Summary: My view of what differentiates men from boys, tying together different ideas that appear here Body: Much is written here concerning bad boys, shit tests, men’s rights, amused mastery, alphas and betas and to some, I’m sure, it would appear that what we have is merely a bunch of disjointed ideas linked only by being motivated by contempt for women . There is also the problem that simply taking the surface behaviour of superior men and imitating it, which to a large degree is what PUA revolves around, does not get to the heart of the matter. But, underlying everything, there is a simple root which is understood by very few, even here.

Now most of us are aware that women despise betas, even when they depend on them. We are probably aware that it is possible to be beta AND highly successful in an objective sense. I could point to British prime ministers, captains of industry and other highly successful people etc. who are beta. Objective success is not as clear cut as some would imagine; look at successful people who commit suicide, suffer from depression, drug addiction and the rest. It is possible that being driven by the need for external validation is the driving force behind many men being high achievers in the external world, despite still being needy little boys in reality. The wives of many top men, when talking with other women, will say they regard their husbands as just little boys, or pet dogs that need training.

Most of us are probably aware, though I have not seen it directly referred to here, of the view that most women in the developed world hold that there are no men any more. We are all just boys. (Many a successful man would be shocked to find out what his SO really thinks of him.) However, when pushed on what makes it so that modern men are all just little boys, they, the women, will be unable to explain. Not unwilling, unable. Nearly all women instinctively know the difference between men and boys, but cannot articulate it.

I believe that the root of this matter is that there should be a passage between boyhood and manhood which involves a profound, although quite subtle shift of frame. Ideally, the change is a clean break. An essential element of this is that the man, unlike the boy, is not dependent on external validation. The boy becomes a man largely by breaking dependence, not just in terms of supporting himself financially or leaving home, but also in terms of needing approbation from his parents. Traditionally, rites of passage, usually involving a symbolic loss (e.g. tooth, foreskin, possession), allowed a clean break into adulthood. (John Taylor Gatto in “An Underground History of American Education” argues that adolescence is a myth invented by the education industry ; that in past times a clean break pushed the child into adulthood without this period of being what he describes as “an old child.”)

This no longer happens. A fifteen -year-old should be an adult. Instead, we have the situation where males in their twenties, and even in old age, are still adolescents. Women instinctively know it and despise them even while living off them. The principle of psychological independence underlies all the concepts I listed above:

Bad boys: it is an illusion that being an asshole is attractive to women. Behind this illusion is a numbers game. A very high proportion of bad boys are men in the sense that they are not dependent on validation from some external source. Not needing validation gives them the freedom to be assholes because they do not fear judgement. Therefore, a disproportionate number of real men are bad boys.

Shit tests: they are tests to see whether your frame needs external support. If your frame is strong enough, you don’t even need to learn how to deal with shit tests, it just stands up of its own accord.

Men’s rights: if you are still a little boy dependent on validation from your inner mother, you can easily be fooled into believing that you do not deserve rights. This is why SJWs and male feminists etc. are so quick to beg for validation at the expense of saying , for example, “It is my right to a fair trial and that right cannot be overturned because of the emotions of the accuser.” I am convinced that the large number of contemporary weak men offering their verbal support for “oppressed women,” despite all the evidence that it is men who consistently get the short straw, is caused by the simple failure to outgrow the need for parental validation. The absolute contempt most female feminists have for male feminists is due their recognition that these men are, in a deep psychological sense, little children.

Amused Mastery: if your source of power is internal and your need for external validation minimal, it is easy to see the circumstances you find yourself in as being a sort of game, there for your amusement.

Betas; regardless of how much you provide for a woman, if she senses that you are still a little boy in need of mothering, the idea of sex with you makes her skin crawl. She might even do it if your provisioning is exceptional, as in marriage, but not because she wants to. Desire is not, nor ever can be, negotiable.

Conclusion: Much of what is written on this site concerns the surface effect of the deep change that ought to happen to boys when they reach the age of manhood (early teens) but commonly fails to occur. Achieving manhood requires a deep-rooted psychological shift of gear. The failure to achieve this shift is the cause of beta-hood and political correctness (motivated by the fear not being liked) and the overwhelming influence of feminism in modern times.