A non-trivial part of my “image problem” with much of the manosphere is that I refuse to trash women. And a certain amount of trashing women in this space is a tribal boundary marker. There’s actually a couple of good faith reasons for this. 1. The hate is a signal to angry young men—we’re on your side. You’ve been dismissed as toxic and villainized as the dregs of society. We’re a group not afraid to hit back against those that are hitting you. 2. The manosphere was also an attempt to create a male-only space in a world where male-only spaces were being rooted out. And so one way to keep the girls out was to have a language that put them off so much that they stayed clear. The best-kept secret of the red pill world is that the most committed guys don’t actually hate women at all. 3. Civility has been weaponized against men in many settings to get them to fold on things they should hold firm. To buck the cultural faux pas against trashing women is a flex to show we aren't exploitable. There’s a problem though. It attracts a swarm of orbiters who take the toxicity at face value and buy it in earnest. And they do themselves plenty of harm in the process and become useless at dating. I think I’d have to change surprisingly little about my messaging to satisfy the gatekeepers. A pinch of incense: “Sometimes a guy is married to a real shit wife, a total bitch, and he needs to tell her that he didn’t sign up for celibacy and she needs to shape up or ship out.” Then I’d be a fine upstanding member of the red pill adjacent identify-as-Christian relationship twitter community. So why don’t I? Because I find that, with the guys I coach, the “shit wife” assumption about their wives is pure poison and does not move them nearer to their goals on any front. I absolutely urge men to stand up to bad behavior from their wives and enforce standards in their relationships. But that has to be done on the foundation of extreme ownership—of building his own frame first, regardless of her response. Femininity is inherently responsive, and though the wife has a contribution to make, the husband MUST take the first step of the dance. With many guys that come to me, any hint of a chance to put the ball back in her court will be seized on with both hands. Furthermore, there’s a huge number of women languishing in marriages like dry feminine ground without masculine rain, because he’s not taking ownership. I feel for them, because many of them are truly stuck. A man can often reignite the fire of a relationship almost single-handedly; a good woman can often be as kind and patient as she can and it has zero pull on her passive man. Once the man has gotten his own house in order (and I don’t mean just “doing more” but truly living in his own frame, doing what he thinks is best unapologetically and not chasing her validation), I’m much cooler with “come to Jesus” conversations with his wife as part of the larger context of leadership. But even then, any hint of complaining or entitlement will work against him. “You agreed,” or “the Bible says,” has far less pull than, “this is what I want to have happen.” Resentment and bitterness holds men back. Pragmatism and assertiveness moves them forward. Generic denunciations of “shit wives” don’t serve these goals. And I think many apparently “shit wives” are waiting for the masculine catalyst they need to get out of the rut they’re in. I’d estimate 80/20. Some are beyond saving; most aren’t. So I simply refuse to say it. I’ll trash feminism all day long, but I will not bitch about women. Thus I have image problems with the tribe. And I may be ultimately cast out. But there are benefits. In expressing this red pill knowledge of intersexual dynamics without the bitter edge, I’ve found that conversations with women open up that would be completely closed otherwise (And yes, I’m aware, “watch what they do,” but there is STILL value in talking to them, guys). I say things to full-on feminists that would rally against these concepts in the manosphere, but they listen to me when I say it—simply because I’m confident, curious, and not a dick to them. And that’s crucial to my mission of bringing this message to the churches—as we all know, often an unfortunately feminized space. This practice also passes another tribal boundary marker in a different tribe: civilized society. It is not traditionally considered masculine to trash women—at all. That’s not the triumph of the longhouse. It’s Christian Civilization. For this work to have the impact I want it to have, it needs to break out of edgelord containment and impact the rank-and-file in the pews.

Pat Stedman along with some others, have been unloading on me over the past few days. They seem to think I'm teaching a doctrine of "stay with her at any cost" for men in bad marriages. So, what do I believe about divorce? And how does that play in to how we coach men in Reforged Marriage? What Do I Believe About Divorce as a Christian? I'm a traditional Christian, and Anglican specifically. Christianity has a very high view of marriage. The Roman Catholic church doesn't allow divorce and remarriage at all. My church allows it in extreme cases like adultery and abuse. As C S Lewis says: “They [Christians] all regard divorce as something like cutting up a body, as a kind of surgical operation. Some of them think the operation so violent that it cannot be done at all; others admit it as a desperate remedy in extreme cases. They are all agreed that it is more like having both your legs cut off than it is like dissolving a business partnership or even deserting a regiment (p.105).” Mere Christianity Divorce is to Christian marriage what thermonuclear war is to international politics. Hard to imagine something worse, but there are some pretty terrible options out there. When Is It Permissible for a Christian Man to Divorce His Wife? In a struggling marriage, I have a STRONG bias towards saving the marriage. Guilty as charged. Here I envy the rhetorical position of a Catholic like @beherleader, where the answer is a firm NEVER. If you allow it in extreme cases, then you gotta get into the details of a case study. Was it better, for the sake of the souls of all involved, to get divorced than to continue the marriage as it stands? I'll have opinions and judgements on individual cases. A lot of the time my answer is, "I wish they could have worked it out, but I understand why he made that choice." Guys will hit me for being wishy-washy here. Fair enough---welcome to life. Here's where our church disagreements get concrete, though. Granted a man has divorced and remarried, should he be forever barred from