Back to Basics

basics

 

In last week’s post my intent was to shed some light on how an idealized state of egalitarian equalism and gender parity is always at odds with our ‘feral’ natures which evolved not due to co-equal partnership between the sexes, but from a complementarity between the sexes that fostered the then mutually beneficial imperatives of both.

Any time I suggest the ‘nature’ of how human beings’ evolved psyches influence our personal and social interaction in the now, I’m always going to get resistance from the “rise above our natures” faction of humanistic (and moralistic) hopefuls that insist the instinctual natures which made us such a successful species can (or should) be sublimated by our higher rational (or spiritual) selves.

I can fully relate with those who see the red pill as cynical or pessimistic.

When egalitarian equalism has been the model you’ve been conditioned to believe from birth is the only viable model to base a society and personal relation on, anything different, especially brutal observable realities, is going to smack of cynicism and defeatism.

One reason I believe most guys, either reject the concept of Alpha or want Alpha to fit into a super-heroic ‘leader-of-men’ archetypal definition is because it agrees better with an egalitarian mindset. Most women like to cast Alpha in this way because it serves the public relations aspect of their hypergamy better – Beta men make better, more dedicated resource providers when the only message they hear is what they’re doing is ‘the real Alpha’.

It’s not until men are confronted with the cruel realities in real time that they have an opportunity to learn from experience that, for as much as they want to cling to the ‘open communication / rise above our programming’ memes of egalitarianism, the observable (often painful) reality is one where women’s instinctual natures dictate their behaviors. And, as might be expected of an equalist mindset, those behaviors are then excused and rationalized as forgivable “human vulnerabilities” – and if you don’t forgive them, you risk being judgmental and further fail to live up to the egalitarian equalist/humanist ideal.

The Feral Woman

As loathe as I am to give the HuffPo any link love, I read with interest Why Great Husbands Are Being Abandoned. I’m going to quote some of it here, but I do so because it seems to me that even the bastions of equalist thought are finally, begrudgingly, coming to terms with the inherent failings of reconciling equalism with evolved, conventional, complementarity among the sexes.

In the last few decades women have slowly driven their point home. The millennial men, who are their current counterparts, are freer thinkers and they have responded in kind in their relationships as well. These men like their women strong and feisty, and have willingly accepted the responsibility to connect in a more vulnerable way. They get it that it’s sexy to help make a meal or take the kids away on a Sunday morning so their wives can sleep in. They are the androgynous guys that their women have asked them to become.

You would think that the women in these new relationships would be ecstatic. They’ve got a guy who wants to work out together, share parenting, support their parallel dreams, and make their family collective central to both of their lives. They’ve established an equal relationship of coordinated teamwork, and the guys don’t seem to miss their old need to posture for power over intimate connections.

Well, guess again. Fifty percent of marriages are still ending in divorce, and women continue to be the gender that initiates those endings. In the past, their reasons for leaving most often had to do with infidelity, neglect, or abuse. Now they’re dumping men who are faithful, attentive, and respectful, the very men they said they have always wanted. Why would women who have accomplished the female dream suddenly not be satisfied with it? Why are they leaving these ideal guys, and for what reasons?

I am currently dealing with several of these great husbands. They are, across the board, respectful, quality, caring, devoted, cherishing, authentic, and supportive guys whose wives have left them for a different kind of man. These once-beloved men make a living, love their kids, help with chores, support aging parents, and support their mate’s desires and interests. They believe they’ve done everything right. They are devastated, confused, disoriented, and heartsick. In a tragic way, they startlingly resemble the disheartened women of the past who were left behind by men who “just wanted something new.”

You may think that these women are ruthless and inconsiderate. Those I know are far from that. More often, they still love their husbands as much as they ever did, but in a different way. They tell me how wonderful their men are and how much they respect them. They just don’t want to be married to them anymore.

I read this article after I’d read the plea for Traditional Masculinity in the Jezebel groupthink article I linked in last week’s post and it struck me that along with the societal emphasis on a more overt and open hypergamy comes a need to reconcile it with equalism. This is proving to be a tall order as articles of this nature illustrate.

It’s important to understand that this internal conflict isn’t coming from men trying to square their sexual impulses with their higher-self aspiration of honor, duty and integrity. This conflict is coming from women who’ve been raised with expectations of gender parity, equalism and ‘open communication’ to resolve differences.

These women are now observing their own behavior and trying to reconcile the base feral motivators (hypergamy) with “how things ought to be” in an idealized state of egalitarian equalism.

These women cannot help but see the very observable consequences of open hypergamy now. I don’t necessarily disagree with the conclusions Randi Gunther comes to at the end of this article, I just disagree with how he comes to them.

Then things started to go awry. Perhaps these androgynous couples over-valued adopting the same behaviors in their relationship. Maybe the men got too nice and the women a little too challenging. Oddly, the androgynous men seemed to like their new-found emotional availability, while the women began to feel more unfulfilled. Her “perfect” partner, in the process of reclaiming his full emotional expressiveness, somehow ended up paying an unfair price; he was no longer able to command the hierarchical respect from her that was once his inalienable right.

What Randi doesn’t consider is the natural complementary states men and women’s psychological firmware descended from since our hunter-gatherer tribal beginnings. He can’t consider it because it disagrees with the ‘higher-selves overcoming our natural state’ aspect of egalitarian humanism.

But the observable truth is right there in front of him, with his head in his hands, so he can’t ignore it. Naturally the first recourse is to force fit this truth into a more palatable egalitarian framework, but even this falls flat (as evidenced by the predictably dismissive comments). What he and the commenters can’t reconcile is the truth of the androgynous men directly created by egalitarian equalism and the natural and instinctual predisposition of feminine hypergamy.

Red pill aware men see this for what it is because we’re accepting of the truth of women’s feral natures and what it prompts them to, but this is an excellent illustration of the primary differences between a red and blue pill mindset.

There is a primal need women have for natural masculine dominance. Whether this dominance is physical (looks and sexual prowess), psychological (Game) or provisional, women are seeking a dominance that an androgynous man is incapable of providing. As I’ve stated in prior posts, androgyny is homogeny, and nature stagnates (and often dies out) in conditions of homogeny. Androgynous men, by definition aren’t men – they are neither masculine or feminine – so is it any surprise that women’s innate, heteronormative, subliminal and tingle inducing need for a traditionally masculine man is frustrated by the same egalitarian mindset they’ve fostered in compliant men for so long?

Primal femininity is confused and frustrated by blank-slate equalism.

The Blue Pill Painted Red

As open hypergamy and the conflict between equalism and complementarity becomes more evident the advocates for that ‘touchy-feely’ “men need to be more balanced with Beta” sentimentalism will find it increasingly more difficult to sell that brand of equalism.

I’m aware of many a former (nominally) red pill blogger who’s dropped their previous advocacy for masculine (Alpha) attributes being arousing/attractive in favor of a diluted blue pill ‘new age sensitive guy’ message that better resonates with his increasingly female readership. While spinning just enough red pill into what accounts for a blue pill ideology might make for better, temporary, revenue, it only aggravates the same conflict between equalism and complementarity that Gunther here is exposing.

The DeadBedrooms subreddit is an excellent example of this conflict. I’ll warn you now, this forum will depress you, but virtually every personal admission here is a testament to what men were conditioned to believe women would want in a man, in a relationship, and the empirical results of the imbalance between a blue pill mindset and a red pill reality.

The popular message, the socially acceptable one, is that what makes a man an ideal long term partner will necessarily make him a tingle inducing sexual prospect. It sounds right, and it lifts women on whole up to a more idealized, humanist, higher-self.

Prior to the push for a more open hypergamy, what woman wanted to cop to love fucking the bad boys and “best sex ever” short term partners? No dutiful Beta wants to hear that truth, so the praises of the “respectful, quality, caring, devoted, cherishing, authentic, and supportive” guys are sung.

It may sell books and increase click-thru traffic, but ultimately hypergamy doesn’t care about higher-self aspirations or the conditioned delusions of men who believe that what makes men an attractive prospect for Beta Bucks will necessarily turn women on for Alpha Fucks. Your proof is in the DeadBedrooms subred.

Before I end here, I feel I have to address that I do in fact believe that men and women can, and regularly do, rise above our innate instinctual natures. Obviously civilization didn’t reach the point we have by not controlling our base natures. The problem I see now is the social order established to effect that control is failing to account for the conflict between equalism and complementarity.

If there’s a take away lesson to be learned from Gunther’s article it’s not that men are lacking in Beta attributes or sensitivity training to balance their asshole Alpha egos. If anything the vast majority of men have too much invested in that Beta equalism and sentimentality.

Whether it’s openly or covert, the message we get from those men’s consequences is that women are overwhelmingly conveying the want for traditional masculine dominance, prowess, control and even a bit of the cocky ego that legitimately comes along with it.

It’s been mentioned in many a manosphere comment thread that, the medium is the message, and women’s medium has been proving that their interests lean much more openly towards Alpha Fucks, even after marriage, even after consolidation on Beta Bucks provisioning.

Published by Rollo Tomassi

Author of The Rational Male and The Rational Male, Preventive Medicine

Leave a Reply

  Subscribe  
Notify of
Dr. Jeremy
Guest
Dr. Jeremy
Offline

@ BV That comment was in response to a series of questions and statements by LiveFearless. From my understanding, he was specifically asking me where scientists and the application of science seem to go off course, become biased, and cause problems. That was my long-winded two cents reply. Now, if you’re asking me how the practice of science should ideally operate, then I’m inclined to agree with you. It should be objective. It should simply reveal “what is” in a reproducible and falsifiable way. It should not simply be selling what others wish to hear or pandering to popular opinion.… Read more »

George
Guest
George
Offline

@kfg

Concerning your response to my comments about Cinderella, Snow White, etc…

Thank you for referring to the original versions written in the 1600s and early 1800s.

But…this year is 2014….and the stories have been rewritten…several times since the originals….they have “evolved” to accommodate new propaganda imperatives. Review the most recent versions. The latest Rapunzel Disney video production I’m familiar with is very different than anything remotely like the original version or the version I was exposed to in the 60s, it is not even the same story line. It depicts Rapunzel as a very masculine acting hero figure.

George
Guest
George
Offline

Description of the latest “Rapunzel” can be reviewed here:

http://disney.wikia.com/wiki/Rapunzel

George
Guest
George
Offline

The review http://disney.wikia.com/wiki/Rapunzel includes the following:

“In the closing narration, Eugene says that he has accepted Rapunzel’s proposal after years and years of asking, only to be corrected by Rapunzel. Eugene then amends that he asked her, which Rapunzel supports by stating that they are living happily ever after, which presumes that the two have wed.”

If you want to induce vomiting, read the entire review.

LiveFearless
Guest

@Dr. Jeremy, when I refer to scientists that ‘spout’ I am not referring to you. You’re a man that understands science and understands your audience. You’re not here trying to show how much more intelligent you are than every in this space including the creative genius and writer of The Rational Male. You think like an actual scientist. Real scientists, like my buddy Ray Cronise, are full of humility despite the inventions, innovations and discoveries that’ve changed everything. They tend to not want the spotlight at all, but, in Ray’s case, he finally allowed his work to show up in… Read more »

David W
Guest
David W
Offline

@ Tomassi You can use Freezepage. com to freeze and link pages without promoting them. Also, you said “…the advocates for that ‘touchy-feely’ “men need to be more balanced with Beta” sentimentalism will find it increasingly more difficult to sell that brand of equalism. What about a more balanced alpha? Can you put a rough percentage on what you see as the ideal alpha beta mix? (or maybe you already have and I missed it.) It seems to me that a mix of alpha/beta, overall 50%/50%, but at times skewed wildly in one direction, would be best in the confines… Read more »

Professor Von Hardwiggs
Guest
Professor Von Hardwiggs
Offline

”What Randi doesn’t consider is the natural complementary states men and women’s psychological firmware descended from since our hunter-gatherer tribal beginnings. He can’t consider it because it disagrees with the ‘higher-selves overcoming our natural state’ aspect of egalitarian humanism.” Our natural state is that of women only mating with the best-looking/richest males, that’s how it was back then. Women also had no idea who was the father of their children because they mated with several elite men at the same time. The leader of the tribe would hoard the most attractive women, but the rest of the women would be… Read more »

Professor Von Hardwiggs
Guest
Professor Von Hardwiggs
Offline

”I’d argue that millennial men have become submissive men, especially after being born to a generation of “strong and independent” mothers. I’d take this a step further and argue today’s men have deep “Mommy Issues.” They want the woman to lead and be in charge. They are even turned on by this. They want to submit to the Feminine Imperative.” Speak for yourself, bro. i don’t have mommy issues. Whenever my mother would begin with her nagging I’d either zone her out or I’d get out of the house and I would only return when it was nighttime. My grandmother… Read more »

kfg
Guest
kfg
Offline

“its not even natural for true Alpha males to bother with women past sex and reproduction. ”

Self checkout machines at the supermarket have helped.

Kid Jupiter
Guest
Kid Jupiter
Offline

To J.J., Regarding your insightful comment way earlier about men becoming more balanced, while women have devolved into ferality: However, you’re misusing the term “feral” in this context. Women haven’t “remained feral,” because that would mean that they’re always been feral. A “feral” animal is one that was once domesticated, but is now living in the wild. A good example is a house cat that’s put out on it’s own into the wild – called a “feral cat.” Another good (maybe better, in this context) example is a domesticated pig that gets loose and goes into the wild; it eventually… Read more »

Vicus
Guest
Vicus
Offline

“The Unbearable Lightness of Being“ is a 1988 American film adaptation of the novel of the same name by Milan Kundera, published in 1984. Tomas is Alpha im extasis, Sabine his 1 tier kitten, all woman left are just all punp and dummps until Tereza show up… Sabine is sex, Tereza is love.Tomas want all too… once I was in that situation too, i saw this film wich boath of them , of course each one girl was in Persona whit diferent woman two weeks ago i saw this film again…and then strook me like a bolt! Sabine is hotter,… Read more »

muddge
Guest
muddge
Offline

Anyone care to comment about the NFL proposal re: domestic abuse: a 6-game suspension for a first offense, and LIFETIME (???????!!!!!!!) ban for a second offense?

kfg
Guest
kfg
Offline

Stop watching sportstainment. Take up an individual athletic activity in the time you would have spent watching other people actually do things, but be very wary of formally organized events.

Runners and cyclists can use Strava to fulfill their competitive urges and informal games with trusted friends are more fun anyway.

Professor Von Hardwiggs
Guest
Professor Von Hardwiggs
Offline

”Most men now will be limited in achieving dominion inside their own concentric circles: Their bodies, their minds, their jobs, and their material possessions. But now, most men can barely achieve dominion over their bodies (obesity, substance abuse) and their minds (mass media, porn, idiocracy). But all this is obvious. The main problem is that most men will never have an incentive to try to achieve mastery over anything else beyond their own minds and bodies.” You should see how being aware of the anti-male laws can do for one’s self-control. Basically, anytime a non-hot male is in the presence… Read more »

Professor Von Hardwiggs
Guest
Professor Von Hardwiggs
Offline

””Most men now will be limited in achieving dominion ” Well, I’m sure the testosterone created by pumping iron makes men a little bit hit with fever, but you’re lamenting the lack of Bonapartes, Genghis Khan and the sort? You do know that most men do not have the genetic potential nor the means to conquer the Persian Empire, right? I know I might sound a bit effeminate or beta or whatever it is, but I’m not interested in dying at the age of 33. Hell, I laugh my ass off when I hear of some guy my brother knows,… Read more »

Nathan
Guest
Nathan
Offline

A Culture of accepted promiscuity has demoralized our nation terribly.
Miley cirus, beyonce, kim slut kardashian are our celebrated female celebrities/role models.
On the other side ours EMINEM! And Jay-Z

Burn it down

justsomedude
Guest
justsomedude
Offline

It’s cultural marxism at work but in the long run it won’t be sustainable. Cases like Rotherham will get some peple to wake up and restore the order.

Dr. Jeremy
Guest
Dr. Jeremy
Offline

@ BuenaVista, I meant to tell you I appreciated your final comment summary of our discussion at J4G on this issue too. I particularly liked your decision science approach. In regard to the question you posed about “on average” vs. “your dead” in relationship exchange… To me, the probability-weight of the exchange changes at marriage, due to a number of inequitable laws. In other words, the game changes when we go from the SMP to the MMP. As a result, I think my approach can work for creating longer-term relationships – up to cohabitation (for those interested). However, in our… Read more »

Dr. Jeremy
Guest
Dr. Jeremy
Offline

edit: should have been “you’re dead”…

Professor Von Hardwiggs
Guest
Professor Von Hardwiggs
Offline

”Within those limitations, however, I am trying to find potential solutions for men (and women) who would like something other than just ONS or beta-orbiting…that will not leave men twisting in the breeze either. I’m still learning and refining too though. That is why I keep engaging in these discussions.” So, Susan Walsh male version, huh? Dr, there is no returning to marriage and the value women find in men depends on what they can do for them. That is why you see women allowing men to be their beta orbiters. These guys work under the cover of friendship but… Read more »

heyjay
Guest
heyjay
Offline

@ Hardwiggs: On ghosting and the information on women available: For me it’s kind of true what you’re writing here. I read a lot of Rollo and Roissy and it makes you jaded. I remember I never have held anything against women. I thought they were genuinely nice people, I was a classical beta perhaps. Not anymore. One day I just snapped. And yeah, we as men need our own spaces again. I’m working out and even in the locker room and the sauna you have female staff checking or cleaning stuff. The other way round would be impossible! In… Read more »

KId Jupiter
Guest
KId Jupiter
Offline

One of the foundational tenets of (Cultural) Marxism is the destruction of the family, in order to have people dependent upon the State for the security and stability that was formerly provided by the family – both nuclear and extended family. The weakening and effeminization/emasculation of men, concurrent with the “empowerment/liberation” and masculinization of women (unrestrained hypergamy), has advanced this cause quite nicely, probably to the point of no returning to the old family-based social structure – barring some type of major, macro-level catastrophe in the society – economic collapse, infrastructure collapse, etc. – whereby Western society is thrown out… Read more »

J.J.
Guest
J.J.
Offline

Maybe you guys should start realising that humans are not machines and that there are meant to be major variations in the level of masculinity or femininity in both genders – and due to that, in the past, people always found their match / mate in the opposite gender (eventually). If you mess with that artificially and start promotion an ideal level of masculinity (in the case of femininity this is not happening…), you are unbalancing the natural equilibrium of how nature orders things. SO, “sensitive” men and introverted men, who could be exceptionally heroic or brave or physically strong,… Read more »

J.J.
Guest
J.J.
Offline

The idea that all betas are going to become or turn into alphas is the biggest illusion this side of the century.

People are born how they are born – this is set by nature. There has to be balance. Sure, a small percentage of betas may mimic alphas effectively, but ultimately they are still beta (in the current understanding of beta), yet you will find that the vast majority of so-called alphas display the traits which from a progression of society point of view point to beta traits – that is: not the builders of society.

J.J.
Guest
J.J.
Offline

@ Kid Jupiter

“Women were once “tame” in our society, when their hypergamy was kept in check via societal mores, shaming, morals, etc. They’ve now become “feral” in our society, now that those checks on their natural hypergamy have been removed. It’s akin to the house cat or pig getting loose into the wild.”

You are absolutely correct – I did not clarify that properly, but you have done it for me – thank you.

Kid Jupiter
Guest
Kid Jupiter
Offline

@ J.J. Bringing the ‘nature vs. nurture’ dichotomy into this, do you think men are strictly born an ‘Alpha’ or ‘Beta’, or does the environment they’re raised in create the ‘Alpha’ or ‘Beta’? I’m not sure about this myself, but I get the feeling that environmental factors have a whole lot to do with it. But there’s definitely a natural, observable genetic baseline in this equation, as well. I think if a boy has enlightened Red Pill parents, they can coax out more Alpha traits by encouraging them, while discouraging the Beta traits, during the imprint stage and beyond. I’m… Read more »

Professor Von Hardwiggs
Guest
Professor Von Hardwiggs
Offline

”Women were once “tame” in our society, when their hypergamy was kept in check via societal mores, shaming, morals, etc. They’ve now become “feral” in our society, now that those checks on their natural hypergamy have been removed. It’s akin to the house cat or pig getting loose into the wild.” You are absolutely correct – I did not clarify that properly, but you have done it for me – thank you.” Yes. In the Muslim world women are tamed. Look how stagnant and prehistoric their society is. Do you want that? The problem with the western world is the… Read more »

J.J.
Guest
J.J.
Offline

@ Professor Von Hardwiggs “Yes. In the Muslim world women are tamed. Look how stagnant and prehistoric their society is. Do you want that?” Obviously not. No-one is talking about those societies – we are comparing the more traditional past. “Women are not loyal to any man, only to themselves, and even Alpha males are treated like trash, used, and dumped.” Well, we don’t want this either do we? So what do we want? Something in-between maybe? We used to have that – not so many years ago. What we have at the moment is proof that the idea of… Read more »

J.J.
Guest
J.J.
Offline

@ Professor Von Hardwiggs “Tame” in the above context means developed as human beings. Formed and cultured. Rather than undeveloped, unformed, feral – thinking with their “tingles” first and only with that. No wonder alphas love the feral types. Women have no self-control these days and self control comes form being a developed human being, able to be responsible and not just follow your base urges. Obviously in their current state women are not able to commit. Besides, when last have any of you tried to have a conversation of any kind of depth with any of these “sophisticated” ladies… Read more »

J.J.
Guest
J.J.
Offline

“Bringing the ‘nature vs. nurture’ dichotomy into this, do you think men are strictly born an ‘Alpha’ or ‘Beta’, or does the environment they’re raised in create the ‘Alpha’ or ‘Beta’?” Not an easy question to answer and all of this is much more complex than game theory would let us believe. No, I don’t think men are born strictly alpha or beta. I do think that the environment you are brought up in can mould you – as it should, if it is a positive, well-structured environment. The question is: who decides what is alpha and what is beta?… Read more »

J.J.
Guest
J.J.
Offline

My last post was addressed to: @ Kid Jupiter

BuenaVista
Guest
BuenaVista
Offline

Dr. J writes: “To me, the probability-weight of the exchange changes at marriage, due to a number of inequitable laws. … As a result, I think my approach can work for creating longer-term relationships – up to cohabitation (for those interested). However, in our current society, the usefulness of the approach breaks down in marriage (or even parenting-without-marriage). When a legal/contractual situation unilaterally strips the majority of resources from one “trading” partner and “entitles” it to the other, I don’t see how there can be equitable outcomes…or even exchange.” Agreed. Though as a divorced man I would note that cohabitation… Read more »

Carl
Guest
Carl
Offline

That DeadBedrooms place is scary. One repeated theme that I saw in there was the women turning off the tap/denying sex once she is married…or even just engaged. Glad I’m a bachelor.

Kate
Guest
Kate
Offline

@BV: 1. I wouldn’t advise anyone to “hope” any more than I’d advise them to “pull and pray” when it is so easy nowadays to know the “science” behind relationships and reproduction. 2. Shouldn’t a man always marry “down”? Isn’t that the only way to ensure against hypergamy raising its ugly head? You want to be a happily married man? Marry not the woman you adore but the woman who adores you. If these happen to be the same person, all the better. But it is far more important for the woman to love the man than the man to… Read more »

J.J.
Guest
J.J.
Offline

“Are women what is most important?” wink

George
Guest
George
Offline

Rollo, Thank you for referencing and recommending The 48 Laws of Power. I’m reading it now, also read The Art of Seduction. These are excellent reads. Currently I’m reading the chapter entitled “Avoid Stepping Into A Powerful Mans shoes”, specifically the excerpt, “The Problem of Paul Morphy”. This reference to chess and the sterilization, death (checkmate) of the king (father figure) is extremely interesting to me as it may relate to,the context of our discussions here. I grew up playing chess often. The chess king is the second weakest chess piece (weakest second to the sacrificial pawn). The queen is… Read more »

Professor Von Hardwiggs
Guest
Professor Von Hardwiggs
Offline

The problem with Men is that the majority of us are romantics by nature. We were indoctrinated by the women who raised us in kindergardens, who controlled our social growing-up in elementary school, and as we joined the hordes of Junior high schoolers, we were unprepared to deal with the power females wield over males ”. Shouldn’t a man always marry “down”? Isn’t that the only way to ensure against hypergamy raising its ugly head? You want to be a happily married man? Marry not the woman you adore but the woman who adores you. If these happen to be… Read more »

Professor Von Hardwiggs
Guest
Professor Von Hardwiggs
Offline

‘In life, there are only two types of person. The ones who are used and the ones who are abused.”

The ones who are used and the ones who use *

Professor Von Hardwiggs
Guest
Professor Von Hardwiggs
Offline

”That DeadBedrooms place is scary. One repeated theme that I saw in there was the women turning off the tap/denying sex once she is married…or even just engaged. Glad I’m a bachelor.” Aha, that’s what nearly every woman does. They make it look like they are crazy in lust/love with their target, then whey they’ve succeeded in having the sucker invest money/time/resources/his future to her, she closes down the water flow and she’ll use sex sporadically to get from her husband/boyfriend what she wants.That’s why women get so crazy when you show no sexual desire for them. Women are incapable… Read more »

FM
Guest
FM
Offline

Just need a bunch more from you on “married/LTR” game. You have some posts, but not nearly enough. Why are YOU successful at your marriage?

Bluepillprofessor
Guest
Bluepillprofessor
Offline

Only 2? With unnamed bloggers peddling a blue pill painted red that leaves you an Dalrock as some of the last married men standing up to the feminine imperative.

Off the top of my head how about:

-Is the betafication of men in marriage inevitable?

-Dread in LTR’s

-The Married Man’s Frame

-The long-long Game

-Fulfilling AF/BB in LTR’s

-When can you turn it around?

-When is it time to call the lawyer?

-Shit Tests and Comfort Tests in LTR’s

etc

anarcho
Guest
anarcho
Offline

Incase anyones interested (don’t judge the man by his knitwear!)

Bluedog
Guest
Bluedog
Offline

Rollo usually I just read here and don’t comment much but there are a few places I think I need to more aggressively challenge you – not on the basis of different camp, but more on the basis of iron-sharpening-iron. You habitually collude humanism and equalism. They are not the same. Also – you are wont to equate expressions of human aspiration that are found in conventional wisdom with humanism, per se, which I think is an error. Humanism has a lot going for it and try as you might, the fact is that whether you are fully conscious of… Read more »

bluedog
Guest
bluedog
Offline

Correction in above post, middle paragraph should read: “If we correct that blind spot then we need to acknowledge several humanist insights: men OR women, androdyne OR not – are morally equal, and from their moral equality follows their equality of autonomy.”

trackback

[…] are natural traits and natural gifts that both sexes have. They are not equal, they are complimentary. It’s about time we stopped trying to be zoo animals. The men who engineered your sewage pipes […]

trackback

[…] Since in or around about the mid-2000s a verifiable cottage industry has sprouted up on the web to advise men on how to game women. And its not just men who are providing these services – even women are getting in on the act. Over time, this part of the internet, known as the manosphere, has transformed into something bigger: advice how on how to become a man, various critiques of feminism, a bastion of paleo-conservatism and at its most darkest, an insight into the darwinian female psyche. […]

trackback

[…] Since in or around about the mid-2000s a verifiable cottage industry has sprouted up on the web to advise men on how to game women. And its not just men who are providing these services – even women are getting in on the act. Over time, this part of the internet, known as the manosphere, has transformed into something bigger: advice how on how to become a man, various critiques of feminism, a bastion of paleo-conservatism and at its most darkest, an insight into the darwinian female psyche. […]

trackback

[…] Over time, this part of the internet, known as the ‘manosphere’, has transformed into something bigger: advice how on how to become a man, various critiques of feminism, a bastion of paleo-conservatism and at its most darkest, an insight into the darwinian female psyche. […]

%d bloggers like this: