Our resident black pill objector (Bobby/Robert McGee, and most recently: ThrowAwayRP10101) has harped on a point that I have seen pop up enough to know it's worth addressing. Most significantly, I know /u/thechristianalpha has had the same question and tried asking Rollo about this before:

  • "Isn't all of RP about appeasing female frame because we're catering to their sexual taste preferences in order to get more sex?"

It makes sense from a purely logical viewpoint. RP forums ultimately are a look at what makes vaginas wet, and therefore vaginas dictate what a man does to make them wet. Women have vaginas, therefore women set the broader frame and are ultimately in control of what RP men tell each other to do. Right?

Wrong. This only makes sense if women could decide what did or didn't make them wet.


ROLLO'S VIEW

While I had my own answer ready, I wanted to get Rollo's thoughts, so I did a brief search and found Rollo's post on meta-frame (literally the first link that came up):

If women control the larger social dynamic as to how men will define every term of engagement, up to and including men’s own existences (to say nothing of sexual strategies) then they are not acting or thinking ‘genuinely’ as Real Men® should. This is a MGTOW classic now, and it’s a tough hurdle for most of them to get past. The more militant will say that any engagement at all with women is acquiescing to the female meta-frame. I think some distinction needs to be made between an individual woman insisting on her own dominant Frame and the larger, meta-social narrative that women in general should always expect to have men relinquish Frame because it is women’s correct and entitled position.

This was pretty affirming in my own view: There is a distinction between individual frame and a collective, societal frame.

I think his last phrase is not a reference to his own views of what women should do, but about what society tells women they should do. And why not? Women do have an entitled position in society today. Be mad about it if you want - that's not the point. The point is that this entitlement comes with benefits that it'd be idiotic not to use. If someone says, "Here's $1,000,000 just for being you," would you throw that in the trash? Most people would say: "You should use that money." Society at large tells women, "You can get men to bend over backwards for you. That's an incredible power and you should use it." Some will suggest using it for some greater moral good, others for self-pleasure, and others to advance some communal agenda.

But that's all beside the point. The fact is that this broader social-narrative does exist, but is it what we mean when we talk about "frame"?


MY VIEW

"Frame" is a product of conscious thought. If it's not sentient, it can't have a frame. It's that simple.

Biology doesn't have a frame any more than a lamp does. We should never confuse psychological pressures with biological conditions. Can you will yourself not to have a penis? Can you concentrate hard enough to make your body not bleed when it's cut open? Can you think your way out of ever going to the bathroom again?

While there may be psychological influencing factors, female sexual responsiveness is not a frame issue. It's a "fact of life" issue. It has been this way for thousands of years and will continue being this way for thousands to come, if Judgment Day doesn't come first. Don't treat vaginas as if they're sentient. The women who have them certainly have thoughts - and those conscious thoughts can certainly have a frame. But a woman cannot use her conscious thoughts to change what makes her vagina wet. At best, she can consciously think of things that already make vaginas wet. You can't negotiate attraction. Try telling your penis to get hard at the sight of broccoli. Good luck.

In this sense, red pill discourse on enhancing one's sexuality is not a matter of ceding to the "female frame," but of understanding how a non-sentient vagina works, just as we all do well to understand how a lamp works so we can turn it off and on when we like.

What is the "Female Frame"?

The female frame, insofar as sexual dynamics are concerned, is what a sentient woman wants a man to believe about how her vagina works.

Note that these don't have to line up - and they often don't. This topic could warrant a whole post of its own, but suffice it to say that there are a few primary approaches to female sexual frame:

  • Timing - when can a man get into her pants?

  • Method - how does a man have to go about getting into her pants?

  • Standards - what type of man will she let in her pants?

  • Conditions - does something have to happen before she'll let him into her pants?

There are more. But let me note that nowhere on this sub has a mod or endorsed contributor (to my knowledge) ever recommended finding out your wife's thoughts on these things and using that information to enhance your sexuality. That would, by definition, be living by her frame.

What is "reality"?

The reality is that an attractive man can:

  • Timing - get a woman horny when he wants her horny, even if she wasn't planning on it

  • Method - get a woman horny in ways that she never would have expected

  • Standards - make her feel tingles even if he's not the type of man she says she wants

  • Conditions - make her want him even without those conditions met

Now, this reality doesn't always translate to a close. It's a two-branch system. Congress can give the green light and the senate the red and nothing will happen. Her mental frame is the gate, but her vagina controls her desire. If a woman's vagina is begging for it, but her mental will-power is strong enough, she can deny her urges. Similarly, if her will-power is there, but her vagina just isn't feeling it, starfish is about the best you're going to get. That is, you can get in her pants, but you can't get her horny.

Of course, the desire component is far more powerful than the filter. People have a tendency to do what (and who) they want to do, if they really, really want to do it. If she's "queen of her own castle," the more she wants the traveler to enter her doors, the more she'll rationalize away her own frame (timing, method, standards, condition, etc.) to get him in the doors. Instead of negotiating what the queen can get from the traveler to let him in, the gatekeeper begins negotiating what it will give to get him to come through this particular gate instead of him finding some other castle to hang out in.


SOCIAL SCRIPTING

Social scripts are a subject I've been doing a lot of research on, as they will be somewhat relevant in my eventual book. To keep it simple, a social script is a boundary society causes us to operate in, whether we're conscious of it or not. The fact that we go to school for 13 years is part of a social script. The presumption toward marriage in society is part of a social script. The fact that you get a job to earn a living is part of a social script.

Rollo's quote above describes these as "social narratives." I prefer to avoid calling it a "narrative" because "narratives" are stories that are spun to be persuasive. A social script isn't the way a story is told - it's a fact of life, the rote plot mechanics themselves. Yes, you can defy the script, but there are generally harsh consequences if you do so. If you don't get a job, you will end up homeless. If you don't go to school, you won't get a good job. If you don't get married, you can be viewed as a social outcast. The narrative associated with the script is what dictates the consequences. If you can change the narrative, you can change the script - and yes, there is often enough flexibility in scripting that someone who is meta-aware of the scripting he lives in can function within his own narrative. When enough people have caught on and prefer their own narrative separate from the social narrative that's being spun to enforce the prevailing script, then the people revolt, a new script is drafted, and the narrative then works to support that script until another insurgency begins.

Much of the growth of the manosphere over the past years is tied to an effort to change the social narrative (spinning "positive masculinity" instead of the way it's negatively narrated), while giving up on trying to change the script itself. It's like a director telling the writer: "I want control over how the setting is framed, but I'll still follow your basic plot" because he knows he's powerless to force a script-change, especially if the producers are not on board.

As Christians, our producer is God. Our script is the framework society has laid out for the world since the fall. Our narrative is what we're conditioned to believe about how the script is to be interpreted. If you haven't read it, Margaret Atwood's "Happy Endings" is the epitome in short story form of demonstrating how the same plot can be cast in different lights through different narrative style (It's only 2.5 pages). Consider a similar exercise:

  • Script - Bob meets Jane. They each have decent careers. They fall in love. They get married. They have 4 children. They retire. They died.

  • Narrative 1: Bob was a real estate novelist who never had time for a wife. He loved his career so much that the thought of finding a woman seemed to be an unwelcome distraction. But when Jane came through the doors one Sunday morning he was knocked on his feet. They were married in months and had a kid less than a year later. Then another ... and another and another. After many years they set sail on Bob's boat and one day die in each other's arms.

  • Narrative 2: Bob had a true passion for writing, but it didn't pay the bills, so he got his realtor license. Trying to fulfill his dayjob and passion at the same time made it difficult for him to commit to a relationship, and he gave up on even trying, settling for one-night stands. One Sunday morning Jane swung Bob's door open, knocking him off his feet. His fling from a few nights before was pregnant and her daddy had a shotgun. They married in months, before the child was born. Deep down, Bob truly did love her, and she him, but he always felt trapped. He took his frustrations out in the bedroom. Jane was afraid of being alone and childless, so she stopped taking birth control, hoping that more kids would keep Bob around. After all, he wouldn't want to pay all that child support, right? After the kids were grown, Bob found out how Jane had been deceiving him all this time. When a nosy neighbor overheard his altercation with Jane, she threatened to call the cops, so Bob killed her. Nerve wracked, Bob liquidated his life savings, bought the cheapest boat he could afford, and set said to hide from the authorities across international waters. Unfortunately, the boat was only worth what he paid. When Jane went for the only life-raft, seeing that it could only support one, Bob went after her. She stabbed him in the heart with a knife, but he clutched onto her so tightly that they both went down with the ship.

Same plot. Two extremely different takes on who the characters are, how an audience should view them, what the author thinks of them, etc.

There are aspects of social scripting that you cannot change. Even though they are created by the collective beliefs and expectations of numerous sentient people, social scripts do not have their own "frame." The script itself is not sentient. While you can certainly choose to go off script, it is not breaking frame to follow the script.

What would be considered a break of frame would be to let someone else spin the narrative of how you view your life - and how you project your life to those around you. Your life story is your own. You decide how to tell your own narrative. No one knows what happens behind closed doors. They can make assumptions, but the way you present yourself, your mannerisms, tone of voice, word choice, beliefs and opinions, and all that other good stuff are what influence the narrative of your life to those around you.

Have you ever seen a co-dependent relationship? They're interesting, especially if they're non-romantic in nature. This is most obvious through the mother who tries to live vicariously through her daughter, or the BFFs where one feeds off the life drama of the other like a parasite. If you see yourself as the supporting character in your wife's story, you're in her frame. If you see yourself as the lead role, but are worried that other people see you as your wife's supporting character, you're not necessarily in your wife's frame, but you are in her friends' frame - and if she has influence over her friends' views, then you're vicariously in her frame too.

Similarly, if you're concerned about how society at large views you, and you let that control how you behave ... well, then you're just an idiot. Society doesn't have conscious thoughts and emotions. When this is your mental state, you're really concerned not about "society's frame," but about the frame of every random stranger, social acquaintance, or even friend and family member who might develop an opinion of you that you don't care for. You're not in "society's frame," but in the frame of the hypothetical person you've created in your mind who you believe will judge you. Most often, that person doesn't actually exist - and if they do, they're not likely actually judging you - and if they are, they're not necessarily judging you the way you think they are.


CONCLUSION

In short, meta-frames don't exist. Social scripts do, whether you abide by them or not. You CAN create the narrative for your own life for how your script is to be told, and there are as many ways to tell the story as there are directors in Hollywood - and more!

You're not in the "female frame" or "feminist frame" or "feminine imperative frame" by learning how to get a woman sexually attracted to you and tailoring your approach to ways that actually work. Figuring out attraction triggers is no different than figuring out how a lamp works. You're only in her frame if you orient your efforts at developing attraction around what she tells you will attract her. She may be honest and uniquely self-aware, and therefore her advice is good advice. But if you're doing it because that's her advice, then you're in her frame. If you're doing it because you know what actually attracts women, then you're in your own frame regardless of the fact that she suggested the same thing you independently decided to do anyway.