Is There an Ideal Way of Acting and Being in Male-Female Relationships?

[hlat]

Sandra Brown's response to Corvus - which is still in the 'Women who love psychopaths' topic since the split:


was pretty lamentable IMO. Then again, as I said in a previous post today, this specific topic isn't really of interest to women, so I also understand why she got outta Dodge, although I still think she's a lefty snowflake.

It sounds like you're saying we should be more considerate of snowflakes around here and sugar coat whatever difficult thruths we happen to want to convey. How was Corvus to know that the author would get offended by mere statements of fact?

Ms/Mrs Brown's "snowflakedness" is something that only just became apparent to me.

I would not call Sandra a snowflake. Is this the frequency we wish to anchor? I don't understand calling Sandra names, especially when she was participating here and she can read this thread since one of her posts was moved into here.

People show a lot of respect and tolerance for Jordan Peterson and Tucker Carlson despite their very large blind spots, such as having a buddy buddy meal with Netanyahu, and those guys don't post on the forum. Sandra posted here and less than a week later, multiple card carrying members in good standing are calling her names. It's very strange and alarming to me.

 

[Kika]

Some of the posts here have had an impact on me that I thought was absolutely impossible.
They made me question my gender (female). I started to compare/measure and I almost, just like that, slipped and ended up in the CAPITAL LETTERS+ camp. Fortunately, I took a deep breath, which brought me back to consciousness and now I'm the old me again.
I will refer to only one; If anyone has ever tried to attract me, so that he is waiting for me to start chasing him, he is most certainly still waiting.

Marriage? (common coexistence)
Everyone around us was surprised and asked how the two of us ended up together. Now they are surprised and ask how we are still together. Sometimes we ask ourselves the same thing. And so in an environment of universal amazement, 26 years have passed.

 

[Carl]

That's the other aspect of it that bothers me, it reduces people to tiny dimensions of life and somehow makes it almost understandable if your SO leaves you because you let your "value" drop...or worse, because someone else with more "value" showed up, huh?

Which if you think about it, it's another self soothing mechanism that muddies the situation, it's not that your partner wasn't a very good choice to begin with, or you made a bad call, it's that the value system dictates that this was always going to happen.

Yeah, but there is still a very real transactional nature to things, especially as a man and especially these days. The idea that there's someone out there for everyone, and someone will love you just as you are, is harmful copium for most men, twin flames stories notwithstanding.

I mean how many of the male protagonists in the romance novels even are weak, indecisive, anxious, addicted etc.? Not to mention the unchangeable value-boosting traits like tall, aristocratic and extraordinarily good looking .

That said, "value" can come in many forms, and most people tend to value you about the same as you value yourself, regardless of looks or money or whatever else the manosphere obsessed over.

 

[Aeneas]

I'm perplexed as to where you got the above interpretation from Aeneas. Because a young guy goes on two successive dates that means "relationships for him are about sex and satisfying a hunger"? In that case, you better include just about every man who have ever gone on a date with a woman. How can a date with someone you just met "be about relationships"? You don't even know the person. How long do think you'd have to wait to "see the other person as a human being with all the emotional, spiritual, intellectual complexies"? Is it reasonable to expect anyone to wait until they have all that nailed down before they do the monkey dance? Did YOU??

Thank you for taking me and others to task for our faulty reading of what Corvus was saying. I think I assumed that he was older but even then so what? The trigger of a defense of women was misplaced, as he wasn't attacking any women on the forum but were relating observations, right or wrong of what he perceived was going on. It also became clear that the women on the forum are fully able to stand up and speak their minds if they perceive that someone is doing them injustice, whether true or not. I can also see that I in my post indirectly give women far too little credit for taking care of themselves in the dating scene. Dating takes two who, I admit, out of their free will, choose to engage. There is a risk for both involved and they through whatever happens possibly learns something valuable, regardless of good or bad.

You don't even know the person. How long do think you'd have to wait to "see the other person as a human being with all the emotional, spiritual, intellectual complexies"? Is it reasonable to expect anyone to wait until they have all that nailed down before they do the monkey dance? Did YOU??

No, it isn't reasonable and I can not profess to have waited either. I think my own fears of the dating scene when I was young colored my views and thus also my response to Corvus. I sort of skipped the dating period and went straight to entering into relationships, which all turned out to be long term with the shortest being 8 years. I would likely have gained and matured in understanding about women and myself, if I had dated when I was younger. Instead I fell easy 'victim' to a woman who was way older and more experienced in life and due to some faulty ideas of not leaving a woman in distress by leaving, then stayed on. The book, Unholy Hungers by Barbara Hort helped to put words into the relationship I was in though I also have had to acknowledge my own part in participating in the dance.

Hort writes (page 75):

A feminine vampire is stalking you whenever you fell beholden to a helpless waif who promises loving gratitude in exchange for your life force - a waif who implies that the guilt will be all yours if she should suffer from your refusal to comply with her request.

As mentioned above, perhaps dating while observing and also taking notice of any 'blink' reactions one might have, would have been a more fruitful way of learning. My experience also taught me that while it is important to learn how to spot a dangerous man before one gets involved, then the same applies to dangerous women.

 

[Joe]

Seems to me that most of the major problems in intimate relationships come from anxiety/control issues, in turn produced by childhood programs related to insecure attachment issues caused by crap parenting. Men with insecure attachment issues are attracted to the idea of a manual to control the course and outcome of their intimate relationships, which they believe and feel to be inherently 'dangerous' or threatening.

 

[Joe]

Pick up artist books and manuals and courses just became obsolete.

 

[dredger]

Hello,
I noticed this thread much discussed these last days and started to skim it.

While reading it directly triggered in me a text (a transcript of a conference in russia) that I read 3 years before. I even linked it in one of my post on the thread about the Koltsov plates (also named FSC - Functional State Corrector)

I do not post here to bring back this FSC subject, just note that it's regularly referenced in this conference/transcript as the theme of the conference is about why they are not working for some people.
What is important or at least what i feel that something is important in this text is in regard to what this woman says which fits well with the subject of this thread. I started to read it again but it's looong. The translation is also not terrible, it looks like automatic translators to or from Russian are not as effective as for other languages (but that's another topic)

But I feel that there are information to extract from this conference, she gives a description of the relation between man and woman from an angle of energy, karma, chakras and many other "angles". It's very interresting and i feel it's going in the good direction. Maybe this could lead to gathering more information on this women as she seems to know some kind of hidden knowledge.

In order to avoid noise, i put the following excerpts in quote mode :

Here's a first excerpt which is the 4th paragraph which already sounds pretty aligned with what we know :

Nowadays people are lusting for comfort. Comfort is an animal form of living. That is to pee and poo where I want – this is a kind of comfort! Such cat-dog happiness. It is not a human way of living, why? Human form of life was created for gaining experience, to formulate correct questions for the Universe and receive answers – learn and learn and learn. In order to understand how this Universe is designed. Neither cat nor dog is interested in the Universe design. It is human interest. In case individual has a question: “I want to understand how everything is designed here?” then this individual fits into human predestination, and Universe starts to unfold Its answers to him.​

and here's a second excerpt, which is still in the begining of transcript, it's about energy and karma :

Suppose a man maries. For a man to marry is a feat, why? When he marries, he takes 70 % of (his woman’s) bad karma at himself, that is problems, which should come into her fate, these problems will come to him. Of a woman and her child, in case she has a child. 70 %. Higher Powers are rewarding him for this feat - Higher Powers are granting him ability to cope with all this, to live through this. Bad karma shows up at men in the form of problems, that appear. One marries and here they are: car crashed, fired out from a job, business ruined or something of the kind, why? Bad karma arrived. It is important for him to live through it. In case some fairy turns out, he will pass to this lass his bad karma and bad karma of his family. To the fairy, to a mistress. Accordingly she may collect it not from one man (but from several), when she herself marries all this bad karma will fall out at her husband, because he shall take it all.​

​

Laws are working very precisely in this world. Similarly to electrical engineering, in which there are laws of Ohm and Ampere and one would not outpass them! In any case if you are designing something, you shall have everything in mind – the load should fit the wire section, in order to prevent a fire or some catastrophe. Energy torrents between people is a science of building energy ties – where energy goes, you see?! The question is where energy goes?​

​

In a young age, due to lack of knowledge it is possible to create a kind of a black hole with one’s wrong actions. Then during half lifetime energy sinks there! How to shut it? How to remove if violation is already done, violation of such a kind that good luck shall go there, wellbeing shall go there, calm and joyful mood shall go there, and so on. It is important to know this, why? It is already done, they did not give this knowledge before, at least during last century. This knowledge was hidden, mocked up and so on.​

​

And so, one shall understand hierarchy of this world. How we are communicating? Who is senior in relation to you, who is equal, and who is higher that you? And in case one is communicating correctly, the correct energy distribution takes place. In case one is distributing energy correctly, the body is not getting sick. That is why one shall understand absolutely clearly what are you doing and where energy goes? At that a thought is also already an action. And in case your actions are leading to violation of something in this world…. In case your actions are leading to violation of some laws, to put it simple, the principle of Ahimsa should be observed: “our actions should not cause pain to anyone”. Not to anyone. In case our actions are causing any pain – heartful, physical, moral it will return to the author – will turn into his own pain. It will return obligatory, everything returns here, it is closed space here, everything goes in circles here. Remember all these motivators “You smile, they will smile in return” or something like this, maybe it is banal, but such are the laws. What comes out of you, will return back to you.​

A third one about women choosing a man :

Look what happens: generous woman. If a man will be generous, then a woman will become generous. If a man will be wise, then a woman will become wise. Can you imagine?! Why? Because she takes his picture of the World. Here is how in Vedic books it is described how a woman chooses a man for herself. It is like she is coming at the pier and there are various ships standing. And there is a captain on every ship. And s there are cruisers, frigates, sail ships – all kinds, there are boats. Many various ships. And a woman shall understand, here the seventh chakra is needed, that every captain have some plans for life, that corresponds with his craft – a picture of his life. Nowadays they are talking much about values, it is exactly common values that I mean now. And so a woman chooses a craft, boards on it and she likes destination – where this frigate goes. And a man – a captain, also goes into destination place which is interesting for him. It is interesting both for her and for him, they are looking one way. It is important that a man shall have a picture what he wants in this life – at the seventh chakra. Man has goals in life. A woman becomes interested in these goals and they start to move one way. But in case a man has no goal, has no mission in this life – this five-year plan he goes in one direction, next five-year plan in some another, where the wind blows – he is stormy, then a woman will be stormy too. Why? Because her captain has no map, has no program at the seventh chakra, one day he goes south-west, another north direction, that is he is carried on along the sea and does not land anywhere. A woman, being close to such a man, becomes hysteric. Most often it happens when a man has no goal, has no this map – what he wants to achieve, when he does not understand what is mission…. Mostly it shows the following way: a man is forgetting his promises, promised but not did, even if it is some trifle. When this accumulates in a woman she starts to be hysteric even if she has a brilliant dissertation on psychology, close to such a man any woman would be hysteric. If he has no goals, no mission, no life program.​

... but it's long to read and some passages are not much clear (problem of translation and the fact this was a conference). I would say +/- 2h to read the whole. So far i re-read +/- 1/3 of it and I still think & feel that she brings interresting concepts but also truths - that's why i posted here, if someone takes the time to read it i would like to know his toughts on what she said.

Links to the original transcript in russian
Link to the one (auto) translated to english
and link to google translate and the one (auto) translated to french

So if you start to read it, just by-pass when she mentions the FSC which is another subject, the point here is her description of the relationships and roles between man and woman.

Hope this will help to dig further into the topic

 

[Carl]

Seems to me that most of the major problems in intimate relationships come from anxiety/control issues, in turn produced by childhood programs related to insecure attachment issues caused by crap parenting. Men with insecure attachment issues are attracted to the idea of a manual to control the course and outcome of their intimate relationships, which they believe and feel to be inherently 'dangerous' or threatening.

I suppose that those of us who have been attracted to the whole red pill thing, and have experienced dating as a kind of zero-sum game, are largely attracting such experiences based on these very programs. That's a lot to think about, it makes sense.

 

[Ryan]

Seems to me that most of the major problems in intimate relationships come from anxiety/control issues, in turn produced by childhood programs related to insecure attachment issues caused by crap parenting. Men with insecure attachment issues are attracted to the idea of a manual to control the course and outcome of their intimate relationships, which they believe and feel to be inherently 'dangerous' or threatening.

I think you absolutely nailed it. My attitude towards relationships pretty much turned inside out once I got a handle on my attachment issues. Unfortunately, the sort of information that's in the book "Healing Developmental Trauma" isn't exactly mainstream knowledge, although it would be great if someone could translate this into the context of modern dating "how-to" guides and get such knowledge to people who are seeking intimate relationships as a cure for their deep insecurity. Such a book would likely be highly profitable, too.

Pick up artist books and manuals and courses just became obsolete.

 

[T.C.]

Seems to me that most of the major problems in intimate relationships come from anxiety/control issues, in turn produced by childhood programs related to insecure attachment issues caused by crap parenting. Men with insecure attachment issues are attracted to the idea of a manual to control the course and outcome of their intimate relationships, which they believe and feel to be inherently 'dangerous' or threatening.

I suppose that those of us who have been attracted to the whole red pill thing, and have experienced dating as a kind of zero-sum game, are largely attracting such experiences based on these very programs. That's a lot to think about, it makes sense.

I personally got a lot of benefits from trying out some of the red pill ideas, if that’s what you’d call them.

My ‘coach’ in the theory was the stand up comedian, Patrice O’Neil. He was a frequent guest on the Opie and Anthony radio show, as well as sometimes being brought onto mainstream news segments to discuss racial issues that blew up in the media. He eventually got his own radio show for a short while that was basically a man’s version of an ‘agony aunt’ where men who had relationship problems would call in and he would give them advice.

Patrice’s angle was the pimp angle, so I’m actually pretty much clueless about Tomassi et al and the red pill community. He was misogynistic, but what I really got from his ideas was that what he wanted to do was to empower men.

One of the many concepts he espoused was “Being willing to take an ‘L’”. It’s a phrase he borrowed from the sports world - an ‘L’ being a ‘loss’. Many men who asked for his advice were needy and insecure. They’d “domesticated themselves”, as he would say. That was really his way of saying that they had become simps, weaklings. They had ‘compromised themselves’ (another of his concepts), compromised their needs and happiness and authenticity in order to to try to please their partners to the point where they’d lost any input in the relationship, and their partners were losing interest or s**t testing them, or had lost any attraction to them and weren’t having sex with them anymore.

So he would tell them they had to be fully honest with their partner and be willing to take an ‘L’ if their partner didn’t like what the guy had to say and left them.

He would boost mens confidence by taking the viewpoint that men are simply inherently better than women, and that women need men, not the other way around. Whilst that is obviously a toxic line of thought, ultimately the effect it can have on a man is to realise that he has inherent self-worth that he doesn’t need a woman to confirm for him or give to him.

So self-confidence and honesty were really the biggest traits he encouraged in the men who looked to him for help. Fear of rejection when you’re insecure and needy is paralysing - whether it be rejected when you first approach a woman, or rejection once the relationship has begun - and can’t ever lead to one being able to be of any use to a partner or be honest with them.

Getting rid of that fear by realising that you don’t need a woman in order to be happy and feel worthy, and then actually going out and testing the theory, approaching women you’re attracted to and asking them out, being willing to take an ‘L’ if she rejects you, and having it happen, prove that the world doesn’t end and you don’t fall to pieces.

By the time I met my wife, my toxic neediness that had got me into crap relationships in the past and prolonged them and made them unbearable for me and my ex’s had gone. There was never that drugged up head over heels projecting of an ideal, that obsession which had coloured the beginning of every other relationship I’d ever had. I was able to be myself and be honest without fear of rejection. I wasn’t dependent any more.

My wife had been through a crap relationship with a narcissist and had found her own independence after she finally broke up with him. She had no intentions of getting into another serious relationship. Having both processed our emotional weaknesses and relationship issues by the time we met, we were able to click.

All the problems that came in previous relationships for me were 100% about childhood programs. Those programs were all about neediness and dependence, putting the woman on a pedestal and needing her to do the same with me; compromising myself and what I am inside out of fear of being rejected for it. This manosphere stuff got me out of that.

 

[Happy Poo]

I personally got a lot of benefits from trying out some of the red pill ideas, if that’s what you’d call them.

My ‘coach’ in the theory was the stand up comedian, Patrice O’Neil. He was a frequent guest on the Opie and Anthony radio show, as well as sometimes being brought onto mainstream news segments to discuss racial issues that blew up in the media. He eventually got his own radio show for a short while that was basically a man’s version of an ‘agony aunt’ where men who had relationship problems would call in and he would give them advice.

Patrice’s angle was the pimp angle, so I’m actually pretty much clueless about Tomassi et al and the red pill community. He was misogynistic, but what I really got from his ideas was that what he wanted to do was to empower men.

One of the many concepts he espoused was “Being willing to take an ‘L’”. It’s a phrase he borrowed from the sports world - an ‘L’ being a ‘loss’. Many men who asked for his advice were needy and insecure. They’d “domesticated themselves”, as he would say. That was really his way of saying that they had become simps, weaklings. They had ‘compromised themselves’ (another of his concepts), compromised their needs and happiness and authenticity in order to to try to please their partners to the point where they’d lost any input in the relationship, and their partners were losing interest or s**t testing them, or had lost any attraction to them and weren’t having sex with them anymore.

So he would tell them they had to be fully honest with their partner and be willing to take an ‘L’ if their partner didn’t like what the guy had to say and left them.

He would boost mens confidence by taking the viewpoint that men are simply inherently better than women, and that women need men, not the other way around. Whilst that is obviously a toxic line of thought, ultimately the effect it can have on a man is to realise that he has inherent self-worth that he doesn’t need a woman to confirm for him or give to him.

So self-confidence and honesty were really the biggest traits he encouraged in the men who looked to him for help. Fear of rejection when you’re insecure and needy is paralysing - whether it be rejected when you first approach a woman, or rejection once the relationship has begun - and can’t ever lead to one being able to be of any use to a partner or be honest with them.

Getting rid of that fear by realising that you don’t need a woman in order to be happy and feel worthy, and then actually going out and testing the theory, approaching women you’re attracted to and asking them out, being willing to take an ‘L’ if she rejects you, and having it happen, prove that the world doesn’t end and you don’t fall to pieces.

By the time I met my wife, my toxic neediness that had got me into crap relationships in the past and prolonged them and made them unbearable for me and my ex’s had gone. There was never that drugged up head over heels projecting of an ideal, that obsession which had coloured the beginning of every other relationship I’d ever had. I was able to be myself and be honest without fear of rejection. I wasn’t dependent any more.

My wife had been through a crap relationship with a narcissist and had found her own independence after she finally broke up with him. She had no intentions of getting into another serious relationship. Having both processed our emotional weaknesses and relationship issues by the time we met, we were able to click.

All the problems that came in previous relationships for me were 100% about childhood programs. Those programs were all about neediness and dependence, putting the woman on a pedestal and needing her to do the same with me; compromising myself and what I am inside out of fear of being rejected for it. This manosphere stuff got me out of that.

Har, the 'manosphere'. Glad it worked for you. It does probably go both ways though.. Women too may fear loss when we feel that we need to live up to expectations of men, (especially with all the stuff going on in social media where there are many things that can make females feel insecure with all the ideas of feminine beauty etc), it's definitely liberating not to worry too much about loss or rejection either way.

After reading some of these interesting comments, glad that i didn't get into Internet dating what a minefield. Can't imagine how my profile would look.. Something like, weirdo who pumps out poo from Narrowboats for a living. What a catch! Looking for a new job lol .

 

[Yas]

I think that what happens with this topic is that there is a bit of truth in them to attract people, and then a lot of extra stuff which is just part of the author's personal projection. So, while it is good to discuss these topics to find clarity, we also need to be careful to analyse them from different perspectives in order to take what's good and leave the rest.

Part of what I wanted to say in my earlier post is that, while there are some generalizations which are true for many women (and men), the complexities of a human being involve much more than just the differences between the sexes, and we need to take that into account as well. An example being "programming", conditioning, past trauma, etc... As well as the differences between women and men themselves in terms of how they are in the world.

In the end, I guess that in terms of relationships, what is important is to work our way to become the best person you can be to the other person.

Take emotionality as an example:

While women are known for their emotionality, I think that's not a green card for women to be all over the place and disrespectful to men. While men can be a rock and do their best to be strong in the face of it, women can also learn to deal with her emotionality by being aware of it and working on it. That doesn't mean repressing their emotionality but just learning how to best deal with it instead of just throwing it over the man in your life because he's supposed to be a rock that won't be affected by it and you're supposed to be the emotional woman who has a green card for poor self-regulation.

Men can also be emotional and react emotionally. For example: a man may have a deep sense of being a provider for his wife and suddenly he loses his job for some reason that isn't necessarily his fault but he feels ashamed anyway. He feels as if his role as a provider is threatened and he gets anxious and stressed. Maybe he acts out by being a bit irritated or defensive, maybe he is a bit more emotionally unavailable because he's dealing with his own stuff, maybe he reacts by distracting himself with other things. Here, the wife can stick to rigid roles and also get all stressed and all emotional and demand that he finds another job immediately, or, she can be the "rock" for a while and offer support for a while until he is on his feet again.

So, while there are some roles and traits that are part of us and which are inherited from our sex, culture, genetics, etc... I think that what makes the ideal relationship is when we try to become better human beings for one another within the "framework" that we inherited but without being overly rigid. There will be issues that will generally appear more for men than for women and viceversa, and it is good to have some understanding about the typical "girl issues" or "guy issues" and what generally works for those particular issues. However, sometimes we have to adopt a different role because the situation we are facing demands a different way of acting, because it is the right thing to do as a human being. So, I guess we go back to those core values and principles some of you were mentioning.

 

[Jimmy Ssaz]

I suppose that those of us who have been attracted to the whole red pill thing, and have experienced dating as a kind of zero-sum game, are largely attracting such experiences based on these very programs. That's a lot to think about, it makes sense.

There are some people on the forum who are into the "work" of the fourth path of Guedjieff while others are not interested in the fourth path.

If you mean the red pill I think it is step by step first follow the rabbit.

 

[Jimmy Ssaz]

I think that what happens with this topic is that there is a bit of truth in them to attract people, and then a lot of extra stuff which is just part of the author's personal projection. So, while it is good to discuss these topics to find clarity, we also need to be careful to analyse them from different perspectives in order to take what's good and leave the rest.

Part of what I wanted to say in my earlier post is that, while there are some generalizations which are true for many women (and men), the complexities of a human being involve much more than just the differences between the sexes, and we need to take that into account as well. An example being "programming", conditioning, past trauma, etc... As well as the differences between women and men themselves in terms of how they are in the world.

In the end, I guess that in terms of relationships, what is important is to work our way to become the best person you can be to the other person.

Take emotionality as an example:

While women are known for their emotionality, I think that's not a green card for women to be all over the place and disrespectful to men. While men can be a rock and do their best to be strong in the face of it, women can also learn to deal with her emotionality by being aware of it and working on it. That doesn't mean repressing their emotionality but just learning how to best deal with it instead of just throwing it over the man in your life because he's supposed to be a rock that won't be affected by it and you're supposed to be the emotional woman who has a green card for poor self-regulation.

Men can also be emotional and react emotionally. For example: a man may have a deep sense of being a provider for his wife and suddenly he loses his job for some reason that isn't necessarily his fault but he feels ashamed anyway. He feels as if his role as a provider is threatened and he gets anxious and stressed. Maybe he acts out by being a bit irritated or defensive, maybe he is a bit more emotionally unavailable because he's dealing with his own stuff, maybe he reacts by distracting himself with other things. Here, the wife can stick to rigid roles and also get all stressed and all emotional and demand that he finds another job immediately, or, she can be the "rock" for a while and offer support for a while until he is on his feet again.

So, while there are some roles and traits that are part of us and which are inherited from our sex, culture, genetics, etc... I think that what makes the ideal relationship is when we try to become better human beings for one another within the "framework" that we inherited but without being overly rigid. There will be issues that will generally appear more for men than for women and viceversa, and it is good to have some understanding about the typical "girl issues" or "guy issues" and what generally works for those particular issues. However, sometimes we have to adopt a different role because the situation we are facing demands a different way of acting, because it is the right thing to do as a human being. So, I guess we go back to those core values and principles some of you were mentioning.

There are many women in "Cuba" who have crossed the border of the sea to look for opportunities, there are many cases and cases in this sense, I believe that there are places in the mountains where couples live in a different way.

And not everything proposed about dating experts applies.

 

[nf3]

There are two flavors of philosophy in the manosphere.

One presents the uncomfortable truths about human biology and the mechanicalness of sex, and life in general, as a jumping off point for further growth. Young men can use that information to better understand themselves and their relationships, to overcome their fears, and to navigate life in a more conscious manner, towards some higher goal. Even when the higher goal is only serve nature's purpose of continuing the species before he dies, it's still better than nothing.

The other flavor, the one that most people think of whenever the topic gets brought up, teaches men to embrace their fear and use the uncomfortable truths about biology and mechanicalness to manipulate and dominate women... to protect themselves at all costs. Even to the point of removing themselves from the gene pool to protect their precious material wealth:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1653442566896103425

High-value to whom? For what reason?

This is the logical end result of that flavor of manosphere mental masturbation. Manipulate others for no reason other than to feel special, get laid, and make a lot of money...

Then what? To die with various STDs and nobody to inherit your wealth, having paid nothing back to nature and even having gone so far as to convince others to be a parasite just like you.

People are machines fueled by misused and misunderstood sex energy. What any person decides to do with those facts is up to them, based on who they are and what they see.