The "Rational Male and Female"? - Biology and Programs in Relationships

[BobDylan]

The same manipulative approach can be taken with knowledge of a partner's (or prospective partner's) emotional hang ups and programs. You figure out, for example, that she has "daddy issues" or he has "mommy issues" or whatever the case may be, and then craft a way to use that information to get what you want.

If someone genuinely cares about the other person AND wants to help them be the best they can be AND understand THEMSELVES better, then this seems like not just a counterproductive approach, but an ultimately destructive one. By definition, it views the partner as 'the enemy' or at least a prisoner who, at any moment, could escape your hold unless you use you 'inside knowledge' to keep them captive.

The obvious way to avoid that unhealthy dynamic while still making use of the valuable information about biology and programs is to share it OPENLY with your partner. Discuss it, multiple times in multiple ways as needed. This requires GENUINE courage and honesty, two qualities that many people lack - often as a result of the same programs and 'scars' (usually from childhood) that instilled in them an strong aversion to trusting others.

Very wise words indeed but I think it (mainly) only applies to people who are already somewhat in a committed romantic relationship. For those who aren't, the nature of the modern 'western' world coupled with biological drives intervene to stop the higher aims as you've stated later on (see quote below) from happening for the majority (at least for the average Joe out there on the street)

As others have said here, this may be true for some (or a lot of) people 'out there', but it is NOT the kind of approach we advocate here because our foundation is 'Work on the SELF' not 'Work on other people' (although figuring out other people is part of the Work on the self). So I think THE most important ingredient for a successful relationship (even if it ultimately fails) is starting from a 'Work on the self' perspective and 'vetting' prospective partners to make as sure as possible that THEY are able and willing to follow the same 'honesty is the best policy' approach.

Let me explain my thinking and hopefully you can point out any errors / mis-observations on my part.

I say the above as before you tell someone about their hang-ups e.g. mommy issues, daddy issues etc, you must have trust of that person not to mention you must actually know the person quite well & know the subject matter at hand OTHERWISE you run a very high risk of coming across as trying to manipulate them with the view of them giving you what you want (Which in reality might be the opposite of your actual aims but nonetheless that's not how they might see it). Bear in mind, this is in the arena of actually pursuing a romantic partner as opposed to a conversation between purely friends in the traditional sense.

Also one must realise that a lot of guys out there try to control the way women think (actually, the really abusive ones do), to point out the errors in there thinking and thanks to feminism, a lot of women nowadays are quite careful about guys telling them how to think ESPECIALLY if the guy is just a potential romantic suitor (and they know it) and not someone who has truly won her hand yet.

So I don't think open and honest communication is straight forward, especially at the beginning BECAUSE most women have many potential suitors telling them all sorts of which you are only one. In essence, most (young) single men would be operating in a HIGHLY competitive 'market place' AND women will have many many choices. Usually (but not always), the guy who can utilise the information as expounded by Tomassi is the guy who'll end up winning her hand... from that point onwards the guy can proceed to initiate the 'high level' open and honest communication that transcends the more baser biological levels and the relationship / shared journey can commence.

At least that's how I see it. It sounds kind of crude / cut throat but at least from what I've seen of the reality, things can be very unforgiving out here if you don't play by the rules of the overarching evolutionary (biological) and social systems to a certain extent.

You know, it's quite hard being single in today's liberal age, at the same time trying to find a partner (amongst other goals that don't concern women) and also trying to live by a code of conduct that is in-keeping with higher spiritual standards all this happening in an arena where of course you have your own programs/issues and other things that you're working on as well or are even yet to address and acknowledge.

It's a veritable environment to operate in indeed - the perfect ground for lessons galore to be learnt.

 

[luc]

The thing is, biological drives ARE very powerful and DO play a major role, but as others have said, other kinds of emotional 'programs' and hang ups can have even MORE influence on a person's behavior and inclinations in a relationship, i.e. they can effectively 'overwrite' the biological imperative and cause a person to choose the opposite of what biology dictates. They can also combine with biological imperatives and create a REAL mess. I'd say that bringing the 'scars of the soul' issuess to light is equally, if not MORE, important as shining a light on biological imperatives.

Been thinking along similar lines, because I asked myself: how could I use this information Tomassi provides to, let's say, help a friend with relationship advice? And I thought that yes, what I grasped so far could be useful, but how often is the "biological signal" drowned in the noise of other issues? Like trauma, neediness because of trauma, fear of opening up, fear of being hurt because of bad experiences and so on?

If someone genuinely cares about the other person AND wants to help them be the best they can be AND understand THEMSELVES better, then this seems like not just a counterproductive approach, but an ultimately destructive one. By definition, it views the partner as 'the enemy' or at least a prisoner who, at any moment, could escape your hold unless you use you 'inside knowledge' to keep them captive.

The obvious way to avoid that unhealthy dynamic while still making use of the valuable information about biology and programs is to share it OPENLY with your partner. Discuss it, multiple times in multiple ways as needed. This requires GENUINE courage and honesty, two qualities that many people lack - often as a result of the same programs and 'scars' (usually from childhood) that instilled in them an strong aversion to trusting others.

This reflects exactly my experience. Playing games with your partner is just a recipe for disaster. You need to be absolutely honest and open about everything - otherwise no deep bond can form. This doesn't mean you need to do that all the time of course. External consideration also means you need to observe closely what is appropriate and what is not in any given situation. But you need to be willing, and courageous enough, to share everything about things that really matter, including your programs, drives etc. to the deepest level possible.

 

[Joe]

So I don't think open and honest communication is straight forward, especially at the beginning BECAUSE most women have many potential suitors telling them all sorts of which you are only one. In essence, most (young) single men would be operating in a HIGHLY competitive 'market place' AND women will have many many choices. Usually (but not always), the guy who can utilise the information as expounded by Tomassi is the guy who'll end up winning her hand... from that point onwards the guy can proceed to initiate the 'high level' open and honest communication that transcends the more baser biological levels and the relationship / shared journey can commence.

Yep, that was something I meant to, but didn't, mention. The Tomassi approach can be used as a means to successfully 'court' a woman, but once that's been achieved, then you have to knuckle down and find out if the person is willing and able to see the relationship and how to deal with its inevitable troubles in the general way I described. If you find that they are not, then you'd be well advised to keep looking. After all, there are better and worse matches, and IMO the really good matches are two people who share what is essentially a 'work on the self'/spiritual based world-view, and who know what they are getting into when they start what they intend to be a long-term relationship.

Yeah, I know, how can anyone getting into a relationship at an early age be expected to be that knowledgeable? Especially since that kind of knowledge only really comes from hard-won experience through relationships? It's like needing to have experience to get your first job! Catch 22! You may as well look for hen's teeth. But there it is.

 

[T.C.]

The theme that keeps coming up here is that of 'courageous honesty'.

Whether you need to give advice to someone about finding a partner or maintaining a healthy, long-term relationship, courageous honesty is what it all boils down to in both instances.

The truth is, when a man feels a need to try to change and make himself more attractive to women, he is channelling feelings and drives that he has for one reason or another ended up repressing in the past. By making it obvious to a woman that he is attracted to her, he's being honest with both her and himself about how he feels.

Nice guys get friend-zoned because they don't make it obvious to the women they like that they are attracted to them. They are terrified of rejection. And rejection is just a survival of the fittest test. A real man can get knocked down and get back up again. Putting oneself in a situation where rejection is a possibility (and it's the biggest rejection possible, because as JBP often says, a woman who rejects a man is actually saying, "Your genes don't deserve to be propagated") is an overt statement of strength and competence and bravery.

The same could be said for honesty in communication. If I'm not honest and I get rejected, then it doesn't matter because it's not really me who was rejected. But if I'm honest, and I'm rejected, that's more punishing because it really is me who is being rejected. So honesty itself is attractive, because again, it's a statement of strength and bravery.

 

[T.C.]

Yeah, I know, how can anyone getting into a relationship at an early age be expected to be that knowledgeable? Especially since that kind of knowledge only really comes from hard-won experience through relationships? It's like needing to have experience to get your first job! Catch 22! You may as well look for hen's teeth. But there it is.

Well, we outsourced that problem in the past. We made marriage the failsafe to account for our ignorance, dishonesty, foolishness and selfishness. In the past, if you got divorced, you'd burn in hell for all eternity.

So now, more than ever, honesty in a relationship is vital. In the past, you'd more than likely just stay together and be miserable if you didn't work together in an open way. But nowadays, if you don't figure that out, you just break up and blame each other.

 

[Andi]

This topic is so interesting, the comments are so interesting, and this is such an unique and personal topic - it might become a sticky.

Added: after all maybe these books might be a good idea for everyone to read because the added insight by the comments here in this thread.

 

[Andi]

For me one very interesting thing in reading on such things is that I have never thought of them before. Its the first time I'm thinking of my role as a male and how some things operate from this male-female perspective.
I think Joe is 110% right in his last comments, very well said and also my feeling about Tomassi's intentions, and with that in mind, it becomes easier to navigate the information in the book and actively thinking about the gender role one plays. With the added information here on the forum, it seems like a positive prospect to read these books.

 

[Joe]

Just to throw out a couple of examples of what I mean by 'programs' influencing relationships; one that is almost a meme is a man with 'mommy issues'.

A commonly known variation is where, as a boy, the man had an overbearing, narcissistic mother who only ever gave him love or approval when he met her subjective and self-centered standards. This becomes his formative view of what the ideal woman is. So he grows up and is a attracted to women who are like his mother. The theory goes that, as an adult, he attempts to appease his partner as a stand-in for his mother from childhood. He does this by waiting on her every word, expecting that if he impresses her enough, she will eventually be the unconditionally loving mother he always craved (and craved for his father and siblings and a positive family dynamic).

This kind of unconscious motivation can actually be a large part, if not ALL, of the 'attraction' to the woman and it has nothing to do with biological imperatives. In this example, as long as his wife/partner continues to show these overbearing 'nothing is ever good enough' traits, he still 'loves' and gives to her, even if at times he is resentful of and irritated at him.

Bizarrely, if his wife/partner starts to resolve her issues, and if she finally resolves them fully or to a great extent, the man suddenly finds himself not 'loving' her so much any more, or at all. This is obviously a very weird situation where a man can only be 'happy' with an objectively selfish and uncaring woman. If she becomes a caring and giving woman, he isn't happy with her anymore!

Another commonly known variation is where, as a girl, the woman had a narcissistic father. She grows up and is a attracted to men who are like her father. The theory goes that, as an adult, she attempts to 'fix' her partner as a stand-in for her father from childhood. She does this by giving love, expecting that if she gives enough, he will eventually be the loving, considerate father she always craved (and craved for her mother and siblings and a positive family dynamic).

Again, this kind of unconscious motivation can actually be a large part, or all, of the 'attraction' to her partner and it has nothing to do with biological imperatives! In this example, as long as her partner continues to show these narcissistic traits, she still 'loves' and gives to him, even if at times she is irritated with and angry at him.

Bizarrely, if her partner starts to resolve his narcissistic issues, and if he finally resolves them fully or to a great extent, the woman may suddenly find herself not 'loving' him so much any more, or at all. This is obviously a very strange situation where a woman will only be 'happy' with an objectively selfish and uncaring man. If he becomes a caring and giving man, she isn't happy with him anymore!

And note that those examples don't even take into consideration the possibility of past life issues that are carried over.

How deluded do you have to be to think you're going to successfully navigate this level of convoluted and complex (and mostly unconscious) psychology - that flies in the face of all 'logic' and 'reason' - by the kind of manipulative tactics advocated by Tomassi etc.? As I said previously, it seems to me that the ONLY way to deal with these kinds of situations (and they or their variations are VERY common) is for BOTH people involved to bring the details out to FULL awareness through talking about them openly and then proceed in their relationship on that basis.

We ARE strangers to ourselves, and we will remain that way, and perpetual strangers to others - including those we are closest to and married to - unless we recognize the extent of the problem, overcome the personal blocks to dealing with the problem, and avoid the entreaties to take the easy path by seeing life and everything in it ultimately as a zero sum game.

 

[Alana]

Bizarrely, if his wife/partner starts to resolve her issues, and if she finally resolves them fully or to a great extent, the man suddenly finds himself not 'loving' her so much any more, or at all. This is obviously a very weird situation where a man can only be 'happy' with an objectively selfish and uncaring woman. If she becomes a caring and giving woman, he isn't happy with her anymore!

Philosopher Alain de Botton talks about this dynamic, among other relationship issues, in this 22 minutes presentation. He basically says that sometimes people choose not to date appropriate for them people because they know deep inside that despite this other person's great qualities, they just won't make them suffer in the way they are accustomed/familiar with. And it is the production of this suffering that they are unconsciously searching for in the search for a partner:

 

[Adaryn]

Given the intimacy created (ideally) by sex, it's pretty strange that this would be the case, as if a man being rejected in this way would not feel exactly the same as a woman would.

According to the article I quoted in my previous post, it might come from a prejudice / assumption (on the part of women) regarding men's reasons for wanting sex (in a LTR):

Most women I talk to would describe feeling a bit (and sometimes very) hurt if they were the sexual initiator in this scenario. But we tend to think that sexual rejection doesn’t hurt men as much. This is based, at least in part, on two assumptions: The first is related to Masculinity Theory1,2, which proposes that men desire sex for physical and surface-level reasons rather than for emotional connection. If men initiate sex and their efforts are rejected, then, it can’t hurt that much because they have only missed out on the physical act.

Below is the (painful to read) testimony and realizations of a woman relating how she felt after being rejected by her husband (as a consequence of the latter being initially rejected by her):
-------
“It wasn’t always this way. In fact, it was the other way around. He would reach out and touch me when we both laid down for bed and so often I would cut him off right there. I was either too tired, too stressed, wasn’t in ‘the mood,’ or some other reason.”
“Two things about him rejecting me have broken my heart in the last two years. The way it makes me feel, of course, but also that I realize that he was telling the truth when he described how it made him feel years ago. He would say that it made him feel ugly, unwanted, and unloved. He described other things he felt such as being embarrassed and feeling that I wasn’t attracted to him. I remember rolling my eyes, thinking that the only thing that really bothered him about me rejecting him was that he wasn’t going to get the sexual release he wanted. I was wrong.”
“I couldn’t blame him if it was revenge. Sometimes I get out of the shower, and take my time putting the towel around me while he’s brushing his teeth or shaving but he barely even glances my direction. I recognized the look on my face in the mirror as the same one on his ten years ago. And I absolutely do feel ugly, unwanted, and unloved. I feel like my body is unworthy of his attention. He must have felt the same way ten years ago when he watched me show more interest in my makeup than my unclothed husband walking out of the shower.”
“But he’s nicer about it than I was. Maybe because he knows how it feels. He hasn’t mocked me for feeling rejected. Or accused me of ‘only wanting one thing.’ In fact, he has apologized for saying ‘no.’ He has reacted sometimes by hugging me, but a kind rejection is still a rejection. It’s humiliating to beg, but I’m to the point I’m willing to try anything. I even blame myself. Maybe if I hadn’t made sex so difficult for him to get over the years, he wouldn’t have reached the point to where he didn’t bother to try and, then, to where he stifled the desire and pushed it away so that he wouldn’t have to deal with the pain of being rejected repeatedly by the person who was supposed to be rejecting all others for him.
--------
As for the rest of your post, you've described very well what's "bothering" me (personally) with Tomassi et al.
What seems to be missing is "(honest) communication and empathy".
However I do understand how this material can be useful, perhaps even necessary in this day and age, to men (and women) who don't have a clue about intersexual dynamics and biological drives (I'll probably read one of those books too later on). As already stated several times over the course of this discussion, what they do with that knowledge will depend on their personal make-up and goals.

A lot of members here have the benefit of age and past failures/painful experiences, and also this network, which allow us to adopt a "loftier", more informed perspective. Honestly, I feel out of the loop in terms of how young people interact these days, so it's nice to read the account of younger forumites like BobDylan (people in their 20's - early 30's), who can bring some of us up to speed about how things are done these days compared to 20-25 years ago, before the Internet revolution and "dating apps" and the radical feminists' takeover… Looking back, interactions seemed a bit simpler, less twisted/convoluted back then, girls were probably less demanding when assessing potential suitors, and boys were not particularly shamed for being boys - which didn't mean it was easy to relate to each other, far from it.

 

[Tuatha de Danaan]

Just read Adaryn's post above. I've been alternating my reading between Dr. Aziz Gazipura's book NOT NICE. and THE RATIONAL MALE 11.by Tomassi. What strikes me is that THE RATIONAL MALE is rather a basic nuts and bolts book, whereas, NOT NICE seems a more tender and humane view of our faults and failings. NOT NICE fleshes out the myriad of problems we all face with past programming and provides a way with dealing with them. I think anyone who reads THE RATIONAL MALE, in particular the young, male and female would be greatly helped by following up with NOT NICE.

 

[BobDylan]

How deluded do you have to be to think you're going to successfully navigate this level of convoluted and complex (and mostly unconscious) psychology - that flies in the face of all 'logic' and 'reason' - by the kind of manipulative tactics advocated by Tomassi etc.? As I said previously, it seems to me that the ONLY way to deal with these kinds of situations (and they or their variations are VERY common) is for BOTH people involved to bring the details out to FULL awareness through talking about them openly and then proceed in their relationship on that basis.

We ARE strangers to ourselves, and we will remain that way, and perpetual strangers to others - including those we are closest to and married to - unless we recognize the extent of the problem, overcome the personal blocks to dealing with the problem, and avoid the entreaties to take the easy path by seeing life and everything in it ultimately as a zero sum game.

The examples you have given make it quite apparent that what people like Tomassi say is not the whole story. Yes, you can initiate and to a certain extent maintain a relationship by utilising the knowledge expounded by Tomassi & co, but people are so 'multi-dimensional' that other things will seep into and influence the make-up of romantic relationships based on the unique circumstances of the individuals involved and how they relate to each other. Perhaps by their very nature, given that romantic relationships have the ability to touch you so deeply, these other 'influences' are more likely to be drawn out to have their moment in the 'sun' as it were.

You can already see the 'ingredients' of the school we're in, the material that goes into forming our 'lessons' and opportunities to learn / grow / develop.

For me personally and I'm not expert, just a person caught up in this whole thing by virtue of being of these times, the most important thing is not to hide from the challenges, from the possibilities of failing or things going wrong but also to maintain a certain level of common sense. I think you have to throw yourself into the lessons, you have to be open to learn what the world is trying to teach you. Unlike a teacher in class, the world is teaching you through your experiences and interactions and so you must be willing to have those experiences and interactions in the first place. One of the things I had to really get to grips with in my 20s was the sheer cost of anxiety / shyness. It gets to a point where both those qualities literally STARVE you of experiences, keep you locked up in a shell of 'apparent' safety but the PRICE is IMMENSE. You can use excuses like, '"I'm an introvert", "I'm shy", "The world is crazy" heck, if your super spiritual you can be like "I'm a lost soul from God-Knows what dimension that ended up in the wrong place" etc BUT ultimately none of these are an adequate enough substitute to really get to grips with this place - the place we're in right now! And I think we're here so we can learn to get to grips with the madness that surrounds us (both externally and internally) and perhaps, just perhaps cultivate something meaningful from it all.

 

[Balance]

That's really good to hear, Balance. I was wondering, what do you mean by sh*t testing?

What do you exactly mean by 'negotiating sexual desire with women'? If I understand you correctly, if you cannot negotiate sexual desire with a woman, then yes, something may be off! I don't think that you can state it as a fact and say all women are like that (whether in the beginning of the relationship or after years have gone by). I'm pretty sure there are women who can put the other person's needs first! And communication about sex can actually be quite important.‌ I'd say it would also help if you both know where you stand on that topic more or less before the relationship.

Also, considering what you wrote afterwards, which is that communication is also nonverbal (a good point), then perhaps it IS key and part of keeping a relationship stable. For verbal communication, I would say that both should have certain qualities that ensures communication to be effective and fruitful such as insight into one's own issues. Just a few thoughts!

Ok, Sh*t test or Fitness test. It's probably better to quote because it's more comprehensive that way IMO.

What is and is Not a Fitness Test
Most Fitness Tests your wife will toss at you come in a few standard
variations that are seemingly easily spotted, but they also come very
close to things that aren't Fitness Tests at all. The trouble is figuring
out which is which. You can mess up just as fast by failing a Fitness
Test as by bumping back on her on something that wasn't one in the
first place. If she was trying to be genuinely nice and you tell her off,
that’s legitimately going to upset her.

Importantly, most times the woman isn't even aware of the testing
nature of what she is doing, so there's no easy way to just ask her
what's up either. If you happen to get tangled up with a woman that
is consciously testing you and gaining some kind of pleasure from
watching you squirm, it's about the worst red flag there is. Personally
I’d avoid relationships with these women with such an enormous
need for stimulation. If a woman actively wants to chew a man up
she will find a way: divorce, alimony, child support, false rape,
cuckolding, restraining orders, bank accounts pillaged… it can get
pretty bad.


Some basic Fitness Test variations, coupled with things that aren't
tests...

The Small Request Test – This is where she asks you to do
something that she is perfectly capable of, simply so that she doesn’t
have to. These are often small tasks that barely require any effort, so
you can unwittingly start performing them for her simply trying to be
“polite”, or “nice”. But if you’re starting to find yourself being her
butler, then you’ve established that she is the dominant one in the
relationship and you are Displaying Low Value. A tip off is if she is
seated on something and instead of getting up to get something, she
asks you to go get it and bring it to her.
The Small Request Non-Test – A request to perform a small task
where you have natural advantages over her. For example Jennifer is
very short and I am very tall, so when she asks me to put away
something in the kitchen that goes away very high in the cabinets, it
just makes sense that I do it. A couple times Jennifer has been injured
by heavy items falling back down on her, so I actually get testy at her
for not asking for help sometimes.

The I’m a Cute Girl Test – A request to comply with something
simply because she has asked for it in a coy seductive manner and,
being a boy, you are powerless before potential pussy. There's
usually some sort of inflection of voice that tips this off. The request
is an unreasonable one, such as getting out of an unwanted task, or
getting something from you like a drink or money. It's best not to
comply and find a way to get her to do it if she is perfectly capable.
The I’m a Cute Girl Non-Test – This is a reasonable request, but
comes with a quite purposefully aware display of sexiness. She's
purposely using the request as an excuse to be sexually playful with
you and display her interest in you. The question/request is just a
cover. Jennifer tends to have an almost comic approach with this and
sometimes loads up a Small Request Non Test with a dose of sexual
coyness just for fun. I’m cool with my wife rubbing her breasts on me
asking me to put away kitchen items high up.
The I’m a Cute Girl Non-Test – This is a reasonable request, but
comes with a quite purposefully aware display of sexiness. She's
purposely using the request as an excuse to be sexually playful with
you and display her interest in you. The question/request is just a
cover. Jennifer tends to have an almost comic approach with this and
sometimes loads up a Small Request Non Test with a dose of sexual
coyness just for fun. I’m cool with my wife rubbing her breasts on me
asking me to put away kitchen items high up.


The I’m Getting Emotional About This Test – As soon as a woman
finds out her tears is your Kryptonite you're in deep doo-doo. Don't
respond to her drama and hysteria over minor things. Sometimes this
is tied into her menstrual cycle, but typically the women that reach
for this tool use it an awful lot. After a while the entire relationship
can be based on her mood swings. She is unhappy about X so you
must do something about X right now. Now she's unhappy about Y,
why can't you fix Y? Z also displeases her. The more you cater to her,
the worse it gets, until eventually she becomes the unhappiest
woman in the world and you are near death from exhaustion.
The I’m Getting Emotional About This Non-Test – This is when
something really does happen that isn't trivial or minor and she's
upset. Everyone has a crappy day once in a while. As long as she's
not making a lifestyle of it, you should be standing in, standing up, or
standing with her during these moments. The key here is not to try
and bail her out of a bad situation and solve her problem for her, but
to be present and available to her to aid in solving it herself.
Sometimes you just have to let them cry it out for a bit.


The Badly Inconveniencing You Request Test – This is where she
asks you to do something that would cost her little of her time, but
costs you a lot of yours. So "Can you pick up the girls from school
today" when school is five minutes round trip from home on a work
from home day for her, while you have to leave work early to get to
the school on time. That's a big test. Just say “No.”
The Badly Inconveniencing You Non-Test – This is when yes
indeed this is going to screw your day, but if you don't help out she is
going to be royally screwed. Today the kid is sick and someone has to
stay home, but today she has that presentation thing and that
meeting with her boss. So you save her with your best smile.

The Sexual Denial Test – You can't have any sex from me because...
[insert statement of accusation of what you did or did not do]. This is
just cruel and really eats away at the relationship. Personally I'd just
reflect that verbally back to her and say that it's dirty tactics. The
other version is simply saying she doesn't feel in a sexual mood, it's
not you... just that she doesn't feel sexy or sexual anymore. At this
point you start talking about visiting doctors and naturally running
The MAP on her.
The Sexual Denial Non-Test – She is feeling acutely ill, or having her
period, or cramping, or is just physically exhausted. Basically her
body is not going to be terribly cooperative with the “bouncy bouncy”
session today. As long as it resolves in a day or two, it's not testing
behavior. If it starts going on and on and on… then it's doctor time.

The Not Responding To Your Calls Test – You're calling and texting
her and she's basically blowing you off. Can't find my phone. I'm
kinda busy. I'm dancing to my favorite song. I can't text with a drink
in my hand. I'm just dancing. The whole Lady Gaga "Telephone"
BS. Slap this down as soon as possible. It’s very rude.
The Not Responding To Your Calls Non-Test – She's in a meeting.
She's driving and there's a cop behind her. She's on a plane. She’s at
the school picking up the kids and there are 500 screaming brats in a
gym and she didn’t hear the phone ring. Once Jennifer accidentally
blocked my cell phone number on her phone in the middle of a very
positive and happy week in our marriage... I was very close to tearing
her head off before we figured it out.


The Remodel The House Test – The house is actually fine and isn't
broken. But she somehow needs something torn out and rebuilt with
something more expensive. Doesn't add much value, if any.
The Fix The House Non-Test – Something in the house is broken.
It’s usually best to just fix it. Upgrade if it's a good idea and adds
value to the house.

etc.

Anyhow, Tomassi probably has more examples in his books, but I hadn't read them.

Oxajil said:
What do you exactly mean by 'negotiating sexual desire with women'? If I understand you correctly, if you cannot negotiate sexual desire with a woman, then yes, something may be off!

According to Tomasi, if you have to negotiate sexual desire, there is a problem.

Tomasi describes there are two kinds of sex women have, validational sex and transactional sex. If a women feels genuine desire and wants to be with you, she will naturally be turned on and engage in validational sex. If you need to negotiate for sex your relationship is on a downhill spiral. Exchanging more housework, or favours, money, ect for sex with your female spouse is no different than prostitution, and only makes the situation worse. Tomasi has recommendations to get the relationship out of that scenario, if it's not already too late. His recommendations are different than Jordan Peterson's, they more involve the male to self improve, whereby creating competition anxiety in the woman, and sparking her natural desire. Dont treat your wife like a prostitute, or enable her to act like one.
There are studies out indicating that a man doing more housework lowers sexual desire in women, where as fixing the roof or chopping firewood raises it.
Most woman are just as horney as men are, even more so as they get older. One thing the "manosphere" says, if your wife does not want to have sex, it really means she does not want to have sex with "you".
I have read that a sexless marriage is defined as intamacy less than at least once a month, or even less than every two weeks, where as healthy sexual relationships should be intimate once a week.

I don't even know anymore...maybe I misunderstood "negotiating". I never did something in LTR because I wanted sex as reward, plus in situations where I ended up being Nice Guy I did not do it because I wanted sex, but because of courtesy or some kind of "inertia to show resistance" or to put it simply "why not? (shoulder shrug)" (omit some unreasonable requests). I don't know what to say...I'm still little bit confused (maybe more than little...).

@Adaryn About that testimony you linked. It was painful to read it. Especially this part:

"He would say that it made him feel ugly, unwanted, and unloved. He described other things he felt such as being embarrassed and feeling that I wasn’t attracted to him."

"I couldn’t blame him if it was revenge. Sometimes I get out of the shower, and take my time putting the towel around me while he’s brushing his teeth or shaving but he barely even glances my direction. I recognized the look on my face in the mirror as the same one on his ten years ago. And I absolutely do feel ugly, unwanted, and unloved. I feel like my body is unworthy of his attention. He must have felt the same way ten years ago when he watched me show more interest in my makeup than my unclothed husband walking out of the shower.” {{ I will use this sentence as a metaphor in the rest of the post. You will get the point. }}

After reading this I think I understand what I wanted to convey when I said "that you cannot negotiate sexual desire".
How can I say, "Can you appreciate me on physical level more and give me more physical/sexual attention"? That should be spontaneous, not negotiated, right? Because it's forced then...What I found out that I hate the most is the fact that I can and I commonly do focus my attention while my "unclothed girlfriend is walking out of the shower" but that is not reciprocal.
But why? Why do I focus my attention at her even if I'm "brushing my teeth or shaving" or doing other "normal day to day stuff"? To hell with that...it's bloody obvious why I do it. Is brushing my teeth or shaving or showering or getting dressed or doing other normal "day to day stuff" more interesting then being playfully erotic with my naked or half-naked girlfriend? Hell no for Christ sake...but that's my point of view. Same as the man from testimony.

So what's the problem then? - This attention is not reciprocal. (Sometimes yes, but more often not).

Anyhow, thank you @Adaryn again for these deep insights.

P.S. Also, physical attractiveness, at least mine physical attractiveness, is not a problem. I'm not some big fat sloth, actually, quite the contrary. Going to the gym for 5 years and considering competing at IFBB in the future or at least becoming personal trainer. It's an old hobby of mine which I dearly like... I just love aesthetics :)

 

[Niall]

Philosopher Alain de Botton talks about this dynamic, among other relationship issues, in this 22 minutes presentation. He basically says that sometimes people choose not to date appropriate for them people because they know deep inside that despite this other person's great qualities, they just won't make them suffer in the way they are accustomed/familiar with. And it is the production of this suffering that they are unconsciously searching for in the search for a partner:

That's a fabulous talk!

 

[Joe]

Does anyone have any experience of other variations on the dynamics of transference of childhood experiences of "love" to adult relationships other than the ones I gave?