zazen

Red pill is a map to understand human behaviour, particularly female/male dynamics but it is not absolute or simplistic, people are complex. A lot of negativity and toxicity is attached to it now so you have to be careful not to go down that path. Best way forward is to get out and socialise, even just talk to girls as friends without trying to pick them up at first and see how they are first hand. Human nature and biologically men and women are all the same in terms of their instincts, but human nurturing ie their environment and cultural upbringing will influence them also and interplays with those biological instincts. Deep down the hardware is the same, but our social conditioning is the software. You have to approach people with nuance, red pill can give you a good working framework and generalities, but has its simplistic and extreme points. When your out there don't analyse things, just socialise and enjoy yourself. Analyse after being out. Check this video for a balanced view of redpill:

I think its easy to dismiss points made by someone under 'someone must have hurt him'. People can try to just be looking objectively at things. Maybe in the older generation or currently we can see couples together matched on their level, but whats invisible to us is who's single, this could also depend on where you live ie in big cities their are far more singles and urbanisation is ever increasing in the modern and developing world. It could also be generational. We'r discussing not just the reality now but the trends and what could be. In the millennial and coming generations singleness is increasing as a lot has changed since social media etc came about. These are shown in stats, even Morgan Stanley are researching and preparing for where to invest as almost half the population of adult age are predicted to be single by 2030. This isn't all due to feminism as a lot of bitter red pill guys may come to the conclusion of. Its nuance, and their are socio economic reasons, technological reasons and the way we live our life in the modern world. The desire and need for human connection however is the main concern of the day. Red pill can definitely be absolutist and very simplistic and that is its danger, it doesn't discount that their must be some problems people are having in modern dating and that men are seeking out answers. Women wish to be in monogamous relationships and finding partners is hard in old age for both sexes, yet still 70% of divorces are initiated by women. This can't be because all those relationships were abusive, but maybe just the lack of awareness and long term thinking that it would better serve them to work on the relationship and have emotional stability in the long run. Maybe we are given the illusion that we can meet people easily because of living in big cities, and having access via the internet to a world of men and women options out there. Most men struggle and have less options than women so are usually not wanting to leave relationships as easily in general. Interesting video by Alexander Grace.

Disclaimer: These are not my words but an interesting thread I came across elsewhere and would like to share, and have a healthy discussion on. Just a definition of Hypergamy : the action of marrying or forming a sexual relationship with a person of a superior sociological or educational background. Women's instinct to mate with superiors genes basically for the betterment of the species (evolution) Unless you're chad, famous or a sociopath - you won't have multiple women in love with you at the same time. Unless you're a ridiculously beautiful and sweet woman - you won't ever marry an "elite high value man™" Hypergamy and polygamy whilst complementary, are not sustainable. They are not sustainable, because they exclude the vast majority of the population. Most men are by definition, not elite high value men. Most women are not exceptionally beautiful and chaste, nor of the correct temperament and genetics to be marriageable for an elite man. The role of religion in society, in large part, is to regulate the dysfunction that results from these instincts. It forces the men who can have many women to pick one, and all the average woman who think they deserve a top 0.1% man to date a man at their own level. So civilizational monogamy is probably the greatest gift of religion. It essentially ensures the vast majority of the population gets a mate, by curbing natural instincts and holding people accountable to their families and communities. Atomised irreligiosity breaks this. You won't "fix society" if you allow hypergamy and polygamy to run amok unchecked. Without adequate social pressure, most women would rather die alone surrounded by cats, than date a man at or just above their own level - especially if a superior man used and left her before. A woman who has had sex with top tier men thinks she is deserving of a top tier man for marriage and refuses to "lower her standards" - not realising that she never met those men's standards for marriage to begin with - hence why they're gone. Men sleep with women they wouldn't marry and can detach emotion from sex. So women are not only naturally predisposed to feel entitled to the best for no logical reason whatsoever, irrespective of their own value and what they bring to the table, but are furthermore susceptible to even greater delusion when said men give them an oxytocin induced taste. This is why the dating market, like so many markets, needs regulation. When it's laissez-faire, the majority of people lose out whilst a few winners get more than their fill. And society stops working properly when the majority of people are forever single or divorced. Traditional Abrahamic religion of course, is that form of regulation. Extreme feminism is the antithesis, because it is anti-regulation. It promotes a free for all, which naturally means a lot of sex for a minority of men, and a dearth of loving committed relationships for most women. You can, quite literally, trace the problems with the mating market today back to the absence of religion. What other system regulates mating practices? None. Doesn't matter how you feel about God or religion - that's irrelevant. What's important is a functioning system. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As leo mentioned in one of his videos regarding we need regulation on devilry ie in our hunter gatherer days we could get by without much regulation but at scale we need government and regulation or else civilisation won't work. In today's society the only regulation force on our sexuality is ourselves. It is only our level of awareness of our human nature and by choice and consciousness we can make decisions that are good for us in the long term and for society at large. This will be the greatest test of our times.

@Emerald I understand where your coming from. Its not even about the 1%. I guess people use the extreme end to get the point across. Lets say if even 70% of men are attractive enough and able to get a partner. How does society look if 30% who aren't able to stay single even though they don't desire too. The other 30% of women who those men could partner with, maybe those women decide they'd rather not go with them and live out their aspirations as they have the option to do so in todays free world, and there is no compulsion for them to be with those men because women don't depend those men for their livelihood. Their is equality of outcome and equality of opportunity. You could say a stage green free love society is in a sense capitalistic, because it is a free market where everyone has equality of opportunity to get the mate they'd like. In the past they pretty much enforced equality of outcome ie every man and woman has a partner. It's the same way as how the far left try to enforce equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity. Interesting way of looking at the situation. Maybe in the past it would have a destabilising affect on society. But now we have pornography, and other avenues of entertainment to almost satiate / sedate these men. Yet, we still get some who can't handle the pressure of their sexual urge and let it out in a grim fashion. We had a shooting here in UK last month in Plymouth by a self professed incel in fact killing a few people including his mother. A lot of the school shooters were in similar situations. I think for women the sexual urge isn't as intense as it is for men. Men can be horny most of the time where as for women its with the right man in the right context and setting.

This guy has very interesting insights in his approach to male/female dynamics. He isn't red pilled or bitter either.

The only mistake is ignorance, but even that is not a mistake. How can we judge people when they don't act consciously, they aren't even the ones acting. Their biology, instincts, impulses and biases are running the show. Forgive them for they know not what they do, much of humanity is asleep to themselves and their actions. Our society has to move from ignorance to intelligence.

Mistakes may be the wrong word as it denotes shame. Same with whats good and bad, but in reality there is cause and affect. There are actions and their consequences, the only question is a what consequences come from certain actions of ours and are we willing to deal with them as such. Agreed, too much head and not enough heart loses the magic in life. But at the same time, their are men struggling who wish to know how things work as they couldn't learn naturally.

This topic is on the dating forum where their has been a interesting back and forth of opinions and insights.

Fundamentally, biological evolution is slow, cultural evolution is fast, this is the essential problem humanity is facing today. Our lizard brains simply haven't had enough time to adapt to the chaos of the modern age. We have to live from our intelligence rather than instinct, from compulsion (of our instincts) to conciseness ( of how we'd like society to be ). The challenge is it's very hard to discard our natural instincts and in spiral dynamics lower stages are integrated, we have to integrates and live harmoniously with the lower level, that includes the lower parts of ourselves, work with out nature. Its for this reason we have an obesity problem and high divorce rates. Our environment is triggering those instincts in a un healthy fashion. In past environments our instincts didn't destroy us as we had active lifestyles and limited high caloric food, and limited access to partners or by force of religion were not allowed to sleep around easily. Freedom of any kind confers the danger of making the wrong decision, instinctual decisions that in the modern environment can cause us and society harm. Sure, we are free now but we are not free and liberated from ourselves and our instinct, yet.. only the awakened ones are, the sages, the budhha's. On a long enough time scale reality wins, and all what we are going through is our evolution on the path to awakening from our beast nature to our buddha nature. We are currently in limbo between the two, but in order to grow towards the sky, the tree needs to be rooted in the soil also. Our lowest nature is the stepping stone to higher things, we can't discard that stepping stone or deny its existence. The mud, the lower is from where we grow to the heavens.

To start with see that there is a problem, then we can figure out solutions. But yes your right, there is no problem. Everyone is in a happy stable relationships and not alone and suffering in our society. Morgan Stanley with all their billions are delusional also to be investing money to research into trends of how over half the population of mating age will be living alone by 2030 and how this impacts real estate and the wider economy. https://www.morganstanley.com/ideas/womens-impact-on-the-economy The stage green, free love utopia that people think will exist where everyone is loved is a disney dream at least in the short to medium term. The people on this forum may be able to love each other despite their not being any attraction but this is under 1 percent of the population. People aren't evolved enough, men aren't evolved enough to love a unattractive lady in the romantic sense, and neither are women to love a weak man who they have to take care of. Until we get to the point where a woman will see the weakest men and consciously be able to say, this man isn't getting any love so I will love him un conditionally, even though Im not attracted to them as it would be better for our society and stop movements such as incels or extreme red pill from propping up, only then can that society function. Our culture and psychology may think in stage green, but our biology will takes thousands of years to evolve to stage green and for it to happen very naturally for us. Nature influences our genes, but we are also able to influence our genes by what we select for and pro create with, just that this takes a very very long time. Maybe in a thousand years babies will be born who are able to love unconditionally without attraction, who knows..

Women want men in touch with their femininity as the ladies have mentioned, but they want strong men in touch with their feminine, not weak. The masculine essence is strength, the feminine softness. Balanced men would be mostly masculine with some feminine to round them off and women mostly feminine with some masculine to round them off. If women were completely feminine without the masculine they would be too easily dominated over and have no boundaries. If men are too masculine they are un empathetic and too harsh. Now days men are lacking their masculinity, and the few that are in touch with it are so in a toxic way. The bad boys, jerks, etc and the music industry specifically hip hop exhibits toxic masculinity, not tempered by any femininity. Most men today are nice guys, but they lack the masculine. Women want a man who wants them, but does not need them as they are emotional spiritually strong amongst them selves. If men were stronger physically ( in touch with their sexuality and able to flirt ), emotionally ( not unavailable but resilient, to be a pillar for his woman and go through the harsh realities of life ), mentally ( in his perspective and way he views him self and the world, in a positive light and that he has worth and is esteemed ) and spiritually strong ( so he feels at home in himself and the world and at ease around women ). Men of strength are relaxed, and when relaxed they can be funnier, witty, non needy, speak clearly and project their voice, and empathetic towards women for if he is in fear of women how can he care for her when he's worried about caring for himself and his self image. In turn women feel relaxed around such men and secure, and when they are safe they can rest in their femininity and soften up. Lack of strong men causes women to have to be excessively strong themselves, at the expense of their softness. Hence, in todays world we have more stronger behaviours which men aren't attracted to such as swearing, combativeness, attitude etc. And for their to be attraction there needs to be a polarity of the masculine and feminine.

Very constructive reply my friend, so much wisdom and feedback. Voluntary celibacy is fine, but most men aren't doing it voluntarily. Their biology pulls at them and we must have sympathy for such people. Once the clutches of biology and their hormones starts weakening on men in their later years only then can they be at some ease and look to other aspects of life not dominated by sex. That or spiritual work from a younger age. Our society pedestalises sex and its all around us, naturally as sex sells to our lower nature, it naturally makes every man think thats what they ought to shoot for. We are a over sexualised society yet undersexed people. And women suffer also for the caricature of the women put on display, the unrealistic shapes of Kardashians etc. Maybe from a sexual repressive society this was a needed swing the other way of the pendulum so we aren't scared of shamed for our sexuality but it needs to come back to balance now. I won't entertain your further comments unless they have some substance.

I think there are many causes for the lack of strength in men today in its many forms physical, social, emotional, etc. On the physical side the access we have to high caloric foods we'r designed to crave and the sedentary lifestyle with our modern day office jobs. Emotional due to unstable family upbringings from childhood, not having a father in the picture to show what masculinity and strength should look like then going into a education system where majority of teachers are female so again not many can see and learn what the masculine is like through osmosis. Then the social side because we grow up behind screens now we'r more cut off from the opposite sex and don't develop those social skills we need. Online dating takes the harsh rejection out for men, they would rather avoid the effort and embarrassment of in person rejection. So everything has moved online. Problem there is that women are attracted to a lot more than just looks and those qualities aren't able to be shown online, so naturally men swipe more and women are more selective in the swipes and skews to top percentile of men. This has been shown again and again in studies. Also, todays environment is pretty hostile towards men. The me too movement which is valid, was the experience of a few percent of the population that got projected out as if its most men who are like that, this created a fear in a lot of men to now approach women ( which their weren't enough men doing anyway ) or for men to consider meeting their partners through work ( men won't even be alone with a woman in a office now days let alone flirt ). The pick up industry arose to correct mens social ills in good faith, obviously what it turned into did have shades of toxicity. But when men need to learn these skills and it is a skill, society shouldn't take elements of it and bash / cancel the whole ordeal. Even red pill etc has elements of truth to it, within anything there will be shades of toxicity of course but to blow those out of proportion and shut down the whole thing is a dis service. Its an easy out. If whenever women discussed mens issues men took something slightly demeaning and focused on it and said thats misandry,stop all this that wouldn't be helpful. There are plenty of women talk shows but very few for men to solve their problems, so forums and platforms were created for this. Men need to learn to develop themselves, and women need stronger better men today more than ever. The guys who'v had it good with women can't just say be your self bro, or be cool. If most guys were just them selves they'd creep girls out. Guys have to be their strongest selves and approach from a position of strength.

@Preety_India Yes, men do also look for the best they can get, everyone does. The difference I think may be that due to the court system men have a lot more to lose in divorce which de-incentivises them from straying, and don't have options the way women do in term of fulfilling their sexual urges. A women has a certain sense of abundance at least sexually, knowing that if she were to go out she could find sex easily, for most men its a lot more work. Men get comfortable in relationships and would prefer not to be out on the dating scene as for them it can be very tough to approach and get rejected many times before he comes across someone who reciprocates his interest. Its an active pursuit and the burden of performance relies upon men. Also, women can still get hit on by men in public, through social media now days etc as they go about their day which adds to the sense of abundance. Men rarely if ever get hit on and once out the game and in a relationship they are totally out of it. If the sex were to dry up in that relationship he would get frustrated for he knows the effort he would have to go through to fulfil those urges once again, whereas for the woman she could go out and get it satisfied a lot easier. Unless the man transcends his sexual desires of course, but thats not majority of men.

It's interesting, red pill and all these movements can't just have been manifested out of nowhere either. The reality on the ground caused these ideas as a reaction, maybe what it morphs into leaves that reality behind in the end and becomes something else, thats a whole other discussion. Even then, if many people resonate with it, their must be some semblance of truth that rings with their experience, although the truth can be covered with a lot of falsity also.

I believe there is some substance and something we can learn from it yes. By top man it means their top man, the best they think they can get, it will differ slightly for everyone of course. Not necessarily the prince or ceo of a company. ''The best guys to have relationships with are average men'' correct but a lot of women can over look these men they are average. Especially now that women are earning. Women value higher earners - that is a man with security/resources to ensure survival on a certain level, a lot of it is subconscious, and likewise men out of ego wouldn't feel comfortable if their partner earned more than them. But because that is what women value in men, they project this onto themselves and so if they are higher earners also value them selves to that higher status. And so the standard is set that men must meet that level or above for them to even consider certain men as options. Women are out competing men in education today in fact, and theres less men on that level. This isn't how you view it but how a lot women would. There are exceptions to the rule of women earning more than men and being in relationships, but that is the exception. Like Loba mentioned the dating game has changed, yes it has.

Im simply answering? Sure. Whats the delusion then.. and you can't simply say biology, thats a simple answer my friend. All is love. Love it! Yea, when a women is deeply in love she becomes tunnel visioned on that one guy, its a beautiful bubble thats created between the two. The art is in maintaining that bubble over long periods of time as most relationships don't last long. In the past we were monogamous for life, now we are monogamous one at a time! The tide is turning.. must be for the thread to have this many views in a day or so. Interesting discussion for sure, and all insights including Emeralds.

Maybe she deeply wants a family life and to fulfil her maternal instinct. Of course, women don't just have to be mothers biologically by birth but can be motherly in essence to their community also. A few of my female friends in their 30's are single and want the same and are anxious about being able to find someone to share their life with. We feel their pain and wish to know why things are the way they are and what we can do to maybe help.

The original post aren't my words. I think the author was just driving the point home, the 1% percent man is using the extreme to make those points but of course its not like just the 1% man is attractive and 99% aren't. That doesn't discount the fact that there is inequality naturally in the dating pool. Men may be biologically sufficient for women, but they lack emotional mental spiritual strength to attract women, and that is a problem today. Most women won't share men as they are inclined to monogamy and thats what makes it hard. They think, wait for or believe they can secure that top man who would be monogamous with them but that guy plays around. They hold off and disregard other suitors who would be happily partnered with her while she waits and gets older. I don't have low self esteem, I have a very good sex life in fact and great family friends, am in great health etc. Im objectively trying to discuss what is happening around us in society and from what I can see men and women in my life or who I come across suffering.

There are many with anecdotal experience as Raptorsin is point out within his life also. Its not all abstraction. Your proving the point. ''Looking for a good guy “on paper” can really screw over actual connection''. Sure you and other women on this forum may not have such a list as your more consciously evolved but I'd wager most women in the population do and with good reason. Birthing children is costly in time, capital, energy and they need to secure and have standards with who they will mate with so they don't just get left behind to raise the child alone. ''But it’s still nonsense because it isn’t actually based in reality. It’s just a big system of abstract ideas that SEEM like reality because lots of misguided and inexperienced young men believe them and they’re all over on the internet.'' Yeah nothings based in reality. Biological evolution is just an abstract idea also. As @Windappreciator said I should drop the biology delusion. Not sure how I'll type my messages out with out my biological hand, I'll try using my psychology and energy.

I know attraction is a pre-requisite for romantic connection, biology fits into that so how does it not fit. You don't have any biology, you used your biology (hands) to type this message out. No one needs to pretend to be attracted in that society, yes but then what happens in a free for all society where polyamry exists and we let the chips fall where they may. If we aren't evolved enough a subset of men will get most of the access and the remaining men will be disregarded. Unless they become celibates and channel their sexuality into genius to better the community. But like @Raptorsin7 says above, their is a lag. The lag is between our cultural evolution which is fast, and only gets faster with technology and our physical biology and psychology which takes much much longer.

Agreed. The real test is once the honey moon period fades, a lot of couples also make long term decisions (ie parter up, marry) on short term feelings like the honey moon period.

Are we already are pretty much in a free society where no one is being pushed together anymore? Women are liberated and thank god for that. Women don't need to come to men for dependancy financially, but are women out of love and higher consciousness loving just anybody , even if the guy is weak and so with men. Would men be able to love someone they aren't biologically attracted to. Our biologies will work against us but thats where conscious development and evolution takes place. It is utopian, yes the possibility is there, and maybe us on this forum are at that level somewhat but we'r talking about larger society, this forum makes up less than a percent of the world. We need each other more than ever rite now as every one is living atomised lives in big cities which are fast paced, and cut off from each other behind screens. Its a un healthy way of living, working many hours, living alone is grating on the soul. Wonder how communal living would work at scale.

Women can consolidate on the best they can get eventually to settle with. But are they happy in those marriages, and do they last. 50% divorce rates, 70% initiated by women. Once the maternal instinct to procreate is fulfilled, the sex and spark dries up for most couples, but the romance is missed and we seek that outside of marriage. A lot of marriages can end up just being about security, rather than stimulation. We all want a roller coaster, the safety of the ride but yet its stimulating. The problem is the exciting / stimulating romances aren't always the most secure, and the secure relationships aren't always the most emotionally fulfilling. Romance novels fly off bookshelves. Shows like the latest Sex life show this dynamic at work, 50 shades shows the guy that has both qualities. Titanic, where Rose was fixated on her lover Di Caprio. Intense love like that can have an affect or this kind of media wouldn't resonate with so many women.

I get where your coming from. Men need to get up, get out and start living in the world. I wish for a free society also, and that divorces wouldn't destroy couples lives through the predatory court system, and that children wouldn't be affected hugely being brought up in a unstable environment. But we aren't evolved enough to withstand high divorce rate without any casualties and it having no ripple effect on society at large. Wishful thinking.