One of the withdrawal symptoms of unplugging from the Matrix is usually an overwhelming nihilism that results from being torn away from the previous blue pill preconceptions a man has been conditioned to for most of his life. It’s my hope that in the future red pill men will make the necessary interventions and apply what they’ve learned from their unplugging and red pill truths in general towards their sons (and daughters) as well as other men they know or are related to. Until then, the process of breaking away from that conditioning is usually going to begin as the result of a traumatic breakup, a divorce, or having had the relational equity he thought he’d built a long term relationship on proved worthless in the face of hypergamy.
It’s a sad reality of unplugging that it most often starts as a result of emotional anguish, but to pour salt in those wounds is then having to live with the harsh realities that the red pill makes men aware of – that more or less everything they’d held as an ego-investment up to that point was founded on a feminine-primary conditioning. I summed this up in The Bitter Taste of the Red Pill:
The truth will set you free, but it doesn’t make truth hurt any less, nor does it make truth any prettier, and it certainly doesn’t absolve you of the responsibilities that truth requires. One of the biggest obstacles guys face in unplugging is accepting the hard truths that Game forces upon them. Among these is bearing the burden of realizing what you’ve been conditioned to believe for so long were comfortable ideals and loving expectations are really liabilities. Call them lies if you want, but there’s a certain hopeless nihilism that accompanies categorizing what really amounts to a system that you are now cut away from. It is not that you’re hopeless, it’s that you lack the insight at this point to see that you can create hope in a new system – one in which you have more direct control over.
Try to keep this last part in mind as you read what I propose in these next two posts. I read a lot of guys in various forums getting despondent after having the red pill make sense to them, but that despondency is really a simple lack of not having a path already preset for them to follow. Instead of the easy answers and prerequisite responsibilities that the blue pill and the Feminine Imperative had ready for him to follow, now in his new awareness he’s tasked with making a new path for himself, and that’s both scary and exciting at the same time.
Love Styles
In almost 3 years of blogging and a book written, my three most popular posts have been the Love series – Women in Love, Men in Love and Of Love and War. Though my SMV graph gets the most link backs, these are easily the most viewed posts on Rational Male. Unfortunately they’re often the most misquoted and misunderstood.
One of the toughest revelations of the red pill is coming to terms with the difference in experience and concept that men and women apply to love. The core principle in Women in Love is often misunderstood. For different reasons, deliberate or otherwise, both men and women critically misunderstand the main premise of that post:
Iron Rule of Tomassi #6
Women are utterly incapable of loving a man in the way that a man expects to be loved.In its simplicity this speaks volumes about about the condition of Men. It accurately expresses a pervasive nihilism that Men must either confront and accept, or be driven insane in denial for the rest of their lives when they fail to come to terms with the disillusionment.
Women are incapable of loving men in a way that a man idealizes is possible, in a way he thinks she should be capable of.
Most critics of my differing assessment of how either sex interprets and considers love tend to blow past this last part. They oversimplify my meaning and sputter out something to the effect of, “That Tomassi guy thinks that women can’t ever really love men, what preposterous crap!”
Of course that isn’t my assertion, but I understand the want to dismiss this notion, particularly for men and women invested in the ideal of equalitarianism. It’s a threat to the ego-investment that men and women are anything less than fully equal and rational agents who come together for each other’s mutually agreeable benefit. The simple fact of women’s innate hypergamy puts the lie to this presumption, as well as confirms the relevancy of women’s constant, qualitative conditionality for whom (really what) they’ll love. I think it’s ironic that the same people who disparage this concept are among the first to readily embrace the pop-psychology notion of Love Languages.
I get why that premise pisses off women (and feminized men); it’s very unflattering to be accused of loving men from a position of opportunism. However, it’s important to understand that I don’t make this observation to condemn the way women approach love – although I’m sure it will follow, my point isn’t to presume a ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ way for women to love men or vice versa. There are beneficial and detrimental aspects of both women’s opportunistic approach to love, and men’s idealistic approach to love. That said, I happen to believe that the differing ways men and women love each other evolved to be complementary to the other and for the betterment of our species.
For all the “OMG I can’t believe this red pill asshole thinks women can’t really love men” misdirection, I should point out that well intentioned men, especially the newly red pill, are also guilty of the same oversimplification. Theirs is an attempt to find validation in the (usually recent) trauma of having been cut away from their prior blue pill conditioning. A similar, “Rollo says women can’t really love men, of course, it’s all so clear to me now” satisfies a simplistic need for confirmation of their former condition.
