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

[Skyalmian]

Got attacked by his followers

Partly given what they also then did, a better-styled profile photo wouldn't be a bad idea, to avoid having any such happen again in the future.

'soy boys'

The meme to my knowledge, comes from the fact that soy products, including tofu and soy milk contain daidzein and genistein two chemicals that act so similar to estrogen that they are referred to as phytoestrogens. In a man, these can have the same effect as taking estrogen, even at a low-level of consumption.

[...]

While physical weakness is often a core characteristic in men that are deemed to be "soy" in the manosphere, a much more common implication refers to their psychology, mindset, frame and inner world functioning more like that of women, and thus their actions and behaviors are more like those of women than of men.

[...]

The reason why the soy meme caught on within the manosphere, is that it perfectly encapsulates a type of man that most of us are familiar with. A man who rejects masculinity, often on both a psychological and physical level, and instead attempts to realize the male reproductive strategy through differentiating himself as "Not like those other ba—s who just want you for your body" or "I'm a nice guy who submits to your frame".

"Soy", which is sold as a healthy alternative to animal protein, but that appears to have many negative hormonal effects on men, perfectly encapsulates the adoption of a feminine-first mindset and rejection of the male tendency towards physicality and competition. Soy does have negative physical effects on men, and the "Soy boy" meme is simply the logical extension of "non-masculine physiology leads to a non-masculine psychology".

In essence, the man attempts to transform himself from battering ram to Trojan horse, in the process adopting female perspectives, frames and approaches to life. Instead of being direct they are indirect, instead of being overt they are covert, instead of stating they hint, and instead of demanding they ask. In their monumental effort to not be those "mean guys", they transform themselves into Mean Girls.

(In any case, no one here on this forum, given the dietary knowledge within, ought be eating any soy or soy-byproduct foods.)

To sum up, he advises men in general (not only young men entering the "market" and needing experience) not to bother with a woman who refuses to have sex with them within the first 3 dates. It's all there written in black and white, so I don't think you need the context of his 3 books to understand the gist of it.

All of the men "should" or "could" stuff with regard to sex, "spinning plates" etc. could be ignored / stripped out. (It seems as though it's just an equally-base men's-response to the general hyper-sexuality of women that's been pointed out.) Minus all that, adopting the attitude, mindset, body language, dress etc. with regard to being an "alpha" could be kept and would work just fine standing on its own.

 

[Timótheos]

I suppose if you had to read only one of the books, Preventative Medicine would be the best place to start. However, personally I wouldn't recommend only reading one of the books. The series is inclusive, interrelated, and one builds on the one before it.

The first (however crass it seems in the beginning) best needs to be read initially, because lays out most of the core concepts and terminology which are then clarified and expanded on in the second. I found that the more problematic aspects of the first book, many of which have been highlighted here, are actually explained better and make more sense in the second.

The third book is also very good. It is called "Positive Masculinity" and contains many of the ideas I related earlier about developing traits of strength, competence and confidence in men. It also deals with issues facing mature men, parenting, relationships between fathers with sons, and how it all fits in with the wider socio-cultural sphere.

I changed my mind. Forget about the first book. Even though reading it is helpful as an introduction to the ideas and nomenclature, the problematic aspects, as discussed previously, are better and more fully understood after reading the second, anyway (and can always be revisited later).

It's the larger ideas explored in the second and third book - the difference between the Red and Blue Pill lens, the overarching reach of feminine imperative, the micro and macro aspects of female hypergamy, and their larger effects on society that are really interesting to me. And it is these themes I think would more interesting to us in the discussion here.

 

[Gwenllian]

Maybe Tomasi is not anti-marriage per se but aware of the risks of today's marital law.

A man, when he signs the marriage documents, should be aware that anytime he may lose most of his estate and never see his kids again.

Here the problem is not man or woman, it is the Western states (i.e. some elites) that enact biased laws.

I talked to a few men who lost their children to the system and it is heartbreaking. One of them was even accused of child sexual abuse by his former partner. Although he was a bit of a rascal I didn't believe that he would do such a thing. Even the police told him that it happens quite a lot that ex-wives report false accusations [in order to gain control over the kids; my addition]. And Child Protective Services always seem to be on the side of the person with pathological tendencies (no surprise there).

 

[Andi]

I'm almost done reading the 3rd book and I have given some thoughts for the last 2 weeks since the thread has appeared.

I'll share some basic thoughts.

As it was said here just latly, the second book it's way better imo, and I also tend to agree with the early comments even from those that have not read the books yet.
What I was asking myself all along reading was -who is he targeting as an audience and who is he targeting as a bases for his exposee. I known it was written from a Western perspective and towards a Western culture based mentality and tradition, so that is not going to integrate as well say for a Eastern European perspective as my self.
But then, I realised he might be actually only be refering to a people that we here describe here as OP's.
He is reasonable and rather true in his description and explanation but it only acoplishes to talk about the lowest category of people ...and I refer both to females and males.
His made up definitions do a good job at reveling the nature of female univers and he is quite right in that pathocracy is actually more a female playground where feminised men are just slaveing away.
I don't think his book is a must read for forum members but for a teenager knowing nothing of the world he lives in might actually be a eye opener in the least.

The Hypergamy thing, well that is something I did not dig as AWALT (all women are like that) because it seems to me that this trait is border line psychopathic and this display although real is manifesting in the lowest grade female that could very much be the OP we know.
I can't believe for a second that the female nature is defined by the animalistic behavior of security and best genetic offspring outcome while male are free of their animalistic sens of reproduction.
In short, we do not encompass the lowest traits of both women and men when we want to talk about serious human behavior and solutions for a better human solution. We assume a general condition of helth from witch we can better our selfs.

To me his book describes the lowest possible social inter-sexual behavior witch has nothing to do with conscience, empathy and and self respect. It talks about the low level human and the given animalistic instinct and not the rest of us ..maybe 50% of us witch have some moral compass. That's my beef with the books.

The spining plates, the game, the Alpha (witch is just the unconscious manifestation of immature developement of men an women of a lowest grade) is proof to me of the audience Tomassi is aiming is just trying to scratch the surface of realtionship. But there are good points made in the book in a world that has not matured even to the degree of reaching a normality state of moral value.

As for women don't love the same way men do, well that is interesting ..so men project their expected disire for receiving love and women love opportunistically.. but that again has more to do with un unconscious animalistic op behavior then actual genuine self aware empathetic human behavior, imo.

 

[Timótheos]

The Hypergamy thing, well that is something I did not dig as AWALT (all women are like that) because it seems to me that this trait is border line psychopathic and this display although real is manifesting in the lowest grade female that could very much be the OP we know.
I can't believe for a second that the female nature is defined by the animalistic behavior of security and best genetic offspring outcome while male are free of their animalistic sens of reproduction.

I understand what you're saying. The way the book shines a light on women's unconscious hypergamous traits does paint a pretty negative picture. But I don't think these traits are limited to just lowest grade females or OP's as you suggest. Because we all inhabit physical bodies, and are subject to the hormonal, instinctual and evolutionary forces as as result of our physicality, it is more accurate to say that, in this case, yes - AWALT, or at least, all women experience that and have to deal with that reality.

The same goes for men. I don't think the books ever suggest that men are free from their animalistic reproductive urges, only that by recognizing them and utilizing them in the way they were designed helps men succeed in their gender-specific reproductive strategy. As I said before, these books were written for the vast majority of sleeping mechanical people, and not necessarily for forumites. That does not mean that there aren't useful bits of information that could potentially help us here.

The author doesn't make a moral judgement about the conditions men and women find themselves in, only observations. It is left up to the reader to decide whether what he describes is true for their own lived experience. You are right though, it is base, raw, animalistic in its approach, and can be perceived as being quite ugly when viewed from the perspective of the work we do here.

Where I think this information is helpful in how it brings innate unconscious biological processes into the light and makes them conscious. And that is exactly what we have been doing here with books like Thinking Fast and Slow and Strangers to Ourselves.

To my understanding, the shadow side of female nature, their hypergamous dualistic sexual strategy, is a subject that hasn't been explored in any great depth on the forum, and I think it could be beneficial for both men and women to gain a better understanding of it. That's why we call it "learning about the machine", so that we become less mechanical with more knowledge.

 

[Beau]

To my understanding, the shadow side of female nature, their hypergamous dualistic sexual strategy, is a subject that hasn't been explored in any great depth on the forum, and I think it could be beneficial for both men and women to gain a better understanding of it. That's why we call it "learning about the machine", so that we become less mechanical with more knowledge.

I would be very interested to get more opinions from women on the forum on this. I also think we ought to define "hypergamous dualistic sexual strategy" as well.

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. I feel like anyone that resents the reality about male and female natures is just tilting at windmills. So whether you are a crazed feminist who berates men for having masculine traits and having a beautiful wife, or an angry bitter man who thinks women are soulless gold diggers intent on fleecing you of your life's earnings and leaving you for an alpha, it seems like different sides of the same coin. All that's accomplished is more divisions between normal people.

That's probably my biggest issue with Tomassi's work, that people reading his material don't seem to be using the knowledge in the book for anything but personal gain. I formed that opinion doing what Adaryn did, spending time reading comments on his blog from his fans and through Twitter. Certainly appears as though Tomassi enables and even encourages rather selfish behavior from his followers.

So I think there's two things that should be separated when discussing Red Pill material: 1)How we on the forum can learn from the material, take what's useful and ditch anything that's not and 2)How the average male reacts to the material. We can talk about 1 while still bringing up the issues of 2. That way, we don't have to attack the material so much as point out the flaws in giving this information out without providing any kind of moral backbone to possibly rein in the selfish behavior (I'm not saying women don't engage in selfish behavior either!).

 

[Carl]

I would be very interested to get more opinions from women on the forum on this. I also think we ought to define "hypergamous dualistic sexual strategy" as well.

That's probably my biggest issue with Tomassi's work, that people reading his material don't seem to be using the knowledge in the book for anything but personal gain. I formed that opinion doing what Adaryn did, spending time reading comments on his blog from his fans and through Twitter. Certainly appears as though Tomassi enables and even encourages rather selfish behavior from his followers.

So I think there's two things that should be separated when discussing Red Pill material: 1)How we on the forum can learn from the material, take what's useful and ditch anything that's not and 2)How the average male reacts to the material. We can talk about 1 while still bringing up the issues of 2. That way, we don't have to attack the material so much as point out the flaws in giving this information out without providing any kind of moral backbone to possibly rein in the selfish behavior (I'm not saying women don't engage in selfish behavior either!).

I think you've honed in on the crux of the matter and why the kind of material being discussed here isn't that great, especially when it comes to dating advice. I spent some time reading the red pill forums and stuff to get to grips with it back in 2014-15. In the end decided their worldview was an impoverished, selfish one. Sure they talk about "abundance mentality" and stuff but really it didn't seem that they embodied anything creative in the universe.

One source that helped me with girls was the Real Social Dynamics (RSD), specifically Owen AKA "Tyler". He has a tonne of videos going back years and might have gotten a bit crazy lately. But the fundamentals of it always boiled down to: Have energy, maintain your own emotional state, and have something to GIVE. Stop looking for ways to take from others and instead flip it around. Oh and dropping your dumbass ego. Lo and behold that worked a lot better for me than trying to be some super masculine don with an iron frame and treating people like shit.

Funnily enough Owen's strategy of giving all this info for free and training others how to stop being such autistic weird millenials, has actually propelled him to some serious success in life. Meanwhile the TRP dudes tend to write behind pseudonyms or just be total trolls.

 

[Andi]

I would be very interested to get more opinions from women on the forum on this. I also think we ought to define "hypergamous dualistic sexual strategy" as well.

Yes that would be very interesting.

The "Hypergamy" in men would be that they choose much younger mates but thay wouldn't be too correct because men are far less likely to divorce and leave the family for a younger mate. That would not be manly.
No blame for women if they divorce due to Hypergamy since the blame is placed back on men for not being man enough.
Tomassi is right about that but that makes me think it's more a societal conditioning with a lot more options and acceptances for women rather then the uncontrollable Hypergamy. Or the other way around - their Hypergamy can thrive du to the acceptance of society.
Either way, not all women will take advantage due to having a conscience.

 

[Siberia]

Beau said:

I would be very interested to get more opinions from women on the forum on this. I also think we ought to define "hypergamous dualistic sexual strategy" as well.

Yes that would be very interesting.

Well, according to Wikipedia's article on hypergamy:

Today most people marry their approximate social equals, and in much of the world hypergamy has decreased; for example, it is becoming less common for women to marry older men, although hypergamy does not require the man to be older, only of higher status.[3][4][5]

And from my personal experience, this is true. These days both men and women have more or less equal social opportunities, hence more or less equal marriages, imo. Most (i.e. almost all) women that I know are married to men of the same age and social status as themselves. We sometimes discuss this subject with my female friends or colleagues, and most women say that they choose husbands of the same age and social status because:

a) men of their age are more physically attractive, strong and healthy;

b) men of their age have the same background: they belong to the same generation, hence have more common subjects for discussions, common interests for their age, etc.

c) if a man is significantly wealthier, there are high chances that he will not respect his wife and will treat her as a beautiful toy.

The rare cases where women choose a significantly older and wealthier husband are mostly motivated by these women's greed, imo.

 

[Scottie]

As I said before, these books were written for the vast majority of sleeping mechanical people, and not necessarily for forumites. That does not mean that there aren't useful bits of information that could potentially help us here.

There is a lot of room here to fall into black and white thinking in several directions. What I mean is that when we say, "Well, this may not necessarily apply to forumites," that doesn't mean it doesn't apply to you (generic "you" here) simply because you don't think it does - or because you don't want it to.

As we know from all of our psychology reading, the #1 thing that silly humans do is invent creative and dramatic rationalizations for why we do the things we do.

Of all the elements of Life on 3d Earth, relationships are probably the area where this tendency is the strongest.

IOW, we can think that we're so spiritual now, all that stuff is so base and beneath us, etc. And yet the reality may be that - as usual - we're lying to ourselves in the sense that we ignore any mention of the "base" stuff because we're trying very hard to ignore the fact that we're still strongly affected by it.

In addition to throwing the baby out with the bathwater and going all "Red Pill" and anti-women after reading these types of books, there is also a flip side: Throwing the baby out with the bathwater by insisting that no no that's not me, I'm above that now, etc. Neither is very productive in terms of learning about ourselves and others.

While topics like polar opposites and more spiritual relationships are nice to talk about, what I would call the successful relationships in our extended group are those where, at a very practical level, there is far more thinking and considering and HARD WORK to make it actually go (and stay) well.

You might say that's not very exciting or spiritual, but as we understand things now, getting a grip on oneself and understanding the machine IS the spiritual work. Ergo, most likely our high and mighty and sparkly ideas of relationships are just as distorted and corrupted as hardcore Redpillers' ideas of being a Macho Man who just uses women or the rabid feminists' ideas of being, doing, and having everything and to heck with Evil Men.

If you want to understand how crazy feminists think, you need to dive in. If you want to understand how MRA and MGTOW and Red Pillers think, you need to dive in.

In neither case do you need to embrace every single thing you find. In fact, you shouldn't!

I agree with many things that feminists say. I disagree with many things that rabid feminists say. Sometimes, I can't even tell if a person is a normal feminist or a rabid one. One person may say different things at different times! Why? I dunno. That doesn't change the fact that I still may agree with some things they say.

In this age of absolute hysteria about darn near everything, context is EVERYTHING. Nuances are everything.

It isn't enough to simply add up the "good" and "bad" and then make a decision. The context of the "good" and "bad" need to be understood.

It's like: "Russia fired missiles in Syria! They're an evil dictatorship that wants to rule the world!" Well, what about the missiles you fired in 3000 other countries? Why did they fire their missiles? Why did you fire your missiles? What was happening in those locations at those times? What else have they done besides firing missiles?

And even then, reserve the right to change and expand your understanding as time progresses and new information roles in.

 

[Andi]

Scottie, I literally did not understand you, and also it passed to me as a sort of a "rant" in regards to other's thoughts; not that anyone is right or wrong at this point. I understood the words but not the overall message.
Please expand.

 

[Andi]

If you want to understand how crazy feminists think, you need to dive in. If you want to understand how MRA and MGTOW and Red Pillers think, you need to dive in

Can you expand on this plesae, it's hard to rap my thoughts around all these communities. I know what MRA and MGTOW means but what do you mean by "you need to dive in"?

 

[Scottie]

Can you expand on this plesae, it's hard to rap my thoughts around all these communities. I know what MRA and MGTOW means but what do you mean by "you need to dive in"?

Probably not the best choice of words on my part...

I think of "diving into something" as getting down to the nitty-gritty details, really thinking about it, taking it apart and seeing how it works.

IOW:

1. We must be able to look at something without becoming identified with it (i.e. embracing it)
2. We also need to be able to look into something without rejecting all of it because we disagree with or react to parts of it

Obviously, that's not easy to do most of the time because naturally, we will feel one way or another about the subject matter. But the reality of the subject matter is what it is, and it doesn't care how we feel about it.

In any case, I'm sure there are MANY more pieces of the puzzle yet to be found!

 

[T.C.]

Scottie, I literally did not understand you, and also it passed to me as a sort of a "rant" in regards to other's thoughts; not that anyone is right or wrong at this point. I understood the words but not the overall message.
Please expand.

Obviously I don't speak for Scottie, but what I understood from his post was that some things just aren't simple; that we can have certain dreams about the way things are and the way we are that seem like the ideal. But we're not angels living in the clouds, we're humans, living in the dirt of all our biology. And so, to have the best chance of navigating through the dirt as cleanly as possible, we have to be able to explore what may be difficult and controversial subjects and confront ideas and aspects of ourselves that we'd rather deny and do away with all together due to a desire to be 'above' and 'beyond' all the physical conditions of life.

And the best way to understand these subjects and ideas and aspects is to get right into them, to try them on, mentally, and sometimes, actually. There's a mythological idea that the knight fights the dragon (chaos, anomaly) because it guards something important, something good and golden (truth, knowledge, wisdom). The knight can't just wish the dragon away because he doesn't like it, he must engage it in battle, at the risk of losing, because the prize is worth it.

But the knight has to stay composed during battle or the dragon will win. And when we engage with new information, we have to not become identified with it while we're exploring it. That means getting as involved as possible in it without becoming obsessed and getting lost in it. Otherwise, like the dragon, it eats you up.

 

[Balance]

Men...what a ride...this is the stuff I desperately needed. I knew something is not right, but could not identify exactly what. Or what I did/am doing wrong in my LTR. I literally feel unplugged. Thank you all for starting and discussing this thread.

Actually, I started seeing when and where I started my own Betaization.

What a catch 22......thinking that being more and more nice will certainly help, but it's actually deteriorates the whole situation even more. As they say, you end up like a mouse pulling the lever and getting the reward at random.
Doing the same thing over and over aka. being nicer and nicer, believing that you will get your reward aka. partner appreciating/respecting you more, love you more, looking at you as real male partner and a "good soul", more sex etc., but...it ends like reward being given only randomly and as more time passes and you end up full Full Beta, also that reward becomes so rear, almost nonexistent, and what do you do than? - Thanks God I never gone Full Beta...I just reached that moment where I saw that something was not right and it had to be fixed, and whatever I did in correlation with "Nice Guy" trajectory, it failed - her "reward" to me became even more infrequent, and my "reward" to her happened more often. So...First hand experience, for more than two and half years.

Thinking of my higher Agreeableness, Beta traits and "smoothing the waters" is a habitual way of thinking/operating for me. But that's changing, especially now, after these realizations. I'm learning to be less and less agreeable when situation is appropriate for that (sh*t-testing, confidence, decision making etc.)


Also, one of the biggest lies I fed myself with is "Communication is the key". You cannot negotiate sexual desire with women and dopamine pathways generally. Even if your partner knows how hypergamy operates, knows about material and wisdom here, listens to Jordan Peterson and loves you, it's simply not possible. End of story.

So..what then can?
- We, men, have to create it by our own behavior, way of thinking, fitness, decisiveness/confidence etc.

And this implies next..."communication" is not just verbal. That's the key here. There are other ways of "communication":
- "Communicate" determination and confidence by your behavior AND words AND being disagreeable when situation requires you to be (confidence, decisiveness, sh*t-test endurance, leader qualities (not tyrant ones) all in one package)
- "Communicate" that you have other options and that you are desirable by other girls whom are being interested in you aka higher "Sex rank"
- "Communicate" physical fitness
...and on an' on an' on...

I think that these books and articles can teach men how to acquire that power we desperately need. And that power is not tyrannical and manipulative one, quite the contrary, it's a power to lead. Power that puts you at the head of your army in the first rows, as a protector and a leader, just like Caesar or Putin.

Anyhow...thank you guys for starting this thread because I felt and I'm still feeling like someone punched me in the head...with a sledgehammer...attached to a harvester...at speed approximately to that of light. I feel like I knew all this instinctively, but forgot it as LTR developed further.

I think this is crucial for men right now. Especially those who are in LTRs/Marriages and those more agreeable...

P.S. I have read many of Tomassi articles(haven't read his books) and in one of them he adverted a book, for those in LTRs/Marriages, - Athol Key - Married Man Sex Life Primer.
I started reading and...men...It already helped me A LOT!