Intimacy

intimacy

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.

Zenpriest on 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.

Buena Vista:

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.

Eon:

It seems that intimacy, like love, is only possible if you are greater than (and thus truly independent of) the object of your love.

Softek:

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.

197 comments

  1. 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 early-stage feminism, in which men and women bared their souls, because, as after, they were self-designated “soul mates”: an Eric Segal Love Story. My emotional side was further developed because I worked in the theatre in my 20’s, so emoting prose and all that. While married I didn’t consider it unseemly at times to put my fears and weaknesses on display. In fact, we were taught, and we practiced, such behavior as a *duty.*

    So. I do think intimacy is available to us, but it is the quiet stuff of mutual respect and kindness, physical comfort, and trust. I find the words “I love you” very often misused as currency for some sort of transaction: a relationship transaction or manipulation, a lure for future commitments, a shortcut in lieu of an apology or admission. So my take is that if one enjoys a state of stable kindness, respect and good sex, put down stakes. It’s not going to get better than that.

    What’s profoundly different, however, in my outlook today vs. three years ago, is that I would assert the value of Proverbs 31, Never give your strength to a woman. Our value does not lie in our tearful admissions, drunken incompetence, illicit anger or panicked fears. It just doesn’t. The man who confuses blubbering confession with an “evolved” emotional and social skill set is a man who setting fire to his value with his woman.

    Thus my definition of intimacy does not remove our obligation to lead, protect, provide, and rock out in the hurly burly. It does not permit the transfer of our strength (“power”, as Rollo perhaps uses the term) to either the relationship or the mate. “Soulmate,” as a construction, is a soft rock tune for adolescent girls. One can think of this paradox as calling for permanent Game, or one can just ask: did our grandfathers really think it appropriate to adopt post-feminist rules of behavior and engagement, in securing the affections or loyalty of their wives? Was Grandpa Pajama Boy? I don’t think so. We need to husband our strength for our own and our relationships’ benefit. Never give your strength to a woman. She doesn’t want it. She thinks it looks better on a man.

  2. 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 right end of the curve, you can have or show no weakness and no “normal human” moments of personal doubt. That is lonely maybe but the price you pay for assured fidelity, ongoing attraction from your mate, and high quality (read: hot) females in your life.

    4. RE:#3 above, if you are thinking “fuck that” then you are one of the millions of Betas sliding down the long slow curve to the left heading into Omega land. Thing is, your indulgence in the Blue Pill in any way is merely a weakness that WILL be exploited. Guaranteed.

    You are of course free to chose either path, but understand that in both scenarios there are tolls that you will pay.

    “The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.”-Friedrich Nietzsche

  3. 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 woman, neither should we forfeit our strength (our equanimity) if/when the inevitable occurs. Indeed a Stoic would say that an exploded love affair merely affirms his worldview — and he would take great comfort from that fact, the fact of an ordered world again being revealed. Most conflict emerges, in my view, when we impose false expectations on others and ourselves.

  4. ‘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.

  5. 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

  6. 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 fulfilled? I believe that hypergamy dictates a man must always be at a higher level than a woman for that woman to be satisfied, and have a drive to please him sexually. This precludes a man’s ability to achieve an ideal relationship. As the moment he achieves true intimacy he is the woman’s equal and thus her lust will no longer be existent in the primal state.

    True intimacy is only achievable in a non-sexual relationship. Therefore yes it would only occur in a situation where neither party has anything to lose. The moment sex becomes a factor the power dynamic is in play. This would dictate that both parties have a vested interest. Therefore their will be something to lose which would prevent the FREE sharing of information with no fear of loss or reprisal from the other party.

    An exception to the above may occur when the true intrinsic SMV of the man exceeds the intrinsic SMV of the woman. However, the odds of this relationship working and either party being satisfied long-term are dubious at best. Essentially, the man must be significantly more attractive than the woman, which then would preclude the woman’s chances of achieving true intimacy. They would know they were out of their league and then would have to assume Game mentality to maintain the relationship. Men have a hard enough time swallowing the red pill. I do not see how the hamster would allow a woman to swallow the red pill even in this situation. I believe this is the causation of crazy women or the woman equivalent of the AFC. Their warped sense of intrinsic worth places them beneath the male in the relationship, and it essentially drives them mad with jealousy, fear, doubt, and self-loathing.

  7. 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 see the objective value in her for that purpose. I tell my GF that all of the time. She helps me become the man That I want to be and I appreciate that very much…..in the context of the life that I want to lead. She does not want to be front and center….only a helpful piece who can ride my coattails and suits both of us very well. She feels loved and protected and I have someone with whom I can share my desires, ambitions, concerns within the framework of clear dominance.

  8. 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 woman. I have a close familiarity with my wife, a friendship, and a closeness.

    However what is not achievable for a man is vulnerability, that is she really knows you, warts and all. For example a guy might think marriage is “cunt for life” ™ but he wouldn’t express that unless he wanted to see a cunt walking away. Instead it becomes rebranded “love of my life” and has nice flowers.

  9. 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.

  10. Our value does not lie in our tearful admissions, drunken incompetence, illicit anger or panicked fears. It just doesn’t. The man who confuses blubbering confession with an “evolved” emotional and social skill set is a man who setting fire to his value with his woman.

    Brilliant.

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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 wrenching point when you realize everything she said last night was just part of the shared hallucination. It especially hurts when it’s someone you’ve spent years with. The day I came to expect the downer as an inevitability was the day I stopped chasing the blue-pill dragon, if you will. Outcome independence soon becomes the only logical conclusion.

    I don’t know what differences there are between the male’s experience of intimacy and the female’s. I do know that I learned not to apply anything meaningful to a fleeting experience, and I learned it from women I’d been with long-term.

  14. 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

  15. 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 understood by the other as variance from the ideal.

  16. 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 got emotional. “She just threw things.” Then said, “No no no, she’s not coming back here ever” when someone on the set of The Right Stuff asked him if Glennis would like to join the movie set. He saw no contradiction in those statements. He said that Barbara Hershey was like Glennis. I’d say that Yeager and Glennis were intimate; as Donne wrote, in

    “A Valediction Forbidding Mourning”,

    As virtuous men pass mildly away,
    And whisper to their souls to go …

    […]

    Our two souls therefore, which are one,
    Though I must go, endure not yet
    A breach, but an expansion,
    Like gold to airy thinness beat.

    If they be two, they are two so
    As stiff twin compasses are two;
    Thy soul, the fixed foot, makes no show
    To move, but doth, if the other do.

    And though it in the center sit,
    Yet when the other far doth roam,
    It leans and hearkens after it,
    And grows erect, as that comes home.

    Such wilt thou be to me, who must,
    Like th’ other foot, obliquely run;
    Thy firmness makes my circle just,
    And makes me end where I begun.

    Donne is saying, Let’s not be dreary materialists of daily, mutual surveillance like the rest of these pussies; let’s acknowledge a higher connection (our ‘intimacy’); I’m leaving now for France to spy for the Crown; I may not survive. We celebrate!, therefore, we celebrate!

    ***

    Meanwhile, a guy today goes to church and every other asshole wants to hug and sing praises to girlfriend Jesus. It’s hard to imagine the disdain that would flash across Donne’s face (Donne, ordained as well as a poet and spy).

  17. 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 insight through understanding another – is the unstated bonus feature.

    Intimacy is about trust and revelation. Once you work out the RP SOPs in your marriage, and you stop focusing so much on when/how/why you have sex with your wife, something kinda magical happens: once she invests her trust in you and expresses her confidence you as a leader (and a man worthy of following) your union has the strong potential to grow. Once you can communicate a complex and sophisticated emotional statement in a masculine, positive, but still comprehensible way, without worrying about your wife misunderstanding/misconstruing your emotional stance, it’s amazing just how robust your emotionally intimate life can become.

    Good Red Pill marriages are complementary partnerships where the only equality lies in the commitment both have made to protecting and nurturing the equilibrium of the relationship. As feminine emotional responses wax and wain, a RP husband holds steady as a rock and provides stability.

    But a good RP wife understands her husbands vulnerabilities and does not try to exploit them as weaknesses because the trust he’s invested in her to protect his secrets she considers an honor and a privilege, not a chore and responsibility. You cannot force a woman to make that leap, she has to feel secure and enthusiastic enough about the health of the relationship to make that promise to herself. And once she has seen her husband’s vulnerability, she must understand that such things add to his depth and strength, not detract from them . . . but only with her nurturing support.

    At a meta level RP marriages combine the best elements of idealistic chivalry and the dispensing of feminine caritas to the mutual benefit of the marriage. But like so many dualities, in practice the two are closely intertwined, with the essential element of the one being present in the other.

    RP wives grow to feel a responsibility for protecting her husband’s emotional vulnerabilities and giving him the emotional validation he desires in order to feel fully empowered as a man the same way that a good RP husband defends and protects his wife’s life, happiness, and position in society, in addition to providing his emotional support and stability. Once you understand that, and grow to trust your spouse enough, true intimacy begins to flow far more freely between you, without judgement or suspicion.

    It’s a more advanced stage of Married Game. It usually only evolves when the issue of Dread is essentially behind you, and both parties have a better understanding of their biologically-determined gender-based roles (GODS I love writing that).

    But the real solid fact of the matter is that Mrs. Ironwood and I have a far more profoundly intimate emotional connection, and a stronger sense of intimacy overall under the Red Pill than we had managed in 19 years of being together in a typical Blue Pill arrangement. There are things I can freely admit to her now, from a place of strength and understanding, that my BP self would have killed people to keep from sharing with her. Similarly she can be more candid with me in regards to her feelings and perspectives without worrying about emotional rejection or distance.

    Just some thoughts. I find New Yorker’s perspectives helpful on this. But to those who think true intimacy with a woman is unobtainable under the Red Pill, think again. Like much else in the praxeology, it evolves naturally, like the other super powers.

  18. ‘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?’
    No

    ‘Is ‘true’ intimacy only achievable when you have nothing to lose and nothing invested in a woman?’
    It’s not achievable

  19. 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.

  20. 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.

  21. “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

  22. 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 to go about it. Why do you think the most common refrain whores hear from married men is “My wife doesn’t understand me”? The solace taken in a prostitute’s arms for cash is hollow, compared to receiving true caritas from a woman who respects, believes in, and has devoted herself to you.

    This is not a repudiation of the Red Pill. It is one of its ultimate sophistications. If you don’t want to use that particular superpower, then you are poorer for it.

  23. @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 wartime-only Captain. In truth, the shadows you reveal while expressing your intimate emotions give you depth in your relationship, and demonstrate to your wife the complexities that lie under the deep well of strength.

  24. 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.

    Is ‘true’ intimacy only achievable when you have nothing to lose and nothing invested in a woman?

    Intimacy is that “unicorn” it’s this ideal in the Blue Pill world of finding a way to communicate on a higher level.

    Let me give you some examples of “intimacy” with the last girl I was seeing for 4 months and banging regularly.

    She kept asking “what is our relationship” Me: “We’re lovers”.

    Every time we were together we were all over each other. When she left…it was one word texts between us, usually to set up logistics, or a one word inside joke only the two of us knew.

    When I introduced her to my colleagues she made it clear to them we were together by holding my hand, arm, cuddling with me.

    Then one day…she just ended it saying we were “too close”.

    That was a week ago. I haven’t contacted her since then. On one level I’m disappointed. I enjoyed that “intimacy”, the time only the two of us knew about and shared. It was our secret.

    On the other hand…myeh. If she can’t appreciate it, then i’ll find someone who does.

    There are a number of girls I have these “secrets” with–girls I’ve banged that no one else knows about…girls who will spend a few hours banging my brains out on a weekend and then I won’t talk to or see for weeks.

    Intimacy is a fantasy. in the Red Pill world, intimacy is banging and keeping the girl in a tight orbit in your world. When she strays…intimacy ends.

    Women crave it, then take it for granted, then hypergamy sets in and they trade it in for a new model.

  25. 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:
    https://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 you to “open up and reveal your inner self” to her. As I’ve always said, women may want truth, but they NEVER want full disclosure. Nothing is more self-satisfying for a woman than for her to think she’s figured a man out using her mythical feminine intuition.

    Men who vomit out their life story on the first date, husbands raised to blather about their ‘feelings’ at the slightest opportunity with their wives, are killing any intrigue or imagination a woman has about him before the seed of mystery can take root.

    Once I gave up the hope of ever rationally appealing to women’s reason about what I’m about, and I dropped my self-convinced responsibility to making them understand me, I found my relationships strengthened and women came to me seeking intimacy.

  26. 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 that should be worked out? It’s a weakness I find I WANT TO KEEP, but I’m beginning to wonder if “catching feelings” is always a bad idea. It won’t do to be a needy oneitis prone twit, but:

    How far down the road should one go towards just treating sex as something they need, and treating male sexual affection as a dirty trick that evolution has played on him?…..hard to say.

  27. @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 me 2 weeks later on some flimsy premise “It’ll never work…” without explaining.

  28. 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 without taking it personally. That’s not something you gin up overnight.

    In my case my goal is not to be comprehensively, universally understood by her. It’s to shed a little light on a behavior or conversation that allows for a better appreciation of my perspective while also respecting the boundaries of my masculinity. I agree, vomiting forth your entire ocean of emotions is relationship suicide – but communicating an intimate feeling within the proper context, and within the proper manner (holding frame, invoking Special Rules, and proceeding with conscious consideration to a limited revelation) allows a man an opportunity to gain respect and admiration in his wife’s eyes that contribute to her own ability to SINCERELY communicate her own intimate emotions.

    The REALZ. Not the FEELZ.

    All too often women themselves see “emotional intimacy” as vomiting forth every little feeling they have, a full-on hamsteree. That ain’t emotional intimacy. Emotional intimacy is when your wife tells you the real reason antique baroque furniture and red velvet are turn-ons for her, and why tuna casseroles make her sad. Emotional intimacy is when your wife knows how important something is to you without you having to remind her, and when you insist on buying what might seem an expensive toy to her friends in the Matrix she knows it’s actually far more about your relationship with your dad . . . and that’s okay with her, without the need to discuss it with every woman she knows.

    Emotional intimacy implies keeping each others’ secrets and protecting each others’ vulnerabilities. You can’t do that without knowledge of that. And while Mrs. Ironwood is in no way required to try to understand me, we’re both a lot happier when she does.

  29. 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 can accept a man who shares all of himself, and men accept women who do almost as a matter of course.

    Is ‘true’ intimacy only achievable when you have nothing to lose and nothing invested in a woman?As others have mentioned, intimacy kills the tingles, so true intimacy is impossible with a woman you are involved with- RP or not.Whether you have nothing to lose or not.

    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. I think this is why it is so confusing even to women. I know that with family and even some long term female friends, I can admit and reveal almost anything and they will love me more for it. It becomes the opposite once you are dating in a relationship with a woman.
    The idea that you will become so RP that you kill off all need and all weaknesses is a fantasy. You are a human being and those things exist in you unless you are a psycho. What you can do is effectively compartmentalize them or cut them off to a point of being mentally hobbled, but deep inside they are there. No human being is one-sided. In other words, for every thought and feeling you have, it’s opposite exists. We are dualistic creatures.
    If yo have nothing to lose and nothing invested, what you are experiencing cannot be intimacy. A requirement of intimacy is caring. If you don’t give a shit, then you just don’t give a shit. That is not intimacy as it is normally defined.
    All this to say, fucked if I know

  30. 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 a time. When he puts her back down (stoic), it ends. I do not think continual intimacy is possible.

  31. 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.

  32. 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.

  33. 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 would fall in line with Rollos maxim of not taking on the burden of explaining yourself.
    I am recalling an ex who constantly pestered me because she knew and everyone know I was in a very dark place after losing two of my closest childhoods friends, as well a the death of two family members within the same 12 month stretch. It was all too much and I rarely spoke of it. She would pester me that I didn’t open up to her. Eventually I simply told her one day in bed “you know how I feel, you already do, more than anyone.. what else is left to say?”.. after that she was a kitten and never brought it up again. She was closer to me, I could tell it had bonded her.
    I had admitted to something, something she now felt only she really “knew”, that was all it took.
    Again, Devils Advocate….

  34. 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 overwhelming romantic love that men typically sustain (until it is murdered by the object of their affections), women can only typically attain briefly a vestigial form of intimacy with a man. Ask any man whether he’s a prefer a man or a woman to cover his back.

