The Rational Process

 

One of the most vexing things a lot of Red Pill aware men encounter when they interact with women today is the expectation that women are coequally as rational agents as men. We were taught from the earliest ages by our blank-slate equalist teachers that boys and girls are all the same, having coequal potential for coequal successes in life (as they define them), then primarily focusing on the ‘correct’, female way of educating both sexes. This education isn’t limited to just the classroom; the Village uses many ways (media, pop culture, religion, etc.) to deliver what is fundamentally the same message – boys and girls, men and women, are essentially, effectively, the same with respect to their potentials. Now, that’s the message not the practice. Even when they are forced to recognize definitive differences they simply dismiss them by saying “We’re more alike than different” in the presumption that this should be enough to refocus and reinforce their blank-slate belief set.

So when men and women consider differences in gender, differences in double standards, inequalities in gender-specific issues and pretty much any empirical debate about these and other differences, men presume that the women they are ‘debating’ with are also looking for earnest, equitable answers beginning from the same coequal state of mutual interest. This is almost never the case.

The pretense that’s been embedded into men from the earliest years of their Blue Pill conditioning is since men and women are coequal agents they should both be interested in finding an objective truth together. But the frustration in this ‘debate’ comes from the simple fact that our differences are actually much more significant than the dismissals of equalists would want them to be. The roots of this deliberate misunderstanding are twofold: First, the innate solipsistic self-interest of women, and second, women’s predisposition to interpret information using the Emotional (versus Rational) interpretive processes.

When men and women debate intersexual issues of contention men opt for their innately preferred Rational interpretive process; we look for factual evidence to support a premise. Women opt for the Emotional process and then consider evidence. This difference in processing is where a lot of personal and ideological obstacles come into play between men and women. Our educational priorities of both men and women prioritizes the importance of emotion and its expression before a consideration of the Rational process. We teach boys/men to sublimate their natural proclivity towards reason by replacing it with the Emotional process. Thus, we’ve seen the push to encourage men to get in touch with their feelings or their feminine sides since the late 60s.

As I mentioned last week, women prioritize context (how a conversation makes them feel) in communication while men prioritize content (the information of the conversation); these differences are part of our biological/neurological evolved inheritances. This is where the misunderstanding starts between the sexes; however, calling this a ‘misunderstanding’ is a bit of a misnomer.

I’m sure a lot of readers think this is a longwinded way of saying women’s emotions blind them to the facts that men present to them when they debate. While this is true in a sense, this is shortsighted because, in the interests of simplifying things, most guys will just blow off the dynamics that build up this (often deliberate) miscommunication. Women don’t like the way a Rational-prioritized conversation makes them feel. Often the reality is unflattering to their solipsistically defined egos – but the communication feels wrong because women’s presumption is that men should just know to acknowledge their feelings in that debate (all communication really). On the female side the presumption is that men and women, being blank-slate equals, already know to prioritize the Emotional process, while on the male side men presume women will prioritize the Rational process because, again, we’re all the same, right?

This presuming that one sex sees the same way as the other is endemic in our time. I had a reader pose me with a similar example:

I had a conversation with my LTR at dinner tonight where I did a thought exercise with her. I asked her to imagine what it would be like if people visually saw different colors when they looked at various objects but had consistent names for those colors in their own minds. For example, person A sees what person B calls Blue, but it looks like what would be called green if person A could peer into person B’s mind. The point was we can’t know what colors actually look like from an individual subjective perspective. Although I tried several times to walk through this, she couldn’t comprehend what I was trying to explain. I then realized that this exercise involved imagining a first person conscious experience from multiple perspectives. This test could be a proxy test for (women’s) solipsism.

This thought experiment is a good way to illustrate solipsism in women, but it’s an even better example of the default presumptions men and women have of each other in other areas. As it stands today, in our feminine-primary social order, the Blue Pill conditions us to default to cognitive models that are defined by the female experience. Thus, whatever best satisfies a female-primary purpose is always considered the correct purpose. The way women think, the way women prioritize their Emotional interpretive process, is the right way for men to think – and the mutual presumption is that men already do (or should) think and process stimuli like women do. Anything else, anything that would recognize a difference in men from women, always feels wrong.

This default presumption of a female-correct way of interpreting and experiencing the world isn’t limited to our differences in communication. This misalignment of interpretive differences also extends to the false presumption that men and women approach the concept of love from a mutually understood perspective. Men love idealistically, women love opportunistically, yet men’s presumption is that both men and women approach love from the Disneyesque idealism they believe women are capable of. Men too believe that women see the same colors they do and have the same names for those colors. In this case those colors are the concepts and approaches women have towards love. I may write a new essay outlining this dynamic soon, but I’ve already written many prior posts on this experiential difference.

Rationalism vs. The Rational Process

As a result of pushing the Emotional process as the correct way of interpreting our world the Rational process necessarily gets demonized today. It feels wrong to a social order predicated on the Emotional process, so the truths that the Rational process reveals seem cruel, biased or vindictive when they refute the interpretations of the Emotional process. The importance of Emotion has been elevated above an interpretive process to where it’s now entered a metaphysical realm. This is where the Emotional process becomes Emotionalism. In the light of this, the Rational process is overshadowed and sublimated in importance. But the Rational process is what exposes emotionalism for what it is: Emotion is an evolved, biological interpretive process that serves our species well, but the feelings it generates are biological responses to environmental stimuli, not evidence of some higher consciousness or mythic existential importance that goes beyond anything in the physical realm.

The Rational process throws a cold bucket of truth on lofty emotionalism. As a result, and because emotionalism has been a basis of our social order for millennia now, the Rational process had to be debased in importance.

Trust in the LORD with all your heart and do not lean on your own understanding. – Proverbs 3:5

This scripture is an example of the conflict between emotionalism and the rationalism that popular social consciousness would like to apply to the Rational interpretive process. The Rational process is based in our collective and subjective intelligence. Healthy men and women both have the mental hardware to use the Rational process well, but where we differ is in our gendered mental firmware. When we collectively prefer one process to the other, this is where we decide which gender’s process will define our social order. In order for emotionalism to supersede rationality and ensure its preeminence appeals to the emotional above the rational have to be popularized.

If we could depend on an unbiased, unadulterated form of reason the Rational process would be a superior methodology. But as I stated before, rationalism is dependent on intelligence and that intelligence takes time. In some ways the Rational process is sensitive to both instinct and emotion, in other’s that reasoning is painfully, sometimes fatally slow. The world happens fast and vacillating in the reasoning process might easily kill an individual. Fortunately we have instinct and emotion to carry us through. The Rational process requires time because it requires learning, contemplation, theorizing and any number of high-order thinking processes to be effective. And even then, that effectiveness depends on reasoning’s accuracy. For the past three or four hundred years we’ve increasingly had the luxury to develop our Rational process, but for all the advancements it’s given us, when it comes to intersexual dynamics emotion is still the priority.

We have placed such importance on emotion at the expense of reason that we’ll risk personal safety in our ‘right’ to express it. No doubt most men are familiar with repressing their emotional responses, but it’s interesting to consider that even with this self-control and even with our innate predilection to process emotion differently than women, men are the ones accused of failing to be ‘in touch with their emotions’. On first glance Robert Greene’s quote here appears to be wisdom (I think it is) – self-control, mastery of one’s emotional state, is a virtue. Yet, in our emotional-primary social order we’ll hear women complain that men are less emotionally available. And this conflict illustrates again that whatever is expedient to the female imperative is what is to be considered ‘correct’ at that moment.

Empiric reason is the foundation of what humanity has made of itself. Setting aside emotionality and considering challenges in a Rational interpretive process is fundamental to understanding the emotional and instinctive process and their advantages and weaknesses. For the record it’s my belief that all of these interpretive processes in union are are necessary elements in the human experience, but my focus on these processes is to lay a foundation for a better understanding of them. It’s easy to get caught up in the demonization of the instinctual and the rational when the emotional is defining what’s bad or good for our collective experiences.

When I wrote Appeals to Reason I was exploring the futility of expecting women to transition into a logical reasoning of why she should logically be with a guy who was more than happy to embody all of the aspects she stated she wants in a man. The manosphere idiom is “no woman was ever reasoned or logicked into bed with a guy”, women don’t follow the Rational process when it comes to interrelating with men. It’s all Instinctual and Emotional, and usually in that order. A man might be able to use his rational facilities to better understand women’s evolved instinctual and emotional responses, and what prompts them, but reason itself isn’t the key to that interrelation.

Appealing to women’s logic and relying on deductive reasoning to sort it out is the calling card of a Beta mind. There is nothing more anti-seductive for women than appealing to her reason. Arousal, attraction, sexual tension, subcommunication of desire, all happen indirectly and below the social surface for women. It’s not that women are incapable of reasoning (hypergamy is one logical bitch) or are crippled by their emotion-based hindbrains, it’s that if you’re asking her how to be more attractive you don’t Get It. It’s in the doing, not the asking.

If you’ve stuck with me to the end of this series I want to say thanks. I really felt that these interpretive processing models needed to be fully outlined as what I’ll get into in the coming months will need this as a basis for it.

Published by Rollo Tomassi

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

709 comments on “The Rational Process

  1. Now the semi-ram bot is answering its own posts.
    We have nothing to fear from Chinese technology.

  2. Ab17

    I take your point, but I’d never say a spec force dude is full of shit, even if I disagree with him. Yes, there might be many young men that disagree with military service, but there are many young men that disagree with a whole bunch of masculine pursuits, and military service is just another item on the list.

    Local towns around me are having more and more difficulty even fielding sports teams/programs because so many young men have no interest or ability. As a whole, in average, we are becoming weaker and weaker, and that is always a very dangerous place to be.

    Tim’s broader point is correct from what I observe, and should be a cause for alarm. We discuss things like hypergamy and the overall behaviour of women and the effects of feminism, and the only viable antidote is widespread masculinity. These negatives we experience are the result of the vacuum created by absent men being filled with shit.

    Think about it for a moment – for every hundred guys vying for spec forces, about 8 will qualify and make it. And those numbers are falling. If we all knew the totality of what these guys actually do, we’d all be more concerned.

    I once had a spec op’s guy drinking coffee at the counter in my kitchen. He won’t talk about much at all, but he did tell me when I asked about a bullet wound in his neck, that he was in Afghanistan in a helicopter that came under fire, and he was hit inside the craft multiple times before it finally went down. Survived the crash, shot multiple times, and had to get in a firefight with the enemy until help arrived.

    Personally, I think these guys are a big part of the reason that the world hasn’t self destructed yet, and the fewer of men like this that we can produce, the more peril we are in as a nation, and the more fucked up the world will become.

    But my ex brother in law who was a warthog pilot ( warthogs aren’t fighter jets…lol, I told him) was the biggest asshole I’ve ever met. Thank God for that.

  3. The author of the novel MASH hated the TV show, because it was anti-war. He wasn’t anti-war, he was anti-army.

  4. “Bots. Lol, Rollo’s gonna smite you and it will be like you were never even here.”

    If semi is smitten I hope he’ll delete my posts too.
    I’d prefer not to stand alone complaining about a bot with only a semi-ramis.

  5. I’ve seen the Blue Angels a number of times (and they’ve seen me. Seems only fair) and the Thunderbirds a few times, but one of the most impressive things I’ve seen was a couple of warthog pilots practicing flying treetop level . . . over the Berkshires. As they wheeled round and round they maintained their constant height over the rather chaotic ground and looked like there was a solid rod between their wingtips while they did it.

    It was awesome.

  6. ” . . . how did I know what Tomassi looked like while driving his truck on Twitter? ”

    Bots are tools.

  7. “we are becoming weaker and weaker, and that is always a very dangerous place to be.”

    We’ve been at peace for too long:

    https://img.4plebs.org/boards/pol/image/1439/92/1439922108405.png

    “Peace never did appeal to the human race. What it wants is Adventure. The human race is eternally young. Youth will have its way. The young man does not want to be safe. He wants to take a chance. He wants to play the game.”

    https://www.artofmanliness.com/articles/manvotional-a-craving-for-danger/

  8. lol. Probably not original but peace is like girls with nice guys. That’s what they all say they want (yeah some girls are more honest than others), when in reality, we all know they actually crave the bad boys (war/chaos)

  9. “A former Playboy Playmate jumped with her 7-year-old son to their deaths from a Midtown hotel Friday — amid a nasty custody battle with her chiropractic ex, sources told The Post.

    Stephanie Adams, 47, leaped with young Vincent from the top floor of the Gotham Hotel around 8:15 a.m., sources said.

    Adams came out as Playboy magazine’s first lesbian centerfold in 2003. But she was later married to an investment banker for two years before becoming engaged to Nicolai in 2009.

    The former Wilhelmina and Elite model-turned-author was profiled by The Post in 2013. At the time, she had written 25 New Age self-help books, ran an online organic beauty products company and managed the finances for Nicolai’s chiropractic office.”

    lol

    who coulda seen it comin”

  10. Peterson: ““Half the men fail,” he says, meaning that they don’t procreate. “And no one cares about the men who fail.”

    I laugh, because it is absurd.

    “You’re laughing about them,” he says, giving me a disappointed look. “That’s because you’re female.”

    But aside from interventions that would redistribute sex, Mr. Peterson is staunchly against what he calls “equality of outcomes,” or efforts to equalize society. He usually calls them pathological or evil.

    He agrees that this is inconsistent. But preventing hordes of single men from violence, he believes, is necessary for the stability of society. Enforced monogamy helps neutralize that.

    In situations where there is too much mate choice, “a small percentage of the guys have hyper-access to women, and so they don’t form relationships with women,” he said. “And the women hate that.”

  11. When you quote something, you should actually reference it.

    I read that article in The New York Times on JBP by Nellie Bowles.

    She drips musty adjectives, but cannot conclude or bring to a conclusion any logical viewpoint from the Feminine Imperative. She just describes what she sees, thinking that her feminist readers will come to their own conclusions. Good luck with that Nellie. Typical of the idea that if you engage in group-think, group think will prevail.

    She’s a bit out of her element, which is covering technology.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/style/jordan-peterson-12-rules-for-life.html

    (if the NYT won’t let you read because you exceeded your allotted articles read, just erase your cookies from that site.)

    I still think JBP is an on ramp and gateway to the manosphere. Young men are hearing stuff from him that nobody including their parents will or have ever told them. (Even if he is from the F. Roger Devlin school of the old set of books.)

    The left, he believes, refuses to admit that men might be in charge because they are better at it. “The people who hold that our culture is an oppressive patriarchy, they don’t want to admit that the current hierarchy might be predicated on competence,” he said.

    Mr. Peterson illustrates his arguments with copious references to ancient myths — bringing up stories of witches, biblical allegories and ancient traditions. I ask why these old stories should guide us today.

    “It makes sense that a witch lives in a swamp. Yeah,” he says. “Why?”

    It’s a hard one.

    “Right. That’s right. You don’t know. It’s because those things hang together at a very deep level. Right. Yeah. And it makes sense that an old king lives in a desiccated tower.”

    But witches don’t exist, and they don’t live in swamps, I say.

    “Yeah, they do. They do exist. They just don’t exist the way you think they exist. They certainly exist. You may say well dragons don’t exist. It’s, like, yes they do — the category predator and the category dragon are the same category. It absolutely exists. It’s a superordinate category. It exists absolutely more than anything else. In fact, it really exists. What exists is not obvious. You say, ‘Well, there’s no such thing as witches.’ Yeah, I know what you mean, but that isn’t what you think when you go see a movie about them. You can’t help but fall into these categories. There’s no escape from them.”

    Recently, a young man named Alek Minassian drove through Toronto trying to kill people with his van. Ten were killed, and he has been charged with first-degree murder for their deaths, and with attempted murder for 16 people who were injured. Mr. Minassian declared himself to be part of a misogynist group whose members call themselves incels. The term is short for “involuntary celibates,” though the group has evolved into a male supremacist movement made up of people — some celibate, some not — who believe that women should be treated as sexual objects with few rights. Some believe in forced “sexual redistribution,” in which a governing body would intervene in women’s lives to force them into sexual relationships.

    Violent attacks are what happens when men do not have partners, Mr. Peterson says, and society needs to work to make sure those men are married.

    “He was angry at God because women were rejecting him,” Mr. Peterson says of the Toronto killer. “The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.”

    Mr. Peterson does not pause when he says this. Enforced monogamy is, to him, simply a rational solution. Otherwise women will all only go for the most high-status men, he explains, and that couldn’t make either gender happy in the end.

    The Feminine Imperative and feminine supremacism and Feminism in general are the witch you don’t believe exists.

    Good luck with your silly head in the sand “reporting” Nellie….

    Winston Churchill: “You can not reason with a tiger when your head is in its mouth.”

    Winston Churchill: “Those who never change their mind never change anything.”

    Winston Churchill: “Nations which go down fighting rise again, and those that surrender tamely are finished.”

    Winston Churchill: “My father was like God. Busy elsewhere.”

  12. I was recharging my batteries today after battling with some firewood rounds stuck on the growing grass in the backyard of my clubhouse “smallholding” (as British Palmasailor calls it) the last two days.

    I’m at least on my 4th cigar. I was reading Cigar Afficionado’s latest issue about Winston Churchill and his portrayal by Gary Oldman in the 2017 film Darkest Hour. Great stuff.

    Churchill was a resolute bastard.

    So I sat on my beautiful patio today and watched the Darkest Hour film on my Chromebook in beautiful weather. It was good. Real good. Churchill operated with courage, candor and co-operation (among allies). (Like my red pill buddies in real life do. Over and over. One field report after another.)

    As regards to candor: “Churchill belived in leveling with his followers. He also believed that the rest of the world tended to see the world as he did. In his cosmos there was joy in the journey; without darkness there could be no light. There was a fundamental democratic instinct at work, too: Churchill held out the possibility of heroism for all, not just great men.”

    (Cue Centuries by Fall Out Boy. “Speaking with Kerrang! Pete Wentz described the idea of the song as a “David vs. Goliath story.” He added, “It is us passing along the story of how we feel right before we step on stage, trading feeling small and human for all the sweat and grit and sheer power of belief it takes to stare down a giant.” “Pete Wentz told Rock Sound magazine that he hopes people will take inspiration from the song’s empowering lyrics. “A lot of legendary tales start from humble beginnings; people tend to forget that. When you’re talking to kids who play guitar or DJ, people can be so dismissive. The expectation is that the kid should conform, because people are obsessed with the status quo,” he complained.

    “Change terrifies a lot of us. Centuries really bands on that. Just because you’re being told what you’re doing sucks, doesn’t mean that you’re not a leader. Leaders attract a lot of arrows.”)

  13. Oh, I forgot the quote that ended the film:

    Success is not final, failure is not fatal. It’s the courage to continue that counts. –Churchill

    Hey, cue Teddy Roosevelt and The Man in the Arena speech…

  14. @ theasdgamer

    I think what you are talking about are desirable women—the 20% using my junk math. By the way the wife hasn’t maintained her close female friends and doesn’t generally like to hang with a herd of women.

    I realize that I am never going to be able to provide a convincing argument for the existence of the unicorn-bitch. To most here to make such a claim makes me cipher returning to the matrix and say it’s blue pill thinking. Then again a lot of the guys here believe in [insert name of favorite deity].

    All I can say is that I have no product to push, I have over 30 years of real-life experience, and while the red pill has improved my marriage, it was already successful and probably would have continued that way. Oh well, I guess the only way to substantiate this would be if Mr. Tomassi begins a research study like Ghost Hunters.

    As far as vetting. I don’t think that most men can pull this off. At least past the point of the initial assessment. I’m not so sure that I effectively vetted, or what I would have done if borrowing EhIntellect’s metaphor had I been carving the Venus de Milo and found major flaws that would cause the arms to fall off, my reaction may have been. OK, no arms, I guess I can still make it work.

    For example, one of my sisters-in-law is most likely a borderline personality. Her, then boyfriend, recognized this and told her he was breaking up with her, and would only consider marriage if she sought psychological help. Well, they stayed broken up for a week or so. He went back to her and they got married. I would find living in hell to be a better choice than this marriage, but they are still married, so there’s that.

    As far as things being different in my world. I have another story. You know how Sentient is fond of saying cats are not dogs…Well…

    I have a cat, rescued as a kitten. She thinks she’s a dog or partly a dog. For one thing, she fetches, and not only fetches but attempts to catch a toy mouse, a bent pipe cleaner, or even a earbud cup in her mouth in mid-air, like a Frisbee dog. Almost every night, she’ll bring me the toy, and when I have picked it up she will take her place along side an upholstered chair, fixated on the toy, I have to be extremely careful with the throw because the cat will run into walls and furniture in her quest to catch the toy. She’ll bring back the toy, but when she gets close she will try to hand the toy back by batting it out of her mouth. Now, she’s a cat. So, sometimes she’ll forget to bring the toy back and seems utterly confused as to why I won’t throw the toy to her.

    She raises up on her back paws to meet my hand when I lower it to pet her. She needs lots of praise. I have to pick her up and rough her up a little and tell her she’s the best kitty ever. She has begun “barking” at me. She’ll come into a room and begin talking. When we got this cat we thought she might be mute because the first time she made a sound was when she received her vaccinations.

    At bedtime she races upstairs to my bed and sets herself up at the bottom corner of my side. If she feels threatened with expulsion, she hides under furniture, coming out after the lights are out. She’ll sleep until about 6 am then begins singing. I have to let her out of the room, telling her to patrol the house and she barks as she leaves. If she comes back and I’m not up yet, she licks my hand and uses her back legs in an effort to either wake me up or unbury my legs.

  15. What are the odds JPB wont end up scapegoating the Red Pillers? They’ve already co-opted our brand and there’s no shortage of chodes who wont just eat and digest the Actual Red Pill. He’s done just about everything BUT that in that article link a couple of feet above.

  16. “What are the odds JPB wont end up scapegoating the Red Pillers?”

    Odds are good. Rollo should take some of Robert Greene’s advice on the use of power and get a better agent. Rollo does the 21 speech, Peterson fills the Filmore in Detroit.

    What do you want to do with your 50 year old potential, Rollo? You’ve done the hard work, written the gospel, now is the time to take it to the streets and endure the wailing and teeth gnashing of the MSM, if they don’t disappear you first.

    I see nothing Peterson has that Rollo hasn’t other that Peterson is twice as bold with half the message.

  17. “What are the odds JPB wont end up scapegoating the Red Pillers?”

    How so? Jordan Peterson hasn’t put blame to Red Pillers. Unless you count nihilistic, lost boy red-pillers. His message is self accountability to the fault of excessive blue pill self-sacrifice.

    He obviously stands separate from Red Pill. For all intents and purposes he might be blind to the fact of what Rollo’s Red Pill is (including enlightened self interest) and lumps it into PUA and deceitful Game. And he’s voiced that. So if he wants to blame Red Pill for stuff, he’s mistaken. And The Red Pill is more robust, despite the fact that only a fraction of men might subscribe to it. Red Pill only works in a state of unplugging that is Acceptance of It. In Triage (denial, anger, bargaining and depression): save those who are willing and read the last rites to the dying.

    “They’ve already co-opted our brand…

    How so?

    The Red Pill Rollo Tomassi Brand has a strong foundation. If by co-opted you mean stole attention from, so what? Red Pill praxeology is still functional. Jordan Peterson’s brand of ideology, helping make order out of chaos for young men, still has merit despite it’s Blue Pill inter-sexual message.

    Seeing 23 y.o. men have inspiration to act with more merit, hope and courage against malevolent forces that conspire against them (including chaos, the FI, and energy sucking “pendulums”.) is a great on ramp for them in any endeavor. What’s so wrong about having your act together and being aware of malevolent forces conspired against you?

    And when they get sexually frustrated with Blue Pill ideals, Red Pill Awareness will still be there for the taking. The 23 year old young men I know aren’t actually so dumb as to fall into ideological line with Blue Pill under my watch (but that’s just the ones I know and care for. YMMV.)

    “…there’s no shortage of chodes who wont just eat and digest the Actual Red Pill.”

    Same as it ever was….

    It’s there for the taking.

  18. Yollo Comanche – the underlying idea informing JBP’s spiel on gender issues, as sorta outlined by the NYT article, to my mind is this:

    For the humans species, (and many many other species actually) women are actually the agents that perform the status-sorting operations (despite what JBP, and mostly everybody else, says about men being the ones concerned about status) – yes for many many men, that is true, but …… though men are concerned about achieving status, note that the cultural judgments around what ‘achieving status’ is defined as, is arbitrated by the fairer sex). So it is more accurate to instead say that women are actually more-so ‘concerned about status’, ….. because women’s role is to confer status, whereas men’s role is to achieve said status which is arbitrated to a very large degree, outside of the masculine domain, by way of the dynamic whereby said female-conferred status measure may be traded for sexual access to females.

    By way of this interpretation of JBP’s spiel – the real problem is that, due to a host of reasons centered around the quickening pace of the ever-changing conditions of the cultural landscape, western women now completely SUCK at the status-sorting operation which is their bailiwick. However, judging whether this is a cyclical event, built into the ‘design’ parameters of the species (Hard times create strong men, => Strong men create good times, => Good times create weak men, => Weak men create hard times). or ….. alternatively, a problem that is all-together more intractable, is a question of deep portent, now.

    To my way of thinking, this time, it is different, and not just a matter of the west now falling into the portion of the cycle whereby weak western men create hard times, which such ‘hard times’ will then test us so severely as to produce an avenue whereby selection pressures (both natural fitness selection pressure, as well as sexual selection pressure) will again creates strong western men. No, ….. this time far more is at stake. This ongoing Darwinian experiment around human ingenuity producing such oversized human success has now brought us to the point that the female status-sorting operation, itself, is being tested for existential fitness. And women are failing this existential test most miserably. But not all is lost as of yet. The conditions that may allow for a metamorphosis around this female status-sorting operation do in fact exist. These conditions are:

    1) Women’s power of self-agency vis-a-vis men, normatively, is on par with men, despite what many would like to believe otherwise. As such there is absolutely no case that female-responsibility-avoidance is a condition that is warranted or should be tolerated (though currently, female-responsibility-avoidance is built into our current cultural system, as is many other types of unwarranted responsibility-avoidance schemes, all centered around this idiotic ‘victim-celebration’ shtick).

    2) Psychopathy is a pathological psychic deficiency despite what many would like to believe otherwise

    3) The western virtue ethic best captures the precepts that allows one to see the ‘truth’ of # 1 and #2, despite what many would like to believe otherwise.

    Yollo – perhaps you will conclude that what I just said here, is a bluepill outlook in the extreme (for you – I’m not sure), like I already know is the opinion of most of the controlling long-time commentartiat here. But you would be wrong (if indeed you agree with the controlling long-time commentartiat here, on this matter). And that error in insight that is so common in the sphere, and here, (and perhaps a form of which is something JBP may suffer from too – the jury is still out with respect to JBP), makes the controlling long-time commentariat’s so-called redpill outlook, actually the most puerile bluepill outlook.

    To restate once again, to be absolutely clear what I am implying here …… the deepest redpill insight, is that under the current cultural conditions, western women SUCK at the status-sorting operation, an operation that is supposed to be their bailiwick, and the whole cultural system, particularly the majority of men, particularly inclusive of the so-called redpill men common at this site, are co-dependent with said SUCK dynamic (with the interesting proviso, that the so-called redpill men common at this site, have come up with many denial schemes around their own co-dependency with said SUCK dynamic, …. thus reinforcing said co-dependency).

  19. The majority of Red Pill men are Co-Dependent? How so?

    Not hardly. That’s just psychological projection of your endlessly leaning into the Feminine, Wild Man. It is your opinion.

    You have your broad brush painting alleged Red Pill men that are still in stages of unplugging as such, not those that are in Acceptance of Red Pill and use Red Pill as a praxeology successfully for their own sexual strategy.

    From the Red Pill Reddit:

    Red Pill – The recognition and awareness of the way that feminism, feminists and their white-knight enablers affect society. An awareness of the dark truths surrounding human sexuality; hypergamy, women’s AF/BB strategies, society’s Feminine Imperative, sexual differences in emotional attachment, women’s attraction to DT traits and sexual dominance/violence; Extremely politically incorrect, expect reflexive social ostracism for even mentioning the red pill in polite society.

    Married Red Pill:

    (MRP) is a discussion for married men or men in long term relationships that want to adhere to red pill philosophy and methodology while remaining in that relationship. This is The Red Pill on hard mode.

    Open ended question for Wild Man: What is your sexual strategy in dealing with women? Is it working? If no, how could it be made better?

  20. So it is more accurate to instead say that women are actually more-so ‘concerned about status’, ….. because women’s role is to confer status,

    This is true and not true. Status can come totally from internal mindset. Women will buy whatever you think your status is.

    And your statement only applies to the current FI-dominated context. It wouldn’t apply to a patriarchal society where women have much less influence and power. Under patriarchy, men determine whom women have sex with. Fathers give daughters in marriage. Eloping is a capital offense. Women are always chaperoned.

  21. Psychopathy is a pathological psychic deficiency despite what many would like to believe otherwise

    Jejeune man, it’s an advantage to not let yourself be shackled by social constraints or your own emotions. But it’s your right to stay shackled by the Matrix and by your emotions if you choose.

  22. Men and women both seek status, but what they consider status markers is cognate with their sexual strategies. Cats don’t care much about bones. Dogs don’t care much about styrofoam peanuts.

    And thus they will tend to think the other isn’t as concerned about status and are just wasting time and money on shit that doesn’t matter. Men are from Yamaha. Women are from Ethan Allen.

    @ASD:

    You’ve mentioned only second order phenomena of patriarchy and left out the first order, defining characteristic.

  23. 3) The western virtue ethic best captures the precepts that allows one to see the ‘truth’ of # 1 and #2, despite what many would like to believe otherwise.

    #1: Straw Man

    #2 False premise

    #3 Non-sequitur.

    Good luck with that naively optimistic. unrealistic viewpoint of your anachronistic Western Virtue Ethic.

  24. Hi SJF – thanks for the comment

    I’m gonna answer the broader question – ‘What is your inter-gender strategy in dealing with women? Is it working? If no, how could it be made better?’ – because it is the question more the point I was making in comment above.

    My inter-gender strategy is maintaining a frame of mind whereby I refuse to kneejerk towards seeing women as being disadvantaged by way of inferior self-agency, normatively, ….. as that is just another way to excuse women for their responsibility avoidance tactics. Which really isn’t quite ‘responsibility avoidance’ anyways, given that the intersexual game, as played now, allows for this easy out for women – i.e. – the easy out as upheld by the lie that women are more solipsistic, therefore less self-agentic, therefore not as responsible for the consequences of their actions and decisions. But, the idea that women are less self-agentic is bunk ….. instead it is much more-so about the skewed incentives, and in the modern era, always has been.

    The frame of reference that I hold, is that the modern era in the west, is marked by a degeneracy with respect to the promotion of such wrong-headed ideas around incentives, meant to allow for unwarranted responsibility-avoidance among certain groups (pretty much all groups outside of white men …… but now the white men are losing their way too …. and falling for some of this shite too ……. but to be clear – the promotion of ‘responsibility avoidance’ is akin to tactics for breaking an animal, breaking it’s spirit, bending it’s will towards an agenda of domestication …… by way of the careful management of incentives and disincentives – operant-conditioning-style).

    Instead I hold women accountable. But it is most often better just to leave it unsaid, ….. but the frame I hold nevertheless, is …. you be accountable (woman or man) for the decisions you make, and the actions you take. If the woman be showing like ….. ‘that not apply to me’ …. OK …. I gonna tend to discount her, just like I would discount a man who shirks.

    So the formula for me is: You are accountable (man or woman) => if you shirk => you be discounted => you will not get the full benefit of any fair-minded exchanges I would otherwise prefer to enter into.

    What I see, with respect to women’s natural proclivity towards deferring to a dominant man, however defined, is like this:

    Women don’t know how that dominant masculine frame is formed or maintained …. instead they choose by way of the ‘feel’ or it. How it makes them feel. But ….. as such women can only choose among the options that are available. One option that should be available (but more and more-so is not because of this agenda of the degenerate that has taken root in our culture), is this: The frame of maintaining individual accountability for those within the man’s sphere of influence.

    Is my strategy working?

    Yes – If a woman won’t or can’t submit to the masculine frame I just outlined – what man would be wanting that, then? Be gone, with her then, is the way I look at it.

    The alternative masculine frame with respect to the truth of female-self-agency potency, is this idea of treating women like the most responsible teenager in the house, or something along those lines. But that is BS. Though that strategy often works to some degree, it is shallow, and the woman actually be framing it to herself like you are a fool for putting up with her shite, and therefore you deserve her immature hijinks at your expense, ….. and that be pretty much a co-dependency, and a poor strategy.

    How could my strategy be made better?

    If more men subscribed to it, ….. then it is gonna get better in a whole host of ways for everybody, men and women alike. This calls for understanding the big differences between men and women (especially the psychic differences). This understanding is redpill. But don’t overshoot and make the differences bigger than they actually are. If you do, there most probably is a psychic reward in it somewhere for the practitioner of that …… thus the co-dependency of upholding untruths on both sides of the male-female relationship. It’s time the redpill community stops doing that.

  25. ‘What is your inter-gender strategy in dealing with women?’

    I see what you did there. Figures….deflection.

    ‘Be gone, with her then, is the way I look at it.’

    So what your are saying is: full on Already Gone? Next?

    …The letter that you wrote me made me stop and wonder why
    But I guess you felt like you had to set things right
    Just remember this, my girl, when you look up in the sky
    You can see the stars and still not see the light (that’s right)

    And I’m already gone
    And I’m feelin’ strong
    I will sing this vict’ry song, woo, hoo,hoo,woo, hoo,hoo

    Well I know it wasn’t you who held me down
    Heaven knows it wasn’t you who set me free
    So often times it happens that we live our lives in chains
    And we never even know we have the key….–Already Gone, by The Eagles

    One option that should be available (but more and more-so is not because of this agenda of the degenerate that has taken root in our culture), is this: The frame of maintaining individual accountability for those within the man’s sphere of influence.

    Another option would be to be attractive and generate sexual desire. And have sex with her. Not ‘broader questioning’…..

    ‘If more men subscribed to it…’

    So what you are saying is that you want other’s to carry water for you?

  26. “Another option would be to be attractive and generate sexual desire”

    You are still missing the point SJF – after all these years and years of you wondering about the issue. The solution is to stop caring about ‘being attractive’ and ‘generating sexual desire’. That’s the sublime quandary -eh? If you try in the way you prescribe in that statement – you fall right into the submissive or subservient frame. Can’t you see that? And that’s not actually attractive to the female – eh?

    Look – men are actually in the business of doing a reality-sorting-operation. That is the competition men are in. Throughout the long era of Darwinian selection pressures for humans, around this male operation, and the female operation of status-conferral upon the winners of that masculine competition, … the dynamic has served the human species very well. Why abandon it now, in the modern era? That is just the height of stupidity, without good reason. You got no good reason though SJF.

  27. “No. I can’t see that.”

    So …. a big part of your identity is your value, especially your sexual value, in the yes of women?

    Identity is contingent on beliefs. Change your belief (which often is anxiety-provoking because of this relationship of ‘beliefs’ with ‘identity’), and you are on the road to changing your identity.

    Why not try it out? Maybe even as just a thought experiment. Go around for a week pretending you have no concern whatsoever what your sexual value may, or may not be, to women. Take the attitude – who cares? Especially in this wonky modern era where women’s judgment is so much clouded by the cultural conditions – who cares? – eh?

