If I was to ever write outrage bait, this would be it. If I was to ever write an equivalent to Roosh V’s A modest proposal this would be it. But, this isn’t that kind of essay.
I’ve never had an idea pop into my head where I rush to the keyboard to get thoughts down before I lose them in the aether. Subject matter, guaranteed to piss off everyone and be brand suicide for anyone who aspires to a guest spot on Piers Morgan to be yelled at. If Pearl can rant about her metoo accusation firing her soccer coach, then I can write this. But this isn’t some metoo essay either.
I will meander, adding the various red pilled mental models and concepts I’ve written about as they come up, so if you have a problem staying on point I’ll make it obvious when it’s a digression.
This is the kind of thing that puts a lot of red pilled concepts into perspective, and shows why an amoral space is full of moral™ people who can’t help but miss the point. It’s a piece that shows what happens when you give children dynamite and let them loose on the internet to impressionable young sycophants, armed with talking points received through the telephone game.
It’s about women getting smacked around by the bad boy and settle down with the nice man. It’s about how men don’t understand plausible deniability or navigate subtext. It’s about how men can get better at sex and relationships when they understand why people are how they are. And, it’s about tacky branding
Yes, it’s an internet drama setup for a thoughtful punchline. Yes it’ll have a section about branding as well as closed communication. I don’t usually gossip. It’s required here so stop complaining you fictional person I made up to absolve myself of womanly writing ideas!
The Players
Brandi, who goes by the name @creatrix_ttv watched an episode of @whatever being critiqued by Andrew Wilson @paleochristian. I never watch the clips, and I’ve never missed any context to a conversation. I doubt you’ll miss anything either. It starts with Brandi’s commentary [edited to remove massive punctuation cancer] to which Andrew responds:
“Holy fuck Andrew Wilson is such a abhorrent scumbag. Unreported abuse is difficult to determine because it's unreported. Women don't always report abuse. The one major difference here is that men are more likely to inflict injuries and murder you, so we are comparing apples to fucking oranges.
“And yes, we 100% need to be aware that domestic abuse happens to both genders, that women can also be perpetrators of violence, but don't try to use that to downplay domestic violence towards women for a disingenuous gotcha moment.”
“How do I reason with you if me telling a simple truth makes me "an abhorrent scumbag. You are irrational and owe me an apology.”
“You are a low character person who grifts of the anger and resentment of men.. I will not apologize for calling you a scumbag.. because you are one.”
“Low character? And what pray tell makes you a high character person and me a low character person?”
“Well for starters, look at the people attracted to your content should be a significant indicator.”
“You may not realize this as you have a very small audience (I do too but I'm just referencing scale) but when you get into the thousands of fans making these generalizations is kinda stupid. Most of my audience are 29 to 45 year old religious married men.”
Digression 1, People with no frame
from
So how can you quickly tell when a man has no frame? No sense of his personal reality? Because instead of being dismissive of anything that doesn't match his reality - he feels the need to try to peacock and dick measure.
This is not a conversation between people on abuse. It’s two people shouting morals at each other in a posturing exercise, or Loser Talk. It’s not that either person is a loser, it’s that people who are playing status games for no stakes. If this is a branding exercise to entertain ones audience, then there is no need to engage with each other, soapboxing is a one-way conversation. If this is an attempt at jockeying for status when no one has status then there’s no stakes there doesn’t need to be attacks, incriminations or preaching.
Brandi then gives a personal story of her own abuse which leads into an unforced error that lit a dumpster fire. I won’t talk about most of it because it’s two groups yelling at each other and throwing mud. It’s like a divorce hearing for autists.
“Okay. Fucking story time. I was out with my ex and his friends drinking at a bar. He tells me he needs to leave me at the bar because his other friend who is at home is suicidal. I say okay, and hang out with his friends who are all acting VERY weird, but I just ignore it and try to have fun.
“I go home and go to sleep, he crawls into bed at 6am, cuddling up to me, telling me he loves me, and that he's going to CVS to get Gatorade so I don't have a hangover.
“While hes gone, I have this sinking feeling in my stomach and I go through his phone. He told all his friends to lie to me so that he could go and have sex with another girl. He said he was helping his suicidal friend, so he could go cheat on me. I am shaking, completely humiliated. When he walks inside, I slap him across the face.
“This was the ONLY time I was physical in the entire relationship and I was very apologetic and shameful about it. This moment would be his excuse for all the physical violence he inflicted on me for the rest of our relationship... because I "hit him first."
“He strangled me to the point of almost killing me, he broke my pinkie which is still crooked to this day, he locked me in bedrooms, he kicked me across the room, etc.
“So my question to @paleochristcon is, would you say that the abuse was MY fault because I slapped him first? That I was actually the abuser in the situation.. and that my slap was equal to the injuries he would end up inflicting on me?”
“I'm sorry that you picked a fight, attacked a person, and got your ass kicked. Don't do that next time. Now as to future attacks being justified due to this that wouldn't be correct.”
“He didn't hit me right after the slap. These events all happened afterwards throughout the course of our relationship and he used a slap as an excuse. (One of many excuses) Is the slap equal to the abuse he inflicted on me for the rest of the relationship?”
“And now we know why you are a feminist. It's because you want to be liberated from your own bad decisions. The patriarchy didn't pick him, you picked him.”
“No. It's my fault that I stayed in the relationship and that I chose badly. I admit to that and get accused of being too harsh with abuse victims all the time because I say you need to fucking leave and if not, take accountability for staying. You are not answering my question. Also quite the audience you have here. I'd be real proud”
Digression 2, Asshole
Yes Virginia, you do have to be an asshole is meant to be a mental model where guys embrace the idea that men often prefer women over men and women always prefer women over men. Being an asshole is a shaming word used to keep men from treating their own self interest as a virtue. It’s not red pill permission to be the anti-feminist who knee jerks against anything the enemy™ does or says.
But it’s not wrong either. Enter, the Epiphany phase
Everyone knows this by now: women love to sleep with the bad boy, the dark triad, the asshole in their 20s then settle down in their 30s with the nice man. They tried all the sexual adventurism and they realized they want something special (special means making the man jump through hoops and accept worse sexual performance) and there is even a nifty chart that goes along with it!
Guys screw this up. They take it mean that women are having the adventure of a lifetime having sex popping bottles and then one day up and deciding to give it all up to have a husband they aren’t attracted to for 5- 7 years before the divorce.
All it means is that women make the decision to have their early years with the bad boy and settle down with the good boy. It could very well be true that women need 10 years to learn what’s worth settling down with. It could very well be true that having hot sex doesn’t factor into her decision, as well as guys finding out they married a whore who acts like a prude.
Like everything in life, it’s messy. Everyone is a somewhat rational actor doing what they do. Now that you know all this, it’s on you to navigate that. Navigation doesn’t usually involves calling women online whores. Then again, I just wrote this week on the difference between anger as a phase, and anger as a marketing and branding strategy.
This is why you cannot ingest any material from the Red Pill without personal experience to anchor it to reality. This whole gossip column fits the model. I had a few questions of my own which will explain what I mean by this. Brandi responded with some more details on her horrible situation:
“He didn't hit me immediately after I slapped him. this wasn't an adrenaline moment. He hit me for years afterwards.”
“Why not leave after the first attack, or the 10th?”
“Because I loved him and thought I deserved it.”
“I guess it's a guy thing but I'd stop loving someone after they threw hands. I am trying but cannot conceptualize this.”
“Another aspect is that he only hit me when he was drunk until the last time so I rationalized it that he was just an alcoholic that needed to get sober. But then he got violent sober which was the broken pinkie incident and that finally made me end it. “
“There's also really good months, it's not a constant barrage of abuse. It's hard to really explain what it's like and I don’t excuse the fact that i stayed. I have taken accountability for it.”
In her youth she dated the dangerous man, got older then settled down with the nice man, Ben. You may be thinking that this doesn’t sound like the wonderful Cancun foam party that you were promised by whatever red pilled comment creator wanted you to buy merch. I would point out no one told you that, you assumed that. You would be wrong and you’re bringing your morality into an amoral space. Like and Subscribe to see me yell at more drunk hoes before kicking them off my podcast!
Brandi admits to staying by choice, to assuming she deserved it. She also explained a very extreme version of push/pull and the idea that ‘women would rather date an asshole who is occasionally sweet than a sweet man who is an occasional asshole.’
People do what they do and that tends to cluster around certain patterns. No one said we had to like them. Is it that hard to believe that the guys who have to read books like Frame and Dread, learn about covert contracts and nice guy behaviors that have ruined their sex lives and marriages for decades, yet think that women waltz through life stumbling into success?
I’d write about it more but I don’t really care about fixing women. It’s not in my frame so is amusing, intriguing (in this case) or funny. This would be so off topic even for a digression so it gets the written version of a shoulder shrug and a ‘whaddayagonnado?’
Then, we are left with two choices: either
Women are incapable of adult relationships in their 20s and should have their age of adulthood pushed way into the future, and we are enabling grown up children’s misery by treating men and women as equal when they hit 18; or
She chose the exact life she wanted, and this is simply the consequences of our decisions. I have a feeling this is what Andrew was trying to articulate, but as usual it’s the internet and if you make something, you may as well make it autistic!
Digression 3, It’s plausible deniability
It’s instinct. Women can either have agency or not have agency, depending on which is more beneficial. Be the victim (to capitalize on the male protective instinct) or not. I’m not saying this to assign blame, fault, or otherwise pull some childish moral soapboaxing, I’m saying this because it’s consistent. If it’s consistent, you can make better decisions when you know it’s there.
For example, if someone is giving an impassioned tweet about their physical abuse at the hands of the evil man, I probably wouldn’t walk into the victim prose with a speech on equal rights deserving equal lefts; it’s just asking for trouble.
The case study
So that is people doing people things, ignoring the red pilled implications of it and how it ties into so much of what we talk about. It’s a rather unique situation, but situations like this are peppered in our lives. The only difference are the players and the specifics, but this piano is always in tune, regardless of the melody.
As always, what do you do with this?
You learn.
Learn why Red Pill has to be amoral. If it wasn’t, you’d have Rollo and I arguing over whether a woman deserves to get her head put through the drywall after slapping her man in front of his friends. If it wasn’t, you’d have me having a debate over whether women deserve the consequences of their actions, of it men need to step up and shield them. If it wasn’t, we would all be lolcows like Roosh V getting banned from visiting the UK or Milo Yiannopoulos who thought it was a good idea to bring up being diddled by an adult when we were 13 on national TV.
And you would be confused when your ex starts telling the judge you were abusive, or why you answering the question ‘when did you stop beating your wife’ is a double bind that always ends up with you losing.
You’d definitely stop thinking of women as Madonna’s or Whores. That same woman who stuck around for 20 ass-whoopings is the same woman who settled down with a kind man and started a family, congrats to Brandi and Ben. And if I wrote this down well enough (Nick hasn’t edited it, so probably not) then perhaps you’ll find the sexual marketplace just a little less confusing as it was beforehand. At the very least I hope you stop sounding like a retard on the internet.
Or not. If I expected anyone to benefit from anything I do I would only set myself up for disappointment.
Final digression, it’s a little tacky
This has nothing to do with anything but there’s something tacky about having a blow out conversation about deserving abuse as a pretext to have a debate. There’s something even tackier about doing the scheduling publicly. I interpret that sort of branding as kayfabe, as will the audience. If your intention is to stoke peoples feelings, to bypass their frontal lobe to engage with their limbic brain (and debates are dead like that) then it’s probably best to take it to private messages.
It makes it hard to the audience to believe that either person gives a shit or truly cares. You need the impression of, the thin veneer of sincerity in order to be more authentic™ otherwise it’s just fake and gay like everything else.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Rian’s Substack to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.