Operative Social Conventions

As most of you know I'm currently in the process of writing a book on Positive Masculinity and I'm in the early stages of the first draft now after a very lengthy preparation process and outlining key elements as meticuously as possible. My focus in doing so is to establish some creditability on my part for the undoubtedly controversial theories that I'm presenting in the book. My degrees are in Fine Art and Psychology (behavioral with an emphasis on personality studies), and while I'm in the process of doing post grad work, I certainly don't possess a PhD in psychology. Needless to say i don't think this disqualifies me from writing a book on anything - If "Dr." Phil can write a dozen books on everything from weightloss to child rearing I think I can get published too - however I want to have as well reasoned and as well backed up ideas as possible in regards to what I'll be sending out to publishers, so actually the most work is collecting and organizing my ideas into a solid statement. Writing comes easy for me, it's the ground work that takes time and effort.

Often I'll be in the middle of some socio-psychological tear on a particular topic when I'll come to a dead halt because I play my own devil's advocate while I'm typing and reasoning aloud, and have to review and edit the paragraphs I've spent the last 2 hours constructing because I'd failed to consider how others might interpret my intent, or I'd overlooked some element and had to go back and address that issue. Needless to say it's an arduous process, but I've found that starting topics here in regards to certain theories and ideas I have to see what their intent will be read as helps me greatly. So with this in mind I'm presenting a particular section of my work here to see what the concensus is on what I've come to call Operative Social Conventions. I had originally titled the section Feminine Operative Social Conventions, and I may still go back to that, but after you read this you'll see how these conventions (or contrivances) need Men to play along with them for them to exist in the first place, or so I've reasoned.

Operative Social Conventions

For the long time posters of this board, and in particular the Mature Men's board, we've become all too familiar with a standard set of problems that are commonly asked of us for advice - "Should I date younger/older women with/without children?""what about women with money/career?"etc. for example. So often are we petitioned for our take on these dillemas that we have a tendency to repeat back a standard reply for them. I count myself among those who do this as well. I'm very prone to see the forest for the trees so to speak and fire back with my stand by reply of Spin More Plates. And while these response are novel to those reading them for the first time (and hopefully having their eyes opened for the first time too), I came to realize that I was guilty of not seeing the forset with regards to why certain topics are more frequently reoccuring problems for the AFC and DJ alike. For the most part, Plate Theory covers a multitude of AFC sins, but my concern was with understanding why these questions come up so often and what their root cause is. To this effect I've attempted to 'distill' down the symptoms (i.e. the commonly related problems) to the motivation behind them (i.e. the disease). This has lead me to a new theory of operative social conventions.

I've posted in several thread about these conventions before, but never really explored the idea until now. Essentially all of the symptoms of these conventions are manifested as the frequent problems guys come up with, but the disease is the latent purpose of these conventions. For every guy asking if it's a good idea to date a single mother or an older woman, there's a single mother or older woman perpetuating the convention in order to best ensure her capacity to secure a man capable of provisioning for her. I wont ramble off into the bio-psychological aspect of why this is such an all imprtant drive for women (and men in some cases), I've covered this more than adequitely in many prior threads. Instead I'll focus on certain conventions, the way they operate and their latent operative function.

Shame
Perhaps the easiest and most recognizable form of social convention is shame. Not only this, but it is also the most easily employable and the most widely accepted - not just by women of all ages and descriptions, but also by popular culture and the media.

Exapmles:
“Men should date women their own age.”
“Men shouldn’t be so ‘shallow’ as to put off single mothers as viable long term mates.”
“Men have ‘fragile egos’ that need constant affirmation in an almost infantile respect.”
“Men feel threatened by ‘successful’ women.”


As well as being popularized myths, all of these are subtle (and not so subtle)manipulations of shame. Each is an operative social convention that places a man into a position of having to live up to an idealized standard that simultaneously raises the standard for a woman, thus placing her into a better position of sexual selection and in some instances, leveling the percieved playingfield with regard to the feminine competition dynamic (i.e single moms, older and professional women ought to be just as desirable as the younger women men biologically prefer).

The ‘Shallow’ effect – The useful myth of superficiality.

I'm mentioning this as an aside to the Shame methodology since it appears to me to be the root of the Shame operative. In all of the above examples (or symptoms) the burden of expectation that is placed on a man comes with the threat of being perceived as "Shallow" or superficial. In otherwords, the very questioning of whether or not a man ought to date a single mother comes with the veiled threat of having women (mothers or not) tar the questioning man with being superficial. This 'Shallow' effect is so pervasive in so many AFCs, young and old, that I've counseled that it becomes an automatic default defense. Even under conditions of complete anonymity, the Shallow Effect becomes so ego-invested in their personality that even the potential of being perceived as "shallow" is avoided. This is a major obstacle in transitioning from AFC to DJ. AFCs all initially laugh at PUA technique (C&F, Peacocking, Neg Hits, etc.) because they carry the potential of being perceived as 'shallow'. The truth of the matter is that, individually we are only as superficial as our own self-perceprtions allow, but the Shallow Effect is probably the most useful convention so long as it keeps men doubting their ingenuousness and self-validity as a trade for women's intimacy while complying with their control of a relationship's framing.

Selection Position Insurance
Examples:
Women are ‘allowed’ to understand men, but women must necessarily ALWAYS be a mystery to men.

Getting “lucky” with a woman when referring to sex.

Selection position insuring methodologies revolve around fomenting the Scarcity Mentality in men. If the value can be inflated, the value can be increased, thus ensuring a controlling frame. This convention holds fast to the Feminine Mystique or Female Intuition mythology. So long as women remain 'uknowable' there becomes less motivation to try to understand them. In fact this convention actively discourages any attempt to understand the feminine to the point that men have adopted it and parot it back without being cognizant of it. This is exactly the reason why guys will ridicule men seeking understanding of women when they search it out in "how to get girls" books or DVDs, or on the internet. It's also why men who profess to 'know' how women operate are ridiculed; it's a perfect paradox - to attempt to understand the feminine OR to profess to know the feminine is not only laughable, but it places a man into the Shallow Effect in either case.

Social Escape Clauses

Examples:
Women always have the prerogative to change their minds. Men must be resolute.

Proactive and Reactive Pseudo-Friendship Rejections:
LJBF rejections – “I already have a boyfriend” or “I’m not interested in a relationship right now” rejections.

Escape clause conventions always offer an OUT to a woman and obsolve her of, or dramatically reduce her responsibility for personal accountability by means of social reinforcement. A stripper can complain of her self-degredation by men, but be completely blameless for her decisions to do so by virtue of her social conditions, that are, again, the perceived result of a male controlled society. Feminine Prerogative has been an accepted social norm since human society was in the hunter/gatherer epoch. Like the Position Insurance convention, this serves to ensure that the 'mysterious woman' is validated in her arbitrariness by social reinforcement. The opposite of this convention is enforced for men, they must be resolute while accepting that a woman "has the right to change her mind." This, and the carrot of a womans intimacy as a reward, is exactly why it is socially acceptable for a man to wait hours for a woman to prepare/show for a date and the kiss of death for a man to be more than 5-10 minutes late. He must be punctual, she is afforded leniency.

I don't think I need to go into too much detail regarding the LJBF esacpe clause as it's been done to death on this forum by myself and many others, but I will add that the LJBF esacpe is perhaps the single most useful convention ever conceived by women. The LJBF rejection has classically ensured that a woman can reject a man yet still maintain his previous attention. It also puts the responsibility for the rejection back on his shoulders since, should he decline the 'offer of friendship', he is then responsible for entertaining this friendship. This of course has the potential to backfire on women these days since the standard AFC will accept an LJBF rejection in the mistaken hopes of 'proving' himself worthy of her intimacy by being the perfect 'surrogate boyfriend' - fulfilling all her attention and loyalty prerequisites with no expectation of reciprocating her own intimacy. The LJBF rejection also serves as an ego preservation for her in that having offered the false olive branch of 'friendship' to him in her rejection she also can sleep that night knowing that she (and any of her peers) wont think any less of herself. After all, she offered to be friends, right? She is excused from any feelings of personal guilt or any responsibilities for his feelings if she still wants to remain amiable with him.


Sexual Competition Sabotage
Examples:
“She’s a ‘slvt’ – he’s a ‘fag’” and the sub-communications in the terminology.

Catty remarks, gossip, feminine communication methodologies


This convention is the reputation destroyer and it's easy to observe this in the field. Since it also serves a woman attention needs, it is among the most socially acceptable and widely flaunted, however the foundations and latent purpose of this convention takes some consideration to understand. When women employ gossip it comes natural since it is an emotional form of communication (men have a far lower propensity to use gossip), but the purpose of it is meant to disqualifiy a potential sexual competitior. In terms of female to female gossip this serves the attention need, but when men are brought into the salaciousness it becomes a qualifying method. By saying a woman is a slvt the sub-communication is, "she sleeps with a lot of guys and is therefore inelligible as a candidate deserving of a man's long term provisioning capacity, due to her obvious inability to remain loyal to any one, individual male." This then becomes the ultimate weapon in influencing a man's (long term) sexual selection.

This breeding sabotage isn't limited to just women though. What's the first thing most men are apt to say about another, anonymous, extremely attractive
male? "He's probably a fag." Men have learned this convention from women, they sexually disqualify a man in the most complete way possible; "this guy might be as attractive as a GQ model, but he would never breed with a woman and is therefore disqualified as a suitor for your intimacy."


Gender Role Redefinition
Examples:
Masculinity is ridiculous and/or negative with the potential for violent extremes.

“Men should get in touch with their feminine sides.” – Identification as false attraction.

Although I have a few more conventions in mind, I'll finish this post with this, the most obvious and most discussed convention. There's no shortage of threads dedicated to this convention, so I wont rehash what's been stated. Instead, I should point out the latent purpose behind the popularity and mass cultural acceptance of this, the most damaging convention. The function behind this convention could be androgeny as an idealized state, or a power struggle to redefine masculine and feminine attributes, or even to ensure women as the primary selectors in mating. All of those can be argued and ae valid, especially considering how prone to accepting and perpetuating this convention is among men today, but I think the deeper purpose, the real latent function is a sexual selection process.

It's the man who remains in touch with his masculine side, the guy who, despite all of pop-culture denigrating and ridiculing his gender and the very aspects that make it a necessary, positive strength of human society, will endure and steadfastly resist the influences that want to turn it into something it was never intended; it's this guy and his confidence that women all over the world find irresistable. He's embodies the masculine that their feminine has been seeking and they can't explain it. This is the penultimate sh!t test in sexual selection - to discover or learn what it is to be postively masculine and remain so in a world that constantly berates his gender, that tells him he's poisoned by his testosterone while confirming the same masculine attributes as a positive for women. It's the guy who understands that it's gender differences, not androgynous similarities, that make us strong. It's the Man who can see that the sexes were meant to be complimentary, not adversarial, who passes this sh!t test.

Oh get over yourselves. Offcourse society trys to condition us about how men and women react. Also who we vote for, our views on immigrants, blacks, gays and every other ****ing minority.

We are a species that doesn't actually think but a species that gets told WHAT to think - either by religion or now the major news organistions.

The solution can all be summed up by Eminem - "I just don't give a ****". Do what you want and live by your own code and just say "**** you" to anyone who disagrees.

But I suppose you could write a book about that.

So, RT, where you looking for some criticisms?

I thoroughly understand, and agree with, the bulk of the content in your post. Indeed, these conventions survive and function solely because men (in general) accept them to be true and right. Men buy into the mythology, and therefor, the myths become "truths by popular belief", so to speak. These men, once illusioned, will HELP to perpetuate these myths by mocking or shaming "DJ's" or "men who celebrate their masculinity".

So, my criticism is: I don't have any. I believe that I understand the content of your post. Thus, I confirm your intent of the post and pass the test, I think. Right?

Needless to say it's an arduous process, but I've found that starting topics here in regards to certain theories and ideas I have to see what their intent will be read as helps me greatly. So with this in mind I'm presenting a particular section of my work here to see what the concensus is on what I've come to call Operative Social Conventions.

Click to expand...

Rollo, I have a hard time finding fault with any of your descriptions of the social conventions in play. Your analysis of these conventions is very objective. One thing to consider is that many of the posters here who will view and reply to this thread already have our eyes opened to these conventions. We understand, by way of our participation in discovering and understanding the concepts of positive masculinity presented in this forum, that these feminine conventions have become culturally dominant in Western civilization. We're a biased audience, since most of us already agree with just about every concept you articulate on this board. That's not to say there isn't good discussion to be had, but as it relates to your book, who is your target audience? Is it the full-fledged AFC who needs his eyes opened? Is it for guys who have finally awakened, who need some direction? I know if I had read this thread 2-3 years ago I'd have a much different interpretation of the intent of your writing than I do now.

You may already be working on this, but if you're not, I would suggest fleshing out each of the social conventions with "real-life stories" that illustrate how the omnipresence of these conventions often lead to disaster for the un-enlightened male.

RT you maybe can put my comments under a heading called Negative Masculinity.

1 The man living in a modern industrialised society is suffering from the side- effects of the crap created by capitalism to further its own interests. Divorce increases consumption, and greater consumption is good.

2 Once you get past the need for food and shelter which hopefully the wealthier nations citizens have done, there still remains sex, so it is the tool used to subdue the male citizens. Charles Bukowski in his ramblings in "Notes of a Dirty Old Man' suggests that the American male is trained to overvalue ***** and that the reason prostitutes are reviled is because they are breaking the economic monopoly of married women. Curiously, Dr Warren Farrell suggests that gays are vilified because they are a group of men who fail to provide for women.

3 George Orwell asked the question in "Down and Out in London and Paris" why men outnumber women in the populations of down and outs. He asks do they kill themselves or are they somehow looked after.

4 It is all about money and keeping men suppressed. No feminist knucklehead will buy into the successful career woman theory if she knows that she will be treated as a dessicated undesireable when she reaches her career peak. She has to believe that men still want her, otherwise she might question the grand plan.

Rollo: As has been said by others, I understand and agree with what you are saying. Of course as RedPill says you are sort of preaching to the choir here.

But this has got me thinking, and at the risk of derailing this thread, I have to ask: how did women get so much power to cause all the things you are speaking of? It would seem like it would have to be some master plan for it to have worked out so well...who is the puppet master? Or maybe it was just dumb luck that resulted from the breakdown of the family and single mothers, etc., as we have talked about before?

I just have to wonder why we men have let this happen? I have no doubt we are the more powerful gender, both physically and mentally. Women's strength lies in their emotional and social abilities. But when it comes down to brass tacks, were there to be a "war of the sexes", women would get the sh!t kicked out of them, as long as men could resist the urge to stop and help their inevitably crying enemies. But come to think of it, there would never be a need for a traditional war, because women are already fighting a psychological war using all the techniques you have mentioned.

I just have a hard time seeing why we men have let it happen...

Maybe if we can "convert" enough AFCs into DJs (especially the younger generation), we can stamp out this problem?

Hi Rollo, i haven't read all your post yet. If you would like to take some surveys of the users here, let me know. I can get you a free accuount to my survey software online which can collect and analyze data in all kinds of ways - even has data mining. From cross-tab stats to keying in and grouping stats.

Keep up the good work!

MrCode said:

But this has got me thinking, and at the risk of derailing this thread, I have to ask: how did women get so much power to cause all the things you are speaking of? It would seem like it would have to be some master plan for it to have worked out so well...who is the puppet master? Or maybe it was just dumb luck that resulted from the breakdown of the family and single mothers, etc., as we have talked about before?

I just have to wonder why we men have let this happen?

Click to expand...

It’s not so much that the individual drivers of feminism have successfully conspired against society at large, but that masculinity is (temporarily) no longer required by the whole of society for survival.

Today, the pussified male can survive just fine. He can earn enough cash to live comfortably, or even affluently. He can successfully reproduce. He’s not at large risk to be called to war, go hungry, get robbed, or die of disease. In fact, not only is masculinity not really required for his survival, but masculinity in itself presents a threat to the very ideals which keep his reality intact. It's much safer to stay inside the walls of his mind than it is to venture out into the wild unknown.

If every man could think for himself, and live a lifestyle that embraces masculinity, what kinds of revolutions would take place? The Hallmark Corporation would be outlawed. Classic Disney films would be burned. Homosexuality would lose the widespread acceptance it now has. Courts and laws would favor the rights of men, and on and on. Order would be restored in the jungle.

Now that being said, people who are males only by virtue of their genitalia, and not because they possess any masculinity, will invariably find their lives to be a series of events which are out of their control. They are bossed around - by employers, the media, and the women in their lives. Much like women, they are controlled by their emotions. With no masculinity, they actually become weaker than most females because at least females are biologically equipped to be more intuitive with regard to human emotion. Women gain the upper hand, because they can better manipulate the feminized man with his emotions.

With such a small requirement for masculinity in modern society, the rise to prominence of feminine ideals was only natural. Social contrivances only exist because the majority in society tolerates them. But as it’s been discussed many times before on this board, embracing masculinity gives a man the ultimate power over his reality. It gives him control. Feminine women will submit to the masculine man. It’s congruent with the design of nature. Fear and weakness, the substrate for feminine social conventions, die in the face of masculinity.

Balance in the duality between masculinity and femininity will be restored one day. It has to for our species to survive in the long term. Think of it like a market correction, guided by the invisible hand of Mother Nature. I’d be surprised if it happens in our lifetimes. Human civilization will get pretty chaotic for awhile when this correction takes place. The bright side, for those of us who have our eyes open, is that masculinity is a rare commodity in our time. Men who embrace it can enjoy unlimited prosperity, with little competition.

Master Rollo, I've always thought you have some great insights that are darn near impossible to find anywhere else. But man, you write like a psychologist! Do you really need to say all these words in gray to get your point accross?

"
The ‘Shallow’ effect – The useful myth of superficialityI'm mentioning this as an aside to the Shame methodology since it appears to me to be the root of the Shame operative. In all of the above examples (or symptoms) the burden of expectation that is placed on a man comes with the threat of being perceived as "Shallow" or superficial. In other words, the very questioning of whether or not a man ought to date a single mother comes with the veiled threat of having women (mothers or not) tarring the questioning man with being superficial. This 'Shallow' effect is so pervasive in so many AFCs, young and old, that I've counseled that it becomes an automatic default defense. Even under conditions of complete anonymity, the Shallow Effect becomes so ego-invested in their personality that even the potential of being perceived as "shallow" is avoided.
...
As well as being popularized myths, all of these are subtle (and not so subtle)manipulations of shame. Each is an operative social convention that places a man into a position of having to living up to an idealized standard that simultaneously raises eases the standard for a woman, thus placing her into a better position of sexual selection and in some instances, leveling the percieved playingfield with regard to the feminine competition dynamic (i.e single moms, older and professional women ought to be just as desirable as the younger women men biologically prefer).
"



Dude, your stuff is brilliant, and should be published, but every time you post, I wanna knock out every other sentence, without changing your meaning. It's like reading a Psych textbook, I sometimes get the impression they stretch-out-every-single-idea so much, it's clear they don't have much of substance to say.
~Phyzzle

RedPill said:

Social contrivances only exist because the majority in society tolerates them.

Click to expand...

Is it that the greater part of society tolerates them or that they've become so engrained into our culture that that we don't recognize them or simply accept them as a given? My whole purpose for shedding some light on these conventions was because I believe the latter.

How many times do we get the "should I date a woman with kids?" thread on this forum? And we answer the guy with a set of reasons as to why he shouldn't, with a few noobs peppering in how they get good tail from single mommies, but only rarely do we stop to think why this is an issue in the first place, and a common one at that. That's my direction here in posting this thread and fleshing it out for my writing. I understand that this seems like I'm preaching to the choir, but my point wasn't to get an amen. I know most of the members here agree with my line of reasoning, but only from a point of treating a symptom.

d9930380 said:

Oh get over yourselves. Offcourse society trys to condition us about how men and women react.

We are a species that doesn't actually think but a species that gets told WHAT to think - either by religion or now the major news organistions.

The solution can all be summed up by Eminem - "I just don't give a ****". Do what you want and live by your own code and just say "**** you" to anyone who disagrees.

Click to expand...

It's guys like this, who're happy to fumble along in the dark and hope for the best while singing Eminem songs to make themselves feel better; who'd rather not try to understand the whole and endlessly push the same boulder up an down the same hill, only serve to perpetuate these contrivances and come here to cry about how women are so fvcked up in the head, expecting us to console and affirm his ignorance.

Phyzzle said:

Master Rollo, I've always thought you have some great insights that are darn near impossible to find anywhere else. But man, you write like a psychologist! Do you really need to say all these words to get your point accross?

Dude, your stuff is brilliant, and should be published, but every time you post, I wanna knock out every other sentence, without changing your meaning. It's like reading a Psych textbook, I sometimes get the impression they stretch-out-every-single-idea so much, it's clear they don't have much of substance to say.

Click to expand...

Understand that when I go into psychological stuff I tend to use $10 words because they're necessary references for established psychological dynamics,..oops there I go again. Not all of my post read like this of course, but think about what theories and observations like this are up against in the psychological community. Go peruse the Psych section of your local Borders or Barnes & Noble bookstore and count the number of prominently displayed books dedicated to 'relationships', sex or getting the most out of being a woman. While I understand a certain amount of "common man" legibility needs to be written into my ideas here for mass appeal, I also realize that theories like this will be so controversial to the psychological community at large that they'll be picked apart piecemeal. The last thing I want is to have my work fall into the same pop-psychology trash can that Men are from Mars belongs in.

Who is your target audience? (e.g. who are you trying to sell the book)

Are you targeting the "intellectual" or academic? Or are you targeting the "regular joe" that wants to improve? Once you identify that "target audience", then adjust your language accordingly.

Educational background? Sure, can be helpfull. But I remember glancing at a book called the "Bible" that was writen by some moron that all he did was follow some "pua"s around and write a field report. Now, my point is that if that guy can sell that book, I'm sure that an intelligent man like you can do the same. But your credentials are going to be important (remember, they don't know you). If they lack in the educational level...you can improve them by either going to the field or writing short articles in magazines (Men Magazines) on the topic. Something that validates the "expert" title on you.

Go to Borders and look at some of the "self help" books. Many writers might not have the title of doctors. But they might have a catchy title for the book.

Is it that the greater part of society tolerates them or that they've become so engrained into our culture that that we don't recognize them or simply accept them as a given?

Click to expand...

That's a good question. If the majority simply tolerates them, that implies an understanding with a willingness to let these conventions exist. But I think it's fair to say most don't understand them, which lends credence to your latter suggestion.

The "Shallow" bit brought a chuckle of recognition. Oh how women -- and jealous guys who can't get laid -- use that one. I can't keep a straight face when these hypocrites throw that one out, because they're just as "shallow" as the fellows they rip -- but just aren't straight about it.

Yeah, it's preaching to the choir here. My main suggestion would be to see if you can liven it up a bit with more humor (via more exmples, perhaps) and keep the language as simple as possible.

Bonhomme has a good suggestion, I think.

I noticed that the reading is pretty dry. Dry like chowing down a box of crackers with no water dry. What you need is some CHEESE on those crackers. Otherwise, without the humor, anecdotes, stories...

Imagine how "How to Win Friends and Influence People" would have read without any real-life relations. First of all, the book would have been 10 pages long. But ultimately, it would read like a scientific journal or technical manual. Not something that you would "enjoy" reading.

I may be way off here. Perhaps the full book does have more bells and whistles and you've omitted them for the purpose online. I think that ramming that many "mind blowing" facts in rapid succession into a "newly unplugged" brain will result in a scenario like Neo being told what the real world ACTUALLY is, and him coming out of the construct and puking on the deck.

"No. I don't believe it. I WON'T believe it. Get me outta here!"
We'll all be just standing here shaking our heads saying: "He's gonna pop."
*BLLLLEEECCHH... Cough, cough, collapse*

Take a good look at my last post. Humor, relation, stories, examples, humor... Man, I should be a writer.

Yeah, it's preaching to the choir here. My main suggestion would be to see if you can liven it up a bit with more humor (via more exmples, perhaps) and keep the language as simple as possible.

Click to expand...

This is the main reason I haven't commented in here until now. To be brutally honest, it reads like a text book and I quit half way through the post.

Or is it possible that I need to read your works from the beginning to get a better understanding of what you're saying here?

Desdinova said:

This is the main reason I haven't commented in here until now. To be brutally honest, it reads like a text book and I quit half way through the post.

Click to expand...

HEEEYYyyyy!!! Des might be on to something! Maybe it SHOULD be a textbook. A textbook for a course that RT teaches! Hmmm... Hmmm...

LoL@Professor Tomassi

Come on, now! There's GOTTA be a university somewhere that will offer: Masculinity 101/201/301

I think a mixture of intellectual analytical and light-hearted humorous writing would do the trick. I would hate for it to read like those Pop Psyche books, which are poorly written with no thought behind them.

I do think some examples could be given on some of the myth bashing that Rollo is doing.

He is on to something, however. There are ZERO books out there addressing his topics. He is doing myth bashing at its best.

The problem with many of those slogans Rollo put up there is there is no emperical evidence to prove them, yet people live their lives by these sayings. They don't question the validity of them. Are men shallow? Prove it.

Men have fragile egos? Prove it.

I want to see it studied, researched and documented. Stupid American women in this country have even dumber men in this country brainwashed on these slogans that have absolutely no validity to them.

I want to see them proved. Great myth bashing ... yeah, I'd probably lighten the tone a little there, but he's on to something.

Some examples:

Brad Pitt & Angelina Jolie
Brad Pitt & Jennifer Aniston
Demi Moore & Astin Kutcher
Bill Clinton & Monica Lewinski/Hillary Clinton
Hugh Hefner

Popular examples of slvt/stud/shame/etc. for relation. You can have a field day with "conventions" on those examples, for sure.

Perhaps some relations to English Royalty "scandals" for the world-wide appetite.