The Love Experience

experience

Glenn and a few others had a question about last week’s Love Commodity post.:

@Rollo – This seems very inconsistent to me. How can this be true – ” 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. ” While this is true? “In an era of unapologetic feminine primacy and unignorable open Hypergamy, this commodification undeniably rests with the feminine.”

You’ll have to forgive a long explanation, I couldn’t simply drop this into the commentary, a full post was necessary.

The first thing we need to consider is the Male Experience vs. the female experience. I hate to get too existential, but it comes down to our individuated experiences as men and women. I’m going to give two examples here and this will also cover the Hypergamy is everything thread I noticed the commentary too.

There’s an interesting conflict of societal messaging we get from an equalitarian / feminine-primary social order. This is one that simultaneously tells us that “we are not so different” or “we are more alike than we are different” and then, yet implores use to “celebrate our diversity” and “embrace (or tolerate) our differences” as people.

This is easily observable in issues of ethnicity, but it also crosses over into issues of gender. The most popular trope is that ideas of gender are a social construct and that women and men are comparative equals and only their physical plumbing makes them different in form only.

From a Red Pill perspective we see the error in evidence of this egalitarian fantasy. I’ve written countless posts on the evidential and logical fallacies that make up gender equalism, but the important thing to be aware of is the conflict inherent within that belief – equalism expects men and women’s existential experiences to be the same, while also pleading that we embrace the differences it purports we don’t actually have.

It fundamentally denies the separation, from an evolved biological / psychological perspective, that men and women experience life in different ways. The idea is that it’s the nebulous ‘society’ that determines our gender experiences and less, if nothing, of it is truly influenced by a human being’s psychological-biological firmware.

zdr01dz posted this:

I think maybe this is in part because men have no innate desire to marry up. Hypergamy doesn’t compute for us. I know what hunger feels like and I assume women feel it the same way I do. I’m empathetic to poor, hungry children because I know what they’re feeling. However I have no idea what hypergamy feels like. I’ve never felt it’s pull.

My second example comes from Women and Sex in which I explore the fallacy of the social convention that insists “women are just as sexual as men” and that “women want sex, enjoy sex, even more than men.”

This canard is both observably and biologically disprovable, but the presumption is based on the same “we’re all the same, but celebrate the difference” conflicting principle that I mentioned above. If a dynamic is complimentary to the feminine then the biological basis is one we’re expected to ’embrace the diversity’ of, but if the dynamic is unflattering to the feminine it’s the result “of a society that’s fixated on teaching gender roles to ensure the Patriarchy, we’re really more alike than not.”

The idea is patently false because there is no real way any woman can experience the existence and conditions that a man does throughout his life. I mention in that essay about how a female amateur body builder I knew who was dumbstruck by how horny she became after her first cycle of anabolic steroids. “I can’t believe men can live in a state like this” were her exact words. She was just beginning to get a taste of what men experience and control in their own skins 24 hours a day and it was unsettling for her.

Women are used to a cyclic experience of sexuality, whereas men must be ready to perform at the first, best opportunity sexually. These are our individuated experiences and despite all the bleating of the equalists they are qualitatively different. As zdr01dz observes, no man has an idea of what Hypergamy feels like. To my knowledge there is no drug or hormone that can simulate the existential experience of Hypergamy. Even if there were, men and women’s minds are fundamentally wired differently, so the simulated experience could never be replicated for a man.

I understand how Hypergamy works from observing the behavior and understanding the motivating biology for it. I also understand that our species evolved with, and benefitted from it – or at least it makes deductive sense that what we know as Hypergamy today is a derivative of that evolution – but what I don’t have is a firsthand, existential experience of Hypergamy and I never will. Likewise, women will never have a similar existential experience of what it’s like to be a man.

So it should be an easy follow to deduce that how a woman experiences love, as based on her Hypergamic opportunistic impulses, is a fundamentally different experience than that of a man’s. The equalist social order want’s love to be an equal, mutual, agreement on a definition of love that transcends individuated gender experience, but it simply will not accept that an intersexual experience of love is defined by each sex’s individuated experience.

I have no doubt that there are areas of crossover in both men’s idealistic concept of love and women’s opportunistic concept, but this experience of love is still defined by gender-specific individuation. By that I mean that women can and do experience intense feelings of love for a man based on her Hypergamously influenced criteria for love.

I’m actually surprised that more women have yet to call me to the carpet about their personal experiences of love from the commodity post, but if you sift through the comments on Women in Love and other blog/forum comments you’ll come across examples of women describing in great detail how deeply they love their husbands / boyfriends, and are in complete disarray over being told their love stems from Hypergamic opportunism. Again, I have no doubt that their feelings of love are genuine to them based on their individuated concepts of love; indeed they’re ready to fight you tooth and nail to defend their investment in those feelings. What I’m saying is that the criteria a man should need to meet in order to generate those emotions and arrive at a love state are not universally mutual as an equalitarian social order would have the whole of society believe.

So, yes, men and women can and do love each other intensely and genuinely – from their own individuated experiences. They can and do see past each other’s deficiencies and their love endures. The processes they used to come to this love state differs in concept and existential individuation, and what sustains that love state is still dependent upon the criteria of men’s idealistic and women opportunistic concepts of love.

The Cardinal Rule of sexual strategies:
For one gender’s sexual strategy to succeed the other gender must compromise or abandon their own.

The commodification of that love state is presently weighted on the feminine because the Feminine Imperative is socially ascendant. The importance of satisfying the female sexual (and really life-goal) strategy takes primary social precedence today. Thus men’s individuated experience is devalued to an assumption of an “it’s-all-equal” universality while women’s is blown up out of all real valuation with collective expectations of “embracing their unique difference” set apart from that universality. If men’s experience is one-size-fits-all it’s really a small, and socially blameless, step for a woman to withhold the reward criteria men place on their idealistic love in order to satisfy their own sexual strategy.

Women’s social primacy allows them to feel good about themselves for commodifying the idealistic rewards men value to come to their own state of love, as well as maintain it.

It is one further step to embrace the concept that men’s experience of love, the idealism he applies to it and even his own sexual and life imperatives are in fact the same as those of women’s – while still setting women’s apart when it serves them better. Thus the cardinal rule of sexual strategies comes to a feminine-primary consolidation by socially convincing men that women’s experience and imperatives are, or should be considered to be, the same as men’s individuated experiences. Add women’s already innate solipsism to this and you have a formula for a gender-universal presumption of the experience of love based primarily on the individuated female experience of love.

In other words, women expect men to socially and psychologically agree with, reinforce and cooperate with the opportunistic feminine model of love as the equalist, gender-mutual model model of love while still believing that women share their own idealistic model. It’s the correct model that should work for everyone, or so women’s solipsism would have us believe.

Published by Rollo Tomassi

Author of The Rational Male and The Rational Male, Preventive Medicine

750 comments on “The Love Experience

  1. re: the Love Experience

    getting back on topic, isn’t my (one of my) summaries just too neato? Romantic love is the psych-out by which the mating selection process is halted: males’ innate polygamy is halted by the feeling of oneitis, and females’ innate hypergamy is halted by the feeling of bestitis.

  2. novaseeker,

    “There are not “many” of you. There are “a few” of you. At this point in time, there are oceans of submissive men who have not learned to be masculine, properly, and they vastly outnumber the women who are naturally relationship-dominant.” Okay here’s my problem with this logic. You say women are naturally submissive in relationships but then you go on to say that there is an ocean of submissive men who have not learned to be masculine properly. Could I not say the same that there are an ocean of submissive women that have just not learned how to wield their power and become dominant in their relationships? If alpha attitudes are learned, then it would follow that both men and women could learn them, unless you believe that women are genetically inferior and are for some reason incapable of learning basic leadership skills. Masculinity and dominance are not interchangeable. Masculinity is what you and a large subset of society associate with dominance, but femininity and dominance are not mutually exclusive concepts.I am certainly not manly and am dominant. I do the whole makeup and hair thing just like other women, and I love fashion. So the belief that you have to be hypermasculine as a female in order to be dominant is also false. In fact, it’s better if you embrace superficial femininity as it helps you gain control in business (AlphaFem Secret Drop).

    I do think masculine traits in men attract a lot of women (hell I even like them sometimes), but it’s traits like confidence, taking care of yourself, showing physical strength, being emotionally stable, etc. Things like that at face value are attractive to heterosexual females. BUT this RP philosophy goes too far and instead asserts that women are less than men in various ways and that we are too emotional to be able to be trusted with any level of power in a relationship.

    I am not true to form for RP because RP suggests that I will branch hop to the next best available mate on a whim. That I am naturally predisposed to cheat on my BB (which by the way, I am the breadwinner so we’re missing the bux in that BB for me to fit into your narrative). The assertion is that women are never truly satisfied or happy with their beta bux. If they are happy with their BB, then they would not stray to AF. I am saying that does not apply to me, and you are saying that I am proving RP theory…? Unless I leave my husband and cheat on him with an AF and then branch swing to another higher status BB, I do not prove your theory. In fact, at this point, I disprove your theory that AWALT.

    “Most women don’t want to be dominant and aren’t happy with it. That’s just reality, based in biology, and not whispers in the ears from outliers like you.” The reason you believe this is environmental. You believe that men are naturally dominant and all seek to be dominant because that’s what you’ve been taught. You have been around enough “alpha” type females to know that they do not need to be dominated in order to be happy. The reason that a lot of females are submissive is not because they are biologically predisposed to being submissive, it’s because they know nothing different and were taught from a young age that they should submit to the male authority figure in their life.

    “Your kind is not going to win, almost guaranteed. But enjoy your femdom (female dominant) marriage as an outlier — I don’t personally begrudge you that at all, actually.” I don’t really care about winning. For me, I already won, and I hope you guys find happiness too. I know that is what most people are seeking is happiness. I am just of the opinion that if you treat women as if they’re valuable, they will want to be treated that way instead of being treated like dirt. Showing women their value does not equal weakness, and you equate the two. If you are weak, many women will be turned off. That’s not rocket science, but the same is true for a lot of men. I know my husband has told me many times that he wouldn’t want a submissive woman that had never challenged him. He said it would bore him, but that’s what you want so hopefully you get that without destroying anyone else’s self worth in the process.

    Not Born This Morning,

    These other Alpha Males don’t need you to tell them when and when not to respond to me. Some people, coincidentally, enjoy talking to people that don’t think exactly the same way they do. I’m going to eventually leave you in peace because if you haven’t noticed, we don’t agree on anything so there’s no reason for me to come here, but I do have an opinion and wanted to share it. If YOU don’t want to respond to me, then don’t. Get out of here and go to one of the many other articles I’m not replying on. Or are you the super alpha male that dictates the actions of all the other beta alpha males? Confused.

  3. redlight, he doesn’t think so. 🙂 He thinks he’s quite lucky. He thinks you guys are pathetic losers that don’t understand the value of an intelligent, accomplished, attractive woman that doesn’t roll over every time you say down girl. <— quote. Toodles, beta.

  4. re: “I am just of the opinion that if you treat women as if they’re valuable, they will want to be treated that way”

    We kept trying that and it didn’t work.

  5. re: “he wouldn’t want a submissive woman that had never challenged him”

    I’ve never met one nor heard of one, but every True Man wants one.

  6. You say women are naturally submissive in relationships but then you go on to say that there is an ocean of submissive men who have not learned to be masculine properly. Could I not say the same that there are an ocean of submissive women that have just not learned how to wield their power and become dominant in their relationships?

    No, because it is against their respective natures. You disagree, which is fine, but you are an outlier for a reason, and it is this: your preferences do not reflect those of most women. You can preach/teach all you want, and God only knows your message has been blaring from the rooftops, culturally, in as dominant a way as the call to prayer in the Middle East, yet without the desired result. When will your kind realize that most women are not like you, and no whispering/training/shaming will change that? I know Betty Friedan shared the frustration, but, heck, that was 50 years ago now — women are women, and you are an outlier. You won’t succeed in changing women to be like you.

    I am not true to form for RP because RP suggests that I will branch hop to the next best available mate on a whim. That I am naturally predisposed to cheat on my BB (which by the way, I am the breadwinner so we’re missing the bux in that BB for me to fit into your narrative). The assertion is that women are never truly satisfied or happy with their beta bux. If they are happy with their BB, then they would not stray to AF. I am saying that does not apply to me, and you are saying that I am proving RP theory…? Unless I leave my husband and cheat on him with an AF and then branch swing to another higher status BB, I do not prove your theory. In fact, at this point, I disprove your theory that AWALT.

    You’re an outlier. You are a female dominant, admitted, who wants a submissive husband. Maybe he’s a boy toy with muscles and so on, but you’re the dom. Fine. You’re not the model of AF/BB in the sense of the woman looking for provisioning on the second lap. but you still fucked alphas before selecting your beta for a husband. It isn’t entirely the same, but it is close. Your motivation is simply different — when you wanted to select a husband, you wanted a submale you could dominate. Outlierish, again. By the way, no-one who is seriously involved in TRP says that 100% of women are *anything*. That is stupid. But we can say that”most” are like “X”. And so we can also very easily say, and this is borne out by my own personal experience, that almost no women are like you, even among highly educated, high-powered women, like the ones I have worked with, been married to in the past, and will be married to again. You’re an outlier. Again, no offense at that — be as outlierish with your beta/submale hub as you want, but you’re not representative even of the women in your social/educational caste. I know, because it is my caste, too.

    He said it would bore him, but that’s what you want so hopefully you get that without destroying anyone else’s self worth in the process.

    Intelligent women are not all female dominant. Just saying. My fiance is a
    PhD prof, and is not female dominant, but is much the reverse. Do we have good conversations? Yes. But, a good deal of her attraction to me is that I am intellectually higher. Works for me, works for her. Again, not all very smart and highly educated women need to be dominant in their relationships.

  7. M Simon, you dont believe in Alpha Females so is anyone surprised you think I’m beta or (lol) beta minus? You don’t know me. Just thought I’d throw out that reminder since you’ve decided to argue with me about my personality traits just to assert your perceived dominance. It’s cool. Believe what you want. You’re just some random dude on the Internet. of course you’re not going to change your fucked up world view because a woman says on an Internet blog she’s dominant. The fact is and other men on this blog can attest to the existence of alpha dominant females, which means that dominance is not a solely masculine trait.

  8. Jfl12, because she still believed she didn’t have value. For some women, it’s been engrained in them since childhood so it’s a difficult mindset to break. Have you all ever met a woman that had a very nurturing childhood and that had mid to high self esteem put up with this behavior from their man?

    re: “he wouldn’t want a submissive woman that had never challenged him”
    I’ve never met one nor heard of one, but every True Man wants one.

    Well, he says he doesn’t. I’m up to speed on his anatomy and can verify he is a true man. He said life would be boring. He likes my passion and intensity.

    Novaseeker,

    The reason more women are gravitating towards feminism is because they’re tired of subservience and being seen as less than by default. Women in business deal with this All. The. Time. Since many women have careers of their own and go to college/work hard at their achievements, it’s frustrating to be treated petulantly when our qualifications match or exceed male competition. That’s all I’m going to say on that bc this blog isn’t about feminism, but the more women work and are treated badly at work by men, the more mainstream feminism will become. Women want equality, if not in the bedroom then at the very least in business. That’s actually my main problem with TRP, I’m married so while I don’t like the sexual strategies employed here, not my problem. My concern is that these viewpoints spill over into business and impede women from accomplishing all they are capable of. If you truly believe women are naturally submissive, then how likely are you to grant women power in business?

    Ok granted that I am an outlier, but how can you be SURE that I’m not right and that it’s a lack of self esteem creating a dichotomy between word and action and not an actual biological imperative to be dominated? How can you assert with certainty that it is biological and not learned? If it was biological, women could not be dominant. They simply couldn’t be, so it follows that it must be learned.

    Fair enough that not all educated women are dominant, but does she agree that equalitarianism is wrong? I’ve met few educated women that don’t genuinely believe in equality for the sexes, which does not exclude male dominant female submissive romantic relationships but at least grants equality to all people.

  9. Stop the presses. Woman likes to believe she is a “challenge” and that that is an attractive quality. Her and 3 billion other women.

    What is it about “the vast majority of men have to put up with being beta just to get sex but would prefer a nice woman instead” is so difficult for a woman to understand?

  10. @ Alpha Female
    It’s interesting to see how men who are extremely threatened by women that are more intelligent, powerful, and are inherently stronger and better looking than them behave and think.

    This line of reasoning cracks me up because feminists have it backwards as usual. A woman isn’t attracted to a man unless….

    1) The man is taller
    2) The man is stronger
    3) The man is smarter
    4) The man is more talented
    5) The man is wealthier

    Put simply a woman isn’t attracted to a man unless the man is superior to her in every way except beauty.

    If you don’t believe me read any romance novel.

    In Twilight how is Bella superior to Edward? Short answer she isn’t.
    Disclaimer: I haven’t read Twilight, I got that from my wife.

  11. Having been on the red pill journey for the better part of two years, I don’t think that actual male dominance is related to the female. Dominance is what you acquire over living your life as a determined man who wants to organize his life in an authentic, action-oriented way. When you do that, you naturally become dominant because you are single-minded in your pursuit. A woman is just a piece of that life and she will happily submit into it. Any attempts at dominance directly over the woman, which are not coherent with the rest of your life and remove your mission as your own frame of reference, will not build attraction.

  12. re: “Have you all ever met a woman that had a very nurturing childhood and that had mid to high self esteem put up with this behavior from their man?”

    Yes. Most women SEEK OUT (i.e. “put up with”) this behavior from alpha males until those women can no longer seek it out successfully. Then they settle for being treated well by betas.

  13. “He thinks he’s quite lucky. He thinks you guys are pathetic losers that don’t understand the value of an intelligent, accomplished, attractive woman that doesn’t roll over every time you say down girl”

    why don’t you just go ahead and give him permission to read all this and post his own comment?

  14. “Have you all ever met a woman who had a very nurturing childhood [and grew up to be a spoiled princess who believed she was literally better than men]?”

    I’ve scarcely ever met any women who were NOT.

  15. If you truly believe women are naturally submissive, then how likely are you to grant women power in business?
    I don’t care much about that, actually. I know many powerful women in business. I have no issues with them. I only have issues when women want to change the rules so that they can have kids without being docked for it, if they choose to take a few years off. That’s a lifestyle choice, and it has conssequences. If women want to be single minded and go to the top and are qualified, I have no issue with it. I’ve had female bosses with no issues. Most men have no issue with that. But I never wanted to date or marry any of those women.

    If it was biological, women could not be dominant. They simply couldn’t be, so it follows that it must be learned.

    No, there are recessive genetic characteristics everywhere. And your mindset is one. But recessives are outnumbered by dominant characteristics. That’s just biology. 🙂

    Fair enough that not all educated women are dominant, but does she agree that equalitarianism is wrong? I’ve met few educated women that don’t genuinely believe in equality for the sexes, which does not exclude male dominant female submissive romantic relationships but at least grants equality to all people.

    Yes. We actually met on these blogs (not this one, and it was like 7 years ago). She agrees with most of the manosphere tenets. It’s how we met. And she is sharp as a tack. Not equalitarian in the least. Believes in natural/biological based sex roles. Nice, no? Admittedly, in the *academic world*, she’s herself an outlier, but academia is overrun with left ideologues. In fact, she found herself being hit on by lesbian professors *and*students over the years — lovely environment, really. But, no, she doesn’t agree with equalitarianism at all. Good girl and all that, I’d say.

  16. If you truly believe women are naturally submissive, then how likely are you to grant women power in business?

    Well, for that answer maybe we should have a look at what those women advocate for once they are ‘granted’ power in businesses they had no part in creating:

    “When looking for a life partner, my advice to women is date all of them: the bad boys, the cool boys, the commitment-phobic boys, the crazy boys. But do not marry them. The things that make the bad boys sexy do not make them good husbands. When it comes time to settle down, find someone who wants an equal partner. Someone who thinks women should be smart, opinionated and ambitious. Someone who values fairness and expects or, even better, wants to do his share in the home. These men exist and, trust me, over time, nothing is sexier.”

    ― Sheryl Sandberg, Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead

    Quick reminder since you’re obviously too lazy to do your own Google searches, Sheryl Sandberg was ‘granted’ the position of CEO of FaceBook and is one of Forbes’ most powerful women in the world.

    You see dear, it’s not the Red Pill or the manosphere who will facilitate the downfall of a feminine-primary society – it’ll be those dominant women you hold in such high esteem who will destroy it by embracing Open Hypergamy and proudly, triumphantly broadcasting their sexual strategy to men who were previously in the dark about it.

    Your ire is misplaced. Harvard educated Sheryl Sandberg agrees with everything the Red Pill has ever asserted about women’s Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks pluralistic sexual strategy.

  17. Is it ironic that a self-described intelligent woman cannot see that this article’s picture, even, well illustrates the opportunism of women that applies to her own situation. She doesn’t even have to have reading comprehension.

  18. Rollo, your perspective is what makes you think what Sheryl Sandberg said supports Red Pill philosophy. 1. She never indicated women should be the submissive in relationships. In fact, she never mentioned power dynamics at all. Second, the inference we can draw from her quote is to NOT settle down with an AF. She didn’t say only date AF’s either she said everyone which includes BB’s. Seriously I thight you were posting that to mock her at first, but then you used that to justify TRP…?

    Does TRP not advocate any LTR’s at all? Who is the dominant in an LTR with a BB?

    What she basically said is for women to use plate theory on men until they settle down with a beta man later in life. This you think supports male dominant RP philosophy? Nope! What she said is what I did, and we’ve already established I don’t prove the rule. Also she is completely right.

    And what does that have to do with your destructive female inferiority mindset hampering women in business?

    Sidebar: Are you Italian? Was just wondering if you speak it.

  19. @zdr “In Twilight how is Bella superior to Edward? Short answer she isn’t.
    Disclaimer: I haven’t read Twilight, I got that from my wife.” Good that would be very beta of you to have read it. I can’t get my husband to even watch the movie with me. I try to tell him that as my beta bitch, he must do as I say, but alas he does have a mind of his own. (Kidding guys…)

    Bella is superior to Edward because she is human (which Edward and all of the other vampires in the novel view as more desirable than being a vampire, as humans can procreate and live a normal life). In fact, Edward begs her to stay a human and not turn into what he is for most of the first 3 books.

    I’m also not disputing that some masculine qualities are desirable to hetero women. I’ve said that multiple times. Taller and stronger are typical masculine traits. I agree that taller, stronger men are seen as more attractive to females. The rest of it I don’t agree with. I don’t think women have to have a man that’s smarter, wealthier, or more talented than they are. But that’s because I don’t fundamentally view women as inferior to men so…that probably colors my view on it.

    @jf12 “Yes. Most women SEEK OUT (i.e. “put up with”) this behavior from alpha males until those women can no longer seek it out successfully. Then they settle for being treated well by betas.” The question is WHY, not that bad boys get laid occasionally by women with low self esteem. That’s established.

    @redlight: he has permission. He’s not my subject. He thinks I’m wasting my time so I doubt he’ll get on here.

    @Rollo: “Well, dear, I don’t really owe you shit, but before you start parroting out what they taught you for your Gender Studies major next time you should probably do your homework a bit better because I’ve addressed all of the items on your 6 item list in many prior posts over the past 4 years.” Never took gender studies. Economics major, business minor. I can’t read all the Internet so I sometimes have to rely on people to actually be able to articulate their points to me. I will go back and read your articles though, if you somehow think it will strengthen my understanding of your philosophy to the point where I will no longer have the objections I initially had. I highly doubt that, but I’ll humor you.

  20. Riddle me this dear, what woman would consider a man an “equal partner” who’d knowingly support her fucking “the bad boys, the cool boys, the commitment-phobic boys, the crazy boys” before he came along to marry her?

    Is he an equal if he’s willing to comply with that, or is he a chump who’s knowingly signing on to his own cuckoldry?

    What woman, particularly a Strong Independent® dominant one, would have respect for the Beta who’d comply with that? Are you really that unaware of why women complain about not being able to marry their ‘equal’ when what they really mean is a man who’s older, wealthier, as or more educated and more capable than herself?

  21. Rollo, you didn’t answer my questions.

    What she is saying is to have a variety of human experiences before you settle down with a man that views you as an equal and values you. A very feminist mindset. Maybe you’re a closeted feminist if you think her positions supports TRP? Who knew…really we’re not that far apart.

    Date all the men (plate theory) then settle down with a man that values you (beta tendencies). None of that is TRP. TRP states that women will always branch swing from man to man and will cheat on a beta with an alpha. It actually doesn’t postulate about LTR’s with AF (that I’ve read)…do they even engage in LTR’s? Answer that. Do AF men want to get a woman into an LTR? Is there a way for an AF to have an LTR?

    Also, what she said to do is exactly what men do. Do men engage in “open hypergamy.” Let the granular irrelevant distinctions that supposedly separate male partner switching then settling down later in life with one woman from women doing the same commence.

  22. I don’t know what you mean by “knowingly support.” You can’t really control who your partner slept with previous to you, can you? If by ‘knowingly support’ you mean date the person regardless of the fact that they had sex with other people before you, then there are lots of men that do this. Most men do this. Most men would be hypocrites to not do it since they have had many many partners. Do you require that the women you LTR be virgins while you have slept with a lot of women? How stupid.

    Which reminds me. Another thing I’ve heard all over these TRP forums and blogs is that women lie about the number of people they’ve slept with. I have never lied about that with any partner. Ever. Why do you believe that all women lie about that?

    “Is he an equal if he’s willing to comply with that, or is he a chump who’s knowingly signing on to his own cuckoldry?”

    He may, crazy though it may seem, look at the woman as the sum of her being instead of as the number of people she’s had sex with. I’ve yet to meet a perfect person with no flaws, so maybe he is bothered by it, but he gets over it. Just like women do. I don’t really know why this is a sign of weakness. It’s only a sign of strength if you just screw a woman that has been with a lot of partners, but if you settle with someone who has slept with other people before you, you are a chump? Also, why does the fact that she had other sexual experiences mean you are going to be cuckolded?

    Regarding: who would respect someone who would accept a woman that had sex with other men…

    Where are all of these virgin unicorns you think exist? I didn’t realize that virginity was a precursor to being good enough to have an LTR with a man.
    I don’t respect a man that requires his woman to live up to standards he doesn’t live up to. That man doesn’t earn my respect. A man that accepts a woman despite the fact that she’s not a perfect virgin unicorn but he loves her anyway because he doesn’t value her based on her sexual marketability as perfect status building material, now I can get behind that. You think I should respect a man because I had a couple of LTR’s and flings before we met and he’s not my first? Why would I respect someone who disrespects me? That makes no sense.

    No one is perfectly “equal” and there are a lot of subjective criteria you’re using to determine what women really want.

  23. redlight
    January 8th, 2015 at 11:58 pm

    why don’t you just go ahead and give him permission to read all this and post his own comment?

    Cracked me up. As has so much else on this thread recently.

  24. Badpainter
    January 9th, 2015 at 1:29 am

    @ M. Simon

    Re: tl;dr

    I stopped reading her comments the she first time she said “hetero normative.” Did I miss anything?

    Hard to say. I have been skipping over myself.

  25. M Simon

    tl;dr Not all women respond well to TRP. Some women like being treated with respect. The reason women say they want to be treated well but their actions convey that they want to be treated badly is because they have low self esteem.

  26. Novaseeker
    January 9th, 2015 at 12:08 am

    If women want to be single minded and go to the top and are qualified,

    There are some who are qualified. Most are not. These days what I see are “affirmative action” women. When they start causing more trouble than they are worth they can’t be fired so they get a “special” job because they are so “special”. In other words – shunted aside. Placed where they can do the least harm.

    The problems I have seen.

    1. Uneducated – this does not mean no school. It means they get their opinions from popular culture. When popular culture goes wrong they can’t change. Change after 30 is difficult in any case. Women do it less well than men.

    2. Rule based. Thinking does not come easy to them. So they operate by a set of rules. And that can work for a while. And then the environment changes and the rules no longer work. And since they can’t think and adapt – it is spin crash and burn.

    3. Since they don’t think ( a very very few can) you rarely see them in cutting edge work. They mostly get assigned to places where rules can work. HR being the most notorious. Where HR is considered line and not staff (clean up the paperwork) disaster ensues. Because positions are filled by “papers OK, credentials good” and not ability. As a STEM contractor (outside the HR orbit for the most part) I have been in both type places. Where HR rules the staffing is very haphazard, but definitely a higher proportion of ijits. Because “I have a bad feeling about this” has no place in decision making. The rules are (must be) followed.

  27. Novaseeker,

    Wow. I’m surprised every time I hear about women that are not for equality. I am genuinely curious about why she pursued a PhD.

    I disagree that a woman having children should be used as a disqualifier in business. There’s a lot of bias against mothers in business from all sides. Either they spend too much time with their kids or not enough time with their kids. It’s a no win for women who have kids and are also business people. Men are not held to these standards, and we’re not super women. At the same time, I understand that a long break from work (of several years) results in less hands on experience if the woman is not working. But a lot of women come back from that and start at the bottom and have to work their way up, so what’s the problem with that?

  28. M Simon,

    You are a perfect example of why TRP is problematic for women in business. Thanks for spewing nonsense and proving my point that these toxic attitudes result in men undervaluing or disregarding women in the workplace (which is illegal btw). Was that short enough or do I need to break it down even further for you?

  29. Novaseeker
    January 9th, 2015 at 12:08 am

    The fm bought into all that equalitarian shite. It has a strong attraction for her. Every time she tries acting it out her relationship with me crashes. And since she has bestis for me she always comes back around. And she says (with a little prompting), “I’m happier when I submit.” I frequently ask why she doesn’t submit all the time. I often get back that she can’t break faith with he Bene Gesserit (sisterhood). Too funny. BTW “Bene Gesserit” is my term for it. She uses terms like “feminism”.

  30. Wow. I’m surprised every time I hear about women that are not for equality. I am genuinely curious about why she pursued a PhD.

    Wanted the degree. Not as a way to lord power over men. She didn’t have it when we met, but I supported her in completing it. It’s specifics in terms of expertised knowledge. Not all women who are very intelligent and pursue higher degrees see it as a means to power, as you seem to do. Thank goodness for that.

    But a lot of women come back from that and start at the bottom and have to work their way up, so what’s the problem with that?

    I have no issue with that. I have an issue with women getting favoritism because they are pregnant. If you want to be progressive, pregnancy is a choice among many others, het/cis/non, and so it shouldn’t be “privileged”.

  31. Rollo Tomassi
    January 9th, 2015 at 12:32 am

    Well, for that answer maybe we should have a look at what those women advocate for once they are ‘granted’ power in businesses they had no part in creating:

    So true.

    You see dear, it’s not the Red Pill or the manosphere who will facilitate the downfall of a feminine-primary society – it’ll be those dominant women you hold in such high esteem who will destroy it

    I differ a little here on the reason. It will not be sexual strategies. It will be incompetence.

    God help us but I hope the liberules get their female President in the next round. It will inoculate us for a while. The only one I ever saw in my lifetime who could do power games against independent actors tolerably well was Golda Meir. None of the females they are promoting has any sense of power against independent actors. The pussy (with a putative dick) currently in the White House certainly couldn’t. An actual c*nt will do much worse. We will look back fondly.

    I’m rooting for Rand Paul. If not him I don’t care.

  32. Novaseeker,

    How does having a PhD benefit a woman whose mindset is that women are naturally inferior to men? Why would she need the extra knowledge is my question? I’m not insulting her. I’m just asking a question. Why are you getting defensive?

    Uh…where have you worked that pregnancy has been considered privileged? Where I worked, pregnancy was definitely not privileged. This was before I started the business, and I worked in a different industry. I asked my manager if at 8 months pregnant I could sit down when I wasn’t attending to clients, and he said no….At 8 months pregnant, I couldn’t even sit down for my whole workday. I’m interested to hear how you think pregnant women are catered to in the workplace. This is not my experience, once again.

  33. I disagree that a woman having children should be used as a disqualifier in business. There’s a lot of bias against mothers in business from all sides. Either they spend too much time with their kids or not enough time with their kids. It’s a no win for women who have kids and are also business people. Men are not held to these standards, and we’re not super women. At the same time, I understand that a long break from work (of several years) results in less hands on experience if the woman is not working. But a lot of women come back from that and start at the bottom and have to work their way up, so what’s the problem with that?

    Let me illustrate the problem and how making it “fair” for women makes it unfair for men. Take a man and a woman of roughly equal ability and smarts working for a typical corporation. Both are seen as bright and put on the fast track for eventual promotion to upper management. Peter puts in 10 years. But Mary takes time off during the same 10 years to have 2 children. For each one, she takes 4 months off of work (which is fairly typical in my experience, some do less, some do more) plus the usual pre- and post-natal doctor’s appointments. Peter also had 2 children during this time, but he did not take more than a few days off for each one around their birth. Further, as motherhood bonding is important to Mary, her time at work is circumscribed by her children. This right here is the blind spot women like Alpha Female have, they can only see it from a woman’s point of view, Mary may have 10 years in the company just like Peter, she should absolutely be treated equally and fairness to men who really put in their time should never enter into the decision.

    None of this is to say that women should never be promoted. As other posters say, there’s nothing wrong with women moving up the ladder as long as it’s understood she isn’t going to have it all. At any time, it’s motherhood or the job: choose. If she chooses motherhood, then she has to be okay with delaying her ascent while having the baby. She also has to be okay with being passed over. The company doesn’t exist for her, it exists to put out a product or a service, the company can only survive if it concentrates on business continuity, among other things. That’s only fair to the men who have to compete with her for they don’t get the privilege of the time off. In fact for men, there is never, ever a choice, it’s the job he has or the business he owns, that is it, he must perform, end of story.

  34. Uh…where have you worked that pregnancy has been considered privileged? Where I worked, pregnancy was definitely not privileged. This was before I started the business, and I worked in a different industry. I asked my manager if at 8 months pregnant I could sit down when I wasn’t attending to clients, and he said no….At 8 months pregnant, I couldn’t even sit down for my whole workday. I’m interested to hear how you think pregnant women are catered to in the workplace. This is not my experience, once again.

    In larger corporations (I’m thinking Fortune 500 level), pregnant women most definitely are privileged, coddled, accommodated, etc. Because the business is typically large enough to come under the state radar of political correctness in their treatment. Such corporations have benefit packages that typically include generous maternity benefits. And they are large enough that one pregnant employee in a department can be readily covered for.

    Smaller businesses must worry more about business continuity in the event of someone not able to work for whatever reason. Which includes maternity leave. Hence that manager’s refusal to accommodate. Harsh? Yes, most certainly, I agree with you about that one. But as I said before, the company does not exist for the benefit of pregnant women, it exists to create a product or sell a service. An essential blindness in Alpha Female’s vision.

    In any case, pregnant women are guaranteed so many months of Family Leave and their jobs on their return. Not sure what’s not privileged about that.

  35. Random Angeleno
    January 9th, 2015 at 3:14 am

    Good points but you left out two important ones. Compartmentalization and task focus.

    Women have difficulty being single minded and goal oriented. Men are notorious for that. It is often a dig because it is so obvious.

    She is thinking – “can I get home in time for the kids?” Probably three hours before quitting time. He is thinking, “I must focus all my attention on the problem to have any chance for a home life tonight.” And if he doesn’t get done in time? He will be there all night. She will be ruled by the clock because, “the children need me. Business can wait.” He: “I must make the deadline I promised the customer.”

    When I was doing it I often beat the deadlines. But my home life suffered. Even if I wasn’t at work I was working in my shop at home to get things I needed done for work.

  36. Random Angeleno,

    Is your contention that Mary is treated as an equal to Peter and that she is promoted at the same rate that Peter is even though she is a woman and has children that she attends to regularly? Because statistically, it’s highly unlikely that’s the case. What if Mary is smarter and more competent at the job than Peter, but Peter is physically on the job more and puts in more hours. Who, in your view, should get the promotion then? Assuming you believe that women can be smarter than men. I never know who I’m talking to here….

    “At any time, it’s motherhood or the job: choose.” I disagree that a mother ever really chooses a job over her child. The only reason I opened a business was because of my son. Having to put in hours at work is not a choice, it’s a function of life in order to create the type of stability I want my child(ren) to have. It’s part of giving him the life he deserves.

    “That’s only fair to the men who have to compete with her for they don’t get the privilege of the time off. ” Feminists have lobbied for paternity leave, but men are too proud to take it. In countries like Canada, paternity leave exists.

    “In any case, pregnant women are guaranteed so many months of Family Leave and their jobs on their return. Not sure what’s not privileged about that.” This is not always the case. If the company does offer it, it’s like a man taking a vacation and expecting his job when he gets back. Do you expect your job to be gone when you get back from vacation?

  37. Self-esteem, huh. The shadier side of game only works on women if they have low self-esteem. This gets repeated a lot.

    Now, that just ain’t my style (couldn’t be bothered), but there’s a thread of Red Pill truth in there that needs pulling.

    Why is our culture so concerned with female self-esteem? Looks to me like there’s a surplus of it – take a browse through social media, flip the channels, pick up a paper – all busting at the seams with feminine pride (hubris, really).

    But Sally keeps going for assholes. Can’t be her fault at all, she’s just externally inflicted with this low self-esteem thingy. Something about gender roles, beauty standards, blah blah. Not enforced by other women at all, of course.

    Nobody gives a flying fuck about male self-esteem, except to attack and ridicule any attempt to bring it up, including here, and tear it down for entertainment on the world stage. Nobody is looking out for men. Nobody even cares to listen to what men actually want. It’s a punchline, we are laughed at for being entitled.

    Low confidence, buddy? Your fucking problem. Looks like you’re a loser (but you’re a misogynist if you call Sally that). Under average height? Nothing you can do about it, mercilessly written off… but don’t dare say you won’t date an overweight woman (even though that’s something she ~could~ change) lest you offend her fragile self-esteem. Don’t you know that’s why she’s overweight to begin with? No, wait a minute, she’s actually healthy! We are telling YOU what to think is beautiful now!

    Masculinity systematically pathologized in education? In the Media? No, shitlord, that’s just us dismantling ten thousand years of your privilege (“uh – you mean civilization?”). We’re equal now, get it? This is how equality feels! That ain’t piss, it’s rain!

    It’s all bullshit. There are vastly different biological realities for the sexes, this extends to almost every facet of life, it will not change anytime soon, and there’s no point ignoring it. It’s too fascinating to ignore anyway..

    Eggs are expensive, sperm is cheap. The masses of men are expendable, always a potential threat, and only useful when they generate value for everyone else. The men at the top of the pyramid are in on the con.

    No, most of us don’t advocate wholesale abuse of the weak (oh, sorry, I mean low self-esteem) to get our kicks. But you can’t fault us for noticing how goddamn obvious and ubiquitous the dynamic is. Nor could we excuse women from their part in it without completely removing their agency and infantilizing them! Which way ya want it? Is Sally a victim, or an idiot? Or, maybe, just maybe, she’s an intelligent human being, but she’s been brought up to be a narcissist who wants status with her friends and popular culture by dating dickbags, and she’s never been taught – gasp – chastity (the horror, don’t you slutshame us you pig!) or accountability?

    And in the face of this great sweeping push towards equalism, where women are encouraged to be more “traditionally” masculine, you can’t expect men not to come up with ways to flip the script, and act in ways that are traditionally feminine – like learning to be more socially wily, being duplicitous/opportunistic where it suits us, finding weaknesses and exploiting them, dropping chivalry when it’s counterproductive, and so on. What’s good for the goose, as the saying goes.

    You can try and shame us here for assembling hard truths (rather than just forming a fucking self-esteem cheering section), but we don’t really give a fuck.

  38. Yes self-esteem.

    “Why is our culture so concerned with female self-esteem?” Because it’s in the toilet. It’s affecting your life, obviously, or you wouldn’t be part of the red pill gang now would ya?

    “Nobody gives a flying fuck about male self-esteem, except to attack and ridicule any attempt to bring it up,” One day men will realize they also benefit from feminism. Feminists don’t think it’s taboo for men to have feelings and discuss them with others.

    “including here,” Especially here.

    “Low confidence, buddy? Your fucking problem.” Hyper masculinity and red pill philosophy further the societal expectation that men will not have emotions, and if they do, men will bury them and deal with them alone. This IS the concept of being an “Alpha” male. You have no one to blame but yourself for this predicament because you are complicit in abjectly subjecting men to the gender roles that YOU reinforce through pandering this nonsense about “alpha” and “beta” and other bullshit. You’re upset because no one is supporting you? Maybe you should stop pretending that traditional gender roles benefit you because they don’t, and this is one of many examples of that.

    Listen to you in one breath say, “why are people concerned about women’s self esteem” then in the next breath demand to know why people aren’t concerned about YOUR self esteem. Men.

    You think below average height is something that women should not notice or comment on and it should not have any impact on whether they would date a person or not, but you think commenting on a woman’s weight is fair game. Kay…………like let’s step up to the proverbial plate here and realize that if you want the right to be pissed about being nexted for height, you don’t get the right to act like you can’t understand why women are hurt for being nexted for weight. K?

    “vastly different biological realities” Do these include things like breathing or heart beats, the senses, or like basic organ function, or…are we just talking like sex organs and hormones? Oh k. We’re actually not that different biologically. You just want to believe we are because it feeds your sense of self entitlement to treat women however you want with no consequence.

    “Is Sally a victim, or an idiot?” Sally is an imperfect human being that is unsure of herself and her value to the world, just like you are.

    “assembling hard truths” That’s not what you’re doing.

  39. Hahahaha. Touched a nerve. .

    None more ruthless in attacking self-esteem than women, whether it’s that of men or their female peers. It’s not second nature, it’s first. Little thing called Relational Aggression. That’s right, boys beat each other up, but girls have the patent rights locked on emotional bullying.

    And feminism’s gonna save us all?

  40. @alpha female

    Biases and heuristics are powerful, and we are all susceptible to their influence. Particularly biases of affect. We can look at the same statistics and come to different conclusions based on what we want to believe – what we hope is true, what we think SHOULD be true, or what we are afraid MIGHT be true. Thus, it behooves all of us to remain open to changing our minds (myself included).

    I mentioned to you that most of us were raised with equalist beliefs, and the women in our lives told us that was what they wanted with their words, but their actions demonstrated otherwise. Your response was that their words were true, but their actions were false due to their insecurities. In other words, according to you, their actions would have matched their words, but because they worried about failing (losing their relationship, for example), they acted against their true beliefs, as indicated by their words.

    While it is true that people’s actions sometimes belie their true intentions, that is the exception rather than the rule. Far more often it is words that belie true intent. It is far easier to lie to others and to ourselves in words than it is to do so in the actions of our daily lives.

    A man might SAY that he loves his wife, yet beat her daily. Perhaps such a man really believes that he loves his wife, and perhaps she believes it too. But she would be far wiser to believe his actions than his words.

    A woman might SAY she loves her husband, yet prioritize her home decorations, her work, her gym, etc over him and restrict their sex life to a minimum (remember spreadsheet guy?). She might believe that she loves him when she bothers to think of it. But fact is, she doesn’t think of it often, and when she does, it doesn’t spur her to action. In such a case, her beliefs about herself are a LIE, as proven by her actions. She believes it to be true because believing it makes her see herself as a good person (and believing otherwise would make her seem a bad person). She believes it to be true because she WANTS it to be true, and can’t understand that she is not the person she thinks she is.

    Cognitive psychology and personality theory explain this phenomenon. It is due to a conflict between extraverted feeling (Fe) and introverted feeling (Fi). Most women (and some men) are Fe-dominant, meaning that they internalize the values and feelings of others, and subsume their own feelings to their subconscious. In the case of the woman above, her Fe (role) dictates that she should love her husband, and that if she doesn’t then she would be a bad wife. But her own internal feelings (Fi) tell her that she isn’t interested. She relegates her Fi to her subconscious because acknowledging it would force her to view herself as a bad wife through her Fe lens. So she believes her Fe and ignores her Fi in her conscious thought, but her subconscious thoughts are guided by her Fi and this dictates her daily actions.

    A woman (or man) who typically says one thing and does another has Fe/Fi conflict. Their true feelings are their Fi, and are revealed by their actions.

    You are correct that more and more women today are getting excellent educations and high paying careers. And they pay lip service to the feminist notion that they want a man who is their equal. Yet, as I have written above, most look at the concept of equality optimistically on the upslope and pessimistically on the downslope. The “equal” that they desire should be taller, stronger, smarter, more social, make more money, etc. an equal is the LEAST they will accept. But they believe otherwise. Their Fe (based on feminism) tells them one thing, but their Fi tells them another. Hence dating one type of man and marrying another. Hence claiming to be attracted to one set of traits, yet actually being attracted to another. And, most importantly of all, hence the lack of introspection and understanding of their own wants, and their telling men they want one thing yet truly wanting another.

  41. re: “what she said to do is exactly what men do.”

    Apex fallacy. Like a woman, her solipsism prmpts her to lecture us on what she erroneously believes the red pill means, without realizing (even though we keep telling her!) that by doing so she is conforming to all of our models of this behavior.

  42. re: “Most men do this.”

    Most men have to swallow ther pride because they’re betas.

    re: “Most men would be hypocrites to not do it since they have had many many partners.”

    Apex fallacy + projection.

  43. re: “Why would I respect someone who disrespects me? That makes no sense.”

    Women don’t make *rational* sense for the most part concerning relationships, but all of this (waves hands around) discussion about redpill descriptions of women’s behaviors has a (admittedly disgusting) logic of its own. Women DO indeed respect bad boy men who disrespect them, beat them down, etc. It’s not my fault.

  44. re: “Feminists don’t think it’s taboo for men to have feelings and discuss them with others.”

    Yes, feminists abhor
    1) Male spaces
    1) Masculine feelings

    Feminisits insist there are “right” (female) feelings and “right” (female)opinions that males MUST agree on, and our institutions MUST indoctrinate them.

  45. Keep in mind that α♀ is commenting on a Love post about her noncomformity in Love: how she isn’t hypergamous because her guy wasn’t the best, but (according to her) he thinks sh’es best.

    Hee hee

  46. @ AlphaFemale
    I’m also not disputing that some masculine qualities are desirable to hetero women. I’ve said that multiple times. Taller and stronger are typical masculine traits. I agree that taller, stronger men are seen as more attractive to females. The rest of it I don’t agree with. I don’t think women have to have a man that’s smarter, wealthier, or more talented than they are. But that’s because I don’t fundamentally view women as inferior to men so…that probably colors my view on it.

    You are substantially incorrect. The object of interest in romance novels is never a tall, strong, handsome, dim witted and poor man. He must be better or have the ultimate potential to be better in every way. Women don’t fantasize about settling down with men who are equal or lesser to themselves. They always want better.

  47. How does having a PhD benefit a woman whose mindset is that women are naturally inferior to men? Why would she need the extra knowledge is my question? I’m not insulting her. I’m just asking a question.

    From texts (from her after reading all of this) …

    That woman is an idiot.

    She can’t understand that some women have a cooperative mindset, not a competitive one.

    I got a PhD to enable myself to do what I love, not to make myself “better” than someone else. Sheez .. It is about science, bitch.

    There you go.

  48. The louder they screech, the closer you are to the truth. She’s screeching like a momma bird shooing off an aircraft carrier wing.

  49. @ AlphaFemale
    Bella is superior to Edward because she is human (which Edward and all of the other vampires in the novel view as more desirable than being a vampire, as humans can procreate and live a normal life). In fact, Edward begs her to stay a human and not turn into what he is for most of the first 3 books.

    The point of “better” is resource acquisition and control. Being human does not give Bella the ability to acquire and control more resources. Human is not better than vampire. Vampire is demonstratively better than human.

  50. @Jeremy re: “most of us were raised with equalist beliefs, and the women in our lives told us that was what they wanted with their words”

    I’m going to go another direction. The bulldozing of male spaces, of male opinions, of male feelings, continues.
    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/repairing-relationships/201412/are-mens-groups-threat-women

    Feminism wants equalism with males about as much as Israelis want equalism with Palestinians.

  51. @ AlphaFemale
    Which popular, female romance novel has these plot points.

    A) Powerful Alpha Female
    B) She has super powers, she might be a vampire or some other creature
    C) She has fabulous wealth
    D) She suffers from an unquenchable attraction to an average, plain male college student

    That book doesn’t exist. Women aren’t attracted to equal or less. It’s always Self +1 to +10.

  52. re: Bella is better because she wants to be like Edward? And Edward is worse because he wants her to stay a human female?

  53. @assholefemale

    ‘It does not, It directly acknowledges female sexual power and says, “No, I won’t share male power with you, you have power that you did not earn already.”’

    This is good. This is more along the lines of what I’m used to regarding Red Pill philosophy. Please explain how women have not “earned” their power yet power granted to males based on their gender has been “earned” by them and they are somehow entitled to it solely based on being born male. The hypocrisy I’m sure will be enlightening.

    Female sexual power is not earned, it is gifted by biological fate… Unless you know of some metaphysical world where you competed with others over who gets to be born female.

    Men have no sexual power, they are judged by their accomplishments. Hence male power, the power that modern feminist women like yourself whine constantly for a piece of, is EARNED through DEEDS.

  54. @ jf12
    Bella is better because she wants to be like Edward? And Edward is worse because he wants her to stay a human female?
    I quizzed my wife on this last night because she loves romance novels.

    A) Edward is superior to Bella in every important way.
    B) In 50 Shades Of Grey, Christian (who happens to be a billionaire) is superior to Ana in every important way.
    C) In every other romance novel it is the same. The male is superior to the female in every important way.

    The man is NEVER less intelligent than the woman in a romance novel. In fact there is 99.9% chance he is smarter in both raw intelligence and street smarts. The male character is never strong, dumb and lovable.

  55. @M Simon

    God help us but I hope the liberules get their female President in the next round. It will inoculate us for a while.
    What really makes me sad is that the rabid, frothing at the mouth “WE MUST ELECT A WOMAN NOW!” set are hellbent on getting ANY woman in there regardless of her qualifications. There is, in fact, one woman I think might actually make a good presidential candidate right now as I’ve found myself agreeing with a lot of her opinions on financial reform and the like: Elizabeth Warren. But she’s not up for the big seat yet, so it’s Hillary we’re gonna have foisted on us. Ugh.

  56. @ Alfalfa

    Mrs. Gamer may be a natural submissive that enjoys being treated this way. If you’ve used dread game on her, the likelihood that she has a low self esteem is through the roof.

    Lol, no way in h311. Mrs. Gamer is as tough-minded a broad as you’re ever gonna find.

    THis further supports my earlier assertion that low self esteem females are the ones that respond well to this.

    You’re ridiculous, sugart1ts. 🙂

  57. @ Jeremy

    Hence male power, the power that modern feminist women like yourself whine constantly for a piece of, is EARNED through DEEDS.

    Or demonstrated ability such as salesmanship–Game.

  58. Alright, I’m going to do something I’ve never done on RM before, I’m going to ask my readers for their input on the next post.

    I have two posts ready for this weekend’s discussion. One of these is a breakdown of Alpha Female’s original 6 point comment. Since I wrote it her narrative has gone off in all manner of erratic (but predictable) tangents and honestly she doesn’t have the critical capacity to actually dig any deeper than what her point and sputter fem-conditioning has taught her to be outraged over.

    On the other hand, the commentary this has inspired is certainly educational for the uninitiated as well as for Blue Pill men and the fem-centrically conditioned. Unfortunately most of these are now buried 5 pages deep (thank you) so I thought perhaps a remedial lesson in Red Pill awareness might help the freshly unplugged.

    I’m going to hold off on posting until I get a consensus, but let me know if you think it’s something you want to discuss in a fresh thread, or if I should just blow off an obvious troll.

  59. @Rollo, re: new post w/ 6 points addressed in detail.

    I’m Game. Even though I think those points, and the other points, were addressed in comments.

    One different topic of potential interest is what Jeremy said about “When and how to reveal tumescence is about the grayest of the gray areas in human existence.”

  60. Rollo – go with it. I’ve found her comments entertaining, and she certainly got a lot of conversation going,

    Besides, it will make a great weekend subject to toss around. I considered posting something at our “house” using her comments, but I saw that she was getting a great mental workout here and didn’t want to detract from it. Too fun to witness.

  61. Rollo:

    I vote for the red pill refresher/primer first. Then refuting the “AlphaFemale” entity’s 6-point comment later.

    BTW, “AlphaFemale”, this whole femdom thing you’ve got going on and your qualifying yourself to the guys around here is actually kind of cute.

  62. sfcton makes a point on his blog, essentially that women’s shit tests are a result of their low self-esteem. I beg to differ; I think shit tests result from a woman’s high self esteem / high comfort level with a man. I think the reason he doesn’t get as many shit tests is because he doesn’t exactly exude comfort.

    Short version: women treat familiar men poorly.

    1. Alright, I’m only considering it because it’s for the weekend thread, but be warned, if I do she’s only going to take the discussion into any tangent that will distract away from every uncomfortable truth she’s ego-invested herself in.

      Still, it might make for a lively debate. Just engage with the purpose of educating the uninitiated, you wont convince Ms. SIW® of anything.

  63. @thedeti, re: ” your qualifying yourself to the guys around here”

    Yeah. Hopefully she’s getting the message that the guys don’t prefer a woman who thinks she’s better/best, just like all the other women.

  64. re: “Just engage with the purpose of educating the uninitiated”

    If I told you who my intended audience is for a lot of my comments, you wouldn’t believe me.

  65. I don’t think anyone here is trying to change her mind. Watching it go down, it appears to be a verbal “play fight” similar to how wrestling with the GF/Wife in the physical realm works, I’ve been genuinely amused in a “that’s so cute” kinda way.

    And she still hasn’t figured out how she is repeatedly confirming much of what we discuss in the ‘sphere, which makes it all the more adorable.

  66. @ jf12

    If I told you who my intended audience is for a lot of my comments, you wouldn’t believe me.

    Just speculating wildly–a men’s Bible study at your church?

  67. @Rollo

    Giving this chick anymore headspace is more than she has earned. She’s made it clear she’s probably with a pathetic beta to make herself feel like she’s everything feminist mouthpieces have told her she’s supposed to be. Certainly not because she feels adequate on her own, which kinda kills the whole “alpha” thing to me. She doesn’t listen to anything being said or read anything she’s asked to read.

    Not that she replaces them with some kind of rational logic based on reality; to the contrary she just stamps her little feet and insists that the same horse shit women who don’t claim “alpha” status try to feed us is in fact true. Consider my mind unblown.

    If you wanna give a primer prompted by seeing this stupidity rear its ugly head again, that’s cool. Addressing her directly though? Nah. She doesn’t deserve attention for any reason other than just being a prime example of the kind of obnoxiously entitled princess modern feminism produces.

    As a side note, let me add a characteristic of true “alpha” status: alphas (male or female) don’t claim to be alpha or even concern themselves with the concept. They’re too busy simply being alpha. Making it part of the username you choose is claiming it. If you’re claiming it, you’re just trying to convince yourself and us of said status and in the process broadcasting your non-alpha status with a bullhorn. Claiming alpha is not being alpha. It is, in fact, the opposite.

    But I don’t expect anyone using a username like that to get it.

  68. Sun Wukong
    January 9th, 2015 at 10:58 am

    IMO Sarah Palin is the best man for the job. I’ll have to look at Warren on economics, but generally I dismiss Ds on that subject because they in general don’t get how hard production is and their answer to every question is more government more taxes.

    Once government goes over 50% of the economy decline sets it. With Federal, State, and Local we are right at that tipping point – on average. Which means some places are over it. Illinois fer instance.

  69. @Rollo: you acknowledge she’s gone off on “erratic tangents” since posting her initial points. Now you want to reward her with her very own post?
    .
    .
    .
    Well it is your blog so go with your gut. At least it’s for the gallery, not her.

  70. Palin seems like she’s just a hotter R version of Hillary without two braincells to rub together. All the women that are put forward as politically realistic options for important positions are just marketable and nothing else.

  71. I actually think an eventual fisking and takedown of “AlphaFemale’s” 6-Theses is a good idea.

    1. True Alpha Females are very, very rare. Usually, a true Alpha Female is a high T woman, high sex drive, earns her own money, is very highly educated, and very driven and ambitious, and –this is important – wants to be and expects to be the dominant partner in her relationship with a man. She wants to be the breadwinner, wants to lead, wants to be the “final word” in decisionmaking within the relationship, and is truly happy and comfortable with assuming that role in the relationship. This last thing is the distinguishing marker of the true alpha female. And you don’t see them very often. I know maybe—maybe – two of them. (They’re both lawyers.)

    Most women who are highly educated, high intelligence, high drive, and high paying jobs still want “traditional” sex roles with the men they date, have sex with, and marry. Novaseeker’s description of his Ph.D. fiancée and their relationship is a perfect example of this. She wants to “be the girl” while her future husband Nova is “the man” and leads, is dominant, is the “final word” in the relationship. They want men who are EVEN MORE educated, intelligent, driven and wealthy than they are. Even though they can take charge in the boardroom, they want and expect their men to take charge in the bedroom. So the point is that just because a woman has a couple of degrees and earns some good money doesn’t mean she wants and expects to “wear the pants” in the marriage. Odds are, she doesn’t, and she wants and EXPECTS her man to do that. Matter of fact, a woman like this will probably be quite relieved to have a man who will do that.

    2. Talk talk talk from AlphaFemale. It’s all bullshit. Don’t listen to what she says, because lots of women who are NOT really “alpha females” kinda sorta talk like this, but they don’t really mean it. They talk talk talk about “equality” and “equalitarian” and “partnership” and “we each do our share”. Except for the true outlier Alpha Female, most such women really do want to repose themselves in the strength of a man. Watch what such women actually do – they are drawn to men who don’t listen to them and don’t put up with their bullshit.

  72. @ Rollo
    Alright, I’m going to do something I’ve never done on RM before, I’m going to ask my readers for their input on the next post.

    No matter what the topic is my favorite RM articles break down complicated behaviors into simple, easy to understand concepts.

    This article is gold because it precisely explains the definition of attention whore.
    http://therationalmale.com/2011/09/21/your-attention-please/

    What separates the behavior of the attention whore is her overtness in grabbing that attention. Consider that women’s preferred means of communicating is to be covert. There’s no subtlety in the attention whore’s methods and maintenance. Granted, women will see this as an attack in the AW stealing her ‘entitled’ portion of attention, but on a larger scale the AW is betraying the covert attention needs of the sisterhood. By seeking attention in the overt, the AW is essentially crossing over into Men’s preferred communication means to get attention. There’s no (or certainly less) art to attention whoring, so it comes off as classless and trashy.

    Basic concepts such as women are always searching for Self+1 (or greater) are invaluable. It’s a simple concept but it predicts female behavior extremely well. It’s the kind of idea that I can tell my son and he’ll understand instantly.

  73. A few comments ago we discussed the nonexistence of divorceporn antiromance stories for men, in which men dump lousy wives for hot chicks. How about a “SIW hits Wall” antiromance, in which the safe beta refuge’s SMP soars dramatically and she starts to worry? Are we going to see that story?

  74. Re: anti- romance for men

    Middle aged man can’t get it up for get shrewish wife. Goes to Doctor for little “blue pills” doctor instead suggests trying a younger, thinner, nicer woman. Hilarity, and inspiration ensues as hero makes Redpill journey to himself discovers a man.

  75. re: “younger, thinner, nicer”

    One thing I agree with ton about is that prettier strange women tend to be nicer. Although that effect may be complicated by my seeing nicer as prettier.

  76. When I stop and think about it, I can’t think of a greater element of cognitive dissonance in modern society. That women can act as if they have no innate power over society, it boggles the mind.

    Let’s step back and look at humanity from a distance and through time. It is essentially one long string of mothers giving birth to daughters and sons. That’s evolution, females choosing a mate, or controlling which birth gets preferential mothering based on their own desires. Basically, women are in full control of human evolution, and always will be. Their direct body is part of the chain of human life throughout time, and their desires and choices affect humanity well into the future. And that’s just looking at genetics, their mothering of the next generation has nearly-immediate consequences on society at large, which is the simplest and best explanation for the current social decay the west is suffering through.

    And they have the gall to infer that they have no power?

    I’ve never smelled horse shit that foul. Women are in TOTAL denial of the gifted power they have over humanity, complete and utter denial. That they would dare to even imply that earned-through-deeds-and-sacrifice male power can come close to such power is laughable.

  77. @jf12
    re: contemporary culture’s portrayal of love etc.
    Compare the male and female tendencies in this list.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Billboard_Mainstream_Top_40_number-one_songs_of_2014

    Great point.

    I used to point this stuff out prior to the hit and run accident. It went on deaf ears in the comment section here.

    Music creates life.

    That can be positive, or not. Therefore, knowing the lyrics of the songs matters. In my work, it has been necessary.

    Ask any parent if they know the lyrics. Rollo is an exception, he knows them.

    Most will tell you they don’t understand what the words are in the song. The truth is that the subconscious reads it all.

    They will tell you that their children don’t know the words either… while their children are singing the song verbatim.

  78. @Jeremy So refreshing to read a post from someone that’s not hostile just on the basis that they’ve read a view that challenges their beliefs. How do you do it? All the other men here are so defensive and insecure about their beliefs they have attacked me left and right for daring to oppose them.

    I understand how you’ve come to that conclusion about how women are lying to themselves but their actions don’t lie. However, I would like to point out that when you look at various types of romance novels/movies/storylines, you are normally not going to find a hyper dominant alpha male ordering his bitch around. 50 shades of gray is an outlier, so dismissible. If women were really subconsciously craving that kind of relationship, it would be present in media that women consume. What we see are strong, accomplished, attractive men treating women with respect and decency and helping to prove HER VALUE to the world and to herself. That is what women really want.

    The Fe, Fi explanation is an interesting theory. But I think mine’s more plausible. Let me make an analogy to counter the theory that we’re really subconsciously craving poor treatment.

    Imagine that a group of women are gathered and chatting. Suzy explains that she has recently been administered “dread game” by her “alpha” partner. He has basically shown her that she is meaningless to him and that he has many other options and that she must get herself in line before he moves on to another woman. What do you think the response of the group of women is going to be?

    You can say that you think it is ANOTHER case of women lying to themselves, but why would a group of women internalize cognitive dissonance and fake concern over their friend’s predicament? They just wouldn’t. Unless you truly and honestly believe that women are incapable of thought that aligns with beliefs, then this theory is awash in inherent flaws. The women will tell the other woman in no uncertain terms to DTMFA (dump that mother fucker already), and she, believing deep down that she deserves such treatment, will stay with him until he does something she actually can’t abide and that goes beyond the disrespect she thinks she deserves.

    I actually read a field report from some dude on the subreddit that illustrates what I’m saying nicely. He met some chick and wanted to bang her, ended up going out dancing with her, applies pressure to her to show ‘abundance,’ and goes to make out with another girl…she loses interest and withdraws to a private room with beta guys. This is a perfect example of the “alpha” taking it too far and crossing the line. Even she knows she doesn’t deserve to see a guy she was planning to hook up with slobbering all over another girl in front of her when she is offering herself to him.

    tl;dr if women really believed they deserved to be treated badly, then they would think the same about their friends when they are treated badly, i.e., they deserved it. Our actions would demonstrate that we think she deserved it. They don’t. What they demonstrate is that we subconsciously (by offering physical and emotional support to the friend) and consciously (by offering words of advice) believe she does not deserve it.

  79. tl;dr if women really believed they deserved to be treated badly, then they would think the same about their friends when they are treated badly, i.e., they deserved it. Our actions would demonstrate that we think she deserved it. They don’t. What they demonstrate is that we subconsciously (by offering physical and emotional support to the friend) and consciously (by offering words of advice) believe she does not deserve it.

    Narcissism will not allow itself to be trodden on. You demonstrate clearly that women do not believe they deserve to be treated badly, yet you fail to extrapolate this to it’s inevitable behavior pattern when dealing with solipsistic females. Individuals who believe themselves worthy will not allow disrespect (however slight) to stand, and will fight it socially. This is why being a “bad boy” and “negging” women with egos works, because they can’t let an inherently “lesser” value male treat them as such. Now, since most women in the west have greatly inflated egos as to their value, yes, treating most women poorly actually helps the cause of a man looking to get laid.

    Basically, you’re proving the point you meant to disprove.

  80. jl12,

    “Yes, feminists abhor
    1) Male spaces
    1) Masculine feelings”

    Even though nothing will change your jaded worldview, I would like to point out that you are wrong. Feminists /=/ man haters.

    Pointing out the hypocritical way that you demonize women for committing the same acts that women “commit” is not a fallacy. Your jaded views on women branch swinging and cheating are what you think give you license to treat women as subhumans. Pointing out that if we are judging on the criteria YOU have mapped out, then men are also subhuman (where have all the real humans gone?) is not a fallacy. It is a fallacy for you to continue to assert that behavior seen in both males and females is inherently dissimilar to the point that it colors the value of an entire gender. THAT is a fallacy.

    Rollo, I read that Mutiny blog and commented on it. How many blogs do I have to read before you’ll quit shoving them in my face? Is this a not so subtle push for page views? Or are you genuinely not capable of responding to me without linking to another blog?

    @zdr, the way you value men is really kind of abhorrent. I’m not saying she wants a weak man, which you apparently think any man not “alpha” falls into the category of. In fact, most women settle with betas as you all admit to, so clearly perceived dominance is not a precursor for making someone relationship material to a woman. All this psychobabble about women wanting only attractive and successful mates (fucking duh), that’s like saying men want young, beautiful, intelligent mates (again fucking duh). The point is that it’s not a sign of an inherent need to be dominated. It is a sign of humans finding the person they are most attracted to based on the combined perception of all of their known traits. This also includes personality traits, which have not been discussed in this thread at the very least.

    Where we disagree is whether dominance and emotional manipulation are considered positive traits to women, and they’re not. No matter how you want to spin it, it’s not something a woman subconsciously or consciously wants or looks for. It’s something that may overlook if she believes the man has other more valuable traits and she also has a low self esteem, but it is NOT something she biologically or inherently wants in a mate.

Speak your mind

%d bloggers like this: