The "Rational Male and Female"? - Biology and Programs in Relationships

[Pierre]

And communication about sex can actually be quite important.‌

Yes, communication, knowledge and empathy. Here is a discussion between Jordan Peterson and Bettina Arndt about this very topic.

It is very interesting to hear two individuals sharing their ideas about couples sexual dynamics without the pathos, prejudices and taboos that usually come with it. Sorry if it has already been posted.

 

[Andi]

I was just watching some really interesting videos of her. Bettina Arndt is quite interesting to listen to and a lovely woman actually.

 

[furryfrog]

What do you exactly mean by 'negotiating sexual desire with women'? If I understand you correctly, if you cannot negotiate sexual desire with a woman, then yes, something may be off!

According to Tomasi, if you have to negotiate sexual desire, there is a problem.

Tomasi describes there are two kinds of sex women have, validational sex and transactional sex. If a women feels genuine desire and wants to be with you, she will naturally be turned on and engage in validational sex. If you need to negotiate for sex your relationship is on a downhill spiral. Exchanging more housework, or favours, money, ect for sex with your female spouse is no different than prostitution, and only makes the situation worse. Tomasi has recommendations to get the relationship out of that scenario, if it's not already too late. His recommendations are different than Jordan Peterson's, they more involve the male to self improve, whereby creating competition anxiety in the woman, and sparking her natural desire. Dont treat your wife like a prostitute, or enable her to act like one.
There are studies out indicating that a man doing more housework lowers sexual desire in women, where as fixing the roof or chopping firewood raises it.
Most woman are just as horney as men are, even more so as they get older. One thing the "manosphere" says, if your wife does not want to have sex, it really means she does not want to have sex with "you".
I have read that a sexless marriage is defined as intamacy less than at least once a month, or even less than every two weeks, where as healthy sexual relationships should be intimate once a week.

 

[Michal]

Hi, You remember movie "L.A confidential"? Rollo Tomassi was mentioned by this formalist cop played by Guy Pearce see here _

. Rollo Tomasi was a pseudo name for a killer of this cop's father. Is this author's real name? If this is his real name - OK. However I cannot find his bio on wiki, nor amazon, and google search provides only his books. So most probably his writing under nick name. Why? If he is creating something under his pseudo name why he chose this one? Strange...

 

[Oxajil]

Thanks furryfrog for elaborating! Yeah, exchanging more housework for it is silly, and doesn't work anyway (this is also touched upon in the video Pierre posted).

There is also the role that women play in this, and what women can do. As Bettina Arndt said in the video above:

"Lots of women have long periods of their lives where they don't have spontaneous desire. An interesting research by a Canadian was [saying that] if you put a canoo in the water and start peddling, if you have a willingness to be receptive - that's the whole idea of are you willing to know 'once I get going, I'll start experiencing desire' - desire can kick in. You'd have to be with a man who knows how to please you, obviously. If those conditions are met, then you can do it, on the assumption that it'll be good for you."

She says then, that it'd be a pleasure for both, and JP adds that it also helps maintain the relationship.

 

[Yas]

What an interesting thread! Now I'm so curious about that book that I definitely want to read it, at least to get a glimpse of what this author has to say.

I agree with what many of you have been saying, in that, although biology isn't everything it does have a major influence in our behaviour. And, if you ask me if I think this information is useful, I'd also answer with a resounding YES.

I understand the many concerns about the author himself and the pieces of advice he gives, and of course that's off putting. We can also discuss about how it may or may not be detrimental for other people to read it, but, where would that lead us anyway? There are so many crazy and downright evil things out there in the internet that this seems rather innocent and, it even seems to be helpful to some men (and women). Anyway, I do think it is good to point out those things so that we can have 'the bigger picture'.

Personally, just reading this thread is incredibly helpful and thought-provoking. And I think that understanding the underlying biological drives we have can indeed be a great tool for self-awareness and self-development.

Of course we are more than our biological drives, but if we want to develop those qualities that we deem 'higher', we (both men and women) need to learn how to master those drives, and for that, our best ally is knowledge. So I think that it is indeed very important to know this stuff, and discuss about it as it's being done here to distill the information and add much more valuable insight to it.

Apart from that, I haven't got more to say right now. I'll have to read one of his books.

 

[Joe]

On top of that, the reality of biological drives is denied in progressive circles. The predictable result: a world where these biological directives reign supreme.

You could even say that to talk about biology today is almost illegal, and there's an interesting correlation: there is also a push on to make "racism" illegal, with exactly the same result, it actually INCREASES its manifestation.

 

[Joe]

ADDED: The more I think of it, the more it seems that the theory that there are forces out there trying to stamp out our "inkling for the higher" explains a whole lot. I mean, people in history have never denied the importance of social institutions, the existence of matter, or the reality of biological drives. But there was always something higher that stood in contrast to this. Nowadays, however, we have sociologists who teach us that social institutions are all there is. Darwinists who teach us that biological urges are all there is. And physicists who teach us that matter is all there is. This is exactly, precisely how one would expect an OP to view the world. They rule us!

It's pretty shocking when you put it like that!

 

[fabric]

Rollo Tomasi was a pseudo name for a killer of this cop's father. Is this author's real name? If this is his real name - OK. However I cannot find his bio on wiki, nor amazon, and google search provides only his books. So most probably his writing under nick name. Why? If he is creating something under his pseudo name why he chose this one? Strange...

It's not his real name. He writes under pen name to preserve his anonymity. Being that what he writes is provocative and controversial it's understandable although at the same time it can hurt one's credibility.

 

[Pierre]

Nowadays, however, we have sociologists who teach us that social institutions are all there is. Darwinists who teach us that biological urges are all there is. And physicists who teach us that matter is all there is. This is exactly, precisely how one would expect an OP to view the world. They rule us!

Or there are one of the instruments through which we are ruled.

 

[Adaryn]

Lots of women have long periods of their lives where they don't have spontaneous desire. An interesting research by a Canadian was [saying that] if you put a canoo in the water and start peddling, if you have a willingness to be receptive - that's the whole idea of are you willing to know 'once I get going, I'll start experiencing desire' - desire can kick in. You'd have to be with a man who knows how to please you, obviously. If those conditions are met, then you can do it, on the assumption that it'll be good for you."

Another highlight of the discussion between JBP and Bettina: that's what the marriage contract was originally for: to enable sexual congress to occur witout undue complication. It was assumed and agreed upon by both parties that there would be fairly regular sexual interactions (conjugal rights). Given the fact that it's a contractual obligation, it's pretty much something that should be negociated from the get-go.
It's an extremely difficult and touchy topic to deal with in a long-term relationship. As pointed out by Bettina, you can't even address that issue publicly without being immediately decried as a rape apologist/a promoter of sexual violence.
Bettina says that in the Western world, we see a decrease in women's desire in the context of long-term relationships, and men are feeling increasingly rejected. I'd add that a wife rejecting her husband is almost something that's expected after a while… it's a truism. Interestingly, when the opposite happens - when it's the husband who rejects his wife, the latter (and her girlfriends, if she confides in them) sees it as a clear sign that something is horribly wrong (he has an affair, he doesn't love her anymore, etc). As I read somewhere: "Woman regularly declines sex and nobody panics. Man declines sex once, is responsible for ruining her self-esteem, is probably cheating and no longer loves her". I had never given much thought to this before, but I think that's rather true!

Here's an article on the subject. Extracts:

“When you’re the guy and you’re always the one to make the moves, and your partner’s always the one saying, 'no, no, no, no,' you start getting very depressed and wonder whether or not something is going on. Whether or not it’s you.” — Jerry, age 42

“If she doesn’t want me, she somehow is not interested in me…It offends me somewhere inside…I know she is not interested in me and she doesn’t like me. She doesn’t want me. It’s like, forget it. I don’t feel it anymore.” — Kyle age 38

What these men are describing isn’t perceived as: My partner doesn’t want sex right now. The feeling is, My partner doesn’t want me.

Anyway, there's no one-size-fits-all solution here - such problems are probably best dealt with on a case-by-case basis, as pointed out by JBP.

 

[dugdeep]

I'm about 2/3s of the way through the first book and I'm finding it very enlightening. To be honest, there's not a lot I disagree with Tomassi on, even though I don't think his advice necessarily applies to everyone or that it should be taken and implemented wholesale. I'm finding the discussion here quite fascinating, too.

I came across this excerpt in my reading and I think it speaks to the value of this information:

Most people are conditioned to think that deliberate use of power is inherently manipulative, self-serving and sometimes evil. In context this may or may not be true, but in so demonizing even the desire to understand power, not only do we inhibit a better critical understanding of power, but we also make the uneducated more vulnerable to the use of power against them ...

I bring this up because, just as with the Laws of Power, there will be articles of Game, or foundations of inter-gender communication – complete with all of the underlying motivators – that Men (and women) will be uncomfortable accepting or employing to the point that it challenges some deep rooted emotional or ego investments. Let me be the first to establish that discomfort is part of understanding; truth is supposed to make you uncomfortable in order to inspire you to action.

I should also add here that even though you may not be comfortable in exercising a particular tactic or don’t feel confident in approaching an interpersonal situation in some way, it is still vital that you do understand the concepts and methodologies behind why those laws, principles, techniques, attitudes, etc. do work. You may have personal reasons for not wanting to involve yourself in some particular aspect of Game, but it’s imperative that you fully acknowledge the mechanics behind that aspect before you decide it’s not something you can employ. Declining to use a particular Law or aspect of Game doesn’t make you immune to the consequences of it, nor does it invalidate that aspect when others use it for their own benefit, and potentially to your own detriment.

So it would seem Tomassi himself is aware that not every guy who reads his stuff is going to go out and start using it to spin plates, but that the information has value in and of itself. As someone who has been completely mystified and frustrated by the behavior of women in the past, this book is proving to be a breath of fresh air. That the "techniques" work speaks to the validity of the underlying information, and that the information itself can be of value to both men and women in understanding how our machines work. That some would choose to use this information to pursue their own selfish goals is not really here nor there, IMO. Knowledge protects.

 

[Windmill knight]

I too have been following this thread with great interest, so much so that I decided to take a detour from my reading list and I started reading 'The Rational Male' a couple of days ago. Some of the reviews you've posted gave me a few "I was blind but now I see!" moments, and in fact one of my first reactions was of annoyance, like: "Well, that would have been nice if anyone had told me that 20 years ago!! THAT's why this or that happened, and why she did this or that!"

It's true that when I was younger I would have tried to use that info to 'up my game' at some points, but more important than that, I think that just understanding how it works, I would have avoided much heartbreak grief, disappointment and frustration - or at least I would have been able to navigate some such episodes with way more grace than I actually did.

Upon further reflection, I realized that rather than be angry at women of my past with this data, understanding this actually opened the door to forgive them, cause all they did was run their evolutionary and biology given programs. And who can be blamed for being human and running the 'human program'? It would be more appropriate to blame myself for 'not getting it' when I needed to - but then again, I didn't know, I was too naive and stubborn about some things, so I would have probably rejected such info at the time. Some things just need to run their course, such is Nature, and in the end you learn when you are ready to, and it's better late than never.

One thing that has stuck in my mind is that women (but men also) do not really appreciate 'nice guys' - not much anyway. (And here I'm obviously not advocating being jerks, but I don't need to explain that to you people.) They may say they do, they may even believe it, but the unconscious evolutionary program says otherwise. And it makes sense if you were stuck in a jungle 50K years ago. Who would you rather hang out with, the sweet guy or the one who can kill tigers?

Approaching this info with pragmatic and matter-of-fact eyes can be very useful to both women and men here, I think. If we see past the 'pick up artist' language, the fact is that understanding the female program for us men is, to put it simply, a matter of external consideration (and for women, a chance to increase their control over their own machines). To think otherwise would be as stubborn and deluded as to think that you can raise good children just by giving them 'lovies' and pleasing their every desire, or that the appropriate response to being punched in the face is to offer the other cheek 'cause they'll feel ashamed'. The fact is, when establishing a romantic relationship, man and woman both need to know and take into consideration these biology/evolutionary patterns in advance, even if they aim is a very spiritual relationship. And if only one part of the couple understands this, then that part should take responsibility over what they know and act accordingly.

For example, next time I find myself facing the opportunity of a relationship in the future, I will not 'give my all at once' as I have before. I will still give myself, but slowly and carefully, one step at a time and looking before jumping, and not just because it will be safer for me, but because now I know it is just a fact that 'surrendering onself' is not normally understood as an act of love, but as an act of weakness. Wise as serpents, gentle as doves.

That's how I see this so far.

 

[Joe]

I'd add that a wife rejecting her husband is almost something that's expected after a while… it's a truism. Interestingly, when the opposite happens - when it's the husband who rejects his wife, the latter (and her girlfriends, if she confides in them) sees it as a clear sign that something is horribly wrong (he has an affair, he doesn't love her anymore, etc). As I read somewhere: "Woman regularly declines sex and nobody panics. Man declines sex once, is responsible for ruining her self-esteem, is probably cheating and no longer loves her". I had never given much thought to this before, but I think that's rather true!

Given the intimacy created by sex, it's pretty strange that this would be the case, as if a man being rejected in this way would not feel exactly the same as a woman would.

I've been thinking about this topic a bit (as I suppose most here have - there aren't many topics that are more 'personal', after all) and the main problem I see with the way it is framed by people like Tomassi (and so many others) is that it seems to depict biological drives as THE motivating force in a relationship. It's presented as an objective truth that biological drives 'run the show' and if you don't become aware of them, you're going to have problems.

The thing is, biological drives ARE very powerful and DO play a major role, but as others have said, other kinds of emotional 'programs' and hang ups can have even MORE influence on a person's behavior and inclinations in a relationship, i.e. they can effectively 'overwrite' the biological imperative and cause a person to choose the opposite of what biology dictates. They can also combine with biological imperatives and create a REAL mess. I'd say that bringing the 'scars of the soul' issuess to light is equally, if not MORE, important as shining a light on biological imperatives.

But here's the important part, IMO: In what way, exactly, are these subconscious motivators to be 'brought to light'? What you get from books like Tomassi's is that men and women should gain the knowledge about their own and the opposite sex's biology and use that knowledge to....well, manipulate the other via knowledge of their biological underpinnings to get what they want. At least, I get the impression that that is the way people apply this knowledge.

The same manipulative approach can be taken with knowledge of a partner's (or prospective partner's) emotional hang ups and programs. You figure out, for example, that she has "daddy issues" or he has "mommy issues" or whatever the case may be, and then craft a way to use that information to get what you want.

If someone genuinely cares about the other person AND wants to help them be the best they can be AND understand THEMSELVES better, then this seems like not just a counterproductive approach, but an ultimately destructive one. By definition, it views the partner as 'the enemy' or at least a prisoner who, at any moment, could escape your hold unless you use you 'inside knowledge' to keep them captive.

The obvious way to avoid that unhealthy dynamic while still making use of the valuable information about biology and programs is to share it OPENLY with your partner. Discuss it, multiple times in multiple ways as needed. This requires GENUINE courage and honesty, two qualities that many people lack - often as a result of the same programs and 'scars' (usually from childhood) that instilled in them an strong aversion to trusting others.

The Tomassi etc. approach seems to encourage people to adopt this position (or at least that is what many people seem to do with the information) where the man (or woman) is tasked with gaining this 'inside' information about their 'target' and then exploiting it to exploit them, while leaving their OWN issues hidden and unresolved. In short, it encourages a distrustful attitude between men and women, it plays on existing fears that it's a 'dog eat dog' world and you gotta 'get yours' before 'they get theirs'.

As others have said here, this may be true for some (or a lot of) people 'out there', but it is NOT the kind of approach we advocate here because our foundation is 'Work on the SELF' not 'Work on other people' (although figuring out other people is part of the Work on the self). So I think THE most important ingredient for a successful relationship (even if it ultimately fails) is starting from a 'Work on the self' perspective and 'vetting' prospective partners to make as sure as possible that THEY are able and willing to follow the same 'honesty is the best policy' approach.

 

[genero81]

Upon further reflection, I realized that rather than be angry at women of my past with this data, understanding this actually opened the door to forgive them, cause all they did was run their evolutionary and biology given programs. And who can be blamed for being human and running the 'human program'?

Exactly, and why I commented that understanding the underlying drives of both men and woman can have the effect of leading to more compassion for women. Rather than; "I can't understand their duplicitous behavior. They must be part evil" or some such conclusion.

And, I agree with Joe that work on the self ultimately trumps all. But work on the self requires knowledge and awareness.