Dalrock gave me something to chew on recently:
In my first post of 2014 I introduced the topic of the ugly feminist. As I explained at the time, this is an old charge but is typically aimed at the superficial instead of the core problem. Feminists are ugly because the philosophy of feminism is ugly. It is based on avoiding caring for others and being miserly with love. Several commenters pointed out that this is a devastating charge against feminism, as they could see no viable counter argument for it.
I’m not going to try to offer a counter to Dal’s assertion because in essence I think he’s correct. However I will suggest that this ugliness is the result of a commodification of love (and with it sexual access) that’s resulted from the unfettering of women’s Hypergamy. Love and caring is the commodity women’s Hypergamy uses to fulfill their dualistic sexual strategy.
To this day my most contentious post (and chapter in the book) on RM is Women in Love. This is primarily due to first time readers taking my assertions to their literal extreme. Women’s concept of love stems from opportunism, men’s concept stems from idealism. Most women and Blue Pill men take this to mean that women cannot actually love a man, and absolutist men angry with themselves for having never understood it think much the same thing, “My God! I knew it all along, women cannot actually love a man.”
I assert neither of these positions (really the same position) in that post, nor any of the followup post (that no one seems to want to read once they make up their minds), but what I do assert is:
Men believe that love matters for the sake of it. Women love opportunistically.
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.
In prior posts I’ve also made the case that men’s idealistic perspective of love stems from an unending need for performance to merit a woman’s opportunistic love. It’s not that men want an unrealistic, unconditional love, but rather they want a woman’s love to be a refuge from having to perform up to, above and beyond the requirements of satisfying an unending optimization of her Hypergamy. It’s not unconditional love they idealize, it’s a love that’s not predicated on their burden of performance.
What frustrates this love idealism is that men are popularly sold the idea that women’s love is based on a mutually similar model. From Disney movies to romantic comedies, to Shakespeare and epic stories, to popular music and the daily talk shows, the message is that love (if it’s real love) is omniscient, conquers all and overcomes all odds. It’s a very seductive message of hope for men whose lives and existences are evaluated on constant performance.
“Could she really love me despite all of my glaring inadequacies?”
“Does she love the real me or is it my money and the lifestyle I provide for her?”
The fact that these themes are a constant in human history illustrates the subconscious, peripheral awareness we have of the differing models of love each sex bases their understanding of love on.
The Commodity
What this selling of idealistic love does for men is keep them in a state of perpetual hope that this idealism is shared by both sexes and they can realistically achieve that ideal goal of a love not founded on his performance. It’s important to note here that this performance isn’t necessarily something a man must make a constant effort to maintain (though this is the usual case), but rather what he represents, not who he is personally. It may be that his effortless looks or inherent status represents a cue for a woman’s optimal hypergamous satisfaction, or it may be the result of years of dedicated performance effort – either way it’s what that man represents; remove the factors a man possesses that satisfy a woman’s Hypergamy and her opportunistic model of love will reveal itself.
Feminists are ugly because the philosophy of feminism is ugly. It is based on avoiding caring for others and being miserly with love.
Dalrock’s observation here is profound in that it illustrates exactly the state of opportunism on which women base their concept of love. On some level of consciousness women understand the inherent value their love, concern, attention and caring has for men. It’s repression or expression is a commodity that has reward value for men who also have an awareness that their performance is what merits a woman’s love.
The popular criticism is that this want for an idealistic love is really a man’s preoccupation with his need for sex, but this is to be expected from a fem-centric culture that needs women to ration love and caring for men in order to ensure its social dominance. And God forbid a man express his desire for a performance-less based love and caring; he’s ostracized for wanting a mother’s love (Freudian), being necessitous (thus powerless) and revealing his deficiency in performance.
As Open Hypergamy becomes more proudly embraced and normalized in society, so too will women’s sexual strategy be laid more bare. And in laying that strategy bare, so too will women’s opportunistic model of love become more apparent to men. This new apparentness is already conflicting with the old-order messaging that kept men hopeful of realizing their idealistic love state.
Women cannot sell Open Hypergamy and the love-conquers-all ethereal ideal love at the same time.
Dal is correct, the philosophy of feminism is ugly, but it’s important to consider that feminism is just the current social operative of the Feminine Imperative today. For the moment women can be miserly with love and caring. They can even express resentment for having to be so with men who they doubt are meritorious of it, or for those who don’t measure up to the rigors of an increasingly open and increasingly demanding Hypergamy.
They can do this because they understand that the hopeful, idealistic love they have men convinced can be achieved is still a commodity to men.
Before I close, I’m going to give you a bit of Red Pill hope (again). Men and women can and do love each other intensely and genuinely. They can and do see past each other’s deficiencies and their love endures. My point with this essay is to reveal how this love develops and the conditional environments it comes together in. In spite of the strongest bonds, there is a threshold at which men’s loving idealism and women’s performance requirements can test, stress and break that bond.
Men’s idealistic love can be strong, as can women’s opportunistic love – the two models are not mutually incompatible, and it’s my belief that the two are even complementary to each other. Neither is a right or wrong way to love, and neither is the definition of real love. Bear in mind these are models that predicate a condition of love, what happens after that is up to the individuals.
Where these models become incompatible is when one commodifies and exploits the condition of love that the other holds. In an era of unapologetic feminine primacy and unignorable open Hypergamy, this commodification undeniably rests with the feminine.
For further reading see the Love series of posts:
Women in Love
Men in Love
Of Love and War
Burden of Performance
Love Story
January 3rd, 2015 at 4:04 am
@Gurney Halleck
That article… He’s not “97% onboard” with feminism. He’s about two rants from saying “the hell with it” and going full anti-feminist.
So much of that article struck home for me. I was never fat or lazy, but I was always made fun of, bullied, and beaten up by guys. Made fun of, threatened, rejected, publicly humiliated and emasculated by girls. I was punished so hard every day of my life for being a nerd when all I wanted was to find love outside my family that was so abusive.
Privilege my ass. Nerds aren’t even privileged in the workforce. We’re routinely abused by more socially capable managers and business owners who recognize our social problems for what they are: an opportunity to fuck us over. Whatever “privilege” is, I didn’t have it. Now that I’ve swallowed the Red Pill, come to grips with reality, and started to study human interaction like any other subject I’ve learned I ha email a better life. But that’s not something I felt “entitled” to, nor is it something I get to keep no matter what. I must keep performing, I must keep learning, and I must bust ass every day to keep everything I’ve earned.
If that’s “entitlement” to feminist harpies, I think I’ve figured out my problem with them: they’re speaking a language that looks superficially like english, but sure as fuck ain’t english.
January 3rd, 2015 at 4:33 am
they’re speaking a language that looks superficially like english, but sure as fuck ain’t english.
No it is not.
January 3rd, 2015 at 6:14 am
It reminds of women who say they married a doctor – “you know shelly married a doctor”. You are a doctor, you are a lawyer. That is all that matters to them – just don’t become a poor one. When people accuse men of becoming workaholics and having their identity as being solely their profession, it is simply because women have forced men to be this way. It was the only way a man could continue to receive some form of love. Men must maintain what they have become in order to keep their wives and in doing so often do lose their identity. In this way, throughout his long course of maintaining performance, a man’s identity can eventually erode enough so that it merges with the identity his wife first placed on him at the outset of the relationship: an interchangeable piece of human capital.
From The Manipulated Man:
“CODED
I must be able to look up To a man
DECODED
To be a possible candidate as a husband, he must be more intelligent, responsible,courageous, industrious and stronger than I am. Otherwise, what purpose would he serve?
CODED
I love him.
DECODED
He is an excellent workhorse.”
To be completely fair, I too have standards for my wife, but they do not seem to be nearly as cold and fatal as women have for men. For example, if my wife gained 10 pounds, I would not just divorce her. Sure, we care a lot about beauty, but there is also a lot of lenience. It seems that oneitis can cast a certain glaze over a man despite her new faults. I suppose I am simply referring to relational equity that many men hold to as a matter of honor and fairness. And, to be honest, I would rather be liked for my body than for my cash. Also, in reference to the quotes from the manipulated man, I would say that many men could live with those terms. It was simply provider game, which has gotten harder by the way. Now, we must also be sexy and maintain sexiness in hopes of marrying a girl who may not simply see us as a betabux chump worthy of a sexless marriage. I don’t really have too much of a problem with this. It just means that those that want to win will have to work progressively harder – much harder than their forefathers.
January 3rd, 2015 at 7:54 am
re: sex role reversal.
I don’t see any, much less a lot of, Sadie Hawkins-ish activities, ever, anywhere. Hence I conclude no such role reversal is happening nor imminent.
On the idea that women love alphas differently than betas: no. Women merely don’t love betas, or very little.
