I received this email some time ago, but I felt it needed some serious consideration to give the concept the justice it deserved.
Rollo — You’ve been a major help to my understanding the underlying dynamics between men and women. I’ve observed them in bits and pieces over the years but never really understood the whys behind them or how to turn them in our favor.
It seems like one mid-term focus you have is on male-male dynamics, specifically fathers and sons. But I also wonder whether you’d consider writing more about bonding and support between men and how those relationships can anchor men’s lives at a time when male relationships are regarded with skepticism by larger society. Lately it’s struck me that men tend to innately trust the men they know and distrust those they don’t (and that it’s often the reverse for women). This inclines us to believe women when they decry the “assholes” who have mistreated them in the past while women are empathetic and credulous toward women whose character they don’t know and whom they’ve never met.
Many of us out here are lacking strong male relationships, and our small social circles translate to fewer men we innately trust and more men we innately don’t. Women seem to regard male friendships as a luxury at best–we should be focusing on career, family, and her needs–while women’s friendships are seen as a lifeline in their crazy, have-it-all world. Indeed, a man discouraging his SO’s friendships is widely seen as a sign of emotional abuse, whereas the reverse is “working on the relationship.”
This strikes me as a deep but largely untapped Red Pill well and could provide essential guidance for men looking to live a proud, constructive Red Pill life however women and children might fit into it. I’d definitely welcome your insights in future entries.
Look forward to every post!
Back in February Roosh proposed (and attempted to initiate) a worldwide event that would be a sort of ‘gathering of the tribes’ with the intent of having men get together in small local gatherings to “just have a beer and talk amongst like-minded men.” My impression of the real intent of in putting this together notwithstanding, I didn’t think it was a bad idea. However, the problem this kind of ‘tribes meeting’ suffers from is that it’s entirely contrived to put unfamiliar men together for no other purpose than to “have a beer and talk.” The problem with unfamiliar men coming together simply to meet and relate is a noble goal, however, the fundamental ways men communicate naturally makes the function of this gathering seem strange to men.
The best male friends I have share one or more common interests with me – a sport, a hobby, music, art, fishing, lifting, golf, etc. – and the best conversations I can remember with these friends occurred while we were engaged in some particular activity or event. Even just moving a friend into his new house; it’s about accomplishing something together and in that time relating about shit. When I lived in Florida some of the best conversations I had with my studio guys were during some project we had to collaborate on for a week or two.
Women, make time with the express purpose of talking between friends. Over coffee perhaps, but the act of communication is more important than the event or activity. Even a ‘stitch-and-bitch’ is simply an organized excuse to get together and relate. For women, communication is about context. They are rewarded by how that communication makes them feel. For Men communication is about content and they are rewarded by the interchange of information and ideas.
[…]From an evolutionary perspective, it’s likely that our hunter-gatherer tribal roles had a hand in men and women’s communication differences. Men went to hunt together and practiced the coordinated actions for a cooperative goal. Bringing down a prey animal would have been a very information-crucial effort; in fact the earliest cave paintings were essentially records of a successful hunt and instructions on how to do it. Early men’s communication would necessarily have been a content driven discourse or the tribe didn’t eat.
Similarly women’s communications would’ve been during gathering efforts and childcare. It would stand to reason that due to women’s more collectivist roles they would evolve to be more intuitive, and context oriented, rather than objective oriented. A common recognition in the manosphere is women’s predisposition toward collectivism and/or a more socialist bent to thinking about resource distribution. Whereas men tend to distribute rewards and resources primarily on merit, women have a tendency to spread resources collectively irrespective of merit. Again this predisposition is likely due to how women’s ‘hard-wiring’ evolved as part of the circumstances of their tribal roles.
From this perspective it’s a fairly easy follow to see how the tendency of men to distrust unfamiliar (out-group) men might be a response to a survival threat whereas women’s implicit trust of any member of the ‘sisterhood’ would be a species-survival benefit to the sex that requires the most parental investment and mutual support.
Divide & Conquer
In our post-masculine, feminine-primary social order it doesn’t take a Red Pill Lens to observe the many examples of how the Feminine Imperative goes to great lengths to destroy the intrasexual ‘tribalism’ of men. Since the time of the Sexual Revolution the social press of equalism has attempted to force a commonly accepted unisex expectation upon men to socialize and interact among themselves as women do.
The duplicity in this striving towards “equality” is, of course, the same we find in all of the socialization efforts of egalitarian equalism; demasculinizing men in the name of equality. A recent, rather glaring, example of this social push can be found (where else?) at Harvard University where more than 200 female students demonstrated against a new policy to discourage participation in single-gender clubs at the school. You see, women were very supportive of the breaking of gender barriers when it meant that men could no longer discriminate in male-exclusive (typically male-space) organizations, but when that same equalist metric was applied to women’s exclusive organizations, then the cries were accusations of insensitivity and the banners read “Women’s Groups Keep Women Safe.”
That’s a pretty fresh incident that outlines the dynamic, but it’s important to understand the underlying intent of the “fine for me, but not for thee” duplicity here. That intent is to divide and control men’s communication by expecting them to communicate as women do, and ideally to do so on their own accord by conditioning them to accept women’s communication means as the normatively correct way to communicate. As I’ve mentioned before, the most effective social conventions are the ones in which the participants willingly take part in and willingly encourage others to believe is correct.
Tribes vs. The Sisterhood
Because men have such varied interests, passions and endeavors based on them it’s easy to see how men compartmentalize themselves into various sub-tribes. Whether it’s team sports (almost always a male-oriented endeavor), cooperative enterprises, cooperative forms of art (rock bands have almost always been male space) or just hobbies men share, it is a natural progression for men to form sub-tribes within the larger whole of conventional masculinity.
Because of men’s’ outward reaching approach to interacting with the world around him, there’s really no unitary male tribe in the same fashion that the collective ‘Sisterhood’ of women represents. One of the primary strengths of the Feminine Imperative has been its unitary tribalism among women. We can see this evidenced in how saturated the Feminine Imperative has become into mainstream society and how it’s embedded itself into what would otherwise be diametrically opposed factions among women. Political, socioeconomic and religious affiliations of women (various sub-tribes) all become secondary to the interests of ‘womankind’ when embracing the collective benefits of being women and leveraging both their victim and protected statuses.
Thus, we see no cognitive dissonance when women simultaneously embrace a hostile opposition to one faction while still retaining the benefits that faction might offer to the larger whole of the Sisterhood. The Sisterhood is unitary first and then it is broken down into sub-tribes. Family, work, interests, political / religious compartmentalizations become sublimated to fostering the collective benefits of womankind.
While I can speculatively understand the socio-evolutionary underpinnings of how this psychological dynamic came to be, I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out just how effective this unitary collectiveness has been in shaping society towards a social ideal that supports an unfettered drive towards women’s gender-coded need to optimize Hypergamy. This unitary, gender-primary tribalism has been (and is) the key to women’s unilateral social power – and even in social environments where women still suffer oppression, the Sisterhood will exercise this gender-tribalism.
Threat Assessments
Asserting any semblance of a unitary male tribalism is a direct threat to the Feminine Imperative. In The Threat I began the essay with this summation:
Nothing is more threatening yet simultaneously attractive to a woman than a man who is aware of his own value to women.
When I wrote this essay I did so from the perspective of women feeling vulnerable about interacting intimately with men who understood their own value to women and also understood how to leverage it. One of the reasons Game is so vilified, ridiculed and disqualified by the Sisterhood is because it puts this understanding into practice with women and, in theory, removes women from the optimization of Hypergamy. Red Pill awareness and Game lessens women’s control in that equation, which is sexy from the standpoint of dealing with a self-aware high SMV man, but also threatening from the perspective that her security depends on him acquiescing to her Frame and control.
Up to this point, Game has represented an individualized threat to women’s Hypergamous control, but there has always been a larger majority of men (Betas) who’ve been easily kept ignorant of their true potential for control. However, on a larger social landscape, the Feminine Imperative understands the risks involved in men forming a unitary tribe – a Brotherhood – based solely on benefitting and empowering men. The manosphere, while still effectively a collection of sub-tribes, represents a threat to the imperative because its base purpose is making men aware of their true state in a feminine-centric social order.
As such, any attempt to create male-specific, male-empowering organizations is made socially synonymous with either misogyny (hate) or homosexuality (shame). Ironically, the shame associated with homosexuality that a fem-centric society would otherwise rail against becomes an effective form of intra-gender shame when it’s applied to heterosexual collectives of men. Even suggestions of male-centered tribalism are attached with homosexual suspicions, and these come from within the collectives of men themselves.
The above picture is from an “academic” conference (class?) Mediated Feminisms: Activism and Resistance to Gender and Sexual Violence in the Digital Age held at UCL in London. There’s quite a bit more to this than just collecting and codifying the sub-tribes of the manosphere, more can be found here.
Now, granted, this conference is replete with all of the uninformed (not to mention willful ignorance) concern to be expected of contemporary feminists, but this does serve as a current example of how men organizing for the exclusive benefit of men is not just equated with misogyny, but potential violence. As a unitary collective of men, the manosphere terrifies the Feminine Imperative. That fear, however, doesn’t stem from any real prospective violence, but the potential for a larger ‘awareness’ in men of their own conditions and the roles they are expected to play to perpetuate a feminine-centric social order. They fear to lose the control that the ‘socially responsible’ ignorance of men provides them with.
Men’s predisposition to form sub-tribes and intrasexual competition (“lets you and him fight”) has always been a means of covert control by women, but even still the Feminine Imperative must insert its influence and oversight into those male spaces to make use of them. Thus, by assuring that feminine primacy is equated with the idea of inclusive equalism, all Male Space is effectively required to be “unisex space” while all-female sub-tribes must remain exclusively female. For an easy example of this, compare and contrast the reactions to Harvard’s unisex institution of campus club equalism to the worldwide reactions to, and preemption of, the “Tribe” meetings only attempted to be organized by Return of Kings in February.
Making Men
By controlling men’s intrasex communications with each other the Feminine Imperative can limit men’s unified, collective, understanding of masculinity and male experiences. Feminine-primary society hates and is terrified of men defining and asserting masculinity for themselves (to the point of typifying it as potentially violent), but as connectivity progresses we will see a more concentrated effort to lock down the narrative and the means of men communicating male experiences.
I’ve detailed in many prior posts how the imperative has deliberately misdirected and confused men about a unified definition of masculinity. That confusion is designed to keep men guessing and doubting about their “security in their manhood” while asserting that the feminine-correct definition is the only legitimate definition of healthy, ‘non-toxic’, masculinity. This deliberate obfuscation and ambiguity about what amounts to ‘authentic masculinity’ is another means of controlling men’s awareness of their true masculine potential and value – a potential that they rightly fear will mean acquiescing to men’s power over their Hypergamous social and personal control. Anything less than a definition of masculinity that fosters female primacy and fempowerment is labeled “toxic masculinity” – literally and figuratively poisonous.
This is the real, operative reason behind the obsessive, often self-contradicting, need for control of male space by the Feminine Imperative. Oversight and infiltration of male sub-tribes and instituting a culture of self-policing of the narrative within those sub-tribes maintains a feminine-primary social order.
Since the time in which western(izing) societies shifted to unfettering Hypergamy on a social scale there has been various efforts to demasculinize – if not outright feminize – the larger majority of men. Today we’re seeing the results of, and still persistent efforts of this in much starker contrast as transgenderism and the social embrace of foisting gender-loathing on boys becomes institutionalized. A deliberate promotion of a social constructivist narrative about gender identity and the very early age at which children can “choose” a gender for themselves is beginning to be more and more reinforced in our present feminine-primary social order.
As a result of this, and likely into our near future, today’s men are conditioned to feel uncomfortable being “men”. That discomfort is a direct result of the ambiguity and misguidance about conventional masculinity the imperative has fostered in men when they were boys. This feminization creates a gender loathing, but that loathing comes as the result of an internal conflict between the feminine-correct “non-toxic” understanding of what masculinity ought to be and the conventional aspects of masculinity that men need to express as a result of their biology and birthright.
Effectively, this confusion has the purpose of creating discomfort in men among all-male sub-tribes. These masculine-confused men have difficulty with intersocial communication within the sub-tribes they’re supposed to have some sort of kin or in-group affiliation with. Even the concept of “male bonding” has become a point of ridicule (something typical of male buffoons) or suspiciously homosexual , so, combined with the feminine identification most of these men default to, today’s “mangina” typically has more female friends and feels more comfortable communicating as women communicate. These men have been effectively conditioned to believe or feel that male interaction or organization is inherently wrong, uncomfortable or contrived, possibly even threatening if the organizing requires physical effort. Consequently, interacting as a male becomes ridiculous or superficial.
Pushing Back
What then is to be done about this conditioning? For all the efforts to destroy or regulate male tribalism, the Feminine Imperative still runs up against men’s evolved predispositions to interact with the outside world instead of fixating on the inside world of women. Below I’ve pieced together some actionable ideas that might help men come to a better, unitary way of fostering the male tribalism the Feminine Imperative would see destroyed or used as a tool of soci0-sexual control:
- While it is vitally important to maintain a male-specific mental point of origin, together men need a center point of action. Women talk, men do. Men need a common purpose in which the tribe can focus its efforts on. Men need to build, coordinate, win, compete and problem solve amongst themselves. The ‘purpose’ of a tribe can’t simply be one of getting together as like-minded men; in fact, groups with such a declared purpose are often designed to be the most conciliatory and accommodating of the Feminine Imperative. Men require a common, passionate purpose to unite for.
- Understand and accept that men will naturally form male hierarchies in virtually every context if that tribe is truly male-exclusive. There will be a reflexive resistance to this, but understand that the discomfort in acknowledging male hierarchies stems from the Feminine Imperative’s want to make any male authority a toxic form of masculinity. Contrary to feminine conditioning male hierarchies are not necessarily based on Dark Triad manipulations. That is the ‘fem-think’ – any male created hierarchy of authority is by definition evil Patriarchy.
- Recognize existing male sub-tribes for what they are, but do so without labeling them as such. Don’t talk about Fight Club, do Fight Club. As with most other aspects of Red Pill aware Game, it is always better to demonstrate rather than explicate. There will always be an observer effect in place when you call a male group a “male group”. That tribe must exist for a passionate reason other than the express idea that it exists to be about men meeting up. Every sub-tribe I belong to, every collective interest I share with other men, even the instantly forming ones that arise from an immediate common need or function, all exist apart from “being” about men coming together.Worldwide “tribe” day failed much for the same reasons an organization like the Good Men Project fails – they are publicized as a gathering of men just “being” men.
- Push back on the invasion of male space by being uncompromising in what you do and organize with passion. Make no concessions for women in any all-male space you create or join. There will always be a want to accommodate women and/or the fears of not being accommodating of feminine-primary mindsets within that all-male purview. Often this will come in subtle forms of anonymous White Knighting or reservations about a particular passion due to other men’s Blue Pill conditioning to always consider the feminine before considerations of themselves or the tribe. It is vitally important to the tribe to quash those sympathies and compromising attitudes as these are exactly the designs of the Feminine Imperative to destroy a tribe from within.Make no concessions for competency of women within the tribe if you find yourself in a unisex tribal situation. Even the U.S. military is guilty of reducing combat service requirements for women as recently as this month. If you are a father or you find yourself in a role of mentoring boys or young men it is imperative that you instill this no-compromise attitude in them and the organizations that they create themselves.
- The primary Red Pill / Game tenets that you’ve learned with respect to women are entirely applicable in a larger scope when it comes to resisting the influences of the Feminine Imperative. Frame and a return to a collectively male-exclusive Mental Point of Origin are two of the primary tenets to apply to non-intimate applications of resistance in terms of aspects of society. Observations and the Red Pill Lens should inform your interactions with women and men on a social scale.
Finally, I want to close by restating that my approach to resisting the influences of the Feminine Imperative on a meta-social scale is the same bottom-up approach I used with unplugging men from their Blue Pill doldrums. Once men have taken the first steps in Red Pill awareness this new perspective has a tendency to expound into greater social understandings and a want for applications beyond hooking up with desirable women. That Red Pill awareness becomes a way of life, but moreover, it should inform us as men, as tribes, about how best to maintain ourselves as masculine-primary individuals and organizations.
@Scray Thanks for clarifying. What you said is food for thought. We know that stuff like football teams running a train on a girl is a thing, and that even the low-value guy on the football team becomes “high-value” in that moment by association, and in that moment the girl feels she’s not being judged (same as when she jumps up on the bar to whip out her tits with everyone cheering her on etc), and anyone with social circles of high-value player buddies knows that those guys will pass girls around and the girls will happily fuck whichever guy… Read more »
@ya ‘What you said is food for thought’ yeah, and it’s tough to square with other things, like you bring this up ‘But I don’t know about girls fucking like, the chess team who all has bad subcomms’ i mean, even if women are primed to fuck whoever’s around, it takes a guy with good subcomms to initiate that right? but if we’re just thinking about a society where sex is just ‘that thing you do when you’re bored and want to be friends!’ i’m not sure if you’d need the chess team guy to have good subcomms. maybe she’ll… Read more »
Extra! Extra! Ya Really refuses to deny that he stopped fucking his goat today!
Again, we don’t ‘know’ this, the hypothesis is far from confirmed or even that well supported and there are a lot of facts that seem to be at odds with it. this could mean a million things ex maybe it’s just one of many mating strategies women use Each question presumes at least a baseline presumption that certain biological triggers for attraction and arousal are ‘factual’, however, we don’t know this with any degree of certainty. Women will fuck dogs, fat guys, barnyard animals, etc. so we don’t ‘know’. Therefore it would be irresponsible for me, or really even you… Read more »
@scray “but if we’re just thinking about a society where sex is just ‘that thing you do when you’re bored and want to be friends!’ i’m not sure if you’d need the chess team guy to have good subcomms. maybe she’ll just suck his cock when she’s bored or put his dick inside of her cause it’s like pizza — even when it’s bad it’s good.” I gotta think on this one. I’ve definitely seen situations where sex is that level of casual, and hotter girls tend to be VERY casual about sexual stuff (like Tyler notes in his breakdown… Read more »
. . . but admits necrophilia!
@rollo ‘Each question presumes at least a baseline presumption that certain biological triggers for attraction and arousal are ‘factual’, however, we don’t know this with any degree of certainty’ actually, saying that you don’t DEFINITELY know something at the level of natsci scientific rigor != ‘know this with any degree of certainty.’ in fact, the entire point is to adjust the degree of certainty we should attach to the belief in question — which is an important part of any man’s personal philosophy. ‘Therefore it would be irresponsible for me, or really even you or any PUA, to build and… Read more »
@Rollo
“Therefore it would be irresponsible for me, or really even you or any PUA, to build and promote any sort of concrete social apparatus based on presumptions where a lot of facts seem to be at odds with them.”
If that’s officially your stance you want to take with my sincere attempts to clarify the discussion and help bring this thing to some kind of resolution, then alright. Honestly very disappointed to see this kind of behavior from a guy who’s in-depth analysis I have a shitload of respect for.
http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Ryan-Gosling-Shrug.gif
@Blaximus
“Friends don’t let friends fuck fat.”
Bahaha comment of the week
http://i.imgur.com/tAfvYzS.webm
What do you believe?
From your initial answers to 1-16 it appears you believe that 20+ years of evo-psych research has some merit.
“and the arguments that support them are based on UTILITY.”
scray, maybe if you admit to Rollo that understanding hypergamy has utility in every day life maybe we can end this once and for all…
Utility is a philosophical argument.
@ya “I gotta think on this one. I’ve definitely seen situations where sex is that level of casual, and hotter girls tend to be VERY casual about sexual stuff” this whole thought process came from me aping Russell Brand in FSM —> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0EEjFFVdCc so he sets this frame of sex being that level of casual and every time i’ve been able to drop something like this in set it just works like gangbusters. just last weekend this married chick was game based on a speech like this, and i was drunk, just holding court, trying to give value. just seems… Read more »
@Culum
Very nice FR, glad to see you are in the zone buddy. Even your writing sounds more positive, more trusting of yourself. The hard part of game can be living in the moment and not going inside your head to make sure “you are doing it right.’
Sounds like more and more you are internalizing these things and soon you will do them automatically, unconsciously. You are putting in the work and that is the hardest part for guys. Have a great weekend! Happy friday boys
For some reason guys point to women fucking dogs and sports teams running trains on one girl like it’s the norm. this is not the norm. at all. does it happen? of course. everything happens. but to think that the pron these guys are watching or the weird shit they’re doing with fucked up skanks they bring home at 4 am is not total outlier stuff is just silly. look at the free market. story today about a uk swinger party company setting up shop in the hamptons. guess what? NO SINGLE MALES. NONE. NO EXCEPTIONS. even single girls have… Read more »
@scray “so he sets this frame of sex being that level of casual and every time i’ve been able to drop something like this in set it just works like gangbusters.” Right, this was a big part of how I used to amuse myself in my LTRs when I was stuck in these “hang out with her friends” scenarios. At the start of the evening all the other couples would barely be touching eachother like you wouldn’t know they were even together. But because I don’t care about social pressure I would be groping my girl at the table. At… Read more »
It might. It might not.
@rollo “From your initial answers to 1-16 it appears you believe that 20+ years of evo-psych research has some merit.” i never argued that it didn’t have ‘merit.’ furthermore, the theory you are trying to defend isn’t necessary for 1-16 to be true. it’s also not even necessary for hypergamy to exist, to be innate, or to be a spandrel of something else that is innate. your original statement was that we -KNOW- X as a matter of scientific truth. that’s wrong. @andy “scray, maybe if you admit to Rollo that understanding hypergamy has utility in every day life maybe… Read more »
@ya
and tell us all about these kink houses and swinger houses you hang out at. shit’s starting to make sense now.
that is the absolute last place a guy with game would go
if there’s more than one dick out, you’re doing something wrong
Perhaps you’d like to pick and choose the particular studies that confirm whatever your beliefs are?
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/comm/haselton/papers/
@fleezer Chick I knew invited me and I went to check it out to see what that scene was about. Swingers you just meet all over the place when you go out, you probably know a handful of couples that swing and just don’t realize it because they’re discreet and you don’t bring the subject up in your conversations. The kink scene I saw definitely wasn’t my style, lots of uggos and shit who’s value is situationally inflated because of the scarcity involved in being part of that specific scene (openly proud kinky/fetish people (VS the ones who are just… Read more »
@rollo “Perhaps you’d like to pick and choose the particular studies that confirm whatever your beliefs are?” like you? sure, i just won’t say shit like ‘THIS IS WHAT WE -KNOW-‘ when i do it and i’ll be honest and own up to other facts out there that exist. it’s cool, you have major issues with uncertainty confronting your paradigm. some people thrive on that shit, some people don’t. LAG vs TAG. @ya ‘I didn’t push it into passing the girls around e’ usually the girls just come to me from them. like no one wants to do anything with… Read more »
“furthermore, the theory you are trying to defend isn’t necessary for 1-16 to be true. it’s also not even necessary for hypergamy to exist, to be innate, or to be a spandrel of something else that is innate.”
BAM. Rollo, just a few words and we can end this forever and start the weekend on a high note. Or maybe a post? “Looks don’t matter.” lol. I’ve got the champagne on ice.
@scray “usually the girls just come to me from them. like no one wants to do anything with the other guys lol, because the other guys are too busy being uncomfortable.” Right, I’m talking about a slightly different approach I guess when I refer to what I was doing in my LTR hangouts, where I’m just setting the frame that sex with your partner is normal/casual (aka I’m subtly trying to wingman the other guys with their girls because I already have mine with me and am satisfied with her for the night) VS what you’re doing where you create… Read more »
@scary
To clarify I meant “make yourself the highest-value guy, NOT necessarily by directly hitting on the girls or a specific girl, but just by setting that “sex is no big deal” frame in general at the table, which, just by being comfortable with sex and not caring about the social pressure to have the balls to say that etc etc (back to the big subcomms list), raises your value above the other guys who are uncomfortable”
@ya
“I’m talking about a slightly different approach I guess when I refer to what I was doing in my LTR hangouts”
oh lol i reread it. yeah, i mean…
i just stay away from dudes with gfs these days. i kind of wish them well and make sure not to really talk to their gfs or hang with them and their gfs. you know how it is….
@ya
i should say ‘dudes who ARE MY FRIENDS’ who have gfs.
This post really hit it home for me….I have always been good with talking to strangers and getting that connection with them. I rarely ever take it beyond that because I am very selective with respect to who I let in my life. This was never a conscious decision. It just the way I’m naturally inclined. To date, I only have two close buddies…The one I have know the longest, about 12 years, has gone from being an Alpha to a Beta to a (I must admit a good woman)…I no longer talk about woman and game to him. I… Read more »
Rollo is not able to answer the sweet 16 questions since the research he relies on does not address the issues, and Rollo has not been doing his own in-the-field research. So while it can be annoying that Rollo does not trust that you are right, it would be better to confirm what, if anything, that Rollo thinks you are clearly wrong about, and the reasons for it. For example the research shows: that men desire a level of muscularity that is greater than the level found attractive by women (Frederick & Haselton, 2003; Olivardia et al., 2004), and that… Read more »
like a f*kn moth to a flame…lol @yareally at 9:52a on my phone so short answers more detail later yes on 1-14 (both) w quibbles on 5 11 13 13 – yes if attraction = arousal 15 – yes but…lol…long periods should be short periods of time w no ‘push ‘ by society needed. just a change of environment = war brides = girls ping enviro for meaning so change can be fast = trends 16 – yes if ‘rewire’ changed to ‘reconditioned’ @yareally at9:55a lol… it would only take a couple days…but longer to solidify the new social construct.… Read more »
Status update. Had sex with my HB9 long term project. Some interesting observations: – Post Red Pill, winning over a woman isn’t nearly as meaningful. It’s just sex. It was good sex, she was a dirty little whore for me but still, it’s just sex. Now that women “aren’t the prize” and sex isn’t so loaded up with meaning, it’s just sex. – It’s just not that much work in the sense of effort or doing stuff. What she reacted to is me being real and entitled to her pussy. I turned that around when I realized that my “need”… Read more »
On r/TheRedPill this is in a popular post today: Attraction for men is first physical, then emotional. Where as, attraction for women is first emotional, then physical. You must invoke an emotional response and have her associate that emotion with you. ANY emotion, whether it be good or bad. Hopefully the majority will be good emotion, but there is also a place for negative emotion, which I will get to later. If you can invoke emotion, then you will stay on her mind for days or weeks on end w/out even talking to her. She is on the fishing line… Read more »
Research that is only 2/3rds correct, therefore suspect and disqualified from confirming anything about the inherent value of sub coms implied in this thread or that they can be associated with anything biological.
In fact, we can’t even be sure that men are really visually oriented or that looks matter for women either. It’s equally likely that men are just victims of a Hollywood agenda and are conditioned from birth to only get aroused by a certain female body type, when left to their own means they’d prefer 300ib landwhales.
We don’t really ‘know’ for sure though.
“We don’t really ‘know’ for sure though.”
C’est la vie. It’s been real. It’s been fun. But it hasn’t been real fun. Later guys.
@scribblerg Props dude! Clapped when I read your post lol “Now that women “aren’t the prize” and sex isn’t so loaded up with meaning, it’s just sex.” Right. You probably viewed it this way back in your prime too, when it was abundant and it was like “it’s just sex, no big fucking deal”. Ultimately sex isn’t that big a deal (aside from being super fun) and won’t fix you, that’s why we focus on the field so much because it’s the infield experience that helps fix/build your internals more than the rewards themselves. Tyler puts it good: “If you… Read more »
@rollo
lol man your reality….
http://66.media.tumblr.com/b1f0efb32b91ca8b2324b54859fc5536/tumblr_nyzfwgFwvD1uf42b8o1_250.gif
this is good tho. it’s growth.
you’ll see what i mean soon enough. you don’t need things to be true as a matter of natsci certainty and instead will find your life much improved if you can work pragmatically and test ideology through utility.
1-16 don’t need to be science for us to stipulate to it as a model that works. but the theory you are rallying behind is chaff, dude and is totally unnecessary for 1-16. and since it isn’t science, it ain’t worth my (or your) time.
Lol.
And still there is no answer to why the sperm of Yareally / scary / Tyler / Julien would NOT sell at the sperm bank(even if you take all your infield videos and subcomms)
Sheeeeeesh.
Sweep it under the carpet.
@scray “General relativity isn’t a….’well gee guys, it works 66% of the time so it’s the truth and we know it’ sort of affair. it’s a ‘if there’s anything beyond six-sigma measurement error involved this shit may have been falsified.’” Are you sure you are a scientist? General Relativity would not be my first choice as an an example of a falsifiable theory. You talk a lot about “science facts”, sorry to tell you they don’t really exist. Rollo pointed you to a paper that proves that people can look at the same data different ways to support their ideas.… Read more »
So you’re finally getting the point then? Great. 1) there are hardwired attraction switches that can be flipped causing the involuntary pussy soaking etc Yes. As evidenced in over 20+ years of both evo-psych and infield research 2) masculine subcomms are what trigger that hardwired attraction response Yes. As evidenced in over 20+ years of both evo-psych and infield research 3) masculine subcomms are universal (ie – confidence is always attractive, entitlement to be physical with her is always attractive, preselection is always attractive, etc basically no disagreement on that big list of subcomms I made right?) Yes. As evidenced… Read more »
@yareally @Via Vitae “but I thought the debate was over whether women care about looks” “If women cared about looks then the jacked dudes on the show wouldn’t get rejected. If some of them get rejected and some of them don’t then there’s something else going on that determines whether the woman is attracted to them or not and, by simple logic, that thing by default CAN’T be looks or that result wouldn’t happen. Instead of select-quoting me to create a straw-man, you could have just left in the next sentence. “That is a different proposition from whether they care… Read more »
Why cant muscles just _be_ a subcomm by the way?
Wow, epic manosphere battle going on. It’s like you guys are just discovering quantum theory and trying to figure out whether stuff is a particle or a wave.
@via “General Relativity would not be my first choice as an an example of a falsifiable theory.” lol all of physics disagrees with you “sorry to tell you they don’t really exist” lol the scientific community disagrees with you ” Rollo pointed you to a paper that proves that people can look at the same data different ways to support their ideas” BOTH SIDES agreed to ONE FACT that ALONE SHITS all over the theory. “the one that went piece by piece through the other paper and pointed out problems. I don’t hear that debate at all.” because you aren’t… Read more »
More than 90% of the women in all those ” infield ” videos does me NOTHING. I would not acknowledge their existence. The generization. When the PUA show their videos steeling a good looking guy’s girl friend, it makes them believe that ALL good looking guys are bad at picking up women. They show you one photo of a gay muscular guy, and they go on believing all muscular guys are gay. Doing good with women at a Brothel is not a good evidence that women loves fat man. They never show you a video of AMOG a big muscular… Read more »
Scray if that’s your standpoint then any and all assertions YaReally presumes about “hardwired” attributes to attraction are false or unverifiable, and thus the very underpinnings of what constitute ‘good sub coms’ should have no bearing on Game whatsoever.
@scray
> @via vitae ‘ I don’t think you are as good at nuanced argument as you think you are.’ “cool demonstrate it. just bleating about how science doesn’t exist and general relativity isn’t a falsifiable theory, in addition to being lulz-worthy, ain’t gonna cut it.”
why would I need to when you just did it for me?
@Ya – Let me be clear. It’s only good for me to be offline for a while due to my head. For whatever reason, it seems to me that getting all external about this as I do when I’m on this site is bad for my game. I think I’m a bit too used to beating the shit out of myself, and being beat down. I’m just enjoying taking what i’ve learned and “Walking the erf” as Samuel L. Jackson said. I can get very diffused when I get all analytical and it’s actually a good thing for me to… Read more »
@rollo
“Scray if that’s your standpoint then any and all assertions YaReally presumes about “hardwired” attributes to attraction are false or unverifiable, and thus the very underpinnings of what constitute ‘good sub coms’ should have no bearing on Game whatsoever.”
nope.
saying X does not meet the standard for scientific truth does not mean that X must be ‘false’ or even that X is ‘unverifiable,’ so cool. i’ve already explained this.
So you’ll be changing your answers 1-12 to ‘no’ then?
@rollo
‘So you’ll be changing your answers 1-12 to ‘no’ then?’
lmfao to quote me: “furthermore, the theory you are trying to defend isn’t necessary for 1-16 to be true. it’s also not even necessary for hypergamy to exist, to be innate, or to be a spandrel of something else that is innate.”
@Rollo.
I don’t know why an intelligent man like you is bothering with these morons.
@Rollo I don’t see why muscles cant just be one subcomm among many, collected realtime by the observer during the process of evaluation, which include how those muscles move and look in real life, not in a picture or movie. It seems like an artificial distinction to separate things that you can see with your eyes from other things you can see with your eyes. So for instance the gay subcomm guy is maybe walking and moving “wrong” with his muscles, which means his movement is incongruent with his appearance. And that incongruence is going to raise a red flag.… Read more »
So do you have 20+ years of research to elaborate on this theory or is it just a good hunch you’ve chosen to invest your ego into?
That’s a little sketchy for a scientist like yourself.
@viv
sure dude, general relativity isn’t a good example of a falsifiable theory and facts meeting a standard associated with the scientific method don’t exist.
you didn’t even make a nuanced argument to begin with……
oy
@scribblerg I read a lot of your posts and am rooting for you since I think we have some things in common. Do whatever you need to to stay on the good path, but for partially selfish reasons, I hope to hear more of your positive FRs from time to time. Good luck!
@scray Why the should I have to carry all the water here? I gave a great example with the Rosetta mission. You would have to be pretty thick not to get the point from that one, but you just keep blundering on.
If you are considering a career in the sciences, don’t.
I’m siding with Rollo in that male looks are arousing to women, independent of subcoms, etc. Similar to how female looks are arousing to men (but to a lesser degree).
Siding with Ya that for the vast majority of guys, their next hour of free time is much better spent practicing game instead of hitting the gym, improving how they dress, making more money, etc.
@Rollo “but the initial perception that a man should have them is communicated by his physical impressiveness, facial symmetry, low voice, masculine defining features, etc. as is congruent with the perception that men of this nature DO possess those defining traits.” Right, which is basically saying “muscles/looks indicate that a guy is more likely to have those traits that cause the girls pussy to get wet etc” which we agree on then. “It would stand to reason that heterosexual women would presuppose that parading homosexual men’s looks are by default incongruent with with the masculine-positive sub coms they would expect… Read more »
@via
‘Why the should I have to carry all the water here? ‘
you aren’t carrying any of it…
‘I gave a great example…’
i bet you think so…
‘ You would have to be pretty thick not to get the point from that one, but you just keep blundering on.’
your ‘point’ is tired and boils down to a few misunderstandings of what i’m saying
@scray It’s OK, I was just messing with ya. Don’t give up the dream.
@Via Vitae “Why cant muscles just _be_ a subcomm by the way?” Because good subcomms are always attractive. Confidence is always attractive. Entitlement is always attractive. There’s no such thing as a girl being turned off because a guy is TOO confident or because he makes TOO good eye-contact with her. But muscles are not always attractive or Rollo’s wife would bang Jay Cutler when he walks through the room. And skinny guys get attraction too, and jacked guys get rejected, etc etc So really it might be more accurate not to say that looks absolutely DON’T matter, but to… Read more »
“Ergo, free IOIs and the 121 responses of Male Y as opposed to the 0 responses of the Low Attractive Male in this experiment:” …which is an online dating site experiment. So by default we cut out any ability to display bad subcomms and warp the results of the study because guys, in real life, aren’t frozen motionless unless the girl is sitting on their dick, they move and exist in their environment displaying whatever their subcomms are and interact with the girl displaying whatever their subcomms are etc. So the results of this experiment don’t really mean anything and… Read more »
So really it might be more accurate not to say that looks absolutely DON’T matter, but to say that there’s ZERO conclusive evidence that they DO matter in any way besides getting initial free gimme IOIs that represent INTEREST not SEXUAL ATTRACTION. Does that sound better? ’cause I’m alright with that definition. Yet, according to Scray, there is ZERO conclusive evidence that sub coms are working on any sort of evolved ‘hardwired’ firmware, thus Game is irrelevant from that perspective and looks are as likely as Game to prompt attraction. So it’s INTEREST now? Interest in what? Interest in what… Read more »
“General Relativity would not be my first choice as an an example of a falsifiable theory.”
lol all of physics disagrees with you
First, no theory is falsifiable. Popper is outmoded. Feyerabend demolished Popper (along with Popper himself). All theories can be epicycled.
Second, physics nerds are hardly a monolithic block. Somebody is always testing established theories, including GR and QM. Did you know that GR and QM falsify one another? They are at odds.
FWIW, I’m on your side on this. I fully agree that there are hardwired attraction triggers and cues, but Scray’s convincing me otherwise. I may have to close down TRM and take my books off Amazon until we have some rock solid conclusive proof.
Trust me, I’d rather keep the lights on, but,…
@Rollo
I may have to close down TRM and take my books off Amazon until we have some rock solid conclusive proof.
The gloss doesn’t matter; the praxis is on target.
@scray
Here we all are trying to talk philosophy of science and almost nobody has even read Feyerabend.
“I fully agree that there are hardwired attraction triggers and cues . . .”
Generated across millions of years, tested in the field against the metric of life and death.
Not according to Scray man. TRM and RSD are both based on our collective hunches. I suggest Tyler does the same until such time that we can be 100% certain what exactly is causing women’s arousal.
Pardon the interruption, but sexual fluidity is back. Back at least for those complicated, unknowable women.
http://observer.com/2016/05/gay-until-labor-day-stretching-female-sexuality-in-the-hamptons/
https://therationalmale.com/2011/09/01/sexual-fluidity/
@WCB, I got that on Twitter too. Apparently the ladies not only enjoy masculine dominance from women, but they like their personal trainer’s muscles too.
On the nature/nurture controversy: As the resident expert on Sociobiology let me definitively answer the omnipresent question “Is it biological or learned?
The answer is yes.
There’s no such thing as a girl being turned off because a guy is TOO confident or because he makes TOO good eye-contact with her. Good point. And, following that thought, an immediate shit test follows overthetop confidence. I asked a HB9 brunette to dance and she declined. I immediately said to her HB9 blonde friend, “Let’s dance,” holding out my hand and looking her in the eye, and she accepted after a brief hesitation. I ignored the hesitation shit test, not moving my hand, and she was very chatty while we danced. I danced with the HB9 brunette earlier… Read more »
“The answer is yes.”
Exactly, or as I put it, nurture bounded by nature.
@asd I think what I wrote is very much in line with Feyerabend’s outlook.
@rollo
‘Yet, according to Scray,’
enough. quote me or stfu
@YaReally > > @Via Vitae “Why cant muscles just _be_ a subcomm by the way?” > “Because good subcomms are always attractive. Confidence is always attractive. Entitlement is always attractive. There’s no such thing as a girl being turned off because a guy is TOO confident or because he makes TOO good eye-contact with her. But muscles are not always attractive or Rollo’s wife would bang Jay Cutler when he walks through the room.” Assuming Rollo’s wife has no agency or ability to make complex choices between what is a good idea and what is not, which I somehow doubt… Read more »
Science is about telling the truth and worrying about hurting the feelings of the ugly stock.
I also include appearance in subcomms, which includes grooming, dress, appearance (includes muscles, height, frame, facial structure, hair, etc).
“Apparently the ladies not only enjoy masculine dominance from women, but they like their personal trainer’s muscles too.”
To form a visual picture, here is the top personal trainer in New York:
http://browningsfitness.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/about.jpg
I will finally agree with muscles don’t mean shit. Here is why :
I was just walking on the street, (I’m 6’2 and tuned) besides me was a VERY muscular guy , two chicks were walking towards us, they both checked me out and completely ignored the muscular guy.
You know why??
He was about 5’5
Lo out fucking loud.
From now on, I’m going to hurt some feelings.
sorry, that was top female personal trainer
here she is helping an exec with his lifting program
here is a top male personal trainer:
notice the heavy lifting program of the woman he is training. Clearly we can expect muscles.
http://imgur.com/ZUxxIGO
Rollo,
When Breeding dogs, do you pick the fast strong dogs to run races or you pick the dogs with good subcomms.
Hey @redlight http://www.mathsisfun.com/images/obtuseangles.gif
Now I’m going to hurt MY feelings (I’ll step out of my delusion):
If that short muscular guy was my hight or taller :
You bet your ass those two chicks would want HIS sperm.
In ancient civilizations (I’m not talking about the civilians on the moon ) and in ALL religions , why the fuck they ALL demanded a wife must submit to her husband ( before any science or research) ? It’s because they had to manipulate women to accept being with a lower stocks of men . Men who weren’t tall or authentically tingle generating MUSCULAR good looking, and better stock of men.
To be continued….
lol. I drop in from a week being busy IRL and see another near 800 comments on this topic. I think there’s a lot of unnecessary parsing going on here when it seems that any man, whether he labels himself a PUA or just a dude, would want to maximize all areas of his life to become an integrated high value male — and that working on maximizing his physicality lends itself to many other *bonuses* derived therefrom (increased T, blood flow that improves skin appearance/reduces sallowness etc. Another effective tool to use in the *game*. Reminds me of a… Read more »
“We were just sitting there, drinking and BSing when two bikinied hotties in their 20s walking along the shoreline looked our way from a distance and made a 90-degree angle to where we were sitting. One pulled out her camera and went right up to him with her GF: “OMG, can I take your picture? You look amazing!” He just smiled while we were Fing invisible to both of them during that interaction. So as a result of this discussion and my memory trigger, I tried to see online if they made cameras today that took pictures of subcomms —… Read more »
@Scary and Yareally.
You still can’t tell me why women will pay top $$$$$ for the tall good looking muscular men(and a good set of hair)?
You both are cowards.
This is why top alpha sperm are worth more than an egg.
When it comes to the true alpha, flush all your infield videos down the toilet. Lol
Those superior men don’t even have to watch your stupid infield videos or read Scary’s delusional feel good research.
They already have what trigger the holly grail of “tingles”.
A guy was walking his beautiful strong great Dane when two sexy babes stopped to admire the great Dane. The guy felt ignored (and jealous!) and then said : but I have good subcomms.
@mersonia wrote “…..He got a ioi…….. and you were invisible because (in context) you didn’t say anything.” At first. Which proves the point. He had no need for a up close and personal opener. They opened him and in a bar or night club setting with loud music and a requirement for visuals, you are in an efficient one-up position and it can only go down from there with shitty follow up interpersonal *game* skills. Hm. I wonder why Strauss and von Markovic encouraged many of the boot camp humps at Project Hollywood to *get your teeth whitened* and get… Read more »
@via
So you’ve actually read Feyerabend?
NB: Paul Feyerabend was one of the bright lights in PoS (philosophy of science) writing about 1975 or so.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Method
NB: This book was intended to be a cooperative debate with Feyerabend’s friend, Lakatos.
After reading my own link, it’s terrible, lol. Feyerabend’s work showed that the history of science reveals that the methods of science–whatever science is–cannot be distinguished from methodological anarchy…the historical methods of science are “anything goes”. Buttloads of irrationality and luck.
@Ajax, you know that’s interesting:
http://imgs-srzd.s3.amazonaws.com/srzd/upload/n/e/neil2.jpg
Even Tyler cultivated a Look:
@ajax
“At first. Which proves the point.”
the point they made
Here you go again,
Another feel good infield incident.
A good looking guy didn’t know what to say when two babes asked to take his photo = ALL good looking men don’t know how to react to women.
That’s the kind of scientific fact scary and Yareally wants people to believe in.
Ridiculous.
@asd, I did not know about Feyerabend until you mentioned him, but when I checked out some of the quotations, it was like I was reading my own thoughts written by someone else. It kind of sucks because I thought I was all clever, but of course someone beat me to the punch before I was out of diapers.
“the point they made”
Nobody has ever denied their point, but their point only begins where the question ends.
In this field report, which is just as valid as any other field report, attractiveness attracted, which just might have something to do with why we call it attractive.
The fact that in order to get laid you must engage in a social interaction is not something that I think anyone disputes; getting laid is a social interaction.
@Via Vitae: “it was like I was reading my own thoughts written by someone else.”
I recall that as being pretty much my reaction when I read it about ’76ish.