And also if any other contributors have insights to share regarding my situation I’d greatly appreciate it.

Basically, I am in an LTR with a woman (1+ years) and I’ve noticed that during times like the Holiday season for example (Thanksgiving, Christmas, etc.) we’ve shared the time together with each other’s families and this has caused me to believe that we’re growing even closer together. Just after re-reading my above statements I can already feel some of the “beta-ness” seeping off of it. I’m well aware of the fact that we can spend all the time together during the holidays telling each other how much we love one another but if she comes across a man of higher SMV she’ll jump ship (and his bones)

Now I’ve been aware of the red pill and have been applying the methodology for 2+ years before getting into this relationship. However, the longer we are together the more I fear myself becoming a believer in the “purple pill” (the nasty limbo space between being aware of red pill and still indulging blue pill thinking) and I fear an impending idealization of my gf because of the fact that the more time we spend together.

Here is where my questions/main concerns come in. I entered the relationship with a dominant Alpha frame. She was always receptive to my sexual advances and initiated sex consistently. I always kept her at arms length and the relationship flourished from then on. She never hesitated to express her jealousy towards me talking to other women which I dispelled with Alpha replies, etc.

My questions for you Rollo (especially since you are married) stem from a desire to maintain my Alpha frame and not slip into a Beta mindset with time passing and comfort sinking in. First, “Could you possibly write an article on how you maintain your definition of intimacy in a marriage?” And this relates to my second question in that, “Can there ever exist a plausible means of shifting between intimate and primal type of relationship intimacy for the Alpha?” For example, since I as an Alpha male have this information to put to practice, then is there any way I can at times be at intimate and then revert back by – to use your words – “Caffeinating the hamster” or have I already done something undoable? My biggest fear is that as an Alpha in a fairly serious LTR I am veering towards blue-pill intimacy yet I still believe myself to be Alpha. “If I mistakenly reveal a vulnerability to my gf and risk losing my footing as an Alpha, how do I go back to the original state of Alpha, or is that the be all end all?”

Thanks so much for your insights, Rollo!

Agreed.

@JM: “the moment he achieves true intimacy he is the woman’s equal and thus her lust will no longer be existent…
That is an amazingly succinct summary of the problem.

I believe this is the causation of crazy women or the woman equivalent of the AFC. Their warped sense of intrinsic worth places them beneath the male in the relationship, and it essentially drives them mad with jealousy, fear, doubt, and self-loathing.”

God’s curse on the woman: “your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you.” Some interpret this as “your desire will be to rule over your husband but he will rule over you.”

@IanIronwood: “a more advanced stage of Married Game. It usually only evolves when the issue of Dread is essentially behind you, and both parties have a better understanding of their biologically-determined gender-based roles (GODS I love writing that).”

Praise Jesus I love reading that. Your description points to a wonderful future for Red Pill guys but note this is only possible in a strong masculine, in charge, confident frame. She can follow you but you have to be worthy of leading and you have to damn well know it before you even think about showing any of your faults. I have not reached that point and don’t expect to reach it. Nevertheless my wife says we are much more intimate now after I took the Red Pill last year but it is an illusion. She feeeelz we are more intimate because I understand her. My wife told me just last week, “What I like about you so much is that you get me. You understand me so much better now.”
Yah, I understand my hypergamous bad boy loving little princess way better now and it only reinforces my determination to never show weakness, never again.
Sexual intimacy is, of course, the stated goal of the Red Pill husband, but the need for emotional intimacy – the desire to be understood and to gain insight through understanding another – is the unstated bonus feature.
Good Red Pill marriages are complementary partnerships where the only equality lies in the commitment both have made to protecting and nurturing the equilibrium of the relationship. As feminine emotional responses wax and wain, a RP husband holds steady as a rock and provides stability.
But a good RP wife understands her husbands vulnerabilities and does not try to exploit them as weaknesses because the trust he’s invested in her to protect his secrets she considers an honor and a privilege, not a chore and responsibility. You cannot force a woman to make that leap, she has to feel secure and enthusiastic enough about the health of the relationship to make that promise
@ ASD /Ian re: Hamsterilation…
Ian, you know full well that high strung writers have the most robust hamsters in the entire animal kingdom so your writing several books on RP theory does not discredit the argument that this is hamsturbation par excellence. Own it. I can hardly wait for your upcoming best seller, ‘The Red Pill Experiment.’

@ New York: female intimacy is a perk of living the life you want. The minute it becomes a goal, you will lose it
This. Those who have shall be given more, while those who have little will have it taken away and given to those who can manage women better, or something close to that.

Therefore, @ ST/Retpill: the best way to get and keep a woman as well as anyone can is to have “inner game” – be “alpha” – i.e., own your mind, and be the center of your world. Be your “mental point of origin,” and never give your power away to a woman.

@Badpainter: “And here we see the source of my problem. This was my role from about the age of 5 to be Mom’s emotional tampon, to be the confidant that Darth Dread wasn’t. Plus my perfect conditioning as a beta chump and I sort of understand why I am so very resistant to being anyone’s rock. It’s an unrewarding soul crushing role of ceaseless obligation and labor that only causes me resentment, and distrust of the other’s weakness.”’

Let me cosign this which almost activated my PTSD. Almost.

You asked “Satire” whether leaving her dripping ropes is the most intimacy you can expect. I say if you have to ask then it worked.

@Glenn: “They want to talk about their families or their tiny little world or friends. They mostly don’t even know how the larger world works. Think I’m kidding? I’ll close with this challenge to any women reading along here, and for you guys who think the women you know are smart and plugged into reality in a meaningful way. Ask them these basic economic questions.
1. What is money?
2. How do free markets work?
3. How much debt does the U.S. Treasury have outstanding?”

This is HILLARIOUSLY true. Women don’t think about the deep issues beyond their immediate circle of friends. This appears to be a fundamental characteristic of ALL. We few men who are deep thinkers need to accept that MOST men are not like us- and NO women are like us. My wife is a top earning highly educated, Ivy League lawyer- and she reads Twilight and True Blood just like the High School girls. I teased her slightly too hard last week and she was insulted so this weekend she spent most of it in bed reading an 800 page Tom Clancy novel- and protested quite prettily with a flick of a pony tail and a stomp of her foot: “See I have substance.”

(*)which is an impossibility for anybody looking for a sexual relationship

What does an ‘openness’ entail in real terms?

As so, I think men and women don’t share the same concept of intimacy. My desire is not dependent on my imagination of what or who the person secretly is to the extent that when they show me who they really are, i,m suddenly not attracted to them anymore.

From my own experiences, women attracted or desire men on the basis of imagined conception of what he is. Who he really is does not matter. It took me my whole life to understand this

True intimacy is possible for women; we see it often in the form of guy friends serving as emotional tampons or when a woman babbles to her boyfriend about things he doesn’t care about. She is opens up but it doesn’t negatively affect his desire/attraction for her.

Intimacy for a man has price. Try to open up if you want but her desire/attraction is running out in the sand glass. The only possibility I see for a man achieving intimacy is with a woman attracted to him (*) and in a situation where he does not care if he fucks her or not

(*)Lets face it, she does not care who he really is deep down and she will have no reason to put up with listening to him if she is not attracted to him

Well I got it. The trouble with tradcons is that they don’t even understand their own religion. Once the woman chooses it is her job and his to see that she willingly and continuously submits. Especially his. He has to demand her submission but also continuously reinforce its advantages. “Aren’t you happier submitting?” Yes. “Have you lost anything that is worth what you have gained?” No. “Then you made a profit.” – That particular exchange absolutely floored the first mate. The concept of profit in personal relationships had eluded her. Plus the idea that she had to offer something in exchange for what she was getting. A foreign concept. And they are ALL like that.

=========

Of the Christians only the Catholics have an answer for hypergamy and it is at best a patch job.

The pagans are much closer to reality. But pagans do not harness well. It will be interesting to see where all this leads. If I live long enough.

I make a living from rationality. It makes up less than 10% of reality.

A rational person rejects all human gods equally, because all of them are equally imaginary.

Logic is real. Rational persons are imaginary. Rationalism is a failed philosophy. Rationalists are delusional. Gods? Who knows?