The Private Man

Attraction and dating information for all men

Five Noble Rules About Attraction And Dating

This is short and sweet and needs to be restated from time to time:

  • Men and women are different.

  • The feminine attracts the masculine.

  • The masculine attracts the feminine.

  • Women are the gatekeepers of sexuality.

  • Men are the gatekeepers of commitment (investment).

[If you liked this blog post, please support my Patreon efforts]

Advertisements

Single Post Navigation

23 thoughts on “Five Noble Rules About Attraction And Dating

  1. “Commitment” is the wrong word to use. Men are the gatekeepers of investment, protection, wealth, strength, stability. Every woman wants those, and a beta can easily find someone to take out to dinner if he wants, just as a woman can easily find someone who will have sex with her if she wants.

    Women’s focus on “commitment” only comes because they sense they are in a precarious position with alphas. They know they can be easily replaced, so they want to lock down the man’s options to avoid that.

    But it’s not just women. When men are with their sociosexual betters, they push for commitment just as much as any woman. For a while I had great outer game and zero inner game, so I was regularly pulling girls I didn’t know how to keep. I was all about commitment, but for a supposed gatekeeper of it, none of them seemed interested.

    To summarize: women only care about commitment when they’re playing out of their league.

    • This is an excellent observation! And welcome to my blog.

    • Yeah, I was wondering about that link…

      I agree with TPM that there are some good points here, but I will disagree that in the normal sense “commitment” isn’t the right word to use. It’s all contextual.

      A woman will desire commitment from a man (alpha or not) who has a higher SMP value that she’s interested in. And the man definitely is the gatekeeper there. All of the things you mention are points of attraction that define his higher SMP value.

      Outer game and inner game are two sides of the same coin: if you only have one, you don’t have the coin.

      So I absolutely agree that women are all about commitment when they are playing out of their league, but the corollary is that men can’t be the natural gatekeepers they are when they don’t have the complete Charisma they need and are thus playing out of their league.

      Hopefully, you have or are in the process of developing the Full Monty of Charisma to seal the deal. Commitment needs to be on your terms…

  2. And TPM, I may nominate you for Buddha of the Manosphere. These should be called the Five Noble Truths….

  3. Hamster Tamer on said:

    Men and women are different.

    Uh-oh, TPM is contradicting one of Duh Sacred Tenets of Marxist Feminism… I smell an IRS audit coming. ❗ 😉

  4. Johnny Caustic on said:

    A beautifully worded truth by an old school seducer who went by the pseudonym Svengali:

    “The moment a woman sees she’ll get whatever she wants from you, you’ve lost your value and sparkle in her eyes.”

  5. Anaïs on said:

    Where is Deti?

  6. Pingback: Five Truths About Attraction And Dating « PUA Central

  7. Reblogged this on Transmillennium and commented:
    Like the 16 Commandments of Poon but Shorter. Translation coming.

  8. Pingback: Cinco nobles verdades sobre la atracción y las citas (traducción) | Transmillennium

  9. Eventually this becomes your reality, and those who don’t already recognize it seem…stale.

  10. Awesome… Short, sweet, and to the point. 🙂

  11. BuenaVista on said:

    Interesting insight on women playing out of their league. 90’s relationship coach for men, Doc Love, consistently recommends that men interested in a stable and rewarding relationship with women deliberately avoid the 9’s and 10’s. His reason is that they are incapable of the flexibility, care and concern, much less commitment, that the LTR-seeking male desires. In his terms, if the man does not present the female with ongoing social “challenge”, her interest level will wane and wither.

    In market terms, the high SMV female (the 9 or 10) is simply over-capitalized, and she will use her high SMV aggressively in hypergamous behavior; she can exploit the capital of her looks or other attributes to ‘buy market share’. (For a while; selling things at a loss is not a long term strategy.) They will always pursue what they can’t have.

    Even if a man does wish to couple, and chooses to couple with a woman of lower SMV than himself, her will to power (her subrational hypergamous desire to trade up) will ruin the relationship if the man fails to enforce her subordinate SMV through emotional discipline and physical leadership. Thus social pressures to feminize men, if allowed to be brought into a marriage or LTR which began with the man in a superior SMV position, will destroy that relationship in the end; no woman wants a man who lowers himself to her level, betastisizing himself.

    This effort to reduce male agency, imo, is what explains the increasingly bizarre self-sabotage that once-high SMV females practice once they are on the downhill slope of attractiveness. I’d say half of the over-40 women in the dating sphere are aggressively self-sabotaging: their only response to the widening gap in value between themselves and the men they would acquire is to suicide-bomb the relationship, and at least take out a few men while they take out the cat litter. They think they are just asserting, in that uniquely female manner of entitlement, a healthy equivalence between men and women — but it’s really just a will to power over men, who now have more cards than they do. Suicide girls indeed.

  12. xxxxx on said:

    You forgot to add an additional two truths :

    Men can’t love if they can’t trust
    Women can’t love if they can’t respect

  13. happybeingfeminine on said:

    Private Man-Thank you so much for reaffirming that feminine attracts masculine. Some of my female friends are trying to make me feel bad for being feminine or “girly”, and think that being a masculine woman attracts a masculine man. One friend even wanted to re-write my OLD profile to come off as more “headstrong.” Give me a break.

  14. whatsnew on said:

    I strongly disagree with most of the your statments because of grave errors coming from a sexual marketplace “beta” Perhaps you use it to relate to the betas who come to your blog, but it is very misleading indeed.

    First of all:

    “Men and women are different.”

    is implicitly based on the grave error that there is only one category of men/males, while there are two as far as women (and I mean by “women” something like “average women”) are concerned:

    Sexually charismatic men (aka “alpha”, or sexual marketplace “winners” are “men” and they are not so different from women, at least they are perceived to be in the same species as women.

    Sexually uncharismatic “males” are considered by women to be “livestock” (and that’s an euphemism), not of their own species, and they don’t belong in the sexual marketplace.

    That’s the most important way in which “Men and women are different” is at best a “pretty lie” and at worst entirely misleading.

    The other way is the vital detail that the “winner” men are many fewer than “loser” males, so that there are usually many women chasing each “winner” man and ignoring “loser” males or feeling threatened and revolted by the latter if they make any display of sexual interest.

    “Women are the gatekeepers of sexuality.”

    That is stated from the point of view of a “loser” male.

    The gatekeepers of sexuality are the “winner” men, as they are quite actively chased by several women who throw themselves at them. They choose which to fuck and to impregnate with their much desired seed. Just look at any rack with women’s magazine, they are all about “get-me-a-man” techniques, because competition among women for the few “winner” men is ferocious.

    The argument could be made that in their turn women are the “gatekeepers of sexuality” for “loser” males, but that is quite wrong, because women don’t see “loser” males as relating in any way to “sexuality”, but as “livestock”. Occasionally to exploit useful “livestock” males they will provide, gritting their teeth, and feeling sick with it, some sexual services to “livestock” males, always in exchange for some payment (whether the “livestock” male realizes it or not) but it is never more than “lie back and think of england”.

    “Men are the gatekeepers of commitment.”

    This is very wrong because the only commitment that matters is that about childbearing. Because childbearing is by far the most important aspect of sexuality, and if it is taken out of the picture both women and men/males are just twinks, and then the sexual marketplace is like the gay one where “commitment” of any sort does not feature much.

    As to the commitment that matters, women are the gatekeepers of commitment, because they choose, at their sole discretion, the fathers of their children, and ruthlessly opportunistic in doing so. So it is women who are the “gatekeepers to commitment” and it must be noted that “commitment” is something they rather have difficulty giving.

    Of course they never willingly choose a “loser” male as father, but even a “winner” man cannot be sure that a woman hasn’t fathered a child with another “winner”, one perceived to be even more “sexually charismatic” than him in that fleeting moment.

    The old tradition that “winner” men would marry only virgins, consummate their marriage on wedding day, and leave their whole estate to their firstborn, existed because “winner” men know very well how greedily ruthless women are in throwing themselves at and getting impregnated by “winner” men who turn them on, being often the cuckolders, and that only physical virginity at marriage and ASAP conception would give them a good chance to be sure of the paternity of the firstborn. The other children were realistically expected to be in part theirs and in part of passing minstrels or knights errants or wandering stableboys…

    While “winner” men can be sure of being fathers as they will often leave behind a number of byblows, it depends on them securing “commitment” from their wife to be sure of the paternity of her children, and that in the past “winner” men regarded legitimacity of children as very important and would not marry unless exacting conditions were met is telling as to their experience of how strong that “commitment” is.

    Cultures in which women are not going to give “commitment” about paternity, at least of the first child, to one of the “winner” men who are the only ones they want as fathers, eventually become matrilineal, as “winner” men can only be somewhat sure of being related to their sister’s children.

    As to “loser” males, being regarded as (repulsive) “livestock”, women would rather not waste 40 precious weeks of their lives bearing one their children.
    Women will then demand (wholly unilateral) “commitment” from them, which when said by a woman is an euphemism for investing in her by giving her “exclusive free gifts”, and concoct a series of funny myths in which a “loser” male giving “exclusive free gifts” to a woman who keeps him orbiting her as “livestock” is the greatest joy a White Knight can have.

    Of course “winner” men never give “exclusive free gifts” to a women, in part because they do not give anything, because “winner” men are the much-coveted gatekeepers to sexuality, in part because they know that if a man gives “exclusive free gifts” to a woman she qualifies him as as a “loser” male.

    The two statements are often repeated by HookingUpSmart and they are part of that blogger’s propaganda in pursuit of her agenda, which is to help her daughters (and perhaps other women) make the most of their pussy by securing the best sexually charismatic men and providing uncharismatic males they can.

    In this perspective, “Women are the gatekeepers of sexuality” and “Men are the gatekeepers of commitment” are used to portray relationships as an exchange of commitment for sexuality, when stripping away the “pretty lies”:

    * Women aim to exchange nothing (the mere mirage of “sexuality”) for “exclusive free gifts” from “loser” males.

    * Women sometimes exchange guarantees of paternity for “sexuality” from “winner” men.

  15. whatsnew on said:

    ‘“Commitment” is the wrong word to use. Men are the gatekeepers of investment, protection, wealth, strength, stability.’

    That’s a very good point, because in womanish, girlspeak, wimminzese common words are used as hypochritical euphemisms: words like “commitment”, “consent”, “choice”, “chemistry”, “rape”, “connection”, “relationship”, … all have vastly different meanings from those understood by men.

    ‘Every woman wants those, and a beta can easily find someone to take out to dinner if he wants, just as a woman can easily find someone who will have sex with her if she wants.’

    But this is completely different: a “beta” derives (imaginary) validation from taking out to dinner a woman, but a woman will feel dread and nausea if she grits her teeth and lets a beta touch her.

    ‘Women’s focus on “commitment” only comes because they sense they are in a precarious position with alphas. They know they can be easily replaced, so they want to lock down the man’s options to avoid that.’

    They also know that does not work. Because the moment she locks down his options she qualifies him as a loser wimp. Alphas keep their options, and women know that very well.

    And anyhow the investment of a man is not worth much, most women are self assured that having a pussy guarantees her the investment of some loser, and then she can have glorious sex and handsome children with a string of alphas on the side while a beta white knight funds her lifestyle. As I have pointed out in my previous point the only commitment that really matters is that about paternity, and women won’t readily give that even to alphas.

    ‘For a while I had great outer game and zero inner game, so I was regularly pulling girls I didn’t know how to keep. I was all about commitment, but for a supposed gatekeeper of it, none of them seemed interested.’

    They were only interested in your sexuality. As you wrote, they can always get investment like a dinner out of a loser beta.

    ‘To summarize: women only care about commitment when they’re playing out of their league.’

    Exactly the opposite. If they are ‘playing out of their league’ that means they are trying to throw themselves at an alpha, and then their interest in him is purely sexual: he makes them drip, especially during their most fertile week. Whether or not she consciously intends to bear his children.

    Same from the point of view of another’s commenter:

    ‘A woman will desire commitment from a man (alpha or not) who has a higher SMP value that she’s interested in.’

    From my point of view this is muddled thinking. I think that for wimminz “alpha” and “higher SMP value” are synonyumous. Because “alpha” for women is purely sexual. As Heartiste often points out the SMP “winners” can well be social “losers”, and viceversa. Since “alpha” for women is purely sexual, a higher SMP value is the definition of “alpha”.

    Or perhaps you think that “alpha” is an *absolute* property, where “alpha” is someone the top 2 ranks (9-10) of men.

    I think instead that “alpha” is a relative property and “alpha” is someone 2 ranks up from the SMP of a woman, and any woman is sexually interested in any man 2 ranks up from her. Since average wimminz are 5-6s, to them “alpha” men are the 10-20% of men who are 7-8s and up.

    Consider blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your-looks-and-online-dating/ which ostensibly is about looks, but since it is mostly about faces, women will also rate the attitude that transpires from those looks.

    The absolute and relative definition of “alpha” overlap largely in the case of average or young average wimminz, thus I think there is confusion.

    ‘And the man definitely is the gatekeeper there. All of the things you mention are points of attraction that define his higher SMP value.’

    Yes, the higher SMP value man is the gatekeeper here as I wrote several times in this and other blog’s comments, but the gatekeeper of sexuality, not commitment.

    Also any man who offers commitment, that is as you say investment, in a woman, gets immediately qualified by her as non-alpha. So alphas cannot offer commitment unless they do so for no reason whatever.

    ‘So I absolutely agree that women are all about commitment when they are playing out of their league’

    Absolutely the opposite if it is “commitment” in the sense of “investment”. When women play out of their league they are chasing alphas, because I reckon that the definition of “alpha” for a woman is “man way out [2 ranks] of her league”.

    Then when women compete for a man they are attracted to, that is way out of their league, they don’t want commitment from him, they want sex and his perceivedly superiod seed.

    They also *dream* about commitment, but if the man out of their league does indeed offer commitment, they qualify him as being in their league: why would a desirable man out of their league want to invest in them? The only case where they accept that a man is both out of their league and yet invests in them is when he does so for no reason whatever, and all romance novels (and HookingupSmart.com) are about that dream.

    “but the corollary is that men can’t be the natural gatekeepers they are when they don’t have the complete Charisma they need and are thus playing out of their league.”

    Men who play out of their league are not part of the SMP. Women may be interested in them as water-carriers, blood-donors, to be kept at a distance and exploited as much as possible, as livestock.

  16. Pingback: A Few of My Favorite May Things | TempestTcup

  17. Pingback: May Favorites | D A R L I N G

  18. Pingback: A Collection of Red Pill Truisms | Delightful Oak

  19. Pingback: Video Podcast 2 – The Five Noble Rules of Attraction & Dating | The Private Man

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

%d bloggers like this: