What Cults Tell Us About Dating Women and Feminism

The leader of the infamous NXIVM cult, Keith Raniere, was recently arrested in Mexico, accused of running a sex ring of female acolytes.  He kept a rotation of 15-20 women he actively engaged in sex with.  Each acolyte had Raniere’s initials branded on them near their pubic area.

It’s a fascinating story about an organization that started off providing “professional development seminars” to businesses, and somehow became a cult centered around Raniere, known to followers as “Vanguard”.

For our purposes here though, what is really interesting is the behavior of the women involved.  For instance, after his arrest in Mexico, several women who were living with Raniere at the compound chased the police car in a vehicle.  Or another example: the branding sessions were actually run by other women within the cult itself … i.e. Raniere didn’t hold anyone down and forcibly brand them.  Moreover, some of the women involved were Hollywood celebrities like Allison Mack of Smallville fame, who was curiously enough even one of the women in Mexico chasing down the police car (as you can see in this video, and yes I just linked TMZ).

The point of all that is to show how women behave in cults.  How easily persuaded they are by feelings and “flights of fancy” even to the point of engaging in illogical things.  Sure this can happen to men as well, but the ubiquity of these stories involving women is observational data telling us something about the nature of women and their psychological processes.  Hell, women have even begun deluging the Parkland High School mass shooter  in Florida, Nicholas Cruz, with love letters and suggestive photos.  Cruz killed 17 people during his rampage last month.  The same thing (known as hybristophilia) has happened to Ted Bundy, the Boston Marathon bomber, and many other high-profile male criminals.

This all ties back to the War Brides theory that Rollo has expounded on The Rational Male.  Women appear to be hard-wired to submit to the “conqueror”.  Hard-wired to be attracted to men who exhibit narcissistic traits and/or psychopathic tendencies.  Men who have the potential for violence.

Certainly there may be exceptions to this, but the phenomenon is widespread.  Mainstream science refers to it using the term Stockholm Syndrome, which of course recasts the phenomenon as a form of “victimization”.  But whether it is a form of victimization or simply an effective evolutionary survival strategy is a matter of subjective opinion.

Either way, this all tells us something very important about the nature of women, dating them, and even Feminism itself.


All of this really connects back to the myths that are propagated in the modern-day West about how men and women are the “same”, and the negative implications of that for dating and the sexual marketplace.

Even Science is grudgingly coming back to terms with what has always been conventional wisdom: that men and women are different, and what they want in a mating partner is different.  Surprise surprise, science now says that men like slender women and women like rich men.

But there is a deeper lesson here amongst the cult-like behavior for dating and the modern man: Females like to submit to powerful men.  They want to be led.

This is a foundational principle amongst men who “game” women, whether that be Red Pill adherents or old school pickup artist types or just your average player on the street.  Principles like Frame and Amused Mastery are merely extensions of that central idea.

But it also tells us something important about the nature of Feminism as a political force, and its herd-like and cult-like attributes, and how easily it has molded into something it never intended to be.  Something very different from what it started as.

That same need to be led, the engagement in feelings over facts, suggests that it was always bound to go too far.  That, much like an individual man dating an individual woman, it needed to be led.  That it needed men to eventually set boundaries and tell it “No”.

From a classical liberal perspective, you can see the fundamental danger here.  The current dominant Cultural Narrative suggests that men and women are the same, that women don’t need to be led, that men shouldn’t set boundaries … and yet unleashes a female led movement upon the masses in such an environment where no reasonable constraints from men will be present.  It is a recipe for disaster.

It is telling, no doubt, that we see most of the pushback against Feminism from other women.  Women are unhappier than they have ever been in the last century, and continue only to become more so.  Perhaps in the absence of male boundaries, the only impetus for restraint is overwhelming negative consequences.

But of course the easiest solution may be simply to teach Men how to be Men again.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to What Cults Tell Us About Dating Women and Feminism

  1. But of course the easiest solution may be simply to teach Men how to be Men again.

    And to de-criminalize being a man. Also, anyone who uses the term “toxic masculinity” gets a night in the box. Maybe 3 nights for good measure.

  2. CopperFox3c says:

    @KH: I like it. Like sending a misbehaving kid to time out. An apt analogy.

  3. Farm Boy says:

    Humans, in this view, are the only species on Earth largely unaffected by recent (or ancient) evolution, the only species where, for example, the natural division of labor between male and female has no salience at all, the only species, in fact, where natural variations are almost entirely social constructions, subject to reinvention. We are, in this worldview, alone on the planet, born as blank slates, to be written on solely by culture. All differences between men and women are a function of this social effect; as are all differences between the races. If, in the aggregate, any differences in outcome between groups emerge, it is entirely because of oppression, patriarchy, white supremacy, etc. And it is a matter of great urgency that we use whatever power we have to combat these inequalities.

    Reich simply points out that this utopian fiction is in danger of collapse because it is not true and because genetic research is increasingly proving it untrue.

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/03/denying-genetics-isnt-shutting-down-racism-its-fueling-it.html

  4. Also, I never thought Allison Mack was pretty enough for TV, and it was a head-scratcher to me as to how she got cast. ‘Course I was a much more blue-pill Headhunter back then.

  5. CopperFox3c says:

    @FarmBoy: You know it’s funny how up-in-arms people are on the Left about evolution, but yet they think evolution somehow affected every part of the human body except for our brains (and behavior).

  6. SFC Ton says:

    That’s why pushing them sexually is a major component of success. Getbjer to do shit no other man did and she will sit at your feet with your pit bulls and be happy you extended that privillage to her

  7. MichItaly says:

    Beahrs, A Window to the Hidden Determinants of Human Behavior.

    This kind of rapports, and most of the rapports that glue together “organizations” (“cults”, “nations”, “political movements”, …) are hypnosis. That is, unconsciously desired submission and obedience on the part of the submitted.

    To know this about themselves would be too much of a load for their median conscious parts (egos).
    It must stay beneath the threshold of consciousness — as must sexual drives, the real reasons behind attraction and anything that contrasts with societal narratives about what the subject is.

    When you have a cult as overt as the one this post is about, it’s time for law enforcement to step in and stop things.
    All what is desired, then needed, and must be kept away from the collective consciousness must be strictly prohibited and repressed in its overt manifestations.

  8. MichItaly says:

    but yet they think evolution somehow affected every part of the human body except for our brains (and behavior).

    LOL.
    The more socially relevant a field of studies is, the more it will be affected/infected with self-deception (on the part of the “scientists”, the ones who want to be popular and successful at least) and the “public”.

    Expecting consistency, and anything but the deepest aversion to truth, from any Socially Spread Narrative is as outlandish as expecting it from a woman in an argument (“argument” = every interaction outside of gaming her/deceiving her/flattering her).
    It bears little meaning to even refute what they say, or highlight the contradictions.

  9. MichItaly says:

    @Farmboy

    As someone once said: there’s no way a group (a sex, a race, a caste, …) consciously accepts their intellectual inferiority in comparison with another group.

    Therefore, in the age of mass communication (where resentment grown of envy and complexes of inferiority will always be exploited by demagogues, a part of whom posing as “scientists”, others as benefactors and so on), you absolutely need anthropological, sociological, and “biological” fictions in order to keep different races, sexes, together without a disruptive level of conflict between them.

    Biology knowledge advances, and it threatens fictions.
    But fictions will be needed, and fabricated by the competent symbol holders and story tellers, insofar as mankind exists — because too large a part of mankind would be driven insane, by their pride, envy, jealousy, … — without the proper fiction.

  10. CopperFox3c says:

    Hey Mich, thanks for stopping by. You are absolutely right, people often forget that “Science” is human institution, subject to all the foibles and flaws of anything humans create.

    We also fail in many ways to teach young people these days to think empirically. Too many people make up their mind and then only later go searching for evidence to back it up. You see this even among scientists sometimes.

  11. GoggleEyed says:

    Great article but the real clincher is @MichItaly totally sent the doggoned chills down my spine.

  12. CopperFox3c says:

    @GoogleEyed, thanks, and yes, there is a necessity to the “myths” that allow modern society to function. The problem starts when people try to manipulate that narrative for nefarious purposes.

Leave a Reply