One of the withdrawal symptoms of unplugging from the Matrix is usually an overwhelming nihilism that results from being torn away from the previous blue pill preconceptions a man has been conditioned to for most of his life. It’s my hope that in the future red pill men will make the necessary interventions and apply what they’ve learned from their unplugging and red pill truths in general towards their sons (and daughters) as well as other men they know or are related to. Until then, the process of breaking away from that conditioning is usually going to begin as the result of a traumatic breakup, a divorce, or having had the relational equity he thought he’d built a long term relationship on proved worthless in the face of hypergamy.
It’s a sad reality of unplugging that it most often starts as a result of emotional anguish, but to pour salt in those wounds is then having to live with the harsh realities that the red pill makes men aware of – that more or less everything they’d held as an ego-investment up to that point was founded on a feminine-primary conditioning. I summed this up in The Bitter Taste of the Red Pill:
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.
Try to keep this last part in mind as you read what I propose in these next two posts. I read a lot of guys in various forums getting despondent after having the red pill make sense to them, but that despondency is really a simple lack of not having a path already preset for them to follow. Instead of the easy answers and prerequisite responsibilities that the blue pill and the Feminine Imperative had ready for him to follow, now in his new awareness he’s tasked with making a new path for himself, and that’s both scary and exciting at the same time.
Love Styles
In almost 3 years of blogging and a book written, my three most popular posts have been the Love series – Women in Love, Men in Love and Of Love and War. Though my SMV graph gets the most link backs, these are easily the most viewed posts on Rational Male. Unfortunately they’re often the most misquoted and misunderstood.
One of the toughest revelations of the red pill is coming to terms with the difference in experience and concept that men and women apply to love. The core principle in Women in Love is often misunderstood. For different reasons, deliberate or otherwise, both men and women critically misunderstand the main premise of that post:
Iron Rule of Tomassi #6
Women are utterly incapable of loving a man in the way that a man expects to be loved.In its simplicity this speaks volumes about about the condition of Men. It accurately expresses a pervasive nihilism that Men must either confront and accept, or be driven insane in denial for the rest of their lives when they fail to come to terms with the disillusionment.
Women are incapable of loving men in a way that a man idealizes is possible, in a way he thinks she should be capable of.
Most critics of my differing assessment of how either sex interprets and considers love tend to blow past this last part. They oversimplify my meaning and sputter out something to the effect of, “That Tomassi guy thinks that women can’t ever really love men, what preposterous crap!”
Of course that isn’t my assertion, but I understand the want to dismiss this notion, particularly for men and women invested in the ideal of equalitarianism. It’s a threat to the ego-investment that men and women are anything less than fully equal and rational agents who come together for each other’s mutually agreeable benefit. The simple fact of women’s innate hypergamy puts the lie to this presumption, as well as confirms the relevancy of women’s constant, qualitative conditionality for whom (really what) they’ll love. I think it’s ironic that the same people who disparage this concept are among the first to readily embrace the pop-psychology notion of Love Languages.
I get why that premise pisses off women (and feminized men); it’s very unflattering to be accused of loving men from a position of opportunism. However, it’s important to understand that I don’t make this observation to condemn the way women approach love – although I’m sure it will follow, my point isn’t to presume a ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ way for women to love men or vice versa. There are beneficial and detrimental aspects of both women’s opportunistic approach to love, and men’s idealistic approach to love. That said, I happen to believe that the differing ways men and women love each other evolved to be complementary to the other and for the betterment of our species.
For all the “OMG I can’t believe this red pill asshole thinks women can’t really love men” misdirection, I should point out that well intentioned men, especially the newly red pill, are also guilty of the same oversimplification. Theirs is an attempt to find validation in the (usually recent) trauma of having been cut away from their prior blue pill conditioning. A similar, “Rollo says women can’t really love men, of course, it’s all so clear to me now” satisfies a simplistic need for confirmation of their former condition.
And again, it’s not a right or wrong way of loving, it’s the lack of recognizing the difference and being on the punishing side of that lack. Most men will want to apply their concepts of honor or justice in assessing how ‘right’ men’s idealistic love is, while women will still see the inherent value in loving what a man is as a prerequisite for loving who a man is. Hypergamy doesn’t care about men’s idealistic expectations of love, but neither does men’s rationality make concessions for what facilitates women’s opportunistic approach to love.
Romantic Souls
From The Red Pill subreddit:
My whole life, I’ve had it nailed into me that I would be able to find true love if I was honest and hardworking. As I grew older it was, “If I’m somewhat fit and have a good job making 60k-80k a year, I’ll find that beautiful girl that loves me as I love her“.
As I’ve stated on many occasions, it is men who are the True Romantics. Granted, it’s the unthoughtful result of centuries of evolved ‘courtly love’, but in the realm of what qualifies as a true act of romance, it’s men who are the primary actors; it’s men who ‘make’ (or want to make) romance happen. And of course therein lies the problem, a man cannot ‘make’ romance happen for a woman.
For all a man’s very imaginative, creative, endeavors to manufacture a romance that will endear a woman to him, his ‘trying’ to do so is what disqualifies his intent. For every carefully preplanned ‘date night’ after marriage, there’s a college girl swooning to bang her boyfriend living in a shithole, sheets over the windows, furniture from the dumpster, pounding shitty beer and sleeping on a soiled mattress on the floor. Romance isn’t created, romance just happens, and it’s a tough, but valuable, lesson when men come to realize that a happenstance bag of skittles, or a ring made from a gum wrapper at the right time meant more to a woman than every expensively contrived ‘romantic getaway’ he’d ever thought would satisfy her need for lofty romance.
An important part of the red pill is learning that the most memorable acts of love a man can commit with a woman are acts of (seeming or genuine) spontaneity and never apparently and overtly planned (and yes, that applies to sex as well). This is a source of real frustration for a man since his blue pill conditioning expects the opposite from him, and his romantic nature – the nature that wants her to love him as he loves her – conspires with his problem solving nature, thus prompting him to ever greater romantic planning for what he hopes will be an appreciated, reciprocated love.
The Hierarchy
The true source of a man’s frustration lies in his misdirected hope that a woman’s concept of love matches his own. His ideal is a beautiful girl that loves him the same way he loves her. The presumption (a romantic one perpetuated by the myth of egalitarian equalism) is that his concept of idealized love is a universal one which women share with men in general and him in particular.
Thanks mostly to men’s blue pill conditioning, what most men fail to ever consider is that women’s hypergamic based love always considers what he is, before who he is. For a more detailed explanation of this I’ll refer you to my post Love Story. This is the root of the intersexual hierarchy of love.
Before the rise of feminine social primacy, the above ‘flow chart’ of love prioritization would hardly have been an afterthought for a man. Through any number of evolutionary and sociological progressions the base understanding of how Men’s love began from a position of protecting, provisioning for and directing of the lives of both his wife and children wasn’t a concern worth too much of his consideration. Neither was a prevailing desire for a reciprocal model of love an overshadowing concern.
To be sure, a baseline requirement of a returned love, sex, respect and fidelity were important elements, but this wasn’t the originating basis of male desire for being loved; there was no expectation of a woman loving him as he loved her (and by extension their children). To be a man was to have the capacity to provide a surplus beyond his own provisioning.
“A man provides, and he does it even when he’s not appreciated, or respected, or even loved. He simply bears up and he does it, because he’s a man.”
Gustavo’s monologue in my opening video may seem like an anachronism, especially in the light of a red pill awareness of the potential for injustice and the veritable certainty of a provisioning arrangement that will almost always be a one-sided proposition for a man – whether he’s loved, respected, appreciated, married or divorced.
Undoubtedly there’ll be men reading this bristling at the idea of a non-equitable model for love, but I’d argue that the idea of an equitable model is the result of the conditioning an egalitarian equalism has predisposed men to believe is even possible.
Before the rise of feminine primacy, a man’s expression of love through his support and guidance simply weren’t things women or children had the capacity to reciprocate. The advent of women’s independence, real or imagined, has served to strip men of this core understanding of the differences between male and female concepts of love. In the effort to feminize men more fully, and position men in a condition of confusion about what constitutes masculinity, this concept of love was replaced by a feminine-primary model for love.
While a woman’s respect, and a degree of love may flow back to her man, her primary love and concern is directed towards her children. One reason we’re still shocked by women who kill their children (pre or post natal) is due to an inherent acknowledgement of this natural dynamic. Women’s brain function and biochemistry largely evolved to predispose them to bonding with their children, and thus ensure the survival of the species. Beyond the rigors of physically gestating a child, raising children to self-sufficiency required a considerable investment of effort and resources – not to mention a constant attention. Nature selected-for women with an innate capacity to nurture and direct love primarily towards children.
The internal psychology women evolved to vet for men who displayed traits for both Alpha physical prowess and parental investment / provisioning potential are a result of children being a priority for a woman’s love. While a degree of maintaining a man’s continued commitment to the family unit requires her attentions in the form of sex and affections, a woman’s primary love focus is directed towards children.
Granted, not all women are capable of having children (or some even desirous of them), but even in these instances substitute love priorities still supersede directing her primary attention towards a man. It may seem like I’m attempting to paint women’s love as callous or indifferent, but this ‘directioning’ isn’t a conscious act, but rather due to the innate understanding that a man is to direction his love towards her as a priority.
This should give readers a bit to chew on for a while. In Part II I’ll detail the alternative hierarchy models prevalent for modern, post-feminine primacy relationships.
Thanks for the pingback.
It’s long been a blue-pill observation, really, but it’s become a hardened piece of red-pill knowledge that there’s a paradox to kindling a woman’s attraction – if she gets the idea (true or not) that you are “trying,” that you are making some conscious effort to spark her attraction, if it doesn’t come from an unconscious, totally intuitive place, it doesn’t count. Don’t ever let her see the sausage being made.
[…] Intersexual Hierarchies – Part I […]
>While a woman’s respect, and a degree of love may flow back to her man, her primary love and concern is directed towards her children. No, that’s just how it used to be. It clearly isn’t any more. Now a woman’s primary love and concern is directed towards herself. The functional — and almost etymological — definition of feminism is the prioritization of women’s interests ahead of those of men AND THOSE OF CHILDREN and the institutionalization of that prioritization. And just as marriage has fallen apart because communities are no longer keeping up their end of the marriage contract,.… Read more »
Acksiom, I address this in Part II
I sympathize with the ex Blue Pill 20 somethings that are told all their lives “do the right thing” and all will go well. Then these 20 somethings get older and find out “doing the right thing” was NOT so right after all. I was once in this situation. I was once an Alpha that was captured into marriage slowly turning beta. Now I realize that at the other end of platitudes and sayings TRUTH is always laid bare. A Man provides A Man has needs A Woman will never love a man as he wants her to There is… Read more »
Outstanding post Rollo.
The funny thing is that many Christians (Churchians, if you will) are the biggest proponents of this “love equality” paradigm. And yet scripture, especially the New Testament, lends itself to the other direction.
Also, this seems like a topic area where MRI scans would be rather revealing. It would be great to compare the brain reactions of male love and female love, both directed at the opposite sex and at children. Might kill a few sacred cows, that.
@donalgraeme, interesting idea, if we can define what a brain looks like when in love
Aside from measuring oxytocin/dopamine levels, it wouldn’t shock me if measurements prove elusive, considering the power, scope, and nuance of the topic.
tingles, on the other hand…
http://queensjournal.ca/story/2009-02-09/features/arousing-questions-about-female-sexuality/
Another brilliant essay, Rollo. One that directly challenges (me), never prevaricates…one that is almost ‘prescriptive’ as to one’s internals. It seems that the gateway to experience these understandings is actual participation in at least an LTR if not marriage. (Some red pill blogs will barely touch on anything beyond game. Their prerogative.) If men are the true romantics, but a woman’s experience of romanticism occurs more powerfully in iterations of spontaneity, this would seem a natural disadvantage to the LTR frame… Just another challenge of the LTR path. The challenge to maintain and grow her excitement in an apparently ‘unconscious,… Read more »
Great deep stuff. The gist of the hierarchy is conveniently taught in kindergarten as The Farmer In The Dell song (the farmer takes a wife, the wife takes a child) as a mnemonic. One of the main ways a woman’s characteristic incapacity to love a man properly (I’m callous enough to call it right and wrong, even if you’re not) is revealed is after the honeymoon period, when she starts to view him as a big baby through no fault of his own. Until recently (past few decades) the psychological teaching was that that was because she had children, except… Read more »
I would say physicality aside (sex) love, obviously, is emotional based. One thing I’ve noticed is that when a man is very attracted to a girl sexually he could develop lust over her and want to have sex with her. And, when she additionally shows signs of “need” from him–like she needs him for her happiness etc.–that is when the man feels ‘love’ for her. He is needed to provide for her (aka his natural state and purpose in life feels like it’s being met). On the contrary, a woman feels this love when she has the children or when… Read more »
Men must earn love, women are loved for simply being born
If it doesn’t work for a man to show that he is “trying”, then why is it so generally accepted in the manosphere, based presumably on experience, that offering to cook a woman dinner, at your place or hers, is one of the most sure-fire ways to get her in the sack? I have done this, and it has worked for me 100% of the time. I have never tried to frame it as cooking dinner for myself and she is invited along. It has always been obvious that I was doing it for her. Isn’t cooking dinner for a… Read more »
When woman declares that she is in love with a man, it means something as follows: “I want you to feed me, fuck me, clothe me, protect me, provide me with your genes/child…until I catch the better slave” Man in love: “I am eager to be your provider, soldier, protector, partner and generally….I will do anything that makes you happy”. Man is the tool for survival for her. Tool, once broken, has to be discarded and replaced. Of course, she is wise not to show him her parasitic nature too early, otherwise he might run into the hills for his… Read more »
I still don’t fully understand the male side of your definitions of romance. My understanding from myself and Jon. My love is in great parts base attraction (he’s the only human who’s ever drawn me in like this and who I’ve ever wanted to make happy), narcissism (he reminds me of myself), practicality (he’s useful) and reproduction (he wants many children); in lesser parts sexual urges (I am very sexually active, moreso than him, but a male wasn’t part of the equation before him and I COULD do without; he’s become a preference, though), attention (again, I used to do… Read more »
in my view, women as herd animals have conditioned or at least encouraged the idea of romantic love into men in ever increasing ways since the Civil War (when IMO we lost many of our strongest Alphas) as a mechanism of control. you see the same messaging in anti-porn crusaders talking about how if you over indulge in porn you somehow loose your ability to connect with the opposite sex. in reality, men are highly autonomous save needing a woman for sex, and they know it. strip away the perceived need for “love” and the practical requirements for sexual access… Read more »
A woman’s love towards a man is increased and optimized when she isn’t sure that he loves her on an equal basis. Fact: and men need to get this if they hold desires for their female partners to love and respect them. Look how older women (>50) emotionally appear with their male loved ones. Their expressions of love are greater than the projected love he shows onto her. Why is this? His de-leveraged appreciation of her beauty, in comparison to her younger self, manifests to show a lack of natural loving gestures on his behalf. Because of this, the older… Read more »
@Acksiom and Rollo
It will be telling if this “address” discusses abortion or not.
@Carlos re: “so generally accepted in the manosphere”? Where is it so accepted? It cannot be more generally recommended that, e.g. stopping in fo a drink. That being said, it probably is a B game move that works when it works because 1) Everybody eats 2) Good way to dispel the serial-killer vibe if that’s your tendency Otherwise, and pay attention, *beta* primate males bring bananas to the females and pick bugs out of their fur to comfort the females and try to get them to not run away so fast. Alpha males permit females to bring them bananas. That’s… Read more »
Women will often use other excuses to try to keep a man as a provider but not fuck him…some of these tricks include pouring her energies into her work or use caring for children to “triangulate” her relationship with her man…using the diversions and energy poured into taking care of the kids as an excuse for not banging him. if he gets upset..she’ll blame him. If he has an affair, she’ll leave him. As for the first part about the Red Pill being both liberating and painful—yes. We all want to live happily ever after. But sadly after understanding game,… Read more »
@superslaviswife re: “I haven’t ever observed truly romantic relationships from the outside either.” I truly doubt that. I understand you’re just expressing how you feel, but I know you have seen, often, a man acting romantically: doing things for his woman, that he would never do otherwise, in order to exhibit or “prove” his love. This includes all the usual stuff, e.g. getting flowers “just because”, or showing up unexpectedly on break at your work because he couldn’t go a minute longer without a kiss, or arranging a date night (after married) for Tuesday after next in hopes of you… Read more »
@jf12: I’ve seen the actions, but in every case where I have known the motivations there are ulterior motives. As far as I’ve seen, most do it out of fear, because they’re told that’s what’s right, because she asks for it or because they think it will get them sex. Hence why the “Nice Guys” who predominantly engage in these behaviours are so bitter. They aren’t doing it out of the love of their hearts, they’re doing it because they expect something, because they’ve been told to expect something. That’s not romance, that’s culture. However, if we’re to argue that,… Read more »
“There is no reciprocity. Men love women. Women love children. Children love hamsters. Hamsters don’t love anyone; it is quite hopeless.”
@superslaviswife, yes rationally “ulterior motives” and expectations are what it’s all about, but no you are wrong about that he’s not “doing it out of the love of their heart”. A man in love does romance because it is an internal drive: He *has* to do it if he thinks it will be pleasing to her, not because of culture. This is the great disconnect between men and women: women HATE HATE HATE to make sandwiches because he “expects” them, but a man in love LOVES LOVES LOVES to show his love because it’s expected. It’s why every man all… Read more »
@walala, yes, this is the great disappointment of my life.
Re: hierarchy. The way that apex alphas make women feel “romantic”: “Ooh, if he was mine I’d rub his feet and cook him a romantic dinner and dress in his favorite lingerie etc etc etc” this is how ordinary women make ordinary men (i.e. betas) feel. All the time. Sadly.
I feel I’m in pretty good shape. New GF says, “You are definitely in charge.” Religious, attractive, in shape, kind, she cooks, affectionate, respectful, loyal, good listener, praises and brags on me, etc. Am I missing something? Yes, I understand hypergamy, but this seems like a good catch in the current milieu.
@JackBlack23 great quote from a very perceptive (and man-loving) woman.
Hierarchy picture. Drop microphone walks of stage
@Nathan, I’m ashamed to admit I never watched Breaking Bad when the series was running, but I’ve been working my way through it on Netflix recently.
I thought this scene was particularly relevant to what I was writing last weekend.
Angry Gamer:
“An Alpha’s lot is to RISK ALL in the effort to reclaim manhood and fight Hypergamy (by ruse or force).”
No. Men who are or would be alpha must reclaim manhood with calculated risks.
Men who are or would be alpha do not fight hypergamy. They recognize it, harness it, and use it to the advantage of themselves and their wives/lovers.
Alphas get a lot of ass and don’t spend a lot of time theorizing, discussing, or thinking much about “hypergamy.” I only began to care slightly about this stuff after a couple of relationships went unexpectedly sideways, and I realized it had something to do with letting my guard down and being “too nice” once things were on cruise control. I’m more on guard about that, but that’s really been the chief contribution of all this literature.
Angry Gamer:
Men who are or would be alpha take calculated risks. And they don’t fight hypergamy. They recognize hypergamy, harness it, and use it to the advantage of themselves and their wives and lovers.
damn. sorry about the double post.
Rollo, have you ever checked out anything by Rob Fedders? He mentions this intersexual hierarchy frequently on his blog(s) …
http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2012/06/woman-most-responsible-teenager-in.html
I have also found you and him to be the most insightful writers on the topic of intergender dynamics in the “manosphere” (or at least you guys have had the most profound influence in shaping my own personal red pill views) …
@jf12: From my observations, I’d say it’s a specific breed of modern woman who hates doing the expected “romantic” things and they’re the vocal minority. Like the ones who in their 30s are proud they never reproduced. Loud? Yes. Majority? No. Most women do nice things for a man they love. It’s not a man vs woman thing in this case. It’s more about types of people, the same way every man isn’t a grovelling beta or a completely uninterested alpha. Some people do romantic things. Others don’t. And spontaneous, zero-interest-in-reward romance is pretty much a Disney fantasy. And yes,… Read more »
Do you think that a man’s frustration with love nowadays is also due to the fact that as a child he received “love” from his mother and thus expects the same from a wife/women? I believe this is another reason for men’s idealized love from women. We simply reference that our mothers “loved” us and “would not let anything bad happen to us” and “would sacrifice herself for us” etc. (this is stuff my mom says/said to me). so we assume that all women are the same and thus capable of loving us in that way. Of course this misconception… Read more »
roach, what you’re missing is it has not been 3 to 5 years yet.
Ackisom: [Rollo: “While a woman’s respect, and a degree of love may flow back to her man, her primary love and concern is directed towards her children.”] “No, that’s just how it used to be. It clearly isn’t any more. Now a woman’s primary love and concern is directed towards herself. The functional — and almost etymological — definition of feminism is the prioritization of women’s interests ahead of those of men AND THOSE OF CHILDREN.” Men seem to have a much harder time overriding innate predispositions. When Red Pill men talk about themselves, they often describe how hard it… Read more »
Great supplement to the other Love posts in the past. This really flushes out that dynamic of women not capable of loving us in the way we’d like. And the part about their preference to their children is dead on. I don’;t have kids but my GF and I got a dog and she showers that dog with more affection than I’ve ever gotten. She treats the dog like a kid in a way so I’m getting a window into that dynamic. You can easily see this unfold on FB. When women first marry, they won;t shit up about their… Read more »
I agree with Acksiom. The paradigm shift started 40+ years ago. Women were ‘liberated’ and this is the direction they have gone. What’s the answer? I don’t know. Our species will just have to see where this goes. However, for men it is clear: BLIND, IDEALISTIC LOVE IS MALADAPTIVE. Marriage stopped being an actual ‘contract’ decades ago. The age of trusting in promises is over. Men don’t have to carry on with a totally nihilistic outlook, but we do have proceed with an attitude of self-interest and self-defense. This is not easy as the traditional/legal construct for human pair bonding… Read more »
“It’s my hope that in the future red pill men will make the necessary interventions and apply what they’ve learned from their unplugging and red pill truths in general towards their sons (and daughters) as well as other men they know or are related to. Until then, the process of breaking away from that conditioning is usually going to begin as the result of a traumatic breakup, a divorce, or having had the relational equity he thought he’d built a long term relationship on proved worthless in the face of hypergamy.” Sorry Rollo, it just ain’t worth it. For one,… Read more »
“We simply reference that our mothers “loved” us and “would not let anything bad happen to us” and “would sacrifice herself for us” etc. (this is stuff my mom says/said to me). so we assume that all women are the same and thus capable of loving us in that way.” I do not think that boys superimpose their mothers on the girls that they find attractive, because mothers start out being perceived primarily not as women, but as their own category. Instead, I think that boys project their innate predispositions toward attractive girls onto those girls, and that this continues… Read more »
@superslaviswife re: “Most women do nice things for a man they love.” correct, which is why all men know that their women’s *refusal* to do things is evidence that the women have fallen out of love. Which almost all women do after a short honeymoon period.
I think there are various ‘Beta Tells’ that women telegraph to, or about the Beta men they’ve paired with. One of those is the indifferent disregard women have for ‘getting into’ anything a man may find interesting – a hobby, a passion, a sports team.
If your wife / GF finds it difficult to shop for a birthday or Christmas present for you, and she knows you’re really into some sport / hobby / music, etc., the Medium is the Message gentlemen:
http://therationalmale.com/2011/09/06/the-medium-is-the-message/
eon is on an analytical roll.
Vektor says “BLIND, IDEALISTIC LOVE IS MALADAPTIVE.” Currently, in our bizarrely low fertility r-selection milieu. I think it was highly selected for in men in the past when significant input from the man was necessary for survival, besides the boost to the feminine imperative. A man who is so blinded by love that he sacrifices himself for his woman and children, will probably pass on that trait MUCH more than a Machiavellian bad boy who abandons them to be eaten by the bears so he can survive to impregnate someone else.
Great addition to the Love articles Rollo. I’ve read the Women In Love post numerous times because I reacted and still react badly to it. I assumed I misunderstood something. I didn’t I understood it perfectly. My reaction is the problem. How women love is not something I need, or even really something I want. I don’t see any value in making the effort to obtain that. The cost is far to high in comparison for what I get in return. And let’s not suggest that it’s not a pay for play arrangement. To keep a women around means a… Read more »
I fail to see how this should help men overcome their bitterness. All you are saying is that it used to be the way we currently expect, but women changed it. And now men should adopt to the way love currently works. Most men feel that excepting the changes is what got us here. And we would drop the concept completely before we would accept this current horror.
“Women are utterly incapable of loving a man in the way that a man expects to be loved”
Unless it’s a woman that you’re not attracted to, indifferent about, or able to appear that way.
@badpainter.
Precisely. Thank you for putting into words my exact sentiments.
It’s just funny now…so much of what people hold dear in life (due to uneducated or willful ignorance) is nothing but a joke to me.
It’s the men who are the true romantics.
Thankfully Rollo, your content and your books will educate the world of such truths. These are already bringing positive changes in the course of human events.
“Why bother to commit when commitment is just selling myself into slavery?”
Perhaps only for the emotional health of your children
It seems that men’s idealistic, romantic love of women is a way looking at women in a religious (!)way.
The idealistic love is a purpose. It is a religion substitute in that it becomes his answer to the existential delima.
She is his diety and their shared love iS his meaning in life.
Mens’ idealistic love is a form of Worship!
@Nathan I actually covered this here: http://therationalmale.com/2012/10/29/the-soul-mate-myth/ Later in that discussion the idea of a ‘soul mate’ came up. The professor didn’t actually use the word ‘soul’, but rather couched the idea by asking for a show of hands as to how many of the class believed “there was a special someone out there for them?” or if they feared “the ONE that got away.” Damn near the entire class raised their hands. For all of their rational empiricism and claims to realism in regards to spirituality, they (almost) unanimously expressed a quasi-Karmic belief in connecting with another idealized person… Read more »
@jf12: On that I can agree. A Western female trait, but definitely a prevalent one. Seems encouraged by the hookup “culture” and old feminists’ misery-induced advice. Women try and date as often as possible, get as much sex as possible and get confused when a man they picked based on looks, location or a few pickup lines turns out to not be their soul-mate. She leaves him or bullies him until he leaves her. Cue emotional breakdown. Insert ice-cream, alcohol and a few rants about how awful men are. Rinse and repeat. Not so much “love” as “horny and clueless”,… Read more »
@superslaviswife, thanks, nice read about “romance is verb” although I highly disagree. Any woman will view as romantic the dropped-on-the-floor-for-her-to-pick-up skittles by the man she is in love with, and she will view the “exotic orchid you grew yourself in secret” as a pathetic cry for reward by a man she is not in love with. And there is nothing he can do about it, per se. It’s all up to her. The vast majority of women fall completely out of love, regardless of what the man does or doesn’t do. It’s not a verb, it’s biochemistry. To a limited… Read more »
Badpainter says “Goodwill does not accrue interest.” Great comments here.
Well put Rollo
jf12- “like when granma literally depended on granpa so she was FORCED to respect him and therefore love him, because that’s how love works for women.”
Therein lies the heart of the problem. Few men today can provide anything so necessary as to gain and retain a woman’s love and respect. Few women can reward a man sufficiently as to make her needs worthy of his efforts.
@BadPainter, Few men today can provide anything so necessary as to gain and retain a woman’s love and respect. Few women can reward a man sufficiently as to make her needs worthy of his efforts. Part of one ‘love model’ I detail in Part II is based on this. Bear in mind however that the ideology of equalism attempts to convince men and women that (everyone being equal androgynous agents) they should be able to find more esoteric middle ground to base love and respect on in place of provisioning, as well as discarding any considerations of qualifying for ‘worthiness’… Read more »
For what it is worth, I have also had my red pill moment, which from what I have read is brand new territory although I think more and more young anarchist women are coming or will come to the same conclusion. I don’t believe sufficient study exists in terms of the behavior of a deliberately childless heterosexual woman in a society which requires endless population growth (whereas celibates, lesbians, and “cat women” are well represented). I do not believe that the agents of heterosexual love are equal as what they bring to the table is more like the ingredients of… Read more »
@jf12: I’d be forced to disagree. Women can love. But most women today are encouraged to pursue their horniness, cultivate masculine traits and overvalue money, which, on top of a belief in Disney romance, inevitably leads to an inability to develop love towards anyone. It used to be that love was something you cultivated. Now it’s assumed to “just be”. In that sense the betas who continually pander are definitely more in love than the girls slutting it up every night, as they have cultivated their obsession, lust and practical needs into love. But women have developed it in the… Read more »
@jf12: Feel free to add a summary of your stance. Helps further communication when two views are so opposed.
@superslaviswife, I think you’re missing the point. It’s not that women “don’t know how to love” or how to love right, it’s that a feminine concept of love is different and originates from a different motive than men’s concept of love.
You should read the love series of article I linked in this post.
re: summary. First, two axiomatic observations not open for dispute, although elucidation would be welcome. 1) Most men are betas, and are therefore made to feel unattractive by essentially all women all the time, mostly so women can avoid the waste of time of him bothering to try to express interest. 2) Most men fall in love easily, and would fall in love with most any girl who treated him like he was attractive to her, because of the scarcity mentality. As soon as the in-love feelings are reinforced though sexual contact, the scarcity-mentality man is pair-bonded: latched into feelings… Read more »
Different T on May 7, 2014 at 8:13 am
@Acksiom and Rollo It will be telling if this “address” discusses abortion or not.
2nd’ed.
If women love their biological children more than men, then what can we learn about a woman who chooses to adopt a child?
Is she being overwhelmed by her maternal instincts or, in the case where she adopts a child from a different race, overwhelmed by a form of pathological altruism?
I say that because it happens quite often when a couple adopts nowadays.
I’ll be interested to get any input on this.
I would argue that women’s biology predisposes them towards collective nurturement, whereas men’s predisposes them towards a patrilinear insurance of his genetic legacy.
Example: there are plenty of instances of tribal/collective nurturing of children among women, but relatively no instances of the infanticide men enact to destroy the line of competing males. That could be due to men not being able to absolutely verify paternity.
A secondary conclusion of this realization is a re-emphasis upon brotherhood. I read stories of men in ancient scripture kissing each other out of gratitude, fully appreciating who each other are, and I begin to see that male friendship, insofar as it remains above petty competition, is the apex of any community we will ever experience, and that is an exciting possibility.
In comparison to the quality love of men, feminine love excels in its quantity. A woman can never truly love a man, but she can fully love him with all she is, and is an extraordinary thing.
Since no one’s asked the obvious yet, yes, this will be included in the Preventive Medicine book I’m working on now.
“A woman can never truly love a man, but she can fully love him with all she is, and is an extraordinary thing.”
Right up until he becomes human, or suffers a bad run of luck, makes a mistake, get’s comfortable, get’s sick, or someone better, hotter, wealthier, badder comes along and gives her an out. Because she loves the provisioning, not the provider.
Many excellent comments. Quoting Will (and Eon’s contraction) – “a woman feels this love when … her body is being used … (the opposite of men).” This gives a whole new ‘legitimacy’ and ‘purpose’ to the player who specializes in soft harems and ONSs. Rollo – perhaps one question you could address here or later would be: how a man’s commitment to monogamy contributes to all of the frustrations raised, and eloquently articulated, in many of the above comments. If LTRs / Marriage are so difficult for those of us in them, and so foolhardily untouchable to clear-eyed red-pill men… Read more »
@SteveH, this might be what you’re looking for:
http://therationalmale.com/2011/11/29/the-paradox-of-commitment/
This video just came out today and it visually shows the Alpha fucks, Beta bucks strategy at play.
Rollo, Best Post Evah!
Also, the comment about the truth setting you free, but being painful is a huge elephant in the room. We are only told the good side of this saying, being set free. But Always, ALWAYS, there is going to be a torment of the soul, a fire so hot to burn “you” out of existence.
There is just no other way!
Iron Rule of Tomassi #6 Women are utterly incapable of loving a man in the way that a man expects to be loved. I would like to add to this: a man who is insistent that he be loved in this “blue-pill” manner, despite all evidence to the contrary, is in my view somewhat narcissistic. He is too invested in his ego, too inflexible, too incapable of adapting. Yeah it hurts. Yet what hurts more: constant disappointment for the rest of your life, versus adjusting and growing to fit observed reality. After a couple of years I think that I’m… Read more »
Romantic love? As Marcellus Wallace said, “…you’ll feel a sting. That’s just pride f’ing with you.” Every woman is physically and instinctually the same woman that roamed the earth back in the Ice Age. She is hardwired to find a man, SOME man, to meet her many needs. (Unlike a man’s needs, hers tend to expand over time so the stakes are higher.) She must trade/exchange–get what she wants by giving him what he wants. When this exchange is flowing well, that’s love. But the exchange doesn’t have to be even or fair. This is where the modern man is… Read more »
I think I wouldn’t mind so much women being so lousy to the nice men they claim to love, except that women won’t admit it.
@blackposionsoul “Parasitism? Only if you don’t demand that return. When you demand the return, on pain of dumping the cow and finding one better, then you get the return..” To “dump” her, you should be in the position of power. Let us have a short look at reality to determine, who, precisely, is in the position of power NOW. Women initiate 70-90 % of divorces and a vast majority of break ups as well. So, in reality, woman is telling the man – “my way or go fuck yourself” not the other way. As far as the past is concerned… Read more »
An Alpha’s lot is to RISK ALL in the effort to reclaim manhood and fight Hypergamy (by ruse or force).
It is simpler than that. Women want men that other women want. The supply of those men will always be limited – by arithmetic.
@jf12: The base philosophy I wholly agree on. I just find it’s a Western phenomenon, more cultural than biological, as people can easily be taught to avoid it. Think of the difference between teaching a beta not to attach to a woman too readily (or at all) and teaching a man he shouldn’t have sex. One is a far easier job than the other. One is regularly accomplished by men worldwide, the other a rare feat of religious zealots with plenty of willpower. @Rollo: I’ve already read them and found them interesting. I just don’t get why you describe it… Read more »
Great article, Rollo. “Neither was a prevailing desire for a reciprocal model of love an overshadowing concern.” A man’s ability to exercise control over his family and his need for emotional reciprocity from his spouse are likely inversely related and thus men’s current greater-than-ever need for it. On some level of their psyche, betas (virtually all men) understand the potentially raw deal they get in the human mating game, and hence the need for assurance as it were, that their resource/energy investment into the female and her and hopefully “their” young is worthwhile. In a society where women’s ovulation deception… Read more »
@superslaviswife, it is biology. Men biologically fall in love. “Think of the difference between teaching a beta not to attach to a woman too readily (or at all)” apex fallacy. A man can only avoid falling in love if he has the abundance mentality. The only men that have the abundance mentality are the men that already have multiple women, and thus are not betas.
To the comments that women aren’t worth the effort: when a woman is into you it will require little effort on your part to gain her affection. Everything you say and do will be interesting to her. If it feels like you have to put in a lot of effort for her affection, it’s time to back off for move on.
id monster – lana del rey is fascinating. yes, that video does portray AFBB, but the alpha is the heroin-addled stickfigure with neck tats and the beta is a 70+ y/o guy in Vegas. in her video for ‘ride’, all the dudes were 30+ years older and she was hanging out with (fucking) them in the most honky-tonk relics of long-past-its-prime Americana. hers is a 60s ethos of endless sex-kitten aspirations without any intimations of a white picket fence objective (and this from a 27 y/o woman). hers is a hustler’s pathos of never playing by the rules, of never… Read more »
Urban Meyer’s play calling is right. Skittles guy vs orchid guy.
Rollo wrote, “I read a lot of guys in various forums getting despondent after having the red pill make sense to them, but that despondency is really a simple lack of not having a path already preset for them to follow.” I believe that I’m one of the despondents. It would be irrational to want to chase down new problems in my life (even though my natural drive tells me otherwise). I care enough to read this blog regularly, so I must be having some form of irrational leap of faith that someday something good can come of all of… Read more »
I’m reminded of the Eagles lyrics, “I got seven women on my mind. Four that want to own me. Two that want to stone me. One says she’s a friend of mine.” These are problems that I don’t want to have in life 🙂
@id monster re: LDR. I just read the lyrics to West Coast and National Anthem and it’s clear it isn’t about AFBB at all: it’s about her narcissistically admiring the extent of her own solipsism. She’s actually after alpha bucks, so she can enjoy herself properly. The typical AF girl wants the Brazilian factory owner with whom she is dancing, who is secretly an international spy as she can tell by his sixgun bulge, to take her right then right there on the disco floor, which happens to be owned by her BB boyfriend who she believes is probably watching… Read more »
-The brilliance of Lana del Rey as an artist is that she embodies brisk, anti-feminist deconstruction of modern western womens’ Cathedral-endorsed aspirational narrative. -When she rides the carousel with ‘disgusting’ old men, it’s with her middle finger in the air. Let the ‘ew, creepy!’ barbs of judgement come raining down on her from all swpl angles, and her response is ‘i don’t care. everything i have i want’. It would appear to be solipsism, but it’s too self-aware to meet that criteria. -What other relevant artist professes her allegiance to ‘the country America used to be’? -To put it differently,… Read more »
Urban Meyer- “If it feels like you have to put in a lot of effort for her affection, it’s time to back off for move on.” Exactly, making an effort is not rewarded thus not worth it. If she’s into you then you don’t have to make an effort. Making an effort is failure. Working is failure. Fighting for the relationship is failure. Trying is failure. Since what she’s giving is only good in the moment then there’s no point in anything that can be called investment. Her “love” cannot be saved for a rainy day, cannot be banked for… Read more »
Not buying it about LDR’s spoofing her own aspirations, “You can be my full time daddy.”
i hear you, jf12. the distinction is Elizabeth Grant vs. Lana del Rey. if you take her at confessional singer/songwriter face value, that makes no sense – so i see what you’re saying. I could write a 5K word essay on all the ways LDR *the artist* exposes western women for the bleating insecure puddles they are deep down (and they hide with incorrigible misdirection), but that would bore everyone here, i’m afraid. and at the same time – who Elizabeth Grant is *being* when she is LDR *the artist* – THAT is a woman that i admire for her… Read more »
@SteveH, I agree completely that “a man in an LTR/marriage can *know* that if the relationship should fall apart at any point, he could go successfully attract other women immediately.” But the way he can know, really know, is either prior abundance or current testing of waters with other women.
re: LDR the wannabe “Gangsta Nancy Sinatra” searching for authenticity in trailer trash living while trying to flee her childhood of healthy food and tediously expensive Hamptons vacations
http://thoughtcatalog.com/leigh-alexander/2012/02/the-real-reason-why-you-cant-stop-talking-about-lana-del-rey/
@greg Interesting, I had heard such things had happened. I also found the anecdote of more abortions in Russia than births to be interesting: Abortion in Russia Regarding relative positions of power: if she isn’t willing to give what you require, then dumping her is the best thing for yourself. You are not removing yourself from the dating pool, you are filtering out an undesirable from your list of prospects. This of course assumes that you are one of the men in the 20% who women find attractive, rather than the 80% of men who are invisible to women. If… Read more »
I’m surprised, gregg. I was in the Slovak Republic briefly during 1999, I guess it was. I met a group of female high school students and had dinner with them, and I found them very humble, appreciative, and a bit overwhelmed by us Americans.
“Breaking bad” fan Rollo? Cool points elevated even more. Time to read
The more I deal with women, the more I’m convinced that business ettiquette is the key to keeping things under control. Business requires that a certain amount of detachment be observed if an honest deal is to be brokered. Emotion (the manipulative tool women abuse to gain advantage) clouds the judgement, and could lead to making a bad deal. Thus, one should hire a pro if one wants sex.
“A man provides, and he does it even when he’s not appreciated, or respected, or even loved. He simply bears up and he does it, because he’s a man.” This basically says it all, at the same time as revealing the problems in any modern LTR. 1.) Unless you’re pushing mid 6 figures, you can’t support a family of 4 on any reasonable level, without wifey working, which instantly gives her 1/2 the trousers. That makes her 1/2 man and you by default 1/2 woman. Plus she’s out and about, instead of under your roof and thus temptations and hypergamy… Read more »
The real question is….. whether the selfish, self centered baby boomer generation, have brought up kids that are now so selfish and self centered that they can’t take on family ideals…… or whether modern life simply provides so much more beyond families and breeding like a rabbit…. to make family life and holding down a wife and kids, seem like nothing but an unnecessary burden. they say women initiate 70% of the divorces, but i guarantee you that in 90% of those cases, the man has withdrawn, given up and simply doesn’t have the “I want a divorce” gene, and… Read more »
@jf12: Maybe so. Not too sure on that side of the male mind and even Jon finds it baffling how readily some guys “fall in love” and lose their minds over a fantasy. Can’t argue with your logic there.
The part I find baffling is why women won’t admit their own behavior usually. If a man behaving too in-love makes her behave poorly towards him, why won’t she just admit it?
Why won’t she admit it? Because treating men badly is what she was raised to do. To her, there is no wrong being done when she takes advantage of him and gives him nothing tangible in return. She thinks that her presence in his life -along with the Golden Pussy she provides once in a blue moon- is more than adequate compensation for keeping house (to HER standards), cooking (if it can be called that), and “caring” for him, all while she dissipates his hard-earned money. Admitting harm in that process means she has to provide for herself, and she… Read more »
Example
http://thoughtcatalog.com/hannah-sofia-ghani/2014/05/dont-date-the-boy-who-gets-lost-in-your-eyes/
Ignoring what else Ms Ghani says in favor of what she means, apparently it makes perfect sense to women to say “Don’t date the boy who is in love with you, but instead wish the boy that you do date would fall in love with you.”
http://heartiste.wordpress.com/the-sixteen-commandments-of-poon/ III. You shall make your mission, not your woman, your priority Forget all those romantic cliches of the leading man proclaiming his undying love for the woman who completes him. Despite whatever protestations to the contrary, women do not want to be “The One” or the center of a man’s existence. They in fact want to subordinate themselves to a worthy man’s life purpose, to help him achieve that purpose with their feminine support, and to follow the path he lays out. You must respect a woman’s integrity and not lie to her that she is “your everything”. She… Read more »
Re: mission. In the same way that under dangerous (e.g. pre-modern)conditions it is good for her child to be a mother’s mission, under those same conditions it is good for his wife to be a man’s mission, as in the flow chart of love prioritization. We men, we betas anyway, lactate an overabundance of the milk of human kindness, and would like nothing better than our wives to suckle us deeply and appreciatively. Otherwise we just squirt all over ourselves and everyone near. It seems, however, women would prefer to complain about the few meager drops they have to work… Read more »
Re: Mission I believe this is the most important lesson of Redpill thinking. Strip away everything else and this is the core. Everything is about the mission. Everything. Having an all consuming mission is the only way to level the playing field with hypergamy. A man with such a mission has to have a form abundance mentality. That can either take the form of being able to replace a woman quickly, or realizing that a woman isn’t necessary in the first place. Anything not necessary to the mission therefore exists in abundance. If the woman loves your mission you can… Read more »
Good post and comments. I would just second Acksiom’s comments that: >While a woman’s respect, and a degree of love may flow back to her man, her primary love and concern is directed towards her children. No, that’s just how it used to be. It clearly isn’t any more. Now a woman’s primary love and concern is directed towards herself. The functional — and almost etymological — definition of feminism is the prioritization of women’s interests ahead of those of men AND THOSE OF CHILDREN and the institutionalization of that prioritization. In this regard I wish to denounce the Breaking… Read more »