Madonnas and Whores

Madonna-Whore

It appears that for whatever reason the manosphere topic du jour of last week has turned some fresh light on the debate regarding the validity of the concept of Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks. In between reposting HuffPo articles and any pop-psychology pablum that agrees with her ego-investments, Aunt Giggles seems to have decided to reject reality and replace it with her own (you expected something else?), more comforting, fantasies she finds catharsis in. If readers want to sift through the pop-up ads and fem.mgid links to get the gist of her ‘reasons’ why she believes AFBB is some viral manosphere myth, feel free to head over to her Hooking Up Betas echo chamber and brush up on it.

If you want the short version it’s basically this; in her 5 years of blogging all of the 7 or 8 unmoderated commenters she consistently allows to reinforce her own perspectives have told her that Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks is bunk. So there you have it, myth busted! This is kind of surprising since the concept of Hypergamy she so reluctantly conceded to essentially  contradicts this, but as with all things Giggles, she was against it before she was for it before she was against it again….or, whatever the sponsors want her to be for.

All digs aside the epic comment thread from last week’s post went in all manner of direction, but it was fairly enlightening with regard to the level of vitriol women have for Alphas. You see when it comes down to it, Alpha Men are the ones women love to hate. Poor Betas only deserve a passing mention; just enough “we love ya nice guys” so as not to raise suspicions that they might be getting a raw deal for their provisioning and good behavior right at the last moment when women need it the most.

It’s the Alpha that the widows pine for. It’s the Alpha who’s the culprit for all the feminine imperative’s woes. It’s that damn Alpha who gives her the tingles, but so frustratingly won’t submit commit to her imperatives – why can’t they just play nice, like a good Beta will? It’s the Alpha that women write songs for.

The Process

During last week’s comment thread Dr. J reminded me of the process of breaking down a behavioral dynamic. The distilled version of that process is as follows:

Biological —> Psychological —> Sociological.

This is a valuable progression to remember when it comes to understanding whys  of red pill dynamics. When there’s a breakdown in understanding a particular dynamic, or even a willful refusal to understand it, at some stage there is a failure to make the connection between these realms.

Just for sake of a neutral illustration here lets take the dynamic of hunger. Biologically we get hungry, our bodies need nurishment, and thanks to our evolved genetics, and the scarcity of food in our evolutionary past, we tend to prefer certain types of energy rich food over others. Psychologically we might develop the conviction to train ourselves to eat right and exercise, or we might develop various personal rationalizations for why we’re OK with being fat . Sociologically this dynamic extends into the obesity epidemic society is now facing, and depending upon the predominance of a particular individualized psychology the social manifestation may be a Fat Acceptance movement or a cultural obsession with physical fitness.

Granted, this is a simplistic illustration which becomes more complex as more dynamics are layered upon others – For instance both Fat Acceptance and physical fitness psychology are also rooted in the capacity to optimize hypergamy for women (a biological imperative) as well as having implications and purposes for other social conventions.

If there is a problem in really understanding a red pill truth, if there is a resistance (willful or otherwise) to that understanding, or even if there is a some doubt about a social dynamic that needs testing to explain, there is usually either a denial of, or a lack of connection to, a realm in this progression. With regard to blue pill critics and those with ego-investments in their mindset, denying or downplaying the importance of certain aspects of these realms is necessary to protect those mindsets. Sometimes one realm may be discounted altogether in order to maintain an ego-investment.

So it’s with this progression in mind that we have to really deconstruct the Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks dynamic, as well as it’s male-specific counterpart the Madonna / Whore dynamic.

Alpha Fucks & Beta Bucks

From a biologically imperative starting point the AFBB dynamic is easily provable in women’s pluralistic sexual strategy. If Aunt Giggles or any other doubter needs evidence of the biological motivators of AFBB, look no further than the provable behavioral prompts of women’s menstrual cycle. I covered the more Game-tactical aspects of this in Your Friend Menstruation, but study after study prove that women’s behaviors, sexual appetites and mate preference selections coincide with the particular ovulatory phase a woman happens to be in and how best to satisfy it at that stage.

As a feminine social directive, Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks, is the social extension of women’s pluralistic sexual strategy. This strategy is literally encoded into women’s neurological firmware and endocrine systems. This ovulatory influence in mate preference that describes this pluralism is well documented, as are other manifestations such as:

Changes in women’s feelings about their romantic relationships across the ovulatory cycle

Body odor attractiveness as a cue of impending ovulation in women

Ovulatory Shifts in Women’s Attractions to Primary Partners and Other Men

Females Avoiding Fathers When Fertile

Menstrual Cycle Shifts in Women’s Preferences for Masculinity

Vocal cues of ovulation signaling

Changes in Women’s Choice of Dress Across the Ovulatory Cycle

Ovulatory shifts in ornamentation

In a biological realm, there is little doubt that a directive towards a sexually pluralistic sexual strategy would be the most pragmatic reason for these behavioral manifestations. The female biological condition prompts sexual pluralism, which further prompts the social condition of Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks (essentially cuckoldry) as the most practical solution to the problem that optimized Hypergamy presents in finding a male who best embodies the ideal of both. Women’s ovulatory cycle motivates for the sexual optimization of the Alpha, as well as the provisioning security / parental investment optimization that (usually, not exclusively) the Beta represents.

Madonnas and Whores

There is a counterpart to this dynamic in Men – the Madonna / Whore dynamic. You might know this dynamic as the Madonna/Whore “Complex” since feminine-primary society likes to repeat the term in an effort to pathologize the male analogy of optimizing his own sexual strategy. This marginalization is of course to be expected if women’s sexual strategy and hypergamic selectivity is to be socially ensured.

Again, Dr. J offers us a good breakdown of the comparison of sexual strategies:

Here is how I conceptualize it… On one hand, there are equivalences:

1) Men prefer “madonnas” for long-term commitments, and “whores” for short-term mating.

2) Women prefer “beta-dads” for long-term commitments, and “alpha-cads” for short-term mating.

3) Both, ideally “want it all” in one person. The male ideal is the “virgin wife who is a slut only for them” – madonna and whore. The female ideal is the alpha stud who settles down and becomes a provider for her – fux and bux.

4) If “both in one” is not an option, then women may get short-term fux from an alpha cad, and long-term commitment bux from a beta dad – alpha fux and beta bux (AFBB). Similarly, men may have a primary, virginal wife to assure paternity, then a “slut on the side” for kicks – virgin validation and slut excitation (VVSE).

Thus, on this level of analysis madonna = beta (long-term commitment) and whore = alpha (short-term mating).

Because the sexes also complement each other, there is also some mirroring. They are not mutually exclusive.

Thus:

A) Male’s are primarily rated for their provisioning value, women for their sexual value, in long-term commitment.

B) Either are perceived to be low-worth when they give away that primary value too quickly.

C) Thus, “virgins” and “alphas” are often perceived as high value, while “sluts” and “betas” are often perceived as low value.

This creates a conflict with the four points above when:

I) High value virgins and alphas match up together by similar value, only to find that their mating goals may not line up. Sometimes they commit and have sex, which means they both “get it all”. Other times, they just have sex – which is an unfair trade for the virgin. If she is “smart” she requires commitment for sex – but the “blue pill” usually brainwashes her away from that.

II) Low value whores and betas match up based on value too, only to find their mating goals in conflict as well. Sometimes they also commit and have sex, which means they both “get the best they can”. Other times, they just commit – which is an unfair trade for the beta. If he is “smart” he requires sex for commitment – but the “blue pill” usually brainwashes him away from that.

In my post The Threat I wrote:

Women’s shit testing is a psychologically evolved, hard-wired survival mechanism. Women will shit test men as autonomously and subconsciously as a men will stare at a woman’s big boobs. They cannot help it, and often enough, just like men staring at a nice rack or a great ass, even when they’re aware of doing it they’ll still do it. Men want to verify sexual availability to the same degree women want to verify a masculine dominance / confidence.

As with AFFB you have to begin in the biological realm to understand men’s sexual strategy and move through the psychological to get to the social. The Madonna / Whore dynamic isn’t too hard to understand when you consider men’s sexual imperative stimulated by the realities of 12.5 times the amount of testosterone women experience. A while back on Sunshine Mary’s blog the topic was an effort in trying to understand (more like verify the fact) that men sexually evaluate a woman within the first glance of a woman. From an intersocial standpoint this fact (dubiously) offends women in that it smacks of some learned (psychological/sociological) tendency to objectify women. However the biological fact is that all men objectify women because it is how our neural firmware evolved. The parts of men’s brains involved with problem solving and tool use are stimulated when we see sexually available women.

Male Hypergamy

I’m often asked if I think there is a male parallel to feminine Hypergamy. If there is it’s the want to optimize a balance in the ideal monogamous wife, supportive mother for his children, and a woman he (mistakenly) believes has the capacity to love him as he believes a woman could, and the dirty, porn star who represents unlimited access to unlimited sexuality. Lets be clear this want for masculine hypergamy doesn’t have anything near the biological impetus that women’s physicality prompts them to – we simply don’t have the same plumbing or firmware – and rather his hypergamy is rooted in a rational frustration of trying to balance sexual availability with his potential for investing himself emotionally in a woman.

It’s maybe not so ironic that the same fem-centric critics who so adamantly want to avoid the inconvenient aspects of the biological realm by focusing exclusively on the psychological or social in order to discredit the feminine AFBB / Sexual Pluralism, are the same critics who’ll gleefully endorse the Madonna / Whore “complex” in men because it agrees with their ego-investments and further reinforces the Feminine Imperative as the socially dominant one.

Before I finish up here I wanted to add my take on the husband of the Whore/Prude wife from last week’s post. A lot of guys (and one convenient feminist) said he should’ve seen it coming, or he never should’ve signed on for marrying a woman who didn’t have a genuine desire to fuck him like the secret porn star she used to be. In a perfect world where we have absolute clarity and foresight is 20/20 that maybe, but if I had to speculate, my guess is that he was trying to do what he thought and had been conditioned to think was right. He married a Madonna, and very likely an attractive one he thought he could do no better by, in the hopes she would “come around” and be at least a satisfactory whore for him alone.

How many guys would you advise marry even a borderline slut in the hopes that she’d “come around” to being a great wife and mother? The majority of men are varying degrees of Betas,pre-whipped by the feminine imperative for half a lifetime to eventually be the de facto cuckold for women’s sexual priorities at just the right time. From a red pill perspective we can say he should’ve seen the signs, but we’re dealing with a blue pill man plugged into the Matrix trying to balance the Madonna / Whore dynamic with blinders on.

Late Edit: For further analysis, linked here is the most recent followup reddit post of the (very real) husband of porn tape wife from last week’s post.


132 responses to “Madonnas and Whores

  • Sal Ceech

    Good Morning Rollo and Merry Christmas to you and your family

    I’ll post here for the start of another epic thread and look forward to how close to the Madonna-esgue/Whor-ish qualities to look for in the “elusive unicorn” .As I’ve said so before ..if I do believe I find her , I’ll fork out the counsel rate to get the all clear from you before a marriage.

  • donalgraeme

    Top notch post as always Rollo.

    I) High value virgins and alphas match up together by similar value, only to find that their mating goals may not line up. Sometimes they commit and have sex, which means they both “get it all”. Other times, they just have sex – which is an unfair trade for the virgin. If she is “smart” she requires commitment for sex – but the “blue pill” usually brainwashes her away from that.

    II) Low value whores and betas match up based on value too, only to find their mating goals in conflict as well. Sometimes they also commit and have sex, which means they both “get the best they can”. Other times, they just commit – which is an unfair trade for the beta. If he is “smart” he requires sex for commitment – but the “blue pill” usually brainwashes him away from that.

    This is the best explanation I’ve seen so far about how Beta guys who offer commitment without sex are the male equivalent of sluts.

  • LiveFearless

    This is Brilliant: “The majority of men are varying degrees of Betas,pre-whipped by the feminine imperative for half a lifetime to eventually be the de facto cuckold for women’s sexual priorities at just the right time.” Don’t be that guy. RM is the fast track out of that plight in the programmed “matrix”

  • Tilikum

    what fascinates me is how invested in blue pill culture the vast majority of men truly are. and they are loath to let go of their delusions. truth is an anathema.

  • YOHAMI

    Good stuff. I guess HUS continues to shame alpha in an effort that alphas want to become more beta since that’s where the pussy is. She must be wondering why its not working, and the only guys agreeing to become more beta are plenty already.

  • eris

    A form of male “Hypergamy” does exist in the sense of the realization of “male optimal sexual strategy”.
    Compared to ancient societies where huge numbers of men didn’t get to mate the fact that nowadays most men in most societies have the opportunity to pair bond, effectively thwarting female Hypergamy to some extent, could be seen as a triumph of the masculine ability to engineer a practical solution to a problem – in this case to optimize his access to reproductive resources.

    The AFBB phenomenon is Hypergamy’s perpetual struggle against male ingenuity to achieve its goal-state of many women mating with a reduced pool of feminine-approved alphas without upsetting the access to provisioning from unwitting betas – in short a system that achieves optimization through the tension created by relentless battle of one-upmanship.

  • CrisisEraDynamo

    Rollo, what do you make of things like this? Though this relates to curing paralysis, it seems that neural rewording is just around the corner, and all this stuff about hardwired brains will be both confirmed and obsoleted.

    Gotta look to the future, you know. Especially when it’s around the corner.

  • earl

    Two things…a question and a statement.

    Does it up the value of a man…if what he seeks is a virgin for marriage, instead of any old used slut? If he can’t get that…then he prefers staying single and GHOW. (That would be my thinking with my red pill awareness..as opposed to my beta past where I would take any female attention)

    …and I’d have to agree with the assessment of the dude from last week’s rantings.

    Sure most of us guys round the ‘sphere know NOW what to do…but if I was in his shoes back when I was 25, I’d probably make the same mistakes. Just look at how many stories of divorced men that come here wishing they knew what they know now.

    If you are single, get this wisdom, and put it to use…consider yourself lucky that you found gold when you did.

  • To.the.End

    Great post

    Fem-centrism run amoc, they’re praised and we’re shamed, they’re exalted and we’re devalued. It’s so blatant how every uniquely male trait is pathologized for the sake of a feminine primary reality.

    It’s infuriating to think as men we’re directly and indirectly taught to be little cuckold bitches in a game rigged by women and then incessantly shamed when we go against the grain. The more we’re made aware the more we may witness how uncaring selfish and indifferent women are towards males while we’re taught to care. They view our gender as stock to be used solely to their advantage.The importance of game and covert enlightened self-interest on our part cannot be understated. I believe complete indifference towards their concerns and opinions is whats in order. I’d even go so far as to say society should return to viewing them as inferior. They are amoral and would take as much as we give them.

  • Tom

    One criticism against the alpha fucks beta bucks meme has been that the rate of children growing up with the wrong father is not higher than around 5% or maybe even a bit lower. This is said to be a low number and so it is not central to women’s strategy. Firstly, I don`t think that is a low number at all. Secondly, it leaves out how many men raise children they KNOW are not their own as step fathers. It is guaranteed to be a solid pattern that men raising other mens children are on average much more beta than the father. Combine those two numbers and the total number of women having successfully fucked an alpha and had a beta raise her child becomes HUGE. In addition to that you have to factor in that all sexual strategies are in sort of a stale mate with the other genders sexual strategies. Because men fear being cuckolded they try to counteract it happening in all sorts of ways. Mate guarding in their own relationships and cultural norms to shame women from doing this. Imagined if men did not put in this effort and women where free to follow their sexual strategy exactly as THEY preferred without interference. What would the rate of cuckolding be then? 20%, 50%, 70%? Certainly way, way higher than 5. It is a mistake to evaluate to what extent women succeed in strategy with how hard they try or want to try a strategy. And it is exactly mens fear of this strategy that keeps it in check to a certain extent.

    But as mentioned, even if you forget about how much more cuckolding there’re would be if women had total liberty to follow their strategy stepfatherhood places the alpha fucks beta bucks level at en extremely high level.

  • To.the.End

    You’re right Tom, the rate would swing to around 70% or higher definitely! I think we should not place too much faith in statistics such as the 5% – who knows how much these statistics could have been skewed and under which conditions they were taken; or worse, if women were involved in giving them given the rate at which women lie. It may be that a lot of women don’t take the risk of cuckolding their husbands and getting pregnant by alphas during their fertile phase due to the risk of her being found out and losing the betas provisioning.
    But as you mentioned, if she could get away with it she’d let the alpha inseminate her and let the beta raise the child all the while providing the facade of being a virtuous faithful loving woman

  • deti

    The entire conflict about AFBB, and Susan Walsh’s denial of it based on a few of her groupies saying “I’m not like that”, is simply a refusal to accept that men have interests and objectives they want to achieve from mating, sex, and marriage. It’s the same old thing – relationship issues, sex advice and marriage advice are almost always viewed with an eye to what the woman wants, what benefits her, what she wants, needs, and desires. There are only passing reference to HIS wants, needs and desires. And one can only conclude that most women simply don’t think about such things, because her husband’s wants, needs and desires simply aren’t important to her.

    It isn’t going to change; and so men are going to hvae to look out for their own interests.

  • eris

    Interestingly, the one thing that both a man’s Game and a woman’s hypergamy have in common is that both depend heavily on the majority of men not knowing that it exists in order to be successful.

  • Bob Wallace

    “Women’s shit testing is a psychologically evolved, hard-wired survival mechanism.”

    Please identify the genes involved.

    [Men and women's brains are wired differently. Enjoy.]

  • hoellenhund2

    “I’m often asked if I think there is a male parallel to feminine Hypergamy.”

    I’d say the parallel is that male resources are spread very unevenly among women. I’m sure a small minority of women are hogging the majority of male resources, especially material ones.

  • hoellenhund2

    “One criticism against the alpha fucks beta bucks meme has been that the rate of children growing up with the wrong father is not higher than around 5% or maybe even a bit lower.”

    Even if that rate is that low, which I’m sure it isn’t, you need to take into account the massive transfer of resources, mostly from beta male taxpayers to single mothers and their thugspawn, that is the norm in all Western societies. It’s legally sanctioned and enforced cuckoldry on a huge scale.

  • 8to12

    …it was fairly enlightening with regard to the level of vitriol women have for Alphas. You see when it comes down to it, Alpha Men are the ones women love to hate. Poor Betas only deserve a passing mention; just enough “we love ya nice guys” so as not to raise suspicions that they might be getting a raw deal for their provisioning and good behavior right at the last moment when women need it the most.

    “Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for their fathers used to treat the false prophets in the same way.” Luke 6:26

    Jesus was using this in a religious context, but it has wider application.

    The true prophets in the Bible were both hated and respected, because they told the unvarnished truth.

    False prophets weren’t respected, because deep down people knew they weren’t telling the truth. They were praised by people who wanted to use them for their own purposes. They were tools.

    When all women praise you as being a great guy, then you are no more a “real” great guy than false prophets were real prophets.

    Betas/nice-guys need to take this to heart: If no women hate you, then no women love you.

  • Just Saying

    Excellent post. I always tell guys to think of a woman who is a virgin has a dollar value of $100, after she loses her virginity she has a value of about $10, after she has her second lover her value drops to $1 – decrease by 90% thereafter – from the perspective of a man looking for a marriageable female (i.e., one you could actually trust to ensure paternity – a woman knows she is the mother, the man takes it on faith). That trustworthiness is just like the Federal Government – now in that world if you have EVER betrayed a trust your value is 0, it goes from a possible 100 to worthless. Most men are willing to be a bit more pragmatic – but early on, you would get a woman early so that either way – you were the one that enjoyed access to her. Madonna or Whore – didn’t matter – she had no access. Today – she goes through her majority of value in either High-school or college.

    Now that’s not a judgement on her as a person, any more than the US denying you a clearance is a denial of you as a person – but it does recognize that for in this particular area – trustworthiness – your value is either there, or it isn’t. And just like the government using polygraphs to verify that trustworthiness, a man needs to use every tool he can to verify that a woman is telling the truth – because the odds are she isn’t.

    Now, of course, women will object to this characterization, and men will nod since it makes common sense. That is why they (women) call it a “complex” rather just recognition of the world as it is.

  • BuenaVista

    One of the unpleasant ironies of female preferences and behaviors, when they are in a monogamous situation, is their general disinterest in the whole “bad girls with pearls” model (lady in public, lover in private). Of course, if a woman values her man and his fidelity, and understands his sexuality, she knows he probably prefers a bad girl with pearls, because he requires variety and strange, when the lights are low.

    I think it’s quite ominous, really, because women are very strident about demanding sexual fidelity from a man. But a woman committing herself to being a true sexual partner to that man? Not so much. This is really great hostility; this is one step from celibacy. While in the romance novels, this is portrayed positively (“taming the beast”), in life, it’s just emasculating the beast. This sort of woman is just using temporary sexual access as means to a man’s provisioning (financial or sperm).

    Very, very few women know what a man desires (sexually or emotionally; fewer bother even to ask). Given the social and legal penalties for *not* doing what a woman wants, when she wants it, I suggest paying close attention to a woman’s sexual style. Sexual style is usually just the most articulate metaphor for true feelings. No woman loves a man truly and yet does not care for his sexual happiness. But IME, 9/10 think that sex is something a man performs and that a woman “lets him have”; and that occasional vaginal access per se is self-actualizing for men. Of course, nothing is more demeaning and dispiriting than a woman who conflates bland and infrequent access to her magical pussy, with sexual fulfillment.

  • Vektor

    An important distinction to make between AFBB and VVSE is the context of the children. Men are not seeking to conceive children with sluts. When they do seek children with a ‘madonna’ female, it is generally within the context of a functional marriage. Women pursuing a AFBB strategy are having children in a relationship(s) (maybe marriage, maybe not), then voluntarily or involuntarily destroying that relationship(s), then seeking an arrangement motivated primarily by financial need. The VVSE strategy is inherently better for the children. AFBB is unstable and dysfunctional.

    I would also view the AFBB strategy as an form of soft polygamy. I can see feminist women leading the charge to legalize formal polygamy on the heels of gay marriage. All in the name of ‘tolerance’ and ‘diversity’. Multiple women get to share an alpha rather than suffer to settle for a beta. Or, one woman gets both an alpha and one or more betas to all support her. This is a return to the mating society of apes.

    The solution for men is to avoid association with single mothers, or at the very least, do not give them your commitment.

  • tanner

    Rollo, I’m curious… so where did you fit into the picture with your wife? I remember you saying she chose you over a doctor and you didn’t have two nickels to rub together at the time…

  • Fred Flange, PsyChoD.

    Want to be sure I have read this correctly: Alphas are the men women “love to hate.” Yet they pine for them, lust for them, are mad because they can’t force committment from them. Whereas betas are the men the former carousel riding women just hate, period.* Right?

    *or are bored by, tolerate, leave when “unhaaaapy”, close eyes and think of England whilst schtupping once a month

  • Rollo Tomassi

    Mate guarding in their own relationships and cultural norms to shame women from doing this. Imagined if men did not put in this effort and women where free to follow their sexual strategy exactly as THEY preferred without interference. What would the rate of cuckolding be then? 20%, 50%, 70%? Certainly way, way higher than 5. It is a mistake to evaluate to what extent women succeed in strategy with how hard they try or want to try a strategy.

    @Tom, it’s interesting that the same AFBB deniers are also the first to embrace very identifiable male dynamics like Mate Guarding behaviors (psychologically evolved contingencies to cuckolding) and the motivators behind them.

    They’ll gladly endorse the biological underpinnings of anything unflattering for the male imperative while denying or marginalizing those same underpinnings for anything unflattering to the feminine imperative.

  • Jeremy

    However the biological fact is that all men objectify women because it is how our neural firmware evolved. The parts of men’s brains involved with problem solving and tool use are stimulated when we see sexually available women.

    To borrow from one of Deti’s more recent guest posts on another manosphere blog, Men are wired to seek to “win”. Solving a physical problem with the proper tool is “winning”. Building a new machine to help with a job is “winning”. Figuring out how to fix something you haven’t fixed before is “winning”. Finding a woman who fits your ideal of attractive is “winning”. It’s the “winning” part of a brain that gets the stimulation. The inputs matter less than the potential outcome. That’s not to say it’s not objectification, but calling it objectification provides a convenient label for something that is inconvenient to the feminine.

    It’s maybe not so ironic that the same fem-centric critics who so adamantly want to avoid the inconvenient aspects of the biological realm by focusing exclusively on the psychological or social in order to discredit the feminine AFBB / Sexual Pluralism, are the same critics who’ll gleefully endorse the Madonna / Whore “complex” in men because it agrees with their ego-investments and further reinforces the Feminine Imperative as the socially dominant one.

    Your typical fem-centric critic will ignore the female biological truth while blaming all “undesired” male behavior on male biology because it is in their best efforts at sophistry to do so. Their hypocrisy rests in how easily testosterone and male biology is blamed for everything males do that females dislike, while attributing what few admitted undesired female behavioral traits exist on mythical social constructs.

    Oh, little boys can’t pay attention in class? It must be testosterone.
    Oh, grown women can’t take responsibility for their actions? It must be the patriarchy.

    And, as you and others have inferred, it’s pure power grab. Denial of the first-principles nature of human biodiversity in this conversation allows those who deny it to convince any who agree with them that no biological trade-offs exist. It allows them to construct ridiculous arguments that women are actually faster or stronger than men when considered in speed per pound or watts of power per pound, and further imply that the reason women are considered weaker is because of social conditioning perpetuated by males. Once you’ve got this absurdity in the mainstream you have full control of the social situation by thoroughly hiding any fundamental weaknesses of the self.

    How many guys would you advise marry even a borderline slut in the hopes that she’d “come around” to being a great wife and mother?

    Zero, and that’s an excellent point.

  • Tin Man

    As a recovering Beta-Husband, with very clear and perfect 20/20 vision from my past — there isn’t anything explicit or implied within the AFBB strategy that I don’t agree with. I fucked the slut, knew she was a slut, our relationship started as a ONS. So the needle was point more to alpha the night I met her…BUT and this is important…she captured a beta in alpha clothing that night – even if it took me half the marriage to get there.

    Regardless of how you start out, if you don’t figure out how to be Red Pill aware in your marriage, and you live in the Blue Pill world – and buy into the male version of the Disney fantasy – you will become the Great American Beta Husband [insert you country as necessary] – it starts with every little side step you make, until you are squarely in the middle of it. You will know something is wrong, but without the knowledge presented here and elsewhere, you’ll just be unhappy and not really know why.

    Information is key. Knowledge is power, Action is the application of power. Mission drives action. Rinse and repeat.

  • Tin Man

    Besides, if I’m completely honest with myself, she’s very perceptive and recognized what I was from the very beginning. She told me that the night we met, she had an internal battle – me or the bartender.

  • Jibola

    On a much lighter note, when I think of the title, I don’t think of Madonna the virgin but the eponymous Madonna. So in my head it’s (Hagard old, should be expired) Whores and Whores.

  • Morpheus

    Good stuff. I guess HUS continues to shame alpha in an effort that alphas want to become more beta since that’s where the pussy is. She must be wondering why its not working, and the only guys agreeing to become more beta are plenty already.

    Yohami,

    I still peruse the comments for entertainment value. The amount of sheer absurdity that the herd reinforces for each other truly is breathtaking. One of the proverbs is Iron Sharpens Iron. I think men perform this role largely for each other. Some guy is going to step up and say “Hey bro, that’s bullshit”. In a female + mangina community it becomes all about reinforcement, and esteem and consensus building. You start to see some absurd beliefs, statements, arguments, because no one wants to step up and say “Hey Girl, that is bullshit”.

    Anyways, Giggles continues on her path to a simplistic, cartoonish thinker where everything can be reduced to binary black and white. I have heard that women undergoing menopause start to lose brain power so maybe that is what is happening. Anyways, her current position is alpha=douchebag asshole and beta=good relationship guy. All the other various personality traits like boldness, leadership, etc. and how they affect women’s perceptions is too complex for her.

  • Jeremy

    @Tin Man

    …and you live in the Blue Pill world – and buy into the male version of the Disney fantasy – you will become the Great American Beta Husband

    So, the Disney fantasy of masculine hasn’t always been the utilitarian rescuer of princesses. The animated films were certainly like that, but not all Disney films were like that. In fact pre-2nd wave feminism, there were a significant number of non-animated Disney films that showed some true masculine traits. Interestingly enough, ALL of the animated films had mostly feminine fantasy. Just look at the list:

    This list of 1950s Disney Animated Films:
    Cinderella
    Alice in Wonderland
    Peter Pan
    Lady and the Tramp
    Sleeping Beauty

    The list of 1950s Disney Live Action Films:
    Treasure Island
    The Story of Robin Hood and His Merrie Men
    The Sword and the Rose
    Rob Roy, the Highland Rogue
    20,000 Leagues Under the Sea
    Davy Crockett, King of the Wild Frontier
    The Littlest Outlaw
    The Great Locomotive Chase
    Davy Crockett and the River Pirates
    Westward Ho, the Wagons!
    Johnny Tremain
    Old Yeller
    The Light in the Forest
    Tonka
    The Shaggy Dog
    Darby O’Gill and the Little People
    Third Man on the Mountain

    That’s only one decade, and it’s before 2nd wave feminism… and look at the difference. All the animated films are all about a female character who gets doted on, rescued, or has an adventure. Almost all of the live action films are all about a male-centered adventure, with some comedy thrown in.

    When you consider what research has proven w.r.t. the influence that animation has on kids, you have to wonder if there wasn’t some actual design to this stark difference in story telling. Find any parent with a 1-3 year old kid these days, and ask them how much trouble they have getting their kid to pay attention to them. Then ask them how quickly that same kid locks onto an animated feature on the television and does not look away until the program is over (even watching all commercials).

    I suspect this has something to do with kids need for visual stimulation to grow their brain. The human optical processing pathways probably hunger for more stimulation in the early years than real life often provides, making it difficult for kids to ignore colored characters on the screen moving around and acting out scenes.

    In any case, I just wanted to mention this as food for thought.

  • To.the.End

    What’s society gonna change into when there’s a critical mass of Red Pill men? What shit is the FemImp gonna pull out of its ass to get that under control?

  • derthal

    This post lit another bulb in my head… Thanks.

  • hoellenhund2

    “Want to be sure I have read this correctly: Alphas are the men women “love to hate.” Yet they pine for them, lust for them, are mad because they can’t force committment from them. Whereas betas are the men the former carousel riding women just hate, period.* Right?”

    I’d say only alphas elicit strong emotional responses from women, whether it’s hate or anything else. Betas never do. Gammas are different, because they are capable of eliciting boundless revulsion.

  • Just Saying

    “she captured a beta in alpha clothing that night”

    Women try to convert an Alpha into a Beta provider all the time, it is why they work so hard to change men, then if they succeed get bored and look for another alpha for excitement. I learned that long ago from observation – and I also learned how common it is for women to pretend they are the Madonna with a guy they have ear-marked as a BB’s position, and work out their randiness with the alpha. Heck, I’ve seen it from both sides – as that beta when I was much much younger, and the alpha that the woman would come visit after getting horny when out with their Beta. They didn’t want him to know what a whore she was, so that is where the alpha guy comes in. I found that approach to be extremely common – especially during a woman’s college years and shortly thereafter.

    It is because I know how common, and universal that behavior is that I’m the guy women love to hate. I will tell them exactly how they are and they will scream it’s not true, then call to come over. The thing is I’ll tell guys here that is what they do, but I never tell it to the guy she’s targeting. That is his business. And I’m there for what is best for me – so I advise all men to always deal with women from a position of power, make her jump through the hoops but always keep your options open and make sure she knows you are keeping your options open. That is why I am against marriage and such – they limit a man’s options, but open a woman’s since the law will back her and hold you accountable for her behavior. So if she gets knocked up by another guy, many states still hold the husband responsible even if they can prove that they aren’t the father. Marriage and such limit a man’s ability to motivate women – so never marry them.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    @Fred, from Denial:

    http://therationalmale.com/2012/07/11/denial/

    In most popular stories Betas may be protagonists, but they’re never really heros. Every movie, that I can remember, that has a beta as a protagonist has been a comedy; beta males are good for laughing at – no one actually admires them.

  • eon

    Bob Wallace said: Please identify the genes involved, [in] “Women’s shit testing is a psychologically evolved, hard-wired survival mechanism.”

    In the first place, demanding an explication of low-level underlying mechanisms as a prerequisite to making high-level sociological observations is absurd.

    In the second place, individual genes as the arbiters of everything is … like … so yesterday. You really need to keep up with the times, if you want to be successful as a destructive pompous ass*.

    Now run along and go read this:

    The sequences of nucleic acids form fractal structures, which can be read in different ways, on different levels of scale. H. J. Jeffrey, “Chaos game representation of gene structure,” Nucleic Acids Res., 1990 Apr 25, 18(8): 2163-70.

    The Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) Project has proposed updating the definition of a gene to: “A gene is a union of genomic sequences encoding a coherent set of potentially overlapping functional products.” Mark B. Gerstein, Can Bruce, Joel S. Rozowsky, et al., “What is a gene, post-ENCODE? History and updated definition,” Genome Res., 2007, 17: 669-681.

    * Perhaps not obvious here, but I have been noticing him for a while, especially on other sites.

  • Jeremy

    @Bob Wallace

    Please identify the genes involved.

    This is like asking for a proof that gravity exists by demanding photographs of the sub-atomic particles responsible.

  • earl

    “Please identify the genes involved, [in] “Women’s shit testing is a psychologically evolved, hard-wired survival mechanism.”

    The other X chromosome.

  • D-Man

    Jeremy, that’s uncanny, thanks for posting. Makes me think of “The Century of the Self”.

    “w.r.t. the influence that animation has on kids, you have to wonder if there wasn’t some actual design”

    I’m convinced that nothing (that appears on the web, a TV screen, theatre, advert, etc.) is by accident or arbitrary. All content is engineered. It is all by design.

    Take a good zoom out and look at what images and themes are currently being thrust at our children and young adults. What effects do they have on young minds? Under whose approval and at whose behest are these choices being made? Why do some memes seem to have so much propulsion behind them, while other, clearly brilliant ones, are stifled? Whose purposes does this serve and why?

    We like to congratulate ourselves on having overcome our thirst for large-scale warfare… I would argue that it’s only physical slaughter we’re doing less of. The war of minds is ongoing. People are more useful alive, as controllable units of production and consumption. For now.

    And the Feminine-Imperative “complex”, which exerts its force in a top-down fashion from the sociological through the psychological and eventually to the biological (had a look at men’s average test levels lately?) is an integrated component of a larger thought/behavour control superstructure.

  • earl

    “I would argue that it’s only physical slaughter we’re doing less of. The war of minds is ongoing.”

    A line from Fight Club sums it up…

    Our great war is a spiritual war, our great depression is our lives.

  • LiveFearless

    @Dr. Jeremy, Has “some actual design” existed in The Magic of Animation? Good question. http://wp.me/P3P5mL-ak

  • D-Man

    “What’s society gonna change into when there’s a critical mass of Red Pill men? What shit is the FemImp gonna pull out of its ass to get that under control?”

    If I had to take a stab at the current state of the mythical pendulum, I’d say it’s still swinging away from the plumb-line. It may be slowing, but it hasn’t reversed direction.

  • Tin Man

    @Just Saying…

    Well, I was prime for the picking….32, my own business, making money hand over fist, confident in my ability….I don’t believe I bought anyone other than my sister and my friend a drink that night – including my soon to be wife (just didn’t know that at the time). She was there with 3 of her friends, and at least two hit on me – I shot them down and stuck with her. So, like I said – I was more alpha THAT night – and throughout the first few years of our marriage.

    BUT, it’s the slow movement – in some cases, only an agreement, or not wanting to fight over some insignificant thing – that chips away and reveals who you really are. I’m here admitting it – and it was me that did it. There’s a great quote by James Allen “Circumstances don’t make the man, they reveal him for who he already was.”

    Of course, I have another personal saying….”I am a Lion that convinced himself he was a mouse” – programming is real, taking the Red Pill hurts like hell; but the pain is worth the outcome.

  • Fred Flange, PsyChoD.

    Thanks gentlemen (Rollo, hoellenhund2) for the clarifications. All that makes sense; my question was prompted by the really really vitriolic nastiness from women commentators to, say, the NiceGuys of OK Cupid, or the uber-beta dad simp blogger who broke the Fight Club rule and admitted that, good non-cis dad that he was, he lusted after other women in his heart, loins, spleen, Isles of Langerhans etc. and got threats of physical harm (in New York Magazine!) that men would be Guantanamo’d for making.

  • D-Man

    Yeah Tin Man, the slide is so insidious, we have to constantly lean against it. I suspect oxytocin might be involved. I liked a previous commenter’s analogy that stuff like the RM here is our daily vitamin.

    BTW, neat job Rollo and Dr. J, dovetailing the concepts.

    I would offer to add that AFBB is, essentially, polyandry, even if they’d never cop to it while they demonize polygamy…

  • Jeremy

    Hilarious. Company proxy-policy blocks HUS from here as it is classified as “Adult”.. Whereas Rollo’s site is fine.

  • ageroagnis

    I read an post a few days ago about this 5 minutes of alpha phenomenon where the woman admits in her own words “somehow an afternoon UNDER this guy is more important to me than months with a great, awesome boyfriend”

    You can read the hamsterbatics here: http://redditlog.com/snapshots/35929

  • Morpheus

    Building Better Betas:

    http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2013/12/12/personal-development/fashion-advice-20-something-guys/

    Lets play dress up dolls!

    Just checked it out. Actually, some of the advice is not half bad. That said, I had to chuckle at the idea of not wearing a T-shirt. When I was coming back from my honeymoon, I had on a T-shirt I had bought at a place called Club Tattoo. Walking out of the plane, the attractive flight attendant smiled and said “That’s a really cool t-shirt”.

    I think different types of women are attracted to different looks on a guy. The hot gym fitness girl probably likes a different style than the emo girl with a boy’s haircut.

    I never really gave it much consideration, but I wonder if certain looks more reliably send the the “beta provider” type message.

    One thing guys would do well to understand is it is very easy to transition from short-term sexy to long-term relationship material simply over the course of time. The opposite is damn near impossible to pull off. Once a woman throws you into the the “potential long-term beta provider” box, you are probably aren’t going to be able to shift into the short-term fling box.

  • Aristippus

    Really, you have to be more relentless than the woman you’re in a relationship with. Women will continually try to push your boundaries (so will pets and children). They are rather persistent in this type of behavior. It’s a matter of deciding what boundaries they’re not allowed to cross. As much as women might not want to hear it, men were meant to lead in the relationship.

    The male is bigger and stronger in most cases and although an emotional creature, is less ruled by his emotions than women. Notice I said “less”. Men have a better ability to overrule their emotions when they get in the way of getting the job done. Women aren’t as good at doing that as men are.

    It isn’t that one is good and one is bad. It’s that Nature has different roles for both. Once in a relationship, A WOMAN WILL NOT RESPECT A LOVER/HUSBAND THAT WILL NOT TAKE THE LEAD AND ALLOWS HER TO CONSTANTLY LEAD HIM. Women instinctively know that what they want is a man who they are sexually attracted to and who will lead, no matter what the feminist brainwashing tries to tell her.

    A man who lets his woman lead him all of the time and call the shots is playing the opposite of the role he should be playing. He’s basically playing the woman’s role. A man needs to be a responsible leader and take his wife’s feelings into consideration when making decisions but his job is NOT to be a pandering “yes” man. Sometimes he will have to make a decision that he feels is in the best interest of the family, whether his wife likes the decision or not. Since his wife can’t have her way 100% of the time, sometimes he will have to pick HIS preference.

    That’s just the way it is. And that’s how a woman that loves you can sometimes hate you. When you choose not to take her b.s. she might hate you, but she will respect you. When you let her have her way last time but this time you decide she can’t have her way, she’ll hate you for it in the moment, but she will respect you. Overall if you’re a fair leader, sometimes you make a choice that everyone likes, sometimes you compromise for her, other times she compromises for you, and sometimes you WILL make a decision she doesn’t like.

    When she doesn’t like it and you’ve given a fair explanation, any attempts she makes to guilt you or to try to get you to be apologetic or to try to shame you for making a decision she doesn’t like, should be resisted, not with logic (you already gave her the logical answer), but with firmness. This is the point where you should simply be dominant and let her know the decision is final, that you’ve given her a fair and logical explanation, and that if she’s trying to guilt or shame you or annoy you into changing your decision, she’s wasting her breath.

    This is where most men FAIL. And they fail miserably. She makes a series of unfair, ridiculous statements, she is in a temporary state of insanity where reason and logic won’t matter, yet, like a little dog you’re trying to explain yourself to a woman who is simply trying to psychologically bully you. At this point, the worst thing you can do is say “sorry”. “I’m sorry.” is reserved for when you genuinely make a mistake or hurt someone unintentionally. Not because you chose to make a decision and now fear the “wrath” of your wife. You are a MAN, right? Then act like one!

    Of course, the man who acts like a whipped little puppy will try to explain himself and despite saying “I’m sorry.” a thousand times, this only fuels her psychological bullying even farther and instead she only throws out more unfair, cruel, shaming language. When you’re in the right, the worst thing you can say is “I’m sorry.”. Especially to a woman. You will only embolden her to be more unfair and ridiculous than she is already behaving. And she’ll also lose respect for you.

    The man who is whipped dies the “death of 1,000 cuts”. I think that phrase originally refers to jungle survival scenarios where a person gets small cuts that become infected and could potentially die as a result. I could be wrong. I’m no survivalist. That phrase could also easily apply in relationships. Woman crosses a boundary you set and you let her get away with it. ::cut:: Woman says something disrespectful to you and you don’t correct her. ::cut:: Woman expects the world from you but contributes very little to the relationship. You don’t address the issue. ::cut cut cut::

    Woman whines persistently to get her way and even though getting her way this time might be unfair to you, you let her get her way. ::cut::
    You let her get away with double-standards (maybe she thinks it’s ok to hang out with her friends but it isn’t ok for you to spend time with your friends). ::cut::. She thinks it’s ok to be friends with her ex-boyfriends and you allow it ::cut::…. And THAT is how a man allows his relationship to die the death of 1,000 cuts.

    Allowing a child to get away with too much can create a spoiled brat and a delinquent. You must persistently say “No.”. again and again. And you must make the child pay the consequences every time so that he becomes a good person and responsible adult. It’s the same with a woman. Allow her to get away with too much and you create the adult version of a spoiled brat. You must persistently say “No.” when it’s appropriate to do so and you must make her pay the consequences for any bad or irresponsible behavior.

    (Essentially, this is true with any human being. Overindulgence with no accountability for misbehavior can create serious character flaws in the person, male or female, but since this is what’s happeneing with women these days on a large scale, that’s what I’m focusing on for this comment.)

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    More like, once you are in the long-term box, if you try to push out of it you are creepy and need to be shut down.
    There is nothing wrong with the advice. It is what I advise men who still look like they dress in high school. Fit is important, layering is an easy way to convey sophistication, etc. However, you will not create a superior man solely on the basis of fashion.
    From the Masculine Imperative perspective? I have $3 million in bank deposits that need to be matched to invoices. The payer in question is using a dial-up connection. Other payers still send us paper invoice details, others send us CDs that get lost or cannot be loaded due to duplicate IDs.
    The inability to clear out these invoices results in millions of dollars in losses.
    I need men who can help me fix this.
    I do not need men who know how to layer so over-privileged entitled American princesses can have some dream boy that they realize later they don’t even like.

  • Jeremy

    That’s a funny reddit page. That chick is trying to appear mature by claiming that her actions of using reddit to “get out of” her alpha-f*cks situation to “only be with” the “nice guy” demonstrate her maturity.

    They do nothing of the sort, she’s using the internet for attention. She desperately wants to brag about having the ultimate AFBB situation, but cannot risk dropping her name or she’ll lose it. That’s why she came to reddit. There is no solution that reddit can offer, or even a psychologist can offer, that she doesn’t already instinctively know, and that is to choose between one of the men she’s seeing. Instead, she’s turned to the internet because she knows her behavior is leading to an explosion in her life, and she wants to feel some pride about how awesome things are for her before her hypocrisy destroys everything she has.

    She’s also just beginning to face the stark horror of her own pluralistic sexual strategy. She’s experiencing a small amount of frustration that her “awesome” boyfriend doesn’t tingle her like this bad boy, and she cannot deal with it. It’s like coming face-to-face with your own evil twin inside, when all anyone in your life has ever done is call you an angel.

  • rbrtolson

    Let’s dive into this study vs. a prior study

    http://www.datingadvice.com/studies/1i4aww

    http://www.datingadvice.com/studies/7oahko

    First off, we lack confidence intervals. A little bit unnerving. Okay, moving on.
    These are the types that would “wait” for a third date kiss:
    White: 19%
    AA: 42%
    Hispanic: 45%
    Asian: 45%
    The huge discrepancies with the minorities all tightly in the same range leaps out to me.
    These are the rates for the people who have kissed on the first date:
    White: 75%
    African-American: 60 %
    Hispanic: 63%
    Asian: 29%

    Right. Okay. First we can conclude that African-American and Hispanic women have a big sampling problem or a lying problem. Asian women appear highly prudish. White women appear to fall into two categories, perhaps there are two categories for women who put out easily vs. put out slowly?
    In fact you can see a lot of the ratios are close to adding up to 100%. Very odd!

    In any particular case, it means that if you are dating a white woman, you are 4 times more likely to date a woman on the, erm, “loose”-r side, than the prude side. Therefore, if you are not getting an aggressive kiss on the first date, you should next her.
    However, this would conflict with the whole “be friends for months” vibe that is now dominant there, so *shrug*

  • Rollo Tomassi

    This is an exclusive study conducted by DatingAdvice.com, which surveyed respondents over the course of three weeks to reflect an accurate representation of the U.S. population.

    Next.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    Hmmm,…

    Mark Manson
    Author, Entrepreneur, Life Enthusiast and lover of Buddhist happiness hacks.

    Martie G. Hasselton Ph.D.
    Professor, UCLA Departments of Psychology, Communication Studies, and the Institute for Society and Genetics

    http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/comm/haselton/research/

    I believe I’m beginning to understand the source of your confusion now LT.

  • livingtree2013

    Not sure what you’re trying to refute here rollo. Women’s endocrinology changes during ovulation? Umm every woman on the planet could tell you that. Still doesn’t prove that they desire alpha males. Just that they desire sex more when ovulating. Which again, every woman on the planet will tell you.

    If men were better at detecting it, they’d probably be able to use it to get more and better sex from their partners.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    Still doesn’t prove that they desire alpha males. Just that they desire sex more when ovulating.

    Hmm,..lets see, incorrect:
    Mate preferences across ovulatory cycle

    If men were better at detecting it, they’d probably be able to use it to get more and better sex from their partners.

    And,..incorrect again:
    Can men detect ovulation?

    Maybe this is a stretch, but you have read the studies on the subliminal influences of Mate Guarding behaviors in men as prompted by female behavior, yes? I have those links too if you’re interested.

  • Johnycomelately

    Thanks for not moderating Rollo.

  • Case

    Of course there is male hypergamy.

    You know – the specific way that this site and Rollo have been so compelling to me is because I can see it as the 20s guy … you know the guy Dalrock talked about who flattered older women by asking them out because … turns out … they are the same SMV … and I’ve been older, and I’ve seen how that goes down too.

    So first, male hypergamy. It’s simple. Guys will trade up. Heck, “spinning plates” besides being a means of personal state control and a means of balancing power is basically male hypergamy/dual-mating-strategy fully realized. Yes – manosphere contentions that “trading up” has been way overblown notwithstanding – of course it’s been overblown – but it is a thing, always has been.

    But second is the higher order view and this I will do my best to keep short but it is complex.

    All theories are constructs. All theories are models. Scientists – the good ones anyway, get this. Philosophers of science get this. Some people get this. It’s a truth, but the majority of people don’t get it.

    Take the periodic table of elements. We think of this as concrete, hard-science reality.

    A little ontological background:

    It isn’t. It’s a paper-and-pencil construct, an abstract model, which happens to have a high degree of correlation to the way things play out in the real world. In terms of reality – we’d be skimming the surface but we can easily say there’s three. One reality is the reality as we perceive it, which so happens to be just another abstract reality mediated onto our brain by our senses. Another is reality as it really is – which may be unknowable. A third is any and all other abstractions we use to describe reality.

    Ok – background done – the point:

    Instead of viewing them as competing ideologies, let’s take “red pill” and “blue pill” and imagine they are competing theories, each trying to do a better job than the other competing to describe the data and to make predictions accurately.

    Obviously most people commenting here will come down on “team red”, but the point is – if we assume that “red pill” beats out “blue pill” by 3-to-1 on predictive power, it doesn’t matter, they are just models, just predictive abstractions.

    Fact is: there’s another predictive abstraction that doesn’t really undermine red pill:

    Value

    Men and women are trying to get the best value. In their 20s most men are betas and a few are alphas. Beta men in their 20s peddle beta virtues to try to get the best value.

    In their 20s many women are alphas – so without culture telling them not to, women in their 20s will peddle their alpha virtues and try to get their best value.

    When you get a bit older you notice women changing their game. They were playing alpha game but in their 30s and 40s they play beta game – they peddle their beta virtues.

    But labels are just labels. You have a degree and no experience at 22, that’s a different game from a 12 year old degree (potentially stale) and a lot of experience (potentially platinum) at 34. It’s just value, just trade, and while the value and virtues men and women have to trade vary by age and gender, the common value recognized by people of the trading commodities is fairly universal – recognized by all ages, recognized by both genders, just enjoyed or suffered as assets or liabilities at differing times. That being the case: for nearly every manospherian red pill recognition of the ‘nature” of women – there is almost always a male analog and if you have been on both sides of the value curve, they are pretty easy to tease out.

  • Patriarch

    This makes a compelling case to marry off women as young as possible in an attempt to preserve the best of both the whore and the madonna.

  • strauMan (@strauMan)

    I have to say I appreciate Rollo’s blog and the posters on this site (whether in agreement or dissent). Anymore it’s hard to find folks to talk about such ideas without self-censoring. Moving on…

    One good book I read was ‘Sex at Dawn’ which explored male/female mating strategies from back in the day and their implications on contemporary relationships. A few points I found interesting:

    Females hide their ovulation to maximize selection (Sperm Wars). If a male in the Neolithic period knew his partner was ovulating he’s stay home to protect her from other horny males. Moreover an ovulating female can be more easily enticed by a competing male and displays physical cues she’s ready to mate.

    Most men’s sperm is hunter-killer sperm designed to kill another competing male’s sperm.

    The male penis is shaped like a mushroom to pull out any offending alpha’s sperm for insemination maximization.

    A good Alpha also fucks good too. A man who can make a woman orgasm not only increasing her bond to him through dopamine releases but vaginal contractions increase the probability of conception.

    My favorite: Post-coital copulation vocalization or why women are louder in bed then men. The theory is not so much it feels good as it signals her fertility to any males within hearing distance.

    Men are larger and stronger than women: One theory was males had to be to fight off other alphas and not be killed during the process.

    Fascinating stuff.

    When I read the last page I felt that Men where putting themselves at higher risk than females in hopes of keeping her chaste. After all, if another alpha thunder-pumps your girls while you’re out hunting buffalo, and she has the kid, you may have no idea unless the child looks drastically different.

  • livingtree2013

    Interesting stuff!
    What’s more, it appears that the pill alters the natural ovulation signals, and regulates the changes in mate preference!
    So looks like the pill is a beta’s best friend!

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091007124358.htm

  • YaReally

    A Beta gets married to a plain-Jane with the best of intentions of staying faithful to her. Then he gets approached by a dozen gorgeous Playboy models who all want him to fuck them the way he wants to fuck them, and who create opportunities where his wife will never find out and no one will know and he doesn’t have to feel guilty at all. He’s never met any girls hotter than his plain-Jane wife before so he’s never had this option or opportunity before.

    Anyone think that sooner or later he won’t bang one of those Playboy models?

    A Madonna gets married to a lame guy who thought marrying a virgin/Madonna would ensure she would never cheat on him because he’s so insecure that her even THINKING of another man would destroy him. Then she gets approached by a dozen high-value confident men with game who all say the right things, make her feel tingles she’s never felt before, and who create opportunities where her husband will never find out and no one will know and she doesn’t have to feel guilty at all. She’s never met any guys higher-value than her lame husband because he got to her when she was a young virgin, so she’s never had this option or opportunity before, but she’s 25 now and bored of married life and out in the “real world” as an attractive 25yo woman.

    Anyone think that sooner or later she won’t bang one of those high-value guys?

    Marrying a virgin is a super idea, as long as on top of that you make sure she’s never in the presence of a man with higher value and better game than you for the rest of her life. Better get those chains in the basement dungeon ready while you go on your unicorn hunt, I’m sure she’ll enjoy living there and won’t want to escape when someone comes along offering her something better lol

    Guys think they’re going to “cheat the system”. Like if they get a virgin then they don’t have to be high-value and constantly on their shit because they found the loophole.

    You will NOT keep your girl faithful for 20+ years if your mentality going into marriage is “I’m terrified that she might cheat on me so I’m going to stack as many odds as possible in my favor to guarantee she never ever ever cheats on me because it would destroy me if my girl even LOOKED at another man because I’m so insecure and have so little belief in my own value that that my girl even THINKING another man is attractive would devestate me and shatter my world” lol Like, could you be any MORE outcome dependant?

    Hypergamy rules. Stay high-value and your girl will be faithful. The catch is that being high-value doesn’t involve being paranoid that your girl might dare think other men are attractive lol That’s low-value thinking…you can NOT have a possessive terrified insecure paranoid mentality and also be high-value, the two mentalities are not compatible.

    Your response to people asking you “What about other men?” should be a genuine “WHAT other men?” like other guys being competition is the stupidest notion you’ve ever heard. THAT’S high-value, and that’s what’s attractive and what will keep your girl from cheating on you.

  • hoellenhund2

    “They do nothing of the sort, she’s using the internet for attention. She desperately wants to brag about having the ultimate AFBB situation, but cannot risk dropping her name or she’ll lose it. That’s why she came to reddit. There is no solution that reddit can offer, or even a psychologist can offer, that she doesn’t already instinctively know, and that is to choose between one of the men she’s seeing. Instead, she’s turned to the internet because she knows her behavior is leading to an explosion in her life, and she wants to feel some pride about how awesome things are for her before her hypocrisy destroys everything she has.

    She’s also just beginning to face the stark horror of her own pluralistic sexual strategy. She’s experiencing a small amount of frustration that her “awesome” boyfriend doesn’t tingle her like this bad boy, and she cannot deal with it. It’s like coming face-to-face with your own evil twin inside, when all anyone in your life has ever done is call you an angel.”

    I’ve stated this before, but it bears repeating: by and large, women are biologically and psychologically unsuited for civilized life.

  • chris

    @strauMan

    “One good book I read was ‘Sex at Dawn’”

    Read Sex at Dusk, which corrects some of the half-truths peddled in Sex at Dawn.

    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201207/sex-dusk

    http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/EP10611616.pdf

  • Mr.C

    My dedication to all the Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks deniers.

    (By Australian band TISM) fwd. to 0:40

  • To.the.End

    RooshV had an interesting article about the nature of women being something like water and them taking the shape of whatever container they’re in (metaphor). Basically they do whatever they can get away with and are somewhat incapable of rationally directing their lives without a male influence. I’m inclined to agree. It really boils down to us as men. We must direct them every step of the way otherwise they’ll implode taking everything to grass with them.

  • Tin Man

    @To The End

    Not disagreeing with your assumption, with this caveat…David Dieda in Way of the Superior Man puts it a different way – in that there is Masculine and Feminine energy – the following is from the book…

    “If a man is very masculine by nature, then he will be attracted to a very feminine woman, who will complement his energy. The more neutral or balanced he is, the more balanced he will prefer his woman. And, if a man is more feminine by nature, his energy will be complemented by the strong direction and purposiveness of a more masculine woman. By understanding their own needs, men can learn to accept the “whole package” of a woman. For instance, a more masculine man can expect that any woman who really turns him on and enlivens him will also be relatively wild, undisciplined, “bonkers,” chaotic, prone to changing her mind and “lying.” Still, from an energetic perspective, this kind of woman will be much more healing and inspiring to him than a more balanced or neutral woman who is steady, reasonable, “trustworthy,” and able to say what she means in a way he can understand.”

    Deida, David (2004-10-01). The Way of the Superior Man, Kindle Edition.

  • Jeremy

    Giggles just ripped her advice of of:

    http://masculine-style.com/

    Her list of essentials was just pulled from his list of staples.
    Somehow when it comes from her, it feels like that old dude with white hair in the matrix is trying to keep me perpetuating the cycle.

  • Tam the Bam

    @T.T.E. ” .. otherwise they’ll implode taking everything to grass with them.”

    You say that, like it’s a Bad Thing??

  • Nate

    @Jeremy

    Yes, thank you for bringing attention to that. I was just about to jump in a point out that Giggles’ style post is a total ripoff of Tanner’s stuff both at M-S and NLU.

    The thing is I’m not even disappointed. That would imply I expected more of her.

  • ben

    excellent post. Thank you

  • jsr

    @YaReally
    “But even as cold and dead inside as I am, I can’t in good conscience recommend walking away from his kid.”

    You come across as if women’s capacity for betrayal is no big deal except for insecure losers. If that’s how yareally feel, why are you cold and dead inside?

  • anotheronetakesthepill

    Isn’t the stronger need for sex what makes men beta? In the sense that some men are up to do and endure whatever it takes to get even the tiniest amount of sex they can.

    In that sense women will always have the power.

  • LiveFearless

    @Dr. Jeremy

    @Bob Wallace
    Please identify the genes involved.
    (Dr. Jeremy responds with)
    This is like asking for a proof that gravity exists by demanding photographs of the sub-atomic particles responsible.

    Dr. J, Bob Wallace is not going to fall for the banana in the tailpipe.

    In “The Rational Male” (book), Rollo explains, “His Game, his ego-invested identity is literally dependent upon that system. So not only is he defending his Game and his ego, he’s also defending the social architecture that makes his Beta Game even possible.”

  • Glengarry

    Well Rollo, if it wasn’t for you I’d long have forgotten HUS.

  • YourBuddyPete

    Let’s concede that everything you espouse regarding the “feminine imperative” is true, and we do. Whence does the almighty “feminine imperative” derive? A genesis that must surely apply across multiple civilizations, across multiple cultures, across multiple generational time spans? That information might aid one or two of your readers. Curious.

    There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.
    Henry David Thoreau

  • hoellenhund2

    You just have to wonder what kind of hopeless herbivores are the “men” who still read HUS. Even men who white-knighted for HUSsies and mocked MRAs got banned.

  • My2Cents

    Guys, behold! The perfect app for reading all manosphere blogs from start to finish:

    https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.appsropos.instapress

    Tested and working on:
    heartiste.wordpress.com
    therationalmale.com
    dalrock.wordpress.com
    donalgraeme.wordrpess.com
    empathological.wordpress.com
    freenorthrunner.wordpress.com
    hiddenleaves.wordpress.com
    http://www.justfourguys.com
    mattforney.com
    patriactionary.wordpress.com
    newrebeluniv.wordpress.com
    sunshinemaryandthedragon.wordpress.com
    theprivateman.wordpress.com
    canecaldo.wordpress.com
    unmaskingfeminism.wordpress.com
    veritaslounge.com

    and many more …

  • Slothrop

    Actually I do believe that a lot of guys get caught up with the “Madonna/Whore dynamic” to the point where it does become a complex to them. I see it all the time on these manosphere boards where guys are compartmentalizing women in a manner that’s not in line with playing the game. M/W is a useful concept only when you are using it to your own advantage.

    The modern culture is so inundated with sexual messages that there’s really no such thing as “innocent virgin” anyway. Even if a Madonna-type is determined to keep her number low, she still has the same sexual expectations and fantasies of any other woman. Perhaps even moreso because a virgin learns about sex through pornography rather than experimenting with high school boys, making that much more important that she seduces the right (alpha) guy.

    And I’m glad the article points out that “Alpha Fux Beta Bux” is not really any woman’s dream mating strategy. The ideal is more “Alpha Fux Alpha Bux” and women with high SMV are hunting for as much of the whole package as they can get. So when ‘Aunt Giggles’ & friends deny the AFBB strategy, it’s because *they* didn’t have to settle for a beta, so why should anyone else? In any case, dating and relationships are much better on the high-end of SMV scale where at least hypergamy is working somewhat in your favor.

  • Dr. Jeremy

    @ Livefearless

    1) I am not the same Dr. Jeremy who commented on the animation in the link you shared. We have different last names.

    2) I did not respond to Bob Wallace. That was “Jeremy” the commenter. I am Dr. Jeremy. Again, two different people.

  • Gurney Halleck

    I think that it’s important to not forgot the lesson of HUS…maybe it’s why Rollo can’t let it go. For the longest while Susan was a woman unafraid to engage with and endorse Red Pill ideas. The comments section of her blog was an exciting and educative gathering of Red Pill minds. That even SHE couldn’t ultimately bear what Red Pill guys were saying, and chose to shut down the debate because of it (and let’s not forge the money motive here) is a testament to the fact it’ll be a long while before the ideas that Rollo/Dalrock promulgate find acceptance in the mainstream. The debate will always get shut down because no matter how convincing the Dalrocks and Rollo Tomassis are, the interests of the Feminine Imperative remain intact.

  • HanSolo

    @Yourbuddypete

    Whence does the almighty “feminine imperative” derive? A genesis that must surely apply across multiple civilizations, across multiple cultures, across multiple generational time spans? That information might aid one or two of your readers. Curious.

    The feminine imperative’s primacy right now occurred for 2 main reasons:

    1) Technology fueled by cheap energy led to great prosperity which diminished the importance of the provider role for males and made women much more independent, thus allowing their hypergamy to be unleashed (or in other words, they could pine after and sleep with men that are out of their league and ignore men that are in their league for many years, even if most end up marrying someone who is probably of roughly equal value). Meanwhile, men still have strong sexual desires and so an imbalance in who was desiring and demanding whom was set up. Basically, men still desire women just as much but women don’t desire/need men in their league as much as before.

    2) On top of point 1, the apex alpha males have further amplified the recent imbalance in power between men and women (namely, women having more power due to not needing a provider). They have created all sorts of gov’t programs to assist women, they have favored girls and women in education and created all sorts of legal disadvantages for men (such as divorce favoritism for women, excessive child support, no-fault divorce, affirmative action mostly employed on behalf of women). By liberating sex, apex alphas males can get lots of pussy (this also applies to lesser men that can get casual sex as long as they’re willing to f*ck downwards in value). With more labor, wages are cheaper. With more women getting money, they can sell more products. And with women voting, they can gain power by pandering to women with foolish yet effective rhetoric like the “war on women.”

    I’ll also note that I’m simply being descriptive. I’m not advocating “putting women back in the kitchen.” The only thing I really am advocating for is that the unfair overreach against men be ended and that both men and women realize the truth about their natures and be able to act based on truth instead of blue pill lies. Achieving that would remove the amplification in 2 but would not remove point 1, so there would still be unleashed hypergamy but at least the world would be fairer than it is now. Really, the only thing that would change 1 would be some sort of lengthy depression or collapse, much like what happened in the Great Depression after the licentious and hypergamous Roaring 20’s.

    The conclusion is that it’s a combination of 1) the female-freeing effect of technology using cheap energy and 2) apex alpha males amplifying female independence (often at the expense of regular and lower men) to further their own goals of pussy, votes, sales or cheap labor. 2 is dependent on 1. 2 can’t exist as easily without 1. It may require the collapse of 1 to get rid of 2 but it would be in the interest of long-term stability and prosperity for the apex alphas to remove the unfairness in 2 so that 1 doesn’t disappear.

  • HanSolo

    @YourBuddyPete

    The short version is that it’s really the apex alpha male imperative that is using the feminine imperative for its own ends.

  • HanSolo

    @YourBuddyPete

    Back when most people got and stayed married, one of the two female imperatives (have a stable provider/protector) was allowed to flourish but the other one (hypergamously seeking better genes via a sexual free-for-all) was often stifled.

    This fulfilled the beta male imperative of having someone that they could share sex and reproduce with. But it did largely restrict the other masculine imperative to be promiscuous (perhaps not much of a sacrifice for average males of MMV 5.5 since they would only be getting casual sex wtih female 2’s-4’s; w/o birth control, women just wouldn’t want to f*ck someone at their own level; and not a sacrifice at all for the lowest males of value 1-3 since they wouldn’t get any sex in a sexual free market).

    If you’re assuming a monogamous society then the apex alpha male imperative of fucking lots of women was greatly reined in compared to what it could be. Sure, they would have their top-value wife (that’s not bad at all right there) and then they would have some affairs or mistresses on the down low but not in the numbers that apex alphas can today. They sacrificed some of the p@ssy they could get in order to give the beta males a stake in the game. But having beta males buy into the system more whole-heartedly with their sweat and blood made the overall country or city state stronger and more likely to prosper economically and militarily, thus fulfilling the other apex alpha male imperative–namely, to have a prosperous and triumphant kingdom to rule.

    (Or you could have the modified system where the king and a few top rulers would have harems or polygamy but then everyone else would be paired up except for the omega males without anyone, or having enough men die in battle so that all the commoners would be paired off and the top men could have several.)

  • YourBuddyPete

    @HanSolo,

    Thanks for sharing your analysis. I tend to agree with what you’ve put forth, but one question remains, as pertains to this: “By liberating sex, apex alphas males can get lots of pussy.”

    I agree that: “They have created all sorts of gov’t programs to assist women, they have favored girls and women in education and created all sorts of legal disadvantages for men (such as divorce favoritism for women, excessive child support, no-fault divorce, affirmative action mostly employed on behalf of women).”

    However, based upon my own pedestrian view of the world around me, it seems that apex alpha males get lots of pussy, regardless of social minutia—hence “apex”—and therefore, the notion that their many machinations in contra-benefit to the population of “betas” is merely a tactic for them to get more pussy, strikes me as an insufficient postulate. Males weilding the level of power required to re-engineer society are not primarily focused on getting more pussy (they get plenty). Their energies are focused on intensifying the very power that enables them to re-engineer society (against the interests of “betas”).

    My question, then, is this: If these “apex” alphas have engineered a system detrimental for “betas,” not in order to get more pussy (and I assure you, that is not their motive), then what is their motive? What is its root? And how does that motive intersect with the self-interests of this blog’s readers?

  • HanSolo

    @Pete

    Not all apex alpha males are the same. Some are political, some are sexual (like rock stars), some are economic. And it’s not just politicians who are engineering the system. There are many different types.

    The sexual apex alphas like rock stars can (and some do) have sex with 1000’s of women. Why do a lot of guys get into a band? To get pussy. Find an interview with KISS and groupies and they say that’s one of the main things they wanted. Mic Jagger has been reported to have said that “Our music is calculated to drive the kids to sex.” (No idea if it’s true but look at how music has shifted over the last 40 or 50 years, obviously responding to demand but also driving it.) But if you drive people to have casual sex we all know who ends up getting it–not the average and lower males.

    Now, you’re right that political apex alphas aren’t necessarily plotting how to get pussy, although from the way many act you might not be wrong if you thought they were. But regardless their actions in turning the gov’t into the provider/protector for women have had the effect of providing more pussy for the top men (not just political top men).

  • Simo

    livingtree2013, I just want you to know the instant I see your name I scroll past to the next post.

  • HanSolo

    @Pete

    Compare how apex alphas in the western world can have sex with 1000’s of women today if they want with 100 years ago. Not so easily. Sure, they’d have their dozens of women but not 1000’s. Now back in the days of kings and harems one man in the country would have a huge harem but that seems to have faded away over time.

    We can debate about the conscious reasons of why apex alphas of all types have done what they’ve done but there’s no denying that their actions (cultural, economic and legal) have helped unleashed hypergamy, a hypergamy that they benefit from more than anyone else. It wouldn’t surprise me that many of them had other conscious motives for doing what they were doing (though the rock stars tend to know they’re in it for pussy and many are quite honest about it) but I bet many people have conscious motivations that are very different from their subconscious motivations.

    Of course, this is all on top of the builders and inventors (mostly beta, probably) that invented and worked themselves (speaking of betas collectively) out of the job of being needed as provider-protectors.

    Anyway, I’ve given you my thoughts. What are yours? Why did the apex alphas amplify what prosperity and technology already were creating?

  • YourBuddyPete

    @HanSolo,

    Rock stars are not apex alphas. Alpha status? Unquestionably. Certainly, to “betas,” they seem to be “apex.” But they aren’t. They’re tools. Read their contracts… follow the money. Yes, a very few actually reach that rung, but the exception proves the rule. Who is on the other side of those contracts? Who controls the distribution?

    “Why did the apex alphas amplify what prosperity and technology already were creating?”

    Consolidation. More power.

  • HanSolo

    I disagree. Rock stars (as in ones that really make it big) are sexual apex alphas, which is one kind of alpha male. They don’t need their managers or the corporations–there’s plenty that will take them if one gets too difficult to work with. They are at the top of the social hierarchy of their fans and have literally 1000’s or women if not hypothetically more that would have sex with them.

  • HanSolo

    Pete, why do they want power? What’s driving them? Underneath it all, it’s probably to be able to get women.

  • hoellenhund2

    The seizure of power is a form of self-preservation. Those with power normally victimize those without it. If you don’t have power, you’re toast.

  • YourBuddyPete

    @HanSolo,

    Friend, I agree with much that you put forth. Ultimately, it seems, we will have to agree to disagree, and I’m fine with that.

    “They are at the top of the social hierarchy of their fans and have literally 1000′s or women”

    “of their fans”

    “their fans” are not capable of re-engineering society. “their fans” are able to influence society, in the same way that a drop can influence a bucket. What about the males who own and control vast mineral deposits, oil reserves, media distribution systems, shipping conglomerates, the issuance of fiat money, weapons manufacturers, etc. “Rock stars” are pimples on an elephant’s ass, in comparison. They nibble at the crumbs of table scraps tossed to the floor by their masters.

    As I said, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. Nonetheless, I think it has been instructive for others to contemplate these matters, and that was really my only point.

    I consider us friends, and I hope that you do, also.

  • hoellenhund2

    “The comments section of her blog was an exciting and educative gathering of Red Pill minds. That even SHE couldn’t ultimately bear what Red Pill guys were saying, and chose to shut down the debate because of it (and let’s not forge the money motive here) is a testament to the fact it’ll be a long while before the ideas that Rollo/Dalrock promulgate find acceptance in the mainstream.”

    It’s not that she couldn’t bear it, it’s that her female readers couldn’t bear it. You may have noticed that women were scarcely contributing to those exciting and educative discussions either because they lacked the necessary intelligence to contribute or that the expressed male views were plainly frightening and disgusting to them.

  • hoellenhund2

    “And I’m glad the article points out that “Alpha Fux Beta Bux” is not really any woman’s dream mating strategy. The ideal is more “Alpha Fux Alpha Bux” and women with high SMV are hunting for as much of the whole package as they can get. So when ‘Aunt Giggles’ & friends deny the AFBB strategy, it’s because *they* didn’t have to settle for a beta, so why should anyone else”

    Aunt Giggles and her female commenters are anything but women with high SMV. The source of their frustrations and fears is that alpha fux are still available but beta bux, either in the form of direct provisioning or tax dollars, increasingly aren’t. The way they express this is their total denial of Manosphere wisdom. Hence their denial of the AFBB phenomenon.

  • Fred Flange, PsyCho D.

    Sometimes the obvious needs restating: a man can be alpha sexually but a fuckup economically or otherwise (see: rockbandrummer rock star who blows his money on, well, blow; mid-level gangsta; college or NFL footballer). And the most apex of alpha financiers can be the most omega socially; they can’t get laid and resort to “matchmaker” services like It’s Just Lunch (at least two adverts for such services in every airplane magazine on every airline; check it out). And when they do score they go uber-beta, buying the trophy wife the house, the car, the ladies Rolex watch, yet the wives lose attraction and go bang the sexy (broke) gardener.

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 5,068 other followers

%d bloggers like this: