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

Arwenn

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
#46
If the C's are correct that this whole rabid feminism thing is to destroy traditional masculinity (and feminity, because, well: duh!) then there will be no quick and easy solution. JBP isn't going to save us all. Much damage has already been done. It has really exercised my noggin over the past year especially. I find the whole situation inexpressibly depressing.

How does one even start to solve or mitigate a problem like that? Generally speaking, I don't really see us "fixing" anything, but I think sometimes we can act as a mitigating force. How do we even do that?!

Step 1 seems like it should be to understand what's going on, and that means that yes, we need to be able to read things in crass language without passing out or getting so offended that we can effectively do nothing. Most of the time, we react badly to such things because they serve to remind us of our own past mistakes. It can also be because of the, "butter wouldn't melt in my mouth" routine.
< snip >
If Step 1 is understand the problem, and traditional masculinity is in jeopardy, then Step 2 should be: reboot men! I think JBP has a much better chance of doing this well, but there is also a large crowd that he's probably too intellectual for. They'll be going for guys like Tomassi. And frankly, JBP is just one guy. He can't fix everything.
Well put Scottie. Maybe being surrounded by my teens and their friends makes me more immune to the crude language (although the formatting and grammar irks me). But that aside I do think there is merit in what he writes, purely from learning a bit more about those hard-wired perky programs. It is also interesting information for me as a mother of a teenage son. I agree that JBP perhaps can't reach everyone, so this is just another way of getting men to reboot.

One of the other ways I have seen men hurt is through the divorce process, whereby the wife gets most of the assets and the kids, with very restrictive visiting rights for the father. So while hypergamy may well be a motivating factor for women and biologically high status men are seen to be a catch, knowing about the underlying drives and then protecting yourself from things going south later on in the relationship is vital, or so it seems to me.
 

Neil

Jedi Council Member
FOTCM Member
#47
After following along with this discussion and a cursory look at Tomassi's blog, the conclusion I reached was that relationships, and thereby sexuality, should be avoided like the plague. I would echo the sentiment that he is too materialistically focused, which is great if you're a materialist, but more of a minefield if you're not. The nuance is that in the well-functioning individual, the spiritual reality would tend to complement the material. So a woman who is not "hot" would still care about her appearance, carry herself in a dignified way, try to dress in an orderly manner, and present herself in a way that reflects her inner values. Same goes for men. Someone who values truth will know about things such as the diet and health topics that we discuss here, and would therefore be less likely to be sickly and unattractive. While that woman may never be a "10," I doubt she would look like an ugly lazy slob, and some men might be able to appreciate that. So developing along the line that Scottie mentioned, if one can use the biological programming as a sort of a hack into a deeper reality, then it is a good idea to pay attention to such things, because there may be underlying reasons for them that aren't just material. Similarly, a person who is poor does not necessarily have to be trashy or surrounded by trash. Their surroundings may be Spartan, but there would be a certain organization or cleanliness or "feng shui" if you will to their home. This is something I would look for in a mate, and I can see why women look for it, though I do agree a lot of them go too far into gold-digging, i.e. if they're sexy and they know it they want the status that goes with it. The Cassiopaeans described the principle I am trying to convey as "presentation and representation" and Jordan Peterson boiled it down to "clean your room." Tomassi sees it, but I don't think he sees it beyond the lowest level.

A quick note about soul-mates, I guess it is a situation where there is a juvenile vs adult dictionary. The juvenile definition is probably close to the narcissistic longing for ones mother, whereas I would consider the adult definition to be closer to Mouravieff's definition of Polar Opposites. Where I agree with Tomassi and not with Mouravieff is the number of potential matches. Mouravieff says there is one perfect match and three pretty good matches. I personally think that the idea of there only being one person in the entire universe you could potentially form a deep soulful relationship with is a rather impoverished view of the vastness and creativity of the cosmos; it was designed to provide more experience than that. Without going into a lot of detail about it, a soul mate is someone you can look at and see the "eternity in an hour and infinity in a wildflower."

But such things don't really exist on this planet, or if they do they are an artifact from a higher reality, and therefore my philosophy, while noble, is useless. So I've come back full circle to the opening sentence of this post.
 
Last edited:

3DStudent

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
#48
So I guess this comes down to a lesson in discernment and seeing another viewpoint to see the bigger picture. I had thought Tomassi's approach was too much Predator's Mind influenced, or like Game Theory. It's another source of knowledge to draw upon and if we can see the gems then it may help with unnecessary suffering and/or improving a relationship.
 

Beau

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
#49
I watched this video with evolutionary biologist Heather Heying. The video is titled "Toxic Femininity", but it's about so much more than that. She discusses the issues that both the radical feminists have AND the men on the far right like MGTOW and MRA. I thought it was a really well balanced discussion about the problems of both sides, especially why ascribing traits to an entire gender is so false. That is something that I think has bothered me the most about Tomassi's philosophy. Definitely worth checking out IMO

 

Niall

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
#50
I had similar first impressions to others about Tomassi's work, based on his tweets/website. But I'm 10% along in his book (the first one I think) and, so far, so good.

If we're all about 'learning how the machine works', this can only help. Most of the dynamics he's talking about, he periodically reminds readers, are unconscious. And neither sex is 'bad' in his story of human relationships in the context of evolutionary psychology.
 

Beau

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
#51
I had similar first impressions to others about Tomassi's work, based on his tweets/website. But I'm 10% along in his book (the first one I think) and, so far, so good.
I wonder why there is such a seemingly stark difference between his books and how he conducts himself online. He just seems to paint with a very broad brush online, plus on Twitter he certainly comes across as saying that a lot of those unconscious behaviors of women are bad, almost immoral. Hypergamy is a pejorative term in his language. But why then is the mirror of that in men's behavior - marrying a much younger beautiful woman - not also thought of in the same way? Evolutionarily, both are defensible forms of behavior.
 
#52
I watched this video with evolutionary biologist Heather Heying. The video is titled "Toxic Femininity", but it's about so much more than that. She discusses the issues that both the radical feminists have AND the men on the far right like MGTOW and MRA. I thought it was a really well balanced discussion about the problems of both sides, especially why ascribing traits to an entire gender is so false. That is something that I think has bothered me the most about Tomassi's philosophy. Definitely worth checking out IMO

It was a good watch, but I would say it's very incomplete, perhaps they were short on time.I agree, neither men nor women are perfect little angels and we all have different biological programming. The discussion never took the step of taking the content of their discussion and applying it to the rule of law and culture of western society. In my opinion, The current laws In western society Explain the existence of MGTOW and the MRA's. I also would not describe MGTOW or MRA's as being on the far right, MGTOW is more about just "non participation" and MRA is a pushback against feminism back to equality. Far right would be trying to taking away women's right to drive, right to vote, right to see kids ect.
 
#53
I wonder why there is such a seemingly stark difference between his books and how he conducts himself online. He just seems to paint with a very broad brush online, plus on Twitter he certainly comes across as saying that a lot of those unconscious behaviors of women are bad, almost immoral.
I have not read his book but I am familiar with the main topics in it, He does radio shows, presentations ect, questions and answers.
So it sounds like his book is more neutral while his blog ect have more of an negative emotional slant? I know in the "manosphere" there is definitely some people who are generally negative, bitter and angry. Some describe it as "red pill" rage.
 

Beau

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
#54
I have not read his book but I am familiar with the main topics in it, He does radio shows, presentations ect, questions and answers. So it sounds like his book is more neutral while his blog ect have more of an negative emotional slant? I know in the "manosphere" there is definitely some people who are generally negative, bitter and angry. Some describe it as "red pill" rage.
Uh yeah, I've experienced that myself for daring to question Rollo on his Twitter account recently. Got attacked by his followers, and he didn't do a thing to dissuade them. They're all in an echo chamber getting each other frothed at the mouth every day over something a woman has done. I understand MRA, I actually have had my eyes opened quite a bit by the 'Red Pill' documentary and by rational voices bemoaning radical feminism's actions in society. But to me, the angry men are all lost in a world of anger and bitterness, which is going to create a self-fulfilling prophecy.
 
#55
Hypergamy is a pejorative term in his language. But why then is the mirror of that in men's behavior - marrying a much younger beautiful woman - not also thought of in the same way? Evolutionarily, both are defensible forms of behavior.
Learning about hypergamy, and a few other simple concepts, was a big "Ohhh, so that's why" moment for me. I wish I understood this when I was younger,lol.

Not sure I can answer your question but perhaps it revolves around the fact that men were never a mystery to women, other men or society. Men have always been viewed as vain, or superficial with regards to liking younger women for example. Learning about hypergamy essentially takes away the classic concept that men will never understand women, or that women never make sense, and are complicated. So some men may be bitter because of this more recent realization of hypergamy. Another thought is that our current western laws and culture magnify hypergamy.
 

Adaryn

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
#56
I wonder why there is such a seemingly stark difference between his books and how he conducts himself online. He just seems to paint with a very broad brush online, plus on Twitter he certainly comes across as saying that a lot of those unconscious behaviors of women are bad, almost immoral. Hypergamy is a pejorative term in his language. But why then is the mirror of that in men's behavior - marrying a much younger beautiful woman - not also thought of in the same way? Evolutionarily, both are defensible forms of behavior.
That's what bothers me the most about him. It's one thing to describe how both sexes developed strategies in the context of relationships (men tending to pick younger women in their fertile years, women choosing 'alphas' in order to have the 'fittest' offspring… and yes, I agree these processes are mostly unconscious, so it's useful to know about them in order to understand what drives us); but it's another to paint a whole gender with the same brush.
My comments are based on his blog/Twitter posts, since I haven't read the book, but from what I've read, his views are mostly materialistic/bodycentric. He doesn't question whether it's right or wrong to cheat on your partner or to submit to your basest urges: it just is, and if you try to be a bit more subtle, or take a more moral standpoint, then you're an "average frustrated chump"/repressed beta who's been brainwashed by the feminist propaganda. For him, ALL women are simply unable to love - they only 'love' opportunistically: if a better alpha comes along, a woman won't stick to her partner, but just ditch him for the better one. Certainly, a lot of people behave that way, but it seems men are given a free pass: it's OK for them to 'spin plates' and have multiple partners and ditch them when they're fed up, because that's just part of men's make-up: they need sex, and there's nothing wrong with having 20 y.o. female conquests when you're 50, 60 or 75… since acc. to him, men's 'sexual market value' increases with time, whereas women reach their sexual peak around 20-25, and after that, they're not worth anything (to men).
He says he's been happily married for years, and doesn't cheat on his wife because she keeps him interested/he's already been there, done that (he boasts 40 female conquests) so he doesn't see the point of bedding other women: he has tried them all (or at least, tried all different 'types'). However, I wouldn't be surprised if it's a lie (given what he says about men's needs and biological make-up). If he says the truth and is actually faithful, it contradicts everything he says in his blog posts and every advice he gives to other men - which makes him either a hypocrit, or someone with schizophrenic tendencies.
For ie, this is what he recently wrote on Twitter about Jeff Bezos: "Think about this: he's basically one of the richest men in history. The guy could afford to stay married and nail a new chippy any night he wants without his wife knowing – and probably not even caring. He doesn't HAVE to divorce her to get the net benefits of being single…"
What kind of philosophy is that, and what sort of example does he provide to lost young (and not so young) men? :huh:
Radical feminism and radical masculinism, just 2 faces of the same coin to me… and where does it lead? More division, and plain old battle of the sexes. Honestly, I don't see anything groundbreaking or revolutionary in what he says. Yes, he explains concepts like hypergamy and mating strategies in a simple way, and makes them understandable to a wider audience, so in that sense I suppose it's useful. But the problem (to me) is that he doesn't have a moral framework, and he really seems to have an axe to grind with women, which won't help men's (and women's) cause in the long run. It certainly doesn't promote reconciliation, cooperation or healthy relationships… to me anyway.
 

Timótheos

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
#57
(Here’s me standing in front of a hornet’s nest with a stick in my hand thinking, “I probably shouldn’t poke that thing”, but decide do it anyway)

:-D

I’m only about a third through the first book.
I haven't read it yet but plan to.
Haven't read Tomassi yet either,
I haven’t read his tweets but I have read his first book.
I’m only about 1/3 of the way into the first book
I'm pleading guilty of ignorance here in regards to not being familiar with Tomassi's work.
I'd rather read a synopsis then.
I haven't read the book.
After a cursory look at Tomassi's blog.
I have not read his book.
since I haven't read the book.
I read all 3 books, and here's my take.
I will join Scottie as an outlier to this conversation, in that I’ve actually read all 3 of the Rational Male books in their entirety. I just finished reading the third volume last night. I very much enjoyed this series of books and learned a lot from them.

The second book is much better than the first, as it fills in many blanks, gives context to some of the terminology, and corrects many of the misinterpretations people sometimes have from reading only the first volume.

The third book is also better than the first, but not quite as good as the second.

Before I say any more, I would like everyone to keep in mind that these books are not written for people engaged in any kind of serious work on the self. They are written for people who are essentially asleep, 99.9% of the population that are mechanical in the sense we understand it here.

But this fact in no way diminishes the value of the information contained inside. And truly valuable I believe this information to be.

This is a book about men, for men.

When I come across provocative books like this, there are really only two things that are necessary for me to appreciate and recommend it.

Is it accurate

and

is it useful?

The answer to both of these questions is a resounding yes!

It is accurate in the sense that many of the ideas presented are based upon the principles contained within evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology. It has a solid foundation grounded in behavioural science.

It accurately explains and accounts for a great deal of observable human behaviour, that is not only relevant to and has been confirmed by my own experience, but also can be applied to all the people I have known personally.

In addition, it is accurate for the thousands of men currently taking part in discussions happening in online forums. Men who have benefited from sharing their experiences with other men and whose lives have improved by implementing many of these ideas and practices into their daily lives.

Social proof times three.

The books are useful in the sense that they provides an effective antidote and intellectual counter balance to the prevailing “feminine imperative” that currently pervades, influences and controls our modern culture.

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

People like Jordan Peterson and books like the Rational Male exist as a direct and necessary consequence of this phenomena.

The series is useful because the books present material that deals with and is applicable to every stage of a man’s life, from the randy awkward teenager to the mature parent in a long term committed relationship.

The books were useful to me personally because I was finally able to understand (at least in part) why women are motivated to do the things they do. At times, reading these books felt like a revelation!

Some take home lessons from the material for me…

Men are natural leaders. People admire strength. Both sexes are drawn to a man who is relaxed, confident and self-assured. They appreciate a man who is competent and reliable, who can be counted on in times of crisis. A man who is mature and dependable, who is organized, industrious and can keep a level head.

This is a man who knows his own value, and charts his own course in life. A man who takes responsibility for his fate, who is open, engaged, unafraid and willing to take risks. He can be playful and cocky, but never mean. He is both provider and protector. He meets life head on and his inherent value does not depend on the opinion of others.

For him, these traits and behaviours are a reward in and of themselves. That women find these attributes attractive and appealing is just an added bonus, and not the reason or primary motivation for a man’s desire for self-improvement and personal mastery.

Confidence is sometimes mistaken for arrogance, but even though they both exhibit similar external qualities, the two are not the same. True confidence comes from within and has a solid foundation based on acquired skills and accumulated life experience. Arrogance has no such foundation, and comes from a place of entitlement, and thinking oneself above or better than others.

A unabashedly and genuinely confident man has no need to put himself above anyone else, for his goal is overall personal improvement and to embody the best man he can be. The journey itself becomes the destination.

The reason why many feminist women and Blue Pill-conditioned men object to this information is because it shines a harsh and unflattering light on the unconscious motivations and behaviours of women and their dualistic sexual strategy.

That this strategy has become the default norm and is accepted as standard by most of modern society does not make it any less insidious. These books paint a compelling picture of our modern day social reality as defined by the feminist imperative and the picture ain’t pretty.

Up until recently, the feminine imperative-inspired march towards optimal hypergamy has mostly operated behind the scenes and in the shadows. But those days are gone. It’s all out in the open now, with Beta boys and their soy-eating grins posting pictures of themselves proudly boasting how their wife’s boyfriend just bought them a new X-Box.

Pathetic and sad. A veritable sign of the times.

One can see the results of the feminine imperative in the push for total androgynification of society, making men into women and vice versa. Forced unnatural equity onto something that is organically and essentially different and meant to be complementary.

By reading these books, one can see the pernicious hand of culturally accepted and universally promoted values of open hypergamy on prominent display in all forms of media and popular culture.

And once seen, it cannot be unseen.

It is called Red Pill “awareness” for a reason. It is a state of mind more than anything else. Because by reading and analyzing the material, comparing it to your own experience, internalizing and manifesting the realities contained within, is like literally being unplugged from the Matrix.

For most men when faced with Red Pill truths, experiencing denial, anger, bargaining, depression and finally acceptance are all part of this process. These stages are necessary to pass through in order to emerge more fully integrated to the other side.

That’s also why these books are probably best not meant to be read by everyone. For some, this information will simply be too unpleasant and painful to endure.

The truth, unfortunately, is rarely comfortable.

Does this mean I think that these books have all the answers?

Of course not.

Does this mean that the author himself is free from agenda or personal bias?

Not at all. Who among us is?

Does this mean that “hypergamy” can be used as a catch all term to explain all human female behaviour, or be blamed for society’s present ills?

No one ever claimed as such.

But what this material does provide is an important and necessary piece of the puzzle, that we, as group of people engaged in learning the true nature of reality, are behooved to investigate and could potentially benefit from.

It’s a difficult read, no doubt.

It will challenge at at times, shock in others. It will engage, force one to think differently, compel to read further or want to toss the book aside. It will infuriate, illuminate, confound and inspire, but if one can make it through to the end, a picture begins to emerge, and many things previously hidden or misunderstood will become abundantly clear.

The books themselves are amoral, they have to be as a matter of necessity. The science of human behaviour does not discriminate, nor does it judge right from wrong. It is what it is, and whether something is morally good or evil does not affect whether it is true or false. To attach any kind of morality or ideology to the concepts inside would dilute and distort the message. The author is simply making observations, “connecting the dots” - so to speak. It is left up to the reader to put the pieces together and decide for themselves.

It is a form of knowledge after all, and knowledge, like any tool, can be used for good or ill. The choice with what to do with this information rests solely with the agency of the individual person.

I think it is a mistake to to dismiss this material because of how the author presents himself on social media. This becomes another case of “shooting the messenger” because you don’t like or are offended by the message. It’s akin to refusing to eat a meal prepared by renowned chef Gordon Ramsay on account of his acerbic personality. The food still tastes good.

Also, I don’t think it’s fair to judge the entirety of his books on a few random snippets from the internet taken out of context. The essence of this work is best understood and appreciated by reading all three volumes cover to cover, and allowing yourself time to process everything in its proper context.

As for the profanity, personally I couldn’t give a -flick- about that! ;-)

I don’t expect many here to agree with me, and that’s okay. Taking a firm stand against the majority opinion tends to isolate a person, putting them in the precarious position of having to defend themselves against the group. But, from my perspective, the value of this information takes precedence over any potential personal repercussions. An alternative point of view to the prevailing Blue Pill narrative exhibited so far in this thread simply needed to be expressed.

If any of you have reacted negatively to what I have written or have doubts or questions about my position, I urge you to read all three books first, and see if the answers to your queries might lie there.

And lastly, as a mental exercise, consider the possibility that the degree to which a person finds the material in these books objectionable and offensive, is the same degree in which they are conditioned by and invested in promoting and maintaining their inculcated allegiance to feminine imperative?

And perhaps it is these people that would most benefit from reading The Rational Male series.

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Something to think about.

As for me, I will recommend these books to every man I know, including my 23 year old son, and plan on referring to them often and reading them again in the near future.

That’s my take on it.

No grain of salt required. ;-)
 
#58
Hello Timotheos. You have presented a very strong and convincing argument and based on what you have come away with many young men would benefit from reading all three books. Thank you for stating it so clearly.
 

Joe

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
#59
but it's another to paint a whole gender with the same brush.
Well, to be honest, for his purposes and within the limited framework of his discourse, he's right to paint both genders with the same brush. Again, in that limited framework, what he says about men and women and biological drives, IS true for MOST people at one time or another (or most of the time) during their lives. I agree with Beau (in his post above) though that it's just silly to portray female biological drives in a negative light and not men's to the same degree. Sure, men will feel that feminine 'wiles' are 'bad', and women will feel that masculine traits leave a lot to be desired. But both of those perspectives can only be viewed in that negative way when they are viewed in a personal way and from a position of some resentment or frustration. When you get over that, you can see it in a more detached way.

But the problem (to me) is that he doesn't have a moral framework, and he really seems to have an axe to grind with women, which won't help men's (and women's) cause in the long run. It certainly doesn't promote reconciliation, cooperation or healthy relationships… to me anyway.
Let's remember that many topics/authors etc. that we discuss on this forum do not have a moral framework around what they advocate. That can't be a requirement, because if it was we wouldn't be discussing very many of them. No one has the whole banana, as we know. Our job is to collect useful information from valid sources to fill out the big picture. Let's remember that too.
 
Last edited:

Joe

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
#60
If any of you have reacted negatively to what I have written or have doubts or questions about my position, I urge you to read all three books first, and see if the answers to your queries might lie there.
Based on previous responses here, I can't imagine why anyone would react negatively to what you wrote. When people point out flaws in someone's perspective, it doesn't mean they're throwing everything out, they're just adding some balance to the equation. That's a good thing.

Don't ignore the possibility that a lot of people here might already have a good grasp on the fundamentals of what Tomassi says. Someone familiar enough with JBP will have understood many of the same ideas if they were paying attention. When we discover information that is a really big 'aha!' moment for us and allows to make sense of things we were clueless about before (and especially cluelessness that we suffered for), we can get a bit excited about it and the impact it made on us. It can also lead us to do a bit of projecting.

Just some things to keep in mind. As the C's say (paraphrasing) you can absorb many kinds of information, but just be sure to acknowledge the truth or essence of what it is you are absorbing and take what is useful and leave the rest. These days, almost everything comes packaged with an ideology. We don't like ideologies roun' these here parts!

All that said, I think people who feel inclined should read Tomassi's books, or one of them (book 2). He brings useful information to the table for these troubled times and it may be a good exercise for some in 'weeding'.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom