Love and MGTOW

Having considered myself a Man Going His Own Way for some years now, one of the consistent underlying themes I have noticed in the occasional (and in most cases pointless and unnecessary) flareups between Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW) and Men’s Human Rights Advocates (MHRAs) seems to revolve, consciously or unconsciously, around whether or not intimate relations between men and women (boyfriend/girlfriend, cohabitation, producing children, etc.) is actually possible, functional, or desirable in the modern world. These conversations are rendered more difficult because many foolish people try to guilt or shame MGTOWs into such relationships. Such guilting or shaming is more than pointless, it’s genuinely abusive of men who’ve made a rational choice for self-preservation. I cannot gainsay any man who says “fuck you” to people who visit such abuse and scorn upon their heads.

That said, if we get past the nonsense and think of time horizons 5, 10, 20, 50 years into the future, it should be worth considering why intimate relationships between men and women might be a desirable thing, and what social attitudes about such relationships would have to change–culturally, not just legally–before a healthy intimacy between the sexes can reappear as a commonplace thing. And I think if we look to other cultures and to ancient history, we can start to see what that might look like.

Feminism promotes a neurotic vision of what constitutes true love. It takes its model directly from the Age of Feudalism which saw vassals bowing down and kissing the hands of Lords. In the 12th century that model served as the basis for a new kind of love in which men were to play the role of vassal to women who played the role of an idealized Lord. C.S. Lewis, back in the middle of the 20th Century, referred to this historical revolution as “the feudalisation of love,” and stated that it has left no corner of our ethics, our imagination, or our daily life untouched. “Compared with this revolution,” states Lewis, “the Renaissance is a mere ripple on the surface of literature.” [1]

Not only has this feudalistic notion of love permeated almost every corner of the globe today, it continues to be vigorously promoted by both feminists and traditionalists alike. The love we are referring to is what Hollywood, romance novels, and other media refer to as “romantic love,” the fantasy to which every modern man and woman pledges blind obeisance. Here are two descriptions of romantic love from modern scholars:

C.S. Lewis:

“Everyone has heard of courtly love, and everyone knows it appeared quite suddenly at the end of the eleventh century at Languedoc. The sentiment, of course, is love, but love of a highly specialized sort, whose characteristics may be enumerated as Humility, Courtesy, and the Religion of Love. The lover is always abject. Obedience to his lady’s lightest wish, however whimsical, and silent acquiescence in her rebukes, however unjust, are the only virtues he dares to claim. Here is a service of love closely modelled on the service which a feudal vassal owes to his lord. The lover is the lady’s ‘man’. He addresses her as midons, which etymologically represents not ‘my lady’ but ‘my lord’. The whole attitude has been rightly described as ‘a feudalisation of love’. This solemn amatory ritual is felt to be part and parcel of the courtly life.”[2]

C.S. Lewis wrote that many decades ago; I’m not sure “everyone” knows it today. We ought to remember his words, because in the long sweep of human history, what we think has been with us forever is something people only a few generations ago knew to be mostly an artificial, idealized notion.

Slavoj Zizek:

“The knight’s relationship to the Lady is thus the relationship of the subject-bondsman, the vassal, to his feudal Master-Sovereign who subjects him to senseless, outrageous, impossible, arbitrary, capricious ordeals. It is precisely in order to emphasize the non-spiritual nature of these ordeals that Lacan quotes a poem about a Lady who demanded that her servant literally lick her arse: the poem consists of the poet’s complaints about the bad smells that await him down there (one knows the sad state of personal hygiene in the Middle Ages), and about the imminent danger that, as he is fulfilling his ‘duty’, the Lady will urinate on his head.” [3]

Feminism’s mission today is largely the promulgation of this “love,” and it is right that men learn to reject it, as MGTOWS and MHRAs are doing. It is a “love” that dehumanizes males by turning them into masochistic servants, while simultaneously dehumanizing women by idealizing them to the extent that their humanity is obliterated and replaced with an image of divinity. It’s a recipe for disaster on both sides; the occasional lucky couple for whom this works is about as rare as a lightning strike, with no evidence that even that lucky few are really happier or more productive than anyone else.

When I consider this disastrous state of affairs that has lead men to boycott relationships, a few questions arise; are we being too rash in our rush from love, and if yes is there a better model, a new model, or perhaps an older model for relationships that we have forgot?

The field of attachment science concludes that an absence of close and consistent human attachment causes children to literally wither and die, refusing to thrive despite being provided with clothing, food and an adequate number of toys. Likewise adults literally commit suicide to escape feelings of isolation and loneliness, especially after a relationship separation. Even if we don’t end up suiciding from loneliness we have to ask ourselves if the absence of an intimate relationship in our lives leaves us limping, or somehow unfulfilled? Some would suggest we can fill our intimacy void with friendships, but this leads to a further question of whether there is an adequate formulation of friendship that can satisfy our needs – a relationship that doesn’t rely on the usual vassal and lord model at the core of romantic love.

In ancient cultures friendship was a more lofty aspiration than it is today. It was synonymous with love and it often involved sexual intimacy. In Ancient Greek, the same word was used for “friend” and “lover.” In our culture we have succeeded in separating friendship from the category we call love, and excised all trace of sex from friendships. Today when we say, “They are just good friends” or “she’s only a friend” we are indicating the absence of both intimate love and sex.

But to older classical cultures, friendship seemed the happiest and most fully human of the different kinds of loves, and for that reason I wonder whether it’s worth reintroducing it here as a guide to relationships between red-pill men and women?

Suppose that rather than running from intimacy we were to demote our idea of “romantic” love from its pedestal, and elevate friendship-love in its place. Suppose also that we steal back sexual attraction and sexual intercourse from the neurotic clutches of “romantic” love, and allow it once again to be part and parcel of friendship if and when relationships call for it.