Communion at church? My church allows for him to be restored and still be with his current wife, while the Catholic Church has him barred for as long as he has sex in his new marriage. Is a Sexless Marriage Grounds for Divorce? If it's a conscious decision on the wife's part, "We will never have sex again because I no longer want to be in a sexual relationship with you"---that's a rejection of the wedding vows, plus 1 Corinthians 7. This has long been grounds for divorce (or even annulment), in churches that allow it. Most low-sex marriages aren't that. The wife has lost desire for her husband, and out of a feeling of marital obligation does her best (or less than her best) to have sex with him anyway. That's what we call "duty sex." I see duty sex as a trap---trying to treat the symptom rather than the disease, and creating a farce. Plus trying (though ultimately failing) to numb the pain that would spur actual change. Men don't ultimately find duty sex satisfying, and it can be even more miserable in the long term than no sex at all. To divorce a wife who wants to want her husband, but finds no desire for him, and can only muster up duty sex, feels like divorcing a wife for becoming physically disabled. Does the Wife Have Obligations in Marriage? Of course. She made vows before God. She is accountable to God for her actions. She's also accountable to her husband. Fidelity: To take this man exclusively as her husband and not have sex with another man while he lives. Permanence: To remain married until death. Constancy: To remain committed through prosperity, poverty, sickness, and health. Love: To actively love her husband, not merely remain legally married to him. Cherishing: To treasure, care for, and honor him. This includes giving her sexual passion to him. Obedience: To recognize her husband's marital authority and follow his lead, within the bounds of reason and Christian duty. Here's the thing though: I recommend against husbands in troubled marriages appealing to "moral high ground" in disputes with wives. Women's inherent vulnerability makes "sympathy" their turf. It's like them competing with us in physical strength---they are at a disadvantage, and even if they win, no one feels good about it. Instead, operate in terms of relational power. Listen to her appeals, and if she convinces you something is right, act accordingly. Otherwise, enforce your own will in your own life with your own actions. You can't control her, but you can control you. You'll get far better results by building yourself up and having that value pull her into your orbit than making moral appeals---if she doesn't respect you, that'll probably just feel weak to her. When you have her respect, it's different. Then, a decent woman will be receptive to moral judgements. She will actually seek out what you think is right and apologize from her own initiative when she falls short. Doesn't that Make Having Sex with Her Husband a Wife's Duty? I've written extensively on this elsewhere. I think we have a duty to work towards sexual flourishing, and a sexless marriage (barring extreme circumstances) is a sacrilege. But I think men seeing her forcing herself to have sex despite lacking desire for him as a solution---that's a trap. I actually love @rationalmale's mantra below: I don't want your submission. I want your genuine desire. I don't want your obligated compliance. I want your unmitigated lust. I don't want your fearful sense of duty. I want your intrinsic admiration. I don't want your purity. I want you to break rules for me. In marriage, that's the sexual side of God's desire for us. God doesn't want empty sacrifice if our hearts aren't in it. Leave the gift at the altar and be reconciled with your brother. The outward sign is a farce if the inward reality isn't there. If there's a heart problem, then THAT must be fixed. I do NOT think a wife who doesn't feel aroused but nevertheless has a desire to connect to her husband and please him sexually should be rejected. But I do recommend guys winsomely refuse transactional sex: sex given by her in exchange for something else (peace/feelings of being a "good" wife/control/chores/compliance/etc.) When it comes to sexual desire, it's 80/20 on the man to get started, because of the responsive nature of female sexuality. There's a lot of barriers to arousal that she may not even be aware of that his masculine initiative and value can unlock. And her lack of desire is best seen by him as a warning light on the dash. There's still work that can be done on her end (dealing with her own issues, health, hormones, stress, forgiveness, courage), but most of that work requires a foundation from him first---being anchored (or "contained") in his frame. Many men think they've built the structure just by being a beta provider. It's not really their fault, but they've been sold a bill of goods by our culture. Her body actually often needs a strong masculine presence from him to feel aroused, despite what she might want in her mind. That also gives a man developing more alpha traits an opportunity to have strong pull on even some otherwise bad wives---her body knows what it wants despite what her unfaithful mind might want. What if a Wife Never Responds to a Man's Changes? Is It Always the Man's Fault? No, it's not always the man's fault (except rhetorically, in terms of extreme ownership). The problem I run into is that most men I coach initially think they've done absolutely everything, when they haven't even started down the path that I've seen get incredible results. And even the slightest excuse to shift the blame and shirk the hard path, a lot of guys will seize onto with both hands. If the sort of tools outlined in the Reforged Marriage prove ineffective over time, then there are probably some serious issues on her end. I think our leadership posture gives a man his best shot at challenging her to to the work she needs on her end, but I don't guarantee that every marriage can be saved. What if a Guy You Coach Wants to Get Divorced? I coach Christians and non-Christians in Reforged Marriage. And Christians disagree among themselves on when it is permitted. So I'm not going to judge or pontificate. My coaching focuses on the man being the best version of himself. That'll help reforge a marriage, and will also help him start afresh after a marriage ends. So I'll equip him with tools to use in whatever he wants to do. I'm not the best guy to coach a guy through the specifics of divorce law and the various challenges he'll run into in initiating a divorce. For that, I'd be happy to recommend @Pat_Stedman or others with more experience.