Of Love and War

As might be expected yesterday’s post regarding the love differentials between men and women drew a lot of commentary. I probably should’ve added the caveat that readers have a look at Women in Love as a prelude to reading Men in Love before posting it, but by far the most disconcerting part of Monday’s revelation was in my outlining exactly how men expect to be loved prior to actually entering into a love relationship with a woman.

Generally people of either sex don’t like to have love defined for them. The concept of love is loaded with subjectiveness, and not unsurprisingly you’ll offend people’s interpretations and sensibilities by trying to contain their idea of love in a defined box. This is one of the reasons love is such a great and human idea, but its ambiguity is also the primary cause of much of the human tragedy and suffering we experience. We see love in religious contexts, personal interpretations, philosophical essays, biological dynamics and a whole slew of other arenas, so it’s very easy to understand how universally convoluted, manipulative, and yet also how binding and nurturing love can be according to how well, or how ill our concepts of love aligns with that of others.

In outlining (not defining) a male perspective of love in contrast to a female perspective it’s necessary to understand how a man’s understanding of love shifts as he matures. A lot of commenters wanted to find the base root of that concept in their relationship with their mothers. As Freudian as that rings I wouldn’t say it’s a bad start. Men do in fact learn their first impressions of intimate, physical and nurturing love from their mothers, and this then forms the foundation of that expected love from their potential wives (or lovers). Even as children are unable to think in abstract terms, there is an innate, base understanding of the conditionality that must be met in order to maintain that motherly love. Yohami posted a great illustration of this with the still face experiment.

Yohami breaks this down thusly:

That circuit gets printed before we learn to talk = before we are able to form abstract and concepts. It’s a basic four piece, emotional / behavioral circuit.

There are many ways that circuit can be imprinted “wrong”. One is to have the mom (or dads) on the receiving end, making the kid the giver. Other is having him owning the frame. Other is to have the mom (or dads) respond only when the kid acts out. Other is making the kid act out and then silence him / punish him for it. Etc. Shortly, the kid understands the game and starts to play it.

And then you build everything on top.

Your experiences from ages 12-21, of course helped forming you, because you’re 35 now and this is a sum accumulative game. But honestly, what happened to you from 12-21, are the same mechanics that were already happening, only adding more external world influence, sex drive, and additional pressures.

Im trying to locate the source of the pain, and is this: like a compass or a geometrical piece that wants to find equilibrium, the pain wants to find the “good” again (from the good the bad and the ugly), but it only knows to reach that “good” by balancing violently between the bad and the ugly and episodes of rage and if that doesnt work, splitting / self mutilation ( cutting out the undesired parts of you, your past, identity, emotions, people, relationships, blocking stuff out, etc)

It’s a constant look out for the elusive “good” part of the dynamic.

Yohami continues (emphasis mine):

[But] you werent confident / self reassured about your needs and wants, because you were still negotiating how to even feel “good” and safe, so you didnt develop game nor saw girls / relationships for what they were – but you just added this to the previous unresolved mix, like, seeking the “good” (basic, maternal, paternal love where you’re defenseless and you’re intimally loved and taken care of and safe) from girls, mixing the defenseless and the sexual aggressive drive and the long time affection longing and the sense of dispair of never feeling safe, etc.

From the moment we’re born we realize love is conditional, but we want for it to be unconditional; our idealized state is unconditional love. To be a Man is to perform, to excel, to be the one for whom affections are freely given in appreciation and adoration. On a base level it’s this constant striving for that idealized love-state that helps us become more than we started as, but it comes at the cost of a misguided belief that a woman is capable of, much less willing to love us as we think is possible.

A Place to Rest

Peregrine John summed it up best on Jacquie’s blog comments recently:

We want to relax. We want to be open and honest. We want to have a safe haven in which struggle has no place, where we gain strength and rest instead of having it pulled from us. We want to stop being on guard all the time, and have a chance to simply be with someone who can understand our basic humanity without begrudging it. To stop fighting, to stop playing the game, just for a while.

We want to, so badly.

If we do, we soon are no longer able to.

This is a realization that men don’t make until they are in a ‘love relationship’ with a woman. For men this is (should be) the catalyst for maturing beyond that want for an idealized unconditional love. At that point they come full circle and understand that the conceptual love they’d hoped they could return to (or could be) with their mother doesn’t exist in the woman he’s ‘in love’ with, and ultimately, never really existed between he and his mother from his infancy to adulthood.

There is no rest, there is no respite or reprieve from performing, but so strong is the desire for that unconditional love assurance that men thought it prudent to write it into “traditional” marriage vows – ‘for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love, cherish, and obey, forsaking all others until death do you part’ – in other words, a pledge of unconditional love in spite of all circumstance. Those vows are a direct plea for insurances against a female hypergamy that would otherwise be unfettered were it not made in the context of being before God and man.

In my post What’s Your Problem? I mention a 65 y.o man whom I used to counsel who’s wife had emotionally blackmailed him for over 20 years. He’d been married once before and divorced from his first wife after 12 years due to “not living up to her expectations” of financial provisioning. He never made the connection that the women he was ‘in love’ with had different concepts of what love meant to him. Rather, he evolved his previous concept of love wholesale to match that of women he ‘loved’, and thus his idea of love was one based upon an endless quest for qualifying for that love. In the first year of his second marriage he lost his job, and was unemployed for about 5 months, leaving his wife as the only revenue source for them. At the end of month 4 of his unemployment, after returning from an interview, he came home to find the locks changed on his home and two duffle bags “full of his shit” were waiting by the door. On top of them was a note written by his 2nd wife which, to the effect, read: “Don’t come back until you have a job.”

I remember him proudly recounting this story to me at the time, because he said, as pissed off as he was at the time, he was ‘grateful’ for her kicking him in the ass to be a “better man”. By this point his concept of love had been completely altered from his almost identical experiences with wife number one into a model that was entirely dependent upon his capacity to earn his wife’s love. Gone were the idealizations of unconditional love for the sake of love, to be replaced with the tactical, opportunistic concept of female love of his new wife. And, he was grateful for it.

After 20 years, at 65 (now 69) and in failing health he had come to realize that his efforts to secure her ‘love’ indefinitely had never been appreciated, only expected; so here he was facing the very cruel reality that he was losing his health and thus the means to maintain that incessant qualification for her love and affection.

The Reconciling

I get a lot of email and correspondence about the ruthlessness of my, I guess seminal, War Brides post. Guys have a hard time accepting the amorality of women’s inborn capacity to bond with their own captors as a psycho-socially adaptive survival trait, and how this evolved into women’s pronounced facility with which they can ‘get over’ former lovers so much faster than men seem to be capable of. Women don’t like me detailing this phenomenon for obvious reasons, but I think men dislike the notion of their easy ‘disposability’ because of that same inconsistency in gender concepts of love. Even as martyrs, even in death, that unconditional male concept of love is rebuked by women’s, by-necessity, fluid and utilitarian concept of love. As I stated yesterday, coming to terms with this is one of the most difficult aspects of taking the red pill.

I get that this seems overly nihilistic, but that’s the point. All of the very positive, very beneficial aspects of accepting a red pill reality come at the cost of abandoning the blue pill idealisms we’ve been conditioned to for so long. Leaving behind that polyanna, expectant, blue-pill dream seems like killing an old friend, but unlearning that old paradigm allows you to benefit from a far more hopeful red pill existence.

I’m not debating the genuineness or sincerity of women’s capacity to love. What I’m positing here is that women’s concept of love isn’t what men would be led to believe it is.


107 responses to “Of Love and War

  • The Shocker

    Here’s a recent text exchange where I make this chick I met at a bar fall in love with me. It’s a little long so I didn’t post the whole thing in the comments. The background is that I went to a posh hotel event after sailing- everyone was wearing crazy nice suits and dresses, I was rocking white sole shoes, jeans and looked like shit haha.
    – Saw a girl walk to the bar, immediately chased
    – Her hotter friend showed up, I told them both I was a french sailor named Pierre
    – Hot friend fooled me into thinking she was too young to drink, so I bought a round of tequila and did the tequila move to her: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osiVnfuj50A
    – Laughing, bla bla bla, a few minutes later I basically grabbed her head and started made out with her
    – Left a little bit later after getting her number

    Here’s the text exchange, turns out she was just visiting but wants to come back. It shows how to establish alpha frame and get a girl who’s interested really revved up. I also included some of the NSFW pics she sent me… looks like a 6.7 you decide. She’s Pink, I’m 8==D: http://shorttext.com/IgDfH4x4g0vbC

  • Mike C

    but so strong is the desire for that unconditional love assurance that men thought it prudent to write it into “traditional” marriage vows – ‘for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love, cherish, and obey, forsaking all others until death do you part’ – in other words, a pledge of unconditional love in spite of all circumstance. Those vows are a direct plea for insurances against a female hypergamy that would otherwise be unfettered were it not made in the context of being before God and man.

    Hmmmmm….I’m almost disappointed in myself that I never made this connection before as it seems so obvious with you pointing it out. The vows are a promise of unconditional love. Probably some guy came up with them once he realized the truth of hypergamy.

  • The Dude

    We all desire unconditional love…just don’t expect it to come from somebody else.

    That’s why I would consider those who aren’t particularly religious (or maybe even if you are) to take a look again at what Jesus did for everybody. Someone who took false accusations, unjust punishment, getting scourged, crowned with thorns, carrying a 100 pound block of wood across his back, getting nailed by the hands and feet to it, and then staying in that torture for several hours so that we could all achieve perfection…and then tells us it’s our choice to accept it or not. That’s the ONLY example of unconditional love you’ll ever going to find.

    You want to be loved for who you are…that’s the guy to talk to. If you don’t believe…then it still makes for a good story.

  • Aaron

    I am new here and enjoying myself. I could use some guidance toward “essential” posts and/or something more long form (like books) that might get me up to speed.

    Also, if you have a Twitter, Rollo, I’d follow. (Getting the e-mails currently.)

  • Stingray

    I realize you are speaking of the romantic feelings of love, but love is also in what we do, not just how we feel. I wish I could remember where I read this but I can’t. I also know King A has said much the same, that love is an action, an action that can be more important than the feeling. Women are perfectly capable of that. We are more than able to provide this:

    We want to relax. We want to be open and honest. We want to have a safe haven in which struggle has no place, where we gain strength and rest instead of having it pulled from us. We want to stop being on guard all the time, and have a chance to simply be with someone who can understand our basic humanity without begrudging it. To stop fighting, to stop playing the game, just for a while.

    It is a sad state that women think they are above this. That providing this is somehow oppressive. It may not be something we can provide 24/7 but it something we can accomplish much more than the majority of the time. Only, it has become commonplace to believe that our own happiness trumps all and in the long run, so many women sit and wonder why they are not happy at all.

  • anon

    Thanks again Rollo. This further helps me to understand my parents’ relationship, which ultimately ended in my father’s suicide.

    I have been anguishing over this for the past two decades (it happened when I was 12) and this, along with other red pill knowledge sheds more light on what may have happened to cause such a catastrophic and baffling event.

    After having 4 children with him, my mother eventually decided to leave, taking us with her. I am sure that he was craving the type of love you describe above, but clearly not getting it (even his suicide note indicated that he felt she was playing a game – and that she had ‘won’). This, coupled with a sluggish finances and ‘mental illness’ obviously didn’t help matters for him. I can also remembering him saying things that I already know would be thoroughly counter-productive if trying to revive a failing relationship.

    Although she had broken the marriage ‘contract’, this is a contract written by “god and man” and not by nature. I have reached various conclusions about his death, but these regularly change. In the past they have lead me to blaming my mother for leaving when the “chips were down”, but it was a complex series of events that lead to his death, so a better understanding of the nature of women (and men) certainly gets me closer to understanding why she left and ultimately, why he died.

  • GeishaKate

    This is a meaty topic. I’m not sure unconditional love is a good thing for any relationship. If you know that you could hurt someone and they’ll always forgive you for it, not only do you have less incentive to walk the line, but you’ll lose respect for the other person. With that said, purely conditional love is not right either. Some of my happiest moments are being the shelter from the storm. I’ll certainly take a turn rowing the boat when necessary or even just because and take pleasure in it; it just shouldn’t be a permanent condition.

  • Alpha Mission

    What is our answer then? Enjoy the pleasurable experiences with women and never invest yourself out of the very real risk of a proverbial knife between the ribs, or avoid women all together, choosing the life of a eunuch? Or is there another answer?

  • Johnycomelately

    So the masculine feeling of Eros is satiated by the unconditional beauty of his partner whereas the feminine feeling of Eros is satiated by the conditional provisioning (status, resources) of her partner.

    Do they ever reach agape, or is the male only capable of this?

  • anon

    Perhaps the rational answer for a man is simply, don’t ‘fall in love’.

    It does not serve you or your woman and seems a huge risk given what we now know. A man is expected to be rational, and falling in love, whilst it may seem a nice thought to ‘surrender’ yourself to your woman, is utterly irrational.

    For millennia mankind has been trying to fight against the grain of nature (through the applied concepts of religion and monogamous marriage). Society has been built upon men and women fighting their natural instincts and has resulted in the precarious reality we find ourselves in today.

    The truth is a bitter pill to swallow, but once ingested you can develop a better understanding of the world and adapt accordingly. Life goes on.

  • cow

    The answer is do whatever you want. Be a PUA, get married, go your own way…..whatever. just don’t make deriving happiness through permanent love your refuge.

  • Stingray

    That picture is brutal. I just realized she is holding a knife.

  • Jacquie

    Thank you for adding the link to Women in Love, Rollo; that along with my husband’s comment helped bring into focus why our relationship has kept. After reading your post yesterday my husband told me he knew when he married me that my love was conditional. He’d already come to that point of understanding. And while I am thankful for this, I am unsure if I should feel inadequate of the love he has. I don’t know what I need to take from this.

    @Stingray, I agree with you. The picture is difficult to look at.

  • Hero

    I’m floored right now. You have rung my bell. I am dealing with these exact issues in myself and my relationship with my wife right now.

    After a particularly upsetting episode in an otherwise good marriage I took the red pill. While my relationship seems back on track, I have been mourning the loss of that innocence (or naivety) that I had previously. I long for the time that I felt so overwhelmed and sated with love for my wife. Now my outlook on life seems cold. She seems to love me dearly and works to take care of me but I feel there is something missing.

    I have been re-examining my relationship with my mother as well. I have been looking at how it led me into that naivety.

    I guess I am at a new maturing point in my life where I need to let go of that desire to be lost in love. Even though I think I am better off with red pill knowledge (and my own re-invigorated masculinity), I feel sad about it.

    A number of your posts revolve around revealing the cold, hard truths. Can you speak to positive ways to move forward with the knowledge of said truths?

  • James A. Donald

    This is, of course, why the bible commands men to love their wives, but merely commands women to honor their husbands and submit to their husbands.

  • FFY

    A woman will never love you like you think you want her to. Fact. Realize that as a man, you exist on an entirely different plane than her and there is nothing to be done to change that.

    I don’t get this “shoulder to cry on” thing that guys say they’re looking for in a woman. “I just want to relax, open up to her, have her see me in all my awesomeness”. Really? Why? What possesses you to want that kind of relationship with anyone? Are you not a man? Do you not have good friends and brothers to talk to about shit?

    A woman will never understand you like your fellow men can, and once you stop trying to fill this perceived gap in your life of trying to find this soulmate, you will be much better off.

    I’ve been in love, I’ve been loved. They are great feelings, no doubt, and the love was made all the better because I knew their limitations as women and didn’t try to make them something they are not. I enjoyed them as the cute, sexy, fun women that they were, not my therapist.

  • Wolf

    Rollo, how do you explain women returning after a period of time? Several girls I met, when I first learned game at 18 have contacted or tried contacting me years later. Some form of settling?

  • Dillon

    Love cannot be understood through reason. Love is a matter of heart.

    There is no reason for it. If a reason can be found, its not love.

    If you ever want to find out if someone loves you, ask them “Why ?” If they can give you a reason, its not love.

  • muscleman

    Good post. No such thing as unconditional love, never was never will be, not even from your parents like you mention. Despite blue pill men wanting unconditional love, they are incapable of providing it themselves because it doesn’t exist. No one can forgive all indiscretions, not even Christ. Certain transgressions, whether warranted or not, will show just how conditional ‘love’ (a better term would be pair bonding) is.

  • nek

    While I think some of the input from the female commenters is pretty good, a theme that seems to be running through their comments is along the lines of “be ok with conditional love”. I agree with that, but men are ok with conditional love so long as one of the conditions is that they don’t have to invest themselves into a woman too much. But females want that investment, a “commitment”. As I said to a friend the other day: Life’s perfectly imperfect.

  • Johnny Guitar

    The take home lesson for me is that if a woman is unable to love me the way I want to be loved by her, then I damn sure will not commit and the only thing I will be committed to is riding her hard and putting her away wet.

  • Good Luck Chuck

    So, not only are women prone to ending established relationships on the flimsiest of pretexts, but they are also capable of bonding with a kidnapper who might easily end a life for hit of crack?

    Can’t see why that would be a bitter pill to swallow!

  • Good Luck Chuck

    As a man you should consider yourself lucky if you have parents and maybe a sibling or two who truly love you.

    40 years on this earth has taught me that the ONLY people who have anything close to “that” kind of love for me are the ones with skin in the game, so to speak. Romantic love is parasitic/symbiotic; love that is shared amongst blood relatives is less conditional. The closer you are to someone genetically, the more likely they are to really “love” you. That’s the bottom line.

  • Mark Minter

    I don’t know what else you could write about this theme but I hope there is more. Maybe this topic is the ultimate in Red Pill awareness. I am surprised and I am not surprised that people just don’t read this post, the “Men in Love” post, the “Women in Love” post, and the “War Brides” post and just say “OK. That’s explains things I have seen or experienced.”

    My metaphor that I always used for a lot of what you write about is the Law of Gravity. People have seen things fall to the ground all of their lives. They understand that with sufficient support things can be kept from falling. Then when the Law of Gravity is explained to them they accept it immediately as a quantification and qualification of natural observations they have been making all of their life.

    But it seems so many people just fight against this topic. I would think if you have more to say about it, that you should just keep going or if you have more examples, then in post them. Please.

    I have a question that comes from two post ago when you were talking about the “kiss close” video. Your post said,

    “This dichotomy is even hard-coded into women’s hormonal cycle, impelling women to the sexual prowess of Alpha dominance in the follicular phase, and to Beta comfort in the luteal phase of menstruation”

    So my question is “Does this shift from one attraction type to another explain why women are often so bitchy during PMS?”

  • Mark Minter

    I have another weirdo analogy. Please bear with me.

    Ok, back in the Pre-WWI 20th century years, there was a theory that the “prettiest ear of corn” was prized because it yielded the highest amount of corn. There were Prettiest Ear contests that were like county fairs with all the typical stuff of a county fair like boardwalks, cake judging contests, beauty contests all surrounding the Prettiest Ear contests. These contests were significant events on the social calender for small and midsized Midwest farm towns. Ears of corn were judged for straight rows of kernels and even, equal sized kernels. The winner of the contest would receive the financial windfall of being able to sell the seeds of his corn to other farmers. It was the dominant theory of corn farming at the time.

    Harry Wallace, who eventually became Secretary of Agriculture from 1932-1940 and then Vice President of the United States from 1940-1944, was a student a Iowa State University. He verbally challenged his professor, in front of an entire class of agriculture students, that the “Prettiest Ear” theory was nonsense, that an ugly irregular ear of corn actually produced far more corn because it more efficiently used the space. He challenged the professor to grow, under controlled circumstances, his “pretty” corn and Wallace would grow his ugly corn and then they would measure to see which type of corn produced the most weight after the corn has been removed from the cob.

    The ugly corn of Wallace produced more corn by 10%. The news swept through the farm community like a tidal wave.

    Without the commercial justification of the “Prettiest Ear” theory, the contests disappeared. Contests continued to be held for a year or two, mostly because of the tradition and the social gathering that the event had offered to a community. But once the theory was proved false, any farmer that would subscribe to it and enter the contest would show himself to be an idiot.

    So I would say that you just blew some big holes in the “Prettiest Ear” theory of love and any man that would still subscribe to it would be an idiot.

    Did you just open Pandora’s Box?

    [Ooops,..?]

  • ornamentalwomanhood

    “We want to relax. We want to be open and honest. We want to have a safe haven in which struggle has no place, where we gain strength and rest instead of having it pulled from us. We want to stop being on guard all the time, and have a chance to simply be with someone who can understand our basic humanity without begrudging it. To stop fighting, to stop playing the game, just for a while.

    We want to, so badly.

    If we do, we soon are no longer able to.”

    I feel the same way as a woman. Perhaps this is a human thing, not a man thing.

  • Team-Red

    “It’s sad when someone you know becomes someone you knew.” ~ Henry Rollins

  • Mark Minter

    Sorry to be commenting so much. This one is about your book. Someone had said just collect the posts together and put them in book form.

    Yeah, that would probably work. But I had gone back after your “One Year” post and read many of the links. Many of them I had read previously and some were new for me.

    But when I compare those first posts to what you write today, it is like being a student of calculus and looking back at “derivatives” after completing “integrals of multiple variables”. While the concepts of derivatives were not trivial at the time when you learned them, the complexity of later subjects really made them seem so later on.

    The post of the last two weeks have been so much more important and phenomenal in comparison to those first posts. Maybe I had to learn and internalize those older posts to comprehend and accept the level that you produce today. But I would think that if you do not rewrite and re-integrate those older posts into what you write today, and how you are writing today, that you would not produce the thing that could be the thing that would be the thing that we all hope that it will be. (I hope that sentence makes sense).

    Between you and Dalrock, the past few weeks have just been a damning incrimination of modern society and women. It is like you two are Ironclads just blowing huge holes into the side of the SS Vagina.

    It is getting to where I can’t wait until tomorrow to see what the fuck you two are going to say next.

  • kellytaddea

    Love is a response to what we value so the problem is not in love but in what we value that we than respond to with love.

    If a person values self respect they would never make their love unconditional and than place at risk the loss of self respect if the other devalues them yet they continue to love unconditionally.

    Life has value so love must always be earned by valuing life.

  • Random Angeleno

    The whole appreciation thing … back during my blue pill days, my father once made an offhand comment to me about the lack of appreciation he got from my mother. I didn’t think much about it at the time, shame on me! But then came the ex who carried her own lack of appreciation like a bright Olympic torch. Of course that happened long before the manosphere came by to teach me why women are like that.

    It is possible to move on in happy or at least contented ways after taking the red pill: what is required is you drop your baggage and lose your outcome dependency. Give a girl you like your best shot and if it’s not good enough, that’s about her, not about you so don’t take it personally.

  • Nick

    I went to a wedding last weekend and after having taken the red pill last year, saw it from a totally different perspective. The groom is slightly younger and higher SMV than the bride, so I don’t think he’ll have problems with hypergamy, but I was taken aback at how two people can make such a serious, lifelong commitment to one another (maybe 60+ years) without a clue that the idealized love that they have for one another not only is very different for a man than a woman, but it doesn’t exist. Biological realities rule the day. Most men have no clue about this. For me it’s a miracle divorce rates aren’t higher. Hypergamy doesn’t care about loyalty, commitment, sacrifice, “unconditional love”, vows…

    If I get married I plan to do some deep soul searching and preparation beforehand. “Leaving behind that polyanna, expectant, blue-pill dream seems like killing an old friend, but unlearning that old paradigm allows you to benefit from a far more hopeful red pill existence.” It’s definitely a bitter pill to swallow, but I’m thankful I’m learning this lesson now and now when I’m trapped in a marriage where I’m constantly qualifying myself like the sad soul you gave as an example.

  • N-9

    Seems like forcing yourself to love an ugly chick is the only way to get your mind in the right frame or pick up chicks for lifr or just go your own way.

  • Emma the Emo

    I talked about this with my man when we were just starting the relationship, and I couldn’t figure out why he’d like unconditional love and talk as if it’s possible or a good thing. I mean, if someone starts beating you every day, why go on loving? They could also go insane and change forever dramatically. But then he explained to me that once you pick a good partner and develop a loving relationship, love is nearly unconditional. So technically it is conditional, but because you picked well, it appears unconditional in practice.

  • Rock Throwing Peasant

    This is a bookmark-worthy post for Red Pill annals.

  • Rock Throwing Peasant

    Reading the posts, we should remember that when the Bible commands man to love his wife, the word is from agape (sacrificial, godly love that Christ loved the church with) and not eros (romantic love). It really even appears that God didn’t command our vision of romantic love. Rather the love a leader shows toward his tribe.

  • Carousel Commander

    Betas of the month

  • Jacquie

    @Rock Throwing Peasant
    You make a good point, the love of a man, like the love of Christ is given in spite of knowing that love will not be returned in kind and aware that a woman (or the church) is incapable of such. Recognition of this and choosing to give anyway is the sacrificial love that Christ gives, and that man imitates. The problem today, as has been pointed out, is that the current culture teaches something contrary. When the illusion, or lie, is revealed it stirs anger, and rightly so.
    But it leads me to ask a question-should the anger be directed toward the lie instead? Not making excuses for the poor behavior of women, just curious that when this truth is realized, it means that a man then sees the limitations of a woman and sets up his life to account for this fact.Was this knowledge something that was passed on from men to boys through the generations? Was it something understood among men but lost over the past 50-60 years or a little longer while femininsm and government covered it over? That the government changing the laws thorugh recent years limits a man’s leverage to compensate for what was once considered common knowledge about women and that is why men now need to find alternative ways of working around it since the risk to them is greater? Beginning to go back to a lot of old writings, I am seeing that this nature of women seems to come up quite often as a common fact of life.

  • gregg

    I do no think that this one is about “unconditional love”. It is about biology.
    Man is but a tool for woman and tool has value only if and as long as it serves to its owner. Men can fall out of “love” from their wives but they still feel the responsibility, they still want to provide and protect they still feel an obligation to her. They let her to have all their assets, children, car, house and start again with nothing but themselves. And they feel good about themselves cos this is ..you know..”manly”. It is “manly” to sacrifice yourself for your wife and children. Their wives have value for them even after they fell out of “love”. Not as the object of love but as a partner, human being, someone the man feel responsibility to and tries to provide for. Men are simply made that way to facilitate procreation and to protect the main vehicle of this imperative – woman.

    However, if woman fells out of love, man has no value at all. He is just disposable trash and she will not bother if he dies. Unless she could exploit him the other way – status, money, etc. Her mission is CHILDREN and HER, not man. Man has NO VALUE as a human being, he is but a tool. THIS IS THE DIFFERENCE and this is the harsh, cold truth I am not sure I even want young men to know. It might be too much. Women simply do not have protective instincts towards men, they have them towards children. Man has value for woman only as long as he is exploitable – one or the other way. It is rooted in DNA so any issues about upbringing, daddies, etc, are irrelevant. Man stands ALONE – if he is succesful women will go along and exploit him but if his ship sinks women and children abandon his ship. He goes down with it.

  • JS

    I think love is possible, there are couples who remain married for 60 years and still love each other. But you have to have the right kind of society that can produce that. One with intense stigmas attached to cheating and divorce and being a shrew or a cad. It has to teach children from a young age how to be good wives/mothers and husbands/fathers. Our “you go girl!” society is toxic. Making ones own self and happiness our highest goals is toxic to lasting marriages. Imagine a society which has producing the type of people who can sustain a good and lasting marriage as its highest goal rather ours where self-actualization is all that matters. We have to raise girls how to be the type of woman that is pleasing to men; an idea which is enemy number 1 to feminists. And we have to teach men how to be the type of man that can sustain a woman’s attraction and respect, an area where “game” has not cared to look. My suspicion is that we ultimately end up back with an 19th century idea of relationships. Strict rules of engagement between the sexes is the norm for all of human history and for good reason. Either that or society collapses

  • Mark Minter

    When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    Girls, it’s definitely on now. Mark my word.

    I am motherfucking Spartacus and this slave is definitely, now, in revolt.

  • Cream

    We are being a bit hypocritical, of course women’s love is conditional. But so is men’s. If your girlfriend gets Jabba the Hutt fat, would you not leave her?

  • HolySwordFarewell

    This is a good summation of most guys ‘waking’ up: guy loves girl, girl leaves/acts like a bitch, guy is smart enough to ask what happened.

    I wonder are there ANY guys out there who wake up who were NOT either the victim of ‘love’, or saw it played it through one of their friends?

  • Peregrine John

    Stingray, I’ve no idea if the idea of being a place of rest, a home, is somehow repugnant, but I do know that if the ineffably feminine power of it was understood, it would be widely adopted as not just idea but ideal. The trouble seems to be, as Rollo put it, “There is no rest, there is no respite or reprieve from performing” because, as I mentioned, to even show the desire to let down the guard is to lose respect, and without the respect the openness closes and she looks to move on. Could it be that she doesn’t know what she really wants? That modern social reprogramming prevents her enjoying her rightful place as the one person in whom he trusts most? (This existed up until recently, as JS pointed out, and even biblically – see also Song of Songs, not yet mentioned in this thread.) Practically speaking, all that matters is that (for example) working through problems by even discussing them with the person you supposedly are closest to can seriously damage that closeness. Whatever the cause, that’s a hell of a problem.

    Contrary to the MGTOW crew’s strident claims (evidence of some going on in earlier comments), that trust is actually the way it’s supposed to be. And yes, this aspect of it is distinctly feminine, though we of course have an equally masculine man-to-man form of it – but it is different. Look closely at societies where happy couples are most common (casual observation will not show this; you have to get close to the society to see it clearly, so let’s keep Well Nuh Uh! voice-of-inexperience responses out of it, ok?): Yes, he’s got that nice, manly, hard outer facing, and deep, true relationships with his fellow men, all of which we do very well to develop ourselves; but he also can relax with his woman in ways that you and I, boys, simply cannot without risking all. That love is conditional does not preclude it having the benefits that define it in the first place.

    Stingray also brought to mind something I’ve often said: Love is, primarily, a verb. The cherubim in the book, A Wind in the Door, expressed confusion that love should be a feeling at all, and while that’s a bit hyperbolic in the service of a novel, it’s something to consider. We should maybe be either less surprised that we don’t automatically know what the other sex truly wants, or more pissed off at the Creator for screwing up so badly on this point. Either way, it’s what we do that matters. Once you know what the other needs, it is your choice to do what is right or to go with the whimsical vacillations of your feelings. That said, it seems kind of unfair to demand of the other, Never Relax.

  • xsplat

    ” Strict rules of engagement between the sexes is the norm for all of human history and for good reason. Either that or society collapses”

    This is a very popular sentiment on manosphere blogs. It has such a righteous feeling of moral vindication, that it just MUST be true.

    But whenever I’ve asked the speakers of this intuition what, EXACTLY, they mean by “society collapses”, all I hear is the sound of crickets. And I’ve asked at least 20 times by now.

    Are people going to stop producing Ipads? Will Egg Mcmuffins no longer be available? What EXACTLY does collapse mean?

    I get the theory that men who are not incentivized to produce for a family are have less incentive to be productive. But they still need to eat. Ok, so we might move to become as lazy as say the Spanish, or the Greeks. Is that your idea of collapse?

    Sometimes the argument is that since we are taking on traits shared with some African cultures, that our society will mirror that of darkest Africa. Neglecting the fact that we are not of the same gene pool.

    So I call shenanigans. This is some some emotional scaremongering to try to whip the womens in shape. Like threatening with a life of cats if they don’t marry young. Bullshit. Women are having no trouble fucking around until they chose to marry. There are no real consequence to them for that choice, as much as men WANT there to be consequences. And society is not going to “collapse”, as much as men WANT that retributive justice.

    A mild economic slowdown does not equate a Mad Max scenario where the people are on permanent strike and the shops are empty of consumables.

  • Rock Throwing Peasant

    This may double post. Some login issues when I submitted the post.
    We should maybe be either less surprised that we don’t automatically know what the other sex truly wants, or more pissed off at the Creator for screwing up so badly on this point.

    Why?

    I think, if there’s a root to the problem on earth, it was when romantic love became the default definition of marital love. I’ve given this topic a lot of thought and finished a book on Christians reconciling game with their faith. If God only envisioned marriage for strictly patriarchal purposes (that is, your job is strictly to shepherd a woman and children) and made no promises of “happily ever after” marriages, then the fault is with mankind because we convoluted the different types of love.

    I understand the frustration, because I experienced it. However, when I stripped away my pre-conceptions of what I thought God told us about husbands and wives and really looked at it – He has practically kicked us in the head with Red Pill wisdom. The Hebrew text in Genesis uses same words for Cain’s burden as Eve’s. Sin would be Cain’s master and mastery of Adam would be Eve’s passion, so God reiterated that Adam would rule over her post-Fall.

    From my book (“Red Pill Reformation”):
    John MacArthur notes the term, “desire,” comes from the Hebrew t?shûqâ which is closer to meaning “master.” He cites a later passage about Cain, “Sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must control it.” (Gen 4:7) Sin wanted to control (master) Cain, but [he] must control it. The Hebrew word is the same. Looking back at Eve’s punishment, MacArthur states, “the curse of Eve was that woman’s desire would henceforth be to usurp the place of man’s headship and that he would resist that desire and would rule over her…Women have a sinful inclination to usurp a man’s authority and men have a sinful inclination to put women under their feet.”

    I think we (editorial “we”) need to be less upset that God didn’t give us what the world taught us to desire and, instead, laid out the psychology of man and woman fairly explicitly.

    [You got an e-book of this I could review?]

  • Rock Throwing Peasant

    Are people going to stop producing Ipads? Will Egg Mcmuffins no longer be available? What EXACTLY does collapse mean?

    That’s a fairly shallow view of society.

    You want to know what happens? Cuz, go into the ghetto and sow the fruits. That is what is in store when it hits the fan, on a larger scale.

  • xsplat

    I agree with what some commentors have said: men are biologically hard wired to be duped by women. We are naturally saps, all of us.

    But here is something I believe is missing in the discussion. The educated man of the world can gain hand over women, and play them to his advantage. He gets far more hand over them than women have ever had over men. T

    The man who is expert at creating, building, and maintaining attraction can make a love slave out of his women, and can enjoy deep affection.

    It’s not a problem that women are as they are. It’s an opportunity.

    I’m a businessman, and very often I will run up against nearly insurmountable obstacles. Every single time this has happened, it has wound up in the long run being a doorway to a greater opportunity. Necessity is the mother of invention. Always, without fail, there was some bigger picture opportunity beckoning me, but I never would have listened if not for necessity.

    The love of women is like that. This is not a failure of love. This is an opportunity to restructure love to your advantage. To rework your own expectations and to rework your ability in manipulating the woman.

    For those guys who complain that they don’t have the energy for such a full time job, well, go cry in your pillow then. Or go lay in the fetal position and drip morphine into your veins so that you can die peacefully. Give up. Whatever. Just don’t whine about it. No one needs to hear you whine about the weather.

    And for the guys who complain endlessly that society is now fucked up. Ok, already. It is. Fine. Get over it already! You think your complaining about the weather is some form of activism? It’s just a pass time of venting that evades dealing with things as they are now, and using this seeming obstacle as a doorway to greater profit.

    Fulfilling romance with the opposite sex can be very easy, and all the skills necessary to have it can be permanently internalized such that they are not only effortless, but unstoppable.

    Such skills are won as a slow process of natural manly maturation, and come from dating. They come from age, keeping your heart open, and being social.

    Don’t give up. It’s a workable, good situation, full of opportunity.

  • xsplat

    “You want to know what happens? Cuz, go into the ghetto and sow the fruits.”

    I want to know what happens to WHITE society. Show me a WHITE example.

  • Joe Blow

    Kipling talked about having a smoke and cheery chat with his male friends, one-itis, and about the shit test imposed by a fiance. He wasn’t really talking about Cohibas in this poem.

    The Betrothed
    Rudyard Kipling

    “You must choose between me and your cigar.”
    – Breach of Promise Case, circa 1885.

    Open the old cigar-box, get me a Cuba stout,
    For things are running crossways, and Maggie and I are out.

    We quarrelled about Havanas – we fought o’er a good cheroot,
    And I knew she is exacting, and she says I am a brute.

    Open the old cigar-box – let me consider a space;
    In the soft blue veil of the vapour musing on Maggie’s face.

    Maggie is pretty to look at – Maggie’s a loving lass,
    But the prettiest cheeks must wrinkle, the truest of loves must pass.

    There’s peace in a Larranaga, there’s calm in a Henry Clay;
    But the best cigar in an hour is finished and thrown away –

    Thrown away for another as perfect and ripe and brown –
    But I could not throw away Maggie for fear o’ the talk o’ the town!

    Maggie, my wife at fifty – grey and dour and old –
    With never another Maggie to purchase for love or gold!

    And the light of Days that have Been the dark of the Days that Are,
    And Love’s torch stinking and stale, like the butt of a dead cigar –

    The butt of a dead cigar you are bound to keep in your pocket –
    With never a new one to light tho’ it’s charred and black to the socket!

    Open the old cigar-box – let me consider a while.
    Here is a mild Manila – there is a wifely smile.

    Which is the better portion – bondage bought with a ring,
    Or a harem of dusky beauties, fifty tied in a string?

    Counsellors cunning and silent – comforters true and tried,
    And never a one of the fifty to sneer at a rival bride?

    Thought in the early morning, solace in time of woes,
    Peace in the hush of the twilight, balm ere my eyelids close,

    This will the fifty give me, asking nought in return,
    With only a Suttee’s passion – to do their duty and burn.

    This will the fifty give me. When they are spent and dead,
    Five times other fifties shall be my servants instead.

    The furrows of far-off Java, the isles of the Spanish Main,
    When they hear my harem is empty will send me my brides again.

    I will take no heed to their raiment, nor food for their mouths withal,
    So long as the gulls are nesting, so long as the showers fall.

    I will scent ‘em with best vanilla, with tea will I temper their hides,
    And the Moor and the Mormon shall envy who read of the tale of my brides.

    For Maggie has written a letter to give me my choice between
    The wee little whimpering Love and the great god Nick o’ Teen.

    And I have been servant of Love for barely a twelvemonth clear,
    But I have been Priest of Cabanas a matter of seven year;

    And the gloom of my bachelor days is flecked with the cheery light
    Of stumps that I burned to Friendship and Pleasure and Work and Fight.

    And I turn my eyes to the future that Maggie and I must prove,
    But the only light on the marshes is the Will-o’-the-Wisp of Love.

    Will it see me safe through my journey or leave me bogged in the mire?
    Since a puff of tobacco can cloud it, shall I follow the fitful fire?

    Open the old cigar-box – let me consider anew –
    Old friends, and who is Maggie that I should abandon you?

    A million surplus Maggies are willing to bear the yoke;
    And a woman is only a woman, but a good Cigar is a Smoke.

    Light me another Cuba – I hold to my first-sworn vows.
    If Maggie will have no rival, I’ll have no Maggie for Spouse!

  • The Dude

    I often think for many people…loving themselves is harder than finding someone to love us. Some people will also accuse you of being selfish, self-centered, and narcissistic.

    Love yourself anyway…it will make life a hell of a lot easier.

  • JS

    True, by collapse I didn’t mean total Mad Max. But a number of socially destructive trends such as failure of replacement level birthrate for the best and brightest, high birthrates for the worst. Children raised by single mothers and the resulting behavioral problems of the children: lack of ambition and discipline, lots of thuggish males on the prowl with no socially redeeming attributes, teen mothers. Historically you would also end up with massive numbers of homeless street children, but abortion cuts down on that in the west.

  • Rock Throwing Peasant

    I am editing the book at the moment. A week or so.

    It provides an intro to Red Pill, outlines principles of game without being a “how to” (I refer the reader to subject matter experts), and then dives into applying what Christians can take from game. I lay out building blocks for guys to use and a 30 day plan to get started.

    You can send a contact email to the yahoo account. It’s a junk internet account I use for all registrations and online accounts.

  • xsplat

    Thanks for the honest re-evaluation of “collapse”. Such a collapse seems quite sustainable to me. Sounds like the Philippines, where the higher classes are genetically and physically isolated from the destitute hordes. A big change, yes, but one that doesn’t automatically lead to a revolution or a swinging of the pendulum back to another direction.

    But what these future predictions miss is technology. Where we are today is the result of technology. Future technological changes will change what options we have for our future. How far off do you think biotech is from altering society? What will happen when making designer babies is cheap and readily available?

    People are looking at out boat, seeing where it’s headed, and forecasting our future position. But it doesn’t work like that. As our technology changes so does the speed of our boat, the shape of our boat, the drugs the people on the boat use, the internet connection on the boat, the wireless brain implanted internets that get implanted into the babies on the boat, and the rockets launched from the boat. We have no idea about the future because we don’t know about technology, but just taking into account the technologies that exist as of today that we can expect to be commercially available in our lifetime, we can expect massive cultural and social and even genetic changes to what it means to be human.

    You know, it’s not really an argument about the future. Admit it – it’s an argument that if your personal sexual strategy isn’t favored by most people that there will be doom. It’s a hard wired emotional response that you are giving voice to, not an actual prediction. It’s hard wired because for thousands and thousands of years the guys who banded together to enforce strict social monogamy were rewarded with a private pussy. You are speaking from your biology, not from your rational understanding of what we can expect in the future.

    But you are wrong in your predictions – certainly wrong – if you can’t even take into count the variables of changing technology.

  • gregg

    h@xsplat

    “The love of women is like that. This is not a failure of love. This is an opportunity to restructure love to your advantage. To rework your own expectations and to rework your ability in manipulating the woman.”

    Agreed. Now we have the chance to see the truth. Use women for what they can be used, given their biology. Now we can live on our terms determined by clarity and knowledge. This freedom shows our true colors my friends :)

  • Peregrine John

    I think, if there’s a root to the problem on earth, it was when romantic love became the default definition of marital love.
    Well, yes. Note that my suggestion was in reference to the differences, and that we should be unsurprised that they exist or irritated at the design of the whole thing. Yes, we’ve been given extensive Red Pill wisdom, far far more than usually credited, in what one would reasonably call an instruction manual for humans, and I personally prefer the less-surprised reaction to the annoyed reaction. I just find His sense of humor a little trying sometimes.

    And xsplat, I generally love your stuff, man, but you’re missing what my complaint really is: Either love between the sexes has no useful definition, or its execution is currently crap, and demonstrably doesn’t need to be. We’re not talking about a collapse into permanently linguine-spined emo boy betatude. We’re talking about allowing evidence of flawed humanity, the occasional admission of uncertainty. Supposedly they dig that stuff. I’ll admit that it can definitely work when it comes from a position of alpha strength, and well it should. But all too often Athol’s alpha/beta mix gets shat on by the very women who claim to want it. The end result is wearing a mask when any non-neurotic definition of love would call that a near-lie. Having to escape in order to exhale once in a while gets bloody tiring.

  • LC

    I broke my neck, and my husband made it abundantly clear that didn’t want me anymore. So I got a job when I was well enough to work, and I left. I took none of his money, alimony, car, house, retirement–absolutely nothing. And that’s because I loved him unconditionally and wanted him to be happy.

  • xsplat

    I’ll have to take a re-read Peregrine John, but please speak a bit more about social collapse and how that relates to women not being capable of nurturing men when we are weak.

    I hear your complaint. I also used to look to my main companion for solace for my troubles. Over time, slowly I’ve learned to keep such things to myself. I understand that’s not ideal. Guys would prefer emotional support – especially as we don’t talk about feelings with other men. So who else can we turn to?

    The answer, unfortunately, is no one. We really have to stand on our own in some areas. If you know of a different solution, I’d like to hear it. I don’t think it’s reasonable to have unreasonable expectations, and our community of experience shows us that women are not useful for solace.

  • xsplat

    I think it was Rob from the No-mam blog who said that women are to men as children are to women. Can you imagine a mother expecting emotional support from her child? That would be an insane burden to put onto a child.

    We men do the same with our women. They are not capable of empathizing with our concerns, in the same way a child is not. And worse, they lose attraction when we try to share the weight of our burdens with them.

    We were led very far astray to ever view them as “partners”, and feminism has ruined our internal programming by trying to have us consider them our equals.

    They are our chattel, and our responsibility. They are not our partners.

  • Peregrine John

    Speak more? Haven’t mentioned it at all, myself, except for delineating between a personal (and pathetic) emotional collapse and simply admitting flawed humanity. I don’t know much about social collapse, but if there is one I doubt it’ll be from something as subtle as this particular topic, and it’d probably be more of a cultural meltdown caused by financial collapse and its attendant troubles. That’s way the heck beyond my knowledge, but has been explored a fair bit on page and screen. No idea what it’d look like in reality, though I’ve been slowly reducing reliance on the rest of the world, just in case.

    As to your observations, I do know that I should go more the direction of working through things with fellow men. There are a few in whom I’d rely unreservedly – they’re just not always handy. Yeah, I can come off as whiny about this, and really, I’m sorry to do so. It’s just really fucking disappointing to have to keep a mental list of topics a given person can’t handle when you were taught that the person wouldn’t need one. Should have known, when as a teen I had to start one for Mom, that there would be no exceptions.

  • Stingray

    I’ve no idea if the idea of being a place of rest, a home, is somehow repugnant, but I do know that if the ineffably feminine power of it was understood, it would be widely adopted as not just idea but ideal.

    To many women, the idea of it is repugnant, unfortunately. At one time the feminine power of providing this was a thing of pride for many women. It no longer is. The power of the feminine is not overt enough for women any more because they seek the overt power of the masculine. They’ve got it now and will not give it up without a fight. The feminine power doesn’t want to be understood by women as it requires a letting go. In some ways, this is more difficult that grasping at the masculine.

    Could it be that she doesn’t know what she really wants? That modern social reprogramming prevents her enjoying her rightful place as the one person in whom he trusts most?

    Yes. Absolutely. The happiest women I have met are the ones who try their best to provide a happy, comfortable environment for their men. A place that is their refuge. It can’t always be a refuge as he still must be King, but she is his Queen and must try her best to make it as comfortable as possible as often as possible. He must absolutely be able to completely let go from time to time and she should respect him for doing so. He can’t be the King without some respite. (It’s good to be the King!) She also can’t be his Queen without providing this for him and providing him with the trust that is required, as you said. I find it terribly sad that women think this is something beneath them and to be frowned upon.

  • Stingray

    Peregrine John,

    I have a response to you in moderation. I need to stop linking too many times in one comment! Rollo, mind taking it out? Thanks.

  • xsplat

    My Dad had a rough patch where he was in extremely dire financial shape. After working hard and getting himself back on his feet, he made some rash investment decisions and wound up in an even deeper hole.

    His new common law wife complained to me that she wished he’d share his burden with her more. That he was too stoic and independent.

    I didn’t understand why he was that way at the time. I was a sensitive new age guy, and agreed with her.

    Now I see he knew his business. As difficult as that must have been for him, he kept his own counsel and bore his own burdens.

  • dean

    Regarding the political situation – that is subject which is overlooked when addressing the SMP. Today’s welfare-regulatory state radically effects the SMP. Abolish the welfare state, the preventative law agencies, the central bank, eliminate all regulatory interventionism (ie Title 9), and most importantly eliminate public schools and you have a RADICALLY different world; ie a world which demands self-responsibility.

    The Progressives destroyed self-responsibility and a long-term time horizon. They made basically the entire Western citizenry INVALIDS. This goes double for women. Today’s Western women are irresponsible sluts who have been given an entitlement mindset by the Left and complicit Conservatives.

    But…

    Even if we lived in truly free society where parasitism was banned, I wonder if human sexuality would undergo a radical transformation anyway. Some laissez-faire society would produce such wealth that it would make ours look stone age. What would be the incentive to marry then? Not for survival – that society would be so rich that survival wouldn’t be a concern. No security – that society would be secure. My thinking is that long term pair bonds may not be the future of humanity. Barring genetic engineering (and then all bets are off b/c who knows what we will look and act like) it seems like with increasing wealth comes increasing hypergamy and shorter time periods for relationships. This would require everyone but most importantly MEN to adapt an entirely new psychology. Long term romantic love may become obsolete replace by shorter term emotionally intense relations, with humans cycling through many of them in a lifetime.

    And what of children and families? Conservatism assumes that only the nuclear family can provide for the raising of children. But that assumes that the past will be the future which is wrong. Advanced capitalist economies would have whole industries dedicated to raising and educating children. The nuclear family may also become obsolete.

    We are living through a major cultural evolution. Sadly it is beta males that got the short end of the stick for the last 3 decades. But beta males are also going to be obsolete. Betas are men who don’t understand the psycho-sexual realities of the human race. In the future, every man will know this. There will be no more uninformed men. That too will change inter-gender dynamics.

    What a bunny-hole this is to go down.

  • Hero

    @xsplat

    I’m continually impressed with the depth of your comments. Thank you for contributing.

  • GeishaKate

    Well, call me odd, but I like to see the human side of a man. Otherwise you’re just dealing with some sort of gamebot. Seeing it from an alpha is the biggest compliment a woman will ever get. Seeing it too much, or all the time (especially after marriage), is the error of the beta.

    I wonder if this selfless love we are talking about really cuts across gender lines or if it depends on individuals or who views whom as more dependent in the relationship.

  • FuriousFerret

    ‘Well, call me odd, but I like to see the human side of a man. ‘

    I think that’s the whole point here. We’ve all been taught of a bunch of PC garbage that we have interalized and when women see this blue pill human side, we’re fucked.

    The hotter the woman the less tolerance she has for beta behavior. How many guys fit the bill in terms of their human side to satisfy this criteria? Answer: The naturals, who is what women desire in the first place.

    The issues here is that I think that blue pill beta behavior is unnatural. The way a guy should be raised and act should be along masculine lines and by ‘faking until you make it’, you eventually become who you should have been all along. I think the faking part is simply a ‘trying’ part. It’s attempting to become who you really are.

  • YOHAMI

    Just chiming in to say emotions have nothing to do with beta behavior.

  • King A (Matthew King)

    Such cynicism from The Divorce Generation. I’m sad so many of you have no frame of reference for unconditional love.

    Unconditional love is everywhere, all around us. Someone might have mentioned it above, it is called agape (sacrifice), as distinct from eros (longing). In the Latin it is translated caritas, which is the base for our word “charity.” Our understanding of “charity” is even more debased than our understanding of eros.

    Caritas means sacrificing on behalf of someone with no possibility of repayment. Note the distinct one-way quality of that definition. Note further that it requires a deed, not a sensation.

    The “love” you know by the name is transactional — quid pro quo — something for something. You are noxiously focused on what you get out of the contractual bargain, like whores negotiating payment. That contradicts the heart of the term, true love, the actual thing that sets our hearts racing, that makes us melt in ineffable gratitude, that we can never properly repay (which is the point of it).

    Think of O. Henry’s “Gift of the Magi.” I dare you to deconstruct it. Show me how you vivisect that understanding of love we all have deep in our bones, go on and dismember it, then cobble it back together to fit your orgiastic zombie market of self-interested succubi and incubi forever clawing at each other for marginal advantages.

    Love is water. The more you grasp at it, the more it slips from your fist. Love can only be experienced “on the fly.” As you receive it, you give it away, and only by giving it away, in the very action of transmitting it, can you retain it. Your definitions imply the necessity of taking taking taking. But taking it and desiring it and hoarding it perversely diminishes it, reducing the capacity of your soul. And worse, you assume this stronger tendency in women comprises her inescapable destiny. So you have devised a special term, “hypergamy,” into which you pour all of your small-souled bitterness.

    Bunk. We are all alive because of unconditional love. I am sorry that your parents who sacrificed to co-create you didn’t in some cases continue in that selfless act (born mostly by your moms). It also seems likely that some of you had ghetto fathers who squirted and split. But there is no reason for cynicism from those of us who had a mother and father.

    Remove yourself from the calculation, contradictory though that may seem to the demonically self-regarding. Only then can you truly solve for the equation. Until then you will be on an eternal feedback loop, approaching nil. Sad to see it overloading so many circuits here.

    Matt

  • Simon Corso

    GK,

    I would say that “being human” is about the worst mistake a man can make with a woman he wants to continue seeing. The only practical application for it is to get rid of a woman who has become too clingy.

    Seems to me, love can be turned off or on by most women with little more effort than it takes to flip a light switch. I bet most guys here would concur. We’ve all known a woman who seemed to be completely committed and devoted to us. She asked us to open up and we did, We showed her our weakness or vulnerability. A week later she’s riding some other guy and couldn’t be bothered to remember our name.

    Shit test : failed.
    Lesson: learned.

    So many paradoxes in feminine nature, so little time to explain them to women.

  • The MacNut

    Some would say marriage us already becoming obsolete. A growing number of both men and women are postponing marriage longer and later in life, and then deciding they just don’t want to be bothered, especially men. Especially men who’ve been through one nasty divorce already or who have seen male friends and family go through one.

  • D-Man

    Can you imagine a mother expecting emotional support from her child? That would be an insane burden to put onto a child.

    But they do, all too often. Especially single mothers. It leads to a whole set of problems for the male child, not the least of which is a susceptibility later in life to take on the Codependent role with a Cluster B type.

  • Love after the red pill « Random Xpat Rantings

    [...] Men are biologically hard wired to be duped by women. We are naturally saps, all of us. Love leads us into slavery to women, who don’t love as we expect them to. [...]

  • nek

    “Well, call me odd, but I like to see the human side of a man”

    Makes sense, but here’s the problem. LIKE and ATTRACTION/AROUSAL are two different things. Women do like to see the human side of a man from a comfort standpoint, but it definitely decreases the arousal aspect of a relationship. The best relationships, or the ones where they last the longest and seem the happiest in my experience, are ones where the sexual attraction and arousal are still present. The words “like” and “attraction” are mixed up too much in these discussions. Women like the human side of a man, they like nice, but they also like kids, dogs, soft pillows, and clouds in the sky that look like farm animals. They aren’t [sexually] ATTRACTED to these things. That’s the difference. Sexual attraction/arousal, whether you like it or not, is the basis of the male/female relationship and it’s the glue that holds it together. It’s biology, no amount of idealism will overcome that. If it diminishes, so does the relationship (this is of course assuming other options are available to the people in the relationship).

  • blackbird.young

    There is so much excellence in this and the previous post. I feel like maybe some readers of this blog are synching up with each other as we follow this quest toward a comfortability with the paradoxes of our situations, idealizations, observations, and experiences, etc..

    Thank you all for putting into words what’s been on my mind lately. Experience continues to prove all of this to be true.

    I’m wondering though, if in reading about this ( – what you put in is what comes out – ), we’re simply reinforcing the obvious.

    I want to know how to appreciate things like I did when I was innocent. The love I felt for girls I didn’t even fuck was a greater feeling than the depression I feel when girls I do love say they love me and I know it to be a temporary illusion to rationalize their expressing of their womanhood (i.e., being facefucked).

    That’s not exactly, at all, what I really mean to say. But it just came out. Just recently a girl found out I may have slept with 7 other people during our on-off relationship. She is convinced of at least 5. It’s partially or for the most part true.

    It’s made her love me even more. Perceived value matters so much. One must create some ambition to give oneself an edge over the others.

    One thing I find disconcerting is that however Love is, it still remains that we fall in love with a girl, and may fall in love with one more than another, and usually that one is who hurts us the most.

    I feel almost like I should find a girl who will fall in love with me, that I could care less if she fucks another dude, and stick with her. Because if I fall in love with a girl, and things go wrong, I end up hurting, she ends up moving on. Though, they never move on, because they always come back. Problem is, I believe for some of us, the emotions always remain, in some form. They may arise or be aroused very easily. And that’s a painful process.

    Why is it that as being human we must learn to endure pain, or find a way to be ok with constant suffering?

    No longer medieval, we don’t necessarily end up in shackles (for the most part, though some of us have experienced that), however we become bound to what emotions we have time enough to consider thoroughly.

    I have tried to write a few responses to these articles, so I’ll just stop doing that and press enter on this one.

  • blackbird.young

    @ nek and everyone else, great stuff. Thanks Rollo for this place. And good luck with the book if you decide to go through with it.

    Are you Christian Rollo?

  • GeishaKate

    @Simon/nek: I get that. If you get into a relationship, you’re going to lose some of that intitial attraction caused by mystery, but, as you get to know the person, there is a positive trade-off. You start bringing out the best in each other, encouraging the other in their goals, sharing experiences together. With the guy who’ll never show you his human side, you never get to enjoy those things. You might be a “couple,” but you’re not really united.

  • Nek

    GeishaKate,

    First of all, I’d like to preface the point I want to make with the following: I’m not trying to be hostile/combative or disagreeable just to be disagreeable. Understand that the medium we are communicating through doesn’t allow for the expression of body language and tone. Because of this understand those two very crucial aspects of our communication are missing. So if what I’m about to say comes off hostile/combative/angered, it’s not, and i’m simply not able to convey that to you as I can’t convey tone via internet comment section.

    Now to my point:

    I’ve read your comments, you make many VERY good comments, and you make an honest effort. When I read the comments of females, I read them carefully and in all honesty, put them under a little more scrutiny as I understand that ultimately, they are female and that is the perspective they come from. As a result, the commentary from females at times start to slip back into fem-centrism, even from normally very rational, logical female commentators (see the slope the Hooking Up Smart lady went down). In your above comment, this has happened. This statement: “You start bringing out the best in each other, encouraging the other in their goals, sharing experiences together.” exemplifies this. It’s an example of how women THINK they are, as opposed to how they ACTUALLY are. The language of this sentence implies a sense of mutual partnership, when in reality it doesn’t work like that, nor do women really want that. Proof is in the studies (see heartiste) showing how the productivity of many an ingenious man declines upon marriage.

    In reality, I think gregg has it right about man being a tool for women. Also, someone mentioned the following hierarchy and how support goes from left to right: Men—>Women—–>Children. Simply put, the capacity for women to be supportive of a man isn’t on the same level as a man being supportive to a woman (same goes with children and there parents). I can find anecdotal evidence at times to the contrary, but in the vast majority of the time, this is not true, and nature designed it that way. Possibility isn’t what’s important, probability is. It’s POSSIBLE that a plane will land on my car while driving to work. It ain’t PROBABLE, hence why I feel safe driving to work.

    I’m not trying to come down on you, but I was hoping to shed light on the fact that your nature still guides you more than you think, and that recognition of these instances where it pops up will provide you with an opportunity for deeper understanding of where men are coming from and even of yourself. Keep learning, keep contributing.

    The hair looks nice too, although I think longer would be better.

  • Acksiom

    “I talked about this with my man when we were just starting the relationship, and I couldn’t figure out why he’d like unconditional love and talk as if it’s possible or a good thing.”

    Aha. Thank you for this. Now I understand better — it’s a terms error. “Unconditional” love is the wrong term. Men don’t want unconditional love.

    We just want LESS conditional love.

    Which ties into something I posted over as HUS a while back:

    “Women, if you want to attract us, you should keep in mind that even when we’re just dating you, we men still expect to step into the line of harm to protect you women from any dangers. That’s what we mean by devotion. That’s the degree and kind of commitment we’re expected to bring to the interaction by default. In the bacon and eggs of this, we’re the pigs and you’re the chickens.”

    This still holds true. And I suspect that’s one of the things driving men’s desire for “unconditional” love — reciprocation of that level of commitment.

    That’s about as “unconditional” a love as you’re going to find in this world — the willingness to fight, kill, and even die in someone else’s defense — and that’s why the idea that women are “incapable” of it seems true to some men. Most women not only aren’t willing to commit that much to their male partners, but are even repulsed and revolted by the idea that they should. Similarly, that’s why men feel that revealing their vulnerability to their partners would result in being rejected by them, because that’s the unspoken contract: he will put her well-being, safety, health and life first.

    LIkewise, it even parallels the proposition that children are to women as women are to men: women will indeed much more often fight, kill, and even die in defense of their kids.

    Thank you, Emma. That was just the trigger I needed for the insight. We’re using the wrong word. It’s not unconditional love that we want; it’s RECIPROCAL love — love that’s more comparable in its reduced conditionality to what men give and do for women and children by default.

  • GeishaKate

    Grrr. Insult my intelligence, but not my hair :) It *is* long. Its pulled up in this picture. And you can’t tell me I don’t have a positive influence on the men I’ve been involved with. The *proof* is in their accomplishments and that they often attribute them to me. I understand your disbelief as you don’t know me. But that ideal is possible.

  • b-166-er

    xsplat
    September 12th, 2012 at 12:45 pm
    ” Strict rules of engagement between the sexes is the norm for all of human history and for good reason. Either that or society collapses”

    This is a very popular sentiment on manosphere blogs. It has such a righteous feeling of moral vindication, that it just MUST be true.

    But whenever I’ve asked the speakers of this intuition what, EXACTLY, they mean by “society collapses”, all I hear is the sound of crickets. And I’ve asked at least 20 times by now.
    ————————————————————————————–

    Ask no more my son.

    Drive to the ghetto, park your car, and just sit there and spend a day watching the behavior of black people in the ghetto.

    BTW– I can say this because Im a black person in the ghetto.

  • b-166-er

    xsplat
    September 12th, 2012 at 1:12 pm
    “You want to know what happens? Cuz, go into the ghetto and sow the fruits.”

    I want to know what happens to WHITE society. Show me a WHITE example.
    ———————————————————-

    The ghetto IS the white example!

    You think black people want to be there?

    Its must be very interesting to be a white person; to believe your pale skin functions as some kind of magical “force field” that will prevent you from being mistreated.

    Ive mentioned this to Paul Elam and its the downfall of the MRM. Too many white guys think they have more in common with white women than with nonwhite men.

    It gets so confusing that sometimes I don’t know whos ass to kick (including my own)

  • Hero

    @Acksiom

    Your concept of reciprocal love makes sense and sheds light on this discussion. It supports Rollo’s assertion that women will never understand this dynamic. They will never understand the sacrifice that men are prepared to make on their behalf.

    And you note that men are willing to do this for children as well. Which brings light to the men > women > children arrangement. As though it is less about who controls whom but instead who protects whom.

    @GeishaKate

    I tend to side with you on how wonderful the support of a woman can make a man feel. I know that when my wife encourages me to pursue my passions and hobbies it makes it feel larger because it is as though she is fostering that passion and sharing it with me.

    Example: the other day we were driving on a newly paved section of road.
    Wife: Have you ridden this road on your motorcycle?
    Me: No.
    Wife: I bet you could really open it up.

    It felt as though she identified with my passion for motorcycling and my love new pavement (it’s oh so smooth). She put aside her own concern for my safety because she knows I like to ride fast and GAVE me her support.

    As a man, that giving of support can feel quite empowering.

  • xsplat

    b-166-er, it could be true that white society is heading in the same direction as black society, but using different groups is that we don’t know if we are talking about nature or nurture.

    Now I’ve met plenty of blacks that were better than me in all measurable ways. Smarter, more charismatic and socially skilled, harder working, more handsome, taller, more athletic. And I’ve met large groups of upper class blacks from when I used to vend at jazz festivals. The cream of that group can hold their own and sometimes do better on many metrics than the average white.

    But you are talking about getto blacks, and those are a group who have to deal with nature that affects their average IQ, which is much lower than that of whites. And their testosterone levels and who knows what else are different. So I don’t believe that it’s a fair comparison to say that whites are going to behave the same way.

    Did you know that high trust societies are that way not only because of nurture, but because of nature? Those Norther Europeans actually have a genetic predisposition to trust. Twin studies are showing us that an incredible amount of behaviour has genetic underpinnings.

    So if you want me to believe that the people that I grew up with in my all white Canadian suburb will eventually all act like low class getto blacks, then I’m sorry – it’s just silly. Not everything is nurture. Whites tend to be both less aggressive and smarter than that particular group of blacks.

  • b-166-er

    xsplat, Im not going to try to convince anybody of anything, especially a white person.

    But for anybody else interested; the only difference between “ghetto blacks” and black people like myself, is our utility to white people. Thats your black upper class, thats your black middle class, thats your PRESIDENT.

    There is the eqivalent of a racial “Brifaults law” (SP?) black people are subject to inwhich white people funnel defense and support to those nonwhite people who have utility to white supremacy.

    The main goal of white supremacy (post slavery) has always been to prevent dark skinned males from having utility. So what happens to us in a society that only values males for their utility?

    We end up in prison.

    Indeed, I suspect much of what black people think is racism, is really misandry that has been hijacked by racists in order to gain the support of people who are NOT male and NOT racist.

    The key thing to remember is the ghetto is not a place, its a person. I understand your necessity of denying this person could ever be you or your white friends…

    But once the men are gone, this “person” could be your children or grandchildren…

    The only difference between them and ghetto blacks will be the level of destruction generated by their nihilism.

    Because after all, they are smarter and all that.

  • Rock Throwing Peasant

    Rollo,
    I have finished the editing. If you’re interested in an e-copy, I can forward one tomorrow.

  • Dr. Jeremy

    Rollo,

    Excellent insight and start to the discussion. I wonder whether a different comparison might be made though. In my observation, the difference in love between romantic/blue-pill men and women is not “unconditional” versus “conditional” love, but the desire for validation versus the desire for actual concrete provisioning. All love is an exchange of something. Even romantic men want something – validation. They have simply been brainwashed that women are the only source of that validation, acceptance, and self-worth, while the rest of society vilifies, devalues, and marginalizes them. By winning a woman’s love then, men are graced with the only source of validation that they are told exists for them.

    So, the blue-pill man is not unconditional or romantic in his love, he is simply starving for the validation and acceptance that he feels can only come from a woman. It is this emotional dependence on female validation that is being confused for true unconditional love in men (both within the man himself and in the perceptions of others). Being held hostage emotionally and not being able to leave is not the same as unconditionally choosing to stay. In fact, such a dependent, vulnerable, and needy situation robs the man of any power or ability to “choose” at all. He simply must comply, obey, try to please, and hope for a morsel of validation from his “only” source of it.

    I support this notion from the observation that things change as men take the “red pill”. A big part of that transformation is for men to rely on themselves and other men for validation, esteem, and acceptance. They learn to take pride in themselves, throw off the social instructions devaluing them, and truly become empowered. When they make that transition, they are no longer needy, vulnerable, or dependent on women’s validation. Consequently, they don’t have feelings of one-itis, awe of women, or unconditional love and romance.

    In fact, one of the hallmarks I see of red-pill men, who choose to continue interaction with women, is the very conditional nature of their love. They are no longer dependent on women’s validations and are free to hold themselves as equals. They truly trade with women in relationships. They too begin to have standards, to qualify women, and to be choosy. Their love becomes associated with concrete and practical items too – e.g. how well she cooks, cleans, treats him, keeps her appearance, stays sexually faithful, etc. In essence, the love of a red-pill man is just as conditional as that of a woman, because he is empowered enough to make it so.

    This also answers the question as to why women request, then despise, romantic gestures. The request is a fitness test. Being romantic is an act of supplication and validation-seeking. It shows a woman that the man is under her control and requires her approval to feel good about himself. Truly, is the quintessential romantic notion of the man proposing on bended knee an exchange between equals?

    In short then, romance and unconditional love in men is a misnomer. Being held hostage emotionally is not unconditional. Once men find acceptance and validation in themselves, they become just as conditional. So, we are looking at brainwashing and male dis-empowerment, which causes their dependency on women…not their capacity for love. This is nothing new – the dependent partner in a relationship is always the less conditional one. They have no choice in the matter…

  • Ted D

    Dr. Jeremy – Thank you. Your post has given me the perspective to feel better about the fact that I am finding it difficult to see “love” as I did before. Feeling badly about the fact that I do see “love” as conditional now has been an ongoing thorn in my side, and I’ve been pushing back to my blue pill perspective because of that. I felt bad that I now have expectations for giving that love to a woman, despite knowing that it is exactly what should occur. Logically I’ve known it for some time now, but emotionally I felt like I was betraying myself and my ideals. I continue to be surprised just how deeply ingrained the blue pill mentality is. It is FAR more than how a man interacts with his SO/GF/wife. It really is an overall outlook and way of life.

    And just when I think I have a bead on what I need to change, I find that changing those things brings to light more things to change.

  • mikec74

    Dr. Jeremy,

    Awesome comment. I’ve been having difficulty really solidifying and articulating my thoughts after reading this post. After reading your comment, you nailed for me what I was really thinking and stated it exactly right. Unconditional versus conditional isn’t exactly right. I think you are right that for blue-pill men it is about validation and one-nitis. I think you are also right that for red-pill men “love” takes on more of the characteristics that women inherently have which is that the other person plays a certain role in your life and brings some tangible value (for women it might be status or provisioning or whatever). I know with my ex-wife I definitely “loved” her more from that perspective of one-nitis and getting validation from her. With my fiancee she brings certain measurable value to my life on a day to day basis. If ALL of that disappeared tomorrow, I’d probably react more like a woman when the things she “loves” a man for disappears. I’m pretty sure though she knows what my expectations are and it wouldn’t allow that to happen.

    It is FAR more than how a man interacts with his SO/GF/wife. It really is an overall outlook and way of life. And just when I think I have a bead on what I need to change, I find that changing those things brings to light more things to change.

    Ted D,

    FWIW, I think the “red-pill” is more a journey than a destination you arrive that. I think we are ALL ALWAYS WORKS IN PROGRESS. FWIW, I’ve been thinking about this hard the last several days, but I think as we men try to do the things that keep us from experiencing the sorts of things that happened with our first marriages, we have to be careful of people who possible cannot step inside our shoes, don’t want to understand, want to demonize, and articulate from a very clear agenda. At the end of the day, their agenda trumps any consideration of our lives and how they may turn out. Nobody cares more about Ted D than Ted D and nobody cares more about Mike C than Mike C. I believe there are people who would steer in the wrong direction even if it comes from a place of ignorance.

  • Dr. Jeremy

    @ Ted D and mikec74

    Thanks guys. I’m glad the comment resonated with you both.

    You guys are right. Taking the “red pill” goes way beyond interaction with women. In fact, although guys get into the manosphere primarily for help with women, it is really only a byproduct of the larger work. That larger work is self-empowerment, self-worth, and leadership development.

    Historically, men developed self worth from their character and position as leaders in society. They were warriors, chiefs…then mayors, scientists, and inventors. They felt good by defining themselves through thought, deed, and accomplishment. That is why there were often rights of passage, whereby men attained “manhood”, power, and leadership in a group.

    In our modern social “matrix”, however, men’s assertiveness, self-reliance, and leadership were threats to the social “equality” and “dependence” necessary for the prevailing “isms” and ideologies to function. So, much like the humans were used as batteries to run the move matrix – real men were “plugged in” to run our social matrix. Except, the real program that puts men to sleep strips them of their self-esteem, social worth, and status. Instead, they are de-valued socially and taught that they need the approval, validation, and acceptance of “the group” to feel okay about themselves. In other words, the social system teaches men to be emotionally-dependent on others (particularly women), as a means of keeping them under group control, powerless as individuals, and working hard for the benefit of others. Batteries, with low self-esteem…

    So, taking the “red pill” is really the process of freeing yourself from emotional dependency on the social matrix and no longer requiring validation and acceptance from others to function. It is a process of self-development and identity formation, where you feel “okay” as a man, without that outside validation. The ultimate goal then, is to once again be free to resume the independent masculine role of leadership. To “row your own boat”. The fact that women naturally respond to such self-assurance, leadership, and masculine power is an important benefit…but only a piece of the overall picture. Growing to reduce your overall emotional dependence and social dis-empowerment is the larger work.

  • Tam the Bam

    b-166-er on September 13th, 2012 at 10:54 am

    xsplat
    “I want to know what happens to WHITE society. Show me a WHITE example.”

    ———————————————————-

    The ghetto IS the white example!

    You think black people want to be there?

    Its must be very interesting to be a white person; to believe your pale skin functions as some kind of magical “force field” that will prevent you from being mistreated.”
    __________________________________

    xsplat, the increasingly decrepit and dysfunctional UK has examples on a par with any North American urban sinkhole. All it lacks are the sheer numbers, and the exceptional difficulty in accessing firearms, which places a premium on propensity for hand-to-hand combat among males. A ridiculously short fuse and a relish for blood is acclaimed.

    The authorities work on prohibiting “weapons” ceaselessly. In the worst areas, such as Scotland, even 14-y-o kids will be incarcerated for long stretches merely for possessing any object which could be interpreted by police as an edged weapon. Such as a boxcutter, or a screwdriver.
    The nightly carnage in the slums proceeds regardless.

    One town in Ireland is known as “Stab City”, and as for Glasgow .. well .. how many gangs would you like? These are the training grounds of Britain and Ireland’s crooks and terrorists.

    A comedy swipe at the lives of the increasingly feral British underclass (generally invisible to outsiders, until it’s too late ; those rich British people Americans see, on TV, or as visitors, really really don’t like to admit it even exists) might be the sitcom “Shameless”.
    Doesn’t really tackle the endemic violence. Because that’s not funny. Not funny at all.

    But all those rotting post-industrial and ex-mining towns, particularly in the north of England, are little more than festering prison camps for the poor, who respond accordingly, and as amorally as any black ghetto.
    God help us all if they ever get ahold of guns (c.f. Northern Ireland, 1969-1997).

    and yes, b-166-er, these are the whitest people on God’s earth.

    Like cave-fish. Even Germans and Scandinavians seem swarthy or sallow in comparison.
    And they’re absolute Scum! Ineducable, lazy as ticks and drunk 24/7, would slash you for a pack of cigarettes. Or more likely just for a laugh. Babyfathers, tattoed welfare queens, dealers, alpha thugs, carjackers, you name it we got it.
    Their great-grandpas were the salt of the earth. Literally, in the case of the accursed Pals’ Battalions and all the rest.

    What do people think all those uncountable thousands of CCTV cams are for? To check if it’s raining?

  • thwack

    Thanks for the info Tam the Bam, many people have never experienced a white ghetto.

    My question to you is in regard to the men. In the black ghettos of the U.S there are very few men. At first you don’t notice it because you see lots of males.

    But the men are absent.

    What do I mean by men?

    Watch the Movie Gran Torino. Its the perfect “white example” for xsplat.

    Compare Clint Eastwood to the rest of the white males in the movie; especially the young white guy he calls a pussy; when he was dealing with the spooks.

    I bet that white kid was raised by a single mom.

    Look at Clint Eastwood’s Neighborhood? Look whats happening to it as real men like himself get old and die off, and are replaced by males who grew up without father?

    The whole neighborhood is falling apart.

    Females cannot teach boys how to be men; only men can do that (as Eastwood demonstrates in the movie)

    The worst thing about single moms raising boys is they always end up trying to teach their sons to be the n—– they wished they married when they were young (the good guy, the nice guy) The sons rebel because in the ghetto, good, nice guys get their asses kicked.

    Here is what the white collapse looks like:

  • Tam the Bam

    Oops was looking for a clip, and didn’t realise there was a US remake of “Shameless”, the UK version is pretty grimy and rude.

    OK the “men”, well they either lit out for work elsewhere (I know guys I grew up with who like me got out as soon as, and they’ve ended up in all sorts of places, Netherlands, France (quite a few, weird, huh?), Oz, to rig work offshore here, even Libya (but not any more!), to That London of course, even N America.

    Or they just shuffled around for a few years as dust-on-the-lungs wrecks before carking it, in their mid fifties to sixties if they were lucky.
    Or became career alcoholics, like those guys you see in Russia.
    tl;dr
    died or went away.

    No point having a job, if your gear is stolen out the van overnight, every night, and you come home, after knocking your pan out on a shift, to find the flat plundered.
    Since all the girls with “options” fled as well, only the real horrifying munters are left, plus their spawn, and herds of dweeby yet very nasty male inseminator/dependents, like male Angler-fish.

    And the Glorious Welfare State is all over them like a rash, can’t do enough. “Won’t somebody think of the children!” is the rationale.
    So why shouldn’t they just go for it, if some mug is willing to subsidise their lives. Can’t blame them one bit. I mean what else were they ever going to do?

    Put in your way, sure, there’s plenty of cocks, but precious few men.
    Maybe some of the up-and-coming godfathers qualify, before they get the big house in the country?

    I was just a bit baffled and confused by the exotic black/white thing that had crept in. It just don’t look like that from here. Scums gonna scum.

    OK, aftermath, so there’s not a few middle-class gawkers/journos in there, but it’s the ones with bandannas and hoodies that did the rioting/looting last summer.
    Racial battleground much?
    Sure there are pretty hairy “race” tensions in UK & Ireland, but not so much a strict black/white thing. Everybody hates everybody else, on an equal opportunities basis! If you’re black or white it’s just another handy stick to beat you with, if you ain’t the same.
    Just don’t be ginger, that’s all.

    I say I say I say!
    Why do Sumo wrestlers shave their legs?
    So they don’t get mistaken for women from Drumchapel!

    Ithangyew, I’m here all week.

  • To Love « On the Rock

    [...] Rollo had two pieces regarding men and love (Men In Love and Of Love and War).  In the first he stated “ Women are utterly incapable of loving a man in the way that a [...]

  • imnobody

    Another home-run, Rollo. Your post “War Brides” is your masterpiece but this is not very far from it.

    I know the nature of women’s love for some years (by own experience) and it is a still a hard pill to swallow. For me, it’s the hardest thing to accept.

    It’s not that I mourn the death of my Disneyesque ideal of love. Well, in fact, I do but this is not the worst thing.

    The worst thing are the consequence. The implications are terrifying. With this knowledge about women’s nature, you have the following options:

    1) Get married and perform constantly so your wife doesn’t divorce you and take your kids. But this takes a lot of work and people get old. You mention about the 65 y.o. guy who was thrown out from his home by his wife. I’m only 42 and my health is already failing.

    2) Be alone. Get old alone. This is sad. I have been alone from the age of 17 and it’s gets sad. Yes, I know that some people say that, with Game, you can get to the 60s banging attractive women but I see the quality the women I am able to get decreases steadily with age.

    You diagnose the problem but you don’t offer the solution. I’m interested in your point of view. What do you think a man can do with this realization? I’m trying to find a solution for years and I can’t find it.

    Why don’t you make a post about that?

  • Promise Keepers «

    [...] I’m a better man than dad I’ll be deserving of love the way I envision it, I’ll be appreciated and hypergamy will be inconsequential due to the equity I’ll [...]

  • Judge nismo

    Marriage sucks ass. A man has everything to lose and nothing to gain. The woman has everything to gain and nothing to lose. Fuck marriage to the 5th power!

    Also, there’s no such thing as true love. Stop believing in that shit. There’s only lust, false love, and extortion.

    Briffault’s Law should be plastered all over men’s minds.

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 4,898 other followers

%d bloggers like this: