When it comes to humans, one fairly reliable standard you can use to predict our behaviors is: “You get the behavior you incentivize.”
This isn’t a perfect standard, obviously. For example, if I could live my life normally for 5 dollars or eat a plate of overcooked liver for 6 dollars, technically the incentives are bigger if I eat the gross liver. But my personal preference to not do that is worth more than a dollar to me. It’s not possible to know someone so fully and completely that we can account for every little emotional swing, preference, or personal idiosyncrasy.
But big picture, generally, people act in the manner they’re incentivized to act. For the most part.
So when a reasonably cute, reasonably successful, reasonably socially normal guy is dating a reasonably normal girl, there are some expectations placed on a guy in this situation. He’s expected to communicate with this girl with some level of frequency, do so in a manner that’s both nice to her and entertaining to her, plan activities with her with some level of frequency, mostly pay for these activities, behave in a manner that is both nice and entertaining during these activities, maintain an acceptable standard of appearance, grooming, and behavior, and so on. The exact meaning of all of those adjectives I just used and the extent to which all of this is expected of him may vary somewhat from woman to woman, but in general, this is the ballpark of the “costs” associated with a guy dating a girl.
Meanwhile, what does he get? Companionship from this woman with some level of frequency. That companionship is expected to include behavior that is nice to him and entertaining to him. Sex with some level of frequency. Occasionally, some activities are initiated by or even paid for by her. She’s expected to maintain an acceptable standard of appearance, grooming, and behavior, and so on.
All of this is a lot of autistic/transactional explanation to explain, long-form: He’s incentivized to be a good boyfriend by her being a good girlfriend to him, and she’s incentivized to be a good girlfriend by him being a good boyfriend to her.
Is it worth it for him? Yes. Because if it wasn’t — if he wasn’t sufficiently incentivized — he wouldn’t do it. You get the behavior you incentivize.
Because the cost to end a relationship is nearly zero. In about two seconds, with a single text message, a relationship can be ended. Or you can even just ghost on a person, which isn’t very nice but it happens often enough. Ending a relationship can be emotionally difficult sometimes, but the only cost you really incur is the loss of the incentives you were getting. You no longer get her companionship or to have sex with her. But you also no longer have to expend the effort communicating, entertaining, and behaving in the manner that was expected of you to get these things. You lose the incentives and save the costs (so saving the costs becomes your incentive to dump her, while losing the incentives of dating her becomes your cost).
I’m doing the autism thing again. This is all just a longer way of saying if a woman’s “good girlfriend” incentives ever stop being interesting to you, or if she ever stops providing them as well as you’d like, you’re no longer sufficiently incentivized to behave in a “good boyfriend” way. Same in the opposite direction. Generally, you get the behavior you incentivize.
This situation isn’t always as clean as it sounds on paper.
The classic example in the Red Pill community is what if a guy is ugly, socially awkward, unsuccessful at life, bad at the game — generally a “low-status” guy? For him, finding a new girl willing to spend time with him, be nice with him, or God forbid have sex with him is something extremely hard to come by.
In that case, even if a current woman’s “good girlfriend” behaviors stop being as interesting, or even if she scales them back or stops them entirely, he’s not facing a choice between this woman and a better woman. He’s choosing between this woman and loneliness/sexlessness for an undetermined length of time. So for him, the small chance that this woman might still maybe do a “good girlfriend” thing occasionally is incentive enough for him to continue doing “good boyfriend” things for her so she doesn’t end their relationship.
This situation is almost like a minor form of marriage. This woman has a gun pointed at his head. The gun of dumping him. The gun is filled with loneliness and zero sex. She does not have to be nice to him. Or pleasant to be around. Or really do anything for him. She doesn’t have to have sex with him that often - just some amount of times greater than zero. The incentive she’s offering for him to bend over backward for her and be as good of a boyfriend as he possibly can is the incentive of her not firing that gun today and dumping him.
And for many men who can’t attract women very well, that is incentive enough. I know. It’s pathetic. It’s why The Red Pill exists. So that these men, when they’ve finally had enough of being powerless and taken advantage of, can take a swing at saving themselves. Can get some power in their future relationships.
For example, if a guy is (or becomes) generally decent-looking, successful, interesting, socially skilled, and good at the game, just being that way is part of the incentive he’s offering. He doesn’t have to be as nice or put in as much effort for all of those “good boyfriend” things. Some women are still going to be willing to date him and have sex with him because the incentive of having a decent guy like him, as opposed to a worse guy, is worth it for them.
He can still be nice to a girl and put in the extra effort if he wants to and likes the girl, but he doesn’t have to as a required incentive just to play the game — which is actually better, both for her and for him. It means when he does “good boyfriend” things, it’s genuine, kind, generous, and done because he actually cares about her. Not as some kind of manipulation to stay in her good graces.
Marriage changes this calculus. Because marriage hands the woman a really big gun.
As I got into in one of my previous essays (Link), a marriage is really just a pre-divorce. Honestly, the future divorce is the entire point of marriage. It’s arguable whether “marriage” actually exists. A marriage license doesn’t control or affect the marital relationship at all. There are no rules or requirements about marriage in the marriage license. The only function of the marriage license is the cost to terminate it. The marriage license only comes into play when the couple gets divorced to control division of current and future assets, and child custody if applicable.
Once you’re married to a woman, from that point on, any time, for any reason or no reason at all, the woman can file for divorce. In the overwhelming majority of those cases, she is awarded your house, primary custody of your children, a little over 50% of your current assets, and a recurring chunk of your future earnings every month.
Marriage hands your woman a gun to point at your head. The gun of divorcing you. The gun is filled with losing your children if you have them. Losing your house if you have one. And enormous financial loss to the tune of over 50% of your accumulated wealth, plus a portion of your future earnings in many cases. Plus loneliness and zero sex - especially if your looks, social skills, hobbies, and success have diminished or weren’t that strong to begin with. But even if you’re still decent-looking, social, etc., you’re still likely to be lonely and sexless for a little bit.
A wife doesn’t typically have to do anything. Because she’s the one holding the gun. She doesn’t have to labor for money, do chores, do childcare (or have children at all), be nice to her husband or pleasant to be around, or really do anything for him. Or really do anything at all. She can have zero sex with him. Doesn’t matter. She can be super-mean to him. Doesn’t matter. He must perform as a good husband. He must labor both in and out of the home for her benefit and keep her happy and entertained. Otherwise, she will fire that gun. The incentive she’s offering for him to bend over backward for her and be as good of a husband as he possibly can is the incentive of her not firing that gun today and taking his children, home, present and future wealth, and destroying his life.
For most married men, that is incentive enough. I want to say that’s pathetic, but we’re talking about losing children in many cases. Loving your children is not pathetic.
You get the behavior you incentivize.
The low-status guy in dating has a small gun pointed at him. The married man is staring at the barrel of an artillery piece. Both men are incentivized to pay the cost of that gun not being fired. The absence of loss (catastrophic loss in the case of the married man) becomes the entire value proposition she offers.
Meanwhile, the woman dating the low-status guy and the wife married to her husband are not incentivized to pay a cost. Simply keeping the guy around and not firing that gun today actually starts to feel like a cost to them. Like benevolence. Like simply being there and not ending things, for now, is doing him a favor. As the gun-holder, she starts to feel like he owes her for not shooting him. Women don’t handle power very well.
Everything else in a marriage (affection, sex, respect, contribution, etc.) is optional seasoning she can sprinkle or withhold based on mood, convenience, or how much she feels like testing whether the gun still works.
This is why “happy wife, happy life” is such popular advice. It’s not a recipe for mutual flourishing. It’s a survival slogan. Keep the person with the gun content enough that she doesn’t fire it. Labor harder. Entertain better. Absorb more. Apologize first and more thoroughly. The incentive structure doesn’t reward a man for being a good partner. It rewards him for being a sufficiently useful servant.
Of course, many men men will protest that their marriage isn’t like that. Their wife is wonderful. She loves them. She contributes. The gun is never mentioned. That’s nice. Until it is. It sits in a drawer the entire time, loaded and ready, regardless of how sunny the day is. The power dynamic is there in the shadows, every single day.
In dating, becoming more attractive, more successful, more socially skilled, more interesting raises the opportunity cost of dumping you. Other options appear for you, and options as good as you disappear for her.
This makes that small gun lose some of its threat. You can replace her. She can’t replace you. And like magic, she’s the one doing “good girlfriend” behaviors impeccably, even when you’re kind of a jerk sometimes.
In marriage, if you stay attractive and make crap-tons of money and are fun and entertaining, plus helpful around the house (God forbid maybe even leading the household a little bit when she lets you), that’s like the lite version of the above. You can stay more valuable than what you’d be worth if she fired the gun and took everything. A lot of husbands don’t do that. So if you’re lucky, she’ll behave a little better, because she’s incentivized by you being one of the slightly better ones. Maybe.
You get the behavior you incentivize.
In a magic hypothetical world, if the cost of divorce was zero — it was only a tool to part ways with a spouse you aren’t compatible with or who isn’t measuring up, and there were zero financial incentive in play — the majority of divorces would be filed by husbands, not wives. And the majority of wives would be bending over backward, keeping the house spotless, staying hot, and jumping into bed eagerly every night, to not get dumped. Because if getting rid of a mean, sexless woman were completely free, the incentives favor sending her packing if she’s not behaving well.
But create a structure where the wife has a loaded gun and the power to take everything, any time she wants, and we see beaten down men slavishly laboring while being treated poorly, just hoping to not lose their kids.
If that makes you feel a bit salty, that’s pretty normal. You get the behavior you incentivize.
On a brighter note, if you want to read something a lot more lighthearted about a divorced guy, here’s a link to my first novel: Wait. What Was the Question?
Follow the storytelling of Archer Wood, a divorced dad trying to navigate dating, parenting, friendship, and even therapy, all told through the lens of a nostalgic Gen-X latchkey kid raised by narcissistic boomers who did an excellent job ensuring his survival, but weren’t exactly the kind of parents he wants to be.
