Pastors and Red Pill gurus continue to spread this lie by demonstrating that it’s true.
Readership: All
Targeted Readership: Men
Theme: Problems with The Red Pill
Author’s Note: Coauthored with Jack.
Length: 1,300 words
Reading Time: 7 minutes
Breaking Down the Lie
Humans of both sexes have free will and moral agency. Both sexes are sinners and hate being held accountable for their sin. Those who are NOT held accountable (regardless of their sex) will continue to indulge their sin, then blame everyone else for the consequences of their sin. The difference between the sexes is that (in general) women don’t get held accountable for their actions, and (in general) men do. The difference is that women love to hold men accountable, and men hate to hold women accountable. This is an inversion of Headship.
In Female Agency – An Elusive Induction (2024/3/30), Jack described why it is easy for men to cling to the notion that women have no free will or moral agency. Worse than this, the denial of Female Agency continues to be implemented as a deceptive tool to shift accountability from women to men and in some cases has morphed into a red-coated blue pill. Men keep falling for this not-so-obvious lie, largely because it is a man’s innate nature to care for a woman and assume responsibility as her head, not realizing that placing their balls in her paws is an obvious sex-selective trap.
Here’s the natural progression of the lie.
- Women have no free will or moral agency.
- Because women have no free will or moral agency, they’re like vending machines. Thus, if you give a woman the right input, she’ll give you the desired output.
- Because women are like vending machines, if you’re getting an undesirable output, it’s because you’re giving her the wrong input.
- Because you’re giving her the wrong input, her bad behavior is your fault.
Let’s look at a couple case studies.
Case Study 1 — Trad Con Churchians
A lot of complementarianish pastors like Mark Driscoll, Matt Chandler, et al. walk through this progression of assumptions in their sermons without ever explicitly saying so. Through all their talk, these pastors arrive at the claim that, “If your wife doesn’t submit to you, then it’s your fault, because you’re just not godly enough, or loving her enough, or leading her well enough.” Followed by a “Man Up!” rant in which “Man Up!” = ‘godly’, which is taken to mean the Chivalrous Nice Guy™. We all know this doesn’t hold any water at all.
Consider this quote from Matt Chandler’s sermon, “Woman’s Hurdles”.
“Men, here’s a great way to gauge how you’re serving, loving, and practicing your headship. If the most secularized feminist in the world showed up in your home and began to kind of coach your wife towards freedom and liberation from your tyranny, our wives should be so well cared for, so nourished, sowed into, and loved that they would be like “what you’re describing is actually tyranny, I love where I am.”
Matt Chandler, Woman’s Hurdles (2014/11/2)
Sounds great, right? Let’s apply that same “logic” to God and Eve.
“God, here’s a great way to gauge how you’re loving and practicing your Godhood over Eve. If the most deceitful serpent showed up in your garden and began to coach Eve towards freedom and liberation from your tyranny, Eve should be so well cared for, so nourished, sowed into, and loved that she should be like “what you’re describing is actually tyranny, I love where I am.”
If providing flawless Eve with the input of a flawless husband, and a flawless world in which to live did not produce the desired output of faithful obedience, what hope does a fatally flawed husband have to provide his fatally flawed wife with just the right input to receive from her the desired output in a fatally flawed world?
Surely, manly Red Pill men wouldn’t make the same mistake as a prissy pastor like Matt Chandler, right?
Case Study 2 — Red Pill Grifters
Red Pill grifters make the same deceptive mistake. They simply replace ‘godly’, or ‘loving’, or ‘leading’ with ‘Alpha’, or ‘Sigma’, or whatever nonsense ‘Red Pill’ term happens to be trending at the time. If a man is ‘Alpha” enough, then his woman will inevitably, automatically fall in line, like a wandering planet falling into orbit around a sun.
This is why you’ll see Red Pill grifters telling men that if their women are behaving badly, it’s because the men aren’t ‘Alpha’ enough, or whatever. In other words, the woman’s bad behavior is the man’s fault. So buy the grifter’s course and you’ll learn exactly how to behave to get the right behavior from your woman, and when it inevitably doesn’t work, that means you did it wrong, so buy the grifter’s next course and be a better student this time (repeat ad infinitum).
Don’t believe me? Here it is, straight from the horse’s mouth.
“Today’s women are as misbehaved as they’ve ever been in history. The reason for this is that they have no respect for Male authority. And who can blame them? Men have shown a gross ineptitude in dealing with their nonsense and the way laws are written these days all but encourages them to be as horrible as they can be.
A lot of Men are quick to blame their women for misbehaving but the fact of the matter is that if a woman steps out of line on your watch, it’s your responsibility.”
Donovan Sharpe: How to build a quality woman from the ground up
BTW, you don’t need to pay Donovan Sharpe for any of the information he is selling. All that has already been covered here at Σ Frame. FREE!
See what I mean? This is the message that authors, pastors, and grifters are sending. They’re saying it’s NOT women’s fault that women behave badly, it’s your fault, men! Unlike (insert any pastor or Red Pill grifter’s name here), you’re just not ‘godly’ or ‘manly’ enough. If you were, then your woman would be an impossible combination of June Cleaver and Jenna Jameson (back when she was still hot).
Their error is in transferring responsibility for someone’s actions to somebody else — a violation of The Law of Responsibility. Saying that women behave badly because men are poor husbands is like saying men are sinful because God is unloving.
Furthermore, it would be better for men who have respectful, well-behaved wives to say that God blessed them with a good wife, rather than to claim that their wives are good because of anything they have done, which is is also a violation of The Law of Responsibility.
Conclusions
Here’s the truth. Women DO have free will and moral agency, but they need an incentive to forsake their sin and exercise righteous behaviors. It IS a man’s place and responsibility to guide, lead, and train his woman. But her decision to follow or not is on her. So stop rescuing women from the consequences of their bad behavior and decisions. Only give your time and attention to women who take responsibility for their actions and decisions. Her disobedience and poor behavior might bring shame to a man, but it is not necessarily a reflection on the man’s godliness or masculinity or whatever. Women who say so are making up an excuse to be hypoagentic. Men who say so are bilking you for $$$ or are sending you on a guilt trip.
Because women have free will and moral agency, a woman’s bad behavior — and its consequences — are her fault, and no one else’s. Treat her accordingly. Assume The Law of Responsibility, exercise The Law of Respect, and teach her The Law of Motivation.
Likewise, if a woman chooses to be good, then that is also her own choice. Treat her accordingly and be thankful for this rare blessing.
Related
- Σ Frame: Moral Guidance Based Feedback vs. Sexual Attention (2021/11/24)
- Σ Frame: No More Mrs. Hot Mess! (2021/11/29)
- Σ Frame: Laying out Expectations (2022/10/20)
- Σ Frame: What we’ve learned about Female Agency (2022/12/20)
- Σ Frame: Asherah Makes Demands: Give Women what they want! (2023/2/27)
- Σ Frame (Red Pill Apostle): Do you have a Communist Marriage? (2023/4/26)
- Σ Frame: Ideal Women Don’t Exist (2023/9/23)
ArchAngel
caterpillar345
Soup Sandwich
Lexet Blog
Novaseeker
Oscar
Red Pill Apostle
Jack
thedeti
Σ Frame 
I looked at Donovan’s (case study 2) pitch and he’s not wrong. It may not be the husband’s fault his wife is acting the fool, but because he’s the head, it is his responsibility to deal with the foolishness and correct the behavior. This comes back to husbands having the attitude that their wives as the most responsible teenager in the house. This does not deny female agency, but does admit the reality that at times a wife will need to grow up and it is the husband that is tasked as that agent of change in here life.
Here is a thought on the grifters, some of which are mere snake oil salesmen, and some of which are legitimate. It does not matter if information is free or not. All the financial information for investing is readily available with a quick internet search, yet financial advisors can play a valuable role in building wealth. The good ones help clients steer clear of the emotional decision making that reduces returns and that is what a good relationship coach will do.
If you notice in Donovan’s sales presentation webpage he points out the key to acting as the head.
“It’s one thing to have boundaries. It’s quite another to enforce them and this is what separates the Men who have the respect and adoration of their women, and those who do not.“
The difference between men who enforce boundaries and those who do not is emotion, specifically fearing their wife. I have no idea if Donovan’s course comes with one of one life coaching and if it does not then his course is much less valuable. There could be good information there, but like Oscar’s post stated, that information is free on SF (and a host of other sites as well). What is not readily available is having another man acting as a coach to get past the fear of enforcing boundaries.
I have mentioned this before and it is worth mentioning again, if you find yourself with a contentious wife, look for men who have gone from where you are now to where you want to be and seek their advice.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I maintain that Donovan Sharpe is blaming men for women’s bad behavior.
Yes, it’s true that people influence each other’s behavior, but unless there’s some form of coercion, that’s all it is — influence.
Keeping that in mind, yes it’s true that white knights, simps, and husbands who are afraid to enforce boundaries enable women’s bad behavior. Got it. Agreed.
It’s also true that a boyfriend or husband can lead, set boundaries, and enforce boundaries, and his girlfriend or wife can still refuse to follow. In all cases her bad behavior is her fault.
His enabling behavior is his fault.
Her bad behavior is her fault.
Everyone needs to stop blaming men for women’s bad behavior.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oscar,
A woman’s bad behavior is ALWAYS her fault.
I think the issue we run into is the line between agency and the concept of headship gets blurry depending on the RP content creator. Husband’s are not morally culpable for their wives sins. But when a husband makes his vows he takes on the responsibility to guide her in biblical teaching.
What gets hard is when you have a blustery headstrong contentious woman who won’t listen. Talking gently and guiding her has not worked and this is 100% her moral failing.
How the husband responds next is where I believe it becomes more difficult to discern if the wife has moral agency or is a mere responder to her husband’s actions. The husband should play hardball by imposing consequences and many women change at this point leading lots of people to conclude that the husband’s actions “caused” the wife to be a decent human.
What really happened is the husband was willing to take things further than the wife in a game of moral chicken and she yielded. Once that colossal $h!t test is passed, his life with her gets easier for many reasons, mainly because she now has a healthy fear of his consequences. This healthy fear reinforces the appearance of the husband’s actions dictating what the wife does, when really, she’s done the math and has decided to submit.
LikeLiked by 1 person
How do we know that the husband didn’t “cause” the wife to be a decent human? Because we see cases where that doesn’t happen. That means that the husband’s behavior is not the determining factor.
If the husband’s behavior isn’t the determining factor, then what is?
The determining factor is the wife’s decision to go one way or the other. In other words, her free will and moral agency.
Husbands and wives have a lot of influence over one another, but unless there’s coercion involved, neither can make the other do anything. Therefore, neither is responsible for the other’s actions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oscar,
I’m not suggesting the husband “caused” the wife to be a decent human. I am suggested he did the job of her father and gave her consequences until she chose right. This is much like disciplining a child for the child’s own long term-good.
The problem with many RP content guys is that they mistakenly assume the man’s discipline and the woman’s response is a perfect correlation. We both know that this is not the case.
What makes it hard to see the woman choosing to act right when she is confronted by a man over her behavior is that in many cases she follows. Women are herd creatures and almost all women appreciate masculine qualities. This combination is probably why when she’s been in a relationship with for a while suddenly exhibits masculine qualities, she’s hopeful, then she tests to verify it is a real change and then eventually she succumbs to his leadership. This order of events happens frequently. But there are times when she is contentious to the core and blows up the relationship.
There is always a choice. My take is that women submit to masculine frames with such frequency that it becomes harder to see unless you have an exceptionally difficult case of a woman to fix. The grind of fixing her makes the truth of her own agency quite clear to see (thanks for the lessons Mrs. RPA).
LikeLike
Yep, that’s my point.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oscar, RPA,
The way I understand it (according to Femmy’s testimony and this lesson), women will coast on autopilot, mentally absorbed in solipsism, totally unaware that agency exists… until a situation arises in which she realizes that her life could be better or different if she flexes her agentic capacity. At this point, she is faced with a decision of moral and spiritual significance — make an effort to learn and exercise agency, or… deny responsibility, blame others, and try to snake out of it. Too many women make the latter choice, simply because it is easier and has no consequences. Femmy told us that a ‘good’ partner, meaning one who is spiritually obedient in the face of a disobedient partner, can make it easier to make the right choice. Although that may be true, it still assumes the decision must be made ‘easy’ and that the partner is responsible for the change. The word ‘influence’ is better, but it still leaves things open to misunderstanding. It is more accurate to say that the partner created a situation that brought him/her to the crucial moment of decision described above. Enforcing boundaries is necessary to pull this off. Applying this pressure to make a decision (and removing the obstacles that prevent one from doing so) is the underlying secret of deti’s approach. It is also the key ingredient of evangelism.
Men learn this lesson sometime in elementary or middle school, from their fathers, or on the playground, in sports, or in gym class. It is possible for Men to learn this from having a girlfriend or wife, but that also requires a woman who is faithful, submissive, and who knows what she’s doing. (Heh…) For most men, wimmin are only a distraction from this lesson. I believe women also used to learn this lesson earlier in life, but now they don’t learn it until they find a man whom they desire and who also puts his foot down with her. This combination of her desire and his dominant restraint is what pops her bubble of solipsism, arouses her soul, and brings her to life. (This is colloquially called ‘validation‘.) Unfortunately, it usually pops other things too which ruins her for marriage.
If women learn this lesson from their fathers before adolescence, then it is less likely for her to learn this from a Ch@d after adolescence. This is why it is important for a woman to have a good relationship with her father, and why those who don’t tend to make a mess of their lives.
LikeLike
Ideally, mothers help teach this lesson, but in general dads are the primary instructors here, and the training needs to start early, when the child is a toddler.
For example, my youngest daughter is two years old. We’re very diligently teaching her that if she makes a mess, she needs to clean it. She normally cries, whines, and generally throws a fit.
Just a few days ago, baby girl dropped a bowl of popcorn and immediately started cleaning up without being asked or throwing a fit. I praised her to the heavens.
Yesterday baby girl made a mess with some knickknacks at my in-laws house. She threw a fit when I made her clean up the mess.
Here we go again.
This is how you teach kids to exercise moral agency. It’s a long, slow, arduous process that increases in complexity as the child matures. It requires a lot of patience, perseverance, and consistency.
Can you imagine a single mom keeping that up year after year? Is it any wonder that single moms turn out so many strippers and thugs?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ll beat this drum again because it is worth repeating.
The mental approach I took with my wife is EXACTLY the same approach Oscar takes with his kids. The difference is in the consequences that work and that Mrs. RPA would take on the attitude of “You can’t tell me what to do!”, unlike a young child that seems to accept parental authority as a given.
I will also attest to the fact that this approach works. My wife had to decide to follow scripture, but once she did, she is fun to be married to, we enjoy each other’s company, and she’s a really good wife.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RPA,
I’m trying to spare some young man the trouble in the future. A happier marriage for my kids means a better life for my future grandchildren.
LikeLike
The problem with “just be godly/just be alpha” is that it puts the onus on men to make wives moral.
Men cannot make women act in any manner – morally, immorally or amorally. Women have free will and make those choices themselves.
LikeLiked by 5 people
We should reward good loyal women whenever we can. What we subsidize we get more of.
LikeLiked by 2 people
That’s an important point. I’m currently working on an essay about this, because I had a real life episode where I was talking to a girl who hit me with, “Is it a deal breaker if we don’t go to church?”
She believes in God, but admitted that she’s “not that religious”. Normally, that would be the first red flag and I wouldn’t even waste my time, but… not gonna lie, it’s a desert out here. Almost every attractive woman is ungodly, agnostic, or “not that religious”. Not to mention, the few attractive ladies I have encountered who ‘claimed’ to be Christian inevitably reveal themselves to be corrupted feminists who reject the scriptures about submission and headship.
I spoke with the girl on the phone and we were in that talking phase, no commitments just yet. But I made it clear from the get-go that it is important to me that our future children are brought up to know and obey Christ.
I wrote her one of the most beautiful letters I’d love my future wife to read, because I explain with compassion and pragmatism why it’s important.
She revealed how she had been cheated on in the past and dealt with all kinds of crap from her ex, basically what you’d expect by relying on your feelings and trusting in humans over God. And at the end of the day, I gave her the opportunity to be with me, stability, guidance, protection and a life without being cheated on, abused, or neglected… but I couldn’t force her to choose me. I can make it as appealing as possible, but at the end of the day, it’s on her.
That’s why I clench my jaw when I hear punks like Dr. Umar say the children being born out of wedlock are all men’s fault. I’ve been saying, “If you keep attracting all these dudes who have no honor, it could be because you yourself have no honor.”
LikeLiked by 7 people
That’s correct. You say “follow me”. That’s what leadership is when you boil it down. She chooses to follow or not. If she chooses to not follow, you move on.
This is much easier to do before marriage. Setting and enforcing boundaries after marriage is a lot more difficult, and can require drastic measures like deti and RPA have described.
Hopefully that won’t be the case, but what if it is? Better to sift out the rebellious ones before marriage.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Rock Kitaro,
It’s not a desert, you are just not attractive and being told “not that religious” is called (soft) rejection. 97 % of young men are not attractive enough (at least for the women they chase after).
Women are, men become. Their SMV is high, while yours is low. A mismatch means she biologically isn’t able to have children with you, so she is never going to be your wife. You need to understand first that you’re facing a biological problem: She cannot fertilize her egg with your seed (sex-ed told you otherwise I know), so she has to fertilize it with someone else’s seed. You probably don’t want that, especially not after signing government papers.
Of course, mentally deranged women looking to dominate and control men present an image to attract their prey: feminized men. That image is flexible depending on her preferred demographic. It’s Bait & Switch, once you’re hooked, real her will be revealed and nothing will be left from that “Christian” identity.
Have you ever called HR as an applicant and told them, how you are going to run the company once they make you the CEO? Without even being hired as an intern?
Talk about raising children is months into a committed intersexual relationship. Not phone interview stage.
You understand that this custom makes you look like a nutcase to any woman on this planet?
Nutcase = dangerous to her and her offspring = no mating material.
So she’s an alpha widow. You wasted your time.
Oscar,
There is nothing to “sift out” from a selection of zero attracted women. He probably has never met a women attracted to him and that is normal for the majority of men, especially young men.
The best advice to a man still young is to not waste time. Not waste time on women obviously not interested at all, not waste time on churchian nutcase scripts. And not become depressed, because the reward is not instant, but delayed for men.
The focus should be first on the things NOT to do. For starters there is lot of detrimental things you can avoid doing as a young man and you might end up in a good place somewhere some time. Note how this is not about LAMPS at all. The most detrimental thing to a successful date is looking like a man dangerous to the well being of the woman (instead of other men). The absolutely first priority is to avoid that and try to look like a normal rational male.
LikeLike
Yeah, that’s always been my biggest hindrance. Being so gosh-darn ugly.
LikeLike
No, looks NOT the biggest hindrance. The quickest and surest way to repel any woman is come off as completely crazy in front of her. Talking about “our future children” on a phone call without any relationship whatsoever is a sure way to achieve that. After reaffirming that by writing a crazy letter afterwards made that woman make sure, that she will never be alone with such a guy for the rest of her life and instead be with a man, who can protect her from him.
This is because the most dangerous men for women are those with erratic mental behavior. Women avoid them like the plague.
LikeLike
Is this the “wait until you’re 35 to pursue women” advice?
LikeLike
Men don’t pursue women, it’s the other way around. Also waiting doesn’t do anything. Men are competing against other suitors since ancient times. The burden of performance is on men.
However the first and foremost task for a male is to not appear crazy. That is a female privilege.
LikeLike
DBD
Thank you for providing an example of blaming men for women’s bad behavior disguised as “red pill” advice.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Don’t date crazy” is the best advice a father can give to his daughter. “Crazy” is the most common situation daughters of single mother end in up for that reason.
Male members of fringe religious groups always face the fact that the biological makeup of women (two X chromosomes) makes them converge towards the genetic mainstream. This serves a reason: Fringe mutations are not able to bear children. Biologically a woman needs to be like most other women or her womb wouldn’t function, that is a biological necessity.
Of course the DNA of a woman isn’t limited to the build of her womb, it also influences how her brain comes out. That brain is the part that comes out as “not so religious” and that is why the majority of women are exactly that. That’s not a problem for most men though.
LikeLike
In other words, if you’re attractive enough she’ll submit to you, which is another way of saying that if you’re “alpha” enough (or whatever) she’ll submit to you, which means that if she doesn’t submit to you, it’s your fault.
That also means that if she becomes rebellious later, that’s because you became less attractive, which means it’s your fault.
No matter how you slice it, it’s always the man’s fault.
LikeLiked by 2 people
People who are attractive don’t need to do anything to be attractive.
LikeLike
First, that’s false. For example, a man who is attractive in part because of his physique did a lot to build that physique.
Second, stuff happens in life that makes formerly attractive people unattractive. The wedding vows say “for better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health” for a reason. When those worse, poorer, or sickness times come, what will she do? Will she activate Briffault’s Law, or will she keep her vows?
That’s 100% up to her. Either she’ll follow her flesh, or she’ll exercise virtue.
MSG Mark Allen died 10 years after being severely incapacitated in Afghanistan. He wasn’t attractive anymore. His wife stayed anyway.
LikeLiked by 1 person
When reproduction is impossible anyway (that’s more obvious the other way around with a man is trying to bang an repulsive woman), what is the point of the exercise then?
LikeLike
There you go deflecting again. Are you saying that if a woman is attracted to you, then she’ll submit to you?
LikeLike
A woman, who is sexually attracted to a man, will do literally everything to have his babies. If that means wearing a hijab and being part of a harem in an Islamic society, she will totally do that. (Women are just fine with sharing a HVM they are attracted to.) Yes, she will switch her religion on whim for that.
However a woman who listens to her hen house more than than to her husband, a woman who obeys her herdsman more than her husband is obviously not attracted to her husband. And all his daily problems with her including his bedroom problems stem from exactly this fact.
LikeLike
Wow. Sounds great. Thanks for proving me right. What happens when he loses what attracted her to him in the first place?
LikeLike
Still no answer.
LikeLike
“Pursue” may have been the incorrect word. But women generally do not approach men. They will signal using body language but it’s still on the man to identify those signals and initiate.
I thought that, elsewhere, you had advocated that men postpone marriage for the sake of developing life experience.
LikeLike
Women pursue men, but most men have never been the target of such pursuit. Women refrain from initiating (not the same thing as pursuit), because human females feature concealed ovulation.
It’s the most sensible thing to do for a man who doesn’t see any women being attracted to him.
LikeLike
“Generally”, yes, and that is a key word. But some women certainly do approach men. I’ve known of women chasing a certain man for years. Of course, most men are never the focus of that kind of attention.
LikeLike
Indeed and the human DNA encodes the fact that most men who ever lived on this planet didn’t manage to reproduce, while most women did. Which is no surprise, as it is a natural result of AWALT, while men get born with more genetic diversity.
All Women Are Like That (and men are not) means all women chase after the same kind of man. As a result fathering children was and is an achievement under the prerequisite of the burden of performance since cave men times.
The issue boils down to projecting a fantasy on the other sex instead of accepting what men and women are. Men look for female outliers, while women are pretty uniform, and women look for uniform males, while men are pretty diverse – This is one of the reasons why wearing a “uniform” (sic!) helps with attracting women. As does learning to handle the standard issue 20 years old girlfriend.
LikeLike
Jax,
A woman giving off signals is her initiating. It’s initiating with plausible deniability, but it certainly is initiating because she is only giving signals to certain men.
LikeLike
It’s much better to wait and let her bring up the topic of children, regardless of whether there is a relationship or no relationship.
She will talk about children when she is ready. And she may approach the topic indirectly. If the opportunity arises, she might say something like, “I’m so excited, my best friend from (high school / college / work, etc.) is having a baby shower. It’s her first.” Or she may get right to the point with something like, “That neighborhood we went by may have good schools, but the yards are too small for children.”
Give her the opportunity to bring up children and she’ll be receptive to an indepth discussion. If she doesn’t, and you’ve talked about everything else, then bring up the topic.
LikeLike
You guys…I don’t want to be disrespectful, but I disagree with a majority of what DBD is saying and it’s kind of hard to take him seriously, to be honest.
For the record, She’s the one who brought up the discussion of future children. After about a week of talking to her and she asking other questions about my faith, she asked “how important is it to you that our future children grow up as Christians?”
And I say everybody’s different because, clearly unlike some people, I actually like that about the women I’m dealing with. It tells me she’s dating with intentions. She’s not trying to waste my time. She wants to know where I stand on issues before getting too emotionally invested. I respect that and I think it’s wise of her.
As far as my crazy letter goes, again…everybody’s different. One of the reasons why I didn’t immediately dismiss her despite the red flag of her saying she’s not that religious is because she knows I’m an author. She actually likes my long-winded text messages. And I LOVE THAT! I’m not trying to get with just any woman, I’m trying to get with a woman who compliments me.
Lastly, i think it’s a bit narrow minded to say a woman claiming “she’s not that religious” is a form soft rejection.
This girl knew “God is number one” to me when she approached me. She asked, “is it a deal breaker if we don’t go to church?”
That isn’t a soft rejection, fellas. It’s a test. She wanted to know if, despite my faith, I can still bring myself to be with someone like her who doesn’t take it too seriously. She isn’t the first woman who’s tested me like this. Probably won’t be the last.
LikeLiked by 1 person
My wife and I talked about kids and marriage on our first date. I’m not saying everyone should do that, but when both of you are looking for a spouse, not a fling, the subject naturally comes up. She was 20, and I was 26.
20 years and 10 kids later, we’re going strong.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Brining up children is a sure fire sign that a woman has already imagined having them with the man she is talking with. She has a picture in her head and when she brings up the topic of kids with him she’s confirming another point on her checklist. This also means the man in question has passed through a host of her other filters that are prerequisites to the “will he be a good dad?” requirement.
If a man beats her to the kids question that is going to seem odd to most women because of stereotypes. It is what it is at this point.
The better strategy is to silently judge her without cuing her in on the fact that you are looking for a woman to marry. You’ll never be sure if you are getting the true version of her or if she’s manipulating you. It is much better to play your cards close to your vest so you don’t question her motives.
LikeLike
My wife says that when she met me her first thought was “I bet that guy would make cute babies” (spoiler alert: we made 5). That’s how family-oriented women think. We ended up talking about marriage and babies on our first date.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I found a couple points of confusion in the above thread.
First, some commenters are saying that Rock did something to disqualify himself, as if that affects the woman’s agency, but I think all he did was aim too high. Selecting a woman (as Rock did) IS something that the man does, but wisdom requires him choosing a woman who is not above his pay grade. Unfortunately, most women have priced themselves out of the market, and men have to go waaay down the SMV ladder to find a woman who respects him. A lot of men either never got the memo or they won’t go down that far, and so they are targeting women of a SMV who would’ve made good partners in a previous age, but are unable to do so now. I think this is Rock’s mistake.
Second, I wrote,
in response to Oscar’s summary of DBD’s statement.
I was short on time when I made that comment, so I need to explain more.
There are several things going on here.
So again, this comes back to the woman exercising agency, not only in submitting (Oscar’s point), but also in choosing who to submit to (DBD’s point).
It gets blurry when we assume that women respond autosomatically* to alpha behaviors and are less willing to respond to men without alpha traits, and then ascribe this to be a response to the man’s actions when it is more of a biological response.
IOW, both of the above points of confusion arise from schmoozing 2 ideas.
Combining these two assumptions boils down to “Action is biological”, which is an argument against women’s free moral agency.
* I made up this word. Automatic + Somatic.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’m working with a model of a woman’s weak will overridden by her reproductive systems. This happens to some men too, but usually only in front of a screen nowadays.
As mentioned most men never experience a woman’s reproductive systems at work, so they might assume that the lukewarm interest of women in them mirrors their own sexual attraction. This is a fallacy based on the human nature of concealed ovulation. As long as sexual attraction is not in play, a woman can indeed choose to behave like a free moral agent.
So the job of the man is to make sure that the goals of a woman’s reproductive system fall in line with his own goals, instead of going against them. As most normal men are never going to choose between multiple attracted women, the female-style mate selection strategies proposed by churchianity are only advantageous to the goals of the respective church organization, not to the men who apply them.
A biological man’s first and foremost job is to find a woman, who is actually biologically sexually attracted to him, because that’s the fundamental prerequisite of a successful relationship bearing fruit, making anything else much easier down the line.
It should be mentioned that women are capable to fertilize their eggs with seed from men they are not attracted to, as confirmed by the shape of the male organ. However these kind of emergency pregnancies will only lead to very few children (1-4) and having them very late (age 25+). For married women there is a 15-25 % chance, that the seed will be from someone else.
LikeLike
I forget to mention that for Christians this is a requirement in line with Pauline theology as in 1 Cor 7:8-9. Strictly applied, missing sexual attraction is an impediment to marriage. Combined with Proverbs 18:22 and 19:14 a man who marries any other woman is chasing wordly pleasure instead what he should according to the wisdom.
LikeLike
IOW, you’re arguing that female attraction is much more important than what is generally recognized by men. I agree with this insofar as it is simply unwise to marry someone without strong attraction being in place. However, this is also a harbinger of doom if it is expressed through sexual promiscuity and NOT in marriage, as it is now.
I guess you are referring to Chivalry? Or formally recognized marriage? Could you be more specific?
I have made the same argument in the past, only I framed it in terms of “authentic sexual authority”, IOW, the power to make one weak in the knees. When the woman is subject to the sexual authority of a man, we have the Tingly Respect structure, which is a natural form of Headship. I wrote about this in several posts, but it seemed to fly over everyone’s heads. Only Full Metal Patriarchy offered a solid response and he rejected my argument.
Right on cue, Rollo’s latest post is about this same topic.
The Rational Male: Earned Pussy vs. Free Pussy (2024/4/4)
LikeLike
For the regular man, genuine sexual attraction is the only thing to look for. If he doesn’t find it, he can stay single.
It’s pretty much dooming him, which is the intended outcome by TPTB.
Women have a strong preference for monogamy / polygyny with men they are sexually attracted to. Female promiscuity (polyandry) as popular in the current era is aberrant and evolutionary unsuccessful.
Female-style mate selection strategy was referring to teaching men about “choosing” between several non-attracted women using shopping lists, as if his “choice” does matter anyhow.
It’s a tactic to distract men from identifying women who are genuinely attracted. The man is supposed to choose the “correct” woman according to criteria defined by TPTB, just not that one who is genuinely into him.
Indeed, real authority comes from actual real power a man has over his women. Genuine sexual attractions puts a man into a position of absolute power.
A man with no Tingly Respect has NO power over women, so the whole submission game becomes a LARP done by the woman as long as the man meets the criteria of the conditional relationship (him serving on the plantation).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Consider yourself corrected.
LikeLike
DBD’s comments are 100% correct.
Way back in 1916, Benarr Mcfadden’s book, “Manhood and Marriage” made the point that women pursue men and men should make themselves available. It’s not about impressing women. You can read the book online for free.
Yes, you need to recognize indicators of interest. And they are very obvious, if you are the target. And if you are not the target, IOI’s can be like reading tea leaves.
In a Christian setting, an excellent IOI is when the woman always seems to find a way to be near or around you in a group setting. She goes out of her way to make herself available. It’s up to the man to respond.
Of course, the man has to weed out the Christian nutcases.
If the woman decides she is not interested after meeting you, usually she will try to let you down easy. She’ll make up some feeble excuses or is always busy. Those are an indication that the man should just move on and not try to win her over. Or she may say something that she knows would be a deal breaker. I once mentioned to a woman who expressed interest that I don’t drink or smoke and we had a short conversation about pron. Everything seemed OK, but in the end she mentioned something about being occasionally attracted to other women. True or not, I don’t know. But that was the deal breaker.
LikeLike
That’s not exactly new knowledge.
Concealed ovulation means she is not going show sexual availability, but doing everything to make sexual intercourse more likely to happen.
Indeed. A woman who appears “rebellious” is just not that into you.
A woman who is properly sexually attracted to a man will make sure intercourse does happen, because she is not able to postpone it thanks to her biological imperative. No, most men will never experience this.
A woman, who postpones sex for social reasons, is not attracted to that specific man she might be with in that social setting for social points. As women live on social credit, they might specifically choose a friendzoned man for that setting to conform to social rules (and then cheat on him).
That is the primary reason, why evangelical church is a beta factory. It imposes social rules, that emasculate men.
LikeLike
After considerable thought, I’ve reached the conclusion that all that this type of statistic proves is that women’s the majority of women’s standards are simply unrealistic, not that the majority of men are objectively unattractive (and not just in the physical appearance department). In fact, we can actually invert this statistic to make the assertion that 97 percent of women are unfit for stable intersexual relationships. It’s really that simple.
LikeLiked by 2 people
feeriker,
Though this claim is not supported by what we can see in the human genome now, almost all women who ever lived were successful in passing on their genes, while the majority of men who ever lived were not. Doesn’t matter how.
Genuine desire cannot be negotiated (Rollo Tomassi). Shopping lists of women falter in the face of genuine desire, when they proceed following their biological imperative of having as much pregnancies (intercourse) with these male desire objects as possible.
Men (especially those not desired) could now just shrug shoulders and move on, however the fact that the majority of men is not genuinely desired by women actually breaks industrial capitalism, the or Western economy. To make the latter work, the men at the top need lots of labor and the best way to get men into labor is to infuse the idea of work-based salvation. I mean work-based sexual attraction, as it’s not the 19th century anymore and religious themes lost traction.
As work-based sexual attraction of course does not actually exist, mainstream media has to promote lots of material faking it, while suppressing information contradicting this narrative. Men would otherwise stop feeding the industrial machine, live in a cabin in the woods or something like that and be happy. That kind of despicable behavior doesn’t make any rockets, submarines and aircraft carriers, which the West needs for acquiring the natural resources overseas to make more of them.
So why are there leftover women complaining about men? It’s not their “standards”, they are simply complaining about not having access to genuinely desirable men, because there are so few of them and they are taken. They are also complaining about their younger and better equipped female competition taking genuinely desirable men first.
However many of these women are still able to procure an emergency pregnancy with a backup beta they don’t desire passing on their genes, only birth rates take a hit, which we now see in all industrialized societies. This differentiates women from men, who are the disposable sex.
LikeLike
I’ll grant you that a man talking about “‘our’ future children” to a woman whom he has just met and with whom he is getting acquainted is off-putting. However, there is nothing wrong with a discussion (if the conversation finds itself going in that direction) of childraising in general in order to suss out the woman’s attitudes and beliefs about it.
Since most, if not all of us hereabouts consider the purpose of dating to be the seeking of a spouse, early detection of a potential spouse’s attitudes and beliefs concerning family formation and the role each spouse plays in that is an essential part of the vetting process. The key is in how you approach it. There is certainly no point in discussing family formation and children with a woman who barely registers interest in you, but if the relationship is already heading into relationship territory, then this topic is certainly fair game.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I agree, it’s a test and not a soft rejection.
But it is not a test of whether you can bring yourself to be with someone like her, as you have written, because she asked, “If we (emphasis added) don’t go to church.” It’s a test of your priorities and whether you are willing to forsake church attendance to be with her. It’s an either or proposition; one or the other and not both. She wants you to chose one — church or her.
A test of whether you can be with someone like her would be if she said that she would gladly go to church with you and try to fit in as best she could, but it would be very difficult for her because she doesn’t take it too seriously. Or if she simply said that you could go to church and she would stay home.
LikeLike
I agree. I think she’s shaking him down to see exactly what his priorities are, whether she is more important than church. What is more important and less clear is whether it’s a fitness test or a compliance test.
LikeLike
Jack,
You are missing the low hanging fruit on this one. All women test. It’s a feature, not a bug. The answer to how to handle a woman testing Rock’s priorities is old RP knowledge. I’ll refer back to Commandment of Poon VI.
A man early on in the relationship does not yield to a woman’s aggressive inquiry into where he stands. He deflects her harpoons with humor or with the skill of using a vast volume of words to say nothing, which is woman’s native tongue.
It is his job to evaluate her and her job to qualify to him. When this is done she gets the emotional build up and release that makes her feel good and makes him interesting. The best part of this is that the man can keep her guessing by saying less and listening more*.
*The side benefits of listening to her more is that she will eventually tell you exactly who she is and letting her do most of the talking with only some active listening interjections will make her feel like you “get” her.
So if you read this Rock, the next time a woman starts probing you for answers, play it close to the vest so her imagination gets to roam around some. Then ask good questions to get her doing most of the talking and be a good listener. It works really well.
LikeLike
One of the dangers of believing the lie of female hypoagency is that you won’t even bother looking for a virtuous wife. After all, virtue requires that a person exercise his/her free will and moral agency to cultivate virtue. Let’s face it, cultivating virtue is tough for us sinners. It literally requires that we endure suffering.
If women have no free will or moral agency, then virtuous women don’t exist (and never have), and therefore looking for one is pointless. A man just needs to be godly enough / alpha enough and she’ll automatically behave herself.
Here’s the problem. Any man who thinks he can “maintain frame” for his entire life is a fool. Life has a way of knocking a man on his ass when he least expects it – cancer, a grueling recession, a motorcycle accident, take your pick. When that happens, if he’s married to a non-virtuous woman, she’ll bail and monkey-branch to the next swinging Richard.
I mentioned Master Sergeant (MSG) Mark Allen above. MSG Allen was shot in the head in Afghanistan while searching for deserter Beau Bergdahl.
Here’s MSG Allen as a young Soldier.
Here are MSG and Mrs. Allen.
And here they are after MSG Allen was shot in the head.
Mrs. Allen took care of MSG Allen for 10 years until he died. Why’d she do that? Because he “maintained frame”? Obviously not. Mrs. Allen chose to fulfill her vow “for worse”, and “in sickness”. She exercised her free will and moral agency and chose.
You are not Superman. Life will knock you on your ass. Hopefully, you’ll be able to pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and drive on. Maybe – like MSG Allen – you won’t. Choose the kind of woman who’ll endure hardship with you, or none at all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You have chosen the example of a woman obviously not attracted to her husband. The photos you chose clearly demonstrate this by using green line and box theory.
(A woman leans in to a man she’s attracted to, not the other way around. And if her “box” points towards his body, it has been “delivered”, otherwise it is still “in transit” and might be delivered elsewhere during or after the marriage.)
On the wedding photo she is leaning away from him, which is the worst case scenario. Her body language speaks volumes.
LikeLike
Let’s suppose that’s true. She chose to stay anyway, which proves you wrong.
LikeLike
I don’t care about the woman and her motivations (might have to do something with the government’s paycheck).
I just review this man’s example of choosing a high risk career of being a GI, earning the consequences of his choices (getting himself killed in the long term) while being married to a woman obviously not attracted to him (probably the fate of most members of the military).
I ask if this man fared better than for example a guy called Rollo Tomassi married to a woman attracted to him with a different career choice.
And from my perspective the answer to this question is a clear No. Proof: Rollo Tomassi is still alive.
LikeLike
That’s a hilariously ham-fisted attempt at deflection! Thanks for the laugh!
LikeLike
DBD,
That’s a great argument that reveals the limited applicability of Evo psych — transforming heroes into fools and PUAs into champions.
LikeLike
From my perspective it reveals the limited applicability of the “American Hero” narrative Oscar tried to employ.
The decorated uniform is supposed to provoke an emotional reaction. It doesn’t, as I’m not an U.S. citizen. It’s probably the same for you, when you see some decorated black man exercising power over some no mans land in the middle of Africa.
So I review the raw result of guy making life choices and getting himself wounded and killed in the process. These choices earned him a trophy wife, who wasn’t attracted to him.
So this specific assessment, which I know is limited to my own person, is strictly about cultural programming, which hasn’t been applied to me. Personally, I don’t want a wife not attracted to me to stick around for what is probably a share of government’s paycheck.
LikeLike
Oscar and Jack,
If we take the evo psych concepts out of trying to figure out causation and instead replace them with what the bible teaches about women, we get pretty darn close to the same place from a behavioral standpoint. The biblical rules for women and wives are highly restrictive on their sexuality, until they are married of course, and biblical instruction for women tells us that the intent is for a woman to be under a man’s headship. Being under headship has nothing to do with her moral agency and everything to do with being the weaker sex and her life benefiting from the loving guidance of the male authority in her life. Apparently, a woman evaluating morality on her “feelz” does not work out all that well.
Oscar has argued that the Proverbs 31 woman is exceedingly rare. I believe this to be true as well, with the caveat that the P31 woman is probably more often than not made, either by her father or husband, rather than being a P31 woman in and of herself. This is my experience with Mrs. RPA and she is well on her way because of applying the behavioral tactics often associated with the evo psych crowd.
What I did with Mrs. RPA was look at the Rollo’s, the Heartiste’s, and the like and compare them to what the bible says. The behaviors these men profess do work, but not because of the evo psych philosophy they’ve used to try and explain why the behaviors work. They work because they are tactics that tend to address the typical moral failings of women. What we as men do with those tactics gets at our tendencies as men with moral failure. Do we use those tactics to influence our wives to be more biblical, or do we use them for amoral ends?
Examples like MSG Allen and his wife are those rare P31 woman instances. For every Mrs. Allen holding to her vows there are many stories of wives leaving or cheating when a husband is down on his luck. Both the bible and evo psych seem to arrive at the same place when it comes to women and there are some takeaways from this.
LikeLike
These unlucky husbands are usually not employed by the government. It’s ridiculous to assume that any other occupational accident without (taxpayer’s) insurance, requiring the wife to provide for the husband from her own resources — would have led to the same outcome. And there is still nothing to be said about “cheating”. This no longer exists, as extra-marital affairs are legal now in many Western jurisdictions due to fault divorce being abolished.
Most guys are posting about their issues with the RP theory framework contradicting their other frameworks, while I’m working on building an integrated theory.
This is easy for me, because most of the contradictions are in cultural programming, specifically American woke feminist (“progressive” DNC version) or feminist industrial capitalism (“conservative” GOP version). I never experienced most of that programming, so it’s pretty easy to filter that out. For me, it only shows up inside Hollywood productions and has no reflection in my everyday life.
Most religions got it right too, only filtering them through the lens of the American Evangelical capitalist church leads to wrong conclusions. This corruption is pretty easy to spot as well, because it always comes with the label “Christian”, in the English language (or been translated from it). No American makes the effort to create and promote a feminist version of “Islam” or “Judaism”. Or a feminist version of the Greek manuscripts used by the ancient church.
Now the NT theology by Messianic Jew Paul requires men to stay single unless there is mutual sexual attraction requiring marriage (1 Cor 7:8-9). The latter is exceptionally rare, reflecting the statements in the Hebrew bible (Proverbs 18:22, 19:14). If everyone would follow this instruction, everything would be fine.
However, the core issue is that the industrialized war machine actually requires many men to marry women NOT attracted to them, MSG Allen being the textbook example. This is the reason why the exact same war machine treats influencers encouraging talk about female attraction like literal terrorists, with the feds being after them.
It is because men NOT marrying women sexually attracted to their husbands or staying single otherwise is literally undermining the whole existence of the United States of America.
This is their kryptonite. The machine NEEDS beta provider men performing in conditional relationships under the control of their not-attracted women cheating on them. They need g@y marriage or everything falls apart.
This is the case because the burden of performance in a relationship of mutual sexual attraction is purely biological, while the burden of performance for the beta provider is “work the machine or get divorce-raped”. These men need to stay on the plantation.
This is the core issue and this is why literally every American institution is promoting LAMPS, men chasing women not attracted to them, and g@y marriage. The fundamental irreconcilability of RP teaching and American industrial capitalism is what you are looking at here.
[Jack: Edited for clarity.]
LikeLike
DBD,
It is clear that you are of the “Enjoy the decline” variety, however, you’re offering an interesting argument about why this would be a good thing.
I’ll be looking forward to this. It would help if you could (1) cite some evidence to support your points, and (2) explain the diabolical plan to use divorce gr@pe and g@y marriage to keep men on the plantation. It appears to be doing the opposite, e.g. MGTOW, Passporting, etc.
I think you’re on to something here. This seems to explain why certain manosphere blogs and personalities have been explicitly targeted while others have somehow survived the purge.
LikeLike
Jack,
Divorce grape is the credible threat of force (like a nuclear warhead) a non-attracted woman has to keep her husband on the plantation, while post divorce the government makes sure to keep him on the plantation, so he can pay (p)alimony.
For myself I call this whole construct g@y marriage (not just the same-sex variety of it) to distinguish it from real marriage (with mutual sexual attraction in place).
This is why these harmless ideas (on the surface) are attacked viciously. They provide men an escape route.
My insight is brand new and still needs to be tested.
My working hypothesis is that a man must be prevented from figuring out actual female attraction, so he can be told that a “proverbs 31 woman” (or whatever is his shtick) can be earned by proverbially enlisting in the army.
Once he figures out female attraction, he stops feeding the system and transferring resources to women. Instead, the women genuinely attracted to him are extracting from it, while transferring their extracted resources to their man, additionally to his own entrepreneurial endeavors.
This mechanic is not limited to one spouse, it works with a harem as well, which makes it even more dangerous to the elites.
I think I need to reestablish again that I’m just on the Internet to share and develop my own insights, not to convince anyone that I’m right. I don’t want spread an agenda or start a “movement”. So I’m usually not interested in fighting with arguments from authority like they do on Wikipedia. If others disagree, I’m just fine — Their feedback also helps me with further refining my theories.
There is a reason distraction tactics are usually focused on wasting time (“Go hunt down this specific source!” or just whataboutism), so I deliberately work within these constraints due to the fact that I don’t have the resources to do proper peer-reviewed research and create publications. This happens is due to the sad fact that the social sciences are under strict control of the TPTB interested to keep the status quo.
The primary reason why I usually have to skimp on providing evidence and sources is that I don’t get paid full time for doing this kind of research work like my opponents (or just delegate this to my dogsbody). Beside my little evolution biology “hobby”, I have to do things to put food on the table. When I formulated and published a long comment on the Internet, I already have spent my whole time available to this endeavor. I simply don’t have additional time to do “background work” as much as I would like to.
Compare this early Christianity with mostly laymen copying and distributing Pauline manuscripts (making many mistakes while doing so), while their opponents had an army of professional scribes available, usually a full copy of the Septuagint at their fingertips etc. Which is one of the reasons, why it is so hard to track down early manuscripts.
LikeLike
DBD,
The thing is, men are more likely to stay on the plantation if they have a wife and family to support. Instead, I think the focus is to keep women on the plantation, that is, get and keep more women in the workforce and NOT be dependent on a man, and also decrease reproduction by postponing marriage and keeping women busy outside of marriage and the home. The strong independent feminist woman idea is currently fast losing popularity, and I wonder if TPTB are attacking this idea as much as they are men’s awareness of female attraction. If your theory is correct, then we should see this happening. I suppose they are, but I haven’t seen it.
I get what you are saying. The term that has been used in the Christian Manosphere for several years now is ‘debased marriage’. It is less confusing.
You don’t need to do extensive ‘scientific’ research, just mention some examples in passing. The purpose of providing evidence is not so much to ‘prove’ your theory to be right, but to provide points of reference that can help readers bridge the gap between your theory and reality. If you can provide this framework, then readers can ‘prove’ it to themselves.
LikeLike
He doesn’t provide that framework because he can’t. There’s a reason for that.
LikeLike
No kidding. That’s what I keep saying over, and over, and over, and over again. Don’t marry that kind. Marry the kind that’ll stick with you when you’re down on your luck, because someday you will be down on your luck.
Attraction won’t keep her around when you’re down on your luck, because being down on your luck is not attractive. Compare this chick to Mrs. Allen, for example. Her boyfriend loses one fight, and she dumps him.
Again, don’t marry one of those. No matter how attracted she is to you in the beginning, as soon as you’re down on your luck, she’ll betray you the moment you’re down on your luck.
LikeLike
And now you’re lying, unsurprisingly. I made no attempt to employ any such narrative. I used an example with which I’m familiar that is well documented because — unlike you — I want readers to be able to verify facts for themselves as much as possible.
But hey, congratulations on proving yourself a liar.
LikeLike
Dead Bedroom Dating has provided a textbook’s worth of faulty thinking in one comment’s section. Bravissimo, champ. No one does it like you do.
Like cult leaders, dictators, and assorted criminal maniacs? When have those guys ever lacked female attention? Your error: faulty generalization.
For your next act, you pull the old Tomassi burden-of-performance trick. Onlookers should note that ‘pursue‘ is hereby redefined as ‘whatever a woman does‘, and never, under any circumstances as ‘something a man does‘. Likewise ‘performance‘ for ‘whatever a man does‘. Your error: playing with words (grammatical argument).
Why come up with dogmas and hard rules, when you can simply say: “Most of the time, men approach women.” There. Would it kill you?
And finally, the hail Mary:
Like a shaman, you are overeager to ‘look behind the curtains‘, and you imagine evolutionary psychology grants you the power to. Ironically, I think, this explains evo-psych’s popularity: It is a modern / scientific mythology, and it satisfies the same longing. In truth, of course, evo-psych is stupid.
Myth, both traditional and scientific, makes people forget how basic our powers of perception are. You think you have behind-the-scenes knowledge by looking at a few pictures? Do you also do palm readings prophet?
Let me try my hand at this soothsaying using another scientific myth, Freudian psychoanalysis. From Freud’s thesis that dreams are sometimes-disguised wish-fulfilments, I can read Joseph the patriarch’s dream in Genesis 37:6-7 and show he was a h0m0sexu@l. The dream reveals his true wishes, and the ‘upright sheaves’ are obvious phallic symbols. So, he was dreaming of a phallic orgy. Taken together with his later refusal of Potiphar’s wife, it is obvious he was a h0m0sexu@l.
You see how myth works? Of course, the above (mine and yours) are nonsense because myth does not (and cannot) discover anything. They are just roundabout ways of describing reality (and really, sometimes, of explaining it, of all things). So Joseph was no h0m0sexu@l, just a dreamer whose sheaves were just sheaves; those lines on your palm are just lines, not your destiny; and you’ll never know whether MSG Allen’s wife was attracted to him by looking at a few pictures.
Don’t worry, Jack has extended the theme (something I’m very grateful for), so I’ll write a proper refutation of evo-psych you especially should enjoy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You are assuming that highly successful criminals feature erratic mental behavior and still succeed in climbing to the top inside a male hierarchy. Such a thing only happens in absurd Hollywood scripts.
In reality these men feature the opposite: Highly in control of their own mental capabilities and emotions — this is a requirement to work under pressure of prosecution, staying firm in interrogation, keeping secrets and surviving long jailtime. As a result, these men are highly sought after by women — unlike men bursting unpredictably under emotional pressure and killing themselves after their crime.
This is also the reason, why there doesn’t exist a single WOMAN on this planet capable of such things.
But I know — from personal experience. You can tell the same thing from just one picture of a guy posing in front in an expensive super car: You just know if he is the legit owner, but only by personal experience with these cars and their owners. The green line / box rule is just a handy shortcut helping to explain it to the non-initiated. Body language works with cars as well: If the guy is leaning in the ride is not his own.
BTW: My girlfriend loves to point out to me, that every woman, who complains about masculine men, or the wall, or argues against the RP in general, is flat and has no boobs. That is her own empirical model, which is pretty solid as well.
LikeLike
Serendipitously relevant.
LikeLike
Pingback: Revisiting Vox’s Socio-Sexual Hierarchy | Σ Frame
Pingback: Rollo Tomassi’s Take on the Meet Cute Phenomenon | Σ Frame
Pingback: But I’m not like that! | Σ Frame