Category Archives: Unplugging

Teach Your Children Well

teaching_4yos

Yes I know my enemies, they’re the teachers who taught me to fight me.

Today’s picture comes to us courtesy of popsugar – h/t heartiste and Zelscorpion.

In honor of International Men’s Day, this picture serves as a grim reminder that boys are often pressured to succumb to gendered expectations. Last year, a group of fourth grade boys was asked to list what they don’t like about being male, and the sad results were projected in the classroom. It’s important to consider what we are teaching young boys about what it means to be a man or masculine. How do you approach gender expectations with your children?

I’m leading off with this for the weekend’s discussion post because it encapsulates precisely what I was describing towards the end of my post on Vulnerability, that our modern normative social consciousness is one that is defined by a female-correct, female-beneficial experience. Bear in mind that this projection is from the collected, learned experiences of a group of 9 year old boys who have been conditioned to a self-loathing of masculinity in a feminine-correct social order.

The question, “What I don’t like about being a boy” seems fairly innocuous, but in a feminine-correct social awareness it becomes a litmus test to gauge how well these boys have internalized feminine-correct, conditioned beliefs. Read the list of offending grievances:

  • Not being able to be a mother
  • Not supposed to cry
  • Not allowed to be a cheerleader
  • Supposed to do all the work
  • Supposed to like violence
  • Supposed to play football
  • Boys smell bad
  • Having an automatic bad reputation
  • Grow hair everywhere

The list reads like the table of contents from the textbook of exactly what I’d expect from an organized feminine-primary conditioning, however we need to look deeper. It’s important to bear in mind that these uniquely male attributes are grievances these boys wish they could alter about themselves. These boys believe their lives would be improved (perfected) if they could be less like boys and more like girls. Masculine incorrect, feminine correct.

I’m often criticized of being conspiratorial for my assertion that the Feminine Imperative conditions men from a very early age to accept their eventual Beta supportive role later in life. While this masculine grievance list from 4th grade boys is a good illustration, it’s simply one example of the earliest parts of the feminine-correct landscape men are raised not just to internalize, but to evangelize about to other boys / men as well.

The Patriarchy

B301mVqCcAEyo20

Amongst the crown jewels of the most useful of feminine operative social conventions is the meta-contrivance of an ever present, omni-oppressive state of masculine social control – the Patriarchy. The term was coined by the luminaries of second wave feminism to give name to an otherwise ambiguous enemy. That ambiguity was a necessary buffer to mask the real focus of feminism’s intended destructiveness – masculinity.

If you read between the lines of Sarkesian’s tweet here you can see the presumption of experiential feminine-correctness that is her mental point of origin. Her presumed context for all her public interactions is that any normal male reading it, what she believes is logic, will already be prepared to accept that what is in women’s best interests is necessarily what is in men’s best interests.

Thus, deductively, what is perceived by women to be harmful to women is necessarily harmful to men – all because the concept of what is harmful or beneficial to either proceeds from a conditioned understanding of ubiquitous female-correctness.

Hardline feminists, female and male, will rattle this trope off in different varieties, but the message is the same, “the Patriarchy hurts men too.” The reason this is standard boilerplate is because it presumes a shared state of feminine-correctness, and a shared state of mutual oppression whether a man is aware of his Patriarchal oppression or not.

This social convention is really a form of marketeering; selling a solution to a problem it created itself. The true focus isn’t about solving problems created by an imagined male-social dominance, nor is it about marginalizing the less palatable aspects of masculinity. Rather, the true objective is a wholesale elimination of any semblance of conventional masculinity in men.

This learned feminine ‘correctness’ began with the 4th grade (actually before then) boy’s conditioned self-loathing of their masculinity.

“I find myself increasingly shocked at the unthinking and automatic rubbishing of men which is now so part of our culture that it is hardly even noticed.

We have many wonderful, clever, powerful women everywhere, but what is happening to men? Why did this have to be at the cost of men?

I was in a class of nine- and 10-year-olds, girls and boys, and this young woman was telling these kids that the reason for wars was the innately violent nature of men.

You could see the little girls, fat with complacency and conceit while the little boys sat there crumpled, apologizing for their existence, thinking this was going to be the pattern of their lives.

Lessing said the teacher tried to catch my eye, thinking I would approve of this rubbish.

This kind of thing is happening in schools all over the place and no one says a thing.

It has become a kind of religion that you can’t criticize because then you become a traitor to the great cause, which I am not.

It is time we began to ask who are these women who continually rubbish men. The most stupid, ill-educated and nasty woman can rubbish the nicest, kindest and most intelligent man and no one protests.

Men seem to be so cowed that they can’t fight back, and it is time they did.”

– Doris Lessing

While this account is an indictment of the Feminine Imperative, the irony of Lessing’s shock and disgust is that in the feminine-primary social environment she’s contributed to, only a woman can authoritively observe and describe men’s debasement and be taken with any amount of seriousness. No man could’ve written this and been taken as anything but misogyny.
I received a pertinent email from a reader, Dan, this week:

Rollo, why do women raise their sons to be beta?

In my personal experience and from what many men who have made the red pill transition have said, most mothers seem to raise their sons to be beta. From an evolutionary prospective this makes no sense. It would be in the best interest of a woman’s genetics and future bloodline to raise alpha sons who can subsequently attract and impregnate more women, yet it seems women overwhelmingly raise their sons to be beta (“women want a nice guy”, “just be yourself”, and encouraging submissive behavior toward women). I could understand why society as a whole would promote this dynamic because it benefits the female Imperative, but at the individual level, evolution tends to be much more selfish. What gives?

Dan

A woman, your mother, sister, aunt, grandmother and every girl ‘friend’ you think you have are all in on a meta-shit test – they want you, and their sons, to Just Get It in spite of what they mistakenly believe are in your best interests as a man. You must embrace an Alpha mindset without a woman instructing you to be so or by definition you are not Alpha.

Women fundamentally lack an existential male experience, so the advice, the upbringing, to be more Beta, be more compromising of the masculine for the feminine, stems from women’s best guess as to what would make their sons into the best men they believe they themselves would like to pair and bond with.

Women’s sexual strategy is rooted in dualistic hypergamy – Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks. Women already feel the familial kin-affiliation with their sons (the comforting Beta bucks security side of hypergamy) thus the Alpha Fucks side conflicts with that investment.

In the case of most single mothers, the hindsight regret of having achieved her subconscious goal of securing the Alpha Fucks genetics in her prime fertility years may be distorted by her inability to adequately realize the Beta Bucks side of her Hypergamy when the Alpha father declines the parental investment she thought would be forthcoming from him. Thus, that Beta Bucks idealization gets transferred to her son(s) and is reflected in how she raises him.

Also remember, Hypergamy is based on two parts, sexuality and security. It also stands to reason that by ensuring her son is a good manipulable Beta provider (by both her and any woman he pairs with) that his provisioning would also extend to her in the event that his father dies or abandoned her.

One last thing, human parenting evolved from the parental investment of a complementary masculine influence to balance a feminine influence. When left to a singular feminine influence in upbringing, you’re correct, it makes no evolutionary “sense”. Thus we have our contemporary landscape filled with “men” who are overwhelmingly feminized and ill prepared to lead complementary relationships with women.

Towards the end of my Vulnerability post I tackled a documentary by Jennifer Siebel Newsom called The Masks You Live In. In that part of the essay I described how the Feminine Imperative coordinates social conventions which invalidates the male experience by fostering the idea that conventional masculinity is an act or a front men put on to distract from what really lies behind the mask – a ‘true self’ defined by feminine-correct sensitivities and emotionalism:

Perhaps more damaging though is the effort the Feminine Imperative has made in convincing generations of men that masculinity and its expressions (of any kind) is an act, a front, not the real man behind the mask of masculinity that’s already been predetermined by his feminine-primary upbringing.

You see, it’s not enough to simply raise generations of boys to question what it means to be male, the idea of a male defined masculinity is dangerous to a feminine-primary social order. Boys must be taught to be self-loathing of their maleness, to despise what it is to eventually be a man.

And even that’s not sufficient. Men must be continually reminded that masculinity is ridiculous, pitiable in it’s attempts to understand the feminine, and that men would already be feminine-correct beings if they’d simply drop the facade of their mask of positive masculinity.

