In my essay Casualties I described the situation of my sister-in-law and her first husband committing suicide.
The first guy I knew to commit suicide over a woman was my brother-in-law. I don’t like to go into too much detail about it as critics may think it’s my casus belli for getting involved in the manosphere, but suffice to say it was after a 20 year marriage and 2 children. My sister-in-law promptly married the millionaire she was seeing less than a year after he was in the ground. This is a real point of contention her family and I have with her, but it was his terminal beta-ness / ONEitis conditioning that greatly contributed to his hanging himself. The psychologist in me knows there are plenty of imbalances that dispose a person to suicide, but I also know there are plenty of external prompts that make taking action more probable.
My brother-in-law hung himself as a response to having the unthinkable happen to him; his ONE, his soulmate, a woman he was very posessive of, was leaving him after 20 years of marriage (for a millionaire we discovered later). She was the ONLY woman he’d ever had sex with and had been (to the best of my knowledge) a faithful and dependable husband and father since they married at 18 and 19. He did the ‘right thing’ and married her when he’d gotten her pregnant at 17 and stuck by her, sacrificed any ambition he had and worked his ass off to send both his kids to college – an advantage he’d never achieve. He wasn’t a saint by any means, and I’m not going to argue my sister-in-law’s motivations, since those aren’t my point; my point is that he was an AFC who never came to terms with it and believed his life was only completed with his ONE. He literally couldn’t go on without her.
He couldn’t kill the beta (if he was even aware of it), so he killed himself.
This was back in 2003 and I’ll admit the trauma of this experience and the behavior and consequent mindset of my wife’s sister was a catalyst in waking me up to a much broader definition of feminine hypergamy. No longer was this curious term just about “the tendency of women to ‘marry up’ in status with men”, it was about an entire psycho-social dynamic written into women’s psychological firmware since birth. It was this experience that made me aware that hypergamy was an overriding psychological imperative based on a constant condition of doubt and uncertainty about how well she might optimize this hypergamy in measure with her capacity to attract men of equal or greater SMV than her own.
I’ll also admit this episode in my life was personally jarring for me when I considered that my own wife would necessarily be prone to the same predispositions. Her sister, a God-fearing evangelical ‘good girl’, had gone feral on the husband who’d done the right thing after knocking her up at 17 and married her and set about working his ass off for the next 20 years. She was already in the process of divorcing him when he decided a noose and a tree were a better option than living in a world where he had to see his still gorgeous ex-wife with the millionaire she’d met (and later married). So why not Mrs. Tomassi too, right?
I can list any number of reasons as to why I trust Mrs. Tomassi, all of which I’ve read from every blue pill married chump in my time in the manosphere, but I’m not so naive as to think that certain circumstances and conditions ‘could’ change and she could also go feral. This is what my brother-in-law never could grasp. His world literally revolved around his wife.
He was by no means a saint, and for all of his dedication to his family and wife, his main fault was his possessiveness. My brother-in-law controlled the frame of his marriage, but this frame control was rooted in an insecure possessiveness bordering on the obsessive. On some level of consciousness he knew, by happenstance, an unplanned pregnancy and an early marriage, that he’d married well above what his realized SMV would’ve normally merited.
Possessiveness
I’ve seen this type of possessiveness in other men as well, but the common thread among them is usually an underlying, subconscious sense that the guy doesn’t deserve the woman he’s locked down in one way or another. A lot of them would be counted amongst the same Betas who subscribe to the Leagues mentality, only much more pronounced – it’s as if through luck or circumstance, or maybe due to a natural Alpha dominance that they don’t really understand they manifest, they get into an LTR with a woman they would otherwise consider “out of their league.”
Just this possessiveness might seem bad enough, but when it’s combined with ONEitis (the soul-mate myth), a Scarcity Mentality, a subscribing to the myth of Relational Equity or especially a self-righteous dedication to his feminine conditioning and White Knighting, then you’ve got a volatile mix of psychoses and a recipe for suicide or murder-suicide. When possessiveness is a man’s ego-investment and his worst fears of losing the “best thing he’ll ever have”, the relationship he subconsciously believes he didn’t deserve, comes to actuality, he may cease to exist because that former reality ceases to exist. What’s worth living for when you’ve already experienced the best you never merited to begin with?
A lot of my readers got irate with me when I suggested that if their girlfriends or wives wanted to head out with the girls for a GNO they should, as indifferently as possible, let them go. Granted, I attached more than a few caveats as to how to go about it, but the operative behind this indifference is really a test of your own possessiveness.
I’m sure many guys reading this are experiencing the twangs of possessive insecurity even in my suggesting this course of action. The reflexive response most guys will have in a situation like this will be one of mate protection; the fear being that if they don’t express their disapproval they’ll run the risk of their woman thinking they don’t care enough about them to be jealous. This is a trope most guys sell themselves, because it’s more about suspicion than jealousy. As intuitive as this sounds it really masks the insecurity that their girl will meet another guy and hook up with him. On an instinctual level we’re well aware of women’s pluralistic sexual strategies, thus an evolutionarily honed suspicion was hardwired into our psyches to protect men from becoming the beta cuckold provisioning for another male’s offspring. However, as counterintuitive as this sounds, a GNO is an excellent opportunity to display confidence behaviors.
There is always going to be a naturalistic side to male possessiveness. For very good reason evolution selected-for men with a honed sense of suspicion – men want a certainty that their parental investment (or potential for it) will be worth the exchange of resources with a woman who will facilitate it. In other words evolution selected-for men with an internalized, hardwired understanding of women’s biological directive for optimized hypergamy. When a man’s sexual strategy and sexual optimization has to be sacrificed for women’s optimized hypergamous and pluralistic (Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks) sexual strategy in order to breed, monogamy becomes a one-sided risk for him.
Sunshine Mary had a recent post with more than a few loose premises about the nature of women. The first of which was this:
1. Women were not designed by either God / evolution to be traded around among men. There are few (or no?) societies in human history in which human females were heavily sexually promiscuous, and marriage has existed in some form in nearly every culture.
I’m not drawing attention to SSM to run her up the flagpole for this assumption, but it does illustrate a very visceral point about the possessiveness dynamic we’re exploring today. I responded to Mary with this:
In human male sperm there are 3 heteromorphic types: Killers, Defenders and Runners (fertilizers).
Killers destroy opposing sperm, Defenders encircle the ovum and provide a barrier against opposing sperm’s runners, and Runners specialize in ovum penetration and fertilization.
The only logical purpose for the evolution (or intelligent design if you prefer) of these type-specific sperm adaptations would be to optimize a competitive advantage in female fertilization of promiscuous human females possessing secretive ovulation.
Even the shape of a male penis is “designed” to maximize insertion depth to the uterus and simultaneously shovel out competing sperm from the vagina.
If women weren’t promiscuous, if women’s biological imperative wasn’t dictated by hypergamy, would these biological phenomenon have been a necessary evolution for human males? The predominant state of sexual competition, rooted in the dualistic, cuckolding, sexual strategies of human females, necessitated not only an evolved, male, psychological predilection for sexual fidelity suspicion, but an evolution of three types of purpose-specific sperm cells to maximize passing a man’s genetic legacy under conditions of uncertainty.
The Possessive Difference
Back in his earlier work Roissy had an interesting post about the behavioral manifestations displayed between Alpha men and Beta men. Really he likened the behaviors to more animalistic tendencies, but whether or not you acknowledge similar behaviors in people, the reasoning behind these actions make a lot of sense. Alpha men are slow to respond to sudden stimuli (such as loud noises or boisterous taunts) because they are so unused to any significant challenge – in other words, they’re not jumpy Betas used to opting for flight instead of fight. Their posture and body language convey confidence, but only because this Alpha posture is behaviorally associated with what Alphas do.
This is an important dynamic to understand when we consider possessiveness. A man with an Alpha disposition would be less possessive, and therefore display an indifference to possessing any particular woman due to his condition of (relative) sexual abundance. Possessiveness, or certainly an overly pronounced manifestation of possessiveness is the behavior of a Beta unused to sexual abundance and more likely accustomed sexual rejection.
It’s important to bear in mind that possessiveness is conveyed in a set of behaviors, attitudes and beliefs communicated in many ways. It’s not that possessiveness necessarily makes a man unattractive to a woman; on the contrary, it’s almost a universal female fantasy to be possessed by a so deserving and desirably dominant Alpha Man. It’s a visceral endorsement of the status of a woman’s superior desirability among her peers to be the object of such an Alpha Man’s possession; but likewise this is so common a (romance novel) feminine fantasy because of Alpha Men’s general indifference to possessiveness that makes it so tempting for women.
