State Control

Reader, constrainedlocus had an interesting thought in the Anger Bias essay comment thread:

“The point is that a feminine-primary social order readily makes this nature a useful tool in dismissing what would otherwise be valid, but uncomfortable Red Pill truth. This anger bias mechanism is a tool for message control.”

What I find interesting is that, from my own personal observations of men in both marriage and long-term relationships, is that this dismissal happens readily and frequently at the micro level in sexual relationships as well. It’s impossible for men not to notice the hypocrisy.

A man need not experience the trivialization of his anger from “the sisterhood” response in the media, in the corporate setting, or even while at a party with other couples.

I think it now common for a wife or long-term girlfriend to assume a certain privilege or “authority” to express and direct her own anger, indignation and outrage rather freely and loudly – whenever she wishes – toward her male companion, without much consequence.

But should her male companion ever lose his composure, raise his voice in anger toward here, then this is either considered “verbal abuse”, an uncalled for overreaction, or his complaint is simply trivialized, ridiculed or disqualified by her, much like she would belittle the tantrum of her own young child.

Who has not witnessed wives scold their husbands in public at a restaurant or at a park like little children for his getting angry at her attitude or behavior? “Don’t you EVER raise your voice at me, mister!”.

I realize this is all about a man’s frame in the relationship.
I know that it is a weak man who tolerates this, while a wise man just ignores or nexts it.

Indeed, it is all about control.

But I still find it fascinating the confidence level with which so many women feel they can just scoff and ridicule the anger of men in relationships overtly, while unilaterally assuming the validity and overriding importance of their own anger whenever convenient for them.

It’s seems like an added bolt-on power up of feminist triumphalism.

Even among ourselves, we men are not supposed to show such angry emotions, at risk of verbal abuse or a humiliating well-deserved fucking beat down. Us dudes are to be these rational Vulcans walking around and doing shit, deleting emotion commands from our code. Because the thought is this: allowing someone else’s behavior to determine your feelings and emotional response is regarded as a sign of male weakness.
Anger should be expressed infrequently, and when expressed, done decisively and with brevity and action.

I think a lot of dudes recovering from blue pill conditioning struggle with this immensely, and are not sure what to do when their anger and frustration is openly minimized, trivialized or negated by their wife or LTR.

In a feminine-primary social order men are expected to show exactly this emotional restraint out of fear for being considered a typical, angry bully for any marginal display of aggressiveness. Yet, men are simultaneously conditioned to be emotionally expressive, emotionally available, in order to be ‘fully actualized’ human beings. They’re taught that strength is weakness and weakness is strength, and that vulnerability and emotionalism makes them whole persons.

Then the narrative changes again as per the needs of the Feminine Imperative. Men who are agreeable and show humility are punished with a removal of women’s sexual interest in them, while more conventionally masculine men, more Alpha, potentially more aggressive men who display outward signs of it – the emotions they’re taught to repress – are more commonly rewarded with women’s sexual interests.

When you have a social structure based on a calculated duplicity and confusion of purpose is it any wonder we see a generation of frustrated Betas with a perceived potential for violence? We’re supposed to delete emotional commands, but also to be more emotionally available and in touch (whatever the fuck that means) with our emotions. What it really comes down to is men are socialized to be automatons whose emotional connection should only apply to those emotions that benefit and complement with the Feminine Imperative and repress the emotions that frighten or potentially threaten the Feminine Imperative. In other words, to become more like women is to become a more perfected ‘man’ by today’s metric.

Blank-slate Feminism

We presently live in a feminine-primary social order that wants to convince us that egalitarian equalism is the normative presumption between men and women. The blank-slate idea is that men are the functional equivalents of women, but, for all the social constructivism, men need to train, learn, be conditioned to constrain the aspects of themselves that conflict with their identities becoming more like women in their emotional nature. If boys and men can be conditioned (or medically treated) to repress every evolved aspect of their maleness that conflicts with aligning with the feminine they can be trained to be ostensibly more ‘equal’ beings. In this mindset, for a man to become more ‘equal’ he must be more feminine.

The normative belief is that boys and men are simply unperfected women, but the subtext to this is that men and women, binary genders, are (or ought to be) functional equivalents. This too is based on the (I believe flawed) Jungian theory of anima and animus; that no matter the sex, every ‘person’ has some counterbalancing elements of male and female nature to them. I believe this is a flawed theory for the simple fact that men and women have never been functional equals from an evolutionary standpoint and modern science is disproving Jung’s (often metaphysical) presumptions with neurological and hormonal (and the functional behaviors that derive from either sex’s innate structures) understanding that didn’t exist in Jung’s time.

I’ve dug into why I have a problem with Jung in the past, but the point I’m making is that, in Jung, the Feminine Imperative and 2nd and 3rd wave feminist agendas have had an incestuous affair with his theories and conflating overwhelmingly disproven blank-slate equalism. This conflation of flawed theory has been the foundation for normalizing the social feminization of boys and men for almost a century now.

With this equalist presumption as a point of origin, the first step is to condition boys for emotional control.

State Control

Emotions have an evolutionary purpose in men and women. We can trace the manifested behaviors of emotional response to survival-specific functions. Oxytocin, for instance, predisposes human beings to feelings of trust and nurturing which primarily affects women most. The effects of testosterone, which men produce 12-17 times the amount that women do, are well known and masculinize the human body. These are just some basic hormonal differences, but the function behind the effects of those hormones (as well as men and women neurological structure) is where we run into conflict with the Feminine Imperative.

For millennia, boys and men have been taught to control their emotive states. This practice in control isn’t something that sprang up a few hundred years ago, we’re talking ancient cultures teaching their young men to resist losing their rational state-control over to an emotionalism that had a potential to get a man into some serious trouble. In some respects this self-control has been a necessary part of men’s upbringing, but also because men and women experience emotional states differently as a result of evolved biological differences. Women tend to process negative emotions differently than men. This processing isn’t due to some socially constructed acculturation, it is the result of the differences in men and women’s mental firmware. This is also a primary reason why making an emotional impact on a woman, positive or negative, is a source of stimulation for them. Men’s arousal may be founded on visual cues, but women are wired for emotional cues.

Likewise, men’s emotive states run a different gamut than that of women. As I mentioned in the Anger Bias essay, men are less predisposed to emotional states that women believe are beneficial in their own experience. In a feminine-correct social state, where women’s experiences define the norm, and in a social constructivist perspective, this amounts to a ‘repression’ of emotions. The idea is that an overly masculine acculturation of boys leads them to holding back the emotions that women tend to build their lives around. The real truth is that men process emotions, and prioritize the expression of those emotions, much more as a result of our own mental firmware than social repression.

That’s not to say there isn’t some social influence over teaching men to learn self-control over those emotions. As I just mentioned, young men have been taught for millennia to have state control by each other, their mentors and their peers, but since the time of the sexual revolution and the rise of a feminine primary social order this state control has been turned into a net negative.

So, in a sense, young men of the last 4-5 generations are caught between pleasing two masters. To be considered the ‘equal’ that feminine-primary egalitarianism would have them be they must first get in touch with their emotions. However, the only emotions they are taught are valid are those that make them more alike and identifying with women; nurturing, crying, expressing vulnerability, etc., essentially anything not characteristic of conventional masculinity. This of course has the effect of women subconsciously perceiving them as they would other women, and not potential intimates. Essentially, this aligning with women’s experience of emotion desexualizes men.

Yet, on the other hand, men are expected to repress their emotions in terms of having a state control that appeals to women’s Hypergamous need for security. Thus, the emotions that might better serve men in a survivalist utility are exactly those which feminine-correct society considers negative or ‘toxic’ and therefore must be controlled. The problem inherent in all of this is that it is feminine-primacy that is defining what men’s experience of emotion is acceptable despite it being the cause of so much of women’s frustration with men.

As the saying goes, women get the men they deserve and the emotive, masculine-confused men of today are simply the result of a social order that’s standardized the female experience as the definition of what blank-slate equalism should be for both sexes – but really as a means of social control for women whose experience is defined by an unsolvable need for certain security.

None of this is to say men ought not to express themselves emotionally or avoid being artists and poets or whatever in favor of some uninspired stoicism, but it is to say that Red Pill aware men should also be aware of the feminine-primary influences informing their expectations of expressing any or no emotion. That may seem like a drawn out way of saying ‘own your emotions’, but it’s my belief that for men to reclaim conventional masculinity it will require them to honestly assess why and how they choose to express or control their emotional states based on their own definition of what is correct from a male perspective, not the female perspective.

372 comments

  1. Eh….

    Very gay. Some people are just crazy. I’d not stop laughing, tempting to go in to see him just for the lols. But he may be a shooter.

    Always did term life myself.

  2. @scribbler

    I believe we aren’t helping @Softie by engaging in endless, recursive arguments that simply go over the same turf.

    +1 I’m done with him until he acts.

  3. @SJF

    It’s not so much buffering as inertia. There isn’t enough internal or external force to put an end to the equilibrium in his (Softek’s) life. Hence the need for a catalyst.

    Put another way, Softek has as much reason to stay in his relationship and continue being the person is, as he has to change.

    There may come a tipping point. But that isn’t now.

  4. @Softek

    Man don’t listen to these third person comments,if you need to say some thing click on the field reports bar at the top of page and bring whatever you want to the table.

  5. Transgenderism is getting hit over the head with sex so young it left a sour taste in your anus and now the only way to get it out is to demand that people treat you however you prefer.

  6. @Yollo

    ^ this^ is a larger part of it than Sapolsky will admit. He sorta looks like a lesbian trapped in a mans body,at least with the beard and his clothes on.

  7. Disgruntled earthling I could not read the whole thing. Stopped at the part about boys in dresses. It’s a sick world. This same people are the one that ask where are all the real men at after a terrorist bombing. And cry real men need to step up.

  8. KFG, SJF & Anonymous Reader,

    Thanks for the consideration and responses.

    However, I cannot help but recognize the similarities regarding perceptions and operative strategies between much of what is presented in the RP community and women’s advice blogs, and magazines like Cosmopolitan. There are definitely similar themes in both although they aren’t manifested the same way, they are fundamentally similar. Both approach the opposite gender in a primarily solipsistic context, with great focus on self. Typical PUA strategies are of greatest interest to me concerning this similarity. Mystery method, “negs”, “demonstrating higher value”, etc. are applied personality traits that PUAs promote just as women’s magazines promote the application of all kinds of cosmetics, clothing, etc. We are primarily attracted to women’s sexual beauty which is almost exclusively visual. Women, on the other hand, are attracted to masculine visual appearance AND behavior. No matter how great a guy looks, his behavior will make or break his success with women, and very quickly. The idea of negs, DHV, Mystery method, may sell well to men who have little success with women, but they aren’t nearly as successful as a woman’s natural beauty. This is mostly because they aren’t static. Their natural existence is confirmed by natural behavior manifestation over time, the course of an evening, a few days or a week which cannot be faked. A woman’s natural beauty is set, she does not have to constantly reevaluate and tweak it during her interactions to maintain her attractiveness. Behavior is Impossible to maintain if it is not natural. Fake it till you make it in my opinion does not work. Natural masculine behavior cannot be faked. The constant changing of many varied conditions over time just during the matter of course of one evening or afternoon is too unpredictable and complex to “act out” being masculine. Either a man acts like a man or he does not. He is either masculine enough in his natural behavior or he isn’t Andrew faking Ismael fooling….fakers make fools of themselves. It is infinitely more successful with women to BE a man than it is to BE a clown.

    Here is the real rub on this. Success with women IS the result of “just being yourself”. I know most if not all of you will likely think I’m full of shit, but I’m not. My success has consistently been the result of this and I have noticed other men’s success to be similar. Let me explain what I mean by “just being myself” in the context of approaching a woman I find attractive. I NEVER approach by talking with her less attractive friend first and pretending that I’m maybe not interested in her, I do not feign lack of interest. I just simply walk straight up and tell her I noticed her, find her attractive and want to get to know her. This absolutely works FAR BETTER than any other “method”. Some will reject, but they aren’t the ones you want to continue with anyway because they will not be worth your effort and time. All other approaches are coy and the result of insecurity. If you are attracted to a woman, let her know it and let her know why you are attracted without sounding like a beggar or being crass and you will be pleasantly surprised how successful you can be if you haven’t tried this before.

    All that being said, I do recognize a striking similarity between the struggle of RP men and the feminine perspective of sexual social,dynamics. The difference between the two is that women market themselves in the visual context and RP men are marketing themselves in the visual and behavior contexts. However, both are essientially exercising marketing ploys. In my opinion, women are the natural marketeers, men are not, and it is not normal or masculine for a man to think he must market himself in any way. A woman pitches herself, a man takes her, and he takes her by TELLING her he wants her. A man is naturally a performer, an actor, not in the theatrical context, but in the effective context of really making things happen. Beautiful women are put out there by the nature of their existence. Their natural constitution presents them to be picked. Powerful men take them. A man must develope himself to be powerful and able to effectively perform and take action. But it is unnecessary for him to become a self conscious marketeer of himself. In fact, that mentality is self defeating for a man because his effect on the world around him and his effect on his own life is the most powerful determinant of his attractiveness.

    The coy PUA spars with this reality and ultimately demonstrates his insecurity and inability to accept responsibility for his attraction to beautiful women. For this reason the PUA significantly risks making himself a primal turn off for women, regardless of how much anyone wants to believe otherwise. Successful men do not spar, they go in for the kill. There isn’t time in life to be wasted on too much self reflection and introspective reevaluation. The results a man gets or doesn’t get are all the feedback he needs. It is like bicycle racing. Some people ask “how can you go 30mph”. The answer is “if you never go 30, you will never go 30”. It’s that simple. There are zillions of books, blogs, articles, seminars, etc. on “how to get girls”. The answer to “how do you get girls?” Is GO GET THEM.

    I have a lot of experience. Some of you are undoubtedly as experienced or more than me and I’m sure those of you who are have noticed a progression over the past few decades of males in our society becoming more and more feminized. It is apparent with men’s magazines like Maxim, men’s blogs, etc. Maxim is nothing more than Cosmopolitan for sissies who do not know what masculinity is. I don’t care that it includes pictures of sexy women you wish you were fucking. In fact that aspect is somthing, you should seriously consider in the context of what I’m attempting to express here. TRP grew primarily out of man’s frustration with women due to lack of success and PUA awarness of feminine nuances. RP concepts are real, but it is important for men to recognize they are primarily feminine not masculine operatives.

    Women have girl friends and boyfriends. If you aren’t fucking her younare her girl friend.

    This is a true statement, there is another way to see this basic concept, another angle…

    Bitches compete with each other using all the RP truths discussed in the manosphere. If you are competing with them, then you are just another bitch.

  9. ” Bitches compete with each other using all the RP truths discussed in the manosphere. If you are competing with them, then you are just another bitch.”

    …. ohhhh shit!!!!!

  10. Women aren’t the enemy, but if you don’t understand their nature it can be. I’ll make a brief summary here (if you want to read my expanded post on this topic, checkout: https://alphajedi.com/2015/03/31/the-enemy/)

    The nature of women is straightforward when you break it down. Women are pragmatic in their approach to love and relationships and as such they care more about the stats a man possesses. Your status, how good looking you are and how you conduct yourself are all huge factors. Women are attracted to man for what he is not who he is. Women don’t really care who Leonardo DiCaprio is, if he’s a nice guy, does he love kittens, or what his favorite pizza toppings are. They are attracted with what he is; a handsome, successful man that is A-List (high status) and famous (has large social proof).

    This is not a “right or wrong” rant, it’s a mere statement of facts. So if you’re looking at this and saying “it’s wrong that they don’t value a man for who he is on the inside” then you’re missing the point. This is how the mechanisms for attraction with women work. Some guys get upset and ask “what about who I am on the inside?” Well, “it’s what on the inside that counts” is the male equivalent of of the “Big is Beautiful” movement women have been pushing the last 5 years. Women can’t dictate to men what attraction for us is, and men can’t dictate to women what attraction for them is either.

    Learn how that attraction works and then you can “hack” your own attractiveness as well as utilizing TRP for your own interactions and relationship goals. Understand that women are pragmatic, opportunistic and always testing to see if they have made the best investment. This can do men a lot of good because it can push us to continuously excel, improve and do better (which you should strive for anyway). Don’t get mad…get motivated. Love women, but have open eyes about their nature.

  11. NBTM
    A woman’s natural beauty is set, she does not have to constantly reevaluate and tweak it during her interactions to maintain her attractiveness.

    What do you think women do when they scoot off to the bathroom duirng a night out?
    Why do they have a compact, lipstick, and other stuff in that purse?
    Why should I even be asking these questions, when you should already know the answers?

    Behavior is Impossible to maintain if it is not natural. Fake it till you make it in my opinion does not work.

    Cool. Your opinion does not match up with my own personal experience across multiple years, different careers and multiple new situations. So pardon me for believing my lying eyes rather than your words.

    Natural masculine behavior cannot be faked

    Who are you and what have you done with Not Born This Morning?

  12. @Keith:

    Depends on the dress:

    @NBTM:

    Not withstanding, you didn’t get any of that from the article you cited. It was the point you wanted to make, so you made it, despite its irrelevance to the nearly contentless “article” you linked.

    Hence my “inkblot” comment.

    I will note that one thing I have noted as a problem in both the femo and mano spheres is a solipsistic lack of recognition that men and women are the two sexes of the same sexually reproducing species.

    i.e. their behaviors are two takes on an essentially common theme, the dance between the FI and the MI. That is what is to be expected. Vive la différence, and all that jazz.

    Women shit.

    Men shit.

    My God, men are becoming women!

    No. Find a better example. Valley Girl uptalking, for instance.

    Are men becoming feminized? Yeah, to the point where I want to bitch slap half the guys I meet and yell, “Snap out of it!” And I’m no Sgt. Rock myself, so that’s saying something.

    But the article was just clueless, feminist dipshitery stumbling on a clue that men are people too.

  13. @Not Born This Morning

    “A woman’s natural beauty is set.”

    A woman’s beauty is often hidden under several layers of foundation. When was the last time you saw a group of women without some form of make up on?
    It’s gotten to the point where a woman can’t leave the house without putting her face on.

    There’s no natural beauty as far as society is concerned, but rather cosmetic beauty. A woman’s beauty is defined by how well she can hide any trace of her true visage. The sad thing is a woman believes she’s as attractive as her false appearance, allows her to be.

  14. Teasing makeup application…my favorite nuke neg…so many variations…

    “What is it called when makeup foundation is too thick? Google it. Whatever it is, you have it.”

  15. I just simply walk straight up and tell her I noticed her, find her attractive and want to get to know her. This absolutely works FAR BETTER than any other “method”.

    Ah, the old Brady Rules of Game:

    1. Be attractive.

    2. Don’t be unattractive.

    3. Be Tom Brady.

    He is either masculine enough in his natural behavior or he isn’t

    Do you seriously think that masculinity is binary? Don’t you think that social skills can be learned? If you are “masculine”, yet lack social skills, girls aren’t gonna like you. Social skills are essential. Brady Rule #2.

    Masculinity can manifest in many different ways. Some girls find some manifestations more attractive and other girls prefer other manifestations of masculinity.

    IDK, maybe you think I’m lying in my FRs about hotties putting their hands on my butt and being lit up. I am willing to visit doubters if you will promise to vouch for me after seeing me in the field.

    Some will reject, but they aren’t the ones you want to continue with anyway because they will not be worth your effort and time.

    Sounds like buffering to me. The HB8s often have massive bitch shields up and you have to blast thru those shields with a neg. I often start out qualifying a girl with “Can you dance?” It generally works. But then, I dance with LOTS of girls and don’t focus on any one girl, usually. Of course, girls notice me dancing with lots of them and preselection works for me. Surely you don’t disbelieve in preselection?

    Of course, if you only approach attractive girls, you will give off the “Player” vibe…it pays to talk to all kinds of girls (or dance with them as I do) and even talk to other men, including staff at the bar. I’m friends with waitresses at the bar and chat them up, too. All of this gives a man social proof. Surely you don’t disbelieve in social proof?

    1. Game is a skill set…like any skill set, Game can be learned.

    2. Social skills are an essential part of Game and they can be learned.

    3. The sexual behavior of women is a knowledge base and it, too, can be learned. Stuff like IOIs, bitch shields, and what being “lit up” looks like are all important things to know.

    “Just be yourself” is fine as long as you also have essential skill sets and knowledge about women. However, without those skill sets and knowledge, your advice is about as useful as bubble pipe underwater. Your advice is typical of a natural who has no clue about his nonverbal signals and how women respond to them.

  16. The following excerpt is well worth sharing with everyone here at RM as it pertains to the questions we debate, and ask ourselves, considering men, women and the inevitable sexual social dynamics. At first consideration you will likely think I am even more full of crap than I am, but it is wise to be patient and think about the following seriously. What I am about to tell you dovetails with my most recent comments, there is wisdom herein on the most fundamental level concerning all this.

    “Fooled?” is an excerpt (verbatim) from the book entitled “What is the name of this book?” written by Raymond M. Smullyan.

    Chapter 1 – “Fooled?”

    My introduction to logic was at the age of six. It happened this way: On April 1, 1925, I was sick with grippe, of flu, or something. In the morning my brother Emile (ten years my senior) came into my bedroom and said: “Well Raymond, today is April Fool’s Day, and I will fool you as you have never been fooled before!” I waited all day long for him to fool me, but he didn’t. Late that night, my mother asked me, “Why don’t you go to sleep?” I replied, “I’m waiting for Emile to fool me.” My mother turned to Emile and said, “Emile will you please fool the child!” Emile then turned to me and the following dialoge ensued:

    Emile “So, you expected me to fool you didn’t you?”
    Raymond “Yes”
    Emile “But I didn’t, did I?”
    Raymnond “No”
    Emile “But you expected me to, didn’t you?”
    Raymond “Yes”
    Emile “So, I fooled you, didn’t I ?!”

    Well, I recall lying in bed long after the lights were turned out wondering whether or not I had really been fooled. On the one hand, if I wasn’t fooled, then I did not get what I expected, hence I WAS fooled. (this is Emiles argument.) But with equal reason it can be said that if I was fooled, then I DID get what I expected, so then, in what sense was I fooled? So, was I fooled or wasn’t I? End of excerpt.

    So, how does the forgoing excerpt pertain to sexual gender dynamics? And how does it dovetail into the subject of my previous comment?

    When we model our sexuality with women in the fashion of a “game” being aware of red pill “truths” and applying strategy accordingly, we do so at an invitation to operate within the dynamic of the feminine MO. It is imperative to comprehend that RP “truths” are actually nothing more than stratagems which only effectively become “truth” when they are respected as such. They are only manifested into reality when they are effective. They are each like terms of a contract, each of which is a term offer of how the relationship will be defined. Their real manifestation is only possible when both parties accept them to be “true”. Accepting them and respecting them can only be done by submitting to the frame within which they are cast. You make their truth become your truth only by subverting yourself to the idea that they are in fact universally true. You make them false by not subverting yourself to them. Ignore them.

    A woman can experience her full attraction to a man only when she respects him (this does not mean she must be frightened of him). To gain respect, you must remain outside their frame entirely. As a consequence, you will gain control of those who cannot lure you into this morass, their relentless test is to see if you can be baited or if you are already conscripted. Understand this and you will gain great power over all women, feminists included. Psychological dominance is established primarily by the explication of not taking the bait, rather than only an implication of not taking the bait. And actions speak louder than words. The test results cannot be faked for long because you may be able to fool some people all the time and all people some of the time but you cannot fool all people all the time.

    When Raymond accepted Emile’s invitation to Emile’s contest of being fooled or not, Raymond entered a frame that was predefined, created and controlled exclusively by Emile. Emile was the absolute omniscient emperor of this frame and all its tenants including Raymond. There is a profound lesson offered here. Those who learn from it, know that Raymond’s only proper response would have been to simply state: “Emile, you cannot fool me.” A lack of response (MGTOW) is as cowardly as an agreement, no matter the terms of the agreement (Alpha-Beta or Macho-Musho). The most desirable masculine men are the ones who cannot be fooled. You are either free or you are tamed, wild or domesticated, master or slave.

  17. ” Of course, if you only approach attractive girls, you will give off the “Player” vibe…”

    Well, it all depends on what you are saying to these attractive girls, or any girl for that matter.

    One can build and develop social skills through interaction, attention and understanding. the timelines will vary greatly from man to man. But at the end of the exercise, a man has to understand attraction and how it works. If being masculine is incorporated into the building of social skills, then he won’t need to be a ” player ” in a loose sense of the word, but he will enjoy interactions as if they were a fun and interesting game.

    @ Alpha Jedi

    ” This is not a “right or wrong” rant, it’s a mere statement of facts. So if you’re looking at this and saying “it’s wrong that they don’t value a man for who he is on the inside” then you’re missing the point. This is how the mechanisms for attraction with women work. Some guys get upset and ask “what about who I am on the inside?” Well, “it’s what on the inside that counts” is the male equivalent of of the “Big is Beautiful” movement women have been pushing the last 5 years. Women can’t dictate to men what attraction for us is, and men can’t dictate to women what attraction for them is either.”

    Yes. Part of men’s development must include the understanding that personal development and achievement is only ever for one’s self. Never do anything ( outside of job related performance ) with the expectation that people will admire and recognize your insides .

    Most people will never really know who you really are deep down, especially in the self absorbed culture we now inhabit. Zero fucks should be given.

    But… the cool part is that every so often you will run across the talented few that are capable of seeing your insides. Occasionally some people will appreciate you for your deep down self. Take this as it comes for what it is, but never despair about the multitudes that fail to recognize how awesome you are. Doesn’t matter, it’s not for them.

    Remember always: Nobody gives a shit unless you give them a reason to, and even then you will still run into a cavalcade of numb skulls. Mental Point of Origin.

  18. When you walk up to a chick she knows there are one of two things going on

    You want to bang her, and you know it, she knows etc and you can get her damp in the pants

    Or you watch to bang her but your a simp who doesn’t know how to make her damp in the pants.

    Either way, she knows you want to bang her. Otherwise you wouldn’t roll up on her

  19. “Just be yourself” is fine as long as you also have essential skill sets and knowledge about women. However, without those skill sets and knowledge, your advice is about as useful as bubble pipe underwater. Your advice is typical of a natural who has no clue about his nonverbal signals and how women respond to them.”

    Same take I had from NBTM. I don’t disagree with what he said as long as a man has a limitless skill set. But what is the point? What idea is NBTM pushing other that his Frame? Even @5:43 pm he is pushing the Apex Alpha fallacy of Just Be Yourself.

    Good luck with Just Be Yourself if you are incompetent at generating attraction, desire and arousal in women. It makes entire sense in the Competent realm. (About that Pareto thing….)

  20. @NBTM

    So, how does the forgoing excerpt pertain to sexual gender dynamics?

    “Gender” is a linguistic concept. When you misuse that word instead of the correct term, “sex”, you are writing without precision or accuracy. When you write inaccurately and imprecisely, you are learning how to write inaccurately and imprecisely. That means you are thinking imprecisely and inaccurately.

    For example:
    It is imperative to comprehend that RP “truths” are actually nothing more than stratagems which only effectively become “truth” when they are respected as such.

    I have applied Game with a great deal of internal skepticism, i.e. with zero respect for it as being “true”, yet it worked.

    A woman can experience her full attraction to a man only when she respects him (this does not mean she must be frightened of him).

    How’s that FI pushing on you NBTM? Feel like you should earn a woman’s respect yet?

    The test results cannot be faked for long because you may be able to fool some people all the time and all people some of the time but you cannot fool all people all the time.

    The test results can be faked, in your terms, long enough to get results.

    I really don’t get what you are selling this week. Is it AMOGing? Is it Only Real Man In The Room? Is it Only Real Men Like Me Can Get Women? What are you trying to say?

    Use fewer words and say more with them.

    Smullyan was an interesting fellow.
    http://gonitsora.com/obituary-raymond-smullyan/

  21. Do it like this here –

    Emile “So, you expected me to fool you didn’t you?”

    Blaximus ” Lol, that’s sweet. You fool me? Picture that. ”

    Emile “But I didn’t, did I?”

    Blaximus ” I’m sorry, are you still talking about… what was it again?”

    Emile “But you expected me to, didn’t you?”

    Blaximus ” Expectations are irrelevant. You are who you are and do what you do. ”

    Emile “So, I fooled you, didn’t I ?!”

    Blaximus ” Lol, hey, you can tell yourself whatever you’d like to, as it seems that the whole ‘

    fooling ‘ thing is very important to you. Tell me something, were you fooled a lot in your

    childhood? Tooth fairy? Easter Bunny? Santa Clause? You wanna tell me about it?”

  22. “I really don’t get what you are selling this week. Is it AMOGing? Is it Only Real Man In The Room? Is it Only Real Men Like Me Can Get Women? What are you trying to say?”

    Winner,winner. My sentiments, exactly.

  23. kfg 2 days ago to NBTM

    OK, now what do you see in this inkblot?

    STOP POSTING THAT DISGUSTING PORN!!!!

  24. @Blax

    Well, it all depends on what you are saying to these attractive girls, or any girl for that matter.

    No, my friend, you could simply be asking girls to dance. Preselection attaches the Player attribute to a man. You get preselected simply by getting lots of girls giggling and smiling while they dance with you. Or you could chat with girls all over the room and talk about the weather…if your nonverbals are solid, girls will show IOIs towards you and other girls will see it and…presto…you are preselected.

    On a side note, the Player attribute raises ASD in some girls, but not in others. Some girls will avoid you and others will chase you.

  25. Let me explain what I mean by “just being myself” in the context of approaching a woman I find attractive. I NEVER approach by talking with her less attractive friend first and pretending that I’m maybe not interested in her, I do not feign lack of interest. I just simply walk straight up and tell her I noticed her, find her attractive and want to get to know her.

    Let’s consider two different people doing this very same thing:

    1. One of Amy’s lovers (Amy from Big Bang Theory)…manly men…these men walk tall, speak clearly and directly, and hold girls’ gaze

    2. Stewart, who owns a nerdy retail comic store business…Stewart is very insecure…Stewart slouches, stutters, hems and haws, looks at the ground a lot

    Amy’s lovers will see success, yet Stewart will get a nuclear rejection…yet both are doing what NBTM advocated. The difference is the nonverbal communication. Amy’s lovers are confident and this is attractive. Stewart is insecure and this is unattractive.

    Men give off nonverbal clues about whether they are confident or not and this is a big part of girls’ attraction.

    Shaming men for using their intelligence to bed lovely lasses is part of the FI’s strategy. NBTM is an agent for the FI. He attempts to shame men for using their intelligence to get laid, calling that endeavor “feminine”.

    The FI has pushed its propaganda on men and confused men about sex and mating and the Red Pill is about removing the blinders and improving men and teaching men about women and about masculinity. The Red Pill is about disconnecting from the Matrix.

  26. @kfg

    But the article was just clueless, feminist dipshitery stumbling on a clue that men are people too.

    Lol. You gotta weigh with werds.

    Gonna sperg a sec. How can someone be clueless after stumbling on a clue? Did they fumble the clue?

  27. Birds need to walk the walk… lol.

    In other news…

    Movie Lawsuit Dude gets paid… woman gets? Movie deal????

    Still not sure whether this is a threshold moment of Beta nut dropping or King Gamma moment. Over at WIA he poses the question Pimp or Simp and concludes Simp.

    http://www.westindianarchie.com/pimp-or-simp/

  28. “Women mistakenly believe blank-slate equalism makes them equally as durable as men . . .”

    The front passenger seat of an automobile is colloquially referred to as the “Suicide Seat,” because the accident fatality rate of that seat is higher than any other.

    Once upon a time auto engineers spent a good deal of time and money trying to figure out why that seat was less safe and what engineering solution they might apply to the problem.

    The why was eventually discovered in another statistic, not in the physical properties of automobiles:

    That seat is most often occupied by a woman.

  29. “That seat is most often occupied by a woman.”

    And now, for the non sequitur of the day:

    Quentin Tarantino sure did exploit that in Death Proof (movie) when Stuntman Mike McKay (Kurt Russell) took Pam (Rose McGowan) for a mean ride in his stunt car. Peak Anger phase.

  30. @Sentient

    It’s clear the Grey Alien Race doesn’t take shit from their android beaner concubines back home.

    The nerve of that cleaning lady having better shit to do than watch some feminist horseshit movie with E.T.

  31. Yollo

    I’m surpised she didn’t pay him in singles or just loose change and Sonic coupon…

  32. Thanks for all the responses to my comments, sincerely.

    The RP enlightens a man to be aware of the machelivian arts and especially with respect to women in the MANosphere. RP truth (and I completely agree it is in fact true where its effects prevail) identifies machevellism as part of woman’s primary MO in her negotiations with man. So, in this sense, the newly initiated man is introduced to what the RP identifies as primarily more feminine, considering that the RP makes man aware of what woman has already been practicing. Whether she is practicing consciously or not makes no difference. As Rollo states, it is man who loves idealistically for the sake of love itself whereas woman is more opportunistic. Men are mostly romantics, women mostly opportunists. RP potentially teaches men strategies to take advantage of opportunities as well as making him aware of what it identifies as woman’s strategy.

    The practice of finding, creating and exploiting opportunities with women in this context, in my experience, is less productive than simply saying “fuck it” and just doing your own thing. Applying myself to a career, building a company, focusing on a hobby, developing myself without so much obsession about women, brings more women into my life than chasing them and trying to “play the game”, Its good to know the nature of the game, but I think it’s best for a man to let it mostly be a woman’s game. Let them do all the work. Let them stew in that juice. It is a morass, I would rather not be too involved with as I have found it to be less productive. I really think too much involvement in it makes a man appear to be like a gossiping cunt.

    I am not MTGOW, however I can understand why some men think it may help resolve their delima. But, we are all compelled to engage women sexually, so, pure MGTOW only frustrates more than resolves the issue. I think the best solution to any man is to accept that there are no unicorns or sole mates live his life for himself and take each woman to give him whatever she will whether it’s sex, money, companionship, or employee service, etc.

  33. Re: State Control

    RP lenses reveal the dual standards and it’s frustrating. Men are to tolerate, celebrate you-go-girl women’s anger, subdue their own.

    When women overtly emote, esp. anger, they’re out of their comfort zone, preferred frame. They’re shit testing men, the world, their hindbrain isn’t buying, tho.

    Example: Mrs. Eh would misbehave, I’d withhold attention and carry on ZFG, not calibrating. We’d walk around each other until she’d melt down, sometimes violently, looking for leadership. I’d accept the stormy night, placid morning narrative. Years of this.

    I go RP, accept my leadership failure, no going back…and I’m going to stick this landing.

    Epic anger, violence. The FI limited my options to deeper betaization, flee permanently, or deftly Alpha up. Erstwhile, when I’d angry flare, I’d fall into her frame, as she had codified social norms protecting her. I’d back down. Her hindbrain knew these: My violence is final, equalism is a fraud, I fear loosing it all to the law.

    Me? Well, I’m learning TRM of course. Powerful stuff!

    In the worst, she’d attack when I’d attempt to leave…once I had to throw her off me, her clawing. I didn’t FR that one. I was too embarrassed it regressed. I knew…if I bolt without hurting her…I’d, we’d recover. Guys, I felt paralyzed. All I could do was pray, honestly.

    Fast forward two months: I fat-finger-disease the cell phone emergency dialer…and receive a courtesy call back. You know…”if you’re in need, sir, could you say so?” type question. I apologize and that’s that…well no. Cops arrive, leave. Laughs, no hurt, no foul…right?

    I find it odd, not Mrs. Eh. She admits during the worst, me running away, she’d phone the cops on DV. She said she was protecting herself, and created a long paper trail of abuse…unknown to me. We’ve never discussed it since. In her solipsistic understanding, I WAS abusing her, by not getting a clue, fucking up my masculine role. I deserved it.

    Me: So be it.

    How’s that for the state controlled FI pressing on me? Thanks for being there, men.

    Much better now. Fairly warned.

  34. @rugby11 May 25, 2017 at 7:38 am

    That was a fantastic video of Jordan Peterson. I never did get what he was about cause I couldn’t slog through his long videos (albeit, they were random and not directed like you did today). But now I just get it about the free speech. And a lot of that talk was a microcosm of what goes on here in dialog at TRM.

    Thanks!

    (And disclaimer if someone clicks, the audio is terrible.)

  35. @NBTM

    Applying myself to a career, building a company, focusing on a hobby, developing myself without so much obsession about women, brings more women into my life

    So you’re a natural who uses his social circle to obtain women, amirite?

  36. @EhIntellect

    “RP lenses reveal the dual standards and it’s frustrating. Men are to tolerate, celebrate you-go-girl women’s anger, subdue their own.

    When women overtly emote, esp. anger, they’re out of their comfort zone, preferred frame. They’re shit testing men, the world, their hindbrain isn’t buying, tho.”

    Just to clarify a point: Women are in their comfort zone when they are receiving emotions from an Alpha male. Bad emotions are not outside of their comfort zone if calibrated and executed well. Reminder, the worst emotion she can give you is indifference.

    If you can be comfortable by not flinching when she is in a bad or angry emotional state (whether you caused it or not) and know that ‘This Too Shall Pass’ and keep your wits or natural game about you, then well begun is half done.

    The thing that will really piss her off and lead her to a path towards indifference and lack of desire is if she can’t trust you to be Alpha for you and for her.

    So sometimes backing out of her negative emotional state with hurt you when she see’s you are not the solid rock (or oak) in the storm for her. In a recovering-from-Beta relationship, that’s where she will be doubtful of you having flipped to Alpha.

  37. She’s in a bad or angry emotional state?

    Paint her back porch rex, pound that bitch from behind and clean your junk off in her hair.

  38. “So you’re a natural who uses his social circle to obtain women, amirite?”

    No but yes. First no, because that isn’t the primary objective. It just happens. Yes, because that is a result. But, no again, because that result is one incidental, not the primary intent. It takes care of itself. They take care of it. Its their work. Let them worry. Let them be the hamster feeder. Now obviously a wall flower isn’t going to get the bees and shit only attracts flies. Can’t be a wallflower or a shit. Only women who are wall flowers are capable of attracting attention, if they’re good looking enough. I think one of the most brilliant true expressions from Rollo is that a woman (or women in general) should be a compliment to a mans life, never the focus of it, dovetails with the fact that there is no such thing as a sole mate. Who wants one anyway when there are numerous women and variety is better. But it is amazing, comical and sad what some men will do to themselves to try to get women, everything from the white knight’s of chivalry and global warming crusades, to superstitious affiliations, to PUA clowns and even supporting feminists.

  39. @SJF

    “This Too Shall Pass’ and keep your wits”

    This, brother, this saved me until I fell backwards here. We’ve not come to blows since…with all the same benefits.

    I was at SFCTons blog and sheepishly walked memory lane. How humbling.

    Speaking of:

    Switched from German pub to Mexican pub down the street during Kim’s piano lessons. The kids walk to us after. Cheaper and the female staff is sassy.

    Manager, whom I’m friendly, wearing black, all black. I, ever the idiot, ask if he’s going for the slimming look. No, his 19 y.o. son was murdered in Guatemala two days ago. Later, I learn his third son was dead too.

    Fuck.

    I ask the son’s name, try to pry some kind memories, things to love about him. Buy a shot of Don Julio after the dinner rush ceded. He’s frank, still reeling from the death of the son he barely knew. I listen. He bravely smiles, recounting what he knows. Looks at my youngest. He tells me my daughter has my eyes.

    That’s what we do here. First, listen.

    We’re all dealing with the same shit. Only at different magnitudes.

    Laters.

  40. On the OP good essay on male emotion. It is a parodox if a male shows emotion. One side she can’t understand his side or sympathize or have empathy. She can’t comprehend his struggle or sacrifices he makes on the daily. If he emotes and yells and get frustrated he looks weak even laughable to her because the threat of physical violence is removed from his arsenal of tools by the system.But the other side if he fails to dominate she will see weakness and destroy him. Parodox indeed. In the bars I go to and think it’s pretty common maybe like 9 out of 10 times if you give a guy a out where they can walk away from a fight and save face they will always take the out. You see it all the time.In LTR their is no out a man can’t walk away from his own domicile and children he lives with. So how does he shut her down and maintain frame. Does he let her win a argument now and then. Maybe let her calm down and then speak rationally to her. I think the walk away always worked best for me Pack your shit and move back to your mothers bitch.NOW ! Her time and investment in the relationship is more valuable to her than wealth. I can make more money. She can’t make more time. I don’t know what the value of a mans righteous anger is worth even when he is 100 percent correct. Is it better to have lost a battle and win the war. Is it better to win the battle at the cost of the whole relationship. Sorry this comment drones on and on I just got a lot shit in my head tonight.

  41. @NBTM

    Yes, because that is a result. But, no again, because that result is one incidental, not the primary intent. It takes care of itself. They take care of it. Its their work. Let them worry. Let them be the hamster feeder.

    This is all fine if you’re a natural with a social circle that includes lovely women. You have unconscious competence—you don’t have to put out much effort to get laid. Most men are unconsciously incompetent, however. They don’t even know how incompetent they are. They need to learn what you learned years ago and you have even forgotten that you learned it.

    NB: I forgot how I learned some things about women and it took some recollection to figure out how and when I learned stuff. Some was from Playboy and some from stories that friends told me about their alpha friends. Some was observation and some was just trying shit. All pre-Red Pill blogs. When I got married, married women mostly didn’t commit adultery, and, as far as I know, Mrs. Gamer hasn’t either. Old Set of Books for girls. It was eye-opening to me how much things have changed. It started about four+ years ago when I started taking dance lessons and going dancing at a bar.

    Are you seriously saying that you’ve never been deceived about women? Are you saying that Rollo’s writing never helped you understand women and get past the FI propaganda?

  42. Keith,

    Rational thought works with men. Righteous anger works as long as she’s responsive. For shits, think energy conservation when engaging her. Get her to submit with minimum energy on your part. Stress kills, brother.

    SJF: https://therationalmale.com/2017/05/17/state-control/comment-page-4/#comment-198946

    Consider any given female contribution here. It’ll devolve to simmering erotica with only a nudge. Your lady wants you as Alpha, leader, lover. AWALT.

    It’s Friday, my sabbatical is ending, I’m burning it down.

  43. Everytime I read “Feminine Imperative” or anything the social order today, I think … Of course we live in a society like this.

    And as much as we’d like to throw blame around, it comes back to Men taking responsibility for their actions. We live in a world of our own making, therefore, our society reflects that world. This world/society was built by Men, every generation continues to be built by Men – the same world we bitch and complain about, is the one in which the people to blame are the Men standing at the switches and controls.

    Why? Easy answer: women are buyers. They spend money in ways (and for reasons) most men could never comprehend. That shifting of market power was granted to women starting after WWII, and has exploded over the past 60 years. The economic expansion within the US was driven by women – not by men. The explosion of “product choice”, options, variations, etc. was driven by women – not by men. Our society is based upon consumerism, and if the primary consumer is women, it only stands to reason, we cater to them, in fact, from a pure business standpoint, it’s the only thing that makes sense.

    Which brings me to the point of who “allowed” this to happen? Ultimately is was Men. They allowed their wives to begin making purchasing decisions “on their behalf” (because 60 years ago, most of the wealth was controlled by Men). And Men were selling their products to women. They cycle was so successful, product lines expanded, options on those products expanded, and the economy expanded.

    We can, in forums such as this, talk about the evils of fem-controlled society – but the reality is this: our society is controlled by economics and the exchange of money for goods and services. I also content that in more cases than not, Men are the ones flipping the switches and turning the dials controlling our economy, and therefore, our society.

    I meanders a bit … but the essence is this: Our society is based upon consumerism. Women are the primary buyers. To be successful, you sell to the buyers. And ultimately, Men abdicated buying power to women.

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