January 3rd, 2015 at 8:00 am
As the SMP has become more equalitarian, in that it is open and accepted by both genders (it’s ok for women to sleep around now, and you dare not shame them), we simply have a return to the ancient order of things.
If Serial Divorce/Remarriage was the Western version of polygany–where it was still better to be the THIRD wife to Johnny Carson, versus a bricklayer (removed from his market), no different than “3rd Concubine” to pick your Alpha male–then open hypergamy has simply re-set the order of things whereby the bottom half of men are essentially useful only for the steerage compartment, and if they drown, never having procreated or even had sex, big deal.
But the feminists have put a twist on it, whereby they do not suffer similar old world fates. Having to stay a virgin, find a suitor, etc.
Those SMV=1 through 6’s, women that used to have to learn how to bake, clean, and watch their weight to snag a balding low-end banker (ala 1950s), are now out being the occasional bang for some Alpha or semi-Alpha, and because of our current Western System, she will work at your bank and be promoted up beyond you, make more money and have your ass investigated by the company if you “disrespect” her…but she is still the victim according to feminists.
And no one, not even Alpha males that marry and provide, are safe from the feminist twist, because you can be a man’s man, Veteran 2 star general, or a guy who cured cancer, and your wife can drag you through the Family Courts and get everything Concubine #1 used to get…but she doesn’t have to come down and cook and clean your house every other weekend, and two weeks in the summer, and you will be told when and where you can see your kids…when you have, as prisoners call it, “visitation”.
Fat and/or ugly or old women used to be invisible to men (and likewise of course, in the reverse) but now they have a place at the table, in corporate America and everywhere else, way beyond their productivity or SMV, but men are still relegated to where they always were, depending on their attractiveness, intelligence, height, income, etc.
January 3rd, 2015 at 8:07 am
re: true N and sex roles.
Women lie about sex. Period. Women’s N’s are the same as men’s, as has been found repeatedly when not using simple questionnaires.
Fisher, T. D. (2013). Gender roles and pressure to be truthful: The bogus pipeline modifies gender differences in sexual but not nonsexual behavior. Sex Roles, 68, 401-414.
It’s possible, to the point of likely, that promiscuous women have more homosexual male offspring.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_promiscuity
January 3rd, 2015 at 8:48 am
re: Low Beta Tolerance.
Feminists hate betas so much that they invent the projection scheme called microaggression to explain the scorn of women for nice guys. What they relaly want is macroaggression from bad boys.
January 3rd, 2015 at 8:48 am
The beatings will continue. It doesn’t matter if your morale improves or not.
January 3rd, 2015 at 8:56 am
“The beatings will continue.”
But they’re done out of love.
January 3rd, 2015 at 9:07 am
@Badpainter re: love, sweet love.
When a man falls out of love with a woman, he merely has to select one of the dozen reasons she’s been shoving at him for months: she’s mean, hateful, pushy, snarling, getting fat, lazy, disrespectful, etc etc.
When a woman falls out of love with a man, she has to invent a reason: he “secretly” hates her, so secretly that he continues to act as though he loves her.
January 3rd, 2015 at 9:19 am
@jf12 re: “No. I’m supposed to have the same agape love for my neighbor’s wife, but that agape love is NOT supposed to “keep me around”!”
In the Christian (marriage is God’s covenant) context, that is exactly what it does do if the choice is made to practice it. Agape WAS the word used in ancient Greek to define the love relationship between spouses. I’m not trying to proselytize. If anyone doesn’t believe in absolutist morality, God, unconditional love, etc, that’s their prerogative as a human being. But these things are defining elements of the Christian concept of love. A large percentage of the population in the west still identifies themselves as Christian. Spreading the message of the red pill to those men would go a long way if we can find a way to eliminate conflict and confusion in discourse by finding a better way of establishing the context of the “love” we are speaking about through the English language.
January 3rd, 2015 at 9:27 am
A little poll here, if you please.
1. How quickly do you fall in love?
2. How quickly did you fall in love with your first love?
3. How quickly did you fall in love with your latest love?
My answers:
1. Very fast; jackrabbit fast.
2. Well, it depends what I mean. My first crush (in junior high) was instant; at first scent rather than first sight. My first wife was my first real date (in college) and I crushed instantly upon first intimate talking but it took almost a week for me to really fall head over heels (She claimed later that she fell for me that first date, but that’s too hard to believe.). I knew then I had to have her, but it took almost a couple more weeks to ask her to marry me.
3. Well, it depends what I mean. With my last wife I crushed instantly upon first intimate talking, too. Within a few weeks, as soon as I actually fell in love and therefore couldn’t bear the thought of life without her, I asked her to marry me.
January 3rd, 2015 at 9:29 am
@wideawake re: “Agape WAS the word used in ancient Greek to define the love relationship between” everyone.
It is simply false that the Bible teaches that we are to treat our wives as though they are our neighbors’ wives. Period.
January 3rd, 2015 at 9:32 am
re: love, sweet love
I’d rather receive lust, respect, fear, trust, power, or nothing. Love is just the measure of potential divided by opportunity cost.
January 3rd, 2015 at 9:38 am
So, exactly how much is a man’s love worth to a woman? What do women give in exchange for a man’s love?
January 3rd, 2015 at 9:40 am
Do women really comprehend what men mean by falling in love?
January 3rd, 2015 at 9:41 am
A man will give his own life in exchange for *his* love. That’s how much a man’s love is worth to a man.
January 3rd, 2015 at 9:58 am
Today I’m sharing my Red Pill awareness story, I don’t know if it is the right place or the right time, but Rollo’s is the only Manosphere blog I follow, as I feel the frontiers of Manosphere are tested and defined here. I think here we have access to one step further than science can explain us (and in an understandable way). The IQ level of commenters/comments here are way over average. Here I feel outsmarted, I’m humble enough to say that. Once again, thank you, not only to Rollo but to all of this community, that probably saved more lives than Red Cross. (Don’t know if it true but it is funny to say it).
Having a low moment in my life I share this as a selfish 2015 self-analysis resolution but I also want to give back goodwill to this community, sincerely hoping that it can help somebody out there. If not, at least I hope it can be somehow interesting to read, as I’ll omit the more common parts that make the standard of any red pill intake.
As a recovering beta and late bloomer (as I like to look at it), I had my Red Pill intake when I started to share a flat (and life) with a college colleague that I was working for 2 years after college, the only super alpha I ever met in my life, somebody that I never saw being AMOGED by anybody, and very rarely being rejected by ANY girl (I only remember twice, one time was temporary and the other was my ex, therefor my hope that would be possible that there is someone out there.. I don’t believe in it anymore).
This guy had everything going on for him, great looking, very rich, good family (ambitious and raw alpha new rich father, and her mother a doctor,) what give him an edge over almost all people. I believe this guy N at 27 was easily over 100, now he is married (the only thing where I think a bit more of theory would have helped, once I see it as his bigger mistake) but travelling a lot so I believe at early 30’s is N will be at least 150. During that 2 years I can easily remember about 30 women (or more) that he fucked, and at some moments he was spinning 10 plates. I know it, I was living and working with him. I saw things that especially blue pill guys will never see or even think that is possible. Believe me beta guys, it is possible, and it can be happening at this moment with you: go check your GF, maybe she is not alone.. But that are other stories. At the time (we are not friends anymore, he will never adapt his frame to include anybody, not even a little bit) he used to joke that I would help him write his memories later in his life, once I participated in a big part of them and I know that they are true.
He saw me always as a kind of a younger brother (even if we are the same age), sometimes I think the alpha man see the beta man as a child. I was somehow trained as the perfect wing man, like in the recent best PUA fashion, getting his scraps (there is always the girl’s girlfriend to deal with) that for the common beta is more that he will ever get by himself. Being honest with myself I analyze it now as having the woman role at that time. Anyway as a temporary role was my best strategy to improve in life. Instead of regret it, I had luck of discovering Red Pill and having PUA training with private lessons from a world-class teacher.
I lost virginity in my mid 20’s and now in the right contexts I’m not ashamed to admit it. Before I was. I told the girl I had my first time about it. I had such a frame control due to months of informal training that she never believed that it was my first time.
His frame 95% of times was the one that counted. I was living inside it. The other 5% of times that I refused his frame was due to moral issues (AKA being a completely jerk) and even there slowly my comfort zone has expanded and some stuff that before I had considered jerkiness was possible to accept or tolerate, somehow seeing the scene from a positive viewpoint. What I learned also is that a jerk doesn’t see it as bad behavior, his moral allow them to do it so is something natural and not mean. This took me YEARS to understand.
To abbreviate the boring parts of the story, I can say that after 1 year I couldn’t stand having to surrender to his frame anymore and having to slideto the jerk mode so often. I’m not religious but I have strong morals (but not nearly as much as before). I had to leave: East Europe, a light version of the Roosh dream. It was 2007 before the frontiers of this (now) common male dream being established (let me taste a bit of pride flavour here, eheh).
Probably I portrayed this guy as a Super Man, but I only told the good side of the story, this guy is a guy that can be as jerk as needed in the moment without any concerns to ANYBODY, I think doesn’t even trust their own parents, a guy with anything that resembles a friend (I think I was the only one he ever had in his all life) even if he knows hundreds of people and is a genius public relations/seller. I don’t have any envy of him. He saw me as his creation and he as the master. In the end was an exchange like everything in life: I paid for this with my work (I come from a proud blue collar working class family), loyalty and being an “accomplice”.
Have hope. But work for it.
2015 will be your year.
January 3rd, 2015 at 10:15 am
@Sun Wukong
“If the way raise young men defines the answers to shit tests with 100% wrong answers is no longer a test. You’re actually trying to make sure no one passes. That’s not a test, that’s sabotaging yourself and the test taker. It would be like teaching somebody English their whole life then telling them their college admission exam depends entirely on their knowledge of Japanese. But you wanted them to get in to college. You fucked your own objective over. There was no point to that test because you defined their entire reality improperly, all the while knowing you were fucking yourself over as well. It’s completely irrational.”
I see what your getting at and im not sure what the actual reasoning behind it is. That would definitely be a great article though. But from what I know up to now I can only theorize that a natural alpha who does not know anything about RP or shit tests automatically passes everything thrown at him as a basic instinct. Different from betas who have grown up in FI and cant pass shit tests since like you stated are raised to essentially fail them. Alphas don’t know what shit tests are, even though they might subconsciously see it as someone testing their strength, females don’t know what shit testing is, even though they do it subconsciously. So who are we left with? Men who know about RP and know this behaviour on a different level for male/female dynamics.
January 3rd, 2015 at 10:18 am
This isn’t the topic for it, but I’d really love to have a discussion about women’s ubiquitous antiloving (antimating; de-mating, de-loving) behaviors: the things women do all the time to dissuade their own men from love.
We all know that a woman who loves is agreeable. Hence, the reason she is disagreeable to you is specifically to communicate her hatred to you. But we aren’t allowed to discuss this inarguable fact with women.
January 3rd, 2015 at 10:37 am
@jf12
“We all know that a woman who loves is agreeable. Hence, the reason she is disagreeable to you is specifically to communicate her hatred to you. But we aren’t allowed to discuss this inarguable fact with women.”
When you first meet a woman and a relationship is made and there love there isn’t any anger or hatred. Why is there anger and hatred? (aside from doing stupid things and having dumb fights) it all gets sourced back to resentment, anger towards the man betaness. So it only makes sense that out of this hate for the mans weakness and betaness the women till naturally try to get rid of the male.
January 3rd, 2015 at 10:40 am
@ jf12
It’s simply not true that a 5’4″ woman finds 5’6″ men tall enough.
I’m 5’7″ and I believe my wife is 5’4″. She has always been very attractive. I’m not attractive except perhaps for my physique. I’m way below just about every woman’s height requirement but I’ve always found a way to get a waiver and they let me in.
January 3rd, 2015 at 10:48 am
re: “Men’s idealistic love can be strong, as can women’s opportunistic love – the two models are not mutually incompatible, and it’s my belief that the two are even complementary to each other. Neither is a right or wrong way to love, and neither is the definition of real love.”
If by “real” love you mean agape love, which we can define as love for the soul, then ok. Because then men’s idealistic love falls short by being “love for love’s sake”, and women’s opportunistic love falls extremely short by being “love for strength”.
This formulation suggests a symplectification to complete the complementarity: perhaps men would be better served (literally!) by NOT loving for love, but instead being strong for love.
January 3rd, 2015 at 10:49 am
So, what are some of men’s antimating behaviors – the ones that inevitably make women not want to mate – that are not niceguy beta stuff?
January 3rd, 2015 at 11:10 am
Bromeo – “…females don’t know what shit testing is, even though they do it subconsciously.”
Seriously? My observation suggests it’s intentional and with forethought (sometimes malice). The aftermath is often a justification process where excuses like “hormones”, “women’s emotions”, “I was being cray” or “it’s my nature” are tossed about to diminish their responsibility for conceiving of and executing the test. I wonder if the justification is second part of the test to see if we fool enough to be either deceived, or test our blind faith in the their innate goodness, perhaps both.
January 3rd, 2015 at 11:11 am
@jf12
So, what are some of men’s antimating behaviors – the ones that inevitably make women not want to mate – that are not niceguy beta stuff?
– tell them that you have a serious desease;
– tell them that you have a high probability of having a desease and die young.
Work like a charm.
January 3rd, 2015 at 11:12 am
@jf12 re: “It is simply false that the Bible teaches that we are to treat our wives as though they are our neighbors’ wives. Period.”
Yes, it is false that the bible teaches that we are to treat our wives as though they are our neighbors’ wives. I never stated that. It clearly does teach we are to share the same agape for our wives as we are for everyone.
1 John 3:16-18King James Version (KJV)
16 Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.
Ephesians 5:25 King James Version (KJV)
25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
How that agape expresses itself for ones wife is going to be unique, just like the agape for ones brother, sister, father, mother, child, friend, stranger, neighbors wife, etc. will be.
January 3rd, 2015 at 11:14 am
@ jf12
I’m nowhere near as cool or as smooth as Cupid Shmupid. He is 100 times better than I will ever be. But at 5’7″ this is the basic method I used to get past women’s height requirements. Always be fun and confident. It works.
January 3rd, 2015 at 11:23 am
@Badpainter
“Seriously? My observation suggests it’s intentional and with forethought (sometimes malice). The aftermath is often a justification process where excuses like “hormones”, “women’s emotions”, “I was being cray” or “it’s my nature” are tossed about to diminish their responsibility for conceiving of and executing the test. I wonder if the justification is second part of the test to see if we fool enough to be either deceived, or test our blind faith in the their innate goodness, perhaps both.”
Its intentional in the subconscious sense, but do they actually comprehend it in reality? I don’t think so. I cant for a second believe all women for a fact know what testing for a man is or how to even do it but pretend they have no idea what is going on. I am pretty sure its all biological and works in their subconscious, the aftermath justification will then also be under the same circumstances, if the shit testing itself is subconscious, how on earth would they be able to properly justify it (so who cares how they deal with by making up lies or what not). And I don’t think there is a second part, it ends at justifications and excuses as to why it didn’t work out and that is all, after that it is the cycle back into the SMP to mate again.
January 3rd, 2015 at 11:29 am
@ Bromeo
Although I disagree you do provide an explanation as to why I dismiss these tests as invalid and a waste of my time.
January 3rd, 2015 at 11:31 am
@zdr01dz
“I’m nowhere near as cool or as smooth as Cupid Shmupid. He is 100 times better than I will ever be. But at 5’7″ this is the basic method I used to get past women’s height requirements. Always be fun and confident. It works.”
I don’t think 5’7″ for a male is that bad at all, I am 5’8″ myself and would say there is only a fairly small percentage of women I see/meet that are taller than me.
January 3rd, 2015 at 11:52 am
@BP re: “My observation suggests it’s intentional and with forethought ”
Me too.
January 3rd, 2015 at 11:57 am
@Roby, re: “– tell them that you have a high probability of having a desease and die young.”
Believe it or not this does indeed work in the sense of attracting women for sex. Women are much more likely to have unprotected first-night sex with a man whom they believe (are led to believe) is extremely promiscuous and routinely unprotected.
January 3rd, 2015 at 12:00 pm
@wideawake
Nope. Agape love is THE universal love. It’s not snowflake special.
January 3rd, 2015 at 12:12 pm
@zd01dz re: Cupid Schmupid. He’s pretty good.
If commodification is the exploitation of the opportunizability of love, Game is the exploitation of the mechanizability of attraction. For getting from lack of attraction to attraction, Game’s the difference between struggling on crutches to climbing into a Cadillac.
January 3rd, 2015 at 12:14 pm
@Johnycomelately
“Could it be that we are today witnessing the evidence of sex role reversal behaviour, where females used to be the rate limiter of male sex, alphas are now the rate limiter of female sex.
If that’s the case then females may be engaging in idealistic love for alphas, that is they are expressing male behaviour.”
————–
This absolutely true.
If a girl’s femininity is gone, Im not wasting my time, i dont care if shes a ‘9’ or ’10’ in other peoples’ eyes. My buddy always jokes with me when I run into this, he says “catch and release”.
Women will clean up their act when they figure it out. Guys just need to quit being pussies too (which they are learning through red pill) and stop giving women half their shit for free and this whole problem will start fixing itself out.
I also laughed at the earlier post about the next step of what women will become as being a brothel…Its already here is what people dont realize.