When self-deprecating, undeserving Beta men overtly display possessiveness, women read the behavior for what it is. Beta possessiveness is almost universally a death sentence (often literally) for an LTR. Nothing demonstrates lower value and confirms a lack of hypergamous suitability for a woman than a Beta preoccupied to the brink of obsession with controlling her behaviors. This isn’t to discount the very real reasons an Alpha or a Beta might have concern for a woman’s behaviors, it’s that his own possessiveness conveys a lack of confidence in himself.
January 12th, 2014 at 11:26 pm
Rollo, here is a link to to the Spike Jones movie “Her” with Joquin Phoenix and Scarlet Johanson. I thought you might wish to see it and then write about it.
It is on PutLocker and it is a site I trust infinitely. When the page comes up, click on the button, “Continue as Free User”. Usually, the way the site is monetized, it pops up other pages. Just kill those popups.
The original page will then show a flash player box with a still of the movie.
There will be two white boxes with a “play” arrow in them. Click the one on the right.
Another popup will be spawned and kill it. If the movie doesn’t start, then click the same box again. The site has started that second click to get another popup in on you. If another one spawns, kill it. But the movie should start playing after the second click.
If any popups say “You need to install/upgrade your flash player/java/whatever”, kill them. If some dialogue box insists you respond, do so then kill the page. It will probably have some crap toolbar to install along with the whatever it is saying you need to install. Install nothing. Putlocker uses the same flash plugin that every other web page uses. Usually these movies are DVD quality. I have watched 100s of movies on putlocker and never had an issue like malware.
http://www.putlocker.com/file/7466F2EB156669A1#
January 13th, 2014 at 12:30 pm
Here it is Tilikum.
It is not at all surprising that the very next post after the conversation turned to productively discussing a serious “men’s” issue, several of you deftly raced back in to do your sacrificial manly duty – distract attention away from it, and back on to the scapegoat, so your comrades never have to face the unsightly shame of personal disclosure.
Do you understand the part you just played in creating and protecting the intricate system of deflection which keeps men down?
Sub-matrix, gents. Temet nosce. Did you really think it would be as easy as getting “unplugged”?
January 13th, 2014 at 2:56 pm
A woman is coddled to embrace her envy and solipsism from when she can first talk.
sad, but there it is.
January 13th, 2014 at 3:58 pm
At this point, Rollo never draws the conclusion that the sister-in-law leaving was the brother-in-law’s fault,
He said that he wasn’t making a point about what her motivations where, so why would he make any conclusion. Although that is the usual response, commonly seen from the numerous talk shows on, that the man leaving is him being greedy, shallow, typical man,etc… while a woman leaving means the man drove her away, or couldn’t keep her,etc…
Your comment saying that the millionaire swept her away also furthers the removal of culpability on the part the woman that you commonly hear.
The only clear answers are either to keep the girl or move on with minimal psycological damage.
I think that’s the reason for many of the topics he’s written about. The dangers of oneitus, war brides, hypergamy, and others.
As for going feral, being the usual extolls of being and staying committed regardless of the level the relationship is on, reminding me of Taylor Swift at the moment, when as Rollo put it, everything was “done right”, he was dependable, worked hard to provide, and so forth, the time came when she had to bust loose, I can see why he uses a term like “going feral”. And I put “done right” in quote marks because I know how some people will say that it’s obvious he didn’t do it right or she wouldn’t have left. Thus ignoring all the things that can seem like epic hypocrisy when you consider the mass media supported ramblings about what a man should do for women, and what makes a good relationship, yada yada.
January 13th, 2014 at 4:24 pm
I want to see “Her” also, but I know that the reason he wrote it and what it’s about is probably going to get turned into either the “men so insecure” or “men learning how to treat a woman” crap. Or some combination of both.
January 13th, 2014 at 4:43 pm
Or the “men can only fall in love with fantasy” crap.
Or the “great women don’t exist in reality” crap.
Or the “sharing your life with another person is the most important thing ever” crap.
Or the “marriage is the inevitable outcome of a mature relationship” crap.
Or the “real love is wonderful and uplifting all the time” crap.
Or the “real relationships require compromise” crap.
Or the “its easier to love someone when there’s no mundane daily reality getting in the way” crap.
Or the “judgement kills love” crap.
Or the “the only thing that matters is love” crap.
Or the “if you love something, let it go” crap.
Or…
So much crap. Which version will it be??
January 13th, 2014 at 5:02 pm
Rollo, your posts and responses are gold… Your book is next on my list to buy for my sons and friends.
The intrusion of “red-pill women” like SSM (who may well be a wonderful choice for her mate) and the far more disgusting and deliberately toxic Aunt Giggles. Clearly this growth of “RPW” is showing the typical (and naturally hypergamous) feminine position.
The main source of this, A. Kay’s MMSL. MMSL is clearly helping many former “blue-pill” sad-sack “beta” (Delta/Gamma/Omega) men who have become at best “the Bux”. This intrusion of women filtering in and around this community may well provide massive fodder for another “manosphere” schism. Any of you not familiar with MMSL may do well to watch how much is based on “shaming language” and the “gaming” within the Feminine Imperative.
SSM should have recognized long ago it was time to tuck-tail and sulk off in apology for such a church-ian, fully delusional, and typically female-ish stubborn religious position. NAWALT is so ingrained as a defense against “slut identification” that most of her responses have a sloppy drip of this foul sauce.
Of course no man or woman – will – or is required – to follow biological nature, but this does not remove the base-line facts of that nature.
“Watch what she does not what she attempts to present” and “Disregard females, find and fix yourself” may well be the primary filters we need.
January 13th, 2014 at 6:00 pm
A woman who is not willing to admit that she is capable of causing great injury cannot call herself a “red pill woman.” Few women will be able to resist conditions that cause others to fall. Not experiencing those conditions is not the same as rising above them. Being red pill means understanding the damage you are capable of inflicting and holding yourself back. Its about control: not of others, but of yourself.
January 13th, 2014 at 7:47 pm
Your comment saying that the millionaire swept her away also furthers the removal of culpability on the part the woman that you commonly hear.
No. The line was “when a millionaire showed up to sweep his wife away”
and in the next paragraph it clearly states The only clear thing is that the decision was and would not be made by either the brother-in-law or Rollo.
I can see why he uses a term like “going feral”.
Sure. The point is to juxtapose the concept of “feral” with the commonly held view of appropriate behavior. However, his view of appropriate behavior is not commonly held and certainly not “based on the previous experience of social feedback and social conditioning.”
Again, Now examine the statement provided by Softek; “Organisms respond to the conditions of their environment. The problem is that the idea of ‘treatment’ is based on diagnosing an organism with a problem in isolation from its environment.”
January 13th, 2014 at 7:56 pm
T you should probably read The Pet to get a better idea of what I mean by ‘going feral’
http://therationalmale.com/2012/04/24/the-pet/
January 13th, 2014 at 8:04 pm
He said that he wasn’t making a point about what her motivations where, so why would he make any conclusion. Although that is the usual response, commonly seen from the numerous talk shows on, that the man leaving is him being greedy, shallow, typical man,etc… while a woman leaving means the man drove her away, or couldn’t keep her,etc…
Sure. The point of the comment was that much of the manosphere’s efforts are spent hamsterbating about the outcomes of situations which were not in their control. It is a form of “treatment.”
The “treatment” is effective (that is to say, deadens the worst pain) because it shifts the cause (even of failure) back within the patients control. This allows the patient’s story to continue without re-evalution.
January 13th, 2014 at 8:13 pm
T you should probably read The Pet to get a better idea of what I mean by ‘going feral’
I understand of your meaning. It is incoherent within the context of the rest of your work.
January 13th, 2014 at 8:45 pm
It’s not clear if you are trying to understand my comments or not. I read your post on the pet. To draw another analogy, please read these comments in order, listen to the song (if you can stand it), and then read on…
It’s a mistake (and sometimes a fatal one) to ignore what you know is just under the surface. It’s comforting to believe that you’ve got a special connection, and while the conditions are right, you’ll preserve a relationship based on mutual trust and shared affinity. The flaw is in believing that trust, and kinship is unconditional; that the underlying feral motivators are subdued to the point of being inconsequential.
A woman who is not willing to admit that she is capable of causing great injury cannot call herself a “red pill woman.” Few women will be able to resist conditions that cause others to fall. Not experiencing those conditions is not the same as rising above them. Being red pill means understanding the damage you are capable of inflicting and holding yourself back. Its about control: not of others, but of yourself.
Katy Perry – Dark Horse http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9S-88WxPdE
—————-
Now consider someone from a society that dealt with infidelity the way many historical societies have and some still do, would he have the same outlook on women? That is to say, if the social response was to execute the cheating wife and demand repayment to the husband from the millionaire (or execute the male as well if he was unable to pay the debt), would he have been rationalizing how women “go feral”? Such societies would have viewed the interloper as turning the wife into a toxic liability, eliminated her from the husband’s (and the society’s) balance sheet, and demanded compensation.
Again, Now examine the statement provided by Softek; “Organisms respond to the conditions of their environment. The problem is that the idea of ‘treatment’ is based on diagnosing an organism with a problem in isolation from its environment.”
January 13th, 2014 at 9:02 pm
Addendum: And would a woman in such a society be concerned with “understanding the damage [she] is capable of inflicting and holding [herself] back” and how “magical” she is.
January 13th, 2014 at 9:24 pm
getting a little ‘spergy in here T…..
deep breaths, eh?
January 14th, 2014 at 12:59 am
[…] disagree with his decision to self-immolate, I understand his sentiment. In last week’s Possession, Living Tree attempted to call me to the carpet about how a man might come to the conclusion of […]
January 14th, 2014 at 7:33 am
@living tree ” I have multiple other forums i participate in, some of which contradict yours”
Could you post a link to some of your comments on these sites. It may give us a better idea of where you’re coming from.
NMB
January 14th, 2014 at 11:27 am
If a society kills women for infidelity, then it’s possible that a man would have a different outlook on women. Seems killing them for it shows they do. Whether it affects the woman’s outlook on what damage they can cause I’m not sure. You could say no, because if they kill a woman for infidelity and women still commit infidelity, maybe their outlook doesn’t change.
Unless you’re saying that they haven’t killed any women for it, but if they do that hammer’s coming down hard.
But then again, maybe there wasn’t any infidelity and that gets used as a way of getting rid of wives they no longer want.
I don’t know. Maybe it’s like the difference between “he swept her away” and “he showed up to sweep her away”.
January 14th, 2014 at 11:34 am
Yeah, haha, not likely to happen NMTB. I’m not even publishing yet, and I’ve already been stalked by extremist nutjobs too insecure to take even the slightest threat to his masculine identity. Why just a few posts back, my good friend Tilikum just reminded me that because I’m a woman, that I’m retarded, not a real person, and compared me to a dog.
http://www.psmag.com/navigation/health-and-behavior/women-arent-welcome-internet-72170/
I’m not referring to you necessarily NMTB, but I’m sure you understand my reluctance.
January 14th, 2014 at 11:34 am
As for Softek’s statement. I took that as saying, you come to a doctor with problems, you get treatment to take away what you tell him is wrong, or attempt to. Like telling a doctor about headaches, fatigue, breathing problems. You get treatment to take those away. You don’t get, at least initially, the old paint with lead in it and mold cleaned up at the old apartment building you live in that’s causing the problems.
But it’s his statement, so he could mean something else.
January 14th, 2014 at 11:38 am
Not all nutjobs are like that, Tree.
January 14th, 2014 at 11:38 am
Ah, what a surprise (not at all). I figured it wouldn’t be too long before this forum would start discussing killing women for infidelity.
January 14th, 2014 at 11:41 am
Promoting and discussing are two different things.
January 14th, 2014 at 11:48 am
Very funny WCB, NANJALT!
I’m sure most nutjobs restrain themselves from their natural extremist inclinations due to, um, morality, law and other inconvenient stuff like that, but there’s the minority who don’t let cumbersome social constraints such as civil rights stand in their way. Its difficult to tell which ones have that kind of restraint. They seem normal in person, but behind the veil of internet anonymity, the insanity can be set free.
January 14th, 2014 at 11:54 am
Discussing and promoting are different, that is true Rollo, but I’m quite completely certain that rationally “discussing” it is exactly how nearly every atrocity in human history was begun.
And I don’t expect to hear you discussing killing men for infidelity any time soon. Or for any reason, probably. Yet I seem to recall a few articles back getting lambasted by your gang of tyrants for even subtly suggesting that eugenics may not have been all bad.
January 14th, 2014 at 12:17 pm
Care to link those comments here?
Discussing the latent purposes behind islamic honor killings, stoning of adulterous hasidic women, male or female circumcision and any number of other barbaric practices is not tantamount to endorsing them.
It is however an important part of understanding the dynamics behind those purposes.
January 14th, 2014 at 12:25 pm
Is keeping a gang of tyrants due to an insecurity?
January 14th, 2014 at 12:34 pm
Oh come now, WCB, you know full well there are more than a few insecure tyrants on this forum who would be dangerous to individual liberty if they gained any form of clout.
January 14th, 2014 at 7:09 pm
Maybe so. I just don’t think Rollo has any possession over them. They’re all incoherently feral.
January 14th, 2014 at 8:57 pm
As for Softek’s statement. I took that as saying, you come to a doctor with problems, you get treatment to take away what you tell him is wrong, or attempt to. Like telling a doctor about headaches, fatigue, breathing problems. You get treatment to take those away. You don’t get, at least initially, the old paint with lead in it and mold cleaned up at the old apartment building you live in that’s causing the problems.
What if the doctor simply says you need to adapt to the lead and mold. And if that does not work, come back for more treatment.
January 14th, 2014 at 8:59 pm
Right, Different T, for that treatment you have to see a different professional. A non-psych based one. Sometimes the solutions are not where we think they are.
January 14th, 2014 at 9:14 pm
I’d call that bad advice. Or you could say you don’t adapt to the lead, you adapt what you can adapt because of the lead.
But telling them to adapt to the lead, even though wrong, is still an acknowledgement that part of the problem lies within the environment.
January 14th, 2014 at 9:22 pm
@ Water Cannon Boy
I’d call that bad advice[…] But telling them to adapt to the lead, even though wrong, is still an acknowledgement that part of the problem lies within the environment.
No. If the solution is adaption, the problem is the organism’s inability to adapt.
Again, much of the manosphere’s efforts are spent hamsterbating about the outcomes of situations which were not in their control. It is a form of “treatment.”
The “treatment” is effective (that is to say, deadens the worst pain) because it shifts the cause (even of failure) back within the patients control. This allows the patient’s story to continue without re-evalution.
January 14th, 2014 at 9:59 pm
If you think that the only way to adapt is for the organism to do it. Or, with an example like lead, you have something you don’t adapt to. It’s poisonous.
To me, much of the manosphere discussion(only the parts I’ve read) is about seeing clearly, being aware. Not necessarily outcomes. I don’t go through a lot of blogs. Your take could be different. I read some of the post in this blog and I can relate it to some people I’ve known and dealt with. Many things said in this blog i knew about. But there are many people who read things here and the proverbial light bulb goes “ding!”
January 14th, 2014 at 10:10 pm
If you think that the only way to adapt is for the organism to do it.
Huh? Is it correct to assume your contrasting the organism adapting to the organism changing its environment?
Or, with an example like lead, you have something you don’t adapt to. It’s poisonous.
Is it correct to assume you mean that removing the lead is not adapting? If those assumptions are correct, this point contradicts your previous point.
To me, much of the manosphere discussion(only the parts I’ve read) is about seeing clearly, being aware. Not necessarily outcomes.
The manosphere very rarely, if ever, “reports the facts” of any event. It constantly interprets and offers explanations and rationale for why things happen.
January 14th, 2014 at 10:54 pm
I was saying that changing the environment is adapting. As opposed to another form would be a change in the organism. May have mistaken you as saying adapting means a change in the organism. Like the wood frog.
If by facts you mean there’s a lack of formally done studies, scientific process, then yes. No doubt. However, it’s enough for me and a lot of people to recount many experiences in their lives and what they see in others. Rollo and other people that I’ve come across have been very clear that they aren’t coming from a scientifically done starting point. They may point to some studies as a reference or for extra support.
When you watch show on behavior and interaction on the Nature channel, the why is what usually is the most interesting.
What facts would you like to see more of?
January 14th, 2014 at 11:29 pm
If Aristotle were resurrected and given a blog, every other comment would be a demand for him to back up his insights with a peer reviewed study
January 15th, 2014 at 12:02 am
If Aristotle were resurrected and given a blog, every other comment would be a demand for him to back up his insights with a peer reviewed study
Do you agree that it is sometimes best to just call a whore, a whore, without any discussion of hypergamy, or the feminine imperative, or use of any evolutionary psychology model or explanation?
January 15th, 2014 at 11:11 am
Yes, Rollo, that’s what “philosophy” is really – someone thinks too much about a particular topic, creates completely unsupported theories designed for the purpose of guiding one’s experiences in life, and learning how to better argue those theories. Little more.
There generally is no reliance on “science” to a philosopher, the theories are supported merely by observation and thought.
Spartan boys used to get schooled in it as early as seven years. Marcus Aurelius’s private education was almost exclusively in the subject of philosophy and rhetoric, as was the majority of well known thinkers of the classical period.
This is exactly the subject matter that is lacking from the education of our youth today. In today’s world, we rely on science (and religion of course) to do our hard thinking for us, and I think that is to our overall detriment.
January 15th, 2014 at 12:57 pm
“doesn’t deserve the woman he’s locked down ” – as a reason for possession
Hmmm… I can see where this could be a functional reason if the man has decided to limit himself to just one women. I know that I have a core group of women – of whom I demand they see only me – while I can see anyone – and a group that I see when I want and is convenient for both of us. That second group is usually involved with others (who do not know about me), and while there are certain demands I make on them – they can either comply or not – if not, I write them off and don’t call them again. The first group gets benefits that they see as worthwhile – I don’t care as to “WHY” they agree with this – it benefits me, and I assume benefits them in some way. I do it because it is in my best interest to have several women to see to my needs.
My purpose in this arrangement is simply to never leave myself without options. I see a lot of men that limit themselves – they commit to one woman and when she leaves, or it ends, he has no options and tries to reconstitute his life – which wastes time and effort. Why would any sane man do this? I learned long ago to have a “string of pearls” always moving up – the core group are the ones I see at least once a week, and is usually not more than three women – although it has been as high as five (that was just too much time dedicated to the same group of women – I enjoy variety) – so with three, I have time for myself, and to see others, as well as still have time for my hobbies which allows me to meet many women of the type I enjoy – young, attractive, and eager to please.
A lot of female arm-chair psychologists have tried to argue as to “why” I do this – but the simple fact is, it works for me and is to my advantage. Now some women argue the disadvantage is there is no “long term” relationships – yet one of those “core” women has been with me for the last 3+ years – longer than many relationships. (She sees value in it, and I enjoy her as she brings many other women to my bed. We just got back from a vacation, and in that time she brought 3 women to my bed – to my 1. Why would I willingly give up such an arrangement?) So from my perspective this works, and the reason I consider my “core” group to be mine is simple – they have agreed to be. They can leave at any time – and I’ll just start auditioning others to take up the slack, but only those who agree to see only me – get the privilege of seeing me regularly. I’m sure that some women wouldn’t see that as an advantage – and it matters to me as much as an ant-farting. It’s the ones that agree – that provide value to me. The ones that don’t – I’ll still have sex with them when it works for both of us, but there is no “requirements” on them, or me.
Yes, this is to protect me – but so what? I wear body-armor when in a “hot-zone” to protect myself from a stray bullet, why wouldn’t I do the same in my personal life? To me, it’s the only “sane” thing to do.
January 15th, 2014 at 3:22 pm
LyingTree2013
Oh come now, WCB, you know full well there are more than a few insecure tyrants on this forum who would be dangerous to individual liberty if they gained any form of clout.
Looking in the mirror while posting, are we?
January 18th, 2014 at 5:01 pm
@Rollo I’m not drawing attention to SSM to run her up the flagpole for this assumption
Go easy on @SunshineMary (blog) has been surpassed in Alexa rankings by http://eighthrising.com/2013/10/28/10-marriage-tips-every-wife-needs-to-hear/ @eighthrising has listed the Matt Walsh blog on its blogroll. It takes funding and magic to make this happen so suddenly for Eighthrising.
@SSM ‘s credit, it does appear that @SunshineMary’s blog has grown naturally (without funding or power from unnamed sources).
What entities fund The Matt Walsh Blog? It is interconnected with the presence of ‘Jenny Erikson’ blogs.
January 20th, 2014 at 2:57 pm
Rollo,
I’ve been reading your blog and the countless truths such as AWALT, and one-itis, etc. and it really is a service to other men that you bring them these hidden truths.
I think cultural conditioning and bad parenting is the root cause. I was raised in a conservative Mexican household and my own mother would espouse red-pill truths.
“To women: never give them all your money nor all your love”
“Don’t try to save a woman, she likes the bad life (based on her choices)”.
were common refrains. She would occasionally go into the deceitful nature of women, and I believe that she meant to protect us from bad women. They exist and should be avoided. We avoided bad women and were able to accomplish top-tier school STEM degrees and have good careers and balanced lives.
How responsible, level headed, religious, etc. could your sister-in-law had been when you tell me she was 17 and pregnant?
Although I believe my father would have told me to “man up and take care of my family”, everyone would know that she is trouble. Therefore, never give her all your money nor all your love.
This, I see as the main difference between feminist and patriarchal cultures. Women here are treated as “made from sugar and spice…”. It never crosses their mind that women could be vindictive and mean; I always tell people, if women were so nice, why do they murder their own children? (there has been more than 55 million abortions since R. v W.). No reply.
I’ve traveled around the world for fun and work, and I can see that ~80% of women are all the same: bad. There is a small minority that are properly raised, but in the US, that number is probably <5%. It feels liberating to run into so many (mostly) "feminine women" but in the grand scheme of things, AWALT. Hypergamy is a bitch.
In my family, out of roughly 15 adult males, none are married. Out of 10 females, 6 are married. I used to wonder why the women in my family were finding suitable men and marrying, and the men weren't, until I saw the difference in how we raised little girls.
My cute little niece, after doing something bad, was trying to get out of it by making cutesy faces and eyes. When my dad saw that, he told my sister, not only does she deserve a spanking for disobeying, but you are going to give her twice that amount for being cutesy and trying to get away with it. My little niece immediately freaked out and started crying. She's only 3 but she's being taught to respect and not try to abuse her cuteness (later on sexuality). Most women act like spoiled children.
"Never give them all your money nor all your love" because they'll take it all and leave you without any. Suicide is the likely outcome after.
January 21st, 2014 at 8:42 am
if you think into it logically, many other animals do not have such a penis with a knob on the end for scooping sperm, and this is because their mating strategy is very fixed… the male proves himself (or in the case of herd animals has already proved himself as the alpha of the pack)… mates… and the female will then refuse to mate with others….
this strategy suits animals better, because the female is more or less equal to the male physically…. thus if a male tries to force himself on a female, he will very likely be injured or killed by her alone… if not by other males in the vicinity…
whereas a female human can very easily be raped against her will…
thus… rather than be raped repeatedly through out her life…. she simply loosened her standards and allowed multiple males to mate with her…. AND became better at manipulating and shaming males to her tribe.
November 11th, 2014 at 12:14 pm
Discovered your blog a few weeks ago, while trying to make sense of my past four relationships, and about 10 years of life pissed away under the constant obsession with the “ONE.”
It is a tremendous help. I am daily rethinking concepts and understanding my numerous errors. To put it mildly, it is a mind fuck.
I am going to read your entire blog, and peers use carefully Dalrock and Roissy.
If anyone has any recommendations, they are appreciated. In many ways, your writing has been a pillar if not a life saver. As Bukowsky’s poetry in other tough moments of my life.
With all my best regards,
Paul.
November 11th, 2014 at 12:15 pm
Peer use – peruse. Spell check.
November 11th, 2014 at 2:15 pm
Thanks Paul, I’m glad you’ve benefited.
You might also want to get my book:
http://therationalmale.com/the-book/
November 17th, 2014 at 7:29 pm
[…] into a Beta Tell is when a man’s lifestyle revolves around ‘keeping’ her in a possessive sense for fear of losing her because she’s his only viable option for sending his genetic material […]
November 26th, 2014 at 2:16 pm
[…] explains why “mate-guarding” is an ineffective behavior that is indicative of BETA status: Back in his earlier work Roissy had an interesting post about […]