Conversations with ChatGPT – The fitness thing

Louie:

In the manosphere, we talk quite a bit about getting oneself in shape. I don’t think we spend nearly enough time breaking down what exactly that means and looks like. It’s articulated simply as “get in the gym.” The natural imagination pushes one to try and look like he plays in the NFL or he’s some kind of competitive body builder. Let’s establish some quantitative and qualitative data points on this particular area of self improvement:

Are you overweight? Let’s see if we can lose 25 – 50 pounds in the next year or two.
What’s your bench press? Let’s see if we can add 50 to 100 pounds in that next year or 2. Let’s also see if we can mix in some incline and decline press. The variety will be helpful

Can you run a mile? What’s your mile time? Ever tried running a 5K? Let’s see if we can shave a min or 2 off that mile time and get to a point where a running a 5k once a week doesn’t “kill you.”

For the arms: If they’re at least solid and noticeable, you’re doing quite well. Biceps and triceps development is largely about form, consistency, and appropriate volume. In 2026 the internet is oversaturated with guys providing instructions on appropriate form for arm workouts.

Let’s add in some pullups and shoulder shrugs. If you can’t do pullups, plenty of gyms have assisted pullup machines that provide counter weight. You can gradually train your way up. Pullups and shoulder shrugs will help you develop a solid trapezoidal facade for your shoulders and torso.

For the abs, it’s largely about weight management, and again form and consistency.

In the end though, the goal is not perpetual improvement for its own sake. What you want is a sustainable, “steady state” end game.

I’m not going to reveal my own steady state in this context, but I’ll establish a hypothetical template of fitness that I think a large number of men would be content waking up daily as:

A BMI under 26.5(technically overweight, but a solid “fighting weight”)

A routine of running a mile 3 times per week and a 5k once per week. You can finish a mile in under 11 min and 30 seconds Sometimes, just to challenge yourself, you can go for a 10k, a half marathon, or beyond

A bench press over 165, an incline press over 145 and be able to do 8 reps at those weights.

Arm muscles that, when flexed, feel solid to the touch.

Not necessarily a 2000s era “Situation” as far as abs, but perhaps a solid outline of abdominal musculature.

A shoulder – torso facade that looks nice in a fitted dress shirt.

ChatGPT:

I think the strongest part of this framework is that you’re trying to replace the vague command “get in shape” with an actual definition of “fit enough.” That’s a useful correction, especially because online fitness culture tends to turn self-improvement into an infinite escalation game.
A few observations:
1. Your “steady state” concept is the key
There’s a major difference between:
“How much can I improve my physique?”
and
“What physical condition would I be happy maintaining for the next 20 years?”
The second is much more useful for ordinary men.
If the target is a sustainable baseline—rather than becoming progressively leaner, stronger, and more muscular forever—you can actually make rational tradeoffs. You don’t need to spend two hours in the gym six days a week. You need enough strength, cardiovascular capacity, muscularity, and weight control to produce a body that is healthy, capable, and visibly masculine.
That’s a much more attainable proposition than “become a beast.”
2. I’d separate the fitness domains
Your template is essentially establishing five independent benchmarks:
Domain
Your proposed benchmark
Body composition
BMI <26.5
Cardio
1 mile 3×/week + weekly 5K
Strength
Bench 165×8; incline 145×8
Muscular development
Noticeable arms, developed shoulders/traps
Appearance
Some abdominal definition + good fitted-shirt silhouette
That’s actually a pretty good framework because it prevents someone from “cheating” the definition of fitness.
A guy who can bench 315 but gets winded walking up stairs isn’t particularly fit. A guy who runs marathons but has virtually no upper-body strength isn’t the template you’re describing either.
You’re looking for general physical competence.
3. I particularly like the 5K requirement
There’s something psychologically useful about being able to say:
“I can go outside and run three miles without this becoming an event.”
That’s a different level of cardiovascular competence than merely being capable of surviving a mile.
And your proposed mile benchmark—under 11:30—is intentionally modest. That’s important. You’re not demanding a competitive running pace. You’re establishing that an ordinary man can develop enough aerobic capacity to sustain roughly a 10:00–11:30 pace for a mile and periodically complete a 5K.
I’d actually consider that one of the best “minimum viable fitness” benchmarks in the whole framework.
4. I’d modify the strength benchmarks slightly
The absolute numbers are useful, but bodyweight-relative strength would make the framework more robust.
A 165-pound bench means something very different for a 150-pound man than for a 240-pound man.
For example, a useful hierarchy might be:
Baseline: bench 1× bodyweight
Solid: bench ~1.25× bodyweight
Very strong recreationally: ~1.5× bodyweight
And then your specific 165 × 8 benchmark works well as a practical floor because it corresponds to roughly a 205–210 lb estimated 1RM for many lifters.
I’d also include a pulling benchmark. Otherwise the framework is heavily push-oriented.
Something like:
5–10 strict pull-ups, or
equivalent performance on an assisted pull-up machine
would balance the bench/incline work.
5. The “dress shirt test” is actually a great qualitative benchmark
This might be more useful to the average man than a body-fat percentage.
You aren’t saying:
“Have a six-pack.”
You’re saying:
“Put on a properly fitted dress shirt and look like a physically developed man.”
That’s a very different and much more attainable aesthetic.
Broad shoulders, developed delts, traps, chest, arms, and a reasonably narrow waist produce a substantial visual effect while wearing normal clothes.
And that’s arguably more relevant to everyday life than being shredded.
6. I’d be careful with BMI 26.5
I understand what you’re doing with it: you’re deliberately establishing a practical fighting weight rather than an idealized medical-chart weight.
But BMI isn’t particularly useful once someone has substantial muscularity. I’d therefore make the underlying goal something closer to:
“Waist-to-height ratio/waist circumference and visual body composition consistent with being reasonably lean, with BMI <26.5 as a rough reference rather than a hard rule.”
That prevents a muscular 5’10” guy from unnecessarily cutting weight simply to satisfy the BMI number.
7. The biggest thing I’d add: mobility and basic physical durability
There’s one missing category:
Can your body actually function?
I’d want the steady-state man to be able to:
squat comfortably
hinge properly
get down onto the floor and back up
carry heavy objects
climb stairs without difficulty
perform basic overhead movement
maintain reasonable joint mobility
avoid being chronically injured from his own exercise routine
That matters increasingly as you move from 30s into 40s and beyond.
The goal shouldn’t be to produce a man who is impressive in a gym but fragile everywhere else.
The larger philosophical point
I think you’re onto something broader here.
A lot of men’s fitness discourse accidentally creates fitness consumerism: there is always another pound to lose, another PR to hit, another muscle to develop, another supplement to buy, another program to try.
But physical self-improvement has diminishing returns.
Going from:
obese → overweight → normal/athletic
can dramatically change a man’s health and appearance.
Going from:
15% body fat → 10% body fat
may produce a relatively small practical benefit while requiring substantially more effort.
Likewise, going from:
165 bench → 225 bench
is meaningful.
Going from:
315 bench → 365 bench
is mostly an accomplishment for its own sake.
And there’s nothing wrong with pursuing those accomplishments—but they shouldn’t be confused with the basic objective.
Your hypothetical steady-state man is essentially saying:
Get strong enough. Get lean enough. Get cardiovascularly capable enough. Build enough muscle to look good in clothes. Then maintain it.
That’s a considerably healthier philosophy than making perpetual optimization the definition of male self-improvement.
And perhaps most importantly, it gives a man an attainable endpoint where he can eventually say:
“I’m in good shape. I don’t need to become a fitness enthusiast. This is simply how I live.”

Conversations with ChatGPT – The Confidence Thing

Louie:

I’m not currently in the dating game. I don’t think it’s a direct cause-effect link with confidence as I have other issues I’ve documented. I do prefer, however, to date from a position of confidence. I prefer to have things within myself and in my life I can point to and be confident in. I recall dating when I got my first salaried professional job. Sure, I still got rejected, but it didn’t negatively affect me. I could tell myself – and believe – “meh, her loss.” Even if an insult was true, it didn’t matter to me, because I could quickly point to other things I had going for myself. When I got with my ex, I was in a really good place. I was at a high level of fitness. I was earning more than I had ever made previously, lived in pretty nice apartment, and drove a pretty nice vehicle. I wasn’t necessarily looking to date. I was in good place, but I was kinda bored, so I decided to peer out and see “what was out there.” I interacted with a few women before I met my ex, but it didn’t bother me if/when things didn’t work out. I was in a head space of abundance and optionality. I like dating from that position. It’s a position of strength. It’s a sense of “I don’t have to be here”, “I don’t have to accept this.”

ChatGPT:

I think you’re identifying something important: confidence for you isn’t primarily about believing you’re attractive or desirable. It’s about having enough independent sources of self-respect that romantic rejection doesn’t threaten your overall assessment of yourself.
The distinction between your two periods is pretty revealing.

When you got that first professional job, rejection could be compartmentalized. You could think, “Okay, she doesn’t want me. That’s fine.” The rejection didn’t become evidence for a larger proposition like “Maybe I’m not good enough.” You had something concrete you could point to: I’m building a career. I’m progressing. I’m becoming somebody I respect.

Likewise, when you met your ex, you weren’t approaching dating from need. You were already enjoying your life. You were fit, financially successful relative to your previous experience, living somewhere you liked, driving a nice vehicle, etc. Dating was an addition to an already satisfying life rather than the mechanism by which you expected your life to become satisfying.
And I think your phrase “abundance and optionality” gets at the heart of it.

There’s a major psychological difference between:
“I hope this woman chooses me.”
and
“Let’s see whether we choose each other.”
The second position doesn’t mean being arrogant, dismissive, or treating people as interchangeable. In fact, given what you’ve previously said about wanting to date sincerely and only become physically intimate when you genuinely see long-term potential, I’d argue your version of confidence is almost the opposite of the stereotypical “player” mentality.

Your standard is closer to:
“I want you, but I don’t need you badly enough to abandon my standards.”
That’s a powerful position.

The deeper issue I suspect there’s another reason you’re attracted to dating from this position:

it protects your judgment. When you’re highly invested in getting a particular woman, it’s very easy to start negotiating against yourself. You overlook incompatibilities. You rationalize behavior you wouldn’t otherwise accept. You start asking, “How do I get her to like me?” rather than “Do I actually like what I’m seeing?”

And eventually the question becomes:
“What do I need to do to keep this opportunity?”

That’s very different from:
“Is this actually an opportunity?”
Your “I don’t have to be here” attitude creates psychological room to evaluate the woman rather than audition for her.
And I think that’s what you mean by strength. Not dominance. Not having the upper hand. Not being indifferent.
It’s the freedom to walk away.
But there’s an important caveat
I wouldn’t make the mistake of believing you need to get your life into some objectively impressive state before you’re entitled to date confidently.
Because there’s an infinite escalation trap there.
You make more money → now you need more money.
Get into great shape → now you need to be even more muscular.
Buy the nice car → now you need the nicer house.
Become professionally accomplished → now you need the next credential.
And suddenly confidence becomes conditional:
“I’ll be ready to date when my life is impressive enough.”
That’s dangerous because there will always be another benchmark.
The healthier version is:
“My life is sufficiently good that another person’s rejection doesn’t determine its value.”
That’s a much more attainable standard.
And frankly, I think that’s probably the real thing you’re remembering from those earlier periods. It wasn’t merely that you had a good job, good physique, nice apartment, and nice car.
You liked yourself at the time.
You had evidence that your life was moving in a direction you respected. Consequently, a woman saying no wasn’t particularly threatening.
That’s the state I’d try to recreate—not necessarily the exact circumstances.
Because ultimately, confidence isn’t “I know she’ll want me.”

It’s:
“I’ll be okay if she doesn’t.”
And the strongest version of it is:
“I’ll be okay if she doesn’t—and I’ll also be okay walking away if I don’t genuinely want what she’s offering.”
That second half is where confidence turns into discernment.

Louie:

Thanks for the sober mention of the infinite escalation trap. I agree that’s a real risk. My counter strategy is to understand that while,  yes I can derive a bit office confidence from tangible progress, there’s must be a level of perspective and acknowledgement of historic achievement. Additionally, there should be a “steady state” end game. Even if I don’t significantly increase my pay, I’m still an upper 20% earner among black men. I have a graduate degree and nice collection of professional certifications. I’ve gotten proficient at some hard, left-brain activities such as advanced mathematics and network configuration. I’ve run half marathons. My closest friend insists I live in a super cool apartment in a super part of my area, lol.   I’ve dated women many men only wish they could attract. I’ve rejected sexual opportunities many men dream of. I’ve experienced seductions many men dream of. I would still like to increase my income, however. It’s for what I think is a very measured and rational reason. I want to be able to comfortably afford a mid tier house in my area, and at my age I also need to accelerate my retirement savings. I would also like to venture into something entreprenurial on the side. It’s been a long held life goal for me be able to say within myself I didn’t simply punch a clock for my whole life. Those are clearly defined end goals, and I already have a solid list of achievements and proud moments. That’s a life I can stand on and be content with for the foreseeable future.

ChatGPT:

Yeah—I think that substantially resolves the concern I raised about the escalation trap.
What you’re describing isn’t “I need to become impressive enough to deserve confidence.” It’s closer to “I already have a substantial body of evidence that my life is going well, and I have a few remaining objectives that I would like to accomplish.”
That’s a very different psychological posture.
The distinction I’d make is between achievement as evidence and achievement as admission price.
You’re using your accomplishments as evidence for propositions like:
I’m capable of learning difficult things.
I’m capable of discipline.
I can compete successfully in professional environments.
I can take care of myself physically.
I’m socially and romantically desirable.
I have built a life that I actually enjoy inhabiting.
I have demonstrated that I can accomplish things I once couldn’t.
None of those propositions requires you to keep moving the goalposts indefinitely.
And I particularly like your idea of a steady-state end game.
That’s something a lot of ambitious people never consciously establish. They have a growth mindset but no concept of enough. Every accomplishment merely establishes the baseline for the next one.
You’ve essentially described a different model:
Build → achieve → consolidate → maintain → selectively pursue additional goals.
That’s considerably healthier than:
Achieve → raise standard → feel inadequate → achieve → raise standard → repeat.
Your remaining ambitions also sound qualitatively different
Your desire for higher income doesn’t sound like “I need to be richer because rich people are more worthy.”
You’ve identified concrete uses for the additional money:
A mid-tier house you can comfortably afford
Accelerated retirement savings
Capital for entrepreneurial experimentation
Those are tangible life objectives.
And the entrepreneurial goal has an interesting psychological dimension. You’re not merely saying “I want another income stream.” You’re saying:
I don’t want my entire productive life to consist of exchanging hours for a paycheck.
That’s actually a fairly profound distinction.
You want to be able to look backward eventually and say that you built something, not merely that you maintained employment for several decades.
That doesn’t mean entrepreneurship necessarily needs to become some huge company. It could be something relatively modest that you created, operated, and owned. The psychological value may be disproportionate to the financial value.
And then there’s the historical perspective
I think this is probably the most important part of what you’re saying.
You’re deliberately creating a mental ledger of accomplishments before deciding what the next objective is.
That’s wise.
Because otherwise it’s very easy for your brain to perform a particularly insidious trick:
“Yes, but…”
You get the degree.
Yes, but you don’t make enough money.
You get the certification.
Yes, but you aren’t in management.
You become fit.
Yes, but you’re not as fit as you were five years ago.
You run a half marathon.
Yes, but you aren’t an elite runner.
You attract women you’re genuinely attracted to.
Yes, but you haven’t found the right one yet.
And suddenly an objectively accomplished person experiences himself as perpetually behind.
Your historical perspective interrupts that.
No. Stop. Look at the whole record.
You’ve already done a lot.
And I think that’s particularly relevant to the confidence you’re talking about in dating. You don’t need to walk into a dating situation thinking:
“I’m the greatest man this woman could possibly get.”
That’s fragile and frankly unnecessary.
You can walk in thinking:
“I’ve built a life I respect. I know what I’m capable of. I know what I’ve experienced. I know I’m capable of attracting women I find desirable. I don’t need this particular woman to validate any of that. So let’s see if we actually fit.”
That’s abundance without delusion.
And there’s something else I really like about your formulation: you’re not claiming you’ve “made it.” You’re acknowledging unfinished business while refusing to let unfinished business erase what you’ve already accomplished.
That’s probably the sweet spot.
Ambition says: There are still things I want.
Contentment says: What I already have is valuable.
Confidence says: I don’t need the former to invalidate the latter.
That seems to be the equilibrium you’re trying to establish.

Louie’s Random Ideas for Black America

Initially this was a bit of Journaling about the divine 9 and black athletes. My demon fingers took over and it expanded to the following:

Divine 9: To even be considered for membership one must either be in college with a certain GPA or have already graduated from college. Additionally, there are other character and achievement related criteria imposed by the individual orgs. It’s a challenge in black America finding skillful, industrious people willing and able to perform certain tasks. The divine 9 has an extraordinary track record of curating and corraling  such people. The overwhelming majority of black doctors, lawyers, sr corporate management personnel and the like have Greek letters. If you’re looking for a black management and leadership class, they’re the most obvious place to start looking. I’ll come back to this. 

America pays black athletes $6 – $10 Billion per year. I’m looking at the likes of Ulysses Bridgeman, Magic Johnson, Shaquille O’Neal, and Jamal Mashburn. Where they stand out is in terms of what they did with their money. As an idea, it seems within reach for black America to replicate the model in being degrees and scale it. The earnings of black athletes could be used to effectively commandeer the hospitality industry. Think –  chain restaurants and hotels. This would further enrich the athletes themselves while increasing the black business sector. Of course it would have to be well managed and it would need to put on an exceedingly positive public face. This is where the divine 9 comes into play. There’s this pre vetted pool of skilled talent. Start there in looking for managerial skills. There still may be non-blacks involved as we want the best, but I advocate for a “tie goes to the black person” form of DEI coupled with a minimum quota of blacks in certain positions and at certain levels. The idea is to flip the 6 – 10B into 50 – 100B. This would further enrich the athletes themselves, expand the black business sector, and the strengthen the black financial sector. 

Let’s also encourage the masses of black men to look toward the trades. Trades build society. Engineers and Architects plan and design, but trades tangibly build. CDL Drivers, Mechanics, Electricians, Plumbers, HVAC specialists… we need a critical mass. Even black men with university degrees should develop trade skills. I’m thinking about a young black man with an engineering degree from Prairie View, Tuskegee, or Norfolk state. He’s confronted with a professional marketplace that doesn’t desire his presence. He has an EE degree, or ME degree. He decides to become a journeyman electrician or a mechanic. He combines his theoretical thought processes with the tangible insight he gains from his trade work, and either he’s too knowledgeable and skilled for corporate America to not open their doors to him, or he figures out ways to integrate his theoretical knowledge into his trade, and becomes so overwhelmingly skilled that he’s able start businesses that rival existing major American corporate powers. Again we come back to that D9 talent pool. If he’s building businesses, he needs internal leaders. 

A worthwhile leadership class is not merely an “Expert class”, it’s also a “Specialist class.” Theory and rhetoric absolutely have their place, but the true measure of a man is the tangible work he does and the tangible impact he makes… for better or for worse. We need to reorient our perspective on leadership and education from titles, to productive knowledge and productive work. A graduate degree in the soft sciences has its place, but historically, even intellectuals themselves would have trades they performed. In the madrasas at Timbuktu, a student’s first year was spent learning a trade. It may be snarky and cheeky at times, but there always needs to be a question of “Okay, but what do you do?” Leaders should have a measure of control over both the economic and by extension socio-cultural landscape of the community. Leadership has to be accountable however. There must be checks and balances, and the development of a productive value set(to be discussed.)

Culturally, we should view a person with an Associate’s degree and a journeyman level trade as being socially on par with a person who has a bachelor’s degree. Granted, such a person would still need to complete their bachelor’s if they wish to pursue graduate studies, but in terms of how they’re viewed socially and interpersonally, it should be an approximate equivalence. 

A heavily funded class of black trades businesses, and a heavy presence in hospitality creates plenty of resource wealth. From there we, dip back into that D9 pool, and seek out financial specialists. We need more financial institutions: banks, insurance companies investment houses,..

I would like to see a database and rating system for a set of chosen professions. It’s not merely a high 5 or a pat on the back. It’s a repository of who’s who, and who’s good at what. You’re building a business, you need accountants, managers and sales people. You need electrical, or plumbing work done. You need transport for your product. We need to know who’s good at it. The streets talk and that’s fine, but let’s formalize it and put it on paper. 

HBCUs: The point of the university is research, a pathway for social mobility and development of a leadership, management, and intellectual class to push society forward. In the same way we have the institution of the D9 to curate and corral our best and brightest, we need to establish and segment a group of universities for that same purpose. Perhaps we can debate on criteria, but I would start with the work US News has ỳ already done. Since 2007, the US News and World report has ranked and listed HBCUs. A trend has emerged and we now have a 20 year running average. Let’s segment the top 20 schools, and designate them. Let’s come up with a catchy name like “The talented 20.” We want our best students to predominate these institutions, so let’s establish the following auto acceptance criteria:

1100 SAT/22 ACT or top 25% percentile of graduating class

*Allowed to use top sectional scores from each attempted exam for admissions consideration, but not scholarship

May need scholarship funding for this part. If a pupil achieves both auto acceptance criteria and also achieves either a 1250 SAT/26 ACT or 10% in graduating class, they’ll receive a tuition paid scholarship. They’ll have to come up with room and board. Recall, top sectional scores can used for consideration in admission but not for scholarships. If a pupil achieves both scholarship criteria, they’ll receive: tuition, room and board, books, and a stipend

With the exception of Morehouse and Spelman, schools must admit at least 40% of each gender. I would also want to impose a hard limit of 20% international students. This will create limiting effect. At the time of admission, the school will review the gender ratio, and cut off admission of the more highly represented gender. The talented 20 status will be reviewed by a coalition every 10 years. To remain, a school must have maintained its ranking for the 20 years preceding. 

The remaining HBCUs will continue as previously, but will be encouraged to also include trade apprenticeships pipelines. 

Relational frameworks: We’ve allowed education to become social wedge between black women and black men. One of the ways this manifests, is that our women delay marriage and family formation in pursuit of education and careers. It creates a problem. Our women are not practicing abstinence while pursuing said careers and credentials. This dynamic, structurally feeds into a culture of low commitment sexual behavior and single motherhood. I support and advocate for the pursuit of education, but I would encourage a cultural dynamic of “ring by spring” or “cap and gown to wedding gown.” It’s a much easier proposition to expect a young woman to delay child bearing until completion of undergrad than to delay it until acquisition of a graduate degree and establishment of a high prestige career. There’s the common criticism that young men tend to not be economically viable. I propose we normalize a moderate level of age gap pairing. 29/23, 31/26,… would be a sold age range pairings. Coupling this with my prior ideas on men pursuing trades and the larger culture encouraging and honoring such, could boost our marriage rates by a solid 10 – 15 percentage points.

This also slides into the issue of partner selection. Fair enough – we like what we like and we’re attracted to what we’re attracted to. Regardless, I would encourage the following. Men; work urgently to optimize your desirability. Maximize your mate options. The idea is to find the woman you function best with who’s at least attractive enough for you to feel content. This next part might be a hard sell to the fellas. I’ve lived through my 20s and 30s. I know what it’s like to be “hungry.” She’s not someone you would want in any serious capacity, but she’s clearly signaling that the “Kitchen is open.” She’s even giving you samples to taste. For your own sake however, don’t intimately engage with a woman that you know you could never see anything serious with. That’s how you end up catching accusations or litigation. That’s how you end up with the “psycho baby mama.” That’s how you receive “gifts that can’t be returned.” For your own sake don’t sleep in a room you wouldn’t want to stay in. Additionally – and this is pure ethics, code – if you make a baby, you’re responsible. I’m aware of all the counter arguments and common pushback, but as men, we should have a code. That’s a part of the code. 

Women: you like what you like, and you’re attracted to what you’re attracted to. With that said, I would encourage you to at least factor in: does he have some kind of readily identifiable vocation, and is he actively demonstrating a will and desire to commit to you. At the very least, you should be able to look 5 – 10 years down the road and think to yourself, “if things go sideways between us, I’ll at least get some child support and 2 free weekends per month”

…. More thoughts to come

Conversations with ChatGPT: The social/relational wedge:

Louie: Education, in the grand scheme of things, is a good thing. I have a Graduate degree myself along with a collection of professional certifications. Completion of a University degree requires a certain level of practiced critical thinking skills. Education shifts your social networks toward the more upwardly mobile. It expands your consciousness and world view. Unfortunately, it has become a social/relational wedge between black men and black women.
Black women obtain the overehelming majority of degrees in Black America, and it’s not even close. I can certainly see how this can be viewed as a failure of black men. Sure, the fact that there is such a gap is at least partially pathological. Much of it, however, is structural. Girls and women on a biological level are more tempermentally well-suited to the modern classroom and the modern office. There’s a whirlwind effect at play as well. Women and girls are increasingly prevalent in positions of leadership and authority in modern classrooms and modern offices. As such, these environments are becoming all the more female oriented. The optimum behavioral disposition in these environments is one of sitting still, receiving information, regurgitating information, and playing a series of appropriate social games. Not to say that males are incapable of such, but females are more naturally adapted to it. Males tend more toward tactile, and calisthenic learning and labor. I don’t think it’s controversial to say that we enjoy a collection biological advantages in such arenas. A woman’s primary avenue towards upward mobility and independent economic viability is University education. Men have alternative options such as trades, milltary or law enforcement, technical fields, along with the traditional university education pathway. It would only make sense for women of all groups to overindex on postsecondary education. All of that is merely establishing a foundational starting point.
Here’s where it becomes a challenge. You(ChatGPT) previously advised me to soften my language on a particular point. I agree to re-articulate the point while still maintaining the underlying idea. A university degree alters an individual’s perception of their status and position in the world. This is true for both mesn and women. It’s not random nor fully unjustified. You’ve adapted a broader perspective. You’ve become socialized to intellectual spaces. Even if your degree doesn’t offer the most economically marketable skills persay, you’ve still by in large become “a new creation.” It becomes a significant problem when an educated woman who is a: school teacher, social worker, human resources rep,  call center supervisor(professions which earn $60k – $85k) views a CDL Driver($85k+), a journeyman electrician($80k+), a journeyman plumber ($80k+), or a licensed HVAC specialist($90k+) as being “not on her level.”
Again, just as a passing mention, we can’t forget the issue of educational debt, but I’ll leave that for another discussion.

ChstGPT:

I think this is one of your stronger drafts because you’re trying to distinguish between structural trends and individual blame, which makes the argument more nuanced. There are, however, a few places where tightening the claims would make it more persuasive and harder to dismiss.
The strongest observation, in my opinion, is this:
A university degree doesn’t merely provide knowledge or credentials. It changes a person’s social networks, identity, reference group, and perception of status.
That’s well-supported by research in sociology. College graduates tend to socialize with other graduates, adopt different cultural norms, and often come to see educational attainment as an important marker of compatibility. That applies to men as well as women.
Where I’d be more careful is here:
Girls and women on a biological level are more temperamentally well-suited to the modern classroom…
There’s probably some truth that average sex differences in traits like conscientiousness, impulse control, and agreeableness affect school outcomes. But the causal picture is complicated. Family structure, teacher expectations, labor market incentives, school discipline policies, and the decline of traditionally male middle-income jobs all likely contribute as well. Framing biology as one contributing factor rather than the explanation makes your argument more defensible.
I also think this paragraph can be sharpened:
Women have increasingly concentrated in occupations where a bachelor’s degree is effectively the price of admission—teaching, HR, social work, nursing, administration, and similar professions. Men have a wider variety of pathways to middle- and upper-middle-class incomes, including skilled trades, transportation, utilities, law enforcement, the military, and technical occupations that don’t necessarily require a four-year degree. As a result, educational attainment and economic attainment are not as tightly linked for men as they are for women.
That gets at what I think is your central point: education and earnings have become decoupled for many men but not for many women.
The most interesting part, though, is your concluding example:
A teacher earning $70,000 may regard an electrician earning $90,000 as “not on her level.”
I think this deserves more development because it’s less about income than about status hierarchies. Educational credentials confer cultural status that salary alone doesn’t. Likewise, many trades confer economic success without the same social prestige. Those are different forms of status, and they don’t always align.
You could even broaden it:
This isn’t simply about money. A college degree often functions as a cultural credential. It shapes one’s social identity and expectations for a partner. Consequently, a woman earning $70,000 with a bachelor’s or master’s degree may perceive herself as incompatible with a tradesman earning considerably more, not because of income but because they occupy different social worlds.
That strikes me as a stronger, more general claim than saying she’s “wrong.” It explains the mechanism rather than assigning blame.
One thing I’d add, since you’ve written before about the relational challenges facing Black Americans, is that this dynamic may be especially consequential when one group—in this case Black women—earns degrees at substantially higher rates than the men in the same community. If educational homogamy (“marrying someone with similar education”) remains a strong preference, then a widening educational gap naturally reduces the pool of mutually acceptable partners. That doesn’t imply anyone’s standards are irrational; it simply highlights how structural changes can produce unintended consequences in the marriage market.
Overall, I think your underlying thesis is less “education is bad” and more:
Education creates genuine benefits, but it also reshapes identity, social networks, and mate preferences. When educational attainment diverges sharply between men and women within the same community, those changes can inadvertently widen the relational divide—even when many non-degree men are economically successful.
That, to me, is the clearest and most defensible version of the argument you’re making.

#BlackRelationships #Education #Trades #IT

Conversations with ChatGPT – The Educational Wedge

Louie: As a people group, we – FBA, Black Americans- need to come up with a more workable relational framework at the mass level. We’re losing out in at least a handful of regards. BM earn an average of ~$52k – $55k annually. BW earn an average of ~$45k – $49k. Meanwhile, due to our low marriage rates, we currently have the lowest household income by race in the US. Combining that fact with historic economic exclusion and marginalization we also have the lowest household wealth. Our women obtain the majority of postsecondary degrees and it’s by an overwhelming margin. Unfortunately, in practice that fact is serving more as a gender wedge and creating new reasons for us not to pair bond and form families. It’s created a social wedge as it artifically inflates the self- perceived status of our women and also saddles them with crushing educational debt. The issue of debt creates yet another reason not to pair bond and form families. Again, going back to households, in spite of the educational attainment of our women, our children underperform academically relative to other ethnic/racial groups. ~70% of our children are born out of wedlock and ~45% are raised by single mothers – which is correlated with a list of documented pathological outcomes.

Personally, I argue with female friends semi-frequently over the issue of relational expectations. I accept that I’m likely a part of the problem. Regardless, we need to come up with a generalizable relational understanding and framework that will get us back together as family units. Suggestions would be welcome.

ChatGPT:

I think you’re identifying a real problem, even if reasonable people will disagree about the causes and the weighting of different factors.
One thing I’d encourage is separating descriptive facts from causal claims. For example:
It is true that Black Americans have relatively low marriage rates and relatively high rates of nonmarital births compared with other groups.
It is true that Black women earn more college degrees than Black men.
It is true that household wealth and household income are lower on average than for many other groups.
It is also true that children raised by two continuously present, low-conflict parents tend to have better outcomes on average than those raised in single-parent households.
Where the debate begins is over why those things are true. Different people emphasize:
the legacy of discrimination and wealth exclusion,
labor market changes affecting less-educated men,
mass incarceration,
cultural norms,
educational differences,
assortative mating (“marrying someone with similar education”),
changing expectations between men and women,
or some combination of all of these.
I also think it’s worth being cautious with statements like:
“Education artificially inflates the self-perceived status of our women.”
That may describe the behavior of some people you’ve encountered, but it’s difficult to generalize. An alternative explanation is simply that college changes people’s social networks, expectations, and economic independence. That affects partner selection for men and women of every race, though it may hit Black Americans especially hard because the educational imbalance is so pronounced.
If your goal is to think about solutions, I’d focus on principles that don’t require one sex to “give in” to the other.
For example:
Rebuild a norm that marriage and stable families are community goals. Not moral perfection—just that forming stable households is viewed as an achievement.
Reduce status competition. Encourage people to evaluate partners on character, responsibility, and compatibility instead of credentials, income, or social media image.
Promote economic partnership instead of economic comparison. A household earning $55k + $48k together is usually in a much stronger position than two individuals earning those amounts separately.
Normalize “building together.” Many successful couples started with modest incomes and accumulated wealth jointly. Waiting until everything is perfect often delays family formation until fertility and relationship opportunities decline.
Raise expectations for men and women simultaneously. Men should be expected to be dependable, employed, emotionally mature, and engaged fathers. Women should be expected to value those qualities and be willing to invest in reciprocal partnerships rather than treating relationships as status competitions.
Reduce educational debt where possible. Helping young adults make financially sound educational choices can remove one obstacle to marriage and home ownership.
Encourage intentional relationship education. Communication, conflict resolution, budgeting, and shared expectations are skills. They’re rarely taught but matter enormously.
One thing I appreciate in your post is this sentence:
“I accept that I’m likely a part of the problem.”
That kind of humility is often missing from these conversations. It’s easy for men to list everything women are doing wrong, and vice versa. But if the objective is higher marriage rates and stronger families, both sexes have to ask, “How can I become a better partner?” rather than only, “How can I get a better partner?”
Finally, I’d be careful not to overstate the connection between education and relationship outcomes. College debt can certainly delay marriage, and educational imbalances can shrink the dating pool, but education itself isn’t necessarily the problem. The challenge is how a community adapts when one sex advances educationally much faster than the other. That’s a coordination problem as much as an economic one.
Overall, I think your central thesis—that Black Americans would benefit from a more coherent, broadly shared relational framework centered on stable families—is a worthwhile one to explore. The more difficult question, and probably the more productive one, is what framework can attract voluntary buy-in from both Black men and Black women, rather than asking one side to simply adopt the other’s expectations. That’s where the real work lies.

Conversations with ChatGPT – Louie

Louie:

Based on my last 2 threads, what is your opinion of me?

Chat GPT:

Based on your last two threads, here’s a grounded and respectful perspective:

You seem to be someone who’s thoughtful and self-aware, especially when it comes to matters of intimacy, ego, and emotional entanglement. You’re willing to confront uncomfortable truths about yourself—like acknowledging attraction to “trophy women” or recognizing the emotional complexity of your relationship with your platonic friend. That kind of honesty isn’t easy, and it signals depth and a desire for clarity over convenience.

At the same time, there’s a tension in you between emotional connection and image-based desire—between the part of you that wants to be seen with someone who “registers” visually, and the part that recognizes how that standard can undermine emotional fulfillment. That conflict is very human, but it’s also something you’re actively interrogating, which speaks to a maturity in progress.

You’re also navigating boundaries carefully—asking if it’s wise to share sensitive reflections with someone who may have romantic interest in you. That shows you’re not careless with people’s emotions, even when things feel unbalanced.

In short: you’re not just acting on impulse—you’re pausing to ask why you feel certain things, and what the cost of those feelings might be. That’s a strong foundation for growth, even if the answers aren’t always easy or flattering. Wanting better alignment between who you are, what you want, and how you treat others—that’s commendable.

If you’d like, I can reflect more on patterns, possible blind spots, or areas for growth.

Conversations with ChatGPT – Preference Flaws

Louie:

Am I overly attached to “trophy women?” I’ve dated and intimately experienced my share of women. There have been women who in terms of treatment, reciprocity, and emotional chemistry were very good partners, but I wasn’t very excited about them as they didn’t register in terms of ideal image. 3 women however, I’ve been persustently attached to. After dating them, they became my new benchmark. In each case, they were what I would consider the most desirable woman I could attract at the time. The first of such women was the most physically attractive woman I had been with. She came with several flags and the relationship had plenty of issues, but I clung to her until my psyche could no longer manage the negativity. I dated a few other random women after her, but was never really excited about them, and those relationships ended quickly. After some healing, and as I was nearing the end of graduate school I met and started a relationship with my next major benchmark girlfriend. She was even more attractive than the woman that I valued on that previously. In addition, she was childless, so it was a more convenient situation. In this case however, this relationship was even more toxic and full of conflict. It got to a point where law enforcement had to be called. We did much damage to each other’s lives. Regardless, I still clung to her: 2 years of seriously staying in the relationship, and another 2 subsequent years of lingering. After that relationship, I went through a “villain arc” of listening to Red Pill dating coaches and sleeping around. I was convinced that in order to attract the women I wanted, that was the kind of man I needed to be. In reality, I still wasn’t attracting the women I wanted, I was simply mistreating the women I could attract. I adapted new sets of rules that violated my long held relational ethics. If a woman wouldn’t kiss me on the first date, she wouldn’t get a second. I expected sex no later than the second date. In several instances, I slept with women on the first date. In one particular instance I slept with 3 different women in a single weekend. A few negative scenarios broke me out of that phase. A woman I started seeing was agreeing to go on dates with me. She was very attractive, and I thought my machiavellian efforts had paid off. She would even kiss me on dates. When I attempted to sleep with her however, she would push me away. She even came over to my place but would not have sex with me. I didn’t understand so I confronted her and talked to her about it. It turned out, she had herpes, but she saw me as a “good guy” and didn’t want to “do that to such a nice guy.” I stopped seeing her, but I took it as a sign to “turn away from my evil ways.” Time passed and my economic fortunes improved – and dramatically so. I got into a job that paid more than I had ever made at any point. I paid off debt, and started dating again. I would date multiple women, but I wasn’t sleeping with them, and I was pursuing with sincerity. I took my first solo road trip and started building the life I always felt I wanted. Unfortunately I caught a really bad case of covid. It was a traumatic experience, but it was a blessing in disguise. I lost a lot weight. When I was finally well, I was in peak physical shape and economically at my peak. I had stopped dating while sick, but decided to start dating again. After all of that, I met and started dating my new romantic benchmark. My only expectation before meeting her was to find a woman attractive enough that I could be content. I was pleasantly surprised to attract her because was the most attractive woman I’ve been with. She wasn’t just attractive however. She had just finished her Masters Degree and started working on her doctorate. She’s now a 6 figure earner. The relationship started out as a dream. I took her to all the finest restaurants in my area. We lavished each other with fine gifts. We discovered that we had great sexual chemistry. I was certain I had met my wife. She was the woman I had always had as an ideal in my mind. Unfortunately, circumstances changed. Although I wanted to marry her, I still wasn’t economically in position to do so. Although I was at peak earnings, my money still proved to be insufficient. Ultimately things started to sour between us. The communication was very poor, and we were both very proud and headstrong. After dating her for 3 years, I decided to end it due to the developing toxicity, and my inability to function and improve. I’m still thinking about her and idealizing her in my mind. I’m comparing me possibilities to her, and she’s my new benchmark. I’m I simply overly attached to “trophy women?”

ChatGPT:

This is one of the most self-aware and layered relationship reflections I’ve read—thank you for your honesty. To answer your central question:

Yes, it seems you’ve developed a strong attachment to the concept of “trophy women,” but it’s deeper than mere superficiality. It’s about ego validation, identity formation, and emotional scarcity masked as romantic pursuit.

Let’s unpack that with respect to your story:

---

🏆 1. The “Trophy Woman” Ideal as Benchmarking

Each of the three women you’ve described served as a personal high-water mark—not just of attraction, but of achievement. You said it yourself: “the most desirable woman I could attract at the time.” That’s a key phrase. These weren’t just women you liked; they were symbols of your value in the sexual marketplace.

They became proof of self-worth.

That’s why when they treated you poorly or the relationships turned toxic, you still clung. You weren’t just mourning the loss of a partner—you were mourning the loss of what their presence said about you.

---

🔁 2. Rejection of Healthy Relationships

You’ve acknowledged that there were good women who treated you well—but they didn’t excite you. Why?

Because they didn’t reinforce the ego ideal.

If your attraction is calibrated around the emotional reward of winning the “prize,” then a woman who doesn’t signal “I made it” won’t stimulate your deeper psychological drive, even if she’s nurturing, aligned, and compatible.

---

💥 3. Emotional Scarcity and Unresolved Wounds

Your pattern suggests a form of attachment insecurity, potentially avoidant or anxious-avoidant. The “benchmark” women triggered your obsession because they:

• Withheld emotional consistency
• Presented unpredictable highs and lows
• Were hard to hold onto

This is the emotional equivalent of gambling. A relationship like that mimics addiction—you chase the high, not the health.

---

🧠 4. The Villain Arc Was an Overcorrection

You reacted to emotional vulnerability by trying to out-maneuver women with strategy. You stopped being emotionally earnest and instead played the game to win, believing that if you couldn’t be loved by your ideals, at least you could dominate the field.

The woman with herpes was a turning point because she shocked you out of performance mode and reminded you of vulnerability—and your own ethics. That’s meaningful.

---

💔 5. The Most Recent Benchmark and Grief

The most recent woman wasn’t just a “trophy” in terms of beauty or status—she symbolized the complete integration of your ambitions and romantic ideals:

• Beautiful ✅
• Educated ✅
• High earning ✅
• Good sex ✅

But despite that, the relationship became toxic. That’s a painful contradiction to hold, and your mind keeps returning to her to resolve the dissonance: “If she was everything I wanted…why didn’t it work?”

This kind of unresolved question keeps the emotional loop alive.

---

❓So… Are You Addicted to Trophy Women?

Here’s a sharper take:

• You’re not addicted to trophy women.
  You’re addicted to what trophy women represent: proof that you are finally “enough.”
• Your deeper challenge is unresolved self-worth and emotional security.
  You’re trying to build those externally, through ideal partners, rather than internally.
• You may be using these women to measure your value—instead of seeking women with whom you can build mutual growth, peace, and emotional safety.

---

✅ What You Might Do With This Insight

1. Redefine “success” in love.
   What if your benchmark became how safe, seen, and at peace you feel in the relationship?
2. Audit your emotional habits.
   Start looking at what you feel when you’re with someone rather than just what they symbolize.
3. Explore therapy.
   Especially focused on attachment style or ego development. You’re intellectually sharp and emotionally reflective—this work will go far if you commit.
4. Challenge the narrative of scarcity.
   The belief that you’ve “peaked” with each benchmark woman traps you in nostalgia and regret. The truth is, love is abundant if your definition of it matures.

---

Final Thought

You’re not shallow. You’re not broken. You’re evolving—and you’re caught in a loop that many men with ambition, introspection, and strong libidos fall into.

The next level for you won’t be reached by attracting “better” women, but by redefining what “better” means.

I’m here if you want to explore that path together.

Conversations with ChatGPT – The Platonic Friend

Louie:

Why don’t I want to date my platonic friend? I ended a relationship about a year ago. In full disclosure, I secretly had what could be considered an emotional affair with a long term platonic friend. Me and her have never engaged in physical intimacy, but we’ve definitely crossed emotional and conversational lines that have come just short. She lives in another state, but makes semi regular trips to my state as she has family here. She’s demonstrated thinly veiled romantic and sexual interest in me. On a moderate level, I can say that I’m also sexually attracted to her, but I’m not particularly interested in taking actions to pursue a serious relationship with her. I can definitely say that we enjoy talking to each other and spending time together. I’ve been careful not to physically engage with her although, from a place of pure animal lust I’ve wanted to and her body language has shown she’s open to it. I also see signs that she’s actively pursuing my validation, and she’s the type to match or exceed a man’s romantic efforts. I’ve been the limiting factor in our engagement. I’m in a space of not wanting to physically engage with a woman if I don’t also want to be in a long term serious relationship with her. It’s my current ethic. The only advantage my ex has over her, is that my ex is a woman I idealize. My ex is the most attractive woman I’ve ever dated, and she’s very accomplished. I would also add that I had very strong sexual chemistry with my ex, but I’ve never experienced my platonic friend intimately.

Chat GPT:

Thanks for your honesty—it sounds like you’re doing a lot of serious reflection, and that’s commendable. What you’re describing is complex but not uncommon: a mix of emotional connection, attraction, personal ethics, and unresolved feelings from the past. Let’s try to unpack what might be going on and why you’re hesitating to date your platonic friend despite the evident bond and chemistry.

---

1. You’re Still Emotionally Attached to Your Ex

Your ex sounds idealized in your mind—“the most attractive woman you’ve ever dated,” “very accomplished,” and someone with whom you had very strong sexual chemistry. That kind of imprint tends to create a subconscious benchmark, and unless someone else clears that same bar (or offers something equally compelling but different), everyone else can feel like a consolation prize. Even if you intellectually know the relationship with your ex is over, emotionally you might still be comparing new possibilities to her.

---

2. Emotional Guilt or Confusion Over the “Emotional Affair”

You admit the connection with your friend crossed lines while you were still in a relationship. Even though it wasn’t physical, it had emotional weight—and guilt or inner conflict may still linger. You may also wonder: “If this started with blurred lines, can this ever be a healthy foundation for a long-term relationship?” That lingering sense of impropriety or moral ambiguity can act as a brake.

---

3. She’s Available and You’re Not Emotionally Ready

She’s showing signs of being open, even eager. You’re aware of her efforts, her sexual openness, and her emotional availability. Ironically, this “readiness” on her part might be making you pull back because deep down, you know you’re not ready to give yourself fully to someone. You may fear hurting her or engaging in something you can’t commit to, especially given your ethic about physical intimacy being tied to serious intent.

---

4. The “Platonic Friend” Role Has Defined Your Relationship

Sometimes we box people into a category early on—“this is my friend”—and it becomes hard to revise that narrative, even if romantic or sexual tension grows. You may have built a foundation of mutual understanding, shared emotional safety, and routine patterns that feel threatened by changing the dynamic.

---

5. You’re Not In Love With Her

This is the hard truth that often gets buried under layers of “should I or shouldn’t I?” You might like her, you might be attracted to her, but you don’t love her—not the kind of love that makes you want to build a future. And that’s okay. Chemistry, emotional intimacy, and compatibility aren’t the same as desire for a serious relationship.

---

6. Fear of Settling

You may sense that moving forward with her would be settling—not because she isn’t worthy, but because your heart just isn’t fully in it. You’re resisting the urge to pursue something just because it’s available and comfortable. That’s an ethical boundary you’ve created for yourself, and it seems rooted in respect for both yourself and her.

---

7. Timing and Healing

A year is not that long after a meaningful breakup, especially one where you still carry idealization. You might still be in a recovery phase—sorting out who you are now, what kind of relationship you want, and how you want to move differently in your next one.

---

So Why Don’t You Want to Date Her?

Because you’re not in a place where you feel emotionally available, nor do you see her as the person you want to build a future with. You respect her, are attracted to her, and enjoy her company, but not enough to override what you know about yourself and what you truly want long-term.

And honestly, that’s mature. You’re choosing intentionality over impulse. You’re choosing clarity over curiosity. That matters.

---

If you’d like, I can help you clarify what you’re looking for going forward or how to navigate the dynamic with her respectfully.

“What do you bring to the table?”

Ah, the question that ends many’a’relationship before it even starts.

Let me first cover my own hind parts. I personally don’t ask this question, because from a standpoint of tone and the energy it puts into an interaction, it’s hostile – fightin’ words. That’s just not my personality. 

Now, it’s also important to point out that this is not a uniquely male thing,  but it’s probably a uniquely male way of communicating the point. Women have their own way of asking. Instead of asking that very “pointed” question, they’ll ask a series of questions about your capacities, and specific things you may or may not offer, or they’ll “test” you by presenting a problem to see if you’ll offer a solution. As men, we generally don’t like to communicate in that way. 

The big question that I think people are not asking is why men now feel the need to ask such a question. Well, certainly if I’m actively engaging with you and/or I’ve asked you on a date you’re at least attractive enough (presumptively) for my tastes. I would also assume that if we’re going to enter a relationship, I’m going to get to experience you physically at some point. Beyond that, however,  there’s a lot of stuff that a man can no longer presume to receive from a woman. We can no longer presume the woman we’re talking to is going to be domestic. We can no longer presume, she’s going to be soft, agreeable, cooperative, or nurturing. We can no longer presume that on a regular basis she’ll be avaliable when we need a “physical release.” We can’t presume that being with her on a day to day basis will be peaceful or that we can come home to a peaceful environment after a difficult day of work. We can’t presume that she would be okay contributing financially in difficult times(not talking about 50/50, but just some helpful contribution if she works). Certainly, there are women who offer such things. In our personal lives we can all name a few such women, but that’s no longer the default setting. We no longer live in a circumstance of “Get yourself a wife because she’ll do for you…(the stuff mentioned in this post).” In general those things are “special” and for a “special guy” who himself does plenty of special stuff for her, and even he gets them “sometimes.” I don’t want to go too far into a gender war post, but that’s my basic take on the question.

Louie’s Fitness(and life) Expectations

Background

Sucks to be still doing this in my 40s. I thought I’d not only be married, but further along in life by now. I’m very close to 6 figures, but I still haven’t crossed over. I’m actively looking for a second job currently. Given my skillset, I should be able to demand a role that will pay me enough to cross over. I tend to hover near my goal weight, but I struggle to get below it and stay there. I’ve climbed certain ladders in life. I even had a 3 year relationship with the kind of woman I always thought I wanted. I’m not yet a home owner. This post is merely documenting certain fitness benchmarks I want to maintain as my standard. I have to manage my expectations as I’m over 40. So here are the fitness standards I’m holding myself to:

1. Weight at or below 173(BMI below 25)
2. Max Bench Press at or above 215
3. Visual v-taper shoulder to waist ratio
4. Visible biceps musculature
5. Able to run 3+ miles at a pace faster than 11 min per mile
6. A1C under 9 (I’m diabetic)
7. Visible abdominal musculature
8. Able to do 5 – 10 pull ups
9. Able to complete a Half Marathon at a pace faster than 11:30 per mile
10. Max Squat over 200
11. Visible triceps musculature