I’m reading this rather ominously and simultaneously, in two different ways that both agree and disagree with it. I agree with it in the sense that when I see how browbeaten men who have let their wives tyrannically seize authority in the household, in that I think if he was stricter and did not tolerate her disrespect, he would not be in such a situation. And I disagree with it in the sense I often see genuinely decent men trying their best going unappreciated for their efforts, being pecked, prodded and squawked at, whilst I see other men, who are much colder, immoral, unappreciative and arrogant and often even criminal adjacent if not outright criminally deviant, with an attractive, reverent well behaved woman who pours her heart out to him only to get mistreated by him. How do I resolve these disagreements? Simple. You get the wife you deserve in terms of dominance, but not in terms of morality. If you are a genuinely kind hearted man but you’re too soft and lenient, your woman will mistreat you. If you are an absolutely horrible man, even abusive, but you maintain discipline, your woman will treat you much better. I am not advocating that men do this nor encouraging it - I am merely making a social observation about the two most common kinds of dynamics I see in romantic relationships. I actually think mistreatment of one person by the other is common in most relationships - that one party in their liberty taking familiarity seemingly takes it upon themselves to exploit the other - a perversion of what true love is meant to be, which is to outdo one another at giving whilst protecting each other from the bad intentions of others, and the very worst aspects of yourselves.

The most surefire way to ascertain a woman’s love for you is to see if she will break a personal rule for you. As the receptive principle, a woman will bend in the presence of a man she admires. If she will not, then she does not truly admire that man. It is easy to say she can admire a man and still hold steadfast to her principles, in fact to believe and assert that would be very comforting for you, and make you feel as if you successfully undermined, outdone and defeated my assertion, but if you say that I know you are a liar and a point scorer rather than a truth teller, because a woman who puts principle above feeling - especially in matters of true love - is practically unheard of. Her love comes first and foremost above all else, and whatever rules or principles she may hold bend around that. If she finds it easy to impose rules and thus never bends, then for all intent and purpose she is not in love. A super religious woman may be repressed enough in her sexuality and strict enough in her conduct to chain herself up and repeatedly override her desire to yield by redirecting her attention towards God, but that is the only exception I’m willing to grant.

Women are natural extremists, for they are both more loyal, and less loyal than man simultaneously. They are less loyal in the sense they are more easily dissatisfied, and more readily prone to betrayal rather then reconciliation once they feel dissatisfied, but more loyal in the sense that if they revere a man, they truly revere that man, and absolutely nothing bad you can say about him can turn her against him. You could slander him or reveal the very worst secrets about him, and she either wouldn’t believe it, or just straight up wouldn’t care. Nothing you say can damage her view of him. He is the exception to her every rule.

It is pain that fails to corrupt you which serves as the basis for purifying you. This is why it is often amongst those who have been hurt the most you will find the kindest.

You envy them because they had it easier than you and got to experience comforts and pleasures alien to you. But they envy you because you are greater than them, and you became greater precisely because of what you lacked and endured. So who is the real winner?

This is one of the best things I've ever read. From Chesterton:

The greatest and most enduring joy a woman can know in this life is to share it with a man she genuinely looks up to. Looks fade and children grow up, but reverence for the beauty and greatness of a soul is forever

You mean you follow the pussy and will do whatever it takes to get yourself a crumb. This to you is the height of existence and what underlies your every motive and reason for being. That is unironically not ascending, but descending. It also selects for incredibly shallow, boring and insufferable women who themselves have little value beyond their youth and fuckability. Do you think looks alone are enough to secure you a brilliant woman with a beautiful soul and brain you would actually enjoy the company of, wish to converse at length with repeatedly until the end of your days, and ultimately build a beautiful and rewarding life with? Because I can assure you, they’re not. In fact men who think women only care about money and looks and obsess over maximising both will only ever attract the worst of women because they do not understand the best of women at all. True archetypal feminine beauty, individuated courage and genius will continue to elude you as you insist it doesn’t exist by living in a way that subjects you to the very opposite, and you will slave away for the mid prize that is a hot woman with a bland personality, shit morals, no aura and no purity. You’re literally making yourself pretty for bot women. Women actually worth marrying do not use dating apps. I have not once seen clav with a woman I’d ever want to hear speak or share the company of. Overall it is a path to nowhere and will die within 5 to 10 years (I lean closer to 5 in his personal life dragged out to 10 publicly to milk the streamer gravy train) when clav himself as the cult leader/face of the movement has his epiphanies and discovers after speedrunning normie sexual success that his life is empty, depressing and relatively unfulfilling ans meaningless and not because “he can’t get girls” but because the girls he gets and the way he gets them aren’t worth shit. You have also not once considered there are very high caliber women who would find a man too polished and obsessed with his appearance to be vain and abhorrent and less attractive precisely because she views him as feminine. That this in itself is an ick that turns off the best of women “being weirdly autistic about his appearance” Normalisation of surgery within society is not a good thing either, but also most people cannot afford it so it will never be as mainstream as your internet sub community thinks it is. On that point, surgery is a type of genetic and biological fraud, and the evidence will show in your children’s height and face(who you’ll also have to alter to keep up appearances, see how vain and descending the spiral becomes?) Will not respond again.

Those who bite the hand that feeds Should no longer be fed. If you are ungrateful. You can feed yourself And if you starve, then you starve. It is what you deserve.