Random Xpat Rantings

Contemplative dominance for the modern man

Maslow’s hiearchy of needs and manosphere group-mind

Posted by xsplat on November 28, 2013

maslow“It is quite true that man lives by bread alone — when there is no bread. But what happens to man’s desires when there is plenty of bread and when his belly is chronically filled? At once other (and higher) needs emerge and these, rather than physiological hungers, dominate the organism. And when these in turn are satisfied, again new (and still higher) needs emerge, and so on. This is what we mean when we say that the basic human needs are organized into a hierarchy of relative prepotency.”

There remains a large portion of those attracted to red-pill wisdom who are working their way through the 5 stages of grief towards acceptance of truth. Some are in the anger stage, and these guys seek out like minded men to commiserate with. The danger for them here is getting stuck in the mud.

This danger is compounded when such men together create a culture of denial regarding basic human intimacy needs.

For when they can’t even address their own intimacy needs, they can not move up Maslows ladder towards self actualization.

Then they can become a type of manboob. Manosphere-boobs who prefer to blame the bitches for being unlovable and pump and dump them rather than go through the pain of maturing their LTR and interpersonal skills. A solidarity of pity party, that is an exclusive club of fail.

About these ads

11 Responses to “Maslow’s hiearchy of needs and manosphere group-mind”

  1. YouSoWould said

    Well said, I came to the same conclusion a short time ago, and have frequent discussions with Matt from the Bromigos on the matter.

    So many of the guys in the ‘sphere are simply stuck at a level they will never surpass until they face up fundamentally to what is making them unhappy. There is a conception that you can just throw an endless stream of pussy at the void in your soul, all the while with your head buried in the sand, and everything will turn out ok.

    Getting into reading blogs in the ‘sphere and writing my own for a time was a stepping stone to a higher level of self-actualisation. I needed to read what I did at the time to push me in the right direction, but there came a point at which it was just holding me back. I’ve progressed more as a man, and in the quality and contentment present in my life, since I moved past the stage of meaningless hookups, and committed to a LTR.

    Most simply lack the capacity to be brutally honest with themselves about where they are at in their lives, and if they are truly happy or not.

    The avoidance of intimacy is merely an advanced form of rejection avoidance. Although many may be masters of the street approach – able to rationalise rejection away with a though of “she didn’t reject me, she doesn’t know me, it’s just the way I approached” – deep down they fear opening up to a girl due to the worry that their actual true selves will be rejected, and that’s not so easy to rationalise away. It’s merely ego preservation as a higher level.

    • liam said

      you need to blog more dude


      • YouSoWould said

        Hah, I wish I could find the motivation. Thing is, all I really have to write about at the moment is trashing a lot of the commonly held beliefs in the manosphere. It helped me, but it also held me back too. Then again, I don’t really care what people think about what I write!

  2. avd said

    “Manosphere-boobs who prefer to blame the bitches for being unlovable and pump and dump them rather than go through the pain of maturing their LTR and interpersonal skills.”

    This is something NEVER addressed in the MS, presumably because it’s deemed bad for sales/traffic. (There are some heavy hitting motherfuckers out there who preach otherwise, and they’re right, in my personal experience.) What a great disservice to the various communities of males seeking to improve their lives regarding inter-sex relations. Internalizing the belief that females are bitches (in a negative rather than fun way) and that pumping and dumping is the way to deal with them, changes one’s OWN internal wiring in a way that the vast majority of males will not be happy with for long-term purposes in their OWN lives. Then they’ll be faced with having to work themselves out of that mindset (once they’ve gotten good at it!) in order to move toward more healthy and fulfilling relations with others. An unnecessary self-imposed hurdle along one’s path. In fact, the quickest way to solid inter-sex relations is to LOVE what you want, NOT despise it. (With healthy boundaries, of course.)

    The dark triad stuff works in the short term, but it will blow back on you in the long term. And after all, you ARE implementing a long term strategy for YOUR life, right? Think of the dark triad stuff as a way to radically shift unproductive mind-sets in the short term, to learn to define your boundaries, but not as a long-term tactic for your OWN personal wellbeing. Do YOU like spending time with people who treat YOU with dark triad techniques, female or male? This applies not exclusively to LTRs, either, but also to Rs, in general. Short term flings can be totally healthy, no need to treat another human like shit to enjoy sharing a bit of your life with them.

    For the vast majority of males, the damage inflicted on others and upon ONESELF by acting on the world from a spiteful mindset will have to be addressed at some point, because they will never be content with the resulting life they create for themselves from a spiteful stance. Far easier to understand the uncomfortable truth going into the fire, to be aware of it, stare it down as it arises, iteratively deal with it, and make adjustments in real time, rather than constructing an unhealthy internal edifice (and external consequences) that will have to be deconstructed in one’s future.

    To the newer readers, you might consider going into all of this with your eyes open to the harsh realities revealed by the MS and the courage to deal with your OWN shit as it arises during your own personal process of change, rather than unfairly putting it onto others, and rather than putting your OWN internal work off for later. Good chance this will accelerate your own growth by avoiding altogether a bog that many in the MS have clearly sunk into. Also, don’t think for one second that every proprietor in the MS is past this stage themselves—just not the case—kind of sobering when one considers the quantity of males being influenced by these proprietors. You might consider thinking of it as avoiding the accumulation of “personal growth” debt that you’d rather not have to work off in your future.

    Alternatively, go through it, if that’s your path. Either way, just move forward and do your best to avoid the traps.

    Peace, all.

  3. […] “It is quite true that man lives by bread alone — when there is no bread. But what happens to man’s desires when there is plenty of bread and when his belly is chronically filled?  […]

  4. Hamish said

    I’ve been reading this post while sitting at home on my own while drowning away some sorrows and it really hit a chord. This is not something i usually do but circumstances lately caused me to hit a bit of a funk.

    I have made some conscious decisions recently that would be considered ‘alpha as fuck’ by typical manosphere standards but general society would think are deplorable. This leaves me in a torn situation where I feel like i am at a crossroads.

    I look at that hierarchy of needs and the thing that sticks out to me is morality.What is crushing me is my indecisiveness over what is moral or not. Do I be that man society wants/needs or do I throw it in and become the man that lives for my own personal wants? Or is it just like everything in life and requires a balance i.e. there is no black and white, only grey?

    I’m not looking for a path to take out of this. I realise it comes down to my own morality and that it is a decision i must make on my own accord.There are some tough decisions ahead and i thank you for being one of the only writers that really challenges a mans deepest thoughts.

    Thank you also for providing a forum for me to vent.

    • xsplat said

      Glad to have stimulated some thought and discussion. That’s the intention of my sometimes abrasive writing style – to demand enough attention that a person has to take a serious look. But I know that for some people my intention will instead backfire and the tone will make the message too unpallatable to pay attention to.

      The manosphere is happy to fat shame, because we realize that fat is not something to be celebrated. And yet whenever any “holier than thou” or “shaming” attitude is used upon traits that are not helpful to men, the style is suddenly wrong.

      Well, maybe sometimes a slap in the face is kinder than a kind word. Seems to me that some men could use a slap in the face over this issue; seems worth a try. At least to get them to decide consciously for themselves how they want to proceed, instead of following the heard in unconscious assumptions. Assumptions that I believe are detrimental.

      Ya, finding a balance between selfish and helpful is a moral issue. Lately I feel morally at ease with my male centric approach – I recognize my sexual strategy is basically at war with the female sexual strategy. Both sexes attempt to wrest monogamy out of the other, but the men with the higher socio-sexual scores feel a stronger drive for non-monogamy than most women do. It works the other way around too – some women have higher SS scores than men with lower than average SS scores – or some sluts prefer more casual sex than do family oriented romantic guys. Anyway, fitting your self into the equation of helping others might be all you need to do. You’re an other too. The buck has to stop somewhere. And help is not help unless it leads to greater happiness. Therefore your happiness should be your top priority, after which others come into play. And as you WANT to help others, therefore your happiness must take into account your desire to help others. Helping others makes you feel good. So hedonism is not anti-other people – it can be a well thought out careful morality that works well for the individual and the group. A healthy capitalism of feeling good. Selfish, but connected and generally overall positive.

      My take is that if a person develops his sensitivity, he can at the same time develop his selfishness. Because he’ll be attuned overall – to himself and others. He won’t want to hurt others. While still being aware that sometimes he will take pleasure at others expense, as that’s how our carniverous universe often operates. Finely honing your own sensitivity will balance out your morality for you, as long as you are sensitive to both inner and outer worlds; being empathetic without boundaries is not being fully sensitive. We CHOOSE our needs first, as we are sensitive to them. As we are sensitive to our own desire to help and not cause harm. Sensitivity makes sense out of it all, and puts all the pieces into a workable perspective.

      I wonder if playing the piano can be used as an analogy. You must use moods, and understand geometric patterns, and feel rhythms. Sometimes you’ll use memories. It’s a sensitivity to all these various inputs from both hemispheres, and makes sense of all the inputs at once.

      Maybe morality is like that. A balance of inputs. Doesn’t work if you don’t take into account all of the inputs.

      For instance I don’t think it’s unfair to say that Buddhism is usually interpreted in a way that is morally fucked up; it’s too other oriented and not enough emphasis is placed upon the importance of selfish desire. That’s an unsustainable and unhealthy attitude – the kind that can lead guys to get stuck with BPD vampires who’ll notice and take advantage of the moral and philosophical weaknesses the man took on as a mantle of goodness.

      Buddhism: help others, but there is no self and you don’t exist and act self-lessly. Uh huh. Well, if you don’t have a self, then neither do others, so there is no basis of helping them over yourself. A self is required in order to help anyone. And if you both have selves, illusory or real, then prioritizing others is also groundless. A philosophy has to include you in it. And it makes the most sense to have you at the top of a hierarchy. You willn write your own rules about in what circumstances you will self sacrifice, however individuals still must be at the top of their own hierarchies.

      Here’s something my Dad said to me, when I was contemplating divorce. “It’s your duty foremost to be happy. If you are not happy you can’t share happiness with others. And that’s your job. That’s everyone’s prime job.”

    • avd said


      You’re not alone, friend. I know it’s a pain in the ass. You might consider not sweating it too hard.

      More and more I’m coming to realize that when one researches an abstract concept in the dictionary, that the given definitions are circularly referential. Imagine a technical manual working like that—untenable. Such an imprecise construction of language has staggering implications for the external (and internal) mis-guidance of one’s personal energy into a path that is not necessarily in one’s best interest, and nebulous implications, at best, for constructive guidance of one’s personal energy. (Orwell’s memory hole comes to mind, regarding the effect of language on our species.) Observe:

      1) of, pertaining to, or concerned with the rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical.
      2) expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct…
      5) conforming to the rules of right conduct.

      1) in accordance with what is good, proper, just.
      2) in conformity with fact, reason, truth, or some standard or principle; correct.
      3) correct in judgment, opinion, or action.

      1) MORALLY excellent; virtuous; righteous; pious
      4) RIGHT; proper

      Those definitions would crash a programming script, and yet we as humans are expected to live by them? Please. So where, then, does one penetrate that loop to find a rule upon which one can base one’s life for maximum fulfillment, and no longer need to contemplate it?

      The rabbit hole actually goes far deeper as one branches out into more abstract concepts. I think that very few high level software engineers would have any tolerance for this level of circular ambiguity in their code. My consternation is not with the imprecise understanding of humans regarding the environment they inhabit as expressed in their language… we are humans, after all. Rather, my consternation is with HUMANS who run around faux framing to other humans using HARD definitions and black and white SELLING techniques in order to advantage themselves over other humans, in all spheres, NOT just inter-sex relations—especially in other spheres.

      And then I think, “Why the fuck does it matter?” That’s what we are, as humans. Maybe it makes us stronger to have shysters among us constantly pulling tricks and framing reality in a way that is not beneficial to their neighbors. Maybe it’s merely a social agent that pushes our growth.

      And then something fundamental in my cells (cells, being discrete intelligent organisms) causes me to shiver, and to shake off the above thought, because that can’t be it. There must be some higher organizing principle to our existence than just spending one’s days fucking over one’s neighbor for one’s own self benefit. That would just be illogical and nonsensical, in the larger view of things.

      I was purchasing a computer recently, dogging the salesman (obviously a VERY knowledgeable tech guy, based on initial inquiries) about the ins and outs of operating systems, various applications, and malware protection. At some point, I said something to the effect of: “Can you imagine these losers who sit around all day writing malware, just to fuck up another person’s life?” His answer: “Actually, I used to do that, until I realized that it wasn’t just a game, that it really did fuck up other people’s lives.” He was speaking, specifically, about identity theft.

      And then I sit here, asking myself: “Well, what is it then?”

      I once knew two dogs of the same litter, daily companions. In their old age, one became very ill, while the other remained perfectly healthy (as per the vet). One day the ill dog died. The healthy dog died the next day. His death had nothing to do with science, as we understand it.

      And then something finally comes to me.

      It’s love—in the most cold scientifically calculating, and yet inextricable sense of the term.

      Sitting here, trying to type something of utility regarding the concept of “love,” it strikes me that I have no words that are directly on point. I can only write of it indirectly. Why do myriad colonies of bacteria live and thrive TOGETHER in YOUR particular gut (and here I’m speaking to YOU, reader, specifically), in order to provide YOU with immune function, the production of serotonin, and serving as the second processing center of one’s enteric nervous system, not to mention digesting food down into nutrients? I happen to believe that those little bacteria are running on love, and that they don’t understand why they are running on love. They just are. (But hell, maybe they have a far greater understanding of love than we do.)

      “It’s your duty foremost to be happy. If you are not happy you can’t share happiness with others. And that’s your job. That’s everyone’s prime job.”

      That comment by X really resonated with me. I interpret it as love. Why SHOULD we love, if at all? I’ve not come across any source that is able to adequately put it into words—and I’ve digested damned near every major spiritual text in existence (and most of the esoteric ones, also). (I actually find that science based on hard data sets gets me much closer to productively understanding our world, though, to each, their own.) And yet, we all feel it, since we’re born into this world.

      There are those who intentionally ignore it in their own affairs conducted in this world, and I’m not talking about PUAs. Most PUAs, it seems to me, are actually trying to realize love in their own lives, which is actually why they are so easily sold on belief systems inimical to their own wellbeing. We’re all susceptible to that, to varying degrees.

      Now then, what’s the point to all this? The point is merely to acknowledge to you, Hamish, that your venting has been heard and felt, and to let you know that you are NOT alone, that all of us deal with the same issues, every day.

      And go bang some pussy, and all that.

      Peace, all.

  5. […] “ “It is quite true that man lives by bread alone — when there is no bread. But what happens to man’s desires when there is plenty of bread and when his belly is chronically filled?”  […]

  6. […] Maslow’s hiearchy of needs and manosphere group-mind […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 123 other followers

%d bloggers like this: