Did your wife/ex-wife change after kids?

[sazc]

Sure, but I don't see anyone saying they haven't changed either. But it's about whether and how the woman changed. You're right that it doesn't happen in a vacuum, and there are three (or more) moving parts once the baby comes along. Since so much of this thread is about sex, one thing that doesn't change is that men continue to want it after fatherhood begins, where according to testimony here, women seek it less.

My inclination is to control for whether some of these posters were blue pill or young when they first became fathers. That is, rather than them changing, did they not know in the first place how to navigate the shoals of parenthood.

Having read some but not all of the responses, it sounds like there is a lot of power shifting. I can understand mothers wanting more say in household and child rearing dynamics. A man has to delegate and say "listen to your mother" in a lot of cases. It sounds to me (never having been a dad) that the key is knowing how to maintain, for the forty billionth time, frame.

Forty billionth time, lol

It's just frustrating to see polarization in threads. A group of guys that are seeking advice, surrounding any single topic, which can generally be boiled down to 'how to be more happy/satisfied in a relationship'. The polarization any topic is not going to achieve that, leaving them even more frustrated and angry when it comes to women

 

[Spaz]

It's funny how they are so scared of me that they refuse to tag me for fear of me seeing it, lol. The *alpha* men have to whisper behind the scenes, lol

Here's a tag for you @sazc

And you're just invited Spaz into the chicken coop..

 

[Spaz]

I've just read pages 1,2 and the last 2, skipped the middle parts.

Marriages (sex) fail because men failed to lead their relationships and that has led the ship off course - sinking it in the process.

Own that guys. There's no shame in doing so, and by owning it you'd be in a better position.

In any relationship with a woman, know that the feminine imperative will always drive her feelings and then she will subconsciously induce female-logic (which is not logical at all) of that feelings to make sense to her.

The feminine imperative is = Her survival 1st (inclusive lifestyle) and 2nd that of her offspring's. It's here that you need to take the lead, if she's left by her own, the imperatives takes charge and you're basically fvcked.

All her thoughts processes is actually derived from feelings that's being driven by the imperative.

Which is why women hasn't created anything (except babies) in this world since the creation of men.

So now you know why you'll need to take the lead ?

Great.

Hope this helps you guys out.

 

[sazc]

Here's a tag for you @sazc

And you're just invited Spaz into the chicken coop..

They always come back!

 

[Spaz]

They always come back!

Is the chicken complaining to the wolf that things is not fair when he's in the chicken coop?

 

[sazc]

Is the chicken complaining to the wolf that things is not fair when he's in the chicken coop?

You legit call me out so I'll pay attention to you. I love how I occupy real estate in your mind, lol

 

[Mesoherny]

You legit call me out so I'll pay attention to you. I love how I occupy real estate in your mind, lol

Bums claimed to be occupying Wall Street but all they were doing was squatting in a park till they got robbed then tazed and thrown out by police.

 

[Spaz]

You legit call me out so I'll pay attention to you. I love how I occupy real estate in your mind, lol

Plenty of women think about that when I'm around.

And yet its always them who ends up inviting me out

 

[speed dawg]

You retards have totally ruined this thread. 6 pages of slap fighting. With a woman no less.

 

[mrgoodstuff]

I know all the stresses. A few 15 minute sessions a week wont hurt anything and it also RELIEVES STRESS. Somehow it gets clicked as another job.

What if they didnt care if your stress is relieved because it gives control?

 

[mrgoodstuff]

I think part of the game is identifying the sect of group think they subscribe to and their typical role.

 

[Roober]

Okay, so... first I want to say, that women get crazy after kids! Now with that, most men fail to recognize the problem and instead complain about the result.

Part of this stems from the way we coddle our children, and part of it stems from feminism. It started when NOW changed their stance from "let's do what's best for the kids" to "mom knows what's best for the kids." Our society as a whole has bought into this idea; it is also likely a byproduct of traditional values blending with current gender roles.

So what happens when a kid is born is that dad takes a backseat. She often feeds, baths, plays, etc. with the child(ren). So, you can literally watch the leadership in the relationship shift as the woman starts basing all of decisions off what is best for the baby. She starts making more decisions, thereby relegating the man to a subservient role. Let this continue for 2+ years and those values become firmly entrenched in their family unit.

The woman loses attraction or builds tons of resentment as men typically retreat into their careers. The sex dwindles and the frame is firmly in her possession. He cant even get her wet with a gallon of lube.

How to fix it? Lead her to be a good mother, but also to be a good wife and lover. A mans life must change just as much as hers when the baby arrives...

My suggestions?
1. Keep going out and doing things. Get a babysitter if you have to. Kids are fvcking expensive, and just added a 100$ babysitter tab to a night out dancing.

2. Women get stuck on these "schedules ". Dont let them. I remember being at a wedding till midnight with the baby sound asleep 10 feet from the dance floor. Babies are incredibly resilient little suckers.

3. Your day starts at the crack of dawn (as it should anyway) and ends when your head hits the pillow. You dont get a free ride because you go to work, working 4 hours with a 2 hour lunch.

4. Kids dont stop life, you do! Kids can travel at any age, hike at any age, watch sports at any age, etc etc... many people stop doing the things they love when kids come around.

5. Your purpose better start making more money; you're going to need it for diapers, day care and tball

Theres much more, bit that covers a bunch of what I see as men who struggle after babies are born.

 

[Spaz]

These things are impossible. Arguing with biological and solipsistic thought processes are impossible. Would a warrior caveman argue with his woman? Smirk and do what you have to do. At least she will respect that.

The importance of this singular post by Ranger is overlooked.

All men would greatly benefit from having this singular mindset embedded deep within their subconscious - and practice it daily.

I'll expand a little bit on Ranger's post.

Arguing with ur wife/girlfriend is a losing proposition, it never works out for the man simply because the moment you're entered that stage = you're lost power.

You basically handed over power to her.

This is where women by default has the power of manipulation, don't be pulled into it, they are the undisputed champions in that arena.

Over time they'll mold and shape you by stripping away ur principles - that's ur manly armor.

Counter all feminine arguements/discussions by simply stating your stand on certain things only.

Don't budge from it even an inch.

The key word here is certain things.

Things deemed under the masculine purview must never be allowed to be negotiated, discussed or even argued on. That line must never be crossed.

Things deemed under the feminine purview must be allowed, with ur permission - shopping, their drama movies etc.

It's an illusion of empowerment whilst maintaining overall dominance in the relationship.

Remember, there's no such thing as an equal relationship between 2 people. It's always 1 person assuming the dominant position over the other.

And it must be you. Failure to do so = Leadership failure = failed relationship.

A relationship between the sexes is a constant battlefield over dominance.

Women will always test that battlefield with a barrage of dramas, it comes and goes very much like a tornado, whilst you as a man must be able to stand in the eye of it unafraid and even bemused by its beauty - unaffected.

And this is one of the major tenets of maintaining a successful relationship with women.

 

[speed dawg]

Part of this stems from the way we coddle our children, and part of it stems from feminism. It started when NOW changed their stance from "let's do what's best for the kids" to "mom knows what's best for the kids." Our society as a whole has bought into this idea; it is also likely a byproduct of traditional values blending with current gender roles.

Man, this is definitely ingrained in the modern man's mind, I mean like concrete. Some guys will fight to the death to defend it too. Every man in power totes this party line too, preachers, bosses, coaches...."oh my wife does soooo much she holds it all together, etc." I understand that it's true to an extent, but those are high achieving males by nature, and while the wife does help them out a lot because they are out achieving, it's misleading advice for men who are struggling. They sound as if the wife is the REASON for their achievement, rather than support. That breeds all the betas out there trying to help out around the house, etc., in an attempt to be a better husband because their wives are the ones achieving.

 

[speed dawg]

My point is that being big, strong and tough is not very relevant for humans. Our evolution and our advantages over other species come precisely from tools, abstract calculations, and pro-social behaviors that lessen the importance of those traits compared to other species. The fact that women are attracted to those traits is a remnant of our long gone ancestors from which we also got our older brain parts, not a result of our recent evolution as homo sapiens, and that's why it's a mistake to think back to 50 000 years ago or whatever and imagine it as being some big brutes dominating the weak males like a pack of apes. That's not what the human species's trajectory is, it's not how we work.

And that leads into what my original point was, which is that the men Ranger claims sazc gets to here reflect the kind of man that men mostly are. "Betas" and "beta traits" are not the exception, it's this kind of site that is, but we all feel the pull to revert back and so when women enter the midst those tendencies can start to tug at men again.

I would not agree with that general statement. While I get your overall point, it's very naive to think those traits aren't greatly admired and useful, in many different areas.

No offense, but usually that statement is only uttered by those who do not have those traits.

 

[AttackFormation]

I would not agree with that general statement. While I get your overall point, it's very naive to think those traits aren't greatly admired and useful, in many different areas.

I did not say they weren't admired, and useful because they are admired. I even said women are attracted to them because they are a remnant of our earlier ancestors before we became homo sapiens.

But that's not the same as the facts of how useful they are in hunter-gatherer societies when men have disputes, fight each other, or determine social structures. Our evolution into homo sapiens is because size, strength and toughness diminished in importance compared to our relatives such as chimpanzees, in favor of more advanced tool use, calculation, and pro-social behavior which formed our species. Hunter-gatherers don't have "alpha" males that go around beating up the physically weaker "beta" males and have their way with women, because that's not how our species evolved either in inclination or capacity, and that stupid pop-anthropological idea that circulates in parts of the manosphere needs to go.

 

[speed dawg]

I did not say they weren't admired, and useful because they are admired. I even said women are attracted to them because they are a remnant of our earlier ancestors before we became homo sapiens.

But that's not the same as the facts of how useful they are in hunter-gatherer societies when men have disputes, fight each other, or determine social structures. Our evolution into homo sapiens is because size, strength and toughness diminished in importance compared to our relatives such as chimpanzees, in favor of more advanced tool use, calculation, and pro-social behavior which formed our species. Hunter-gatherers don't have "alpha" males that go around beating up the physically weaker "beta" males and have their way with women, because that's not how our species evolved either in inclination or capacity, and that stupid pop-anthropological idea that circulates in parts of the manosphere needs to go.

I don't think we're far off here, but sort of approach it different ways. Make no mistake though, alphas still dominate betas, not necessarily with brute force, but they certainly manipulate situations. Stronger is always better.

 

[AttackFormation]

I don't think we're far off here, but sort of approach it different ways. Make no mistake though, alphas still dominate betas, not necessarily with brute force, but they certainly manipulate situations. Stronger is always better.

Two notes:

1) We have to be careful not to define clinical psychopaths, narcissists and sadists - those who are able to exploit others because they lack a conscience - as "alpha". I regard them as abominations.
2) Yes, this is pretty much the point I wanted to make: human hierarchies and confrontations are based on tools, intellect and connections, not on brute strength like a pack of crocodiles or chimpanzees (especially not if either person has any clue or instinct of what to do in a fight, because then they'll go for things like eye gouges, knee stomps and headbutts). That's why the idea that 50 000 years ago it was the biggest guy around who dominated the other guys into cowed submission because of his big biceps, is a stupid pop-anthropological falsehood. I'm glad we agree.

 

[Ranger]

Two notes:

1) We have to be careful not to define clinical psychopaths, narcissists and sadists - those who are able to exploit others because they lack a conscience - as "alpha". I regard them as abominations.
2) Yes, this is pretty much the point I wanted to make: human hierarchies and confrontations are based on tools, intellect and connections, not on brute strength like a pack of crocodiles or chimpanzees (especially not if either person has any clue or instinct of what to do in a fight, because then they'll go for things like eye gouges, knee stomps and headbutts). That's why the idea that 50 000 years ago it was the biggest guy around who dominated the other guys into cowed submission because of his big biceps, is a stupid pop-anthropological falsehood. I'm glad we agree.

Chimpanzees are based on hunting. Gorillas are based on size. The human female is highly adaptable to the environment. The most sophisticated neuron brain structure known. The most successful breeding adaptation known.

If the world went to chaos, the women would adapt into harems for the men in power and strength.
If the world became totally submissive as in communism the women would default to rebels.

The one thing that’s constant is men who are willing to take calculated risks. The genes of most men will not go forward, even today as only 40% actually sire children and whereas a little over 80% of women will breed offspring. The DNA of 60% of men will never move forward

 

[GT40]

Yes it’s pretty normal. I have two kids. 15 and 19. I’m or sex isn’t a priority. Two times a month is all she’s into for years.
It’s the norm and some dads never get laid.