If you know the enemy and know yourself you need not fear the results of a hundred battles.
One of the more contentious aspects of intersexual competition the early PUAs hit upon was the phenomenon of the AMOG – Alpha Male Of Group – and how ‘that guy’s’ apparent social dominance focused all interaction within a peer group on himself. The AMOG was an easy parody of a guy to hate on for early Game practitioners because his archetype was so relatable for men looking to improve their chances with women they’d never been able to consider before they discovered Game. The nefarious AMOG was their worst cock-blocking villain.
For a recovering Beta experimenting with Game for the first time it was bad enough that the very real, in-his-face proposition of rejection by women was always to be considered, but to have to account for a guy that looked (in his mind) like the typical jock who regularly out-Alpha’d him back in high school seems like an unfair obstacle to need to overcome. I think that a lot of men’s competition anxiety focuses on a very overdramatized caricature of the Alpha ‘bullies’ they were familiar with when growing up.
This characterization is also the basis of the long-clichéd plot of every boy-meets-girl, boy-overcomes-shyness, boy-overcomes-bully-to-get-the-girl story ever told, and not just by Hollywood.
While female written romance stories revolve around multiple suitors for a woman protagonist to tame the most Alpha among them – usually ending with the one who’s a misunderstood asshole to everyone but her – male written romance generally centers on an underperforming Beta male (with a heart of gold) who, through extraordinary circumstance is placed in a position of outperforming all of his previous rivals for his dream girl, or the girl he ‘should really be with’ instead of the shallow girl he thought would be so great. Instead of selfishly abusing his newfound Alpha powers by kicking sand in the faces of lesser Betas, he fashions himself as the hero exemplar of how Betas should act if they find themselves in a similar empowerment.
The stories of Spider Man, Captain America and even Back to the Future follow these male-romance scripts to the letter, but in every case the Beta-with-a-chance has to teach the bully a lesson before he can qualify for the girl’s attention, much less her intimacy. This clichéd story arch is a manifestation of men’s internalized understanding of their burden of performance. And while I can’t entirely assert this is an intrinsic part of men’s own mental firmware, I have to speculate that the fantasy of fulfilling it is part of men’s ubiquitous need to adequately perform for women’s intimate approval.
Regardless, the objective purpose is still to ‘get the girl’.
Examples of this Alpha bully archetype are part of most men’s formative learning. Not all men learn the lesson of the bully (some play the role with relish), but if we hold to the 80/20 rule of the manosphere we’re statistically looking at around 80% of (Beta) men who do. From grade school to high school to college, that guy, the douchebag, the guy who can’t help but actively or passively draw attention to himself, becomes the AMOG – and damned if he’s not the most contemptible bastard (or type of bastard) you know.
I’m highlighting that guy because more often than not he’s less a real person and more a manifestation of the anxiety that results from men’s insecurity about performing adequately for feminine approval. It’s easy to poke fun at the guys you see on hotchickswithdouchebags.com because they’re representations of the bully you hate. They’re the Jerks that every woman loves and every ‘normal’ guy vainly tries to make women rationally understand are the worst possible romantic option for them.
One very difficult hurdle men have in unplugging is getting past what they believe is the emulation of the Alpha Jerk who so regularly outperformed them, if not bullied them – yet, his asshole ways were still undeniably effective with the women he wanted to get with. Thus, for men who come to Red Pill awareness there’s a natural resistance to become that guy.
This AMOG archetype impression is tough to confront for men, but it’s important they do so.
This impression for men is an incredibly useful tool to effect women’s sexual strategy later in life when the woman (or type of woman) he’s held in such high regard and pined to be intimate with for so long finally “comes to her senses” around her Epiphany Phase and accepts him. For men with this AMOG mental impression, that woman’s acceptance comes with a certain degree of (sometimes smug) vindication. He waited her out and finally she’s “realized” what he’s been trying to make her see for so long – he’s actually the ‘perfect boyfriend’ for her.
He doesn’t realize he’s just playing the convenient ‘savior’-provider role women’s sexual strategy has conditioned and prepared him for, but believing his Beta Nice Guy life track has finally won out over the nefarious AMOG in his head is a strong reinforcer of a belief women need him to strongly believe when it’s time to cash in their Beta Bucks chips and her SMV starts its decline.
And therefore those skilled in war bring the enemy to the field of battle and are not brought there by him.
I’m going to flip your AMOG impression upside down now. That AMOG isn’t the one you should concern yourself with.
Most of the first PUAs always suggested a process of containment and isolating your target woman in order to ‘poach’ her from that guy. I understand the proposed isolation idea is to remove a girl you like from her social group, but the effect is really similar to Mate Guarding – isolate her awareness of all other sexual competitors and focus her on yourself.
However, unless you’re making your approaches in clubs or loud bars it’s likely the context you’re working on a woman in isn’t one where an active, in-your-face AMOGing is happening. Isolation becomes a security measure to focus her on you being her best immediate prospect.
Roissy once stated that there are groupies for every male endeavor, I should also add that there are AMOGs in every male endeavor. Every group of nerdy programmers, geeks, chess club, your bowling team and even in your Bible study group, there’s an AMOG. Some are more significant than others, but rest assured, you know him, or you will.
Most men will compartmentalize themselves socially so as to best facilitate their chances of meeting, banging, marrying or otherwise interacting with women. This compartmentalization is really a form of Buffering against rejection, but it’s also a logical social positioning of a man putting himself into an environment where he can (hopefully) excel and be noticed for it.
All warfare is based on deception – Bear this in mind when you enter into a new social group dynamic or an unfamiliar social environment. You are an unknown commodity and therefore your strengths are novel to the group. Your weaknesses (your Beta-ness) will be more obvious than your strengths and thus more easily attached to you.
Playing to one’s strengths usually involves defining a man’s social environments. King Douchebag at a Vegas pool party is excelling in his environment, just as Bobby Fisher is at a chess tournament. One reason less ‘socially adept’ men enjoy more confidence at a ComicCon is because the environment buffers their social deficits, but emphasizes their particular talents. The first mistake most men make when considering an AMOG situation is underestimating the importance of that environment. In high school the environment was probably set for you, but as an adult you’ve got a greater degree of control over it.
Bear this in mind when you’re confronted with a guy “all the girls love”. There’s a tendency on the part of Beta leaning guys to think the AMOG is a ‘natural’ Alpha when in fact he’s really domain dependent on the social environment you share with him. Of course there will always be guys who excel in almost any environment because Hypergamy is universal to women and a ‘hawt guy’ is ‘hawt’ to all women, but remove him from his preferred domain to one you’re better adept in, or, outperform him in his domain with a particular strength or expertise you possess in such a way that he’s forced to acknowledge your skill.
To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.
The caricature of an in-your-face belligerent AMOG is really a social anomaly, and usually your experience of him is the product of an environment you’re not at home in. Far more common however is the AMOG who is unassuming, affable, and honestly a guy you probably can’t help but like. In fact this likability is his primary appeal. Obvious Alpha superiority combined with even a marginal humility makes for an irresistible AMOG to women.
One of my best friends to this day was a guy I despised when we were in high school. We ended up becoming lifelong friends, but initially I hated him for having such a natural Alpha affinity with the girls I wanted to get with. I actually attribute part of my early 20s sexual success (and if I’m honest some proto-Red Pill awareness) to many of the lessons women’s behavior around him taught me.
Both the nervous Beta and the PUA like to encourage the idea of an AMOG as being the drunk, loud-mouthed frat boy who pushes you aside to get to the girl at the bar you’re sarging (“Step aside McFly!”), but the Alpha Male of the Group to really consider is the guy women can’t stop talking about when he’s not even present. He’s the guy who leaves the room and girls giddily huddle together to agree about how ‘hawt’ he is. He doesn’t even have to be in the group to be the Alpha of it.
The best form of social proof is the unsolicited kind. The kind where women can’t help but talk about a guy, and ask his Beta-chump friends how they can get to know him better.
He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot, will be victorious.
In the immediate sense, unseating this AMOG would be a challenge only the most exceptional men could hope for. He’s established in his environment and his status and social proof is perpetuated for him within his social group. This situation may seem hopeless, and if your goal is to supplant him you’d have to really consider what the rewards would be in doing so, however there is much to learn from him within your shared environment.
Pose as a friend, act as a spy. Befriending the AMOG may be your best option as it opens you up to his social proof as a peer. You may not replace him in the short term, but if you’re spinning plates as you should, his confirmation of you as a peer will only benefit you. This confirmation will allow you an insight into the dynamics of that social environment. Your ultimate success doesn’t lie in destroying the AMOG, or becoming one yourself, but mastering a shared environment in which your strengths are best applied.
The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.
Pretend inferiority and encourage his arrogance. The opportunity to secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself.
This tact is useful for both the in-your-face AMOG as well as the non-direct, status affirmed AMOG. Sometimes proving one’s superiority is simply allowing the mediocre enough time and opportunity to self-destruct. The trick of course is in being prepared to swiftly capitalize on that AMOG’s missteps.
Law 33 – Discover Each Man’s Thumbscrew
Everyone has a weakness, a gap in the castle wall. That weakness is usualy an insecurity, an uncontrollable emotion or need; it can also be a small secret pleasure. Either way, once found, it is a thumbscrew you can turn to your advantage.
In the early part of my career in liquor branding I worked for a very rich man in his mid 60s. This guy had quite the resume of “successes”, but for the greater part they’d come from his self-importance and borrowing money than any real talent of his own. He was the owner, but had a reputation for attention seeking and a love of flattery that bordered on arrogance. Usually this would come at the expense of whomever happened to be outshining him as the master.
He was a consummate AMOG, but with no real legitimacy. At one point we had an important negotiation with a Chinese distributor to get our brands into an Asian market and as he’d typically do he wanted to entertain the reps over dinner after a big trade show we’d met them at. They were impressed with me because I was responsible for the creative side of the company, but even with my own deferential credits to my ‘boss’ he took it as an opportunity to AMOG me in front of his new ‘friends’.
I actually saw this coming (it’d happened on other occasions) and I had a good prior knowledge of the sensibilities of the Chinese from my time in doing casino marketing, so I diplomatically let him hang himself with his self-aggrandizement and bluster at my expense. Predictably the reps were off-put by this and we lost the distribution. The good news was that about a year and a half later I was offered a string of very lucrative branding contracts for several of this Asian company’s holdings (2 of which I still front now) because of this patience and letting my boss implode. And all I did was see it coming and let him convict himself.
Every AMOG has a weakness to exploit. Sometimes discovering this requires a patience most guys simply don’t want to wait around for, but with a bit of tact and attention it doesn’t take long. I think the older a man gets the easier it is to judge the character of others (or it should) – you experience the “types” enough to gauge a predictable character action.
There’s an old, but fantastic breakdown of the classic Boyfriend Destroyer script on RSD Nation. I wont repost it here, but if you take a moment to read the script, the premise is one of breaking down a boyfriend’s reputation by indirectly whittling away at the most predictable areas of contention in most relationships. Emphasize his Beta attributes while leading (not telling) her to consider and appreciate your Alpha attributes.
Yes, it’s bad form, and yes, your efforts would be better applied to new prospective plates to spin instead of working on some girl with a boyfriend. However, it is an excellent study in understanding how to deconstruct an AMOG and learning his thumbscrews.
Amused Mastery isn’t just a technique to hold women’s attention, it’s also an effective tool in defusing an AMOG. Once you have an understanding of that AMOG’s weakness – a penchant for self-aggrandizement, a taste for booze or a kind of woman, lack of legitimate ambition, Beta thinking/behavioral tendencies, etc. – the plan then becomes one of emphasizing those character flaws indirectly by exemplifying counter-strengths to those weaknesses.
Women love a man who Just Gets It, and the best, playful way of expressing that is with Amused Mastery; but it’s even more sexy when that Mastery extends to men who she perceives are your intersexual rivals. This then, by association, compliments her ego for your Amused Mastery of her.
February 4th, 2015 at 9:06 pm
So is it that your BF is not alpha enough? Not passing your tests? Maybe not as successful financially as you would like?
Taking your self description at face value, you would be a desirable woman in a number of ways, worthy of a good man. If the answers to those questions is true, then you need a different man. He is not “trustable” to you to relax into his frame.
Otherwise, you are in fact in an RP relationship and I’m not clear what your concern is. Is it just that the rhetoric of the femists and blank slatists has made you uncomfortable acknowledging the non-equalist truth of your own nature and that of a complementary masc-fem relationship?
February 4th, 2015 at 9:16 pm
I’m mostly just curious about your ideology and how my relationship does and doesn’t fit into it. I am actually quite happy in my relationship. I just am not sure I have it in me to completely trust anyone in the way you’re describing. It’s not really about Feminism since I actually don’t subscribe to a lot of the modern views of feminism, it’s more that I can’t help but see the flaws in any human being.
The most alpha guy in the world will still be imperfect and so I wouldn’t be able to completely let go. I don’t begrudge him those imperfections at all either. I just don’t know how to not be aware of them.
My relationship isn’t completely equal and I’m fine with that, I think it’s realistic. I was just wondering what you guys think about relationships where the woman encourages the guy to improve himself for the good of both parties.
February 4th, 2015 at 9:25 pm
here we go again
this time it’s “submissive in bed, sexual person, no gag reflex, amazing body”
before with the other personae, we had IQ 148, everybody she slept with wanted to marry her, alpha female etc.
and, imo, we’ve had the “male” version of this, a guy who was so hawt he just got women without any game
they show up, they disappear, it’s bogus
February 4th, 2015 at 9:27 pm
“I’m mostly just curious about your ideology and how my relationship does and doesn’t fit into it…I was just wondering what you guys think about relationships where the woman encourages the guy to improve himself for the good of both parties.”
A complete lack of even RP101.
Do your homework. We have given you good direction where to look. Come back when you have something to offer us.
February 4th, 2015 at 9:30 pm
February 4th, 2015 at 9:39 pm
That’s nice. Got some more?
I lived with a 9 who wanted to marry me after 5 years even though I had little money. I broke it off instead because her behavior was unacceptable to me.
Are you going to read Deida’s The way of The Superior Man? Athol Kay MMSL 2009?
Then you will know how your relationship fits into reality, not “our ideology”
February 4th, 2015 at 9:39 pm
here we go:
http://www.xojane.com/beauty/grown-up-goth
February 4th, 2015 at 9:42 pm
and
http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/a-portrait-of-my-dad-dnpa/
February 4th, 2015 at 9:45 pm
here’s the BF goes to strip clubs story:
http://www.thefrisky.com/2014-01-24/girl-talk-my-boyfriend-goes-to-strip-clubs-and-i-dont-care/
February 4th, 2015 at 9:48 pm
Yes, I’m a writer. You got me?
February 4th, 2015 at 9:52 pm
I am who I say I am.
And yeah, sure I will read it. Sounds interesting.
February 4th, 2015 at 9:52 pm
lots of fun stuff:
http://www.xojane.com/issues/this-is-the-best-ive-ever-looked-and-the-worst-ive-ever-felt
This Is The Best I’ve Ever Looked And The Worst I’ve Ever Felt
“Apparently, you can’t possibly have real problems if you’re attractive.”
February 4th, 2015 at 9:55 pm
Thank you for the trip down memory lane, but I’m aware of my body of work. I appreciate the effort you’re putting into this…is there actually a point or are you just expanding my readership?
February 4th, 2015 at 9:56 pm
this woman writes lots, here’s the last link I’ll post:
http://www.xojane.com/sex/girl-talk-i-did-everything-wrong-but-i-still-found-love
I Broke All the Dating Rules and I Still Found Love
It seemed like a better idea to just say, “I like being choked, is that a problem for you?” than to get emotionally invested in someone before realizing we wanted different things.
February 4th, 2015 at 10:00 pm
Oh my god all my work! How did you find it?! It’s almost like it was posted publically or something.
…what are you trying to do exactly? You’re officially too into me now, it’s a turn off.
February 4th, 2015 at 10:02 pm
your backstory matches what you said here, won’t treat you as bogus
February 4th, 2015 at 10:04 pm
Yeah. Wasn’t kidding about the whole honestly thing so…
February 4th, 2015 at 10:25 pm
Back to the topic of AMOG… The opening scene of Schindler’s List is a great one.
What’s missing from this clip is Liam Neeson prepping at home, dressing up, attiring himself properly, collecting money from all over his apartment (typical in the days before checks/plastic)… then he very smoothly tips the waiter to get a prime table… he scopes the room. At the end of the scene, which is fairly long, he has every person in the room wanting to party with him. He could have gone home with any woman there, and the guys might not have even minded. To me, that’s a great example of what Rollo’s trying to get across with the reality of AMOG, rather than the preconceived notion of an antagonizer.
February 4th, 2015 at 10:25 pm
“My relationship isn’t completely equal and I’m fine with that, I think it’s realistic. I was just wondering what you guys think about relationships where the woman encourages the guy to improve himself for the good of both parties.”
Inter-sexual relationships aren’t by nature equal. They are complementary. Societal Feminine Imperative conventions put the equal word in your mind.
And you are compelled to say the first sentence.
When the female questions whether the woman encourages the guy to improve himself for the good of both parties , I would translate the question into how can my man make more money so the woman can benefit by it.
Not that there is anything wrong with that. Totally imprinted into your DNA.
My Spidey sense tells me he is not producing enough revenue.
We are not picking on you. You are young and not well read. Harsh red pill truths will make you a better woman. If you want to be. Be the best Woman you can be.
February 4th, 2015 at 10:32 pm
@Kristine Rose
Sounds like more apples-and-oranges unfortunately. Alpha is not a rating system for male value, it’s a state of mind. You need to read more before commenting. It’s fine to be curious, but you gotta get some basics down.
February 4th, 2015 at 10:33 pm
Not about money at all! I just want my guy to be happy. Urging him to stand up for himself more (this was years ago when we were both very young, no knock on him now) has made him a happier person, he’s told me that. It had nothing to do with money.
I will read those things, sounds interesting. I am well read, just not on this topic. I wasn’t even aware of The Red Pill till like a month or so ago, obviously haven’t done all the required reading yet.
I don’t feel like anyone has picked on me. This was actually quite civil and fair, the whole thing. No hard feelings or anything.
February 4th, 2015 at 10:36 pm
I know, that’s not what I meant. I was saying even if I am attracted to someone’s state of mind because they’re alpha, I might not be able to get past their flaws.
That’s fair that I should read more, I will.
I hope I’m making sense…sorry, on cold meds.
February 4th, 2015 at 10:42 pm
@badpainter
“You always pay for it.
There’s no such thing as free. The only question. Is whether it’s better to pay with labor in exchange for money, or pay with the time and the energy needed for game. Either way sex is sex. There’s nothing special or meaningful in the experience. Anyone who believes there is suffering a blue pill dilusion.”
If “meaningful” is from an idealistic or fantastical perspective, then I agree. Anything ideal or fantastical is meaningless because it isn’t real.
I disagree if “meaningful” is from a realistic perspective. Relationships can be very enjoyable and that is “meaningful”.
“You always have to pay for it” implies a negative and self defeating mentality. Women want it as bad as we do. They just approach it from a different perspective than us. Those who enjoy a healthy amount of sex and satisfying relationships do not think they “have to pay for it” in any way. You do not have to negotiate for it by any means. A potential partner who desires you will not attempt to barter any “payment”. Their desire will be unmistakable if you know what to look,for. You will not need to bribe them in any way.
I think most of us men miss opportunities because we do not read the subtle clues women give us. They are under more pressure than us due to competition and their shorter lived sex appeal. Traditionally, they do not overtly “make the first move”. Sometimes we are clueless because we focus on ourselves and our insecurities too much and distract ourselves from what is going on around us. A woman is likely to feel rejected or undesired and move on when a man does not reciprocate her subtle hints.
February 4th, 2015 at 10:44 pm
Just Get It
http://therationalmale.com/2012/08/22/just-get-it/
February 4th, 2015 at 10:45 pm
I agree!
February 4th, 2015 at 10:48 pm
It didn’t make me despise him because it was a rare thing. If I had to do that with every facet of his personality, it would. One thing here or there? No, I personally don’t hold that against someone. No one is perfect.
February 4th, 2015 at 10:54 pm
You’re too young to realize that a man’s ready willingness to change himself for a woman’s intimacy is not as rare as you want to believe it is. It’s not a rare character strength, it’s a character flaw.
February 4th, 2015 at 10:57 pm
lol, fantastic quote from Rogan… I’d never heard that one.
February 4th, 2015 at 11:02 pm
The thing is, he wasn’t changing himself for me. I simply vocalized something that he disliked about himself to begin with. That tendency to avoid conflict came from a WASPY upbringing upstate. My guy realized that it was not a mindset that would serve him in NYC and that his actions were dictated by fear. If he did not agree himself that it was something that needed to change, he wouldn’t have changed it.
I have also said things should change that he did not agree with and he did not change those things, which makes me respect him.
I think if someone is a good leader, in the context of a relationship or otherwise, the ability to listen to honest criticism is important. Realizing they are not perfect is also important. Being able to do this and change some things without becoming submissive is a strength, yes. It’s a hard line to walk, any one who can master that has my respect.
February 4th, 2015 at 11:04 pm
In fact, judging from what you’ve written at 23 y.o., your initial question here and even just your newfound interest in Red Pill truths, my guess is your latent purpose is reconciling your having to tell your BF to be more Alpha to stimulate your flagging interest with what your equalsit conditioning has told you you should want in a guy.
As I mentioned in my comment to you, the tingles you get from more Alpha men are conflicting with the Beta comfort and familiarity your BF provides you with.
February 4th, 2015 at 11:11 pm
Thats a good guess, and I see where it comes from, but that’s not the case. I’m completely happy with my boyfriend now. The situation I was talking about happened years ago. I was slightly less attracted to him during that time but that faded when he stepped up and now he does not fit any of the beta descriptions and our sex life is pho nominal, actually.
I’m not here cause I’m lacking anything in my relationship, I’m just trying to learn about social behavior cause it’s interesting. If anything I am looking to figure out why out of all my friends, I’m one of the only girls in a happy relationship. I’d like some insight on why and how so I can share it with friends who come to me for advice.
February 4th, 2015 at 11:13 pm
Kristine,
What should he do to improve himself for the good of both parties and what needs to happen for you to completely let go, completely trust someone?
February 4th, 2015 at 11:19 pm
He pretty much fixed any of the things I had issue with in the past. Mainly not standing up for himself. He also once told me I was his best friend and I didn’t think that was healthy. I encouraged him to connect more with other people and now he considers his roommate his best friend. I think it’s been good for him to have another guy to confide in.
As far as making me let go completely? I don’t know that he can do anything realistic that would make me do that. It’s honestly not his fault. I’ve had some bad experiences with the incompetence of others that had nothing to do with him and that’s carried over for me. I get that that’s not fair, but I don’t know if I can change it. I don’t know that I tltallh need to, since we are happy as we are but it’s a thing about myself I try to understand.
February 4th, 2015 at 11:21 pm
Kristine, your questions/comments now are so night-and-day different from your original question. A little reminder…
And now you’re talking about how your current relationship is awesome, your boyfriend is a fine leader, and you’re just trying to understand why that is so…
Either I’m missing something, or you’ve essentially reversed course in your questioning. Now you seem not to care about “submitting” to a “frame”, when initially you seemed to be questioning the very idea of doing so.
Am I reading this right?
February 4th, 2015 at 11:30 pm
@kristine rose
I have three questions for you
1, why did you become Goth?
2,why you’re not jealous?
3,do you think you’re bi?
Ps, your relationship is 98% on its last leg.
February 4th, 2015 at 11:37 pm
Kristine,
It is good that you encouraged him to stand up for himself. His friends, parents, etc should also encourage that. No one can do a better job of standing up for him than himself (if he applies himself) and it is his responsibility.
Life is full of risk and although we all make plans the real future Can be unpredictable. This makes life a little scary sometimes, but it also makes life fun and exciting. It is good that you are cautious but remember, nothing ventured, nothing gained. You are young, but life is short. You are considering your options and there is nothing wrong with that, in fact that process should never end as long as you live.
February 4th, 2015 at 11:38 pm
Funny how those things all seem to coincide with what you wanted him to change about himself in the first place don’t you think?
A tendency to avoid conflict is the hallmark of a Beta mindset. Do you think he picked up on your hesitation with him because of it? Did he mention the NYC rationalization for wanting to be more Alpha (such as it is) before or after you told him he needed to be more dominant with you?
No doubt you did, but what exactly were those things he refused to change about himself? Drinking? Nerdy hobbies? Passivity? Come to think of it, why would you need to ask him to change anything if you had any suspicion he would resist your requests?
You should read Mutiny. I think being able to parse the difference between honest criticism and a shit testing challenge to a man’s respectability is more important in determining if he’s a good leader – or a guy you want to fuck. You see women want a man who other men want to be and other women want to fuck. Does that describe your BF? Are you worried he might cheat on you? Do other women want a shot at him?
Unfortunately hypergamy doesn’t really care about respect. Have you ever had sex with a guy you didn’t respect?
The trick with respect is that you can only demonstrate respectability, you can’t explicate it. Observing a process will change that process. Would you have more respect for your BF if he was already assertive and dominant with you without having to tell him to be? If he’d been that way when you first met him would you be writing about all the discontentedness for feel?
One reason I command respect with the (very attractive) ‘pour girls’ I select for my promo teams is because it stems from an earned mastery that flows naturally from me. No one ‘tells’ me to assert myself because it’s part of how I interact with people – my demeanor presumes an already understood respect even to men and women I’ve just met at an event.
Is this a presence you BF possesses naturally? It doesn’t really sound like it from what you’ve related so far.
February 4th, 2015 at 11:41 pm
”
Fascinating how Kristine, LivingTree, Alpha Female, Trunig Star, and Kryptokate all have similar writing styles, common problems and similar “fascinations” with “Red Pill” guys.
Just saying…
”
Guys its the SAME FUCKING PERSON!
Take the HINT
February 4th, 2015 at 11:49 pm
That’s a good question and I see why it might be confusing. Basically I was asking if you should subscribe to a guys frame because he is simply a man, or because he has proven himself to be a good leader.
In my particular situation, my boyfriend has already proven himself. I do subscribe to his frame, but not absolutely 100% of the time.
I am submissive about certain things because of who my boyfriend is as a person, not just because he is a guy. And so I was just wondering if he didn’t prove himself to be a good leader, you guys would think I should submit anyway just because I am a woman. I think my boyfriend is a good leader, but I am skeptical that every single man is one. That’s what I meant. Why should I take it for granted that every man knows more than me, not just some of them.
Questioning something doesn’t mean I never do that thing. I just try to think critically about everything that I do. My relationship fits some of the Red Pill, but probably not all of it. I wanted the sales pitch. Basically “I enjoy the New York Times, but why should I buy a subscription?”
February 4th, 2015 at 11:50 pm
@Nathan, I doubt they’re the same person, but it’s interesting how common women’s ‘themes’ are to each other.
February 4th, 2015 at 11:56 pm
@Kristine Rose
No. That is wrong. You’re mixing cause and effect.
What we think is, as a woman, you will not want to accept a situation where you have to lead. This doesn’t imply obligation based on the accident of X-vs-Y chromosomes, it describes the mean optimum that exists because of evolution.
February 4th, 2015 at 11:56 pm
Alpha and Leader are not synonymous.
Would you submit to a woman if she exemplified those ‘certain things’? Are those ‘certain things’ dependent upon the intersexual aspect of your relationship? In other words are those certain things context dependent on you being in an intimate relationship with a man?
February 5th, 2015 at 12:03 am
I absolutely don’t fuck guys I don’t respect. I’ve only fucked 3 people and I’m 25.
They were things that I brought up and then he thought about them and asked his friends what they thought and he realized that not being more assertive was keeping him back.
I think the stuff I wanted him to change was like just being more extroverted, but that’s just not who he is and I understand that.
It didn’t come naturally to him at first but he was young. I don’t expect everyone to be at 25 who they’re going to be for the rest of their lives. That’s insane. It’s something he had to learn, and he learned it.
February 5th, 2015 at 12:04 am
Really not the same person…
February 5th, 2015 at 12:05 am
Jesus would ya lookit this attention whore?
Surprised you guys aren’t bored with her yet.
February 5th, 2015 at 12:06 am
Yeah, that’s true. I lead enough things in the rest of my life, leading a relationship would be a burden. I wasn’t sure where you stood on that, so that’s why I asked. Now I know.
February 5th, 2015 at 12:07 am
Thank you! Yes, I’m just exploring my options right now.
February 5th, 2015 at 12:09 am
I just liked goth music and aesthetic.
I’m not jealous because I’m not insecure. I know what I have to offer. Insecurity is weakness. I also don’t want someone to only be with me because they have no other option.
I am a little bi, yeah. We have talked recently about having a threesome and I am excited about it. So, yeah. A little bi.
We are absolutely not on the verge of collapse but thanks for the concern!
February 5th, 2015 at 12:11 am
Yeah, it would have to be with a man. Only certain men though. It depends who it is.
I can like girls, but don’t feel submissive to them, personally.
I’m into BDSM though, so not sure how much of it is that.
February 5th, 2015 at 12:12 am
I’m just sick and stuck in the house, dude!
Netflix only goes so far…
February 5th, 2015 at 12:22 am
I’m gonna be a bit harsh here.
A woman like K rose is HB3. She wanted attention at an early age, so what to do, ,she becomes Goth (you know the rest).
And now she’s here enjoying the attention being given to her.
All she/women wants is attention.
February 5th, 2015 at 12:26 am
@Mr. T
In my experience, goth chicks are just cluster b histrionic messes 100% of the time. Attention whoring is pretty much a religion among them.
February 5th, 2015 at 12:31 am
Really, honestly just bored.
And 3?! Are you insane? I’m not fat. I might not be your thing, and that’s fine. But 3? Nope, discarding everything you say now.
February 5th, 2015 at 12:33 am
I’m sorry you’re so butt hurt that I’m taking the attention away from you.
That is not a fucking 3:
February 5th, 2015 at 12:42 am
She posting more pics of her below-average-at-best mug trying to convince us she’s hot and not an attention whore.
Oh, the irony.
February 5th, 2015 at 12:45 am
Sure, why not? I’m BORED.
And I bet you’re one of those guys who rates supermodels a 5 while balding and having a pot belly.
February 5th, 2015 at 12:55 am
@Jeremy
The opening scene of Schindler’s List is a great one.
Ahhh, yeah that would definitely be a good example. The guy every guy in the room wants to be and every woman wants to be with. That’s really kinda how I’ve always pictured an alpha guy to be anyway. Belligerent Hollywood-style alphas don’t last past high school really. I had to deal with more than a few back then, but they typically failed once they got out there in the real world.
Case in point: my sister’s (now) ex-husband. Was her high school boyfriend, quarterback with a thuggish, bullying, shitty attitude. She got her Physician’s Assistant, he… barely managed to pass college and become a History teacher so he could try to go back and relive the glory days as a high school football coach. Haven’t heard the whole story from her yet, but I’m betting the divorce happened when he couldn’t hold a job or put together an intelligent sounding sentence to save his life for over 10 years.
Gotta be a likeable alpha to make it in the real world over the long haul.
February 5th, 2015 at 12:58 am
Funny how women commentators comes here with their NORMAL 50% brain capacity only to have it implode later.
Regarding the AMOG,
When women are with betas they buy into the guy who is AMOG but they don’t dare if they were with an Alpha.
Women know exactly what the score is.
February 5th, 2015 at 12:58 am
Now I got it.
Sub in the dungeon, Dom in public. Most women into (overt) BDSM have issues with reconciling their desire for being dominated by a man and submitting to him in any other aspect of life.
Not surprised you felt the need to ask him to be more dominant. It’s not about his asserting himself with others it’s about your need for a genuinely dominant man giving you tingles. You want him to dominate you, but it doesn’t come naturally to him.
It sounds better to promote the image of him being a socially dominant character who’s come into it because you want that guy to BE the character you fantasize he is in the dungeon.
You want a guy who’s genuinely dangerous, objectifying and powerful when you’re having sex, but you want the security and trust that comes from knowing he’s really safe, in control and socially dominant enough to ensure your security with his decisions.
That’s why BDSM is appealing to feminists. The dominance gets them off because it’s wrong, a taboo they shouldn’t really like because the feminist dogma says it’s disgusting to submit to a man (especially for an “empowered” woman), but the fantasy aspect of it legitimizes the desire and separates the “real” woman from the “sex act” woman.
February 5th, 2015 at 1:02 am
I like arguing with people. It’s fun. How is that imploding? You don’t even mean what you said. You just hate me because you feel threatened that people are having a real conversation with me. I don’t get it.
February 5th, 2015 at 1:08 am
Imagine her without the Goth look, no jewelry, her natural brown hair, all piercings removed, in a long whit tshirt and walmart panties, and she just rolled over to smile at you in bed at 7am.
I’d still rate her a 4.5 for being thin. Maybe an HB5 if she was an energetic fuck and gave a good hummer. That’s a compliment. I employ exceptionally attractive women and I do have very high standards.
Not to worry though, when you reach 29 and you’re ready to “get it right this time” with a reliable but less exciting Beta he’ll think he hit the jackpot when you tell him how wild you used to be in your younger days.
February 5th, 2015 at 1:09 am
I really am satisfied in my relationship. Really guys, I’ve been honest about everything else, if I wasn’t happy I would just say that! I don’t want everyone to judge my guy over one anecdote that happened like 3 years ago.
In 5 years there has been like 1 or 2 areas I wish he was more dominant in. In 5 years. I don’t feel like that’s a lot.
I do think there is a real life element of danger there too, and the reasons I like all of those things sound pretty spot on, yeah.
February 5th, 2015 at 1:12 am
“You just hate me…”
Typical.
Man refuses to be/play nice, woman accuses him of hating her. Do women not really grasp the concept of hate, or is the default insecurity really that great?
I for one would like to thank Kristine for coming here to provide more anecdotal evidence to prove Redpill theory.
February 5th, 2015 at 1:14 am
I don’t literally mean “hate”, jeez. He IS acting butt hurt though.
February 5th, 2015 at 1:16 am
@Rollo
I’d say 4 without the goth shit at best. I can’t even call her a situational 5. The histrionics would make it impossible for me to tolerate her long enough to find out if the fuck was worth anything. Might take a hummer though. Can’t hear the attitude with a cock in her mouth.
February 5th, 2015 at 1:16 am
Well, I naturally have red hair, but I can sort of see what you mean. I’m planet without that for sure, fashion is an art for a reason.
This is mean without make up and jewelry:
I’m still cute. 3 is someone who’s ugly, so I thought that was insane.
February 5th, 2015 at 1:18 am
What happened to all of the smart people? I miss them.
*yawn*
February 5th, 2015 at 1:19 am
When I rated her HB3 I was being nice.
To tell you the truth, ,,she is HB1, she’s not even a classy Goth, she’s a tacky Goth,i wouldn’t even look at her nude.
February 5th, 2015 at 1:20 am
Ah, I see “hate” is just a rhetorical ploy. Why do y’all go straight to hate? Why couldn’t you just stop at butthurt?
February 5th, 2015 at 1:23 am
Speaking in hyperbole is kind of a common thing, I assumed everyone knew what I meant.
February 5th, 2015 at 1:23 am
“…fashion is an art for a reason.”
Same with camouflage.
February 5th, 2015 at 1:25 am
Hahaha. Wow. You are making it SO clear that this all stems from bitterness. Which makes no sense, cause I did nothing to you.
I’m gonna go, cause nothing about this is challenging or interesting.
February 5th, 2015 at 1:26 am
@BP
Ah, I see “hate” is just a rhetorical ploy. Why do y’all go straight to hate? Why couldn’t you just stop at butthurt?
You know that evidence of Red Pill theory? It’s gotta be provided somehow. Nice to know my assessment of goths as a bad idea remains firmly intact as well.
February 5th, 2015 at 1:28 am
Guys, I’m not even actually upset. I find this amusing. No one else speaks in hyperbole when arguing on the Internet? I’m hardly hysterical for doing that.
February 5th, 2015 at 1:31 am
February 5th, 2015 at 1:34 am
“I’m gonna go, cause nothing about this is challenging or interesting.”
More hyperbole?
February 5th, 2015 at 2:25 am
Rollo writes “That’s why BDSM is appealing to feminists. The dominance gets them off because it’s wrong, a taboo they shouldn’t really like because the feminist dogma says it’s disgusting to submit to a man (especially for an “empowered” woman), but the fantasy aspect of it legitimizes the desire and separates the “real” woman from the “sex act” woman”
That’s brilliant. I slept with some feminist women only to hear them screaming (while fuckin) TAKE ME TAKE ME. And another one screaming kill me kill me and to tell you the truth; that one scared me!!.
February 5th, 2015 at 2:25 am
“Men are not hardwired for Game. They probably are hardwired for rape and dominance.
Once gut level violence is tempered, men want to be the hero, the doer, who is rewarded for his deeds by a woman or women. ”
Ok – once a developed country starts to finally apply the untold masses of knowledge about human biology, eugenic selection and maximum technical and social advancement of civilization (e.g. by switfly and effciently eleminating scum alphas, systemic parasites and the constantly rising number of genetic deseases by…well, head-shot) – give me a call.
Because part of that but be to instantly take away a large degree of female mate choice for obviuos resons – female mate choice in a civilzed enviroment is like a high pressure cooker used in the wrong enviroment – it explodes (erodes) modern societies because it works according to formerly well-adpated but in today’s world highly-destructive patterns, scanning for a randomly selected combination of “Artist-social-value-Gengis-Khan-Provider” produced by evolution.
“Game is inherently feminine, an admission that women have won. Game involving talking and “communication” – does that sound masculine?”
Yeah, right – under the condition that you ignore the social context of like…everything else. ;-) (no offence intended)
The alternative to that is either:
a) getting no/far less good pussy, b/c the rest of the western world doesn’t care about a few guys being “masculine” by throwing away a perfect tool (–> Hypergamy doesn’t care about internal judgments about what “masculine” is, it votes with giving sex.)
or
b) waiting for some kind of massive, almost magical systematic political change – but who wants to spend their lifes waiting for that…
or
c) some version of something like national socialism or ISIS-like social system magically conquers our sphere – loyal followers are rewarded by induldging in (almost unfettered) masculine impulses while the rest of the remaining humans (literally) burn.
The fantastic and/or dystopian (depending on the point of view) nature of the alternatives to applying game as a non-apex-alpha should clearly show you why game is the only way to go for the “moment” (moment = our current period in the west)
February 5th, 2015 at 2:33 am
“Rollo writes “That’s why BDSM is appealing to feminists. The dominance gets them off because it’s wrong, a taboo they shouldn’t really like because the feminist dogma says it’s disgusting to submit to a man (especially for an “empowered” woman), but the fantasy aspect of it legitimizes the desire and separates the “real” woman from the “sex act” woman”
That’s brilliant. I slept with some feminist women only to hear them screaming (while fuckin) TAKE ME TAKE ME. And another one screaming kill me kill me and to tell you the truth; that one scared me!!.”
I strongly agree with Rollo & Mr. T.
Things/actions that are called BDSM or can be put into that category (which can even be acts without any fetish objetcs, basically even normal, hard sex where the man just has his way with a female can be put there by twisting semantics) just *concentrate and thereby CORNER* all of femininity into ONE corner of the spectrum of life: Sex.
That explains a lot – from the massive number of Shades of Grey-Copies sold to the (sometimes almost comical) attempt of many young women to be “sexually perverted” even if they are not:
It is the only socially acceptable form known to them to be truly female today: By being a “whore”.
Only banged one feminist – can just add +1 to the description above – the more feminst bullshit they talk, the more they desire to be a sex slave or even an abused victim(!) in the bedroom. +1 to “explanations for rape hysteria” btw. :-D
February 5th, 2015 at 3:35 am
It was amusing that Kristine got us to AMOG her BF for her.
I wonder if she is clever enough to have planned that from the beginning.
February 5th, 2015 at 3:47 am
I was just curious what people’s opinions were. That’s all.
February 5th, 2015 at 5:06 am
Men Create; Women Support or Destroy
When you look at history and philosophy, whether East or West, men create, discover, invent, repair, innovate, fix, lead – they represent reason and strength. Patriarchs.
Women represent the nurturing and supporting. They’re emotional, passive and receptive. You can also see these things in folk tales.
In one sentence you can say men represent the Head and women the Heart.
Now what happens when they go bad? Men use their use their strength for evil, or else they become weak. They withdraw. These days, since they’re attempts at discovering and everything else is being thwarted, they’re withdrawing and becoming weak – bros hanging together or playing video games in their basement. Or Men Going Their Own Way. Or Pick-Up Artists. Or Manginas.
These things happen when women don’t support men, that is, nurture. And if they don’t nurture and support, then they destroy. And when I say they’re passive and receptive, that means they’re herd creatures, and if they don’t listen to men in their passivity and receptivity, they’ll listen to stupid female leaders and suck up their nonsense. They can become far more evil than men.
I don’t think it’s all that hard to understand the differences between men and women.
http://uncabob.blogspot.com/2014/05/men-create-women-support-or-destroy.html
February 5th, 2015 at 5:09 am
“The Shit Test Fallacy”
I’m actually amused that some men really think shit tests exist. I’ve never been shit tested in my life, and none of my friends have. If a woman likes you, she’s not going to insult you and perhaps drive you away.
I’d had women insult me. None of them were attractive and some of them were grotesque. They were all hostile and had some pretty significant issues.
As I’ve mentioned before, believing in shit tests is a way for losers to pretend they’re “alphas.” If they see shit tests everywhere, it’s just a way to raise their self-esteem. “She’s insulting me! I must be an Alpha!” Whatever.
This article is from Lifestyle Journey for Men and I have no idea who wrote it.
“In the seduction community men are taught that women give men ‘shit tests’ in order to weed out the non-dominant, wimpy men. The premise is that if you pass these so-called tests, you stay in the game, and if you fail these tests a woman will lose interest in you.
“I used to be a strong believer in this but eventually I came to the conclusion that women who are genuinely interested in a man don’t test him. Instead, they go along with him and make things easy for him. In other words, when a woman likes you and wants to get with you she doesn’t try to throw up obstacles, such as ‘tests’. So what’s going on? Why is the ‘shit test’ concept so ingrained in the PUA mindset?
“One reason is because its description is so vague. A shit test can be described as anything a woman does which can be interpreted as a ‘negative’. If she asks you a strange question, it’s a shit test. If she challenges you on your behaviour, it’s a shit test. If she asks you if you’re gay, it’s a shit test.
“Many practicing PUAs get so-called shit tests for the simple reason that they act so damn weird, and when women bring attention to this behaviour or react negatively to it, voila… it’s a shit test.
“‘Why are you wearing dorky clothes?’
“The PUA interpretation: It’s a shit test.
“‘We’ve heard that line before.’
“The PUA interpretation: It’s a shit test.
“‘Are you gay?’
“The PUA interpretation: It’s a shit test.
“If you are a guy who is using PUA material, consider that your behaviour might come across as a little strange, to say the least. So not surprising, some women may call you out on that behaviour. And to you that will seem like a shit test.
“Shit tests also appear to occur when you act confrontational and cocky, and when a woman gives you a taste of your own medicine (i.e. she does the same to you), you interpret that as a shit test.
“In the seduction community, the half-assed evolutionary explanation for shit tests is that women (especially attractive women) need some way to quickly judge men’s ‘worthiness’. So they ‘throw up’ seemingly crazy questions without purpose in order to achieve that goal. But regardless, you have to pass the tests or you are out!
“If she asks you why you are wearing dorky clothes you have to say something like, ‘What is it you like about dorky clothes?’
“If she says she heard that line before you have to say something like, ‘I only used that line 300 times today’.
“If she asks if you are gay you have to say something like, ‘You’re almost as good looking as my last boyfriend’.
“These might diffuse the situation and even get a laugh out of her, and in some ways they are good responses, but they are no more than fast remedies to a situation that you created. The truth is that you would not have to learn to pass shit tests such as these if you don’t use PUA material, which is what triggers these type of negative reactions to begin with.
“If you act normal and a girl wants to get with you, she will never ‘shit test’ you.
“The other point to make is that, from an evolutionary standpoint, women can’t really test men for ‘alpha’ traits because alpha men don’t care to pass tests, women’s or otherwise. In addition, it doesn’t make sense for women to test men for manliness because manly men would never even entertain the thought that women are testing them, and would not feel that they need to pass their tests if they do. In a real man’s mind, either she likes me or she doesn’t. So the whole idea of women testing would never show up on a real man’s radar, therefore it would be an unnecessary screening mechanism for women to have. And since evolution takes the most economical path, testing would never become an active part of women’s psyche.
“But PUA’s argument is that women test men unconsciously, which is why women are unaware that they do it. This is just a clever way of hiding the improbability of something under the veil of ‘unconscious action’. If someone denies that they do something you just say they do it unconsciously, and for some that would shut down debate. But for the more intelligent there is another plausible explanation. It just doesn’t exist, period.
“In defense of the shit test, some PUAs say that they only ended up having sex with women because they passed tests. To that I would refer them to the above argument. They probably said or did some weird things, directly from the PUA guide book, and the women reacted negatively to it. But they managed to deflect it and still ended up getting the girl. In this case it would then seem that passing shit tests is important. But it’s a circular type of argument. A causes B. C fixes B. Therefore B and C are valid.
“An extension of this is the PUA belief that women shit test you because they are attracted to you, and they just need to make sure you are the real deal. This is nonsense because women who are attracted don’t generally want to fuck up their chances with you by giving you a hard time. However, if you act weird or confrontational then she might respond in kind by giving you what appears to be a shit test. This illustrates the following faulty logic: A woman is attracted to you. You act weird or confrontational. Result, she tests you. Therefore, women who are attracted shit test you.
“PUAs say that if a woman isn’t shit testing you then she isn’t into you. Let’s look at this one more closely. Let’s say I’m a PUA and a girl is not testing me or giving me a hard time. I then conclude that she isn’t interested in me (yet). So what I do is reach into my PUA bag of tricks and start doing cocky-funny, teasing or whatever. As a result she starts giving me a hard time (shit test), but not because she’s becoming attracted, but because I’m acting weird and she’s reacting negatively to that. But I just figure she’s becoming attracted, so I keep at it. Eventually she just walks away. And from that I conclude that I failed her shit tests. I then go back to the drawing board feeling that I made some progress because I did manage to attract her after all, and I just need to polish my shit-test-passing competency skills. But what really happened was that she saw me as a weirdo and I alienated her with my behaviour. The truth is that she might have liked me and that’s why she wasn’t testing me or giving me a hard time to begin with. But I interpreted that as a lack of attraction and started doing things which I thought would attract her. But it just drove her away.
“Consider that PUAs often say that the best reaction to a shit test is to ignore it. In other words, pretend it doesn’t exist, and then the situation will right itself. There is in fact an important clue in this statement. If the best reaction to something is to act like it doesn’t exist, then maybe the reason for that is because it doesn’t exist to begin with. Why test someone who is seemingly unaware they are being tested, and then reward them for their ignorance? Remember, evolution takes the most economical path, and such testing could never exist.
“If a woman likes you and wants to get with you, and assuming you act normal, she will never “test” you. That’s all there is to it.
“But if it happens that a woman is genuinely testing a man, then she is screening not for alpha men, but for approval seekers, since only an approval seeker would care about passing tests. But this is hardly normal female behaviour. It is the behaviour of an abnormal woman who is likely just trying to push a man’s buttons in order to get the (possibly angry) reaction she is seeking, because that excites her. This type of behaviour tends to screen for abusive men who have little or no control over their emotions.
“The other possibility is that some women give men a hard time because they themselves have issues, possibly stemming from their inability to enjoy intimacy. And if you do manage to push through their resistance you will find the sex to be very lacking, and your time together filled with drama and bullshit. This further proves that shit testing is not real because there is no real ‘reward’ for passing. The best sex and company is with women who don’t test or give a hard time.
“Also keep in mind that the shit test concept has the potential to boost women’s ego. Women who already think highly of themselves will tend to embrace the idea that men have to pass their tests. This fits well with their world view that they are the prize and that they are above criticism for their actions. In their mind, ‘I’m not being a bitch. I’m just testing to see how much of a man he is’.
“The shit test concept is the result of looking too closely at the little details without regard for the big picture. It’s the kind of faulty left-brained type logic that involves lots of analysis, but not much thinking.”
http://uncabob.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-shit-test-fallacy.html
February 5th, 2015 at 5:10 am
The “Red Pill” Has Been Around For A Long Time
Taking the Red Pill is just a metaphor, and the idea of taking it and suddenly you see the truth isn’t the way it works. Sometimes, people don’t take the Red Pill at all; they just exchange one Matrix for another. For example, thinking that women are soulless loveless hypergamous sluts (that is, destroyers), and that Alpha/Beta/Whatever really does exist (grandiose false self, devalued false self). That’s exchanging one Matrix for another, the latter being in some ways better and some ways worse.
Actually, all of us are in the Matrix and we can never get out. The Matrix, ultimately, if of our own choosing.
If you look at the past, at history and myth and stories, you’ll find men found their way out of the Matrix a lot better than we have.
One, men are the creators, discoverers, fixers, inventors, innovators, patriarchs (rulers) – those who push the boundaries, push back the darkness, chaos and destruction, make life better. Not MGTOW, not PUAs. Not Alphas, not Betas, none of that nonsense with one pretending he’s James Bond and everyone else is Barney Fife. That’s as immature as hell.
Two, women are either nurturers or destroyers (they also destroy themselves in the process of destroying others). In other words, wives and mothers with home, husband and children, or feminists.
That’s pretty much it.
I’ve had more than one woman tell me, “Men are the cause of all the problems in the world.” No, problems exist because people and life are imperfect. And if anyone thinks men are bad as rulers, women are far worse. If women ran the world it would be a horror behind imagining. It’d collapse into chaos and anarchy.
Leftism is feminine…so the world is collapsing into chaos and anarchy. That is coming because we’re close to having a matriarchal society. I don’t see how that collapse can be avoided.
It wasn’t because of “prejudice” and “discrimination” that the Founding Fathers denied women the vote. They saw what they would do if women had political power.
Let’s put it this way: in mythology women brought evil into the world. Think Eve and Pandora. And as for being nurturers/destroyers, think Kali. Or, as the example I like to use, the Borg Queen.
Ultimately reality will reassert itself. God knows what will happen until then.
http://uncabob.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-red-pill-has-been-around-for-long.html
February 5th, 2015 at 9:04 am
@Manpersonnumber6762
“So what I do is reach into my PUA bag of tricks and start doing cocky-funny, teasing or whatever. As a result she starts giving me a hard time (shit test), but not because she’s becoming attracted, but because I’m acting weird and she’s reacting negatively to that. But I just figure she’s becoming attracted, so I keep at it. Eventually she just walks away.”
Lol? Have you ever even done an approach? Most basic PUA tools such as IOI’s can be used here to gauge attractiveness.
February 5th, 2015 at 9:11 am
@Manpersonnumber6762
Thinking shit tests do not exist is blue pill beta thinking, believing that there are different types of women out there, nice and sweet ones (never shit test you) and messed up bad ones (always shit testing) lol… You have a lot of RP reading to do.
February 5th, 2015 at 10:23 am
I’m going to be the asshole.
In one of those pictures that Kristine posted, my first thought was that she was a tranny. The way the photo made her jaw structure look, it seemed a dead giveaway at first glance.
Honestly, I doubt I would even approach her, and I don’t practice game in the field.
February 5th, 2015 at 10:42 am
Lord women are sick. The whole society is in need of an exorcism.
Let’s go back to sanity and goodness loving our neighbor and truth.
Our “king” obama is not a healthy king.
We need a.good leader and a collective repentance.
some old testament grinding the money good into dust and drinking it.
ashes and sackcloth to MAYBE turn this insanity around
February 5th, 2015 at 10:52 am
It’s Men Who Shit Test Women, Not The Other Way Around
I’ve pointed out before that one of the more egregious delusions in the Manosphere is that shit tests exist. They don’t. If any shit tests do exist, it’s men shit testing women, go see if they can pass the I’m Not a Narcissistic Psycho Bitch test. That’s why sites such as “A Shrink for Men” (over there on my blog roll on your right side) exist.
This article is from the site No Ma’am and is titled, “When Men’s Trust is Gone.”
“No fault divorce, paternity fraud, false allegations, the DV Gestapo and the fact that a woman can have a man turned into a criminal with one phone call – the list of reasons why men are absolute fools to trust any woman today just goes on and on. Sure, there are ‘exceptions’, but that argument by itself pisses me off because it fails to recognize the personal devastation that so many men have been through and any man who embarks on a personal relationship with a woman risks these days.
“As I frequently point out – only one out of six chambers of the gun is loaded in Russian Roulette, but you still don’t see everyone playing it. The 16.67% of getting your brains blown out is still far better than the approximately 40% chance a man has of having his life destroyed by a relationship with a woman.
“Men today are hyper-aware and hyper-critical. Because the law provides men absolutely no protections whatsoever, men have to protect themselves. Thus, any and every misstep by a woman, every tantrum, every irrational argument, portends the day he will be facing her in court – either in a divorce proceeding or defending himself against charges of rape.
“Pay attention here, MNIK – women today are under such an extreme level of scrutiny by men, looking for any sign of the crazy bitch lurking inside and hiding and waiting to come out until she has the guy over a legal barrel, that no human being can pass the test. Men are like the soldiers who sit watching the radar screens trying to catch the nuclear missiles coming over the pole in time to shoot them out of the sky before they leave nothing but a crater where his life used to be.
“Women have really fucked themselves, and all other women by this process.”
“It’s tough to trust a person who holds a club behind her back and says, “A club? What club? I don’t have a club.” – Jack Kammer in If Men Have All The Power, How Come Women Make The Rules?, p29
http://uncabob.blogspot.com/2014/06/its-men-who-shit-test-women-not-other.html
February 5th, 2015 at 10:52 am
“Shit Tests” Don’t Exist and Instead Are About Women Hating Men Because There Are No Men in Their Lives
“Like a gold ring in a swine’s snout/is a beautiful woman without discretion.” – (Proverbs 11:22)
“I’ve seen technically ‘hot’ women who, because of the hostility and dissatisfaction that emanates from them, have very little, if any, sex appeal.” – Bright Darkness
I’ve written about this before. My last year-and-a-half in college I lived in a studio apartment attached to a house with 12 girls in it. It was an eye-opener dealing with the women.
Two of the girls were friendly and appeared to like men. They were also popular with men (one told me she had been asked out by seven guys one weekend). Some of the others were attractive but not popular because they sat there like bumps-on-a-log and expected Prince Charming to show up. They were at times hostile to men – and me.
One was seriously hostile and not popular at all.
When I got out of college and got a job, I found my experience in college was confirmed: hostile women were never popular with men. They weren’t “shit-testing” them. Instead their hostility drove men away.
I’ll mention an example I’ve written about before.
The only dog I keep are rescue pugs. I generally kept them in my car when I go places. I kept them shaved to within a millimeter of their fur to keep them cool in the summer, and when I took them in my car I always kept the AC on, kept a gallon of water with ice in it, and always parked in the shade with the windows down. And I was never gone more than seven minutes.
One time I walked back to my car and found a woman standing about 15 feet away from my car. She was about 40, scrawny, with wraparound sunglasses. She appeared to be glaring at me. Not only that, the door to my car was ajar.
As I started to get into my car, she asked me if it was my car, and when I answered yes, she said. “I called the police because you left your dog in the car.”
She had opened the door to my car.
Things got out of hand and I ended up calling her a stupid fucking ugly cunt. She took a step back, her eyebrows shot up, and she yelled, “You’re no gentleman. You’re not married!”
Bingo! She had men problems. Never married, or divorced. And several times I’ve had women just look at me and get hostile. None of them were attractive. I’ve never had an attractive woman be hostile to me.
Now you can say, “Oh, that’s not a shit test.” Doesn’t matter that’s it’s not. She was just a psycho-bitch, as all unpleasant women are. My point still stands: I have never seen a woman be unpleasant to men who didn’t have men problems.
The ideas they “shit test” men to determine their genetic fitness is a bizarre misapplication of evo-psych, which isn’t a science. It’s because they were hostile because their relationships with men have never worked out.
That’s makes a lot more sense than fantasies about “Oh, she’s shit-testing me to determine if I’m genetically superior.”
What sort of amateur came up with that?
If a woman is interested in a man, she is going to encourage him.
I’ve mentioned before I’ve known some women with serious Girl Game. They just mowed guys down, including me.
Every one of them was friendly, funny and charming. They knocked guys down like bowling balls. Not one ever “shit tested” a guy.
I suspect this “shit testing” guys was created by unpopular guys as an excuse for why they were unpopular. “Well, it’s not because I’m unattractive or a dipshit. In reality I’m really popular because they’re shit testing me – which means i’m really an Alpha!”
I also had a woman file a sexual harassment complaint against me because because I wouldn’t get involved with her. The same thing happened to a friend/boss of mine a few years later. Let’s see…shit tests? No, instead “Hell has no fury like a woman scorned.”
The closest I’ve seen to what most guys would call “a shit test” (and it isn’t) is that female love of drama and let’s-fight-and-make-up. I put a stop to that right at the beginning by telling them I would never do that and instead would walk out the door and come back – maybe after a few days. After that they never tried it (upfront right at the beginning is the best way to go – something that younger guys are clueless about).
Let’s put it this way: what kind of a relationship do you think you are going to have with a women if you have to chop though her hostile bullshit all the time? You want to spend your life arguing to the extent the police show up? That happens a lot. Ask any cop. Let’s see how all these clueless “Alphas” act when a woman they’re involved with will not stop arguing. Or when she hits you, sometimes with a weapon (I saw a woman pull a knife on her husband during some ridiculous argument).
I have never been shit tested in my life. I’ve asked dozens of guys if they’ve been shit tested (and explained the concept to them). Every one of them said no.
The only ones who think it exists are the ones who read the Manosphere – and they read it because they don’t understand themselves or women.
Reality trumps theory every time. Most especially bad theory.
http://uncabob.blogspot.com/2014/09/shit-tests-dont-exist-and-instead-are.html
February 5th, 2015 at 10:54 am
“The Shit Test Fallacy”
I’m actually amused that some men really think shit tests exist. I’ve never been shit tested in my life, and none of my friends have. If a woman likes you, she’s not going to insult you and perhaps drive you away.
I’d had women insult me. None of them were attractive and some of them were grotesque. They were all hostile and had some pretty significant issues.
As I’ve mentioned before, believing in shit tests is a way for losers to pretend they’re “alphas.” If they see shit tests everywhere, it’s just a way to raise their self-esteem. “She’s insulting me! I must be an Alpha!” Whatever.
This article is from Lifestyle Journey for Men and I have no idea who wrote it.
“In the seduction community men are taught that women give men ‘shit tests’ in order to weed out the non-dominant, wimpy men. The premise is that if you pass these so-called tests, you stay in the game, and if you fail these tests a woman will lose interest in you.
“I used to be a strong believer in this but eventually I came to the conclusion that women who are genuinely interested in a man don’t test him. Instead, they go along with him and make things easy for him. In other words, when a woman likes you and wants to get with you she doesn’t try to throw up obstacles, such as ‘tests’. So what’s going on? Why is the ‘shit test’ concept so ingrained in the PUA mindset?
“One reason is because its description is so vague. A shit test can be described as anything a woman does which can be interpreted as a ‘negative’. If she asks you a strange question, it’s a shit test. If she challenges you on your behaviour, it’s a shit test. If she asks you if you’re gay, it’s a shit test.
“Many practicing PUAs get so-called shit tests for the simple reason that they act so damn weird, and when women bring attention to this behaviour or react negatively to it, voila… it’s a shit test.
“‘Why are you wearing dorky clothes?’
“The PUA interpretation: It’s a shit test.
“‘We’ve heard that line before.’
“The PUA interpretation: It’s a shit test.
“‘Are you gay?’
“The PUA interpretation: It’s a shit test.
“If you are a guy who is using PUA material, consider that your behaviour might come across as a little strange, to say the least. So not surprising, some women may call you out on that behaviour. And to you that will seem like a shit test.
“Shit tests also appear to occur when you act confrontational and cocky, and when a woman gives you a taste of your own medicine (i.e. she does the same to you), you interpret that as a shit test.
“In the seduction community, the half-assed evolutionary explanation for shit tests is that women (especially attractive women) need some way to quickly judge men’s ‘worthiness’. So they ‘throw up’ seemingly crazy questions without purpose in order to achieve that goal. But regardless, you have to pass the tests or you are out!
“If she asks you why you are wearing dorky clothes you have to say something like, ‘What is it you like about dorky clothes?’
“If she says she heard that line before you have to say something like, ‘I only used that line 300 times today’.
“If she asks if you are gay you have to say something like, ‘You’re almost as good looking as my last boyfriend’.
“These might diffuse the situation and even get a laugh out of her, and in some ways they are good responses, but they are no more than fast remedies to a situation that you created. The truth is that you would not have to learn to pass shit tests such as these if you don’t use PUA material, which is what triggers these type of negative reactions to begin with.
“If you act normal and a girl wants to get with you, she will never ‘shit test’ you.
“The other point to make is that, from an evolutionary standpoint, women can’t really test men for ‘alpha’ traits because alpha men don’t care to pass tests, women’s or otherwise. In addition, it doesn’t make sense for women to test men for manliness because manly men would never even entertain the thought that women are testing them, and would not feel that they need to pass their tests if they do. In a real man’s mind, either she likes me or she doesn’t. So the whole idea of women testing would never show up on a real man’s radar, therefore it would be an unnecessary screening mechanism for women to have. And since evolution takes the most economical path, testing would never become an active part of women’s psyche.
“But PUA’s argument is that women test men unconsciously, which is why women are unaware that they do it. This is just a clever way of hiding the improbability of something under the veil of ‘unconscious action’. If someone denies that they do something you just say they do it unconsciously, and for some that would shut down debate. But for the more intelligent there is another plausible explanation. It just doesn’t exist, period.
“In defense of the shit test, some PUAs say that they only ended up having sex with women because they passed tests. To that I would refer them to the above argument. They probably said or did some weird things, directly from the PUA guide book, and the women reacted negatively to it. But they managed to deflect it and still ended up getting the girl. In this case it would then seem that passing shit tests is important. But it’s a circular type of argument. A causes B. C fixes B. Therefore B and C are valid.
“An extension of this is the PUA belief that women shit test you because they are attracted to you, and they just need to make sure you are the real deal. This is nonsense because women who are attracted don’t generally want to fuck up their chances with you by giving you a hard time. However, if you act weird or confrontational then she might respond in kind by giving you what appears to be a shit test. This illustrates the following faulty logic: A woman is attracted to you. You act weird or confrontational. Result, she tests you. Therefore, women who are attracted shit test you.
“PUAs say that if a woman isn’t shit testing you then she isn’t into you. Let’s look at this one more closely. Let’s say I’m a PUA and a girl is not testing me or giving me a hard time. I then conclude that she isn’t interested in me (yet). So what I do is reach into my PUA bag of tricks and start doing cocky-funny, teasing or whatever. As a result she starts giving me a hard time (shit test), but not because she’s becoming attracted, but because I’m acting weird and she’s reacting negatively to that. But I just figure she’s becoming attracted, so I keep at it. Eventually she just walks away. And from that I conclude that I failed her shit tests. I then go back to the drawing board feeling that I made some progress because I did manage to attract her after all, and I just need to polish my shit-test-passing competency skills. But what really happened was that she saw me as a weirdo and I alienated her with my behaviour. The truth is that she might have liked me and that’s why she wasn’t testing me or giving me a hard time to begin with. But I interpreted that as a lack of attraction and started doing things which I thought would attract her. But it just drove her away.
“Consider that PUAs often say that the best reaction to a shit test is to ignore it. In other words, pretend it doesn’t exist, and then the situation will right itself. There is in fact an important clue in this statement. If the best reaction to something is to act like it doesn’t exist, then maybe the reason for that is because it doesn’t exist to begin with. Why test someone who is seemingly unaware they are being tested, and then reward them for their ignorance? Remember, evolution takes the most economical path, and such testing could never exist.
“If a woman likes you and wants to get with you, and assuming you act normal, she will never “test” you. That’s all there is to it.
“But if it happens that a woman is genuinely testing a man, then she is screening not for alpha men, but for approval seekers, since only an approval seeker would care about passing tests. But this is hardly normal female behaviour. It is the behaviour of an abnormal woman who is likely just trying to push a man’s buttons in order to get the (possibly angry) reaction she is seeking, because that excites her. This type of behaviour tends to screen for abusive men who have little or no control over their emotions.
“The other possibility is that some women give men a hard time because they themselves have issues, possibly stemming from their inability to enjoy intimacy. And if you do manage to push through their resistance you will find the sex to be very lacking, and your time together filled with drama and bullshit. This further proves that shit testing is not real because there is no real ‘reward’ for passing. The best sex and company is with women who don’t test or give a hard time.
“Also keep in mind that the shit test concept has the potential to boost women’s ego. Women who already think highly of themselves will tend to embrace the idea that men have to pass their tests. This fits well with their world view that they are the prize and that they are above criticism for their actions. In their mind, ‘I’m not being a bitch. I’m just testing to see how much of a man he is’.
“The shit test concept is the result of looking too closely at the little details without regard for the big picture. It’s the kind of faulty left-brained type logic that involves lots of analysis, but not much thinking.”
http://uncabob.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-shit-test-fallacy.html
February 5th, 2015 at 10:57 am
* money (false) god.
Edited
February 5th, 2015 at 11:34 am
@Manpersonnumber6762
lol at this guy just copy/paste spamming from another source…
February 5th, 2015 at 11:38 am
Manperson, all you’re doing is reblogging Siirtyrion’s myopic and easily disprovable PUA hate.
I understand the want of “it didn’t work for me so it’s bullshit” guys to portray the Red Pill and Game as PUAs tilting at windmills, but that’s all
yourSiirtyrion’s argument relies on.Athol Kay and more than a few other Purple Pill ‘life coaches’ who make a living off of a pick-and-pull approach to Red Pill truths love to appeal to their overwhelmingly female clients and readers by accepting the aspects of the Red Pill they think flatters women’s egos and demonize the aspects that don’t as poor deluded men clinging to false positives.
Shit test do exist, women readily admit to the one’s they’re self-aware of giving, and if you pause long enough in your c&p comments to read Kristine’s situation you’ll see the shit tests she’s delivered to both her BF and the readers here. The problem with your understanding of shit testing is that you cling to the Blue Pill belief that women are independent rational agents who would logically never behave in ways that would risk defeating their biological imperatives.
Hypergamy doesn’t care about your belief that it can be reasoned with. Nor does it care about your expectations that women should rationally and objectively filter men above the table.
http://therationalmale.com/2015/01/13/acing-the-test/
February 5th, 2015 at 11:40 am
@ManPersonNumber6762
So women don’t shit test, well obviously if you say so, and have anecdotes to prove your point, you must be right. How silly of me. I guess I’ll just go “be myself” and demonstrate emotional harm whenever a woman treats me badly. That way she’ll know she hurt me and recognize that she has to treat me right to get me. Yeah, that must be it. How wrong I was…
February 5th, 2015 at 11:41 am
I noticed that after I dismissed Kristine as a silly girl, others stepped up to take her by the hand and tutor her in RP.
I think WKing, one-itis and things like that are part of men’s mating instincts, no doubt bred into us by the women through sexual selection since those behaviors serve the FI.
The implication is that those behaviors are in fact viscerally appealing to women’s mating instincts.
I suspect that the harsh condemnation of Kristine’s appearance is an abreaction on the part of some men who felt an embarssment about their impulse to take Kristine by the hand.
Yes gentlemen, our mating instincts are not always pretty.
February 5th, 2015 at 11:47 am
@jacklabear, read this comment:
http://therationalmale.com/2015/02/02/the-art-of-amog/comment-page-2/#comment-86519
Then read the RSD link from the post:
http://www.rsdnation.com/node/61702
Still think it’s White Knighting?
February 5th, 2015 at 11:49 am
That’s not true for me Jack. I’d have had the same conversation with her if I were standing right next to her. The display of her sexuality I’d prefer got rejected outright, because it’s totally irrelevant attention whoring…. But if she’s going to simply repeat wrongheaded female interpretation of things, I’ll call her out on it regardless. That is not to say you’re entirely wrong about the mating instincts.
February 5th, 2015 at 12:15 pm
Re: harsh condemnation
Only because we have been conditioned to avoid telling the truth and expressing our true opinions. The truth hurts only because people insist on believing the lies.
I did find Kristine’s reaction to being rated a 3 interesting. I wonder what she rates herself? This could help us gage SMV price dysfunction anecdotally.
February 5th, 2015 at 12:42 pm
Keep in mind that I am an old man and most young women have some attractive features here and there. I consider her to be a butterface.