We’ll Do It Live! (again…well, sorta)

doitlive

Just a brief announcement here, I’ll be a guest on The Real Christian McQueen Show this Saturday. I’m not exactly sure when Christian and Dagonet will be posting the podcast, but I’ll be on with the guys at 4pm PST this coming Saturday. We’ll be discussing topics from The Rational Male book – which was publish one year ago this month – as well as questions from readers, the red pill subreddit forum and twitter.

If there’s some topic or question you’d like to suggest you can tweet Christian @RealCMcQueen, Dagonet his co-host @TheQuestFor50 or myself @RationalMale

There’s also a TRP subreddit thread you can post questions to, and of course feel free to drop suggestions in the comments here.

I don’t do many interviews, but I’m kind of looking forward to this. SInce the book was published I’ve had about six invitations to do an interview, but I’m kind of particular about who’s show I go with. I’d honestly rather be writing about what I do than talking about what I write, if that makes any sense.

This isn’t my first rodeo, but my last interview was for a SoSuave video podcast three years ago. I can’t vouch for that link still being active, but you get the idea. It should be fun.

27 comments

  1. If American society is truly headed for a bloody conflict or collapse, as many of us have concluded, then how do you suppose the female herd will react?

    As I understand it, r/K Theory (see the book by Anonymous Conservative for details) suggests that when the societal shit hits the fan, female hypergamy will push women away from the adventure of “cads” and toward the safety & security of “dads.” Do you agree?

  2. What is your advice for newly red pill aware men in marriages that they are not interested in leaving?

    It seems that you aren’t big on giving self-help advice, and prefer to just offer your take on things; but I would be interested to hear your advice, or at least what worked/is working for you in your marriage.

  3. Hi Rollo,
    Good luck with the interview. From someone in the UK who has read the Rational Male with interest, but has also been left depressed with regards to female hypergamy, the truth of taking the red pill and has been considering going my own way as a last resort, what advice would you give to a single introverted man at 38 years old who really wants to find a decent woman?

  4. Paul, random interjects are my speciality. Go to the Benelux countries. Very sound people, and the women for some reason I can’t fathom (yet) have loads more integrity about any sort of morals/honour question than the average fat slag from Blighty, whether they’re catholic or protestant. This can lead to a certain unnerving directness, I must warn you, but it’s all a good laugh once you get a handle on the mentality.
    Oh, and they’re quite tidy (in both senses) too, and can usually cook. Bonus.
    Watch out for the hollow legs if you get into a drinking situation though. You’ll flake out long before they do.

  5. I think I may have come up with a more precise definition of ‘Alpha male’.

    First some definitions for direct and indirect benefits in mate choice.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mate_choice#Direct_and_indirect_benefits

    Direct benefits are those that increase the fitness of the choosy sex through direct material advantages. These benefits include but are not limited to increased territory quality, increased parental care, and protection from predators. There is much support for maintenance of mate choice by direct benefits and it is the least controversial model to explain discriminate mating.

    Indirect benefits increase genetic fitness for the offspring. When it appears that the choosy sex does not receive direct benefits from his or her mate, indirect benefits may be the payoff for being selective. Examples of indirect benefits include better genetic quality and more attractive offspring. R. A. Fisher described this less obvious model in a book called The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection.[9] Fisher explained that, through indirect selection, fitter individuals inherit both the genes and the mating preference for some indicator trait. This linkage of an indicator trait and the preference for such trait results in exaggerated phenotypes and is known as Fisherian runaway selection.

    An ‘Alpha male’ is the male who gets the *best sex with the investment of the least direct benefits. Thus he is being selected primarily for indirect benefits.

    *Best sex= some optimum of quantity and quality. i.e. banging numerous hot 18 year old virgins is better sex than i) banging numerous hot 30 year old sluts, or ii) one hot 18 year old virgin. (Not sure if banging 1000 hot 18 year old virgins once is better than banging one hot 18 year old virgin for a lifetime, what one subjectively prefers would depend where one sits on the r vs K spectrum I imagine. (Personally I would prefer one hot 18 year old virgin for a lifetime who is also faithful and loyal over one night stands with 1000 different hot 18 year old virgins, but I guess I’m pretty K selected.))

    Or put even more precisely,

    An alpha male, is a male who is sexually selected maximally (or at the maximum) for indirect benefits while sexually selected minimally (or at the minimum) for direct benefits.

    This is also the optimum strategy for not being a cuckold.

    So a corollary of this definition would be that the alpha male, is the male who minimises the risk of cuckoldry.

  6. Here’s a question about some basics: I can find a date relatively easy and connect well on the first date, so there is almost always a second and third and so one. But I seem not to create a sexual tension/frame in that time and after a couple of meet ups either the interest of the girl seems to fade or it becomes more a friendship thing (which I get out of then).
    It might also have to do with the logistics, going mostly for drinks/food and not something where you can create physical intimacy more easily. Also the timid mindset likely plays a part here.

    Any advice on this? Appreciate your site and point of view but couldn’t find any practical input on that matter on it yet.

    Thanks and have a good time on the podcast!

  7. In fact when you think about it

    Indirect benefits=alpha fux and direct benefits=beta bux

    in the alpha fux, beta bux dichotomy.

  8. Rollo,

    Honestly, is it possible to turn the tide?

    “the social convention(s) women have instituted to keep men in as ‘resource providers”

    In other words women as parasite.

    Is this perhaps biologically immutable

  9. Please consider the following questions during tomorrows discussion.

    Is the feminine imperative allowed to march blatantly onward?

    Have a majority of men effectively become “chattel”; progressively more subjugated to female entitlements?

    Do females truly inherently lack the ability to accept responsibility, maintain integrity and behave honorably; should men believe women lack the genetic physiology necessary to express such qualities?

    Will mans vulgar predicament exemplified by mans frustration, confusion, anger, fakery and endless analysis herein (and in the entire manosphere) continue?

  10. Heywood – I see your logic, but I don’t agree. Markets move according to critical masses of fear and greed. If men have less fear, and women have more fear – then men will have more greed, while women will exercise less greed. But the greedier men won’t necessarily look like the same ‘beta dad’ stereotype we think of now. The whole dynamic will be changed, wherein men don’t necessarily settle for a chubby, greedy American slut-cum-wannabe-wife/mother.

  11. @Chris:

    An alpha male, is a male who is sexually selected maximally (or at the maximum) for indirect benefits while sexually selected minimally (or at the minimum) for direct benefits.

    While I do agree with this, we must remember that females still have an evolved strategy to minimize both trade offs (direct and indirect benefits)

    Allow me to explain, we both know that females consider only two quantities of selective value in their mate choices: genetic benefits (physical attractiveness – optimized in high-rate short-term mating), and direct benefits (material advantages – optimized in long term mating).

    Thus, long-term relationships (i.e. long term mating), and short term relationships are each just one of two TIME-VARIANT fitness strategies.

    Women have evolved to value long-term relationships because this implies direct-benefits (long term benefits with implications for paternal investment as the basis of selective value in long-term mating). But, they have also evolved to value short term relationships as this implies genetic benefits (genetic quality indicated in sensory biases fixed by evolutionary success, and subjectively assessed as physical attractiveness).

    Since these two forms of benefits are rooted in evolutionary strategies with conflicting optima, females have evolved a further strategy to MINIMIZE the trade-off in receiving one benefit at the cost of another – something we know as strategic pluralism (Alpha Fucks-Beta Bucks): where females are mate specific in receiving independent benefits(they tend to mate with the most physically attractive males for their genetic benefits, and manipulate the less attractive, but more resourceful males(who are frequently duped into supporting the offspring of the former) for their direct benefits.

    Note, that it is only recently (in human history) that women have placed more emphasis on short term mating but this wasn’t always what define hypergamy in the first place. In the past, hypergamy was a balance of the BEST PLURALISTIC strategy assessed by women (this is because both high ends of Alpha Fuck- Beta Bucks were hardly found in a single man).

    I can understand the need to simply the AF-BB dichotomy because the man who can best sedate both sides of this pluralistic need by women, is few and far in between. Nonetheless, this still doesn’t discount the view that women will always find ways to minimize these trade-offs in the SMP.

    @Rollo:
    Good to see you spreading that article (Orgasm Wars) on twitter. It’s filled with many *real* red pill truths. What’s funny is that I placed that same article on Heartiste’s website and it was quickly removed. LOL

  12. Women orgasm harder with supplicating betas. Women orgasm more frequently (per sexual episode) with long-term men, including those men with whom the women no longer bother initiating sex. Also, women orgasm more easily with a provider (a man they believe to be rich), believe it or not. Women are much much less likely to orgasm with a man they believe to be unfaithful, women are much less likely to orgasm with a dark triad man, and women are less likely to orgasm with a short term or one-night stand or man from whom they do not expect other benefits.

    Women do not choose *sexual* partners per se on the basis of the women’s orgasms. Period.

  13. I read it long ago. What I said is much more correct. Yes, I could win the citation war easily if I felt like it.

    The pretence that women’s choices tend to make “some kind of” sense under “some kind of” optimization is based on false hope.

  14. “I read it long ago. What I said is much more correct. Yes, I could win the citation war easily if I felt like it.”

    No you couldn’t because you are just making shit up. Since you “have returned to the fold, fwiw, if I ever left”, go back to the “Othosphere” and stop bothering the adults who are trying to talk rationally here.

  15. @ jf12

    Women orgasm harder with supplicating betas.
    (Never heard of this, can you please cite?)

    Women orgasm more frequently (per sexual episode) with long-term men, including those men with whom the women no longer bother initiating sex.
    (Never heard of this, can you please cite?)

    Also, women orgasm more easily with a provider (a man they believe to be rich), believe it or not.
    (I hve heard of the study where women orgasmed more with wealthy men)

    Women are much much less likely to orgasm with a man they believe to be unfaithful,
    (Never heard of this, can you please cite?)

    women are much less likely to orgasm with a dark triad man,
    (Never heard of this, can you please cite?)

    and women are less likely to orgasm with a short term or one-night stand or man from whom they do not expect other benefits.
    (Never heard of this, can you please cite?)

    Women do not choose *sexual* partners per se on the basis of the women’s orgasms. Period.
    (Never heard of this, can you please cite?)

    The ultimate indirect benefit is zero (or negative) actual benefit. Period.
    (Can you please explain this better?)

    I’m not trying to be rude, or obnoxious, it’s just that if you have evidence that could fundamentally rock my world-view, I’d love to know about it. I’m not the kind of person who likes to live in the dark.

  16. Thanks for sharing the Psychology Today article. It helped me with my unplugging and my coming to terms with the true female nature.

  17. The white knighting should be the second big clue: “If women choose these men, they must have good reasons. All we have to do is use our imagin-ations.”

  18. re: explaining psychosexosocial choices and behaviors. It was Freud who first emphasized the explanatory power of the death-drive concept. Hedonism explains surprisingly little of human behavor. Very seriously, “If it feels good, do it” has never been true in any explanatory sense: it’s simply not true that if it feels good that someone is doing it, nor that if someone is doingit that it feels goodnecessarily. At all. And neither utilitarianism for the individual nor ANY kind of “greatest good” species-wide benefit has ever been shown to arise evolutionarily. If anything, experiments and experience tell us that natural selection results from the maximizing of the greatest evils happening to the greatest number (of “others”).

    But whether or not you consider it strictly pathological per se for Thanatos to be combined with, and not separated from, Eros, plenty of the relevant facts previously discussed do NOT fit well if at all into the airyfairy dismissive “Well, her body knows what it’s doing for the best” paradigm. These facts include the war bride phenomenon, women’s unshakable attractions to bad boys including serial killers, and the certifiable behavior of women being much more likely to have unprotected sex with a man they believe to have been recently promiscuous. For starters.

Speak your mind

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s