Moral to the Manosphere

Putting angel’s or devil’s wings on observations hinders real understanding.

I say that not because I don’t think morality is important in the human experience, but because our interpretations of morality and justice are substantially influenced by the animalistic sides of our natures, and often more than we’re willing to admit to ourselves. Disassociating one’s self from an emotional reaction is difficult enough, but adding layers of moralism to an issue only convolutes a better grasp of breaking it down into its constituent parts. That said, I also understand that emotion and, by degree, a sense of moralism is also characteristic of the human experience, so there needs to be an accounting of this into interpretations of issues that are as complex as the ones debated in the manosphere.

Although I’m aware that observing a process will change it, it’s my practice  not to draw moralistic conclusions in any analysis I make because it adds bias where none is necessary. The problem is that what I (and others in the manosphere) propose is so raw it offends ego-invested sensibilities in people. Offense is really not my intent, but often enough it’s the expected result of dissecting cherished beliefs that seem to contribute to the well being of an individual.

Let that sink in for a moment; the reason that what I propose seems nihilistic, cynical and conspiratorial is because it’s analytical without the varnish of morality. For example, when I wrote War Brides, it was in response to men’s common complaint of how deftly and relatively unemotionally women could transition into a new relationship after they’d been dumped by a GF or wife. I wanted to explore the reasons how and why this functioned, but from a moralistic perspective it is pretty fucked up that, due to hypergamy, women have an innate capacity to feel little compunction about divesting themselves emotionally from one man and move on to another much more fluidly than men. If I approach the topic in a fashion that starts with, “isn’t it very unjust and / or fucked up that women can move on more easily than men?” not only is my premise biased, but I’d be analyzing the moral implications of the dynamic and not the dynamic itself.

I always run the risk of coming off as an asshole because in analyzing things it’s my practice to strip away that moral veneer. It challenges ego-investments, and when that happens people interpret it as a personal attack because those ego-investments are uniquely attached to our personalities, and often our own well being. Although there’s many a critic on ‘team woman’ shooting venom from the hip as to my emphasis on the feminine here, don’t think that iconoclasm is limited to the fem-centric side of the field – I catch as much or more vitriol from the manosphere when I post something like Looks Count or Women’s Physical Standards and the importance women actually do place on a man’s physique.

If you choose to derive your personal value from some esoteric sense of what sex ‘should’ mean, more power to you, but I find it’s a much healthier position to accept a balance between our carnal natures and our higher aspirations. It’s not one or the other. It’s OK to want to fuck just for the sake of fucking – it doesn’t have to be some source of existential meaning. If you think it means something more, then that’s your own subjective perspective – even in marriage there’s ‘maintenance sex’ and there’s memorable, significant sex – but it’s a mistake to think that the totality of the physical act must be of some cosmic significance.

It is as equally unhealthy to convince oneself that self-repressions are virtues as it is to think that unfettered indulgences are freedoms. There is a balance.


40 responses to “Moral to the Manosphere

  • Brian

    Anyone that gets mad about anything you write should go spend some time at http://youarenotsosmart.com/ , and then check out the book as well.

    The basic premise of both the site and the book is that we are all essentially full of shit about why we do the things we do, and are experts at lying to ourselves. It both enlightening, and a little depressing.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    Love that blog. I’ve been a reader for 2 years

  • deti

    This one will really touch a nerve.

    Game lays bare the inner human natures of men and women. Some of that is not pretty, to-wit:

    1. the “War Brides” phenom in which women can easily move on after dumping a man.
    2. The effectiveness of “dread”.
    3. That women cheat and why they cheat.
    4. Female hypergamy.

    Morality, whatever one’s definition of it, seeks to control and rein in these and other dark aspects of human nature.

    Where we do ourselves disservices is to think that one’s moral nature or adherence to moral principles somehow eliminates these darker aspects of our natures. Moral codes do absolutely nothing to eliminate them. They can’t even really be controlled, They can only be contained, corralled, and consequences imposed for failure to contain them.

    Those aspects are still there. If we don’t master them, they master us.

    Millions of young women, freed from moral, legal and social constraints, are walking ids, mastered by their libidos. They discard their beta men when their usefulness is expended, traded in for better models and/or for cash and prizes.

  • Good Luck Chuck

    Your uncolored delivery style makes it that much more hilarious when women and blue pill men describe you as an “asshole” at HUS and the like. If presenting the facts without judgment is enough to get you such a negative rep you know this shit runs deep.

  • Stingray

    I always run the risk of coming off as an asshole because in analyzing things it’s my practice to strip away that moral veneer.

    Yet, I think this is why so many men are attracted to your blog. You are straight forward in your analyses without regard to feelings and it is easier to to read and process because of it. Emotions clutter analysis of this type and are really unnecessary until one chooses to implement the game of their choice.

    It is also why women seem to really NOT like your site. A purely analytical reading of anything beyond pure science comes across as you mean it to be. Unfeeling. If your analysis is unfeeling, you must therefore be an unfeeling asshole. Obviously this is not true, but if women feel that way while reading your posts, it must therefore be true of you. Unfortunately, anything read once this has been decided will be thrown out the window whether it is true or not.

    Anyway, your way is preferable. If the analysis can be broken down without morals we can figure out what we need to and apply our own moral code to it afterwards. Then our code can be based upon fact and not emotion.

  • dragnet

    “I say that not because I don’t think morality is important in the human experience, but because our interpretations of morality and justice are substantially influenced by the animalistic sides of our natures, and often more than we’re willing to admit to ourselves.”

    Right on. Our “morality” is, more times than we realize, simply gynocentrism by another name. This is obvious when you consider that much of our modern moral conventions reinforce the position of women as sexual choosers and men as supplicants.

  • Danger

    I’ve seen several references to HUS recently, can somebody share what that is?

  • xsplat

    “Argument” can get weird when the person you are conversing with has a thin grasp of reason. There are people who do not realize their cognitive incompetence who will “reason” that anything other than their ego invested notion of game is actually an ego invested shield against the real reality.

    I try to argue with some people for quite a long time, until I just give up, realizing that they don’t do reason.

    There is a commenter on this forum who people seem to have largely given up on responding to. I wonder if it’s for the same reason I don’t yareally respond to the dolt.

  • gritartisan

    In marriage 1.0 you could argue that men have a greater need for morality simply because when a man approaches a new woman, he has to hold her with some potentially deluded idealism in order to fulfill his imperative of sex via marital commitment. He has to commit to someone worthy i.e. low partner count.

    In marriage 2.0, the man no longer need morality since he can obtain sex based entirely on animalistic dominance. Holding any idealism about the partner will only hinder his ability to fulfill his imperative.

    I said it before and will say it again- you don’t have to be the strongest, you don’t have to be the smartest. You just have to be able to adapt to change. Like you point out, balance is almost a requirement if you want to succeed. Going in entirely women-hating or pedestal-raising will doom you in the end.

  • sharp

    Your amoral approach is great and I understanding your reasoning. 100% pure red-pill, no bullshit. It was one of the things I liked about the book The 48 Laws of Power (although Robert Greene did say he was angry when he wrote it, and you could sense that). Your writing does come off as a bit dry though, so a few “women are fucking nuts because…” would give things more entertainment value if nothing else. But that wouldn’t fit you at this point anyway.

    Whatever you do, your blog is one of the top in the manosphere.

  • Good Luck Chuck

    The asshole label doesn’t come from the lack of emotion in the writing, it comes from the inability of certain people to accept unpleasant truths.

  • ck

    “Although I’m aware that observing a process will change it, it’s my practice not to draw moralistic conclusions in any analysis I make because it adds bias where none is necessary.”

    You’ve made a mistake here. You assume that to make a moral judgment implies bias and further, subjectivity. I think there are important moral conclusions to be derived from the insightful observations of the manosphere, and as such men can act more “morally.” By morally I mean, through manosphere observations, men can become better instances of their kind (i.e. human males). This is all Aristotle and the like.

    The problem is that the modern world, particularly since the Enlightenment and the Reformation, has rejected Aristotle’s biologically based ethics in favor of Hobbes’ pleasure principle. Under Hobbes’ Leviathan, we see continual unmanly fear (see Rush Limbaugh’s recent fear of leviathan via Sandra Fluke). Under the pleasure principle, men cower. The manosphere has awakened modern men and taught them not to fear the leviathan (i.e. the pleasure principle), and opened men’s eyes to the reality of biology.

    Yeah, yeah, Hume claims that you cannot derive an “ought” from an “is”, nevertheless, modern man cannot even recognize what the “is” is. From the “is” many will nevertheless derive an ought. The eyes are for looking, and not terribly good a listening. The ears are for listening, and not terribly good for seeing. The mouth is for speaking and eating, but not very good for hearing and seeing. The nose is good for smelling. The ass is for waste disposal, and not terribly good for procreation. The genitals are good for waste disposal and most importantly procreation.

    Men are good for sperm, women not at all. Women are good for eggs, men not at all. Women are good for carrying children to birth, men not at all. Women are good for breastfeeding, men not at all.

    Men are “good” for warfighting, women, not so much. Men are good at rational activity, women, not so much. Women are good at nurturing, men not so much.

    I’m continually using the word “good” which implies a moral-ethical judgment. When men recognize that women can be solipsistic, and men use their rational capacities to combat such a problem with ‘game’, or as Aristotle would say, politics, then man is acting morally. And when the Manosphere explains to men as to how they can effectively confront such behavior, then the Manosphere is making a moral-ethical judgment.

    The Manosphere is performing that important moral function of instructing the ignorant, which is dare I say a spiritual work of mercy.

  • Dirt Man

    This is a good post and line of thinking. No one likes it when an objective scientific-like inquiry encroaches on their ego bubble. It takes resolve to continue weathering the storm. Right on man.

  • YaReally

    lol

    I just present the facts. It’s not my fault if people are too emotionally invested in believing they’re special unique snowflakes to accept that they are the exact same predictable person capable of having the same blind spots and limiting beliefs that everyone else is.

    There’s nothing worse than a bunch of guys who don’t do something giving each other advice on doing that thing lol whether it’s picking up girls in clubs, approaching during the daytime, handling the girl’s friends, dealing with cockblocks, picking up rich girls with no money, picking up while fat/ugly/short, handling aggressive MMA fighters, etc.

    Sorry I found the manosphere and started calling the keyboard jockeys out as keyboard jockeys. I understand that was probably crippling to the bullshit “king of the hill” identity your ego created for you when newbies took your advice as experienced and authoritative simply because you write with stubborn conviction and they didn’t know you were fronting.

    Anyone who clearly regularly goes out and picks up, I have all sorts of respect for. If you want to half-ass your life and still expect praise, hang out with your mom. And tell her I said hi. :)

  • FFY

    The morality clouded haters are the ones least likely to get any of this anyway, so no biggie.

    Keep doing what you’re doing because the ones that have an outside chance of unplugging, a chink in their femcentric morality armor, a slight whisper of doubt in the back of their heads, they’ll get it.

  • Scott

    Of all the current “game” blogs this blog seems to be the most mentally-balanced, hence fitting to the title RationalMale. Name another “game” blog or site that talks in a balanced way about the issues (I don’t know of any). Yesterday I was thinking of words that would describe a “female-bitch” (arrogant, angry) and then thought many men (blogs, but not this blog, and in public) often sound like male-bitches also. The ego’s of most men prevents them from seeing reality (and in conjunction how others see them). Is there in reality “one objective standardized-red pill?” I would say there is not. Is there really a “red-pill” to mentally unplug from “the matrix?” I would say there is, but not the mythological made-up metaphor, but as ideas that form subjective perspectives. What is the source of these ideas? For many who are not either naturals, or in a society, the secondary-sources would be books, videos, and blogs. These sources have many differences in perspectives, biases in opinions, and various (some ulterior) motives for operating. For the ease of using the metaphor of a “red pill,” some newbies to game (who individually have a variety of end goals, with most probably wanting a gf) get different amounts of the “red pill” from different sources (who often blog about different topics over different years – thus these very sources are un-balanced and therefore NOT-standardized), so the newbies and other men (can in fact become unplugged, but in not the same ways because they are influenced with the input of different ideas/tones/thoughts, and this leads them to put the “game/unplugging from the matrix” pieces of a puzzle into their subjective-perspective (with many of these men who unplug end up just plugging into other idealizations others/they make-up in their minds) as they move on the checker-board of existence. There’s increasing traps and there’s enjoyable places. Some men end up taking “purple-pills” (such as, some blogs, but not this blog) that are color-coated to appear (intentionally disguised or un-knowingly) like a red-pill. Other men eat peices of pills of many different colors and thus they have many different thoughts. Most men seem to not be on the same team, although there is various game-tribes with different views and objectives. My time is full with being with amazing women, and doing other endeavors. Personally, I view 97% of all people (female and male) past/present/future as being mentally-crazy, and they don’t affect me plus I deal with them fine. Do not worship me as a Game-god, and I want no man to call me a Game-Master either. To use more metaphors; There is more than one pill and there is more than one matrix. Keep aware going through the Game, and train hard. To the men who don’t comprehend any of this, they are not likely to unplug and make it through the Game without plugging into something else.

  • AW

    The Rational Male has been the most influential and illuminating source of information since my Red Pill catharsis. I attribute this primarily to the author’s concern with the WHY of Game instead of the HOW. Before I happened upon RM I was reading newly-discovered Game material and thinking “yes, that’s true, that does work because I’ve seen it first-hand!” but when I started delving into the archives of this site it was more so “Ah ha! So that’s WHY it works!”.

    Much of Game discourse is tactics but not much strategy. RM provides unfiltered, cold, and objective knowledge so one can obtain the understanding to form a comprehensive worldview/strategy, whereupon the tactics are second nature.

    Bravo Rollo.

  • dicipres

    You should write a book man.

  • mikec74

    Let that sink in for a moment; the reason that what I propose seems nihilistic, cynical and conspiratorial is because it’s analytical without the varnish of morality.

    Yes. As a matter of intellectual curiousity, I’ve wondered what it is about your writing that seems to strike so deep at some peoples’ psyche such that they find you so “offensive” or “dislike” you. I think most people have a problem with a simple cold, detached explanation of empirical reality without some overlay of moral judgement. I believe people who tend to be idealists instead of pragmatists have a particular problem because your analysis strikes deep into their ego-investment in their idealizations.

  • mikec74

    It is also why women seem to really NOT like your site. A purely analytical reading of anything beyond pure science comes across as you mean it to be. Unfeeling. If your analysis is unfeeling, you must therefore be an unfeeling asshole.

    Interesting point. Many/most? women are always searching for the subcommunication/”hidden message” beyond just the words on the page or spoken words. It isn’t what did he say or write but “what did he mean”?

  • LionSoul

    That’s why I say he’s still a Beta by heart.

    You could tell by his epically long butt-hurt response.

    I wish people would stop telling ‘stories’, and stop taking advantage of poor saps that don’t know that attraction is not only about game. I got more success with women from going to the gym and getting in shape, than those stupid lines anyways. Why? I built REAL confidence by improving myself. I felt like a man when I looked in the mirror.

    Sometimes I think that seduction is just a scam, and all it really takes is self-improvement of yourself. Yeah, you can’t change ugly, but you can at least be in shape and make something of your life.

    All this effort put into lines, spending money at clubs and outfits, wasting hours of their life ‘tightening their game’. They’re still worshiping the pussy. They’re still a beta. Their life revolves around getting laid.

    Yet, I can pick up a chick without all that crap because I improved myself/have a decent job. All game taught me is not to fear rejection. The rest is just nerd thought, talking about improving the ratio of success… when no matter how good you are, will never be more than a ten percent success rate.

    LTR hopping is where it’s at. Get a chick that is a garunteed fuck for a few months until the glimmer goes away and then hop to the next. You don’t have to worry about STDs, unwanted kids, or spending a bunch of money going out. Rent movies, cook dinner, sex. And then have somebody to talk to when your bored or even prank them for fun.

  • LionSoul

    “…when I post something like Looks Count or Women’s Physical Standards and the importance women actually do place on a man’s physique.”

    Those posts are the main reason I respect your blog over the rest I’ve read. You understand that game is not everything. Sometimes you need to look at that man in the mirror.

    Oh, I also like Bronan’s, too. Especially the post making fun of the PUA. Lol

    I digress.

    The point is that your writings looks at everything without ego and dissects them rationally with brutal honesty. You write like a man should–much respect. Keep up the great work.

  • xsplat

    I agree that game can get a bit nerdy, in that those into it get really into it. Focused, and hyper focused. Personally I don’t view that as worshiping pussy, but see it more along the lines of knowing what you want and getting good at going after it – but depending on your starting point, that might be two ways to say the same thing. That’s basically a value judgment spin on the value of focusing on pussy. Without the value judgment, the word “worship” is easily replaced by a more neutral and equally valid expression, such as “want”.

    But where we share a bigger picture viewpoint is that PUAs can be too focused on the pick up part of dealing with women. That is only a minute part of dealing with women, and yet comprises the bulk of conversation about dealing with women.

    It’s perfectly possible to rarely cold approach yet still find a large enough dating pool from which to select one or several girls for an LTR or MLTR and for flings. Especially if you live outside of the west, where online dating can get you many fine girls. That is one viable strategy. Of course if you add to that cold approach skills, your dating pool can only greatly increase. However the useful cold approach skill will to the serial dater make very little difference. He’ll choose between one large pool of dates, or a much larger pool. The skills the serial dater needs are the longer term day to day skills of maintaining attraction, building bonds, and molding the woman to be caring, feminine, and doting.

    PUAs can be myopic and nerdy in their concern for the .5% of game that occurs after you initially meet. As if that matters much.

    You can make your arrangements such that getting girls is not horribly difficult. Especially if you are willing to relocate. The incredibly valuable skill of cold approach is not the be all and end all of dealing with women.

  • xsplat

    And another point I agree with you on is the emotional and hedonistic value of the LTR over the one night stand and quick fling lifestyle.

    The value of romance and affection can never be under stated. It enormously increases life satisfaction.

    Of course so does excitement and novelty, however I’m a believer that one needs at minimum bouts of genuine romance.

  • Höllenhund

    A woman deserves the same amount of morally right treatment that she dishes out to others – which, in most cases, is exactly zero.

    Women have the same attitude towards morally right treatment as they have towards commitment: they demand it in ample doses but are very reluctant to give it. They are generally very quick to absolve themselves of moral responsibility. When it comes to men’s treatment of women, of course, for some reason integrity and righteousness suddenly become very important in their eyes.

  • cassius

    I think a proper definition of morality is a set of behaviors which if widely adopted would be ideal for the stability and growth of society.

    For socially-minded men this would mean whatever is good for the greater society and it will often contradict their own immediate interest.

    For women “good for society” translates into “good for me and my team, in the immediate time frame”. More often it means “give me power, because I have no power”. Both uses of morality to advance their imperative are a reflection of their immedaite nature, ignoring both the larger societal issues and the effects of time. They are also a perversion of the man’s sense of morality which correctly defined also expects him to give up his own interest for the benefit of society. Women tend to simply define themselves as the society men should be concerned about.

    Often when people use the word “moral” it means something between “what I feel comfortable with” and “what serves my purposes”. I try to avoid using the m-word since it usually distracts from the relevant issue rather than contribute to it.

  • Ace

    Rollo,
    Rationality is tough to fake when you are emotional but not vice-versa.
    Rationality is the hallmark of your blog and that’s why I think its the best in the manosphere.
    Off Topic
    I started reading this blog in december 2011.I was(to some extent still am) stuck in a One-itis with a good girl.(EXACTLY as described in : http://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2011/11/10/good-girls-do/ )
    In the time since I have seen her ruthlessly exhibit all the stuff in this blog including but not limited to hypergamy,solipsism,self shooting and war-bride dynamic.This despite coming from a conservative part of the world.My beliefs have been blown away.Shattered to be exact.Still stuck in the Oneitis a little though.”The Natural” is a tough one to get out of your head.would love some supportive comments.On the plus side i’m in the early 20s.

  • Linkage is Good for You: Week of March 25, 2012

    [...] from the Pedestal“, “Rationalism in the Matrix“, “Violence“, “Moral to the Manosphere”Samplexus – “Last Night’s Frustrating Event and Today’s [...]

  • Deepcov3r

    “For example, when I wrote War Brides, it was in response to men’s common complaint of how deftly and relatively unemotionally women could transition into a new relationship after they’d been dumped by a GF or wife.”

    This sentence doesn’t make sense to me. How WOMEN can transition after being dumped by “GF or WIFE?”

  • TRW

    Excellent piece of analysis.

  • emmatheemo

    I think he meant men complain women got over them too fast when they (the men) got dumped by gf or wife.

  • YaReally

    “You could tell by his epically long butt-hurt response.”

    lol all my comments are epically long. Don’t feel special.

    “I got more success with women from going to the gym and getting in shape, than those stupid lines anyways. Why? I built REAL confidence by improving myself.”

    You literally just said what I’ve been saying. It’s not the muscles that got you pussy, it’s the confidence those muscles and improving yourself gave you. Thankyou for agreeing with me that confidence is what’s attractive, not shit like muscles, money, a nice car, a good job, etc.

    “All this effort put into lines”

    No effort required. It’s just learning how to communicate.

    “spending money at clubs”

    Make friends with the bouncers and don’t drink, no $ spent.

    “outfits”

    I’ve been wearing the same pair of jeans for over a year and no one has noticed. I once wore the same t-shirt out every night for 2 months in a row. You don’t have to spend $ on clothes.

    “wasting hours of their life ‘tightening their game’.”

    Ya, flirting with girls is such a waste of time. I mean, if you don’t get pussy in 10 seconds from every girl you see, you’re just wasting your life chasing pussy…fuck human interaction (male and female) or making new friends or learning to trust yourself in social situations.

    “They’re still worshiping the pussy. They’re still a beta. Their life revolves around getting laid.”

    Oh wow, I’ve never heard that argument before. You are making a completely new and original point:

    http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2011/11/07/second-stupidest-anti-game-meme-on-the-internet/

  • YaReally

    “It’s perfectly possible to rarely cold approach yet still find a large enough dating pool from which to select one or several girls for an LTR or MLTR and for flings.”

    Absolutely, I agree 100%. But if you’re not cold approaching, then you have no credentials to be lecturing guys on how cold approach works or what attracts women off cold approaches.

    That’d be like saying “I totally got laid by my wife for the 500th time yesterday guys! BOOYA!!! Now lemme tell you, my wife likes when I wear my suit, so the trick to picking up girls in a nightclub or to have sex with them a couple hours from meeting them on the street in the daytime is to be wearing a suit! Pay attention bros.”

    It’s retarded.

    I don’t have anything against guys who don’t cold approach because they have other ways they get laid, that’s cool. The problem is when those guys extrapolate their limited experience into theoretical keyboard jockey advice to guys who are learning to cold approach. You picking up a girl in your social circle, even if it’s the first time you meet her face to face, is NOT the same as cold approaching a random girl and seducing her the first time you meet her.

    I’ve never talked smack about guys who love long term relationships or marriages or whatever, every guy wants something different…I only talk smack if those guys, who are not going out regularly cold-approaching girls the way most newbies are trying to learn, start rattling off retarded advice that tested heavily in the field is clearly will be clearly exposed as bullshit. ’cause those are the guys that fuck newbies up and send them off on tangents that slow down how fast they gain the proper reference experiences to internalize the concepts of attraction.

    It’s like knowing how to play the guitar and then telling someone how to play the trombone. Ya, they’re both music, and some principles can apply, but if your teaching contradicts the teaching of someone who’s playing the trombone regularly, you have to accept that your guitar is not the same instrument and that your advice isn’t relevant. It’s not a judgement call, it’s just knowing your limits.

    “And another point I agree with you on is the emotional and hedonistic value of the LTR over the one night stand and quick fling lifestyle.”

    A lot of PUAs have LTRs, oLTRs, mLTRs, marriages, children, you name it. The community is fully aware of the benefits (and downsides) of it. Reality is though, when you’re a newbie, the quick fling lifestyle that you could never have imagined yourself having is very alluring and having an LTR gives you an excuse to stop learning game way too soon before you’ve internalized the mindsets and you end up losing the girl and then saying “that game stuff doesn’t work!!!” because you were a White Belt martial artist picking street fights expecting to own everyone lol So the encouragement for flings is more for the newbie’s benefit than anything else. Most guys who’ve been in the game for a long time settle into an mLTR situation where they have one or two regular girlfriend girls, but those girls understand that they’ll go pick up random pussy now and then.

    It’s also important to go through a fling stage so you learn what you do/don’t like in women and what behavior you will/won’t accept from one in an LTR. I’m sure you wouldn’t disagree with that.

    “Of course so does excitement and novelty, however I’m a believer that one needs at minimum bouts of genuine romance.”

    It only takes a few fucks before a girl starts falling in love. Vast majority of casual flings are very easy to turn into genuine romance…you just see the girl more than once a week, occasionally don’t have sex with her (just watch a movie or have dinner), and you’re well on your way to the love zone. I find it’s actually a lot trickier to AVOID that shit and keep things strictly to sex lol

  • Cyrus

    So whats the point?

    But really.

    I’m a young, freshly game-enlightened guy who doesn’t want a relationship at all because of my knowledge of hypergamy. I’m skilled at seducing girls and my notch count grows high, but on a very nihilistic level I honestly see now point in interacting with women.

    I can think back with fondness on each and every individual girl I’ve been with, whether it was one night or months on end, and it’s a pretty raw deal for men when women remember us as “That guy with the X habit. I can’t believe I ever dated/hooked up/fucked him).

    There’s just no point to it anymore. Sure, I love one night stands alot, but I also desire some meaning. But no meaning can be found. Women can’t be happy with us. Even when they’ve found an alpha, they’re still trying to trade up.

  • Scott

    @Cyrus, It depends on how you define a relationship. It’s probably better to not have a “we live together” type relationship unless considering marriage. However, there can be benefits to a “relationship” that is meeting once or twice a week (for doing some things for fun and easier lays) over months. I accept the reality of hypergamy and I’m OK with it personally, but the possible financial down-side of a divorce is why I will never get married. I am one of the few who is a S4L (Seducer For Life) as this is what is best for me (and for the women I continue to meet). My Core Value is Freedom. This post was probably mentioning licentiousness. I enjoy meeting new women and having various fun experiences with women. I learned years ago to never try to please anyone, especially people (parents, some women, society) who can never allow themselves (or others around them) to be happy. I can be happy and I am happy and I do what makes me happy (even sometimes with women). I find a meaning/a purpose (I’m not here speaking of a larger overall life purpose, but specifically in this comment saying a lower subset purpose with women) being to do things with women (fun AND sexual) in ways that makes myself happier AND to give TO women (fun experiences AND sexual pleasure) during the times we are together.This is not completely for my ego either, as I’m not overly concerned if this makes every woman happier or not (although it almost always does). It would be like giving CPR or a gift to someone regardless if they say thanks or not (most will like it). The joy in giving (and the experience/pleasure) is the internal reward. I have an interest in business so if we are out having fun and I hear a woman say she likes something I take note. I have an interest in sexual products and sexual techniques and it’s pleasurable for us both, plus it’s beneficial to her if she has an O or at least some internal pleasure so I’m always happy to be a part of giving pleasure. In the flow of life nothing remains the same, after any amount of time we can all move on to the next (person, experience) and make the most out of being happy with it.
    Taoofdirt seems stable. ThePrivateMan seems to be balanced and stable. RationalMale (Rollo) and most of the commenters (except for me, ha) are balanced and insightful. Yesterday I read on ezinearticles (Search > Scot McKay > bottom of page to “View all … articles”) a few posts by Scot McKay (who seems stable): pg. 6 of 7 “Nice Guys vs Good Men”, pg 3 “Dating Tips for Guys – The Difference Between Nice and Mr Nice Guy”, and pg 3 “The Big Four Factors That Attract Women To A Certain Man.” Today in “Think and Grow Rich” I re-read the Self-Confidence Formula. Posts like these remind me how much Game has benefited me, not even having to do with meeting women, but with becoming a better man and living an improved life overall.

  • Hypergamy Synthesis |

    [...] is my standing rule, I strive for a separation of moralism and rationality on this blog, up to the point where the topic crosses over into a better rational understanding of [...]

  • The House upon the Sand | Alpha Is Assumed

    […] Nevertheless, I stood my ground and believe I won the argument.  Rollo completely missed the point I was making regarding women’s opinions of Jordan and Tomba and implied that because I was making value judgments I was somehow disregarding reality.  Rollo’s raison d’être is almost entirely describing what is (A), and I won’t dispute that he’s a master of it.  I was merely attempting to bring the argument into the realm of what should be (G).  I won’t dispute that Rollo comprehends human nature as it is, but when it comes to making moral judgments, he’s AWOL. […]

  • Homosexuality |

    […] I get myself into the inevitable morass this post will likely generate, please have a read of the Rational Male policy about morality. My purpose in setting this out isn’t to persecute anyone, nor should an objective grasp of […]

  • Owed Sex |

    […] know, it’s generally my practice to describe things – not to prescribe things – and allow readers to make their own moral conclusions, but I’ll break form in this […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,797 other followers

%d bloggers like this: