Respect Reconsidered – Part I

Thank you for your patience in my absence. I’ve been focusing intensely on the 4th book for the past 2 months and I will be for the foreseeable future. The good news is I’m ‘in the zone‘ so to speak. I have the ability to occasionally get myself into a flow state where an idea I was originally working on branches off into other ideas that I have to follow or else I risk losing the branch altogether.

This is just how my mind works. Regular viewers of my podcasts understand this in real-time. I can start off with a solid premise – often one I’ve been considering (repeating) since the early days – and as I’m making it I consider how it affects other ideas and I have to follow that thread. I know, it’s annoying sometimes, but I do my best to organize my thoughts once they’re all out on the table.

I do this in my ideation process when I’m writing too. Right now I’m looking at no fewer than eight notebooks (9 if you count my gym log) that I keep to return to when I’m exploring ideas. Two of these are full. The oldest I’ve had since my first book was published, but I keep returning to it because I scribbled down ideas regarding religion and the Red Pill back then. This was from an era when I was much more active on Dalrock’s blog and I was hammering things out with a lot of guys struggling with Red Pill awareness, and reconciling it with their religious convictions. It was then I came across an unpublished reconsideration of the concept of Respect. I titled it Respect Reconsidered with the intent of coming back to an essay I wrote in 2012 called Respect. This original essay was inspired by some of my earliest conversations on the venerable SoSuave forums circa 2002-2010. I still think it holds up pretty well, but my reinterest in the topic of respect has come anew from my working on this fourth book.

So, at the risk of giving away a little bit of book 4, I’m going to delve into the concept of respect today.

God is Love?

Book 4 is about squaring Red Pill praxeology (deal with it) with religion. As a part of this I’ve had to re-outline my original premise on Love and how men and women approach love from different concepts. I wont bore you with reiterating it here (there’s a whole category on love in the side bar), but suffice to say that men and women come to love, and have an understanding of love, based on gendered ideals that are specific to our biological and psychological differences as men and women. Most intersexual conflicts between men and women are rooted in the presumption of a mutual, commonly understood concept of what love is to both sexes. The truth is men and women hold differing mental models of what legitimate “real” love means to them. Each sex arrives at this understanding as a result of their experience as a man or a woman, and then molded by outside influences and innate idealism.

This was an important distinction to consider while I’ve been exploring the way men and women idealize the concept of divine love from a god or some metaphysical source. Each sex has a gendered concept of love that they believe the other sex shares with them, but in fact doesn’t naturally come to without some education or experience. It’s this presumption and misunderstanding that is the source of conflict between men and women and how they expect the other to Just Get It with respect to how they’d have the other sex love them.

But if men and women have different, innately gendered concepts of love is it possible that there are other higher concepts they might not share the same ideas about, but presumes the other sex just gets? I believe so, and Respect is at the top of the list of those higher concepts.

Respect is earned?

When I was having my now infamous discussion with Andrew Tate a month ago we (quite unintentionally) hit upon the concept of respect and how men and women view it differently. A lot of my female viewers – particularly the newer female viewers – despised the truths that we were discussing about the nature of women:

“No woman would ever agree to ‘share a hot Alpha’! Any woman who would must not respect herself.”

“No woman wants to have sex with a guy she doesn’t respect! If she’s not fucking you with any real desire it’s because she doesn’t respect the guy she’s with.”

“You can’t expect a woman to submit to a man she doesn’t respect.”

These were a few of the comments and responses that got me thinking; Respect is an idea that men and women hold different concepts of as a result of our innate sexual differences. The criteria that would prompt respect in a woman is not the same that prompts it in a man.

A lot gets made about mutual respect being a keystone of a good relationship. It’s one of those sayings like “Open communication is the basis of a healthy relationship” or “Relationship take a lot of work.” Respect is another truism that sounds right. Because it’s so ambiguous, and it’s generally only legitimized according to one sex, it’s easy (mostly for women) to use a “lack of respect” as leverage or an alibi to excuse behavior or a misunderstanding between men and women.

The concept of respect today is cheap. We use it far too readily to explain away why we, or someone we identify with did what they did. We use a convenient, subjective understanding of respect as a qualifier for describing what we agree or disagree with. And we use this cheapened “respect” to grade a person’s integrity according to what we think others should agree or disagree with – usually by how it aligns with our own interests.

Male Respect is not the same as Female Respect

The popular concept is that Respect is something that should be a default setting. People deserve respect. Disrespecting someone, or ambiguously implying a ‘dis‘ might be enough to get your ass kicked. Today’s globalized concept of respect is the subjective female concept – respect is always on. This is a respect based on ‘grace‘, it just is, and it should be freely given to discourage the idea that anyone is greater or lesser than another. We all deserve respect is very much a collectivist form of respect.

At first I thought that maybe Respect was something being confused with common courtesy, but no. There are two main dictionary definitions of what respect is, and this is where we will see the gendered difference between these concepts:

Respect

1. A feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements.

2. Due regard for the feelings, wishes, rights, or traditions of others.

Courtesy

1. The showing of politeness in one’s attitude and behavior toward others.

Courtesy and the feminine form of Respect (2.) are very similar. Today’s global respect is rooted in the feminine form. I’ll explain this below, but a default respect based on race, gender, sexual orientation, culture, religion and other aspects of human diversity is the feminine concept; unearned and by default always ‘on’.

Women just are. Men must become.

This is an old Manosphere maxim. I’ve used it many times to describe the male Burden of Performance. To be a human male is to exist in a dominance hierarchy until your last day. Men must perform. In fact, it is part of our inborn nature to want to perform for women because it is the most deductive way to solve men’s reproductive problem. When a young boy sees a pretty girl for the first time his natural impulse is to find a way to draw her attention. Ride a wheelie down the street on his bicycle or some other, usually risk taking, feat to prove physical prowess and a capture her attention. Most male animals do some form of this showing off to get a female interested in eventually breeding with him. The PUA concept of Peacocking and why it’s effective finds its roots in this dynamic. Call that being a Dancing Monkey if you like, but performance comes naturally to men.

Competence, physical prowess, creative intelligence, dominance, social proof and preselection are the metric by which we rate a man’s respectability. The Burden of Performance is not only about women determining who they’ll choose to mate with, it’s also about men’s merit-based ranking of respectability and admirability. This applies to all social interactions (family, career, military, athletics, etc.). It is a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements that makes a man respectable. How we define this respectability by context of cultural, moralistic or personal metrics is the topic for the next essay in this series.

Male Respect is for Male Space

Of course, this definition can apply to exceptional women, but this concept of respect is male in origin. This male form of respect is part of a male dominance hierarchy. Women can insist on being included in this definition, but it rarely works out in their favor – at least not in the same way that a default female form of respect works for women. One reason women (the Feminine Imperative) insists on assimilating Male Space is in order to restructure it to have access to this male form of respectability. The problem is that in restructuring that space to accommodate their deficits, women fundamentally alter the nature of that male form of respect.

TheWarrior Princess strong female lead mythology that Hollywood writers think is empowering to women isn’t believable because our hindbrains understand the deception that’s being played on it. We’re supposed to respect this fictitious archetype in a male form of respectability, but it falls short for us because 100,000 years of evolution prevents our hindbrains from suspending our disbelief.

We know what usually happens when women are called to measure up to a male Burden of Performance. Today, transgender male athletes competing and dominating in female-division sports are a sharp reminder of this performance-to-respect distinction in gender. The gynocentric element that squawks the loudest about gender being a social construct is the same element that complains about male athletes putting female athletes to shame in the same sport or activity while masquerading as female. As a result, we don’t respect men who pretend to be women, and then outclass them in competency, in order to appeal to a male form of performance-based respectability. Our hindbrains, men and women’s, reject the legitimacy of what we’re expected (by a gynocentric social order) to respect by merit.

Men earn no admiration from beating girls, but women always are afforded admiration for defeating men. Why? Because our hindbrain presumes a state of performance superiority on the part of men.

Female Respectability

Women’s respectability comes by default.

Respect by virtue of just being female is due to all women, irrespective of performance. In a gynocentric social order this form of respect is the common one applied to social forms of respect. I’m still on the fence as to whether common courtesy is a part of this form of respect. As I mentioned above, default courtesy and respect are due to any and all based on race, creed, religion, etc. This is the due regard for the feelings, wishes, rights, or traditions of others. So it could be that courtesy is the expression of this default respect when we’re talking about larger narratives of respect (race, religion, culture, etc.) In either instance, respect is unmerited and really cheapened in a feminine-primary context.

But for women, just to be a female is to be entitled to respect; and only in the circumstance of intra-sexual competition among women is this form of respect ever challenged. Default respect for women is utilitarian for virtually all women. The entitlement to respect is constantly leveraged for advantage and special dispensation among women with men.

Women just are, is the premise here. Female respectability is never merit based, though it can be lost if a woman is convinced that she “has no respect for herself” or if someone casts that woman as self-loathing, but this is only effective when it comes from other women. In a feminine-primary social order men can never challenge a woman’s respectability without the risk of incurring some social backlash or damage to his own performance-based respectability. And labels of sexist, misogynist and chauvinist await any man who would challenge the default respect that is due to women.

Chivalry, Virtue and Female Respectability

A lot of this impression is the result of the old social contract and men’s evolved instinct to protect women. This protector instinct will also be the topic of another essay, but suffice to say that the evolved imperative to protect women (sperm is cheap, eggs are expensive) crosses over into the chivalrous notion of protecting the honor of a lady. At various points in human history (western and eastern) this protector instinct has crossed over into societal practices. During the era of Courtly Love a woman’s virtue became something to defend – and by defending that virtue a man merited respect by earning a woman’s favor. I’ve detailed this dynamic in prior essays; the romanticized form of Chivalry was a means to female power in an epoch when the entire social order was effectively a Male Space. Romanticized Chivalry was the feminism of its time.

The Feminine Imperative understood the protector tendency in men and exploited it in the practices of courtly love or romantic love being elevated to a requisite criteria for male respectability. The social pedestalization of women that forms the basis of the old social contract we know today was started in the ideals of romanticized chivalry. A big part of men’s Burden of Performance under the old social contract was his dedication to protecting a woman’s honor if he himself was to be respectable in the male form of respect.

Feminists will of course bleat that “In the past women were treated like property“.

Yet at some point along the way, even while a woman was a man’s ‘property’ (arguable) she was still held above the male form of respect and a female form of respect became her due. Even in the old Patriarchal Abrahamic religions wives and most in-group women were held in high regard and served as role model archetypes for female respectability. The only way to really lose this due-respect was to be a prostitute or an adulterous woman – both bad bets for men’s parental investment trade-offs and ensuring his own paternity in the long run. Being a nag was also something a respectable woman would avoid, but the operative here is that, default respect for women didn’t require anything like the male Burden of Performance.

Respect Your Elders – “Okay, Boomer,…”

One last point to note is that respect for one’s elders used to be included in this default form of respectability. This is no longer the case today, at least for men. My theory is that by virtue of being older the presumption was one of attained wisdom. Maturity implies mastery, or at least it used to. So, a default respect for one’s elders entered into religious canon. Honor thy father and mother, for instance, is a reflection of this default respect.

But in today’s gloablizing social media marketplace being old is a weakness and a liability unless what makes that man respectable is relatable to his prior performance. And even then respect is just a courtesy if it appears at all. Default socialized respect for women is generally a given in gynocentrism, but mature men are held to the performance burden of young men, because we have such access to seeing this performance difference in real time today.

There is a similar questioning of respect based on a position of authority for men. School teachers, martial arts instructors, policemen, civil authorities and military officials are examples of this diminishing respect. There is a saying that even if you don’t respect the man you should respect the office, but today this is no longer the case. Position no longer indicates respectability the way it used to under the old social contract.

Next week, I’ll be publishing part two of this series.

Published by Rollo Tomassi

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

161 comments on “Respect Reconsidered – Part I

  1. This is super relevant to me today. I have been binge reading your love series and the articles/studies contained within. I was Raised in a Christian home but am non religious at the moment. Your writings, paired with the links have given me a lot of insight on the development of relationships and the bastardization of love – in my opinion. Thank you for taking time out to share this with us.

  2. The second definition of respect, the one you refer to as female respect is actually cherishing. That is what Hillary got wrong when she said women want to be respected. Most actually want to be cherished more than respected. Cherishing is like the respect a person gets for simply existing where respect is earned.

    So more accurately – respect the masculine (whether man or woman once they’ve earned it) and cherish the feminine.

  3. I believe one of the main motivators of the entire feminist movement is a desire of women to be valued or respected for their capabilities, rather than based how subjectively feminine they are. However time and again when women fail to perform as well as men do, be it in sports, business, or most other endeavors; they resort to disrespecting men. Women talk, men do; and when men do better women talk, or rather complain louder.

    It is amazing how often I point out a women’s poor performance in some area or another and they always resort to finding ONE exceptional woman who out-performs MOST men in that area as proof that women are equally competent to men. It seems like a bastardization of the two forms of respect that Rollo has suggested here: a deep admiration of ALL women elicited by the abilities, qualities, or achievements of ONE woman.

    Perhaps the greatest moments in my red-pill awakening was un-learning my default feminized respect for women. By holding women to the same burden of performance I and other men are expected to carry, their true nature becomes obvious to behold, and respect given only to the very few women who deserve it.

  4. I remember a line from an old Broadway song called “Happy to Keep His Dinner Warm”:

    “Oh, to be loved
    by a man I respect,
    to bask in the glow
    of his perfectly understandable neglect.”

    Women used to think that some men, anyway, were worthy of respect (or hoped so, anyway)..

  5. I would add “(a display of) deference” to the first definition of respect. Displays of deference or respect are never impolite. A woman will therefore readily conflate common courtesy or politeness as deference or respect. I suppose it then depends on the extent to which one would show common courtesy to a person one doesn’t respect or admire (particularly if that person is lower in social status than one).

  6. Society will never show men respect again, until we as men can show each other respect and model the behavior for the rest of society. Can we expect them to respect us if we refuse to respect “us”?

    Sharkly’s first generality:
    1. Men will never be respected by society while men refuse to respect each other.

    1. The respect you’re referring to is female-based default respect. Men must be respectable, they must perform admirably, to be respected. In this frame men already do respect each other.

  7. One of the strongest concepts of game is instilling Dread.

    But too much dread creates instability with the woman constantly on edge to the point of being toxic.

    Too little dread is basically lack of any fear.

    The idea of respect has to be tied to the fear of loss.

    Recently counselling a friend who has serious oneitis for a married woman he’s banging. She plays tricks on him like sending fake messages that seem to be intended for someone else.

    I had to remind him and basically slap into him that she had a husband and now wanted a lover not another provider. In this dynamic he was being no the needy woman and she was the “man”. He couldn’t get this until she called out his neediness saying “you do know that I’m married right?”

    He had lost her respect because he was too available…

  8. @Blax
    What is it if a wealthy diner says thank you to the wait staff for serving them? Respect or common courtesy? If the former, then what achievements is the diner admiring? 😉

  9. I felt like you were really going to touch on something big there. But then came the confusing wall of words. I thought that you were going to get into how men see respect as oppose to how women see it. It would be good if you could touch on that.

  10. “God is love”. Rollo, this is just one more on the heap of things I am struggling with regards to my “christian faith”. I am very much looking forward to reading Alpha God and eventually your 4th book.
    Unconditional love is the main message of the new testament. Could it be that Christianity is really that feminized not just by “the village” and feminized church today but actually? Could the New testament be a watering down of the old Jahve Religion? I know you don’t disclose your personal faith. (It’s probably wise.) But I still wish I knew what you believe.
    Gosh. Jesus is a liar? What’s gonna happen after death? I thought I had the answers ironed out but do I have to start over? I am really genuinely worried.

    1. The Bible is not feminized, but sometimes our interpretation is. Check out 1 John 5:3 for instance:

      “ For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.”

      If you apply a feminized version of love to the Bible, of course it will seem to be feminized. The main message of the Bible is obedience to the one true authority, God. As 1 John 5:3 says, if we don’t obey, we don’t love him.

      In the New Testament, Jesus did not come to change things, but rather to finish what was already in motion. He taught the meaning behind the law, and why it existed. Rather than blind obedience to the law, He taught that the law was dead, not being alive, and that we should rather obey the living God.

      In essence, the law could not be good because it couldn’t change to fit every situation. It was static and dead. It was only good for those who didn’t want to follow God in the first place. It was for the disobedient. If you read the Old Testament you will see that God only created the law after His people rebelled.

      The Bible teaches the opposite of feminism, obedience. Don’t listen to what others, or I say about it, read it with an open, unbiased mind and God will show you it’s true meaning.

  11. “Could the New testament be a watering down of the old Jahve Religion?”

    In the old religion, Jahve, the builder of the world (the carpenter) was the son. Eloh/Allah/Abba (dialectal variants of the same word) was The Father who ordered the world to be built (the contractor). Jahveism was a cult of the greater religion.

    Addendum: You can see this shift in naming conventions. Micha-El/ Joho-shua.

    See also the Marcionite heresy which could not reconcile the Old Testament with the new.

    “Jesus is a liar? ”

    “God is love” comes from an epistle, not a gospel. They are the words of an apostle and do not even purport to be the words of Jesus.

  12. This is why the kjv uses the word ” Lord ” and ” Ethiopian ( Greek ) ” to describe even those that weren’t technically from Ethiopia.

  13. My favorite Rodney “I don’t get no respect” Dangerfield lines: “I told my wife I wanted to get a home improvement loan. She gave me a thousand bucks and told me to leave.”

    Curia seems to be the basis for courtesy — very interesting considering Donovan’s The Way of Men, the way of the gang. That is, courtesy described intra-gang interaction especially when the gang assembled to determine policy or execute legal (religious) matters.

    Perhaps the devolution of courtesy to plain old good manners toward the weaker sex was hastened in the Victorian/Edwardian eras via a plethora of nannies: a boy-child needed to please two women rather than just one.

  14. “This is why the kjv uses the word ” Lord ” . . .”

    What is often more interesting than the translation of words in the Bible is the words that are, for some reason or other (and it is these reasons that make them interesting), not translated and so lose their actual meaning (obscuring the meaning often being part of the reasons):

    English: Lord
    Hebrew (a dead language in the time of Jesus used only for scripture, cognate to Latin today): Adonai
    Aramaic (the language of the time of Jesus: Baal

  15. I have written a number of essays on respect, such as this one.
    https://sigmaframe.wordpress.com/2018/10/06/tingles-respect/

    “Respect is the proper display of appreciation for one who has power and authority. Therefore, a woman’s desire for a powerful, Tingle-inducing man, and “looking up” to that man, could easily be conflated with “having respect” for that man.”

    Above, Walawala commented that Dread Game is one way to elicit respect. He concluded,

    “The idea of respect has to be tied to the fear of loss.”

    Being threatened by a loss makes it clearly evident that a person has power over your life. But respect is cemented in power and authority. Power is what makes the loss possible.
    Walawala shows that the adulteress had the overwhelming power over his friend when he wrote,

    “He had lost her respect because he was too available…”

    Desire and neediness reduces one’s power.

  16. ” . . .when did Hebrew get resurrected?”

    As an officially recognized language, 1947, but its construction began in the 19th century Zionist movement. Note that Modern Hebrew is a construction. It takes Biblical Hebrew as its root, but is not Biblical Hebrew. It is a synthetic, not a resurrection.

    Nativist movements were “a thing” in 1890s – 1920s. Hebrew isn’t the only language that synthesized a new version out of what survived of ancient roots. UK Keltic languages are notable others. “Traditional” ethnic traits were often synthesized at the same time. Aran sweaters, Irish kilts, Japanese kimono as we know them today; none of these existed before 1920. They are all synthetics built on what scraps remained of actual tradition.

  17. Eliciting fear and threats of loss, if uncalibrated, can result in murder. remember a cardinal rule of Game ( in it’s original incarnation) that ” fear ” is not always the same as ” respect “. A wise man doesn’t want to be feared as it might just be his undoing.

  18. A man’s ” station ” in life from observations is in no way an indication of whether he deserves respect. Wealth doesn’t way anything about a man other than he’s collected vast sums of fiat currency. Bernie Madoff comes to mind.

    It depends on what one’s value system is. The idea that basic strangers are ” beneath ” due to some kind of social status is a bastardization of the idea of respect. ” Power” is subjective always. The exercising of power over another requires the other’s cooperation. You can cooperate to varying degrees minus fear. No man should ever accept being fearful of anyone, regardless of their ” Power “.

  19. “The idea that basic strangers are ” beneath ” due to some kind of social status is a bastardization of the idea of respect.”

    It’s a fuedal concept, one which was explicitly rejected by republicanism.

    “Mister” is the lowest title of the gentry and the “suit” the lowest form of dress of the gentry. Under republican egalitarianism (“egalitarian” simply meaning that social status isn’t something that you inherit from your family) everybody gets to be a Mister and wear a suit, but nobody gets to be any higher. The dirt farmer working his acre and the CEO of an agricultural conglomerate my differ in wealth, but they have the same rank.

  20. Something that comes to mind in this is from somewhere in the Game of Thrones books. Sansa Stark is going to some party while prisoner in King’s Landing and she recalled a teaching of I think Old Nan, who would be essentially a governess or nanny of some sort. The teaching was, “Courtesy is a lady’s armor.” Of late I’ve tended to think of that with, “Chivalry isn’t dead. It just followed along to wherever being ladylike went.”

    I think one of the confusions all the way around with this stuff is that we’ve more or less obliterated the idea of having manners. Maybe not obliterated so much as blurred the line where someone should be shamed for their behavior. We have to a considerable extent done away with shame.

    Is shame the foundation of all of this? The foundation of respect and courtesy and manners. The concept of proper manners widens and widens and as a consequence the line where dis-respect begins blurs. And it is a race to the bottom. Now people go out in their pajamas. The seeming dearth of self-respect in a great many we encounter when simply leaving the house would seem a result of all this.

    And what part does honor play in all of this? Honor, courtesy, manners, respect, are all interconnected aren’t they? A man isn’t allowed to defend his honor any longer. We did away with shame in so doing we did away with honor as well didn’t we? Shame and honor are one coin in my opinion.

    And then there is the question of how this interconnects with authority. Our republicanism has done away with noblesse oblige.

  21. @Jack –

    “Respect is the proper display of appreciation for one who has power and authority. Therefore, a woman’s desire for a powerful, Tingle-inducing man, and “looking up” to that man, could easily be conflated with “having respect” for that man.”

    I call Bullsh!t

    Many with Power and Authority (some say all, eventually, as it is our basic human nature) are absolute bastards and deserve NO respect! Fear, yes; a wide berth, maybe; a comeuppance (lesson in respect) from a more powerful force, perhaps; but not respect.

    What you are describing is FEAR. The resulting emotion we feel when someone lords their power and authority over us, because they have previously demonstrated a willingness to punish us if we do not show deference to that threat by exercising control through the power and authority over us that they wield.

    After all, we don’t get to re-define formal definitions as recorded in mutually agreed to reference books (i.e. dictionaries)

    Fear /ˈfir/

    noun
    an unpleasant emotion caused by the belief that someone or something is dangerous, likely to cause pain, or a threat. “he is prey to irrational fears”

    verb
    be afraid of (someone or something) as likely to be dangerous, painful, or threatening. “farmers fear that they will lose business”

  22. Unconditional love is the main message of the new testament.

    Is it?

    God’s love in both testaments is VERY conditional. Salvation is free but it is still based on the condition of accepting it.

    But God IS love, right? So you have this circular logic that presumes God will love you unconditionally, even if you don’t meet the conditions necessary to experience it.

  23. “Women just are, is the premise here. Female respectability is never merit based, though it can be lost if a woman is convinced that she “has no respect for herself” or if someone casts that woman as self-loathing, but this is only effective when it comes from other women. In a feminine-primary social order men can never challenge a woman’s respectability without the risk of incurring some social backlash or damage to his own performance-based respectability. And labels of sexist, misogynist and chauvinist await any man who would challenge the default respect that is due to women.”

    Women have intrinsic respect, but other women can demean her intrinsic respect by shaming her for not conforming to the prevailing norms of the consensus of the local female social matrix. Conforming confers a moral high ground and respect. Slut shaming a woman for being to competitive with men over other women causes a woman to lose respect. Not adhering to the female matrix approved dress code is another source of shaming and hence loss of respect. This is why feminist going on slut walks is so confusing to me. They are trying to remove a means where by women control women to the advantage of the top clique.

  24. @Maxwell Smart
    Perhaps the greatest moments in my red-pill awakening was un-learning my default feminized respect for women. By holding women to the same burden of performance I and other men are expected to carry, their true nature becomes obvious to behold, and respect given only to the very few women who deserve it.
    Respect can also be a form of deference to those on the pedestal, like a military salute of a junior to senior, so to topple the qwueen from her pedestal is to lose the feminized social conditioning.

  25. I find the entire concept of ” must conform ” or pressure to do so absolutely fascinating.

    I’d expect women to be more influenced by conformity, but ime men appear to be almost equally driven by the desire to conform.

    Lol, fuck that shit. Do what you want to do ( disclaimer: after you get your mind right that is ).

    Seems awfully stressful.

  26. “Women talk, men do”

    yes

    i have greatly benefitted from women’s talk. their tendency to draw out interactions because for them the talking and body language and other comms are more important than what’s being said means their mistaken modern desire to perform and earn man type “respect” from men can be easily exploited by a man knowing how to ask the right questions

    they give up information as though it had no value because for them gossip has value and they trade in it but they give up trade secrets because they didn’t do any of the work to make them possible or derive value from them lol

    everything to them is community property, esprecially other mens’ knowledge lol

    hoes excel in industrial espionage almost by accident but it’s looking more and more like unconscious “ignorance” + hypergamy + opportunity = i’ll tell you everything about my ex and his whole operation lol

    if you just shut up and listen women will tell you everything

    and that right there means they can’t ever get no respect because they can’t testify and their “words” mean shit because it’s just feelz of the moment for them seen through whatever filter they have on their memories at that moement lol

    if she a woman, make her sign that nda because they only understand losing resources in terms of “punishment”. they are like big corps that way lol

    punish swiftly and often. reward slowly and rarely. – some smart internet guy whose handle i can’t remember and the quote is probably wrong but the fucking idea is as relevant as ever

    those fat asses want to be spanked and they’re not gonna spank themselves

    can’t respect somebody you spank lol

    or cum on lol

    they don’t want respect. they want to be dominated.

  27. Weird reading some of these responses. No one deserves respect for existing.

    For the sake of maintaining a civil society, it’s of course important to be civil. Respecting the rule of law (to the degree that it reflects the values of the society represented and protected) is different than respecting someone as a distinct individual.

    I’ve surrounded myself with men worthy of my respect, and I’m pleased to be able to share their collective energy with my son.

    In my experience, most modern women are not deserving of respect, and are volatile and unmoored. I protect my son from most of them.

    The most respectable women I know are mothers of boys of at least high school age. Not all, but these women have the best chance, through experience, to see some truth. Nonetheless, even these women thwart boys from becoming men. It seems they can’t help themselves.

    Classically, a mother’s love must be channeled by a father’s positive masculinity for a boy to thrive as a man. I’ve yet to see a modern rewriting of gender norms that improves on this basic concept.

  28. @Rollo: timely essay. The advert for the Peloton stationary bike has caused a ruckus not just in feminist / SW / hipster circles, but even cuckservatives are concerned about the woman (actress) in the advert and want to send the cops to do a health & welfare check. The stock got hammered two days in a row. The NYT had an article. The company has explained “No, we didn’t mean the advert that way!” which just puts their name out more – good avertising.

    Why all the fussing? Because an actress plays the role of a woman who wants to please her husband, and shows admiration and respect to him. She defers to him.

    Horrors! The very idea! If this sort of thing goes unchallenged, why, it’s Handmaid’s Tale by next summer, or something.

    Girls love to pretend they are just as good as the boys, and that men must earn their respect, plus of course they gotta play Aretha’s cover of Otis Reddings tune in their heads all the time. Because why?

    Because as you clearly articulate in this article, the very definition of “respect”. That’s why.

    Again, good essay. Worth reading several times.

  29. Anonymous Reader

    Rudolph
    Game of Thrones books.

    Not the best source of information for interpersonal relationships. IMO.

    Well the idea is still something Rollo touched on in the essay. What gets left out of the modern notion of chivalry is the obligation for women to be ladies.

    Even in the female version of respect, the second definition which I think many would prefer to refer to as “civility” has to be on some level earned. Even as a man if you want to be treated with civility you must behave with civility. Both definitions of “Respect” must be earned. “Civility” though is a default and is taken away if some small level of “Respect” isn’t earned.

    I think overall Rollo is suggesting that even the idea that a woman needs to meet some really low bar for qualifying for civility (definition two of respect, female version of respect) is going away. My point, and I think Rollo at least touched on this, is that in lowering the bar to qualify for civility we have also eroded and lowered the bar for respect.

    The male version, or the first definition, of respect in my opinion needs to be accompanied by some level of the female version. There needs to be some rules or you’re quickly headed to anarchy. One of the words we’ve left out of this so far and those talking about power in this point at it is “obedience.” You need those who give orders and those who obey orders. And among men sorting that out frequently involves violence.

    One of the things I learned about being in charge is that you still have to be polite to your subordinates. My experience has been that especially with women is that they are quite willing to mistake orders phrased as requests as in fact being requests. Young men do this but to a lesser extent and it takes little to make them understand. It is that conflict between respecting the office and respecting the one in the office. I tend to think men more easily see and understand this distinction.

    I’m curious for the second part of this as I think there is a lot with the female propensity for apex fallacy and their solipsism and especially their hypergamy at work here as well. When even the female version of respect still has an obligation women today chafe. They want no fetters on their hypergamy.

    This is the root of the “Slut Walk” paradox someone mentioned. It isn’t a paradox or contradiction though. Women need the option to be “sluts.” They are entitled to fulfill their hypergamy even if that means not being ladylike. Any qualification for civility even a minimal one can hamper their reproductive goals as young women or their provisioning goals as post wall women or as mothers. Courtesy is a lady’s armor but sex is a lady’s sword.

  30. Something I’d like to touch on with regards “obedience” and probably “deference” as well are the enlightenment or egalitarian ideals at the foundation of America at any rate.

