Simps, Sex, and The Masculine Revival

Why you are gay and how to stop

Note: This little post has turned into a giant series/framework I call the Burgundy Pill. Adding this word at the top here so it shows up in search.

---

The rules around sexuality are in a state of chaos. It is not a new order but utter dis-order. The old rules have been discarded and a reordering is nowhere in sight. Even though this happened for good reason, it doesn’t change that what we currently have is worse for pretty much everyone except the top 10% of men. Regretfully, it seems most people either cannot see why the old rules were instantiated in the first place (the left) or cannot see why they were no longer viable (the right), further obstructing any kind of solution.

Feminism was the female adaptation to birth control, labor-saving devices, and men becoming over-civilized pussies. Feminism, like most “great moral advancements”, was not a result of activism or politics but an environmental change catalyzed by technological innovation.

PUA and the red pill are a reaction by men to this adaption and the accompanying shit-end-of-the-stick handed to most of them by it.

There will eventually be a third step, a reharmonization, a sexual market renaissance, but it has yet to happen. More on that another time. edit: here is my first swing at the reharmonization.

The point I’m most interested in however is the second point from that piece: that culture comes from men being able to say no to women.

Is it true? It certainly feels intuitively true. Being able to say no to women is probably the most important skill any individual late-modern man can learn if he wishes to be free and to contribute something of value greater than being a host for some parasitic woman to drain attention and resources from.

Are men less capable of saying no to women today than in our past? It seems so. Why? Well for starters, men are weaker than we’ve ever been.

Masculinity is a tug-of-war mediated between two competing forces: the struggle of survival which hardens us and the civilizing nature of women which softens us. In the last century however the “struggle of survival” has itself been killed off. Surviving has never been easier nor required less work. Man has finally conquered nature with his fire and protractors and cities and machines. The force against which the male sex spent most of his time battling—a battle that was the single driving factor in making him a strong, aggressive beast—is now nothing but a distant memory.

Meanwhile the counteracting softening force—the civilizing nature of women—has not only increased but become completely institutionalized. Female strategies and values of empathy, comfort, fairness, forgiveness, helplessness (“victimhood”), and conflict-avoidant communication (“political correctness”) are drilled into men from every angle from the day we are born.  

Humans are just too good at meeting our goals. Victims of our own success. Or maybe we are mediocre but just monkeys and time and Shakespeare and such. Either way: the insatiable male drive to conquer nature has finally succeeded, leaving him aimless and atrophied. The insatiable male drive for infinite access to female sexuality has been institutionalized through pornography and FAP culture, destroying attraction for and the necessity to engage with real life 3D women.

Meanwhile the insatiable female drive to tame the wild uncivilized beast that is man has become so systemized and institutionalized that now there is nothing left of the beast for her to tame. 95% of men are already house cats before she meets them (actually, if men were as aloof and self-directed as house cats it’d probably be an upgrade honestly).

For most of human history: for a woman is to survive, she needed a lion—an aggressive beast who will hunt and kill and protect her—who she could tame just enough to not get eaten herself.

And as far as her limbic brain is concerned, nothing has changed.

Women and men have worked in tandem to outsource male utility to the state and industry. Men wanted more freedom to do more shit other than the bidding of women. Women wanted more freedom to do more shit other than the bidding of children. Give these two simple drives long enough, and now you get here, where men are useless and women have cats. Both feel depressed and purposeless, having finally “beaten the game” we’ve been optimizing toward for tens of thousands of generations.

Worse, the issue compound on itself into a feedback loop. As quality partners become more scarce and more difficult to acquire, we double down on the “crutch” (women getting resources from the state and industry, men getting sex from sluts or pornography). Every individual looking out for themselves helps them in the short term but makes both their own and everyone else’s long term outcomes worse.

Men still crave women’s love and sex and submission and trust and support. But men no longer deserve it. To most women, most men are a net negative. She has to take care of herself, work full time, take care of children, look beautiful, and take care of some incompetent, powerless, out of shape loser? Yeah, no thanks. She’d rather compete for the ever-dwindling population of narcissistic chads. At least they are powerful and sexy and strong. At least then she can relax, even if only for one night, into his dominant frame.

There is nothing more relieving and satisfying for a woman than letting go and trusting she will be caught. Unconsciously, she probably knows it will be fleeting. That it’s all a game to him. That after she gives him a piece of her soul, he is drowning in so much pussy that it would make absolutely no sense to settle down with her (the distribution of pussy, when left to its own devices, forms a Pareto distribution just like everything else). She is not particularly happy about it. Ideally, she’d aim for a man a little more balanced and a little more in her league. But the “middle class” of men has more or less been wiped out, leaving only the elite and underclass.

Would you rather go for broke and try to tame an alpha lion or just give up and settle for the house cat? Most would much rather try to secure the alpha, even in spite of the terrible odds caused by an ever-decreasing supply or the constant battle it will require to keep him from eating her, because it at least gives her a chance at true purpose, security, and happiness. She will never be safe and secure enough to become a baby oven who picks berries in the forest (what her limbic brain thinks her job is because that’s what it was for 99% of human history) if her man is not a dangerous monster who just has his evil under voluntary control.

This is why women “chase assholes” when they are young and hot but then, if they can’t lock one down, settle for a “nice guy” in their late twenties early thirties before their SMV completely tanks (“hit the wall”). Someone powerful is better than someone weak, but someone weak is better than no one at all.

Or at least that’s how it used to be for Boomers and some of Gen X. Most millennial men have become so weak that many women are choosing to skip marriage and children entirely. When the only options are losers that could never provide enough security for her to take on the burden of motherhood (she feels secure when her man is powerful, not when he is nice), or “fuckboys” getting so much pussy they would never dream of committing to her then having a career to take care of herself, a pet or some kind of charity cause to be a surrogate child, and getting banged by chad a few times a month is a lot more reasonable a choice than most men can understand.

“If women want strong men, why do they rail against ‘patriarchy’ so much?”

Every “critique” women have of “the patriarchy” is aimed at the elite men. Not the underclass losers who complain on the internet that the schoolgirls are bullying them. The underclass losers are irrelevant to them. They are children. They should be lied to and placated. When she says “you’re such a nice guy you will make a great husband” she is saying that to you like she says it to a child. She feels sorry for you. It’s not her job to tell you to be a man. It’s her job to tame you. Yet you are already a house cat, living in her house, eating processed fake soy bullshit, your beastly instincts completely atrophied into nothing. She feels bad for you and thinks you’re pathetic. But the last thing she is going to do is try to train you to hunt mice, rip up the sofa, and shit where ever you want. Even if she wanted to. Even if she knew that this is what would be good for you. Even if she knew this is what would be good for her. Even a “redpilled woman” is completely incompetent to make you a lion. And frankly, just the thought of trying to exhausts if not disgusts her.

A woman trying to make a boy into a man is like a man trying to turn a hoe into a housewife. Are you going to try and make your slut girlfriend who has been run through by all your bros into a prude who withholds sex until you buy her flowers and a fancy dinner? Hell no you aren’t. To even suggest this sounds asinine. You not only want her to be just as sexually available for you, you want her to be your personal gigaslut who you can have whenever you like. But there is something unfulfilling and even disgusting (assuming you have any standards at all) about the fact that she was already a slut before you, rather than a naive angel that you got to mold into your personal one. It’s the same type of thing with women and taming. An already tamed man is like an already slutty woman—disgusting—and the idea of de-civilizing him just as asinine.

When women screech about the patriarchy or the red pill or masculinity, it is half them trying to tame the elite, the only men that still exist to them, and half them trying to make sure the hordes of losers can’t pull one over on them. (It’s called a shit test. Read a book bro.) To her, a loser who conned her into thinking he was actually a man with “PUA tactics” is little different than actual rape.

And the reason her screeching keeps escalating is:

25% because she’s miserable and doesn’t know why so is just yelling “fix it!!!!” to men. This is the default female strategy when encountering most problems and works for most things. Sadly for her, “the incentive structure of an entire civilization’s sexual marketplace after a catastrophic vulnerability (contraception) has been discovered and exploited ad nauseam” is a rare exception in which this strategy makes the problem worse rather than better.

25% because she doesn’t give a shit about losers or their plights and couldn’t care less if her insatiable drive to tame (and ultimately to claim) a winner is harming them. She may say “Aw just be yourself and you’ll find one” to your face but “good riddance! Maybe you should stop being a loser!” is what she really thinks and will happily say behind your back.

25% because the elite men are becoming even more beastly. The increase in the number of women competing for them due to their supply dwindling only inflates their ego’s even more, which makes them even less likely to become tamable enough for a woman to lock down.

And 25% because women themselves are getting inflated ego’s off all the underclass male attention they get on social media. When you’re an overweight 5 with acne but you get 100 tinder matches in a day, it’s impossible not to think you’re a fit 8 with perfect skin.

If you want to solve the feminist problem, It really is simple. At least in theory. Rebuild the underclass of men back into a middle class. Decuck even half of the men and most women will chill the fuck out. Sure, they will always be hypergamous, and thus always trying to bring the elite men down so they can get more access to their power and frame and resources, but that is in their nature and cannot and never should change.

If this sounds impossible, the good thing is, it doesn’t even need to happen. In fact, it will be better for you if it doesn’t. Means less competition. All you have to do is become not-a-loser enough to get into the top 20% and then you will have more women competing for you than you’ll know what to do with.

Just like Bitcoin mining, the short term game theoretic incentive of individuals is aligned with the long term game theoretic incentives of the whole network.

Being able to read, digest, and implement the red pill despite that it makes women (and you, assuming you score anything above 10th percentile in agreeableness) uncomfortable is today literally the introductory shit test to becoming worthy of a high SMV woman. Those who can’t get over this hump will simply experience gene death and the human species will be better off for it. Sorry. Nature is a ruthless Bitch. Selection doesn’t care about your feelings.

Anyway. Let’s bring this back to the thesis and review again.

Again, With Feeling

“Culture begins when men can say no to women; when men have something better to do than try to get laid.”

Men certainly are weaker. Men certainly are less attractive to women. The decline of man is certainly a primary cause of the decline of west (ironically, all the underclass men blame the women, when the women are simply responding rationally to male decline. No surprise. Blame and victimhood are peak loser mindset.).

Have men ever before had such a challenge to face? To take on suffering and challenge and improvement voluntarily? To sacrifice many if not most of their short-term drives to meet their long-term ones? It cannot be understated the novelty of this situation. For all of human history, men (and women) have been driven by their short-term needs, and the fact that their long-term needs were met simply happened by default due to being well adapted to the environment.

Short term positive mood chemicals like dopamine (finding something you’ve been looking for or succeeding at something; getting a “Yes!”) and endorphins (exercise) evolved to serve long term positive mood chemicals like serotonin (self esteem and social status) and oxytocin (relationships and long term bonding).  But today, like never before, our short-term desires are completely at odds with our long-term wellbeing.

 The only time it might have been remotely comparable was during the height of Rome. Some say that the rise of the decadent man in late Rome led to the rise of a slave morality, and that the rise of slave morality was what Christianity institutionalized, which eventually led to the collapse of Rome and the next thousand years of Dark Ages. I don’t know what my opinion is on this but I don’t think it is particularly disputable that the revival of man requires a revival, or perhaps birth for the first time ever, of a master morality in men.

Really, the Red Pill is just trying to teach master morality to men with slave morality. “Alpha” is master morality. “Beta” is slave morality.

Has every cultural renaissance started with a pandemic of master morality? If so, it certainly didn’t spread too far previously. Just far enough for a reasonable percentage (10%? 20%?) of men to build some new empire. I suppose it is reasonable that too much master morality would be a bad thing. What happens when everyone is self-directed and says fuck your rules and orders? Chaos. Perhaps civilization itself started with the instantiation of slave morality. Perhaps Africa is what happens when all the men have master morality. Big if true. Nietzsche and HBDers on suicide watch.

But it’s certainly true that a master morality in men, at minimum around the most foundational of all drives within us, the desire for sex, is in need of a renaissance. A renaissance in standards. A renaissance in self-esteem. A renaissance in mission. A renaissance in having something better to do than placating and begging women to get your dick wet.

Becoming domesticated and working a wage slave job you hate just so you can occasionally get some sad dead fish missionary with a 6 is not achieving your potential.

Having kids is great. Having kids is wonderful. But you will destroy your kids souls and ambitions if you marry some hag who dominates you because you’re a fucking loser. Or even if she is an angel: if you can’t afford for her to be a SAHM who can dedicate 100% of her energy to meeting your and your children’s needs, your children will grow up crippled and defective and requires years of therapy just to get to the starting line.

If you’re going to be a loser, don’t subject children to it. If you really want children, then don’t be a child abuser. Become what you could be. Attract a woman who feels like she won the lottery by finding you. Become a powerful contributor to society who makes the big bucks. And only then will you deserve the joys of being a father.  

Women will hate this. Men ignoring them. Women hate nothing more than a high value man they want who will not commit to them. I mean she also loves him and can’t stop thinking about him and fantasizes about his dick all day. But he infuriates her. He is who she shrieks about to all her beta orbiters. The lack of commitment from high value men is the largest driving force behind third wave feminism today. They need him as much as men need sex.

Men are the gate keepers of commitment. Women are the gate keepers of sex.

And just as “sex” is a spectrum of sexuality, commitment is a spectrum of attention.

Your attention is your greatest asset. Just as her sexuality is hers.

Giving a girl attention is just commitment-light. Posting pics in skimpy clothes on the internet is just sex-light.

Men who give away their commitment to women who have not earned it (simps) are no better than women who give away their sex to men who have not earned it (sluts). Both are their gender’s losers. Both are fueled by trauma and dysfunction and low self-esteem.

I think the biggest mistake most men will make in their attempts to reclaim their attention from women will, like most reaction, be to simply invert the existing frame and call it a day. Not to reject the frame and come up with something new, but simply to identify all the premises of the existing frame and do the exact opposite of them; to become everything it despises.

 There is a reason that all the 4chan Nazi’s are also incels. And it’s not because women don’t want to fuck Nazi’s. Real, non LARPing, violent skin heads get laid like mad. 4chan Nazi LARPers are incels because the same mindset that makes you accept the progressive frame and simply invert it, the mindset that makes you choose to be the progressive boogeyman, also makes you do the same with feminism. If progressives or feminists change their goals, the anti-progressive or anti-feminist slave will change his views in direct proportion. Its not about the truth, its about punishing the people who rejected him. “If you won’t love me, if you reject me, then fine. I’ll show you. I’ll become so horrible, so dastardly, I will study your nightmares and become everything you fear and then you’ll wish you never rejected me” says the anti-slave. This is not freedom. This is not indifference. This is revenge.

And thus, there is a huge difference between the red pill “misogynists” and the incel “misogynists”. Both say things that aren’t cozy for women but that is about all they share in common. The conflation between the two is just women being women, trying to get elite men to become tame, by shittesting them via calling them “the thing which I hate and am not attracted to”. Men will pass this shit test. Boys will not.

I point this out to make clear: Hating women is not the solution. Blaming women is not the solution. Trying to hurt or shame or insult women is not the solution. The solution is to become outcome independent of women.

If you have been a slave to women your whole life, if you “followed the rules” of what women and society say women want, and constantly got cucked by chad who gave them what they actually want, you probably have a lot of resentment and need to process that. But this is a phase. And this phase is a means to an end. Not an end in itself.

Most of the “incels”, just try to revoke attention without processing their resentment; they try to repress their pain rather than process it. And so they just obsess and seethe about women all day long. The MGTOWs are maybe a little better, but not by much. They all need to go to therapy and deal with their mommy issues (I say this condescendingly but also whole heartedly. I spent five years in therapy, at least half of it processing my own dysfunction with women and my own messed up relationship with my own mother. I never could have had a successful LTR with a woman, especially one as angelic as my wife, if I hadn’t done so).

Okay. So let’s bring this back to the thesed one final time.

Everyone Loves A Trilogy

“Culture begins when men can say no to women; when men have something better to do than try to get laid.”

Men must be able to say no to women’s short term comfort to benefit women in the long term. Men must be able to say no to women’s short term comfort to benefit themselves in the long term. Men must be able to say no to women’s short term comfort to benefit civilization in the long term.

Many men just need to be able to say no period. It’s not even a problem specific to women. I addressed my inability to say no to both women and everyone at the same time but I can see why a lot of men can say no to men but not women.

Most great advancements in human progress were done by incels. Nietzsche was an incel. Jesus was an incel. Telsa was an incel. Newton was an incel. (This thread is fun. I can’t tell how much of it is ironic, which makes it better). But also most mass shooters are incels. Sexual energy is power. And thus sexual energy retention is power retention. How or why that power is retained and how it is used can be a force for creation or a force for destruction. But any existing power structure is more than happy with you as a coomer because it makes you weak and uninterested in challenging it, all your power dried and caked deep into the crevices of your keyboard.

Many men voluntarily use semen retention and the diverting of sexual energy as rocket fuel to achieve their goals. The first NOFAP’er was Napoleon Hill, the “founder” of the self-help genre. I am not necessarily saying do this, though I did it for 3 months back in my early days and found it was powerful. The point is:

Culture, innovation, creation, and progress are fundamentally the triumph of man’s humanity over his primal urges. Or, to be exact, man’s mastery of his primal urges to maximize his humanity; his ability to leverage all of himself to become an unstoppable generative a force of nature.

The revival of man is inevitable. It is already under way. It needs no help from you or me. And frankly, it is more for the history books than anything that directly applies to either of us.

But the birth of you into a man. Well that is certainly something you can help. And something that will impact your world far more than any kind of social renaissance. And, anon, isn’t that your true motivation for all this anyway?

---