January 3rd, 2015 at 12:38 pm
@ Sun Wukong
Oh Boy Several memes are just converging…
“In terms of your other point regarding why the FI is aiming for betafication of men, I cant say for certain but like you said, it could be a meta shit test in order to keep the divide of alphas and betas in society.”
-Whether by plan or design that is what is happening. Shit tests causes A stratification of Males into groups.
“If the way raise young men defines the answers to shit tests with 100% wrong answers is no longer a test. You’re actually trying to make sure no one passes. That’s not a test, that’s sabotaging yourself and the test taker.”
– I believe you are misunderstanding what is happening here.
The idea is not to MASSIVELY fail all men. Just the men who would get the “beta signal”.
Think of the Men who would never hear the FI siren song of Betatude.
— Immigrant Men
— Men raised in other cultures
— Undereducated Men
— Men who are Sociopaths
— Men raised to ignore Societies Beta Signals and prevail as an Alpha.
Out of all of the above (and a quick poll of my daughters) it’s pretty obvious women really want the last type.
THEY WANT the Bad Boy who cleans up nice. In essence they want to win the genetic lottery. A Man who is dangerous but perhaps caring. A Man who will have children with similar traits. Children who will be wolves in a sea of sheep.
Western World Nerd advice:
———————————–
WHY ON EARTH are all the nerds putting up with privileged Western Women???
Seriously Nerds are the future. They make more money and can provide more resources for children.
FIND Women who appreciate this… and quit trying to convince the “better deal-er” wester women to appreciate you.
Because if you are close with any females doing mate chosing.
You would know it’s hopeless… they just want the prince charming on a Harley with an MBA.
THEY WANT THAT EVEN IF IT’S A FAIRY TALE GUYS.
Putin, Chavez/Maduro, and a multitude of Central American despots are driving the honeys to the West!
Volunteer as an English teacher at a local center… MEET foreign women who would be happy to have your children for simple support!
Young Ladies in the West are Princesses who all feel that they deserve better than you.
(unfortunately)… not even I can convince the ladies in my life otherwise.
January 3rd, 2015 at 1:22 pm
It seems like we are all pedestalizing men a little bit. Nature is a perfect balance, and if the way men are attracted and fall in love is “right” then it’s equally so for women.
Nobody on this thread has really commented on the fact that men require physical attraction to fall in love. Men may love “idealistically,” but only if the girl has a great rack and plump ass. Every man has his preferences, but he will “fall in love” only when she turns him on first. How many girls do you pass on the street that you could “love idealistically” but wouldn’t give a second glance to?
Men and women both have a sense of loyalty, despite what some in the Manosphere would say. When you have kids and build a life together, that bond can carry you through the times of boredom or struggle. Of course there is more social pressure nowadays to glorify and encourage divorce, but the rate is dropping and we see the statistical majority of couples staying together. The fading of attraction is often a two-way street, and we shouldn’t be talking about it like an axe hanging over the head of every man in a relationship. Plenty of men love opportunistically as well, and once their wife hits 45, they are quite happy to remarry a 25-year-old and have more kids (and increased genetic diversity).
The reason men are so free to love “idealistically” is because the woman’s value is essentially all presented up front. A man sees she is a physically suitable mate, and if she’ll have him, he’s in. Of course there are other factors we as men can use in deciding who we stay with (men are the gatekeepers of commitment, after all). But men’s version of love is just an extension of the way they are sexually attracted to females. Women’s sexual attraction to men is more based on social dominance, and their love can wax and wane accordingly. They need a good balance of alpha and beta traits to sustain longterm passion. This has all been thoroughly explored in the Manosphere. Love is equally real for men and women, just based on different attraction signals.
January 3rd, 2015 at 2:20 pm
@Ang Aamer re: “WHY ON EARTH are all the nerds putting up with” so much?
On the way to an answer, take into account that Doctor Nerd Love (not linking because awful) hates nerds and hates nerd self-actualization and hates the idea that women hate nerds and he ruthlessly white knights, satanically promoting the idea that the reason women hate nerds is because nerds hate women.
The answer is to be found in the Low Beta Threshold of women. Since nerds are smart, they are aware that women hate them, and they try to appease women.
January 3rd, 2015 at 2:22 pm
re: “They need a good balance of alpha and beta traits”
Yes! But 100% alpha + 0% beta is the goodest balance.
January 3rd, 2015 at 2:27 pm
@ Sun:
“study human interaction like any other subject”
YES. This is what we do here that is most valuable. This is what programmers like the guy in the nerd-shaming link need to understand. THEY have been programmed.
It MUST be overwritten with hard truth, if they want to reach a state in which they’re not obediently hating themselves.
January 3rd, 2015 at 2:28 pm
Nobody here seems to be discussing the fact that women have become (very) masculine – psychologically speaking. By choice. Rollo has alluded to this. They don’t want to be like men – they want to BE men. That’s it.
As an MGTOW, that’s one of the reasons why I go my own way. Besides other reasons, this one is one of the most natural – there are simply VERY FEW feminine females around/left… I have no motivation or inclination to game these androgynous beings. I’d rather go without – and go climb a mountain or something.
Is it really so that men have become (more) feminine? (in recent years). Or is it in fact completely the other way around??
So to call MGTOW’s “coy” is quite fucking hilarious. Quite to the contrary – it’s real men rejecting men in female bodies.
January 3rd, 2015 at 2:40 pm
@ jf12
The reason why women hate beta’s so much nowadays is because beta’s expect reciprocity. They would also expect some responsibility and effort and would be less inclined to be gaming their women all the time. Women go for the biggest advantages and the most privilege/s combined with the least possible input, effort and importantly – responsibility or accountability. Betas would always demand some of the aforementioned – therefore in today’s world they are a real pain in the ass for women… (to the extent that they HATE them – with a passion), because betas would expect women to still fit into the female gender role – at least to a certain extent. Having managed to remove gender roles is one of the biggest wins for feminism… think about it – they really have no responsibilities any more (and certainly very little accountability). For women it is a win, win, win – all the way.
January 3rd, 2015 at 2:53 pm
“men are the gatekeepers of commitment, after all…”
Yes, interesting observation – but in the past it were the women who had to jump through hoops to “land a man” – i.e. they had to posses a whole plethora of skills (these were taught by older women – grandmothers and mothers and elders in the community, etc), which they were trained and taught to do – to be able to “land a quality man” – and men only wanted quality women. No woman wanted to be a “spinster”. Well those days are so well and truly gone that it sounds like were’ talim8inbg about 100’s years ago.
Yet, the question remains – why did we drop OUR standards and expectations – as men? Why do WE settle for less? Are we really that weak?
January 3rd, 2015 at 2:58 pm
Call this misogyny or not (yet the ancients knew this very well). Women need to be trained and educated into being WOMEN (a woman) – they do not become well-trained, well formed, feminine beings on/out of their own. They become what we have today.
January 3rd, 2015 at 3:05 pm
“…they do not become [well-trained], well formed, feminine beings on/out of their own. They become what we have today.”
Or let’s rather say: well-balanced females.
January 3rd, 2015 at 3:09 pm
@ Bromeo
I don’t think 5’7″ for a male is that bad at all, I am 5’8″ myself and would say there is only a fairly small percentage of women I see/meet that are taller than me.
Most girls want 6′ tall guys but thankfully for me they seem to accept men that are at least a few inches taller than they are. Almost no women will date guys that are shorter than they are. To women that is a line in the sand that shouldn’t be crossed.
January 3rd, 2015 at 3:35 pm
My explanation for man’s inclination towards idealistic love.
Answer: Love increases the chances of successful, long-term pair bonding which in turn increases the number of children that survive to adulthood. Outside of beauty women possess few traits that are useful or attractive to men in primitive environments. In response natural selection favored men who loved women simply because they were women. This is the foundation of idealistic love.
Background: Not to beat a dead horse but at a minimum a man needs these and probably other traits or women won’t find him attractive.
A) He must be taller than she is
B) He must be stronger than she is
C) He must be smarter than she is
D) He must be more talented than she is
E) He must be wealthier than she is
If a man is superior to his mate in every way what is he attracted to? What is there for him to love? Because love is important nature selected for genes that made men love women regardless. We simply do. We don’t need any particular reason other than they are our mate. It’s the same reason we love our children. We simply do.
January 3rd, 2015 at 3:39 pm
^^^^^^
This hypothesis predicts that on some level there is a little bit of white knight in every man. It is part of our biology.
January 3rd, 2015 at 3:41 pm
Where these models become incompatible is when one commodifies and exploits the condition of love that the other holds.
I’m still not sure I truly understand this (ongoing) topic, and I think this sentence holds the key for me. Could you expand on how men commodify and exploit their idealistic love condition? Would it be in demanding that their woman love them idealistically in return?
January 3rd, 2015 at 3:56 pm
@zdr01dz
“Most girls want 6′ tall guys but thankfully for me they seem to accept men that are at least a few inches taller than they are. Almost no women will date guys that are shorter than they are. To women that is a line in the sand that shouldn’t be crossed.”
The still do it but its definitely a small percentage but the shorter man would need to be a very high performer (ie. Kevin Heart and his wife who is much taller). Me personally cant and will not date a woman who is taller than me, it just aint right.
January 3rd, 2015 at 4:01 pm
@J.J.
“Nobody here seems to be discussing the fact that women have become (very) masculine – psychologically speaking. By choice. Rollo has alluded to this. They don’t want to be like men – they want to BE men. That’s it.”
Whats the reason behind this though? Is it because of all the betas out there making them become more masculine? I don’t think its a choice, I think its being done subconsciously, similar to when you are in a relationship and become weak, the female will start to show resentment and then take on more of a masculine role. Its done without them being aware of it.
January 3rd, 2015 at 4:17 pm
Whats the reason behind this though?
Their freedom and equality (or rather – privelage and not having accountability) has allowed them to go for their ultimate fantasy…
Freud understood this very well and described it as a kind of envy…
(you can look it up).
In addition – neither betas nor alphas demand any responsibility from them any more – everyone is just trying to game them – for THEIR pleasure…. until they get bored of you and exchange you for a new accessory.
January 3rd, 2015 at 4:38 pm
Thanks, Rollo. This post is a good clarification of your point about how women love. It kinda made sense to me after a lot of effort; today, in a conversation with my old flame/oneitis that I broke up with a while back, I ‘got it’ a lot better. She (unknowingly) laid it out for me.
My point with this essay is to reveal how this love develops and the conditional environments it comes together in. In spite of the strongest bonds, there is a threshold at which men’s loving idealism and women’s performance requirements can test, stress and break that bond.
Basically, I told her I was confused and hurt by how things turned out. I realize vulnerability will be no currency in such matters, so I did so from a detached perspective, and basically asked her why she decided to precipitate us breaking up, and move on relatively rapidly to someone else in spite of the bond we had. She basically told me that there were a lot of extraneous stresses upon our relationship – people around us not approving, us working together, the both of us contemplating career changes – and that her new relationship, though she might not have the same bond with the guy, was ‘better for right now’ because it lacked a lot of those practical issues.
And so I realized this: the bond we had was real. She did, and I suspect still does, ‘really’ love me and care about me. She likes being around me and hates not seeing me for longer periods. Though I was bluepill as all get-out, I’m lucky enough to have some natural game, life success, and good looks so in the balance of things she’s still attracted. But that still doesn’t mean she’s willing to be in a relationship with me.
Gents, learn this, and I will break all my rules and put it in all caps: WOMEN ARE NOT MOTIVATED BY EXISTENTIAL REALITIES. They aren’t entirely oblivious to them, but they never change their behaviour substantially based upon them. What motivates their behaviour is WHAT you can do for them or HOW you can make them feel.
And so all my old gretching about how what she was doing demonstrated that she didn’t really care about me or us was incomprehensible to her. She found it distressing and confusing. It was really a matter of projection on my part; I, as a man, was willing to endure a great deal and change a large amount in order to actualize my ideals. To her, ideals were nice but what mattered came down to brass tacks. This relationship isn’t advantageous right now for either of us. So let’s get rid of it. It was sad but necessary.
Learning to be more attractive, especially in the bedroom (I didn’t know how or why to lead) might have helped. But really, in this case the thing I didn’t do that might have saved things is to aggressively change external realities so that the whole thing would have seemed more advantageous for her. Be attractive enough and you can be as idealistic as you like as long as you’re not clingy about it. Just like, if you’re rich and popular and hot, she can be as opportunistic as she likes and she still ends up with you.
This is what Rollo calls ‘optimized hypergamy.’
January 3rd, 2015 at 4:47 pm
@the bandit re: “Could you expand on how men commodify and exploit their idealistic love condition?”
Wrong question. Look at the original: “one commodifies and exploits the condition of love that the other holds.”
Correct answer: It’s very easy for men, e.g. PUAs, to exploit women’s opportunistic love.
January 3rd, 2015 at 4:59 pm
@J.J.
“In addition – neither betas nor alphas demand any responsibility from them any more – everyone is just trying to game them – for THEIR pleasure…. until they get bored of you and exchange you for a new accessory.”
That’s what it has pretty much come down to, be the highest performer you can be and game them hard. But that is the whole point of RP, so we game them the most efficiently so they don’t get “bored” and instead remain in the relationship. Are we going to be able to turn things around like a light switch and have all men start demanding accountability from women? Definitely not happening. We are here to mitigate the situation as best we can.
January 3rd, 2015 at 5:55 pm
@jf12
So, exactly how much is a man’s love worth to a woman? What do women give in exchange for a man’s love?
It’s actually worth a lot, but not for the reasons we would like it to be. It’s worth control. As in if you love her, she knows she has control over you which is what she thinks she wants. Then when she has it, she can’t figure out why she’s unhappy.
What do they give for it? As little as possible. For thirsty betas, that’s the attention (the hope for sex). For alphas it’s actually sex.
January 3rd, 2015 at 6:02 pm
@jf12
A little poll here, if you please.
1. How quickly do you fall in love?
2. How quickly did you fall in love with your first love?
3. How quickly did you fall in love with your latest love?
In keeping with the spirit of my last response:
1. In my beta days? Man it was instant. These days? The bitch has to keep her shit together for years before she’s got a chance of getting actual love out of me. I lust after a woman instantly or not at all. Love though? She has to earn that shit. A man’s love = commitment for the woman. That’s a huge gift to her. If she ain’t willing to work for it, I’m going to just fuck her until I find better.
2. Funny enough, I liked her almost immediately, but was slow to realize I did. You don’t really know what it feels like until you feel it then have somebody else point out what it is.
3. Pretty fast. It was over the course of a few months. It was a little over 3 years ago, she dumped me a bit over two years ago, and my view of reality has changed since then. After that day, of the plates I’ve spun and the few flings I’ve had, I’ve not loved a one. I want control over my life now to an almost obsessive degree. Loving a woman is by definition releasing some of that control, and not a single woman has proven herself worth that risk in my entire life. Until one does, it won’t happen again.
January 3rd, 2015 at 7:47 pm
@jf12
re: “They need a good balance of alpha and beta traits”
Yes! But 100% alpha + 0% beta is the goodest balance.
Not necessarily. Look at this. Pure gold.
https://hvren.wordpress.com/2010/07/11/to-whatever-self-be-true-part-3-the-formula/
This link is to the third part (better to read all 3 parts) of Narciso’s model where he proposes a balance between alpha and beta traits.
“set the yin/beta traits at approximately 3/5 of the alpha/yang levels.”
January 3rd, 2015 at 8:46 pm
@Sun Wukong re: “As in if you love her, she knows she has control over you which is what she thinks she wants.”
Yes. Women do know this.
re: “Loving a woman is by definition releasing some of that control, and not a single woman has proven herself worth that risk in my entire life.”
Me too, but I love(d) anyway.
January 3rd, 2015 at 8:54 pm
re: loveless women.
Women always, always, always blame the man and always refuse to blame the woman when sex is involved.
http://news.yahoo.com/home-where-cats-parents-refusing-travel-050017615.html
“Your wife’s lack of sex drive may be due to any of the things you mentioned. It could also be that your technique needs improving. Ask her if that might be the problem.”
January 3rd, 2015 at 9:06 pm
Here’s what I learned about “love.”
My idealistic love is worthless unless attached to dominance, strength, commitments of time, money, energy, and attention. What good is idealistic love without those other things? It doesn’t even help the man in love as he is now both distracted and highly motivated usually in a direction not congruent to his mission.
Her opportunistic love is worthless without dripping wet lust, submission, obedience, loyalty, and trust. If I have all of those thing what the fuck do I need love for? I can’t see any reason why I’d want.
Besides as we know with or without love women will still jump ship, sometimes on a whim, and there are no guarantees of fidelity. Nor are there tricks to guarantee fidelity so why bother trying given the costs and risks?
So I see that in the offering sense I can do no better than to say ” this is me. What you see is what you get. Take it or leave it. There won’t be any haggling, this isn’t Morocco and I’m neither selling nor buying a fucking rug. If it desn’t work or your not happy I’ll hold the door for you on the way out don’t come back this is a one time offer, act fast I’ve other things to do.”
January 3rd, 2015 at 9:18 pm
I know a little ’bout love, …
The Sexodus may indeed be well underway, but as alphas and Badpainter and PUAs and polygamists and etc keep telling us, what there really is, and has been for a long time, is a major major Love Exodus. Men who can, definitely will keep having sex without love.
I have described my 24 yr old nice-guy son as a reluctant MGHOW, but really he simply faded into the jungle instead of bothering to continue on the Bataan Death March Of Love. Despite being 6′ tall, in great shape now, with a great job, plenty of friends, busy life, over a year ago he give up even wanting to keep trying with women because of the 100% rejection rate accumulated over the years. 100%, even from quite ugly girls, because 100% of the girls completely erroneously thought they could do better.
January 3rd, 2015 at 9:22 pm
@Badpainter re: “Here’s what I learned about “love.” … My idealistic love is worthless … Her opportunistic love is worthless”
Yes. But YOUR opportunistic love and HER idealistic love, if achievable, would be worth plent.
January 3rd, 2015 at 9:48 pm
“Yes. But YOUR opportunistic love and HER idealistic love, if achievable, would be worth plent.”
So would a winning lottery ticket, odds are about the same. The lottery ticket is a minute and dollar so the cost benefit analysis favors the lottery.
January 3rd, 2015 at 10:40 pm
A few things come to mind with this post and I don’t have an answer but it has become a struggle as I approach my 5th year with the Red Pill.
I constantly hear these things from girls:
“You don’t know what I want”.
“You didn’t give me what I need”
“You’re so selfish”
“So many guys are chasing me”
I have stopped responding to this litany of vague assertions.
Women think they understand men and that they are themselves such mysterious creatures.
One way to set a woman off balance: When she does something say: “I knew you’d say that/do that/come out/be here”
I said this to an ex gf who crashed a party I was holding. She came unannounced.
I smiled: “I knew you’d come…”
Her: “I didn’t know I’d come…”
Me: “Im always thinking three moves ahead…I know what you’re going to do before you even do it…
Her: No you don’t….
I just smiled with amused mastery.
This concept here of loving/wanting a man for who he is, is simply nonsense.
Women always have a reason/motive.
Another girl I’m gaming was telling me: “You are so passionate about those things that matter…I like that” = you are high value and I want to be a part of that to fill the hole in my life.
Rarely do women do anything out of a selflessness. There is always an unspoken “contract”.
If you’re not paying close attention, you suddenly think “Wow she must really like me…”
It’s just that at THAT TIME their emotions are spiked.
I now notice that women can unplug and plug back into any situation without much lead up.
I can see a girl I was banging months even years ago…come up to her, say a few things that spark her attraction and suddenly she’s right back where she was.
January 3rd, 2015 at 11:12 pm
Fromthe OP – “As Open Hypergamy becomes more proudly embraced and normalized in society, so too will women’s sexual strategy be laid more bare. And in laying that strategy bare, so too will women’s opportunistic model of love become more apparent to men.”
I think this knowledge is now almost default amongst most men (gen X or younger). In the past two years I’ve not heard single man deny it outright. Several have tried to reason away the implications or seriousness, but none have denied it. I also see men becoming more demanding and pickier. Demanding in that their willingness to express love, especially verbally, is now predicated on a continuing evaluation of the woman’s performance primarily based on her obedience, and sexual receptivity. One friend said his new policy was ” if there’s no blow jobs, then no hugs, no cuddling, no date nights.” He’s a bit of an extremist. Others simply have banned the word from their vocabularies.
Amongst the divorced there will never be a sanctified, legally contracted commitment offered again, but all would consider at will arrangements that require wifely submission, and behavior for their own continued participation. Cohabitation is viewed as a Trojan horse.
Amongst those of us never married we are pickier. Generally we won’t approach an over 40 woman for anything but sex. We won’t date over 35, or single moms of any age. We won’t measure based on potential but only the actual. The three date is fully in force, and if the first two aren’t very good there won’t be a third, we have no patience. If the sex is lacking there won’t a fourth. And in a strange twist our physical attraction standards have become more unforgiving and rigid.
In short the men I know who are betas have decided to reciprocate the AFBB with our own demands for performance. And given our time in the gas lit Bluepill fog of the FI’s relentless quest for more we expect more as well, but the more expected is almost entirely defined by sexual performance where a woman’s commitment is demonstrated and proven by her enthusiasm for what we were told are dreaming acts.
Seriously something happened in 2013 and this stuff is now a regular topic of discussion in my social circles. Although stripped of ‘sphere jargon, and with a cautious and oblique introduction into a conversation usually by the third Scotch we sound a lot like Rollo’s comments section with more OT talk about sports, cooking, and business gossip.
January 4th, 2015 at 12:12 am
Just dropped a plate. Reason? She constantly gets upset that I won’t act jealous if she mentions another guy, won’t act desperate to have some of her time, and won’t beg her to stay with me. Basically she attempts to keep control by telling me she wants my love, trying to force me to love her so she can manipulate me.
I called her out directly on it. “You think because I’m not jealous that I don’t care and I can’t be manipulated. You’re right on one part: I can’t be manipulated.” Denials up one side and down the other, then a decision to not show up here. Fine. Done.
She knows I’m going to ignore her. She’s terrified by it. “I don’t want to lose you. Will I be able to talk to you again?” “I don’t know, will you?” Leaving it vague to let her hamster go fucking insane.
If she decides to show up once more after my going dark I’ll fuck her, but after that I’m done. It’s just about getting my dick wet at this point.
Single life in this country is simultaneously absolutely horrendous for your emotional state but awesome for getting laid if your game is tight. Heaven forbid you’re looking for LTR material though. There’s none left. Just fewhales, single moms, tattoo jobs, BPDozers, and hordes whores. Not a keeper in sight.
I’m debating going monk mode until I can make some of the big changes coming up over the next few months of my life. I think I’m due for a little more isolated self-improvement and introspection to start off this new year.
January 4th, 2015 at 12:36 am
@jf12. Thanks, I appreciate you correcting my mistake!
January 4th, 2015 at 12:59 am
@Sun Wukong Yes….this idea that girls I’m banging have that I’m not “jealous” or “Caring” enough ….compared to “other guys”….is a theme I hear all the time.
I had written about the 23 year old who pulled away for whatever reason. Then suddenly started giving me IOI’s to approach her.
I haven’t and ignore her. Why? Because these girls have been brought up to believe that guys CHASE them. When you don’t they will call you every name in the book and launch the most vicious gossip campaigns to slag you off….
In the end if you weather all this…they’ll respect you and come back.
My crazy ex gf came out voluntarily to a party I was hosting….she wanted me to dance with her…which I did as a reward…she helped clean up and kissed me…on the lips. I didn’t go mental because for me it was validation that not buying into their frame works.
There is no “love”…there is desire and there is “need” which for many of these girls turns into convenience.
January 4th, 2015 at 3:18 am
“Women don’t like overt dominance, just as they don’t like overt objectification or adoration. It’s when it’s covert that they respond most favorably – women love to be objectified, dominated and adored, but only by men who know better than to remind her of it.”
Rollo, I have developed the desire to have a D/S relationship (BDSM context) with the next woman that I take as partner. The problem is that such would require me to be overt about it, especially to talk about soft and hard limits, what would it mean to be in a bdsm relationship or the meaning of her wearing a collar (or something to symbolise it) and taking me as her master and so on.
What would you advise me to do? Never be overt about dominance, only covert? How can I make this work?
January 4th, 2015 at 4:24 am
I’ve come to a realization that I want to bounce off you guys. I suddenly realized that every time a woman asks you a meta question about your relationship:
“Are you happy with me?”
“Would you stay with me if you met someone better?”
“Would you be angry if I said one of your friends with cute?”
Or even “Does my ass look fat in these jeans?”
Every single one every single time is a shit test. Not a one is a question to be straight forward answered. Agree and amplify, amused mastery with a shit eating grin, or straight up ignoring the question are the only way these questions should ever be handled. If she’s a plate and the questions start coming often and you find them obnoxious, she should be nexted immediately.
I can’t believe it took me this long to realize it, but this entire range of questions seems like a radioactive pile of monkey shit to be disposed of without hesitation.
January 4th, 2015 at 6:36 am
I stopped expecting my woman to love me. What I’m expecting of her now is, in order of priority (and I force myself to behave as if I’m expecting this):
1. Respect
2. Submission
3. Lust
4. Loyalty
To my somewhat surprise this actually seems to work, in that there is more sex and more loving behavior on her part.
January 4th, 2015 at 6:42 am
I think most times we (manosphere) over analyse things. Keep your frame, make it the best possible, instead of thinking about what can go wrong. Things should go ok. I never saw a girl dumping my Red Pill “teacher” (I met at least 30) even sometimes with him being a completely jerk, lying and getting caught with other(s). He never did more than that. Manipulation helps but if you’re happy with a low N, you don’t need that also. Focus in your way, look around! (the trick is here, don’t ignore your surroundings) and they will notice you. We know that their love is oportunistic, but in the end, who cares, you know (now) that biology made them like that and we (beta men) are reinforcing that to them. We are guilty about it. Own it, change and continue your way.
Keep your frame.
January 4th, 2015 at 6:52 am
@ Matatan
+1 Completely agree with you. Expect that, if not next her. Keep your boundaries.
January 4th, 2015 at 8:59 am
@Sun Wukong re: “Every single one every single time is a shit test.”
Yes. Take it to the bank: anything a woman asks her man that isn’t some obvious request for real information (e.g. “What time is the flight supposed to arrive?”), and even a *lot* of those RFIs, is a total shit test. Especially anything involving opinions or feelings, 100% of the time. Anything that puts her in the judgment seat, always a shit test.
January 4th, 2015 at 9:20 am
@Momentum re: covert dominance.
Context, context, context. The very next part of the same paragraph is “I’ve always advocated the positive effect of maintaining an ambient threat of competition anxiety with women, but this form of dominance cannot be an overt display. Dominance must be playing in the background, only occasionally being amplified as situations warrant. Women need to know it’s there, but her imaginations of that masculine dominance are more useful to a man than a constant, present, overt reminder of it.”
Rollo was talking about the women responding favorably to the *ambience* of dread via covert dominance. Women certaintly don’t *like* overt dread.
But I’m going to disagree with what we’re both reading into this, i.e. that Rollo is saying covert dominance is more effective. I think overt dominance is a LOT more strongly effective, but YOU may not like the effect: inducing fear, cowering, etc.
January 4th, 2015 at 10:13 am
jf12 – “I think overt dominance is a LOT more strongly effective, but YOU may not like the effect: inducing fear, cowering, etc.”
This puts me to wondering.
Is the particular emotion a woman expresses relevant, or is it the intensity of the emotion the issue? Are we chasing our tails being concerned about negative emotions when what we should be mindful of is the intensity of emotion without regard for the emotion itself? What if fear is as good as joy so long as both are managed at a reasonable level of intensity?
I think this might explain why some women stick with obviously abusive men; they provide an intense emotional experience. This might well explain some of the preference for “bad boys”, and players in that they too can provide an intense emotional experience. And we’ve all either heard or said that women can’t be merely content for very long. Good feelz of low intensity are inferior to higher intensity bad feelz.
January 4th, 2015 at 10:32 am
Matatan
January 4th, 2015 at 6:36 am
I would rate them this way.
1. Submission
2. Respect
3. Lust
4. Loyalty
She has to submit first. Now maybe you think she will not submit unless she respects. And I could buy into that some. But IMO submission has to top the list once she has made a choice.
Loyalty? Impossible for women to practice except towards her children.
And lust? Well you need to warm her up. Continually.
January 4th, 2015 at 10:37 am
Badpainter
January 4th, 2015 at 10:13 am
What if fear is as good as joy so long as both are managed at a reasonable level of intensity?
I think you are on to something here. I note the first mate oscillates. When her joy bucket is full she likes fear and when her fear bucket is full joy is a great relief. I used to think that it was bi-polar. Are they all like that?
January 4th, 2015 at 10:45 am
Badpainter
January 4th, 2015 at 10:13 am
Good feelz of low intensity are inferior to higher intensity bad feelz.
OK. They are all like that. The fm told me early on that she liked sex best after a week or two of feeling bad because it was such a rush.
I once got her to do 3 weeks straight. When ever I wanted to poke her. At the end it was “If I knew it was going to be that good I’d do it all the time.” I said I needed a day or two off to recharge a little. Three years later… And we never did 3 weeks straight again.
I keep asking her, “Don’t you want to feel good?” Her, “Yes.” But in reality she does not act that way. She wants the rushes. And will create havoc – if required – to get them.
January 4th, 2015 at 10:49 am
jf12
January 4th, 2015 at 9:20 am
Rollo was talking about the women responding favorably to the *ambience* of dread via covert dominance. Women certaintly don’t *like* overt dread.
Mine does. So you may be generally correct. But not absolutely.
January 4th, 2015 at 10:59 am
jf12 – “So, what are some of men’s antimating behaviors – the ones that inevitably make women not want to mate – that are not niceguy beta stuff?
In my experience, ignoring her. Acting annoyed when she tries to pay attention to you. Just brings them on harder at first, but eventually they get the picture. Just like a woman withholding sex or affection – at first it brings the guy on harder, but eventually it breaks him.
This might be considered beta, but I’ve heard faking a panic attack can work wonders as well. Never tried it though.
January 4th, 2015 at 11:06 am
Badpainter – “Is the particular emotion a woman expresses relevant, or is it the intensity of the emotion the issue? Are we chasing our tails being concerned about negative emotions when what we should be mindful of is the intensity of emotion without regard for the emotion itself? What if fear is as good as joy so long as both are managed at a reasonable level of intensity? “
I think this is largely correct. Women want, more than perhaps anything else, to experience a full emotional palette. A lot of relationship issues stem from this – men want peace and stability at home, women need to feel things. Women fear being in a boring relationship like men fear being in a sexless relationship. It eats them up, it drives them mad.
So really, if you can elicit any powerful emotion it will help you. As M Simon points out, actually negative emotions may lead to sex a bit easier since it can be used as a balm – a way to feel good when you’re feeling bad, the chocolate cake after the breakup as it were.
Too bad I hate causing negative emotions in other people. But excitement and joy and wonder and laughter and all these other sudden, powerful emotions certainly work as well. As long as you can still seem dominant and powerful as you create them.
January 4th, 2015 at 11:16 am
Here’s a theory: I wonder if women develop a sense of what emotions are ‘right’ for them to feel in infancy, and feel like something is ‘off’ if they aren’t feeling those emotions in roughly the same proportions now?
So, if a woman was raised attentively and lovingly, she will feel like things are ‘right’ when you can create mostly positive emotions in her, like wonder and excitement. She will shut down if she feels negative emotions too often.
A woman raised poorly will tend to respond best to negative emotions, hence the proclivity to stay with abusive men.
My recent experience kind of bears this out; in my last relationship, the girl grew up with a lot of relationship stress around (marital turmoil in the parents) and had a father that would get angry about everything, though he would never do more than yell or reprimand. Still got some affection from the mother. During the period I knew her, she was always stressed out about something even when nothing was really wrong, and was always expecting – almost asking me to – be angry at her for little things. She was very confused – possibly even distressed – by my patience, how infrequently I was angry. But she still very much liked me to be affectionate, within reason. Basically, it looks a lot like she was trying to replicate the emotions she felt when she was very young.
January 4th, 2015 at 2:23 pm
@forgettheysky re: “Just brings them on harder at first”
That’s what I’m trying to avoid; long term actually doesn’t matter. Without details, I’m trying to drive, er, a new woman away without making her glad about it. I feel if I take a high road in an alpha way, that she will feel motivated to try harder instead.
January 4th, 2015 at 2:38 pm
Jenine sez “I know I’ll break your heart”
http://thoughtcatalog.com/jenine-jay-bufi/2015/01/how-i-know-ill-break-your-heart/
In fact, she’s *planning* on how to most hurt you! She says explicitly it’s *because* she knows you love her, that is the *reason* she’s planning to break your heart!
January 4th, 2015 at 2:41 pm
“so what’s the problem?”
http://thoughtcatalog.com/deanna-emanuelle/2015/01/why-your-best-friend-is-better-than-prince-charming/
Women. Women are the problem; women and their evil commodification of love.
January 4th, 2015 at 3:34 pm
@M Simon
Not sure how that would work, submitting to someone without respecting him. I guess fear could do the job but I don’t want to be feared by her, but respected.
Now that I have achieved respect and made progress on the submission, I find that she behaves more attracted to me resulting in more sex and affection. Loyalty starts to disappear as an issue as a result.
I’m not where I want to be just yet but things are a lot better than six months ago.
January 4th, 2015 at 3:53 pm
A suggestion for a definition:
“Apex Alpha”: A man that combines the desirable attributes of both alpha and beta guys (e.g., providing a high salary and stability if I’m not mistaken). In other words, an attractive man that has his shit together career (or provider) -wise (e.g., making at least six figures, and isn’t a lazy lay-a-bout). It seems to me that the current definition of “alpha” is just a guy that looks handsome or like James Bond or Fabio that the ladies find sexually arousing (attraction based entirely on physical arousal), but lives in his mom’s basement and his “career” is delivering pizzas at 35 years old. I reject this either or stuff.
January 4th, 2015 at 4:09 pm
@Brian
Last I checked, nobody says making money and being alpha are mutually exclusive. Nor is being “hawt” a prerequisite for being alpha. Alphas simply refuse to provision for women because they don’t have to. Betas HAVE to provision so they can get sex. “Beta Bux” doesn’t mean alphas don’t have money, it simply means they’re not giving it away.
I’m in agreement with Rollo on the definition: alpha is a mindset, not a demographic.
January 4th, 2015 at 4:43 pm
jf12
January 4th, 2015 at 2:41 pm
Women. Women are the problem; women and their evil commodification of love.
There was a science fiction story I read on that topic a long time ago. Can’t remember the name or author. Story opens with the guy passing a shooting gallery where you could shoot a replica woman. Him thinking, “Why would anyone pay for that?” Then he goes to the love vendor. The vendor guaranteed real love for a week. The guy gets it for a week and then it stops. He ends up at the shooting gallery plinking away. With great satisfaction.
It just made sense to me today – 50 years later. Any one remember the tittle or author?
January 4th, 2015 at 4:59 pm
Matatan
January 4th, 2015 at 3:34 pm
Deep desire can do it.
===================
forgethesky
January 4th, 2015 at 11:16 am
Mine runs on a 12 month cycle. Her home life was worst in the winter – so in winter a bad attitude predominates. In the spring her father started construction work. And like clockwork I get the good stuff for 4 to 6 weeks in the spring.
Of course when she is behaving badly I cut her off from affection. That helps bring her around. In extreme cases I won’t even talk to her for days. That really does a number on her because she has no way to use the female’s word games on me. I’m very good at words. So for amusement I like to out word game her.
But mostly she runs on a 12 month clock.
January 4th, 2015 at 5:10 pm
@Badpainter – Interesting view point…in other words men need to crank up their selfishness a few notches.
January 4th, 2015 at 5:23 pm
@M Simon
That will only work in the beginning. Once the shit testing starts, you better gain her respect by passing them, or her deep desire will evaporate together with her respect and submission.
January 4th, 2015 at 5:51 pm
Matatan
January 4th, 2015 at 5:23 pm
I cut her off when the shit testing starts. Only let her back in when she passes my shit test – becomes submissive again for a while.
January 4th, 2015 at 6:10 pm
@ M Simon
I don’t know that story, but that’s very good.
F.W. Robertson said, “He is best prepared for trouble who sees it coming from afar.”
Better to learn about all this stuff in private, let it expose unconscious emotions and deal with them now, than to keep them swept under the rug and have them explode years down the road when some girl breaks your heart.
Realizing that my emotional reactions to EVERYTHING I read on this blog, comments and all, are a result of *what is already inside my mind*, has been pivotal to my development.
Let me make my point a little clearer:
If simply reading words on a page can make someone morbidly depressed, hateful, jealous, infuriated, and all these other things — how do you think they would respond to a real, live girl that actually acted out of her hypergamy in a devastating way?
Going from hot to cold, cheating, going from loving and supportive and attentive and sexual to gone in the morning without a shred of remorse? Being the love of some guy’s life one minute to running off with some other guy the next, or simply breaking up with him for no apparent reason out of the blue?
The most important thing to realize here — I reiterate — is that Rational Male and the Red Pill knowledge it teaches are simply stirring up the conflicted, dangerous, extreme emotions that are *ALREADY PRESENT* in the minds of plugged-in guys.
It could be from a dysfunctional childhood, which is becoming increasingly common in our feminized society, feminized media making promises to guys that are impossible to fulfill and getting their hopes sky high (what goes up must come down)….
…but whatever it is, it’s just stirring up what’s already there.
I do thought experiments a lot, and have for years, where I’d imagine horrible scenarios with girls, realize that I was just imagining it all in my mind, but pay careful attention to my emotional reactions, and see if I could ‘train’ myself by doing that to have more emotional control over myself and more peace of mind. Kind of like Pavlovian Conditioning in reverse — exposing myself to a triggering stimulus (e.g., a girl cheating on me or saying something insulting to me or abandoning me), by simply IMAGINING it, and then de-conditioning the emotional response by calming myself down by reminding myself that it was all in my head.
I didn’t want to get too abstract here, but in reality it is abstract. All the changes in our lives start in our minds — the realm of the abstract. The end goal being adopting belief systems and behaviors that are more prone to producing results that will benefit us.
Clearing out the emotional wreckage that got stirred up when I started reading RM — and trust me, it was very bad — was perhaps the most drastic thing I’ve had to do.
You know, before I got blown on New Year’s, after I panicked and that girl told me to “grow a pair”, I felt a HUGE pang of rage and shame, on a scale of 1-10 it would be a 100.
It felt like it was eating me alive from the inside out and I just wanted to get out of there. But because I’d dealt with that stuff in my mind already, and for months I’d been dealing with those very emotions that were being stirred up inside me…
…I was able to put them aside and make perhaps one of the most outstanding Negative Game Fuckup recoveries in the history of recovering former blue pill men.
And after 2 hours of awkward talking and her being ready to leave, and me ready to give up, I turned the table and ended up not only making out with her (as she initially wanted to), but her asking me if it was okay to suck my dick.
I was hyper-aware as I was having the anxiety attack early on and saying the stupidest shit (telling her all about my social anxiety and how I’m a virgin and how I was afraid there would be too many emotions involved, etc.)….
…I KNEW that I was replaying the same beta chump pattern and SABOTAGING MYSELF in the process, as I’ve done dozens of times before, and I even considered just going home and jerking off and feeling like a complete loser, as I’d also done so many times.
And because I’ve been focusing so much on this baggage, and getting a handle on it, and learning how to let it go, I actually DID let it go and got the blowjob I deserved. I simply dropped the self sabotaging script and allowed myself to exercise the concepts I’d learned about. Just got out of my own way. I decided that I wasn’t going home to that same room with the same shitty feeling…and so I didn’t.
But I doubt I would’ve been able to do that if it weren’t for RM. Reading this stuff hasn’t only tremendously educated me on the nature of women, but brought up a ton of emotional issues I’d forgotten about, and it gave me a great opportunity to start healing myself and re-creating myself in the privacy of my own room. Just by bringing all this stuff up inside of me and making me aware of it.
So to any other guys in a similar situation that are reading this: take note of the emotions that are stirred up in you when you read this stuff. And realize that it’s simply bringing it to the surface.
If you juice an orange, what do you get? Orange juice. Not apple juice or grape juice. You produce whatever is already within you. Your reactions to this blog are simply manifestations of the thoughts, feelings and beliefs you already have.
When they come up, it’s a GOOD thing, because it’s an opportunity to change your script.
January 4th, 2015 at 6:36 pm
Sorry, but a woman uses her conditional love and acceptance in a selfish sense ( in her own interest), or in a more altrusitic way (in in the interest of her children, community and even in the interest of the man himself). As a mother, I certainly catch myself withholding love from my sons if they did not try to push or better themselves.
I would much much rather that my sons hate my guts but survive and thrive, rather than to wallow in my motherly love while dying in a ditch.
January 4th, 2015 at 7:00 pm
@ Softek – You didn’t “deserve” that blowjob. Nobody “deserves” a blowjob. So, have you signed up for a PUA course yet? Krauser’s looks quite good.
Field Report: Encounter with hot young women last night. There I am pounding away and suddenly, I have this sense of the futility of it all. I realize that I’m programmed to want to do this and that sex, stripped of all the pedestalizing of women and romance, is just me shoving my dick into a woman. While I’ve been Red Pill for a while, it seems to have layers, and experiences with women trigger deeper and deeper revelations. I realized that after I came, within a short time, I would be craving it again, like I was on some biological treadmill. Don’t get me wrong, I still want to have sex, but there was a moment where I saw it stripped of all the gynocentric nonsense for the first time, I saw it for what it is – an impulse. I think this is what women do not want us to realize, They only benefit if we dress it up in romance, and earning it, and the one and marriage and monogamy – but stripped of it all, well, it’s quite different. Not bad, but really, it’s just sex.
This woman broke her “rules” with me. I had been working my game with her, demonstrating high value in our conversations and making her pull versus me pull. Afterwards, she asks me what I’m going to do tomorrow. I tell her I’m at the local soup kitchen on Sundays and she asks me, suddenly worried, “Is that true? Do you really do all these things you say you do? You seem to be too good to be true” In a different tone of voice, it might have been a shit test. And pre Red Pill, I would have been insulted, but instead what I realized is that she was actually worried that she might have just let a loser mawl her sexually. I quickly reassured her and she was fine.
I had subtly and carefully demonstrated high value to her. Signs of wealth, living lakeside, having my own business, gigging musician, deep knowledge of various topics we were discussing. But I didn’t qualify with her, I instead left it to her draw these things out of me. The last question pushed her into doubt and she really had a moment of panic that she had been conned into letting me go places she doesn’t let most guys go. She violated a couple of her “rules” with me (i think that’s my goal in life, to get women to break their rules – they do so very easily, lol) She thought she was with a high value guy and needed to make sure she had done so. More evidence of how women see love as a commodity that they need to get the highest “price” for.
Red Pill life is jarring.
January 4th, 2015 at 7:33 pm
Glenn
January 4th, 2015 at 7:00 pm
Ah. Yes. They are ALL whores. You just have to find their price. The old joke is totally true. It only leaves out that the price has different dimensions.