Saving the Best

752 responses to “Saving the Best”

• Rollo Tomassi
  December 5th, 2013 at 10:34 am

  “She needs a man to care for her. She needs a house. There’s a man who she doesn’t love and isn’t attracted to, who is offering marriage and a house. Decisions, decisions. What should she do? This is such a tough moral question. Should she be honest and decline? Or should she lie through her teeth, fake it, hope it sticks, use the guy, ruin his life (and probably her life and that of any children born to her (not necessarily to him))? What should she do? What a “moral dilemma”.

  Apparently Kate’s never read any of the classics by Emily Bronte. This is the basic plot formula of everything she’s ever written.
• Morpheus
  December 5th, 2013 at 10:53 am

  But you’re not framing it that way. You’re trying to frame marriage fraud as somehow morally correct and justifiable in some circumstances, probably depending on the woman’s real or perceived needs. You’re trying to frame a cold hearted decision by a woman to flat out use a man as a morally correct act, so long as that serves a perceived “greater good”.
  I don’t deny that women do this all the time.

  It is interesting to observe that many women tend to elevate resource provisioning to a level of almost moral need/entitlement. Kate isn’t the first to frame it this way. I’ve observed this on other forums…

  For all the talk of “empathy” that various women will talk about, you’ll never see the same attitude from most women with respect to men and sex. I remember once getting into a long debate with Giggles that a don’t ask don’t tell policy was completely ethical in the case of spinning plates and having one woman you are already banging and another perhaps in the early stage of dating. Call me crazy, but there is literally no comparison between a guy on a 3rd or 4th date with a woman who doesn’t volunteer that he is in fact fucking someone else presently versus a woman who marries a man for provisioning knowing damn well there is a lack of genuine desire on her part.

  If there is one thing I’ve learned in the last several years of online discussion, it is that women are capable of rationalizing ANYTHING. Very few have rigid codes of principles from which all behavior, decisions, and communications flow. It is all feeling based, and need based (from her perspective) and then the mental gymnastics begin to create the appearance of morality.
• D-Man
  December 5th, 2013 at 11:42 am

  “Its called “empathy.” … Putting yourself in someone else’s situation.”

  Part of the problem we have here, and by extension throughout society, is that women do not make a fair attempt to extend empathy with any sense of equality. Maybe it’s evolutionary (men are expendable), or maybe it’s caused by a lack of imagination (easier for a woman to imagine herself in the lying wife’s shoes)…

  Much ballyhoo about how women are far more “empathetic” than men (debatable… my gut clenched and blood pressure spiked as I read the story), but their capacity for empathy, and for whom they extend it to, is, as yohami says, like warped space-time around them. It’s solipsistic by nature. The irony is, they try to pass it off as altruism. Because, of course, that serves their interests too.

  I submit that if men are “naturally less empathetic”, what empathy they have is more balanced, because it is filtered through greater reason. We are demonized for our detachment, but our detachment allows us to more easily make judgments without our self-interest hijacking our ability to reason.
• Christian_Caveman
  December 5th, 2013 at 11:43 am

  @Tin_Man
  I believe the only thing that the Christ said to the adulterating woman was, “Go and sin no more.” The sad thing is, there was no follow-up. As Christ’s words are the highest authority, perhaps she was impelled and compelled to obey, and live a good life. Or she still disobeyed, and sought other men out of a different town. A follow-up on that woman would have answered so many questions, even some not even asked here. Since many women do not even really acknowledge that authority today, it does not matter what Paul said. As God’s Laws of the New Testament are not heeded, perhaps some Old Testament Laws and customs might be needed. The rule of the strong-man, as it were, in reference to the not-so-fine fellows I mentioned earlier. But I do agree that the true Christian’s are limited, and many Churchians (false Christians) intentionally misinterpret what is written, to maintain the status quo.
• Rollo Tomassi
  December 5th, 2013 at 11:51 am

  Re: Feminine Empathy. How quickly we forget,..
  http://therationalmale.com/2013/11/13/empathy/
• deti
  December 5th, 2013 at 11:53 am

  Morpheus:

  Resource provisioning in women’s minds takes on a moral dimension because it satisfies something they need for survival, and that children need for survival. Survival is good. Anything that benefits children is at the absolute pinnacle of today’s “moral” order. We can see this in political rhetoric and in the way our society is ordered.

  Well, to men, sex is a need. Men need sex because getting it frees them up to do things other than chase tail. In fact, getting sex frees men up to generate resources. Therefore, anything that gives men sex on demand, when they want/need it, from whom they want/need it, is moral, right and correct. And anything a man needs to do to get sex is moral, right and correct. So he’s morally justified in lying; deception; fraud; and cheating on a recalcitrant wife. He’s completely morally justified in lying about, concealing, or refusing to disclose pertinent information: That he’s married; that he has sexual diseases; his N.

  If it gets him sex, it’s right, moral and correct. Kate, you on board with that?
• Morpheus
  December 5th, 2013 at 11:54 am

  Male logic…female logic. Based in cartoon form.

  Ha. Giggles wrote a post on sex brain differences, and there was a discussion about logic in the comments. One of the male commenters had in mind a certain idea of what “logic” means, and one of the female commenters chimed in and flat out stated that female logic is ***contextual*** which translated means the reasoning flows from the feelings in that moment.
• deti
  December 5th, 2013 at 12:00 pm

  And I forgot to include:

  Women also cast resource provisioning as a moral issue because that shuts down all debate, and casts anyone disagreeing or questioning it as “immoral” and “cold, cruel, and heartless.” Once something is deemed to be “moral” or “right”, that’s the end of it – it simply MUST be done and provided, and YOU must do or provide it. How can any sane, moral, decent human being possibly disagree with or question in any way this “moral” “need”?

  Disagreement and questioning are immediately shouted down. What women hear is “that man thinks innocent women and children should starve. He wants innocent women and children to freeze to death.”
• D-Man
  December 5th, 2013 at 12:10 pm

  This is directly related to a phenomenon that has been on the rise for decades, which drives me absolutely bonkers:

  Person A does something patently, self-evidently wrong, which adversely affects person B.

  Person B gets a little bent out of shape and points it out to person A.

  Person A then gets MORE bent out of shape over HOW person B pointed it out. Person A looks for things to criticize about person A to “defend themselves”. Things unrelated to the event in question.

  The debate drags on and on, and after a few exchanges, all person C can tell is: these people are in a disagreement, a compromise must be made.

  So person B ends up taking half the blame, and half the consequences, of person A’s transgression.

  Drives me absolutely mad! Everything is going this way these days!

  People think that once the truth is buried in the past, all that matters is the ferocity of your argument. That each side in an argument deserves an equal ear, with a special reminder to put yourself in each side’s shoes and see how hard it is for them. And when “justice” is dispensed, it should be done “equally” with this in mind.

  BULLSHIT!

  Not all beefs are legitimate. People need to have a little sense of humility and just admit when they’re wrong, apologize, and ask if they can do anything to fix it. Usually the act of admitting is enough to make the transgressee let it go. BAM, better society.

  What we have now is a society full of NOISE.
• earl
  December 5th, 2013 at 12:10 pm

  “One of the male commenters had in mind a certain idea of what “logic” means, and one of the female commenters chimed in and flat out stated that female logic is ***contextual*** which translated means the reasoning flows from the feelings in that moment.”

  Makes sense.

  Which is why when a man gets into a problem…he tries his best to fix it. When a woman gets into a problem..she stews in her emotions.
• Spoos in August
  December 5th, 2013 at 12:50 pm

  @livingtree: You do know that most slut shaming is done by women as a means of keeping the price of sex high, right?

  Men want sex, but they also want surety of paternity. In practical terms, for almost all of human history, that meant knocking up a virgin. If a woman wants to maximize the value of the mate she eventually attracts, she’d do well to minimize her N (or lie about it really well).

  “Comfortable with her sexuality” sounds like a nice euphemism for “libertine.”
• Tin Man
  December 5th, 2013 at 1:47 pm

  @Christian_Caveman

  Somewhat of a hijack, but…
  I would also add that those you call Churchians, may read the Bible, but they don’t study it. They listen to what the Priest/Pastor/Preacher says and just take it as “being right”. Most Churches don’t encourage open debate of ideals or varying points of view. Sad really, because at it’s core, the tenants of your religious beliefs become very core to how you “live your life”. Without healthy debate, it is just dogma and in many cases, regurgitated from generation to generation without much thought as to it’s validity.

  //end hijack
• Vektor
  December 5th, 2013 at 2:49 pm

  “In an ideal world for women, they hold all the power and all the choice and are allowed to make exceptions for whoever they want for whatever reasons they want.”

