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 10th, 2015 at 2:35 am
Just as a PSA, I am not an elitist, nor am I even a leftist. I am a libertarian leaning independent, and I do not think I’m “better” than people that do hard work but don’t have my education. I mean, I realize that ad hominem attacks and attempting to position yourself as superior because you respect “smart people” who “don’t have an education” makes you feel justified to totally disregard the way I threw your shitty logic right back at you, but the way you men continue to argue about it is really starting to concern me.
Do you understand I used Rollo’s logic to form my post? I know some of you must. That’s why I’m hearing crickets other than personal attacks on my character, which might I remind you, none of you people know anything about.
No long winded rants about why you are sooooo much better than an “elitist” woman like me (irony..hypocrisy..can you guys pick a different tune? This one’s been on repeat too long.) are going to change the fact that you know your logic is flawed otherwise what I said about Dr. Nova wouldn’t have hit such a nerve with you.
January 10th, 2015 at 2:37 am
One time we were visiting my little brother and his wife, and his in laws were over for a cookout. He had an old horseshoe court haphazardly laid out near the back fence, mismatched horseshoes, crooked stakes, rutted yard, dog poop, etc. As was his wont he had already gotten drunk off the first two beers, but wasn’t getting much drunker as he continued steadily. My oldest daughter thought he was cool.
The dad styled himself some kind of horseshoe player, in shorts and dress shoes. He complained about the stakes, couldn’t walk his throw right, etc. We mocked his anxienty until he failed enough, then changed the game to a sort of horseshoe golf, for my brother, daughter, and me. One player got to pick a horseshoe location to affix the new stake location, using the horseshoe as a hammer, and then had to throw towards the old stake location for scoring.
Eventually the stakes got pretty wide apart, maybe 150 ft, maybe more, and he and I were hurling the horseshoes as hard as we could overhand, sort of at each other, ducking and laughing while being scolded by the womenfolk.
January 10th, 2015 at 2:39 am
“There are cultures in existence where women are treated like property and are not even allowed to walk down the street without a male relative – where they are stoned to death for being gang raped!”
So stop yelling at us about it, we’re not doing it. Go over there and fix it yourself. You’re as good as any man..
January 10th, 2015 at 2:39 am
re: equal access.
You don’t mean equal access in everything. For example you don’t mean every man gets equal access to sex. Who gets to decide which things are equal? Who gets to decide what equal is? Who gets to decide who gets to decide?
January 10th, 2015 at 3:12 am
D-man, You certainly have a lot of confidence in me. Appreciate it. However, it’s kinda hard to make strides with leadership when they think you should be stoned to death bc like genitals and stuff.
Jf12, Do you really require a response as to why equal access to education is different than equal access to sex?
Not to mention that you have access to sex. Go get a prostitute if you can’t close the deal.
January 10th, 2015 at 5:35 am
When I realize in a discussion that there are no minds open to being changed, I stop wasting my time.
You guys have wasted a lot of time today. On both sides.
January 10th, 2015 at 6:45 am
We are now past 700 and the vomitus continues. How about declaring alfalfa the winner and going home. If it makes you feel better you can declare her the loser and do the same.
January 10th, 2015 at 9:02 am
“Basically, women are in full control of human evolution, and always will be.”
This idea may not be correct, at least for the majority of the past human and proto-human history. Is it really accurate to think that women were the selectors of men who they had children with, and not the other way around for most of human history? I believe that most of the mating that took place may in fact be by the more dominant and powerful men selecting the women. Most mating occurred primarily through force (rape or arranged pairing or marriages as human societies became more organized or civilized). The women who submitted to the powerful man for procreating therefore survived and lived to procreate. This behavior over eons of history imprinted their mark into the hard-wiring of women’s brains – women viscerally desire dominant and powerful men, and therefore a mans’ looks (and height) are not the primary attributes that women find desirable in a man. A man can be “ugly” and short, but as long as he is strong and dominant (both in behavior and in having a muscular physique), he can still get the woman that desires him and finds him attractive, since this is what most mattered in the past for human mating behavior.
I find it hard to believe that a relatively delicate, weak female human (or proto-human and early human) could just freely select the man that she procreated with during much of human history, prior to the advent of civilized human societies. It was the strong and dominant male that took control that procreated the most. Essentially I think it has been men that have been in control of human evolution in the past.
Now that women indeed do the selecting, at least in the modern societies in the western industrialized countries, they may have more control of evolution. But their ancient, and deelpy-ingrained instinctive behavior would no doubt affect their choice in a man in modern times.
January 10th, 2015 at 9:48 am
re: “Do you really require a response as to why equal access to education is different than equal access to sex?”
Yes.
You have access to education, to jobs, to cute shoes. Ain’t my fault if you can’t close the deal.
January 10th, 2015 at 9:54 am
re: “Is it really accurate to think that women were the selectors of men who they had children with”?
Yes. The rapers and pillagers weren’t selective.
January 10th, 2015 at 10:01 am
AF,
I don’t always think clearly when I am tired and yesterday was a long day, but I think this morning I am understanding better. You are one of these people who equates any good or benefit to women with feminism and any thing that you think hurts women with anti-feminism. Thus, if a woman in any way succeeds (ie, earns a PhD) she is beholden to feminism, and if a woman suffers (physical violence etc) it is the fault of those who are against feminism. I believe that is what you call a logical fallacy. Since you are “actually educated” I will leave you to figure out which ones. Before you read anything from me you were already declaring it psychobabble bullshit and telling me in your arguments that I could not possibly disagree with you. You are stuck in that little box and cannot comprehend anything outside of it. The world isn’t that simple.
Ok, regarding intelligence; I am referring to the best measure of intelligence we have (not saying it is perfect, just doing what scientists do which is to use the best available measure) which is IQ. Look at the IQ bell curve and you will see what I referred to on the right side. I must say I find it funny you critique IQ as a measure then use “WEB MD” as a source.
As to the rest of your claims where you dragged out gang rapes and accused me of conflating issues…. See my first paragraph.
January 10th, 2015 at 11:00 am
re: “I believe that is what you call a logical fallacy.”
“Some humans are more equal than others.” Actually it’s a lot of types of fallacies all rolled together, and smoldering poorly. The broadest outline of her argument is a deifinitional fallacy and moralistic fallacy combined with a moving goalpost fallacy combined with, of course, begging the question. “If it’s what I say is good for women despite being bad for men, then it’s good for men, because equality.”
“Even if you have to break a few eggs, you’re not really breaking any eggs because you’re making an omelette.”
January 10th, 2015 at 11:12 am
You are not breaking eggs. You are killing chickens.
January 10th, 2015 at 11:50 am
@Dr. Nova, (love the name BTW)
God no, please continue. I had a rebuttal post scheduled for the weekend discussion but this is far more entertaining.
I can hold off.
January 10th, 2015 at 12:27 pm
entertaining like Monty Python’s Black Knight fight:
“How about declaring alfalfa the winner and going home”
King Arthur: “alright we’ll call it a draw”
January 10th, 2015 at 12:45 pm
I would first like to preface my reply by saying that my analysis of you is satirical and is meant to showcase the flawed logic used by RP men to justify treating women badly “because they really want it.”
Alfalfa fails to understand that women’s amygdalas respond to jerks even though their cortices abhor jerks. Jerks = more masculine mates. Which is why during courtship & sex women’s amygdalas take control from women’s cortices. If the cortisol level in the amydala gets too high, then the amydala relinquishes control back to the cortex.
Alfalfa argues that ethics triumphs over or should triumph over biology.
Do I win the alliteration prize? Maybe the perception prize?
* cortices; plural of cortex
January 10th, 2015 at 12:47 pm
The sock puppets aren’t regular readers, but they’re experts on Dread:
Suzy explains that she has recently been administered “dread game” by her “alpha” partner.
January 10th, 2015 at 12:48 pm
The sock puppets aren’t regular readers, but they hang out in subreddits:
I actually read a field report from some dude on the subreddit that illustrates
January 10th, 2015 at 12:55 pm
“re: “Is it really accurate to think that women were the selectors of men who they had children with”?
Yes. The rapers and pillagers weren’t selective.”
It’s true I think that the men may not have been selective regarding women, but the men were selective in a way among themselves – the stronger men beating out the weaker men in getting a chance at procreation with the women. Women were just at the mercy and vulnerable to any man in general, it’s just that the stronger/dominant men won. The women had no choice on selection in the matter – so the women were not doing any selecting among the men in actuality.
The rapers and pillagers were most probably predominantly the most strong and dominant men.
So I still think it is that the men that were the driving force for evolution for the majority of human history, albeit via self-selection of the men among the broader population of men, which included the weaker men. Most of the women were pillaged and raped, but predominately by the more dominant and stronger men which were a smaller fraction of the male population. The women did not do any selecting for the most part, they were at the mercy of all men and in particular the stronger/dominant men.
The idea that females could just freely pick and choose which man they wanted to procreate with during ancient history is inaccurate I think. Why is it that women have this visceral desire for dominant and strong men? What about the seemingly predominance of rape fantasies among women (with strong/dominant men which they find attractive)? The ancient women who were amenable to this behavior survived and procreated.
January 10th, 2015 at 1:40 pm
Well, Aunt Sue could just get him drunk and rape him if he gets out of hand:
http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2014/12/23/relationshipstrategies/what-women-want-2/#comment-1760736064
January 10th, 2015 at 1:48 pm
I think AF is like the Obama of feminism: “you didn’t build that!”. As if the ONLY way a woman could ever succeed at something/anything is through feminism as we know it today.
Is it that hard to believe some of us are all for equal rights, but not as implemented today? And frankly, I don’t want to hear shit about equal rights until all family court law is chucked and rebuilt from scratch. I have no problem with equal rights as long as it comes with equal responsibility. What we have is UNequal rights for everyone and responsibility for some. And frankly, seeing the type of people that represent the modern feminist movement, I don’t want any of them involved in the process to fix our broken laws.
January 10th, 2015 at 2:18 pm
It’s always the same ol’.
I haven’t read all the bs that’s been stated here by some random troll, but it never stopped fascinating me, how it never fails to trigger a lot of male commenters to try to discuss logically with her. Which results in a bazillion comments leading the mostly fruitful discussions astray.
I value that Rollo’s comment section is not moderated but these cases are just annoying. How can you discuss scientific results with answers like: “I think that fe/fi theory is wrong, here is my own theory…”
It’s the typical female discussion style that can never be won by logical arguments. Period.
I mean just have a look what it came to in statements like, paraphrasing, IQ is not a good concept to measure how smart a person is. Seriously?
Alphafemale, the following is not an ad hominem attack. You are or willl be miserable beneath that empowered shell you built for yourself as long as you deny your true positive female nature by trying to be like or better than men. It’s not being subjugated, if you think I might be that stupid.
And no, straight men usually don’t like being in a relationship with another man who’s competitive as hell to overcompensate his own low self-esteem.
January 10th, 2015 at 2:47 pm
I feel bad for Alpha Female’s beta mate. The man does not know the pleasure of seeing a woman in total submission to his will.
With that said, the only way to win real non-calculated submission from an LTR mate is to take her best shots with amused mastery and Fuck her with savage abandon to finish an argument. Until you have done that, you have not won your girl’s submission. None will truly submit willingly (early relationship bloom does not count).
January 10th, 2015 at 3:33 pm
AlfaFemale’s pull-string talking points are drearily familiar, as is the dynamic of her strident claims to her social justice warrioring.
I’ve found it useful to laugh and change the subject when someone of this ilk suggests that social progress rests on her sacrificial labors. Why? Well, they still feel entitled to a CEO with a plane and a Porsche, and a functioning prick. It’s a lot of P’s ( junior high alliteration) but they are not going home with PajamaBoy, profound protestations aside.
January 10th, 2015 at 3:35 pm
“Women were just at the mercy and vulnerable to any man in general”
This seems to be a popular way of looking at history – perhaps because it serves certain interests – but I don’t think it’s a complete picture, it’s too simplistic. Cave man bashes cave woman over head with club and drags her away by hair. People allow cartoon images like this to direct their thinking, and it’s a mistake. I think Jeremy’s statement, which spurred your response, has significant merit, and the truth is probably somewhere in between.
For starters, look at archaeology. The Venus of Willendorf is perhaps the most famous of over one hundred female figurines which we’ve unearthed across eurasia, spanning a timeline of well over ten thousand years. We do not find any paleolithic male figurines (there’s one with a lion head, but it might be just a lion standing up). What does this tell us? Was this a representation of a female deity? Were women the first artists/sculpturists? Whatever you deduce, the feminine was most certainly valued.
Then, if you look at Haplogroup demographics, a picture starts to emerge. Y-Chromosomes are generally more widespread than the mitochondrial DNA they would naturally be associated with. This means men moved around more. In some cases, we’re beginning to see evidence that one Y chromosome almost completely replaced another, while the mtDNA signal remains. Generally speaking though, from the end of the last ice age (12000 years ago) until we developed better means to travel, these cultures moved very slowly, most lasting thousands of years. A generation took the same amount of time back then (or shorter) than it does now, so that means the vast majority of unions were relatively peaceful, by the standards of the day.
But let’s go back to that concept: replacement. In a raiding/marauding situation, it well may have been that women sometimes had no choice in being raped by an invader, and forced to bear his child (hence the war brides dynamic)… but you can bet your ass, it’s because her men DIED trying to protect her. Women have always been so valuable to men that they would lay down their lives for them – women’s lives were literally more important to men than their own, and we can read this in the tea leaves of our DNA today. So this notion that women have been considered low-value throughout history is, again, hogwash.
Looking to my own perception and experience: that women are just as intelligent as men, albeit with a tendency towards strengths in different areas – in my gut I do not think it would have been possible to “keep all women down as mens’ property” for the entirety of history. I think women have always exerted tremendous influence in shaping society. This would have included things like steering the consensus of the tribe, and yes, pulling the marionette strings inside a powerful man’s mind, among probably many other influences, some structural and logical, like controlling the food supply. But there is simply no way in my mind we would have made it this far if we weren’t cooperating most of the time. Life was just not that easy!
When you look at it that way, anyone who claims “women have been kept down by men against their will for the entirety of history” is the TRUE misogynist, because this betrays a deep-seated conviction that women are inferior.
I think there’s no way that could have been done, because I believe women are too smart, too wily, and yes, too strong. So when people use shaming shorthand to try and conjure up victim power to manipulate me, I bristle.
January 10th, 2015 at 3:38 pm
[…] list below in the comment thread. You can pick up the old thread to see where her rabbit hole goes here, but as you’ll probably expect most of the conversation revolves her own personal experiences […]
January 10th, 2015 at 3:54 pm
@Dr Nova,
I’m actually disappointed and I don’t know why. I really thought you were going to try to form a cogent argument in response, but you didn’t. All you did was make some brash general statement about how I think X because I recognize that providing women with access to education was part of the equal rights movement (pick up a damn history book, doc, if you think otherwise), and that I think that cultures that treat women as property and punish them for gang rape are misogynist. Um. The sky is also blue, and the grass is often green. Are you surprised that I think that, doc? Likely.
My access to scientific journals is limited. I wanted to prevent you from arguing back that ‘intelligence can be quantitatively measured accurately via IQ” when studies show that it isn’t. What I find interesting about you acting dismissive of WebMD is that the source actually listed the sample size at 100,000 making it a very large and comprehensive study (much larger than most scientific studies), which in your ‘science’ brain one would think would be a positive. Apparently not. It’s so juvenile to attack a source and not a point. Again, expected better from you.
@Rosso, Glad you like her name. I’m the one that came up with it.
January 10th, 2015 at 3:55 pm
As a gruesome addition: infanticide, as it occurs in the modern world, is almost exclusively committed by women against their own children. Is this another ancient signal? You’re damn right Jeremy, by and large and through many means, women have always controlled who makes it to the next generation. Another one off the top of my head is that women have always known more intimately the mystery of their own ovulation. It was likely considered magic before modern times.
Once again, when you look at it this way, to women who complain about the way things are today: look at your mothers, and your grandmothers. Admonish your sisters, not us. You have more power than you admit.
January 10th, 2015 at 4:02 pm
@Dr Nova,
Also, the reason I responded that you would be posting ‘psychbabble bullshit’ is because your first response to me NICELY asking your fiancé a question about why you were pursuing a PhD if you believe women to be inferior to men was to call me an “idiot” and a “bitch.” So I typecast you and was exactly right.
*bows*
January 10th, 2015 at 7:02 pm
@Novaseeker – Great cite on Bailey. For those interested in a deeper look into his work on homosexuality and transgenderism, he wrote a great book that is quite accessible for non-academics and published it online, for free. The book is titled The Man Who Would Be Queen here’s the link http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/JMichael-Bailey/TMWWBQ.pdf
As for the rest of the commentary, I’m still working my way through it. I’m sure others are having to take it on in chunks too. That said, I have to add that I must be really growing because AlphaFemale is a yawner to me. I simply don’t engage women like her anymore. Of course, other’s doing so serves a purpose, but me, I just don’t give a shit anymore and that actually surprises me. It’s the best kind of surprise. There is no upside for this selfish prick in engaging her.
@Rollo – Thanks for answering my question. I guess one way of putting it is that part of the red pill is seeing how I’ve been told that love is normative across the sexes. As an aside, I hate using the world gender, it validates the entire social construction of gender as separate from sex whereas not too long ago, the only things to have gender were words. It was a term of grammar, sigh, I digress.
This is part of the grander equalitarian mythology that is so stridently adhered to, and it’s a con on men to have them to serve women and maintain denial about the opportunistic nature of their love. Fuck, it feels so good to have spit the bit out and just be the libidinous, hedonistic, aggressive prick I’ve always been but repressed. No longer playing by that set of rules that never worked for me anyway, whew.
I was laying in bed with a 27 year old hottie a couple of weeks ago, super sweet girl and not a feminist. Interestingly she’s bi-sexual but not any kind of activist. She asked me why I wasn’t in a relationship and I answered with some arch commentary as I normally do, but then for a moment I figured I’d try to be a bit real with her and see what happened. I said simply that today’s world had made men’s role in marriage, society and relationships was much less enjoyable. I told her I never intended to be faithful to any woman again, as I had spent far too much of my life doing that. She didn’t disagree – this is what I love about seeing younger women. We know we aren’t getting married so I can really be myself and it doesn’t piss them off.
Try telling the above to some “alpha female” – who wants to fuck an alpha female anyway? I like feminine women who enjoy being feminine. I have fucked a few alpha bitches, and it always seemed like I was fucking a man (or what I imagine that would be like not having firsthand experience). The reality is that my young friend can’t introduce me to her friends or family – although my male friends would treat her quite nicely, interestingly. It’s an innately sexual relationship. That’s the nature of being a short term mating candidate, it seems some younger guys have a hard time with that. Me? It’s so easy and free, if fleeting. I’m developing towards a poly-amorous approach to the degree that will fly, we’ll see. Certainly have maintained the upper hand with this bird, and she mentioned several times getting her girlfriend involved but is also cheating on her with me and made me promise that if I did meet her that I would not tell her all the stuff we did or what a good time we had, lol. Fucking Game – I didn’t mention a menage a trois once, I let her pull. It’s wild.
I closed by asking her to do a little thought experiment. I just asked her to look all around her, at the buildings, the road, cars, her phone – everything. I asked her, “Did it ever occur to you that men basically invented and built virtually all of it?” It was like I’d hit her in the head with a brick. I went on, “Do you realize that men measure themselves by what they create, what they do, how hard they work – that society puts this on us, we don’t ask for it? And that we are all competing for beautiful women like you?” She was stunned, and replied,”Wow, men never stop having to do and compete, do they?”
January 10th, 2015 at 9:01 pm
AF,
I’m not sure why you’re disappointed. I am kinda irritated by all your goalpost moving rhetoric, inability to think outside of the story your “history” books taught you about the glories of feminism and “drops the mic” and “bows” hubris. Perhaps your disappointment is because I am not very skilled at rhetorical arguments. In fact I kind of hate them. I much prefer to deal with reality then rhetoric. For example, I should never have used the example of IQ as a statement of something measurable that allows comparison between individuals. That was really stupid of me and a good example of my lack of skill when it comes to rhetorical argument. I really set myself up for the “special snowflake” stuff with that. To be clear, I’m not going to repeat myself about the use of IQ as a measurement of intelligence. If you still don’t understand that I’m not claiming IQ as a perfect measure go back and reread my comments. And, just so you understand, WebMD is presented more like a journalism site than a research site. Appealing to WebMD as a source to back up a claim about research is like appealing to a story on the evening news about what some research study said. Anybody in the sciences will tell you that kind of reporting about research is not a valid source. I know you are not a scientist and lack access to scientific journals…. I was just commenting on my amusement at the disparate argument you were making (IQ measures are not perfect so they are useless yet WebMD is a good source with which to make that argument…. It really is quite funny).
I also want to make it clear I would not have commented here without Novaseeker’s permission. This is his space so to speak, not mine, and I respect that.
Lastly, you took it upon yourself to make up some kind of a ridiculous theory about me, throw the “special snowflake “and “unicorn” labels at me and accuse me of making an ad hominem attack in an argument against you (was talking to my fiancé, not arguing with you) while you simultaneously swim in logical fallacies yourself. You go on to accuse me of acting juvenile, lying, manipulation, vitriol etc…… So easy to see that *I* am the bitch in this exchange, amirite? By the way, my saying “it is about science bitch” was an allusion to the Guardians of the Galaxy movie, which I am sure Novaseeker caught (captain’s gotta teach stuff! 😉). But, it doesn’t matter what you think of me, it only matters what Novaseeker thinks of me. I really should thank you though, because you are doing nothing but increasing my value in his eyes through comparison with you. By all means, keep it up!
January 10th, 2015 at 9:06 pm
@ Glenn
Thanks for sharing. Your comments are still one of my favorite parts of RM by far.
As for chicks like AlphaFemale…
I was talking to one the other day actually. Gorgeous. Energetic. But very masculine. A part of me feels like I could deal with that and she looked like she could be some fun, but the lyrics spell my feelings out clear as day:
“I’m not the only soul’s accused of hit and run
Tire tracks all across your back, I can see you had your fun
But darling, can’t you see my signals turn from green to red
And with you I can see a traffic jam straight up ahead
You’re just like crosstown traffic
So hard to get through to you
Crosstown traffic
I don’t need to run over you
All you do is slow me down
And I got better things on the other side of town”
The only thing I have to add to this discussion right now beyond that is this: right now I’m having some cherry pie and reminiscing about the past 11 years of listening to Jimi Hendrix and playing guitar, and I think that I don’t give a fuck. I just want to get blown in my car with Purple Haze playing in the background.
January 11th, 2015 at 3:11 am
I think Alice Thomas Ellis probably got it right when she wrote: “there is no recipricocity. Men love women. Women love children. Children love hamsters. Hamsters don’t love anyone.”
January 11th, 2015 at 8:10 am
@alpha female
I enjoy intellectual debate. As long as the goal is learning, refining thoughts, and discovering new insights I’m all for it. I don’t see your comments as attacks, rather simply as a debate between disagreeing individuals. And, believe it or not, if you or anyone else is able to prove a point to me, I’ll gladly adopt it. The caveat is that you have to be willing to do the same :)
Regarding theories of Fe/Fi conflict, I think you’ll find them accurate and demonstrable, both in males and females. It is more applicable in females, though, because more women than men are Fe-dominant. Of course, the behaviour of such individuals will vary depending on where they adopt their Fe. a person who adopts her Fe from traditional culture will behave very differently from one whose Fe comes from feminist culture, and different still from one whose Fe comes from radical Islam.
What such Fe-doms have in common, though, is an unwavering belief in the correctness of their world view and a fundamental lack of introspection as to their own internal wants.
Where I think you are not understanding me is that I don’t believe most women want men who treat them like dirt. Some do, but most don’t. What women want is a man who is better than them, but treats them like an equal (in spite of being better). One who is strongly centered in himself (confident, driven, knows what he wants and goes after it) – such that he doesn’t put up with crap from anyone, including her. This describes a man who is Fi-dominant.
What they don’t understand is that individuals who are Fi-dominant relegate their Fe to the subconscious (just as Fe-doms relegate their Fi to the subconscious). This means that such men will not be inherently giving – will not be ones to prioritize their wife and kids ahead of themselves unless they perceive a direct advantage to themselves for having done so.
This is the dichotomy between powerful men and “nice” men. Women say they want both – a nice guy with balls. Problem is, that’s 2 different guys. Women are attracted to power, and thus will date a certain type of man. But they intellectually realize they need another set of traits in a husband/dad, and so they change lanes. And when they do so, they perceive themselves as having settled unless they are so ego invested in their notions of propriety (Fe) that they ignore what their instincts want (Fi).
This is everywhere in today’s culture. The plethora of articles about women settling/fear thereof, the dearth of such articles about men. Women driving the marriage and the divorce markets. The comments of women on various sites, and the very different tones of the comments on sites where women are looking for mates versus mommy blogs, versus blogs for more mature women.
The trends are there for all to see, alpha female, we have but to open our eyes. We are not all the same, but for culture. Men and women are different. We are attracted to different traits in partners. We mistakenly believe that our partners should be attracted to the same things we are – women believe men should be attracted to their education, power, and earning potential (as women would be drawn to in a man) – and they aren’t. Men believe that women should be attracted to men who prioritize women’s needs above their own (as men would be attracted to such women) -and they aren’t.
Of all things you may find on red pill sites, consider that as the most important message IMHO. Try to ignore the negativity (if you can), and try not to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
January 11th, 2015 at 8:17 am
Dr. Nova,
I’m disappointed because I thought you might actually attempt to have a dialogue with me that addressed the points I made, which you made clear you weren’t going to do with your straw man ‘but you believe all good things are from feminism and all bad things are from guys’ or some such nonsense. That is a blatant fabrication and a ridiculous assertion.
Yeah I was a little inflamed when you called me an “idiot” and a “bitch” for asking a simple question about your motivations for earning a PhD so I get where you’re coming from on being “irritated” by me. Golden rule and all.
You don’t have to enjoy debates, but at the same time, calling out WebMD as an unreliable source just shows how clearly uninitiated you are with this little blog. Rollo cites the Guardian as evidence that male and female brains are different and thus women are biologically predisposed to hypergamy and a whole slew of other traits which creates the entire basis for his arguments that men should rule over women. I mean this is scientific stuff, y’all! Not.
Let’s hold Rollo to the standard you other posters hold me and with the “logical fallacies,” too. This blog is RIFE with logical fallacies. I just wrote out a list of the 10 commandments of rational debate that Rollo posted and illustrated how he broke each commandment in his “rebuttal” to my original post. So you calling me out for using ‘logical fallacies’ is ‘really quite funny.’
Also, I have NO IDEA why you keep saying that you asked Nova’s permission to post here. I got that the first time you said it, and I thought it was pathetic then. There’s no need for you to restate it like 4 times after the fact. Are you grandstanding for the rest of these dudes, subtly trying to show me what you deem to be ‘good fiance’ behavior, or are you just saying it so I remember that you engaged in this debate against your will? I have no idea, but I honestly could not give a single fuck if you asked his permission. I would not ever under any circumstances ask my husband for permission to post on an Internet blog. You get no pat on the back from me for it.
Lastly, I am glad to be of service to you in making you look better to your mate. If my husband posted on a site like this because he agreed with its basic premise, I would find it repugnant and would be ashamed to be married to such a man. So please don’t think I’m jealous or upset at how your fiance apparently views me. I view the men here with just as much disgust and disdain. Your fiance seemed somewhat nice though, definitely one of the nicer of the lot, except when he posted your insults.
In the other article Rollo recently posted about my original post, it has really turned into a completely abhorrent show of who is the biggest and stupidest neanderthal of the bunch, and really, that’s not my scene so I won’t be going back. I literally feel slightly nauseous even thinking that such men exist on earth, much less that they are common and I may have to encounter some in my day to day life experience. I won’t be posting much if at all again (I won’t say never because you never know), but it’s a waste of my time. My husband has recommended that I stay off this blog, and like a good woman, I’m gonna listen to my man. No but really. He’s right, and I see his points. We’ll just keep the “Red Pill” man running joke, and laugh our asses off at how pathetic these men are. We pity the women that subscribe to it, to be quite honest, no offense intended to you Dr. Nova.
I mean you get the worst of both worlds — a man who respects you much less than himself, thinks you are less than he is in various ways, and then also is the opposite of gentlemanly to women (look at the most recent post about my original comment – there is not a name they haven’t called me). One good thing about classic misogynists is that many of them treated women very well. Red Pill men don’t even have that going for them. There is literally nothing that is more of a turn off than a Red Pill man. And more women think like me than you, contrary to the popular belief parroted on this blog and reinforced through confirmation bias.
January 11th, 2015 at 1:59 pm
As a final thought to you, AF, after re-reading your last post to me – I think you are attributing thoughts to me that I don’t harbor.
To be clear – I do not advocate men treating women badly. At all. Not with violence, not with threats, not with psychological abuse, withholding affection, or any means to exert power or controlling behaviour. I have a wife, 2 daughters, a mother, a sister, and many female friends. I want the best for them and would take extreme exception to any man who treated them so.
The problem that I, and most of the men here, had was the opposite. We observed that we treated women with too much deference – when we prioritized their desires over our own (as we would have wanted them to do for us) – we noticed that they lost respect and attraction to us. It’s not that women want to be treated badly – they don’t. But they don’t want to be in charge of the relationship, by and large. They want a man who puts his mission first, not them first – though they say they want the opposite.
When it comes to attracting men, most women know what works. Physical attractiveness, charm, emotional affirmation – all women know men like these things. Sure, some men prefer small breasted women, but the majority prefer large. Some men prefer heavy women, but most prefer a certain waist-hip ratio. Although there are individual differences between men, there are many commonalities.
But what attracts women? Do women have similar commonalities? This question has baffled men forever, because it seems that women themselves don’t know! They say they want an attractive man, but can’t agree with each other or with themselves over time who is attractive (see the recent study by Arieli et all, using the “hot or not” data). It seems that the one thing that women have in common is that they are attracted to those physical features that connote power in their societies (I can dig up the study on that, if you want, but it’s pretty obvious).
I went to professional school with hundreds of very intelligent women. With very few exceptions they paired off with men who were as/more educated or successful as themselves – whereas the men did not. The men were far more concerned with factors of physical beauty and emotional receptivity, while the women were far more concerned with similarities, provisioning ability and power – in spite of having more than enough of those things on their own. This is exactly what evo psychologists predict, and is usually true in my observation.
I have no interest in being “better” than women. I have no interest in dominating them, controlling them, keeping them down or restricting their options. At all. I am interested in attraction – obtaining and maintaining. Women use makeup, because they know what men like. Men should use soft power, confidence and humor, because that’s what women like. They should NOT try to attract women by being overly “nice”.
January 11th, 2015 at 5:31 pm
@ Softek – Greatest comment, ever! Jimi rocked out with his cock out. Lots of bands from back then and the ’70s did so. Just listen to Led Zeppelin, it’s very masculine in a way most music today can’t even touch. I’ve discovered rap/hip hop over the past 4-5 years, surprisingly to me. Snoop Dogg did it for me, on to Tupac, Biggie and out from there – they too are/were unafraid to be men and talk about women as they see/saw them.
Going through a weird time with women. On the one hand, I get them so much better and have great times with them now, whether working or my sister or lovers. Crazy. But at the same time I’m also feeling quite offput at times by it all. Seeing how much of what’s actually happening derives from our intersexual dynamics is truly disarming. Like scales falling from my eyes. I was in Vegas all last week at CES with one of my clients and that place is a bacchanalia of sexual energy. I was watching how I reacted to it and how other men do – beautiful women scare the shit out of many men. And I found myself reflexively qualifying myself out with them in my mind, until one of the models threw me serious IOIs, But still, being in the “field’ and being present to what’s happening and what isn’t is just new and weird for me still. Remember, I’m 52 and in many ways I’m out of consideration for the vast majority of young model types so it’s also kind of sad sometimes, being invisible. I’m back to working on my fitness but still, there are limits. Sigh…
Fun as all hell though. Just being straight about what’s what and most of all, what I want and going after it is such relief. No need to feel conflicted or shamed as I did when I was younger. All of that conflictedness I felt around sexuality is gone now. It’s kind of new territory for me so I don’t know how it will play out. I’m trying to set up open poly-amorous kinds of things, but no joy yet. Still one at a time every few months. Remember, I’m also past it at 52. You young guys may want to seriously consider it. Call it open plate spinning, but women are empowered too. There is evidence of this in human history, pre-agricultural, so called “partnership living” versus “kinship living” arrangements. Women are empowered sexually to have multiple partners too, but everyone gets laid more in these setups, so, I’m hard pressed to see what the downside is. But it’s all speculative for me now.
I’m moved this way because I want to have some kind of ethos or ideal of what I’m shooting for. The Red Pill can leave me feeling a bit rudderless sometimes.
January 11th, 2015 at 6:54 pm
“Women want sex far more than we’ve been allowed to believe. So suggests a new book that shatters many of our most cherished myths about desire, including the widespread assumption that women’s lust is inextricably bound up with emotional connection. Are men ready to cope with the reality of heterosexual women’s horniness? The evidence suggests we aren’t, at least not yet.”
http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/06/turns-out-women-have-really-really-strong-sex-drives-can-men-handle-it/276598/
January 12th, 2015 at 12:13 am
AF,
Let’s set a few things straight.
1. I came here willingly to respond to things you had either asked about me or said about me, period. I didn’t come here to have a dialogue with you about the entire constructed worldview of feminism. I owe you zero response to your points or arguments. You aren’t open to my responses anyway, as you have very clearly demonstrated (you know, since I can’t *possibly* think x, y or z). I had years of experience talking about feminism with feminists on the Internet and I’ve had enough of that. I like to keep my discussions on these subjects to real life now where I have a chance to make a difference and where it is much harder for the other person to jump from idea to idea and move the goalposts around (gang rape!!!! Denying 5 year olds education!!!! Etc) and then say I didn’t respond to their points. Instead I enjoy infecting my students and colleagues with the dangerous idea that maybe feminism isn’t in their best interests. OH NOES!!!!
2. I’m not here to defend Rollo or anybody else on this blog or to hold them to any sort of standard either. I don’t care if he is a skilled debater or not. Don’t care if he uses logical fallacies or not. Don’t care if he fisked your comment or not. Didn’t come here to debate him. I came here to respond to you about why a complementarian such as myself would get a PhD….. Which I did and you promptly ignored in favor of your own created explanation of my motives and beliefs.
3. I mentioned getting Nova’s permission to post here precisely once…. Seems to have loomed much larger in your mind though for some reason.
4. Why on earth should I be ashamed of Nova commenting on a blog that has ideas or attitudes I don’t agree with (he doesn’t agree with it all either. Shocking, I know). I do agree with Nova on what we consider to be the basics, and no, that doesn’t include him treating me badly at all. We complement each other well. He treats me with kindness and support. He doesn’t use “dread” on me which would probably crush me emotionally. But neither does he placate or worry about being “nice”. To borrow a turn of phrase from C.s. Lewis; he isn’t always “nice”, but he is a very good man.
5. I don’t think you understand at all what “the red pill man” thinks or believes (or the fact that they don’t all think or believe the same things). You just have a two dimensional caricature in your mind. Your arguments reveal that. You do not seem to understand that the so called manosphere, or where red pill men hang out on the internet, is a sort of clearing house of many ideas. There are lots of blogs out there who agree on many of the basics (BTW the basics may or may not include “game” and associated ideas) but differ greatly in their attitudes and ideas. If you wanted to debate or *gasp* learn about these ideas in a place where you won’t be treated in a manner you don’t find gentlemanly, this blog was likely not a good choice. BTW, gentlemanly behavior toward women was part of the social contract feminism destroyed, so you can thank your feminist friends for that little gift.
January 13th, 2015 at 1:47 am
I have been following Rollo’s work since the beginning of this blog. Your insight and education has brought very noticeable change in my life. I became more aware of the fem-centric societal norms. I am also more concerned with my own self improvement instead of the validation of women.
I want to take this opportunity to thank you for your effort. Following Livefearless’s call, I also want to encourage other readers who have benefitted from this blog to voice your support for Rollo.
Please keep up the good work. You have made massive impact on numerous male souls. I wish you all the best in your life.
Cheers from Hong Kong
January 13th, 2015 at 8:53 am
Thank you.
January 23rd, 2015 at 3:59 am
Men and women are like two separate species, in a constant, unconscious evolutionary arms race around sex based on the best reproduction and survival of humanity. I personally can’t reconcile romantic love, and see it as just a cutthroat, unconscious means from natural selection to cause reproduction, and orgasm as a necessary bodily function like eating or defecating. But I won’t be one-sided, which is very easy to do, and make out hypergamy to be more evil than our male wired-in attraction to female youth and beauty.
Sexually-avoidant teenagers showing higher IQ’s makes me think it can be replicated in adults (http://waitingtillmarriage.org/study-finds-link-between-high-iq-and-waiting-on-sex/), which make sex and romantic love, while being fundamental human needs, seem more like obstructions to a greater and more consistent form of personal, technological, and cultural evolution. Where our genetic variety is diverse enough that a life around truth-seeking seems like it can exist over a life around romance and sex, even when society has already made its historical choice over which is more important.
Neither choice can really be proven right or wrong though, because the playing field for all of this in our heads, and nature is indifferent. If anything, we might just be nothing more slaves to the environment, where some of the transhumanist ideas people like me dream up or fear, relies on some form of massive trauma. But I think that the cultural and technological defiance of sex and romance is as eternally and equally viable as its acceptance, whether looked at as a form of ultimate dread, or as stopping future trauma.