The Key Masters

keymaster

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.

0 0 vote
Article Rating

Published by Rollo Tomassi

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

Leave a Reply

780 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
The Lone Planet
The Lone Planet
3 years ago

“Never compromise. Not even in the face of Armageddon”
– Walter Kovacs

trackback

[…] post over at The Rational Male and the comments that follow got me thinking about some of the games […]

cheupez
3 years ago

^^^Hehehe…just when you were mentioning it, there goes another oh-shit woman.

Sentient
Sentient
3 years ago

YaReally Well what I can glean from your very long non answer is you have not tried to monoLTR a <25YO since 2014 and you did not try to get this girl you didn't monoLTR to delete her social media. Am I correct here? But you have come across posts that indicate it will be difficult to do so… and from this we are to infer now that it is impossible? OK Wala – correct the record here… have you been trying to get one of your 30 girls into a monoLTR? I haven't gotten that from your many posts.… Read more »

sfer
sfer
3 years ago

Sentiment

You have defeated him with his own logic! There is no need for anyone to test any of this. First principles for the win!

hank holiday
hank holiday
3 years ago

@N1 lol something I can help with 1) What sort of interactions do you try and achieve if other people are present? this is basic MM. engage your obstacles. jester them. find out that their passions are (where you guys from? really, what made you move out here then? for engineering, wow, I’m way to bad at math for that shit. its like greek to me lol. when did you know you wanted to be an engineer? Yeah, I’m sure your uncle would have been proud to know you were following in his footsteps, etc.etc.) If these guys are cool,… Read more »

Klem
Klem
3 years ago

@scray

“i can’t really wrap my head around why people are so into marrying a chick or monogamy or her being monogamous to them”

That’s the real question isn’t it…

I can intellectually get that some guys don’t want an endless parade of ONS, or even FBs, but nowadays we KNOW how to set up a p/oLTR which have all the benefits of a monoLTR without the drawbacks.

Blows my mind that guys who are aware of this choose monogamy….

Blaximus
Blaximus
3 years ago

Not everyone is cookie cutter.

Some guys prefer a monogamous relationship.

Some dudes don’t mind kissing a chick after she’s sucked some guy off the night before… Lol ( I’m kidding ).

To my mind, it is just as strange to hear a guy profess that they have zero interest in a monogamous relationship.

Not saying it MUST be, but the complete lack of interest seems odd.

Banging multiple chicks is the standard. Anyone can do that. It’s a great default position.

Sentient
Sentient
3 years ago

Sfer Come now… add something to the dialogue… let’s reconsider this here, per KFG’s Harry reference… The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.” 18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will… Read more »

TheLastCoyote
TheLastCoyote
3 years ago

Consider yourselves fortunate to not be married to this chick…

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2016/08/19/sheriffs-co-leave-after-wife-charged-prostitution/89008050/

The husband is either the Cuck of the Year or a pimp with a badge. This falls in the category of “you can’t make this stuff up.”

Blaximus
Blaximus
3 years ago

” Blue Pill conditioning has raised generations of Beta men to see monogamy as a Buffer against rejection. Betas embrace committed monogamy as an article of personal virtue, when it is in fact his discomfort with rejection that makes this an ego-investment. ”

Maybe this is where the disconnect is imo. The railing against mono must have roots somewhere.

Sentient
Sentient
3 years ago

Blax

“The railing against mono must have roots somewhere.”

Social conditioning… lol

hank holiday
hank holiday
3 years ago

I think its mostly this idea that once you marry a chick you’ve got her locked down. As if it is some iron bound contract that will cement her love forever and ever.

Also, the idea that it isn’t a “real” ltr until you get married. That getting married is the ultimate goal of dating and relationships.

sfer
sfer
3 years ago

Notice how “Your desire will be for your husband” is a punishment. What would women desire if they would not be punished for their desires?

Softek
Softek
3 years ago

“Maybe this is where the disconnect is imo. The railing against mono must have roots somewhere.” The roots are in men not having the experience necessary to see monogamy in its proper context. (e.g. high N counts including high number of multiple LTRs throughout their life, during which they should’ve learned [extensively] how to vet, how to train women, how to hold Frame, etc.) The ‘railing’ against monogamy is, as I see it, based on the fact that the MAJORITY of men are in no position to be able to consider monogamy from a healthy, masculine perspective. Most men are… Read more »

Blaximus
Blaximus
3 years ago

@ Sentient ” Social conditioning… lol” Heeyyyy…. social conditioning is real. WHat I’m trying to fully grasp is the hostility about mono’s. I get that if a guy has been shafted numerous times, he finally says ” fuck this stupid shit ” and starts a multi-chick bangathon, but when guys seem to be just coming to the realization that they can indeed bang as many women as they’d like, THEN they are all like ” ..why oh why would any guy choose monogamy when they could have sex with multiple women???”. Huh??? What??? Is that a newsflash or something? Of… Read more »

Klem
Klem
3 years ago

@Blax We come back to our debate of the last posts lol I dunno, is it THAT strange for a guy to want to sleep with multiple girls? While still getting the companionship and emotional connection with one particular girl you really like? I would think that this is the PERFECT setup for a big majority of guys, how can it not be?! I’ve done monoLTRs and pLTRs, so I can compare from my point of view. I’m legit curious again, what would be the downside of it? (except kids probably, even though you can probably raise them while getting… Read more »

Sentient
Sentient
3 years ago

SFER

“What would women desire if they would not be punished for their desires?”

Chocolate

scray
scray
3 years ago

@blax

Some guys prefer a monogamous relationship.
Some dudes don’t mind kissing a chick after she’s sucked some guy off the night before… Lol ( I’m kidding ).

those aren’t mutually exclusive lol

but i mean…..WHY?

why would a man prefer a monogamous relationship?

there really is NO REASON if he HAS OPTIONS

scray
scray
3 years ago

@rollo

In today’s social order it makes less sense, but I get confused when guy say they don’t understand it.

I should say I don’t understand why any truly TRP-aware man still defends it or clings to it or w/e.

I can SOMEWHAT understand clinging to like, a one-sided monogamous relationship in favor of the man.

Blaximus
Blaximus
3 years ago

@ klem ” I dunno, is it THAT strange for a guy to want to sleep with multiple girls? While still getting the companionship and emotional connection with one particular girl you really like?” It is NOT strange at all. Not in the least. My argument always get twisted this way… Lol. What is strange to me, is that guys don’t realize this from the get go. By 14 I came to this realization. ” I’m legit curious again, what would be the downside of it? (except kids probably, even though you can probably raise them while getting pussy on… Read more »

Radium
Radium
3 years ago

In order to understand why there are so many orbiters, I think it’s important to actually look at the numbers. Men in the age range of approximately 18 to 45 are competing for women in their peak fertility age range of approximately 18 to 28. This means there are approximately 2.7 available men for every woman in her peak fertility age. However, 40% of women are obese and another third are over weight. Let’s assume that some of the over weight women are datable. So this takes at least 50% of the women out of the pool of women with… Read more »

Blaximus
Blaximus
3 years ago

@ scray

” should say I don’t understand why any truly TRP-aware man still defends it or clings to it or w/e.”

A RP aware man does not ” cling ” to anything marriage/ltr related, and that’s the point. You are equating monogamy/marriage with beta mindsets.

hank holiday
hank holiday
3 years ago

@forge, yareally, scray, culum, pua

okay, where are some good resources for cold reads, role plays, spiking BT?

I am finding *some* examples in the yareally archives, but I would like to have more detailed run throughs. Lots of examples, step by step on how to do them, etc.

A big area I need to work on is spiking more BT more quickly, and cold reads and roleplays are good way to do it.

Oh, yeah, and some example on provoking an IOI very fast. Like in 5 sec. A sentence line to get her all laughing a giggly.

scray
scray
3 years ago

@blax

A RP aware man does not ” cling ” to anything marriage/ltr related, and that’s the point. You are equating monogamy/marriage with beta mindsets.

yup, because afaik they are.

there is LITERALLY NO ADVANTAGE to being monogamous. so if there’s no advantage and people are still clinging to it or thinking it’s necessary or good…..I’m like ‘welp……..seems supplicative’

Klem
Klem
3 years ago

@Blax Ok, fair enough, I’ll pick your brain a little. Imagine you are out with your friends, have a few drinks and a hot girl with a tight butt (or whatever your favorite body part is lol) is eyeing you from accross the room. You know you could go talk to her, pick her up and fuck her in your car (Scray summer 16 move tm). Wouldn’t you want to? Of course in a monoLTR you couldnt while in an oLTR you could. Does this situation never happen to you? Again, please don’t think I am trolling or anything, I’m… Read more »

scray
scray
3 years ago

@hank

Oh, yeah, and some example on provoking an IOI very fast. Like in 5 sec. A sentence line to get her all laughing a giggly.

the best opener i ever used (to this day lol) was “hey guys, sorry I’m late” after walking into the middle of whatever their shit was. if you can practice rolling into a set with super confident body language and a killer smile while saying this, you’ll catch attention really fast.

kfg
kfg
3 years ago

“Young women who are within the normal weight range have won the genetic lottery.”

Funny how in the history of forever exactly zero “genetic losers” come out of forced labor camps.

Normal isn’t even hard to achieve. “Normal” is defined by medical statistics, not aesthetics. The top half of normal is actually rather chubby.

Blaximus
Blaximus
3 years ago

@ klem Lol. We went through this discussion back in the Spring for a couple of days here in the comments. I don’t really want to go through the same old explanations again. My bro scray has a quiver chock full of ” why’s ” that he will blot out the sun, firing them at me. A few days ago, on the sunny Jersey Shore, I happened upon a shop on the boardwalk where some chicks were selling henna tats and airbrushed t-shirts. A redhead, a blonde. Mid 20’s I’d wager. Having mastered airbrush in the 80’s/90’s ( I was… Read more »

Blaximus
Blaximus
3 years ago

@ klem One other thing ( even though you didn’t ask…) I think a lot of guys get married without knowing what that is supposed to even mean. They wind up bouncing around within the union like a pinball in a machine ( I’m old…. pinballs used to be in arcades….arcades used to have games….games used to be played on giant machines,,,,etc, etc. lol ). There’s no reason that a man should be clueless in marriage, and unhappy or confused and ruled by his wife. Personally, I had a plan for my marriage and I executed the living shit out… Read more »

walawala
walawala
3 years ago

@Sentient No I’ve never tried to get a girl off any social media. I think that would be like asking them to give up electricity. But I HAVE tried to get girls to drop orbiters….usually by saying things like “I dunno ask orbiter” or “Go to your orbiter”. Or “You look ridiculous”. And other means. Never successful. The more I react to an orbiter…the more the girl digs in and defends him. However, when I’ve eventually walked away—hard nexted—the orbiter suddenly disappears. The orbiter was created to piss me off. It’s a kind of straw man to highlight my short-comings.… Read more »

Mineter
Mineter
3 years ago

Why try to get her to delete all of her social media stuff? That’s a veritable gold mine of electronic intelligence. Although I wouldn’t recommend infiltrating it, because that’s illegal in just about every jurisdiction I can think of. You could only do it on a device you own and pay the bill for. In any case, the information would certainly help a guy vet a woman he might be considering getting legally indentured to.

Blaximus
Blaximus
3 years ago

@ walawala ” Commitment? I’m not even sure what that means with today’s girls. I think commitment means giving more attention to them….seeing them more than once a week, doing more with them than banging them. Though banging seems to be ok for a while. I think some of them are content to continue banging and then have other things and orbiters to do stuff with.” I am learning that I too, do not even know what that means with today’s girls. If I were to have to get back into hunting chicks for sex and a possible ltr, my… Read more »

Radium
Radium
3 years ago

@kfg

“Normal isn’t even hard to achieve. “Normal” is defined by medical statistics, not aesthetics. The top half of normal is actually rather chubby.”

Normal (or more accurately, healthy) as defined by the medical profession is anyone with a BMI under 25, which is now well under a third of the population. Normal as defined by society is well into the chubby side.

MeadowLarkLemon
MeadowLarkLemon
3 years ago

@YaReally: “You are basically telling them “guess what, you CAN’T settle down and have kids anymore, because ALL OF THESE GIRLS ARE SCREENED OUT by our guidelines”.” That’s where I’m at. Longtime reader, first time commenter. I’m 45, and barring an accidental pregnancy with a current or future paramour (I’m not snipped), I am by choice out of the reproduction game at this point. I was never constitutionally OPPOSED to marriage (before TRP, anyway), but even pre-TRP, I wasn’t DELUSIONAL. Even when I was unicorn hunting I couldn’t fool myself into thinking I had found any of these mythical creatures.… Read more »

Sentient
Sentient
3 years ago

MeadowlarkLemon

what pool are you swimming in bro? I can take you round half a dozen private schools and you would have your fill of aesthetically acceptable smart, young girls…

kfg
kfg
3 years ago

“Normal (or more accurately, healthy) as defined by the medical profession is anyone with a BMI under 25 . . .”

Right, and for an average height American girl (5′ 4″) a BMI of 24.9 is 145 pounds. Unless she has the bones of an elephant and lifts heavy, she is chubby.

“Normal as defined by society is . . .”

. . . a fatass. For most brands what is now called a size 8 dress would have been called a 12 in 1980.

MeadowLarkLemon
MeadowLarkLemon
3 years ago

@Sentient: “what pool are you swimming in bro? I can take you round half a dozen private schools and you would have your fill of aesthetically acceptable smart, young girls…” Okay man, tell you what, you marry them and report back. I’ve dated my share of “aesthetically acceptable smart, young girls” (I mean, I wouldn’t have bothered if they hadn’t at least been “acceptable,” right?) but as far as any of them being 50+ year marriage material, that was a bet I wasn’t willing to take. Granted, statistically at this point I’m probably looking at a max of 30+ year… Read more »

Blaximus
Blaximus
3 years ago

http://i.imgur.com/MfXIlsn.gif

Damned fat chicks….

lol

kfg
kfg
3 years ago

@Blaximus:

Under the new social paradigm she will be subject to shaming for having an “unattainable” body type and setting an unhealthy example for children.

I wish I were making this up.

kfg
kfg
3 years ago

@MeadowLarkLemon: “I’ve dated my share of “aesthetically acceptable smart, young girls” . . .”

You can have:

1. Looks
2. Brains
3. Sanity

Pick any two.

YaReally
3 years ago

@Andy “This is just theory, but I think that if you pick an <25 7+ and just knock her up immediately, and keep her knocked up/nursing till she's post wall you're probably going to be fine. Especially if you have girls on the side and she knows about it. She'll be occupied with the kids enough that it shouldn't be a problem." See that's a potential solution worth discussing. Is it better for guys to vet fast and knock a chick up instead of taking 5+ years to vet her, giving her plenty of time to get bored and exercise… Read more »

YaReally
3 years ago

@Blaximus Funny you should post her lol That’s Yanet Garcia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WT0Cbymjx9U This guy is a popular jacked gamer nerd with 1.6 million subscribers (aka dude makes bank) who saw her on TV (a workspace that involves her being seen and interacting with other men), hit on her via social media (because hot girls have social media), then flew across the world to meet her. Her social media gave her access to a rich jacked minor-celebrity guy who could fly across the world to mack her and they’re on social media constantly documenting their lives and she is basically a celebrity… Read more »

Forge the Sky
Forge the Sky
3 years ago

Me: (meets girl in Blax’s gif)
Girl: o hai Forge
Girl: whoop, you dropped something (picks up jaw from ground, hands it to me)
Me: o hai. So did you see those two girls fighting out there….?

Forge the Sky
Forge the Sky
3 years ago

And then YaReally posts that before me and just makes me look like a lame orbiter lol

http://new3.fjcdn.com/thumbnails/comments/Bababuey+rolled+user+jobby+i+curse+you+with+rolling+_b1a9523d047b102ce85e497d864142d7.gif

YaReally
3 years ago

Oh shit this all gives me a great idea for a routine lol…disqualifying a girl based on her LACK of orbiters. “Do you have Instagram? How many followers do you have? 2,000? Hmmm…I dunno…I mean, I hooked up with a girl with 20,000 once. I don’t know if I can get with some “2,000” girl…that means 18,000 men think you’re uglier than her. Mathematically, she was 10x hotter than you. I’d be slumming it if we had sex…I bet that girl over there has at LEAST twice as many followers. I mean, what’s WRONG with you, you LOOK hot but… Read more »

walawala
walawala
3 years ago

@YaReally. Aaaaaaaaaand on cue with orbiters girl with the jealousy plot line I’ve gone silent from after she refused to drop orbiter …just sent wall of text asking me to play a certain song next time I’m djing. Was pissed at her. But not sure what if anything I should reply. It’s a ping text. Clearly it’s to test where my head is at. Possible replies: fuck off/ we’re finished /you crossed the line. But something tells me she wants that. Silence. She expects that. You have the same taste in music as you do clothes”. Clever banter Thoughts? I’m… Read more »

YaReally
3 years ago

@walawala Can’t remember the details of your situ, been too busy to follow everyone’s reports in depth lol But of those options “you have the same taste in music as you do clothes” (assuming you’ve playfully made fun of her taste in clothes before) is probably the best option. Because it doesn’t tell her whether you’re mad or not. Silence tells her you’re probably mad/butthurt, a fuck off tells her you’re definitely mad, a “sure babe no problem” tells her you’re not mad…a tease doesn’t answer whether you’re mad AND doesn’t tell her whether you’re going to play her song… Read more »

key
key
3 years ago

ha, this has been a fascinating back and forth in the comments YaR as always brings the new school evidence hard, i do not doubt the science the knock her up and take a flying leap appears to be a pretty solid restatement of old school in practice that may be as good as any plan for the new school love that YaR has taken a serious look at this YaR you are stuck on what happens next in a m/ltr with kids after the flying leap bc you have never done it I honestly cant wait for that fr… Read more »

walawala
walawala
3 years ago

@YaReally and all. This is a great discussion about commitment and the issue of orbiters that stems from my situation. Here’s an update and a way to handle this orbiter thing which I would never have thought of without all the input–big shout out to YaReally. So the girl who was the subject of the orbiter situation ping-texts me after 4 days of radio silence after blowing me out…refused to go home with me…has been hanging with orbiter/friend of mine. I’ve been clear in how this is not cool…and predictably it’s produced only…more hanging out and lowered my value. So,… Read more »

YaReally
3 years ago

@key “the knock her up and take a flying leap appears to be a pretty solid restatement of old school in practice that may be as good as any plan for the new school” Like I say, I’m open to anything as long as it holds up infield and, absent being able to fully field test it, if it follows everything we know about how attraction etc work. VS “commit harder bro, and make her delete these things that none of them have ever deleted and make her get rid of all her access to other men that help her… Read more »

cheupez
3 years ago

1. It is hard for guys in serious monogamous relationships to admit they have side plates so we should just give it a rest. Note there are no quotes on serious monogamous. Thats how it is. 2. (@walawala)The orbiter did not emerge when you did not commit. The orbiter is always there. In fact there are several of them. The girl chooses which one to show up, and when to show him up. After you go monogamous she may make tactical adjustments to give the impression she is now monogamous with zero orbiters. She can keep the remaining orbiters tucked… Read more »

key
key
3 years ago

good stuff YaR – I actually think you’ve kind of got the plan (and it just might be closer to what the old schoolers have done than you know)

alternatively, its also like a little cult bc you have to be crazy to start, it runs contrary to all nature and logic, and everyone may wind up dead

Mike
Mike
3 years ago

“Once given, commitment 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.” Thats why we use the game in LTR. She can never take me for granted, and if she does I do not represent value she should be attracted to anymore…

YaReally
3 years ago

@key “I actually think you’ve kind of got the plan (and it just might be closer to what the old schoolers have done than you know)” Ya, the whole knock em up at 16 deal is a super oldschool thing…but the main key difference with 2016 girls is that guys back in the old days had to deal with less orbiters (I’m sure their wives had a few orbiters, but none of them had 2,600,000 orbiters) and “you go grrl” no fault divorce empowerment culture and massive pushes to keep girls chasing education/career through their 20s instead of settling down… Read more »

Johnycomelately
3 years ago

Keeping it real as always Ya and on target. I think we’ve also reaching the peak ‘self improvement’ to get pussy phenomenon. The reality is that once men realize women will do the heavy lifting in the work force and there is no reward for vocational effort men will slack off BIG time. Why press iron, study and work like a dog when someone like Ya can swoop your girl at the drop of a hat? In the Balkans back in the ol’ days women worked like dogs while the men boozed it up, I can see a similar trend… Read more »

Culum Struan
Culum Struan
3 years ago

@hank holiday – I’ve not read to the bottom of the thread yet so YaReally or others may have covered it but if you have time you may want to download the old mASF seduction newsgroup discussion/FRs (Sedfast) broken down by poster from the early/mid 2000s – including some current big names (Tyler etc) as well as a lot of really good guys who never went commercial. The FRs are really good in general and also include lots of routines, cold reads etc. If you look through the YaReally archive, you’ll find a post from him to me a few… Read more »

N1
N1
3 years ago

@Yareally, hank holiday

DisgruntledEarthling
DisgruntledEarthling
3 years ago

@Rollo “Blue Pill conditioning has raised generations of Beta men to see monogamy as a Buffer against rejection. Betas embrace committed monogamy as an article of personal virtue, when it is in fact his discomfort with rejection that makes this an ego-investment.” I’d like to see more on this and the related issue of the perceived need men have for wanting children in a RP world. I think this is the last great taboo to be addressed to be fully RP. Even for those of us that have and love our kids, how much worse/better would our lives have been… Read more »

stuffinbox
3 years ago

@Blax
Even before herpes,aids,hep c and hpv,I wouldn’t have done the airbrush girl.Maybe some instinctive to easy,or trigger of the physcdar.

@Ya
To be honest if it all ended today this old guy would spin plates,lets just say she has ruined it for the rest of them.But I still have a dog in the hunt with three daughters,right now feeling resigned to continuing support and help.Don’t let your dick do your thinking for you.

@ sjf
Thanks for the Franco reads.Great stuff.

Sentient
Sentient
3 years ago

Key / Yareally at its most successful a m/ltr (esp w kids) is like a little cult and you are the leader What did you think patriarchy was? Again – Welcome Back to the Future… None of this is new… LOL. NONE of it. Personally I think (and this is just theory) that part of why girls seem crazier now is that they don’t have a baby early on, so they have ALL THIS FREE TIME to start their own drama. If they had a baby, that baby would PROVIDE the drama they crave, the up and down rollercoaster of… Read more »

walawala
walawala
3 years ago

@Palmsailor Great line. I had thought about going down that route. But that’s how I’ve been with her the entire time: cocky/funny, carefree, banging her brains out. But I realized that what was missing was not the toughness, but the soft-dominance.

Calibration was what I was looking for in this response. Cocky/funny is easy.

I think i’m testing the boundaries of my game with this situation. How can I reframe emotional distancing to be my idea? That’s my motivation for all this.

DisgruntledEarthling
DisgruntledEarthling
3 years ago

@kfg
“Built by men, for their sons.”

Indeed – but that was a different world. I don’t think those men actively took part in raising those sons (I’m just pulling this out of my ass). They had ‘people’ for that. They were busying fighting wars and internal dissent. They were thinking of whom to pass the kingdom to.
The commoner – maybe a cobbler, was living a different model than the king. We aren’t all kings.

stuffinbox
3 years ago

(and this is just theory)
Sounds plausible to me,yet this is only half of the yin yang.

kfg
kfg
3 years ago

“The commoner – maybe a cobbler, was living a different model than the king.” The reference was to Disney castles and princesses. That is a picture of one of, if not the, last real castles, built by and for men, for men’s needs. The original was destroyed by artillery barrage, but there is still a small chapel on the grounds that dates from the 12th century. Real castles house more than kings (and in fact most castle owners were not kings). They house garrisons. Garrisons need cobblers. Real castles are military societies, not courtly palaces. Disney castles are built in… Read more »

YaReally
3 years ago

@Sentient “None of this is new… LOL. NONE of it.” “If only there were some books on this stuff… we gotta figure it out.” Cool, give us the actual step by step. How did the old books say to deal with a girl having 2.6 million orbiters during a lull in your marriage, and no-fault divorce in a culture where masculinity is considered toxic and not doing what your wife wants is considered emotional abuse with the public and judges taking her side instead of calling her a witch and burning her at the stake, custody battles that assume the… Read more »

Blaximus
Blaximus
3 years ago

Wow. I have to note this day on my calendar as the ” Day I Disagreed With kfg “. Next, frogs will fall from the skies and rivers will run red. I have 2 children. Daughters. They are my kids and both recognize as much. For men, RP parenting is possible and IMO preferred. Mothers loom large in kids lives, but it is essential that dad’s get in on the raising process. We are more than bug killers and ATMs. I am an individual, but I still am my father’s son. Oh… I have a mom too. Be present from… Read more »

Klem
Klem
3 years ago

@Yareally “Oh shit this all gives me a great idea for a routine lol…disqualifying a girl based on her LACK of orbiters.” Stop stealing my shit lol I do this all the time. I’ll tell you something even better, tease her about the ratio of followers/people she follows. The best situ on instagram is to have millions of followers while following like 10 accounts. Chicks are VERY aware of that even if for us it’s like “who cares” hahaha I also like to fake competing for the number of matches on Tinder (I have like a 1500 or something). A… Read more »

key
key
3 years ago

Sentient, don’t disagree, nothing new under the sun and all, but there is a gap to bridge between what you understand thoroughly (successfully navigating an individual m) and what YaReally understands thoroughly (navigating the current smv and maintaining attraction/attention from multiple nubile women) core concepts of patriarchy can work great in a m/ltr, but men in the smp are operating under constraints which are rapidly changing for the worse and must be successfully navigated to attract an eligible woman for a m/ltr YaReally wants a breakdown of modern m/ltr maintenance like gaming the smp – the functional equivalent of “just… Read more »

Onder Hassan
Onder Hassan
3 years ago

I remember having a Skype consultation with DavidX around 6 years ago and he gave me the most golden advice ever. He said if you can learn to be completely independent, as in manage a house, cook, clean, fix shit, hit the gym, make money and take care of yourself. You’ll then begin to quickly realise that most modern women basically have fuck all to offer you besides sex. Men are simply placing the bar far too low when it comes to their sexual market value. The fact that women have become the gatekeepers to both sex and commitment is… Read more »

DisgruntledEarthling
DisgruntledEarthling
3 years ago

I’m not into disagreeing but I do have to state my strategy of isolating my 2 daughters on a farm seems to be working. The youngest is 16 so there’s still a ways to go for her. Only time will tell.
It’s a crap-shoot.

I have nephews and nieces that are having children now. Who knows what’s going to happen to them.

kfg
kfg
3 years ago

@Blaximus: I don’t think you disagree with me as much as you think you do. ” . . . RP parenting is possible . . .” For instance, I said nothing about parenting. You may well be allowed to (and I note that it is perfectly possible to parent a cuckoo’s egg). However, if you have a dog/cat/goldfish, you have more rights in them than you do your own offspring. “That’s not popular 2016 thinking . . .” And you have already had and parented yours. I am not addressing your situation, but the situation of men who have yet… Read more »

Sentient
Sentient
3 years ago

Key

YaReally wants a breakdown of modern m/ltr maintenance like gaming the smp – the functional equivalent of “just man up” or “follow the bible” is just not a practical modern roadmap

Two points – the nature and biology of women is unchanged. So “new” ideas will ultimately come back to different words describing “old” ideas.

second – note I’ve never said “man up” or “Follow the bible”. You know that right?

How old are you Key?

Blaximus
Blaximus
3 years ago

@ kfg

….erasing previous calendar notation.

YaReally
3 years ago

@Key “YaReally wants a breakdown of modern m/ltr maintenance like gaming the smp – the functional equivalent of “just man up” or “follow the bible” is just not a practical modern roadmap” This. @Sentient “Two points – the nature and biology of women is unchanged. So “new” ideas will ultimately come back to different words describing “old” ideas. second – note I’ve never said “man up” or “Follow the bible”. You know that right?” That’s what your advice has summarized as so far. Still waiting for you share the better advice that breaks down step by step how to keep… Read more »

kfg
kfg
3 years ago

“…disqualifying a girl based on her LACK of orbiters.”

Reminds me of the old hillbilly joke:

“I wouldn’t let mah son marry no virgin. If she ain’t good enough fer her kin she ain’t good enough fer mine.”

Andy
Andy
3 years ago

@Blaximus “To my mind, it is just as strange to hear a guy profess that they have zero interest in a monogamous relationship.” “As I have stated before, commitment is not a trap or some kind of inescapable straight jacket.” Fuck it. I’m just going to throw everything out there, and we can compare notes. And maybe this will help guys vet, or maybe this is just reality… Wife is mid-thirties 6.5/7 in prime. In shape, sweet, feminine, smart, joie de vivre, flirty, outgoing, wears makeup/jewelry/dresses and skirts every day. Like 1950’s shit. (I credit my good work for a… Read more »

Sentient
Sentient
3 years ago

Yareally That’s what your advice has summarized as so far. By you. So if you wish to mischaracterize it at first hearing, why address your false inquiries a second time? Keep women? You yourself have said just be 0.000001% better than the other guy and women are just caught up in the moment…. Do you see how these might go together? But go on, keep describing how you need to carefully vet a young girl, give her a baby, keep her busy with family, reduce her distractions, keep yourself your MoP and focused on your mission… write it out as… Read more »

Sentient
Sentient
3 years ago

Andy In fact from what I’ve observed lately, I think she actually GETS OFF on thinking about me fucking younger girls… Like I think she wants to brag to the other girls about it. Light bulb going of yeah? So she thinks YOU are a high value guy… and as such she hasn’t run off with her 2.6 million orbiters has she? Why? because she will get all your money right and a new BF or two… but she hasn’t hmmmmm? PS – It’s not monogamy you appear to have a problem with, it is the work of being a… Read more »

key
key
3 years ago

sentient @7:57, noted

unfortunately, that’s all too often what a young man perceives when he hears general old school life advice set against the hellscape of modern marriage

men needed game to spell out the smp, often in excruciating detail – as RT has noted, modern society destroyed the old books smp map

another modern roadmap may be needed for marriage

Sentient
Sentient
3 years ago

so how old are you Key? Have you been married?

Onder Hassan
Onder Hassan
3 years ago

@rollo – It makes a lot more sense having read it again.

From a game perspective, it builds the self-esteem and self-worth (Inner game) required to perform naturally without having to learn lines or techniques. Because you know on a visceral level that you’re a man of value due to being able to be completely self-reliant and successful on your own.

Techniques on their own isn’t enough. A man needs to build his value as well as his game.

YaReally
3 years ago

@Sentient “But go on, keep describing how you need to carefully vet a young girl, give her a baby, keep her busy with family, reduce her distractions, keep yourself your MoP and focused on your mission… write it out as the Book of Tyler if it helps you, or do a Youtube since you don’t like to read…. But this is just the way things have ALWAYS been…” Good, then save me some time and share the step by step with us. Make sure you account for the 2.6M followers, the no-fault divorce rapes, the lopsided family courts, the false… Read more »

Sentient
Sentient
3 years ago

For those of you who are interested in a good faith exploration of the “old books” and enjoy reading… here is a good starting point, from none other than the late great GBFM (where are you GBFM! this board needs you!) Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM) this is why women will always transform any exalted aspect or institution of culture into their own likeness, for women invert the true meanings of alpha and beta. hence, when women reign, conservatism means not the following of the sacred codes of honor set forth by… Read more »

YaReally
3 years ago

lol

comment image

Sentient
Sentient
3 years ago

Yareally How old is Andy’s wife again? So the 22 YO you marry today is not aging right? Her body isn’t going to change anfter you knock her up right? She will never hit the wall? she has no biological expiration date? And you ( or any 20-50 YO man) you’re value is not going to increase at all right? Like we all know male SMV peaks at 22 and it is all downhill from here… Think through the things you write Yareally… the checks and balances are built in – IF you as a man are willing to keep… Read more »

kfg
kfg
3 years ago

“17. Henry David Thoreau’s Walden . . .”

. . . and http://thoreau.eserver.org/life1.html

Sentient
Sentient
3 years ago

Sienfeld? Apropos… Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM) here we go again, the manoshpherz RAGING AGAINST THE GREAT BOOKSZ FOR MENZ and then waking up and wondering “where have my children gone? why do i have no rights? why am i being taxed to support bastard chirclrdreen and other menz warsz and debaucheries?” just like his 30 year old sister who wakes up one fine morning to ask “where have all the good men gone?” and “Why is my butt sore?” zlozozozoz i’ve said it before and ill say it again the greatest… Read more »

key
key
3 years ago

Sentient @8:44 im old school as its used round here and long time gbfm enthusiast i know you’ve got the critical old school stuff covered – religion, vocation, honesty, temperance, tenacity, strong families, good community – but would you honestly want any son of yours to enter into a marriage today without a criminal background check, credit history, thorough review of social media, investigation into mental and physical health of family, legal trust and prenup to protect any assets, etc. these men don’t just need the 10 Commandments, they need practical, specific steps in how to protect themselves and navigate… Read more »

key
key
3 years ago

and RT deftly drags us back to the primary answer and question

YaReally
3 years ago

@Sentient “So the 22 YO you marry today is not aging right? Her body isn’t going to change anfter you knock her up right? She will never hit the wall? she has no biological expiration date?” As was reported by other guys, including Rollo, even aging cougars have plenty of options these days, thanks to social media. Her body won’t be that bad, plenty of women come out of their first pregnancy still looking smokin hot especially if it’s in their early 20s. I’m saying most guys aren’t going to make it from her being 22 to her her being… Read more »

SJF
SJF
3 years ago

“Still waiting for you share the better advice that breaks down step by step how to keep girls raised in 2016 culture monogamous for 40+ years. “ Such hyperbole. Why not ask why anyone would try any relationship (game) with a woman beyond the last time he fucked her. Rather than 40 years of monogamy with a 25 year old starting in 2016? It’s not about monogamy. It’s about a man knowing who he is, what he wants and has real power to control his circumstances and to control the direction of his life and his circumstances and his relationships.… Read more »

JAckd
JAckd
3 years ago

I like Wise Man’s post.

newlyaloof
3 years ago

@Rollo, just double checking before I purchase your Rational Male book AGAIN that the font will be large enough to see without squinting. It’s all fixed up on Amazon right?

780
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x
%d bloggers like this: