Vestiges

vestiges

The greatest inconsistency that most people discussing Social Darwinism fall into is the “survival of the fittest” falacy. Nowhere in any of Darwin’s writtings will you ever see this terminology refered to in the context of natural selection. It’s not survival of the fitest, it is survival of the species best able to adapt to it’s changing conditions and environments. Dinosaurs ruled the earth as the preeminent species for eons (far longer than humans). Then in the relative blink of an eye, they were extinct because a radical environmental change, for which they were, biologically, completely unprepared wiped them out wholesale. They simply couldn’t adapt to that environment.

This is what people fail to see; adaptation is the coin of the realm in evolution. 68% of the population in the U.S. is overweight, not because of “bad” genes, but because the environment has changed and people have adapted to it. Our bodies naturally store fat. We evolved from a necessity to do so since food sources were scarce in our biological past, however now the environment has changed. Food is too abundant, too convenient, too calorie dense, etc. for us not to be fat. Our metabolism favors carbohydrates over protien and stored fat, why? Because our environmental reality thousands of years ago meant that a good sugar kick made for a better chance of evading a predator. Now this biological legacy only makes us fatter when you can buy ding dongs at any 7-11.

Legacies

With regards to monogamy or polygyny, essentially what we’re observing in this era is a result of a restructuring of adaptive methodologies to account for changes in our environment. Single motherhood, readily available forms of birth control, greater potential for security provisioning for men and women that isn’t based on physical prowess, etc. Yet, in light of all that we still struggle with the legacy of our biological pasts.

Men and women, biologically, have different methodologies for reproduction. It is in a woman’s biological best interest to mate with the genetically superior male best able to provide long term provisioning for her and any potential offspring. Again, it is in her best interest to find a man best fitted to share in parental investment. This is due to her comparatively prolonged period of gestation (9 months), the rigors of rearing a child to self-sufficiency (at least adolescence) as well as her own insured survival. They ovulate in a 28 day cycle and are at a peak of feritlity 5-7 years after puberty. They posess a limited number of eggs and become biologically inviable after a certain age (at or around menopause). Their hormone and endorphin biochemistry also reflect this reproductive schema; they produce in bulk oxytocin and estrogen, both responsible for prompting feelings of nurturing as well as serving as buffers for sexual indescretions. At the peak of their menstrual cycles they produce more testosterone in preparation for sexual activity and in the low periods produce more estrogens and progesterones. In addition, both during and after pregnancy they produce high levels of progesterone and oxytocin, both primary in engendering feelings of love and nuturement for offspring.

Men’s methodologies are much different. Biologically, we produce 12.5 times the amount of testosterone than women. As a result we have higher accuity of vision, hearing and touch. We have more muscularity, lean towards feelings of aggression in preference to sadness. And of course we are easily prompted to a state of sexual arousal – we’re always ready for it in our natural state. We produce millions of reproductive cells daily and are sexually viable until very late in life. Our reproductive methodology revolves around “spreading the seed” as indiscriminately as possible. Ours is quanity, women’s is quality.

Now, having done the break down of this, you can see the conflict in mating methods; thus enters adaptive sociological and psychological mechanisms to regulate this process. Thus, being social animals, we introduce ethics, morality and implied responsibilities to buffer both methodolgies. In our biological past, sexual arousal in both men and women was mitigated by physical prowess. Large breasts in women, an appropriate hips to waist ratio, physical symetry in both sexes, muscularity in men, physical manifestations of testosterone (square jaw for example) etc. we’re the call signs for sexual activity. Physicality was (and still is) the primary motivator for sexual activity and this is literally encoded into our genetics.

However, as society progressed, conditions and environments changed, thus social adaptation changed. A lot of freshly unplugged guy’s make an astute observation in this progression – Why is it that women are still hot for:

  • Celebrities
  • Musicians
  • Criminals
  • Drug dealers
  • Daredevils and risk-takers

Social proof began to become a secondary consideration for intimate acceptance (from a female mating methodology) for women as society progressed. Physical prowess, while still a primary sexual attractor and indicator of prefered genetics, didn’t necessarily ensure a continued committment to parental investment. Men and women’s reproductive methodologies have always been in a see-saw balance since we began as hunter-gatherer tribal societies. As society (see environment) changed other factors for parental investment became important. Artists became attractive bcause they possessed creative intelligence and this was manifested in their creative abilities to solve problems. When you see the broke musician with the dutiful girlfriend this is that legacy at work.

Social proof and intersexual competition, while always present, began to move into the psychological. It was far more efficient for women to compete for a desirable male covertly – usually by not confirming his acceptance – than to do so overtly. As society further progressed, male competition moved away from the physical and into a provisioning capacity. A drug dealer and a high powered corporate executive could both be “alpha” males – both have high social proof and provisioning capacity – albeit in different social strata.

Polygyny and Monogamy are natural human methodologies. Polygyny serves a mans biological imperative better, while monogamy serves a woman’s better. The conflict arises when either is compromised. A single man who’s non-exclusively dating is essentially in a state of polygyny, while a married woman is in her prefered state of secured monogamy. Either sex must surrender their prefered methodology to accommodate the other’s. This is why, socially, we have stages in our modern lives where one is exercised over another.

Animal Planet

I was recently watching an animal planet special on dogs and cats that compared their “domestic” behaviors with those of their wild counterparts, like preadatory cats and wolves. Not so surpisingly a dog will instinctively do circles and tramp down his bed in exactly the same fashion as a wolf will his sleeping area. So too will cats cover up their own excrement, burying it so predators wont catch their scent so readily, just like house cats will. To us, these and many other behaviors seem cute, but entirely unnecessary for domesticated animals to habitually perform. One would think that after literally thousands of years of domestication, as well as selective breeding, these behaviors would be less prominent or entirely “bred out” of them, but this is obviously not the case. They are hardwired, unlearned behaviors that are imprinted into them from birth that proved to be valuable in their species’ survival over the course of generations.

Using this analogy, how much more complex are our behaviors and the motivations behind them? There are many global studies that compare physical features in attraction across culture and race for both sexes that show very frequent commonalities for physical attraction. Broad shoulders, squared jawline and chest to waist ratio in men and symetry of facial features, breast size and hips to waist ratios in women are universal attractors for each respective sex. In fact the very common propensity for women to exclude men shorter than themselves from their consideration for intimacy is specifically derived from what evolutioanry psychologists call vestigial sexual selection.

Bear in mind this is attraction and how our subconscious interprets external cues for prompting desire. You see a naked woman in Playboy and the result is a hard on. External prompt – biological response, pure and simple. That’s a quick and easy one, but there’s a variety of other reponses that occur too – quickening of heart rate, release of hormones and endorphines, dialation of pupils, flushing of skin, etc. Again this is a reaction that was unlearned and part of our chemical make up.

A lot of frustration most men and women endure in our modern socio-sexual education is the result of a psychological attempt to reconcile the vestigial behaviors and predilections of our feral past with the need for adaptation in our present environment. Hypergamy is the prime directive for women, but precious few are cognitively aware of it, and even the ones who may be still find themselves subject to it. Hypergamy is a vestigial, mental subroutine running in women’s peripheral awarenesses. So vital was this species survival methodology in our past that it had to become part of a woman’s limbic understanding of herself.

So when these processes are brought into our awareness (i.e. feminine hypergamy, male polygyny, etc.) we tend to play them down or dismiss them wholesale. Sometimes the truths of these vestiges are ugly – in fact the reason we find them uncomfortable or offensive is the result of a societal effort to keep them under the surface in ourselves. They offend our sense of justice, or notions of equitability, but they did serve to bring us to where we are now as a society.

A lot of critics of evo-psych (in particular), as well as the revealers of some of the more unsettling aspects of human social and sexual evolution, like to start their criticisms by conflating the revelations of these dynamics with condoning  the behaviors that are results of them. Yes, hypergamy, in all its permutations, can be a very ugly truth to witness, but exposing it, attempting to understand it, is not tantamount to endorsing it. Human beings can’t handle too much reality, so the recourse is to attempt to stuff the Genie back into the bottle. Being aware of our feral natures and attempting to deconstruct the vestiges of those we deal with today is not the same as expecting absolution from the consequences of them.

Just because you know the reasons for your behaviors doesn’t grant you a license to engage in them. Yet neither should anyone be discouraged from legitimate inquiry into the natures of our primal selves for fear of the shame that others would want to apply to you to ease their own discomfort.


160 responses to “Vestiges

  • Student of the Game

    I swallowed the red pill recently, but it’s been difficult for me to accept this reality gracefully.

  • Jeremy

    I’d guess most women simply have no concept of their own innate hypergamy and I’d venture the reasons for this are numerous. In fact, Young Single Women + Facebook does more to expose this behavior than anything else, making condemnation of any intellectual endeavor to do so little more than whining.

  • M3

    For a lot of blue guys, it still sucks tho. With all the base requirement of hypergamy sated in the ‘civilized’ world (independence, voting, rights, work, income, government assistance, protection, legal supremacy, provisioning, etc..) you’d think women would curb it, just like men naturally subdue their own form of hypergamy every single day (your last post regarding SSM’s horror)

    ..but they ramp it up. It’s like the goalposts changed, and we have a new starting benchmark from where to proceed. Your previous commenter Kate was one such type. Had her own business, or she was a teacher, i cant recall. But she was well off and *didn’t require* a man for any of the things hypergamy evolved to look out for in a mate except the most base elements like looks and superfluous ones like education and status. It’s like hyper-hypergamy.

    Where hypergamy was sated by joe average with a decent job, stability and provisioning, in today’s feminist society and all ‘vestiges’ of patriarchy removed.. human females have raised the bar for the superficial tingle traits.

    And blue pill man has so far been unable to adapt to this change in this new climate.

  • YOHAMI

    “Where hypergamy was sated by joe average with a decent job, stability and provisioning”

    If that was the case feminism wouldnt have happened, cheating and cuckholding wouldnt have existed, game wouldnt work, and females in other species would go for the lesser males as long as they are good enough.

    Instead every girl is set for the “best”. The best you can get now is not necessarily the best you can get later. A woman sated with a man now doesnt mean she will be sated with him later. Hypergamy doesnt stop, because it’s a biological drive. And the same applies to men. You dont stop getting a boner at the random hot naked stranger because you already found “the one”.

    If anyone plans to build a level of civilization on this that resembles “monogamy” the solution is not socioeconomical, it’s moral.

    You would have to come up with a moral code and moralize. Like what religions often attempt to do.

    Not sure why you would want that though. What is exactly the point? you want to stop hypergamy… do you also want to stop boning after hot girls?

  • YOHAMI

    If anything I would remove the laws and everything else enforcing that men provide for stranger girls and remove any resemblance of bias favoring men’s or women’s drives. Nothing is sacred, and nothing is evil. The girl getting wet at the local celebrity is the same as the guy getting a boner at a hot girl. Sex and status. We already deep down understand all of that. I would just remove the lies and the fake enforcements and the charade.

  • YOHAMI

    See, guys looking at the past and thinking… “oh boy, before this mess women had no money, so they had to settle with average guys like me” actually makes me sympathize with the libertarian aspect of feminism.

    Because it’s the equivalent of fat women wanting to make every girl just as fat, so men have no options and no say on the matter and no expectations.

    Yeah. We’re in the jungle. So what. Where did you think you were?

  • Kate

    It is possible to override hypergamy. Its just neither fun nor easy, which is why its so uncommon.

  • Jeremy

    I’m not sure I understand what you mean Kate. Perhaps it was because of how I was raised, or years of being beta, but being loyal and reliable to the people I care about is the only way I can have any self-respect. Are you speaking of overriding hypergamy after it’s fully inflamed in someone?

  • YOHAMI

    Kate, do you mean taming your desire, or something else?

  • Anna

    Once again, very good points. I’ve recently been reading up on evolution, in reference to both psychology and biology, mostly because I’m trying to find answers about myself and other outliers (of both sexes).

    There are differences between the sexes that make sensewhen looked at from an evolutionary perspective, even if they may seem odd or even “unfair” to us today.

    Some kinder examples would be that men are able to hear deep noises better and are more likely to immediately see movement in a busy environment like a forest. This is most likely a throwback to days of hunting, when seeing and hearing various prey/predators was a means of survival. Likewise, women are able to see a slightly broader range of colors and can hear high noises better. Again, this is most likely due to needing to listen for children crying and for being able to tell when plant foods were ripe/safe. Very few people, if any, get upset by these natural generalizations.

    But even though there are equally sound reasons for a typical woman’s hypergamy or a typical man’s sexual promiscuity, people of either sex seek to label it false…or worse, completely shame it, simply because it doesn’t “work” in Western society. I personally think this is action of the highest folly. To deny that these behaviors exist is to deny human evolution, and to deny that these are issues worth talking about. If we continue to sweep these points under the cultural rug, we will never be able to change society for the better.

  • Anna

    @Yohami

    I like where you’re going with this.

  • Hey There

    Great article Rollo, but you know what is more discomforting than uncomfortable truths of human nature? The photo at the top of this article…

  • Jeremy

    Some kinder examples would be that men are able to hear deep noises better and are more likely to immediately see movement in a busy environment like a forest.

    A better way to say this is that men are better able to recognize patterns and deviations from that pattern in both the audible and visual mediums. Again this stems from needing to recognize the sound of prey/predators in a noisy jungle/savanna/forest/etc…, and the sight of well camouflaged prey/predators in that same environment.

  • M3

    Not saying you’re wrong Yohami. Agree with pretty much most everything you’re saying.

    I’m saying society didn’t get to where it did by following the law of the jungle. The next chapter of human civilization is about to take place, and for many, they’re not going to like where it goes.

    That’s what i meant about the blue’s being unable to adapt. Extinction level events are rarely pretty and painful to watch.

    I respect human nature. I respect it like i respect dynamite. I’m very aware of what can occur when you treat it without care.

  • Robert

    A really good ev psych text is Robert Wright’s “The Moral Animal”, which i think is a good wedge for people in blue pill world. Once they take on board the premises presented there, accepting the SMP becomes much easier.

  • Anna

    @Jeremy

    Fair enough, but how would you rephrase my female examples then? I agree with you, but was trying to write in the most simplistic fashion. Just curious…

  • Anna

    @Hey There

    It almost looks like some of Patricia Paccinini’s work. She makes wonderful/realistic animal-human hybrid sculptures…most of which serve to creep me the f**k out. It’s like a different level of the “uncanny valley” we sometimes see in human-like robots.

  • YOHAMI

    Yeah. Im not very happy with where civilization got though.

    I’d say that it was the law of the jungle, just a different subset. The law of the stronger / the oppressor, the capital, big fish eats small fish. Now we see the rise of the smaller fish eating the big fish corpse and other stuff… and we celebrate when it comes to our own benefit, like with the internet and the dismembering of mainstream… you know, the old system also didnt form like this. We didnt have this “freedom”. This chaos.

    But ah… “civilization wasnt build like this! this is the end of the world, we have to go back to how things were, things were better, this is the end!”

    When the conversation reaches this point it usually comes back to technology advance… But the old order of things taking credit for technology is like the church taking credit for the universities and science. I mean. Sure. Things were different and “progress” or more explicitly, rational/mechanical thought and creativity had to work with the tools they had in the moment and through the available channels, and serve the masters of the moment, whatever they were / are. So what? the old rules, whatever they were are not responsible for thought or creativitiy.

    “Civilization” also got us to many ugly places and horror.

    Anyway. My point is that Civilization and how it got built is still the law of the jungle. You give all the power to one man and he makes you do shit or kills you if you dont. Which is still here and running, and it’s what’s really running the world to this day, and will continue to run it until the small fish eat them completely… till the rise of the next bigger fish.

    And, maybe in the past you had more families and apparent monogamy and stuff. In the surface. In the reality of things I doubt they had more love, respect, fidelity, moral, virtues, etc, because the instincts in play are the same as we have now.

    On a very personal level, I dont find comfort on thinking that a woman is with me because I can provide for her – because there’s always going to be a bigger provider. It’s somewhat disturbing that when a woman says she loves me forever, it only really means “I feel like it now” and nothing else. But whatever. Chemicals make you say shit. And also make me say shit. I dont see that controlling this via socio economical rules or doctrines is going to help. We’re animals. We can be trained. But we cant be changed. And every inch of training against our nature’s comes along with unhappiness.

    Now how unhappy do you think people were in the old system?

  • Kate

    Yes, I mean conquer it.

  • Mebus

    Will the current knowledge base of Game and redpill-ism be enough as a male adaptation in the coming age of super-hypergamy or will it be necessary to shed any sense of morality and become a drug dealer/thug/criminal instead?

  • Jeremy

    @Anna,

    I would say that the color range of female vision is undoubtedly higher. But I wouldn’t say they hear high noises better, Women are simply more attuned to human emotion as it relates to what is and is not vocalized. I’ve known women who simply by instinct could tell you from across the room what the social situation was at any given table in a restaurant, just by observing body language and hearing the voice stress. They couldn’t explain how they could do this, they just could. Men could generally not give a flying f about body language or verbal cues for that matter as we generally only mean what we say, and interpret what we hear much as a dictionary would spell it out. That’s the hardest aspect of game for men to learn.

    I also tend to agree with Yohami. Either we shame and restrict the natural biological instincts of both sexes in our society (as was done in the past), or we let both sexes self-determine at will. While I do not consider a removal of social consequences in this matter to be progress (rather a reversion to pre-civilization norms), I suspect the end result will be the same as the first time civilization came to grips with the inherent nature of humanity, which wouldn’t be pretty for the ladies.

    I would much rather have seen the feminist movement preach that with great power comes great responsibility, that with free hypergamy should come great concern for its affect on men, that with new political power women should become accountable for their actions…Then this conflict would not have gotten out of hand.

  • YOHAMI

    Kate, can you elaborate on that? Im guessing that you mean that you dont follow your sexual desires unreflexively, that you dont chase high status cock like a teenager (anymore?), that maybe you dont cheat… etc?

    Say. A man can “control” his actions and not cheat, not approach, not… etc. Not acting on the desire. The desire to fuck whatever hot girl is there though.

  • Chama

    I know, it has nothing to do with current post. I just wanted to share this with you.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/30/times-of-india-mahood-definition-ad-respect-women_n_2583588.html

    [So would it stand to reason that a woman who doesn't respect a man is only half a woman?]

  • Kate

    The desire might be there, but it can be blocked. Knowing how it works helps to defeat it. It become dormant, I suppose. Hypergamy in remission.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    @Mebus, you’re thinking in binary terms. Understanding the mechanics of intergender dynamics doesn’t mean your ultimate choice must be between asshole sociopath or sniveling beta doormat.

    Upping the Alpha doesn’t mean offing the empathy.

    https://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2013/01/17/mister-softee/

    Game doesn’t mean learning sociopathy – it means learning control of one’s psychology.

  • YOHAMI

    Kate, are you in a relationship / married / single? if you’re in a relationship, how does controlling hypergamy help? and if you’re single, how does controlling your desire to catch high status man help you looking for a partner / father?

    Something doesnt compute :-)

    Maybe we’re really taking about impulse control and long term vision – different traits. If you pair impulse control and long term vision to any basic animal drive you make those drives “better”, as in, work better for you.

  • FuriousFerret

    “The desire might be there, but it can be blocked. Knowing how it works helps to defeat it. It become dormant, I suppose. Hypergamy in remission.”

    Guys have a similar scenario when they have an ugly wife and give up their hooker/porn vice out of guilt. They still want prostitutes and porn but some manage to suppress it due to trying to follow their moral code.

    It’s just that if a guy is chained to a heffer or a woman is stuck with a beta herb, eventually the levee breaks and they give in. I believe in the past, suppressing these desires were easier since men weren’t trained to be pussies and women weren’t enlarged by the SAD diet. When it’s simply unbearable to chained to an omega woman/man and the other partner has options all hell breaks loose.

  • Kate

    34, divorced four years after ten years with ex-husband for whom I was a virgin, 6 year old daughter, single

    If you’re in a relationship, controlling hypergamy means you don’t cheat no matter how much you might want to. If you’re single, it means turning down offers by high value men if you know there’s no future and you’ll only end up hurt.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    Kate, you’re conflating desire with behavior. You can control the manifestations of your desire (behavior), but you either have a genuine desire or you don’t.

    Whether or not you engage in a behavior doesn’t negate the desire to engage in it.

  • YOHAMI

    Kate, got it. Controlling the urge to act on the desire is different than controlling the desire itself though. Semantics. If you were controlling hypergamy you wouldnt be turning offers from high status men on the basis that there’s no future – the status wouldnt be a part of the question to begin with. You would be attracted to a man regardless of status.

    Do you think that’s possible by the way? can you separate power and it’s aggregates (dominance, confidence, etc) from attraction?

  • M3

    “On a very personal level, I dont find comfort on thinking that a woman is with me because I can provide for her”

    Cosign. 100%

    “Chemicals make you say shit. ”
    It’s funny you mention this. It’s in my really offensive post i’m about to put up. heheh.

    You’re right, civilization always happens, it goes through periods and phases, high and lows, orders and reorders. Kind of like the earth itself and ice ages to ‘reset’ the balance. But under it all, the law of the jungle continues to operate.

    “Now how unhappy do you think people were in the old system?”
    Which era?

  • Chama

    @Rollo
    “So would it stand to reason that a woman who doesn’t respect a man is only half a woman?” that is the exact question I asked myself.

    I just posted it here to share how absurd that Ad is. that is all.

  • YOHAMI

    M3, which era? it was a rethorical question bro. I dont know. Im guessing that the happiness overall is peaking right now, if we measure on statistical comfort levels only. But if we base it on self-reported happiness… then it depends on the ability to perceive contrast / aspire to something else of such era. I’d say the more a society shares the same beliefs the happier they are as a whole, regardless of the practices and values of such beliefs.

    But. If the training goes heavily against base instincts there should be a lot of unhappiness… even if it goes unreported. Check japan?

  • Kate

    “Controlling the urge to act on the desire is different than controlling the desire itself though.” Okay, I see what you’re saying.

    “Do you think that’s possible by the way? can you separate power and it’s aggregates (dominance, confidence, etc) from attraction?”
    I don’t know. I was going to say if two people were in isolation, but I’m not sure even then.

  • Anna

    @Jeremy
    I agree with 99% of what you are saying…but I’m fairly confident that woman can hear higher ranges of sounds, just as men can hear lower ones. I’ll try to find an actual scientific link to back this up though, since I’m curious where I read it now too. It’s entirely possible that I’m unintentionally drawing from my own experiences too much. I can hear the noises that computers/fluorescent lights/consoles/televisions make when they’re on, and have done various experiments with my male friends/coworkers to prove I wasn’t bullshiting them. Out of these 26 people, I’m the only female AND the only one who can hear these noises. Since I don’t have any female friends and don’t talk much to my female coworkers, I’ve always just thought it was a female trait…but maybe it’s a “me” trait?

    I clearly need to research this more. Ah well, gives me something else to learn about!

    @M3

    You, make an “offensive post”? Never, sir! :)

  • JS

    YOHAMI, “Not sure why you would want that though. What is exactly the point? you want to stop hypergamy… do you also want to stop boning after hot girls?”

    The problem is that women will gladly share a high status man. You end up with de facto and/or de jure polygamy. In such a society the vast number of men will be without access to women or children. Such a society where most of the men need to fight over the few available females are barbaric. Monogamy ensures each man has access to a woman and eliminates destructive social problems that result from many men struggling violently against the extinction of their genes.

  • YOHAMI

    JS,

    “The problem is that women will gladly share a high status man.”

    Actually they dont. They share him for sure, but not without a bloody and never ending fight.

    “In such a society the vast number of men will be without access to women or children.”

    So what?

    “Such a society where most of the men need to fight over the few available females are barbaric. ”

    We live in such society already. Iphones are still being produced.

    “Monogamy ensures each man has access to a woman”

    I understand that, but it’s not true. And if indeed you get a woman like that, you’re going to be cheated on and cuckholded, statistically speaking.

    “and eliminates destructive social problems that result from many men struggling violently against the extinction of their genes.”

    Hey, men and society also benefit from competition. I take that you’re rooting for a sexual communism here. I wouldnt want to take a part on it.

  • YOHAMI

    *cheated on, cuckholded AND being denied sex from your wife… that you adquired thanks to social norms that granted you such a pleasant companionship, to which you would respond by cheating to a woman that is attracted to you due to his hypergamy.

    All of this sounds like “civilization” though.

  • YOHAMI

    *to which you would respond by cheating WITH a woman who has hypergamy for you.

  • BPaul.

    “If you’re in a relationship, controlling hypergamy means you don’t cheat no matter how much you might want to.” – Kate.

    The question is why would one be in a relationship? If one considers the the FourSirensOfTheSexualApocalypse the future of relationships is going to get complicated, why do we think relationships as spelled out today be what they are in the future, even near future. We are heading down a path evolution hasn’t seen, women with their own agency for provisioning, the consequences are unknown.

    http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2009/06/01/sexual-dystopia-a-glimpse-at-the-future/

    “Just because you know the reasons for your behaviors doesn’t grant you a license to engage in them.” – FTA

    Why? So long as you aren’t infringing upon someone else’s freedom. It certainly removes filters to help be successful in the genetic game, why wouldn’t you do it. You are talking morals here, and morals are relative to context and time. As we move into the Apocalypse, hypergamy will surface in ways we haven’t accounted for… AllMyBabiesMommas comes to mind….

    http://www.hlntv.com/video/2013/01/08/shawty-lo-reality-show-all-my-babies-mamas

    In the past hypergamy was relatively contained by religious, old moral standards and kept in a sort of check mentally by the idea of future male provisioning. The threat of this provisioning loss was real.

    Provisioning though is becoming irrelevant as part of the equation. Females can seek males using attraction and arousal as the only parameters for reproduction, not worrying about other factors. This would be and is becoming more and more “morally” acceptable.

    For instance when hitting the proverbial “wall” she doesn’t need to constrain her search for a provisioning man, the wall will not exist as we know it. As she can find an acceptable genes of a male partner in the short term without much effort.

    Then in the future with concerns about parenting, I could see her looking for a readily available Beta to be a “daddy”, with no financial burden on him. In exchange possibly for sex without children. When she is bored with him, say six years, she could discard him or just “cheat” as she holds all the power in the relationship.

    I paint a negative male picture, but I have seen examples of this where the woman has a child, is getting alimony and child support, has a good retirement package (state) and really can’t fall in “love”, do to technology (facebook,cellphone). So she spends her time with many men, but can’t understand why she can’t stay in a “relationship”. Is this wrong? Will the child have problems? Whose to say?

    I feel a whole piece could be written on technologies ability to facilitate hypergamy, and the confusion it creates for a woman in the long term.

  • M3

    ““and eliminates destructive social problems that result from many men struggling violently against the extinction of their genes.”

    Hey, men and society also benefit from competition. I take that you’re rooting for a sexual communism here. I wouldnt want to take a part on it.”

    THIS.

    Was the hardest part for me to get over when i was still blue. You couldn’t use better terminology here with communism. If everyone gets a guarantee of a woman, no one works to improve themselves, no competition, no struggle everyone stagnates. Why improve?

    I would reckon that the fact there are so many beta type men, on top of the feminist programming and acquiescence to GirlWorld dogma, is that a lot of the Alpha was bred out of men through assortive mating (mating with men who normally would not have been mated with).. making more docile and sublimating men ripe for divorced single moms and the education system to feminize him. Too many men stopped competing and relied on simple expectation of do traditional X, get Y. They didn’t become whole men, they became caricatures of themselves from a bygone era.

    The converse is now applying to women, the harpies who shriek about where all the good men went. Well a) you bred them away and b) you are now asking for the same socialism that you decry NiceGuys for. Women stopped competing on mass and simply expected the power of the vagina to be enough lure to lock in commitment. Give up V, get C is the female version of the tradcon formula.

    In a world of Game and Alpha, women too are now caricatures of a bygone era. The men who adapt by competing, can demand the same of the women. Women to compete for men who have worked hard to become the prize. Men who fought, changed and adapted to be sought out by and fought over by women. Women must now work hard too to attain alpha for commitment and cannot expect communism to grant them one just because they are ‘strong, fierce, educated’. And those women who have a severe overestimation of themselves and their sex rank, will find in their lofty expectations unhappiness as they will never acquire it voluntarily. And they will feel the pain long after their 5 minutes of alpha is up.

  • Jeremy

    @Anna

    It’s entirely possible that I’m unintentionally drawing from my own experiences too much. I can hear the noises that computers/fluorescent lights/consoles/televisions make when they’re on, and have done various experiments with my male friends/coworkers to prove I wasn’t bullshiting them. Out of these 26 people, I’m the only female AND the only one who can hear these noises. Since I don’t have any female friends and don’t talk much to my female coworkers, I’ve always just thought it was a female trait…but maybe it’s a “me” trait?

    This is a different trait and not tied to any particular sex. I also can hear the oscillation sounds of the things you describe, and I’m a man. I’ve had that ability since I was a child.

