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

[dervishsam]

I think we can say with a good degree of certainty that biological factors have a great deal of influence when it comes to who men and women choose to mate with.

They do play role , what I was trying to say is that results are not necessary positive, they are opposite to evolutionary . Its clear that women prefer to date rich alpha males, however we see the effects it has on modern society, 80/20 rule didn't exist in medieval and feudal times, because we had caste system women had to chose someone from their caste they couldn't marry up. A more conservative values drive evolution where choices of women are actually limited. Liberal values ace counterproductive and destroying western society. (80/20 rule when 20% of alpha males have relationships with 80% of women) Conservative values are more conducive to evolutionary processes.

 

[Resistense]

I have read two of these books, iirc, (may be one), and read some of the blog postings by rollo at therationalmale.

I have not treated (or read) this thread properly, but I want to impart the main problem with this "evolutionary psychology" outgrowth, as I see it.

There is no accounting for "soul", consciousness, or the potential for females to acquire data that puts them on a level with males. There is rife misogony in this community, in my opinion, for this reason. Through the "evolutionary psychology" lens, people's motivations are reduced to the more basic, animalistic desires.

Creating friction between these lower desires and the higher aspirations is like "stilling the goat from feeding on the rose". Instead, men are encouraged to embrace their carnal desires and throw away thoughts of morality, because that goat is their nature (ancient Greek would disagree, and probably wrestle Rollo down and put him in a headlock).

There is some appeal, that I'd try to summarize as:

-"Mental Point of Origin" is close to self-remembering or observation, unless you make it an "internal considering" reference, which is how it seems applied... External considering is discouraged for "alphas". "Tolerate no disrespect", instead of keeping things IN PROPORTION (rational) and being able to stoically suffer insult (real macho stuff).

-"Outcome independence" - try things w/o attachment to results

-"The Feminine Imperative" - a strange formation, but in a way it categorizes a lot of what society does to repress the goat. Unfortuneately, equating this "oppression" with the feminine sets up a strawwoman whom potential hasnamuss rabid dogs are all too happy to gnaw at. It might be more like "rule of law" to keep the physically strongest from raping and pillaging.


That's what I can remember now. So there are appealing ideas (which, really, come from elsewhere) that are packaged into this broader frame-work which is built up on, "Evolutionary Psychology", which should be laughed off the stage. Boiling it down, these fools are OBSESSED with "perception-management". and sex. 80/20 stuff seems to me like agitprop. --My opinions.

 

[Andi]

Have you guys noticed this manosphere movement has gone wild in popularity? It had spread like wild fire, and every teenage kid now knows about it. I remember the Cs have said something along the lines of : "men will lose interest in women" or something like that.

What also seems to be true in western society in particular, is that too many women have gone way too far in attacking and blaming men. The rates of divorce are also sky high; no one is helping, and men are fed up with it. So they turn to the red pill ideology and the manosphere content creators, witch are now everywhere.

 

[Natus Videre]

Have you guys noticed this manosphere movement has gone wild in popularity? It had spread like wild fire, and every teenage kid now knows about it. I remember the Cs have said something along the lines of : "men will lose interest in women" or something like that.

What also seems to be true in western society in particular, is that too many women have gone way too far in attacking and blaming men. The rates of divorce are also sky high; no one is helping, and men are fed up with it. So they turn to the red pill ideology and the manosphere content creators, witch are now everywhere.

Yes, MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) is a movement targeted at young men fueled by older men who were 'damaged' by women.
It is a reactionary ideology aiming to counterbalance feminism by avoiding women entirely.



Where does this lead to?

Well, it starts with blaming a specific group (young women) for everything and then creating a fake reality to justify the ideology.
Material conquest is commonly used as proof: "Look, I'm free. I own a house, a boat, a motorcycle and I can go wherever I want. I wouldn't be able to do that if I had a lunatic wife enslaving my kids. You can do it too."
It gives a false sense of being 'right', not realizing that men are being programmed too...

