Charting the Red Pill World

An infographic showing the factions of socio-sexual awareness according to their religious and political stances.

Readership: All
Author’s Note: This study was conducted by the author of Lexet Iustitia, and was first published on 2018 October 19. A revised version, cowritten by Jack, appears here.
This is the 500th post to be published on Σ Frame since moving to WordPress.

Introduction

In a comment under one of the last few posts, I asked a commenter to look at the “Red Pill” in a very simple way. It is a way to look at reality for what it is, rather than live under an illusion. One of the greatest illusions we have in our modern society is the nature of intersexual relationships. To be Red Pill is to see intersexual relationships the way they are by nature (how they actually work). Red Pill is not a solution, and your philosophical worldview will determine how you handle Red Pill knowledge. Hence the differences between secularists, nihilists, and Christians on the internet.

What is Red Pill?

The following table is my attempt to map out the “Red Pill” sphere, and all of its subset communities commonly referenced. Below I will explain some of their definitions, and describe some distinctions and my reasoning behind the categorizations. I will also respond to other articles on the Sigma Frame blog.

I am not a graphic designer by any means, so I put minimal effort into this chart (with the help of MS Excel). I do not know why only a few borders disappeared while trying to make this an image. All blame lies with MS Excel and Paint for that error.

Feel free to add suggestions or make a better graphic (credit would be appreciated).

Red Pill Chart

If I had to order these sub groups from largest to smallest (according to population), it would be:

  1. Blue Pill (includes Churchians, Feminists, and most people in society)
  2. Secular Red Pill (PUAs)
  3. Political Red Pill
  4. MGTOW (possibly tied for 3rd)
  5. Christian RP (Catholics > Protestants in number, due to appeals to tradition)
  6. Other Religious RP
  7. Incels
  8. Black Pill

Blue Pill is by its very nature the largest subset of people.

While one can argue that the political RP should be a larger group above the Manosphere, political issues are common in the Manosphere, and more often than not, politics brings them to the RP.  Also, female participation in the RP community is rare.

I could have included the “Secular Red Pill”, in the graph, but it’s really not necessary as most of the groups are secular, and the Religious Red Pill sphere is incredibly small. 

The Religious RP includes Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, and a smattering of other religions. Of note, there have been some Muslim authors (e.g. Kartik Gada and Imran Khan) who have contributed deep, earth-shattering insights, which apparently are taken to be common knowledge within the Muslim community.

It seems like the biggest names in the Manosphere are men who (1) are not Western by birth, or (2) are second generation descendants of immigrants to the West, or (3) have traveled abroad for years. This is no coincidence, seeing how the West is totally cucked.

Why are PUA’s also in the Blue Pill category?

I classify PUA’s as a completely separate group that can exist in all Pill groups.  The goal of most PUA’s is to maximize sexual partners, using any technique possible (mostly reliance on dark triad characteristics).  They are actors, and they are people who derive their value as men from their conquests (their identity is given to them, not made by themselves).  Also, a person can fit the PUA model, live an RP lifestyle, and not be aware they operate in the RP worldview for that matter.

Why are PUA’s the Face of the RP World?

If you want to discredit a movement, point to its members who are either the most disgusting, clownish, or both, and associate the group with those persons or traits. This is why Trump supporters are being branded as Q-anon fans, domestic terrorists, or throwback Germans, and why the Right refers to every black protester as a communist. Nuance = reason and we can’t have that here. 

The PUA community is the most vocal, and really was the online community that started discussing issues that led to “Red Pill” realizations. They are also the easiest community to cheap shot, as many of the most notable “artists” are sleazy clowns. PUA is also the most active community, since they sell “how to pick up women” to young men who want to get girls. 

It appears that there is a massive return to PUA discussions across the Manosphere and even in the body building world. I was concerned to see this trend, and almost wrote about this a few months ago, but held back after watching many hours of these guys talking. The personalities on YouTube who have returned to “tactics” interact and/or coach young men on a daily basis. They are far more in tune with Zoomers than the rest of us. What they are saying is that their subscribers/fans/clients not only don’t know how to talk to girls, but often times, they can’t even hold a conversation with other people! Its a result of them being raised in a social media world. Most of the guys who read this blog grew up passing notes in class, hitting on women in high school, and doing cold approaches as a matter of course. We don’t realize that “tactics” is actually something many young actually need.

Another thing to realize about this up and coming generation is that they tend to smoke pot, not have work ethic, and game all day. They essentially have to be re-raised. 

What is MGTOW?

MGTOW is Men Going Their Own Way. Personally, I define MGTOW as those men who willingly disengage in any long term relationships with females, but do not necessarily remain celibate.  I would say the largest number of men who remain voluntarily celibate are in the Religious RP communities.  The rest reside in the MGTOW community, and usually have a history of promiscuity.

Many in the MGTOW movement advocate for celibacy and just ignoring women entirely. If you see people advocating “NoFap” on the internet, they are pretty much MGTOW trolls. When it comes to being controversial, they receive far more hate from Leftists and women than the PUA community.

My chart is a bit unfair to this community, but that is because MGTOW is its own animal compared to the rest of the Manosphere. While the “factions” of the Red Pill sphere sometimes attack others, MGTOW has been a community divided between those who want to fight feminism and advocate for men’s rights, and those who don’t care about that. They are also anti-PUA. That battle was fought from around 2015-2017, and the men’s rights activists (MRA’s) have disappeared since then. Also, a large portion of the community is too young to be as jaded as MGTOWs are. The MGTOW community needs an age and height requirement for entry.

It’s a little more than just the Trump Look. The main difference between Incel (left) and MGTOW (right) is Attitude!

What are Incels and what is Black Pill?

Incels are “involuntary celibate,” a term used to describe men with disabilities/conditions that make them unattractive or unable to be in a relationship. Many commenters misuse this word as an epithet to describe MGTOW types. 

Black Pill is the fringe, nihilistic end of the spectrum.  MGTOW and INCEL groups have regular interaction with black pilled men.  From what I have seen, the black pilled men tend to be older (30’s and older), divorced, jaded and cynical, with the goal of maximizing pleasure and their financial position, while contributing nothing else to society, or sometimes opting out of society altogether.  In the political realm, these people are the self-identified stateless beings.

Why is the Catholic RP the largest subset of the Religious RP?

My answer to this is the same reason so many “conservatives” and tradcons have joined the Catholic church in the last decade. These people see a problem with the current system, yearn for tradition, and associate with the institution that screams timeless tradition. One thing you will notice with a lot of politicos and RP guys who are now Catholic is that their reasoning for conversion rarely discusses any faith in Christ. Instead, they will go on ad nauseam about western values, society, tradition… and a dead grandparent who had a rosary. 

Something I find very interesting about the Catholic RP community is that they heavily favor Augustine, while Augustinian Calvinists are not only an extreme minority in the Christian RP world, but tend to be very Blue Pilled (think Warhorn, IGTBAM, Doug Wilson, et al.).

Female Red Pill?

There has always been a lot of controversy in the ‘sphere surrounding the idea that women can truly be Red Pill. This controversy continues, but we are seeing a marginal growth in the number of women who willingly embrace Red Pill tenets and/or pursuing a Headship relational structure.

Scott mentions that the RP commentators don’t give women advice. Many actually do, and encourage a traditional lifestyle. The advice would be: have 0 to few partners as possible, marry young, have babies. Women know that message, but they outright reject it, because of two overriding reasons (or justifications).

  1. For many outsiders who don’t know how things work, or who don’t care about marital sanctification, this message appears to be a contradiction which casts women as “underprivileged”: “Guys be promiscuous, girls don’t be.”
  2. Women in our society are encouraged to be selfish and self destructive. Even in the most conservative churches in rural United States, it is a controversy to teach that women should marry young and raise children. Instead, it is taught that women should get a career, use contraception, and Jesus will forgive your abounding sin because of his more abundant grace and love, and if you want a wedding ceremony, wait until after college so you can afford a marriage like what’s on your Pinterest roll. 

The point is that there isn’t very much that would motivate a woman to be Red Pill.

Anecdotal Observation: For guys who are young (under 35) compared to the other authors at Sigma Frame (we’re all Gen Xers), the reality I see is a world where women conduct about 90% of the breakups. I am struggling to think of any example where one of my younger buddies broke off a relationship, ESPECIALLY when the girl wasn’t cheating. They are always the one being dumped, and its nearly always a monkey-branch situation. Women don’t suffer consequences, there is no stigma.

What about Married Red Pill?

Jack asked if these divisions correspond to the preferred relationship structures he describes in his post, Models of Courtship and Marital Structure (2018 October 3). They do. But the number of people subscribing to the Headship Structure is so small, that I haven’t bothered to list it as a category.

The reasons are clear. Outside of the religious RP, the answer to “should I marry?” is a firm “no.” As an attorney myself, I would say the dumbest thing an irreligious man can do, from a legal and fiduciary perspective, is to sign a marriage license. Christians are limited in their choices by scripture. When it comes to sexuality, we have only 3 options: (1) live a celibate life; (2) play with fire and risk spending eternity on fire; or (3) marry. 

The most difficult part about being a Christian who sees the world for what it is right now, is that option #3 is incredibly dangerous in our current society. There is a massive amount of risk to marriage, especially since our family laws are not only hostile to men, but are completely antithetical to what scripture teaches about divorce and marriage. Pagan Rome had better marriage and divorce laws than the United States/Commonwealth nations/western Europe do now. 

Responsibility without authority is slavery. That is how our present system treats men. Feminists want to pretend that this is better than what was law before, which they will say gave men authority without responsibility (tyranny). Of course, anyone who knows the law and the history of it will know that the feminists are liars. (Please cite me on this groundbreaking revelation.)

How I (Lexet) view the RP

This is what I wrote several years ago when my RP articles were on my own site.

What do I mean by “red pill”? I think it means that I choose to see the world for what it is, being aware of people, their motives, and not being naive. For me, as a Christian, being Red Pill means realizing we have a sin nature, and live in a fallen world. We have spiritual desires that cant be met on this side of life. We idealize and hunger for something we cannot possess. But we understand that the ideal is unattainable, and it can be a fatal error to live as if the ideal could be achieved.

Of course, many in the Red Pill community solely apply the term to their perspective on sexual relationships and gender differences. I find this interesting, because the RP community believes what the Bible affirms as our sin nature when it comes to sexuality.

As a Christian, however, there is always tension with the rest of the red pill community, as we are called to be obedient to Christ, obey God’s laws, and live a different lifestyle than the rest of the world. In effect, how a Christian responds to Red Pill awareness is different from the response of a red pilled nonbeliever.

I am Red Pill because that viewpoint accurately describes human relationships in a fallen world. It is the only world view that prepares you to handle the world, as you are able to see the world for what it is. I believe it also confirms scriptural truths. The red pill confirmed many lessons I had made in my past, and made sense of other happenings in my life. Everything I learned from the RP community allowed me to connect many dots in my previous relationships, and made me realize I had made similar mistakes in the past, and that many different types of women were, in fact, the same. (AWALT!).

Should We Use the Red Pill Label?

There is room in the Red Pill world for many different worldviews and applications of RP knowledge, even if the ‘advice’ contradicts that from another community. Scott, in his recent criticism of the Red Pill label, is absolutely right when he says,

“The ‘Red Pill’ is a great way to discern some really important truths about how men and women work. But what’s not as clear is what to do with that information.” 

Yes, the Red Pill is primarily a body of knowledge, but it is knowledge that can shift our locus of perception. How that shift affects us depends uniquely on each man. As such, there aren’t any “Red Pill” solutions, and the idea of a “Red Pill” world is an impossibility. Even if there was some form of patriarchy, human nature would still exist. In fact, a patriarchal system would have to implement restraints on human nature to an extent. In such a system, while the “RP” knowledge wont change, application of that knowledge will. 

Furthermore, going back in time would make it nearly impossible to be promiscuous. Our current culture is driven by birth control and disease prevention that no other society had access to. To be a “chad” at any other point in time was to risk impregnating many people, or risk contracting something that would lead to sterility (many notable men in history did not have children because diseases made them sterile). Contrast the ideal patriarchal/traditional society with our current society, which has few limitations when it comes to sexual dynamics (other than filling out consent forms and having said consent witnessed and recorded, etc., even though said consent can be revoked retroactively). 

Scott criticizes the advice most RP commentators give. I agree with his criticisms as a matter of moral judgment, but I disagree with the idea that “Red Pill” advice exists. There is advice which relies on Red Pill knowledge, and that advice may vary depending on your worldview and morality. The commentators are telling people how to navigate the current system. They are not in a position to change the system in any way. The current system entertains and supports the whims of women.

Scott says he doesn’t want to live in a world created by people following RP commentator’s advice, but I would say we are already living in that world. In fact, we have been for some time. We just discuss it more because of the internet. Until some dramatic societal change, we will continue to live in such a world.

Lets say starting tomorrow, every RP commentator starts giving Christian advice, and their audiences follow it. If every guy playing the field suddenly settled down and married, within a few years we would have a massive influx in divorces. Why? The incentives of our current legal structure are not amenable to this advice.

Alternative Labels? 

Per Scott’s final point on dropping the Red Pill label, I don’t see why its entirely necessary. Most commentators are not claiming that their way is the only way, or that there is a “Red Pill” way. Dropping the label altogether also presents many problems when it comes to branding and building a community. We use definitions and labels as a way to set ourselves apart from others (cough cough, see chart above). I think it is ok to distinguish ourselves from the rest of the Red Pill community while allying ourselves to it. Think of the “Christian Red Pill/CRP” label, for instance. 

As for Christian men who are single, I think the best community for them would be Christian MGTOW. The Christian lifestyle requires celibacy before marriage anyways. That label is not fitting for married men. Perhaps “Christian Realist” may be a better term if you want to drop “red pill” from the label entirely. 

Final Statements

In summary, we are not totally in a nihilistic wasteland that operates under the Law of the Jungle, but on the other hand, we don’t have any functional social structure that consistently produces solid marriages either. There is a fractionization, an atomization that is occurring in our day and age. At the present moment, we’re hanging in limbo, but the overall trend seems to be headed slowly towards a nihilistic wasteland.

If you have any further questions, ask them below.

Related

This entry was posted in Courtship and Marriage, Culture Wars, Divorce, Introspection, Manosphere, MGTOW, Incels, Organization and Structure, Questions from Readers, Self-Concept. Bookmark the permalink.

108 Responses to Charting the Red Pill World

  1. Sharkly says:

    I think the “Red Pill” is a good symbolism for seeing the truth where others follow pleasant delusions. It is also finally becoming more well known. On May 17, 2020, Elon Musk tweeted “Take the red pill” to his twitter followers (currently he has 49.6 million of them). It would seem foolish to abandon the term, “Christian Red-Pill”, right as it is becoming a part of popular vocabulary and people might be searching for it.

    Also, a name is what you make it. The name for certain groups who perform poorly in society sometimes becomes associated with their poor performance. And sometimes these groups think they can improve their perception by insisting that you can no longer call them by the old “derogatory” name, and insist that you use a new name for them instead. And soon the new name becomes a slur too, and the cycle repeats. The problem isn’t the combination of letters or something inherent in the name, the problem is that those the name represents, have not represented themselves well in their choice of a name. The connotation of a longstanding name just generally reflects public sentiment about the group, and that is what folks should try to change (by being an honorable group), not by repeatedly changing their name.

    I personally am a “patriarchist”. But I’m also a man learning “red-pill” knowledge, and I think both names are good because they reflect the best possible beliefs to me. Patriarchy is the best and holiest way to organize a family or kingdom, like how the true family or kingdom of God, the Father, is patriarchal. And if “red-pilled” beliefs just mean the truth without delusion, then the red-pill sets you free from the delusion and untruth and is therefore the best kind of knowledge. So to a Christian, “Christian red-pill” should just represent true Bible-compliant knowledge, without all the churchian, P.C. female-worshipping, and male-bashing delusion.

    Liked by 5 people

    • Sharkly says:

      Sorry, I made a typo. The sentence in the comment above reads better as follows:
      The problem isn’t the combination of letters or something inherent in the name, the problem is that those named have not represented themselves better, therefore their name again gains a negative connotation.

      Liked by 5 people

  2. Novaseeker says:

    I think there’s a fairly well-sized number of secular red pill guys who are not politicals and are also not PUAs per se, while also not being religious. The “Married Red Pill” reddit is mostly not religious guys, but it’s all red pill. The old “Red Pill” reddit was also a mix of guys who were interested in classic PUA “pump/dump” life, but a lot of others who were interested in getting more successful with attracting and retaining women for more conventional type relationships involving dating. These guys are red pill but don’t have a category on your chart. I’d suggest that there should be added another category as non-PUA secular red pill somewhere — they are quite a large group — the actual number of real, actual PUAs who actually “run Game” “in the field”, even prior to COVID, was quite small because dating apps have shrunk “the field” dramatically and sidelined the relevance of the initial part of “Game” (the part that deals with interaction with women in person in “meet market” situations), because these situations, again even pre-COVID, had become increasingly uncommon and most people were meeting on dating apps.

    In general, guys, there is a large movement among the young away from the kinds of things most of you associate with “PUA” a la Roissy/Heartiste/Roosh/Rollo/etc (the “Original Red Pill” or “ORP”) from the period from 2005-2015 or so and towards a different set of practices that is focused much more on (1) looksmaxing (which was a sidelight for the ORP but is a main part of current RP due to the rise of apps, all of which emphasize looks primary), (2) “text Game” (ORP eschewed texting as a rule .. not possible in dating app world, you need to be good at it), and (3) “conversion” (i.e., the transition from virtual to real, being able to interact smoothly in the real — this piece is the piece you’re talking about, Lexet, when you see the more recent emphasis on basic interaction skills). This is in effect a new toolkit, and a different one from what ORP proposed … because the environment changed dramatically. It’s a new “red pill” and it isn’t really “PUA” at all, it’s needed just to date successfully in a “normal” (that is not bars/clubs/pickup context) way. Most of that is more or less invisible to most men north of 40, and almost all men north of 45 — which seems to be almost everyone here (who comments at least).


    MGTOW has morphed, as a term, quite a lot over the years.

    MGTOW as a term goes back to the late 90s/early 2000s with folks like Zed and others who decided to leave the men’s “sphere” as it was at the time (at the time — this was pre-Roissy — it was not PUA/TRP, but rather a less cohesive set of grievances that animated the discussions, and men’s rights was playing a much larger role in the entire milieu. Some guys decided that they wanted to pursue a “third way” apart from the main men’s “sphere” and the emergent MRA agenda, but also apart from the mainstream (what later became called the “blue pill” world), and to do so independently — hence “going their own way”. It wasn’t a cohesive set of principles, just a term that described a diverse set of guys who didn’t want to join up with an emergent “men’s movement” (which is what it looked like was trying to form in the early 2000s … as we know that went nowhere) and also didn’t want to be mainstream/BP … so they went their own way, followed their own path, and called it “MGTOW” — intended to describe a set of people doing various things, and not a specific ideology.

    Much later, when there was a backlash against PUA/Game type “engagement” approaches by some men who did not like what they proposed (didn’t want to do them), but also didn’t want to be mainstream BP, they co-opted the prior term MGTOW and began to apply it to themselves to describe guys who were red pill in worldview but who did not want to apply it in a practical way to engage with women, for the most part. There are some MGTOWs who do engage with women, but most do not, as the term is currently used. It’s pretty different from the original MGTOW group in that (1) the original MGTOWs were not reacting to PUA/Game but to the pre-PUA/Game environment in the men’s sphere and (2) the current MGTOWs are much more organized, similar, and have the emergence of a shared ideology whereas the original MGTOWs were all different and independent and (3) the current MGTOW group is large, while the original MGTOWs were a small group of independents.


    Christians are limited in their choices by scripture. When it comes to sexuality, we have only 3 options: (1) live a celibate life; (2) play with fire and risk spending eternity on fire; or (3) marry.

    Yes.

    Basically what it means is that the Lord is calling Christian men currently to embrace suffering. Choice (1) is suffering, clearly. Choice (3) is also suffering for almost all men who undertake it with Christian ideas. Choice (2) is eternal death. So unless you want to flirt with eternal death, you have to “pick your poison” of suffering. Christians have, of course, always been called to suffer in solidarity with Christ’s suffering, and the Gospels themselves specifically talk about this, but in the current world, with its centering of sex, given the male sex drive, Christian men are being urgently and loudly called to intense, ongoing, lifetime suffering in this area, one way or the other. It is the Cross of our age, and we must bear it, as Christian men. Our placement in this place and time by God’s Providence means that we are to be tested by how much we are willing to suffer sexually in order to follow our Lord. That is what the current scenario means for most Christian men, who are not in the top 20% of Christian men, and who don’t have the bag of personal traits (determination, drive, discipline, adaptiveness, etc.) to get and stay in that top 20% of Christian men such that they satisfy the current “secular attraction requirements” of women to such a degree that they can successfully attract and retain a Christian woman as a wife in a successful, happy and fulfilling marriage. Everyone else, whether they are in choice (1) or choice (3) is called to suffer, and often quite a lot. That’s life, guys — it’s what we are called to do, quite clearly, by God by his having placed us here and now, in this specific time and place.

    Which leads me, finally, to this …

    Why is the Catholic RP the largest subset of the Religious RP?

    I think it’s because, as among Christian churches, the Catholics embrace the virtue of suffering the most openly. Traditional Catholicism (not the gay-dominated FrancisChurch, mind you, but actual Catholicism) has a very well developed theology and spirituality of suffering. Men who are conservative or traditional Catholics will be familiar with this, and will embrace it more readily, and therefore will tend to be less repulsed by the obvious conclusion I reach above that TRP leads to for Christians — that for most men it’s suffering, either way. They will accept this and see it as normal, and not exceptional, but rather simply the way in which suffering is going to play out for many of them in this otherwise comfortable, protected age.

    Other kinds of Christians, especially many Protestants, do not have anything like the old Catholic spirituality of suffering, and so I think many of these kinds viscerally reject TRP as “too negative” — this is the constant, endless, refrain, like a resounding, erroneous antiphon that one hears from these types of guys. Catholics don’t have that issue, so they tend to be more open to TRP ideas, while being hostile to the PUA side of the tactics.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Lexet Blog says:

      Adding a new subcategory is a good idea. Let’s call it “dudes just tryin to be dudes” or something.

      On your last point re Catholics, I think these are likely reasons

      1- lots of vocal conservatives who appreciate tradition
      2- the church has a theology of sex that is taught and is strict.
      3- simping is restricted to the veneration of Mary.
      4- their identity is based on the monolithic Catholic Church.

      On the flip side,

      1-the vast majority of the Protestant church trends left of center.

      2- There is no appreciation of any tradition, and while in the more strict circles purity culture is taught, said culture has many inconsistencies and tends to pedestalize women

      3- factions – no unified identity that cooperated with each other, especially with conservative Protestants.

      -4 no doctrine of sex.

      Tangential Note: politically right wing Protestants of all stripes share a common link with Rushdoony’s dominion movement, which kicked off the American home school movement.

      That’s where Wilson comes from, and that’s the same movement that influences so many of the family life’s, focus on the family, etc.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        Interesting — I agree with most of what you wrote there.

        A couple of interesting viewpoints about online dating for men have been posted over at Aaron Renn’s site this week.

        One is negative and explains pretty accurately the algorithms the apps use for matching, and why this is generally terrible for most normal guys: https://themasculinist.com/my-experience-with-online-dating/

        The other is positive from a user who has gotten great results in dating apps: https://themasculinist.com/how-to-make-the-most-of-online-dating/

        Both guys were capable of attracting women outside apps, but note that the opportunities to do so are limited in various ways. So there isn’t really a substantial difference in attraction that accounts for the different results. Although the second, successful, online dater was short (only 5’6″), he was well muscled and in good shape, and never has had issues attracting women.

        The key differences between the two men were in the approach. The successful guy pretty much followed the three points I mentioned in my comment.

        First, he “looksmaxed”. That isn’t only about how you actually look, it’s about how you present it in the app. After initial lackluster results in terms of women responding to him, he changed the pics in his profile to a set of professional photographer taken pics made during a trip to Europe a few years ago, and he is also a generally very fashionable, upscale dresser, and was this in his photos. His responses from women skyrocketed. Recommendation: looksmax physically, and then also presentationally by upping your game with professional photos if you want to do well with attractive women on a dating app (and as unsuccessful guy pointed out in his post, you don’t even see attractive women on the app unless the app detects that you have a chance with them first).

        Second, he focused on text game. Both in his profile text and in his interactions. Key emphasis on cock-funny, teasing, hypergamy, light-heartedness, not being a die-hard killjoy Christian hardass in profile and text. (Note, both of these guys are Christians). And he rightly notes that texting has to lead to a fairly swift real life meet (within a week or two), otherwise it generally goes nowhere.

        Third, he focused on “conversion” — that is, real life skills in interacting with people, with women, to get better at talking with women and therefore better at the process of interacting with someone in person, once you have passed the app screen. Unfortunately the recommendation here (date women for practice just to get better at speaking with women in a dating context) seems to me to be a chicken and egg problem — if the guys aren’t getting dates, they’re not going to be getting the experience to get better at dating in person. It’s a catch 22 situation for men who struggle in dating I think.

        In general I think the successful dater’s approach is valid if you are very good looking and able to display that well in an app, and then couple that with very good textual and in person charm. That, to me, means a guy who is in the top 10-20%, which I think clearly the successful online dater guy was. I don’t think it’s really very transferable to other guys, at least not most of them. The other guy who wasn’t successful likely was not nearly as attractive physically (able to date women, but that’s different than attracting women in a dating app environment which, as he says himself, puts you against the best of the best) relative to what he was interested in dating, and almost certainly didn’t spend $500 on professional photos for his app profile like successful online dater guy did.

        Finally, it’s notable that the successful guy used Bumble, which is an app that is women-centric in that women have to initiate all contact — men can only talk once a woman has messaged them. So it has the in-built strategy of waiting for women to approach you, once you make your peacock display. Successful dater did this, because he had the peacock to display, if you will, and notice that he was also indiscriminate — he had no selection/review strategy at all — he simply “yes” swiped every woman the app sent him once he had his pro pics up, waited to see who approached him in text, and took it from there.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Lexet Blog says:

        I haven’t used bumble for a long time but I think it’s a better app for men for several reasons:

        1- women have to initiate so you know there may be interest.
        2- they are more serious
        3- most likely more professional.

        Tinder has become entertainment, and an advertising platform. I’m not sure if it has a serious competitor for its primary purpose yet.

        Downside to bumble is that it requires a paid account for it to work for you.

        Liked by 1 person

      • info says:

        1-The vast majority of the Protestant church trends left of center.
        2-There is no appreciation of any tradition, and while in the more strict circles purity culture is taught, said culture has many inconsistencies and tends to pedestalize women.
        3-Factions – no unified identity that cooperated with each other, especially with conservative Protestants.

        The vast majority that comprises the the left of center is going away. Boiled off so to speak.

        So the more conservative protestants are what will remain and will take over from the rest.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Lexet Blog says:

        “The vast majority that comprises the the left of center is going away. Boiled off so to speak.

        So the more conservative protestants are what will remain and will take over from the rest.”

        I agree. Within 10 years most of the people who attend these types of church will identify as agnostic or atheist.

        They aren’t the church, were never in the faith, and won’t lie about it either.

        Liked by 2 people

    • Eric Francis Silk says:

      The cost of knowing the truth is suffering. Forget about The Matrix, that’s Cosmic Horror.

      Cthulhu swims left, indeed.
      Maybe there is a reason why I collect HP Lovecraft memorabilia.

      Liked by 3 people

  3. Elspeth says:

    There’s a lot here to digest, and won’t even attempt to tackle it all, but I noticed something. On the one hand, Lexet makes the very legitimate point about nuance and the ability to appreciate it, and on the other, characterizes people who are generally more right than not as “blue pilled” for not offering lockstep agreement with his particular version of red pilled.

    I recognize that Dalrock made sport of lambasting Doug Wilson, and I even criticized Wilson’s obsession with caveats when I reviewed one of his books. But a man who would publicly post this is a man in my opinion who deserves at least some benefit of the doubt.

    I am leery of the Christian community’s tendency to make allies with those who are clearly not allies, but I am equally concerned that we have a knee-jerk tendency to eat our own far too easily.

    Liked by 5 people

    • professorGBFMtm2021 says:

      ELSPETH
      Doug wilson mainly thinks blaming husbands&blue-haired feminists makes him patriarchical&bibical!Hence why all of us religious -types(DAL’mainly!), will go nuclear on him in a heart beat!Why does nobody(Not even dalrock!) ever mention that wilson has been accused by parents&teen girls of abuse as he slams men in general&husbands in paticular!?This is most likely going to be my only comment on this post at least!

      Liked by 2 people

      • Elspeth says:

        I’m not familiar with any abuse claims, and that word (“abuse”) doesn’t move me anymore. It’s along the lines with “racism” and “rape”. When someone is accused of abusing women, I always always always need far more information.

        I am not a particular fan of Pastor Wilson. I only knew about the linked post because a friend forwarded it to me. She was impressed with his courage.

        I don’t want to derail Lexet’s post so like you, this will be all I have to say about this particular angle. My point was that lay Christians who aren’t in the muck and mess of pastoral ministry, with all the sin and nuances of relationships and whatnot have the luxury of critiquing from a one-dimensional vantage point.

        As to the rest of the post itself, the graphic depicting before and after the sexual revolution were interesting.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Lexet Blog says:

        The improprieties of his ministry as mentioned from people who left his cult are quite concerning. And I do not say cult lightly.

        My PCA church was torn apart by federal vision, and a large % joined the CREC after. They went crazy.

        One thing to look out for to spot charlatans is how they build an empire in their image. In churchianity, they do this by putting their name on everything, especially in books- and they publish many books.

        Wilson has his name and a preface in every CREC document. He has his own church, his own denomination, his own publisher, his own YouTube/radio show, his own college, his own seminary, etc.

        MacArthur does the same.

        We can call it the John Nelson Darby model of church ministry.

        Liked by 2 people

    • Lexet Blog says:

      Doug Wilson’s theology of women places him outside of the red pill.

      Many people try to put him into the RP sphere because on some issues he is politically conservative, the RP has some right wing commonalities, therefore they think they are the same. Most Wilson readers read his blog and follow his podcast. They don’t touch his theological works.

      Dalrock and fullmetalpatriarchy cover Wilson fairly well. I believe gunnerQ has mentioned him before too.

      I have some drafts on my own blog but I don’t think I will ever post them. 1- I’d be echoing others who made the same argument but better and 2- his crowd really likes to dox opponents.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Lexet Blog says:

      Your last point on making allies- I could not agree more.

      It’s actually a very big problem with right wing Protestants right now. They are coming together from many denominations to fight the social justice gospel (founders ministry, enemies within the church, the libolt/dukeman crowd, Wilson, et al).

      They prioritize American politics over gospel truth, and thus engage in ecumenical error. It’s one thing for different groups to attack the same enemy, but they are teaming up to cooperate and share resources.

      They are falling into the same trap billy graham and the Lausanne conference fell into.

      Liked by 4 people

      • Elspeth says:

        Hey, Lexet and ProfGBFM I’m going to combine my reply to both comments so as not to override your post with multiple rabbit trail comments.

        I like what you had to say about cults operating under the guise of Christian ministries. We are currently exploring churches and one of our top 3 requirements is a plurality of elders over what we refer to as the “one man shot caller model”. So I’m with you there. Wilson’s model is not a healthy one. But as i said, I’m not a close follower of, nor view myself as an ally of, his work and ministry.

        That said, I don’t view alliances formed to fight the social justice “gospel” as political alliances. Not at all. I am acquainted with well-meaning Christian people who do not understand that “anti-racism”, as coined by its creators, means the exact opposite of what they think it means when they hear it bandied about. I believe the social justice gospel that has crept into churches (see my latest post about the real meaning of “anti-racism”) is an issue that transcends politics and must be fought against within Christianity because it is heretical. I could care less about the political angle, and there are some people (like founders, I’ve gathered), who could also care less about the political angle and are more concerned with contending for the faith.

        Re: Wilson’s scandal in Moscow via the Dreher piece.

        Did Wilson makes some huge missteps here? Yeahabsolutely. But in the first case, it was incumbent upon the young woman’s parents to step in as soon as they learned their prospective son-in-law was a convicted child molester. All information indicates that everyone knew the facts before the wedding, and they all went along with it. Yes, including Wilson, but he wasn’t the young woman’s father. The biggest mistake here was 1) rushing to get her married off young under any circumstances, and 2) believing that this man’s compulsions would be properly satd by being married to a young beautiful woman. Oops on BOTH parts.

        Same with the second case of the 23-year-old man who was allowed (by the 13-year-old’s parents!!) to live in their home when they knew he was sexually interested in her.

        Wilson made some errors here, but the ultimate culpability? Nope. Not his, and again. Abuse?? This hasn’t met my bar, although the second case is pretty close to meeting my bar. No horny young man will be moving into this house while we have a 14-year-old daughter. And I include blood relations in that as well. We’re not that stupid.

        Definitely no abuse in the first case, though. That was just stupidity and rashness which caused damage that should have been foreseen. But the girl was 22, knew his history, and consented to the marriage.

        This is another one of those instances where women are hurt by their own stupidity (or their parents stupidity, and we go looking for a man in authority to blame.

        Blame her dad.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Lexet Blog says:

        Wilson reigns his church with a strong hand.

        In his denomination, sacerdotalism (priest/elder needed to communicate with god) is very popular.

        It’s hard for me to find a church where I live because hardly any have an elder board or deacon board running the show (I think theology should be run by elders and management of everything else by deacons with some oversight by elders). It’s a must for me. I’ve seen too much abuse in the church. (One of my former pastors is also serving a life sentence).

        Liked by 3 people

      • Elspeth says:

        We have been blessed to find a few churches near us with elder boards. They’re mostly either Presbyterian or Reformed Baptist (and we’ve been non-Denomination for the past two decades).

        But we’re ready for this change (2020 pushed us to do what she have done a long time ago), and have evolved to the point where liturgical, confessional worship with an emphasis on repentance is much more in keeping with our spiritual growth.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Anon says:

        I never thought I’d be namechecked on a blog that I just discovered.

        Cody blocked me for ‘racism’ – writing unacceptable truths about the relation of blackness to IQ and crime – quite recently. Objectivism ‘For the New Christian Intellectual’, my ass.

        Like

      • Lexet Blog says:

        We name checked a non?!?

        Cody is part of a group that learned a few words in seminary, and then started blabbing about those words online, and regurgitated everything their professors said without having personal knowledge of literally anything. Full of zeal, without any sense.

        Liked by 1 person

    • feeriker says:

      “I am leery of the Christian community’s tendency to make allies with those who are clearly not allies, but I am equally concerned that we have a knee-jerk tendency to eat our own far too easily.”

      Both are all too prevalent in the church today. The former is to be expected, given that the church, with precious few exceptions, has fully capitulated to the ways of the World and seeks first the kingdom thereof (whereafter all the things of said world, however false and ephemeral, will be added unto the churchians). The latter is perhaps an understandable overzealous overreaction to the well-intentioned desire to push back as hard as possible against the former in order to halt the destructive rot.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Lexet Blog says:

        My contention is that the church is overreacting to something that is clearly an open rejection of the church (an apostasy), while pretending it’s something that is tricking the actual flock. Point being is that the social justice gospel is an obvious, in your face anti Christian movement.

        Meanwhile the wolves in sheeps clothing go unnoticed.

        Everyone is manning the front gate when they left the sides wide open

        Liked by 1 person

      • Elspeth says:

        “The latter is perhaps an understandable overzealous overreaction to the well-intentioned desire to push back as hard as possible against the former in order to halt the destructive rot.”

        I’m sure this is the case. Pendulums and all that good stuff.

        “My contention is that the church is overreacting to something that is clearly an open rejection of the church (an apostasy), while pretending it’s something that is tricking the actual flock. Point being is that the social justice gospel is an obvious, in your face anti Christian movement.”

        Nope. You’re off base here Lexet. I won’t say the name of the ministry, but our family is in close social relationships with several families who are on staff with a major worldwide Christian ministry.

        What is happening within it is no fluke, and our friends, who are mostly our age or a little older, are watching as this evangelistic organization is sitting on what Voddie Baucham refers to in his latest books as a major fault line. It’s a generational conflict, where the older folks want to stick with the Biblical gospel, while the younger (40 and below) want to marry CRT and SJW stuff to the gospel because they see anti-racism (and a whole other bunch of nonsense) as a serious issue that Christians need to be active in. They are not alone in that.

        I happen to believe that there are true believers, disciples of Christ in that ministry. We “do life” with these people and their kids and see their fruit. I happen to believe that there are true believers in the SBC, PCA, etc., and these churches are all under assault. Mainly because so many Christians depended on useless “youth ministry” and then sent their kids off to indoctrination camps for 4 years, not realizing that even the ones who retained some faith, had also acquired a bastardized interpretation of the Bible. Ignorance. We are all learning, is not bliss.

        So no. The obvious anti-Christian nature of the CRT movement is not obvious to many believers because they’re getting a whitewashed version of it.

        Just the other day, I shared that Ibram Kendi video from my blog with a friend. Slightly younger than me, mom of many young kids, with whom I have been trying to dialogue about the truth of this stuff for a couple of years. She really does love Jesus, of that I have zero doubt. But she was born in 1980 (older millennial), went through all the college stuff and all the philosophical errors that go with it. I think she is finally starting to get it, but her husband is pretty woke so I’m trying to be less in your face.

        Don’t dismiss the inroads this stuff is making among the flock by writing them off using the no true Scotsman fallacy. This is more serious than that.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Lexet Blog says:

        This is how I see it:

        The SBC is an ecumenical organization bound by a theological statement that says “Jesus was nice and stuff.” The PCA lost its most orthodox people in the 90s when they left to form churches that opposed Federal Vision. The PCA was left in chaos, and it took them 10+ years to study biblical gender roles.

        Now the sjw movement is spreading like wildfire in both denominations.

        My position is that a church that understands the gospel wouldn’t entertain the social justice gospel at all, since it’s an anti gospel.

        The role of the true church in this is to immediately rebuke them, and if that doesn’t work, separate from them. (Doctrine of separation).

        We are not commanded to endure false teaching and to fight for control of the church. We are called to implement church discipline and not to even greet those who are false.

        When it comes to the ignorant flock, I am inclined to hold those raised in the church to very high standards. If they were truly saved they would have been in the word and know it. But these people by and large know 0 scripture, and don’t care for it.

        If a person raised in the church and holding a leadership position can name the starting lineup from their favorite college football team a decade ago while not knowing the basic requirements to hold their position, my judgment is that they have deceived themselves.

        People over use logical fallacies, which is in and of itself a logical fallacy.

        We know Scotsman exist, and that there is a point where a person is not a Scotsman.

        Same goes with Christianity.

        Our society has conditioned us to make everything ambiguous and mysterious, even though so many things are clear cut. Those are the people who argue for 573 genders.

        There are only 2.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Lexet Blog says:

        The biggest hindrance for the anti SJW gospel movement is their ecumenism prevents them from advocating FOR the gospel. Their message ends up murky, political, and reactionary.

        The individual groups should be focusing on actually presenting the gospel. Establish the basis to criticize SJG.

        They can’t do that because they don’t know the gospel themselves or can’t agree on it.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        their ecumenism prevents them from advocating FOR the gospel.

        Yes, I agree with this. It’s the same problem, in fact, I was talking about a post or two ago — it’s “the wall of disagreement” beyond which one cannot go without compromising one’s core.

        We do that dance here. Most of us here are pretty firm adherents to our particular type of Christianity. Many of us likely see the perspectives of others here as something that ranges from problematic to perhaps heretical or even outside the word “Christian” — on all sides. We suspend that, to a degree, for the purposes of discussion, but those discussions can only go so far before you reach the “frontier zone” where, if you go further, those core elements are subject to being compromised, and one has to choose between (a) whether to keep going or (b) whether to “pull up” and say “here, and no further”.

        Most of us realize that in the context of an internet blog and its related discussion, and even a set of internet resources that can be described as “Christian red pill” or what have you, it is most sensible for us all to choose choice (b). This handicaps the ability of the “Christian red pill” to do much other than very basic discussion, but it’s simply the reality that nothing discussed in this medium is worth even contemplating any sort of compromise of our respective core principles to achieve or clarify. There simply is no justification for that. So it is the sensible and best approach to stop, go no further, and acknowledge that beyond a certain point, it’s separate ways.

        This situation is mirrored in the broader church beyond these blogs and discussions. The issues of (1) where does that “line” between “core” and “discussable” lie and (2) what kinds of situations even justify thinking that demarcation through — are themselves both issues on which Christians differ passionately and wildly, both within and between “denominations”, and these disagreements have been a cause of tremendous tension and division in almost all of the Western churches in the last 50 years. They will continue to be, as that situation intensifies due to the generational split that Elspeth refers to in her comment above, coupled with the genuine fear, by members of churches which are evangelism/growth-primary, of becoming self-marginalized by being too far removed from the cultural Overton Window in a way that makes evangelism extremely difficult if not, in many situations, virtually prohibited.

        Liked by 3 people

  4. professorgbfmtm2021 says:

    EVERYBODY,here’s more info on wilson abuse claims
    This is what I’m refing to ”scandal in moscow(idaho)” from the americanconservative.com.wilson,who usual claims most husbands are abusers got one abuser stephen sitler to marry his abusie one katie travis,This happend mostly, pre-manosphere(The one most of us know!) in ’05,until the convicted child-molestor sitler married katie in ’11 with wilson presiding over it!He is ”the real patriarchical doing it gods way man”that condemns all us lesser men to hell,while doing such things himself,see why it matters now!?If a wife accused her husband of abuse,wilson is ready to excute him on sight,to show hes a ”true man”but its all nuance when he does something &women as ”clean as jesus” as he usualy acts&speaks says abuse,no such thing happened!Like ole’gov cumo in new york,those women are telling the truth ubtil they say it about him,then its all a misunderstandingwith no evidence!If any of us ”lesser men” had such a ”misunderstanding”,we would wind up in jail at the very least!

    Liked by 1 person

  5. info says:

    The glasses guy on the right. Gives the impression of thicker eyebrows and greater masculinity facially speaking.

    More Charles Bronson and less Ned Flanders.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. cameron232 says:

    Whatever happened to purple pill? Is that phrase used anymore?

    Liked by 2 people

    • Lexet Blog says:

      Meh. Is there such thing as being a little bit gay?

      Liked by 2 people

    • Jack says:

      The term “Purple Pill” was used for a time (ca. 2015-2018) to refer to those who couldn’t accept or adapt to the most bitter truths of the Red Pill, even though they accepted it as being true. They choked on it, and so they wanted a compromise — the comforts of the Blue Pill and the wisdom of the Red Pill. A few gurus even tried to make the case that a balance could be found. But eventually, the whole idea died, partly because this approach was untenable, and partly because there is no longer any comfort in the Blue Pill. Blue Pill comfort went the way of the dinosaur sometime between the advent of swipe online dating and when women wised up to PUA tactics. Something happened there that caused a huge metacognitive paradigm shift in women’s socio-sexual consciousness.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        “Blue Pill comfort went the way of the dinosaur sometime between the advent of swipe online dating and when women wised up to PUA tactics. Something happened there that caused a huge metacognitive paradigm shift in women’s socio-sexual consciousness.”

        Swipe dating apps made that possible, because they provided a near-universal looks screen that bypasses Game. The whole principle of Game circa 2008 (heyday of Roissy and Roosh) was that being present in the same physical space gives you some room to maneuver if you are charming enough provided you pass a basic looks screen. Swipe apps take that maneuvering room away because you are just a picture on an app that gets a fast up or down eval by a woman in a few seconds — it’s a hardcore looks screen, and likely the hardest one that there has ever been because it is utterly contextless — you live and die by your pics, period (as the successful app dater on Renn’s site pointed out by using professional photographer pics from exotic locales to generate positive attention from attractive women on Bumble).

        Frankly, swipe-based dating apps are the perfect “hard counter” to PUA and Game, but they countered that strategy in a way that only served to amplify the existing power dynamics of the dating market substantially: men who have hot pics based on the total pool of men in a given city are rock stars on swipe apps because there are so few of them, and average men are totally disempowered on apps vis-a-vis all but the unattractive women (as the “unsuccessful at dating apps” guy described at Renn’s site). Absolute disaster for men, which is why young men are in such a state right now overall.

        Liked by 3 people

      • cameron232 says:

        I try to reconcile what I read here with what I see in real life. Not being a social person, most of my observations are limited to work (our Church is a bunch of old fogies who haven’t dated since the 1960s).

        I see young men who are average looking getting cute girls to marry. In some cases, these girls want to have the guys baby and he won’t. It doesn’t seem to me to be impossible to get a good looking girl but it seems like getting a good corporate job sure doesn’t hurt. I don’t know of course if these girls will divorce the guys in five years. And of course there’s a 99% chance the chicks aren’t virgins.

        I realize the small number of cases I’m observing don’t prove that things aren’t very dire and I don’t think a man should have to be a corporate cubical monkey (or better) just to get a decent wife.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        Cameron —

        Have you spent any time at Aaron Renn’s site? Renn is not a “red piller” or a “manospherian”, but he sees many of the same things as far as I can tell.

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        @Nova, I have six sons, I guess I’ll have n=6 data I can report back on 15 – 20 years from now. So far my oldest two don’t seem destined to be cubical monkeys or lawyers/doctors/whatever.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Anon says:

        @cameron232

        This is what the evolutionary psychology calls strategic sexual pluralism and what the Red Pill calls ‘alpha fvcks, beta bucks’.

        The women are old enough to begin to seek long-term provisioning after having screwed loads of chads, which they will likely to continue to do insofar as they are able after marriage. Coming to the increasing realization that they can’t get chad to commit beyond one night, they seek the dad to provide stability to the cad. These marriages are the most likely to end in divorce unless the man is being diachronically cuckolded by marrying a single mother.

        I know this because it’s my place in the world. I’m a solid 5 at best, and two of those points come from my height. I can’t be bothered to spend my free time doing physical improvement: I’d rather go my own way than give up what little free time I have left to pursue ‘intellectual’ studies after working 60+ hour weeks to make truly obscene amounts of money in the computer science space. I’m like the incarnation of beta bucks. I pay more in taxes than the 80th percentile household makes in income, and my employee ID is, if not a chick pass, at least gets me in the door. It gets me in the door as a wallet, but I’d rather be a wallet than an incel, and I have money to spare.

        If I were to marry, half of my assets would disappear within the half-decade. I’d probably end up being forced by the court to buy a top lawyer to poke holes in my prenup.

        Your younger parishioners with highly-compensated white collar jobs are in a similar place, I’d wager.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Lexet Blog says:

        You still have time to workout. Not for the sake of looks but as an outlet and for health.

        Go see a tax advisor and an attorney that specializes in estates/taxes. Talk about trusts, shelters, etc.

        You can start to divert income and protect yourself now if you have enough of it.

        There’s also always the ghetto route. Put everything in moms name and be personally broke.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        Hi anon – my observations are from work. Several different cases of young hotties newly married to betas that are objectively less attractive than their new wives (the guys are average not toads). The men are interested in getting a puppy and an expensive car. Your young hot wife wants your (average looking DNA) man-chowder in her and you want a puppy – what are you Timmy from Lassie? I’ve tried to talk to them – no indication of red pill awareness. Hard to resist saying: “do you need me to do the deed for you?”

        My chant: “knock her up! Knock her up!”

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        I guess my point is yes they might get hit with child support except they are bluepilled – no signs of awareness of this – I think it’s a case of not wanting to grow up – impregnate your hot wife vs. Play with your goldendoodle

        Like

      • Novaseeker says:

        One can understand that, though. If a guy doesn’t have a deep need to procreate (legacy, etc) and he isn’t a deeply committed Christian (or Jew or Muslim for that matter), avoiding kids isn’t irrational. Kids are expensive and time-consuming, and they are a big problem for you if you get divorced (far more problematic than any other financial aspect of divorce). So it makes sense to me for younger guys who are married to not be so interested in having kids, especially where they aren’t already interested in creating a legacy or are already committed traditional Christians (or other religious) coming into the marriage.

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Nova, I understand – I am just a natural dad. Unlike Scott, i like other people’s kids too. If it were licit and agreeable to women I’d probably be a polygamist with 30 kids or whatever. Paternally I come from a long line of Catholic German peasants with double digit kids.

        Here’s what bothers me – I think these women might defect over this. Scott’s 1st may have. I see a coming train wreck and I see potential good wives and mothers. Why can’t God allow polygamy (asking flippantly not seriously)?

        Liked by 2 people

      • Elspeth says:

        My husband likes kids in general also. I am more ambivalent about them.

        We also know of several young-ish couples with husband’s who are uninterested in children. They like their lives, like the wife’s ability to increase disposable income, and enjoy the freedom of their childless life.

        Liked by 3 people

      • cameron232 says:

        @ Elspeth, yeah I fear the wife and husband being out of sync on this = trouble. Babies are basic of female biology at least for many women- men are often ok as long as they get enough sex.

        I see the same situation where the couple gets a puppy – it’s a lower risk/investment – and a simulation of real fatherhood/motherhood. The the in laws get their “I love my granddog” bumper sticker. But a puppy won’t satisfy a woman who wants a baby I suspect

        Liked by 2 people

      • Lexet Blog says:

        This also assumes the woman wants a kid. Many women want to delay having kids. It’s the clearest red flag that she doesn’t love him.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Lexet Blog says:

        People who think dogs are children are mentally ill. I avoid them at all costs

        Liked by 4 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Also we have known christian couples where the hubby gets vasectomized after the required 1.7 kids – the wife wanted more and it created problems in the marriage.

        I have received attention/IoI from a couple of girls that is not in proportion to my relative (lack of) attractiveness and in one case advanced age . As much as I’d like to stoke my own ego – it ain’t me – when they look at me their brain says “babies” I think. It’s one who wants babies (she got a puppy) and one whose husband is done after two.

        Like

      • Novaseeker says:

        It’s one of those issues that people should be up front and very clear about — not just the “wanting kids” issue, but also the “how many” issue, and try to stick to that.

        I know that’s unpopular in terms of the idea that people should be flexible and so on, but this is one of life’s most impactful decisions, and in my opinion it isn’t reasonable to expect people to fundamentally change, one way or the other, about it once they are married. It’s best to get this on the table prior to marrying, and understand just how aligned, or not, the couple is, and decide accordingly.

        I strongly believe that in cases where people are strongly unaligned as to number of kids that they should not marry.

        Liked by 3 people

      • cameron232 says:

        I agree Nova, I think sometimes the couple talks about kids in a generic way so that the girl thinks he wants kids. He keeps delaying it – he keeps saying “not yet.” A woman knows instinctively the clock is ticking. Not every woman can wait until 40 or even 35. For my sister “not yet” turned into “never” (and within a hair of divorce). For my sisters bff “now” by the hubby came too late – she had severe girl part issues in mid-30s and a hysterectomy so now its “never.”

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        Continue rant above. My workplace IoI’s (mild that they are) properly belong to these women’s husbands, the men who committed and not to a middle aged husband/dad.

        This is going to sound too close to manup Churchian for some – what do you expect when you get her a goddamned dog ? Female instinct is to have babies not just collect semen in her box. We men try to understand women sometimes through male lenses because depositing the seed is the best part by far for us and we don’t have the same visceral desire for babies. Women get super emotional (positive and negative) around our babies.

        A common manosphere narrative is that women want to literally cuckold beta hubbies Here are hot women wanting the seed of beta hubby (yes his bucks too) but it’s “not yet honey.”

        Like

      • Lexet Blog says:

        If a person has a problem with your language they are a f@ggOt.

        No exceptions.

        Tone policing is gay

        Liked by 2 people

      • anonymous_ng says:

        @cameron232 hit the nail on the head about protecting assets.

        I friend of mine was drug into court what seemed like every other month by his ex-wife, and he ended up paying for her legal bills each time.

        Then, folks who haven’t done their research think prenups work.

        Haha.

        First, they cannot effect child support because the child cannot be a party to the prenup.

        Secondly, they are routinely overturned for being unconscionable which is the whole friggin’ point, but that offends the gynocratic judges. How dare the woman not get her cash prize.

        Third, Jay Adkisson has written a ton of articles on Forbes.com about trusts for asset protection. There was a case he highlighted where a man formed a trust properly and well in advance of the reason he needed it, but he made a comment when he formed it that it was to protect his assets in the event of a lawsuit, and that offended the judge who broke the trust and awarded the assets to the defendant.

        SO, the only thing I could figure from all this research was to never own anything you aren’t prepared to lose in your home jurisdiction. Things you want to protect, keep outside of your home country, and owned by a foreign asset trust. Then, figure a location agnostic way of making money such that if you get screwed in a divorce, hit the road and expat.

        Of course, kids change everything.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        Anon-ng —

        Yes. I mean those things (prenups, trusts) are worth a try, especially if you know your jurisdiction is friendly to them in terms of the family law precedents there. But it’s all just playing probabilities. The family courts are courts of equity and they are therefore outcome-oriented, and so they can (and will) set aside legal agreements, trusts and the like if they deem that necessary to reach an “equitable” outcome (which is what they are talking about when they use legal phrases like “unconscionable” or “against public policy”). There is no bullet proof solution legally.

        Honestly the best way to protect yourself is to bring no assets into the marriage (that is, don’t own much of value beforehand, either yourself or in trusts) and marry someone with the same income as you and keep it that way in the marriage. That way, the only issue is marital property and in those cases it will get split 50/50. Oh, and don’t have kids.

        The problems there are not everyone wants to avoid gaining assets prior to marrying, or wants to marry a career high earning woman, or wants to avoid kids. So you balance what you want with the risks, but you have to keep in mind that each of those “ratchets” adds risk. That doesn’t mean you are guaranteed to divorce, but it does mean that if you do, you will be royally screwed, because the entire system is set up to viciously punish men who make those decisions.

        Liked by 2 people

  7. cameron232 says:

    There’s always been a tendency towards pissing contests among men – “my pill’s redder than yours” is an example of this. That’s what men do, we compete with each other.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Lexet Blog says:

      Red pill is more binary. You either are or you aren’t.

      The only time a purple pill reality would exist is for a person who was just introduced to the red pill.

      Liked by 3 people

      • cameron232 says:

        I guess – what do you call the really way out there stuff you see online – all women secretly want to be raped by a serial killer or slightly less extreme stuff? Just wary of red pill purity tests or no true Scotsman, etc. There’s some really really deep red stuff you read including at sites linked to at the top of this page. Wondering how much room for disagreement on redpill there is. I’m sure I agree with most of the basics described here.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Lexet Blog says:

        In the age of the internet, it’s hard to gauge a lot of crap like that, since so much comes from the betas on Reddit

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        Sure – people write anonymously – I don’t know if Jim Donald is a genius/prophet, a lunatic, or some 16 year old kid living in his parents garage.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Lexet Blog says:

        Re one of the questions:

        The Fantasy is about being controlled.

        There is an element in there that is natural, but I believe the farther we stray from traditional roles, the more extreme that fantasy becomes (which makes sense- fantasy is opposite of reality).

        So masculine women want to become dominated, and all the American chumps want to larp as Chad’s

        Liked by 1 person

  8. Jack says:

    Lexet,

    “In the political realm, [Black Pillers] are the self-identified stateless beings.”

    By “stateless beings”, are you referring to Libertarians? 😉

    Liked by 2 people

  9. Scott says:

    It has been insinuated that my thoughts on the diathesis-stress model, (genes and environment interacting), developmental milestone acquisition (meet cutes or whatever other socially normative/appropriate interactions one may have had with members of the opposite sex as a requirement for continued building success) and the apparent non-backward ratcheting effects of those trajectories (can’t go back and acquire them at 40) makes me black pill.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. feeriker says:

    “We can call it the John Nelson Darby model of church ministry.”

    Oral Roberts is perhaps a more famous (and contemporary) example of this phenomenon.

    As renowned as Charles Spurgeon has become since his own era in the 19th Century, I believe that it was he who once said something to the effect that if someone came away from hearing one of his sermons praising him or his delivery, he felt that sermon to be an utter failure, because no one should ever remember the preacher more than they remember the message he delivers.

    Liked by 5 people

    • Lexet Blog says:

      Oral Robert’s- that’s a name I’ve only heard 2x in the last decade. 1- when W was campaigning he had to apologize for appearing there when they Had some racial drama and 2- 2021 is the year of no name schools making it to March madness

      Liked by 2 people

  11. feeriker says:

    “It’s hard for me to find a church where I live because hardly any have an elder board or deacon board running the show (I think theology should be run by elders and management of everything else by deacons with some oversight by elders). It’s a must for me. I’ve seen too much abuse in the church. (One of my former pastors is also serving a life sentence).”

    This is a most serious problem with evangelical non-denominational churches that are founded by one individual (my now-former church falls into this category). The “founder” is from Day One the ultimate authority because it’s “his” church (an almost blasphemously unbiblical idea, given that the church is GOD’S church, period). “Elders” and “deacons” (who rarely ever go by those titles) are selected by the pastor, very often never formally, and server (or not) at his discretion. It’s a situation that leads almost inevitable to abuse of office, neglect, and just sheer chaos. In the case of my former church, the pastor was an octogenarian who was in visibly failing mental and physical health, yet who would not step aside and let younger, more capable leadership take over. He and his wife founded the church nearly half a century ago and thus look at it as “their” creation and “their” property.

    Liked by 3 people

  12. redpillboomer says:

    “I am Red Pill because that viewpoint accurately describes human relationships in a fallen world. CHECK… It is the only world view that prepares you to handle the world, as you are able to see the world for what it is. CHECK… I believe it also confirms scriptural truths. CHECK… The red pill confirmed many lessons I had made in my past, and made sense of other happenings in my life. CHECK, CHECK!!…Everything I learned from the RP community allowed me to connect many dots in my previous relationships, and made me realize I had made similar mistakes in the past, and that many different types of women were, in fact, the same. (AWALT!) CHECK, CHECK, CHECK!.”

    “I believe it also confirms scriptural truths.” This in my opinion is the biggie! Scriptural Truth is truth with a capital T. The Red Pill world is truth with a lower case t. I’m slowly beginning to align what I’ve learned in the Red Pill/Christian Red Pill with the scriptures concerning male-female relationships. It’s all in there, in the Bible I mean. There truly is ‘nothing new under the sun.’ The big question, “What to do with with this knowledge and understanding?” To me, the Red Pill spectrum seems to run from one end, ‘take advantage of women,’ like in use this knowledge to seduce them to get them to do what you want them to because you are ‘pushing all the right buttons’ and they will respond the way you want them to because ‘that’s their female nature.’ This is the world of the PUAs and Players. The other end of the spectrum, use this knowledge to 1) Protect yourself in navigating the world of women with your ‘eyes wide open’ to female nature and all it’s permutations out there in the world, and 2) helping others, particularly Blue Pill men and younger men, navigate it so they can at at least avoid wrecking their lives (hopefully), and possibly find a ‘unicorn’ out there, a girl who for whatever reason is ‘wired’ more for the traditional role of womanhood. I choose the later course, one for obvious reasons, I’m married and older; however, reason number two, to help others, particularly younger men navigate this cultural, relational shit show we’ve created. I’ve also found it’s not just the twenty/thirty something men, it’s also the freakin’ forty and fifty something men we’ve got to help navigate as well. I’ve dealt with several of those guys, and omg, what Blue Pill mindsets they still have at the ages of 40, 50 and even 60 years old on one occasion! It’s amazing, that is until I think of myself just a few short years ago, that was me (mindset-wise I mean, Blue Pill)! I can’t red pill them directly, however I can subtly steer them in the right direction, at least in some cases, if they’ll listen. Rambling a bit now, but I think you can get my drift here. Thoughts?

    Liked by 2 people

  13. Pingback: Word from the Dark Side – empty words, enduring enough, eager executioners, ex-rated shipping routes and elderly expats beware | SovietMen

  14. Pingback: Unpacking and tying together the meta-levels of Christianity, reality and the red pill into a hierarchical understanding: theological, scientific, and philosophical/cultural | Christianity and masculinity

  15. Pingback: Unpacking and tying together the meta-levels of Christianity, reality and the red pill into a hierarchical understanding: theological, scientific, and philosophical/cultural | Christianity and masculinity

  16. Elspeth says:

    I strongly believe that in cases where people are strongly unaligned as to number of kids that they should not marry.

    There is a strong suggestion among evangelicals in particular that men primarily get married for sex and women primarily get married for babies and provision. I think this my be slightly hyperbolic, but it rings somewhat true. It behooves men to recognize (particularly in this feminist, dysfunctional culture), that one of the primary reasons women want to get married is to legitimately reproduce.

    An e-friend shared something with me today that is pretty interesting about female… physiological responses:

    https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/04/weaponization-female-orgasm/618680/

    We discussed briefly some of the implications and she declared that if women were like men nothing would ever get done. Being rather easily distracted by my husband’s presence, I can concede her point a tiny bit, but not completely. My rebuttal to this is that people would have more babies and babies force us to get things done and move civilization forward.

    There are no vacuums, a point Carl Trueman makes well in Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self. A culture in which increasing numbers of couples marry without reproducing -especially when said couples are ostensibly Christian, as two couples we know- is a culture on its way out.

    I keep coming back to Fortune’s Wheel. We’re definitely in trouble when men -whether they have valid reasons or not- don’t appreciate the virility that is demonstrated by a pregnant wife. And yes, I know that women are largely to blame for the current state of affairs. It doesn’t make what I said any less true.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Lexet Blog says:

      Agree on people not marrying if they aren’t aligned on family structure, children, birth control, etc.

      I don’t think I can say anyone under 30 gets married to have kids. Women get married to have an absurdly expensive wedding. Children come years later for 90%+ churchian couples.

      Liked by 1 person

    • cameron232 says:

      Hard to say. I got plenty of sex when we were living in sin for 5+ years often multiple per day. We got married to have children ( the “right way.”) There was definitely a degree of her strongly suggesting (I’ll not say “nagging”) to get married. We weren’t Christian’s at all but evangelicals don’t generally wait until marriage so how many of these men are getting married for sex when they get it anyway?

      Liked by 2 people

      • Elspeth says:

        You’re missing the point. For men go do wait (and some do) that is the motivation. Catholics don’t wait either, btw.

        But…as Deti has explained countless times, most men supposedly marry as a guarantee of continual access to sex.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        Oh absolutely! I’ve said this repeatedly – sex is the number one (not necessarily only) reason men commit to women and invest time money effort. Appliances do most housework , takeout food,etc. Easier to hang out with your buds – more in common , no drama, etc. Our romantic love isn’t exclusively sexual but our physical attraction (which is #1 for us) always culminates in the strong desire to have sex with her. Her beauty isn’t a “look but don’t touch” beauty.

        FWIW I only mentioned evangelicals in response to your reference to them. Catholics are probably worse than serious evangelicals on this.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        Elspeth, here’s how I’d describe it for men. You marry to be in proximity with her feminine beauty. This includes looks and feminine personality with some men emphasizing the former at expense of the latter. Being in proximity with her feminine beauty inevitably leads you to want to have sex with her. I don’t think men scheme before marriage “now I’m going to get all the sex I want, heh heh”. I don’t doubt that men who wait do look forward to sex a lot.

        Deti’s description sounds like a husband who has been denied sex (I think he said he was) and this is no doubt incredibly hurtful AND frustrating as well as defrauding.

        As far as how men and women naturally are I don’t doubt that sex for men is more motivating and babies raised in the secure, pair-bonded environment is more motivating for women.

        As lexit suggested, I think for modern women status among other women (bridezilla, avoiding “she can’t keep a man”) is also motivating.

        Liked by 1 person

      • professorGBFMtm2021 says:

        Living in sin?Says who?Were the various popes,priests&preachers through the ages, living in sin with the women they f@cked&had children by,where was their non-sin?P.S.Did’nt think I was going to get involved? ExtraP.S.Sex is marriage period!
        No one mentioned anything about papal infailability on my last comment,so I thought I would ”help” in this conversation,as only I can!

        Liked by 1 person

    • cameron232 says:

      The Atlantic article – I’ll show my sex ignorance. How can a woman not know if she o-d? For that matter how can a man not know she did? I get that the noise/reaction can be faked but the convulsions, the near complete loss of control, her nails ripping painfully into you, the fact that it (unlike us men) makes her desire to get it from you multiply by 100.

      Liked by 1 person

  17. Elspeth says:

    You marry to be in proximity with her feminine beauty. This includes looks and feminine personality with some men emphasizing the former at expense of the latter. Being in proximity with her feminine beauty inevitably leads you to want to have sex with her.

    Well, yeah, but that’s all romantic euphemisms for sex, which you eventually got around to as an “and also by the way…” addendum. I admire your nobility, I prefer my husband’s bluntness, 🙂 Although, he can be quite the romantic at time too, so…

    But no, I don’t believe a man gets married consciously thinking, “Now I’m gonna get all the sex I want, heh heh.” Of course not. Ideally, he loves his bride too much to allow himself to consciously think that way, but it is a large part of the point: He has this woman with whom he has regular relations. Who knows when he’ll find another sexual partner? Suppose he went 2 years without one before he found her. She’s nice enough. Gonna go ahead and lock this down.” I think that is the essence of Deti’s theory. He would have to correct me if I’m wrong.

    Since you married without that worry, and my husband married without that worry, I’ll concede your point somewhat. Even with the complexity of my own situation, a large part of my husband pulling the trigger was the desire for official ownership of me. For a few reasons, that I’ll not get into here. I’m not saying sex is every man’s reason. Scott got married, after all. My husband got married, after all. Liz’s husband got married, after all.

    I think some men (most, even) enjoy the side benefits of monogamy. It’s too bad we’ve -collective, cultural we- done our level best to eliminate those benefits. Variety may b the spice of life, but contentment is built on some sense of normalcy, on having someone who feels like home. I haven’t really followed any PUA writers, but just from the things I’ve read about them peripherally, nearly all eventually have a spiritual awakening of some sort and realize how empty and unsatisfying that life is. There’s a reason for that.

    All that to say that I agree with you on the one hand, while wondering on the other if you’re being overly romantic. You may be right, though, because without the romantic motivation (or the desire for kids), it wouldn’t make sense for objectively desirable men to marry.

    Liked by 2 people

    • professorGBFMtm2021 says:

      Elspeth I have never agreed with you more here at jacks than when you said “men don’t get married thinking now they’ll get all the sex they want” lolz lolz’,they usually think “now she will stay with me”, which is usually worse as the manosphere has shown for the past dozen years, especially at Dalrock! P.S.I love having a feminine woman around ,just for that very reason! Hence you&SAM & also LIZ&mike! See all of us natural alphas&feminine women are true romantics!

      Liked by 1 person

    • cameron232 says:

      To me male romantic love can’t be separated from sexual attraction but consists of more than sexual attraction. I’ve mentioned some other attractive characteristics- a soft sweet personality, a soft gentle voice, compassion (which I could see in my wife early on) – not sex things but very attractive.

      As a man you like to be around her softness – you will want to have sex too. In addition to your raw desire the sex makes you feel loved, appreciated, desired, and connected. Scott said this once: “Sex is most men’s primary love language, you just can’t say it.”

      You’re right — Men’s sustained love involves a degree of “possession” – “This girl is mine!”

      So no a woman isn’t just a warm hole to put it in.

      Liked by 1 person

      • SFC Ton says:

        So no a woman isn’t just a warm hole to put it in.
        ……..

        LOL pure comedy gold right there

        Liked by 2 people

      • Lexet Blog says:

        I know only a few guys who married with a count of n=0. They were all under 25 at the time they married. Romantic and idealistic thoughts were not on their mind in the days before the wedding.

        Most of those guys will not make it. Blue pilled, don’t control the relationship, etc. “accidental” pregnancies + women planning wedding around when they would get pregnant (a tell that they want the kid, not a sexual relationship with the husband)

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        “Romantic and idealistic thoughts were not on their mind in the days before the wedding.”

        Idealistic/Romantic thoughts can and often do coexist with sexual desire in a man’s mind.

        Liked by 1 person

  18. Elspeth says:

    “Scott said this once: “Sex is most men’s primary love language, you just can’t say it.”

    Y’all can and should. It’s not as if we don’t know, but putting it in the psychobabble terminology of “love language” might help a lot of wives get it. Most women love psychobabble. Not all of us, but many.

    Conversations about enneagrams really make my skin crawl. You’d think when I explain that I don’t have a clue what the numbers mean, that would end it. Nope! I get treated to a questionnaire so that the admittedly well-meaning woman can enlighten me of my enneagram number. But I digress.

    My point is that couching this truism in the framework of a “love language” might help a lot of women.

    Liked by 2 people

    • cameron232 says:

      I think men are shamed for thinking that way – Scott’s experience with his male clients suggests this. It helps if you as a woman tell other women I guess.

      But we always come back to this. Most women aren’t very attracted sexually to the average man. His love language is often unpleasant to her.

      Liked by 2 people

    • SFC Ton says:

      Most women love psychobabble
      …….

      Most women love pyschobabble more then they love their husbands

      Women/ wives know sex is the most important sex language for men

      They aren’t unknowing. They are uncaring

      Liked by 4 people

  19. cameron232 says:

    More I guess. As a young man, whenever I fell in love with a girl, I generally didn’t pursue thoughts of sex with her in my head (I had no moral issues with pursuing lustful thoughts since I wasn’t Christian.) Those ones were different — love not lust. I’m sure I would have wanted that had a relationship progressed but it wasn’t like explicit thoughts of her hotness are what drove my interest. I had romantic thoughts as a little boy long before I was old enough to have sexual thoughts. Some boys were dogs from a young age. I had a good father.

    The ones you had lustful thoughts about weren’t the ones you had romantic feelings for typically. That’s all not going to sound very noble but male romantic love is not all driven by desire for sex.

    I think deti has the “in hindsight” view of a man screwed over for 15 years. She probably killed/crushed his romantic/warm/soft side -consider the context.

    Liked by 1 person

  20. Elspeth says:

    @ Cameron:

    So I was listening to Young Heretics, whom I love to listen to. My 12-year-old says that if I’m not working, cooking, cleaning, or reading a book, I’m listening to some guy talk. She is kind of right, but I digress.

    Anyway, Spencer Klavan is breaking down Shakespeare’s The Twelfth Night and included in his discussion is his thoughts on the differences in the way men and women fall in love. He asserts that for men, there is no real sense of falling in love with a woman apart from her physicality. Conversely, he says women fall in love based on a combination of spiritual/emotional components that express themselves physically but unlike men, the physical isn’t the lead in.

    He is careful to offer the obligatory caveat about some men and some women being more or less hamstrung by this generalization, but that in general, it’s true. I’m all about Klavan’s exploration of great, classic Western literature, so I enjoy his podcast immensely. I know it’s not for everyone though. He gets into this point around the 27:30 through the 32:00 mark, but the whole thing is worth the listen if you’re into this kind of thing. it;s more fleshed out:

    Liked by 1 person

    • cameron232 says:

      I can believe that for women the experience is more emotional because women receive provision and protection as well as reproduction from men.

      Who this emotional component is directed at isn’t random – it tends to be directed towards the viscerally attractive males (you can argue what fraction) which isn’t just based on physical attractiveness – the reason game works.

      Liked by 1 person

    • cameron232 says:

      @Elspeth,

      So some more speculative thoughts on Klavan on female love.

      He vaguely cites studies of physical arousal. It’s probably studies where they have men and women view e.g. porn or nudes and measure physiological reactions. I don’t doubt men’s measurable, physiological response is faster/greater to this sort of in-the-lab stimulation.

      But they can’t measure these things for the process of falling in love since it can’t really happen in a lab.

      In reality, women tend to respond (even physiologically) more to actual in-the-flesh men compared to pictures, video, etc. Cane Caldo talked about this once – women tend to instinctively sort men into (roughly the 80/20) based on the actual in-the-flesh men that are available to them – in their field of view (this could include e.g. Tinder). It’s an even stronger version of the way men respond disproportionately to say cam girls or girls they can talk to on Facebook compared to e.g. random internet photos or videos.

      I think women do on average have more of an emotional component but also have a strong physical component as well – and these are reserved (instinctively not intentionally) for top attractiveness males so this all fits with manosphere theory. Maybe the emotional component is simply the most a woman can give the average guy – of course I think even the emotional component is disproportionately directed towards top men (physical hot guys and guys that show signs of signs of personality dominance.)

      So, the thing I don’t like about his bluepilled approach is that it makes men’s love seem shallow/superficial and women’s love sound deep/noble. Men love superficially (in the sense of looks and softness of personality) but at least the woman is the object that is loved/objectified. The man is the object loved/objectified only when he’s “hot” to her. Otherwise, she loves his performance or potential performance, what Rollo calls “opportunisitic love.”

      Like

      • cameron232 says:

        To be clear, I think female “opportunistic” love is often genuinely experienced as emotion – I don’t mean to imply that all women with a good beta hubby consciously think: “I’m getting a paycheck and free babysitting from this chump!”

        Of course, some do think this explicitly (the wife of a friend of mine pretty much said this to him).

        Like

      • Elspeth says:

        @ cameron:

        I think you’re being overly harsh in your review of Klavan’s take. My thought was that Klavan’s analysis isn’t so much blue pill as it is an oversimplification, almost caricaturish. It is true that men have captivated and scammed many a woman online with words. The fantasy of a great love can literally be built in a woman’s imagination if a guy says the right things in the right way for a long enough time.

        Conversely, I don’t think a man can fall in love with a woman sight unseen. Maybe it’s possible, but I doubt it. Anyway…

        SAM and I were talking about it and he was a bit incredulous at Klavan’s analysis. Specifically, he said, “It is not true that women need to be emotionally moved to want a man. He’s projecting an ideal.” My physical reaction to my husband was, at first sight, pretty overwhelming. Shocking to me, even. But it wasn’t love, and I knew it, and I refused to entertain that idea as a reality until we started dating nearly a year later.

        My husband agrees with you about the importance of a face when a man falls in love. He wouldn’t have married a woman whose face didn’t move him, knowing he has to look at said face every morning for the next 60 years. He is probably more specific in his body preferences than some men, but he would never have sacrificed a pretty face for that, especially since having children necessarily tinkers with that to some degree. But the face…

        That said, he thinks Klavan is right about men loving the experience of conquering and owning the shiny bauble, so to speak. He thought that was spot on, and he doesn’t think it means men love superficially. He says the characterization of masculine ways of being as “superficial” is a cultural fallout from this era. He imagines that before the triumph of feminism, no one would argue that a man conquering and owning the beauty and desires of a woman was superficial. It would be just the way it is.

        Men love in a manly way, and women love in a womanly. But now, we hear it and think superficial. He says, “to hell with that”.

        Liked by 1 person

      • anonymous_ng says:

        @cameron232 –

        “In reality, women tend to respond (even physiologically) more to actual in-the-flesh men compared to pictures, video, etc. Cane Caldo talked about this once – women tend to instinctively sort men into (roughly the 80/20) based on the actual in-the-flesh men that are available to them – in their field of view (this could include e.g. Tinder).”

        This has been my experience.

        Comparing Tinder/Bumble/Match to real life, there is no comparison. Online, because so many lie, and because media engages the logical part of the mind more than real life, I’m a pale shadow of the man I am in meatspace. In real life, my size and stature has a presence that does not come through via pictures.

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Yeah, Blue Pill wasn’t meant to insult Klavan – I would say his analysis is conventional and that makes it Blue Pill by default. If I called him e.g. a SIMP that would be meant to be insulting.

        I think men would need to have a picture in his mind of her being an attractive woman in order to fall in love with her sight unseen (words only). But I suspect that’s what women do too even when they haven’t seen the guy. Romance novels (even the ones without pictures on the cover) convey a sense of an attractive male to the female even if she falls in love with words (the male character’s and the narrator’s).

        It’s interesting – SAMs raw attractiveness seems to have been a prerequisite for the emotional component of love, even if it waited a year.

        “That said, he thinks Klavan is right about men loving the experience of conquering and owning the shiny bauble, so to speak.”

        Yeah – could be – that’s not a great description of how I work but I’m not real alpha personality wise. When e.g. Rollo describes how men love, he’s often referring to beta men – his audience – alpha males have no reason to read Rollo. I was always the Robbie Hart (lead character in the Adam Sandler movie The Wedding Singer) nice guy type. That movie is fake – women aren’t real attracted to nice guy type. They like the conquering type – they like to be conquered.

        Like

    • cameron232 says:

      I don’t think a woman falls in love apart from physicality either – even if it’s experienced, on average, with relatively more emotion and relatively less libido in that moment where there’s an initial “spark.” The male-physical to her is a condition for the emotional component she experiences/gives whether or not it is a “lead-in.”

      For me, the physical attraction isn’t just about sexual attraction and the girls I tended to fall in love with were more the “pretty like a flower” types and not the “smokin’ hot types”. This is why I say I have little preference for female body type (petite-delicate vs. stacked). Stacked does create a stronger raw sexual response yes, but that’s not romantic love, certainly not even close to the entirety of it (at least not for me). The pretty face, the feminine personality, the soft voice – I would choose this over the perfect body measurements any day.

      Like

  21. cameron232 says:

    Thanks Elspeth. I’ll at least try to listen to the part about male vs. female love.

    Like

  22. Elspeth says:

    I’ll have to ask him later, but I don’t think my husband will see the idea of a man owning/conquering a woman as necessarily alpha. He would say its innate masculinity. He would say even the most romantic of men have this tendency. But again, he has a very specific, often narrow way of looking at the world.

    When we met, for instance, he did his charming thing and I put my guard up. He was too confidently forward, and I didn’t trust myself to play with that fire and not get burned. He brushed me off (I believe you guys call that “nexting”). He moved on to making time with another woman. We would still bump into each other via our overlapping social circles. Over the next 9 months, we actually got to be pretty friendly, and we talked a lot. There was undeniably an unspoken dance taking place (unspoken because he had a woman in his life), but we also got to be actual friends.

    The whole, “I can talk to you about things I can’t talk to her about” was a real factor in our interactions. For some reason, the hair trigger temper, partying ladies man, one-dimensional guy that most people knew was not always the guy I had conversations with. His vision of a life partner was deeper than the surface. Once he broke up with his then girlfriend, things between us moved extremely quickly, but even with all the buildup, he saw that culmination as him having conquered that part of me that was resisting him.

    He doesn’t think this is something only so-called alpha men experience. He doesn’t see himself as abnormal in any way from other men. He knows his parents were good looking and they passed those genes on to their kids, but he is very much, in his head, and everyman, average guy. Men are men, albeit on a spectrum. Women are women. Again, on a spectrum, but it is what it is. Of course, he doesn’t really subscribe to a lot of psychological stuff. Not the socio-sexual scale, not Myers-Briggs, etc.

    His take is that you rise to the occasion, you do what needs to be done, you go get what (or who) you want within acceptable means, and you live the life you got to the best of your ability.

    Liked by 2 people

    • cameron232 says:

      I think I told the story of how we met. My wife called a friend of mine – I was in the background — she asked to speak to me. She got my phone number and started calling me. She asked me out on a date. She made the moves on me…… etc.

      The experience of conquering is alien to me. To me the conquest mentality is alpha or aggressive guy or whatever. His trying with you then moving on to her, then nexting her – that’s alpha to me.

      “For some reason, the hair trigger temper, partying ladies man, one-dimensional guy that most people knew was not always the guy I had conversations with. His vision of a life partner was deeper than the surface.”

      Yes, that’s alpha with some beta/dad to be very alluring. Kinda like we’ve told you.

      Alpha men probably don’t think of themselves that way I’m sure. It’s not something they’re real aware of. The tendency is for men who are lower on the socio-sexual scale to be conscious of these things.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Elspeth says:

        Your lady knew what she wanted. She came. She saw. She conquered. 😂

        Seriously though, these days I think a lot of women in today’s world are going to have to do what she did.

        Just not sure how that plays out with young women with dads who have taught them that ladies are not the chasers. Church women get that message more than most.

        But very few men feel free anymore to be forward, and that goes double for Christian men. Which we all know well by now.. The dysfunction runs deep.

        Liked by 2 people

    • cameron232 says:

      SAMs take is the “man up” take but the alpha sees it as natural because the alpha IS a natural. Other men at best imitate this and while women can be fooled by an elaborate hoaxer, they have instincts to sniff out fakes. The same SAM also says “be yourself” – SAM doesn’t get the contradiction – he doesn’t get it because he doesn’t have to get it.

      Alphas are largely born. Ask me how I know. I have 6 boys all raised very similarly. Five of them range from shy to average. My fifth boy, 11, has been thrown in the back of cop car, talks back to teachers, fist fights with other boys, and guess what, has been bringing a Korean girl over… and now he goes to see another little girlfriend named Alexis (we haven’t met Alexis yet).

      Like

      • Elspeth says:

        Your son sounds like he has the potential to be a strong leader as you channel that energy.

        But yes, a lot of how we navigate life is based on our natural personalities. No argument from me. I’ve told my husband on many occasions that his ability to empathize with people in certain areas is limited because a lot of things seem to come naturally to him.

        I’ve enjoyed our conversations, but I’ll be scarce for the month of May. I have a project with more words and harder deadlines. I like copy editing because it’s flexible and I’m my own boss (sort of), but have no idea how people work via computer all day without getting distracted. I do plan to finish my series on Fault Lines, however, by Monday. But after that, I’m taking a vacation to work!

        I’ve concluded that physical labor our much better for the minds, souls, and bodies. Our culture hates it, but that alone should be a strong indicator that it’s good for us. Kind of like spinach, LOL.

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Lol he’s by order my 4th boy, 5th child -easy for me to miscount.

        Liked by 2 people

  23. professorGBFMtm2021 says:

    What does everybody think I have done since I came here?I’m a average guy who beleaves in christ&thinks everybody always knows what I mean,whatever I talk about!then some try to play your not a christian with me?”I’am a work man that is not ashamed”!I don’t play christian,I know my faith!People need to go back to high school like nova says because I’m a mature,adult beleaver in christ ,not some little coward like a driscoll or gregoire or francis!Anybody looking for a showdown knows where I’m at!Just call my name&I’ll come ready to fight everybody,if I have too!GBFMtm is the defender of the faith period!!

    Liked by 1 person

  24. Elspeth says:

    Lol he’s by order my 4th boy, 5th child -easy for me to miscount.

    I have friends and family members with 6 kids and they miscount. So that’s understandable when you have what, 9 or 10 kids? Sounds like a beautiful family.

    I’m gonna leave this here because I think it’s funny. It’s old, but for some reason it has been revived in the news cycle.

    Have a great weekend!

    Liked by 2 people

  25. Pingback: The Cross of Our Age | Σ Frame

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s