Bad Painter had a great question a few months ago:
What exactly is intimacy? What does that look like in a Redpill context?
I used to think I knew what intimacy was, in a blue pill way at least. And I have come the realization that intimacy is either not worth shit, or I simply don’t get it. What I do know is that those times were I was informed intimacy had been achieved were not correlated with my feeling comfortable, more secure or less anxious rather it was the opposite.
This is a good question.
In my writing I use the term ‘intimacy’ as a sort of confirmation of a woman’s genuine interest, but I don’t think I’ve ever really defined it.
Strictly from a PUAs sense I would say intimacy is a woman’s sexual availability – in no uncertain terms it’s confirmation of her intimate interest and acceptance of you, but then again, in my own sexual past I’ve had more than one fuck-buddy with whom I really didn’t share any real intimacy with.
In those instances I was (at least perceived) a point or so above these women’s SMV and enjoyed all the Alpha benefits that arrangement afforded me, but beyond the sexual, I had no real interest in any kind of intimacy, shared or not.
In a sense, I actually had a much deeper intimacy with the three fuck-buddies I would bang in my 20’s than the women with whom I’d invested myself with in more “meaningful” relationships. You see, with my fuck-buddies all pretense of caring about what they thought of me personally (and certainly from a long-term investment) was simply a non-issue. I was free to express as much or as little of myself as I wanted because I wasn’t actively qualifying for their future investment in me. My Frame was dominant from the outset – sex-on-call is a pretty strong indicator of dominant Frame.
When I was writing the final edits of the Wait For It? post for the Rational Male book I felt that I needed to add a caveat towards the end of that section to account for a sense of intimacy for red pill men, who by conviction or otherwise, weren’t comfortable with actually fucking a woman to confirm genuine desire.
The point of that being that sex isn’t necessarily a determinant of intimacy, but rather the real desire for that person and the want for a mutual connection (to be consummated by sex) creates a condition of intimacy.
“When one considers that one must “game” a woman, even your wife, in order to keep her around, then it also means that you must always be operating at a “higher level” than her. It totally negates the whole notion of having a “soul-mate” and means that on many levels, a man will always be alone.”
That is probably the most important lesson a man can ever learn.
Intimacy with a woman is impossible if you have any interest in being her lover. If you are fine with being one of her grrrlfriends, and don’t mind the stupid messed up games women run on them, then you can share to your heart’s content – and will always be on the LJBF ladder.
The fundamental problem with today’s concept of marriage is that it seems both men and women expect their spouse to be all things to them – lover, confidante, helpmate, “soulmate”, co-housekeeper, and co-wage-earner. With so many role demands, it is inevitable that everyone will fail at some of them. That is why the old division of roles worked fairly well for most people – each could concentrate on a few things they were good at, and leave the rest to the other person.
Zenpriest outlines one of the fundamental differences between a forced egalitarian equalist approach to relationships with the natural complementary approach – intimacy between two autonomous, self-sufficient, self-reliant individuals is an impossibility in a sustained relationship. If there is a complete self-sustaining independence between both partners (an eqaulist idealized state) then there is no true purpose for intimacy between the two.
I have been the Alpha Fucks, the Beta Bucks, and I have been both at the same time. Civil marriage requires a man, as Deti notes by inverse example, to commit to permanent Game. Permanent Game rarely involves true intimacy. This is the reality of the Plan B Nice Guy in marriage.
It seems that intimacy, like love, is only possible if you are greater than (and thus truly independent of) the object of your love.
In my opinion, intimacy is unchanged by the red pill. It’s the ideas and perceptions about it that are changed.
There’s a lot of dichotomy: sex, attention, and affection are all thought of as needs, but at the same time, if you’re not getting any of those things, the only way to get them is to take on the mindset of having an abundance of them.
And the guys who seem to have free access to all of those things have access to them because they don’t care if they have access to them or not.
I have to consider these perspectives of intimacy and cross reference it with the Cardinal Rule of Relationships:
In any relationship, the person with the most power is the one who needs the other the least.
Although in an extreme this may seem manipulative to the uninitiated, this balance exists in every relationship irrespective of whether one party is intentionally using that power or not. In fact the most frustrated men you’ll ever meet are those whose women aren’t intentionally using the power his qualifying for her intimacy bestows upon her. He wonders why he can never merit her intimacy, while she, obliviously, wonders why he keeps trying to merit it.
As I illustrated in my fuck-buddies example, I was free to be as intimate as I chose with them because I literally had nothing to lose by doing so. And in that state of outcome indifference they wanted those occasions of intimacy far more than any woman I’d held in a high enough esteem to think I needed to qualify for their intimacy.
However, from a Red Pill perspective, I think the idea that “real” intimacy requires a constant effort of Game is in error. I’ve shared an enduring intimacy with Mrs. Tomassi for 19 years because Game and Red Pill awareness are simply part of who I am now. Game, if that’s even the right word for it, becomes effortless once you’ve made Red Pill truths an intrinsic part of who you are.
