A lot of shit got slung at me last week about making comparisons of chivalry being an antiquated social extension of the Feminine Imperative. I’ve written about the concept of chivalry and its impact on the intergender landscape of today, but as I read through certain select comments in Sanitizing the Imperative and after reading the misconception about chivalry on other blogs I felt the idea of chivalry deserved a bit more attention.
Over the course of my travails in the manosphere one common misperception I read a lot coming from well meaning red pill men, as well as the predictable blue pill white knight is this broken and romanticized notion of what chivalry means to them and should mean for everyone else expected to “play by the rules.” I originally touched upon the convenient use the modern Feminine Imperative has made in making appeals to anachronistic idealisms like chivalry and honor in The Honor System. I then revisited this in a bit more detail after the Concordia shipwreck with the women and children first debate even staunch jezebelers couldn’t resist in Chivalry vs. Altruism:
Chivalry is simply one of many ideologies that was subsumed by westernized romanticism. Chivalry also applied toward things such as not hitting a man while he wasn’t looking or attacking a blatantly undefendable, inferior or even a respected foe. It was originally intended as a code of etheics determined by the Roman Catholic church to control the otherwise lawless and violent natures of soldiers and knights who, understandably, had a tendency for brigandism in the middle ages. What passes for most people’s understanding of chivalry is actually a classic interpretation and bastardization of western romanticisim and the ideologies of ‘courtly love’, which ironically enough was also an effort by the women of the period intended to better control the men of the early and high Renaissance. Essentially it amounted to a taming of the over-dominating masculine influence of the time by laying out a system of prescribed appropriate conditions necessary to satisfy a womans access to her intimacy.
You’ll have to forgive me for indulging in a history lesson for today’s post, but it is necessary. What I find most common in men’s interpretation of chivalry is an almost Disneyesque mental return to knightly virtues of the past that only ever existed in films like Excalibur. My first amazement is that concept of romanticized chivalry have endured as long as they have. This is not due to some provable merit, but rather that the expectations of the more useful aspects of chivalry have benefitted the Feminine Imperative for so long that they’ve become ubiquitous expectations of men – even while coexisting beside a feminism that actively derides them.
So bear with me while we return to the foggy days of medieval Western Europe to search for the true roots of chivalry.
Origins of Chivalry
The year is around 1060 and over the last 100 years or so (i.e. the ‘dark ages’) a feudal system of moneyed landowners and their personal militias have made a mess of things. In spite of the best efforts of containment and control by the Holy Roman Empire, constant violence and sporadic wars amongst these small states have led to a breakdown in the fabric of society. Brigandism and outright barbarism are common amongst these militias – what they lacked was a common enemy, and what the church lacked was resources.
The Holy Roman Empire would provide that common enemy in the form of the Muslim (Moors) infidels to the south and a series of bloody crusades ensued. The Moors of course possessed the resources the church was desirous of, but the church lacked a cohesive social / religious order under which to unite the various militias they needed to process their crusades. Thus was born the code of chivalry.
This code appealed well to the martial pride of the evolving noble class, but further cemented the ideology into the commoners by pairing it with the religious doctrine of the era. The code was thus described as the Ten Commandments of chivalry:
- Believe the Church’s teachings and observe all the Church’s directions.
- Defend the Church.
- Respect and defend all weaknesses.
- Love your country.
- Do not recoil before an enemy.
- Show no mercy to the Infidel. Do not hesitate to make war with them.
- Perform all duties that agree with the laws of God.
- Never lie or go back on one’s word.
- Be generous to everyone.
- Always and everywhere be right and good against evil and injustice.
Not a bad code of ethics under which to unite factions who previously had little better to do than smash each other with maces and steal each other’s resources. It’s a difficult task to get a man to die for another man, but give him an ideology, and that he’ll die for.
The chivalric code worked surprisingly well for over three centuries and was instrumental in consolidating most of the countries that evolved into the Western Europe we know today. However, as with most ‘well intentioned’ social contracts, what originated as a simplistic set of absolute rules was progressively distorted by countervailing influences as time, affluence and imperatives shifted and jockeyed for control.
Courtly Love
For all of the influence that the church exerted in using chivalry as a social contract, it was primarily a contract played out amongst men. With the notable exceptions of a few select Queens and Jeanne d’Arc, it was only men who had any true social input either publicly or privately during this time. It wasn’t until the mid-thirteenth century that (noble) women would insert their own imperative into the concept of chivalry.
At the time, chivalry was a mans’ club, and unless she was a widow, women were more or less insignificant in the scope of chivalry. A nobleman might take a wife, but rarely were these marriages romantic in nature. Rather they served as political alliances between states (and often consolidating church control) and a man’s romantic and sexual interests were served by mistresses or the spoils of his conquests. In fidelity was expected in noble marriages.
Enter the French noblewomen Eleanor of Aquitaine and Marie de Champagne. Both of these Ladys were instrumental in attaching the concept of courtly love and romance to the chivalric code that we (somewhat) know today. The wealth and affluence that Western Europe enjoyed from the late medieval to the high renaissance provided the perfect environment into which high-born women were feeling more comfortable inserting their imperative.
Both of these noble women had a love for the traveling troubadours of the time, espousing acts of love and devotion as merits for a new aristocracy. Originally courtly love was a much more pagan ideal, but like the church had done centuries before, when ideologically fused to the chivalric code it gradually proved to be an amazingly effective source of social control over men.
In it’s earliest form, courtly love was much more salacious than the socially controlling device it evolved into:
Properly applied, the phrase l’amour courtois identified an extravagantly artificial and stylized relationship–a forbidden affair that was characterized by five main attributes. In essence, the relationship was
- Aristocratic. As its name implies, courtly love was practiced by noble lords and ladies; its proper milieu was the royal palace or court.
- Ritualistic. Couples engaged in a courtly relationship conventionally exchanged gifts and tokens of their affair. The lady was wooed according to elaborate conventions of etiquette (cf. “courtship” and “courtesy”) and was the constant recipient of songs, poems, bouquets, sweet favors, and ceremonial gestures. For all these gentle and painstaking attentions on the part of her lover, she need only return a short hint of approval, a mere shadow of affection. After all, she was the exalted domina–the commanding “mistress” of the affair; he was but her servus–a lowly but faithful servant.
- Secret. Courtly lovers were pledged to strict secrecy. The foundation for their affair–indeed the source of its special aura and electricity–was that the rest of the world (except for a few confidantes or go-betweens) was excluded. In effect, the lovers composed a universe unto themselves–a special world with its own places (e.g., the secret rendezvous), rules, codes, and commandments.
- Adulterous. “Fine love”–almost by definition–was extramarital. Indeed one of its principle attractions was that it offered an escape from the dull routines and boring confinements of noble marriage (which was typically little more than a political or economic alliance for the purpose of producing royal offspring). The troubadours themselves scoffed at marriage, regarding it as a glorified religious swindle. In its place they exalted their own ideal of a disciplined and decorous carnal relationship whose ultimate objective was not crude physical satisfaction, but a sublime and sensual intimacy.
- Literary. Before it established itself as a popular real-life activity, courtly love first gained attention as a subject and theme in imaginative literature. Ardent knights, that is to say, and their passionately adored ladies were already popular figures in song and fable before they began spawning a host of real-life imitators in the palace halls and boudoirs of medieval Europe. (Note: Even the word “romance”–from Old French romanz–began life as the name for a narrative poem about chivalric heroes. Only later was the term applied to the distinctive love relationship commonly featured in such poems.)
Last week Dalrock had an outstanding summation of romantic love – Feral Love – that got lost amongst his other posts. This is unfortunate because virtually every thing he brings to light here finds its roots in exactly the romanticized courtly love rituals outlined above. What we consider acts of romance today, what we consider our chivalric duties to uphold in their regard, are all the results of a 13th century feminine imperative’s attempts to better effect women’s innate (and socially repressed) hypergamy. When we think of noble acts of self-sacrifice for women this is where the origins are. One of the more cruel acts of devotion a ‘lover’ may ask of her paramours was to bleed themselves for her; capturing the blood in a vessel after slicing his foram and comparing the amount therein.
In the doldrums of a well provided-for existence, women will actively create the elusive indignation they need to feel alive. The women of the early courts were effectively perfecting the art of maintaining a bullpen of beta orbiters willing to address all of her unmet emotionalism while being fucked raw by their badboy knights to sire royal Alpha children when they returned from campaigns. The courtly love practices of the 13th century served the same purpose for women as Facebook does today –attention – balancing the Alpha seed with the beta need.
Feminism 1.0
As I wrote in last week’s installment, while the Feminine Imperative remains the same, its social extensions for exerting itself change with conditions and environment it finds itself in. There’s been some recent discussion in the manosphere that feminism can only exist in an affluent society that provides sufficient internal social controls to protect the extensions of the Feminine Imperative. For instance, while Slut Walks may be encouraged in Sweden, there are very few in Egypt at the moment. One socioeconomic environment supports the expresion of the imperative, the other does not.
The concept of chivalry, in its original, intent was the result of a social control in an otherwise lawless environment. Later, when affluence accumulated and an upper class evolved, so too do the social extensions of the Feminine Imperative.
Fusing the philosophy and rituals of courtly love with the chivalric code was one such extension of the time – and a more enduring one I’ll add. The major failing most White Knights and moralistically leaning red pill men have today is understanding that the modern concept of chivalry, and all their feel-good Arthurian idealism bastardized for the last millennia, sprang from the want of a more exercisable hypergamy for the women of the era.
It should then come as no shock that the old model of romanticized chivalry would conflict with the more overt social extension of today’s feminism. A want for that old, socially coerced, masculine devotion clashes with the ‘do-it-yourself’ feminism of today.
Didnt know any of that. Mind blowing.
Intersting…chivarly was another male club the females wanted to get into. Although I do notice if you do something “nice” for a guy, you usually get acknowledged for it. Most men have manners enough to say thank you…it’s usually unexpected and as such you don’t feel entitled to it. Also I usually have no problem helping a guy with a project…most guys are cool enough to give you a pizza and a beer out of the exchange. Plus when you ask that same guy for help he remembers that you did it for him too. Help a lady with a… Read more »
At one point in Western History, the “rule of thumb” was considered liberal bullshit…
Love the picture.
Awareness is critical to prevent this sort of thing. What happened to chivalry cannot be allowed to happen to the red pill. Also:
http://jodiariasisinnocent.com/
Would love to hear some manosphere input on this.
It is about time someone finally said what chivalry was really about and how what is calld chivalry today is nothing of the sort.
Feminism got what it wanted by killing Chivalry.
Women should get to keep this ‘victory’.
I don’t believe chivalry (in the feminized sense) is dead at all. In fact I think a great many blue pill men would love nothing more than an earned appreciation for complying with the tenets of romanticized chivalry. What they come to discover is that women see chivalry as a tool for control. They find out, much to their anger, that women who have no immediate need for chivalrous behavior or the mindset view the men exhibiting it as ‘nice guys in sheep’s clothing’. When they have no flat tires to fix and no need for an escort across a… Read more »
Rollo, over the years I have changed a few tires for women in various places, and not once did I ever find myself helping a feminist. Yes, there are no feminists with flat tires. A remarkable thing, given the number of feminist women in the world, isn’t it?
Excellent post, Rollo. Taking this information into context, the modern obsession with romantic love becomes clear for the chimera that it is. For charismatic men, understanding the manifestation of the female imperative in all its forms is a prerequisite, followed closely by acceptance of it. Once a man has understood and accepted the existence and operation of the various female imperatives, he can, if he chooses, utilize this knowledge as a way to infiltrate the female mind, heart, and soul so as to maximize the masculine imperative, that is to say, maintain healthy relationships with women, with deep bonding experiences… Read more »
Chivalry was a Catholic church power grab (what’s new?), and the feminine imperative took it as an ideal opportunity to introduce disturbing, immoral pagan rituals that made every noble woman a Diana. Damn, talk about ugly truths.
Rollo,
“In the doldrums of a well provided-for existence, women will actively create the elusive indignation they need to feel alive.”
I am unclear on this. Are you saying they always do this? To get even more out of their men?
@Nas
http://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2011/10/17/indignation/
I few months back I read a book called ‘The Normans’ by Timothy Baker. It was pretty good overall, but a section stands out in my mind that I can’t quite remember unfortunately.
What I can generalize about remembering however is that women back then actually did have assurances of property and certain rights despite what today’s university professors would have us think.
Nas, when I was studying artificial intelligence one topic was the neural network,an attempt to model a few neurons in software. There are a number of aspects to training a multi layer neural net to classify inputs into “good” and “bad” that seem to apply to humans (lots of repetition, for example). One of the interesting aspects of some neural networks is this: they sometimes do not perform as well as they should with a signal that is clean. That is to say, neural networks perform best in the presence of some noise – “static” on the inputs. Women seem… Read more »
In other words, Reader, women need something to bitch about. Priceless.
I’ve just finished reading The Three Muskateers and it’s relavant as a romanticisation of the era. Some thoughts: 1. There were high standards for a lady to be worthy of chivalrous attentions. Women who acted like vile cunts (i.e. the villainess Mi’Lady) were hanged, beheaded or throttled. No pretense of “never hit a woman”. They faced consequences to their actions. 2. It’s much easier to pedastalise a woman when she (i) lives by the code of honor (ii) is a virgin (iii) will bind herself to you till death (iv) is half your age. Even the landlord Bonancieux is fifty… Read more »
Sorry Nick, not to go all renaissance festival on you, but the stories of the Musketeers were all set in the mid to late 17th century, lierally 500+ years after the advent of chivalry and courtly love.
That’s a long time to bastardize an ideology.
I like the historical context, the old empire trying to bring into line the new conquering upstarts using shame and honor. Very accurate, just check out the Donation of Constantine, Papal infallibility and the crowning of Charlemagne.
Problem with ideologies is that some people actually start to believe in them.
The losers (taxpayers, white knights, betas, religious, soldiers) are the ones who keep practicing an ideology even when its hurting them at present and/or the benefit is supposed to be at a later date or for the good of the whole.
Unconditional chivalry is foolish. It should be practiced only when the benefit is guaranteed. I don’t mind helping out a chick if I make sure I get something in return right away.
Selfishness is not the problem, its the solution.
This weekend, my LTR of six months expressed a desire (and therefore entitlement) for civalry and gentlemanly behavior on my part. This being a subject of the Manosphere recently, I was ready with a response. So I asked her what reciprocal behaviors I could expect in return. All she thought about it for a while and responded “To accept your chivalry gracefully.” This really wasn’t too bad, considering my low expectations of women. Yet I probed further and suggested that perpaps behaving like a lady might be one behavior I could expect. This was simply too much. Her solipsism kicked… Read more »
[…] The Feminine Imperative – Circa 1300. […]
Rollo: It should then come as no shock that the old model of romanticized chivalry would conflict with the more overt social extension of today’s feminism. A want for that old, socially coerced, masculine devotion clashes with the ‘do-it-yourself’ feminism of today. I think there’s no conflict. Romanticized chilvalry made feminism possible. Today’s mandatory chivalry enforced by the state through taxes and welfare programs is just the more potent form of the old romantic chivalry. Woman demands “I want to feel that I can do it all”. Man invents systems and products so that she can feel that way. Feminism… Read more »
I love the pic.
@Rollo. Agreed, TTM begins in 1625. What I mean is even at such a late juncture chivalry was far from a what it is idealised as now by the likes of Kingdom of Heaven
‘The women of the early courts were effectively perfecting the art of maintaining a bullpen of beta orbiters willing to address all of her unmet emotionalism while being fucked raw by their badboy knights to sire royal Alpha children when they returned from campaigns.’ Exactly, knights WERE the badboys back then. Not in terms of being a street thug, but that they represented the most desireable of males around, here was a male that fought (and fighting is a huge aprohdiasic) had money, and basicly top of the social ladder. It is sad to see what the term ‘knight’ has… Read more »
Eleanor was a noblewoman of Norman descent who left her pious, dull first husband, King of France for Henry II. She was a favored child of her family (of Alpha males) from her first days. Everything I’ve ever read about her indicates that Eleanor actively went after Henry (she was 28 and he was 19 when they were married) using her position as Duchess of Aquitaine and supposedly considerable beauty to get him to marry her. She was wealthier and increased Henry’s power by marrying him, but he was probably one of the few men in her social circle capable… Read more »
Much of the feminized version of the code was solidified with Don Quixote who looked back on a bygone era with reverence, always questing for his Dulcinea. It’s debatable whether or not Cervantes thought this was a good thing, but the FI has taken the book out of context to help us remember chivalry the way they want us to. Also, I remember reading a book for Christian men in which it described our inherent natures as reflected in chivalry. Little girls want to be princesses (still true) and little boys want to be knights and heroes rescuing the princess.… Read more »
With the monarchic tradition absent in the American mind, chivalry has morphed into something of a linguistic con of feminists. The church, Rollo, might have to do with the propagation of chivalry in other parts of Europe (certainly Spain), but for the region of its origin, today’s Germany, that’s simply not true. Changing from the english wikipedia page to other languages will reveal that little fact. In essence, chivalry was a self imposed code of honor and conduct for members of the ranks of lower nobility who were expected to defend their country as armoured horsemen in the case of… Read more »
“In the doldrums of a well provided-for existence, women will actively create the elusive indignation they need to feel alive. The women of the early courts were effectively perfecting the art of maintaining a bullpen of beta orbiters willing to address all of her unmet emotionalism while being fucked raw by their badboy knights to sire royal Alpha children when they returned from campaigns. ” So their husbands were alpha bad boy knights who they nevertheless cheated on with their chivalrous and clandestine courtly beta lovers who brought them flowers and bled for them into vials without any expectation of… Read more »
@ BNO
The way I understood it, Rollo was saying that the guys who bled into vials for the “ladies” and the guys who got to fuck the living shit out of the “ladies” were two separate and distinct groups of men. Alpha fuckers and beta suckers… some things never change I guess.
Maybe today’s beta orbiters should be grateful that all they’re (usually) expected to provide is a shoulder to cry on.
It would seem to me that chivalry as practiced in the Middle Ages was aligned with the “Leader of Men” and “Protector of Women and Children” aspects of Evolutionary Psychology in sparking attraction.
Neither of those two aspects is about supplication.
Yeah but its confusing the way Rollo portrays it – the courtly suitors were definitely supplicators and sex wasn’t even necessarily on the table. This was all about poetry and “romance”. So where do the alpha raw fuckers come in? And who where the husbands of this aristocratic ladies? Leaders of men? Where they the supplicators and vial bleeders to another set of women? Its all so confusing. Today’s untermenschen sexual market is so much easier to navigate.
The history of this subject is enlightening but I am most interested in its modern application for game aware men. I have to second revo’s analysis here. If you can set an alpha frame and then invert modern chivalric notions it can strengthen any type of relationship you have. It can set up the idea that you’ll act like a gentleman if and when she acts like a lady. I have no problem lifting heavy shit for girls or opening doors ( It also affords me the opportunity to get a look at that backyard) it doesn’t work unless you… Read more »
Isn’t this the same culture that popularized MGM (male genital mutilation) amongst gentiles and christians in an effort to “curb the evil of male masturbation” and taught husbands and wives that any other position besides missionary was an “evil sin” and claimed women had “hysteria” when all they needed was to be able to flick their bean guilt free or have their hubbies lick it?
A pretty damned sick and frustrated bunch of repressed perverts. And they gave us so called “Western Civilization”?
I’ll take the jungle over that mess any day.
Before it established itself as a popular real-life activity, courtly love first gained attention as a subject and theme in imaginative literature.
Fascinating. So imaginative literature based on a courtly love bastardization of the original chivalry – that is to say potentially violent monsters vying for the hands of fair maidens – was the original Twilight. I bet if you searched through the literature you could find references to chivalric heroes appearing to “shine” (sparkle lol) in the moonlight.
Thank you for posting this history, Rollo.
I don’t know much about it, but I thought that knights were basically mafiosa, enforcers, and tax collectors. The entire aristocracy was basically a big mafia operation. No?
Boys Night Out-The hysteria thing wasn’t till the 19th century also the missionary thing wasn’t till much later either. The male mutilation i.e. circumcision (I think that’s what your referring to) I’m not so sure about either. The age Rollo is talking about is an age of cruelty, short life spans (peasant’s were lucky to live to 30), and huge inequality between the lords and commoners. Boys Night Out-Your kind of missing the point. It was much more of a “jungle” back then than it is in today’s America. I agree that I’ll take today over then for sure, but… Read more »
Boys Night Out = Sexual Marxism = Indian Culture Troll
“Today’s mandatory chivalry enforced by the state through taxes and welfare programs is just the more potent form of the old romantic chivalry.”
Which is why it’s better not to marry. I only pay around 10% of my funds to women and their bastard children…instead of 10% plus whatever else gets robbed of me from one woman.
Troubadour poetry came into being in the person of Guillaume IX of Acquitaine in the late eleventh century, when feudalism in Europe was reaching a peak with the Norman Conquest of Britain in 1066. But we need to understand the geographic and historical context of Aquitaine; the geographic area in which the troubadours flourished, the conquering Muslim forces, which swept north through Spain in 711 CE, also crossed the Pyrenees in 732 to fight Charles Martel’s Franks at Poitou, the future home of one of Duke Guillaume IX. The Arabs occupied Spain for seven hundred and eighty years. The sheer… Read more »
This is great, I knew of the aspects of this due to David Hume and others. Though I would go back even further to the rise of the Franks under Charlemagne as the start of chivalry. Immortalised by this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland
Ah beaten by minutes by the Magister!
Off-topic, but what’s your email Rollo? I need to send you something. Get me at:
therealmattforney [at] gmail [dot] com
“There is no such thing as “Chivalry vs. Altruism”, the second is the cause of the first. And the first has two forms: self-sacrifice (Chivalry 1.0) and other-sacrifice (Chivalry 2.0), in the same way that conservatives’ “good old days” was a form of”self-sacrifice” and the entitlement state is the resultant “other sacrifice”. It is not that “well-intentioned altruism” was “distorted”, it is that altruism is doing what altruism does.”.
http://getironic.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-motive-power-of-feminine-imperative.html
The Imperative taking over …… See it with your own eyes gentlemen
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/rape-and-the-crisis-of-indian-masculinity/article4214267.ece
Thanks to Rollo I will be the one of the first guys poolside.
Also….
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/taking-the-aggression-out-of-masculinity/article4266007.ece
@Revo Luzione
A well said comment. I particularly like this part: “Or, to put it more succinctly, well-chosen acts of chivalry are DHV’s, cost next to nothing, and don’t expose a man to the dangers of overwrought feminism.”
As always, you do it as part of who you are, not to suck up to or placate women. You’re doing it as a matter of fact, e.g. http://3rdmilleniummen.wordpress.com/2012/11/24/manosphere-sex/
Keep it up Dalrock!
*That was meant to be keep it up Rollo, I had just re-read the impressive ‘Feral love’ post by Dalrock. So keep it up the both of you, two of the three I have always labelled “Best of the Manosphere!”
Walt, I know I’m just seconding what you’d already said you’d do, but … NEXT that chick. Seriously. WTF. she, on her ownsome, takes it upon herself to solicit more “romance” from you, but is puzzled, taken off guard, that you ask the reciprocity? Actually though … my sense of justice, as it does too often, is interferring with my dispassionate analysis. You are in rights to correctly understand this as a shit test. It is a nonverbal message from her hindbrain to you. Apart from dropping her ass, which you are wholly justified so doing, you can also agree… Read more »
Coy, India is a completely different environment than the West and its one of the worst countries on the planet for women.
Hey There, its great that you’ve found love and respect in a foreign country. Whenever I travel I also elicit idealization, romanticization and exotification from the local natives. A saint is never appreciated in his own town.
Don’t mean to spam, but in reply to the post above about the Indian gang rape, why not pay some tribute to our wonderful American gang-rape story; I posted a video I found of one of the supposed friends immediately after the Steubenville (sp?) event: http://projectedmayhem.wordpress.com/2013/01/03/this-is-fucked-up/
Fusing the philosophy and rituals of courtly love with the chivalric code was one such extension of the time – and a more enduring one I’ll add. The major failing most White Knights and moralistically leaning red pill men have today is understanding that the modern concept of chivalry, and all their feel-good Arthurian idealism bastardized for the last millennia, sprang from the want of a more exercisable hypergamy for the women of the era. Feh. You skip over a thousand years of history. Could something have happened between the origins of the chivalric code and feminism? The notion of… Read more »
I actually lived there…and am returning. I’m no saint either.
Skimmed it.
Just like we don’t study dead languages, I don’t see why we should study chivalry.
It’s dead. Anyone who tries to speak it to me, male or female, might as well be speaking Sanskrit.
Require someone to skewer? Here is that moron Schwyzer again..
http://jezebel.com/5972788/no-one-is-entitled-to-sex-why-we-should-mock-the-nice-guys-of-okcupid
King A for the win. I now have no need to write an article in response to this. I will add too, that the Marquis de Sade is a great reminder of just how pure those Victorian times were. Chivalry may have been a gentlemen’s code, but it certainly didn’t prevent nor postpone the continual debasement of both men & women’s sexuality – or enlightenment, depending upon the manner in which one accepts the facts. No one would know Sade lest his 50 Shades of 120 Day’s of Sodom were popular in some way. Just sayin’, the moral code has… Read more »
“It’s dead. Anyone who tries to speak it to me, male or female, might as well be speaking Sanskrit.”
Ever been to South Asia? Sanskrit is by no means dead. Its alive in both its classical form and in all of the currently spoken languages of India, Nepal, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka.
2 expressions from woman beyond the wall. The second one is laugh out loud, in a good way.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/quora/2013/01/04/what_does_it_feel_like_to_be_a_hot_girl_who_gets_old.html?fb_ref=sm_fb_plugin_activity
Trolls Night Out
Such ignorance can only be from a troll LOL. By the way, Circumcision was practice popularize in Protestant America, in Catholic Europe of that time, only Jews went for it.
King a I’m certainly no genius, but if you’re willing to, please clarify a few things. I got the gist of what you’re trying to say, I think. Perhaps rollo is reaching trying to find evidence of the feminine imperative that is not there in the last 1000 years of western history, but does that deny that it ever existed or is any less insidious than he claims it is today? In my estimation humans began living in packs to help the alpha hunt and he kept all the women. We expanded to tribes which evolved male hierarchy and access… Read more »
Actually, I might have to retract my need to know based on comments in the too hot thread. I’m not new to the manosphere but I am new to paying attention to your comments. Why so shamey and Judgy towards men? Explain your endgame of you would. How is what you know a more reliable indicator or source of knowledge than fucking a lot of women. I’m at 27 and I’m 24 and all rollo is doing is confirming and fleshing out what I already know. You’re just confusing me.
Some material for you to write about.. maybe? “These women are done. They say they aren’t happy. They say they aren’t in love with their husbands (or any other man — they aren’t having affairs). They say they simply wish they were no longer married to him. They aren’t fulfilled. They wonder if this is how they are doomed to live the rest of their lives (and God-willing, most of them have another 40+ years ahead of them). … The common factor amongst all of these women is that they say that their husbands are really solid, good, nice men… Read more »
Great write up Rollo
thanks again
@Matthew King (King A) on January 4, 2013 at 1:26 AM
I am *deeply* surprised that nobody on this thread has mentioned C.S. Lewis’s near-encyclopedic treatise on the phenomenon of “courtly love” as a literary phenomenon, The Allegory of Love.
You know, written as an Oxford Professor of Medieval and Renaissance Literature, and all that.
Mucius scaevola wrote: Perhaps Rollo is reaching trying to find evidence of the feminine imperative that is not there in the last 1000 years of western history, but does that deny that it ever existed or is any less insidious than he claims it is today? He is attempting to deconstruct a salutary social practice, and in the process he injects a permanent (“biological”) enmity between the sexes. Not only is that historically, provably false, the idea prevents rapprochement by denying that a permanent settlement is possible. All I know is most men are taking the red pill as gospel… Read more »
@ grey_whiskers: I’m not familiar with Lewis’s Allegory of Love. I am familiar with his Four Loves book, which, for the right kind of smart woman, is better porn than Fifty Shades of Grey.
Why don’t you give us a précis?
I’m a woman and the above outline of the imperative does not appeal to me at all. I showed it to 4 other females and we all felt the same, though we all did have varying ideas about what a good Feminine Imperative looks like. Mine is one of two. 1. Stay single and childless my whole life while globe trot and discover the world and all the cultural wonders it has to offer, while simultaneously engaging in delectable romances with exotic foreign men from time to time (but not ALL the time), writing books and supporting myself off their… Read more »
Number 2 is pretty much the template for modern women.
The issue is you damn well better be an 8+ to even think about achieving the marrying the Dream Man part and that requires a little bit of girl game and luck. However being a fucktoy for handsome men in your early 20s, that’s a realistic option.
I am going to make some assertions here but they will be supported by references to science at the end of this comment. I’m not sure if Rollo believes that there is a permanent (“biological”) enmity between the sexes as Matthew King (King A) states in his comment above, but there certainly are biologically-based differences between men and women in terms of sexual psychology. Unfortunately the differences are not so clear cut as in so-called “tournament” species of animals versus “pair-bonding” species. Humans are somewhere in-between. A purely tournament species is where ALPHA TAKES ALL, so to speak. Think of… Read more »
@king a thanks for your reply I appreciate it. Olioox’s response to you was more helpful tho. I should stop trying to have a debate writing on an iTouch tho. It’s bad punctuation, no quotations and poorly formed thoughts. Idk about your larger point that chivalry helped contain animal natures effectively. It could work for a time, even 1000 years, but never forever. I don’t think we can take environment and culture and overcome our base instincts. To be sure, I believe in self improvement. In the past year I stopped smoking and drinking, my powerlifting numbers are getting stupid… Read more »
@ OlioOx: My takeaway from your critique is that I should have avoided the word “permanent.” Fair enough, I even debated editing it out myself. But I wasn’t saying there is a once-for-all solution that would allow us to transcend biology/nature forever so much as a permanently available solution we could always tap into, should we (freely) choose to. In order to shape and mold human behavior into a permanent and unchanging pattern, which is what King A wants, a permanent, unchanging, and all-powerful culture would have to be imposed. You slipped too quickly into totalitarianism by assuming the worst… Read more »
” Number 2 is pretty much the template for modern women. The issue is you damn well better be an 8+ to even think about achieving the marrying the Dream Man part and that requires a little bit of girl game and luck. However being a fucktoy for handsome men in your early 20s, that’s a realistic option.” Ferret, obviously this is an ideal. Concerning ideals men never think, “oh well I’d like to marry the chubby Plain Jane around the block”. No, they have an ideal of a beautiful fantasy woman. So do women. In real life we take… Read more »
@1 Woman’s View
I understand that it’s an ideal. However, for some many women they are able to do being a fucktoy part without realizing that the second act isn’t ever going to come and have ruined their chances of actually marrying a guy that has decent value because they lived out fucktoy fantasy.
Matt I agree with a lot of your points. We can’t ride alpha off into civilization’s sunset. I think pua is only the first step in game awareness. i may get married one day, i want kids, i also think i have what it takes to make her haaaapy. but i also know that im not going to do any of that ‘just cuz.’ it will come after ive reached a poosy saturation point. maybe not. That said, I don’t appreciate the insinuations that I’m selfish. I’m contributing to society in ways you may not have thought of. I run… Read more »
[Sorry Rollo I screwed up the blockquotes again by trying something new… please delete immediate post, I’m sure I’ve got it straight now, must use blockquote tag instead of fancy shit] @King A “Permanently available solution[s] we could always tap into” — much more reasonable. But: If you are going to bring this up [that is, questions of freedom vs. licence vs. liberty etc.], then you will have to dive deeper with me for the proper answer. There IS no “proper answer” to this type of question unless you believe in revealed religion, or unless you believe it is possible… Read more »
There IS no “proper answer” to this type of question unless … This is an assertion. How do you know you know it to be the case? Our difference is epistemological. There is no space here to hash out that difference. I would be satisfied knowing you understood there was an alternative to your postmodern existentialism (“There IS no ‘proper answer’…”). Your scare quotes around the words “proper” and “meaning” and any other subject you gave up examining indicate an abbreviated exploration into first principles. I cannot help you there, and I’ve done my time, wasting years of my youth… Read more »
Mucius scaevola wrote: I run a lair of sorts in Madison wi. I’ve gathered around me a group of like minded game aware young men. We’re not the aspy type of RSD approach all the time dudes. We’re a mutual support network dedicated to various types of self improvement. That is admirable. Particularly the “I run a lair” and “I’ve gathered around me” leadership frame. You would do this community a great service by publishing your exploits, both the positive and the negative. You are the future of the sexual marketplace. You, and for that matter YaReally, are the 21st… Read more »
@ King A In human life, it is not necessary to worry too much over the ultimate truth-value of certain kinds of statements and ideas, because if we spent all our time trying to prove or disprove truth to the ultimate degree, we’d never get anything done. People of all different cultures have been debating the meaning of things like justice, rights, the meaning and purpose of life, ethics, etc. for thousands of years, and the results of these debates are ongoing and in constant flux over time. Yet we need working definitions of these things in order to run… Read more »
[…] A history lesson on chivalry. […]
I wish the blog had an upvote function. So many good comments show up here, but I don’t want to clog up for forum with empty “Great comment!” posts.
Olio, you are more than articulate, more than organized in your thinking, more than insightful and creative, you are also remarkably patient. There must be a way to earn income from that remarkable talent. Politics? Teaching?
Take two: Clearly, nobody on earth is yet in possession of the ultimate truths… Ultimate truth, provable as such, only exists… … the mythological bases of your agenda… [rights] are basically a myth. How specifically do you know these three statements? Do you not recognize these three assumptions as themselves assertions in the absence of evidence? This is what I meant when I said “you will have to dive deeper with me for the proper answer.” Postmodernism refutes itself. The best postmodernists understood this self-evident absurdity. You seem unaware of it. You can continue making foundational assertions all you want,… Read more »
I bumped into this last day. What the hell is going on with women in the States? I thought they were secretly attracted to masculine traits…
[As usual I fucked up blockquotes in previous post. The part I tried to quote was the first paragraph, by xsplat. The rest was me, OlioOx, responding to it.] @King A About our pomo vs. (erm. whatever you call your point of view? Traditional analytic? Western rational tradition? Anglo-american school? Catholic philosophy?) spat — Indeed I should have said things like, “I believe that nobody on earth is yet in possession of the ultimate truths” and so forth. In fact it is only quite recently that this kind of radical postmodernist relativism is beginning to make sense to me, after… Read more »
OlioOx: CH has actually deleted some of my past comments, and most things I post never get through nowadays,.. I keep hearing of that happening, and when it would happen to me I’d try to make a comment on the EDITING and deleting of my comments, but he’d delete those comments. I used to enjoy commenting there, but there are cornerstones to his view that I strongly disagree with and believe are pernicious. He would rebut my disagreements with snark and dissimulation before editing them and then deleting my comments altogether. That put me off and I stopped visiting his… Read more »
@xsplat
You strongly disagree with some CH positions and find them pernicious? I need to hear all about this, and I seriously hope to hear Rollo’s opinon too. Would you care to elaborate, here or at any other place of your choice? And Rollo, come to think of it, do you yourself have any fundamental differences from the CH outlook?
Very briefly, I disagree with his emphasis on being aloof, and his meta view that all attractive traits in the end boil down to or can be replaced by confidence.
I’ve written several blog posts on both points.
Very briefly, I disagree with his emphasis on being aloof, and his meta view that all attractive traits in the end boil down to or can be replaced by confidence. I’ve written several blog posts on both points. The views are pernicious because being aloof is not a core fundamental of game, it is a style of game. Some of us have an emotionally open style that can work at least as well. Teaching principles of pathology to non-dark triad men doesn’t lead to an integrated, congruent, attractive personality. As men we need to incorporate our knowledge of women into… Read more »
In response to someone above, CH has deleted/ not approved MANY of my comments. He picks and chooses which ones fit for his purpose. I’ve even seen a few of my long essay-like comments days later (after being denied) morphed into entire posts of his – by all appearances from my end. And, where my comment that acted as muse went…who knows. I’ve actually read quite a few people have had similar things happen. What bothersome about CH sometimes as well, is when people over there adopt your pseudonym or will take a comment you’ve made in the past, and… Read more »
Wow, I just read Olio & King A’s dialogue up there, and that’s some excellent reading. Anyone who sees this, just skip up and read what they wrote.
xsplat, could you point me to those particular blog posts of yours? Indeed CH is written by a brotherhood of contributers, they are quite open about it although it’s only rarely mentioned. Perhaps they are putting their ‘dark triad’ principles into practice in how they run their blog, as a way of maintaining the principles as generalized mental habits. So in good old CH style, I’d like to agree with Demarcated Value’s exact words above: “Wow, I just read Olio’s words up there, and that’s some excellent reading. Anyone who sees this, just skip up and read what he wrote.”… Read more »
@Olio, it would take me as much time to find the posts as you, I think. Try the search function on xplat.wordpress.com for the keyword aloof, or on google site:xsplat.wordpress.com “don’t be aloof” or “being aloof is not game” . For all attractive traits not boiling down to confidence, try your google foo with the term confidence, or google “xsplat boil down to confidence” (without quotes this time) or xsplat venn diagram. No one really knows how many contributors write at the heartiste site. Years back before it changed sites, Roissy had alluded to having the help of an editor,… Read more »
Also, power corrupts, and his was a very powerful voice. That may have been enough to get his head stuck up his ass.
Oh, and also, he only started talking about there being more than one writer during the time that Lady Rain outed his identity. That’s the same moment he switched blog addresses. So that could just be a way to maintain some sort of unaccountability for the blog to his now known identity.
Got it xsplat, i found the ‘don’t be aloof’ stuff — i think i’m going to start visiting your blog. I just watched that ‘reality hits you hard bro’ for the first time, i’d never heard of it before; yes i suppose this guy dominates his environment but he’s the kind of guy i’d pay a few dollars to entertain at a party and then leave, if you know what I mean… (even though I behave that way myself sometimes when I’m drunk.)
I’m not sure of what value I’d get from associating with CH in real life. Judging by his snarky dissimulation in the comments section, no, he’s not a guy I’d invite to a party. But that’s just me – I’m picky about little things like emotional openness and intellectual honesty in men. People with tits get a pass. Genuine dark triad traits are not seductive to me, and I want to avoid ties with sociopaths and narcissists. Maybe that’s just missing an opportunity to use people effectively, but the question is – can such people be used effectively for personal… Read more »
Chivalry is dead. A man may employ it to get a date, but when used in that vein, chivalry is merely another tool to get what he wants. The purest form of chivalry would be to extend special privileges to a women he has no interest in. That brand of chivalry, rightly, has been dead for quite awhile. What’s left is simple good manners directed to your fellow man, regardless of sex. Of course, that has faded as well. Women have tried, somewhat desperately and often hilariously, to keep their special privileges, but that boat sailed a long time ago.… Read more »
Some more backing of Rollo’s post –
http://www.cracked.com/article_20186_6-ridiculous-myths-about-middle-ages-everyone-believes_p2.html
[…] are cultural engineerings of the feminine imperative. I delved into the history of chivalry in The Feminine Imperative – Circa 1300 and made my best attempt to outline the history of chivalry, the feminine bastardization of it and […]
Great article, tho I’m not sure about the assumptions of female hypergamy. Many of the troubadours were into what they called “fin’ amors,” which meant non-sexual or “true love” which wouldnt necessarily chime with the hypothesis of sexual hypergamy.
There’s a new article on A voice for Men on this entire subject which may be of interest: http://www.avoiceformen.com/misandry/chivalry/the-rise-of-chivalric-love-or-the-power-of-shame/
[…] the Romantic Era, over-the-top romantic praise was the order of the day. I’m aware that the Feminine Imperative played a role, but somehow praising women to high hell used to get men […]
[…] Aquitaine and her ‘Courts of Love’ What Good is Gynocentrism? Gynocentrism and its Discontents The Feminine Imperative – Circa 1300 Hail to the V Freedom from Gynocentrism in 12 […]