Of Love & Relationships

This article is part of a new category of posts I will be writing called “red pill ramblings.” Thematically, they are based loosely on and expanded from the various articles of the red pill constitution.

Sacrifice & Leadership

Contrary to the popular “woe is me” victim narrative that today’s blue pilled men and women spew, being a man is far more difficult than being a woman. As a man, more is expected. You have nobody to lean on emotionally and your gender can’t be used as a politically correct get out of jail free card. This is the way it has always been, and in today’s age of progressive superficial “egalitarianism,” in spite of all the rhetoric, things are no different. Beneath the surface level that society dedicates itself to reinforcing; we are all the same animals we were a thousand years ago.

For men, relationships are not an exercise in which he attaches himself to another. No, for you see it is he who is latched onto, not she. Men are humanity’s sacrificers. They do the things that nobody really wants to do, but need to be done, like working in waste management plants and getting drafted. Now, men in love are often happy to sacrifice due to an intrinsically deep-rooted provider instinct. However, it is this very instinct which is often exploited to man’s unenviable self-detriment and thus likewise it is important man recognises his vulnerability and self-regulates it accordingly.

“Happy Wife, Happy Life” has got to be the most idiotic misguided figure of speech to have ever been immortalised in the memetics of the societal consciousness. Happiness flows downwards, not upwards. In order for her to be happy, it is you, the man, who must be happy first and foremost. If you are not happy, you will struggle to make her happy. This means even in sacrifice, for her, or what you consider to be the greater good of the relationship, you must be enthusiastic. You cannot be begrudgingly forced to sacrifice by the parameters set out by the social contract. Your sacrifice for the significant woman in your life must come from a place of altruism and therefore be consensual rather than mandated by law or convention. You see it is laborious sacrifice stemming from obligation rather than love, which leads to contemptuous discontent of your woman.

An indentured leader, the discontent sacrificial labouring lamb, is a bad leader. For truly, in the most candidly lucid judgement of the word “leader” and all it entails, he amounts to anything but such. Most emphatically, he is but a unit of labour resigned to the financial servitude of a discontented woman who enjoys the fruits of his labour, whilst to some degree, detesting him. He foolishly believes that by merit of his labour alone that he is worthy of a woman’s respect, and so by extension, her love. He believes this wrongfully. No matter how much he earns in the material world, such a gentleman will never be perceived by her as a man who is loveable in the immaterial. In the absence of any fabulous wealth on her part, he is but a tolerated personal wallet, the walking ATM, the fabled beta bucks.

It is by his lack of ability to lead that he remains incapable of inspiring her love, and so by extension of that, the respect that genuine female love for a man is based upon. She stays with him because doing so continues to bring her material benefit as mandated by the law of Briffault. For a woman to sustainably love a man with any measure of depth, he cannot solely provide material benefit, but likewise he must provide immaterial benefit. In TRP lingo, that’s the alpha provider. He commands the emotional excitement and lustful longing of the alpha archetype, whilst being able to provide the stability and security of the beta male work drone. Add unconditional loyalty to the equation and this is the epitome of what women seek in the sexual marketplace, the woman’s unicorn, “the knight in shining armour.”

Putting your own needs first.

If you can’t create and manage your own happiness, how can you be expected to inspire hers? A man must look after himself before he takes it upon himself to look after a woman. The express responsibility that comes with romantically associating with a woman all but demands it.

Foolish men in their naivety rally to placate the unending demands of the boundary pushing woman, whilst wise men concentrate first and foremost on pleasing themselves. They do not pedestalise the needs of the woman above their own. A man who is pleased with himself is in the position to give the woman with whom he associates the option to accept how he does things or to take a proverbial hike and take her chances out on the dating market. Often, out of sheer respect for “putting his foot down” and the sensationalism of the tingles that such assertiveness elicits, she chooses to do things his way. That ladies and gents, is the basis of “make up sex.”

For men, in relation to women, there are few needs other than ensuring a promise of sexual exclusivity that cannot be otherwise provided by an inner circle of male friends. Relational intimacy and emotional closeness with women does indeed have a certain appeal to various men, but it is hardly the necessity for men that it is for women. Rather perhaps much to man’s own romantic disappointment it is simply something to be indulged in from time to time, much like alcohol consumption and recreational drug use. A man who indulges in such vices too often gets irreversibly fucked up. Indulging in too much emotional closeness with a woman is likewise a vice, for it has the propensity to make man weak. This makes him pliable, and from there on we encounter the slippery slope of female contempt for male weakness which begins to manifest and ultimately undermine the health of the relationship. Based on this line of reasoning, such activities should be indulged in sporadically to assure her of your emotional fidelity rather than form the basis of your relationship.

For women, association with men is necessary, for they derive much of their self-worth based on the man (or men) they are publicly associated with. Their life is but one continuing stream of social media updates which pertain to their relationship status. A single woman is an unhappy woman, looking for a new man to fill the void in her insatiable appetite for high value male validation, whilst a single man is simply looking to get his end away and nothing more. For women, emotions come before sex. For men, sex comes before emotions.

The centre of her world.

As a leader, you are the centre of her world. To be crude, you are the host, not her. You are the basis for the relationship. You must be the rock in her storm. This means that everything stems from you and is centred on your ability to deliver, although in her tirade of demands it will oft seem to onlookers as if it is she who is the focal point rather than you. She isn’t, and if you make the naïve mistake of allowing her to become the focal point you can be rest assured that the relentlessness of her emotions will ravage everything the two of you have built, shredding up your little social contract in the process.

Everything fundamental to the survival of the relationship is based upon you, your strength and the amount of value that you bring to the table. You are the rock in her storm. Any value that she brings is largely, quite secondary and oft perfunctory to that which you bring. In a healthy relationship where you lead, she will be a reflection of your wishes and decisions, she will be malleable; for you are the captain of the ship and she the obliging first mate. This is the natural order; it is the way that things must be in order to ensure some measure of functional cohesion and relational happiness. When people do not have set roles, the ensuing power struggle leads to competition and destroys any chance of social cohesion.

Briffault & Value Exchange.

It is Briffault’s Law which states that for the female of the species to engage in continued association with the male, she must be sufficiently convinced that he will continuously provide value. If he could but now cannot, (eg: he became terminally ill) she will “move on” and replace him with a man who can. The implication that can be drawn from this behaviour is that she relies on you in more saturated concentration than you do her. Anything you rely on her for, at least in the context of a functional and committed union, will be secondary and lesser to that which she relies upon you for. She sucks your dick and makes sure the house is clean. You stabilise her emotions and bring home the bacon. It is this value disparity which ultimately makes male commitment valuable, and likewise highlights why men are the gatekeepers of relationships and not women. As women bring less to the table, their commitment is worth less than man’s. As men expect less from and derive less benefit from continued association with women than vice versa, female commitment is less valuable than man’s.

In matters of continued association, by merit of being female, she is infinitely more selfish than you are. She does not have the provider instinct that you do, and she has far, far more needs than you too. The modern-day rhetoric of “independent women” is nothing but an ironic farce. You see only a group of people who are so utterly dependant on another group, in both their pride and cognitive dissonance assert the opposite as emphatically as possible hoping that if they repeat it loudly enough it will become true.

You see, in each instance where a woman has brought forth more immaterial benefit than the man, she will over a number of weeks, months or perhaps even years, grow increasingly disgusted by him. She will deem him weak, undesirable, “beneath her,” and as she concludes this, her once burning love fades as it is crushed by the darkness growing out of decadent disrespect. You see, female love as inherently pragmatic and conditional as it is, is based primarily upon respect for power and so by extension of that, value generation.

Where a woman brings forth more material benefit than the man, the man becomes keenly aware of the potential power imbalance her wealth is capable of creating. It is certainly not something that is an asset to the relationship, if anything; it gives the first mate the power to disobey and disrespect the captain even when this is not in the best interest of the relationship. We have established since long in the manosphere that female led relationships are ultimately doomed to failure, and a rich woman’s money grants her the freedom to circumvent your logic and your will should she so choose. It is to this end that high earning women ostracise themselves from men. They activate male aversion by robbing him of his provider role whilst simultaneously undermining their own capacity to love by reducing the significance of his role. You see in dependence there is a certain appreciation, and it is within appreciation of men that women find a fundamental ingredient necessary for love. Appreciation easily becomes admiration.

The Power Struggle of Value Exchange

Within the dominion of the physical, sexually it is you who acts upon her, but relationally in the domain of the mental, it she who acts upon you. The “why” pertaining to this dynamic is quite simple. As already mentioned in paragraphs prior she has more needs than you and thus she depends, nay, expects you to fulfil them. As her “significant other” those are the responsibilities that come with unrequited access to her vagina. Of course, should you renege on your responsibilities; you will be framed and shamed as the devil incarnate. Antithetically should she refuse you sexual access? Her body, her choice, the social contract mandates you cannot rape her for not holding up her end of the bargain and so thus you are left powerless with no option but to threaten departure.

Sex is truly the female dominion of power and it is in this relational battlefield where sex is constantly weaponized, dangled, implied, used as bait and retracted that your promise of commitment is being solidified whilst her promise of sexual access remains tenable. Bar any tremendous sexual prowess on your part, it is in the female nature to surreptitiously reduce your sexual access whilst she continues to maximise your level of personal investment into her well-being. Effectively, women use sex or the implication of sex strategically to ensure their self-interest in relationships with men. For her to crave your sex and lose the ability to leverage it over you, you must be able to own her like your name is Christian Grey.

Women have more to gain from relationships than men do.

For self-respecting men, relationships are not exercises in which you burden another with your baggage; likewise they do not lead to economic betterment and social mobility. For men typically marry downwards or across rather than upwards. Any man that’s ever heard other married men talk has surely heard of the “what’s yours is ours” and “what’s hers is hers” double standard.

You see for a man a relationship is a morbid attempt at controlled chaos, an exercise in the most burdensome leadership. It is something society encourages, because society derives benefit from it. Of course society derives benefit from all male sacrifice, which is why of course society has always encouraged men to do things that aren’t necessarily in their best interest at the time. By my use of the word “society” I of course refer to women at large, the female hive mind. So aside from peer pressure, why do we do even do it? Why do men have relationships with women when they can enjoy the best a woman has to offer without making a promise of commitment? Men have their various reasons. For some, it’s a fear of loneliness. For others, it’s the dream of being a patriarch that rules over his own family, a good (high value, well-trained) woman being essential to such an endeavour, rare as they are. For the men still plugged in, it’s based on an archaic idealistic notion of undying love served to you by the societally entrenched meme of “The One™”

This is why, in part, in contrast to women, as men, we are far more averse to having deep romantic relationships. Women have nothing to lose from securing a man’s commitment, but for a man it is a risk, a calculated risk. Our risk is higher because by merit of having more to give, we have more to lose. This is why it is so that in matters of romantic association with women, the foolish man endures a relationship whilst the wise man indulges one.

The Feminist Thought Police

The Feminist Thought Police
Asking “why do people hate the red pill?” is like asking “why do feminists hate anti-feminists?” it is simple, we are viewed as “the opposing team.” By reading red pill content you become aware of the masculine’s unfiltered societal viewpoint. By agreeing with it, you accept a system of thought which undermines the gynocentric status quo of feminine primacy. Thus it is so that through mere act of association with the manosphere, devoutly feminist society deems you sinfully tainted.

The church of feminism will tolerate no blasphemous dissent, for anything that disagrees with feminism is by its own interpretation, misogynistic. By asserting the masculine viewpoint as primary, or even, a valid counterpoint to the feminist viewpoint, you are immediately identified as a misogynist. This means the rabid social justice horde that currently passes for “society” is out to hang your head on a pike merely for having a different set of beliefs. Expressions of thought incongruent with the feminist narrative are so socially unacceptable in the current time that they are deemed invalid merely by merit of being non-feminist, let alone anti-feminist. It is the job of both feminists and their enablers to prevent unfiltered masculine ideas on gender from “polluting” the mainstream consciousness. The societal hive mind therefore rationalises away anti-feminist argument as “backwardly patriarchal,” meaning: irrelevant, bigoted and outdated. You will then hear, at some point among the verbal cacophony that will invariably occur that “people like you are the reason feminism exists.” The reality is, the reason men even seek out the manosphere and its wealth of knowledge to begin with is because of the gross negative impact that feminism has had on them as well as those around them.

Despite the damage feminism has wrought across the developed civilizations of Earth; many an individual has become personally invested in the ideology due to psychiatric problems. You see feminism like any cult-based ideology creates codependency within an individual. Remove the ideology, and you destroy the individual. The most radicalised segments of feminism are perverse relationships between an ideology that commands blind obedience and a mentally unwell individual who needs a platform to grant their hysterical ramblings legitimacy. However, not all believers of the feminist religion are so staunch, dedicated or ideologically self-aware. There are many who would not even self-identify as feminist that buy into many of the ideology’s premises.

The institutional embodiment of feminism throughout society’s key social infrastructure (education, the workplace, the media, etc) is to blame for the surreptitious invasion of the societal value system. Those of you with a bachelor’s degree or higher in particular have been absolutely drowned in feminist propaganda. The more educated people are, the further from reality they tend to be. This is not because they are stupid or spectacularly unintelligent in any way, but merely the result of having spent many years in an institution which unabashedly peddles feminist rhetoric. Effectively, most of the population whether they consciously realise it or not agrees with the idea that the genders are equal. To feminists, all people are equal but some people are more equal than others. It is with the veneer of equality, that they in somewhat hypocritical fashion, implement laws and social practice where we artificially elevate women by giving them special treatment; a privilege that we do not likewise extend to men.

So what’s the reasoning for this unjust disparity in “why some people are more equal than others” you may wonder? To be concise: the idea in play is much similar to that of the concept of white guilt. Except we’re dealing with gender, not race, so it’s not exclusively reserved for whites, but instead men as one large collective bloc. When it comes to feminism, the race card does not trump the gender card. The way institutions are biased towards women today stems from the popular idea that men owe women due to the supposed barbarism of men in the time before feminism. In essence, it’s the fabrication of history to give the construction of “male guilt” an air of legitimacy. It is by avenue of said guilt that women get an easy ride in today’s society, and this social inequality is justified as a kind of reparation owed to women collectively due to the conduct of our forefathers. This is how feminist society justifies its benevolent sexism. That and of course, maintaining the pretence that one of the most privileged class of human beings to ever live is constantly victimised, oppressed and in need of assistance. To surmise, feminism in its current form is about maintaining double standards stemming from tradition that benefited women; whilst antithetically remaining intent on the destruction of double standards from our civilizational past which benefited men. It is ultimately the restriction of male freedoms, expression and sexuality in order to make way for unrestricted freedom, expression and sexuality for women.

Instead of helping men and women understand each other better in spite of our differences, feminism encourages and thrives off facilitating decadence. It uses newspeak such as “liberation” to define the decadence it encourages when said “liberty” is really nothing more than a farcical spin on “anarchy.” To these people, the feminine viewpoint must be hegemonic and they don’t care how many young men, girls with “daddy issues” and grown men that this feminine primacy adversely effects. As far as they are concerned, the masculine viewpoint is backward, barbaric, misogynistic and unworthy of listening to. They are oafs, bigoted and close-minded, and they often have a personal vested interest in maintaining the feminist false narrative. Some through product of having invested so much personal time into the ideology, others due to prevailing business interests. Unfortunately the generations feminism has infected are irreversibly so. Once someone has been indoctrinated by an ideology, it’s very hard for all but the most intelligent of the pack to regain mental lucidity.

If you know your history, feminism reared its head long ago serving as an omen of decline in Roman civilization just before the fall.  And so it is apparent that there appears to be a cycle in which a civilization becomes so prosperous it can afford to entertain notions such as feminism. Only in all its grand irony it is those same notions that contribute significantly to the snowballing downfall of said civilization. One way in which this is characterised is by the lowering of the birth rate. Another is the lack of incentive afforded the average man to contribute to the tax base due to a lack of sexual opportunity, as well as a legal and social disincentive to start a family in youth. In its stead, what you get is a return to primitive sexual behaviours, a return to harems. Many men fail to secure regular sexual access and by extension of that, a chance to ensure their genetic lineage. Whilst concurrently, swathes of women flock to compete over and share the phallus of society’s highest value men, overlooking their social equals.

In healthy civilizations sexuality is policed for the betterment of the nation-state and female hypergamy is subdued rather than rampant. People date and pair off within their league, starting a family with a person of correlating sexual worth. As an effect of such quelled hypergamy, you get the monogamous nuclear family unit that was traditionally enjoyed in Christian Europe and North America. In healthy societies, women prioritise the needs of the family before their own immediate needs. They live in and come from intact family units. In decadent societies such as the contemporary west, men and women prioritise their desires above the needs of the family. Often this is because they have not come from or are not members of intact family units.

Feminism is very much concerned with controlling and policing speech. It’s become a very Orwellian ideology since its inception as a simple civil rights movement. The fact that we (the manosphere) circumvent their monopoly on gender relations is an affront to their personal beliefs. You see it is our discussion of gender differences outside the tyrannical feminist enforced paradigm that threatens its narrative by bringing its validity under scrutiny. Scrutiny is not something feminism fares well under. Feminism requires blind faith, like many ideologies, and is intolerant of being alerted of its own hypocrisy and dysfunctionalism. Also to be clear, when I say “we circumvent their monopoly on gender relations” allow me to be emphatic in saying this is achieved through indirect methods. We do this by claiming our masculinity and autonomy through hyper-independence. For you see through independence it is difficult to be controlled and so by extension directly subject to feminist oversight. We are not a movement, we are a personal philosophy. We do not “fight for change” through political activism or a coup d’etat, we don’t try to “change society to fit our needs” but instead we introspect and make improvements to ourselves so that we may thrive in spite of society’s support (or lack thereof.)

Feminism, like many a social ideology, is narcissistic and irrationally arrogant. It doesn’t even consider it may possibly be wrong, or flawed. It will not allow itself to be undermined at any cost regardless of any negative outcomes that occur as a result. Of course like many ideologies which started with an intellectually noble seeming ideal, but later morphed into faith-based cults; if you don’t toe the feminist line you will be ostracised from society. People will say horrendous things about you because they don’t like you or what you stand for. They don’t like you because you are “one of them” and not “one of us.” You are not a person to them. You are an “other.” And as history has taught us, if you are considered “an other” (witch burnings) then you are not welcome in society.

If you tried to build a church in Saudi Arabia they’d probably chop your head off. Well being a red pill individual in a feminist country is that equivalent. Witch hunting and doxxing abound, reasons for which I never answer questions about my age or what I do for a job. For your own sake, adherents of this philosophy should not post any of their personal information online. Without the internet a platform such as this probably wouldn’t even be possible and feminism would have absolute domination rather than a majority. Whilst the internet has been great effective at spreading feminism, especially to poorer countries, it has also served as a medium for fighting against it. The internet, my friends, is truly beautiful, and we should all be thankful that we got to live through its prominence first hand and see just what it can do for us as a species. The internet is the best source of free information, and likewise serves as the ultimate platform for freedom of expression; this entire blog is testament to that.

It is because of the internet you have the chance to read things which don’t fall within the realm of “political correctness” but things which are also outside that closed stringently moderated bubble of opinion. Political correctness to me is just a code word for “views, opinions, language usage and beliefs which fall within a spectrum of pre-determined institutional acceptability.” The recent changes to the language, including calling normal people “cis” is some perverse ominous shit with Orwellian undertones. Like the fictional language of newspeak it is what happens when ideology attempts to directly alter the language in order to make it complicit with its narrative. In light of this, one should endeavour to read 1984 as well as another of Orwell’s texts, Animal Farm. If you read either text pre-red pill, read them again for additional insight and perspective.

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” – George Orwell

The Art of Fishing

When you get a woman you learn one thing very quickly. They’re like fish out of water. They never know what the fuck they want so they just stare at you with a wide fixated eye, flapping all over the deck until you make a decision. They claim to like one thing about men but then react positively to the polar opposite of said claim. This propensity to counterintuitively undermine their words with their actions is a spectacle that has left many a man stood, jaw ajar, thinking “What the fuck?!” for millenniaYou see, it is the fish who contradict themselves for all to notice, with the underlying assumption that you will forgive and overlook their bullshit. Almost as if, when it’s convenient for them, it’s tacitly known in the subliminal that you shouldn’t take a single word seriously. “You should just get it!” Let’s give you a classic example of this in the form of the pervasive bullshit peddling that has been espoused by womankind since time immemorial.

“I like nice guys” the petite prominently plump-assed perky-titted 20-year-old says, but her behaviour and track record on the other hand, indicate otherwise. In fact Ms. Perkytits only fucks nice guys once in a blue moon. Some of them wonder if the pity handjob they gave to their male best friend in the twelfth grade counts. Of course, it doesn’t, and if she wasn’t full of mercury, she’d realise this. Predominantly, she’s a fish of the tuna variety, seen on the discovery channel to be enjoying a diet of asshole wherever she can get it. Why do you think she’s full of mercury? Did she spin you that environmental trope about the ocean being contaminated where she swims and little old her’s just “looking for the right ship to come along?” No, she’s contaminated by all the ships she’s jumped on, and if it is something wrong with the water, then why the fuck does she keep swimming there? What is it that causes this cognitive dissonance in her, the differential leap between her beliefs and actions? This is something the male mind has bewilderingly pondered throughout the passage of time in his dealings with women. You think it now. Your father thought it. Your father’s father thought it. “Well, y’know man, bitches just be cray, ya kno wuh I’m sayin?”

Does she have a lack of introspective self-awareness? Is it some strange gender-ingrained compulsion to hide her sexual strategy accommodated by the all too hilarious, yet nefarious rationalisation hamster? Probably both. Who really knows. Do fish have hamsters for brains? Apparently they do, which would explain the selective memory. What I know is this: A woman, especially a young attractive one, is like a fish. A tasty tuna. A fish who, if it could talk, would say “I hate fisherman who use nets (assholes), I much prefer the responsible pole and line fishermen! (nice guys)” There’s one thing she doesn’t realise though because she’s never tried to catch fish herself. All the fisherman with a pole and line are up against fishermen that swoop up schools of fish in great big nets, and because of that they’re lucky if they ever catch anything (the Pareto principle aka 80/20 rule.) In spite of this, the fish insists that regardless of trying to obtain an effective outcome, pole and line fishing is the way forward for a wayward fisherman! Why? because “nets may work on some fish, but not all fish!”,“real fisherman don’t use nets!” and my personal favourite “speaking as a fish, I don’t like fisherman with nets. They have no respect for fish!”

One day, out on the raft with nothing but his right hand, a lot of fish swimming by, and a solitary pole and line that hasn’t caught a bite since Charlie Sheen was on “Two and A Half Men,” the unsuccessful fisherman begins to angrily complain aloud about his lack of success. He starts wondering if there’s something wrong with the fish, or if he just needs to get better at fishing. Of course the fish become very startled when they hear the angry fishermen, they’re worried he may fuck up the ocean by dumping actual mercury into it. So they pretend to give a fuck, feigning concern for the fisherman’s upset, when really they just want to make sure he doesn’t become a maritime Elliot Rodger. Apprehensive and a little indignant, a fish jumps out of the water and onto the solitary fisherman’s raft. He thinks fortune has smiled graciously upon him, but he quickly realises his hope is in vain as it becomes apparent that in the absence of anything short of a hook in the gullet, said fish doesn’t intend to make herself at home. She’s just going to give an unhelpful holier-than-thou speech full of platitudes and empty asinine bigotry before she fucks off back into the ocean to meet the tangly embrace of another man’s net.

What was the speech the fish gave you ponder? “Don’t worry, gentle fisherman. If you use a pole and line enough you will eventually catch that one fish that you always wanted! You don’t need to try out lots of different fish or even catch many to be a good fisherman, a real fisherman is happy when he finally happens upon that one special fish!” Then ironically, she gives him a stare, bats her eyelids as if she’s a catch, but au contraire, she’s not his catch. “I’m sure the right fish will come along one day!” she exclaims condescendingly. So what is a naive pole and line fisherman to do? He, like many fishermen before him, disadvantaged by the absence of any veteran fisherman to show him the ropes, keeps retardedly fishing with his pole and line until eventually catching a fish that was rejected by one of the net-using fishermen. Of course, a fish caught by a net fisherman has to be kicked off said fisherman’s ship. It doesn’t swim away of its own accord. In fact it’ll often protest to said fisherman “you’ll regret putting me back in the ocean, you’ll never find a fish as great as I am!” A pole and line fisherman wonders why a fisherman either net or pole would even dream of throwing a fish off his ship, but that’s because Mr. Pole & Line is always thirsty hungry, never full.

Something the fish won’t tell you is that no fish has ever in the history of fishing been caught by a net fisherman only to volunteer a transfer over to the ship raft of the fisherman with a pole and line. All the guys who fish with poles (nice guys) are in a constant state of scarcity because they only get a single fish a year decade, if even that. So when a rejected fish flaps her way onto his deck, he is grateful for the scraps that have been divinely bestowed upon him (oh peace be upon Dagon, God of fish.) The guys who fish with nets (assholes) are in a state of abundance because they’ve got wet fish coming out the ass. They wake up in fish wondering what the stench is only to realise their ship has turned into something of a fish colony (a harem.) Then it strikes them they’re in a fishy kind of daze. In fact sometimes they wonder if some of their fish are beginning to rot and ponder chucking some back in the sea to catch a fresh batch. Their ship is so well-built, and their methods, so well-developed, that their ship is the envy of the ocean. In fact, some fishermen have so many fish they don’t even need to cast their nets any more. Ocean fish smell the other fish on his ship (pre-selection) and jealous of his big beautiful ship they all jump on uninvited desperate to please the fisherman.

So why do fish say they prefers poles when realistically as a fisherman, nets are the way to go? One of the main reasons she says this shit is because all her friends and family (“polite society”) adhere to the tenets of Greenpeace (feminism.) They believe in deep-sea conservation, and swimming willingly into the embrace of nets is in no way conducive to the facilitation of sustainable fishing. It is because of this her reputation depends on voicing a preference for pole (haha), rather than nets. She could never admit to Greenpeace that secretly, the thought of getting swooped up by a big bad environmentally unfriendly net gets her gills giddy. Her whole involvement in Greenpeace is nothing but a duplicitous sham, but she’s regurgitated the party line for so long, she can’t see past it.

No fish is bigger than the boat. If a fish ever gets too big for your boat (physically, or psychologically) then you know what to do. Throw it back in the water, because there are plenty more fish in the sea. Stay frosty.

Understanding The Dark Triad – Q&A (Part 1)

I initially wanted to answer all your questions in one article. However, I received so many questions worthy of a detailed response that it appears I will need to split the Q&A up into 2, 3 perhaps even 4 parts in order to do your questions the justice they deserve. If you don’t see your question answered, it will likely, (assuming it made the cut) follow in one of the subsequent parts.

If you haven’t read them already, utilising psychopathy and utilising machiavellianism are required reading before you begin reading through this piece, so if you haven’t read those articles, go and read them. Both articles outline fundamental background knowledge on the nature of the dark triad archetype. Without the background knowledge one would acquire from a reading of these predecessor articles, a full capacity to appreciate the questions asked and answers given in this one cannot be assured. That aside, let us begin.

“Are there any videos (movies, documentaries or anything of the sort) that you would recommend to give a more clear-cut example of Dark Triad behaviour?”

To my knowledge, few good documentaries exist on “dark triad behaviour.” I saw an English-made documentary called “Psychopath Night” which was, somewhat enjoyable, but unfortunately tamed in its tone by a rather poor choice to do a “movie countdown” of their favourite blockbuster psychopaths. This superfluous addition to the documentary gave it a less serious feel and more of a “cheap entertainment” feel. Interestingly in spite of that there is some input from Professor Kevin Dutton of Oxford University, author of “Wisdom of the Psychopaths.” I haven’t read his book so unfortunately I cannot give my opinion on it quite yet, but if I do get my hands on it, be assured I’ll do a book review or something similar.

As for media examples, there are countless, and I’m not a media junkie so there will be plenty of examples I have missed (and feel free to give your own in the comments), but off the top off my head, Leonardo Di Caprio’s character “Jordan Belfort” in “The Wolf of Wall Street“, “Marlo” from “The Wire,” and “Omar” from “The Wire” are good examples. In general, “The Wire” is an exceedingly good television series to watch if you want to be exposed to a plethora of dark triad characters. It even has a dark triad woman in it called Snoop, but as she’s a butch lesbian in the real world she has a masculine demeanour and isn’t a very good example of the typical dark triad woman. The typical dark triad woman is more akin to what I outlined in Lucifer’s Daughter. Snoop, simply put, is a certain flavour of dark triad woman. A dark triad woman with a masculine gender identity. In “The Originals” the character “Klaus Mikaelson” is a full-blown psychopath of incredible charisma. By what would appear to someone who is unacquainted with the dark triad to be some kind of “ironic perversion,” the comments section in the video linked for Klaus is full of women uncontrollably swooning over his psychopathy. Click on “Klaus Mikaelson” above and scroll down to the comments, some are quite eye-opening. Specifically those about “how sexy his threats are.” Finally, who of course could forget Hannibal Lecter in “Silence of the Lambs,” the archetypal stereotypically cliché cold psychopath. Dark triad characters comes in many brands and colours. Whether they are criminal, corporate, violent, cold or charismatic, they are usually very intelligent people, and the media is rife with different variations upon the same theme to accommodate this.

“Have you considered the macro societal result for when becoming a dark triad psychopath becomes the norm for getting pussy? Are you a traditionalist after meditating on the matters?”

The “macro societal result” has been in play for a very long time, gaining momentum since the institutionalisation of feminism. Perhaps not under the umbrella of men “embracing and internalising the dark triad” but in the semantic context of “men trying to be crueller, and more assholish” as a response to “independent women.”

Why do men have this desire to become bigger and bigger assholes, perhaps even psychopathic one might ask? Why do people come to Illimitable Men predominantly to read about the dark triad? It is my contention that the desire behind this motive is a matter of ensuring sexual prosperity via deviancy. Men want to “become assholes” in order to seem more attractive to women, as well as protect themselves from predatory women who may have exploited them in the past. Men have, as a collective consciousness, been making a shift towards crueller, less empathetic behaviour due to the social conditioning that women effectively perpetuate for quite some time. Simply put, men are predominantly influenced by their libido, and will go to extreme lengths to ensure they ascertain regular sexual access. Effectively, embracing the dark triad seems like the answer to many a man’s problems. Sex being the primary, although not sole motive for such a decision-making process.

It is due to women punishing “good” men and rewarding “evil” men that “good” men want to become “evil.” When there is a disincentive to be moral, people will be immoral, and men are no exception. This of course is neither desirable nor sustainable from a macro-societal perspective. Society and civilization by extension are built on the backs of hard-working, noble, honourable men who show selflessness and respect to men and women alike. The type of man most would characterise as “good.” Unfortunately in the age of feminism where women have de facto social power, and a man of a gentler disposition has no social or legal backing to aid him in suppressing the disloyal hypergamous promiscuity of female sexuality, the traditional man is going extinct in favour of the modern, calculating playboy. Women bemoan the fall of chivalry with their words, whilst behaviourally rewarding those (sexually) who do not adhere to it by the truck ton. To men, what women say is irrelevant, but how quickly, enthusiastically and often a woman will open her legs (for him) isn’t. For the aspiring playboy or bachelor, woman’s words are worth little, but their actions are everything. What works, works. When you ignore morality for the sake of self-interest, the dark triad is incredibly alluring.

Men of gentle demeanour are punished for their kindness in a way that contorts them intrinsically at the most basic of levels. It’s the common woman’s inability to differentiate kindness from weakness which perpetuates man’s move towards a darker disposition. This is what we’re seeing in scientific terms, highly focused sexual selection. As women have a propensity to reward men who demonstrate dark triad traits enthusiastic sexual access, natural selection is pushing men to become more “assholish” or “evil” as a result. Woman’s primitive attraction triggers, free of the sexual controls imposed by traditionalist Christian social norms and values are the major catalyst for the collapse of contemporary western civilization. A significant contributing factor to the collapse being the ensuing destruction of the nuclear family which modern women’s sexual and marital choices result in. I surmise a return to traditionalist practices are what’s best for the health and prosperity of western civilization. Contemporarily for a man however, the traditionalist male social role is incompatible with feminist society and as such, men are better served by the red pill philosophy and by extension of that, embracing the dark triad as a valid sexual strategy.

“Do you believe it is entirely possible to learn being Dark Triad?”

I believe it is possible, although highly unlikely that many men reading this material will “learn to be fully dark triad” unless he is already predisposed to such behaviour. However, with some study, trial, and error, a man can make significant progress, coming to possess 2 out of the 3 dark triad qualities, those being narcissism and machiavellianism. Psychopathy is simply not an obtainable state of being for the average male. Anything short of an extremely traumatic life event (abuse, witnessing heinous acts of brutality after doing a tour in the military, being locked up in a nefarious prison and etc) will for better or worse, not result in the acquisition of psychopathy. “Learnt psychopathy” is a coping mechanism, rather than a genetic accident which befalls those born with such neurology. That being said, the ingestion of high purity cocaine can temporarily induce dark triad traits to a clinical extent within the average male. Cocaine in a way, acts as a chemical facilitator for psychopathy by inducing fearlessness through the removal of anxiety, alongside a simultaneous state of exuberant narcissistic confidence. It is fearlessness and the absence of empathy (sympathy) which best characterises the core of psychopathy. Alcohol, to a markedly lesser extent, serves the same purpose, hence it’s reputation as being a form of “social lubricant.”

“If yes, how would that be done. If no, how would you at least come closer?”

Anything short of what I described in my answer to the previous question, with mere cocaine consumption being the least fucked up life changing event listed, will not result in the acquisition of psychopathy. Even then, cocaine works temporarily by inebriating you, it doesn’t rewire your brain permanently to make you psychopathic. So how does one become closer? I mention the practice of stoicism alongside a cultivation of the ability to cold-read in “utilising psychopathy.” That aside narcissism and machiavellianism are fully obtainable traits of the triad as they are considered “socialised maladaptive traits.” Machiavellianism is the strategic and manipulative nature of the dark triad male, the “moves” and tactics he utilises in his social strategy to ensure dominance and success. Likewise, machiavellianism is used by average people to a more diminished capacity than is prevalent in the dark triad individual. The most contemporarily relevant, astute and well-compiled book on the subject matter is undoubtedly, The 48 Laws of Power. The book is without a shadow of a doubt, the most necessary read for the budding Machiavellian and is well-deserving of its best-seller status. Learn the strategies from within the 48 Laws of Power and toy with their execution in your life to develop a grasp for how to vocationally utilise the strategies taught in the book. Getting the theory down and understanding it in your head is primary, but becomes fundamentally useless if you lack the ability to execute. Knowing what skills are required and how to execute the strategies listed in the book is what will allow you to see immediate gains within your life.

Machiavellianism is not just an academic field of study, but likewise, a vocational art. To the budding machiavellian, the theory comes before the vocation. To the natural, the theory confirms and augments the vocation. Mastering or at least refining your execution will allow you to acquire a more intimate and refined understanding of machiavellianism by giving you a frame of reference to relate to the strategies within the book. Like anything, theory and learning are only half the equation, they must be tried and tested by action and experience. There is only so much theory and “how to” you can read on here. You must go out into the world and practice the methods for yourself. Understanding something and being able to do something are two very different things. The manosphere and I cannot do that for you. Supplementarily, but with less importance than the The 48 Laws of Power, The 33 Strategies of War, also by author Robert Greene, is a necessary read.

Narcissism manifests in different ways despite how it is cultivated (as a maladaptive social trait caused by parental neglect), the effect of becoming drunk on power/success, the effect of being told all your life that you are great in some capacity and believing it, or merely the will to repeatedly tell yourself that you are somehow special or superior to others. Narcissism, really, is a cycle. It begins as one huge bluff, that overtime, becomes so externally validated that it is actually “believed into existence.” What began as a lie in the form of a bluff takes on a life of its own, believed in and likewise validated by the minds of others. You could for example argue religion is not real, but to those who devoutly believe in it, it is very real. To an extent, whatever is believed in, regardless of its actual legitimacy, becomes real by having life breathed into it. Belief can disregard rationality and legitimacy to make the unreal, real. This is why “fake it ’till you make it” works. If you believe long enough that you are something you are not and communicate this falsehood to others, they too will begin to believe you are something you are not. Then, validated by other’s opinions you begin to further believe you are the identity formed from a set of expectations that other’s hold for you. In turn you live out a self-fulfilling prophecy because external sources reinforce an idea of “you” that is pleasurable for you to adhere to. EG: you’re not “a player” but you convince women you’re “a player” and subsequently they keep calling you “a player” as a result. Eventually you believe you are a player due to the repetitive inculcation of their opinions, causing you to identify internally as “a player.” As a result you take on the characteristics of “a player”, actually becoming “a player” and thus the self-fulfilling prophecy is complete.

If you wish to become narcissistic, delude yourself into high self-appraisal and/or get good at something and harvest all the compliments and dick sucking that comes your way whilst ignoring all the negative feedback you get. Repeat things that aren’t true about yourself to others until they hold specific beliefs about you and then you can use those people as external validators who will regurgitate your idealised self-belief back at you. Cut people out of your life who make you feel shitty whilst introducing and keeping people around who make you feel good about yourself.

The final point on narcissism is the importance of time. Busy people are more narcissistic than those who aren’t busy. Busy people feel more important and thus by extension value any spare time they have more than those who perceive themselves to have an abundance of time. Busy people see you as taking the little bit of time they have left for themselves and so place a higher value on their time. Bored people see you as doing them a favour by filling in their personal void and thus welcome the consumption of their time. Formulaically speaking, an abundance of time equals a scarcity of narcissism whilst a scarcity of time equals an abundance of narcissism. Time available and sense of self-importance are directly proportional independent of belief systems. Basically the budding narcissist tries to keep busy, creating scarcity socially by limiting their availability whilst collecting people to feed the ego. This feeds the “narcissistic supply” and subsequently the cycle is maintained by carefully managing social networks. The narcissist cannot allow himself to be too open-minded to views which will harm his self-perception, and so in the management of his social networks he avoids jobs, behaviours and people who will cause him to, in his own eyes, demean himself. This is verbalised as a refusal to do things or associate with those who he recognises as “beneath him” (a threat to his ego.)

Concluding Part 1 – Closing Thoughts:

I have purposely skimmed over the topic of narcissism and not gone into too much depth on my explanation of it as I am saving the bulk of my thoughts on narcissism for the yet to be released “utilising narcissism” article. As you can surely understand, I don’t want to reveal too much about my thoughts on narcissism ahead of writing a dedicated piece on the topic. Don’t get too caught up on that, as part 2 of this Q&A is up next.

The Three R’s: Romanticisation, Realisation & Responsibility

The red pill community and more generally speaking the manosphere have something of a love-hate relationship with women. I don’t love women as a collective, but seeing them for what they are to the bare bones I have learnt to accept them. In the rare instances they occur I can appreciate the minority of well-raised women that’ll contribute positively to my life. I can see how men are idealistic romantics that need/crave a woman in their life to “have a kind of connection they can’t have with another man,” but by the by, women are nothing to be lauded or worshipped. Western women in general are just shitty people. Red pill men have all the reason in the world to hate women when it’s made painfully clear how they operate and how much bullshit they manage to get away with. As unpopular as that notion is, it is far from unjustified. Being hateful however is merely cathartic, not constructive. Long-term catharsis is a sign that you are stuck in the bitter phase in your understanding of women, rather than progressing onward to accepting their limitations whilst simultaneously self-actualising.

Being continuously angry will not help you improve yourself. For the sake of your own mental health, you have to look past the flaws of modern women by being extremely selective with which ones you’ll reward with relational commitment. Ultimately, you must employ RP strategies to hold frame and maintain dominance with women who do manage to make the grade. It is in this way that you can learn to enjoy their positive attributes whilst mitigating their negatives, and if necessary subsequently drop them like hot shit when they cross the line. Which of course many, if not almost all, will at some point.

Imposing your boundaries is imperative. If you catch a woman young enough and she is merely uncultivated, as in lacking depth and desirable non-sexual traits – rather than the alternative, which is the complete and utter corruption of the psyche caused by the fucked-up feminist culture we live in – then you may just have a shot to make such a woman into what you want her to be. How is this accomplished? By training her to be someone that’s likeable rather than just fuckable, otherwise known as “long-term relationship game with an aspiring red pill woman.” Even so, not every man is willing to take a woman on as a full-time project alongside his own self-development. A woman who has taken the initiative to make herself worth a damn regardless of the value of her pussy is vastly superior to one who hasn’t; she didn’t need a man to take up the reins of father figure and teach her how to be a good woman, an effort which involves fighting her every step of the way on each and every detrimental habit she’s acquired over the years.

There is, however, a phenomenon I have noticed with a number of veteran red pillers: the total inverse of bitterness. The proud proclamation that in spite of the volume of knowledge and wisdom they have amassed on women, they have come to “love women.” Accepting women for who they are and managing them, adjusting your management style to complement their individual quirks is one thing; loving them as a collective just for being women is something completely different. An appreciation of the feminine form is a refined predilection that all men possess, but allowing this to take hold as “love” is futile. If taking the lens of political correctness off women to see them for who they are has caused you to “love them” in spite of the perversity that is the modern state of femininity, something is definitely wrong with you. Just how shitty do women need to be for you to not “love them?” Or are you going to be a hopeless romantic no matter how low the bar is set?

When I hear a “red pill” man say “I love women!” (plural) rather than a particular woman, it strikes me with all the familiarity of Stockholm syndrome delusions. It’s almost as if there is a desperate urge to love women as a collective in such a man (an irrational ideal), rather than simply to love a specific woman where conditions permit. Stockholm syndrome is defined as the desperate need to love someone in spite of their abusive nature. With some “red pill” men in the acceptance stage (and blue/purple pill men) this concept is applied to women as an ambiguous collective rather than any one particular individual. It goes something like this: you so badly want to see the best in modern women and crave to be in love so much that you’ll consume yourself in the self-accountability that the quest for masculinity and self-improvement has taught you. Then in your romanticism, naively project your new-found sense of hyper-responsibility into your relationships with women.

Your only inherent responsibility is how well you objectively govern, not any affront to your governance. If you lead well but she fails to follow, that’s not your fault. It is implied that a good leader will not lose influence over their subordinates, but that is not necessarily so. If someone thinks there are better alternatives than you or is simply delusional, they will leave or otherwise rebel against you. In your endeavour to embody all things masculine, placate your ego to realise that you cannot control everything. You can merely stack the deck in your favour. It’s as simple as that.

I’ll give you an example: say you manage a company and despite meeting all your quotas and ensuring the staff are looked after and have their grievances met, one member of staff persists in disliking you. Is it your fault that this particular member of staff doesn’t like you? Are you going to blame yourself for not having read “How to Win Friends and Influence People“? Or is this person simply influenced by extraneous factors outside of your control? You wouldn’t blame yourself when one of your employees disliked you despite great leadership, so why blame yourself when things fuck up with your woman after you played your cards right?

Men in love lose cognitive clarity: even the most masculine of men burdened by the responsibility of romantic leadership blames himself for any mishaps that occur whilst the woman is all too happy to kick back and agree. Romanticism seems to profoundly cloud otherwise lucid reasoning within men. This is the delusion I see with some of the guys in the acceptance stage: all-encompassing hyperagency, rather than holding women to account for their shortcomings. This is a blue pill error that even the most seasoned masculine man will make, and it is something that will come to kick you in the ass with the precedent that “always taking the blame” sets.

The feminine imperative combined with masculine pride has convinced even the most red pill of men to take the blame for all manner of things in spite of the irrationality of such a policy, and it’s pathetic. For your own happiness and sanity you should learn to accept women for who they are, but realise they possess far more negative qualities than they do positive. Women are an unending source of drama, they are a lot of hassle, and they need constant management. It is for this reason we refer to women as “the most responsible teenager in the house.” When you romanticise them in any way that deviates from reality you’re adding tinges of blue into your view of women. To love them, worship them, or even prefer spending time with them over men despite having read a lot of manosphere material, is not red pill at all, but really, a purple pill mindset that’s gone full circle.

To elaborate, it looks a little something like this: you began as an average uninformed guy, you were blue pill in your beliefs because you were ignorant and had no success with women. Then you 180’d to being red pill but bitter, angry or otherwise indifferent but well-informed about the nature of women. After employing some asshole game, you had some success with women and got yourself a relationship. She then managed to wear you down and begin to betafy you over time, and as a result you’ve 180’d again into a purple pill hybrid. You have red pill knowledge but you find it easier to give your chick free passes and blame yourself for her misbehaviour rather than put your foot down. You confuse leadership with being a hegemonic scapegoat. You’re the wilfully ignorant guy blaming yourself for any mistakes that occur because you believe women have no agency and merely reflect how you’ve made them feel. You don’t hold her accountable because you believe that by being the leader everything automatically becomes your fault. This is hyperagency.

For those who don’t know what hyperagency is, it is the male tendency to assume responsibility/fault for things that weren’t directly the man’s fault, but through some indirect slippery slope reasoning can be convincingly rationalised as being his fault. Men who have taken the red pill and gone down the path of accentuating their masculine qualities to then successfully land themselves a relationship tend to be hyperagents, whilst plate spinners are more likely to throw caution to the wind. Hyperagency is the inverse to the feminine hypoagent instinct, which you guessed it, is the predilection of women to divert responsibility for their actions away from themselves. She will take credit where it is due, but where fault is to be allocated her instinct is to blame shift and shirk accountability. Being accountable to yourself and acquiring discipline and honour to keep yourself on track in the quest for masculine self-improvement is fine. Holding yourself accountable for a woman’s fuck-ups, however, is as blue pill as putting them on a pedestal. It implies they are better than you are because they are beyond the realm of fallibility. Yes, you can influence a woman’s behaviour greatly, any masculine man can, but assuming all responsibility when anything goes wrong is irrational and just plays into the narrative of the feminine imperative – the innate Machiavellian tendency women possess to absolve themselves of blame. If accountability is important to you then blame is attributed where it is due. Logic will best deduce where blame should be attributed. Treating yourself as a catch-all for anything that goes wrong is not the answer and it doesn’t make you “a real man” or “a proud man”; it makes you an honourable idiot.

Ultimately as men I think we’re fighting our instincts. Our instincts are to romanticise women, care for them, provide for and protect them, seeking sexual favours in return to pass on our genes, whilst our culture has made our instincts deadly to our own survival. All of this is exacerbated by cultural Marxist indoctrination which makes us ripe pickings for women who have been trained to be less empathetic, more narcissistic and more predatory towards men. Women are manageable when their egos are kept in check (this is why negging works) but, allowed to get high on “you go girl!” instant validation streams for the tiniest and most asinine of things (such as a selfie), they become increasingly self-centred and unmanageable. Combine men’s predisposition to romanticise women with women’s Machiavellian nature and what we have is a disaster waiting to happen: a culture that brainwashes men to give in to their romantic instincts whilst dissecting and supplanting their masculinity with feminine sensibilities. These sensibilities then get mixed in with the male protector/provider instinct (masculine romanticism) in such a way as to make them hard to tell apart from one another. In part, this is why guys sometimes pathetically bicker over what “being alpha” is, especially in relation to women and long-term relationships which are no doubt the trickiest sphere for any man, let alone a seasoned red piller or manospherian.

Feminism, as institutionalised as it is in society, is responsible for exacerbating female narcissism. It encourages women collectively to celebrate and exemplify their worst traits (hypergamy/entitlement and solipsism) in order to make us collectively (as men) responsible for their material betterment, training them to hang us out to dry rather than learn to appreciate us and work with us despite our differences. Part of the facilitation of this conditioning is to create conditions in which women can’t love, trust or pair bond to any one single man. This is accomplished by encouraging them to be “sex-positive” aka huge sluts. It is a well-established maxim throughout the manosphere that the more partners a woman has had, the less capable she is of bonding romantically to any future partner. This is great if you want casual sex but it’s bad if you actually want to be in love/start a family. A woman who’s had many dicks and relationships no matter what she rationalises or desires is near incapable of pair bonding. These women are often bitter, they feel owed something from their chain of suitors as a symptom of their latent narcissism and view men collectively as an arbitrary segment of the population that can be exploited for self-gain as a result. All of this only makes the conscious choice to “love women” as a collective even more insane.

Without a patriarchal society in place to enforce honour on women, our freedom to love women is diminished because they have the ability to destroy us and get away with it. Allowing yourself to love a woman should not mean tussling with the Devil. Due to the vast chasms that separate masculine and feminine nature, equalism fails in matters of love. This is predominantly caused by three things: 1) femininity’s lack of reason; 2) femininity’s lack of honour; 3) perhaps most importantly: the ability of the female mind to so easily rationalise away atrocities as necessary for its emotional well-being, and therefore, perfectly acceptable. This is what is known colloquially as “hamstering” and it ties in with the earlier point made about the feminine predilection to absolve herself of blame in order to avoid cognitive dissonance. This instinct is so strong that it will even override the decision-making process of women that otherwise possess strong logic.

By making them our legal and social equals without their being our rational and ethical equals, we have upset the balance between leader and follower, captain and first mate, and left ourselves susceptible to their whims. What has this done? Destabilised society, leading to massive increases in divorce rates, the ensuing post-divorce suicide of what was previously a husband, and a whole bunch of other fucked up crazy shit that no attractive woman’s sweet voice, long hair and gentle touch is worth. For all the flak they get, the “men going their own way” are in some ways the rational ones here: they’re rational in pursuing their own happiness, but irrational evolutionarily as they implement the destruction of their ancestral genetic line. If there was ever a war between nature and nurture, this is it, and it’s socially engineered human reproductive kryptonite.

Update: This article has been revised for grammatical refinement and has been updated as of 26/08/2014 to reflect the implemented changes.