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

But then I read about the advice to men of "spinning plates", and I wonder what's going on in their heads. That's doing the same thing that women are supposedly doing. Do any of these guys experience any cognitive dissonance when they simultaneously tear down female behavior and then tell men to do essentially the same thing? It's rather bemusing to witness.
From what I've read so far(I also took a look at popular posts on the Red Pill subreddit), it doesn't seem like that community aims at objective truth or harmonious, balanced relationship. You basically have a group of disgruntled young men that want to "hack life" so that they can finally get laid. They've been denied that form of pleasure for possibly their whole life, so they're not unlike the thirsty man that emerges from the desert. And like that man, they're not going to particularly care about the fair use of water once they finally have access to it. So like the feminists, some of them will go way beyond the initial goal and then into an unhealthy extreme. This whole Red Pill movement arose in the Anglosphere, which is also where Third Wave Feminism was born and is the most active. So in a certain way, I feel like it's a toxic reaction to a toxic movement. It cannot end well.
 

fabric

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Do any of these guys experience any cognitive dissonance when they simultaneously tear down female behavior and then tell men to do essentially the same thing? It's rather bemusing to witness.
I doubt it – it’s their just desserts, or maybe ‘justice desserts’? (in reference to Adaryn's post) ;-) There were a lot of things that were way off the mark, especially in the first book. I did also find it kind of bemusing for that same reason. A lot of the traits he ascribes to what women do to men that cause them misery; he is telling them to do back to them because.... wait for it... they’ll like and respect you for it. :huh: It’s sorta childish and reminiscent of the games I saw when I was in high school. On the other hand he does tell men to grow up, but that part of the message I think is overshadowed by all the ‘game theory’ – which is too bad because I still think there are some good things but as mentioned before, a lot to weed through.

His section on AWALT (all women are like that) is another example of his narrow perception. No, not all anything are like that. Unless you are talking about mosquitos (I have yet to encounter one that didn’t want my blood). It’s the same logic that an ideology uses to pathologize one group so as to be able to more easily dehumanize the other (eg, the left and their identity politics).
 

mkrnhr

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Their rationale is probably something along the lines of 'well, women started it! So they forced us to respond in kind'.
Or that the "rationale" is a rather rationalisation of resentment and bitterness because they haven't had any relationships of any kinds with non-pathological women or that their "biological needs" have not been explored because they spent all their lives gaming. As mentionned by Adaryn, in the era of sexual liberation, if they see that women avoid them, that would be very frustrating. OSIT
 

Joe

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Bottom line for me and the major and fatal law in Tomassi's shtick (and the whole 'manosphere' movement) is that they fail to recognize that a 'real man' aims to be neither a slave to his own biology nor that of women, and that includes exploiting female biology for personal gain. It's like exploiting your neighbors to feed your drug habit, you're still a slave.

It seems to me that anyone that subscribes to his way of thinking are the very thing they claim to not be: cucks, dominated and subservient to their own unconscious biological drives and unrecognized emotional wounding.
 

Chu

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
I wrote this a couple of days ago, but was waiting to read the book in case I wasn't getting it. I hope those of you who have read it can correct me if I'm taking things out of context:

Many people have pointed at an obvious contradiction between what is supposedly on the books, and Tomassi's online persona. That SHOULD be a red flag. What kind of sincere author says one thing in a book, and then a different message online? Wouldn't he or she care that his or her words are being so distorted? In the case, he himself is promoting division and superficiality online, so one can't even say someone is putting words in his mouth... And even if he wasn't, that IS the result it's having on many people, right? By the fruits you shall know them... One has to stay very critical, since in the end, if he is okay doing what he does, firing people up to play games with each other, etc., he may NOT be doing/believing what he says in his books, or does, but enjoys the attention and the shock factor more than the truth.

The argument that some things he says are true is reasonable, but we also have to remember not to project, and that that is the case with most books, sometimes in a small percentage, and very often when there is an agenda behind it, lies mixed in with truth.

Some other things also strike me as odd:
During her ovulatory or proliferative phase, a woman will be aroused by and drawn to men with more Alpha-like qualities, because her biology tells her it’s “time to mate”, so she will select from the highest level Alpha that she can attract.

During her luteal phase, when the estrogen level decreases and her uterus is preparing to shed, she will then become more attracted to the Beta qualities of long term provisioning.

On a macro scale, women’s unconscious hypergamous nature is expressed in her sexual behaviour and mate selecting patterns at different stages of her life.
I know this is not a quote, but... Many women have been keeping track of their cycles and emotional states (I have). I've spoken to several of them. Bear in mind that you do this for yourself, and not to show someone else. So there is no point in hiding what you CAN see. And I'm pretty sure that if it was THAT simple, then a) no woman would ever take her emotions seriously, and b) she would have an absolute control of herself. Sure, if she's a psycho she might exploit such a simple pattern. But if she was honest, she would know when not to take herself seriously, when not to be a crybaby, etc. On day 5, I'd better stay away from people, on day 14, I better not look at anyone new. Etc. :lol: The pattern is very erratic most of the time. So, I hope I'm wrong, but if that is an example of how Tomassi has studied and interpreted women, it's not very promising. And men have "cycles" too, for that matter. Hormones are know to fluctuate, due to many factors. And one of the things we strive for in here is not know your machine, not have a simple formula for X and Y, because people are way more complicated than that.

Second, this thing about "no woman can love you as you want her to love you". Doesn't that go for both sexes, unless you are talking about mature people willing to be honest with each other and work on themselves? It sounds like a snow flake thing to say, IMO. "Here, I gave you all, I was so good, and you never appreciated me! " It goes both ways, and once again, when people are immature and unwilling to take mutual responsibility.

Third, I think that talking about men’s and women’s “prime times” is only useful up to a certain point. As much as biology plays a big role, it’s not so simple. There is a lot more to people than that. One person may follow a very similar path to another one for entirely different reasons, and viceversa. To say that it's just “sexual drives”/nature is missing the point. Remove "sex" from the equation, and you still have lots of power games and manipulation (again, due to different factors, life lessons, programming, wounding, etc!), just with different "tools".

It's enough to read books like Fear of the Abyss, just to name one, and see how men and women are not THAT different in the end when it comes to their unconscious motivations. Depending on your past, you may relate to some men's or some women's stories. It's part of the human condition and the state of humanity, not a war.

There are more things that seem quite off, simplistic, materialistic or applicable to both sexes if that. But this is getting long already.

The impression I'm getting is that this could ultimately be a disservice to men. Not only does his understanding of women seem libtardish and immature so far, but also, he is promoting victimhood and game playing, which is not what I would describe as characteristics in strong men. The same thinking that goes on with feminism. Both camps end up trying to create caricatures and embody the worst traits they see in the opposite sex. It's very sad. And for a book which is supposed to help men, isn't it basically reinforcing the old programming? E.g. "Plate-spinning" is telling them that they are nothing but hormones, which is what they have been shamed for for years. :huh: Why not aspire instead to being a real person, strong enough to go through difficulties, to be honest, etc.? The message given to women is similar, if you think about it.

In a healthier society, where boys learn to be real boys and girls learn to be real girls, I think they would both become way more honest about their “evolutionary drives”, and that would make the whole issue less of a mess. Their differences would be attractive and complementary. Nobody would fall easily for the “Disneyland projections”., or marry "mommy" or "daddy". Nobody would have so many expectations about the other, so many false beliefs, so much mess inside, so many games to play. People would be more prone to taking care of each other and valuing truth above all, even when it hurts, because they would want for each person to Be, to grow and help the other grow. So, at least for me, the results of Tomassi's work don't seem to reflect a step in that direction.
 

Windmill knight

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Bottom line for me and the major and fatal law in Tomassi's shtick (and the whole 'manosphere' movement) is that they fail to recognize that a 'real man' aims to be neither a slave to his own biology nor that of women, and that includes exploiting female biology for personal gain. It's like exploiting your neighbors to feed your drug habit, you're still a slave.

It seems to me that anyone that subscribes to his way of thinking are the very thing they claim to not be: cucks, dominated and subservient to their own unconscious biological drives and unrecognized emotional wounding.
I would add that an essential and defining characteristic of man is to be a protector, provider and ally of woman, so any position which antagonizes both makes a man less of a man and a woman less of a woman. Which is not to say that the alliance will be simple and straightforward, or like the guy from the video posted above said, we are human, therefore not perfect, so you cannot expect a perfect relationship. But you may have one 'good enough'.
 
Well this thread is off the rails now, IMHO. The title of the tread has been changed, and It seems that the people most unfamiliar with Tomasi's material, and other information in the "manosphere" have the strongest opinions against Tomosi. In my view, this thread has disintegrated and has become everything this forum strives to be against. Where is the attitude of digging through the "FACTS", no matter how uncomfortable, and get as close as we can to the truth? The thread has expanded into other issues which is great, But labeling Tomasi as a psychopath, is an easy way to disregard everything he says as a personal attack. The fact's Tomasi, and others in the manosphere talk about need to be looked at honestly and fairly before "judgement". If one digs down far enough into the manosphere, there is a positive message for men, one of hope, self improvement, confidence, how to have stronger more fufiling relationships with women, and how to choose women based on virtue instead of looks for example. Women who have integrity, virtue , and capability, do not need to be afraid of the manoshpere.

In my view, people who manage to find this forum and Laura's work have a higher amount of integrity than the average person in society, so it can be hard to relate to the average narcissistic person in society, and especially the dating/hook up culture that 20'ish year olds find themselves in. I have a number of 20'ish year old friends, and it is very surprising what is considered normal now.

Don't judge a book by it's cover, like reading Tomasi's blog post's or twitter feed, and don't judge the manoshpere by Tomasi's book either. People are reading too far into Tomasi, without reading the book. These are examples of the seemingly simple questions that drive men nuts, that we had no answer for. Mostly men would say there is no answer, women are just crazy!!.It turns out that women are very rational after all. These sorts of questions are easily answered by Tomasi book, and the other sources of information in the manosphere. This is the reason I find this information refreshing, and wished I was taught this at a young age. It is an excellent example of understanding people by there behavior, not by what they say.

Why did my girlfriend dump me, then want me back two weeks later, only to dump me again?

The girl I'm dating cancels our dates at the last minute sometimes, but everything seems fine when we do go out, but she does not want to step up our relationship and we have been dating 3 months. Why?

I have been dating this girl for 6 months, She has not invited me out socially with her friends or her family, but she spends a lot of time going out with her friends without me, why?

Thats funny, I could swear this woman is flirting with me and wants me to ask her out, but she's in a relationship, why? what should I do?

Why is this girl I just met, giving me a hard time about the clothes I'm wearing? Why is she even talking to me if she doesn't like me?

Why does Tomasi recommend younger guys spin plates? I thought guys should only date one girl at a time, It does not seem noble to date more than one girl at a time, why?, how can she be "special" If doing so? Whats the reasoning behind this?

Why does my girlfriend "bug" me about being in too good of shape?

I know this woman is married, I have seen her with her husband and young daughter, why is it I feel like she's coming onto me?

After a month into a relationship, why does she ask me what my idea of a perfect woman is?
 

mkrnhr

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Why did my girlfriend dump me, then want me back two weeks later, only to dump me again?

The girl I'm dating cancels our dates at the last minute sometimes, but everything seems fine when we do go out, but she does not want to step up our relationship and we have been dating 3 months. Why?

I have been dating this girl for 6 months, She has not invited me out socially with her friends or her family, but she spends a lot of time going out with her friends without me, why?

Thats funny, I could swear this woman is flirting with me and wants me to ask her out, but she's in a relationship, why? what should I do?

Why is this girl I just met, giving me a hard time about the clothes I'm wearing? Why is she even talking to me if she doesn't like me?
.....
Why does my girlfriend "bug" me about being in too good of shape?

I know this woman is married, I have seen her with her husband and young daughter, why is it I feel like she's coming onto me?
Are these real questions or just hyperbolic?
 

Yas

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Well this thread is off the rails now, IMHO. The title of the tread has been changed, and It seems that the people most unfamiliar with Tomasi's material, and other information in the "manosphere" have the strongest opinions against Tomosi. In my view, this thread has disintegrated and has become everything this forum strives to be against. Where is the attitude of digging through the "FACTS", no matter how uncomfortable, and get as close as we can to the truth? The thread has expanded into other issues which is great, But labeling Tomasi as a psychopath, is an easy way to disregard everything he says as a personal attack. The fact's Tomasi, and others in the manosphere talk about need to be looked at honestly and fairly before "judgement". If one digs down far enough into the manosphere, there is a positive message for men, one of hope, self improvement, confidence, how to have stronger more fufiling relationships with women, and how to choose women based on virtue instead of looks for example. Women who have integrity, virtue , and capability, do not need to be afraid of the manoshpere.
I disagree, for me the conversation turned even more interesting. What happened is precisely what you say didn't happen, which is a process of digging through the facts, no matter how uncomfortable, and get as close as we can to the truth.

You see, this is what is most valuable about this discussion, the process of distilling the information presented and see what amount of value does it really have. And maybe you can indeed find some value in it, as many others did here, but it seems to me that everything that was added throughout this thread brings the necessary nuance and deeper understanding which apparently seems to be lacking in Tomassi's ideas (I don't know because I haven't read the books).

I've been thinking about this thread a lot too, and what I said that there was no point in focusing on how detrimental it is for others to read or not and realised that I was wrong. I still think it might be innocent compared to other things, but I also have never seen this so called "menosphere" or those "red pillers" before, so maybe I'm blind to the influence they actually have.

So, while I was searching the book, I found a downloadable folder which supposedly encompassed all the "red piller's books". Well, it was a compendium on how to get a woman, take her to bed, and all that... so that's what's most important to them? I mean, if you share a folder with the top 100 books you think men should read and 98% are about how to get a woman (I say 98% because they also had "The Art of War", by Lao Tzu and the first book by Tomassi, being discussed here -- aaand someone was apparently questioning why "The Art of War" was even there), then there's something not-so-red-piller about this, I think.

So I had to ask myself if I would want my nephew to read this kind of books when he becomes a teenager/young adult and realised that, even though he will most likely read some of that as any other teenager, I would rather recommend other books/information if he ever asked me about relationships. Of course, some of it seems to be quite informative and has been for me, but I was also wondering, what part of it so far was informative (considering that I haven't read the book yet)? The thing about hypergamy and the fact that we have biological drives? Ok... Oxajil posted another 'basic' book from which we could get similar information about hypergamy, and others posted other sources of information and comments that were very helpful as well... so it doesn't seem like this guy is the only source of information about this kind of 'biologically-driven' strategy and what was actually the most helpful was the discussion it prompted.

So I think that I changed my mind in that it is indeed very important to focus on what is the possible effect of it on others, not just oneself. At a personal level, it can be useful to gain more understanding in some things that I was totally clueless about, but it wouldn't be so much without all this discussion. Yet, to think about how can the particular message delivered by this man and those 'red pillers' influence society in the sense that it foments division and putting in the context of how it seems to be similar to feminism, or the other side of the same coin, and how it seems to reduce all things to a very simplistic set of 'rules' which don't really reflect the complexity of the topic, brings a much broader and useful perspective... OSIT.

Finally, just something I thought while reading your questions furryfrog. Considering all that has been said here so far, don't you think that there are many different possible answers to those questions? Of course, Tomassi's material can give some possible answers, but would you accept them as the only possible truth knowing just how complex we are as human beings and that there are indeed many, many things which can influence the behaviour of a particular person in those specific contexts?

I suppose that it isn't reassuring to think about this complexity, but that's after all our reality and you yourself said that this is what this forum is all about: coming as close to the truth as possible no matter how uncomfortable. And that is the danger in sources that simplify this complexity as if they are the only truth, they can give some comfort, but they can also misguide because in many cases, it might be the wrong explanation which will likely lead to the wrong action in response to a situation. Isn't it probably better to communicate as sincerely as possible with as much care as possible and try and figure out together with the other person what's really happening? Does Tomassi's material encourage that type of thing?

Of course, some of the contexts you ask about don't allow for such communication to happen, but then again, are we talking about long term relationships or just flirting around?
 
Last edited:
Are these real questions or just hyperbolic?
Real life examples from my own experience, friends, aquantinces, co workers ect. I remember "us guys" talking about issues like this, trying to figure it out, we would all put our 2 cents in, the end result being more confusion.
 

Chu

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Where is the attitude of digging through the "FACTS", no matter how uncomfortable, and get as close as we can to the truth?
I don't see anyone refusing to do that. But you'll notice that very few actual FACTS have been posted here from the books. Not even actual quotes. If you can do that, then we can discuss them. What are the facts, which studies are quoted, if any?
 
Are these real questions or just hyperbolic?
The question about spinning plates is a bit constructed as worded, but the topic has come up often in conversations.


I noticed that this thread is in the work section now, I thought it was in the book section before? Tomasis book in the work section will be even more confusing, I don't think it relates well to the work. Perhaps the psychology section is a better fit?
 

Adaryn

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
The fact's Tomasi, and others in the manosphere talk about need to be looked at honestly and fairly before "judgement". If one digs down far enough into the manosphere, there is a positive message for men, one of hope, self improvement, confidence, how to have stronger more fufiling relationships with women, and how to choose women based on virtue instead of looks for example. Women who have integrity, virtue , and capability, do not need to be afraid of the manoshpere.
I don't know what part of the manosphere you're talking about or have dug through (some websites seem to aim more in that direction, like The art of Manliness… interestingly, it's the work of a man and his wife), but that is certainly not what is promoted on Tomassi's blog and by his followers. They're very much about looks… in fact, looks and youth are apparently all that matters. For ie, when rating women physically, they use a scale: HB1 to HB10 (not sure what HB means, it depends on what website you're reading in the manosphere).
And it doesn't matter, as already pointed out, if Tomassi says something else in his books, or in certain places in his books. As Chu wrote: "Many people have pointed at an obvious contradiction between what is supposedly on the books, and Tomassi's online persona. That SHOULD be a red flag. What kind of sincere author says one thing in a book, and then a different message online? Wouldn't he or she care that his or her words are being so distorted?"

Here are a few examples… and I don't think I take "things out of context", because I've read whole articles (and others even worse that this one) and based on this, I think it's pretty clear what he's about and what he's promoting… no?

HB10

On the Tomassi scale, there is no such thing as a an HB10 that you haven’t slept with. The last point to half point is ALWAYS earned on performance. I’m sure you wouldn’t buy a Maseratti if it had a VW engine under the hood. Subjectively I believe there are HB10s it’s just that the last point is earned on performance not attractiveness. An otherwise HB10 who turns out to be a ‘lick it around the edges’ girl instantly falls back to an HB7 or so,..That said, I feel the scale also has to be adjusted for geographic region. An HB 8 in Butte, Montana is an HB 5 in Los Angeles. You have to adjust the scale for regional concentration. Hot women tend not to congregate in remote places, they go where they know their looks will serve them best. This then increases the benchmark for that place since the field of competition is deeper. Based on personal experience, an HB 9.5 in South Beach, Miami etc. is well beyond anything NYC, Houston or Chicago could offer up on a consistent basis. The rating curve is more pronounced. Conversley a Miami HB 7, becomes an HB 9.5 in Boise, Idaho. However, after having lived in Hollywood, Las Vegas and Orlando, and traveling somewhat extensively, I think my standards are exceptionally high in this respect.

Lastly, I don’t think that the HB scale is entirely helpful for men’s assessment purposes since it only accounts for physical appeal. There needs to be a second rating attached to the HB (physical) standard, one that accounts for self-esteem SE.

If you rate looks (HB) on a 1-10 and self-esteem (SE) on a 1-10 scale, realistically you’ll want different ratios at different times. If you’re sport--flicking-g and have no desire for a LTR this ratio might be around HB9 to SE3, no lower than this though since a 3 (the way I’d rate it anyway) would indicate the threshhold for self-destructive personality disorders. If you’re looking for a companion for the long haul of monogamy, then you’ll adjust your ratio accordingly. An HB8+ to an SE 5-7 might be ideal. It’s when you perceive imbalances in the ratio that is cause for concern. For instance an HB7 with an SE of 8 (too self-important for her looks). Or extremes like HB2 to an SE of 9 (most rad-feminists, easily avoidable) and an HB9+ to an SE of 1 or 2 (the suicidal death spiral girl).
Below, an example of the kind of "feedback" and advice that he gives to men. Here, to a reader regarding the woman he just met:

reader said:
She’s cute although not hot. Looks, HB6, however I’m far more interested in her intellect and overall qualities than solely looks. I can actually admire her achievements and intellect.
Tomassi said:
Chumps love to rationalize their “choice” of women and their less than ideal looks by emphasizing that “it’s what’s on the inside that’s really attractive.” Admiring achievements and intellect are criteria for women’s attraction to men. Parroting this feminized talking point back sounds like you’re taking some high road, but the degree on her wall doesn’t make her look any better naked. This is a very common AFC identification rationalization. Here’s a secret: even brainy women will only want to -flick- when they feel sexy, and she’s fully aware that your hammering away about how her mind turns you on wont make an HB6 an HB10. You’re not -flicking-g her mind.
:rolleyes: :barf:
 
Last edited:

luc

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
I don't see anyone refusing to do that. But you'll notice that very few actual FACTS have been posted here from the books. Not even actual quotes. If you can do that, then we can discuss them. What are the facts, which studies are quoted, if any?
Besides, it's ironically often the most ardent "true believers" that scream "FACT". What happened to epistemological humility? When it comes to human relations, spiritual development and so on, things are nuanced and complicated beyond belief, and also heavily dependent on the situation and awareness of the observer.

What we did here on this thread is not that we screamed "Tomassi is wrong, that's a FACT!", even though the whole idea gave many of us a very bad vibe from the get-go. But instead of dismissing it out of hand, we "tried it on" to see where this would take us, and brought in nuance, knowledge and experience. And the more we did so, the more it fell apart. And the more we changed our position as the observer, the more obvious it got.

Read a Twitter post by Tomassi yesterday where he proclaimed that a "hovering hand", meaning a man who puts his arm around a woman's shoulder and lets it hover, is a sure-tell sign of a "Beta". Talk about pathological nonsense! It's true that "by their fruits, you shall know them". It's the same with some of the Darwinists who say that they are not really against religion, that Darwinism is neutral when it comes to spirituality and so on. Nothing could be further from the truth - it's a sledge hammer intended to stamp out everything higher and drag us down into the materialist mud where the Primordial Soup of Filth is worshiped.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom