Time For A Non Fiction Cold Shower

Dear Literotica-LW Writers and Readers,

I am writing to say that the LW section is a giant Projection Project of the Male Thinking onto the Female. I am kindly asking you to live up to the "Male Logic and Objectivity" Mythos and quit projecting, if at all possible.

Examples are endless but here are a few selections from "Goodbye, Suzanna."

"But the actual marriage is the solemn oath."

No, it isn't. That's formal marriage: packaging, symbol, box under the Christmas tree postable on Insta, what society wants to hear, see and applaud, and what many people unfortunately confuse with the ACTUAL relationship (box content).

Swearing under oath can mean nothing in the long term.

The actual marriage - content, substance, meat and potatoes - is in the day-to-day relationship itself and the degree of pair-bonding, if it ever occurs. In many marriages it doesn't or it's weak.

Pair-bonding is facilitated by Compatibility: lots of similarities of all kinds - cultural, social, psychological - sprinkled with complementary differences, which are usually rooted in sex roles. These are symbiotic differences that make life easier as opposed to more frustrating. Wishing the other could change in some way is a sign of such frustrating differences.

Many people tragically confuse marriage with pair-bonding. This is distinct from mere attachment, habituation, or co-dependency ("we set up the family as a business together").

The content of the marital relationship isn't in the "oath" or any other symbolism like the marriage certificate, contract, ceremony with friends and family, social optics, calling each other "honeys," social expectations of spousal roles, God as Elvis who married you in Vegas (or sanctimonious equivalent).

The actual marriage is in the degree of psychological bonding between the two and the exchange of value it encourages.

Plenty of hollow marriages respect the oath of "no infidelity." However: monogamous marriage stands for MONO (One). This means 0 < 1 < 2+. No sex or intimacy and romantic emotional connection with more than one person OR... gasp, with less than one! (That would be zero).

Monogamy means no more and no less than ONE!

Less than one (<1) is also a form of cheating. You can't be in a monogamous relationship and feel like you're in none for the most part. The absence of either sex (especially important to men) or emotional connection/psychological intimacy (especially important to women) qualifies as cheating even if none of that happens with someone else, outside of marriage.

If your spouse refuses to have sex with you and she does not have it with anyone else either, it's still cheating.

If your spouse avoids closeness and psychological intimacy with you (meaningful conversations, openness, bonding, companionship, etc) and he does not do that with anyone else either, that's still a form of cheating. (Less often, there's sex role reversal here).

It's cheating as long as the two deprive each other of fundamental needs, leaving the other feeling lonely or deprived in some important way. It means failure to live up to the marital premise.

The "marriage contract" is ultimately delusion. Like any symbol, it can be broken, paper ripped to pieces and tossed into the trash bin, interpreted by the eye and mind of the beholder, or simply ignored, much like properties can be nationalized by a communist regime or banknotes affected by inflation.

The paper or "oath" mean nothing if it is not (or cannot) be backed up by sustainable actual value.

By contrast, pair bonding is value in itself and cannot be broken. Also, "alienation of affection" is scapegoating BS.

This is what happens when people confuse reality with symbols and wishful thinking.

"If she loved me, she'd sacrifice her wild fling to spare my feelings."

No, she wouldn't. If she loved you, she wouldn't have any "wild fling" to sacrifice to begin with. The "wild" thing would be with you. She would sacrifice absolutely NOTHING because complete fidelity wouldn't feel like sacrifice to her, much like a parent doesn't feel they are "sacrificing" a purchase for themselves to buy things for their child. It's actually fun to buy for the spoiled little brat instead of some boring stuff for yourself.

The fidelity would feel like indulgence since the idea of screwing "gym rat" would never appeal to a sane woman who loves her husband, which includes being "in love" with him. The attraction to gym rat wouldn't exist.

This is actual female biology, gentlemen, not what you project on LW; but historically, you are not there yet - ready to accept it for what it is.

This is difficult for men to understand because they ("think") they love wife (role), even with a wandering eye. They secretly wouldn't mind screwing a few other shiny, fresh perishables with a far-off expiration date, at least if the rules allowed it. No emotions, just sex. "It meant nothing, honey" is male thinking.

But since the rules don't allow it, they play the "good husband" role.

For thousands of years men have been lied to that what women want is security, commitment, and family; to be taken care of and provided for so they can give birth to their heart's content without freaking out about resources; and if the man signs on a line and provides all that, the contract should take care of everything else, including the emotional business.

This is a classic example of partial truth that can turn into the most dangerous lie.

Women sure want those things (proxies), but not from anyone available and willing to provide them. They want them from the man they are holistically attracted to. It's an evolutionary feature, not a bug. She wants it from the Object of Attraction, therefore Affection. The temporal order matters. What makes for primal attraction varies wildly among women but in the end, she is the ONLY judge of that.

Yes, women are inherently hypergamous, but hypergamy is not what popular interpretations have made it. Per Sociology 101 textbooks, it does not mean moving from one partner to another in a permanent search for "better deals." That's called being a jerk.

It is mating up relative to HER traits, as perceived by her, not relative to previous partner's traits. Hypergamy shows up in women's preferences for men taller than them, older than them, with more resources than them, more intelligent than them, stronger than them, better positioned them them, etc... whatever dimensions may inspire her most. A woman may fall for a short, funny and confident man because his humor and confidence moved her spirit, in the context of an overall cocktail of traits, making short stature pretty much irrelevant.

Unfortunately, men routinely confuse holistic attraction with discrete proxies of attraction: "I am my 666+".

A man is not his 6+ figure income. He may have internal qualities that may produce that (or not). A man is not his 6ft+ height. It may be an attractive quality in combination with others, but by itself it does nothing. A man is not even his intelligence. High male IQ combined with off-putting traits can ruin holistic attraction. Least of all is a man his 6+ inch penis. You keep lying to yourselves about that, but at some level you must love the lie.

Neither would the absence of such popular parameters automatically cancel out holistic attraction from the right woman.

"People look at their partners with loving eyes. They don't see the laugh lines or the subtle shifts in shape. They just see a sort of ideal version of them."

Meditate on that, you'll find one word missing: SHOULD. Once again, people confuse descriptives with prescriptives. People look at their partner that way provided they achieved a certain degree of pair bonding and emotional connection. Some call it "true love," others Romanticism, but that's typically dismissed as naivete and nonsense by the reproduction-hungry society.

Plenty of married people end up looking at their partners in completely different ways, including "dang it, ball and chains put on weight, "yada-yada-yada," "yes, honey," "palm to head", "eye rolls," "God, he is clueless, she's annoying," bite tongue, etc."

Comedian: "Remember those adorable peccadilloes young partners see in each other? Fast forward many years, police calls them MOTIVES."

So why the confusions?

Because in the eyes of the Reproduction-Hungry Society, Romantics are the Greatest Perverts and Public Enemy No 1.

Tell Society you want to wait for The One to enter marriage, or worse, to exit your questionable marriage for The One, see how it's working out for you. The world will more or less want to throw you in the wood chipper.

Tell Society Spouse wants to do the kinkiest, nastiest, most abominable things with you and Society be like: "Awwwww!"

Society abhors Romantics because they are the ultimate threat to the Social Order, the Normative Narrative and the Maximization of Reproduction; that's even when that "Order" is substantively, verifiably the most Disordered thing imaginable underneath the facade.

We will soon reach 10 Billions. Let's sleep on that.

The kicker is that in the same breath, Society turns around and tells The Married (TM) to expect all sorts of Romantic, pair-bonded deliverables from their non-Romantic marriages. When they don't get it, they wonder why the marital technology is glitchy.

Finally, stuff along the lines of:

"Oh, come on, dad, it's just one week-end, she's coming back," should always be followed by "said no daughter EVER!" If wife speaks, "said no wife ever!"

Want to illustrate what cheat-wife secretly thinks?

Find a more compelling literary device.

Pray tell, why do LW writers insist on including these ridiculous devices?

In other words, will you kindly STOP?

Sincerely,

Woman-Creature

[exits stage with oh-so-attractive, preachy, lecturing air, sacrificing herself for the larger good: The Truth]