And again, it’s not a right or wrong way of loving, it’s the lack of recognizing the difference and being on the punishing side of that lack. Most men will want to apply their concepts of honor or justice in assessing how ‘right’ men’s idealistic love is, while women will still see the inherent value in loving what a man is as a prerequisite for loving who a man is. Hypergamy doesn’t care about men’s idealistic expectations of love, but neither does men’s rationality make concessions for what facilitates women’s opportunistic approach to love.
Romantic Souls
From The Red Pill subreddit:
My whole life, I’ve had it nailed into me that I would be able to find true love if I was honest and hardworking. As I grew older it was, “If I’m somewhat fit and have a good job making 60k-80k a year, I’ll find that beautiful girl that loves me as I love her“.
As I’ve stated on many occasions, it is men who are the True Romantics. Granted, it’s the unthoughtful result of centuries of evolved ‘courtly love’, but in the realm of what qualifies as a true act of romance, it’s men who are the primary actors; it’s men who ‘make’ (or want to make) romance happen. And of course therein lies the problem, a man cannot ‘make’ romance happen for a woman.
For all a man’s very imaginative, creative, endeavors to manufacture a romance that will endear a woman to him, his ‘trying’ to do so is what disqualifies his intent. For every carefully preplanned ‘date night’ after marriage, there’s a college girl swooning to bang her boyfriend living in a shithole, sheets over the windows, furniture from the dumpster, pounding shitty beer and sleeping on a soiled mattress on the floor. Romance isn’t created, romance just happens, and it’s a tough, but valuable, lesson when men come to realize that a happenstance bag of skittles, or a ring made from a gum wrapper at the right time meant more to a woman than every expensively contrived ‘romantic getaway’ he’d ever thought would satisfy her need for lofty romance.
An important part of the red pill is learning that the most memorable acts of love a man can commit with a woman are acts of (seeming or genuine) spontaneity and never apparently and overtly planned (and yes, that applies to sex as well). This is a source of real frustration for a man since his blue pill conditioning expects the opposite from him, and his romantic nature – the nature that wants her to love him as he loves her – conspires with his problem solving nature, thus prompting him to ever greater romantic planning for what he hopes will be an appreciated, reciprocated love.
The Hierarchy
The true source of a man’s frustration lies in his misdirected hope that a woman’s concept of love matches his own. His ideal is a beautiful girl that loves him the same way he loves her. The presumption (a romantic one perpetuated by the myth of egalitarian equalism) is that his concept of idealized love is a universal one which women share with men in general and him in particular.
Thanks mostly to men’s blue pill conditioning, what most men fail to ever consider is that women’s hypergamic based love always considers what he is, before who he is. For a more detailed explanation of this I’ll refer you to my post Love Story. This is the root of the intersexual hierarchy of love.
Before the rise of feminine social primacy, the above ‘flow chart’ of love prioritization would hardly have been an afterthought for a man. Through any number of evolutionary and sociological progressions the base understanding of how Men’s love began from a position of protecting, provisioning for and directing of the lives of both his wife and children wasn’t a concern worth too much of his consideration. Neither was a prevailing desire for a reciprocal model of love an overshadowing concern.
To be sure, a baseline requirement of a returned love, sex, respect and fidelity were important elements, but this wasn’t the originating basis of male desire for being loved; there was no expectation of a woman loving him as he loved her (and by extension their children). To be a man was to have the capacity to provide a surplus beyond his own provisioning.
“A man provides, and he does it even when he’s not appreciated, or respected, or even loved. He simply bears up and he does it, because he’s a man.”
Gustavo’s monologue in my opening video may seem like an anachronism, especially in the light of a red pill awareness of the potential for injustice and the veritable certainty of a provisioning arrangement that will almost always be a one-sided proposition for a man – whether he’s loved, respected, appreciated, married or divorced.
Undoubtedly there’ll be men reading this bristling at the idea of a non-equitable model for love, but I’d argue that the idea of an equitable model is the result of the conditioning an egalitarian equalism has predisposed men to believe is even possible.
Before the rise of feminine primacy, a man’s expression of love through his support and guidance simply weren’t things women or children had the capacity to reciprocate. The advent of women’s independence, real or imagined, has served to strip men of this core understanding of the differences between male and female concepts of love. In the effort to feminize men more fully, and position men in a condition of confusion about what constitutes masculinity, this concept of love was replaced by a feminine-primary model for love.
While a woman’s respect, and a degree of love may flow back to her man, her primary love and concern is directed towards her children. One reason we’re still shocked by women who kill their children (pre or post natal) is due to an inherent acknowledgement of this natural dynamic. Women’s brain function and biochemistry largely evolved to predispose them to bonding with their children, and thus ensure the survival of the species. Beyond the rigors of physically gestating a child, raising children to self-sufficiency required a considerable investment of effort and resources – not to mention a constant attention. Nature selected-for women with an innate capacity to nurture and direct love primarily towards children.
The internal psychology women evolved to vet for men who displayed traits for both Alpha physical prowess and parental investment / provisioning potential are a result of children being a priority for a woman’s love. While a degree of maintaining a man’s continued commitment to the family unit requires her attentions in the form of sex and affections, a woman’s primary love focus is directed towards children.
Granted, not all women are capable of having children (or some even desirous of them), but even in these instances substitute love priorities still supersede directing her primary attention towards a man. It may seem like I’m attempting to paint women’s love as callous or indifferent, but this ‘directioning’ isn’t a conscious act, but rather due to the innate understanding that a man is to direction his love towards her as a priority.
This should give readers a bit to chew on for a while. In Part II I’ll detail the alternative hierarchy models prevalent for modern, post-feminine primacy relationships.
May 8th, 2014 at 8:35 pm
The more I deal with women, the more I’m convinced that business ettiquette is the key to keeping things under control. Business requires that a certain amount of detachment be observed if an honest deal is to be brokered. Emotion (the manipulative tool women abuse to gain advantage) clouds the judgement, and could lead to making a bad deal. Thus, one should hire a pro if one wants sex.
May 8th, 2014 at 8:41 pm
“A man provides, and he does it even when he’s not appreciated, or respected, or even loved. He simply bears up and he does it, because he’s a man.”
This basically says it all, at the same time as revealing the problems in any modern LTR.
1.) Unless you’re pushing mid 6 figures, you can’t support a family of 4 on any reasonable level, without wifey working, which instantly gives her 1/2 the trousers. That makes her 1/2 man and you by default 1/2 woman. Plus she’s out and about, instead of under your roof and thus temptations and hypergamy are going to catch all but the unicorns. Que any excuse (minor squabble over who puts the trash out) to start an affair. How can hubby compete with her dynamic boss, co-worker, client etc. – In the long run her cannot.
2.) Stay home moms, have way too much free time with modern technology etc. so that even if you can afford to keep her off someone else’s payroll (and away from hungry alphas in the work place) – assuming you can sling her a generous monthly allowance, she’ll either get bored, or worse start dabbling in mischief (the devil makes work for idle hands). Plus once the kids pass 7-8 years, she’ll have less and less todo and now start feeling anxious and resentful that she’s not productive in some other way and her career now has a huge hole in it. Kids grow up faster these days and need to get out of the stuffy home environment and do their own thing…. momma is semi redundant before she even started.
3.) If you are a high earner, it’s likely that your career is interesting and exciting and also demanding, (and probably a lot more interesting than little tommy’s bath night). Thus the time you spend with your family can very well feel like a burden and a chore. An evening downer, when you need refreshing relaxation. A lot of fuss with the kids all weekend when you want some fun. A tedious family holiday with kids, when you could be clubbing, or treking the Himalayas.
4.) A wife and kids is an accessory to a man. It’s not obligatory by any means, and without the earnings to support it all, it’s just a massive burden. In the 21st Century, there are so many more entertaining, enjoyable and rewarding pursuits than supporting a wife and raising kids. Sorry… FACT!
5.) In the long run a woman can only love a man like a mother or a sister – Red blooded men appreciate neither dynamic in more than very small bursts. The old expression “for every hot chick there is a guy bored of fucking her”. Plus she’s aging and less attractive on an absolute scale. But the real problem here is spending ‘quality’ time together is a complete myth. You can little in common and a man is better enjoying almost any pursuit outside of sex, with other men, not with women.
6.) A man spending too much time with his SO – the ‘best friend’ blue pill ideal, will start thinking and talking more and more like a woman, while she will start taking on more male traits. The attraction is depolarized and while the woman may benefit from a little male vibe, if she wants a high powered career…. the man can only lose out, as he starts to be more and more beta, just by virtue of keeping too much female company.
The whole LTR thing is just a redundant mess these days. I don’t know what you do about the kids, they love the ideal of momma and poppa…… but the problem is that these ideals just simply don’t exist anymore.
May 8th, 2014 at 8:48 pm
The real question is….. whether the selfish, self centered baby boomer generation, have brought up kids that are now so selfish and self centered that they can’t take on family ideals……
or whether modern life simply provides so much more beyond families and breeding like a rabbit…. to make family life and holding down a wife and kids, seem like nothing but an unnecessary burden.
they say women initiate 70% of the divorces, but i guarantee you that in 90% of those cases, the man has withdrawn, given up and simply doesn’t have the “I want a divorce” gene, and can’t leave. So he carries on, until she gets the message and does his dirty work for him.
May 9th, 2014 at 1:32 pm
@jf12: Maybe so. Not too sure on that side of the male mind and even Jon finds it baffling how readily some guys “fall in love” and lose their minds over a fantasy. Can’t argue with your logic there.
May 9th, 2014 at 3:21 pm
The part I find baffling is why women won’t admit their own behavior usually. If a man behaving too in-love makes her behave poorly towards him, why won’t she just admit it?
May 9th, 2014 at 3:42 pm
Example
http://thoughtcatalog.com/hannah-sofia-ghani/2014/05/dont-date-the-boy-who-gets-lost-in-your-eyes/
Ignoring what else Ms Ghani says in favor of what she means, apparently it makes perfect sense to women to say “Don’t date the boy who is in love with you, but instead wish the boy that you do date would fall in love with you.”
May 9th, 2014 at 4:08 pm
http://heartiste.wordpress.com/the-sixteen-commandments-of-poon/
III. You shall make your mission, not your woman, your priority
Forget all those romantic cliches of the leading man proclaiming his undying love for the woman who completes him. Despite whatever protestations to the contrary, women do not want to be “The One” or the center of a man’s existence. They in fact want to subordinate themselves to a worthy man’s life purpose, to help him achieve that purpose with their feminine support, and to follow the path he lays out. You must respect a woman’s integrity and not lie to her that she is “your everything”. She is not your everything, and if she is, she will soon not be anymore.
May 9th, 2014 at 4:36 pm
Re: mission. In the same way that under dangerous (e.g. pre-modern)conditions it is good for her child to be a mother’s mission, under those same conditions it is good for his wife to be a man’s mission, as in the flow chart of love prioritization. We men, we betas anyway, lactate an overabundance of the milk of human kindness, and would like nothing better than our wives to suckle us deeply and appreciatively. Otherwise we just squirt all over ourselves and everyone near.
It seems, however, women would prefer to complain about the few meager drops they have to work to get out of hard-eyed men.
May 9th, 2014 at 7:17 pm
Re: Mission
I believe this is the most important lesson of Redpill thinking. Strip away everything else and this is the core. Everything is about the mission. Everything.
Having an all consuming mission is the only way to level the playing field with hypergamy. A man with such a mission has to have a form abundance mentality. That can either take the form of being able to replace a woman quickly, or realizing that a woman isn’t necessary in the first place. Anything not necessary to the mission therefore exists in abundance.
If the woman loves your mission you can keep her. But don’t make her a part of the mission. Let her be a fan because that’s about all she can be. Pat her on the head and compliment the T-shirts in support of your mission. Use her like a groupie, because that’s what she wants anyway. She will never be your equal, never be a collaborator, never be a partner, but she might your biggest fan. If not so what she never part of the mission in the first place.
If she decides to attach to someone else’s mission let her go she wasn’t doing anything mission critical. What she provided was not necessary. If you think she was mission critical then you lost focus on the original mission.
May 9th, 2014 at 11:29 pm
Good post and comments. I would just second Acksiom’s comments that:
In this regard I wish to denounce the Breaking Bad monologue as being blue pill reprogramming and reinforcing, through an appearance of red pill wisdom:
““A man provides, and he does it even when he’s not appreciated, or respected, or even loved. He simply bears up and he does it, because he’s a man.”
Poodle dogs, abandoned animals receive the love they are unable to direct towards a man, human beings, and very often towards children as well. So, we’re back to Acksiom’s note. Not that animals are not worthy of respect and good manners, of course, especially elephants, lions, hippos, snakes… all of them.
That said, I’ll wait for part II and leave the discussion for you. :)
May 9th, 2014 at 11:43 pm
@Badpainter, good thoughts, wish it could be so. “If the woman loves your mission you can keep her.” I have a missions story, maybe you’ll see the relevance.
A friend of mine went to Bible college and graduated with a missions degree (yes, they have those). He met his girlfriend there, who was getting her mrs degree, I mean missions degree also. She was a PK, a pastor’s kid. They got married and she got pregnant, in that order, but lacking funds they didn’t go on the foreigns missions field right away but instead got jobs, and increasingly rarely evangelized with home missions, trying to raise money for foreign missions. They had a special account that slowly accumulated.
Some ten years and two kids after graduation, she had turned off the sex for years. He was an unpaid assistant pastor in a large Kentucky church, in addition to a fulltime job and a halftime job, and she was the paid church music director, making about 25% of what he did, and she began getting full of herself. There was now quite a bit of money in their special account, almost enough for the requisite two years overseas travel and living expenses for the family. He tried to get permission to go preach out for more special offerings to complete the account, and failing that he tried to wangle a paying gig there by threatening to leave that congregation, so he was told to leave by the pastor. His wife decided to take it upon herself to offer her body to the pastor to let them stay, and failing that she tried to blackmail him.
Her husband was almost as shocked as the pastor, and sensing that she may have overstepped some boundaries, she fled and stole the special account and the kids and hid out with her parents, in another state, claiming possible abuse of her and the children by her husband and by her former pastor. Naturally she got everything in the divorce, full custody, and his enormous child support payments are based on him bringing home 64 hours of work per week PLUS what he got in the offerings for the account, which she stole.
Something about level playing fields and marriage just don’t go together.
May 9th, 2014 at 11:47 pm
I forgot to mention that my friend had remarked wryly to his wife at the time, about them leaving Kentucky, “You promised to follow me to Bolivia, and you won’t follow me to Alabama.”
May 10th, 2014 at 12:55 am
jf12,
Marriage is about as likely to payoff today as a coin flip. No sane man would bet half his wealth and 20% of future earnings on a coin toss that promised weekly sex for 25 years with same women who may get fat, and to whom he was responsible for feeding clothing, housing, entertaining, breeding,etc….
Your friend’s mission was derailed the moment he proposed. If he’d her left in the groupie position dangling marriage at some point in the future he may have lost the girl but fulfilled his originally intended mission. Which of the missions this man considered (marriage or spreading the word to the heathen) would have more pleasing too God?
May 10th, 2014 at 5:35 am
Why won’t she admit it? Because treating men badly is what she was raised to do. To her, there is no wrong being done when she takes advantage of him and gives him nothing tangible in return. She thinks that her presence in his life -along with the Golden Pussy she provides once in a blue moon- is more than adequate compensation for keeping house (to HER standards), cooking (if it can be called that), and “caring” for him, all while she dissipates his hard-earned money. Admitting harm in that process means she has to provide for herself, and she wasn’t raised to do that.
May 10th, 2014 at 10:52 am
@Badpainter re: “Your friend’s mission was derailed the moment he proposed.” Correct. It’s in the Bible, 1 Corinthians 7:32-33.
May 10th, 2014 at 12:50 pm
Given that we all know that a woman’s conditional “love” for her man highly objectifies him (whether as a provision supplier, or entertainment provider, or spider-squashing provider), I ask the question “Why do women insist that they don’t objectify the men they love?” AWALT.
I answer the question: this is yet another backhanded way for women to diss the men they pretend to love. Since the women *clearly* do objectify those men, they therefore admit knowing they don’t love those men. Women DO harbor the romantic over-the-top love for apex alphas, that men harbor for ordinary women.
May 10th, 2014 at 9:37 pm
Va bene, Signor Tommassi, you’re seemingly one of the few minds who’ve got the awareness very few men do, even amongst most manosphere bloggers:
Indeed, very few men have this kind of awareness. A few commenters here do as well, but very few indeed. Before you asked me why not self-develop and attract women. I think now that I know whom I am talking with, I can better answer it for you. So, here is the answer: what is the value of a pussy, when one realizes the ‘price’ women assign to it?
Is it really worthy any kind o self-development? No, it’s not. A pussy is worth only a few bangs, and those who make the least effort often get the most reward nowadays to bang a pussy. This is what t I refer to the “ultimate feminine imperative incompetence”. We really need to do mankind and even women a favor and rebuff the myth of “superior or mythical feminine intelligence” or “supernatural intuition” (which seemingly never works when they would most need). Hence the importance of realizing that men’s ideal of love can only be justified in the natural intersexual hierarchy, which is the only true efficient hierarchy.
In fact, the seemingly happiest and most successful guys I have ever seen in their relationships are actually “beta” types who women identify with “bread winners”: no major talent, no major self-development, no major achievements, no major skills, only the emotional long term investment to be the “breadwinners” for women who were likewise mostly concerned about just making up a family and having children (no poodle dogs and shopping malls worshiping, no feminist “scum of the world” manifestos, etc.). So basically none of them are overly identified with one another in a “romantic” sense. These are the guys who are the happiest in their relationships with women, as I see it.
And the irony of it is that if they were “successful” a priori they would most likely make the fatal mistake of trying to identify with their object of love, just like “betas” do, in great part conditioned by the feminist myth and blatant lie of relational equity, and end up enslaved by gold diggers and/or frivorced in the process, in serial monogamic setups.
And here you make another very important point:
I always refer to men who claim they do not care about a woman’s virginity and housewife skills they would commit to, as unconscious hypocritical liars. All men do. Even Roosh unconsciously dreams of a Cinderella: http://www.rooshv.com/the-dark-side. This is the bitter red pill women have to swallow, because as you stated, neither does men’s rationality make concessions for what facilitates women’s opportunistic approach to love.. In fact, it’s also an opportunity to break up the feminist supremacy by demanding of feminist women the qualities they’ve always preached to possess: femininity, purity, natural beauty, motherly skills and sacrifice, unconditional love, etc. It’s also ironic that they condition men to expect from qualities they do not possess, which basically means that feminist are a great societal fraud.
Now, answering your question in a straightforward manner, the only thing that could motivate me to “self-develop” to “attract women”, is knowing that I would be granted a fair and balanced relational intersexual hierarchy. But I do not need any woman to help me self-develop. I already strive to self-develop for my own sake and “self-development”. A pussy is not worth my self-development. I do not need to attract women either, if not only then for a release of sexual tension. I don’t need any woman to “whip” me into self-development. I do not care about what feminist think, want or need, and the only women I acknowledge as respectable are those who humbly enough submit themselves to their natural intersexual hierarchy: they’re heterosexual women, who are in the “game” of natural intersexual relational dynamics to have a husband and have children. These are the women I appreciate the most. Yet, they usually marry their first ever sexual partner and intelligent enough to tell the difference from one “clown” to a normal man.
It also basically means that I can only love a woman who is attracted to me a priori, and whom I recognize as having heterosexual characteristics and wants to have children and a husband, because she also identifies with her natural intersexual hierarchy. It also means that in such hierarchy I am owed respectful submission. Also, I would also prefer virgins for long term commitment. Those who claim they don’t, are hypocritical unconscious relational equity believers. Not that I do place a lot of value on the hymen itself. It’s just that I feel that women who know what they want and their place in the natural intersexual hierarchy, will more likely do the right choices.
May 10th, 2014 at 9:45 pm
Note: Knowing that “Men believe that love matters for the sake of it. Women love opportunistically.”, one of the greatest pleasures I have nowadays is to drink a bottle of good wine, true the oldest Italian tradition. “In vino veritas.”
May 10th, 2014 at 10:28 pm
@badpainter – rather than a coin toss, I consider marriage to be playing Russian Roulette with three bullets. Add another bullet for every prior divorce that she’s had.
If your life and finances survive the first bullet through the head then consider carefully before you decide to reload and play again.
Enjoy the odds – and imagery.
May 11th, 2014 at 3:35 pm
Chokmah – in simpler terms,
What is the difference between a pussy and a cunt?
May 11th, 2014 at 3:36 pm
A pussy is a nice warm wet welcumming place that men desire.
A cunt is the thing that owns it!
May 11th, 2014 at 9:08 pm
That’s why men are the real true romantics, and believe that love matters for the sake of it, while women love opportunistically. Paradoxically, this creates a male intrasexual competition in which the one who get it first wins. And if he invested less then other late comers, he had a competitive advantage. So it basically means that girl “tight game” amounts to realizing the best value with it, with the first winner. She is born with high inherent value and administer it as time passes by. He is born with zero value, and creates it through “self-development” or manly attributes.
May 11th, 2014 at 9:14 pm
So, in simpler terms, although the cunt owns the pussy, her value is determined by intrasexual male competition, and how wisely she administer it. So, she does not own the rules through which her value is determined, precisely because she does not own male desire or idealistic love.
May 11th, 2014 at 9:24 pm
@Rollo: I will try to help you solve your philosophical dilemma:
Men’s concept of love: respectful, uncoerced, unobligated and voluntary female submission.
May 12th, 2014 at 6:46 am
Kate I am from Slovak republic and I can say I totaly agree with Rollo in his post and especially with gregg what he wrote above about womens nature. I also spent some time in the USA..It is the same and the way men are fed by blue pill since being born in femisentric society is a disaster… I don´t blame AFC for what he is, bceause it is hard to be enlightened when society lies to you from the very beginning. In Europe women think they have the entitlement for everything, once you merry her, you are done..More than a half of divorces are initiated by women and more then 50% marriages fail. Men loose kids, home and money….That is reality – red pill. it seems to me that marriage is the worst blue pill ever…And there are legal issues like today the tendency in Slovakia exists to promote constitutional protection of merriage..Doesn t make sense they want to protect sth that´s doesnť work in real life and is destructive against men self interest and usually fails. Yes women are able to do anything in order to get you, once you are caught, you are replicable tool or disposable for a better catch..sad thing but reality..the only way possible is keeping frame and selfimprovement…
May 12th, 2014 at 11:50 am
Chokmah says “she does not own the rules through which her value is determined” which seems vastly significant.
May 12th, 2014 at 1:03 pm
I can’t wait to see the flow charts of love prioritization for the alternative hierarchy models.
Despite the few Tiger Moms getting a lot of press, and despite that it makes psychological sense that a woman might push her child to succeed where she couldn’t, most of the moms that I see instead are grateful to use their children as excuses why they can’t succeed.
May 12th, 2014 at 2:57 pm
It’s worth keeping in mind that Kelly Clarkson’s hit “Because of You” was written as a teen to her beta nerd father, with her self-awareness that he was living a far more authentic emotion than she as woman was capable of.
“My heart can’t possibly break
When it wasn’t even whole to start with”
May 12th, 2014 at 4:01 pm
Wikipedia is wrong on that. Clarkson’s hit ballad ‘Because of You’ was written by Moody and Hodges (formerly of Evanescence) in 2004. That is why it sounds so much like the tragic ballads on 2003’s ‘Fallen’. Clarkson’s name was thrown on it in keeping of all the other fraudulent co-writing credits given to the chick pop stars of that era. The narrative claimed on Wikipedia was retrofitted to the song after it was written.
If I am wrong, please provide a demo from the late 90s when this song was supposedly ‘written’.
Thanks for bringing up the music references though jf12 – I enjoy the back and forth on musical topics!
May 12th, 2014 at 4:24 pm
So what you’re saying, Rollo, is that women don’t like contrived romance. This should come as absolutely no surprise to any man who has ever made a romantic approach to any woman and been shot down.
What’s sad, is when we do it over, and over, and over, and over, and over again, hoping each time for a different result.
“Since no one’s asked the obvious yet, yes, this will be included in the Preventive Medicine book I’m working on now.”
Yeah, sorry, I’ve been busy lately. ;)
May 12th, 2014 at 6:09 pm
@Mike: I’m surprised because, according to a lot of people, eastern European women are supposed to be so much better than American women. Perhaps only American men feel that way and eastern European men know better.
May 12th, 2014 at 10:35 pm
Men do not have as much sexual power/choices as women do. There is no rosy way to state and/or swallow that. In fact, what’s even less rosy is the realization that his idealist love feelings will be most likely pragmatically or opportunistically used by them. Yet, I do think that male power resides solely upon having a firm stance upon whom he is willing to commit to. And in this regard women have little or no control, hence their need to control/dominate the relationship and/or “change” men (feminism invested so much energy into “social engineering”, male shaming and brainwashing for some reason: fear). As many women operate on an illusion of unlimited and everlasting power, not realizing this can be very significant and costly for them in the long run, depending on the choices they do.
May 13th, 2014 at 2:35 am
Where I get confused is when do you give up on the super high smv girls (even if you have been gaming them correctly) and just settle for a less attractive girl to start a family….
It’s the same “opportunistic love” that @ROLLO is talking about. That’s like saying us men settle for a less SMV less hot girl for long term. Girls settle for the more committal beta.
So, does that mean we give up and just settle with a girl we are not as sexually attracted to?
Gotta clear these thoughts up somehow
May 13th, 2014 at 8:52 am
Part 2 Part 2 Part 2. I’ve checked this every day to look for the next post. This is fabulous!
May 13th, 2014 at 9:20 am
Kate, trust me I see no diference between american and european women.. not talking about high school girls but women at the peak around 25 and more.. The more beautiful she is – the bigger entitlement she thinks she deserves… no mercy..
May 13th, 2014 at 11:02 am
Will – my answer would be that you never give up on the highest SMV girls. That’s the only girl ‘good enough’ to start a family with. And even at that, your committing to her will always be one hell of a gift to her, because you’re discarding opportunities to bed other women. As a man, time is on your side and there is no urgent need to ‘settle’ whatsoever.
As for a man loving opportunistically for the end-goal of starting a family, I can see how counter-intuitively it would be a huge neg to the woman – in that you’re adopting the very ‘female’ usurious modus operandi of procuring an interchangeable ‘maternal-provider’ to carry out the preconceived objective you wish to achieve. You’re essentially stealing a woman’s love-style, rendering your relationship devoid of any romanticism and idealism that the man would naturally bring to it.
May 13th, 2014 at 11:34 am
Steve H – “You’re essentially stealing a woman’s love-style, rendering your relationship devoid of any romanticism and idealism that the man would naturally bring to it.”
And that would be bad because….?
Isn’t part of the woman’s love style the ability to create the illusion that it’s not a pay for play relationship?
May 13th, 2014 at 1:06 pm
@Prov Erbs, good cooking takes time.
Especially when a hundred different cooks are ready to tell you about all the ingredients you missed in a recipe.
May 13th, 2014 at 1:23 pm
Badpainter – right, I don’t think it’s ‘bad’. There’s nothing inherently dishonest or deceitful (aka ‘dishonorable’) about it. It’s just interesting to me how the man rather than the woman would be holding that card from the outset in this example.
Rollo – if part 2 is as good as part 1, I think most of us are willing to wait as long as it takes for it to be finalized.
May 13th, 2014 at 1:33 pm
It’s already in the can actually, I’ve just been experimenting with staggering my posts for mid-week reading lately.
That and a new greyhound has been keeping me busy.
May 13th, 2014 at 2:51 pm
Will, my take is this. If you really want a family, then start with that as the criteria. Go after the hot girls, but be brutal in your assesment of them as pertains motherhood. Fuck em for fun if they don’t meet your marriage desire, but don’t give it a second thought when you dump them for someone closer to your ideal.
Also be brutal in your assesment of your own SMV. We are led to believe that a better chance of a long lasting marriage is too actually wed a woman who is a point or 2 below your own SMV.
My wife of almost 30 years was a solid 7 when we tied the knot. I will not claim that this marriage has been heaven on earth, but it has produced 2 boys who are very well adjusted and confident in themselves. And I still bang the old lady at least twice a week. In her age group she still runs around a 7, and her looks matter to herself.
As for me, I would have put my looks at around a 7 also 30 years ago, but have since changed that opinion if all the old girl friends and friend girls from high school that I have re-connected with on facebook are telling the truth, it appears I was closer to an 8.5 then a seven!
May 13th, 2014 at 10:55 pm
They cannot be compared because: 1) Most guys will never have a chance at “super high smv” girls; and actually dream of “supper high mmv” girl with natural or average beauty; 2) Most women, in their natural state, provided she’s average beautiful, will be attractive enough to a lot of guys; the opposite is not true, because women don’t chase men around, either for commitment or sex; 3) “Committal betas”, unless he was snagged by an equally “committal” beta woman, won’t be able to party and fuck around “super high smv” girls as he’s developing himself and going through a life of privation, suffering, loneliness and depression until he becomes attractive enough to be the “committal beta” in the first place, eligible to be settled, and would like to settle with a “high mmv” girl like himself instead.
In short: there is no equality really between men and women and so such comparisons are moot. All the best.
May 14th, 2014 at 6:40 am
@Mike: I guess that is the difference then: high school versus 25. I suppose the same would be true in the States. All the more argument for young, and, due to youth, arranged marriage.
May 14th, 2014 at 10:21 am
This sentence is a little misleading/awkward because you don’t really mean “mens rationality”, I’m pretty certain you’re talking about men supplanting significant portions of their rationality with idealism. That’s a compromised rationality which is why it is twisted into something that cannot make such concessions.
May 14th, 2014 at 10:29 pm
Feminists didn’t count on this… :-) Because they cannot conceive that their “rationality” is outrageously offensive to men… It’s a natural defense mechanism, conditioned and forced by women themselves… unwittingly. Rollo nailed it again in part II:
In laymen language, women cannot be free and continue to be women (expecting men to take the lead on everything). They want to be subdued and led, unconsciously. It’s rooted in organic, psychological and spiritual differences, men being the active principle, women the passive one. But I’ll leave this discussion for you. All the best.
June 15th, 2014 at 2:08 am
Women are utterly incapable of loving a man in the way that a man expects to be loved.
Not exactly true. They are capable of loving a dominant man the way that a man expects to be loved.
June 15th, 2014 at 2:43 am
Also be brutal in your assesment of your own SMV. We are led to believe that a better chance of a long lasting marriage is too actually wed a woman who is a point or 2 below your own SMV.
SMV is important. It is not critical. I’m 69 and STILL get the occasional hot 20 something salivating after me. (keeps the mate on her toes) Why? Women can sense dominance. (maybe a pheromone). My father was the same.
I got the red pill at age 18. From my first girlfriend no less. You practice dominance for years and it changes you.
June 22nd, 2014 at 4:34 pm
[…] For all a man’s very imaginative, creative, endeavors to manufacture a romance that will endear a woman to him, his ‘trying’ to do so is what disqualifies his intent. For every carefully preplanned ‘date night’ after marriage, there’s a college girl swooning to bang her boyfriend living in a shithole, sheets over the windows, furniture from the dumpster, pounding shitty beer and sleeping on a soiled mattress on the floor. Romance isn’t created, romance just happens, and it’s a tough, but valuable, lesson when men come to realize that a happenstance bag of skittles, or a ring made from a gum wrapper at the right time meant more to a woman than every expensively contrived ‘romantic getaway’ he’d ever thought would satisfy her need for lofty romance. -The Rational Male […]
July 8th, 2014 at 2:21 am
[…] Intersexual Hierarchies Part 1 – Part 2 […]
September 10th, 2014 at 12:18 am
[…] Intersexual Hierarchies – Part I […]
October 6th, 2014 at 8:50 pm
[…] Intersexual Hierarchies Part 1 May 6, 2014 link […]
October 16th, 2014 at 2:38 pm
[…] his post on the hierarchy of love, Rational Male shows us that the love between husband and wife is not […]
March 20th, 2015 at 5:29 pm
[…] himself as his mental point of origin for which a woman accepts you can see how this leads to the conventional model. His idealism is enforced by how he considers it and how he applies […]