Critique of The Rational Male and Red Pill Ideology

[Federico del pueblo]

Haha yes, this is kind of how it is for guys.

They have this idea in their mind that women walk around with some kind of a checklist in their pockets, to evaluate how well all of their hypergamy needs are met, then as soon as the interaction starts the woman will start to tick boxes and there is a certain score that must be reached in order to progress to the next stage.

- looks  ✔️

- money ✔️

- status ❌

- humor ❌

- grooming ✔️

- intelligence ✔️

and so on...

This is obviously not exactly how it works in the real world.

 

Where I still disagree though is the extreme opposite idea of that, where the premise is that it is absolutely unpredictable what women will feel attracted to. There still are clear tendencies as to what attracts women, you just can't generalize it in a "ALL women like X kind of fashion"

But could you possibly conceive of a reality in which a guy who is successful, popular, confident, positive, charismatic, on his purpose, intelligent, humorous, good looking, in good shape, socially savy etc. did not do much better with women ON AVERAGE, than a guy who lacks most of these qualities??? Absolutely not of course, it would be ridiculous to believe that.

 

Another misconception that I sometimes see here is that if you are initially a nice guy ("beta male") and then aim to apply all kinds of "alpha strategies" (or whatever you believe is a better strategy), that you can only learn to display all of these things and not actually be these things.

Sure, it is not easy to go from e.g. insecure to confident, but it is absolutely achievable whatsoever, it is just more work and takes more time compared to just disguising your insecurity in the robe of fake confidence.

 

This brings me to the last point. Often women say that things like game or pick up would never ever work on them. It is true in a sense that if the guy is still actually insecure just trying to pretend being confident, then most sober intelligent women will be able to spot that. 

It is not true for the second case I described above though, when a guy has actually become the thing that he originally was not and had to consciously study first. You eventually reach a point of verisimilitude at which it is not possible to spot "game" anymore, it is invisible at this point, you are then basically just like the guys who have always been good with women.

Also realize that all guys who are "naturally" good with women do have game too, they also learned from experience and from peers etc. just within a more random, unconscious process, they have a strategy too, just that their strategy has become who they are a long time ago.

[Emerald]

8 hours ago, aurum said:

Where you and RSD seem to diverge is about selectivity. You’re arguing that female selectivity is because of women’s ability to perceive men as unique. While a company like RSD would probably argue female selectivity exists because women are biologically driven to seek out alpha males and then to get them to commit.

This was also the origin of female subjectivity, as women were looking for subliminal hints of alpha male behavior, like body language or vocal tonality, rather than object measures.

Thanks for clarifying. I love this topic so these ideas have been fun to play with.

PUAs may teach that there is an element of subjectivity in feminine sexuality when it comes to men’s looks. And that’s true.

But when it comes to the interpretation of women’s response to the male personality, the same harsh objectivity gets projected onto women where the story is that women are super hypergamous and scrutinizing men for how objectively alpha they are or aren’t.

And there’s the idea that she will always choose the objectively more alpha man. And this is why men try so hard to shove themselves into that box.

But feminine sexuality is very subjective in its assessment of the male personality too.

The more a woman orients to her sexuality in a feminine way, the more it works it’s magic and selects intuitively for a deep match… which is how you can most successfully select for a man who will love you.

But women who orient to their sexuality in a masculine way will only be tuned into status and if the guy is the alpha. And they will be unlikely to find a good relationship.

But feminine sexuality and feminine intuition is like a complex algorithm that works on many data points. And because there are so many data points, it’s not a job for the conscious mind or logic. It’s a job for the wisdom of the subconscious, which typically arises as a feeling… like something in the muscle memory.

Like a centipede doesn’t have to consciously think which leg to move when.

And the PUA guys would think the algorithm is only tuned into or mostly tuned into alpha male behavior. But in my experience, it’s far more attuned to the neutral intricacies and quirks of a man’s personality. 

 

 

Edited August 29, 2021 by Emerald

[Emerald]

8 hours ago, Federico del pueblo said:

Haha yes, this is kind of how it is for guys.

They have this idea in their mind that women walk around with some kind of a checklist in their pockets, to evaluate how well all of their hypergamy needs are met, then as soon as the interaction starts the woman will start to tick boxes and there is a certain score that must be reached in order to progress to the next stage.

- looks  ✔️

- money ✔️

- status ❌

- humor ❌

- grooming ✔️

- intelligence ✔️

and so on...

This is obviously not exactly how it works in the real world.

