Love vs The Libertine | Comments on Redpill, Tradcons, & The Secret Society
This piece was inspired by my good friend MovingTarget, and his feelings for a former lover. They are no longer together, and yet he continues to feel for her, as if her blood was somehow in his veins. Many of us have been there. And while I too consider myself a type of romantic, this essay would serve to share with MovingTarget some uncommon wisdom from Men of the Game in similar circumstances.
While MovingTarget inspired this post, my knowledge of his relationship to his former lover reminded me of a piece of writing I read years ago. The book was so terrible, I won’t even mention the title. And while it’s one of the few books I didn’t finish reading (I finish 99.9% of the books I start) the introduction to that book was written by a very talented man named Michel Feher. It is some of the wise thinking in that introduction that I want to share here.
“Above all… the ‘men of principle,’ stigmatize passionate love as a humiliating experience, since the victims of this emotional disorder become deaf to the calls of reason and submit blindly to their beloved’s will.”
— Michel Feher
There is more to that ^ quote… but that line will set up much of this piece.
While the bulk of the book (which is a collection of Libertine stories) is not worth a moment of your time, Michel Feher’s introduction is full of brilliant observations on what most of us here on this blog are all about… dating, mating, sex… and some of the complications from that lifestyle. The book came out in the mid-1990s. It predates a lot of modern “manosphere” effort, but I think you’ll find the comments very much consistent with the pace of our modern thoughts.
This post is for MovingTarget. I hope it helps him to see himself as one of a band of brothers – men that have faced a “melancholy love” as well. And beyond that, the quotes from Feher’s introduction contain so much truth, they could easily find an interested audience in today’s mens’ culture.
Below I will show how Feher’s thoughts easily connect to the Redpill, the philosophy of Traditional Conservatives (TradCons), how they can point to the pitfalls of Love, illustrate more of the nature of “Virgins and Sluts,” present examples of the Secret Society, and finally, of course, back to we daygamers… with some notes for Seducers from the Libertines of another era.
Let’s dive in:
First… Feher takes a crack at the underlying mechanisms of seduction:
“Libertine erotics are based on a naturalistic theory of desire, according to which the desire that a woman inspires in a man – the primary concern of a male seducer; is a purely physical phenomenon. It begins as a sensual excitation, and it has no other satisfying outcome than carnal pleasure, with the woman who inspires it.”
That ^ is a good start. And this is where the central (eh-hem) “trust” of this post begins… with a basic definition of the animal instinct. It’s quite simple:
You see her and you want to fuck her. That’s how “seduction” starts, and that’s it’s underlying aim. If you’ve ever indulged your desire to approached a woman on the street… you know this. All red-blooded men (for that manner) should easily identify with that “naturalist” observation.
As I set up the arch of this post, notice the emphasis — “it has no other satisfying outcome than carnal pleasure.” In the parlance of the London Guys… girls that engage in the trappings of romance without sex are what those guys might call “time wasters.” It’s “carnal pleasure,” or it’s a waste of time (your genes would agree). And guys that allow “time wasting” to go on, we have a name for them too… this time, more broadly from Game… we call those guys Orbiters. And that is not a position men want to be in.
We’ll return to this.
There are two parts of Feher’s introduction that are revealing (if a bit technical), and have haunted me since I first read his comments. The first, addresses how fantasy can disable us and detour us from a more fulfilling course of events. The second, was how fantasy and “love” interact.
For now… the role of fantasy:
A man meets a girl. Despite primal urges, we don’t club her over the head and mount her, but at that point, we’re sufficiently inspired. And what starts as a sexual “urge” is delayed, and as it’s delayed, it takes on more emphasis in our minds.
“[H]umans, unlike other animals, this theory purports, are not governed by instinct: before being consummated, a man’s desire travels from his senses, to his imagination, whereupon it creates a fantasy.”
That’s right. Watch how this works:
“The function of this fantasy is to ‘interpret’ desire, to cause the subject to imagine what it is that he desires. Yet as a fantasy translates a physical arousal into a series of mental images, it also turns a sensual excitation into an attraction to a specific person. While a man fantasizes about the woman he desires, he comes to realize that she too is a desiring subject, and that his own pleasure depends on his ability to communicate his fantasy to her. In other words, fantasies give rise to the specifically human art of seduction.”
There is a lot going on there. Feher is explaining our behavior in interesting terms. Let’s break it down some more.
First… and this is not a small thing… the URGE is about sex. It’s about fucking. That’s it. And the urge is NOT about any specific girl. There is something interesting and subtle and honest there. It’s about the hunt and the release. Not any specific prey.
We’re into the meat of the post now, but try this on: When you are getting laid, when you have lots of options (and know you can get more), do you really pine away for some girl that isn’t in the active stages of sex? When I am in (somewhat rare) periods of real abundance, I am as into “girls” as always, but not hung up on a particular girl. Not at all.
For me (and I think this is true for a lot of guys)… it’s when I cannot get what I want that the “her” in the story takes on disproportionate weight. This is it. This is what this post about.
And on a related note: For seducers and daygamers, that line about “his own pleasure depends on his ability to communicate his fantasy to her” is basically what game is all about. Feher is interesting and has an original voice (to my ears). I like this.
We have an URGE > the urge can’t be seized instantly (not in most cases) > the urge becomes fantasy (which is a “place holder” for the urge) > the fantasy uses images of a specific girl in our minds > we have to game the girl, get her to agree to a co-created fantasy… or we never get that “outcome of carnal pleasure.”
That ^ is a solid breakdown of the process. And it fills in some of the psychological mechanics of an otherwise slightly-better-than-animal process.
And now we can introduce the “villain” of this post:
“However, this special freedom also involves a major risk, because it allows men and women to depart from nature’s wishes. Indeed, lovers can let their fantasies stray: for instance, their unbridled imagination can lead them to believe that their desires need no carnal outlet.”
He is saying… men will often leap-frog over the original urge to fuck, not fuck at all, chase the girl endlessly, and use the byproducts of the fantasy to justify their situation. Why? Because the lust has been relocated from your cock to “mental images” in your mind, abstracted from its original purpose (procreation… sex). This is a “departure from nature’s wishes.” The Libertines are saying (by way of Feher) that this path is literally “unnatural.” And I like that. Dead on.
MovingTarget is not alone. Many of us have been in this phase… this is what orbiters are all about. An orbiter is a man who’s efforts feed a fantasy more than a fuck.
Perhaps Feher’s is right. It is a uniquely human capacity (a mistake unique to man), to allow our very natural urge to “put the P in the V” to turn into skeletal fantasy in orbit around a woman that is beyond our reach.
As I reviewed Feher’s introduction, I couldn’t help but see redpill moments.
If we were once animals, but are now so often “lost” in fantasy, we are right on pace with redpill thinking. We often call it the “Disney Fantasy,” don’t we? This “be a good boy” and she’ll reach out and drag you into “bliss” from your distant orbit. “You’ll have your chance”… your reward for “doing what you’re supposed to do” by society’s rules.
If this ^ is true, Libertines are redpilled (they most certainly are). They see past the absurdity of Disney convention.
“Now, according to the libertines, such deviations from the natural course of desire are far from exceptional – in fact, they have become society’s norm. Hence the discontents that the libertines, in agreement with many philosophers of their century, associate with civilization.”
“Society’s norm.” This ^ introduces the conflict between Men of Game and the Traditional Conservatives that share space in the manosphere.
If the Libertines are seducers that see the “unnatural” detour from the original urge, the TradCons will point to how subverting the urge is part of the basis of civilized spaces. And even as a seducer… I know the TradCons are right on that point.
“Thus, while the fear of punishment is the primary cause of lovers’ restraint, tales of sin, honor, and devotion continually reinforce it. Taking hold of people’s imagination, these stories succeed in impressing upon them a totally artificial notion of virtue.”
Bluepill ^ conditioning.
Like all the 80s movies, the promise is the nerdy, nice guy gets the girl because of his “goodness” and dedication. When in reality, nerdy-nice guys rarely ever get what they pine after. Most men never escape that level of thinking, but many of us “wake up” and start to “see” (which is my personal definition of what it means to be redpilled). And once we can see… we can start to unlearn bluepill conditioning… and perhaps claim some of the tools of seducers for our own aims.
Welcome to game ^.
“Sin, honor, and devotion.” Chastity. All Disney propaganda to the seducer. And long, long before Disney, the Libertines were dodging those same bullets.
We share men’s culture with Traditional Conservative men (TradCons). And I like many things about those guys. I’m not married, and (as for now) I don’t think I’ll ever have kids. But I know that those guys are correct when they push us all toward that path. That IS the right thing… for most people… if you want a stable society (and you should). I agree with that. Easily. 100%. And I admire the efforts of men like The Family Alpha to lead men in that direction.
Here’s a little more from Feher on the topic of tradition and civilization:
“According to the naturalist philosophy informing eighteenth-century libertinism, these excessive delays between desire and pleasure are attributes of the civilizing process itself.”
First note here is the wording “excessive delays.” That is the way a practiced seducer would think of the delay: any delay, is excessive. I am okay to wait two-four dates for sex (if need be), but many guys are much more impatient than that. However… to slow down the charge of the young bucks, to make things a little more predictable, steady and orderly… yeah, that is precisely what civilization is all about.
“Because sexual relations between men and women can lead to procreation, and because societies seem to require stable family structures, governments tend to subject the sexual encounters of their subjects to very restrictive conditions. Central to this channeling of desire is the institution of marriage, which often implies a severe condemnation of all other sexual relations.”
I am convinced that society could not function if we were all players. Society, the health of children, the general peace… they require this civilizing process. And while I think this IS the right thing to do for MOST men… it doesn’t mean I’m going to do it. And even if I fail to win any approval from TradCons, I see no conflict there.
My personal take on all this is that daygamers and seducers ARE a threat to order and civilization. But… it’s so damn hard to be any good at it, we’ll never cause any real damage to the larger scheme. Most of us will find mild, middling success (if that). And a few guys will poke more pussy than a gynecologist. In fact, most of the fucking will be done by us (certainly, in terms of the numbers of girls fucked).
But… society will be fine, as most men can’t make a dent in the female population, or pursue scandal with enough swagger that the bluepillers will even notice what is going on around them.
The threat of being seen as a slut (and being deprived of resources) will keep the women in check (on the surface, anyway). And then… the rest of the action all takes place behind the veil of the Secret Society. What is somewhat rare, and hidden behind closed doors, doesn’t disturb the peace.
VIRGINS vs SLUTS:
A small detour here… some comments on the nature of women. These don’t specifically relate to MovingTarget’s scenario, but they contribute to some notes further on in this essay.
“In every culture, as Diderot and Laclos point out, women are the prime targets of this propaganda. They are taught to be modest and faithful, and to take pride in resisting their own desires. Imposed on women as an essential feature of womanhood, modesty is anything but a natural ‘virtue’: it not only causes women to fear the approach of men but even teaches them to feel shame at the call of their own senses.”
This ^ seems obvious, but I like the emphasis.
The Disney virtues are focused on women. That’s pragmatic. Men (especially young men) have too much energy and “force” to be deterred by prudish lectures. But the girls…
There is a reason why these dictums work better on women than men. They have more to lose (both physically and socially) than men, for taking sexual risks outside of sanctioned, pro-civilization allowances. True then as it is now. (Although, admittedly, we know the School of Sex in the City has taken some of the sting off of the former stigma.)
“Although the moral principles inculcated in women cannot eradicate natural impulses, they at least have the effect of slowing the process that leads from desire to pleasure.”
To stick to our theme: That “slowing” ^ is part of what provides a fertile place for fantasies-to-nowhere to take root.
I like to say that girls have a TWO PART MATING STRATEGY: 1.) Resources and/or 2) Sex. If she is after you, she’s probably after one of the two. And as seducers, we, of course, work toward the latter assignment.
But the need for RESOURCES (particularly protection), drives women to conform (at least outwardly) to the Disney convention (lifelong, or at the level of “Born Again Virgin,” post-wall, when the desperation for resources kicks in).
The TradCons would say this is good for them, and I’d agree (in many ways). In fact, I like women that mostly buy the traditional narrative… civilized girls that make an exception for me. I want to do “bad things with good girls.” I know men like Rivelino feel the same.
I also know girls can play both angles. They can play up their social dictum when “society” is watching, and behave very differently behind closed doors.
If you have read this blog, you know I claim to run into “virgins” with surprising frequency. I am sure some of those girls actually are sexually inexperienced. But some… can “play both roles.” And with a level of art that continues to surprise me even with many years in the game.
This is a great lead-in into the Secret Society part of this piece. But first… more about love.
Now we return to the subject that originally related to our man MovingTarget: Let’s talk about love.
And for review, let’s return to the way fantasy works:
We start with an URGE > the urge isn’t immediately fulfilled > “a series of mental images” of the desired are cultivated in the mind > those images allow the urge to become about a specific girl (which is a significant change) > any excessive delay is a “depart[ure] from nature’s wishes” > which “can lead them to believe that their desires need no carnal outlet.”
That is a great ^ description of something so many of us have lived through. Sex… derailed. Not only derailed… but replaced. This is key. Replaced… but, with what exactly?
Fantasy. Yes. But the fantasy could have been an only slightly-winding route back to the original “carnal outlet.” It’s not just some temporary state of fantasy. What do we call it when men willingly look past the sex, and continue the pursuit, with non-sexual justifications?
“As time goes by, libertines and naturalists argue, an unfulfilled fantasy ferments in the imagination and takes on a life of its own. Withdrawn into his own reverie, a man begins to idealize his mistress beyond all measure’ and may even sublimate his desire to the point of directing it toward such inappropriate objects as intelligible beauty or divine providence. In short, a frustrated lover tends to lose sight of the natural purpose of his own fantasy: forgetting sexual pleasure, he lets his desire pursue dead ends, which engender nothing but melancholy.”
“A frustrated lover tends to lose sight of the natural purpose” and finds instead “dead-ends.”
We haven’t named this quite yet… but we know what this feels like. This is what it feels like to be an orbiter. And the claim that it “engenders nothing but melancholy” is exactly why I wanted to write this essay.
This post is at full geek-level seduction theory, but is full of flesh-level lessons. For me, at least… seeing it spelled out like this, helps me see it as it happens, so I can move back on track with more productive pursuits. Feher’s essay has been in the back of my mind for years.
