Critique of The Rational Male and Red Pill Ideology

[Emerald]

3 minutes ago, Roy said:

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

Lonely… and painful.

Mind the ridges bro! ?

[coca]

@Emerald I get that you may be extra sensitive around this topic because of your personal experiences(which you are still in the middle of), but I would advise you to take a second closer look at what Leo is saying.

I have noticed the tendency in you to read unpleasant information uncarefully and write feelings-based replies that sound polite and politically correct, and soften the harshness of Leo’s words.

I carefully read through your replies hand have concluded that this is yet another Politely crafted word salad ?,and you are missing Leo’s main point.

In reality, 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.

This is the first qualifier, before any subjective qualities are even thought about.

It is unfair to paint men as horny dogs who are mainly attracted to big tits, but women as virgin soul princess fairies who look at subjective qualities instead of status and other shallow traits, women have to invent these stories to maintain their false pedestal of purity. 

This rhetoric is unproductive for struggling men. 

[Etherial Cat]

21 minutes ago, Emerald said:

Check out this cool emoji of me —> ? 

Haha ?

Sorry for the lame ass editing. But the spirit is there. LOL

[Emerald]

3 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

Sorry for the lame ass editing. But the spirit is there. LOL

Haha! Nice

[aurum]

27 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

Sorry for the lame ass editing. But the spirit is there. LOL

??? MC Hammer

[Emerald]

32 minutes ago, coca said:

@Emerald I get that you may be extra sensitive around this topic because of your personal experiences(which you are still in the middle of), but I would advise you to take a second closer look at what Leo is saying.

Which experiences are you referring to? 

I have noticed the tendency in you to read unpleasant information uncarefully and write feelings-based replies that sound polite and politically correct, and soften the harshness of Leo’s words.

Can you be a doll and cite the textual evidence where I’ve done this as well as an explanation of why you see it that way? It would help me improve my rhetorical strategies because I really did my best to be as objective and even-handed as my feeble emotions would allow me to be. ?

I carefully read through your replies hand have concluded that this is yet another Politely crafted word salad ?,and you are missing Leo’s main point.

Also, can you cite the textual evidence again where it seems like word salad to you? If you show me where your points of confusion are, I can maybe try to simplify it so that you can understand better.

But I get Leo’s point. And I’ve given him credit where it’s due. I don’t really disagree with the points he’s brought up.  

He is just missing my point, and arguing past me.

My point is that the subjective elements of female sexuality outweigh the objective. And he’s arguing that women respond to objective qualities too… when I never once argued against that.

Also, I started on this topic and Leo argued against my claim. I wasn’t arguing against his point. He’s arguing against mine and I’m responding to his argument. So, it’s a false framing that I’m responding poorly to information he’s sharing with me. 

In reality, 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.

The most feminine women are the most subjective in their attractions… because subjective attractions and femininity go hand in hand. The more objective a woman is in her attractions the more masculine she is.

This is the first qualifier, before any subjective qualities are even thought about.

It is unfair to paint men as horny dogs who are mainly attracted to big tits, but women as virgin soul princess fairies who look at subjective qualities instead of status and other shallow traits, women have to invent these stories to maintain their false pedestal of purity. 

You’re projecting a lot of your own puritanical ideas onto this post. I don’t see men as horny dogs for being more objective in their attractions. And I make a distinction earlier in the thread that objectively doesn’t inherently mean objectification. I also don’t see women as puritanical virgins. Nor do I even think that would be a good thing.

This rhetoric is unproductive for struggling men. 

This is where you’re the most wrong. Look at yourself and look on this forum. Heck! Look at the world. Tons of men are so hung up and insecure towards a harsh image of women that isn’t even accurate.

Most of men’s issues with meeting women come from the insecurities that stem from the false idea that women have some kind of checklist of objective alpha traits that they’re constantly sussing out how objectively valuable a man is or not. So, many men are too afraid to go talk to women because they project a false objectivity onto women’s sexuality.

Edited September 1, 2021 by Emerald

[Emerald]

4 minutes ago, aurum said:

??? MC Hammer

?? ?

[Gesundheit2]

@Emerald

You seem a little bit confused, or just biased, or both.

I realize I'm being direct here, but please understand that I have nothing against you personally. I'm just mad at what you said, because it's not true in my experience, and because it will hurt the younger guys here.

Personality can be improved to the extent where it becomes an "objectively" attractive quality (using the quotation marks to imply that I'm using your framework here). I have improved my personality like to a hundred folds, and I can still improve it more. I used to be totally repelling, and now I'm a lot less repelling. I'm angry at what you're saying because in a way it reinforces victimhood in the minds of young males here. Please stop spreading that nonsense. Anything can be improved with dedication and hard work. And we're here to learn how to improve. Do you, on some level, feel a need to be special or above others? Or do you just like being unpredictable? Well, guess what! Women are not special, and their behavior is pretty much predictable. Although, of course, less linear or predictable than men, but overall it is still in the realm of human understanding.

Also, there's nothing special about any one man per se, like you're claiming, and for the most part, women can't differentiate or detect quality or find a matching partner (quote divorce statistics). Women are not attuned to seeing "The God" inside of men, it just happens that most women like men with exciting personalities (humorous, charismatic, leader, etc.) more than men with ordinary or less than ordinary personalities. And to be more clear, it's not just women who like those people. Most men also like the company of a man with an exciting personality. It's just natural to be attracted to excitement.

Now, the difference between men and women in this regard is that women tend to romanticize that attraction more and develop an attachment to it. When that happens, it's hard to break that attachment and replace it with another. A different man who might have similar a personality will not likely be able to penetrate through her heart until the original one is at least almost out. But still, that's not necessarily always the case, because evidently, women cheat as well.

Side points:

Women don't have any special abilities, just get that idea out of your head. Women are just humans.

There's no such a thing as "real connection" with a certain person because they are "special" or a "perfect match", and there's no such thing as a "soul mate".

Again, I don't have anything against you. In fact, I respect you and like and resonate with a lot of your posts. But in this case, I think there's something going on inside you that you're not addressing. But maybe I'm wrong. In any case, make whatever you want with what I said.

[coca]

@Gesundheit2 this.

Edited September 1, 2021 by coca

[Gesundheit2]

41 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

Sorry for the lame ass editing. But the spirit is there. LOL

Maaad respect! Hahahahaha 

[Emerald]

13 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

@Emerald

You seem a little bit confused, or just biased, or both.

I realize I'm being direct here, but please understand that I have nothing against you personally. I'm just mad at what you said, because it's not true in my experience, and because it will hurt the younger guys here.

Personality can be improved to the extent where it becomes an "objectively" attractive quality (using the quotation marks to imply that I'm using your framework here). I have improved my personality like to a hundred folds, and I can still improve it more. I used to be totally repelling, and now I'm a lot less repelling. I'm angry at what you're saying because in a way it reinforces victimhood in the minds of young males here. Please stop spreading that nonsense. Anything can be improved with dedication and hard work. And we're here to learn how to improve. Do you, on some level, feel a need to be special or above others? Or do you just like being unpredictable? Well, guess what! Women are not special, and their behavior is pretty much predictable. Although, of course, less linear or predictable than men, but overall it is still in the realm of human understanding.

Also, there's nothing special about any one man per se, like you're claiming, and for the most part, women can't differentiate or detect quality or find a matching partner (quote divorce statistics). Women are not attuned to seeing "The God" inside of men, it just happens that most women like men with exciting personalities (humorous, charismatic, leader, etc.) more than men with ordinary or less than ordinary personalities. And to be more clear, it's not just women who like those people. Most men also like the company of a man with an exciting personality. It's just natural to be attracted to excitement.

Now, the difference between men and women in this regard is that women tend to romanticize that attraction more and develop an attachment to it. When that happens, it's hard to break that attachment and replace it with another. A different man who might have similar a personality will not likely be able to penetrate through her heart until the original one is at least almost out. But still, that's not necessarily always the case, because evidently, women cheat as well.

Side points:

Women don't have any special abilities, just get that idea out of your head. Women are just humans.

There's no such a thing as "real connection" with a certain person because they are "special" or a "perfect match", and there's no such thing as a "soul mate".

Again, I don't have anything against you. In fact, I respect you and like and resonate with a lot of your posts. But in this case, I think there's something going on inside you that you're not addressing. But maybe I'm wrong. In any case, make whatever you want with what I said.

You’re projecting a lot of things onto my post.

You CAN improve along objective lines. And this will help you get better with women because you won’t hit their dealbreakers and you’ll be able to elicit the sexual responses that come from the objective component of female sexuality.

And so you have tools to work with.

The issue becomes that, when a man only has a hammer, that everything starts looking like a nail.

And in this case, your hammer is your ability to make yourself more attractive along objective lines. 

But this doesn’t mean that female sexuality is a “nail”.

There is a “nail”component to female sexuality that your hammer can work on. But that’s not the only component of female sexuality. It isn’t even the main component.

And trust me when I say that that’s great news for all men. Otherwise, it’d be pretty hellish for you guys because women would only ever be interested in the most objectively attractive men.

It is women’s subjective attraction element that enables her to become attracted to a man’s humanity. 

But you must develop yourself as a human being and along objective lines so that you don’t hit her dealbreakers.

Edited September 1, 2021 by Emerald

[roopepa]

These Red Pill philosophies are always so fixated on roles and social constructions. They seem to be looking through conventional goggles. Like solar plexus energy.

I think a woman with an open Heart is a game of their own.

[roopepa]

1 hour ago, Etherial Cat said:

Sorry for the lame ass editing. But the spirit is there. LOL

I love how every time there is a conversation on femininity, masculinity, gender or sexuality on the forum, Emerald is there speaking her truth like some force of nature.

[Emerald]

16 minutes ago, roopepa said:

I love how every time there is a conversation on femininity, masculinity, gender or sexuality on the forum, Emerald is there speaking her truth like some force of nature.

Thank you ☺️

[Gesundheit2]

9 minutes ago, Emerald said:

You’re projecting a lot of things onto my post.

You CAN improve along objective lines. And this will help you get better with women because you won’t hit their dealbreakers and you’ll be able to elicit the sexual responses that come from the objective component of female sexuality.

And so you have tools to work with.

The issue becomes that, when a man only has a hammer, that everything starts looking like a nail.

And in this case, your hammer is your ability to make yourself more attractive along objective lines. 

But this doesn’t mean that female sexuality is a “nail”.

There is a “nail”component to female sexuality that your hammer can work on. But that’s not the only component of female sexuality. It isn’t even the main component.

And trust me when I say that that’s great news for all men. Otherwise, it’d be pretty hellish for you guys because women would only ever be interested in the most objectively attractive men.

It is women’s subjective attraction element that enables her to become attracted to a man’s humanity. 

But you must develop yourself as a human being and along objective lines so that you don’t hit her dealbreakers.

I think the heart of the issue is not precisely in the information itself, but probably in how you're drawing the distinctions between subjective and objective attraction. I needn't to tell you that we can play with these constructs all day long, deconstruct and rebuild them however we want. Just like sand, we can make anything out of it. The truth of nonduality is important for this understanding.

It seems that you have a strong identification in your mind with this distinction you've created between subjective and objective in regards to attraction. And you don't seem to be willing to let go of it or at least show a little bit of flexibility in how you're using it. You seem to think that there's an actual physical thing called "subjective attraction" in contrast to another actual physical thing called "objective attraction". And you seem to have a desire to idolize the subjective element and put it on a pedestal, or as something beyond the reach of men, possibly to make yourself feel special or protected, or maybe because it's just something you picked up from somewhere as a dogma. That is my speculation based on how you seem to be in favor of the "subjective" attraction nonsense. But the truth is that none of that is true, except in your mind. You can dream up any concepts you want and identify with either sides of any duality. It doesn't change the fact that all dualities are made up concepts.

I know you're big on the Masculine vs. Feminine duality, but ultimately, it's still a duality, and there's no real difference between masculinity and femininity except in our minds. Ultimately, the Masculine and Feminine are inseparable, and it's delusional to think otherwise. And I don't mean to dismiss the obvious polarities or the observable differences or their importance in our lives as humans. All I'm saying is that things are not set in stone, and they can be as flexible as you want them to be. For example, being is generally considered a feminine quality. But can the masculine not be? Does the masculine exclude being? As well, doing is usually associated with the masculine. But is the feminine dead or paralyzed? Is the feminine opposed to movement or doing? See, it's just a matter of how you choose to draw the distinctions and where you choose to draw them.

Anyway, I don't know if you've ever heard of this concept before, but there's something known as "pre-selection", which means that a man is a lot more likely to be attractive to new women he meets if he's already established as attractive by some women, or even only one (of course the more the better). It is a well established fact that a pre-selected man is a lot more attractive than an ordinary one. This just shows how little role the subjective element plays in female attraction. It's mostly unconscious herd mentality; a man who is attractive to other women is usually attractive to the woman who's currently making judgement. When a woman is judging a man's worth, she's not just judging him purely by herself, but by all the other women she knows. It's a form of confirmation bias and appealing to authority, both of which are logical fallacies caused by following the opinions of others instead of oneself. In other words, the subjective element is marginalized in this case in favor of the "objective". And that is enough proof for my case, because we can't eliminate other women or their opinions. A woman does not make a scientific study into whether this man is worth her. She mostly uses her emotions, and her emotions are mostly driven by the bigger collective first, and then by her social circle. I would say ubringing has nearly nothing to do with this at all, because in early childhood we don't pick up very nuanced desires or distinctions, mostly very general and broad ones.

But I can play your mental game, too. I can say that because ultimately it's always the woman who has the final say in the matter, that means it's her subjective decision, she doesn't judge by already made up criteria. But you'd probably laugh at me for saying that. Just remember that concepts are flexible and nonduality can flip anything upside down. Truly, I can use your language to make the exact opposite case out of the same arguments. By the same logic above, I can say that men also are mainly driven by subjective attraction. After all, isn't the man deciding, whether consciously or subconsciously, whether a certain woman is attractive or not? The metrics used to assess attractiveness are irrelevant in both cases. Because are they subjective or objective? Or both? Or neither?

There are various ways we could deconstruct the mind. But that should be enough.

[Emerald]

11 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

I think the heart of the issue is not precisely in the information itself, but probably in how you're drawing the distinctions between subjective and objective attraction. I needn't to tell you that we can play with these constructs all day long, deconstruct and rebuild them however we want. Just like sand, we can make anything out of it. The truth of nonduality is important for this understanding.

It seems that you have a strong identification in your mind with this distinction you've created between subjective and objective in regards to attraction. And you don't seem to be willing to let go of it or at least show a little bit of flexibility in how you're using it. You seem to think that there's an actual physical thing called "subjective attraction" in contrast to another actual physical thing called "objective attraction". And you seem to have a desire to idolize the subjective element and put it on a pedestal, or as something beyond the reach of men, possibly to make yourself feel special or protected, or maybe because it's just something you picked up from somewhere as a dogma. That is my speculation based on how you seem to be in favor of the "subjective" attraction nonsense. But the truth is that none of that is true, except in your mind. You can dream up any concepts you want and identify with either sides of any duality. It doesn't change the fact that all dualities are made up concepts.

I know you're big on the Masculine vs. Feminine duality, but ultimately, it's still a duality, and there's no real difference between masculinity and femininity except in our minds. Ultimately, the Masculine and Feminine are inseparable, and it's delusional to think otherwise. And I don't mean to dismiss the obvious polarities or the observable differences or their importance in our lives as humans. All I'm saying is that things are not set in stone, and they can be as flexible as you want them to be. For example, being is generally considered a feminine quality. But can the masculine not be? Does the masculine exclude being? As well, doing is usually associated with the masculine. But is the feminine dead or paralyzed? Is the feminine opposed to movement or doing? See, it's just a matter of how you choose to draw the distinctions and where you choose to draw them.

Anyway, I don't know if you've ever heard of this concept before, but there's something known as "pre-selection", which means that a man is a lot more likely to be attractive to new women he meets if he's already established as attractive by some women, or even only one (of course the more the better). It is a well established fact that a pre-selected man is a lot more attractive than an ordinary one. This just shows how little role the subjective element plays in female attraction. It's mostly unconscious herd mentality; a man who is attractive to other women is usually attractive to the woman who's currently making judgement. When a woman is judging a man's worth, she's not just judging him purely by herself, but by all the other women she knows. It's a form of confirmation bias and appealing to authority, both of which are logical fallacies caused by following the opinions of others instead of oneself. In other words, the subjective element is marginalized in this case in favor of the "objective". And that is enough proof for my case, because we can't eliminate other women or their opinions. A woman does not make a scientific study into whether this man is worth her. She mostly uses her emotions, and her emotions are mostly driven by the bigger collective first, and then by her social circle. I would say ubringing has nearly nothing to do with this at all, because in early childhood we don't pick up very nuanced desires or distinctions, mostly very general and broad ones.

But I can play your mental game, too. I can say that because ultimately it's always the woman who has the final say in the matter, that means it's her subjective decision, she doesn't judge by already made up criteria. But you'd probably laugh at me for saying that. Just remember that concepts are flexible and nonduality can flip anything upside down. Truly, I can use your language to make the exact opposite case out of the same arguments. By the same logic above, I can say that men also are mainly driven by subjective attraction. After all, isn't the man deciding, whether consciously or subconsciously, whether a certain woman is attractive or not? The metrics used to assess attractiveness are irrelevant in both cases. Because are they subjective or objective? Or both? Or neither?

There are various ways we could deconstruct the mind. But that should be enough.

You’re working very hard here to say that the perspective I’ve shared is just a social construct and a matter of semantics and that that there’s no fundamental difference between the way women and men get attracted.

But I am sharing an observable truth about the subjective nature of female sexuality. I’ve watched myself go through this process so many times from the meta perspective. And I’ve seen other women do the same, albeit from the outside.

And you’ll notice that there are no women on here contradicting me and saying that I’m generalizing.

It’s only some of the men who are adamant that what I’m saying is false.

And the reason why is because they don’t want to feel powerless to women. They want to feel like all aspects of female sexuality have levers of control.

And so, if they can frame female sexuality purely through the lens of the objective and non-mysterious, they can “solve it” and FEEL a lot more in control.

And this enables them to cope with the sense of powerlessness and insecurity they feel in relation to women and the false images they project onto us.

And just be honest with yourself for a moment.

The only reason why you’re so adamant about proving me wrong is because what I wrote made you feel powerless and insecure. It’s not about anything other than that. These truths feel threatening to you.

And it’s easier to write off any non-user-friendly element of female sexuality as construct or falsehood than it is to integrate that truth into your worldview. But your dating life will be so much less stressful once you do.

The subjective element is much friendlier than the objective element.

 

[Raptorsin7]

@Emerald But don't soft factors come into play only when the objective criteria is met?

How many woman would choose a short, financially unstable, emotionally unstable man with low confidence and low leadership quality?

If we're talking about quality woman with comitting to then I'd assume virtually no one.

Once these criteria are met sure there are lots of subjective factors that come into play, but you've effectively eliminated the vast majority of men in your dating pool based solely on objective factors.

It seems misleading to emphasize subjective elements of female attraction, when what matters most is objective factors given what I wrote above 

[Stovo]

Feminine people ordinarily feel in the moment, that's why feminine women are attracted to confident, masculine men, who can hold a decent conversation and show leadership abilities. 

BUT a feminine woman will never rationalise it that way. To a feminine woman the underlying emotions take charge, and to her it was just a "strong vibe". 

[Emerald]

1 minute ago, Raptorsin7 said:

@Emerald But don't soft factors come into play only when the objective criteria is met?

How many woman would choose a short, financially unstable, emotionally unstable man with low confidence and low leadership quality?

If we're talking about quality woman with comitting to then I'd assume virtually no one.

Once these criteria are met sure there are lots of subjective factors that come into play, but you've effectively eliminated the vast majority of men in your dating pool based solely on objective factors.

It seems misleading to emphasize subjective elements of female attraction, when what matters most is objective factors given what I wrote above 

As I’ve said many times before on this thread, men are wise to develop themselves along the lines of objective attractiveness factors so that they don’t run into women’s dealbreakers. And it can also help them in terms of knowing how to escalate things as well.

So, as I’ve said, it’s the best strategy for men to use the leverage that the objective element of female sexuality provides them. 

But the issue becomes where the man mixes up the tool and the truth as one and the same. 

When a man only has a hammer, he begins seeing everything as a nail. And this is one of the biggest psychological issues that so many men are dealing with in the current era.

So like the hammer, developing along the lines of objective male attractiveness  is a very useful tool. And it’s wise to learn to use it well.

But when you practice with the hammer, be very careful not to get a distorted view of the truth of female sexuality just because that distorted view fits your tools better.

Know the reality of the situation and the efficacy and limitations of your tools for responding to that reality. The hammer is useful sometimes but useless other times.

The truth is that female sexuality is primarily subjective. And that means, no matter how much you’ve grown in terms of objective attractiveness (and how much you’ve developed your “hammering skills”) it doesn’t guarantee an attraction.

And it’s a blessing to know this because there are tons of men out there who believe that female sexuality is objective. And so, they feel like “Why would a woman want me when she could have Chad?” or “I have to change my entire personality so that women like me.” 

Or they just get so afraid that women are the objective arbiters of male attractiveness and worth that they avoid women altogether.

So, even though I’m not giving men an objective attraction strategy (which is far better served by developing one’s self along objective lines)…. I am sharing the truth that will set them free of so many insecurities around women. That is, if they listen and integrate this truth into their framework.

When a man really realizes that there’s very little that’s objective about female sexuality, then he can experience rejection without it meaning anything about his objective level of attractiveness or worth.

[Rinne]

3 hours ago, Emerald said:

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.

i would have to disagree. there are certain attributes, characteristics that by default women more attracted too. The same way that men by default are attracted to big boobs and big ass on average. So the more high status you are the more likely attraction youll get. The better looking the more likely attraction youll get.  N thn theres subjective attraction the one you speak of. Which yes does play a factor but you cant just completely ignore objective attraction. If i was the same person me on the street dressed like a bum you wouldnt talk to me if i was dressed more high status your likely hood of talking to me increase. Subjective attraction is just preference of who you think has more survival benefit specially to you. i def wouldnt call it 80 20. Its somewhere 50 50.