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

[987baz]

I have to say this series of books, there are 3, have been somewhat of a revelation to me. I am conflicted by some of the material and would be very interested in what others make of it.

Amazon link https://www.amazon.com/Rational-Mal...=8-1&keywords=rollo+tomassi+the+rational+male

To give you an idea of what they are about, here is the blurb from the amazon page for the first book.

The Rational Male is a rational and pragmatic approach to intergender dynamics and the social and psychological underpinnings of intergender relations. The book is the compiled, ten-year core writing of author/blogger Rollo Tomassi from therationalmale.com. Rollo Tomassi is one of the leading voices in the globally growing, male-focused online consortium known as the "Manosphere". Outlined are the concepts of positive masculinity, the feminine imperative, plate theory, operative social conventions and the core psychological theory behind Game awareness and "red pill" ideology. Tomassi explains and outlines the principles of intergender social dynamics and foundational reasoning behind them.

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. MOst of the books are re-written from his last 10 years of blog posting so the grammer etc are not the best.

Below is a post from his blog on the first topic in the book, which is the myth of the soul mate, pretty much the first thing he says is, there is no one! Pretty confronting for me, I have been a believer most of my life. There is so many things he goes into that this post would be way too long, so I will just post about the soul mate myth here and add more later.

There is no ONE.

There is no ONE. This is the soulmate myth. There are some good Ones and some bad Ones, but there is no ONE. Anyone telling you anything else is selling you something. There are LOTS of ‘special someones’ out there for you, just ask the divorced/widowed person who’s remarried after their “soulmate” has died or moved on.​

This was one of my earliest posts back on the SoSuave forums from around 2003-04. I was finishing my degree then and had the Fallacy of the ONE graphically illustrated for me in a psych class one day. I was in class, surrounded by (mostly) much younger students than myself, all very astute and as intellectual as they come for mid twenty-somethings. At one point the discussion had come around to religion and much of the class expressed being agnostic or atheist, or “spiritual, but not religious”. The rationale was of course that religion and belief could be explained as psychological (fear of mortality) constructs that were expanded to sociological dynamics.


Later in that discussion the idea of a ‘soul mate’ came up. The professor didn’t actually use the word ‘soul’, but rather couched the idea by asking for a show of hands as to how many of the class believed “there was a special someone out there for them?” or if they feared “the ONE that got away.” Damn near the entire class raised their hands. For all of their rational empiricism and claims to realism in regards to spirituality, they (almost) unanimously expressed a quasi-Karmic belief in connecting with another idealized person on an intimate level for a lifetime.


Religion of the Soul-Mate


Even the Frat guys and hook-up girls who I knew weren’t expressly looking for anything long term in their dating habits still raised their hands in assent to a belief in a ONE. Some later explained what that ONE meant to them, and most had differing definitions of that idealization – some even admitted to it being an idealization as the discussion progressed – yet almost all of them still had what would otherwise be termed an irrational belief in ‘destiny’ or, even amongst the least spiritual, that it’s just part of life to pair off with someone significant and there was “someone for everyone”.


This discussion was the catalyst for one of my red pill realizations – despite all odds, people largely feel entitled to, or deserving of, an important love of their life. Statistically and pragmatically this is ridiculous, but there it is. The feminized Disney-fication of this core concept has been romanticized and commercialized to the point of it becoming a religion, even for the expressly non-religious. The shakespearean longing for the ONE, the search for another soul (mate) who was destined to be our match has been systematically distorted beyond all reason. And as I elaborated in Casualties men will take their own lives in the delusion of having lost their soul-mate.


Soul-Mate Men


This perversion of the soul-mate myth is attributable to a large part of the feminized social conventions we deal with today. The fear of isolation from our imagined soul-mate, or the fear of having irrecoverably lost that ‘perfect ONE’ for us fuels so much of the personal and social neuroses we find in the Matrix. For example, much of the fear inherent in the Myth of the Lonely Old Man loses its teeth without a core belief in the Soul-Mate Myth. The fear of loss and the delusions of Relational Equity only really matter when the person men believe that equity should influence is their predestined ONE.


