One of the most endemic masculine pitfalls men have faced since the rise of feminine social primacy has been the belief that their ready displays of emotional vulnerability will make men more desirable mates for women.
In an era when men are raised from birth to be “in touch with their feminine sides”, and in touch with their emotions, we get generations of men trying to ‘out-emote’ each other as a mating strategy.
To the boys who grow into Beta men, the ready eagerness with which they’ll roll over and reveal their bellies to women comes from a conditioned belief that doing so will prove their emotional maturity and help them better identify with the women they mistakenly believe have a capacity to appreciate it.
What they don’t understand is that the voluntary exposing of ones most vulnerable elements isn’t the sign of strength that the Feminine Imperative has literally bred a belief of into these men.
A reflexive exposing of vulnerability is an act of submission, surrender and a capitulation to an evident superior. Dogs will roll over almost immediately when they acknowledge the superior status of another dog.
Vulnerability is not something to be brandished or proud of. While I do believe the insight and acknowledgement of your personal vulnerabilities is a necessary part of understanding oneself (particularly when it comes to unplugging oneself), it is not the source of attraction, and certainly not arousal, that most men believe it is for women.
From the comfort of the internet and polite company women will consider the ‘sounds-right’ appeal of male vulnerability with regard to what they’re supposed to be attracted to, but on an instinctual, subconscious level, women make a connection with the weakness that vulnerability represents.
A lot of men believe that trusting displays of vulnerability are mutually exclusive of displays of weakness, but what they ignore is that Hypergamy demands men that can shoulder the burden of performance. When a man openly broadcasts his vulnerableness he is, by definition, beginning from a position of weakness.
The problem with idealizing a position of strength is in thinking you’re already beginning from that strength and your magnanimous display of trusting vulnerability will be appreciated by a receptive woman. I strongly disagree with assertions like those of various Purple Pill ‘life coaches’ that open, upfront vulnerability is ever attractive to a woman.
The idea goes that if a man is truly outcome-independent with his being rejected by a woman, the first indicator of that independence is a freedom to be vulnerable with her. The approach then becomes one of “hey, I’m just gonna be my vulnerable self and if you’re not into me then I’m cool with that.”
The hope is that a woman will receive this approach as intended and find something refreshing about it, but the sad truth is that if this were the attraction key its promoters wish it was, every guy ‘just being himself‘ would be swimming in top shelf pussy. This is a central element to Beta Game – the hope that a man’s openness will set him apart from ‘other guys’ – it is common practice for men who believe in the equalist fantasy that women will rise above their feral natures when it comes to attraction, and base their sexual selection on his emotional intelligence.
The fact is that there is no such thing as outcome independence. The very act of your approaching a woman means you have made some effort to arrive at a favorable outcome with her. The fact that you’d believe a woman would even find your vulnerability attractive voids any pretense of outcome independence.
Hypergamy Doesn’t Care About Male Vulnerability
When I wrote Women in Love and the followups, Men in Love and Of Love and War, I described men’s concept of love as ‘idealistic’.
Naturally, simple minds exaggerated this into “men just want an impossible unconditional love” or “they want love like they think their mothers loved them.” For what it’s worth, I don’t believe any rational man with some insight ever expects an unconditional love, but I think it’s important to consider that a large part of what constitutes his concept of an idealized love revolves around being loved irrespective of how he performs for, or merits that love.
From Of Love and War:
We want to relax. We want to be open and honest. We want to have a safe haven in which struggle has no place, where we gain strength and rest instead of having it pulled from us. We want to stop being on guard all the time, and have a chance to simply be with someone who can understand our basic humanity without begrudging it. To stop fighting, to stop playing the game, just for a while.
We want to, so badly.
If we do, we soon are no longer able to.
The concept of men’s idealistic love, the love that makes him the true romantic, begins with a want of freedom from his burden of performance. It’s not founded in an absolute like unconditional love, but rather a love that isn’t dependent upon his performing well enough to assuage a woman’s Hypergamous concept of love.
Oh, the Humanity!
As the true romantics, and because of the performance demands of Hypergamy, there is a distinct want for men to believe that in so revealing their vulnerabilities they become more “human” – that if they expose their frailties to women some mask they believe they’re wearing comes off and (if she’s a mythical “quality woman“™) she’ll excuses his inadequacies to perform to the rigorous satisfaction of her Hypergamy.
The problems with this ‘strength in surrender’ hope are twofold.
First, the humanness he believes a woman will respect isn’t the attraction cue he believes it is. Ten minutes perusing blogs about the left-swiping habits of women using Tinder (or @Tinderfessions) is enough to verify that women aren’t desirous of the kind of “humanness” he’s been conditioned to believe women are receptive to.
In the attraction and arousal stages, women are far more concerned with a man’s capacity to entertain her by playing a role and presenting her with the perception of a male archetype she expects herself to be attracted to and aroused by. Hypergamy doesn’t care about how well you can express your humanness, and primarily because the humanness men believe they’re revealing in their vulnerability is itself a predesigned psychological construct of the Feminine Imperative.
Which brings us to the second problem with ‘strength in surrender’. The caricaturized preconception men have about their masculine identity is a construct of a man’s feminine-primary socialization.
The Masks the Feminine Imperative Makes Men Wear
To explain this second problem it’s important to grasp how men are expected to define their own masculine identities within a social order where the only correct definition of masculinity is prepared for men in a feminine-primary context.
What I mean by this is that the humanness that men wish to express in showing themselves as vulnerable is defined by feminine-primacy.
For the greater part of men’s upbringing and socialization they are taught that a conventional masculine identity is in fact a fundamentally male weakness that only women have a unique ‘cure’ for. It’s a widely accepted manosphere fact that over the past 60 or so years, conventional masculinity has become a point of ridicule, an anachronism, and every media form from then to now has made a concerted effort to parody and disqualify that masculinity. Men are portrayed as buffoons for attempting to accomplish female-specific roles, but also as “ridiculous men” for playing the conventional ‘macho’ role of masculinity. In both instances, the problems their inadequate maleness creates are only solved by the application of uniquely female talents and intuition.
Perhaps more damaging though is the effort the Feminine Imperative has made in convincing generations of men that masculinity and its expressions (of any kind) is an act, a front, not the real man behind the mask of masculinity that’s already been predetermined by his feminine-primary upbringing.
Women who lack any living experience of the male condition have the calculated temerity to define for men what they should consider manhood – from a feminine-primary context. This is why men’s preconception of vulnerability being a sign of strength is fundamentally flawed. Their concept of vulnerability stems from a feminine pretext.
Masculinity and vulnerability are defined by a female-correct concept of what should best serve the Feminine Imperative. That feminine defined masculinity (tough-guy ridiculousness) feeds the need for defining vulnerability as a strength – roll over, show your belly and capitulate to that feminine definition of masculinity – and the cycle perpetuates itself.
“The Mask You Live In” by director Jennifer Siebel Newsom (dual surname noted) is the perfect example of this perpetuation. You have a woman deciding for a larger public in a documentary what the male experience is and then solving the problem (i.e. the tired trope of men needing to get more in touch with their emotions) for men.
Men are ridiculous posers. Men are socialized to wear masks to hide what the Feminine Imperative has decided is their true natures (they’re really girls wearing boy masks). Men’s problems extend from their inability to properly emote like women, and once they are raised better (by women and men who comply with the Feminine Imperative) they can cease being “tough” and get along better with women. That’s the real strength that comes from men’s feminized concept of vulnerability – compliance with the Feminine Imperative.
Ironically Newsom is still oblivious to the fact that she can only create such a documentary in an environment of feminine-primacy. No man could produce this and be taken seriously in our contemporary social climate.
It’s indictment of the definers of what masculinity ought to be that they still characterize modern masculinity (based on the ‘feels’) as being problematic when for generations our feminine-primary social order has conditioned men to associate that masculinity in as feminine-beneficial a context as women would want.
They still rely on an outdated formula which presumes the male experience is inferior, a sham, in comparison to the female experience, and then presumes to know what the male experience really is and offers feminine-primary solutions for it.
From The 16 Commandments of Poon:
IV. Don’t play by her rules
If you allow a woman to make the rules she will resent you with a seething contempt even a rapist cannot inspire. The strongest woman and the most strident feminist wants to be led by, and to submit to, a more powerful man. Polarity is the core of a healthy loving relationship. She does not want the prerogative to walk all over you with her capricious demands and mercurial moods. Her emotions are a hurricane, her soul a saboteur. Think of yourself as a bulwark against her tempest. When she grasps for a pillar to steady herself against the whipping winds or yearns for an authority figure to foil her worst instincts, it is you who has to be there… strong, solid, unshakeable and immovable.
True vulnerability is not a value-added selling point for a man when it comes to approaching and attracting women. As with all things, your vulnerability is best discovered by a woman through demonstration –never explaining those vulnerabilities to her with the intent of appearing more human as the feminine would define it.
Women want a bulwark against their own emotionalism, not a co-equal male emoter whose emotionalism would compete with her own. The belief that male vulnerability is a strength is a slippery slope from misguided attraction to emotional codependency, to overt dependency on a woman to accommodate and compensate for the weaknesses that vulnerability really implies.
I know a lot of guys think that displays vulnerability from a position of Alpha dominance, or strength can be endearing for a woman when you’re engaged in an LTR, but I’m saying that’s only the case when the rare instance of vulnerability is unintentionally revealed. Vulnerability is not a strength, and especially not when a man deliberately reveals it with the expectation of a woman appreciating it as a strength.
At some point in any LTR you will show your vulnerable side, and there’s nothing wrong with that. What’s wrong is the overt attempt to parlay that vulnerability into a strength or virtue that you expect that woman to appreciate, feel endearment over or reciprocate with displays of her own vulnerability for.
A chink in the armor is a weakness best kept from view of those who expect you to perform your best in all situations. If that chink is revealed in performing your best, then it may be considered a strength for having overcome it while performing to your best potential. It is never a strength when you expect it to be appreciated as such.
@Atticus – I’ve seen you posting about your story before. I’m very sorry that you had to go through that. Incredibly unfortunate and sad. I don’t suppose it is any comfort to you to hear that it’s the strangest feeling for a woman, to feel a loss of admiration and respect. It’s awful, and many of us try very hard to override those feelings. Unfortunately, what I think can happen sometimes is that this actually reinforces the man’s negatives spiral downward and the woman’s feeling of wanting to impulsively run away. For example, if a woman does try to provide comfort because she feels like it is the right thing to do (I have been in this trap myself), the man then gets the message that he did the right thing by unloading emotionally. He doesn’t even feel better after he did it, though!! He actually feels WORSE. Then, he feels more and more down on himself, is more and more open with it (since his wife reinforced it initially), and her bad feelings get bigger and bigger.
The good news for people who did not end up divorced is that it’s completely possible to reverse the negative feelings. Just as easy as it was for them to show up in the first place.
@myrealitie
blah, blah,blah “Because that makes women feel great” blah blah blah
And there it is. You have it backwards- it’s a womans job to make men feel great. You will be happier when you assume that position and take that role. You’ll be happier, and so will he, when he stops listening to your ideas of what he should or should not do/be to make you feel great.
@Rollo- you are right.. it’s great when women post, nothing shows you solipsism and demonstrates RP truth better than reading their responses.
This excellent post (and others) reminds me of the Elloa and Nige
“My Wife Told Me She Wants to Cheat: Here’s How I Feel” article.
http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/wife-told-wants-cheat-heres-feel-gmp/
“I’m Married to my Soul-Mate But Still Want to Cheat”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elloa-atkinson/i-love-my-husband-but-heres-why-i-want-to-cheat_b_5909882.html
The first article is truly cringe worthy. All you have to do is look at a picture of the couple to know where this is headed. Not only will she probably fuck a more masculine man, but she will also convince him to watch or participate in his own cuckolding. And he will convince himself that it was a wonderful “growth” experience that he is a better man for.
These people are so caught up in their new agey blank slatism that they can’t even talk about it coherently. She says:
“Here’s what I don’t want you to know: I started walking Molly past his house, hoping to “accidentally” bump into him.
I “coincidentally” walked the dog at the time he walked his — 6 p.m.. I felt disappointed each time I didn’t see him.
I thought about him a lot. At work, on the way to work, on the way home, at home, in the morning, while walking, while spending time with Nige.
His name even came to mind while my husband and I were having sex. I mentally ejected him from my thoughts — *I wasn’t even attracted to him*…”
She is so in denial about her attraction for ‘K’ that she spins on about her wanting to fuck someone other than Nige because generations of her female ancestors had a neurosis to sabotage their happiness.
But all you need to do is look at the pic.
@Glenn, congrats on the epic rant. I really like this part “I say if a woman really gets that suffering, they should throw these guys a lay.”
My admitting to myself (and the world; I get kind of loud) my knowing of women’s complete and utter lack of sexual sympathy/empathy/charity was perhaps the great redpill turning point in my life. It was my big “Do Not Want!!!” moment, on a social news site a while back.
The big alpha trick is getting women to treat alphas as though the alphas need coddling. Factoid: women are highly motivated to treat a man well the worse he treats women.
@Hobbes re: “it’s a womans job to make men feel great.”
Yes. That’s what women are *for*. Now let’s see how long it will take for a woman to admit seeing that.
@myrealitie November 24th, 2014 at 3:39 pm
“Why did I happen to be reading this article today? Because recently my very successful and generally sexy husband has been moping this week about a very minor career mishap that he has been obsessing over. And it really tanks my attraction. I don’t even think the actual event is a big deal whatsoever, but rather, his moping and showing excessive vulnerability around it. Thank god he actually caught that he was stressing me out with his behavior. It’s not like talking to me about it even helps him! If he kept his bad feelings too himself and carried on I would still be here providing plenty of loyalty.”
Of course it’s all about you. Husband “moping” for a week and you’re searching the web for answers? It’s his issue (of course it’s a very minor career mishap) and it’s stressing you out for A WHOLE WEEK! Get busy Husband and keep me happy you deadbeat!! If only you would’ve kept you bad feelings to yourself and “carried on” I would still be providing plenty of loyalty. Another couple days and I’ll love you like a brother.
I don’t think you’ve worked hard enough make yourself “worth the marriage investment”. You need to look up the definition of loyalty also.
There is clearly a lot of anger here on this board about feeling ripped off and betrayed. @Atticus I just wrote a long comment that somehow didn’t make it on the board about my feeling very sorry about your story, which I have seen you post in the past actually.
But we even have an old alpha on here who is pissed that his harem left him when times were tough, LOL! So is it simple proper character that you want from women, or do you, like any other human, just want to have what you want and not have to work to hard for it and have too many obstacles to obtaining it?
The wonderful thing that people are missing is that there is an optimal path to follow: Don’t need validation from other people, be true to yourself, be able to emotionally regulate yourself, don’t get caught in a trap of feeling sorry for yourself so that you can skirt out of the hard work of self improvement. And this applies to men AND women. Any woman or man who follows that script will find themselves with a happy life and most likely a satisfying love life as well.
Probably the only women who are somewhat sexually charitable are some of the older pros. The women who have seen (and smelled, and taken into themselves) the worst of men, far too many for far too long, the women who have been treated the worst by men. These are the only women likely to be sexually sympathetic sometimes.
Why aren’t women more mortifiedly ashamed of being so very terrible to the men they lyingly profess to love?
@myrealitie
I didn’t unload emotionally. I never wept. I didn’t scream. I asked for some help.
@ myrealitie
I don’t see unchecked hypergamy going anywhere, no matter how much you cry about it.
I use hypergamy to torment unchaste women. The alphas around me are lesser and women compare them to me and keep trying to interest me. Sure, they sex up the lesser alphas, but they still are tormented because they can’t have me. I need to flirt with them mercilessly to really amp up the frustration. Making it fun, of course, so they don’t know what’s going on.
There’s one married woman who keeps defending her husband to me and mothering him on the dance floor. It’s pathetic. She lived in with him for four years after getting divorced in her early fifties and has been married three years. I doubt her chastity. She likes to dance with me a lot. She likes men’s hands on her body while dancing. She says that her husband trusts her and that she is friends with her ex and his gf. She lists her phone no. on facebook. She has met my wife, but won’t say hello to her. She has yet to introduce me to her husband. She gives me lots of IOI’s. Again, I doubt her chastity. It’s torment time. Make hypergamy stressful/painful. It doesn’t take a lot of us.
@Atticus – I am not going anywhere, but yes, I want to have a great relationship, so I work to try to understand how that can happen.
And I know from experience that going down the path of providing comfort in the face of moping leads to a downward spiral. First of all, men don’t feel better when women provide comfort. They feel worse, and it is emasculating. But if a woman provides this comfort happily, the man is reinforced for whining, because he is getting a good response from her (been down this path before). Then, he feels more like shit and not any closer to solving his problem. So he mops more. Woman then continues to feel like it is her duty to provide comfort all the while growing an increasing sense of primal “get the hell out of here” feelings.
I have found it is much better to turn away in the face of moping and act disgusted. It stimulates actual action and prevents this cycle. And if we have a son I’ll do the same with him.
And by the way, my husband also feels less sexual attraction to me during periods that I am needy or helpless. No one wants to be with someone who can’t handle their own shit, although I think the impulse to get away is stronger in women.
I played the traditional amercian man role model at the captain america livel; crashed and burned. never again women do not want that.
@Atticus – Your story is heartbreaking, but I have a hard time believing it is as simple as: You were great guy for decades and then suddenly you stumble a bit and she bolts. It’s hard to comment with such little information other than to express great sadness for you and your children.
“@Glenn, congrats on the epic rant. I really like this part “I say if a woman really gets that suffering, they should throw these guys a lay.”
My admitting to myself (and the world; I get kind of loud) my knowing of women’s complete and utter lack of sexual sympathy/empathy/charity was perhaps the great redpill turning point in my life. It was my big “Do Not Want!!!” moment, on a social news site a while back.”
Well, at least I know now that you are both insane, and with that I’ll leave this conversation. That had to be one of the stupidest, whiny-est, and most irrational and absurd things I’ve ever read.
“Sexually charitable”?!?!? LMFAO
Yes, while I’m offering up my body in sacrifice to all those poor men who lack the ability to get laid, why don’t all of you do the same and mercy fuck all of the lonely, obese, hideous, middle aged trolls who can’t get any either. Oh and while you’re at it while don’t you pay their rent for them too, since they have no one to take care of them and you ought to feel sorry for their suffering and make it better simply out of your pure humanity, with nothing to gain for yourself.
If you are truly serious and cannot see how utterly absurd and repulsive this idea is, well, you really are beyond hope or any capability of rational thinking.
The author of this article is spot on. For the rest of you, I am sorry for your bitter and pathetic lives.
Ick.
Oh and by the way, if a man really is that hard up for sex, there is this thing called a prostitute. They aren’t hard to find.
Women always try to lie about their reasoning about their lack of charity. “First of all, men don’t feel better when women provide comfort.”
Wrong. So very wrong. Women hate to provide comfort to a man who needs it; women love to provide comfort to a man who scorns it. In both cases, the man enjoys the woman doing her job of trying to make the man feel great.
Women also always lie about their reasoning about their projection. “my husband also feels less sexual attraction to me during periods that I am needy or helpless.”
Wrong. Men like sex all the time; it’s a dailyish hunger. Even if I only want a happy meal with 90 fries instead of 100, I’m still hungry.
@myrealitie
“I have found it is much better to turn away in the face of moping and act disgusted. It stimulates actual action and prevents this cycle. And if we have a son I’ll do the same with him.”
Thank you for proving my point that women today are not worth the investment or bother. Here, lets do an experiment go show your hubby what you wrote there. Then lets ask him, “is she really worthy of your love and honor?”
If he still answers yes, he is a simp, a bottom feeder and less than a man. If he answers No, then he will have to do the sane thing and cut your ass off.
Enjoy your reality
@sfcton, re: Captain America failz.
Correct. Strong Good Man doesn’t work with women, because it isn’t actually Strength per se that does it. Strong Bad Man works, because Bad works.
@jf12 – you are not in the category of “man” at this point as far as I am concerned, so any accounts of your own preferences are void and do not add to the discussion. You have no idea what you are talking about. You are the male equivalent of a hamster on meth.
@jf12- true that my friends, very true
@JQ, what do you think Mark Manson would say about myrealitie’s confirmation of male vulnerability?
I’m pretty sure he’d fall back on the Beta trope that “she’s just low quality”, right?
@Hobbes many men actually do this to each other. Why? Because it is actually disrespectful to act as if you believe your male friend cannot handle his own shit.
I guess that social group was too busy stuffing you into a locker so you missed that lesson.
@ jf12
The feral Feminine Imperative *demands* that an apex alpha be made sexually available to her without cost during a fertile period and then that apex alpha bemade to deteriorate throughout the short honeymoon period, so that he will be satisfied with intimacy instead of sex happily ever after. The FI *demands* bed death, among other things. It’s not the fault of men for not being strong enough.
I strongly disagree. Bed death is only for betas. Alphas are to be available to women on demand. On call 24/7.
Crazylittle laughs at the very idea of a man needing charity. Laughs and laughs and laughs. Thereby confirming her heartlessness. Women’s solispism is thereby shown to be explicitly malicious and not the least bit ignorant.
The maestro takes a bow.
@ crazylittle
Yes, while I’m offering up my body in sacrifice to all those poor men who lack the ability to get laid, why don’t all of you do the same and mercy fuck all of the lonely, obese, hideous, middle aged trolls who can’t get any either. Oh and while you’re at it while don’t you pay their rent for them too, since they have no one to take care of them and you ought to feel sorry for their suffering and make it better simply out of your pure humanity, with nothing to gain for yourself.
If I see you in a club, I’ll be looking to work you up, babe. For frustration. Don’t think I can’t. It will be both fun and frustrating. Catnip.
“Be a bad boy. Be an emotional robot. Be strong without any weaknesses. Be completely immune to heartache and completely dismiss everything a woman ever says or does.” JF12
That seems awful familiar…….
Epic rant Glen
@ JF I am not laughing at lonely men who can’t get laid. I am laughing at your notion that it is my responsibility to offer myself up sexually to these poor dudes out of pity. Why, exactly, is that my or any woman’s responsibility, any more than it is your responsibility to pay some strange, lonely woman’s rent? I have sex with men i desire to have sex with. not men i feel sorry for. You are apeshit crazy.
@ jf12
Crazylittle laughs at the very idea of a man needing charity. Laughs and laughs and laughs. Thereby confirming her heartlessness. Women’s solispism is thereby shown to be explicitly malicious and not the least bit ignorant.
The maestro takes a bow.
The crowd goes wild, showering him with adulation. Well, the MGTOWs, anyway.
It’s interesting how much hate I generated when I first proposed that women love opportunistically and men love idealistically. I probably should’ve wrote Intimacy and Vulnerability (maybe Empathy too) before I published the Love series, those post would’ve made a better preface for it.
I think there’s a primal fear that most Beta men experience when the source of their ability to provide (i.e. perform) dries up and they’re confronted with the prospect of having to rely on the provisioning of their wives to sustain a family.
http://therationalmale.com/2013/01/14/house-of-cards/
I wrote that post almost 2 years ago.
This is the experience myrealities is having with her husband. One of the greatest shit test determinants of a man’s Alpha self-image and mental point of origin is how he handles adversity while his questioning wife looks on.
She expects to be revolted by the Beta who looks to her for comfort (in his vulnerability remember?), while she embraces the Alpha who says, “I got this” and never breaks stride.
The entire back and forth with myrealitie is a shining example of men’s burden of performance and at the same time a confirmation of women’s complete inability to ever appreciate the sacrifices men to facilitate a feminine reality.
Crazylittle pretends to forget we are discussing women refusing to allow men to be vulnerable within relationships. Fear not, I’m here to keep reminding. And to keep asking: What do women think they are for?
Crazylittle (parsed): “I am laughing at your notion that it is my responsibility to offer myself up sexually to [the poor man I claim to love] out of pity.”
jf12: “The realtie is that even that women think that it is too much of a burden to be even such a pathetically easy version of a reasonably nice woman.”
No, the person who posted that was referring to lonely male virgins who had never gotten laid. Not a partner in an already established relationship.
Crazylittle wrote:
“Why, exactly, is that my or any woman’s responsibility, any more than it is your responsibility to pay some strange, lonely woman’s rent?”
In fact it is my responsibility to pay some strange, lonely woman’s rent. I don’t have any choice in the matter. Me and many other men are paying for many lonely women’s rent. Rent that used to be paid by husbands who received some value in return.
And my son is going to be paying the social security of the childless modern “liberated” women that I meet everyday.
Yes, there is such a thing as a prostitute. The women who are being subsidized by unknown betas (or will be in the future) are not keeping their end of the bargain.
Yes, it is a “complete inability” yet some of men who are stuck respond as if it is a choice, with enormous anger and a sense of being wronged.
There is even a beauty in it that the men are overlooking: If you can act like you feel good about how things are going and you are on top of it, you can cruise your wife and kids happily into their new trailer at the trailer park. In other words, the actual circumstances don’t matter as much as your attitude, which is the one thing you actually can control (unlike circumstances). This fact should be enormously freeing, so why is everyone fighting it so hard?
And my husband takes himself very seriously, which I like and respect, but no, I do not like it when I am exposed to his anxiety over a truly trivial error that is not, in reality, going to threaten his career advancement in any way.
Crazylitte is too modest sounds more lie crazylots.
A woman cant handle real emotional surrender from a man, irrespective of how alpha. She can deal with objective difficulties as long as (i) you are trying and (ii) she does not have better realistic options. If a man wants to have a family, he needs to have a healthy SMV lead over his mate and constantly reinforce that he expects to be the #1 priority in his mate’s life in exchange for his emotional security and protection. While no defense against a letdown, a woman who is constantly on guard to please you, will take a while to go on the offensive even in the worst of times. Women can be great helpmates in life, but they need to be shaped in demanding fashion. Love for a man is only the love of what a woman can do to help create the life he wants in clear and practical terms. Everything else is feminized bullshit.
I wonder which will get conceded first by a woman.
1. She knows that she ought to try to make her man feel great, and that she deliberately fails miserably specifically to make him feel worse.
2. “women’s feelings change all the time, and are not linked to objective reality. Hence, a woman “feeling great” has zero (nay, negative) predictive value.”
It’s a race, of sorts. Who’s gonna win? Believe it or not, I confidently predict Number 1.
@Atticus – Your story is heartbreaking, but I have a hard time believing it is as simple as: You were great guy for decades and then suddenly you stumble a bit and she bolts. It’s hard to comment with such little information other than to express great sadness for you and your children.
The time frame was compressed for brevity. My personal questioning of my direction occurred over a year.
The thing is the ideas in many of Rollo’s posts on gender behavior, specifically requirements of men, are unkown to 99% of men. It used to be that your Dad taught you how to be a man: perform, don’t be a pussy, don’t cry, be self reliant, think for yourself, question everything, the government sucks, take care of your family, learn to hunt, put brakes on the car, cut the grass, help me reshingle the roof, register for the draft, drink with your buddies at the Firemans club, etc., etc. Now all that stuff is taboo. He never taught me and my brothers that men and women are different; he trained us to be masculine. If you’re masculine the way our Dad’s (or Grand Paps) were, women fall into line.
The fact that men can’t be men is destroying us.
@New Yorker – “If a man wants to have a family, he needs to have a healthy SMV lead over his mate and constantly reinforce that he expects to be the #1 priority in his mate’s life in exchange for his emotional security and protection. While no defense against a letdown, a woman who is constantly on guard to please you, will take a while to go on the offensive even in the worst of times.” – I think this is wise.
@Atticus – I agree with what you are saying. There has been a breakdown in traditions and institutions that have passed this information along. I personally think it had to happen, and while I think the pendulum swung too far in the other direction, I as a woman am happy that there were some changes (I enjoy working, for example). I think blogs like this and other forums on the internet and in person are trying to do their part to teach men how to be men. Hopefully we can build even better mechanisms and institutions post-feminism. Maybe you can make the remainder of your life meaningful and enjoyable by being part of that. But I personally don’t think there is a place for anger at the nature of women – I think it is counterproductive.
@realitie
And my husband takes himself very seriously, which I like and respect, but no, I do not like it when I am exposed to his anxiety over a truly trivial error that is not, in reality, going to threaten his career advancement in any way.
You still don’t get it. It’s not all about you. Think of him. Why does this matter to him? Your selfishness is unreal.
You don’t like it when your exposed to his anxiety. Get over it. Let him alone. He’ll work it out
Myrealitie – ” In other words, the actual circumstances don’t matter as much as your attitude, which is the one thing you actually can control (unlike circumstances). This fact should be enormously freeing, so why is everyone fighting it so hard?”
Bullshit.
@Atticus – Well, this actually goes back to your earlier point. I would be happy to let him work it out, and he might prefer to do that by himself also. But currently we spend a lot more time together than we might in an older world. Maybe part of the solution is to spend a bit more time apart. Currently, after work we are immediately together talking about our days. Maybe it would be better if he spent more time privately unwinding and working through his angst.
And I am sharing my feelings here honestly so that the men on the board can have a case study so to speak. Dismiss me as awful if you want to, but I’m not the only one woman who has these feelings.
http://www.justfourguys.com/displays-of-weakness/
Great post Rollo!
On ‘Vulnerability’:
Sometimes I tear up when watching a movie. Y’know, something touches who I am in a personal way that stokes the fire of emotion inside. When this happens I always turn away from my partner. I don’t let her see it. She may get it that I am touched but I make it clear in a physical way that it’s none of her business and she gets that.
Same thing with mistakes. I can admit I made a wrong choice but there is no apology. No ‘I’m sorry’. Being honest about a mistake and being sorry for having made a choice are not the same thing. I stood up, placed my bet and fate went against me. I lost that hand. Tough shit. Move on.
Further:
There appears to be some variability to the term ‘vulnerability’. I’m thinking you all mean showing openly your weakness or fear. Total no no. Never do that. And you all get it.
Beyond that there is the fact that we are always vulnerable. Always. Anything, random or not can swoop down and slam us to the ground. A head-on. A business downturn. An illness. What I find is that a woman who is worth her salt will support me as I do the heavy lifting of getting through these challenges in life. I don’t ask her for support. She just does it. In fact, I often avoid any mention of whatever difficulties I face. But a good woman can sense that and seeing my ‘face it or die trying’ attitude will step up and put her shoulder to the wheel. In some way that I have not yet found words for it relates to ‘intimacy’.
None of the above negates the fact of hypergamy. It’s just what they do. And how I live my life as a man is just what I do.
Since we all have different histories the above is offered as comment on my own story, not advice. Your mileage may vary.
Funoldguy
* Pokes head in.
reviews comments.
nods head knowingly, secure in the knowledge that truths are being confirmed from the horses’ mouths.
First, from myrealitie, a married woman watching a husband’s anxiety and losing attraction for him.
Then from crazylittle, a single woman with no compassion or empathy whatsoever for a man’s pain. (No, crazylittle, no one really expects you to offer up pityfucks to unattractive men.)
Thanks, myrealitie and crazylittle. I really appreciate this. The next time I’m told that there’s no truth at all in the ‘sphere, I’ll return here, to these comments.
*swoops out
Oh well, since even I predict I’ll be waiting too long otherwise (to wait for her to concede knowing that women’s flightly feelings are basically meaningless), I give in and ask
myrealitie: In what way are you behaving towards your husband as if you sincerely believe “this is wise” that he “constantly reinforce he expects to be the #1 priority in his mate’s life” and that you are “constantly on guard to please” him?
How are you pleasing him? How are you showing him he is your #1 priority?
These are easy easy questions.
Well written Rollo and thank you for the concise article. As a bit of an aside, I’d say men are vulnerable when they are kicked in the balls by events or when they know they have fallen short of their ideal. While both situations are deadly if relayed to a woman, the latter is more subtle.
That is, I think men idealize everything. Better yet, I think that men can envision the perfect form and strive to achieve that perfect form, knowing through introspection when they have almost reached the ideal only to have it slip away—reality has flaws.
This is a sex difference; I don’t think women can envision the ideal and, even if they can grasp it intellectually, they are not driven to have it manifest nor can they see the real flaws in what has been manifested.
Of course, I’m simply repeating what you have written elsewhere. Cheers!
The takeaway message from myrealitie:
“Do not ask for quarter, no quarter will be given.”
Hypergamy is a harsh mistress, but there you have it gentlemen. Use that knowledge as you will.
Myrealitie – “But I personally don’t think there is a place for anger at the nature of women – I think it is counterproductive.”
Probably. But you just consider We were taught men and women are equals. Obviously that’s not true. We’re sold the idea of equal partnership, again bullshit. We were told by women that women like/appreciate sensitive men. More lies. We were told by women to be ourselves, not be afraid to cry, be nice, put women’s needs first, be good providers, to not make sexual demands, be respectful, even to defer to women in situations where technical and mechanical expertise is not at issue, and if we did that then loyalty, love, etc. would follow.
It was all a lie. And that’s why there’s anger. You people can’t be trusted. You provide no obvious benefits beyond sex. and when the going gets tough your always one foot out the door, or sure to forever punish the man who failed to insulate you from reality.
Yet we must stick by y’all no matter how fat you get, how much money you waste, or how much you nag and belittle, and when you get tired of sex well that’s just something we have to deal with.
Heaven forbid we show a moments doubt.
Nailed it – as you do so often Rollo.
Oh, but Badpainter, Mark Manson says your doubt makes you human and if it’s one thing ALL women love it’s humanity…
http://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/2na0bh/vulnerability/cmbulix
Badpainter, LilCrazy, myrealitie? Don’t you agree?
*blush*
Don’t expect an (honest) answer, jf12. After all, if her husbandi s anxious about something and it makes her feel bad SHE’S the victim. Ya know, kinda like Hilary said that women are the primary victims of war becuase they lose their husbands and sons and all that…
“You have spoken the unspoken.
If women had the power to burn you on the cross, they would.
Keep on spreading the word.”
Buckets and hoses are locked and loaded.
About the only time a woman can experience a vulnerability a man has, as was stated in the post, is when she happens to witness it. And that would need to occur when it pertains to a situation that is in someway off limits to women. And even then, there’s the risk of her comparing that particular man to another who went through the experience, but maybe due to being on the other side of the outcome, didn’t show a vulnerability.
Like John Elway after maybe the 2nd or 3rd blowout Super Bowl loss, broke down during a conversation with his father over the phone. He didn’t talk to his wife about it.
That, I think, is the mistake and the difference that Hobbes made with his girlfriend. He wasn’t in a situation that’s in effect off limits to females, and he let it out to her. As opposed to her discovering it after he let everything out to a friend or male family member.
Manson is master bullshit artist.
He does nice job of conflating IDGAF with vulnerability. So I agree in part: “this is me take it or leave it, but I am still not watching Old Yeller with you.”
Women love Humanity, nerds, nice guys, about the same: in their minds but not in their realities.
re: “Give women false compliments and see how they respond. They won’t respond very well.”
They’ll respond quite well if you make it clear the compliments are false. But, it is true, women will respond better to being given false negs instead. The key is to make your statements as inauthentic, and conditional,as possible.
@ Badpainter:
“We were taught men and women are equals. Obviously that’s not true. We’re sold the idea of equal partnership, again bullshit. We were told by women that women like/appreciate sensitive men. More lies.”
/sarc on
But, you see, Badpainter, according to the feminists and tradcons among us, you were supposed to figure all this out on your own. You are to blame for your own bad outcomes because you didn’t figure out that everyone was lying to you. You were supposed to read books, watch movies, and observe the social dynamics of the top dogs and the hot girls; and from that, you were supposed to figure it out.
You should have figured out what the girls liked. You should have divined it in spite of everyone telling you that what you were seeing wasn’t really what you were seeing.
You should have told your parents, your pastor, your teachers, and everyone else around you that they were full of shit, and defied them openly. I know they told you things, but you shouldn’t have listened to them, despite the fact that they told you that they were the ONLY people you should listen to. You should have known they were committing parental and educational malpractice.
So it’s all YOUR fault, Badpainter.
Man up and marry the slut. And yes, she will prove unable and unwilling to comfort you when the storms of life rain down on you (as they do with every man and in every marriage), without losing attraction for you.
/sarc off
The girls are just saying “Man Up!” Face it, once a day someone is going to say, World (logic, finances, emotional foundation) be damned you losers, Man Up!
Also, the Man Up! adherents (male or female) never bother to announce that they’ll forgo the one-way options that the sexual marketplace now enforces.
Their kitchen is their world, so what happens in the schools, at CPS and the family law courts, in the university systems, and in the gender-sensitive corporations is just another anecdote from wussified men.
I was feeling kinda poorly last week (compared to how grrreat! I feel this week), probably a reaction to getting my yellow card renewed again. I feigned a grumpy distaste for certain unsatisfying behaviors, even while looking pretty ill standing in line to get my prescription filled, instead of authentically blaming myself and my vulnerabilities. And voila, I got some of what I want, although asalways little enough of what I need.
The fact that women respond *better* to inauthenticity must be the worst kept secret ever.
Just get it, Badpainter! Just figure it out for yourself! Just read “How to Win Friends and Influence People”! Just read some books! Just watch how Fuckbuddy Rockbanddrummer does it! Just don’t be liberal! Just figure it out!
” All of these things require you to stick your neck out on the line emotionally in some way. You’re making yourself vulnerable when you do them.
In this way, vulnerability represents a form of power, a deep and subtle form of power. A man who’s able to make himself vulnerable is saying to the world, “I don’t care what you think of me; this is who I am, and I refuse to be anyone else.” He’s saying he’s not needy and that he’s high status.”
Sounds like a confusion of risk taker vs. a vulnerability. It’s not the sticking the neck out that’s powerful, it’s the neck that can’t be cut. It’s not the free feeling of telling a joke that’s not funny. It’s the guy who is funny.
@Badpainter, musing about ‘manity, nerds, and nice guys.
Almost every woman that will open up to me (which is not a few) eventually winds up reminiscing about her being a nerdy nice teenage …boy. Seriously. Almost every woman harbors the fantasy that she literally *was* one of the many boys that she turned down.
@Water Cannon Boy, that was my first take on the reddit sub.
Risk taking is not vulnerability, it is a display of confidence in one’s capabilities in an uncertain situation.
Rejection is better than regret.
Manson offers nothing that Dr. Phil or Steve Harvey haven’t already covered for the past 20 years. He presumes a default weakness in men from a feminine defined context of masculinity.
If an openness for vulnerability, intimacy and love were determinants in attraction Manson would have no one at his seminars, because that’s what a majority of men believe will set themselves apart from the cliched ‘tough guys’ they believe everyone else is.
Ladies, I would like to thank you for your honesty. It is rare these days for a women to admit such things as myrealitie does regarding her attraction to her husband after he showed vulnerability. That being said, do you at least see why men historically have viewed women as only good for one thing? You are essentially admitting that is true. Anything else a man might want or need from you will only turn you off and lead to a downward spiral. If you complain about men objectifying you, you have only yourselves to blame.
BV:
Yes. Myrealitie is here essentially saying “Why can’t he man up? Why can’t he just grit his teeth and put his head down and push on through all this? It is all about me; because if he cannot man up and get through this, I’m in big trouble.”
Crazylittle is saying “Men have to man up, because I’m not going to be attracted to a man who can’t do that; and I’m sure as hell not going to enjoy having sex with a man who can’t Man Up.”
Myrealitie and Crazy are just being brutally honest here. I for one really appreciate it, because it puts the lie to others who tell us there is no truth at all in what the red pill offers. It’s good to hear at least a couple of women admit this.
I think most women can’t admit their inability to comfort a vulnerable man. They want to comfort him. They just cannot be sexually attracted to him. The relationship becomes one of mother-son, not woman-man, not lover-lover, not wife-husband. And she doesn’t want to care for a vulnerable man as she would a young boy.
Women don’t want to admit this, because admitting this would make them look shallow, superficial and bitchy. It makes them appear unable to handle adversity, and runs counter to the notion of the Strong Independent Woman. It makes them appear unwillling to preserve relationships, counter to the idea that women, not men, are the ones who hold all their relationships together.
Deti, I figured it out. I get it. I’m even mostly over my anger. But I’ll be damned if I am gonna be lectured by a woman about anything but menstration, and giving live birth.
Further I’ll be damned if I have to give a single shit, proactively or reactively, about some broads fragile anxious emotional state. Comfort can negotiated or sexual favors. I’ll not be taking feelz as valid when comes to observations of reality. I’ll not be validating the mere accident of existance coupled with speech.
I cook better than most women, I clean better, I’m stronger, smarter, have better mechanical aptitude, and I am better abstract thinker. Why would I bother to take advice from my inferiors when I know they are going to lie to my face?
And the -cons? The next time they do anything that looks like action that risks their own resources rather than exclusively mine you let me know.
Deti, one of these two feminine advisers threw her husband into the omega slag heap because he’s out of sorts for *one week.* A few days. It ruined her buzz. He needs to step it up, or it’s the practice squad for him. Again: he’s had a crappy *week* and her core motivation for being married *for life* is on the bubble.
And all that is, according to her, his fault.
Anyway, the reality is that in the corporation, classroom, courtroom or child services realms, a man who does what these two demand (being strong, independent, emotionally reserved, reticent) gets blown out. That man is — at her whim — a heartless beast, “emotionally unavailable”, “scary”, “frightening.” They don’t have to deal with it because they hold the V-card, should they ever choose to cancel their SAHM option card. What they’re saying: they’ll leave if they’re not dominated, and they’ll leave if someone else offers better domination, cash and prizes.
And they can. Their point of view is not stupid or fantastical. It’s absolutely how the game is played.
@deti re: “Women don’t want to admit this, because admitting this would make them look shallow, superficial and bitchy.”
One of women’s (many) vulnerabilities is that they cannot face their own intrinsic lack of charity. To the women who, knowing how uncharitable they themselves are, nonetheless bravely resolve to try to do better even merely by “acting” charitable instead of feeling charitable, know that you deserve our applause.
Rollo, been thinking about risk here and at Ton’s lately.
I think men undertake risk to qualify themselves to themselves. Some also do it because it’s quickly a chemical need.
That women quiver for a risk-taker, in my view, is completely ancillary. I never met anyone who risked life and psyche for a chick. The women are just the post-event salve, the tertiary benefit. Smart men know that their attractions are finite, if the risk-taking goes poorly or becomes outgrown.
Recall when Dennis Quaid, in On Any Sunday, admits his fear and physical infirmities to his wife. She won’t stand for it. She slaps him and humiliates him.
Just once I would like to meet a woman who knows what grinding, incessant, debilitating physical pain is; who knows what it’s like to be 10 seconds from death, and knows that he knows he has 10 seconds to get it right but must still *act now*; who knows that if he makes one poor decision the 100 people working for him will turn from him permanently, disgusted.
They don’t, so with the chips down they do what the chick above did: her husband has a bad week, and he’s on probation.
Assuming the argument here is true, men need to learn two things:
1) How to regulate and manage their emotions.
I personally use “Faster EFT” for this, on top of working out/getting plenty of physical activity regularly, getting plenty of sleep (very important for emotional regulation), and taking care of my nutrition through a good diet and supplements.
2) Women are incapable of appreciating what you’ve gone through to be the rock that you are for them. And they’re incapable of appreciating that you are a rock for them, or understanding the emotional depth, wisdom, and strength and integrity of character that being a rock entails.
IOW, they will completely take it for granted.
There’s no point wishing women were different or even feeling bad about hypergamy. The solution is to raise the bar. They expect a lot of us as men — it’s time we expect a lot of them as women. Our masculine energy and the foundation of rock solid support we offer as men is worth its weight in gold.
If a woman wants to purchase that, she should automatically be expected to offer her feminine energy, which is worth its weight in gold. It’s the women who have become completely detached from their femininity while expecting men to give them all their masculinity that are worthless as far as commitment goes.
What is the feminine complement to the masculine? We know more now about what women automatically expect of men due to hypergamy, but what do Red Pill (i.e. in tune with their true, biologically masculine sexuality) men expect of women?
The deal is, women want men to “just get it.” That’s why a Red Pill equivalent for women (how to be more feminine) probably doesn’t work very well, and I’m assuming that’s why Rollo hasn’t written anything from that perspective (as far as I know).
They need men to lead them because they aren’t capable of changing their behavior on their own. They are yin — receptive and submissive by nature. Their shape depends on the container they’re put in, like water. Whereas men are like rocks. They are what they are no matter where you put them.
That being said, I think it’s going to do me a lot of good to focus on what I want in a woman, and what I should expect of her. Not even so much her qualifying to me, as me going into any potential relationship or connection with the intent of controlling frame. The expectation being I have standards for how feminine a woman should be and what her behavior should be like, and if it isn’t up to par, I do my best to correct her, and if it ends up not being worth the time and effort, move on to another girl.
My dad’s compared it to training a dog. Take charge. Make the woman qualify for what you’re offering by training her to do it — don’t tolerate behaviors that aren’t feminine. Expect that she’s going to be feminine and when she acts out of line with that, let her know. Whether that’s through Dread or being blunt. My dad always expected dinner to be ready. He made my mom quit school to stay home to take care of me and my sister. Always expected to do all of the cleaning and housework and be ready to cater to my dad wherever he was. He would never get up off the couch after he got home from work. It was her job to bring everything to him and do whatever he told her to do.
And contrary to popular feminist belief, it’s not a tyrannical relationship. I never had the faintest hint that my mom would ever cheat on my dad or that there was ever any remote possibility for a divorce. My dad made very good money, worked his ass off, knew what he was worth as far as his character went, and my mom happily went along for the ride. He found out she was smoking while they were dating, pulled the cigarettes out of her purse, crushed them up and told her if she ever smoked again he was going to break up with her. He’d had relatives that died from lung cancer and he also thought it was disgusting. She never smoked again and here I am today.
So it’s true — “man up.” But surprise — it’s not in the feminist sense. Women can’t admit that they want to submit to a man and have him dominate her and own her and lead her and demand these behaviors of her.
Because if she has to explain it, it means he doesn’t get it.
I believe men have their equivalent of female hypergamy: men are naturally dominant leaders in relationships. They’ve just lost touch with this through heavy conditioning. Look at all the politically incorrect jokes men make in private. We all do it. About women cooking and cleaning and how they shouldn’t go to school but stay in the kitchen at home raising the kids.
We joke about it because it’s our true nature as men to want that. I honestly believe we’ve been conditioned to deny and repress this part of ourselves and think of it as “evil.”
When in reality, at least as far as I can tell, it’s how relationships are meant to work.
re: anger.
Men are not angry at the bloated beached whales stinking up their lives. Men aren’t angry, either, at having to exert so much effort to deal with the mounds of useless rot. Men are, however, a *little* angry about being billed for our own efforts, at having to pay for lugging the mess. And righteously men can get very angry at being charged exorbitantly for the “male privilege”.
I return to the analogy of a woman as a broken car. The man is the tow truck, who has to cart her wreck around, and he has to *pay* her, not only for her dead weight in gross pounds, but as if she were a spanking new C7. And he has to pay extra for not making good-enough “Vroom!” noises for her to believe she really is a C7.
Assuming risk is not vulnerability as Manson would sell it. If anything it presumes an invulnerability or an irrational self-confidence.
@Deti
I would argue that admitting such openly strips the veneer from a social construct the Feminine Imperative would rather men not know.
It’s a means to power and power for women always ends with the perception of controlling the circumstances necessary to optimize their Hypergamous nature.
Compare myrealities and CrazyLil’s admissions to the long term efforts it took to produce “The Mask You Live In” documentary I linked in this post:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/boys-gender-equity-crisis/
I think risk-taking is self-actualizing as well — something healthier than either a foolish sense of invulnerability, or an irrational self-confidence. I think it’s a transitional process: we become someone better through achievement and testing and all the rest of it. Anyway, that’s all off topic.
Rollo – “Assuming risk is not vulnerability as Manson would sell it. If anything it presumes an invulnerability or an irrational self-confidence.”
When you put it that way I have to reevaluate Manson’s article. I think he is describing masculine vulnerability from woman’s perspective where assuming risk is vulnerability. What we are talking about here, and as epitomized by Myrealitie, is not vulnerability but failure and weakness, from a woman’s perspective. Obviously women don’t get it. I suspect they can’t.
The difference is this:
Women see vulnerability as an exposure to external threat.
Men see it as a conscious loss of frame, or self doubt, an internal threat.
Thank you to the two female commenters for showing us that women are only good for sex, and nothing else. Take away sex and the ability to have children, that in a nutshell is the today’s women. Completely useless.
Damn bruv! Gems! Straight from down town, straight butter!
To quote the child in the Matrix….”There is no spoon!”
I see this shit everyday fam, it’s disheartening…but change is on the way.
Manson uses the V word, but when I parse the benefits of ‘vulnerability’ that he describes, it looks to me like he is actually describing a man putting himself as his own mental point of origin.
The FI wants men to believe that doing so poses great risk to a man. So Manson’s spiel ends up sounding like he is advocating risk taking behavior, which he calls ‘vulnerability’.
Robin Thicke is exhibiting his intimate vulnerability these days …
http://www.tmz.com/2014/11/24/robin-thicke-girlfriend-kids-april-love-geary-pic/
‘Skin me, Sisr Paula,’ sez Brer Robin, ‘snatch out my eyeballs, t’ar
out my yeras by de roots, en cut off my legs, but do please, Sisr
Paula, please don’t fling me in dat brier-patch’.
You knows I cain’t haindle a 19 yr old eager model. Hailp!
Ever wonder why every single one of every woman’s solutions, all of feminists’ solutions, all of lesbians’ solutions, all their supporters’ solutions, every single one has as its main intended effect less sex for hetero men?
I mean, have you ever wondered since the red pill, since now you know why?
Irrational self-confidence is what one should develop toward one’s life. You can then honestly talk about what you face to woman while keeping frame. That is the only way you can ever discuss things with her while giving yourself an emotional outlet with her. Your confidence IS your emotion.
When you see the comment from the females, and reflect on what Rollo has been telling us, I feel that the whole “Tinder” phenomenon will only be more prevalent, and, so will “the world’s oldest profession”….
i feel the need to say it again:
a mans relationship with a woman should resemble animal husbandry, not some twinked out “equal” blah blah.
they (women) are NOT fully human in the way that men can be, so stop trying to make them fit that mold. love them in spite of your knowledge, an dont get disappointed with their failings.
after all, do you get angry when your dog misbehaves or if your drill won’t work? it just is what it is.
forward…. push through.
“When a man openly broadcasts his vulnerableness he is, by definition, beginning from a position of weakness. The problem with idealizing a position of strength is in thinking you’re already beginning from that strength and your magnanimous display of trusting vulnerability will be appreciated by a receptive woman.” [from the article]
Even if you are beginning from a position of strength, by intentionally presenting your vulnerabilities to someone who is subordinate, you are declaring that she is functionally qualified to receive this information, which implies that she is also qualified to participate in the mitigation of your deficiencies, as an equal.
Unfortunately, you cannot both be, and not be, the same thing (strong and confident) at the same time. In her mind, you have already become less than you were, and possibly less than adequate, through your failure to maintain your position in the natural hierarchy, which she instinctively expects and needs.
This is especially true with respect to a woman who is looking to you for security and stability (which is the subconscious default position of women, with respect to men).
So, unless you are dealing with a delusional* woman who believes that girl-power movies reflect reality, “challenging your limiting beliefs about masculinity” [from the article linked by stuttie], and vomiting forth your vulnerabilities and weaknesses, will lead to the double whammy of inducing uncertainty and fear, as well as disgust.
* “… when women empathize [with vulnerability], many believe they can handle the situation better than you, e.g., that they are stronger, more alpha than you.” [Aaron, November 24th, 2014 at 11:15 am]
.
However, to paraphrase Rollo, this is different from the rare instance of vulnerability unintentionally revealed by a man who is successfully shouldering the burden of performance.
This revelation can be endearing to a woman [as an element of intimacy], when her man has been engaging in their long-term relationship through consistent Alpha dominance and strength, because it shows that he can perform to his best potential, even when that requires overcoming weaknesses.
(Notice the key words “rare” and “unintentionally”.)
.
“… what if this vulnerability is not just a mate differentiation strategy, but a real need. Don’t you wish you could truly be vulnerable with your wife every now and then?”
Although she can only be what she is, nothing more and nothing less, a woman can be a positive force in a relationship, when a man creates and maintains the type of framework that enables her strengths, while neutralizing her weaknesses.
And this must necessarily be a continuous process**, since any emotional failure will interrupt that reality (or illusion), for an extended period, if not permanently.
As myrealitie [November 24th, 2014 at 8:55 am] wrote: “… No, they don’t [indulge their weaknesses], because if they did, their troops and their employees would panic and run away. It’s really no different with a woman and children.”
** The frame that is, or has become, natural for you, is automatic, and can be “continuous” through awareness, but without requiring extra effort.
.
Is This Thing On? [November 24th, 2014 at 9:50 am]: “Think of the first Rocky movies. At the end, he is usually getting his ass handed to him in the ring. He’s got his coach in the corner though, telling him he can do it. It enables him to dig deep and end up winning. … That is what we want from our women. It is a cold slap in the face when you first realize no such relationship can exist.”
Indeed, no such relationship can exist, because this type of support, or even presence, is not one of the complementary strengths of women.
As Ang [November 24th, 2014 at 10:06 am] described (on a different topic): “… They showed a predator feed of the battle to the ranger commander and his wife. It was surreal. This hero calmly points out RPGs and Taliban. The wife forced them to stop showing it. The show edited her freak out …”
You can get that (coach) type of directive input only from someone who is independent of you, who doesn’t depend on you for psychological certainty and stability, and whom both of you recognize as being superior to you, in a relevant way, in that moment.
But a woman depends on her man for certainty and stability, as well as for strength and leadership, so the idea of her being his source of emotional strength, or of functional directives, especially in times of crisis, is the absolute opposite of what is sensible or possible.
@Softek – I agree with most of what you write.
I disagree that a dominance-submission dynamic can only exist in the context of the man being the provider and the woman not working outside of the home. A woman working outside of the home doesn’t mean she is trying to take over the world, it is just something that some women enjoy doing, and it can add value to the economy and the family.
You also seemed to imply that feminine energy means coddling grown men emotionally. If you did not mean that, then I apologize.
It’s one thing to take direction from a man to meet his needs and the family’s needs. To me, that is a manifestation of feminine energy. But when a man looks to a woman to take the reigns, no matter how subtle, she is no longer able to exist in feminine energy. When he expresses doubt and doesn’t offer a plan, she feels like she is expected to take the reigns.
@eon – “You can get that (coach) type of directive input only from someone who is independent of you, who doesn’t depend on you for psychological certainty and stability, and whom both of you recognize as being superior to you, in a relevant way, in that moment.”
I think that is excellently articulated.
@jf12: “What is it that women think they are *for*? If you are a woman, why would a man choose to be with you, to communicate with you, to have a relationship with you, instead of some guy? What of you is valuable for him?
(hint: I’m asking this in the context of his vulnerability/intimacy)”
This is what I am trying to figure out. Seems like heads they win, tails we lose. When things are good they might stick around, but if anything goes pear-shaped (her figure doesnt count) in terms of career/finances/frame and vulnerability ekes out then its curtains? What a scam
If you’ve never seen the movie Blue Valentine, check it out this holiday weekend (it’s on Netflix).
This story accurately portrays where the belief that vulnerabilities are a strength leads to. It is exactly what happens to men who believe that their openness to a feminine defined sensitivity will be endearingly received and appreciated by women.
An excellent refresher on one of the core, and most disheartening, tenets of red pill awareness…….how women TRULY see you.
Male utility and disposability. You are a draft horse. A draft horse doesn’t get to complain or show weakness. It’s only purpose is to labor for the benefit of others. If it cannot do so, it must be discarded for a better draft horse.
Angry? No. No point. A shark is a shark. It does what it does. Knowing this is 90% of the battle. Protect yourself accordingly. However, I do hope that someday, women everywhere achieve the ‘equality’ they so richly deserve.
For blue pill men, the greatest danger is in their own ignorance of their vulnerabilities. Far too many of us learn the hard way.
Brilliant.
The true nature of vulnerability for men.
Glenn
November 24th, 2014 at 10:55 am
My point is that with this theory, and others, they now have proof that we are evil and they have the upper hand morally in every encounter. From the outset, and really, at all times.
Ah. Yes. But the trouble is that the Right has a few real problems to clean up but the right falls into the trap of “if they favor it, I oppose it”. Thus giving the miscreants ammunition.
Take this John Erlichman quote:
“Look, we understood we couldn’t make it illegal to be young or poor or black in the United States, but we could criminalize their common pleasure. We understood that drugs were not the health problem we were making them out to be, but it was such a perfect issue…that we couldn’t resist it.” – John Ehrlichman, White House counsel to President Nixon on the rationale of the War on Drugs.
So have the Republicans buried this by ending the War? Well no. They doubled down.
The first rule of warfare is to stop fighting losing battles and husband your strength for the winnable contests. The long retreat of the Texans from Santa Anna is a case in point. The only notable battle in that retreat was a delaying action. Until the last battle.
The Left gives ground when it is in their interest (they were the inventors of Prohibition after all). The Right has no such sensibility. They feel they have to hold everything at all costs. Not surprisingly the Right (show no weakness ever) is the man’s party and the Left belongs to the women. What the Right fails to see is that the woman’s strategy is superior (in some cases).
@ myrealitie
I’m not even sure what coddling means, to be honest. I think that term can get confused with sex and affection. I wouldn’t think of a woman rubbing my back or cooking for me as coddling, for example.
If women aren’t providing physical pleasure for a man, which is sex and affection, I can’t see any reason why men would want to have anything to do with them at all.
I don’t see how women could ever take the reins on anything when the only value they’re capable of providing to a man is not something that even has reins: physical pleasure.
Physical pleasure is a respite from daily life, not daily life itself.
I imagine women as an oasis. That’s the only purpose women serve for men. It’s an occasional break along the greater journey that we’re on that’s completely independent of women.
If someone is seeing women as anything but a source of pleasure and respite, they’re making things too complicated. And if they’re more focused on the perceived pleasure of being with women than a greater purpose in life, they’re shooting themselves in the foot.
Women aren’t there to make men’s lives. They’re there to make men’s lives easier. That’s all. For all the talk of hypergamy, even though it’s completely true and is tremendously helpful for guys who need to unplug —
— the reality is that the primarily use men have for women is physical pleasure. Women are supposed to make our lives better and easier by giving us a place to rest.
This of course is only obtainable from a Red Pill mentality. The ‘respite’ that Blue Pill guys like I used to be are looking for is based on women MAKING MEN’S LIVES instead of MAKING MEN’S LIVES EASIER.
It’s seeing the “respite” as life itself. The most important thing in life. As opposed to the realistic, Red Pill view: life itself is work. Respite is what happens intermittently. It’s a side show in the main attraction.
That being said, whether I ever get into a relationship (which I’m seriously doubting I ever will at this point) or am just seeing multiple girls (what I’m working on now), the only use I would have for them is as a break from my daily life. After all the work of the day is done, having some fun and some rest for a while in the evening.
If I don’t have that, like I don’t have now, I have plenty of other places of respite. I keep myself occupied with something every single moment of every single day. But if women are going to be in my life, the only reason would be for sex and fun.
I mean really, if you’re not having fun, I don’t see what the point is. The only thing I can think of when it comes to “coddling” is having a girl I can bend over the kitchen table and fuck like a tiger until I go back out to finish whatever it is I’m working on that day. That would be a nice respite for me. Outside of that I can’t imagine anything that women could offer me and if I don’t have any girls at the moment that are fulfilling that role I’m content to be by myself and keep living my life just the same.
So in my mind, there are no reins to even give to women. How can they take the reins if there’s nothing for them to take hold of?
That’s why a Red Pill equivalent for women (how to be more feminine) probably doesn’t work very well
There is a Red Pill equivalent for women. It is mentioned in the Bible. Be submissive to your chosen man.
I’m teaching this to the first mate. It is a long hard slog. But when she submits she is happier. And admits it.
@JQ
“This article leaves me thinking about the concept of vulnerability. After reading Models by Mark Manson I have not read a critique on that concept.”
I read that book as well. Well before my intro to the red pill.
I haven’t heard of or read a ‘critique on that concept yet’ either. Until this post by Rollo.
Let’s take a look.
From ‘Models’ by Mark Manson…
(Page 53)
“From a evolutionary perspective, vulnerability makes perfect sense as an indicator to a women of a male’s status and fitness.”
(Page 54)
“This behavior implies high status, a man who is dependable, comfortable in his strengths and weaknesses, a man who can be counted on and who is likely to rise through the ranks and provide for his family.
He’s likely to succeed and likely to be a dependable father.”
“This high status behavior is a man who is comfortable with his vulnerability, who isn’t afraid to express who he is, wants and all, to the world.”
‘Models’ by Mark Manson is a popular book. Awhile ago I downloaded it and read it and liked it. I even recommended it on my blog many months ago.
I’m not surprised that, at the time, considering the content showed above, it really spoke to me. I just kind of accepted it. You can imagine how my relationships ended up. (Yes there was sex, but, none of them worked out in the end)
I would open up and talk about myself so much to woman, after I had slept with them. This is the kind of advice that is saturating the dating-advice-market.
There’s much better advice, inspiration and wisdom circulating the manosphere now. I just hope it reaches enough men. -d
Is Manson heavily promoting the BB side of Hypergamy?
becoming a man can only be achieved through challenges, risks and hardship. Often with mentor-ship from other men. Women cannot build positive masculine strength
there are all sorts of risks etc men face the SMP is most def one of them. Men like Rollo are providing that mentorship from a far
The best two books about women are
How to be your Dogs Best Friend
How to be Your Puppy’s Best Friend
Booth by the Monks of New Skete
@myrealitie re: “It’s one thing to take direction from a man to meet his needs and the family’s needs. To me, that is a manifestation of feminine energy.”
Yes. This is The One Thing that all women fail so terribly. Some worse than others. But it’s so easy for a woman to do.
@Softek re: coddling.
“I wouldn’t think of a woman rubbing my back or cooking for me as coddling, for example.” You would if she did it in a coddling way.
One Thing women get so wrong is that women DO coddle the men they love. Women LOVE to coddle alphas. Alphas aren’t out there fearlessly leading invulnerably; alphas are in the warm bath getting their backs scratched by some unpaid geishas while other unpaid geishas soapily slither around their fronts.
Oops, forgot the punch line. The line where you can’t tell if I’m punching you or you wanna punch me.
The very fact that women cannot stand to coddle LTR men proves that women are lying stinkers who cannot be trsuted more than a few months at maximum.
Sometimes ya just gotta Blame ie on The Turks!
http://www.smh.com.au/world/turkish-president-tayyip-erdogan-to-feminists-equality-is-contrary-to-nature-20141124-11t2gj.html