On Axe Biting

What’s the Question?

In Dalrock’s latest post, the comments brought forth a question.

BY THE WAY: You should know that I write in vulgar terms because this is a vulgar era. Complaints will be disregarded.

It developed from the observation that men are due sex in a marriage, and how important sex is for a man to be connected to his wife. Women are due this, too, but that complaint is rarely heard in our ‘sphere–because that’s not the problem we’re faced with. This led to a discussion on the “double-standard” concerning how the number of men a woman sleeps with makes her a slut; as it relates to

Any number (N) of sexual partners above 1 (excepting any circumstance such as being widowed) will result in–at least–a temporary label of SLUT (N > 1 = SLUT),

but how the reverse is not true. The going wisdom of the Manosphere says, that some number above 1 theoretically exists for the man, but the state of slut lacks consequence for him. This is attributed to various inherent evolved priorities, and risks to men, concerning female chastity. Women, being different–and they are!–,will tend to focus on whether the man has the wherewithal to protect the family she makes with him. So an N well over 1 might be a display of risk that he might leave. This is all, of course, related back to evolutionary principles about how our apeman/caveman forebears were rightfully concerned about caring for offspring; making sure their his offspring; making sure he can protect them; etc.*

Several of the men held forth in this manner; making the otherwise logical connection that women who refused to accept the principles of the equation (N > 1 = SLUT), or acted in defiance of it, were doing so out of a base desire to ape men. This is logical because so many modern women are imitating men, in increasingly any area they covet; no matter how unfruitful these imitations may be. The effect of these statements on the women that frequent the blog was engrossing.

Woman 1 put forth the sadly typical answer that I’ll paraphrase as: “There is no standard. Men and women are equal, and should pinky-swear to go halvsies on everything–including desire, sex, ignorance of sexual history, and other chores.”

Woman 2 gave a defense of the Manospherian concept. She started out fairly well (by the wisdom) and acknowledged that women howl at the “double-standard” because to recognize any standard whatsoever is to accept that virtually all modern women are , or have been, sluts. Not an easy thing to contemplate, for sluts, former sluts, or their husbands.

She didn’t think so either. Her next comments were about how they’d risen above all that. Her husband had slept with numerous women and she has an N >;; 1. Nevertheless, he was her best, and he had settled on her. Obviously she must be his best. With the exception of a couple minor hiccups that are nothing but faded memories: their glue is great!

Woman 3, the one I want to write about, could see something was missing from the discussion. She detected it early on in the thread, but was having trouble putting it to words in a way that most of the commenters could either understand…or accept. Her comments were–taken in all–iterations of a couple questions that I’ll paraphrase first as two questions:

1) Why do men seem to only want sex and chores (food, laundry, etc.) from a woman, in marriage?

2) If sex and chores are what men get out of marriage, then what do women get; given that men and women are different, and especially given a relatively non-violent (not much need for personal protection) dual-income society?

The consolidated question: Where is my Oneitis?

The Answer: Oneitis is for Pussies.

I’ve never seen in the Manosphere where Oneitis is openly held in esteem. It’s a term of derision. The best expression is by Roissy (NSFW):

Oneitis is a disease of the amygdala that presents as a total incapacitation of the man’s logic, reason and interest in hobbies, hygiene and restful sleep. Oneitis exists in two forms, a precoital and postcoital expression of the virus. The precoital, or “#1 crush”, form occurs when two conditions are met: A girl possesses a precise beauty of the face that closely matches the beauty template the man carries in his head for the perfect woman, and this girl is within the man’s visual and aural field. The postcoital, or “no girl will ever be as good as her”, form occurs when the same conditions are met, with the additional factor that the man has boffed the girl and is now not boffing her.

This is the inverse of the rationale for women keeping their virginity until marriage: Why men should remain chaste. Men know this, and fear it. What if he goes without sex forever? The Game approach to overcoming that fear is to confront it; to bash it down by repeatedly banging ever hotter women until there is no standard left…just like Feminists and Buddhists (the one cool religion left).

If you read the whole post, he goes on to deal with only the post-coital form of Oneitis (which is interesting in itself), and his prescription is: Go Fuck Ten Other Hotter Women. He then spreads a more realistic roadmap of what this regimen will look like: Refrain from chasing women for a period; Pursue only women of better looks than the ex-woman; build them up in your mind; then bang them. Repeat.

The Full Answer: Oneitis is for Your Wife’s Pussy

Sex is not the glue that keeps a man and woman together. Sex is the wife’s one half of the compound which–when mixed with the husband’s half of the compound–forms an epoxy that holds a marriage together. His half is called emotional commitment–Oneitis. It’s not a bug, it’s a feature.

This is what Roissy is so good at: His post makes nonsense of the rationalizations of Woman 1 and Woman 2. That is, women who, as exploiters of the mind-field** known as the sexual marketplace, screwed their way into a position that is ludicrous to believe is sustainable; that husbands would–or could!–find such women suitable as permanent helpmeets. Only Woman 3 is confronting this, and she’s been ridiculed up and down for it. Roissy doesn’t give a cure for current-coital Oneitis because it’s not an affliction. Post-coital and pre-coital Oneitis aren’t viruses; they’re sexual disorders caused by one of two conditions:

Condition 1: Men slutting themselves out emotionally to women they had no business giving it to. If he’s not married to her, she doesn’t deserve it. And there’s no getting around that sex will do this to a man whether he likes it or not.*** Whoever that first woman is she is the hottest woman to ever have sex with him, and she will milk that emotional commitment from him as surely as her body milks his. This state continues until someone out-milks her, or he reaches the Zen-like state of no attachment.

Just so we’re clear: For a Christian, Zen is bad. For a Christian man who wants to be, or is, married: No attachment is bad. His marriage risks becoming unstuck because he has mixed the epoxies; layering over the same territory each time; each time committing less of his half of the compound. Eventually, he’ll have caked-on so much epoxy that he might be better described as married to his memories; each grey layer indistinguishable from the next, but never cementing to his wife. It is hard work chipping that off, and starting over. He might not even want to. The memories can be pleasing, in a disordered, corrupt way. In the meantime, he can still play house.

Condition 2: When a woman rejects sex with her man. This particular form of post-coital Oneitis is despicable because it was explicitly inflicted on the man. Wives: Do not stop having sex with your husband if you want to stay married. Husbands: If you’re wife is refusing you then she’s telling you she wants a divorce…though a man may have to explain this to her, as she’s too busy rationalizing why she’s emotionally abusing her husband to realize it. Most husbands cannot remain under this affliction too long. He’ll either withdraw so much as to be nearly useless, or he’ll start making epoxy with someone else.

The purpose of the Sex/Oneitis epoxy is to foster an environment where the man and wife become one. This occurs when her sex draws out of him his emotional commitment, which draws him in further until he’s penetrating all aspects of her life, and gives she gives joy to all aspects of his. She does housework to give him a pleasing environment, and not because she’s anal retentive. He gets involved with choosing the homeschooling curriculum to relieve his wife of the burden of fearing the wrong choice, not because he thinks he’s so smart. This is a lifelong process. Sex and emotional commitment should be, too.

No One Says This?

That’s not quite true: here, here, and here you can find Manosphere-authorized examples of the phenomenon described as Oneitis; though none of them refer to it by name. No doubt there are others, but those are the ones I know about. You should go read them.


*That in itself is fascinating since the best Game technicians demure from children. What happened to their code? How could these genetic giants gain so much insight from studying evolution, but MISS OUT on the code that tells them to have kids? If you can’t trust the code, who can you trust?


***With the exception of men who truly emulate the Dark Triad traits.

20 thoughts on “On Axe Biting

  1. Cane, would you agree that oneitis is a bug for a man looking for a wife and a feature once he has found one? I have seen some tragedies result from oneitis when the guy has got fixated on a girl who can’t, somehow, ever, actually, one day, real soon now, set a wedding date. I knew one couple who had been engaged for fifteen years.

  2. This is like asking if a woman’s chastity is a bug that becomes a feature when she marries.

    A fifteen year engagement? That’s not a bug in the programming, that’s user error on his part.

    It sounds like he gave his Oneitis to a woman who didn’t deserve it, so she is stringing him along–as undeserving people are wont to do. If they’ve been having sex this whole time, they might as well be married. It’s theoretically possible that a couple could be engaged for 15 years, and he never gives up his emotional commitment, and she keeps her chastity, but I’ve never heard of it, and I have a hard time conceptualizing how they did it.

  3. Okay, I’ve read this twice looking for something I can disagree with, :), but you covered your bases pretty well.

    I am certain most women would immediately object to the notion that refusal of sex means they want a divorce. I see your point, and I agree that withholding sex when there is no physical or medical reason for refusal is a gross breach of covenant which most husbands would interpret as a sign that she favors a dissolution of the marriage. Most women are either sincerely clueless or willfully ignorant when it comes to this topic.

