I read this excerpt from, of all places, National Affairs magazine and had to pass it along. It embodies everything discussed here, especially those concepts that we read in NMMG. "The key objection to niceness amounts to the fact that it's not really a virtue. You can't rely upon it as the foundation for the duties required of friends, family members, or fellow citizens. A nice person won't fight for you; a nice person wouldn't even lie for you, unless there's something in it for him. A nice person wouldn't be a good Samaritan, if it required genuine risk or an undue deployment of time and treasure. A nice person isn't animated by love or honor or God. Niceness, if you think about it, is the most selfish of virtues, one...rooted in a deep indifference to the well-being of others. It's more selfish than open selfishness, because the latter accords people the respect of letting them know where you stand. I let you do -- and even affirm -- whatever you do, because I don't care what you do as long as it doesn't bother me. Niceness, as Allan Bloom noticed, is the quality connected with flatness of soul, with being unmoved by the relational imperatives grounded in love and death." So there it is, and there we see why the nice guy receives nothing but duty sex if even that: "flatness of soul." Brothers that is the whole game. The opposite of "flatness of soul" is a term that we know well: "tingles" yours and hers. And what does the red pill man concern himself with, through lifting, reading, dominating, killing it every day, if not "love and death." Doesn't it all distill down to love and death, while your neighbor watches sports. Gotta admit I almost fell over when I read this in an otherwise mainstream publication, but had to pass it along.