    That attitude, if you can muster it, is freeing,… and probably a whole lot more attractive, but once again, they key here is – who cares? As a man it’s not you bailiwick to care about such things. Wondering about it is fine, but without caring one way or the other. That is the real source of the healthy zfg attitude promoted within redpill. Capisce?

  28. You are still missing the point SJF – after all these years and years of you wondering about the issue. The solution is to stop caring about ‘being attractive’ and ‘generating sexual desire’.

    Just be your (Beta) self. Lol, fail.

    Wild Man, men have been trained to be unattractive to women. Being attractive to women is a biological constraint for mating. Being attractive to women is not ‘being submissive’, but recognizing the nature of biology.. Most men have to work at undoing their Beta training. Once you overcome your Beta training and achieve unconscious competence at being your natural alpha self, then you don’t have to care about ‘being attractive’, because you will be attractive. See?

    Throughout the long era of Darwinian selection pressures for humans, around this male operation, and the female operation of status-conferral upon the winners of that masculine competition

    Anachronistically, speaking, this is a thread winner.

    @kfg

    Father knows best.

  29. ‘Wild Man, men have been trained to be unattractive to women. Being attractive to women is a biological constraint for mating. Being attractive to women is not ‘being submissive’, but recognizing the nature of biology.. Most men have to work at undoing their Beta training. Once you overcome your Beta training and achieve unconscious competence at being your natural alpha self, then you don’t have to care about ‘being attractive’, because you will be attractive. See?’

    asd – the thing is – I never ever once argued against your sentiment here. Ever. Yet the long-time commentariat here has always taken issue with my views. Now why would that be?

    Perhaps because my views insinuate that among the long-time commentariat here, the commenting belies the fact that said commenters have not yet fully ‘overcome their Beta training to achieve unconscious competence at being their natural alpha self’, and as such why so much of the commenting here centers upon what it takes to ‘be attractive’, which is of course, by my viewpoint, focusing on the completely wrong elements of one’s ‘masculine nature’, necessary to move forward. See?

  30. “Yet the long-time commentariat here has always taken issue with my views. Now why would that be?”

    Because you don’t accept Red Pill and Game as a Superpower. And you come here and mentally masturbate. Trying to formulate a new paradigm, and making shit up as you go along. Trying to formulate things that have already been well formulated.

    Hat tip to Heartiste:

    Power, Approach, and Inhibition….

    http://haas.berkeley.edu/faculty/papers/anderson/power,%20approach,%20and%20inhibition.pdf

    This article examines how power influences behavior. Elevated power is associated with increased rewards and freedom and thereby activates approach-related tendencies. Reduced power is associated with increased threat, punishment, and social constraint and thereby activates inhibition-related tendencies. The authors derive predictions from recent theorizing about approach and inhibition and review relevant evidence. Specifically, power is associated with (a) positive affect, (b) attention to rewards, (c) automatic information processing, and (d) disinhibited behavior. In contrast, reduced power is associated with (a) negative affect; (b) attention to threat, punishment, others’ interests, and those features of the self that are relevant to others’ goals; (c) controlled information processing; and (d) inhibited social behavior. The potential moderators and consequences of these power-related behavioral patterns are discussed.

  31. WM — What do you mean, as a practical, nuts and bolts matter, when you say hold women accountable? What does this entail doing and not doing vis-a-vis a specific woman for a specific man. You haven’t said that yet.

  32. SJF – That CH article is very good one. Read the whole thing. The CH article in no way negates my premise – that men are actually in the competitive business of doing a reality-sorting-operation, and the women are actually in the competitive business of doing a status-sorting operation, by way of status-conferral upon the winners of that masculine competition, by way of feelz, by way of pinging on their feelz that arise by way of observing tells in the men’s demeanor.

    Of course this is what is going on. It is more than obvious. As a man, you can’t really fake the tells around your true demeanor. If you obtain ‘status’ among your male colleagues, everybody involved subliminally knows what is what, and the women can read all that that like a book, by way of pinging on their own personal feelz, and pinging on their shared collective feelz, that arise by way of these stated observations. Note that I put ‘status’ in quotation marks in the last sentence, because it is really not ‘status’ (the currency that the female trades in), instead it is better described, among men, as ‘who is more right’ (the currency that the male trades in).

    Now I gotta go. Maybe come back tomorrow time permitting. Novaseeker – will try to answer your question later.

  33. ‘”Psychopathy is a pathological psychic deficiency”

    Yes. Less is more.

    That’s why the beeffisted get the hottest babes, lumber through life happy and and, take note Wildman, are concise in their comments, you idol worshipping hypocrite.

    You write volumes of nothing and gain that. Enjoy your inconsequentialality.

    I’m taking SJFs lead and smoking cigars in the sun. You?

  34. @ j

    Indeed, I´ve noticed that Meghan became the poster girl for the “eat, pray, love” dynamic. We will see in the near future thousands of post wall women divorcing their husbands thinking that they can do better and land prince charming. Fuck you Harry!!!

  35. Maybe Rollo can get a moderator who can delete spam when he isn’t available.
    Kind of stinks up a place.

  36. I usually hold back what I’m storing
    and place a troll on “ignoring”
    If she’s really a whore
    I would expect more
    Why is she so f*cking boring?

  37. “In a nutshell, individual selection favors what we call sin and group selection favors virtue. The result is the internal conflict of conscience that afflicts all but psychopaths, estimated fortunately to make up only 1 to 4 percent of the population. The products of the opposing two vectors in natural selection are hardwired in our emotions and reasoning, and cannot be erased. Internal conflict is not a personal irregularity but a timeless human quality. No such conflict exists or can exist in an eagle, fox, or spider, for example, whose traits were born solely of individual selection, or a worker ant, whose social traits were shaped entirely by group selection.”
    ― Edward O. Wilson, The Meaning of Human Existence

  38. “Human existence may be simpler than we thought. There is no predestination, no unfathomed mystery of life. Demons and gods do not vie for our allegiance. Instead, we are self-made, independent, alone, and fragile, a biological species adapted to live in a biological world. What counts for long-term survival is intelligent self-understanding, based upon a greater independence of thought than that tolerated today even in our most advanced democratic societies.”
    ― Edward O. Wilson, The Meaning of Human Existence

  39. Sounds like basic game theory/ incentive traps, SJF.
    When something that is might be good for the individual (especially in the short term) is bad for the group as a whole. Doesn’t just apply to mate selection, it’s true of so many things. Pollution is an easy example.

  40. What trips up most guys not in the Acceptance phase of Red Pill is the cognitive dissonance of the Amorality of Game and the fact that is a praxeology.

    This conflict and seeming paradox is codified in No More Mr. Nice Guy by Robert Glover and initial side bar material for married red pill. It’s a primer on how to put your oxygen mask on first and not be a dick to your social group, including pair bonded mate, children and relatives, as well as your social group.

    It’s in having your own self interests met that you have more free excess energy and resources (including having your sexual needs met as a man) in order to give to the group without being selfish.

    I’ve seen Red Pill strategy reap enormous rewards for the L8TR partners, children, friends and family of men that master the game. Heh: game theory and incentive traps…

  41. Honestly are there no younger virgins that the prince could have married? A post wall woman and divorced? Her girl game is excellent or maybe his RP game is non-existent. Where was this guys father when this was going on?

  42. ” Honestly are there no younger virgins that the prince could have married? A post wall woman and divorced? Her girl game is excellent or maybe his RP game is non-existent. Where was this guys father when this was going on?”

    Serious question: What is it that you may think that is special about ” virgins ” in the United States or Britain?

    Prince Harry, at the end of the day, is just another swinging dick on planet earth. He did what lots of guys do all the time. There are no guarantees in marriage ( without some rp knowledge ), and that goes for Harry the prince or Harry the Uber driver. Virgins or nah, they are all etc.

  43. A virgin would have been perfect for his fairy tale ending. Instead he got an Eat, Prey, Love woman, which is not an exception to the rule. This story should have been about him optimizing his potential, but maybe this is all it can be. This has only been fuel to the fires of hypergamy and a new role-model was born.

  44. ”Honestly are there no younger virgins that the prince could have married? A post wall woman and divorced?”

    Forget virginity. Given the high probability that your marriage (in this day and age) will last <10 years, who would you rather spend those 10 years with?

    https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/36/590x/Meghan-Markle-was-an-unknown-actress-in-2005-777662.jpg

    37 year old post wall divorced Markle (left) or 23 year old Markle (right)

    https://i1.wp.com/www.usmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/angelina-jolie-d3ae125c-e259-4839-8501-3a8b57147f5e.jpg

    38 year old post wall divorced Jolie (age she married Brad Pitt) or 20 year old Jolie (age she married Jonny Lee Miller)

  45. @j

    Lol. Of course, the anser is none of the above.

    In this equality egalitarian-fueled culture RT has exhaustively exposed, I have come to the realization that there is only one situation where I think any modern man should consider marriage:

    – Your girl approaches you obviously nervous … after taking you to someplace nice out of town, state, country … after the amazingly expensive dinner and drinks she has reserved and paid for … she comes over to where you are sitting … gets down on one knee … looks up to you with wide-eyed hope:

    “Baby? I love you more than life itself and I want to spend the rest of it with you. Will you marry me and be my husband?
    You will make me the happiest woman in the world…” Please-please say YES (smiling sob-sob)

    Sooooo, anything short of that?
    Exactly…. lol

  46. “It is reported Harry has long refused to sign a pre-nup as he is confident his and Meghan’s marriage will last.”

    “He got down on one knee” (giggles)
    “The fact that I fell in love with Meghan so quickly was confirmation that all of the stars were aligned…”

    SSmh. Poor dad James Hewitt must be wondering what happened to his alpha seed.

    https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/703187/Meghan-Markle-Prince-Harry-Royal-Wedding-pre-nup-marital-agreement-news

  47. Ajax Parallax
    Sooooo, anything short of that?

    Upper class people are expected to marry for economic and even dynastic reasons.

    Religious men who are serious about their faith are obliged to marry. It is a pity the churches are massive Beta factories.

    I’ve said for a while now that in the future the only people marrying will be UMC / UC and the religious folks.

  48. Hello Everyone,

    I’m a long time reader, but never commented before. I just took the red pill 3-4 years ago (it wasn’t a one night process to swallow it). I’m 30 now btw. I was an incel and basically a beta until the age of 25. Then I read about PUA, then later Rollo’s writing.

    Anyway, I’m writing now to ask for advice because I don’t know what to do. After a short span of spinning plates (I had slept/was in a relationship with 8-10 girls) I got together with this girl I’m together with for 2,5 years now. I educate myself on the Rational Male, and game seems to work (what a surprise!). There is one great problem in our relationship though: sex. First of all I realised I’m not really good at it. Lack of experience I guess, but the part is that “her brain is her bigger sex organ” completely buffles me. I mean I understand the concept, I just don’t know how to put in it practice. Plus my T levels are quite low (I had them measured). This results that I don’t want too much sex, and even when I do it is often repetitive. She expressed first covertly then overtly that she wants more and better sex (which is perfectly understandable). I started lifting, and I enjoy it greatly actually, but doesn’t seem to help with my sex (and general) drive. I just started to put my eating habits right (lot of potential there), but no results yet.

    I’m working on these, and advise is welcome, but I’m mostly writing about how to handle my anger. I always knew that as long as I don’t sort out my sexual skills, this relationship lives on borrowed time, but I was confident that I can get better. However I start to see the signs now that she is looking to check out. She was on a weeklong team-building, and the way she told the story (omitted and inconsistent details) clearly signals that even if she didn’t cheat on me (I don’t think she actually did), but actively looking to. And I feel anger. Towards her and towards myself. I’ve been through this once before I knew about the redpill (my girlfriend cheated on then left me). Back then I didn’t understand the signs and the motives, and it frustrated the fuck out of me. Now I understand the motive, but the fault is at me. I mean sure, I could have nexted her, but I’m gonna face the same problems again and again. And otherwise she would be a great partner. She makes a home I like coming home to.

    But now I’m angry. I can’t even talk to her. I know, that a real alpha wouldn’t be angry, but I’m not one. And of course she is asking what’s the problem, and I feel reaaally tempted to confront her, but it would make no sense. I’m not sure she knows herself what’s going on in her head anyway. How should I handle this? I expect the first answer is to next her. But that wouldn’t solve my fundamental problem. Plus, I made the brilliant move to buy a flat together with her (paid&owned 50-50), which makes it more difficult (even though not impossible) to separate… So I want to try to save this. I accept if I don’t succeed, but I want to make a try. How would you handle this situation?

  49. “38 year old post wall divorced Jolie (age she married Brad Pitt) or 20 year old Jolie (age she married Jonny Lee Miller)”

    Jonny Lee Miller must’ve had some very toxic semen.

  50. Howhowhow, when a woman says she wants more and better sex, what she usually means is that she wants to feel desired. You mention that you aren’t really into it and don’t want sex much, and when you have it it’s “repetitive” (and…just reading between the lines sounds a bit obligatory). That would make her feel undesired and undesirable.
    Do you have sexual desire for her? If not, that’s not possible to fake longterm even if she makes a good roommate.

  51. “Bow Bow Bow ,what do you want for nothin a rrubber biscuit?”

    What is the power dynamic in the relationship? Who wears the pants? Does this dynamic have a positive effect on your testosterone levels?

    It’s going to be tough going ,being resentfull for her wandering eye,and tough to turn when she isn’t the apple of yours. You could work some dread to little effect.

    I think it boils out to the FI,ie she’s not happy,and it’s your fault. Tough titties baby is the correct attitude for you to have. Go read the reconstruction.

    https://therationalmale.com/2017/01/10/the-reconstruction-i/

    And all of year one.

  52. If he has no desire for her, dread won’t work.
    Because she already perceives that he is rejecting her.
    “Do you know who my brother is?!?” doesn’t really work.

  53. anon: it’s a good question if I have sexual desire for her. It is clouded by my insecurities to be honest.

    boulder: I wear the pants, but she tires me down sometimes. Funny thing is, that she is aware that she is shittesting, and that she wants me to lead and “put her to her place”. It’s just doesn’t work as an instinct for me yet, it is more like work. And yes, I don’t think that helps my T.

