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.
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?
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.
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?
Haven’t been this excited about recording in a while. Looking forward to bringing readers a 1st class episode with you.
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.… Read more »
Professor Von Hardwiggs,
Please send us some pictures…
…I really want to see this shit.
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
In fact when you think about it
Indirect benefits=alpha fux and direct benefits=beta bux
in the alpha fux, beta bux dichotomy.
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
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?
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.
@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.… Read more »
I don’t understand why, it confirms quite a bit of the Chateau assertions.
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… Read more »
@jf12, my guess is you haven’t read this yet:
The ultimate indirect benefit is zero (or negative) actual benefit. Period.
Any attempt to make women’s choices seem more rational is necessarily an irrational attempt.
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.
“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.
. . . this guy jf12 . . . what a keyboard jockey!
@ 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… Read more »
Since the announcement, SOUNDCLOUD has been working around the clock, expanding its servers to handle the listener traffic.
Thanks for sharing the Psychology Today article. It helped me with my unplugging and my coming to terms with the true female nature.
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.”
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… Read more »