How to hold frame (my complete guide)

Reddit View
April 26, 2018

This article is very long, and exceeds the Reddit character 40,000 character limit by four or five times, so I am only including about 15 pages of the full 55 page article in this post. You can read the whole thing here:

I want to thank everybody that gave me feedback on this article, especially the ECs that read all 55 pages of this horseshit.

Table of contents



The subconscious mind

What is the alpha male?

Emotional investment

The alpha male and reality

The archetypal alpha male

Hacking your mind

Practical steps to hack your mind

Your inner world

Status and Insecurity

Women and the alpha male

The alpha male and resources

Shit tests

Approaching and escalating

How to be nice

Subconscious transcendence

Joking and teasing







This is a long article, so the TLDR will be pretty long too.

Women are attracted to the archetypal alpha male, the “perfect” alpha male. Women are only attracted to real men to the extent they are similar to the archetypal alpha. The archetypal (perfect) alpha male has 4 primary characteristics:

1) Power – The alpha male can defeat any challenge relevant to the tribe, including physical challenges from other tribes.

2) Superiority – The alpha male gets first dibs on resources.

3) Abundance – The alpha male controls all resources, including women.

4) Leadership – The alpha male leads the tribe in every respect and makes all the rules for the betas in the tribe.

The alpha possesses these traits so he can lead the tribe in the battle against challenges.

Defeating challenges is the most fun thing a person can do.

Women are attracted to the archetypal alpha because they can vicariously defeat challenges through him, but without the danger or responsibility.

The archetypal alpha’s thoughts and emotions are always fixated on defeating challenges.

The archetypal alpha only does things for women, including paying them attention, when they do something for him first. This rule is the “alpha male quid pro quo” and is the most important rule for holding frame.

As the leader, the alpha male makes all the rules for the tribe, which means that he essentially creates the rules for reality because humans did not evolve to understand the difference between objective reality and the alpha’s rules.

Insisting on your own reality, especially when it clashes with other realities, is holding frame.

Although you are not the archetypal alpha, you can and must “hack” your mind to feel like the archetypal alpha. You do this by focusing your thoughts and emotions on defeating challenges in your life, even when you are around women.

To act and feel as if you have the “power” trait, you must act and feel as if you can defeat any challenge. You must remain calm, positive, and stoic in the face of negativity.

Abundance requires you to feel like you have everything. The primary barriers to abundance are 1) uncontrolled desires, 2) pedestalization of women, 3) a shitty life, and 4) insecurity.

Superiority requires you to focus on your own fun first, and to make her feel like you have access to worlds, both inner and outer, she can never access.

Leadership requires taking the lead in every aspect of the relationship and creating the rules for reality.

Disclaimer Many people will want to reject this article because of its reliance on evolutionary biology. I am not a scientist, so these theories are a combination of my admittedly cursory reading of the scientific literature and my own observations of human life. The science of evolutionary biology is not advanced enough yet to definitively demonstrate which human behaviors are socially conditioned and which are influenced by evolutionary factors, so much of the following is not based on laboratory science. But the following does not contradict the scientific consensus and more importantly, just because science has not figured out something does not mean it is not an important answer for humans to have.


This article is about how to act like an alpha male, or in other words, “hold frame.” Acting like an alpha male is called holding frame because the alpha is the master of the current reality and creates the rules for reality, so you must “frame” every situation through the lens of your own reality. You must act as if your conception of reality is the correct one (even if it is not, you can always change your conception of reality later), your reality is more fun than any other reality (even if it is not), and nothing can make you accept another reality (even though you would). This sounds like a huge task, and it is, but you will be amazed at how malleable people’s thoughts, emotions, and even identities are in the face of what they feel to be is the alpha male.

This article will not make women like you. It will not teach you how to be funny, or smart, or interesting, or rich, or confident, etc… All it will do is teach you a few rules about how the alpha male would act. But even if you follow these rules perfectly, women may still reject you because there is more to being an alpha than just acting like one. The alpha male is generally tall, athletic, presents a nice appearance, and has some type of indicia, often in the form of money or other resources, that he is good at defeating important challenges. This article will not focus on how to improve those material facts about yourself, as there is plenty of literature on how to lift, eat right, dress better, etc…

Even if your material circumstances suck, and you are short, poor, ugly, or unsuccessful, you must still hold frame. There are no special rules for ugly guys. If you are unattractive or your life sucks, you will get rejected more, women will be less likely to accept your frame, and women will leave your frame more often. When faced with these obstacles, many men break and just accept that they are “losers” or try find a different way to women’s hearts, often by acting like a little bitch. Don’t do that. If you can stand firm and hold frame, you will feel more powerful, more confident, less needy, and these new emotions may even help you become more successful in your life.

The subconscious mind

Human psychology is fucking weird. No matter how much we humans like to think we are rational, we often do things that are counterintuitive, irrational, and counterproductive even to our own goals and desires. The modern media-entertainment complex wants us to throw up our hands and say “There is nothing you can do! Everybody is different, emotions are mysterious and impossible to understand, especially emotions like love and attraction, and all you can do is be a nice person, and hope people like you.”

To some degree the media-entertainment complex is correct, but I believe that much of human behavior can be explained by deep, subconscious evolutionary wiring related to our need and desire to view the world as a dominance hierarchy with an alpha male at the top. Not only do we subconsciously view all of our relationships through the lens of this dominance hierarchy, but our subconscious perceptions of ourselves and others cause us to “act out” this dominance hierarchy in ways that we may not even consciously realize. Scientists have clearly observed these dominance hierarchies in apes, but to “prove” that they exist in humans would require thousands of experiments, most of which would be highly unethical, politically incorrect, and probably impossible. Therefore, all we have to guide is the little science we have and our own observations and experiences.

Each person is unique and almost infinitely complicated, but we share certain emotions formed through millennia of evolution, and the dominance hierarchy emotions are the strongest of these. Because the dominance hierarchy ensured the survival of our ancestors against their enemies in the jungle, these emotions are relentless, constant, uncompromising, and extremely powerful. They overpower all of our other emotions, even important ones like love and compassion, and even hijack our rational thoughts. When repressed or ignored, these emotions reappear in a different form, oftentimes even stronger, and sometimes disguised as something else.

Think of the human mind like a house: everybody has a different house, but we all have the same foundation, and if that foundation is not maintained, the house collapses. Put another way, our rational mind is like a mouse trying to ride an elephant. The mouse can influence the elephant’s actions a little, and over a lifetime this little becomes a lot, but the mouse’s control over the elephant at any single moment is very tenuous and cannot change what the elephant fundamentally wants. If you are ever reluctant to hold frame, you must remember that you are speaking to her emotions that literally decide whether she gets killed in the jungle or not. And no matter how mean, bitchy, disinterested, angry, rude, insistent, or confident her conscious demeanor appears, it is ultimately a mouse riding an elephant.

It bears repeating that holding frame, by itself, will not make a woman like you. You must hold frame AND appeal to her other desires as well. Some women want a 7 foot tall basketball player, others want a dirty hipster covered in tattoos, and yet others want a nerdy Indian guy, and if you are not what she wants she will either not pay you enough attention to notice your frame or she will feel attracted, but not enough to fuck you. Not that it matters what anybody wants. The alpha male is a fun-seeking missile, so he does whatever the fuck he wants and women that like it will join.

What is the alpha male?

It is impossible to describe human emotions into words, so I arbitrarily categorize the alpha male’s traits into 4 broad categories, but many traits and actions can fall into more than one category.

1) Power – The alpha male can defeat any challenge relevant to the tribe, including physical challenges from other tribes.
2) Superiority – The alpha male gets first dibs on resources. 3) Abundance – The alpha male controls all resources, including women. 4) Leadership – The alpha male leads the tribe in every respect and makes all the rules for the betas in the tribe.

The primary characteristic of the alpha male is that he defeats challenges. Ape alpha males primarily defeat physical challenges, whereas human alphas must defeat any kind of challenge relevant to human life.

In the language of Jordan Peterson, the alpha male evolved to slay the dragon of chaos. Our minds divide existence into order (that which we know and understand) and chaos (that which we have not yet conquered). The ideal life straddles the border between order and chaos. Too much chaos, and you are overwhelmed, confused, and crippled by fear. You get no wins, you accomplish nothing, and you are dispirited. Too much order, and you are lazy, bored, overly rigid, antsy, and fail to grow. But defeating challenges with one foot in the realm of order and one in the realm of chaos is the purpose of life: it is the most exciting, meaningful, and fun thing a person can do.

Because our position in the dominance hierarchy is the primary determinant of our emotions, thoughts, and behavior, our subconscious mind is constantly trying to determine whether we are alpha or beta in the situation we are in and the people we are around. We subconsciously perceive the 1) material circumstances (resources and appearance) and the 2) actions of ourselves and others, and based on this information we subconsciously calculate our position in the dominance hierarchy. If we subconsciously feel beta, then we act beta, which causes us to feel even more beta, and causes others to view us as beta and therefore themselves as alpha. Actions influence emotions and emotions influence thoughts so our actions/emotions/thoughts axis can quickly spiral into a vicious or virtuous cycle, depending on what we do.

To determine who is the alpha or beta, our subconscious mind primarily looks at the parties’ ability to confront and defeat challenges. Because the most important challenges in our ape past were physical, we evolved to “sense” the alpha male as the male with superior physical strength, health, eagerness to confront and defeat challenges, evidence of having defeated challenges in the past, and an accumulation of resources (the prize of defeating challenges). When multiple individuals in the same situation exhibit these characteristics, they are driven to battle to determine the alpha, and the losers evolved to “become beta” and accept the alpha male’s leadership by following, obeying, and helping the alpha male.

Evolution enforces this dominance hierarchy by using a combination of emotional sticks and carrots. The “sticks” are negative emotions like anxiety, depression, and fear, which prevent betas from challenging or disobeying the alpha male. Anxiety freezes betas with hesitation if they are about to wander from the tribe or do anything you feel may upset the alpha male, and depression numbs their emotions and drains their energy after the alpha male rejects them or kicks their ass so they ruminate about what they did wrong so they don’t do it again. These feelings are all subconscious: even if you think the alpha is a stupid, incompetent, jerk, if you don’t feel like you can defeat him, you will still feel anxiety when confronting him.

The evolutionary “carrots” that draw betas to the alpha male are 1) an emotional fixation on the alpha male, 2) a strong desire to contribute to the tribe to obtain acceptance by the alpha male, and 3) the ability to vicariously defeat challenges through the alpha male. Defeating challenges is the ultimate fun, but betas evolved to feel paralyzing anxiety in the face of chaos, so they can only experience this fun vicariously through an alpha male. Even in our society today most people would rather have fun vicariously through the alpha male than do fun things themselves because the alpha male will face bigger challenges than the beta can, will be more successful against those challenges, and will win bigger prizes. This is why men watch football on TV on Sunday rather than play football in their backyard.

While betas intensely fixate on the alpha male, the alpha feels nothing for the betas. The alpha isn’t a narcissist or an asshole – he just needs to focus on defeating challenges. Focus is extremely important for the alpha male – if he gets distracted from fighting challenges for even a second the entire tribe could get killed. In fact, women evolved a keen ability to sense whether a man can be distracted. Many cultures even have a myth where their tribe kills everybody in another tribe by distracting them with women. In the West, see the rape of Dinah in the Bible or the rape of the Sabines in Roman literature.

To look at it differently, the alpha male needs to focus on defeating challenges because he is responsible for providing the “fun” for the tribe. If the alpha male’s thoughts and emotions are no longer focused on having fun, the betas must find somebody else to vicariously have fun through. This sounds disloyal, but having fun/defeating challenges is THE MOST IMPORTANT THING for humans. If you are not doing that, somebody is kicking your ass.

The alpha only focuses his thoughts and emotions and does things for betas when they do something to help him defeat challenges. In the middle of a war, the beta who takes care of the tribal chief’s horse is important and the chief can and must take care of him or her. The chief cannot waste any energy on betas who are not contributing; he needs to be focused on the enemy. Apes that do not act like this die in the jungle, so these behaviors and rules are wired into our deepest emotions. As you can see, there is nothing wrong with being a beta; betas are necessary for the functioning of the tribe.

Betas evolved to be very conscious of status. The dominance hierarchy is literally a ranking, and the more the alpha approves of your contribution the higher ranking he will allow you, and the higher your rank, the further you are from rejection. All obsession with status is essentially a deep-seated fear of rejection. Therefore, betas evolved to emotionally fixate on the alpha to figure out 1) if he is still the alpha or if he has been compromised and 2) whether the alpha is pleased with their contribution. This is also why betas’ self-esteem depends on the alpha. Psychologists have determined that people feel depressed and suicidal when they feel they no longer contribute to their community or the world.

Both men and women can feel beta, but women generally feel beta more consistently and strongly than men because they have less testosterone, a hormone that increases aggression and competition. Therefore, women fixate more deeply on the alpha male, and notice every little thing he says and does. Men generally do not fixate on women in the same way and therefore “miss” important information about the woman, often after it is too late. Women’s superior ability to fixate on the man provides them an important advantage because they can use the information they collect against the man if they feel like the man has done them wrong. Nietzsche theorized that the alpha’s biggest weakness was that he paid so little attention to the betas that he could not notice that they were plotting against him. This advantage is so important that most cultures have a myth where a scheming woman “dupes” an aloof man that is ignoring her. The ability to scheme is doubly important for women because a woman evolved to feel extreme anxiety in any physical confrontation with the alpha because it is clearly not a sound evolutionary strategy to fight the alpha.

Emotional investment

Emotional investment is simply the act of fixating your thoughts and emotions on something or somebody. The longer you fixate your thoughts and emotions on something that feels good, the more emotionally invested you become. When something feels good, our brain forms neural circuit I call a “pleasure pathway,” that subconsciously and automatically propels us to seek that thing again, and if that thing feels good again, the pleasure pathway is strengthened. This is why drug addicts must consciously work to avoid drugs, because otherwise the will “automatically” do drugs without even consciously realizing what they are doing. This is also why emotionally investing in the wrong person is disastrous: you are literally addicted to a person that can manipulate you, harm you, or just not give a fuck about you.

Emotions are determined by actions, not thoughts or words, so women do not emotionally invest in you until they DO something meaningful for you. Words mean nothing. Once she does things for you, and you accept her into your life, and she has fun vicariously through you, a pleasure pathway will form, causing her to become more and more emotionally invested, especially if she does not have other men that can create the same feeling for her.

Women take much longer than men to emotionally invest because women must carry and take care of a child so they need a man who is credibly alpha over the long term, whereas a man is interested primarily in short-term sex. Furthermore, the alpha male is a complicated character, so a person must be analyzed for a while to determine whether they are really alpha or just a faker. This gives women a certain degree of power early in the relationship because they can be rational when the man feels emotional. Men often feel there is a “connection” when the woman does not feel anything yet, so women often use this rational phase to trick men into doing things for them.

Holding frame requires patience because women do not emotionally invest in you the moment you start holding frame. Even if she is acting bored, disinterested, mean, or distracted, she is secretly noticing and analyzing everything you do and will (possibly) come around and emotionally invest if you hold frame. Most men lose patience, so they do something to get an immediate positive reaction, usually by supplicating or acting like a little bitch. Holding frame means your primary motivator must be your own desire to have fun, not her reactions.

The alpha male and reality

Human’s desire to follow and obey the alpha male is so strong that people literally accept the alpha male’s instructions as the rules that govern reality.

Humans did not evolve to have an inherent ability to understand the concept of objective reality so all “rules,” even laws of nature, feel as if they are coming from an alpha male. This is why humans were so quick to attribute natural events to gods. Similarly, throughout history many charismatic men have created religions, philosophies, ideologies, and other “rules for reality” that the masses blindly accepted, often in the face of serious evidence that those rules were wrong. Humans are more likely to survive in the jungle if we follow the warrior rather than the scholar – a warrior who listens to the scholar is just an added bonus. Donald Trump has proven that, even in our “scientific” age, people prefer to follow the perceived alpha male over the truth.

In fact, the alpha male MUST define the rules for reality. If a man follows rules he did not create, the betas will feel like some other alpha male must be enforcing those rules. Betas are also terrified of chaos and need order, so if a man acts like he cannot control reality and impose order and rules on everything and everybody, betas start looking elsewhere for protection and leadership. Furthermore, when the alpha male ventures into chaos he actually does change reality by changing things, creating new things, defeating challenges, making discoveries, and imposing rules for how people should conduct themselves, making it even more difficult for betas to distinguish between the alpha male’s rules and objective reality. “Humans cannot fly” was a law of reality until a man invented the airplane, and more and more of these rules will collapse as human knowledge advances.

Although you must create your own reality and every rule for this reality, not everybody will accept your reality. Most people’s reality comes from the other alphas in their life: their father, religion, society, etc…, and they are not eager to shed that reality and accept a new one. Furthermore, everybody has an identity, values, likes, dislikes, beliefs, habits, fears, talents, fetishes, interests, standards, emotional hang-ups, dreams, goals, and idiosyncracies, which are often deeply embedded into them.

A man who is perfectly and archetypally alpha will theoretically be able to dissolve all these things and re-create any man or woman into anything he wants them to be because he is so emotionally powerful. But nobody is perfectly or archetypally alpha, which means that nobody, and especially no woman, will ever completely accept your frame. And even if they do, it is fleeting: they can get sucked out of it by some other real or imagined alpha male at any time. I am not saying this to intimidate you or dissuade you. The alpha male does whatever the fuck he wants with absolutely no regard to what anybody else thinks, so it is completely irrelevant to him who or who does not accept his frame. When his reality clashes with somebody else’s reality, he insists on his own reality, but he does not push it on anybody. His only mission is to have fun. If you do that, you will be surprised at how many people happily accept your frame.

Because humans evolved the ability to think abstractly, we can project the qualities of the alpha male onto abstract concepts such as “society,” the “media,” the “nation,” the “state,” the “President,” and even God himself, and feel the dominance hierarchy emotions towards those abstractions. Most people would tell you they do not follow an alpha male but nevertheless are afraid of professing a politically incorrect opinion to their best friend in private. Why? Because “society” has replaced God as the ultimate alpha male we worship and obey. Most people cower before some type of alpha male, and if we are not consciously resisting the alpha male, he becomes all the more powerful.

Of course, objective reality does exist and all humans are bound by real limitations. And most people are pretty well socialized as to what “reality” is, so people will look at you strange if you insist that the sky is purple and that you can talk to animals. Nevertheless, to her subconscious mind you must FEEL to as if you can create reality even if you superficially act like a normal, fun, happy guy.

The archetypal alpha male

Betas did not evolve to follow and obey just any alpha male, but rather the archetypal alpha male, the perfect alpha male. The archetypal alpha male can defeat any challenge, has complete abundance, is completely superior, and leads in every respect. He is infinitely alpha across all categories. The archetypal alpha is a fake character created by evolution that only exists in our emotions, and is designed to drive betas towards the man that can best protect and lead them. A beta who seeks a man who can defeat some challenges is less likely to survive in the jungle than a beta who seeks the man who can defeat all challenges.

The archetypal has no weakness, fear, or deficiency, so he can be completely honest about his intentions and will never give a single fuck about what anybody thinks. He will never lie, cheat, or make promises he can’t keep because he has no need to. The archetypal alpha is also fair in that he helps betas who contribute to the cause.

Of course, no real man is actually an archetypal alpha male. Nobody is even close. Women seek the man that is the closest approximation to the archetypal alpha, but because every real man is so far off, women never fully emotionally invest in any real man. I think it is silly for any man to say “I am alpha” – it is more accurate to say that a man “has alpha traits” or “thinks/feels/acts as an alpha would” in a particular moment and situation. Similarly, no man is completely beta. Most men switch between feeling alpha or beta depending on the situation they are in, the people they are around, and the thing they are doing. The biggest beta will feel and act like a badass when he is doing something he is good at, like playing video games, and many otherwise “alpha” guys act like a little bitch when they are around certain women or guys they see themselves as inferior to.

Whether or not you believe God is real, it is useful to study the character of God in religious literature because he clearly appeals to humans’ desire to follow the archetypal alpha: God is a man, who creates reality, makes all rules, provides guidance and leadership, is all powerful, is all knowing, controls all resources, conquers bad guys and challenges, and feels no fear or anxiety. The God of the Bible is closest to the archetypal alpha, which is why he is the most popular of the Gods. It is interesting that the God of the Bible is compassionate, loving, and accepting of his followers, but only if they obey his commandments. God does not NEED anything from anybody, he only helps his followers because they have shown their loyalty by bringing him some kind of sacrifice.

Hacking your mind

Because no real man is the archetypal alpha, we must “hack” our subconscious emotions to feel like the archetypal alpha male, or as close to it as we can. Life is a continuous stream of challenges, most of which we are unprepared for and fail, so we are all prone to beta thoughts and feelings. Therefore, we must fight to prevent our emotions from subconsciously drifting into negativity when we fail or meet a challenge that presents us with uncertainty. Even when you fail, you can’t let yourself FEEL inferior. You must hack your mind so you feel consistently alpha in all things you and in all situations, but most importantly, in difficult situations.

Fortunately, humans have the ability to “intervene” in our thoughts/actions/feelings cycle and change it through action. It is almost impossible to change your thoughts and feelings by just thinking. In fact thinking, reading, and talking about being alpha but being too afraid to do anything reinforces your subconscious mind’s feeling that you are beta. Not only is spending all day on the internet reading manosphere shit without doing anything wasting your time, it is actually making you more beta. Even if your thoughts/actions/emotions cycle is trending positively, you can do something beta and turn the cycle negative again. You must always keep working.

The key to hacking your mind is 1) understanding that the world is governed by rational rules that do not give a fuck about your feelings (or anybody else’s for that matter), 2) ensuring that your rational mind stays in control as much as possible, and 3) controlling your emotions.

As much as I discuss emotion in this article, at the end of the day the world is governed by cold, impersonal, objective, rational rules. These rational rules are freely available for anybody to understand and use to shape their world in their own image, but to do so, you must first control your emotions. Your emotions are just evolutionary tools designed to ensure our survival in the jungle, not objective representations of reality, and you cannot let your emotions guide you. Feeling alpha feels great, but if you try to fight a UFC fighter because you had a few beers and feel “alpha” you will get your ass kicked and quickly realize that the objective rules that govern the world do not give a fuck whether you think you think you are alpha or beta.

Realizing that the world is governed by rational rules is incredibly liberating, especially when dealing with women. Most men have no idea what women want, how they feel, or how their minds work, so they essentially see women as infinitely complicated black boxes that flit from emotion to emotion with no rational explanation or guiding purpose. With no rational guidance, these men are reduced to doing whatever they think will get a positive reaction out of women, allowing women incredible power to manipulate them and terrorize their emotions. This is the basis of cliché lines like “happy wife, happy life” or “the key to a successful marriage is admitting she is always right.”

But once you educate yourself about the rational principles that govern women’s emotions, you can take the lead in the relationship rather than simply reacting to her whims. You can even be a better partner and more “romantic” because you can anticipate what she wants before even knows what she wants. Each woman is infinitely complicated, but the foundational emotions for all women are the same. Best of all, when you get rejected, instead of falling into an existential despair of depression and ruined self-esteem you can analyze your rejection rationally: “I was too needy,” “I didn’t take the lead,” “she wasn’t attracted to me,” “she wasn’t emotionally invested enough to call me back,” etc… So long as women are a mystery to you, you must either give up on women or sacrifice your emotions to a slavemaster you do not understand. But once you understand women’s fundamental wiring, women will lose the power to manipulate you. You can still have beautiful, magical, transcendent relationships with women, you just won’t be terrified by her emotional whims anymore. Even if you do not understand all the relevant elements of women’s psychology, you must have faith that she, like everything else in the universe, is ultimately guided by rational principles.

To control your emotions you must disconnect your “self” from your emotions. “Self” is a nebulous concept, so you can think of your “self” as your ego, your rational mind, or your command center. It is the part of your consciousness that makes your final decisions and the “thing” that you evaluate when you judge yourself and the thing that makes the evaluations. Completely separating your “self” from your emotions is the highest level of enlightenment, and requires lots of meditation, discipline and hard work. Nobody completely makes it, but the closer you can get, the better life you can have. I am not saying you should be an unemotional robot – all humans are emotional, but your fundamental organizing principle should be rational and arrange your emotions to serve you, not the other way around.

Most men fail to separate their “self” from their emotions, so when they fail at something, they subconsciously think they are actually a beta and a worthless loser, and when they succeed at something, they subconsciously think they are the archetypal alpha, and become arrogant assholes. Most men fluctuate wildly between these two poles, oftentimes based on how their boss treated them at work and whether a woman likes them. Because their “self-esteem” is fundamentally based on these emotions, and therefore how people treat them, these men can easily be manipulated, especially by women. The modern media-entertainment complex wants men to identify with their emotions so they can be easily manipulable to purchase things, go along with political agendas, etc...

You must be able to separate your objective evaluation of yourself with the persona you present when holding frame. In my own mind, I am humble and realize I am just a speck of dust floating through space, and could get hit by a bus tomorrow. I am also very aware of my weaknesses and deficiencies, which I am diligently working to improve. To her, however, I am Superman, nothing bad will ever happen, and I have no weaknesses. I don’t act like a delusional maniac – I will admit things that are true (“sorry honey, I am not good at karaoke”), but I will do so in a way that is positive, upbeat, and makes her feel like everything will be all right and we will defeat all challenges (“give me 3 weeks of YouTube singing lessons and I will be the Whitney Houston of karaoke”).

You should evaluate yourself objectively, based on your accomplishments and your characteristics (which are formed by your accomplishments), not based on how others treat you. This is all the more important if you plan on “gaming” because most women, especially those that do not know you very well, will deliver judgments on you that have nothing to do with your actual value. I have gone out, suffered humiliating rejections from a bunch of mediocre women, and then walked over to the next bar and taken home a 9. All rejection is based on some rational reason, which you either can or cannot figure out. If you can’t figure it out, stop obsessing about it. If you can figure out why she rejected you but can’t fix the problem, stop obsessing about it. If you can figure out what you did wrong, fix it. If you are humble and self aware, you should be able to figure out why you got rejected most of the time, and even if you have serious deficiencies you cannot fix, you probably have a lot of areas you can improve and become attractive to women. If you are young and do not have many accomplishments yet, you must still “fake it till you make it.” Evaluating yourself objectively allows you to create a “delusional” persona to present to her, while simultaneously allowing yourself to improve your flaws.

Carl Jung said that most people have a false relationship to reality: some people overestimate their ability to affect reality (too much alpha emotion) and some people underestimate their ability to affect reality (too much beta emotion). Your ideal attitude for your regular life should be in the middle, where you control your emotions and have a “correct” or “rational” evaluation of your ability to affect reality. Arrogance prevents you from humbling yourself before the rational rules that govern reality, and “betaness” makes you too humble and prevents you from attacking reality with adequate vigor. Your feelings of alphaness can even form an unholy alliance with your feelings of betaness, causing you to get lazy because you think you are already the shit. I have seen tons of impressive guys knocked down because they believed their own bullshit. Pride goes before the fall. To repeat, however, the attitude you project to women is that of the archetypal alpha.

It's no secret that for most guys, especially in the modern world, too much betaness is a serious problem. But too much alphaness is also a problem – or more accurately, the problem is falsely identifying your feelings of being an alpha with your “self.” Just as women have a deep, subconscious desire to be with the archetypal alpha, men have a deep, subconscious desire to be the archetypal alpha. And just as women are chasing a character that they can never find, men subconsciously want to be a character that they can never be.

The most dangerous aspect of man’s desire to be the archetypal alpha is his infinite desire to fuck all women. Most men are losers that can rarely get laid by anybody, but all men have this insane desire embedded into their genetics, and once this desire awakens their life can quickly go off the rails. It’s common for lottery winners to lose all their money by blowing it on prostitutes, and many major celebrities have suffered immense damage because of their insatiable need for women. Guys like Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby can get lots of hot women without rape, but their subconscious emotions demanded what the archetypal alpha gets: ANY WOMAN, NO MATTER HOW HOT OR FAMOUS, WHENEVER THEY WANT, INCLUDING RIGHT NOW BITCH. But even though those guys were extremely powerful, they were not as powerful as the archetypal alpha, so they had to resort to rape to feel like him, which ultimately led to their ruin.

Because nothing can make a man feel like an archetypal alpha like a woman can, women are an extremely dangerous and addictive drug. Some of the most “beta” guys I know are good-looking, successful guys that learned some game and got some pussy, but got addicted to the forbidden fruit. Their desires expanded beyond their actual abilities, so now they act needy and desperate to fulfill their addiction, while simultaneously acting arrogant and narcissistic when things go well. The most beta guys in America are not the anime dorks in their mothers’ basements, they are the rich guys in nightclubs in Vegas and LA blowing thousands and sometimes millions of dollars on their impossible quest to feel like the archetypal alpha.

This article focuses on holding frame around women because nobody can fuck with your emotions like women can. To most men, women are the ultimate prize because they fulfill men’s deepest desires for sex, love, affection, companionship and, most importantly, the desire to feel like the archetypal alpha. Simultaneously, women launch massive shit tests at men while trying to determine if they are the archetypal alpha, leaving a string of broken, humiliated, depressed, and betafied losers in their wake. This combination of women’s desirability and the intense challenge they provide makes holding frame around women extremely difficult for most men. But the solution, counterintuitively, is not to play her game; rather, it is to withdraw and focus on defeating challenges.

Read the rest:

Post Information
Title How to hold frame (my complete guide)
Author Woujo
Upvotes 1237
Comments 98
Date 26 April 2018 07:36 PM UTC (3 years ago)
Subreddit TheRedPill
Original Link
Similar Posts

Red Pill terms found in post:

[–]bossplayaintraining88 points89 points  (0 children) | Copy

Sidebar-worthy material. This is great.

[–][deleted] 34 points35 points  (5 children) | Copy

This better be your free teaser ebook or self published so you can get some return on your efforts.

[–]Endorsed ContributorWoujo[S] 38 points39 points  (4 children) | Copy

Thanks. I do hope to turn this into a book. I mostly just needed to figure out these concepts in my own head first.

[–]ntc19953 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

Do you know a good book ? Base on this subject ?

[–]OversizedFish0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

I definitely think you should write a book. Keep us posted. Excellent article.

[–]1scissor_me_timbers000 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

If you need to bounce ideas you should pm me. I think along very similar lines as you. I have a wide education background, but especially with psycho analysis type stuff. I’m gonna start a blog eventually but it’s on the back burner for now. So I’m down to help you develop ideas if you need a sound board.

[–]3LiveAFTSOV60 points61 points  (1 child) | Copy

I've been waiting for your return woujo - cant wait to read this.

[–]RedDespair11 points12 points  (0 children) | Copy

me too. Today I was just reading his earlier post about emotional investment and this pops up out of nowhere

[–]fblackstone65 points66 points  (0 children) | Copy

I read side bar again in this post.

[–]1scissor_me_timbers0026 points27 points  (23 children) | Copy

This is great dude, meta theory is the core of red pill. Thanks for this outpouring of your thoughts. I’d like to add a few things.

The importance of the shame-pride spectrum is crucial to understanding human nature and how it’s rooted in our mammalian nature and how it’s used to manipulate reality.

Pride and shame are opposite poles, and two of the most primal social emotions. In Nietzsche’s tracing of the history of morals he shows how much of what is called morality is ultimately rooted in strength or weakness.

Pride is the emotion of strength and power. It is pre moral. Shame is the emotion of weakness and defeat. It is also pre moral. We can see this in mammals. The alpha lion is the pridebearer of his group. And such with all mammalian groups. You could say pride as an emotion is a social resource, and it is generated by the alpha by his strength, and dispensed thru his approval or disapproval. And this is how he governs his social following.

What happens in humans is that we have this emergence of morality which is socially policed by pride and shame. Humans live within fictional narratives (ie religions and ideologies). Humans developed archetypes in the mind, with god being the eternal alpha archetype. Thus all social behavior is policed not thru one particular alpha male, but a continuity of social norms is established by making the god/eternal alpha archetype the repository of the cultural values and punisher of cultural taboos.

Taking from Freud’s Totem and Taboo, I suspect this originated thru totemology and ancestor worship, where old important alphas were immortalized by the tribe by deifying them, eternalizing their social rules, and making them guardians of the tribe (as spirit). All later alphas would have to demonstrate their favor in the eyes of the prior alphas. This would have been the very primitive origins of how these social emotions evolved into primitive religion, which then evolved into pantheons and monotheism as you described. Eventually you wind up with one eternal alpha.

This leads to strange confusions, for example: being raised in a Christian home, in high school I was confused about whether I should feel proud of myself or ashamed of myself for feeling a girls tits and pussy. My biology and friends told me I should feel proud. Which of course makes sense to us here at TRP. Pride is the emotion of winning and prowess.

But according to the moral system I was raised in, I should feel ashamed. Because according to the social narrative, I had crossed the behavioral guidelines of the eternal alpha, enforced by people with more social power than me like my parents.

This also gives much insight into leftist tactics. They constantly shame people for dissent, which is essentially a power grab, by attempting to posture as the alpha who determines the rules, even tho from a well thought out atheist point of view, the claim of these moral rules being objectively true makes no sense. The left is constantly trying to police reality this way. Which is why donald trump’s refusal to show shame in response to their shaming tactics helped him win the election. Cuz everyone in the country who doesn’t buy into the leftist reality was so happy to see him shit on their attempts to betafy him. Which is unfortunate because he really is a total political amateur and only won because he’s good at a stupid primate social game.

What’s interesting too is that despite religions being probably bullshit, they are superior to leftism because they are adaptive in the face of the harsh realities of life. They evolved to build a social order which could outcompete other social orders.

For example, shaming females for slutty dress and behavior may not truly be rooted in some transcendental rule given by god, but the cultures who did police female sexuality outcompeted the cultures who didn’t. All successful and productive civs in history were explicitly patriarchal and enforced control over female sexuality. Romans, Confucian China, Hindu civilization, Islamic, Christian, etc. If you didn’t, you didn’t progress and thus were overrun or conquered or enslaved etc. All matriarchies in world history never did shit. You can almost conceive of the female as the first aspect of Nature and chaos that the males must conquer in the male quest to conquer and master his environment and nature. He must first conquer his own female(s). This framing does position the female in a sphere below the male, who is fully human and rational in a way the female cannot be, at least in aggregate. She is just the first and foremost elemental force of nature which the male must subdue if he is to continue conquering. Thus patriarchy systematizes this and can be seen as adaptive social technology. And it does this thru the use of pride and shame as social resources, dispensed by the strong (the alpha males, or the mannerbund), to control the behavior of the females. And then the females police each other according to what thy perceive to be the high status behavioral norm.

That’s why in old school religious communities, the women police slutty behavior the strictest. They perceive this to be the high status behavior as per the cultural norm which has been associated with the eternal alpha archetype, aka god.

But in liberal circles, females police the opposite. They try to shame anything holding females back from full sexual freedom, resorting to what they perceive to be the “correct” opinion. Neither the traditional nor the liberal narrative is necessarily factual, but the traditional achieves pro social goals over the long term while the liberal destroys this.

What’s also interesting is how (to the atheist or agnostic), the traditional meta narratives have essentially encoded (unwittingly) the harshness of nature and it’s consequences as the punishment of the eternal alpha. And thus can encode adaptive behaviors over maladaptive behaviors (from a Darwinian viewpoint), under the pretense of punishment or reward from the eternal alpha, represented as an archetype in the collective unconscious. And the prophet or leader or whatever is the mediator or mouthpiece of this.

And to top it all off, a religious believer could still maintain belief in the face of all this, by figuring that God helps or enables populations by dispensing commandments which will aid in flourishing and pro social goals and group fitness.

Of course the nietzschean atheist vantage is also a possibility. Anyway thx for reading. Hope I contributed to understanding.

EDIT: One last thought to help try and tie this together. One observation I had that really helped me piece this together was the totally flippant attitude that females or other males had towards me in my younger years when I called them out on clearly immoral behavior. I was a late bloomer and thus was fairly boyish/beta during much of my formative years. I realized that despite me being entirely correct about a girls shitty immoral behavior. She would not show any shame when I called her out.

On the flip side, there were occasions where I observed similar girls show shame and apologetic attitude when called out by an alpha. Sometimes it was for behavior that wasn’t really wrong. It made me realize that you cannot socially police behavior without strength. Because policing behavior means inflicting shame. And someone who is weaker is not capable of inflicting shame. Only strength and the pride that comes with it can inflict shame. Girls do not show shame in the face of betas who are below them in the social hierarchy. They cheat and treat them poorly and don’t care. Because this is all governed by emotions which have no inherent morality in them. Again, pride and shame are non moral, specifically pre moral. Nietzsche talks about this, I forget where.

As I grew up I also realized I had felt a lot of guilt and shame about myself for things which were not actually my fault or not really wrong. And I realized I only felt bad because deep down I had perceived myself as transgressing against an alpha. Whether I had gotten on the bad side of an alpha in real life or due to my religious upbringing, perceived myself to have transgressed agains the eternal alpha archetype.

Anyway, I guess it all made me realize that there probably are no objective values, but there certainly are adaptive and maladaptive ones. And if social behavior is policed so that shame is inflicted upon maladaptive and anti social behaviors, then a group can flourish and these behaviors become encoded as “truth” or god’s law or whatever. However, where much of leftism goes wrong is promoting the wrong behaviors. This isn’t necessarily wrong in an objective sense. But it certainly can be deleterious to the social body and lead to downfall. This is what the Old Testament essentially is about. The question is, does a god oversee this and try to bestow a set of pro social values which will behoove a nation? Under my analysis, both a religious and atheist model are plausible.

[–]Endorsed ContributorWoujo[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy

I agree with all this. I will make an edit adding that the negative emotions alphas control betas with are depression, anxiety, and shame.

[–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp2 points3 points  (7 children) | Copy

religions They evolved to build a social order which could outcompete other social orders.

Only incidentally, not by design. It was simply unimaginable for the people back then to think religion/god might not be on the first place and might not be worshiped as the ultimate source of knowledge.

That’s why in old school religious communities,

Like Amish who enforce 3 to 1 female to male ratio, right? What divine power must have inspired them to solve the problem of SMP by applying planned-SMP like Soviet Union did it's economy.

females police the opposite. They try to shame anything holding females back from full sexual freedom

Female sexual freedom is not the problem b/c the current society doesn't have problem with sex or access to it - it's main problem is in what women (not just feminists, ALL women) want to happen after the sex happens - which so far is at the level of state supporting the drain of resources from men, punishing men for not supplicating enough and finally giving women the ultimate-hamster: the ability to withdraw consent after the fact and the ability to define sexual assault based on feelings.

Again - it's not about the sex, if it was we would not have seen divorce rapes and false accusations ending in financial settlements. Women want sex wit hot alphas, let them - it's the "women feel entiteled to our money" part that is the problem.

[–]1scissor_me_timbers000 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy

Yeah I know religion only evolved that way incidentally. Of course it wasn’t masterminded by primitives. That was what I was trying to get at is the way the archetypes work in the collective subconscious.

And yes sex is the crux of it because without family units your society breaks down, and when females are high risk for cheating (and divorce rape which is a good point you add), marriage become more scarce. But it’s still about sex.

[–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy

And yes sex is the crux of it because without family units

Family unit != sex. Sex is sex. Family unit belongs to the second part I was talking about.

[–]1scissor_me_timbers000 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy

You were saying its about the financials and how women can fuck a guy over that way cuz of the courts. I agree but it’s her hypergamy largely as well. I would say primarily this is about managing hypergamy. Which is what I meant by sex. Patriarchy promotes the family unit by governing female hypergamy, and thus harnesses manpower for civilizational growth because all the betas can now be more assured that their kids are his and she will not leave for a higher male.

[–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy

I would say primarily this is about managing hypergamy.

You can't manage hypergamy. We've been trying to do so since the beginning of human civilisation some 10-15 000 years ago. If that haven't happened after 10 000 years, it's pretty reasonable to assume it's probably impossible to do so.

[–]1scissor_me_timbers001 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy

Lol nonsense. You can never get to 100% sure, but you can still manage it and reduce its effects. C’mon dude. Today’s women are way sluttier than last eras.

[–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

Today’s women are way sluttier than last eras.

They were always like that, we just didn't know. And we were actively participating in hiding their nature.

We found out b/c we invented internet and it allowed us to pool, almost-real time, individual stories, turn them into a statistical data set and draw conclusions. That's how PUA and TRP was born.

I also think that without sexual revolution and feminism, things like PUA and TRP would have never appeared b/c both PUA and TRP are responses to female sexual strategy coming out from under the yoke of entitled BPs and betas known as trad-cons. PUA is the response to the sex becoming harder to get (since women gained overt ability to choose sexual partners themselves), TRP is the response to the trend of women gaining more and more covert power over society (under the overt guise of equality).

IOW if the trad-con losers didn't try to logically steer, enforce women's sexuality (b/c they promoted BP garbage like honour and chivalry which women don't give a fuck about, nor should they), feminism would have never appeared. Trad-cons told women "you must be like we want you to be", women said no and started emancipation which led to feminism. Nowdays women are telling men "you must be like we want you to be" and slowly but surely men are starting to say no too and, as was the case with feminism at its beginning, so is the RP considered a socially unacceptable, a radical movement for crazy people who don't want to conform to the majority.

You OTOH want to go back to step one - start regulating women's sexuality by logic and rational rules. Women won't allow that (and it wont work on them, as it haven't worked before). I wont allow it b/c it would be making the same mistake again. A mistake that is painfully obvious and clear in hindsight. Repeating that kind of obvious mistakes is just pure stupidity and lack of creativity in solution seeking.

[–]1scissor_me_timbers00-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

You’re making an awful lot of assumptions about what I said or implied.

[–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp0 points1 point  (13 children) | Copy

the cultures who did police female sexuality outcompeted the cultures who didn’t.

Give a few meaningful examples of civilisations that were in direct competition.

All successful and productive civs in history were explicitly patriarchal

They were patriarchal not b/c they considered patriarchy to be the best governance system, but b/c back in the ancient and pre-historic times patriarchy - the rule by men - came from competence b/c our physical prowess and capability was required to get anything done. Hunt that elk, go get the man. Build a house, go get the men. Win that turfwar, go get the men.

Thus we earned our position not by being men per se (no "divine right" for men to rule over women), but by being more competent, better adapted gender when it came to what mattered back then. That is the origin of patriarchy.

So chill with the "patriarchy was better than the other systems" b/c there were literally no other systems that developed to any historically meaningful position.

and enforced control over female sexuality.

Well, not exactly. We had rules for BOTH genders, especially the European and the Christian civilisations. No doubt the rules prioritized women as the main culprit of "evil" but the rules themselves are not a predictor (let alone a requirement) of why a civilisation flourishes. Things like climate, local resources, trade routes, the level of "technology" in agriculture, the ability to sanitize, wars and many others are much more important in the long run.



Didn't have patriarchy - it's not the men who ruled - it was the fathers, a specific subset of men, not ALL men over ALL women.

Thus the daughter that married a guy was subordinate not to her husband but the HER father first and foremost.

It's also worth nothing that women in Rome had rights that gave them certain independence from men in the first place.


Confucian China

No such thing as "Confucian China" existed. Confucius had a large philosophical and political impact, but this had little do do with why China flourished as civilisation in the first place. It happened 250 years after Confucius died, during Qin dynasty, which centralized power which stabilized the economy and agriculture (before that China was a shitshow of clan wars, eldest son was given leadership, father was removed, younger sons were forced out to start their own lineages), allowed for easy and efficient trade (transportation, common currency) and more efficient agriculture (stores, irrigation, distribution). The Qin dynasty shaped the China into monolithic entity that we all know.

It was the next dynasty - the Han that was influenced by Confucius the most - but not his idea of "women being subordinate to men" but by the need for science and education which pushed Chinese into their Golden Age.


Hindu civilization,

At its peak, the Indus Civilisation may have had a population of over five million.[8] Inhabitants of the ancient Indus River valley developed new techniques in handicraft (carnelian products, seal carving) and metallurgy (copper, bronze, lead, and tin). The Indus cities are noted for their urban planning, baked brick houses, elaborate drainage systems, water supply systems, and clusters of large non-residential buildings.[9] Children's toys were found in the cities, with few weapons of war, suggesting peace and prosperity.[10] Their trade seals, decorated with animals and mythical beings, indicate they conducted thriving trade with lands as far away as Sumer in southern Mesopotamia.[10]

IOW, as with the Chinese - no patriarchy, just technology and resources and decent governing system.

Moreover after that period passed, in the next one:

Women during the early Vedic period enjoyed equal status with men in all aspects of life.

Rig Vedic verses suggest that women married at a mature age and were probably free to select their own husbands in a practice called swayamvar or live-in relationship called Gandharva marriage

Gandharva marriage - This ancient marriage tradition from the Indian subcontinent was based on mutual attraction between two people, with no rituals, witnesses or family participation

This pointed to the fact that polygamy was matched with polyandry during the Vedic era. Women could select their husband in an assembly called 'swayamwar'. In this practice, the father of the woman would invite all the men and the woman would select one, and marry him while the court watched. This clearly showed how women's rights were taken seriously during the Vedic era. This practice was prevalent till the 10th century A.D.

Idols of god and goddess were depicted with equal importance to both genders. Separate temples were setup for goddesses, and within each temple, goddesses were treated and worshipped with as much care and devotion as the gods were.

On top of that add the usual: resources, technology, peace and so on...


TL/DR: So much for the patriarchy.

[–]Anon-Dutch1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

James, great response, there is nothing like some historical facts to put bullshit in check. I did however perceive a bit of a contradiction. You stated in regards to patriarchy that "there were literally no other systems that developed to any historically meaningful position." In contrast you seem to imply that the Indus civilization during the Vedic period was not patriarchal. Was that not the intended implication? Or how do you reconcile that seeming contradiction? More importantly, beyond rebuking the other user, what point are you trying to make in regards to patriarchy? Do you not believe it to be the natural order or societally optimal approach? I am genuinely curious. I fully internalized the red pill a long time ago and am now mostly interested in these topics not from a personal but a societal perspective. If I were emperor of the world, how would I design the optimal (dare I say utopian) society. Would it be patriarchal? Would men and women be given equal rights? Would women revert to chattel? The answer is almost certainly in the middle, the question is where? What is "right" (which in my view means what is optimal for the human species, greatest good for the greatest number etc)?

[–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

how do you reconcile that seeming contradiction?

I don't TBH, I was as surprised by what I read about the Vedics as you are by the contradiction in my reply. IOW I was uninformed, and now I know better - what's funniest is that it's all still withing the gist of what I meant - to question that patriarchy is somehow the most important thing to have for the civilisation to flourish.

When I read the original comment I replied to, I decided to do a quick factchecking and I turned out that Vedic people had some form of equal rights for men and women. I highly doubt that relieved men from doing the majority of the work, but the "patriarchy as requirement for civilisation" went out through the window regardless b/c here you have a civilisation in which men are doing most of the work, a cvilisation that is thriving but there's no patriarchy.

Do you not believe it to be the natural order or societally optimal approach?

No, I don't believe it's "natural order", it's more like "we evolved like that back then" (thousands of years ago up until last few hundred years).

It's like saying a tiger is the top predator. He is in a jungle, but then again it's not when you put him into a cage in a zoo when he gets fed by an outside source and is protected from the elements and other animals

Patriarchy came (in short) from us, men, being the do-ers in the prehistorical, ancient and modern historical periods. That changed, especially during and after the industrial revolution. It's still changing, to the point when male physical prowess is MUCH less important for the civilisation or culture to exist. But not for women.

For women male prowess was always tied in one form or another to them being sexually attracted to us. Women who are sexually attracted to men, submit to them.

Since the period in which we were required to have that prowess was much longer than the recent 200 years in which that prowess stopped being required, a lot of men and a lot of ideologies took the sexual attraction of women to physically capable men (and thus their submission) as "women should just submit to men" (without men required to be physically capable, attractive). They believe themselves to be the wild tiger in the jungle, while being docile, tamed house cats in reality.

Women will not submit to men, b/c being a man is not enough. You have to be sexually attractive to them first.

[–]1scissor_me_timbers001 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy

I can’t bring myself to respond to this point by point but you really miss the gist of what I’m saying. Obviously there’s more to what causes a civ to flourish than just patriarchy. My point was that patriarchy is necessary but not sufficient. But generally speaking, all high cultures in world history had a patriarchal order of some form or other, which policed female sexuality. Yes male sexuality too, but that’s really a different animal.

[–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy

I can’t bring myself to respond to this point by point

So just respond to one point:

the cultures who did police female sexuality outcompeted the cultures who didn’t.

Give a few meaningful examples of civilisations that were in direct competition.

[–]1scissor_me_timbers000 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy

Many primitive cultures are matriarchal. And they don’t go anywhere. They live in mud huts. There’s one in China. It’s some little tribal culture surrounded by the sea of high Han Chinese civilization.

Oh and when I said Confucian China, I know it’s not all due to Confucius. But their social order is heavily influenced by him. Specific to this discussion is his notion of filial piety, which is that children respect and submit to parents, wife submits to husband, subjects submit to emperor, emperor submits to “way of heaven”. Chinese culture has always been patriarchal and this is in encoded in the Confucian social order. Again, patriarchy is necessary but not sufficient for civilizational flourishing.

When women begin to rule, it’s a symptom and accelerator of civilizational decay. Late Rome is an example of this.

[–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy

I asked you to give examples to support your claim:

the cultures who did police female sexuality outcompeted the cultures who didn’t.

IOW give meaningful examples of 2 cultures of this kind next to eachother, competing, then provide arguments supporting the idea that it was b/c of the patriarchy that one of them won over their neighbour.

If you don't do that or if you don't have examples of that, I will conclude that you're just pulling conjectures out of your ass b/c you have a need to "blame wimminz for everything".

Many primitive cultures are matriarchal. And they don’t go anywhere.

Many primitive cultures are/were patriarchal and they don't go anywhere either. In fact MOST of patriarchal cultures so far have declined or simply ceased to exists (for various reasons, that re by your logic irrelevant). Thus, by your brilliant logic I can now declare that statistically patriarchy is the weakest form of governance since majority of patriarchal cultures declined already. I can even declare that b/c it was your logic I used to come to this conclusion - that you are against patriarchy and thus, I can further conclude that if that's the case - that you are a feminist.

When women begin to rule, it’s a symptom and accelerator of civilizational decay. Late Rome is an example of this.

That garbage has been done here a few times over. Every time some "patriarchy FTW" ideologue stars about how women or feminism destroyed the Roman Empire, he gets his ass handed back to him in comments by people who actually know history.

And while we're at factchecking, why don't you make an alt account, go to /askhistorians and simply ask them about your theories?

[–]1scissor_me_timbers000 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

It’s not primarily because of women dude. You really allow for no nuance. Obviously lots of shit combined caused the fall of the Roman Empire. I’m not blaming women. It happens due to men becoming pussified. One effect of that is their society crumbling over time. Another effect of that is women getting unruly and growing more powerful.

Obviously most patriarchies also declined. For the third fucking time you tard, patriarchy is necessary but not sufficient. So yeah most don’t go anywhere. But every single conquering civ is explicitly patriarchal. And absolutely zero productive or conquering civs were matriarchal. Zero. It’s a fails as a social system to foster large scale growth.

[–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

It happens due to men becoming pussified.

Obviously lots of shit combined

Yeah, obviously a lot of shit combined, but "women coming into power" and "men becoming pussified" are your top 2 reasons. Neither of which really happened.

patriarchy is necessary

But every single conquering civ is explicitly patriarchal.

Obviously most patriarchies also declined.


Your "nuance" is simply saying "well i know the historical facts dont support my ideas at all, but just ignore that and stick to patriarchy as the most important reason".

My "nuance" tells me that you want and need to have patriarchy to be on top simply b/c the idea of men not being the greatest thing ever (god forbid women having a role in the development of a civilisation) is emotionally unacceptable for you. IOW you're attached to this idea like you would be to your oneitis.

[–]viral_left_stroke0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

If the point of discussion and debate is to win people to your viewpoint, you do a terrible job of it.

[–]3LiveAFTSOV0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy

I thought you were supporting feminism and the feminine imperative... as I kept reading I realized this was a clever diss towards the idea of "OPPRESSIVE PATRIARCHY"

[–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

Since you really want to AMOG, here's my take:

I thought you were supporting feminism and the feminine imperative

You thought that b/c SJW-trp-style (like you or NRS) look at only whether something is for/against the collectively accepted dogmas (believing them to be permanent and immovable), instead of looking on how the dogmas came to be in the first place to understand how and why the world looks the way it does.

For you it's more important to be "for" or "against" something, it's more important to belong to a group, it's more important to please your group ("see, he's not with us!!!!!!" and now "see, he's with us!!!!", IOW you derive your value not by deepening your understanding, but by instigating which hunts - and that's squarely aimed at pleasing the group).

The TL/DR of your comment section is choke full of examples of that.

You should rethink what do you want to to get out of this forum, b/c so far you're only getting better at sucking the groupthink's cock - it's just that the cock is not blue anymore, it's red now.

as I kept reading I realized this was a clever diss towards the idea of "OPPRESSIVE PATRIARCHY"

Case in point.

[–]3LiveAFTSOV2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy

I must admit, your comment made me chuckle out loud in real life. Not a full blown laugh, but it was a good little chuckle.

b/c so far you're only getting better at sucking the groupthink's cock

Thats some top level Machiavellian suck skills bro, it's in my sneaky Italian blood, or maybe im just an idiot follower...

EDIT: or maybe Im doing that thing GLO said that one time about "being the biggest party bro" at the club, or something.

you or NRS, look at only whether something is for/against the collectively accepted dogmas

I dont see how I could have been AMOGing you. you seemed to have been playing the devil's advocate. While you're doing that now, I realized you weren't in the other comment.

Sure, you may have "deepened your understanding of social-archy norms" but in the end, your conclusion proves the point that there is no oppressive patriarchy, nor has there ever been one unless it was necessary, and there has even been the opposite.

You're like the nerd who says "AWKCHuALLY there IS no patriarchy." Then gives all these facts, and Then I agree with you. I dont know why you would get mad at me for that.

But hey man, atleast you gave me something to think about

[–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

Thats some top level Machiavellian suck skills bro, it's in my sneaky Italian blood, or maybe im just an idiot follower...

EDIT: or maybe Im doing that thing GLO said that one time about "being the biggest party bro" at the club, or something.

Or maybe you're looking for an excuse to rationalize your behaviour.

I dont see how I could have been AMOGing you

(A)I thought you were supporting feminism and the feminine imperative... (B)as I kept reading I realized this was a clever diss towards the idea of "OPPRESSIVE PATRIARCHY"

"(A)hey man I had the same shirt in first grade" ... "(B) but it's a really nice shirt."

It's the oldest AMOG tactic ever, backhanded compliment:

(B)You look good (A) for a reddit user. (B)Great job (A) even for you.

you seemed to have been playing the devil's advocate

Say you like Patriots and I'm explaining how and why did they lose some game. For you I'm devil's advocate b/c you're emotionally attached to the concept of Patriots being infallible, for me it's "this is what happened, let's find out why".

your conclusion proves the point that there is no oppressive patriarchy

Now I'm going to play's devil's advocate: there is an "oppressive patriarchy" - it's in the "anger phased" part of alt-right and TRP which demand women submit to men b/c "they always did/they should", without realizing that women submit to men based on merits and alpha traits. IOW the "oppressive patriarchy" on TRP/alt-right is based on male entitlement complex. Not that much different from liberal SJW, huh?

[–]parodixicalreaction41 points42 points  (12 children) | Copy

I wonder how much time alphas sit around thinking about this stuff

[–]Endorsed ContributorWoujo[S] 61 points62 points  (3 children) | Copy

I know you're being a snarky fuck, but you make a good point, which I should address (I thought I already did, but I will do it again).

A lot of "naturally" alpha guys "accidentally" do this stuff because they actually feel powerful, abundant, superior, etc... They don't know any of this stuff, they just do what they feel like. But the problem with following your emotions is that if shit in your life goes wrong and your emotions take a bad turn, then you have trouble pulling yourself out of it. I know tons of "alpha" guys that ran into a woman who fucked them over or a tough life situation and became beta.

Also, knowing things is better than not knowing things. The stereotype of the alpha male as a dumb jock has some truth because, as I describe, the alpha is not focusing on anything else but his goals. But in today's world you cannot afford to live in ignorance.

[–]refusewool4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

This is essentially the ‘natural alpha’ vs the ‘learned alpha’ (i.e. some of us) dichotomy.

[–]avocadowithsalt1231 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

I think it is normal for any Alpha to sometimes slip into beta mode. I know how it sounds.

But after harsh life events or break up it is humanly to have a down time for a short period. However, while you are younger and still a bit naive. Guys older then 30 should not experience this.

Guys who are 100% to this can be just some kind of cluster b personality disorder, likely sociopaths.

[–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp21 points22 points  (5 children) | Copy

They don't. Never met a a natural alpha who would understand any of the core game concepts.

There are two problems however: most of TRP readers are not natural alphas, they are self made alphas who needed training and teachers.

Second problem is: the natural alpha will fold and hand himself on his rope once the thing's get off his usual rails: once people test him or a girl rejects him, he's just as clueless what to to as a beta/BP.

[–]Endorsed ContributorAuvergnat7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy

As Roosh or Rollo would say, there are no naturals. Just people who learned younger and faster somehow.

Some people learn that stuff from observing others at a young age and got it fast. Others need to read a 55-pages long extensive treatise on the topic to even start beginning considering learning it.

[–]1AuspexAO0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

This is insightful. I was born a beta, so I'll never have the perfect killer instincts of an alpha, but I have also faced a lot of failure and have known what it's like to get shit on. Those experiences also made me stronger. In theory, a perfect alpha would also be perfectly adaptable, so failure wouldn't phase him and he would rise above it. However, I think the reality of actual alpha men as opposed to the perfect example we use is that the guys who are naturally talented often don't have the discipline to overcome obstacles like someone who has "earned" it.

[–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

so I'll never have the perfect killer instincts of an alpha

You will have a better one if you cultivate it.

Don't idolize alphas or naturals b/c to idolize them you must first deem yourself inferior. That's counterproductive, and if you put the work in, probably untrue.

[–]1AuspexAO0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

You know it, brother. I try to think of it as gene therapy. I'm adopting their traits to further myself as an organism. Naturally, I respect their raw ability to get women, but I do have desirable traits of my own (non PU game related) that I think make for a better all-around man.

[–]miserablesisyphus5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy

Even if she is acting bored, disinterested, mean, or distracted, she is secretly noticing and analyzing everything you do and will (possibly) come around and emotionally invest if you hold frame. Most men lose patience, so they do something to get an immediate positive reaction, usually by supplicating or acting like a little bitch. Holding frame means your primary motivator must be your own desire to have fun, not her reactions.

The whole post was great, but this resonated with me. Women who are hit on all the time use this strategy a lot and it weeds out the weak men. There's a saying that goes "it takes money to make money". Really it just means that you must be willing to risk a lot to gain a lot. You're a man, risk your ultimate identity to gain it back and more.

[–]lifeisweirdasfuck0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

That’s why people here say “always assume attraction”

[–]insanestratt9 points10 points  (0 children) | Copy

Fantastic writeup. I reread each paragraph at least 2 to 3 times and really tried to see what you were saying. Took me like an hour and a half lol. Great stuff, and mostly everything you said resonated with me. I feel like many people I know could benefit from reading this.

[–]WSBagholder7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy

My side bar tingles are kicking in again.

[–]daniael319 points10 points  (0 children) | Copy

Great post, the part of social dominance is spot on. I am still young, and so we have "groups" of friends. Whenever im with my usual group, I feel beta. I can't, im not out to face challenges and be fun. And that is because there is someone who is able to do that better than me. I stick with the group because of the beta part of the mind seeking survival from the archetypical alpha. However, when I am around a group I don't normally hangout with, but where I subconcisuely know I am the closest thing to an alpha at, I go out, and feel like the sh*t. I am out to have fun, my dgaf attidute just comes naturally, I am able to just keep my frame. This post opened my eyes. My frame, wasn't coming from within, it was because I was around people who I felt like I need to be leading. As to what I will do in the future bears the question. "Do I want to be the head for rats, or tail to the lions". And I start thinking, where would be beneficial for me ? Well, if my current level of frame and value as a man allows me to only be head to rats, then I shall. After my value gets increased. I become more adundant, more fit, frame more in my normal attidute, is when I shall be able, and more so I will - naturally become head to higher value men. Thanks for this awesome post. Truly opened my eyes as to where my frame stands.

[–]ApexmanRP7 points8 points  (6 children) | Copy

Great post man, however, I strongly disagree with this line.

"Because nothing can make a man feel like an archetypal alpha like a woman can, women are an extremely dangerous and addictive drug."

If a guy needs a particular woman to make him feel like an archetypal alpha, she will at some point do something (shit test) to wreck his view of himself, if he needs her validation.

It will pretty quickly turn to shit.

[–]pridebrah3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy

Yeah I don't think I agree with that either. The times I've felt the most 'alpha' have been after accomplishing goals (especially monetary) and fighting another man (combat sports). Women can inspire this to a degree via sex if they're submissive and worship the ground you walk on, but it still pales in comparison to the previous things I've experienced.

Typically the guys I've known that get a noticeable boost of alpha confidence just from having women around are usually the most fragile internally. As soon as the women go, so does their confidence and alpha view.

[–]ApexmanRP0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Yeah I agree..

I think you have to keep the buzz you get from sex in check, with the other elements of your life.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

I agree with you but you're misquoting him. He said "a woman" and "women", not "a particular woman". And what he said was absolutely right, a woman sucking your dick literally and metaphorically can fuck with your brain and make you think you're the baddest mother fucker on the planet, it's like coke

[–]ApexmanRP0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Sure, I see your point about "women" vs "a woman"..

That said, while a love a beautiful woman sucking my dick, I still keep in my head "its just my turn".. right up to the point i come in her mouth..

[–]1AuspexAO0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

I didn't read that as a single woman. I don't think he's advocating oneitis. I think it's more like the reward for your alpha traits can also be dangerous, because the second you start feeling like you don't have to work hard anymore, someone is going to fuck you over. I think it's a call for discipline even when you think you've got your game on lock.

[–]ApexmanRP0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Yeah I am totally with you on the discipline front..

Shes just a compliment to my life..

[–]BlackCraneStoic3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

All obsession with status is essentially a deep seated fear of rejection.

I'll expound further on this. Rejection in the wilderness amongst a protective tribe is death. When a person fears rejection (or anything for that matter) it's linked to the primal fear of death.

My theory that I'd love to make a post on at some point is that a child's greatest fear is abandonment/rejection from the parents since death is essentially guaranteed from this in the jungle. When a random woman rejects a male to the point where he becomes depressed, anxious, etc it's because that male is because he subconsciously views that woman as his mother in a sense. That fear is a child survival mechanism projecting onto said woman. In other words betas are under developed men akin to boys.

Men who correspond more with the alpha archetype when faced with rejection from women shrug it off because he only depends on himself for survival. Due to this fact rejection means nothing to him so that innate primal trigger has no impact. I feel are the two distinctions between "Alpha" and " Beta" when it comes to women. A beta is an underdeveloped man-child from a psychological/emotional perspective whereas "Alphas" are well developed self confiding Men.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

"Your thoughts and emotions should always be on the challenges you are working on, the books you have read, the new ideas you are processing, the art you appreciate, ways you are improving yourself, your goals, etc… When she is around you, she must feel like she is competing for your attention with your thoughts and emotions, which are inherently more exciting and interesting than her (if they weren’t, she wouldn’t be interested in you), but you pay her attention out of grace because she has done things for you. "

This is pure gold. I can't emphasize enough how important this is. I'm in a semi retirement right now, so my time is all mine every day. Mostly it is equally divided between the gym, the bookstore, and organic foods. I'm really big right now on autobiographies of famous rock stars, but all autobiographies are great because you get tremendous exposure to great minds and how they think. This game is almost all mental. Trust me, it is.

[–]buttgoogler9 points10 points  (0 children) | Copy

Holy shit, a lot of us needed this. Thank you, good Sir.

[–]trpmkb12 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy

Always enjoy seeing articles by you. Cheers homie.

[–]Coroshi2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy

I read your whole article and quite frankly this doesn't do it justice. Strongly recommend the full read.

[–]Ezaar1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Solid shit and worthy of more attention.

[–]AnjaJutta1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

An amazing read. Thank you for your contribution. I clicked your ads.

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]Huertthescholastic1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

I can't believe anyone could do such an amazing job.

This essay is really important, and I wish every man could have the chance to read the entire thing.

This is truthfully very important data for men.

Again, thank you for your work.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy

"Holding frame" literally just means being consistent and assertive with your wants and needs. If you don't want to do something, make it known. If your gf is being a bitch and throwing a fit? Talk it out with her in a level headed way without getting mad or annoyed. Your friend being a dick? Tell him, but don't be a dick about it. People respect rationality and people calling them on their shit, assuming you do it in a socially acceptable way, especially women. If they're being irrational they know it, and placating or ignoring their shitty behavior subconsciously tells her that you're ok putting up with her bullshit which can open a Pandora's box of shit tests, let alone the fact she will respect you less.

If you don't have frame, if you aren't a man with boundaries who demands to be treated a certain way, then you'll be walked over by everyone. And women don't want to walk over guys, but if she doesn't feel respect for him then it's only gonna lead to a loss of attraction and frustration on her part. Compromise is important in a relationship, but there are certain things you cannot compromise as a man and if you ever feel like your wants and needs aren't being met, you cannot stay idle and expect to be a man people respect.

[–]majestyalphaq0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Awesome summary. Is this really all frame id about?

[–]ozenmacher0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Wonderful, in-depth, fantastic writeup on the challenges men face in this world. A new world, where our base evolutionary biology is in constant contrast to a world in which we are hyper-influenced by technology, media, and other types of influences our chimp brains were never made to understand. At the end of the day, however, the challenge is still the same. And that is...the ability to overcome obstacles, self-improve, and focus on ones mission. That never changes. Doesn't matter how short, tall, fat, ugly, poor, rich, or boring you may be, you have one option as a man. Die, or spread your genes to the next generation. I choose the latter.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

thanks for this, can't wait to get into it. You forgot to add in the table of contents the sections "Defeating challenges", "magic feelings" and "sex". have a good one

[–]Viscxi 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy

I turned this into a PDF. You're welcome.

[–]Angu_jungle_poo0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Great post mate albiet made me feel like I was back in history class again a bit hehe.

The most beta guys in America are not the anime dorks in their mothers’ basements, they are the rich guys in nightclubs in Vegas and LA blowing thousands and sometimes millions of dollars on their impossible quest to feel like the archetypal alpha.

Right on. I swear one of the biggest issues with boys becoming men is that they set their sites on some insecure rich womanizer character that is fundamentally unhappy with their life. The "American Dream" hahaha. We can become MEN, that is the goal! We can be free to do, think, act and fell what WE want, not what some robotic society thinks we 'should'. I don't want to be Bill Gates... I don't want to be on the front of Buissness International or PlayBoy, I want to do my own thing and OWN it!

[–]yourmomlikes2690 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

I agree with all of this and MGTOW 100%, it is factual. However one thing always comes up in my mind when trying to understand the dichotomy. Why do we put so much effort on pleasing or trying to bait to nab a dumb woman ? All of this effort is not in vain and it does make us better men, I just hope we are doing all these things for ourselves and not them, I am at least. After 24 yrs with the same woman , i have 0 fucks to give about these shallow gold digging whores, just my 2 cents. Thanks. Edit : New thought FWIW - I identify more as a Sigma Male than straight up extroverted Alpha , I suspect a lot of us do and we should consider this when talking about Alpha males.

[–]YngWn0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

It just came to me as an insight reading the part about "betas would find challenges fun through alpha males e.t.c."

This applies so DAMN well with women. If a woman finds you as an alpha, she's not going to fucking refuse to eat your ass, cuz you find it cool/fun, but if she finds you as a beta... damn you'll be lucky to get a blowjob.

[–]Endorsed ContributorTaipanshimshon0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

The basic tenet of the male is ownership.

He owns his life, his women his resources and so on.

He does what he does not because he should, but because he wants to. He takes care of HIS women, HIS kid, HIS property and so on.

Any beta trait on an alpha can be beneficial .

A similar beta trait on a beta is not attractive and therefore not beneficial .

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

I like to muse on Redpill concepts in movies and literature, and something clicked when I read this:

Our emotions require novelty and a challenge, so no matter how rich or attractive you are, she will get bored if you are static.

I couldn't figure out why, in Casino, Ginger goes back to the loser even though she has Ace. Now I know.

Great article.

[–]Asianhopz0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

This was absolutely amazing to read.

[–]saransh6610 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Bullshit or Unicorn shit, shit's still shit. Similarly, it isn't always a piece of gold if it's coming from an endorsed member. To all the new guys I say this : SIDEBAR IS ENOUGH! There's a difference between wisdom and useful wisdom Don't become an overanalytical bitch. While I appreciate you OP for investing a good amount of time thinking and contributing by sharing your share of newly connected dots. Just remember to not get stuck inside your mind and lose touch with reality.

[–]trppr0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

You could lose the pretense of evolutionary psychology all together. It doesn't really add much to what you're saying, especially when Jungian theories are really the driving force of your essay. The evo-psych stuff just feels tacked on to appease certain types.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

tldr; Mean what you say, say what you mean.

"I'm a shitty situation right now and it will take me aproximately a couple more years to get out of it." "What else do you want to know"?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

What a great article. thanks for sharing this, this was something missing in my life.

[–]inthenameofkek0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Black Pidgeon Speaks gives a good breakdown of female nature.

[–]smyger0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Write a book. I will be the first one to read it!

[–]Thynome0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

RemindMe! 8 hours "Read this"

[–]Thynome0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

RemindMe! 7 hours "The alpha male and reality"

[–]windopsil0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

I’d encourage anyone into this to listen to Patrice O’Neil’s ‘the Black Phillip Show’

[–]st3roids1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

honestly the whole alpha beta is bs. the whole thing is just semantics in redpill but you took it literally .

the investment part is real though and scientific proven

[–]BuddhistSC-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

>humans did not evolve to understand the difference between objective reality and the alpha’s rules.


[–]Lambdal7-4 points-3 points  (8 children) | Copy

Women are only attracted to real men to the extent they are similar to the archetypal alpha.

This already is wrong. Women are definitely not only attracted to men that are the archetypal alpha male. In fact, many women significantly dislike this kind of alpha male and they appreciate other qualities much more most of the time.

How do i know? Around half of the women I know (Sample size 500) are in a relationship with a normal, nice guy. Few are in a realtionship with an archetypal alpha. Maybe only 10%. Look around you, how many women you know are in a relationship with nice guys that are confident, have a good career, are intelligent, but don't have many typical alpha behaviours.

Now you could say that the reason for that is that there are not many archetypal alphas, thus not many women are in a relationship with one. This is one factor. But often these women (the first half) don't need an alpha and value a strong connection much more than a real leader. They are reserved, traditional, shy, not attention seeking, not as girly, timid. They chose a nice guy that is not a "nice guy" and who has strong inner game and who has some alpha qualities over an archetypical alpha. They also have lower expectations, are happy as a teacher or secretary and lead a simple life. They are not as ambitious and are a bit scared to take risks or to do something out of the ordinary. Often, they also have a below average libido.

That being said, having alpha traits doesn't harm your game, even for these girls. However, being a typical alpha as descibed in the article that fucks a lot of women turns these women off, most of the time, because also, these shy girls have their moments, at a certain point in their cycle where they are really sexually attracted to an alpha and they want him to fuck her. All of the shy girls also want to fuck an alpha at least once in their twenties. However, this desire loses its strength after the first or second time.

Then, there is the other half. The bitchy, materialistic, attention-seeking, high libido, superifical girls. They alternate between nice guys with strong inner game and archetypical alphas, because both have their upsides and too much of one thing becomes boring (the former) or too stressful (the latter) for them.

Finally, the article was very unstructured. I've read some really good articles by you, but a long article like this needs an even tighter structure to leave an impression.

Apparently, the article is about holding frame, but then it says not much about frame, but about alpha males, a topic with some overlap.

It would be a lot nore helpful if you categorized different sections of the articles including subpoints, because right now, the subsections are interchangeable and don't help to structure the article at all.

[–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy

In fact, many women significantly dislike this kind of alpha male and they appreciate other qualities much more most of the time.

Everyone wants to be rich, but majority still works normal jobs.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy

You've misinterpreted that point entirely. Read it again and play close attention to "to the extent". It means that women are attracted to men with a certain level of alphaness, and the level of attraction rises based on that level of alphaness also rising. Nice guys can exhibit smaller levels of alphaness and therefore women can certainly be attracted to them and want relationships with them (basically the point you've made), they just won't be considered as attractive as a man with higher levels of alphaness.

[–]Lambdal71 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

What is the "only" then. That's the word that makes the premise strange.

It means that women are attracted to men with a certain level of alphaness, and the level of attraction rises based on that level of alphaness also rising

This is also not true. Every woman has a certain level of tolerance for alphaness depending on how much she likes you, what level of comfort she feels, what kind of girl she is and how she feels right now.

More alphaness doesn't infinitely increase attraction. It starts killing attraction at a certain point more and more and does so faster, the less she likes you, has comfort, the less she is feeling horny right now.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

The "only" makes perfect sense, doesn't change the context at all. It can be rephrased as "women are only attracted to men for as long as they demonstrate alpha personality features."

And yes, women have different levels of tolerance for alphaness in a relationship, but attraction and relationship desirability are not the same thing. There are girls in my past I was intensely attracted to but I wouldn't enter into a relationship with them in a million years, and it's the same with women. You also need to separate the archetypal douchebag from the archetypal alpha: Alphas can still have friendly, desirable qualities, they just have extremely strong frame. Some girls dislike alphas because they can't exercise control in the relationship, but they're still almost always gonna be attracted to them.

[–]fifi5081 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

That’s because Most women settle to be part of their feminist social group. Those men have no self respect or ambition so they allow themselves to be in a dead relationships. All they know is to live and die a slave to someone. Don’t even bother with relationships nowadays for real, unless she depends on you. So many women low key cheat, It’s terrible. A smart dude like me can just research/exploit your weaknesses and use that to fuck your girl. Give her emotions she blatantly doesn’t get from you. Girls are cruel, liars and boring. They just want money, dick, and emotional attention.

[–]Endorsed ContributorWoujo[S] 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy

Did you read the entire article? It feels like you did not. It seems like you misunderstand my concept of what the archetypal alpha is, and you seem to miss where I address most of what you are saying here.

[–]Lambdal71 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

I did and wouldn't the article be more accurate and long lasting if you could sum up the core take aways for each section and change your whole premise to something in this form.

Women feel the strongest sexually attraction to real men to the extent they are similar to the archetypal alpha

Then, people can also remember what you wrote and can dissect the individual sections, because if they face dozens of paragraphs for 1 point, no reader will be able to contextualize its takeaways into their neurons except they put A LOT of effort into it.

A good article isn't that. Instead, a good, long article is one that can be contextualized easily.

Except you want to write an inspirational non-actionable article that gives people emotions without them remembering it a day later and without them being implemented in one's game or sexual strategy. There is a place for articles like this, but I don't believe this was the authors intention.

[–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

no reader will be able to contextualize its takeaways into their neurons except they put A LOT of effort into it.

Imagine that!

[–]nardwannabe 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy

“Donald Trump has proven that, even in our “scientific” age, people prefer to follow the perceived alpha male over the truth” -stopped reading one you became political. Your credibility has been infiltrated and your piece is now post is now garbage.

[–]Senior Contributor: "The Court Jester"GayLubeOil4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

Donald Trump is the best president ever is a political statement.

Commenting on Donald Trump's methodology which hypotheticaly could be used by either side isn't "political"

The issue here is that you have a Pavlovian response to the words Donald Trump cuz your a Bloopy Blue Blooper.

Red Pill isn't for everyone

[–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

LMAO, you became offended b/c someone dissed Trump?

[–]Endorsed ContributorWoujo[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy


You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2021. All rights reserved.

created by /u/dream-hunter