Men are not allowed to be victims in the matriarchy

[Ulax]

5 hours ago, Sugarcoat said:

If these guys would go there, instead of finding release through the practices they'd be looking for release through the hot yoga women

lmao

[KosmicGeng]

1 hour ago, AION said:

You have to catch her before 24. It seems 24 is the magical age for women.

For me it's not so much about age but I prefer younger women -7-10 years max and 1+2 year older then me max, but maturity, also beauty and similar interests or values that overlap, I did a course from integral and just recovered my account and I am mulling over some things, as I still have the mindmap etc. I drew right in front of me, I had close to everything what I wanted in the ex, there were just two factors that completely killed the relationship, she smoked tobacco occassionaly and had family as a value, which is more hostile to me, after a while as there is often a lack of re-investment in the family that we create and a focus only on her perspective of a family, which is just often the perspective of social reproduction or "I feel emotional about having kids, so I want them", while I see it as a way bigger risk, and many women put me into that frame, as soon as I do well, they just crave kids from me like idk wtf is wrong with them, and I never wanted children.

 I faced some serious issues with this, as imo my maturity is often misjuged, and I care and cared a lot about integrating it, otherwise I would've not worked with so many ph.d's in a row, it's not so easy to find mature humans, generally speaking. I for sure enjoy some things around video games etc. that are less mature, my largest issue have been all of the smoking cigarettes and alcohol, where I have to put a limit now on never touching these things again, never ever, eventually cannabis is fine, but I have been hijacked and let myself be hijacked about health a lot of times. 

Most women I meet or have meet online have some type of secret or deal breaker, I lost all hope in even dating a women, before I had sex, because most healthy and integrated women, benefitted way more from a conscious family, while I have to deal with a two times divorced mother, she was left after 12 years and got cheated on by some tall piece of shit, after I accepted him with loving compassion into the "family" I hold that construct very loosely, and now she has a new boyfriend at her age, and it all depended on my success, it's digusting how women cling to men for status, I hate it my entire f***ing life, but there is nothing I can do, it's beneficial in a relationship, but if women groom your emotional system your entire life, for the physical and monetary status you provide for them, you can clearly see how they treat men as a toy, and at one point you do the same to them, or you have loving-compassion for yourself, and see through the whole scenario, with "lights-eyes".

It depends most women really want to build something around that age, but are to immature and don't get enough ressources from their family, I had close to everything handed to me, but I re-invested into education, as I valued it highly, but it did not make me attract a stable partner at all, and I still yearn to go out and celebrate my own life, as I had to little of that, especially alone, but I also agree the attention and loving attention from younger women feels better, I don't know I just looked that I did the relationship courses, online-dating courses etc. but most of my results still come from photos, and intuitive insights, just my looks and career capital or opportunities, while I also attract a lot of "women wanting to be saved", I have quite a negative view about dating, even when I am hopeful, but I have to see I still require experience, a beautiful girl asked me out, but I am at wits end with the whole scenario about relationships, I put so much effort and work into preparing myself, most women have no idea about their values, just see the extrinsic value of a guy, chest muscles, car, house, socialbillity and that is fundamentally it and career and fitness. 

I would require a more loving experience from a women, meanwhile I am doing parts of loving myself more with compassion, but my compassion is very sharp and caused a white light type of state, so I don't really know my practice creates different results from what people expect, and it generally notches me or pegs me up a bit higher, I really dislike the scenario, I had to stop also a lot of intellectual work, and work on myself, as I just did not find enough people I could meet eye to eye, and I am still somewhat at the same space. 

I stop here my issues go very far, I don't know if I will ever resolve them, till now I get very little out of love and compassion out of relationships so I have to see. 

 

Edited 21 hours ago by KosmicGeng

[Schizophonia]

Illusion of separation.

Edited 17 hours ago by Schizophonia

[Basman]

Bro, you'll get over it. Give it some time. Go have some ice cream. Go for a walk. Hit up your homies.

[Elliott]

I'm convinced incels are gay, they like talking to guys, hanging out with guys, and they only associate with women to enter a hole.

[something_else]

7 hours ago, Ulax said:

Issue is when the emotions are a result of shit life syndrome

Could you expand on what you mean here?

[AION]

The Matriarchy Thesis: Owen Cook on Why the Old Script Stopped Working

The Argument in One Line

The operating system of mating has been swapped out, the manual was never reissued, and most men — including most men's coaches — are still executing instructions written for hardware that no longer exists.

Cook's frame is simple and deliberately provocative: we lived under a patriarchy, we now live under a matriarchy, and the behaviors that generated returns in the first produce losses in the second. He repeats a disclaimer throughout that's worth taking seriously as a reading instruction — he is describing terrain, not endorsing it. The distinction matters because most of his claims are functional rather than moral: statements about what selects for what, not about what ought to.

The symptom that opens the talk is the man who ran the approved program — decent grades, a degree in something useful, a job paying six figures, a nest built — arriving at thirty and asking where is my wife? Cook's answer: there isn't one waiting for you. The script was never a law of nature. It was an artifact of an institution, and the institution has been dismantled.

The Numbers He Builds On

He anchors the case in a handful of figures: roughly 10% of men mating with 58% of women, with most of the remainder concentrated between the 80th and 90th percentile — leaving the bottom four-fifths of men structurally short of partners. He claims 65% of new jobs, new mortgages, and college degrees now go to women. He adds the NEET population — around 30% of men who have simply left the board for video games, weed, and porn — and points to population collapse in Italy, Japan, and elsewhere as the visible downstream consequence.

Interesting wrinkle: he doesn't treat the college pipeline as a straightforward win for women. He calls the debt-plus-HR-job path a bad trade and says a lot of women following it are getting fleeced. The 65% figure, in his reading, measures who is on the conveyor belt, not who is winning.

The Evolutionary Reframe

His most counterintuitive move: beta male reproduction is the historical anomaly, not the norm. Across Homo erectus's two-million-year run and most of Homo sapiens', a small minority of men passed on genes. The current squeeze is therefore not a novel injustice — it's a reversion to baseline after an unusual few centuries.

From this he argues that resenting hypergamy is incoherent. The reasoning is genealogical: you descend from your foremothers exactly as much as your forefathers, and every one of them selecting upward is the reason you exist in the form you do. You should, he says, wish they had been more selective, not less. He extends the same logic — with visible discomfort and repeated refusals to justify it morally — to infidelity: a woman raising three children with a provider while conceiving one with a higher-value male is a mechanism that made the species more adaptive over deep time. The claim is about function, not permission.

He also takes a swing at the height-and-looks determinism dominating online discourse. If six feet were decisive, we'd all be six feet. Historically, shorter men regulated heat better, needed fewer calories, ran below tree lines, climbed, dove, and carried lower cancer risk. Nature maintains variance because the optimum is environment-dependent. Height is at a premium now, in a world of caloric abundance — and that's a recent condition, not an eternal one.

The Actual Model: Three Variables

This is the technical core, and it's the part worth extracting even if you discard everything else.

Frame

Cook describes consciousness as continuously pinging — sonar-style — for what reality is: ground, chair, walls, faces, sound. The brain burns 20% of your calories and is ruthlessly economical, so when it meets a higher-certainty reality, it saves energy by synchronizing to that one rather than maintaining its own. A second incentive stacks on top: syncing with the group buys harmony, and harmony equals safety, which in ancestral conditions was the difference between life and ostracism.

That single mechanism, he argues, explains hypnosis (pacing and leading), demagogues, Sacha Baron Cohen extracting confessions from strangers, and what happens when a woman falls in love. She constructs what he calls a gift — a hybrid personality fusing her real self with a version calibrated to make you feel loved and accommodated. She takes up your interests, drops her vices, adopts your politics. When frame is lost long enough, the process runs in reverse as an RAS flip: she has to manufacture contempt to extract herself, which is why a decent man is often hated for six months after a breakup. The person you knew genuinely dies.

The operational definition: the strong-framed man emits pings without absorbing them. He sees through his own eyes rather than through group think. Cook stages this live, having taller and better-looking trained students try to pull the room's attention away from him, to demonstrate that attention flows toward certainty, not symmetry.

Internal Validation

Here he's unusually candid about what the concept actually is: a hack that simulates the passive validation an alpha receives from a harem. If twelve women want you, the thirteenth's indifference doesn't register — you pass tests without effort, because there's nothing to defend. Absent that, you have to generate the same signal from the inside. He concedes the internal version is healthier long-term while insisting it's far harder to bootstrap from zero, which is why his practical advice is to date several women before pursuing one you actually want.

This is also where congruence tests ("shit tests") fit. The sequence: she validates you, watches whether the validation inflates you, then withdraws it to see if your state collapses. Passing looks like agree and amplify, misinterpret as a compliment, ignore, or make a joke. Failing looks like explaining yourself. His hardest rule — any logical explanation kills attraction — is worth stating precisely: logic isn't disqualifying because it's logic, but because self-qualification is a status disclosure. It reveals that you believe you owe an account, which reverses the buyer-seller dynamic in a single sentence.

Winner Effect (State)

Borrowing Sapolsky's baboon work, Cook ties perceived status to neurochemistry and immune function. High state manifests as vocal projection (the voice opens when you feel safe — not forced open, which fries it), steady eye contact, and lateral thinking: the free-associating, joking, riffing capacity that reads as evidence a man isn't compensating. The inverse is legible too — heavy logic signals his winner effect is down and he's overcorrecting.

His machinery for generating it is behavioral rather than mystical: approach volume, minimized time between interactions, active state control, and — the most portable idea in the talk — setting your own criteria for success. Most men use did she like me?, which hands their state to a stranger. Cook uses did I talk to everyone and keep momentum?, which he can always satisfy. The justification is the winner effect proper: a boxer matched against opponents slightly above his level stacks wins and compounds; one thrown against killers early never develops. Men, he insists, require accumulated wins in a way reassurance can't substitute for.

Where He Breaks From Everyone Else

The mainstream position, which he attacks by name, is that a man's sexual market value is static — set by looks and money, alterable only by vanishing for a decade to build both, then presenting the finished product to the world. Cook's counter-thesis: SMV is dramatically dynamic, moment to moment.

His evidence is autobiographical and, on its own terms, hard to dismiss. On the nights he dominates and the nights he bombs, he is the same height, the same beard, the same pot belly, the same net worth. He also ran the other experiment deliberately: he locked himself away, added a few million, and emerged with worse results — because the interval had been spent repeating "I'll be the man when." The build itself installed a conditional frame, and the condition is what women read.

The mechanism is the spiral. Frame and validation buy attention; attention lifts state; state produces humor and lateral thinking; those buy more attention. It runs downward at identical speed, which is why men are tested precisely when things go wrong — and why Cook considers the man who performs from the abyss more formed than one riding a streak. His examples: a thousand-person event delivered while his life was falling apart; Brady down 28–3.

Chesterton's Fence: What the Old Order Was Actually For

This is the section he considers his most original, and it's the strongest piece of the talk structurally.

Using G.K. Chesterton's fence — don't demolish a structure until you understand why it was built — he reconstructs the function of the system now being cleared away. He grants the indictment first and without hedging: women were burned, beaten, disenfranchised, unable to vote, drive, work, or hold credit, and the complaint against all that is not unfounded. The question isn't whether the fence had costs. It's what it was doing.

The patriarchy was communism for beta males. By restricting women's access to income, credit, mobility, and education, it made the ordinary provider structurally necessary. A man who couldn't generate attraction could still generate indispensability.

The church ran the frame-control layer. It recoded cheap, fundamentally beta behaviors — opening doors, paying the bill, showing up on time, kneeling to propose — as alpha markers, and cast the man who couldn't perform them as a boy rather than a man. Cook's point isn't that these behaviors are bad; it's that they are not honest signals. Anyone can execute them. Frame can't be faked, which is exactly why it survived as the operative test once the coding collapsed.

It also outsourced frame control, and this is the load-bearing economic claim. Because attraction was institutionally guaranteed, the average man didn't spend four hours a day on swagger — he spent them at the mill, the boat, the construction site. That's how the cities got built. He adds a second-order consequence: married men with wives and children had a stake in the country, which is a very different proposition from asking an unattached man to die for strangers.

The subtlest piece is his treatment of romantic love. What we call falling in love is, in his reading, structurally selfish and pharmacologically shaped — total absorption, a high, and a crash proportional to the high. A man with real options is biochemically incapable of it; obsession requires scarcity. The church's move was to permit the obsession while installing a third party in the marriage, converting taking into receiving. And the lifetime bargain that made it work: what a wife lost in market value over decades, she gained in shared experience and continuity of narrative.

He illustrates this at unexpected length — the beaten Samsonite he wouldn't trade for twenty thousand dollars, the Von Dutch hat from one specific night that a factory replacement can't substitute for, the childhood teddy bear he'd throw out a better one to keep. The point lands: value that comes from accumulated memory is not fungible. That's the mechanism by which a man stays in love with a woman whose market position has changed — and it's precisely the mechanism a life of serial novelty cannot produce.

Why Current Advice Fails

Against Galloway and most of the coaching industry — make more money, get fitter, be kinder — Cook's objection is that this optimizes for a decommissioned system. Going from $80k to $110k, or from fourteen-inch arms to fourteen and a half, doesn't clear the bar if frame, validation, and state are absent. He recommends doing all of it anyway, for yourself, while refusing to sell it as an attraction strategy.

He adds a methodological point that deserves more attention than it gets: women are largely inarticulate about their own attraction mechanisms. Interview them and you get patriarchy-coded answers — height, millions, a list. He notes the women who say they date cute guys, then date him and reach for interesting. So podcast interviews produce accurate reports of stated preference and useless models of revealed preference.

The matriarchy's actual currency, he argues, is social proof and vibe. His case study is Bieber at Coachella: hoodie, laptop, YouTube, zero production spend, visible chemical wear — against Karol G spending millions on staging. The entire content of that presentation is "I will not self-qualify." Which is why he reframes the high-value modern male not as the provider but as the LARP master — the rapper, the DJ, the psychic in a robe delivering standard self-help advice that lands as revelation because of the costume. The skill is authority inside her emotional world, not competence in yours.

The related fault line is the side quest. Men run the main quest — build, provide, advance the ball — and file fun under distraction. Women read that refusal as scarcity, and scarcity is the disqualifier. His own illustration is the student he flew to the Redwoods who couldn't stop asking coaching questions; Cook says he experienced, from the inside, exactly what a woman feels around a man who can't stop optimizing.

The Semantic Flip

His cleanest observation, and the one that travels furthest from the dating context: the behavior didn't change, the labels did.

Thirty years ago, I couldn't live without my wife meant emotionally healthy. Today the same sentence reads as codependent, needy, toxic. Run it the other way: what would have been diagnosed as narcissism is now marketed as self-love, and not needing anyone — once unloving — is the health marker.

His conclusion is not that self-love is fraudulent; he grants explicitly that non-neediness is healthy and that the woman in his example video is saying reasonable things. The claim is that the frame inverted, so a man expressing depth of attachment now emits a low-value signal rather than a commitment signal. He credits Casey Zander with the sharper name for it: not a shit test but an interest test — your interest is too high, therefore your value is low. Both men are describing the same instrument reading a different scale.

Where He Thinks This Goes

His forecast is deliberately uncomfortable. With AI and robotics eliminating the need for mass male labor, and some form of universal high income conceivable, he suspects the system is now selecting for lower quantity and higher quality reproduction — that the bottom third of men exiting the gene pool is not a bug the system is trying to fix.

He tracks the incubation of ideas as his forecasting method: what's niche on a campus or a platform in year one is policy in year ten. His current sample is "decentering men" content and the proposal that women should be paid to have children — the argument being that if childbearing is more valuable to society than basketball, and we pay LeBron, the logic follows. His extrapolation: population crisis → substantial payment for childbearing → the financial constraint on partner choice disappears entirely → artificial insemination from a narrow pool of high-status donors, with the genetic-diversity cost that implies. Against that, he sets the alternative: a beta male uprising, his read on what a large population does when it concludes the game is rigged.

His proposed exit is not restoration. It's mainstreaming social intelligence — not as pickup, but as personal growth and emotional literacy — inside what he calls a human awakening project built on authenticity, community, self-reliance, and above all getting men out of group think, which he also frames as the survival trait for an AI-saturated era (his Wall-E reference is the picture of what failing that looks like).

The deepest version of his claim closes the loop cleanly: if attraction is fundamentally frame-tested, then needing money or muscle in order to hold frame is itself proof of weak frame. Which is his explanation for why women fetishize the DJ and the surfer rather than Gates or Ballmer. The man at a middling income doing what he actually loves reads as stronger than the man who required a billion dollars to feel legitimate — because the first one's certainty is unconditional, and the second one's has a price tag attached to it.

A Note on the Empirical Layer

Worth separating the psychology from the statistics, because they stand or fall on different evidence.

The 10%/58% figure originates in dating-app engagement data — likes and matches — not measured reproduction or relationship formation. The gap between those is enormous. The 65% figures run well above published data: women are roughly 58–60% of US college graduates, but not 65% of new jobs or home purchases, and the claim that women out-earn men on average doesn't hold at population level. His deep-time effective breeding ratio claims are directionally supported by Y-chromosome and mitochondrial evidence but the specific numbers are actively disputed. The Sapolsky material is real; the extrapolation from baboon hierarchy to nightclub state is his, not Sapolsky's.

None of that touches the central psychological model. Frame, validation, and state are claims about interaction dynamics, testable in the field, and largely independent of whether the demographic framing is accurate. The statistics are the frame he wraps the model in — and, fittingly, frame is exactly the thing you're supposed to audit against your own experience rather than absorb from the guy with the strongest delivery in the room.

[Joseph Maynor]

32 minutes ago, AION said:

The Matriarchy Thesis: Owen Cook on Why the Old Script Stopped Working

The Argument in One Line

The operating system of mating has been swapped out, the manual was never reissued, and most men — including most men's coaches — are still executing instructions written for hardware that no longer exists.

Cook's frame is simple and deliberately provocative: we lived under a patriarchy, we now live under a matriarchy, and the behaviors that generated returns in the first produce losses in the second. He repeats a disclaimer throughout that's worth taking seriously as a reading instruction — he is describing terrain, not endorsing it. The distinction matters because most of his claims are functional rather than moral: statements about what selects for what, not about what ought to.

The symptom that opens the talk is the man who ran the approved program — decent grades, a degree in something useful, a job paying six figures, a nest built — arriving at thirty and asking where is my wife? Cook's answer: there isn't one waiting for you. The script was never a law of nature. It was an artifact of an institution, and the institution has been dismantled.

The Numbers He Builds On

He anchors the case in a handful of figures: roughly 10% of men mating with 58% of women, with most of the remainder concentrated between the 80th and 90th percentile — leaving the bottom four-fifths of men structurally short of partners. He claims 65% of new jobs, new mortgages, and college degrees now go to women. He adds the NEET population — around 30% of men who have simply left the board for video games, weed, and porn — and points to population collapse in Italy, Japan, and elsewhere as the visible downstream consequence.

Interesting wrinkle: he doesn't treat the college pipeline as a straightforward win for women. He calls the debt-plus-HR-job path a bad trade and says a lot of women following it are getting fleeced. The 65% figure, in his reading, measures who is on the conveyor belt, not who is winning.

The Evolutionary Reframe

His most counterintuitive move: beta male reproduction is the historical anomaly, not the norm. Across Homo erectus's two-million-year run and most of Homo sapiens', a small minority of men passed on genes. The current squeeze is therefore not a novel injustice — it's a reversion to baseline after an unusual few centuries.

From this he argues that resenting hypergamy is incoherent. The reasoning is genealogical: you descend from your foremothers exactly as much as your forefathers, and every one of them selecting upward is the reason you exist in the form you do. You should, he says, wish they had been more selective, not less. He extends the same logic — with visible discomfort and repeated refusals to justify it morally — to infidelity: a woman raising three children with a provider while conceiving one with a higher-value male is a mechanism that made the species more adaptive over deep time. The claim is about function, not permission.

He also takes a swing at the height-and-looks determinism dominating online discourse. If six feet were decisive, we'd all be six feet. Historically, shorter men regulated heat better, needed fewer calories, ran below tree lines, climbed, dove, and carried lower cancer risk. Nature maintains variance because the optimum is environment-dependent. Height is at a premium now, in a world of caloric abundance — and that's a recent condition, not an eternal one.

The Actual Model: Three Variables

This is the technical core, and it's the part worth extracting even if you discard everything else.

Frame

Cook describes consciousness as continuously pinging — sonar-style — for what reality is: ground, chair, walls, faces, sound. The brain burns 20% of your calories and is ruthlessly economical, so when it meets a higher-certainty reality, it saves energy by synchronizing to that one rather than maintaining its own. A second incentive stacks on top: syncing with the group buys harmony, and harmony equals safety, which in ancestral conditions was the difference between life and ostracism.

That single mechanism, he argues, explains hypnosis (pacing and leading), demagogues, Sacha Baron Cohen extracting confessions from strangers, and what happens when a woman falls in love. She constructs what he calls a gift — a hybrid personality fusing her real self with a version calibrated to make you feel loved and accommodated. She takes up your interests, drops her vices, adopts your politics. When frame is lost long enough, the process runs in reverse as an RAS flip: she has to manufacture contempt to extract herself, which is why a decent man is often hated for six months after a breakup. The person you knew genuinely dies.

The operational definition: the strong-framed man emits pings without absorbing them. He sees through his own eyes rather than through group think. Cook stages this live, having taller and better-looking trained students try to pull the room's attention away from him, to demonstrate that attention flows toward certainty, not symmetry.

Internal Validation

Here he's unusually candid about what the concept actually is: a hack that simulates the passive validation an alpha receives from a harem. If twelve women want you, the thirteenth's indifference doesn't register — you pass tests without effort, because there's nothing to defend. Absent that, you have to generate the same signal from the inside. He concedes the internal version is healthier long-term while insisting it's far harder to bootstrap from zero, which is why his practical advice is to date several women before pursuing one you actually want.

This is also where congruence tests ("shit tests") fit. The sequence: she validates you, watches whether the validation inflates you, then withdraws it to see if your state collapses. Passing looks like agree and amplify, misinterpret as a compliment, ignore, or make a joke. Failing looks like explaining yourself. His hardest rule — any logical explanation kills attraction — is worth stating precisely: logic isn't disqualifying because it's logic, but because self-qualification is a status disclosure. It reveals that you believe you owe an account, which reverses the buyer-seller dynamic in a single sentence.

Winner Effect (State)

Borrowing Sapolsky's baboon work, Cook ties perceived status to neurochemistry and immune function. High state manifests as vocal projection (the voice opens when you feel safe — not forced open, which fries it), steady eye contact, and lateral thinking: the free-associating, joking, riffing capacity that reads as evidence a man isn't compensating. The inverse is legible too — heavy logic signals his winner effect is down and he's overcorrecting.

His machinery for generating it is behavioral rather than mystical: approach volume, minimized time between interactions, active state control, and — the most portable idea in the talk — setting your own criteria for success. Most men use did she like me?, which hands their state to a stranger. Cook uses did I talk to everyone and keep momentum?, which he can always satisfy. The justification is the winner effect proper: a boxer matched against opponents slightly above his level stacks wins and compounds; one thrown against killers early never develops. Men, he insists, require accumulated wins in a way reassurance can't substitute for.

Where He Breaks From Everyone Else

The mainstream position, which he attacks by name, is that a man's sexual market value is static — set by looks and money, alterable only by vanishing for a decade to build both, then presenting the finished product to the world. Cook's counter-thesis: SMV is dramatically dynamic, moment to moment.

His evidence is autobiographical and, on its own terms, hard to dismiss. On the nights he dominates and the nights he bombs, he is the same height, the same beard, the same pot belly, the same net worth. He also ran the other experiment deliberately: he locked himself away, added a few million, and emerged with worse results — because the interval had been spent repeating "I'll be the man when." The build itself installed a conditional frame, and the condition is what women read.

The mechanism is the spiral. Frame and validation buy attention; attention lifts state; state produces humor and lateral thinking; those buy more attention. It runs downward at identical speed, which is why men are tested precisely when things go wrong — and why Cook considers the man who performs from the abyss more formed than one riding a streak. His examples: a thousand-person event delivered while his life was falling apart; Brady down 28–3.

Chesterton's Fence: What the Old Order Was Actually For

This is the section he considers his most original, and it's the strongest piece of the talk structurally.

Using G.K. Chesterton's fence — don't demolish a structure until you understand why it was built — he reconstructs the function of the system now being cleared away. He grants the indictment first and without hedging: women were burned, beaten, disenfranchised, unable to vote, drive, work, or hold credit, and the complaint against all that is not unfounded. The question isn't whether the fence had costs. It's what it was doing.

The patriarchy was communism for beta males. By restricting women's access to income, credit, mobility, and education, it made the ordinary provider structurally necessary. A man who couldn't generate attraction could still generate indispensability.

The church ran the frame-control layer. It recoded cheap, fundamentally beta behaviors — opening doors, paying the bill, showing up on time, kneeling to propose — as alpha markers, and cast the man who couldn't perform them as a boy rather than a man. Cook's point isn't that these behaviors are bad; it's that they are not honest signals. Anyone can execute them. Frame can't be faked, which is exactly why it survived as the operative test once the coding collapsed.

It also outsourced frame control, and this is the load-bearing economic claim. Because attraction was institutionally guaranteed, the average man didn't spend four hours a day on swagger — he spent them at the mill, the boat, the construction site. That's how the cities got built. He adds a second-order consequence: married men with wives and children had a stake in the country, which is a very different proposition from asking an unattached man to die for strangers.

The subtlest piece is his treatment of romantic love. What we call falling in love is, in his reading, structurally selfish and pharmacologically shaped — total absorption, a high, and a crash proportional to the high. A man with real options is biochemically incapable of it; obsession requires scarcity. The church's move was to permit the obsession while installing a third party in the marriage, converting taking into receiving. And the lifetime bargain that made it work: what a wife lost in market value over decades, she gained in shared experience and continuity of narrative.

He illustrates this at unexpected length — the beaten Samsonite he wouldn't trade for twenty thousand dollars, the Von Dutch hat from one specific night that a factory replacement can't substitute for, the childhood teddy bear he'd throw out a better one to keep. The point lands: value that comes from accumulated memory is not fungible. That's the mechanism by which a man stays in love with a woman whose market position has changed — and it's precisely the mechanism a life of serial novelty cannot produce.

Why Current Advice Fails

Against Galloway and most of the coaching industry — make more money, get fitter, be kinder — Cook's objection is that this optimizes for a decommissioned system. Going from $80k to $110k, or from fourteen-inch arms to fourteen and a half, doesn't clear the bar if frame, validation, and state are absent. He recommends doing all of it anyway, for yourself, while refusing to sell it as an attraction strategy.

He adds a methodological point that deserves more attention than it gets: women are largely inarticulate about their own attraction mechanisms. Interview them and you get patriarchy-coded answers — height, millions, a list. He notes the women who say they date cute guys, then date him and reach for interesting. So podcast interviews produce accurate reports of stated preference and useless models of revealed preference.

The matriarchy's actual currency, he argues, is social proof and vibe. His case study is Bieber at Coachella: hoodie, laptop, YouTube, zero production spend, visible chemical wear — against Karol G spending millions on staging. The entire content of that presentation is "I will not self-qualify." Which is why he reframes the high-value modern male not as the provider but as the LARP master — the rapper, the DJ, the psychic in a robe delivering standard self-help advice that lands as revelation because of the costume. The skill is authority inside her emotional world, not competence in yours.

The related fault line is the side quest. Men run the main quest — build, provide, advance the ball — and file fun under distraction. Women read that refusal as scarcity, and scarcity is the disqualifier. His own illustration is the student he flew to the Redwoods who couldn't stop asking coaching questions; Cook says he experienced, from the inside, exactly what a woman feels around a man who can't stop optimizing.

The Semantic Flip

His cleanest observation, and the one that travels furthest from the dating context: the behavior didn't change, the labels did.

Thirty years ago, I couldn't live without my wife meant emotionally healthy. Today the same sentence reads as codependent, needy, toxic. Run it the other way: what would have been diagnosed as narcissism is now marketed as self-love, and not needing anyone — once unloving — is the health marker.

His conclusion is not that self-love is fraudulent; he grants explicitly that non-neediness is healthy and that the woman in his example video is saying reasonable things. The claim is that the frame inverted, so a man expressing depth of attachment now emits a low-value signal rather than a commitment signal. He credits Casey Zander with the sharper name for it: not a shit test but an interest test — your interest is too high, therefore your value is low. Both men are describing the same instrument reading a different scale.

Where He Thinks This Goes

His forecast is deliberately uncomfortable. With AI and robotics eliminating the need for mass male labor, and some form of universal high income conceivable, he suspects the system is now selecting for lower quantity and higher quality reproduction — that the bottom third of men exiting the gene pool is not a bug the system is trying to fix.

He tracks the incubation of ideas as his forecasting method: what's niche on a campus or a platform in year one is policy in year ten. His current sample is "decentering men" content and the proposal that women should be paid to have children — the argument being that if childbearing is more valuable to society than basketball, and we pay LeBron, the logic follows. His extrapolation: population crisis → substantial payment for childbearing → the financial constraint on partner choice disappears entirely → artificial insemination from a narrow pool of high-status donors, with the genetic-diversity cost that implies. Against that, he sets the alternative: a beta male uprising, his read on what a large population does when it concludes the game is rigged.

His proposed exit is not restoration. It's mainstreaming social intelligence — not as pickup, but as personal growth and emotional literacy — inside what he calls a human awakening project built on authenticity, community, self-reliance, and above all getting men out of group think, which he also frames as the survival trait for an AI-saturated era (his Wall-E reference is the picture of what failing that looks like).

The deepest version of his claim closes the loop cleanly: if attraction is fundamentally frame-tested, then needing money or muscle in order to hold frame is itself proof of weak frame. Which is his explanation for why women fetishize the DJ and the surfer rather than Gates or Ballmer. The man at a middling income doing what he actually loves reads as stronger than the man who required a billion dollars to feel legitimate — because the first one's certainty is unconditional, and the second one's has a price tag attached to it.

A Note on the Empirical Layer

Worth separating the psychology from the statistics, because they stand or fall on different evidence.

The 10%/58% figure originates in dating-app engagement data — likes and matches — not measured reproduction or relationship formation. The gap between those is enormous. The 65% figures run well above published data: women are roughly 58–60% of US college graduates, but not 65% of new jobs or home purchases, and the claim that women out-earn men on average doesn't hold at population level. His deep-time effective breeding ratio claims are directionally supported by Y-chromosome and mitochondrial evidence but the specific numbers are actively disputed. The Sapolsky material is real; the extrapolation from baboon hierarchy to nightclub state is his, not Sapolsky's.

None of that touches the central psychological model. Frame, validation, and state are claims about interaction dynamics, testable in the field, and largely independent of whether the demographic framing is accurate. The statistics are the frame he wraps the model in — and, fittingly, frame is exactly the thing you're supposed to audit against your own experience rather than absorb from the guy with the strongest delivery in the room.

Imagine reading this to a woman you are interested in and see the reaction. 

[AION]

5 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Imagine reading this to a woman you are interested in and see the reaction. 

they will love it 😭

[something_else]

29 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Imagine reading this to a woman you are interested in and see the reaction. 

That was basically my thought. The post argues for 'vibes' being king but most women would interpret any of this as bad vibes.

Not to say there aren't valid points in here, there are plenty. But in the bigger picture arguments it leans heavily on a lot of sensible sounding evolutionary psychology that actually has little evidence to support it.

The use of the word matriarchy is odd as well, you just have to look at who all of the richest and most powerful people in the world are to see that we don't live in a matriarchy.

[AION]

5 minutes ago, something_else said:

That was basically my thought. The post argues for 'vibes' being king but most women would interpret any of this as bad vibes.

Not to say there aren't valid points in here, there are plenty. But in the bigger picture arguments it leans heavily on a lot of sensible sounding evolutionary psychology that actually has little evidence to support it.

The use of the word matriarchy is odd as well, you just have to look at who all of the richest and most powerful people in the world are to see that we don't live in a matriarchy.

That is not proof that matriachy doesn't exist though. The structure of society has shifted from patriarchy to matriachy but obviously the strongest players are still men, not because they are the strongest and smartest, perhaps they are, but mostly because they do the most sacrifice for success. 

Also that text was not meant for female audience. That is letting a dentist client read the manual of the dentist and then saying the dentist manual is shit because the dentist client doesn't get the dentist manual.

That is some weird ass logic I can't follow. Obviously that text is meant to be read and dropped. I think it had some interesting points in it that is why I shared it.

[Schizophonia]

Why do you go to nightclubs to pick up girls

 

Edited 5 hours ago by Schizophonia

[Natasha Tori Maru]

8 minutes ago, something_else said:

Not to say there aren't valid points in here, there are plenty. But in the bigger picture arguments it leans heavily on a lot of sensible sounding evolutionary psychology that actually has little evidence to support it.

I agree with this. There are more mechanisms from other domains at play that could be producing/generating behaviour:  Evolutionary psychology "evolved dispositions", developmental environment, cultural norms, institutional incentives etc can all contribute to observed behaviour. I don't feel the volutionary psychology arguments really bring enough nuance to differentiate all the possible domains that could contribute to what we see. 

More often than not I see observed behaviour explained in this reductionist way that could be generated by very different causal mechanisms.

As soon as you find topics that bring nuance to the theory it becomes clear it's very very complex and not at all clear cut.

[something_else]

16 minutes ago, AION said:

That is not proof that matriachy doesn't exist though. The structure of society has shifted from patriarchy to matriachy but obviously the strongest players are still men, not because they are the strongest and smartest, perhaps they are, but mostly because they do the most sacrifice for success. 

The definition of matriarchy is "a system of society or government ruled by a woman or women." So if most of the people in the highest positions of power within society are men, then by definition we don't live in a matriarchy.

16 minutes ago, AION said:

Also that text was not meant for female audience. That is letting a dentist client read the manual of the dentist and then saying the dentist manual is shit because the dentist client doesn't get the dentist manual.

That is some weird ass logic I can't follow. Obviously that text is meant to be read and dropped. I think it had some interesting points in it that is why I shared it.

I agree, but if you internalise this way of thinking it will fuck up your vibes in subtle ways you don't even realise.

Edited 5 hours ago by something_else

[something_else]

5 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

I agree with this. There are more mechanisms from other domains at play that could be producing/generating behaviour:  Evolutionary psychology "evolved dispositions", developmental environment, cultural norms, institutional incentives etc can all contribute to observed behaviour. I don't feel the volutionary psychology arguments really bring enough nuance to differentiate all the possible domains that could contribute to what we see. 

More often than not I see observed behaviour explained in this reductionist way that could be generated by very different causal mechanisms.

As soon as you find topics that bring nuance to the theory it becomes clear it's very very complex and not at all clear cut.

Exactly. The core issue is you can come up with a theory for how almost any behaviour could come from evolutionary pressure, but there is rarely any way to prove that your theory is correct. This makes it more akin to storytelling than a true science.

That doesn’t mean the theories are all wrong, just that it’s easy to place far too much weight on them when culture, environment and social factors can also explain behaviour.

Humans love a good story though which is what makes evolutionary psychology very appealing to many.

[AION]

16 minutes ago, something_else said:

The definition of matriarchy is "a system of society or government ruled by a woman or women." So if most of the people in the highest positions of power within society are men, then by definition we don't live in a matriarchy.

 

That is not my definition of matriachy. Dominating frame is female frame in western society thus it is a matriarchy.

Quote

agree, but if you internalise this way of thinking it will fuck up your vibes in subtle ways you don't even realise.

Probably true. Intellectualism has its pros and cons.

I'm not a natural anyway. So I'm not pretending to be one.

[something_else]

7 minutes ago, AION said:

That is not my definition of matriachy

You can't just redefine terms to suit your own biases.

Quote

Dominating frame is female frame in western society thus it is a matriarchy.

What makes you think this is the case?

10 minutes ago, AION said:

Probably true. Intellectualism has its pros and cons.

I'm not a natural anyway. So I'm not pretending to be one.

I'm not naturally sociable either, and pickup/redpill theory actually made my social skills worse when I was into that many years ago.

The intellectualism within the manosphere kills your vibes stone dead. Do you think the majority of the guys actually getting laid left right and centre give a shit about any of this? Or the guys who are in healthy loving relationships? No, they just focus on their own lives and doing what brings them joy, which is why they give off good vibes and reap the rewards of it.

Obsessing over manosphere content online is subtle admission to yourself that you are low value, and that will always leak out in your interactions. It's fundamentally built into the framework with ideas like "men have no inherent value". That shit is toxic for your mind. It's all carefully crafted by influencers in that space to make you feel insecure so that they can present themselves as the solution, for a fee you understand. It's all a grift.

In recent years I've largely always framed this area of self development as building social skills, and learning to express who I am as a person confidently. Call it bluepilled, but this has worked much better for me both in terms of results and my own mental wellbeing.

[AION]

@something_else it is needed though. The same way you need rockets to get out of orbit and once you are in space you don’t need it anymore. But if you are on planet incel you can’t just bypass the process. You are stuck in a typical pre trans fallacy. At the end you have to meet yourself and the other where they are at. You are not a natural social guy like the others and it is ok to not be one. It is unnecessary to bring their exp up because it is not yours. 

Edited 3 hours ago by AION

[something_else]

1 hour ago, AION said:

@something_else it is needed though. The same way you need rockets to get out of orbit and once you are in space you don’t need it anymore. But if you are on planet incel you can’t just bypass the process. You are stuck in a typical pre trans fallacy. At the end you have to meet yourself and the other where they are at. You are not a natural social guy like the others and it is ok to not be one. It is unnecessary to bring their exp up because it is not yours. 

It isn’t pre/trans fallacy. I’m arguing that manosphere content is detrimental even if you’re just starting out. It isn’t a phase to go through, it’s deadweight to be dropped.

Inceldom as an identity has skyrocketed in popularity because of increased social isolation and because of the manosphere. These two things form a death spiral together. The more isolated you become the more time you spend online, the more time you spend online the more likely you are to get sucked into manosphere content, the more manosphere content you watch the more you’re told that you’re not good enough and that you’re all alone as a man. Rinse and repeat.

Again, this is not accidental. This is a carefully crafted marketing funnel in action.

The way out is not more manosphere content, it’s to break the cycle. Drop all of that shit, make some deep friendships and build a fun social life. 

[AION]

@something_else 

Nah there is some good stuff in the manosphere. It is not pure truth but good luck finding that nowadays. At the end you are not that guy. And just not doing anything, not reading manosphere and just being a wanker is not going to magically turn you into those natural guys that you look up to. At the end manosphere has some good parts. Just take the good parts and leave the bad parts.