Former Community – We Moved

🆕 Coached community here, for posts & feedback public community here.

ForumPublic Forum: DatingRelationshipsHow much of a jerk you need to be …

Please or Register to create posts and topics.

How much of a jerk you need to be in a relationship

#1 · August 22, 2021, 11:33 pm

Conventional redpill wisdom is that the game never ends and you have to be a bit self-centred as a man in a relationship or she will lose respect.

Chateau heartiste s book is a good summary of tactics that align with this viewpoint.

Now from an evolutionary biology perspective this does make a bit of sense. If the neighbouring tribe just murdered all the males if her and her children are to survive she better get along with the murderers. And that's who we are descended from. That explains woman who excuse abusive and manipulative pos boyfriends.

Now as usual here I couldn't care less about ideology. We want a pragmatic set of guidelines for what rules you can bend and what you never should.

My personal situation is I live with a good and feminine woman we've been together 6 years. I don't want to become complacent and let the relationship slowly bleed out and lose meaning as I've seen this happen to hundreds of guys. It's not from a place of neediness I have the skills had could go and pick up tomorrow if I had to I just don't want to.

Lucio Buffalmano has reacted to this post.

#2 · August 22, 2021, 11:39 pm

I will kick the discussion off with a bit of science. A couple of studies show that polarity is a must for female attraction.

And I'm afraid as I started this thread and I'm a male I'm going to start with the assumption that most men don't want a dead bedroom.

One was even published in The guardian which is a very lefty politically correct institution.

In summary your woman will feel attraction when you come back or hot and sweaty from the gym. When you do all those things that feminists tell us lead to a good relationship she will feel close to you but won't feel sexual attraction.

So working in the yard or on the car is good doing the dishes cooking telling the kids a bedside time story not so good.

And there is the big question.

How do you be a supportive partner and hopefully evolve a mutual win-win relationship and still keep your woman physically attracted and respectful?

Lucio Buffalmano and leaderoffun have reacted to this post.

#3 · August 23, 2021, 6:16 am

Feedbacks are necessary for growth and sometimes making people aware of what they are doing even if they can't see it is necessary and harsh. So hope you can handle this.

The way you have written the post seems like you are actually needy and feeling desperation to hold on to the relationship.

So working in the yard or on the car is good doing the dishes cooking telling the kids a bedside time story not so good.

This one makes it seem like you are trying hard to act more "redpill-masculine".When anyone sees you trying to hold on desperately to this idea of redpill-masculinity it comes of as you being insecure in your masculinity and will definitely lose attraction.

However to have a win-win in relationships it's necessary that all the activities are to be shared in such a way that the activities are to be done by someone who is much better at that than the other while at the same time not burdening the other.

And as per your redpill-masculinity idea, there are plenty examples where I have seen guys in a relationship who do what's called traditional female activities like cooking, reading a book to the kids do well in relationships and it never hurt the attraction their partner had towards them.

#4 · August 23, 2021, 10:37 am

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on August 23, 2021, 10:37 am
Great thread, Kevin!
The first thing I'd ask is:
Do you need to be a jerk?
That's not to deny possible advantages, but to avoid staying stuck in "how to be a jerk" without considering possible alternatives.
If yes, how does that "jerk" look like?
What are the traits and behaviors that make a jerk more able to maintain attraction and sexual attraction?
Can you be too much of a jerk?
Probably yes, too.
So how can you be the "good" type of jerk, who still maintains a win-win, pie-enlarging relationship?
Can your focus on "being a jerk" make you come across as defensive / needy
Growfast touches on that.
I don't think this is the case with Kevin at all.
But it's the case with a sub-group of guys.
Some of them were "too nice" to begin with, unassertive doormats, or never understood basic power dynamic (including that if you place someone so higher above you, that someone also starts losing respect/attraction).
When they start opening their eyes, they focus on "how to be a jerk", but tend to overshoot the mark, and come across as low-power guys who are trying too hard (alpha male posturing).
Also the over-focus on "having to maintain her attraction" can be a defensive mindset that comes from a place of low confidence and self-doubt.
Again, don't think it's the case of Kevin.
And this website generally caters to people who are either past that stage, or who never even entered it to begin with.
My Personal Limitation
I seek to write when I have:
First-hand experience (including observation of others)
Data / science knowledge
Can put the two together with logic / analysis to come up with a framework that explains the experience & data (and that has predictive power to replicate certain results with certain attitudes/behavior)
When writing about dating, socialization, and much of general power dynamics I can cover all 3.
When it comes to relationships, I'm more limited in personal experience.
I've mostly been either single, or in non-committed relationships that were at most mid-term.
When in committed relationships, I tended to be the party who wanted more distance / time alone (avoidant).
The Possible Solution: the Game Of Life Never Ends
That being said, I did observe several couples.
And even if long-term changes some things, a lot of general principles simply apply almost everywhere.
I don't fully agree with the idea that "game never stops" in the sense of "having to game her".
If you think about: where does that mindset lead you?
It leads to a worldview where you need to invest, expend effort, and change your behavior in order to keep her (or her attraction).
It's a defensive mindset that inherently places the man below her.
On the other hand, "game never stops" in a larger sense.
The men who lose attraction and who incur in relationship issues are the men who grow complacent towards everything. Towards the relationship and her, yes. But, even more important, who give up on themselves and on life.
On Polarity
I partially agree with this.
I think there are several layers of polarity.
And Growfast's concept of "who makes what best" is a good general approach.
Especially if it's him who decides and assigns those tasks and "spheres of influence" (leadership).
That being said, if "what he makes best" are typically male-related stuff, I think it's better for most couples (exceptions always apply).
But as a general rule, I'd err on not overdoing "typically feminine" things.
Polarity is not an issue if attraction was there even when there was no polarity.
Women vary in preferences for "typically masculine" (probably more in this category) or "typically feminine" (still plenty in this category).
Polarity can become an issue when the man moves towards more generally feminine roles that he previously wouldn't have done.
That sub-communicates that he's becoming more of a "tamed house dog".
If that's not what had originally attracted her, it can become a (subconscious) turn-off.
And especially not if it's not what you'd usually like doing.
Personally, I wouldn't do things like watering the plants, or cleaning the cat's toilet (as a matter of fact, I'd tell her that we can't have a cat in the house unless there is also a garden where he can go pee and poop).
Root-Cause Solution: Staying High-Value, Working on Oneself
What matters more in my opinion are all the basics that make a man high-value.
As long as he stays that way, chances are that he's good.
Things we discuss here such as leadership qualities, dominance in its various facets, frame control.
But also win-win traits that make the relationship better for both like giving (and expecting value back), listening / supporting (and expecting the same),and being a generally positive person, etc.
Also, there is an article / lesson on that:
Maintaining attraction
Biology & the "warring tribe hypothesis": not convinced
Is that what Heartiste says?
Feel free to skip this section as it's more on the theoretical side.
I'm personally not convinced by that explanation.
It sounds like the type of "storytelling evolutionary psychology".
To begin with, we don't know how frequent inter-tribe wars were.
It's fair to discuss not strictly based on papers / data in my opinion, but it should make sense logically at least.
In my opinion, this isn't much supported by logic either.
If I had to guess looking at recorded history, probably the smartest tribes grew enough strong and made enough alliances that they didn't need to live with constant invasions.
That's been the history of civilization: periods of war until a civilization grew strong enough to stop the constant warfare -at least the war within its border, picking up wars with smaller enemies was cool-.
Then the civilization collapses, but a new one eventually takes its place.
Also, what leaves a mark in the genetic code is what is most likely to be a recurring theme / threat / advantage.
Could the conquering tribe that kills every man and enslaves every woman have been frequent enough to leave that mark?
Personally, I'm doubtful and more tending towards the "no".
And finally, there are plenty of equally important biological reasons for a woman to stick to a doting man (provider).
As a matter of fact, there are more biological reasons for a woman to stick to a man than the other way around.
As long as he doesn't become a total slacker, of course...

Great thread, Kevin!

The first thing I'd ask is:

Do you need to be a jerk?

That's not to deny possible advantages, but to avoid staying stuck in "how to be a jerk" without considering possible alternatives.

If yes, how does that "jerk" look like?

What are the traits and behaviors that make a jerk more able to maintain attraction and sexual attraction?

Can you be too much of a jerk?

Probably yes, too.
So how can you be the "good" type of jerk, who still maintains a win-win, pie-enlarging relationship?

Can your focus on "being a jerk" make you come across as defensive / needy

Growfast touches on that.

I don't think this is the case with Kevin at all.

But it's the case with a sub-group of guys.

Some of them were "too nice" to begin with, unassertive doormats, or never understood basic power dynamic (including that if you place someone so higher above you, that someone also starts losing respect/attraction).

When they start opening their eyes, they focus on "how to be a jerk", but tend to overshoot the mark, and come across as low-power guys who are trying too hard (alpha male posturing).

Also the over-focus on "having to maintain her attraction" can be a defensive mindset that comes from a place of low confidence and self-doubt.

Again, don't think it's the case of Kevin.
And this website generally caters to people who are either past that stage, or who never even entered it to begin with.

My Personal Limitation

I seek to write when I have:

First-hand experience (including observation of others)
Data / science knowledge
Can put the two together with logic / analysis to come up with a framework that explains the experience & data (and that has predictive power to replicate certain results with certain attitudes/behavior)

When writing about dating, socialization, and much of general power dynamics I can cover all 3.
When it comes to relationships, I'm more limited in personal experience.

I've mostly been either single, or in non-committed relationships that were at most mid-term.
When in committed relationships, I tended to be the party who wanted more distance / time alone (avoidant).

The Possible Solution: the Game Of Life Never Ends

That being said, I did observe several couples.

And even if long-term changes some things, a lot of general principles simply apply almost everywhere.

I don't fully agree with the idea that "game never stops" in the sense of "having to game her".
If you think about: where does that mindset lead you?
It leads to a worldview where you need to invest, expend effort, and change your behavior in order to keep her (or her attraction).
It's a defensive mindset that inherently places the man below her.

On the other hand, "game never stops" in a larger sense.
The men who lose attraction and who incur in relationship issues are the men who grow complacent towards everything. Towards the relationship and her, yes. But, even more important, who give up on themselves and on life.

On Polarity

I partially agree with this.

I think there are several layers of polarity.

And Growfast's concept of "who makes what best" is a good general approach.
Especially if it's him who decides and assigns those tasks and "spheres of influence" (leadership).

That being said, if "what he makes best" are typically male-related stuff, I think it's better for most couples (exceptions always apply).

But as a general rule, I'd err on not overdoing "typically feminine" things.

Polarity is not an issue if attraction was there even when there was no polarity.
Women vary in preferences for "typically masculine" (probably more in this category) or "typically feminine" (still plenty in this category).

Polarity can become an issue when the man moves towards more generally feminine roles that he previously wouldn't have done.
That sub-communicates that he's becoming more of a "tamed house dog".
If that's not what had originally attracted her, it can become a (subconscious) turn-off.

And especially not if it's not what you'd usually like doing.

Personally, I wouldn't do things like watering the plants, or cleaning the cat's toilet (as a matter of fact, I'd tell her that we can't have a cat in the house unless there is also a garden where he can go pee and poop).

Root-Cause Solution: Staying High-Value, Working on Oneself

What matters more in my opinion are all the basics that make a man high-value.

As long as he stays that way, chances are that he's good.

Things we discuss here such as leadership qualities, dominance in its various facets, frame control.

But also win-win traits that make the relationship better for both like giving (and expecting value back), listening / supporting (and expecting the same),and being a generally positive person, etc.

Also, there is an article / lesson on that:

Maintaining attraction

Biology & the "warring tribe hypothesis": not convinced

Is that what Heartiste says?

Feel free to skip this section as it's more on the theoretical side.

I'm personally not convinced by that explanation.

It sounds like the type of "storytelling evolutionary psychology".

To begin with, we don't know how frequent inter-tribe wars were.

It's fair to discuss not strictly based on papers / data in my opinion, but it should make sense logically at least.
In my opinion, this isn't much supported by logic either.

If I had to guess looking at recorded history, probably the smartest tribes grew enough strong and made enough alliances that they didn't need to live with constant invasions.

That's been the history of civilization: periods of war until a civilization grew strong enough to stop the constant warfare -at least the war within its border, picking up wars with smaller enemies was cool-.
Then the civilization collapses, but a new one eventually takes its place.

Also, what leaves a mark in the genetic code is what is most likely to be a recurring theme / threat / advantage.
Could the conquering tribe that kills every man and enslaves every woman have been frequent enough to leave that mark?
Personally, I'm doubtful and more tending towards the "no".

And finally, there are plenty of equally important biological reasons for a woman to stick to a doting man (provider).
As a matter of fact, there are more biological reasons for a woman to stick to a man than the other way around.
As long as he doesn't become a total slacker, of course...

Matthew Whitewood and Transitioned have reacted to this post.

Community, new content and Confidence University now available here.

#5 · August 23, 2021, 1:04 pm

In my opinion, this has some degree of personal preference.

The first thing that comes to mind is that I do not find it enjoyable to be in a relationship where one needs to be a jerk most of the time.

That seems less enjoyable than a series of one-night stands. Could be worse than being celibate actually. (To be clear, nothing wrong with being celibate and it can indeed be "peaceful".)

As I saw in one of Lucio's articles, one of the best feelings of a solid relationship is the feeling of a sanctuary.

In other words, I feel, yes one needs to not be complacent. Do one's best to maintain the relationship. At the same time, I would rather "relax" most of the time. If the relationship goes south, there's no shame in that. Both parties overall gained value during the duration of the relationship.

For the traffic light concept, that means the net area under the graph is positive.

A bad ending to a relationship does not mean the relationship was bad.

I think this is personal preference though. Because one could place more weight to the recent portions of the relationship. This makes sense rationally too.

Lucio Buffalmano and Transitioned have reacted to this post.

#6 · August 23, 2021, 2:08 pm

Quote from Matthew Whitewood on August 23, 2021, 1:04 pm
In other words, I feel, yes one needs to not be complacent. Do one's best to maintain the relationship. At the same time, I would rather "relax" most of the time. If the relationship goes south, there's no shame in that. Both parties overall gained value during the duration of the relationship.
For the traffic light concept, that means the net area under the graph is positive.

Yes, great point.

Once you have the basics down of being a high-value person, then your relaxed state is better than "trying" to be anything else.

Such as, a high-value person who has learned certain skills, attitudes, and ingrained certain habits, has the luxury of "chilling". Even the luxury of being more complacent, in a way.
So the two aren't necessarily opposites.

Transitioned has reacted to this post.

Community, new content and Confidence University now available here.

#7 · August 23, 2021, 9:37 pm

Ahh I see. I didn't think of it from an effectiveness standpoint.

I was thinking from a life enjoyment standpoint. I prefer having elements of my life where I can relax.

So I may sacrifice some value to relax from time to time.

Not sure of this makes sense. I am probably putting this in an overly generic manner.

Transitioned has reacted to this post.

#8 · August 24, 2021, 2:15 am

I confess the thread title was clickbait.

You guys confirmed my thinking and brought up some new perspectives.

Awesome analysis all. Lucio s point is well made e.g. the 7 kingdoms period in a China.

There's a very funny post that did the rounds about the seven stages of red pill anger and grief. The pendulum will swing for a while before coming back to the middle.

A relationship should allow you to grow together or its reached its use by.

Neediness - yes totally guilty of that 20+ years ago.

GF if I quote science that means there s 3 refereed studies published in major journals.

Does it mean that principal will apply all the time of course not. Research Science looks at correlations and trends across a sample. As per lucio's comment the only conclusion you can draw is that maybe it's better to do more of this than that as your default.

As I say you have to have things you do apart things you do together and ideally shared projects your working on together. That with a dash of occasional surprise romance and pampering goes a long way.