The manosphere has blessed the world with invaluable knowledge. I truly believe that there are men whose lives have been saved from total ruin, simply by following and understanding Red Pill basics.

However… this does not mean that there are not versions of Red Pill advertised that totally miss the mark. They aim to spread confusion rather than clarity, the same way modern media propagates establishment misinformation. Similarly to how social media campaigns are decided in small rooms from so-called “PR consultants”, so is your daily manosphere content decided by the same guys.

The main detection tool to distinguish gems from chuff is answering the following question: Is this advice aimed at increasing my agency? If it is not, it is usually there to confuse you. The founding block of the manosphere is precisely male agency.

Having said that, let us address some common myths that are thrown around nowdays.

The dating market is harder (Supply side)

No, no, and no. A million times no. The dating market, as a market in the economic sense, has never been better than it is today. Lower your Ego and rationally consider the following:

• Nearly every fertile young girl is unmarried – Never have been in the past. Young girls don’t leave the market (supply is maximal).
• The concentration of people in megacities has made search costs as low as possible. In terms of meeting girls, the modern male has potential never before imagined.
• Adding to the above, we have ease of travelling, instant communication, and if you are willing to go that route, dating apps.

Therefore, purely in terms of Supply, the market for hot, young women has never been better in the history of the human race. Girls never leave the market, are concentrated in one place, and it is easier to communicate with them.

You disagree? Speak with your grandfather. His village had 50 hot young girls, and by the time he was an adult, 30 of them had already been married. Compared to your ancestors, you are visiting a modern supermarket, while they had access to a raided convenience store.

However… you still want to protest, the market is doomed because of male competition… well let’s see.

The dating market is harder (Demand)

Well, you protest that males are taller than ever, richer than ever, and… more of them in pure numbers than ever. We have well documented 3rd world (primarily male) invasions to modern nations that make the average city a low value cockfest.

Well, it is true by purely mathematical and statistical accounts. The demand for sex from males matches and possibly exceeds the supply of girls. But you are forgetting the simple biological fact: Betas will always be Beta.

In the eyes of the girl, the Beta is an imp, a donkey, a beast of burden. And more importantly, an eunuch. There is a whole Red Pill literature supporting this with examples aplenty. In the eyes of the girl, the Beta male is a non-human. That is why they express contempt and unimaginable cruelty at them (have you seen divorce laws?).

Therefore, even if your city has a male-to-female ratio of 99:1, in reality, you are competing against other Alphas and Naturals. Betas will get the scraps regardless.

Don’t confuse pure numbers with real “volume” of competition. That competition is a Potemkin village. You always have been and always will be competing with relatively few other sex worthy men. And those men are always rare.

If you are not getting any sex, it is because you are in the wrong box, not due to competition.

So why is it so hard?

Have you seen the job market lately? Where the rallying cry of the whole industry is “over 100 applicants per job!”, you are not getting a job due to competition! Well… let me tell you, as the job argument is horseshit, so is the dating equivalent.

Let’s start with the job market. The reason you are not getting a job is because there are no jobs. Period. If there were jobs, those 100 applicants would be assigned to jobs, even if not immediately, maybe within a short period of time. But the reason they are not assigned into jobs, is because there are no jobs, not because there are 100 applicants.

Therefore, if your argument is that there is not enough sex to go around. It is because there is no sex happening. Not because there are more dicks in the modern world.

And now we arrive at the root cause of evil: not the market, not the supply of dicks, not the supply of pussy. Instead, simply that there is no sex happening in general. So why is there no sex happening:

1. Atomization
2. Feminism
3. Anti-male laws
4. Lifestyle of slavery (better put systematic suppression of agency)

The system isolates you, makes you overworked, and makes the women hysterical with fantasies of brutality and hatred. That is why there is no sex, because there are no connections between men and women being established. Because those connections are inherently becoming more and more impossible to establish, either via systemic pressure or ideological divergence.

But the mother of all causes is…

Sex is initiated from the erect phallus, not the pussy

If you are any familiar with Red Pill literature, it should be clear that eggs are expensive and sperm is cheap. Women don’t need sex as much as men do. Even genetically in humans this is supported: 14-30% of men reproduced vs 80% of women, ever.

Nature experiments and discards men like there is no tomorrow. If human male was a standalone species, it is facing the worst evolutionary pressure in the entire animal kingdom. Primarily induced by other humans, as homo sapiens himself is an apex predator.

The whole point is that if women are asked the question to fuck or not fuck, they won’t fuck. Therefore, when the male becomes passive, loses his entrepreneurial power to combine resources with his friends and make things work, then… only women are left to choose when sex happens, and the entire decision falls on their shoulders.

And as we already said, when women choose, they won’t fuck. They will just milk men for attention and resources (either directly or indirectly via the state).

I have seen (and had sex with) girls, that if you judged them by their behaviour, you would had said that they are complete sluts. They talk about dick, actively think about it, hit on men, etc. Well, even after clubbing with such women long term, do you know how many guys they fucked? … the best one was 2, over the course of a full year. And that was a girl who would be clubbing solo until 8am, after the rest of the group left.

Drill this into your head: sex needs male leadership. From meet, to escalation, to bedroom. Leave it to the girls, and no matter what they say, they won’t fuck – sex just won’t happen.

On the other hand, if males bonded, initiated festivals, parties, and showcased true male competence. The women would relax and be led into intimacy. The Dionysian orgies of antiquity are not what we see in modern clubs. Because ancient Greeks had what you don’t: manly agency and spirit. That is why the 4 reasons stated in the previous section sting so much. Because they take male agency away.

And with this out of the way, drill the following into your mind.

Women’s competition is not sexual

If you had a pussy, you would understand that you could sexually access any totem pole in a 100km vicinity. Even a 6 can jump a male 9 with very little effort. Hence, their competition is not sexual, it is not to grab men. They have undisputed free rein. Their competition is against other girls for a purely materialistic and pervertedly status seeking goal.

You protest and claim: that even then, women are sexually competing, but they do so for connection and relationship exclusivity. Bollox I say, because what is the purpose of a “relationship” than to parade the man in front of her friends and show them how good of a catch she got. She could very easily get emotional stability and safety nets from her own female social groups. She doesn’t need a man who barely understands what being a girl is.

All female competition exists for the simple reason of sticking it to other girls. Square and simple. It is not there to access high value men or resources. Take Korea, for example, the place with the most fierce female competition on planet earth: 1 out of 3 women has done facial surgery, and the spending for luxury and fashion is through the roof. If this is not “female competition”, I don’t know what it is.

So what are these girls competing for? Have you seen Korean men, and their pussified physique and mentality? Nearly all Korean girls I have dated have told me straight: Korean men are very kind and available, but so boring! [because they call me selfish in contrast].

Regardless, let’s give the benefit of the doubt and assume that there are hidden K-pop stars in the building corners that are monopolizing all sex. Girls, therefore, are competing for this hidden, angel face, Asian sex-ninja. The following numbers are from 2020, presumably better than now:

• Mean age of first sexual encounter: 22
• Percentage that had engaged in casual sex: 12% (up to 14% for a 95% Confidence Interval)
• Sexlessness in the past year: 43% of women and 36% of men reported no sex in 2020-2021

You can go on with these; we all know the situation is bad. But my point is, if the competition is so fierce, then where the hell is the sex! Where is the horny little Asian man?

Because that is the whole point, female competition is not about sex! The idea is smoke and mirrors. Female competition is about attention, which originates from pettiness to stick it to other girls. And if you take it too seriously, the whole society will end up going to shit.

The Sexual Market Place is a parable. It is meant to represent a model and a model only. A predictive and useful model that nails the task of implanting the basics of Red Pill into the student. Its usefulness ends there. Because the SMP is not a tool for self-actualization. Excelling at the “market” is not your purpose in life. Cascades from this idea lead to all sorts of perversions and discussions on Game and Value that ultimately miss the point.

What is your purpose in life and Game

Are you in Game to bang girls? Are you in Game for the hedonistic purpose of sticking your dick into women?

Have you ever had pointless sex to understand the emptiness of sex just for sex? Using the girl as a masturbation machine to be forgotten the next day? It is not worth it like that; this is alleviating the symptom, not the cause. At the end of the day, paying a whore will always be effort positive towards you. Even at advanced stages of Game, if Game were to be just a “job” to “buy” sex, then I guarantee you, working overtime on your normal job and hiring an escort instead is the play.

So, the point is not about the sex. Well, let me tell you it is not about women either. Have you seen animals in the zoo, bears do this and monkeys do this: they make bored, silly faces, all life sucked out of them… and they masturbate. Masturbation symbolizing the emptiness of their existence. They never do this in nature… maybe, have they been hyper-sexualized?

Do you see my point now? When you think of women and think of adventure, companionship, and connection – depending on which angle you observe the thought – you are missing the point. You find this adventure, companionship, and connection in them only because you have no other way to find those.

Do you have any friends? True male friends to bond over the hunt and campfire like your ancestors did? Can you roam into the forest and be truly free, do whatever you like, explore however you like, let your curiosity run wild? Of course you can’t; that’s why you are regressing to seeking that in women.

Don’t get me wrong, in the modern world, you don’t have any alternatives. All space is owned by some state or another, and they will force you to submit to their petty and arbitrary rules. The times when you could enforce your own justice based on the strength of your ability and might are long gone now. Same is true of your connections. Respect is a concept long gone. Because respect for another man comes from a shared understanding of good and beauty. But no such thing is possible in the cult of identity. Uniqueness for the sake of uniqueness. Brokenness and incoherence everywhere that makes the man weak. Even if you could find your so-called “true friends”, you would be too weak to achieve much of anything.

The hunting part of courtship is the only space that is relatively unmoderated. This with an asterisk. On one hand, courtship that is primarily regulated by hormones has to be free. Because the hormones themselves bow to no rules. The wildness of the female spirit and sexuality, is still that, unregulated wildness. On the other hand, the social programming of the last 60 years has invaded exactly that free and wild space. It invokes petty rules and boundaries even in the realm of courtship. That is the one true reason many of us find satisfaction in more feminine cultures, with so-called traditional gender roles. These are just cultures where the female spirit hasn’t been constrained.

But understand this: satisfaction in Game comes from the adventure. It doesn’t come from the fucking. It is you, your skills, and the wildness of the social battlefield. You are on a raid to conquer. The loot is just that… the cherry on top. The adventure itself is your true purpose.

I strongly disagree that replication is our purpose in life, taking precedence over many other functions. I believe copulation and the generation of new life in humans is an instinct that only kicks in after a sufficient level of self-actualization. At the basic level, think the fate of the mantis, where he is being beheaded from the female while he is sticking his dick into her. Do you not feel the aversion to this fate? Do you not feel the aversion of your life purpose being reduced to a shoot of sperm, carrying half of your genetic composition? On the non-basic level, think of the fate of the depressed millionaire. Spending his days on his dark head, with life having no meaning – that is success with no meaning. Is popping a kid into a woman the thing that will give him purpose in life? Are you mad?

There is a higher force and a higher satisfaction that comes from a successful seduction. It is not mechanics, and it is not gene propagation only. It is the act of achievement, the use of skillset, the creation of something out of nothing. There is a bottom version of seduction – the fucking. There is a higher and noble version of it – the art. That is why picking up a slut from the dance floor at 4am feels empty, that is why fucking a whore feels empty.

The Sexual Market Place

Sufficient iterations of Game and intersexual theory have gone to incredible depths. Knowledge of male and female psychology has never been understood better than to this day. The SMP, however, with all its genius, is just a perversion of the concepts. Because the SMP is meant to signify a signpost, a scientific and predictive tool, not a thing in itself. It doesn’t exist as a fixed structure; it only exists on the first level of abstraction – not a true representation, instead, a low-resolution image.

So what is the issue with the SMP? By acknowledging its existence, you have given yourself a new set of rules and boundaries to trap you. The point of Game is the conquering. You have your skillset, and you need to apply it to make something out of nothing. You are not a point in the SMP graph; you are a range of points, all conditional on how you use your social skills in the short to medium term. There is no fair exchange, there is only “risk assessment” to where your skills can take you. The SMP is guidelines, what is good and what is bad, but under no circumstances should it be viewed as an absolutist list of prices, what X in male value can buy Y in female value. Because your X doesn’t exist, as a man, you make that X. Static value is only for women, that is the curse of looks. And you should be thankful for it, because static value implies no agency.

All this leads to my next point. The issues that spring from taking the SMP too literally. That is the Online Game type of guy: Looksmaxx, get your finances in order and get your value sky-high. Then girls will pick you, bro! Putting effort is for Betas! Does that sound fun to you? Did you already forget the purpose of Game we discussed above? By acknowledging that mindframe, you already forfeited the challenge of the adventure for the perversion that is lack of agency. You do X and optimize Y, then you expect the teacher to come to you, say “Good boy”, and give you a girl to pork. It is fundamentally a weak and reactive position. And it will stay like this, regardless of you tapping a girl here or a girl there. You are the depressed millionaire in search for meaning.

That exactly is the difference that gives meaning or not. Expecting to chart your own path vs waiting someone to praise you for excelling at something. From the former, SMP is a navigating tool; from the latter, SMP is a prison no different than the one you had before. The SMP doesn’t have a predetermined slot with your name on it. You force yourself into the SMP, and you make that slot for you. And you only occupy that slot in the moment and in context, not universally. That is only the correct way of understanding it, and by extension, understanding Red Pill in general.

It is time, again, for a discussion on mental models. In particular, we will extend Amaury de Riencourt’s [Eye of Shiva] ideas in regards to evolution of thought. I had already touched this subject in a recent article, where the question was on how to approach and learn seduction. This time, it is about understanding headspaces and how we can use them.

Philosophical background

What we will explore today is the relation of the mind with the external world. This is a curious topic, as the brain itself is not optimized for world objectivity and understanding. Contrary to popular belief, the minimal requirements to sustain life do not really require mapping out the world, with examples aplenty: from primitive bacteria, to plants, to even dogs with limited color perception. Much of what you would even call color perception is generated in the brain; heat, for example, is radiation, not different than blue or red. The same is true for sound (vibration waves), taste and smell (chemical compositions), etc. We have already explored these ideas and the way they relate to frames in this article here.

For us, higher beings that we are, a lot of interaction with the world is needed, so our senses are quite advanced, despite inherent mechanistic limitations. Beyond senses, however, is the brain’s own interpretation of the world. A peculiar aspect because it is freed from evolutionary shackles and is much affected by culture and man-made progression and discovery. When we focus on this aspect, a story becomes painfully obvious about the history of thought, written in myth and tradition passed down through history. I will keep the following summary short; the linked article has a much more in-depth explanation.

Up to the advent of Indo-Aryans and their subsequent establishment in Greece and India, during the second millennium BC, much of life operated under a mythopoetic viewpoint. Mental space and reality (i.e., senses) were intermixed in a single blend of life experience. Gods and morality would jump out of men’s heads and affect the real world directly. A bad omen would relate to subsequent catastrophic events, hence symbol was reality itself. Continuity in time was also a questionable topic. For example, a bad gamble or a lost bet could not be analyzed in isolation with a mental split between “decision” and “outcome” (under probabilistic uncertainty), but only as a holistic continuous event.

For complicated reasons, mainly associated with the rise of Male spirit, the eternal myth that distorted reality under mythological perception broke down with the rise of Indo-Aryans. The external world, for the first time, could be understood as a thing in itself, something that exists beyond our perception and predisposition of it. For the first time, an independent Object exists in the outside world, and a biased Subject that observes the Object lives in man himself.

East and West

Before relating the discussion back to women, let us understand the effects of this mentality shift with the biggest split in thought the planet has experienced. Regardless of the culture in which you grew up, one of the two following schools of thought has left a tremendous mark on your perception of the world.

Greece and West

In the West, stemming from Ancient Greek philosophy, the Subject was eliminated completely. This is not to say that we are unbiased; remember that rationalism of all things was the outcome of Greek philosophy, and certainly that caused much confusion in the West until the empiricism and materialism of science and the scientific method.

However, the elimination of the subject is what allows for the codification and reproducibility of knowledge. Take the concepts of addition and subtraction: they are meant to work in abstract. When you are tasked with the calculation of 5+3, you know that the answer is 8. When you give the same question to your friend, you expect the same answer. The point of the question itself is precisely to arrive at the answer, and to do so regardless of your emotional or biological state. Once you learn to add up two numbers, you can do so regardless of whether you are depressed, happy, starving, or with a full belly. It is knowledge that can be boxed in and “installed” in any person.

Much of European artistic and poetic expression follows suit. Paintings and sculptures are meant to induce a shared understanding among all participants. Even an ambiguous case, like the Mona Lisa’s smile, still induces questions in regards to a shared, objective, unambiguous question: “Is she smiling?”

Buddhism and the East

In the East, stemming from Buddhism, analytical thought took a different direction. The subject itself wasn’t eliminated as in the West, but analysis was primarily based on the interaction of the subject and the object. As a result, analysis of the subject itself is more advanced in the East. The central question revolves around internal understanding of psychology, with the aim of overcoming the self and reaching enlightenment. However, with the predictable result that Western style of science, arguably, could never have been developed in the East.

To explain this shift, it is best to consider the difference between the teachings of each. Remind yourself of our argument on how addition is taught in the West. The concept is boxed, packaged, and made reproducible for each person. The Eastern equivalent is quite different. Knowledge is meant to be personal and developed over lived experience. That is why meditation is important to insight for them. Guidance to enlightenment is through an experienced guru, personalizing teaching and guiding the student to revelation. The student’s emotional state and viewpoint (the subject) are as important as the outcome of the mediation (the subject).

No words can describe the situation better than a few pictures. Let us now see some differences between Western and Eastern art:

Observe the differences between the Western and Eastern art. The Western version is about the depiction of the painting. This is about the fall of Rome. You can see each individual piece independently, without it losing its meaning. In contrast, the Japanese art is meant to be digested as a holistic piece. Taking the boat and the sailors and isolating them from the picture would, as a result, lose its purpose and meaning. The Japanese artwork is about what feeling it induces in you, rather than what feeling it depicts (in the Western version).

Back to Women

I hope you liked the philosophical digression, because here is where we connect the topics discussed back to seduction. The revolution in thought, for both Greeks and Buddhists, was an outcome of the Male spirit establishing itself into the world. The entire concept of Object is meant to amplify the Male need to understand and conquer the world. The point of my following argument is that this is not the default software of women. Girls, unless there is a need, do not prioritize Object and Subject the way men natively do in the modern world (either through something resembling the Greeks or the Buddhist thought).

The Native Mentality of Women

My position and empirical experience is that in contrast to men, which the direction of understanding moves towards the Object, either via the Subject or directly into it, then women’s understanding predominantly revolves around the Subject. The Object itself, is only a tool for self-understanding, i.e., an interpreter of the subject. Women selectively use the object as a tool to shape their subject.

When the Buddhists used their subject to better understand the world (the object), women will use the material and external world (object) to understand themselves (subject). The direction is:

Object → Subject

In particular, their self-image is not sovereign as it can become in men, but entrapped in the material/perceptual world. When talking about sovereignty, it is the ability to shape the Subject to adapt to your needs, the ability to consciously become. Canonically, that is its definition. Men can do this because the direction flows from Subject to Object, the former is mutable. But for women, the arrow has to go from Object to Subject to define it. Thus Subject cannot be shaped as it is an endgoal, and an end is fundamentally subservient to the process leading to it. The woman cannot be independently sovereign precisely because of this. This is the root cause of female materialism that remains immutable despite culture. Her materialism is her attempt at self-realization: shape the Subject by acquisition of the Object.

Remind yourself, a man must “become”; this is his path to self-actualization. A woman just “is”, the woman is preoccupied with “being”. But being is not a stand-alone concept; being is relative to the concept. She cannot be a princess if the rest of the world doesn’t consider her a princess. She cannot be pretty if others don’t treat her as pretty. Her Subject needs the Object to conform to it.

The fluidity of Object and Solipsism

The first battle, establishing a Subject was explained, and so was explained the woman’s innate materialism. We now showcase the shadow case of this relationship by the backwards relationship between Subject and Object.

Remind yourself the goal of Buddhism: to understand the Object via the Subject. The Subject itself is meant to be changed (i.e., the path to enlightenment) to aid understanding of the Object (which is usually considered immutable). This is a big contrast to what happens when, in the case of women, we put the Subject as the directional endgoal. Consider the following 2-step logical progression.

Remember our earlier insight: for her to be a princess, she needs others (the Object) to treat her as such. That is the first step and proves materialism. The next step is that when the Subject itself is fixed, i.e., she IS a princess now, then the Object itself also changes. When she wasn’t a princess, her fellow countrymen were just that – countrymen. When she becomes a princess, her fellow countrymen, are not her countrymen anymore, they are her subjects. The Object itself has changed, and so has its relationship to the Subject. Reality changed via perceptional shift. This is the core and the essence of women’s solipsism.

Clarification: When I say the Object changes here, it is in regard to the relationship with the girl itself. Not a physical change, a relational change. Let’s call it her mental understanding of the Object if you will. In the example used, the equal is not relationally same with the subordinate.

Solipsism is the outcome of the evolving relationship between Subject and Object. The former takes priority over the latter, and hence, she will prioritize the view of the Object that serves her idealized image of Subject. Contrary to popular belief, women will engage with other viewpoints, but only when their relationship to the world has changed first. First, her Subject will need to change, then will the way she perceives the Object change. That is Solipsism.

The experience of seduction

We are now ready to also explain the main talking patterns used in Game. A few things should be painfully obvious already:

• Keep the conversation personal
• Change her feelings, not her mind
• No reason for logical or idealogical speech

This and similar advice already addresses the directional firmware of the women’s mind, i.e., speech is directed to the subject, not the object. Let us now explain two more concepts, the one of attraction and the one of mythology building.

Attraction: rapport breaking

It is long known that attraction is created in the push, but in our current terminology, what does this mean? Push itself is a reframe, a reframe of expectations, or better put: a reframe in the causal link between object -> subject.

Do you see it now? When you say, “I like your big white puffy jacket. It looks warm and cute, but… are you an Eskimo?” It precisely addresses that directional firmware between what is and what does that mean about her.

Rapport: mythology building

One of the strongest ways to establish rapport in dates is via myth-building. At the end of the day, the goal is for the girl to give you significant control over her concept of subject (this is about leadership, don’t get crazy over the concept description). The concept works as follows:

• Reframe of herself (or you, or both)
• Then reframe of the world to match your reframe
• Keep amplifying

As long as your direction is towards happy and positive reframes, they usually play along.

However, this is precisely what we described on the axis that involves solipsism earlier! As the subject changes, so does the object.

Bottom line

Many of seduction techniques aim to amplify nature’s biases. In this case, they aim to amplify the women’s mental software. But at the end of the day, the original relationship is the one that stays true and immutable across time and space, culture and situation. Adapt your game to the golden principle:

Object → Subject

Then, more often than not, you will be acting correctly.