Glenn and a few others had a question about last week’s Love Commodity post.:
@Rollo – This seems very inconsistent to me. How can this be true – ” 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. ” While this is true? “In an era of unapologetic feminine primacy and unignorable open Hypergamy, this commodification undeniably rests with the feminine.”
You’ll have to forgive a long explanation, I couldn’t simply drop this into the commentary, a full post was necessary.
The first thing we need to consider is the Male Experience vs. the female experience. I hate to get too existential, but it comes down to our individuated experiences as men and women. I’m going to give two examples here and this will also cover the Hypergamy is everything thread I noticed the commentary too.
There’s an interesting conflict of societal messaging we get from an equalitarian / feminine-primary social order. This is one that simultaneously tells us that “we are not so different” or “we are more alike than we are different” and then, yet implores use to “celebrate our diversity” and “embrace (or tolerate) our differences” as people.
This is easily observable in issues of ethnicity, but it also crosses over into issues of gender. The most popular trope is that ideas of gender are a social construct and that women and men are comparative equals and only their physical plumbing makes them different in form only.
From a Red Pill perspective we see the error in evidence of this egalitarian fantasy. I’ve written countless posts on the evidential and logical fallacies that make up gender equalism, but the important thing to be aware of is the conflict inherent within that belief – equalism expects men and women’s existential experiences to be the same, while also pleading that we embrace the differences it purports we don’t actually have.
It fundamentally denies the separation, from an evolved biological / psychological perspective, that men and women experience life in different ways. The idea is that it’s the nebulous ‘society’ that determines our gender experiences and less, if nothing, of it is truly influenced by a human being’s psychological-biological firmware.
zdr01dz posted this:
I think maybe this is in part because men have no innate desire to marry up. Hypergamy doesn’t compute for us. I know what hunger feels like and I assume women feel it the same way I do. I’m empathetic to poor, hungry children because I know what they’re feeling. However I have no idea what hypergamy feels like. I’ve never felt it’s pull.
My second example comes from Women and Sex in which I explore the fallacy of the social convention that insists “women are just as sexual as men” and that “women want sex, enjoy sex, even more than men.”
This canard is both observably and biologically disprovable, but the presumption is based on the same “we’re all the same, but celebrate the difference” conflicting principle that I mentioned above. If a dynamic is complimentary to the feminine then the biological basis is one we’re expected to ’embrace the diversity’ of, but if the dynamic is unflattering to the feminine it’s the result “of a society that’s fixated on teaching gender roles to ensure the Patriarchy, we’re really more alike than not.”
The idea is patently false because there is no real way any woman can experience the existence and conditions that a man does throughout his life. I mention in that essay about how a female amateur body builder I knew who was dumbstruck by how horny she became after her first cycle of anabolic steroids. “I can’t believe men can live in a state like this” were her exact words. She was just beginning to get a taste of what men experience and control in their own skins 24 hours a day and it was unsettling for her.
Women are used to a cyclic experience of sexuality, whereas men must be ready to perform at the first, best opportunity sexually. These are our individuated experiences and despite all the bleating of the equalists they are qualitatively different. As zdr01dz observes, no man has an idea of what Hypergamy feels like. To my knowledge there is no drug or hormone that can simulate the existential experience of Hypergamy. Even if there were, men and women’s minds are fundamentally wired differently, so the simulated experience could never be replicated for a man.
I understand how Hypergamy works from observing the behavior and understanding the motivating biology for it. I also understand that our species evolved with, and benefitted from it – or at least it makes deductive sense that what we know as Hypergamy today is a derivative of that evolution – but what I don’t have is a firsthand, existential experience of Hypergamy and I never will. Likewise, women will never have a similar existential experience of what it’s like to be a man.
So it should be an easy follow to deduce that how a woman experiences love, as based on her Hypergamic opportunistic impulses, is a fundamentally different experience than that of a man’s. The equalist social order want’s love to be an equal, mutual, agreement on a definition of love that transcends individuated gender experience, but it simply will not accept that an intersexual experience of love is defined by each sex’s individuated experience.
I have no doubt that there are areas of crossover in both men’s idealistic concept of love and women’s opportunistic concept, but this experience of love is still defined by gender-specific individuation. By that I mean that women can and do experience intense feelings of love for a man based on her Hypergamously influenced criteria for love.
I’m actually surprised that more women have yet to call me to the carpet about their personal experiences of love from the commodity post, but if you sift through the comments on Women in Love and other blog/forum comments you’ll come across examples of women describing in great detail how deeply they love their husbands / boyfriends, and are in complete disarray over being told their love stems from Hypergamic opportunism. Again, I have no doubt that their feelings of love are genuine to them based on their individuated concepts of love; indeed they’re ready to fight you tooth and nail to defend their investment in those feelings. What I’m saying is that the criteria a man should need to meet in order to generate those emotions and arrive at a love state are not universally mutual as an equalitarian social order would have the whole of society believe.
So, yes, men and women can and do love each other intensely and genuinely – from their own individuated experiences. They can and do see past each other’s deficiencies and their love endures. The processes they used to come to this love state differs in concept and existential individuation, and what sustains that love state is still dependent upon the criteria of men’s idealistic and women opportunistic concepts of love.
The Cardinal Rule of sexual strategies:
For one gender’s sexual strategy to succeed the other gender must compromise or abandon their own.
The commodification of that love state is presently weighted on the feminine because the Feminine Imperative is socially ascendant. The importance of satisfying the female sexual (and really life-goal) strategy takes primary social precedence today. Thus men’s individuated experience is devalued to an assumption of an “it’s-all-equal” universality while women’s is blown up out of all real valuation with collective expectations of “embracing their unique difference” set apart from that universality. If men’s experience is one-size-fits-all it’s really a small, and socially blameless, step for a woman to withhold the reward criteria men place on their idealistic love in order to satisfy their own sexual strategy.
Women’s social primacy allows them to feel good about themselves for commodifying the idealistic rewards men value to come to their own state of love, as well as maintain it.
It is one further step to embrace the concept that men’s experience of love, the idealism he applies to it and even his own sexual and life imperatives are in fact the same as those of women’s – while still setting women’s apart when it serves them better. Thus the cardinal rule of sexual strategies comes to a feminine-primary consolidation by socially convincing men that women’s experience and imperatives are, or should be considered to be, the same as men’s individuated experiences. Add women’s already innate solipsism to this and you have a formula for a gender-universal presumption of the experience of love based primarily on the individuated female experience of love.
In other words, women expect men to socially and psychologically agree with, reinforce and cooperate with the opportunistic feminine model of love as the equalist, gender-mutual model model of love while still believing that women share their own idealistic model. It’s the correct model that should work for everyone, or so women’s solipsism would have us believe.
January 7th, 2015 at 12:35 pm
@bp
Drawing from my experience as a rider: it can be whatever you want, so long as it doesn’t look like an old man should ride it. For instance, I drive one of these:
It has bags that make it look like an old man bike (and make it useful; I’ve taken a month and a half camping with mine), but when you pop those off it just looks like a sport bike. Chicks can’t tell the difference. Not all chicks get hot about bikes though. The confidence once you know how to ride is probably what sells it to those types.
Actually most of the ones that really genuinely love bikes are not what you want. Real queens of the trailer park, if you catch my drift. Heavy smokers with a ton of tattoos, a savage tan, and a lot of makeup.
January 7th, 2015 at 12:40 pm
Meh, link broke. This should work.
http://www.motorcyclespecs.co.za/model/triu/triumph_sprint_st%2011.htm
January 7th, 2015 at 12:45 pm
from Rollo’s twitter links
“physical attractiveness is a better predictor of women’s than men’s market value”
Wincenciak, J., Fincher, C.L., Fisher, C.I., Hahn, A.C., Jones, B.C. & DeBruine, L.M., Mate choice, mate preference, and biological markets: The relationship between partner choice and health preference is modulated by women’s own attractiveness, Evolution and Human Behavior (2014), doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2014.12.004
Period.
January 7th, 2015 at 1:18 pm
@ jf12
The re-buttal (I don’t remember the first buttal, must have been drunk) will be…wait for it…feelz.
January 7th, 2015 at 1:58 pm
Men’s idealistic love involves fetishes when pathological. Women’s opportunistic love involves tokens, instead.
A teen girl ran off with my good hunting jacket, the one that doesn’t get so used, Monday night, after she stole it from another teen girl. I didn’t get it back until last night. My wife was wearing it this morning.
January 7th, 2015 at 3:25 pm
Stealth motorcycle.
http://www.popsci.com/undefined/darpas-silenthawk-quiet-motorcycle-moves-ahead
But will it impress the chicks?
January 7th, 2015 at 3:58 pm
Everyone who has ever done the experiment admits the pressure on men to be dominant is a lot lot lot harder than the pressure on women to be sexy.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/mar/18/gender.bookextracts
January 7th, 2015 at 4:25 pm
@jf12
Re: Motorcycles…
Your motorcycle link doesn’t work for me. Also, I ride a p.o.s. Yamaha V-Star 250. The rated maximum passenger weight for my bike is less than I weigh. Strangely, I still get girl bikers giving me IOIs occasionally as I get off my bike, even though my motorcycle is absolutely nothing to write home about, in fact, it should signal low-value by all rights.
I’ve considered upgrading for a long time, and I would do it, but I’ve just had much bigger financial goals that keep getting in the way.
Re: Experiential experiments…
The burden of performance, near constant horniness, and career requires energy. One wonders how anyone could be confused why little boys are literally as energetic as a swarm of bees. Natural selection is blind, but it doesn’t select for incompatible traits.
Evolutionarily speaking, humans are probably in more danger of becoming two species than becoming an androgynous mosh of male-female “equality.” In fact, looking at the biological record, it’s fairly clear that sex-differentiated species are more successful than one-sex species.
January 7th, 2015 at 6:12 pm
Ah, love.
Nicholas spent more than $3M in remodeling the family home in just the past few years. The children and Nicholas still list the marital home as their residence.
Meanwhile last month Cathy Sparks bought a nearby house in her name alone, moving out of the marital home, and she signed a postnup months ago waiving rights to alimony.
http://www.tmz.com/2015/01/07/nicholas-sparks-wife-new-house-divorce-home-photos/
January 7th, 2015 at 6:15 pm
re: androgynous moshes
If you give them an inch
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kelsie-brynn-jones/when-being-trans-is-not-t_b_6340728.html
pretty soon they’ll just want to cut it off again.
Can I be labeled “the worst one” here too? Please?
January 7th, 2015 at 6:40 pm
Starting a betting pool here to guess when the revelation of Cathy’s affair will be made. I claim the date of January 16.
Secondarily, guess whom she had an affair with.
1. Another writer who happens to shorter, stupider, and poorer than Nicholas. And he smacks her around.
2. One of the pool boys.
3. Their marriage counselor.
January 7th, 2015 at 7:06 pm
Re: Sparks pool
February 8
Local HS football team offensive line at homecoming with random flag girls from the band.
January 7th, 2015 at 8:28 pm
Secondarily, guess whom she had an affair with.
Her personal fitness trainer, early 30s, shredded, tight game, and regularly has sex with his mostly 40’s-ish, married moms who are bored sexually.
January 7th, 2015 at 9:02 pm
Having a mother, an ex wife and observational skills I have to say most women do not love their kids
Divorce stats, child support stats, women supporting feminism despite having sons etc etc point to women not loving their kids
January 7th, 2015 at 9:15 pm
BP most def doesn’t need to be a Harely but the bike needs to fit you and your style and I would stay away from the BMW/ dual sport bikes. They look akward
Sport bikes look fast, agile and athletic; cruisers look powerful and menacing….. Either works equally well depending on you and your hunting grounds. Urban chicks slightly favor sport bikes; the rest cruisers, but I have meet very few girls who have a strong preference
http://tonsplace.wordpress.com/2014/06/29/motorcycles-are-alpha/
I’m up to 4 bikes now; 3 Harley’s and a Yamaha. I have noticed no difference in IOI’s etc between them
January 7th, 2015 at 10:47 pm
“I was married for 29 years to a man who got hurt before we got married and couldn’t work again. I stuck by his side, he made the decisions and I worked every day teaching kindergarten.
All I asked was that when I got home for him to just smile at me and treat me well.
Mostly he started in on something negative as soon as I walked through the door.
He was passive aggressive to me and finally after 29 years my love for him took a nose dive and I couldn’t take it any more.
Just wondering…. does this fit in the mode of what I am hearing on this post?
I don’t feel at all like the woman who are talked about here.”
HA HA HA HA HA!
……and who’s choice was it to marry the disabled…..and marry the guaranteed disability income (meager as it is)…..and marry someone permanently injured who is highly likely to be extremely disappointed in life. Who’s choice was it to marry such a person? Could it be the innocent blameless little humble female kindergarten teacher? Oh poor little pitiful victim! 29 years wasted, oh how horrible. Now tell us why?
January 7th, 2015 at 10:58 pm
Rollo,
Do you think it’s possible many beta men do not want to escape beta-ism mostly because they would loose their addiction to a fantasy? The fantasy I refer to is a generality and includes the concepts of soul mate, unconditional love, idealized sex, etc. Possibly for many men this fantasy is mostly what they know, mostly what they’ve experienced and it is much like a drug addiction. A dependency is established along with conditioned illusion.
January 7th, 2015 at 11:06 pm
@
jf12
January 6th, 2015 at 2:46 pm
Love makes a woman think her man is the best one.
Love makes a man think his woman is the only one.
That crap reads like a fortune cookie….you know they write that moronic shit while they’re smoking opium.
January 8th, 2015 at 4:31 am
1. Equalitarian and “female-primary” social orders are not synonymous nor interchangeable. I assume you know the definition of equalitarian, yet you are using the term interchangeably to mean a female dominant social order. First example of flawed reasoning in this article.
2. “The most popular trope is that ideas of gender are a social construct and that women and men are comparative equals and only their physical plumbing makes them different in form only.” There is evidence that exactly this is true. Examine how being transgender impacts someone’s gender. You believe in a heteronormative gender binary which clouds your judgment and makes you incapable of understanding how gender relates to power dynamics in society. Until you can grasp that gender is defined by more than genitals, you will continue to write this complete and utter tripe that disparages women for the sake of helping you feel superior (which a truly superior person would not do).
3. “It fundamentally denies the separation, from an evolved biological / psychological perspective, that men and women experience life in different ways.” All people experience life in different ways. You are overvaluing the common experiences that you have with men and undervaluing the common experiences you have with women. The binary that you use to define your superiority is again hampering your ability to understand that you are not defined by gender and your experiences will never perfectly align with any other human being’s experiences and that you share lots of common experiences with BOTH men and women. In fact, you may find that you have more in common with a specific woman than a specific man if you explored those connections. For example, if a man and a woman in separate relationships work in the same field and are cheated on by their spouse, they have much more in common in terms of life experiences than with someone of the same gender in a different industry that has never been cheated on or was the one that betrayed their partner.
4. Hypergamy is conflated in your mind with gender, when it is absolutely normal for people in both genders (and not all people in either gender) to branch swing from one mate to the next based on perceived value or sexual attraction. Males engage in this behavior all the time. Not withstanding the obvious mountain of evidence you have at your disposal to verify the fact that I’m stating, it is indisputable that the incidence of infidelity in males is higher than in females, yet you claim women cannot “love” a man in the same way that a man “loves” a woman. Let’s examine your justification for that belief in another comment, but suffice it to say, you are blissfully unaware and willfully ignorant of the many traits that you deplore in females that are more common in males.
5. ‘“I can’t believe men can live in a state like this” were her exact words. She was just beginning to get a taste of what men experience and control in their own skins 24 hours a day and it was unsettling for her.’ And yet asexual men exist, which directly contradicts the anecdotal evidence you use to support your non-fact based argument that men are simply horny all the time and are therefore experiencing a condition that women cannot even begin to fathom. I mean when you write this tripe, you are well aware of the many logical fallacies that you use to justify your beliefs, are you not? I hope you are. And if your response is “Well those asexual men are just exceptions to the rule” or “hyper sexual women are the exception to the rule” is simply to say that “I know my theory has been disproved but I would rather ignore the facts and evidence that do not support my claim in favor of plowing on so that I can continue to demean females with my outdated 15th century mindset.”
6. “So it should be an easy follow to deduce that how a woman experiences love, as based on her Hypergamic opportunistic impulses, is a fundamentally different experience than that of a man’s.” Your logic is inherently flawed, and then you make an assertion that there should be a logical conclusion that the assumptions you have not and cannot prove should mean that all women experience relationships in exactly the same way. Let me make a correlation. I am reading misogynistic psychobabble from overly emotional men that demeans women and places them in a position beneath men based solely on their genital composition, so I conclude based on this evidence (and my evidence is actually supported so it is very different from your flawed premise) that all men view women as inferior beings that are not worthy of equal treatment. That is the logic you use, and it is absolutely worthless. The saddest thing about it is that people with this mindset purport to be pseudo-intellectuals and use junk science to support their claims while men of lower intellect just eat it up because it makes them feel all rough and tough and superior for a while. Group think is a terrible and scary thing, as this blog proves time and time again.
January 8th, 2015 at 5:35 am
The beta addiction to fantasy seems like a ligit point to me. They eat that shit up, video games, scfi, fiction books etc.etc. The amount of time they invest in various methods of escapism is beyond my ability to comprehend so I reckon it makes sense that remaining blue pill is part of their escapism
January 8th, 2015 at 6:29 am
@”Alphafemale”
1. Given that today’s social order is feminine-primary under the guise of “equalism,” I don’t see anything confusing about Rollo’s usage of the words here.
2. Contrary to popular belief in feminism, the sexes are in fact different in more than just genitalia. Male and female brains are wired differently (have a look at http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/269652.php). Men and women are also physiologically different; men tend to be bigger and more muscular than women. Beyond that, women are subject to monthly cycles that have a profound effect on sexuality. These are just scraping the surface – there are very real differences between the genders that have nothing to do with self-perceived gender and everything to do with biological gender. I don’t understand how feminists can claim that men and women are the same when all the evidence says otherwise.
3. Yes you’re right, all people experience life in different ways. However, based on the differences between the sexes mentioned in 2, most men are more likely to have more in common with other men than they are with women and vice versa. Again, you’re assuming that the sexes are the same besides plumbing when in fact they are not.
4. Read the comments on this article. It is explicitly stated many times that “branch swinging” is something that both sexes do. No one has said that only women do it. More importantly, hypergamy is NOT the same as “branch swinging.” There are several excellent comments by Novaseeker and Deti above that describe exactly what hypergamy is. I suggest you read those comments.
5. And yet, there are more asexual women than there are asexual men. If anything, trends in asexuality could support the idea that most men’s libidos tend to be higher than most women’s. However, asexuality is still poorly understood, so there’s no concrete evidence to draw from in the first place. Your argument is “non-fact based.”
6. You do not have any solid evidence to back up your claims.
Your comment is so riddled with vitriol that it’s hard to take you seriously. By contrast, most of the male commenters here have made level-headed contributions.
I was blown away by some of the comments on this thread by the way – especially those by Jeremy, Deti, and Novaseeker. Great insights guys, they’ve been very helpful for me personally. I still have trouble internalizing red pill wisdom, but great threads like this make some of the parts click together.
January 8th, 2015 at 6:33 am
if12: “More than ever, I’m leaning to the view that the reason for working on fundamentals: working out, grooming, etc., is to produce confidence. If you get your confidence somewhere else, such as in a bottle from the liquor store, you’ll have success too.”
There is some truth to that. Confidence is probably the single most important thing and a lot of fundamentals are just rational anchors to get stability in your irrational confidence.
But that isn’t all. Working out for example helps your testosterone. Which in my humble theories from analyzing myself helps to counter or fight back the effects of oxytocin. And oxytocin is the devil, as you rightly stated on comment page 1. Oxytocin produces beta traits if you let it, which probably is precisely it’s biological function.
There is even more: All value in this world is the result of someone putting mind into it. Thinking about something and changing something accordingly condensates the thoughts, this piece of mind into the solid world. Which other minds will notice and be attracted too. That’s all what art is about. And a man is piece of art too. The more mind you put into yourself, the more attractive you’ll be.
January 8th, 2015 at 6:36 am
@alphafemale
I, for one welcome your POV, though I disagree with much of what you wrote. I certainly do not believe that men are superior to women, or that women should be beneath men. I hope that most of us here do not believe that, though some here are angry at their own misfortunes. However, this does not change the fact that men and women are different in more ways than their external genitalia.
It is true that men have common experiences with women, and different experiences than other men. However, in general, most men have more in common with each other than most women, and vice versa. There are exceptions to every rule (and you bring those exceptions in discussion of the transgendered, hyper sexual and asexual men), but those do not represent the majority in the bell curve. What brings many of us here is an attempt to understand women when women themselves fail to provide that understanding.
You raise the point of hypergamy, for example, and claim that people of both genders may flit from partner to partner. This is true, but is unrelated to hypergamy. While both men and women ideally prefer a partner who is better looking, only women prefer a partner who is higher status/more powerful. This tendency is seen in other animal species as well, and likely has a biological as well as a societal component. And because of the dichotomy between wanting a man who is hotter while also desiring one of higher status/provider ability, women often “change lanes” between dating and marriage, and even after marriage. Hence the female concept of “settling” (how many articles have been written by men about settling, and how many by women?), and why women drive both the marriage and divorce markets.
This is the dynamic the men here seek to understand. Both the lane changing tendencies which are unique to females, and also womens’ seeming lack of understanding of their own tendencies.
We men have our own problems, as any woman will attest. But we tend to understand our own priorities, and tend not to change them as our roles change. This does not make us superior, but it does make us different.
January 8th, 2015 at 7:31 am
Jeremy,
First thank you for the polite reply. Definitely unexpected and very appreciated.
The tenets of Red Pill philosophy are centered on a Captain/First Mate scenario in which women are always subservient to men in LTR’s and are used as sexual objects any other time. Sure they serve a purpose, but the general philosophy says they have no power. You can choose any variety of different techniques used by men to subjugate women to support this point – from “dread game” to displaying an extreme lack of basic empathy and compassion towards the woman, disregarding her feelings and treating her like a worthless sexual object for self gratification, etc. Particularly the last one I think stems from the fact that many men are socially inundated with the belief that they need to be emotionally stunted in order to appear masculine or worthy of female attention. Women are indoctrinated with a similar mindset about men so it is, in my opinion, a case of confirmation bias. We are observing traits of our society, which may or may not be to our benefit, but we assume that because society has historically held some form of this belief that it must be correct.
I have read countless entries from men that state unequivocally that women cannot be trusted and that they are unintelligent people that are completely governed by emotions and not rational thought/logic. While I certainly understand that the people that subscribe to the “Red Pill” philosophy represent a whole spectrum of different beliefs and attitudes towards women, the predominant attitude is that of subservience.
I definitely understand the desire to understand women. I feel the same about men sometimes. The problem is that you attempt to circumvent women when forming your philosophies and instead rely on subjective criteria that comes from a source outside the actual subject to tell you how women work. It’s like asking a geneticist how neurobiology works. Why would you do that? They may have some insight, but go to the source if you really want to learn. When I read what’s written here, it feels like such an inauthentic portrayal of what women really want. What guys seem to be honing in on is what some women will put up with but that simultaneously makes them miserable and diminishes their self esteem. If that’s the goal, to find out which strategy can help you master how to destroy a woman’s self worth and make her miserable, while still holding onto her tightly enough to keep her somewhat interested in you, Red Pill philosophy has succeeded. If you’re looking to create a healthy, mutually fulfilling relationship, at least for me and other women I know, this is not the path to it.
And I’m not saying weakness is sexy. At all. I am saying there’s not this one path that makes men sexy to women. Basically we’re not universally pre-programmed to just love being treated like garbage by our men. If that is the case for a specific woman, it’s because of societal programming and not biology.
“While both men and women ideally prefer a partner who is better looking, only women prefer a partner who is higher status/more powerful.” Actually this is not true at all. Men flit from partner to partner based on the value of the woman — usually their sexual prowess, their youthfulness, their appearance, their ability to create a better perceived status for the male. Because in many circles, a beautiful, young, sweet woman is a status symbol that will increase a man’s perceived worth/societal value, and this is one of many reasons you see older men dumping their wives and hopping into bed with younger women. Men are guilty of making moves to benefit themselves in the same way women are. We can talk about motivations, and we can make very fine, granular distinctions that really don’t make a difference to the overall point which is that all genders have a high incidence of infidelity, and the reason for it is really immaterial but arguably similar anyway.
Do men not talk about settling? I think if not, it is probably because it is viewed as lowering their status to admit their partner is not an ideal female. Alpha males especially rely on status for validation, and they are particularly prone to this type of behavior that you label hypergamy for women, as they want to be seen as the most virile, attractive, intelligent, and desirable man in the room at all times. A hot, young woman helps them accomplish that goal.
I can tell we just fundamentally disagree on this attitude about “changing lanes.” When I was in my early 20’s (late 20’s now), I dated a lot of different men and a few alphas but none of them held my attention for long. I was looking for a man that would be faithful above all else. Contrary to popular belief, I didn’t care about money or wealth or status. I started my own business when I was 25, and it’s successful. What I really wanted was a committed life partner that I could share everything with and that would be by my side into old age.
One of probably many reasons I reject “Red Pill” philosophy other than the obvious degradation to women that is built into it is because I am a prime example of why it’s flawed. I didn’t select an alpha male even though I had the opportunity. The man I have been married to for 5.5 years is not very “alpha” and I’ve never cheated on him nor do I have any intention to cheat on him. I have been propositioned by alpha males multiple times, but I love my husband and want to be with him. I have even lost important business relationships because I rejected prominent men in the organization that propositioned me and refused to compromise my marriage. So these facts which I know to be true (and I know you don’t, but I do) are proof positive to me that this theory may be applicable to a small subset of women but is not representative of the whole. The women that it does represent are typically females with low self esteem that are not very happy with the way their partner treats them. It seems Red Pill philosophy is a case of men that have been hurt by specific women projecting their hurt onto ALL women (NAWALT), and it’s really not beneficial. There is some good advice tossed around with RP philosophy like take good care of yourself, build your confidence, etc. but the junk about women needing to be dominated, “regret rape,” saying we’re incapable of love the way a man is and all this just detracts away from the legitimately good advice.
January 8th, 2015 at 8:35 am
@alpha female
I’ll begin by saying that I agree with you about one thing – advice about subjugation of women is harmful. There are many things on RP sites that I, for one, disagree with. Some sites I avoid entirely because I find them too offensive.
What I think you may not know is that most of the men here are not looking to dominate or subjugate women. In fact, most of us were raised with an extremely equal ist mentality. I know I was. The problem that we found was that in spite of their protestations to the contrary, the women we were with did not want an equalist relationship. Athol Kay’s concept of the captain/first officer dynamic did not arise to subjugate women, but rather to GIVE THEM WHAT THEY WANT.
Most of us were dumbfounded to learn that our girlfriends/wives expected us to lead, to plan, to pay, to demonstrate power (kindly), and (most confusingly of all) to occasionally not do as they say. We couldn’t understand how these people, who purpotred to want equality, actually did not want equality. They wanted the captain/first officer dynamic.
Most of us here struggle against our tendencies to be beta – to act in an equal ist mindset, to be pleasers – because that, strangely, isn’t what the women in our lives seemed to want. They said they did, but acted otherwise.
You wonder why men would seek to understand women, yet not ask them. We HAVE. And the answers did not make sense, because their actions contradicted their words.
The best red pill advice is not to listen to what a woman says, but watch what she does. This applies to men too. If the actions don’t match the words, believe the actions.
And if you are an exception to this rule, that is excellent. But I’ve lurked on enough relationship websites, blogs, chat rooms, etc. to get a sampling of majority feminine opinion, and I was amazed to find that, when push came to shove, women were more attracted to charismatic, powerful men – hypergamous attraction – rather than the attraction you describe for your husband.
January 8th, 2015 at 8:36 am
@ AlphaFemale
“go to the source if you really want to learn.”
You mean women? As in, go to women and act like a Beta chump, who’s a good listener, is caring, attentive, supportive, respectful, polite, and wants nothing more than to be with the woman and make her happy? Tells her he loves her, always wants to be with her, is always there for her when she needs him? Is the “ideal man” according to mainstream media and what women *say* they want?
And see how quickly everything falls apart with her, whether it’s an LJBF, or her cheating on you, or becoming cold and distant and withholding sex? Even getting disrespected, made fun of in front of your friends, put down, and walked all over?
Nice try, but the men here on this blog aren’t so stupid. Just about everyone here has had real, live experience with women and the only reason we agree with Red Pill philosophy is because it not only explains our past histories (failures) with women, but when applied in our lives now, we’ve been able to see how it generates success with women.
Everything here is only useful insofar as it applies in a real-world situation. Rollo himself has advocated countless times to “field test” all the theories here.
So you’re right. Go to the source if you really want to learn. And what we’ve found as men who have mostly all been on the Beta side of the fence in the past, is that when you apply these theories in your interactions with women, everything in this blog proves itself to be true, and adds up with real-world female behaviors.
Not real-world female thoughts and words written on a screen, or spoken in a casual in-person conversation, but real-world female *behaviors*.
January 8th, 2015 at 8:37 am
@ Alphafemale:
You wrote:
“So these facts which I know to be true (and I know you don’t, but I do) are proof positive to me that this theory may be applicable to a small subset of women but is not representative of the whole.”
Did it ever occur to you that YOU are part of a “small subset of women” (that is, women who don’t prefer Alphas) and that other women are as described on this blog?
January 8th, 2015 at 9:12 am
@AlphaFemale, re: “it is absolutely normal for [men] to branch swing” + “instead rely on subjective criteria”
Since I disbelieve you “have read countless entries from men”, I’ll wave you away dismissively by saying it is absolutely normal for women to commit the apex fallacy + women instead project about everything all the time. Countlessly.
Yes, I’ll read your response, but oh how I wish you were someone else.
January 8th, 2015 at 9:20 am
Not @AlphaFemale. “it is probably because it is viewed as lowering their status to admit their partner is not an ideal female. Alpha males especially rely on status for validation, and they are particularly prone to this type of behavior”
She is a woman for sure. For her information, since she claims a degree of mental curiousity, if not acuity, regarding men’s thinking: Men do not care if their woman is “the best”. Men will not leave a good woman for a better woman. Alphas is particular will take a nice banana from one woman, and the bigger banana from another woman, and the kumquat from a third woman, and never consider it if import which one is “ideal”.
January 8th, 2015 at 9:28 am
re: “It seems Red Pill philosophy is a case of men that have been hurt by specific women”
Specifically by women who consider themselves to be Alpha Females. Men don’t get hurt by women who are specifically trying to be submissive. Can any woman here see the irony? Think hard, now.
January 8th, 2015 at 9:39 am
@jf12
One place where I disagree with your comment – “men don’t get hurt by women who are specifically trying to be submissive.” Yes they do, especially when the men themselves also try to be submissive (ie. beta). In that case, the man may be exhibiting what he perceives to be “equalism” and his wife perceives to be submission. Many, many men have been hurt by women who prefer to be submissive.
January 8th, 2015 at 9:42 am
I’m not like other women. Yes, I dated a LOT of the so-called “alphas”, the so-called “bad boys”, but they were only good for sex and for nothing else. And when I couldn’t get the best one of those alphas for my husband, I chose the best of the nice guys I could get, whom I treat extremely poorly compared with how I treated the alphas. In fact, I treat him similar to how the alphas treated me, which is why I self-describe this way.
January 8th, 2015 at 9:43 am
re: “women who prefer to be submissive”
Totally distinct from “women who are specifically trying to be submissive”
January 8th, 2015 at 9:46 am
re: “the attraction you describe for your husband”
? “I love the way he enjoys rubbing my feet.”?
January 8th, 2015 at 9:46 am
There is a (rather small) portion of alpha females who feel comfortable in a de facto female dominant (almost always, this is overtly egalitarian/equalitarian) frame with a husband. They’re not common, but they do exist. It’s not terribly helpful for most men to think about women in that vein, however, because they are so uncommon.
January 8th, 2015 at 9:49 am
@ ton
So much of this seems like mental masterbation then useful intell
tl;dr
January 8th, 2015 at 9:57 am
@ alfalfabrainedfemale
lol
January 8th, 2015 at 10:04 am
Rollo, wasn’t there some study about the differences between two yo boys and girls as regards games that they like to play?
January 8th, 2015 at 10:04 am
@Novaseeker
I know of several cases of women whom I perceive to have ego-invested in their own masculinity. Most women that I know, even the ones who are highly educated and successful, prefer to date hypergamously and prefer men with equal or higher education and earning potential. They might settle for someone lower if unable to secure commitment from the type of man they want, but their hypergamy is very much intact.
To contrast, women who are ego-invested in their own masculinity date like men. They date men they perceive to be attractive, who validate their own ego. In other words, instead of preferring a man whose status will raise her own, such a woman prefers a man whose admiration of HER status will make her feel more powerful – exactly as a man desires from a woman, typically.
The standard example of this is the alpha female doctor married to the beta male teacher.
However, even in such cases, traces of hypergamy remain. In order to maintain her attraction to such a man, the woman will typically need to perceive that he is somehow BETTER than her. For example, she may make more money, but she will believe that he sacrificed his earning potential to do something noble, and that his nobility makes him better than her. Or she may be more educated, but will believe that he is really smarter than her, because her intelligence is “book smarts” but his is “street smarts.”
If she can not perceive him as better than her at something, she won’t be able to respect him. If she can’t respect him, she won’t love him. And at this point, women will ask – aren’t men the same? And the answer is no. A man might respect a woman, but his love for her is not in any way contingent on that respect. There may be things that she is better at than him, but these are not the things for which he loves her.
January 8th, 2015 at 10:10 am
@ alfafalfabrainedfemale
You can choose any variety of different techniques used by men to subjugate women
Lol, one person’s subjugation is another person’s leadership. If it results in content submission, it’s leadership; if it results in contentious rebellion, it’s subjugation–even if exactly the same methods are used./I>
January 8th, 2015 at 10:20 am
Ever since I used Nuclear Dread, Mrs. Gamer has been happier, sings more, jokes more, laughs more, flirts with me much more aggressively, makes sammiches for me, etc.
Nuclear Dread (ND) produced a generally happier, more submissive wife. One day per week now she’s bitchy–right before I go out alone dancing. The next day, she’s back to normal. Few 5h1t-tests, some loyalty tests. I can act quite beta without many problems. Not that I do, much, but it doesn’t seem to generate 5h1t-tests. Of course, not sure how long the fallout will remain from ND.
January 8th, 2015 at 11:10 am
Ok, so maybe I’m not so special, not so different in actual behavior from the AWALT that you describe. But, I feel like I’m different. And you don’t know for an absolute fact that all women feel like that, do you?
January 8th, 2015 at 11:16 am
re: “women who are ego-invested in their own masculinity”
Betty Dodson’s big breakthrough was realizing that women’s experience of sex was vestigially masculine. I’m not talking specifically about her encouraging women to become more lesbian and more butch, which is also true, but that she came to realize that instructing women how to actively enjoy sex was *identical* with instructing women on how to be masculine.
The technique that put her over the top, that made her the go-to person for women trying to orgasm, was having her female students hump each other doggy style.
January 8th, 2015 at 11:19 am
@ jf12
Ok, so maybe I’m not so special, not so different in actual behavior from the AWALT that you describe. But, I feel like I’m different. And you don’t know for an absolute fact that all women feel like that, do you?
I’m sorry, I don’t feel it. But you do make me feel like dancing.
January 8th, 2015 at 11:29 am
In the interests of full disclosure Alpha Female (a.k.a. The Best Thing You’ll Never Have) is the same commenter who posted this on Women in Love:
I might also point out the irony of a woman who claims personal offense at heteronormativity and a belief in a social gender paradigm naming herself ‘Alpha Female‘.
January 8th, 2015 at 11:41 am
@”Alpha”Female
Read more than one of Rollo’s articles before responding.
1) http://therationalmale.com/category/the-feminine-imperative/
2) http://therationalmale.com/category/biomechanics/
3) http://therationalmale.com/category/biomechanics/
4) http://therationalmale.com/category/hypergamy-2/
5) http://therationalmale.com/category/biomechanics/
6) http://therationalmale.com/category/hypergamy-2/
So, in summary, every single “point” you made has been covered, refuted, and dealt with elsewhere on this blog (not to mention throughout the manosphere AND through experience in our own lives). Don’t come in here with your head firmly lodged in your ass and make the same blithe assertions every other fembot makes, expecting us to suddenly say “Oh shit! She’s asserting the same wrong advice every other woman we’ve ever met has given us, but this time it’s right!”
If there’s one logical error you make repeatedly in your post, it’s pointing out the small exception, then thinking that invalidates the rule. Do you really think we’re all unaware of those exceptions at this point? Do you really think “Some vanishingly small part of X behaves like Y, therefore general rule Z about X is invalid.” is a valid logical assertion?
You’re not a unique, special snowflake. You have no amazing powers of insight. You’re wrong on every count. Lurk more, read a lot more, talk less.
January 8th, 2015 at 11:50 am
re: experience of Love
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexless_marriage
“According to psychotherapist Tina Tessina, “The most common causes of sexless marriages (are that) one partner had their feelings hurt or got turned down too many times”
“Partners then feel resentment because of the perceived rejection”
According to women, the REAL problem is teh menz’ feelz; the men feel hurt; the men feel turned down, the men feel resentment, the men feel rejected. According to women, ever’thing would be fine if men would just shut up and accept the situation.
January 8th, 2015 at 11:53 am
@alfafemale
Let’s define power before we automatically presume that women have none by default, shall we? You are presuming an awful lot of things in that little paragraph fragment, many of which center around male power being the only power that exists. That’s a very limited view that deny’s the tremendous sexual power that women possess simply for being born with vaginas. Of course, it is to your asymmetric advantage to pretend as if women have no power by default, so male-created power must therefore be shared with women.
It is presumptuous in the extreme to pretend as if red-pill philosophy presumes women have no power. It does not, It directly acknowledges female sexual power and says, “No, I won’t share male power with you, you have power that you did not earn already.”
January 8th, 2015 at 12:09 pm
It was a leetle more hurried-upper than previously described. The local newspaper has some more info
http://www.newbernsj.com/news/local/sparks-wife-separate-after-25-years-of-marriage-1.421456
The postnup was signed Sept 23 and the initial offer on her house was just a few weeks later. Clearly she acquiesced in following instructions to get out of the house, without having planned to earlier.
January 8th, 2015 at 12:11 pm
re: “women that are more intelligent, powerful, and are inherently stronger and better looking”
Oh, how I wish she were someone else.
January 8th, 2015 at 12:16 pm
I think, presumptuously, that being here is antibiotic to the FI infection. But does it inoculate? Or does the antibiotic effect require a critical mass/ herd immunity?
January 8th, 2015 at 12:21 pm
@Alpha Fem
Your intellectual lethargy surprises even me:
http://therationalmale.com/2014/12/30/mutiny/
This is only 3 posts down.
Only on MMSL is the Blue Pill apologetic of a Captain/First Mate intergender arrangement suggested. If you’d had the basic curiosity to read that post rather than prattle off your feminist boilerplate, you might have been able to present a cogent argument against it.
January 8th, 2015 at 12:39 pm
re: teaching Love
Ralph wants to raise her son as a lesbian.
http://thenextfamily.com/2014/10/things-i-want-my-son-to-learn/
She wants him to have feelings, provided they are girlish feelings that she preapproves.
January 8th, 2015 at 12:54 pm
Shannon’s a great gal, but keeps forgetting that men are so much better than women.
“But Henry didn’t bat an eyelash. Instead he returned from the store with a wide array of lubricant choices”
http://thewomanformerlyknownasbeautiful.com/2015/01/female-lubricant.html
January 8th, 2015 at 1:37 pm
Love, etc.
(I’m tellin’ ya, great song titles abound ever’where I goes)
Garcia et al. 2014. Variation in orgasm occurrence by sexual orientation in a sample of U.S. singles. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 11(11), 2645–2652.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1111/jsm.12669/
Lesbians report having slightly more orgasms per sexual encounter than hetero women.
But.
January 8th, 2015 at 1:42 pm
But,
“existing research consistently reported low rates of sexual activity for lesbians”
” Research has also consistently shown a quick decline in frequency over the course of lesbian relationships”
“the phenomena of lower sexual frequency is a shared experience regardless of the country”
“in looking at lesbian behavior alone, it would have been plausible to conclude that most lesbians did not value sex, given that two-thirds of lesbians in this sample have sex two times a month or less.”
Hence, having less frequent sex causes more orgasms for women, or more orgasms causes less frequent sex. Right?
January 8th, 2015 at 1:44 pm
I left off the reference. Michele O’Mara’s 2012 PhD dissertation.
http://omaram.hypermart.net/Dissertation7.31.2012.pdf
January 8th, 2015 at 1:59 pm
Men and women are exactly the same in every way! Remember how it used to be said disparagingly of someone utterly clueless that they couldn’t find their fanny with two hands?
http://thoughtcatalog.com/cara-dorris/2012/07/the-weird-sexual-lives-of-young-girls/
“In fourth grade, my friends and I tried to find our vaginas after they gave us the presentation about puberty (only one person found it).”
January 8th, 2015 at 2:27 pm
On the Love Experience for women, continued. We KNOW this is how women are. 74% of newlywed women, still in some throes of honeymoonish feelings, “indicated some expectation of divorce”.
Campbell et al. 2012. Newlywed Women’s Marital Expectations: Lifelong Monogamy? Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 53(2), 108-125.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10502556.2012.651966
January 8th, 2015 at 3:37 pm
@AlphaFemale
Transgenderism is a mental illness. It would likely be curable if it were not treated as if it were a disability. Like cancer, our society (and medical profession) has decided that treatment is better (more profitable) than cure.
It is actually impossible, on it’s face, for natural selection to select for a genetically coded desire to have a body that you do not have, even more so when you consider that forcible attempts to accomplish such a feat, or even acceptance of the condition leads to no procreation by the afflicted individual. To suggest otherwise is to (logical conclusion) presume that even after thousands of millenia of succesfully reproducing, some life on Earth desires to be non-procreating. It falls flat on it’s face, completely flies against everything we know about our own evolution.
The experience is the man (or woman). That which you have experienced is part of your being. That which you have not experienced is the realm of ignorance. Having never experienced being a woman, I cannot possibly know what I would be asking for in asking to become female. However, I can imagine what it is like. Imagination can take me far, and in many cases too far, into the realm of presumption. This is what mental illness is. It is a plague of the mind wherein a reality has been avoided or masked due to trauma (or anything really) and imagination has been substituted for reality. Only humans (to our knowledge) suffer from mental illness, because only humans are known to have significantly evolved capacity for imagining that which does not exist.
Hence, any “desire” to be a different sex cannot be from something that came from physical nature. Nature could not possibly select for something that prohibits procreation since procreation is the process by which nature makes it’s selection.
It is this power to select that which does and does not procreate that is the cornerstone of female sexual power. But modern, feminist-talking-point-obsessed women deny this power in order to take away all (earned) male power.
Since, as I have established, trangenderism is a mental illness. One must make the assumption that it is a social ill, brought about by changes to culture that present young impressionable boys with strong feelings of a lack of power to enact their own sexual success from an early age. This means that any and all arguments that “gender is a social construct that limits certain people with transgenderism,” are basically the same thing as a cancer doctor convincing the lifelong smoker that smoking is a disability and they should be in a protected class.
January 8th, 2015 at 3:44 pm
re: ” desire to have a body that you do not have”
I can think of a lot of evo-psych reasons for Freudian envy, if that’s where you want to go.
January 8th, 2015 at 4:23 pm
Since, as I have established, trangenderism is a mental illness. One must make the assumption that it is a social ill, brought about by changes to culture that present young impressionable boys with strong feelings of a lack of power to enact their own sexual success from an early age. This means that any and all arguments that “gender is a social construct that limits certain people with transgenderism,” are basically the same thing as a cancer doctor convincing the lifelong smoker that smoking is a disability and they should be in a protected class.
Professor of Psychology Mike Bailey of Northwestern, pretty much one of the leading objective (i.e., non-transgendered) academics studying the issue, concluded that there are basically two types of transgendered people: (1) homosexual transsexuals and (2) auto-gynephilic transsexuals.
The first type are gay males who don’t fit into the macho gay culture stereotype. Although most of us see gays as being limp-wristed
effeminates, apparently the gay community prefers its men buff, shredded and masculine (looking), but some percentage of gay guys are obviously not like that. Some of the become effeminate gays and some become homosexual transsexuals — basically gay men who make changes to their bodies to look more like women. The advantage to them in doing this is to broaden their sexual pool, because while taking on a female appearance alienates the attraction of most gay men (who are attracted to male physiques in the same way that straight men are attracted to female physiques), (s)he gains the attraction of the subset of (straight?) men who like trannies, and there are more of these than there are gay men who like effeminate men. Bailey said that many of this type of trans become sex workers (models, porn, hooking) because they have high T, are quite open to sex with randoms, and so on (after all, they’re basically gay men). Bailey’s recommendation, clinically, for this type is to identify the issue when young, and masculinize them enough so that they can participate in the gay community without being marginalized, and avoid making drastic body modifications (surgical or pharmaceutical) to create a pseudo-feminine image in order to attract men.
The second type are men who are turned on by their own image as female looking. So in some ways the sexual “kink” here involves something closer to the female experience (described in the NYT article on female arousal triggers) of being turned on by their own desirability. Bailey says that in most cases this is due to men who have relatively low sexual attractiveness in terms of self-perception (that is, they do not perceive of themselves as being attractive to women … most of this type are, or start off as being, straight). Initially, this is reflected in them being turned on by their own bodies (i.e., looking at themselves, dressed as women, with a male sexual desire for what they see), which Bailey sees as being substantially problematic from a mental health perspective, for obvious reasons. It then can progress to sex with actual men (even though they were always straight and attracted to women, most of these will eventually seek out sex with men for validation of their newfound sexual esteem), where the validation cycle begins to mirror that of women (i.e., turned on by the fact that men are turned on by them). Bailey considers this type to be substantially mentally troubled (alienated from their natural sexuality and from the bases for their own attractiveness), and that treating them as gender dysphoric and prescribing sex change surgery based on these feelings is therefore extremely problematic and wrong-headed, and that instead intensive psychotherapy is required to rehabilitate these men into having a positive self-image, sexually, such that they no longer feel compelled/inclined to display as female in order to feel sexually attractive.
Basically, Bailey sees the whole norming of transgenderism as being extremely problematic and based on bad science. The current movement is largely based on testimony from transgendered people themselves, which for Bailey is like letting mentally ill people tell you they aren’t sick.
January 8th, 2015 at 4:32 pm
Note: Bailey’s work (the stuff that I have read at least) relates almost exclusively to male-to-female transgendered people, and not female-to-male. I think he says somewhere in his writings that this is his focus because of the numbers involved (many more of them than vice versa).
January 8th, 2015 at 4:35 pm
re: “The current movement is largely based on testimony from … mentally ill people”
“Go to the source” rotfl.
January 8th, 2015 at 5:14 pm
@jf12
Freudian envy can’t exist in a social or child-rearing vacuum, and it can’t exist purely under the rules of evolution. Note that I’m not saying it doesn’t exist, I’m simply saying that it can’t be classified as evolution-driven and thus must come from socialization (or lack thereof). I am interested to hear what you have to say.
January 8th, 2015 at 5:17 pm
@Nova…
Both of those types appear to be seeking (intentionally or unintentionally) some aspect of the female sexual power of either attraction or selection. i.e., to my mind, they stem from the same issue, improper socialization of a young male.
January 8th, 2015 at 5:23 pm
Both of those types appear to be seeking (intentionally or unintentionally) some aspect of the female sexual power of either attraction or selection. i.e., to my mind, they stem from the same issue, improper socialization of a young male.
Yes, which is Bailey’s conclusion as well. He is sympathetic towards gays, so his prescription for the first type is basically “be a better-adjusted gay male”, but in both cases he sees the transgenderism as an appropriation of female sexual power of attraction/selection, for different reasons, both of which relate to alienation of their own ability to function successfully in the male mode of attraction/selection. Very much so.
January 8th, 2015 at 5:25 pm
re: testosterone in women
A little bit of testosterone makes women act better. The Goldilocks case of 0.5 mg sublingually makes essentially every woman become significantly nicer, as well as significantly hornier, within four hours.
C. Eisenegger, M. Naef, R. Snozzi, M. Heinrichs, E. Fehr. Prejudice and truth about the effect of testosterone on human bargaining behaviour. Nature, 463, 356-359.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7279/full/nature08711.html
van Rooij et al. 2014. Pharmacokinetics of a Prototype Formulation of Sublingual Testosterone and a Buspirone Tablet, Versus an Advanced Combination Tablet of Testosterone and Buspirone in Healthy Premenopausal Women. Drugs R D., 14(2), 125–132.
January 8th, 2015 at 5:30 pm
He also says (if I am remembering correctly … the book is in a storage shed and I’m not going to retrieve it for this conversation, heh) that there are more male to female than vice versa for the same reason — more males are sexually alienated from being able to succeed sexually (either as straight or gay, depending on the guy) than women are, while the fewer women who are female-to-male are generally obviously physically alienated from being attractive as females — some of those become butch lesbians and some become Chaz Bono, in other words, but it’s a smaller number than men for obvious reasons of sexual dynamics (that last but after “but” is my editorial, and Bailey doesn’t say that — although his work on this is now about 10 or so years old as well).
January 8th, 2015 at 5:30 pm
@Jeremy
Were I to hazard a guess, I’d say that transgender (much like every other psychological construct we discuss on here: hypergamy, love, etc) is a complex interaction of evolved AND socialization. In nature vs. nurture I’m not one to routinely rule one or the other out 100%. It’s more a case of degrees (i.e. which one has the greater influence) than a binary “Oh this is evolution and this is socialization”.
Much like the specious claim that the existence of gender roles is 100% a social construct, claiming transgender is a 100% social construct is probably missing the nuances of the situation. I am less and less convinced (as we learn just how complex genetic sequences really are in cancer research and so on) that “sex” is a binary thing. It’s probably a large set of underlying genes that go in to it, and if a couple flip the wrong way due to mutations or other edge cases then the results could be very odd.
I’m really reserving my opinion on the whole issue until we have a complete map of all the pieces of DNA that determine every aspect of sexuality. Human DNA is an incredibly dense, incredibly complex data storage device that manages to have an amazingly low error rate for its complexity. That rate is not non-existent though, and until we know what role that error rate plays in all sexual characteristics it’s pretty much speculation as to what’s nature or nurture.
January 8th, 2015 at 5:31 pm
re: ” I am interested to hear what you have to say.”
Maybe. Firstly, and boringly, consider that women’s sex qua sex (release, etc) is too clearly vestigial. Next, tell me why or why not male nipples “can’t exist purely under the rules of evolution”.
January 8th, 2015 at 5:33 pm
If gender is a social construct then why do transsexuals need hormone therapy and reconstructive surgery?
January 8th, 2015 at 5:37 pm
Note I am not denying the existence of a “normative” set of gender characteristics that evolved and are set by genes at birth. I’m simply stating that if the process is complex enough under the hood, then those imperfections will arise as things that are not normative. Homosexuality, transgenderism, etc. They will never be the majority, but they might very well be a natural occurrence with only some regard toward the social structures they’re born in to.
January 8th, 2015 at 5:40 pm
@jf12,
Male nipples do not harm procreation, so there is no pressure to select them out. There isn’t much function to them, but there is no detriment to them. The existence of a trait must impact reproductive success in order to fall under the selection knife, otherwise evolution leaves it alone. This is actually a good thing, because retaining non-procreative-impacting traits increases diversity.
Transgenderism, or the forceful non-procreation of an individual by way of desire to be that which you are not, *does* impact procreation. So the two do not compare.
I would say the same with women’s sexual release, except I believe there’s a paper that demonstrates that it actually can influence the sex of the conceived, by weeding out weaker sperm.
January 8th, 2015 at 5:42 pm
re: “If gender is a social construct” then why aren’t there ever ANY femme lesbians going for female-to-male reassignment therapy? Why aren’t there ever ANY (buff, hairy) masculine gay men going for male-to-female reassignment therapy? Yes, I agree it would be completely contradictory for them to do so, but that’s my point.
January 8th, 2015 at 5:43 pm
@Jeremy
Male nipples do not harm procreation, so there is no pressure to select them out.
Nipples are a part of the breast’s structure. Males get breast cancer while not needing breasts for child rearing purposes. I would see that as a reason to select it out.
January 8th, 2015 at 5:43 pm
@ jf12
Next, tell me why or why not male nipples “can’t exist purely under the rules of evolution”.
Speaking vestigially and sillily, let me state unequivocally and pontificatingly that male nipples are lactatingly and sexually uninteresting.
This month has been designated by The Powers That Be (TPTB) as “Be Kind to Novel Adverbs” Month.
January 8th, 2015 at 5:47 pm
@Sun Wukong
Cancer was an extremely rare disease when humans only lived to 30, which has been the case for most of humanity’s existence. So, cancer almost never weeded out DNA. Only in modern times, where women are having babies at 40-45 through the miracles of modern medicine, has Cancer ever had a significant impact on procreation.
January 8th, 2015 at 5:48 pm
re: “The existence of a trait must impact reproductive success in order to fall under the selection knife”
Or, simply be associated with something else that impacts reproductive success. Moreover, variation per se does NOT fall under the selection knife. Is your juniper a little bit yellower? It doesn’t impact success significantly. Is your woman a little more masculine?
January 8th, 2015 at 5:53 pm
Vestigiality alone ‘splains lots, and spandrels much more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spandrel_(biology)
January 8th, 2015 at 5:58 pm
FWIW, things like (making up a percentage) “There’s no way that 5% of males could be homosexual since evolution would ensure that the 95% becomes 100%.” is bad reasoning both biologically and mathematically.
January 8th, 2015 at 6:03 pm
Can spandrels between a sexually dimorphic species exist to a degree that impacts procreation? That does not seem plausible jf.
Keep in mind, very few vestigial traits/organs exist within the human body that serve no function at all. Even the appendix has been found to have survival uses, though it’s potentially lethal problems are obvious. Transgenderism serves no purpose at all, and in nearly 100% of cases it impacts procreation.
January 8th, 2015 at 6:07 pm
@jf12
Yeah, about that… I’m still not convinced that homosexuality is itself not a result of early childhood conditioning. I would wager the fact that the same percentage of homosexuals that exist now, also existed in civilizations 2000 years ago is actually better proof that human society hasn’t progressed as much as we’d like to think than it is proof that there’s a genetic predisposition towards it’s existence in that number.
January 8th, 2015 at 6:32 pm
There’s no way that there can be short men. There’s no way there can be cankled women.
January 8th, 2015 at 6:35 pm
Jeremy – “I would wager the fact that the same percentage of homosexuals that exist now, also existed in civilizations 2000 years ago is actually better proof that human society hasn’t progressed as much as we’d like to think”
Interesting.
I wonder if there were a significant difference in that precentage 1000 years ago, ya know during the dark ages? I can see similar percentages both now and at the height of the Roman Empire if your idea is correct.
January 8th, 2015 at 6:40 pm
@ Jeremy
when humans only lived to 30, which has been the case for most of humanity’s existence.
Urban legend. Childbirth, working in agriculture and the mines, and childhood diseases were the biggest mortality factors. Other than that, people typically lived to 70-80. Read your Bible to get an idea of average longevity during Moses’ time.
“As for the days of our life, they contain seventy years,
Or if due to strength, eighty years,”
It doesn’t require the assumption of divine inspiration to see that this assertion would have been controversial/ludicrous if not true at the time.
January 8th, 2015 at 7:17 pm
Short men and cankles are mostly influenced by environmental factors. China was a “short” country for hundreds of years, but it turns out that was mostly because they were all starving themselves. As a nation they simply did not give their children enough nutrition when growing up for many centuries. That’s changing and it’s now becoming obvious that height differences, while certainly genetic, have a childhood nutrition factor that dominates in the general population.
@theasdgamer
Don’t misunderstand me. Simply because *most people living* had hard, brutal, short lives, does not mean that humans lacked the capacity to live to 70-80. Most people did in fact not expect to live to 70 years old, just based on the fact that you’d have to be born into a family with wealth so that you did not become such a tremendous burden in your later years (there was no such thing as socialized handouts for the elderly before modern governments).
AS SUCH, the culture was one where people married YOUNG, mated YOUNG, and reproduced their fill of children LONG BEFORE they got cancer.
My point stands.
January 8th, 2015 at 7:44 pm
Jeremy,
That is interesting to learn (that a lot of men here don’t want to dominate or subjugate women). I see so many vitriolic posts regarding women, it’s hard to fathom that not everyone believes it. NAMALT? Maybe. ;)
I understand that men that subscribe to “Red Pill” philosophy THINK this is what women want. I’m not saying I’m the rule. However, I’ve known a variety of women, and I do know women that are submissive in a relationship and would work well with an alpha. My best friend is like this. She loves hypermasculine men that treat her like garbage. Suffice it to say, she’s rarely actually happy in the relationship she’s in. Also, she’s someone who has a very low self esteem and generally tolerates a lot of behavior from her man that she doesn’t like. While I think naturally submissive females want a partner that demonstrates strength and masculinity, even they do want to be treated like equals and not like property.
“Most of us were dumbfounded to learn that our girlfriends/wives expected us to lead, to plan, to pay, to demonstrate power (kindly), and (most confusingly of all) to occasionally not do as they say. “ Well some people are followers naturally. I don’t think it’s a gender thing. Men are taught how to wield power and influence early in life. Now that women are being taught how to use power early (not just sexually, but in other areas of life as well), you are seeing more female leaders. Some people are natural born leaders, and others are natural born followers. Some people can follow when they need to and lead when they need to. It’s dangerous to expect all women to react in a similar way to the same situation because it’s setting you up for failure. Low self esteem females respond well to this. Women that value themselves highly do not want to be treated like this.
I know you all have heard from women who are not like the Red Pill describes women, and I’m sure I’ll just fall into that category to be written off and forgotten, but I really want to stress that you have to want a certain kind of woman for this strategy to work. It’s going to continue to become less effective as time goes on as well because more women are going to bolster their self confidence (and gain validation through life experiences other than sexual relationships) which will help them come to the understanding that they deserve better than someone that treats them like garbage and manipulates them like a herd animal.
***MOST IMPORTANT POINT***
“Most of us here struggle against our tendencies to be beta – to act in an equal ist mindset, to be pleasers – because that, strangely, isn’t what the women in our lives seemed to want. They said they did, but acted otherwise.” See this is what I mean. “They said they did, but acted otherwise.” I totally understand how you could come to this conclusion. Some women intellectually know they deserve to be treated better, but subconsciously have low self esteem so they SAY what they KNOW to be true (i.e. I deserve to be treated with respect and have an equal say in my relationship), but they ACT on what they truly BELIEVE about themselves (i.e. I am worthy of being treated like garbage because I don’t provide enough value.) That’s where you’re seeing the distinction in words vs. actions, and that’s why they’re not matching up. I mean think about it, if I actually believe that I am worthy of being treated a certain way and I understand that there are 3.3 billion males on the planet, then why am I going to stay with someone who treats me in a way that I know I don’t like? As a woman, I know it’s because they truly don’t believe they’re worth better, but as a man, I understand how you could come to the conclusion, absent all reason, “She just likes being treated like shit.”
You bolster a woman’s self esteem, truly and really make her believe she is a worthwhile human being, and she will want a man that treats her with respect and care. There’s a reason that romance movies don’t typically show some misogynistic asshole berating his woman and using “dread game” as the lead romantic hero. That’s not what women really want. They want to be loved and cared for, and yes there are masculine traits that are attractive like physical strength or confidence or other things that translate in a woman’s mind to mean the person carries good genes, but assholish behavior is not one of those things. No matter how many times you’ve seen a woman succumb to it. She’s not happy. She’s putting up with it because she doesn’t think she deserves better or can do any better.
I’ll respond to a few other comments, but it’s hard for keep track of them all.
Tl;dr: Women accept the treatment they truly believe they deserve, not what they intellectually know they want. That’s why actions and words do not line up for a lot of women, not because they have a biological need to be treated like garbage or property.
January 8th, 2015 at 8:23 pm
@theassholegamer
A real leader does so with compassion and understanding. An asshole leader gains no long term loyalty from his constituents. You’ve probably had bosses like this and know the difference between a good leader that commands respect because they genuinely care about the organization they are working for and want to make it better and provide realistic expectations for their employees vs. “leaders” (using the term loosely) that lead with an iron fist at the expense of everyone they deem to be beneath them. There’s a way to lead without creating an unwilling subject out of your partner.
Mrs. Gamer may be a natural submissive that enjoys being treated this way. If you’ve used dread game on her, the likelihood that she has a low self esteem is through the roof. THis further supports my earlier assertion that low self esteem females are the ones that respond well to this. Dread game is in essence a way to make women feel insecure and lower their feeling of self worth and their ability to satisfy their male without him straying. Do you want a pat on the back for engendering insecurity in your partner? No pat on the back for you.
Rollo Tomassi
AlphaFemale is a satirical name. Really I figured you’d pick up on that. Am I more dominant in my relationship than my partner? Yes. But do I make all of the decisions? No. That’s very beta of me not to make all of the decisions. But no one that looks at my relationship or that knows me would say I am the submissive in this relationship, so by your definition, I AM an AlphaFemale. Yet I think the whole thing is complete malarky, hence why it’s satirical.
Do you think you called me out by posting my other comment? I stand by it. I do think a lot of the beliefs here stem from insecurity at females taking over what has been traditionally seen as a predominantly male power structure. I was pissed when I wrote that because ya know I have this weird thing where I read people talking about specific characteristics of myself that I can’t control (like my genitals and gender identity) and saying I necessarily want to be their sub bitch because of it. It kinda offends me so from time to time I let my snarky side take the lead. Y’all alpha males hide out now…we know you can’t handle bitchy women.
Jeremy (#2),
I am not presuming anything except which has been stated on this blog or on the Red Pill subreddit. You are the ones that say women should have no power in a relationship above her partner. I am simply disputing this. Obviously I know that women have power, probably am more aware of it than you are since I am one.
‘It does not, It directly acknowledges female sexual power and says, “No, I won’t share male power with you, you have power that you did not earn already.”’ This is good. This is more along the lines of what I’m used to regarding Red Pill philosophy. Please explain how women have not “earned” their power yet power granted to males based on their gender has been “earned” by them and they are somehow entitled to it solely based on being born male. The hypocrisy I’m sure will be enlightening.
January 8th, 2015 at 8:23 pm
So much nonsense.
Being the leader does not mean you treat the led like garbage. Not in the least, because that is bad leadership. Even a femdom knows better than that (or maybe not?).
Women who are natural leaders in their relationships need to find naturally submissive/follower men. There aren’t that many women like that, even among very highly educated women (and I have spent the last 30 years of my life around such women, either as I was being educated, or as I was working, with them, respectively). But for the small percentage of women who are like that, there is a virtual *sea* of submissive/follower men to choose from, so that is not the issue. The issue women have when they bitch about a lack of good men is that men who are are educated/advanced-career at least as much as they are, or better, do not seek them out, are already taken, or otherwise do not want them. Women want the driven, ambitious, powerful, advanced man who is also “evolved”, “sensitive”, “equalist” and “checks his privilege”. And then they don’t find him. That is the screeching. And as far as I am concerned, boo hoo.
A woman can come here and piss in the porridge easily enough (anyone can drive by and piss on the internet), but it has no impact, because, frankly, many of us (like me, the owner of this blog, etc.) are set, when it comes to women. We know better. And, yes, my own experience is almost exclusively with upper middle class, professional degree, alpha women. I know what I have seen in 30 years, and it isn’t the bullshit that is being peddled by some here, that’s for sure.
January 8th, 2015 at 8:27 pm
And, nota bene, signores, that this woman is the dominant in her relationship. She is a femdom (and I don’t mean that in the fetish sense, because no info has been disclosed on that). So she is rare (even in the fetish community, the femdoms are always the smallest number, behind the male doms, female subs and male subs). Take that into account when you parse what she is saying. She is an outlier, by admission, enough said.
January 8th, 2015 at 8:28 pm
Rollo Tomassi,
“Your intellectual lethargy surprises even me.” Why would it surprise you? Women don’t have smarts, they just have vagina and men use vagina for matin’ and stuff. Right?
Intellectual lethargy would indicate I was intentionally being lazy and had ignored some important point of information to INTENTIONALLY form an uninformed opinion. Do you expect all of your commenters to have read every single article you’ve ever written? Obviously I haven’t read everything you’ve ever written.
Also, I can tell you are the one that is intellectually deficient. You cannot read the many points I’ve made without mentioning that it’s a “feminist boilerplate.” You have no true argument. You addressed 1 of the 6 initial points I made about the lack of basic reasoning and logic in your articles. The only reason I am engaging here is because I’ve spent the past few days in my spare time reading up on this ridiculous theory, and I’d like to put some of my thoughts down somewhere to see if there is an adequate response to them. The only halfway rational person that has responded to me thus far is Jeremy #1. He’s the only one that addressed my points without attacking me personally and unnecessarily. You run this whole blog Rollo and apparently regard yourself as some sort of intellectual, so stop being lazy and address my arguments directly without spuriously pointing out your other articles as if this whole blog is required reading for dissenting commenters.
Jeremy #2 (regarding transsexuality),
“Transgenderism is a mental illness.” Actually, a growing body of research is pointing to biological origins of transgenderism. It’s a naturally occurring phenomena in the human psyche. “Disorder” relates a negative connotation that allows people to be dismissive of it as a real human condition for many people because that is how it is perceived in society at this time. In 100 years, it will not be considered a disorder but simply a state of being for certain people that are born with it.
“It is actually impossible, on it’s face, for natural selection to select for a genetically coded desire to have a body that you do not have, even more so when you consider that forcible attempts to accomplish such a feat, or even acceptance of the condition leads to no procreation by the afflicted individual.” No it isn’t. That’s why we here in reality are actually observing this condition happening to people all around the world that come from different life experiences, backgrounds, socioeconomic levels, environments, etc.
“To suggest otherwise is to (logical conclusion) presume that even after thousands of millenia of successfully reproducing, some life on Earth desires to be non-procreating.” This is actually true. Many heterosexual men do not want to procreate, and if we take it from mental to the physical, are biologically incapable of procreating. Same for heterosexual women. Same for many LGBTQ people. It is a natural occurrence in nature from a biological perspective that some people will choose to not procreate or will be born without the ability to procreate or will have some sort of biological variation that will prevent them from being able to procreate.
Rollo Tomoassi, surely you’ve heard of transsexuals living as their born gender. That exists everywhere. Your question is like saying, “If people are really made happy by things other than money, then why do people buy luxury goods or dream of living in beach houses?” Makes no sense.
January 8th, 2015 at 8:47 pm
@novaseeker
A femdom…have never heard of such a thing. Do you like labels? Does it make you feel like you can dismiss my points because you’ve already black boxed me out of your personal experience? It is anticipated. I am exactly the opposite of what you think women are, so I’m very dismissible. The term femdom doesn’t sound very hot to me. Is it like BDSM or something? Cause no my husband’s not submissive like THAT. He’s just not super dominant. Even though I am the dominant one, I like someone who challenges me because intensity makes relationships better (in my opinion). I like the definer AlphaFemale much better. I’ll claim that.
“Being the leader does not mean you treat the led like garbage. Not in the least, because that is bad leadership. Even a femdom knows better than that (or maybe not?).” I’ll have to direct you back to the comment I was responding to because you are arguing the same point I was arguing (unintentionally to be sure!) I am arguing that leaders don’t have to be assholes, and you are too. The other person was arguing dread game is a form of “leadership” and nope nope nope. It is for shitty leaders. It’s like if I told my employee when he made a mistake or got attitude, “I’m going to hire someone else for your position. Look at all of these people that would be ideal for your position.” Is that what good leadership looks like to you? Cause if so, you know nothing about leadership. People that don’t have the natural authority or charisma to get people to do what they want without resorting to being an asshole are the ones that use dread game. Yep it’s true.
“But for the small percentage of women who are like that, there is a virtual *sea* of submissive/follower men to choose from, so that is not the issue.” This is true. I literally could not be with an alpha male. It would be the worst relationship for both of us because they would constantly try to break me while I tried to break them. It’s a recipe for disaster. However, I do want to point out that dominant women exist – Alpha Females unite – because men seem to think they don’t. And the point of RP philosophy is to create alpha males out of beta males, when I am telling you there are many women like me who will select a person with ‘beta’ tendencies INTENTIONALLY because that’s what we need in order to be happy.
“I know what I have seen in 30 years, and it isn’t the bullshit that is being peddled by some here, that’s for sure.” You seem to have experience with women like me. Did these women select beta males and then switch to alpha males, as RP philosophy dictates all women do?
The only other guy I considered being in an LTR with when I was settling down was another guy who was very very nice to me. Men that were assholes got nexted fast because I’m not going to waste my life being treated badly. If this is the experience you’ve had with women like me, then I believe it. If you’re going to say alpha females really want alpha males then I’m going to just assume you have no idea what you’re talking about.
The problem is that the outliers I think are becoming more prescriptive and are educating females that may be naturally “beta” into considering their worth and not putting up with typical alpha male BS. That’s your problem. Moving forward, women are going to be less susceptible to this treatment. Mark my words.
January 8th, 2015 at 9:17 pm
AlphaFemale
January 8th, 2015 at 4:31 am
Despite your handle I’d rate you beta to beta minus.
January 8th, 2015 at 9:21 pm
5. And yet, there are more asexual women than there are asexual men. If anything, trends in asexuality could support the idea that most men’s libidos tend to be higher than most women’s. However, asexuality is still poorly understood, so there’s no concrete evidence to draw from in the first place. Your argument is “non-fact based.”
I did a rough estimate of that once. Men are about half a standard deviation higher. Which means a lot of overlap. Where it matters for men is on the high drive right tail.
January 8th, 2015 at 9:24 pm
“stop being lazy and address my arguments directly”
***MOST IMPORTANT POINT***
I would rather Rollo invest his time in his next post
btw it would be cool if Rollo could mention in a sort of closing comment that the next post is ready
January 8th, 2015 at 9:28 pm
“Despite your handle I’d rate you beta to beta minus”
yes, but she would think she was alpha compared her beta pussy whipped SO
January 8th, 2015 at 9:31 pm
Novaseeker
January 8th, 2015 at 9:46 am
I don’t rate alphaness in females that way.
AFem – will fight another woman for her man
likes beating the competition
BFem – drops her man in the face of competition.
blames the competition
January 8th, 2015 at 9:43 pm
jf12
January 8th, 2015 at 11:16 am
Interesting. I had to teach the fm mate that. And it was a LOT about her experiencing sex like a man. Active interested participatory. I had never run into a woman significantly like that before her. I even had to teach her to breathe. And when she got a handle on that we worked on movement.
January 8th, 2015 at 9:58 pm
Jeremy
January 8th, 2015 at 3:37 pm
Well things get screwed up occasionally. It is thought that hormones in the womb account for part of it. In big families a brother who liked helping raise children could have selection value.
So I’m not going with impossible. Just – very unlikely.
I think there are probably two strands – dysfunctional raising and innate.
I once helped a lesbian go straight. Unfortunately she didn’t do it with me. But I did greatly enjoy her GF and the parts of her she let me access. Which was quite a bit once she got used to me.