Here’s the face of your perfected ‘adult’ male:

“When looking for a life partner, my advice to women is date all of them: the bad boys, the cool boys, the commitment-phobic boys, the crazy boys. But do not marry them. The things that make the bad boys sexy do not make them good husbands. When it comes time to settle down, find someone who wants an equal partner. Someone who thinks women should be smart, opinionated and ambitious. Someone who values fairness and expects or, even better, wants to do his share in the home. These men exist and, trust me, over time, nothing is sexier.”

― Sheryl Sandberg, Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead

These are the men that the Feminine Imperative has created. The men who, “want an equal partner. Someone who thinks women should be smart, opinionated and ambitious. Someone who values fairness and expects or, even better, wants to do his share in the home.” The men the imperative must convince are ‘sexier’ at precisely the concurrent time that their provisioning and security are most important to women at their necessitous phase of life.

These are the men who made the list of things they were taught they shouldn’t like about being a boy when they were 9 years old.

So for this weekend’s discussion question I’ll ask the same thing popsugar did, how do (will) you approach gender expectations with your children?


Rational Male – Q&A

RM_Q&A

SoSuave and Rational Male reader compleks had a few questions about what he read in The Rational Male book. Since I’ve been doing these weekend questions lately I thought these might make for some interesting discussions. Hopefully they wont distract you from family time this holiday weekend, but maybe they make for some interesting dinner table talk.

Just a side note here, I’m deliberately leaving my own answers less detailed than I normally would so as to inspire your owndiscussions:

If The Rational Male was recommended to me as a book about game, I probably wouldn’t have read it. But my friend who put me onto it basically described it as a life altering piece that would forever change the way I viewed the world of inter-gender relations.

Big sell!

So I read it.

Being freshly unplugged I’m still just awakening from that groggy comatose/confused state. However I feel as though I have a slight head start on at least some of the material. Just by sheer chance, rather than any real research into the subject.

I’ve only ever been in one LTR (2years), and it was with the girl I first hooked up with (she let me sleep with her, better hang onto this one!). Anyway, I ended that (5-6years ago) and have been single ever since, with no desire of entering another relationship.

I started ‘spinning plates’ about a year ago, just through a natural realization that any moral/ethical objection was actually completely unfounded. Not just my own (programmed) objections, but objections from the feminine perspective, which I guess are one in the same. I thought I must have been ‘wired’ differently because I had no desire of settling back into a LTR. I actually argued my case on multiple occasions to avoid it happening.

This book was eye opening and definitely shed some light on issues I never would have even thought to question.

If you care to keep reading I’m just going to spew some thoughts/questions having just finished the book. Keep in mind this is from a very rudimentary understanding of the text.

QUESTIONS

1) Does ONEitis best Hypergamy?
We all know a girl (either personally or anecdotally) who is in a committed relationship with some deadbeat. Everyone knows she can do better, but you can’t possibly convince her to leave him. What factors are at play here? Does SHE suffer from ONEitis to the point that her hypergamous tendencies have been shut off?

Or could it be a case of low self esteem and lack of self worth, so much so that she believes he is the best she can do? Or could he actually just be an Alpha male (albeit a bad example of one)? I’m sure there’s a grey area or middle ground here with many factors potentially at play depending on the specific scenarios. But it’s a pretty common scenario and I’d like to hear what you guys think.

I get this one now and then – “What about this one great looking girl I know who’s stuck on this complete douchebag, deadbeat, scumbag, suckup, :insert invective here:?” While I’m not sold on the idea that women ever get ONEitis for a guy, I am thoroughly convinced that women being 1-2 SMV points below a particular man they’re involved with develop a strong attachment for him.

For women, oftentimes that attachment gets paired with the soul-mate myth. I’d separate that “spiritualism” from the ONEitis a man gets for a woman, but it’s still rooted in the same dynamic – the subconscious realization that this person is the ‘best they can do’ in the SMP.

The reason I’d make the separation between how men experience ONEitis and women is due to the concepts either have when it comes to love. Women’s concept of love is rooted in opportunism as a result of their innate drive towards hypergamous optimization. All this ‘deadbeat’ needs do is be perceptually 1-2 levels above her own perceived SMV and the Alpha prerequisite for Hypergamy is met.

Most guys looking from the outside of that perception in realize the guy’s a fuck up (even Alpha Buddah, Corey Worthington is an example), and we can’t understand why that subjectively hot woman can’t use reason and rationality to see that he is, but then, this is due to our own self-perceptions and our mistaken belief that women’s reason can be appealed to.

2) Genuine Inter-Gender friendships?
Okay, so i don’t have the book with me. But I remember reading a sub-section on inter-gender relationships. It didn’t sit well with me when I read it, but it’s probably something I will have to re-read. I have a lot of female friends. Friendships that go back 15 years. Some of these are very close friends in a completely non-sexual way.

I’m closer with some of these girls than I am with many of my male friends.
Initially these friendships may have blossomed based on the fact that I was a shy kid and didn’t have any ‘intimate’ relationships with women till I was 19. But they are now concreted as some of my most valued friendships.

What is your take on Rollos opinion of inter-gender friendships (as outlined in the rational male)?

My take in the book, and still is, is that men and women cannot be friends in the same way and to the same degree of intimacy that same sex friendships develop.

Men and women cannot be friends in the way or to the degree that most people perceive same sex friendship to be. Now the natural response to this is “I have lots of female friends” or “what are you trying to say, I can’t have female friends, they all haffta be enemies?” Which of course is the standard binary (black or white, all or nothing) retort and the trained AFC thinks anyone suggesting that men and women’s relations as friends could be anything less than equitable and fulfilling is just a neanderthal chauvinist thinking. However, they are incorrect – not because you wouldn’t want to actually be a woman’s friend. There are fundamental differences in the ways men and women view friendship within the framework of their own sex and the ways this transfers to the concept of intergender-friendship.

Quite simply there are limitations on the degree to which a friendship can develop between men and women. The easy illustration of this is that at some point your female “friend” will become intimately involved with another male; at which point the quality of what you perceived as a legitimate friendship will decay. It must decay for her intimate relationship to mature. For instance, I’ve been married for 18 years now; were I to entertain a deep friendship with another female (particularly an attractive female) other than my wife, my interest in this woman automatically becomes suspect of infidelity – and of course the same holds true for women with man-friends. This dynamic simply doesn’t exist for same sex friendships because the sexual aspect is inconsequential.

I should add here that the presumption of an equatable degree, character or quality of intergender friendship (platonic) being the same as a same-sex friendship is a product of the same “we’re-all-the-same-with-different-plumbing” naive equalism that deliberately ignores complementary differences between the sexes.

This presumption is actually a vetting mechanism for women’s control of sexual selection and Hypergamy. The social convention that promotes the idea of equitable concepts of friendship only serves women’s imperative of being able to hold the attentions of multiple male orbiters until such a time that she can optimize both sides of her sexual strategy (Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks). The longer you’re rapt by the idea of an equal intergender friendship, the longer she has to consolidate on whatever side of hypergamy she’s prioritizing at the phase of life she’s in. In other words, the longer you’re in the bullpen, the longer you’ll be a Plan B prospect.

3) Religion vs Evolution vs Habit?
This is a bit abstract. But in terms of a decayed loveless marriage, what would you say are the factors holding these marriages together? Neither party is happy, but they are also unwilling to do anything about it.

One clings to a religious frame as reason to not leave/divorce, as the children are all old enough now that “staying together for the childrens sake” no longer applies.

The other seems completely indifferent and stuck in the routine. Both are mid 50’s and have been married for 30 years and probably just scarred shitless of being alone. But what would you make of this from an ‘unplugged’ point of view. (might be a stretch from the realm of this book, but just curious).

What you’re describing is akin to the phenomenon of Grey Divorce. In the time line from my Preventative Medicine series, I briefly outline what’s known as the 20 year itch – the period of life, usually after 50 around the time a long-married couple becomes ‘empty nesters’ and the binding responsibilities of raising children is at, or almost at an end.

It’s around this phase that a reassessment of one’s partner takes place and the prospects of living out the rest of a life with that person gets serious consideration. This is a phase that’s very telling of the overall prospects of marriage as an institution on whole and how either sex really considers their idealistic, loving union from very mater-of-fact practicality, when there is no longer a mutually cooperative goal (childrearing) as the centerpiece of that relationship.

Religion and/or a conviction that children are better raised by an involved two parent (male and female) family who are both mutually invested in the success of their kids is generally a bond that both parties mutually agree to as the cornerstone of their marriage.

Once that goal has been met (or termed out) then that relationship must be reestablished and based on a genuine interest and desire for the other person. For a man this may involve his realizing an understanding of tenets of the Game that he’s, until then, unwittingly been a party to. For women this may be a longing for renewed interest from extra-marital (but not necessarily infidelity) attentions and desire from other men.

It’s kind of telling how men’s idealistic concept of love endures beyond his late-life Epiphany stage. In spite of having experienced the consequences and all-downside risks men face in their prior marriages, it’s still overwhelmingly men who want to remarry and take another shot at that idealism.

It is women, in either their veiled pragmatism or their aging, unrealizable opportunistic concept of love who are more or less indifferent to the prospects of remarriage.

“Most currently divorced or widowed men are open to the idea of remarriage, but women in the same circumstances are less likely to be,” says the report, which draws on figures from a survey it conducted in May and June. Almost two thirds of men either want to remarry or would at least consider it, while fewer than a half of women would.

These stats alone are more than enough to verify my assertions of how either sex hold different concepts of love.

Men still dream of an idealistic love, and women have find precious little use for men beyond the practical when presented with the prospect of having to optimize Hypergamy at an age they are no longer capable of intersexual competition.


Vulnerability

achilles_heel-1

One of the most endemic masculine pitfalls men have faced since the rise of feminine social primacy has been the belief that their ready displays of emotional vulnerability will make men more desirable mates for women.

In an era when men are raised from birth to be “in touch with their feminine sides”, and in touch with their emotions, we get generations of men trying to ‘out-emote’ each other as a mating strategy.

To the boys who grow into Beta men, the ready eagerness with which they’ll roll over and reveal their bellies to women comes from a conditioned belief that doing so will prove their emotional maturity and help them better identify with the women they mistakenly believe have a capacity to appreciate it.

What they don’t understand is that the voluntary exposing of ones most vulnerable elements isn’t the sign of strength that the Feminine Imperative has literally bred a belief of into these men.

A reflexive exposing of vulnerability is an act of submission, surrender and a capitulation to an evident superior. Dogs will roll over almost immediately when they acknowledge the superior status of another dog.

Vulnerability is not something to be brandished or proud of. While I do believe the insight and acknowledgement of your personal vulnerabilities is a necessary part of understanding oneself (particularly when it comes to unplugging oneself), it is not the source of attraction, and certainly not arousal, that most men believe it is for women.

From the comfort of the internet and polite company women will consider the ‘sounds-right’ appeal of male vulnerability with regard to what they’re supposed to be attracted to, but on an instinctual, subconscious level, women make a connection with the weakness that vulnerability represents.

A lot of men believe that trusting displays of vulnerability are mutually exclusive of displays of weakness, but what they ignore is that Hypergamy demands men that can shoulder the burden of performance. When a man openly broadcasts his vulnerableness he is, by definition, beginning from a position of weakness.

The problem with idealizing a position of strength is in thinking you’re already beginning from that strength and your magnanimous display of trusting vulnerability will be appreciated by a receptive woman. I strongly disagree with assertions like those of various Purple Pill ‘life coaches’ that open, upfront vulnerability is ever attractive to a woman.

The idea goes that if a man is truly outcome-independent with his being rejected by a woman, the first indicator of that independence is a freedom to be vulnerable with her. The approach then becomes one of “hey, I’m just gonna be my vulnerable self and if you’re not into me then I’m cool with that.”

The hope is that a woman will receive this approach as intended and find something refreshing about it, but the sad truth is that if this were the attraction key its promoters wish it was, every guy ‘just being himself‘ would be swimming in top shelf pussy. This is a central element to Beta Game – the hope that a man’s openness will set him apart from ‘other guys’ – it is common practice for men who believe in the equalist fantasy that women will rise above their feral natures when it comes to attraction, and base their sexual selection on his emotional intelligence.

The fact is that there is no such thing as outcome independence. The very act of your approaching a woman means you have made some effort to arrive at a favorable outcome with her. The fact that you’d believe a woman would even find your vulnerability attractive voids any pretense of outcome independence.

Hypergamy Doesn’t Care About Male Vulnerability

When I wrote Women in Love and the followups, Men in Love and Of Love and War, I described men’s concept of love as ‘idealistic’.

Naturally, simple minds exaggerated this into “men just want an impossible unconditional love” or “they want love like they think their mothers loved them.” For what it’s worth, I don’t believe any rational man with some insight ever expects an unconditional love, but I think it’s important to consider that a large part of what constitutes his concept of an idealized love revolves around being loved irrespective of how he performs for, or merits that love.

From Of Love and War:

We want to relax. We want to be open and honest. We want to have a safe haven in which struggle has no place, where we gain strength and rest instead of having it pulled from us. We want to stop being on guard all the time, and have a chance to simply be with someone who can understand our basic humanity without begrudging it. To stop fighting, to stop playing the game, just for a while.

We want to, so badly.

If we do, we soon are no longer able to.

The concept of men’s idealistic love, the love that makes him the true romantic, begins with a want of freedom from his burden of performance. It’s not founded in an absolute like unconditional love, but rather a love that isn’t dependent upon his performing well enough to assuage a woman’s Hypergamous concept of love.

Oh, the Humanity!

As the true romantics, and because of the performance demands of Hypergamy, there is a distinct want for men to believe that in so revealing their vulnerabilities they become more “human” – that if they expose their frailties to women some mask they believe they’re wearing comes off and (if she’s a mythical “quality woman“™) she’ll excuses his inadequacies to perform to the rigorous satisfaction of her Hypergamy.

The problems with this ‘strength in surrender’ hope are twofold.

First, the humanness he believes a woman will respect isn’t the attraction cue he believes it is. Ten minutes perusing blogs about the left-swiping habits of women using Tinder (or @Tinderfessions) is enough to verify that women aren’t desirous of the kind of “humanness” he’s been conditioned to believe women are receptive to.

In the attraction and arousal stages, women are far more concerned with a man’s capacity to entertain her by playing a role and presenting her with the perception of a male archetype she expects herself to be attracted to and aroused by. Hypergamy doesn’t care about how well you can express your humanness, and primarily because the humanness men believe they’re revealing in their vulnerability is itself a predesigned psychological construct of the Feminine Imperative.

Which brings us to the second problem with ‘strength in surrender’. The caricaturized preconception men have about their masculine identity is a construct of a man’s feminine-primary socialization.

The Masks the Feminine Imperative Makes Men Wear

To explain this second problem it’s important to grasp how men are expected to define their own masculine identities within a social order where the only correct definition of masculinity is prepared for men in a feminine-primary context.

What I mean by this is that the humanness that men wish to express in showing themselves as vulnerable is defined by feminine-primacy.

For the greater part of men’s upbringing and socialization they are taught that a conventional masculine identity is in fact a fundamentally male weakness that only women have a unique ‘cure’ for. It’s a widely accepted manosphere fact that over the past 60 or so years, conventional masculinity has become a point of ridicule, an anachronism, and every media form from then to now has made a concerted effort to parody and disqualify that masculinity. Men are portrayed as buffoons for attempting to accomplish female-specific roles, but also as “ridiculous men” for playing the conventional ‘macho’ role of masculinity. In both instances, the problems their inadequate maleness creates are only solved by the application of uniquely female talents and intuition.

Perhaps more damaging though is the effort the Feminine Imperative has made in convincing generations of men that masculinity and its expressions (of any kind) is an act, a front, not the real man behind the mask of masculinity that’s already been predetermined by his feminine-primary upbringing.

Women who lack any living experience of the male condition have the calculated temerity to define for men what they should consider manhood – from a feminine-primary context. This is why men’s preconception of vulnerability being a sign of strength is fundamentally flawed. Their concept of vulnerability stems from a feminine pretext.

Masculinity and vulnerability are defined by a female-correct concept of what should best serve the Feminine Imperative. That feminine defined masculinity (tough-guy ridiculousness) feeds the need for defining vulnerability as a strength – roll over, show your belly and capitulate to that feminine definition of masculinity – and the cycle perpetuates itself.

The Mask You Live In” by director Jennifer Siebel Newsom (dual surname noted) is the perfect example of this perpetuation. You have a woman deciding for a larger public in a documentary what the male experience is and then solving the problem (i.e. the tired trope of men needing to get more in touch with their emotions) for men.

Men are ridiculous posers. Men are socialized to wear masks to hide what the Feminine Imperative has decided is their true natures (they’re really girls wearing boy masks). Men’s problems extend from their inability to properly emote like women, and once they are raised better (by women and men who comply with the Feminine Imperative) they can cease being “tough” and get along better with women. That’s the real strength that comes from men’s feminized concept of vulnerability – compliance with the Feminine Imperative.

Ironically Newsom is still oblivious to the fact that she can only create such a documentary in an environment of feminine-primacy. No man could produce this and be taken seriously in our contemporary social climate.

It’s indictment of the definers of what masculinity ought to be that they still characterize modern masculinity (based on the ‘feels’) as being problematic when for generations our feminine-primary social order has conditioned men to associate that masculinity in as feminine-beneficial a context as women would want.

They still rely on an outdated formula which presumes the male experience is inferior, a sham, in comparison to the female experience, and then presumes to know what the male experience really is and offers feminine-primary solutions for it.

From The 16 Commandments of Poon:

IV. Don’t play by her rules

If you allow a woman to make the rules she will resent you with a seething contempt even a rapist cannot inspire. The strongest woman and the most strident feminist wants to be led by, and to submit to, a more powerful man. Polarity is the core of a healthy loving relationship. She does not want the prerogative to walk all over you with her capricious demands and mercurial moods. Her emotions are a hurricane, her soul a saboteur. Think of yourself as a bulwark against her tempest. When she grasps for a pillar to steady herself against the whipping winds or yearns for an authority figure to foil her worst instincts, it is you who has to be there… strong, solid, unshakeable and immovable.

True vulnerability is not a value-added selling point for a man when it comes to approaching and attracting women. As with all things, your vulnerability is best discovered by a woman through demonstration –never explaining those vulnerabilities to her with the intent of appearing more human as the feminine would define it.

Women want a bulwark against their own emotionalism, not a co-equal male emoter whose emotionalism would compete with her own. The belief that male vulnerability is a strength is a slippery slope from misguided attraction to emotional codependency, to overt dependency on a woman to accommodate and compensate for the weaknesses that vulnerability really implies.

I know a lot of guys think that displays vulnerability from a position of Alpha dominance, or strength can be endearing for a woman when you’re engaged in an LTR, but I’m saying that’s only the case when the rare instance of vulnerability is unintentionally revealed. Vulnerability is not a strength, and especially not when a man deliberately reveals it with the expectation of a woman appreciating it as a strength.

At some point in any LTR you will show your vulnerable side, and there’s nothing wrong with that. What’s wrong is the overt attempt to parlay that vulnerability into a strength or virtue that you expect that woman to appreciate, feel endearment over or reciprocate with displays of her own vulnerability for.

A chink in the armor is a weakness best kept from view of those who expect you to perform your best in all situations. If that chink is revealed in performing your best, then it may be considered a strength for having overcome it while performing to your best potential. It is never a strength when you expect it to be appreciated as such.


Intimacy

intimacy

Bad Painter had a great question a few months ago:

What exactly is intimacy? What does that look like in a Redpill context?

I used to think I knew what intimacy was, in a blue pill way at least. And I have come the realization that intimacy is either not worth shit, or I simply don’t get it. What I do know is that those times were I was informed intimacy had been achieved were not correlated with my feeling comfortable, more secure or less anxious rather it was the opposite.

This is a good question.

In my writing I use the term ‘intimacy’ as a sort of confirmation of a woman’s genuine interest, but I don’t think I’ve ever really defined it.

Strictly from a PUAs sense I would say intimacy is a woman’s sexual availability – in no uncertain terms it’s confirmation of her intimate interest and acceptance of you, but then again, in my own sexual past I’ve had more than one fuck-buddy with whom I really didn’t share any real intimacy with.

In those instances I was (at least perceived) a point or so above these women’s SMV and enjoyed all the Alpha benefits that arrangement afforded me, but beyond the sexual, I had no real interest in any kind of intimacy, shared or not.

In a sense, I actually had a much deeper intimacy with the three fuck-buddies I would bang in my 20’s than the women with whom I’d invested myself with in more “meaningful” relationships. You see, with my fuck-buddies all pretense of caring about what they thought of me personally (and certainly from a long-term investment) was simply a non-issue. I was free to express as much or as little of myself as I wanted because I wasn’t actively qualifying for their future investment in me. My Frame was dominant from the outset – sex-on-call is a pretty strong indicator of dominant Frame.

When I was writing the final edits of the Wait For It? post for the Rational Male book I felt that I needed to add a caveat towards the end of that section to account for a sense of intimacy for red pill men, who by conviction or otherwise, weren’t comfortable with actually fucking a woman to confirm genuine desire.

The point of that being that sex isn’t necessarily a determinant of intimacy, but rather the real desire for that person and the want for a mutual connection (to be consummated by sex) creates a condition of intimacy.

Zenpriest on intimacy:

“When one considers that one must “game” a woman, even your wife, in order to keep her around, then it also means that you must always be operating at a “higher level” than her. It totally negates the whole notion of having a “soul-mate” and means that on many levels, a man will always be alone.” 

That is probably the most important lesson a man can ever learn.

Intimacy with a woman is impossible if you have any interest in being her lover. If you are fine with being one of her grrrlfriends, and don’t mind the stupid messed up games women run on them, then you can share to your heart’s content – and will always be on the LJBF ladder.

The fundamental problem with today’s concept of marriage is that it seems both men and women expect their spouse to be all things to them – lover, confidante, helpmate, “soulmate”, co-housekeeper, and co-wage-earner. With so many role demands, it is inevitable that everyone will fail at some of them. That is why the old division of roles worked fairly well for most people – each could concentrate on a few things they were good at, and leave the rest to the other person.

Zenpriest outlines one of the fundamental differences between a forced egalitarian equalist approach to relationships with the natural complementary approach – intimacy between two autonomous, self-sufficient, self-reliant individuals is an impossibility in a sustained relationship. If there is a complete self-sustaining independence between both partners (an eqaulist idealized state) then there is no true purpose for intimacy between the two.

Buena Vista:

I have been the Alpha Fucks, the Beta Bucks, and I have been both at the same time. Civil marriage requires a man, as Deti notes by inverse example, to commit to permanent Game. Permanent Game rarely involves true intimacy. This is the reality of the Plan B Nice Guy in marriage.

Eon:

It seems that intimacy, like love, is only possible if you are greater than (and thus truly independent of) the object of your love.

Softek:

In my opinion, intimacy is unchanged by the red pill. It’s the ideas and perceptions about it that are changed.

There’s a lot of dichotomy: sex, attention, and affection are all thought of as needs, but at the same time, if you’re not getting any of those things, the only way to get them is to take on the mindset of having an abundance of them.

And the guys who seem to have free access to all of those things have access to them because they don’t care if they have access to them or not.

I have to consider these perspectives of intimacy and cross reference it with the Cardinal Rule of Relationships:

In any relationship, the person with the most power is the one who needs the other the least.

Although in an extreme this may seem manipulative to the uninitiated, this balance exists in every relationship irrespective of whether one party is intentionally using that power or not. In fact the most frustrated men you’ll ever meet are those whose women aren’t intentionally using the power his qualifying for her intimacy bestows upon her. He wonders why he can never merit her intimacy, while she, obliviously, wonders why he keeps trying to merit it.

As I illustrated in my fuck-buddies example, I was free to be as intimate as I chose with them because I literally had nothing to lose by doing so. And in that state of outcome indifference they wanted those occasions of intimacy far more than any woman I’d held in a high enough esteem to think I needed to qualify for their intimacy.

However, from a Red Pill perspective, I think the idea that “real” intimacy requires a constant effort of Game is in error. I’ve shared an enduring intimacy with Mrs. Tomassi for 19 years because Game and Red Pill awareness are simply part of who I am now. Game, if that’s even the right word for it, becomes effortless once you’ve made Red Pill truths an intrinsic part of who you are.

I still think Buena’s right though, permanent Game rarely involves true intimacy, but only if that Game is a constant act a man feels he needs to make believable to sustain his relationship. This then comes full circle to wanting to fulfill Blue Pill idealisms of intimacy with applied Red Pill awareness.

Learn this now, you will never achieve contentment or emotional fulfillment in a blue pill context with red pill awareness.

Most men’s concept of intimacy, like love, is shaped by his Blue Pill conditioning. The key to real intimacy is understanding how it can grow and be sustained in a Red Pill context. Chasing after an intimacy defined by the feminine suffers from the same misdirection of presuming women’s concept of love (opportunism) agrees with men’s (idealism).

So, weekend discussion questions:

How do you define intimacy?

Do you think men and women share the same concept and definition of intimacy?

Is ‘true’ intimacy only achievable when you have nothing to lose and nothing invested in a woman?

 

End Note: I’m well aware that intimacy has far broader inferences than just the relations between men and women, and I’m not attempting to pigeonhole the entire concept. There is intimacy with your family, your God, your pets, yourself and a variety of other things. However, even in those instances there is still a power dynamic at play.


Mental Point of Origin

PoO

I’m working another contract gig for the next few months, and recently I had an interesting encounter with a new girl on my team. She’s 34, Japanese (dual citizenship) maybe an HB 6.5-7 and over the summer she hooked up with a guy here who she had a somewhat monogamous relationship with until he transferred to Australia last August.

This girl is ‘in love’ with this guy who’s not aloof to her, and not fully indifferent, but he sets himself as his first priority and never considered turning down his transfer in order to continue anything with her. The guy is nothing special to look at. No muscle definition, kind of fat-thin if you know what I mean, but pasty white, ginger, not out of shape but not in shape, maybe 5′ 11″.

She cannot shut up about what a ‘real man’ he is. She bought a $2,200 ticket to visit him for a week and a half in January and has made a personalized calendar as a gift for him that has photos all of these events they shared together over the summer, every month with a heartfelt description of some thing she loves about him included.

To her, this guy is Alpha as fuck. On Tinder, this guy would be a left swipe 100% of the time. His attitude is indifferent Alpha, but he’s self-concerned. This girl idolizes him.

Granted there’s a lot more going on here to consider; her being well past the Epiphany Phase, necessitous and urgently wanting to consolidate on a long term monogamy makes this guy into an idealized prospect. Thus he became her Alpha, if not anyone else’s. Granted, it’s mostly situational; she thinks she wants to have kids with him and at 34 that clock is about to expire, but she has to come to him, literally and figuratively.

However, although the guy is definitely a ‘contextual Alpha’, he’s got a genuine Alpha-ish bearing that translates into his being self-aware of his condition and really not giving a damn what anyone else might think. He’s got total Frame control, but it’s not an intentional control, and that natural casualness of indifference only makes her want to please him that much more. There may be a cultural element to this as well, but to hear her talk about other, lesser men, it’s apparent she’s been very much westernized in her sense of entitlement.

Self-Concern Without Self-Awareness

People think I’m crazy to hold up a guy like Corey Worthington as the example of an Alpha Buddah, but this guy has the same unpracticed, self-unaware, mojo as Corey.

Personally, I was at my most Alpha when I didn’t realize I was. That’s not Zen, it’s just doing what came natural for me at a point in my life when I had next to nothing materially, only a marginal amount of social proof, but a strong desire to enjoy women for the sake of just enjoying them in spite of it.

I’ve mentioned before, the most memorable sex I’ve had has been when I was flat broke (mostly). It didn’t matter that I lived in a 2 room studio in North Hollywood or had beer and mac & cheese in the fridge – I got laid and I had women come to me for it.

It didn’t take my doing anything for a woman to get laid or hold her interest. All I did was make myself my mental point of origin. It’s when I started putting women as a goal, making them into more than just a source of enjoyment, that I transferred that mental point of origin to her and I became the necessitous one.

A lot of guys will call that being ‘needy’, and I suppose it is, but it’s a neediness that results from putting a woman (or another person) as your first thought – your mental point of origin.

I’ve used this term in a few posts so I thought it deserved a bit more explanation.

Your mental point of origin is really your own internalized understanding about how you yourself fit into your own understanding of Frame.

If Frame is the dominant narrative of a relationship (not limited to just romantic relations), your mental point of origin is the import and priority to which you give to the people and/or ideas involved in that relationship. It is the first thought you have when considering any particular of a relationship, and it’s often so ingrained in us that it becomes an autonomous mental process.

For most of us our understanding of that point of origin develops when we’re children. Kids are necessarily “selfish”, sometimes cruel and greedy because our first survival instinct is to naturally put ourselves as our mental point of origin. Only later, with parenting and learning social skills do we begin to share, cooperate, empathize and sympathize as our mental point of origin shifts to putting the concerns of others before our own.

Young boys are generally very Alpha because of this unlearned self-importance. This is the source of the almost zen-like, mater-of-fact Alpha bearing of Corey Worthington. As I said, he’s not a ‘man’ anyone ought to aspire to, but he is an Alpha without intent or self-awareness.

There is a ‘first thought’ balance we have to maintain in a pro-social respect in order to develop healthy relationships. The problem we run into today is one in which boys are (largely) raised to be the men who provide more than they need in order to establish a future family. That learned, conditioned, mental point of origin is almost always focused outward and onto the people he hopes will reciprocate by placing him as their own point of origin.

Natural feminine solipsism makes this exchange a losing prospect. Women are both raised and affirmed by a vast social mechanism that not just encourages them to put themselves as their mental point of origin, but it shames and ostracizes them for placing it on someone or something other than themselves.

By now I’m sure that much of this comes off as some encouragement towards a retaliatory selfishness or narcissism, but putting oneself as his own point of origin doesn’t have to mean being anti-social or sociopathic. It requires a conscious decision to override an internalized understanding of oneself, but by placing yourself as your mental point of origin you are better positioned to help others and judge who is worth that effort.

It often requires some emotional trauma for men to realign themselves as their own point of origin, and I feel this is a necessary part of unplugging, but the real challenge is in how you deal with that trauma in a Red Pill aware state. If you are to kill the Beta in you, the first step is placing yourself as your mental point of origin.

So my weekend discussion questions are this: Are you your mental point of origin?

Is your first inclination to consider how something in your relationships will affect you or your girlfriend/wife/family/boss?

When men fall into relationships with authoritarian, feminine-primary women, their first thought about any particulars of their actions is how his woman will respond to it, not his own involvement or his motivations for it. Are you a peacekeeper?

Do you worry that putting yourself as your own first priority will turn a woman off or do you think it will engage her more fully?

Are you concerned that doing so may lead to your own form of solipsism, or do you think ‘enlightened self-interests’ serves your best interests and those with whom you want to help or become intimate with?


Moments of Clarity

momentofclarity

Even for the most abject Beta man there comes significant points in his life when he makes a Red Pill connection – a point at which, despite his feminine-primary socialization and for all his own participation in a system that deceives him, his circumstance or a trauma rattles him into a state of clarity.

As I wind my way through the Preventive Medicine timeline in the second draft of the next book I come to understand the periods at which these moments of clarity most commonly occur for Beta men.

Early in life that prompt may be the sting of having a high school sweetheart break up with him before she goes off to college. In or after college it might be the undoing of a long distance relationship he thought for sure his soul-mate would help him dutifully preserve. Later it maybe the realization of how much of his personal potential he truly lost after investing so much in a wife who divorced him and separated him from his children.

Not all of these events are as traumatic as this, but it’s during these Red Pill moments of clarity a man begins to see a hint of the code in the Matrix; a suspicion that maybe what he’s believed about how intergender relations should be really haven’t been directed toward his best interest.

So it was with a certain amount of interest I took notice of a man named Stephen when he petitioned advice from a mouthpiece of the Feminine Imperative this week. Though he doesn’t yet realize it, Stephen is at a Red Pill moment of clarity in his life, and as most Beta men are won’t to do, he seeks answers from the same feminine-primary trough that’s kept him in a state of patient stasis until his yet unrealized potential has now become useful to the Feminine Imperative.

Rather than simply allow the feminine crabs drag him back down into the barrel (until his next Red Pill moment of clarity), I’m going to re-post his plea for understanding here and give him (with the help of my esteemed commenters) the Red Pill truth he deserves at so critical a juncture in his life.

Lately I’ve been thinking about my college dating experiences. I’m 28 years old now and I’ve noticed a very odd phenomenon lately. I’m getting noticed (and approached) by women that never would’ve given me the time of day when I was in college. Successful, accomplished women! One in particular is incredibly hot, but they all are attractive. I am baffled by this. You may laugh, but this is making me extremely frustrated and stressed out.

Reading your blog has offered some explanations. I’m an analytical guy, so I’ve been very impressed with the social science you weave into your writing, and the research about how 28 is the ideal male age for women helped to explain what might be going on. But I still can’t figure out what’s going on, with me or with them. I feel emotions like resentment and suspicion, as well as desire, but I’m not at all flattered. I find myself unable to respond in any way, positively or negatively. I feel paralyzed.

Sometimes I think I’m just offended. These are the very same women who rejected me time and again in college. I mean, I know they’re not the same but…they’re the same. I wanted relationships (I tried casual sex…EPIC FAIL), they didn’t want me. My one serious college girlfriend cheated on me with her professor. I was really, really hurt, felt like a chump, etc. 
To put it in a HUS context, the [college girls] preferred alpha males (I’m definitely a beta, introverted, overly intense, with a baby face.) Or maybe they were reluctant to get involved during college because they wanted to be free to move on after graduation and not be tied down.

The thing is, I don’t think I’ve changed all that much. Frankly, I couldn’t change if I wanted to, even if it meant getting these women. I may have come out of my shell a little, but I honestly don’t think it’s me that’s different. It’s them, and I don’t think I like the difference. I think I’m the consolation prize. I think they still want the alphas but they’ve given up. Time to settle. I’m offended. I don’t trust these women.

Am I too proud? Getting my revenge? Guarded from past humiliations? Or have I just grown up and learned from my experiences?

Stephen

Stephen, the moment of Red Pill clarity you’re now experiencing is coming from your newly realized status. The women you describe being attracted to you (different than being aroused by you) are entering what I call The Epiphany Phase – the point at which their sexual market value begins to decay in earnest while a man’s begins his greatest potential to capitalize upon his own SMV as it steadily (should) increase.

This is a precarious time for women, usually the years between 28 and 30, where she makes attempts to reassess the last decade of her life. Women’s psychological rationalization engine (a.k.a. the Hamster) begins a furious effort to account for, and explain her reasonings for not having successfully secured a long term monogamous commitment from as Alpha a man as her attractiveness could attain for her. Even women married prior to this phase will go through some variation of self-doubt, or self-pity in dealing with the hypergamic uncertainty of her choice of husband (“Is he really the best I could do?”)

It’s during this stage that women will make radical shifts in the prioritization of what prerequisite traits qualify as ‘attractive’ in a man and attempt to turn over a new leaf by changing up their behaviors to align with this new persona they create for themselves. Since the physicality, sexual prowess and Alpha dominance that made up her former arousal cues in a Man aren’t as forthcoming from men as when she was in her sexual prime, she reprioritizes them with (presumed) preferences for more intrinsic male attributes that stress dependability, provisioning capacity, humor, intellect, and esoteric definitions of compatibility and intimacy.

Where you find yourself now, Stephen, is in the midst of these women coming to terms with their waning SMV and the increasing effort it takes women of that age bracket to effectively compete in a sexual marketplace where younger women simply outclass them with every new year that she doesn’t consolidate on a man who represents a good long term provisioning prospect.

As you suggest, these are the same women who found you sexually invisible when they were younger and enjoying the same SMV peak with the relatively more Alpha men they wanted to have short term sexual experiences with. These women were the younger competition they now find threatening their sexual selection today.

Are they exactly the same individual women? I don’t know for sure from your outline, but even if they aren’t, the Schedules of Mating script women follow is so common and predictable that they may as well effectively be the same women to you – and this is precisely what your subconscious instinct is attempting to relate to your conscious-self now.

I honestly don’t think it’s me that’s different. It’s them, and I don’t think I like the difference.

Unless you’ve made a drastic improvement to your physical appearance or you’ve become more Game aware and have changed your intersexual outlook and behavior the obvious answer is, it is these women who’ve changed.

Now the question remains, why?

What has changed in these women’s lives that prompted this dramatic shift in how they’ve re-prioritized what they now find sexually acceptable? What is it about you in the now (and not back then) that makes you ideal for that acceptability?

Aunt Giggles wants to convince you to let bygones be bygones and follow along with the script the Feminine Imperative expects of you by shaming you for not forgiving a woman of her past indiscretions…

No doubt the girls at college rewarded the males who were early developers and exhibited masculine qualities then. Why take that personally?

I’ll tell you why, because the men they were interested in short term sexual prospects with then weren’t being asked to make anything resembling the life changing personal investment in these ‘reformed’ women she hopes you’ll man-up and be a ‘Better Beta’ for. Those men got the milk for free because the cow milked herself and gave it to them, gladly.

Now that’s a hell of a proposition for a guy who’s played by what his prior feminine conditioning would have him believe were the ‘rules’ for as long as you have. Is it really that far a stretch to want to protect the investment of your personal potential, not to mention your yet unrealized peak SMV potential, with women who now hope you’ll be sex, love and desire starved enough for the past 10 or so years to look past all the short term sex they had with more Alpha men in the Party Years of their early to mid 20s?

Maturation of Beta Bucks

Aunt Sue has always ridden the fence when it comes to acknowledging the Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks nature of women’s sexual strategy. When it suits her narrative she agrees with Hypergamy, when it doesn’t, well, you’ll never know because those posts get scrubbed from her blog.

Fortunately you don’t need her input on Hypergamy to understand women’s pluralistic sexual strategy – there are many, much higher profile women than Susan Walsh who openly and publicly endorse exactly the strategy these women (who are suddenly attracted to you now) are using:

“When looking for a life partner, my advice to women is date all of them: the bad boys, the cool boys, the commitment-phobic boys, the crazy boys. But do not marry them. The things that make the bad boys sexy do not make them good husbands. When it comes time to settle down, find someone who wants an equal partner. Someone who thinks women should be smart, opinionated and ambitious. Someone who values fairness and expects or, even better, wants to do his share in the home. These men exist and, trust me, over time, nothing is sexier.”

― Sheryl Sandberg, Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead

And since we’re interested in the research perhaps we can ask Aunt Sue why it is nearly half of women in relationships retain a ‘Plan B’ guy:

Whether he’s the one that got away, the office husband, or a gym partner, chances are he is the “Plan B” man you fantasize about running away with. Like an insurance policy, this man is the handpicked boyfriend or husband replacement you have on standby once “plan A” starts to break down on you. According to a survey conducted by OnePoll.com, an online market research company, half of women who are married or in relationships have a Plan B man on standby who is “ready and waiting” because of “unfinished business.”

You see Stephen, it’s not those “Red Pill, Dark Triad cads” who perpetuate the “Beta Bux” theory; we don’t need to, it’s modern women who proudly, triumphantly, openly confirm their own Hypergamy and blatantly expect you to comply with it by default. In fact they’ll shame you, as all the commenters on HUS are doing now, for even questioning your expected role in affirming their sexual strategy.

So, with the knowledge of this new Red Pill truth, openly confirmed by the very same women who are ‘attracted’ to you now, how do you intend to benefit from it? Will you stick your head back in the blue pill sand of HUS, or will you become curious about the broader truths of the Red Pill. Just remember, now you’re aware of a Red Pill truth, there’s no going back.

However, bear in mind, you’re 28, the women you’re dealing with now have had a lot longer than just the 4 years they may have spent in high school to decide if you were attractive to them – these women have had the better part of the past 10 years and the benefit of experiencing the peak of their SMV potential up to this point in life.

Aunt Giggles’ would have you believe your new found SMV is the result some maturation process or change in your personal conditions when in fact it’s the very calculated result of an proudly confirmed, pre-designed sexual strategy. And it becomes really insidious when the operative feminine social convention in play accuses you of wanting “revenge” for acknowledging the same strategy that these women do openly already; you could be cowed into the fear of remaining alone, but that’s a myth to bust in another post.

Commenters, perhaps I’ve missed something here.

Please, feel free to post your advice for Stephen in the always open, never moderated and entirely uncensored comment section only here at The Rational Male.


Game Works

game_works

Game, for lack of a better word, is good. Game is right. Game works.

After listening to myself on this weekend’s interview with Christian McQueen and Dagonet I realized that as I became more comfortable with the interview I found myself verbally ‘dialoging’ in much the same way that I scribble down fragments of ideas in my notebook or when I’m fleshing out a draft for some topic I’m considering in-post.

It’s always been a strange sensation for me to hear myself speak. Even when I record a voice message on my iPhone it always makes me self-conscious to listen to the message play back. However, as I was in the midst of listening to myself on the show I had the same familiar internal conversation and I picked up on a thought I had planned to write about, but I think it slipped my mind until now.

Towards the middle of our conversation I considered a few things about the benefits of Game, and it made me think about how Game has progressed to what it is today. One of the chapters in The Rational Male I specifically wrote for the book – and later converted to a blog post – was called The Evolution of Game. I added this as an effort to help uninitiated men have a better grasp of just what Game really is.

There’s been a lot of redefining of exactly what Game is over the past 12-13 years, but I’ve always considered Game an abstract term for a much larger concept.

Naturally, critics predisposed to a blue pill worldview want to portray “those red pill game guys” as throwbacks to the PUA set of the early 2000’s. This is a very shortsighted evaluation, usually proffered by guys ego-invested in a blue pill mindset and in need of easy definitions and buzz words to ridicule and move onto the next distraction.

Facing red pill truths is uncomfortable, and I understand the need to casually pass them off for fear of really having to critically reconsider ego-investments; that type of insight requires either real depth of character or an experience traumatic enough to shake one from beliefs that, in essence, make up part of their personality.

Both require a concentrated effort to learn from, and honestly, most people are too lethargic to consider red pill truths when there are more entertaining distraction to inure themselves with.

It’s just this lethargy that prevents them from understanding that Game and red pill awareness have matured far beyond the PUAs techniques of the past. Neil Strauss published The Game in 2003 – that’s 15 years since Mystery was wearing top hats and elevator boots.

Those caricatures may be comforting to laugh at, but in fifteen years the developed techniques and observations Game practitioners failed and succeeded with fed into what we would eventually come to understand as red pill awareness today.

Even some well meaning red pill Men may want to self-affirmingly ridicule the PUAs of the past and present, but if you have embraced a red pill awareness today, at least partially, you have these Men to thank for risking rejection and practicing techniques that laid a foundation for contemporary red pill awareness.

Now, imagine for a moment that, today, all men had to build on was the antiseptic studies and controlled experiments of a social science academia firmly steeped in a feminine-primary, feminine-correct social context. Imagine what red pill awareness would be if not for the guys in the field doing ‘experiments’. Imagine what marriage counselors and ‘relationship experts’ would (and honestly, still) advise men to do in order to change their lives with an understanding based solely on what a feminine- primary, controlled social science approved of.

Only the PUAs of then and now have had the unfettered freedom to perform in-field social experiments, and relate their collected evidence and observations with other men; the types of which social science has been forbidden from due either to ethical considerations or by feminine-primary social conventions.

Game does not Occur in a Vacuum

Recently the comment threads here have had a tendency to devolve into a “looks are all that matters so why bother learning Game?” line of reasoning. The commentariat can lean towards go-your-own-way defeatism, then to resolving to live in the gym until one inspire female arousal, or, to appeals to positive confidence.

And while I have always recognized – more than most other manosphere bloggers if I dare – the obvious truth that Looks are a prime requisite for arousal (and attraction), I also recognize an effort to discredit Game and red pill awareness by absolutes, extremes and absurdities.

For anyone with the sense that Game and red pill awareness is valueless and superfluous in the face of women’s primary drive for physical arousal, I suggest you read Advocatus Diaboli’s treatise on how to pragmatically use escorts (either that or relocate to the state of Nevada). Honestly, I hold no disapproval for men who feel this is the best way to satisfy their need for sex and female contact. It may indeed be your best option under the current social environment.

For anyone else, I think it’s very important to look at the benefits of Game both in an intergender and interpersonal context. If you consider yourself “red pill” (another useful, but abstract term) Game has benefitted you – because it was the early trials and errors of Game that led to red pill principles we understand now.

If you have even a cursory grasp of how women’s biology and menstrual cycle influences ovulatory shift behaviors in mate preferences and you’ve altered your perception of women, Game has benefitted you.

If you understand the basics of feminine hypergamy and the sexual strategies women use to optimize their mate selection, and then changed your intergender tact as a result of it, Game has benefitted you.

If you’ve internalized the core psychological principles underlying women’s perceptions of Amused Mastery, Command Presence, Agree & Amplify, Cocky & Funny, Social Proof, Dread and even Chick Crack, whether you’ve applied them or not, Game has expanded your consciousness of women’s behaviors and their motivators.

If you’ve had the insight to understand your blue pill conditioning, the reasons for your predispositions towards a Savior Schema, feminine identifying, why a LJBF is a rejection, why Beta Game comes naturally to men but is self defeating, or why SMV accrues and decays over the course of a lifetime, Game and the red pill have benefitted you.

If you’ve used or modified any of these principles to better your marriage, your dealings with co-workers, your daughter, mother or even your best friend’s domineering wife, you’ve benefitted from Game.

If you’ve saved or bettered another man’s life, or bettered his intergender relationships, you’ve both benefitted from Game.

I could go on, but if you honestly believe that women’s primary physical arousal cues trump any value that Game or red pill awareness really has, then you’re wasting your time here reading and commenting on what I have to offer. You’d be better served by focusing all your attentions to lifting in the gym and shifting your career goals toward a job that is physically demanding and keeps you at your physical best.

Ironically, getting in shape is also an aspect of Game. Even if your belief is “Looks are everything”, but yet your understanding of this comes as a result of your red pill awareness of the Alpha Fucks side of hypergamy, Game has benefitted you.

Just a familiarity with Game concepts, whether you accept them or not, still influence your perception of women and the motivations behind their behaviors.

Red pill awareness challenges feminine-primary thinking. Why do you think the mass dissemination of red pill awareness is so threatening to the Feminine Imperative?

Doing Something

What is the manosphere actually ‘doing’?

This is the first critique I expect from from a poor debate opponent – disqualifying the strength or validity of a premise by the ‘success’ or lack thereof of a proponent’s efforts to enact or convince others of that premise.

By this logic, one could make the case that the MRM is an utter failure, but it still doesn’t mean they aren’t correct in their efforts.

As I mentioned on the Christian McQueen Show, I’m of a bottom up, or an inside – out mind when it comes to enacting red pill ‘change. The manosphere is raising awareness and this needs time (maybe even a generation) to mature into personal consciousness and then popular consciousness.

It’s difficult to quantify the ‘results’ of the manosphere, red pill awareness and Game because its effects are individually subjective at this stage. There isn’t a day that goes by that I don’t receive an email, a forum/blog comment or a tweet about how my book or what I’ve written on the blog has changed (or literally saved) a man’s life.

That’s not meant to gloss myself, but rather to illustrate a point – the red pill (and Game) is doing something, it’s changing minds and lives. It’s not rallying men in the streets and waving banners, nor is it effecting legal or social policy (yet), but it’s making men aware of their condition and changing their beliefs.

No hate for what the MRM is doing, I recognize the intent and applaud it, but thus far it’s been impotent in effecting “real change in policy”, while red pill awareness has done more for men individually. For all of the MRM’s efforts to enact public change, all it takes is one White Knight in a position of authority to say “GTFO you misogynist creeps!” Now imagine in the future a man who’s red pill aware in a position to effect that policy.

Real change isn’t going to happen directly it’s going to happen indirectly, on a man by man basis. And not just publicly but personally.

That change will happen in men’s relationships with their wives, daughters and sons. That change may simply be a form of ‘civil disobedience’ in not marrying at all, or holding women accountable for their open embrace of hypergamy and their AFBB sexual strategy and only marrying / supporting women who make an effort to control their hypergamy.

That change will happen in the workplace and hiring practices. That change will filter into men’s better understanding as the red pill spreads and men reassume some of the social frame control the Feminine Imperative unilaterally legislates and provide to women now.

The red pill is ‘doing’ something, it’s planting the seeds for a greater shift in gender power with every man who becomes aware of how women ‘are’ and what they will predictably do.


A New Hope

hope

Towards the end of The Bitter Taste of the Red Pill I wrote this:

The truth will set you free, but it doesn’t make truth hurt any less, nor does it make truth any prettier, and it certainly doesn’t absolve you of the responsibilities that truth requires. One of the biggest obstacles guys face in unplugging is accepting the hard truths that Game forces upon them. Among these is bearing the burden of realizing what you’ve been conditioned to believe for so long were comfortable ideals and loving expectations are really liabilities. Call them lies if you want, but there’s a certain hopeless nihilism that accompanies categorizing what really amounts to a system that you are now cut away from. It is not that you’re hopeless, it’s that you lack the insight at this point to see that you can create hope in a new system – one in which you have more direct control over.

One of the hardest lessons I had to learn when I unplugged (such as it was) was throwing away ‘hope’.

Not real, internal, personal hope, but rather the ‘hope’ I had been led to believe was a realizable state – if circumstances, if personalities, if fate or some other condition defined by the feminine imperative would just align in such a way that I’d been conditioned to believe it could, then that feminine defined contentment could be actualized.

I wanted very much to realize that idealized state by defining hope (or having it defined for me) in a context that was never of my own real choosing. I got just as depressed as anyone else when I unplugged. I got angry. I didn’t want to think that I’d invested so much of myself in something that was fundamentally unattainable because the my understanding of it had been incorrect, either deliberately or by my own hopeful interpretations of it.

My own ‘unplugging’ was a gradual affair and came after a lot of drawn out trauma. And yes, to realize that all of that trauma amounted to nothing after hoping and struggling to mold myself into something that I was led to believe was achievable it was even more depressing.

It wasn’t until I realized that the hope I was sold came from the same social paradigm that never held my best interests as a priority that I threw it away. That was a tough day because I realized in doing so I would have to find a new sense of hope for myself. It seemed very nihilistic at the time, and I had to really make an effort not to make that choice from a sense of self-pity.

One particularly hard revelation I had to disabuse myself of was understanding that women love differently than men. That was tough to embrace because the old hope I was struggling to realize was based on the primary tenet of blue pill thinking; the equalist notion that men and women share a mutually recognized, mutually accepted concept of love.

Once I understood this was an idealization rather than a reality, and that women can and do love men deeply, but in an entirely different feminine-specific concept of love, I discovered that I no longer ‘hoped’ for that mutuality and embraced the hope that men and women could still genuinely love each other from their own perspectives of love without a mutual consensus.

I remembered then an older man I had done some peer counseling with while in college and how this man had essentially striven his entire life to please and content his ex-wife and his now second wife of more than 30 years. From his early 20s he’d spent his personal life in a hopeful attempt at contenting, appeasing and qualifying for a mutually shared state of love he believed these women (the only 2 he’d ever had sex with) had a real capacity for.

At 73 (now) he’s spent his life invested in a hope that simply doesn’t exist – that he can be loved as a man ideally believes a woman ought to be able to love him – just as all the romantic, feminine-defined ideals of love he’d learned from a feminine-centric social order had convinced him of for so long.

This is why I say men are the True Romantics, because the overwhelming majority will devote a lifetime to the effort of actualizing a belief in a male-idealized love to find fulfillment in a woman and for that woman.

Old Hope for New Hope

I hope that doesn’t sound too fortune cookie, but it’s a prime example of redefining hope in a new red pill-aware paradigm. You can hope and thrive in a new red pill context – I know I do – but it’s much easier when you internalize red pill truths and live with them in a red pill context instead of force-fitting them into your old, feminine-defined, blue pill context. I can imagine what my marriage would look like if I hadn’t made the red pill transition and learned to use that awareness in it. There are a lot of guys paying ‘marriage coaches’ $149 an hour because they never did.

There was a comment buried in last week’s comment thread from Hobbes that was too good not to include in its entirety here:

I think I get it!

For years I have been bitter about this need to “perform” about how this shows that women do not love us as we love etc.. And just now I was reviewing my old relationships and I recalled something.

In each of my relationships, prior to meeting the women I eventually fell in love with, I was constantly working on myself, I would get in shape, hang out with friends, explore my environment and work on myself and my music etc. As soon as I would “fall in love” I would slowly drop those activities, I’d focus on being a good bf, I would focus on providing and “being what she wanted” what I thought she wanted, better said.

But here is my Eureka moment, what I recalled each time was being unhappy, what I recall each time was feeling boxed in and kind of dull.. of feeling trapped.

Is this what Rollo means when he says our response to women is a conditioning, and that the sadness we get from Red Pill truth is the result of behaving and believing something that is not really our nature, but the result of having someone else’s behaviors and beliefs installed into us?

So I think I finally understand it for myself… the talk of putting yourself first, of “performing” etc is really just a way of saying “you don’t have to do what people say you’re supposed to do in a relationship – you don’t have to drop everything for her, you don’t have to stop doing what you like and love and you don’t have to kiss her ass”

In my case I dropped everything for two reasons. One was to do what I thought I was supposed to do.. what I heard women say they wanted from a man, what my mother said a man should be etc.. and the second reason was insecurity. I wanted her to love me, I didn’t want to rock the boat, I was scared of losing her.. so eventually I did. I believed that in order for me to be worthy of her, of her love, I had to go along and give her what she said she wanted, what I was taught she wanted.

Is this what Rollo and everyone else is talking about? Because I think I finally get it. Up to now I have faked my Game, to some extent. I just knew better than to do certain things or did things I knew would make me attractive, etc. to women. But seeing this now, not only am I realizing there is nothing to be bitter about – I was always happier working on myself and my interests and actually resentful of having to stop them – but that I am actually happier doing this thing women want of us we call “performing”.

In a way, you are performing, as Rollo says, either way. If you stop and think you can rest, in many ways you are doing so because you have been conditioned to believe, as I was, that you should. That real love meant you could and should.
Anyway, maybe this is simply me and my personal experience of it, but it makes sense to me.. and I think this has revealed to me something monumental, personally. Maybe other guys have a different experience of it, but this is how I have seen it played out in my life.

I feel better.

The key to living in a red pill context is to unlearn your blue pill expectations and dreams of finding  contentment in them, and replace them with expectations and aspirations based on realistic understandings of red pill truths.

Learn this now, you will never achieve contentment or emotional fulfillment in a blue pill context with red pill awareness.

Killing your inner Beta is a difficult task and part of that is discarding an old, comfortable, blue pill paradigm. For many newly unplugged, red pill aware, men the temptation is to think they can use this new understanding to achieve the goal-states of their preconditioned blue pill ideals. What they don’t understand is that, not only are these blue pill goal-states flawed, but they are also based on a flawed understanding of how to attain them.

Red pill awareness demands a red pill context for fulfillment. Oracle Z wrote a fantastic article on Return of Kings this week called Why you shouldn’t seek emotional fulfillment through women. It’s well worth the read, but what Oracle Z outlines here is a fulfillment based on feminine-primary, blue pill conditions for that contentment. Even when men achieve these blue pill goal-states, the ones they’re conditioned to believe they should want for themselves, they find themselves discontent with those states and trapped by the liabilities of them.

Just as Hobbes illustrated, the periods when he was not striving to achieve or maintain those blue pill goal-states were the times he was most fulfilled with his life, talents and ambitions.

As if this weren’t enough to convince a man he needs to re-imagine himself in a red pill-primary context, when women are presented with ‘the perfect guy‘ in a blue pill context they gradually (sometimes immediately) come to despise him. As proven by their actions, even women don’t want that blue pill perfected goal-state because it stagnates the otherwise exciting, self-important men they are aroused by, and attracted to in a red pill context.

I’ve stated this in prior posts, but it bears repeating,

“Women should only ever be a complement to a man’s life, never the focus of it.”

Living in a blue pill context, and hoping you can achieve fulfillment in its fundamentally flawed goal-states, conditions men to make women the focus of their lives. Throw that hope away and understand that you can create hope in a new system – one in which you have more direct control over.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 6,003 other followers