Banned in Loveshack.org

[Epic Days]

We're clearly in agreement, so I'm just wondering what your "spouting feminist and social conditioning phrases" beef with me is. Because I don't like the book you like? I'll chalk it up to knee-jerk reaction.

Chalk it up to whatever you want. You’ve said way more than you think you have.
We are not in agreement. Philosophically perhaps a few points.

 

[rjc149]

"To me the red pill is merely a necessary perspective for wholistic understanding, a cornerstone, not the arch."

"In fact Rollo is a primer for fundamental understanding of observable female nature. Not a Bible. "

You simply paraphrasing what I wrote as your own viewpoint would demonstrate that you are, in fact, in agreement with my overall point.

But if you think we disagree on Rollo Tomassi, then I'll agree to that.

 

[Epic Days]

You simply paraphrasing what I wrote as your own viewpoint would demonstrate that you are, in fact, in agreement with my overall point.

But if you think we disagree on Rollo Tomassi, then I'll agree to that.

Here is my disagreement. Men come here with some serious brainwashing and conditioning from nearly every point of life.
You come in and use the very same wording and phrasing. This allies up with that conditioning. Thus reinforcing it.

Only a leftist would come in here and do that. Or a woman. Acting like you don’t know what I am talking about or what you are doing, is intellectually dishonest. You haven’t said you’ve read the book and you made assertions that he is this or that when he isn’t. He merely delineated the observable. That’s all.

 

[rjc149]

Here is my disagreement. Men come here with some serious brainwashing and conditioning from nearly every point of life.
You come in and use the very same wording and phrasing. This allies up with that conditioning. Thus reinforcing it.

Only a leftist would come in here and do that. Or a woman. Acting like you don’t know what I am talking about or what you are doing, is intellectually dishonest. You haven’t said you’ve read the book and you made assertions that he is this or that when he isn’t. He merely delineated the observable. That’s all.

And here is my issue dude. There are two polar extremes to every subject, and there is a middle-ground. I strive for that middle ground. Always.

You call me a "leftist" (I'm a registered Republican in a very capitalist line of work) and a "feminist" only demonstrates that you are entrenched in a polar extreme. I know what you are doing. You are employing the same mob-mentality SJW's employ to counter and censor dissenting viewpoints -- calling any opposing argument "racist" "bigoted" etc. You are doing the same.

I've read The Rational Male. His thesis is rooted in observable truth. His spin on it, however, reeks of a misogynistic sentiment that I do not share. That's why The Rational Male is not my field manual. It's not my gospel. It should be read, but not worshiped.

 

[Epic Days]

And here is my issue dude. There are two polar extremes to every subject, and there is a middle-ground. I strive for that middle ground. Always.

You call me a "leftist" (I'm a registered Republican in a very capitalist line of work) and a "feminist" only demonstrates that you are entrenched in a polar extreme. I know what you are doing. You are employing the same mob-mentality SJW's employ to counter and censor dissenting viewpoints -- calling any opposing argument "racist" "bigoted" etc. You are doing the same.

I've read The Rational Male. His thesis is rooted in observable truth. His spin on it, however, reeks of a misogynistic sentiment that I do not share. That's why The Rational Male is not my field manual. It's not my gospel. It should be read, but not worshiped.

You can play in the Imperative. Fine by me. Opinions vary.
I’ve never been passive or middle of the road in a fukking thing in my life. The meek don’t inherit $hit.
I don’t even do politics.

Epic days out

 

[rjc149]

Here's a case in point:

"Women are incapable of loving men in a way that a man idealizes is possible, in a way he thinks she should be capable of. "

Now, I'm sure the desired effect of this is to make blue pill men go "Wow, that is just so fvcked up. Women are so cruel, they are just opportunity *****s" etc.

Like this is supposed to be some harsh, painful truth for men who believe that they should be loved by women for who they are, not what they offer their mates or the value they can add to a partnership. That once they stop taking care of themselves, stop providing, stop being alpha and masculine and actively maintaining their women's attraction, they are still entitled to unconditional, idealistic Disney love from their women.

Like women who get fat, stop shaving, stop wearing makeup, chop their hair into butch cuts, and basically start being fvcking gross are entitled to unconditional love from men.

All romantic/sexual love is conditional and opportunistic. But for Tomassi, this opportunism and hypergamy is unique only to the female gender.

It's butthurt sh!t like this that undermines much of the discourse in The Rational Male.

 

[rjc149]

Nothing in the quote from Rollo you provided supports this. I'd like to know if you have quotes from him that support the notion only females are opportunists, or that men don't also love conditionally.

Anyway, he's not writing for females on how to seduce and keep men. So it's not useful information to the male reader. Perhaps it's relevant to you, but you can find that information on sites other than TRM.

Let me provide the entire quote, which is Iron Rule 6:

Women are utterly incapable of loving a man in the way that a man expects to be loved. In its simplicity this speaks volumes about the condition of Men. It accurately expresses a pervasive nihilism that Men must either confront and accept, or be driven insane in denial for the rest of their lives when they fail to come to terms with the disillusionment. Women are incapable of loving men in a way that a man idealizes is possible, in a way he thinks she should be capable of.

Let's do a brief close reading of this quote.

First of all, it's presented as a 'rule' along with 8 others (several of which are quite valid) which form a dicta of sorts. However it does not prescribe, or prohibit, or suggest, any form of action or principle, as a rule is intended to do. It's an obvious fact presented as an over-arching indictment of women, clearly intended for some sort of red pill shock value. It offers no counterpoint nor does it address its own obvious hypocrisy. It's a one-sided, unilateral, hammed-up as fvck statement serving his own male victimhood narrative. This is one of many examples throughout the book that I took issue with. The Rational Male is full of this sh!t with similarly ridiculous hammed-up presentation.

Look -- the book should be read. I've read it. The misogynist spin does not entirely invalidate his points or arguments. There is genuine, essential wisdom to be learned. The overall intent of the book, which is to challenge pre-existing notions of courtship and simple male naivete about women, is valid. The tone in which its delivered, however, needs to be taken with grains of salt. Rollo Tomassi is angry at modern female sociology, its role in shaping post-feminist western society, the destruction it has dealt to traditional patriarchy (the blue pill), and obviously, the pain and heartbreak it has dealt him.

I don't think his resentment should be adopted if a man wishes to become the most attractive version of himself to women. Again, I believe being more balanced and open-minded, and gladly understanding and embracing female sexual strategy, and playing to it, instead of grudgingly accepting it as a grim reality while muttering 'fvck you shallow *****s' through clenched teeth is the key to becoming a true lady's man. And that's why we are all here, right?

 

[EyeOnThePrize]

Let me provide the entire quote, which is Iron Rule 6:

Women are utterly incapable of loving a man in the way that a man expects to be loved. In its simplicity this speaks volumes about the condition of Men. It accurately expresses a pervasive nihilism that Men must either confront and accept, or be driven insane in denial for the rest of their lives when they fail to come to terms with the disillusionment. Women are incapable of loving men in a way that a man idealizes is possible, in a way he thinks she should be capable of.

Let's do a brief close reading of this quote.

First of all, it's presented as a 'rule' along with 8 others (several of which are quite valid) which form a dicta of sorts. However it does not prescribe, or prohibit, or suggest, any form of action or principle, as a rule is intended to do. It's an obvious fact presented as an over-arching indictment of women, clearly intended for some sort of red pill shock value. It offers no counterpoint nor does it address its own obvious hypocrisy. It's a one-sided, unilateral statement serving his own male victimhood narrative. This is one of many examples throughout the book that I took issue with.

Look -- the book should be read. I've read it. The misogynist spin does not entirely invalidate his points or arguments. There is genuine, essential wisdom to be learned. The overall intent of the book, which is to challenge pre-existing notions of courtship and simple male naivete about women, is valid. The tone in which its delivered, however, needs to be taken with grains of salt. Rollo Tomassi is angry at modern female sociology, its role in shaping post-feminist western society, the destruction it has dealt to traditional patriarchy (the blue pill), and obviously, the pain and heartbreak it has dealt him.

I don't think his resentment should be adopted if a man wishes to become the most attractive version of himself to women. Again, I believe being more balanced and open-minded, and gladly understanding and embracing female sexual strategy, and playing to it, instead of grudgingly accepting it as a grim reality while muttering 'fvck you shallow *****s' through clenched teeth is the key to becoming a true lady's man. And that's why we are all here, right?

I think you're trying to read between the lines and exaggerating a bit in an attempt to feel superior by stressing a middle ground. Personally I didn't feel a misogynist spin, rather some simple truths and a perspective I hadn't considered. If he was going for shock value it was a very poor attempt. The book is not an exciting or dramatic read at all. You're dramatizing and polarizing his work for the sake of argument. You sound like a wannabe white knight.

 

[redskinsfan92]

Let me provide the entire quote, which is Iron Rule 6:

Women are utterly incapable of loving a man in the way that a man expects to be loved. In its simplicity this speaks volumes about the condition of Men. It accurately expresses a pervasive nihilism that Men must either confront and accept, or be driven insane in denial for the rest of their lives when they fail to come to terms with the disillusionment. Women are incapable of loving men in a way that a man idealizes is possible, in a way he thinks she should be capable of.

Let's do a brief close reading of this quote.

First of all, it's presented as a 'rule' along with 8 others (several of which are quite valid) which form a dicta of sorts. However it does not prescribe, or prohibit, or suggest, any form of action or principle, as a rule is intended to do. It's an obvious fact presented as an over-arching indictment of women, clearly intended for some sort of red pill shock value. It offers no counterpoint nor does it address its own obvious hypocrisy. It's a one-sided, unilateral statement serving his own male victimhood narrative. This is one of many examples throughout the book that I took issue with.

Look -- the book should be read. I've read it. The misogynist spin does not entirely invalidate his points or arguments. There is genuine, essential wisdom to be learned. The overall intent of the book, which is to challenge pre-existing notions of courtship and simple male naivete about women, is valid. The tone in which its delivered, however, needs to be taken with grains of salt. Rollo Tomassi is angry at modern female sociology, its role in shaping post-feminist western society, the destruction it has dealt to traditional patriarchy (the blue pill), and obviously, the pain and heartbreak it has dealt him.

I don't think his resentment should be adopted if a man wishes to become the most attractive version of himself to women. Again, I believe being more balanced and open-minded, and gladly understanding and embracing female sexual strategy, and playing to it, instead of grudgingly accepting it as a grim reality while muttering 'fvck you shallow *****s' through clenched teeth is the key to becoming a true lady's man. And that's why we are all here, right?

I'm not here to become a lady's man. I'm here to acheive my own goals.

 

[rjc149]

I think you're trying to read between the lines and exaggerating a bit in an attempt to feel superior by stressing a middle ground. Personally I didn't feel a misogynist spin, rather some simple truths and a perspective I hadn't considered. If he was going for shock value it was a very poor attempt. The book is not an exciting or dramatic read at all. You're dramatizing and polarizing his work for the sake of argument. You sound like a wannabe white knight.

I agree, the perspective it offers is valid. I've stated that more than few times in this thread. But I think the misogynist spin is pretty apparent. There is a male victimhood narrative that is clear throughout the book. Simple, obvious facts are delivered with a one-sided "poor innocent men" spin. I'm not dramatizing anything. Read the Tomassi quote. There's your drama. And that's my issue with it.

You're right, as I believe a man should be calibrated and centered at all times, I do stress a middle ground. But in doing so, I've attacked something you like and hold in high esteem. And you don't like that. So I'm a white knight. A leftist. A feminist. I get it.

 

[rjc149]

I'm not here to become a lady's man. I'm here to acheive my own goals.

Good.

 

[EyeOnThePrize]

I agree, the perspective it offers is valid. I've stated that more than few times in this thread. But I think the misogynist spin is pretty apparent. There is a male victimhood narrative that is clear throughout the book. Simple, obvious facts are delivered with a one-sided "poor innocent men" spin. I'm not dramatizing anything. Read the Tomassi quote. There's your drama. And that's my issue with it.

You're right, I do stress a middle ground. But in doing so, I've attacked something you like and hold in high esteem. And you don't like that. So I'm a white knight. A leftist. A feminist. I get it.

I don't hold it in high esteem, this is what I mean, you seem to assume my perspective just like you're assuming Rollo's. Rather than keeping an open speculative mind you've classified his book as having one and only one interpretation, the one you have. I'll entertain you for a moment.

However it does not prescribe, or prohibit, or suggest, any form of action or principle, as a rule is intended to do.

The principle is that you can not expect motherly love(which weak willed men tend to expect from a partner) without some major sacrifices to your self respect.

It's an obvious fact presented as an over-arching indictment of women, clearly intended for some sort of red pill shock value.

If it were obvious to everyone than the book would not be talked about as much as it is. It's not an indictment because there is nothing wrong with women not providing a motherly love, that is not their role. Again not a dramatic thought.

It offers no counterpoint nor does it address its own obvious hypocrisy. It's a one-sided, unilateral, hammed-up as fvck statement serving his own male victimhood narrative. This is one of many examples throughout the book that I took issue with. The Rational Male is full of this sh!t with similarly ridiculous hammed-up presentation.

I don't remember reading anything that said men are victims. This is what I mean when I say you're attempting to read between the lines and projecting something, distorting the message. You are projecting your opinion(you think it's hammed-up), then arguing against your own opinion. That's a straw-man.

The tone in which its delivered, however, needs to be taken with grains of salt. Rollo Tomassi is angry at modern female sociology, its role in shaping post-feminist western society, the destruction it has dealt to traditional patriarchy (the blue pill), and obviously, the pain and heartbreak it has dealt him.

This is not the tone I interpreted at all. I also don't praise it as gospel, but I certainly didn't sense hostility or resentment. It's a serious topic portrayed in a serious tone, which is kind of a boring read.

Again, I believe being more balanced and open-minded, and gladly understanding and embracing female sexual strategy, and playing to it, instead of grudgingly accepting it as a grim reality while muttering 'fvck you shallow *****s' through clenched teeth is the key to becoming a true lady's man. And that's why we are all here, right?

You don't seem open-minded, but that's my opinion. I can agree that it may come across as a bit pessimistic, but I haven't read it in a long time. Have you read any other books? I don't think I've talked to anyone here that sees it as gospel. Most people hear that do read relationship books read many and take nuggets from each. No one book is on a massive pedestal set far above the rest.

The styles cultivated here are generally sprinkled along a spectrum of two extremes. On the one end are people that will let women do pretty much anything and constantly waste precious time contemplating strategies on how to chase and qualify themselves(they try to qualify themselves to others on the forum by 'flexing nuts' in a sense), we attribute this to coming from a place of fear and scarcity, seeking an easy solution to hard internal problems. On the other end are people that have focused strictly on self improvement and letting the game and women come naturally as a by-product. Sadly some have lost hope in themselves or have become so deluded in chasing that they are doomed to forever brood in the former, sometimes BSing themselves into thinking they are chasing because they are 'alphas', sometimes becoming extremely salty and resenting women. I would say these are the ones that would see something like Rollo's work as gospel, but I would like to hope these are a minority. A more senior member will probably tell you they are the majority.

My point is interpretation is everything with relationships. The topic is so open-ended that people on this forum constantly misunderstand each other. Your interpretation of Rollo's work is appreciated, but that book is a small fish in a very big pond. Rather than criticize one book(which is easy) why not expand on and defend your 'balanced' approach to relationships. That's where the real work is done. Where is the line for you? The line between respect and disrespect? Give me something better than a vague "it has to be balanced' statement. What has to be balanced? To what degree? Why?

When you say re-calibrate it sounds like you mean to lower one's standards, is that right?

 

[rjc149]

I don't hold it in high esteem, this is what I mean, you seem to assume my perspective just like you're assuming Rollo's. Rather than keeping an open speculative mind you've classified his book as having one and only one interpretation, the one you have. I'll entertain you for a moment.

The principle is that you can not expect motherly love(which weak willed men tend to expect from a partner) without some major sacrifices to your self respect.

If it were obvious to everyone than the book would not be talked about as much as it is. It's not an indictment because there is nothing wrong with women not providing a motherly love, that is not their role. Again not a dramatic thought.

I don't remember reading anything that said men are victims. This is what I mean when I say you're attempting to read between the lines and projecting something, distorting the message. You are projecting your opinion(you think it's hammed-up), then arguing against your own opinion. That's a straw-man.

This is not the tone I interpreted at all. I also don't praise it as gospel, but I certainly didn't sense hostility or resentment. It's a serious topic portrayed in a serious tone, which is kind of a boring read.

You don't seem open-minded, but that's my opinion. I can agree that it may come across as a bit pessimistic, but I haven't read it in a long time. Have you read any other books? I don't think I've talked to anyone here that sees it as gospel. Most people hear that do read relationship books read many and take nuggets from each. No one book is on a massive pedestal set far above the rest.

The styles cultivated here are generally sprinkled along a spectrum of two extremes. On the one end are people that will let women do pretty much anything and constantly waste precious time contemplating strategies on how to chase and qualify themselves(they try to qualify themselves to others on the forum by 'flexing nuts' in a sense), we attribute this to coming from a place of fear and scarcity, seeking an easy solution to hard internal problems, on the other end are people that have focused strictly on self improvement and letting the game and women come naturally as a by-product. Sadly some have lost hope in themselves or have become so deluded in chasing that they are doomed to forever brood in the former, sometimes BSing themselves into thinking they are chasing because they are 'alphas', sometimes becoming extremely salty and resenting women. I would say these are the ones that would see something like Rollo's work as gospel, but I would like to hope these are a minority. A more senior member will probably tell you they are the majority.

My point is interpretation is everything with relationships. The topic is so open-ended that people on this forum constantly misunderstand each other. Your interpretation of Rollo's work is appreciated, but that book is a small fish in a very big pond. Rather than criticize one book(which is easy) why not expand on and defend your 'balanced' approach to relationships. That's where the real work is done. Where is the line for you? The line between respect and disrespect? Give me something better than a vague "it has to be balanced' statement. What has to be balanced? To what degree? Why?

When you say re-calibrate it sounds like you mean to lower one's standards, is that right?

Your reply is appreciated, although I won't go through each of your quotes as bullet points.

I haven't classified the book as having only one interpretation. I have my own interpretation of the book's tone, under which I have classified it. I have shared my viewpoints. I haven't presented any of my viewpoints as facts.

I don't have the time to comb through the book for citations here. If any of my arguments or viewpoints require citations, well, sorry. I'll just gloss over it for now.

Rule #6 is one of many instances throughout the book where a simple, obvious, almost mundane fact of life is presented in some sensationalist way. Sexual attraction is conditional. We all know that. I am not sure why he chose to make this an 'iron rule' other than for this purpose. I do not believe that the 'hammed up' sensationalism of the author's language is my own projection. This sensationalism, I feel, serves the agenda of his narrative which largely paints men as hapless victims of female machiavellanism, and serves as a PSA against their hypergamy. Language like driven insane in denial for the rest of their lives when they fail to come to terms with the disillusionment when addressing a fairly mundane fact of human attraction is clearly intended for almost theatrical effect. It's hammy. I've made no straw man here. There's a lot of this in TRM.

I read between the lines because much of communication isn't explicitly verbalized. Tone and inflection can offer a lot of insight into an author's mindset beyond the prose he writes. In the case of TRM, I get the sense the Rollo Tomassi has some hangups with women.

He presents a general dichotomy of male personae -- the alpha and the beta -- with various sub-categories offering nuance, ie. alpha vs. alpha providers vs. blue pill alpha vs. betas etc. He doesn't offer women the same nuance. They are all the same, all imposing the female imperative in their pursuit of their own selfish reproductive strategy. According to TRM, in relationships with them, it's your will against theirs, and beware of losing.

Reading through this forum, and other similar forums, TRM is held in very high regard by the same people who also harbor resentment and bitterness toward women. I believe they feed off of, and are thus validated by, the angry undertone of TRM. I don't believe the resentment in TRM is purely my own interpretation. What you have admitted as pessimistic is what I would call resentment.

My balanced approach rejects feminist brainwashing and the red pill reaction against it. Ironically, the approach I strive for is centered on a primary thesis of TRM -- that a man must appeal to both side of female hypergamy in order to be optimally attractive. This is an approach I haven't gleaned from studying attraction literature, but largely from personal experience.

Again, this is my interpretation of TRM. It offers valid perspective and insight, it is entertaining to read, but the reader should be mindful of the misogynist undertone and discard it if he truly wants to love women. Now, I get that makes me sound like a blue pill feminist beta cuck to a lot of red pill people here, to which you alluded to in your post. But that's my attempt at maintaining balance.

 

[Epic Days]

I think you're trying to read between the lines and exaggerating a bit in an attempt to feel superior by stressing a middle ground. Personally I didn't feel a misogynist spin, rather some simple truths and a perspective I hadn't considered. If he was going for shock value it was a very poor attempt. The book is not an exciting or dramatic read at all. You're dramatizing and polarizing his work for the sake of argument. You sound like a wannabe white knight.

You have to be in a condition to view things in that manner. In other words you have to have a foundation mindset that becomes the filter. You walk around your whole life like that. Then when someone like Rollo, merely states something that is observable to even the dumbest reader, it is viewed through the filter.

This is a huge reason. The main one. That some men struggle their whole lives trying to undo the programming in their minds.

So yes. You are correct. Astute. Rollo wasn’t being anti female in the least. He was trying to get men to “abandon” their previously induced belief systems.

This is why you are bewildered and even mystified when someone on the left says that you are being “yack, yack,yack” and you are thinking...”How the fuk can that be?”

Their minds are hopelessly damaged by socially induced belief systems from a failing social structure.

 

[rjc149]

You make valid points. You are comparing interpretations of the book and its perceived tone. That's fair game and there's no right or wrong answer. A raging feminist would have a different interpretation of TRM than would, say, next week's incel-in-the-news. Personally I never picked up on any misogyny or resentment in Rollo's writing. (I've only read his blog posts and Sosuave posts, not TRM.) Eye of the beholder. I will say this: There are no "ironclad rules." That's a gimmick of his, and I think it works in terms of unplugging men. Just like a lot of what we say here works for newbies - do this, don't do that...but that's because they've been taught a different set of rules. To me, Rollo's tone always sounded matter-of-fact and almost dull, like reading a grad school paper. But even if he IS misogynist, for the sake of argument, that doesn't invalidate the information he provides.

No, it doesn’t. I’ve made that clear. I’ve read TRM and I’ve stated over and over that there IS value to it. I’m challenging the confirmation bias of a lot of red pillers here, which causes them to focus on my criticisms of the book while disregarding my praises of it.

As I’ve stated, there is much to suggest in the authors tone and word choice, if not his thesis, that he harbors some resentment for women. The overall intent of the book is to “unplug” men from their blue pill social conditioning. It serves that purpose well. But I also see the message summarized as “guys— watch out for women” which is underscored with a certain degree of contempt. I am simply drawing attention to that contempt, which was clear to me when reading it, not dismissing the book as a misogynist Mein Kampf.

 

[redskinsfan92]

No, it doesn’t. I’ve made that clear. I’ve read TRM and I’ve stated over and over that there IS value to it. I’m challenging the confirmation bias of a lot of red pillers here, which causes them to focus on my criticisms of the book while disregarding my praises of it.

As I’ve stated, there is much to suggest in the authors tone and word choice, if not his thesis, that he harbors some resentment for women. The overall intent of the book is to “unplug” men from their blue pill social conditioning. It serves that purpose well. But I also see the message summarized as “guys— watch out for women.”

I'll play devil's advocate here. What's wrong with a little resentment towards women?

 

[rjc149]

I'll play devil's advocate here. What's wrong with a little resentment towards women?

Women don’t find it attractive. Whether or not that matters is your call.

 

[EyeOnThePrize]

It doesn't sound like you're willing to admit any misinterpretation or misstep in logic. We're also saying a lot of the same things and repeating ourselves, so forgive me if I check out of this thread.

According to TRM, in relationships with them, it's your will against theirs, and beware of losing

If you think there's isn't a battle of the sexes you are sorely misguided. There is a duty for every man to stand up for himself. Not just with women, with everything. It is your responsibility to have boundaries and hold to them.

TRM is held in very high regard by the same people who also harbor resentment and bitterness toward women. I believe they feed off of, and are thus validated by, the angry undertone of TRM. I don't believe the resentment in TRM is purely my own interpretation. What you have admitted as pessimistic is what I would call resentment.

You think he's being hostile, I disagree. This is what I mean by straw man. You are knocking something that's very open to interpretation. To knock it down you focus in on an interpretation that bolsters your argument. You are taking the serious tone of the book and assuming it's due to hangups and resentment. Multiple people have told you they haven't interpreted the book this way but you're insisting it's the authors fault rather than your perception. The blind lead the blind regardless of TRM. People who are misguided will seek confirmation bias in everything. They come here and others attempt to open their minds and instill a healthier outlook. The healthier folk take every book with a grain of salt. If you think you can write a 'more balanced' relationship book then by all means.

My balanced approach rejects feminist brainwashing and the red pill reaction against it. Ironically, the approach I strive for is centered on a primary thesis of TRM -- that a man must appeal to both side of female hypergamy in order to be optimally attractive. This is an approach I haven't gleaned from studying attraction literature, but largely from personal experience.

What do you mean by 'appeal to both sides'?

 

[rjc149]

It doesn't sound like you're willing to admit any misinterpretation or misstep in logic. We're also saying a lot of the same things and repeating ourselves, so forgive me if I check out of this thread.

You can check out any time you like.

If you think there's isn't a battle of the sexes you are sorely misguided. There is a duty for every man to stand up for himself. Not just with women, with everything. It is your responsibility to have boundaries and hold to them.

I don't choose to look at male/female duality as a conflict. I prefer to see it as a complementary dynamic, or at least, I believe men should strive for that in their relationships with women. That is not to say that a man should abandon his principles, or let a woman dictate them.

You think he's being hostile, I disagree. This is what I mean by straw man. You are knocking something that's very open to interpretation. To knock it down you focus in on an interpretation that bolsters your argument. You are taking the serious tone of the book and assuming it's due to hangups and resentment.

The straw man fallacy pertains to factual argumentation. I am offering my opinion, I am not making a factually-based argument. I support my opinion with my interpretation of the author's tone, which you have recognized as pessimistic. This pessimism, in my opinion, stems from the author's contempt of women. You can freely disagree.

Multiple people have told you they haven't interpreted the book this way but you're insisting it's the authors fault rather than your perception.

The "multiple people" in your sample size and demographic are 2-3 posters on a seduction forum, who generally hold TRM in regard, and where the author of the book himself sometimes contributes. Hardly a representative poll. Not even drawing from the raging feminist pool, I'm sure non-biased readers would feel a misogynist undertone lurking beneath the prose.

What do you mean by 'appeal to both sides'?

Female hypergamy presents two sides, as Rollo Tomassi recognizes and asserts -- the desire to fornicate with alpha males to pass on superior genetics, and the desire to seek long-term nesting arrangements with beta male providers. Or as he terms it, 'alpha fvcks, beta bucks.' Or, as I would term it more simply, sexual fulfillment and emotional fulfillment.

Thus, the best strategy for a male to play to female's hypergamous duality is to have elements of both alpha and beta. Maintain the dominant alpha frame to keep her sexually attracted, with beta elements and characteristics to appeal to a woman's emotionally-driven nature. Being some unbending IDGAF silverback alpha will kill the emotional connection a woman feels and drive her into the arms of a nurturing beta. The nurturing beta's submissiveness will kill her sexual attraction and drive her back into the arms of an alpha. So, be the best of both and offer her complete attractiveness.

 

[EyeOnThePrize]

Thus, the best strategy for a male to play to female's hypergamous duality is to have elements of both alpha and beta. Maintain the dominant alpha frame to keep her sexually attracted, with beta elements and characteristics to appeal to a woman's emotionally-driven nature. Being some unbending IDGAF silverback alpha will kill the emotional connection a woman feels and drive her into the arms of a nurturing beta. The nurturing beta's submissiveness will kill her sexual attraction and drive her back into the arms of an alpha. So, be the best of both and offer her complete attractiveness.

Attraction isn't a choice. Any attempt to change your character to appeal to a woman's emotions is a supplication to her frame and coming from a place of scarcity. Rather your goal should be to become the best version of yourself and put that out into the world, accepting whatever comes back. Anything else is needy. Coming from abundance means she has to qualify herself for your time and attention, not the other way around. Adopting beta characteristics(sacrificing self respect) to keep a woman around will only lose her respect and cause you to harbor resentment if she doesn't give you what you're after. A woman will naturally want to be around a man that radiates abundance because he enjoys her company but let's her come and go as she pleases. The 'IDGAF' attitude is arguably the one more in touch with reality and the one capable of facilitating the deepest emotions because there is no fear of loss. Uninhibited unconditional passion for another.