  • Anna

    @Yohami
    @M3

    This. 100% this.
    Not only are your points completely valid and awesome, but I’ll also point out that about 7% of the US is homosexual, and about 1% of it is women/men like myself who don’t want or strive for a relationship. Add in any people who are voluntarily celibate, who are widows/widowers who no longer want “in” on the SMP, or people who are too young to have a actual relationship.

    Thus, you now have a fair chunk of the population who can’t or won’t be included in this One to One ratio. (And I’m sure I’ve forgotten some!) Perhaps it’s nice to dream that men and women can be easily paired off like we’re heading into some mythological Noah’s ark…but it’s hardly realistic or good for everyone involved.

  • Jeremy

    I now want a T-shirt that says, “Your 5 minutes of Alpha are up.”

    It works in so many ways…

  • Jeremy

    @JS

    The problem is that women will gladly share a high status man.

    Not really, no. I think you’re generalizing women far too much with that statement. Most women want to feel special, if they know their alpha is dating other women, it’s just a matter of time before they leave him (the fact that women have hypergamy doesn’t mean they don’t have self-respect).

  • Anna

    @Jeremy

    That’s pretty awesome…I’ve never met anyone else who knew what the frick I was referring to. I stand corrected then. By any weird chance, (and this is purely for my own research) do you also have ASMR aka Autonomous Sensory Meridian Response? I’m trying to put together some data via people I’ve spoken to on Youtube and would love to know your experience (or lack thereof).

  • YOHAMI

    “if they know their alpha is dating other women, it’s just a matter of time before they leave him”

    The story of my life.

  • Jeremy

    @Anna

    That’s so weird… Yes I do have that. I’ve never tried to describe it to anybody, I just honestly dismissed it from any further thought a long time ago, but I still get it. Most times I get that, it’s a cognitive response to learning something new from direct instruction. It doesn’t happen too often. At one point I started thinking it meant I was gay, but there’s a good reason for that (I no longer think this obviously). I studied physics in college and hence most of my professors were male, so when I got that ASMR, it was from a man teaching me something about physics… so… perhaps you can understand the slight confusion.

    I honestly had no idea that condition was even explicitly described anywhere and I’ve never discussed the fact that I have those responses with anyone before.

  • Lion

    I was perfectly happy being monogamous with my wife until she cheated on me 10 years into our marriage. It was a real challenge for me to mentally take her down from the pedestal, fantasize about other women, and explore other women sexually. However, it was necessary for my own sanity to overcome that “oneitis.” I can no longer allow myself to become that connected to any one woman ever again. The deep pain of being let down was just way too enormous. I suppose that if I wasn’t so attached and devoted to my wife all those years, I would have been spreading my seed all over, but I was very attached… too attached. Never again!

  • Jeremy

    @Anna

    The Wikipedia page for ASMR describes my responses nearly perfectly. I have no doubt that I experience what you mentioned.

  • Tilikum

    I don’t want to alarm anyone, but dude has a tail. Who cares what the article says, holy hell.

  • M3

    “I don’t want to alarm anyone, but dude has a tail. Who cares what the article says, holy hell.”

    I’m pretty sure that it’s a she.. and even with the tail..

    8/10 would bang.

    I’d rather fuck a slim babe with a tail than an actual dog like Dworkin.

  • Jeremy

    M3, I would think you’d still be cautious after the blonde-in-the-shop mistake recently… She could be 50+

  • anotheronetakesthepill

    1st: English is not my language but there are a lot of typos which you usually don’t make. What happened?

    2nd: The difference between older generation and ours cannot just be the fact that the amount of available men to choose from has raised drastically for every women? I mean, how many men had our mothers/grandmothers to choose from? It was usually one in their neighborhood who would make it to the altar. Today girls are trying to look for the best genetic material all around the world, be it at home, while traveling, through meeting strangers on the internet. This quest for the best has acquired worldwide dimensions

  • Anna

    @M3
    I’d heed Jeremy’s warnings if I were you…although I guess you could try for a gender reversal of that guy on “Shallow Hal”. Might be interesting, lol.

    @Jeremy
    No, I really understand how you might confuse your ASMR with being gay. I’ve experienced this first when I was about 5 or 6 years old, watching Bob Ross videos with my grandmother. While in puberty (ages 10-15) I definitely noticed that the feelings were…stronger, and had slight sexual overtones.

    Now I’m 27, and still get those feelings but they’re no longer sexual…just calming and “fuzzy”. Like I said before, I’m trying to put together some data on this, and have actually gotten some responses on Youtube about this by commenting on ASMR vids. (Mine is solely audio based, usually with certain speech accents or brushing/scraping noises.) From what I’ve learned, many of us who are “blessed” with ASMR have better hearing than others, and a majority of us can hear/sense electronics REALLY well. No idea if this is a coincidence or what though…someone NEEDS to do a real study on this!

  • Johnycomelately

    “Just because you know the reasons for your behaviors doesn’t grant you a license to engage in them.”

    The funny thing is that the ancients were well aware of our feral natures and warded against giving in to ‘temptation’.

    An old Christian prayer has this line, “Loose me from mine unworthiness…. if I have thought evil, seen the beauty of another and been wounded thereby in my heart.”

    Nowadays that is translated into, “You can’t help who you fall in love with.” Family, children, husbands and morals be damned.

    Sure, sometimes you meet someone (even if your in a marriage or LTR) and have earth shattering sexual synergy but it doesn’t mean you have to act on your feral impulses.

  • imnobody

    Sorry, Yohami, but it’s easy to say “we are living in the jungle” while you are living in a US city with a quality of life 99% of people having lived in history could only dream of.

    I live in Central America (and I have been favored by the feral instincts of women, because hypergamy works in favor of a foreigner like me). There is no lack of women for people like me.

    But, if you want to go to the jungle, I can show you some villages in the country I live without water, power or Internet. Let see how much do you last living in the jungle.

    If you want to live in a country where monogamy is lacking and the most attractive men rule the day, come to the third-world city I live. Let see how much time you are willing to live here.

    If you are living in a cushy environment, it’s because monogamy has built this environment for thousands of years. The people who invented the breakthroughs of civilization were not chasing skirts, à la Mystery. The people who amassed the wealth you are enjoying, they were monogamous betas. Since they had a family, they had to work to produce something.

    Now we are devolving to an earlier state of civilization and the sight won’t be pretty. You are seeing the beginning of it with the problem with US economy. The US is on its way to becoming a third-world country.

    But if you enjoy this thing, be my guest and come to my country. I will be happy to introduce some women you can f*ck. And then, you will see that they are more things in life that you have taken for granted.

    It’s easy to talk about the jungle when you have only watched on the Discovery Channel.

  • FuriousFerret

    @imnobody

    I’m pretty sure that Yohami is from Argentina and I think he might still live there.

  • YOHAMI

    imnobody, offtopic, but I live in Argentina and was raised in venezuela. At many points I was poor as in, poor enough to live on the streets (didnt thanks to friends who would host me for days or weeks), but I managed to climb

  • YOHAMI

    lived two years in la candelaria, with drug dealers and shootings and shit. I know poverty, though, this is all unrelated. we’re all in the jungle because we’re animals, and we’re all driven by base instincts.

  • YOHAMI

    where are you btw? let’s make a meetup with guys in the area

  • M3

    If you subscribe to Vox’s “Team Civilization”.. understanding human nature is one thing, giving into it and submitting to hedonism at the expense of the tribe will ultimately collapse societies, as many an empire can attest. Of course humanity will go on, in some new form and life will go on.

    If anyone remembers Babylon 5, it’s like watching the Vorlons and the Shadows fight. Order vs. Chaos. Advance by working together for the common good or knock the anthill over and let the ants build a bigger, stronger anthill.

    There’s a metaphor in there somewhere. We seem to be going towards the anthill route.

  • YOHAMI

    M3, not sure what the Team Civilization is about. I played Civilization on the PC though. I killed plundered mined destroyed and built, and then won by launching atomic bombs. It was a lot of fun.

  • Emma the Emo

    I really like these latest articles. Especially this:
    “Just because you know the reasons for your behaviors doesn’t grant you a license to engage in them. Yet neither should anyone be discouraged from legitimate inquiry into the natures of our primal selves for fear of the shame that others would want to apply to you to ease their own discomfort.”

    I see more often that manosphere writers commit the naturalistic fallacy. For example by stating that a cheating man is doing nothing morally wrong. Or that dating a girl over 21 has elements of moral wrongness… I wish they didn’t write like that. It gives feminists ammo. Thank god it’s rare at this point.

  • Matthew King (King A)

    Is it wrong for me to be turned on by the picture? I want a girl from the Island of Doctor Moreau.

  • Emma the Emo

    “As a result we have higher accuity of vision, hearing and touch.”
    Really?.. I always thought women were more touch-sensitive. How come I tickle so easily, but my boyfriend doesn’t? *solipsism on*

  • Matthew King (King A)

    Rollo wrote:

    The greatest inconsistency that most people discussing Social Darwinism fall into is the “survival of the fittest” falacy [sic]. Nowhere in any of Darwin’s writtings [sic] will you ever see this terminology refered [sic] to in the context of natural selection. It’s not survival of the fitest [sic], it is survival of the species best able to adapt to it’s changing conditions and environments.

    “Fittest” means most fit to adapt, most fit to the changed environment, most fit to survive. Not “fit” as in “healthy and fit” or “strongest.” Your “fallacy” doesn’t fit.

    A lot of critics of evo-psych (in particular), as well as the revealers of some of the more unsettling aspects of human social and sexual evolution, like to start their criticisms by conflating the revelations of these dynamics with condoning the behaviors that are results of them.

    No. Not in the least. This is your misunderstanding of an argument that rejects your premises on the basis of a metaphysics you haven’t considered.

    Do you have a particular “critic[] of evo-psych” who claims this? Please show me his works so I can disassociate myself from them. Or is it your straw man to get past the criticism? Evolutionary psychology is for credulous if curious people who think they are getting to the bottom of things by positing an invisible hand that directs all life. This is not science, it is faith. It is an unchallengeable architecture (lest we be accused of “anti-science”) upon which every speculator with a theory can hang his assertions and declare them to be “scientifically proven.”

    Yes, hypergamy, in all its permutations, can be a very ugly truth to witness, but exposing it, attempting to understand it, is not tantamount to endorsing it.

    Nobody thinks studying a phenomenon (like, say, cancer) is tantamount to endorsing it. Are oncologists regularly accused of rooting for the carcinoma? Your straw critic does not exist.

    Human beings can’t handle too much reality, so the recourse is to attempt to stuff the Genie back into the bottle. Being aware of our feral natures and attempting to deconstruct the vestiges of those we deal with today is not the same as expecting absolution from the consequences of them.

    Except when they aren’t an accurate picture of reality at all. The problem with your Hypergamy Doesn’t Care formulation isn’t that it’s too REAL for people to handle. The problem is you exaggerate its sovereignty over female behavior. And that does amount to an unintended endorsement, because you make it easier to excuse women for their behavior by assuming “hypergamy doesn’t care” about a woman’s attempts at discipline.

    Matt

  • YOHAMI

    Matt, how / where is the picture not accurate?

  • lovelost

    “Our metabolism favors carbohydrates over protien and stored fat, why? Because our environmental reality thousands of years ago meant that a good sugar kick made for a better chance of evading a predator.”

    This is so true, i was watching “the weight of the nation” doc on youtube. it talks about this same concept in detail.

    here is the http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pEkCbqN4uo

  • YOHAMI

    M3, about Vox’s civilization stuff. What does it mean exactly? The structure we live in? the set of morals? politics? the apparent order vs the apparent barbarism we imagine we would have wihout? what’s the difference with civilization here and, say, society? let’s go into wikipedia

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization

    “the term has been used to refer to the material and instrumental side of human cultures that are complex in terms of technology, science, and division of labor. Such civilizations are generally hierarchical and urbanized.”

    Ah. Im not very happy with the uses of technology, science, division of labor and hierarchy in this society. Great tools, but in the hands of monkeys and lizards. If by “civilization” we mean something opposed to barbarism, as in, higher morals, standards, idealism etc, then we live in anything but. We have technology and comfort. But the herd is still barbaric, fueled by fear and ignorance, slaved, and big portions of it are excluded, marginalized and pushed down, with whole “countries” that used to be exploitation colonies in even worse shape. And the order of things is there to make sure the herd stays like that, so we dont have real mechanisms to change it other than subvert it and destroy it. So. Team what? you can have it.
    :-)

  • Jeremy

    @Matthew King (King A)

    Your “fallacy” doesn’t fit.

    Except that it is absolutely true that Darwin never used the phrase “Survival of the fittest”. That came much later in interpretations of his work.

    The problem is you exaggerate its sovereignty over female behavior. And that does amount to an unintended endorsement, because you make it easier to excuse women for their behavior by assuming “hypergamy doesn’t care” about a woman’s attempts at discipline.

    In my experience I’ve not met many women who practice much self discipline in this area. The ones I have met are usually very happily married and every male friend of the couple is usually insanely jealous of the husband’s good fortune. I, however, must concede the possibility that the case for hypergamy’s rule over human female behavior is overstated, much as the feminists so easily presume that men are incapable of monogamy/self-restraint. It’s healthy to admit and step-down from extreme thoughts… However the danger of trying to give the average woman the benefit of the doubt in this element of behavior is also quite extreme for someone like myself, who lives, works and has to date in Los Angeles, California.

    Do I self-protect by presuming I’m walking through a landmine (when I know I am)? Or do I walk around giving women the chance to be loyal (and know I’ll get burned a significant portion of the time)?

  • Anna

    @King A
    Eh, wanting a girl from a (kinda cheesy) scifi classic probably isn’t that weird…I mean, it does nothing for me but I knew some guys in college who were “furries”. Whatever floats your boat, I guess.

    @Emma
    Maybe he is and just really good at hiding it, or he has a different sensitive spot than normal. I mean, I’m like you…but my lover is only ticklish on his spine and neck. Usually means I don’t win those “fights”. *sigh* :)

  • Anna

    @Jeremy

    Just as an afterthought from reading that you’re in L.A.: Are the women that you have/think you will get burned from the ones you meet in bars? Because I firmly believe that the type of people you commonly find in bars/clubs are almost a different species from the ones you could meet in a coffeehouse or hobby-based group. Not saying ALL of them will be “better”…but most likely a different breed.

  • Martel

    @ YOHAMI: “‘In such a society the vast number of men will be without access to women or children.’. / So what?”

    So what is that such societies, if they have anything even closely resembling any vestige of liberty, are inherently volatile. Young males with no access to women have very little to loose and are therefore extremely violent. The only defense against millions of young unmarried males with nothing left to live for other than their next rape or theft can only be constrained by an extreme police state or militarism, somewhat like the Ottoman Empire around the time of Mehmet II. Yes, he had harems of hundreds of women and he kept things under control, but damn near every young male in his power was cannon fodder.

    “’Such a society where most of the men need to fight over the few available females are barbaric.’ / We live in such society already. Iphones are still being produced.”

    We’re getting there, but we’re not all the way there, yet. There are still lots of small towns in America where it’s not entirely abnormal for high school sweethearts to marry each other, although it’s changing fast. The beta who can’t get laid still sometimes goes to work anyway and still hopes that if he gets another promotion he might score a wife. Eventually he might swallow a pill (not the red one, maybe yellow or something) in which case on some level he recognizes female hypergamy but fails to recognize that he could himself become Alpha. At this point, he stops developing revolutionary computer programs and waits tables somewhere. Or joins a gang.

    Also, even though we’re almost “there”, we still pay enough lip service to traditional values to keep a lot of us from giving up entirely. That won’t last forever.

    “’Monogamy ensures each man has access to a woman’” / I understand that, but it’s not true. And if indeed you get a woman like that, you’re going to be cheated on and cuckholded, statistically speaking.”

    Monogomay doesn’t “ensure” it, but it makes it more likely (and cuckoldry used to be a hell of a lot more rare). It’s simple math. Let’s say there are 100 men and 100 women in a society, 1 being the most quality of each gender. If guy 1 has a lock on women 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 15, & 18, guy 2 has women 2, 4, 10-14, and 20-25, by the time you get to guy 65, he’ll have literally no chance for a woman at all whatsoever. As it stands now, woman 4 has the option to “trade down” to dude 23 who might give her more individual attention, but when the decent beta male looses all of his influence, it might not stay that way. it might, but when societies decline they become very unpredictable, and liberty is often one of its first casualities. As flawed as Judeo-Christian marraige may be, it’s a hell of a lot better than what thousands of other societies have had before, and a hell of a lot better than what seems to be around the corner for us.

    I agree that we benefit from competition, but there’s no reason to believe that the State will remain indifferent to the SMV for the indefinite future. The beta male is getting frozen out both sexually and politically; and what sucks for him today due to the inability to inspire tingles may one day suck for him because he’s legally disempowered to an even greater extent. The beta is almost invisible to most women; he’s Orwell’s Boxer. His interests no longer mean anything to almost anybody. Hypergamy is a fact of life, always has been, always will be, but it has to be constrained. Traditional morality is one constraint, and marraige actually meaning something is another. We’re loosing both, and we’re about to see what imnobody predicts.

  • Jeremy

    @Anna

    LA is the LAnd of fLAkes. There is no “scene” in this city where these behaviors don’t show up in some fashion unless you’re trying to game in a retirement community (and why not? some of these women have over-financed their retirement…). I got tired of the club scene almost the moment I set foot in those feminine playgrounds over 15 years ago. I haven’t been back. I do hang out with close friends at known local dive bars, but that’s not the same, and generally I have never seriously tried game there. I have been heavily into the social dancing scene (salsa/swing). It is significantly better than the bar/club scene but you still find a significant portion of the marriage-age (<35) women just want to ride that merry-go-round. The women 35 and over in the social dancing scene fall into two categories; The honest ones that probably fell into similar (but opposite) beta traps that I did and just couldn't figure it out, And then there are those who were clearly riding the carosel. The athletics scene (hiking, biking, etc..) can be almost as bad as the club scene. Church works (I'm told) but I'm no longer religious and generally refuse to subject myself to more dogma from blowhards. I'm also not to keen on being with a highly religious woman (no offense).

    It's hard to describe really, but what you see on "Real Housewives of Orange County" isn't too far from reality for 50-60% of women in this area. For the rest, you get varying degrees of over-estimation of SMV, and significant amounts of flakiness. Just about every woman in this town will flake on you.

    My close work friend just got married to a woman who started owning his weekends with unscheduled family visits and requirements that he help her with her kindergarten work. This woman cooks best in a microwave and won't lift a finger to help around the house. Another co-worker recently got married at the age of 50, and he now lives with 5 cats, 2 dogs because his wife is so incapable of controlling her emotions and must rescue any animal she sees, she also calls him at work 5 times a day and gets angry at him if he uses the internet at home.

    In short, it's bad. A woman in this city (I found one) who has an actual sense of personal responsibility, regardless of appearance, is GOLD if she's under 35 years old.

  • YOHAMI

    Martel, thanks for the long response. I dont know enough about history to know what Im talking about though. So this: if we’re not there yet, how much worse do you think it can get? women are free and have multiple benefits. And they are having sex like crazy. Every weekend or so, drunk, at the bars, and then they date around like shoplifters. The only men that “dont have access to women” are the ones that are trying to buy out affection by being nice. Eventually all of them are going to collapse, internally, and face reality and become red pill. Then what? what happens when they do? they will get angry and some will suicide, then what? the remaining ones will do something about it. If they are indeed angry and aggressive, they might as well change themselves or change society and do something about all of this.

    Fact is as soon as the man drops the beta bullshit he becomes more attractive to women -> initial problem solved.

    About the dude that stops making revolutionary software and joins a gang… I guess you’re speaking statistically more than talking about the same dude. Nerds dont become gangsters because lack of pussy. They might commit suicide or hit the gym.

    And marriage + assortative mating + monogamy. Are you sure that works at all? has it ever worked?

  • YOHAMI

    On my mind historically marriage worked like this: the man and a wife. The man has one or several mistresses, as many as he can pay for. And fucks prostitutes. The wife has two or more beta orbiters and might fuck the plumber. Wife and husband have sex once a year. The third son is not his.

    So the marriage is a social facade and an economical arrangement, not a factual thing.

  • Matthew King (King A)

    YOHAMI wrote:

    Matt, how / where is the picture not accurate?

    It isn’t accurate to describe civilized women as “feral,” which means not responsible for their choices or actions. It’s a broad observation that drives home a recently overlooked truth about female nature, yes, but it is hardly the last word on what women are or are not capable of.

    We all have instincts and we all restrain them to function peaceably among other men. The exaggeration of hypergamy as a primal force unintentionally legitimates it, the equivalent of capitulating and saying, We Cannot Stop It, We Can Only Hope to Contain It. Women are not that out of control, especially when they are (happily) dominated and made to see the logic of discipline from an early age.

    Women (and men) can be disciplined to their advantage. If we imagine “hypergamy doesn’t care” about discipline or cultural reinforcement or proper upbringing, then to advocate such measures marks us as a fool who is naïve about “evo-psych.” I’m calling shenanigans on that whole equation because it simply is not a comprehensive picture of female nature.

    Women who let hypergamy take hold of their behavior are quickly ruined and psychologically battered. When the calculus of consequence is presented to them properly, most will opt for submission or a relinquishment of their freedom to be protected against those destructive and fatal urges. That’s what civilization means. We make rational choices about following or ignoring instinct. To imagine rationality is no match for nature is to disregard or be unaware of ten thousand years of human history. It’s to deny the possibility of jet airliners, nuclear power, and the internet.

    I don’t understand all of this big talk about being courageous and accepting “reality.” It’s not reality, and they’re being fake-courageous. Theirs is a cynical, almost spiteful, appraisal of women. They aren’t the perfect little princesses as advertised, of course, but we should have figured that out in tenth grade on our own, even if our fathers didn’t teach us it.

    Women are God’s gift to the universe, they are the images of perfect beauty in this world. I don’t care what you say about their demonic insides, there is nothing like the curve of their waist where it meets the hip. There is nothing like their look of utter submission from their knees. There is nothing like the feel of their satisfied breath on your skin.

    Does that mean we pedestalize them or underestimate their nature or put them in pants and watch them fail? No. But it does mean we honor what is honorable about them, even while they reject it, and even while pseudoscience insists otherwise.

    Hypergamy might not “care,” but I do, and I’m stronger than it. So are most men, once they get an accurate picture of what they’re facing, which is neither sugar and spice and everything nice nor slugs and snails and puppy-dog tails. So are most women.

    Matt

  • Tilikum

    >>>>>“if they know their alpha is dating other women, it’s just a matter of time before they leave him”

    The story of my life.<<<

    Yep. You gotta play a different game entirely if you want something lasting.

  • Martel

    @ YOHAMI: “So this: if we’re not there yet, how much worse do you think it can get?”

    Way worse. (I go into more detail here: http://alphaisassumed.wordpress.com/2013/01/16/the-blood-red-pill/

    We never hear about them in China, but there are riots all the time in large part due to the increasing gender imbalance because of their one-child policy. China will soon have millions and millions of unmarraigeable males. The Chinese government will either have to limit freedom even more (and it’s not exactly a libertarian paradise as it is). Another “use” for excess males is military adventurism (also a great way to steal other countries’ women). Although attacking other countries seems like a stupid irrational choice today, things change.

    I’m also thinking Roman aristocrat women sowing their hypergamic oats with gladiator men (after all, what’s more alpha: famous AND a killer!). Or perhaps a return to bigamy. After all, if “1 man + 1 woman = marraige is old-fashioned and obsolete”, couldn’t 1 man + 1 man soon become obsolete, too? Why not 1 man + 2 women? Or 1 man + 4 women? Why would women consent to this? As absurd as it might sound, if given the choice of being boring beta’s first and only wife or Ryan Gosling’s eighth wife, how many women would choose the former? There are also immigrant groups who like this idea.

    “The only men that “dont have access to women” are the ones that are trying to buy out affection by being nice.”

    For now (and you also have to approach, etc.). We correctly understand that hypergamy is a constant,but we often think of “Alpha” as only a category and not necessarily as a ranking. As Alpha as any of us here on this thread may be, there’s always somebody even more Alpha. An Alpha with a crappy job isn’t quite as Alpha when he’s competing with somebody with just as much Game with a better job, or who’s famous, or who just busted some dude’s face with a beer bottle. Hypergamy can always ascribe for a higher Alpha, and with nothing left to restrict it, males will fight to be that “higher” Alpha. Problem is “higher” can sometimes be pretty shitty (Joran Vandersloot, Richard Ramirez, etc.)

    “If they are indeed angry and aggressive, they might as well change themselves or change society and do something about all of this.”

    You may be right, and I PRAY you are, but in every society that went to the dogs, before they fell, the idea that things could get as bad as they got seemed alarmist and absurd.

    As far as marraige “working” if you mean “working” perfectly, I agree. But it has “worked” better than it works today, and it works better in some parts of America than in others. I’ve lived in big cities and I’m currently in a college town, but I’ve also lived in decent, wholesome midwestern small-town farming community. Yes there’s a lot of crap that goes down (includng in my own family, but that for another day, but the NORM is man+woman+kids. Affairs are rare. Yes, they happen, but not like they did in Chicago.

    Also, even if it doesn’t work, the very fact that we had a proclaimed ideal did a lot to keep people in line. In Victorian England, women cheated, but if they were caught they could be RUINED so they didn’t cheat quite so much. Men stayed with their wives even if they had a mistress because to discard her would have violated your honor. There were bastard spawn, but the very fact that frowning on having a bastard limited how often people had them.

    There is no perfection, never has been, never will be. But there has been pretty decent, and there’s also been chaotic, unadultered HELL. We’re lucky as fuck we live in a society that still has a shadow of decency to shelter us from our own basest instincts.

  • Matthew King (King A)

    Rollo commented in reply to Kate:

    Kate, you’re conflating desire with behavior. You can control the manifestations of your desire (behavior), but you either have a genuine desire or you don’t.

    Whether or not you engage in a behavior doesn’t negate the desire to engage in it.

    The Buddha, Christian asceticism, and the first precept of The Tao of Steve say otherwise. To become perfectly desireless is to attain nirvana. To avoid adultery and extinguish the very thought of adultery is to be “be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” These self-destructive urges are properly categorized as external to the true self, or demonic to those who require a more blunt rendering for the lesson to sink in.

    To assume it impossible to eliminate your desire is a tacit authorization of desire, no matter whether you act upon it. To control your desires from becoming actions is an excellent and necessary discipline, but to control their occurrence is still more excellent. We in this sloppy, spoiled culture assume only satisfaction can make a desire go away when in fact satiety is notoriously temporary and in fact inflammatory to pursuing our desire even unto our own destruction, as in manias.

    When you are fat you desire chocolate cake. When you forgo that desire for cake you begin to get skinnier, and getting skinnier helps you eliminate the urge altogether. Some urges persist and must be fended off every time. But in many people they are extinguished completely, or, if anything, become the opposite, nauseating to contemplate, like a fit man imagining that starchy treacly lump of confection sending him back to his former fat ways.

    Or think of the alcohol that you overindulge and vomit up the next day. The mere smell of it reminds you of your hangover ordeal more than the “satisfaction” of the previous night’s drunkenness. Gin and I have a matter-antimatter relationship like that to this day a decade later. (Down the hatch, right back up the hatch.)

    Or the raped woman who hates sex. Or the slut so full of regret that she cuts herself. Destructive desires are not sovereign. They are alien. The rightly ordered mind desires health for the body, and when some pleasures are viscerally exposed as harmful, like the pretty red glow of the stove that burns you, they become anti-desires. Instincts only rule if they are indulged (first by our parents and then by ourselves) to the point where not indulging them seems unnatural. More than merely controlled, they can be altered and annihilated.

    Matt

  • M3

    @Yohami

    1. LOL. My friend used to play Populace. Similar game. Always brought wrath of god earthquakes and floods upon his people. Too funny.

    2. “about Vox’s civilization stuff. What does it mean exactly?”
    I hope im not putting words in his mouth, this is my take on the man.
    Vox does not ascribe to Nihilism or ‘every man for themself’. He believes in Alpha tempered with restraint to screw around and women to break through solipsism and understand their hypergamy and nature, to temper it, use it wisely and not have it lead them astray chasing greener pastures that never come. With great power comes great responsibility to use it wisely. Those at the top can use it for good or ill. Sexuality is a power as well. He believes in a balance between order and chaos. He believes in community, monogamy and assortive mating, religious structure and dogma as a guide to morality, all being cohesive elements that help bring a society together.

    He views it as what made America so great, the nuclear family, raising children, helping neighbors, building society, paying taxes, innovation, etc.. what allowed America to prosper (that and capitalism and freedom too). Take that away and revert to the most basic and primal form, and you revert to something closer to inner city urban america where the city does literally become a jungle, untamed Alpha seed runs wild killing each other off in displays of dominance and drive by’s, women having loads of children from different alpha fathers and collecting entitlement of government or the next baby daddy’s drug sales. There is no technological innovation or furthering of ‘civil’ society within the rawness of the jungle. Just regression to basic survival.Something better may evolve out of it, but there will be much suffering in between phases.

    We wouldn’t be reading each others words right now if it wasn’t for the great men, not particularly jungle attractive men, but intellectuals, to build the internet. I’ll bet you every nerd at DARPA had a wife who looked up to him.

    If you were to look at it through the lens of the military, the Alpha’s are the top of the hierarchy, the leaders, who give the orders, who make command decisions. The beta’s follow orders. Few ever get to be leaders. But in order for the unit to function, every one of those beta’s following the leader has to believe that he would do the same thing he asks of them, that he has their best interests at heart, and that once the battle is over, they all get to share in the spoils of war.. not be victims of it. If they do all the dying and see the generals living it up.. mutiny is not far behind.

    The hedonist is the one who could lead, and guide others, but abdicates it to feast on the easy spoils he can attain for himself, without a care as to what happens to his fellow man. He’ll watch the world burn, so long as his hunger is sated.

    “But the herd is still barbaric, fueled by fear and ignorance, slaved, and big portions of it are excluded, marginalized and pushed down,”

    That’s an Idiocracy and i’m sure we’re pretty much there if i go by what i see on TV. Not to mention the new world order stuff, the disproportionate rate of minorities in jails for petty drug crimes, and a democracy that’s broken beyond all belief, where voting doesn’t mean fuck all.

    You make salient points, but to the folks out there with families who want to see their children grow up in a safe and secure civilization, the alpha anarchy you propose to spread, civilization born of fire and conquest is something they’d be terrified of.

    I almost get the sense that if Vox was Batman, you’d be the Joker :D

    “Eventually all of them are going to collapse, internally, and face reality and become red pill. Then what?”
    Then they make a choice. Then it’s the women’s turn to respond.

    “So the marriage is a social facade and an economical arrangement, not a factual thing.”
    That’s either a french thing or an extreme point of view. I’m sure JudgyBitch, Vox, Dalrock, your fave Susan Walsh, hell even Rollo might disagree that his marriage is simply a facade. Some people really do stay committed. It was definitely an economical arrangement as well, no doubt, but i think the view of all marriages being just theater for the people to keep people from seeing their alter lives might be a bit of a stretch. Maybe Rollo might chime in.

  • YOHAMI

    Matt,

    “The exaggeration of hypergamy as a primal force unintentionally legitimates it”

    You’re saying hypergamy is not primal? if it’s not primal what is it? socially constructed?

    Also, are you saying hypergamy is not legit? say. Women being attracted per-se to high status, powerful men… that is not legit?

    Should hypergamy by seen as non legit, or should it be accepted as legit and controlled? which brings this to my other point. If hypergamy is the female equivalent to the male being attracted like a madman to the feminine physique, then the male being attracted to the form, should not be legit either?

    I get the feel you’re doing the same mixing of meanings as kate was doing. Having the desire or the drive is different than not having impulse control or being exempt of responsibility for your actions and behavior. In the current feminist society women are exempt of all responsibility, so we face the worst behaviors driven by hypergamy. Similarly, if men were freed from all responsibilities we would see the worst behaviors from the male sex drive. Still, both drives are primal and “legit” whatever that means, and on top of them we run morals and conscience. As you just said:

    We all have instincts and we all restrain them to function peaceably among other men.

    Precisely.

    “We Cannot Stop It, We Can Only Hope to Contain It.”

    Your own words. How is that bad? can you stop admiring the feminine form. If you could, why would you? can a woman stop admiring the male power? why would she?

    Women are not that out of control, especially when they are (happily) dominated and made to see the logic of discipline from an early age

    The reason they can be dominated is hypergamy. It’s the hypergamy in them which wants to be dominated. In other words, if she lacks impulse control, by dominating her you’re giving her what she needs, which is the opposite of negating her what she needs.

    Women who let hypergamy take hold of their behavior are quickly ruined and psychologically battered.

    Truth. They were probably psychologically ruined from he start, too.

    When the calculus of consequence is presented to them properly, most will opt for submission or a relinquishment of their freedom to be protected against those destructive and fatal urges. That’s what civilization means.

    Very coercive view of Civilization. Submit or die – I rebel. But if you present it about impulse control and mastering of oneself – I concur. Wouldnt put civilization in that sack though.

    “I don’t understand all of this big talk about being courageous and accepting “reality.”

    Belief that women are pure and innocent and asexual and incapable of anything bad and that you should always treat them as delicate flowers, vs the evidence of the contrary.

    Women are God’s gift to the universe, they are the images of perfect beauty in this world.

    So is my cock.

    Having the desire or the drive is different than not having impulse control or being exempt of responsibility for your actions and behavior.

    Exactly. Where’s the disagreement? recognizing the desire doesnt say anything about the morality of the desire. Recognizing that I want to eat chocolate and fat all day doesnt legitimize it, nor does it make it ilegit. It only brings me the truth about my own impulses so I can operate from there in whatever direction I want.

    there is nothing like the curve of their waist

    Oh, stop objectifying fatties.
    :-D

    Hypergamy might not “care,” but I do, and I’m stronger than it. So are most men, once they get an accurate picture of what they’re facing

    Agreed. And if you’re stronger than hypergamy, as a man, it means that hypergamy works in your favor. You only need to be a few inches stronger than the woman to trigger it. If you embrace masculinity, then hypergamy is your magnet.

    But then morals and impulse control, different story. You might keep the hypergamy on / keep her dominated. Without morals of her own, though, it’s going to be a bumby ride.

    Can women have morals of their own? sure. Hypergamy? always. Match the two and you might have something.

  • Matthew King (King A)

    Anna wrote:

    Eh, wanting a girl from a (kinda cheesy) scifi classic probably isn’t that weird…I mean, it does nothing for me but I knew some guys in college who were “furries”. Whatever floats your boat, I guess.

    I’m imagining the tail wagging tightly like an orgasmic puppy. And who isn’t turned on by an orgasmic puppy?

  • M3

    @ Martel

    China is already lifting restrictions on visa requirements to allow other Asiatic women from other countries to come in for the express purpose of marrying the ‘men left behind’ with so many hypergamous women leaving the poor and unattractive village farmers for rich men in the cities or even leaving to marry in other countries.

    http://www.travel-impact-newswire.com/2012/06/chinas-gender-ratio-imbalance-set-big-problem-leftover-men/#axzz2K5YUgT74

  • M3

    “So is my cock.”

    Here endeth the debate.

  • YOHAMI

    Martel, digging your blog.

    China has a gender birthrate imbalance, which is different than simply women gone wild. Even with assortative mating and traditional monogamy there’s just not enough material.

    I dont think we can really make the equivalent to occident where we have more women than men, and women are putting out like alcoholics with poor impulse control.

    We might face a lack of good marriages and tons of indecency and the demise and near extintion of the nice guy in the near future. But lack of sex?

  • Matthew King (King A)

    YOHAMI wrote:

    You’re saying hypergamy is not primal? if it’s not primal what is it? socially constructed? Also, are you saying hypergamy is not legit? say. Women being attracted per-se to high status, powerful men… that is not legit?

    Too many extrapolations of what I said leading you down blind alleys. I didn’t say hypergamy wasn’t primal. I said we were exaggerating the power of primal urges over our behavior.

    I’m not sure what you mean by “legit.” A freely indulged hypergamy is not practicable for very long and eventually defeats itself. If women have an urge to fuck the top dog, well, then men have the urge to rape. Neither can be indulged if we expect to live peaceably in tight quarters, as we somehow have managed for all of recorded history.

    Having the desire or the drive is different than not having impulse control or being exempt of responsibility for your actions and behavior. In the current feminist society women are exempt of all responsibility, so we face the worst behaviors driven by hypergamy.

    If we can stifle the fulfillment of men’s desires while promoting women’s, then we have some cultural control over which urges are conducive to our agenda. I happen to disagree with the reigning feminist agenda like you, I find it ugly and destructive. But it has demonstrated over a century how “being exempt of responsibility” inflames certain urges while the insistence that other desires be subject to “impulse control” extinguishes “the desire or the drive” almost completely.

    Do you think a stomped-on omega hasn’t had the connection between desire and behavior severed? And hasn’t this severance led to the death of the former? Are all betas dangerously repressing the urge to leave their fat wives, or for many of them has the light gone completely out?

    It’s the hypergamy in them which wants to be dominated. In other words, if she lacks impulse control, by dominating her you’re giving her what she needs, which is the opposite of negating her what she needs.

    Until the hypergamy sniffs out another one bigger and stronger still. By your logic, the woman would have to follow her urge unto her own destruction, even though rational foresight (and habits formed in childhood) warn her against pursuing a destructive path.

    Can her dad satisfy her hypergamy? Will his inculcation of habit, his watchful eye, and his shotgun “giv[e] her what she [thinks she] needs”? No. The careful development of his child and his dominating actions against her will satisfies no hypergamous impulses, but it does prevent them from destroying her on a lark, and in the best cases, eliminates them altogether.

    I know this community’s skepticism with regard to whether hypergamy can be eliminated, and I just don’t want to argue it anymore. It seems like an article of faith here, rather than an observation exaggerated into an axiom, which it is. Analysis is impervious to assertions of belief.

    Suffice it to say, dominating a woman is indeed “giving her what she needs,” and what she needs is the containment or elimination of her urges by one stronger than she. Hypergamy isn’t satisfied by any one man, it can only be held at bay by him until she imagines the mere possibility of one better. But if his domination is directed toward annihilating the instinct rather than keeping it alive like the small pox virus, “satisfaction” per se becomes moot because rationality (via his dominance) has asserted control. Domination is a cure, not the impossible satisfaction of an infinite urge. Every man likewise wants to fuck every hot woman on the planet until his dick falls off. But then his logos dominates his appetites and gives them the news that such open-ended desires are impossible to fulfill.

    Or as the great Bill Burr puts it: “do it, do it, fuck it, do it.”

    Matt

  • Matthew King (King A)

    YOHAMI revealed:

    So is my cock.

    That’s the most solipsistically homo thing I’ve ever heard. I’m talking about the glory of tits and ass and your mind wanders to the aesthetics of … cock?

  • Martel

    @ M3: Didn’t know that about China. Thanks.

    @ YOHAMI: Thanks for the plug. I did your blog, too.

    Anyhow, in China it’s because the women don’t exist, and here it’s because the betas are invisible, but the result in both cases is no woman for the beta. Our problem is more solvable in that betas can learn to be Alphas, whereas in China women who don’t exist can’t be have sex with anybody. Also, we’ve got at least a miniscule chance of counter-balancing the Feminine Imperative if we wake up in time. They can only kill off their men in war, hope to become the first gay superpower since Sparta, import women like in M3’s link, or forcibly borrow a few babes from neighboring countries.

    Or maybe they’ll take some of our overweight SWPL’s to help pay down our debt.

  • Martel

    @ “King” Matt:

    Every man has the inherent God-given right to admire his own cock, and I don’t care if Aristotle agrees or not.

  • Anna

    @King A
    Orgasmic puppies? Well, THAT is certainly an interesting image right there, lol. As for what’s cuter…Emma Watson.

    @Yohami
    Listen, I’m all for singing the praises of some nice T&A, but cocks are definitely appealing in their own right. Cut, uncut, long, short, thick, skinny…they are all a wonderful sight to behold (even if there’s only ONE I love!). :)

    @Jeremy
    Man, that situation sucks. I’m sorry. Never realized it was that bad in an entire city. :(

    But don’t worry about the “overly religious” stuff, you probably won’t offend me unless you try to say I need to mind my place as a woman or that I’d be happier if I was submissive to a husband. Other than that…we Wiccans are pretty laid back, y’know?

  • YOHAMI

    (blockquotes fixed)

    Matt,

    I said we were exaggerating the power of primal urges over our behavior.

    No you didnt say that. But it makes more sense.

    I’m not sure what you mean by “legit.

    You said that the exaggeration of the primal aspect of hypergamy legitimates it. Here:

    “The exaggeration of hypergamy as a primal force unintentionally legitimates it”

    Legitimates = to make something legit, right? thats why I ask if / why you consider it not to be legit on the first place.

    Anyway. I think we agree that having desires, even primal ones doesnt free you or responsibility of your own behavior and choices. And that a society ran by primal desires only, uncontrolled and gone wild isnt good for anybody, regardless of gender.

    And for every man like you and me brought to our [knees] by the feminine form, there is a woman dripping wet by strong cock, which was my point.

    If women have an urge to fuck the top dog, well, then men have the urge to rape.

    False. Men have the urge to fuck the hottie [and have her screaming YES]. Rape is when she doesnt want to fuck you and is screaming no. Pretty sure that one is not ingrained. Fucking doesnt mean raping, you know. Women dig cock.

    And hasn’t this severance led to the death of the former? Are all betas dangerously repressing the urge to leave their fat wives, or for many of them has the light gone completely out?

    I dont know. For a man fucking the hottie doesnt necessarily means leaving the fattie. Harems and all.

    By your logic, the woman would have to follow her urge unto her own destruction

    No. She should follow her urge and marry a powerful man. Then use the rest of her urges to build a family and keep it.

    Can her dad satisfy her hypergamy?

    Disturbing stuff.

    I guess you mean that daddy can teach impulse control. Sure he can.

    But if his domination is directed toward annihilating the instinct rather than keeping it alive like the small pox virus

    You’re saying that dominating a woman is annihilating her desire to be dominated by a powerful man. Im saying that dominating a woman is satisfying her desire to be dominated. I suspect Im more right than you are.

    The other bit, that a woman’s hypergamy will keep [her] wondering if there’s a higher status men than you etc. I suspect it goes trough “love” and it’s an additional layer, not a conflicting / annihilating one.

    The man’s base drive is to be turned on by hot women and to want to fuck them, or in your case, to rape them. Should this desire and base impulse to admire the feminine form be “annihilated” when you’re married?

    Maybe the response for you is yes? your body no longer lusts after other women? yes?

  • Mark Minter

    Rollo,

    I have a question. So I encountered some articles in Psychology Today.

    “Why You Shouldn’t Believe in Soul Mates”

    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-attraction-doctor/201207/why-you-shouldnt-believe-in-soul-mates

    “Why Nice Guys and Gals Finish Last in Love”

    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-attraction-doctor/201211/why-nice-guys-and-gals-finish-last-in-love?page=2

    “The Real Reason Couples Decide They’re Incompatible”

    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/happiness-in-world/201302/the-real-reason-couples-decide-theyre-incompatible

    And there are more.

    The these articles take concepts that I first heard of here on Rational Male, and I mean first by a long shot, , ever, in my life, after a ton of reading about anything and everything.

    When I think of Freud’s exasperated question “What do women want?”, now I think “Jeez, where the fuck was this guy? How in the fuck is he famous as the ‘Father of Psychiatry’?”

    And where were the rest of these “Professionals”? To me this is somewhat like a school of architecture not exactly working out the idea of that “gravity thing”.

    So given that now I find these articles that take these concepts that permeate Rational Male in a fairly mainstream publication, does that mean that, now, the Psychology community is finally “getting it” and there is a group of “young turks” that are pushing the envelope and these ideas will come into mainstream psychology?

    So I guess the question is, is the rest of the Psychology profession going to get a clue anytime soon? Are you on the front of some wave or are you an outpost, out there, and the rest of those “professionals” think you, Ev Psych base ideas, are “Just So” stories that shouldn’t be taken seriously?

  • 3rd Millenium Men

    That picture freaked me out.

    “Human beings can’t handle too much reality, so the recourse is to attempt to stuff the Genie back into the bottle.”

    Gah so true. Have been trying to put red pill truths onto a guy I know, and bit by tiny bit he’s taking them on. But it’s going against EVERYTHING he’s been told his whole life so it’s difficult. But he does admit that when he thinks back on his life experience against everything I’ve told him, it holds true. Still, it’s a massive slog.

  • YaReally

    “A lot of frustration most men and women endure in our modern socio-sexual education is the result of a psychological attempt to reconcile the vestigial behaviors and predilections of our feral past with the need for adaptation in our present environment.”

    Well said, I agree. My mental state is very relaxed and happy-go-lucky because I live in enough of an alignment with my Freudian “id” that I don’t have any real internal battles going on. I can live this way because I don’t subscribe to the same value system or goals that modern society tries to socially condition us to subscribe to. Basically I go “ehh, I don’t really see the benefit to monogamy for me, so I’m not going to force myself to try to be monogamous.”

    I have friends who cheat on their girls, even the great girls who are 100% marriage material…and they are generally pretty miserable. I’ve tried to explain to them that their frustration with themselves, with life, with their actions, with their partner, isn’t anything to do with their partner as a person. They’re simply forcing the square peg into the round hole and trying to force themselves to act in a way (monogamy) that they instinctively don’t want to…so when they go get drunk, the id takes over and they end up cheating. And they feel terrible in the morning for it, so you’d think they’d go “okay I just won’t drink again” but subconsciously they know they need that release because while drunk they’re living in alignment with their natural desires instead of fighting them like they do the rest of the time, so they go out and get hammered again and the cycle of frustration, guilt, lies and shame just continues over and over while they wait for an external circumstance to decide their fate (ie – their girl leaves them or the girl they bang steals them away etc)

    It’s like this perpetual state of not living in alignment with their desires, but not having enough balls to ignore social pressure/judgement and take the reins and choose a path, and instead hoping something external chooses for them so they don’t have to go against their social conditioning because society will shame them for ditching a marriage girl for random pussy.

    It’s really sad to me, because these are friends putting themselves through this. This kind of stuff is why I’m glad there’s a Manosphere and PUA etc to get the message out there to guys like these, so they don’t trap themselves into a cage before exploring what they really want in life.

    There’s nothing wrong with monogamy and settling down and getting married…as long as its a very conscious decision (vs being socially conditioned or guilty into it) and as long as a guy has explored his id and slept around and met a bunch of girls and learned exactly what he wants/needs in life. My big problems with most guys in monogamous relationships is that they never explored that shit because society would shame them for it or because they didn’t have the Game skills TO explore it, so they’re settling into an agreement too soon…the end result is usually that down the road they cheat, just like the mid-life crisis guy buying a Ferrari because he never allowed himself to have any fun when he was younger.

    Sooner or later we realize we’re going to die one day, and we suddenly try to do all the things we should’ve done before we committed to a lifestyle where we’re not allowed to do any of those things.

    Good post Rollo!

  • Kate

    “Kate, you’re conflating desire with behavior. You can control the manifestations of your desire (behavior), but you either have a genuine desire or you don’t.

    Whether or not you engage in a behavior doesn’t negate the desire to engage in it.”

    Rollo, how did I not see this comment? Anyway, I guess you’re right. And that is actually very helpful to have spelled out because sometimes I just can’t understand why I’m rejected and I guess its just because “genuine desire” isn’t there. Its hard to believe this is possible! But, it is.

  • Anna

    @YaReally

    I couldn’t agree more. People need to go out, live, and experience LIFE. This whole guilting men and women into getting married at age 20-25 is bogus…how are you supposed to be able to make any type of long term decision when you’ve nothing to compare it to? I firmly believe that we need to travel, get a good job, and learn to depend on ourselves BEFORE we try to depend on someone else for the rest of our lives.

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

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 5,066 other followers

%d bloggers like this: