Family Integrity

As most of my readers know I have my third book in the Rational Male series coming up soon (very soon, promise). When I began this new book I had an initial working title – The Rational Male, The Red Pill – however, as I progressed I shifted this to Positive Masculinity. I spoke briefly about this in my last two interviews, but there came a point in my compiling, writing and editing where I’d taken a different path in the purpose of the new book. Where I had wanted to explain and / or defend the initial, intersexual, definition of what the term ‘Red Pill‘ has increasingly been distorted away from, I found myself leaning more into expressing ways in which this Red Pill awareness could benefit men’s lives in many ways in and apart from intersexual dynamics.

I’d hit on this in my Red Pill Parenting series from a couple years ago and I knew I wanted to revisit and make that series a prominent part of the book. As it sits now, it accounts for a full quarter of the book’s content, but as I moved into my writing more I decided that the best way to really define ‘The Red Pill” as I know it was to go into the various ways men might benefit from redefining masculinity for themselves in a conventional, Red Pill aware sense.

When I finished the parenting section I realized that I was really laying out general, if not prescriptive, ideas for ways men might better raise their sons and daughters in a feminine-primary social order that’s determined to condition them. My purpose with both the series and section was to equip fathers with Red Pill aware considerations in making their sons and daughters Red Pill aware themselves in order to challenge a world that increasingly wants to convince us that fathers’ influence is superfluous or dangerous.

It was from this point that I’d made a connection; what I was doing was laying out a much-needed reckoning of sorts with regard to what conventional, positive masculinity might mean to future generations of Red Pill aware men. Since my time on the SoSuave forums and the inception of this blog I’ve used the term positive masculinity. I’ve even had a category for it on my side bar since I began too. From the time I began writing I’ve always felt a need to vindicate positive, conventional masculinity and separate it from the deliberately distorted “toxic” masculinity that the Village of the Feminine Imperative would have us believe is endemic today.

In Vulnerability I described this deliberate, but calculated, confusion thusly:

For the greater part of men’s upbringing and socialization they are taught that a conventional masculine identity is in fact a fundamentally male weakness that only women have a unique ‘cure’ for. It’s a widely accepted manosphere fact that over the past 60 or so years, conventional masculinity has become a point of ridicule, an anachronism, and every media form from then to now has made a concerted effort to parody and disqualify that masculinity. Men are portrayed as buffoons for attempting to accomplish female-specific roles, but also as “ridiculous men” for playing the conventional ‘macho’ role of masculinity. In both instances, the problems their inadequate maleness creates are only solved by the application of uniquely female talents and intuition.

Perhaps more damaging though is the effort the Feminine Imperative has made in convincing generations of men that masculinity and its expressions (of any kind) is an act, a front, not the real man behind the mask of masculinity that’s already been predetermined by his feminine-primary upbringing.

Women who lack any living experience of the male condition have the calculated temerity to define for men what they should consider manhood – from a feminine-primary context. This is why men’s preconception of vulnerability being a sign of strength is fundamentally flawed. Their concept of vulnerability stems from a feminine pretext.

Masculinity and vulnerability are defined by a female-correct concept of what should best serve the Feminine Imperative. That feminine defined masculinity (tough-guy ridiculousness) feeds the need for defining vulnerability as a strength – roll over, show your belly and capitulate to that feminine definition of masculinity – and the cycle perpetuates itself.

From my very earliest writing I’ve always seen a need to correct this intentionally distorted perception of masculinity with true, evolved, biologically and psychologically inherited aspects of conventional masculinity.

As you may guess this isn’t an easy an task when a Red Pill man must fight against many different varieties of this masculine distortion. We live in an age where any expression of conventional masculinity is conflated with bullying or ‘hyper-masculinity‘. The Blue Pill teaches that inherent strength ought not to be considered “masculine”, if a boy acts in a conventionally masculine way he’s to be sedated, and boys as young as four can decide their gender to the extent that doctors are chemically altering their physiologies to block hormones and transition them into (binary) girls.

To the Blue Pill Village, a definition of masculinity is either something very obscure, subjective and arbitrary or it’s something extraordinarily dangerous, ridiculous and toxic. As I said, even the most marginal displays of anything conventionally masculine are exaggerated as some barbaric hazing ritual or smacks of hyper, over the top displays of machismo. With so much spite arrayed against masculinity, and with such an arbitrary lack of guidance in whatever might pass for a form of masculinity that feminine-primary society might ever find acceptable, is there anything positive about the masculine at all?

There is only one conclusion we can come to after so much writing on the wall – there is a war on conventional masculinity that’s been going on in progressive western societies for generations now.

I found it very hard to describe what exactly a Positive Masculinity  might mean to Red Pill aware men. One of the more insidious ways that Blue Pill conditioning effectively neuters masculinity is in the recruiting of men to effect their own emasculation. Usually these men themselves have had no real guidance in, or embrace of, conventional masculinity precisely because this Blue Pill conditioning has robbed them of maturing into an understanding of it. Blue Pill fathers raise Blue Pill sons and the process repeats, but in that process is the insurance that Blue Pill sons are denied an education in what it means to be a man.

Thus, we get masculine apologists like The Good Man Project who think ‘real’ masculinity can be found in an egalitarian parity between men and women – rather than our evolved, complementary gender roles. This is a manifestation of years of gender-loathing indoctrination. If men would just apologize for their maleness and all the negative aspects that it’s characterized and defined by, all can be made well. These are the Nice Guys who are accused of using their niceness as a ploy to win over women’s sexual favor. These are the male feminists, who never acknowledge that they are, but who still place the “divinity of the feminine” above their own self-loathed gender identity.

Next we get the men who are all made of honorable intent. These are the guys for whom a rational, firm, no-nonsense appeal to a woman’s reason should be enough to not only convince her of his quality, but he expects her attraction to be based on it. These are largely Red Pill aware men who still hope that old books virtue is something they might parlay into some form of attraction with women.

These tend to be the long game kind of men. When a guy is given to aspirations of virtuousness-as-game they’re generally cut from Beta cloth. I’m very familiar with this from my younger days. I too believed in the Boy Scout 12 point law: a scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent. In and of themselves these are noble aspirations, and ones that an old books / old social contract rightly endorsed. The problem is that none of them translate into an ounce of arousal for women.

Dean Abbot tweeted this recently:

I would argue that since the rise of our feminine-primary social order and the dissolution of the family in terms of conventional (and evolved) gender roles, even with a family, men have little idea of the impact their influence makes. As I’ve written before, women fundamentally lack the capacity to ever appreciate the sacrifices men make to facilitate a woman’s reality. Few, if any, women understand just how their lives are made possible by the ceaseless efforts men make directly or indirectly to ensure their safety, provisioning, security, ambitions and support. This is only exacerbated in a social order that entitles, coddles and overemphasizes women as the gender whose imperatives define our social context.

Family isn’t what defines men’s virtue or integrity, ideally it ought to be a result of it. However, I tend not to deal in “what ought to be” on this blog, I deal in what is. The fact remains that Virtue is only valued and estimated by men on an individual basis.

“There is no such thing as moral phenomena, but only a moral interpretation of phenomena.” ― Friedrich Nietzsche

A lot of well-meaning Red Pill aware men want the old order, old books noble aspects of men to have a reinvigorated worth today. As we make Red Pill awareness applicable in a broader perspective in men’s lives we get to an impasse over what a ‘legitimate’ use of that knowledge ought to be. I believe we get a couple of extreme positions in this respect. I touched on this in The Bitter Taste of the Red Pill:

Game-aware women – the ones who have been forcibly exhausted of all pretense of maintaining the illusion that Game is a lie – feel as though it’s owed to them, in their concession of Game’s reality, that Men should use Game to women’s benefit. Even to the last effort women still cling to the tools of a feminized acculturation;

“Yeah, OK, you got us, Game is really what women want, hypergamy is the law of womankind, but now it’s your responsibility that you use it for the better benefit of society by molding a new breed of improved Betas to accommodate fem-centric monogamy. You owe us our security for having admitted to the grand illusion that’s kept you in thrall for so long.”

It’s an indictment of Game-aware women, and sympathizing men, that they should feel a need to delineate some aspects of Game into good camps (pro woman, pro feminized monogamy) and bad camps (manipulative, polygynous, male-centered). Even in the admission of the truth that Game has enlightened Men of, the feminine imperative still seeks to categorize the application of Game to its own end. That Men might have some means of access to their own sexual strategy is too terrible a Threat; Game must be colored good or bad as it concerns the imperatives of women and a fem-centric societal norm.

I think it’s important that we not allow ourselves to fall into a similar trap with regards delineating what is appropriate use of the Red Pill advantage we have. This isn’t an endorsement for or against ethics in the Red Pill – I’ve already written that post – but it is to emphasize that I think objectivity should precede any pretense to what may or may not be on or off limits in Game or Red Pill awareness.

The Red Pill Moralist

On one end of the spectrum we get men who’ve accepted Red Pill awareness and the truths it presents as a guiding influence to varying degrees. I think it’s a mistake to think the Red Pill moralists are always an ‘Old Married Guy’ who wants to justify his decision to ‘do the right thing’ (no matter how disastrous his personal outcome may be). There are an increasing number of younger idealists who believe the Red Pill aware man has a civic duty to use that awareness in an ethical way that promotes the reinstitution of the conventional family. That may be a noble cause, but I don’t think it should be a straightjacket for Red Pill objectivity.

For the Red Pill Moralist, proper application of the Red Pill is to use that knowledge to vet women for a marriage suitability and a prospective family. With full knowledge of the inherent downsides and liability risks of modern marriage, the moralist takes it as his masculine duty now for the future to still assume the “sucker’s bet”. Needless to say this masculine social-sacrificial position seems more like men running back to the plantation of marriage for unresolved Blue Pill rationales, but I would argue that in a post-Red Pill awareness the belief is that a strong, dominant Red Pill aware Frame control can make the difference to offset the overwhelming risks. The core notion is that reestablishing the conventional family as a man’s civic duty warrants the almost certain prospect of a man’s own detriment.

The moralists have a tendency to disdain or moralize any other application of Red Pill awareness that would facilitate a self-serving or hedonistic purpose. Usually this comes after their living their own lives hedonistically, but also because they were “awakened while married” or just post-horrible divorce. This mirrors a Trad-Con position of encouraging men to “Man-Up” and volunteer for their own fleecing and disdaining the trappings of anything that doesn’t serve women’s imperatives for their own lives – but again as a kind of self-imposed noble duty of masculinity.

This is the flip-side of moralist’s position might be the self-serving use of the Red Pill solely for individual pleasure or gain. This is characterized by the PUA, Game-is-all, guy whose only purpose ends with himself. To the moralist, this use of Red Pill awareness is furthering the destruction of a family archetype that seems to be a solution to societal decay. The Rational Male comment threads are no stranger to the debates of PUAs whose pass or fail, Alpha or Beta benchmark for success rides on what would likely be considered sitting poolside while the world burns.

The last hurdle most men still refuse to get over is that they want women to meet them half way because, despite their Red Pill awareness, they still believe in egalitarian equalism. The most intelligent men still think that women use the same operating system that men do. They don’t, and that’s why these otherwise great men fail with regard to their approach to women. They believe women have the functional capacity to understand men’s motives as if they were any rational being’s motives and agree and comply with them. They simply do not, but unlearning the programming that women should have the capacity to reach some mutually acceptable bargain between men and women’s sexual imperatives is something intelligent men can’t seem to factor.

In Moral to the Manosphere I wrote this:

If you choose to derive your personal value from some esoteric sense of what sex ‘should’ mean, more power to you, but I find it’s a much healthier position to accept a balance between our carnal natures and our higher aspirations. It’s not one or the other. It’s OK to want to fuck just for the sake of fucking – it doesn’t have to be some source of existential meaning. If you think it means something more, then that’s your own subjective perspective – even in marriage there’s ‘maintenance sex’ and there’s memorable, significant sex – but it’s a mistake to think that the totality of the physical act must be of some cosmic significance.

It is as equally unhealthy to convince oneself that self-repressions are virtues as it is to think that unfettered indulgences are freedoms. There is a balance.

While I do think that whatever becomes the Red Pill family unit needs to have some structure similar to that of conventional gender roles, I think it’s important to understand that the new Red Pill ‘family’ will live or die by men’s capacity to accept and apply their awareness of intersexual dynamics. This is one very important difference between an idealized, pre-sexual revolution family and what will evolve in a post-feminist social awareness.

Pickup, Game, really the use of any aspect of Red Pill awareness that isn’t bent to the reconstitution of what I assume would be a Red Pill family unit, is an illegitimate use in the moralist perspective. I think this also goes too far in that Red Pill awareness shouldn’t be limited to what anyone might consider a pro-social purpose for it. Much of what I go into in the parenting section of the new book centers strongly on a man, a father, a husband applying his broader understanding of intersexual dynamics to create a better marriage and family for himself; but I think it needs to be said that all of that Red Pill awareness comes to those men courtesy of the hedonists who wanted to simply crack the code of how to get laid. Too much of either will lead to an imbalance.

311 comments

  1. @Rollo

    Another great in a series of great posts.

    I don’t agree with this here completely, if you would change the “all” to “a large portion”, that would take into consideration those of us that figured out “how to get laid” to the point of frivorce causative to a solid redpill awakening. Also the scientific study of evolution and behavioral psych is disregarded by giving all the credit to the virtual PUA.

    ” but I think it needs to be said that all of that Red Pill awareness comes to those men courtesy of the hedonists who wanted to simply crack the code of how to get laid.”

    While I am not a strict moralist, I believe that any objective viewpoint that ignores the redpill truths about intergender dynamics would be defective.

  2. Rollo, this is a very chewy posting. There’s a lot to read, and then read again.
    Sometimes it’s like being in a glass maze with mirrors in it, there are so many illusions that we’ve been fed over the last N years. N is more than 50, more than 60, it has to include the Victorian era of the 19th century (“women don’t really like sex and yet can’t become pregnant without orgasm”, duh?). It includes the cult of courtly love, which kfg has from time to time mentioned, and Dalrock has documented to some extent in terms of its effect on the Christian churches.

    A lot of reallly stinky wool has been pulled over the heads of all of us, some more than others.
    To me the red pill, The Glasses, is a way of thinking (mindset) and a toolset. If I hand a full garage full of tools to 12 year old boys I will get different results than if I hand that same toolset to 20 year old men who want to race at the local track. The toolset is the same. The mindset is not.

    We have to contend with the misandrous feminists on one hand, the slavemaster tradcons on another, the self-deluded equalists on the third hand…sometimes it’s dismaying how many different ways there are for men to be fooled, or to fool themselves.

    stuffinbox
    Also the scientific study of evolution and behavioral psych is disregarded by giving all the credit to the virtual PUA.

    Nope. If you dig far enough you find evo psych in any number of PUA writings. They just discovered some of it emperically, that’s all. The newsgroup alt.seduction-fast was as far as I know the first clearing house with feedback on a large scale. Like men sitting in a bar, only thousands of them on mulitiple continents.

    Some churchgoing men have decided they reject Game, even as they continue to use the techniques under different names. Apparently the truth is too much for them to accept. The fact remains, it was the hedonistic PUA’s of the late 20th century who rolled back the curtains on women’s true nature – not scientists (but Game uses science!), not any religious people (but Game can be very compatible with at least Christianity), not intellectuals. PeterPan Manboys. There’s huge irony here, if men with Game actually preserve parts of modern civilization.

    Glass maze with mirrors I wrote, requires this Bruce Lee clip just because of the mirrors.

  3. It might be helpful for men to think of (themselves and) women in terms of the praying mantis. It always tends to end up badly for the male, regardless of whether or not he is “aware”; if he decides to couple with the female, the result is more or less predetermined. Quite simply, it is in the female’s nature. Just as it is in his. It’s hard enough to recognise let alone change one’s nature, it’s arguably impossible to change another’s.

  4. @theasdgamer @kfg @blaximus

    It seems Rollo answered my debate with you guys in the last comments section by writing a whole new blog post on the topic I raised 😉

    Amen Rollo, amen.

  5. Another epic post Rollo.

    I’ve decided to ignore what is moral and replace it with whatever works.

    True red pillers should be in the results business, morality be damned. The FI is all about results and positive outcomes for women, the red pill is the antidote for men.

    Being red pill aware isn’t enough! without the conviction to apply this knowledge to gain power over your personal circumstances all you would be left with is nihilism and hoping for the best outcome despite understanding the true nature of females and that’s not a position I’m prepared to put myself in.

    I’m in the results business and wolves cannot afford to care for the opinions of sheep.

  6. @Rollo

    This is the flip-side of moralist’s position might be the self-serving use of the Red Pill solely for individual pleasure or gain.

    This sentence from the OP is unclear.

  7. Let me attempt to summarize Rollo’s post and maybe Rollo will comment on whether my attempt was successful.

    TRP is amoral. Neither anti- nor pro-marriage men can use it to justify imposing a moral/ethical system on other men. Egalitarianism will poison any application of TRP. TRP is about men/women’s complementary roles in sex and relationships. In a family, a man must decide what the family is about–he cannot defer to the wife in his decision-making.

  8. Interesting post. In the above essay, I would be the awakened in marriage guy that is still in marriage maybe out of habit or bP conditioning. I don’t hold anything against those using rP game for their hedonistic pursuits, and I like MGTOW men as well. I’m in a situation of leading my marriage into a state of a new rp game aware reality. I gave myself about a year to decide if I wanted to remain married, and that year has already passed. I’ll be staying with my woman for now, as long as she is adding value. Actually being game aware I’m now adding more value as well to myself and our relationship. Making a strong frame for myself makes me happy and she is happier for it as well.

  9. @Anonymous Reader @stuffinbox

    “Also the scientific study of evolution and behavioral psych is disregarded by giving all the credit to the virtual PUA. ”

    Nope. If you dig far enough you find evo psych in any number of PUA writings. They just discovered some of it emperically, that’s all.

    PUA research was empirical, that’s for certain. Controlled? Nah. Useful? Hell yes!

    Ya don’t need to buy into evo-psych justification to use a praxology.

  10. It’s an indictment of Game-aware women, and sympathizing men, that they should feel a need to delineate some aspects of Game into good camps (pro woman, pro feminized monogamy) and bad camps (manipulative, polygynous, male-centered).

    The opposition to polygyny isn’t about Game. Feminists understand that as a relationship structure, polygyny destroys feminism because by definition the structure reinforces that the man and the women are NOT equal. When one of my girls shared that she was entering into a poly relationship, her friends went nuts. One of them thoughtfully summed up why “polygamy” was SO BAD:

    Women automatically KNOW that the structure of a poly relationship allows the man to ‘next’ the women within the bounds of their relationship (it gives the man power and control). The only way they can compete for his attention is to give him what he wants: sweetness, attractiveness, submission and sexual availability (it “damages gender equality”). Nagging, withholding sex, fighting and passive aggressive bitchiness doesn’t get them anywhere because he can spend time with someone else (it “rips away” what a SIW holds dear). In other words, the structure harnesses their natural female competitiveness. Which means the cat never gets to catch that moving piece of yarn.

    He has to be more aloof to manage relationships and the structure places him in a far more dominant position. It’s also provides immediate negative feedback when he slips and goes beta on them. Which helps keep him more attractively dominant and masculine. The collective attraction of the group validates their individual attraction to him. The women can get their emotional needs met with each other, a group of friends who share a common interest in the success of the relationship. The opposition to such a relationship from outsiders creates an “us vs them” scenario, which draws them closer together.

    And, no, the vast majority of men can’t do that. So what? Become the man who can if you want it. If you want a marriage and children, poly is the only thing left that doesn’t get automatically destroyed in family court. It has to be done carefully to avoid potential problems, but it’s not difficult. The thing is, if a man can spin plates it’s just a matter of spinning said plates into a poly relationship. If they are attracted enough, they’ll do it. Once they realize they get more by sharing, not less, they don’t want to leave.

    Ask yourself: Why does practically everyone hate polygyny? I conclude that in general it’s fear and envy on the part of the women and envy and jealousy on the part of the men. The real reason feminism hates polygyny is that not only does polygyny destroy the fundamental tenets of feminism (men and women are equal), but polygyny is far more beneficial to women than monogamy. Given the declining number of attractive men, polygyny is more beneficial to women than monogamy because as a group they have the ability to get commitment from a quality man who would not be interested in any of them individually. With more wage-earners they have greater financial security. More help around the house means household chores get knocked out quickly, leaving more time for family. When children come the women are not alone and overwhelmed. So what if the man gets more sex with sexual variety? The women are the ones who win as long as he rules his family well.

  11. I have always viewed the churchian men as gamers playing a suckers game. Their wives practice open hypergamy,open cuckoldry and right in the sanctuary, while a true masculine man would be the object of the women’s desire,they end up being the brunt of the churchian gamer man’s ridicule. Therefore I have basically always viewed game as being “BLUE PILL” and teaching natural “positive masculine” men game as part of a “RED PILL” aware survival tactic if you will. Basically the nearly extinct masculine men never really needed game as a natural and things have regressed to the point that now he must learn it or be run over and drowned in puss. The masculine man may decide not to use game but if he is unaware of how it is played he surely won’t be successful in a feminine primary social “order”,or disorder as it may be.

    What we are seeing today is the FI trying to get the blue pillers to step up.
    This will be not be possible as all they know is game and they have seen and done the ridicule to the men that have carried the burden,why would they volunteer to carry the burden if it equals being ridiculed.

    At the same time the masculine man has grown weary of passing his knowledge on to more politicaly bent gamer types,as they take to many shortcuts and prefer to learn the tricks rather than the trade. The “Macho Man” will be content to sit by and enjoy the entertainment of watching these fools try to out politic each other while taking forever to build the proverbial tower of Babel that turns out fit to be condemned before it is even completed.

    I find all of this while entertaining also rather disgusting SNORT and expect a time when I will have to make some hard choices when the current trade medium of bullshit loses it’s value as more and more real men step aside in disgust, these choices will be who to allow to share in the basic elements of survival; No bullshitters allowed.

  12. I’ve been considering doing a post on marriage lately due to what I view as a lot of “red pill men” having issues giving up the idea of getting married at some point. Now, I’m not fundamentally against marriage or having a family, however I think it’s important to review the balance of tangible vs intangible aspects of such a union.

    Many such men are focused not on what marriage is, but what it used to represent. An oath of fealty from a man to a woman, and vice versa, before a higher power. The right to get married and father children was often a hard-won one, where the man had to go through whatever maturing ritual the society required, likewise the woman had to prove herself through the rituals for the other sex. In such situation marriage represents not only becoming an adult, taking on responsibilities, it represents pride, accomplishment, becoming a man of good standing within your tribe, fulfilling your role to your higher power, self-actualization and doing your duty.

    This is what many of these men crave. The intangible aspects of marriage. The other aspect of marriage are the tangibles.

    Historically, the tangible aspects of marriage include joint household, joint finances, shared children, shared gains and shared burdens. At present, the tangible aspect is broken down to pure economics. Upon marriage the couple share their financial assets and liabilities. Should a divorce take place, the courts are prone to benefit the woman, both in terms of settlements, alimony and child support. However, they are also going to levy a man’s freedom should he for reasons outside his control be unable to fulfill these financial obligations.

    This is the reason why I consider marriage a risky proposition. There is always going to be a degree of self-sacrifice when becoming a husband or a father. However, that degree is becoming quite substantial, where little short of self-immolation is acceptable. When one adds a probability of roughly 50% of the marriages ending in divorce, the combination of probability and impact is so great that it must be considered a high risk proposition.

    The moral aspect that you touch on in your post is this very conflict within the men, their perceived moral duty to fulfill a role within their society through becoming a husband and father versus their moral duty not to self-immolate as this guarantees that they can never fulfill the former.

  13. ” . . . polygyny destroys feminism because by definition the structure reinforces that the man and the women are NOT equal.”

    Hypergamy doesn’t care.

  14. there is a war on conventional masculinity

    Another entry on the “not news” list… There has been an on-going war against masculinity from the Femi-Nazi’s and lame-dicked-Liberals for years. Everything male is evil, and all maleness must be drugged into acceptable behavior. I’m convinced that is why I’m still popular with the ladies – they may spout the BS about what they are told they should find acceptable, but they cannot control their reactions. And I treat them like they want to be treated – rather than the way the say they want to be treated.

    Today’s man-like-things are more female than male… As I’ve gotten older and my behavior is so diametrically opposed to what society says it should be, I’ve seen more and more young women come to my bed. Now, I would like to think that it is just because I’m so desirable, but I suspect it is more due to the fact that women still find the same behavior attractive that they always have, and there are so few males the display this behavior, that women will do almost anything, and risk anything for another taste of it.

    To be honest, I couldn’t care less, but you hear all of this non-sense about “creepy” older guys – yet women still line up to come talk to me after a show. And will forego BF or hubby for an E-ticket ride. (For those too young to remember – the BEST rides at Disney were E-ticket rides). Of course, I use the fact that these women would never admit they spent the night with the older-guy to any of their friends. That’s fine by me – I get what I want/need from them, and the man-things deal with the consequences – what is not to like?

  15. @BLL, my thoughts in this post were partially inspired by a trend I’m seeing in the ‘sphere. It’s like the only legitimate reason to use Red Pill awareness is to vet a wife and start a family in order to do a man’s civic responsibility and ensure a new generation of Red Pill kids who’ll magically resist the influences of the FI and follow the same parenting paradigm.

    I think this is a noble purpose, and I’ve written about it many times before (RP moralism is nothing new), but I’m going to also defend the YaReally’s of the world too by saying their purpose is no less legitimate than the moralists. I would argue that you can’t really get to the point of understanding intersexual dynamics without going through an unplugging and then running Game to understand how it works with women. Then, if you want to vet a wife and start a family, at least you have some proof of process. As it sounds right now, RP moralism is just Trad-Con values minus the “divinity of woman” narrative – and I’d be worried that even that will make a comeback.

    After watching this horse shit I’m beginning to wonder if “Red Pill” hasn’t lost it’s real meaning:

  16. “RP moralism is just Trad-Con values minus the “divinity of woman” narrative”

    “Neo” movements are running around all over the place these days (as they were during the Victorian Era). The essential problem with these movements is that they are trying to engineer in retrograde from current social norms and understanding, rather than forward from the now lost social norms and understanding that gave foundation to them.

    The result is a sort of cartoon of culture without a fundamental basis (as happened with Victorian Romanticism, which infects current social norms and understanding).

  17. @Black Lable

    I know you are right in what these young men desire doesn’t exist anymore and never really did. This vision of the perfect union that is being sold is responsible for more grief than loneliness.

    The Immoral Moralists are asking men to step up and ridiculing them for not doing so are the selfsame ones that have disincentivised the married with children plan in the first place.

    I hear this everywhere I go,from the seventy year old carpenter laughing about the millenials that wont be able to realize their dreams,to the Old biddies asking where have all the good men gone, the churchians saying men need to step up and the parents of daughters not finding suitable choices even the business owners unable to fill their labor force.

    It is everywhere I go and all being blamed on the men,when in reality it is the outcome of an feminine primary social order where the boys have been demasculinized,while the masculine men have been ridiculed into a state of nonmotivation.

    These unmotivated men are at a loss as to what their own problem is and I here it all the time “why am I not motivated” or “i can’t get motivated.”

    We haven’t been wired to act selfishly and can find none worth fighting for.

  18. Actually learning that Laci Green is an ex Mormon literally explains everything about her.

    So she is coming around to a more classically open view of free speech? Well OK that is one of the two times a day a stopped clock is right, so she gets a dunce hat tip for that, far too many of her academic colleagues are as tight assed and censorious as Jeff Sessions and the Paleo right wing lawmakers trying to outlaw protests they don’t like, or suppress sex education or evil-lotion. I have descanted on this elsewhere.

    But whammajamming the red pill moniker? Not so fast. It’s an obvious attempt at counter intuitive branding – taking the opposition’s key concept and trying to force it into your own frame. Like Pepsi trying to co-opt social protest into a Jenner-faced pitch for fizzy lifting drinks,

  19. “So she is coming around to a more classically open view of free speech?”

    That’s where she claimed to be coming from, back before she went to college and got all transmogrified into a feminist “sex educator.”

    Between Mormonism and Feminism she was an anti-theist of the Four Horsemen ilk.

  20. A perspicacious article.

    “Yeah, OK, you got us, Game is really what women want, hypergamy is the law of womankind, but now it’s your responsibility that you use it for the better benefit of society by molding a new breed of improved Betas to accommodate fem-centric monogamy. You owe us our security for having admitted to the grand illusion that’s kept you in thrall for so long.”

    Despite what many may think of me, I hold no illusions about a woman’s nature. They’re deceitful and conniving to a fault. Mercenaries, if you will. No loyalty, beyond, what your coin can afford.

    “The last hurdle most men still refuse to get over is that they want women to meet them half way because, despite their Red Pill awareness, they still believe in egalitarian equalism.”

    This situation exists due to men not participating in activities, to inform him of his masculinity. Years ago, this came from a man’s work. Steel worker, labourer, farmer, dock yard worker etc. Tough jobs, that bred tough men. But alas, those are all gone now.
    In it’s place we go to the gym. But since it’s not a mandatory pursuit (unless one’s dedication insists on it) we find excuses, to prevent us attending.

    The type of exercise a man performs is important. Just over a year ago I was employed as a ground worker. The job involved digging 2 metres (3 and a half if you include underpinning a wall) deep with a pick axe, shovel and buckets. The area covered over 40 metres in length and 8 metres in width, at it’s furthest point.
    I needed the job as I had been unemployed for nearly a month prior to it. It didn’t pay well so I decided to walk the 2.5 miles (5 miles in total) to work each day.
    3 of us started. The two men I worked alongside were nearly 20 years my junior, but you could tell they hadn’t done a day’s work in their lives. I needed to impress my employers, in the hopes they would keep me on.
    My boss and supervisor saw what I had done by lunch and offered me favourable comments. Over the course of the week, my boss asked, what I thought of the other two. My boss was judging them by the standard I had set. I was judging them on what I knew society could produce in this day and age.
    To me, they were ok. If I’m being honest some of their manual handling techniques were instrumental in making my job easier. Although after a week, one of them didn’t turn up and the other was let go.

    I touch upon this experience, because these two men needed the work just as much as I did. It’s just that, they couldn’t put in the required effort. They would eventually see me as a threat and on occasion manage to divert my attention from my work.. No doubt, so I would be perceived as no better than them.

    My burgeoning red pill awareness acknowledged this, in contempt. Blue pill behaviour, witnessed by a red pill observer.

    My new job is less strenuous and pays a lot better. I now cycle to work. At first cycling doesn’t seem like exercise at all. But do it long enough and you’ll start to feel drained in ways my previous job, didn’t inflict, upon me. Make no mistake, I was exhausted doing the ground worker job. I could barely shower and make myself something to eat, when I got home. I don’t recall my head, hitting the pillow most evenings.
    But with cycling (especially along steep uphill slopes, like where I live) it seems, over time, as though the dopamine receptors in my brain have malfunctioned.

    I use to derive pleasure from IOIs. But for the life of me, I can’t remember the last time I did.

    Small talk and wanting the company of others was something I did and craved. Though it seems of late I prefer my own company to the exclusion of others. I like to think of impulsive masculinity as the sub-communications we often refer to.

    Right now it feels as though I have a tape playing in my head. There are no words, but I listen all the same.

  21. As a Christian, I’ll allow that the Mormon church is one of the most genophobic denominations of the faith, so in that sense, Laci’s behavior was at least partially understandable. Now that she’s “gotten it out of her system,” it looks like she might be coming to her senses.

  22. @ Artisinal Toad

    I’ve always found what you’re saying to hit home.

    My interpretation: Women are only happy when they submit to a dominant man. Men are only happy when their sexual urges are unrestricted.

    It reminds me of the “pillowcase of M&M’s.” A story about an obese little girl that was obsessed with M&M’s. The mother was horrified when a dietitian recommended filling a pillowcase with M&M’s and letting the girl have unrestricted access to it at all times.

    Guess what? She ended up losing weight. Having restricted access to the candy and having so much taboo around it made her want it even more. When she had unrestricted access to it, she ended up self-regulating her intake. For the first couple weeks it was a binge and then it tapered off to not even wanting them anymore because the thrill was gone.

    I feel like if most men had truly “unrestricted” sexual access, they wouldn’t turn into the frothing at the mouth, horny and sexually possessed monsters everyone seems to think they would be (or rather, thinks that they already are, and feminism is the cage necessary to contain such a violent, mindless animal as man).

    This is another weak feminist argument that a lot of “Red Pill” men use to demonize “hedonistic” use of TRP that doesn’t agree with their strictly moralist agenda: that if men had unrestricted access to sexuality, the world would be in as much chaos as it is now because of unrestricted female hypergamy.

    But that contradicts the RP truth that men and women are not equal. Unrestricted male sexuality is NOT comparable to unrestricted female hypergamy.

    Also note how “violence” and “anger” come up all the time when discussing male sexuality, especially “unchecked” male sexuality. The trope is that unrestricted male sexuality = all men raping all women, all the time, because men are animalistic and their innate sexuality is biologically entwined with extreme violence towards women.

    Which is absolutely fucking retarded. And just an example of how slandered male sexuality is, to the point where it can’t even be discussed without necessarily mentioning “violence” or “anger.”

    We are living in a world where the vast, VAST majority of men are docile, and completely submitted to a feminine primary social and sexual order. The majority of married men today would NEVER actually consider cheating on their wives. Hell, even most men in unmarried monogamous relationships would never consider cheating.

    I also find it funny that it’s called “cheating,” literally implying that there are God-given “rules” in a monogamous relationship and if you break them, you’re “cheating.” Cheating what? Fuck you, that’s what.

    And yet the feminist left would have us believe that, if polygamy were accepted, now ALL OF A SUDDEN, all these docile men would turn overnight into serial murderers and rapists, slaughtering every Beta in sight and then raping their women over their dead bodies.

    I guess it’s a lot less ‘sexy’ to imagine a man fucking another woman one night, and having it not be a big deal, and having that be the end of it, instead of a cascade of drama and a broken family as a result of him getting his dick wet with someone else for an hour.

    This whole societal agreement that married men shouldn’t sleep with other women is just a major symptom of how far men’s submitting to women has gone.

    Married men today agree that it isn’t “worth it” to jeopardize their family just for some strange pussy for an hour.

    But did they ever stop and think WHY it would jeopardize their family? And why what would, in any normal circumstance, be harmless indulgence in pleasure for a short period of time, has been magnified into a modern mortal sin?

    And that the answer to that is it’s because men, on the whole, have submitted to a feminine primary social order that has deemed the male sexual imperative “incorrect”?

    The ONLY reason a man sleeping with another woman would jeopardize his family is because the feminine primary social order has SAID that it would.

    It seems horribly unfair that a woman cheating on a man is very different from a man “cheating” on a woman, but it is. It isn’t the same.

    The agreement of sexual exclusivity in a monogamous relationship is, by default, submitting to the feminine imperative.

    It’s a complete denial of the fact that a man can fuck another woman consequence-free and be emotionally unaffected by it. This is something a woman can’t do, because her desire to fuck is driven by Hypergamy, not testosterone.

    A woman fucking another man means she doesn’t see the man she’s with as the highest value male available to her. It means he is not her hypergamous ideal.

    A man fucking another woman means indulging in variety. He could still be perfectly happy in his “primary” relationship and fucking another woman does nothing to affect that outside of the woman’s hamstering into oblivion.

    Artisinal Toad’s example of polygamy makes perfect sense. The only reason it’s such a hard pill to swallow is because we’ve been so thoroughly indoctrinated by the FI we can’t see how obviously beneficial something like polygamy is.

    As he’s pointed out before, just the POSSIBILITY of polygamy establishes a male dominant frame. Examples are polygamous cultures where MOST men still only have one wife. But the fact that they COULD get more wives without judgment is enough to help keep their women in check and the relationship in the man’s frame…

    …the man’s frame, of course, where both men and women are happiest.

  23. The FI and Blue Pill men would have you believe that the desire for polygamy = the desire for poosy paradise, like some juvenile fantasy about being able to eat as many cookies as you want without mommy punishing you.

    The reality of polygamy is very different: it’s the ultimate complement to Hypergamy, by being a self-contained relationship that simultaneously utilizes comfort, security, competition anxiety and Dread. And de facto implies the dominance and leadership of the man.

    He’s the one in the lead role and he employs women as he sees fit. If this isn’t unadulterated, straight Red Pill, I don’t know what is. It also seems so obvious and clear, but the waters are muddied by moral judgments and societal standards that are so heavily biased against polygamy.

    The only reason compromises between men and women are deemed necessary is because of society and culture, not biology. What is most common now is the application of TRP in monogamous relationships OR in running Game and spinning plates, presumably while awaiting a unicorn to enter said monogamous relationship with, or simply spinning plates until you die.

    Rollo has an article called “As Good As It Gets.”

    https://therationalmale.com/2013/08/29/as-good-as-it-gets/

    It’s been occurring to me lately that maybe as good as it gets is polygamy. Why should men need to compromise and have “golden years” of plate spinning that’s doomed to end in monogamy, or perpetual plate spinning where the women do little else for you than fuck you?

    Why should the benefits of having support and submission from a woman be restricted to the context of monogamy?

    As good as it gets sounds like getting all those women to commit monogamously to YOU, without you committing monogamously to any of them, which follows the male imperative as well as the natural order of things. Maybe that should be the Red Pill “gold standard” by which we measure everything else, similar to how Rollo mentioned in that article that the only true measure of how effective your Game is, is how well it gets you laid with different women.

    How realistic is this for a majority of modern men in modern society? I feel like the vast majority of RP cases, men will make compromises based on monogamy, as in marriage, or running Game with the assumption that getting laid is where all relationships with women start and end.

    Perhaps the idea that the natural order of things is for women to monogamously commit to high value men, and men NOT being monogamous is too “sexist/offensive” for the majority of people to accept.

    When I think about Blue Pill / Purple Pill / Red Pill in modern, non-polygamous society, it makes me think of this story:

    “Once upon a time Khidr, the teacher of Moses, called upon mankind with a warning. At a certain date, he said, all the water in the world which had not been specially hoarded, would disappear. It would then be renewed, with different water, which would drive men mad.

    Only one man listened to the meaning of this advice. He collected water and went to a secure place where he stored it, and waited for the water to change its character.

    On the appointed date the streams stopped running, the wells went dry, and the man who had listened, seeing this happening, went to his retreat and drank his preserved water.

    When he saw, from his security, the waterfalls again beginning to flow, this man descended among the other sons of men. He found that they were thinking and talking in an entirely different way from before; yet they had no memory of what had happened, nor of having been warned. When he tried to talk to them, he realized that they thought that he was mad, and they showed hostility or compassion, not understanding.

    At first, he drank none of the new water, but went back to his concealment, to draw on his supplies, every day. Finally, however, he took the decision to drink the new water because he could not bear the loneliness of living, behaving and thinking in a different way from everyone else. He drank the new water, and became like the rest. Then he forgot all about his own store of special water, and his fellows began to look upon him as a madman who had miraculously been restored to sanity.”

  24. It’s not merely an intellectual exercise.
    We have many real life examples of polygynous societies.
    If the red pill is reality it should be based on result, not theory.

  25. @ anon

    I agree that it’s not merely an intellectual exercise.

    from “As Good As It Gets”

    “But what if as good as it gets is simply entertaining a succession of non-committed, non-exclusive relationships? In essence, a sustainable plate spinning until such time as a woman demands committed monogamy, and then she’s replaced with a new plate and the cycle continues. I’m sure this would seem manipulative and horribly selfish to women, and furthermore it might contradict what I’ve just written about men’s general want for marriage (or at least an idealized union), but contrast this perpetual plate spinning strategy with the perspective extremes of both the raw deal men and women I mentioned in Lu Bu and Dalrock’s posts.”

    —————————-

    Why would women demand committed monogamy?

    I can think of 3 reasons:

    1) She doesn’t see him as truly Alpha. The only long-term benefit she can see of being with him is Beta Bux, and if he won’t give that to her, she’ll find another sucker. Perhaps she saw him as “Alpha” at one point, enough to fuck him and continue fucking him for a while, but he lost value in her eyes over time, to the point where “commitment” is the only perceived benefit she can get from him. Cash, prizes and emotional/living arrangement security is all he’s worth to her now, and if he won’t pony up then it’s on to the next sucker.

    2) It’s what she’s been told she deserves, and even if her natural instincts are telling her to stay with him, her hamster has been fed a steady diet of feminist propaganda telling her that if he won’t commit, he’s taking advantage of her, which also implies she’ll be judged by other women if they find out she’s still entertaining a relationship in a man who won’t commit to her. She might even be facing constant pressure from her feminized friends (Beta orbiting men included) asking her why she’s staying with a guy who won’t commit to her. Pre-selection and social proof are evidence of women’s hive-mind mentality, and the social pressure from friends and family might be on par with the pressure from her Hypergamous instincts. I’ve noticed that polygamy is perfectly fine and dandy to modern people when it’s women dating multiple men, e.g. I remember a girl I know on Facebook bragging constantly about having two boyfriends and how wonderful it was. When it’s women submitting to a single man the public response is very different.

    3) The man has never even thought to suggest or even imply polygamy as an alternative option to monogamy. She could simply be craving more security, and this only comes out as demanding monogamy because that’s all women in modern society have been taught to do. She could just be craving the man to establish a Frame that she can submit to. Simply fucking a woman is a Frame, but one that’s subject to the woman leaving when the time comes that she’s hitting the Epiphany Phase and her needs for security are skyrocketing. Women need a purpose to serve in your life if you expect them to stay in it for any length of time, and the man has to be able to clearly establish that purpose via his Frame. If there is no Frame to submit to, there is no long-term monogamous commitment from the woman.

    (Wouldn’t it be ironic if, on a hindbrain level, women demanding monogamy from men is really a cry for the man to establish dominance and demand monogamy from HER, while refusing to give her the same sexual exclusivity in return? Like a shit test to see if

    1) the man is interested in having her in his life long-term
    2) the man is capable of establishing a rock solid Frame for her to submit to and live under long-term)

    Just a thought. It would make sense as a shit test as it would satiate a woman’s desire for some form of security, while still retaining the Dread and competition anxiety necessary to maintain her sexual arousal and interest in the man.

    Big difference between modern “polygamy,” i.e. both the man and the woman fucking different people, and having no commitment to each other, and the polygamy Artisinal Toad is talking about, where the woman is monogamously committed to the man, who is the leader of the relationship.

    Rollo’s ideas about Dread, and being a man that COULD cheat, in modern monogamy, is also reminiscent of what Artisinal Toad’s mentioned about polygamous societies having less strained marriages, simply for the fact that the man COULD have one more wife if he chose to.

    Even though most of the time, most men only had one wife anyway. What’s been eating at me is men’s tendency to accept monogamy as the way things are by default, while writing off their own desires and instincts as insignificant.

    At what point do you draw the line of denying yourself pleasure and agency? Married men today are in a real bind as “cheating” poses a genuine risk of destroying a marriage and family, and maybe their best and safest option is passive Dread.

    But it’s still living in a compromised position. It reminds me of a Taoist story: one man asks another man if he would pluck a single hair on his head to save an entire kingdom.

    The man replies that he wouldn’t, adding the question of “At what point is a single hair on your head separated from the rest of your body?”

    A hair on your head easily turns into a finger, a finger into an arm, a toe into a leg, etc. When you’re willing to compromise a little, you’re opening yourself up to compromising everything.

  26. @Softek

    “I feel like if most men had truly “unrestricted” sexual access, they wouldn’t turn into the frothing at the mouth, horny and sexually possessed monsters everyone seems to think they would be (or rather, thinks that they already are, and feminism is the cage necessary to contain such a violent, mindless animal as man).”

    “It’s a complete denial of the fact that a man can fuck another woman consequence-free and be emotionally unaffected by it. This is something a woman can’t do, because her desire to fuck is driven by Hypergamy, not testosterone.”

    These are very interesting statements, them remind me Heartiste’s theory about that sexual-self control is a male thing.

    https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2012/09/14/comment-of-the-week-sexual-self-control-is-a-male-thing/

  27. Ollie
    But with cycling (especially along steep uphill slopes, like where I live) it seems, over time, as though the dopamine receptors in my brain have malfunctioned.

    I use to derive pleasure from IOIs. But for the life of me, I can’t remember the last time I did.

    Could be a lot of things, but one is obvious: what kind of bike saddle are you riding on? The degree of interconnection between body / mind / emotional state is still being sussed out, don’t assume that doctors know much about it.

    There’s lots and lots of nerve bundles in the perineum that can be irritated or inflamed by being squashed, such as by some bike saddles. More subtlely if the blood flow in that region is restricted it first of all affects the nerves in the area, and may affect blood flow “north” out of the scrotal region. Your posture matters as well, since there’s a direct nerveline connection between the muscles of your core and the amygdala (part of the threat detector).

  28. It’s all about forced wealth and power transfer. Women can’t build civilizations nor maintain them, nor implement laws and policies that are ‘egalitarian’ – because ‘egalitarian’ means negative exposure to women – so they demonize men to continue their sloth and cowardliness – and call it ‘feminism’.

    Yes. Tradcons look down on MGTOWs. There are many tradcons in the MRA group, which is why MGTOWs and MRAs often don’t see eye-to-eye, which is putting it mildly. Tis also why MGTOWs and PUAs clash. There are two prevalent forms of gynocentrism. (1) Tradcon Gynocentrism and (2) Feminist Gynocentrism, or ‘hyper-gynocentrism’.

    The tradcon flavor sees women as the givers of life, mothers and nurturers and the feminist flavor sees men as the enemy and evil patriarchy. Both ideologies are chock to the brim with male disposability and cultural misandry, which is why MGTOW want to wizz on their graves, smirking and cursing and they wizz.

    Men built all upon the earth. Men maintained all upon the earth. All of women’s and the state’s rights and privileges over the common man were bought and paid for through the trafficking, usury, manipulation and disposal of men for women’s and the state’s advancement.

    So then. It’s quite easy to see why tradcons and feminists hate MGTOW, right? But PUAs? Hmmm. I mean, MGTOW are the game changer. MGTOW represent truth. MGTOW force tradcons and feminists to take a good, long look in the mirror… and nothing pisses people off more than the truth. But PUAs?

    MGTOW are therefore universally hated by gynocentrists and hyper-gynocentrists alike. But we MGTOW have a fix for that. That’s the fun part. We will pizz on their graves, with a deep, heartfelt and open joy.

    Socialists (Democrats) are the useful idiots of dictators and a fairly ignorant lot. It should be readily apparent to everyone that everyone but the politically elite in Venezuela and Cuba are poor. The Scandinavian welfare state is imploding, too. There will soon be a revolt in Canada as well. It’s plain to see there’s a low IQ correlation with Socialists, Democrats and the left in general and that Democrats feel entitled to other people’s money – making them clear socialists.

    Tis why the MSM never talks about the ‘dark side’ of socialism. You’ll never hear about the suffering already well underway in Scandinavia because the state controls the media. The same is happening across Europe – more and more they forbid the media from posting bad press regarding socialism, ‘diversity’ and mass immigration. They want you to remain ignorant so that their plan to force wealth and power from others to themselves can succeed. They don’t want you to know that the real reason for mass immigration is to cover the failures of feminism and the rapidly declining native birth and marriage rates. The MSM loves Castro and Maduro, because the MSM is now chock to the brim with wanna be dictators – aka ‘journalists’.

    Prostate cancer is an illness. Having a baby is a life choice. Should men pay for women’s cars as well as their maternity ‘life choices’? If women decide to get into accidents on purpose, should men still have to pay for that, too? What about reducing the world population, reducing resource consumption and climate change? Shouldn’t women be punished for having babies? So if you decide not to do much with your life or obtain a worthless degree, everyone else should pay for it? Same with your health – if you decide to destroy it through bad habits and choices – should everyone else have to pay for your bad choices? To a socialist (Democrat) – the answer is of course a resounding “YES!”

    Free food, free housing, free healthcare, free childcare, free minimum income, free education, mandatory paid maternity leave, minimum mandatory income, open borders! Wow. You socialists sure do love your forced wealth and power transfer from the producers to the consumers. Ah…the joys of the welfare state (socialism) and the millions upon millions that will be murdered should they stand in socialism’s (Democrat’s) way.

    It’s all so obvious. Since men built and maintained all of civilization, since men were trafficked, exploited and disposed of for women’s and the states advancement and all of the laws that give women and the state their rights and privileges over the common man, shouldn’t there be a female-only draft and a 100% female-only front-line fighting force, in reparation to men, as it was men’s lives that were sacrificed at the alter of two circles and a triangle and women’s true husband (the state). Shouldn’t the state be the first sent to the front lines since they’re the primary tax payer teat suckers?

    How bouts some quotas for women in the most dirty, most dangerous, most life threatening and life shortening jobs (traditional male roles) instead of only the most prestigious, most powerful, most lucrative positions? You see, this is why socialism sucks. It’s so easy to defeat logically, but only if you’re able to think logically and not just wif yo feewings.

    Hypocrisy and double standards are synonymous with socialism (aka feminism, aka Democrats). Socialists are so ignorant that they don’t realize the ‘leaders’ of socialist states eventually plunder the ‘public trust’ and transfer it all to their personal offshore accounts, leaving the vast majority of the population enslaved and in deep poverty. But no one knows until it’s too late because the state controls the media. By the time the public learns the truth – it’s all over but the dying. Shared misery – it’s a Democrat/socialist thing.

    Go to Venezuela, Democrats. Please go and please don’t come back. There you’ll find your socialist utopia. That or go to South Africa, where they kill non-blacks for sport – with full government support. Or illegally immigrate to the Middle East, where you’ll be beaten, raped, ransomed, tortured and only then beheaded and thrown in prison.

    The most amoral ideology on the planet is in fact socialism – and Democrats are the primary supporters of socialism in America; hence Democrats are enemies of the state, a clear and present danger to America’s Constitution and a direct threat to freedom loving peoples the globe over.

    Socialism = Feminism = Democrat. It’s the forced wealth and power transfer from men to women & the state, because two circles and a triangle. The common men build and maintain society – get used, exploited and disposed of – do all of the fighting and dying for women’s and the state’s advancement – and then women and the state destroy those same men and ‘culturally appropriate’ the spoils of ‘toxic masculinity’ for themselves. It’s a good game if you’re a part of the many resplendent ‘oppressed’ victim groups (i.e, a female, gay, lesbian, transgender, minority or politician).

  29. Looks like wordpress ate my reply.

    @Rollo
    I’m reminded of something my Econ 101 professor told me “As economists our job is to explain the economic effects of choices, not to make value judgments about the choices”, which reflects my view of the sphere as well.

    This is a fairly small community, and internal strife over what is moral or not moral use of the material, right or wrong use and so on, will always be value judgments, and those should be made by each individual man.

    “As it sounds right now, RP moralism is just Trad-Con values minus the “divinity of woman” narrative – and I’d be worried that even that will make a comeback.”

    Great observation, as we touched on in the podcast, some of the greatest “gurus” of days gone by have found themselves backsliding into Betahood, and I suspect that many “Red pill trad-cons” are running this risk as well. Everyone should vet their wife, but they also need to consider their own internal beta, have they killed him or is he merely laying dormant waiting to pop out at an opportune moment?

    The Red Pill has always been a means to an end, whether that end being a sexual cornucopia, improving a relationship, landing a oneitis, or any other goal. Part of what has lead to the improvement of the overall framework are diverse experiences that demonstrates the limits and differences when it’s applied across scenarios.

  30. BLL
    Great observation, as we touched on in the podcast, some of the greatest “gurus” of days gone by have found themselves backsliding into Betahood, and I suspect that many “Red pill trad-cons” are running this risk as well.

    “Red pill tradcon” is a contradiction in terms. A Traditional Conservative is usually some sort of neo Victorian with a romantic view of women. No red pill there.

    Everyone should vet their wife, but they also need to consider their own internal beta, have they killed him or is he merely laying dormant waiting to pop out at an opportune moment?

    Wearing The Glasses is work. It starts of as a whole lot of work, like any other complex skill, and only becomes easier via constant mindful practice. Eventually some things become automatic, done without thinking – the “unconscious competence” phase. But there’s always a tempatation to slack. As with weights – “eh, I’m a little sick today so I’ll lift tomorrow” or any other skill that can be perishable.

    Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty in more than one way.

  31. @ Tim

    Jesus…. Take a Valium and a nap.

    We already have our resident ‘ socialism expert ‘ around these parts.

    …. Can’t see the fucking forest, etc.

    I hate mosquitoes, but I see no reason to link men’s nor the entire planet’s ills to the annoying fuckers.

    Yeah, wealthy conservative guys got it all right and never did any harm to society at All, ever, in the history of mankind. By God, they put a stop to the rise of feminism 50 years ago.

    You’re looking inside a fun house mirror.

    Socialist…..

    It’s not even entertaining anymore.

  32. @Blaximus

    Pull my middle leg and it plays jingle balls, genius. I really couldn’t care less what you think. You’re exactly the type I enjoy screwing with. Let us agree to not like one another. In fact, let’s draw the line here and see one another as mortal enemies. You really don’t want to go head to head with me. I’ll just embarrass you further, schmuck. But you go ahead…come back at me. I enjoy wrecking morons such as yourself.

  33. Lol. OK keyboard tough guy.

    See, because I don’t think like you do, I don’t have ‘ mortal enemies ‘ or boogey men, and I can’t be fooled or controlled, or otherwise made a sap by politics or associations. How very ‘ old set of imaginary books ‘ of you though.

    The shit you expose here will never solve what you perceive as the ‘ problem ‘. The Left nor the Right is the issue. Have some delicious red pill why don’t you. It might help your vision if you’re willing to widen it’s application.

    But, again I’ve grown tired of fucking know it alls that welcome conflict over their personal beliefs and my dislike of them. Next you’ll go on about how smart you are and blah blah fucking blah…. Lmao.

    Whatevs bitch.

  34. The solution for a man who is either (ideally both) of seriously Christian and/or wishes to have a family that he raises (WELL) to maturity is NOT NOT NOT “picking carefully” and “gaming her forever”. The Sword of Frivorce Damocles only has to fall on ONE day, out of >70,000 days, for him to lose everything.

    Neither is it to bring a foreign wife from a better-cultured country back to the U.S. We all know she will likely be irreversably damaged in time, and then she can use the same &^%*$ men’s-fault legal system that panders to Ameriskanks by cannibalizing the property, income, dreams, and lives of American men.

    Expatriating? Only if he wants no children, then why TF marry? There are no white countries not comparably damaged by feminism as is the U.S, and siring/providing for/rearing nonwhite children is just a type of treason to the West.

    The correct solution for an American man who wants a family is: egg donor, gestational surrogate, hire a nanny/governess as needed, and NEVER NEVER NEVER marry, cohabitate with a woman (outside of using a contracted no-sex-with, impregnated only via fertility clinic GS) impregnate a woman, or allow any woman to legally adopt his children. He can never lose his children in a frivorce, even more crucial than his property and life savings. I wish I had followed this path, and recommend it to all men who want a family.

  35. @ Luke

    Well thanks for that. Sounds reasonable and rational. Everyone disperse, there’s nothing to see here. Let’s just toss any RP and get some eggs and have our way.

    Oh, and don’t forget the governess….

    Maybe I’m just grouchy today. Lemme have some coffee or something ( no eggs though ).

  36. @Softek

    I’ve said it on my blog more than once, I’m not there to tell people about Jesus. As Don Draper put it, “you either have him in your heart or you don’t.” That said, I do focus on what the Bible actually says about sexual morality. Which pisses off everyone to no end, because about the only things the modern church teaches about sexual morality that’s correct is men and women are not to commit adultery and Christian men are not to bang whores. Even there, the meaning of the word “adultery” has been redefined to include a husband “cheating”.

    I don’t think Rollo and I are ever going to agree on evolution, but I recommend his books frequently as one of the best resources for men because they ARE one of the best. (Rollo, I’m pissed off at Amazon and it would be nice if I could point people somewhere else to buy your books.) We approach the same data from two different paradigms, but we wind up in practically the same spot believing two different things.

    The problem most people have, especially Church people, is that they have no clue what the Bible actually says about sexual morality and what they teach about it is demonstrably not in the Bible. This is the result of a bunch of gamma perverts back in the 5th Century (Augustine, Jerome, Gregory, et al) who hated sex and thought sexual desire was the epitome of evil wickedness. Sex, in other words, was a sin. So, they threw out the Bible’s rules and adopted an enforced system of monogamy that began not with sex, but with a commitment ceremony. There’s a short history of that at the end of this post.

    It was the equivalent of redesigning a hot water heater without a thermostat or a pop-off valve, which meant that nothing regulated the pressure. As long as church and society were strong enough, the pressure was contained. However, when societal pressure finally fell away (20th Century) the marriages started blowing up. Instead of putting the controls back on (that’s a SIN!) they decided to cut them up and distribute the parts. Then we got no-fault divorce. Sucks to be a kid these days.

    Under God’s design for marriage, the man’s commitment was permanent but non-exclusive. Which meant that divorce was not authorized, but men were not restricted to one wife. The woman’s commitment was both permanent and exclusive. This meant that while only a few men actually had more than one wife, all men had the capacity to add wives to their household. Which meant that no wife had a monopoly on her husband and all wives were subject to the threat of competition. Contrary to popular belief, there is nothing in the Bible that says a man cannot have more than one wife.

    What really, really burns the churchians is I proved that marriage begins when a virgin has sex with a man she’s eligible to marry. According to the Bible, sex is the act of marriage and there is no requirement for a commitment ceremony (wedding) or a license. Marriages begin with sex. That is the reason that NOWHERE in the Bible is there any prohibition on a man and woman having sex if they are eligible to marry, except for that part about banging whores. If the woman is a virgin, they are married. If she’s not a virgin and not married then she has to agree to marry before the sex makes her married. Which means that if the husband bangs the virgin babysitter he has another wife, but if he nails the widow down the street, it’s just sex and they didn’t commit a sin.

    That causes massive heartburn for the churchians because over 80% of the men didn’t get their “wife’s” virginity, it means she’s actually married to another man and they’re living in adultery. Which means I’m not popular for pointing that out, but mostly because they can’t refute me.

    So, that means virtually any “single” woman you meet is already married because she’s not a virgin. But, the Bible has several solutions for that and I worked up a protocol and turned it into a compliance test. If anyone is concerned with what God thinks, that’s your ticket. If you don’t care what God thinks, why bother? All I can say is if she’s willing to call her father and get him to forbid her marriage, she’s seriously attracted to you. At that point she’s not a virgin and she’s not married and it’s not a sin if you have sex. You’re not married unless she specifically agrees to be married.

    All of which means that if a Christian wants to spin plates and not be in sin, now you know how to do it. And if you want to tell me how I’m wrong, I’m going to hell, I’m lying or whatever, go over to my blog and embarrass yourself over there. The Bible isn’t nearly as oppressive as you might think. I’ll say something else too… fear of judgment and shaming is a huge issue with women. When Daddy annuls her marriage she kisses the guilt and shame goodbye and things get interesting.

    Can you spin plates? Yes? Then with a bit of time and effort you can work your rotation into a poly arrangement if you want to. An easy litmus test is a threesome. If you can’t get them to share a bed with you, you’re not going to get them to share a bathroom, kitchen and closet space. Unlike any other relationship structure, their personalities have to be taken into account because some women will get along with you, but not with others. Next!

    If you’re a man who wants a family and kids, from what I can see it’s the only reasonably safe structure these days. If the marriage “officially” began on the same day for all of them by signing a marital contract and you all live together in the same house and share the same bed, you’ve done pretty much all you can do toward vaccinating against a family court infection. (Oh- and that’s another thing. God doesn’t care what a couple of women might do in bed together- the homo prohibition only applies to men.)

    A US family court cannot recognize polygyny as a marriage, nor (if everyone is sleeping in the same bed) can they call it “concurrent but separate monogamous relationships”, so the marital contract becomes an enforceable cohabitation agreement. At that point the only thing a court can determine is child custody if one of the women decides she wants to leave, but with children by all the women, the issue becomes best interests of the child and separating siblings. As far as assets, if it’s a community property state all the women have an interest and that’s a tangled web that is settled by the contract. All the incentives are oriented to staying in the marriage and leaving is penalized. The opposite of monogamy.

    Few men can do it, but given the state of the general population, many men could improve themselves to that point if they tried. Most won’t try. If it gets to that point, understand that announcing entry into a poly marriage is the WORST confession a modern woman can make. She can announce she’s a lesbian, a banged up kinky slut who is into BDSM, or a prostitute and everyone will yawn or cheer her on. But let her announce that she’s getting into a patriarchal poly marriage where she’s sharing the guy and they go snakeshit. This is actually a very good thing because it creates a huge “us vs them” dynamic that draws the girls closer and bonds them. Having a common enemy does it every time. But it also requires a bit of preparation so they know it’s coming.

  37. @ Artisinal Toad

    So sex with a virgin woman = marriage, and sex with a non-virgin woman = adultery, correct?

    i.e. as long as the first man she had sex with is still alive and the marriage hasn’t been annulled by her father, she and any man she has sex with in the future are guilty of adultery?

    I have a very long and troubled past with Christianity, but — and most disturbingly — I can see how all of what you’re saying makes sense in a RP context.

    That is to say: even someone disregards Christianity and whatever the Bible says, reading what you’re writing about matter-of-factly, it’s very hard to argue that it’s much different from standard Red Pill theory and advice.

    And while it would probably never happen, I could see how if these rules were taken seriously and people followed them, we probably would never see any STD’s or all the other marital/relationship turmoil we’re seeing everywhere all the time. I can’t imagine a world where men would keep a lifelong commitment to every virgin woman they had sex with, and where every virgin woman stayed exclusively committed to the man they lost their virginity to, but..

    …I can imagine how if that was the way of the world, things would probably run much more smoothly.

    It’s bothered me thinking about how many men my current girlfriend has slept with before me, but especially the first. If only for the fact that I can’t even imagine what losing virginity feels like to a woman, and can only assume it’s momentous for them.

    Especially considering the fact that each successive partner damages women’s ability to pair bond.

    The thought of just about every woman being some guy’s sloppy seconds is kind of repulsive to me.

    Women will hide it but if they’re Alpha widows they will never forget.

    I’ve been very aggressive in bed and every time I’ve heard “no one’s ever grabbed me like that” or “no one’s ever fucked me like that” or “I’ve never experienced this before” all I can think of is Maury:

    …..”And THAT was a lie!”

    @ Rollo

    Was reading this:

    https://therationalmale.com/2015/06/03/you-never-forget-your-first/

    “There’s a wishful contingent of guys in the ‘sphere who think finding a young virgin bride before the world’s corrupted her pure soul is (or at least should be) a tenable goal. I understand the want and logic behind that, but even with a virgin bride there is no insulation from the sexual marketplace or the realities women experience as they mature.”

    “Of the 40+ women I’ve had in my sexual past, two were virgins. Both of these women sought me out on Face Book 15-20 years after we’d went our separate ways. They are definitely not the same girls I knew back then, but I think this is an interesting illustration of a larger dynamic. Then and now, both of these girls surprised me with their attachment to me – I think that’s part of a bond you make with a woman when you’re her first.”

    So maybe with a virgin bride there is SOME insulation from the sexual marketplace?

    I’m trying not to go off the deep end here.

    If anything, all this Biblical stuff highlights the reality of how fucked up the modern sexual marketplace is. It also sharply illustrates, in an unpleasant way, how fucked up women are as a result of unrestrained hypergamy.

    Part of me wants to get better at Game, and just forget about morality and religion and have fun and build up a more Alpha personality.

    And the other part of me wonders what the hell the point is if I’m practicing Game on damaged goods, which is probably like at LEAST 95% of women in modern western civilization.

    I also don’t want to let it throw me too much but reading all this stuff and thinking about it is making me view my current relationship in an extremely negative light.

    I don’t want to make the mistake of thinking that I can never have a successful Red Pill relationship with a woman unless she’s a virgin.

    But a part of me is starting to believe that really is the case.

    Of course, there being no societal impetus for women NOT to stray from their Biblical husbands (i.e. the first man they ever had sex with in their life), even if you did find a virgin and bed her, chances are pretty slim that she’ll never fuck another guy in her life. Maybe with enough Game and Frame you could pull it off. In any case, your chances might be better than with a non-virgin.

    I’m looking at it from a guy’s perspective, which is probably what women do with men, aka Solipsism.

    What I mean is, I’m getting bored in my current relationship because I want to fuck other women. I want variety.

    My understanding is women generally don’t work like this, and their desire to fuck other men is based on Hypergamy, not a desire for variety.

    Game and Frame are probably more effective than I’m thinking. Because in my mind there is NOTHING that ANY woman on the planet could possibly do that would make me stop wanting to fuck a variety of women.

    While on the contrary many women would probably be perfectly happy with one man if they truly perceived him to be their hypergamous ideal.

  38. “The last hurdle most men still refuse to get over is that they want women to meet them half way because, despite their Red Pill awareness, they still believe in egalitarian equalism.”

    I’ve been reading your blog for quite some time and you never really answer this directly but from what I’ve gathered from reading your blog is that you have to expect the worst from women all the time and nothing should surprise you because that’s just how they are and society reinforces all their bad habits so don’t fight it overtly and make decisions based on red pill(your version/best version) frame.

  39. Ya’ll are hopeless romantics… “Red Pill, Blue Pill”.

    There is a living yogi that would tell you the intellect is overused and mistaken for instinct. Wisdom is not just knowing a thing but understanding it.

    Your romantic intersexual relationships are best approached as animal husbandry. It’s a cold, hard seat at the head of the table.

  40. Can we drop all the “bible says/ god wants” bullshit?

    Fucking retarded imaginary friend for adults comfort blanket crap it’s fucking embarrassing tbh.

  41. @Play
    I wouldn’t say that as a polite atheist, but yeah, stop already?

  42. “Your romantic intersexual relationships are best approached as animal husbandry. It’s a cold, hard seat at the head of the table.”

    As luck would have it, I’m in the process of creating some erotic animal husbandry videos designed to improve conjugal relations!

  43. @ dge

    Maybe a bit impolite but the blog is called The RATIONAL male ffs!

    This is not the place to talk about your imaginary friend/ some book that’s been rewritten countless times to suit every king/ruler since the original.

    We don’t deal with retarded delusions here we deal with reality and truth, this is a discussion place for rational men to swap ideas about red pill praxeology, not a religious nut jobs discussion board.

    Just for shits and giggles I suggest you watch George carling “religion is bullshit” video on YouTube he pretty much nails it.

  44. LOL! just watched Laci’s utube and she wants folks to go on to debate. Any regular here would blow them out of the water. Her vid was not redpill at all… it just used the red pill for marketing herself, which is not surprising (AWALT). Polygyny will not be popular nor constructive for civilization as it ignore the rest of us beta’s… we want pussy too. It will work for a limited segment of the population, but once it deprives enough men of pussy there will be problems. However if guys are ending up like antifa cucks the problems will just be impotent protests from the basement. Mass immigration is not an issue of the failings of feminism rather its a sign of the leftist strength to increase, at least they hope, their voting base. the success of democracy is that there is social mobility and with real civil rights that social mobility achieved by all race, religions and classes. this means that the traditional identity base, by race, creed, and class, is constantly being eroded by the success of a civil democracy, so fresh identity based voters need to be imported. Unfortunately for them some of the folks they imported to be their new power base of identity voters are not uncontrollable as they would like. we see this in America as blacks become more prosperous they are becoming republican’s or libertarians instead of being yoked to the democratic party machine. Hopefully the identity based power bloc have seen the lesson of the European debacles to avoid importing an unruly lot, when Mexicans are good people for a generation or two before they become republicans. ‘

  45. OMG….. divorce rape again? ReallY???

    Luke

    The correct solution for an American man who wants a family is: egg donor, gestational surrogate, hire a nanny/governess as needed, and NEVER NEVER NEVER marry, cohabitate with a woman (outside of using a contracted no-sex-with, impregnated only via fertility clinic GS) impregnate a woman, or allow any woman to legally adopt his children.

    This is complete fantasy because as soon as the “mother” (whoever that is, now ya gots choices) gets some feelz, the court will accommodate her rights to “her” child while saddling you with continued support. Happy Mother’s Day!

    The only way to ensure you get what you want, and keep what you got – is having hand and never losing it.

  46. @Sentient

    You smoked that one out alright. The complexity won’t be whether or not the woman is accommodated at the man’s expense, only which woman will get the lion’s share of his imputed income.

    Egg donor will have a case as mother. Gestation surrogate will have a case as mother. Even nanny/governess might make a case based on spending majority of waking hours caring for child while the man is working his McJob to get money for child support.

  47. The joys of having loads of time on my hands due to being really sick this past week and a half and having recently re-read Rollo’s The Best Of…
    walking down Rollo’s blogroll and found Black Label Logic blog…

  48. We’ve been down this road before. If you want a surrogate/egg donor, she has to be out of the country and stay out of the country.

  49. Nothing says “Beta” more than running around with complex documents and seeking to enforce relationship rights… meanwhile street hustlers with 10 baby mommas have those women coming by and giving them gifts and money…

  50. ” . . . those women coming by and giving them gifts and money…”

    Women providing for access to a man? Unpossible!

  51. I’m not saying there shouldn’t be a code of ethics. There should and it needs to be based on a solid Red Pill awareness. What I’m saying is that guys who don’t want to follow the plan of making that code their priority (or reason to learn RP in the first place) the RP is still just as legitimate as adhering to a moral imperative.

    There are a segment of men who will tell you that just you getting married is Beta and Blue Pill, no exceptions. And there is another segment of men who will tell you that if you don’t use RP awareness to vet a wife and mother and save western culture from itself, you’re part of the problem for wanting to watch the world burn.

    Those are two sides of the extreme I’m trying to dissect here.

  52. @ Sentient, Playdontpay

    I’d like to see you guys try to convince these guys that they’re Beta males for following a religion:

  53. How can a man abandon his role without abandoning his society? Huh?

    Males exist for one principal reason: to give sperm. If we strip everything to the bare threads (pun alert), life is about dna, threads of neucleotides spinning away in the center of cells to make copies of themselves to no particular end than to provide sort of an audience for the apocalypse. Then when it is all over, start again in some other part of the universe. It is hard to be religious or even a moralist without having to chew on such…err…banalities (as someone may put it) of phenomena.

    I read somewhere in Red Queen (that book should have been named Red Pill) that Abel was no one’s ancestor. Abel, the good boy. Food for thought. Cain had descendants though. If any of them were daughters, may be some of his dna is floating around in some poor soul seeking to keep propagating. If somewhere on the line, Noah’s mother or grand mother or great great mother was of that lineage. The bible is not great with “mother’s side” lineages. Huh. Do you (I?!) come from Cain dna? Woe is you (me?) Oh God deliver me from such!

    Anyway.

    The state of man right now is anti nature, more so in the western society. Legislating fucking is a bit too extreme. Complex documents trying to enforce relationship rights?

    One too many steps from the natural way of dna.

  54. Marriage is a religious concept. And a political concept.

    How can we talk about marriage in the same breath as TRP and then maintain that TRP should be apolitical and areligious?

    We can’t, because it isn’t. Are you married? Congratulations, whether you’re a theist or an atheist, a part of your life has been highly influenced by religion and politics, whether you like it or not.

    What “marriage” means is defined by the religion and politics of the culture in which you’re married. If Christianity wasn’t so feminized and instead allowed for polygamy as Artisinal Toad asserts that it does in the Bible, we’d be having a very different discussion right now.

    A married man that is allowed to have multiple wives at his discretion, as well as complete dominance over his wives, is not the same as a married man that is only allowed to have one wife, and no dominance over his wife except via covert methods like passive Dread, in which case he STILL has to exercise caution because she maintains a far greater amount of power in the relationship…because of the politics of marriage in this particular culture, which allows women the right to take half of everything you own should things take a wrong turn and she decides she wants a divorce.

    What is the difference in these two married men? Is it that one is “Beta” and the other is “Alpha,” or do we have to admit that they’re both at least partially products of what marriage is defined as religiously and politically in their respective cultures?

    If we’re talking straight Red Pill and praxeology, okay.

    But if you want to bring marriage into a Red Pill discussion, you have to bring in religion and politics. Because it is a religious and political concept. The exception is “marriage” as mentioned by Artisinal Toad. I say this because I take his position on “marriage,” ironically, to be non-religious:

    re: Artisinal Toad

    I’m entertaining the possibility that this “marriage” is a metaphorical statement of what happens to a woman biologically with the first man that she fucks. It is plausible that there is a difference between the first man a woman fucks and all the men that come after.

    It’s also plausible that there’s not. HOWEVER, we’ve already asserted that women lose their ability to pair bond more and more with each successive sexual partner. If we’re going to entertain this assertion then it becomes more appropriate to consider Artisinal Toad’s assertion more seriously.

    And I’ll say again that, ironically, his assertion about what “marriage” is can be considered in a non-religious, apolitical context, unlike the modern definition of “marriage” which is entirely religious and/or political.

    Moving on:

    We COULD say that women don’t lose ANY ability to pair bond with each successive partner. Or are irreversibly altered, psychologically or otherwise, in any way, from fucking multiple guys. In which case Artisinal Toad’s assertion is destroyed.

    But what about the assertion that feminism has corrupted women, and riding the cock carousel wantonly in the party years damages women in the long run?

    What fucking difference does any of that make if we’re ALSO going to assert that the ONLY thing that matters is how Alpha a man is?

    The example of the “hustler” with “10 baby mommas” is an implied argument asserting that the ONLY thing that matters is how Alpha a man is, and the particular woman’s sexual history is MEANINGLESS. It means NOTHING.

    Because if a man is Alpha enough to trigger a woman’s hypergamy, it’s a checkmate. Her past might as well not exist. That is an argument.

    In other words, she MIGHT AS WELL be a virgin, because there is NO DIFFERENCE between women who have never had sex a single time and women who have fucked over 3,000 men.

    I’m not saying it’s valid or invalid, but that it’s an argument and there should be evidence presented that’s for or against it.

    Artisinal Toad’s assertion either falls apart in an observable empirical context, or it doesn’t.

    On one hand women are “corrupted” by the cock carousel and the wanton sexual escapades encouraged by feminism. On the other hand, it doesn’t fucking matter at ALL because the ONLY thing that matters is how Alpha a particular man is.

    What is the thing that is “corrupted” in women? Her ability to pair bond? How her Hypergamy functions in the future? What specifically is it?

    Either the ONLY thing that matters is how Alpha a man is, or women’s sexual history plays SOME role in her particular ability to maintain long-term relationships with men in the future, REGARDLESS of the man’s Alpha status.

    i.e., either women are somehow altered by their sexual experiences, or they’re not. Which one is it? What is your argument?

    There is probably some biological reasoning behind religious polygamy, where women are required to be exclusive with one man, and be a virgin before they fuck and/or marry him.

    You can write it all off as religious bullshit, but that would be ignoring the implied arguments and assertions in these religious laws — such as the implication that women are somehow altered by sexual experiences, and the laws are in place to prevent these alterations from occurring, supposedly for the long term stability of the relationship.

    If you’re going to call bullshit, then actually refute the argument. Calling bullshit on religion is a strawman.

    If you’re going to argue that women’s sexual history doesn’t matter, then that’s completely different. Then we can have an actual discussion.

    It’s just extremely irritating to have read dozens of articles here about how feminism has corrupted women and all the negative things that happen to women as a result of buying into feminism, and then to have completely contradictory and unresolved assertions in the comment section, basically asserting that the only thing that matters is the man’s behavior and everything else is irrelevant.

    Which is it?

  55. ” . . . there is another segment of men who will tell you that if you don’t use RP awareness to vet a wife and mother and save western culture from itself, you’re part of the problem for wanting to watch the world burn.”

    Vox Day’s Mother’s Day theme. I must say that it felt a bit odd to have to drop a Red Pill reminder to the proprietor of Alpha Game Plan, even knowing that his primary focus is civilization.

    “Marriage is a religious concept. And a political concept.”

    No.

    “What “marriage” means is defined by the religion and politics of the culture in which you’re married.”

    Yes, within your culture there will be certain understandings of what marriage is.

  56. @Anonymous Reader;

    “We have to contend with the misandrous feminists on one hand, the slavemaster tradcons on another, the self-deluded equalists on the third hand…sometimes it’s dismaying how many different ways there are for men to be fooled, or to fool themselves.”

    Straight up pithy. Enough to make a man want to go poolside or at least spend his weekends in the woods hunting agates with a flask of bourbon and a few stogies or step onto an airplane. Personally I’m always trying to cool it when it comes to culture warring but if I had to name the number one enemy it’s the semi-redpill tradcon. I no longer have any emotion for batshit feminists, any more than I would ruminate over the asshole raccoons that rip open my garbage bags. Both are just animals following their whims. There is annoyance but little else.

    Trad-cons are much more evil. Many of them have thrown away their lives in servitude to someone nowhere near that kind of sacrifice. The looming regret from that is so huge that it requires constant damning. And if that damn breaks they will be blown away. When they urge you to ‘man up’ they’re just fortifying their damn. If everyone did what they did then they can feel more secure, a feeling of their life being the ONLY option. Any other life is degenerate or bizarre. A 30 year long friend, uncle, father, whoever, will toss you up on that damn like any two by four, advising you to jump into their same nightmare. Only when they have been totally broken by frivorce and anger will they give you a thumbs up. But embittered divorced men, (sitting there stunned with how unfair divorce courts are) are hardly tradcons anymore anyway.

    Rollo;

    “As it sounds right now, RP moralism is just Trad-Con values minus the “divinity of woman” narrative – and I’d be worried that even that will make a comeback.”

    The commentariat at one of your fellow 3R’s is currently Trojan-horsing in ‘divinity of woman’ without knowing it. They’re doing it through a racial pride lens so they’re unable to see it, but the odes to White Girl are getting very damn near to good ol’ fashioned divinity again. Same pedestal, different angle. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

  57. @ Married Guys:
    Happy Mother’s Day shit test from your wives. I worked hard to avoid it, but it’s here. I have a method for dealing with these and others (see below). Also, I credit this gentleman’s music with enhancing my masculine cave time, and the main reason why the wife has not discovered my participation in this blog.

    @ All
    I attempted to post this a while ago in Field Reports, but it got hung up in moderation and never got out. It contained too many links and perhaps it was too whimsical, but after skimming some of the nasty back and forths in the comments, I thought I would try one final time to lighten some of the commenter’s moods:

    —————————————————————————————

    TO: Mr. Rollo Tomassi and the Rational Male Award (“RATTIE”) Nominating Committee

    RE: Nomination of Gordon Meredith Lighfoot, Jr. for the 2017 Rational Male Lifetime Achievement Award

    It is my great pleasure and honor to nominate Gordon Meredith Lightfoot Jr., AKA Gordon Lightfoot, for the 2017 Rational Male Lifetime Achievement Award (“RATTIE”) for his lifetime of music that speaks to men and their masculine nature. Below is a small youtube video sample of his works that exemplify his credentials:

    1. I’m Not Sayin’ – /watch?v=5Af5d1FeJn4 – (Best plate spinning song ever, only slight fail for explicating)

    2. For Lovin’ Me – /watch?v=WpkATS6mjbc – (1967).

    3. Walls – /watch?v=BbL8dV4PDUk – (Gets played by a woman and unashamedly admits it to himself and her.)

    4. Looking at the Rain – /watch?v=fpDglhl4ErI – (Stay with it – surprise ending at 3:16 will stun you.)

    5. Salute (A Lot More Livin’ To Do) – /watch?v=e1PNg7FIbR4 – Manly, especially older man MPO song)

    6. The House You Live In – /watch?v=A7Q3OVivl6g – (Burden of Performance – QUOTE: “And he who is wise will not criticize When other men fail at the game”)

    7. If You Could Read My Mind – /watch?v=l-ij_iTQt2w – (’74) (Blue pill but coming into awareness, and coincidentally one the greatest songs ever written.)

    8. Sundown – /watch?v=s8rR7E6NfY4 – (About the nature of women, written about the woman who would later be complicit in the drug overdose of John Belushi.)

    9. Seven Island Suite – /watch?v=z7Awa2zQzGc – (A masterpiece, more about escaping city/society, QUOTE: “You seem to think because you got chicken to go you’re in luck”)

    In addition to these examples, Mr. Lightfoot has also coined the phrases that explain complex manosphere concepts, for example:

    Mental Point of Origin:

    “This is my hike, you can come if you like.”*

    *East of Midnight

    Mr. Tomassi and the Committee are urged to take action this year as Mr. Lightfoot is 78 years of age and the award should be made while this manosphere icon is living.
    —————————————————————————————

  58. @ kfg

    Okay. I’m just going to assume that your argument is that marriage is something that occurs naturally on a biological level completely independent of societal constructs, and that marriage can and does occur regularly in nature completely independent of all religious and legal systems. Because that is the only rational refutation of the idea that marriage is a social construct.

    Formal social recognition of a couple being “married” as a natural hard-wired occurrence in humans is plausible, as humans are extremely social animals, and it could be argued that the religious and legal systems we have today stemmed from this innate biological drive to recognize pair bonds among the people in our communities.

    You could also argue that “marriage,” biologically, is the result of an innate hard-wired drive to form an exclusive long-term or lifelong pair bond, and denotes that exclusive long-term or lifelong pair bond after it’s been formed. Which would occur on a hormonal/biological level initially, which social/legal recognition only serves to validate thereafter.

    Another plausible theory is what Artisinal Toad has argued when he says that when you fuck a virgin you become married to her by default, *whether you or her know it or not.* This can imply some kind of absolute biological occurrence that’s independent of religious/legal systems.

    Which is supported by a lot of people’s beliefs here that with each sexual partner, a woman’s ability to pair bond is reduced. It could be argued that the natural order of things is for a woman to “marry” (i.e. exclusively pair-bond) the man she loses her virginity to, as her ability to pair bond is biologically hard-wired to be like a piece of tape: the more things you stick it to, the more it loses its tack until eventually it won’t stick to anything anymore at all.

    This is all completely independent of religion and legal systems, i.e. social constructs, because if it’s true, it means it’s an in-born hard-wired biological reality, just like Hypergamy.

    The Coolidge Effect is far more pronounced in men than in women, which is further evidence pointing towards women being hard-wired to be exclusive to high value men, while men are hard wired to impregnate as many women as possible.

    So if you’re going to argue that marriage is fundamentally not religious or political then you have to concede that it’s actually some hard-wired biological reality that these religious and legal institutions simply give a name and framework and rules and regulations to, but did not in and of themselves create.

  59. “I’m just going to assume that your argument is that marriage is something that occurs naturally on a biological level completely independent of societal constructs . . .”

    No. Marriage is a social construct, and social constructs have a root in biology. We are not the society of ants. Religion and politics are also social constructs, but they do not define Social Construct.

    “So if you’re going to argue that marriage is fundamentally not religious or political then you have to concede that it’s actually some hard-wired biological reality that these religious and legal institutions simply give a name and framework and rules and regulations to, but did not in and of themselves create.”

    Close enough for hand grenades.

  60. “Another plausible theory is what Artisinal Toad has argued when he says that when you fuck a virgin you become married to her by default, *whether you or her know it or not.”

    Artisanal Toad was talking about Biblical Constructs. Religious law within the framework of the Abrahamic traditional scriptures.

  61. Softek

    “It’s just extremely irritating to have read dozens of articles here about how feminism has corrupted women and all the negative things that happen to women as a result of buying into feminism, and then to have completely contradictory and unresolved assertions in the comment section, basically asserting that the only thing that matters is the man’s behavior and everything else is irrelevant”

    Which is it? It’s both. Men abandoning their historical role, over a few generations mind you, created femism writ large. The effect is just her nature acting on the cause… But to that – your own genie CAN be put back in the bottle… Even if this has no effect on your neighbor’s.

  62. So if you’re going to argue that marriage is fundamentally not religious or political then you have to concede that it’s actually some hard-wired biological reality that these religious and legal institutions simply give a name and framework and rules and regulations to, but did not in and of themselves create.

    Perhaps [hard-wired biological reality] was true in 1967 when it was discovered, in the US, by the court, a man and a woman have the right to found a family. However, the latest ruling indicates marriage is a tax shelter and the primary determinate of pension (private or public) survivorship benefits.

    That is, marriage – under the care of nice, charitable folks – is completely divorced from any biological underpinning.

  63. Marriage is religious construct marriage is a social construct bull shit. What marriage is is a transfer of property she is property Chattel exspenseive slave what ever you wish to call her but she is property. If a man ask the father for her hand in marriage then she belongs to the father. If he goes to the state and ask for a marriage lisense then she belongs to state or commune. thru history females don’t inherit because property doesn’t inherit property. So vet your son-in laws and brother- in laws Well before you give then valuable property. I know this sounds old set of books and not the new reality. But on some mental base level without religion politics or social structure females know they are property to be cared for and watched over for their own good

  64. “All I did was redact the “horseshoes and.”

    I’d only heard the “horseshoes” bit (without the rest).

  65. “What marriage is is a transfer of property . . .”

    As I have said, many, many times, marriage is about inheritance rights. Some of that inheritance occurs at the time of marriage.

    ” thru history females don’t inherit . . .”

    This is not correct. Isabella inherited Castile. Elizabeth inherited England.

    “In the Mosaic law, for monetary matters, women’s and men’s rights were almost exactly equal. A woman was entitled to her own private property, including land, livestock, slaves, and servants. A woman had the right to inherit whatever anyone bequeathed to her as a death gift, and in the absence of sons would inherit everything.

    In Ancient Egypt, legally, a woman shared the same rights and status as a man – at least, theoretically. An Egyptian woman was entitled to her own private property, which could include land, livestock, slaves and servants, etc.[2] She had the right to inherit whatever anyone bequeathed to her, as well as bequeathing her belongings to others.

    “Under Islamic law, marriage was no longer viewed as a “status” but rather as a “contract”, in which the woman’s consent was imperative. “Women were given inheritance rights in a patriarchal society that had previously restricted inheritance to male relatives.” ”

    –Infogalactic; Legal rights of women in history

  66. @Keith: Perhaps you are pointing out women were cultivated by men against the current trend of women teaching young females the highest good is barren.

  67. One of the principles that all men should get from Red Pill understanding, is that as men, each man is responsible for his circumstance and developing his masculine self.

    Since I’ve been reading in the manosphere, I’ve seen a very persistent trend of men doing the very woman-like, beta behavior of looking for someone to blame for their blue pill mind’s lack of understanding, and hence the inability to ‘ figure it out ‘ and take action.

    Listen, chicks are just being chicks. They are following their programming. When masses of men all decide to accept and follow the tenets of feminism and equalism, shit goes horribly wrong. Do y’all see the common denominator here?

    It’s not women, or minorities, or lesbian/gays, or the liberals/left, or the right, or the fucking socialist or communists or religion – none of that shit is at the root of men’s condition. The root cause is men’s abdication of their manly responsibility and mindset. Large groups of men at some point decided to give the wimminz what they thought they wanted. These pioneers were of every stripe with one single goal. In the confusion, when men tried to figure out how they’d become so totally fucked, their personal biases came storming into play. Lol, it’s all so much horseshit, and by accepting these diversions a solution cannot be found.

    Diversions.

    Steady the course, ignore that shit.

    Now we have multiple generations of lost and confused men and boys, but the help that comes to them is strongly blue pill/beta, because that is the majority hivemind that exists today. And it comes from all sides, male and female, liberal and conservative, capitalist and socialist. Men are afraid or don’t understand how to think for themselves, so they seek a consensus. The consensus today ( and for the past 50-60 years ) is feministic, blue pill/betahood for all. It seems when men try to break free from this, they begin to lash out and flail about, and accept victimhood. ” Somebody else ” is responsible for my lack.

    Well, let’s just throw the baby out with the bathwater. It’s too hard otherwise. It’s too confusing.

    Yes, I know, it is a true bitch when the legal system decides that you are the enemy. Boy, do I know what that feels like. There will be no shelter for you. Your maleness makes you an instant suspect for every fucked up thing any male has ever done. And it’s even more of a bitch when people can’t see what’s happening right in front of their faces. They can’t see it because they are distracted into not giving one fuck. They can’t fight back because they are too busy trying to go after the ghost and bogey men.

    Since coming to TRM ( aptly named ) I’ve discovered some real truth, but even then men struggle with it and try to hold on to what they’ve known and become comfortable with. My religion, my money, my community/culture – all of which is being dismantled and reshaped right before your very eyeballs.

    So what’s left?

    Your mind. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. THIS is what the red pill can help you escape and get out of the damned loop.

    Do not look for anything to be subservient to. C’mon for Christ sakes, you’re men! Let go of the prior programming because it’s not serving your interests. Church??? Just a collection of people in a building practicing rituals. I got news for you, if you tend towards believing in God or a higher power, they can hear you anywhere – even on the toilet. If you choose to partake in these activities, get your mind right, meaning keep shit in perspective so you’ll always know what’s real. That should never be a question, ” what’s real “??

    I’ll skip the whole marriage question, only to say what I’ve said ad nauseam already, if it’s not for you, don’t do it for the love of God. If you hate the idea and believe you can impregnate a dozen women as a protest and a way to avoid the screwed up system, lmao – go for it!!!! It’s so empowering…. for women. That’s what feminism tells them. They can do whatever they feel like doing and no one can judge or say anything.

    How very FI.

    But the heavy buffering is beta. Getting eggs from overseas and shit, really?

    Lol @ Blue Pill Goals.

  68. I don’t think that Rollo is aimed at anyone here by saying that trying to make marriage morally required or trying to advocate marriage can’t be Red Pill.

  69. @Blax

    The root cause is men’s abdication of their manly responsibility and mindset. Large groups of men at some point decided to give the wimminz what they thought they wanted.

    Just shut up about this shit if you can’t see the FI programming behind men’s emasculation. And if you haven’t looked at history about how the left is driving the FI, then you haven’t bothered to look.

    The right is a little complicit in being fooled by the left and trying to support the FI, but the left knew exactly what it was doing in powerfully advocating for the FI. Don’t be naïve. The left and the right aren’t equally to blame in this FI mess.

  70. Kfg Ancent egyption weman had rights ? Was that before or after they started sucking roman cock ? Tell me all about alaxander the great who Helenized the world into equality and how all there grandchildren wound up sucking roman cock. Power is power. Property is property

  71. All the whining and “shoulda” and blame shifting any man can do won’t change reality.
    Any man who plans to have children should get Rollo’s books, for a start.

  72. @ ASD

    Nah, I’m not given to being invested in that silly ‘ right-left ‘ shit. I look at the facts on the ground.

    We have different life experiences. Just leave it at that. I look for fucked up behavior that’s detrimental without regard to political and ideological affiliation. That’s how you don’t get snookered by having allegiance to men’s machinations. When those machinations go awry, if you’re so, as the manosphere loves to say – ” ego invested “, then you go awry as well.

    Its what they do, all of it, not what they say.

    Even your reaction proves my point…. Just shut up indeed. Don’t even challenge the ideas. Speaks volumes.

    The FI is real. It owes its success to men, not women. Take your head out of your ideology and look. Those men were on the right as well as the left. No singular boogie men in the equation.

    Or, keep believing as you do. I don’t have a dog in that particular fight. Just pointing a few things out, which you immediately rejected…. Lol.

  73. @ stuff

    Man, lots of folk live and die over politics. I’ll never be one of them. I have my own mind and I’m not fond of flowery, false bullshit.

    Tow the party line? Nope.

    But con men and scam artists need targets too. Nature’s balance.

  74. My failures with women pre-Red Pill were not my fault. All the humiliation and embarrassment…not my fault. Even remotely. It was impossible for me to have known what to do. I didn’t even know that “skills” with women even existed, much less having anyone to teach me fuck-all about anything. I was a pure product of the FI conditioning that I grew up with. It was a reality that I was thrown into and had absolutely no say in.

    I have a friend several years younger than me. I coached him one night out of a Blue Pill nightmare with some girl he was into. Was about a 5 hour conversation. He showed me the text exchanges, told me about what was going on in-person with her, and I gave him advice. And he actually listened. He respects me and listened to what I told him. And I told him a lot. He ended up turning the whole situation around and his mentality changed completely. Honestly I wasn’t expecting that. I had way more influence on him than I thought I would.

    Realizing your own victimization can be a positive thing if you use it to help other people avoid the same fate. And I do think it gives you a lot of not only empathy, but the ability to genuinely understand how best to teach people, because you have a personal understanding of their difficulties in learning and changing their behaviors, because you’ve been through it yourself.

    There’s a difference between replaying your past victimization in your head constantly, and gaining wisdom from realizing in hindsight that you *were* victimized in the past.

    There are also at least a handful of baby boys that ended up not being circumcised because people asked me for my opinion and they listened to me when I bluntly said it was genital mutilation. It actually took me *years* to come to the conclusion that circumcision is genital mutilation. It is plain as fucking day to me now and any arguments to the contrary are absolutely insane to me. Like I can’t even believe that someone’s rationality would be so fucked up and they could be so blind to not understand something so fucking obvious.

    But it required me to face a lot of shit that I didn’t want to, mostly the fact that I was actually victimized, and that victimization resulted in a permanent alteration to my life that I didn’t want, and there’s nothing I can do about it.

    The temptation to write it off as “no big deal” and forget about it was great. But overcome by my repeated and constant pangs of anxiety and anger over knowing the truth about what happened to me.

    This also ties into moral responsibility. My personal opinion is men who have been victimized, in whatever way, owe it to other men to accept the pain of that victimization to validate its reality.

    Putting EVERYTHING on individual responsibility is essentially giving fuckheads a get out of jail free card. And ironically, part of individual responsibility is personal agency, which includes knowing when people are fucking with you, manipulating you, or otherwise trying to victimize you.

    It’s important not to wallow in it. But men need to KNOW when they’ve been victimized, and be able to face that victimization as something that has actually happened to them, in order to move on from it.

    It personally also took me YEARS to realize the extent of abuse I went through growing up, not just from the FI but in my family and in one case getting molested by a medical professional, which also tied into my family because when I tried to talk about it I just got “well it was probably nothing, don’t worry about it” and that was it. Nobody ever talked about anything and the only advice was “only you can be responsible for you.”

    If I ever had a complaint about ANYTHING, it always came back to “it’s no big deal” and “you’ll get over it” or something along those lines.

    Easy thing to say if you want a get out of jail free card when you’re deliberately traumatizing and fucking up your own kid. Just make it seem like it’s their responsibility to deal with and don’t assume any accountability for your own actions towards them.

    I do get the value of personal responsibility, but personally having had a lot of problems as a result of ignoring my own instances where I was actually victimized, I understand that there is a lot of value in understanding when, where, and why you got fucked. And understanding that it was wrong.

    I only found it possible to start moving on when I started facing those demons. It doesn’t automatically mean you’re wallowing in it or blaming everyone else for your lot in life. Although it’s true that it can easily end up going down that path, and you have to have the skills and awareness to address your issues from a positive and progressive state of mind, not a self-defeating one.

    Remember: wisdom gained from acknowledging that you *were* victimized in the past. But now that you know that, and are wiser, you have more personal agency and can start making changes that you weren’t capable of before. And that means that now you also have more responsibility.

    There are always lessons we can learn even from shit life experiences. It’s up to us whether we use those to kill ourselves or advance ourselves.

    So yes. The FI has fucked a lot of men over. It’s a balance between recognizing this and gaining wisdom from it, and not going off the deep end to the point where it paralyzes us from taking action and living in the past.

  75. tl;dr:

    On the wallowing extreme, we have “woe is me, I’m fucked for life, this happened to me and nothing can ever change for me.”

    On the invalidating extreme, we have “whatever, I’m not a victim of anything unless I choose to be.” Despite the fact that you WERE actually victimized and taken advantage of by forces outside your control. And you didn’t choose that at the time it happened.

    This attitude is a great way to unnecessarily beat the shit out of yourself because you’re shouldering the responsibility for things that happened to you that weren’t your fault. It’s taking personal responsibility to an unnecessary extreme. This is also common in abused children who try to “tough it out” and even go so far as to claim that they probably deserved whatever happened to them. That it was ultimately their fault.

    It’s also important to note that “man up” is a feminist trope. It’s a great way to gaslight men into thinking they’re the ones responsible for the FI fucking with their brains and perception of their own masculinity/sexuality.

    It’s a fine line. But it’s necessary to draw that line, and draw it clearly. You have to be able to admit your own victimization, and acknowledge it, while simultaneously not being held captive by it. To the contrary, learning how to use it to advance yourself and move forward and improve your life.

    People will naturally default to either wallowing in their misery or ignoring what happened to them and trying to “tough it out” while living in denial. Because both are easier than establishing a balance.

    I’ve always seen TRM as trying to strike that balance, as Rollo frequently and adeptly points out the ways in which men have been lied to and manipulated and victimized by the FI, while never encouraging men to wallow in it or use it as an excuse to stagnate and give up on their lives.

    That’s been the ongoing theme here, as far as I can tell: this is TRP. You’re not going to like realizing how you’ve been victimized and manipulated and lied to, and you’re probably going to be pretty upset about it for a while as it sinks in, but you can rest assured that after you understand these things and the initial emotional shock dies down that you’ll be better equipped to deal with your life than you were before.

  76. Rollo is starting to fall down the same trap as Jordan Peterson….i.e, he gets the Red Pill truths but then tries to graft “safe” old world beliefs onto them.

    Purple Pill warning signs….religious preaching, virtue, nationalism, for-the-good-of-the-family etc

  77. @Blaximus

    Remember way back in the 70s when the plastic adhesive label’r hit the shelves?

    Even as a kid I couldn’t see any reason to go and label stuff in the garage,but folks were about running around labeling everything even if it was obvious what it was,just to use the invention I guess.

    If a person has half a memory and stuff is important enough to keep,then it is important enough to organize and keep clean,amiright?

    Now the label’r is separatist seriously fn stupid,if you work hard for your money you are a tradcon,if you don’t you are a liberal,if you are married with children you are a blue pill beta provider and on and on it goes where it stops nobody knows.

    The one thing the power mongers have succeeded in doing is turn the population against one another on a mass scale,it would appear as if they are afraid of an uprising and for good reason. This is a reprehensible and lazy management tactic to keep the employees spying and tattling on one another as it changes the natural productive competition dynamic into a oneupsmanship political competition that slows productivity even more.

    All in the name of power,control and fear of losing it,this is where the label’r comes in handy keeping people from unity in a common cause..

    Sure the best way to win this battle is personal responsibility,from the bottom up and this will not come about with a bunch of finger pointers.

  78. That’s what feminism tells them. They can do whatever they feel like doing and no one can judge or say anything.

    *stops to think it over* Does every woman of my acquaintance throughout my entire life live by this motto? They’ve certainly always had a ready answer to anyone that might “judge or say anything”. I’m going with yes.

    What do you know, they were/all are feminism adherents. Even, or maybe especially the ones that would avow they were not.

    Listen, chicks are just being chicks. They are following their programming.

    You’re an inspiration Blax.

  79. “@ Married Guys:
    Happy Mother’s Day shit test from your wives. I worked hard to avoid it, but it’s here. I have a method for dealing with these and others (see below). Also, I credit this gentleman’s music with enhancing my masculine cave time, and the main reason why the wife has not discovered my participation in this blog.”

    I did get shit-tested by ladies in the office for this point of view, as they expected me to be like their AFCs and buy shit for the wife, but I just told them my wife is my woman and lover.
    I didn’t buy my wife a mom’s day card, as she is not my mother. I did provide transportation and financial backing to my young girls to get arts and crafts stuff to make their mom a gift.

  80. @Keith: “Was that before or after they started sucking roman cock ? ”

    Until she started sucking Roman cock, Pharaoh was a woman. There was no word for “virgin” in the Egyptian language. Women could marry who they chose (about 25% of the time it was a man about her father’s age, by her choice) and could divorce as they chose. Marriage was regulated neither by the state nor by religion (both basically the same thing. Pharaoh was a living god). There was a reception, but no ceremony. The marriage was formed by simple declaration.

    ” Tell me all about alaxander the great . . .”

    In Greco-Roman society women only had rights through male family. Under rare circumstances (widowed with no sons) a woman could inherit property, but she was expected to marry and the property to pass to her husband. She had no choice in the marriage, her new husband would be whatever man of her late husband’s relatives would step up (he could be an already married man, in which case he would divorce to remarry). He would, however, lose the property back to sons. He was essentially a type of legal cuckold, fathering sons who were legally considered the sons of the late husband, for property rights purposes. Property rights were family rights and were more important than individual rights.

    Although Spartan women had far more power than was typical in the rest of ancient Greece, which has been blamed for their cultural downfall, and there was a strong feminist movement in the late Western Empire, which has been blamed for at least part of the downfall of Rome.

  81. @Peter:

    There has never been and never will be a society of individuals. Family is the root of all and a society that loses its sense of family loses itself and is replaced by one that has one.

    That isn’t Blue Pill, that’s a bit of Red Pill for those out there on the equalism/anarchism spectrum.

    “Now the label’r is . . .”

    . . . necessary, because you can’t tell what the important stuff is without one, but only computers can read the labels. Yay!

Speak your mind

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s