Restoring Respect

For most men, it begins with purpose.

Readership: All
Theme: Redemptive Headship and Masculinity
Reader’s Note: The capitalization of words indicates a theoretical concept.
Length: 1,500 words
Reading Time: 8 minutes

Introduction

St. Dalrock was he who first brought our attention to the fact that Western culture has somehow developed a propensity to disrespect respectability and dishonor the honorable.  As such, it is now commonplace for immoral and unethical men to receive honor and respect, and average men see little value in being respectable or honorable.

We’ve discussed this phenomenon in the comments sections under the following posts.

Roger Bannister was the first to break the 4 minute mile.

The most pertinent questions addressed were…

  1. Why is there a moral incongruency surrounding Honor and Respect?
  2. What is the profile of a man who “rightfully deserves the respect of other men”?  What does that profile look like?
  3. What can be done to assign honor and respect to those men who are rightfully deserving of it?

These are the questions I had in mind during the study of Faux-Masculine Archetypes in May 2022.  In this study, I set forth 5 benchmarks of Masculinity to form an objective and qualitative criteria which were then used to evaluate each of the archetypes.  These five benchmarks form the acronym SHARP (or HARPS) and have the subcategories listed below.

  1. Strength — Athleticism; Endurance; Maintaining Frame; Physical Strength; Stamina;
  2. Honor — Ethics; Honesty; Identity; Morality; Reputation; Social Status;
  3. Authority — Education; Influence; Position; Power; Socioeconomic Status;
  4. Respect — Abilities / Skills; Authenticity; Charisma; Excellence; Integrity; SMV;
  5. Purpose — Attaining Goals; Discipline; Incentives / Motivations; Meaning / Significance / Value; Perseverance;

This examination of Masculine traits and archetypes and our discussions (noted above) considered the questions above and found the following.

Concerning Honor

  • Honor is a difficult balance to attain / maintain, because Ethics and Morality often have a negative correlation with Status, presumably because of competition in a fallen world.
  • Among the things that deliver Honor, Reputation and Status carry more weight than Ethics and Morality, again, because of competition. (I will develop this further below.)
  • Universal but rare exceptions to this moral dichotomy include instances of heroism and exceptional valor.
  • Qualities related to Honor are highly dependent on the ethical system employed by the wider social group.
  • Man’s identity, ethics, and morality are necessarily tied to Honor. If it is not, then although a man might receive honor for whatever reason, that man may not necessarily be inherently honorable, by definition. (For example, veterans receive honor for their bravery and service, not for the horrendous things they did in battle.)

Concerning Respect

  • The archetypes scoring highest in masculinity also scored the highest in Respect.
  • The culmination of masculinity is summarily manifested in Respect.
  • The core spiritual effectiveness of Masculinity hinges on Respect, which is possibly why St. Paul emphasized that wives should respect their husbands (Ephesians 5:33).
  • Respect is linked to Authority through Power.

Comprehensive

  • That which makes a man honorable are internal characteristics like character, courage, honesty, and willpower, whereas that which brings a man respect are inherent qualities related to Strength (e.g. endurance, Frame, stamina, etc.), Virtuosity, Status, and Authority (e.g. power, influence, etc.).
  • The things which make a man honorable (i.e. ethics, honesty, service, valor, etc.) have no direct relation to those qualities that make him respectable (i.e. expertise, authority, charisma, SMV, etc.).
  • Certain achievements can garner both Honor and Respect if limited to a specific demographic, but these are rare and hard won. (For example, Julian Assange, Martin Luther King, Ronald Reagan, and other popular dignitaries.)
Julian Assange changed the face of journalism, politics, and history, and was persecuted by powerful foes.

There is one revision from my earlier study of Faux-Masculine Archetypes.  In my earlier assessment, I included Abilities / Skills under the category of Respect and mentioned that these traits branch across Authority and Purpose.  But after studying this a bit more, I’ve come to see that respect is not always given to a man simply because he possesses an ability or skill (e.g. think of gamers or amateur hobbyists), but only when he has achieved a mastery / virtuosity of an ability / skill that is appreciated by the larger social group in question.  This is why I advised men to find a social context in which Reality = True (for himself) in which he can develop Flow and work toward mastery.

On a related note, one previous post, What Women find Attractive: Fit and Skilled (2022-4-18), reported an opinion from a female reader saying that women are attracted to men with skills.  After considering the above, it would be more precise to say that women are attracted to men who demonstrate mastery / virtuosity in a skill recognized by other men (within a shared social group) to have value, as this leads directly to Respect.

Comprehensively, it is observed that Honor and Respect are somehow intertwined with Strength, Authority, and Purpose through a complex function involving various other characteristics, experiences, and traits, such as Abilities / Skills, Confidence / Charisma, SMV, and others.

To aid our understanding of the dynamic development of masculinity, I’ve studied all these aspects closely and put together the following system diagram.  There is no note of spiritual qualities in this graph, because it pertains to the masculine development of all men.

The diagram illustrates the cause and effect relationships between these features of masculinity, how they occur in a certain order, and that they have a rather complex interrelation.  

StrengthHonor, Authority, Respect, and Purpose (SHARP) roughly correlate with Donal Graeme’s Looks, Athleticism, Money, Power, and Status (LAMPS). The difference is that LAMPS comes from the perspective of what women find attractive in men and thus forms the primary basis of a man’s SMV, whereas SHARP comes from the male viewpoint of masculine development.

Confidence and Charisma are often added to LAMPS as an SMV determinant, and the diagram shows why this is appropriate, as it feeds directly into Respect according to the above nomenclature. 

Experience (indicated by the circular purple background) lends to the development of all these aspects of masculinity.

Critiques and suggestions for improvement are welcomed from readers.

For further insights, erudite readers may like to discuss how well the relations shown in the above system diagram agree with what they know about human nature and sociality from the Bible.  I expect the ongoing discussion of Honor and Respect will be interesting.

Applying the Systems Diagram to Intersexual Relationships

A man’s journey all begins with the self, summarily represented in the diagram as Strength.

From studying this diagram, it becomes apparent why the top SMV men can jump ahead of everyone else without first having to prove themselves –- because having external strength and especially a high SMV are shortcuts to Respect.  (Not to mention the additional bonus that Tingles = Respect from an intersexual perspective.)

Most men have to go the route of Purpose, work hard towards developing and mastering a skill in order to take the roundabout path to Respect.

