To my everything, My everything. Signed, Your everything.

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.

It does but it’s very rare and she has to really admire you.

What made you want to give your devotion to him if he seemingly does not appreciate it? Have you shared your concerns with him?

Funnily enough it was actually on my substack I saw this so numerous people have reposted it. I very rarely if ever see you on my feed on here. Decided I would post it so I would have a permanent reference for it, and I thought my followers would appreciate it. It’s actually somewhat humorous to me to be seen as “taking credit for someone else’s picture of a dead man’s quote” when as a man who writes and is very much alive, I’m usually the one on the receiving end of direct plagiarism of my work across various platforms. That being said, no harm intended.

I think most men know when their woman doesn’t truly desire them, but stay out of a mixture of pragmatism (financial and logistical convenience) and yes as you rightfully put, a lack of self-respect. Men who believe their woman admires them when she doesn’t are going to be rare. I think most realise acutely when she does not. I don’t think it is common for men to think they are the exception to a woman’s rules when she treats him with anything other than reverence. You would have to be exceptionally imbecilic to get that wrong.

It omits that women are love governed more than principle governed, as well as the exception of how she can plausibly revere a man but not bend to him, but is an otherwise acceptable distillation. Naturally as with most simplification there is a degree of dilution.

My god this is such a banger.

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?