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.
December 15th, 2013 at 12:47 pm
@Fred Flange, PsyCho D.,
Apex alphas don’t fly commercial.
Not so “obvious” then, is it? Many “betas” feel better about their condition by resorting to the argument that top dogs don’t have game and therefore can’t pull puss, while bottom dogs don’t need all the worldy trappings of a successful life, because they know game, and therefore can fuck ALL the chicks, including the unhappy wives of the top dogs. If that belief system works for you, have at it.
But we weren’t discussing that. We were discussing “apex” alphas who re-engineer society for their own self-benefit. Those cats are not flying commercial. So, while you may read adverts during a flight, I assure you that “apex” alphas who weild the power to re-engineer society are not reading those same adverts. The question was never one of dick-measuring the differences between game afficionados and otherwise successful males. Boring-ass conversation, that. The question was: Why do males who weild the power to re-engineer society, re-engineer it in a way that’s inimical to “betas.”
Ok, to entertain the readers of this blog: Tommy Lee is one degree more alpha than Jay-Z, because Tommy Lee publicly banged tons of chicks before he got married, whereas Jay-Z married up quick, not because he’s “alpha,” but because it would help his career… which any self-respecting gamer knows is just beta behavior. That much is “obvious.”
Fritter away.
December 15th, 2013 at 4:02 pm
Alpha is a mindset, not a demographic:
http://therationalmale.com/2011/10/20/alpha/
December 15th, 2013 at 4:41 pm
Demographic? WTF? Nobody’s attempting to divert the conversation off into “demographics,” except for you. Where did that even come from? Bizarre.
“Alpha is a mindset.” Really? No one was discussing “alpha.” The discussion was about “apex.” Do you even read the comments on your own blog? Criminy.
Or, here, let me lob a slowpitch down the middle for your readers: “moral.” You’re good at hitting that one.
Censor this comment, please. The right thing to do for a site that doesn’t censor. Sad.
Try to censor the signal; good luck.
December 15th, 2013 at 5:22 pm
Actually Buddy, the discussion was about how the pluralistic sexual strategy “Alpha Fucks/Beta Bucks” can be seen as the feminine version of the more broadly written about and socially rubberstamped “Madonna/Whore” dynamic in men.
Read the link our host provided though, he does bring up Genghis Khan, who was about as Apex as they come (0.5 percent of the world’s male population has his Y-chromosome):
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/02/0214_030214_genghis.html
Should slake your Apex thirst.
December 15th, 2013 at 5:25 pm
Went and read the post Rollo. Nice. Alpha is as Alpha does – to paraphrase Forest Gump.
December 15th, 2013 at 5:34 pm
BTW although AFBB as a term is rapidly beconming in-group shorthand for this feminine dynamic, I don’t see it breaking through to the mainstream, if only because it has the word “fucks” in it…
The Dick/Tampon complex? Nah, still too dirty. Fits a couple ways though…
The Adonis/Packmule “complex”?
December 15th, 2013 at 6:36 pm
Or woman who wants to get more into acting who marries someone working on being a director gets mad when she reads a comment of how you knew you could’ve kissed her and gotten something started back in day, gets mad and blocks you on facebook. :)
December 15th, 2013 at 6:41 pm
What? Sorry I was busy typing while the other comments got posted.
Jay-Z needed help with his career?
December 15th, 2013 at 7:30 pm
@d-man,
Non-sequitur much?
I didn’t bring up “apex” on this site. I merely broached the discussion about how “apex” motives might intersect with the motives of readers of this site, a topic that is definitely worth exploring for the vast majority of this site’s readers.
Buy hey, if it makes you feel big lobbing non-sequiturs into the arena, then have it. It exposes your shallow intellect, and is amusing, all at once. Double threat.
“Feminine imperative,” “feminine imperative,” “feminine imperative.”
Awesome, we get it. Is that the extent of the argument?
Where’s the feminine imperative coming from? The answer to that question absolutely impacts the readers of this site. If considering that question makes you uncomfortable, big D, well, good. That’s the point. But rather than intelligently considering the issues, I would personally prefer that you simply dish out some worthless internet snark. Worthless snark gets everyone thinking about matters important to their own individual affairs.
