Critique of The Rational Male and Red Pill Ideology

[TK2021]

17 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

I was born and raised in a city where there are plenty of millionaires and billionaires around. Me and my girlfriends dated guys whose family owned private jets. Heirs to fortune and even celebrities, or even elite sport players. And I've met a lot of men with comfortable status earned through being successful in their careers.

But among those, some are psychos. Some are having huge family complex ruining their relationship with life. Some are just not that interesting. Some are work alcoholics. Some are totally emotionally unavailable. Some are just not compatible, etc ... 

And my experience with it is that a lot of the regular high status men are fucked up and extremely difficult to be in a relationship with.

---> So you and your girlfriends let high status guys fuck you in your peak fertility. Got it.

[Cepzeu]

Such a good read! Thank you @Emerald for your posts. As a guy who has gone through the whole pickup/attraction thing and grew to love himself, I agree with a lot of your points. 

For me, healthy pickup can be summarised as healing your past trauma aka giving yourself the love you seek, and then being authentic to your personality. With these two "internal" qualities achieved, you can go out into the world and experience it. That experience (in terms of attracting women) just involves interacting with lots of people. There will be people who you are just attracted to for a variety of reasons. It's not logical, although objective factors do play a role. Then you pursue people you are attracted to and see if attraction is reciprocated. If not, then you move on because you know you can't force attraction (and doing so by playing outside of your authenticity only harms you because you will attract women you are not compatible with anyway). In this way it is a bit of a numbers game because you are seeking a situation where both parties are attracted to each other, and this is ok.

The beauty is that you can just be yourself (assuming you love yourself and are being authentic) because there are many people who will be attracted to you just based on your unique feature set. This frees you up from being needy because you no longer see rejection as a harm to your self-worth, you see it simply as incompatibility - a triangular hole doesn't feel upset that a square block doesn't fit into it, it just keeps searching for a triangular block.

You could argue that there are some qualities you can develop that will improve your chances - and you can - e.g. leadership, tonality, eye contact, but a) being authentic and loving yourself tends to autocorrect those anyway and b) there are girls out there who are more "masculine" and can lead in the relationship etc. or like shy guys.

The biggest fix to attraction problems is loving yourself and who you are - not trying to manipulate women with a fake persona that you think will attract them. Ironically, once a man loves himself and is authentic, things like social ease, money, reputation, healthy eating and exercise will come about - a result of self-respect and self-love. People entering pickup with low self-esteem see these external qualities as the goal to achieve, missing the whole point of developing your "inner" self love and core confidence.

It often takes a few successful hookups to recognise that the thing you are chasing is not women's attraction, or sex even, it's the realisation that you are lovable as you are. This comes the most when your pickup play was authentic and you weren't trying to play a character.

@aurum would you agree? I know you are interested in this space.

[Etherial Cat]

2 minutes ago, TK2021 said:

---> So you and your girlfriends let high status guys fuck you in your peak fertility. Got it.

Cry me a river for happening to be at fertility peak and fucking other people your own age.

[TK2021]

11 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

Cry me a river for happening to be at fertility peak and fucking other people your own age.

Wait did you heart that? Did you hear a massive "whoosh" sound as you were writing this post? It was my point going over your head.

 

Perhaps you didn't hear it because you talked yourself so deeply into a corner with your earlier post that your ears got covered by the walls of your own ignorance.

Let me simplify: you haven't been fucked by a single high conscious guy in your life most likely, yet you have been fucked by several high status guys. We are talking about who women ACTUALLY open their legs to. Not these mind games. What does even a high consciousness guy mean to you? It is just your own projections and biases. 

[Etherial Cat]

3 minutes ago, TK2021 said:

Wait did you heart that? Did you hear a massive "whoosh" sound as you were writing this post? It was my point going over your head.

 

Perhaps you didn't hear it because you talked yourself so deeply into a corner with your earlier post that your ears got covered by the walls of your own ignorance.

Let me simplify: you haven't been fucked by a single high conscious guy in your life most likely, yet you have been fucked by several high status guys. We are talking about who women ACTUALLY open their legs to. Not these mind games. What does even a high consciousness guy mean to you? It is just your own projections and biases. 

The deductions you've made from my writings are not even factual. So imagine how much distortion stem from the interpretation you've got there. 

 

[aurum]

1 hour ago, Cepzeu said:

@aurum would you agree? I know you are interested in this space.

Yes I'd say that was well said.

I had deep insecurities related to female validation in my early pickup days, and they're probably still there to some degree. I'd hardly even care if the sex was terrible with the girl I hooked up with. As long as I "got laid", I'd feel good about myself. The more girls wanted to have sex with me, the more I felt like a boss. I'd even fudge my own lay count in my head to make it larger than it was. Oral sex counts as sex right? I'm so cool...

Underneath all of that, I basically just wanted to feel desirable. But chasing that through pickup was just a black hole.

How many girls was it going to take before I get there? 5? 10? 20? 50?

It was never ending. Much like a millionaire who is convinced their next million is going to bring them happiness, I was doing much of the same thing but with women.

Now my interactions look much different. They look more like what you described above, although I don't do much cold approach these days. If I do cold approach it's very casual. It's more about being social than anything else, like striking up a conversation with the person sitting next to you on a plane.

I'm mostly just focused on my life purpose, my friends, my family, my happiness and just being myself. And sometimes women come into my life, and sometimes they don't.

There is an illusion of control that pickup gives over your dating life. But the reality is that when it's time for you to meet someone, you'll meet them. And when it's not, you won't. Ironically though, I had to go through pickup to learn that.

So I don't shit on pickup. That would be hypocritical. Any guy reading this who wants to try it, go ahead. It can be a lot of fun. But these same insights are likely awaiting you on the other side of that journey.

[Gesundheit2]

@Etherial Cat 

High status guarantees sex while high consciousness doesn't. That's the difference, which is what matters most to us here.

You might have matured beyond mere high status, but most women haven't, and won't likely. The average woman (like the average man) is deeply unconscious. Even if you teach her your hard earned wisdom, she will still repeat your past mistakes. It's an illusion that won't break without breaking your heart.

[Leo Gura]

21 hours ago, Karmadhi said:

@Leo Gura

I love how you tend to favour strenght over kindness. Like a girl is being dumb for fucking a weak guy rather than fucking a piece of shit guy. A girl suffers more if she gets attached to a piece of shit guy than if she gets to a weak guy. Of course aim to be strong and kind but if i had a sister i would rather have her date a weak kind guy than a strong asshole, for her sake. I have seen more girls suffer from dating scumbags than i have seen them suffering from dating weak guys. I doubt that is just me.  You do not seem to be very critical of scumbags in the dating scene  when actually they create more issues than "weak" guys do.

You can talk and theorize all you want, but the fact remains that a highly feminine girl would rather get fucked by a strong asshole than by a weak guy.

You do not understand the woman's survival needs. You are projecting your own needs onto her.

13 hours ago, Emerald said:

You're being like one of those incel guys who quote dating profile statistics to say why only Chads get girls.

If you look at dating profile statistics as gospel, you'd think that women are mostly or only attuned to looks. And that's because surface level stuff is all there is in a dating profile sense. 

And so, when Incel guys are like "ONLY the top 20% of guys looks-wise get all the girls", it's because they're looking at dating profile statistics and seeing that as an absolute truth about female sexuality.

But I know you're smarter than that Leo. I know you'd just as much call them on their bs as I would.

But when it comes to status, you look at dating profile statistics as proof of your theories around the ultimate objectivity of female sexuality. You're trying so hard to prove that female sexuality works the same way as male sexuality, when it does not.

Now, I understand that it may be comforting for you to believe that female sexuality is a predictable machine. That's a big security blanket that would be very difficult to let go of.

I wasn't quoting Incel dogma at you. I was telling you to create an online dating profile and actually test your theory. I have done so and I exactly know the results. The results are extremely predictable and mechanical. Run the test and see.

Incels are not entirely wrong. They took some basic facts about female attraction and blown it way out of proportion and turned it into an excuse not to develop themselves in to strong men.

There is no doubt whatsoever that women are highly attracted to status and leadership qualities. This doesn't guarantee anything, but it is a very consistent trend and a man would be a fool to not develop this factor in himself, just as a woman would be a fool not to wear makeup when trying to attract a man.

[Etherial Cat]

4 hours ago, Gesundheit2 said:

@Etherial Cat 

High status guarantees sex while high consciousness doesn't. That's the difference, which is what matters most to us here.

You might have matured beyond mere high status, but most women haven't, and won't likely. The average woman (like the average man) is deeply unconscious. Even if you teach her your hard earned wisdom, she will still repeat your past mistakes. It's an illusion that won't break without breaking your heart.

Yes, of course.

From a masculine perspective, being high status definitely facilitate the access to sex. There is nothing to say there. But the question is more: is this ultimately fulfilling for both part?

Being high status means you've got social leverage, so having an easier time to pick up people of inferior privilege your way. And that mostly in hope for them to benefit by proxy from your lifestyle and situation. For that, people sell their integrity or just self-deceive themselves into believing that the human being is what they like but very often the person itself is secondary.

What I am trying to say by women not being ultimately attracted to status as a sufficient condition is that it grows "old" quite fast and dissatisfaction lurks in if the choice is not genuine. The thing is that what really makes a woman happy is being connected to her heart and genuinely pick a man that resonate with her. If she's choosing a man solely on a status basis, the odds that he's a real heartfelt match is quite low. What women are attracted to is the power and the money itself, which they wish for themselves but have difficulty to get. Of course, the ideal scenario is to have both. But you don't chose who you get the butterflies for. And having this deep, genuine attraction for a man is what can make the sex go to a really fulfilling level.

And as a man, you can get plenty of women sitting on top of you and change them like you change your socks, but if you grow very conscious as a man, their own consciousness quality will not impress you and you'll long for something else than these girls being lured by whatever you've got.

Edited September 1, 2021 by Etherial Cat

[Raptorsin7]

@TK2021 Why so hostile and aggressive?

You can make your point the same way without all the extra baggage. It's such a poor way to communicate, unless someone provokes you there really is no reason to engage like this.

 

[Gesundheit2]

53 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

but if you grow very conscious as a man, their own consciousness quality will not impress you and you'll long for something else by these girls being lured by whatever you've got.

You might be right. I am generally cynical and pessimistic, and so what you said doesn't make sense to me, especially the butterfly thing. But I can see that it might make sense for others.

[Etherial Cat]

2 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

You might be right. I am generally cynical and pessimistic, and so what you said doesn't make sense to me, especially the butterfly thing. But I can see that it might make sense for others.

You're not living in an easy part of the world, so I understand your cynicism, pessimism and your different order in priority. It's already though here, so I don't want to imagine what it is in Syria ?. 

 

[Karmadhi]

@Leo Gura

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

act remains that a highly feminine girl would rather get fucked by a strong asshole than by a weak guy.

You do not understand the woman's survival needs. You are projecting your own needs onto her.

Yes of course she would rather get fucked by a strong asshole, however is that good for her? We are talking about what is healthy for her, not how female attraction works. We all know that. Would you think a guy would be better off with a hot girl that treats him like dirt or an average girl that treats him very well.  Personally i think the guy would be much better off with the average girl. How the other person treats you is more important for your overall happinness in the relationship than "evolutionary attraction triggers". Yes we are also attracted to burgers more than salad but that does not mean eating burgers is good for us in 2021. Maybe in tribal times the female would be better off with the strong asshole because he would ensure her survival but these days that is obselete. These days people should be wise enough to care about how they get treated as much as biological triggers. Find a balance.

I would dare you Leo to date a very hot girl that treats you like dirt then see how happy you are with just your "biological attraction triggers" getting met while ignoring everything else. Which is exactly what girls do when they date strong assholes that treat them like shit.

Of course i understand the female survival agenda but i also think they should be wise enough to see past it considering it it obselete in 2021.

[Emerald]

5 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

I wasn't quoting Incel dogma at you. I was telling you to create an online dating profile and actually test your theory. I have done so and I exactly know the results. The results are extremely predictable and mechanical. Run the test and see.

I know you weren’t quoting Incel dogma at me. But you were using the same basis for your argument. You’re looking at dating profile statistics and thinking it means something significant or universal about female sexuality.

But if you’re going to quote female dating profile statistics as gospel, then they also imply that women are most focused on physical appearance as the primary factor influencing women’s attraction… which you know is not true.

But if we’re looking at dating profile stats as an indicator of truths, the statistics would still show that women are most attuned to looks.

Incels are not entirely wrong. They took some basic facts about female attraction and blown it way out of proportion and turned it into an excuse not to develop themselves in to strong men.

You’re just looking at some basic facts about female attraction, blowing them out of proportion, and then using that distorted information to give you the confidence to go approach women.

So, the only really big difference between you and an Incel is your sense of self-efficacy and can-do attitude. Your ideas about female sexuality are still distorted in similar ways.

Both you and Incels have an analogously harsh and false view of female sexuality that’s based off the same framework. It’s just that you’ve managed to get the upper hand on the false women you project and they have been crushed under the false woman’s feet.

There is no doubt whatsoever that women are highly attracted to status and leadership qualities.

I never argued against this. Leadership qualities are objectively attractive. I’m just saying that your view of female sexuality is distorted because it over-emphasizes the importance of the objective elements of male attractiveness over the subjective factors which are is the dominant component of female sexuality.

And men who don’t realize how subjective female attraction is will absolutely take rejection as an indicator of their lack of worth or lack of objective attractiveness. You can look right on your forum and see that.

And in your emphasis of how objective female attraction is, you add to that collective distortion by aping the imaginary harsh woman’s denigration.

And then they project that false image onto women. And it’s just tiring.

This doesn't guarantee anything, but it is a very consistent trend and a man would be a fool to not develop this factor in himself, just as a woman would be a fool not to wear makeup when trying to attract a man.

 I never argued against that. Men can only have leverage in-so-far as they improve themselves along objective lines.

You can’t improve upon the subjective. It just is what it is. But you can have some influence over how attractive you are by developing certain objectively attractive qualities.

My point was that female sexuality puts a heavier weight on the subjective compared to the objective.

This is why a woman can feel nothing for a man who’s a 10 in the looks department but feel super hot and bothered for a guy who’s a 5.

This is why a woman can feel nothing for a high powered executive and feel everything for the cashier at the local grocery store.

This is why a woman can find a super alpha extroverted guy totally boring, while being super interested in the introverted guy who has uncommon interests.

Now, is it good strategy for a man to bank on that? No. It’s good strategy for him to develop as many objectively attractive qualities as possible.

But it’s important to also not become distorted in thinking that women are mostly attuned to the objective. And that’s best explained through the quote, “When all you have is a hammer, everything becomes a nail.” And I’m just super tired of being hammered when I’m actually a screw. ?

 

[Rinne]

1 hour ago, Emerald said:

I never argued against that. Men can only have leverage in-so-far as they improve themselves along objective lines.

You can’t improve upon the subjective. It just is what it is. But you can have some influence over how attractive you are by developing certain objectively attractive qualities.

My point was that female sexuality puts a heavier weight on the subjective compared to the objective.This is why a woman can feel nothing for a man who’s a 10 in the looks department but feel super hot and bothered for a guy who’s a 5.

This is why a woman can feel nothing for a high powered executive and feel everything for the cashier at the local grocery store.

This is why a woman can find a super alpha extroverted guy totally boring, while being super interested in the introverted guy who has uncommon interests.

Now, is it good strategy for a man to bank on that? No. It’s good strategy for him to develop as many objectively attractive qualities as possible.

But it’s important to also not become distorted in thinking that women are mostly attuned to the objective. And that’s best explained through the quote, “When all you have is a hammer, everything becomes a nail.” And I’m just super tired of being hammered when I’m actually a screw. ?

i would say its like who ever has more subjective survive benefit to a women is who she is going to be attracted to. but objective survive benefits are still well respected. so you can call it a 50 / 50.  

Edited September 1, 2021 by Rinne

[Emerald]

17 hours ago, TK2021 said:

I see. I think that primitive sexuality is quite negative for evolution. It's quite objectively less evolved to be sexually attracted(read: to have a biological reaction to procreate)to a person with great tits than intelligence. It's also quite negative for our species that most women are attracted to barbaric displays of power. I think most conflicts would end if our sexualities were actually more evolved. I think deep down we know this and are ashamed of it.

I’m not ashamed of it. It’s just a part human sexuality. It’s not a flaw to overcome. Now if it dominates your sexual experience to where you can’t experience deeper connection, that’s a problem.

But it’s never been a problem I’ve encountered. The main thing about relationship is the intimacy. And I’ve never had a relationship where the primal element of sexuality was a problem.

I have loved all my partners as human beings first and they all felt the same about me. In fact, a relationship beyond 3 months isn’t sustainable if you only have the primal factors at play. Lust doesn’t take you far as the basis of a relationship.

Even as a man I have a hard time accepting the fact that the people who are further developed mentally, spiritually etc. really don't have much correlation with my sexual urges towards them. My dick will get harder for a stage beige girl than a stage turquoise girl just if she has a better body, or deepthroats better.

That’s not a problem in and of itself. If I’m not physically attracted to a guy, then I won’t be interested in him either. I mean Eckhart Tolle might be super conscious… but no thank you.

The issue for a lot of inexperienced guys is that (because of porn consumption and unrealistically attractive women in the media) they might have such an idealized vision of women in their mind that any woman who’s underneath an 8 feels like they’d be unattractive to them. So they never make connections with real women because they’re stuck on the ideal woman in the mind.

I think this is a massive flaw and my relationships and motivations have truly suffered from it. Now I can't even imagine what it would be like as a girl to have to admit these things with all the cultural conditionings etc. shaming and the need to be more integrated to the herd due to survival threats. I'm sure personality matters more for girls, but the to the extent you are trying to paint a picture of - I just don't buy it.

That’s because you’re projecting male sexuality onto female sexuality. And you end up with an unnecessarily harsh projection onto women that makes it harder for you to feel a human connection with them.

Even the personality stuff is iffy. One could be attracted to a very harmful personality because of traumas and conditionings. And it certainly is more the case of being attracted to the wrong personality than the right personality for most people.

Yes. Psychology (not instinct) is the main thing that impacts who we will attract and be attracted to. 

I take it that you are a single mother? Now I am not saying that this directly causes bitterness towards men - but I certainly would be extremely surprised if there wasn't ANY bitterness from that.

My husband and I are separated but still married. We still live together in the same home and coparent our children. So, it’s not like I’m doing it all myself. I just wasn’t feeling good in the relationship anymore, so things needed to change.

And I have had a couple 1-year-long long-distance relationships since we split. I just recently ended the last one in June because he and I were on different pages in terms of what we wanted in the future. But we’re still friends.

Also, I don’t really feel bitter towards men. I can feel annoyed at a sizable minority of men for not understanding. There is often an arrogance that keeps these men from being receptive to women’s perspectives.

The need to see yourself only sexually turned on by some guy with specific values etc. personality, could actually be an unconscious way of pedestalizing yourself above men, who hurt you by not being attracted enough to you for objective/primitive reasons.

Again, you’re projecting the objective nature of male sexuality onto me. Even seeing a man as a collection of values and personality traits is objective.

Also, I’ve mentioned before that I’ve had one-night stands. I know that I can get turned on sexuality by a man I don’t know at all. I’ve had some fun random sex before.

I’m pretty sure that, if I’m already in a sexual scenario, any man that I find to be a 4 and above in terms of social skills and looks could turn me on. For sexual arousal, it’s a very low bar. Most men clear the bar.

But this is the objective part of my sexuality. And it just doesn’t have that much magnetism to it.

Random sex, even if I get turned on and have an orgasm, is still not very compelling. The pair bonding drive (which is based in subjectivity and selectivity) is ten times stronger and more intoxicating. It shoots off all my serotonin, dopamine, and oxytocin all at one like fireworks on the forth of July.

But getting purely sexually turned on is like fire crackers of serotonin. They’re interesting enough. But they don’t match the absolute fireworks show of neurochemicals that is my pair bonding drive.

So, I’m not discounting the objective elements of female sexuality. What I’m saying is that the subjective elements of a man’s personality create the lion’s share of attraction. It’s specifically about seeing the man as more than the sum of his parts.

But of course, there are deal dealbreakers and turn-ons that are more objective. And the primal drive is very objective. And these are also part and parcel to female sexuality.

But my concern on here is to present my sexuality as factually and objectively as I can in order to get through to those with distorted perspectives on female sexuality.

Now as far as men not liking me for objective reasons, I don’t have any particular experiences that stand out in my mind where this came up as an issue. I’m sure it’s happened before. But there’s no memory that stands out to me where I’ve been rejected by a guy for him not being physically attracted to me.
 

This way at least you are higher and holier than these guys sexually. And they are also not worthy of your true attraction. Now I'm not saying this is exactly what is happening. It is just one example out of hundreds how your mind could be playing games regarding this.

I’m actually saying the opposite. I’m saying that I’m attracted to men based on who they are as people. And I’m telling them female sexuality isn’t as harsh and ruthless as the project it to be. Lots of men tend to project what I call “the pedestaled woman” onto all women. And “the pedestaled woman” is very objective, ruthless, and harsh. And she is the sole arbiter of objective male worth. And I’m going to be very honest is saying that I get very annoyed when the pedestaled woman is projected onto me. I talk about this projection in the video below.

 

Edited September 1, 2021 by Emerald

[Etherial Cat]

@Emerald

Ouuuuuch. That was a flawless demonstration. I think a lot of people will get what you meant there.

Just one thing. I don't think you're a screw either. You're the hammer nailing the incelosophers around. 

Edited September 1, 2021 by Etherial Cat

[Emerald]

4 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

@Emerald

Ouuuuuch. That was a flawless demonstration. 

Just one thing. I don't think you're a screw either. You're the hammer nailing the incelosophers around. 

Check out this cool emoji of me —> ? 

Haha ?

[Emerald]

24 minutes ago, Rinne said:

i would say its like who ever has more subjective survive benefit to a women is who she is going to be attracted. but objective survive benefits are still well respected. so you can call it a 50 / 50.  

You could treat it like it’s 50/50 if that’s what works for you.

But it’s not 50/50 in actually.

If I’m going to put numbers on it, it’s more like 80/20 in favor of subjectivity for the average woman.

[Roy]

1 hour ago, Emerald said:

And I’m just super tired of being hammered when I’m actually a screw. ?

It can be lonely being a screw, in a nail world