 

Where I still disagree though is the extreme opposite idea of that, where the premise is that it is absolutely unpredictable what women will feel attracted to. There still are clear tendencies as to what attracts women, you just can't generalize it in a "ALL women like X kind of fashion"

But could you possibly conceive of a reality in which a guy who is successful, popular, confident, positive, charismatic, on his purpose, intelligent, humorous, good looking, in good shape, socially savy etc. did not do much better with women ON AVERAGE, than a guy who lacks most of these qualities??? Absolutely not of course, it would be ridiculous to believe that.

 

Another misconception that I sometimes see here is that if you are initially a nice guy ("beta male") and then aim to apply all kinds of "alpha strategies" (or whatever you believe is a better strategy), that you can only learn to display all of these things and not actually be these things.

Sure, it is not easy to go from e.g. insecure to confident, but it is absolutely achievable whatsoever, it is just more work and takes more time compared to just disguising your insecurity in the robe of fake confidence.

 

This brings me to the last point. Often women say that things like game or pick up would never ever work on them. It is true in a sense that if the guy is still actually insecure just trying to pretend being confident, then most sober intelligent women will be able to spot that. 

It is not true for the second case I described above though, when a guy has actually become the thing that he originally was not and had to consciously study first. You eventually reach a point of verisimilitude at which it is not possible to spot "game" anymore, it is invisible at this point, you are then basically just like the guys who have always been good with women.

Also realize that all guys who are "naturally" good with women do have game too, they also learned from experience and from peers etc. just within a more random, unconscious process, they have a strategy too, just that their strategy has become who they are a long time ago.

There are elements of objectivity to female attraction. 

There’s an objectivity to how handsome a man is.

There’s an objectivity to how masculine a man is.

There’s an objectivity to how socially graceful a man is.

And men who are higher in these factors will have an edge on guys who aren’t. 

So, there are ways to optimize one’s attractiveness.

But a woman doesn’t go along with a checklist of objective traits where she’s looking for a guy who’s maxed out on these qualities.

Women will use their feelings as the primary metric for knowing if she’s into a guy or not. And it’s very subjective and non-linear.

And those feelings are tuned into the full scope of a man’s personality… not homed in on his ability to fit some picture of objective attractiveness… though objective attractiveness does play some role in the overall algorithm of feminine sexuality.

Edited August 29, 2021 by Emerald

[Federico del pueblo]

@Emerald Yes, I agree with that part about feelings and subjectivity, I didn't really believe that checklist theory myself but think that this is what many guys have in their mind.

But even though female sexuality has this strong subjective nature to it I still believe that if you work on a variety of things like your confidence - and here I mean on a deep level, like releasing trauma, changing negative core beliefs etc., humor, your attitude (like positivity, what you "radiate" and how much fun you bring to the interaction), your ability to make yourself vulnerable etc.  then you will much more likely create more attraction with women (and potentially love at some point).

Not because you then get more boxes ticked on the logical, objective attractiveness assessment checklist but because all of these things add very much to the emotional, subjective experience a woman has with you.

I mean what more could anyone really do? You either work on your life (lifestyle, status, money, work, success) = the outer stuff or you work on your inner emotional world, and ideally you do both.

If you then add to this an extra effort of meeting more women (online dating or going out and approaching) then the amount of options you have with women should drastically increase, how else could it be?

[Emerald]

25 minutes ago, Federico del pueblo said:

@Emerald Yes, I agree with that part about feelings and subjectivity, I didn't really believe that checklist theory myself but think that this is what many guys have in their mind.

But even though female sexuality has this strong subjective nature to it I still believe that if you work on a variety of things like your confidence - and here I mean on a deep level, like releasing trauma, changing negative core beliefs etc., humor, your attitude (like positivity, what you "radiate" and how much fun you bring to the interaction), your ability to make yourself vulnerable etc.  then you will much more likely create more attraction with women (and potentially love at some point).

Not because you then get more boxes ticked on the logical, objective attractiveness assessment checklist but because all of these things add very much to the emotional, subjective experience a woman has with you.

I mean what more could anyone really do? You either work on your life (lifestyle, status, money, work, success) = the outer stuff or you work on your inner emotional world, and ideally you do both.

If you then add to this an extra effort of meeting more women (online dating or going out and approaching) then the amount of options you have with women should drastically increase, how else could it be?

Absolutely. Like I said, there is objectivity woven into female attraction. It’s just that female attraction isn’t objective on the whole. Feminine sexuality doesn’t use a checklist.

It’s about how the gestalt of a man’s looks, personality, and mannerisms create certain feelings of chemistry.

And it’s to the point where you could take two identical men with similar personalities and mannerisms, and a woman could be attracted to one and not the other.

[Leo Gura]

Men think with their dicks. Not exactly objective. The dick has a feeling of its own.

[diamondpenguin]

10 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Men think with their dicks. Not exactly objective. The dick has a feeling of its own.

@Leo Gura that's why I think about you at night. ?

[Emerald]

17 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Men think with their dicks. Not exactly objective. The dick has a feeling of its own.

But there are objective qualities that cause that reaction. Nice breasts will cause that reaction in all heterosexual men.

So it’s not very subjective. There are objective physical forms that trigger attraction.

So when I say objective, I don’t mean rational. What I mean is… the opposite of subjective.

This is why it’s much easier to please a man than it is to please a woman. For men, once you know how to please one, you kind of know what works universally… though of course there are some subjective elements to male sexuality as well.

But for women, who are generally more subjective in their attractions, you could have two men who are identical in every way and the woman could be attracted to one and not the other.

For men, who are generally more objective in their attractions, you line up two women who are identical in every way, and if a man is attracted to one, it’s nearly a guarantee he’ll be attracted to the other.

 

 

Edited August 29, 2021 by Emerald

[Hulia]

47 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Men think with their dicks. Not exactly objective. The dick has a feeling of its own.

Even the enlightened men?

[Emerald]

16 minutes ago, Hulia said:

Even the enlightened men?

Yes

 

[Epikur]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Men think with their dicks. Not exactly objective. The dick has a feeling of its own.

What about transmen? But do not be transphobic.

[Emerald]

15 minutes ago, Epikur said:

What about transmen? But do not be transphobic.

If they are very masculine and heterosexual, then trans men will have similarly objective responses to that of cis men.

So, yes… the colloquialism still applies.

Edited August 29, 2021 by Emerald

[hamedsf]

50 minutes ago, Hulia said:

Even the enlightened men?

@Hulia aynen oyle!

 

 

[Hulia]

1 hour ago, hamedsf said:

@Hulia aynen oyle!

 

 

tamam kardeşim ?

1 hour ago, Emerald said:

Yes

 

how do you know?

you are a woman

did you have an enlightened lover?

[Leo Gura]

3 hours ago, Emerald said:

But there are objective qualities that cause that reaction.

Women are also attracted to very predictable things like humor, confidence, leadership, status, vocal tone, eye contact, etc.

Which is why game works on women so well.

Your attraction is not as special as you think. It's just that the female mind subjectivizes the attraction as something super special and exclusive for that one guy. But the truth is, it could have been any guy similar to him. The uniquness of the guy is irrelevant. Of course the woman will tell herself otherwise.

[Federico del pueblo]

5 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Women are also attracted to very predictable things like humor, confidence, leadership, status, vocal tone, eye contact, etc.

Which is why game works on women so well.

Your attraction is not as special as you think. It's just that the female mind subjectivizes the attraction as something super special and exclusive for that one guy. But the truth is, it could have been any guy similar to him. The uniquness of the guy is irrelevant. Of course the woman will tell herself otherwise.

 

But this is so unromaaaantic ????

[Federico del pueblo]

@Knowledge Hoarder

The succes rate of game is relatively low because guys struggle to really integrate the principles of game in their identity.

So they consciously understand that they should be more confident, "alpha", flirtatious and all these things but they do not know how to actually BE these things.

Instead they just try to convey these things and pretend to be confident etc. Many guys have trauma or some kind of major emotional hang up around women and sexuality and if they then go out and just put on a mask of confidence then it gets very exhausting because they have to perform all the time.

So much deeper work is often required then just knowing a bunch of confident things to say that you can't even say congruently.

At some point this endeavour just gets to straining emotionally and because of this and fairly poor results guys just give up on game.

Edited August 29, 2021 by Federico del pueblo

[Jacob Morres]

4 hours ago, Emerald said:

Nice breasts will cause that reaction in all heterosexual men.

not me  ?

[Nos7algiK]

4 minutes ago, Jacob Morres said:

not me  ?

Same here. It would be quite damning to all men if it really was that trivial.

It seems like both sexes overly simplify the needs/attractions of the opposite sex.

[Nos7algiK]

3 hours ago, Hulia said:

Even the enlightened men?

No, once someone reaches a certain point of self understanding notions of "thinking with their dick" will disappear. There is a grand sense of selfishness that is involved with this type of thinking or they wish to gain something they believe they are lacking which is their sexual needs met. There is no sexual "need" this is just a thought of the ego which isn't true whatsoever. There only "is" and this "is'ness" lacks the desire to fulfill, but rather is a witness to the perceived causal happenings within the now.