Forge the Sky:
The heart of all this is: in a woman’s mind, humans have three genders. Women, alphas, and betas. The problem is, it’s difficult to distinguish between the latter two as there are no clear biological markers; a few un-fakeable traits like height and muscularity give an indication, similar to how long hair tends to indicate a woman, but not infallibly so.
But women have different relationships with them. To women, betas are friends, helpers, co-workers, employees, servants; unless related by blood, they are practical beings only. There is no romance to them. They are useful, fun, maybe even someone to be a little affectionate toward so long as they remain useful, but they have no deeper self, no soul, no mystical thing to bind to.
Alphas are something else entirely. They are actually people – people drenched with desire, romance, spirit. Him, she can respect. In greater cases even worship. It matters little how well he performs objectively, so long as he does nothing to make her doubt her assessment of him as alpha. If he does perform, she admires and praises his performance – but she’s doing that about something or another regardless, even if she’s gushing about how he bought her a bag of skittles.
No woman will stand beside a beta as he faces, and succumbs to, death. Not unless it’s convenient, or she would be shamed otherwise. It simply would not make sense for her to do so. Would you hold your employee’s hand as they lay dying? Only if they had a fatal accident right in front of you. Past that, condolences to the kids.
Men see two genders. Men and women. Better and worse, more and less attractive, but no fundamental difference. Without being trained in a (for us) counterintuitive mindset, we will by default project our understanding of gender upon women. And so we try to improve our beta game, instead of flipping the script.
The blue pill is miserable because it is learned helplessness. From within, it is the cracking of an invisible whip, punishment meted capriciously and without time or reason. There is no pattern or method to the blue pill man’s pain.
FTS must’ve been reading my mind this week because his comment made a perfect segue into what I’ve been developing this week. The most salient part of this comment, I thought, was “Without being trained in a (for us) counterintuitive mindset, we will by default project our understanding of gender upon women.”
This was a good observation because there are intrinsic parts of the male psychological firmware that the Feminine Imperative picked up on long ago and deliberately co-opts to better aid in optimizing women’s control of Hypergamy.
From the utility-need side of Hypergamy, this mostly manifests in various forms of serviceable security. The Beta Bucks aspect of Hypergamy can be distilled to a need for security, protection, and a certainty that a woman and her offspring will be insured against any uncertainty. Every psychological and sociological dynamic that contributes to feminine-primacy keys on this need for existential certainty. The War Brides dynamic, the evolution from old-order chivalry to modern feminism, and now the social / legal handicapping of men to ensure that feminine-security certainty above all other considerations are all manifestations of this need.
The Feminine Imperative learned long ago that men’s innate protectorate instinct for the feminine was its second most valuable means of masculine control – the first being men’s ‘always on’ sexual impetus. Thus pairing the two as a means of control is a simple deductive proposition for the imperative. The rudimentary connection being, “protect the woman and I get sex.”
This is the unspoken exchange that’s part of our evolutionary past. Men are nothing if not deductive (yet creative) problem solvers, and women have used this to their hypergamous advantage since our hunter-gatherer beginnings.
This is what confounds modern men under the auspices of our present feminine-primary social order. We’re emphatically told that women “never owe men sex“, yet the latent message is, and has always been, “but, if you perform to her satisfaction, she might be more inclined to give you sex.” Carrot to pull the cart, I know, but this mental algorithm is a sociological buffer for women – exclude the sexually unworthy, but leave an acceptable caveat in order to leverage the possibility of sex with those who are still useful in providing security.
Bear this in mind the next time you read a story about a savior White Knight who was beaten to a bloody pulp for his effort to protect a woman from the “predations” of some Alpha(s) she likely wants to bang anyway. Men will project, by default, our own gender interpretation onto women, and sometimes pay the price for it. Betas believe the feminine-primary, equalist advertising that men and women are functional equals while still force fitting an expected, old-order, male-protectionism (completely based on an unequal state presumption) into that belief – often at their own expense.
Invisible Men
While I disagree that there are no distinct physical and cultural markers that women use (sometimes subconsciously) to distinguish Alpha men from the bulk of Beta men, I strongly agree with the distinction and characterization Forge the Sky makes with how women regard Beta men.
The vast majority of men are sexually invisible to women, but all males are visible in terms of their utility to women and the role those men are expected to play in deference to women’s solipsism.
There’s an important difference in that visibility with respect to men and women we need to consider.
I expect that female readers will trot out the “ooh, ooh, men do it too” counter that women are invisible to men who don’t see them as a sexual prospect. That may be the case, particularly for mature women convinced they should be sexually viable into their 50s, however, those women’s functional utility is never an issue for men. Neither is it an article of attraction for a man. As much as a feminine-centric culture would like to convince women of the opposite, men simply don’t factor a woman’s provisional utility into their attraction equation.
Invisible men never become visible to women until either those men intrude on a woman’s’ awareness or she has a specific utilitarian need of him. At this point, whether due to arousal / attraction awareness or her specific need (usually protection or security insurance), that man must perform to prove his maleness. He must qualify for her visual acknowledgment of him.
Over prolonged periods, this invisibility, and the fear of having his insistence rejected, can influence men’s overall perception of women and their intergender interpretations. Invisible men tend to confuse a woman’s utility interests in him as genuine indicators of interest (IOIs). The Feminine Imperative prepares for this ‘mixed message’ with a constant, self-perpetuating social narrative that tells the invisible men they are never, under any circumstance, owed a woman’s intimacy – it is always a gift, a reward, for her approval.
Despite this aspect of their social conditioning, the Invisibles still read more into those IOIs and perceive that a woman’s attraction is a genuine extension their own serviceability. This is the foundation of the Savior Schema. Much of what the manosphere considers sexual ‘thirst’ is a direct result of the scarcity mentality that results from an Invisible becoming an unexpected service-providing option for a woman.
Invisible men become more compliant when women’s utility needs make them visible. They confuse their use with genuine appreciation and desirability.
If we consider the 80 / 20 rule of the sexual marketplace and figure that 80% of Beta men are sexually invisible to women we get a broader perspective of how the gender landscape has evolved in an era where women’s security-side needs are planned for and met with a relative degree of certainty.
I had a teenage kid I used to consult who related this story about how one of his nerdy friends had somehow spontaneously generated the interest of a girl who was an obvious two points above his SMV. His initial frustration was one of wonderment about how this guy could be ‘dating’ so hot a girl while he wasn’t bumping the needle with even the girls he thought were a point below himself.
His nerdy friend assumed the predictable self-righteous Beta position that some “special” girls just understand and appreciate guys like him in favor of the brutish jocks “society tells them they should like.” All this came two weeks before that year’s homecoming dance (and after-party), where she promptly left him to go dance and party with her girlfriends and their jock guy-friends for the rest of the evening.
This kid had served his utilitarian purpose of fronting the money for the evening, a limo, corsage, photos (of their group) and the bit of risky underage liquor he could manage. In spite of all that he still refused to make the connection of his being used for her purpose. Invisibles feel validated in their own manipulation because that utility made them visible (“do my homework nerd”) even if just momentarily. As bad as that extortion was, that brief moment of visibility implies the prospect that another woman in the future (a really special one) will also appreciate his utility and reward it with her intimacy.
Needless to say, this visibility differential becomes an internalized factor in men’s approach to women. There are ways an invisible man can make himself visible; all require effort and risk. As I stated before, a man remains invisible unless his physical presence and arousal prompts make him unignorable, his performance is outstanding enough to draw attention or he simply asserts his visibility towards that woman. Physical bearing and performance recognition being the Alpha Fucks side of the Hypergamy equation is an easy follow, but a man asserting himself and his personality is where the Red Pill and applied Game come into play. This prospect will always imply risk of rejection until such a time that an Invisible’s confidence supersedes his self-image as an invisible.
We had a long discussion in the last thread about the mindset of the MGTOW contingent of the manosphere and the sentiment of men wishing to remove themselves wholesale from the sexual marketplace. I understand this sentiment and I know men, like Advocatus Diaboli, who have legitimately recused themselves from the SMP, but it seems to me this want is the result of having been invisible to women for so long. They get to a point where they become invisible by choice.
The Third Sex
I can’t finish this essay without drawing attention to FTS’s first observation:
The heart of all this is: in a woman’s mind, humans have three genders. Women, alphas, and betas. The problem is, it’s difficult to distinguish between the latter two as there are no clear biological markers; a few un-fakeable traits like height and muscularity give an indication, similar to how long hair tends to indicate a woman, but not infallibly so.
After I’d reconsidered this I had to dig out my copy of Plato’s Symposium and pore through it to read the part where Aristophanes proposed that there were, in fact, three sexes (in primal times) that their all-male discussion collective ought to consider:
There were three sexes: the all male, the all female, and the “androgynous,” who was half male, half female. The males were said to have descended from the sun, the females from the earth and the androgynous couples from the moon.
A lot is being made of transgenderism recently and the fluidity with which people want to arbitrarily “gender-identify” borders on the ridiculous, but FTS’s observation has more implications than I think most are aware of. I’m sorry to go all philosophus on you, but I can definitely see parallels with the symbolism Aristophanes suggests and the female perceptions of the division of maleness FTS brings out here. Although Aristophanes would say that these primal beings split into gays, lesbians and heterosexual beings, I’d suggest that this primal awareness stems from a male understanding of the division of Alpha and Beta men and how women perceive them, visibly and non-visibly.
I covered this a while back in Queens, Workers & Drones:
Selective Breeding
So powerful is this sense of entitlement, so consuming and convinced of the correctness of their purpose is the feminine that women will literally breed and raise generations of men to better satisfy it. Hypergamy is cruel, but nowhere more so than in the relationship between a mother overtly raising and conditioning a son to be a better servant of the feminine imperative.
But to breed a better worker, the feminine imperative’s queens can’t afford to have any corrupting, masculine, outside influence. On a societal scale this might mean removal (either by disincentives or forcibly) of a father from the family unit, but this is the easy, extreme illustration. There are far more subtle social and psychological means that the imperative uses to effect this filtering – via mass media, social doctrines, appeals to (feminized) morality, the feminine is placed as the correct imperative while the masculine is filtered out or apologetically tolerated as vestiges of an immature and crude reminder of masculinity’s incorrectness.
Yet for all of this social engineering Hypergamy still demands satisfaction of women’s most base imperative, Alpha seed. The queens need physically / psychologically dominant drones – if just for a season and at their ovulatory pleasure. While beta workers are endlessly vetted in sisyphean tasks of qualifying for the acceptance of the feminine imperative, the Alpha drones live outside this shell; their qualifications only based on how well they satisfy the feminine’s visceral side of hypergamy.
The great irony of this social solution to hypergamy and long term parental investment is that the vast majority of the offspring of this arrangement would be raised to be better workers. Those betas-to-be boys must be insulated from the corrupting influence of the drones lest they devolve into the Alphas they crave yet cannot control. It may seem counterintuitive, to raise what should ostensibly be optimized genetic stock as a cowed, sometimes medically restrained, feminized beta males. However it is through this harsh conditioning that truly dominant Alphas must rise above. Essentially the genetic lottery isn’t won by women in such a social environment – it’s men, or the ones who rise above in spite of the conditioning efforts of the feminine imperative.
February 25th, 2015 at 10:46 am
One of the most interesting things about my career in the Military was that you could identity the women who enlisted in order to find and secure through marriage the Men with Status in the Officer ranks long before they actually did so. Once you saw it happen, you could always pick them out.
February 25th, 2015 at 10:54 am
This would be hilarious. I haven’t read the above comments. Has it happened yet?
This is hilarious for many reasons. But consider the previous section of Rollo’s post… Women don’t see all men as potentially attractive, they see betas and alphas. Beta’s are guaranteed to remain invisible, alphas by contrast are what women are after. Despite the fact that men of all kinds exist, alphas are all that women are really looking for. No woman in her right mind would be upset at being sexually invisible to men she considers beta. So right off the bat, when a woman says, “ooh ooh, men do it too, men have not been attracted to me…” What she’s really saying is, “Only men I considered to be sub-human were attracted to me, therefore men treat me as invisible just like women do.”
She’s pre-selecting for alpha, and then complains she’s invisible to alpha and therefore invisible to all men. Hilariously solipsistic. This is only amplified by the tremendous SMV inflation seen in the developed world.
This also fails to consider the “always on” part of male sexuality. Men are sexually easy and shameless. When it comes to it, men are the ones who can and will sacrifice their standards for a lay. Women will not do this except under extreme biological pressure (i.e., late 30s baby rabies). So realistically no woman is completely sexually invisible to all men. That is not to say there are not forms of “sexual invisibility” for women… but it’s not true invisibility, it’s simply that you’re not the most attractive woman in the room at the time. You’re not invisible, you’re simply being drowned out by the all-legs blonde over on the barstool. I believe the FI inherently understands this, which is why attractive women often try to find themselves fatties as friends to go out with and surround themselves with. Females instinctively attempt to create a sort of “beauty contrast” for themselves and their group to maximize their chances. This behavior alone should demonstrate that women are actually all-too-aware of how non-invisible they are, and their real goal is simply to maximize how visible they are, to stand out in a crowd.
Women do not know sexual invisibility like that experienced by most men, not by a longshot. I don’t fault them for trying to pretend they do though, they’re just solipsistic by nature. Frankly, if women experienced sexual invisibility like men do their suicide rate would doom the human race, and even if it didn’t their frustration would harm them so much they wouldn’t be women anymore. It’s better that women are lusted after, It’s better that they never experience what men experience because it keeps them women.
February 25th, 2015 at 11:19 am
@Jeremy
Has it happened yet?
Almost immediately.
February 25th, 2015 at 11:26 am
@TuffLuv – yeah, I’m thankful that I have options. But also as a married guy having spent a while thinking about the sausage maker, the unhappy truths have sort of deadened me in a lot of ways and I don’t think it’s good for the relationship, though I don’t think I’d want to undo what I know either. It’s too much information in a lot of ways, right? It’s a bit like the slightly older woman who looks awesome in the French restaurant at 10 PM, in dim light after a bottle of Bordeaux, but you see her at 6:00 AM and the crows feet paint a map of France on her face, her hair is a mess, mascara smudged and her breath stinks. It’s not as much fun. I can handle time and bright light exposing women’s physical artifice, that is fine and it’s something I’ve always been aware of and it has not bothered me. The Red Pill exposes the psychological artifice behind women’s illusions and that is a much uglier set of gears to be looking at than a dozen pieces of lipstick on the bathroom sink.
February 25th, 2015 at 11:50 am
Also, random thought here…
Would the reason that women do not like the script being explicitly told to them (i.e., women want a man to “just get it” rather than having to discuss it)… be because women are not fully aware of their own strategies?
See, awareness brings responsibility. You can’t say, “Yes, I was aware there was a drowning child 5 feet from me, but I kept watching the superbowl anyway.” Likewise, if women were ever fully confronted with the coldness of many of their sexual strategies, their plausible deniability is shattered. Even if the man telling them all about what he knows about women is a pure alpha, he’s forcing the woman to confront past hamster-justified behavior by being explicit and destroying important parts of her strategy in the process. Large parts of female strategies involve washing herself of responsibility for her own actions, and you can’t do this if people know that you know that what you’re doing is unethical.
Most woman are wholly incapable of taking full responsibility for their actions, and they would never have it so because somewhat-“loose” integrity (to be kind) is a requirement for satisfying the dual strategies. Bringing to female attention what you know about female nature destroys any pretense they may want to bring out later to preserve themselves if a relationship with you (as a man) doesn’t work out. By telling a woman all the nitty gritty rather than “just getting it”… you are leaving her no exit strategy… and a woman with no exit strategy is cornered.
February 25th, 2015 at 11:54 am
“expand your knowledge in the sciences more and stop giving in to simply hearsay by subjective views and reports touted by PUAs and its supporters”
given the extent of PUA videos and field reports, and the frequent opportunity to see them live doing pick up, it is distinctly unscientific to deny they are getting laid lots
February 25th, 2015 at 11:55 am
To distill: modern women fill their time trying to find, capture, and beat Alpha’s into Betas, and ignoring Betas or exploiting them.
Betas try like hell to bring down Alphas looking for mating rights. This is where gym rats and wanna be situational alphas (read uber rich nerds) lay in wait. Same with cops and soldiers. They are in identity crisis every min of every day.
It’s fun to be fucking people up, tooling them, in the mix and testing yourself, fight it out, but eventually it gets tiring and you consider a unicorn. Maybe you say “ok, I won’t take EVERY sexual option i get EVERY time”. And BELIEVE me that 40-50 attracts 18-22 ALL DAY LONG and it’s based on your attitude, never looks and /or money.
And MAYBE, because you know precisely what to look for, you find a minor unicorn, and you knock her up, and retreat into a relationship (self-domesticate)… You never trust that bitch. Ever. Relationships are conditional and based on maintaining the status quo.
Never stop flirting and taking numbers, and texting and whatever. Never, never, never, never. Morality is a male human construct designed to elevate a species out of the dirt. We are out of the dirt and now revert to the mean.
February 25th, 2015 at 12:01 pm
@Tuff (840am) —
Well, not really.
Chivalry comes from a time when women were structurally disadvantaged vis-a-vis men. This no longer applies. Women are not only not structurally disadvantaged vis-a-vis men, but are advantaged in many ways. You’re learning one bug way right now in family court, but also sexual power (average woman has more than average man), social power (due to FI/societal tilt in women’s favor) and so on. Chivalry is inapposite today — it is pedtestalizing and inappropriate.
I am a lawyer and have worked with high-powered, equalist women for over 20 years now professionally. I do not treat them like “dogs”, but I also do not treat them like they are feminine — because they are not, and mostly do not want to be treated like that anyway. It’s “equalist”, not chivalrous. And that’s how it works — no-one minds, and it has never had any professional repercussions at all, really. It’s just how it is.
I get the impression that, given the stage you are at right now personally, you’re in an early stage of learning here. You may think you know things from how things were before you were married, but that’s now going back to the mid 1990s, and things are different now. I am also older (a few years older than you), but have been in the market now for over ten years after my marriage imploded. It takes a while to learn how things are now, and I don’t fault you for not understanding them. But you seem to not really understand the current dynamic very well, honestly — which, again, is fine, if you would realize that this is the case and learn more, instead of finding fault with what other people are saying who have been in the market dynamic now for some time, and have long since passed the stage you currently unfortunately find yourself in.
February 25th, 2015 at 12:02 pm
I do not agree with this completely. Women DO NEED betas, they desperately need them.
Marriage and rising the kids is ultimately beta thing. Women must keep men in the dark, beta men specifically. Women panic if BETA men go MGTOW. Many Alpha men already are MGTOW – they fuck but do not give a fuck, they live their own lives for themsleves.
Alphas are allowed to be MGTOW, women are somoehow counting with this. But with beta men it is complete opposite. He is not allowed to live for himself, he shall live for women! His life mission is that of a working drone for FI. He must be trained for this from his very cradle.
Women need those slaves, those servants, saviours, etc. Every beta men that went MGTOW WILL be missed. For every missing beta there is one women that is without provider and protector…and rising a kid alone is very, very tough job. Alpha might be able to fuck several women but he is not able to fulfill this security role…and there comes a time in EVERY woman´s life, when she NEEDS her own beta!
This is the reason of “where are all the good men”…aka where are my slaves when I need one.
Beta men are VERY fucking visible for women…they are not supposed to wake up and start fucking for free. They should not wake up and realize their real value to women, ´cos then they can demand, ehm…more performance :) Therefore they are kept in the dark starting by their very moms and henpecked fathers.
If beta men wake up and withdraw their provisioning as a group….women will be on their knees in a very, very short time.
February 25th, 2015 at 12:05 pm
@gregg
“Marriage and rising the kids is ultimately beta thing.”
This statement shows your conditioning and couldn’t be FURTHER from the truth. Modernity has failed you amigo.
Wet streets don’t cause rain.
February 25th, 2015 at 12:12 pm
@tilikum
I know, I know….fucking the same aging women for 20 years is the alpha heaven. Who do you want to fool that you enjoy it amigo?
February 25th, 2015 at 12:12 pm
@gregg
Actually, I would guess that the “where are all the good men?” question is an open acknowledgement of the conflicting requirements women have. It is an unanswerable question because when a woman asks it, she’s not asking for “good men”, she’s asking why there’s no one around to satisfy her hypergamy.
February 25th, 2015 at 12:16 pm
“Where are all the good men?” = “why can’t I have it all?”
February 25th, 2015 at 12:18 pm
Red Pill math time: Word problem, no calculators.
If Tuff was 23 when he married his 20 y.o. porn sex girlfriend and had 7 “hayday” years prior to this, when did his “haydays” start?
Correct answer: 16
February 25th, 2015 at 12:22 pm
@ gregg
Women are interchangeable. The kids are not. Lion model dude, lion model.
February 25th, 2015 at 12:23 pm
@Bromeo:
And yet oddly enough 50 Shades of Grey outsold Magic Mike by a magnitude of x1000. Hmmm,…
February 25th, 2015 at 12:24 pm
@gregg, it’s not about need it’s about visibility.
February 25th, 2015 at 12:26 pm
@bp
“Where are all the good men?” = “why can’t I have it all?”
Or when said in a room with men present, “Why won’t you all start qualifying yourselves to me?”
February 25th, 2015 at 12:30 pm
@nova
“It takes a while to learn how things are now, and I don’t fault you for not understanding them. But you seem to not really understand the current dynamic very well, honestly”
Look, I understand and agree I have much to learn, but the more things change, the more they stay the same. Chicks were ‘plenty’ bitchy and entitled in the 90’s.
My statements about chivalry and criticism of 447 come from the (albeit limited) empirical evidence I’ve experienced in the past six months. In every IOI and the singular lay I’ve had since the bitch left.. good ol’ fashioned chivalry played a role each time. Maybe that’s just my style.
Now I can see what you’re saying, but you work in the upper echelon of Strong Independent Bitches(tm). Those fem-lawyers are no joke. But get this shit.. down at the courthouse, which I frequent more than bars lately, there’s this cute little youngling there, and when I first saw her I thought.. wow, now there’s a tough little nut to crack. But I got her to bat her eyes at me, and she even misdirected in the hallway (awkwardly) to allow the possibility of approach. She doubly makes eye contact with me every time I’m there. Of course I’m always too mind-fucked to approach. I catch myself giggling about approaching a bitch divorce lawyer in the family courthouse. How fuckin’ twisted is that shit? It will happen. Hasn’t yet, but will.
But my belabored point.. wanna know how I caught her attention, bro? By holding the door for her.
So I stand by what I said. Equalism may be the normal behavior in a pro environment. But when you ask some chick out to lunch (even a lawyer), do you open the door for them at the restaurant, or not? You do, and you know it.
Even the hardest shell of a woman appreciates it, especially from a man who has a shot with her.
This… kill all chivalry to increase your game is total bullshit. I don’t need a lesson from the manosphere to know that. Chivalry IS game. Whether they deserve it or not is another argument entirely.
February 25th, 2015 at 12:35 pm
@Rollo
Thanks.. that it did.. I was already in a regularly gigging metal band at the time.
I was also fortunate enough to lose my virginity at 15 to a very experienced 17 year old, who taught me more than I ever need to know.
What’s your point?
Not all of us found ourselves at 22 bud. From 16 to 18 I had more regular sex than I did in college.
February 25th, 2015 at 12:40 pm
@TuffLuv
Have you ever told anyone or even yourself that “I kinda like em crazy”?
Interested in your response.
February 25th, 2015 at 12:41 pm
Let me just add, fellas, that just about every girl from those days was a GF, and a repeat fuck.. And every one of them shit on me in the end, in the same way as my wife.
So lay off guys. I learned these lessons you teach long ago, except I thought it was just me :)
That said. This is why I’m addicted to this blog.
February 25th, 2015 at 12:43 pm
When I first started to express sexuality to women openly, it was because of a story a shrink told me about a female patient. She was out on a date with a guy, found him attractive but was not aroused by him. They had been at one venue and were moving to another when he opened the door for her. The door at this restaurant had you facing a mirror the moment you walked in, and as she looked in the mirror, she caught him behind her holding the door and using the opportunity to get a good look at her ass. The rest of the evening she couldn’t wait to get him home to bed.
Just because you hold doors and shit doesn’t make you a beta. Let her catch you checking out her ass, using opportunities to get closer and touch her, express confidence in leading her. You can use almost all traditionally “chivalrous” actions that way. It’s a game I’ve used a lot and it does work. Just don’t think of yourself as a chivalrous White Knight. You’re a scoundrel trying to get in her pants. Act the part.
February 25th, 2015 at 12:49 pm
@Tilikum
On reflection, it’s tough not to conclude that I do, but that’s not it. The truth is, I’ve always just been a sucker for the hottest girl who would let me fuck her, to my own demise, obviously. If she’d repeatedly let me fuck her, I was all in.
The wife was no different. But gimme a little credit, I kept it afloat with the bitch for 20 years, much of it was enjoyable (despite the dysfunction), and my kids are sane and healthy, thanks to my leadership. I don’t regret it just because it failed. I feel pretty good right now. I’m no slouch and she won’t break me.
As stated above. This ain’t my first hypergamy rodeo, just the first time I’ve taken a course in it.
February 25th, 2015 at 12:55 pm
Tuff, chivalry is not what you’ve been conditioned to believe it is:
http://therationalmale.com/2012/01/24/chivalry-vs-altruism/
http://therationalmale.com/2013/01/02/the-feminine-imperative-circa-1300/
http://therationalmale.com/2013/03/27/hail-to-the-v/
Chivalry was bastardized by Courtly Love to be Feminism 1.0
February 25th, 2015 at 1:05 pm
@Tuff
I have some experience with this, personally. Two types of women are likely attracted to you, A. over-masculine and wild read: interesting, B. doe eyed and feminine. read: boring.
Turns out you can be too Alpha, too over the top, naturally.
I submit you are an overly and highly conditioned natural Alpha, and I’d assume an extrovert or highly outgoing introvert.
Just walk from this blog and the sphere bro. I doubt that (like me) it’s not a matter of getting laid by 8+ females. It’s not for you, and you won’t like where it takes you. Learning the truth won’t benefit you, and your ignorance will truly be bliss. Transparency doesn’t translate to intimacy.
February 25th, 2015 at 1:31 pm
@Tilikum
Not that I think you’re complimenting me.. But that’s pretty good and accurate shit, I must say. FYI I’m very introverted, but I become extroverted with those with whom I become intimate (physically or otherwise), including good friends.
This blog and the sphere has given me one very useful thing, and that is clear proof that it isn’t just me that suffers at the hands of women, it seems to be epidemic. Very valuable from an ego perspective.
But I realized some weeks ago, ’bout the time I lost my post-divorce virginity.. My game really hasn’t changed. Intimacy IS my game, always has been. And, you’re right, there are specific types of females attracted to me, almost to the point I don’t even have to work for it (like, to them, I Just Get It or something), and to the rest I feel invisible.
But what I’ve learned and DO intend to put to use is.. outcome independence, death of Oneitis, and game surrounding keeping a woman around, assuming I find one that I want to keep around.. which will probably happen. Know thyself.
February 25th, 2015 at 1:50 pm
@Rollo
Maybe not..
But I still don’t believe you don’t open doors for Mrs. Tomasi
I don’t believe you would not lay your life on the line for her.
I don’t believe you wouldn’t attack someone who molested her.
Correct me if I’m wrong.
February 25th, 2015 at 1:52 pm
M Simon,
I have read Aleister Crowley. That is when I woke up to politics as a big game and show. I have always been staunch conservative, but after looking into illuminati and put on my glasses I could see republicats and democrans for what they are…
Rollo,
So if you get married, you are automatically a beta? Why try to game the wife then? Are we to assume our wives think of us as beta no matter what unless they are groping us and dripping wet?
On one hand I don’t care, as my wife is giving it to many any time I want…. literally. On the other hand after all the shaming and failed shit tests over the years I would like to think I’ve taken my balls back. My SMV is way way higher than hers.
Like I’ve always assumed, most girls could get laid any time they want. I didn’t know the reasons for them not wanting to until now. Alphas with game still have to hit numbers before they get the lay. Betas get laid for provisioning for a time, but some Alphas get betaized after marriage. I would be an example of that. Do I have game? I don’t know. Can I turn my wife on? Most of the time now…. in the past hardly ever. Is it because she has become submissive or is she humoring me?
February 25th, 2015 at 1:56 pm
So I stand by what I said. Equalism may be the normal behavior in a pro environment. But when you ask some chick out to lunch (even a lawyer), do you open the door for them at the restaurant, or not? You do, and you know it.
That’s not chivalry, though. That’s Game.
Chivalry is holding the door open for the fat chick you have no interest in at the mall, giving up your seat on the subway to some woman you have no interest in — chivalry is not related to “sexual interest”, it’s a more general deference to women in that way as the “weaker sex”.
February 25th, 2015 at 2:07 pm
@Novaseeker
That’s not chivalry, though. That’s Game.
Yup.
it’s a more general deference to women in that way as the “weaker sex”
In all fairness, I really have no problem giving up a seat to the elderly (regardless of sex) or pregnant women. They are weaker than me.
Straight up fat chicks though? They need to strengthen their knees and I’m tired after a long day of work. You’re standing, sweetheart.
February 25th, 2015 at 2:15 pm
Semantics @nova.. just like @rollo
Let’s just call it “Holding the door”.
FYI I do it everyday for any woman, no matter what, and NEVER for a man unless he is literally one step behind me. Am I conditioned to do so.. yes. Am I doing a disservice to the world, and/or men. HELL NO. Gimme a freaking break. If I can bring a smile to some fat or old woman’s face and have her walk on thinking “what a nice man, chivalry is not dead”, there’s not a fucking thing wrong with that. For all we know she’s a woman who sees feminism for what it is, and despises it. Do I want to turn her into a feminist, or misandrist, or keep her hopes alive?
And for the feminist I hold the door for, I’m doing one of two things.. softening her, or pissing her off. Either way, I/we win. By following 447’s prior advice, THEY win, gentlemen.
Now, I’ve had women in this building who I know are bitches, or who have been bitches to me in the past, and I have let the door go on them. Seriously have done that a couple of times. No problem with that.
BTW, every single one of the women I hold the door for on a regular basis, hot or not, stranger or not, gives me a big smile, eye contact, and a thank you. I can’t remember one time in 20 years in this building that I’ve gotten scorn (from an equalist), or indifference in response.
Live in the real world for a while guys. I’m not empowering them. Maybe I mistakenly hold the door for a hardline feminazi now and then. Again, only two outcomes there, both positive. To think you will change people by breaking decorum on everyone is absurd.
February 25th, 2015 at 2:20 pm
Did it occur to anyone here that a lot of unattractive or old women are such miserable bitches, and become man haters, BECAUSE men treat them like shit? Where’s the love fellas?
Here I am being raped by the system, yet I refuse to stoop. The nice old lady I just held the door for does not deserve that.
February 25th, 2015 at 2:21 pm
@Nova and Sun Wu
When you have “game”, they open the door for YOU. Deference to your value. This is REALLY easy stuff for you long time posters. Your struggle needs to be in figuring out WHY you can’t internalize these ineffable truths and continue to distort reality. It cues to me psychological damage.
Think like royalty, not supplicating serfs.
February 25th, 2015 at 2:24 pm
@Tuff
You are not mad at the system because deep down your conditioning makes you believe you deserve it. That is the wages of Beta and White Knighting.
IF you are hell bent on going down this painful road, Rollo is great but you need to harden up homie. Spend some time at CH too.
February 25th, 2015 at 2:28 pm
lol @TuffLuv
We have a live one here guys. The BP is in his mouth, just needs to swallow. I suggest reading more of Rollo’s posts on here, it doesn’t seem like you have read everything.
February 25th, 2015 at 2:42 pm
It’s called independent critical thinking fellas. Rollo is brilliant, and so are many of you, but group think can find it’s way into any discussion. You are not immune.
@Tilikum women do hold the door for me as well. I mostly despise it. I AM the stronger sex, and they demean me by suggesting otherwise. I respect a woman who lets the door go. She’s giving me respect. By the OLD RULES.. isn’t that what we want?
And you’re way off about me thinking I deserve it. This bitch will pay a price, I promise all of you that.
Now, I don’t mean to be at odds with the community here, but it is sorta my way. Let me make a supposition.
White knighting is game. Often times, VERY effective game.
I do not and never will use it. But I can prove what I say is true. That it is no different than any other form of game.
Your thoughts?
February 25th, 2015 at 2:43 pm
And by white knighting, I do not mean simply holding the door.
February 25th, 2015 at 2:51 pm
Tilikum it’s not deference to your value.. how naive are you? It’s a slight of the highest form..
Here ya go little pansy boy.. lemme get that for you.
as opposed to..
You’re a big boy.. you don’t need little ol me holding the door for you, do ya?
Y’all seriously have this wrong.
February 25th, 2015 at 2:55 pm
@Tuff, You’re resorting to binaries. Courtesy is not chivalry. Kin affiliation and investment is not chivalry, and male protectionism is not chivalry. Read those links.
February 25th, 2015 at 2:59 pm
@Jeff,
http://therationalmale.com/2014/02/23/beta-fucks/
February 25th, 2015 at 3:01 pm
I did.. and again.. semantics. I conceded we won’t call it chivalry for this particular discussion.
I’m simply talking about ‘holding the door’, which 447 advises is criminal, as is helping with boxes, or anything else ‘courteous’.
I’m saying he’s dead wrong, and so is everyone who is backing up that proposition.
I do appreciate your essays on the origins of chivalry, quite interesting.
But breaking the decorum of the day in every woman’s face only serves the FI, guys. Think about it. Think about hamster logic for a second and read what I said above and just think about it.
February 25th, 2015 at 3:02 pm
@TuffLuv
February 25th, 2015 at 3:06 pm
No one’s saying don’t hold the door for a woman, what I’m saying is that your misguided idea of chivalry (repurposed for the FI circa 1330) makes you feel good about yourself because the FI appeals to a romanticism it’s already conditioned you for.
February 25th, 2015 at 3:06 pm
I’m out for a bit guys (I can hear the cheers).. would love to read some rational arguments to what I said that don’t just parrot the group, later.
And yes rollo I did read your closing paragraph in the one link where you said chivalry has it’s place.. So, I don’t know why the flock is so bent on not holding the door for females.
They don’t seem to see that it is a signal to them that they ARE seen as the weaker sex, which is a good thing. I would even go as far to say when a woman holds the door for you. Stop. fidget with your phone.. leave her standing there. Send her a clear message that you are a MAN, and you’ll not stand for a woman pretending she’s equal in all ways.
February 25th, 2015 at 3:08 pm
@rollo
“No one’s saying don’t hold the door for a woman”
447’s post said exactly that and more, which started this discussion.
February 25th, 2015 at 3:09 pm
And I’ve just explained why I do it. It has nothing to do with feeling good. I will concede it has to do with conditioning and learned behavior.
But the reason I won’t let it go now, in the face of the strong FI, and why 447 shouldn’t either, is duly explained above.
February 25th, 2015 at 3:10 pm
Desperation is a sticky cologne:
http://therationalmale.com/2014/08/07/open-hypergamy/comment-page-4/#comment-51358
February 25th, 2015 at 3:10 pm
@jeremy
“..not end up old, alone and bitter deserve what they get.”
Super presumptuous about the fat old lady. How do you know these things about her? Are you omniscient?
February 25th, 2015 at 3:12 pm
TuffLuv – “Did it occur to anyone here that a lot of unattractive or old women are such miserable bitches, and become man haters, BECAUSE men treat them like shit? Where’s the love fellas?”
Again…
You have got to be fucking kidding.
February 25th, 2015 at 3:13 pm
@rollo
super weak man.. super weak.
lol.. fyi I’m more heartbroken ’bout the last chick than my bitch ex. cest la vie..
I can see you don’t want any ‘dissent’ on your blog.. but y’all need to realize that if you want any kind of return of women to the old ways, then don’t give up the old ways.
Continue them, whether they like it or not.
February 25th, 2015 at 3:15 pm
Don’t take this as a flame, but you’re still clinging to Blue Pill hope Tuff:
http://therationalmale.com/2014/09/29/a-new-hope/
The idealism you had, and the social skill set you left the sexual marketplace with 20 years ago were never what you thought they were.That’s why you still believe in the romance after 20 years insulated from Red Pill awareness. It’s a shock to the system, I get it.
February 25th, 2015 at 3:17 pm
@TuffLuv
Are you insane? That was your own scenario I was commenting on, the (poorly blockquoted by me) text was your own.
February 25th, 2015 at 3:22 pm
@Tuff —
Women will certainly take what you freely offer them, and then go right ahead and vote for Hillary to tax you cock right off you, and smile at you all the way. The fact that they smile and take what you offer does NOT mean that it has a positive impact on them, or that it in any way moves them away from feminism. You have a large misunderstanding there. If anything, they see you as quaint, out of date, and a bit of a stooge, but they will take it — a useful man, as it were.
If it makes you feel better, by all means, but entertaining illusions that you are saving women from becoming bitter feminists by holding the door for them is self-deluding nonsense. I have heard comments from the mouths of women *myself* which directly contradict what you are thinking there.
February 25th, 2015 at 3:24 pm
Dude, I’m not holding onto romanticism. I continue to hold the door for two reasons.
1. It’s effective game if it’s a chick I want to break the ice with. Call it an opener.
and
2. For the rest..
a) The miserable bitch feminist.. I am slighting her by denying her her equalism, instead of handing it to her on a platter like 447 suggests. I’m straight up TELLING her she is the weaker sex in my view.
b) The chick I know nothing about who is not a miserable feminist bitch, has done no harm and there’s no harm in my being a gentleman, and possibly preventing her from losing faith in men. Do we not want feminine women? Don’t slam the fucking door in their faces, and be courteous. Why is this so difficult to understand?
February 25th, 2015 at 3:26 pm
@jeremy
“Are you insane? ”
Maybe..
But while I did say fat and old, I never said alone. Sure alone when I opened the door for her.. doesn’t mean she doesn’t have a big family at home, with a husband she cooks for, etc… That’s where you are being quite presumptuous if you let the door go.
Get it now?
We’ll leave my state of sanity for another thread.
February 25th, 2015 at 3:29 pm
I still think TuffLuv might be woman.
February 25th, 2015 at 3:31 pm
@nova
Very sweeping generalization about women’s perception of door holding. I disagree. They will see it in different ways depending on their disposition and their raising, believe it or not..
Just like @Tilikum thinks a woman holding a door for him is props for his value, and I see it as a challenge to his manhood.
I’m only suggesting that possibility, and that there’s no harm in it, while also saying there IS harm in disposing of the practice altogether, because it grants feminist-minded women the equalism they want.. gives them a ‘see I told you’, for women on the cusp, sends the message that you see them as equals, etc.. Not to mention just being rude.
February 25th, 2015 at 3:36 pm
“TuffLuv
February 25th, 2015 at 8:40 am
@447
You’re ridiculous man..
Do you really think your advice will help these invisible young gents?
Are you telling me you don’t hold the door for a hot chick you just saw for the first time, to set the stage for the elevator ride you’re about to share, in order to gain a little edge in qualifying for her interest?
You’re full of shit, man.
Boys, you WILL qualify for her affection, whether you like it or not. You WILL perform. Being an asshat in a one on one scenario will never get you the girl. In a social scene, maybe.
Furthermore, anyone who thinks PUA is for the benefit of ‘other men’ is delusional. Part of the whole mindset of women nowadays is a direct result of PUA. Not that PUA is unwarranted, but to think more PUA, and less chivalry, and more callousness will somehow bring them back to where we want them, or make it easier on ‘the invisibles’, is insanity.
You’re suggestion puts the cart before the horse. If your purpose is to disqualify yourself immediately, take 447’s advice.”
Frame broken.
Female need for emotional reaction combined with the usual shaming catalogue (—>google: “The Catalogue of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics”) indicates that original statement is correct.
As for your strange questions – no, I do not hold open doors or attempt to “set something up” with hot women.
All the activities you mention … beta wanna-be-“tactics” relying on appeasment, servicing women and seeking their approval. The only thing one demonstrates by doing the things you mention is a scarcity mentality and needyness (“OMG, a hot chick! I have to show how special I am, quick quick, how can I perform for her, ooowww just how?”).
Your inability to imagine a man *not* doing this demonstrates solipsism at work – again.
Your elobarate warning about all of this being “insanity”, “PUA” (sic!) not working etc. pp. – for every reader here who has done his homework, you demonstrate how perfectly *right* it is to do as clarified above.
You fall back on the same thing that females do when they trick inexperienced men:
“Owwww, don’t be like Jerk-John, he’s such an asshole and only wants to fuck all the girls that want to be with him, this no-good-partydoing horndog…I’m soooo glad you are diiiiffffferent and we have this speeecciiiaaaal friendship! And all my girlfriends think so too, you will find a nice girl to marry someday, just be yourself! Now goodnight, Jerk-John did not call again all evening, I have to know what he’s up to again, this stupid asshole!”
What REALLY happens if one goes first in line, does not stop the elevator at all (perhaps even smiling and frenetically pushing the button when chick approaches or doing cartoonish things like cutting in line at the supermarket before a chick and stick out you tongue):
a) those 80% who wouldn’t give true alpha fux anyway are angry and pissed off, but afraid to do or say anything, if outside their social sphere (if not –> ignore or anger them even more, just for fun)
Profit: Save time and energy, have fun in everyday life, cut lines, never carry boxes again.
Loss: None, as zero true fucks would have been given anyway.
b) those ~20% who would give alpha fux/full access act in a indivdually varying manner, but at least drop strong hints/actions for initiating a conversation and try to keep it going. “Be the skittles man” (@heartiste) or being the loser with women but winner at life leads to:
Profit: Save time and energy, prospects that are DTF and/or strongly attracted make themselves known.
Loss: None, see above.
c) You get to know guys with humour or a crazy streak, again –> more profit.
The only real loss is:
a) desparate chicks who are somehow attracted in some minor and insignificant way, but still demand princess treatment in the form of “payment” (=beta performance) before giving up the pussy.
If somebody wants a mediocre, boring sexual experience where the women constantly has to be pacified by perfomance AND feels the constant need to pacify herself (because her hypergamic gutslings tell her that she deserves “more & better than this loser, sista!”) – go for it and hold open doors.
But you can get that (a mediocre, makeshift and improvised sexual experience n exchange for symbolic perfromance aka beta buck$) better for a few bucks at Whorehouse Lane.
February 25th, 2015 at 3:42 pm
@TuffLuv
Well, if we’re just discussing fat and old, that’s easier. Lets go back to your comment…
I don’t see fat in there, but that’s fine.
If you’re fat, it’s your own fucking fault. I’m not going to hold a door for you just because you’re fat any more than I’m going to try to waddle you off your monstrous sleep-number bed each morning. No special courtesy is deserved (nor should it be expected of anyone) for a situation you put yourself in.
Unattractive I believe I covered.
Age is no special status deserving of respect. Respect is earned. In the past, parents taught their kids to respect their elders. That’s the old set of rule books though. My respect for anyone baby-boomer age and above died when it was clear that not only were they continuing to vote for and encourage absurd levels of public spending, but that they did not give a shit what kind of world they were leaving for their kids in this respect. In fact, if feminism’s existence alone doesn’t tell you just how shortsighted those people who want your respect just for being old actually are, nothing will.
The blue pill is strong in this one. You seem to have all the behaviors of some kind of alpha, but you actually believe in the blue pill nonsense. I would guess that your natural alpha behavior has left you no experience with the real world for what 80+% of men deal with on a daily basis. I would suggest you go read M3’s painful rendering of what a decade as an involuntarily celibate man sounds like, and then see if you still think the old set of books applies.
February 25th, 2015 at 3:43 pm
@Tuff —
No.
The old rules don’t apply. You can still apply them personally, but women will nevertheless work under the new rules as well. Sure, they will take the benefits of the old rules when they are offered, and then will take the benefits of the new rules as well. You are not reinstituting the old rules by being chivalrous, you are merely permitting women — as a class (because that is how they vote) — to continue to avoid the consequences of enacting the new rules by continuing to provide them with the benefits of the old rules while the “rest” of the old rules (the ones that restricted them) no longer apply and likely never will. You are, in effect, providing a subsidy for the new rules by preventing women from seeing how bad the new rules can be, again precisely because through your actions you are saying “hey, you can have the best of the new rules, and the best of the old rules, too, and men are totally cool with that!”.
Look, women are NEVER going to voluntarily “go back to the old rules” with respect to any of the old rules that hemmed them in, or that they didn’t like, or that they think didn’t directly benefit women. They will be happy to take the benefits of the old rules that didn’t hem them in, or that they liked, while they do whatever the heck they want under the new rules that they helped create. All you are doing is enabling.
Again, if you want to do that because it makes you feel better about yourself, go right ahead. But the idea that you change women by doing so — either individually or en masse — is simply false. The test? Go and try to follow the old rules in a way that doesn’t benefit women and see what the reaction is. They’re not going back to stuff they don’t like — period. If men offer the best of both worlds, without a price, of course they will take it –> they are not stupid. But they are not “going back to that” in general, in any way that doesn’t specifically benefit them, whether you act chivalrously or not.
February 25th, 2015 at 3:43 pm
“Did it occur to anyone here that a lot of unattractive or old women are such miserable bitches, and become man haters, BECAUSE men treat them like shit? ” :-D
Hypergamy doesn’t care about invisible men.
Men with options (aka at least learned/situational alpha signal capability or above in skill level) don’t care about the signal carriers of the hypergamic code.
“Where’s the love fellas?”
In the set of books.
February 25th, 2015 at 3:48 pm
TuffLuv’s 20 year BP marriage really did a number on his FI conditioning. But then again, everyone during triage goes thorough similar motions.
February 25th, 2015 at 3:49 pm
“They’re not going back to stuff they don’t like — period. If men offer the best of both worlds, without a price, of course they will take it –> they are not stupid. But they are not “going back to that” in general, in any way that doesn’t specifically benefit them, whether you act chivalrously or not.”
I fully agree to this statement.
As your statement explicitly makes clear, there is no reciprocity at all.
The logical conclusion is to do as one pleases, because the other party EXPLICITLY states to have no interest in reciprocity or reaching an agreement.
If the other party acts that way, any and all attempts at “appeasement” and “showing good will” become even more ridiculous.
Way to cut out the crap and streamline the process of deciding on the right course of action. :-D
February 25th, 2015 at 3:56 pm
Rollo,
Thanks, read it and it makes sense. I guess I Dreaded her and I soft dread her now, as she is getting some grey hairs etc. Since learning and going through the stages I’ve gained frame ie., I now where more style and button downs tucked in and shave more with more cologne etc. I’ve always been in great shape.
The seeing me as a family member seems to be the ringer. Since learing and practicing all of this, she is has had me put it in the back door which she only did once a very long time ago.
Good to know it’s not self-deception on my part, and getting Frame is working.
Just so others know, I am only 5/9 a buck 65 and have thinning hair. She use to pick cute friends to try to make their family and ours “family friends”, but quickly ended it with them because she thought they were hitting on me. One of them was and still is 9/10. I was helping them move houses and she and I were driving the moving truck to their new place. IOI was there and she would have been nice to bang, but my morality is higher than it once was. That and her skinny compulsive liar husband was hung like an elephant.
February 25th, 2015 at 4:33 pm
“TuffLuv”
It’s called independent critical thinking fellas. Rollo is brilliant, and so are many of you, but group think can find it’s way into any discussion. You are not immune.
“AlphaFemale”
Group think is a terrible and scary thing, as this blog proves time and time again.
February 25th, 2015 at 4:34 pm
Yay, automatically decry a group that shares ideas with the pejorative “group think” label. Never mind if those shared ideas are valid for the majority of cases or not.
February 25th, 2015 at 4:39 pm
@Sun Wukong
“Group think” started off as a term describing technical people cornering themselves into an unmarketable solution to the technical problem posed to them (a economically phyrric victory of sorts). Now it’s a label used by the mainstream against any small group that disagrees with them. It has lost all meaning, it’s as meaningless as the term “racist” at this point.
What’s really bad is when you see people use that term to prevent themselves from considering alternative points of view.
February 25th, 2015 at 5:05 pm
there is word phrasing common to “TuffLuv” and “Professor Von Hardwiggs”
which is to say be careful about holding the door open for possible trolls
February 25th, 2015 at 5:08 pm
@jeremy
“has left you no experience with the real world for what 80+% of men deal with on a daily basis.”
Well, I’ll concede this is true.. And certainly I don’t have the same needs or concerns as the younger generation who have a desire to have a family, decent woman, etc (believe or not, my wife was a decent woman, while difficult, for most of our marriage)..
But y’all realize I’m just trying to help.. I still disagree, and think you are conceding equalism, and giving them an excuse to promote their cause (i.e. proving their point). But we’ll agree to disagree. First guy to get a chick to show interest by letting the door go on her, post your experience here. First guy to get ANY positive out of it, I’d like to know.
@447
““Owwww, don’t be like Jerk-John,” (rant)
Dude, here’s another point where I disagree with the sphere.. just because the chick’s not fucking you, doesn’t mean the guy she is fucking is a jerk, asshole, etc.. Doesn’t mean that at all. The sphere has deluded itself greatly in this regard.
February 25th, 2015 at 5:12 pm
@Nova
“through your actions you are saying “hey, you can have the best of the new rules, and the best of the old rules, too, and men are totally cool with that!”.”
No.. I’m saying, “hey babe, you smell goooood.” While I hold the door for her. lol
February 25th, 2015 at 5:13 pm
@TuffLuv
That just reads like absurdity. You do realize that equalism would require me to let the door slam in her face?
February 25th, 2015 at 5:22 pm
@jeremy
Yes, that’s my point. By not holding the door you are treating her as an equal. If you hold the door, you are sending her the signal that you are the stronger sex. Can be insulting to a feminist or Strong Indy.
Inversely, a woman holding the door for me sends “me” the message she thinks we’re equals.. It repulses me, and this is one time when I will try to train that particular woman, by stopping, fidgeting, whatever I can do to leave her hanging.
February 25th, 2015 at 5:24 pm
It’s my way of saying, “bitch, that ain’t the way it works.”
Maybe I’m just an old timer, but I still don’t see how y’all are gaining anything.
February 25th, 2015 at 5:41 pm
@TuffLuv
That’s a false dichotomy if I’ve ever seen one. Neither one of those actions automatically presumes the conclusion you are giving. Equalism demands that I let the door slam in her face, but it does not follow that if I let the door slam in her face then I am treating her like an equal. Likewise, chivalry demands that I hold doors, drop cloaks into puddles, etc… but just because I hold a door does not make me the “stronger sex”.
As others here have said, you can certainly “be chivalrous” and not harm your chances with the ladies regardless of what their mindset is. They could be the flattest-ass lesbian feminists and still be attracted by your actions, or they could be the born-and-bred traditionalist and be repulsed by your attention. What you’re missing is the red pill context that makes these actions alpha or beta. That’s what really matters, the context and intent. That’s what you need to read and understand before deciding you just disagree with us.
February 25th, 2015 at 5:45 pm
Tuff- your response to Nova shows you are not thinking your points through. He made a great point which you try to blow off with a non-sequitur. You made th point that holding doors open for women was part of some way of keeping women in their place. Nova made a very good point about how women are then simply getting the benefits of chivalry without the impetus to change. Your answer was a very lame response at humor to cover the fact that he disproved your point.
You are the one who brought up how you are teaching woman some lesson by holding the door for them. Nova showed you were wrong. If you want to hold a door open as some sort of Game.. then go for it, no-one is telling you not to. We all do what works, and I, like Rollo it seems, don’t think holding or not holding a door really is all that important, but where you are coming from that is. But your spinning a bit here and it’s obvious, even to someone who kind of sees where you’re coming from.
When I first came to red pill, I had alot of the same thoughts as you- call it purple pill I guess. But time and experience have set me a bit more straight. You call it group think, but it is not. In short, in time you will come to a view that works for you. If you have read these comments for any amount of time you will see that group think here is virtually non-existent. These comments blow up in arguments all the time.
I think things are more complex than they are presented here, but you have to remember- we are distilling the essence of things here, not taking on every variable possible- which would be moot. Another poster up above said he felt ashamed that guys here were making a big deal about whether she holds your hand at your death bed or not. Missing the point that the singular event is not the point, but the principle it reveals and illuminates. I think you are making the same mistake as that poster did.
Rollo is not prescribing anything- as he says often. But we are talking in general principles and themes.. and that means necessarily avoiding talking about every variable known to man that effects the outcome. When deducing the law of gravity, you have to remove the variables.. if you don’t you get lost in the fact that a feather falls more slowly than a cannonball. But when you remove the variables you see the underlying rule that gravity acts on both the same way with mathematical precision. The fact that you are geting caught up in holding doors convo shows you are missing the point.
.
February 25th, 2015 at 5:49 pm
@tuff:
I agree with you one can get some very positive responses from holding doors or helping her into the jacket. But Rollo et all is still right. It is just the trigger to release an attraction that had to be build otherwise. They often don’t realize it was there before themselves, that’s why it’s so deceptive. If you got some natural alpha traits and basically do suit-game for a living (I’m a lawyer myself), you might not realize it. But if you had less alpha and would do it all the time to women, it wouldn’t yield any positive results, you would be just some invisible creep. And that’s why it’s terrible advice.
February 25th, 2015 at 5:50 pm
@tuff Oh, and that old lady was once a young bitch too. awalt.
February 25th, 2015 at 5:51 pm
@hobbes
he did not disprove my point..
His interpretation of what is “says to a woman” when I hold the door open is no more valid than mine. Mine being “hey lemme get that for you, you weaker sex thing, you. cuz I’m a man and you need my help”.
They are all opinions.
But you’re right, I did non-sequitur.
February 25th, 2015 at 5:53 pm
@jeremy
“That’s a false dichotomy if I’ve ever seen one. ”
False in your opinion.
It is only my opinion. I never claimed it as fact.
February 25th, 2015 at 5:57 pm
” What you’re missing is the red pill context that makes these actions alpha or beta.”
Well, perhaps my viewpoint, and my actions, and my intent, are simply alpha in my opinion.
That’s why I do them. It’s me being a man, whether the woman likes it or not, whether convention calls for it or not, whether it’s outdated or not. I like the response I get.. I like to send the signal I ‘think’ I’m sending. I like believing that 1 in 10 women view it as,, rebellious even. Yes, I mean that.
February 25th, 2015 at 6:02 pm
@hobbes
“Nova showed you were wrong. ”
No, he just gave his opinion
“then go for it, no-one is telling you not to.”
” The fact that you are geting caught up in holding doors convo shows you are missing the point.”
Just fyi, this convo had nothing to do with rollo’s teachings, and was a direct response to a direct suggestion by 447. He was telling me ‘not to’. And I started the argument, so I should finish it.
February 25th, 2015 at 6:03 pm
@TuffLuv
Temptation to be extraordinarily mean…. very strong….must…resist…
February 25th, 2015 at 6:04 pm
Just realized this is ladder theory wrapped in a different package…
good stuff. Can’t wait for you’re next book Rollo. I need all the help I can get to deal with women right now. I’m in a US top-5 Industrial Engineering school, and just received an email earlier today from the new female academic advisor (now works as an “equal” to the male academic advisor who has a B.S. & M.S. in Industrial Engineering, Ph.D in Philosophy, whereas she has a Masters in Teaching and B.A. in History) about an upcoming event, “[Name of College] Women Lead”. They have the Editor of “Ms. Magazine” coming to spew garbage onto all of the girls who attend about how great women are, and at the same time how oppressed they are. The tagline of the event is “By providing participants with the knowledge, skills and ability to affect change, we hope to create a better campus, a better community, a better world. A world in which [COLLEGE NAME] WOMEN LEAD.” So we need to fight sexism with more sexism? God, it hurts so dearly to acknowledge this is occurring at one of the finest engineering colleges in the world, with logic like that. Where can we run to Rollo? Where is safe from this tyranny of the vagina? I see no safe “modern” location that has not been corrupted by the feminine imperative. Enjoy the decline?
February 25th, 2015 at 6:06 pm
@Tuff, the mere fact that you think holding a door for a woman is some form of Game only illustrates your investment in old-order Blue Pill idealism.
February 25th, 2015 at 6:11 pm
@rollo
how so?
I’ve explained that it has already worked as an effective opener for me, and surely for other gents.
Interested in how that makes me BP in your view?
February 25th, 2015 at 6:14 pm
Have at it Jeremy
A false dichotomy could only exist if I were presenting two binary facts..
I am only offering two possible opinions of what goes through a woman’s mind in a certain scenario.. never claiming they are the only one’s possible, never claiming they are facts.
February 25th, 2015 at 6:18 pm
@TuffLuv
Well, first, what I stated wasn’t opinion, it’s just fact. I’ll repeat it:
You’re presuming an either-or scenario exists in a world where context matters more than anything. How is that not a false dilemma fallacy? Opinion doesn’t even enter the conversation here, you’re presenting a limited-scope reasoning and expecting it to apply to every woman and every door, and every man, at all times. It’s absurd.
February 25th, 2015 at 6:21 pm
@tuff- I will just say this and let you be.. you are invested in your ideas and I am not invested in changing them, so I wish you the best.
I can hold a door open for a woman and believe it means I am Napoleon, but the fact remains I am not. Nova offered logical reasoning that was as close to facts as we can come to in this type of discussion. In response you offer merely that your opinion, being an opinion, makes it equally valid. See above: you are not Napoleon.
February 25th, 2015 at 6:44 pm
I am more than a bit baffled that the act of holding a door has become a political act.
Maybe it’s just my place of origin and local custom but around here everyone holds doors for everyone else. We call this being polite. There is no implication of game or politics involved. I would also note women of all ages, hold doors for men, of all ages.
Truly baffling, and a bit sad how uncivilized the larger society has become.
February 25th, 2015 at 6:52 pm
I don’t know if I recall correctly from the billion posts above. Tuff’s 20 year marriage was to a BPD chick, right?
It is awfully hard to keep “frame” with a borderline personality disorder girl, most decidedly when you have children with them.
I had a short fling with one in the 80’s during medical school. In contrast to Rollo’s contention that it wasn’t in the DSM of psychological disorders. I remember seeing it described in the early 90’s. Could have been on my Doogie Howser amber Interwebs Dos screen at the time.
BPD chicks would have it be your fault. All the time, and you would be inclined to be blue pill. And have been seduced by the good sex. Real good sex. I can see your blue pill genesis plain as day.
Tuff, this is a red pill site. Arguing blue pill stuff here isn’t likely to make you friends. Your colorful history is valuable as it just adds credibility to Rollo’s theses.
February 25th, 2015 at 7:46 pm
@not so Tuff the invisible who is trying so hard to be visible to men and women.
you are making it so easy for women to see you as a big Beta.
did you know that holding a door for a woman is a failed shit test on your part ?
did you know that women shit test a complete stranger even if they are not interested in him ?
a man who is holding anything for a woman is viewed by her to be a beta ?
slam the door to her face once and twice and trust me next time she sees you she wants to hate fuck you , and you know how sexy it is to hate fuck?
February 25th, 2015 at 7:57 pm
February 25th, 2015 at 8:35 pm
@badpainter
I agree. I hold doors/ elevators open for everyone. Men and women. Not for any fucking gain or some hope that she might smile and I have an in. No I do it because it’s a polite thing to do and it’s how I would want to be treated. I don’t give a fuck if it’s beta or alpha or how anybody wants to view it. I do what I want to do and if people don’t like it they can kick rocks.
I’ll say this though. In my experience most men have the decency to hold the door open for their fellow man. That is not the case with women. Whether it’s sheer obliviousness or bitchiness I’ve had more than my share of women not extend the same courteousy. A broad who can’t be bothered to practice some basic fucking manners is not one I’d entertain any kind of relationship with. Pump dump… next.
That scene from Bronx tale is an absolute classic.
February 25th, 2015 at 8:39 pm
Tuffluv you have a lot of buffer zones you’ll have a tuff time breaking through.
February 25th, 2015 at 9:00 pm
that is the only door that I want to open .
February 25th, 2015 at 9:09 pm
Jesus. It’s simple, written, and the reason i only comment so often.
You can’t give something you don’t have. Few of you (by your posts) have the cred to hold a door without it being seen as Beta.
Please keep doing it and donating the pussy to me.
Thx.
February 25th, 2015 at 9:54 pm
You’re a legend in your own mind.
February 25th, 2015 at 9:59 pm
Tilikum – “Please keep doing it and donating the pussy to me.”
But I can’t give something I don’t have.
February 25th, 2015 at 10:10 pm
TuffLuv: If you hold the door, you are sending her the signal that you are the stronger sex.”
Rollo: Tuff, the mere fact that you think holding a door for a woman is some form of Game only illustrates your investment in old-order Blue Pill idealism.
TuffLuv: how so?
Do you know who is most likely to hold a door for me? People who are in my employ, either directly or indirectly (such as a doorman or hostess), and others who recognize themselves as being of inferior social status (strangers often assume I am some sort of officer, even when I am dressed all raggedy assed).
Holding doors is courtly behaviour. It is a form of supplication and debasing by design. It is only two levels up from getting on your knees and bowing at the feet of someone. It displays and reenforces that the person who does it is in service to the recipient.
You have the impetus and function of the behaviour entirely inverted in your mind.