    Oh, and thank you for putting to rest this insane idea that men aren’t damaged emotionally and spiritually by sleeping with successive women. There is something to be gained on the masculine side of the equation from the commitment of marriage that goes deeper than sex, laundry, and home cooked meals.

  4. Mr. Caldo: It has been a pleasure watching you tear up the landscape over the last few weeks.

    (CC: Thanks, and welcome. I hope the tearing looks like gardening, and not vandalism. My desire is to encourage other men to bring some order to this fertile landscape; not destroy it.)

  5. I like this very much. I was holding my breath waiting for your promised essay fairly certain it was going to star me as the antagonist.

    I like the analogy you used. That formula makes sense.

  6. Something Sunshinemary said registered with me about why I had a problem with the whole sex thing about 5 years ago. I went through a really deep depression that I think was mostly from post-par-tum hormones but it was so bad that I *hated* sex. Not just the process but the emotional side as well. It wasn’t that I wanted a divorce but that I was convinced in my mind that my husband secretly despised me and each sexual encounter was hate sex. In my mind it was no different than how the PUA’s masturbate on women as an expression of their disgust for them. I am not saying my feelings were justified or he did anything to cause it …I am sure it was caused by my clinical depression….just that “lay back and think of England” didn’t solve the problem. I hated it..I often cried afterwards..and he had no idea what was going on or why.

    Thankfully..after much prayer and some medication..I got over it and was able to enjoy sex again.

    So I say this because sexual problems are not always malicious. Sometimes they are caused from mental health problems. To rule it out one should ask their spouse to see a psychiatrist.

  7. I think the important things to take away from this are:

    1) We’re all sinful, and all marriages are going to go through bad times…evil times, with evil actions by both spouses. We don’t always realize what the causes of our problems are; except to know that they are certainly a result of sin.

    2) This is why sex and emotional commitment are so precious–we must share them liberally with our spouses, and guard them jealously against everyone else, so that those evil times are less frequent, and fighting through them is more worthwhile.

    3) Sticking through those times is the important part, and those two components make the sticking MUCH easier. It’s one reason why we have them. Sometimes that might mean a woman has sex when she isn’t in the mood–this is not for her, it’s for him, so even judging his worthiness is a sin on the woman’s part. Her judgment phase ends at the altar. Sometimes a man must show interest in his wife even when he thinks she doesn’t deserve it. To think of my wife in terms of “deserves” is a sin–she’s my wife. Whatever she needs is in my best interest to provide. Sometimes that means taking your spouse to the doctor. Ultimately, the only way to get past those evil times is for both parties to live out their commitment to the other person, and not their emotions. Sin begets sin.

    I would say to you, specifically, that your issues with sex aren’t five years ago–perhaps the grudge-sex (whether real or perceived) episode is over, but your comments are current, and they suggest that you’re still working through what this means to you, and for you. There’s no shame in that. Trying to improve is good.

    I would also say that hanging around blogs populated by angry men (even if rightly angry–we have been getting the worst of it for a long time) who have been ripped to shreds by women, is not the place for you to be commenting very much. I read very few women’s sites–Elspeth’s alone, actually*, and I don’t comment there often. When I do, I try to be funny unless I cannot help it. Nothing is going to get solved by a man running into the powder-room and telling the ladies they’re wrong. Even if they are, and even if I’m right, I’m wrong because it’s simply not the place for it. Timing, it seems, is everything.

    Dalrock’s blog is without a doubt my favorite blog, but his focus–and I think it’s an excellent focus–is calling out the conspiracies that rebellious women and the church leadership are using to oppress Christian men. Pay attention to the other frequent female commenters, and ask yourself if that is with whom you want to be lumped.

    *Haley’s Halo every once in awhile.

  8. CC: The tearing does look like gardening. I’ve been mostly lurking at various sites for awhile, have noticed your comments here and there and have wondered when you would break out and expand on what you have to say. Since men are builders I’ve been hoping for awhile that once the problem was outlined and understood (and I realize that process isn’t really complete) that some of you Christian men would break away from the biological determinists and start proclaiming God’s truth. That’s what I think you’re trying to do and you’re doing it humbly, boldly, and courageously. I admire that – we should probably spend as little time as possible scratching our heads and do what God says as best we can.

    To give some background on this commenter: I’m a married woman of 28 years. We’ve raised 1 son and 2 daughters and have 1 daughter to go. Our intention was that our children not serve the gods of the age, so we are homeschoolers in the classical tradition (another tradition in the process of being recaptured, so I can’t claim perfection here, simply intention.) I see reason to have hope in my kids’ generation, even with all the reasons to not hope.

  9. The tearing does look like gardening. I’ve been mostly lurking at various sites for awhile, have noticed your comments here and there and have wondered when you would break out and expand on what you have to say. Since men are builders I’ve been hoping for awhile that once the problem was outlined and understood (and I realize that process isn’t really complete) that some of you Christian men would break away from the biological determinists and start proclaiming God’s truth. That’s what I think you’re trying to do and you’re doing it humbly, boldly, and courageously. I admire that – we should probably spend as little time as possible scratching our heads and do what God says as best we can.

    I don’t think I could have said this any better.

    I agree, Joycalyn.

  10. I’ve been thinking about your comment to me and I will be responding in full either tonight or tomorrow. Just didn’t want you to think I was ignoring it since you took the time to respond thoughtfully.

  11. 1. I agree.

    2. Very much agree.

    3. Agree

    Regarding my issues: I think I like to try and make sense of the resistance I feel towards doing what is obviously right. Not necessarily to excuse it but to help reason myself into a more appropriate mindset.

    Regarding Dalrock: Unless he makes the site specifically male-only (as some are asking him to do) I think there are still going to be women who wander in the lions den and come out pretty badly maimed. I think most women don’t have very tough skin and the maiming will carry with them in a negative way. So those of us who do have tough skin..such as Elspeth and I.. we see it as a kind of a service to the younger women to say what they are probably thinking. Then they can see the responses for themselves and come to their own conclusions about how much weight should be given the *sometimes* inane ramblings of the commentary there.

    Also..since we have gone private some shy women have come out and admitted that Dalrocks damaged their marriage because they assumed things about their spouses that were not true. By stepping in and saying “Hey, my husband ins’t like that” the other young lurkers might stop and think “Hey, maybe mine isn’t like that either.” Notice though..that when that is done men often insult the wives husbands like by calling mine less intelligence because he values my companionship.

    Now..you might be right that perhaps *I* am not the right person to provide that service since I have had some pretty serious relationship issues. This is something Elspeth has suggested a few times and something I need to give more thought to. Generally I consider myself pretty toughed skin…more than most of my female friends. It takes a lot to hurt my feelings.

    I do want to say that while I do understand justified anger there is a point where feeding that anger turns you into a monster. I have met many angry feminists whose anger at one time was justified (brutal abuse from a male relative) but because they fed that anger they have just about lost their humanity to the hatred that consumes them.

  12. Pingback: Link Fest #3. | The Society of Phineas

  13. Thanks for the reply, Gabby. I think you’re picking up what I’m putting down.

    I do want to say that while I do understand justified anger there is a point where feeding that anger turns you into a monster.

    True. However; not a single one of those women turned away from her monstrous anger because a man told them “NAMALT”. Neither will the reverse happen.

  14. This is true. This is where Dalrocks gets confusing because it is part support group, part debate..so when I debate an ideology I consider faulty I am accused of invading a support group for angry men. At the same time, some men seem interested in debate so they ask specific questions wanting specific answers. It doesn’t appear that a blog can host both at the same time. I’d like for Dalrock to make some kind of official pronouncement because I often see comments like “PLEASE NOTICE HOW NO WOMEN WILL ANSWER MY QUESTIONS!” when the previous guy said “WOMEN, STOP INVADING OUR SPACE!”

    It is a mixed message.

  15. LOL, Gabby. This is how I got sucked in: answering specific questions.

    Still, I will take Cane’s advice and take a much needed break from commenting and debating there unless I am quoted or linked to specifically.

    The reality is that the ideology of those who comment there is so varied, that it’s difficult to have constructive debate or reach solid consensus on anything. There are Christian men, ex-Christian men, atheists, PUAs, MGTOWs, married men, divorced men, and on ad on it goes. There appears to be a unifying theme (women suck) but there really isn’t so no matter what you say, it’s going to bump up against someone’s philosophy and cause a problem.

  16. Pingback: Lightning Round – 2012/09/05 « Free Northerner

  17. Pingback: Linkage | Breathing Grace

  18. Pingback: There is no Poon I: Game as Tools | Things that We have Heard and Known

  19. Pingback: There is No Poon II: Solipsism, The Dark Triad, and Game | Things that We have Heard and Known

  20. Pingback: A Good Wife and a Full Quiver « Free Northerner

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.