Continued discussion on help, etc [feel free to ignore]

[SexyIncél]

Removing this conversation from a thread on male loneliness, to avoid derailing it. Please feel free to ignore; I doubt it's of interest to many

Suicide by Emile Durkheim is a keystone I believe, and I think it'd be fitting if you'd want to read smth like that together? But I'm getting a bit ahead of myself. Apologies, I'm a bit excited to meet social scientists.

We could also hack social reality, if you'd like. I'll send you some writeups I made. It's kind of my hobby!

I have had much of the same experiences, but I become resentful when they become too attached to me. They love me, but I don't love them an ounce because I see them more as a patient than a friend. Doesn't it get lonely? Always being there for people, and them not being able to be there for you because they don't have the developed emotional maturity? How do you still consider them friends? Maybe our experiences with those people are different, but when I confide in the friends that I help, they often can't offer me any of the support in return, and I have to deal with everything myself. I've gotten so burnt out from all this that I've basically shut off my empathetic language and comfort at this point. Which means I'm not even helping anymore, even though they continue to seek it. I can't deal with people's rumination cycles anymore and have retreated myself into isolation and academia by choice.

Yeah, it blows when people you help don't respect you. Or worse yet, disrespect someone you recruited to help them out! It's not just you — it's probably the most common scenario for me too. There's a number of things you can say in these situations:

• "I learned to rotate friends, to lean on each only lightly. To avoid burning them out"
• "Unfortunately, there's people I must support, who'll suffer if I don't"
• "Drowning people flail wildly & can drag you down with them"

I mean, we're giving people our time & skill here. My job is to understand their situation & help them get wins. Nullify some mechanism(s) out there causing their suffering. Or hang out & mutually increase our pleasures

(Fancy terms for decreasing suffering vs increasing pleasure: "negative vs positive utilitarianism". I'd rather stick with increasing pleasure & thus be an artist. But suffering keeps people from enjoying pleasure)

You can prioritize amplifying those who amplify others — those who practice moral virtues. Improves society. Amplifying immoral people makes you complicit in their immorality

When people repeatedly do dumb shit that hurts them :P, you can shift into being more coldly truthful. I can do this by saying, "Ok, I gotta start talking with you in the blunt truthful way, as we do in the World of Men. Better to be hit by cold words, than by cold reality"

And they can come to you if they need help understanding a situation, accomplishing a concrete goal, or nullifying an enemy. Because that's the fun part. You might round up a posse to lighten the load. Keep efficiency in mind: best to discover big wins with minimal effort

They usually won't die if you don't help them. And even if they might... well, we've all been on the cusp of nonexistence & lost important friends. A sasu friend of mine chastised me for spending time here on sasu. She said "They're dying anyway"

I don't want to be loved anymore, I want to be able to love someone again.

Yeah, adoring someone gives you the more fun emotions. Redpillers suggest that in general, guys should accept the adored position, even if it eventually becomes a bit boring. Because boring your gal is a fatal relationship mistake

And tbh, it can be hilariously scary to adore someone who's got sadomasochistic dynamics going on. If you look at Lynn Chancer's "Sadomaschism in Everyday Life", you may find sadomasochistic relations fundamental, because they're potentially there in any top-down hierarchical relation. Not just capitalism, but many other systems too. Big & small

Fortunately, there exist people who really do let you adore them back, without punishing you. They're the "high quality gals & guys" who Alexander Grace speaks of, people who can magically look upon your momentary weaknesses without disdain

I don't want to be loved anymore, I want to be able to love someone again. And I love none of the people I one-sidedly help. It's barely even help anymore, because I don't give them emotional support anymore, as a subconscious way to create distance. I miss him, my most valued friend. He would help me a lot, and I would try to be there for him the same, even though I couldn't solve the problem that made him ctb. That was the only time I could experience mutuality in that type of friendship. It was the ultimate emotional intimacy, helped by the fact that ctb was a key issue in my life back then, which I could only confide in with him. I chose wrong not to die with him.

Sorry to hear that! I can fully understanding wanting to die with such a person. They exist, but uncommon

When he died, I felt so empty, but my friends weren't helpful, and it wasn't like they didn't try. But they were awfully bad at it, save for one. I can't even express that their support wasn't helping, because if I do so they'll get fucking insecure and then they'll have another issue that I'll have to reassure them about. Which means negative progress for them.

Sigh, yeah fuck'em. Can't let just any mental mechanic monkey with your mind. Most people aren't conscientious. Not taught how to actively listen. Typically socialized not to be particularly moral entities, grossly obsessed with themselves

That last sentence... are you soliciting people for pay? LOL. How do you do that? I'm only asking because I'm curious.

Ah I just meant that effective problem solvers are kinda rare. ("Good help's hard to find")

I do like your points overall, but I disagree with the last point. A shitty person that has a great relationship with you, again only from my experience, causes extreme burnout. Call me out if you think my view of those people are wrong though, sometimes I can get really pretentious and stuck up as a result of bourgeois, classist upbringing. I'm trying to work on it, but identifying it when it happens is the hard part.

Yeah, I think we agree. I've never known a great relationship with a shitty person. I just threw that in for completeness's sake

Well, working on one's class snobbery says good things about you! fwiw, My understanding from ethnographers is that free people tend to act like aristocrats, not like the working class. (Walking through a forest, head up high, feeling like its theirs...)

I don't understand how you can see it as something shared. I love seeing how they behave, because I can crossreference it with my biological and sociological knowledge and find fascination in how those things I've read from books occur in real life. But I don't see their problems as relatable, and therefore they're not shared. It's difficult for me to apply my textbook knowledge to me efficiently too. People can analyze the external world much better than themselves. It's so easy to understand the way Friend A thinks of human relations as reflective of Graeber's theory of "the moral grounds of economic relations" for example, but I personally don't have never shared the view, as an anti-capitalist.

Hrmm, I don't understand what you mean here...

I like how you say "People can analyze the external world much better than themselves." That's a cultural anthropology saying: making the strange familiar, and the familiar strange. Useful to become alienated from yourself, seeing yourself as a dance of particles that cohere into atoms, which cohere into cells, which ... into whatever the fuck we are

Some end up rebuilding themselves, starting with philosophy. (Hopefully good philosophies. I can send you my thoughts on that.) This allows one to have powerful end-to-end knowledge, in a chain from the most general notions to the details of a particular domain. People like that tend to be disturbingly accurate

What do you say when people said that they're tried everything, but it hasn't helped? And that now they just want emotional support? I'm not built for doing that a lot, really. I was just thrusted into the role of giving people emotional labor because of my gender.

Then they're fucked ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Next!

I mean, you can hit them with Harry Potter & the Methods of Rationality, which teaches relentless resourcefulness. Have they REALLY tried everything? Can we name 5 candidate solutions that might conceivably work out?

Also, cognitive scientist Lisa Barrett interesting things to say about how emotions work. (Which we can discuss, if you'd like.) Those emotional mechanisms can be hacked

It's hard to talk about this abstractly; are the problems more rooted in the physics level? Biological? Social? Psychological?

In my experience, I've been that person before, where I just wanted support and no improvement because it didn't work. And that's true. It didn't work. So I had given up. And I was just using others as a crutch to feel less miserable until my death date. Like a leech. I'm better now, but seeing how that was my thought process back when I did have that line of thinking, I'm really wary of people who tell me that they want emotional support AND that they've tried everything.

You can have a positive impact, just existing. They can ask "What would penguinl0v3s think?" Even just internalizing a mental model of you can help them

If you're curious about how I got out of that, I met my almost-ctb partner (the one I said was my most-valued friend), and he told me that he wished that he could live, if he even had the chance. He didn't, because he had tried every treatment from every professional out there--back then I also thought he had nothing left, but after his death my view had changed and I no longer believe professional treatment is the only way and that we had both valued it too much as the only path to get better.

Yeah, "Disciplined Minds" is required reading for anyone who wants to undermine professionals' halo effect

He was just an internet stranger, but he changed my life irrevocably because I was supposed to be dead by now (I did seek him as a ctb partner after all) and now I'm alive. Something about the connection was just instant, and I can't describe why his words and recovery advice awakened something in me that nobody else did, but it did nonetheless. I don't think I will ever be able to love someone as much as I loved him, because a would-be ctb partner that saves your life is kind of a once in a lifetime thing. That's also another part of why I'm so impatient with people who are struggling like that, because for me to stop being depressed, all I had to do was to stop paying attention to my negative thoughts and pain. My experience tells me that to stop being depressed it's really just that easy, even though I know logically that my experience is very atypical.

Well, you have strong metacognition. Yeah, tbh I think the Partners Megathread can be low-key the most important part of the site, for some people

Wow, I didn't know my opinion could be close to any right wing community, that's funny haha.

Why not? Their trick is to come up with theories with some resemblance to reality, enough to be useful. BUT in a framework that subtly supports dominance structures & resistance to social change

Take Andrew Tate. Why does mainstream media cover him, even though he correctly points out most people are slaves? (Such as wageslaves.) Because his solution is to free yourself by being a more effective slave. Not abolishing the slavery system

When listening to anyone, you gotta remove any ideological poisons. Charitably interpreting people is good practice in this

Furthermore, "your side" may have ideological blindspots — taboos — so they fail to offer improved theories. If feminists won't offer men compelling masculinities, then let's act *shocked* (gasp) if men get it from patriarchal men's movements. Enemies exploit weaknesses

The right actually pays attention to what leftists say. Few leftists do that to rightwingers. Chomsky & bell hooks are exceptions

I'd say it's more accurate that most women want all three at once. They won't just settle for status without the other two with it. I thought that status was preferred, but optional though. But again, maybe that's just me, as a bougie asshole who doesn't perceive many people as higher status than me. I haven't read any reputable books about this, so I can't say what the average woman is actually like and am just pulling from opinion. I actually hate people who are interested in gaining more 'status' though because I don't believe a better society should have hierarchy, and have embraced some Marxist beliefs. Even though I don't identify as a Marxist because of some other beliefs. It's hard for us to imagine since we grew up in societies with hierarchy, but many societies have existed without hierarchy just fine.

Yeah, I think we should set up multiple utopias — zones of experimentation. (As opposed to One Big Utopia, which can fall into a rut & become dystopian.) One vision I like is Participatory Economics

Reminds me of Graeber/Wengrow:

"Egalitarian cities, even regional confederacies, are historically quite commonplace. Egalitarian families and households are not. Once the historical verdict is in, we will see that the most painful loss of human freedoms began at the small scale – the level of gender relations, age groups, and domestic servitude – the kind of relationships that contain at once the greatest intimacy and the deepest forms of structural violence. If we really want to understand how it first became acceptable for some to turn wealth into power, and for others to end up being told their needs and lives don't count, it is here that we should look. Here too, we predict, is where the most difficult work of creating a free society will have to take place."

I admittedly am terrible at coming up with my own ideas, which is why I read so many books.

Certainly, there's benefits to using other people's debugged ideas, than our own janky ones... It's unclear to what extent "my" ideas are solely mine; maybe I'll have some idea because of this conversation

Yep, I'm on the asexual spectrum so perhaps I can't speak for sexuality. Sex makes me act and feel silly and laugh more than anything pleasurable, and I do mean silly in a good way.

Yeah, I think "Different people desire different mix of goofiness, elegance, and brutishness"

Examples of goofiness: "Rubbing noses, silly licking, shock value. Can be like the surprise generating laughter in standup comedy, a total twisted mindfuck"

 

[Adûnâi]

I mean, you can hit them with Harry Potter & the Methods of Rationality, which teaches relentless resourcefulness. Have they REALLY tried everything? Can we name 5 candidate solutions that might conceivably work out?

That's the only book among the ones you mentioned that I have read. Resourcefulness is a good word - never to stop, always believe in the possibility, feasibility and achievability of the ultimate good in mankind. Being insolent and intolerant of the reality of evil.

I really like reading your conversation btw, brings back the nostalgia of me reading obscure 2002 Russian LotR enthusiasts in 2012. With the danger of derailing this thread (and makin you both hate me even more), I'd say that I've always felt inadequate - I like reading erudite people with being intelligent myself (with some exceptions such as basic geopolitics or history).

Take Andrew Tate. Why does mainstream media cover him, even though he correctly points out most people are slaves? (Such as wageslaves.) Because his solution is to free yourself by being a more effective slave. Not abolishing the slavery system

Now here I could say something relevant. I consider both Andrew Taste and the liberal "woke" Western order to be two sides of the same coin - the eloi and the morlocks of Wells. Both are ultimately anarchic, individualistic, anti-statist, hedonistic. In my opinion, the West is fixated on the idea of destroying hierarchies - because that's what Jesus did - and the only true alternative to the West's Christianity & neo-Christian liberalism would be ideologies that have nothing to do with it - be it Islam, Hinduism or Juche (with some honourary mentions of the old European moustache-men). True anti-Western positions are outright incomprehensible, invisible or weird to the Western man. Tate is popular because he's a "Matrix agent" to a large extent.

Yeah, adoring someone gives you the more fun emotions. Redpillers suggest that in general, guys should accept the adored position, even if it eventually becomes a bit boring. Because boring your gal is a fatal relationship mistake

Thanks for this concise video! Honestly, it makes me so disgusted and disillusioned, it might even aid me in becoming (gay) free of wanting a gf. The entire psychopathic merchant-esque manipulation seems repulsive to me. Maybe that's why I'm inherently attracted to femdommes - because they're supposedly fine with being adored?

And tbh, it can be hilariously scary to adore someone who's got sadomasochistic dynamics going on. If you look at Lynn Chancer's "Sadomaschism in Everyday Life", you may find sadomasochistic relations fundamental, because they're potentially there in any top-down hierarchical relation. Not just capitalism, but many other systems too. Big & small

I haven't read it, but actual sadomasochism is supposed to be a thing both parties enjoy partaking in - whereas you seem to be saying that a weak man repels the woman and makes her end the relationship altogether.

Fortunately, there exist people who really do let you adore them back, without punishing you. They're the "high quality gals & guys" who Alexander Grace speaks of, people who can magically look upon your momentary weaknesses without disdain

How is it high-quality if females seem to be intrinsically wired to look up to the man (as per your point)? I'd just say, there are different types of people, some exceptions to the rule, but that's it. Some might indeed enjoy the weakness in their partner. Hell, maledom seems to be the agreed-upon default - that's why men do prey on vulnerable females, and not the reverse.

Reminds me of Graeber/Wengrow:

"Egalitarian cities, even regional confederacies, are historically quite commonplace. Egalitarian families and households are not. Once the historical verdict is in, we will see that the most painful loss of human freedoms began at the small scale – the level of gender relations, age groups, and domestic servitude – the kind of relationships that contain at once the greatest intimacy and the deepest forms of structural violence.

This was an insanely unexpected and illuminating read, thanks!

> Fossil-fuelled societies should really have changed all that by liberating us from the drudgery of manual work, and bringing us back towards more reasonable Gini coefficients, closer to those of our hunter-forager ancestors – and for a while it seemed like this was beginning to happen, but for some odd reason, which Morris doesn't completely understand, matters have gone into reverse again and wealth is once again sucked up into the hands of a tiny global elite:

See, I don't agree with Marxists in that economics defines power structures. Where does #Me2 figure in this? How come so many famous, powerful, wealthy men get imprisoned or lose clout, such as Harvey Weinstein and Prince Andrew? It is obvious to me that money is not the centerpiece of Western culture - and women/LGBT/"BIPOC" "minorities" are the holy cows, not those poor, abused fat cats.

> And if anything like a royal court did hold sway in the festive season, when they gathered in great numbers, then it could only have dissolved away for most of the year, when the same people scattered back out across the island.

This sounds like anarcho-monarchism, haha.

> our remote ancestors were behaving in broadly similar ways: shifting back and forth between alternative social arrangements, permitting the rise of authoritarian structures during certain times of year, on the proviso that they could not last; on the understanding that no particular social order was ever fixed or immutable.

Well, Juche Korea is self-described as the only tax-free country in the world. And Chinese used to flee to North Korea back in the 1960s. Things do oscillate.

> As Claude Lévi-Strauss often pointed out, early Homo sapiens were not just physically the same as modern humans, they were our intellectual peers as well.

What's your idea on Julian Jaynes' bicameral mind hypothesis? And Lloyd deMause's research on the history of [horrific & commonplace] child abuse? I could imagine those savage homines sapientes as delusional bloodthirsty criminals, too.

> For instance, almost everyone nowadays insists that participatory democracy, or social equality, can work in a small community or activist group, but cannot possibly 'scale up' to anything like a city, a region, or a nation-state. But the evidence before our eyes, if we choose to look at it, suggests the opposite. Egalitarian cities, even regional confederacies, are historically quite commonplace. Egalitarian families and households are not.

To be fair, the Empire of Japan seems to me "anarcho-fascist". Low-rank officers were killing higher-ups and starting wars, all with a slap on the wrist - while the ever-changing oligarchy ruled, with multiple feuding parties.

P.S. Wow, I've actually gone through the whole essay! Hyperfocus? And I've probably wandered astray in a few places. But still. the preoccupation with muh' freedom sounds to me like a peculiar Western Christian thing - not that I'm an expert on Asians, but Islam meaning obedience, Hindus burning widows, and Chinese proclaiming a virtue of parent-on-child cannibalism ("filial cannibalism").

The Filial Daughter of Kwaksan- Finger Severing, Confucian Virtues, and Envoy Poetry in Early Chosŏn

Among the three cardinal human relations in Confucian morality, filiality stands out as the only one with the potential of being universally applicable. While chastity fell upon women and loyalty was meaningful for elite men, all human beings were

www.academia.edu

 

[SexyIncél]

I haven't read it, but actual sadomasochism is supposed to be a thing both parties enjoy partaking in - whereas you seem to be saying that a weak man repels the woman and makes her end the relationship altogether.

Well, whatever the redpillers advise, their basic observation is useful: being adored isn't all fun & games. In contrast, the adorer gets to gush & heartmelt

Anyhoo, the book says S&M logic pervades current society. Like workplaces where you have bosses & wageslaves

p.49-56 describes the goofy shit that can happen even in consenting S&M relationships. Like the sadist gets bored & secretly needs the masochist to resist, so the sadist starts making crazy innovations. Which can cause the masochist to rebel (or die) & even come to reject the sadist

Not to mention the sadist's ironic dependence on the masochist:

"This analysis suggests a paradox that I suspect operates at sadism's very heart. The sadist embodies precisely the opposite of what his or her situation on its face appears to imply. To the world and to the masochist, the sadistic persona exudes confidence and self-assurance. The sadist seems to be independent, to strut through life often mocking and contemptuous of the masochist's alleged dependency. The sadist may fantasize orgasmically unlimited power in issuing commands (in this case, sexual) to which the masochist is expected to respond. However, a closer look reveals this appearance to be a lie, and extreme need to be the sadist's best-guarded secret from self and others. This is a critical difference between the structural position of the sadist and of the masochist. The situation of the masochist, as will shortly be apparent, leaves no choice about whether dependence on the sadist will be recognized: she or he is literally forced to make this admission. On the other hand, the sadist's denial of dependency suggests an even greater insecurity than that experienced by the masochist, a need that the sadist feels must on no account be acknowledged. (If dependency was not intensely frightening to the sadist, why not simply admit to it?) And so the sadomasochistic dynamic is characterized by an ideological myth of independence on the sadist's part when, in reality, the sadist is even more dependent upon the masochist than the masochist is upon the sadist."

Eh. Dominance relations are so tricky

See, I don't agree with Marxists in that economics defines power structures. Where does #Me2 figure in this?

Yeah, Marxism privileges econ. (And btw I don't think it's wise to call oneself a Marxist, just like physicists don't call themselves Newtonians or Planckians. Opens the door to irrational cultishness)

I like the approach that says there's 4 spheres: econ, kinship, community & politics

 

[Adûnâi]

p.49-56 describes the goofy shit that can happen even in consenting S&M relationships. Like the sadist gets bored & secretly needs the masochist to resist, so the sadist starts making crazy innovations. Which can cause the masochist to rebel (or die) & even come to reject the sadist

I'd say, a much more common outlet would be cuckoldry, such a mainstay of FLR? But again, it only stems from how dime a dozen femdommes seem to be.

Not to mention the sadist's ironic dependence on the masochist:

Not too sure what the point of it is? While I could see an argument for the adored to be bored, BDSM relationships presuppose both parties to be comfortable in their roles by definition. Hell, my definition of maledom as the default may be challenged on this basis. Vanilla relationships seem to be a dance where both partners would vie for the other's attention. (And the incel theory would probably consider the clearest example of this among the uppermost chads and stacies.)

I like the approach that says there's 4 spheres: econ, kinship, community & politics

=Bread, blood, god, war, when translated to Anglish? Interesting, will read. I used to have a hunch subdividing it threefold - economy, culture, biology (=Marxism, liberalism, Nazism). Stalin worshipped the machine that put Gagarin in space; Hitlerian textbooks showed a dead rabbit and a sickly tree; whereas American Christianity wants everyone to "feel good". And that is Europe's gift to the world.

 

[SexyIncél]

Not too sure what the point of it is? While I could see an argument for the adored to be bored, BDSM relationships presuppose both parties to be comfortable in their roles by definition.

I thought of your question as I suddenly realized: redpillers are doms

Now, the whole point of that book: S&M is a far more general & fundamental phenomenon than commonly imagined. Operates in ANY hierarchical relation, at least potentially. Doesn't have to be explicit, consensual, nor even extreme

And uh-oh: families/households are generally hierarchical throughout history. This is the level of gender relations & such. "The kind of relationships that contain at once the greatest intimacy and the deepest forms of structural violence". Rife with S&M logics

I thought of this when watching Casey Zander. He offers excellent advice on relationships — but I realized it's equally good advice for doms! The dom must demonstrate superiority to his submissive; give "approval in the mode of disapproval"; deal with emotional outbursts unfazed, with a hint of bored contempt

The key is hypergamy: people who seek a superior. Hypergamy → hierarchy → S&M

When I played airbender with gfs — do more of what they react well to, and less of what they don't — I quickly realized that most are dog-like. They spam you with weird little status-tests to determine whether you're superior to them... like dogs obsessed with playing tug-of-war whenever you grab a blanket. This dog nature occasionally struck me, when taking them out for a walk. Or when they punish you for sentimentally simping on them, when you're merely trying to boost their fragile egos

(Do men have their own foibles? Of course! And guess what: I've counterattacked them for hurting gals. But that's not the topic right now)

#NotAllWomen. There's high-integrity unicorns who don't punish you for treating them as thoughtful equals. They'll take care of you if you act like a unicorn back: treat them courteously, support them ruthlessly, destroy their sources of suffering... make them laugh 'til they pee. One prize: you get to be a bluepill simp without worry, cooing over her, confiding your weaknesses

But even with unicorns, it's always good to have redpill game. Because the problem still remains: you gotta find & be worthy of one. And anyway, redpill's sometimes fun, often demanded by the outside world, and gals typically have a kink about it

 

[penguinl0v3s]

Ily both, will respond in a bit after my daily errands, thanks for engaging with me ^^

 

[Adûnâi]

Ily both, will respond in a bit after my daily errands, thanks for engaging with me ^^

Wait, my brain has again filtered out an unfamiliar zoomer Snapchat abbreviation (such as "hmu" or "hru"). If I were to describe the qualia, I'd say that I gave it the lowest amount of attention, akin to an irrelevant typo, focusing attention on which would have been bothersome. This says a lot about my brain. (On an unrelated note, I seem to catch typos really well... in English, and make a ton when typing in Russian (due to a lack of practice?).)

 

[sserafim]

I thought of your question as I suddenly realized: redpillers are doms

Now, the whole point of that book: S&M is a far more general & fundamental phenomenon than commonly imagined. Operates in ANY hierarchical relation, at least potentially. Doesn't have to be explicit, consensual, nor even extreme

And uh-oh: families/households are generally hierarchical throughout history. This is the level of gender relations & such. "The kind of relationships that contain at once the greatest intimacy and the deepest forms of structural violence". Rife with S&M logics

I thought of this when watching Casey Zander. He offers excellent advice on relationships — but I realized it's equally good advice for doms! The dom must demonstrate superiority to his submissive; give "approval in the mode of disapproval"; deal with emotional outbursts unfazed, with a hint of bored contempt

The key is hypergamy: people who seek a superior. Hypergamy → hierarchy → S&M

When I played airbender with gfs — do more of what they react well to, and less of what they don't — I quickly realized that most are dog-like. They spam you with weird little status-tests to determine whether you're superior to them... like dogs obsessed with playing tug-of-war whenever you grab a blanket. This dog nature occasionally struck me, when taking them out for a walk. Or when they punish you for sentimentally simping on them, when you're merely trying to boost their fragile egos

(Do men have their own foibles? Of course! And guess what: I've counterattacked them for hurting gals. But that's not the topic right now)

#NotAllWomen. There's high-integrity unicorns who don't punish you for treating them as thoughtful equals. They'll take care of you if you act like a unicorn back: treat them courteously, support them ruthlessly, destroy their sources of suffering... make them laugh 'til they pee. One prize: you get to be a bluepill simp without worry, cooing over her, confiding your weaknesses

But even with unicorns, it's always good to have redpill game. Because the problem still remains: you gotta find & be worthy of one. And anyway, redpill's sometimes fun, often demanded by the outside world, and gals typically have a kink about it

Why would people seek a superior? Do they like being controlled? Personally, I would hate to have a superior, I hate being controlled and I value my individuality, freedom and autonomy (I'm female btw if it matters).