It is how he is treated.”

As others have noted this is a growing idea here. It kinda reminds me, as a random example, of how CS Lewis proposed evaluating what was literature or not based upon what sorts of reading and readers it attracted and inspired, rather than by bias-filled definitions that reflected more the preferences of the critic than the merit of individual works.

“Yes, but lately he seems to imply that men can fooled into the believing in the girlfriend experience when what is “really” happening is negotiated desire.
….
I’m saying we don’t have to try to read minds. All that matters is the outward observable actions.”

I think there’s some tension here because, although you have seen how women can truly treat men they adore, most men have not. Your descriptions have been very eye-opening to me, for one; I wouldn’t have thought the things you describe are possible, because the actions you use to gain a woman’s devotion are taboo and sometimes literally illegal here in the west. I would have never known. So the typical danger for a man is to mistake very lukewarm signals from his woman as being positive, to accept mediocre affection levels as normal, and to think the beta traits he is expressing are responsible for what affection he does receive.

So I think Rollo is not so much denying the real complexity of things, as he is presenting preferentially the aspects of reality often hidden or denied to blue-pill men.

It can be messy work unplugging other men, as has been noted before. Tolerating a lot of unproductive bitching and overcompensating in the form of all-or-nothing thinking is part of that. A lot of the value I find in the comments at my stage, easing into accepting a new paradigm, come from reading comments from men like you that incorporate redpill understanding into a cohesive understanding and worldview. (The recent post ‘A New Hope’ was excellent for this as well.)