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

[fabric]

Yes, exactly. That's why I find myself turned off by Tomassi's stance, some of his tweets are basically saying to men to avoid 'gold-digging women' and save your money, those hypergamous females are basically out to get men in his eyes it seems. But as you point out, the biological reality has worked out for humans for a long time.

I haven’t read his tweets but I have read his first book. While it’s interesting, I didn’t think there was anything really ‘groundbreaking’ in terms of behavioral science. I guess it is like an interesting summation of some of that research, although there is some bias since it’s just his theory. What I think would have helped some of his arguments would be if he included links to the actual studies he references.

While there does seem to be a flavor of animosity in some of his writing (anti-fem, pro-masc), the book didn’t come across as that anti-woman to me. What I got was more along the lines of him being opposed to ‘feminized social conventions’ that are not doing men any favors (nor women) and by men taking that as the basis to model themselves it leads to many ‘beta’ males which he terms as “AFCs” (average frustrated chumps) and this is his attempt to disabuse them of the mindset that they find themselves in.

It’s something like 1 part behavioral ‘science’, 1 part pop psychology, 1 part self-help advice for men and 1 part relationship/dating advice. It’s a mixed bag of things, some of it good and some I would say rather crass. There’s definitely some separating the wheat from the chaff required.

He does touch on some biology so that’s not absent from the book. He essentially says that the core biological imperatives are deep structures that have been around for years, operate below the level of consciousness and generally do a good job of promulgating the species. He includes into this ‘biological imperative’ hypergamy. A more detailed explanation from the book:

Escoffier:

The theory is more like this, from what I have read. Hypergamy is a woman’s natural (which is to say, genetically wired) preference for a higher status male– that is, higher status than herself and also higher status than the other men in her field of vision and also perhaps higher status than men she has known in the past and even (at the extremes) higher status than most men she can personally imagine meeting. That cuts across a range of possible relationships, all the way from a one night stand to marriage. In all cases, women naturally prefer the highest status man they can get. And sometimes they want so much status that they won’t settle on any man they could actually get.

“Status” has a varied meaning in this definition. Certain things correlate with high status, for instance money, prestige, social standing, etc. However a man can have all of that and still be low status because of low status intra-personal behavior (i.e., needy schlumpitude). The highest possible status male would be rich, good looking, fit, well dressed, high social cache, high prestige job (preferably one which involves risk, physical risk being better than mere monetary risk), and also extroverted, dominant, the leader of his group of friends, able to command any social situation, and so on. However, women are wired to be turned on more by the latter behavioral traits than by be the former substantive traits. So, if you have to choose one or the other, to get women, be socially dominant and a broke societal loser rather than socially awkward and a rich societal winner. But best to be both, if possible.

As to marriage, sure women want to marry up. But this does not exhaust the effects of hypergamy. Women can marry up– both intrinsically and in their own mind– and still ditch their catch because someone “better” comes along. That is hypergamy at work. Also, when women are pursuing short and medium term mating, hypergamy has no less force. They always prefer the most socially dominant male they can get. This is often relative (A& B are both a little dweeby but A is more alpha than B and since I want someone NOW I choose A) but sometimes it is more intrinsic (A& B are both a little dweeby and even though A is a little more alpha, since I don’t have to have someone NOW, I am going to hold out for the Real Deal).

It’s not all about marriage. It’s about mate selection across the range of circumstances.

I think what’s missing is that ‘hypergamy’ is played by both sides. Except in the case of men factors like fertility and looks carry more weight. From wiki: men express a desire for an analogue of hypergamy based on physical attractiveness; they desire a mate who ranks higher on the physical attractiveness scale than they themselves do."[12]:51

Although the degree to which that factors in does appear to be more heavily weighted towards woman, and can understand as to why he would default to hypergamy as the root cause of all said behaviours , even though I don’t necessarily agree with all of it. The reality seems to be a lot more complicated than that and there is no one ‘all encompassing’ theory that can predict what we will do and even more so why we do it (since often times we don’t really know). I do think that his argument has merit however, when one considers how much of the world is mechanical and driven by biology although I did wish he wouldn’t keep saying “... because hypergamy!” for everything but I get his point.

Studies have proven that men even into their 50s find women in their early 20s the most attractive, and those women will be more fertile so the man will be able to have children more successfully than with a woman who is over 35 years old.

He talks about that in the book and it's a pretty interesting chapter. But basically the curves where a man's 'sexual market value' and a woman's smv peak at around 40ish and 25ish respectively. I can't say for certain whether his chart is actually representative of the reality but it does seem to line up with the studies. The inverse is also true in that women looking for more stability will look for men with higher status and good jobs, according to Tomassi, "He’s young enough to retain his physique in better part, but old enough to have attained social and professional maturity."

Here's the chart for those curious:

The thing is, I think men find the 'average' woman's mating strategy distasteful, and vice versa. Men don't like being judged by their accomplishments if they don't have any accomplishments. And women don't like being judged on their looks if they're not extremely attractive. Even alphas and model-level beauties might harbor some resentment about being reduced to their accomplishments or looks (though often not without some degree of hypocrisy as they reap the benefits of those advantages). But there will always be a conflict between biological drives and deeper emotional needs/ideals.

Yes, he also touches on that in the book. It’s one of the observations he makes and one that guys have a hard time accepting. They want to be loved for ‘who’ they are when the reality is more like they are loved for ‘what’ they are. I think this also ties into the narcissistic longing for unconditional love when they are in search of their ‘soul-mate’ as Joe had pointed out. This below relates to this point as well:

Women are utterly incapable of loving a man in the way that a man expects to be loved.

In its simplicity this speaks volumes about the condition of Men. It accurately expresses a pervasive nihilism that Men must either confront and accept, or be driven insane in denial for the rest of their lives when they fail to come to terms with the disillusionment.

Women are incapable of loving men in a way that a man idealizes is possible, in a way he thinks she should be capable of.

In the same respect that women cannot appreciate the sacrifices men are expected to make in order to facilitate their imperatives, women can’t actualize how a man would have himself loved by her. It is not the natural state of women, and the moment he attempts to explain his ideal love, that’s the point at which his idealization becomes her obligation.

Our girlfriends, our wives, daughters and even our mothers are all incapable of this idealized love. As nice as it would be to relax, trust and be vulnerable, upfront, rational and open, the great abyss is still the lack of any capacity for women to love Men as Men would like them to.

For the plugged-in beta, this aspect of ‘awakening’ is very difficult to confront. Even in the face of constant, often traumatic, controversion to what a man hopes will be his reward for living up to qualifying for a woman’s love and intimacy, he’ll still hold onto that Disneyesque ideal.

It’s very important to understand that this love archetype is an artifact from our earliest feminized conditioning. It’s much healthier to accept that it isn’t possible and live within that framework. If she’s there, she’s there, if not, oh well. She’s not incapable of love in the way she defines it, she’s incapable of love as you would have it. She doesn’t lack the capacity for connection and emotional investment, she lacks the capacity for the connection you think would ideally suit you.

The resulting love that defines a long-term couple’s relationship is the result of coming to an understanding of this impossibility and re-imagining what it should be for Men. Men have been, and should be, the more dominant gender, not because of some imagined divine right or physical prowess, but because on some rudimentary psychological level we ought to realized that a woman’s love is contingent upon our capacity to maintain that love in spite of a woman’s hypergamy.

The main point being that this whole idealization is self-centric and that's a problem. The assumption that what you think is supposed to be 'love' is a different thing from their conception of it and thinking of it in that sense is the first step to misunderstanding one another. Not only that but turning that idealization into the other's obligation is surely a path to resentment, on both sides. It's a very important realization I think for men to really grasp.

There's probably a lot more to say on the subject. I just wanted to point out that it makes sense that a lot of men would harbor resentment towards hypergamous tendencies. Just like a lot of women would resent being judged in terms of their looks. But there's a logic there, like JBP points out: men have to work to makes themselves attractive - that means bettering themselves, getting responsible, and all that stuff. And arguably, it is that very thing that is what makes stuff happen, like, practically every societal, technological, artistic advancement. Women create the standard in some sense, and men compete to fulfill that standard. On average. There will always be individual aberrations (as Hollywood often proves).

Yes exactly. He also says something similar in the book as a ‘counter’ to hypergamy, although nowhere near as gracefully as Peterson says it.

So overall I’m somewhat mixed about the book. On one hand, for the average guy that has no conception of psychology or the human condition, this book could be helpful in dispelling some of the myths that have been taken as gospel surrounding interpersonal relations. Some of the advice is even applicable to all relations, not just romantic ones. Some of what he discusses I’ve found to be my experience as well from observing people and their behaviours and his outlining of what appear to be at the root of what women’s motivations aren’t entirely left field.

On the other hand, his hardline on hypergamy and women (in a general sense) runs the risk of impressing on men that all women are solipsistic whether they know it or not and are inherently self-serving beings (“because hypergamy”) - while at the same time implying that men aren’t (so much as women) because women are hardwired for it (though that's true to a degree).

But.... it’s people in general that tend towards solipsism or nihilism (especially in this post modern age) and that if you were to take a Pareto distribution and applied it to the generalities described in the book I’m willing to bet you’d see a lot of overlap.

Now Tomassi would probably say that I have that view because I’ve been taken in by the feminine imperative. That’s their secret to keep men from finding out about it, etc etc...

It’s not so black and white though and that I think is my biggest issue with his approach. Reducing them to ‘base level mechanics’, while it does have its utility, leaves out a whole host of other things which factor in.

That said, I think there is still enough in there that can be helpful for those interested in intergender dynamics. Hypergamy in the contexts and examples he provides are another way of understanding how people relate to another and what might be behind people’s motivations for what they do. To say all interactions are simply that is where we have to be careful, but I think that very often that element is a component, especially when people don’t understand or care about why they are doing things and following biological dictates. Having the knowledge that this can be a factor is useful and worth contemplating... osit.

 

[Scottie]

I read all 3 books, and here's my take.

First, he's appealing to the PUA / MGTOW / anti-feminist crowd. So, he writes in a way that is kind of off-putting. Yet, as you continue to read, he repeatedly mentions that he's been happily married for 21 years and has a grown daughter. I concluded in the end that he has to write and speak in a certain way to appeal to the largest possible audience, or no one would buy it / read it. He states himself at a couple of points that it's a turn-off for many men when they simply learn that he's married. To them, that means he "sold out", ergo everything he says is invalid. Well, no.

I think he's attempting to walk a fine line.

The main point is that men and women each have their biological drives. Due to the "feminine imperative" as he calls it - which today has culminated in the girlification of boys and the boyification of girls and upside-down genders and god knows what else - he feels that men have forgotten how to be men. So, the things he says are designed to get you to think about all that stuff in a way that probably most men in the past several decades have never even considered.

All in all, I don't think that's a bad thing. Both men and women are driven by their machinery, and it's probably a good thing to understand how that machinery works. I had quite a few "AHA!" moments while reading the series.

At the same time, it can be a "dangerous" read if you don't keep in mind why he is writing what he's writing, and how he is writing it.

Honestly, his advice to guys not to get married until you're 35 is probably crazy to most people, but it makes perfect sense to me. That doesn't mean you have to run around and boink everything that moves. The point there is that if the alternative is to get married to "The One" at a young age, totally live in illusion, and then later get divorced with children because you're a clueless dingus, then obviously NOT getting married and "spinning plates" instead is a better alternative. Naturally, it isn't the only alternative, and you're supposed to read between the lines and figure that out. He doesn't tell you what to do. He tells you how he thinks it is, and you're supposed to think about it, use your brain, and come to your own conclusions about how to proceed.

In other words, biological drives can be the "boot process" of a relationship, but that's all they are. Beyond that, for any intimate relationship to be successful, each person needs to get over their own crap, understand where the other person is coming from, and make allowances for all of that.

But how can you do that if you don't understand your own drives, your own illusory ideas about how relationships are "supposed to" work, the drives of your partner, and your partner's illusory ideas of how it all works?

Generally, when we get into a new relationship, we're not thinking about why we're getting into it, and we're REALLY not thinking about why our partner is getting into it. It's probably a good idea to do both, and yet most people never do until much later. Much of what he says may seem base or crass, but IMO it would be more realistic to start from there (i.e. keep the biological drives in mind at all times) and build something on top of that than to start from La-La Land Disney Princes and Princesses and end up in the swamp.

So, as I was saying, it can be dangerous to read these books if you're going to get lost in "woman bashing". As far as I can tell, that wasn't Tomassi's intention at all.

Another interesting thing was his take on what "alpha" means. It doesn't mean anything even remotely close to what is commonly promulgated these days, which was pretty interesting. Wearing a white t-shirt with a pack of ciggies rolled up in your sleeve and telling your significant other to shut up and bring you another beer is NOT alpha. That's just being an assh*le.

I think it could be a useful read for many guys, but you have to weed and think about it.

But he sure doesn't like the rabid feminists, that's for sure! Then again, neither do I.

 

[Scottie]

The main point being that this whole idealization is self-centric and that's a problem. The assumption that what you think is supposed to be 'love' is a different thing from their conception of it and thinking of it in that sense is the first step to misunderstanding one another. Not only that but turning that idealization into the other's obligation is surely a path to resentment, on both sides. It's a very important realization I think for men to really grasp.

Yup, that was one of the good parts.

And yet if you're too turned off by the "PUA and MGTOW-friendly" parts or too busy woman-bashing, you'll drive right over and totally miss it...

 

[fabric]

He doesn't tell you what to do. He tells you how he thinks it is, and you're supposed to think about it, use your brain, and come to your own conclusions about how to proceed.

Yes, that's one thing I also noticed. He'll outline a particular theory and tell you his thinking behind it. If you come in there with certain biases it will appear as all or nothing but he's not actually saying that (well, except the hypergamy...he really wants to drive that point home lol).

Understanding his intended audience I think helps when reading it so as not get too caught up in the hype. There actually are quite a few little gems scattered throughout the book – and coming across them is what kept me interested. I may just have to check out the other two. Apparently they are better written and cover different topics (although I imagine with some overlap).

 

[Scottie]

well, except the hypergamy...he really wants to drive that point home lol

Halfway through book #2, I was pretty sick of reading the word "hypergamy".

But the other bits and bobs kept me reading, so no harm done I guess.

 

[beetlemaniac]

Thanks for your comments on the books, it opened up my thinking as to what the angle of the book is and where it stands in the idea-space relative to other things we've been reading regarding socio-biology (I'm listening to Strange Order of Things right now). Like most books of it's type, it does seem to be focused on a particular audience thus tends to leave out higher objectives in human relationships (ie. responsibility, colinearity, gaining depth of intimacy emotionally & intellectually) and is more like a user manual for a young person in a male body with the attendant biological equipment and hormonal drives. For me, it was really good reading. It put into perspective the primary objectives of existence for a dude incarnated in 3rd density who doesn't have a freaking clue what's really going on. It hits all the right spots and provides a nice theoretical framework for all of it, which is way better than the other PUA material which just focuses on techniques to manipulate women into hooking up with them.

I feel that it boils down to understanding your place in the world, the so-called SMP (Sexual Marketplace) and how to fill up the void that may be present in terms of your estimation of your own self-worth. At least that's what I got out of it. I don't think "spinning plates", ie. going out with multiple women at once is all that necessary, but having a base level of confidence to be able to interact with them definitely is. For me, I would rather learn how to have relationships with my reading material (books), which is very much like "spinning plates" but in the realm of scholarly pursuit.

In other words, you can't be a spiritual person without understanding what it is you have to work with, which is a point Laura brought up here. I think there is some merit in saying that The Rational Male can be a stepping stone to a better understanding of the more advanced material like Damasio's Strange Order of Things. It's very exciting to be able to see a little of the connections between these two books, to me at least. I couldn't have without your insightful comments, especially Scottie and Fabric, so thank you again.

 

[mkrnhr]

Sometimes, obvious things become obvious only after they have been put into words. An acquaintance was complaining that her mother told her that she should look for a man who's rich. My response was that the mother is partly right, a man who's (relatively) rich, kind, and not crazy is far better than a man who is kind, not crazy, but broke (and probably needy). "Love" then is the easy part.
Not all men and women follow their evolutionary instincts but when they don't, it's often for the wrong reasons (mainly science-fiction movies, also known as romantic movies).

 

[Arwenn]

I’m only about 1/3 of the way into the first book, and I’ve found a few gems already. I must admit he is crass and vulgar, the incorrect grammar at times drives me nuts, but all in all I think his observations are pretty spot on. From a female perspective, women do compete for male attention and the competition can get brutal with gossiping and character assassination (it’s rare that women come to physical blows with each other). What he says about male best friends is true - a male bestie is like a brother and the idea of going out with your make bff doesn’t cross the mind for that reason. And if a woman friend-zones you, it’s best to just move on- it’s her way of saying rather in a nice way that it’s over, but that she’d still like the attention she will still get from you even as just friends.

I think his observation that even when you are in a relationship the man needs to keep a bit of mystery about him, being enigmatic keeps a woman’s imagination going and keeps up the levels of desire for physical intimacy. Too often after the honeymoon is over so to speak, sex become routine and transactional in a long term relationship.

One thing I have noticed since starting the book is the pervasive feminization in movies and sociocultural programming. I mean I knew it was there, but now I’m so much more aware of it. That combined with not allowing boys to be boys, their not being able to express aggression in a positive way, absent or poor father figures, single parent families, high divorce rates etc etc thas created a whole generation of lost boys/men.

I do agree that there is some separating of wheat from chaff required, but the gems in it merit reading the book. It’s no wonder JBP gets so emotional when he sees the plight of young males, jeez what did we expect? Like Tomassi says somewhere in the book, it’s the ultimate irony that the feminists of the 60s are wondering why their daughters are single and unmarried at 35.

 

[Joe]

Reducing them to ‘base level mechanics’, while it does have its utility, leaves out a whole host of other things which factor in.

What are the other things that factor in, in your opinion?

 

[fabric]

What are the other things that factor in, in your opinion?

I would say cultural factors are a big one. One example that comes to mind are arranged marriages in India. They tend to stay together (divorce rates are much lower) and report being just as satisfied and loving their partners just as much as those in free-choice marriages.

Another would be personality traits/temperament. There is a lot of variety across the spectrum, with some being more likely to engage in that mode of ‘mate-seeking’ behavior while others would not be so inclined to play that way.

Then we could even say other things like astrological/energetic influences that can come into play and perhaps things like past lives etc. Yes, that’s getting into the woo-woo side of things nonetheless I’d say it’s a factor.

But for the audience he’s writing for and his intent I understand why he would want to focus on the feminine imperative. As a model for what is going on (in the West in particular) and considering how pervasive the liberal / feminist agenda is nowadays in taking down anything ‘male’ it makes sense. I think that's why I didn't find him so much against women themselves as so much against the ideology.

 

[Joe]

I would say cultural factors are a big one. One example that comes to mind are arranged marriages in India. They tend to stay together (divorce rates are much lower) and report being just as satisfied and loving their partners just as much as those in free-choice marriages.

Another would be personality traits/temperament. There is a lot of variety across the spectrum, with some being more likely to engage in that mode of ‘mate-seeking’ behavior while others would not be so inclined to play that way.

Yeah, I suppose such factors play a role as potential inhibitors, although the biological imperative is always there in pretty much everyone and very strong, I don't think personality types inhibit it though, just change its manifestation perhaps. No one escapes. There's a strong argument there for management of relationships within a given society/community. It could save a lot of heart-ache and help people understand their unconscious drives and get a handle on them before they cause too much chaos and suffering.

 

[Adaryn]

I would say cultural factors are a big one. One example that comes to mind are arranged marriages in India. They tend to stay together (divorce rates are much lower) and report being just as satisfied and loving their partners just as much as those in free-choice marriages.

I've heard the same kind of comment from a Jewish friend who once told me that (traditional) Jewish couples are more successful and do last despite (or because?) the brides/grooms don't have much of a say in the matter. Since the match is made by the parents/relatives, the couple doesn't expect to be in love from the get-go and knows that they'll have to work for it… which safeguards them against the inevitable disappointment that people "who are in love" feel when faced with the not-so-glamourous reality of marital life, and when their illusion bubble about what 'romantic love' is or should be finally bursts.
It makes sense to me that those marriages would last longer, traditional societies being much more rational and not so much focused on the ideal of love as it is promoted in modern Western societies.

Then we could even say other things like astrological/energetic influences that can come into play and perhaps things like past lives etc. Yes, that’s getting into the woo-woo side of things nonetheless I’d say it’s a factor.

I agree that it can be a factor. In some cases (who hasn't heard some real-life stories of happily married couples who felt "love at first sight"), there's an instant connection that seems to point to something more than chemically-based attraction and people making a narrative out of it ("he/she's the one" etc)… but that's something people can only confirm after the fact, when they reflect upon their relationship years later ("hey, that instant feeling was spot-on, he/she's really"'the one for me'"). So whatever the case (chemically based attraction, or "past life" connection/instant recognition activating chemicals), best for people to automatically assume that whatever they think they feel is no more than a biological need to "mate"… and proceed cautiously.

 

[Oxajil]

I've heard the same kind of comment from a Jewish friend who once told me that (traditional) Jewish couples are more successful and do last despite (or because?) the brides/grooms don't have much of a say in the matter. Since the match is made by the parents/relatives, the couple doesn't expect to be in love from the get-go and knows that they'll have to work for it… which safeguards them against the inevitable disappointment that people "who are in love" feel when faced with the not-so-glamourous reality of marital life, and when their illusion bubble about what 'romantic love' is or should be finally bursts.
It makes sense to me that those marriages would last longer, traditional societies being much more rational and not so much focused on the ideal of love as it is promoted in modern Western societies.

I think that's true in some cases! Ultimately, I would say that every relationship, 'arranged' or not, brings with it many challenges. Regarding divorce, it should be considered that in such cultures (not sure about India or the Jewish culture) it is often seen as a 'disgrace'. So, they stay in the marriage even though they might want to get away asap. Also... depending on the 'contract', when there is a divorce, the man will usually have to pay his ex wife many gold coins (in some contracts, though it's rare, limbs are even mentioned). In other words, divorce is mostly discouraged. FWIW.

 

[Adaryn]

I think that's true in some cases! Ultimately, I would say that every relationship, 'arranged' or not, brings with it many challenges. Regarding divorce, it should be considered that in such cultures (not sure about India or the Jewish culture) it is often seen as a 'disgrace'. So, they stay in the marriage even though they might want to get away asap. Also... depending on the 'contract', when there is a divorce, the man will usually have to pay his ex wife many gold coins (in some contracts, though it's rare, limbs are even mentioned). In other words, divorce is mostly discouraged. FWIW.

That's certainly a complex issue, and I don't think arranged marriage as it's practiced in more traditional societies is necessarily the perfect solution (there is no one-size-fits-all, I'm afraid!). A compromise between modernity and tradition - avoiding extremes - could be a solution.
I don't know much about Jewish practices regarding marriage, but I've found that article interesting: soon-to-be-married Jewish couples are counseled by a rabbi before getting married. Ignore the religious stuff in the article… I think the general idea of preparing/briefing future couples about marriage life and what they should expect makes sense… rather than marrying, then waiting till everything goes kaflooey before finally deciding to go into counselling to address serious issues that should have been dealt with at the beginning!):

The secret to a happy marriage? Ask the rabbi

Rabbi Belovski, who has a master’s degree in organisational psychology, has prepared more than 100 couples for marriage

It is a widely-cited statistic which often strikes fear in the hearts of couples before they tie the knot: around half of all marriages will end in divorce.

Divorce rates have risen, along with rates of intermarriage, in the Jewish community over the past half century, prompting many to ask the question: what is the key to a happy marriage and how do we do it?

It is common practise in many communities for couples to visit their rabbi ahead of their chuppah for classes preparing them for married life.

The fact that Jews are less likely to be divorced than the British population in general therefore comes as no surprise to Rabbi Harvey Belovski, who has been teaching his congregants how to have a healthy marriage for more than 10 years.

The senior rabbi of Golders Green Synagogue says that while the United Synagogue’s marriage enhancement programme focuses on the “halachic stuff, such as going to the mikvah”, just as important are general preparations for being in love, being intimate, and compromising.

He explains: “Of course we want them to be technically equipped, but also emotionally and psychologically equipped as well.” […]

He says the first lesson “is about exploring what makes an effective relationship and what kind of tools we might develop to sustain a long-term relationship”.

This is easy, he says, but the cracks appear when they move on to lesson two — on conflict.

“I’m blunt. I get them to talk about real things — where to live, education and religious observance. I address those real issues.”

In his experience family and money are the biggest triggers for breakdown in a relationship.

“Conflict with one partner and the other’s parents really can disturb a sense of self and being.

“Even if things are good now, you could easily have a situation where there is a strain or a conflict and we need to recognise where that could happen, and consider what tools we have to deal with it.

“Resilience is important. Networks — family and friends — are very good for resilience. People who are more isolated find it more difficult to be resilient.”

He says his lessons have “precipitated many arguments” but he believes “issues need talking about. I patched up an argument once and I regret it. I think it was evidence of a serious problem”.

Learning that it is not always his place to be a mediator in matters of the heart has helped Rabbi Belovski to develop his teaching.

“It was unfortunate, because they came to me not talking to each other and by the end of the evening I’d helped them sort it out and apologise.

“I thought ‘I’m good at this’, but actually I should have identified a really serious underlying problem.”

When it comes to conflicts over money, Rabbi Belovski, who met his wife while both were studying at Oxford University, says it boils down to trust.

“Money is about whether a partner respects who I am and whether we trust each other. How we share resources, do we prioritise the same way?

“That ultimately goes back to the family. How we think about money and resources is very much a product of our upbringing.”

In his experience couples who do not have a joint bank account, or hide funds from one another, do not have the trust needed to sustain a healthy marriage.

Things have certainly changed since his parents’ generation tied the knot.

Unless you are part of the strictly religious community, past experiences of relationships mean most people have developed an understanding ahead of marriage, he explains.

“Most of the couples I see are familiar with relationships —they’ve been dating, they’ve had previous relationships, they’re usually living together. It is very unlikely someone is marrying the first person they’ve met — although it does happen.”

Rabbi Belovski, who is planning to write a book on the subject, says despite teaching with varying degrees of religious observance, there are commonalities in determining whether or not they will have a happy marriage.

At the very start “couples ought to spend more time preparing for marriage than the wedding.

“The wedding will come and go. Whether they’re awful, fantastic, cheap, expensive, filled with arguments or love and fun, they’re over and then begins the next 50 years.

“Some of these people are so absorbed in the wedding that they forget about the marriage.”

The centrepiece of any loving relationship is communication, according to Rabbi Belovski, a regular commentator on BBC Radio Two’s Chris Evans show.

“Arguments start about one thing and become generalised, like ‘you’ve upset me, you’re a b****’.

“I teach how damaging it is to wander off a specific agenda. It’s always important to ask ‘will this matter tomorrow?’ If the argument won’t matter tomorrow, then what are you arguing over?”

The rabbi, who spends an initial 45 minutes getting to know couples in what he calls a “chemistry session”, uses Judaism as a bedrock of values, ideas and philosophies, to ensure couples have what it takes to withstand the trials and tribulations ahead.

“The third session,” he says, “is about sexuality, intimacy and power. And that has a more Jewish focus.”

Usually couples shy away from talking with their rabbi about the more intimate areas of their relationship, but, according to Rabbi Belovski, not with him — they love the session on their physical relationship and its deeply-rooted focus in the Torah, he says.

“The role of Judaism is to elevate every aspect of life. I can pull out the Talmud and there is amazing stuff in there about sexual pleasure, about effective intimacy, and the importance of foreplay. This is because the Talmud writes about everything.”

Rabbi Belovski believes that by sticking to the rules of taharat hamishpacha (family purity), the physical and emotional intimacy that is essential to a happy marriage can be enhanced.

“In Jewish thought, intimacy is a type of communication. People are often surprised to learn if they don’t have good verbal communication, then they are very unlikely to have a sustained, successful intimate relationship.”

For example, he says during niddah, when a man is forbidden from touching his wife, it provides the couple with a renewed opportunity to check in with one another on an emotional level, because sex can easily become “a tool of personal gratification rather than intimacy”.

Perhaps most importantly he teaches couples how to deal with change. “People change in relationships. Most relationships break up over things like ‘we just have nothing to say to each other anymore’ or ‘we’ve fallen out of love, and we’ve got no shared interests’.

“If the relationship is focused on knowing the other person and what they need, even when they’re changing, then you remain together and connected. But it takes a really long time to understand.” […]
[…]

 

[Cosmos]

I would like to mention a few things that came to mind when I discovered this thread today and read a number of posts.
My first reaction to the title of the thread, as well as of the book title, was rather off-putting, probably based on a number of assumptions on my side, although there might be more to this than just that, or not.

I'm pleading guilty of ignorance here in regards to not being familiar with Tomassi's work, so take it with a big grain of salt. What I did though, is starting to watch a video presentation of him here. I apologize beforehand if I'm making a fuss about nothing here, but I need to get this off my chest. What I'm getting at here is his use of language and creation of language to explain his ideas, that is something I find rather off-putting or let's say troubling.

Be warned, there is some vulgar language, and there are parts of the books that deal with PUA (pick up artist) and game (as in having game to get what you want) theory.

What I mean is his use of something I can only call pornographic/deranged language that he uses to explain his ideas. It is a similar issue I had with this book, where the content is indeed important as well, but the language so off-putting to me in almost every sentence, that I can hardly read it for long, finding myself feeling rather dirty and disgusted about it.

I can't quite put my finger on it, but language that seems/feels perverted, not only in the sexual sense, usually is hard for me to digest and I'm rather reluctant to read or hear stuff like this myself. I can only describe it as a rather "instinctive" defensive mechanism to the abuse of language and maybe beauty of language as such. It is the same issue I have with many new movies and series nowadays where not only the language, but also the visual and humanly interaction between people, seems to be rather perverted and strange to me and more and more inhumane, to put it mildly.

When I usually explain to people that I won't and can't digest well nor read or hear any such stuff without feeling a rather big deal of disgust while doing so, usually people have a hard time undertsnading what I mean, because this type of language in whatever form it is presented nowadays, maybe has become so normal that people don't even realize anymore what they are hearing/seeing/digesting.

"Game of Thrones" is one example. I happened to watch short segments of it because so many people told me "how great it is" and I was shocked by the perverted/pornographic language, visual scenes and violence used there so casually. So I still can't see why I should put up with "great series" like this.

One example from the video presentation above is his statement that "those are the man that woman want to fuck" so casually and not concerned about his use of language and his concept of "Alpha Fucks" and "Beta Cucks". When I hear something like this, my radar goes up and I feel rather disgusted hearing it and I'm not that inclined to digest more of that.

If he would use "Sex" , "intercourse" or "Mating" instead I wouldn't feel so bothered by it. Something about the word "fuck" just doesn't seem right to me especially in certain contexts as many other words used nowadays do as well.

I know that especially in the english language this type of use of words has become the norm rather than the exception, so I'm not blaming Tomassi for that, but still I can't shake of the deep disgust and off putting feeling when I hear stuff like that, that propels me to stop listening /watching it because I can't simply take much of it in, especially if it is used in a rational, historic or scientific context.

My earliest memory of being confronted by that kind of language was in the fifth grade or so, when a good school friend of mine all of a sudden used the word "fuck" (in german of course) and I was so utterly shocked on hearing that from him so unconcerned that I remember it till this day very distinctly. It was the first time I ever really heard anyone close to me use such words in a causal manner. It is hard to describe how I felt about that, but it left a deep impression in me and not a particularly positive one. If he would have said another word I don't consider "dirty/deranged" I wouldn't have reacted like this.

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that this type of language has only rather recently developed rather globally primarily through the american/english influence. I could be wrong though. In any other point in history before "this day and age" language like this would have been seen as taboo and blasphemous in any stretch and maybe rightly so.

We only have to look about 70 years or later back in history and the language of people everywhere (or so it seems to me) seemed to be based much more on decency and a rather complex set of sophisticated language principles that were not revolving around vulgarity of any sort of what is used today, but rather on high quality and decent/respectful language. I'm getting off topic here, so I'll top with this.

Though maybe all that has more to say about my own issues here than anything else, in not being able to shield myself properly from getting influenced by language of this sort, or not having dealt with issues relating to my reaction to stuff like this. So again maybe I'm projecting here more than anything else, so take it with a good deal of salt.

I'll maybe try to read some of his work in the future but I'll probably won't put it on high priority at the moment and read instead some good history and concrete science work. If it weren't for the language he seems to use, that might be different, it is just happens to be draining to me to read/hear such language.

Having said that, I think with the right understanding and maybe a sense of the possibility that we can know what drives us at least partially in the purely biological sense, it can help to make us more aware of it and not necessarily follow every of those basic drives blindly at one point and embrace a spiritual outlook on it as well.

There is also something else I can't quite put my finger on when it comes to works like this, which I can only describe as maybe "to much materialistic/mechanical thinking/reasoning" while neglecting "spirit", the probable fact that at least in principle a significant portion of the human population can strive for values and decent behaviors that are not strictly detainment by base biological drives when we know how those drives work within us. Let's say the part of humanity that has "a seed for a soul" or those who are not purely "organic portals".

I see, understand and think it is true that much of what propels, motivates and directs human beings is pretty mechanical and NOBODY is really excluded from this (including people with maybe "higher potential"); as Gurdjieff for example rightly said I think; 70 Percent of what we do is based on sex (or something to that extent). Still I find some of this pure concentration on those mechanical/materialistic factors alone and implying that ALL human beings are not at least in principle capable of a bit more that just animalistic behaviors a bit concerning. I think at least theoretically a good number of the human population is capable of at least starting to aspire or working towards "higher" aims/behaviors via "knowledge of the machine". And in this regard works like this might be very important to understand while keeping in mind that maybe "you can aspire to be the master of it, rather then the slave of it".