Dating experiences thread

Part 2

Red Sonja and Conan are often grouped together because of sword-and-sorcery fiction, but philosophically they embody different ideals. Looking at them through the lenses of leadership (“alpha”), dating, feminism, and masculinity reveals that they represent two complementary rather than identical archetypes.

1. The “high-value” or “alpha” archetype

If by “alpha” you mean someone who is competent, self-directed, resilient, and respected (rather than simply dominant), both qualify.

Conan

Conan’s philosophy is:

Strength earns freedom.

Civilization often corrupts people.

Power is legitimate if backed by competence.

Enjoy life intensely because tomorrow is uncertain.

He rarely seeks approval. He becomes king because people follow him, not because he craves status.

His confidence comes from capability.

Modern equivalent:

entrepreneur

elite athlete

military leader

explorer

He projects:

confidence

decisiveness

physical courage

emotional independence

Red Sonja

Sonja’s philosophy is different.

She values:

self-mastery

autonomy

earned respect

refusing victimhood

Unlike Conan, much of her identity centers on protecting her independence.

Her confidence comes from surviving betrayal and hardship without surrendering herself.

Modern equivalent:

successful CEO

elite martial artist

independent professional

highly competent woman who doesn’t rely on others

2. Dating philosophy

Conan

Conan likes women.

He is passionate, flirtatious, adventurous.

But he refuses to become emotionally dependent.

His relationships tend to be

intense

mutual

temporary unless circumstances change

He wants partnership—not ownership.

Sonja

Sonja is famously difficult to pursue.

Depending on the comic continuity, this comes from

trauma

personal vows

desire for equality

refusal to submit

She rejects weak men.

She also rejects controlling men.

The only acceptable partner is one she genuinely respects.

3. Masculinity

Conan represents traditional heroic masculinity.

Characteristics:

physical strength

courage

leadership

willingness to fight

protectiveness

confidence

competence

emotional control without emotional numbness

Interestingly, Conan isn’t obsessed with appearing masculine.

He cries occasionally.

He laughs.

He drinks.

He enjoys poetry and beauty.

He can be surprisingly reflective.

So his masculinity isn’t insecurity disguised as toughness.

4. Feminism

Sonja is often called a feminist icon, but that depends on which era of the character you’re looking at.

She embodies ideas associated with feminism such as:

equal capability

female agency

bodily autonomy

rejection of male entitlement

independence

But she is not anti-male.

She frequently allies with men she respects.

She judges individuals, not an entire sex.

In many stories, her message is:

“Treat me as an equal, not as someone to dominate or rescue.”

5. Conan’s view of women

Conan generally judges women individually.

He admires:

intelligence

bravery

passion

loyalty

He dislikes manipulation and cowardice regardless of gender.

He doesn’t believe women should automatically be protected if they are dangerous adversaries.

That actually creates an unusually egalitarian dynamic for a pulp hero.

6. Conan vs Sonja in a relationship

Philosophically, they fit because neither wants control.

Conan wants freedom.

Sonja wants freedom.

Neither enjoys being dominated.

Neither enjoys dominating someone weak.

Conflict would arise because:

Conan thinks

“If we love each other, why complicate it?”

Sonja thinks

“Trust must be earned repeatedly.”

So Conan is more spontaneous.

Sonja is more guarded.

7. Modern “high-value dating”

In modern internet discussions, “high value” is often reduced to money, looks, or social status. Conan and Sonja suggest a broader standard.

Conan’s value comes from:

competence

courage

integrity

adaptability

confidence without constant validation

Sonja’s value comes from:

competence

resilience

standards

independence

refusing unhealthy relationships

Neither spends much energy trying to impress others.

8. Healthy masculinity and healthy femininity

Conan’s masculinity is rooted in responsibility rather than domination.

Sonja’s femininity is rooted in agency rather than dependence.

Together they illustrate an important principle:

Strong people are attracted to strength.

Not because they want to compete constantly, but because mutual respect creates a stable foundation.

9. Where modern “alpha” culture differs

Some online “alpha male” narratives emphasize:

dominance over others

emotional detachment as a performance

treating relationships as power struggles

measuring worth by status or conquest

Conan is a poor fit for that stereotype.

He is dominant in combat because he is capable, not because he needs to assert superiority in every interaction. He forms friendships across social classes, can follow another leader when appropriate, and often values loyalty over rank.

Similarly, Sonja is not a “female alpha” in the sense of seeking control over others. She insists on respect and equality while maintaining her independence.

Final philosophical comparison

Conan Red Sonja

Freedom through strength Freedom through independence

Leads naturally Refuses domination

Trusts first, judges later Tests first, trusts later

Action-oriented Cautious but decisive

Traditional heroic masculinity Independent heroic femininity

Protects others Protects herself and others

Enjoys companionship Demands mutual respect before intimacy

Taken together, Conan and Red Sonja represent a relationship ideal based less on hierarchy and more on reciprocity: two highly capable individuals who admire strength, reject coercion, and value freedom. That differs from many modern “alpha” frameworks, which often frame relationships as contests for dominance rather than partnerships built on mutual respect and earned trust.

women and men can be equally manipulative. Manipulation isn’t inherently tied to gender.

People of any gender can use things like:

Sex as leverage — withholding affection or intimacy to punish/control.

Jealousy or triangulation — deliberately involving another person to provoke insecurity.

Guilt and emotional pressure — making someone feel obligated to have sex, stay, or give in.

Love-bombing — excessive affection or promises to gain compliance.

Gaslighting or dishonesty — denying obvious behavior or distorting events.

Financial or practical dependence — using money, housing, status, or favors as leverage.

Commitment manipulation — promising a future or exclusivity primarily to obtain sex or prevent someone from leaving.

The important distinction is between ordinary interpersonal influence and manipulation. Flirting, expressing desire, negotiating boundaries, or deciding not to have sex aren’t automatically manipulative. It becomes manipulation when someone deliberately exploits another person’s emotions, vulnerabilities, or expectations to control their choices, especially while concealing their real intentions.

There can be differences in how manipulation is expressed because of individual personality, social expectations, power dynamics, or circumstances, but that doesn’t mean one sex is inherently more manipulative than the other.

https://archive.is/M3EGY

Wired | The ‘Manosphere’ Isn’t a Movement. It’s a Multibillion-Dollar Grievance Industry

And the morons keep falling for these :poop: :clown_face:

1 Like

Asked chatgpt a silly question…

To pick and philosophically analyze a story where both man and woman are equally manipulative and face the consequences of their actions

***Dangerous Liaisons*** by Pierre Choderlos de Laclos. It is almost a laboratory experiment in the morality of sex, love, manipulation, and power.

### The basic dynamic

The two central characters, **the Marquise de Merteuil** and **the Vicomte de Valmont**, are both intelligent, sexually experienced, charismatic, and extraordinarily manipulative.

They treat romantic relationships as **games of power**:

* Seduction becomes a weapon.

* Sexual attraction becomes leverage.

* Vulnerability becomes something to exploit.

* People become objects used to increase one’s status or satisfy one’s ego.

* Love is deliberately confused with conquest.

Neither gender is presented as inherently more moral. **Merteuil is not evil because she is a woman, and Valmont is not evil because he is a man.** Their moral failures come from what they *choose to do with their intelligence, sexuality, and power*.

### Sex without love becomes a form of manipulation

Valmont initially approaches seduction almost like a military campaign. The goal isn’t simply pleasure or intimacy; it is **victory**.

Merteuil is even more explicit about the social dimension of manipulation. She has learned to operate within a society that restricts women’s sexual and social freedom, and she becomes extraordinarily skilled at manipulating those restrictions.

This creates an important philosophical distinction:

> **Understanding an unjust social system does not automatically make everything one does in response to it morally justified.**

Merteuil’s intelligence and resistance to social oppression are understandable. But she increasingly uses that intelligence to hurt innocent people.

Similarly, Valmont’s sexual freedom doesn’t make him evil. **His willingness to treat other people’s emotions as disposable does.**

### The tragedy is that genuine love eventually appears

This is what makes the story philosophically interesting.

Valmont encounters Madame de Tourvel, and something resembling genuine love begins to emerge.

He has a choice:

**Continue treating love as conquest, or allow himself to become vulnerable.**

He ultimately cannot completely escape his identity as a manipulator.

That is the tragedy: **the person who spends his life mastering other people’s emotions eventually becomes incapable of trusting his own.**

Merteuil faces a similar problem. She wants control because vulnerability represents danger. But absolute control makes authentic intimacy nearly impossible.

### Their consequences

The story ultimately demonstrates that manipulation is not a stable form of power.

Valmont’s schemes contribute to his destruction.

Merteuil’s schemes eventually expose her, destroying the social position and reputation she worked so hard to construct.

The consequences aren’t simply:

**“Bad man gets punished.”**

or

**“Bad woman gets punished.”**

The deeper lesson is:

> **People who turn relationships into power struggles eventually destroy the very possibility of the intimacy they claim to desire.**

-–

## In the context of sex, love, and gender

This connects particularly well with the principle you’ve explored in your other philosophical questions: **men and women possess equal capacities for both good and evil.**

The story provides a useful antidote to two opposite ideas.

### Misandry

“Men are naturally manipulative sexual predators.”

Valmont demonstrates that a man can behave terribly—but his behavior is a **moral choice**, not proof of male nature.

### Misogyny

“Women are naturally manipulative because they use sexuality and social influence.”

Merteuil demonstrates that a woman can be extraordinarily manipulative—but again, her gender doesn’t make manipulation inevitable.

The deeper principle is:

**Sex does not determine morality. Character does.**

Men and women can both:

* love sincerely,

* betray,

* manipulate,

* sacrifice,

* forgive,

* exploit,

* become jealous,

* seek domination,

* or respect another person’s freedom.

-–

## The relationship lesson

The healthiest alternative to Valmont and Merteuil’s worldview is almost the opposite of theirs:

**Sex + power → conquest**

versus

**Sex + vulnerability → intimacy**

A healthy relationship requires two people who can say:

> “I desire you, but I don’t own you.”

> “I love you, but I don’t control you.”

> “You can reject me, and I will respect your freedom.”

> “Your vulnerability isn’t an opportunity for me to exploit you.”

That’s where **consent, reciprocity, honesty, fidelity, and respect** become more important than sexual conquest.

And that is why *Dangerous Liaisons* works so well philosophically: **the characters are extremely good at getting what they want from people, but terrible at actually loving people.**

### A modern counterpart: *Gone Girl*

Gone Girl is probably the closest modern equivalent.

Nick and Amy are both deceptive and manipulative, although their wrongdoing is **not identical in severity**. Nick’s infidelity and dishonesty contribute to the collapse of the marriage, while Amy’s manipulation escalates into extraordinarily destructive behavior.

The fascinating philosophical question in both works is therefore:

**When does the desire to be loved become the desire to control another person into loving you?**

And perhaps the darkest answer is:

**You

cannot manufacture genuine love through manipulation. You can manufacture obedience, fear, dependence, guilt, or obsession—but not freely given love.**

Also hoe math on social media…is heavily biased with egotistical musings…it twists some truth…into a warped view.

People who can’t figure things out are easily manipulated by warped perspectives such as these.

The reality is over complexifying things to make sense of dynamics of relationships as in the sea of opinionated social media philosophical monologues is a comfort that fools you into thinking you are doing something when in reality you are not doing anything.

It’s not a tether to understanding reality…and unhealthily influences your reality…the reality is you gotta learn from your experiences by looking at experiences through different angles…and actually move forward and take chances with new opportunities…and then figure things out through discernment in evaluating whether things are working out…in regards to whether is this the life that you both want…is the person you are with contributing to the life that you both want and making it into a reality…etc…

Additionally there are people of bad an good character…and all people are equally capable of morality and immorality…

The true test of character comes under pressure…if you can handle pressure…then you gotta work on somethings.

But yeah I agree the manosphere is a complete bullshit circle jerk…that scams and manipulates the naive.

1 Like

I was wondering if you had fully transitioned to an AI bot in this thread yet :thinking:

2 Likes

Using it to sift through and analyze certain ideas in order to debunk a lot of nonsense..

And formulate a more logical and grounded perspective.

The pain of a love lost, a love that was betrayed, a love that wasn’t reciprocated, a love that wasn’t respected, or a love that was abused, or not knowing love…

Summary of all the grievances.

You can either have a grievance about your life and how it is unfair…or you can do something about it and move forward…

Can’t depend on people for your own happiness…

Gotta take the good with the bad..