A topic I believe that could use some expansion is the benefit of emotional control in a man’s life. When I say emotional control, I do not mean the suppression of emotions, but the proper display of them in a Red Pill context. This context serves as the foundation for emotional display, while also admitting that men have emotions and use them. The problem we have currently in an equalist definition of gender (while hypocritically catering to the feminine), is that displays of emotion more reserved for women are encouraged in men as well. Beta males jump on this opportunity to showcase their emotions as they still follow the social framework that women say what they mean. Any opportunity to showcase this perceived insight into the feminine, by believing what they say, and you have a whole culture of men trying to out e-mote one another. This is basic Red Pill: the incentive for men to display their emotions is the false belief they will be rewarded for their ability to understand, or communicate on an emotional level with women. The theory goes that like attracts like, that more feminine displays of emotion allows men to better relate to women, in another instance of the Beta asserting he’s different than those other assholes she regularly bemoans about.
In a Red Pill context most men already understand on a basic level that what she says does not correlate with what she means. This at first sounds illogical, and it would be under a perspective of a blue pill worldview. This worldview, as stated above, believes in an equalist definition of gender. If men believe women communicate overtly as men do, then men will also believe her when she says she deserves to know what he’s feeling. However, what the Red Pill teaches is that she doesn’t communicate overtly, but rather covertly. This serves as the bed rock for understanding more intricate levels of Red Pill thought including the need for emotional control.
While we would like to claim we’re complete rational agents it’s painfully obvious we’re still at the mercy of our emotions. They still serve a functional purpose and they’re something we’re not going to run away from. What I’m advocating is the proper display of emotion in a Red Pill context, as opposed to the display of emotion in a Blue Pill context. One seeks to ensure emotions are kept in check to continue the perception of a man who is invulnerable —who can handle the stress of everyday life, and if need be her shit as well. The other seeks to display emotions in the hope showing a sense of vulnerability will make him more in tune with what women say they want: a caring, compassionate, sensitive partner –not what they actually want.
Under a Red Pill context, emotional control seeks the line of ensuring that our emotions do not run away on us and ruin a perception of a man that is invulnerable. Again this is basic Red Pill: Women will never appreciate the stress, pain, sorrow, and difficulty it means to be a man. Not in a million years will they understand the sacrifice required to meet her egregious level of expectations whether that is the continual financial stability in a demanding job, nor the emotional support of her and her children. This is something she is biologically incapable of understanding, nor able to empathize in a way you would like. At the very least knowing this is simple pragmatism. There is no gain in rolling over and showing a sense of vulnerability in the hope she will appreciate it.
This sense of pragmatism in regards to emotional control serves as the foundation to how emotions should be expressed, and who to share them with. In my other post called Boy’s Don’t Cry, I dived in to the need to reign in emotions that destroy a sense of invulnerability. This perception plays into a woman’s hypergamous instinct of a man that is not manipulated by emotional terrorism, nor does he move simply because her emotions are unchecked. Regardless of how often women cry about men not sharing their feelings, this is not a call for one to vomit his most deepest struggles to her. Invariably, for all their crying about hard to read men, this is exactly the difference that attracts her to him. Less really is more, and it’s our differences that make men attractive, not our similarities. She needs to know that you are the wall that separates her willingness to lose control of her emotions, and your incessant drive to not give into them.
Any demand that you communicate with her by expressing your deepest feelings is simply a shit-test to get you to abandon your frame. Once you enter her frame you’ve lost control of the interaction, and she will lose respect. If she is in your frame then you’re free to poke at her emotional instability to get your desired results. This is why neg hits are so effective along with the idea of Amused Mastery. Any uncontrollable outburst from her is met with a knowing smirk that she’s not taken seriously, and her emotional outburst have little to no effect on your daily life. This bulwark is in direct contrast to the hurricane that is her instability, and reassures her that you’re a man that “gets it.”
There is a lot to talk about in regards to emotional control, and this post doesn’t do it justice. I purposely didn’t mention a specific emotion because of the impossibility of arguing one emotion is better than another. Every man has a different situational context when it comes to using a specific emotion. What is better is to mull over if expressing this particular emotion in a specific proportion will better contribute to a perception of strength and invulnerability, or will it do the opposite?