    Someone mentioned “rank.” In our American Republican/Democratic/Enlightenment ideals you are not entitled to “respect.” In this context I mean what we would think of more on the lines of obedience and deference because of your birth. You aren’t in charge because your father is in charge or was in charge. This is that “status” thing again. I think also we might consider this as entitlement to “power.”

    In the American concept we are all the same “rank.” This makes us all entitled to some level of civility as long as we conduct ourselves as being deserving of civility. But we also have the right to attempt earning status and the higher levels of respect that come with the obedience and deference of other men. I think the American Revolution also served to do away with the idea or at least undermine the idea that only those born to nobility/high rank/to those of high status can have men be obedient to them.

    America at its founding rejected the notion that a man should have power over other men because he is “King.” I’m struck with the idea that many of the more modern tales of chivalry tend to come with Kings who are in some way not worthy of respect. Kings undeserving of obedience and deference.

    If we’re trying to figure out why men so easily fall into women’s frame this founding idea of America is grounded to some degree in what Rollo here is calling the female version of respect.

    There is a lot more tied up in all of this than simply shifting into a feminine primary social order.

  31. My interpretation of the female intrinsic “respect” is due to men putting pussy on the pedestal. It’s not a real respect like a man to man, but part of the dancing monkey routine men do for our human mating rituals. It’s funny because my wife said if we had a son she would teach him to respect women. I laughed at her and told her I would tell him everything you said should be taken with a grain of salt. Female respect is part of the Beta conditioning to get him ready for the mating game.

  32. Respect is the means by which a woman communicates her love to her man.
    In the bible, it clearly says that the husband is the head of the woman. Even though both are equally human, there is still a hierarchical arrangement. I’ve often wondered why Ephesians 5:22-33 says for husbands to “love” and wives to “respect”.

    Why not command both parties to love and respect equally? Since the apostle Paul is talking about marriages, this would seem like a good time to interject that. One would think that love and respect should be primary concerns for both parties in the marriage but instead the husband and wife are both commanded to focus on specific things. Also, this isn’t saying that wives have no obligation to love their husbands as the older women in the church are commanded in Titus 2:4 to teach younger women to “love their husbands”.

    I think a husbands love for his wife is like water flowing downhill. Water naturally wants to go down, if there’s a spring on a mountain, that water will find it’s way down the side of the mountain as long as the spring keeps producing water. However, to move water uphill you’ll need pipes because water doesn’t want to move uphill on it’s own unless it’s contained, pressurized, and directed. A wife’s respect for her husband is like the pipes used to move water of her love uphill. Without respect, it’s impossible for a wife to love her husband. In this sense, respect is just as much a means to an end as it is an end in and of itself.

    Another thing worth noting about Ephesians 5:22-33 is that the imperatives given to the husband and wife are not conditioned. It doesn’t say “husbands love your wives only if they’re lovable” nor does it say “wives respect your husbands only if they’re respectable”. However, I don’t think there are many preachers who would explain this passage in such a way as to place the burden of respect on the wives. Instead they would say that if the wives weren’t respecting the husbands, it’s the husband’s fault for not “manning up”. Which brings up the question, who is responsible for respect, the respecter or the respectee? To what degree is respect earned, and to what degree is respect given?

  33. @Peter. Hypergamy will answer that question for you about who respector or respectee. Look at India, those cucks have the highest rate of female on male domestic violence, because a woman will not default respect a man her hypergamy views as lessor. The respectee has to meet the burden of performance for the respector. If you don’t meet the respectors hypergamous demands, then you’ll be labelled a Peter-pan or worse. If you have self-respect and yourself as a mental point of origin then you won’t give a damn what any respectee labels you as.

  34. Rollo wrote:
    Even in the old Patriarchal Abrahamic religions wives and most in-group women were held in high regard and served as role model archetypes for female respectability.

    Yes. And Abraham and Isaac did not let their heirs marry from the local idolater women, the thots of the ancient time.

    I just wrote a post about poly mostly but also how respecting our ancestors still matters:
    https://redpillrabbi.home.blog/2019/12/03/kosher-polygamy/

    Excerpt:
    We Jews are still teaching our young girls how our Patriarchs and Matriarchs, who practiced patriarchy and polygyny, are shining examples of spiritual greatness to emulate. I’ll speculate that providing these positive role models instills in their subconscious that they should make the effort to attract a valuable man to marry. If a man could have more than one wife, this shows a girl that the man is the prize to be won by the woman. The burden shifts somewhat (not entirely) onto her to become a quality young woman who displays the attributes needed to become an excellent wife.

  35. @kfg. “In the old religion,”

    That’s not Judaism you’re talking!
    Some falsely assume that the Bible is referring to two different entities when it uses the J name and E names. That would be the equivalent to the English words Eternal and Almighty. Would it be reasonable that Eternal and Almighty is referring to two different things, when the text you are reading states there is only one God, no others, and also uses the names Eternal Almighty together…?

  36. “That’s not Judaism you’re talking!”

    That’s right. It’s religion of Judea.

    “Some falsely assume that the Bible is referring to . . .”

    The Bible is not the source of the Bible. I do not restrict my reading of scripture to the Bible, nor my studies to written sources. Although I have ancestors from at least two of them and wouldn’t be the least surprised to find the third, I am not Jewish, Christian or Muslim and never have been. I owe no obeisance to any of their dogmas and do not waste time defending them.

    I will note, however, that I have spent sufficient time defending their theologies that I have been taken for all three. I don’t care for Argument by Dissemblance.

  37. @Rudolph

    George R. R. Martin is extremely blue pill. Looking at his bio I see he was married for about 4 years in the 1970’s, divorced, remarried in 2011. I doubt he was spinning plates in the intervening years. An author’s worldview generally will effect the characters he writes in fiction. A Blue Pill author who has a tendency to tip his fedora to the pedestal will write what kind of characters?

    Fiction isn’t generally a good source of truth about women, although Jane Austen was something of an exception.

    Maybe you should re-read Rollo’s original essay and also click through to his older essays that he links, in order to get a better background to what he’s saying.

  38. Rudolph

    “Someone mentioned “rank.” In our American Republican/Democratic/Enlightenment ideals you are not entitled to “respect.” In this context I mean what we would think of more on the lines of obedience and deference because of your birth. You aren’t in charge because your father is in charge or was in charge. This is that “status” thing again. I think also we might consider this as entitlement to “power.”

    In the American concept we are all the same “rank.” This makes us all entitled to some level of civility as long as we conduct ourselves as being deserving of civility. But we also have the right to attempt earning status and the higher levels of respect that come with the obedience and deference of other men. I think the American Revolution also served to do away with the idea or at least undermine the idea that only those born to nobility/high rank/to those of high status can have men be obedient to them.”

    Not picking a fight, but you’ve omitted 90% of the founding ” American Concept “. Most of what you wrote is not true at all and is more fairy tale than fact.

    But about the obedience thing – Men that are deferential and obedient to other men that aren’t related to them aren’t really ” men “. Dogs and ( if you’re skillful enough ) women and children are ” obedient ” up to a particular point. ” Power ” loves the concept you’ve laid out – ” But we also have the right to attempt earning status and the higher levels of respect that come with the obedience and deference of other men”. Yes, this is the grease for the wheels. Playing the game with the assumption that one day you too will have Da Power.

    Yet, true power is never given, it is taken. Always. False power can be bestowed, hence it can be taken away and destroyed by those who refuse to recognize and play along. Again, ” power ” only exists with the full cooperation of others.

    I respect many men, but I am deferential and ” obedient ” to none once fully grown and aware. Respect and obedience are not related in the way you pose. I think the words obedient and deferential are too strong descriptors.

    America dispensed with royalty in the technical sense, but replaced it with many other things ( politics/political parties, celebrity, etc. ). Power bestowed unearned.

  39. My measure of “respect” for men these days has changed significantly as I age. The questions I ask now are: Is he honest? Is he trustworthy? Has he added value to the world? Is he someone I would follow up a hill? (combat vets will get this). For women the measures are similar but not the same: Is she honest? Does she take care of her appearance and health? Is she feminine? Etc.

    My last two marriages (a total of 34 years) imploded and had commonalities that are probably not coincidental. The biggest was the overt disrespect and contempt shown towards me by my ex’s. TRP has fixed that for me.

    That was then, this is now, and I’m at a point where it’s all about me and my DNGAF attitude. Women come and go and I will 86 them if they are not less than excellent. If they don’t qualify as a decent human being, they don’t get to share my life.

    Back to respect….

    I personally demonstrate “respectful” behaviors as my initial default as a matter of just having good matters. I don’t demand respect from anyone but if I’m treated poorly by someone, they usually never see or hear from me again. Age has tempered my response and I offer advice only if asked. My acts and achievements usually speak for themselves and if men, or women, won’t acknowledge this, then I minimize interactions.

    Pretty old school but I also know that most of the world simply doesn’t care. I do know one thing however, I always have the power to walk away and the act of doing this has shocked several women I’ve been involved with. I tried explaining this a couple of times but they just couldn’t understand that their behaviors were off putting. Like I stated, the only power I have is the ability to walk away.

  40. personally demonstrate “respectful” behaviors as my initial default as a matter of just having good matters. I don’t demand respect from anyone but if I’m treated poorly by someone, they usually never see or hear from me again. Age has tempered my response and I offer advice only if asked. My acts and achievements usually speak for themselves and if men, or women, won’t acknowledge this, then I minimize interactions.

    Pretty old school but I also know that most of the world simply doesn’t care. I do know one thing however, I always have the power to walk away and the act of doing this has shocked several women I’ve been involved with. I tried explaining this a couple of times but they just couldn’t understand that their behaviors were off putting. Like I stated, the only power I have is the ability to walk away.”

    Wonderfully stated.

  41. What’s that massive subcut. edema/bruise on the ostensibly female wrist (RHS) from?
    I hope from an overenthusiastic “push-ups” session.
    Not drugs, disease, age or violence, I trust.
    Maybe going arse-over-tip on the Peloton exercise bike, or snowboard?

  42. “Each sex arrives at this understanding as a result of their experience as a man or a woman, and then molded by outside influences and innate idealism.”

    Experience as a man or woman has nichts zu tun with our greater understanding. As described above man is a prisoner to his world. It happens and is benighted thinking (and by no means inexorable, btw). Therein both sexes practice utilitarian love against each other. It’s not love in that there’s universality and permanence. It lasts as long as the usefulness remains and routinely ends ugly.

    That’s not valuable love. That’s RP tortured reality.

    The whole RP ideology confuses valuable love (understanding into action or value-knowledge) with intersexual attempts to subdue insecurity (knowing-about women yet not understanding women, never knowing women fully).

    One is aspirational, beautiful is design and practice the other transactional and overwrought.

    And this…First men and women live as men and women and that’s how we start our understanding of reality…then…outside influences have an effect? Huh? Innate idealism? WTF is that supposed to mean? Morality, maybe.

    Who the fuck can tell where this is going? Round and round but nowhere rational. Why he’s trying to rewrite Jung’s Synchronicity is understandable though. Needs to establish a RP pop psychology new religion before time runs out.

    Next up: TRM takes on the collective consciousness.

    Have a splendid day, y’all.

  43. “My last two marriages (a total of 34 years) imploded and had commonalities that are probably not coincidental.”

    What is the story there? What the hell happened?

    ” personally demonstrate “respectful” behaviors as my initial default as a matter of just having good matters. I don’t demand respect from anyone but if I’m treated poorly by someone, they usually never see or hear from me again. Age has tempered my response and I offer advice only if asked. My acts and achievements usually speak for themselves and if men, or women, won’t acknowledge this, then I minimize interactions.

    Pretty old school but I also know that most of the world simply doesn’t care. I do know one thing however, I always have the power to walk away and the act of doing this has shocked several women I’ve been involved with. I tried explaining this a couple of times but they just couldn’t understand that their behaviors were off putting. Like I stated, the only power I have is the ability to walk away.”

    Wonderfully stated.

    Age hasn’t tempered my responses. I agree with the acts and achievements speaking for themselves and and if others don’t acknowledge it, minimizing interactions. Avoid the unlucky and the unhappy, Law #10.

    Law 10: INFECTION: AVOID THE UNHAPPY AND UNLUCKY. You can die from someone else’s misery—emotional states are as infectious as diseases. You may feel you are helping the drowning man but you are only precipitating your own disaster. The unfortunate sometimes draw misfortune on themselves; they will also draw it on you.

    Olangapo shows balance in not needing external validation (being needy) vs. giving when giving is due. That is a nice strategy. There is nothing wrong with giving. When giving is due.

    It’s different in MRP or LTR Game, when she, the partner, holds up her part of the bargain. The walk away is not very desirable. I.e, she’s giving respect and admiration. And holding her own as self respecting.

    Love is not a dirty word in Red Pill.

    “Love is the will to extend one’s self for the purpose of nurturing one’s own or another’s spiritual growth… Love is as love does. Love is an act of will — namely, both an intention and an action. Will also implies choice. We do not have to love. We choose to love.”
    ― M. Scott Peck

    It’s not about explaining to her. It’s not about nuclear dread. It’s not about walking away with a love the wife and have good kids situation. Most often it is lack of the proper balance of desire sex. Being separate and self differentiated, but then coming together. Without being co-dependent. Not needing, but wanting. Not being needy, but having the will to make things with you, her and the relationship better. Coming together with desire. Separating. Repeating that.

    Dread is a fine line of performance. And I think Rollo spoke eloquently of and about it in 2012 in his essays on relationship game. When a man’s Game is on point. But these days of Game with average and less than average readers, it is not spoken of by Rollo in healthy LTR’s. It is talked about secondarily by Rian Stone. It is nuanced. “Soft Dread” is not taking a hammer to a nail. It is admiration and respect on her part and the fear of loss of all the good things that can come to her feelings.

    Upstream, Walawala said:

    One of the strongest concepts of game is instilling Dread.

    But too much dread creates instability with the woman constantly on edge to the point of being toxic.

    Too little dread is basically lack of any fear.

    The idea of respect has to be tied to the fear of loss.

    And then he went on to tell a story about a friend, buddy who was doing it all wrong. ???

    My comment to him would be:

    Your lead statements have nothing to do with the latter observations about your friends game.

    He is uncalibrated. (One of these is not like the other..)

    Dread needs to be instilled passively. Because the male is respected. Because he is attractive, not unattractive. He does not generate dread ham-handedly. She generates it in herself if he is admirable and respected. Best when passively generated on his part. Actively generated on her part.

    I have no bias to LTR vs. single man game. One of my best buddies does single man game after three marriages. And does it well with passive dread.

    So it boils down to one man being his best self. All that self-actualization stuff…
    And the manosphere is rife with the walk away scenario. But there is also the make things great scenario with LTR and children. It’s not for nothing. The willful act of going on with LTR when the benefits are there. Actively making her and the kids and the son in laws their best self. It is a working strategy for the non timid.

    It’s not all walk away strategy. Until it is. Or until it must be. Don’t always have your back against a wall. Participate, in a while, with the life is beautiful strategy. Because that works too.

    https://youtu.be/Bow1ZJTV4L4

  44. Respect – It depends on whether you’re listening to Otis Redding’s original (he wrote it), or Aretha Franklin’s cover.

  45. I love LTR game.

    It’s sweet.

    It’s does involve having a bit of tenure.

    You can relax and not be perfect at times. Not stupid lazy. When healthy, allowing great, great adventure.

    Hey, tenure:

    The benefit of tenure to the institution follows from the benefit to the individual: From the faculty member’s perspective, tenure makes it possible to pursue high-risk/high-impact research ideas without having to worry about having to keep short-term bean-counters happy.

  46. Tam ye Bam
    What’s that massive subcut. edema/bruise on the ostensibly female wrist (RHS) from?

    Huh? Looks like just a lighting artifact to me.
    Or maybe the wrist restraints were a bit too tight the previous night?

  47. “Huh? Looks like just a lighting artifact to me.”

    Right.

    Nothing looks funny there. She’s newly converted and she just got the tattoo. With slight erythema around the ink. Here wrist veins are abnormally blue. Because of here pale effeminate skin.

    Nothing abnormal.

    Except the sentiment. Of the tat. Does she really respect him. Or just wanted a cool tattoo?

    Yes. It is her normal and it is just lighting.

    But what do I know about skin?

    And it, the comment, is besides the point. It’s the written tattoos that are illustrative as a header comment for the essay. Hey let’s be permanent about our feelings here…

  48. It all begins with respecting oneself.

    That should guide a man as to what is respectable in others, your fellow man, or a target female.

    This self-respect should also send out a signal as to how you expect to be treated.

  49. Competence, physical prowess, creative intelligence, dominance, social proof and preselection are the metric by which we rate a man’s respectability.

    How to imagine none of that in effect? Breeze through this article and contemplate respect as it pertains in Rollo’s essay.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-7759411/Polyamorous-woman-20-fallen-pregnant-one-FOUR-partners-went-away-together.html

    So many TRM themes in play it’s hard to count them all.

    How does that song go? “It’s the end of the world as we know it. (And I feel fine)”.

  50. But about the obedience thing – Men that are deferential and obedient to other men that aren’t related to them aren’t really ” men “. Dogs and ( if you’re skillful enough ) women and children are ” obedient ” up to a particular point. ” Power ” loves the concept you’ve laid out – ” But we also have the right to attempt earning status and the higher levels of respect that come with the obedience and deference of other men”. Yes, this is the grease for the wheels. Playing the game with the assumption that one day you too will have Da Power.

    Yet, true power is never given, it is taken. Always.

    Okay, Boomer.

  51. I have no idea how to say “Hypergamy” in Japanese, but reading the word in this article makes me smile.

    https://news.yahoo.com/parasite-singles-why-young-japanese-arent-getting-married-031514178.html

    Shigeki Matsuda, a sociology professor at Chukyo University in central Japan, blames the country’s falling marriage rate on a phenomenon known as “hypergamy”.

    “Japanese women tend to seek men with stable employment and education levels” higher than them, he explained.

    Anecdotal evidence from the match-making party seemed to bear this out, a small queue of women forming to exchange contact details with one of the men who, it emerged, had the highest income of the group.

    Next task: teach a journalist what “preselection” means.

  52. “I have no idea how to say “Hypergamy” in Japanese . . .”

    With a pinched Boston accent. It’s one of those jargon words that they lift rather than translate and all the sounds happen to be standard Japanese syllables except for the “r.”

    Hi-PAAH-gah-me

    If I’ve got it right the translation would be pronounced something like Cho-ko-EEEN, but my Japanese may not be quite up to the level of a two year old, combining forms are not intuitive and the prefix is actually a Chinese loan.

    Within the idioms of the culture however, I think it would be expressed as Su-goo-REH-tah Kay-KOHN; Superb Marrying.

    優れた結婚

  53. I’d argue respect for women, in the old contract sense, and in victorian eras or similar, was less a respect for women and more of an extended respect for the man presiding over the woman in question. You wouldn’t screw with the man who’s favor you’re trying to win, after all.

    However, respect for women in the old contract sense of god or marriage is probably more to do with a woman giving up her base primal instincts, along with the man, to forge something greater. So she was worthy of respect for remaining faithful, taking care of children properly, not nagging, putting out, etc. I think that was the idea behind it at least.

  54. Lol, ” poly” seems to be fat and/or ugly chicks taking advantage of the male weakness permeating the atmosphere. Instead of cats, they collect a bevy of dumb fucks…literally.

    I can’t hate on that game. Bitches have a collection of living dildos.

  55. @Blax, Lost, etc.

    That poly setup ? That’s how real the Beta thirst is. It’s that real.

    Yeah, the world isn’t the same as it was when anyone here was 20 (except for 20-something lurkers). Sure, that 5-some is unstable and is gonna break up and someone’s gonna be left with the fat, rather homely broad.

    Maybe. Or maybe not. I know of more than one family where the pregger daughter moves back with the parents. Some single mothers are schoolteachers. Some are full time retail.

    Anyway….Beta thirst? There it is.

  56. AR

    my comments have been getting lost recently. I had a long ass response to you, and it vanished ( I ain’t trying to retype all that shit now…lol).

    Short version – I don’t see all of the stuff that’s supposedly everywhere. I know more 15-30 year olds than people my own age.

    lol, that has no context at all.

    I posted these as well.

    All of this garbage on the net isn’t representative of reality at the end of the day. I know no ” poly ” people, nor does anyone I know. I only see it on the net under certain conditions, just like I don’t see ” women trapped in man’s bodies ” or hoards of LGBTBBQ folks walking around everywhere in massive numbers.

    Every. Single. Person’s. Life. Doesn’t/Shouldn’t matter. To Strangers. Not. Living. Those. Lives.

    …. Ahhh, maybe I should retype after all because everything I’m saying lost the original context.

  57. I like what you have done here with the two “types” of respect.

    The two actually internally contradict each other and one place I noticed this was in the army. When I first joined, in 2000 the training mnemonic used in basic and AIT was “the army values.”

    For reference: Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless service, Honor, Integrity and Personal Courage. (LDRSHIP)

    Occasionally,the drill sergeants would gather everyone in the platoon into a semi-circle and yell “alright, who wants to give the definition of respect?” (Or some other of the seven values)

    Invariably, someone would stand up at parade rest

    “Drill sergeant, respect is [_______________________]”

    On that particular value, you could always the sense the struggle of the respondent as they tried to reconcile respect as a default that all people are entitled to for living and breathing (the feminine type of respect) and rendering courtesies and customs to those whose position or title or other earned status demands it (the masculine kind)

    Both cannot be “respect” because they are 100% incompatible with each other.

    But today, i can give both definitions and be “right”

    And then, this doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface of the more bizarre uses of the term, that make your brain go all sideways when you hear it. It goes something like:

    “I will give you the respect you are entitled to as a [whatever] until you disrespect me, then I no longer have to respect you because you didn’t earn it first.”

    Huh?

  58. Blax, Great video. Isn’t the speaker himself a millennial?
    The part I don’t agree with is where he claims the millennial problem is low self esteem.

    I believe the millennial problem is their self esteem is too high and baseless, this in turn causes a lack of self respect, as the evaluation of self in high esteem doesn’t line up with reality.

    We can cope and overcome the odds better when we can accept our own limitations through a realistic lens. This is what after action review is good for. Participation trophies on the other hand boost esteem not respect.

    I just had an experience with a corporation that has come up to speed placing millennial’s in training and management positions
    (most likely to save money) the pay is very low and they are always giving away free dinners and other perks. Also the overall batting average for the company is low with an 85% on time task completion rating. The management doesn’t recognize performance so much as sycophant behavior, they are threatened by high performers and as a result I believe the corporation is doomed.

  59. Respectable, is descriptive of one that is able to respect the laws and rules set up by society, this is also a person we are able to respect.

    Women are off the rails,off the chain and out of line in the modern femcentric social disorder, as a result they are demanding respect for disrespecting the previous social order. This long standing set of rules evolved to protect the very women that have been fooled into rejecting them.

    Over the last 50+ years women on average have become less respectable and the result has been that men living by the old set of books treat these women with less respect.

    Looks like a downward spiral to me.

  60. “Book 4 is about squaring Red Pill praxeology (deal with it) with religion”

    Translation: I’m spiritually adrift.

    RP and religion (codification of how not to blow yourself up) would square themselves kinda evo-bio-like…well…naturally like a cock in pussy.

    Hm.

    ProTip: They don’t. They need forcefitting by thos self-styled dot-connector.

    And I’m on your sides….can you imagine that????!!!!

  61. “Lol, ” poly” seems to be fat and/or ugly chicks taking advantage of the male weakness permeating the atmosphere. Instead of cats, they collect a bevy of dumb fucks…literally.

    I can’t hate on that game. Bitches have a collection of living dildos.”

    OMG I was laughing so hard my wife came running over to see what was so funny. Told her she wouldn’t get it, so she shit-tested me, which made me laugh even more.

  62. I do not ” respect ” the rule of law, because laws are made by men, and laws aren’t always respectable.

    I obey ( most ) laws because of the penalties associated with non compliance. I think that’s still ” respectable ” because it’s a choice. I never cosign men believing they have no choices.

    Out.

  63. Blaximus
    my comments have been getting lost recently. I had a long ass response to you, and it vanished ( I ain’t trying to retype all that shit now…lol).

    Maybe for the best. If you’re not on a phone, you can type in a text editor then copypasta, y’know.

    Short version – I don’t see all of the stuff that’s supposedly everywhere. I know more 15-30 year olds than people my own age.

    Ok. You don’t see Beta thirst anywhere around you? Interesting. I can hear it in the voices of men under 30 in the coffee shops, see it in their body language.

    All of this garbage on the net isn’t representative of reality at the end of the day. I know no ” poly ” people, nor does anyone I know.

    Ok. So? Those 4 men who are orbiting the fat, homely girl are probably about as “poly” as a lot of other setups. They are obviously Beta, and conspicuously thirsty.

    That’s all i said. “See this? Beta thirst is that bad”. Yeah, it will fall apart. Yeah, those men are stupid. Beta thirst is still real.

  64. @Johann Liebert –

    With your comments on religion in general and Christianity in particular, you’re force feeding us not merely a red pill, but an entire barium meal.

    Quotes – “Christianity was born with the adultery committed by Mary Jane.”
    “Religion is a creation of cluster-B Identity disorder.”

    In other words, gentlemen, Herr Liebert has described the immaculate conception as a cluster-fuck.

    I must remember to attend midnight mass this Christmas.

  65. ” . . . Christianity was born with the adultery committed by Mary . . .”

    Theologically it was a miracle.
    Historically it didn’t happen.

    Your thesis has some issues.

  66. Johann Liebert

    May the LORD bless you and keep you;
    May the LORD make His face shine upon you,
    And be gracious to you;
    May the LORD lift up His countenance upon you,
    And give you peace.

    AMEN

  67. @asd

    To be fair, if you did have a son, your life would probably be very different.

    I have met women who are nothing less than Feminists. They all have daughters, no sons.

    Or if they have sons they have one son and it’s clear that the girls don’t plan to help him do a damn thing to make himself into anything better than a hired hand, or else they just keep their distance.

    My own sister has ****** children. All girls.

    With the book that liz and IAS showed me, and how belligerently women deny that Feminism is a way to give women a chance against man’s physical strength, it makes me laugh at how this all might end.

    The possibility that all of this is by design can’t be ruled out. But what would guys like Leibert do if they lose?

    Point this out and they call you an irrational moron.

  68. Also Leibert has a point.

    If there’s really no such thing as immaculate conception, then where else could Christ have come from?

    Also, how much have people already been fucked with developmentally? We get people pets and in that we inculcate a cursory knowledge of taming animals.

    Humans are tamed in much the same way. It’s called friendships.

    People form bonds and those bonds are based on mutual benefit.

    Similar thing with the Bible and it’s stories.

    Jesus had it in for religious hypocrites who, more than anything else, just used women and family and religion to dominate eachother and get eachother to fight and work for as close to free as possible for the benefit of a clan.

    Only that the things talked about in the Bible are things close to interpersonal principles that even today people call you a moron for talking about.

    There’s always some brown recluse talking about how truth is subjective and reality is what you make it and somesuch garbage.

  69. “If there’s really no such thing as immaculate conception, then where else could Christ have come from?”

    A cabbage patch on the Moon.
    Joseph.
    A happily married and faithful Roman girl from Alexandria named Marilla.
    Somebody’s imagination.

  70. If you train women and educate women to need to earn respect with their character and achievements they will do it. Giving predetermined answers of “oh its just their nature to want to be cherrished for just existing” is utterly gynocentric beta bs. Women must be held accountable.

  71. Quora…😂😂

    Divorce coach…😂😂

    Yeah, those motherfuckers sound like absolute authorities that should be listened to.

  72. I’ve always thought the primary lesson of Christianity is, “Even your father will send you to your death if it serves his purpose. This is the path to heaven and your own grace and divinity. Obey the authority over you even if it leads to your death. Especially, if it leads to your death. By your self-sacrifice you can be like the Son of God.”

    Religion is an institution of control. This is the source of obedience being a path to earning the male form of respect. Obey your parents. Obey your teachers. Obey your priests. Obey those in authority over you. That’s how one is taught to take power. Obey and be granted responsibility, shoulder that and self-sacrifice in doing so and gain authority and status and thus respect. That respect was the key to becoming “husband material.” That respect was how a man achieved his reproductive goals.

    But somewhere along the way obeying made you a dog and combined with the abuse or unworthiness or hypocrisy of those in authority to remove the value of male respect. So why do you follow any authority but to avoid punishment. And the female form of respect is removed as punishment.

    Women are taking over the church because the church used to be about that male form of respect – authority that was obeyed. Hypergamy obeys its whims. It doesn’t obey things outside itself. It recognizes no authority except tingles. Hypergamy obeys only tingles. Respect and power only to those who produce the tingles.

    Is that why bad boys/ men who break the rules inspire tingles? Like recognizes like?

  73. How do you get folks to obey? Primarily as noted by fear of punishment. If we look at “shame” as punishment then we see the value of the female form of respect. A default level of respect that can be taken away becomes the lowest tier of control. It is perhaps a foundation level of all control. There is a minimal level of “conforming” one must do to avoid shame and keep your default level or the female version of respect. If a male is not maintaining this level of respect he is not obeying and thus can not walk a path to the masculine level of respect and status.

    I’ve said for a bit now that what I think folks are objecting to with railing about not enough going to church is more about the removal of the limiting power of shame. That is if we accept The Church as an instrument of control and shame as its chief punishment.

    Hypergamy doesn’t want fettered. Shame fetters hypergamy. Remove shame and remove the fetters. I keep seeing stuff about epiphany phase women doing a “trad-pivot.” Is this just trying to fetter the hypergamy of younger women? They want to put shame back into play because they need to temper the hypergamy of young alpha fucks phase girls as they try to lock down their provisioning beta.

    Feminists tore down The Patriarchy of The Church but the shame it provides while a restraint on their alpha-fucks it was an indulgence of their beta bucks.

    All of this stuff is really interconnected. I can’t get at a base premise in this. Honor, shame, civility, courtesy, respect, obedience, duty, authority. It is a tapestry isn’t it? It unravels if you pull one of the threads out.

Speak your mind

%d bloggers like this: