input from civilized people here. Also wondering if there's anyone with a similar perspective as me who can explain the thought-processes of people like "Dave from Hawaii" in that blog post: has he simply not been brought up to think that this "idealism" is a serious possibility? 'Cause that was probably true once--that there weren't many admirable qualities to look for (if the most important things about a man are those that determine how he'll fare in a hunt, and maybe how large a section of the winnings he'll get--and how he'll do in tribal politics), and not much opportunity for a woman to observe them herself. Other personal qualities would be more important in a husband who goes homesteading and raises a nuclear family with you on a farm. So I expect some people come from cultures that haven't gone through something like the latter phase; that might explain the difference between them and me.)

tehwebguy 14y ago

All this page described was abused men becoming abusers. Being assertive and abusive are not the same thing.

paganel 14y ago

From the article: > HER: “I don’t want to eat here.” > ME: “What? I thought you said…” > HER: “I never said I wanted KFC.” I'm a divorced guy, and my ex-wife sure did have her faults (like, cheating), like I did have mine, but I thank the gods of marriage and divorce that she never pulled that kind of stuff on me. I find this kind of stuff very disingenuous, it's like the weight of the whole relationship falls on only one person.

girvo 14y ago

It's refreshing to see a Roissy link posted here on HN. If it interests you, check out the blog roll there, particularly http://rationalmale.WordPress.com http://rationalmale.WordPress.com

brudgers 14y ago

The man she fell in love with was short fat and balding. The man she loves has gone from balding to bald, but made up for it by graying. One of the things I love about her is that she isn't inclined to take shit from people. Functionally, this includes me. My best friend isn't a bauble. She's a grown-ass woman.