A few men will fare well through Honor displayed through Courage and Competition.

From a social perspective, honor and respect are predominantly offered to those men with a demonstrated utility either to the wellbeing of the community or to Feminine Imperatives.  Readers have argued about whether the latter is morally or ethically appropriate, and I would say most of the objections are based on one of the following cofactors.

  • Envy
  • Implicit sexual immorality.
  • The inversion of Headship.
  • The idolatry of female pedestalization.

The lurking question of Ethics (one aspect of Honor) can be properly understood when we recognize that human mating dissolves the backdrop cultural ethics and resorts to a Power based ethic.  That is to say, the winner is deemed “good” by virtue of his being a winner, and “Might is Right”.  Such is the Law of the Jungle.

In spite of any moral expectations or ethical considerations we might have, the old Manospherian adage stands true: “Women wait at the finish line and choose the winners.”  Here, the “winners” are those men who have successfully gone through all the steps necessary to attain Respect.

The nature of female hypergamy recasts men as falling into an AMOG-ish competition for dominance, proficiency, Reputation / Status, etc.  As seen in the diagram, hypergamic screening is, at its root, a very quick and dirty way (quite literally) for women to filter men according to their relative progress in Confidence, Expertise, and Virtuosity (expressed through Game) and the concreted Reputation and Status aspects of Honor (as determined by the social In-Group and the personal tastes of the observer).

This also emphasizes why women are drawn to a wide array of specific indicators of masculinity, such as Authority, Confidence / Charisma, preselection, Status, being respected by other men, etc.  These traits are very near the “finish line”.

The diagram also reveals why habits and traits related to Honor and Purpose are entirely omitted from one’s SMV evaluation and thus go unnoticed by Women. These characteristics appear early in the “race” and may not be proven.  OTOH, men are acutely aware of these things because they inform him of what kind of relationship with that man is most appropriate, e.g. friend, partner, peer competitor, teacher, student, coach, mentor, etc,

The Manosphere commonly cites Purpose as one of the most important tasks in a man’s life.  What we’ve learned about Purpose here does not contradict the common RP wisdom, nor does it imply that Purpose is of any lesser value.  Purpose is what motivates a man and carries him through these steps and processes.

One more final note.  Inside a sexual/marital relationship, the area of Relationships feeds into Purpose and Abilities / Skills concerning how to exercise Headship, manage the household, wash the wife clean, and rear children.  (This loop is not shown in the diagram.)  It doesn’t work the other way though, and this is why it is a major error for men to think they can make having a relationship with a woman into their purpose.  A man cannot very well jump outside the flows depicted in the diagram, and it is practically impossible for him to swim upstream.

In the next post about Understanding Respect, I will give answers to the three questions in the introduction.

Update: In the comments below, Oscar and Thedeti have done a fine job of flushing out the finer details of the differences between Honor and Respect.

Related

About Jack

Jack is a world traveling artist, skilled in trading ideas and information, none of which are considered too holy, too nerdy, nor too profane to hijack and twist into useful fashion. Sigma Frame Mindsets and methods for building and maintaining a masculine Frame
This entry was posted in Archetypes, Charisma, Competence / Competition, Confidence, Culture Wars, Ethical Systems, Faux-Masculinity, Female Evo-Psych, Fundamental Frame, Game, Holding Frame, Hypergamy, Identity, Introspection, Male Power, Masculine Disciplines, Maturity, Personal Growth and Development, Organization and Structure, Personal Domain, Personality Types, Power, Purpose, Questions from Readers, Respect, Self-Concept, SMV/MMV, Sphere of Influence, Strategy. Bookmark the permalink.

70 Responses to Restoring Respect

  1. thedeti says:

    Today, even men who maximize all the SHARP items will still be unable to attract women. That’s missing from this analysis.

    The bottom line is that increasing numbers of men need to simply forget about women, because it’s just not going to happen for them even if they are the very best versions of themselves. It just won’t. And I think that this generation of men needs to accept that. I think we need to start telling men this, explicitly.

    I sure wish someone had been there in the 1980s, telling me the truth:

    “deti, your booksmarts and intelligence and “nice guy” bearing are not sexually attractive. You’re a young baldy who’s not really all that athletic. You need to forget about women completely for at least the next 15 years. You need to spend less time thinking about how to get girls and more time getting things and experiences for yourself. Get good at something, do what you enjoy, and don’t even think about women. Build something for yourself and forget women.”

    So it is now. Most men are going to need to be told that women, dating, marriage, and fatherhood are simply out of the question for them, forever. They just won’t have what it takes to attract and keep a woman with them, even if they get so SHARP they can cut paper. Just not going to happen for increasing numbers of men. Just will not happen. Ever.

    Liked by 1 person

    • thedeti says:

      And even in the very, very, VERY unlikely event one of these men manages to attract a woman, he will have to be so rigid and so unyielding on his requirements for her that she will refuse him, because “misogyny” and “patriarchy” and “sexism” and “abuse” and “unkind” and “harsh”.

      He will have to make crystal clear to her that the only way he will even consider thinking about anything with her is her total submission to him and his frame. It’s his way or the highway. She comes into his life; he does not come to hers. She moves into his home; he does not move into hers. She can decorate the frame a little but she can in no wise do anything to alter it or rearrange it. Covenant marriage only – absolutely no legal marriage at all. Prenup/contract where she waives alimony. Accept it, all of it, or we’re done and you’re gone.

      Total submission in all things, or she’s gone. She will do things his way, or she’s gone.

      No woman born after 1990 will accept this. Even “devout Christian women” will not accept this. Focus on the Family, Family Life Today, James Dobson, Dennis Rainey, Matt “but she’s just a FRIEND!” Chandler, will all condemn him, report him to his employers and pastor, and accuse him of “abuse”. He’ll be reported to police and jammed up with reports of “abuse”. He’ll find himself the subject of false grape claims. He’ll be kicked out of any church he attends. He’ll be made a total social pariah.

      It’s just not going to work for most men. It just won’t.

      Liked by 1 person

      • redpillboomer says:

        “She comes into his life; he does not come to hers. She moves into his home; he does not move into hers.”

        You made an very good point here Deti. In my men’s work, I’ve seen far too much of this “moving into her place,” i.e. into her “frame” thing going on out there. To me, it’s is some of the bluest of the Blue Pill things I see men doing these days. Back in my younger years, I saw little to none of it. Sometimes guys would live with a girl, however it was in HIS place, not hers. She moved into his “frame” so to speak, not the other way around.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        thedeti,

        “He will have to make crystal clear to her that the only way he will even consider thinking about anything with her is her total submission to him and his frame. It’s his way or the highway. She comes into his life; he does not come to hers. She moves into his home; he does not move into hers. She can decorate the frame a little but she can in no wise do anything to alter it or rearrange it. Covenant marriage only – absolutely no legal marriage at all. Prenup/contract where she waives alimony. Accept it, all of it, or we’re done and you’re gone.

        Total submission in all things, or she’s gone. She will do things his way, or she’s gone.

        No woman born after 1990 will accept this.”

        Have some hope and lean on some Heartistian wisdom. A man never plays direct and explicit with a woman, unless he wants scorn and fighting.

        I agree that no woman will accept your terms if you state them clearly, but lots of women (not all) will accept them, and quite a few already do accept many of them, when a man acts on them instead of demanding them. I’ll use her moving into his home as the example.

        If he tells her she has to move in with him because he’s the man, he’s built a life and “It’s my way or the highway”, she’ll flip him the bird and move on. If he says that he’s built a life and a home that he loves, longs to share with someone and he thinks those things will be better with her in it, she’s probably researching moving companies within the hour.

        The proper framing of the man’s boundary makes a big difference. Trusting that God has already worked out the details so that her actions are not factored into the boundary setting helps too.

        Liked by 7 people

    • Bardelys the Magnificent says:

      Deti, you and I arrive at the same conclusion, but from different directions. This article clearly outlines that the basis of male and female respect are worlds apart. Blue-pilled men can’t see that this is true, and rage against it when the Red Pill is taken. So if your goal is to do activities that will create male respect, don’t expect that women are going to notice. They might, but it’s not really in their nature to do so. You can chase your goals and hobbies and call that “forgetting women” if you like, but that’s what’s going to happen.

      Men need to build themselves within the community of men before seeking a wife. We should of course be encouraging and aiding young men with this. Women also need to acknowledge their role and approve of and sleep with men who earn manly respect, but you already know this and it isn’t our problem to solve. We need to internalize that virtues like honor are vital to have as men but aren’t going to get us laid, and no, that’s not a bug in the system.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        “Women also need to acknowledge their role and approve of and sleep with men who earn manly respect, but you already know this and it isn’t our problem to solve.”

        Men can help, or hinder the cause here, too.

        Every time a white knight charges in on his Rocinante to defend a woman’s bad behavior, it hinders the cause. Every time a blue pill man rescues a woman from the negative consequences of her bad behavior, it hinders the cause.

        Men need to learn to let women live with the consequences of their behavior.

        At the very least, if a woman rewards bad men with sex, leave her alone. Let her deal with the consequences.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Bardelys the Magnificent says:

        This is true, but should not be taking too much of our time and energy. The focus should be to get men on the right program. Men doing right won’t be simping, so it corrects itself anyway.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        “This is true, but should not be taking too much of our time and energy.”

        To be fair, it doesn’t take a whole lot of energy to say “no thanks”.

        Like

      • info says:

        @Oscar
        “At the very least, if a woman rewards bad men with sex, leave her alone. Let her deal with the consequences.”

        Bad Men if they be murderers ought to be executed. This would tend to remove those bad Men from society regardless.

        Or get caned for graffiti:

        Thereby being humiliated and lowering his status.

        Like

    • Rock Kitaro says:

      “Today, even men who maximize all the SHARP items will still be unable to attract women…”

      Well, really… men will still be unable to attract women “THE MEN FIND” attractive.

      Because, there’s a lot of single mothers, women past-child bearing age, and overweight ladies who are going to find SHARP men attractive. Truly good Christian women will find SHARP men attractive too, but I suspect because they’re so rare, they’re not going to have any trouble getting the men they want if they’re in shape.

      And the ones who are having trouble, I suspect it’s because they think they’re Christian, call themselves Christian, but really, they’re living by the world’s standards and not Christ’s. Which isn’t all bad, if you’re still young enough and on your Christian journey. None of us is perfect. But personally, if you can’t even answer whether you’d choose what God says about things like homosexuality, over what the world says about it… this tells me, “You may be a Christian… but you’re not quite there yet for me.”

      “But, Rock! What if she could use you in helping to guide her along on her Christian journey?”

      I don’t have the patience… That’s one of my flaws. I wouldn’t mind helping someone who was soft-spoken, sweet, and actually open to that guidance… but from experience, the older a woman is, like around my age (mid-30s) the harder she is set in her ways. I can be “buddies” with her. But romantically, I’ve moved on.

      Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        “What if she could use you in helping to guide her along on her Christian journey?”

        You need to look at this less from a standpoint of patience and more from the viewpoint of “What’s in it for me?”

        You must always, always, ALWAYS make a woman state her case, state clearly what she will offer you, and then hold her feet to the fire on it. You make her put her money where her mouth is and hold her to her representations. Always.

        If she says she offers XYZABC, she needs to be bringing all of that, every day.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        “You must always, always, ALWAYS make a woman state her case, state clearly what she will offer you, and then hold her feet to the fire on it. You make her put her money where her mouth is and hold her to her representations. Always.”

        One of the hardest lessons for most men to learn is that while marriage is a special relationship that God created it is still bound by basic human behavioral traits. Which means there is an element of give and take where both husband and wife give to each other and take from each other. The arrangement works great on paper until one doesn’t give and the other does. Usually it’s the wife with the princess attitude that has the expectations of taking more with giving less.

        This means that as a husband, no matter how much your pastor beats you up with “being a husband means sacrificing like Christ loved the church”, you very well may end up needing to enforce quid pro quo boundaries on your woman. We inherently understand the concept that rewarding behavior is a very good way to get more of that behavior. If a man gives a woman what she wants without getting what he wants in return, along with a host of poor long term outcomes we’ve discussed at length on this blog, a man will get more of the same from her. It’s only when he starts pulling back on those things she wants, usually some form of time, attention and validation, that she will start to change her behavior and give him at least some of what he wants.

        This is an ugly truth about marriage, but truth it is.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Jack says:

      “Today, even men who maximize all the SHARP items will still be unable to attract women. That’s missing from this analysis.”

      I didn’t go into that aspect in this post. I’d like to see men learn to base their respect on their own merits, and not only on those things deemed respectable by wimmin.

      Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        The way they’ll have to base respect on their own merits is to start with forgetting about women and accepting that none of these things are going to attract women.

        Like

    • farmlegend says:

      “deti, your booksmarts and intelligence and “nice guy” bearing are not sexually attractive. You’re a young baldy who’s not really all that athletic. You need to forget about women completely for at least the next 15 years. You need to spend less time thinking about how to get girls and more time getting things and experiences for yourself. Get good at something, do what you enjoy, and don’t even think about women. Build something for yourself and forget women.”

      Yeah, I sure wish someone would have told me something quite similar when I was 20 years old, and that I had listened. They could have added another paragraph, too:

      “And when you hit your 30’s, your career will be going great guns, you’ll have developed charm, social skills, confidence, and will be enjoying the benefits of your commitment to health and physical fitness. And, lo and behold, those ladies that wouldn’t have urinated on you if you were on fire in your 20’s will actually smile at you, flirt with you, date you, have sex with you (after a few dates, of course), and really really want to marry you. While you will find this novel and enjoyable, this is really a time of maximum danger for you. Because of the non-changeable physical characteristics you have, those women will not be sexually attracted to you. Though they will willingly date you, have sex with you, swear they will love you forever and marry you, you will never turn them on like more physically attractive men they have been with previously, and a part of them will always resent you for that. Their “attraction” to you will be purely transactional, for your resources, and they will not have physical desire for you. Marry one of these women and they will not only be in non-stop rebellion to your leadership, but they will withhold sex, disrespect you, and otherwise treat you like shit. Do not get married. It will cost you, big time.”

      Liked by 1 person

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        farmlegend,

        “Because of the non-changeable physical characteristics you have, those women will not be sexually attracted to you. Though they will willingly date you, have sex with you, swear they will love you forever and marry you, you will never turn them on like more physically attractive men they have been with previously, and a part of them will always resent you for that. Their “attraction” to you will be purely transactional, for your resources, and they will not have physical desire for you. Marry one of these women and they will not only be in non-stop rebellion to your leadership, but they will withhold sex, disrespect you, and otherwise treat you like $h!t.”

        Being physically attracted to a man does not mean the curse of Genesis 3 does not apply. There is a predominant transactional nature even with women who are physically attracted to their husbands. There is rebellion even with women who are physically attracted to their husbands. Much of what you describe can be attributed to female nature and the sooner men understand this and accept it, the sooner men can avoid the disappointment that comes with unmet expectations and the better men can manage and lead their wives and families.

        All men who marry should expect rebellion, even when they never got an inkling of it during dating. It’s coming, the only question is to what degree. All women at some point will try and get the most out of their husbands while doing the least they can regarding the responsibilities each spouse brings to the marriage. It’s up to the husband to set expectations and enforce boundaries, because it’s not her first instinct to impose them on herself. The holding of those boundaries will seem transactional, because that’s exactly what it is.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. feeriker says:

    “So it is now. Most men are going to need to be told that women, dating, marriage, and fatherhood are simply out of the question for them, forever. They just won’t have what it takes to attract and keep a woman with them, even if they get so SHARP they can cut paper. Just not going to happen for increasing numbers of men. Just will not happen. Ever.”

    Men also need to be told, along with all of this, that it is WOMEN who are the problem, not them. It should be pointed out to them that while they’re being exhorted to ignore / suppress / short circuit their natural biological drives, it is because the women available to them are such complete failures in their God-given roles as women (see this latest from Antemodernist that is related) that they cannot naturally pair bond with men worthy of the label and that even if these men “win the p*ssy lottery” and manage to pair up with a woman, the joy will be short-lived and the burden and pain acute, long-lasting, and ultimately destructive.

    Men should be made aware that they are living in the End Times, where the Curse of Eve is yielding the last and most poisonous of its fruits and that women are going to suffer from its consumption every bit as much as the men they victimize, even if in a different way.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Joe2 says:

      “It should be pointed out to them that while they’re being exhorted to ignore / suppress / short circuit their natural biological drives…”

      And are there any long term negative behaviors, psychological or emotional effects likely to result from frustrating their natural biological drives? This needs to be explained fully to men and what, if anything, that can be done to ameliorate these effects.

      Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        Yes. Paging Scott.

        Having to do without women makes you just a little less human. It deprives you of a key aspect of the human experience, the male experience. It’s probably not really appreciable to most other people. But it is keenly felt by the man who experiences it.

        It’s most difficult for the man who follows God because he will be consigned to a life of celibacy. Most of these men will slip up and will have illicit sex, because the drive is that strong. And they will have to repent of it. It will be a life of constant repentance.

        This will be life for increasing numbers of men who just do not have what it takes to find and keep a woman. Mainly, of course, this is because women are the problem here. The men are fine – it’s the women who won’t accept them, who aren’t interested in them, and who simply want to exploit them. It’s women who would rather get banged out by a series of Chads and Tyrones and “work” at “jobs” they hate and can’t/won’t do, than accept their SMV/RMV counterparts.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        The point i was trying to make is that men are going to have to totally recondition themselves to simply forget about women. men are going to have to completely ignore their hardwiring and just avoid women entirely while everything in their bodies literally screams out to mate. Right at the time when they are most pressed to pick a woman and have as much sex with her as humanly possible, they are going to have to suppress those urges almost completely.

        They have to do this because women just are not going to be available to them; and the few women who will be available to them want only to use them, exploit them, take their money, and leave them behind as dessicated husks.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        “The point i was trying to make is that men are going to have to totally recondition themselves to simply forget about women. men are going to have to completely ignore their hardwiring and just avoid women entirely while everything in their bodies literally screams out to mate. Right at the time when they are most pressed to pick a woman and have as much sex with her as humanly possible, they are going to have to suppress those urges almost completely.”

        You have just described the sales technique of “taking away”. It works when there is absolute willingness to forego the sale and is a strong communication that the salesman doesn’t think the customer is worth dealing with for one reason or another. Customer responses typically start with disbelief and then quickly transition to trying to prevent whatever it is from slipping away.

        On the intersexual dynamic front, PUA’s would use the strategy of making a woman believe she can’t have him for whatever reason inducing her to try and keep him from getting away. It’s a disingenuous “take away” but if done skillfully, it can work.

        What this has to do with thedeti’s ideas is that he is describing a movement of men “taking away” what most women assume is their right, marriage, provision and kids. Should enough men start to ignore relationships with women or postpone relationships for longer periods of time, I can envision women altering behavior in an attempt to prevent the loss of what they assumed they could have.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Jack says:

        RPA,

        It seems like the “taking away” technique, as applied to intersexual relationships, is similar to detachment, outcome independence, and/or dread. Is that right?

        Like

      • locustsplease says:

        Most men are going to end up sexless one way or another. Whether they are incels, MGTOW, divorced, Chad’s, or married men. Most married men are sexless or close. This is the inevitable. Men are not chosing celibacy over fantastic sex filled marriages. The truth about their behavior over the last 70 years cannot b ignored.

        All my years on these RP forums… Everybody knows the truth. Guys show up married or single. I don’t know of a guy who showed up single and got married. I’ve never seen it. Once men know women’s easy to spot games it’s over. I went out with a few girls recently and they were all interested in me. They sh!t tested me at least 30x that night! Most of these women men are avoiding are like getting smacked with a hammer. These men will suppress their desire or b punished. Their desires will not get met either way.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        “All my years on these RP forums… Everybody knows the truth. Guys show up married or single. I don’t know of a guy who showed up single and got married. I’ve never seen it.”

        Deep Strength showed up single and is now married. He may know others. It may be worth asking him.

        Like

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Jack,

        “It seems like the “taking away” technique, as applied to intersexual relationships, is similar to detachment, outcome independence, and/or dread. Is that right?”

        Taking away plays on the human instinct to not lose something and the reaction of grasping at that thing when faced with the potential loss. The power dynamic of the seller wanting the sale and the buyer deciding if the product or service is right for him puts the power in the buyer’s hands because the underlying framework is that the seller wants the sale but the buyer is selective.

        Taking away the option to buy flips the underlying framework and often triggers the buyer to want what they now feel they can’t have. Detachment, outcome independence, dread and other techniques like knocking the buyer down a peg (negging) are part what occurs when a seller reconsiders if he actually wants to sell to that potential buyer.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        @locustsplease,

        “I don’t know of a guy who showed up single and got married.”

        Oscar mentioned DeepStrength.

        I’ll throw Donal Graeme into the mix. He also got married a few years ago, and I think I know to whom, but I am not entirely sure. If I am correct, she’s a woman who I had talked to offlist and who needed some… ahem… course corrections. I think she might have made those corrections. At least I hope so, if she and DG married and she’s who I’m thinking of.

        Anyway, it has happened. A couple of men have married since coming here. But they have not been married long. I’ve been at this over 26 years now, and it has been anything but easy. It has been hard, very hard, at times. As it will be sometimes for DS and his wife and for DG and his.

        The point of it is to have some good times in there too, and that’s what’s been missing for most men in marriage for the past 70 or so years. At least, it needs to start out really good so that when the bad times come, you have those memories and those bonds to pull you through.

        Most men aren’t getting that from their marriages because they’re marrying women who just aren’t all that sexually attracted to them.

        Like

    • Kentucky Gent says:

      thedeti wrote,

      “Having to do without women makes you just a little less human. It deprives you of a key aspect of the human experience, the male experience. It’s probably not really appreciable to most other people. But it is keenly felt by the man who experiences it.”

      This is the secular way of looking at it. Catholic/orthodox soteriology takes a completely different viewpoint, unsurprisingly:

      “That we are on earth for the purpose of glorifying God, and thereby working out our eternal salvation… We do this by striving to know God through faith in the truths he has revealed.”

      [Paraphrased from ‘The Catechism Explained’ by Spirago.]

      The most zealous/extreme way of doing this is to voluntarily embrace a life of celibacy [“vocel”?], typically by entering into the religious life (meaning monasticism). Ultimately, the saints became fully human because the became detached from the world. Their lives literally became nothing but God.

      I’ve come to believe that that is the true highest form of human experience, and having a mate is not necessary to experience the zenith of being human on earth.

      thedeti continued on: (sorry, I don’t see the option for italics)

      “It’s most difficult for the man who follows God because he will be consigned to a life of celibacy.”

      Few of us feel called to the religious life — the number of monks and nuns has dropped precipitously in the last 100 years. But I’ve come to realize that the monk or nun who truly follows God is NOT ‘consigned’ to a life of celibacy, but chooses it willingly.

      thedeti continued on:

      “Most of these men will slip up and will have illicit sex, because the drive is that strong. And they will have to repent of it. It will be a life of constant repentance.”

      Well-said. But how is that any different from slipping up with other vices? Greed, pride, envy, sloth, gluttony, drunkeness, etc.

      What’s more, the Catholic/Orthodox understanding of soteriology is that we are SUPPOSED to live lives of constant repentance. Even the most holy and devout monks/nuns/priests are tempted, and even when they don’t fall, they still practice pennance in the form of prayer, fasting and alms-giving.
      As should all Christians.

      Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        Asterisks will italicize. * like this * and it looks like this.

        Double asterisks will bold. ** like this ** which looks like this.

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        Except you put no spaces between asterisks and the text to produce the desired font change.

        Like

      • caterpillar345 says:

        @thedeti
        Woah, that’s cool! I’ve been using html tags (with the apostrophe removed):
        <strong> </strong> for bold
        <
        em> for italics
        <`blockquote> for quoting.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        “This is the secular way of looking at it. Catholic/orthodox soteriology takes a completely different viewpoint, unsurprisingly:”

        As you said, though, most men don’t have a “gift of celibacy”. Part of glorifying God is for men to be fruitful and multiply, and that includes sex. Both men and women are hardwired to propagate the species, to make copies of themselves. If God had meant for only certain men to reproduce, He would have given only those men penises and testes, and made asexual eunuchs of the rest of them. He could have designed humans like bees, with 3 sexes: a queen, workers (that don’t mate) and drones (that do mate), but… He didn’t do it that way. (Male and female created He them.) He gave all of us men male sexual reproductive tracts, and thus I suppose He expects us to use them in the appropriate contexts. And His plan is in part thwarted when we do not use them, or are unable to use them.

        Sex is part of the human experience. Sex with a wife is part of the human male experience and is God’s plan for men. That’s one way men glorify God. We’re supposed to do it.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Kentucky Gent says:

        “He could have designed humans like bees, with 3 sexes: a queen, workers (that don’t mate) and drones (that do mate) – but… He didn’t do it that way. (Male and female created He them.) He gave all of us men male sexual reproductive tracts, and thus I suppose He expects us to use them in the appropriate contexts.”

        Otherwise, chastity wouldn’t be much of a sacrifice for God, would it? God also gave us hunger pangs, but Jesus assumed His disciples would fast: “When you fast…”, not if.

        “And His plan is in part thwarted when we do not use them, or are unable to use them.”

        Not so sure I can agree with that. Who really knows how many times not using, or being unable to use, aspects of our humanity is the plan?

        Like

  3. feeriker says:

    “…men are going to have to completely ignore their hardwiring and just avoid women entirely while everything in their bodies literally screams out to mate. Right at the time when they are most pressed to pick a woman and have as much sex with her as humanly possible, they are going to have to suppress those urges almost completely.”

    Not likely to work out well. Fighting nature rarely does.

    Liked by 3 people

  4. Oscar says:

    On Honor:

    Honor is amoral. Honor is entirely dependent on the group to which a man belongs.

    For the vast majority of history (and still true in some places today), killing, raping, and pillaging neighboring tribes was honorable, as was preventing other men from doing the same to one’s own tribe. As a man earned more honor, his status grew, and so did his wealth, his odds of marrying well, etc.

    If a man wants to earn honor in a moral way (as a Christian man should), he needs to join a community that honors moral behavior.

    Liked by 1 person

    • thedeti says:

      The concept of honor is also uniquely masculine. (It is NOT the same thing as “honesty”. “Honor” does not require slavish candor, full disclosure, or truth-telling to anyone who wants it, demands it, or deems himself entitled to it.)

      Women don’t really have a concept of honor (it is not the same thing as chastity.)

      Like

      • Oscar says:

        Agreed. Women only see status. A man earns honor from other men. Honor grants him status. How he earned that honor and status depends on the men in his community, not the women.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Jack says:

        “Women only see status.”

        Women only see those traits that feed directly into Respect (in the diagram), i.e. the Looks / SMV aspect of Strength, Expertise / Virtuosity, Reputation / Status, and Authority. It is also possible for a man to have these traits, but still be invisible to women. The key is that it must somehow be relevant to her life / personal interests (i.e. it gives her something she desires, needs, or wants), or it must establish her relevance to the larger social group (i.e. sharing his status, social climbing, getting into an elite group, etc.).

        “A man earns honor from other men. Honor grants him status. How he earned that honor and status depends on the men in his community, not the women.”

        Yes, there are many ways that Honor leads to Status / Reputation. I wrote Competition (e.g. being on the football team) and Heroism in the diagram, but I’m sure we could think of others. And yes, it depends on the social group. This is why I advised men to find a social group that fits their interests / skill set / values / etc. This has two benefits. It streamlines the path that goes from Honor, and it also strengthens the path that goes from Purpose, to Abilities / Skills, to Expertise / Virtuosity. From there, it is one more step to Reputation / Status and/or Respect.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Jack says:

        “[Honor] is NOT the same thing as “honesty”. “Honor” does not require slavish candor, full disclosure, or truth-telling to anyone who wants it, demands it, or deems himself entitled to it.”

        To be clear, Honesty is only one trait that might bring a man Honor. Also, a lot of people have the idea that honesty means full openness (as deti described above), but this is only one manifestation of honesty. A better understanding of honesty would include any number of the following traits.

        — Being humble.
        — Not cheating / lying.
        — Having a good reputation.
        — Showing uprightness and fairness.
        — Good gamesmanship / sportsmanship.
        — Acting in a considerate / respectable manner.
        — Willing to consider the facts before jumping to a conclusion.
        — Having a habit of being ethical / truthful as opposed to being deceitful.
        — Being reliable in accuracy / truth / clinging to the truth / exercising justice.
        — Being authentic / candid / frank / genuine / sincere when the context is appropriate.

        For women, honesty would mean…

        — She doesn’t resort to female evasion and control tactics.
        — She tells the truth when asked a direct question.
        — She doesn’t hamsterbate.
        — She is chaste.

        Full openness (as deti described) can bring a man an internal sense of honor and self-respect, but it usually does not attract honor nor respect from others. Maybe it should in certain contexts, but I’m not sure about that. When dealing with children, it should, and by that I mean that parents should reward an honest child with honor and not shame him/her into wanting to be dishonest.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Scott says:

        Right. I don’t really see women “honoring” things. They calculate the cost of their behaviors and act accordingly. If it pays to “honor” their commitments, they do it. If not sticking with it looks attractive, they bail.

        If you are lucky, you get a women who looks at you and says “nope. I am not going to fare better if I leave and go EPL.” But that is still her using opportunity/cost analysis to decide whether or not to stay.

        My dog honors me. Dogs are really good at it, which is why most men love dogs more than they love cats.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Oscar says:

        “My dog honors me. Dogs are really good at it, which is why most men love dogs more than they love cats.”

        The members of my household that greet me with the most enthusiasm are my baby girl and my dogs.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        To put an even finer point on this.

        Imagine one of those “Who has an anniversary this month?” moments at church.

        Some super old couple stands up. The priest says, “OK, how long.”

        “48 years!”

        Every one erupts in applause. There are two sets of eyes on that couple. Men, and women.

        The women emote. I guarantee what they are thinking is “Aww… It must have been true love.”

        The men are thinking, “Respect brother.”

        They know that man has had to jump through hoops, constantly having to romance her, constantly having to pivot to please her whims, dealing with all kinds of nonsense in order to function in marriage in a blue pill drenched world. And the guy is still there doing it.

        The man honored his commitment, the men around him respect that.

        Liked by 4 people

      • thedeti says:

        “They know that man has had to jump through hoops, constantly having to romance her, constantly having to pivot to please her whims, dealing with all kinds of nonsense in order to function in marriage in a blue pill drenched world. And the guy is still there doing it.”

        I’ve written before about my dad. Married to my mother for 53 years. For the last 20 years of her life, mom was in slowly declining health. He took care of her. For the entirety of their marriage before that, mom nagged and browbeat dad. Dad was a quintessential “henpecked husband”. Once every 6 months or so, Dad would explode verbally and shut mom down, telling her to stop acting like a biatch. And she would, for a week or so, at which point she’d start up again. And a few months down the road, dad would blow up again and she’d stop. Until she started again. Lather, rinse, repeat.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Jack says:

      “Honor is amoral. Honor is entirely dependent on the group to which a man belongs.”

      This is one of the more shocking conclusions from this study.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. Oscar says:

    “That which makes a man honorable are internal characteristics like character, courage, honesty, and willpower….”

    “The things which make a man honorable (i.e. ethics, honesty, service, valor, etc.)…”

    To illustrate what I mean, character, courage, honesty, willpower, ethics, service, and valor only make a man honorable in a group that honors those qualities and behaviors. In that group, a man with those qualities will earn honor, and therefore status.

    In a group that honors cunning, manipulation, violence, greed, and lust, those attributes will earn a man honor, and therefore status. See every criminal gang ever.

    Liked by 3 people

  6. catacombresident says:

    I’m not the kind of person who benefits from the detailed analysis of such things, Jack. Still, it’s a good idea to have it for those who do.

    I’m with you deti. There will always be the exceptions, those who are blessed, but in broad general terms, our society is toast. We look forward to the Lord making a clean sweep somewhere down the road.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. Oscar says:

    This conversation brought to mind this old post by Cane Caldo.

    “Women are attracted to men who are respected by others; especially other men.

    Some of you introverts may be skeptical so here’s a dead-common real-world example. The quarterback has a girlfriend because he’s the quarterback of the football team. Without the team he’s still talented, athletic, and so forth… but he’s not nearly as popular. It greatly matters that he is the leader of a team of men. But even better: Fat white lineman have girlfriends, too.

    Everything else – looks, money, power, etc. – does its real work by gaining the respect of men. The women follow that.”

    The importance of community is inescapable. Without a peer group to bestow honor on a man, where is he supposed to earn it? Sure, he can earn honor at work, but as a general rule, his wife or girlfriend won’t see him at work, and if he has no wife or girlfriend, he probably doesn’t want to date women at work. It’s too messy. Besides, jobs are too transient these days. Men are rarely at a job long enough to build the kinds of relationships that bring them honor.

    SFC Ton wrote the following in the comments.

    “Sorry Cane they get just as lubed up over a drug dealer no one respects.

    It’s about status. The fat lineman has status, power etc., the quarterback has respect of other high status men and is in the spot light, adding to his status.

    Some dweeb having the respect of other dweebs ain’t going to see any dividends from it.”

    Here’s where Ton went wrong. The drug dealer does have respect from other criminals, because he’s earned honor from them.

    Ironically, criminals — especially gang members — know more about honor than most decent men do (although they probably couldn’t articulate it). They live it every day. They can never allow another man to dishonor them, because if they do, that invites violence from their fellow criminals. It’s like the old Arab saying that “a wounded camel invites 1,000 knives”. That’s honor / shame culture for you.

    The key for any man is to find a community whose values are similar to his own, and join it. It used to be much easier for decent men to find such communities at church and civic organizations (the Elks, the Lions, the Shriners, etc.). It’s much more difficult now.

    Liked by 5 people

    • info says:

      The reason criminals fall apart is that typically the Righteous groups of Men of Organized Violence and Divine providence will destroy the criminals both from without and within.

      Mexico, South America and Sub-Saharan Africa is where the criminals are winning the war. Pray that God raises up Righteous Governments for his glory to wipe them out.

      I want God’s Justice to be demonstrated there.

      Like

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      “Here’s where Ton went wrong. The drug dealer does have respect from other criminals, because he’s earned honor from them.”

      Here are the questions I am pondering about respect and honor. Are honor and respect interchangeable and if so, to what extent? Can one be respected, but not honorable or vice versa?

      In the case of the drug dealer, is the respect he garners fear based in that people are afraid of what he’ll do to them if they cross him, or is there more to the concept? Is the concept of honor relative to community as Oscar has pointed out or is there a standard/principle that holds absolute?

      Chime in if you have thoughts on any of these questions.

      Like

      • caterpillar345 says:

        “Can one be respected but not honorable or vice versa?”

        I’m thinking that the upstanding Christian man who is a pillar of his community could have a measure of respect for the drug lord king pin for the empire that he has built up and perhaps his physical / social prowess. But the Christian man would not necessarily find the king pin honorable because he gained his respect in ways that the Christian man (and his worldview / community) would find dishonorable. And perhaps the king pin might respect the Christian man for his commitment to his principles, for raising a family, and the moral / ethical ways in which he behaves even if the king pin doesn’t necessarily find the Christian man honorable (according to the “law of the jungle” in his worldview / community) for turning the other cheek or sacrificially giving of himself to others.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        “Here are the questions I am pondering about respect and honor. Are honor and respect interchangeable and if so, to what extent?”

        No. They are not the same thing. Respect is essentially admiration and deference, and to a large extent, submission and obedience.

        Honor is personal and professional integrity, forthrightness, of good character, one who does what one says one will do, and humility, among other things.

        At my first private practice job I worked with a very dishonorable man who commanded much respect. At my current job I have worked with very honorable men who commanded respect. I have also worked with very honorable men I didn’t respect (admire, defer to, or obeyed).

        Can one be respected, but not honorable or vice versa?

        Yes.

        Liked by 3 people

      • caterpillar345 says:

        In a more personal example, I think I used to afford neither respect nor honor to other young men in my age group in my church who I saw as overconfident, acting immorally, etc. However, I’ve come to have a measure of respect for these kind of men for the positive masculine qualities this shows — confidence, charisma, charm, physical strength, etc. I’ve realized I can learn from them as a man who isn’t a natural in those areas. I can take a page from their playbook and try to emulate (and hopefully put on) some confidence, charisma, and charm. But I still recognize that the ends to which they use these traits may be dishonorable and I shouldn’t consider them honorable for that.

        Jack mentioned this in Sitting on the Fence that:

        “I largely saw overconfident men as being immoral Chads and arrogant bad@sses, and I didn’t know how to respond to their antics, which was frustrating and humiliating. I couldn’t interpret any of these behaviors through a Christian lens.

        It was a hard lesson for me to learn, when I realized that…

        — Those men who have a lot of confidence, faith, and charisma are often times the least responsible with what they have been given.
        — Some unbelievers are more forgiving, gracious, and kind than believers, and that it is not uncommon for God to use such people to be vehicles of His grace.
        — I needed to get over myself, develop my ego, and learn to hold my own.
        — I needed to develop some of their positive traits in myself.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        “Are honor and respect interchangeable and if so, to what extent?”

        No. They’re closely related, but not interchangeable.

        Here’s the best way I can think to explain it. In a traditional martial arts competition, the competitors bow to each other before they fight. That’s respect. After the fight, the judge raises the winner’s hand, and maybe gives him a trophy. That’s honor.

        “Can one be respected, but not honorable or vice versa?”

        Yes. In the example above, the man who lost the match has everyone’s respect (including his opponent’s), but not the honor of the winner.

        Now, suppose the winner, during the fight, found that he was far more skilled than his opponent, and began mocking his opponent in the middle of the fight. He’ll still receive the honor of the win, but most traditional martial artists will lose respect for him.

        Here’s how respect and honor overlap.

        If the winner of the competition continues to behave disrespectfully, he may get reprimanded. That would be a dishonor.

        Remember, honor is amoral. It’s 100% culturally dependent. In the UFC, mocking, clowning behavior is not just acceptable, it’s rewarded (i.e., honored). In traditional martial arts, it isn’t (generally). Different cultures honor different behaviors.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        “In the case of the drug dealer, is the respect he garners fear based in that people are afraid of what he’ll do to them if they cross him, or is there more to the concept?”

        In the case of the drug dealer, yes, that’s usually the case.

        In the case of a gang, a criminal gang is a tribe. Every tribe respects and honors men who bring resources to the tribe and protects the tribe from other tribes. A man who can’t do those things is seen as unworthy of any honor or respect.

        Tribes rarely care about morality. As long as a man benefits the tribe, they don’t care about the morality of how he did it.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        “After the fight, the judge raises the winner’s hand, and maybe gives him a trophy. That’s honor.”

        Yes, but this is only one expression of honor. This is the honor that goes with having earned a superior position in relation to other men. There are many, many other expressions of honor. Because one can lose a martial arts contest and do so honorably.

        In my opinion, the characteristics of honor, or an honorable man, are personal and professional integrity, forthrightness, is of upstanding reputation, of good character, one who does what one says one will do, and humility. There are others, but these are the ones that come to mind immediately.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        This is also why the PUA, the cad, the sexually incontinent man, might have “respect” (admiration, deference) but he is not honorable. He is not true to his word. He has little integrity. He is not of good character or report. He is of poor reputation. He does what he says he’ll do, but only sometimes. He is not humble; on the contrary he is arrogant, boastful, and prideful.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        “This is also why the PUA, the cad, the sexually incontinent man, might have “respect” (admiration, deference) but he is not honorable.”

        He is not honorable to you, because…

        “In my opinion the characteristics of honor, or an honorable man, are personal and professional integrity, forthrightness, is of upstanding reputation, of good character, one who does what one says one will do, and humility.”

        …. you’re a decent, moral man, therefore you honor decent, moral behavior. PUAs and cads are indecent, immoral men. They mock decent, moral behavior, and honor indecent, immoral behavior. They honor each other, just like criminals honor each other. They also stab each other in the back, but what can one expect from men who all think they’re Machiavelli?

        You and I agree on what behavior should be honorable, because we’re both decent, moral men, but PUAs and cads don’t care what we think. They think we’re fools.

        Honor is amoral and culturally dependent. PUA culture is not our culture. We don’t fit with them, and they don’t fit with us. We need to honor each other, and leave the PUAs to honor whatever they want. They’ll reap what they sow.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        “You and I agree on what behavior should be honorable, because we’re both decent, moral men, but PUAs and cads don’t care what we think. They think we’re fools.

        Honor is amoral and culturally dependent. PUA culture is not our culture. We don’t fit with them, and they don’t fit with us. We need to honor each other, and leave the PUAs to honor whatever they want. They’ll reap what they sow.”

        This would imply that there are inferior and superior cultures and inferior and superior criteria for honor linked to how closely the culture follows morality. If there is a hierarchy for honor that would suggest that it is at least possible that there is an absolute standard that exists, which when compared to lesser systems of honor shows those lesser systems to be lacking.

        While each culture may hold different attributes up as being desirable, there seems to be a running principle of honor that applies to all cultures. From what y’all have written I believe that the principle is that a man who is able to do well at whatever it is that the culture determines is good (this is the relativistic aspect which makes me believe there are inferior and superior notions of honor) is worthy of honor within that framework.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        “This would imply that there are inferior and superior cultures and inferior and superior criteria for honor linked to how closely the culture follows morality.”

        YES!

        A culture that values Christian morality is objectively a far better place to live — in every way — than one that doesn’t. That’s because a Christian culture respects and honors men who behave like the honorable man in deti’s post. That kind of man is a builder, not a parasite.

        Respect and honor are powerful motivators for men. Think about it. Men will literally die for honor. Men fear dishonoring themselves in front of their peers more than death itself. I’ve seen it.

        That’s a major problem with our culture today. It mocks Christian morality, and honors degeneracy, thereby creating destructive perverse incentives.

        What could possibly go wrong?

        Thank God for Christian subcultures.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        “What could possibly go wrong?”

        Do you recall what Eric Stratton told Flounder after they were done with the car Flounder borrowed from his brother? That about sums it up.

        Liked by 2 people

  8. Pingback: Understanding Respect | Σ Frame

    • thedeti says:

      But just think of the alimony Mr. Mackenzie Scott will get. Unless she made him sign a prenup. (It’s funny: When a prenup is to be enforced against a woman, it’s “unfair”. But when it’s to be enforced against a man, it’s an ironclad contract, signed in blood, and he’ll be made to live up to every last jot and tittle of it.)

      Liked by 2 people

    • elspeth says:

      She was remarried already??? What the heck???

      Liked by 2 people

      • feeriker says:

        I’m tempted to say “Jeff is fortunate to be rid of her.” However, I’m much more inclined to think that she and Jeff deserve each other. Maybe he’ll be stupid enough to take her back.

        Liked by 1 person

  9. Pingback: Summary of Red Pill Redemption | Σ Frame

  10. Jack says:

    Oscar and Thedeti have done a fine job of flushing out the finer details of the differences between Honor and Respect.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Oscar says:

    Off topic: here’s a fun video of nearly superhuman displays of athleticism.

    Like

  12. Pingback: What does redemption look like for men in churchianity | Christianity and masculinity

  13. Pingback: Validation is about Losing Self-Control | 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 )

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