  We are pretty much there now. Power corrupts and a lack of consequences creates bad behavior. Eventually so bad that even the most slow witted nice guy is going to get the message.
• D-Man
  December 5th, 2013 at 3:30 pm

  I can’t believe it, my local talk radio afternoon guy is doing a segment on “did you settle with the person you’re with”, and some lady just called up and told a story about how she found out her man was a child molester, but she ended up staying with him for another 5 years!

  Do you think she stayed because of her “empathy” for him? Or maybe, just perhaps, because he paid for everything and she was comfortable, didn’t feel like providing for herself, so she conveniently didn’t think about it too much for 5 years.

  Give her a chance to call in to a radio show and paint herself the victim, and the truth comes out. I don’t think she realized what an amoral parasite it exposes her as.
• livingtree2013
  December 5th, 2013 at 3:44 pm

  Morning gents! I see you’ve been busy over the last 16 hours! I’ve been really enjoying this last spate of comments, I’ve got at least three articles worth of ideas about them, I could barely keep up with the note-taking.

  Anyway, Spoos, I’d like to answer your question, but it would require me saying some things that would likely blow this forum up in a pretty major way…. and I think you guys would rather just smoke your cigars in the parlour away from women’s views.

  And plus my answer would give away the premise of what may be the best writing I’ve ever done.
• Living With Snake Eyes - Stares at the World
  December 5th, 2013 at 4:22 pm

  […] Rollo Tomassi posted the following capture from a /r/Redpill thread; like him, I will quote it in full: […]
• itsme
  December 5th, 2013 at 4:45 pm

  Male Wastes of Time:
  1) Arguing with a woman
  2) Thinking you’ll get a woman to see or care about a man’s perspective on anything
  3) Listening to a woman talk about “what relationships are really like”
  4) Forgetting solipsism: “It’s not true for me, therefore it can’t be true at all.”
  5) Thinking that she’ll ever say anything that doesn’t amount to, “No, no, see, it’s different when I do it. I’m not like those girls.”

  not sure i agree with these, brah.

  i think i just need to read another couple of hundred more posts to convince me.
• SirNemesis
  December 5th, 2013 at 4:52 pm

  Late to the party here. Regarding women and empathy, Florence Nightingale was probably correct in that women don’t have sympathy, with the caveat that NAWALT:

  you say ” women are more sympathetic than men.” Now if I were to write a book out of my experience, I should begin Women have no sympathy. Yours is the tradition. Mine is the conviction of experience. I have never found one woman who has altered her life by one iota for me or my opinions. Now look, at my experience of men. A statesman, past middle age, absorbed in politics for a quarter of a century, out of sympathy with me, remodels his whole life and policy — learns a science the driest, the most technical, the most difficult, that of administration, as far as it concerns the lives of men, — not, as I learnt it, in the field from stirring experience, but by writing dry regulations in a London room by my sofa with me. This is what I call real sympathy. Another (Alexander, whom I made Director-General) does very nearly the same thing. He is dead too. Clough, a poet born if ever there was one, takes to nursing- administration in the same way, for me. I only mention three whose whole fives were remodelled by sympathy for me. But I could mention very many others — Farr, McNeill, Tulloch, Storks, Martin, who in a lesser degree have altered their work by my opinions. And, the most wonderful of all, a man bora without a soul, like Undine — all these elderly men.
  Now just look at the degree in which women have sympathy — as far as my experience is concerned. And my experience of women is almost as large as Europe. And it is so intimate too. I have lived and slept in the same bed with English Countesses and Prussian Bauerinnen. No Roman Catholic Superieure has ever had charge of women of the different creeds that I have had. No woman has excited ” passions ” among women more than I have. Yet I leave no school behind me. My doctrines have taken no hold among women. Not one of my Crimean following learnt anything from me, or gave herself for one moment after she came home to carry out the lesson of that war or of those hospitals. . . . No woman that I know has ever appris a apprendre. And I attribute this to want of sympathy. You say somewhere that women have no attention. Yes. And I attribute this to want of sympathy. Nothing makes me so impatient as people complaining of their want of memory. How can you remember what you have never heard ? … It makes me mad, the Women’s Rights talk about ” the want of a field ” for them — when I know that I would gladly give £500 a year for a Woman Secretary. And two English Lady Superintendents have told me the same thing. And we can’t get one. . . . They don’t know the names of the Cabinet Ministers. They don’t know the offices at the Horse Guards. They don’t know who of the men of the day is dead and who is alive. They don’t know which of the Churches has Bishops and which not. Now I’m sure I did not know these things. When I went to the Crimea I did not know a Colonel from a Corporal. But there are such things as Army Lists and Almanacs. Yet I never could find a woman who, out of sympathy, would consult one — for my work. The only woman I ever influenced by sympathy was one of those Lady Superintendents I have named. Yet she is like me, overwhelmed with her own business. … In one sense, I do believe I am ” like a man,” as Parthe says. But how ? In having sympathy. I am sure I have nothing else. I am sure I have no genius. I am sure that my contemporaries, Parthe, Hilary, Marianne, Lady Dunsany, were all cleverer than I was, and several of them more unselfish. But not one had a bit of sympathy. Now Sidney Herbert’s wife just did the Secretary’s work for her husband (which I have had to do without) out of pure sympathy. She did not understand his policy. Yet she could write his letters for him ” like a man.” I should think Mme Recamier was another specimen of pure sympathy. . . . Women crave for being loved, not for loving. They scream out at you for sympathy all day long, they are incapable of giving any in return, for they cannot remember your affairs long enough to do so. . . . They cannot state a fact accurately to another, nor can that other attend to it accurately enough for it to become information. Now is not all this the result of want of sympathy ? . . .
• Tin Man
  December 5th, 2013 at 7:23 pm

  I just read this over at KrauserPUA.com – he’s taken something out of latest book – but this is exceptional and pretty much on target for the post by Rollo…

  “Most men are, in carnival terms, rubes. They are easy marks. They have been brought up in a deeply fem-centric world and all of its delusions. They go to work, earn money, pay taxes, buy products, watch TV and have sex with a tiny number of homely women. Dysfunctional as this sounds it’s exactly what the grand meta-narrative of the feminine imperative wants. It’s a feature not a bug. It’s no conspiracy. Most people have bought into the ideology implicitly and women can’t even articulate why they want it this way, much less design and administer such a conspiracy.”

  Since I’m a tech head, I love the reference to the fact that “it’s a feature, not a bug” — I would go a step further, because in the biz, we talk about “undocumented features” – which what this is. And I believe the thought process about “conspiracy” — most of the woman that support anything, can’t give you any real reason for their support, they spout party-line or sound-bite reason – most which come down to “because I do”.

  Just thought I’d share.
• A Definite Beta Guy
  December 5th, 2013 at 9:43 pm

  Morpheus,

  The issue with male logic is that we tend to follow that straight-line. Female logic will take into account mitigating factors. However, the proper course for this is advisory, not determining.
  “You did not do this, you are wrong”-male logic
  “I’m actually a good person, see I did this other good thing”-female logic
  It’s emotionally motivated, but it shows you blind-spots. Being self-interested is not necessarily a bad thing: the US legal system is an adversarial one.
  You simply need to know how the system. Woman-folk logic is a tool. If you use your hammer as a hockey-stick, you’re gonna have a bad time.
• Jeremy
  December 5th, 2013 at 10:01 pm

  My god, Kate is a golddigger, who knew? Sounds like a topic for a blog post actually. Apparently according to a manosphere woman it’s ok to fake being in love with someone, while holding out on sex, just to get cash and prizes. Interestingly, it is quite the moral dilemma, but ultimately justifiable by female logic to lie to someone for the good life.

  Yep, I said it Kate. Your words demonstrate a sincere lack of ethics. Retract the words, denounce their meaning, or keep the label, your choice. Your words justify lying about loving someone for the purpose of securing provisioning. That’s what golddiggers do, congrats.
• nek
  December 5th, 2013 at 10:53 pm

  So Kate, your logic is that it’s ok to exploit someone’s weakness (in your example, the man’s naivety about his status with you. Call it mental weakness) in order to get some primal urge satisfied (in this case resources and security)? This opens a can of worms from an equality standpoint, b/c what then is wrong with a man exploiting a woman’s weakness (physically smaller, weaker) to satisfy his primal urge (sex)? I have a feeling this is one of these dilemma’s that shows the goal of feminism: For men to be highly civil in a way that serves and permits a lack of civility on the part of females. What I mean is that you’ll argue that the second scenario is worse when at its base the motives are essentially the same.
• livingtree2013
  December 5th, 2013 at 11:12 pm

  By strange coincidence, I’m watching ‘Romeo and Juliet’ right now.

  Case study:
  Paris, Juliet’s suitor and the match that everyone in the play attempts to convince her to want to marry. Nice guy, very wealthy, and handsome too, and badly wants her. She does not desire him at all, but he has status and would be a good match, so everyone says! And so her father arranges a marriage for her.

  So, instead of making the rational decision, marry the good catch nice guy she didn’t desire, she decides instead to alienate everyone in her family, and eventually died.

  Jeremy says she made the right decision. It is a decision that a hundred million rational self-interested women wouldn’t make. And a hundred million idealistic Parises would not care about in the least, so long as they got their prize. And thus, a hundred million “negotiated” marriages are borne, for the good of the world..

  THAT is the moral dilemma. Point to Kate.
• archerwfisher
  December 5th, 2013 at 11:26 pm

  “Would it really be okay with you to see your hypothetical wife on video doing that kind of thing if she were also happy to do it with you, too?”

  Sunshine, I so do not believe the guys going “yeah, as long as she did it with me.”

  It’s one thing to say it, it’s a completely different thing to be in a situation and have to deal with it. How many of these guys on here are married? I’m pretty sure that if it actually happened, 9/10 of these guys would have the locks changed and wifey’s stuff packed and on the driveway before she came home.
• livingtree2013
  December 5th, 2013 at 11:27 pm

  I mean, the dilemma of morality over self-interest has not been tempered since Plato’s time.

  The system is flawed, it is upheld in fact, most especially in the US, which prizes individual self-interest over all other values, by the expectation of acting out of rational self-interest over the contemptible “greater good”.

  Those that do not have the high privilege of being moral. And alone/dead.

  Just sayin’. I can’t tell you how many political arguments I’ve gotten into on the topic of self-interest. How many millions of Americans truly believe that the brilliantly perfect free market is best served by all parties acting out of rational self-interest.

  I disagree 100%, but there’s no convincing people of this. It’s illogical.
• Mike
  December 6th, 2013 at 1:51 am

  ,..and in other news 5-way gang-bang bukkake double-penetration amateur video pornography has just been codified as a “Sexual Need” by Femipedia.

  Do not joke, my g/f came to me last week asking for what they’re calling Girls Nights to get up to this – at least she’s upfront about it – but yes, it’s pitched as a Need.
• D-Man
  December 6th, 2013 at 2:01 am

  @LT:

  @Mike: ouch. sorry to read. I’d hard next
• D-Man
  December 6th, 2013 at 2:22 am

  Most relevant segment of the above video begins at 10:37
• D-Man
  December 6th, 2013 at 4:07 am

  At the risk of going too far off into game theory…

  The optimal strategy for the iterated discrete form of the prisoner’s dilemma is to cooperate on the first move, and play tit for tat thereafter.

  The global maximum payoff is achieved when both players phase-lock into mutual cooperation.

  It may sound esoteric, but this is as elegant and profound an expression of the concepts of love and trust as any…
• Corey
  December 6th, 2013 at 4:45 am

  @livingtree2013
  The system is flawed, it is upheld in fact, most especially in the US, which prizes individual self-interest over all other values, by the expectation of acting out of rational self-interest over the contemptible “greater good”…Just sayin’. I can’t tell you how many political arguments I’ve gotten into on the topic of self-interest. How many millions of Americans truly believe that the brilliantly perfect free market is best served by all parties acting out of rational self-interest.

  I disagree 100%, but there’s no convincing people of this. It’s illogical.”

  There’s a direct relationship between the prosperity of a nation and the degree to which it values rational self-interest above the “greater good”, and it’s the complete opposite of what you think.

  In your world, places like Cuba and North Korea, which discourage self-interest in favor of the common good, should be more prosperous than the US. In your world, the least profit-oriented sectors of the US economy like the education system should be thriving, while the most profit-oriented sectors like the cell phone and computer industry should be failing. But in the REAL world, we see the exact opposite.
• Kate
  December 6th, 2013 at 6:22 am

  I see erroneous conclusion reaching has moved into Olympic territory. Several people have made it past the trials, and, if a few others would just try a little harder to misunderstand, we might be able to put together a full team! ;)
• Tin Man
  December 6th, 2013 at 7:48 am

  I think the only thing you can learn from the story, and hundreds of others just like it (and I’m sure all the sad stories from the other side of the fence is this)…

  Enter into marriage with your eyes open and KNOW the person you are marrying. If you give two shits about her past (or think you will) then vet her like a she’s getting the highest security clearance available. If you don’t, or are to in love to ask the hard questions, because you might have to walk away or she might walk away – then don’t. Make the choice and then live with.

  If your’re married right now – and didn’t do that – once again you have a choice – do it now or forget about it.

  WE live in a time where people are dulled by the surroundings. Most people don’t have any awareness anymore, other than the focus they give those little communication devices in their hands. It’s not a male/female thing – it’s everybody. I can not tell you how amazing it is for me to take my kids to dinner and see other families out – and ALL of them have their mobile phones out.

  Love the line Shawshank “Get busy living or get busy dying”
• earl
  December 6th, 2013 at 7:50 am

  If absolute morality and self-interest are in agreement…you are on the right track.

  Killing yourself for the person you love…or marrying someone you don’t desire to stay alive. Which is a physical death…and which is a spiritual death?
• Four reasons to take sex research with a grain of salt. | Sunshine Mary
  December 6th, 2013 at 10:50 am

  […] was wondering aloud about this discrepancy in data recently, and Deti made an interesting […]
• Phinn
  December 6th, 2013 at 11:43 am

  Never. I could never sit in the same room with her again, much less fuck her. Not with a triple-bagged set of condoms.
• livingtree2013
  December 6th, 2013 at 12:34 pm

  No see Earl that is exactly what they’re not. There’s an inverse correlation between self-interest and morality. As a person acts more out of self-interest, they act less out of moral-interest. There has been many attempts at philosophical justification for self-interest as a moral premise, but in my estimation the reasoning just doesn’t hold up.

  Its what drives me nuts about these pop-morality catch-phrases about karma and statements like “What you give out comes back to you ten-fold”. Its like the only reason people do good things is because they’ll get some benefit out of it later. Like going to heaven.

  Sorry Earl, I know you’re a religious man, and believe me, I understand that without religion most people would not have motive to act selflessly. I totally get that, but it makes me mad anyway that it’s considered moral, because it isn’t, they are different. People don’t act selflessly unless there is threat of external punishment – hell, prison, social ostracizing, etc. – which is, again, not moral, it is self-interest.

  Which goes to address Corey’s point too. Socialist systems an big government are undesirable to many Americans, not because they impose morality (which they do), but because they restrict a person’s liberty to be self-interested (which they also do).

  Philosophically, the point of doing good acts is not to get personal benefit from it. It is to benefit the greater good, of which you may not receive any benefit from at all. True morality is utilitarian in nature, but so few people are interested in acting, or even taking the time to understand utilitarian principles of action, that it is truly a lost cause to hope for it. But alas, despite my crankiness over human stupidity, I secretly remain an optimist…

  The point here is self-interest and morality are diametrically opposed to each other. Don’t kid yourselves. Anyway, this is a subject I could talk about indefinitely, but we are digressing from the point of the discussion – whores!

  Carry on…
• You be Queen, so that I be King | progretarian.
  December 6th, 2013 at 12:54 pm

  […] Read it and then get back. […]
• livingtree2013
  December 6th, 2013 at 12:55 pm

  Corey, the US is not prosperous anymore. If debt increases faster than GDP per capita, prosperity decreases. You are losing ground, and it has been the case for many, many decades (I can send you data proving this if you like).

  The US was actually prosperous when her people cared about community . They simply don’t anymore. What your founders knew is that democracy will fail because people are self-interested. It is inevitable. I don’t know exactly when it died, but it is dead, that much is certain. Maybe it died with the rise of atheism, or technology, or capitalism… who knows, it’s too complex to pin on one thing. Or maybe it was just an ideal that is too fragile and simply could not last in a world that is no longer interested in protecting each other. Anyway, America is currently hinging on anarchy.

  Is democracy the problem? No. The problem is that people don’t know how to conduct themselves without having externally imposed moral restrictions. We have never taught them how to, or even that they should. Many philosophers have speculated through the centuries that it may not even be possible to have an internal moral compass, one that isn’t based on an externally based reward/punishment system.
• D-Man
  December 6th, 2013 at 1:01 pm

  Morality may often seem opposed to the impulsive, short-term interests of the individual, but I disagree strongly that it is universally opposed to their best interest.

  Lots of cases in which following a moral code is consistent with the individual’s long-term best interest. It attempts to spare the individual from the consequences of overindulgence in their baser natures.

  Otherwise, hard drug addicts would have to be considered the people who are most clearly acting in their own best interest, no?

  Also see: the Stanford Marshmallow Experiment.

  It remains to be defined for each individual what maximized self-interest looks like, but in the case of “whores”… the long-term doesn’t look very good.
• livingtree2013
  December 6th, 2013 at 1:15 pm

  In theory, D-Man, but you’re confusing “best interest” with self-interest. Self-interest is more immediate gratification of perceived need. Short-term need always, ALWAYS, 100% of the time, prioritizes over long-term need (and I use the term “need” somewhat liberally). In this frame of reference, the hard-drug addict IS in fact the person who is most motivated by self-interest, but not to best interest.

  Best interest is minimalist. We are not a culture of minimalists. Wouldn’t you agree? We want everything more bigger better faster now. We have let our self-interest become short-sighted. Everything, including our approach to education, is short-sighted. We learn to exist for what we can take, not for what we can give.
• livingtree2013
  December 6th, 2013 at 1:17 pm

  Good reading on self-interest here:
  http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/egoism/
• MikePhil
  December 6th, 2013 at 1:22 pm

  Having jumped the fence earlier this year into the red-pill mindset (thanks Rollo, bought your book), I like to think I have internalized a lot of positive masculinity since then to address and eliminate my learned Beta traits. However, I read this entry this morning at work, and it literally made me so sick to my stomach I couldn’t finish my coffee, mostly because I see an earlier version of myself in this poor man’s account.

  Credit goes to him for confronting his wife with the evidence, and also for laying out his disgust and shame to her; not for the sex she had on tape, but for the sex she DIDN’T have with him for 7 years. The wife was effectively starving him out while enjoying his money, housing, support, interest, time, resources, experience, etc. And it becomes clear that even when confronted with the evidence on the table, the wife continue to evade and dodge any sense of accountability for those 7 years of sexual deprivation, in an attempt to bluff the husband into continuing his provisioning for her.

  In Livingtree’s response, she tries to make this a slut shaming issue, essentially making the husband, and by proxy, all of men responsible to the wife’s behavior. Let me say this clearly; you couldn’t be farther from the truth if you came from another planet. The husband’s objection isn’t about her (hidden) feral sexuality; it’s about the fact that he NEVER experienced it himself. It’s about her systematically deceiving her husband, starving his sexual desires, and vacuum-cleaning his bank account in the process. And it’s the slowly dawning horror that he may have no guarantee that the child he raised may not be his own…..what an unbelievable betrayal.

  If the wife was revealed to be gay, and was discovered having a lesbian orgy, I think no-one would question the need for a final divorce here. We’d be talking about her true sexual orientation coming to light, and how no intimate physical / marital relationship could work out from this point. But it’s not about orientation, but provisioning. The inequity here is staggering.

  My 2 cents; poor guy needs to sequester / protect his finances, get his brother lawyer on retainer, and get a paternity test NOW. The final insult would be her taking his house, money and saddling him with crippling debt/child support/alimony/healthcare costs for the next 18 years.

  Poor bastard.
• D-Man
  December 6th, 2013 at 1:34 pm

  So, to keep the conversation on gold-digging whores…

  The one who follows her impulses and engages in gangbangs is simply acting in her own self-interest?

  and

  The one (could be the same person, just later on)…who gives this up in order to dupe a man she doesn’t love into providing resources and security for her is simply acting in her own long-term best interest?

  Are these the hallmarks of a “Rational Female”?

  Just wanna know who we’re dealing with here…
• livingtree2013
  December 6th, 2013 at 1:35 pm

  I have one trouble with the marshmallow theory, D-Man. I think the short-sighted individuals operate from a base-level distrust in the fairness of the reward/punishment system.

  People who trust the system may indeed be rewarded more, long term. But people who don’t, find other ways to get their rewards – ie. gangsters, players, whores, drug-users…. there’s a common theme there.

  I bet if you asked a hundred million people in America if they believed that waiting for a result would get them a bigger reward as they would get if they took the reward now, I bet that 75% would say they doubt that.

  But either way, its still an external reward/punishment system that is not grounded in morality.
• livingtree2013
  December 6th, 2013 at 1:54 pm

  D-Man, to bring it back to this specific article, yes the woman in question is acting in short-term self interest. The man was acting out of short-term self-interest too. Allow me to explain:

  He wanted to have crazy sex with his adoring wife and a vessel with which to produce offspring, which is a reasonable level of self interest to have. She wanted to have a financially secure, stable home to raise her children in. Also a reasonable self-interest to have. The difference is that he made the agreement with her knowing that she was going to get her need met, but he wasn’t, so if self-interest was the motivator, I don’t understand why he would agree to it.

  The point that I (and Kate, I think) am trying to make is that both of them had a conflict of morality vs. self interest. She rationalized the decision to forego morality and operate out of self-interest, he rationalized the decision to forego his self-interest and operate out of morality.

  See where the problem is? Conflict of interest?
• D-Man
  December 6th, 2013 at 2:02 pm

  “[Women] rationalize the decision to forego morality and operate out of self-interest, [men] rationalize the decision to forego his self-interest and operate out of morality.

  See where the problem is?”

  yep, red pill in a nutshell
• livingtree2013
  December 6th, 2013 at 2:13 pm

  Gold-digging whores may be epidemic, but it is not a new epidemic. Marriage contracts, as Jeremy pointed out earlier, are always, ALWAYS about self-interest (though he phrased it differently, that is the essence of it) – it is a contractual arrangement.

  Since self-interest is the motivation for marriage (despite whatever delusions we have convinced ourselves of to justify it as moral), then what is the new epidemic is the conflict of interest.

  The one advantage of traditional marriage is, I guess, everyone knows that the arrangement is: unlimited awesome sex of the man’s choosing, in exchange for room and board for the woman. All she has to do is agree to the terms, and know her place, and everyone is happy. Modern marriages are infinitely more complex than that, what with free will for women and all. This is how conflicts of interest creep in.

  We are not anytime soon going to revert back to the traditional arrangement, I can assure you of that.

  Unless you’re like Rollo and find yourself a good obedient wife, in order to keep up with the times, marriage agreements have to become much more constructive. You have to make sure you communicate your needs, and to do that you first need to know what they are, and to accept them as needs, and to find someone who accepts those terms, or do without. Which is really hard to do!!

  When anyone enters into that contract without being self-aware enough to know what their needs are, they will not get their self-interested need met, and they will feel cheated contractually – even though the person they entered into the agreement with doesn’t even know that it was part of the bargain in the first place.

  You blame the woman here for being a lying slut (which I don’t disagree with) but both parties engaged in self-deception.
• livingtree2013
  December 6th, 2013 at 2:18 pm

  Right! I get it D-Man, you don’t need to convince me.

  But you’re missing my point here. If you want people to stop acting out of self-interest, and start acting out of morality, you have a lot of work ahead of you.
  Self-deception is what forces most people into making self-sacrificing commitments out of a sense of duty (which has becomes our new moral code, you can thank the Romans for that). Its total bullshit.

  You are welcome to join the anti-self-deception-utilitarian-morality-league with me if you like. We meet weekly.
• Red Hurricane
  December 6th, 2013 at 2:27 pm

  If you notice in the story the woman get’s what she wants at the guys expense. That’s the pattern seen over and over in the modern world. The man should have been a lot more concerned with getting his from the beginning.

  You get it LT. That’s the red pill. What you don’t get is that men are socialized AWAY from that perspective from the moment they are born. Rollo’s just doing the good work by trying to get men up to speed.
• livingtree2013
  December 6th, 2013 at 2:27 pm

  I mean, rationalized self-interest is practically a religion in the US, which is infiltrating the whole world via soft-imperialist, global infection of the self-interested free market, to the chagrin of Muslims everywhere, so trying to curb it now is kind of like holding back the tide. As in, impossible.

  But starting with yourself is a good place. Its the only place, really, that a change can occur. Maybe one day more people will follow the lead and become rational-moralists rather than rational-self-interesteds, but I think probably the world will end in a fiery explosion before that happens.
• livingtree2013
  December 6th, 2013 at 2:38 pm

  Well, the sad part of Rollo’s efforts is that you guys aren’t really changing the game, you’re just learning how to capitalize on it. And I guess its better than it being one-sided, which I’m sorry that its become for you guys, but personally I think it would be wayyyyyy better if we could do the reverse, and maybe try not to encourage women AND men not be self-interested pricks.

  I can’t help thinking that would be good. That’s my optimism creeping in again…

  But really, what are the odds? I like the idea of biology as self-interest, which I think would be a very excellent arbiter of self-control, but like i said pages back, biology has long ago been overridden by external influences, to the point where we aren’t capable of being regulated by the limits of our biology anymore. There’s too much stuff to have/do/buy/watch/need.
• Sal Ceech
  December 6th, 2013 at 2:54 pm

  @living tree

  I admire your intellect and if you looked like Jessica Pare , you would be someone to be reckoned with.If ever a man you were involved with said to you ” I need you”, would you not start to lose respect for him??.

  If I had a daughter I would tell her , if her man said that walk away.If I had a son his woman said that …run.What do I know I’m just the cowboy that Ed Bruce sang about.
• Cylux
  December 6th, 2013 at 2:57 pm

  Well, the sad part of Rollo’s efforts is that you guys aren’t really changing the game, you’re just learning how to capitalize on it.

  It’s arguable that the guys and gals over at A Voice for Men are trying to change the game. So really that angle’s already covered.
• livingtree2013
  December 6th, 2013 at 3:02 pm

  Thanks. I do alright Sal, I’m no Jessica Pare, but I do alright.
  I’ve never let a man say he needed me. I’m not sure I’d know what to do. I’d probably slap him and give him a stern talking to about life choices.
• livingtree2013
  December 6th, 2013 at 3:29 pm

  Ya I know it, and that is awesome for you guys, but who’s providing the voice for women?? I’m trying to be, but they don’t listen so good. Its a whole lot easier to buy the packaged fantasy about prince charming than it is to build our own house.

  When I was in my mid-20’s, I was extremely rebellious against this status quo “fantasy life” delusion. There was no way was I going to fall for this crap.

  In the process, I got called all sorts of names, people told me I must be a lesbian, or psychologically damaged, to not want the traditional life… I’d either been sexually abused, I had a cinderella complex, I had commitment issues, I was a marxist… I could go on and on. None of which were true of course, its just that the truth was too incomprehensible to them. People don’t DO that?? What’s wrong with you??? It was really tough getting through all the pressure to conform to just being “one of the girls”.

  I nearly caved once, I had to let a really good man go because I just didn’t think I could love him as much as he deserved. My mom was so pissed at me for that, she adored him, and he really was lovely, but I needed something different than what he could offer.

  I remember having a number of conversations with some older gentlemen about my motivations for the life choices I was making, and when I told them, they either didn’t believe me or they completely didn’t get it. They were, quite literally, incredulous. Why do you want to go to that much effort? Why don’t you just find a nice husband and settle down, have some kids?

  Its been so ingrained in us, Cylux, from birth, from every possible angle, to want that life, to believe that we should want it, that if we don’t want it there’s something wrong with us, that I don’t honestly know what it’s going to take to make the shift.

  The slut-behavior that Rollo wrote about in this article, really, deep-down, at its core, it is rebellion against the status quo. We should be encouraging it. JMO… At least until such time as we can accept that we need to be self-actualizing, and not live a fucked up fantasy.
• Mojo
  December 6th, 2013 at 3:39 pm

  I will give you an interesting story about something that happend to me. When I met my girlfriend I was just starting to spin plates after my wife left me. After we were fucking for a couple of weeks I brought up her sexual past. She has skills like a porn star, so I was expecting something in the order of 30-40. Hers was about 10 or so. After a year together, and our ability to honesty communicate with each other, I am fairly confident of that number.

  As we talked, I told her many times I would get rid of her if I found she ever lied to me about her sexual past. Furthermore, I even asked her if I was getting her best. It took me some time to believe her and me nuking the relationship once for an indiscretion on her part, but I think that I am getting more of her sexually than any other man before me. We have had 3 somes with other women, shes bi, and have a sex life like no other I ever experienced, but she is older, mid 40’s. She is still hot, but its fading, regardless of how hot her body is now. There are hotter younger woman available to me, but as a whole package I like my GF the best so far, and with her help I can do more than by myself or with a younger (or many of them) women.

  She wants us to live together and at her age I told her the only way thats going to happen is if I can have some side romps with younger women. She agreed enthusiastically. I love her for more than just the sex obviously and we make an excellent team, but she is wise enough to know that as she ages, I may be prone to stray, especially in the next 10 years.

  She dated long term mostly throughout her life. She had limited herself with every other man. On the other hand, I encouraged her inner slut to come out, but only if it was only for me. At the first sign I am not getting her best I would hope she would tell me, or that I am wise enough to realize it so I can go back to being the man she originally gave her all too.

  I think this shows how important frame is in the beginning of a relationship. Without it and what ever was left of my inner jerk after my ex wife left, I would have been limited to only a small part of what she is capable like the others before me, and like them she would have tired of me in time.

  Oh and my ex wife, I expect she was like this woman in the essay to a degree. Fuck her. Im glad she left now. The cost was worth it. This dude her should just cut and run with whatever he can salvage resource wise. If he can pull his head out of his ass he can lock down a younger hotter woman and make more kids if thats his desire. It sucks, but its reality.
• John
  December 6th, 2013 at 3:40 pm

  Virgins only. Problem half-solved. If you weren’t the third after her chastity was taken, you will always be Mr. As-ov-now.

  The sex will dry up anyway. No matter what a man does, if he genuinely cares for her, the cooch will eventually close. Genuine love from a man, is the ultimate anti-aphrodisiac.
• livingtree2013
  December 6th, 2013 at 3:50 pm

  John, your solution of “virgins only” is incredibly immature, and it does not solve the problem.

  The ‘PROBLEM’ is that you are trying to solve a problem for which the only solution is literally having to buy a virgin bride off her father who’d kept her locked in a tower guarded by eunuchs for her entire life, and you would have to do the same thing with her after you bought her. Just feed her and visit her in her cell whenever you were horny. Or put an electrocution collar on her which would kill her if anyone ever touched her besides you.

  Or, you could just fucking accept reality.
• livingtree2013
  December 6th, 2013 at 3:51 pm

  Haha, now there’s some male porn-fantasy right there. I should write that.
• Sal Ceech
  December 6th, 2013 at 3:58 pm

  ” Genuine love from a man the ultimate anti-aphrodisac “? Very well said. Hence until I (if,ever) find the elusive unicorn …gentleman keep this in mind or you go to your peril ..let Freedom be your mistress. Thank you LT for your reply.Does Kate have anything further to add ..at all?
• Tin Man
  December 6th, 2013 at 4:14 pm

  I’m all about sharing – but this is funny – don’t watch if if you have not had kids yet…
• livingtree2013
  December 6th, 2013 at 4:17 pm

  Hah that is hysterical. I’m totally posting that on facebook.
• Jeremy
  December 6th, 2013 at 4:21 pm

  @Kate

  I see erroneous conclusion reaching has moved into Olympic territory. Several people have made it past the trials, and, if a few others would just try a little harder to misunderstand, we might be able to put together a full team! ;)

  Oh, I think I understand perfectly. In fact, your hamster get’s a 9.5 for that performance.
• Tin Man
  December 6th, 2013 at 4:23 pm

  LT…”Well, the sad part of Rollo’s efforts is that you guys aren’t really changing the game, you’re just learning how to capitalize on it….”

  Just two pieces and not really arguing or debating your statement here. (1) Capitalizing on it is what GAME (and all its variants) is all about and (2) don’t know there is any real “change” that will happen. Are you talking about changing how people “act” or what creates attraction between a man and woman? Because a lot of that won’t ever change (it evolves over time – a very, very long time). If you’re talking about changing laws? there are men that actively work on doing that. Are you talking about isolating themselves the consequences? there are men doing that. Men that dont play by the rules, therefore change the rules for their own lives – got that one covered to.

  Do don’t disagree about the statement, other than there are changes happening – in fact every man that reads this blog and decides to say NO to his GF or Wife – is changing something. If you’re wondering when the tectonic plates shift – not for a long, long time – that requires a tipping point – we are not even close.
• livingtree2013
  December 6th, 2013 at 4:34 pm

  Well, keep at it boys, you’re doing the right thing. Just try not to let the anger get the best of you. I know, its hard. I fought it for a long time myself. But I totally appreciate that sometimes, anger is the fuel of motivation that keeps you going.

  I”m just glad to know you aren’t trying to bring about a resurgence of feudalism. I was really concerned for a while there.
• livingtree2013
  December 6th, 2013 at 4:40 pm

  No Tin Man, I don’t expect what attracts us to each other will change, at least not organically as a result of having brought about more desirable conditions than what our “biology” has wanted for previously.

  I do mean how we choose to act. I am disgusted with how people behave so selfishly, and how they justify their selfishness with all sorts of nonsense, ill-founded theories and bullshit economic data that mean nothing. Biology and morality are totally compatible. Self-interest and morality – not at all. Self-interest is not a foundation for a good-world outcome.

  Commitment to utilitarianism. I can’t say it enough.
• YOHAMI
  December 6th, 2013 at 4:51 pm

  “The slut-behavior that Rollo wrote about in this article, really, deep-down, at its core, it is rebellion against the status quo. We should be encouraging it.”

  If you want to challenge the status quo there are other and more effective things to promote it, rather than self indulgence and getting cock in every orifice till you’re 30 and then be just dumped and lonely.

  For starters, the best you can do to destroy the status quo is to teach people make informed decisions.

  If you just promote slutthood you destroy an aspect of the status quo but create a new one full of idiots, identical than the pack before them, except they dont know, nor can make relationships work.

  And if you want to challenge things start with Marx. The guy got it all wrong, yet somehow is an eminence. Then challenge feminism and all its idiocy. Then you can target religion. Then you can point to the rotten core and maybe change stuff.

  Or maybe you just want more sex and slutting it up is enough.
• livingtree2013
  December 6th, 2013 at 5:00 pm

  Ya Yohami, thats exactly the point.

  There are so very many rings of distraction in the way, built up around the rotting core, protecting it like a shell of defense, its a fortress now – and sometimes, like “feminism”, the defenses are built without even realizing that’s what they’re doing.

  There’s no way to get through to the core (if there’s anything left to find there), to get what you really need out of life, except to just abandon the whole premise, go it alone, be happy with what you’ve freely chosen because you did it freely, and maybe, just maybe, the thing you really wanted will show up.
• Rollo Tomassi
  December 6th, 2013 at 5:02 pm

  “The slut-behavior that Rollo wrote about in this article, really, deep-down, at its core, it is rebellion against the status quo. We should be encouraging it.”

  Slut behavior has nothing to do with rebellion and everything to do with securing the seed. No slutty girl ever spread her legs as an act of defiance against the status quo.

  All those Strong Independent® women you see marching in solidarity at the slut walks are still selectively fucking the guys who turn them on, not random schlubs who don’t in order to make some social statement.
• Mojo
  December 6th, 2013 at 5:04 pm

  LT,
  Its not porn, its truth and its setting the right frame of the relationship in the beginning. RM and other writes much about this.

  I was illustrating a pint with the the things I know best, my actual life. The “deprived hubby” obviously didn’t do that in the beginning of his marriage or when courting his wife.

  I messed up alot in my own marriage and now have a divorce to deal with. Fortunately, many red pitt truths seemed common sense to me when I was younger, but unfortunately I fell into a beta marriage mindset, for lack of a better term, the power in my marriage shifted to my wife and she dropped a nuclear shit test which I apparently failed.

  Women lie outright to us men every day. They do this so they can secure everything they want ie, alpha fucks and beta bucks. But if you pay attention to them, you can usually see the truth sooner. Most men, like the one in question, just set it into their minds that their wives are honest good girls and fail to pay attention to them any further than that. That is why women like his wife will cheat and get away with it, and its not because she is super sneaky. He is just oblivious by choice, such as he was about the sex tape.

  So the main point I apparently failed to make previously is that men make it a point to confirm if your woman is in fact giving you her best or if your getting just good enough. However it takes a fair amount of balls and game to make that happen before a marriage. I had nothing left to lose and I was pissed and bitter. I had just enough of the cocky funny left in me to still me social, so when I met my GF I just told her what I wanted. At that time it worked out that i just did not give a shit if she stayed or went. As our relationship progressed and we began to fall in love, the pretenses were dropped and we are now able to communicate about everything, our desires and even pitfalls we might encounter in the future, such as her age and my desire to bang different, younger women from time to time. Its something we have already done anyways, so it was not the big deal it may seem to be. It was riskier in the beginning than it is now. She had my heart and I have hers now and with that comes a good deal of security for both of us. I am lucky that she likes woman too, so she gets a desire of hers met in a loving and trusting relationship (which was impossible with her past relationships) and I get me more primal desires met in the same context.

  There are some good lessons in my story if you dare to see them.
• Rollo Tomassi
  December 6th, 2013 at 5:08 pm

  If you believe this woman engaged in 5-way, double-penetration, bukake, amateur, porn videos as some form of civil disobedience against her domineering moralistic and patriarchal overlords you need to go back to the drawing board.
• livingtree2013
  December 6th, 2013 at 5:08 pm

  And no, the issue isn’t that we just want raunchy sex from strangers, and also to have provisioning. This is massively over-simplifying things.

  The issue is, fundamentally, that women aren’t fully willing to commit to taking the freedoms that they fought to get.

  Its safer on the protected side, where the whole system of social support exists and you’re not alone. They know the window of freedom exists, they want to have the courage to step through, they put a foot through it once in a while and experiment with things that seem easy to get away with, things without too much risk or cost, but they almost always come back to the safe side. The beta provider side. Because that’s where we’re told that we belong. Protected.
• livingtree2013
  December 6th, 2013 at 5:15 pm

  That’s a complete fallacy Rollo, an oversimplification. Women simply do not desire guys that are desperate, needy and passionless. Is that what makes a guy a shlub? If so, maybe I misunderstand you.

  There hundreds of thousands of guys you’d never believe get as much action as they do, but they do – because they aren’t needy. That is hot.

  You honestly don’t need any other bit of information, if you want more women.
• Rollo Tomassi
  December 6th, 2013 at 5:26 pm

  Take your Che Guevara shirt off for a minute and try to read closely. Loud and proud, card carrying, self-identifying sluts are not banging men they wouldn’t already want to bang in an effort to rage against the machine. Your assertion that women engaging in ‘slutish’ behavior do so as some act of subconscious or overt rebellion is the fallacy. They do so because it’s enjoyable, profitable or both, but they’re not sucking 5 cocks simultaneously because they think it’s a big defiant FU to the man.
• livingtree2013
  December 6th, 2013 at 5:29 pm

  Well, Rollo I can see you have your mind made up that there is no possibility that people can be motivated by anything besides biology, so this is where our conversation ends.
• Sal Ceech
  December 6th, 2013 at 5:31 pm

  Rollo I’m glad I wasn’t sipping the coffee reading this , if I was I’d have a mess to clean up!!BTW can you post one your posts that has generated the most comments?
• Dr. Jeremy
  December 6th, 2013 at 5:37 pm

  @ livingtree2013

  Well, the sad part of Rollo’s efforts is that you guys aren’t really changing the game, you’re just learning how to capitalize on it. And I guess its better than it being one-sided, which I’m sorry that its become for you guys, but personally I think it would be wayyyyyy better if we could do the reverse, and maybe try not to encourage women AND men not be self-interested pricks.

  If you have read my blog, you will know that is my aim. Education and empowerment about these dynamics, for everyone, to promote fair trade – what you label as “best interest”.

  When anyone enters into that contract without being self-aware enough to know what their needs are, they will not get their self-interested need met, and they will feel cheated contractually – even though the person they entered into the agreement with doesn’t even know that it was part of the bargain in the first place.

  Agreed. The only thing I would add to that is that people also need to have the power to get those needs met. That power may come from themselves (money, looks, intelligence, etc.) or external sources (laws, norms, morals). Nevertheless, such a fair bargain can only be struck, and kept, among those who are both self-aware of their needs and empowered to ensure the bargain is kept. In contrast, the modern hodge-podge of power redistribution and disinformation is not accomplishing that goal. Instead, it just changes who exactly is the victim, perhaps offering some sort of felt retribution…but not true empowerment or choice. Hence our earlier discussions.

  Ya I know it, and that is awesome for you guys, but who’s providing the voice for women?? I’m trying to be, but they don’t listen so good.

  If your goal is to truly encourage women AND men to not be “self-interested pricks”, then I would encourage you to be “a voice for people” instead. Although I speak to various “groups”, from their own point of view, my goal is overall empowerment and fair trade. Beyond that, truly “picking a side”, shuts one off to the value of the others and just further imbalances the system – prioritizing some over the rest. This is especially true when, in the end, both sexes are complementary and need each other for survival.

  The slut-behavior that Rollo wrote about in this article, really, deep-down, at its core, it is rebellion against the status quo. We should be encouraging it.

  Points like these are where we tend to disagree… Not because I have a counter-agenda to ensure female chastity – but because they diverge from what you espouse as a goal of general self-awareness and fair bargaining for each person. In this case, encouragement is no better than punishment. It would still be pushing an individual to a course of action that aligns with your personal beliefs (and perhaps self-interest), rather than educating them, empowering them, and allowing them to make an individual choice as to what is in their own best-interest.

  Similarly, traditional marriage works for some…not for others. Forcing or disparaging any arrangement is manipulation for a personal agenda – not creating self-awareness. I am thrilled that you have found an arrangement of personal values, beliefs, and relationships that work for you. That is truly commendable. But, so do many people who enjoy a traditional relationship – or polyamory – or a harem. If you truly believe what you say, then none of those can be considered “wrong” if they are fairly and freely chosen (other than wrong for you personally – but an option for others).

  You have a lot of good insights and could be a valuable contributor to this cause. However, you sometimes experience that both men and women “don’t listen so good”, because you deviate from those insights and your stated goals. In those instances, you are trying to push them to adopt your own beliefs and self-interests, rather than educating and empowering them to choose their own best-interests. Hence the hostility and push-back.
• SirNemesis
  December 6th, 2013 at 5:42 pm

  @ lt2013

  Haha, now there’s some male porn-fantasy right there. I should write that.

  You mean female romance fantasy right?
• Mojo
  December 6th, 2013 at 6:05 pm

  “Its been so ingrained in us, Cylux, from birth, from every possible angle, to want that life, to believe that we should want it, that if we don’t want it there’s something wrong with us, that I don’t honestly know what it’s going to take to make the shift.”

  It called biology – survival of our species. You seem to want to jusk kick against the goads.
• livingtree2013
  December 6th, 2013 at 6:08 pm

  Of course, good Dr., I agree completely with your summation.

  By “encouraging” I don’t mean encourage sluttiness, I mean encouraging whatever it takes to break out caring so much about what other people think. It really messes with people’s heads, and their behavior becomes disingenuous. Men and women.

  That they wind up total nutjobs trying to force what they want out of the hodge-podge of conflict within them, without really understanding it, which winds up being a total disaster of role-reversal and retribution. Which, in my opinion, is what self-styled “feminists” have mostly become, and I worry more than a little that the mens’ rights movement is just doing more of the same.

  That is NOT what any of us need.

  Women have very different influence than men do, the goal should be the same but the direction of approach, obviously, must be unique to the circumstances. Its likely that few women could really genuinely empathize with the plight of men, and men likely cannot truly empathize with the plight of women. Its fundamentally impossible. Or at the very least, really really difficult.

  But to do so, there needs to be that common goal, and I don’t really think we’ve worked on that as a society. That’s what I meant by the fortress metaphor. All of these strategies just become more layers of defense, and the common goal at the core is concealed even more completely.
• livingtree2013
  December 6th, 2013 at 6:10 pm

  @SirNemesis…. I suspect there might be a few women with that fantasy too. I just don’t think it would come off as well if it was a man writing it, they would instantly reject it as sexist tripe, but if a woman wrote it…. I’m seriously considering this!
• livingtree2013
  December 6th, 2013 at 6:14 pm

  Bullshit Mojo. Human biology, at its working finest, would look like a rape. Male humps female, she gets pregnant, he walks away, she raises baby, he humps another female… and so on. The end.

  Thats not what this is. Surely you don’t believe that protection crap is a biological NEED. Do you??
• Dr. Jeremy
  December 6th, 2013 at 7:13 pm

  @livingtree2013

  By “encouraging” I don’t mean encourage sluttiness, I mean encouraging whatever it takes to break out caring so much about what other people think. It really messes with people’s heads, and their behavior becomes disingenuous. Men and women.

  But, “caring about what other people think” is part of what motivates them toward fair trade and their own best interest. When they “break out” of it and don’t care about others, they become selfish and self-interested. Thus, caring about what other people think doesn’t “mess with people’s heads”. Unless by that you mean it allows the needs of others to inform their individual behavior – motivating each individual to take responsibility for their choices and accept the consequences for their ability to trade with others.

  Given that, for example, I would not “encourage” a young woman to not care about what men may think about her sexual choices. Why? Because it will cause her to act on self-interest alone, not take responsibility, and work to avoid any consequences as “unfair”. Going down that road would lead to the unfair situation we now have…

  Thus, instead, I would counsel her to be thoughtful about her sexual choices. I would tell her that some men, who she will want to “trade” with, will value her “promiscuity” – others will value her “chastity”. Each of those men have a right to their preferences, as does she. Therefore, depending on who she wants to trade with and why, she should choose her behavior accordingly. But, each behavior will limit her options. She cannot be truly independent or “have it all”.

  I would counsel men the same way. They too make choices that make them more-or-less attractive as trading partners to various types of women. They should be made aware and educated about the consequences of those choices. But, in the end, the common goal is the same – acting in the best interest and fairness of both partners. That requires caring and respecting what others think, allowing them their needs and preferences, and taking responsibility for the consequences of choices. Otherwise, “not caring” leads to self-interest, messing with power dynamics, and ultimately manipulation of others to avoid consequences, responsibility, and personal limitations.

  That is how we ended up with this “story” above… Some woman was encouraged “not to care” what some guys might think about her sexual choices. Without full knowledge or concern for any consequences, she made a trade at the time to participate in a gangbang. Arguably, she was duped by this social instruction and that trade was not truly “fair” (she might not have chosen it, if she had my advice above). Nevertheless, she was encouraged to focus on her self-interest, not best-interest.

  Years later, she wants to make another trade, with her husband. He had many things she desired. He also had certain feelings and preferences. But why should she care about those? He was “wrong” for having them anyway and trying to “mess with her head”. He “shouldn’t” care about her chastity. So, with that mindset, she continued to be self-interested and selfish. She avoided taking responsibility for her earlier choices and avoided the consequences of her actions by not trading fairly with her husband. It all started with advice akin your quote above…

  So, if you truly want a “common goal” reducing self-interest, you might want to reconsider encourage people not to care about what other people think.
• Tin Man
  December 6th, 2013 at 7:28 pm

  since we’re driving in the the virtual ditch anyway….Yes, Virginia, biology AND evolution do support the theory of a community as opposed to a single rouge male going around “raping” woman.

  That’s why we survived…because we “collected” together…alone (either as a lone male or female with her pups) we would not have made it. Even with our superior brains – we had to gather. So, human biology (and evolution) did work at it’s finest – that’s why we are here. What you propose above it something that would have failed, therefore, we wouldn’t even be here having this little virtual conversation via the interwebs.

  Personally, I’m not buying the who “I think this way, you think this way” crap – to me it’s still that “men and woman think, process and act differently” – and it was all done for a reason, and it’s worked for a very long time. But since we are humans, and so fucking smart, we flipped the script (or been flipping the script) over the past 100 years. The problem is (and listen here) you don’t CHANGE 100K years of evolutionary biology and all those wonderful chemicals and reactions in 100 years. No matter how much a woman wants to.
• Tin Man
  December 6th, 2013 at 7:34 pm

  Or maybe I should say….You don’t do it without consequences.
• Aaron
  December 6th, 2013 at 7:41 pm

  @livingtree2013

  There hundreds of thousands of guys you’d never believe get as much action as they do, but they do – because they aren’t needy. That is hot.

  Do you even read this site? Rollo has written quite a bit about both.
• Dr. Jeremy
  December 6th, 2013 at 7:41 pm

  @ livingtree2013

  Its likely that few women could really genuinely empathize with the plight of men, and men likely cannot truly empathize with the plight of women. Its fundamentally impossible. Or at the very least, really really difficult.

  IMO, that is asking the wrong question…

  I don’t need my girlfriend to “empathize with my plight”. I just need her to respect my needs and trade fairly. In contrast, people who want “empathy” for a “plight” are often manipulating the feelings of others to get an unfair concession out of pity. They don’t want to have to earn or pay for getting their needs met. Thus, because my girlfriend is willing and able to earn me meeting her needs, she doesn’t need my “empathy” either. All she requires is that I respect her needs (even the ones I may not share or understand), and ask for a fair trade to meet them.

  Of course, that requires both of us to be realistic and honest about our value…and not feel “entitled” to something better than we truly deserve too. Otherwise, she’d be crying about her “plight” of being “stuck with me”…and not in Tahiti with George Clooney. When, in reality, we’ve got a fair trade.

  See the difference?
• ARoss
  December 6th, 2013 at 7:41 pm

  Looks like this is all too common: http://www.barstoolsports.com/barstoolu/super-page/in-the-wake-of-the-jameis-winston-case-tmz-asks-former-college-athletes-did-you-ever-run-train-on-girls/
  I feel bad for anyone who has a girlfriend or wife that has hung around sports teams then again it’s just another filter to add when reviewing possible LTR or Marriage material.
• Mojo
  December 6th, 2013 at 7:47 pm

  LT,
  I do. I will tell you this first. I really never wanted kids until I had them.

  Example. When my wife was 7 months preggo, I had to go of of country to do some battle with bad guys. When I returned after 14 months I met my daughter for the first time. Apparently I she did not like being held by any men when I was away. My wife found it kinda strange actually. When I held her for the first time I knew then I loved her with all of my might and just wanted to protect her. Also, she cuddled right up to me within minutes of me holding her for the very first time. Even 9 years later she and I are very close. Both hers and my reaction were biological.

  There is no other explanation. She knew I was her daddy and I knew she was my daughter. I will also say that some of my more certain primal instincts were very much alive at this time due to coming from a war zone.

  I have always excelled in the sciences and read about the biology RM speaks up many years before I found the manosphere. Also I was that bad boy that my wife reminded me every so often she was always attracted to. Too bad I didn’t know what I should have done with this info. Anyways the biological theories RM and others discuss are true. I have not only noted them in my own life but experienced them first hand.

  Everything from how I suffered sever physical pain and withdrawal when my wife left due to me being deficient on her pheromones and scent around me, to the above story with my child. I have many more correlations. Biology is in fact, everything.
• Mojo
  December 6th, 2013 at 7:50 pm

  LT,

  “By “encouraging” I don’t mean encourage sluttiness, I mean encouraging whatever it takes to break out caring so much about what other people think. It really messes with people’s heads, and their behavior becomes disingenuous. Men and women.”

  A necessary social convention to help insure monogamy and stable families. Modern Women are stone cold out of control. Your thinking promotes this.
• Mojo
  December 6th, 2013 at 7:54 pm

  Virgins only. Problem half-solved. If you weren’t the third after her chastity was taken, you will always be Mr. As-ov-now.
  The sex will dry up anyway. No matter what a man does, if he genuinely cares for her, the cooch will eventually close. Genuine love from a man, is the ultimate anti-aphrodisiac.

  Dad to say John your absolutly right. Woman should marry young and stay married. I would go as far to say that the only reason to stay with your older and now sexless wife is because she gave you her young hot years. In this case and if she is truly pleasant to be around, you owe it to her.
• Anonymous Reader
  December 6th, 2013 at 8:08 pm

  LyingTree2013, how many times in this thread alone have you announced your departure, only to return?

  Looks like you just can’t get over Rollo…
• Anonymous Reader
  December 6th, 2013 at 8:11 pm

  ARoss, that ath-u-letic story is not just a cautionary tale (heh) for men with regard to their LTR’s, it also is instructive for fathers.

  Daddies, don’t let your girls grow up to ride cowgirl…
• Anonymous Reader
  December 6th, 2013 at 8:14 pm

  Aaron to LyingTree2013
  Do you even read this site? Rollo has written quite a bit about both.

  No, she doesn’t really read this site. Like Kate she’s here as part of a reframathon, when she’s not concern-trolling.
• Matthew King
  December 6th, 2013 at 9:51 pm

  GUYS. This sort of thing happens ALL the time. It’s not the 1950s, you know.

  If you don’t believe this, you must not be familiar with the hottest women. They all want to be shit on during sex, if you are alpha enough.

  Class has nothing to do with it. No woman can control her hypergamy. Every female is a secret whore just itching for the opportunity to beslut herself. The hotter the sluttier.

  The evidence is overwhelming, open your eyes. Beautiful and well-adjusted people will behave just like fat trash under the right seductive circumstances.

  I can’t believe how naive people are to question the relevance of a self-reported viral Reddit that reads like half a Penthouse letter.

  Matt
• Matthew King
  December 6th, 2013 at 10:34 pm

  YOHAMI wrote:

  You know the type of men women are usually attracted to and that women don’t seem to have an inner moral compass and they are like glutton kids. Yet you think that a higher SMV woman, who’s only attracted to the very top and most dominant men, who has every boundary in the world being bended to please her, will want “less” depravity that the common girl who can only get it from books.

  What they want and what they do are two different things. Inner depravity becomes outer sluttiness when the opportunity is taken, not when the (many) opportunities are given. The “inner moral compass” is harder to develop in attractive women because they are subject to greater and more temptation. But beyond that factor, the development of her conscience has little to do with how pretty she is. If anything, her greater opportunities give her more exercise in resisting temptation and therefore would give her conscience a workout, unlike her ugly sister’s hardly-used compass.

  You deploy the fallacy of question begging.

  You assume that every woman has the same inner depravity level (even despite their upbringing?) and the only obstacle holding them back is opportunity: “Dude. Any depravity she has in herself will be maximized by her SMV.”

  You say that every woman on the planet is at their maximum whorishness, and yet you claim I “don’t know enough women in [my] real life?” The spectacular depravities get all the headlines. Women who would puke at the thought of being a whore go undetected, unnoticed, and unfactored into your scheme.

  It sounds like the classic case of confusing a woman’s sexual drive with a man’s. Are all the very hottest women “in your real life” also the sluttiest? Or do they exercise their options according to their whim? I’m surprised you even argue this.

  A woman can be more and less depraved, and only one factor is her looks. Most of it is her psychological upbringing. If looks are a factor, they are mostly a factor in evening the playing field between the ugly and hot.

  Assume the same slut level in an average woman and a very pretty woman. So more men throw themselves at the latter; do the HB’s therefore fuck them all (like a man might)? Or do they have more of a luxury to discriminate? Fewer men will be after the average girl relative to her hot sister. Therefore Plain Jane will use the great equalizer of advertised easiness where Beauty Betty won’t need to in order to satisfy the same inner slut.

  It’s like you haven’t watched tv and don’t know the lifestyles of the very top female celebrities …

  No! Watching TV and assuming regular women are anything like celebrities is the distorting factor itself. Yes, many of them aim for the same destructive lifestyle, but unlike the rich & famous, they end up pregnant and broke and unable to afford rehab. The idea that women are just like fictional TV characters is more a sign of your disconnect from normal females than anything you could accuse me of.

  And then you go off the rails:

  You seems to think that beauty has anything to do with virtue, and that women are virtuous by nature, so a beautiful woman would naturally be less subjected to the forces of the evil external world, and be more natural, therefore more virtuous.

  These inane extrapolations of nuances into extreme absurdities is the charm of internet conversation.

  Of course women are not virtuous by nature alone, and of course beautiful women are presented by more temptations than the ugly. “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God” (Matt 19:24). If you have advantages and freedom (and even virtue) you have further to fall and more opportunity to jump.

  Beautiful girls have more opportunity to slut it up. Average girls have more reason to. Their attractiveness is only partially related to their depravity. Their depravity is more a function of learned virtue than it is a static consequence of their beauty level. Every woman is not possessed by the same totally-depraved inner-whore just waiting for an outlet. There is nothing controversial in anything I’ve said.

  Matt
• DeNihilist
  December 7th, 2013 at 12:18 am

  Dr. Jeremy – “But what if desire does not precede arousal?

  That’s what University of British Columbia psychiatrist Rosemary Basson, M.D., discovered in interviews with hundreds of women. Contrary to the conventional model, for many women, desire is not the cause of lovemaking, but rather, its result. “Women,” Basson explains, “often begin sexual experiences feeling sexually neutral.” But as things heat up, so do they, and they eventually experience desire.”

  So what does this study have to say about a staple of the manoshpere – gina-tingles?

  If the tingle happens after escalation, I fear one of the three legs of game is broken….
• DeNihilist
  December 7th, 2013 at 12:26 am

  Tinman – ” I can not tell you how amazing it is for me to take my kids to dinner and see other families out – and ALL of them have their mobile phones out. ”

  True story, out at a football game. Guy and chick sitting together, but separated by two kids. He phoned her on his cell and they chatted. I was blown away.

  Pathetic!
• DeNihilist
  December 7th, 2013 at 1:17 am

  John – “The sex will dry up anyway. No matter what a man does, if he genuinely cares for her, the cooch will eventually close. Genuine love from a man, is the ultimate anti-aphrodisiac.”

  Sorry John, wrong.

  27 years and still banging our skulls off.
• DeNihilist
  December 7th, 2013 at 1:26 am

  Rollo – “All those Strong Independent® women you see marching in solidarity at the slut walks are still selectively fucking the guys who turn them on, not random schlubs who don’t in order to make some social statement.”

  Jesus, maybe I am an anarchist afterall, I mean, I have fucked a few fatties…..

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Enter your comment here...

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

Email (required) (Address never made public)

Name (required)

Website

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

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

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

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

Cancel

Connecting to %s

Notify me of new comments via email.

Notify me of new posts via email.