I still think Buena’s right though, permanent Game rarely involves true intimacy, but only if that Game is a constant act a man feels he needs to make believable to sustain his relationship. This then comes full circle to wanting to fulfill Blue Pill idealisms of intimacy with applied Red Pill awareness.
Learn this now, you will never achieve contentment or emotional fulfillment in a blue pill context with red pill awareness.
Most men’s concept of intimacy, like love, is shaped by his Blue Pill conditioning. The key to real intimacy is understanding how it can grow and be sustained in a Red Pill context. Chasing after an intimacy defined by the feminine suffers from the same misdirection of presuming women’s concept of love (opportunism) agrees with men’s (idealism).
So, weekend discussion questions:
How do you define intimacy?
Do you think men and women share the same concept and definition of intimacy?
Is ‘true’ intimacy only achievable when you have nothing to lose and nothing invested in a woman?
End Note: I’m well aware that intimacy has far broader inferences than just the relations between men and women, and I’m not attempting to pigeonhole the entire concept. There is intimacy with your family, your God, your pets, yourself and a variety of other things. However, even in those instances there is still a power dynamic at play.
[…] Intimacy […]
I hesitate to comment as my reflections on this topic reflect only 2-3 years of red pill study, following a lifetime of aspiring to mimic my father (blue pill provider drafthorse), and being married 20+ years in equalitarian (not complementarian) conditions. Red pill thinking has transformed my social — and professional — realities, and that’s saying something if you’re my age. I do find that I revisit old behaviors unwittingly, if I’m infatuated. By this I mean that I revert to a blue pill definition of “intimacy”, often, or see myself backsliding in that direction. I entered adulthood practicing an… Read more »
About 2 times a year I spend a total of 12 hours indulging in and “missing” the blue pill and its sweet, sweet oblivion. This of course passes, and the ineffable truth and reality of the next morning (and 363 more days) rushes back. You can’t escape the reality of being an American man in 2015 which summarized, includes: 1. The search for the unconditional love from their mother will never be achieved with a mate. 2. A healthy male/female dynamic resembles animal husbandry more than some type of “equal partnership”. 3. For me, and few others at the very… Read more »
Question #3: I disagree that intimacy is achievable absent risk and investment. If intimacy is an emotional context, obviously we incur emotional risk and layers of investment risk, in any attempt to achieve emotional health, pleasure and safety. However, the only way I know to take those risks is to practice a Stoic acceptance, even welcoming, of their inevitable loss. For equilibrium is better managed, more easily achieved, if we dismiss happy talk delusions about “this time it will be different” or “we are super-special soulmates”. And in equilibrium is strength. Because we should never give our strength to a… Read more »
‘How do you define intimacy?’
A deep personal relationship with someone else.
Do you think men and women share the same concept and definition of intimacy?
Yes….if they overcome narcissism.
Is ‘true’ intimacy only achievable when you have nothing to lose and nothing invested in a woman?
True intimacy is an investment…so by definition you will have something to lose. What you invest in is up to you.
Well stated Rollo. Thanks, as always. You’re helping me to unplug, and I’m in the early stages going through that (necessary) process. @BuenaVista. Very good comments. You’ll like this short article concerning not “giving your strength to women”. http://tinyurl.com/l4ax6nq
Intimacy is the state where another person will open themselves and freely share their inner-workings with you. That is the end game to an LTR the ability to feel as if you are that one persons “idealization” which garners their unrestrained passions, failures, insecurities and thoughts. In my opinion, the end game is unachievable for a man or woman in a sexual relationship. I believe the concept is similar between the sexes. However, I believe that a man must make a choice, and not a woman. Does he wish to be sexually fulfilled, or does he wish to be emotionally… Read more »
True intimacy is only possible if a man is not ashamed of himself and looks at his faults as objective things that he can mitigate/fix/etc. Then, one can be open with a woman while maintaining frame and a forward-looking posture. Intimacy with a woman is definitely possible, but one can never get lost in one’s feelings like her. As a man, you can only be happy when you are the master of your life. A woman can be a great complement to that, who can help you achieve that outcome. But, you have to want that outcome for yourself and… Read more »
How do you define intimacy? The book definition, “close familiarity or friendship; closeness” Do you think men and women share the same concept and definition of intimacy? They share the same concept and definition (a closeness) but they don’t interpret it the same, so it is not really conceptually the same. Simplifying, for woman, it is does he really know me? For men, it is do I really know her? Is ‘true’ intimacy only achievable when you have nothing to lose and nothing invested in a woman? No, intimacy is achievable even if you have a lot invested in a… Read more »
Vulnerability is possible to show a woman as long as it is done from a masculine frame. In the end, you have to genuinely want to be your most masculine self purely for your purposes. Then, you can show authentic vulnerability and not have it be construed as weakness. Vulnerability and weakness are different things. Weakness implies a lack of fortitude to face reality and get stronger. Vulnerability is something that a strong, masculine man can openly have that shows his humanity.
I don’t want to veer too far from the intimacy topic, into vulnerability (I have an upcoming post on it), but I think the equalist fantasy that a man displaying vulnerability is in anyway ‘sexy’ or an attractive trait is greatly over-exaggerated for the purpose of filtering Alphas from Betas for women’s sexual selection.
Men are far too ready to roll over and show their bellies in some expectation that women will appreciate them for it.
My off-the-cuff somewhat naïve view of intimacy is that it is symplectic. A woman in a successful relationship can both love and be in love with a man. However, a man can only love a woman in the same, successful relationship. If he were to be in love with her, he would necessarily submit to her frame and this would torpedo the relationship.
I consider intimacy a fleeting high between people close in proximity and harmony. After several relationships and enough stimulant use to draw the parallels, that’s the working definition to me at this point in my life. Intimacy isn’t a state your relationships evolve into, it’s simply the “sweet spot.” The addictive sugar rush you get caught up in if you’re not aware of what it is (and even sometimes if you are). Every epic, perfect night I’ve spent with a woman has been followed by the “hangover” the next day. The moment your lingering smile melts into disappointment. That gut… Read more »
intimacey….. Girl#1 it is a sense of peace and easy joy when its the two of us. Girl#2 is the way she goes out of her way to make me smile and do small acts of service. Girl#3 and I are not there yet and likely never will be
I don’t think men and women share the same concept and definition of anything. To different in perceptive and biological function
#3. don’t much give a damn either which way
the beta is way strong with many commenters here
Intimacy: the desire to be known combined with the vulnerability to be known. A woman’s definition of intimacy follows her form: the exterior is brought interiorly based on her desire; a man’s intimacy is more at exposing what is not apparent. For a man, “true” intimacy is never possible with a woman as vulnerability is always taken as weakness; shall we say the interior of a man is never taken interiorly by a woman. . As you’d pointed out men’s idealism, that is precisely the reason men can be intimate friends: the level of conversation which exposes vulnerable emotion is… Read more »
“Intimacy: the desire to be known coupled with the vulnerability of being known”.
Chuck Yeager was asked once when he was frightened in an aircraft. “I’d killed 26 black bears by age 12, so … I guess I don’t understand the question.” (paraphrase) Yeager was from West Virginia, the Scots-Irish clan, that statement may very well be true. (I met Crossfield, his competitor, in Leesburg, Virginia at the airport where we were both hangared, before Scotty flew his 210 into a thunderstorm. He refused to discuss Yeager, not one word. Crossfield blew him away with engineering exactitude.) Yeager was a one-woman man. Glennis, he said, never sweated the daily shit-show at Edwards, never… Read more »
Important topic, particularly for those in Red Pill marriages. In my experience the perceived loss of intimacy that some associate with the Red Pill praxeology scares them off – because they don’t understand the nature of either. Rollo is (as usual) right: once you properly incorporate a RP frame encompassing a positive masculinity into your personal life, once your wife adjusts and you accept your leadership the issue of intimacy solves itself. Sexual intimacy is, of course, the stated goal of the Red Pill husband, but the need for emotional intimacy – the desire to be understood and to gain… Read more »
‘How do you define intimacy?’
An illusion. You can never show your weakness to a woman because she will resent you for it. The claim for more intimacy is just another shit test
‘Is ‘true’ intimacy only achievable when you have nothing to lose and nothing invested in a woman
‘Do you think men and women share the same concept and definition of intimacy?’
‘Is ‘true’ intimacy only achievable when you have nothing to lose and nothing invested in a woman?’
It’s not achievable
On ‘vulnerability’, popular culture explains that ‘haunted and mysterious’ is sexy, ‘weeping motherfucker who wants his mommie’ is not. Another example of ‘never explain, never complain’. When emotional and when in doubt, withhold. It worked for Brando and Peck.
It’s also easier said than done. (Unless you’re Ton.) I use checklists, to be honest. I really do. Big date? 3×5 card. (Big meeting? I always knew what to do.) But I have 30 years of training in the wrong behaviors.
the need for emotional intimacy – the desire to be understood
Key word there: “need”. Red Pill abhors neediness in a man. Desire to be understood? Please.
Desire to be understood? The sergeant wants to be understood by his men. The colonel wants to be understood by his staff.
“the beta is way strong with many commenters here”
I’m interested in why, and feel free to use me as an example if you want
Not at all. I’m not running an army, here, I’m running a marriage. Emotional intimacy (which is, indeed, a common human need) can be filled by a woman you trust. Trust is not something that comes lightly or in a short time. I liken it to a sandcastle built one grain at a time. All it takes is one misstep to ruin the castle, but you build again the same way. Being able to eloquently and passionately express your human desire for emotional intimacy and advocate for that need isn’t “neediness” – in fact, it’s the only practical, pragmatic way… Read more »
@redlight Don’t confuse real mastery in your marriage for “beta”. A good RP husband understands how comfort-building and leadership go hand-in-hand, and he doesn’t starve his wife’s need for emotional intimacy out of a misplaced idea that stoicism and the projection of strength are all she (or he) needs. Married Game is known as Advanced Game for a reason. While the cultivation and development of strong Alpha characteristics is implicit in honing your wife’s arousal, neglecting the intimate and emotional foundations of your relationship is essential for maintaining her attraction, as well. If you can’t do that, then you’re a… Read more »
Do you think men and women share the same concept and definition of intimacy? No, women view this as banging a guy, projecting all her insecurities on him in a bid to ensure he doesn’t bang other girls. In my last two serious (9 months+) relationships, both girls were crazy jealous, crazy sexual, did everything in their power to try to control me and couldn’t believe it when I walked away from them citing they were too nuts. I kept coming back to one and remained close friends with the other who chased me until she got tired of it.… Read more »
I like Ian’s take, but I will add that the reason I have a lasting intimacy with Mrs. Tomassi is because I honestly don’t care if she ‘understands’ me or not. It’s not a man’s responsibility to explain himself to a woman, and women with a genuine desire for a man will go to great lengths to try to understand him on her own: http://therationalmale.com/2012/01/05/a-league-of-your-own/ Iron Rule of Tomassi #8 Always let a woman figure out why she wont ƒuck you, never do it for her. It took me a long time to unlearn the feminized-equalist bullshit that women want… Read more »
I think I can answer best by answering a very similar question: “What need does intimacy feed?” For me it’s a feeling of being needed: sexually, physically, personally. A girl who needs me more (usually due to SMV disparity) and finds me less replaceable does more for my contentment than 2 plates who don’t. Is it because this causes her to be more affectionate? Or does the affection make me feel needed/secure that future needs will be met? It’s a chicken and egg situation. At the end of the day intimacy gives a kind of vailidation. Is this a weakness… Read more »
@Ton, agreed, but it is kind of hard for some men to debate intimacy without the ‘true romantic’ side of themselves being exposed.
@Rollo from that perspective–the Red Pill perspective “intimacy” is that false sense of security a guy gets after he games a girl, bangs her and then thinks he’s done…not realizing of course that swallowing the Red Pill means you’re never “done”…the relationship is always in flux along with the false sense of security you have because she’s making you breakfast after you pounded her 3 times the night before. I’ve been with women who were so locked into me…they had tears in their eyes the minute I left them at the bus stop or where ever…only to break up with… Read more »
I will point out that Mrs. Ironwood and I have always had an exceptional intimate relationship, partly because of her fascination with masculinity and my inherent desire to understand women. If we didn’t have that pre-established in our relationship then I wouldn’t be able to deconstruct it as I do to help explain things like this. Most RP marriages (particularly in the early stages of taking the pill) don’t have that going for them; neither could they take the hit over a misunderstanding. One of the side-effects of strong emotional intimacy is the ability for both parties to communicate effectively… Read more »
Great topic. I’ll admit to having no idea what the best answers are to these questions, but here is where I stand now.. looking forward to peoples input and ideas. How do you define intimacy? The ability to share and show all parts of oneself, especially concerning the parts that make us all less than ideal.Intimacy is when two people are able to do that and still accept each other. Vulnerability is inseparable from intimacy Do you think men and women share the same concept and definition of intimacy? In a sense, yes..I think even women like to think they… Read more »
How do you define intimacy? A high I get when my husband and I are “in that place”. Do you think men and women share the same concept and definition of intimacy? No. Women feel intimacy and very likely cannot verbally define it well (see above). Is ‘true’ intimacy only achievable when you have nothing to lose and nothing invested in a woman? No. But I don’t think it can be achieved by sharing all either. She will get scared. Rather, it happens when the man decides to pull her up to his level and share that with her for… Read more »
re: “I was free to express as much or as little of myself as I wanted because I wasn’t actively qualifying for their future investment in me.”
Wow. Penetrating insight. It hurts, because it ought to hurt.
We need to husband our strength for our own and our relationships’ benefit.
This is rather profound and I agree. Do not give your strength to a woman. She will hold onto you when she needs to. If you give it away, she will resent you for it, no matter how much she argues to the contrary.
Maybe the question is not “if”, but “how”. Maybe it is the way we are raised to express our vulnerabilities and inner selves that turns women off when out inner workings are revealed. There is a masculine way of expressing deep emotions and a female way. Maybe we, as men, have had this as an issue because we were simply speaking the wrong language. It’s not what we were saying, but how. Sometimes a simple look, a short acknowledgement, can say more than a million words. And maybe, I’m playing Devils Advocate here, that is were the difference lies. This… Read more »
My answers to your weekend questions. Q1. How do you define intimacy? A1. Intimacy is the letting down of guards. The more guards let down, and the more they are let down, the more intimate. Then necessarily the most intimate a couple can be is naked together cocooned from the outside world and sharing all that can be shared. Q2. Do you think men and women share the same concept and definition of intimacy? A2. I think women give lip service to the same definition. But just like women apparently can only typically attain briefly a vestigial development towards the… Read more »
Hobbes – “Woman are odd ducks in this way. As a friend, a sister or a mother a woman is, in many ways, much more capable of intimacy. But once a man is a womans lover, she becomes more and more incapable of it.” The paradx of the women you fuck vs. the women you talk to. And this my temporary solution. Cultivate a few intimate platonic friendships (a good use for single moms), and some frivolous, often single use sexual relationships. As for the questions: 1. How do you define intimacy? The self delusional notion that you’ve achieved a… Read more »
“This is rather profound and I agree. Do not give your strength to a woman. She will hold onto you when she needs to. If you give it away, she will resent you for it, no matter how much she argues to the contrary.” And this is why women are lesser beings than men. It is inescapable. I say that not in a bitter or angry fashion, it’s just important for all men to know this. If you want to raise you sense of worth and DHV towards women, remember that quote. Once I realized that about women, I never… Read more »
it must truly be terrible to be a woman.
Ha! No. Not terrible. Just different.
I have no illusions (any more) of wanting to be like a man. It was only then that it was terrible, because it was impossible. Acceptance of the bad parts of my nature and learning how to fight against them make being a woman, now, a good thing for me.
More thoughts on this came as I drove home:
Many men are rightfully suspicious of “intimacy” as it’s presented by women because women are so often inclined to exploit secret information for their own goal advancement. Within the context of a RP marriage, it is understood that the goal – long term fulfilling commitment – has been achieved, and that her next goal involves sustaining and protecting the relationship. It’s a subtle thing, and one utterly dependent on trust . . . but the Red Pill isn’t about avoiding risks, just minimizing them.
Red pill intimacy = the calm after the successfully repelled shit test.
re: “compared to receiving true caritas from a woman who respects, believes in, and has devoted herself to you”
Compared to that, pixie fairy unicorn excrement would be Angel’s Food cake, at best.
I guess what I’m trying to say is it would be nice to feel I could believe that women were capable of being what I thought they could be, when I was bluepill. But that belief WAS the essence of the blue pill.
re: terrible. Blessed are You, Lord our God, Ruler of the universe, Who has not created me a woman.
Otherwise if I were a woman, and rational, I’d feel so guilty for treating men so badly.
ff12- Yes, some of the comments here- no insult intended to anyone- do seem to revolve around this idea that if one does everything “Right”, if one is alpha enough good looking enough, Games enough, that women will suddenly become the blue pill version of what men always wanted and believed they were.
I keep falling into that trap.It’s a hard habit to break.
It’s a bit confusing because if you do Game, internalize red pill etc womens behaviors towards you do change. Yet their natures stay the same.
jf – “I guess what I’m trying to say is it would be nice to feel I could believe that women were capable of being what I thought they could be, when I was bluepill. But that belief WAS the essence of the blue pill.”
It’s a pricing issue. The product is inferior in every possible way compared to it’s marketing, and somehow the actual retail price is much higher than the advertised price.
“Wait to have sex with someone you love,” is the horrible advice my father gave me. My blue pills days were spent searching for love aka intimacy. I finally gave up and starting fucking women. This is when I realized that women do not require intimacy. In fact, it is a hindrance. “Why do you always want to talk about our feelings,” an ex-girlfriend used to complain. She just wanted me to fuck her. I have never made love to a woman; I have only fucked. The love aka intimacy I was searching for as a young man was the… Read more »
I like Rollo’s comment on not caring if he is understood. A man can only have real intimacy with a woman IF HE DOES NOT CARE ABOUT HER APPROVAL OF HIM. This goes back to defining his life mission for himself and bringing her in as the help to that mission. Personally, I am very big on sharing my thoughts and feelings, but it is always in a detached, composed manner as I plot my next course of action. I have found that women can appreciate the harsh truth of life as long as it is conveyed in a masculine,… Read more »
I will add that while a man cannot be dependent on the woman’s approval of him, her buying into his vision of life and following him is the truest form of intimacy. At that point, she loves you for what you actually are and want to be. As long as you continue on that same mission, you have a reasonable chance of keeping her attachment, unless of course she undergoes a huge change (who knows…..).
New Yorker – ” A man can only have real intimacy with a woman IF HE DOES NOT CARE ABOUT HER APPROVAL OF HIM.” Hmmm? I find those people whose approval I’m indifferent toward are people that I am indifferent toward generally, or I don’t care about them, or their approval. And… Why would want I to involved with someone who disapproved of me? Sure in an employer/employee context I don’t give a damn what the minions think so long as they generate results, but I don’t want that dynamic at home. That just seems like a huge waste of… Read more »
You would prefer that she approves…..but your mission must continue irrespective of whether she does…..and if she disapproves of too many things….she needs to be replaced by someone who can organically buy into your vision. This is where a man needs to find someone who is in tune with his life vision.
re: “Never give your strength to a woman. She doesn’t want it.”
I disagree; I think that is exactly and specifically what she wants. That is the part of masculinity that she longs for, enviously, for herself: his strength, his effort, his virtue, his power, his verve, his drive, his libido, his liveliness, his energy.
I’d like to interpret Proverbs 31:3 as saying “Never bother exerting yourself for any woman in any way.” but I’m not quite there yet.
So what you and Rollo are saying is that you have already secured a general sense of approval, and intimacy is then possible. BUT without that approval intimacy is not possible, and no biggie because it’s a perk not a goal.
It’s not about approval. You’ll notice I didn’t mention anything about approval, but rather I said I didn’t feel a need to be understood by a woman. I have no doubt there are a great many things about me that Mrs.T and many other women I’ve known don’t ‘approve’ of, but that never disqualified me for their intimacy or attraction to me. What I’m saying is that I don’t feel the need to make myself understandable to them. I’ve learned that feeling a responsibility for explaining myself, how I feel, what I’m about, has always been counterproductive in creating intimacy… Read more »
Yes, female intimacy is a perk of living the life you want. The minute it becomes a goal, you will lose it.
May the Strength be with you.
As stupid as it sounds writing it explicitly here, I’m certain that of the not-small-number of women in my life who really liked me just being myself, they didn’t want to be *with* me, they wanted to *be* me.
“Not at all. I’m not running an army, here, I’m running a marriage. ” So you don’t subscribe to the Captain/First Officer model of marriage? Pray tell, what model do you follow? “Being able to eloquently and passionately express your human desire for emotional intimacy and advocate for that need isn’t “neediness” Hamsterlation: “Talking about being needy isn’t neediness.” No, but it assumes neediness. If you are needy, your status will take a hit and your woman will lose attraction to some degree. 5h1t tests will follow. Why do you think the most common refrain whores hear from married men… Read more »
I have my mate redpilling herself. “I want to see you wit other women. It makes me hot for you”, she says.
As stupid as it sounds writing it explicitly here, I’m certain that of the not-small-number of women in my life who really liked me just being myself, they didn’t want to be *with* me, they wanted to *be* me.
Well, you are awesomely entertaining. I like having you around where I blog. You always lift my spirits.
Do not give your strength to a woman. She will hold onto you when she needs to. If you give it away, she will resent you for it, no matter how much she argues to the contrary.
Honesty and truth props. I might say that I’m growing somewhat fond of you, but that would be revealing too much. 😉 You remind me of Liz. And that’s a good thing.
November 21st, 2014 at 4:37 pm
I should add that according to her, she has never been happier or found more peace. She no longer fights her nature. She embraces it.
Best definition of intimacy ever: Intimacy without the funded narrative.
@M Simon, re: “I want to see you with other women.” Man, that is some weird stuff, weird from a man’s perspective. I’m certain(ish) that my wife would not want to see me with other women. But since about when we were married but increasingly these later years, she’s elbowed me in the ribs when a hot (especially, busty slutty-looking and/or scantily clad) woman is in our field of view and said “Would you look at that! Don’t you think she’s slutty?” even if I wasn’t looking (I wasn’t, I swear!). And she’s constantly showing me pictures of women from… Read more »
Whether you are a talker or a strong-silent type, the common thread is frame and being natural with your actions. Women have a very well attuned sense for a man whose behavior is inconsistent. Just be yourself…..but create a self that is the best he can be and is always improving.
re: approval vs understanding.
The distinction is quite amusing, especially in the business of research funding.
I personally think my wife feels she understands more of my behavior that she disapproves of, than she approves of my behaviors that she doesn’t understand. And I think she prefers for herself to understand than to approve. (this is another way I’m psyching myself to be behaving badly)
Thank you, Sir.
@theasdgamer You might want to check out the three years of posts at my blog, The Red Pill Room, and the three books on The Red Pill I’ve written about just this very subject before you go accusing me of “hamsterization”. And my book on Red Pill LTRs forthcoming next year, The Red Pill Experiment, which will take a look at things like the Grant Study in context. Go read the Grant Study alone and then tell me how “emotional intimacy” isn’t really important to a man.
jf12 November 21st, 2014 at 5:18 pm Yeah. It takes time and effort to train them. But I have gotten her to embrace her nature. She notices that improves the bond between us. And that is the real love. All that romantic love she claims to like and your “I have no interest in other women” doesn’t work. I do give her hope. If she can stay bonded without wanting to see me with other women I will give up explicitly redpilling her. I tell her that she can’t mate guard me in the usual way (the sign of a… Read more »
November 21st, 2014 at 5:44 pm
I looked at the Grant study
I didn’t find it helpful. It says intimacy is good but says nothing about the mechanics of achieving it.
Which is why I’m writing a book. But if you want to know how the uber-Alphas do it, it includes the cultivation of a deep sense of emotional intimacy and investment in family.
@thedeti – Coupled is fine; coupling is finer; the ideal is the perfect form.
@ianironwood – I look forward to your LTR book as I’m quite skeptical that a woman can be trained to not betray trust.
“but rather I said I didn’t feel a need to be understood by a woman.” Very true Rollo, In fact the more you hold your cards to your chest the more they are eager to try and please you. This and the actions they perform under this disposition, may be what they call intimacy. Where she’s completely open, and you are indifferent, not callous. Because naturally there are always shit tests in there, major & minor, to either make you lose frame, revert to BP tendencies, or make you give a damn and ‘change’ to suit what she wants (No!!!!).… Read more »
“Touching: The Human Significance of the Skin” by Ashley Montagu offers some interesting insights. On page 19, he writes: “One of the best ways of discovering whether or not a particular kind of experience is necessary or basic to any particular species and its members, is to determine how widely distributed it is in the class of animals (in the present instance, the mammals) to which the species under investigation belongs; what is phylogenetically basic is likely to be physiologically significant, and significant perhaps in other functional respects as well.” I have a lot of other thoughts, but for now… Read more »
@MSimon – “And she does that by surrendering more.”
Brilliant point there bruv!
@ ReticentPill That resonated with me a lot. Great comment. I was very into spirituality and studying zen koans for years. I can’t help but keep coming back to that state. In Buddhism it’s said that if a man has even the slightest bit of desire for a woman, he’s trapped like a suckling at its mother’s teat. Be grounded in yourself. Be the center of your life. Women and other people come and go. Our commitment to our peace of mind is the only true and lasting treasure we have. The Red Pill seems to basically, at its core,… Read more »
Let me borrow what Earl said about a deep personal relationship with someone else and say I’ll partly describe it as a relationship that comes from a deep personal experience shared with someone else. And a key part would even be the boundaries as talked about in the previous post. Intimacy can occur in a group setting like a team. You’ll have different power dynamics, different players who have more skill, more relative value to the team. And it will be openly recognized, but there’s still recognition of the need for those not at the high end of the hierarchy.… Read more »
Rollo, it is not so much that but frame. I think. and its less about being beta then about a feminine frame. JF12 is a self proclaimed beta yet normally in discussions he has a masculine frame, uses masculine words. I have three girls who are dear to me but I never verbally or psychically express that in a feminine way That’s a shit explanation and a ligit question was asked. I need to work through it and see if I can use my words better It is my experience women crave my strength, physical, mental and psychological and enter… Read more »
There is a connection between intimacy and between acceptance and approval. As far as I still remember I wanted them to know the “real me” because otherwise how could their acceptance and approval be worth anything?* So, naturally, it came from a very needy place. The difference now is not so ,much that I dont care about them, or their approval, I do, I just no longer expect salvation from a womans embrace. *I think this is also behind game denialism. If she does not like the “real you” and how could she if you are “playing games”, then have… Read more »
I would say that, ideally, the marriage is the reactor core of the family. You can’t manage the family without managing the marriage. Trying to steer the family while ignoring the vital importance of its core is inefficient, in the long run. I’ve seen it done for short periods of time, but in the end the marriage is what anchors the family more than anything else. Yes, that’s an ideal. But men love idealistically. Smart ones will figure out a way to get as close to their personal ideal as possible. Very smart ones will deconstruct general patterns in ways… Read more »
Every man wants witnesses to his life. It is how he feels relevant as we are all social animals whether we like it or not. Family, friends, colleagues, etc. provide that outlet. The idea that one would forego intimacy with his wife out of fear that she will think of less of him is the definition of a life unlived. But….the trick is to actually LIVE….if a woman sees you living and pushing the boundaries of life, she will gladly follow you into the pitfire of hell, warts and all and will appreciate the confidence of your deepest thoughts, because… Read more »
“It seems that intimacy, like love, is only possible if you are greater than (and thus truly independent of) the object of your love.” [from the article] To expand on that a bit, a stable basis is created when a man is not looking to his woman for something that she is not capable of providing, and an abstract model of parent and child is a useful analysis framework. . A young child is dependent upon the parents for support, guidance and, above all else, stability, and is thus simply incapable of loving parents in the same way that parents… Read more »
re: Do you think men and women share the same concept and definition of intimacy?
I have to award a big Meh to the relationship conclusions of the Grant Study.
A few men whose mothers doted on them tended to have/demand/accrete other women to dote on them. yay, them.
A very very very few men who were not rewarded with gratifying intimacy by their wives through middle age randomly managed intimacy in extreme old age with some new chicks. yay, them
eon – “Consequently, a mother can create tremendous damage by asking a child to provide emotional support and stability to her.”
And here we see the source of my problem. This was my role from about the age of 5 to be Mom’s emotional tampon, to be the confidant that Darth Dread wasn’t. Plus my perfect conditioning as a beta chump and I sort of understand why I am so very resistant to being anyone’s rock. It’s an unrewarding soul crushing role of ceaseless obligation and labor that only causes me resentment, and distrust of the other’s weakness.
“Nevertheless, when women are in relationships that provide … they can function happily and superbly as emotional … helpmates …” [from my previous comment]
“A woman nurturing her Alpha man nurtures his strength, not his weaknesses.” [Brody, /2014/11/02/alpha-tells/comment-page-2/#comment-65437]
This article aims to define “intimacy”, yet it seems to fall quite short of it. It doesnt define it at all. It does some dancing around, I’ll give it that, but that is deficient. Once intimacy is defined as “being together with your soulmate” (or something similar), another time it is defined with “always being the Alpha and never let up control”. That is the conflicting use of terms. “I’ve shared an enduring intimacy with Mrs. Tomassi for 19 years because Game and Red Pill awareness are simply part of who I am now. Game, if that’s even the right… Read more »
Badpainter, “And here we see the source of my problem. This was my role from about the age of 5 to be Mom’s emotional tampon, to be the confidant that Darth Dread wasn’t. Plus my perfect conditioning as a beta chump and I sort of understand why I am so very resistant to being anyone’s rock. It’s an unrewarding soul crushing role of ceaseless obligation and labor that only causes me resentment, and distrust of the other’s weakness.” With a woman who is enthusiastically devoted to you, in the complementary ways that are natural for her, being her rock would… Read more »
Reblogged this on 254MGTOW and commented:
@eon – brilliant post on strength, weakness, & intimacy!
In no particular order The search for unconditional love? WTF? Such notions are for women and children. Men deal with reality of the world. Wanting xyz when the world is abc is juvenile and is retarding your life. Showing no fear and no personal self doubt is the masculine minim. When that voice of self doubt creeps up it’s your job to mentally punch the bitch in the face. At a certain point in life, a man who still struggles with self doubts has gone terribly wrong and lived way to soft of a life. That kind of thing should… Read more »
I work in finance. The best entrepreneurs I have worked with, are those, who in times of crisis, acknowledge the issues to their teams and keep them focused and going forward. They are also those who can impart a sense of mission to the team and make each person feel personally invested in the outcome. If you think that is beta, sure, go ahead.
lol @ your finance job; I have 10 plus years of ground combat time. Reckon I know a lot more about the topic of instilling a sense of mission into a team with lot higher stakes. And I did not say that was beta at any point. Having a women help you with your masculine development is beyond beta
@Concrete, perhaps you don’t know of our host’s predilection to non-prescriptive urgings to self-examination. But now you do. Moreover he *says* “I don’t think I’ve ever really defined it.”, and further he *says* the whole point of this post is to prompt a discussion involving our own definitions. You see that, right?
@Ton, re: women’s non-help. I’ve never known a woman to be an actual help meet for a man. I’m sure there is a unicorn or two, somewhere, among the billions and billions. 99.9999999% of women function at best as a passively anti-help ball-and-chain, if not actually actively in opposition to a man’s plans and dreams. I spent five hours last night hanging out with an older guy, playing gittars and sanging. We were scheduled to meet for a couple hours at the church to practice some Christmas songs for our part of the upcoming program, but he was feeling sick,… Read more »
What is it that women think they are *for*? I’m asking the hundred women readers to delurk to answer that question at least.
I’m now thinking a man’s propensity to betaness, to be a good husband, to be a provider, is a behavioral version of the peacock tail. Because it is so very (very very) maladaptive for the male, the marriage-mindedness of a man is a signal to women that he is strong enough to slog her worthless carcass through the decades.
@eon, re: analogous needs.
Hence, you mean
“Consequently, a [man] can create tremendous damage by asking a [woman] to provide emotional support and stability to [him].”
He isn’t creating the damage. The fact that she is incapable of supplying what he needs is a result of her *being* pre-damaged already.
Our sons evidently have learned well that women cannot be trusted in intimacy.
If you want to know how the über drafthorses do it … then be aware that you should want something else.
Because it is so very (very very) maladaptive for the male, the marriage-mindedness of a man is a signal to women that he is strong enough to slog her worthless carcass through the decades.
Aw, don’t hold back. Tell us what you really think!
Along the way he showed me how to do House Of The Rising Sun bluegrass style with Amazing Grace lyrics, which I’d heard before. And a cowboy version of Dust In The Wind with alternate gospel lyrics.
@ Simon I tell her that she can’t mate guard me in the usual way (the sign of a beta woman BTW). She can only make the bond between me and her stronger than the bond between me and any other woman. And she does that by surrendering more. New stuff for me. Cosign. Women get men bonded by submitting more, being more feminine, being more obediently helpful, being more autonomously helpful, etc. I see more and more parallels between dancing and relationships. A man can become bonded to a woman simply by dancing with her a lot. When they… Read more »
@tasdg, re: “Aw, don’t hold back. Tell us what you really think!”
Note the distinct lack of females rushing to soothe me. Pace Gottman, it is *never* the husband’s failure to self-soothe that is the problem, and is *always* the wife’s abject failure to fulfill her husband-soothing duties. Always.