December 15th, 2013 at 7:52 pm
The following is a hijack…but I had to get it out of my head…
I bought the book Rollo – about a third of way through – and based upon what I’ve on the blog (yours and others) and the book – I’ve come to the conclusion that there are different forms of Oneitus – and I have for the mother of children, not necessarily the woman that was my wife (now exwife). That what I “pine” for is the family unit, not necessarily her. I miss my family – and since she was the mother of my kids, in a very real sense, I pined for also.
I’ve spent the better part of the last 10 years, trying to get along with her, to preserve my family unit and keep it intact. I gave her the power to either keep or destroy our marriage, and therefore my ideal of out family. Now, I love her, but I’ve never thought there was a ONE and only one – I dated too many woman to realize that, and had fallen “in love” too many times to believe that myth.
BUT, I did believe there is only ONE family and only one way to raise kids – being the mother and father raising them together, with a joint responsbility to kids. And when the shit hit the fan, I believed the kids would be better off living her, because kids need their mom more than they need their dad. I’ve come to the realization that I bought into a false myth there also. Who they are “better” off with, has nothing to do with what sex the parent is (and I know the MRA guys may jump all over my false assumption and I chose to do – go ahead and swing those 2x4s).
I spent 2+ years trying to reconcile with my wife, all that happened, it was the same thing that happens when dating a woman and they LJBF you – she did that to me – and I allowed it to happen. The stupid thing is, I would have recognized it with someone I was dating, but it never occurred to me with her – that my (x)wife had friendzoned me. That’s how blind a person can be to themselves, but would see it immediately in others.
And I played it so well. I was everything that Rollo described – listened to everything she had to say, was there when she needed me for anything – I wanted my family back and I thought spending time with her would make that happen. But I was never “sexual” – because I didn’t want to scare her off. The difference was, I was paying for lifestyle, I just turned a blind eye to her dating (and what that entailed) – she never had to find a full time job, and she kept all the money she made working part time as a fitness instructor.
Facing self truths are always the hardest. What we would immediately shot down in one of our friends, we ourselves to do with out any incrimination at all. So for anyone that may be there – with a GF, SO, wife, or exwife – put yourself under the same lens you would put someone else. Lies we tell ourselves are the ones that do the most damage.
///end rant.
December 15th, 2013 at 10:15 pm
@Buddy,
True, apex alphas, I suppose, don’t fly commercial, and won’t see the matchmaking ads. They don’t read this site either. They live in Galt’s Gulch and trade derivatives and default swaps like baseball cards. Their coddled kids grow up to kill four people in a drunk driving crash and get off on a plea of “affluenza.”
But the not-quite-apex guys in first class, at whom those adverts are aimed, might. That’s the audience places like this aim to serve. You wanna talk meta-politics (a good topic, actually), go to Mangan’s, if you’re dextrous, or Daily Kos if you hang back, and to the left, back, and to the left…
Yes I read lots of shit. I’m here, ain’t I?
December 16th, 2013 at 12:19 am
@Fred,
There are many agendas in motion. Just maintaining a space of clarity for those males who are seeking a better path for themselves, and don’t want any more unnecessary confusion in their lives along the way.
“They don’t read this site either.”
They do read sites like this, and they laugh their asses off at the provincial thinking of the plebs, which keeps them in power, unfortunately. It’s embarrassing.
“That’s the audience places like this aim to serve.”
Agreed. And the foremost concept that that audience can receive is an honest assessment of the game they’re unwittingly playing. At least then, they can make self-interested decisions.
Enlightenment about game is just the beginning. Hence my question: Where does the feminine imperative come from? A question worthy of study and research, and an excellent premise for a book, the content of which might aid MANY of this site’s readers in their pursuit of a better life.
December 16th, 2013 at 3:24 am
[…] to Christian and secular women alike. All women respond to the same cues God inserted into their firmware. It’s the men who are too lazy or who just plain refuse to learn how women think who seem to do […]
December 16th, 2013 at 10:51 am
It’s the Apex Alpha females that are implementing the feminine imperative, which is why to use the example of the very Beta David Cameron we witness him falling over himself to defeat an imaginary child pornography plague, simply because the alpha female coalition has told him to. To put it a bit cartoonishly, the subjugated ruling class male will quite happily ship any number of his own gender off to jail under vague and draconian laws, because otherwise Samcam will make him sleep on the sofa.
December 16th, 2013 at 12:43 pm
Ya Really said: “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. …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…
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…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…
Hypergamy rules. Stay high-value and your girl will be faithful….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.”
Um…*this*. Long re-quote but I thought it was striking, as I can personally name 5 different women of varying races, ages, and religious backgrounds who married the only men they had been with and who went on to cheat (in one case with multiple men) or leave their husbands. I’ve thought about those scenarios often while reading manosphere posts. On the other hand, I also know women who weren’t virgins who have nothing but praise and pride for their husbands and have no interest in going anywhere or seeing what else is out there.
But I think the above quote probably gets at why. Society is so sexually open now, I don’t think that it can be assumed that virginity is a guarantee of lifelong fidelity. So many choices and opportunities–everyone is going to have to make an active choice to remain faithful at some point. It’s helpful if you have a natural incentive to do so.
There seems to be a natural mutuality in this requirement though. If a man has to continue to be “man enough” to hold his wife’s attraction, women also have to continue to be “woman enough” to hold their husband’s devotion.
December 16th, 2013 at 2:26 pm
@Dr. Jeremy
Strangely, it took me this long for me to realize that your last name is my first name. Somehow this feels wrong, as if my first name suddenly became “Smith”.
December 16th, 2013 at 7:45 pm
@ Jeremy
Please pardon if that was confusing… My first name is Jeremy. My last name differed from the other “Dr. Jeremy” discussed in a link by another commenter.
December 17th, 2013 at 11:49 am
Great Post Rollo.
I am a long time lurker here and at Dalrocks. Your perceptiveness as well as your articulation of it is appreciated. I don’t know if you had a classical education or not but to observe, assemble these observations into a coherent body of knowledge without contradiction, and then to present the information reminds me of the Trivium ( grammar, logic, rhetoric ).
@YourBuddyPete,
I don’t know who specifically could have engineered the feminine imperative. I speculate that it could have been part top-down direction and part “imitate your betters”. However, there are documents, biographies, autobiographies, and in the case of Cecil Rhodes, a last will and testament that pulls back the curtain on their motivations and organizations. I am slowly working my way through “Tragedy and Hope” by Carroll Quigley. He was the official historian ( not sure here ) for some of the apex alpha demographic. The gist of what I see is that there is a managerial class of individuals who manufacture and engineer consent among the larger population. I here refer you to “Propaganda – Edward Bernays” and “Public Opinion – Walter Lippman”. Whether these people feel it is their “divine right” or “manifest destiny” to psychologically control us is up for debate. They are very good at what they do after all there hasn’t been another revolution and they are living very comfortably.
December 17th, 2013 at 2:39 pm
Rollo says: 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.
This isn’t just something random, I think this underlies a lot of female behavior. When faced with criticism, they’ll deny or deflect. It’s NAWALT and more. A woman will say, “women don’t do anything wrong,” or if they will admit that they’ll instead say “I’m not like that.” Finally, if that won’t work, they come back with “but you/men do that too”.
The hamster feeds the words that are used, but I don’t think this is the hamster. I think it’s a fundamental, emotional, lizard hind-brain refusal to accept criticism.
I think part of men’s world is getting stuff done, which requires the ability to admit failure (at least to one’s self) in order to correct and improve. Success is measurable: did you get the machine built? How much did it cost? How long did it take? Does it work? In a woman’s traditional world (especially child-rearing), performance is undefinable. You’re a good mom if … what, your kid doesn’t grow up to be an axe-murderer? Even if he does, well, it wasn’t your fault, it must be something else. And 18 years isn’t even enough to measure performance if the child gets a good degree, a good job, a good wife, has a good family, etc.
So a woman refuses to be judged. Obviously there’s a lot more here; any relevant posts, Rollo?
December 17th, 2013 at 9:05 pm
Serious question… with all these male/female corollaries being thrown around, is it at all possible that there’s such a thing as a “Male alpha Widower?”
I’m beginning to think I suffer from it. My last relationship ended when I discovered that my fiance had cheated on me. On my drive home tonight I was thinking how I would react if my current GF cheated on me. No reason to assume she would at this point, but what if?
I suddenly thought, “if she does, I hope she does it sooner than later so I can get back into the mix.” I’ve never thought that way before. My end game is to have a kid or 2 by the time I’m 40… but part of me just doesn’t care any more.
I’m kind of a jerk to my GF, not because I want her to be more attracted to me–she is– but often just because I don’t care to take any woman that seriously anymore. Yes, if we get married have kids and live happily ever after, that will be good. But I don’t care if it happens any more.
It’s all because I don’t ever think I will care about any girls in the future as much as I cared about the couple who truly hurt me.
Any thoughts?
December 17th, 2013 at 9:48 pm
Yes, it’s also called ONEitis. Only in the instance you’re describing it’s an ‘after the fact’ form of ONEitis and it also stems from the soul-mate myth:
http://therationalmale.com/2011/08/30/there-is-no-one/
http://therationalmale.com/2012/10/29/the-soul-mate-myth/
December 17th, 2013 at 10:33 pm
@Rollo
Thanks for the reply.
First, I’ve been thinking about taking a break from the red pill/ game blogs for a bit. There a lot of ranty stuff that gets me a little worked up and, when I’ve been skipping the gym, a little bit down. You’re blog is one that I will still check, though. It’s just so comparatively matter-of-fact. Keep it up.
I like those posts and I will re-read them. I have had, what I call my “High Fidelity” or “Kodachrome” moments–where I get re-acquainted with an ex or old fling and realized that they were nowhere near what I built them up to be. I don’t really miss any of those girls anymore.
But Perhaps I’ve misunderstood ONEitis.
/threadjack
Thanks again.
December 18th, 2013 at 1:03 am
[…] Madonnas and whores. […]
December 18th, 2013 at 1:37 am
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. Thanks. I stand corrected. Your comments are insightful.
December 18th, 2013 at 3:16 am
Re: Archon
That’s a good point. And if the father is relatively or completely uninvolved in the life of his child for whatever reason, society will put all blame on him, not the mother, if he does anything bad.
December 18th, 2013 at 11:41 am
Alpha fucks & beta bucks:
“misattributed paternity is as minimal as 1% among very high-status American males but up to 30% among unemployed, deprived, inner-city males. ” http://edge.org/conversation/getting-human-nature-right
December 18th, 2013 at 10:37 pm
@Dain Bramage,
Readers of this site should definitely NOT read about Cecil Rhodes’s last will and testament, nor “Tragedy and Hope,” and especially not about Edward Bernays.
Those topics have nothing to do with the current situation of this site’s readers.
Rather, let’s narrow things to the much easier “feminine imperative,” only.
December 19th, 2013 at 1:24 am
Great reading, both Rollo’s post and the comments. The girl on reddit, ““somehow an afternoon UNDER this guy is more important to me than months with a great, awesome boyfriend” …I had to laugh when I saw guys advising her to tell her boyfriend. That’s their own insecurity talking. Personally I think “Mr. Great Guy” is already toast. If she told him and he forgave her? She’d hold him in contempt and end up even more fucked up. My advice to her would be to dump the “great guy” and stay with the guy that knows how to fuck her. If she can’t do that, stop the bullshit moralization and stay with Mr. Great Guy and keep getting under the guy that knows what he’s doing on the side. I figure that’s honest since I’ve lived my life that way. I’ve never had any real money, so was never a financial alpha. But I’ve had a fair number of trophy wives, even some friends’. My morality is if both say yes, then that’s moral and no one’s business but theirs. Marriage means nothing to me. It’s a business transaction because that’s how women view it. I never cared about who was afraid their mommy would leave them, who didn’t know how to fuck so she comes back for more, who had a little dick. Boo-fucking-hoo. Not my problem. Like my finances aren’t theirs. The way I’ve always looked at it is if she says ‘Yes'(or wants to know if I’LL say ‘yes’) then she’s MINE.
But just to offer an offset to that reddit post, I’ll tell a little of my story here. I just today told my brunette that I’m trying to seduce ‘blondie’ at the gym,(she knows her) and she’s agreed to meet me to talk after we work out next week. I told brunette that if I can pull it off, in time, there’s going to be a 3-some in her near-future, lol. I hit the lottery on the brunette. She LIVES to be commanded and answer “Yes Sir”. She just about explodes when I am fucking her and make her answer me, ‘What are you to your husband?…… “his Wife”. And what are you to me? “a Dog”. Now at first, she kept trying to say “YOUR dog”, I guess because that’s easier for her to deal with. But I pushed inside her as far as I could, held her by her hair very tightly and pulled her face an inch away from mine and told her eye-to-eye that she’s not just “MY dog”, but “A dog”, that I just happen to own. I told her we were going to go through it again, just to make sure she got it right. She got it right. Later she told me it was the most powerful orgasm she’d ever experienced. And this little girl goes off like a roman candle. She’s told me I’ve made her cum when she’s sitting next to her husband in the car, making her text me what she is. She gets a new collar every Christmas and looks forward to it. She raves to ME about how I fuck her and I also know she raves to her GF’s about me. The blonde has been engaged for SEVEN years. Guess that’s why she’s in such amazing shape, she hasn’t gotten him to sign on the dotted line yet. The rock on her finger looks like a small boulder, it could double as a home defense weapon. So I’m betting he’s Mr. Beta Bucks, especially since she was so much easier than I thought she’d be. Maybe it means I won’t be her first rodeo. But if he’s anything like the brunette’s husband, I may need to move up to the 20mg. Cialis.
But they’re both Trophy wives(huge tits, white teeth, tight bodies) well I guess one’s a Trophy Fiancee with plans, lol. But guys DO need to understand how women are. I always tell my friends when they bring up the polls that say most women don’t “cheat”, that the polls are bullshit. Even on anonymous polls, women are lying. Ones that you’d NEVER suspect, are getting or have gotten fucked on the side.
Unlike men for more mercenary reasons, true. But where we REALLY differ is they are better at justification and feel less guilt for their behavior than they have conditioned men to have for theirs.
My advice for young guys here would be to lose the insecurity. Forget the Madonna and look for the sluts with the hearts of gold. They’re the best women on Earth, not the virgins. Find your range of women and dominate that range. And when you do get to fuck one, make sure you follow that particular Rule of Poon: fuck her good.
December 25th, 2013 at 6:40 am
[…] at least 90% of us because you women often are the ones who decide you don’t need us anymore for whatever reason. Plus it’s just not popular to marry anymore. We are only good for sperm donations and its […]
February 25th, 2014 at 12:05 pm
[…] 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 […]
June 18th, 2014 at 7:27 pm
[…] For as long as I’ve butted heads with many obstinate deniers of hypergamy’s influences, on women personally and society on whole, I’m not sure I’ve read a more damning indictment of hypergamy from a more influential woman. Sandberg’s advice to the next generation of women essentially puts the lie to, and exposes the uncomfortable truth about, women’s efforts deny the fundamental dynamic of female sexual strategy – Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks. […]
June 18th, 2014 at 8:29 pm
“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?” Well, first of all, he would have to determine whether she’s a genuine “slut” or a whore in slut’s clothing. If a man wants a submissive woman, then he might want to marry a slut because he can always make her beg for it. Whereas if he wants a woman who will dominate him sexually, then a whore might be a better option (if he can afford her). Since sluts aren’t supposed to be marriageable however, expect a slut to lay on the subterfuge. When offered a choice, the slut will likely choose the orchestrated weekend gangbang over the showy wedding and engagement ring. The latter option might impress her young peers more but the first will impress her older and wiser peers much later on in life. Ditto for the major anniversaries.