And now, Feher finally names it:
“While women both resist the call of their own senses and take pride in their unnatural behavior, fantasies tend to ferment for a dangerously long time in their lovers’ imaginations. Deprived of their natural outlet by the fearful combination of virtue and pride, these inflated fantasies give rise to yet another perversion of desire called ‘passionate love,’ a malady of the imagination stemming from frustration and consisting of an irrational overestimation of the desired person.”
“Passionate love.” “A malady of the imagination.” A “perversion of desire.” “An irrational overestimation of the desired person.”
Love ^. Anyone been there?
Again, I still claim to be a bit of a romantic. There is certainly some upside to feelings of love. But a romantic has a “healthy passion” when he gets what he is after, or uses his passion to direct him toward those ends (perhaps, with some other girl). It’s when we allow “inflated fantasies” to “ferment for a dangerously long time” that the quality of our thinking (and the way we use our time/resources) tends to deteriorate. This essay is a warning against all that.
At a personal level, the closest I can speak of love (in the moment), is my former lover Miss Thick. She ended things with me, and believe me, I still think of her often. MovingTarget is not alone in how this works.
To keep this in the context of this piece… 1.) Miss Thick and I did get to carnal pleasure. It took me a few dates to get her naked, but then ours was a very sexual affair. This wasn’t me chasing some girl that wasn’t interested. And, 2.) When she ended it… it was not as if I could just shut my feelings off… but I was wise enough to immediately point my feelings into more productive quarters.
I’m not saying a man should do what I did (to each his own)… but I was hitting on girls the very next day. And the day after.
Why? It’s because I know the dangers of letting my fantasies have too much governance over my behavior and next steps. I could long for Miss Thick (and I do, she was the best lover of my life, and I have had many), but that longing would “engender melancholy,” and not much else. And while a day on the street talking to new girls won’t guarantee any results… what it did do was keep any fantasies from metastasizing in my head.
“Far from treating it lightly, the libertines consider amorous passion to be at best debilitating and at worst deadly.”
This ^ is spot on.
For myself (and for my friend MovingTarget), I want for both of us to “find love.” But only insofar as that love yields nourishment.
When you love the thing that gives you what you need (attention, affection, sex, support, inspiration), you’ve found one of the sweet spots in life. But when what you love not only doesn’t give you that nourishment, but actually keeps you in a state of unsatisfied addiction… call it the cancer it is. “Debilitating.” Yes. And “deadly” in the sense that it has stopped you from growing toward the light.
MovingTarget… this ^ is for you. I know you get it. But this is a meditation on your freedom and sovereignty as a man. I write all this in tribute to you.
“For his own sake, he must carefully pace his pleasures, which are constantly threatened either by a lack or by an excess of emotion.”
That ^ is a good guideline. We are wise to live in strong castles that aren’t weakened by “excess of emotion,” while at the same time, we allow enough emotion in to enhance the pleasure and depth of it all.
I wanted to lay all this out for you, as I see Feher’s conclusions as 1.) older (and likely wiser) than we are, part of a long tradition of sober-minded woman-chasing, and 2.) The flavor of advise is uncommon, very “redpilled,” and not likely to be presented in mainstream culture.
“As time passes, the frustrated lover obsesses about his mistress, and thus believes that her long-awaited favors will bring him nothing less than eternal bliss.”
This ^ is the dangerous end of that fantasy. Something like chivalrous notions of romance and dedication, that work out to be false promises made to ourselves and self-made prisons.
When a man finds himself in a scenario like this… the fact that he thinks his “love” and dedication are the path, are all the proof we need to be certain he will never reach his goal.
Moving past the original goals of this piece, the notes from Feher go quite a bit further. And the depth and wisdom of his comments help me see how Men of Game share a philosophical currency that stretches back into the centuries.
I am still learning these lessons. Seeing them carved in stone helps me know how real they are, even if they aren’t easy to understand, to integrate, or to master.
Opening this back up, let’s return to the “virgins and sluts:”
“[E]ven when an aristocratic woman has not been tainted by unnatural values or sentimental delusions, she should not flaunt her acceptance of the laws of nature. The public demands that women pay at least lip service to received ideas about vice and virtue: they are thus expected to lament the licentious ways of their contemporaries and to long for a world where women would be appreciated for their modesty and constancy.”
Again, the clear expectation that a life of active seduction is an “acceptance of the laws of nature ” – so refreshing. And Feher doesn’t hesitate to assume that women feel the call to carnal pleasure instinctively… yet:
She is not to “flaunt it.” She is expected to “pay lip service” to those chaste ideals. Bluepill guidelines (again), on some level… but also the beginnings of a peek at the Secret Society. In fact, this fits perfectly into what we know about the Secret Society metaphor.
The Secret Society is composed of “all women” (as RSD Tyler originally claimed), and a small percentage of “redpill” men. The members “know the rules”… which are the rules of nature, subtly cloaked in “lip service.” There are society’s expectations. And the members of the Secret Society “feel each other up,” under a cloak of faux-civilized cooperation.
(Intentional emphasis on the “lip service,” as these comments gave me serious food for thought. More on that in a minute…)
“According to the public, a woman who follows the natural course of her desires is inexcusable and ruins her reputation, while a woman who succumbs to love’s sway is worthy of compassion and even of respect – especially if she surrenders to her lover’s sincere and passionate love for her.”
We are back to love, but now the word has a different flavor.
Lance Mason of Pickup101 fame used to say: Our goal as a seducer is to, of course, fuck the girl, but in such a way that she could tell her friends, “what was I supposed to do??!” When done well, her friends would then say, “Oh, yeah, totally, I would have done the same thing.” When her friends approve, she is “not in trouble” and not locked out of the tribe (which means she can still have access to resources). That quote above, where Feher says she “succumbs to love’s sway,” and is therefore excused… helps solve the puzzle of how she is able to say “yes” and retain any support from the “tribe.”
Here, “love” is used not as a debilitating trap that blinds us from our goals… as a anemic substitute for physical pleasure… but instead as a pretense for a more basic, natural, carnal commerce. What might only be a physical exchange (one with roots too shallow to support society) is excused… as it was “done for love.” This is a prime tool in a girl’s sexual-psychological toolkit.
In this way… “love” (the “excuse” a man might use to trap himself into periods of romantic self-flagellation), is more aptly purposed to help get everyone naked. It’s part of the “cloak” that lovers in the Secret Society use to hide or explain their activities.
“Thus, instead of expressing their intentions literally, these men of good fortune convey their modest fantasies to the women they desire by pretending that they are madly in love with them; in turn, and provided that they are interested in their suitors’ ‘real’ propositions, the petites maitresses respond in similarly conventional ways.”
Feher is pointing to a “wink-wink,” “nudge-nudge” view of love.
If you can imagine setting up a sexual liaison, but having to do so right in front of your grandmother, in such a way that she could tell her old lady friends about it, and all of them would find it “charming” and “lovely,” that is the way Feher is saying love operates in the Secret Society. The lasciviousness is there. It’s still communicated between the libertines (both her and him), but it’s displayed in a coded way, that allows society to approve… or not notice at all.
And that code is a “pretended love.” Perhaps even pretended to each other (how better to make the act convincing?). Fascinating.
The man that has a “real love” is often bogged down in a heavy-hearted poem that leads to nothing but “melancholy.” While the “false love” is an all access pass. In fact, in many cases, it’s a requirement.
I wasn’t intending to take this essay in this direction, but Feher had several comments about “double entendre” that struck me as meaningful and original. And as I read those comments… I couldn’t help translate that phrase “double entendre” to “shit test.”
Check this out:
The basic definition of a double entendre is “a word or phrase open to two interpretations, one of which is usually risqué or indecent.”
So, the set up here ^ is “two meanings.” And one is often risqué or sexual in nature. That is a rich way to understand a shit test. And if you see “double entendres” as part of the communication of the Secret Society… it’s a refreshing way to see communication in the sexual marketplace.
“To this end, the men of good fortune seek to establish their relationships with their mistresses on the basis of tacit but systematic double entendre.”
“A petit-maitre sees his practice of double entendre as the most polite way to maximize his pleasure. On the one hand, he claims to be polite vis-i-vis the women he seduces, because he enables them both to deny and satisfy their desires: thanks to his timely moves, they can indulge in the pleasures of the flesh without ceasing to sing the praises of virtue, and blame the irrepressible power of passionate love for their moments of weakness.”
Great insight ^ into how the Secret Society operates.
Seem like a stretch? Try this on:
HER: Okay… but don’t think you’re going to fuck me tonight.
She is saying “no,” right? Suuuuurree. Men with experience in game know that is often a dead giveaway that she is more than considering it. Perfect example. She can claim she is actively “sing[ing] the praises of virtue,” while in fact, she is signaling an (eh-hem) opening.
“The libertinism of the petits-maitres seeks to harmonize social rules and natural appetites.”
She can tell her friend, “I told him I wasn’t going to fuck him,” and she’d be telling the truth. In fact, maybe her friends overheard her say it. But in practice… plenty of room to not only indulge “natural appetites,” but also to actively signal that is her intention to her potential lover. Wise men know that line is often as much of a confession and invitation as it is a refusal.
HIM: You’re such a brat…we’d never get along.
This ^ is a classic Pickup 1.0 level push. But done with a wink, it’s more than flirting. I have never thought of it this way before, but it’s a kind of “male shit test” (if there could be such a thing). And it sets up the “double entendre” that while his words say “nothing could happen between us,” the Secret Society implication is… “it’s on.”
“[T]hey understand that ‘culture’ has endowed men and women with very different sexual roles, in order to channel lust into a stable familial order. Rather than seeking to challenge or reform this social ‘gendering’ of sexual mores, their use of double entendre endeavors to make the social constraints inherent in male seduction and female resistance as painless as possible.”
As a player expects and plays along with shit tests… even actively incorporates them into his game… the double entendre proves to be the language of the Secret Society.
“The participants in this dialogue are never supposed to say what they mean, so they can never be sure that the other does not really mean what he or she says.”
It’s not easy to know ^ what is going on… but that’s part of how the Secret Society remains secret. If it was simple and clear… any beta could read it. Being simple and clear is not what the Secret Society is about.
Back to a personal note: In my last days with the Siren (another fantastic lover of mine), she wanted to have a call with me. And on that call she said, “I want to say something to you… and I may never say it again: I love you.”
There it is… “love” again.
In Siren’s case, she said it. I don’t know why. And the last couple of times we saw each other… the emotions were as high as ever… and the sex was deep and passionate. Complicated, but some of my favorite memories. And then, maybe two dates after she said that to me… she disappeared from my life.
When she said she “loved” me… was that what she really meant? Or was that part of a coded comment as we made our exchange behind the curtain of the Secret Society?
If we’re never supposed to say what we mean… “I love you” means something different than Disney might suggest.
NOTES FOR THE SEDUCER:
I’ll round out this piece with some additional notes from Feher’s introduction that had appeal to me as a player. Signals for seducers, from long ago:
“Above all, the petits-maitres and the ‘men of principle,’ stigmatize passionate love as a humiliating experience, since the victims of this emotional disorder become deaf to the calls of reason and submit blindly to their beloved’s will. But libertines also dread love’s power because they know it to be a strangely addictive and often contagious disease.”
We all know the stories of men that clearly understand game, but then… drop their game because: “you don’t understand, this girl is different.” Yeah, I have seen that. I’ve done that. That Disney side of all of us, when she has a particularly strong appeal… even Men of Game can catch this “contagious disease.”
“Having come to this diagnosis, the libertines vow not to let their own fantasies go astray: they thus endeavor to overcome women’s virtue and circumvent their pride while avoiding the traps of passionate love. In the eyes of its practitioners, then, libertinism appears as the revenge of nature’s course against society’s aberrations.”
More ^ redpilled wisdom. Get out there and game. Keep an eye open to the common mistake of “one-itis.” We are redpilled, we see life’s true nature, and we cut through the crap of “society’s aberrations”… and get what we want… and give the girls what they need.
“Regarding public morals and private desires as an established fact, their sole purpose is to turn the tensions between moral principles and natural appetites to their own advantage.”
(Sundance, if you’re reading this ^… I can almost hear your voice when I read this line. The comment seems very “you.”)
“[T]he ‘man of good fortune’ seeks to accumulate moments of pleasure. His modest brand of libertinism consists primarily in warding off boredom, which he sees as a permanent threat, while resisting love’s sway, which he sees as a source of grief and humiliation.”
The goals ^ of a notch hound (which aren’t terribly far from what I want).
Despite having felt something close to “love” for girls like Siren and Miss Thick (I still have a kind of love for Miss Thick, for certain), I never compromised my player’s lifestyle. I fucked other girls right through both of those relationships. Fucking girls is, well… it’s fun. But there is also a wise discipline here.
I have had enough long term relationships in my life to very much feel the “grief and humiliation” of ex-girlfriends chipping away at me over months under the pretense of “love,” until I was not attractive to them anymore… nor was I attractive in my own eyes. As a “man of good fortune,” I avoid those traps more actively these days.
The “men of good fortune” are describing something I know well. The pursuit of “strange pussy.” And the avoidance of the morass of long term monogamy. So many of us know this territory.
“At the same time, a single day without fantasy is considered to be unbearably boring.”
True! I notice the days when I don’t have anything flirty/sexy going on with the various girls (old and new) in my life. And the joy of the initial part of the fantasy is a part of what I love about hunting sessions on the sidewalk.
“Therefore, since their potential female partners are limited to the women of their world, the petits-maitres realize that their happiness demands on a collective commitment to an active amorous commerce. Indeed, public satisfaction rests on the incessant succession of adventures, which are all the more intense when they are new.”
“An active amorous commerce.” Daygamers… can you feel this ^? I can. That means “game never ends.” If you want to eat… you have to hunt. And failing to hunt… can get incredibly boring.
I was out today. I didn’t feel like gaming, particularly, but once I started… ahhh, it felt great. I talked to five girls today (to knock the rust off after a few days away from the street). The first girl didn’t even stop, but she gave me a smile… wow. With that smile, any sense of boredom was gone from my life. And then the next girl, even as she said she had a boyfriend, the sexual part of her lit up like a sunrise. I was alive. So was she.
And it’s the gifts of a life of seduction that allow me to make a claim like: I am more committed to my path in game that I could possibly be to any given girl. “[A]dventures… are all the more intense when they are new.” They certainly are. Thus my “commitment to an active amorous commerce” is a guiding part of my life strategy.
I am value, and I work to increase that value. Game is the plan. Girls are fruit along that path.
Back to the double entendre:
“And yet, the polite libertinism of the petits-maitres also runs the opposite risk – to wit, that a double entendre will be too transparent. If the signals sent out by a man of good fortune and a petite-maitresse cease to present any ambiguity, if each knows exactly where the other stands at every point in the seduction, then their respective fantasies will be insufficiently nourished, making their eventually liaison more boring than pleasurable.”
So much here ^.
First, that vulgar, overly-direct approaches will be “too transparent” to work. Not only because their crudeness will showcase a lack of skill… but separately… as the lack of ambiguity dampens the passions. Sundance and I have been talking about this (ambiguity/etc) for weeks.
“Thus, libertine double entendre seems to be constantly tossed between too much and too little uncertainty.”
There ^ you have it… the age old debate of direct vs indirect.
“While a lack of connivance between petits-maitre and petites-maitresses slows the progress of desire, thereby exposing the libertine couples to wayward fantasies, a completely transparent code also ruins their pleasure by depriving their relationship of any form of seduction whatsoever.”
Interesting. Too direct… the lack of ambiguity makes the seduction bland and brutish. Too indirect… it’s formless and passionless, gets lost in fantasy… or never takes off at all.
Here I think of how when I read Krauser’s Infinite, as I read through all the text exchanges between the girls and him… I was surprised at how he would take his time asking for a date. While it’s true that dumbass guys will “chat too much” and never get the girl out (girls complain about this regularly), the opposite is also true… acting too quick can deprive the “relationship of any form of seduction whatsoever.”
“Therefore, if we believe libertine authors, a petit-maitre is rarely able to find the golden mean that he is looking for: despite his good intentions, he most often fails to sustain the happy mixture of pleasure and freedom that keeps him from being bored while carefully avoiding love.”
That ^ comment about “not being able to find the golden mean”… between direct and indirect seduction… between quick-lust and meandering-love. That is every girl you liked but couldn’t wrangle… juxtaposed against every girl that liked you a little more than was good for your freedom. I have felt all that. Snapshots of my life in game… taken hundreds of year before I was born.
If you are a Man of Game, a “man of good fortune,” you are not alone.
There is a long tradition of men that have been in the arena before you. Some of them… simple to a fault. But others… the level of insight in Feher’s interpretation of the game is stunning. And comforting. I am learning from Feher’s instruction. Better men than myself have strained to successfully bend society’s expectations, nature’s intentions, and opportunities in the SMP to their will.
Fascinating stuff, gentlemen.
Inspirational writing, thank you.
A very interesting post, albeit Feher sounds a little too abstract for my taste.
“The TradCons would say this is good for them, and I’d agree (in many ways). In fact, I like women that mostly buy the traditional narrative… civilized girls that make an exception for me. I want to do “bad things with good girls.” I know men like Rivelino feel the same.”
I don’t care too much about the good-girl-gone-bad versus simple bad-girl thing, but I’m definitely into psychologically converting chicks into being sex positive and adventurous (words that other guys may simply call “sluts”). If a girl is into the traditional narrative, fine, whatever, but I find the number who are 100% into the traditional narrative 100% of the time to be small.
I just posted about the book Untrue: Why Nearly Everything We Believe About Women, Lust, and Infidelity Is Wrong and How the New Science Can Set Us Free, which is by a woman, Wednesday Martin. If Martin’s ideal view of female sexuality came to pass, most women would hate it, because they wouldn’t be able to get much in the way of resources from men. Even today, most women can fairly easily do this (if they want to).
“Back to a personal note: In my last days with the Siren (another fantastic lover of mine), she wanted to have a call with me. And on that call she said, ‘I want to say something to you… and I may never say it again: I love you.’”
I have written this before, but I like telling chicks I love them. Only after an appropriately long period of time. Usually only while we’re having sex. It’s bad “game” in some sense, I think. Did you see this trash article about Lanza: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/maurizio-zanfanti-dead-playboy-63-13323113 ? “Zanfanti, who rose to fame promoting the nightclub Blow Up in the 1970s, once claimed to have sex with up to 200 women a summer. He said he loved each and every one of them. Throughout the years, a number of women have alleged to have had children with him.”
In the moment, I think I love them too.
When I tell girls this, it drives them bonkers. They don’t know what it means. I say it only intermittently. Usually I decline to elaborate when they ask me more about it later.
This book Untrue, I may add it to the collection of books I give to chicks to help them think that fucking around is normal and natural. Probably I am fucking it up for other guys by attempting to convert chicks to hedonism in this way.
Yeah… this piece means a lot to me. I was very glad to get some things “in print” that I have been tossing around in my brain for a long time… and there ARE “flesh-level” lessons here.
I don’t think it’s abstract. But… it’s safe to call this piece “very academic.”
I am sure you’re right. I like a flavor of girl that claims to be traditional, even if she isn’t. Even if she doesn’t realize the contradiction. For me… it’s like she has a “wolves” intentions. And that is charming to me. And… good for civilization.
It’s not that breaking the speed limit is so terrible… it’s just that if we all did it… the freeway would be a death race. #civilization
An old friend of mine used to always tells girls he loved them, and pretty quick. He was solidly “romantic.” His love came fast, and wasn’t particularly solid. And the fact that he was free/easy with it… was a kind of signal to the girls.
This is good “ambiguity.” Not that you refused to make a statement (I love you is a powerful statement), but in the meaning behind it.
Whenever I am in a particularly hot situation with a lover… that word is on my lips. I get it.
Good advice. Nothing new but the mechanics laid out undressed like that really help in understanding and hamerring the point in head.
BUT what comes after? Just moving on and not getting attached to one girl is good but not enough. Personally speaking, i have no issue with not falling in that stupid oneitisy love, i always manage to move on but keep repeating same mistakes with the next one each time and burning and crashing.
[…] Love vs The Libertine | Comments on Redpill, Tradcons, & The Secret Society […]
Thanks for yet another great post and insight.
I wonder if I am too soft, but It keeps me wonder how to not be a “dick” and yet enjoy the adventure.
I am talking about, the situation when you’re in “more or less relationship” like when you were with Miss Thick and you were gaming anyways with other girls, I wonder how I can behave in such situation and not feel that I am betraying a girl.
I want to give them pleasure and I don’t mind dating many of them, but what when you’re in something deeper. How to not be an asshole in such a situation, I know It’s philosophic question, but with my experience (I was betrayed a few times in my life, so I don’t want to do the same) It keeps me scared that I may hurt them this way.
I’ll say something to you I don’t think I have said before on this blog…
I still wonder that. I still sometimes feel I am betraying a girl. I know exactly how you feel.
But I also want to see what is on the other side of that feeling. How much of that is because my nervous system cannot handle dating two girls at once… and only because I haven’t really tried before? Would I feel different if I had more practice dating multiple women?
I posted today about dating two girls in one day. I kissed them both (fucked the 2nd one).
And yesterday (Valentines day in Tokyo), Miss Serious had slept over, so I fucked her again that morning. And I sent her home after lunch. Then I changed the sheets. Wiped down the bathroom. And then met Miss Compliant for a nice dinner. Brought her back. Put her in the same bed Miss Serious was in that morning. Kissed her and had a solid “high-school” makeout.
Also yesterday… I messaged several girls about other dates.
And two girls from China messaged me wishing me happy Valentines. I kind of “broke up” with one of them (told her not to try to come to Japan to see me). And then one minute later, messaged the other one about how amazing and special she is (I really miss that 2nd one).
All this feels a little weird, sometimes. And other times… I am very comfortable being the man I am.
I never lie to girls. I don’t rub the honesty in their face (I am happy to avoid certain stories), but I never lie.
I try very hard to give girls good experiences. It makes me proud.
There is room for us to grow in this area. Test yourself. You may be surprised at what you learn about yourself… and what you learn about girls.
Are you betraying a girl when you give her exactly what she wants? (Attention of one of the few men whom all the girls want to be with.) I am still caught by surprise when the most traditional girl I have been with scolds me “When you are with your girls you should always…..” The fact that we are with girls plural is part of the delusion we are selling because it is part of the delusion they want to buy. When my phone rings at 7:00 am and the woman I am next to suggests “That’s so-and-so chick.” Smugly. Because a) she just fucked me and b) she apparently pays attention to every person that friends me on facebook or has some rumor mill connection updating her on my every move and c) miss so-and-so is apparently unaware of what she is interrupting and thus in the dark. DRAMA! Its the female equivalent to mens cry of BATTLE! It’s something they love. It’s what they are made for.
Sadly a battle hardened male is a better man. But a drama hardened unmarried woman is a mess. There may be exceptions to both I suppose. Women’s mothers egg them on, typically, (probably for the (post-wall) vicarious tingles.) Not sure about the fathers. I am guessing that if you knew the father and the girl gets ‘turned out’ by her choice or your rejection, then one of you might feel betrayed. I have met two of the fathers. Neither bore me any ill will. They are good witness to how women betray men.
So the only real question is: Are you betraying your own purpose? Your own duties? Your own self?
If the answer is no, then go the Tom Leykis route: “If you piss into a urinal and you feel a great relief, an amazing feeling of relief…. and then you walk away. Do you worry about calling the urinal the next day?”
On the other hand, if you think that maybe, somewhere, some woman… might have the potential to awaken to something more in life? In that case you are betraying someone. You are betraying yourself. Because you could be awakened as well.
Don’t worry about betraying a woman’s soul. You can’t save her. You have to start with yourself.