What did Pook mean by this? How can one 'know too much' and what is so bad about it?

[ImTheDoubleGreatest!]

It's not that they are actively, willfully disloyal per se. It's that they have almost no concept of loyalty. They do not comprehend the concept because they are wired to think that their feelings are correct and reliable.

I've observed that the concept of "loyalty" is a word only to most women (not all, but most by far) and not a reality. They only understand male loyalty. THe concept of loyalty just doesn't "feel" that it applies to them from their perspective.

So they aren't loyal because loyalty isn't a feeling?

 

[RangerMIke]

But the problem is, that ISN'T female nature to be disloyal. 'Emotional' may be one, but doshonesty and disloyalty is not. It is not inherent to any creatures nature because it woupd be detrimental to their species survival. The closest thing to disloyalty in nature is antisocial animals. And many antisocial animals are in jeapordy of going extinct.

I did not say female nature was disloyal... I said relationship loyalty does not serve a women. In fact, partner loyalty does not serve ANY female in ANY di-morphic tournament species. Historically women would just have to go along with whatever man successfully competed for them... She loves men that are strong and powerful enough to keep her, they are 'loyal' only to that which serves their needs. The minute you no longer serve her needs, or a better option comes along... AND society will not shame her into behavior... they will follow their nature... which is aligning with the best option available.

 

[ImTheDoubleGreatest!]

I did not say female nature was disloyal... I said relationship loyalty does not serve a women. In fact, partner loyalty does not serve ANY female in ANY di-morphic tournament species. Historically women would just have to go along with whatever man successfully competed for them... She loves men that are strong and powerful enough to keep her, they are 'loyal' only to that which serves their needs. The minute you no longer serve her needs, or a better option comes along... AND society will not shame her into behavior... they will follow their nature... which is aligning with the best option available.

That is not true. It serves women to be loyal in a relationship. It does not serve MEN though. That is why men are able to love multiple women at a time while women can only love one partner at a time.

 

[RangerMIke]

There's a paradox that lies at the heart of red pill ideology. Men come here to get better with women, which is most often interpreted in terms of quantity. They learn that to get better with women they need to first get better themselves.

This is not "Red Pill" philosophy. Red Pill really has nothing to do with 'getting women', it is merely the truth of male/female relations in modern Western culture. I a society where women are not held accountable for their behavior, they will regress back to lizard brain behavior. They say the what a nice sensitive provider who will change poopy diapers and and kiss her @ss while she goes to yoga with her girlfriends. But she is attracted to the bad@ss Alpha Male that will fvck her doggy-style and wipe his d!ck off on her drapes as he walks out her door. What you do with this knowledge is really up to you. You can try to be the man she says she wants... and maybe she won't cheat on you... you can say I'm not playing this game and go MGTOW, or you can be the best man you can be... live for yourself, and just fvck women.

In this process, in so far as men are concerned with getting better, the goal moves from quantity to quality, and quality in terms of both themselves and the women they pursue. From the quantity angle, it looks like we may need to practice some form of self-renunciation, and hence the paradox- to get better with women, we need to stop chasing them.

You are overthinking sh!t. No man can get any women he wants. She has to be physically and emotionally attracted to you or NOTHING HAPPENS. Getting better just means you are the best MAN you can be, the better you are the larger the pool of women that will be interested in you. You stop chasing them because it does you no good to chase women that are not interested in you.. when you do this, and lock onto chicks that don't give a sh!t if you live or die, you overlook the women that ARE interested in you... and you do not let them pursue you.

But then I think you see this paradox resolved in a thinker such as Plato. Eros is understood as something much larger than a mere fleeting connection between men and women, but is rather the very path by which one comes to understand both the cosmic forces under-girding this world and the meaning of one's own life.

Plato did not live in modern times and he would have been surprised that women could vote, much less not be held accountable for what he would consider immoral behavior.

"Plato, Republic: "The relation of male to female is by nature a relation of superior to inferior and ruler to ruled."

 

[RangerMIke]

That is not true. It serves women to be loyal in a relationship. It does not serve MEN though. That is why men are able to love multiple women at a time while women can only love one partner at a time.

It does not serve a women to be loyal in a relationship that does not serve her, period. If she does not "FEEL" it serves her it does not, PERIOD. You have to stop thinking like a man or female behavior will cause you to lose your mind. It does not matter if the relationship REALLY does not serve her... it could be fine, she could be married to a decent guy that has a good job and takes care of her... on the surface this appears to serve her, but if a BETTER guy comes along that gets her motor running, then suddenly the decent guy is no longer good enough. A woman will love the man the serves her needs... what she needs is emotionally driven by HER and her alone, all other perspectives are irrelevant.

You are correct that a women would rather share a man that serves her needs then to have a man all to herself that does not.

 

[ImTheDoubleGreatest!]

It does not matter if the relationship REALLY does not serve her... it could be fine, she could be married to a decent guy that has a good job and takes care of her... on the surface this appears to serve her, but if a BETTER guy comes along that gets her motor running, then suddenly the decent guy is no longer good enough. A woman will love the man the serves her needs...

But then why would she cheat if all her needs were already being met? Some other dude making a little bit more cash and maybe has a slightly better looking face will meet her needs no better than the other guy, yet she will choose this new man over her former whereas this did not happen in prehistoric times.

 

[RangerMIke]

But then why would she cheat if all her needs were already being met? Some other dude making a little bit more cash and maybe has a slightly better looking face will meet her needs no better than the other guy, yet she will choose this new man over her former whereas this did not happen in prehistoric times.

Because she does not FEEL her needs are being met. With women it is mostly about emotion, how she feels is reality.

Pre-history defined evolutionary patterns, and those patterns indicated that in pre-history the best survival mechanism for women was to be with a man that can protect her and if her current man had his head bashed in by another dude, then her best option was to hook-up with the head basher, since there would be no way to survive on her own... this is what drives the female lizard brain, her emotional instincts. If she was starving with a man that could not hunt, then her best option was to go find a man that could. You are assuming that in pre-history.. all things being equal... two men... both who are the same in their ability to provide, then sure... she stays with the man that she is with... BUT she ALWAYS has a back-up plan because the world back then was dangerous a fvck, and one day her 'man' might be food for a Saber-tooth Tiger... then oh damn, she has to find a new one.

This is basic female instinct. In modern times you don't have to worry about much of this, but women are still driven by emotion... chicks still want orbiters... they do not feel comfortable in a relationship unless she knows that there is another dude that she can pull in if something happens to the dude that is fvcking her. They are always looking for the next best option, and the only way you are completely safe is if she believes you are the very best she can do. Add to this modern western society that does not shame women who cheat on their men... and there is nothing stopping her from cheating. She will rationalize this that she 'had' to because you were not being man enough.

 

[ImTheDoubleGreatest!]

Because she does not FEEL her needs are being met. With women it is mostly about emotion, how she feels is reality.

Pre-history defined evolutionary patterns, and those patterns indicated that in pre-history the best survival mechanism for women was to be with a man that can protect her and if her current man had his head bashed in by another dude, then her best option was to hook-up with the head basher, since there would be no way to survive on her own... this is what drives the female lizard brain, her emotional instincts. If she was starving with a man that could not hunt, then her best option was to go find a man that could. You are assuming that in pre-history.. all things being equal... two men... both who are the same in their ability to provide, then sure... she stays with the man that she is with... BUT she ALWAYS has a back-up plan because the world back then was dangerous a fvck, and one day her 'man' might be food for a Saber-tooth Tiger... then oh damn, she has to find a new one.

This is basic female instinct. In modern times you don't have to worry about much of this, but women are still driven by emotion... chicks still want orbiters... they do not feel comfortable in a relationship unless she knows that there is another dude that she can pull in if something happens to the dude that is fvcking her. They are always looking for the next best option, and the only way you are completely safe is if she believes you are the very best she can do. Add to this modern western society that does not shame women who cheat on their men... and there is nothing stopping her from cheating. She will rationalize this that she 'had' to because you were not being man enough.

But if her man and the head basher did not fight, she would not automatically go to the other man. She would stick with her current lover. That is the point I am trying to make. In order for a woman to have sex back then, a man must be strong enough to make her submit. But if another stronger man comes along, she will only go with him if he tries to make her submit to him. And in order to do that, he would have to fight her current man. She would need to use her body language to attract him if he was not initially attracted to her. If the man was not responsive at all despite her wanting him, she would stay with her original man. This is the point I am trying to make. THAT is natural. Submission comes before emotion. This is the point I am trying to make. Women will now cheat on a man who is LESSER than her previous partner. It makes no sense. Bonecrcker was right when he said that all western women are sick in the head.

 

[RangerMIke]

But if her man and the head basher did not fight, she would not automatically go to the other man. She would stick with her current lover. That is the point I am trying to make. In order for a woman to have sex back then, a man must be strong enough to make her submit.

Hmmmm not really. The one thing that women had then was sex.... that was it, that was all she had to barter with. If a man did not indicate that he wanted her, she did not want him, this is because without sexual attraction, a woman was powerless. Submission is only relevant if the man loves her, otherwise it's just r@pe and the woman is being used. Submission with the illusion of powerlessness, that is what women ALWAYS want.