    Sentient: Well, I can’t say you are wrong. I need to do that.

  54. The reality is too loud to ignore now. On to ridiculing men generally as left behind losers AND agentic kooks:

    http://theweek.com/articles/773949/poisoned-chalice-traditional-masculinity

    “And there may be a nugget of truth in the idea that men have been in some ways left behind by the evolution in gender norms, which has focused a lot more on women’s liberation than on providing workable behavioral guidelines and socialization for often-bewildered men.“

    “The idea that women will only sleep with the top men if given the chance is straight out of pick-up artist garbage pseudoscience. This ideology of “beta” and “alpha” males (the latter getting all the sex) is based on a mangled and since-retracted study about wolves, and bears no relationship whatsoever to human societies. Worse, it instills the false notion that women are largely status-obsessed sluts who will have to be basically coerced into sleeping with anyone but the most attractive men.”

    “When it comes to women, often the greatest obstacle for men who have drunk deeply from the trough of Peterson and his ilk is that all this poisonous garbage has made them intolerably annoying and entitled.”

    “Annoying and entitled” Pot meet kettle.

    He scolds men for not holding hands and homophobia, too. Yawn.

    If your catching flak TRM friends, you’re over the target.

  55. Howhowhow

    Post some real examples in Field Reports for specifics.

    Also

    Is she fat? Height/weight?

    In addition to low desire and T on your part what other issues do you have?

    Micropeen? ED? PE? No idea how a pussy works or what a clit is? Etc.

    Also eat right… No soy etc.

  56. Oh yeah Howhowhow

    If you worried your wife is looking around to cheat, you aren’t wearing the pants Hoss…

  57. The reality is too loud to ignore now. On to ridiculing men generally as left behind losers AND agentic kooks:

    Well, all that is happening is that the MSM is worried about Peterson, and they are now really focused on trying to discredit him and take him out. The New York Times had a big hit piece on Peterson a few days ago, and it’s been gleefully tossed around the internet left for the past few days, with the usual suspects taking the opportunity to riff on the piece and echo its sentiments. Bottom line is they know he now has a lot of influence and that he has a best selling book and they are worried about him, so they are now attacking and trying to discredit him. It was only a matter of time, really, and given how huge he has become culturally, it’s totally unsurprising.

    The same arguments in that article will be made again and again and again by BP types — they do not accept the RP view, plain and simple, so they will find any argument they can to try to refute it, regardless of the reality that most men face in the world. Some of the problem is that guys like that article writer (and most of the article writers) live in a closed bubble where everyone is upper middle class, very highly educated and thinks the same things — and the inevitable affairs and stepping out and so on that the wives are engaging in on the weaker male links in the group are written off as specific to the circumstances of each couple, because mostly people are staying together, and most of the shenanigans are kept quiet anyway. But as someone who has lived in the same bubble for a few decades now, I can firmly say that the shenanigans is well under way, follows RP principles to the tee, and is almost entirely female-driven in this set due to most of the guys here (people like opinion writers, not CEOs) being betas, and largely clueless about their (and other) women’s actual proclivities. In short? The women of this social group have generally rather hugely succeeded in pulling the wool over the eyes of most of the beta men in this group, while they, and the alpha men of the group, benefit, and both giggle over stories like that one. It’s quite entertaining to watch, really.

  58. If howhow thinks she’s looking, he’s already cucked. She dropped the hint to confirm his cuckability, and now she has proof she made the right call fucking someone else.

    Yep. Most of the time, by the time the guy gets suspicious of it, it’s been going on already.

  59. But now I’m angry. I can’t even talk to her. I know, that a real alpha wouldn’t be angry, but I’m not one.

    Don’t get angry, get better. Use this shitty turn of events (use lemons)…to motivate you to improve yourself (to make lemonade)…specifically, by learning to control and harness your emotions…to be aware of emotional triggers…learning to handle shit tests…to be ready for emotional ambushes…which are gonna happen…so you’ll be proud of yourself when you recognize them happening and surprise!…you’ll actually find them humorous because they are so predictable…you’ll be pleased with yourself for your self-control and your awareness of women’s tactics and your own relationship competence…

    …and one day you’ll realize that you’re an alpha…and it will be an “of course” moment

  60. Well, all that is happening is that the MSM is worried about Peterson, and they are now really focused on trying to discredit him and take him out. The New York Times had a big hit piece on Peterson a few days ago

    From The 48 Laws of Power…if you are enviable, you will be envied and have enemies. So, this turn of events is highly shocking.

  61. “This ideology of “beta” and “alpha” males (the latter getting all the sex) is based on a mangled and since-retracted study about wolves, and bears . . .”

    . . . and sheep, and horses, and deer, and chimps, and . . .

    But yeah, that’s not how it works in rabbit and bonobo masterbation societies. And even they have competition to an extent. You can’t breed if your already dead.

    Welcome to the beige ooze.

  62. “pick-up artist garbage pseudoscience”

    This above, I found curious…how would these UMC knowitall, knownothings know what PUA mechanics are and why mention it directly?

    Because Peterson is a immediate threat to their 60 year feminist canard so attack him directly but PUA isn’t, so mention it as irrelevant…yet.

    These lefty, educated types feel validated until they too feel the FI during their own divorce revelation. My question for Novaseeker and other guys who run in those circles:

    Do these MSM types have a RP Road to Damascus (if fleeting) moment when they find out their wives are fucking around?

  63. @Sentitent:
    My dick is fine, thanks for asking though. I do have some problems with PE. I’m not a one minute man, but I don’t have the control I would like to have. She is tall, thin, pretty body, maybe average face. The same age as me. A HB7 I would say.
    I will post something into the field reports when I have a situation worth dissecting. I do slip time to time, mainly in letting her to lead when she goes in a direction I want to go too. E.g. she drives most of the time for the simple reason that I don’t like driving.

    @asd:
    Well, I hope I get there soon. You are right, when I can predict it is funny. I often can’t, and then I have to deal with it real time. Should channel my anger better. And I should also reread the 48 laws of power.

  64. Do these MSM types have a RP Road to Damascus (if fleeting) moment when they find out their wives are fucking around?

    Not most of them, no.

    To be honest, most never find out. The wives are good at hiding it and have little interest in breaking up the marriage — divorce rates are low in this set and there is still some low level of divorce stigma socially unlike most other segments.

    For the ones who do, the norm is to stay together — same reason re divorce — but the paradigm is almost always the BP/therapy route, and the marriage muddles along, perhaps she has more affairs but quieter ones, perhaps things improve a little and so on.

    There are a few exceptions I have seen over the years where the guy gets a clue but that’s usually in the divorce scenario, which, again, is not common even in cases of adultery in this group. Some of the divorced and court-raped guys in this group *do* wake up as a result of that process. But they have little to no influence on the rest because of the divorce stigma and the tendency of the remaining marrieds to marginalize them and certainly anything they are saying. And a significant portion of the divorce raped guys still remain BP after the process.

    The BP programming in this group is quite thick and is rather strongly socially reinforced such that even in the teeth of female infidelity and, in some cases, divorce rape, it remains intact. To do otherwise, after all, would be to become a misogynist — which for most of these types is a fate worse than death in their own eyes, never mind social disapproval. The programming has become internalized for many in this group.

Speak your mind

%d bloggers like this: