1. Welcome to NoFap! We have disabled new forum accounts from being registered for the time being. In the meantime, you can join our weekly accountability groups.
    Dismiss Notice

Let's read together: The Rationale Male

Discussion in 'Dating during a Reboot' started by franco216, Jul 4, 2017.

  1. franco216

    franco216 Fapstronaut

    228
    138
    43
    A friend recommended to me:

    Rollo Tomassi: The Rational Male, 2013

    I already read a couple of books on the topic of the dynamics of male-female interaction and, after the discussion with said friend, I kind of knew what I could expect from the book. Now 15% into the book, I think it's worth reading.

    In case someone here read it already: I'm interested in your opinion. How did you like the book? What parts did you agree on in particular? What parts did you disagree on? Did it raise any questions?

    In case you haven't read the book yet, this is why I recommend it:

    • The topic of the book, the dynamics of male-female interaction, is still widely dominated by myths. There have been a couple of recent authors finally approaching the topic and their findings can be quite eye-opening.
    • While I also recommend Neil Strauss (The Game, The Truth: An Uncomfortable Book about Relationships) and psychological literature (e.g. Firestone: The Fantasy Bond), it's not easy to find a book that covers the topic as accessible and crisp.
    • Especially for those who are already familiar with PUA literature, The Rational Male complements the topic perfectly by going into the dynamics of relationships (LTRs). A topic not usually covered by PUAs. At the same time, the author is well aware of the merits of the PUA scene.
    So this is basically an invitation to read this book together and share thoughts :)

    (btw I'm not sure if this is the optimal place for this thread, maybe an admin can point me to the adequate forum)
     
    faplordxd likes this.
  2. franco216

    franco216 Fapstronaut

    228
    138
    43
    One thing I found interesting: Tomassi on the topic of "alphaness", i.e. what makes an alpha male?

    Tomassi states that there are objective criteria of alphaness, however, because alphaness starts in your brain as an attitude, it's basically impossible to pinpoint alpha behavior. But the behavior again is all we can see and work with! So in order to zero in on alphaness, we can look at examples of alpha males and what they do, how they act, their body language and how they are perceived (by females, by their friends, by the wider society) and then we can infer their attitude - the essence of their alphaness.

    Tomassi comes to interesting results. The path to a clear view on alphaness is clouded by subjectivity because basically everyone has a personal self-image and according to our self-image we are all alpha - even if we have to bend the definition. In fact, it's a very typical beta trait to apply all kinds of rationalizations in order to confirm your alphaness for yourself (and without any notable success with women).

    For example, when I get rejected (a challenge of my alpha status), I come up with an ad-hoc explanation: that woman wasn't up to my standards anyway (sour grapes!), or: she was out of my league anyway.

    Then, when other men exhibit their alphaness (with behavior that is foreign and weird and immoral to us), we resent calling it alpha despite their obvious success with women.

    But alphaness isn't about being moral, or responsible, or whatnot.

    So in the end, we have to rediscover our own personal, authentic way of being alpha and while we're at it: we can learn to respect other people's ways without judging.
     
  3. The Wrestler

    The Wrestler Fapstronaut

    697
    673
    93
    Social psychology has repeatedly disproven the whole concept of "Alpha Male" pickup artists. The beliefs are routed in really negative perceptions of women, and actually of men - men aren't sex wolves or horny lions or Wolverines or whatever - men are men. It also really reinforces negative stereotypes of women (like that they're just objects to pursue and not well-developed complex people), and rather than building each other up "Alpha Males" instead focus on tearing others down to make themselves feel better. It makes sense to me why people hold to it, because no one wants to feel weak or vulnerable, but a) tearing people down doesn't actually make a person feel better, it just makes more people feel terrible and b) what the research shows is that confidence comes from practice and being happy. Practice is very closely tied with how people see failure, and the ever important concept of "failing forward," which, actually, a lot of pickup artists use, but in a really self-defeating way (which renders the whole thing moot). Happiness as a concept and study is even more fascinating. The idea that "if I do this then I'll be happy" is, surprisingly, backwards. Positive psychologists are finding more and more that being happy first increases the chances for success because a happy brain is a productive brain.

    The other finding in psychology and sociology which is really startling when you think about it but is also very true, is that vulnerability fuels connection. It is easy to think "alpha male" "pack leader" or whatever to help psych oneself up to the challenge, but the simple truth is that approaching a woman and asking her out is a vulnerable action. Sharing my struggle with porn with my girlfriend was a vulnerable thing to do, but the way she has responded has strengthened our relationship. A person has deep connection with friends because those friends have seen them at their weakest, they've shared secrets, and those friends have not betrayed that trust.
     
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2017
    JamesRK likes this.
  4. franco216

    franco216 Fapstronaut

    228
    138
    43
    "Alpha" as in alpha male is just a word.

    Maybe you are using it in a different way than Tomassi. E.g. it's new to me that the concept of alpha
    • is routed in negative perceptions of women (surely not according to Tomassi)
    • has something to do with "tearing down others" to make oneself feel better (wouldn't that rather proof low self-esteem?)
    • not being/feeling vulnerable
    Indeed, Tomassi argues that objectification of women by men is a technique to avoid rejection - not something a confident person would need, and certainly not alpha. Same with being vulnerable. An alpha male is certainly not emotionally numb and invulnerable, quite the contrary, I guess alphaness means being well calibrated and attached to one's emotions.

    And Tomassi prepares the reader a little bit for the topic and asks them to forget what they believe what alpha implies.
     
    faplordxd likes this.
  5. franco216

    franco216 Fapstronaut

    228
    138
    43
    So, later, Tomassi uses a different term and instead of "alpha" he says "positive masculinity". Maybe that better covers what his concept of alpha is about. It's a broader term and it isn't loaded with the biological/evolutionary background the same way as "alpha male".
     
  6. franco216

    franco216 Fapstronaut

    228
    138
    43
    Something I became aware only recently, 50% into the book, there is a quite comprehensive theory out there about intersexual dynamics on the level of society.

    The is a lose community called the "manosphere" where certain concepts have developed and Tomassi basically put the core aspects into a book. The theory goes like this:

    There is a conflict of interest between man and women that has its roots in biology. The genes dictate different and contradicting strategies to the behavior of men and women. The best strategy for men (from the perspective of the gene), is to spread out his seed as quickly and broadly as possible, because - in caveman's times - there's no cost associated to that. A man has a lot of sperm and thus wants to have sex with as many women as possible.
    Quite different for the (cave-) woman: once she get's pregnant, she's vulnerable and has another hungry mouth to feed. The survival of herself and her offspring depend on her ability to get protection from the tribe.

    Because the father has an interest in protecting his offspring, too (albeit much smaller than the mother), there's a natural win-win for the father to protect "wive" and kids. There isn't however any limit on the number of wives a man would have.

    Now culture developed and men and women have additional means to promote their respective strategies. For some reason, today, we've reached a point where monogamy is the norm and it's considered the man's responsibility to take care of a woman he made pregnant. We have to take a step back and recognize this phenomenon. There's a huge lobby, consisting of men and women, that shame the "egoistic" behavior of men, while the interests of women are defended on a moral level. Think Oprah Winfrey: "The most difficult job on the planet"

    It could be the other way round: single mother's would be shamed for making so poor life choices, irresponsibly ending up with a baby and no resources, while polygamous men with big harems would get public recognition and social aid even, to provide for their huge families. But it isn't.

    Now how to make sense of a world, where even men one-sidedly support the female interests on the expense of their own interests? According to the manosphere, we live in a fem-centric matrix. We are being lied to. The male defense of monogamy is the result of a system of falsehoods exploiting the majority of men who are good-natured. We, the nice guys, are willing to believe that we can trust the word of the women we live with. We accept their moral judgments. We agree that an "unfaithful" man is a jerk - even if he never promised exclusivity to any of his women.

    This "female imperative", the rule of female interest, doesn't cover 100% of society. Not every man subscribes to monogamy and in the manosphere, man's interest are debated openly. Still, public debate and public opinion and all what's "politically correct" is based on the female imperative.

    No need to mention that we have to be "unplugged" and before that happens, we'll be in a state of denial (followed by anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance).
     
  7. franco216

    franco216 Fapstronaut

    228
    138
    43
    W
    Whatever makes you happy, man! :)
     
  8. franco216

    franco216 Fapstronaut

    228
    138
    43
    So, now that I'm through with the book, I can wholeheartedly recommend it.

    There is a thing that I found interesting, but Tomassi never elaborates. Currently, we live under the female imperative. Masculinity is somewhat frowned upon - with associations of violence and egoism, while femininity embodies some sort of societal ideal - love, compassion, the common good.

    First of all, this is not men vs. women. All the book is about, is positive masculinity. And this is important because some men connect to their masculine side only to find themselves shamed and alienated for it by large parts of the society.

    One might wonder, though, WHY is society dominated by the female imperative? Why monogamous relationships and marriage? Why do men largely try to conform to the standards set up by women in order to qualify as their spouses?

    I like to speculate that this is an evolutionary mechanism. In terms of reproduction, men are the disposable sex (Tomassi mentions that). Imagine two competing tribes that fought a bloody war. The first tribe is left with 50 women and 5 men, while the other tribe is left with 5 women and 50 men (for whatever reason). If the tribes never meet again, after some 50 years, the first one will recover quickly with up to 50 newborn in the first generation, while the second tribe is doomed and won't probably ever grow back to its original size. Men are disposable and thus fight to protect the women.

    In turn however, men fight and women depend on men directly and more short-term.

    But we don't live in tribes anymore. Modern western societies don't know existential wars anymore, either. Women do not depend directly on men anymore, neither for protection nor for support. I believe, for this reason the feminine imperative took over completely. Without existential threats overriding the female imperative once in a while, a society "femininizes" and the preferences of women (regarding child bearing, but later about anything) dominate our lives.
     
    faplordxd likes this.
  9. faplordxd

    faplordxd Fapstronaut

    65
    36
    18
    Just ordered the book today ill let you know what i think
     
    franco216 likes this.

Share This Page