But if another stronger man comes along, she will only go with him if he tries to make her submit to him. And in order to do that, he would have to fight her current man.

No not really. If her other man is not giving her what he wants, or she FEELS he no longer really loves her, and another man comes along that does, she will FEEL safer with the man that loves her, because then she feels like she has an element of control. A dominate man that she FEELS loves her, will ALWAYS win over another dominate man that she FEELS doesn't love her.

She would need to use her body language to attract him if he was not initially attracted to her. If the man was not responsive at all despite her wanting him, she would stay with her original man.

Now you are back on track. Correct... a women will be attracted only to men she FEELS like she can control with her sexuality. This is why it is CRITICALLY important for men when they first meet women that you make it clear though eye contact and body language that you want sex with her... otherwise, nothing happens.

This is the point I am trying to make. THAT is natural. Submission comes before emotion. This is the point I am trying to make. Women will now cheat on a man who is LESSER than her previous partner. It makes no sense. Bonecrcker was right when he said that all western women are sick in the head.

No sorry this is not correct. Submission is a tool women use provided they know they can control you with their sexuality. Women WILL NOT willingly submit to men that they do not think they can manipulate with sex.

Western women are not sick in the head. Women are just being women. It is western society that expects women to act outside their nature, and yea... it is making them a bit crazy, but modern society is making man nuts as well.

 

[ImTheDoubleGreatest!]

Women WILL NOT willingly submit to men that they do not think they can manipulate with sex.

Then why do they want strong men? Why are they attracted to strong men even though they are the least likely to be controlled?

No not really. If her other man is not giving her what he wants, or she FEELS he no longer really loves her, and another man comes along that does, she will FEEL safer with the man that loves her, because then she feels like she has an element of control. A dominate man that she FEELS loves her, will ALWAYS win over another dominate man that she FEELS doesn't love her.

And if this man cannot be controlled by sex?

No sorry this is not correct. Submission is a tool women use provided they know they can control you with their sexuality. Women WILL NOT willingly submit to men that they do not think they can manipulate with sex.

It doesn't matter whether or not she thinks she can control him with sex in the early stages, maybe later on. But initially no. If a man is masculine enough, he is able to have women attracted to him and make them submit. Their emotions don't tell them that they love him, their emotions are merely a byproduct of their attraction to him. They do not know whether or not he even loves them but yet they are still attracted to him.

 

[mrgoodstuff]

It does not serve a women to be loyal in a relationship that does not serve her, period. If she does not "FEEL" it serves her it does not, PERIOD. You have to stop thinking like a man or female behavior will cause you to lose your mind. It does not matter if the relationship REALLY does not serve her... it could be fine, she could be married to a decent guy that has a good job and takes care of her... on the surface this appears to serve her, but if a BETTER guy comes along that gets her motor running, then suddenly the decent guy is no longer good enough. A woman will love the man the serves her needs... what she needs is emotionally driven by HER and her alone, all other perspectives are irrelevant.

You are correct that a women would rather share a man that serves her needs then to have a man all to herself that does not.

What if the man who "gets her motor running" will not take care of her, and is not a provider and very selfish even in bed? I can get it that the loving stable provider might not get her motor running and something else might.

 

[RangerMIke]

Then why do they want strong men? Why are they attracted to strong men even though they are the least likely to be controlled?

You are confusing 'attraction' with 'interest'. Just because a woman is attracted to a man does not mean she is interested. As soon as she doesn't think you want her sexually, her interest level drops like a rock, they give you a window of opportunity to to do something... if you don't take it you are nexted.. Women are NOT LIKE MEN. If we are physically attracted to a woman, that does not change until her looks chance. The reason that men are susceptible to what is called 'Oneitis' is because men can love women that are not interested in them... it comes from a man's propensity to loyalty. Looks, Money, and Status attracts women, lizard brain sh!t. She has to be at least minimally attracted to you before anything can happen. What drives up her interest is how you show up, acting like a man.. do you go for what you want without hesitation, can you control you emotions, and do you have demonstrable traits that indicate that you are in demand and other women want you.

And if this man cannot be controlled by sex?

It's really not about if he is really controlled by sex, but she has to BELIEVE that you can be.

It doesn't matter whether or not she thinks she can control him with sex in the early stages, maybe later on. But initially no. If a man is masculine enough, he is able to have women attracted to him and make them submit. Their emotions don't tell them that they love him, their emotions are merely a byproduct of their attraction to him. They do not know whether or not he even loves them but yet they are still attracted to him.

Nope you are wrong... Women will NOT chase men that they do not think at some level they can control with sex. Modern marriage changes this dynamic because when you marry a women, she can control you with help from the government... who can take your sh!t and give it to her... along with your kids. That is why sex dries up when you marry.

You are correct that women feel what they call love when they are interested in a man, they go where their emotions take them. If she is not interested she can not love him PERIOD. You have this right, so I'm wondering how you got the first part wrong. Being a strong man is meaningless there are plenty of strong men in the world that women are not attracted to. Again attraction is not the same thing as interest.

 

[ImTheDoubleGreatest!]

Women will NOT chase men that they do not think at some level they can control with sex.

This is one thing I cannot believe. Some women are just so mesmerized by certain dudes that they literally cry for them for not liking them or talking to them. Then a few years later they finally get over it, but they will forever hold a place in their heart at least somewhat for them (Desdinova's High Score Theory). You say that if a man cannot provide for her or her kids anymore, then she will not stay with him or even be attracted/interested to him. Yet Tenacity repeatedly states how no woman is willing to be loyal to any man even if he has his sh!t together (because they get infuriated like "how dare this man become better than me") and Soflobro would be homeless had his woman not taken him in, yet he provides nothing for her or her kid and they still fvck. When I was a child (and perhaps this is where this whole thing is coming from; fvck you mom), my father was making pretty good money with his business, we were never short on cash, he gave her everything he needed. He even got into fights with some criminals before because they tried stealing from him (sometimes they almost killed him, others he almost killed them). He didn't do ANYTHING wrong except not hit her (she deserved to, as it was the only way she could be put in her place). Yet for some reason, she started falling in love with some guy at her job (he was a doctor, though not nearly as attractive as my dad was at the time). She must have liked him for about a year or 2 before she confessed her 'love' for him. This guy burned her pretty badly because he did not like her. For the next 2 years after that event, I can still remember the type of rage she had because of it. I can tell that even though she got burned badly, if the guy went back some time later and asked her out, she would have left my dad, who likely would have killed both of them. Another example is that my own sister is just starting to get over some useless druggy whom she rarely ever talked to. She grew feelings for him at 15; she's 19 right now. The kid did not want her even though all the other guys did. It was just this one kid who didn't like her that she liked. Perhaps because it is a "you want what you can't have" type of situation.

You are saying that if a man clearly shows no interest and a woman knows this as well that she will no longer like him. But the above (even the quote) clearly shows how that is not the case. I have been in that situation as well too where the most popular girl in my high school when I was in 10th grade liked me. All these dudes talked to her, some bigger, taller, stronger, no acne and even better game and social skills than me, she even had a boyfriend on top of it all. Yet she liked me when I was just some dude stuck in his own world doing his own things not even really looking at her (I didn't make a move because I wasn't trusting my gut instinct when it came to IOIs. I'm an idiot lol).

 

[RangerMIke]

This is one thing I cannot believe. Some women are just so mesmerized by certain dudes that they literally cry for them for not liking them or talking to them. ....

You are confusing attraction with interest again. Women and girls will get together and scream for rock stars... and it starts at a young age with boy bands... but this has more to do with attraction and appreciation for men that other women find attractive. But they are not REALLY interested in these men... they can't be because these men do not even know they exist. WOMEN ARE NOT LIKE MEN. We do not differentiate between attraction and interest. We see a hot woman and BAM we are both attracted and interested.

You are saying that if a man clearly shows no interest and a woman knows this as well that she will no longer like him.

No. I am saying that if a man shows no interest in a women, she will not be interested in him. She might be attracted to him, and if at some point he shows interest, she will be interested.

But the above (even the quote) clearly shows how that is not the case. I have been in that situation as well too where the most popular girl in my high school when I was in 10th grade liked me. All these dudes talked to her, some bigger, taller, stronger, no acne and even better game and social skills than me, she even had a boyfriend on top of it all. Yet she liked me when I was just some dude stuck in his own world doing his own things not even really looking at her (I didn't make a move because I wasn't trusting my gut instinct when it came to IOIs. I'm an idiot lol).

Attraction is nothing more than curiosity... If she is curious about you... it is attraction. But since you showed no interest, she was never interested in you. If you had made a move then you may have been able to build on that.

 

[l_e_g_e_n_d]

Attraction is nothing more than curiosity... If she is curious about you... it is attraction

You nailed it here RM.

I had girls whom I've plated for a month, and then I disappeared entirely for no reason; no explanation ... ghost ... gone ... poof.

These are the most loyal women I have today. Their attraction grew in leaps and bounds in my disappearance. And when I returned, I became their "soul mate." I attribute this to their curiosity of why I just disappeared without explanation during the time I was away. I imbued their thoughts, with curiosity of "why," until I became so intertwined with and immersed in their psyche, I became elevated to a "god."

I don't know if curiosity is attraction, but curiosity definitely augments attraction exponentially.

 

[ImTheDoubleGreatest!]

Attraction is nothing more than curiosity... If she is curious about you... it is attraction. But since you showed no interest, she was never interested in you. If you had made a move then you may have been able to build on that.

This does not explain the case with my mother and sister.

 

[Milano]

The feminine was never meant to have this power, there is a reason it took hundreds of thousands of years before this tragedy happened. How often do you see this out in nature, that a weaker s3x has more power by default? It is a sick experiment gone wrong and way out of control.

A womans loyalty to a man SHOULD be evident in the way that humans reproduce and how hard it is for a woman to give birth to and nurture children. Having sex with a man is historically a HUGE deal, by which one can get pregnant and die for. If the man who is stronger and more fit for hunting, dies, how much value does she have on the market with 5 kids hanging around? Humans got pregnant early and died early, only a horrible loser outcast would shamefully take on the role of a provider thousands of years ago. You couldnt just swap partners like it was nothing. Our modern life is nothing like tribe people on Sumatra etc.

It is only now they have the newly rich syndrome, making impulse decisions every day based on the newest text from the most exciting prospect on the market. Lets face it, who wouldnt? If you got a text from a random girl who accidentally added you on facebook to flirt with you and bang you, wouldnt that make you feel good? This ACTUALLY happens, happened to my ex. Guys just find women on facebook and ADD them by "mistake" and then they are in their orbit. She told me she thought he was weird, which is girl slang for "he is fockable" or "I am focking him". It is only human to want all the sex one can have if it has ZERO consequences albeit the rare slut remark might come their way, this is also on the way out, because now a woman can be a player as well, why shouldnt she? We are equal right

For what its worth, I have officially swallowed the red pill and it feels cold, dark but correct. It all makes perfect sense from my 28 years of life experiences. A few hours ago I went out and talked to strangers I met, some guys around my age based on their relationship experiences also took it for granted that women already have started dating other guys behind their back when a relationship starts going sour. Just more proof of how low morale these creatures have, and it is time we take the power back. I will never believe in a womans tears again, they are gone the next day when she has group s3x with a bunch of sleeve tattoo weed-heads. Last time a woman told me she was feeling depressed and needed time alone she was in NY banging a 40 year old with money. Thats when I learned the true nature of the feminine, and that they are completely heartless cause of the endless stream of c0cks on their doorstep. Its simple logic, and our forefathers created this world for them. It is the sad consequence of giving them the right to vote, and leading to the internet with mobiles that gave them complete heaven. Waking up to new d1ckpicks every day, what a thug life it is.

I really believe in the saying that the work that is needed to get good with women may not be worth it, but to be able to see the desperate text messages, the fake crying over a man they could not get, is something I hunger to experience. I want desperately to be on the other side before I die, and I will be there in a couple of years to see it. I will change country etc, it will be reported

 

[zekko]

The reason that men are susceptible to what is called 'Oneitis' is because men can love women that are not interested in them... it comes from a man's propensity to loyalty

It's a popular theme in the manosphere that women crave commitment while the only natural thing for a man to do is to spread his seed around like a bee spreading pollen. I don't believe that's the whole story, but given that, where does "man's propensity to loyalty" come from? In this thread, it sounds like men are looking for commitment while women jump from one guy to the next. Obviously, the truth is somewhere in between.

 

[RangerMIke]

It's a popular theme in the manosphere that women crave commitment while the only natural thing for a man to do is to spread his seed around like a bee spreading pollen. I don't believe that's the whole story, but given that, where does "man's propensity to loyalty" come from? In this thread, it sounds like men are looking for commitment while women jump from one guy to the next. Obviously, the truth is somewhere in between.

It serves men that relationships are loyal. A women doesn't care. If she has children, she knows the children coming out of her body are her's. The only way a man knows for sure is if he has a level of certainty the woman is LOYAL to him. Also, loyalty is an important aspect of a tribe or society. In pre-history a man had to know the men fighting next to him were committed. Men had to fight to the death, because to lose means the victorious tribe will kill them anyway. For women.... well if the tribe loses, they just get taken in by the victors, so loyalty was not a trait necessary for survival.

 

[RangerMIke]

This does not explain the case with my mother and sister.

All I can say is that there are always exceptions. Nothing is 100% one way or the other. All I am describing is typical female behavior.