Owed Sex

ron-hermione

In the aftermath of the Eliot Rodger’s tragedy there was one resounding go-to mantra from mainstream media, blue pill plugins and the femintariat alike…

“Men are not owed sex for anything.”

Last week I left a couple of comments on Dalrock’s blog outlining my expectations of having this be the first easily consumable public meme.

In its entirety:

This is the first binary retort I expect from feminists unwilling to dig any deeper into the transactional nature of human sexuality. God bless Roosh, but he didn’t do the manosphere any favors by simply stating that incidents like Eliot Rodger’s wouldn’t occur if men had more socially acceptable alternatives for sexual release or female intimacy, and then just leave the interpretation up to a media founded on feminism and feminine-primacy.

I get what his intent was, and probably most of the manosphere did too, but it was just too oversimplified not to be snapped up in the most binary (black or white) terms by feminist, like Linker, and the MSM as an easy mark to line up against. So of course “men” and fem-centrists throw out stupid bromides like “what, do we need ‘sex vending machines’ to keep men’s urges in tact so they wont shoot the pretty blondes they wanna fuck?”

The premise that a man would ever be ‘owed’ sex for anything is offensive to the feminine imperative because it offends women’s self-entitlement to being filters of their own hypergamy, plain and simple. Women’s hypergamy dictates whom they will and will not fuck according to their sexual strategy’s most urgent needs.

To presume a man is ‘owed’ sex for services rendered, or due to his own self-perceived prequalifications for a woman’s intimacy, is to remove women’s control of the decision making / filtering process of their hypergamy.

The offensiveness doesn’t come from the notion that men would need to perform in order to get sex, but rather that a man might forcibly assume control of a woman’s hypergamous determining of his sexual suitability for her.

This first comment was in response to the Damon Linker article Dalrock was picking apart. I won’t steal Dal’s thunder, so if you’re interested in that full article go have a read of it in its entirety. Later Dal asked me to clarify what I meant about men “forcibly assuming control of a woman’s hypergamous determining of his sexual suitability for her.”

I’m not clear on what you mean here, and fear that others will take this as a justification of rape. What do you mean by “forcibly”? Are you talking about Game?

To which my comment was, again, in its entirety:

Game, rape, guilt, shame, prearranged marriage, obligation, moral enforcement, really anything that removes or limits a woman’s hypergamous filtering and puts that control into the decision making process of men.

In the case of Rodger, although his killings don’t bear it out, his intent, at least as interpreted by a feminized MSM, was a presumed obligation on the part of women (and top shelf women no less) to recognize his self-perceived superior qualifications for their intimacy and reward him with sex, love, adoration, affection, etc.

Granted, the kid was a sperg with a list of very real psychological disorders, but the only thing a fem-centric society focuses on is the audacity he had in presuming he, and by association Any Man®, could assume control of a woman’s hypergamous filtering – in this case via an implied obligation.

The Two Sides of Hypergamy

Anyone who’s read the first part of my Preventative Medicine series understands the dual nature of feminine hypergamy. From a biological level to a social level, feminine hypergamy demands the optimization of two disparate elements: securing the best genetic (breeding) option a woman can attract, and the best long-term provisioning (security) option she can attract in a male. From biologically prompted mating behaviors to contemporary social entitlements, women seek a balance between breeding optimization and security optimization – preferably in the same man, but failing this, optimally in different men.

I’ve written about women’s security needs in various posts, but it’s important to understand that optimizing a woman’s best available options for hypergamy (Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks) prompts a deep, evolved, psychological need for certainty. Feminine Hypergamy is defined by a profound, often life-long, uncertainty and doubt over the choices she makes in breeding and / or bonding with a given pool of men in her lifetime.

The Need for Certainty

Women’s sexual filtering, vetting, nagging, shit testing, as well as many other evolved habits are all subconsciously inspired by a need for hypergamic certainty.

In a pre-sexual revolution social order, a woman’s capacity to optimize her hypergamy (and pacify the uncertainty) had a variety of extrinsic limitations.

Some of these I listed in my comment to Dalrock; guilt, cultural stigma, shame, moral and religious conviction, obligations to family, arranged marriages, polygamy, and yes, rape, were all a means to limiting a woman’s decision making capacity to optimize her innate hypergamy.

Before I continue, let me state in no unclear terms, rape, in its most visceral definition, is bad. I don’t believe the general population of men need a lesson in yet more feminine shaming efforts to understand this simple idea. As most readers know, it’s generally my practice to describe things – not to prescribe things – and allow readers to make their own moral conclusions, but I’ll break form in this case.

Any given reader may see a positive or a negative argument for limiting feminine hypergamy via cultural or religious doctrines, but I am not now, nor will I ever, endorse forced sexual penetration on women (or men) as anything but a negative. However, in light of its undeniable limiting of feminine hypergamous choice, throughout human history, rape is the most direct way men have most decisively removed a woman’s hypergamic decision making capacity. To ignore this truth, or to be cowed by even the thought of considering it, is to deny the obvious.

In a post-sexual revolution social order, women’s control over their hypergamy is only limited by their capacity to attract the best prospective mate their sexuality, personality and physicality will afford them. Whether provided for by the state, personal independence or other means women in a post-sexual revolution era, to a larger degree than any other time in western history, have the security side of their hypergamic optimization virtually guaranteed.

Even with women for whom this security isn’t fully realized, the greater social undercurrent for the past 60 years has been one which presents women with a social responsibility to break away from provisional dependency on men, thus granting women unilateral control over their hypergamous decision making.

Whether this security-side assurance comes from legal institutions, abortion laws, paternity laws, the advent of no fault divorce, child custody and support distribution, or, the security guarantee comes in the form of social conventions which foster the expectation of men to be bound to a one-sided provisioning contract, the modern message is clear for women; Independence from the necessity of men’s provisioning largely reduces or eliminates the uncertainty of  long-term security.

Or in other words, unilateral control of a woman’s hypergamy means Beta Bucks now takes a backseat to Alpha Fucks.

The Old-Order

The provisioning and personal investment in character, masculine virtue and ambition that made the, pre-sexual revolution, old order man an attractive prospect for a woman’s security-side hypergamy no longer carry the necessary appeal they did to ensure he would attract a marriageable woman. For women, the old order of attraction was based primarily on the security side of her hypergamous need because this was the most uncertain aspect she could secure in a social climate where her hypergamous decision making was more constrained.

Not unsurprisingly, women’s prioritizing long-term security inspired men to accommodate it by cultivating provider characteristics in themselves in order to be attractive. This isn’t to say the same Alpha side arousal we see in women’s sexual prioritization today wasn’t important, or tingle generating. Rather, the old social order prioritized women’s security needs since the Alpha Fucks side of her hypergamy was buffered by women’s general dependence on a man’s long-term provisioning.

The problem now is that, since the sexual revolution, the majority of (Beta) men are still raised and conditioned in this old-order context, based on an outmoded social contract that they were taught to ego-invest themselves into in order to best effect their own sexual strategy.

Although it’s the easiest dismissal fem-centric society would have anyone believe, only the most ignorant and self-important of men would ever come to the conclusion that they were owed (in the most transactional sense) the sexual and intimate affections of a woman in exchange for his personal investment, resources, dedication and acts of kindness. Certainly not men raised and conditioned to defer to a woman’s honor and respect, by default, above his own.

However, due to the old order social conditioning that taught them that a man in the unquestioning service of a woman’s security-side hypergamy should be the pinnacle of attraction, their conflict comes not in being denied an owed reward, but rather that rewards of sex, love, adoration, affection, respect, etc. the old-order convinced them they can and should earn is observably being offered to men who embody the exact opposite of his old order conditioning.

Relational Equity vs. Alpha Fucks

Deti picked up on this conflict in the comments of last week’s post:

We as human beings need to eliminate the words “deserve” and “entitled” from our vocabularies. Women are not entitled to anything from men; just as men are not entitled to anything from women. This entire “male sexual entitlement” strawman that our opponents have erected is just bull, plain and simple. Men do not go around claiming “entitlement” to sex; only psychopaths and mental defectives do that.

For anyone unacquainted with the fallacy of Relational Equity, I’d suggest reading that post to get some familiarity. Relational Equity is the idea that the more a man invests himself into his relationship, all of the investment, emotional, physical, financial, familial, etc. equity he accrues for that dedication and commitment should be rationally appreciated by a woman and thus a buffer against the Alpha Fucks side of feminine hypergamy.

In essence this fallacy is the is rooted in the old order, security-side dependence of women’s hypergamy – the trust is that Beta Bucks will trump Alpha Fucks.

A man’s ego-investment into this fallacy is often the cause of his want to define Alpha in his own image, rather than remove his ego from the process and observe how women react and behave around men they actually have an Alpha arousal for. An example of this old order Beta disconnect is embodied in the person of Corey Worthington (a.k.a. the Alpha Buddah):

Guy’s like Corey infuriate men who have invested their self-worth in the accomplishments of what they think ought to be universally appreciated and rewarded. So when they’re confronted with a natural Alpha being undeservedly rewarded for brazenly acting out of accord with what they think the rules ought to be, they seethe with resentment. The natural response in the face of such an inconsistency is to redefine the term ‘Alpha’ to cater to themselves and their accomplishments as “real men” and exclude the perpetrator. The conflict then comes from seeing his new definition of Alpha not being rewarded or even appreciated as well as a natural Alpha attitude and the cycle continues. Your respect (or anyone else’s) for an Alpha has nothing to do with whether or not he possess an Alpha mindset. 3 failed marriages and 100+ lays has nothing to do with his having or not having an Alpha mindset. There are many well respected betas who’ve never had a passing thought of infidelity, or may have 300 lays either with prostitutes or because they possess fame or stunning good looks and women come to him by matter of course.

I wrote this almost three years ago, but the parallels of this ‘Alpha in his own image’ dynamic that Eliot Rodger shared with men conditioned in the old order of earning or meriting women’s intimacy are undeniable. Despite Arthur Chu’s male-apologetic mewling, it’s not that men like this feel ‘entitled to or ‘owed‘ sex with their idealized women, but they do feel their investments in a relational equity, and what they’ve been conditioned to believe should qualify them for women’s attentions have been betrayed to men who gratify the Alpha Fucks side of women’s hypergamous natures.

Feminine-Primary Assortive Mating

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

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

Ironically the best spokeswoman to illustrate the dichotomy between both sides of women’s hypergamy should be Sheryl Sandberg – the voice and embodiment of several generations of women raised on the Feminine Imperative and unilaterally unrestrained hypergamy. So oblivious is Sandberg to her feminine-primary, solipsistic confirmation of hypergamy that it never occurs to her that men would be anything but accommodating of her life-plan advice for younger generations of women. It never occurs to her that a “man who values fairness” would ever reject her (much less despise her) for the duplicity that women’s dualistic sexual strategy disenfranchises men of.

So you see, it’s not a red pill awakening that predisposes men to believing they’re ‘owed’, ‘entitled to’ or ‘deserving’ of sex, love, adoration, affection or anything else from women – it’s the generations of women like Sandberg who unabashedly exploit the old order conditioning of Beta Bucks men, while expecting them to dutifully accept their open or discrete cuckoldry with Alpha Fucks men – and then tell them that “nothing’s sexier” than their complacency in it with a wriggle of their nose.

 

241 comments

  1. @ Zorro

    My favorite line from a sit com was Raymond (Everybody Loves Raymond) saying to his wife, “That’s OK honey, no sex tonight. You deserve it”. Speaks volumes.

    The anti-men rants passing for humor in MSM and advertising makes me puke – the new daddies fumbling around with diapers being bailed out by random women etc.. Along with squashing spiders, aren’t men actually better suited for cleaning up shit?

  2. @Zorro, I think you’re on to a point I missed. Transactional sex and negotiated desire are the public norm.

    Consider Choreplay:
    http://therationalmale.com/2013/01/30/choreplay/

    5 years ago the same female author encourages men to do more dishes and help a woman out with her domestic chores because “nothing’s sexier” than a man who ‘shares’ the housework. Translation: Perform these tasks and you will be rewarded with the “unadulterated lust” your wife/GF has been reluctant to deliver – i.e. negotiated desire.

    5 years later…“Households with a more traditional gender division of labor report higher sexual frequency than households with less traditional gender divisions of labor,”

    So the only conclusion we can really draw from this is that women encouraged EXACTLY the transactional mentality about sex that they now complain ALL men feel they are “owed”.

  3. @livefearless

    Hard truths and rational thought is opposed post-sexual revolution. No wonder why we are outcasts. Adds to the alpha vibe so can’t complain too much!

  4. If she is aware that you are running Soft Dread, that could very easily be viewed as negotiatory in a way that Hard Dread ultimatums are not.

  5. Since the MMSL book came out only three years ago, all of the redpill principles have been repealed or backpedaled or extremely curtailed. To me that indicates the actual success probability of alpha-ing up to an already existing old wife is extremely low. Extremely low.

  6. One of the best articles on this blog in my opinion. Every man should read this when growing up. I’m 24 and got one chick which I confessed my love to when I was 16. Have been LJBFed of course. Now she’s 23 and is a single mommy. For two years she ocasionally contacts me to check if I’m still “in love”. I reply nicely but we never met for 2 years or so ( maybe you heard about the “chinese yes”). I would fuck her though. But an LTR is not an option anymore since she’s got a kid of 2 years now.

    Anyway she contacts me more or less regularly on facebook with nice messages and lots of smileys. I guess she tryin’ to keep me warm for later…At 24 I just started to realize my potential. I quit porn, started working out more regularly, putting work into my degree and more than ever I get lots of attention from younger girls. I guess that’s how tables can turn.

    [Just to complete the picture: She’s been beaten by her former boyfriend with whom she got the kid.]

  7. The politics can only follow after you know what IS.

    Cosign. The political, the racial, the moral all progress from what IS. I have and will write on all of these in context to how they involve gender relations. Remove the Man comes to mind:
    http://therationalmale.com/2013/05/06/remove-the-man/

    I’ve used this illustration before, but if you put Rachel Maddow and Gretchen Carlson on the same show together and started discussing red pill truths and how Game saves lives, they would drop all political differences, close ranks and cooperatively defend the Feminine Imperative tooth and nail.

    That is the differences between the gynocentrism and the manosphere.

  8. Che –

    no matter how successful you are, the sex will never be better or more frequent than it was at the beginning of the relationship.

    As an unmarried guy, for whom being in a committed LTR to an early-20s girlfriend is a sacrifice, this is where I personally have to ask: “And you chose to get married why exactly?”

    Since sex is so important to us, a choice for marriage in light of this particular red pill belief seems to me a choice to be the victim. (I can honestly say that sex with my gf has not gotten any less good, over a mere ~1.5 years, but I limit our time together.)

    OTOH, I have women literally throwing themselves at me now that I understand how they work and understand inner game – swagger, flirting, aloofness, etc. — and while I haven’t availed myself of the opportunities yet, its very tempting. (Parenthetically, these very same inner game strategies that work outside the marriage fall completely flat within it because they appear so incongruous or “faked” to the wife).

    If your wife sees other women throwing themselves at you, I bet the new-and-improved you will cease to fall sexually flat before your wife’s newly-jealous stare. Have you tried that? Preselection is everything.

    After all, if I’m safe, discreet, don’t shove my wife’s face in it, and continue to “provision” for those things that are clearly most important to my spouse (and where she gets an A) is it really so unethical or immoral to go outside of the marriage to get the one thing she doesn’t provide?

    Yes. You gave your promise of fidelity for life. Breaking that promise in lieu of expressly breached contractually-assented stipulations on her part would be unethical. Particularly where she sounds like a good person and an otherwise excellent partner.

    If you’re willing to go this far, don’t you kinda want *not* to re-attract her? Deep down, don’t you want to waive the white flag with regard to even attempting to game her and strengthen your sexual bond with her? Cause if you just decide to ‘give up’, that’ll surely expedite your route to now-justifiable wild, reckless, fantastically exciting extra-marital sex.

    If the rules are that I’m no longer entitled to sex with my wife in exchange for provisioning, fine…. I’m still prepared to meet her more than halfway: I’ll continue to provision, but will take care of my sexual needs elsewhere. And I’ll do so without any guilt.

    What am I missing?

    Here’s what you’re missing: every man in any kind of monogamous committed relationship would love to have license to fuck around. Hell, I’d love to do that, which is why my commitment to just a gf is such a sacrifice. You want to have your cake and eat it too. So do all of us. Especially if we’re granting license to ourselves to proactively seek this out. Own up to it.

    Tangentially, there’s an inherent problem with grafting game onto traditional Christian marriage. If we look at the idealistic core purpose of Christianity and it’s marriage mandate, in that context, game is a meta-bandaid. Christian marriage is, for a man, about being Christ-like. Christ was a non-game-employing servant leader. (Yeah…about that, Dalrock?)

  9. Re: more about actual efficacy of Soft Dread. Right after Game went semi-mainstream, there have been a couple of fads in the past decade, including popular psychology and women’s advice columns and talking heads, about many (repeat, many) married women hoping their newly improved husbands would just go ahead and have an affair, so that he would leave her alone more and so that she wouldn’t feel quite as guilty for not womanning up.

  10. I have no problem with women trying to empower themselves. My future wife will certainly be able to provide for herself. I want two solid household incomes, there is no reason not too. Feminist just have the complete wrong idea about going about it. They attack
    men, try to amplify biological flaws that we cannot subconsciously control, just as much as we cannot control theirs. Feminist need to realize there is a different between the sexes no matter what anybody says or does. Feminist need to embrace the fact that they are indeed women and there is nothing wrong about acting like one. What is their obsession with becoming men? (Penis envy – oh god no, no such thing!).

    @bbb everybody loves Raymond had it’s funny parts. I could not stand the fact how dumb the main character would get. His “manly” stupidity. How many feminist would be writing to the studios if roles were reversed, her “womanly” stupidity. (Those are all now the old Facebook meme pics empowering women) Unfortunately us as males, will sit back and chuckle with women when they point at that TV scene and say I Told You!

    I just found this site, and I love these topics. I will have to read those books recommended, simply for the fact of improving myself. I’m a closet alpha that is finally tired of the nonsense! I’m guessing sperm wars as stated first?

  11. @Go Figure

    I’m 24 and got one chick which I confessed my love to when I was 16. Have been LJBFed of course. Now she’s 23 and is a single mommy. For two years she ocasionally contacts me to check if I’m still “in love”. I reply nicely but we never met for 2 years or so ( maybe you heard about the “chinese yes”). I would fuck her though. But an LTR is not an option anymore since she’s got a kid of 2 years now

    I actually have a similar situation, though the ages are different, and she tells me she just needs “to talk” when she asks me for attention. I don’t think she tells the father of her kids where she’s going when she comes to meet me.

  12. “Changing to an alpha mindset within a marriage where the beta “script” has been written, doesn’t really work IMHO.”

    This is my direct experience. I was my wife’s “Alpha” through most of our marriage; lots of crazy fun sex, always hot for me, wearing no panties when we went out and wanting me to feel her up in public under the table or bar and she had been raised in a strict religious family. It was a great marriage. So Hawt. The best and most sex of my life was in that marriage.

    Until I went to war and came back damaged goods and started acting beta, due to my confusion and vulnerability over what had happened to me and was happening to me in regards to dealing with PTSD panic attacks and other mental issues. I simply wasn’t the same guy anymore and it showed. And rather than support me until I recovered, she slowly changed from hot to trot, fuckable wife to demanding shrew, complete with threats to sleep around if I didn’t “man up”.

    In the last 3 years of our marriage, I started to come out of it and tried to reassert my Alpha-ness, telling her “fuck no” and that her shit wasn’t going to fly anymore. But, rather than backing down, that sent her over the edge and she became abusive.

    What is ironic and what completely validates the ideas posted here is that despite her turn towards abuse and nastiness and belittling, once I rediscovered my balls and I got my Alpha back on and kicked her to the curb, she then wanted me to fuck her again. She went from frigid shrew to horn-dog and wanted me to bang her all the time, even in the midst of our divorce and her continuing verbal abuse, sending me explicit text messages and invites for sex. She still wants me back, but I ain’t going back for anymore of that shit. I no longer am attracted to her.

    Plenty of Fish, indeed.

    I am relatively new to RP/BP ideas. I am not a classic Alpha with women throwing themselves at me, but I do have game that is quite natural and when I am attracted to a woman and not distracted by their beauty, my Alpha comes out. I am also incredibly picky with women, due to lots of warning in my childhood from both mom and dad(dad was a classic alpha) about “bad women”. So, I have never been one to chase pussy, due to the risks.

    The old fashioned warning about “that kind of women” were really the recognition and observations of the old timers, both men and women with integrity, in regards to unrestrained hypergamy and FI of females unmoored from social and moral restrictions on female sexuality and what they will do to men, if given the opportunity. I now consider them, my parents Depression era generation, as the proto-RP/BP folks, when it was just “understood” that women would behave this way towards men if given the chance.

  13. There is a reason males have evolved with various adaptations in regards to sexual selection. When all else fails they are left with taking it by force. Biological imperative outweighs all moral or social construction.

  14. @james mach

    Not sure if I agree with that. Then the world would be total chaios. Everyone stealing, killing, raping everyone. That really doesn’t happen ratio wise to total world population.

  15. @Zorro,

    Worst-case human scenario. All Human women begin refusing sex. Call it a zombie-virus or somesuch plague that chemically wipes out female libido. What happens then? Two choices…

    1) Humanity dies out
    2) Lots of raping going on.

    Since males are equipped to force that scenario, humanity would not die out. Sorry ladies.

  16. I should have added, consider the converse situation. The converse would be if male libido was suddenly destroyed. Women are ill-equipped to force men into sex, and in fact the male sex organs may not even function properly at all without male libido. My conclusion would be that if male libido were similarly destroyed with a virus, humanity would absolutely die off.

  17. @ fred: “Big disagree with Martel and jf12. Insisting that politics inform all sphere discussions is absolutely the same thing as ‘the personal is political.'”

    Neither jf12 (that I’ve ever seen) nor I have ever “insist[ed] that politics inform ALL sphere discussions” or even come close. There’s plenty to talk about that has either just a tangential relation to politics, or perhaps none at all.

    My contention is with the notion that by refusing to discuss it AT ALL that we’re somehow keeping our ideas more pure (as opposed to merely stifling their impact). Rollo provides plenty of great insights without referring to politics, but he also advocates that the manosphere as a whole do likewise.

    Yet what we learn here has innumerable political implications. We can’t avoid this no matter how we try.

    “As I’ve said before, follow the admonition of the late Lenny Bruce: ‘There is only what IS. What SHOULD BE is a dirty filthy lie.’”

    Which takes things far beyond even Rollo, and is complete crap. For example, Lenny Bruce SHOULD have stopped being a junkie, but perhaps because he put so much emphasis on “reality” that he’s dead.

    @ Rollo: “‘The politics can only follow after you know what IS.’ Cosign. The political, the racial, the moral all progress from what IS.'”

    Correct, but in no way does this dispute anything I’ve said. And part of what IS is the interconnectedness with gender issues and what we discuss here, and that IS whether we think it SHOULD BE or not.

    “I’ve used this illustration before, but if you put Rachel Maddow and Gretchen Carlson on the same show together and started discussing red pill truths and how Game saves lives, they would drop all political differences, close ranks and cooperatively defend the Feminine Imperative tooth and nail.”

    Indeed they would. However, until push comes to shove, Maddow’s a hell of a lot more likely to take snarky shots at us from afar, and although she disagrees on most of the major issues, Carlson actually does agree with us about some stuff. Carlson is passively hostile, Maddow overtly so. I can totaly see MSNBC launching an investigative report doxxing all of us, spreading lies and promoting governmental efforts to ban us. Fox might not be overtly favorable, but I guarantee they’d give us a better shot at presenting our side that MSNBC ever would.

    Yes, both major political views have been coopted by the FI. However, there’s a difference between those who unthinkingly back it and those who voraciously hope to destry any who stand in its way. The former can be persuaded, the latter have to be defeated.

    The right goes along with a lot of crap it shouldn’t, but the crap is promoted, legislated, and rammed down our throats at every opportunity by the left. There’s not as much of a difference as there should be, but there is a difference.

    I respect not focusing on politics or even not bringing it up at all. As I’ve said before, there’s plenty to learn here regardless. Still, whether we like it or not, our ideas ARE political, and to leave the political realm entirely in the hands of our enemies does us no good whatsoever.

  18. @ Jeremy

    That be nuts! Would have to be in terms of repopulation though.

    But unfortunately, in our society today, feminist would believe that would be the greatest thing to ever happen to the world! One step closer to becoming a man, with even more power having no sexual urges.

    Social psych is too strong. Laws too powerful, and beta herds too massive.

    As is money, take away sexual desire, the need for money will remain the same. Prostitutes will be making more money than Brady or Peyton combined in an hour session!

  19. Martel is right.

    You cite Carlson and Maddow. OK.

    Present both women with the same red pill barbs:

    Gretchen Carlson might be taken aback and make some half-hearted ‘misogyny’ comment while shaking her head in disagreement.

    Rachel Maddow would lead the charge to charge you with a hate crime and have you thrown behind bars.

    Feminism is progressivism is feminism is the DNC platform is Feminism.

  20. @Steve H

    Yes. You gave your promise of fidelity for life. Breaking that promise in lieu of expressly breached contractually-assented stipulations on her part would be unethical.

    Marriage is by its very essence a command to “go forth and multiply”. The sex is understood as being part of the bargain (how can one multiply without banging like bunnies?). By her withholding sex she is breaching the contract outright, all the while claiming full power and dominion over his sexuality to the point of denying him its expression.

    When my cable company doesn’t provide the channels I’ve paid to view to me, I consider it a contract breach and look at other providers. If I have a huge buyout clause on the service such that I can’t get out of their service without paying a huge hefty fee, I’ll ride out the contract until I can get out of it without the penalty, but also will still hook up another service in the meantime.

    Too much “just divorce her” talk. That’s suicidal in the modern legal environment, if you value time with your kids and don’t want to become an indentured servant to her frivolity after you’re kicked off of your own property.

  21. Its not so much that RP/BP ideas are political in and of themselves, even though the political ramifications can be extrapolated from the application of those ideas onto the current culture.

    It is that there is an entire political class and ideology that relies and depends entirely on RP/BP and FI ideas being suppressed or depicted as “extremist” thought in order to remain operative. They do the exact same “othering” to any ideological opponent of theirs as well. RP/BP aficionados are just the more recent targets of that effort to maintain conformity and dominance.

  22. @jf12

    Since the MMSL book came out only three years ago, all of the redpill principles have been repealed or backpedaled or extremely curtailed.

    MMSL and the preponderance of feminine-primary influence on the MMSL forums is a shining example of what I described in Male Space.

    Men congregated in private to better their circumstances with their wives, but as per form, women discovered it and needed to insert their controlling influence into it. Thus, the original intent is diluted and now we have the same men with the same ‘dead bedrooms’ beating themselves up to be better ‘men’ for their wives so they can get laid twice a month instead of once.

    Unfortunately Athol’s financial dependence on this enterprise kind of necessitates being complicit in it now.

  23. A heavy fem-centric bias in politics is inevitable in a system in which women outnumber and outvote men, and are encouraged to vote selfishly along gender lines.

    [Not that men don’t vote selfishly at times — obviously they do — but they do so along economic and racial lines, not along gender lines. For example, rich men vote Republican for lower taxes while black men vote Democratic for the racial preferences and such.]

  24. One of the other RP/BL ideas that really got me thinking about how it was in the past as compared to today is the “LJBF” trope.

    I am 51 years old. In my day, when you were courting a woman, and she said that to you, it was completely understood by both parties that there was no chance of a relationship whatsoever and that the two of you were *not* going to be friends whatsoever. It was understood that it was her nice way of saying “nope” you don’t measure up, time to part ways”.

    The only people that continued sexual pursuit after a LJBF were disturbed individuals and weirdos.

  25. Thanks, Steve.

    Another example to demonstrate my point. Let’s say Rollo decided to do a speech at the University of Florida.

    There would be threats and demands issued to the university to have him banned. The university would have to calculate security considerations into deciding whether or not he could come. The campus would be blanketed with flyers hoping to call the university to account for allowing a “rape apologist” (per Giggles’ hit piece) to speak on campus. Sit-ins, boycotts, bomb threats, you name it.

    If the speech goes forward, anyone who wants to hear it would have to brave obnoxious chicks with purple hair threatening and insulting him.

    And EVERYONE doing this would be a “progressive”.

    Conservatives and libertarians might not want him to come, either. However, they wouldn’t fight to keep him away, they wouldn’t spread lies about him and quote him out of context. The upshot of their response to the lefty propaganda would be something along the lines of “this guy sounds pretty off to me, but at least we have the right to hear what he’s saying.”

    Assuming Rollo somehow gets the chance to speak, the hecklers, the people trying to throw a pie in his face would ALL be proggies.

    Conservatives and libertarians might have questions, even some hostile questions, but they’d at least hear him out.

    So despite the commonality between them, the differences between them are substantial and important. To pretend otherwise merely mutes our ability to effectively spread our message.

    And if the proggies find out that Rollo is to the left on some issues (he’s said he supports the Democrats in some cases), they won’t give half a shit about any of it. He opposes feminism, he’s evil. Case closed.

    Manosphere readers and writers include conservatives, libertarians, apoliticals, and even some lefties (the only lefty manosphere bloggers I’m aware of myself are Virgle Kent and whoever does the Red Piil Room), but to the proggies we’re all the same. No matter how much one of you might hate conservatives, you’re “conservative” enough for the left to line you up against the wall right next to Bush and Palin the first chance they get.

  26. Wait what?! Lenn Bruce is a dead junkie? Like was exhaustively detailed in the book “Ladies and Gentlemen, Lenny Bruce!” (See: what IS).

    So whether he was right doesn’t matter because dead junkies don’t talk??

    Say it ain’t so!! (See: what SHOULD BE)

  27. @ Fred: Bruce’s death indicates he didn’t exactly have a firm grasp on how to properly balance what should be with what is.

    And per his quote, the correct response to somebody saying “you should give up morphine” would have been “FUCK ‘should'”! There is no ‘should!'”

    So although his death doesn’t quite prove he didn’t know what the hell he was talking about, it certainly counts as evidence.

  28. @Martel,

    Good illustration, but now imagine Dalrock was going to give a speech at Joel Osteen’s Mega-Church about how feminism has pervaded evangelical ‘Churchianity’ and how feminism is rewriting the Bible in order to make men accountable to women, destroy scriptural male headship in marriage, promote the ‘correctness’ of the feminine being “closer to God” and how women in the church follow the Eat, Pray, Detonate your Marriage script.

    The liberal set might toss out their token resistance, but you’d see the real outrage from conservative women and their male sympathizers.

    The point of all that is that it’s not political or religious ideology that’s uniting them – it’s the Feminine Imperative Über Alles.

    Political, racial, cultural and religious differences have precedence for men which is what divides the manosphere. The Feminine Imperative has priority for the sisterhood, then ideology is considered.

    Look at what’s happening in the Mormon church with women demanding equal representation in the priesthood. You will see support come in from women’s groups who would never have anything to do with the LDS church otherwise.

  29. I voted for Democrat Stephen Lynch over pussy mega-mangina Ed Markey about 6 months ago. Last week, for some reason which escapes me at the moment, Maddow took a couple minutes on one of her shows to trash Lynch as ‘a conservative democrat’. I don’t like Lynch’s ties to big labor and unions, but he’d have been way better than Markey.

    Even intra-democratic party, we see the new (feminist) party leaders ostracizing elected democrats who don’t always vote against men’s interests.

    Points about men’s advocates – presuming for the sake of argument that they were ‘registered democrats’ – encountering violent hostility and anti-1st amendment gang-protests led by their own political party’s leaders, are exactly spot on.

  30. Rollo –

    The liberal set might toss out their token resistance, but you’d see the real outrage from conservative women and their male sympathizers.

    With respect, I wholeheartedly disagree with this assumption. I have no idea why you presume this would happen. Conservative Christian women who have remained married through trials and tribulations loathe those ‘fake Christian’ women who frivorce because they aren’t haaaaapy. (*If* you’re suggesting that Osteen’s church in fact has ‘conservative women’, that is.)

    On those rare occasions where Christian men put their foot down, those conservative women listen. I contend that there is a behavioral, real-world difference between how conservative and liberal women react and respond to a Dalrockian message. All we’re really asking for is the opportunity to speak freely and be sincerely heard, right? Conservative women will say ‘okay, we’re willing to shut up and listen for 5 minutes, even though we may not agree and not even like you’. Not so for Maddow and her acolytes.

    I have no idea about the Mormon church but from afar it strikes me as being so watered down from Joseph Smith’s original teachings as to be ideologically incoherent by this point in time. The Christian church still has its’ sizable ‘pure of heart’ contingencies, even though I may disagree with them on bigger picture issues.

  31. @ Rollo: Also a good illustration. However, there are a couple of ways in which the parallel breaks down.

    First, there are conservatives and proggies in both locations (there are liberal Christians), and it would be the more left-leaning portions of both communities that would be leading the lynch mobs.

    But the more salient point is that although feminism has infiltrated conservative circles, it’s downright intrinsic to progressivism. Feminism is like a cancer that’s attached itself to the right, but leftism is that cancer itself.

    For example, although zillions of Christians have fallen for feminism, feminism is not intrinsic to Christianity itself. Politiphar’s wife, Delilah, the strong advocacy for patriarchy, etc. all advocate keeping the FI in check. The Bible as written opposes this crap.

    For the FI to infiltrate a church, it has to get that church to defy what it deems to be its most holy book. For the FI to infiltrate progressive circles, it just needs to spread progressive books.

    Indeed, the FI is the over-riding and underlying ideology for the vast majority of women today, regardless of political or religous stripe.

    Nevertheless, when conservatives or libertarians fall prey to the FI, they’re fighting against themselves and their own beliefs. When progressives do likewise, they’re merely strengthening their other lefist belief. Welfare benefits and free birth control fit the FI and leftist ideology equally well, whereas both notions are inherently anti-conservative.

    For the FI to take over the LDS, it has to fundamentally alter the LDS. No such difficulties at a Democrat Party convention.

  32. Several points…

    @Deti… Sex is an important tangible benefit that you get from marriage, but it’s not the only one. A stable two-parent family for your children is equally important. A child’s proximity to a good father and mother is about as important a thing as there is. There is a selfless aspect to all of this that must be considered when children are in the picture… Women count on this from “providers”, and to be honest, I think it would be hugely dishonorable and even disgraceful not to take care of a child that I had a hand in creating.

    @bbb… Soft dread is an interesting concept and I’ve experienced some evidence that it works. I’m in phenomenal shape for someone approaching 50, I work out regularly, compete in marathons, mountain bike, run and could generally whip the pants off many slobs in their 20s. I’ve been told by plenty of women that I look years younger than I am and I get IOI’s all the time from women right in front of her, some of whom are even in their 20s.

    But soft dread only works up to a point… Since I travel for work often, the wife often speculates about the “girlfriends” that I have on the side and has told me that if I ever do screw around, she just doesn’t want to know about it. If there was ever an implicit green light to go fuck around, it sure seems like she’s giving it to me. It’s almost as if SHE wants an unspoken agreement: Go fuck around if you must, just keep the funds flowing to me and the kids.

    At the same time, I’ve told her unequivocally that if I ever catch her cheating, I will divorce her immediately and make it as painful as possible.

    @Jeremy… I think you win. This is exactly what I see in my marriage and so many other marriages today. Women feel like they have won the lottery and feel no need to earn provisioning.

  33. @Che “soft dread only works up to a point”

    I agree, and it’s a nearby point, i.e. Soft Dread tends to not produce enough changes in the woman like one might think it “should”.

    “If there was ever an implicit green light to go fuck around, it sure seems like she’s giving it to me.”

    I mentioned the occasional slew of articles from the woman-sphere, marital advice columns etc, like one woman writing an article half-pretending that she wished her husband would take a mistress, and all the women commenters chiming in to agree. It seems like women CAN recognize a man’s need for and therefore right to sex, but somehow women will not see that that imposes an obligation on themselves.

  34. To show how apt the parralel between Rollo giving a speech at U. of Phoenix vs. Dalrock giving a speech to Joel Osteen’s church, I present to you the perfect storm: the failed attempt by Special Snowflake College Freshmen to ban/shame LGBT activist Dan Savage at the University of Chicago last week:

    http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2014/06/07/about-that-hate-crime-i-committed-at-university-of-chicago

    The point is not you should like Dan Savage (or hate him). My points are:

    1) He is the one playing the role of the conservative!

    2) He shows how both Dalrock and Rollo would survive their slaggings and attempted shamings by his taking a page from CH and Howard Stern: Do not back down. Do not acknowledge your detractors “have a point.” Do not apologize.

    3) His sponsors likewise refuse to back down or apologize. Supporters regroup and defend him. So the storm blows over.

    All this got much play at J4G this week in Ciaran’s guest post on The New Totalitarians.

    Now I guess ol’ Dan didn’t want to be too obviously cruel, so he didn’t point out an obvious gag coming out of his food fight with the Heinz 57 unspecified non-cis non-male non-whatever fresh-person who insisted on being gender identified as (wait for it):

    “It.”

    As in: “It puts the lotion in the basket” (the famous line from Silence of the Lambs.)

    Good debate gentlemen.

    Continuing with my adherence to the Dead Junkie aphorism of “what IS”, I will add: I give no quarter to intersectionalist Marxist Leninist Feminist Heinz 57 Gender* victim-pukng and shaming. But Tea Party types are no better in this respect, and I will go so far as to say they are the Right’s version of the SDS. In my journey through this veil of tears I deal with several on a regular basis, and I can report they too are very very special snowflakes. Can’t take a joke OR a hit.

    *My nickname for the 53 or 57 or whatever “gender identifiers” Facebook now allows you to pick for your personal profile.

  35. @Che

    Sounds like your situation is beyond soft dread. What Deti said at 10:10. Good luck brother……

  36. @ Fred: As much as I dislike Savage, you’re entirely correct in that the best approach is to not take any of their crap. Shove as much crap back into their faces as necessary.

    I’m still not sure if we can win the whole fight or not, but we sure as hell can win some of the battles.

    Unfortunately, the SHUTUPICANTHEARYOUMISOGYNIST crowd has won on numerous other occasions. Moreover, this crown is far more likely to be composed of folks who identify themselves as progressive, and those who don’t self-identify as progressives adhere to progressive beliefs nonetheless.

    So I respectfully ask in reference to “But Tea Party types are no better in this respect, and I will go so far as to say they are the Right’s version of the SDS”, on what occasions are you aware of the Tea Party attempting to intimidate or otherwise silence a speaker somewhere?

  37. @Zorro and @LiveFearless

    That is exactly why marriage in the modern age is a really dumb idea; no one can be so alpha she doesn’t still want to cheat. You are competing against men she will never meet – in her mind George Clooney is part of the market place and she measures her man against that crazy standard. Never marry, never commit to one woman, don’t be afraid to raise kids outside the confines of marriage – your children will respect you more as the guy who didn’t settle for mom than they would as the guy mom doesn’t even find attractive. Women lose attraction to their husbands, it is something that almost can’t be helped. Part of being a good dad is showing your children how to respect themselves; don’t be the loser trying to appease a woman that is sick of you.

  38. @Che

    But soft dread only works up to a point… Since I travel for work often, the wife often speculates about the “girlfriends” that I have on the side and has told me that if I ever do screw around, she just doesn’t want to know about it. If there was ever an implicit green light to go fuck around, it sure seems like she’s giving it to me. It’s almost as if SHE wants an unspoken agreement: Go fuck around if you must, just keep the funds flowing to me and the kids.

    sigh….and the guys I work with laugh at me for not marrying…

    I think the most likely interpretation of her telling you that is that, yeah, she’s already started to move on emotionally. Rollo has better insights though, maybe he wants to weigh in. I can’t imagine dread working on someone who has basically said, “As long as your cheating doesn’t embarass me, I don’t care.”

  39. It’s strange though, because I see some women “marrying down”, and they still feel like they are “winning”.

    It’s hard not to regard such women, who have worthwhile careers, and are clearly marrying someone with less job security, as if they are first-time-slave owners who were just handed the keys to their very own personal wage slave.

  40. @Jeremy

    “It’s strange though, because I see some women “marrying down”, and they still feel like they are “winning”.
    It’s hard not to regard such women, who have worthwhile careers, and are clearly marrying someone with less job security, as if they are first-time-slave owners who were just handed the keys to their very own personal wage slave.”

    This is the way I see most “relationships” around me. The male is an accessory, just a status symbol that tells other women “I have a man”. They obviously are not physically attracted to these men and mostly use them to achieve a better level of financial security. That is all fine (classic “beta” mating strategy) but instead of being respected as a provider these men are looked at as easily replaceable slaves and given very little respect (how many times do you see women like this talking about other men sexually in front of their “partners”, I have witnessed this a lot).

    I was out with a few couples and all of them were like this except for one – the male in this couple had the audacity to make his fiance’s dinner order for her – every other woman was infuriated because there was some semblance of traditional gender roles. The traditional couple was openly shamed but the funny thing is they were the happiest people there.

  41. Martel: very short answer so as not to derail the thread here. I’ll just say in my personal interactions in certain political spheres attempts were made to shame/silence me simply for taking issue, using much the same victimized tone as Dan Savage’s “It.” I used to be a sucker for that crap when in college and the lefties did it. Point is not that I was scared or silenced; but it is the same tactic, only now it irritates; it does not frighten. Beyond that, I will attempt a more detailed answer as a comment on your blog when I have more time to give you a better reply.

  42. @ Fred & Martel’s conversation…

    What you guys are describing is organizational defeat. It’s a basic truth of human nature that when a broad human movement begins organizing, it signals the start of that own movement’s defeat. Humans are pretty good at making decisions for themselves as individuals, but if you get us into committees/meetings look out because there’s no end of the shit we can crank out. On a long enough timeline, all organized efforts at human political movement end up with the inmates running the asylum.

    I’ve found myself able to agree with elements of just about every organized political movement on the planet, even feminism. That’s not a failing of intellect.

    It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
    Aristotle

    Reasonable discussion is being able to accept the validity in the thoughts of others. Organizations designed to accomplish a political purpose come from motivated people, unfortunately those same organizations crush any ability to see reason within them. This is why I will *always* advise against any form of organization or political bent in the manosphere, or in any other valid circles of discussion. If Roosh started a foundation, or Rollo began having conferences, it would be like handing the keys to salvation over to the insane. I especially detest what the MHRA is doing, they’re taking a valid set of complaints, and instead of attempting to alter the self and effect change in thousands of tiny cuts, they are attempting to wield the sledgehammer of political change. What they will get is not the political change of the world around them, they will see themselves changed and not for the better.

  43. ‘male is an accessory, just a status symbol that tells other women “I have a man”. ‘

    Perusing the Craigslist Women Seeking Men Personals will confirm this, as well as all the other Hypergamy and FI theories. Most of the ones are fat women with kids looking for Beta Bucks and to be entertained by a man. The entitlement attitude consistently jumps out.

    Such a fascinating bit of Sociology Theater in reading those ads.

  44. “I especially detest what the MHRA is doing, they’re taking a valid set of complaints, and instead of attempting to alter the self and effect change in thousands of tiny cuts, they are attempting to wield the sledgehammer of political change.”

    Well, it needs to be changed at the legal end of it and the only way to change it that way is through the political and legal institutions.

    The beauty of it is that the tools being used for the change are the very same civil rights laws that were written to enable and undergird the Feminist supremacy movement that is driven by the feminine imperative. It has already started with the Title IX lawsuits against Universities that have violated men’s right at the behest of women who were making false charges. This goes hand in hand with the self changes and the knowledge of how women operate in changing the culture. There’s no reason why both cannot exist together and be combined to effect needed changes.

  45. This will be sort of a long comment. It is a variation of one I had intended to leave last summer before I became persona non gratis.

    Yes, there is a new order in the sexual schedule of women. But there is also a new order in men’s appreciation and understanding of women in dispelling the notion of the Feminine Mystique.

    Inevitably women act in an irrational manner, all with the intent of making “mating” difficult for men in order to raise the cost of “mating” to men and to enhance the status of women in the course of the trade.

    And they have so completely succeeded in raising the cost and difficulty to the point that for many men, women have become somewhat of a status symbol. And access to them, or even more importantly, lack of access has become a telling metric of personal esteem for many men.

    Relationships are the domain of women. It is what they do. Men relate to things and women to relationships. Often the analogy of the master chess player and the novice can be brought to bear when describing the relative skill of men vs women in the realm of relationships. She toys with men, disguising her skill, watching our moves, how we play, determining our level of skill, then when she pleases, she swoops out and takes control. Often we are mere marionettes dancing at the end of the strings that she pulls.

    But this blog Rational Male and others in our little renegade corner of the internet are attempting to drag this competition into the realm of the male domain.

    Rationality.

    And we do so by introducing the Male characteristic of rational analysis into the domain of relationships. We share, via our observations and experiences, knowledge and generalizations that aid each of us in both deductive and inductive reasoning.

    It does not make the act of meeting and mating, having relationships with women particularly easier. But it does affect the balance of power in that we can see her underlying instincts, her motivations, and her actions. While she may pull the strings in the game of meeting and mating, men can also understand and be sure to act in a way that says back to her and her sisters …

    “Women are not owed commitment for anything.”

    Now in the light of using Rational Male analysis in both balancing of power in forming and maintaining relationships, I point out the “uncanny” relevance towards this end, dispelling the foolishness of the past regimes, the relevance of the name of this writer, …

    Rollo.

    A while back I wrote about the Andreus Capellanus book The Art of Courtly Love that was reposted as Hail to the V on this blog. I wrote how the book was contracted by Marie, Daughter of Eleanor of Aquitaine, and how these women were women of position and power and used this position to influence the status of women and the create the notion of “love” at the time, and how this had trickled down over the centuries time to become this old order of “love” that became the basis of the Feminine Imperative.

    I had been searching in Google for a particlular Rollo post and in the list of results there was a Wikipedia entry returned for “Rollo” and I thought “Oh wow, Rollo has a wikipedia entry.”

    He didn’t.

    This was an entirely different Rollo. This Rollo was a 9th century Viking. And there were two versions of his story, a Nordic version and a French version.

    I am sort of abridging what I wrote before but apparently this Rollo was a very big motherfucker. Some versions refer to him as “portly” but others do not. I tend to agree with the latter because of the offspring he sired and we shall return to these shortly. They are the most important aspect of the Rollo story as you soon shall understand.

    But this Rollo was called “Rollo the Walker”. Apparently the motherfucker was so big he fucking crushed horses so he tended to walk rather than ride.

    Rollo was the equivalent of a “capo regime” in that he had a band of warriors under his control, but he was under the dominion of some Viking Chieftain. This group invaded down through Denmark, Belgium, and into France. They got within a few kilometers of Paris before distance and logistics began to limit their fighting effectiveness and the King of France was able to marshal sufficient forces to be able to subdue them.

    The King was no fool and he understand that the best way to defend against further incursions of marauding Vikings was use Vikings as a buffer force against them. The Viking Chieftain had packed up and left France when stopped by the French King, but Rollo stayed in country and the French King offered him the opportunity to become a titled vassal in the northern part of France.

    This is one of my favorite parts of the story. At the ceremony where the allegiance is being cemented, where Rollo receives title from the king, it is expected that Rollo would kiss the foot of the King.

    One of Rollo’s men reaches down and grabs the King by the foot and yanks the foot up to hold it for Rollo to “kiss”, toppling the King over onto his ass.

    So Rollo becomes the Lord of Northern France, and his name, Rollo becomes synonymous in the French version of the story, such that any reference to Rollo or this other name is one and the same and is used interchangeably. So the north of France becomes the domain of Rollo or ….

    Norman. (Nur Mann)

    Thus Normandy.

    So despite becoming a liege of the French King, one of the books on Rollo gives one of my other favorite lines. Apparently Rollo’s men continued on a program of violence and conquest in Northern France to expand and consolidate their gains. The quote said:

    “Either Rollo did not have control of his men or he did not desire to control them, therefore the pillaging continued.”

    I hope that line becomes relevant again in these post modern times.

    Rollo ruled and controled Normandy for the rest of his life. But the importance of him is his offpsring. His wife was Poppa, daughter of Count Berrenger, captured in most alpha fashion, in a raid on Bayuex.

    His son, to whom he passed control, was given perhaps the most alpha name possible ….

    William Longsword. (Got to love that name)

    And it gets better. Rollo was the great-great-great-grandfather to …

    William the Conqueror and is an ancestor to the British Royal Family.

    But it gets even better and brings us to the point of this long story.

    His daughter, Gerloc, married William III of …

    Aquitaine. (See where I am going here?) which was the richest province in not only France, but Europe, at the time. It was sort of like being Duke of California.

    Now how this all ties together is that in “Hail to the V”, I spoke of courtly love originating with these troubadours. In fact, William the Troubadour was not some traveling minstrel but rather he was the power. At social functions he would break into a song, all Elvis like and it would be the equivalent of like Bill Clinton standing up at a state dinner and belting out a verse or two.

    In fact, William in the grande tradition of Rollo, was Alpha to the max. He practically was never home. He had a wife and children. But the dude was off doing all kinds of “knightly stuff”. He headed off to the Crusades for a bit, then, when he comes home, he gets excommunicated, the first of two, in 1114 for an alleged infringement of the Church’s tax privileges. His response to this was to demand absolution from Peter, Bishop of Poitiers. As the bishop was at the point of pronouncing the anathema, the duke threatened him with a sword, swearing to kill him if he did not pronounce absolution. Bishop Peter, surprised, pretended to comply, but when the duke, satisfied, released him, the bishop completed reading the anathema, before calmly presenting his neck and inviting the duke to strike. According to contemporaries, William hesitated a moment before sheathing his sword and replying, “I don’t love you enough to send you to paradise.”

    William was excommunicated a second time for “abducting” the Viscountess Dangerose (Dangerosa), the wife of his vassal Aimery I de Rochefoucauld, Viscount of Châtellerault. The lady, however, appears to have been a willing party in the matter. He installed her in the Maubergeonne tower of his castle in Poitiers (leading to her nickname La Maubergeonne), and, as related by William of Malmesbury, even painted a picture of her on his shield.

    Upon returning to Poitiers from Toulouse, Philippa, William’s wife was enraged to discover a rival woman living in her palace. She appealed to her friends at court and to the Church; however, no noble could assist her since William was their feudal overlord, and whilst the Papal legate Giraud (who was bald as a motherfucker) complained to William and told him to return Dangerosa to her husband, William’s only response was,

    “Curls will grow on your pate (head) before I part with the Viscountess.”

    That’s where the saying “Piss off the Pope” comes from … from some Rollo mega alpha descendant who gave the finger to the Feminine Imperative even before there was one.

    But to tie all this in together, the grand daughter of William the Troubadour was

    Eleanor of Aquitane. Her mother was Dangerosa and by all accounts she was a legendary beauty. William X, son of the Troubadour insured she had the best education. The short version of her story is that 3 months after she became Duchess of Acquitane in her own right she married Louis I, King of France.

    And the story goes that when Louis marshaled forces to head off to the crusades, Eleanor decided to go too. She organized this “Corp of Amazons”. And outfitted them in some pretty spiffy uniforms. The French King suffered a major defeat in the modern day Levant, probably somewhere in Syria and both he and Eleanor were lucky to get out alive. The story goes that her “Corps of Amazons” were so laden with trunks of clothes that the main force got separated into two groups due to the slow going of her “Corps”. The front groups was attacked and wiped out and then the second was overpowered. Had the two groups remained together there would have been sufficient force.

    And the big scandal was that while in the Levant, she cuckolded her husband, King of France with her uncle Raymond, who was supposedly the spitting image, and also quite the alpha, of her grandfather William the Troubadour. Louis and Eleanor left the Levant on separate ships and eventually divorced. She had born him daughters and reluctantly the pope agreed to an annulment. But even while she was married to the king it was rumored that she fucked a path across France and England.

    In fact, once her annulment was granted she sent word to Henry I, future king of England, to come and marry her. It was rumored by some that Eleanor had had an affair with Henry’s own father, Geoffrey V, Count of Anjou, who had advised his son to avoid any involvement with her.

    On 25 October 1154, Henry became King of England. Eleanor was crowned Queen of England by the Archbishop of Canterbury on 19 December 1154. She may not have been anointed on this occasion, however, because she had already been anointed in 1137. Over the next thirteen years, she bore Henry five sons and three daughters: William, Henry, Richard, Geoffrey, John, Matilda, Eleanor, and Joan.

    Richard just happened to be Richard the Lionheart and John, who succeeded Richard after his death, was the king that the barons of England revolved against and forced him to sign the Magna Carta, a definite precursor of Female Suffrage and Feminism, with a couple of steps between them. It has been mostly downhill for men relative to women since that event. One more historical note is that Eleanor’s husband, Henry was the King in the Thomas Beckett affair and it is said that Eleanor had a hand in that also. And in the movie Lion in Winter, Richard Burton plays Henry and Katherine Hepburn plays Eleanor.

    Rumor has it that Richard the Lionheart was a homosexual. I just threw that in for the sensationalism of it. He was married and did have children but apparently he had boyfriends. So a different switch on “Fake it till you Make it”.

    Of all her influence on culture, Eleanor’s time in Poitiers between 1168 and 1173 was perhaps the most critical, yet very little is known about it. Henry II was elsewhere, attending to his own affairs after escorting Eleanor there.[23] Some believe that Eleanor’s court in Poitiers was the “Court of Love”, where Eleanor and her daughter Marie meshed and encouraged the ideas of troubadours, chivalry, and courtly love into a single court. It may have been largely to teach manners, as the French courts would be known for in later generations. The existence and reasons for this court are debated.
    In The Art of Courtly Love, Andreas Capellanus (Andrew the chaplain) refers to the court of Poitiers. He claims that Eleanor, her daughter Marie, Ermengarde, Viscountess of Narbonne, and Isabelle of Flanders would sit and listen to the quarrels of lovers and act as a jury to the questions of the court that revolved around acts of romantic love. He records some twenty-one cases, the most famous of them being a problem posed to the women about whether true love can exist in marriage. According to Capellanus, the women decided that it was not at all likely.

    Amy Kelly, in her article, “Eleanor of Aquitaine and her Courts of Love”, gives a very plausible description of the origins of the rules of Eleanor’s court: “in the Poitevin code, man is the property, the very thing of woman.”

    So basically what we have here is the very source of “Courtly Love”, the catalyst for the Feminine Imperative, from the most powerful woman in the world at the time, one who followed “Alpha Fucks; Beta Bucks” at its highest level. She believed that love could not exist in marriage as marriage was a duty. She fucked her way across France and England chasing alpha cock, never satisfied . And she married into bucks, cuckolding kings as she fucked around with what ever man or uncle she felt like fucking. And she was the woman that invented the Feminine Imperative.

    And she was a descendant of Rollo.

    So as the parlor game of the Queen of England evolved by song, by poem, by story, by novel, by movie into the standard ethic of pedestalization of women, of the need of displays of chivalry, all developments that increased the status of women into the inflated level that we know today, ….

    then perhaps 1000 years from now, men will look back at this time and see another set of “descendants” of another Rollo, men who adopted logic, science, academic studies, neuroscience, endocrinology, evolutionary psychology and moved the relationship, certainly the most driving instinct of human behavior and the locus of social organization ….

    and they took it back, back into the masculine sphere, back where men and women sat on opposite sides of the chess board where men were no longer pawns to be played in the grand game of the Queen.

    A new order indeed ….

    Of Rational Males.

    “Either Rollo did not have control of his men or he did not desire to control them, therefore the pillaging continued.”

    Hail Norman.

  46. @rollo you know damn well about how girls work and the sexual market and I thank you for that–you’ve probably helped a good amount of guys on here.

    “Rich people vote republican because of lower taxes”

    That statement in itself tells me that you probably don’t much about politics and how the economy works which surprised me because it’s not far from the concepts you preach…

    People vote conservatively b/c they understand how a free market markets and how capitalism is designed. Not because their rich.

    Bill gates is a democrat

  47. @M3, fwiw, I consider the following two sentences to contradict each other.
    1. She’s very sexual.
    2. I have to wear myself out to get her off.

    Becuase my experiences tend to the second sentence, I claim the right to deny the first sentence whenever the second sentence is true. It’s *always* much better when she’s quick and easy.

  48. Hell, the FUCKING PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED FUCKING STATES OF AMERICA has to apologize and grovel for forgiveness when he calls a woman pretty and feminists take offense.

    Tell me again about how men have all the power, and women are so oppressed and downtrodden…

  49. Interesting topic, interesting undertow of thoughts revealed in the comments. To recap, simplified:

    Woman: Men are not entitled to sex. No matter what.

    Man: Women are not entitled to chivalry. No matter what.

    Where chivalry is defined as: giving any form of attention or help to a woman. This can range from a simple pleasantry (“hello” and/or smiling to her), to changing a tyre, all the way through to commitment and marriage.

    I wonder how many women are feeling the cold emptiness as they are deserted in droves and left to fend for themselves in this harsh and unyielding world, with no man acting as a buffer between.

    Something close to 70%? Given the proven 45% of children born to unmarried mothers plus the 50% divorce rate of the rest. These two numbers are government-provided statistics here in New Zealand.

    A large dose of abandonment and desertion.

  50. I should clarify further: blue-pill thinking in my view looks to be much like a man still believing that any woman is automatically deserving of chivalry. When even women have taken it upon themselves to state that they simply want to gift their sexuality to men who turn them on and sell their sexuality (or potential promise of sexuality) for said chivalry to men who do not turn them on.

    Definition of a bad deal for a man who does not turn woman on. When he wakes up to the scam then he stops selling himself cheaply and does something more useful with his time and attention. A woman then has to prove that she is worth any chivalry at all from him.

    This is the desertion that women are waking up to and whining about when they wonder where the good men are. We are still here, we have simply woken up to the scam – generation after generation, unfolding and unending, with a good deal of pain because the older generations unfortunately were complicit in selling us the scam.

  51. I will just say this. In modern society everyone makes their own rules. Committed relationships are *not* the default. Committed relationships only come about because both parties explicitly agreed to it.

    (*Explicitly*, not implicitly through a paper legal marriage contract & assoc. rituals.)

    I’m saying this because I see a lot of very beta complaining on this issue. Television should have told her. The church should have told her. Her friends should have told her. The courts should punish her. No. YOU should have told her.

    In my college days I found myself in a bad relationship and since then I’ve always seen it as something you explicitly have to handle. Did you have the discussion about “If we don’t want sex, there must be a very serious problem”? Did you ever demand a resolution to an argument that you could “sleep on”? Or did you just roll over and twiddle your thumbs?

    One can excuse the older guys, but the modern relationship has been around 30 years now, and there’s no excuse for going into it with your eyes closed. You must make your own rules and then you must live by them.

  52. @scratche2013
    You are competing against men she will never meet – in her mind George Clooney is part of the market place and she measures her man against that crazy standard.

    Add Reggie Bush, Chris Hemsworth, Michael Ealy, Cristiano Ronaldo, Bradley Cooper and a thousand others I’ve interviewed. They all (wisely) have publicists, PR professionals etc to make sure that certain standards are fed in order to create culture.

    When those standards become the conversation, they seem real, so the expectations become normal. This is why certain kinds of self improvement matter more now than ever before.

  53. >> Is racism and homophobia okay with you guys? Really?

    If you want a Marine Corps that can kick doors down….. then you have to live with a few deaths-from-robust-training each year.

    I welcome the presence of Zombi, IrishSavant, &etc – if that’s what it takes to keep the BluePill hivemind away from this site

  54. Mein gott! Most beta guys (myself included up til a couple of years ago) are so well conditioned that we can be married, work 12 hour days, put a roof over their heads and food on the table allowing the wife to not work (or work part time) to pursue her “dreams”, while our dreams wither and die. And STILL we don’t think we are owed sex – or owed anything for that matter.

  55. There’s a documentary on British Channel4 about ‘The Virgin Killer’ starting in about half an hour…

    Will post the catch-up link tomorrow for those that can’t access.

  56. @LiveFearless

    I hear you, the standards have been artificially raised through media. It is what it is but I still would never recommend trying to keep any one woman no matter how “alpha” you make yourself; unless you can be all those guys you listed at once, your still second rate in a woman’s subconscious mind. It isn’t anyone’s fault, people were not biologically designed to handle the insane amount of media we are exposed to. I have read just about all of Rollo’s work and I agree with practically all of it – the conclusion I have come to is monogamy is a crapshoot.

  57. I would be absolutely fascinated to hear Rollo’s comments on Benjamin Franklin’s advice to a young man on choosing a mistress (I took this to simply mean lover, not an illicit affair partner) as it pertains to SMV, hypergamy, etc. Franklin, always astute, seemed to have insight rarely paralleled on many a topic:

    From Franklin’s letter to his young male confidant (on choosing a mistress):

    ” But if you will not take this Counsel, and persist in thinking a Commerce with the Sex inevitable, then I repeat my former Advice, that in all your Amours you should prefer old Women to young ones. You call this a Paradox, and demand my Reasons:

    1. Because as they have more Knowledge of the World and their Minds are better stor’d with Observations, their Conversation is more improving and more lastingly agreable.

    2. Because when Women cease to be handsome, they study to be good. To maintain their Influence over Men, they supply the Diminution of Beauty by an Augmentation of Utility. They learn to do a 1000 Services small and great, and are the most tender and useful of all Friends when you are sick. Thus they continue amiable. And hence there is hardly such a thing to be found as an old Woman who is not a good Woman.

    3. Because there is no hazard of Children, which irregularly produc’d may be attended with much Inconvenience.

    4. Because thro’ more Experience, they are more prudent and discreet in conducting an Intrigue to prevent Suspicion. The Commerce with them is therefore safer with regard to your Reputation. And with regard to theirs, if the Affair should happen to be known, considerate People might be rather inclin’d to excuse an old Woman who would kindly take care of a young Man, form his Manners by her good Counsels, and prevent his ruining his Health and Fortune among mercenary Prostitutes.

    5. Because in every Animal that walks upright, the Deficiency of the Fluids that fill the Muscles appears first in the highest Part: The Face first grows lank and wrinkled; then the Neck; then the Breast and Arms; the lower Parts continuing to the last as plump as ever: So that covering all above with a Basket, and regarding2 only what is below the Girdle, it is impossible of two Women to know an old from a young one. And as in the dark all Cats are grey, the Pleasure of corporal Enjoyment with an old Woman is at least equal, and frequently superior, every Knack being by Practice capable of Improvement.

    6. Because the Sin is less. The debauching a Virgin may be her Ruin, and make her for Life unhappy.

    7. Because the Compunction is less. The having made a young Girl miserable may give you frequent bitter Reflections; none of which can attend the making an old Woman happy.

    8thly and Lastly They are so grateful!!”

  58. Regarding #5-seems nowadays what’s first to go starts below the neck.
    Ben did make some astute observations. But they are dated. Back them when the women became less handsome, they very well may focused on being good.
    But today you get things like a woman is in her sexual prime late in life, men are shallow, women age like wine, men are intimidated by various types of whatever type of woman that the woman regards herself as, who is making the statement at the time.
    Things change. Today Ben might say if you’re going to get a mistress, get a young one. The bodies are better and old ones complain about everything.

  59. Older women don’t look as good but Franklin is right in some regards; there is something about being with a younger man that makes them more grateful and less of a headache for the man.

  60. That’s called an ego boost. Like a drug, that first hit feels awesome. Get used to it though, and it takes more to get the same high. And then the junkie gets obstinate, and starts demanding that you provide their next fix.

  61. “So oblivious is Sandberg to her feminine-primary, solipsistic confirmation of hypergamy that it never occurs to her that men would be anything but accommodating of her life-plan advice for younger generations of women. It never occurs to her that a “man who values fairness” would ever reject her (much less despise her) for the duplicity that women’s dualistic sexual strategy disenfranchises men of.”

    I wouldn’t worry too much about Sandy and her ilk. They end up with men who used similar strategies as they did.

  62. Steve H
    June 13th, 2014 at 12:20 pm

    Che –

    no matter how successful you are, the sex will never be better or more frequent than it was at the beginning of the relationship.

    As an unmarried guy, for whom being in a committed LTR to an early-20s girlfriend is a sacrifice, this is where I personally have to ask: “And you chose to get married why exactly?”

    Since sex is so important to us, a choice for marriage in light of this particular red pill belief seems to me a choice to be the victim. (I can honestly say that sex with my gf has not gotten any less good, over a mere ~1.5 years, but I limit our time together.)

    OTOH, I have women literally throwing themselves at me now that I understand how they work and understand inner game – swagger, flirting, aloofness, etc. — and while I haven’t availed myself of the opportunities yet, its very tempting. (Parenthetically, these very same inner game strategies that work outside the marriage fall completely flat within it because they appear so incongruous or “faked” to the wife).

    If your wife sees other women throwing themselves at you, I bet the new-and-improved you will cease to fall sexually flat before your wife’s newly-jealous stare. Have you tried that? Preselection is everything.

    After all, if I’m safe, discreet, don’t shove my wife’s face in it, and continue to “provision” for those things that are clearly most important to my spouse (and where she gets an A) is it really so unethical or immoral to go outside of the marriage to get the one thing she doesn’t provide?

    Yes. You gave your promise of fidelity for life. Breaking that promise in lieu of expressly breached contractually-assented stipulations on her part would be unethical. Particularly where she sounds like a good person and an otherwise excellent partner.

    If you’re willing to go this far, don’t you kinda want *not* to re-attract her? Deep down, don’t you want to waive the white flag with regard to even attempting to game her and strengthen your sexual bond with her? Cause if you just decide to ‘give up’, that’ll surely expedite your route to now-justifiable wild, reckless, fantastically exciting extra-marital sex.

    If the rules are that I’m no longer entitled to sex with my wife in exchange for provisioning, fine…. I’m still prepared to meet her more than halfway: I’ll continue to provision, but will take care of my sexual needs elsewhere. And I’ll do so without any guilt.

    What am I missing?

    Here’s what you’re missing: every man in any kind of monogamous committed relationship would love to have license to fuck around. Hell, I’d love to do that, which is why my commitment to just a gf is such a sacrifice. You want to have your cake and eat it too. So do all of us. Especially if we’re granting license to ourselves to proactively seek this out. Own up to it.
    +++++++

    Monogamy is just one model for relationship. There is polygamy (both gyny and andry) as well polyamory and open marriage. I’m a 62 year old man married for 35 years to my best friend but my sexual attraction for her and even feelings of generalized romantic affection have steadily declined over the last 5 years especially. I love her, I care for her, but the possessive feelings are gone. I’m still a fit good looking guy and some younger women at work have been flirting with me. I’m sure I could have flings with them if I took the flirting to the next level but out of respect for my marriage I haven’t, yet. Since I no longer feel possessive of my wife and jealousy is out of the question, I am thinking about suggesting an open marriage to her from here on out. She’ll probably find someone to have a fling with as well, and I’m ok with that. Its not like the guy could knock her up or anything, she’s post menopausal.

    This whole experience, my declining sexual feelings for her and my increasing sexual feelings for others, my reflection on mate guarding and mate poaching and having known some people who have lied to their spouses and went behind their backs to cheat, has really made me see how “monogamy” is not some force out there that controls us but its something we force onto ourselves. But its just once model out of several relationship models that are available to us.

    Seriously Steve H, if you are not monogamous by nature and its something difficult and detestable to you, why do it?

  63. Bear in mind that those “older women” Ben was referring to were most likely in their late 20s and 30s, as that was considered “spinster age” back then.

  64. “If you could sum up the essence of blue pill social programming in three words, it would be… ‘Compliance is sexy.’ Serve the feminine imperative, facilitate women’s sexual utopia, allow women to do whatever they want without judgment or consequence, and they will appreciate it and reward you.”

    Exactly. Well put.

    The goal of feminism is singular — optimization of hypergamy. Every single plank in the feminist platform without exception is designed to do exactly this.

    Any efforts to control this hypergamous instinct in any way (including any efforts to expose it and tell the truth about it) will be met with hysterical screeching — the same way vampires react to being exposed to sunlight.

    Keep the truth coming. There is no defense to it.

  65. Hi Rollo. Love your writing. I’ve been a lifelong beta. Good looks, but a “nice guy”. I’m an Actor/VO artist by profession, and I bartend to make ends meet..saw something the other night that cemented this “Alpha/Beta” dichotomy for me. I’d been training a new(female) bartender. Hot girl. Anyway, she’d been basically nice to me until the other night, when we had a particular bartender/musician work with us that she’d never met. I’d been cool, respectful of her and all that. He immediately started his alpha game: playing with her, borderline harassment,, basically being a complete fucking dick.

    Sh fucking loved it.

    By the time the shift was done, she was walking out with him, and she was looking at me with open contempt. The “nice girl” showed her true colors. I hadn’t even tried to get with her(I try not to shit where I eat), but, in her mind, it was clear she thought him more man than me, and had no problem letting me know it. It’s a small thing; Others have better stories. but, it did show to me, starkly, how women actually think, as opposed to what they WANT us to believe of them. Anyway, I’m a noob at red pill thinking, but, I’m on the path, thanks to you.

  66. Right out of the park with this one. Understanding that Relational Equity is in fact a myth has been a huge part of my inner recovery and healing.

    I’m still playing friends with a girl I’ve known for a very long time. I’ve read over the LJBF posts over and over again but I keep doing it. She was interested in me years ago but I was too insecure to do anything about it, and now I’m clinging to the hope that if I game her enough she’ll leave her boyfriend for me. It’s been months and months and months and I still keep hoping.

    The upshot to this is being able to realize that this is *my* problem. The fear of being alone, the belief that I have no options, the fear of feeling abandoned, rejected — they’re all my problems. I’ve had ONE-itis dozens of times in my life. As real as it feels that this girl is “the one,” I’ve felt the same thing enough times to know that if it isn’t her, it’ll be another girl.

    ONE-itis is *my* issue. The girls are like characters in a play. It could be any girl, and if it isn’t one, it’ll be another. They’re all playing the same role, and they’ll keep playing it until I heal this stuff inside myself.

    They’re stirring up *my* emotional hurt and pain, and stirring up *my* desperation and helplessness, that leads me to believe I’m emotionally dependent on them. They’re also stirring up my conditioned programs: believing in relational equity, scarcity mentality, believing that good friends make good couples, or that having a lot in common and feeling really familiar is a good grounds for starting a sexual relationship.

    I’ve read enough here and experienced enough in my life to know that this is not attractive to women at all. Then that stirs up feelings of inferiority: that I’m sexually repulsive, that I’ll never get with any women, that I’m pathetic and emotionally weak, etc., etc.

    …but *that* is the stuff I have to clear out. ONE-itis can be a gift for me if I use it to heal myself, instead of focusing on the girl I have ONE-itis for. It’s a perfect opportunity to make peace with all this crud inside of me, because ONE-itis brings it right to the surface where I can see it clear as day: all the low self-esteem, mentally beating myself up, negative beliefs, helplessness, hopelessness, neediness, the intense fear of being alone, that I’ll always be alone, the belief that there’s someone special out there for me.

    The really and truly special person out there for me is me myself: the version of myself that will come into being after I make peace with all these problems inside of me. Wouldn’t it be special to be able to live my life the way I want? To be able to enjoy the company of women without feeling anxiety, despair, and all this attachment? To be able to feel secure, happy, and comfortable with myself, and feel like I’m in control of the choices I make, and that I’m driving my own bus?

    The Myth of Owed Sex. Letting go of believing in that myth is liberating. Just see things for the way they are without judging yourself: women haven’t wanted to be with you because you didn’t understand women. You didn’t “Just get it.”

    It doesn’t mean you’re repulsive, it doesn’t mean there’s something wrong with you, it doesn’t mean that you’ll never be attractive to women, it doesn’t mean you’re less than anyone else. You just didn’t know any better. You never learned how to deal with women. You just lacked the skills and knowledge.

    At the same time, all these horrible feelings about ourselves that ONE-itis and rejection and frustration stir up inside of us are *excellent* opportunities to make peace with ourselves.

    I believe in thinking of all the beta behaviors and beliefs as helium balloons. And what happens when you let go of helium balloons? They float away.

    Relational Equity is one of the many myths we have to let go of in order to have a better life. But for each myth we’ve believed in, there are emotions that go along with it. And that’s what we need to make peace with.

    Also, it’s a path to inner ‘alpha-hood’ (if you like thinking of it that way): if you take complete responsibility for your emotions, for all that crud inside of you that is so hard to deal with, what does that result in? Personal power, peace of mind, confidence, and the disappearance of neediness. If you repeatedly reinforce the attitude of “I’m okay, I can handle this, I’m safe,” even when you’re alone and having a panic attack — that will build a very strong and secure character.

    It takes a lot to feel ONE-itis and to take full ownership of that feeling. It feels like it’s completely dependent on the girl you have ONE-itis for. But the reality is that this is a feeling inside of you. It’s your stuff. It isn’t hers. We think it has to do with her, but if she leaves and another girl shows up, you’ll just focus your ONE-itis on the new girl, and you might even completely forget about the old one(s) in exchange (I’ve noticed that I’ve done this a lot of times in my life).

    Find the myths you believe in, learn the truth, then step into all the feelings you have about it. All the pain, all the hurt, all the frustration, helplessness, hopelessness, powerlessness — this is the road map to what we’re using against ourselves to torment ourselves.

    Keep reinforcing the message to yourself by interrupting your painful thoughts and feelings: “I’m safe, I’m okay, I’m handling this, and I’m okay.”

    I said it once and I’ll say it again: behind every myth is an emotional attachment. We want to believe that this love we crave so much exists and that we can get it if we make that wish known to women — we just want to overtly express our desire for love and have a woman be completely receptive to it and then be with us for the rest of our lives.

    But you know what? The pain of knowing that it doesn’t work that way is really what we want to let go of. And if we take ownership of our loneliness and pain, empower ourselves to let go of it and empower ourselves to change ourselves and work towards a better life — we take the power away from our fantasized relationship. We give the power to ourselves.

    Confidence and security will most likely result in natural behaviors that are far more attractive to women than whatever it was you were doing before out of desperation and scarcity mentality. And your new behaviors and personality will go on auto-pilot when you authentically change yourself by making peace with all this pain.

    But whether you attract women or not is secondary to taking ownership of your stuff, and constantly reinforcing a mentality of peace and inner security. I’m using my current ONE-itis to heal myself. It’s scary, it’s painful, but I know that if I don’t deal with these scary and painful feelings now and let go of them, I’m just going to project these feelings onto another girl in the future.

    Taking ownership of our inner stuff: that is alpha (again, if you like thinking of it that way). We don’t have to prove anything to anyone, we don’t have to justify the feelings we have. We simply have to fully step into the leadership role —

    — leadership over our own minds. Drive our own bus, sail our own ship. ONE-itis: we’re not giving our power away to the girl we have ONE-itis for. We’re giving our power away to the pictures in our mind, the *idealized image we have of her* that isn’t real. We’re giving our power away to our own emotional pain that we don’t know how to deal with, that we want this idealized image of this girl to save us from.

    Real power comes from realizing that, and taking ownership of the pictures in our mind, and the thoughts, and all the feelings. Using ONE-itis and general attachment to women as an opportunity to heal ourselves flips the entire situation into something positive and empowering.

    Imagine a fork in the road: your ONE-itis girl at one side, with green trees and the sun shining, and a dark, dingy path at the other side, with gnarled trees and owls hooting. You go down the dark path, and what do you feel as you leave your ONE-itis girl behind? The idea that you’ll never see her again. She’ll never be in your life. Maybe imagine her fucking some stud in that little paradise on that other path, while you’re sulking through a lonely hell.

    How do you feel? Those feelings are what you have to make peace with.

    Then imagine that long down this dark path, another girl you’ve never met before shows up and starts following you. You get attached, and for whatever reason she leaves — turns back, or gets killed by a wild animal or something. How does that make you feel?

    But you keep pushing forward. You’re walking the path yourself no matter what and no matter who’s with you. But girls keep showing up, and even other guys that you make friends with.

    You left your ONE-itis girl behind, but as you walk down what seems like a horrible, lonely path, as you have the confidence and determination to keep going, girls and friends start showing up.

    This is a little thought experiment meant to viscerally induce abundance mentality. The ONE-itis pain and neediness on one side, the self-confidence and “I’m okay” on the other side. We want to interrupt these painful, helpless feelings, and once they’re interrupted, we imprint positive feelings and positive experiences. This way we can “flip” the ONE-itis and all the fear associated with it into something more positive. And it sends the message to the subconscious that “I’m okay” — even as I walk down this seemingly scary path, there are good things waiting for me. I’m a strong, healthy person, and I attract strong, healthy people into my life. And no matter what, no matter how intense these feelings get inside of me, I am okay.

  67. @SGT Ted, no, by older women Franklin explicitly stated he meant wrinkled and with no risk of pregnancy. Keep in mind he was advising the man to marry a younger woman, and an affair was an older woman was advised as a lesser alternative.

    There is no indication he ever meant the letter as anything more than a joke, and it may have been only circulated among his parlor room social circle, primarily married women.

  68. @Softek re: “As real as it feels that this girl is “the one,” I’ve felt the same thing enough times to know that if it isn’t her, it’ll be another girl.”

    This is a key understanding; it’s not about her, it’s about you. You have realized you are capable of hyperfocusing on a woman. You have this power, but it is also a weakness.

  69. Softek, it looks like you are making tremendous progress. You have hit the nail on the head and will eventually win this fight. Keep charging.

  70. as always good stuff here.

    A few observations from my part of the world responding to some different ideas in the thread.

    Re: MMSL becoming diffuse. Yes I agree. full respect to Athol, MMSL was my entry point into the red pill and it arguably saved my marriage. Things always have room for improvement, but overall it’s been a 180 degree shift.

    That having been said, I find MMSL has been corrupted by the commercial imperative for Athol. It was inevitable, it was so time consuming he had to start commercializing it or someone else would. As soon as that happened I have no doubt that he had to start going more centrist on a lot of things as he is now essentially selling therapy sessions. those really require the buy in of the woman involved. In the course of things he has been sanitizing much of the content of his work I think to make it more palletable to the fairer sex. To be fair to Athol, he does do a whole ton of work with couples now and is up to his elbows in messy emotional situations all day long. No doubt he has unique insight into how it works, and to his point, all of this has to work in the real world, which is full of MSM, feminists, normative social conventions and all that. he is interested in coming to workable solutions between partners with a grounding in Red pill.

    My point is that MMSL will be made “less pure” as the whole thing is forced out into the world of the MSM. I still think it’s great, but even over the last 18 months you can sense a massive shift on the forums away from core red pill truths. Game in the hands of children is dynamite after all. no doubt Game within marriage, handled poorly has blown some relationships up.

    I find that for real red pill thinking, that takes on culture, politics and the broader world, you have to go to RM or ROK etc. Getting people from MMSL to come to those places, well, that’s possibly a step too far for some of them. They may like the changes they can effect within their own relationship, but the likelihood of them taking it beyond that, seems vanishingly small. I think most people over there are doing all they can to tread water at home, much less be able to help anyone else around them or see a bigger picture.

    As an entirely unrelated comment. I have been thinking about power and the power of the hive / cathedral etc and the power of red pill to establish itself. The stream of power, as it appears to me within the MSM in large part comes from sponsor dollars. So I have started my own simple campaign to express power to the MSM. The idea is that as CONSUMERS you have power. Now women tend to make the vast majority of household spending decisions and in turn have great spending power, even if its not their money. Corporations are extremely sensitive these days to being criticized publicly lest a bunch of women twitter bomb them threatening to pull back on spending with them.

    So now when I see a commercial for instance that portrays an AFC or an idiot father or any of the other 1000 ways that men are generally disrespected in the media. I take a few minutes to look up who the brand director is for said product in the company in my country. I write them a nice letter to the effect of. “Hey, I saw your latest commercial, I am not to keen on how you portray men as witless idiots. As such I have instructed my wife to no longer purchase your products and I will not purchase your products and I also encourage my male friends to do the same. When you stop portraying men as idiots, I will consider buying your products again”.

    If the manosphere wanted to use it’s innate talents, I could see a web site put together that lists companies that portray men as idiots in their commercials, along with contacts about who to complain to in various countries for the offending companies along with some simple form letters for men to cut, paste and mail. It’s a small but simple step one could take to keep sending a message to the people that create the culture. (I happen to work in this industry an understand just fine how to tweak consumer directed communications). Make no mistake, the creative agencies and the brand managers for the products that require advertising (Manufactured culture) are acutely aware of what messages they are creating and how it relates to their core purchasers and their decision making process. If you can demonstrate to them that what they are doing is against their sales interests, you will eventually get their attention and in turn affect the manufacture of culture in the form of advertising.

  71. @ New Yorker: Thank you for the encouragement. I appreciate it.

    @ jf12: I’m unclear on what you meant. What is the weakness — did you mean the hyperfocusing on one woman itself, or the recognizing that I’m hyperfocusing?

  72. You know, having thought about this post and the “larger issue” of owed sex that has sprung up, it occurs to me how much blatant hypocrisy is going on here. It’s been touched upon already, but I’d like to expand it. This oddly touches on the idea of politics which has recently been brought up here.

    While I understand Rollo’s reluctance to get into those issues and distract from the Red Pill core issues, I think there is no way to completely avoid them. They converge over the idea of entitlement and who gets to claim it for what…

    Feminists (who are for most part, if not all, liberals) huff in outraged disgust at the thought that men are “entitled to sex”.

    “HOW DARE THEY!!”

    I get it. I agree. No one should be obligated to, ie, forced, to do something to help meet your sexual needs.

    How, then, do feminists then justify rallying around a Sandra Fluke whose cause celeb was to demand free birth control, or to put it another way:

    To obligate others to help meet her sexual needs.

    Is there really any other way to view it?

    Sandra Fluke wants to have sex.

    She wants birth control for that sex that she wants.

    She does not want to pay out the pittance it would cost her to get that birth control for that sex she wants.

    She then stamps her foot and demands SOMEONE ELSE pay for her birth control so she is free to have the sex she wants and apparently feels entitled enough to to make someone else pay part of the expense for it.

    This then plays into a larger issues of entitlements.

    I think most feminists, being liberals, would endorse the idea of free healthcare.

    This despite the fact that to get free healthcare, someone is obligated to either, A) Pay for it, B) Provide it for free, or C) Both.

    Some thing with college tuition, welfare, housing, whatever…

    The liberal mindset seems to be that most EVERYTHING is something someone is entitled to, even though it, by definition, becomes and obligation.

    To bring it back around to Red Pill theory, I think men have to start saying No to a hell of a lot of entitlements, and bring it around to this the feminist denial of owing sex.

    “You’re right; you don’t owe me sex. So explain to me what I owe you child support when I have no say whether you keep the kid or abort it?”

    “You’re right; I am not owed sex. Why am I obligated to lender aid and assistance to you in the event of an emergency, crime, etc?”

    “You’re right; you don’t owe me anything, which is why I am not buying you one damn drink, ever.”

    I am serious about this. I think guys have to throw off the idea that they owe women anything, and get to the idea that the women have to earn anything and everything they want and desire from men.

    Basically, ladies, we ain’t given any away for free.

  73. @Softek, often I’m unclear what I mean too. I mean, I *mean* something, but it’s big and slippery. But it’s fun trying. You could envision me valiantly jello wrestling with a big gal, if you want.

    Your superpower is your weakness, and also women’s weakness. I’ve some reason to believe that what a woman wants most is an alpha who will be infatuated with her. If you can hold your superpower in check and alpha up, then you can leverage your potential for infatuation to get a better woman maybe. But keeping it under control can be difficult, I know!

  74. Maybe the term “time-rape” should enter public thought.

    A girl walks up to a police officer and asks for help,

    “Do you think you’re entitled to my help just because you gave me money and I made a vow? You think you can treat me like a piece of property and time-rape me?”

  75. @Sean

    It is funny, for me the whole “red pill” hit me all at once after a fairly insignificant incident. There had been so many other times that I got used and abused by girls when I was growing up and yet all it took was one minor display of truth from a woman for it all to finally sink in. I said something “beta” and I saw the look of disgust go across her face in a quick flash (it was pretty fucking cringe-worthy to be honest). This was a “nice” girl and I think that moment was when I finally gave up on the beta dream of “the one”. That moment still haunts me, not because of what she did, it haunts me because that moment defined the wasted life that preceded it. It’s funny how a shitty look from a girl can have such an impact. I would’ve married that girl then, now I’d just like to cum on her face lol. One less beta provider in the world.

  76. @agent p . If you can demonstrate to them that what they are doing is against their sales interests, you will eventually get their attention and in turn affect the manufacture of culture in the form of advertising

    “They” are not concerned about sales to male consumers .

  77. “In the course of things he has been sanitizing much of the content of his work I think to make it more palletable to the fairer sex.”

    You mean men? Because women luuuuuuuurrrrrrrrvvvvvveeee erotica. 😉

    Rollo, I can see why people walked away from what you wrote thinking it was rape apologia. To me it originally came across as if you object to the very idea of women being sovereign individuals with a right to their own personal space and to be unmolested and safe therein.

    Don’t forget that in arranged marriage the groom doesn’t have any more veto power than the bride does. The veto power lies solely with their parents, who choose spouses for their children based upon what kind of son-in-law or daughter-in-law THEY want. As an autonomous adult myself there is no way in hell I’d hand that kind of power over to my parents. Would you?

  78. http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-virgin-killer/4od#3714313

    As promised, here is the link to catch-up on the ‘Virgin Killer’ doc.

    I didn’t watch the whole thing, but most of the reporting was fairly matter of fact.

    As the elder statesman psych dude in the programme says, if it hadn’t been women and his involuntary celibacy that tipped Roger over the edge, it would have been something else.

    I really don’t think lack of women/sex was the major causative factor. He talks of that situation in a very lofty, deluded and cartoonish manner (inclusive of evil overlord cackle), like you can tell he doesn’t really believe hi own BS.

    Whereas when he speaks/writes of his childhood and the breakdown of his parents’ marriage, he displays what seems to be more candid, honest and human feeling.

    Feminists and some of my manosphere brothers alike would do well to just chill out a bit.

    All this talk is very well and insightful; but does lead to hostility, false accusation and generalised resentment. The moral of the story is glaringly obvious, yet seems to pass so many by; males and females are different and we have to chill the f*ck out a bit and deal with it.

    To be fair, compared to the rest of the animal kingdom, where survival is far tougher and reproductive competition much steeper, we as humans have it pretty f*cking sweet in general.

    As a species we’re better off focusing our creative and analytical energies, on far more important problems than where our next lay is coming from or how to perpetuate the growth of an already over-sized, greedy and naval-gazing population.

    Time for us all, men and women, feminist and man-children to collectively grow a pair. Time to move on to the next plain of enlightenment.

    And no, before you ask, I don’t need and app for that.

  79. @Pre-Retiree – I do find it difficult but not ‘detestable’. It’s a fair question but it’s ultimately a gift to her that can be withdrawn at anytime with no legal or domestic ugliness required (unlike a marriage). She gives me a lot as well so there’s a reciprocity that works for both of us. As for your desire to suggest an open marriage, I say go for it. In my view that’s the ethical way to go about it. No deceit involved, no sneaking around necessary.

  80. I don’t know if I agree with your analysis. I think what this really boils down to is simply the fact that if men are saddled with the responsibility of initiating relationships and women primarily screen mates, then it’s men on the outs, facing rejection, and constantly scrambling to appeal to females. Why else are any of us reading these blogs if not because we’re trying to figure out how to fulfill this role that women have imposed on us.

    So what this means simply is that the guy gets rejected, he is actively doing something that is difficult and yet absolutely necessary for emotional and psychological well being, and so how else is he supposed to react to repeated rejections? It isn’t possible for somebody not to grow frustrated, or to be hurt, or to protect their ego in that situation.

    Women on the other hand don’t understand this because sex and potential relationships fall out of the sky for them, since they don’t share this responsibility. They are truly solipsistic in that being on the opposing end of this transaction is beyond their imagination.

    They seem to believe that “the patriarchy” somehow conditions men to believe they are entitled to sex, but even they, on some level I suspect, realize that this doesn’t make sense. Who tells men they are entitled to sex? Where in the culture or in our socialization does this come from specifically? Can they or anyone else identify where this message comes from? They can’t because it doesn’t exist. None of us were socialized to believe we are entitled to sex at all. The frustrated male who seems as if he grows hostile after being rejected or appears to refuse to take no for an answer is behaving the way anyone, no matter what their sex, would behave when put in such an absurd, and for many men, entirely desperate situation.

    The “entitlement” strawman is a means for women to avoid looking at the real world social consequences of their own desires and the way those desires shape male socialization. They regard themselves as damsels in distress every bit as much as the supposed misogynist product of the patriarchy does.

  81. “The frustrated male who seems as if he grows hostile after being rejected or appears to refuse to take no for an answer is behaving the way anyone, no matter what their sex, would behave when put in such an absurd, and for many men, entirely desperate situation.”

    If you ever want to see the embodiment of ‘creepy’ taken to an extreme – witness any attractive women, even a married attractive woman attempting to cheat, respond to being rebuffed by the man she’s trying to seduce.

  82. @ jf12

    If you mean my ability to cope with being alone and persevere despite having no sex life and being isolated most of the time, I’d agree that superpower is a weakness.

    The hardest part is admitting that I want sex in my life while it isn’t here yet. I don’t want to go MGTOW by any stretch of the imagination, but I’m doing it on autopilot because “this is never going to happen” is the subconscious program running in my mind.

    Adapting to living a sexless life. It’s sink or swim, but I feel like my only option is to just accept that I’m never going to have sex, I’m never going to date or be in a relationship or ever have anything with women.

    The hardest part iskeeping a positive and open mind that I can have sex in my life, that I don’t have to keep beating myself up and live in a state of complete deprivation for the rest of my life. The need to have emotional control and stability and peace of mind is conflicting with me getting to the point where I can “alpha up.”

    …because I’m seeing sex as a threat to my peace of mind, because not having it is so frustrating. The alpha perspective would be seeing it as something I’m free to enjoy, and keep my eyes open for opportunities to enjoy myself everywhere I go.

    Thanks for pointing out that the superpower is a weakness. It’s acting as a buffer against rejection. I have to find a way to own my abandonment/rejection pain, all my fears, and *then* not only let go of them, but replace them with better things. Mainly opening myself up to actually having a sex life and the belief that I deserve to have it — that there’s no reason to keep punishing myself and believing I have to just live with my misery without doing anything about it.

    Hard pill to swallow.

  83. Your last point (on Ms. Sandberg’s advice) is stunningly perceptive and has been overlooked by the media. It should be read by every thinking adult in the U.S. What horrible advice to young women: “Whore around all you want, and then settle for some provider.” Wouldn’t she be horrified by the equivalent advice for a young man, perhaps: “Deceive, seduce, abandon and betray all the attractive women that you desire when you’re young, then when you’re old, burnt out and don’t care about sex, find a less attractive one to settle for to take care of you in exchange for your accumulated wealth.” Would anyone seriously suggest that this is a realistic life plan???

  84. Shorter: Prince Charming is not owed a Sleeping Beauty, but Sleeping Beauty is owed a Prince Charming.

  85. Softek,

    As someone whose walked your path and who is still on it in many ways I am going to offer advice, perhaps not to follow but to think about. Let me tell you the story of my last oneitis. This is something that crystallized for me as a result of my discussion with Glenn and NewYorker in the previous post’s comments.

    The Story:

    It was love at first sight. It was hopelessly blue pill. And I knew how it was going to end up: badly. Not needing the trama of rejection, nor the distraction I decided to instead of following the usual course I would friend zone her rather than suffer LJBF speech.

    To accomplish this I pulled a Costanza and did everything the opposite of what I normally do. I didn’t force myself on her. Didn’t seek her notice. Didn’t become Mr. Agreeable. I didn’t volunteer to do favors. I didn’t invite her to socialize unless it was obvious she was afterthought being included in group of people. I never paid for drinks at the bar unless she bought first. I never apologized for anything, her feigned outrage was met with a simple “you’ll get over it.” Actual outrage was met with “grow up.” I never offered compliments.

    If we were at the bar with a group I’d often catch her staring at me. I’d stare back until she looked away. Always with a smirk and a grin. Occasionally I’d cross my eyes, always got the laugh with that.

    I don’t like invading another persons space. With her I suspended that rule. If I sat down next to her and there was contact I’d wait for her to move but not acknowledge it. One time she sat down next to me in booth and our thighs were touching. I didn’t move or acknowledge, but after a few minutes I placed my hand on her thigh and left it there until I had to get up and seek a restroom. Never looked at her, never said a word about it.

    I always waited at least one hour before replying to text messages. I never started text conversations. I never asked questions just made statements and waited for responses. I discovered you learn everything you to want know eventually with a little patience. I never let a disagreement end with my capitulation.

    I did do things like holding doors and other miscellaneous polite stuff. I was always honest with my opinions, and thoughts. If I didn’t want to offer information I’d assert such topics were off limits. I established rigid hard boundaries.

    I did this for almost 2 years. It was a very slow build up. In my blue pill mind I couldn’t imagine why after that much time the dam finally broke one evening when too much drink resulted in ill conceived, but otherwise memorable sex. Of course at that point I lost control of my experiment and went back to my original programming. Things ended badly very quickly.

    What I now know is that without intending to I ran very consistent though by no means expert game on her for a long period. At the end I lost frame and paid the price.

    You Mr. Softek have natural game within you. You just need to let it out. If a beta nice guy like me can fall ass backward into and not consciously realize it you should be able pull it off with intent and forethought.

    My suggestion is to use a oneitis as an experiment and practice your game. What’s the worst that can happen? Go out there and fail boldly, fail with intent and purpose. Fail doing something different. It won’t suck any more than what you have now.

  86. “Fail boldly”!

    How about this, to say to your oneitis, after invading her space and making contact: “There’s something about you I don’t like.”

  87. Jf12,

    You joke, but that actually strikes me as good opening depending upon how one follows through.

  88. @BP, not entirely a joke. I’m letting my natural Game shine, I can imagine this going well. I’m assuming it was going like you indicated, with some history, too prolonged by now, of mutually acknowledged interest (“her staring at me” etc.):
    (You, kinda growly but intimately, not for public consumption) “There’s something about you I don’t like.” (pregnant pause, not looking at her. Good time to knock back the dregs of a drink and look off into the distance somewhat glumly.)
    (Her, brightly as if a joke, revealing that she fears it’s not.) “What? What is it? You’ve got to tell me!” (She is pulling on you.)
    (You, turning to give her nuclear eye contact, frowny-scrutiny) “You … you bother me, sometimes.” (Then smirk, and stand and leave.)

  89. I read Sandberg’s piece as not advising women to whore around and find a provider later. Remember now that she wrote an entire book “Lean In” telling women to lean more into the work world, thus making more money and providing more for themselves (and later families), but rather to not be so caught up on the youthful quests of looks and charm in a lifelong mate, but to find someone who shares your interests and values. Looks and charm are the first things teens and early 20 somethings look for in the opposite sex. As we age and think about our long term futures, we generally tend to take things like compatibility, culture, religious affiliation, and values into the equation.

    I dated a few drop dead gorgeous women in college but when it came to marriage I chose my wife, attractive but not an international beauty queen, because we had a lot in common and shared a values system.. 35 years later and we still get along great.

  90. You say rape is ‘bad’ (not wrong, not even ‘very’ bad!) but that it is the most effective way of ensuring that a woman cannot ensure their ‘entitlement’ to ‘hypergamy’. So actually it is a very useful tool in the box?

    You might as well admit it as all your followers will lap it all up anyway (especially if you obfuscate a bit with some unnecessarily intellectualised language), and everyone else knows already that you are a misogynist with more than a screw loose.

Leave a Reply