Before we consider elevating friendship as a replacement for romantic love we need first to detail precisely what it is and how it looks in lived experience, and to that end here are three salient points of definition.

Friendship is based on shared interests
Friendship is based entirely on things people have in common, like some shared insight, interest or taste. It might be cooking, sport, religion, politics, sex, or gardening, and in the best friendships there occurs a handsome combination of these. No friendship can arise without shared interests, because there would be nothing for the friendship to be about. Furthermore, that “something” is generally located outside oneself and one’s relationship – at the football stadium, church, chess-board, or stamp collection. Friendship differs in this respect markedly from “romantic” love in which couples perpetually focus on each other and talk to each other about their love.

Friends hardly ever talk about their friendship. C.S. Lewis captures this with his remark that friends stand side-by-side rather than face-to-face:

“Friends are not primarily absorbed in each other. It is when we are doing things together that friendship springs up – painting, sailing ships, praying, philosophizing, fighting shoulder to shoulder. Friends look in the same direction. Lovers look at each other – that is, in opposite directions.”[1]

This kind of friendship, this love, is not something we can have with anyone we meet. We can no more choose in advance who we are going to be close friends with than we can choose what sort of skin colour we are going to be born with. Friendship arises organically when we discover that a previously casual acquaintance, or perhaps a new person we meet, shares significant interests with us; “What? You too? I thought I was the only one!” The pleasure derived from cooperation in that shared interest, and of getting to know them through that activity, provides an avenue for deep bonding and human attachment.

Friendship is based in personal authenticity
Friendship is based on true identities and interests, not on some narrow and dehumanising role we might play. Friendship invites you to speak out about your interests in order to find potential areas of commonality. This is not allowed in so-called “romantic” love lest your interests threaten the narrow feudalistic fantasy. In “romantic” love the main “shared interest” is that script which insists the man play the role of masochistic utility, and the woman an idealised goddess. It is an objectification of both parties.

Friendship is not based on the feudal model: not vassals and overlords, but partners in crime.

Friendship is highly compatible with sex
Sex does not belong to romantic love – it belongs anywhere you want it to belong. Modern culture has begrudgingly allowed for this possibility under the risqué concept of “friends with benefits,” but to the ancients it was not daring at all, it was perfectly normal. Friendship also allows for a kind of quasi-romance–or dare I say, a possibly more authentic romance? Have you not had a good friend give you a gift, take you out for a meal, or to the movies? Sex and romantic gestures need not remain colonised by feudalistic notions of romantic love alone.

Sexual attraction and desire also need to be put in their place. They may generate some chemistry and may be the first thing that attracts you to a person, but like the shiny trinket that catches your eye at the shopping mall, you will first stare at it in wonder, maybe have a feel, and then decide whether you really want to take that thing home and share your life with it. Friendship is much the same, and if a person you meet has little in common you will be inclined to leave them on the shelf and move on, despite their sexual attractiveness.

Romantic-love and friendship-love are clearly opposed relationships with opposing motives. A woman might say: “I don’t want to be friends with my husband because it will take all the drama and intensity out of our marriage.” That is true enough, friendship does take some of the neurotic drama and intensity out of a relationship. But it also takes away the masochism and narcissism, and replaces that sickness with something human and real.

One of the worst-kept secrets about married couples is that they often treat their friends with more kindness, compassion and generosity than they ever do for each other. When best friends are together they are charming, engaging, helpful and courteous, but when they return home to their spouses they appear resentful, angry and uncooperative with each other. Hardly ever do we see this pattern reversed, where people are horrible to friends and at their best with their long term romantic love partners.

Friendship-love not only existed throughout the world before “romantic” love was invented, but it remains active in some pockets of culture today – for instance in China and India. Author Robert Johnson, for instance, writes about the presence of friendship between couples in India, recounting a Hindu marriage rite in which the bride and groom make the solemn but hopeful statement, “You will be my best friend.”

Johnson goes further, telling that “In a traditional Hindu marriage, a man’s commitment to his wife does not depend on his staying ‘in love’ with her. Since he was never ‘in love’ in the first place, there is no way he can fall ‘out of love’. His relationship to his wife is based on loving her, not on being ‘in love’ with the ideal he projects onto her. His relationship is not going to collapse because one day he falls ‘out of love,’ or because he meets another woman who catches his projection. He is committed to a woman and a family, not to a projection.” [4]

Friendship-love appeared long before “romantic” love and it worked. The “romantic” version of love is full of narcissism, corruption, entitlement and despair, where dreams collapse and lives are shattered. On the other hand go ask the happily married octogenarian couple who their best friend is – they will look at each other and smile knowing the answer has been beside them for sixty years. Our lives, loves and families fare much better when we base them on this very human kind of love called friendship.

With freindship MGTOWs have an opportunity to truly go their own way while keeping the option of healthy intimate relationships with either sex alive. Having your cake and eating it too. That would be my suggestion of how we might cure the malaise.

I once again note that the breakdown in relations between men and women has been painful, and men have suffered the most in this I would think; in the current socio-political climate, marriage and even cohabitation is like jumping out of an aeroplane with a chute you’re not even sure is going to open. And all change can’t simply be political. Still, if we are ever to look forward to a cultural change that might make for a new era of improved relations between the sexes, ditching these feudalistic attitudes about “romantic love,” and restoring the ancient tradition of seeing intimate friendship being the highest ideal for a relationship, would probably by a major step in the right direction culturally. This will require a shift in the attitudes of men and women alike, but the evidence for this being possible is strong; we’ve done it before, and we still see it in some cultures today. It’s not impossible for human beings to think and act this way. So can we return to a culture where that’s the more normal way of thinking? I’d like to believe that possible for us today, or at least in the future.


[1] C.S. Lewis, Friendship, chapter in The Four Loves, HarperCollins, 1960
[2] C.S. Lewis, The Allegory of Love, Oxford University Press, 1936
[3] Slavoj Zizek, The Metastases of Enjoyment, Verso Press, 2005
[4] Robert A. Johnson, Understanding the Psychology of Romantic Love, HarperCollins, 1983
[5] Robert C. Solomon, Love: Emotion, Metaphor, Empathy, Prometheus Books, 1990
[6] Marcus Tullius Cicero, Cicero’s Essays on Old Age and Friendship, Translation Publishers, 1926
[7] Lorraine S. Pangle, Aristotle and the Philosophy of Friendship, Cambridge University Press, 1986
[8] Irving Singer, The Nature of Love: Plato to Luther, University of Chicago Press, 1966
[9] Irving Singer, The Nature of Love: Courtly and Romantic, MIT Press, 2009
[10] Alan Soble, Eros, Agape and Philia: Readings in the Philosophy of Love, Paragon House, 1998

  • Mark Trueblood

    The true meaning of “love” is a lot like the meaning of “duty” and I believe this fact has been lost on most people today.

  • Dean Esmay

    What is fascinating to me is how writing some 50+ years ago CS Lewis could unironically state that this whole notion of feudalistic “courtly love” was something everybody understood as artificial and to have originated at a specific time and place… and now practically nobody seems to know and we seem to think it’s biological or some bullshit.

    • El Bastardo

      CS Lewis is one of my favorite authors. He was way ahead of his time. It is unfortunate that his intelligence was not enough to stem the tide of post modernism and liberalism.

  • Dr. F (Ian Williams)

    Peter you have an important message here and to brush it aside would be the same as putting unread mail in the rubbish bin.

    There is a cost we pay when we separate love from friendship. “I will be your friend but I am not in love with you” and forever capping the relationship. The heights of the joy togetherness can bring is determined before the ink is dry.

    What fools we are to think only of this. How shallow we are, to behave on our memories of our conclusions from long ago. In love means the complexities of chocolates and champagne and the staid rituals to be retrieved from a mausoleum. Who says so? Where is it carved and for that matter who carved it?

    I can tell you that this carving was done before Gutenberg tinkered and it was lovingly copied by hand many times and read to the masses in the early 14th century. That book called “The Book of the City of Ladies” was a smash hit and the poor suckers sitting in the mud ate it up with a wooden spoon.

    In two generations all of Europe was changed forever and you loved your friend not as much as royalty and god. (when I say ‘royalty and god’ please remember that I am talking about woman as that love) Friendships became the serf in the back seat and from time to time it needed attention, but only in between the duty of attendance to woman. The pedestal was now under their feet and they might just be able to touch god now. Or at least hear him when he whispers.

    Bugger that crap and bugger those that try to slip it into polite company or sweet blogs with links to feminist festivals in the side bar. Anyone notice how often we see advertisements for lady-care products and getaway holidays on articles that ask, “Is Chivalry dead?” and “How to get him back”?

    No, the MGTOW with chivalry is a man with a grave’s headstone welded to his back. The epitaph might read, Dead but bury later”

    The good news has been said by Mr Wright when he tells of the cake and how it can be eaten. He reminds us of the startling concept of having a friend and adoring them as they are. Just loving them without bonding with them on a blanket over the tumble dryer. Can we adore another without constantly referring to the relationship as though it is a third person. Yes we can. The third “person” is a life shared whatever that may be. It is the world without your script and it has no idea of how you will tread its floor.

    We do ourselves poorly by abbreviating our friends by shoving them in a box marked, “Place on lower shelf” and unwrapping carefully the contents from another box marked, “Fragile. Handle with care”.

    We can only do it differently when we have other ways to consider. This article is a compass for the MGTOW serious.

  • Sondjata

    I think that a read of ‘Better Angels of our Nature” will dispel some myths about

  • crydiego

    Peter, there is so much in this read. My head is a-spin with rethinking everything I’ve thought about romance. Thank you.

  • Robert O’Hara

    This is one of the best posts I have seen here in a long time. A true and comprehensive look at intimacy for both sexes and sexual persuasions.

  • Glenn McBride

    I have been at odds with the MGTOW crowd on this issue since the early 2000’s, but I do not begrudge them their perspectives. I married a foreign girl almost 10 years ago, and we are still happily married. I consider our marriage functional and rewarding, and I prefer my current situation to being single. Plus, my wife is pretty damn hot. My income derives from my pension as a disabled veteran, and as such is not subject to alimony assignment, and we have no children.

    That said, I would advise no man to attempt to do what I did. I just happened to stumble into a situation where I met a girl that was not looking to marry a foreign guy, but I decided I wanted her and she did not put up much of a fight. She also has deep misgivings about living in Fascist America, and she would very much like to live in her home country with me, but I am the one calling the shots so we stay in the U.S. for the time being.

    The MGTOW crowd has ample evidence to support the assertion that the vast, overwhelming percentage of Western females are deranged, backstabbing harpies. But there exists that 1% of women that are not hell bent on destruction. There are also small cultural segments where men can carve out a nice niche. French Canada being a prime example. Marriage in Montreal is now virtually non-existent, and most births are out of wedlock. French Canadian men, having a very low tolerance for feminist bullshit, have simply drawn the lines in a manner than suits them best. The French Canadian women realize that they can play by rules the men have set, or they get get the fuck out. Brazil and many South American nations have similar male dominant relationship structures, and of course Eastern Europe, where my wife is from, is the Happy Hunting Ground for Western men.

    So in the end the question is, how many men have the financial ability to pick up and move overseas for 6+ months at a time in order to find a quality wife? Hardly any. Therefore, the assertion of the MGTOW crowd that quality women and relationships are impossible is pretty much true. For the most part. There will however be a tiny group of men that can pull off a hat trick, but they can in no way be considered indicative of the general situation. Faith and hope are bad numbers to bet your life and fortune on.

  • tallwheel

    I’m not convinced that this really gets to the crux of the issue. I think the default relationship model we have today in the west is a hybrid of the romance/friendship model. Indeed, from my observations, plenty of young people today seem to be adopting a relationship model that (on the surface at least) resembles friendship more than servitude. This includes reciprocal gift giving, both paying for dates, etc. Many feminists even claim to support this model. In this model, only when the wants and needs of the couple come into conflict does the expectation that those of female will take precedence come into play.

    I’m still not convinced that the need we see today to put female’s needs first necessarily has its roots in feudal age vassalage and romance. It could be just the much older tribal motto of “women and children first” rearing its head again. And with women’s needs deciding the majority of current policy, this becomes the mantra whenever the proverbial shit hits the fan in modern western relationships.

    Personally, all I ever wanted out of relationships was a best friend who happens to be female who I could share my life with. I’m certain many MGTOW were the same as me. In attempting such relationships – with seemingly willing female participants who told me they only wanted the same thing – I found that it still never worked out for me – due to the current cultural and legal system where no relationship model of “friendship” can contend with the overarching need of society to protect women. From reading your article, I see that you agree on this point.

    I agree completely that if there is any relationship model which has any hope to thrive in the future, it is one of friendship. However, culture and laws still need to change before it will be safe for men to pursue relationships again.

    So I think the point we disagree on is the importance of the vassalage model of romance which arose in the 12th century. It has left its mark, for certain, but it is not the end all anymore. I contest that even if it was erased completely from our cultural consciousness, men would still be fucked.

    • Fredrik

      I would like to hear from those who downvoted this. (I’m very stingy with my votes, so I didn’t go either way.) Why? It was very nuanced, and I thought unobjectionable. What was your point of disagreement?

      To be clear, I’m just interested in promoting dialogue. Not saying you’re wrong. (And you can be sure that I wouldn’t be shy about saying so.)

    • Dr. F (Ian Williams)


      It is crucial when in debate with this and other issues that we look at the data and arrive at some sort of conclusion after that fact. You are not doing this with your post and you lose much traction. You do not persuade with heartfelt statements at all. No disrespect to you at all, but this needs to be said.

      For starters, you say “It could be just the much older tribal motto of “women and children first” rearing its head again. and a cursory look at this tells us that statement was first used not until 1852 when the HMS Birkenhead sank off the coast of South Africa.

      You’d think such an ingrained instinct would have at least had that statement invented earlier in the last 5000 years of recorded history. It is nowhere to be seen. Not in books or poems or art or anywhere before the 12th century. This for me is compelling and that means more to me than the intense beliefs of a counter point of view with no substance. The data captures my interest and nothing else.

      This bit, “I contest that even if it was erased completely from our cultural consciousness, men would still be fucked.” is another contention from strong feeling but there is no backup. No argument to support it no nothing. Just a really strong belief is all.

      I’m not trying to bust your arse or anything mate, I just want you to know that this issue, that galvanises a lot of people in the manosphere, needs to be discussed with the backing of citation however it can be gleaned.

      Thanks for your post anyway. I enjoyed reading it.

      • tallwheel

        Fair enough. My above comment isn’t based on any data, but just my feelings on the matter. That’s why it’s a comment, not an article.

        I believe that the protection of women and children predates the coining of the phrase, but again, that’s just based on how it seems to me to be an inborn biological drive.

        Thanks for the response.

  • Stu
    • tallwheel

      What an interesting case. The girls were afraid of her because they thought she was a man, but it’s okay because she’s not really a man.

  • Diana Davison

    You’re full of amazing insights, Peter.
    This is an issue that plagues my mind as well- how to make relationships safe and meaningful again. It’s important to identify and name what’s wrong in the current situation but just as important to start imagining how to fix it.

    It’s not something that can be fixed quickly so we’ve got lots of time to figure shit out.

    I see MGTOWs as activists. Some are more vocal in explaining their activism, and that’s really important if you want real change, but even those that don’t say why they’ve opted out are helping the cause.

    Ultimately, people are social animals. We thrive when we have good relationships in our lives and can call them whatever we want, structure them in whichever way is mutually pleasing, and hopefully learn to stop hurting the people we claim to love.

    Great article.

    • Peter Wright (Tawil)

      Thanks Diana. I think most of us are looking for an alternative to the vassal to suzerain routine. I suspect that routine annoys most people on some level, even those who stand to benefit most from it.

      My only motto for relationships now is “Friend-zone me, please”. 😉

  • August Løvenskiolds

    In the US, from the time of the Gag Rule (forbidding discussion of slavery) to the Emancipation Proclamation, roughly 28 years passed. The civil rights movement caught fire 100 years later, and about 50 years after that, the first black president.

    The recent censoring of men’s rights on FB is roughly the same event as the Gag Rule.

    By this timetable, it will be safe for men to consider relationships with women in about 180 years.

    • Dean Esmay

      While I agree with you that time and patience are called for, I suspect your numbers pessimistic. The acceleration of information exchange is a big part of that, although those trying to stop the message from spreading with obfuscation, lies, and censorship will undoubtedly use the same tactics.

      • August Løvenskiolds

        I would agree that 180 years may be conservative in that the fempocalypse will happen long before that. But given the deep roots of gynocentrism, 180 years might be wildly optimistic.

        DNA testing, the Male Pill, 24/7 self recording, and other defensive measures can lessen the risks to men considerably, but places like France have banned DNA paternity testing, and feminists can be expected to oppose male defensive measures as they become more widely used.

  • ronwisegamgee

    This is a fantastic article. The idea and process behind romantic relationships was always something I’ve struggled with for a long time and was never how I ideally saw as the healthiest relationship model between men and women who were sexually attracted to each other. But the way it was put into words in this article: bravissimo! Definitely going to bookmark this and show it to my friends.

  • Odysseus

    It’s not mentioned but I can’t help wondering how pair bonding and hypergamy are related to the practice of romantic love. Like I wonder if feudal relationships were fueled by the female desire for hypergamy. Any comments?

    • Dean Esmay

      Personally I think they bear about the same relationship as porn does to sex.

      Pair bonding is our natural inheritance, and something most people don’t understand is that pair bonding is not about monogamy per se but is a biological design by which both male and female parent invest heavily in the nurturing of offspring. We have been a pairbonding species for hundreds of thousands of years at least.

      I plan an article looking into this subject from a biological/evolutionary basis and why things like longer lifespans and birth control, whatever their positive sides, have helped us develop new problems as a species that we’ve really never had to face en masse before. These, particularly reliable widespread and cheap birth control, are something we’re still coming to grips with (we think we have but we haven’t).

      There is no question in my mind that there is a female instinct to seek certain things from males that are in some ways different from what males seek from females, although there is considerable overlap.

      • Peter Wright (Tawil)

        I’d very much look forward to reading an article on that topic, Dean.

        @”There is no question in my mind that there is a female instinct to seek certain things from males that are in some ways different from what males seek from females, although there is considerable overlap.”

        I agree with the overlap comment. I’m no expert on hypergamy and have not studied it in the context of feudalism. However I did come across a comment yesterday by a leading authority on romantic (courtly) love who writes this:

        “The dream of hypergamy: it was essential that a knight should not demean himself by marrying beneath his station. In the south of France, where the daughters of noblemen had the right to inherit property and where the nobility, in the twelfth century, remained an open class, hypergamy was particularly tantalising.” [Roger Boase – The Origin and Meaning of Courtly Love]

        This comment supports your view of an overlap – that males were hypergamous in their wooing of particular ladies. Such knights sought marriage as a way to go up in status and power. However there were many other male suitors and ladies, perhaps the majority, who didn’t seek “marriage” as the goal of their obsession with romantic love. They simply didn’t marry. The same author has the following to say about these ones:

        “Since [this] lover did not woo the lady with a view to marriage, it is doubtful whether any significance can be attached to the practice of hypergamy.” [Boase]

        So it appears there is a bit of everything going on – both male and female hypergamy, or alternatively many (most?) not seeking hypergamy at all via thier indulgence of romantic love. This would be worth an article in itself – if for nothing else but to clarify the complexity of hypergamy.

        • Mike

          I think your plan to promote “friends with benefits” even further is in fact a blue print to unleash the beast of female hypergamy on an epic scale.

          Everybody knows that females have it much easier in the dating game.
          Thats why there is no double standard in calling promiscuous women sluts and admiring promiscuous men, because men have to work hard to achieve this, while women just have to go to the nearest bar.

          Therefore i strongly belief “friends with benefits” is the worst idea possible for men that want to have children one day, because who wants to have a wife that has thousand temptations for improvement every day? One day she will give in no matter who that woman is.

          Friends with benefits is playing directly in feminists hands increasing their privilege even further.

  • Peter Wright (Tawil)

    Just wanted to jump in here and say thanks to everyone who made comments – much appreciated.

  • MGTOW-man

    History has worked the way it has because men have believed something that has become central to the idea of manhood (and poison for modern men)…that attainment of manhood is in the hands of the group/herd and is based on how he acts and does as a male. That attainment of being seen as a “real man” is paramount to what males erroneously believe is the key to their own success and happiness. I also believe that manhood attainment is, in the minds of most men everywhere, of far greater significance than is the mere love of orgasms. Those can be had with one’s hand; No vagina needed. But manhood is rigidly controlled with punitive banishment for anyone who denies—that is, if one lets them!

    This is what drives most men unwittingly into the arms of feminism. Making love or not, but at least he is a man.

    MGTOW defies this nuisance and proves that there is no way other males’ approval, or female admiration, are the only paths to manhood, simply because access is not granted. If other men could do this, there would have been NO feminist movement, or at least it would have been stopped in its tracks.

    I live this life. I truly believe men can be changed. I think it should be our largest focus as MHRA’s…for no other thing can make a man indifferent such as this.

    • Alexander Hunt

      What makes a man, is being a man, and nothing more.

  • S.N

    There is a psychologist called Robert Epstein for those of you who are interested. He has looked into comparing ‘love’ marriages in the west to arranged marriages in the east. He has found that although most arrange marriages start with absolute zero love between couples, within 5 years increases to that of love married couples and then doubles in ten years. Whereas many love marriages ‘burn out’ in 2 yrs. I am not advocating arrange marriages, but I am advocating common sense in mate selection. Just fruit for thought.

    • OneHundredPercentCotton

      99.99% of those who mouth the words “for better for worse” have seen only the “better, and have NO idea just how bad the “worse” can be.

      “Common Sense” means different things to different people, and I’m certain the vast majority of divorced people thought they entered into their relationship with common sense. Two couples can enter into a relationship with exactly the same “common sense”, and one relationship may work out swimmingly while the other crashes and burns.

      I’ve watched so many other couples, thinking “pfsst, THAT will never last – (I quite sure many people thought that of MY marriage 38 years ago, myself included) while couples I thought were rock solid and built to last …well, crashed and burned spectacularly.

      If I had been given the chance to see what the “worse” was in store for me on that day I ardently vowed “for better for worse” I gotta tell you – I probably would have run.

      • scatmaster

        If I had been given the chance to see what the “worse” was in store for me on that day I ardently vowed “for better for worse” I gotta tell you – I probably would have run.

        I would have not only run but in my case 20 years later I would still be running.

  • rocelot

    Relationships are built off trust not love. Love is at best fleeting, love will fade, dissipate, vanish, or was never there to begin with. Trust is earned and betrayed, not faked.

  • Doreen

    Thanks for your sharing about this.Its amazing to see someone put so much passion into a subject. I want to thank you for this informative read, I really appreciate sharing this great post.

  • Dean Tasvil

    Proverbs 27:1 v 15
    (A leaking roof that drives one away in the day of a steady rain and a contentious wife are comparable.)

    Is this the kind of relationship you would like to end up in?

    • Peter Wright (Tawil)

      I’m not really getting your point there.

      If you are saying that romantic love spawns a wife as irritating as a leaky roof, then yes we are absolutely on the same page.

  • oldfart

    “With freindship MGTOWs have an opportunity to truly go their own way while keeping the option of healthy intimate relationships with either sex alive. Having your cake and eating it too. That would be my suggestion of how we might cure the malaise.”

    Not only did you spell ‘friendships’ incorrectly,the rest of the supposition is also incorrect.

    It is impossible to have sex and not get caught up being a slave to the feminine imperative.

    Go ahead slaves,keep yelping for the now free man to come back to the plantation.

    As for the rest,shaming language disguised as philosophy.

    A man “needs” food,water,and shelter,he does not need pussy from castrating witches who are using him as a pack animal,he has a brain,and should use it to survive.

    (personal attack omitted,but only grudgingly.)

    MGTOW’s acts of omission have been proven to be more POTENT that MRA pleading.

    How is that for philosophy?

    Potent I say.

    I fart in your general direction.

    • Perseus

      “It is impossible to have sex and not get caught up being a slave to the feminine imperative.

      Go ahead slaves,keep yelping for the now free man to come back to the plantation.

      As for the rest,shaming language disguised as philosophy.

      A man “needs” food,water,and shelter,he does not need pussy from castrating witches who are using him as a pack animal,he has a brain,and should use it to survive.”

      Wise words, thank you

    • Peter Wright (Tawil)


      Hmmmm, Tawil detects another veto-MGHOW.

      MGTOW refers, in it’s most concise sense, to men having self-determination. What men do with that self-determination is their business, but that choice will differ from man to man. In your case, your MGTOW self-determination appears largely tied up with veto power. That constitutes the narrow approach of Neti Neti or negation, which is fine – I use that approach some of the time to express my own self-determination, but not as often as some MGTOWs who tend to specialise in veto.

      This singular kind of power demonstrates agency dedicated wholly to negation. Its sole strength lies in its ability to frustrate the will of others… its power is wholly prohibitive, as the word originates from the Latin meaning: “I forbid”. [Veto, chapter in ‘Kinds of Power’ by James Hillman]

      My self determination is used for much, much more that, including the option of having friendships with women – both sexual and not. I think Barbarosssaaaa also has sexual friendships with women according to his recent discussion with Dean Esmay, so he too is not merely a veto-MGHOW.

      Saying what you don’t want (veto) is a very basic task compared with figuring out and articulating what you do want for your life.

      Thanks for the spelling tip. :-)

  • Perseus

    The potential for females to be ‘friends’ with males, in general, is in question. Females seek very explicit things from males, and I do not find that deep, genuine and satisfying friendships is particularly one of those things. And this of course precludes the friends and sex issue. It seems that female interest in males is quite limited to matters of material and social profit, and does not extend into appreciating the humanity. An unfortunate tragedy, but one worth noting nonetheless. Wherever I look and see male/female or hetero relations, I see asymmetry with the female covertly exploiting the male on some level. It’s quite disgusting indeed.

  • GQuan

    ^ Perseus:

    Or, at least, the part of you that elicits a recognition of shared humanity is divorced in her perception from the part of you that registers as being male. That’s what I’ve found. You, the friend, are a human being worthy of empathy and love; you, the male, are a tool whose purpose is to do things for her benefit, nothing more. The idea that your identity is a male identity – that you the person and you the male are one and the same – is something that doesn’t really enter into consideration, and this makes it awkward for many men who have close non-sexual friendships with women.

    I recall more than a few conversations with female friends that have left me thinking “you do realize/remember I’m a man, right?” Except in a sense she doesn’t. I’m her friend. Not a male.

    Remember “Fuck you Judith Grossman”? Why didn’t she moan until her son was on the receiving end of the bullshit? Because the policies she supported were anti-male. Her son is not “a male”. He is *her son*. He is valuable, he is loved…but he is not male. That’s not how she categorizes him. Most women, I’ve noticed, categorize only a narrow segment of men as “male”; lovers, providers, threats. Powerful, potent agents, for good or ill. If it’s an object – and anyone receiving affection, as a friend or relative does, is at least partially an object, by definition – then they don’t hit the target to be counted as “male” in those narrow gendered perceptions. Male is an agent, not an object. Someone who evokes love and empathy, who receives your affections, is an object, not an agent, at least in this situation. You can receive those affections and be biologically male, but in her gendered perception you are divorced from maleness.

    So I must, sadly, essentially agree with you. Only very rarely is a female friendly with a male. Which isn’t to say she doesn’t have many, many good friends of the other sex. She may well be friends – good friends – with someone who happens to be male, but I’ve come to the conclusion that you’re not registering as a male when she befriends you.

    In some sense that’s almost a good thing – she’s gender blind when it comes to friendships. But in reality it’s more like she assigns you an asexuality, divorced from your inherent maleness, which has to stand outside. You, a biological male, may transcend your maleness. But maleness must always remain rigid and constrained.

    • Peter Wright (Tawil)

      I’m wondering why the either/or – human OR male?

      I see no reason why we can’t be both these things in the eyes of women. My female friends definitely view me as both. However I have a stronger preference for women noticing my humanity first ie. that I’m a human male. In that scenario, when the balance is right, a woman can treat us like human beings with human rights but also consider our maleness at the right times – in regard to some of our bevaviours and especially when it comes to sex. What I DON’T want is for a woman to see me wholly as a male (especially as a stereotyped one) without a sense of my humanity and human rights.

      I think women can easily view us as human males if they choose to. If they can’t, well, they are not my friend.

  • GQuan

    Following on from my comment above; this leaves us with a problem. Among men, our goal and challenge is to fly in the face of biology and encourage a group identity as men; to be, collectively, men, sharing in a male identity, before we are anything else. As comes naturally to women.

    But this is the exact opposite of the path we have to take to get women on our side. Women will never support anything that encourages empathy or care for “the male”. The male is not an object; he is an agent!! A woman will care for her son, her brother, her father…and for her friend’s son and brother and father, through the friend, and she will empathise with many, many people who happen to be male so long as they are divorced from their maleness. But empathise with the male? No.

    So our two goals – get men onboard with concern for all men, and get women on board with concern for all men – seem at odds to me, in terms of how we’ll achieve it. What we must do to attain the former will make it impossible to attain the latter…

  • GQuan


    This is how feminists can be so obviously anti-male yet so incapable of understanding why they’re seen as misandric. They look round, I iamgine, at their male friends and relatives and think “I don’t hate them! What rot to say I’m man-hating!” Because the Male – that which they hate – is easily and naturally divorced from a person.

    “We don’t hate you; we hate Patriarchy!” You see?

    They *don’t* hate you; they hate the male. And they don’t understand that you can’t neatly divide the two as she can.

    This is why feminists will happily support blatantly anti-male policies and not understand how inhumane and hateful they’re being – the male is separated from the human in their eyes. It doesn’t mean they see you as non-human because you’re in possession of a penis – it depends entirely on how much of you registers with them as “male”.

  • GQuan

    The more time goes on, the more I think that “human” and “male” are essentially divorced in feminist (and so in mainstream) eyes. And we need to fully understand the implications of that – a feminist can divorce your humanity from your maleness, and so accept you, a person with a penis, and care about you, a person with a penis, and indeed not hate you, indeed even seek to include you in their “equality” while hating on the Male. They’re registering you as a human being…not as a male. Only when you assert your masculine identity (however you choose to do that) will the feminists turn on you. As a man, you are both a person and male. The person you is welcome. The male you is not.

    I really think that’s a large part of the puzzle; we need to fully understand the implications of the dehumanization of the male. The male is dehumanized, yes, or equated with the non-human…but a human with a penis is not necessarily associated with the Male – in the same way that feminists looked to the top 5% of men and concluded that men were powerful and coercive – those are the only men who registered – the “alpha” men…

  • oldfart

    Well yeah,veto power is the base power of freedom,where a man cannot be compelled against his will.

    If a man lacks that,he has nothing.

    What happens is the women flap their gums and moments later the man is straining and sweating,wondering how he got suckered into another bad deal.

    For thos MGTOW’s starting up a few years of saying no to everything is very empowering.

    That is the dynamic,to remove the feminine power of instant compliance from any man upon request.

    Que up “Proud to be American,where at least I know I’m free,and I won’t forget the MEN who died who {sic} (gave) that right to me….”

    Actually the song has it wrong,no men died in granting my GOD given right to self determination.



    (Still farting in all directions)

    • Peter Wright (Tawil)

      A big part of the jouney is learning to say what you do want in/with your life, not only what you don’t want.

      Using only veto is like having one tool in your toolbox.

  • Cleopatra

    Wealthy men can easily find a sexual partner. Meaning no offense here…but super models find eager wealthy husbands. To have this conversation without addressing the elephants In the room (beauty and wealth), is pointless. I have read the auto-biography of many a famous musician. None seem to have the vitriol towards women that posters here have. But of course, scoring groupies should be the GOD given RIGHT of any “male”. It doesn’t work that way, sorry.

    To counter all of this profound discussion of the new male dominated order that is coming in 180 years….perhaps we could start a blog for fat obese women who can’t score a date. Substitute her for the above whining–…he doesn’t see my femaleness under this cloak of lard and hairy moled skin…my droopy titays—whine!

    Damnit guys! She is a victim of the system much like yourselves! Be entitled! She will find glory from your male attention.

    Kings could afford to keep a harem. The poor shrub tilling the Kingdom could not. Ugly women will not garner male affection. (Unless she has a rich Daddy.) Women need male affection..this will bring her his protection. In today’s world, poor shlubs seem to feel entitled to…a harem of always smiling virgins.

    I have traveled Eastern Europe. Women don’t age well and they lack compassion. To me, any man who can’t pull a hot, empathy driven American woman should definitely pay for a foreign bride. In the end, he will definitely get what he paid for. Nothing like an oppressed foreign ‘lady’ who figures out the U.S. legal system favors HER! It is shocking at how fast her docile ness evaporates. Plus, she can take her ‘half’ back to the home country and live a nice lifestyle.

    If you want lots of chicks…get rich. As a woman, if you want lots of male attention, hit the gym and clean up. And, most importantly, look for the divine that resides in the human. We are not animals who lick their own asses. We are divine. We should remember to act on our divinity, not our appetites.

    If you are a mediocre shlub, meh, learn to find happiness in your mediocrity. Really, it is all you deserve.

    • Typhonblue (Asha James)

      You really are out of your depth.

      It’s makes me cringe to watch. I think Suzanne’s right, you are desperately in need of floaty wings.

    • Dean Esmay

      I’m afraid Typhon is right but it’s worse than that. You are not just out of your depth, you’re underwater, disoriented, and thinking down is up and swimming desperately in the wrong direction thinking the surface is just out of your reach.

      May I make a polite suggestion that you start doing more reading and thinking and asking questions instead of assuming you know what’s going on? You have a lot of unlearning to do. Check your assumptions at the door. Ask more questions and make fewer declarations. It will probably help you, and is a learning opportunity that won’t come around too often in your life.

    • Robert Crayle

      “We are divine.”

      What the….? Do you want everyone to form a feelings circle? Get in touch with the divine nitwit?

      You people are hilarious…

  • Cleopatra

    Thank you both for pointing out my miserable and depthless life. I am literally having robust laughter as I type this. Here I sit, the last to know. This is fun! But I need a break. I’m heading to the gym to work on my awesome abs, so my wealthy alpha man can readily imagine impure thoughts about me. That’s what’s going on here! I can’t make derogatory assumptions about what is going on ‘there’.

    Later on, my man is going to grill a fat rib-eye to go with the red Bordeaux I carefully selected. (From my cellar, not his.) And to think…your words of wisdom may change my pathetic life choices that got me to….this point in time. I can’t even imagine how amazing your own lives must be!

    • Typhonblue (Asha James)

      Well, it’s certainly not as jet setting as yourself, but since we’re in a “me and my man”-off… I’ll throw my own in the ring.

      Me and my man make insanely elaborate cat hutches for our wee beasties!

  • Peter Wright (Tawil)

    @Cleopatra: “Thank you both for pointing out my miserable and depthless life. I am literally having robust laughter as I type this. Here I sit, the last to know.”

    You sound like a PUA/GAME proponent in drag.

    • Cleopatra

      Peter; I assure you I am neither. I stumbled onto this website and it makes no sense to me. Why not just walk away? I did! I don’t embrace radical feminists or their rhetoric. Frankly, I don’t pay much attention to them, nor do people whom I associate with. The writers at Jezebel almost never speak for me, yet they seem to think they speak for all women. I’m not them. I have seen what “family court” does to men and women. I know men who have been falsely accused of spousal or child abuse. I know a man who was charged with rape (by his housekeeper) when it was consensual. It was only when he told her she couldn’t “keep” the car that he loaned her because her junker wouldn’t start, that she decided to cry rape. Four days after the fact, too. He went to the state pen for 5 years. 5 years he will never get back, and now he is on the sex offenders list. I agree, the system is broken.

      I am not that woman. I made my own money. I have been married, had children, and been through a hellish divorce. (He liked cocaine and what goes with it. It is a delusion that only men get mauled by the system. We didn’t fight over the kids, I had to beg him to see them.) I don’t want the marriage trap ever again, either. But I’m not making a blog about how I have turned my back on marriage and went my own way! What is the point? I just….won’t get married again. Problem solved!

      I am not an “ugly” woman. I am very attractive. I get male attention easily. Maybe that is why I’m not bitter? There really are web-sites such as this one where ugly women congregate and serve up all kinds of man-hate. I don’t know those women. I think perhaps if they got off of their fat asses and went to the gym, got interested in something besides man-bashing, and tried to make themselves mildly interesting, maybe their lives would be better. They have deluded themselves into thinking laws should be made in order for them to be “special”. Whatever law comes out will never make these women pretty nor agreeable. They are ugly and usually fat, and blame that on someone else, too. Men don’t care if these women go away. In fact, they probably appreciate it.
      Why be them?

      • Peter Wright (Tawil)

        yep definitely PUA/game in drag. Sad.

  • Bombay

    “I don’t want the marriage trap ever again, either. But I’m not making a blog about how I have turned my back on marriage and went my own way! What is the point?”

    Agree. Women hold the cards in marriage so no point in women making a blog about it.

  • Astrokid

    Friendship is based on shared interests

    Author Robert Johnson, for instance, writes about the presence of friendship between couples in India, recounting a Hindu marriage rite in which the bride and groom make the solemn but hopeful statement, “You will be my best friend.”

    Arranged marriages in India are of the type Warren Farrell calls role-mate marriages. I can assure you that the shared interest in Indian marriages has historically been survival and raising children. Beyond that I dont see Indian men and women sharing interests.

    Until a few decades ago, there was very little prosperity in the middle class, and life was a drudgery for the vast majority of the population. Now that prosperity has begun to set in amongst the middle classes, you see the breakdown of traditional structures.. the multi-generational joint family is phasing away and replaced with multi-generational nuclear family (i.e wife & husband, looking after parents of the man if he’s the eldest son). And judging by the pro-woman laws of the last 10 years, it appears that the stage is being set for middle and upper class women to break free of financial dependence on men, mimicing the West.
    My first glimpse of this was about 20 years ago, when a young actress from Bombay broke a social taboo by deciding to have a child out of wedlock with a visiting West Indian Cricket player.. female hypergamy in action.

    If anything, populations are playing out what comes naturally..via psychology.. to them. And culture is failing miserably in channeling “better angels of their nature” and giving in to base biological urges.

  • zoob

    Radical feminism regards “romantic love” as a “patriarchal ploy”, an invention and a curse. Scientific and anthropological research suggests it is an evolved tendency. People have been writing love songs and poems throughout the ages and across cultures. Love is an emergent property of the mind. Feminism seeks to deny this truth. And who can blame them, most of the research is fairly new, while their theories are rooted purely in speculation that took place in the mid to late 20th century. Probably backlash by the people who felt popular culture was weighing them down.