With transhumanism (sterilization) just around the corner, such a movement only accelerates the disintegration of society.
Another example of "divide and conquer".

 

[Resistense]

@Andi,

Yes, MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) is a movement targeted at young men fueled by older men who were 'damaged' by women.
It is a reactionary ideology aiming to counterbalance feminism by avoiding women entirely.

View attachment 47040

Where does this lead to?

Well, it starts with blaming a specific group (young women) for everything and then creating a fake reality to justify the ideology.
Material conquest is commonly used as proof: "Look, I'm free. I own a house, a boat, a motorcycle and I can go wherever I want. I wouldn't be able to do that if I had a lunatic wife enslaving my kids. You can do it too."
It gives a false sense of being 'right', not realizing that men are being programmed too...

With transhumanism (sterilization) just around the corner, such a movement only accelerates the disintegration of society.
Another example of "divide and conquer".

Yes, I do think it has gotten more popular, and thinking about it more I can see a pernicious hidden aspect.

It may not be a technically correct definition, but in a way, this could be a hetero-sexual version "pink-washing": bringing in hidden social change on the back-end of a "sexual liberation" front; a la Western democracies (but, in a crazy way, IMO). Following behind the philosophizing offering sexual liberation, luring men to Red Pill or MGTOW, is total depravity...

To quote a bit from Beelzebub's Tales on,

"...the word Hasnamuss in whom, among what are called 'Individual-impulses', a certain 'some-thing' arises, which participates in what is called the 'completed formation' of independent individualities in the common presences of three-brained beings both of the highest possible coating as well as of those who consist only of the planetary body alone.
"This 'something' in the separate cosmic individuals arises and blends in the process of the transformation of substances in them with the crystallizations resulting from the action of the entire 'spectrum' of what are called 'Naloo-osnian-impulses.'
"This 'Naloo-osnian-spectrum-of-impulses' consists, on the basis of that chief cosmic law, the sacred Heptapara-parshinokh, according to the source of its essence in respect of the 'perception-of-engenderings', and the 'resulting-manifestations,' of seven heterogneous aspects.
"If these separate aspects of the entire 'spectrum' of Naloo-osnian-impulses are described according to the notions of your favorites and expressed in their language, they might then be defined as follows:
(1) Every kind of depravity, conscious as well as uncon-scious
(2) The feeling of self-satisfaction from leading others astray
(3) The irresistible inclination to destroy the existence of other breathing creatures
(4) The urge to become free from the necessity of actualiz-ing the being efforts demanded by Nature
(5) The attempt by every kind of artificiality to conceal from others what in their opinion are one's physical defects
(6) The calm self-contentment in the use of what is not personally deserved
(7) The striving to be not what one is.

"This certain 'something' which arises in the pres-ences of definite individuals owing to the enumerated Naloo-osnian-impulses, besides being the cause of what are called 'serious-retributive-suffering-consequences' for these individuals themselves, also has the particularity, that as soon as the action of what is called 'intense-effort' ceases in one of these individuals, the radiations proper to one or other of the aspects of the manifestations of this 'soething' have a greater effect on those around him and become a factor for engendering the same in them."... pgs. 405-406, Destruction of Ashiata Shiemash's Labors
Penguin Compass 1964; G.I. Gurdjieff's Beelzebub's Tales to His Grandson, 1950. arr

 

[Sybill]

Wow. I just read this thread. It was a rollercoaster alright! Some many deception, lies, manipulation, and psychopathic games. And for why? Manipulative and dishonest relationships. I haven't read the books, I can't justify vulgarity for any reason. But I saw the video. Shocking. I guess, as mentioned before, it relates to immaturity.
I have to admit, this Putin business made me laugh. He was always a sort of young Corleone for me, not a sexy Russian billionaire. 😄
I guess I'm getting old. I'll go and check the guy out, maybe I missed something. 🧐

 

[Menna]

What doesn't play a role in relationships? I can't think of one thing that doesn't.

A level of manipulation inserted into a relationship to me means no one is truly trying or wants a lower stress life

 

[Asa]

Also, it seems that at the most simplistic level these ideas are not all that new to me. It's been pretty common knowledge for us guys that to get the really pretty woman you have to have a good job, drive a nice car and have your own place.

This entirely misses Tomassi's point though. A man does not need to have a good job, drive a nice car and have his own place to get a really pretty woman. A really pretty woman will gladly have sex with the cute but penniless lifeguard. She probably would not marry him though - for that she is more likely to turn to the loyal and dependable 'salary man' with the good job, nice car and own place. This is the 'alpha flicks / beta bucks' dichotomy Tomassi describes. A woman's choice of sexual partner, according to Tomassi, is driven by different motivations than her choice for a marriage partner. One is optimization of genes, the other is optimization of resources.

Tomassi and 'PUAs' show men how to appeal to a woman's gene optimization instincts, even if he isn't a 'natural.' If one can then combine that with a capacity for resource provision, then you have both genders get the best of both worlds. Without this knowledge, the pareto principle seems to apply to the human sexual selection paradigm and the results are ugly.

 

[Bluegazer]

This entirely misses Tomassi's point though. A man does not need to have a good job, drive a nice car and have his own place to get a really pretty woman. A really pretty woman will gladly have sex with the cute but penniless lifeguard.

For the most part, that is what actually happens. It´s about looks.

In the search to understand more about this whole phenomenon, I came across a youtube channel that leans towards blackpill but its content is quite logical and with a very good amount of statistical data.

https://www.youtube.com/@WheatWaffles

 

[Carl]

For the most part, that is what actually happens. It´s about looks.

In the search to understand more about this whole phenomenon, I came across a youtube channel that leans towards blackpill but its content is quite logical and with a very good amount of statistical data.

https://www.youtube.com/@WheatWaffles

IMO the whole blackpill thing is just another part of the psyop. Few even in the 'manosphere' even understand the depths of the demoralization campaign and spiritual assault that Western men are facing. If anything, many commentators perpetuate it.

The one thing a man can always have and develop is his aura, energy, vibe, self-belief. It's really all that's ever needed. The answer has always been right there. Yet every influence from social conditioning, to feminism, to men's content obsessed with height/status/looks, all serve to dampen and destroy this.

 

[Bluegazer]

@Carl

After watching much of the content of that channel, for me it was the opposite. When I understood and saw that the reality we live in is based on the IMAGE, that is when I realized the importance of the internal. And knowing that in effect, as a man I have limits, that I am not a chad or anything like that, then I focus on the internal. Every truth when it hits demoralizes you, but then you recover. And let's face it, I don't see the problem with being well dressed, groomed and clean (looks). I think being well groomed and/or clean on the outside should be part of a correspondence with the inside.

Watch the channel's videos. He just throws data of the current reality and criticizes a lot the dating market, apps, feminism and so on.

 

[Carl]

@Carl

Watch the channel's videos. He just throws data of the current reality and criticizes a lot the dating market, apps, feminism and so on.

This channel is garbage with a big serving of autism. This kind of content honestly does just serve to hurt most men.
I could flesh this out in lots of detail if you're interested but I just got tired of trying to refute blackpillers points coz they cannot see the forest for the trees.

And let's face it, I don't see the problem with being well dressed, groomed and clean (looks). I think being well groomed and/or clean on the outside should be part of a correspondence with the inside.

Sure grooming is good for living life. But on the topic of the thread, can't say I've experienced or seen that being a clean, well groomed good boy has any influence on attraction.

That's not the kind of 'looks' that the doomers mean. They mean height, jaw, face, physicality etc. And they'll obsess over it and cite dumb tinder studies as proof that they are just inferior and should give up. It's infuriating.

After watching much of the content of that channel, for me it was the opposite. When I understood and saw that the reality we live in is based on the IMAGE, that is when I realized the importance of the internal. And knowing that in effect, as a man I have limits, that I am not a chad or anything like that, then I focus on the internal. Every truth when it hits demoralizes you, but then you recover.

Well, cool and maybe it had some benefit, but I'm warning generally that this is another subtle way the demoralising campaign works, and exactly how I've seen it work on people I've known to horrific results (to some extent myself too).

'Man this society is so shallow, the dating market is so ruined, these girls are so entitled! They only want the 6'6. The full head of hair. The [insert whatever I don't have]. Ok fine I accept it. There's just point. I'm no chad. Maybe in the next life. I'll just stay in my lane. Accept it. It's the inner that matters anyway right? But I won't even bother to develop my inner fire and charisma and passion and maybe try to attract a partner. I won't man the fk up and break the mould, I'll just fold to the current frame of society, let them determine my value, and be a good little cog in the matrix. etc.etc.'

This attitude just isn't good enough.

 

[Carl]

By the way I'm not saying that's necessarily what you're doing, just that it's a trap I've seen others fall into, and to add to the thread that I don't personally consider it a productive attitude, and don't consider blackpill thinking a healthy way out of the matrix.

 

[Bluegazer]

This kind of content honestly does just serve to hurt most men.

Are you hurt, Carl? That is the question.

Do you want a confession from me? I'm lonely too, I get depressed. I know I'm not ugly because on more than one occasion a girl has looked at me with attention. But at the end of the day you can choose whether to be demoralized or not.

You say it's garbage. Ok, that may be true. But no knowledge is harmful and roses grow better in manure.

The content of that channel in my experience has given me a good dose of reality. This is not to say that blackpill has become a dogma for me or that it is a panacea. Not at all.

 

[Beau]

This entirely misses Tomassi's point though. A man does not need to have a good job, drive a nice car and have his own place to get a really pretty woman.

Yes he does, unless he just wants sex and that's all. Tomassi's problem is that he thinks the choices that *some* women make applies to all women, and that their choice of who to sleep with is indicative of what women as a whole want. It's a weak, lazy and frankly wrong thought process. Of course a lot of young women are going to pick the bad boy when they aren't looking for a long term partner. Young people make terrible choices! Nobody should be getting up in arms about that.

A really pretty woman will gladly have sex with the cute but penniless lifeguard. She probably would not marry him though - for that she is more likely to turn to the loyal and dependable 'salary man' with the good job, nice car and own place. This is the 'alpha flicks / beta bucks' dichotomy Tomassi describes. A woman's choice of sexual partner, according to Tomassi, is driven by different motivations than her choice for a marriage partner. One is optimization of genes, the other is optimization of resources.

Okay but why does that matter? Who cares what some women's choice of a sexual partner is or why they chose them? All these angry so-called incels are getting worked up for no reason. Why would you want a woman that doesn't value character traits like kindness, honesty, morals, and work ethic anyway? Do you really think that all women are like this? The vast majority of women I have met are not like that. People who go to Tinder to try to glean larger lessons about female behavior are just foolish. That's not the place to be doing sociological research.

Tomassi and 'PUAs' show men how to appeal to a woman's gene optimization instincts, even if he isn't a 'natural.' If one can then combine that with a capacity for resource provision, then you have both genders get the best of both worlds. Without this knowledge, the pareto principle seems to apply to the human sexual selection paradigm and the results are ugly.

Sure, if all they want to do is get laid it is appealing. Not sure why anyone on this forum would want to use anything but their natural selves to attract somebody. It's not genuine, in fact it's rather slimy. Also, it's using techniques that will attract the kind of women that that behavior appeals too - aka not a high value woman. It's like saying, "oh man I really want that woman over there who is very superficial and interested mainly in appearances, she's the one." Like OK, but that doesn't seem like the best person to be going after. Maybe let yourself naturally become confident and charming towards women without resorting to any pick up techniques that exist mainly, from what I can tell, to help men sleep around better. I don't see how that helps men at all.