It’s been a while since I’ve posted anything on here. I have been writing things, but I’ve been holding them back for a blog because I’m fucking busy all the bloody time. So I’m going to make a special effort to keep an eye on the comments section here despite being away for the weekend.
There’s a toxic attitude starting to take hold with some people on TRP around the idea that sex is a need. In simple terms, it’s not, it is a want rather than a need. Now there’s a reason I’m being quite pedantic about this – psychological mindset for one. Secondly it’ll hopefully provide a bit of background to that slightly paradoxical phenomenon where the man who doesn’t seem to care about sex being more sexually successful.
You can give and take around things like physique, game, status etc and still be successful with women to varying degrees. However if your attitude is wrong then you’re highly likely to have a bad time sooner or later. This is because the attitude of sex as a need over-values it and gives too much power to women. While the abundance is real, this won’t be an issue for you because you will genuinely just move to another woman when one asks too much of you. However, what about the times for the newer guys when they’re faking it until they make it? Or the guys who’ve hit a little bad luck and all of their plates smashed at once? This is when the over-valuation can harm you.
Let’s get one thing out the way first and foremost: the philosophy of sex as a need is central to those perpetual betas/omegas who forever complain about inceldom. (This alone should be enough to have it extinguished as an idea from TRP, but unfortunately we have some contrarians here who hear the feminists saying “men aren’t entitled to sex” and just have to disagree with them. Sorry guys, even a broken clock is right twice a day.) Much of the confusion here lies in the nuances. This attitude of entitlement to sex simply for existing is wrong. Having an attitude of entitlement to kino/drinks/sex simply for being there in the field is good and will demonstrate confidence/high value etc etc. The field is the difference. The attitude in the field is a necessary projection of attractiveness, the attitude on the sub and in private needs to be one of objectivity. You aren’t entitled to sex. You’ve got to better yourself in order to be worthy. Remember, women are the gatekeepers of sex. You are the gatekeeper of commitment, and only a weak man commits to a woman who can’t prove herself worthy. As a man, it is your job to prove yourself worthy of passing the gate for sex.
Now that we’ve got the attitude difference out of the way, we’re going to talk for most of this in the objective view you should use for the sub. Much of TRP is dedicated to achieving sex, however the various bits of self-improvement are there because they link into achieving sex. They increase your value and make you more worthy of sex. When you scale it back to more simplistic terms, increasing your worthiness for sex is the same as making effort to increase achievement of sex. They do the same thing since achievement will be closely tied to worthiness. There is a cheat though, achievement can be made using game without having true worthiness – PUAs are the prime example. This can also be done through fake status or situational status. So if the difference between worthiness and achievement is only cheating, why does the sub endorse achievement over worthiness? The reality is that it endorses anything that achieves. The rest is down to you to decide.
Which brings us nicely to the wants vs needs of this. There are four basic human needs (five if you include shelter/warmth):
- Oxygen
- Water
- Sleep
- Food
I can tell you to go without sex for a day and you will not die. If you go without oxygen for a day, you will die. Oxygen is a need, sex is not.
I can tell you to go without sex for ten days and you will not die. If you go without water for ten days, you will (very likely) die. Water is a need, sex is not.
I can tell you to go for a month without sex and you will not die. If you go without sleep for a month, you will die. Sleep is a need, sex is not.
I can tell you to go without sex for six months and you will not die. If you go without food for six months, you will die. Food is a need, sex is not.
The difference should be very clear from those examples. Differing levels of need and sex isn’t near any of them. Sex is a want. The fact that we want it every day or twice a day is neither here nor there. It’s high up the “want” list, but it’s still on that list. The requirement to differentiate between the two is highlighted by the post “Never settle for transactional sex” by /u/Archwinger who explains:
Remember, if a woman ever imposes rules or conditions on sex, makes you wait for sex, or makes you perform or behave a certain way (e.g., an unofficial payment or trade) for the sex, the sex is never worth what you’re going through.
This is something that would be acceptable to a man who views sex as a need and is therefore worth trading for. A Red Pill man would never accept that. (Partly because transactional sex tends to be low quality anyway and in my experience low-quality sex isn’t worth the effort.) If it is a want, then you can easily take the stance that trades are unacceptable. You can’t do that with a need, because needs must be fulfilled and if costs must be met to fulfil that need, then those costs will be met. Wants allow you to choose and weigh up what you’re willing to put in for what you get out. Thus it allows you to reject unfavourable terms. If you haven’t drunk water for five days and someone has a bottle of water, you would accept extremely unfavourable terms to get that water. It would actually be rational and sensible to accept unfavourable terms for that bottle of water. However in this day and age where our basic needs are met (and then some) we seem to have forgotten what we can and can’t live with. This has allowed us to start accepting unfavourable terms for our wants. In a word: don’t.
As sex is not a need, we leave you to decide its importance based upon your own libido, interests and a variety of other wants. TRP gives you the rawness of achievement, including both cheats and ways to improve worthiness. You weigh this against your other wants. You get to decide what is worth your time and investment. Merely taking the lead in your own life and making these decisions for yourself is an instant improvement in attractive attitude and behaviour so I always advise people to start there. Seek the advice required to achieve what you want to achieve, don’t ask others to decide for you or try to order your list of wants for you.
A final note on field attitude: the thirsty beta has sex at the top of their wants list. So much so, that they accept unfavourable terms simply to be in the presence of an attractive woman. Make sure your wants are balanced enough that you are the one in charge of deciding things. Whether this means increasing your worthiness or cheating, I don’t care. Just know the difference and order your wants appropriately to your own life without allowing sex to end up too high up that list causing any bad trades. A man with abundance mentality does not have to do a trade because he’ll take it on his terms or not at all. If you’re unwilling to do the “not at all” then you can’t have the attitude of “I’ll take it on my terms or not at all.” It’s a package deal guys and women are good at spotting fakes.
ItsTheHomeWrecker 7y ago
deleted ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^0.0973 ^^^What ^^^is ^^^this?
CopperFox3c 7y ago
It is a fine line between pursuit and pedestalization. The former is the result of achievement and the desire to achieve, while the latter is typically the consequence of the failure to achieve.
Not enough people understand that subtle nuance of difference between the two ... and they often get themselves into negative situations because of it. Or accept things or behavior that would otherwise be unacceptable.
p00pey 7y ago
Excellent point. My experience with this sub, however, is that most guys don't quite understand where that line stands, and become 'additced' to the chase, and inevitably put it on a pedestal...
[deleted] 7y ago
The very reason why the apparent need for sex (or lack of) is such a massive tell of beta/alphahood is because it's a very basic need.
All animals need to reproduce. Their entire biology and behaviour is geared towards survival and reproduction.
All men very much need sex on a core level. Those few who fulfill that need display a sex-satiated behavior that communicates to women that they are sexually successful, and therefore a most viable potential mate to that more-selective gender. The male who shows no need for sex shows alphahood.
So we need sex. But OP is right. Because they're not better way to deceive others than deceive yourself. So men need sex. But I? I don't need sex.
NightwingTRP 7y ago
99% of the way there.
I would put it as evolution needs sex. The species needs sex. It solves this problem by putting the urge in us to have sex when other survival-focused things aren't distracting us. i.e. it's top of the list of "wants" because "needs" are anything we could die without. Even evolution has told us that needs come first. An individual doesn't need it, but they sure do want it.
This is absolutely spot-on:
That said... you seem to be playing both sides:
One last bit I want to explore:
This appears to be the assumption made by the people who disagree with me. The whole idea that sex is for reproduction and is a need because if you don't have sex then you lose the evolutionary game. The problem with this is that we'd need to rethink the stance of the sub on several issues if we were to declare that the target of sexual strategy through TRP is to win the evolutionary game - i.e. for a man, to impregnate as many attractive women as possible.
If we set aside how fucked your life would be if you tried that, you could redefine it back a little to having children and raising them well. This then brings up a need to rethink the sub's views on marriage (as the one decent argument for marriage 2.0 is creating the family unit to raise your child/children well and allow them to be successful.) The sub's views on vasectomy at an early age before any children would also need to be rethought. We could no longer leave that as acceptable since once it's done, you've lost the evo game. Once we declare a specific goal of sexual strategy, rather than a personalised goal according to the individual wants of each man, we then have to take specific stances on various things which impact evolution. I don't see this as compatible with TRP.
However what I've set out fits in quite nicely with everything else we tend to conclude here. The argument between nature and nurture has been going on a long time and I think we need to avoid being too biologically deterministic and try to simply use the lens of evolution to help explain rather than guide. A bit like how we say sex permeates everything and influences everything while still telling you "don't have sex top of your list, your mission must come first." I hope this makes sense to you.
Additionally it's worth thinking about the difference between saying:
Which of those seems more in line with what you would imagine an alpha male would say and what a beta male would say? Sometimes our gut can tell us a lot about what's going on just from little things like a choice of words.
I've gone through your comment history and you appear to be well along your journey and offering good advice. You also display the right attitude in correcting where you've been wrong. Have a point. ♂
Mentathiel 7y ago
Sex is a psychological need. If you go without sex for your entire life, you will not die. But you will likely not be satisfied either. That's because when you don't have sex you die genetically. Evolution didn't have time to adapt to contraceptives etc. so male bodies, having no other aspects of reproduction such as pregnancy, are more apt to satisfy this need for reproduction with just sex.
But I suppose this is a pretty pointless discussion, as it relies heavily on what constitutes a need. If you say that a need is something that you need in order not to die, you'd probably be right. Although, then again, we can argue about sleep. You don't actually need sleep in order to stay alive. But you can't resist it your body makes you sleep. In the same way, your body encourages you to have sex (although not comparatively as strongly). Where's the line?
Whichever the case, your point stands: Men give power to women by pedestalizing sex.
NightwingTRP 7y ago
There is good evidence to suggest lack of sex will impact your psychological health negatively and that regular sex will impact your psychological health positively. Unfortunately we can't pick apart all the different factors around psychological health yet since psychology is still a relatively young science. (It's only a couple of hundred years old, if that, and the application of proper science to it is only decades old.)
Essentially the bit I believe needs to be sorted out is the physical aspect because I've seen these toxic incels showing up and declaring it a biological/physical need rather than merely an evolutionary imperative. The nuance between the two is important in terms of attitude, and (in my humble opinion) good mental health. The former is the more important from a Red Pill perspective since we're focused on achievement.
And yes, I agree we can argue even further nuance, but the essential point regarding power dynamics through attitude is definitely proven in this thread. I believe that gets (or should get) universal consensus here. /u/CopperFox3c has summed up the nuance I explore nicely. I'd like to think I've demonstrated just how fine that line is.
Mentathiel 7y ago
I'm afraid where psychology suffers most is defining its terms. While I understand the importance of using the proper scientific method and the pressure it has gotten from other sciences to be held up to scrutiny, I believe it will eventually have to take an approach more akin to sociology. You can't quantify happiness. You may be able to measure it, but when someone asks if temporary happiness (like a woman cheating to sleep with a desirable alpha male) counts, or should emphasis be on developing a personality that isn't self-destructive in the long run or on pro-social behavior etc. one will ultimately have to take an ideological standpoint to answer.
Other than that, yes, to the best of our knowledge, sex is correlated to psychological health of adults.
But yes, I agree it shouldn't be quite called a physical need. It's a need that stems from biology (I think that's why people feel inclined to call it biological), but practicing sex or not doesn't affect you (greatly) biologically, what it affects is your psyche and therefore it's a psychological need.
Yeah, /u/CopperFox3c has really summed it up wonderfully! That's exactly what you've been getting at.
AaronKClark 7y ago
We don't breathe oxygen we breathe nitrogen with a little oxygen mixed in.
NightwingTRP 7y ago
Your pedantry amuses me, Sir. Have an upvote.
IASGame 7y ago
You could live on high concentration oxygen though, you just burn out faster.
AaronKClark 7y ago
No you'd die. If you breathe air with a much higher than normal O2 concentration, the oxygen in the lungs overwhelms the blood's ability to carry it away. The result is that free oxygen binds to the surface proteins of the lungs, interferes with the operation of the central nervous system and also attacks the retina.
IASGame 7y ago
You also die with regular concentration eventually, hence the "you just burn out faster". How much faster depends on concentration.
I think typical high average life expectancy of populations living at high altitude with less oxygen concentration is at least in part due to the low oxygen, but I don't remember reading scientific studies on it to separate out other factors like diet etc.
LazyMagus 7y ago
Nice to see a post from you after a while, /u/NightwingTRP. This is a very useful reminder and attitude to have – sex is not a need.
I, for one, am finding it easy to have that attitude the more I improve in my meditation journey.
8bitscore 7y ago
It is a need and there's lots of educated study on the topic. Maslow's is a great reference.
http://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html
NightwingTRP 7y ago
Maslow ranks everything as a need lol. I studied him many years ago. Humanistic psychology never really caught on as the "third force" he hoped it would be. I wouldn't use him as a reference/proof in discussions. Refer to my discussion with /u/Mentathiel for an overview of where I stand on this.
Algernoq 7y ago
Everything I want is a need; everything you need or want is a want.
NightwingTRP 7y ago
Heh. Makes a good case for the subjective personal bias. And I suppose I am talking from my ivory tower of abundance. Doesn't make me wrong though.
alvlear 7y ago
For one to truly experience what OP is saying, that sex should never have made it onto Maslow's hierarchy, they should practice total orgasmic restriction for about one year. Orgasmic restriction for this long will prove to oneself that a man does not need women. For a few months, the sexual desire completely disappears, and returns under one's control. A truly awakening moment.
In order to maximize one's masculine potential, these four behaviors must be practiced: Lifting, Working, Orgasmic Restriction, and defeating your acculturated glucose addiction.
IASGame 7y ago
I agree with your post, wanted to know your opinion on this article:
https://therationalmale.com/2013/06/26/you-need-sex/
The title appears to be opposite to what you say, but reading it it is not quite the same discussion. He is addressing the Blue Pill version of "You don't need sex", which isn't in my opinion incorrect in the end but is incorrect in the reasoning, whereas you are addressing the Red Pill version which is consistent and correct throughout.
NightwingTRP 7y ago
I've never read this one before. I'm a big fan of Rollo, but I think sometimes he fails when things get tough. It's probably because he's been raised through academia which (modern academia at least is guilty of this) doesn't teach good quality argumentation skills. I'm about halfway through this piece and it's very unconvincing, seeming intellectually disingenuous with the way the logic jumps all over the place without ever really finishing a point.
Starts off with the personal but never really links it as backing evidence for principle. Then uses Tom Leykis (not a smart move in my humble opinion since Leykis is an intellectual lightweight - basically fast food for the brain. There're bits of insight there but it's never really properly unified, a bit like the way fast food will miss out the micro-nutrients you need for optimal health), who conflates masturbation and sex. These are not the same act either mentally or physically and should not be compared any more than trying to compare the actions of a man to the actions of a woman. Two different ball games.
Essentially it's the same old thing which I've tried to point out here. The conflation of an urge, caused by our evolutionary imperative, with a need. The biggest problem you have when you start conflating these things is you can no longer answer the question as to where you draw the line. Some people have raised Abraham Maslow's theory around "needs" here and it's a good example of exactly why the inability to draw the line is so bad. He has self-actualisation as a need. But if that's a need, why do people who have all the other things on his list after winning the lottery, make no attempt to pursue self actualisation? Why instead would they pursue self-destruction? His theory has no comeback to this. (Even with Maslow's shitty broad/wishy-washy/vague definition of it, it still doesn't make sense.)
Similarly, if an urge like sex is a need, why not other urges? Like the urge to kill? Why don't we call killing a need since violent urges are natural as part of our competitiveness from evolutionary programming?
Essentially most of what Rollo does in this piece is to tear down this Christian guy for having some pretty high Christian standards and then label it all blue pill thinking. This is of course correct, but it's low-hanging fruit. All religious thinking is on par with blue pill thinking. The argument around dismissal of his own sexual failings is an obvious disengagement, but whatever.
One part I particularly disagree with is when Rollo declares everything to be about sex. I think the more moderate view that everything AND nothing is about sex. Specifically that while it permeates everything, it doesn't necessarily follow that it is the motivation for everything.
The conflation of things continues to the end where Rollo conflates the idea that a man believing sex is not a need with the idea many of these men simply can't get that sex - so essentially they're rationalising - and therefore their idea is wrong. It's such an obvious logical fallacy that I'm surprised he let it through. However he was probably too busy with the empathetic part of his writing. (It's part of why I'm not so popular. I have no interest in empathising with others. I just want to get at truth.)
Finally at the end he makes his only decent point that good mental health is positively correlated to a healthy sex life. There's plenty of evidence out there that this is true. However the counter example would be Buddhist monks who abstain from just about everything and still have excellent mental health, inner peace, mental clarity and a level of focus that most of us would envy. So the point doesn't stand without question.
If I was advising Rollo himself, I'd be saying that his reasoning starts from the assumption that he's right. That's always a dangerous place to start. You always need to start from facts or the assumption that you're wrong. As a result, he never actually took on any of the stronger arguments against his views and that devalues the piece. As to why Rollo takes this view? Maybe he put a lot of time and effort into pursuing sex in his youth and doesn't want to face the possibility that he wasted a lot of his time and effort which would have been better spent elsewhere? It's the equivalent rationalisation from the other side, but of course it can only ever be mere speculation, which has the same level of value as his own speculation regarding the men he believes rationalise because they don't have access to sex.
[deleted] 7y ago
TDLR
Sex IS one of the most basic needs, Maslow's pyramid of needs?
You can pretend it isn't, but it is. We are driven, even subconsciously by sexual drives.
Less_Offensive 7y ago
You're wrong. Sex is biological need to reproduce and ensure the survival of the species. Just because the individual doesn't need sex to survive doesn't mean that the species doesn't need it. Sex is as much a need as eating or shitting. You need to do it if you want to survive, indirectly through your offspring.
Virtually every evolved trait of any species is due to one of two principles: survival or reproduction.
Edit: To whomever the fuck gilded my comment, FUCK YOU. Stop giving this god damned awful website any more money.
[deleted] 7y ago
I am flabbergasted that your post is being downvoted on this sub. ..
Isn't it obvious to everyone here that all life is basically about survival and reproduction? Isn't it obvious to everyone here that the basic things that evolution shaped in your psyche to crave are food, water and sex?
Everything we talk about here (hypergamy, attraction, getting fit, love, wealth, happiness, etc., absolutely everything that humans feel, everything that animals do, everything life is about..) comes down to genes competing in a gene pool for reproduction into the next generation.
To pretend that sex isn't a need is some female-hamster-level delusion.
BigAjax 7y ago
So, you mean, he's right. You aren't your genes, any more than you are your khakis. And you ain't the species or your future offspring, either. You - the guy whose dick will or won't get wet - don't need sex. Realizing that and acting in accordance with it, is a big help to getting the sex you want.
JesusTheThird3 7y ago
Affirmative! To address the technicality- you only really need one nut to reproduce. And the species only needs one man (or a few thousand) to continue to exist.
If there exists an individualistic need, logically, competing to be the top male is how it is addressed.
p00pey 7y ago
you can reproduce with 1 sexual encounter, and then never 'need' sex again, if that's your logic. What I'm saying is...your logic is flawed...
Less_Offensive 7y ago
WRONG. Pick up a text book on evolution. The purpose of reproduction is to reproduce as MANY times as possible, in the safest possible environment.
NightwingTRP 7y ago
It's an imperative and drive, as determined by evolution. Not a need.
Evolution weeds out the low value this way. The low value still exist. Lack of basic needs will weed both high and low value men out of existence. Being low value means they won't get much sex, if any, but they don't suddenly die as someone without a basic need would. There is a very clear difference here and sex ends up in the category of wants like wealth and power, rather than needs like water and food. Remember to factor in the paradoxical nature of IDGAF attractiveness.
JesusTheThird3 7y ago
Ultimately it is a need. You are insinuating for one to trick themselves into believing that they don't need sex, in order to get easier sex.
To draw on your wealth or power analogy, a billionaire and a street begger both 'want' wealth, but in reality you only need a minimal amount to feed yourself - once either falls in a rabbit hole where it is no longer about the basic need, but rather the gratification of the ego- then it is no longer a need but rather a toxic 'want'.
Sex is no different- fundementally it is a need. But to your point- you should control your sex drive and not vice versa.
NightwingTRP 7y ago
Interesting argument. However the wealth analogy doesn't fit. The wealth is a means to an end regarding purchasing the basic needs. You can still potentially get those basics without wealth. You can go on existing. You can go on existing without sex. You don't want to do either with your existence, but you can. Essentially wealth is a good example of something else which is high up the wants list but not strictly essential. This is the nuance.
All that said, you can't go on existing without oxygen or water. I don't view any want such as wealth when it is merely gratification of ego as a bad thing or toxic. Gratification of ego is fine. It's when you view these wants as more important than you can achieve that it becomes toxic to your mental health. For example, being reasonably wealthy but not a millionaire and allowing wealth to become overvalued in your life. This is directly comparable to the bit where I talk about overvaluation of sex giving women too much power in the dynamic you forge.