The feminine imperative recognized the overwhelming power the Soul-Mate Myth had over men (and women) from the beginnings of its rise to ascendency as the primary gender social imperative. Virtually all of the distortions of the core soul-mate dynamic evolved as a controlling schema for men. When it is soul-mate women who are the primary reward for a soul-mate necessitous man, there are a lot of opportunities to consolidate that power upon. To be clear, don’t think this is some fiendish plot of a fem-centric cabal socially engineering that soul-mate fear into men. Generations of men, raised to be oblivious to it, willingly and actively help perpetuate the Soul-Mate Myth.


Soul-Mate Women


Although Hypergamy plays a large role in determining what makes for an idealized soul-mate for women, they aren’t immune to the exploitations of that core fear. Though it’s more an unfortunate byproduct than an outright manipulation, I’d argue that in some ways hypergamy intensifies that neurosis. Alpha Widows know all too well the languishing associated with pining for the Alpha that got away – particularly when she’s paired off long-term with the dutiful, Beta provider after her SMV decline.


For women, the soul-mate represents that nigh unattainable combination of arousing Alpha dominance matched with a loyal providership for her long term security that only she can tame out of him.


Hypergamy hates the soul-mate principle, because the soul-mate is an absolute definition, whereas hypergamy must alway test for perfection. Hypergamy asks, “Is he the ONE? Is he the ONE?” and the Soul-Mate Myth replies, “He HAS to be the the ONE, he’s your soul-mate, and there’s ONLY one of those.”


Building the Mystery


Due to this core concept and soul-mate mythology, both sexes will seek to perfect that idealization for themselves – even under the least ideal of conditions and expressions. We want to build our intimate relations into that soul-mate idealism in order to relieve the fear and solve the problem, and most times so badly that we’ll deftly ignore the warnings, abuses and consequences of having done so. For women the impact of the most significant Alpha is what initially defines that soul-mate idealization. For men it may be the first woman to become sexual with him or the one who best exemplifies a woman he (mistakenly) believes can love him in a male-defined orientation of love.


However, these are the points of origin for building that soul-mate ideal upon. This ideal is then compounded upon with layers of investments in the hopes that this person “might actually be the one fate has prescribed for them.” Emotional investment, personal, financial, even life-potential investments and sacrifices then follow in an effort to create a soul-mate.


This process is why I say the Soul-Mate Myth is ridiculous – it’s psychologically much more pragmatic to construct another person to fit that ideal than it ever will be to “wait for fate to take its course.” People subscribing to the myth would rather build a soul-mate, consequences be damned. So women will attempt to Build a better Beta, or tame down an Alpha, while men will attempt to turn a whore into a housewife, or vice versa.


One of the most bitter aftertastes of having taken the red pill is abandoning old paradigms for new. I’ve described this before as akin to killing an old friend, and one friend that needs killing is exactly this mythology. Disabusing yourself of this core fear is vital to fully unplugging, because so much of fem-centric social conditioning is dependent upon it.


Dropping the Soul-Mate Myth isn’t the nihilism a lot of people might have you believe it is. If anything it will free you to have a better, healthier future relationship with someone who is genuinely important to you – a relationship based on genuine desire, mutual respect, complementary understanding of each other and love, rather than on a fear of losing your one and only representation of contentment in this life.

 

[nicklebleu]

Thanks, 987baz, for starting this thread. I started reading The Rational Male recently and find it very interesting, too. But as you have alluded, I have my questions and misgivings, too - so I am looking forward to dissect and review his theories.

The ONE itis thing has also been a big one for me. While I think that the concept of “The ONE” is not completely without merit (as he claims), the question for me is more Is it a fruitful endeavor to only look out of the ONE, to the detriment of all other, possibly beneficial relationships, in which you can mature and become more aware of who you are? Because meeting the ONE is after all an exceedingly rare occurrence, and it begs the question, whether most of us are ready at all to meet that person. Or do we need some more “conventional relationships” to refine our awareness and knowledge before we can be ready - sometimes in the future (or future lifetimes) - to meet that person?

I’m only about a third through the first book, so I won’t be able to comment much on what he has to say, but thanks for starting the thread.

 

[Beau]

I haven't read it yet but plan to. I do follow Rollo on Twitter and I'd say he definitely has some animosity towards women, mostly feminists. He has a very negative attitude towards hypergamy, which is colloquially referred to as gold-digging, or marrying upwards. But I think he misses out on the biological reasons why women in particular marry upwards. I'm not saying there aren't superficial and selfish reasons for a woman marrying a man with money, there certainly are, but there's also ingrained biological reasons which happen at a level that a lot of people aren't aware of.

A competent, successful man is going to be seen as a good candidate for a potential mate. They will be able to provide and protect. It's not that different than men in their 40s and 50s marrying women in their 20s. There the pejorative phrase is "trophy wife". But there's also the biological factor. 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.

All of the above things are actually not that relevant in today's world because of how safe we are and the societal changes that have occurred since the 60s along with scientific developments, but they were very important not that long ago evolutionarily speaking. So for Rollo to be so negative on hypergamy, well to me that just seems like he doesn't understand what's really going on here. I could be missing a lot of data because I haven't read The Rational Male yet. But just following his Twitter, he really comes across as anti-woman and I don't think he's a good example of someone to recommend to make sense into all the feminist madness at this point in my understanding of his philosophy.

 

[987baz]

I'd say he definitely has some animosity towards women, mostly feminists.He has a very negative attitude towards hypergamy, which is colloquially referred to as gold-digging, or marrying upwards. But I think he misses out on the biological reasons why women in particular marry upwards. I'm not saying there aren't superficial and selfish reasons for a woman marrying a man with money, there certainly are, but there's also ingrained biological reasons which happen at a level that a lot of people aren't aware of.

I agree that he does seem to have some animosity towards feminists and his writing is certainly pro masculinity, but he does seem to understand the dynamics of hypergamy see below. IMO, from what I have read he wants people (mainly men) to understand this concept of hypergamy and how it affects intergender dynamics.

I would be very interested to see what you and others think of the book

from his blog

The Hypergamy Link
One aspect of hypergamy that I’m not certain most men really understand is that hypergamy is a biological phenomenon in origin. I sometimes wonder if Game-aware men confuse hypergamy with being a social construct. Women almost certainly do, but more from a need to protect the rationalizations that result from confronting the uncomfortable internal conflict that hypergamy causes for them – “why am I not hot for the sweet beta who’d give me the world, but am tingly all over for the hot guy who’s casually indifferent to me?”


The base truth of hypergamy as a dynamic is that it is the logical result of women’s innate, hormonal and neural condition. This root-level disparity of a plural sexual strategy led to the evolution of the feminine psyche – to be covert, to be excusably duplicitous, to be better communicators on more varied levels, but also to be the nurturers and empathizers.


Since the sexual revolution began, the biological rationale for social feminization has been men’s biological proclivity for violence and aggression. We were told that we’re poisoned by our testosterone; we’re controlled from youth to repress that in school to the point where teachers expect boys to ‘act out‘, so we drug them. Yet, the biological rationale for hypergamy could also be said to lie in women’s biological (menstrual) impetus that motivates their sexual pluralism.

Hypergamy is a Straightjacket
This is easily the most common misperception I read. Hypergamy is an evolved social dynamic. That is to say it is the behavioral extension of biological factors; most notably Ovulatory Shift. I’ll delve into this in the 21 Convention talk, and I’ve covered this in Your Friend Menstruation, but Hypergamy is a sexual strategy exclusive to women. It is the behavioral manifestation complementary to women’s hormonal and biological realities. Hypergamy at its root level is about the most efficacious, pragmatic, means of women becoming fertile with the best genetic breeding opportunities, and simultaneously pairing in the long term provisioning opportunities available to a woman.

 

[Skyalmian]

(...there's a summary of the book on YouTube? Weeeeeeeeee)

 

[Skyalmian]

what others make of it

It is a "living text", as he says.

men even into their 50s find women in their early 20s the most attractive

[cue Body Language article]

The best example of Alpha Tells in couples photos focus on the man being the center of importance in the shot. Yes, this is Vincent Cassel (51) and his wife Tina Kunakey (21). I have no doubt some hater will come up with some reason in the comments why Vince doesn't align with whatever their interpretation of Alpha is, but for our purposes these images illustrate the opposite of a lot of the Beta sub-communications we just went through. So try to look past the celebrity and see what's being displayed here.

First off, notice how Tina's focus of attention is always on Vince. Women who hold genuine admiration for their men consistently make them the story in photos. Even in the shot where they look at each other her focus is on him. It's not difficult to assess the power dynamic in their relationship, but you can also feel a genuine desire emanating from Tina.

Also, women who genuinely admire their men are unconcerned that their actions in a shot might be read as subservient or ego-abasing by women's audience. I'd go so far as to suggest that the attention a woman receives from a man her Hypergamous hindbrain confirms as Alpha is far more valuable to her ego than any lower quality attention she might temporarily enjoy by appeasing her audience. Much of this observation is rooted in the Desire Dynamic. Hypergamy cannot afford to have a high SMV man be confused about her desire or motives. A woman who is proud of the association with man she's paired with is less concerned about the perception other women might have of her actions—in fact, she’ll convert any disparaging opinion of them into a point of pride, if that man is above her own sexual market value.

When a little girl thought a little boy on the playground was cute her reflexive response to him was not something she had learned to consciously control at that age. That response is often reflected in the expressions of adult women when when their peripheral awareness of an attractive man connects with their Hypergamous hindbrain. The biting of the lip, the beaming admiration, the laser eye focus and the hopeful smile followed by a coy embarrassment of what she's doing when she regains her composure are all the physical cues of a woman whose primary concern is the man she's with.

Now, contrast these images with the earlier ones in which the men are clearly the hangers-on of the women in those photos. I've mentioned before that a natural Alpha man is almost never aware of his own Alphaness and that's what really stands out in these photos—the men aren't trying to evoke the reflexive responses of the women. They fluidly (almost Zen-like) prompt these reaction in women. There is no pretense or the obvious mugging for the audience that you see in shots where the Frame is clearly being directed by the woman while the hapless Beta tries to prove how in love he is by kissing on her while she finds something more interesting to occupy herself with. When a woman admires her man he is literally all she can think about.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

I haven't read it yet but plan to. I do follow Rollo on Twitter and I'd say he definitely has some animosity towards women, mostly feminists. He has a very negative attitude towards hypergamy, which is colloquially referred to as gold-digging, or marrying upwards. But I think he misses out on the biological reasons why women in particular marry upwards. I'm not saying there aren't superficial and selfish reasons for a woman marrying a man with money, there certainly are, but there's also ingrained biological reasons which happen at a level that a lot of people aren't aware of.

A competent, successful man is going to be seen as a good candidate for a potential mate. They will be able to provide and protect. It's not that different than men in their 40s and 50s marrying women in their 20s. There the pejorative phrase is "trophy wife". But there's also the biological factor. 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.

Haven't read Tomassi yet either, but a couple things on this. The fact is, both male and female mating strategies 'make sense'. They're accurate on average, and have been for all recorded history - i.e. while not all men or women follow the rule, on average we do so and have done so consistently. Like you say, it just seems like common sense that women will look for a provider, not a parasite. (That doesn't always work out in practice, though! Psychopaths mimic ideal partners, then reveal themselves to be parasites and predators.) When it comes to plain biology, young attractive women and older accomplished males make good couples: stability, safety, babies, survival.

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.

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).

 

[luc]

Haven't read Tomassi yet either, but a couple things on this. The fact is, both male and female mating strategies 'make sense'. They're accurate on average, and have been for all recorded history - i.e. while not all men or women follow the rule, on average we do so and have done so consistently. Like you say, it just seems like common sense that women will look for a provider, not a parasite.

Yeah, and I don't think we need to make distinctions here between "those people with their lowly biological drives" and "us enlightened beings who are above all that", as many leftists and "spiritual" people seem to do. Thing is, even if you are fully aware of the "lowly" biological nature of these things, it still makes sense following along. For example, being with a much higher status woman makes most men feel miserable. It's just a plain fact. And most women won't have a fulfilled relationship either in that situation. So why not, as a man, marry someone with a similar or slightly lower status, i.e. someone from your milieu? Same for women? It just makes life so much easier, including emotional life. It's difficult enough to maintain a good, loving, long-lasting marriage as it is, so why make it extra-hard? It's the same for inter-racial or inter-cultural marriages. Yeah, they can work perfectly well, especially if both partners have something very important in common, such as religion, overarching aims etc. But there are also problems that one should be aware of and that shouldn't be denied. So IMO, while it doesn't make sense to demonize relationships that go "off-script", it's also stupid to hold them up as "ideals" against biological reality.

 

[Beau]

When it comes to plain biology, young attractive women and older accomplished males make good couples: stability, safety, babies, survival.

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. And it's a fair deal, the men who have their accomplishments and can provide security get to choose from the young, fertile and attractive mates. Those women get the security they desire to raise a family. The women aren't stealing from the men, when the "system" works. Of course we've seen feminists alter things to their benefit and how it's gotten much easier to drain the resources of the man in a marriage if they up and decide to divorce and take the children. But how many other marriages are there where everything works the way it's supposed to and has worked for generations? Probably a lot, but we don't hear about them because it's under everyone's radar.

 

[Oxajil]

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. And it's a fair deal, the men who have their accomplishments and can provide security get to choose from the young, fertile and attractive mates. Those women get the security they desire to raise a family. The women aren't stealing from the men, when the "system" works. Of course we've seen feminists alter things to their benefit and how it's gotten much easier to drain the resources of the man in a marriage if they up and decide to divorce and take the children. But how many other marriages are there where everything works the way it's supposed to and has worked for generations? Probably a lot, but we don't hear about them because it's under everyone's radar.

One book that I thought had interesting parts - though I haven't read its newest edition - is 'Intimate Relationships' by Miller and Perlman. It's a book often asked of Psychology students to read. It's mostly based on research. Here's what it says about the 'feminine-beauty-for-masculine-money tradeoff' (FWIW):

[...] People usually end up with others of similar mate value (Brase & Guy, 2004), but the specific rewards they offer each other may be quite different (Shackelford & Buss, 1997b).

This sort of thing goes on all the time. A study of 22,000 users of an online dating service found that very homely - okay, ugly - men (those in the lowest 10 percent of attractiveness among men) needed $186,000 more in annual income in order to attract as much attention from women as fine-looking fellows (that is, those in the top 10 percent); nevertheless, if they did make that much more money, ugly guys received just as many inquires as handsome men did (Hitsch & Ariely, 2007).

It's not very romantic, but fame, wealth, health, talent, and looks all appear to be commodities that people use to attract more desirable partners than they might otherwise entice. If we think of matching as a broad process that involves both physical attractiveness and various other assets and traits, it's evident that people usually pair off with others of similar status, and like attracts like.

In fact, tradeoffs like these are central ideas in evolutionary psychology. Because men are more likely to reproduce successfully when they mate with healthy, fertile women, natural selection has presumably promoted men's interest in youthful and beautiful partners (Buss, 2004). Youth is important because women are no longer fertile after they reach menopause in middle age. Beauty is meaningful because it is roughly correlated with some aspects of good health (Thornhill & Gangestad, 2006). Thus, men especially value good looks in women (see Figure 3.5), and, as they age, they marry women who are increasingly younger than they are (Kenrick & Keefe, 1992): Men who marry in their twenties pair off with women who are two years younger than they are, on average, but if a man marries in his fifties, his wife is likely to be 15 years younger than he.

Women don't need to be as concerned about their partners' youth because men normally retain their capacity for reproduction as long as they live. Instead, according to the parental investment model, women should seek mates who can shelter and protect them during the long period of pregnancy and nursing (Feingold, 1992a); they should prefer powerful, high-status men with resources who can provide for the well-being of mother and child. In fact, as Figure 3.7 illustrates, women do care more about their partners' financials prospects than men do (Buss & Schmitt, 1993). Furthermore, women's preferences for the age of their mates do not change as they age; women prefer to marry men who are a few years older throughout their entire lives (Buunk et al., 2001).

Thus, matching based on the exchange of feminine youth and beauty for masculine status and resources is commonplace (Mathes & Kozak, 2008). Indeed, it occurs around the world (Koziel & Pawlowski, 2003). Still, is it the result of evolutionary pressures? Advocates of the cultural perspective argue that women pursue desirable resources through their partners because they have been denied direct access to political and economic power on their own (Wood & Eagly, 2007). On the other hand, when women do have high-status jobs, they're even more (not less) likely to be attracted to resourceful, powerful men (Leone et al., 2003). And when such women marry at middle age, they don't typically seek much younger spouses as men do (Kenrick & Keefe, 1992). Even when women attain professional positions of high prestige, they do not exhibit preferences similar to those of high-status men.

So, the origins of the feminine-beauty-for-masculine-money tradeoff remain uncertain. But in any case, the bottom line here is that matching is a broad process that involves multiple resources and traits. When "opposites" seem to attract, people may be trading one asset for another in order to obtain partners of similar social status, and it's their similar mate values, not any apparent "opposites", that make them attractive to each other.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

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.

Well, just because it has worked evolutionarily, doesn't mean it's ideal, either. There are plenty of shallow gold-diggers out there that successful men would do best to avoid like the plague. Just as there many older, successful men who are absolute monsters. And even if you ignore those extremes, there's still the fact that people think they get married out of love, when it's really just biology. The didn't know their own motivations. And that can lead to later disappointments. Which is where growing up, becoming responsible for your family, and doing the hard work of creating an actual life together comes into play. Ideally young people take those things into account when choosing a partner - or at least factor them into the equation. And probably if you can avoid the more shallow types early on, that would probably work out better in the long run.

 

[Beau]

Well, just because it has worked evolutionarily, doesn't mean it's ideal, either. There are plenty of shallow gold-diggers out there that successful men would do best to avoid like the plague. Just as there many older, successful men who are absolute monsters. And even if you ignore those extremes, there's still the fact that people think they get married out of love, when it's really just biology. The didn't know their own motivations. And that can lead to later disappointments. Which is where growing up, becoming responsible for your family, and doing the hard work of creating an actual life together comes into play. Ideally young people take those things into account when choosing a partner - or at least factor them into the equation. And probably if you can avoid the more shallow types early on, that would probably work out better in the long run.

Yeah, I agree. There definitely are better ways, and I'm all for people being as aware, responsible and conscious of their decisions as possible and not letting material or superficial factors drive decisions when it comes to long-term relationships. That's what WE want to do here, but is it hoping beyond hope that the average person actually does that? That's asking for people to be aware of their motivations and to understand their biological drives. The vast majority of people never stop to contemplate them, or if they do they run narratives because the biological drives are so deep. But I'm with you, making decisions in relationships with a clear understanding of your motivations and trying to be as responsible as possible is definitely more ideal.

It's also true that due to technological advances and social change that a lot of these biological factors in men and women are not as relevant as they used to be. But it's not easy to to stop thousands of years of evolution.

 

[Skyalmian]

Most of the books are re-written from his last 10 years of blog posting so the grammar etc. are not the best.

[looks, compares] The published book is mostly comprised of The Best of Rational Male – Year One , albeit the book's article ordering is switched around.

I read an article this morning about the 5 stages of grief (confronting death) and how they apply to coming into acceptance of a previously rejected truth. Yes, I know, there's no end to the ridiculous interpretations of this played-out pop-psych list, but I was curious about how this might apply to an AFC coming to grips with unplugging from the Matrix, so I did a bit of searching and what did I find on my blog roll search but this:

1. Denial – Still Plugged -In: "These game guys are a bunch of clowns, there's no way this works on women. Women aren't stupid. What a bunch of misogynists."

2. Anger – Post-Red Pill: "This is ridiculous! Why should I have to jump through all these hoops for women? I just want to be myself. Why couldn't I have been a Natural Alpha®? I blame my parents / siblings / teachers / God / liberals / feminists / media / society, maybe George Sodini, Andres Breivik, James Holmes wasn't so crazy after all."

3. Bargaining – Unplugged: "Well maybe it does have some good points…but, forget the hot girls, they're way outta my league. I'll give it a try if it can help me get around the bases with a plain Jane. Do I have to wear the fuzzy hat and black nail polish?"

4. Depression – Bitter Taste of the Red Pill: "Wow, women really respond to this puffed-up act? And guys spend big bucks on it and wind up with more a— than a toilet seat? And I just joined up for this? The world is sad and so am I…"

5. Acceptance – Game Awareness: "Maybe this IS the way things really work. I guess I should give up the gender relations mythology I've been holding onto…hey, what do you think of these negs I came up with?"

6. Jaded* – MGTOW Permutations: "F— learning all these rules. Sex isn't worth it and women aren't that fun anyway. The last thing I want to do is learn routines or the 5 stages of pickup. There's too many websites, too much to read, I can't remember it all much less sort it all out. Who has all that time to go out and chat up women anyway? It's not like I see any women under 40 at work at my engineering job to practice on. Video games and porn are more fun and more available. I just haffta look good and let the women come to me."

* This is a late addition to the list, hardly original and arguably relevant, but I added it for precautionary measures.

Before I get the predictable howls of "someone did this before you" (h/t Badger) allow me to put my spin on it. I get a ton of PMs from forum members, and read threads about guys with friends or relatives in, or just getting over, horrible relationships and how they've tried to unplug them only to run into stiff resistance. Looking at this process to acceptance it's no wonder why.

So my discussion question for today is this; how did you unplug? Was there some moment of clarity that opened your eyes? Did you go through a process like the one described here? Are you maybe still struggling with a certain phase?

 

[Joe]

Below is a post from his blog on the first topic in the book, which is the myth of the soul mate, pretty much the first thing he says is, there is no one! Pretty confronting for me, I have been a believer most of my life.

I think that the idea of a "soul mate" may be an adult's narcissistic longing for the unconditional love from the mother that they received as an infant.

 

[987baz]

I think that the idea of a "soul mate" may be an adult's narcissistic longing for the unconditional love from the mother that they received as an infant.

Interesting point! Tomassi seems to blame what he terms the feminist imperative for the Disney-esk soul mate thinking present in todays society, I wonder though, if this is indeed so, or has it been around a while longer? And do indeed men and woman suffer from the same idea. In a sense, to me at least, it seems that we are all searching for that "one" to complete us, to make us whole, which, may be caused exactly by what Joe said in the previous post, that unconditional love we, well most of us, received from our mother as an infant.

Yeah, I agree. There definitely are better ways, and I'm all for people being as aware, responsible and conscious of their decisions as possible and not letting material or superficial factors drive decisions when it comes to long-term relationships. That's what WE want to do here, but is it hoping beyond hope that the average person actually does that? That's asking for people to be aware of their motivations and to understand their biological drives. The vast majority of people never stop to contemplate them, or if they do they run narratives because the biological drives are so deep. But I'm with you, making decisions in relationships with a clear understanding of your motivations and trying to be as responsible as possible is definitely more ideal.

It's also true that due to technological advances and social change that a lot of these biological factors in men and women are not as relevant as they used to be. But it's not easy to to stop thousands of years of evolution.

I also agree, being aware of your own drives and aware of the opposite sex's drives, gives you a better understanding of how the intergender dynamics work, and thus you can make a better informed decision when faced with choices regarding your relationship. True, most people are not aware, and even when they are, those biological drives are deep and strong and take effort to overcome, or at very least acknowledge.

For me, the point of these books, although they are mostly aimed at men, are to give an understanding of how both sex's work, how they both have very different biological strategies and how by understanding them you can be better equipped to handle relationships.