In last week’s comments Not Born This Morning dropped this comment in the last thread:
It has been said and it seems fairly well established as a presumed reality that “Women are the gate keepers to sex and men are the gate keepers to commitment”. This model of gender specific “gatekeeping” seems to be the most widely accepted model in the red pill community and the general culture accepts it readily. This model seems rational enough, it significantly forms our frame of understanding about gender dynamics upon which we base our interpretations of behavior & intents, and our decisions to act. But is it the best model to explain what is really going on? Could this model be inferior in that it fails to account for an underlying more fundamental motivator? Is there a more accurate explanation for women’s intents and behaviors? Could this model be potentially deceptive?
The sex side of this model is simple and easy to understand. It is very clear and specific to the fundamental biologic. It is inarguable, not negotiable. The primary drive motivating the sexual aspect is not political or social. It is biological. This is not the case with the commitment side. The commitment side is primary to the political and social realm. “Commitments” are always components of contracts written or otherwise.
To comprehend what I’m about to explain, we must first agree on the primary definition of commitment. As I understand it, a commitment is a pledge to do something, a proclamation to perform certain action (or inaction) within a specific context for the benefit of another usually in exchange for some consideration. In the sexual context women seek “commitment” from a man primarily for provisioning and sexual exclusivity. The man “commits” to the woman that he will abandon his freedom and not enter into sexual relations with other women. He pledges himself financially and sexually to her exclusively. Realistically, this form of “commitment” includes the man abandoning his options. If he becomes sexually involved with another woman, it is widely considered that he has “broken his commitment” and he is dishonored by her and society for “breaking the commitment”. But, has he really broken any commitment other than a self denigrating pledge to forgo his freedom and abandon his options? Since obviously the male imperative is polygamy and spreading his seed, then isn’t the imposition to “commit” in the first place really a dishonor of his sexuality and a dishonor to him? If so, isn’t “commitment” in this context nothing more than a form of enslavement?
So by saying men are the “gate keepers of commitment” aren’t we really saying that men are the “gatekeepers of their own enslavement”?
I’ve read this line of thought from various MGTOW hardliners in various iterations and I’ve even written a post on the concept of commitment and what it does or doesn’t mean to a man. The idea is to equate committing to a woman with some irrational agreement to self-induced slavery. However, the problem most men have with commitment is that the old set of books has a social mandate for men to keep their word or honor an agreement. It’s what men do. Say what you mean and stick to it, but as with most every uniquely male custom, Honor among men has been one more useful distortion of the Feminine Imperative.
As I mentioned in the Paradox of Commitment, men don’t have nearly the fear of commitment our feminized social order would have us believe. Men aren’t “commit-o-phones” when it comes to military service or dedicating themselves to a business. These are the areas the women’s magazines conveniently overlook when it comes to comparing men’s commitment with committing to women in monogamy. I’m bringing this up because it’s important to see how men commit to things other than fidelity to a single woman.
If we’re going to equate monogamous fidelity to a woman with slavery we also need to see how other commitments can be viewed as being, or not being, slavery. Is the commitment of military service slavery? Particularly if you know have a pretty good idea of what to expect from that commitment? Are you volunteering for slavery if you start a business and become financially beholden to it?
From the Paradox of Commitment:
You can even take marriage out of the equation; if I’m in a committed LTR with a GF and over the course of that relationship I realize that she’s not what I’m looking for (for any number of reasons, not just sex), even though she’s 100% faithfully committed to me and the LTR, should I then break that commitment? If I do, am I then being unethical for having broken that commitment irrespective of how I break it? Should the commitment to my own personal well being and future happiness be compromised by another commitment?
What’s my obligation; neglect myself in favor of a bad commitment or to the principle of commitment itself?
It’s my take that commitment ‘should’ be a function of genuine desire. Ideally, commitment should be to something one is so passionate about that the limiting of one’s own future opportunities that come from that commitment is an equitable, and mutually appreciated trade. This is, unfortunately, rarely the case for most people in any form of commitment because people, circumstance, opportunity and conditions are always in flux. A commitment that had been seen as equitable sacrifice at one time can become debilitating 5 years after it depending upon circumstance.
Under the old social contract, the idea that a man would compromise his sexual strategy to fulfill a woman’s (Hypergamy in the long term) had a presumed exchange – sexual access, parental investment, companionship, a good, supportive feminine role example for the kids, etc. – that made the commitment of marriage at least somewhat appealing, if not entirely equitable. I supposed a case could still be made that even under the old order of conventional gender roles and expectations men were still committing themselves to a downside bargain. But in our new, feminine-primary social order, with our broader communication, it’s certainly signing up for slavery of a sort in comparison to the options available being single.
A lot of guys think that by my advising men to spin plates and remain as non-exclusive as possible that its sole purpose is to free them up to indiscriminately bang as many women as possible. While sexual variety maybe an upside to non-exclusivity, there are many more freedoms and options that a non-exclusive man can invest himself in where committed men cannot, or wouldn’t even think to.
So yes, from a male sexual strategy perspective, and considering the terms of that commitment and consequences of breaking it are all glaringly apparent, signing up for that commitment might be assigning yourself to a kind of slavery. Under our present social conditions, staying single might be as good as it gets for men.
However, that said, there is still an undeniable, idealistic, hope that men can make the best of a marriage. Most men (see the 80% Beta men) still remarry in far greater margins than women, even after horrific divorces. We can attribute that to the sustainability of men’s sexual market value lasting longer than women’s, but the desire to want for a lasting monogamy is what I’m getting at. Even in light of the fact that women are hardwired for Hypergamy, and in light of women’s inability to appreciate the sacrifices men must make to facilitate their realities, men still, sooner or later, have a desire to lock down or otherwise wife-up a woman he idealizes. I have read the testimonies of men who will go to any length to stay in a marriage if even the outside hope of it improving exists.
I think this desire might be both a conditional and innate drive in men.
In Mrs. Hyde I quoted a study by Dr. Martie Haselton from Why is muscularity sexy? :
According to strategic pluralism theory (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000), men have evolved to pursue reproductive strategies that are contingent on their value on the mating market. More attractive men accrue reproductive benefits from spending more time seeking multiple mating partners and relatively less time investing in offspring. In contrast, the reproductive effort of less attractive men, who do not have the same mating opportunities, is better allocated to investing heavily in their mates and offspring and spending relatively less time seeking additional mates.
It’s entirely possible that a man’s sexual strategy is the simple result of his adapting to his circumstance.
Under the old social order, prior to the upheaval of the sexual revolution and feminine social primacy, investing heavily in one’s mate made good sense if the guy wanted to procreate. As men, I think we still want to apply more value to our commitment in this respect. I think it gets back to the fallacy of relational equity, but because most Blue Pill men believe that there is value in their committing to a woman, and they falsely think that women have the capacity to appreciate it, we tend to build more into it as some kind of mutually understood relationship leverage.
Gatekeepers
Back before Roosh began making his necessities into virtues, he had a pretty good insight about women being “gatekeepers” of both sex and commitment:
A popular manosphere saying is that women are gatekeepers to sex and men are gatekeepers to commitment. I wish this was an absolute truth, but it’s not. As a collective, women are often gatekeepers to both sex and commitment. Most men reading right now can surely attest to their failed attempts to secure commitment from women they slept with, and if you poll the entire population of men, you may find that they are the initiators of monogamous relationships more often than women. It only makes sense for this to be true: it is way more damaging for a man to have his woman sleep with another man and get cuckolded than the other way around. The 0.5% of the population who are skilled players and have more say with commitment don’t put a dent into this common reality. As a sex, men have very little say in determining the relationship dynamic.
[…]It would be a nice fantasy for us men to believe that we have a say in relationships and sex. It’d be nice to think that our “alpha” behavior and our game determines how a relationship can proceed, but often it doesn’t. We’re just giving the girl what she has already decided on. Do you really think you’re selling televisions to customers who came into the store with the intent to buy bicycles? The girl who falls in love with us wanted to fall in love with us, the girl who had fun with us wanted to just have fun with us, and so on. And even when a girl wants a bicycle, she still wants a certain kind of bicycle. This is why game is a numbers game, because girls are incredibly picky even when they are sexually available. The horniest girl in the club who decided on having sex will still have her pick of the litter and opt to get the best that she can.
From the perspective of men using Game to secure some kind of commitment with a woman, I’d agree, it is a numbers game. But, in general, most men aren’t learning PUA/Game to settle into an LTR and most Red Pill aware men (should) understand the nature of women well enough to leverage Game if (ever) they do look for commitment.
Roosh was correct about men not really being gatekeepers of commitment though. I think there’s a definite want on the part of guys to believe that they have some sort of leverage in the ultimate scheme of things. The Feminine Imperative constantly conditions men to think that their commitment to a woman is something insanely valuable to women. Thus, we see shaming tactics designed to call men out for avoiding commitment irrespective of men’s reasons for wanting to take precautions. This has the effect of conditioning men to think that they are the gatekeepers of something valuable.
In a sense, commitment is something valuable to a woman, however, in the age of Open Hypergamy and Strong Independent Women®, the writing is on the wall for men with regard to the convenient need for that commitment at the end-game phase of a woman’s sexual market value. So yes, a man’s commitment to monogamy with a woman has inherent value, but men are hardly the gatekeepers of it when it is a woman who does the deciding as to whether any one guy’s commitment makes any difference to her.
So, we come to a question of comparative equity with regard to men “signing up for slavery” and how inherently valuable his commitment (as convenient as it’s needed) really is to a woman. I have no doubt there are several women reading this right now who are in “relationship limbo” with a guy they desperately want to commit to them in some official capacity. And no doubt they’ll drop a story in the comments personalizing it to be typical of men, but I would argue Roosh’s point that men are the initiators of monogamous relationships far more often than women. Ironically, commitment only has value to a woman when it’s denied to her by a man who’s SMV outclasses her own.
For obvious reasons, highly desirable women, women at the peak of their sexual market valuation, are always the least concerned with men’s capacity to commit. They largely have the luxury to be selective, but furthermore the time at which women are at their highest SMV is usually the point at which men are still building upon their own. Eventually, commitment only has an appreciable value to a woman when she is most in need of it; when her SMV is in decline.
I should also point out that men, the majority being Blue Pill Betas, are the most necessitous of a woman’s commitment when she is at her highest, his is an unproven commodity, and he appreciates the value of a woman’s commitment. Thus, most men look for a stable monogamy in their early to mid 20s, while more mature men who’ve had time to build their SMV into their mid to late thirties tend to be less concerned with monogamy. This is why we hear the constant drone of women bemoaning that highly valuable, supposedly peer-equitable men’s unwillingness to commit and settle down with women aging out of the sexual marketplace. Women are far less concerned with the commitment-readiness of young, unproven men who themselves would commit to even a women in the mid-range of her SMV.
At the end here, I think it’s time Red Pill men disabuse themselves of the idea that they are the ‘gatekeepers’ of commitment, and rather employ their internalized Red Pill awareness and Game to be the ‘key masters’ of women. While I have no doubt that commitment can be a carrot on the stick for some women, the problem really lies in how that commitment is in anyway valuable and balance that knowledge with the fact that commitment, once given, becomes valueless and taken for granted when it’s established. The fact that you’d commit to a woman isn’t something that carries a relationship, no matter how badly she wanted it from you before.
There really is no quid pro quo when it comes to commitment or value in believing you’re a gatekeeper of it.
Law 20
Do Not Commit to Anyone
It is the fool who always rushes to take sides. Do not commit to any side or cause but yourself. By maintaining your independence, you become the master of others – playing people against one another, making them pursue you.
Women make babies. Men make Civilization. Without Women, Mankind dies. Without Men, Mankind reverts to nothing more than very smart animals. But there’s a catch. Women care nothing for Civilization. A woman’s life is consumed by sexual desire for her one-true Alpha-love, and the empty chattering with other women that composes everything important in her thoughts and actions. Even her children are nothing more than an afterthought. Men, by contrast, can be happy in nearly sexless, nearly loveless lives, totally devoted to the maintenance of Civilization. If they’re Betas. And if Civilization itself spurns them? They burn it all to… Read more »
[…] The Key Masters […]
[…] The Key Masters […]
Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.
Never let the future disturb you. You will meet it, if you have to, with the same weapons of reason which today arm you against the present.
Confine yourself to the present.
Marcus Aurelius
http://www.kkoworld.com/kitablar/Herman_Hesse_Yalquzaq_eng.pdf
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DQEa3IeqcOk
Men are neither Gatekeepers or Keyholders to commitment, we are the Gatekeepers and Keyholders of Civilization. Men have always worked for the safety of the community in mind, women their pecking order within it… It’s all really about options, if a woman “Feels” she has no better options or opportunities, she will stick around. If she does, she’ll execute one of those options as soon as she’s able to do so. It might be minutes or years before this happens, but once that transference is made to another man, your commitment is seen as having no further value.
What is left out of all this is that it is possible for a woman to commit. And such commitment is vital to a good LTR.
My mother (born in 1919) did it with my Dad after a few years of shit testing. It is a skill unavailable to most modern women. I’m trying to teach it to the LTR. I get the occasional success.
if u let someone shit-test u for a few years, u have definitely zero options and low self-esteem.
The relational commitment of men is insanely valuable to society as a whole
It’s of no real value to and particular individual woman
As Rollo points out. I’ve had as many bitches ghost on me after a ONS as I have ghosted on them
Rollo
https://www.22kill.com/
I’ve had a very interesting situation develop. It’s been 17 months since I hard nexted the crazy ex. For guys like Softek who are struggling, this is an important milestone to consider. For guys like Hank and Culum who are now killing it and up-skilling their game, take note of my rotation and plate spinning and how to avoid over-gaming. I have 3 in rotation, two are in their early 20’s, one is 28. Guess which one of the 3 has caused me to MOST drama? The theory and realities are very much aligned. Not everything is identical to the… Read more »
“Ironically, commitment only has value to a woman when it’s denied to her by a man who’s SMV outclasses her own.”
Biggest takeaway.
MEN AND COMMITMENT Today’s male commitment in civilization has taken on two extra roles that his ancestors never faced. 1) Men rarely dealt with offspring before they walked, that was the women’s responsibility. As a matter of fact, all monkey/ape species have their infants in their arm or clinging to their fur 24/7 until they can walk, this includes todays hunter gatherers. In addition, children were considered their own beings. They were largely autonomous once they could walk on their own. Only then did the men step in and teach them the ways of man. The only knowledge children needed… Read more »
No man “committing” to a girl raised in 2016 culture is in a monogamous LTR. He’s in a one-sided pLTR (Primary LTR, a primary partner with multiple orbiters/side-poon) but in the GIRL’S favor (aka she keeps her options available while he restricts his own). Social media and women out of the kitchen and into the workplace etc creates a system where women can openly gather and string orbiters along and openly seek higher-value options than her current man and this is socially acceptable because it’s all done under the guise of “just being friends” or anonymity. If her significant other… Read more »
@YaReally: The Red Pill is critical to overcoming exactly that paradox driven by the Feminist Imperative: Commit to one girl=beta spin multiple plates: player/pua, bad prospect. The Oribter thing is a problem for me. A few girls I’ve committed to in the past ALWAYS plugged into orbiters. I did not handle it well laying down my expectations. It always created tension and it’s exactly what these girls wanted to keep me in a sort of lock-down. They didn’t really like the orbiters and may or may not have banged them (as in the case of the crazy ex who knows)… Read more »
@walawala “The Oribter thing is a problem for me. A few girls I’ve committed to in the past ALWAYS plugged into orbiters.” They always will from now on, because social media has made it so effortless to do so. By the time you meet her she’ll already have a huge stable of them. Whether they’re actual threats or not doesn’t matter, most of them won’t be but she has them all there to keep her guy from thinking he can “wrong” her (oh man if she gets mad at me and we break up all these other guys will move… Read more »
@YaReally I expressed my annoyance at the fact my plate was spending a little too much time with an acquaintance of mine. The response was typical: “well you don’t spend enough time with me…” sort of thing. I realized then and there that saying “Oh I see what you’re doing there….got it” was coming off as wayyyy too butt-hurt so I’ve been laying low and not contacting her until she reaches out. But orbiter management….yes it’s a situation. It used to be that a girl’s girl friends were the problem. No. I even call them “orbiters” to some of my… Read more »
@walawala “The response was typical: “well you don’t spend enough time with me…” sort of thing.” That’s that “oh shit, this is a no-win situation” moment I was talking about. Like that’s when it hits that your only power to lay down rules is being able to walk away and that if you were legally tied to her or had kids with her, removing the ability to walk away, you would be in a fucking tough situation because if you don’t react then you don’t care about her enough, if you DO react then you’re controlling. No-win situation for the… Read more »
@YaReally thanks for the pep talk. Ice been nursing a slightly bruised ego that my plate started chasing a friend of mine and I reacted les than optimally by flashing jealousy and a butt hurt frame. My recovery was solid though. I soft Nexted. Met up with one of the others and am pipelining a new one I number closed in the weekend. Funny…I get into a situation where I’m super confident and then lose my shit and it’s a set back. Your idea of soft nesting for a month until her bad behaviours can’t “get to me”. Is the… Read more »
YaReally explained what I was going to say. Women will still want to use commitment for serial monogamy. Not Born’s comment about commitment for a man means agreeing to forgoing pursuit of any other women for the benefit of the committed to made me think of all the women like the one who recently made the facebook post about turning her husband down. That commitment gets broken all the time.Although it’s not seen that way. What other kind of agreement where you agree to be exclusive with an action, but the other party then seeks to make the action non… Read more »
@Rollo: “Ironically, commitment only has value to a woman when it’s denied to her by a man who’s SMV outclasses her own.” If this is robust, it could be reversed to evaluate your own SMV, or at least what the current woman thinks about your SMV: is the woman you are with pushing for commitment? Then you’d think you can “do” better, but the better may not say “I do” after you “do” her. So situations where “the talk” gets pushed on a man is always or almost always an indicator the woman thinks the man has higher SMV (at… Read more »
The dangling carrot is effectively an illusion. It’s simply DHV. There is no carrot, really. Just DHV. Which triggers Hypergamy. Your status is elevated in the woman’s mind by your refusal to commit, and so she keeps chasing you. Cat String Theory in a nutshell. Dangle it and the cat will be excited and give chase until the cows come home. Drop it on the floor, and it loses all the interest it had in it. How can a man with RP awareness take a woman’s complaints about a “lack of communication” (centered around ‘defining the relationship’) or a “lack… Read more »
I think there is quite a lot of projection in this equation too. Most men can vicariously look at the pre-wall, wall, early post-wall female’s situation with some clarity. They quickly determine how they (the man) would react to the situation if it were them. They would look at the diverging SMV arcs, fertility charts, earnings potential etc. and then (applying rationality) immediately determine that the 36 year old male professional holds the keys to commitment over the 29 year old wall-banger. But that’s the projection. That’s how we would react to the situation if we were female. That’s not… Read more »
A couple of times in the essay Rollo alludes to female sexual primacy arising as a result of the sexual revolution. I think I know what he means but society has always given primacy to female well-being even if prior to the sexual revolution that did not include encouragement to sleep-around and to divorce. In a pre-abortion, pre-pill, industrial-revolution, pre-cosmetic-surgery world such behaviour would have been not only bad for society but also thus for the women so acting thereon. Men have always done their best to work out the best deal then historically possible for the female sex; men… Read more »
Commitment from an attractive woman in 2016! This post could not have been timed better I’m in Italy on holiday to see my son but he broke his foot so has not joined me. I’m currently spending time with a hot divorced Italian milf (ex fitness model ) and gym owner, but that’s not the point of this post. This morning I get a FB friend request from an ex gf (4 years ago) profile pic is wedding day, looks like a big expensive bash too! I accept and within 3 back and forths it turns to sexy flirting (… Read more »
It’s just a matter of power balance really.
A low-value man (beta, AFC, young) is willing to give away commitment, in hope to secure sex/love/companionship to a (perceived) higher-value female.
Conversely, a low-value woman (ugly, post-wall, single mom) is willing to give away sex, in hope to secure sex/love/companionship to a (perceived) higher-value male.
-> The higher-value person is the gatekeeper of everything.
THE RULES OF SOCIETY Basically, I think, the farther you are from the rules of society — in your heart — the better able you are to deal with demands on yourself, whether it is commitment, loyalty to a boss, going along with “friends”, or whatever. In North America, currently, we almost all go to public schools, which is a breeding ground for vast conformity. The unspoken laws of this order become one’s internalized “rules.” After all, it’s hard to calculate separately what to do in every case when you’re socializing; a heuristic for doing a shortcut makes sense. It… Read more »
Thanks for yet another behind-the-curtain reveal Rollo.
You and your commenters (I’m looking at you this time YaReally) provide endless entertainment and valuable nuggets, even for a mid-lifer that’s not looking to play; but is taking advantage of free information to help keep his sons and their mates aware.
i.e. so you say you’re friends then? Are you her friend or just one of her orbiters? Wha…? Followed by opportunity to explain further. Good stuff.
Harry Belafonte understood all this quite well in his day:
“Get An Ugly Girl To Marry You”
http://www.metrolyrics.com/get-an-ugly-girl-to-marry-you-lyrics-harry-belafonte.html
IMHO, the only time a man should commit to a woman is when he finds her to be suitable to reproduce with AND she fully submits to him. Her submission + his attraction + him wanting children = ideal situation to commit (exclusivity by whatever means).
THIS.
There is a huge difference between a woman spreading her legs for you and one who is willing to submit to your lead. This is the first true test to see whether she is worthy of being your wife.
“Do not try and bend commitment. That is impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth. That there is no commitment. Then you’ll see that it’s not commitment that bends, it is only yourself.
Friday night I added a new chick to the plate rotation. As I drove home from her place , top down on the muscle car listing to Mark Morrison’s Return of the Mack at 4am in the moonlight I reflected on the fact five years ago that I damn near threw all of this away -without realizing it. Back then I was still in the military. I didn’t see it that way back then, but now I know that base was a bluepill betabux accessions camp in disguise. Five years ago I was stationed on a base with a seriously… Read more »
“Dr. Martie Haselton”
I just looked up this woman, a PHD teacher at UCLA. Her topics of interest cover all the manosphere topics, only in far more convoluted language.
So many of these “scholars” at the college level.
When I was growing up I didn’t have Internet. No SoSuave, no TRP, no TRM, but I did have Harry: Was treating girl independently You know that she was making, baby for me Baby was born, I go to see . . . Eye was blue, it was not by me. You meet a pretty girl at a dance You think that maybe you might stand a chance Take her home thinking she’s all alone Open the door . . . You find her husband home. Garden of Eden was very nice Adam never work in Paradise Eve meet snake… Read more »
@kfg: On the Belafonte lyrics…
Fuck me! Clearly AWALT has always been exhibited.
Enlightening article. Without belaboring the discussion with mathematics, I would argue that the urge of a female to secure a commitment from a male can be calculated in a manner very similar to put and call option. Avoiding going into details, an option is a security that gives you the right to sell (put option) or buy (call option) another security at a given date. The price of an option generally has multiple components that make up its price, for this purpose I will use two terms. Intrinsic value, which is the difference between the spot price (current market value… Read more »
@greginaurora I think this is especially true with regard to white men in the context of Western Civilization. Their creation has been turned against them by women. degenerates, and outsiders. There used to be a natural order within Western Civilization, and white men were rightly at the top of it. Now it’s a mish mash of Jews, self hating white men (cucks), women, non whites, homosexuals/trannies, and Muslims (all of which played no hand in the creation of Western Civilization) are at the forefront. Of course, beta white men are still behind the scenes making sure everything of importance keeps… Read more »
@ PrinceDeCondé
Fullx agree on this.
@ Rollo: That post was really on point !! Thanks
@XD: Hahaha at “RMS ShameTanic”
@hank
Left some comments for your text FR from last week at the last thread
https://therationalmale.com/2016/08/15/the-red-pill-monthly-frame/comment-page-3/#comment-166694
Rollo
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1572264254/helllooo-im-right-here-twifing-less-adoring-more
Women are the gatekeepers of relationships, too.
It’s the foundational premise of any relationship: whoever needs it less is the gatekeeper, whether it is sex or relationships (or anything else). Since women are more likely than men to *end* marriages/relationships, they’re the ones that need it less.
Whatever men want less than women is what we are the gatekeepers of.
The dynamic is not very different with women who are older (say up to 50s range). These women have been in the workforce their entire lives, around high value men there and at the gym and elsewhere in their lives, and also now are on social media as well. They have orbiters, “office spouses”, personal trainers and so on. They did not grow up with social media, but many have taken to it with gusto — it makes sense given what it provides to them. It’s still all about optionality, which is something that women will naturally pursue due to… Read more »
@yareally
“but he’ll instinctively know that him sitting on the couch watching Netflix while she sits beside him surfing Facebook and responding to guys on her Facebook wall, that something isn’t “right” with that agreement he’s entered. Because it’s lopsided in her favor.”
Ouch, this is so true and so depressing
@yareally “Most of that is hard to do once you’re tied to her via a legal contract like marriage or by having kids. So we have to figure out how to make a pLTR with no legal attachment work if we want guys to be able to have and raise kids with the maximum chance at their LTR lasting in this 2016+ era.” I think this might help with the application of dread but the ‘husband’ needs to do this early on and consistently. However, I don’t think this is practical or even possible because ‘modern’ girls will not enter… Read more »
since we are explicating via music video… here is one for you, particularly you sooper young doods who don’t recall what the world was like in 1983… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIb6AZdTr-A You will no doubt know the chorus… hailed as an “anthem of female solidarity”… The technology that unshackled hypergamy is not social media and instant communication, it was hormonal birth control and legalized abortion. And that cat got let out of the bag way back in 1920. as always AWALT. So when men lead, women follow… when men abdicate leadership, women run a muck. Harry sang about the Garden of Eden… Adam… Read more »
@newlyaloof
“Do not try and bend commitment. That is impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth. That there is no commitment. Then you’ll see that it’s not commitment that bends, it is only yourself.”
This is golden and a great twist on the original
Most often we cannot honor the imperatives of others without dishonoring ourselves.
Rollo, do you have some idea about young women in new relationships and not having (much) initiative? What do you think is behind this psychologically?
I’ve been dating one like this for a couple of months. Physically so to speak there isn’t any problem. But I find myself doing all the work in terms of coming up with things to do. And she always likes it, never complains. I just feel like some placeholder.
@Mercilesstimes: burden of performance….men lead!
A man will not consider his performance a burden unless it is required, like in the context of commitment. Performance as the result of personal passion is enjoyed by the man as personal fulfillment. When the performance is harnessed by another through “commitment” that passion is lost. Resentment replaces passion because at the fundamental level “commitment” is really nothing more than blackmail. It is litterally a form of theft. A wise woman can enjoy riding the wave of a man’s performance by not attempting to steal it.
@Merciless Times:
If you’re behind the wheel, shut up and drive. It’s the only seat in the car that isn’t a placeholder.
“What do you think is behind this psychologically?”
She wants to enjoy the ride. Give her a thrill and get the tail out.
“We have to completely throw out the notion of a “monoLTR” where the girl doesn’t have dozens of orbiters and won’t gather more every year that she’s on social media or in male spaces. That “monoLTR where the girl doesn’t have a huge herd of orbiters” just doesn’t exist anymore.” @YaReally, @walawala Truth! Funny. There was an orbiter in MY HOUSE the other day. Yup, a mid-thirties married woman with kids… With orbiters… Yay me! Shes not even that hot. Like a 7 in her prime. She’s feminine though compared to most girls which must be the allure. Thankfully she… Read more »
@mercilesstimes
Welcome to the world of dating women. They all inherently need you to take the initiative. They crave entertainment and being suprized, you should be “dangerous” in a safe way. They love this because it makes them feel alive. This is how they are all wired regardless of whatever crap the media, your mother or “Whoopie Goldberg” tells you. If you fail to take the lead in this way and do so very regularly, she will find you boring. Consider the tendancy to defer to her in this context quite litterally a form of impotence.
@YaReally For men who want to start a family and raise his ACTUAL biological children with their ACTUAL biological mother you’re right on point. I’ll add a few bits here… Obviously NEVER get legally married, but if one is looking for a woman to have children with, screen the fuck out of her until you get all the info you need while simultaneously establishing a rock solid frame to keep both her AND yourself in check for as long as possible. Finally AND ONLY when she has fully submitted to you should one pull the trigger on having children. Post… Read more »
walawala
August 21st, 2016 at 7:48 pm
My #1 daughter has the equality disease bad. I’ve told her it won’t make her happy. #2 son (who knows game) has tried talking to her. She refuses to listen. It will not end well.
YaReally
August 21st, 2016 at 8:15 pm
There are girls with oneitis. If you want a LTR get one who has oneitis for you. It makes things some easier. When she promises to run away with another guy tell her, “go ahead”. The oneitis girls bluff a lot.
Rollo, i’m a 26 year old soldier in the British Army and the red pill was the hardest thing i ever had to mentally conqour in my life. Months later and well past the denial stage I can’t thank you enough. You have changed my life for the better more than anything has is recent years.
@Chris, thanks for that. It’s always good to read about people benefitting from what I write.
Thanks.
Sounds horrible out in the world. Is it really as awful as these comments reflect??? Awalt is real, but damn, is every female a lying, cheating, golddigging , mean and spiteful bitch? Is that rational and true? I get trying to gain perspective and understanding. That’s a good thing. But some of y’all really do need to more deeply grasp RP. It sounds more like guys just want some kind of magic to happen while they passively stand by and watch. That’s not good living. That’s not how one gets the most out of life. Women aren’t evil whore monsters.… Read more »
“Is it really as awful as these comments reflect???”
Yes.
“Awalt is real, but damn, is every female a lying, cheating, golddigging , mean and spiteful bitch? Is that rational and true?”
Yes.
All snakes aren’t poisonous, but I’m not willing to let one bite me to find out.
@Andy Having an orbiter in your house? Walk away. @M. Simon: The idea of “equality” is a fantasy for girls. It’s been discussed here at length and when I meet so-called “feminists” who talk about “Equality” I say ok…let’s start by you buying the first round of drinks. Then you can open doors for me…Fix my sink. That shuts it down quickly. But I’ve been thinking a lot about this topic since I posted. Orbiters-management is now a new concept. I haven’t handled orbiters well. I usually make snide remarks: “Meeting your orbiter?” “Ask your orbiter…” But that’s acting out… Read more »
+10 comment Wala…
Orbiters only exist to the degree you allow them to. And they can serve a purpose, when she admits she would never do anything with them… Checkmate.
Abundance mindset and DPA triad will always win out.
@ lone planet
You do know that
1. You don’t have to let snakes bite you.
2. You are able to learn to identify poisonous snakes.
“1. You don’t have to let snakes bite you.”
This is true, but then you’re probably not trying to fuck a snake.
” 2. You are able to learn to identify poisonous snakes.”
Because they are kind enough to identify themselves by their clothing.
@kfg: On snakes….😂😂😂
@Sentient The key is to learn the difference between a bf and an “orbiter”.
The second learning is to know that the old pua boyfriend destroyer strategies DONT work on orbiters.
Telling her “He’s such a nice guy….” isn’t going to change things. She knows that.
It’s a mindset change. I’m still wrapping my head around it.
wala
“The second learning is to know that the old pua boyfriend destroyer strategies DONT work on orbiters”
Right because they are not sexual threats… so don’t acknowledge them as such.
she isn’t.
It’s a mindset change.
Wala
You are really close man to truly believing that YOU are the prize. It’s not your imagination, it’s not smoke and mirrors, it is not mere game but YOU, your real life self.
supra game state in sight…
http://i47.tinypic.com/scytja.jpg
KFG “Because they are kind enough to identify themselves by their clothing.”
Red on yellow kill a fellow?
@Sentient and a shout out to the newbies and intermediates. Thanks. It does take nerves of steel and ani net strength to calibrate your game. Over the past year I’ve dealt with crazy stalkers, false STD and pregnancy scares but also encountered truly sweet hot girls. The orbiter thing only recently hit me when I got the “you’re acting like a jealous bf” text which was revealing for how a girl thinks. She’s pissed so she acts out to see if I’ll chase. In the other cases girls reject me. I just got the ihab routine. I just replied ‘k’.… Read more »
@Sentient:
Hey there mistah, see that sistah
Don’t you let ‘er thrill ya
Sticks and stones, will break yer bones
But man ‘er looks could kill ya
I knew before I took the red pill I would never marry again. Now I’m even more certain of it. Committing to one woman is not alpha. Marriage is the beta thing to do. Once you give up your freedom in that legally binding, feminine-dominant construct, you’ve forfeited the only power you really have – your ability to move on and have no obligation to a woman. Sure, you may start out as the alpha dawg, but over time marriage will drain your frame. Good luck maintaining your MPO. Gaming your wife will take more effort as the years pass.… Read more »
Great original post and good follow ups by YaReally. I think Really’s comments about Orbiters should have everyone’s attention. It’s actually worse that what he pointed out. See, people are “thinking” by orbiters it is meant actual PEOPLE that she meets and knows in real life; friends, coworkers, etc. As Really points out, those days are mostly in past because these days her Orbiters are VIRTUAL ORBITERS … they are not people she actually knows, they are FB friends, Tinder swipes, or instagram or twitter associates and of course there are OKC, POF, Match, etc. We all know about online… Read more »
@Mega Guy You raise an interesting point. If after ploughing through her list of orbiters she finally comes back to you…was it because of your alpha status and game or because…you’re the orbiter of last resort? This cuts at the core of the Red Pill. All sexual dynamics are mercenary. It’s all about what you can get and what’s good for you. Ridding yourself of the needy mindset is the first step towards unplugging. But the Red Pill isn’t a means to an end–I’m Red Pill so I can get a better relationship. Then I get that relationship and slip… Read more »
@walawala A quote from Rollo in his essay Mrs. Hyde: “Women are keenly aware that men’s primary interest in them is fucking – everything else is ancillary to sex. The difficulty women encounter in perfecting a long-term sexual strategy is men’s singular primary strategy – the value a woman has beyond the sexual comes after she’s been sexual.” @Blaximus August 22nd, 2016 at 4:26 pm Right on point with men need to be anti-negative. I was reading Softek’s comments @ 12:52 am today and I was thinking, good job, Softek, you are executing soft dread well. Congratulations. That’s a positive… Read more »
That smiley was inserted by WordPress when I was referring to commenter X D.
@forge @othergrain @culum @yareally @pua Got another DHV, lol, though made the biggest mistake of my life. Like still traumatized over it. Did my most solid worker pickup. Opened a girl walking away from me for the first time, and opened a girl in a four set. —————- So i dropped off a car at a mechanic. Asian 6 there. Didn’t open. Left, came back. Had to wait a bit longer on car. Eventually opened the asian. I think it was over the pokemon — my usual opener “You catching pokemon or swiping on tinder.” got into it. don’t remember… Read more »
@walawala “The second learning is to know that the old pua boyfriend destroyer strategies DONT work on orbiters.” “Right because they are not sexual threats… so don’t acknowledge them as such.” This. BFDs are named what they’re named for a reason…they’re for destroying actual competition (99.9999% of orbiters aren’t competition, but every 0.00001% or so is a guy you should legitimately destroy, but they’re so rare, and usually they’re the guy that isn’t actually orbiting her, she’s orbiting him, and complaining that like oh this guy at work is such a jerk and pisses her off etc, THAT’S the guy… Read more »
@ Rollo – great post. You keep churning out gold, brother! @Blaximus, @ Rollo, @ anyone who cares, I’m still actively attempting and achieving with some success to work through the whole “women are evil” cynicism and bitterness (I know YaReally will say that the fastest way to work through it is to go out and get positive reference experiences – message received, YaReally!). A lot of great posts by commenters here as usual (a lot of really smart dudes on this forum). What I continue to do is try to remind myself that from an evolutionary hindbrain perspective, women… Read more »
Notice there is nothing on the end of the string – just saying.
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgY2H2vrZ3Q&w=560&h=315%5D
“Why not just be upfront and honest right from the beginning? This allows you to establish frame from the very beginning by explaining to women that you as a man understand that your programming dictates the need to be non-exclusive and sleep with multiple women and that her nature dictates the need to constantly be on the hunt for a higher value man.” “Their solipsism simply does not afford them the ability to introspect and therefore accept accountability for their actions and choices.” You answered your own question before you asked it. Why not just keep your rational mouth shut,… Read more »
First of all, everything YaReally wrote +1 (Thanks to YaR for keeping it under 1k words). This… “No man “committing” to a girl raised in 2016 culture is in a monogamous LTR. He’s in a one-sided pLTR (Primary LTR, a primary partner with multiple orbiters/side-poon) but in the GIRL’S favor (aka she keeps her options available while he restricts his own).” And this… “Because the old system is DEAD. MonoLTRs don’t exist anymore. I can’t re-state that enough.” And this… “In 2016 a girl with social media or work/hobbies full of men, is ONLY offering you a pLTR in her… Read more »
@ kfg,
“Why not just keep your rational mouth shut, Just Get It and just DO it?”
I’m thankfully finally beginning to “Just Get It”. The doing part…..well…..theory is always easier than practice but at some point one just needs to get on it and get moving. I understand that. This is a better mindset, I think to launch from though; but clinical application must follow lectures and theory at some point in the process.
Glad that rollo finally wrote this. Right here right now – monogamy is shit. All relationship is borrowed time, so you better lease it on your own terms. Build maintain and recycle harems if you can; If not get some hookers. Or wait for a decade or something and buy a sexbot. Or rub it out. Or whatever. The pandora’s box has been opened and some things are never gonna go back in there – like socially accepted and mandated open hypergamy. So boys, you scratch my gal and i’ll scratch yours. And then we kick them out and grab… Read more »
There is coming a new feminism. It is a ways off, but I can see the outlines.
“You haven’t had children? Poor thing.”
Childbearing is the essence of female nature. It gives a woman status among females.
Signs to to look for: 50 yo single women expressing their regrets. The chorus should get very loud in the next 10 years.
Ajax Parallax August 22nd, 2016 at 10:17 pm Do not EVER want a woman who does not want you first. EV-ER. Bears repeating. Often. My strategy is – “Snuggle with me naked, I like the body contact. No sex.” When you finally get her in bed she is thinking – “He will have sex with me if I get naked. He is so persistent. I might as well endure it.” When she gets no sex her thinking switches – “Is there something wrong with me?” About 3/4s come back gagging for it. And the other 1/4? You got to sleep… Read more »
@Blaximus
Just because a man grasps that women are how they are doesn’t mean he doesn’t get frustrated enough to rant and rave. Months/years without sex are… debilitating to reason. I speak from experience here. Shit sucks.
“Their solipsism simply does not afford them the ability to introspect and therefore accept accountability for their actions and choices.” I don’t think that is entirely true. The LTRs attendance at my mothers death has changed her. At least for a while. She seems, at least temporarily, to want to feel good vs have the power. In other words she surrenders – for now. I treat her desire for power as another shit test. I turn on over bearing dominance. And especially, “OK. I’ll find a replacement.” For the time being she has surrendered. It has happened before. And then… Read more »
@ ShanksNes and @ M Simon, “The pandora’s box has been opened and some things are never gonna go back in there – like socially accepted and mandated open hypergamy. So boys, you scratch my gal and i’ll scratch yours. And then we kick them out and grab a Corona.” That’s it! Who gives a f***! Why be jealous or even care? Seriously! It’s not the new feminism that is coming. It’s the new male/masculine awakening that is on the horizon. I’m not talking MGTOW stuff either. It’s gonna be 1960’s Free Love 2.0 but from a male orientation this… Read more »
@M Simon wrote “My strategy is – “Snuggle with me naked, I like the body contact. No sex. When you finally get her in bed she is thinking – “He will have sex with me if I get naked. He is so persistent. I might as well endure it.” Yikes. Too overt, brother. A lot of girls are savvy to this and have heard this exact line before in 2016. Believe me. And it’s not you who adulterated this approach, it’s all the dudes over the last 10 years who used this approach to get a girl in bed and… Read more »
If I’m wrong on my futuristic predictions then we have this future to look forward to instead. Yikes, this is much more sad of an eventuality that I prefer to avoid contemptlating. If this is the future of male masculinity then it is a sad future for all of us. Good movie worth watching. Even the female AI program practices hypergamy in this movie. Just makes me sad (happy for Alan Watts, though). 🙂
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJTU48_yghs&w=560&h=315%5D
@hank holiday – I’m reading your current FRs and just wanted to remind you that you’ve come so far since you started going out regularly and posting FRs regularly. How long has it been? A couple of months or so? It may not feel like it but we can all see a big difference in your FRs and results – even the tone of the FRs. A tremendous difference from going out and barely opening girls to now getting consistent attraction, IOIs and number closes – even though you don’t have enough targets around you. So keep it up and… Read more »
@YaReally In my case it was #4 her not understanding WHY she’s being Soft Nexted. Again see Blackdragon’s guide…she has to understand that the Soft Next is a direct result of her shitty actions and not just you being moody a few days later. That’s why you do it right away, so that she sees a direct cause/effect of her actions and your Soft Nexting her. You can also do shit like “you know, that thing you did at the party, that was a big turnoff, I dunno I just thought you were different from other girls…” She had a… Read more »
Funny part is that even if the gatekeeping “symmetry” were real, it would still be a losing game for men. Commitment is given once and cannot be reused as a negotiation point again. Sex on the other hand can be withheld repeatedly several times a week without negatve consequence andthus it can be (almost) infinitely used as a leverage in negotiation.
Well, if you’re not married, commitment most certainly can be used as an ongoing negotiation point – it’s exactly why YaReally goes on about how your most powerful weapon is the ability to walk away (without significant consequences)
@ Wala
I have just one question : why exactly do you care if your girls have orbiters?
I mean, they are not your GF, right? Why is that a problem that they text other guys, or even that they fuck other guys?
Legit question, not trolling!! Because everything you write about, all this drama is totally alien to me, never encountered anything similar.
@M Simon
“Signs to to look for: 50 yo single women expressing their regrets. The chorus should get very loud in the next 10 years.”
I’m seeing 46yos on pof wanting to start a family. lol
@DisEarthling: On post wall women hoping to be saved…
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
@Klem I don’t belong to them. But while I’m fucking them, they belong to me. When I stop caring in any way…I stop fucking them.
I don’t play second fiddle and it’s in the details. What I don’t know I don’t care about.
Oh this may be worthy of its own post. But it’s relevant to the OP. I’ve descanted before on “yes means yes” and the death of dating. Well now look at this is working out – campus women find the legally-prescribed protocol boring and, well, demeaning: “Even in less extreme situations, young men are more skeptical of women’s ability or propensity to consent to sex, which some women on campus consider demeaning. “I find that men are more and more interested in ensuring that I’m consenting before sex, which would seem like a good thing,” Columbia student Dylan Hunzeker said.… Read more »
Thanks Fred, I do in fact have an upcoming post this will fit nicely into.
“So if you approach a girl on campus, you’re expelled as an assaulter. If you do what Ezra Klein and the sex police mandate, you’re boring and oppressive.”
You’d almost think that they want men powerlessly double bound.
” Ironically, commitment only has value to a woman when it’s denied to her by a man who’s SMV outclasses her own.”
And there’s the rub….
@kfg
Not powerlessly double bound: is “confronting and controlling cisheterosexist patriarchy.” (That’s from the Colgate YMY manual)
Think? what’s that? Today’s lesson is:
FEELZ FIRST, FUCK FACTS.
The 4F’s! Where’ve I heard that before?
That’s my avatar for this age – the SMP, the election, social issues, economics, business…
Oh boy… a few things… all coming back to All Lion Tamers Are Not Like That Neg sex on the other hand can be withheld repeatedly several times a week without negative consequence Ummmm… yes and no. yes if you do nothing about it, no if you do. what camp are you in Neg? M Simon What is left out of all this is that it is possible for a woman to commit. And such commitment is vital to a good LTR. Exactly… it seems a lot of the concern around commitment and orbiters and such is because guy shave… Read more »
I think everyone already knows this, but it’s a good reminder. Currently, 40% of all women are obese. These are women who have very few options for sex and relationships. Very few men are willing to marry an obese woman just as very few women are willing to marry a man whom she needs to support. If these women have children, those children will most likely be supported by the government. In addition, more than a third of the remaining women are over weight. These women have more options. Perhaps quite a bit more if they are in their 20s.… Read more »
Sentient “Play along with this… it is coming. Already in Australia… if you are in a LTR (which can be defined as little as 3 years currently) you may be liable to pay partner support… Palimony in the US for now, but this type of support classification IS coming no doubt. It will be accelerated if Clinton wins…” This is based on the soviet system where you were required to meet your work quota or suffer the consequences. And just like the Soviet results, everyone eventually worked less, which is what I think we are already seeing. Currently there are… Read more »
Radium The implementation of no fault divorce may have had far more damage to society than is currently acknowledged.
Well the equalist gloating may elevate a few notches come January… job well done an all…