    Q3. Is ‘true’ intimacy only achievable when you have nothing to lose and nothing invested in a woman?
    A3. It hurts too much to answer properly. So, I’ll look away and nod grimly.

  35. 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 deep, lasting and durable emotional connection.

    2. Do you think men and women share the same concept and definition of intimacy?

    No. Men think there is reciprocity, Women know that the sharing onlyflws one way.

    3. Is ‘true’ intimacy only achievable when you have nothing to lose and nothing invested in a woman?

    Like true love, I don’t think true intimacy exists.

  36. “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 felt “not good enough” for any woman. No matter how beautiful, how successful or whatever a woman is, I remind myself of their weak and almost parasitic nature and realize that I am, by nature, of higher value.
    And thank God for that.. it must truly be terrible to be a woman.Again, not meant as an insult, but when I try to put myself in a headpsace of women, it just seems like a terrible way to exist

  37. 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.

  38. 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.

  39. 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.

  40. 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.

  41. 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.

  42. 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.

  43. “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 unconditional love I experienced with my mother. I searched long and hard for my madonna, but all women are whores.

  44. 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, forward-looking form and you are clearly in charge of tackling the issues. They get anxious very quickly over the smallest things if you cannot resolutely handle them. They just can’t deal with meek men. They will follow a resolute man wherever he goes.

  45. 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…..).

  46. 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 time and energy.

  47. @Badpainter

    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.

  48. 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.

  49. New Yorker,

    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.

  50. Yes, female intimacy is a perk of living the life you want. The minute it becomes a goal, you will lose it.

  51. 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.

  52. 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 and rapport – exactly the opposite of what humany-feminy-equalism trains men to believe is the key to connecting with a woman.

    https://therationalmale.com/2012/02/22/breadcrumbs/

  53. “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 is “My wife doesn’t understand me?”

    Maybe because most men are Blue Pill betas? They think that being understood is so important.

    To my wife, in many ways I am the Other–the Stranger–the Man of Mystery. She has told me that I’m not the man she married. From observing her, she’s happier than she’s ever been. She is post-menopause and continually flirts with me both privately and publicly. If I am understood, I lose the aura of the Man of Mystery. Understanding her man too much kills tingles and happiness in a woman.

    Yet, your woman will need some understanding of the tasks you set her to do and she will gain some insight into you from living with you. As long as you don’t become too predictable she will likely give you the benefit of the doubt. However, seeking intimacy is a trap. I think that you are mostly wrong about intimacy.

    Mrs. Gamer would likely give me high marks for intimacy because she feels that I understand her.

    …allows a man an opportunity to gain respect and admiration in his wife’s eyes that contribute to her own ability to SINCERELY communicate her own intimate emotions.

    And I care about gaining respect and admiration from my wife because…? Totally Blue Pill. If I can’t read my wife’s emotions, I’m in deep doodoo.

    Ian, have you read my post about relationships and managing a woman’s emotional physiology?

  54. @ jf12

    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.

  55. @ Stingray

    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.

  56. M Simon
    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.

  57. @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 women’s magazines, or more usually now social media, holding her phone up for me to see “Would you look at this! Don’t you think she’s pretty?”

    When in love, men really don’t look. Really, automatically, strange women are detected peripherally as threat objects, and the man-in-love literally cannot look at other women as potential sexual partners / sexual objects.

  58. 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.

  59. 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)

  60. @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.

  61. 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 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.

    She has told me that when she does that the loss of power is more than made up for by the feelings of peace and well being she gets.

    But as I said. It takes quite a while to get them to give up “feminism”.

  62. 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.

  63. @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.

  64. “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!!!!).
    So you basically have to be, like Bruce Lee said, “like water”, respond to her actions, (medium is the message), and keep one eye open always.
    Like you said brother, RP becomes part of you, in fact, it has always been there, but the elite and FI have tried, with some success, to socialise it out of us.

    1. Intimacy in reality, for men,I think is your woman (or women) taking you for who you are, on her volition, without you having to explain. And for her it’s constantly trying to be your woman, in every way. Women are just like this. I used to believe in that equalist nonsense – all you get is no pussy, and pity, and then, like Stephen in the HUS story, you suddenly become ‘alpha’ when women start hitting the wall. We’re not the same, that is the beauty of it.
    2. Men and women do not see intimacy the same way, even though they claim to…just like love.
    3. Though it may not be the only way, I think it it is the most effective, & efficient. At the very least it must be complimentary to whatever way you chose. Women, must know, subconsciously & consciously, that you can leave, even though it means you being alone. When you have nothing to lose, when this is not just your outlook to your woman but other things, a man will tune various aspects in life to reflect this attitude. I think this relates to what you said about a woman being complementary. A man has to realistic about ‘Intimacy’, they’re pitfalls into the BP rabbit hole.

  65. “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 I’ll just throw that out there.

  66. @ 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, espouse that very concept. It just so happens that the best way to get and keep a woman as well as anyone can is to have “inner game” – be “alpha” – i.e., own your mind, and be the center of your world. Be your “mental point of origin,” and never give your power away to a woman.

    Not directly and overtly, and not indirectly and in the privacy of your own mind, as in an LJBF scenario, whether you’ve outed your feelings for her or not.

    What is intimacy? I don’t know how to define it. I think ReticentPill was pretty close. It isn’t that it has no value, but if we are dreaming of intimacy as our highest goal in life, we’re building our house on sand.

    This is a great thread here, and I think this is a very important topic to discuss. I think the thing of most importance though is the VALUE we individually place on intimacy, and what merits that has.

    Is it biologically necessary? What is reasonable to pursue here? I’ve been thinking one night stands with regular sex would be FAR preferable to a committed relationship with irregular sex. So my definition of intimacy has shifted more to purely physical, perhaps due to my experiences of years of complete sexual deprivation.

    There is an intimacy is sexual contact that is simply inherent in the act of it. And I value that highly, from what little I’ve experienced of it. With the one girl I had no rapport with at all that I hooked up with, I had a great time. It felt great. No emotions, really. Just wanting sex. But it was great to share that. I don’t romanticize it at all and never had any feelings for her. But I loved the way her body felt and sharing that experience was a very intimate thing for me, even though it was only one time and for the most part we never talked again or met up after that.

    I don’t have the experience to comment further. But I’ve known guys who’ve slept with hundreds of women and they seemed to remember them all fondly. The ones they could remember anyway, haha.

    I love this quote and I think it applies perfectly here:

    Buddha said, “Just think of the trees: they let the birds perch and fly, with no intention to call them when they come and no longing for their
    return when they fly away. If people’s hearts can be like the trees, they will not be off the Way.”

  67. 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.

    The team chemistry needs to be there. Everybody needs to be able to plug into one another. And the boundaries are recognized and respected. There are boundaries that are recognized between individual players, and the boundaries that are recognized between those within the team and those outside the team, although those outside may be associated with the team.
    Like how a team like the Spurs will have acknowledged stars, but it’s never allowed to get to needlessly reminding the supporting staff that they are seen as the supporting staff. And a team keeps things that need to stay within the team, within the team. No leaks, no using the press to air a grievance you haven’t said face to face.

    Or like with some prostitutes and male customers say, sometimes they form more intimacy with their regulars than the men form with their wives.
    There’s a freedom they feel, to express or talk about anything, and that partly comes from the boundaries that are created, recognized, respected and protected for the sake of the other(mainly for him I guess). The prostitute knows to provide the place for him to say what he wants, but she also knows not to do anything to mess up the boundaries outside of what goes on the two of them.
    Prostitutes will do just about anything, but won’t kiss. That’s too intimate. That’s a boundary the guy can’t cross. They may have a wife, but the prostitute can be someone they feel they can talk to about anything, do anything, but can’t kiss.

    A photo can be intimate if it evokes a relatable feeling. That doesn’t have to do with boundaries outright, but maybe a shared experience. And the shared experience could have come from the formation of a boundary between you and a select few. So as far as that is concerned, maybe I took a long time to say intimacy partly comes from establishing, acknowledging, and respecting, boundaries for the sake of maximizing the fulfillment and enjoyment of a shared experience.

  68. 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 my life because they are drawn to it

    Also I do not manage a “marriage” I mange the family, Their is a difference

  69. 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 you truly found “the one”, “a true connection”….

  70. 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 as to provide a context and framework in which most men can find their own personal variation of their ideal as possible. For those who wish to put family as a primary interest, understanding the foundational importance of marriage as the vehicle of stronger family structure than the alternative includes the recognition that this long-term (permanent) commitment will outlast the relatively short time it takes to raise a baby to adulthood.

    In order for the marriage to survive institutionally, the fulfillment of both parties complementary desires must be met regularly and consistently, be they sexual, physical, financial, spiritual, or emotional. Each of those arenas implies a commitment to understand and compromise for the good of the marriage. Yes, your woman wants a strong leader, but if she gets nothing but Alpha with no let up, at the end of the day (and near the end of the marriage) she will be unsatisfied, no matter how bullish you are. If you cannot maintain an intimate emotional conversation with your wife and communicate at that level, then you’ve missed the point of the exercise.

    Particularly if you do have children. That is a shared experience that is intimacy at the genetic level. There is no shame nor weakness in sharing your concerns about your fatherhood, your father, and your fears about your mutual child. If you’ve found a worthy woman and tested her to your satisfaction, she will not see that as a weakness to exploit but as invaluable information vital to your mutual goal.

    Deny the importance or even the existence of the necessity for emotional intimacy if you will, but you’re missing out. The Grant Study I referenced earlier is the longest longitudinal study of high-performing men in history. The basic insight into the success of these uber-Alphas, captains of industry and leaders of men and enterprise, was the satisfaction and fulfillment they took from their interpersonal relationships, particularly with family. The importance of both mother and wife are highlighted.

    No, it’s not utterly comprehensive, but if you study how the masters achieve their mastery and you see that they invest emotionally in their wives and family, then the idea that emotional intimacy is a weakness, too beta, or a hazard to your happiness, loses its luster.

  71. 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 it will make her a part of your exciting life. You can use her as your confidante, friend, etc. but just always remember that she is not your mother. She can help strengthen your resolve through her presence and an implicit reminder of the man that you are and want to be……but she and your children rely on you to lead the family through an organic expression of your masculinity. If all of a sudden you want to abdicate your masculine nature, it is only normal that she abdicate her feminine frame. But, in that case, the only one to blame is yourself.

  72. “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 love their children. Consequently, a mother can create tremendous damage by asking a child to provide emotional support and stability to her.

    Because women have analogous needs with respect to men, in relationships between men and women, encompassing love is only possible for men, and it flows from men to women.

    Intimacy can be expressed by a woman through complete openness and vulnerability, whose prerequisites are complete confidence and trust, which are only possible toward someone who is above her and independent of her, and who protects her emotional intimacy.

    This type of intimacy can flow only from women to men, because men are capable of receiving the mental and emotional vulnerability (and weakness) of women, without experiencing ill effects, and can thus provide peace and stability to them.
    .

    On the other hand, women can receive openness from men, without experiencing fear and instability, only when the defining qualities of this openness are strength and optimism, and never weakness or doubt.

    Just as a woman cannot follow a man whom she is also having to lead, she cannot cling to a rock that she is also having to carry.

    As BuenaVista wrote: “Our value does not lie in our tearful admissions, drunken incompetence, illicit anger or panicked fears. It just doesn’t. The man who confuses blubbering confession with an ‘evolved’ emotional and social skill set is a man who is setting fire to his value with his woman.”

    Also, a woman is just looking for occasional bits and pieces that “feel” intimate, and that confirm her positive imaginings about her always somewhat “mysterious” man.

    “Understanding her man too much kills tingles and happiness in a woman.” [theasdgamer]
    .

    A woman functions best (effectively and efficiently, instead of flailing about in uncertainty and indecision) when she is able to follow a dominant leader, and believe that as long as she places her trust in him (especially during times of crisis), everything will turn out well.

    Therefore, women instinctively reject weakness for reasons of self preservation, because they are simply not capable of providing the complementary strength. Men and women are not even close to being equal, so this complementarity can only flow in one direction, from strength to weakness, from men to women.
    .

    Nevertheless, when women are in relationships that provide the support and security*, and dominance and leadership, that are prerequisite both to their well-being and to enabling their complementary capabilities, they can function happily and superbly as emotional and physical helpmates, as well as eager and enthusiastic fuck-bunnies, and provide “feminine energy” (for lack of a better term) that can be both an enjoyable intimacy, and a catalyst for beneficial (and even essential) mental and mentally mediated processes.

    * Which often needs to include an arrangement in which they have no primary or decision-making responsibilities.

  73. 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

  74. 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.

  75. “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]

  76. 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 word for it, becomes effortless once you’ve made Red Pill truths an intrinsic part of who you are.”

    I think it is unconscious manipulation of wording on part of the author.
    It should have read:

    I”’ve shared an enduring “intimacy” – if that’s even the right word for it – with Mrs. Tomassi for 19 years because Game and Red Pill awareness are simply part of who I am now. Game becomes effortless once you’ve made Red Pill truths an intrinsic part of who you are.”

    I think the author should have been honest by saying that “sorry folks, (true) intimacy with a woman doesn’t exist at all”, and elaborate on that.

    or saying: “I dont have a fucking clue what true intimacy with a woman means, because I have never experienced it. Probably it doesnt exist at all.”

    Instead we receive something that is an ill-defined mishmash of bad definitions and half-truths.

    In a broader context, I think that life is meaningless without true intimacy.

    Is the paramount achievement of life is to fuck as many women as many times as possible? I seriously doubt it. Similarly: Is the goal of life is to be “always on the top” by exerting influence and manipulation wherever possible? i dont think so.

    There are all important and relevant aspects, but only technical necessities. It is similar to money. Is (having more and more) money the essence of life? No, but having money is a technical necessity.

    I think gaming /PUA confuses the means with the ends. It focuses on having more and more “money” (in a “spiritual”/psychological sense) while failing to tell what to use it for.

  77. 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 end up as a natural default position, of which you would stop being consciously aware, and pretty much the opposite of “an unrewarding soul crushing role of ceaseless obligation and labor”.

    And from everything that you have written, if I had to make a list of those I believe are Alphas, in the complete sense of the word, you would be on it.

  78. 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 be burned out of you before you are 30 and shutting that voice down should be automatic

    I reckon BV is saying the same thing, just with more class.

    Deep personal relationship with someone else? Still screams beta and feminine frame. If that is your mission you need a better objective.

    Share your inner workings? Screams beta and feminine frame.

    “I tell my GF that all of the time. She helps me become the man That I want to be and I appreciate that very much” Yea never want to go on a mission with a man who thinks his woman helps him become the man he wants to be….or allows a woman say in that process. Men build men, women just let your crawl out of her vagina. That’s pretty much the end of her help in the man building business.

    Name me the masculine profession or pursuit where you want the other side to know your warts and “vulnerabilities”. Again juvenile and feminine frame. Most men here sound leftover bullshit from the 80’s about getting in touch with their emotions. There is a huge lack of masculine frame, pride and strength in these replies….. and you know lots of bitching about 1st world problems

  79. @ton

    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.

  80. 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

  81. @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?

  82. @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, like he has been a lot lately. So I picked him up some Chick-fil-A soup and invited myself in, and after a while he felt better enough. His arthritis eased up enough so he could really play, instead of limiting himself to rhythym. I’m just a beginner with a few hundred hours, maybe a thousand, on the guitar proper; he’s got a few tens of thousands of hours.

    He’s got five kids with two women, none of which he’s seen in years. He wasn’t in church with his first wife, who he married after having four kids and after getting saved, to make things right. She left him pretty quickly after he got all cleaned up. A long time after, he married a younger single mom and had two more kids, but one died of childhood cancer. The mom never recovered from that and walked away taking her previous kid, leaving the one with him to raise.

    We talked about songs he played in Vietnam, and his decades on the worldly country and western circuit, but mostly we talked about Jesus, and played and sang old gospel, mostly southern gospel, which almost drowned up the dozens of raucous neighbors who kept screaming and cussing and slamming doors while coming and going all evening despite the inclement weather.

    My wife texted only several times for no reason, jealous of the soup I think.

  83. 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.

  84. @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.

  85. @ jf12

    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!

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