Putting angel’s or devil’s wings on observations hinders real understanding.
I say that not because I don’t think morality is important in the human experience, but because our interpretations of morality and justice are substantially influenced by the animalistic sides of our natures, and often more than we’re willing to admit to ourselves. Disassociating one’s self from an emotional reaction is difficult enough, but adding layers of moralism to an issue only convolutes a better grasp of breaking it down into its constituent parts. That said, I also understand that emotion and, by degree, a sense of moralism is also characteristic of the human experience, so there needs to be an accounting of this into interpretations of issues that are as complex as the ones debated in the manosphere.
Although I’m aware that observing a process will change it, it’s my practice not to draw moralistic conclusions in any analysis I make because it adds bias where none is necessary. The problem is that what I (and others in the manosphere) propose is so raw it offends ego-invested sensibilities in people. Offense is really not my intent, but often enough it’s the expected result of dissecting cherished beliefs that seem to contribute to the well being of an individual.
Let that sink in for a moment; the reason that what I propose seems nihilistic, cynical and conspiratorial is because it’s analytical without the varnish of morality. For example, when I wrote War Brides, it was in response to men’s common complaint of how deftly and relatively unemotionally women could transition into a new relationship after they’d been dumped by a GF or wife. I wanted to explore the reasons how and why this functioned, but from a moralistic perspective it is pretty fucked up that, due to hypergamy, women have an innate capacity to feel little compunction about divesting themselves emotionally from one man and move on to another much more fluidly than men. If I approach the topic in a fashion that starts with, “isn’t it very unjust and / or fucked up that women can move on more easily than men?” not only is my premise biased, but I’d be analyzing the moral implications of the dynamic and not the dynamic itself.
I always run the risk of coming off as an asshole because in analyzing things it’s my practice to strip away that moral veneer. It challenges ego-investments, and when that happens people interpret it as a personal attack because those ego-investments are uniquely attached to our personalities, and often our own well being. Although there’s many a critic on ‘team woman’ shooting venom from the hip as to my emphasis on the feminine here, don’t think that iconoclasm is limited to the fem-centric side of the field – I catch as much or more vitriol from the manosphere when I post something like Looks Count or Women’s Physical Standards and the importance women actually do place on a man’s physique.
If you choose to derive your personal value from some esoteric sense of what sex ‘should’ mean, more power to you, but I find it’s a much healthier position to accept a balance between our carnal natures and our higher aspirations. It’s not one or the other. It’s OK to want to fuck just for the sake of fucking – it doesn’t have to be some source of existential meaning. If you think it means something more, then that’s your own subjective perspective – even in marriage there’s ‘maintenance sex’ and there’s memorable, significant sex – but it’s a mistake to think that the totality of the physical act must be of some cosmic significance.
It is as equally unhealthy to convince oneself that self-repressions are virtues as it is to think that unfettered indulgences are freedoms. There is a balance.
Anyone that gets mad about anything you write should go spend some time at http://youarenotsosmart.com/ , and then check out the book as well.
The basic premise of both the site and the book is that we are all essentially full of shit about why we do the things we do, and are experts at lying to ourselves. It both enlightening, and a little depressing.
Love that blog. I’ve been a reader for 2 years
This one will really touch a nerve. Game lays bare the inner human natures of men and women. Some of that is not pretty, to-wit: 1. the “War Brides” phenom in which women can easily move on after dumping a man. 2. The effectiveness of “dread”. 3. That women cheat and why they cheat. 4. Female hypergamy. Morality, whatever one’s definition of it, seeks to control and rein in these and other dark aspects of human nature. Where we do ourselves disservices is to think that one’s moral nature or adherence to moral principles somehow eliminates these darker aspects of… Read more »
Your uncolored delivery style makes it that much more hilarious when women and blue pill men describe you as an “asshole” at HUS and the like. If presenting the facts without judgment is enough to get you such a negative rep you know this shit runs deep.
I always run the risk of coming off as an asshole because in analyzing things it’s my practice to strip away that moral veneer. Yet, I think this is why so many men are attracted to your blog. You are straight forward in your analyses without regard to feelings and it is easier to to read and process because of it. Emotions clutter analysis of this type and are really unnecessary until one chooses to implement the game of their choice. It is also why women seem to really NOT like your site. A purely analytical reading of anything beyond… Read more »
The asshole label doesn’t come from the lack of emotion in the writing, it comes from the inability of certain people to accept unpleasant truths.
It is also why women seem to really NOT like your site. A purely analytical reading of anything beyond pure science comes across as you mean it to be. Unfeeling. If your analysis is unfeeling, you must therefore be an unfeeling asshole.
Interesting point. Many/most? women are always searching for the subcommunication/”hidden message” beyond just the words on the page or spoken words. It isn’t what did he say or write but “what did he mean”?
I’ve seen several references to HUS recently, can somebody share what that is?
“Argument” can get weird when the person you are conversing with has a thin grasp of reason. There are people who do not realize their cognitive incompetence who will “reason” that anything other than their ego invested notion of game is actually an ego invested shield against the real reality. I try to argue with some people for quite a long time, until I just give up, realizing that they don’t do reason. There is a commenter on this forum who people seem to have largely given up on responding to. I wonder if it’s for the same reason I… Read more »
lol I just present the facts. It’s not my fault if people are too emotionally invested in believing they’re special unique snowflakes to accept that they are the exact same predictable person capable of having the same blind spots and limiting beliefs that everyone else is. There’s nothing worse than a bunch of guys who don’t do something giving each other advice on doing that thing lol whether it’s picking up girls in clubs, approaching during the daytime, handling the girl’s friends, dealing with cockblocks, picking up rich girls with no money, picking up while fat/ugly/short, handling aggressive MMA fighters,… Read more »
That’s why I say he’s still a Beta by heart. You could tell by his epically long butt-hurt response. I wish people would stop telling ‘stories’, and stop taking advantage of poor saps that don’t know that attraction is not only about game. I got more success with women from going to the gym and getting in shape, than those stupid lines anyways. Why? I built REAL confidence by improving myself. I felt like a man when I looked in the mirror. Sometimes I think that seduction is just a scam, and all it really takes is self-improvement of yourself.… Read more »
I agree that game can get a bit nerdy, in that those into it get really into it. Focused, and hyper focused. Personally I don’t view that as worshiping pussy, but see it more along the lines of knowing what you want and getting good at going after it – but depending on your starting point, that might be two ways to say the same thing. That’s basically a value judgment spin on the value of focusing on pussy. Without the value judgment, the word “worship” is easily replaced by a more neutral and equally valid expression, such as “want”.… Read more »
And another point I agree with you on is the emotional and hedonistic value of the LTR over the one night stand and quick fling lifestyle.
The value of romance and affection can never be under stated. It enormously increases life satisfaction.
Of course so does excitement and novelty, however I’m a believer that one needs at minimum bouts of genuine romance.
“It’s perfectly possible to rarely cold approach yet still find a large enough dating pool from which to select one or several girls for an LTR or MLTR and for flings.” Absolutely, I agree 100%. But if you’re not cold approaching, then you have no credentials to be lecturing guys on how cold approach works or what attracts women off cold approaches. That’d be like saying “I totally got laid by my wife for the 500th time yesterday guys! BOOYA!!! Now lemme tell you, my wife likes when I wear my suit, so the trick to picking up girls in… Read more »
“You could tell by his epically long butt-hurt response.” lol all my comments are epically long. Don’t feel special. “I got more success with women from going to the gym and getting in shape, than those stupid lines anyways. Why? I built REAL confidence by improving myself.” You literally just said what I’ve been saying. It’s not the muscles that got you pussy, it’s the confidence those muscles and improving yourself gave you. Thankyou for agreeing with me that confidence is what’s attractive, not shit like muscles, money, a nice car, a good job, etc. “All this effort put into… Read more »
In marriage 1.0 you could argue that men have a greater need for morality simply because when a man approaches a new woman, he has to hold her with some potentially deluded idealism in order to fulfill his imperative of sex via marital commitment. He has to commit to someone worthy i.e. low partner count. In marriage 2.0, the man no longer need morality since he can obtain sex based entirely on animalistic dominance. Holding any idealism about the partner will only hinder his ability to fulfill his imperative. I said it before and will say it again- you don’t… Read more »
Your amoral approach is great and I understanding your reasoning. 100% pure red-pill, no bullshit. It was one of the things I liked about the book The 48 Laws of Power (although Robert Greene did say he was angry when he wrote it, and you could sense that). Your writing does come off as a bit dry though, so a few “women are fucking nuts because…” would give things more entertainment value if nothing else. But that wouldn’t fit you at this point anyway.
Whatever you do, your blog is one of the top in the manosphere.
“Although I’m aware that observing a process will change it, it’s my practice not to draw moralistic conclusions in any analysis I make because it adds bias where none is necessary.” You’ve made a mistake here. You assume that to make a moral judgment implies bias and further, subjectivity. I think there are important moral conclusions to be derived from the insightful observations of the manosphere, and as such men can act more “morally.” By morally I mean, through manosphere observations, men can become better instances of their kind (i.e. human males). This is all Aristotle and the like. The… Read more »
Excellent piece of analysis.
This is a good post and line of thinking. No one likes it when an objective scientific-like inquiry encroaches on their ego bubble. It takes resolve to continue weathering the storm. Right on man.
The morality clouded haters are the ones least likely to get any of this anyway, so no biggie.
Keep doing what you’re doing because the ones that have an outside chance of unplugging, a chink in their femcentric morality armor, a slight whisper of doubt in the back of their heads, they’ll get it.
Of all the current “game” blogs this blog seems to be the most mentally-balanced, hence fitting to the title RationalMale. Name another “game” blog or site that talks in a balanced way about the issues (I don’t know of any). Yesterday I was thinking of words that would describe a “female-bitch” (arrogant, angry) and then thought many men (blogs, but not this blog, and in public) often sound like male-bitches also. The ego’s of most men prevents them from seeing reality (and in conjunction how others see them). Is there in reality “one objective standardized-red pill?” I would say there… Read more »
The Rational Male has been the most influential and illuminating source of information since my Red Pill catharsis. I attribute this primarily to the author’s concern with the WHY of Game instead of the HOW. Before I happened upon RM I was reading newly-discovered Game material and thinking “yes, that’s true, that does work because I’ve seen it first-hand!” but when I started delving into the archives of this site it was more so “Ah ha! So that’s WHY it works!”. Much of Game discourse is tactics but not much strategy. RM provides unfiltered, cold, and objective knowledge so one… Read more »
You should write a book man.
Let that sink in for a moment; the reason that what I propose seems nihilistic, cynical and conspiratorial is because it’s analytical without the varnish of morality. Yes. As a matter of intellectual curiousity, I’ve wondered what it is about your writing that seems to strike so deep at some peoples’ psyche such that they find you so “offensive” or “dislike” you. I think most people have a problem with a simple cold, detached explanation of empirical reality without some overlay of moral judgement. I believe people who tend to be idealists instead of pragmatists have a particular problem because… Read more »
“…when I post something like Looks Count or Women’s Physical Standards and the importance women actually do place on a man’s physique.” Those posts are the main reason I respect your blog over the rest I’ve read. You understand that game is not everything. Sometimes you need to look at that man in the mirror. Oh, I also like Bronan’s, too. Especially the post making fun of the PUA. Lol I digress. The point is that your writings looks at everything without ego and dissects them rationally with brutal honesty. You write like a man should–much respect. Keep up the… Read more »
A woman deserves the same amount of morally right treatment that she dishes out to others – which, in most cases, is exactly zero.
Women have the same attitude towards morally right treatment as they have towards commitment: they demand it in ample doses but are very reluctant to give it. They are generally very quick to absolve themselves of moral responsibility. When it comes to men’s treatment of women, of course, for some reason integrity and righteousness suddenly become very important in their eyes.
I think a proper definition of morality is a set of behaviors which if widely adopted would be ideal for the stability and growth of society. For socially-minded men this would mean whatever is good for the greater society and it will often contradict their own immediate interest. For women “good for society” translates into “good for me and my team, in the immediate time frame”. More often it means “give me power, because I have no power”. Both uses of morality to advance their imperative are a reflection of their immedaite nature, ignoring both the larger societal issues and… Read more »
Rollo, Rationality is tough to fake when you are emotional but not vice-versa. Rationality is the hallmark of your blog and that’s why I think its the best in the manosphere. Off Topic I started reading this blog in december 2011.I was(to some extent still am) stuck in a One-itis with a good girl.(EXACTLY as described in : http://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2011/11/10/good-girls-do/ ) In the time since I have seen her ruthlessly exhibit all the stuff in this blog including but not limited to hypergamy,solipsism,self shooting and war-bride dynamic.This despite coming from a conservative part of the world.My beliefs have been blown away.Shattered… Read more »
[…] from the Pedestal“, “Rationalism in the Matrix“, “Violence“, “Moral to the Manosphere”Samplexus – “Last Night’s Frustrating Event and Today’s […]
“For example, when I wrote War Brides, it was in response to men’s common complaint of how deftly and relatively unemotionally women could transition into a new relationship after they’d been dumped by a GF or wife.”
This sentence doesn’t make sense to me. How WOMEN can transition after being dumped by “GF or WIFE?”
I think he meant men complain women got over them too fast when they (the men) got dumped by gf or wife.
So whats the point? But really. I’m a young, freshly game-enlightened guy who doesn’t want a relationship at all because of my knowledge of hypergamy. I’m skilled at seducing girls and my notch count grows high, but on a very nihilistic level I honestly see now point in interacting with women. I can think back with fondness on each and every individual girl I’ve been with, whether it was one night or months on end, and it’s a pretty raw deal for men when women remember us as “That guy with the X habit. I can’t believe I ever dated/hooked… Read more »
@Cyrus, It depends on how you define a relationship. It’s probably better to not have a “we live together” type relationship unless considering marriage. However, there can be benefits to a “relationship” that is meeting once or twice a week (for doing some things for fun and easier lays) over months. I accept the reality of hypergamy and I’m OK with it personally, but the possible financial down-side of a divorce is why I will never get married. I am one of the few who is a S4L (Seducer For Life) as this is what is best for me (and… Read more »
[…] is my standing rule, I strive for a separation of moralism and rationality on this blog, up to the point where the topic crosses over into a better rational understanding of […]
[…] Nevertheless, I stood my ground and believe I won the argument. Rollo completely missed the point I was making regarding women’s opinions of Jordan and Tomba and implied that because I was making value judgments I was somehow disregarding reality. Rollo’s raison d’être is almost entirely describing what is (A), and I won’t dispute that he’s a master of it. I was merely attempting to bring the argument into the realm of what should be (G). I won’t dispute that Rollo comprehends human nature as it is, but when it comes to making moral judgments, he’s AWOL. […]
[…] I get myself into the inevitable morass this post will likely generate, please have a read of the Rational Male policy about morality. My purpose in setting this out isn’t to persecute anyone, nor should an objective grasp of […]
[…] know, it’s generally my practice to describe things – not to prescribe things – and allow readers to make their own moral conclusions, but I’ll break form in this […]
I think the most damaging thing I learned when young was that it’s wrong to have sex with someone you don’t love…because boy did that ever put the cart before the horse!
I am not smart. But this gives me lots to think about.
[…] From Moral to the Manosphere: […]
“Offense is really not my intent, but often enough it’s the expected result of dissecting cherished beliefs that seem to contribute to the well being of an individual.”
That’s incredibly important especially when the biggest reason I was in the blue pill state for so long was because of “Morality” and in part the suspension of disbelief.
[…] isn’t an endorsement for or against ethics in the Red Pill – I’ve already written that post – but it is to emphasize that I think objectivity should precede any pretense to what may or may […]
[…] Rational Male: Moral to the Manosphere […]