Dalrock gave me something to chew on recently:
In my first post of 2014 I introduced the topic of the ugly feminist. As I explained at the time, this is an old charge but is typically aimed at the superficial instead of the core problem. Feminists are ugly because the philosophy of feminism is ugly. It is based on avoiding caring for others and being miserly with love. Several commenters pointed out that this is a devastating charge against feminism, as they could see no viable counter argument for it.
I’m not going to try to offer a counter to Dal’s assertion because in essence I think he’s correct. However I will suggest that this ugliness is the result of a commodification of love (and with it sexual access) that’s resulted from the unfettering of women’s Hypergamy. Love and caring is the commodity women’s Hypergamy uses to fulfill their dualistic sexual strategy.
To this day my most contentious post (and chapter in the book) on RM is Women in Love. This is primarily due to first time readers taking my assertions to their literal extreme. Women’s concept of love stems from opportunism, men’s concept stems from idealism. Most women and Blue Pill men take this to mean that women cannot actually love a man, and absolutist men angry with themselves for having never understood it think much the same thing, “My God! I knew it all along, women cannot actually love a man.”
I assert neither of these positions (really the same position) in that post, nor any of the followup post (that no one seems to want to read once they make up their minds), but what I do assert is:
Men believe that love matters for the sake of it. Women love opportunistically.
Iron Rule of Tomassi #6
Women are utterly incapable of loving a man in the way that a man expects to be loved.
In its simplicity this speaks volumes about about the condition of Men. It accurately expresses a pervasive nihilism that Men must either confront and accept, or be driven insane in denial for the rest of their lives when they fail to come to terms with the disillusionment.
Women are incapable of loving men in a way that a man idealizes is possible, in a way he thinks she should be capable of.
In prior posts I’ve also made the case that men’s idealistic perspective of love stems from an unending need for performance to merit a woman’s opportunistic love. It’s not that men want an unrealistic, unconditional love, but rather they want a woman’s love to be a refuge from having to perform up to, above and beyond the requirements of satisfying an unending optimization of her Hypergamy. It’s not unconditional love they idealize, it’s a love that’s not predicated on their burden of performance.
What frustrates this love idealism is that men are popularly sold the idea that women’s love is based on a mutually similar model. From Disney movies to romantic comedies, to Shakespeare and epic stories, to popular music and the daily talk shows, the message is that love (if it’s real love) is omniscient, conquers all and overcomes all odds. It’s a very seductive message of hope for men whose lives and existences are evaluated on constant performance.
“Could she really love me despite all of my glaring inadequacies?”
“Does she love the real me or is it my money and the lifestyle I provide for her?”
The fact that these themes are a constant in human history illustrates the subconscious, peripheral awareness we have of the differing models of love each sex bases their understanding of love on.
What this selling of idealistic love does for men is keep them in a state of perpetual hope that this idealism is shared by both sexes and they can realistically achieve that ideal goal of a love not founded on his performance. It’s important to note here that this performance isn’t necessarily something a man must make a constant effort to maintain (though this is the usual case), but rather what he represents, not who he is personally. It may be that his effortless looks or inherent status represents a cue for a woman’s optimal hypergamous satisfaction, or it may be the result of years of dedicated performance effort – either way it’s what that man represents; remove the factors a man possesses that satisfy a woman’s Hypergamy and her opportunistic model of love will reveal itself.
Feminists are ugly because the philosophy of feminism is ugly. It is based on avoiding caring for others and being miserly with love.
Dalrock’s observation here is profound in that it illustrates exactly the state of opportunism on which women base their concept of love. On some level of consciousness women understand the inherent value their love, concern, attention and caring has for men. It’s repression or expression is a commodity that has reward value for men who also have an awareness that their performance is what merits a woman’s love.
The popular criticism is that this want for an idealistic love is really a man’s preoccupation with his need for sex, but this is to be expected from a fem-centric culture that needs women to ration love and caring for men in order to ensure its social dominance. And God forbid a man express his desire for a performance-less based love and caring; he’s ostracized for wanting a mother’s love (Freudian), being necessitous (thus powerless) and revealing his deficiency in performance.
As Open Hypergamy becomes more proudly embraced and normalized in society, so too will women’s sexual strategy be laid more bare. And in laying that strategy bare, so too will women’s opportunistic model of love become more apparent to men. This new apparentness is already conflicting with the old-order messaging that kept men hopeful of realizing their idealistic love state.
Women cannot sell Open Hypergamy and the love-conquers-all ethereal ideal love at the same time.
Dal is correct, the philosophy of feminism is ugly, but it’s important to consider that feminism is just the current social operative of the Feminine Imperative today. For the moment women can be miserly with love and caring. They can even express resentment for having to be so with men who they doubt are meritorious of it, or for those who don’t measure up to the rigors of an increasingly open and increasingly demanding Hypergamy.
They can do this because they understand that the hopeful, idealistic love they have men convinced can be achieved is still a commodity to men.
Before I close, I’m going to give you a bit of Red Pill hope (again). Men and women can and do love each other intensely and genuinely. They can and do see past each other’s deficiencies and their love endures. My point with this essay is to reveal how this love develops and the conditional environments it comes together in. In spite of the strongest bonds, there is a threshold at which men’s loving idealism and women’s performance requirements can test, stress and break that bond.
Men’s idealistic love can be strong, as can women’s opportunistic love – the two models are not mutually incompatible, and it’s my belief that the two are even complementary to each other. Neither is a right or wrong way to love, and neither is the definition of real love. Bear in mind these are models that predicate a condition of love, what happens after that is up to the individuals.
Where these models become incompatible is when one commodifies and exploits the condition of love that the other holds. In an era of unapologetic feminine primacy and unignorable open Hypergamy, this commodification undeniably rests with the feminine.
For further reading see the Love series of posts:
Women in Love
Men in Love
Of Love and War
Burden of Performance
jf12, about that woman – I’m not sure if there’s a good way to drive a person that desires you away from you quickly, while still retaining the desire. Using brutal logic and straight no’s will work with some people, if they aren’t over-used to manipulation or getting their way, but that’s about it.
Softek, I understand what you mean well. A large part of the RP for me has been a continuous realization that there are actually a lot of dysfunctional scripts I was holding on to, in spite of being a pretty stable, functional, and happy guy. You and a few other commentators have helped me discover a few new tools to help the re-learning process along. I started out on this path trying to salvage a relationship that meant a lot to me. But too little, too late. I’m in no mood to write out a sob story today, and I… Read more »
Feminist mothers start training their young sons:
“I am now pregnant with my second son. As a feminist and a mother, a survivor and an activist, a human and a writer, I have discovered that my job in preventing sexual assault is even bigger than it would be if I had a daughter. Because every rapist is someone’s son. We have the chance to fix that, one little boy at a time.”
@ M. Simon – “They’re all whores” – Why does this kind of thing come up in the manosphere so much? First off, I have no problem with whores. In fact, as I’ve digested the Red Pill, I see prostitution clearly as a straight up provisioning exchange for short term Beta sex. Fair enough – and more guys who can’t get laid should perhaps go this route. In fact, I believe it’s a more honest exchange than many relationships I see guys involved in. As well, I don’t think it’s necessary to denigrate women in that way. I do find… Read more »
And I’ll bet that cunt loves her son unconditionally. She loves him so much she’ll intentionally, and with forethought damage him psychologically.
Too bad she survived.
January 4th, 2015 at 10:14 pm
January 4th, 2015 at 10:17 pm
I am happy to report that all 3 of my sons are RP. My daughter is a 9.5 equalitarian age 24. Se does know about the wall. As far as I can tell she does not ride the carousel. It is interesting to watch.
She has a ChemE degree (near the top of her class – she and I can discuss thermo) but she has embarked on a modeling career.
Glenn – “I believe it’s a more honest exchange than many relationships I see guys involved in.”
I agree, and the honesty and certainty about the nature of the transaction is very appealing.
The “all whores” meme is a recognition and judgement of the opaque, and ambiguous fee and service schedules attached to all non pay-for-pay relationships. It’s also a realization by the BB half of AFBB that they’ve been conned.
Actual prostitutes have more honor and respectibility in this sense.
@M Simon, re: “There was a science fiction story I read on that topic a long time ago.”
I recall it too. Probably late 60s, early 70s, maybe Harlan Ellison or imitator.
January 4th, 2015 at 10:23 pm
I did not mean it in the usual pejorative way. Just a fact of life. Perhaps an alternative title for this thread. If they are all whores then none of them are “whores” – i.e. whore as a special category. As in “good woman” vs “whore”. And like you I am not bitter about it any more than I’m bitter about the melting point of copper or the mass of an electron.
January 4th, 2015 at 10:42 pm
I was thinking a little earlier but I could be wrong. And maybe Kornbluth,
re: love vs fear
Her submission is the key for a woman to love a man properly. Dominance actually only strictly *induces* submission through intimidation. Although “there is no fear in love”, nevertheless the wife is to “see that she reverence her husband.” It is far more important, even Biblically, for the wife to submit than to love, evidently.
re: Kornbluth? Was it about killing a replica of his mother, repeatedly?
So, what is a wife’s opportunistic conditional “love” worth?
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, …
Re: love vs. fear
Love is fear.
Love, and obedience, and submission derive from the fear of losing the object of that love, and the uncertainty of unfulfilled needs associated with that loss.
Glenn January 4th, 2015 at 10:23 pm How many of you married guys would do it all over again if you had the chance? Or would you have stayed single if you knew what you know now? It is to laugh. But I would. For the children. #2 son is such a pleasure to be around. And everyone feels that way about him. And best of all? He knows GAME. Well. He seems to be in a MGTOW mode. But it is hard to be sure at this distance. He is living in Russia. I told him (the fm was… Read more »
January 4th, 2015 at 10:55 pm
I don’t think so.
So what is a wife’s submission worth? Plenty.
@M Simon, re: story.
I read it once, 40+ or as you suggest maybe 50+ years ago. What I seem to recall most is the guy feeling gypped becaused of getting addicted to killing a replica of a particular woman and spending all his money on the experience.
@ Rollo Tomassi
So you mean like this guy? http://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-43847.html
A) After reading what that guy wrote I’m not entirely convinced he is heterosexual.
B) This guy is at least 500% better looking than I am. Yet somehow my wife is still better looking than his.
C) Point B further reinforces point A.
January 4th, 2015 at 10:55 pm
I’ll do a blog post on it and see if any of my readers remember.
January 4th, 2015 at 11:22 pm
I think you are correct about that. It was the ending. It was an “entertainment” world designed to separate you from all your cash. A carnival.
The initial premise for the protagonist was that he didn’t think that you could buy “real” love. The salesman guaranteed it. I think some one warned him that it wouldn’t make him happy.
[…] I’m trying to find the title and author of an old science fiction short story. It came up in this discussion. […]
@ Glenn I just found the videos I got from a PUA course I bought months ago. They’re embedded online. I was having problems viewing them because the pages wouldn’t load but that seems to be okay now (knock on wood). And yeah, “Deserving” doesn’t come into play. I don’t know why I worded it like that. Remnants of a dysfunctional operating system. I’m not doing the approaches. That’s all there is to it. If I want something different I need to do something different. That girl at that party was a start. Honestly a lot of my anxiety stems… Read more »
Softek January 5th, 2015 at 12:21 am Here is something to try once you get a girl far enough along. “Sleep with me naked. No sex. I like the body contact.” Sleep wit her naked. No sex. About 3/4s will come back gagging for it. The other 1/4? You got to sleep with them naked. Also watch their eyes. When they agree to do it they ALL expect to get f*cked. A man with the self control not to do it is a wonder to them. What goes through their minds? “Is there something wrong with me? Is he gay?”… Read more »
Badpainter, bf12 and whoever: On the consciousness of female Shit Tests. There is no doubt in my mind it is fully conscious in a PUA situation. Do you guys think it is conscious in the typical LTR/Marriage Shit Test?
A woman’s opportunistic love: Her: There’s just something about you I can’t give up Him: whys that Her: Because you’re BreakingBenjamin Obviously a man’s name is “who” he is, but it is also “what” he is. —————————– This is my first post here; I’ve been reading for a while. I’m always impressed by the grammatically conveyed intelligence around here. I’m younger (22) and I didn’t arrive here without a lot of emotional (self-inflicted) hardship. I’m still working to get things in order and move beyond the awareness of my programming to internalizing game and the truth. I’ve relocated and am… Read more »
re: “Do you guys think it is conscious in the typical LTR/Marriage Shit Test?”
Yes. In *exactly* the same way, her irrational raging at her husband during her PMS periods are 100% consciously deliberate.
@forgethesky re: “Using brutal logic and straight no’s will work with some people”
I guess. I’ve never had to dissuade interest before.
Anyone who tells you focused oneitis can’t get you laid is lying. I never had more attention and hookups from HB8 and 9’s than when I was obsessed with just one.
It wasn’t the oneitis that got attention. It was ignoring other chicks for the oneitis. Oneitis is always bad for you. Always. Ignoring a chick is always good for you in her eyes.
You’re getting some of the ideas right, but you need to pay attention to cause and effect more closely.
Thanks, but we are on the same page here (bad context).
It is certainly bad but my implication is that it is possible for oneitis to circumstantially get you laid. However, for 95% of guys it likely would not.
Why would shit test be conscious act in the case of a STR and an unconscious act in an LTR?
Either shit tests are conscious acts or they aren’t. I believe they are conscious acts even if they might not be fully reasoned out before hand. There is still a matter of making a conscious choice about whether or not to execute the test.
As evidence that feminism counter indicates the presence of reason a is therefore child abuse to raise a boy to be a feminist I submit this:
…and this why men think women, especially feminist women, are our intellectual inferiors.
@ Seraph. I think you miss the point of the book in “The 5 Love Language”. Even if it was written for married couple. I believe it applies to any group. People do have different ways of experiencing love and loving them in their own language makes them feel loved. What is complicated about that? For example I hate your typical Walmart boring dress shirt. Yet every year some relative who barely speaks to me during the year would send me a shirt like that even though I’d rather just talk to them over the phone during the year. This… Read more »
I would advise you to move where nobody knows you. Alone, with a clean sheet and no negative background your anxiety will drop drastically. And as a start don’t be picky, just fuck. Than the ego boost will slowly drop your anxiety even at your own territory.
@glenn In general I agree with you but these 2 points I must constructively disagree: Of course, I’m no longer chivalrous (still hold doors sometimes, it’s just reflexive I think women respond very positively to chivalry and can be a game changer (for me it was) if you know how to use it. But you must not make it from a place of need and qualifying yourself to her, you must make it to show your dominance. Before Red Pill I never used chivalry, I was ashamed/didn’t know how to make it and when I was using it was in… Read more »
@glenn Still about chivalry. Chivalry is optional but for recovering betas can be a easier implementing winning strategy, once they need to make less adaptations on their current mindset. Winning strategies: – You don’t give a shit – The girl sees you as dominant, you are above from what the others think of you. Alpha sliding to jerk. – You are (conditionally) chivalrous – The girl sees you as social (smart) but still dominant once you’ll not make it unconditionally and NEVER leaving your frame. Not afraid to be a jerk if needed. True alpha male mind set in my… Read more »
Winning strategies (continuation):
– Mixed – You’re a politician that pretends to adapt to other’s frames, pretending to qualify. Dangerous territory, use it at your own risk. If you are great on this, Politics wait for you.
– Mixed – You’re a needy beta that adapts to other’s frames, trying to qualify all the time. I was here (and sometimes) still slide to here.
January 4th, 2015 at 4:43 pm
The story is “Pilgrimage to Earth” also “Love Inc.” by Robert Sheckley.
@xxxxxxxxxx Sorry, but a woman uses her conditional love and acceptance in a selfish sense ( in her own interest), or in a more altrusitic way (in in the interest of her children, community and even in the interest of the man himself). As a mother, I certainly catch myself withholding love from my sons if they did not try to push or better themselves. I would much much rather that my sons hate my guts but survive and thrive, rather than to wallow in my motherly love while dying in a ditch. Thank God I am not your son.… Read more »
The best representation I know of Mans idealistic love can be found within Ted Hawkins song, ‘Crystal Chandelier’:
“…make sure this is what you want, while you’re still free … because all I have to offer you is me … there’ll be no mansion waiting for you on the hill … everything I have is standing here in front of you to see …”
Anyone care to offer a feminine critique of this song?
[…] Commodifying Love […]
“Before I close, I’m going to give you a bit of Red Pill hope (again). Men and women can and do love each other intensely and genuinely. They can and do see past each other’s deficiencies and their love endures.” No. This is giving women a free pass. You’re subconsciously referencing the sitcom example. In all cases where it appears that a woman has “seen past [her husband’s] deficiencies” and their love endured, the man WAS STILL PERFORMING, at a minimum slaving away every day working and putting a roof over the family’s head, food on the table, usually being… Read more »
[…] expression of a man’s desire to have a woman love him unconditionally. Rollo talks about it here and here. My words are heartfelt, vulnerable, and utterly clueless. It didn’t change a damn […]
[…] Commodifying Love […]
[…] to men beyond their sexual attributes. I’ve written in the past about women’s commodifying love and sex, however recently women are being forced to face the realities of making their sexuality […]
[…] project,too. For a classic case of projection, men love idealistically and expect women to love idealistically as well. However, women love transactionally by […]
[…] become varying degrees of ‘sex work’. I went into this topic a year and a half ago in Commodifying Love. This post was mostly meant to elaborate on another post Dalrock had written observing the utility […]
[…] When you combine women’s opportunistic concept of love with a society that never holds them accountable for the ramifications of it, no matter who it impacts, you get generations of women who are simply not worth anything to men beyond sex. […]
[…] Also, as early as manosphere 2.0, red pillers were talking about how women can’t love men the way men want to be loved. Also, girls want a man they can look up to; which means the love they’ll have for you is like the love of a daughter for a father, not the unconditional love of a mother for her son. You always have the burden of performance. […]
[…] that all the differences between men and women are complementary to each other. For example, Rollo says, “Men’s idealistic love can be strong, as can women’s opportunistic love – the two […]