Louise Perry's rules for sex and relationships

[onceaking]

The rules are taken from her book The Case Against the Sexual Revolution.

What do think of them? Would you apply any of the rules to your life?

• Distrust any person or ideology that puts pressure on you to ignore your moral intuition.

• Chivalry is actually a good thing. We all have to control our sexual desires, and men particularly so, given their greater physical strength and average higher sex drives. Sometimes (though not always) you can readily spot sexually aggressive men. There are a handful of personality traits that are common to them: impulsivity, promiscuity, hyper-masculinity and disagreeableness. These traits in combination should put you on your guard.

• A man who is aroused by violence is a man to steer well clear of, whether or not he uses the vocabulary of BDSM to excuse his behaviour. If he can maintain an erection while beating a woman, he isn't safe to be alone with.

• Consent workshops are mostly useless. The best way of reducing the incidence of rape is by reducing the opportunities for would-be rapists to offend. This can be done either by keeping convicted rapists in prison or by limiting their access to potential victims.

• Avoid being alone with men you don't know or men who give you the creeps. Gut instinct is not to be ignored: it's usually triggered by a red flag that's well worth noticing.

• Don't use dating apps. Mutual friends can vet histories and punish bad behaviour. Dating apps can't.

• Holding off on having sex with a new boyfriend for at least a few months is a good way of discovering whether or not he's serious about you or just looking for a hook-up. Only have sex with a man if you think he would make a good father to your children - not because you necessarily intend to have children with him, but because this is a good rule of thumb in deciding whether or not he's worthy of your trust.

• Monogamous marriage is by far the most stable and reliable foundation on which to build a family.

 

[onceaking]

I think most of the rules are good and I want to apply them to my dating life. What I appreciate about them is that they reject hook-up and purity culture at the same time.

1) Someone who puts pressure on you to ignore your moral intuition shouldn't be trusted.
2) Sexual desires can be controlled and us men need to have self-control.
3) As a man women tend to not give me the creeps but women who are manipulative or narcissistic should be avoided.
4) Holding off sex for a few months is a great idea. Ideally, I would wait six months but I'm open to compromise at three months. I think saving sex for marriage is extreme but it's nuts to have sex with a woman you've just met. Also only having sex with a woman child with is another great idea. There are women out there who may look hot but I wouldn't want a child with and sleeping with such women is a bad idea.

I'm not sure about what she says about dating apps since I know people who've met on dating apps. Still, they're not all that healthy and if I could meet someone without using them I would be happy.
I'm not as opposed to marriage as I used to be but I think you can still be monogamous without getting married. Monogamy is far more stable and reliable than any other alternative.

 

[Meshuga]

Perry's list is aimed at women, but it seems you have applied it to your own situation. It looks like you have a decent list.

The idea that you shouldn't trust anybody or ideology that pressures you to ignore your moral intuition is a little weird, as your moral intuition is based on your upbringing and experiences. Maybe you were taught something very wrong. I know people who were raised in a groomer cult, their intuition is wonky.

I think this is much closer to purity culture than hookup culture.

 

[Deleted Account]

Why so much theory ? relationships are not meant to be understood or conceptualized.

Live your life

 

[Meshuga]

Why so much theory ? relationships are not meant to be understood or conceptualized.

Live your life

Some people live their lives with instinctual boundaries and know how to enforce them. Others live their lives and end up in bad relationships because they didn't have an adequate education, or a straight up bad education, on what constitutes a red flag. Louise Perry identified a block of bad education, fed by universities, women's magazines, and popular entertainment media, concerning how a woman should conduct herself sexually. According to Perry, this block of instruction that says women need to pursue sex with reckless abandon "like men" (I take issue with this particular argument from Perry, as this is only a small section of men), leaves women unfulfilled and worse, physically vulnerable to assault. This is her attempt to push back against a decades long campaign promising something she believes it has failed to deliver, and will continue to disappoint, devalue, and predate on women until it is reversed.

Perry is a self-identified feminist, she doesn't really care about men. She thinks her ideas will benefit most men, but that's incidental to her cause. However, onceaking has retrofitted her advice toward women to apply to himself, and it's useful because he believes he also received a poor education on how to conduct himself, sexually.

 

[UnholyConfessor]

I'm not sure I consider sexual aggression to be inherently bad. One of the reasons I don't date is because I'm timid and afraid of the outcome, my anxiety holds back my sexual wants and needs.

 

[GrittyRunning]

I prefer Rollo's Iron rules of Tomassi or Roissey's 16 Commandments as opposed to this moid's list.

 

[Meshuga]

I'm not sure I consider sexual aggression to be inherently bad.

I think it's about degrees, and timing. Being clear about desires and expectations is not a negative, provided both are reasonable, and it's not too much, too soon.

I prefer Rollo's Iron rules of Tomassi or Roissey's 16 Commandments as opposed to this moid's list.

First things first; insulting people right out the gate is... a choice. Right away it sends wannabe alpha vibes. Know who likes wannabe alphas? Nobody. Nobody except other wannabes. Maybe a few abused women who were raised without good fathers and are just as confused about their own value and healthy masculinity as the wannabes. These people can exist together in their own ecosystem, but that's not the ecosystem onceaking wants to operate in, if I know him at all. This is an Internet forum so I don't know him super well, but he has been around a while and I am comfortable making that claim.
Second thing; It's rude to post "I prefer this list" without providing the list. What are "Rollo's Iron Rules of Tomassi" and "Roissy's 16 Commandments?"

Let's see... the google has it as "The 16 Commandments of Poon," ah yes, I see where this is going. And a quick review... Nevermind. Not posting the rules is fine, nobody needs to waste their time. Both lists come from the same guy, spouting "Red Pill" nonsense, I place in quotations because they hijacked the term in effort to legitimize their faulty, corrupt worldview.

Here's the thing about the "Red Pill" guys. They say they are going to teach you how to hustle women, but what they are really doing is hustling you. They see how much you need positive masculinity in your life, they see how desperate you are for it, and they say "That's a sucker, right there, I'm going to take him and his friends for everything they are worth." If you follow their advice, you're either going to end up permanently alone, or in a series of transient relationships that leave you broken, sad, and embittered. I guarantee it. I advise you ditch those bad friends, because they are going to steer you straight into misery. They will ruin your relationships with women, they will ruin your relationships with men, they will ruin you.
But if you like the feces they're selling, be content knowing their universe doesn't even touch the one onceaking is orbiting. You're not competing for the same women, you don't have the same goals, you don't have the same values, just ignore him and keep being you.

 

[UnholyConfessor]

I prefer Rollo's Iron rules of Tomassi or Roissey's 16 Commandments as opposed to this moid's list.

I honestly thought you wrote "mold's" and was about to ask why you brought up Resident Evil.

I think it's about degrees, and timing. Being clear about desires and expectations is not a negative, provided both are reasonable, and it's not too much, too soon.

True enough.

 

[GrittyRunning]

I think it's about degrees, and timing. Being clear about desires and expectations is not a negative, provided both are reasonable, and it's not too much, too soon.

First things first; insulting people right out the gate is... a choice. Right away it sends wannabe alpha vibes. Know who likes wannabe alphas? Nobody. Nobody except other wannabes. Maybe a few abused women who were raised without good fathers and are just as confused about their own value and healthy masculinity as the wannabes. These people can exist together in their own ecosystem, but that's not the ecosystem onceaking wants to operate in, if I know him at all. This is an Internet forum so I don't know him super well, but he has been around a while and I am comfortable making that claim.
Second thing; It's rude to post "I prefer this list" without providing the list. What are "Rollo's Iron Rules of Tomassi" and "Roissy's 16 Commandments?"

Let's see... the google has it as "The 16 Commandments of Poon," ah yes, I see where this is going. And a quick review... Nevermind. Not posting the rules is fine, nobody needs to waste their time. Both lists come from the same guy, spouting "Red Pill" nonsense, I place in quotations because they hijacked the term in effort to legitimize their faulty, corrupt worldview.

Here's the thing about the "Red Pill" guys. They say they are going to teach you how to hustle women, but what they are really doing is hustling you. They see how much you need positive masculinity in your life, they see how desperate you are for it, and they say "That's a sucker, right there, I'm going to take him and his friends for everything they are worth." If you follow their advice, you're either going to end up permanently alone, or in a series of transient relationships that leave you broken, sad, and embittered. I guarantee it. I advise you ditch those bad friends, because they are going to steer you straight into misery. They will ruin your relationships with women, they will ruin your relationships with men, they will ruin you.
But if you like the feces they're selling, be content knowing their universe doesn't even touch the one onceaking is orbiting. You're not competing for the same women, you don't have the same goals, you don't have the same values, just ignore him and keep being you.

I don't like wannabe alpha's, and i don't claim to be an alpha either. However I don't believe the Red Pill is this evil entity, Rollo's books saved my life. Also, youtube is not " the Red Pill". Unfortunately almost everything on youtube/ social media in general gets corrupted because of the Soap Opera nature of social media. Rollo and the Red Pill is what kept me from putting a 12 gauge in my mouth so i will never badmouth or discredit the red pill. Sorry that it sounds like unless whatever you read isn't "Reddit approved" you file it under the bad section. Real life isn't so Black and White, i thought being a Metal fan ( your screen name) that you of all people would understand that, but i guess not.

Also, the authors of those lists are two different people, Rollo Tomassi & Chateau Heartiste aka Roissey.

 

[Meshuga]

If they helped you that's great, but I took a look at those lists and they aren't good. Some of the entries are fine, some are stupid.

"Never say I love you first?" Somebody's got to say it first. You say it when appropriate. You say it when it's true.

"Make her jealous?" What kind of mind games are we playing here? You don't want to be with a woman you have to play mind games with just to keep her around, or keep her from being toxic. That's exhausting. That's a losing game, because one day you'll get tired and slip up. Better to get into a relationship with a woman who isn't toxic to begin with.

Number three, "Make your mission your priority, not your woman..." So I take issue with the language "your woman," to begin with. She's not "yours," she doesn't belong to you, any more than you belong to her, this should be a relationship based on mutual respect but that's beside the point. I happen to agree, you need something more than her in your life. She can't be the end all be all, that's setting yourself and the relationship up for failure for multiple reasons. You're going to resent her, for one. Not at first, but you will eventually, and that's because she's not going to be worth it. No person can be worth committing your entire life to. You need a partner who will help you achieve your mission, and someone you can help with her mission. It's fantastic when you have a mutual mission. On the other hand, you absolutely do need to devote TLC to your partner. She's not the ultimate priority, but caring for one another is a high priority.

"Don't play by her rules" well no poop. That's not a fair relationship. But you don't play by your rules either. You play by a set of rules you both agree upon.

"Adhere to the golden ratio," suggests what I said, good for him.

But then we're back to BS mindgames with 6, "Keep her guessing." Forget that. No.

I'm not going to guess what is meant by rule 7, and then 8, "Say you're sorry only when absolutely necessary," how about we apologize when we mess up? Like mature adults? In a romantic relationship, you are looking for a life partner. An ally, a mate, a friend, a person who can reliably see you through the shit when it gets tough, and exhausting, and you don't want to do it any more. You're not looking for a bed warmer or a someone who can inflate your ego because you're smarter than she is and you can manipulate her into doing what you want her to do.

"Connect with her emotions" yeah. You're going to have to do that. Way more than you want to, but this is the way women's brains work and that's okay because men and women balance one another out in these relationships.

"Ignore her beauty" I agree but not for the reasons they state (found one with elaboration). Ignore her beauty because she's not going to be hot her entire life. Coolidge effect, no matter how hot she is, you'll always find someone hotter.

"Be irrationally self-confident" is the worst advice I've ever heard. I'm an Army vet, I can speak from a strong position of experience; you make an accurate assessment of your resources and plan accordingly. Irrational self-confidence, fine, do that in the dating world I guess. You be you. Or rather, you pretend to be a better version of you, keep hiding that inferior version and pray to God no one ever finds out you're a fraud. Me, I put my cards on the table, as far as I know them. That way I never have to be afraid of anyone finding out, they know already. On the battlefield, though, irrational self-confidence does worse than get your killed. Your irrational self-confidence gets your battle buddy killed. It's a knee-jerk reaction for me now, get those irrationally self-confident people the fuck away from me, I'm not playing with that. Ever.

"Maximize your strengths, minimize your weaknesses." No argument from me, that's solid.

"Err on the side of too much boldness, not too little." Maybe. Maybe. This feels like a rehash of 11, but with less irrationality. Shoot your shot, be prepared to fail because you will fail more often than not, but at the same time, let them be the one to tell you no. Don't disqualify yourself by telling yourself no. And that goes for way more than romantic relationships, that goes for business opportunities, everything. Don't be bold, though, when more than your ego is at stake. Don't waste people's time by asking for a job you can't do.

"Fuck her good?" That's a porn informed dream, man. There is so much more to life than sex. This is stupid. It's a stupid rule, because it doesn't even need to be mentioned. Of course we're going to do whatever we can to make her enjoy her time with us and that activity. I have never met a single man who didn't want that. Stupid.

"Maintain your state of control," again. What is with these mind games, always having to be The Guy, always needing your ego inflated. Self-control is great, it's amazing. We should strive for it. Trying to control other people, though? Come on. And the elaboration, it's explaining how you don't get taken in by her mind games. Just don't play mind games. And when she starts playing mind games, give her fair warning that you don't and if she keeps doing it, leave. It's that simple. Don't maintain your state of control when she's "crying, yelling, lying, head games, sexual withdrawal, jealousy ploys, pity plays, shit tests, hot/cold/hot/cold, disappearing acts, or guilt trips." If she's doing these things, do not "shelter her until her storm passes," as this guy recommends. Help her to deescalate if she's in an emotional moment, but if she's doing any of that premeditated stuff, leave.

And "Never be afraid to lose her..." Not a girlfriend, no. If you're engaged, though, or if you're married, you'd better value her, treat her like she's worth keeping around, but at the same time you should trust her enough not to have to be afraid.

Now I've already gone way too far into this. Some of this is good, or good adjacent. Some of this advice is outright terrible.

My name confuses some people. I picked the name without knowing the band, it's just a Yiddish word for "crazy" and I'm not even Jewish, culturally. I picked it because it wasn't taken, and then it turns out I might actually be balls-trippingly crazy so I guess it's appropriate.

 

[GrittyRunning]

You really gotta read Rollo’s first 3 volumes of The Rational Male to understand. The Iron rules of Tomassi is a small part of that. If it’s any consolation though bro, I don’t agree with All red pill content, only about 85-90 percent of it I consider pretty Solid. The stuff on YouTube though is just social media soap opera and is just sensationalized by normies. It isn’t reflective of the actual content in Rollo’s writings so stuff on YouTube that’s branded as Red Pill really just needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[Meshuga]

Three volumes of homework, reading stuff I wouldn't normally? No thanks. I did way too much of that reading the feminist crap at university, I'm not swinging the other way in this reta- I mean cognitively inhibited gender war. Give me Augustine, give me Ken Wilbur, give me a philosopher of substance who has more to say about how to live life than just one tiny part of life.

 

[GrittyRunning]

Three volumes of homework, reading stuff I wouldn't normally?

Bro, it’s not homework if you love the subject of Inter-gender dynamics, and I really do. I read the books fairly quickly. At least read Volume 1, his first book. Although I felt the 2nd one Preventive Medicine was even better than the first.

 

[onceaking]

The idea that you shouldn't trust anybody or ideology that pressures you to ignore your moral intuition is a little weird, as your moral intuition is based on your upbringing and experiences.

I'm all for making some compromises such as dating someone who drinks in moderation. I'm teetotal and ideally, I wouldn't date someone who didn't drink but if I met someone I connected with who happened to drink in moderation I would accept it. I won't accept someone who would pressure me to drink. I think you should have boundaries and not let anyone cross such boundaries.

I think this is much closer to purity culture than hookup culture.

It's closer to purity culture than hook-up culture but it's not the same. There's no mention of saving sex for marriage and the way women dress isn't even mentioned.

Perry is a self-identified feminist, she doesn't really care about men.

I don't get that sense from her. Sure she's critical of men but also critical of women. At first, I was negative about the book because I thought it was anti-men but listening and reading her I don't think she is. Since writing the book she said she cares more about men because she now has a son. She said in an interview that she wants to understand men now that she has a son.

 

[onceaking]

Live your life

I think you should your life from your values and the rules are close to my values.

 

[Meshuga]

I don't get that sense from her. Sure she's critical of men but also critical of women. At first, I was negative about the book because I thought it was anti-men but listening and reading her I don't think she is. Since writing the book she said she cares more about men because she now has a son. She said in an interview that she wants to understand men now that she has a son.

Yeah I never got the sense that she was anti-male. She just doesn't care about them one way or the other. The only reason she cares about them now is because it's her son. She has a low opinion of men, she thinks we'll behave exactly as badly as we're permitted to, and she thinks it's up to women to hold us to a higher standard. It's fine, she wants to address women, not us.

I've been hearing a lot of interesting stuff about feminism and the S. Rev. lately. She definitely does seem to have caused a stir. I read one book by a Catholic author, claiming the Second Wave of feminism, as an arm of Marxism, used the S. Rev. to consciously attack the family unit. If that's the case, they succeeded. Marriage is down, birth rates are down, there are more women in the workforce, fewer at home. Which I don't care if it's women or men at home, but both are at work which means the children are being raised by the state... it's way more Communist than we used to be. Another suggestion is that the Industrial Revolution changed male behavior to be more anti-family, that is, more anti-woman and anti-child, which helped provoke feminism. All interesting to me but has nothing to do with your thing.

The reason I say it's way closer to purity culture is, if you're not having sex with someone unless you're cool with having a kid with them, that either means you don't give a crap about kids, or you have VERY high standards before you do it, with a lot time spent on building a relationship so you can vet them. I mean, every study that looks into it shows kids are way better off if their parents are married, so... it's almost like you have to at least be engaged before you start having sex. It's as if the purity culture thing of whacking you over the head with NO SEX UNTIL MARRIAGE thing was just a shortcut to an ethical, principles based behavior, assuming you're child oriented. If you're not, the ethic makes no sense.