“We often confuse what we wish for with what is.” – Neil Gaiman
Contents:
1.) Introduction
2.) Degrees of AWALT
3.) Defying One Element of AWALT Doesn’t Make A NAWALT
4.) Why AWALT Denial Is Pandemic
5.) Bitterness & Accepting AWALT
6.) In Closing
7.) Relevant Reading
1.) Introduction:
What is AWALT? Superficially, it’s an acronym that stands for “all women are like that.” Psychologically, it’s a heuristic for evaluating female mating behaviours. How is a heuristic defined? Well according to “the free dictionary” it’s:
“a usually speculative formulation serving as a guide in the investigation or solution of a problem”
This is exactly what AWALT is, a speculative formation serving as a guide in the investigation of female behaviour. The pseudo-intellectual takes immediate issue with the word “all”, and in their grand pedanticism, immediately ceases investigating the utility of the heuristic.
AWALT does not claim that “all women are the same”, this is patently false, and is as such an absurd claim to make. Rather, AWALT presupposes that women are collectively governed by a set of underlying principles which drives their behaviour. It then alludes to the principles, as well as the behaviours which result from said principles whenever they become relevant in discussion.
For example, hypergamy, solipsism, Machiavellianism and immaturity are principles which make up the AWALT umbrella. Behaviours resulting from those principles would be branch swinging, blame shifting and emotional impulsiveness, among others.
This does not mean all women act on these behavioural drivers in the same way, or that said behaviours manifest to the same degree or frequency. The degree to which, and the frequency of which AWALT traits manifest certainly differs from woman to woman, but that is all that differs, the degree and frequency of behaviour, not the type of behaviour.
So while women may be different in personality or hobby, they are still women, and therefore in matters of mating, prone to specific behaviours. For example, one woman may branch swing often, another may branch swing rarely, but both will at some point, branch swing. This is just something women do. AWALT identifies this and accepts this. AWALT broken down to the most basic level is simple acknowledgement of aspects relating to female nature, no more, no less.
When a red pill man says “women branch swing, AWALT” what does he mean? He means women don’t leave relationships until they have a new one lined up. Just because one woman has had ten relationships in the past two years, and another has had two relationships in the past ten years, the difference in frequency of behaviour does not alter the underlying nature which causes the behaviour to manifest. A woman is a woman whether she is very hypergamous, or a little hypergamous, consciously Machiavellian, or subconsciously Machiavellian.
People who believe NAWALT (not all women are like that) reject the notion there is any such thing as “female nature”, and that such a nature dictates women’s mating behaviour. They would for example, point to a woman who has been in a relationship for the past five years and say “see, she doesn’t branch swing, NAWALT!”
Not only is she the exception that proves the rule, but were she to look for another relationship, she would in all likelihood cease to be the exception. If she didn’t branch swing on that one occasion, she may on another. If she never branch swings, she merely becomes the exception in regard to one aspect of AWALT. A woman consistently refuting one aspect of AWALT does not refute it in all aspects, she only refutes the aspect of the heuristic she does not represent.
A woman who refutes all aspects of AWALT is known as a unicorn, mythologically named, because such things do not exist. Just as mythology is fiction, so is the woman who refutes all aspects of AWALT. Outlier women and self-aware women who work to mitigate their nature will behaviourally refute some aspects of AWALT, but most women will refute none.
2.) Degrees of AWALT:
Humanity is diverse, so inevitably there’s going to be an exception in some form or another which disproves a certain aspect of the AWALT contention. And yet despite human diversity, there is incredible similarity among women. So much so that, we can qualitatively outline the “operating system of female behaviour” and to differing degrees, find conformity to the arguments made by AWALT.
Sure not all women are gold diggers who will only date millionaires, but many won’t date a man of equal or lesser net worth. Sure some women date poorer men, but such a man is likely to be highly popular or attractive. However you cut it, AWALT will contend women are hypergamous. Will hypergamy always manifest in one exact manner? No, of course not, it is not that “women are all the same” it’s more a case of “women all have the same instincts and are therefore predisposed to specific kinds of behaviour.”
Hypergamy can manifest as a desire for resources, superior genes, social status – any of these things. People tend to get caught up on the material when thinking of hypergamy, but to really distil it down to its fulcrum, hypergamy means “a woman will only date someone she believes to be superior to her”.
So the fact a woman dates a man poorer than her does not mean she isn’t hypergamous, he has something else going on either physically, socially or psychologically that makes her believe he is superior, if this wasn’t the case, she wouldn’t be with him. However you cut it, non-hypergamous women do not exist – hence AWALT.
3.) Defying One Element of AWALT Doesn’t Make A NAWALT:
In section 1 I used the example of branch swinging to show how defying one aspect of AWALT does not mean a woman is a NAWALT. In this section I will elucidate that point further as it is this point in particular which allows some people to rationalise NAWALT as a truism.
You may know a woman who often takes responsibility for her actions, but AWALT claims women are notorious blame shifters. That specific woman thus defies AWALT in this one aspect. This does not mean she doesn’t branch swing, isn’t hypergamous, or doesn’t friend zone men so she can enjoy boyfriend level commitment without actually dating. This one woman who defies this one aspect of AWALT does not disprove AWALT, she is merely the exception to one aspect of it.
Whilst different women may defy different aspects of AWALT, no woman defies all aspects of it. This woman is known by the mythical term ‘unicorn’ precisely because she doesn’t exist. A unicorn is effectively the idealised woman who has none of the negative qualities we identify women as having. A “good woman”, such as one of those over at red pill women tries to suppress the aspects of her nature inherent to AWALT, the fact she need to suppress these aspects at all demonstrates the point – all women are like that. If they weren’t, there would be nothing for aware women to actively work to suppress.
No veteran in the online men’s community believes in NAWALT, a NAWALT (meaning not all women are like that) implies there is a woman out there who behaves in none of the ways central to which AWALT claims. That is the unicorn, and the unicorn is a lie – an idealised mythological remnant of blue pill programming. The idea that a woman who is not hypergamous, Machiavellian, immature, solipsistic and all the rest exists out there. Think of the NAWALT unicorn as El Dorado, you’ve heard all about it, a buddy of yours may have even been on an expedition to go and find it, but neither you nor anybody you know has ever found it.
AWALT doesn’t mean women can’t learn to be better partners given the right instruction, it means if they don’t receive and happily abide by such instruction, they will showcase the very worst aspects of AWALT (extreme hypergamy, immaturity, disloyalty etc). A woman in her natural, unsculpted state is prone to the very worst of AWALT, because women of substance are made not born.
4.) Why AWALT Denial Is Pandemic:
Women have negative aspects to their nature, but most men don’t want to believe in these negative aspects. Omnipresent blue pill programming exacerbates the instinct to ignore female wrong-doing by socialising men to pedestalise women. Men have a hard-wired cognitive bias to overlook, or even deny the negative aspects of female nature. Nature is afraid if men see women for what they truly are, that they will fail to reproduce.
If you knew a man who was solipsistic, blame shifting and immature, you’d hate him, cuss him out, mock him and probably cease association with him. But women get a free pass for exhibiting these traits, on some innate level it is known these rather deplorable traits are part of the feminine package, and as such, are tolerated when exhibited by women.
No matter how terrible women can be, men want to enjoy them in spite of themselves, they’re driven to, for men are the true romantics. Men may not love as easily as women, but when they do, they do so more deeply. It is out of this desire to be happy with a woman that men will deny AWALT, or exempt a particular woman from it. This is why psychologically, love is a particularly risky proposition for man, for he is prone to lose his sanity in order to drink from the poisoned chalice of fantasy.
5.) Bitterness & Accepting AWALT:
A subset of high value men who don’t commit beyond sex, have a very rosy-perception of women because they’ve got their game down enough not to face too much difficulty getting laid.
These men enjoy the best of what women have to offer without being subject to any of the bullshit attached to it; this gives them a positively skewed bias. They go around thinking “hey women are great, I love fucking and flirting with ’em, those dudes saying AWALT on TRP are just bitter!”
Perhaps some men are bitter, but bitter rarely means wrong, if anything, bitterness is the unwelcome by-product of a hard learned lesson, it is neither unwarranted nor devoid of wisdom. This is not to encourage bitterness, but rather to give credit where credit is due.
This is why many hate the AWALT heuristic in spite knowing in their heart of hearts it’s true. Instinct obscures truth when it comes to the study of women, men are overridden by idealism, lust and paternalism and feel if they accept the nature of women then they have to hate women and won’t be able to enjoy them. Therefore a man is prone to retain the myth of the idealised women rather than accept AWALT, because he wrongly believes acceptance of AWALT is tantamount to an inability to enjoy women.
This is not true at all, sometimes one has to accept reality is not what they want it to be, that women are not angelic as so many men were wrongly taught, but that in fact women are far more flawed than even they. It’s about a recalibration of expectations to complement reality, rather than continuing to worship the unicorn myth that society has so deeply ingrained.
In spite of this realisation, you have to make a commitment to your happiness and make the best out of the flawed creatures that are women. If you can’t or won’t do that, you’re going to go your own way and prove nature right: you need illusions to see women as investable. This is not meant to shame your life choice if you are MGTOW, it is merely a statement of fact in relation to it.
The inability to grasp and accept AWALT, instead choosing to reject AWALT, indicates the person in question has to deceive themselves about the nature of women in order to be capable of enjoying them. Such a person is not at the stage where they can enjoy women, whilst accepting how immensely flawed their nature is. It is my contention that salvation lies in accepting and working in accordance with AWALT, rather than in denying it. I do not believe the majority of men will be happy going their own way, but for those that can make it work for them, great.
6.) In Closing:
I know this knowledge can prove painful and that’s why many men struggle with this, but your struggle doesn’t alter her nature. You can sit on Reddit until you pass out debating pedantic little points in regard to AWALT, but AWALT will remain a truism that persists and women in your life will hurt and disappoint you until you concede to reason – all women are like that.
7.) Relevant Reading:
Buy “The Rational Male” in the USA
Buy “The Rational Male” in the UK
Buy “The Rational Male” in Canada
Buy “The Rational Male: Preventive Medicine” in the USA
Buy “The Rational Male: Preventive Medicine” in the UK
Buy “The Rational Male: Preventive Medicine” in Canada
I adore being wrong.
I enjoy your articles immensely and feel compelled to comment here. I am a recent RP man who grew very disillusioned with women after my second divorce.
For a time, I dwelt on all the negative qualities that you describe here, and was bitter toward women. Consequently, I was no longer successful with women. I carried an aura of disdain for them, which is not attractive at all.
In recent months, I have come full circle back to the attitude of my younger years, when I was far more successful and sexual with multiple women. That attitude pardons the flawed nature of women, primarily for two reasons…
They are the physically weaker sex. If you are physically stronger, faster, and more capable, you must expect to bear the brunt of realities’ harshness, and shoulder that with grace. Women simply adapt to the facts of their physical weakness. The character flaws (lack of logic, honor, absence of a sense of duty or sacrifice) merely is how they must adapt to survive.
Women are charged by nature, to bleed monthly and give birth to procreate the race. As men, we must not only excuse the sometimes atrocious behavior of women, but expect it and not hold it against them, as if to compensate them for the unfair burdens that nature has saddled them with, ie. being weaker and menses that wreaks havoc with their mental and emotional well being.
Clearly the answer is to enjoy women as you would a child, delight in their presence, but do not expect much out of them. Humor them, flatter them and play. Girls just want to have fun.
The mysogyny, ignorance and self-delusion on display here is truely staggering! You seem to have rationalised the failure of your past relationships by absolving yourself of any blame and concluding that women are inherently inferior to men. How can you have a genuine partnership of equals if you treat women like children?
You are very much mistaken if you think that women have no sense of honor, duty or sacrifice because the exact opposite is true. Also, women are just as capable of logic and reason as men are and deal with the harsh realities of life every bit as much as men do and yes, most handle with grace and dignity. I am glad that mot all men have such a myopic, self-pitying view of life.
1 – the article is meant for showing that women inheretly have weaknesses and giving a new perspective about chasing the perfect relationship with a girl. I have not found the part of the article where it says that men are better than women or that men are flawless. He also didn’t write that women aren’t capable of logic reasoning or don’t have a sense of honor and duty.
the rest of your argument is just made of personal attacks so i’m ignoring it, but just so we are even: read the fucking article before commenting.
Rien que du bavardage émotionnel rien avoir avec ce qui est dit
This is spot on and VERY much needed to be said. The people in the “anger” phase really need to give this a thorough read.
Superb and concise essay, driving home critically important points.
Several of these have resonated strongly with me:
“The pseudo-intellectual takes immediate issue with the word “all”, and in their grand pedanticism, immediately ceases investigating the utility of the heuristic.”
Such pedanticism is in fact one of the key methods by which women are able to unconsciously yet seemingly effortly evade consequence for AWALT conduct. The eager insistence upon dismissing their true nature at the first opportunity is in fact the embodiment of attitude they decry on the surface, and a lock upon the latch of their beta state.
You cannot decry reality because you don’t like the intellectual cosmetics.
“Think of the NAWALT unicorn as El Dorado, you’ve heard all about it, a buddy of yours may have even been on a expedition to go and find it, but neither you nor anybody you know has ever found it.”
The list of men who were bankrupted, driven insane and destroyed in the pursuit of the golden treasure of El Dorado is long. Avoid myths, and focus on reality.
No man will go wrong by accepting AWALT and adapting accordingly.
“It is my contention that salvation lies in accepting and working in accordance with AWALT, rather than denying it. I do not believe the majority of men will be happy going their own way, but for those that can make it work for them, great.”
I agree without reservation.
Nature has not created misery on one side and spoiled joy on the other. The dark world is ultimately balanced with seamless symmetry of consequence. It is the misunderstanding and mischaracterization of the female as better than her nature, that accords her the advantage of your operation within illusion and the imperatives of AWALT to control you rather than enrich you.
Much appreciation for an excellent addition to the majestic knowledge base here at Illimitable Men.
Very well done.
Regards,
Ivan
“Nature has not created misery on one side and spoiled joy on the other. The dark world is ultimately balanced with seamless symmetry of consequence. It is the misunderstanding and mischaracterization of the female as better than her nature, that accords her the advantage of your operation within illusion and the imperatives of AWALT to control you rather than enrich you.”
This is gold. Superbly said.
What has troubled me for awhile now is I am having a very hard time precisely defining what the “joy not spoiled on the other side” is, with respect to women, procreation-supersession-wise. Sex is fun and fulfilling. As well, riffing on the whole sexual attraction dynamic and watching the interplay (not just for me personally, but among other people doing the dance amongst themselves, as well) is fun and exhilarating, even when it isn’t intended to lead directly to sex (like this sexual attraction dynamic pretty much colors everything about human interaction, as a subroutine that is always playing, even if just in subdued-mode running in the background).
So I get that and it is cool. Lot’s to enjoy there.
But, is this all there is with respect to the potential avenues for a man’s enjoyment of women?
I’m in my ’50’s, and so I’ve seen alot already. I sense there is more to it than the sex and the sexual attraction (and I’m not talking about “love” or BS like that). I desire more. Maybe I’m talking about “appreciation”. I desire insights from women that I can’t seem to get otherwise. I have an intuition that I do get these insights from womankind, but the ladies can’t verbalize about this stuff, without reverting to the double, triple or quadruple-speak they excel at (inadvertently or otherwise as the case may be). They tend to go down the rabbit hole of hyper-subjective convolutions when they talk about their deep insights. So…..it is like they are painting an abstract picture instead of providing anything tangibly objective, yet this is still so intriguing.
It is like women are a well spring of some sort of deeply human inspiration, for men, that is even a deeper impetus than the sexual attraction impetus. I think that for many men that is why there is this tendency do pedestalize women, even though I agree that is absolutely the wrong attitude for a man to take.
I wouldn’t mind some discussion about this deeper level, which I would agree in no way negates any of of the other redpill exposition, but would perhaps open up a larger discussion with respect to the inter-gender-valuations around the gender complimentaries, for which there already exists some fairly wide disparities, within redpill exposition, so it seems to me is an area ripe for redpill exploration. I’m having a hard time finding discussion at this deeper level that doesn’t ultimately reveal itself as bluepill.
IllimitableMan (or others) – your thoughts?
Wild Man, I wholeheartedly agree. What you suggest is some very rich food for thought which would take the discussion to a whole new level. Here’s hoping for some expansive forward momentum in our future.
Impossible….why? Because brainwashing.
I don’t think that AWALT is something so difficult to accept and digest. It’s just that weak men with a low sense of self-worth tend to overdramatize situations and cannot accept the natural order of things.
To put it simply, the way we as men will always desire hot women, the same way women will always desire men who have status.
This doesn’t, however, mean that you will always go and bang the hot chick or your woman will always seek to replace you with a man of higher status. This depends totally on the ecosystem you cultivate in your relationship and the degree of satisfaction you experience in it.
If for some reason this ecosystem changes and the parties are not able to fix it, they should accept this new reality and move on.
I assume by ‘ecosystem’ you mean the way in which hypergamy shapes the relationship between a man and a woman? EG: if a man can no longer fulfil hypergamous wants, or a woman cannot quell her hypergamy to a level the man can fulfil, then both parties need part?
“You are special” , i.e. more special than other women is the best compliment to a woman.
On the other hand, AWALT is one of the worst criticisms to a woman.
Hence the majority of women probaly get angered when they read articles like these, attack you personally, or go to great lengths to prove that they are different from the herd.
This is the bottomline of female sexual strategy. Men on the other hand have to work extremely hard to get to the top where the finished product they are makes them special and high value to women. Hence their obsession with athletes, the rich and movie stars.
Well, as a girl, I wasn’t going to do either of those things, in relation to the article point you mentioned, even before I read it. Besides that, theoretically, we can say the article is true, but I’m unsure about that as there were no studies put down for it.
I can accept it if it’s true though, because we as humans CAN control our bad thoughts and desires, and that’s a great thing.
More specifically, humans naturally have bad instincts, like murder, rape, slavery, physical aggression, mental aggression, but we learn to control it. Nature for humans isn’t relevant, as long as we surpass it, with our brain’s ability.
So why must we specifically target women, when we could target humankind in general?
The article also says bitterness can be good, and I agree, as it warns you of what to stay away from in the right scenario. But why can’t then blame shifting be good as well, in the avenue where you refute the original point by comparing it to a different point. Much like I’ve done here, where I just suggest equality through ‘women are bad’ but ‘humans are bad’ but ‘humans can control their bad so they’re good’. Does that count as blame shifting, and is it bad in that case?
I just don’t like when people target a specific group of people. E.g. women are raped, but men can be too. Should be turned into women are raped more. Just like e.g. women are bad. Turns into women and humans are bad.
But it’s not great if men have to work extremely hard and women don’t. Maybe it’d work better if men stopped dating until they found a similar woman to them – one that’s worked hard. Or is that not possible? Would you theoretically not be attracted to a woman like that?
Maybe women could lower their standards, through guys accepting not dating women for a while, until the women are too desperate to date, they don’t obsess over amazing guys.
And yeah I see your point, I find geniuses cool, funny guys are cool, so not exactly the easiest standards. I just think you need to be more than nice, like have interests, have skills, and I feel I won’t be worthy to be around others until I have more confidence to talk as well. Also, I’ve never cared for the rich, movie stars or athlete people though. But I guess exception to the rule doesn’t disprove it.
@ TQM
The problem I have with answers like this is the seeming assumption, correct me if I’m wrong, that the ‘ecosystem’ of one’s relationship is uninfluenced by the wider societal ‘ecosystem’, or that somehow an ‘alpha’ man can counteract such influence through ‘game’.
Society currently tears at anything I would consider a good relationship. Preventing this is one of the main purposes of morality and religion. ‘Accepting the new reality and moving on’ is not an option when raising kids properly is an essential part of a relationship.
You forgot SWABTO. You guys are about 10 years too late writing about this stuff…it is irrelevant…
I don’t see your point and I don’t see how this has become irrelevant.
Please elaborate for those of us that are “10 years too late” and havent one clue what ‘SWABTO’ means.
SWABTO means ” some women are better than others”. Its thought to be a better mindset than AWALT.
I assume he means it is irrelevant for him ….
Quigboo….spot on, seriously.
Guys, what quigboo said is part of the truth.
There’s something I have been thinking about and want to understand. At what point does a woman successfully suppressing AWALT traits just become a man in a woman’s body?
It seems obvious that addressing immaturity and blame shifting is something that’s really important to do, but if women were less hypergamous, would the human race have evolved to be what it is today? Suppressing hypergamy after choosing a partner is clearly what is more beneficial to society and the human race because it’s necessary for stable families, but suppressing from the start seems like a negative from a purely biological standpoint.
Or solipsism. At what point, after having mastered my emotions and learned to handle them carefully with rationality and logic, have I just become masculine? I’m asking because I suspect myself of being very solipsistic.
I think the problem I’m having is that I’m looking at this as — suppress this so you can be more like a man, men are better. But what I need explained to me is how suppressing or changing these things could make a woman more positively feminine, and what that would look like?
There is so little acknowledgement of these things in our culture that it’s hard for me to visualize “feminine” in a positive way. Would love help understanding.
LeeLee,
I would suggest that rather than suppressing your inherent characteristics, you instead learn to regulate them. Suppression tends to create disorder; regulation demands acceptance and competence.
Regards,
Ivan
Agree. Regulation channels one’s natural impulses. As good feminine qualities, I can give you two examples off the top of my head. 1) Imagine women used their emotional and social intelligence for good instead of evil? Instead of discerning a man’s vulnerabilities and pressing his buttons to get things and run him down, imagine she did the things she knows he likes to alleviate his burdens? 2) Imagine women used their ability to arouse and motivate to motivate men towards the good? Blowjobs for strong, virtuous masculine behavior anyone?
Brilliant stuff…
“Women have negative aspects to their nature, but most men don’t want to believe in these negative aspects. Omnipresent blue pill programming exacerbates the instinct to ignore female wrong-doing by socialising men to pedestalise women.”
This is it right here…rampant in western/westernised societies.
Re: branch swinging. We all know that women can’t survive without men ergo branch swinging. So? The problem arises when either Big Brother, Big Church, or Big Coven becomes the branch swinging destination of choice. Back in the mythical past when there was something known as extended family or community wherein the members thereof had things in common and a shared interest in the survival of its members then it wasn’t absolutely necessary for every female to make the choice to either romantically, theologically, or bureaucratically branch or stay in a bad situation, with “bad” of course being a concept highly susceptible to propaganda from not necessarily well-meaning sources, and to include not-sufficiently-hypergamous in her view.
As for AWALT in general, yes, that has to be true because a unicorn would probably be slaughtered pretty early on by either “friendly fire” or “foe”. A woman possessing of unicorn-like traits therefore learns to subsume them assuming survival is a motive. An exception might be a woman who is isolated from the herd such that she desires that isolation when she realizes that she’ll be sliced to ribbons should she rejoin it. Whether a herd of “unicorns” can be engineered is beyond my scope. I doubt it but it would be interesting to try.
However to actually be El Dorado sounds like a real pain in the ass. One would need bodyguards and disguises to keep all the prospective worshippers at bay. Fortunately, most women don’t mature until after menopause, but even that won’t necessarily stem the tide of hopeful Pilgrims wistfully looking for a female object-of-worship who doesn’t expect to be materially compensated for assuming that burden. And forget “equality”.
Rollo Tomasi has a similar lament in “Women in Love”. http://therationalmale.com/2011/12/27/women-in-love/ Naturally, being a woman who has at least known love, I disagree on some of the particulars. However, my disagreement may be on the basis of an entirely different conception of reality, which I think is possible, and which I call “unintentional gaslighting.” Moreover, as I hope I make clear, I was indeed one of those women who enjoyed being subservient to a man who I admired and recognized as superior. He seemed to dig that too judging by the things he said about me to other people. However, our relationship didn’t give him sufficient inoculation to be invulnerable to the manipulations of other women. Perhaps Camille Paglia is right when she says that the idealized bond of mother to son is so strong that he will always search for that ideal or see it even when it isn’t there. Transcending beyond that irrational quest is also a function of maturity. Wouldn’t it be great if we always had all of our most mature faculties at our disposal despite whatever travails that life and death have to offer.
Love the blog, by the way.
“The problem arises when either Big Brother, Big Church, or Big Coven becomes the branch swinging destination of choice.”
Indeed. When I read in the article “women don’t leave relationships until they have a new one lined up.” I immediately though of my ex- who very much used (and was used by) people in her church to act as the new relationship. Given the nature of hypergamy, “marrying” for money means “any relationship” for money.
When you accept AWALT motion you suddenly realize that spending time with any women is complete waste. She will never be intellectualy equal to you and thrusting motion into lifeless being isnt rewarding at all. I think that a lot of NAWALT movement men used to be crimson pilled by harsh truth and like Cypher in Matrix they crawled into safe place. Hope dies the last even when she holds men from progressing towards better understanding.
Your first sentence means that ‘the burden of performance’ is decreased surely?
One advantage of finding blogs like this, later in life, is tying much of the fascinating writing to a wealth of personal experience with women of all ages. Though it s said that ‘a wise man learns from the mistakes of others’, it is grimly satisfying to find new perspective on old experiences.
I was hanging out with some female relatives (some younger than me, a few older than me) and during a conversation they said..”You better get married before you realize how bad we girls really are” and they high fived each other. Red-piller me just smiled and nodded. “awalt” said my mind.
I’d like to hear you talk about what a red-pill male is to do when he’s fallen in love. Naturally, his thoughts and instincts are at odds with each other. I’ve heard a few bloggers write about this but none of them hit a home run. I’d love if illimitablemen handled this topic.
I second that.
Emotional regulation. I’ve fallen for girls before that turned out to be pieces of shit. The feelings disappeared immediately. One’s self-respect, dignity and the good must be put first before women. Once that is internalized, your feelings follow your morals.
Ha ha, you might like this quote by Mae West:
“There are no good girls gone bad … there are only bad girls found out”
“I do not believe the majority of men will be happy going their own way”
Why, IM?
Because I’ve been thinking if going my own way can be a good choice for me, and your opinion may help me
Excellent stuff. There is an old German saying,”Don’t deal with the world as you wish it would be, but as it is.”
I’ve a particular female friend in her 20s, always insists finding a good looking guy with great intelligence, and money seems not a ‘matter’ for her. I shaked my head. She may not need materialistic utility at this point of her life. But it still doesn’t mean she’s not hypergamous (>emotionally utilized based, plus ‘good gene’ featured.)
This article cleared my doubt about hypergamy.
A.W.A.L.T
Fantastic read.
Indeed… a “fantastic read”, but not for the reasons our author would – I am sure – like to think. Let’s look at this “writing”, picking a random quote from the above:
“The pseudo-intellectual takes immediate issue with the word “all”, and in their grand pedanticism, immediately ceases investigating the utility of the heuristic.
AWALT does not claim that “all women are the same”, this is patently false, and is as such an absurd claim to make.”
Some thoughts:
(a) what is “grand pedanticism”?
(b) AWALT does not claim that “all women are the same”… except, that’s kind of exactly what it says, literally, so perhaps an explanation is better than just calling everybody who has an issue with that “pseudo-intellectual” (whatever that means in our author’s mind) – but, wait, the explanation follows… let’s have a look…
(c) this is patently false… what does “patently” false mean in this context? Is that more false than, say, “false”? Or is the author maybe aware that saying “X is false, because it is false” isn’t actually the most convincing rationale, so he hopes adding “patently” does the trick?
(d) and is as such an absurd claim to make… WOW, it’s an “absurd” claim to make BECAUSE it is false (sorry, PATENTLY false)… that is not only logically incorrect (perhaps look up the meaning of “absurd” before you use it just because you think it sounds cool), but also “absurdly” (in the actual meaning of that word) pretentious, without adding any sort of information (on the subject of the writing, that is…)
(e) let’s not even talk about the use of “as such” making this even more ridiculous (sorry… “amplify its inherent ridiculousness as such”…).
Maybe next time, write “AWALT does not claim that ‘all women are the same'”. Very much sufficient.
So, while greatly entertaining, I wouldn’t call this “great writing”, but rather “intellectual masturbation” – and it does beg a question regarding the mental state of the women the author does get to fuck in real life… putting aside brains for looks is certainly fine and advised by other, more gifted and less self-infatuated authors (such as the quoted Schopenhauer), but I’d be careful to not get charged with taking advantage of the mentally impaired… would leave me without fun “fantastic reads” such as this 🙂
OTHER THAN THAT I find the blog and the topics actually quite interesting, the site very well maintained, and at least providing pretty good arguments for an age-old discussion… maybe stop the “pseudo-intellectual” blowing up otherwise cool writing, and this will be stellar.
OR maybe I am missing a particularly well-delivered humor in this writing… my bad then.
–M.
Imagine hating