I have not read the book. But the way you summarize it, it seems to be using the language of moral absolutes in a very odd way.
Quote:
2) A HD husband must force the LD woman to make a choice, either "WANT" your husband or divorce. She must regain her desire. Problems arise when they are not forced to choose.
What does the word "must" mean in this case? Is it immoral to decide that marriage is important enough to do whatever you can even if you aren't getting sex?
Quote:
3) Mercy sex, or duty sex, is very bad for the relationship. Any man that will accept this kind of sex does not have self respect and confidence, which then causes the LD woman to lose her desire for the man that is willing to accept crap from her.
This sounds like it's all about the status of the man. The moral absolutes have to do with the male ego, and the most immoral thing you could do is to accept crap from someone.
Quote: 4) The HD man must regain his self repect and confidence bu chosing to not allow himself to reamin in a marriage with a woman that is LD, and to not allow her to give him crap for sex.
So self respect and confidence come from deciding you won't take crap from nobody even if it means wrecking the marriage and the home. I always thought self respect came from doing the right thing even when it's very difficult.
I hope your summary is unfair, or that my reading of your summary is skewed. If not, this doesn't sound like a great book, at least not when it comes to this particular subject.
