Quote from John Freeman on December 27, 2023, 5:43 pm

Hello TPM community,

it's an important topic, especially for men. As said in PU, women want to tame an alpha male. Having control over their partner is important as it reassures them about the commitment and loyalty. An obedient man is not going to leave or stray. On the more practical side, it allows women more power as they can task the man. As a preface: I want to say these are fair games.

I recently started a relationship (in case this is read in the future) and these are the subtle sentences I noticed used to domesticate. Most of them are judge power move and thread-expands on topics that were not present before:

I have no vocation to change you

So why is he saying that? This lowers the man's defense: "she does not want to change me, so I'll listen to what she has to say".

Defense: "Good, I'm not trying to change you either".

I am not judging you

So why is she saying that? It means it's something she does not like but does not want the partner to have his defenses up. So she might not talk about it now but she will later when in a stronger position of power. It's the (future) judge speaking here.

Defense: "I hope you're not judging me!" or "Good"

Asking to reveal information about the partner

Information is power (over the other person). For me, the information is revealed gradually and spontaneously as time goes by and intimacy grows. I fell for this one and started to reveal information about myself on prompt. I understand her curiosity.

Defense: "what about you?"

I noticed that to even relationships, it's important to even the information revealing. Otherwise it's uneven.

There's no obligation/if you don't want you're not obliged to

So why is she saying that? 2 aspects: 1. she hints that if I would do it, it would please her (judge role) and 2. She's telling me what I'm obliged to or not (tasking).

Defense: "I know I'm free"

Do as you want/You are free to...

Same as above: she's granting me the right to do what I want. That is, she's coming from a superior position.

Defense: "I know I'm free"

I appreciate/I like when...

Typical judge role sentence. The goal is for me to know what pleases her. It's very different if it's about telling me in order for me to know her rather than to tell me how I should please her. Subtle difference in the tone and context where it's said.

Defense: "Good, I also like..."

Reciprocation, same as information revealing.

I don't want to know how much you make

So why is she saying it? She's good at saving money and there is no doubt that even if she has a lower wage (not by a lot I think) she's saved way more money than me. So she's setting a competitive frame in a way: who earns more, just by thread expanding on it. Also, she's in charge of granting work permit for foreigners in my region. So she knows all salaries of everyone, including mine. So she already has the info. She said money is not important in a man for her. But then why is she saving money and doing FIRE? It's the same white lie that men tell women: if a woman is kind and smart, that's enough. I understand it's not her major criteria, but her family has money through sheer hard work and her uncle has hundreds of millions of euros (yes, true he's in a magazine). So money matter in her family therefore to her.

I almost fell for this one and revealing my salary.

Defense: "Good, I also don't care how much you make. I love you for who you are".

You have the right to disagree

Same as the ones above, she's giving me a right. So coming from a superior position.

Defense: "Of course, you also have the right to disagree with me".

---

So the pattern is as usual: defending against the judge role and the thread expanding. I used a lot "Good" which is a low investment way of taking back the judge role. And also when it becomes uneven I make it reciprocal again.

I noticed that it's important to defend against all small power moves in the relationship otherwise the reality that gets cemented (quite quick due to repeated interaction) is: "I'm the judge is this is what I want you to be and behave". And it's over. Death of a thousand cuts. Domestication achieved. Her enemy is a man's freedom. She wants him to be free... to do everything for her and with her (since women stand being alone).

As said in my journal, I lost respect for my male friends who got domesticated. I don't want this happen to me. If this is value-giving advice as a friend (friendship is n°1 pre-requisite to me in a romantic relationship) then all good: I'm free to take it or not. But here it does not feel like that.

As I said, women might be all lovey dovey and cuddley, loving children and giggling. But make no mistake, like any living organism they want things and will use their natural and learned strength to get it. That includes manipulation to control their partner. I don't love them less, but that makes one additional type of person where I have to have my guard up. So this is disappointing to me. It is a cruel World. And one has to learn how to be bad in order to be good.

I understand why Rollo says that women don't really love men. They love what they give them. And also why men are called the "romantic sex". I would not generalize to other men and this is going off-topic. But that's my case: I'm a romantic and I've been naive about women and what they want. Who they really love is their children. The man is an accessory to this end, in most situations. At least we don't love the same. Women love men because they love them. I love them because I love them. Such is the way of the World.

If you have any comments on this, I'm curious to read them.

If I notice other sentences, I will document them here.

My apologies for the hints of misogyny, it's part of the price to pay for opening my eyes. I want to be clear: I love and respect women. I'm a bit sad, hurt and disappointed of this new realization, but as other members here know: it's always like that.