Towards the end of The Bitter Taste of the Red Pill I wrote this:
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.
One of the hardest lessons I had to learn when I unplugged (such as it was) was throwing away ‘hope’.
Not real, internal, personal hope, but rather the ‘hope’ I had been led to believe was a realizable state – if circumstances, if personalities, if fate or some other condition defined by the feminine imperative would just align in such a way that I’d been conditioned to believe it could, then that feminine defined contentment could be actualized.
I wanted very much to realize that idealized state by defining hope (or having it defined for me) in a context that was never of my own real choosing. I got just as depressed as anyone else when I unplugged. I got angry. I didn’t want to think that I’d invested so much of myself in something that was fundamentally unattainable because the my understanding of it had been incorrect, either deliberately or by my own hopeful interpretations of it.
My own ‘unplugging’ was a gradual affair and came after a lot of drawn out trauma. And yes, to realize that all of that trauma amounted to nothing after hoping and struggling to mold myself into something that I was led to believe was achievable it was even more depressing.
It wasn’t until I realized that the hope I was sold came from the same social paradigm that never held my best interests as a priority that I threw it away. That was a tough day because I realized in doing so I would have to find a new sense of hope for myself. It seemed very nihilistic at the time, and I had to really make an effort not to make that choice from a sense of self-pity.
One particularly hard revelation I had to disabuse myself of was understanding that women love differently than men. That was tough to embrace because the old hope I was struggling to realize was based on the primary tenet of blue pill thinking; the equalist notion that men and women share a mutually recognized, mutually accepted concept of love.
Once I understood this was an idealization rather than a reality, and that women can and do love men deeply, but in an entirely different feminine-specific concept of love, I discovered that I no longer ‘hoped’ for that mutuality and embraced the hope that men and women could still genuinely love each other from their own perspectives of love without a mutual consensus.
I remembered then an older man I had done some peer counseling with while in college and how this man had essentially striven his entire life to please and content his ex-wife and his now second wife of more than 30 years. From his early 20s he’d spent his personal life in a hopeful attempt at contenting, appeasing and qualifying for a mutually shared state of love he believed these women (the only 2 he’d ever had sex with) had a real capacity for.
At 73 (now) he’s spent his life invested in a hope that simply doesn’t exist – that he can be loved as a man ideally believes a woman ought to be able to love him – just as all the romantic, feminine-defined ideals of love he’d learned from a feminine-centric social order had convinced him of for so long.
This is why I say men are the True Romantics, because the overwhelming majority will devote a lifetime to the effort of actualizing a belief in a male-idealized love to find fulfillment in a woman and for that woman.
Old Hope for New Hope
I hope that doesn’t sound too fortune cookie, but it’s a prime example of redefining hope in a new red pill-aware paradigm. You can hope and thrive in a new red pill context – I know I do – but it’s much easier when you internalize red pill truths and live with them in a red pill context instead of force-fitting them into your old, feminine-defined, blue pill context. I can imagine what my marriage would look like if I hadn’t made the red pill transition and learned to use that awareness in it. There are a lot of guys paying ‘marriage coaches’ $149 an hour because they never did.
There was a comment buried in last week’s comment thread from Hobbes that was too good not to include in its entirety here:
I think I get it!
For years I have been bitter about this need to “perform” about how this shows that women do not love us as we love etc.. And just now I was reviewing my old relationships and I recalled something.
In each of my relationships, prior to meeting the women I eventually fell in love with, I was constantly working on myself, I would get in shape, hang out with friends, explore my environment and work on myself and my music etc. As soon as I would “fall in love” I would slowly drop those activities, I’d focus on being a good bf, I would focus on providing and “being what she wanted” what I thought she wanted, better said.
But here is my Eureka moment, what I recalled each time was being unhappy, what I recall each time was feeling boxed in and kind of dull.. of feeling trapped.
Is this what Rollo means when he says our response to women is a conditioning, and that the sadness we get from Red Pill truth is the result of behaving and believing something that is not really our nature, but the result of having someone else’s behaviors and beliefs installed into us?
So I think I finally understand it for myself… the talk of putting yourself first, of “performing” etc is really just a way of saying “you don’t have to do what people say you’re supposed to do in a relationship – you don’t have to drop everything for her, you don’t have to stop doing what you like and love and you don’t have to kiss her ass”
In my case I dropped everything for two reasons. One was to do what I thought I was supposed to do.. what I heard women say they wanted from a man, what my mother said a man should be etc.. and the second reason was insecurity. I wanted her to love me, I didn’t want to rock the boat, I was scared of losing her.. so eventually I did. I believed that in order for me to be worthy of her, of her love, I had to go along and give her what she said she wanted, what I was taught she wanted.
Is this what Rollo and everyone else is talking about? Because I think I finally get it. Up to now I have faked my Game, to some extent. I just knew better than to do certain things or did things I knew would make me attractive, etc. to women. But seeing this now, not only am I realizing there is nothing to be bitter about – I was always happier working on myself and my interests and actually resentful of having to stop them – but that I am actually happier doing this thing women want of us we call “performing”.
In a way, you are performing, as Rollo says, either way. If you stop and think you can rest, in many ways you are doing so because you have been conditioned to believe, as I was, that you should. That real love meant you could and should.
Anyway, maybe this is simply me and my personal experience of it, but it makes sense to me.. and I think this has revealed to me something monumental, personally. Maybe other guys have a different experience of it, but this is how I have seen it played out in my life.I feel better.
The key to living in a red pill context is to unlearn your blue pill expectations and dreams of finding contentment in them, and replace them with expectations and aspirations based on realistic understandings of red pill truths.
Learn this now, you will never achieve contentment or emotional fulfillment in a blue pill context with red pill awareness.
Killing your inner Beta is a difficult task and part of that is discarding an old, comfortable, blue pill paradigm. For many newly unplugged, red pill aware, men the temptation is to think they can use this new understanding to achieve the goal-states of their preconditioned blue pill ideals. What they don’t understand is that, not only are these blue pill goal-states flawed, but they are also based on a flawed understanding of how to attain them.
Red pill awareness demands a red pill context for fulfillment. Oracle Z wrote a fantastic article on Return of Kings this week called Why you shouldn’t seek emotional fulfillment through women. It’s well worth the read, but what Oracle Z outlines here is a fulfillment based on feminine-primary, blue pill conditions for that contentment. Even when men achieve these blue pill goal-states, the ones they’re conditioned to believe they should want for themselves, they find themselves discontent with those states and trapped by the liabilities of them.
Just as Hobbes illustrated, the periods when he was not striving to achieve or maintain those blue pill goal-states were the times he was most fulfilled with his life, talents and ambitions.
As if this weren’t enough to convince a man he needs to re-imagine himself in a red pill-primary context, when women are presented with ‘the perfect guy‘ in a blue pill context they gradually (sometimes immediately) come to despise him. As proven by their actions, even women don’t want that blue pill perfected goal-state because it stagnates the otherwise exciting, self-important men they are aroused by, and attracted to in a red pill context.
I’ve stated this in prior posts, but it bears repeating,
“Women should only ever be a complement to a man’s life, never the focus of it.”
Living in a blue pill context, and hoping you can achieve fulfillment in its fundamentally flawed goal-states, conditions men to make women the focus of their lives. Throw that hope away and understand that you can create hope in a new system – one in which you have more direct control over.
October 3rd, 2014 at 2:38 pm
@ Professor
And did you bang her?
This is an invalid test. I keep my vows. I’ve dropped a fair number of panties and know how to read women quite well.
Let’s consider a case where I did bang a hottie even though I didn’t have the looks. When I was in college, I had a fling with a beautiful blonde (I estimate a 9) about the time I turned 19. She was 20 y.o. I was 5’7″ and 125 lbs. She was 5’6″ and 135 lbs. or so. I was kissably-handsome (about an 8). Looks weren’t enough, though. I was in a fraternity, but wasn’t an athlete. My SMV at 18-19 y.o. wasn’t that high based on Rollo’s SMV chart for men and nowhere near the SMV of my fling. However, I had enough balls to simply ask her to make love AND I showed that I could be discreet. (She was engaged and needed discretion.) I also saved her @$$ from a stalker, so there was some bad boy attraction.
What got “Mary” interested? Was it my looks? Someone who was only one inch taller than her and who was just beginning to grow into a man? Yeah, I had kind of a good-looking face, but too much of a boy in appearance with the height and weight. There were lots of men who had equally handsome faces and much better bodies. So what made me attractive to her?
I had inner game from when I had done pickup a lot in high school. Confidence. I wasn’t afraid to take her hand on the walk to her dorm room where I “popped the question”. I straight out asked her to make love while we were sitting on the floor facing each other, holding hands. Actually, it took about 30 seconds for me to manage to verbalize the question. I had to overcome some hangups. So she was sitting there waiting all that time and grinning at me. Her Hamster was churning the whole time, I’m sure. All in my favor.
I was a member of a fraternity. Social validation.
I save her @$$ from a stalker. Bad boy attraction.
None of those things are based on looks.
Now, if I had been a land-whale, things would have been different. But my looks weren’t a turn off. They just weren’t enough to seal the deal. My looks were merely average, considering my height and weight relative to Mary’s.
Someone with a somewhat less handsome face who had an athlete’s body (say, 6’2″ and 200 lbs. of muscle) would have had better looks.
October 3rd, 2014 at 3:52 pm
The fruit is not literal. The Bhagavad Gita teaches us to relinquish the fruits of our actions, which means to act without attachment to outcomes. So, picking the fruit is a way of circumventing the natural order: taking God’s Knowledge directly from the tree instead of allowing it to fall from the tree when it is ripe (implying the passage of time). Its about seeking immediate results instead of going through the process. The Gita says we must act, and our actions must be sattvic. It explains:
“…when, out of duty, a man
performs an obligatory action,
relinquishing all results-
that relinquishment is called sattvic.
The man who is able to relinquish,
beyond doubt, does not avoid
unpleasant actions, nor is he
attached to actions that are pleasant.
An embodied being can never
relinquish actions completely;
to relinquish the results of actions
is all that can be required.”
October 3rd, 2014 at 5:19 pm
@Stingray re: “It doesn’t say anything about Adam’s temptation by Eve.”
Yes, it says he was not deceived. It is doctrinal, crucial to soteriology, that Adam deliberately sinned with full knowledge aforethought. He knew Eve had transgressed, and he chose to join her in death in fulfillment of his (earlier!) prophecy (Genesis 2:24). Ask your pastor if you think otherwise.
This is all very red pill.
1) The Man did things for highly romantic reasons, and for highly momentous reasons. The Woman did things for highly trivial reasons “ooh, shiny!”, and highly unromantic even caustic reasons “if I’m going to die then I’ll make sure he does too!”
2) The man’s *downfall* was caused by his romanticism. The woman’s downfall was caused by her willingness to rebel, empowered by her refusal to acknowledge that she needs to submit to a good man because she is so easily led astry by badness.
3) Deception Game works on women. In fact, it works too well. By far the easiest way for any man to pick up women is for him to conspire with them to do bad things. Women enjoy being deceived, women enjoy conspiring, women enjoy being bad.
October 3rd, 2014 at 5:40 pm
” The Gita says we must act, and our actions must be sattvic. It explains:
“…when, out of duty, a man
performs an obligatory action,
relinquishing all results-
that relinquishment is called sattvic.
The man who is able to relinquish,
beyond doubt, does not avoid
unpleasant actions, nor is he
attached to actions that are pleasant.
An embodied being can never
relinquish actions completely;
to relinquish the results of actions
is all that can be required.’ ”
Perfect.
The goal of the FI made clear. Get men to provide, strive, perform out of duty and obligation with no hope, or concern, or desire for reward. Only when men act on the understanding that fulling the expectations of women is it’s own reward can we truly be happy. The “we” being women for as soon as men do this the women will truly be free from any duty or responsibility to any man or men, and thus they can live guilt free knowing that men live to serve them.
Eastern philosophy is just an enticement to voluntarily enslave one’s self. Personally I prefer the more ironic and simpler German version: “Arbeit macht Frei.”
October 3rd, 2014 at 6:44 pm
The drunken man who isn’t allowed to throw the darts, because even if he aimed “carefully”, staggering and squinting with the wrong eye and taking an inordinate amount of time, he’d still completely miss the dartboard and the wall it was on, being more likely to stab down through the top of his foot or pierce the back of someone standing at the bar way off on one side, when he selfishly and gleefully grabs all the darts and childishly kicks them randomly, bending the points, he’s the happiest one. The others are angry at him specifically *because* he is acting out of lack of hope and concern and desire for the correct result.
October 3rd, 2014 at 7:01 pm
MikeC pointing out this guy’s traffic compared to mine
MikeC has genius beyond comprehension. If you’re a man not reading his blog/listening to his podcast, there are serious issues that need to be worked out.
Doing the CMQ show tomorrow is a good move.
October 3rd, 2014 at 8:26 pm
jf12,
Ah but the Gita says acting out if duty or obligation, and being unaffected by any results, correct or otherwise.
You scenario lacks a universal rejection of results, and suggest no duty or obligation. I would counter saying the drunk bending darts is following a path of his housing and intentionally seeking a socially incorrect result, when his duty is to not handle darts in such condition. So yes he is happy, mostly because he chose his own way.
October 3rd, 2014 at 9:49 pm
Only when people act on the understanding that fulfilling the expectations of God is it’s own reward can we truly be happy. This has nothing to do with women or the FI, unless you have made women your god. (Not a good idea.) Its about doing what is right regardless of how it will personally affect you in either a positive or negative way. Its about stoicism. Preferring Germans, perhaps you can appreciate that :)
October 3rd, 2014 at 10:46 pm
God’s expectations are easy to fulfill if one first ignores the expectations, and agendas of the humans. That was Adam’s error listening to a human.
October 4th, 2014 at 2:48 am
What a shame… Rollo is writing about some very deep and insightful stuff here, and all we got in the comments section is some juvenile debate about looks.
Women, children, cats and dogs all prefer to be around good looking people. So whats new?
Now what? Your solution, your course of action, is to come to a this board and cry about it?
The sad thing is, its as if you guys didn’t even read the article.. this idea that if you were 6ft tall and ridiculously handsome you’d be living large and perfectly loved live is exactly the kind of illusion of hope Rollo is talking about. You think it would make you loved? wanted by “quality” women? you think then you’d feel better?
Nope
As Rollo is saying, if I understand correctly, that is just a flase hope, a stunted one in the case of people who think they are unattractive, but a false hope none the less. The fact is if you were perfectly handsome, you’d still be loved in the way a woman loves- and not in that “perfect” state you think you’d be in. Hypergamy would still kick in, she’d still expect you to perform, etc etc..
It’dlike being a 13 yr old girl fantasizing about being Cinderella- if only your fairy godfather would come and turn you into a prince you’d have that perfect princess who would truly love/desire you and come for the “real” you after the carriage turns into a pumpkin.
Such a shame that these comments have turned into this… I usually find the comments here to be among the best in the manosphere and often as illuminating as the posts.
I guess the information Rollo is sharing here is just too much for people and it’s easier to retreat into defeatism and nihilism. Well, I won’t be a hipocrite, god knows I struggle with both often enough.
October 4th, 2014 at 9:13 am
jf12,
Ok. I’m no biblical scholar and I will take your word for it. Let me ask you, what do you think of Vox’s post today. Do you think his advice can make a woman do right and do you think this tactic is bad? And if so, why is it bad?
October 4th, 2014 at 10:31 am
@Stingray, yes his advice is to be bad. Every single actual specific tactic he advises: use vulgarity, make her cower, etc., all are bad. Also the overall strategy of responding to evil with evil is exactly what the Bible tells us NOT to do. “Turn the other cheek”, “overcome evil with good”, etc., violating also for example Colossians 3:8-12. Yes, being bad is what works with women. It’s a shame.
I am loud, and have a deep voice (baritone, but they call it bass these days in comparison). Instinctively animals, and men, cower to me but women do not cower unless they believe actual harm is specifically directed at them.
October 4th, 2014 at 11:17 am
jf12,
Minor quibble about turning the other cheek.
KJV- “But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.”
Given that most people are right handed the only way to be struck on the right cheek is a back hand slap. Insulting, and demeaning. Turning the left cheek is a challenge to the striker to try it again as a punch. It’s advice for holding frame, and a demand to respected as a man. “Resist not evil” is a call for introspection to be clear one’s motives are righteous as are one’s actions in the individual shoud resist being motivated by evil as well as doing evil. There is no call to allow evil run roughshod over the top of the righteous man.
It’s evil itself to suggest a man has no righteous options when comes to self defense. The core corruption of Christianity is the notion of Jesus as a weak wristed pacifist. He even warns about the fate of cowering men:
“Blessed are meek for they shall inherit the earth”
What isn’t said is their inheritance is a plot six feet deep. An idea that would have been understood more readily in the past as “inheriting the earth” is often a metaphor for death and burial.
To your point the Bible does admonish us to avoid preemptive violence. Being good however cannot be accomplished by submitting to, or ignoring evil.
.
October 4th, 2014 at 11:47 am
What Badpainter said. And I think that submitting to a wife who would run roughshod over you is not loving (agape). And it is certainly not evil to make someone fear or cower who would do you wrong. To teach her, even with some fear, is to love her.
Look, you and I definitely have differing views of what constitutes evil and you will never change my mind. I would tell you to go over to alpha game and give your views there. Let the men there hash it out with you. There are many Christian men there who would tell you that what you call evil most certainly is not.
I’m going to let this argument go now. I’m not going to change your mind.
October 4th, 2014 at 12:06 pm
You could call it a failing of mine that I cannot evoke Dread and Panic and Fear and Doom upon a woman out of love. Instead, I call it a failing of women that they need to feel Dread.
October 4th, 2014 at 1:04 pm
“You could call it a failing of mine that I cannot evoke Dread and Panic and Fear and Doom upon a woman out of love. Instead, I call it a failing of women that they need to feel Dread.”
You have it exactly right. A truly good man would never seek to degrade his woman. And a truly good woman would never make that necessary. Your morality is the most important thing about you. Don’t be swayed. Let bad women be drawn to bad men. Demand that any woman who is with YOU be better than that. You have it within you to do it through light, not darkness. Don’t give up.
October 4th, 2014 at 1:18 pm
“Instead, I call it a failing of women that they need to feel Dread.’
Why isn’t it a failing of your God for creating them that way?
October 4th, 2014 at 2:30 pm
@dana, the specific heresy that God messed up by giving us free will is a very childish one. It’s the exact same childish womanish irrationality that blames a father for his 17 yr old daughter’s wrecking the new little Honda he bought her for a high school graduation gift. “He should have known she wasn’t ready for a new car; he should have bought her an old one, etc.”
In fact, that hamsterization is so ridiculous that I ridicule you for bringing it up. You’re thinking like a woman: When a woman messes up, it’s because a man failed to make her do right.
October 4th, 2014 at 4:11 pm
“What a shame… Rollo is writing about some very deep and insightful stuff here, and all we got in the comments section is some juvenile debate about looks.”
Yeah and now the monkeys are flinging bible verses at each other. I hope this place doesn’t turn into an xtian fuckfest like Dalrock.
October 4th, 2014 at 7:41 pm
+1 to Leviathan.
Please take the religion conversation to a religion forum; we all know how it ends… both sides end up saying “nuh uh!!” “ya huh!!” to the other side, until the religious group plays the faith card, and that ends the discussion as faith is beyond the realm of reason, logic or evidence. *Yawn* quite boring.
Actually discussing the post rather than hijacking it with religion would be great, please.
October 4th, 2014 at 9:43 pm
“He should have known she wasn’t ready for a new car; he should have bought her an old one . . .”
Indeed he should have. That goes for any new driver.
That does not in any way absolve the new driver from wrecking their first car, it’s simply acknowledgment that that is what a goodly number of new drivers do. They lack experience. If they are young they likely lack judgement as well.
It’s the inappropriate use of resources that is the fault of the father, as well as not expecting trust in responsibility to be earned, not the wreck.
You also shouldn’t buy a child a dog that it is expected to care for until it has proved that it can take care of a hamster.
Say ‘No’ to your daughters, mean it and stick to it. It’s the only chance you have of having your daughter growing up to be a princess.
The chief requirement of a real princess is that she have discipline.
October 5th, 2014 at 6:31 am
@Ruthless Hypergamy:
In part his good looks (tingling for a half-naked, glistening with sweat, athletic body) and in part self-validation that comes from a success at competition with other women with the same goal
October 5th, 2014 at 4:46 pm
Leviathan
+1 for pointing out the religious red herring
-100 for hate, discord, hypocrisy and adding your own red herring; you were injecting your own metaphysical bullshite into the discussion
David W
+1 for pointing out the religious red herring
-10 for your hack philosophy/theology about faith
October 5th, 2014 at 5:04 pm
@ Rollo
“Women should only ever be a complement to a man’s life, never the focus of it.”
Corollary: A mate is a helper, not a mission. (A slut doesn’t contribute to a man’s mission.)
October 5th, 2014 at 9:21 pm
@ theadsgamer
WOW JUST WOW! You insulted David’s philosophy/theology! How can you be such a hater? Don’t you respect other people’s beliefs? If you can accuse me of hate and discord with a straight face, you must not know very much about your religion. Are you a hypocrite or just a sheeple blind believer?
October 5th, 2014 at 9:34 pm
@ Leviathan
Trololol.
October 5th, 2014 at 10:52 pm
@ leviathan
“-10 for your hack philosophy/theology about faith”
Hmm? I didn’t offer any philosophy or theology; all I did was give a standard definition. Just Google “oxford english dictionary faith.”
*shrug* What I said isn’t controversial.
October 5th, 2014 at 11:15 pm
@ David W
I didn’t write that, theadsgamer did.
October 5th, 2014 at 11:23 pm
Ahh, my mistake.
October 5th, 2014 at 11:41 pm
@ theadsgamer
“Trololol.”
On your religious circle-jerk sites you people write endless hateful lies and nasty bullshit about atheists and then delete even polite replies. You are the moral equals of feministing and seeing any of your nonsense here is sickening. Your exegeses about the Really Holy Rides in Six Flags Over Jebus are more ridiculous than usual, here.
October 10th, 2014 at 12:38 pm
Interesting to see that men are the romantics in love. With most of the posts here and over at chateau explaining the evolutionary biology behind intersex relationships, why do you think this is? What’s the evolutionary advantage of being a homeless romantic, or defaulting to beta behavior. Since the majority of men do act as beta supplicants naturally, what’s the reasoning behind it?
October 10th, 2014 at 3:48 pm
Competition at the top can be fierce. For example, the average lifespan of a pre-Christian Irish King, who was selected by combat more often than not, was – three years.
Betas live longer and spend more of their time tending to the needs and protection of women, rather than plotting and fighting for power in the male heirarchy.
Irish betas considered it a matter of honour and pride if the first born of their wives were sired by the King. Alpha fucks/ Beta bucks was recognized and formalized in the culture; the Right of Kings. It’s good to be the King – for three years or so.
With the majority of the men tending to the women, who had a significant number of children by the strong men, the strength of the female population is maintained as well as that of the men.
The Spartans had a complex marriage structure that accomplished much the same thing.
It’s not about love. It’s not about sex. It’s not about power. It’s about children, all the way down. No matter how many pills you hope your ONS has taken, no matter how many condoms you wear, no matter how scared you become when she says “I’m late,” it’s all about children. Adults don’t matter. They’re only a way of producing and maintaining children until such time as they become adults who – produce chidren. The only reason you want to get laid in the first place is to ensure the production of children. If you lose sight of this simple biological fact and start thinking it’s all about your wants and needs you lose sight of everything.
As I commented earlier, if you wish to collapse a population, hunt the females. Females are the ones who gestate and provide early care of offspring. Conversely, protected women, strong tribe. At least until the tribe becomes so strong that decadence sets in, the members lose sight of children and the whole thing turns into a caricature.
I leave it as an exercise for the student to find a culture that exemplifies the latter.
October 10th, 2014 at 6:17 pm
[…] A New Hope September 29, 2014 link […]
October 14th, 2014 at 9:47 am
@Kaskinre: benefits of romantic love.
The male’s sacrificial love for his One, his obsessive 24/7 wakefulness and mateguarding, his gifting/provisioning for Her, are mirrored in the female’s childcare.
November 21st, 2014 at 8:58 am
[…] I still think Buena’s right though, permanent Game rarely involves true intimacy, but only if that Game is a constant act a man feels he needs to make believable to sustain his relationship. This then comes full circle to wanting to fulfill Blue Pill idealisms of intimacy with applied Red Pill awareness. […]