Rollo Tomassi
Master Don Juan
As most of you know I'm currently in the process of writing a book on Positive Masculinity and I'm in the early stages of the first draft now after a very lengthy preparation process and outlining key elements as meticuously as possible. My focus in doing so is to establish some creditability on my part for the undoubtedly controversial theories that I'm presenting in the book. My degrees are in Fine Art and Psychology (behavioral with an emphasis on personality studies), and while I'm in the process of doing post grad work, I certainly don't possess a PhD in psychology. Needless to say i don't think this disqualifies me from writing a book on anything - If "Dr." Phil can write a dozen books on everything from weightloss to child rearing I think I can get published too - however I want to have as well reasoned and as well backed up ideas as possible in regards to what I'll be sending out to publishers, so actually the most work is collecting and organizing my ideas into a solid statement. Writing comes easy for me, it's the ground work that takes time and effort.
Often I'll be in the middle of some socio-psychological tear on a particular topic when I'll come to a dead halt because I play my own devil's advocate while I'm typing and reasoning aloud, and have to review and edit the paragraphs I've spent the last 2 hours constructing because I'd failed to consider how others might interpret my intent, or I'd overlooked some element and had to go back and address that issue. Needless to say it's an arduous process, but I've found that starting topics here in regards to certain theories and ideas I have to see what their intent will be read as helps me greatly. So with this in mind I'm presenting a particular section of my work here to see what the concensus is on what I've come to call Operative Social Conventions. I had originally titled the section Feminine Operative Social Conventions, and I may still go back to that, but after you read this you'll see how these conventions (or contrivances) need Men to play along with them for them to exist in the first place, or so I've reasoned.
Operative Social Conventions
For the long time posters of this board, and in particular the Mature Men's board, we've become all too familiar with a standard set of problems that are commonly asked of us for advice - "Should I date younger/older women with/without children?""what about women with money/career?"etc. for example. So often are we petitioned for our take on these dillemas that we have a tendency to repeat back a standard reply for them. I count myself among those who do this as well. I'm very prone to see the forest for the trees so to speak and fire back with my stand by reply of Spin More Plates. And while these response are novel to those reading them for the first time (and hopefully having their eyes opened for the first time too), I came to realize that I was guilty of not seeing the forset with regards to why certain topics are more frequently reoccuring problems for the AFC and DJ alike. For the most part, Plate Theory covers a multitude of AFC sins, but my concern was with understanding why these questions come up so often and what their root cause is. To this effect I've attempted to 'distill' down the symptoms (i.e. the commonly related problems) to the motivation behind them (i.e. the disease). This has lead me to a new theory of operative social conventions.
I've posted in several thread about these conventions before, but never really explored the idea until now. Essentially all of the symptoms of these conventions are manifested as the frequent problems guys come up with, but the disease is the latent purpose of these conventions. For every guy asking if it's a good idea to date a single mother or an older woman, there's a single mother or older woman perpetuating the convention in order to best ensure her capacity to secure a man capable of provisioning for her. I wont ramble off into the bio-psychological aspect of why this is such an all imprtant drive for women (and men in some cases), I've covered this more than adequitely in many prior threads. Instead I'll focus on certain conventions, the way they operate and their latent operative function.
Shame
Perhaps the easiest and most recognizable form of social convention is shame. Not only this, but it is also the most easily employable and the most widely accepted - not just by women of all ages and descriptions, but also by popular culture and the media.
Exapmles:
“Men should date women their own age.”
“Men shouldn’t be so ‘shallow’ as to put off single mothers as viable long term mates.”
“Men have ‘fragile egos’ that need constant affirmation in an almost infantile respect.”
“Men feel threatened by ‘successful’ women.”
As well as being popularized myths, all of these are subtle (and not so subtle)manipulations of shame. Each is an operative social convention that places a man into a position of having to live up to an idealized standard that simultaneously raises the standard for a woman, thus placing her into a better position of sexual selection and in some instances, leveling the percieved playingfield with regard to the feminine competition dynamic (i.e single moms, older and professional women ought to be just as desirable as the younger women men biologically prefer).
The ‘Shallow’ effect – The useful myth of superficiality.
I'm mentioning this as an aside to the Shame methodology since it appears to me to be the root of the Shame operative. In all of the above examples (or symptoms) the burden of expectation that is placed on a man comes with the threat of being perceived as "Shallow" or superficial. In otherwords, the very questioning of whether or not a man ought to date a single mother comes with the veiled threat of having women (mothers or not) tar the questioning man with being superficial. This 'Shallow' effect is so pervasive in so many AFCs, young and old, that I've counseled that it becomes an automatic default defense. Even under conditions of complete anonymity, the Shallow Effect becomes so ego-invested in their personality that even the potential of being perceived as "shallow" is avoided. This is a major obstacle in transitioning from AFC to DJ. AFCs all initially laugh at PUA technique (C&F, Peacocking, Neg Hits, etc.) because they carry the potential of being perceived as 'shallow'. The truth of the matter is that, individually we are only as superficial as our own self-perceprtions allow, but the Shallow Effect is probably the most useful convention so long as it keeps men doubting their ingenuousness and self-validity as a trade for women's intimacy while complying with their control of a relationship's framing.
Selection Position Insurance
Examples:
Women are ‘allowed’ to understand men, but women must necessarily ALWAYS be a mystery to men.
Getting “lucky” with a woman when referring to sex.
Selection position insuring methodologies revolve around fomenting the Scarcity Mentality in men. If the value can be inflated, the value can be increased, thus ensuring a controlling frame. This convention holds fast to the Feminine Mystique or Female Intuition mythology. So long as women remain 'uknowable' there becomes less motivation to try to understand them. In fact this convention actively discourages any attempt to understand the feminine to the point that men have adopted it and parot it back without being cognizant of it. This is exactly the reason why guys will ridicule men seeking understanding of women when they search it out in "how to get girls" books or DVDs, or on the internet. It's also why men who profess to 'know' how women operate are ridiculed; it's a perfect paradox - to attempt to understand the feminine OR to profess to know the feminine is not only laughable, but it places a man into the Shallow Effect in either case.
Often I'll be in the middle of some socio-psychological tear on a particular topic when I'll come to a dead halt because I play my own devil's advocate while I'm typing and reasoning aloud, and have to review and edit the paragraphs I've spent the last 2 hours constructing because I'd failed to consider how others might interpret my intent, or I'd overlooked some element and had to go back and address that issue. Needless to say it's an arduous process, but I've found that starting topics here in regards to certain theories and ideas I have to see what their intent will be read as helps me greatly. So with this in mind I'm presenting a particular section of my work here to see what the concensus is on what I've come to call Operative Social Conventions. I had originally titled the section Feminine Operative Social Conventions, and I may still go back to that, but after you read this you'll see how these conventions (or contrivances) need Men to play along with them for them to exist in the first place, or so I've reasoned.
Operative Social Conventions
For the long time posters of this board, and in particular the Mature Men's board, we've become all too familiar with a standard set of problems that are commonly asked of us for advice - "Should I date younger/older women with/without children?""what about women with money/career?"etc. for example. So often are we petitioned for our take on these dillemas that we have a tendency to repeat back a standard reply for them. I count myself among those who do this as well. I'm very prone to see the forest for the trees so to speak and fire back with my stand by reply of Spin More Plates. And while these response are novel to those reading them for the first time (and hopefully having their eyes opened for the first time too), I came to realize that I was guilty of not seeing the forset with regards to why certain topics are more frequently reoccuring problems for the AFC and DJ alike. For the most part, Plate Theory covers a multitude of AFC sins, but my concern was with understanding why these questions come up so often and what their root cause is. To this effect I've attempted to 'distill' down the symptoms (i.e. the commonly related problems) to the motivation behind them (i.e. the disease). This has lead me to a new theory of operative social conventions.
I've posted in several thread about these conventions before, but never really explored the idea until now. Essentially all of the symptoms of these conventions are manifested as the frequent problems guys come up with, but the disease is the latent purpose of these conventions. For every guy asking if it's a good idea to date a single mother or an older woman, there's a single mother or older woman perpetuating the convention in order to best ensure her capacity to secure a man capable of provisioning for her. I wont ramble off into the bio-psychological aspect of why this is such an all imprtant drive for women (and men in some cases), I've covered this more than adequitely in many prior threads. Instead I'll focus on certain conventions, the way they operate and their latent operative function.
Shame
Perhaps the easiest and most recognizable form of social convention is shame. Not only this, but it is also the most easily employable and the most widely accepted - not just by women of all ages and descriptions, but also by popular culture and the media.
Exapmles:
“Men should date women their own age.”
“Men shouldn’t be so ‘shallow’ as to put off single mothers as viable long term mates.”
“Men have ‘fragile egos’ that need constant affirmation in an almost infantile respect.”
“Men feel threatened by ‘successful’ women.”
As well as being popularized myths, all of these are subtle (and not so subtle)manipulations of shame. Each is an operative social convention that places a man into a position of having to live up to an idealized standard that simultaneously raises the standard for a woman, thus placing her into a better position of sexual selection and in some instances, leveling the percieved playingfield with regard to the feminine competition dynamic (i.e single moms, older and professional women ought to be just as desirable as the younger women men biologically prefer).
The ‘Shallow’ effect – The useful myth of superficiality.
I'm mentioning this as an aside to the Shame methodology since it appears to me to be the root of the Shame operative. In all of the above examples (or symptoms) the burden of expectation that is placed on a man comes with the threat of being perceived as "Shallow" or superficial. In otherwords, the very questioning of whether or not a man ought to date a single mother comes with the veiled threat of having women (mothers or not) tar the questioning man with being superficial. This 'Shallow' effect is so pervasive in so many AFCs, young and old, that I've counseled that it becomes an automatic default defense. Even under conditions of complete anonymity, the Shallow Effect becomes so ego-invested in their personality that even the potential of being perceived as "shallow" is avoided. This is a major obstacle in transitioning from AFC to DJ. AFCs all initially laugh at PUA technique (C&F, Peacocking, Neg Hits, etc.) because they carry the potential of being perceived as 'shallow'. The truth of the matter is that, individually we are only as superficial as our own self-perceprtions allow, but the Shallow Effect is probably the most useful convention so long as it keeps men doubting their ingenuousness and self-validity as a trade for women's intimacy while complying with their control of a relationship's framing.
Selection Position Insurance
Examples:
Women are ‘allowed’ to understand men, but women must necessarily ALWAYS be a mystery to men.
Getting “lucky” with a woman when referring to sex.
Selection position insuring methodologies revolve around fomenting the Scarcity Mentality in men. If the value can be inflated, the value can be increased, thus ensuring a controlling frame. This convention holds fast to the Feminine Mystique or Female Intuition mythology. So long as women remain 'uknowable' there becomes less motivation to try to understand them. In fact this convention actively discourages any attempt to understand the feminine to the point that men have adopted it and parot it back without being cognizant of it. This is exactly the reason why guys will ridicule men seeking understanding of women when they search it out in "how to get girls" books or DVDs, or on the internet. It's also why men who profess to 'know' how women operate are ridiculed; it's a perfect paradox - to attempt to understand the feminine OR to profess to know the feminine is not only laughable, but it places a man into the Shallow Effect in either case.
