He’s About To Take The Red Pill

Recently discovered your blog, and find it very empowering and encouraging. In several places you use words to this effect:

“If you haven’t had sex yet, a woman is looking for reasons to reject you.”

Quite a game changer for me, but something I’ve sensed intuitively for a long time. It’s happened more than I care to admit, but I never had the words to describe it. Can you elaborate some? Describe the net effect of this, and perhaps discuss how a man can counter this?

Thanks – – -

This was scottmac56 via the Contact Page at my humble blog.

scottmac56 has his own blog but it’s not so focused on dating and relationship issues as mine.

I get the sense that scottmac56 has recently discovered the Manosphere and he’s reaching out to some of the less strident voices and to someone roughly in his own generation. I’m thinking that he’s in his 50s based on a cursory look at his blog.

As for his specific question – and it’s a good one – the net effect for most men who haven’t taken the red pill is that of frustration and disappointment. Rejection by women happens all the time for men regardless of his demographic. In my online dating efforts, I get rejected over 90% of the time. Thick skin, meet the Private Man.

Women reject men all the time for reasons that seem remarkably ridiculous to us guys. But when evolutionary psychology is taken into consideration, the reasons for those rejections become much, much clearer. As well, when the social expectations are stripped away and those pesky words ignored, the actions of women reveal all. All red pill men must examine and plan/react accordingly to those actions.

scottmac56 is from a generation of men who were taught to “be in touch with their emotions” and that would make them more attractive to women. I suspect he is still laboring under this abject lie and is not quite prepared to take the red pill. Take the pill, scottmac56, take the damned pill.

It is likely that scottmac56 has had one too many cases of “oneitis” where he focused all of his romantic efforts on only one woman just to be rejected outright or stuck in the FriendZone. He pitched his woo in hopes that only one woman would catch it. This is no fault of his own, it’s what he (and me, too) was taught by social expectation with little regard to the biological imperative.

I say this to scottmac56 directly: It is man’s biological imperative to spread his seed. This is how men are programmed through evolution. Biology always trumps social expectations. Ignore the words, respect the actions. The words represent the social expectation. The actions represent the biological imperative.

Rather than trying to be perfect for one woman, A red pill man of any generation counters the rejection possibility by pitching woo to a number of women concurrently. A red pill man – through the application of Game – expands his social scene to be around more potential catchers of the woo. Of course, he must also maintain that confident demeanor and express that he’s not solely looking to pitch woo. He must express through words and actions that his life is rich and fulfilling regardless of the women around him. Too much woo is rightfully seen as desperation. It can be a fine balance, indeed.

At some point, a lucky woman will catch scottmac56’s woo and he might find himself in a healthy, long term relationship. Or perhaps he might revel in his woo-pitching abilities and form a soft harem much like my step-father did all those years ago. The choice is up to scottmac56. Hopefully, he doesn’t live in a smaller city or town. Such environs are indeed limiting to a red pill man.

About these ads
  1. #1 by NMH on June 28, 2011 - 12:04 PM

    Overall a good essay, but I think all men need to understand the evolutionary psychology imperative but still act morally. Yes, its important to understand that men are always attracted to many women at the same time, but this does not mean you should set up a harem, no matter how “loose” it is. EP may explain amoral behaviors but it does not justify them. The analogous situation would be for a woman to date a guy and then to dump him when the more alpha male comes along, which I, and most others, decry in the manosphere. Game is only going to go so far to prevent a woman to act on her hypergamy, so we need women to act morally, to restrain themselves from acting on their instincts, as they did before feminism came along. Men have always been the leaders here and so we need to set a standard by not acting on our polygamous instincts. Just my opinion.

    • #2 by theprivateman on June 28, 2011 - 12:23 PM

      In Dating 2.0 (sometimes called “combat dating”), women frequently do exactly what you describe and trade up for the more alpha male model. Women practice hypergamy with abandon. It’s their biological imperative. So it’s highly problematic to ask men to follow a moral compass while women follow a biological compass. The social contract between the sexes has been utterly torn asunder and in order to face Dating 2.0, men cannot rely on women to adopt a moralistic attitude towards dating and relationships. Instead, men should act more on their biological instincts and less from the view of social expectations. Feminism demands equality and as women act biologically, why can’t men?

      • #3 by NMH on June 28, 2011 - 12:34 PM

        Because feminism and women’s hypergamous behavior is leading to social decay, and so we cannot act analogously; if we do, we further push social decay along. We need to be better than this; men do not engage in behaviors that promote social decay because we give a shit about society.

        When you set up a harem, and the woman finds out (as she will inevitably will), she just becomes a more bitter, angry person. Then she gives up, becomes a fat bitch and is taken forever outside the realm of dating. One less dateable woman.

        I beleive in having high standards for treating women, and how women treat me, even if it means being dateless. I would much rather watch porn than fuck a chick that I didnt care about and know I could not be in an LTR worth. At the same time, if I sense she will dump me for a more alpha guy, Ill get rid of her.

        I don’t believe in being a part of the race to the bottom.

  2. #4 by scottmac56 on June 28, 2011 - 12:44 PM

    Spot on. You, sir, are an astute judge of personality.

    Sadly, I do live in a small town. Not exactly what might be called “target-rich.” An exurb, about an hour from each of three different metro areas. Which somewhat mitigates the suckiness of small town life. Currently a move to a bigger city is impractical, both financially and career-wise.

    Nonetheless, we play the hand we’re dealt. Leave me at that red pill. Gulp.

  3. #5 by detinennui32 on June 28, 2011 - 4:02 PM

    Great discussion.

    Scottmac, here’s some water. Down goes the red pill, nice and easy…

    There. Dr. PrivateMan and nurses NMH and detinennui prescribe reading. Lots of reading.

    I’m sympathetic to both PM’s and NMH’s views. We men do best in this dating environment by scattershooting our dating efforts to many women, instead of sending shotgun blasts to one woman.

    NMH is right that trying to form a soft harem is “amoral”, at least from a Christian perspective. He’s also right that this is “racing us to the bottom”. My disagreement with that viewpoint is that, while it will keep your nose clean, it won’t salve your bruised ego in today’s dating market. Today’s market requires a thicker skin and more realism. It also means that “be nice, be yourself” just won’t work. Women everywhere, even in the small midwestern burgs, have been fed a steady diet of Oprah, emo porn, and reality TV. They are as conversant as anyone with Jersey Shore, Real Housewivees, Friends, Eat Pray Love, The Notebook, and the Kardashians.

    The mistake I made when dating was making myself available, but then when one showed a little interest, I would go after that one to the exclusion of all others. Then I would get bad cases of oneitis. She would then either get bored, or unhappy, or just see my smothering attention, and wriggle herself out.

    Don’t make the mistakes I did. Date around. The minute you get a sense that you’re overdoing it, or wanting to see her every day, or she’s getting bored, back off a little. Disappear for a few days.

    If it’s not working out, if you know you have nothing in common, or if she’s saying things like “I don’t want to get serious”, or if you know she’s dating another man — End it. Just end it.

    If you break up with a woman, don’t worry about whether you’ll be alone. You probably will be for a while. Another woman will come along. There will always be another one if this one does not work out.

    It is an immutable rule of women – no matter where you are, if this one does not work out, there will be another one.

    Another rule: when you pitch that woo around, as PM says, someone will catch it. If one woman does not respond, another will. Another woman always does.

    Someone’s going to date these divorcees between the ages of 35-50, Scottmac. It might as well be you.

    • #6 by scottmac56 on June 28, 2011 - 4:16 PM

      Someone’s got to do it, dammit. What kind of people would we be if we didn’t try?

  4. #7 by NMH on June 28, 2011 - 4:13 PM

    I think PM is a bit of a man-whore, but I still love the guy. I think what he is doing is understandable, even if I won’t do it myself (I hope). I appreciate his writings about his experiences.

    Anyway, dating and necking with your clothes on with multiple partners is, IMO, OK. Not the best, but I dont think this is in the amoral category; if the woman asks if you are dating someone else, you should tell her you are. Its when you are going to 2nd and third base (groping genitals, oral sex, and intercourse) its then you have to stay true to that individual, and not stray.

    The whole dating situation really sucks.

  5. #8 by detinennui32 on June 28, 2011 - 4:41 PM

    SCottmac:

    PM’s anecdote of rejection 90% of the time in online dating, I would guess, mirrors real life results from approaches. When dating or approaching, I had a 5% to 10% success rate.

    Women don’t view men sexually the same way men do. To men, all women are possible sex partners. Men are hardwired to size up and mentally undress every woman they see.

    Women are different. Most women don’t even see most men as possible sex partners.

    IOW, most women are somewhat attractive to most men. But most men are not even remotely attractive to most women.

    Women are attracted to male displays of confidence, social dominance, power and charisma. That’s why the art of conversation is important. It’s also why you see many men who aren’t great shakes physically with great looking women – because they have something that makes them stand out. Usually it’s personality or the “in-charge” attitude.

    But men are attracted to looks, femininity and chastity. We want women young (at least young-looking) and hot. That’s what we care about.

    Men want as many women as possible. Women want only the best men. That means she wants her man to be better than she is in some way — looks, earning potential, social status, intelligence, confidence.

    Even in marriages, if the wife perceives that her husband is of lower value than she is (lack of confidence, he does not assume the dominant role), she will lose her attraction for him. Intentionally or subconsciously, she will seek a man who does arouse that attraction.

    Women reject men first and foremost in my experience for two reasons. It is not so much his personal appearance, although a man should work on his appearance. Those reasons are:

    1. He is sexually invisible to her and she doesn’t see him “in that way” (I.e. he’s friendzoned and he hears “Let’s Just Be Friends (“LJBF”); or
    2. He is perceived as lacking sufficient confidence or dominance.

    Every time I failed with a woman or broke up, or started having relationship problems, it was for one of these two reasons.

    Go read PM’s field dating reports. He assumes the dominant role. He decides the dates. He decides how long they last, what they do, and where they go. He half asks, half directs the dates. He does not ask them to meet, he tells them to meet him at a time and place. The women he dates and reports on seem to respond positively to it. When I “date” my wife, I tell her where we go, what we do, and how she should dress (whether casually or a little more formally).

    This is because women want their men to assume the dominant role. I didn’t say you order her around or treat her like a doormat. I do say you should make the decisions, set the terms of the pursuit and the dating, and the course of the relationship.

    You call the shots, you call the tune. She decides whether she wants to dance to that tune. You fit her into your life as it suits you. You don’t find a way to wriggle yourself into her life as it suits her. You make her demonstrate her value to you. You don’t jump through hoops to show your worth to her.

    The attitude is one of benevolent inquisitiveness to your date. The attitude is “You should show me why you are worth my valuable attention and resources. If you can demonstrate that to me, and I decide it is advantageous to me to do so, I will gladly give you that attention and resources.”

    The opposite is supplication. Too many of us, including me, used to across as “I will show you why you should be with me, and only me. Even though you haven’t earned any of this, I will spend all my money and time on you and I’ll give you gifts. All of this I will do because I am desperate for sex and I really, really need that sex because it validates me as a man and as a human being and if you don’t give it to me I will be devastated because I’ve spent all this money and time on you and because you’re the only one who’s shown me any interest at all and because I don’t really feel all that good about myself and I’m kind of pudgy and have a pretty bad receding hairline and I’m not all that good looking and I’ve let myself go physically and I know it and can’t you see how nice I’m being and isn’t it enough that I’m being really really nice to you?”

    Women hate this. They HATE it. Wives hate it when their husbands do this. They hate it because no woman wants a man who isn’t confident enough to stand up for himself and refuse to put up with a woman’s shit.

    Here’s another bit of advice: NEVER take dating or relationship advice from any woman. Women don’t say what they really mean.

    When a woman says “I just want a nice guy who will treat me right”, what she is really saying is “I just want an alpha man who is confident and who cares about himself, but who is nice to me and who will date and have sex only with me.”

    Do not just “Be nice, be yourself”. Be nice, but be CONFIDENT and DOMINANT.

    Women’s dating advice to men is useless for most men and absolutely 180 degrees the wrong way. Women’s dating advice to men is actually geared toward alpha men from whom they seek signs of commitment and attainability. .

    • #9 by NMH on June 28, 2011 - 4:55 PM

      The only thing I can add to that ennui’s manly essay is that the more ways you are better than a woman, the more chance she will be attracted to you, and the more strongly she will be attracted to you. The trick is to find a woman who you are better than in most categories but who does not bore you.

      As the lipstick feminist Katie Rophie said in an essay in Esquire about 10 years ago, a woman wants nothing less than a double standard: to be treated like an equal from a man that is better than her.

    • #10 by theprivateman on June 28, 2011 - 5:04 PM

      Yeah, what he said.

    • #11 by pamelablair on July 14, 2011 - 4:10 PM

      Dead on. The only place I’d disagree is here: “Women don’t say what they really mean”. That’s not true of all of us. I know I want a man who’ll stand up to me. Make me wait sometimes. Direct the date. Decide the pace of the relationship and how much time we’ll spend together. I recognize the “I hope she likes me” behavior immediately when it emerges. Most men don’t hide it, and it’s a turnoff. The problem is, you can’t exactly explain that to a man who doesn’t get it yet.

      I don’t want to be with an asshole. I want to be with a MAN. The lightbulb came on for me a couple years ago, when my brother asked me about a guy I’d been seeing for a couple months. My response was “he’s a really nice guy” while I cocked my head to the side almost in a sympathetic nod. My brother said “well that’s over”. I said “What?! What do you mean?” He explained to me that a “nice guy” was not what I wanted… that I’d be walking all over him soon… and said he couldn’t believe I didn’t recognize my own pattern yet. Epiphany.

      • #12 by theprivateman on July 14, 2011 - 5:40 PM

        That’s a red pill moment, right there.

  6. #13 by Johnycomelately on June 28, 2011 - 9:25 PM

    NMH
    Manwhore? If law is the legal expression of morality then under marriage 2.0 that expression is redundant.

    In a street fight, if someone pulls out a knife I’m going to pull out my glock, I’ll leave you to rationalize with the thug and the amorality of his actions.

    • #14 by NMH on June 29, 2011 - 6:04 AM

      Your “analogy” of the street fight to dating is not analogous. In a street fight, your opponent is trying to kill you and you are trying to kill him, and so escalating weapons is appropriate for the goal. In this case, the means justify the goal.

      With dating, the means DO NOT justify the goal, and so you analogy completely fails. The reason why they do not is because christian values are concerned about the means and limit their use.

      • #15 by NMH on June 29, 2011 - 6:05 AM

        OOPS! I meant to say the “goal justify the means”. Ill go get my fifth cup of coffee…

      • #16 by theprivateman on June 29, 2011 - 9:55 AM

        I’m going to back up the street fight analogy, to a point.

        Dating 2.0 is sometime referred to as “combat dating”. This is for good reason because dating represents the front line of the war between the sexes. Dating is quite adversarial with both sides looking to capture territory from an enemy. A man wishes to capture her sexuality and a woman wants to capture his commitment. Until this happens, it’s a form of combat with each side wielding various emotional weapons such as Game, sexuality, manipulation, etc.

        As women have cast aside integrity and honor in the dating arms race, a man simply must change his weapons, Game being the best one.

  7. #17 by Richard on November 27, 2011 - 5:09 PM

    Taking the Red Pill and learning Game absolutely improved my life. The Internet made this possible, or otherwise I might be married/miserable/and bored out of my mind by now. There was a price to pay (such in family relations who were old fashioned and could not comprehend my increased confidence and my “I don’t give a f*ck what anyone thinks or says about me because I am living my own life doing what I want to do” attitude), but it absolutely was worth it. Also, to anyone living in a small conservative town like me currently if you want to practice game move to a larger area. I have to travel over an hour each way to go where more women are and this is bad logistics. I am in the process of moving to a larger area with more women in the next few months.

  8. #18 by Average Joe on March 23, 2012 - 8:31 PM

    Odds of making 10 out of 10 baskets. one in ten trillion. You’d have to do it a trillion times just to get the odds close.

    1 in 175711536, odds of winning Mega millions

    Your odds of being attacked by a shark are just one in 11.5 million.

    chances of a meteor hitting me on the head, one in 20,000,000,000,000 (trillion)

    odds of me getting laid or having a girlfriend one in 1000000000000000000000000 (Yottabyte) 10 to the 24th.

    It would take approximately 11 trillion years to download a Yottabyte file from the Internet using high-power broadband.

    Assuming that one-half of the world’s population is women, the number of women of childbearing age is around 1.6 billion. I would need to question every woman of child bearing age on a date every minute for the next 171 trillion years. By then I would dead, the sun will have burned out, the earth would be a cinder and the solar system would not exist. Hmm? I’m going to try and build a craft, maybe launch it into space and attain near-light speed, approximately 98% the speed of light, so I don’t upset Einstein’s special theory of relativity. So if I do manage to make it to a nearby planet in a few years I can question an alien “woman” or whatever it may be, out on a date, because earth girls are not easy. If any one wants me, I’m going to be very busy the next few years going over some NASA blueprints. I will be in the garage behind some metal and using an ion reactor. Thanks for nothing.

  1. Linkage is Good for You: On the Run Edition

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,454 other followers

%d bloggers like this: